REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT THE GEF TRUST FUND

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT THE GEF TRUST FUND PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3314 GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: P092062 COUNTRY(IES): Senegal PROJECT TITLE: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources GEF AGENCY(IES): World Bank OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): Ministry of Maritime Economy GEF FOCAL AREA(S): International Waters GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SO#1, SP#1 Submission Date: 9/16/2008 Re-submission Date: Expected Calendar Milestones Dates Work Program (for FSP) N/A GEF Agency Approval 12/11/2008 Implementation Start 3/24/2009 Mid-term Review (if planned) 3/15/2011 Implementation Completion 2/28/2012 NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FOR A SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES INVESTMENT FUND IN THE LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project/Global Objective: To empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). The project would achieve this objective by (i) promoting co-management of the coastal fisheries, (ii) contributing to the rehabilitation of the essential ecosystems for the coastal fisheries, and (iii) supporting alternative livelihoods and accompanying poverty reduction measures in targeted poor fishing communities. Successful experiences would be used to draw lessons for potential replication at a later date to the coastal fisheries in the other regions of the country. Indicate GEF whether Expected Expected Outputs Financing* Co-financing* Total Project Investme Outcomes ($) % M$ % M$ Components nt, TA, or M 1. Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries STA** Investme nt, TA, STA Increase in average size of key fish species caught in targeted areas 8 Local Fishers Committees (CLPs) legally established to manage the fisheries 8 communities and CLPs establish co-management agreements with Gov. 2.65 33 5.5 67 8.15 2. Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries Investme nt, TA, STA Reduction of fishing pressure in targeted areas Restoration of key habitats for fish species in targeted areas 4 local fisheries management plans are approved by the relevant Local Artisanal Fishers Councils (CLPAs) and implemented 2 Protected Fishing Zones (ZPPs) are created and legally established (covering over 6 communities) At least 2 artificial reefs are submerged and co-managed 2.85 47 3.2 53 6.05

with the local communities Fishing access rights are introduced in at least two key fisheries 3. Alternative Livelihoods and Accompanying Social Measures 4. Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Investme nt, TA Investme nt, TA Reduced fishing effort and capacity, new jobs created in targeted communities Strengthene d national fisheries management planning, project management, M&E At least 1 fishery is eligible for eco-certification according to the criteria of the Marine Stewardship Council Feasibility study and consensus on a sustainable financing mechanism for the recurrent costs of ZPPs At least 8 communities receive grants, credit for alternative livelihoods to fishing 20% of women in participating communities are benefiting from micro-credit to develop activities outside the fisheries sector. At least 2 national fisheries management plans developed, M&E system established, project management 0 0 3.5 100 3.5 0.5 7 6.7 93 7.2 Project management *** 0.3 0.56 0.86 Total Project Costs 6.0 18.9 24.6 * List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for Cp. ** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis. *** Project management costs are embedded in Component 4, and therefore the estimated PM costs shown are inclusive and should not be added on top of the total cost. B. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT Project Preparation* a Project Grant b Total c = a + b Agency Fee (9%) For the record: Project Grant at PIF GEF 256,740 6,000,000 6,256,740 473,107 5,300,000 Co-financing 126,000 18,900,000 19,026,000 0 16,600,000 Total 382,740 24,900,000 25,282,740 473,107 21,900,000 * A PPG grant of US$ 256,740 was approved on April 18, 2007. The status of implementation and use of fund for the project preparation grant are detailed in Annex D. C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING, including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG. Name of co-financier Classification Type Amount ($) %* (source) IDA Impl. Agency Soft Loan 8,626,000 46

EU Multilat. Agency Grant 9,200,000 49 Government of Switzerland Bi-Lateral Agency Grant 500,000 3 Government of France Bi-Lateral Agency Grant 700,000 2 Total Co-financing 19,026,000 100 * Percentage of each co-financier s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing. D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES) N/A GEF Agency Focal Area Country Name/ Global Project Preparation (in $) Project Agency Fee (select) (select) Total GEF Resources * No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project. Total E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST Total Cost Items Estimated GEF Other sources Project total person weeks ($) ($) ($) Local consultants* 759 250,000 509,000 759,000 International consultants* 0 0 0 Office facilities, equipment, 25,000 26,000 51,000 vehicles and communications** Travel** 25,000 25,000 50,000 Total 759 300,000 560,000 860,000 * Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C. ** GEF-funded office facilities and equipment include office furniture, computers and equipment for two offices, and communications costs over 4 years. Travel includes five trips by two persons (US$2,000/person/trip) from the project to Nairobi to present lessons learned to Strategic Partnership, as well as costs of supervision field visits by project staff within country over period of project. F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Component Estimated Other sources Project total person weeks GEF($) ($) ($) Local consultants* 920 444,000 476,000 920,000 International consultants* 225 90,000 585,000 675,000 Total 1,145 534,000 1,061,000 1,595,000 * Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C. G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN: Please refer to GEF Project Document Main Text Section III.C and Annex 3 for detailed M&E arrangement and project indicators. The project has allocated $65,000 from GEF for M&E. PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION A. DESCRIBE THE PROJECT RATIONALE AND THE EXPECTED MEASURABLE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS:

This proposed project falls under the overall Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in the Large Marine Ecosystems of Sub-Saharan Africa, which was approved by the GEF Council in November, 2005. Senegal s coastal fisheries and environment are heavily overexploited by an artisanal fishing fleet that is responsible for approximately 85 percent of the total fish catch in the country s waters, and has outgrown Senegal s marine resources to migrate all along the West African coast. The project s development hypothesis is that in order to address the poverty-environment nexus driving these coastal fisheries and the excess artisanal fishing fleet, the local fishing communities should be empowered and where necessary organized (e.g. as legally recognized Local Fishers Committees) to collaborate with government institutions to sustainably utilize and manage the globally-significant coastal fisheries resources. The idea is that households in coastal communities will have greater incentives to sustainably use the resources and to invest in their rehabilitation, if they have the responsibility and authority to control their use. This development hypothesis is being tested in the GIRMaC project, and targeted communities have clearly validated and embraced the co-management model, by putting forward concrete proposals for management of the resources and entering into legal agreements with the Government to do so. The project will seek to consolidate and expand these examples, not only by expanding the coverage of the Government s co-management initiative, but also by testing additional tools for rehabilitation of the coastal fisheries, such as co-managed protected fishing zones, market-based approaches to encourage sustainable resource management through eco-certification of fish products, and the establishment of artificial reefs, among others. Please refer to GEF Project Document Main Text Section I, II.C, and Annex 3 for more details. The global environmental benefits of the project are reflected through the following key indicators: (1) Increase (by %) in the average size of fish caught for targeted species in co-management sites; (2) reduction (by %) in the level of fishing effort for targeted species in co-management sites; (3) 70 percent of community members surveyed in participating communities are satisfied with project activities to rehabilitate coastal fish stocks; and (4) a 20 percent increase in revenues from the sale of key fish products to commercial purchasers is achieved in targeted fishing communities. B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS: Please refer to GEF Project Document Main Text Section I.A, I.C and Annex 1. This proposed project responds directly to the Government s Letter of Sector Policy and is a high priority for the government of Senegal. The Letter of Sector Policy emphasizes sustainable co-management of the coastal fisheries resources, as well as protection of the key ecosystems that underpin the health of the sector. Therefore, the support of the key ecosystems and rehabilitation of globally important fish stocks in Senegal is interlinked with the realization of the sector s potential as a driver of accelerated growth. The proposed GEF support has thus been developed together with IDA support to the sector. C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS: The sustainable fisheries management activities that will be supported by the project align with SO#1 and will contribute directly to the implementation of Strategic Program 1 of the International Waters Focal Area: Restoring and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and Associated Biological Diversity. More specifically, the project will enable the country to work together with artisanal fishers to implement fisheries and habitat management reforms such as co-management plans and marine reserves, which will allow the country to address the overexploitation of both transboundary fisheries and fish stocks. The project would result directly in one of the four expected outcomes from this Strategic Program: institutions and reforms introduced to catalyze implementation of policies reducing overfishing and

benefiting communities. The project s results framework is therefore directly in line with the implementation of this Strategic Program and the expected outcomes and indicators D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES: Please refer to the GEF Project Document Main Text I.C and III.A. The project will support the Government of Senegal to help rehabilitate some of the most overexploited fish stocks in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME), serving as a pilot for the other countries participating in the GEF-funded CCLME Program. The project will work closely with the CCLME Program, to ensure that the lessons learned are replicated widely by the Program. The project will also be implemented in partnership with several other donors, in order to help the Government finance the action plan in the Letter of Sector Policy. More specifically, the project includes direct co-financing from the World Bank (through the IDA resources of the GIRMaC, and a trust fund with resources from the Government of Switzerland), and parallel financing from (i) the European Union (through the STABEX project), and (ii) the Government of France (through support for improved practices and technologies in the industrial shrimp fisheries, both of whom are co-financiers to the project. These different donors will all be working together to support the Directorate of Marine Fisheries (DPM) within the Ministry of Maritime Economy to implement the Letter of Sector Policy for the fisheries, as a first step towards an eventual sector wide approach (SWAp). In addition, the project will coordinate closely with the Government of the United States (USAID) funded Natural Resource Management Project Phase II, which is preparing a coastal component in the southern region of the country. E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT: Please refer to GEF Project Document Annex 15 Incremental Cost Analysis. The estimated baseline project cost for the project is US$18.9 million, with contributions from IDA, EU, and the Government of France. The GEF alternative is estimated to be US$24.9 million. Therefore the incremental cost for the project is estimated at US$6.0 million to address the protection of the ecosystems essential to the health of the transboundary coastal fisheries. Without this support to sustainably co-manage and protect the key coastal ecosystems, any efforts to rehabilitate the fisheries are unlikely to be successful. F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES: Please refer to the GEF Project Document Main Text Section III.E for risks and risk mitigation measures. G. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN: Please refer to the Economic and financial analysis (Section IV.A in the Main Text and Annex 9), and incremental cost analysis (Annex 15) in the GEF Project Document. Overall the design of the project is the most cost effective in comparison to other alternatives that were considered but rejected (Section F in the main text, GEF Project Document) PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT: Please refer to the GEF Project Document Main Text Section III.B and Annex 6. The Direction des Pêches Maritimes within the Ministry of Maritime Economy is responsible for implementing the project. PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:

The following changes have been made to the project design, and have been noted in a revised PIF submitted for non-objection in August 2008 (original PIF submitted on January 25, 2007) and cleared. 1. Project/Global objective: The project/global objective has been slightly modified to be more focused and precise, in response to requests from the Government, and to highlight empowerment of coastal communities as the means to ensure more sustainable resource management. 2. Overall Project Design: The key change to project design is that the project has been simplified and streamlined through the preparation phase, in order to reduce complexity and focus on achieving the objective. Although the number of components remains the same, the component scope and focus have been readjusted. Component 3 and 4 as described in the PIF no longer exist as components, but the key elements from the two components that were necessary to achieve the objective have been included as part of component 2. Through preparation it became clear that a focus on industrial fisheries management (component 3 at PIF) would not be necessary to achieve the project s objective, and would therefore be a distraction and should be dropped. This decision resulted from the fact that Senegal s fisheries are characterized today by the excess artisanal fishing fleet (which is more aptly characterized as small-scale commercial vessels than artisanal). Through increased motorization and gear improvements in the 1970s and 1980s, the artisanal fleet has grown to an estimated size of over 12,000 vessels, and by the year 2000 was responsible for 85 percent of the fish caught in Senegalese waters. However, as this catch has declined with overfishing, the fleet travels farther and farther along the West African coast in order to maintain catch levels north into Mauritanian waters, and potentially as far south as Ghana and the Gulf of Guinea. Government officials in Guinea-Bissau recently estimated that as many as 2,000 Senegalese artisanal vessels are fishing in their waters, generally illegally. A 2004 World Bank Economic and Sector Work on the fisheries in Senegal estimated that some 30 percent of the fish landed in Senegal by artisanal vessels was actually captured outside the country s waters. In summary, the artisanal fishing fleet defines Senegal s fisheries and the excess exploitation of the resources and habitats, and has grown into an environmental threat of regional proportions. Thus, the following output envisaged from the project in the PIF has been dropped: completing a Code of Conduct for Industrial Fisheries (this may now be supported by FAO). This output was considered as non-essential to achieving the project s objectives, and not feasible within the scope of the project. Furthermore, the establishment of a sustainable fisheries management fund has been included as an activity in component two (and in the Results Framework), rather than a stand-alone Component 4 as previously written in the PIF. At the same time, a new component has been considered necessary to address potential social risks from reductions in fishing effort, and this has been introduced as component 3 funded solely by IDA and the Government. Component 4 has been introduced to ensure necessary monitoring and evaluation, project management and institutional strengthening. 3. Specific Project components changes: Component 1: The name has been modified from Sustainable Management of Small-Scale Fisheries in the PIF to Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries in the GEF Project Document, to reflect more precisely the emphasis on co-management as the instrument of sustainable fisheries management. The outputs from component remain the same as described in the PIF, e.g. expansion of community-based co-management to new pilot sites.

Component 2: The name of the component has been modified from National MPA Network to Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries, of which MPAs are one subcomponent or instrument. One precision reflected in the GEF Project Document is the Government s decision to focus on no-take marine fish reserves to rehabilitate fish stocks, in line with international good practice, rather than multi-use marine protected areas. The output from this component would remain essentially the same, except that the Government has chosen to focus on local-scale MPAs, i.e. no-take marine fish reserves, rather than on large-scale MPAs. The objective remains the same, but the instrument has been refined. This instrument reflects the current legal framework in Senegal, and the project will through this component also assist the Government to develop consensus on legal framework for large, multi-use marine protected areas. The component now includes all essential elements from the earlier defined components 3&4 at the PIF stage. Component 3: New component introduced since PIF (Alternative Livelihoods and Accompanying Social Measures). It became clear that the project would be unlikely to achieve its objectives without offering support to fishers for alternative livelihoods and various social measures to accompany reductions in fishing pressure on the resources. For this reason, the component 3 currently in the GEF Project Document was introduced, to provide development alternatives to overexploitation of the fisheries. This component is based on good practice throughout World Bank projects on local community development, and is being financed entirely by IDA. Component 4: New component introduced since PIF (Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation). It will focus solely on the institutional capacity building necessary to sustain the investments of the project, and to manage the funds and conduct monitoring and evaluation. 4. Project indicators and targets: The results framework of the project is consistent with the presentation in the PIF, but has been refined in line with the above mentioned changes to the components. 5. Project cost and financing: The total project cost and co-financing are increased as a result of the availability of increased co-financing from the EU, from US$7.5 million to US$9.2 million. PART V: AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement. Steve Gorman GEF Executive Coordinator The World Bank Christophe Crepin, Regional GEF Coordinator Africa Region Date: September 16, 2008 Tel. and Email: (202) 473-9727 / ccrepin@worldbank.org

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK PDO Project Outcome Indicators Use of Project Outcome Information Project Development Objective/Global Objective: The combined development objective/global objective of the project is to empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). Development Objective Indicators: Increase (by %) in the average size of fish caught for targeted species in comanagement sites Reduction (by %) in the level of fishing effort for targeted species in co-management sites Co-management of coastal fisheries indicator: 8 new co-management subproject proposals are approved as legal agreements with the Government and successfully implemented by EOP Rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems indicator: 70 percent of community members surveyed in participating communities are satisfied with project activities to rehabilitate coastal fish stocks (ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) Alternative livelihoods to fishing indicator: 20 percent increase in the average first-sale price of key fish products harvested by targeted communities participating in comanagement Gov. gauge of impact of comgt. measures (including ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) on coastal fisheries resources and on fishing community livelihoods. Gauge of efficiency of comanagement model implementation, benchmark for progress. MTR and EOP measure by Gov. of perceived impact of project on coastal fish stocks and ecosystems. MTR and EOP measure by Gov. of socio-economic impact of project on beneficiaries (i.e. targeted fishing communities). Short-Term Outcomes Short-Term Outcome Indicators Use of Short-Term Outcome Monitoring Component 1: Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries A system of local coastal fisheries governance based on comanagement that is coherent, well understood and institutionally strengthened, is established. 8 new CLPs legally established in the central coastal region, within the first 18 months of implementation 4 consolidated local fisheries management plans are approved by the relevant Local Artisanal Fishers Councils (CLPAs) before MTR, and implemented by EOP Measure of legal recognition of co-management partners Measure of operationally capabilities of the Local Councils Component 2: Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems Critical habitats for key coastal fish species are protected in a participatory manner, through the establishment of ZPPs, the 2 protected fisheries zones (ZPPs) are created and legally established At least 2 artificial reefs are Measure of the output of the investment in protected fisheries zones Measure of the output of the

immersion of artificial reefs, the introduction of access rights to targeted fisheries, and efforts towards eco-labelling of smallscale fish products. Component 3: Alternative Livelihoods & Poverty Reduction Measures Alternative revenue generating activities are developed for fishers and their families areas targeted by the project, within the fisheries sector though better access to higher value markets, or outside of the sector with training and cash support (micro-finance) from the project for communities to compensate for the loss of fishing effort and income, and to invest in alternative livelihoods. Component 4: Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Efficient management, monitoring and evaluation of project and dissemination of implementation results expanded/submerged and co-managed with the local communities by EOP Access rights are defined, legally recognized and introduced in 2 of fisheries under comanagement All small-scale fishing and transport vessels originating from within the central coastal region are registered by the National Registration Program (PNI) within the first six months of project implementation At least 1 fishery is eligible for ecocertification according to the criteria of the Marine Stewardship Council by EOP Feasibility study and consensus on a sustainable financing mechanism for the recurrent costs of ZPPs Percentage of women in participating communities that are benefiting from microcredit to develop activities outside the fisheries sector Percentage of targeted fishing communities receiving micro finance, and number of families in targeted communities that are entering new commercial markets Percentage of alternative livelihoods undertaken by fishers receiving micro finance access and small-enterprise training from the project, sustained profitably at EOP Annual M&E reports with all data on results indicators and M&E plan completed Participating communities receive information on key indicators in a timely manner Annual audit opinion has been unqualified artificial reefs investment Measure of output from investment in the introduction of access rights Measure of output from investment in small-scale vessel registration Measure of success of project to introduce eco-certification pilots Measure of sustainability of project interventions Indicator of participation of women in project activities Indicator of sustainability and success of alternative livelihoods to fishing in targeted communities Indicator of potential for, and sustainability of, alternative economic livelihoods for fishers in targeted communities To ensure that technical and fiduciary management is adequate and that mitigation measures are in place for timely action.

Arrangements for results monitoring Target Values Data Collection and Reporting Project Outcome Indicators Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 Frequency and Reports Data Collection Instruments Responsibility for Data Collection Project Development Objective Indicator: Increase (by %) in the average size of fish caught for targeted species in co-management sites Determined by effectiveness Increase above baseline Increase above baseline Increase above baseline Trimester Reports Monthly statistical reports from local fisheries administration offices; M & E office within the COMO; Project Development Objective Indicator: Reduction (by %) in the level of fishing effort for targeted species in co-management sites Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries Indicator: 8 new co-management sub-project proposals are approved through legal agreements with the Gov. and successfully implemented by EOP Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems Indicator: 70 percent of community members surveyed in participating communities are satisfied with project activities to rehabilitate coastal fish stocks (ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing Indicators: 20 percent increase in the revenues from sales of key fish products harvested by targeted communities participating in co-management Intermediate Outcome Determined by effectiveness Increase above baseline Increase above baseline Increase above baseline 0 8 approved N/A 8 successfully implemented Determined by effectiveness Determined by effectiveness Trimester Reports Technical summary of activities by the COMO Signed Ministerial Decrees and comanagement agreements Technical summary of activities by the COMO N/A 70% 70% Semester Reports Report on the results of surveys N/A 10% 20% Trimester Reports Monthly statistical reports from local fisheries administration offices; Technical summary of activities by the COMO Contributions from: CLPs Facilitators Local fisheries administration officials M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: CLPs Facilitators Local fisheries administration officials M & E office within the COMO M & E office within the COMO Contributions from: FRAP team in COMO CLPs Local fisheries administration officials

Indicators Component 1: Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries 4 CLPs in initial pilot sites 8 new CLPs legally established in the central coastal region, within the first 18 months of implementation 4 consolidated local fisheries management plans are approved by the relevant Local Artisanal Fishers Councils (CLPAs) before MTR, and implemented by EOP Component 2: Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems 2 protected fisheries zones (ZPPs) are created and legally established At least 2 artificial reefs are expanded/submerged and comanaged with the local communities by EOP Access rights are defined, legally recognized and introduced in 2 of fisheries under co-management All small-scale fishing and transport vessels originating from within the central coastal region are registered by the National Registration Program (PNI) within the first six months of project implementation At least one fishery is eligible for eco-certification according to the criteria of the Marine Stewardship 4 CLPs in initial pilot sites 8 new CLPs, in addition to 4 in initial pilot sitest 0 0 4 plans approved by CLPAs 2 ZPPs identified but not established 2 artificial reefs identified 0 fisheries have access rights 2 ZPPs identified but not established 2 artificial reefs expanded 2 fisheries selected for introduction of access rights 2 ZPPs legally established 2 artificial reefs under co-mgt. Access rights defined for 2 fisheries 8 new CLPs, in addition to 4 in initial pilot sitest 4 plans implemented 2 ZPPs legally established & actively managed 2 artificial reefs under co-mgt. Access rights allocated to fishers in 2 fisheries Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Decrees establishing new CLPs Minutes of CLPA meetings approving the plans Decrees creating ZPPs Technical summary of activities by the COMO Decrees establishing access rights <5% 100% 100% 100% Trimester Reports Registration database within the PNI 0 fisheries are currently eligible Preevaluation report completed Action Plan from report implemented Full evaluation conducted, eligibility Trimester Reports Technical summary of activities by the COMO M&E office within the COMO Contributions from: Management Division of DPM Artisanal Fisheries Division of DPM Contributions from: CLPAs M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting component 2 M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting component 2 Management Division of DPM PNI Office within DPM M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from:

Council by EOP Feasibility study and consensus on a sustainable financing mechanism for the recurrent costs of ZPPs 1. No study conducted N/A Study completed 2. Consensus on mechanism 3. Trimester Reports Component 3: Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing Percentage of women in 0 0 10 20 Trimester Reports participating communities that are benefiting from micro-credit to develop activities outside the fisheries sector. Percentage of targeted fishing Determined Determined Determined Determined by Trimester Reports communities receiving micro finance, and number of families in targeted communities that are entering new commercial markets. by effectiveness by effectiveness by effectiveness effectiveness Percentage of sustained reconversion achieved amongst fishers receiving micro finance access and small-enterprise training 0 0 25 50 Trimester Reports 4. Technical summary of activities by the COMO Facilitator Reports from each Site Activity Reports by Technical Support Institution to FRAP Account data from Micro-Finance Institution Component 4: Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Annual M&E reports with all data on results indicators and M&E plan completed N/A Report received Report received Report received Annual, starting Yr 1 Participating communities receive information on key indicators in a timely manner N/A 100% 100% 100% Annual, starting Yr 1 Technical summary of activities by the COMO Supervision Reports Org./Firm supporting component 2 M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting component 2 M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Micro-Finance Institution Technical Support Institution to FRAP M & E office within the COMO CLPs Facilitators Annual audit opinion has been N/A Audit Audit Audit unqualified Annual, starting Yr Supervision DPM unqualified unqualified unqualified 1 Reports * Many of the indicators are output-based and thus start from a baseline of zero, for others, baseline data will be collected as a condition of effectiveness.

