Document ofThe World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No: 21832

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT(IDA-26020)

ON A CREDIT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 1.9 MILLION (US$2.6 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA

FOR A CAPACITY BUILDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TECHNICALASSISTANCE PROJECT

February 14, 2001

Environment Unit, AFTESCountry Department 14Africa Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of theirofficial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective February 2001)

Currency Unit = Gambian Dalasi (GMD)GMD 1.00 = US$ 0.065

US$ 1.00 = GMD 15.4

FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANR Agriculture and Natural ResourcesCBEM Capacity Building for Environmental ManagementDCA Development Credit AgreementEAS Environmental Awards SchemeEE Environ-mental EducationEEC Environmental Education and CommunicationEIA Environmental hnpact AssessmentEIS Environmental Information SystemGEAP Gambia Environmental Action PlanGGEMP Gambia German Environmental Management ProjectGIS Geographic Information SystemGOTG Govenmuent of The GambiaGTZ Gesellschaft fur Technische ZusammenarbeitIDA International Development AssociationIFAD Intemational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentM&A Monitoring and AssessmentMEQ&E Monitoring Environmental Quality and EnforcementMIS Management Information SystemNEA National Environment AgencyNEAP National Environmental Action PlanNEMA National Environmental Management ActNEMC National Environmental Management CouncilNEP National Environmental PolicyNRM Natural Resource ManagementPPF Project Preparation FacilitySAL II Structural Adjustment Loan, Phase IISAR Staff Appraisal ReportUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNSO United Nations Sahelian OfficeUSAID United States Agency for Intemational Development

Vice President: Callisto MadavoCountry Manager/Director: John McIntire

Sector Manager/Director: Roger SullivanTask Team Leader/Task Manager: Yves Prevost

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT

REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TECHNICALASSISTANCE PROJECT

(CR. 26020)

CONTENTS

Page No.1. Project Data 12. Principal Performance Ratings 13. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 24. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 45. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 106. Sustainability 127. Bank and Borrower Perfornance 128. Lessons Learned 149. Partner Comments 1610. Additional Information 23Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 24Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 27Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 29Annex 4. Bank Inputs 30Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 32Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 3 3Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 34

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in theperformance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise disclosed withoutWorld Bank authorization.

Project ID: P000831 Project Name: ENVIRNMT MGMT CAP BLTeam Leader: Yves Andre Prevost TL Unit: AFTESICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: February 13, 2001

1. Project Data

AName: ENVIRNMT MGMT CAP BL L/CITFNumber: IDA-26020Countr,y,Department: GAMBIA, THE Region: Africa Regional Office

Sector/subsector: VI - Enviromnental Institutions

KEY DATESOriginal Revised/Actual

PCD: 03/22/93 Effective: 09/15/94 08/02/95Appraisal: 10/14/93 MTR: 09/15/96 03/14/97Approval: 04/12/94 Closing: 12/31/97 08/31/99

Borrowerllmplementing Agency: Republic of The Gambia/National Environment Agency (NEA)Other Partners:

STAFF Current At AppraisalT'ice President: Callisto Madavo Edward K. JaycoxCountry M1anager: John McIntire Katherine MarshallSector Manager: Roger Sullivan Peter WatsonTeam Leader at ICR: Yves Prevost Grace YabrudyICR PrimaryAuthor: Michael Furst; Robert Etheredge;

Jo Anne Yeager Sallah; TanyaLisa Yudelman

2. Principal Performance Ratings

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=HighlyUnlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible)

Outcome: S

Sustainabilitv: L

Institutional Development Impact: M

Bank Performance: S

Borrower Performance: S

QAG (if available) ICRQuality at Entry: S

Project at Risk at Any Time: No

3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry

3.1 Original Objective:

The primary objective of the Capacity Building for Environmental Management and Technical AssistanceCredit was to establish the capacity within the National Environment Agency (NEA) and other relevantagencies to develop and guide an effective system for environmental planning and management in TheGambia, and to ensure that environmental concerns are fully integrated and reflected in the social andeconomic development process in The Gambia.

The Government of The Gambia (GOTG) has been making concerted efforts to improve environmentalmanagement for over 25 years. Following the Banjul Declaration in favor of the protection of the country'sbiodiversity in 1977, GOTG attempted to develop an institutional framework for addressing environmentalissues by creation of an Environment Unit in 1983. This was followed in 1987, by the enactment of theNational Environment Management Act (NEMA), which provided legislative measures for environmentalprotection, and later by the creation of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Despite theseinstitutional initiatives, environmental problems became more severe due to lack of adequate action on theground. Within the context of The Gambia's structural adjustment program and against this background ofintensifying environmental degradation the GOTG agreed to develop a National Environmental ActionPlan. After completing a highly participatory preparation process, under the auspices of the NationalEnvironmental Management Council (NEMC) and with high-level Government support, the GanbiaEnvironmental Action Plan (GEAP) was finalized and approved by Cabinet in July 1992. The GEAP,which was held up as a model for other countries, was presented to the donor community at a Roundtablein Banjul in January 1993. The Govemment rapidly began implementing recommendations of the GEAP,beginning with the creation (effective July 1993) of a new National Environment Agency (NEA) directlyunder the Office of the President, into which the old Environment Unit was folded. Under the NationalEnvironmental Management Act (1987, 1994) NEA was established as the body responsible forcoordination, facilitation, and promotion of environmental management efforts in the country.

With the key elements in place, IDA agreed to support GEAP implementation in coordination with otherdonors (namely GTZ, USAlD, UNDP, and UNSO). Since GEAP activities were conceived as anintegrated program, irrespzctive of source of funding, the coordinated approach initially adopted by the keydonors was appropriate. IDA and GTZ specifically focused on providing national level institutionalsupport to the NEA and its GEAP collaborators to enable fulfillment of the coordination and regulatoryroles as defined in the GEAP. USAID and UNDP funding complemented this with capacity building andresource management activities that reached down to the local level.

Although GTZ and IDA decided to jointly finance the GEAP institutional capacity developmentsub-program, the two projects were nevertheless packaged separately using parallel financing mechanismsand relying on specific cross-referenced performance related conditions, particularly in the area of EIA, tolink them. Thus, this ICR focuses primarily on the implementation of the IDA Credit, although whereappropriate linkages with the broader GEAP implementation program of which it forms a part, and theGTZ Gambia-German Environmental Management Project (GGEMP) in particular, will be discussed.

The IDA Project objective was clear. Its focus on institutional strengthening and capacity building forenvironmental management was, and continues to be, appropriate, and responds to the Govemment'senvironmental policy and institutional framework objectives. The objective was also consistent with theBank's CAS which focused more broadly on institutional capacity building.

3.2 Revised Objective:Not applicable

-2 -

3.3 Original Components:

The overall GEAP institutional capacity development sub-program highlighted ten (10) components, forwhich the World Bank financed CBEM Project took the lead on 6 components and GTZ, via a parallelproject, addressed the remaining four. World Bank funded components included:

1. Institutional supportfor the coordination of the GEAP (US$1. 22M), through both support forNEA to develop its operational (administrative and technical) capacity by financing equipment,training and targeted technical assistance; as well as the provision of associated training inenvironmental management for staff of sector agencies and private sector operators, throughshort-term practical attachments or workshops;

2. GEAP monitoring and policy development (US$0. 295M), to support both the development ofcapacity to monitor, evaluate and report on GEAP implementation, as well as efforts to reorientexisting sectoral policies and/or develop new policies, in accordance with the overall environmentalpolicies elaborated in the GEAP;

3. Environmental education and public awareness (US$0. 405M), to support the development of astrategy to increase public awareness of environmental issues and support for electronic and printmedia campaigns, using existing government and NGO skills and capacities;

4. Monitoring of environmental quality (US$0.515M), to support the development of a system tocollection information and monitor environmental quality against agreed threshold levels;

5. Environmental information management (US$0.34M), to finance the development andimplementation of an environmental information strategy according to a distributed modelincluding common information architecture, basic information infrastructure, maintenance of keydata sets and analytical capabilities; and

6. Contingency planning and disaster preparedness (US$0.1 25M), to develop a disaster awarenessand contingency planning system.

GTZ funding (US$1.3M) was provided through the Gambia-German Environmental Management Project(GGEMP) and initially addressed: (a) environmental legislative reform, (b) Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA), (c) establishment of a documentation center, and (d) publication of an environmentalnewsletter. GTZ also became involved with the production of land use maps after the prematuretermination of the USAID program in The Gambia.

The collaborative and programmatic approach initially adopted by the key donors was consistent with theBank's strategy for environmental support programs, although it was not sustained throughout projectimplementation. Viewed in the broad context of GEAP implementation, the IDA/GTZ institutionalcapacity development sub-program was sound and complemented USAID and UNDP local level effortswell.

The IDA project itself was well conceived. Project components and cross-conditionalities with the GTZproject were reasonably related to achieving the Project and GEAP sub-program objectives. Key stepstowards establishment of an institutional framework for environmental management were covered and theproposed multi-agency, collaborative approach was appropriate. Design was consistent with the Bank'sstrategy for institution and capacity building for environmental management. Lessons leamed from othercapacity-building projects, as well as Gambian specific experience, were incorporated into Project design.To minimize institutional and financial risks the Project focused strongly on the establishment ofmanagement capacity and processes in the newly created NEA. Emphasis was also placed on increasinglocal capacity through the provision of targeted short-term technical assistance as opposed to substituting itwith long-term technical assistance.

-3 -

3.4 Revised Components:

Not applicable.