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF) A. Response to Comments from GEF secretariat ( Review sheet of April 19, 2007) Comment 1: A complete Logical Framework Analysis and a description of possible interactions with other donor financed interventions expected at CEO endorsement Response: The Government has included this analysis in the Action Plan of the Letter of Sector Policy, included in Annex 16 of the GEF Project Document, which provides a matrix of objectives, key actions, indicators of success, estimated costs, and the different donors financing each. Additionally, see Annex 2 of the GEF Project Document. Comment 2: An analysis of financial and institutional sustainability including an updated description of GoS activities and approved plans expected at CEO endorsement. Response: A sustainability plan is included in Annex 4 of the GEF Project Document. Additionally, the Annex 16 of the GEF Project Document includes the Government of Senegal s Letter of Sector Policy, with a 3-year action plan of key sector activities planned by the Government, within which this project would fit. Comment 3: A plan for replication to the other countries of the Strategic Partnership is expected at CEO endorsement Response: A replication plan is included in Annex 4 of the GEF Project Document. Comment 4: A stakeholder participation plan is expected at CEO endorsement. Response: A stakeholder participation plan elaborating the roles, capabilities and interests of all stakeholders is included in Annex 16 of the GEF Project Document. Comment 5: M&E plan expected at CEO endorsement. Response: A M&E plan is included in Annex 3 of the GEF Project Document. Comment 6: Detailed financing plan with specification of costs, especially those financed by GEF funds or related to project management, expected at CEO endorsement. Response: Details on the financing have been provided in the Incremental costs analysis, Annex 4 component descriptions and Annex 5 of the GEF Project Document. See Table E in this Memo for details on project management costs. Comment 7:A detailed description of the project organisation is expected at CEO endorsement, addressing the competence of the involved ministries, and specifically describing the institutional arrangement for the MPA component. Response: The institutional arrangements for project management and implementation are described in Annex 6 of the GEF Project Document. CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc 13

B. Response to Comments from the STAP reviewer N/A C. GEF Council comments (not applicable under streamlined procedures of the Strategic Partnership for Fisheries in Africa) 14 CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT Position Titles $/ person week Estimated person weeks Total Amount (US$) Tasks to be performed For Project Management Local Total 759 $759,000 Project Coordinator $1500 190.5 285,750 Project supervision and management Asst. Coordinator $500 138.5 69,250 Support Coordinator M&E Specialist $1000 158 158,000 Project M&E FM Specialist $1000 158 158,000 Project financial management Proc. Specialist $1000 114 114,000 Project procurement Coordination of artificial reefs program Technical assistance to alternative fishing technologies Coordination of ecocertification activities Facilitation for alternative livelihoods to fishing support Technical assistance to support alternative livelihoods M&E support to communities For Technical Assistance Local Total 920 $920,000 Co-Management Facilitators $1000 352 352,000 Support communities to prepare and implement comanagement plans $1000 88 88,000 Coordinate implementation of artificial reefs activities $1000 88 88,000 Support to alternative fish catching technology activities $1000 88 88,000 Coordinate implementation of ecocertification activities $1000 84 84,000 Identification of fishers, communities for support for alternative livelihoods $1000 176 176,000 Provide support to communities and fishers to launch alternative livelihoods $1000 44 44,000 Support community-based monitoring International Total 225 $675,000 Technical oversight of co-management Support to identify and assist establishment of marine reserves $3000 88 200,000 Technical support to oversee co-management initiatives $3000 137 650,000 Technical support to help identify, establish and monitor marine reserves CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc 15

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN. Yes, the PPG objectives have been met. PPG completion report will be enclosed with the finalized CEO package after negotiations are complete. B. DESCRIBE IF ANY FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. No C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW: The entire amount is expected to be disbursed prior to effectiveness. But the current disbursed amount will be available at appraisal. Project Preparation Activities Approved Implementat ion Status Amount Approved GEF Amount ($) Amount Spent Todate Amount Uncommitte Cofinancing Committed d Amount* ($) 0 0 20,000 Study on replication of co-management pilots Dropped $29,020 Preparation of reports, Completed $66,900 8,663 55,295 0 0 studies to design marine reserves, artificial reefs sub-components Preparation of ecocertification Completed $17,400 7,068 28,273 0 0 pilots Preparation of alternative Completed $22,920 12,830 0 0 fishing technologies subcomponent Feasibility study for Completed $9,400 4,219 16,884 0 0 establishment of a sustainable fisheries management fund Study to develop a Code Dropped $26,900 0 0 0 15,000 of Conduct for Fisheries, support to participation in CCLME Feasibility study for Completed $18,700 17,266 4,317 0 0 phasing out fishing fuel subsidies Feasibility study for Completed $20,500 13,189 5,000 6,000 establishment of a donor coordination unit (institutional audit, gov. scorecard/sector strategy) Environmental Underway 0 21,871 5,468 4,746 0 0 CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc 16

Assessment and Process Framework Study to establish Dropped $12,000 0 0 0 2,000 information system, M&E Preparation Coordinator Underway $33,000 41,651 0 10,000 83,000 to draft Project Document, Operational Manual, Preparation Management Total $256,740 $113,568 $123,426 $19,746 126,000 Uncommitted amount as of July 29, 2008. These funds will be committed prior to negotiations. CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc 17

Document of The World Bank Report No: PROJECT DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 6 MILLION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SENEGAL FOR A SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FISH RESOURCES PROJECT August 4, 2008

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective {Date}) Currency Unit = F CFA 410 F CFA = US$1 US$ = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 December 31 AFD CAS CBD CDD COMO COREMAP CPUE CCLME CLP CLPA CNCPM DDI DPM EA EOP ESW FRAP GDP GEF GIRMaC IDA JICA LPS M&E MCS MEM MFI MSC MSP MTR NGO PNI SWAp UNCLOS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Agence Francaise de Développement French Agency for Development Country Assistance Strategy Convention on Biological Diversity Community-Driven Development Cellule de Mise en Oeuvre Project Implementation Unit Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project Catch-per-unit effort Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project Comité Locale de Pêcheurs Local Fishers Committee Conseil Locale de Pêche Artisanale Local Councils of Artisanal Fishers Conseil National Consultatif de Pêcheurs Maritime National Consultative Council for Marine Fishers Direction de la Dette et de l Investissement Direction for Debt and Investment Direction des Pêches Maritimes Direction for Marine Fisheries Environmental Assessment End of Project Economic and Sector Work Fond de Reconversion des Artisans de Pêcheurs Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing and Poverty Reduction Fund Gross Domestic Product Global Environment Facility Gestion Integrée de Ressources Marine et Côtière Integrated Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project International Development Association Japan International Cooperation Agency Letter of Sector Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Ministry of Maritime Economy, Maritime Transport, Fisheries and Community Protected Areas Micro Finance Institution Marine Stewardship Council Medium Size Project Mid-Term Review Non-Governmental Organization Programme National d Immatriculation National Registration Program Sector-wide approach United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

WAEMU WBI WSSD ZPP West African Economic and Monetary Union World Bank Institute World Summit on Sustainable Development Zone de Pêche Protégée Protected Fishing Zone Vice President: {Obiageli K. Ezekwesili} Country Director: {Madani M. Tall} Sector Manager: {Marjory-Anne Bromhead} Task Team Leader: John Virdin

SENEGAL Sustainable Management of Fish Resources CONTENTS Page I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE... 1 A. Country and sector issues...1 B. Rationale for Bank involvement... 4 C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes... 6 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 7 A. Lending instrument: Specific investment loan (as co-financing to the GEF Grant)... 7 B. Project Development Objective and Key Indicators... 7 C. Project Components... 8 D. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design... 9 E. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection... 10 III. IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS... 10 A. Partnership arrangements... 10 B. Institutional and implementation arrangements... 11 C. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results... 11 D. Sustainability and Replicability... 12 E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects... 13 F. Loan/credit conditions and covenants... 14 IV. APPRAISAL SUMMARY... 14 A. Economic and financial analyses... 14 B. Technical... 15 C. Fiduciary... 16 D. Social... 16 E. Environment... 17 F. Safeguards... 17 G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness... 18 Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background... 19

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies... 1 Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring... 2 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description... 8 Annex 5: Project Costs... 25 Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements... 26 Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements... 29 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements... 36 Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis... 36 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues... 41 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision... 42 Annex 12: Documents in the Project File... 43 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits... 44 Annex 14: Country at a Glance... 45 Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis... 46 Annex 16: Senegal Fisheries Sector Letter of Policy... 50 Annex 17: Maps... 88

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE A. Country and sector issues Country Context. Senegal is located on the West Coast of Africa and is part of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). With a population estimated at about 10 million, its economy is dominated by a few strategic sectors, including groundnuts, fisheries, and services. The role of the agricultural sector has declined over time, from almost 15 percent of GDP in 1960 to 7 percent in 2004. The informal sector accounts for about 60 percent of GDP. Its rural economy frequently suffers from drought, and lacks access to basic services and infrastructure, leading to low productivity, high emigration and higher poverty rates in rural areas. As a result, it is estimated that almost half of the population lives in cities. This ratio is projected to increase up to 60 percent by 2015. Sector Importance. Due to exceptional natural conditions, Senegal and its neighbours are endowed with some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. As a result, the marine fish resources off the coast of Senegal play a role in the culture, lives and economy of the population as large as any of the other natural resources in the country. Senegalese fishers have been involved in marine fisheries for centuries and coastal communities throughout the country have developed a culture of fishing. Fishing and associated activities such as processing, marketing, services and other part-time activities together are estimated to provide more than 600,000 jobs in Senegal (accounting for 17 percent of the labour force, and 10 percent of the rural population). In addition to livelihoods, the fisheries in Senegal make an extremely significant contribution to food security, constituting some 70 percent of animal protein consumption in the country, as estimated annual per capita fish consumption is 26 kilograms (well above the world average of 16 kilograms). At the level of the country s economy, between 1997 and 2002 the fisheries sector accounted for about 2.3 percent of the country s GDP and 12.5 percent of the primary sector s GDP (i.e. approximately FCFA 300 billion or US$ 714 million in gross production value generating an added value of about FCFA 200 billion or US$476 million). Fish products also account for some 32 percent of the country s exports by volume, and roughly 37 percent of the total export value. In summary, marine fisheries play a critical role in the economy in Senegal, in terms of contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), foreign exchange, food security and livelihoods. Key Sector Issues and Institutional Constraints. Despite the economic importance of Senegal s fishery resources and the marine ecosystems that support them, the sector has been facing major difficulties in recent years due to overfishing of the most valuable commercial resources and uncontrolled expansion of the number of fishers, boats and gear, as well as land-based fish processing and preservation facilities. The sector has essentially faced the boom and bust cycle common to many uncontrolled fisheries around the world, where rapid development and investment led to strong growth in catches and returns, as well as the number of fishers and fishing capacity. Then as the fisheries continued to grow in an uncontrolled environment beyond what the fish stocks and resource base could sustain, they started to contract, bringing down catch and growth rates. In Senegal fisheries production rose steadily until 1985, when catches began to level off and landings began to decline. Since then, small-scale fishing effort has continued to increase, although the number of industrial vessels has remained stable. Essentially, these small-scale vessels have continued to proliferate even as fish stocks and catches have declined, due in part to rising world prices and demand for food fish which helped offset declining catch rates, and by vessels going farther and farther up and down the coast of West Africa in search of fish, or constantly replacing overfished higher value species for lower value ones (i.e. fishing down the food chain ). 1

The result of this uncontrolled growth in the small-scale fisheries is that many of the highest value coastal demersal stocks have been severely depleted and are now in rapid decline throughout the country, according to a World Bank sectoral study (ESW) in 2004. Senegal s marine fish resources can essentially (albiet somewhat artificially) be divided into (i) the coastal fisheries (often targeting sedentary coastal demersal species) utilized directly by the coastal fishing communities, as well as migrating small-scale fishers and industrial vessels, and (ii) the more offshore (and often migratory) fisheries that extend from the coastal areas out to the 200-mile limit of Senegal s waters. Because the coastal demersal species usually account for more than 25 percent (in volume terms) of the country s total catch, and more than 50 percent of the total value of fishery exports, that fact that these fisheries are struggling is of significant concern. As Senegal s coastal demersal fish stocks become increasingly overfished and as the degradation of the marine ecosystems on which they depend becomes more severe, the small-scale fishery that relies on them will probably continue to migrate to neighbouring waters, with the West African countries incurring higher costs and making less profit. For all these reasons, the 2004 World Bank study concluded that Senegal s coastal demersal fish stocks and the small-scale fisheries that depend on them are facing a crisis. Already, some estimates show that more than 30 percent of the coastal demersal species landed in Senegal by small-scale fishers are caught outside of the country s waters. Furthermore, as many as 2,000 Senegalese pirogues are now estimated to be fishing in the waters of neighbouring Guinea-Bissau at any given moment. Senegal s small-scale fishers are among the most dynamic in West Africa and this fishery has now become an important cross-border activity, with environmental and economic implications for neighbouring countries such as The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania and Guinea, as well as social concerns and increasing conflicts between local and Senegalese fishers as well as fisheries authorities. The impacts of the overexploitation of Senegal s coastal fisheries on rural poverty, as well as food security and macro-economic growth are significant. The resource base for the fisheries which account for roughly a quarter of the volume of fish caught in the country by the some 52,000 people directly employed by the small-scale fisheries (and likely benefits a large portion of the some 600,000 people indirectly employed in the sector) and 50 percent of the value of fish exports, is heavily overfished and facing a collapse. As this resource declines, the costs for the thousands of small-scale and often rural fishers to continue to participate in the sector will only increase, and the costs of relocating or shifting into new careers will certainly have profound social impacts along the coast, as will the reduction in one of the country s largest exports. These social impacts can already be seen in the numbers of Senegalese fishers participating in the growing immigration of West African citizens to Spain and Europe by sea. To help address these threats to Senegal s coastal fish stocks and fisheries, this project has been designed to complement the ongoing Integrated Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project (GIRMaC) and the initiatives of other donors such as the European Union. The rationale behind developing this project (entitled Sustainable Management of Fish Resources in Senegal ) in complementarity with the GIRMaC is the opportunity to: (i) enable the Government of Senegal to implement the significant policy shifts in the management of the coastal fisheries that have been initiated with the support of the GIRMaC, by working with other donors to assist the Government to implement the recently completed Fisheries Sector Policy Letter, and (ii) to expand the scope of the pilot projects in the co-management of coastal fisheries initiated under the GIRMaC. Furthermore, this project would allow the World Bank to support the Government to help promote alternative livelihoods to fishing in targeted communities in order to reduce pressures on the resources and address some of the key social issues involved in the sector, in the form of a fishers reconversion fund. This fund was originally designed as part of the GIRMaC but insufficient IDA funds were available at the time, so the World Bank committed to fund these activities (in order to allow the Government to meet safeguard requirements of the GIRMaC) as a component of a parallel community-driven development project. The latter project did not go forward as envisaged, resulting in a delay of this support to date. 2

Government Response to Key Sector Issues and Constraints. The Government of Senegal has recognized the social and economic importance of the marine fisheries sector in the country by giving it a central place in the country s macroeconomic policies and strategies. The first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2003 2005) named the sector as one of the key drivers of the creation of wealth pillar of the strategy, assigning it a central role in the fight against poverty. This role was further elaborated in the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2006 2010). More specifically, the country s Accelerated Growth Strategy promoted by the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper named fisheries as one of the five sectors of the national economy with high economic potential, which was to function as one of the drivers of accelerated economic growth. In terms of the key sector issues and constraints, the Government of Senegal has elaborated them as the analytical basis for the Letter of Sector Policy signed in 2008. This Letter of policy places an emphasis on sustainable management of the fish resources, and achieving an optimal contribution of the sector to economic growth and poverty reduction. To respond to the challenges facing the fisheries sector as well as to help it achieve the economic potential noted in the Accelerated Growth Strategy and second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, the Government has articulated essentially a two-pronged approach in the Letter of Policy: (i) implementing systems of collaborative or co-management for the coastal fisheries, to devolve more of the responsibility for managing these overfished resources to the users, to support them to implement needed reforms, and (ii) more broadly at the national level and including the offshore fisheries, to introduce a system of fishing access rights to fishers, as a tool to offset the reduction of fishing capacity and the recovery of the stocks. Addressing the challenges of the coastal fisheries through the implementation of co-management systems represents a new way of doing business for the Government in the sector, and requires institutional transformation for the Ministry of Maritime Economy, Maritime Transport, Fisheries and Community Protected Areas (MEM) to become a more demand-based agency that can support the fishers and fishing communities. The Government began testing this approach in 2005 with the implementation of several pilot initiatives in the fisheries component of the World Bank and GEF-financed Integrated Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project (GIRMaC). The positive experiences of the co-management pilot initiatives in this component of the GIRMaC, where each of the communities in pilot sites organized to form Local Fishers Committees and reached consensus on local fisheries management initiatives subsequently signed into legal agreement with the Minister of MEM, have encouraged the Ministry and the Government to move to formally adopt a co-management strategy for the coastal fisheries as outlined in the Letter of Sector Policy. Overall, it is important to note that beyond these fisheries co-management initiatives, the GIRMaC project suffered from an implementation strategy that tried unsuccessfully to achieve relatively distinct environment and fisheries objectives and activities at the same time through the same institutions (e.g. parks and ecosystem management together with fisheries management). This strategy resulted in heavy project implementation structures (e.g. a project coordination unit) that served as an obstacle to the ability of MEM to respond effectively to communities demands in the pilot sites in the fisheries component. For this reason, the Mid-Term Review of the GIRMaC in January 2008 recommended a restructuring of the project to adjust this strategy and concentrate the fisheries component largely on implementation of the co-management pilots, placing all of the responsibility for this component in the hands of MEM rather than a project coordination unit. Thus, the problems to date with implementation of the GIRMaC have been related more to the institutional structure created to implement the project, rather than the development hypothesis or technical design of the fisheries component of the project, which have been shown to be sound. This project therefore allows the Government, and more specifically MEM, to consolidate the gains and lessons learned to date from fisheries co-management initiatives of the GIRMaC, and expand these interventions to cover a much larger share of the coastal fisheries. Thus, the project would allow the 3

Government to implement one of the key elements of the Letter of Sector Policy and address the coastal fisheries that currently constitute the greatest concern to the sustainability of the fisheries resources and the thousands of livelihoods in the country that are dependent upon them. In terms of the open water fisheries at the more national scale and the introduction of fishing access rights, the Government is working together with 8 other neighboring countries to prepare a regional initiative that would be co-financed by the World Bank and GEF, the West Africa Regional Project for Fisheries, that would support the introduction of rights at a large scale, in complement to the comanagement initiatives supported in the coastal fisheries through the GIRMaC and this project. Furthermore, the Government is participating in the GEF-funded Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project (CCLME), which aims to address priority transboundary concerns on declining fisheries, associated biodiversity and water quality through governance, investment and management programs. The Government agency responsible for coordinating the country s participation in the CCLME is MEM, and this project would be managed from the same office as the CCLME, in order to ensure synergies are captured. The Government considers this project as a pilot for the CCLME, with lessons that could be replicated throughout the wider region. In summary, while there are numerous challenges facing both Senegal s coastal and offshore fisheries, this project will only focus on rehabilitating the coastal resources, where there are already proven models from the GIRMaC that are priorities in the Government s policy, and where the likely biggest impacts on coastal and rural poverty can be made. Country Eligibility for GEF Co-Financing. The Republic of Senegal ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in October 1984 and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in June 1994. Furthermore, the country is eligible to receive financing from the International Development Association (IDA). The GEF co-financing will assist the Government of Senegal to address some of the key issues targeted by the International Waters focal area of the GEF, such as unsustainable exploitation of fisheries and protection of fisheries habitats. Furthermore, the GEF cofinancing will support the Government to respond to the direction set by the first, second and third Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the Biodiversity Convention, which stresses the importance of in situ conservation of marine and coastal ecosystems. It responds specifically to the Jakarta Mandate approved by COP2, in that it supports the sustainable use and conservation of vulnerable habitats and species. Senegal ratified the Biodiversity Convention in June 1994. In addition, the proposed GEF co-financing will assist the Government of Senegal to meet the targets set by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002, both for (i) sustainable fisheries to be achieved by 2015, and (ii) a network of representative marine protected areas to be implemented by 2012. B. Rationale for Bank involvement Rationale for Bank Involvement in the Sector. As described in Section A above, Senegal s coastal fisheries clearly represent the nexus between poverty and environment, as the fish stocks and the ecosystems that support them are overexploited and degraded, and the large number of rural coastal fishing communities and livelihoods dependent upon them are increasingly squeezed. This nexus is one pillar of the World Bank s agriculture and rural development strategy, Reaching the Rural Poor (2002). This strategy, together with the World Bank s Fisheries Approach Paper, Saving Fish and Fishers (2004), provided a clear rationale for the Bank s initial support to reforms in the management of the coastal fisheries in Senegal piloted through the GIRMaC, and now for the consolidation and extension of these reforms through the project. Encouraged by the experiences to date with the GIRMaC (despite slower than expected implementation rates), the Government has made co-management of the coastal fisheries one of the major objectives of the new Letter of Sector Policy (LPS). Together with the GIRMaC, this 4

project will allow the Government to implement the LPS s objectives for co-management of coastal fisheries throughout the entire central coastal region, from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta. Thus, the project will support the Government of Senegal to implement and expand the comanagement reforms piloted in the GIRMaC to help rehabilitate the coastal fish resources in this central coastal region, thereby providing a consolidated model for the implementation of the Government s Letter of Sector Policy that could be replicated to the northern coastal region and the Casamance in the south. As such, the project will also serve as a pilot that can be replicated more widely through the region by the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project. Development Hypothesis for Bank Involvement in the Sector. The project s development hypothesis, also reflected in the Government of Senegal s LPS (see section A.1: Country and Sector Issues), is that in order to address the poverty-environment nexus in the coastal fisheries, communities should be empowered and where necessary organized (e.g. as legally recognized Local Fishers Committees) to collaborate with government institutions to sustainably utilize and manage the coastal fisheries resources. The idea is that households in coastal communities will have greater incentives to sustainably use the resources and to invest in their rehabilitation, if they have the responsibility and authority to control their use. This development hypothesis is being tested in the GIRMaC project, and although institutional problems have resulted in slower than expected disbursements and implementation (i.e. tensions between the Government agencies and a project coordination unit of consultants), targeted communities have clearly validated and embraced the co-management model, by putting forward concrete proposals for management of the resources and entering into legal agreements with the Government to do so. Similarly, the Government of Japan (JICA) has supported co-management of coastal fisheries in the community of Nianing in the central coastal region, with strong buy-in from local fishers and positive experiences to date. The project would thus seek to consolidate and expand these examples, not only by expanding the coverage of the Government s co-management initiative, but also by testing additional tools for rehabilitation of the coastal fisheries, such as co-managed protected fishing zones (zones de pêche protégées ZPPs), market-based approaches to encourage sustainable resource management through ecocertification of fish products, and the establishment of artificial reefs, among others. Both the GIRMaC and this project will utilize an Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing and Poverty Reduction Fund (Fond de Reconversion des Pêcheurs FRAP) being established by the Government, to provide block grants and micro-credit to targeted communities to support interested fishers to undertake alternative livelihoods to fishing, and thereby further reduce some of the pressure on the resources. In summary, this project will learn from the lessons of the GIRMaC, to further refine the development hypothesis of co-management of the coastal fisheries, in order to help achieve the Government s objective of increased contribution from the fisheries to economic growth, and to help reverse the significant environmental degradation and overfishing occurring in these areas. Comparative Advantage of the Bank in the Sector. The Bank s comparative advantage in supporting coastal fishing communities and fisheries in Senegal lies in: (i) quality economic and sector work (2004 Senegal Fisheries ESW), (ii) ongoing policy dialogue with our donor partners to facilitate the implementation of the needed reforms in the management of coastal fisheries; (iii) coordination to enable collaboration between multiple donors to parallel and co-finance complementary activities, as co-chair of the fisheries sector donor s group in Senegal; (iv) the convening power to bring together stakeholders from local and national levels to reach consensus for resolving competing demands on the coastal fish resources; and (v) a track record of investment and lessons learned through the GIRMaC, which though certainly not perfect, provides a sound body of experience upon which to support further implementation of reforms. 5

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes Contribution to the Government of Senegal s Sector and Poverty Objective. This project directly contributes to the Government of Senegal s Accelerated Growth Strategy, which calls for the fisheries sector to be one of the key drivers of economic growth, through the sustainable use and additional value added from the resources, rather than increased production quantities (which are no longer possible at current levels of fishing effort). To help realize the objectives of the Accelerated Growth Strategy, the Government developed a Letter of Sector Policy (LPS), in 2007, together with an Action Plan for its implementation in 2008 2010. The Government has requested support from the donor community for the implementation of the Action Plan to the LPS, and together with the GIRMaC, this project responds to that request by supporting one of the key objectives and axes of the Action Plan, to help rehabilitate the coastal fisheries through the introduction of co-management systems, including tools such as artificial reefs and market-based incentives such as eco-certification of fish products. Contribution to the Objectives of the CAS. The project directly responds to challenges specified in the draft Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for FY07 to FY10, and is included as one of the Bank s outputs in this draft CAS. More specifically, one of the three main pillars of the draft CAS, the pillar for Accelerated Growth/Wealth Creation/Strengthening the Drivers of Growth, includes an outcome of promoting sustainable development and management of natural resources, beginning with the fisheries resources. This outcome in the CAS highlights the fact that the fisheries sector employs 10 percent of the rural population and generates 30 percent of the country s exports (page 24). As such, the CAS notes that the Bank will provide continued support to the sector through the GIRMaC, and that with financing under the GEF sustainable fisheries management project, the Bank will strengthen the regulation of access to fish resources. Contribution to Relevant GEF Operational Program Goals. The sustainable fisheries management activities that will be supported by the project will contribute directly to the implementation of Strategic Objective 1 of the International Waters Focal Area: to foster international, multi-state cooperation on priority water concerns, and more specifically to Strategic Program 1: Restoring and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and Associated Biological Diversity. More specifically, the project will enable the country to work together with artisanal fishers to implement fisheries and habitat management reforms such as co-management plans and protected fishing zones (i.e. marine reserves), which will allow the country to address the overexploitation of both transboundary fisheries and fish stocks. The project would result directly in one of the four expected outcomes from this Strategic Program: institutions and reforms introduced to catalyze implementation of policies reducing overfishing and benefiting communities. The project s results framework is therefore directly in line with the implementation of this Strategic Program and the expected outcomes and indicators. Additionally, GEF co-financing will be used by the Government of Senegal to help rehabilitate some of the most overexploited fish stocks in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME), serving as a pilot for the other countries participating in the CCLME Program. Furthermore, project-funded activities will reduce the need for targeted fishing communities to migrate throughout the CCLME for fishing opportunities, thereby reducing pressures on the wider fish resources in the LME waterbody. For example, the GEF s support would contribute significantly to the strengthening of Senegal s network of protected fishing zones (ZPPs). The participation in the co-management of these ZPPs by the local communities living within them or on their outskirts would help to make the network more stable, and would contribute directly to the objective and key results indicator of the Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in Africa for the sustainable use of fisheries resources to be achieved in at least 10 countries in the LMEs of Sub- Saharan Africa by 2015, as well as the results indicator for the average increase in catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) of small-scale fishers in targeted fisheries. A draft of the concept for this project was included as an annex in the original Partnership Brief for the Strategic Partnership that was approved by the GEF Council, to serve as a model for the type of investments that would be made under the Partnership. 6

Compliance with the Eligibility Criteria of the Strategic Partnership for Fisheries in Africa. The project is in line with the Strategic Partnership s eligibility criteria: (i) The Sectoral Strategy and Stakeholder Participation Template will include a long-term approach to ensure the sustainability of the fishery sector, poverty alleviation measures and activities designed to achieve those aims, such as those described in the World Bank s Sectoral Economic Study and the Government s Letter of Sector Policy. (ii) The proposed project does not overlap with on-going activities. (iii) The proposed project will cover the additional cost of activities providing environmental benefits extending beyond Senegal s borders. Without these additional resources, the proposed project activities would probably not obtain the necessary funding given the numerous competing demands in a country whose budget resources are extremely limited. (iv) The funding of the proposed project meets the co-financing ratio of three donor dollars to one GEF dollar. The proposed sum of US$6.0 million from the Strategic Partnership Investment Fund would complement the new US$3.5 million in IDA funding and the IDA funding of US$5.0 million for GIRMaC s component Sustainable Fisheries Management, the EU funding of US$9.2 million, the US$0.4 million of funding from the Government of France and Swiss funding of US$0.5 million. (v) The proposed project is consistent with the Strategic Partnership s 10 operating principles. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Lending instrument: Specific investment loan (as co-financing to the GEF Grant). B. Project Development Objective and Key Indicators The combined development objective/global objective of the project is to empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). The project would achieve this objective by (i) promoting comanagement of the coastal fisheries, (ii) contributing to the rehabilitation of the essential ecosystems for the coastal fisheries, and (iii) supporting alternative livelihoods and accompanying poverty reduction measures in targeted poor fishing communities. Successful experiences would be used to draw lessons for potential replication at a later date to the coastal fisheries in the other regions of the country. The rationale behind this objective is that the coastal fish stocks that provide so many livelihoods, exports and foreign exchange for the country, can be restored if the Government empowers small-scale fishers to sustainably co-manage these resources, while at the same time conserving the key habitats that support them. The central region of the coast, from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River delta, is being selected as a pilot area that could serve as a model for replication to the other two coastal regions of the country (St. Louis and the Casamance) after the end of the project. These fisheries are globally significant and vital for the livelihoods of numerous coastal communities. Resources and cross-border fishers will be included in the project, as declining stocks in these waters have led Senegalese fishers to fish the entire length of the West African coast. In order to meet the development and global environment objective, the project activities focus on achieving several key outcomes, including: (a) local co-management of the fisheries is strengthened and understood; (b) critical habitats supporting key fish species are protected in a participatory manner; and (c) alternative livelihoods and accompanying poverty reduction measures are supported in the areas targeted by the project. 7

The key indicators for measuring the success of project activities toward achieving the development objective and these outcomes are (see Technical Annex 3: Results Monitoring Framework): Increase (by %) in the average size of fish caught for targeted species in co-management sites Reduction (by %) in the level of fishing effort for targeted species in co-management sites 8 new co-management sub-project proposals are approved as legal agreements with the Government and successfully implemented by EOP 70 percent of community members surveyed in participating communities are satisfied with project activities to rehabilitate coastal fish stocks (ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) 20 percent increase in the average first-sale price of key fish products harvested by targeted communities participating in co-management C. Project Components The project will support the following components and sub-components (with total costs in millions of U.S. Dollars in parenthesis). GEF is lending support to components 1, 2 and 4. Objectives and detailed descriptions of each sub-component identified below are found in Technical Annex 4: Detailed Description. (A) Co-management of Coastal Fisheries (US$2.9 M IDA, US$2.65 M GEF, US$2.6 M EU). The objective of this component is to implement co-management systems to improve the governance of the coastal fisheries for a more sustainable use of the resources. This component will support the following sub-components: (1) Promotion of Local Co-Management Initiatives in 4 Pilot Sites ($2.9 m IDA); (2) Consolidation and Strengthening of Coastal Fisheries Comanagement ($2.45 m GEF); and (3) Institutional Support for a System of Local Fisheries Governance ($0.2 m GEF, $2.6 m EU). (B) Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries (US$2.85 M GEF, US$0.5 M IDA, US$1.5 m EU, US$0.5 M France, US$0.5 M Switzerland, US$0.2 M Government). The objective of this component is to contribute to the rehabilitation of ecosystems essential to the coastal fisheries, by establishing Protected Fishing Zones (ZPPs) in association with artificial reefs, in order to help regenerate the natural resources, by improving practices and technologies in the coastal industrial shrimp fisheries, and by creating market mechanisms to encourage sustainable management of the ecosystems. This component will support the following sub-components: (1) Protected Fishing Zones ($1.1 m GEF); (2) Artificial Reefs ($0.5 m GEF, $0.2 m Government); (3) Introduction of Access Rights and Associated Management Instruments ($0.05 m GEF, US$0.5 m IDA, US$1.5 m EU, US$0.5 m Switzerland); (4) Market Incentives for Sustainable Management for Targeted Fisheries ($0.5 m GEF); and (5) Improved Practices and Technologies in the Coastal Industrial Shrimp Fisheries to Protect the Ecosystems ($0.7 m GEF, $0.5 m France). (C) Poverty Alleviation Measures for Fishing Communities and Alternative Livelihoods for Fishers and Fish Processors (US$3.5 M IDA). The objective of this component is to offset any negative socioeconomic impacts for targeted fishing communities resulting from co-management initiatives or management plans (including the introduction of instruments such as ZPPs, artificial reefs, eco-labels, etc.). 8

This component will support the following sub-components: (1) Poverty Alleviation Initiatives in Project- Targeted Communities ($2.1 m IDA); (2) Support for Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing ($1.0 m IDA); and (3) Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Communications ($0.4 m IDA). (D) Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$1.6 M IDA, US$0.5 M GEF, US$5.1 M EU). The objective of this component is to support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to manage and implement the project in the context of the Letter of Sector Policy, and to monitor and evaluate results. This component will support the following sub-components: (1) Development of a Fisheries Code and Support for the Implementation of Fisheries Management Plans ($0.9 m IDA, $4.4 m EU); (2) Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation ($0.7 m IDA, $0.7 m EU, $0.45 m GEF); and (3) Replication of Project Activities at the Sub-Regional and Regional Level ($0.05 m GEF). D. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design This project directly reflects the lessons learned from global good practices as well as Bank-financed operations in Senegal such as the GIRMaC project, and the Bank s ongoing analytic work on the sector and in the country. The design also reflects innovations from a multitude of non-bank financed projects and programs, such as the fisheries co-management initiatives financed by the Government of Japan (JICA) in Nianing, and feasibility studies on eco-labelling of fish products financed by the Government of Germany (GTZ). First, global experiences with collaborative or co-management of coastal fisheries resources have confirmed that this project should include several aspects in the design: (a) communities should be placed at the center of fisheries and coastal ecosystem management; (b) coastal fisheries management is most likely to be sustainable when the Government forms a partnership with coastal communities (i.e., collaborative management); (c) collaborative coastal fisheries management is a process, and must be implemented as such, rather than in a compartmentalized or fragmented approach focused on individual outputs; and (d) the establishment of no-take or no-fishing zones, i.e. protected fishing zones, is one of the most effective tools communities and local governments can employ to both rehabilitate depleted fisheries and protect the coastal ecosystems upon which they depend. Second, the model of co-management piloted by the GIRMaC works, as community demand for increased responsibility in the management of the coastal fish resources in Senegal is high. In almost all pilot sites of the GIRMaC, as well as the similar co-management sites financed by JICA, fishing communities and fishers have clearly understood and appreciated the threats to the resource base, and have welcomed the opportunity to take management measures to address them. In some cases they have even begun to implement management measures without waiting for Government support. This co-management model includes Government-financed facilitators living and working with the communities, to help them form legally-recognized Local Fishers Committees (CLPs) that prepare management initiatives for the fisheries with work programs and budgets, which are legally recognized by the Minister. At the supracommunity level, Government-established Local Councils of Artisanal Fishers (CLPAs) help coordinate management between different communities and CLPs, develop consolidated local fisheries management plans to be legally recognized by the Ministry, as well as serve as a forum and communication channel between the Ministry and the communities. Lessons to date have shown that neighboring communities have the will and ability to work together and collaborate, and that the CLPAs have a crucial role to play in this process, and therefore must be established and operational in areas of intervention. Furthermore, lessons to date have shown that co-management initiatives have a multiplier effect, whereby neighboring communities see the results of a pilot and wish to participate as well. For this reason, the project is being designed so that project sites will be selected based on a principle of geographic concentration, i.e. by 9

expanding outwards from the existing pilot sites in the central coastal region of the country between Cap Vert and the Saloum River delta. Lastly, because in the current situation of overcapacity and overexploitation in the coastal fisheries, in order to reach the project s objective of restoring the coastal fish resources, many communities will need to restrict or reduce fishing activities in the near-term as part of co-management activities and the implementation of no-take protected fishing zones. For such co-management initiatives to be successful, and to address the drop in livelihoods amongst the affected poor fishers, the project must support fishers efforts to acquire new skills and the micro-credit necessary for them to pursue alternative livelihoods to fishing outside the sector, to both help reduce pressure on the resources and compensate fishers for lost revenues as a result of management measures. E. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection Several alternatives were considered in the project design, towards meeting the objective of restoring the fish stocks that support the coastal fisheries in Senegal. A project focused on large-scale, multi-sectoral marine parks or protected areas was considered, in order to support a national network of such areas. However, there is not yet a legal framework nor political consensus in the country on the establishment and management of such areas, which would permit the project to finance their implementation directly. Rather, given the success of the GIRMaC in catalyzing communities to take a greater level of responsibility in the management and rehabilitation of the coastal fisheries, the project will support the implementation of community-scale protected fishing zones in the context of co-management, under the legal framework of the 1998 Fisheries Code. Additionally, in terms of replicating the experiences of co-management under the GIRMaC, the project considered enlarging the area of intervention to try to demonstrate models along the northern coast near St. Louis, as well as along the southern coast near the Casamance. However, given the limited amount of funds available and the benefits of scale from concentrating in one area, the project will focus geographically on the fisheries along the central coast of Senegal, between the Cap Vert Peninsula and (including) the Saloum River Delta. This will allow neighboring communities to collaborate and reinforce their efforts, as well as human and financial resources to be economized. III. IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS A. Partnership arrangements This project will be implemented in partnership with several other donors, in order to help the Government of Senegal finance the action plan in the Letter of Sector Policy. More specifically, the project includes direct co-financing from the World Bank (through both the new US$3.5 million IDA funds and the existing US$5 million IDA resources of the GIRMaC, and a trust fund with resources from the Government of Switzerland), and parallel financing from (i) the European Union (through the STABEX project), and (ii) the Government of France (through support for improved practices and technologies in the industrial shrimp fisheries, all of whom are co-financiers to the project. These different donors will all be working together to support the Directorate of Marine Fisheries (DPM) within MEM to implement the Letter of Sector Policy for the fisheries, as a first step towards an eventual sectorwide approach (SWAp). Lastly, the project will provide lessons and experiences for the larger Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME) Project. 10

B. Institutional and implementation arrangements The Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport (MEM) is the project s executing agency, and more specifically the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM) within the Ministry. The DPM already has a small project implementation unit (COMO) for the fisheries component of the GIRMaC, as well as another for the implementation of the EU-funded fisheries STABEX project. Additionally, the Sustainable and Equitable Management of Maritime Fisheries Sector Capacity Building Project, funded by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) is also managed by a coordination unit with technical assistance within DPM. The Directorate will expand the existing project implementation unit for the GIRMaC to manage the implementation of this project, as well as to implement a standard monitoring and evaluation system for all of the various donor support received by DPM for the implementation of the action plan for the Letter of Sector Policy, as the first step towards a future sector-wide approach (SWAp). This Project Implementation Unit (COMO) will actually be responsible for coordinating with the several different donor initiatives that are working together to help the Government implement the Letter of Sector Policy, including this project. The COMO will reinforce the synergies between these different donor-supported activities and strengthen monitoring and evaluation of the Ministry of both the results of the project and the Letter of Sector Policy. This COMO will also include fiduciary monitoring capacity, for both financial management and procurement. The Financial Management Specialist of the COMO will oversee the Financial Management aspects of the Project including the consolidation of financial statements for project activities, providing quarterly Interim Financial Reports, monitoring financial transactions on the project s account through the DDI (Direction de la Dette et de l Investissement) and making the necessary arrangements for the annual financial audit. The IDA and GEF funds will flow from the World Bank to the Designated Accounts opened under the DDI at the Ministry of Economy and Finance. C. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results The Results Framework and monitoring indicators (see Section B.3 above for project outcome indicators and Annex 3 for the Results Framework) underwent extensive consultations with national and local stakeholders, the ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Planning, corporate reviews and outside experts. Currently, the sector monitoring system within the executing agency (DPM within MEM) charged to ensure sustainable monitoring lacks the resources and coordination to adequately report on progress. For this reason, component four of the project will support capacity building in monitoring and evaluation in the DPM, through the recruitment of additional resources and a full time M&E expert reporting to the Project Coordinator in the Project Implementation Unit (COMO). In terms of the key performance indicators, or outcome indicators, baselines will be available by project effectiveness. In terms of the first two outcome indicators listed in Section B.3, while the average size of targeted fish catches is expected to increase as a result of project interventions, there is no biological basis to establish a target. The indicator will therefore be based on individual species identified at each comanaged site. Other qualitative indicators are being refined to avoid a 0-1 approach. For the 8 subprojects where co-management is being established, the pre-selected sites will be confirmed by project effectiveness, and various milestones will be identified to reflect for example, legally recognized CLPs, signed co-management agreements with the government, and implementation of various surveillance, enforcement, monitoring and other mechanisms to demonstrate effective co-management among the targeted sites along the central coast. Such milestones are imperfect measures of co-management, but reflect the process-oriented nature of the interventions. 11

In addition to the outcome indicators, the intermediate indicators in the Results Framework were designed to create a logical link with each of the components of the project and the outcome indicators. Again, baselines and targets are being established for each, and the Government has provided technical notes on each of the intermediate indicators, including persons responsible for their implementation, for collection, timeliness, and how each indicator will be collected. The data for the project s outcomes and the accompanying three groups of intermediate indicators will come from different sources, depending on the specific outcome of interest. For the co-management of coastal fisheries indicators, the project will finance baseline surveys in each community before the development of co-management plans and initiatives, as well as periodic information collection as part of the work of the Project Implementation Unit (COMO). The same approach is being taken with the data for outcomes of the rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems component through the establishment of protected fishing zones. The key performance indicator linked to this component is closely linked to the establishment of CLPs and co-management sites. The project is therefore aiming to support these CLPs with the tools to legally and financially enforce these zones and the measures will indicate various milestones during this process. Ultimately, the placement of artificial reefs, coupled with managed fishing and support for alternative livelihoods to fishing is expected to lead to fishing effort and species size to be increased, thereby linking with the project s development objective. As with other indicators, the targeted communities as well as fishers and producers, will play a key role in collecting the baseline and periodic data to manage for results. The CLPs will also be heavily involved in creating alternative livelihoods component, with a particular focus on increased value added to fish products. Consultations with the communities involved indicated that value added processing of fish, among others, was the most feasible option to increase incomes for existing fisherman, especially women in the community. The project will finance organizations and micro-finance institutions to provide technical assistance on micro-finance/micro-credit, and will finance technically-qualified consultants to undertake monitoring of key indicators and impacts. The final repository for data on all results indicators will be the Directorate for Marine Fisheries in MEM, which will report regularly to the World Bank. However, all relevant information for each targeted site will be posted at the nearest Maison de Pêcheurs in the four initial pilot sites, and the new fishers meeting places to be constructed by the project in the eight additional sites. D. Sustainability and Replicability The issue of sustainability is examined from the perspective of institutions, policies and individual sites. In terms of institutional sustainability, the project will work with partners to support the Directorate for Marine Fisheries in the implementation of the fisheries management aspects of the Letter of Sector Policy, to ensure that the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the Letter is continued by MEM after the project. Furthermore, the project is promoting the implementation of existing policies for co-management already established by the Government based in part on pilots financed to date by the GIRMaC. Thus, the policies supported by the project are fixed, and the institutions involved all subscribe to them. Lastly, in terms of individual sites, the project is designed to minimize the operating costs per site after the end of the project, and to ensure clear benefits are seen by the communities, who will themselves continue the coastal fisheries management activities long after the project. In terms of replicability, the project will implement a model for co-management of coastal fisheries that can grow horizontally and be replicated to communities throughout the country, particularly as more and more are established. The reasoning for clustering project activities in the coastal region between Cap 12

Vert and the Saloum is that in addition to the synergies captured between neighboring sites, the concentration of results and achievements in one region can act as an example that catalyzes similar actions in the northern and southern regions. The project will support MEM to promote these examples to other regions, including exchanges between individual fishing communities to share lessons learned. Thus, the potential for replication is high, as the project supports activities that are part of a nationwide policy, and should serve as models for regions of the country outside of the areas of intervention. See Annex 4 for further details on sustainability and replicability plans. E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects Risks Risk Mitigation Measures Risk Rating with Mitigation To project development objective Risk that the institutional difficulties in the management of the GIRMaC will impact the project s implementation Risk that the resource management measures necessary will create negative social impacts in targeted communities, as a result of reduced incomes and/or livelihoods To component results Component 1: Risk of conflict between neighboring communities that share the same coastal fisheries, where one/some are willing to participate in project activities and are others are not Component 2: Risk that the excess number of fishers and fishing boats active nation-wide will impinge upon and jeopardize project-supported activities in targeted sites Component 3: Risk that there will be a low uptake of micro-finance because of high interest rate charges, and a high default rate on repayments by The project has avoided the same institutional structure as the GIRMaC, and will ensure that the restructuring recommended during the Mid-Term Review is implemented, which returned management authority for the comanagement initiatives to MEM. The project has designed component 3 to mitigate this risk, with an alternative livelihoods fund available to help compensate fishers and families for any losses, and to encourage alternative livelihoods to fishing The project will ensure that Government creates and operationalizes the Local Artisanal Fishers Councils in targeted areas of intervention, as a forum to resolve disputes, etc. between neighboring communities and sites. The project will ensure that MEM legally recognizes the site-based activities to restore the coastal fisheries being supported by the project, and provides enforcement support as needed to communities to ensure their management measures are respected by outside fishers. The project will negotiate a lower interest rate for fishers accessing microfinance under this project with a wellestablished and tested micro-finance institution. The selection of an S S M M M 13

borrowers Overall Risk Rating experienced micro-finance institution will help lower the risk of high defaults because of the institution s prior experience in this area Modest Risk F. Loan/credit conditions and covenants Negotiations: There are no Conditions of Negotiations Loan/credit effectiveness: Preparation of the Operational Manuals, including the Project Implementation Manual and the Administrative and Financial Procedures Manual; Baseline data for key performance indicators collected; Recruitment of key consultancies completed (without signing contracts): (i) Co-Management Specialist for component one, (ii) institution or firm to support implementation of the ZPPs, artificial reefs and eco-labelling activities in component two, (iii) technical support institution for the FRAP in component three, and (iv) the micro-finance institution for the FRAP in component three; and Ministerial Decree signed defining implementation of the CLPAs, including their mandate and zones of jurisdiction (including procedures for consultation with fishers from communities external to the CLPAs who might be affected by management measures taken by the respective CLPA). Covenants applicable to program implementation: A CLP is legally established in each of the 8 new sites targeted by the project, within the first six months of project implementation (with the exception of Fambine and Carrière, where the CLP will be established within the first 18 months of project implementation). Decrees creating each of the CLPAs in the central coastal region (from the Cap Vert peninsula and the Saloum River Delta) are signed, within the first 6 months of project implementation. A co-management agreement is signed between the Minister of Maritime Economy and the CLP in each of the 8 new sites targeted by the project, by mid-term review of the project. A consolidated local fisheries management plan is prepared and submitted to the CNCPM by at least 4 different CLPAs in the central coastal region (from the Cap Vert peninsula and the Saloum River Delta), by mid-term review of the project. A Ministerial Decree creating a ZPPs covering Mballing, Nianing, Point Sarréne and Mbodiène, is signed within the first 18 months project implementation, and a second Decree creating a ZPP covering Ouakam and Carrière is signed by the end of year two of project implementation. All small-scale fishing and transport vessels originating from within the central coastal region (from the Cap Vert peninsula and the Saloum River Delta) are registered by the National Registration Program (PNI) within the first six months of project implementation. The Borrower shall recruit the external auditor in terms and conditions acceptable to the Association not later than six (6) months after the project s effectiveness date. IV. APPRAISAL SUMMARY A. Economic and financial analyses 14

This project is essentially a framework -type project, where the majority of the investments will be determined by targeted communities, e.g. the co-management activities in component one, the establishment of protected fishing zones in component two and support for alternative livelihoods in fishing communities in component three. For this reason, indicative cost-benefit analyses of representative examples of these investments have been used, as proxies to illustrate the basis for deciding on the merits of the project. In terms of co-management activities, an indicative cost benefit analysis has been carried out, based on data collected from similar activities in communities supported by the GIRMaC project. In the pilot site at Foundiougne, investments in co-management supported the communities to implement management measures for the shrimp fishery such as seasonal and monthly closures to allow the catchable individuals to grow to larger sizes. The relationship between prices in the local, national and international markets for shrimp and the size of individual products (i.e. size of shrimp caught) is not linear. Prices for larger specimens may be two or three times greater than prices for smaller specimens, such as juveniles. Thus, as a result of the measures taken by the communities, total production from the shrimp fishery increased (from 170 tons annually to 340 tons annually), average size of the shrimp caught increased (from 200 individuals per kilogram to between 60 and 80) and significant benefits were realized (global gross income doubled, see figure 1 below). Similarly, the environmental sustainability of the catch increased as well, as the species were given more time to reproduce and grow. B. Technical The project s approach builds upon global experiences with the promotion of collaborative (or comanagement) partnerships between communities and governments, in order to allow them to more sustainably manage the natural resource base upon which they depend. The pilot sites financed to date by the GIRMaC have confirmed that this model is technically sound, and has been effective and well received in the targeted communities. In addition to the activities piloted in the GIRMaC, the project introduces additional instruments shown to be good practice, such as the establishment of no-take protected fishing zones. The impact of such collaboratively-managed protected fishing zones in replenishing fish populations and protecting critical coastal ecosystems is well documented. It is also a key element of the Government of Senegal s strategy for the fisheries sector. For this reason, empowering coastal communities to establish and monitor protected fishing zones is one of the main approaches utilized by the project. The wisdom of this approach has been confirmed by other World Bank investments, such as in the first phase of the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP Phase I) and the Marginal Fishing Communities Development Pilot in Indonesia, as well as by numerous experiences and good practices from around the world, including examples from India, the Philippines and Samoa as summarized in the World Bank Fisheries Approach Paper Saving Fish and Fishers (2004). In addition, the project s design builds on lessons learned in the GIRMaC and other similar investments, suggesting that efforts to restore overexploited fish stocks and improve management of the resource base should be accompanied by support to embark upon alternative livelihood strategies for those interested. The project reflects the good practices in both community-driven development (CDD) and micro-finance operations supported by the Bank, in order to provide small grants to fishing communities for basic infrastructure to help improve post-harvest quality and value added, as well as to tie commerciallycompetitive micro-finance to sustained technical assistance for business planning and occupational training. 15

C. Fiduciary A financial management assessment of this project was carried out in May 2008, more specifically an assessment of the financial management capacity of the Directorate of Marine Fisheries (DPM), including accounting systems for project expenditures and underlying internal controls (see project files for the Financial Management Capacity Assessment and Procurement Capacity Assessment). The conclusion of the assessment was that the financial management system in place with DPM, subject to the capacity building measures included in the project, satisfies the Bank s minimum requirements under OP/BP10.02, and therefore is adequate to provide, with reasonable assurance, accurate and timely financial management information on the status of the project required by World Bank. Based on the assessment, financial management risks inherent in the project entity and risks specific to project design have been rated as substantial. Several measures have been designed to mitigate these risks, including implementation of the action plan in Technical Annex 7. These measures include supporting financial management technical assistance and capacity building for the COMO, as well as the recruitment of an NGO or institution to support the management of the block grants in component 3 and assist in payment validation procedures, including community disclosure and oversight mechanisms where applicable. A series of these measures and other operating authorities and procedures for each project activity is expected to be clearly documented in the project Operational Manuals. Financial Monitoring reports have been prescribed for reporting purposes. Full details of these measures are given in Annex 7. Funds for the project are expected to be channeled through a Special Account opened for the purpose. D. Social There are many opportunities for the project to accomplish its objectives arising from the current sociocultural and political context. First and foremost, this is a community-focused project, and therefore communities are at its center. The fishing communities in the central coastal region are the key stakeholders. These key stakeholders will be integral partners in collaboratively managing the coastal fisheries and establishing marine reserves. To ensure that their concerns have been taken into account in project design, community focus groups have been held in each of the pilot sites to provide a representative sample of views and key issues that should be addressed, particularly in the creation of alternative livelihoods. These focus groups concluded that the co-management approach piloted by the GIRMaC was appropriate to the communities targeted and well received, as the communities strongly wanted to play a more informed and active role in managing the fisheries. One of the common messages emerging from the focus groups was that fishers clearly recognized the need to reduce fishing effort to help rebuild the resource base. In many cases, there were already traditions of resource management measures, such as closed seasons for fishing of certain species, which disappeared with growing populations and increased migration of fishers. However, this knowledge remains in the four communities and has been utilized as the basis of the co-management plans developed through the GIRMaC. This project will continue to capitalize on such knowledge, to expand co-management in the central coastal fisheries and increase the roles and responsibilities of communities and fishers in the management of these resources. The focus groups also reinforced both the need and challenges for assisting fishers to find alternative livelihoods. Many of the fishers (almost exclusively men) in these communities are deeply attached to the activity of fishing, and also pointed out that they have few, if any, transferable skills to launch alternative livelihoods. The women in these communities participating in the sector were almost solely involved in fish processing and handling, however not the younger generations. Many of the households in these 16

communities are increasingly dependent upon the women s financial contributions, due to declining incomes from the male-dominated fishing activities. However, as fish catches decline so too do the incomes of the women, deepening poverty in these communities and reinforcing the need for alternative livelihood solutions. For this reason, the project includes both technical assistance and retraining targeted to men and women, as well as targeted grants and financing to new activities. E. Environment Because this project aims to implement a process that empowers communities to sustainably co-manage coastal ecosystems to help restore the fish stocks, most of the activities are expected to have positive, impacts on the environment. The project is designed to help implement policies and institutional frameworks for fisheries resource management, and to enhance the livelihoods of poor fishing communities as a result. F. Safeguards The following Safeguard Policies applicable to the project: Safeguard Policy Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)* Applicability Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No Safeguard Screening Category: S2 Environmental Screening Category: B Key Safeguard Policy Issues. The project builds upon the Environmental Management Framework prepared for the GIRMaC, and has conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) to identify any safeguards that could be triggered by the activities additional to the GIRMaC introduced by this project. This assessment showed that the key safeguard issue (and the reason for which the involuntary resettlement safeguard applies) is the potential restriction of traditional access to coastal and fish resources that may be introduced by the project in targeted communities, in order to reduce fishing effort to allow the stocks to rebuild. Currently, the resources are utilized through a system of open access that has allowed essentially more fishers and fishing pressure than the resources can sustain. The project addresses this in the central coastal region by supporting co-management of the coastal fisheries, as a precursor to a community level rights-based system. It is from this transition away from open access to more regulated fisheries, that the key risks are created. These risks are largely social, because the implementation of co-management and rights-based systems imply that access to specific areas or types of fisheries will be restricted. The project-wide instrument to address this risk is the FRAP in component three of the project, which will compensate fishers for potential losses as a result of reduced fishing effort. This instrument will address these risks wherever they may emerge in local project sites. From a safeguards standpoint, the FRAP will utilize a process framework prepared by the project, to ensure that 17

decisions concerning restriction of access to fish resources are decided on the basis of consensus of stakeholders. The fund will also utilize the Environmental Management Plan (including an Environmental and Social Management Framework) prepared through the EA, as a framework to ensure individual subprojects are screened for any potential impacts under the natural habitats safeguard (OP/BP 4.04). This safeguard was triggered because the project is oriented towards the conservation of natural habitats. However, the project is expected to have beneficial impacts on targeted natural habitats, and any activities with potential negative impacts would not be financed by component 3. The first draft of the Environmental Assessment and the Process Framework was made available to the World Bank by the Ministry of Maritime Economy on June 9, 2008, and to the InfoShop on July 8, 2008. G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness 18