3.5 Quality at Entry:

An assessment of the Bank's Quality Assurance Group is not available. The ICR rates the quality at entryas satisfactory. The ICR found the organizational model being reinforced through the Project to beappropriate to the Gambian context. The Project objective was and remains compatible with Governmentpriorities and the Bank's CAS. The design supported the stated objectives, and complied with the Bank'ssafeguard policies. Risks to the Project were mostly identified and addressed in design, in particular thoseposed by weak implementation capacity in the newly established lead institution, NEA. Strong emphasiswas placed on stakeholder participation and ownership. However, this broader ownership could have beenfurther enhanced by defining more clearly the roles, responsibilities and resources allocated for NEA'scollaborating agencies. In the absence of these, NEA, established primarily to promote, facilitate andcoordinate activities, had limited means to ensure that the designated collaborating implementation agenciesadhered to agreed timetables. An associated weakness, identifiable only with hindsight, is that the length oftime required to establish a highly participatory system for environmental coordination was underestimatedby both NEA and its collaborators.

4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs

4.1 Outcomne/achievement of objective:

The immediate development objectives of this project have been achieved, and the overall assessment of theProject is satisfactory. Despite implementation delays due to administrative and financial deficiencies, thenewly created national environmental coordination agency (NEA) is now operational, and is morecompetent to discharge its responsibilities. There is considerably more awareness of The Gambia'senvironmental problems, particularly in urban areas. In retrospect, the Government feels that thepreparation and the first phase of GEAP implementation have amply demonstrated the benefits ofparticipatory planning. The GISIEIS will provide, for the first time, accurate information for developmentplanning. NEA has produced the first "State of the Environment" Report, providing a foundation for suchreports in the future. A monitoring, environmental quality and evaluation strategy was developed andadopted. Primary, secondary and tertiary schools are integrating environmental studies into their curricula.NEA enjoys credibility and respect among government agencies and the general public. Radio, televisionand newspapers are doing their share to raise public awareness and concern about environmental problemssuch as waste management or water and air quality.

4.2 Outputs bv components:

Component 1. Institutional Support for the Coordination of GEAP Implementation

Successful implementation of the GEAP depends upon both a fully functioning NEA as well as competentline implementing agencies. Thus this component focused on institutional and human resource capacitybuilding in NEA and the technical line ministries. The component aimed to (a) put in place a managementinformation system (MIS) in NEA to monitor its performance and efficiency in terms of use of staff, fundsand equipment, (b) provide NEA staff with equipment and skills to fulfill agency functions, and (c)strengthen institutional and/or human resource capacity in NEA collaborating institutions, including notonly key implementing agencies but also the private sector and NGOs. Most of the component's objectiveswere achieved. The institutional framework for the environmental management and coordination has beenconsiderably strengthened through the Project. Technical training of NEA staff has improved skill levels,

- 4 -

and most NEA professional staff see themselves as more competent and effective in their jobs than whenthey first joined the Agency. For these reasons the outcome of the component is rated as satisfactory. Thisshould not, however, be allowed to conceal the implementation weaknesses of this component, particularlythe failure to provide NEA with efficient and fully functional administrative and financial managementsystems, as well as the ad hoc and overly NEA centric implementation of the training program.

Institutional Strengthening For Environmental Management. Environmental focal points were to beestablished in the collaborating line agencies to institutionalize links with NEA. This approach has notworked well, due primarily to a frequent and unpredictable turnover of line department staff, and a lack ofeffective follow-up by both NEA and line agencies. However, organization of operational activities withina framework of "networks" and "Working Groups" (WG) has been more successful.

Working Groups in particular have provided a practical forum for information sharing, communication,and coordination. They have become the principal coordination instruments among participatinginstitutions. Organized along programmatic lines, their membership is broad-based and includes staff frominstitutions with different, but complementary mandates. The ten WGs correspond to GEAP programmaticareas. Their design allows the sector institutions to take the lead in analyzing, formulating andimplementing their respective programs and policies, with NEA providing the forum for coordination andperforming secretariat functions. The concept of WGs as the focal point for coordination has beensatisfactory to both NEA and collaborating agencies. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the WG concept isbeing compromised by the inconsistency of institutional representation on the WGs, Due to conflictingschedules and commitments, different representatives are often sent to WG meetings. The individualsassigned to attend the meetings are not always technically competent in the WG subject matter and/orprepared to discuss agenda items. Environmental management training for more line agency staff is neededto "level the playing field". It is also necessary to develop a system that fosters consistency and continuityof WG membership and partnership.

Human Resource Capacity Building. NEA training corresponded loosely to a Training NeedsAssessment prepared by an international consultant in mid-1995. It did not, however, adequately take intoaccount the needs of the project, and much of the training was subsequently identified in an ad hoc manner.A Human Resources Development Plan developed for NEA by national consultants was deemed notsatisfactory and thus not implemented. In some cases, key staff left the country for long-term degreeprograms funded by other projects. Their absence was partially responsible for implementation delays.

With respect to human resource capacity building in the technical implementing agencies, opportunities forskill building were provided, however, the forums chosen, e.g., workshops, were not always the mostappropriate mechanism for ensuring skill transfer. GEAP collaborators felt that NEA gave priority tointensive training of NEA staff at the expense of the technical staff of implementing departments or NGOs,whereby making effective collaboration more difficult.

NEA strengthening. Most NEA staff received computer literacy and management training under theProject. NEA also recruited an Information Technician (IT) who provides fiurther on-the-job computertraining. All equipment and supplies financed under the Project have been procured. Nevertheless, despitesubstantial emphasis in Project design, NEA's project management system at Project closure does notmonitor Agency performance and efficiency in terms of the use of staff, funds, and equipment, nor in termsof programming and monitoring of activities. An international consultant prepared a ManagementInformation System (MIS) for NEA's consideration; however, NEA rejected it as too complex and timeconsuming. Key NEA staff received training in administration and in project management, however, noalternative MIS was developed for NEA other than a computerized accounting system, which albeit late,has been installed and is now being efficiently utilized. Similarly, while use of individual and programannual work plans has improved, more management skills are required at almost all levels. In the absence

- 5 -

of a functioning MIS and specifically a staff evaluation system, it has not been possible to assess theimpact of training on job performance.

Component 2. GEAP Monitoring and Policy Development

This component focused on increasing capacity within NEA to monitor, evaluate and report on GEAPimplementation and on assisting sectoral agencies to align their policies with GEAP principles. Overallprogress made under this component was satisfactory.

Monitoring. NEA established a system to monitor and assess GEAP implementation. Data collected forthe monitoring system provides information in all areas of GEAP implementation and can be used for bothimproving on-going activities, and for providing information for periodic evaluations of the GEAP. Thesectors included in the monitoring program are: forestry, soil conservation, fish stock management, wildlifemanagement, livestock management, coastal zone management, water resources, energy, mineral resourcesmanagement, agricultural production, and public health/population. The GEAP Monitoring WG is chairedby one of the technical agencies. NEA is the group's secretariat and provides coordination and technicalsupervision. The initial data collected served as a baseline for the first "State of the Environment" Reportpublished in 1997. The next report and those produced thereafter will be based on the data generated bythe new Monitoring and Assessment system. It was agreed that it was more appropriate to prepare thesereports at 5 yearly intervals, instead of annually as originally envisioned.

Policy Development. Performance of the policy development sub-component was not satisfactory. Underthe Project, NEA was to assist line ministries in their efforts to analyze and reorient sector policies, in lightof their impact on the environment and natural resources. The Project did not accomplish this objective.Although 10 policy studies were commissioned by NEA, with support from the relevant WG, their qualitywas extremely poor and therc was limited buy-in from the relevant sectoral agencies. With the exception ofthe Forestry Department, the sector line departments did not undertake a systematic review of existingpolicies. Nonetheless, Gambia's Wildlife Policy is under review. A National Enviromnental Policy (NEP)is not yet in place. NRM policy reform was one of the main objectives of the USAID ANR project.USAID's departure following the military takeover left a major gap which has yet to be filled, andmomentum for policy work vas lost. The situation was exacerbated by an absence of policy analysiscapacity in NEA, the technical agencies, as well as in the local private sector following the military coup in1994. This, combined with an apparent reluctance to draw on international expertise limited effectivepolicy analysis.

Component 3. Environmental Education and Communication (EEC)

This component provided support to NEA to fulfill its mandate to educate the public on environmentalissues, including raising awareness of the GEAP and NEA itself. Progress in this area has beensatisfactory, and most targets outlined in the SAR have been achieved. Although startup was delayedbecause of the absence of the component coordinator who went away on training during the first year, asound foundation for EEC activities is now in place. An EEC strategy, facilitated and coordinated byNEA, with broad participation from concemed departments (EEC WG) and assistance from aninternational specialist, was prepared in 1995 and updated in 1998. Progress has been made towards theintegration of EE into primary and secondary schools; EE syllabi have been prepared for grades 1-9.

With the involvement of the four schools of Gambia College, significant progress was achieved in theproduction of an EE Teachers Resource Book. Gambia College has developed an EE curriculum and willoffer an introductory environmental course to all students at Gambia College next year. NEA's EEprogram is playing a major role in promoting and supporting the integration of EE in the formal educationsystem at various levels at different institutions. Several local and international NGOs have also worked

- 6 -

with the Ministry of State for Education in the development of environmental curriculum and preparationof teaching materials for the secondary and tertiary school systems.