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Country Context. Senegal is located on the West Coast of Africa and is part of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). With a population estimated at about 10 million, its economy is dominated by a few strategic sectors, including groundnuts, fisheries, and services. The role of the agricultural sector has declined over time, from almost 15 percent of GDP in 1960 to 7 percent in 2004. The informal sector accounts for about 60 percent of GDP. Its rural economy frequently suffers from drought, and lacks access to basic services and infrastructure, leading to low productivity, high emigration and higher poverty rates in rural areas. As a result, it is estimated that almost half of the population lives in cities. This ratio is projected to increase up to 60 percent by 2015. Over the past decades, Senegal has enjoyed a stable political climate, and has remained largely unaffected by regional instability. This stability is viewed as the result of a relatively free and diverse media (with numerous newspapers and radios) and an active civil society (with hundreds of NGO), as well as the ability to preserve the historical social equilibrium between modem institutions and religious communities. Several indicators used by the international community such as World Bank Institute (WBI) governance indicators and the Freedom House ranking of civil liberties and political rights reflect the relatively good health of Senegalese institutions, and show that Senegal compares favorably to most African countries. However, the quality of its institutions still lags with respect to that prevailing in emerging and OECD countries. Sector Importance. Due to exceptional natural conditions, Senegal and its neighbours are endowed with some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. As a result the marine fish resources off the coast of Senegal play a role in the culture, lives and economy of the population as large as any of the other natural resources in the country. Senegalese fishers have been involved in marine fisheries for centuries and coastal communities throughout the country have developed a culture of fishing. Fishing and associated activities such as processing, marketing, services and other part-time activities together are estimated to provide more than 600,000 jobs in Senegal (accounting for 17 percent of the labour force, i.e. one in every six people in Senegal works in fisheries, and 10 percent of the rural population). In addition to livelihoods, the fisheries in Senegal make an extremely significant contribution to food security, constituting some 70 percent of animal protein consumption in the country, as estimated annual per capita fish consumption is 26 kilograms (well above the world average of 16 kilograms). At the level of the country s economy, between 1997 and 2002 the fisheries sector accounted for about 2.3 percent of the country s GDP and 12.5 percent of the primary sector s GDP (i.e. approximately FCFA 300 billion in gross production value generating an added value of about FCFA 200 billion). Between 1999 and 2002 fish products also accounted for some 32 percent of the country s exports by volume, and roughly 37 percent of the total export value. In summary, marine fisheries play a critical role in the economy in Senegal, in terms of contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), foreign exchange, food security and livelihoods. Government Sector Strategy. The Government of Senegal has recognized the social and economic importance of the marine fisheries sector in the country by giving it a central place in the country s macroeconomic policies and strategies. The first Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2003 2005) named the sector as one of the key drivers of the creation of wealth pillar of the strategy, assigning it a central role in the fight against poverty. This role was further elaborated in the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2006 2010). More specifically, the country s Accelerated Growth Strategy promoted by the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper named fisheries as one of the five sectors of the national economy with high economic potential, which was to function as one of the drivers of accelerated economic growth. 19

Key Sector Issues and Institutional Constraints. Despite the economic importance of Senegal s fishery resources and the marine ecosystems that support them, the sector has been facing major difficulties in recent years due to overfishing of the most valuable commercial resources and uncontrolled expansion of the number of fishers, boats and gear, as well as land-based fish processing and preservation facilities. The sector has essentially faced the boom and bust cycle common to many uncontrolled fisheries around the world, where rapid development and investment led to strong growth in catches and returns, as well as the number of fishers and fishing capacity. Then as the fisheries continued to grow in an uncontrolled environment beyond what the fish stocks and resource base could sustain, they started to contract, bringing down catch and growth rates. In Senegal fisheries production rose steadily until 1985, when catches began to level off and landings began to decline. Since then, small-scale fishing effort has continued to increase, although the number of industrial vessels has remained stable. Essentially, these small-scale vessels have continued to proliferate even as fish stocks and catches have declined, due in part to rising world prices and demand for food fish which helped offset declining catch rates, and by vessels going farther and farther up and down the coast of West Africa in search of fish, or constantly replacing overfished higher value species for lower value ones (i.e. fishing down the food chain ). The result of this uncontrolled growth in the small-scale fisheries is that many of the highest value coastal demersal stocks have been almost wiped out. Senegal s marine fish resources can essentially (albiet somewhat artificially) be divided into (i) the coastal fisheries (often targeting sedentary coastal demersal species) utilized directly by the coastal fishing communities, as well as migrating small-scale fishers and industrial vessels, and (ii) the more open-water (and often migratory) fisheries that extend from the coastal areas out to the 200-mile limit of Senegal s waters. According to a World Bank sectoral study (ESW) in 2004, the coastal demersal stocks were the most heavily exploited and are now in rapid decline throughout the country, and as a result the coastal fisheries which rely on them (mainly the small-scale sector) are struggling. This is of significant concern because these coastal demersal species usually account for more than 25 percent (in volume terms) of the country s total catch, and more than 50 percent of the total value of fishery exports. To give a more accurate picture of the scale of the overexploitation of these valuable resources, one model of Senegal s marine ecosystem showed that in 15 years (1983-1998), the total biomass of five of the most valuable coastal demersal species on the continental shelf (i.e. red pandora (Pagellus bellottii), white grouper (Epinephelus æneus), red sea bream (Pagrus cœruleostictus), red mullet (Pseudupeneus prayensis) and lesser African threadfin (Galeoides decadactylus)) declined by 75 percent, and actual fishing effort expended on these species more than doubled over the same period. In particular, annual catches of white grouper fell from 60,000 tons in 1971 to 7,000 tons in 1999. In total, catches of coastal demersals fell from more than 140,000 tons in 1997 to about 84,000 tons in 2002, the most recent year for which data are available. In terms of species caught, the decline is even more dramatic given the increase in the relative share of low value species in the total catch. As mentioned previously, catches of species of very high commercial value were often replaced by catches of less valuable species - somewhat masking the true scale of overfishing. As Senegal s coastal demersal fish stocks become increasingly overfished and as the degradation of the marine ecosystems on which they depend becomes more severe, the small-scale fishery that relies on them will probably continue to migrate to neighbouring waters, with the West African countries incurring higher costs and making less profit. For all these reasons, the World Bank study concluded that Senegal s coastal demersal fish stocks and the small-scale fisheries that depend on them are facing a crisis. Already, some estimates show that more than 30 percent of the coastal demersal species landed in Senegal by small-scale fishers are caught outside of the country s waters. Furthermore, as many as 2,000 Senegalese 20

pirogues are now estimated to be fishing in the waters of neighbouring Guinea-Bissau at any given moment. Senegal s small-scale fishers are among the most dynamic in West Africa and this fishery has now become an important cross-border activity, with environmental and economic implications for neighbouring countries such as The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania and Guinea. The impacts of the overexploitation of Senegal s coastal fisheries on rural poverty, as well as food security and macro-economic growth are significant. The resource base for the fisheries which account for roughly a quarter of the volume of fish caught in the country by the some 52,000 people directly employed by the small-scale fisheries (and likely benefits a large portion of the some 600,000 people indirectly employed in the sector) and 50 percent of the value of fish exports, is heavily overfished and facing a collapse. As this resource declines, the costs for the thousands of small-scale and often rural fishers to continue to participate in the sector will only increase, and the costs of relocating or shifting into new careers will certainly have profound social impacts along the coast, as will the reduction in one of the country s largest exports. These social impacts can already be seen in the numbers of fishers participating in the growing immigration of Senegalese citizens to Spain and Europe by sea. To help address these threats to Senegal s coastal fish stocks and fisheries, this project has been designed to supplement the ongoing Integrated Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project (GIRMaC), together with other donors. The rationale behind developing this project (entitled Sustainable Management of Fish Resources in Senegal ) in conjunction with the GIRMaC is the opportunity to: (i) enable the Government of Senegal to implement the significant policy shifts in the management of the coastal fisheries that have been initiated with the support of the GIRMaC, by working with other donors to assist the Government to implement the recently completed Fisheries Sector Policy Letter, as well as the Presidential Decree in 2005 for the establishment of a national network of marine protected areas (MPAs), and (ii) to expand the scope of the pilot projects initiated under the GIRMaC. Government Response to Key Sector Issues and Constraints. The Government of Senegal has clearly recognized these challenges and constraints facing the sector, elaborating them as the analytical basis for the Letter of Sector Policy completed in 2007. This Letter of policy places an emphasis on sustainable management of the fish resources, and achieving an optimal contribution of the sector to economic growth and poverty reduction. To respond to the challenges facing the fisheries sector, the Government has articulated essentially a two-pronged approach in the Letter of Policy: (i) implementing systems of collaborative or co-management for the coastal fisheries, to devolve more of the responsibility for managing these overfished resources to the users, to support them to implement needed reforms, and (ii) more broadly at the national level and including the open-water fisheries, to introduce a system of fishing access rights to fishers, as a tool to subsidize the reduction of fishing capacity and the recovery of the stocks. Both of these key elements are aimed at allowing the fisheries sector to recover and achieve the objectives set for it in the Accelerated Growth Strategy and the second Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Addressing the challenges of the coastal fisheries through the implementation of co-management systems represents a new way of doing business for the Government in the sector, and requires institutional transformation for MEM to become a more demand-based agency that can support the fishers and fishing communities. The Government began testing this approach with the implementation of the Integrated Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project (GIRMaC) in 2005, with US$10 million in IDA financing and US$5 million in GEF grants from the World Bank. The project consists essentially of two components, one on the environment and the other on fisheries, the latter to test co-management approaches in coastal fisheries in pilot sites. The GIRMaC has encouraged the Ministry and the Government to move to formally adopt a co-management strategy for the coastal fisheries as outlined in the Letter of Sector Policy, which has shown to be a highly popular and well-received model with the targeted fishing communities. However, the division of objectives of the project between both environment and fisheries led to a shared institutional structure for project management (a separate 21

coordination unit of consultants) that has hindered implementation to this point and the ability of the Ministry to respond to communities demands in the pilot sites. For this reason, the Mid-Term Review of the GIRMaC in January 2008 recommended a restructuring of the project to remove this institutional obstacle and place all responsibility for implementation of the fisheries component in the hands of MEM. The project therefore allows the Government and more specifically the Ministry, to consolidate the gains and lessons learned to date from the GIRMaC, and expand these interventions to cover a much larger share of the coastal fisheries, and thus allow the Government to implement one of the key elements of the Letter of Sector Policy and address the coastal fisheries that currently constitute the greatest concern to the sustainability of the fisheries resources and the thousands of livelihoods in the country that are dependent upon them. In terms of the open water fisheries at the more national scale and the introduction of fishing access rights, the Government is working together with 8 other neighboring countries to prepare a regional initiative that would be co-financed by the World Bank and GEF, the West Africa Regional Project for Fisheries, that would support the introduction of rights at a large scale, in complement to the comanagement initiatives supported in the coastal fisheries through the GIRMaC and this project. 22

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Projects Co-Financing the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project Project Donor Location Sector Issue Budget Implementation Period GIRMaC World Bank Cap Vert, Saloum River delta Co-management of coastal fisheries, alternative livelihoods to fishing US$13.0 million (IDA) 2005-2010 GIRMaC Switzerland Senegal Small-scale fishing vessel registration US$0.5 million 2007-2010 Fisheries STABEX Support for Shrimp Fisheries Natural Resource Management Phase II European Union Senegal Co-management of coastal fisheries, fisheries management plans, small-scale fishing vessel registration EU 6 million 2007-2011 France Senegal Industrial shrimp fisheries US$0.4 million 2008-2010 USAID Saloum River delta, Casamance Coastal zone management US$4 million 2008-2013 Related Projects Project Donor Location Sector Issue Budget Implementation Period Fisheries Processing Site Management Capacity Building for Small-Scale Fishers National Registration Program (PNI) Sustainable Management Support JICA Saint Louis Infrastructure US$1.7 million In Preparation JICA Senegal Training for small-scale fishers professional organizations US$1.6 million 2008-2012 Spain Senegal Small-scale fishing vessel registration US$0.5 million 2006-2008 France Senegal Support to fisheries management plans, professional organizations Narou Heuleuk France Saloum River, Mbour, Rufisque, Bargny US$1 million 2006-2008 Creation of four marine protected areas US$1.1 million Closed end 2007 Refrigeration Program Spain Senegal Infrastructure, storage for processing fish US$6.4 million 2004-2006 1

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Results Framework PDO Project Outcome Indicators Use of Project Outcome Information Project Development Objective/Global Objective: The combined development objective/global objective of the project is to empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). Development Objective Indicators: Increase (by %) in the average size of fish caught for targeted species in comanagement sites Reduction (by %) in the level of fishing effort for targeted species in co-management sites Co-management of coastal fisheries indicator: 8 new co-management subproject proposals are approved as legal agreements with the Government and successfully implemented by EOP Rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems indicator: 70 percent of community members surveyed in participating communities are satisfied with project activities to rehabilitate coastal fish stocks (ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) Alternative livelihoods to fishing indicator: 20 percent increase in the average first-sale price of key fish products harvested by targeted communities participating in comanagement Gov. gauge of impact of comgt. measures (including ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) on coastal fisheries resources and on fishing community livelihoods. Gauge of efficiency of comanagement model implementation, benchmark for progress. MTR and EOP measure by Gov. of perceived impact of project on coastal fish stocks and ecosystems. MTR and EOP measure by Gov. of socio-economic impact of project on beneficiaries (i.e. targeted fishing communities). Short-Term Outcomes Short-Term Outcome Indicators Use of Short-Term Outcome Monitoring Component 1: Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries A system of local coastal fisheries governance based on comanagement that is coherent, well understood and institutionally strengthened, is established. 8 new CLPs legally established in the central coastal region, within the first 18 months of implementation 4 consolidated local fisheries management plans are approved by the relevant Local Artisanal Fishers Councils (CLPAs) before MTR, and implemented by EOP Measure of legal recognition of co-management partners Measure of operationally capabilities of the Local Councils Component 2: Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems Measure of the output of the 2

Critical habitats for key coastal fish species are protected in a participatory manner, through the establishment of ZPPs, the immersion of artificial reefs, the introduction of access rights to targeted fisheries, and efforts towards eco-labelling of smallscale fish products. Component 3: Alternative Livelihoods & Poverty Reduction Measures Alternative revenue generating activities are developed for fishers and their families areas targeted by the project, within the fisheries sector though better access to higher value markets, or outside of the sector with training and cash support (micro-finance) from the project for communities to compensate for the loss of fishing effort and income, and to invest in alternative livelihoods. Component 4: Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Efficient management, monitoring and evaluation of project and dissemination of implementation results 2 protected fisheries zones (ZPPs) are created and legally established At least 2 artificial reefs are expanded/submerged and co-managed with the local communities by EOP Access rights are defined, legally recognized and introduced in 2 of fisheries under comanagement All small-scale fishing and transport vessels originating from within the central coastal region are registered by the National Registration Program (PNI) within the first six months of project implementation At least 1 fishery is eligible for ecocertification according to the criteria of the Marine Stewardship Council by EOP Feasibility study and consensus on a sustainable financing mechanism for the recurrent costs of ZPPs Percentage of women in participating communities that are benefiting from microcredit to develop activities outside the fisheries sector Percentage of targeted fishing communities receiving micro finance, and number of families in targeted communities that are entering new commercial markets Percentage of alternative livelihoods undertaken by fishers receiving micro finance access and small-enterprise training from the project, sustained profitably at EOP Annual M&E reports with all data on results indicators and M&E plan completed Participating communities receive information on key indicators in a timely manner Annual audit opinion has been unqualified investment in protected fisheries zones Measure of the output of the artificial reefs investment Measure of output from investment in the introduction of access rights Measure of output from investment in small-scale vessel registration Measure of success of project to introduce eco-certification pilots Measure of sustainability of project interventions Indicator of participation of women in project activities Indicator of sustainability and success of alternative livelihoods to fishing in targeted communities Indicator of potential for, and sustainability of, alternative economic livelihoods for fishers in targeted communities To ensure that technical and fiduciary management is adequate and that mitigation measures are in place for timely action. 3

Arrangements for results monitoring* Target Values Project Outcome Indicators Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 Frequency and Reports Project Development Objective Indicator: Determined Increase Increase Increase Trimester Increase (by %) in the average size of by above above above Reports fish caught for targeted species in comanagement effectiveness baseline baseline baseline sites Project Development Objective Indicator: Reduction (by %) in the level of fishing effort for targeted species in comanagement sites Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries Indicator: 8 new co-management sub-project proposals are approved through legal agreements with the Gov. and successfully implemented by EOP Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems Indicator: 70 percent of community members surveyed in participating communities are satisfied with project activities to rehabilitate coastal fish stocks (ZPPs, artificial reefs, ecolabelling) Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing Indicators: 20 percent increase in the revenues from sales of key fish products harvested by targeted communities participating in comanagement Determined by effectiveness Increase above baseline Increase above baseline Increase above baseline 0 8 approved N/A 8 successfully implemented Determined by effectiveness Determined by effectiveness Intermediate Outcome Indicators Component 1: Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries 4 CLPs in 8 new CLPs legally established in the initial pilot central coastal region, within the sites Trimester Reports N/A 70% 70% Semester Reports N/A 10% 20% Trimester Reports 4 CLPs in initial pilot sites 8 new CLPs, in addition to 4 in initial pilot sitest 8 new CLPs, in addition to 4 in initial pilot sitest Trimester Reports Data Collection and Reporting Data Collection Responsibility for Data Instruments Collection Monthly statistical M & E office within the reports from local COMO; fisheries administration offices; Technical summary of activities by the COMO Signed Ministerial Decrees and comanagement agreements Technical summary of activities by the COMO Report on the results of surveys Monthly statistical reports from local fisheries administration offices; Technical summary of activities by the COMO Decrees establishing new CLPs Contributions from: CLPs Facilitators Local fisheries administration officials M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: CLPs Facilitators Local fisheries administration officials M & E office within the COMO M & E office within the COMO Contributions from: FRAP team in COMO CLPs Local fisheries administration officials M&E office within the COMO Contributions from: 4

first 18 months of implementation 4 consolidated local fisheries management plans are approved by the relevant Local Artisanal Fishers Councils (CLPAs) before MTR, and implemented by EOP Component 2: Rehabilitation of Coastal Ecosystems 2 protected fisheries zones (ZPPs) are created and legally established At least 2 artificial reefs are expanded/submerged and co-managed with the local communities by EOP Access rights are defined, legally recognized and introduced in 2 of fisheries under co-management All small-scale fishing and transport vessels originating from within the central coastal region are registered by the National Registration Program (PNI) within the first six months of project implementation At least one fishery is eligible for ecocertification according to the criteria of the Marine Stewardship Council by EOP Feasibility study and consensus on a sustainable financing mechanism for the recurrent costs of ZPPs 0 0 4 plans approved by CLPAs 2 ZPPs identified but not established 2 artificial reefs identified 0 fisheries have access rights 2 ZPPs identified but not established 2 artificial reefs expanded 2 fisheries selected for introduction of access rights 2 ZPPs legally established 2 artificial reefs under co-mgt. Access rights defined for 2 fisheries 4 plans implemented 2 ZPPs legally established & actively managed 2 artificial reefs under co-mgt. Access rights allocated to fishers in 2 fisheries Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Trimester Reports <5% 100% 100% 100% Trimester Reports 0 fisheries are currently eligible No study conducted Preevaluation report completed N/A Action Plan from report implemented Study completed Full evaluation conducted, eligibility Consensus on mechanism Trimester Reports Trimester Reports Minutes of CLPA meetings approving the plans Decrees creating ZPPs Technical summary of activities by the COMO Decrees establishing access rights Registration database within the PNI Technical summary of activities by the COMO Technical summary of activities by the COMO Management Division of DPM Artisanal Fisheries Division of DPM Contributions from: CLPAs M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting component 2 M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting component 2 Management Division of DPM PNI Office within DPM M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting component 2 M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Org./Firm supporting 5

Component 3: Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing Percentage of women in participating communities that are benefiting from micro-credit to develop activities outside the fisheries sector. Percentage of targeted fishing communities receiving micro finance, and number of families in targeted communities that are entering new commercial markets. Percentage of sustained reconversion achieved amongst fishers receiving micro finance access and smallenterprise training 0 0 10 20 Trimester Reports Determined by effectiveness Determined by effectiveness Determined by effectiveness Determined by effectiveness Trimester Reports 0 0 25 50 Trimester Reports Facilitator Reports from each Site Activity Reports by Technical Support Institution to FRAP Account data from Micro-Finance Institution Component 4: Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Annual M&E reports with all data on results indicators and M&E plan completed N/A Report received Report received Report received Annual, starting Yr 1 Participating communities receive information on key indicators in a timely manner N/A 100% 100% 100% Annual, starting Yr 1 Technical summary of activities by the COMO Supervision Reports component 2 M & E office within the COMO; Contributions from: Micro-Finance Institution Technical Support Institution to FRAP M & E office within the COMO CLPs Facilitators Annual audit opinion has been N/A Audit Audit Audit Annual, starting Supervision DPM unqualified unqualified unqualified unqualified Yr 1 Reports * Targets for the indicators will be reconfirmed and finetuned during negotiations and most baselines will be available prior to project effectiveness. 6

Appendix 1: Detailed Arrangements for Data Collection (including Baselines) for Project Outcome Indicators (i.e. Key Performance Indicators) Development Objective Indicators: The baselines for these two indicators will be collected prior to project effectiveness, at the level of each of the 8 new co-management sites. The data will be collected by a group comprised of the head of the local fisheries administration office for each site, the facilitator and/or CLP representatives from the closest of the four initial pilot sites, and the project Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist based in the COMO in DPM. The group will rely on existing information present in each of the local fisheries administration offices on fishing catch, effort and catch sizes for fish landed in the respective areas. Once the targeted fisheries and landing sites are identified that are relevant for each of the 8 sites, the initial baselines will be collected and then the local fisheries administration office will continue to monitor the data and transmit the information to the COMO at DPM on a monthly basis. The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist at the COMO will compile and consolidate the data into trimester monitoring reports for the project. Aggregate percentage values for the two indicators across the sites will be aggregated on an annual basis. Furthermore, each trimester relevant summaries of the data collected for the two indicators will be sent by the COMO to the facilitators, to present to the CLPs and larger communities. Co-Management Component Indicator: The different steps to arrive at a Decree and co-management agreement for each site will be clearly described in a matrix (similar to Appendix 1 in Annex 4), including selection of facilitator, establishment of CLP, preparation of sub-project proposals, and submission through CLPA to Minister for signature as a Decree and co-management agreement. The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist in the COMO will work with the facilitators and CLPs to track the progress of each of the 8 new sites in this process, towards achieving the indicator. Rehabilitation Coastal Ecosystems Component Indicator: This indicator will be measured on the basis of a periodic survey of the villages involved in ZPPs and artificial reefs supported by component 2 of the project, notably Mbodiène, Point Saréne, Nianing, Mballing, Yenne and Bargny. A baseline survey will be conducted prior to effectiveness, to measure satisfaction with public-supported efforts to help rehabilitate coastal ecosystems to date. The survey will be conducted every six months after the baseline, and the results collected by the Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist at the COMO. Alternative Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Component Indicator: The baseline values for this indicator will be determined prior to effectiveness, through the collection of price and sales information of key fish products in each of the 8 new co-management sites, by the group collecting the values of the first two outcome indicators above. After the baseline values are collected, the local fisheries administration office will continue to monitor the data and transmit the information to the COMO at DPM on a monthly basis. The Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist at the COMO will compile and consolidate the data into trimester monitoring reports for the project. Aggregate percentage values for the indicator across the sites will be aggregated on an annual basis. Furthermore, each trimester relevant summaries of the data collected will be sent by the COMO to the facilitators, to present to the CLPs and larger communities. 7

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources A. Project Summary The combined development objective/global objective of the project is to empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). The project would achieve this objective by (i) promoting co-management of the coastal fisheries, (ii) contributing to the rehabilitation of the essential ecosystems for the coastal fisheries, and (iii) supporting alternative livelihoods and accompanying poverty reduction measures in targeted poor fishing communities. Successful experiences would be used to draw lessons for potential replication at a later date to the coastal fisheries in the other regions of the country. The rationale behind this objective is that the coastal fish stocks that provide so many livelihoods, exports and foreign exchange for the country, can be restored if the Government empowers small-scale fishers to sustainably co-manage these resources, while at the same time conserving the key habitats that support them. B. Project Description by Component Component 1. Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries ($2.9 m IDA, $2.65 m GEF, $2.6 m EU) The objective of this component is to implement co-management systems to improve the governance of the coastal fisheries for a more sustainable use of the resources. More specifically, the component aims to consolidate and extend along the central coast of Senegal the results achieved to date in the four co-management pilot sites financed by the GIRMaC (in the communities of Ouakam, Ngaparou, Foundiougne, Batenty), as well as by JICA (Nianing). As such, the project will build upon the progress achieved to date in these co-management sites in order to both sustain these ongoing efforts and replicate them in neighboring communities and fisheries. The project will operate under the principle of replication to the extent possible given the funds and projected operating costs, with a view to maintaining coherence and creating synergies among the initiatives, as well as targeting local fisheries that might be included in future national fisheries management plans (in particular those plans concentrating on coastal shrimp, cymbium and octopus) or in eco-certification efforts (such as lobsters, etc.). In general, the component will support the model of co-management based upon the establishment of Local Fishers Committees (CLPs) within communities as legally-recognized private associations, and Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils (CLPAs) as organs of the Government operating at the supra-community level. More specifically, CLPs are defined as legally-recognized private entities, composed of fishers and established per community. CLPAs are defined as local councils composed of representatives of both Government and stakeholders, including representatives of CLPs, established by the Government in order to advise the Ministry of Maritime Economy. The CLPs will work in collaboration with project-funded facilitators and with the technical assistance of a fisheries co-management specialist, in order to develop co-management initiatives (with each initiative corresponding to a specific management or conservation measure). The various co-management initiatives proposed by CLPs would be consolidated into one sub-project for that community, describing the necessary implementation budget and support activities for each of the management or conservation measures proposed, such as: (i) participatory research, (ii) monitoring and evaluation, (iii) surveillance and enforcement of management and conservation measures, (iv) training, (v) education and awareness-raising and (vi) any other necessary activities. A draft co-management agreement, with the sub-project (various co-management initiatives) as an annex, would then be submitted to the Minister of Maritime Economy, after having been reviewed by the CLPA representing that particular CLP (provided the CLPA has been legally established and is functioning effectively). The agreement would also be sent to the National Consultative Council for Marine Fishers (CNCPM) for any objections. The agreements would then be signed by the Minister of Maritime Economy and the President of each CLP, and implemented by the respective CLPs with the support of the Government. In the context of signing the agreements, the Minister will sign any decrees necessary to support the implementation of the comanagement initiatives, such as for example restrictions on (i) the use of certain types of fishing gear and motors, (ii) fishing catch, (iii) fishing areas or periods open to fishing, (iv) processing of fish products, etc. The initial limit on project funds available to finance each CLP sub-project is set at 100,000,000 CFA (approx. US$250,000), although this could subsequently be increased by as much as an additional 50,000,000 CFA (approx. US$125,000) on the basis of satisfactory implementation of the first sub-project. 8

As part of their support to the implementation of the co-management initiatives, the CLPs would also help identify sources of alternative livelihoods to fishing and general poverty reduction measures to be supported by the Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing and Poverty Reduction Fund (FRAP) in component three. As such, the CLPs will play a central role in working with their communities to identify participants and beneficiaries of microcredit and alternative livelihood activities supported by the FRAP. The CLPs will also help monitor and evaluate the progress of these initiatives supported by the FRAP during their implementation, and play and important role in ensuring that the beneficiaries of these programs respect the terms of their agreements and the co-management agreements signed with the Minister. The process of identifying beneficiaries from the FRAP in component three would be undertaken in parallel with the development of co-management initiatives. When necessary, the project will support the establishment and operations of the CLPA representing the geographic area of targeted CLPs. The CLPAs, working together with the facilitators, members of the CLPs and local government officials, would be supported to develop consolidated local fisheries management plans covering their respective geographic zones, which would reflect the co-management agreements signed by the CLPs. The project would include a budget for support to the CLPAs to implement these management plans, together with Government and other sources of finance. These plans, together with their implementation budgets, would be submitted to the Minister of Maritime Economy, after having been reviewed by the CNCPM for coherence with the plans put forward by other CLPAs, national strategy documents (such as the Letter of Sector Policy and the Accelerated Growth Strategy) and other donor-financed initiatives in the sector. The plans would be approved by the Minister of Maritime Economy, through the passage of a Ministerial Decree legally recognizing the various management and conservation measures included in the plans. The four initial co-management pilot sites financed by the GIRMaC in sub-component 1.1 below will continue to be implemented according to the model already put in place, but these efforts will be monitored and adapted based on new lessons learned in additional sites, to ensure a common approach to co-management of coastal fisheries in the central zone of the country. The co-management initiatives developed by the CLPs, and the consolidated local fisheries management plans prepared by the CLPAs, would include measures targeted to the species or areas co-managed in the four initial pilot sites supported by the GIRMaC, but could also cover other fisheries, or the implementation of protected fisheries zones and immersion of artificial reefs (financed through component two). The co-management agreements between the Ministry and the CLPs, and the consolidated local fisheries management plans prepared by the CLPAs, will be the framework within which various management measures (such as fisheries conservation areas, artificial reefs, eco-labeling, etc.) are implemented. More specifically, in replicating this model to additional sites, the project will ensure that the consultations and levels of local decision-making will be enlarged beyond an individual CLP or community to include the larger group of communities involved in a targeted fishery. The unit of management would expand from the area specific to a community (CLP), to the management of a fishery targeted by several communities (at the level of a CLPA, or several CLPAs). The role of the CLPAs in brokering such collaboration between CLPs and communities will be refined and further implemented with the support of the project, as well as the principles for the discussions between the CLPs, CLPAs and the CNCPM. The Ministry of Maritime Economy will continue to strengthen its capacity to support and monitor the implementation of local co-management initiatives by the CLPs and to ensure their integration into local fisheries management plans developed by the CLPAs, and also incorporating them into national plans with the approval of the CNCPM. Lastly, in the context of component two, the project will help build the capacity of the participating stakeholders to support the Government to eventually use the co-management institutions (CLPs, CLPAs, etc.) to define and test a system of access rights to the targeted coastal fisheries, in particular their allocation and management. The project will also support pilot operations to ensure that the registration of small-scale fishing vessels is a mechanism used to support the efforts of co-management of coastal fisheries, as well as more widely to support the management of artisanal fishing capacity (e.g. together with the use of fishing permits, development of consolidated local fisheries management plans by the CLPAs, monitoring of fisheries statistics, monitoring and evaluation of co-management activities, support for fisheries research, etc.) and surveillance and enforcement of artisanal fisheries. The component will include the following four sub-components: 9

Sub-Component (1) Promotion of Local Co-Management Initiatives in 4 Pilot Sites ($2.9 m IDA) The objective of this sub-component is to continue to support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to test and implement co-management of coastal fisheries in the four initial pilot sites of Ouakam, Ngaparou, Foundiougne and Bétanti, and their neighboring areas. To meet this objective, the project will finance technical assistance, community-level works, goods and equipment for fisheries management, training workshops and operational support. Specific activities will include: Activity 1.1 Identification and Implementation of Local Co-management Initiatives, in the context of Local Co- Management Agreements. This activity will support the targeted communities to identify and formulate subprojects for the co-management of local fisheries, that include specific management measures and a budget, such as (i) restrictions on fish sizes, fishing seasons or on fishing gear that go beyond existing regulations, (ii) limits on daily catch, the number of daily fishing trips, and daily landings, (iii) setting allowable catch within a specific marine area, and (iv) seasonal closures, (v) setting limits or regulating access to certain fishing zones (in conformity with Article 21 of the 1998 Fisheries Code), and (vi) immersion of artificial reefs and the management of access to these areas. The sub-projects will include, for each management measure, a description of the specific activities, their justification, implementation measures and detailed costs. The costs for each of the management measures will be consolidated into an overall budget for the sub-project. A facilitator will be based in each targeted community (or groups of communities) to work with the fishers to establish a legally-recognized CLP, and to help that CLP prepare local co-management initiatives, together with a co-management specialist. Each CLP s comanagement sub-project proposal will be submitted to the CLPA for review and approval, and subsequently to the CNCPM (together with the CLPA s consolidated local fisheries management plan if possible), before being transmitted to the Minister of Maritime Economy for approval and signature as an agreement with the CLP. This agreement will represent a contract between the Government and the CLP for the co-management of the specified fish resources, and together with an accompanying Ministerial Decree, will legally recognize the measures included in the sub-projects. The project will then provide financing directly to the CLPs to implement the local comanagement initiatives. Activity 1.2 Local Level Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS). The project will support local level MCS measures required to ensure compliance with the measures included in the co-management agreements as well as national regulations. These measures will include support for local monitoring of fish catch and effort, surveillance patrols by law enforcement officers as well as by local fishers, and procedures to call on formal surveillance and enforcement capacity when needed (e.g. when external fishers violate the management measures). Activity 1.3 Participatory Fish Stock Evaluation Program. The project will support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to provide assistance (or contract expert consultants) to work with CLPs and communities to conduct participatory evaluations of the impacts of management measures on the fish stocks, and/or monitoring and evaluation of catch and effort data, in response to fishers needs identified by the facilitators. This will include baseline evaluations for each site for the key results indicators. Sub-Component (2) Consolidation and Strengthening of Coastal Fisheries Co-management ($2.45 m GEF) The sites pre-selectioned for financing by this sub-component include: Bargny and Yenne (in particular to support activities related to ongoing management of artificial reefs), Nianing, Mballing, Point Sarène, Mbodieène, Fambine and Carrière (between Ouakam and Soumbédioune). These sites would be supported through the project on the condition of the creation or presence of a CLP and corresponding CLPA, and the implementation of comanagement agreements integrating activities related to the establishment of protected fishing zones (ZPPs) or artificial reefs. The objective of this sub-component is to support the interested neighboring communities around the 4 pilot sites of the GIRMaC to develop and implement co-management measures, towards the consolidation of co-management efforts for shared fisheries, as well as the implementation of common ZPPs and artificial reefs. The key operating principle will be to ensure that all communities concerned by one of the fisheries targeted in the existing pilot sites supported through sub-component 1.1, or by the implementation of ZPPs and artificial reefs supported by component two, participate in the co-management of that fishery (and/or ZPP and artificial reef), with a priority given to those fisheries with the most potential for eco-certification (for example the lobster fishery in Ouakam as well as the one in Ngaparou, and the shrimp fishery in Foundiougne and Bétenti, etc.). A priority will also be given to those resources managed according to a national fisheries management plan (e.g. shrimp, octopus 10

and cymbium). To meet this objective, the project will finance technical assistance, community-level works, goods and equipment for fisheries management, training workshops and operational support. In particular, the project will support local monitoring of the fish stocks, using tools such as the Guidance for Assessment of Small-Scale and Data Deficient Fisheries manual developed by the Marine Stewardship Council. Outputs from this sub-component will include implementation of co-management of coastal fisheries in at least 8 new communities near or around the four existing pilot sites, including the introduction of access rights in specific cases, and support for community-based monitoring of the resources. In the event that the Ministry of Maritime Economy judges, in the early execution of the project, that any of the pre-selected sites do not conform to the selection criteria outlined above, and in particular the interest of the community to participate, then another site and community would be selected as a replacement. Similarly, if other sites are determined to be a higher priority to ensure integration of various project activities and achievement of the objective, then such sites could be substituted as well, up to a total of 8 new sites for support under this subcomponent. The registration of all small-scale fishing vessels originating from the zone covered by the respective CLPAs for these sites should be completed by the Government, with support from component two if necessary. Specific activities will include: Activity 2.1 Identification of Neighboring Communities to the Initial Pilot Sites, to Confirm their Participation in Co-Management. The project will support the replication, or extension of the co-management model and activities described in sub-component one (as well as implementation of ZPPs and artificial reefs), to at least 8 interested neighboring communities near or around the four pilot sites (along the central coast between the Cap Vert Peninsula and the Saloum River Delta). While the 8 new sites have been pre-selected as mentioned above, criteria for their confirmation will include (i) interest of the respective community, (ii) shared fishery with existing pilot sites, or common interest in a ZPP and artificial reef, and (iii) the existence or creation of a CLPA to represent the community and future CLP. With the support of local Government authorities, the CLPs in the four existing pilot sites, the co-management specialist and the COMO, the current facilitators will conduct visits with neighboring communities to discuss their participation and agreement with the co-management approach up front. As such, the 8 sites for replication will be confirmed with the Directorate of Maritime Fisheries before the project becomes effective. The project will also support study tours for neighboring communities seeking to learn from practices and experiences from the four initial pilot sites or from other co-management sites. The objective of the Government will be eventually to support the participation of all the communities represented by each CLPA in the area of intervention along the central coast to form a CLP as needed and to participate in co-management of the targeted coastal fisheries. Activity 2.2 Replication of Co-Management to Neighboring Communities. Once the 8 communities have been confirmed and agree to participate, the project will support the replication of the co-management model utilized in the existing four pilot sites (see sub-component 1) to these neighboring communities. The project will therefore support (i) the recruitment and initial and ongoing training of 8 community facilitators (selected from within each community to the extent possible) to play the same role as the current facilitators in the 4 initial pilot sites, (ii) the initial and ongoing training in co-management for other participating stakeholders, such as local fisheries administration officials and community leaders, (iii) the establishment and operation of the CLPs, as well as (iv) the development and implementation of co-management agreements. The project will operate on the principle of trying to estimate the recurrent costs of co-management activities in each community up front, and reducing these costs as much as possible while introducing self-funding mechanisms to ensure the models are sustainable. More specifically, this activity will support: (i) the selection and recruitment of community facilitators, and their training, together with other stakeholders at each site (e.g. local fisheries administration agents, community leaders, etc.), in advance of beginning any co-management activities in a site; (ii) the establishment of CLPs in each of the 8 new sites; (iii) the construction of fishers meeting place 1 in each community (or groups of communities, depending on availability of funds) which would be the property and headquarters of the CLP; (iv) implementation of awareness campaigns among the communities to ensure ownership of the co-management process; (iv) provision of information and training for CLPs to help identify management measures; (vi) a participatory biological and socioeconomic baseline evaluation of the sites and fisheries, according to the results indicators, which should be available for each site before the sub-projects are financed; (vii) the identification by the CLPs of sub-projects for submission to the Minister of Maritime Economy for signature as a co-management agreement, (viii) the 1 The meeting place would allow for meetings and training sessions, and would be constructed or rehabilitated for the sites where there are already local fishers associations. Construction would be based on the availability of land concessioned to the CLP by the local collective. 11

identification of poverty reduction measures and alternative livelihoods support for fishers and fish processors from the FRAP in component three of the project; (ix) the development and implementation of participatory research programs and monitoring and evaluation; (x) the identification of any surveillance and enforcement needs to apply the measures necessary to implement the co-management agreements, including participatory local surveillance in the context of the CLPAs and the preparation of corresponding surveillance and enforcement plans; (xi) preparation of the consolidated management plans (including the sub-projects and accompanying surveillance and enforcement measures) by the CLP and their submission to the CLPA and subsequently CNCPM; (xii) presentation of the draft co-management agreements and Ministerial Decrees to the Minister of Maritime Economy for signature; (xiii) implementation of sub-projects and consolidated management plans by the respective CLP; (xiv) monitoring and evaluation of implementation by the CLPs and CLPAs; and (xv) implementation and monitoring of poverty reduction and alternative livelihoods measures identified and supported by the FRAP in component three. The activities supported by component three and sub-component 1.2 of the project should be implemented in parallel in order to ensure the success of fisheries co-management measures. In order to implement these activities, the facilitators in the existing four pilot sites and the co-management specialist will provide support to the community facilitators and supervise their activities. More specifically, the comanagement specialist will supervise the facilitators in the existing four pilot sites, who will in turn support and supervise the new community facilitators. The results of the co-management agreements (including detailed financial management: e.g. the budget, commitments, payments made, disbursements by activity, etc.) should be presented each semester by the CLP to the community (with the support of the community facilitator, the co-management specialist and local fisheries administration officials), and transmitted to the CLPA and the CNCPM. These presentations will be indispensible to guide future requests for co-management agreements and sub-projects, and should also include any corrective measures needed to improve the performance of sub-projects. After the first year of project implementation, a study will be conducted to detail the preparation cycle for comanagement agreements and their approval, including the roles and responsibilities of different actors, the procedures, as well as for the consolidated local fisheries management plans. An updated sustainability plan for comanagement activities supported by the project in the various sites should be completed by the COMO by mid-term review. Activity 2.3 Local level Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MSC) of fisheries. The project will support necessary MCS measures in the areas under the jurisdiction of CLPAs, in order to ensure that fishing activities respect rules and regulations stated in the consolidated local fisheries management plans implemented by the CLPAs, as well as national regulations. These measures include the support to local monitoring of fishing effort, patrols by local authorities and by local community members and procedures to call on formal surveillance and enforcement capacity when needed (e.g. when external fishers violate the management measures). At the beginning of project implementation a study will be conducted through this activity in order to define the procedures for MCS in the context of a consolidated MCS plan prepared by the CLPs and CLPAs. This plan should include the objectives and targeted results, activities, implementation procedures and detailed budget (distinguishing between investment and recurrent costs), as well as sources of finance. Completion of this study, along with the individual consolidated fisheries management plans of the CLPAs, will be a preliminary step to project financing of MCS activities. Sub-Component (3) Institutional Support for a System of Local Fisheries Governance ($0.2 m GEF, $2.6 m EU) The objective of this sub-component is to strengthen the capacity for the consultation and decision-making mechanisms between the different participating communities, i.e. the CLPAs. In particular, this sub-component will support CLPAs and CLPs to move away from individual co-management plans and agreements between each CLP in a community and the Ministry of Maritime Economy, to larger multi-clp agreements around a shared fishery (within the boundaries of member communities to a CLPA). As a basis for these activities, by project effectiveness the Ministry of Maritime Economy will pass a Ministerial Decree clearly defining the mandate of the CLPAs, although not the specific CLPAs themselves. A separate Prefectural Decree will be passed establishing the respective CLPAs representing the communities targeted by the project, within the first six months of project implementation. GEF-funded outputs will include local fisheries co-management plans approved by the targeted CLPAs and submitted to the CNCPM. To meet this objective, the project will finance technical assistance, training workshops and operational support. Specific activities will include: 12

Activity 3.1 Support to CLPAs. This activity will support the CLPAs to function and play their roles in each of the areas of intervention of the project, to coordinate and review local co-management initiatives proposed by CLPs (and eventually to consolidate them where possible), to broker agreements between different communities and CLPs, and to contribute to larger national-level management plans. The project will also support the CLPAs to develop and implement localcoastal fisheries management plans that aggregate the different co-management initiativeplans of CLPs to cover all of the fisheries within the scale of the CLPA. At least [4?] local fisheries management plans will be approved by targeted CLPAs, by mid-term review of the project. The project will provide [recruit consultant?] to assist the CLPAs to develop the plans. The project will also support capacitybuilding activities in targeted communities, including inter-community visits and exchanges to share experiences and lessons learned. Activity 3.2 Support to the CNCPM. This activity will support the CNCPM to discuss strategic issues in the sustainable management of fisheries that arise at the level of CLPAs but which have national implications. This will include support for consultations and training of CNCPM members, including sessions for assessing subproject proposals from CLPs and consolidated local fisheries management plans by the CLPAs. Additionally, the DPM could submit specific measures for review by the CNCPM, such as (i) the extension of a closed season to cover artisanal fisheries, (ii) the institutional study on co-management, etc. The project will provide support to the CNCPM as needed for these reviews. While an institutional study on co-management will be conducted at the beginning of the project in order to summarize (i) the legal framework for the CLPs, CLPAs and CNCPM, including their regulatory jurisdiction and the legal powers they will have to enforce decisions, (ii) the placement of the three institutions within the country s larger institutional framework for fisheries management, including their relationship to each other as well as outside institutions (e.g. producers organizations, etc.), and (iii) the internal organization of each of the three institutions, in particular the need to establish sub-commissions concentrated on particular themes, or supply chains, etc. The study will propose any adjustments to existing regulations necessary to support the three institutions and co-management of coastal fisheries. Component 2. Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries ($2.85 m GEF, $0.5 m IDA, $1.5 m EU, $0.5 m France, $0.5 m Switzerland, $0.2 m Government) The objective of this component is to contribute to the rehabilitation of ecosystems essential to the coastal fisheries, by implementing protected fishing zones (ZPPs) and artificial reefs in order to help regenerate the natural resources, by registering small-scale vessels and in pilot cases introducing access rights, by creating market mechanisms to encourage sustainable management of the ecosystems, and by improving practices and technologies in the coastal industrial shrimp fisheries. Depending on their size, the ZPPs and the artificial reefs will be integrated into the co-management agreements signed by the CLPs with the Ministry of Maritime Economy, as well as the consolidated local fisheries management plans prepared by the CLPAs, and in any relevant national fisheries management plans. The instruments necessary to manage access to certain fishing zones or resources, or more generally to support fisheries sector management, will be supported by this component, including registration of small-scale fishing vessels and the establishment and allocation of access rights in certain cases. This will include four sub-components: Sub-Component (1) Protected Fishing Zones (ZPPs) ($1.1 m GEF) The objective of this sub-component is to support the Government to establish several protected fishing zones (ZPPs) as instruments of the co-management system of coastal fisheries, which could be associated with creation and expansion of artificial reefs, in order to protect critical habitats, nursery areas and spawning grounds for coastal demersal species. The ZPPs will include a peripheral zone where fishing is regulated to permit only specific types of activities or limited access, and a core zone where fishing activities are prohibited altogether, on the basis of the 1998 Fisheries Code. The procedures and mechanisms for the establishment, implementation and management of ZPPs will be complimentary to those implemented in the context of component one, and will be recorded in a guide for ZPPs to be produced before the end of the project. Towards the establishment of ZPPs, the sub-component will finance technical assistance, goods and equipment for establishment and management of ZPPs, training workshops and consultations (notably between CLPs and/or CLPAs) to define the ZPP, and operational costs for the ZPPs. This sub-component could also support communities to conduct direct habitat restoration or cleaning of marine environments critical for coastal demersal species, as needed in targeted areas. Outputs from this sub-component 13

will include the establishment (creation, demarcation, management planning and monitoring, etc.) of protected fishing zones in targeted sites. Specific activities will include: Activity 1.1 Creation of Protected Fishing Zones (ZPPs). This activity will support the creation of protected fishing zones and the appropriate participatory management framework for them, in potential sites that can support the rehabilitation of the fish resources. In particular the project would support the establishment of a ZPP that would include the four communities of Mballing, Nianing, Point Sarène et Mbodiène, and another that would include Ouakam and Carrière. More specifically, the project will support targeted fishing communities to identify and demarcate potential protected fishing zones (ZPPs), and to develop, implement and monitor management plans for these ZPPs. Community consensus on the identification and establishment of a ZPP will be an essential precondition for project activities. These activities will include: (i) organizing information and awareness campaigns in targeted communities on the concept, establishment process, management and benefits of ZPPs; (ii) consultating with stakeholders that will be involved, directly or indirectly affected by ZPPs, in order to define the different actors in the area and their perceptions, means of collective and individual action, objectives and concerns regarding the creation of the ZPPs; (iii) building the capacity of stakeholders for the co-management of the ZPPs; (iv) conducting baseline evaluations of sites and assessments of fish resources and fishing practices; (v) supporting a participatory process for designating ZPPs; and (vi) measuring the socioeconomic baseline and potential benefits from the creation of the ZPPs, for discussion with stakeholders. Activity 1.2 Support the Preparation and Implementation of Management Plans for ZPPs. This activity will support the creation, approval and monitoring and evaluation of management plans for the ZPPs, and subsequently their integration into the sub-project proposals of respective CLPs and the consolidated local fisheries management plans prepared by the relevant CLPAs (depending on the size of the ZPP). The project will assist communities and the Government to clearly define the objectives, management and/or conservation measures and intended results of each ZPP, in the context of a participatory management plan and necessary regulatory measures. The project will also ensure that the CLPAs integrate these ZPPs into the consolidated local fisheries management plans they prepare (see component 1) and submit them to the Minister of Maritime Economy for official recognition (i.e. a Ministerial Decree specifying the limits of the zone and the eligible fishing activities). The ZPP management plans will also identify any potential alternative livelihoods to fishing and accompanying poverty reduction measures, which would be funded by the FRAP in component 3 of the project. Activity 1.3 Conduct Feasibility Studies for Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for ZPPs. The project will fund feasibility studies, as well as follow-up activities, to establish a sustainable financing mechanism (e.g. established funds, revenue generating mechanisms, public-private partnerships, etc.) that can support the recurrent costs of management of the network of ZPPs after the close of the project. Activity 1.4 Capacity-Building for Replication of ZPPs. The project will support stakeholders and decision-makers from different ZPPs in the network to exchange experiences, conduct study tours, etc. to ensure that lessons learned are replicated and shared. Activity 1.5 Support Monitoring and Surveillance of ZPPs. The project will support the development of standards and instruments for monitoring and evaluation of the network of ZPPs, as well as surveillance, including (i) the definition of indicators and criteria for success for the group of ZPPs, (ii) a system of monitoring and evaluation (including a common protocol for monitoring among different ZPPs), and (iii) the definition of roles and responsibilities for different stakeholders in the monitoring. Sub-Component (2) Artificial Reefs ($0.5 m GEF, $0.2 m Government) The objective of this sub-component is to support the implementation of the Government s policy on artificial reefs, as a tool to help rehabilitate coastal fisheries habitats in the context of co-management. To meet this objective the project will finance technical assistance (to finalize the selection of areas for immersion of reefs, the types of reefs to use, etc.), goods and equipment, works and operating costs. Outputs from this sub-component will include the immersion of artificial reefs in targeted project areas. Specific activities will include: Activity 2.1 Selection of appropriate Sites for, and Immersion of, Artificial Reefs. The project will support the necessary feasibility studies to examine the physical and chemical conditions of the potential sites, in order to determine the exact locations for the artificial reefs and to characterize the type of materials that will be used to construct the reefs. On the basis of the feasibility and conception studies, the project will fund the construction and immersion of artificial reefs, in consultation with local fishers and CLPs (in coordination with component one of 14