NEA completed in 1998 the publication and distribution of a popular version of the GEAP in English,Arabic and three local languages. Other activities included awareness campaigns at the national, regional,and divisional levels. Divisional and district EEC workshops were organized.

NEA uses the media to create public awareness of environmental problems. Environmental issues havebeen discussed in the newspapers and on the radio. An environmental awareness survey conducted in 1999indicates that media campaigns have had some impact on attitudes. While it is too early to measure impacton behavior with confidence, this survey will serve as a baseline for future assessments. The full range ofresources available for environmental awareness (i.e. posters, videos, and television) is currentlyunderutilized.

Component 4. Monitoring of Environmental Quality and Enforcement (MEQ&E)

This component was designed to increase NEA's capacity to fulfill its mandate to both monitorenvironmental quality and enforce environmental standards. It supported the design and implementation ofa monitoring and reporting system and the creation of an inspectorate to follow up on environmentalviolations. Progress to date in these regards is considered satisfactory. The component strengthenedNEA's capacity to develop and enforce environmental standards and regulations. NEA, in collaborationwith responsible technical agencies, has designed an effective environmental quality reporting andmonitoring system, particularly for water quality, air pollution, and solid waste. An Inspectorate has beencreated to increase the Agency's capacity to take action against specific environmental violations. AMEQ&E strategy was developed and adopted. The capacity of monitoring institutions was strengthenedthrough training in monitoring and lab techniques and the provision of laboratory equipment. NEA'sInspectorate has four trained inspectors. Air quality monitoring is operational; however, water qualitymonitoring is delayed due to frequent lack of fuel. Enforcement mechanisms have been established, and"Environmental quality standards regulations" and "Environmental discharges permitting regulations" havebeen adopted. The capacity of Inspectors to act and respond to violations has been strengthened. AnInspector's Manual spelling out enforcement procedures and code of conduct is in final draft. However,NEA's current shortage of financial resources is threatening the sustainability of the monitoring network.

Component expenditures did not follow appraisal projections. Contracts for monitoring services wereoriginally intended to include equipment purchase costs. During implementation it was determined to bemore efficient for NEA to purchase the equipment directly. The equipment was then provided to therelevant monitoring agency under a Memorandum of Understanding that included their meeting NEA'smonitoring requirements. Although this contributed to a significant expenditure category reallocation forthe Project, in fact, it did not reflect a fundamental change in concept nor activity.

Component 5. Environment Information Management

Implementation of the GEAP requires reference data, both geographic and thematic, to serve as support toNEA technical functions. Various aspects of environment information management have been supportedby the participating donor agencies. The IDA Credit, designed to complement other donor activities, aimedto initially reinforce and subsequently continue UNSO support to establish a multi-sector EIS WorkingGroup. The WG coordinated the development and implementation of an EIS strategy, guidelines andpriority activities, as well as efforts to improve national capability to conduct spatial analysis through EISawareness building and training. Implementation of this component is rated satisfactory.

Five data centers have been created in key institutions, including the Departments of Lands and Surveys,the Department of Water Resources, the Department of Central Statistics, the Department of Agricultural

- 7 -

Planning, and the Department of Agricultural Services (Soil and Water Management Unit), and are nowoperational. Several of these have been successful at attracting further financing for their activities.Selected data center personnel and key NEA staff were trained in GIS/EIS. More data centers are plannedin the future if funding becomes available.

Not all officials in the line agencies were initially convinced of the usefulness of EIS/GIS and did notconsider this a priority. They were reluctant to commit additional staff time or resources for this activity.However, NEA's EIS team's well-planned and effective demonstrations convinced the decision-makers ofthe potential use of EIS/GIS. All the data centers reported a high degree of satisfaction with the assistanceprovided by NEA.

Component 6. Contingency Planning and Emergency Preparedness

In line with NEA's mandate to prepare contingency plans and strategies, this component provided for thepreparation of a set of contingency plans and network mechanisms to mitigate the effects of the majorpotential environmental disasters that could affect The Gambia. Design and implementation of thiscomponent is rated as satisfactory. Contingency Planning and Disaster Preparedness has been strengthenedand Response Plans prepared for various types of potential disasters, such as: offshore oil spills, drought,collapsing buildings, floods, air crashes, roadside tanker spillage, bush fires and ferry sinking. A genericemergency response plan has also been prepared. A simulation exercise was conducted for a ferry sinking,which provided usefil insights into critical organizational and communication networks required foremergency preparedness.

Complementary Donor Achievements

The integrated programmatic approach adopted by the donors for GEAP implementation allowed certainsynergies to be maximized. Thus, while not directly financed through the IDA project, the followingoutcomes and achievements are considered particularly noteworthy. They have been enabled or augmentedby exploiting the synergies and complementarities between this and other GEAP projects.

Environmental Impact Assessment (ELM). The establishment of an EIA process, supported by GTZ, wasa cross-conditionality for the IDA Credit. It is now operational, although two years behind schedule. EIAguidelines and procedures were developed, approved, and distributed. All new development projectsplanned for The Gambia must be submitted for review and environmental classification. Class "A" projectsmust undergo a full EIA. Guidelines for industry, tourism, waste management, agriculture and naturalresources, and fisheries have been prepared, published, and widely distributed. Others are underpreparation. The EIA WG prepared terms of reference for EIAs carried out thus far. The WG alsoanalyzes the assessments and reviews mitigation plans. NEA then advises the NEMC, which has finaldecision-making authority. Several training programs and workshops for the public and private sectorshave been conducted to increase awareness about EIA requirements and procedures. While these have hadan impact, further educational efforts are needed. Additional staff will be needed to manage the increasingworkload as EIA becomes more widely applied.

Environmental Education and Communication. The IDA supported EEC strategy, educational andawareness raising activities were complemented by UNDP supported local-level activities. About 15 localand intemational NGOs are conducting village non-formal EEC assisted by NEA supervised authorities,focusing on the Northem Division.

In addition, UNDP's Capacity 21 Prograrn UNDP supported the introduction in 1995 of a national"Environmental Awards Scheme" (EAS), an innovative activity for the enhancement of publicenvironmental awareness. The EAS highlights sound environmental practices in various categories thathave been carried out by groups or individuals. Competitions are held at the divisional level, and winners

- 8 -

go on to compete at the national level. The Scheme is given wide publicity in the media and drawscountrywide interest. Environmental awareness has been enhanced throughout the country. UNDP hasconducted an evaluation of the EAS and is satisfied with the results. However it is expensive, and itssustainability is questionable.

GTZ supported the publication of five issues of the environmental newsletter, which were distributed to awide audience.

Monitoring of Environmental Quality and Enforcement. Directly complementing efforts under the IDACredit to enable NEA to monitor environmental quality and enforce environmental standards, a wastemanagement legislation study was completed under the GTZ project and a first draft of the legislation hasbeen completed. In addition, GTZ supported the adoption of a "Hazardous Chemicals and PesticidesControl Act" (1994), and the responsibility for controlling pesticides and hazardous chemicals now restswith NEA. A control unit was established in NEA and a Registrar of Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticidesappointed. The Unit issues licenses to anyone selling hazardous chemicals. A number of dangerouschemicals have been banned by the Act and pernits are required for the import of pesticides. PesticidesInspectors, often agricultural extension agents working on a part-time basis, have been appointed throughout the country, and are paid a small cash incentive. Unfortunately, NEA's current shortage of financialresources is threatening the sustainability of the monitoring network.

Environment Information Management. In addition, to the 5 data centers established under the IDAfinanced activities, equipment acquired by the Government from the USAID's ANR project was transferredto NEA, and a small EIS/GIS unit was established and staffed. GTZ provided follow-up funding tocomplete land use maps initiated under USAID's ANR Project when the project was prematurelyterminated as a result of the 1994 Coup. With the completed maps the EIS/GIS Unit is more effective incommunicating the impact of various environmental and natural resource practices.

4.3 ANet Present Value/Economic rate of return:

A detailed cost benefit or rate of return calculations was not performed.

4.4 Finiancial rate of return:

A detailed cost benefit or rate of return calculations was not performed.

4.5 Institutional developnment impact:

The institutional development impact is considered modest. Prior to the project NEA existed only on paper,now there is a functional institution in place. Investment in technical, administrative and financial traininghas improved the capacity of a significant number of professionals that will benefit The Gambia, whetherthey remain in government or migrate to private sector, NGOs or other projects. The establishment ofcollaborative working groups has strengthening NEA's capacity to fulfill its mandate and enhanced theenvironment management potential within the country. However, it does remains to be seen if theseworking groups can be effectively converted from forums for information sharing, discussion andcoordination, into concrete management instruments. Perhaps the key institutional development impact isthe introduction of EIA regulations and guidelines, and related capacity building investments financedunder GTZ project and the key cross-conditionality of the IDA Credit. Application of this tool will make asignificant contribution to the investment decision and development planning decisions of the country.

-9-

5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome

5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency:

Military Takeover of July 1994. The military overthrow of the former regime in July 1994 resulted in atemporary suspension of World Bank operations and the permanent withdrawal of USAID from TheGambia. The suspension of World Bank operations resulted in a 6 month delay in project effectiveness.The withdrawal of USAID had a more significant impact on GEAP implementation overall and the IDAproject in particular due to the premature termination of its Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR)Project. Environmental policy reform and the development of a GIS system were the two IDA Creditprogram objectives that were particularly affected by USAID's withdrawal. Environmental awarenessraising activities to be conducted via agricultural extension agents under the ANR project were alsocurtailed, to the detriment of the EEC objectives.