the project). The communities of Bargny and Yenne will be targeted specifically by this activity, on the basis of the strong local interest of these communities to continue to co-manage artificial reefs already in place as a result of efforts by the Government and JICA. The support of the project will focus on expanding these reefs and ensuring their ongoing co-management. The creation, management, surveillance, and monitoring and evaluation of the artificial reefs under this activity will be integrated in consolidated local fisheries management plans prepared by the respective CLPA and/or the co-management agreements with the CLPs. Activity 2.2 Support National Artificial Reef Immersion Program of the Ministry of Maritime Economy. The project will provide technical support to the Government s program for artificial reef identification, immersion, monitoring and evaluation. This support will capitalize on the outcomes of the international conference on artificial reefs scheduled to be held in Dakar in November 2008, in particular on the development and finalization of a national plan on artificial reefs. Activity 2.3 Conduct Feasibility Studies for Sustainable Financing Mechanisms for Artificial Reefs. The project will fund feasibility studies, as well as follow-up activities, to establish a sustainable financing mechanism (e.g. established funds, revenue generating mechanisms, public-private partnerships, etc.) that can support the recurrent costs of management of artificial reefs after the close of the project. Activity 2.4 Strengthen Community-Based Management of Artificial Reefs. The project will support the development of management and surveillance plans for the areas where artificial reefs are immersed, in the framework of consolidated local fisheries management plans prepared by CLPAs as well as co-management agreements with CLPs. Activity 2.5 Define and Support Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Artificial Reefs. The project will support the development and implementation of protocols and instruments for the monitoring and evaluation of artificial reefs, through (i) the definition of key indicators and criteria for evaluating the performance of artificial reefs, (ii) a system of monitoring and evaluation (including a common protocol for the monitoring of different reefs), and (iii) the definition of roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in the implementation of system. Sub-component (3): Introduction of Access Rights and Instruments for their Management ($0.05 m GEF, US$0.5 m IDA, US$1.5 m EU, US$0.5 m Switzerland) The objective of this sub-component is to introduce access rights to coastal fisheries targeted by the project, in particular (but not exclusively) in the areas where ZPPs and artificial reefs have been created, in order to reinforce co-management. As soon as the co-management process described in component one is operational, so that a series of management and conservation measures will be implemented by communities to establish the principle of limited access to ZPPs, artificial reefs and specific fisheries, the project will test the creation and allocation of access rights to these areas, as planned in the Letter of Sector Policy. At the larger scale, this sub-component will also support the registration of small-scale fishing vessels as a necessary basis for management and development of access rights, through the Government s National Registration Program. Outputs from this sub-component will include the introduction of access rights in selected fisheries conservation areas and artificial reefs. To meet this objective, the project will finance technical assistance, training workshops and operational support. Activity 3.1 Definition of Access Rights. In collaboration with the fishers and stakeholders, the project will define the form of the access rights in the targeted areas and fisheries that will be tested, as well as the necessary regulations and procedures. These rights will be articulated in the context of the existing management instruments, for example small-scale fishing vessel registration, small-scale fishing permits, implementation of co-management agreements by CLPs and the consolidated local fisheries management plans by CLPAs. Activity 3.2 Introduction of the Access Rights. The project will support communities and the DPM to test the introduction of access rights to areas and resources in appropriate sites (such as Bargny and Yenne in the case of artificial reefs) and in ZPPs. Activity 3.3 Implementation of a Small-Scale Vessel Registration Program (PNI). The project will support the implementation of the Government s national small-scale fishing vessel registration program (Programme National d Immatriculation PNI). The project will finance technical assistance, training workshops and necessary equipment. The funds from the GIRMaC project will support this program specifically, together with support from the Government of Switzerland that is managed by the World Bank, to consult with small-scale fishers, vessel owners and other stakeholders to create and implement an information communication campaign on the program, 15

supply registration plates and the electronic registration system of the Ministry of Maritime Economy, and train local and regional fisheries administration staff, in order to register small-scale fishing vessels. The registration of all small-scale fishing and transport vessels in the central coastal region targeted by the project (between the Cap Vert Peninsula and the Saloum River Delta) will be completed by May 2009. Sub-Component (4) Market Incentives for Sustainable Management for Targeted Fisheries ($0.5 m GEF) The objective of this sub-component is to create the conditions necessary for eco-certification of one co-managed coastal fishery, according to the principles and criteria of the internationally-recognized sustainable fisheries certification body, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The coastal fisheries targeted by the project will be those most conducive to obtaining an eco-certification for being sustainably managed according to the MSC s international standards, as models that can be replicated. Managing multi-species fisheries such as the coastal fisheries of Senegal to such standards is inherently difficult. In order to reduce the complexity of the work and increase the chances of success, the project will favor those single species coastal fisheries that are geographically discreet stocks under systems of co-management (see component 1). On this basis, the fishery selected for support by the project is the lobster fishery in the coastal area stretching from Yoff to Terrou Baye Sogui in the western region of the Cap Vert peninsula. This region is under the jurisdiction of the West Dakar CLPA already created by the Government, and the species are already subject to co-management measures by the CLP in Ouakam. Outputs from this sub-component will be the preparation of at least one fishery for eco-certification. The sub-component will finance technical assistance, training and consultations and operating costs. Specific activities will include: Activity 4.1 Validation and Pre-Evaluation of Selected Fisheries. The requirements and standards of the MSC ecolabel will be presented to the stakeholders in the candidate fishery, as well as the objectives and definition of the certification and labeling process. The project will take as a starting point the lobster fishery identified in as the best candidate for ecolabelling in the context of preparation feasibility studies, verifying that the necessary conditions for ecocertification are feasible. Toward this objective, the project will finance the necessary preliminary activities with stakeholders, including the private sector, respective Government authorities, and if possible, potential ecocertification clients. In particular, the project will finance a participatory analysis of the fishery, considering the implementation of a co-management system and appropriate regulatory framework. The project will then finance a Pre-Evaluation of the fishery, as the preliminary step to obtaining the eco-certification. Furthermore, this activity will then finance a roadmap of actions necessary for obtaining the eco-certification in each of the coastal fisheries selected, presenting the results to all stakeholders. Activity 4.2 Study of the Prerequisites to Access Eco-certification Markets. The incentive for the eco-certification for the fishers is the higher prices that the label commands in international markets. For this reason, the project will finance an analysis of the entire value chain, to ensure that the upstream management actions designed to add value are capitalized upon through to the final market, and that a strong demand exists. The study will result in an action plan for key actions at each step in the value chain, to ensure that the products originating from the targeted fishery can obtain an eco-certification and subsequent premiums on the market. Activity 4.3 Monitoring and Coordination of Action Plan for Eco-certification of the Targeted Fishery and Restructuring of the Value Chains. The project will support monitoring, as well as coordination between the Government and stakeholders, of the progress of the fishers in the targeted fishery with the implementation of the action plan to obtain eco-certification. Activity 4.4 Implementation of the Action Plan for Eco-certification of the Targeted Fishery. The project will help finance the implementation of the action plan for eco-certification of targeted fishery, including technical assistance, training and implementation activities included in the plan. Activity 4.5 Certification and Promotion of the Targeted Fishery. If all of the conditions fixed in the action plans for eco-certification are satisfied in the targeted fishery, and the full value chains are structured according to the action plan to permit the products to reach the market, the project will finance the full evaluation of the fishery, as the final step to obtaining the certification by the MSC. Sub-Component (5) Improved Practices and Technologies in the Coastal Industrial Shrimp Fisheries to Protect the Ecosystems ($0.7 m GEF, $0.5 m France) The objective of this sub-component is to assist the coastal industrial shrimp fleet to adopt more environmentallyfriendly technologies and fishing practices, to reduce their impacts on the coastal ecosystems and fisheries targeted by the project and to support increased profitability in the fleet. This sub-component will be implemented through a 16

multi-disciplinary approach 2 in partnership between the Government and the shrimp fishing fleet, in the context of a partnership agreement that would seek the elaboration and execution of strategies to improve technology and practices. This collaboration will aimed at supporting the adoption of new management and regulatory measures agreed upon by all parties. The project will provide support for tests and development of methodologies, training and awareness-raising, demonstration examples of new technology, as well as some of the initial costs for introduction of the new practices and technologies to reduce the catch of non-targeted fish species (i.e. by-catch) in the coastal shrimp fisheries. Any necessary regulations to support these measures will be passed by the Government as well, with project support. This sub-component will be implemented within the context of a national shrimp fisheries management plan to be developed by the Ministry of Maritime Economy. Any measures to reduce the capacity of the fleet will be taken separately by the Ministry as part of that plan, and not through the introduction of the technologies and practices supported by this sub-component. GEF-funded outputs will include the introduction of environmentally-friendly technologies in targeted coastal industrial shrimp vessels. The subcomponent will finance technical assistance, goods and equipment, and consultations. Specific activities will include: Activity 5.1 Confirmation of the Selection of Practices and Technologies to Test. Several techniques have been identified to potentially reduce the by-catch in the coastal shrimp fisheries, including increasing the mesh size of the fishing nets, installing panels with square nets, etc. The testing of certain technologies to be installed inside the coastal shrimp trawlers, has already elicited the interest of professionals and fisheries managers. A launch workshop will build upon the results obtained to date in Senegal on the basis of tests funded by the French Agency for Development (Agence Française de Développement), as well as results obtained in the sub-region (as in Mauritania) and elsewhere in the world (Mexico, Madagascar, Australia, USA, etc.). This workshop will be organized by the project, with the support of an international consultant. A study tour will be organized for the different stakeholders in a country that has already tested technologies to reduce by-catch from shrimp trawlers, such as Mauritania, or adopted similar technology or practices, such as Madagascar. This trip will help identify the key costs and benefits from introduction of the technology, as well as necessary operational improvements for its development and adaptation to coastal shrimp fisheries in Senegal. After the workshop and the study tour, the fisheries managers and professional of the industry would agree on concrete and realistic objectives for selectivity measures to test through the project. The final planning of project activities, in particular monitoring and experiment protocols, will occur after these preliminary steps. Activity 5.2 Definition of Biological and Economic Monitoring Protocols. Careful monitoring will be supported in order to allow all stakeholders to clearly establish the results of the tests and experiments, as well as to follow the benefits and impacts of operationalizing the technologies and practices. These monitoring efforts will be linked with ongoing work of the Directorate for Fisheries Protection and Surveillance, in order to reduce costs and improve the statistical coverage. For example, an analysis of available historical data on by-catch could be envisaged. Monitoring efforts will concentrate on simple production parameters, such as quantity (kg) of shrimp caught and stored, quantity and composition of by-catch stored (high quality products), quantity and composition of by-catch collected by other operators (low value products), quantity of fish caught and rejected on the sea, and incidence of key species captured (e.g. sharks, turtles) in quantity or volume. Information related to the impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment could also be collected (debris, sediments, plants, etc.). The results of such monitoring will provide information that can not only indicate the impacts of the measures supported by the project, but also help guide future activities. A methodology and a computer processing tool will be developed, as well as procedures for validation, input, data control, and clear definition of responsibilities at each step. The project will support the adoption of monitoring protocols between all stakeholders, to ensure clear responsibilities for data collection and evaluation, conditions for independent observers, and the methods of evaluation and dissemination of data and results. Monitoring will commence on ships that are not equipped with selectivity measures so that before the testing at sea, a baseline evaluation of caught species will be possible. These monitoring activities will begin immediately after effectiveness, in order to provide a baseline by which to measure the impacts of the tests of the technologies and practices for reducing by-catch. During the tests, the impact of the technology on the ship s production will be monitored, in order to assess gains and losses (including related to ergonomics of the boat, which has an impact on fuel consumption). Activity 5.3 Development of Prototypes and Trials at Sea. Based on the collection of information and data to identify the expected results and specific technologies and practices to be researched for viability in reducing bycatch at minimum cost, the project will support trials and demonstrations. The trials on different technologies and 2 For example, the impact of the measures included in this sub-component on revenues of crew or on the performance of shrimp trawlers will have to be taken into account. 17

practices will be conducted throughout the first year of the project, in order to test different fishing seasons. Commercial vessels will be supported to conduct the trials as partners in the project. Throughout the trials, in addition to the impacts on the resources, the economic and social viability of the technologies and practices being tested will be examined. The objective will be to demonstrate to fishers the technologies and practices that are successful in reducing by-catch without negatively impacting their catch and profits. The results of the trials will be continuously validated and confirmed with all partners, in order to reach a consensus on the technologies and practices that will be adopted by the fleet. Validation of technical choices will be carried out in real operational situations throughout a complete fishing season, in order to (i) improve and validate the system in normal work conditions for fishers; (ii) estimate negative and positive impacts on inboard work; (iii) demonstrate to professionals the efficiency and value of the suggested measures and communicate on the basis of an actual experience which ones will be more accepted by other professionals. Activity 5.4 Dissemination and Communication of Accepted Practices and Technologies. After the previous activities are implemented, the Government will start a consultation process with stakeholders in view of establishing a technology transfer program (with training, technical and financial support, fiscal incentives, etc.) that will take into account the professionals economic interests and the necessity to exploit shrimp resources in a sustainable manner. This program will allow shrimp trawler owners to use any mitigation measures, fiscal incentives, capacity adjustment, and regulatory incentives, necessary for the adoption of the new technology. The project will support the preparation of a technology transfer program for the commercial fleet, financing technical assistance and training to the fleets, as well as the implementation of the technologies found to be successful during the trials (see Activity 3.3. above). The project will also support information campaigns to disseminate the practices and technologies, both to the fishing fleet owners and captains, as well as wider stakeholders and the public. A large workshop will be organized near the end of the project to disseminate the results. Activity 5.5 Improved Practices and Technologies in the Deepwater Industrial Shrimp Fisheries to Protect the Ecosystems. Through the support of the Government of France, the project will test and implement approaches to reduce the by-catch of the deepwater industrial shrimp fleet as well, encouraging lessons learned and exchanges of experiences between the coastal and deepwater fleets. Component 3. Poverty Alleviation Measures for Fishing Communities and Alternative Livelihoods for Fishers and Fish Processors (FRAP) ($3.5 m IDA) The objective of this component is to offset any negative socio-economic impacts for targeted fishing communities resulting from co-management initiatives or management plans (including the introduction of instruments such as ZPPs, artificial reefs, eco-labels, etc.). This component will pilot and carefully monitor several alternative livelihood and poverty alleviation measures in the communities targeted by the project, and will work to identify, refine, and reinforce those which are most effective. The component thus supports activities which: (i) provide incentives for families and individuals -- whose livelihoods are adversely affected by reductions in fishing effort resulting from co-management initiatives supported by the project -- to initiate and/or deepen engagement in alternative income-generating activities; and, (ii) support individual fishers, small-scale fish transporters and fish micro-processors (mainly women) who wish to exit the sector and pursue other, potentially more profitable and sustainable employment. The component delivers this support through the establishment of an Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing and Poverty Reduction Fund (Fond de Reconversion des Artisans de Pêcheurs - FRAP) that will be disbursed under two separate windows and, additionally, supports monitoring and evaluation and communications activities. One of the two windows (sub-component one) supports sustainable poverty alleviation measures for targeted communities which will suffer economically from co-management activities (reduced fishing effort, introduction of ZPPs, ecolabeling, etc.). The other window (sub-component two) supports an integrated package of basic skills and small business training and microfinance for fishers and fish processors wishing to exit the fishing sector to pursue other potentially more profitable and sustainable employment. The following activities will be funded under these respective windows: Sub-Component (1): (Window 1) Poverty Alleviation Initiatives in Project-Targeted Communities ($2.1 m IDA) The objective of this sub-component is to pilot initiatives designed to alleviate and redress poverty in fishing communities targeted by the project, particularly for vulnerable fishers, women fish micro-processors, and fisher families. Communities access to this support will depend on their support for, and compliance with, comanagement and ecosystem rehabilitation measures being implemented under the project. CLPs in the communities, with assistance from the facilitators in the four initial pilot sites and additional community facilitators 18

that will be recruted, will play an important role in the management, oversight, and day-to-day monitoring of these initiatives. This sub-component will finance block grants, provision of micro-credit for women, and technical assistance. Specific activities will include: Activity1.1 Increasing Revenues from Fish Products Derived from Co-Managed Sites. This activity will provide block grants to fishing communities targeted by the project to support local-level initiatives to improve the quality of fish products obtained from co-managed sites so income derived from the sale of these fresher, better-processed products is increased. The block grants will support local purchases of small-scale needs, including non-electrified ice boxes, ice purchases, payment for occasional rapid transportation of fish products to larger markets, etc. The CLPs, with community input, will decide how value-added block grants will be utilized and will manage the resources on behalf of the community. A maximum block grant amount of $2,700 dollars per year will be available to each community to support this activity. The block grants, will be transferred to an account held in the name of the community CLP, and will be utilized and managed according to guidelines established in the Project Implementation Manual. To ensure transparency and accountability, the CLPs will be required to post information on block grant receipts and expenditures in a public place (e.g. maisons de pecheurs where they exist or on the CLP notice boards installed under Component 1). The facilitators in the four initial pilot sites and the new community facilitators will provide support to, and oversight of, CLPs on the quality improvement initiatives and on management and oversight of the block grant funds. Activity 1.2 Expansion of Local Income-Generating Activities. This activity will provide block grants to poor fishing families in communities targeted by the project, in order to stimulate their deeper engagement in alternative income-generating activities to fishing, for which markets might be easily accessed and developed. A portion (20 percent) of the total block grant fund resources available for each community will be committed up-front by the FRAP and utilized to provide (i) technical assistance to communities and families in identifying viable and sustainable income-generating activities as alternatives to fishing, and (ii) on-going technical assistance to communities and families encountering difficulties in building their new income-generating activities. The CLPs, in consultation with the community, and with support from the facilitators, will identify poor families who will benefit from these activities. To ensure transparency and accountability, the CLPs will post and maintain a list of beneficiary families and their approved income-generating activities in a public place (e.g. the maisons de pecheurs where they exist or the CLP notice boards installed under Component 1). CLPs, with the support of facilitators, and the entities providing technical assistance, will ensure that beneficiary families utilize the block grant resources appropriately and in compliance with agreements. Two types of annual evaluation activities will be supported under this activity, annual community-level self-assessments of progress, and an independent assessment of progress made under the initiative at large. The project will also finance technical support for communities and individuals in preparing the annual budget and implementation plans which must be submitted and approved before financing is released. The budget and implementation plans must receive the approval of both the CLP and the FRAP in order to receive financing, and must conform with the guidelines governing local income-generating activities as provided in the Project Implementation Manual. Activity 1.3 Micro-Finance for Women. This activity will support access to micro-finance for individual women resident in the communities targeted by the project, to encourage small business development and expanded local product development. Micro-finance support will provide an additional safety net for communities and families negatively affected by co-management and ecosystem rehabilitation initiatives implemented through the project by supporting development of alternative or supplementary livelihoods. The activity will provide a line of credit and guarantee funds to a well-established, national micro-finance institution with significant prior experience in providing micro-finance support to the fishing sector. The micro-finance institution (MFI) will determine individual women s eligibility for micro-finance support, will be responsible for implementing and managing the activity, and will provide quarterly monitoring reports, organized by targeted community and providing information on lending, repayment and default rates to the FRAP. The activity will also provide support to the micro-finance institution to strengthen capacity to provide financial services to vulnerable fishing communities. Additionally, it will finance community level training for women micro-finance recipients in basic money management and planning skills. Sub-Component (2): (Window 2) Support for Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing ($1.0 m IDA) The objective of this window of the FRAP is to pilot an initiative to encourage young fishers (aged 18-40) and women fish micro-processors in the communities targeted by the project to pursue alternative livelihoods. The window will provide an integrated package of: (i) micro-finance; (ii) skills development and small business management training; and (iii) highly personalized technical assistance and support to individuals voluntarily opting to exit the fishing sector and pursue other viable and sustainable employment. 19

Alternative livelihoods support from the FRAP will be provided to individuals who: volunteer with their local CLP to pursue livelihoods outside of fishing; are verified by the CLP as being active fishers or active women fish microprocessors in that community at the time of volunteering; certify with the CLP that they will begin to actively reduce their fishing/fish processing efforts no later than 6 months after receiving FRAP support; certify with the CLP that they will cease fishing/fish processing activities one year after commencing FRAP support; qualify to receive micro-finance support from the MFI; and who qualify to receive skills development training and personal support from an institution contracted by the project to provide technical assistance to the FRAP (known as the FRAP Support Institution). Candidates for support from this window of the FRAP will be required to agree to the pre-set conditions by signing an Alternative Livelihoods Agreement with the CLP and FRAP. Qualifying candidates who comply with the terms of their Alternative Livelihoods Agreement can continue to receive the full package of FRAP support for up to 30 months. The full guidelines for operation of the Alternative Livelihoods window will be provided in the Project Implementation Manual. The CLP, with support from the facilitators and the FRAP Support Institution will be responsible for monitoring candidates compliance with the terms of the Alternative Livelihoods Agreements. To ensure transparency in the selection of candidates for support under this window of the FRAP, and to foster their compliance, the CLP will post a live list of the FRAP candidates in that community in a prominent public place (typically on the CLP notice boards installed under Component 1), along with a standard Alternative Livelihood Agreement form. The list of candidates will also specify the date of commencement of FRAP support for alternative livelihoods for each; the 6-month timeline when the candidate must begin to reduce their fishing/fish processing effort; the one year timeline when the candidate is expected to cease fishing/fish processing; and the 30-month timeline during which the candidate is eligible to receive the full package of FRAP support. Women fish micro-processors who become candidates cannot simultaneously receive support under FRAP s Micro-finance for Women activity. The activities to be supported under this sub-component consist of an integrated package of support, all three elements of which must be provided concurrently to each candidate. Candidates will not have the option of electing to receive some elements of the package while rejecting others. Activity 2.1 Micro-Finance for Fishers and Women Fish Micro-Processors opting for Alternative Livelihoods. This activity will provide a line of credit and guarantee funds to a well-established national MFI with extensive prior experience in delivery micro-finance to the fishing sector so the institution can deliver micro-finance to individuals in the communities targeted by the project who want to exit the fishing sector and pursue other livelihoods. The MFI will determine individual candidates eligibility for micro-finance support, and will be responsible for implementing and managing the micro-finance support activity associated with the FRAP. Before proceeding to provide micro-finance to a candidate, the MFI will need to confirm with the CLP that that individual has formally opted to leave the fishery, and confirm with the FRAP Support Institution that that specific individual will receive their technical support. The MFI will provide quarterly monitoring reports to the FRAP Management Unit in the DPM, with information on borrowing, saving, repayment, and default rates by community. The MFI will also provide quarterly monitoring reports to the FRAP Support Institution on borrowing, saving, repayment and default for each candidate in each community so the Institution can tailor individualized support for each individual s needs. A Partnership Agreement between DPM and the MFI will clearly specify the terms and conditions of operation of this micro-finance initiative. The Partnership Agreement will comply closely with the guidelines for this activity provided in the Project Implementation Manual. Activity 2.2 Basic Skills and Small Business Management Training. This activity will support the provision of basic skills development and small business management training for FRAP candidates by the FRAP Support Institution. The FRAP Support Institution will provide candidates with highly individualized training in basic skills development; in planning, money management (including management of bank accounts and relationships with the MFI), and small business development; and in problem-solving. Activity 2.3 Ongoing Personal Support to FRAP Candidates. This activity will support the provision of ongoing, highly individualized support by the FRAP Support Institution to candidates so they are better equipped to deal with the full challenges involved in undertaking alternative livelihoods to fishing. The FRAP Support Institution will provide ongoing support on organization skills, life-management skills, and conflict management skills, amongst others. Sub-Component (3): Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Communications ($0.4 m IDA) 20