Indirectly, the coup increased political uncertainty and, hence, political sensitivity. This negatively affectedimplementation. Some of NEA's staff ware required to participate in commissions investigatingcorruption. NEA was also less forceful in bringing polemic issues into the public arena opting for a moregradual long-term approach to environmental problem solving. Moreover, several technically qualifiedindividuals are believed to have left the country and not retumed, aggravating the shortage of qualifiedprofessionals able to provide consultancy support to Project activities.

5.2 Factors gernerallv subject to government control:

Inactive National Environment Management Council (NEMC). This high-level Council was createdunder the NEMA to approve all environmental policies, adopt environmental standards, guidelines andregulations proposed by NEA, and supervise the Agency. However, the NEMC was inactive from 1994 to1999. While NEA continued to operate throughout this period, high level political support wassignificantly diminished. As a result, it was difficult for NEA to communicate with top decision-makersabout the seriousness of environmental problems and their potential economic impact.

Insufficient Incentives. While NEA is a semi-autonomous agency, the Government takes fullresponsibility for staff salar es. To attract qualified personnel, NEA was accorded a 50% salary premiumover civil service scales. rhis became less meaningful overtime as civil servants received periodic payraises for which NEA personnel were ineligible. Qualified personnel, particularly for thefinancial/administrative section, were difficult to recruit given the competitive wages available in theprivate sector. Furthermore NEA senior staff were attracted by considerably higher salaries offered byother donor- financed programs or projects (i.e. Bank and IFAD). Under the present structure, the staffsupward mobility is severely limited. It should be noted, however, that despite this declining financialincentives, most of the staff has remained in place.

5.3 Factors generallv subject to implementing agenev control:

Project Management. Forward planning and integrated activity scheduling were a problem both for theProject and for the GEAP program as a whole. NEA hired an intemational consultant to design aManagement Information System (MIS), to facilitate integrated management of all GEAP activities.However, the proposal did not fulfill requirements and consequently was not adopted by NEA.

Annual human resource management plans, work plans and schedules of consultant's recruitment with draftterms of reference were not prepared as was envisaged in the DCA, Article IIL Section 3.04 (b). Failure tofollow an integrated annual work plan, both for the Project and GEAP implementation activities, gave riseto over programming of staff time, resulting in implementation delays. Consultants were employed byNEA to prepare an integrated work plan following the mid-term review, but the results were not fullyimplemented.

- 10 -

Initially, inexperience with procurement procedures, combined with the absence of "prior review"thresholds, contributed to delays that frustrated both the Bank and the Borrower. Additionally, the lack ofstandard procurement operating procedures resulted in requests being frequently sent to the Bank for "non-objection" by coordinators/program officers instead of being routed through an effective administrationsystem. Replacement and training of the project administrator, a year and a half into implementation inDecember 1996, significantly improved procurement efficiency, but did not fully resolve the problem.

Training. The training sub-component was not satisfactorily implemented. A training needs assessmentand subsequent Hurnan Resources Development Plan were prepared with the help of an internationalconsultant, but NEA considered the proposals inadequate. Instead arrangements for training were handledmostly on an ad hoc basis by NEA Management. Neither the content nor the results of the training werescrutinized, and the choice of training programs was often left to the individual staff. This did not in allcases ensure that the training content would fit the needs of the Agency or that the training would have apositive impact on work performance.

Furthermore, the Project was expected to provide access to training in environmental management to stafffrom collaborating institutions, NGOs and the private sector. Instead, training focused primarily on NEApersonnel to the expressed disappointment of line agency staff.

Certain key staff underwent out-of-country training for extended periods (financed by other projects) andeffective coverage for their programs was in some cases inadequate. This was further exacerbated by achronic shortage of NEA staff, delayed hiring decisions, and an insufficient number of qualified localconsultants from upon which to draw additional human resources.

Donor Coordination. NEA should have insisted on better donor coordination. The initial assumption wasthat NEA would manage support from all donors as an integrated program, with each donor's activitieshaving common and/or complementary objectives. Despite these initial intentions, NEA's facilitation ofinformation exchange and coordination of donor teams and activities was weak. Joint supervision missionswere uncommon and, critically, efforts to develop an integrated work plan were unsuccessful in becomingan operational management tool.

5.4 Costs and financing:

The cost estimate of the IDA/GTZ institutional capacity building sub-prograrn at appraisal was US$ 4.5million over 3 years, of which IDA was to commit US$ 2.6 million (including US$ 0.3 million to refinancethe PPF), GTZ US$ 1.3 million and GOTG US$ 0.6 million. IDA's commitment covered approximately60% of total sub-program costs and included 100% financing of consultant services, training, and goodsprocured to support implementation of the 6 IDA components. The GOTG financed 100% of theincremental operating costs associated with the IDA components. Information on GTZ project costs andfinancing was managed separately.

Overall, financing was more than sufficient. The Credit closed with slightly more than US$ 0.46 million(17.4%) remaining undisbursed, despite the project time frame being extended from three to four a halfyears. The Government's actual contributions for incremental operational costs are estimated to have metthe initial objective of $0.6 M. An increase in the funds allocated for goods occurred primarily in threecomponents: institutional support (Component 1), monitoring of environmental quality and enforcement(Component 4), and environmental information management (Component 5). This increase was supportedthrough the transfer of funds allocated for consultancy services to the equipment expenditure category. Inthe case of Component 1, the increase resulted from the need to upgrade computers purchased during thePPF phase, following project extension to July 1999. In the case of Components 4 and 5, the reallocationdid not reflect a fundamental change in concept nor activity as equipment costs had previously been

- 11 -

subsumed in the relevant consultancy services.

6. Sustainability

6.1 Rationale for sustainabilit rating:

Sustainability of the Project is rated as likely. Technical and institutional advances made as a result of thecapacity building efforts is expected to have lasting impacts. At the close of the IDA Credit, a NationalEnvironmental Agency was established and operational. Furthermore, key baseline data and mechanismsfor environmental management have been put in place. The technical capabilities of staff in NEA andseveral GEAP collaborators has been enhanced and, even taking into account any mobility between civilservice, private sector and NGOs, is likely to continue to benefit The Gambia. This is greatly enhanced bythe popular and successful establishment of thematic working groups, which draw upon qualifiedindividuals irrespective of their place of employment.

6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations:

While in the short term NEA is financially sustainable because GOTG funds all staff salaries and limitedoperating costs, there is some doubt about NEA, as originally envisioned, remaining operationallysustainable without additional Government and/or donor support. Through experience gained duringProject implementation, GOTG recognizes that while NEA's coordinating role is indispensable, certainGEAP activities promoted as NEA responsibilities during the Project are in fact not core responsibilitiesfor such a coordinating body. Thus, NEA plans to revisit the organizational structure of the Agency,refocusing its activities and responsibilities. This will be done within the parameters spelled out in NEMAto carry out certain regulatory functions (i.e. EIA, Environmental Quality, EIS/GIS) and is expected tofurther enhance the sustainability of the institutional framework established by the Project and reducedependence on extemal financial support. With respect to non-core Project activities, UNDP's Capacity 21(as the main remaining active donor) will provide some bridge financing to help mainstream them in lineagencies (e.g. Environmental Education). In addition to UNDP Capacity 21 support, the Bank is preparinga Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Medium Sized Project for GEF financing.

7. Bank and Borrower Performance

Bank7.1 Lending:

The Bank's performance during project identification and preparation was satisfactory. The UNSO andBank supported GEAP process was recognized as an example of "best practice". Based on the GEAP andin active collaboration with key donor partners, namely, GTZ, USAID, AfDB, UNSO and UNDP), theProject was rapidly identified. It's support of key institutional and human resource capacity buildingaspects of the GEAP was fully consistent with the Govemment's overall development strategy andenvironmental priorities. The Project's emphasis on institutional capacity building was fully consistent withthe strategy outlined in the Bank's CAS.

The Bank's performance at appraisal was satisfactory although inclusion of an administrative/procurementspecialist on the team would have been advantageous. Appraisal of many key factors includingGovernment commitment, Project design, risks, lending instrument, consistency with safeguard policies,implementation plan, key indicator identification and inclusion of lessons learned was adequate. However,the appraisal team underestimated the time necessary to: (a) develop effective implementation managerialand administrative capacity in a new agency, staffed with inexperienced professionals, and (b) tosuccessfully implement the Project's highly participatory and collaborative approach. The Project,originally planned to be implemented within a 3 year time frame took four and a half years to reach

- 12-

completion. While these delays were the result of several factors, some beyond the NEA's control, theappraisal underestimated the impact of NEA's weak implementation capacity, exacerbated further by theirinexperience with World Bank procedures.

The evaluation of incentives for Project implementation was adequate in the prevailing institutional context,if a little naive. The rapid adoption and implementation of the GEAP were taken as strong indications ofgovemment commitment. It was reasonable to expect the highly participatory GEAP process to leadnaturally into a highly collaborative implementation process. Retrospectively, incorporation of moreconcrete and well-defined incentives to secure participation of collaborating institutions would have beenbeneficial. Similarly, donor coordination was strong at the time of appraisal and the expectation that theProject would be implemented as part of an integrated program of activities managed by NEA wasreasonable. The Gambia was one of the first countries to design and implement an environment supportprogram and thus had no road map to follow. Subsequent experience has demonstrated that inherent donorcompetition for scarce human resources frequently undermines project implementation in the environmentalsector. The Gambian GEMP was no exception. NEA's capacity and/or incentive for ensuring anintegrated programmatic approach proved to be inadequate.

The Bank overestimated the capacity and quantity of the Gambian technicians available to staff and/orserve as consults to NEA. Staff vacancies went unfilled for notable periods, while efforts to utilize localprivate sector consultants revealed a lack of capacity across technical and skills areas. Equally, qualifiedtechnical staff of GEAP collaborating agencies were in short supply and high demand.

Finally, it is probably unrealistic to expect a project whose principal objective is capacity- andinstitution-building for a new agency, staffed with inexperienced individuals, to implement complex projectcomponents in three years. It would have been more realistic to allow an implementation period of fiveyears.

7.2 Supervision:

The Bank's performance has been satisfactory. A review of PSRs indicates that supervision missions werecarried out on a timely basis, and that problems were correctly identified. Suggestions to correct theseproblems were not always heeded by the Borrower. The skills mix was generally appropriate. However,since the primary focus of the Project was capacity building and institutional development, the periodicinclusion during the entire project cycle of a human resources development specialist and an institutionalspecialist would have been useful.

The lack of procurement threshold made it necessary for IDA to give a "non-objection" for all expendituresfrom the credit. It would have been more efficient and less tedious if a minimum amount had been setbelow which the Borrower could have proceeded without contacting the Bank. A review of the Statementof Expenditures could then have been done during the next supervision mission. Although the Banksuggested during the mid-term review that GOTG request an amendment to the DCA introducing aprocurement threshold, the Project was already nearing closure by the time this was done.

Critical supervision missions should have been conducted in collaboration with GTZ and UNDP, especiallysince each of the donors many of the activities had overlapping elements. While attempts were made tocoordinate supervisory missions, such overlap only occasionally occurred as each of the donors wasworking according to a different timetable.

7.3 OverallBankperformance:

The Bank's performance is rated satisfactory

- 13-

Borrower7.4 Preparation:

The Govemment's performance during preparation was highly satisfactory. The GEAP preparationprocess is regarded as an example of "best practice". The subsequent leadership and drive demonstratedthrough Government's rapid organization of a donor roundtable to secure implementation financing, as wellas the immediate carrying out of the recommendation to establish the NEA were good indicators of nationalcommitment. Identification and preparation of the IDA project was both timely and well presented.

7.5 Government implementation performance.

Government met its obligations vis-a-vis NEA's staff costs and incremental operating costs. However,NEMC was inactive for the duration of the Project, reducing visibility of Project activities and underminingimpact.

7.6 Implementing Agency:

NEA's performance, with some notable exceptions, was satisfactory. The operational aspects of projectimplementation, while slower than anticipated, were generally successful. Regarding project management,NEA performed poorly in financial and administrative management, as key management tools and planswere either not developed or proposed tools were not accepted by NEA. Other deficiencies compoundedthe problems: the accounting system was not in place quickly enough; significant delays occurred in fillingkey positions; and a lack of planning slowed procurement. Nonetheless, regular financial audits wereprepared and were mainly satisfactory. From the environmental management standpoint, the Agency isfunctioning well and is considered an asset by the Government. The coordination methodology was wellplanned and is satisfactory to all participating agencies and the private sector. There is a much-improvedlevel of competence for environmental management at the national level. NEA is now in a better position toassist improving local capacity for environment management at the divisional level and below.

7. 7 Overall Borrower performance:

Overall Borrower performance is rated satisfactory.

8. Lessons Learned

Time Frame, budget and lending instrument. Environmental capacity building is complex. Furthermore,establishing a new environmental management institution and the necessary collaborative structures, in acontext where there was little or no previous experience, or trained staff, is difficult and time-consuming.In the past the Bank approach has favored stand alone operations with limited financing such as this one.Given the typically weak in-country base, it was suggested that it would be more appropriate to start with alarger operation and extend it over a longer timeframe. Thus, an APL may be a more appropriate lendinginstrument than a stand alone project.

Donor Coordination. The importance of sustaining donor coordination cannot be over emphasized. Whilecognizant of the importance of Govemment ownership of program activities, the donor community shouldrecognize that national institutions may not always have sufficient capacity or interest to ensure effectivedonor coordination when faced with the realities of implementation. This can lead to an inefficientallocation of human resources and funds as different donor initiatives compete for attention.

Human Resource Capacity Building. Staff training should be considered a priority in any capacitybuilding project. A training needs assessment should be conducted as early as possible. Based on this

- 14 -

assessment, a manpower development plan should be prepared by training specialists. Considering NEA'sdiverse training needs, responsibility for implementing and managing staff training should rest with afull-time qualified training officer.

Workshops are an excellent means for disseminating information, and results of workshops should bepublished and publicly made available. This is especially true in environmental activities. Workshopshave marginal value, however, as a means of training and strengthening capacity of staff. The project heldan excessive number of workshops. Funds invested in many of the workshops would have had betterresults if they had been focused on short-term, well directed, local training aimed at strengthening staffcapability.

Implementation Capacity. First, for timely implementation, a strong administrative system must beestablished within the implementing agency and remain fully staffed throughout. The administrative officeshould include adequate back-up staff, not only in administration but also in finance. This would allow theunits to function and at the same time permit staff to receive rotational short-term local training withoutdisrupting the administrative/financial daily operations.

Second, the complexity of a project and the number of components should be tailored to a careful appraisalof existing management capacity, not only of the lead agency, but of the collaborating institutions as well.It is preferable to phase in new activities over time, as the agency gains experience.

Third, projects need active and effective implementation leadership. Considerable emphasis is often placedduring project start up on initiating activities that will lead to the achievement of tangible results. As aresult, a comprehensive understanding of basic management and administrative functions administrationand systems requirements is typically overlooked. As an alternative approach, prior to any financing beingmade available, the implementing agency should develop an overall plan of action. Thereafter, theimplementing agency should prepare detailed work plans, procurement plans, a schedule of consultantswith the appropriate terms of reference, and a list of proposed studies at appraisal and annually thereafter.During this time, if the implementing agency does not have the capacity to complete this planning exercise,the proposed work plan must reflect the need for training in these areas, and a realistic allocation of timeand resources must be spelled out. Experience shows that it is not sufficient to assume that capacity willbe built as time goes on, as workloads become overwhelming and administrative/management functions areoften pushed to the side. Furtherrnore, it is necessary to take into account local cultural organizational andmanagement pattems as well as the prevailing bureaucratic environment when designing managementsystems.

Fourth, Bank's intervention should be reduced to an absolute minimum. Preparing and mutually agreeingto a Manual of Operating Procedures (MOP) at negotiations should clearly identify the duties andresponsibilities of each section of the Borrower's implementing organization. Procurement procedures andprior review limits would be included in the MOP.

- 15-

9. Partner Comments

(a) Borrowerimplernenting agency:

REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORTBORROWER'S CONTRIBUTION

Prepared by Momodou Cham and Momodou Sarr

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The program was prepared to support economic and social development while trying to ensure thelong-term sustainability of the limited natural resource base within the country. Through support from theprogram, this was to be achieved by providing direct support to the implementation of the GambiaEnvironmental Action Plan (GEAP) from 1993, after Cabinet adopted it in 1992.

Bilateral agreements between the Bank and Gambia Government on the priorities to be attached to thevarious functions of the NEA were also reflected in the design of the program. Within the framework ofthe GEAP implementation, other sector-specific interventions being financed by IDA and other donors,were also supposed to benefit directly from project support through the establishment of standards andguidelines, the collection and dissemination of information and institutional support guidance.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project consisted of six major components:

(a) Institutional Supportfor Coordination of GEAP Implementation to support the NEA develop itsoperational capacity by financing equipment, training and targeted technical assistance. Thedevelopment of management and technical skills in NEA and the provision of associated training inenvironmental management for staff of sector agencies and private sector operators, throughshort-term practical attachments or workshops were a part of this component.

(b) GEAP Monitoring and Policy Development to re-orient the existing sectoral policies and developnew policies where necessary, in accordance with the overall environmental policies elaborated in theGEAP.

(c) Environmental Education and Public Awareness to support the development of a strategy toincrease public awareness of environmental issues and support for electronic and print mediacampaigns, using existing government and NGO skills and capabilities.

(d) Monitoring of Environment Quality to support the development of a system to collect informationand monitor environmental quality against agreed threshold levels.

(e) Environmental Information Management to finance the development and implementation of anenvironmental information strategy according to a model including:

(i) the design of a common information architecture to establish coherence and compatibility;(ii) the establishment of basic information infrastructures;(iii) the maintenance of key data sets;

- 16 -

(iv) analytical capabilities;69 Contingency Planning and Disaster Preparedness to develop a disaster awareness and contingency

planning system.

3.0 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

The primary objective program was to establish the capacity within the National Environment Agency(NEA) enabling it to develop and ensure the co-ordination of an effective system for environmentalplanning and management in the Gambia so that environmental concems are fully integrated and reflectedin the social and economic development process in The Gambia.

Since it was generally accepted that the long-term success of environmental planning initiatives in theGambia would be contingent on the development of adequate human resources in NEA and itscollaborating agencies, the program aimed at bolstering local talents and skills in order to gradually reducethe country's dependence on extensive technical assistance. To this end, the program supported a newapproach that relied on stronger local management supplemented by short and medium-term targetedconsultancies. Consequently, the main thrust of program was focused on the development of theinstitutional infrastructure, on strengtiening the capacity of the human resources required to meet thisobjective, and also to help realize the policy and program objectives of the GEAP.