The objective of this sub-component is to strengthen the capacity of the relevant specialists within DPM, to manage and effectively monitor activities supported by this component of the project, and support significant communications initiatives on the initiatives being supported under this component. Capacity-building activities will support formal training needs of FRAP specialists within DPM; purchase of essential office equipment and supplies (such as a vehicle dedicated for use by FRAP specialists, gasoline and vehicle maintenance, computers, printers, faxes, paper, essential office equipment, etc.). Monitoring and evaluation funds will be used to cover basic operational costs involved in overseeing component 3 activities (including travel costs to participating communities, telephone costs, etc.). The Monitoring and evaluation funds will also support the costs of an annual quantitative and qualitative assessment of progress being made under FRAP-supported initiatives. These annual assessments will be undertaken by a contracted independent entity with appropriate skills and experience in this area. The communications funds will be used to support significant communications initiatives on component 3 activities, including posters, community radio announcements, etc.). Component 4. Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$1.6 M IDA, US$0.5 M GEF, US$5.1 M EU) The objective of this component is to support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to manage and implement the project in the context of the Letter of Sector Policy, and to monitor and evaluate results. This will include three subcomponents: Sub-Component (1) Development of a Fisheries Code and Support for the Implementation of Fisheries Management Plans, including research, policies, regulations and management measures ($0.9 m IDA, 4.4 m EU) The objective of this component is to support the Government to develop a new Fisheries Code governing the sector, taking into account the results of the co-management pilots and the new vision for the resources established in the Letter of Sector Policy. The project will finance technical assistance, goods and equipment, training and consultations, and operating costs. Specific activities will include: Activity 1.1 Support to Develop a New Marine Fisheries Code. The project will provide support for technical assistance and consultations for the Government to develop a new Fisheries Code to be passed into law before the end of the project. Activity 1.2 Implementation of National Fisheries Management Plans. The project will provide support for development of national fisheries management plans, and for the implementation of the management measures included therein. Sub-Component (2) Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation ($0.7 m IDA, $0.7 m EU, $0.45 m GEF) The objective of this sub-component is to support the Directorate of Maritime Fisheries to ensure effective project coordination and monitoring and evaluation. GEF-funded outputs will include the technical assistance and goods necessary to ensure a functional management and a monitoring and evaluation system for the project. Activity 2.1 Project Management. This activity will support the Directorate for Marine Fisheries to manage the implementation of project activities, in coordination with support from various donors, in order to achieve the intended results. The project will finance technical assistance, training, goods and equipment and operating costs. Activity 2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation. This activity will support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to periodically monitor and evaluate the progress of the project towards achieving its intended results, and to make any necessary adjustments. The project will finance technical assistance, training, goods and equipment and operating costs. Sub-Component (3) Replication of Project Activities at the Sub-Regional and Regional Level ($0.05 m GEF) The objective of this sub-component is to support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to help share lessons learned and encourage the replication of project activities in the sub-region and region, including participation in regional fora and projects such as the CCLME. C. Sustainability Plan The issue of sustainability is examined from the perspective of institutions, policies and individual sites. In terms of institutional sustainability, the project will work with partners to support the Directorate for Marine Fisheries in the implementation of the fisheries management aspects of the Letter of Sector Policy, to ensure that the progress made 21

towards achieving the objectives of the Letter is continued by MEM after the project. Furthermore, the project is promoting the implementation of existing policies for co-management already established by the Government based in part on pilots financed to date by the GIRMaC. Thus, the policies supported by the project are fixed, and the institutions involved all subscribe to them. Lastly, in terms of individual sites, the project is designed to minimize the operating costs per site after the end of the project, and to ensure clear benefits are seen by the communities, who will themselves continue the coastal fisheries management activities long after the project. The project aims to empower stakeholders to take a greater role in the management of the natural resources, a model inherently more sustainable than a centralized, top-down system with high operating costs. D. Replication Strategy The project was developed in response to a detailed assessment of threats, gaps and lessons from the past experience in the fisheries sector in Senegal. Several activities will be undertaken to ensure that lessons that emerge during and from this operation are captured and shared with relevant stakeholders. These stakeholders will include local, national and international participants. Given its focus on results and its consistency with Governments, donors and the World Bank s growing preference for result-based interventions, the operation will prove to be highly replicable, both within the country and at the sub-regional and regional level. At the country level, the project will implement a model for comanagement of coastal fisheries that can grow horizontally and be replicated to communities throughout the country, particularly as more and more are established. The reasoning for clustering project activities in the coastal region between Cap Vert and the Saloum is that in addition to the synergies captured between neighboring sites, the concentration of results and achievements in one region can act as an example that catalyzes similar actions in the northern and southern regions. The project will support MEM to promote these examples to other regions, including exchanges between individual fishing communities to share lessons learned. All of these activities are considered by MEM and the donors as initial examples of implementation of the Government s new Letter of Sector Policy for the fisheries, that if successful can be replicated more widely. Thus, the potential for replication within the country is high, as the project supports activities that are part of a nationwide policy. Collaboration between donors in terms of co-financing of investment support through this project for the implementation of this policy, would form the basis of a potential Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) in a second round of financing after the end of the project, in order to replicate results with more efficiency. Of course, actual replicability will ultimately depend on the success the operation will be able to show The operation has been designed based upon the experiences of the GIRMaC as well as interventions by JICA in Nianing. Lessons learned from these will play a seminal role in designing similar initiatives in the sub-region. The project will serve as a pilot for the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project. The project includes an activity in component 4 to support the staff of DPM to work with staff of the CCLME, and to participate in subregional fora sponsored by that project in order to share lessons learned with government officials from neighboring countries. Additionally, the seven member countries of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Cape Verde and Sierra Leone) have asked the Commission to develop a strategy and logical framework for fisheries management activities in the sub-region, which includes various donor-supported activities such as this project, which could be shared and replicated by member states. At the regional level,staff from DPM will work with the African Union through the Strategic Partnership for Fisheries in Africa, in order to share lessons learned and promote replication throughout the continent. Through the Partnership, the AU (supported by FAO and WWF) will monitor the progress of the project, and disseminate lessons learned widely to member governments, through publications, workshops and ongoing policy dialogue. This project would form a case study by which ongoing policy dialogue on the sector by the Afican Union with its member states is informed. Replication Plan: To achieve these levels of replication, the project will ensure a monitoring and evaluation system that feeds results into several distinct groups with the potential to take up lessons: The Ministry of Maritime Economy s recently established monitoring and evaluation committee for the implementation of the Letter of Sector Policy, and coordination of donor inputs; The informal group of fisheries donors in Senegal, co-chaired by the Government of France and the World Bank; The GEF-funded Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem project, which will be based in Dakar at the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, and which will be targeted through activities of the project for outreach and communication; The Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, which is also based in Dakar; and 22

The African Union, as chair of the GEF-funded Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Fisheries in Africa, and specifically the Coordinator for the Regional Advisory Committee to the Partnership, who will use funds from the Partnership to monitor the implementation of the project, share lessons learned and encourage replication. In terms of the latter, part of the work program of the Coordinator for the Strategic Partnership, which is funded by a GEF Medium-Sized Project Grant, is to work with FAO and WWF to liaise with the Ministry of Maritime Economy to compile project results data and information, conduct periodic reviews and independent evaluations of the project, and distill lessons learned. The project is expected to generate significant lessons which can lead to the development of strategies in other countries in the region for the long-term financing of sustainable fisheries. The African Union and its partners, FAO and WWF, will therefore utilize the lessons learned from this project, and by the end of the project will have (through the GEF-funded MSP) aimed to assist at least 3 countries in the region to develop long-term strategies for sustainable fisheries management, based in part on the lessons from Senegal and this project. An important output of the Strategic Partnership will be the strengthened regional partnerships between Government officials and decision-makers in Senegal, and other countries wishing to learn from their experiences through this project. The Strategic Partnership MSP will support regular meetings of the Regional Advisory Committee of the Partnership, which includes decision-makers from countries throughout Africa as well as donors, to share lessons learned from this project and promote replication. These enhanced partnerships and an enhanced donor coordination will create an atmosphere of shared and evolving responsibilities and would prove to be a strong vehicle for future replication. The Strategic Partnership will also develop a communication strategy, with support from WWF, that will support replication of lessons learned from the project. This strategy should be completed by the end of the first year of the project, and tested and ready to support dissemination of lessons learned. A communication strategy, that facilitates participation and knowledge transfer will also be tested. The approach will include facilitating exchange of information and good practices (knowledge transfer) through information dissemination workshops which include the publication of the project s result documents. Thus, approaches to project management and development, knowledge and information sharing and the M&E system that is developed will be replicable across other multi-stakeholder projects in the region. Additionally, a public awareness campaign will be implemented through component 4 of the project to enable both increased awareness and behavioral changes in the fisheries. It will include media campaigns at the national level, production of fisheries-related education materials aimed at school children, and printed and audiovisual materials distributed through local media. Budgetary provisions have been made for the derivation of lessons learned to be translated into guidance for replication under component 4 of the operation. Resources will mainly be applied towards capacity-building and knowledge dissemination practices which will be the primary vehicles. 23

Appendix 1: Summary of Sites and Activities Targeted by Components 1 and 2 of the Project Site CLP Legally established? Co- Management Agreement and Ministerial Decree signed? ZPP established by Ministerial Decree? Artificial Reefs immersed (by the project)? Eco-certification received? 1. Ouakam Already Yes 3/2008 By end 2011 Eligible by end of established project (End 2011) 2. Carrière By mid-2010 By end 2010 By end 2011 Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation 3. Bargny Recognition of existing mgt. Committee by May 2009 4. Yenne Recognition of existing mgt. Committee by May 2009 5. Ngaparou Already established 6. Mballing Recognition of existing mgt. Committee by May 2009 7. Nianing Recognition of existing mgt. Committee by May 2009 8. Point Saréne Recognition of existing mgt. Committee by May 2009 By end 2009 Implemented through the co-mgt. agreement, based on existing reefs (By end 2009) By end 2009 Implemented through the co-mgt. agreement, based on existing reefs (By end 2009) Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation Yes 3/2008 Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation By end 2009 By end 2010 Implemented through the co-mgt. agreement, based on existing reefs (By end 2009) By end 2009 By end 2010 Implemented through the co-mgt. agreement, based on existing reefs (By end 2009) By end 2009 By end 2010 Implemented through the co-mgt. agreement, based on existing reefs (By end 2009) 9. Mbodiène By May 2009 By end 2009 By end 2010 Based on feasibility study of sites included as part of co-mgt. agreement (by end 2011) Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation Probably included, based on results of MSC pre-evaluation CLPA (name) Dakar Ouest Dakar ouest CLPA established by Decree? By mid 2009 By mid 2009 CLPA consolidated local fisheries mgt. plan submitted? Fishing boats in the CLPA registered and marked by the PNI? By end 2009 By May 2009 mid 2011 By May 2009 Rufisque Mid 2010 By end 2010 By May 2009 Nianghai Mid 2010 By end 2010 By May 2009 Sindia Mid 2009 By end 2009 By May 2009 Sindia Mid 2009 Mid 2010 By May 2009 Sindia Mid 2009 Mid 2010 By May 2009 Sindia Mid 2009 Mid 2010 By May 2009 Sindia Mi d2009 Mid 2010 By May 2009 10. Foundiougne Already Yes 3/2008 Foundiougne Mid 2009 By end 2009 By May 2009 established 11. Bétenty Already Yes 3/2008 Missiratt Mid 2009 By end 2009 By May 2009 established 12. Fambine By mid-2010 By end 2010 Foundiougne Mid 2009 Mid-2011 By May 2009 In red = supported through financing from component 1 of the GIRMaC 24

Annex 5: Project Costs SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project Cost By Component and/or Activity Local US $million Foreign US $million Total US $million A. Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries 1. Promotion of Local Co-Management Initiatives in 4 Pilot Sites 2.9 2. Consolidation & Strengthening of Coastal Fisheries Co- 2.5 Management 3. Institutional Support for a System of Local Fisheries 2.8 Governance Subtotal Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries 8.2 B. Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries 1. Protected Fishing Zones 1.1 2. Artificial Reefs 0.7 3. Institutional of Access Rights & Associated Management 2.6 Instruments 4. Market Incentives for Sustainable Management Targeted 0.5 Fisheries 5. Improved Practices and Technologies in Coastal Shrimp 1.2 Fisheries Subtotal Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal 6.1 Fisheries C. Poverty Alleviation Measures for Fishing Communities and Alternative Livelihoods for Fishers and Fish Processors 1. Poverty Alleviation Initiatives in Project-Targeted Communities 2.1 2. Support for Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing 1.0 3. Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation, Communications 0.4 Subtotal Alternative Livelihoods and Accompanying Social Measures D. Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation 1. Development of a Fisheries Code and Fisheries Management Plans 2. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation 1.9 3. Replication of Project Activities at Sub-Regional Level 0.1 Subtotal Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, 7.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Total Baseline Cost 25.1 Physical Contingencies Price Contingencies Total Project Costs 1 Interest during construction Front-end Fee Total Financing Required 3.5 5.3 1 Identifiable taxes and duties are US$m, and the total project cost, net of taxes, is US$m. Therefore, the share of project cost net of taxes is %. 25

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources The Ministry of Maritime Economy and Transport (MEM) is the project s executing agency, and more specifically the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM) within the Ministry. The DPM already has a small project implementation unit (COMO) for the fisheries component of the GIRMaC, as well as another for the implementation of the EU-funded fisheries STABEX project. Additionally, the Sustainable and Equitable Management of Maritime Fisheries Sector Capacity Building Project, funded by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) is also managed by a coordination unit with technical assistance within DPM. The Directorate will expand the existing project implementation unit for the GIRMaC to manage the implementation of this project, as well as to implement a standard monitoring and evaluation system for all of the various donor support received by DPM for the implementation of the action plan for the Letter of Sector Policy, as the first step towards a future sector-wide approach (SWAp). This Project Implementation Unit (COMO) will actually be responsible for coordinating with the several different donor initiatives that are working together to help the Government implement the Letter of Sector Policy, including this project. The COMO will reinforce the synergies between these different donor-supported activities and strengthen monitoring and evaluation of the Ministry of both the results of the project and the Letter of Sector Policy, through the work of a full-time Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist in the unit. This COMO will also include fiduciary monitoring capacity, for both financial management and procurement. The Financial Management Specialist of the COMO will oversee the Financial Management aspects of the Project including the consolidation of financial statements for project activities, providing quarterly Interim Financial Reports, monitoring financial transactions on the project s account through the DDI (Direction de la Dette et de l Investissement) and making the necessary arrangements for the annual financial audit. The part-time Procurement Specialist and full-time Assistant Procurement Specialist will ensure day-to-day monitoring of project procurement, according to Government and World Bank guidelines. The various specialists within the COMO, including the Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, the Financial Management Specialist and accountant, the Procurement Specialist and Assistant Procurement Specialist, would all report to a Project Coordinator in the COMO, who will be a staff member of DPM, appointed by the Director of DPM in terms satisfactory to the World Bank. In terms of day-to-day management, the COMO will include a manager and management unit responsible for the various technical programs supported by the project, including the Co-Management activities in components one and two, the FRAP in component three, and the development of fisheries management plans in component 4. The COMO will also provide fiduciary management support to the PNI within DPM. Thus, within the COMO and at a larger scale within DPM, there will be different roles and responsibilities for implementing the different components and sub-components: Co-Management Activities (Components 1 and 2): The co-management activities, including the various tools supporting co-management such as ZPPs, artificial reefs, access rights and ecolabelling, will be supervised by a Manager (DPM staff) within the COMO and DPM. That person will be supported by a Co-Management Specialist to be recruited through the project, as well the facilitators already recruited to work in the four initial pilot sites, and the community facilitators to be recruited in the 8 new sites. The activities providing various tools to be implemented through the co-management system, more specifically the ZPPs, artificial reefs, access rights and ecolabelling, would be implemented with the support of an institution/ngo/company to be recruited by the COMO. The facilitators would be supervised by the Co- Management Specialist, who, along with the institution/ngo/company recruited for the activities of component two, would report to the Manager within the COMO. Small-Scale Fishing Vessel Registration Program (PNI) (Component 2): The PNI activities will be managed by the office and Manager currently established within DPM to manage this program. Fiduciary management will rest with the COMO, which will also ensure that PNI activities are coordinated with other project activities towards achieving the intended results. Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing and Poverty Reduction Fund (FRAP) (Component 3): The FRAP will be supervised by a Manager within the COMO, with the support of a Community Development Specialist financed by the project. An institution will be recruited to provide technical support to the implementation of the FRAP, both to recipients at the community level and to the Manager within the COMO. 26

Additionally, a partnership agreement will be signed with a micro-finance institution for implementation of the FRAP, following the structure of recent agreements signed with other World Bank projects in Senegal. Fisheries Management Plans (Component 4) A Manager within DPM will supervise the preparation of the Fisheries Management Plans supported by component 4 of the project, as well as the replication activities at the sub-regional level. A Fisheries Management Specialist financed by the project will provide technical support to this work. An Operational Manual will be prepared for the project, including a Project Implementation Manual and an Administrative and Financial Procedures Manuel. Both manuals will be completed prior to effectiveness. Furthermore, the fiduciary capacity of the COMO will be established prior to effectiveness. The COMO will prepare an annual monitoring and evaluation report, together with an annual work program, budget and procurement plan, for submission to the World Bank each year. 27

Institutional Arrangements for Project Implementation Role: Administrative and Financial Management COMO Project Coordinator FM Specialist & accountant Proc. Specialist & Asst. Proc. Sp. M&E Specialist Role: Day to day Mgt. Co-financing Co-Management Activities Manager (incl. tools such as ZPPs, Reefs, Ecolabelling) (Components 1 and 2 GIRMaC IDA, GEF) Component 1 Co-Management Specialist Facilitators in 4 initial pilot sites Community Facilitators PNI Manager (Component 2 GIRMaC IDA) FRAP Manager (Component 3 IDA) Technical Support Institution to FRAP Micro-finance Institution Community Development Specialist Fisheries Management Plans Manager (Component 4 GIRMaC IDA) Fisheries Management Specialist Component 2 Institution/NGO/company for ZPPs, artificial reefs 28

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources 1. Introduction 1. As part of the preparation phase of the Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Project a financial management assessment was carried out in accordance with the Financial Management Practices Manual issued by the Financial Management Board on November 3, 2005. The objective of the assessment was to determine whether the implementing entity COMO/DPM has acceptable financial management arrangements, which will ensure: (1) the funds are used only for the intended purposes in an efficient and economical way, (2) the preparation of accurate, reliable and timely periodic financial reports, and (3) safeguard the entities assets. 2. Executive summary 2. The Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) of Senegal was conducted in 2003. The overall risk rating of the public financial management system was high. Since that exercise, the Government has created an Executive Secretariat under the Ministry of Economy and Finance to monitor the implementation of the CFAA action plan. The recent HIPC Country Assessment and Action Plan by the Bank and the IMF in November 2004 showed significant improvements in the areas of public expenditure tracking notably in the priority area defined in the PRSP, internal control and budget preparation. However, significant progress is still needed in internal and external controls of budget execution and state-owned enterprises. 3. The government has given priority to improvements in these areas as well as local governance finance reforms. A Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) was set up to follow up on implementation of the reforms. A new Procurement Code has been adopted and entered in force in January 2008. 4. A PEFA exercise has been undertaken in 2007 and the report concluded that although some improvement in PFM reform implementation, key risks and challenges remains and require improvement in area such as ( i) effectiveness of the internal audit system by the SAI ( Cours des Comptes) (ii) reliability of data for monitoring the stock of arrears; (iii) addressing the backlog of State accounts. 5. The GOS is committed to conduct the PFM reform through the Creation of a specific body - PFM Reform Steering Committee - (under the Ministry of Finance) with representation by all Governmental departments responsible for specific reforms. The role of the Steering Committee is to: (1) coordinate the reforms to be undertaken, (2) harmonize Government actions, (3) monitor the implementation of the action plan, and (4) hold different actors accountable for progress. 6. In dialogue with external partners, the Government will implement the action plan resulting from the last PEFA framework to track progress in strengthening public financial management and identify areas where country fiduciary systems are not yet in line with international standards. 7. The use of the country system, notably the Treasury Department and the Cour des Comptes, will be implemented progressively. In the meantime, implementation of project will be coordinated by COMO under the Directorate for Marine Fisheries (DPM) of the Minister of Maritime Economy (MEM). 3. Summary Project Description 8. The combined development objective/global objective of the project is to empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). The project would achieve this objective by (i) promoting comanagement of the coastal fisheries, (ii) contributing to the rehabilitation of the essential ecosystems for the coastal fisheries, and (iii) supporting alternative livelihoods and accompanying poverty reduction measures in targeted poor fishing communities. The program will comprise the following four components: 29

Component A: Co-management of Coastal Fisheries. The objective of this component is to implement comanagement systems to improve the governance of the coastal fisheries for a more sustainable use of the resources. Component B: Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries. The objective of this component is to contribute to the rehabilitation of ecosystems essential to the coastal fisheries, by implementing a network of protected fishing zones to help regenerate the resources, implementing artificial reefs, improving practices and technologies in the industrial shrimp fisheries operating in coastal ecosystems, and creating market mechanisms to encourage sustainable management of the ecosystems. Component C: Alternative Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Measures for Targeted Fishers and Fish Processors. The objective of this component is to establish and strengthen revenue-generating activities in targeted fishing communities, in particular for fishers and their families. Component D: Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation. The objective of this component is to support the Ministry of Maritime Economy to manage and implement the project in the context of the Letter of Sector Policy, and to monitor and evaluate results. 4. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigating Measures incorporated into the Project Design Inherent Risk Country Level S The CFAA and PEFA action plan is under implementation and the government has created an Executive Secretariat to follow up. Entity Level S While legal and Institutional framework is in place, implementation may be hampered by political interference on which attention will be paid Project Level S The Project is not complex even if it is intended to involve multi Donors supporting the LSP. More over, the Implementing entity COMO has experience with Bank financed project. However, recent FM supervision mission identified ineligible expenditures. Control Risk Budgeting M Annual work plans will be prepared and submitted to the Bank by November 30 of each year. Conditions of Negotiations, Board or Effectiveness (Yes or No) No No. No No Remarks A MDTF has been set out for the reforms implementation purpose. FM arrangement of this Project will rely on COMO administrative and Financial procedures. Attention will be pay to Internal Control, Reporting and Auditing Process that will need to be jugged satisfactory to the Bank.. Accounting M Accounting function will be led by qualified financial FM staff with relevant experience in accountancy and audit. However, there is a need to update the computerized No Recruitment of a qualified FM Specialist.Project staff will need to be trained in Bank FM, 30

information system to include this new Project. Internal Control S There is no Internal Audit function in place. However the Administrative and Financial procedures Manual will give a clear description of the Approval and authorization processes. Funds Flow S A Designated Account will be opened by DDI (Direction de la Dette et de l investissement) for the purpose of the Project. The Flow of fund scheme will involve an Institution of Micro finance which will facilitate credit to targeted communities. No No Disbursement and Procurement procedures. The Bank will pay attention to the internal control system during supervision mission. Training of staff on Bank s FM, procurement and disbursement procedures, will be provided. The Bank will ensure appropriate arrangement in place for the Micro Finance scheme, Financial Reporting L The COMO is already familiar with the format of the quarterly reports (IFR). Auditing M An external Auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to the Bank will be recruited. No No The will pay attention the timely production of the IFR. 9. In view of the general country financial management issues and the issues peculiar to the project, the overall financial management risk rating for this project is Substantial. 5. Strengths 10. The financial management capacity built in the COMO under the GIRMAC will be consolidated and used to manage the Financial Management System of the Project. 6. Weakness and FM Action Plan Weaknesses Action Responsible Body 1 No specific information Update existing software system for the project TOMPRO to host the COMO/DPM project. Completion Date By effectiveness 2 Specific Administrative and Financial procedures of the project 3 Lack of Financial Management Specialist Update the existing Administrative and Financial Procedures Manual Recruitment of a qualified and experienced FM Specialist COMO/DPM COMO/DPM By effectiveness By effectiveness 4 Absence of an External Auditor Recruitment of an External Auditor with experience and qualifications satisfactory to COMO/DPM First quarter of effectiveness 31

the Bank. 7. Implementing Entity 11. This Project Implementation Unit (COMO) will actually be responsible for coordinating with the several different donor initiatives that are working together to help the Government implement the Letter of Sector Policy, including this project. The COMO will reinforce the synergies between these different donorsupported activities and strengthen monitoring and evaluation of the Ministry of both the results of the project and the Letter of Sector Policy. This COMO will also include fiduciary monitoring capacity, for both financial management and procurement. The Financial Management Specialist of the COMO will oversee the Financial Management aspects of the Project including Internal Control, the consolidation of financial statements for project activities, providing quarterly Interim Financial Reports, monitoring financial transactions on the project s account through the DDI (Direction de la Dette et de l Investissement) and making the necessary arrangements for the annual financial audit. The IDA and GEF funds will flow from the World Bank to the Designated Account opened under the DDI at the Ministry of Economy and Finance. 8. Budgeting 12. The Financial and Administrative Manual will describe the budgeting process. The Financial team will finalize the Entity Action Plan and Budget, which will be submitted to a steering committee for approval. Also, the no objection of the Bank will be required before implementation the annual action plan. 9. Accounting 13. The current accounting standards in use in Senegal for on-going Bank-financed project will be applicable. SYSCOHADA is the assigned accounting system in West African Francophone countries. The Credit will be accounted for by the project on a cash or accrual basis. This will be documented with appropriate records and procedures to track commitments and to safeguard assets. Accounting records will be maintained in local currency. The Chart of accounts will facilitate the preparation of relevant quarterly and financial statement including information on the total project expenditures, the financial contribution from IDA and other Donors and expenditure by component/category. 14. An update of the Information System will allow production of all accounting and financial data required : Financial Statement, Bank reconciliation statements, all the books of accounts and all financial reports including the Interim Un-audited Financial Reports (IFR).Accounting procedures will be documented in the Financial and Accounting manual. 10. Internal Control and Internal Auditing 15. The Administrative and Financial Manual will provide a clear description of the approval and authorization processes in respect of the rule of segregation of duties. The Bank will pay attention to the adequacy of internal control during supervision mission. 16. At the national level, the Departement de la Dette et de 1 Investissement (DDI) controls ex ante all expenditures and withdrawal applications before sending them to the Bank. 11. Reporting and Monitoring 17. The Project Coordinator Unit will be responsible for overall reporting on the project. The FMS will ensure that on a quarterly basis, the Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFR) are produced and transmitted to the Bank no later than 45 days from the end of the quarter. The first IFR shall be furnished to the World Bank no later than 45 days from the end o f the first calendar quarter after the Effective Date, and shall cover the period from the incurrence of the first expenditure under the project, through the end of the first calendar quarter. 18. The format and contents of the Interim Unaudited Financial Report (IFR) will be agreed on by effectiveness. 19. On an annual basis, COMO/DPM, will also be required to produce, no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year, audited annual financial statements. 32