4.0 ACHIEVEMENTS OF BANK-FUNDED PROGRAMS

4.1 Environmental Education and Communication (EE&C)

The following achievements were noted: (i) establishment of the Annual National Environment AwardsScheme; (ii) establishment of Divisional Environmental Education Task Forces; (iii) development of theNational Environmental Education Strategy; (iv) production of a simpler version of the GEAP in Englishand Arabic, and in three local languages, including Wollof, Mandinka and Pularr; (v) fourteen pamphletsdealing with various aspects of the environment and the work of NEA were also produced and distributedto the general public; and (vi) the finalization of Integration of Environmental Education into FormalEducation System.

An EE&C Strategy was developed and adopted. The task force action plans in the strategy were beingimplemented. In non-formal Education, several environmental education activities were completed includingtraining for extension agents in participatory rural appraisal techniques, sensitization of the media, and apilot project for erosion control, to name a few. The Environmental Education Resource Centre withaudio-visual aids on the environment has been established, and is now headed by a CommunicationsOfficer. Four issues of the Gambia environmental newsletter (EARTH NEWS) have since been publishedon a biannual basis.

One of the most significant and innovative GEAP activities geared toward raising public awarenessis the Environmental Awards Scheme (EAS), which has been funded by Capacity 21. It is in its fifth year,and has an average of 250 entries for competition annually.

4.2 Environmental Information Systems (EIS)

In The Gambia a multitude of agencies, both public and non-governmental are involved in the collectionand management of information related to the environment. Data collection procedures, presentationformats, exchange methodologies, storage, update and maintenance routines are as varied as the number of

- 17-

sectoral institutions involved in data handling. The consequences have been that variousenvironment-related data are held at various organizations and in different formats (digital and analogue)which are not inter-changeable. This situation has hindered efficient information exchange, managementand decision-making.

An EIS strategy to coordinate and harmonize the development of a demand-driven EIS was developed in1994. In addition, an EIS Working Group was created to implement the strategy and coordinate all EISactivities within the country. A network of five Data Centres has been set-up and provided the necessarycomputer equipment to enhance environmental information management in The Gamnbia. The current datacentres are the Departments of Lands and Surveys, Water Resources, Central Statistics, AgriculturalPlanning, and Agricultural Services (Soil and Water Management Unit). The EnvironmentalDocumentation Centre (Library), which is part of the EIS program, now has a good collection ofpublications on the environment. Training was provided for staff of the key officials of the EIS WorkingGroup in GIS techniques.

4.3 Environmental Quality Monitoring and Enforcement

The national strategies for Environmental Quality Monitoring and Enforcement (EQME) and Solid WasteManagement (SWM) were developed under the guidance of the Environmental Quality Working Group.

In collaboration with the Department of Water Resources, the Gambia Police Force and the Department ofHealth Services, NEA commenced implementation of the EQME strategy. The team focused on ambientair quality, vehicle emissions, water quality and solid waste management. The institutions were providedwith training and equipment for implementation of the strategy. Systems for air and water qualitymonitoring and solid waste monitoring were designed. The Air Quality Monitoring Network for GreaterBanjul was established, and a nationwide water quality monitoring is being implemented.

NEA was not able to start implementation of the SWM strategy because it lacked the required funds.However, important activities in this area, including identification of potentially suitable waste disposalsites in Greater Banjul, were undertaken in collaboration with the EIS program.

In the area of enforcement, the Inspectorate Unit has been established and provided with operationalguidelines, equipment and training at the School of Public Health, Gambia College, to enhance itsenforcement capacity.

4.4 Institutional Support for Coordination of GEAP Implementation

Several significant achievements have been registered. The management of the NEA has been trained inproject management, and budgeting. A Management Information System (MIS) has been created to includethe integrated Work Plan, Assets Inventory, Human Resources database, Vehicles Monitoring and the SunAccounting System. Due to complex structure of the Integrated Work Plan, it has not utilized in themanner it was designed for. Other components of the MIS, notably the SUN Accounting System, is beingregularly utilized. Another important milestone was the setting up of the Local Area Network (LAN),which has tremendously eased information sharing within the Agency. All NEA staff have undergonecomputer literacy training in word-processing, spreadsheets and database.

4.5 GEAP Monitoring and Policy Development

A GEAP monitoring strategy is being implemented, and routine progress reviews based on agreed

- 18-

environmental indicators are being conducted. The State of the Environment Report has been publishedafter a much publicized launching by His Excellency the President of the Republic and Chairman of theNational Environment Management Council (NEMC). The State of the Environment Report was the firstexecutive report on the environment in the Gambia following the implementation of the GEAP. The reporthas acted as a benchmark for future actions. Since it has not been feasible to provide a holistic picture ofthe environment frequently, it has been agreed to produce the report at least once every five years. Severalkey policy studies were also completed.

4.6 Establishment of a Constituency for Environmental and Natural ResourceManagement

All the reports on the GEAP implementation, including the GEAP Phase I evaluation report, the WorldBank Mid-term review, the GTZ and UNDP Capacity 21 Reviews, have concluded that all the programshad progressed satisfactorily although some delays were experienced in certain areas. The keyimplementation successes include: the establishment of a functional institutional framework forenvironmental management and planning; raising public awareness of environmental issues; and theaccordance of a high profile to the environment on the national agenda.

The building of a constituency has been one of the best ways of attaining sustainability in The Gambia forenvironmental management. There has now been created a participatory functional institutional frameworkfor co-ordination and implementation of the GEAP, comprising principally the National EnvironmentManagement Council (NEMC) and the National Environment Agency (NEA). The NEMC being the mainpolicy-making body for environmental management, has been chaired by the President of the Republic,with the Secretaries of State responsible for the following Departments of State as members: NaturalResources; Agriculture; Health and Social Welfare; Finance and Economic Affairs; Trade Industry andEmployment; Local Govermnent and Lands. The Executive Director of NEA has served as Secretary to theCouncil.

The NEA has carried out the task of coordinating multi- and cross-sectoral environmental and naturalresources management issues through the framework of Networks and Technical Working Groups. Wherethe network system did not fully succeed in promoting coordination between different programs, theworking group approach has helped to satisfy both inter- and intra-institutional working relationships.These Technical Working Groups have been organized along programmatic lines with broad membershipbase drawn from institutions with complementary mandates for environmental and natural resourcesmanagement. Each Working Group has acted as a clearinghouse for the respective program, ensuringco-ordination among the member organizations, which include departments of state, NGOs, and the privatesector in the area of environmental management.

The main objective for establishing Working Groups has thus been achieved by creating a system forcontinuous consultation and dialogue among the key stakeholders. The Working Group concept has beenadopted by planning authorities at the divisional level, where the authorities have establishedsub-committees on the environment and natural resources. This has been a major achievement inenvironmental management, as the framework is expected to facilitate continued coordination.

4.7 Disaster Preparedness and Contingency Planning

An inventory of all existing contingency plans was completed within the country. The existing plans werethen incorporated in the ten newly prepared contingency plans. After a national sensitization workshop, acontingency plan was selected for a simulation exercise, which was quite successful indeed.

- 19-

Recommendations for an institutional structure together with the backing legislation have been proposed.

4.8 Raising Environmental Awareness

Through programs such as the Environment Award Scheme, the general public has begun to betterunderstand environmental issues. Communities have been making representations to NEA on environmentalissues that adversely affect them. Programs on radio and television, and in focus group meetings haveserved to raise the level of awareness of environmental issues in civil society.

Gambians at large have become aware of environmental issues that affect their lives, largely as a result ofGEAP I implementation. GEAP has reinforced the Banjul Declaration of 1977 and intensified the nationalcall to address environmental and natural resources degradation.

Implementation of GEAP I has also provided a framework for addressing environmental and naturalresources concems of both the public and private sectors. The need to incorporate Environmental ImpactAssessments (EIA) in project designs and feasibility studies has become more acceptable in both the publicand private sectors.

4.9 Strengthening Institutional Capacities for Effective Environmental Management

The GEAP implementation process has afforded various stakeholders the opportunity to better understandthe linkages between the relevant issues and the need to apply specific techniques in the decision-makingprocess. Such tools have included the following: Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines andProcedures; Land Use Land Cover Maps for general and sector-specific applications; Forestry Inventory;Greater Banjul Master Plan Development; Tsetse Study (in collaboration with the IntemationalTrypanotolerance Centre); and Digitized Agro-ecological and Vegetation Map for the Mediun TermAgricultural Master Plan.

4.10 International Cooperation

The Gambia has been active in the intemational fora. The Garnbia has ratified global and regionalagreements, including the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Climate Change Convention, and theConvention on Biodiversity.

As a clear indication of the success of program implementation in The Gambia, the UNDP Capacity 21Program selected The Gambia, out of a total of 45 countries, to study how the country implemented itsnational environmental action plan. Also, The Gambia has been one of three African countries selected bythe World Bank to evaluate its success in implementing National Environmental Action Plans with a viewto formulating "Best Practices Guides" for other African countries. The choice of The Gambia was largelydue to the success it registered in the area of environmental management.

Within the context of sub-regional co-operation, NEA has established an effective working relationshipwith the Centre de Suivi Ecologique (CSE) in Senegal. The Remote Sensing Applications Unit of theUniversity of Ghana, another sub-regional institution, has also collaborated with the NEA. Also, TheGambia, through NEA, has been an active member of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee. The NEA, underthe Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticide Program, has entered into a bilateral co-operation program withSenegal in the area of chemicals, especially pesticides management. Under this program, NEA's PesticideAnalyses Laboratory has agreed to undertake the analysis of pesticide formulation for both countries, whilethe Locustox Laboratory in Senegal is expected to conduct analyses in pesticides residues.

- 20 -

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS

5.1 Inflexibility of Donor Rules and Procedures

Donor rules and procedures would need to be made more responsive to the specific needs of the project,because donor inflexibility has been considered to be one of the major constraints that has been experiencedin GEAP implementation. Consequently, this had affected the overall performance of the Agency and itscollaborators. For instance, the project lacked a threshold under which non-objection from Washingtonwould not be required. Consequently, every single request for payment, irrespective of the amount intheory for even a dollar, had to be sent to the Bank for approval. The response time for our requests fornon-objections was too lengthy, and there was generally a lack of understanding of Bank procedures andrequirements, especially during the initiation of the project.

5.2 Time-consuming Consultation Process With Collaborating Partners

As this project has been a capacity building project, it has been expected that it would have to sustain itselfwell beyond the life of any other external funding. Due to the fact that the project objectives agreed at theonset of the project were broad and generally vague, a great deal of innovative thinking by NEA projectcoordinators was required to develop activities to support the different project objectives. Thecross-sectoral nature of all project activities being implemented meant that all major stakeholders closelyscrutinized proposed actions before they could give their approval or acceptance. This added to making theextensive consultation process among collaborating institutions, cumbersome and time-consuming.Notwithstanding, it was felt that such an extensive consultative process with all affected parties wasdeemed necessary to build that feeling of ownership among partners, which was necessary to ensure thesuccess of the interventions, and their long-term sustainability.

5.3 Unrealistic Assumptions

Furthermore, it has to be accepted that environmental management within the context of sustainabledevelopment, has been a relatively new area in The Gambia, and no road maps did previously exist to guideone's actions. The experience in project implementation gained this far has indicated that severalassumptions at the planning stage of this project have either changed, or have been found to be unrealistic.Qualified personnel such as accountants and experienced project administrators were expected to be readilyavailable within the country. It was also expected that close linkages and the specific interventions from anIDA-supported Health and Population Project supporting a comprehensive population policy prepared witha view to reducing the current population growth rate and bringing about a sustainable equilibrium betweenhuman and natural resources demands and consumption, would be maintained. The $ 1 0 million dollarUSAID ANR Project was also expected to provide technical assistance for institutional support and naturalresources planning, and to train Gambians in natural resources management and land tenure issues. Whilethe Health and Population was seriously delayed, the USAID ANR Project was abruptly closed as a resultof the military take-over in 1994. The IDA-funded Urban Environment Project to address urban povertyand environmental degradation was later prematurely closed. Despite the and changes in assumptions andthe special nature of this kind of project, the Bank could not be made to revisit its existing rules andprocedures with a view to making them more responsive to the specific needs of the project

5.4 Lack of A Framework for Co-Ordination of Development Partners' Efforts

At the Round Table Conference at which the Gambia Govemment submitted its proposal for assistance in

- 21 -

environmental management, the various donors agreed on a programmatic approach rather than the projectapproach. Consequently, some programs did cut across the existing Network lines within the Agencynotably in areas such as EIA, Environmental Quality Monitoring (EQM), Environmental InformationSystems (EIS), Environmental Education and Communication (EE&C) etc.

Generally, each donor came at a different time to evaluate its projects without looking at the inputs of theother donor, and the reports that emanated from these supervision missions were not made available to theother donors. Even where the donors operated within the same program, they were not informed about theoutcome of the others' field visit, and consequently their lack of coordination constrained the programimplementation.

5.5 Weak Implementation Capacity

Implementation capacity in environmental management in the country has been generally weak within thedifferent sectors, including the line departments, the NGO community, private sector and in localcommunities. Which type of capacity was lacked, varied at the various levels, but they generally rangedfrom lack of technical knowledge to project planning, implementation, and monitoring.

The lack of implementation capacity was due to several factors, such as lack of the required staff in termsof numbers for NEA during the project design. The lack of the prerequisite skills in general management atthe collaborating and implementing line departments also affected the smooth implementation of the project.Within the private sector, experience has shown that in the area of environmental policy analysis, there wasa clear need for training and skills' development. This was confirmed by the generally low quality ofconsultancy reports and studies commissioned by the ANR Working Group, as well as the others such asthe Environmental Education and Communication program. Other areas that have been found to requireskills' development were environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental legislation. Theprofessional capacity within both the NEA and line departments needed to be further enhanced if theexpected outputs of GEAP implementation were to be met. The availability of EIA skills particularlywithin the private sector, and in sufficient numbers was found to be necessary in enhancing theincorporation of EIA as an important tool in environmental management. The lack of enough lawyers withsufficient training in Environmental Legislation resulted in the slow rate of implementation of severalactivities within the Environmental Legislation program.

At the divisional levels, the capacity development should have centered around environmental education atthe community level, in training and skills' development in project planning, implementation, andmonitoring. Technical and resource constraints have also been recognized as major ones, and they includedlack of office space, photocopiers, and means of communication.

5.6 Inadequate Support Systems for Environmental Management - Decentralization

One other means of GEAP implementation apart from the "Working Group" concept was throughdecentralization to the local community levels. Decentralization of the GEAP and other processes have beenhampered by the fact that there has not yet been in place a coherent national decentralization policy thatwould have taken into account the different roles and responsibilities of the various actors. The experienceof the Agency in the development of the Local Environment Action Plans (LEAPs) helped reveal severalshortcomings. The current divisional level structures that were expected to support the decentralization ofthe GEAP were by and large the Divisional Coordinating Committee (DCC), too weak. Their membersoften either lacked capacity as noted above, were overloaded with work, did not have adequate resources,or showed varying levels of commitment. Although the framework for sustainable environmental

- 22 -

development exists in the countly in the form of the GEAP, the constraints that have been encounteredshould act as valuable lessons along the way towards sustainable environmental management.

(b) Cofinanciers:

No information provided.

(c) Other partners (MVGOs/private sector):

No information provided.

10. Additional Information

No information provided.

- 23 -

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix

Project Outcome Output Projected in SAR Actual Output at Project Notes andComponent Indicators Completion Comments

Projected in SAR

1. Institutional 1. 1 Skills of NEA 1.1.1 At least six NEA staff Six NEA staff positions trainedSupport for the staff improved trained in project management. in project management.Coordination ofGEAPImplementation

1.1.2 At least three workshops Two workshops conducted forconducted for NEA staff NEA staff to enhancemembers to enhance management skills.management skills.

1.1.3 All NEA staff to have All NEA staff received trainingreceived training in computer in computer literacy.literacy.

1.1.4 Eght to ten staff trained Eight to ten NEA staff trainedin administration including in administration includingExecutive Director, Deputy Executive Director, DeputyDirector, and Administrator. Director, and Administrator.

1.2 Staff of other 1.2.1 Environmental Environmental curriculuminstitutions/correspo curriculum prepared and delivered to Gambia College,ndents trained in delivered to MDI GTTI, and RDI.environmentalmanagement

1.2.2 At least four workshops More than ten workshops were (1 a)conducted for environmental conducted for environmentaldesk officeers/correspondents desk officers/correspondents inin line agencies and one line agencies and at least onetraining workshop for decision training workshop wasmakers on environmental conducted for decision makersmanagement and planning. on environmental management

and planning.

1.3 NEA's 1.3.1 Management Information Accounting portion of (1 b)Management System designed, reviewed Management InformationInformation System and in use. System being used by NEA.installed.

1.4 Equipment is 1.4.1 Equipment acquired and Adequate equipment andacquired. put into use. vehicles procured, received and

presently in use.

2. GEAP 2.1 Capacity to 2.1.1 Publication of three One "State of theMonitonng and monitor, evaluate "State of the Environment" Environment" report publishedPolicy Development and report on GEAP reports. in March 1997 and distributed.

implementationexists.

GEAP revision completed inDecember 1999

- 24 -

2.2 NEA assists 2.2.1 Workshops organized to Workshops conducted torelevant sectoral assist sectoral agencies. assist Minerals, Forestry,agencies to align Biodiversity and Agriculturalpolicies with GEAP agencies to align policies with

GEAP.

3. Environmental 3.1 Increased public 3.1.1 Environmental Education EES review completed in (3a)Education awareness of Strategy reviewed September 1997 with 30% of

environmental the population being aware ofissues key environmental issues.

3.1.2 Video on priority Video completed in 1997 andenvironmental concerns shown in 10 villagesAtowns inproduced. each of six administrative

regions; also shown on NationalTV.

3.1.3 At least eight workshops Eight workshops conducted fororganized for key target groups key target groups.

3.1.4 Weekly national radio One radio broadcast madebroadcasts for environment in each week for 12 months inall local languages. three local languages plus

English

3.2 Public 3.2.1 Two national campaigns Two national campaigns heldknowledge of GEAP on GEAP and NEA completed with workshops organized in sixand NEA assured with workshops organized in at Divisions for opinion leaders.

least six Divisions for opinionleaders.

3.2.2 Popular version of GEAP Popular version of GEAP (3b)completed within six months of completed and published inproject implementation. 1997.

4. Monitoring of 4.1 Capacity to 4.1.1 A coordinated A coordinated environmentalEnvironmental monitor environmental monitoring monitoring system beganQuafity and environmental system is designed and this implementation early in 1995Enforcement quality is monitoring system principally with pesticides.

strengthened implemented

4.2 NEA's capacity 4.2.1 Inspectorate established More than five environmental (4a)to act on specific and functioning with violations were followed up byenvironmental enforcement mechanisms in July 31, 1999.violations Is place. At least five violationsdeveloped in different areas are followed

up.

5. Environmental 5.1 Development 5.1.1 EIS workshop organized EIS workshop held June 1999Information and implementationManagement of EIS strategy with

coordination of EISguidelines andpriorities.

5.1.2 First version of data Data architecture andarchitecture and nomaclature nomaclature available inavailable in Documentation Documentation Center sinceCenter May 1997.

5.1.3 Key data sets identified, Key data sets readily available (5a)produced or converted, and in digital format.made available in digitalformat.

- 25 -

5.1.4 NEA program officers for One NEA program officer (5b)environmental Information and trained. Fourteen staff from keyEnvironmental impact departments trained.Assessments trained in EIS.Staff from key departmentstrained in data conversion andmanagement.

5.2 National 5.2.1 Selected staff from NEA, Six selected staff from NEA,capabilities for key departments, private key departments, private sectorspecial analysts sector and NGOs trained in and NGOs trained in analysis ofdeveloped analysis of georeferenced georeferenced environmental

environmental information. information trained in Ghana.

6. Contingency 6.1 Contingency 6.1.1 Multidisciplinary Three multidisciplinaryPlanning and plans developed workshop organized workshops held.DisasterPreparedness

6.1.2 At least one contingency Ten contingency plans madeplan available available.

6.2 Networking 6.2.1 Capacity developed One Ferry Disaster simulationmechanisms for within line agency and local case tested.implementation of communities to act inemergency plans emergency casesput in place.

Notes and Comments:(1a) Some of these workshops were held outside Gambia.

(1 b) MIS during 1997-99 continued to be developed with computerized accounting put into use by NEA. Integrated WAbrk Plan,continues to require further development, is excessively complex and is too time-consuming to be successfully managed by the presentstaff of NEA at this point in time. MIS not in use but is being considered by NEA for future use.(3a) Baseline Survey of Awareness level on environmental issues conducted in 1997

(3b) Popular version of GEAP was translated in three main local languages (Wollof, Mandinka & Pulaar) and Arabic.

(4a) Inspectorate established and three inspectors trained. Regulabons approved in October 1999.

(5a) This is an ongoing process with data in digital format about 10 percent completed.

(5b) Program officers for Environmental Impact Assessment not trained in EIS.

Source of information: Components 1 & 2: Executive Director and Deputy Director.

Components 3 through 6: Individual Program Officers.

- 26 -

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing

Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent)Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage ofEstimate Estimate Appraisal

Project Cost By Component US$ million US$ million1. Institutional Support for the Coordination of GEAP 0.62 0.54 87Implementation *2. GEAP Monitonrng and Policy Development 0.29 0.21 713. Environmental Education & Public Awareness 0.40 0.31 774. Monitoring of Environmental Quality and Enforcement 0.52 0.50 975. Environmental Information Management 0.34 0.31 926. Contingency Planning and Disaster Preparedness 0.13 0.10 88

Total Baseline Cost 2.30 1.97

Total Project Costs 2.30 1.97

Total Financing Required 2.30 1.97* Excluding US$0.6 million Govemment contribution for incremental operational costs

Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Appraisal Estimate) (US$ million equivalent)

Procurement MethodExpenditure Category ICB NCBe Othe' N.B.F. Total Cost

1. Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

2. Goods 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15(0.00) (0.00) (0.15) (0.00) (0.15)

3. Services 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.00 1.70(0.00) (0.00) (1.70) (0.00) (1.70)

4. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.45Training & Worshops (0.00) (0.00) (0.45) (0.00) (0.45)

5. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30Refunding of PPF (0.00) (0.00) (0.30) (0.00) (0.30)6. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Currency Revaluation (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Total 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 2.60(0.00) (0.00) (2.60) (0.00) (2.60)

- 27 -

Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (Actual/Latest Estimate) (US$ million equivalent)

Procurement MethodExpenditure Category ICB NCB Other N.B.F. Total Cost

1. Works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)2. Goods 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.53

(0.00) (0.00) (0.53) (0.00) (0.53)3. Services 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.91

(0.00) (0.00) (0.9 1) (0.00) (0.9 1)4. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.54

Training & Worshops (0.00) (0.00) (0.54) (0.00) (0.54)

5. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17Refunding of PPF (0.00) (0.00) (0.17) (0.00) (0.17)

6. Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Currency Revaluation (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Total 0.00 0.00 2.15 0.00 2.15(0.00) (0.00) (2.15) (0.00) (2.15)

Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the IDA Credit. All costs include contingencies.

2/ Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contractedstaff of the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs related to(i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project fuinds to local governnent units.

Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent)Percentage of Appraisal

C'onpotieit Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest EstimateBanL Go% t. CoF. Bnn Govt. CoF. Bank Glo-t. C.oF.

1. Institutional support for 0.62 0.60 0.54 0.60 87.1 100.0the Coordination of GEAPImplementation2. GEAP Monitoring and 0.29 0.21 72.4Policy Development3. Environmental 0.40 0.31 77.5Education4. Monitoring of 0.51 0.50 98.0Environmental Quality andEnforcement5. Environmental 0.34 0.31 91.2Information Management

16. Contingency Planning 0.13 0.11 84.6and Disaster Preparedness

Actual GOTG financing for incremental operational costs was not available

- 28 -

Annex 3: Economic Costs and Benefits

A detailed cost benefit or rate of return calculations was not performned.

- 29 -

Annex 4. Bank Inputs

(a) Missions:Stage of Project CN cle No of Persons and Specialty Perfora nce Rating

(e g. 2 Economists. I FNMS etc.) Implementaton De%elopmentMlonth/Year Count Specialtv Progress Objective

Identification/PreparationApril 1993 4 Grace Yabrudy, TTL

Yves Prevost, consultantDominique Reeve, GTZ,ObserverKarl Kirsch-Jung, GTZ, ZOPPspecialist

Appraisal/NegotiationOctober 1993 4 Grace Yabrudy, TTL

Yves Prdvost, ConsultantAlbert Greve, Multi-DonorSecretariat CoordinatorBermd Wiese, GTZ, ZOPPspecialist

SupervisionFebmialy 1995 1 Marie Yvonne Powers, TTL HS HSJuly 1995 2 Marie Yvonne Powers, TTL HS HS

Yves Prevost, ConsultantNovember 1995 1 Marie Yvonne Powers, TTL, HS HS

Albert GreveApril 1996 2 Marie Yvonne Powers, TTL S S

Yves Prevost, ConsultantJuly 1996 1 Marie Yvonne Powers, TTL S SNovember 1996 2 Marie Yvonne Powers, TTL S S

Yves Prevost, ConsultantMarch 1997 5 Yves Prevost, TTL S S

Marie Yvonne PowersAlbert GreveHans Hansen, GTZMichael Warich, GTZ

Oct/Nov. 1997 1 Yves Prevost, TTL S SMay/June 1998 1 Yves Prevost, TTL S SFebruary 1999 1 Yves Prevost, L S SOctober 1999 1 Yves Prevost, TTL S S

- 30 -

ICRMarch 2000 3 Yves Prevost, TTL - Env. S S

SpecialistMichael Furst, Consultant,Env. planning &managementRobert Etheredge,Consultant, Financialmanagement

(b) Staff:

Stage of Project Cycle Acrual/Latest EsiimateNo Staff weeks US$ (.000)

Identification/Preparation 17.3 49.3Appraisal/Negotiation 11.1 36Supervision 58.7 180.8ICR 10.6 32Total 97.7 298.1

- 31 -

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components

(H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable)Rating

0 Macro policies D H 0 SU OM O N * NA

aSector Policies O H O SU OM N O NA

O Physical O H O SU O M O N * NA

E Financial O H OSUOM O N * NA

O Institutional Development 0 H 0 SU O M 0 N O NA

L] Environmental C) H 0 SU 0 M A N C0 NA

SocialEl Poverty Reduction O H O SU OM O N * NAa Gender OH OSUOM ON *NAZ Other (Please specify) O H OSUOM O N * NA

O Private sector development 0 H 0 SU 0 M 0 N 0 NA

O Public sector management 0 H 0 SU 0 M 0 N 0 ANAn Other (Please specif) O H O SU OM O N * NA

- 32 -

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance

(HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactoiy, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory)

6.1 Bank performance Rating

LS Lending OHS OS Ou OHU* Supervision O HS * S OU OzHUE Overall OHS eS O U (O HU

6.2 Borrowerperformance Rating

M Preparation OHS OS OU OHUI Government implementation performance C HS O s O U O HU

Z Implementation agency performance O HS O S O U O HUZ Overall OHS OS OU OHU

- 33 -

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents

Staff Appraisal Report no. 12478-GM - dated March 17, 1994

Development Credit Agreement - Credit no. 2602-GM - dated May 11, 1994

Statements of Mission Objectives, Back-to-Office reports, Aide memoires and Project Status Reports- from April 1993 to March 2000

Mid-term review meeting report from the National Environment Agency - dated March 14, 1997

National Environment Agency Auditors Reports and Financial Statements from XXXXX to XXXXX

Gambian-German Environmental Management Project (GGEMP) Internal Project ProgressMonitoring. February 1997.

Project Monitoring Mission on the Gambian-German Environmental Management Project within theNEA. Findings and Recommendations. Commissioned by GTZ. Author: Dr. Michael Priester. October1997.

National Environment Agency - Agreed Minutes for the NEA/GTZ Environmental Management Projectsupervisory mission. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations. Atlantic Hotel, Banjul 2-6 March,1998.

- 34 -