12. Funds Flow and Disbursement Arrangements 12. 1 Disbursement Methods 20. By effectiveness, the Project will use the Transaction-based Disbursement Procedures, i.e., replenishment, direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. When project implementation begins, the quarterly Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) produced by the Project will be reviewed. If the reports are found to be adequate and produced on a timely basis, and the Recipient requests conversion to report-based disbursements, a review will be undertaken to determine if the Project is eligible for report-based disbursement. The adoption of report-based disbursements by the Project will enable it to move away from transaction-based disbursement methods to quarterly disbursements to the Project s Designated Account based on IFRs. Detailed disbursement procedures will be documented in the procedure manual. 12. 2 Minimum Value of Applications 21. The Minimum Value of Applications for reimbursement, direct payment and special commitment is 20 percent of outstanding advance made to the Designated Account 12. 3 Reporting on credit proceeds 22. The supporting documentation for reporting eligible expenditures paid from the Designated Account should be a summary report of the Statement of Expenditures and records evidencing eligible expenditures for payments against contracts valued US$ 150,000 or more for goods, US$ 500,000 or more for works, US$ 100,000 or more for consulting firms and US$ 50,000 or more for individual consultants and a list of payments against contracts that are subject to the Bank s prior review. The supporting documentation for requests for direct payment should be records evidencing eligible expenditures (copies of receipt, supplier s invoices, etc). All supporting documentation for SOEs will be retained at by the accounts unit of COMO/DPM and will be made available for review by periodic World Bank review missions, internal and external auditors. 12.4 Designated Account 23. To facilitate project implementation and reduce the volume of withdrawal applications, COMO/DPM on behalf of the Government, will open two Special Accounts (SA) in FCFA in a commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to IDA. The first Special Account (SA-A) will be used exclusively to finance all expenditures under the IDA Credit, and the second Special Account (SA-B) will be used to finance all expenditures under the GEF Grant. The authorized allocation for both SA-A and SA-B will be US$1 million equivalent in FCFA and will cover about four months of eligible expenditures. Upon credit effectiveness, IDA will deposit the amount of FCFA equivalent to US$ l million in each designated account. 24. The Designated Accounts will be used for all payments in an amount below 20 percent of the initial deposit to the Designated Accounts. 25. These accounts will be managed by the director of DDI in coordination with the COMO/DPM. Designated accounts will be held in XOF and located in a Commercial Bank acceptable to IDA. (See Flow of Funds scheme in Appendix 1). 12.5 Counterpart Funding 26. The Government contribution will be mobilized as co-financing and in form of fiscal revenues. That consists in taxes exemption on the overall loan proceeds. 12.6 Monthly Replenishment Applications 27. The Designated Accounts will be replenished through the submission of Withdrawal Applications on a monthly basis by the accounts unit and will include reconciled bank statements and other documents as may be required until such time as the Recipient may choose to convert to report-based disbursement. 12.7 Disbursements by category 28. The table below sets out the expenditure categories and percentages to be financed out of the Credit proceeds. 33

(to be completed) Category (1) Co-management of Coastal Fisheries (2) Rehabilitation of Ecosystems (3) Alternative livelihoods and accompanying social measures (4) Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Unallocated Total Amount Amount of the Credit Allocated (expressed in SDR) Percentage of Expenditures to be Financed 100% without VAT 100% without VAT 100% without VAT 100% without VAT 13. Auditing 29. Independent External Auditor with qualification and experience satisfactory to the Bank will conduct an annual audit of the project s financial statements prepared by COMO/DPM. This audit should be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA) issued by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), and will include such tests and controls as the auditor considers necessary under the circumstances. 30. In addition to the audit report, the auditors will be expected to prepare reports on internal controls (management letters) giving observations and comments, as well as provide recommendations for improvement in accounting records, systems, controls and compliance with financial covenants in the Financial Agreement of the Bank. The auditor reports should be furnished to the Bank within six months after the closing of each fiscal year. 31. Terms of Reference (ToR) will be prepared for the appointment of the external auditor who meets the Bank s criteria for selection of consulting firm. 14. Supervision Plan 32. COMO/DPM will be subject to periodic supervision missions. Given the Substantial FM risk rating, supervision will be intense the first year of the project. This intensity will be accommodated according to the evolution of the FM risk rating. 33. Supervision activities will include review of quarterly FMRs; review of annual audited financial statements as well as timely follow-up of issues arising; transaction review; participation in project supervision missions as appropriate; and updating the FM rating in the Implementation Status Report (ISR). 34. Particular attention will be paid in the implementation of the Agreement between DPM and the Institution of Micro-Finance which will be involved in the Micro Credit to targeted communities. 34

Appendix 1: Funds and Information Flow mechanism IDA - Washington Credit Account Withdrawal applications Direct Payments Applications Replenishments Interim Un-Audited Financial Report (IFR) Direct Payments Annual Audit Report DDI (Département de la Dette et de l Investissement) Designated Accounts DA for IDA/ DA-B for GEF COMO / DPM Transfer (Reimbursement, Payment) BENEFICIARIES Documents flow Funds flow 35

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources A. General 1. Procurement in the context of the country. Following the Government s approval of the 2003 CPAR action plan, the Government has adopted in 2007 a new Procurement Code (decree n 2007-545 dated april,25 th, 2007) which complies with the WAEMU s Procurement Directives and best international practices. In accordance with this code, (i) a Public Procurement Directorate was created in 2007 (decree N 2007-547 dated April 25, 2007) for controlling procurement transactions of any public contracting authority and (ii) a Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (Autorité de Régulation des Marchés Publics ARMP) was set up in 2007 (decree n 2007-546 dated april 25, 2007) for handling policies, complaints and audits. These two entities are to date operational. In addition, the Government has already prepared main national bidding documents and is still in the process to validate and adopt them. There is no major deviation of the national Code from the Bank s Guidelines, but to allow a full application of the provisions of World Bank s procurement and selection and employment guidelines, IDA will provide to the borrower the list of the national procurement clauses which are partially or entirely inconsistent with World Bank s guidelines. Applicable Guidelines 2. Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank s "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004 and revised by October 2006; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004 and revised by October 2006, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Credit/Grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan, defining the procurement and selection methods and the requirement of IDA prior review, will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. Procurement Documents 3. The procurement will be carried out using the World Bank s Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs) or Standard Request for Proposal (RFP) respectively for all ICB for goods and works and recruitment of consultants. For National Competition Bidding (NCB), while waiting for the Government and the Bank to respectively validate and give the no objection on the national bidding documents in preparation, the Borrower will use the World Bank s SBD for ICB for goods and works, and the Bank s RFP for recruitment of consultants. In the same vein, the Sample Form of Evaluation Reports developed by the World Bank, will be used until the new national samples are reviewed and satisfactory to the Bank. Advertising procedure 4. General Procurement Notice (GPN), Specific Procurement Notices (SPN), Requests for Expression of Interest, results of the evaluation and contracts award should be published in accordance with advertising provisions in the following guidelines: "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004 and revised by October 2006; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004 and revised by October 2006.. Procurement methods 5. General Procurement Notice (GPN), Specific Procurement Notices (SPN), Requests for Expression of Interest, results of the evaluation and contracts award should be published in accordance with advertising provisions in the following guidelines : "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated 36

May 2004 and revised by October 2006; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004 and revised by October 2006.. 6. Procurement of Works: Works procured under this project would include: [Describe the types of works]. The procurement will be done using the Bank s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special requirements specific to the project.] [If the project involves procurement carried out by communities, indicate where details can be found in the Project Implementation Manual or similar documents.] 7. Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project would include :[ Describe the types of goods]. The procurement will be done using the Bank s SBD for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special requirements specific to the project.] 8. Procurement of non-consulting services: [ Provide a general description of non-consulting services to be procured under the project and information on the bidding documents to be used for the procurement.] 9. Selection of Consultants : [Provide a general description of the consulting services from firms and individuals required for the project.] Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than $ equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. [If applicable, provide any information regarding engaging universities, government research institutions, public training institutions, NGOs, or any special organizations.] 10. Operating Costs: [Describe the operating costs which would be financed by the project and procured using the implementing agency s administrative procedures which were reviewed and found acceptable to the Bank.] 11. Others: [Describe if any special arrangements for scholarships, grants etc. ] 12. The procurement procedures and SBDs to be used for each procurement method, as well as model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the [name the Project Implementation Manual or the equivalent document.]. B. Assessment of the agency s capacity to implement procurement 13. Procurement activities will be carried out by [name of the Implementing Agency]. The agency is staffed by [describe the key staff positions], and the procurement function is staffed by [describe the staff who will handle procurement]. 14. An assessment of the capacity of the Implementing Agency to implement procurement actions for the project has been carried out by World Bank procurement specialist on June 12, 2008. An organizational structure for implementing the project and the interaction between the project s staff responsible for procurement Officer and the Ministry s relevant central unit for administration and finance is not yet set up. The assessment concluded that it will not be necessary at the beginning of project implementation to have a permanent procurement position within the Direction des Peches Maritimes. Rather, a highly qualified procurement specialist will be recruited in a consultant position to support the project, including the GIRMaC project as well. 15. The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project have been identified and include [describe the risks/issues]. The corrective measures which have been agreed are [Describe the corrective measures]. 16. The overall risk for procurement in this project is currently high until we have a clear understanding of the institutional arrangement and the staffing. In consideration of this level of risk, the assessment recommended two supervision missions per year. C. Procurement Plan 17. The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been agreed between the Borrower and the Project Team on 37

[date] and is available at [provide the office name and location]. It will also be available in the project s database and in the Bank s external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision 18. In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended [frequency] supervision missions to visit the field to carry out post review of procurement actions. E. Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition 1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services (a) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ref. No. Contract (Descriptio n) Estimated Cost Procureme nt Method P-Q Domestic Preferenc e (yes/no) Review by Bank (Prior / Post) Expected Bid- Opening Date Comment s (b) ICB contracts estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and all direct contracting will be subject to prior review by the Bank. 2. Consulting Services (a) List of consulting assignments with short-list of international firms. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ref. No. Description of Assignment Estimated Cost Selection Method Review by Bank (Prior / Post) Expected Proposals Submissio n Date Comments (b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and single source selection of consultants (firms) for assignments estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] will be subject to prior review by the Bank. (c) Short lists composed entirely of national consultants: Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than [fill in threshold amount] equivalent per contract, may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. 38

Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Economic Analysis The project is essentially a framework -type project, where the majority of the investments by targeted communities, e.g. the co-management activities in component one, the establishment of marine protected areas in component two and support for alternative livelihoods in fishing communities in component three. For this reason, indicative cost-benefit analyses of representative examples of these investments are presented in each case, as proxies to illustrate the basis for deciding on the merits of the project. In terms of co-management activities in component one, an indicative cost benefit analysis has been carried out, based on data collected from similar activities in communities supported by the GIRMaC project. In the pilot site at Foundiougne, investments in co-management supported the communities to implement management measures for the shrimp fishery such as seasonal and monthly closures to allow the catchable individuals to grow to larger sizes. The relationship between prices in the local, national and international markets for shrimp and the size of individual products (i.e. size of shrimp caught) is not linear. Prices for larger individuals may be two or three times greater than prices for smaller individuals, such as juveniles. Thus, as a result of the measures taken by the communities, total production from the shrimp fishery increased (from 170 tons annually to 340 tons annually), average size of the shrimp caught increased (from 200 individuals per kilogram to between 60 and 80) and significant benefits were realized (global gross income doubled, see figure 1 below). Similarly, the environmental sustainability of the catch increased as well, as the species were given more time to reproduce and grow. Figure 1: Evolution of Shrimp Catches, Gross Income, Price in Foundiougne, Senegal Evolution of shrimp catches, gross income, price (Foundiougne site) 800 300 000 Catches (t), Average price (XOF/kg) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 250 000 200 000 150 000 100 000 50 000 Gross income ('000 XOF) Catches Average price Gross income 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 0 In terms of the activities to establish protected fishing zones (ZPPs) in component two, significant benefits are also expected to come from the voluntary closure of key habitats and spawning areas to fishing by communities (i.e. marine reserves). Such ZPPs are expected to help stabilize coastal demersal fish yields in targeted areas, in comparison to the without project scenario where yields are expected to continue to decline over time (see figures 2-4 below). The graphs give both a central case as well as a more optimistic and a more pessimistic case, to mimic the uncertainties regarding the benefits of ZPPs. 39

Figures 2-4: Indicative fisheries benefits from establishment of ZPPs and associated loss of production over first several years due to closures. 140 Lost Production Percentage change from base year 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 years C P U E Alternative Income Needed Prices w ithout' w ith' - high estimate w ith' - central estimate with' low estimate Time Financial analysis and NPV 12. Long Term Benefit Small Fish Benefit Large Fish Effective Management Will Rehabilitate Fisheries G A I N I N P R O D U C T I O N Catch-per-unit-Effort (CPUE) The Profitability of the Coastal Fisheries CPUE measures the fish harvested per unit of fishing effort, i.e. the costs a fisher or group of fishers will incur to harvest an amount of fish for wholesale or consumption. The more overexploited the fishery, the more effort (and costs) a fisher will have to expend to capture a dwindling amount (and returns) of fish. However, reducing pressure on the fisheries and allowing fish stocks to recover can help to increase CPUE, increasing the profitability of the fishery and incomes of the fishers. To illustrate these indicative benefits, an example from similar investments and analyses conducted in the preparation of the second phase of the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP II) are shown below. While the conditions and assumptions are obviously quite different from Senegal, they present an indication of the rates of return from similar World Bank investments in other countries. In this example, over 125,000 fishers in the six COREMAP II project districts studied were involved in coastal fishing. According to the analysis, their incomes were expected to stabilize as compared to the 'without project' case, where incomes were decreasing every year, with a 50 percent or more drop assumed over the next 25 years without the project. Table 1: Economic Rates of Return for the 6 COREMAP II Project Districts in Indonesia Pangkap Selayar Buton Raja Ampat Biak Sikka EIRR 'central' (%) 13 20 20 22 13 8 EIRR high (%) 25 44 40 51 26 16 EIRR low (%) undefined undefined 4 1 undefined undefined 40

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources 1. 41

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources PCN review Initial PID to PIC Initial ISDS to PIC Appraisal Negotiations Board/RVP approval Planned date of effectiveness Planned date of mid-term review Planned closing date Planned Actual Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project: Ministry of Maritime Economy, Directorate of Marine Fisheries (DPM); with support from Senegal Integrated Coastal and Maritime Resources Management Project (GIRMaC), Project Coordination Unit. Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included: Name Title Unit Bank funds expended to date on project preparation: 1. Bank resources: 2. Trust funds: 3. Total: Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1. Remaining costs to approval: 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: 42

Annex 12: Documents in the Project File SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources 1. Evaluation Sociale, Economique et Politique des Sites Pilotes du GIRMaC (2008) Agriconsulting Maroc, Senagrosol Consult. Dakar, Senegal 2. Etude des Perceptions des Communautes de Pêche sur la CoGestion et les Perspectives de Reconversion (2008). Monnet, M. and O. Niang Mbodj. Dakar, Senegal. 3. Programme d Immersion de Recifs Artificiels pour une Gestion Durable de la Pêche au Sénégal (2008). Sene, C and K. Sane. Dakar, Senegal. 4. Etude sur la Faisabilité de l Écolabellisation dans les sites pilotes du GIRMaC (2008). ENDA/REPAO. Dakar, Senegal. 5. Proposition d un Programme Pilote pour l Écolabellisation des Produits de la Pêche Artisanale au Sénégal (2008). ENDA/REPAO. Dakar, Senegal. 6. Etude de base sur les méthodes, les technologies de capture et les pratiques en usage dans les pêcheries industrielles crevettières côtières et sur leurs problématiques d exploitation, d aménagement et de contrôle (2008). Faye, B. Dakar, Senegal. 7. Analyse coûts bénéfices des impacts d une réduction des subventions à la pêche artisanale (2008). Seck, P. D. Dakar, Senegal. 8. Creation d un Reseau National des Aires Marines Protegees pour une Gestion Durable de la Pêche au Sénégal (2008). Sene, C. Dakar, Senegal. 9. Guide de Creation et de Gestion D Aires Marines Protegees pour la Gestion de la Pêche au Sénégal (2008). Sene, C. Dakar, Senegal. 10. Proposition d un Cadre Legislatif et Institutionel pour la Gestion des Aires Marines Protegees au Sénégal (2008). Sene, C. Dakar, Senegal. 43

Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Original Amount in US$ Millions Difference between expected and actual disbursements Project ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev d P097181 2007 SN-Nutr Enhanc. Prog II - APL (FY07) 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.98-2.49 0.00 P089254 2007 SN-Quality EFA APL 2 (FY07) 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.68 6.99 0.00 P084022 2007 SN-Local Authorities Development 0.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.76 10.04 0.00 Program P083609 2006 SN-Agr Markets & Agribus Dev (FY06) 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.81 4.68 0.00 P088656 2006 SN-Participatory Loc Dev Prgm (FY06) 0.00 50.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.71 11.47 0.00 P093622 2006 SN-Agr Svcs & Prod Orgs APL 2 (FY06) 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.11 0.25 0.00 P086480 2005 SN-GIRMAC SIL (FY05) 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.40 1.82 0.00 P085708 2005 SN-Elec. Serv. for Rural Areas (FY05) 0.00 29.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.43 19.01 0.00 P073477 2005 SN-Elec Sec Effi. Enhanc.Phase 1 APL-1 0.00 15.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.41 10.82 0.00 P069207 2005 SN-Casamance Emerg Reconstr Supt 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.64 4.05 0.00 (FY05) P080013 2004 SN-Priv Sec Adj Crdt (FY04) 0.00 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.40 20.21 20.21 P051609 2003 SN-Priv Inv Promotion SIL (FY03) 0.00 46.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.64 12.17 0.00 P074059 2002 SN-HIV/AIDS Prevent & Control APL 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.13 6.34-1.66 (FY02) P041528 2001 SN-Long Term Water Sec SIL (FY01) 0.00 125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.86-6.27-6.27 P055472 2000 SN-Urb Mobility Improvement APL 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.52 2.53 3.87 (FY00) Total: 0.00 621.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 334.48 101.62 16.15 SENEGAL STATEMENT OF IFC s Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions of US Dollars Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 1980 BHS 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 1999 Ciments du Sahel 10.20 2.26 3.12 0.00 10.20 2.26 3.12 0.00 1997 GTI Dakar 10.41 1.68 0.00 9.04 7.49 1.51 0.00 9.04 1998 GTI Dakar 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2005 Kounoune 21.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2001 SEF Royal Saly 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total portfolio: 44.89 4.40 3.12 9.04 20.27 4.23 3.12 9.04 Approvals Pending Commitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44

Annex 14: Country at a Glance SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Sub- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan Low- Senegal Africa income 2006 Population, mid-year (millions) 11.9 770 2,403 GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 760 842 650 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 9.1 648 1,562 Average annual growth, 2000-06 Population (%) 2.4 2.4 1.9 Labor force (%) 2.4 2.6 2.3 M ost recent estimate (latest year available, 2000-06) Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)...... Urban population (% of total population) 42 36 30 Life expectancy at birth (years) 56 47 59 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 61 96 75 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 23 30.. Access to an improved water source (% of population) 76 56 75 Literacy (% of population age 15+) 39 59 61 Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) 78 92 102 M ale 80 98 108 Female 77 86 96 Development diamond* GNI per capita Life expectancy Access to improved water source Senegal Low-income group Gross primary enrollment KEY ECONOM IC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1986 1996 2005 2006 GDP (US$ billions) 4.2 5.1 8.7 9.2 Gross capital formation/gdp 11.7 11.7 29.8 29.2 Exports of goods and services/gdp 24.6 27.0 27.0 25.6 Gross domestic savings/gdp 3.6 6.0 14.2 10.6 Gross national savings/gdp 0.0 7.8 21.3 18.5 Current account balance/gdp -10.8-3.9-8.6-10.7 Interest payments/gdp 2.4 2.4 0.6.. Total debt/gdp 76.9 74.5 43.8.. Total debt service/exports 26.0 18.8 5.9.. Present value of debt/gdp.... 28.7.. Present value of debt/exports.... 75.7.. 1986-96 1996-06 2005 2006 2006-10 (average annual growth) GDP 1.8 4.4 5.5 2.1 5.7 GDP per capita -1.0 1.9 3.0-0.2 4.5 Exports of goods and services 2.8 2.9 8.7-1.9 4.2 Economic ratios* Domestic savings Trade Indebtedness Senegal Low-income group Capital formation STRUCTURE of the ECONOM Y 1986 1996 2005 2006 (% of GDP) Agriculture 21.3 17.8 14.6 13.7 Industry 17.8 21.8 20.8 19.9 M anufacturing 12.1 15.2 13.2 12.0 Services 49.0 49.8 54.2 55.0 Household final consumption expenditure 78.8 80.2 76.2 79.7 General gov't final consumption expenditure 17.6 13.8 9.6 9.7 Imports of goods and services 32.7 32.8 42.7 44.2 Growth of capital and GDP (%) 60 40 20 0 01 02 03 04 05 06-20 GCF GDP 1986-96 1996-06 2005 2006 (average annual growth) Agriculture 0.5 1.8 11.1-2.9 Industry 3.0 4.3 0.3-1.7 M anufacturing 2.8 2.7-1.7-6.5 Services 1.8 5.3 11.3 3.1 Household final consumption expenditure 1.9 4.1 4.0 2.8 General gov't final consumption expenditure 0.0 0.1-26.0-0.6 Gross capital formation -2.1 12.7 40.2 10.9 Imports of goods and services 0.6 6.0 15.1 7.0 Growth of exports and imports (%) 20 15 10 5 0-5 01 02 03 04 05 06 Exports Imports Note: 2006 data are preliminary estimates. This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. * The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete. 45

Senegal PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1986 1996 2005 2006 Domestic prices (% change) Consumer prices 6.2 2.8 1.7 2.1 Implicit GDP deflator 5.7 4.3 3.1 3.1 Government finance (% of GDP, includes current grants) Current revenue 15.8 15.9 19.8 20.2 Current budget balance -0.2 3.8 6.0 4.0 Overall surplus/deficit -2.5 2.0-0.8-3.1 Inflation (%) 4 3 2 1 0-1 01 02 03 04 05 06 GDP deflator CPI TRADE 1986 1996 2005 2006 (US$ millions) Total exports (fob) 657 988 1,586 1,519 Groundnut products 65 80 40 36 Phosphates 68 152 187 61 M anufactures 152 250 335 336 Total imports (cif) 1,004 1,400 3,106 3,437 Food 195 353 455 458 Fuel and energy 178 176 407 417 Capital goods 139 193 384 372 Export price index (2000=100) 67 123 102 106 Import price index (2000=100) 53 123 103 121 Terms of trade (2000=100) 125 100 99 87 Export and import levels (US$ mill.) 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Exports Imports BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1986 1996 2005 2006 (US$ millions) Exports of goods and services 1,071 1,367 2,351 2,342 Imports of goods and services 1,370 1,660 3,711 4,045 Resource balance -300-293 -1,360-1,703 Net income -165-73 -156-162 Net current transfers 12 166 772 886 Current account balance -453-200 -744-980 Financing items (net) 592 122 421 805 Changes in net reserves -139 78 323 175 Memo: Reserves including gold (US$ millions) 21 299 1,261 897 Conversion rate (DEC, local/us$) 346.3 511.6 527.5 522.9 Current account balance to GDP (%) 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06-5 -10-15 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1986 1996 2005 2006 (US$ millions) Total debt outstanding and disbursed 3,221 3,776 3,793.. IB RD 110 23 0 0 IDA 353 1,194 2,045 502 Total debt service 300 293 193.. IB RD 14 12 0 0 IDA 6 15 28 26 Composition of net resource flows Official grants 162 334 307.. Official creditors 289 123 296.. Private creditors 30-11 18.. Foreign direct investment (net inflows) -8 9 54.. Portfolio equity (net inflows) 0 0 0.. World Bank program Commitments 125 42 66 2 Disbursements 123 110 182 91 Principal repayments 10 17 12 15 Net flows 112 93 171 75 Interest payments 10 11 16 10 Net transfers 102 82 155 65 Composition of 2005 debt (US$ mill.) D: 785 A - IBRD B - IDA C - IM F E: 628 F: 151 C: 148 G: 36 D - Other multilateral B: 2,045 E - Bilateral F - Private G - Short-term Note: This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. 9/28/07 46

Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources 1. Combined Project/Global Objectives The combined development objective/global objective of the project is to empower communities to reduce fishing pressure on the fish stocks supporting the central coastal fisheries of Senegal (from the Cap Vert Peninsula to the Saloum River Delta). The project would achieve this objective by (i) promoting co-management of the coastal fisheries, (ii) contributing to the rehabilitation of the essential ecosystems for the coastal fisheries, and (iii) supporting alternative livelihoods and accompanying poverty reduction measures in targeted poor fishing communities. Successful experiences would be used to draw lessons for potential replication at a later date to the coastal fisheries in the other regions of the country. 2. Status Quo Scope and Costs. In the absence of GEF assistance under the baseline scenario, the project will be implemented without particular attention to (i) critical ecosystems that support the fisheries in the targeted central coastal region and rural communities, or (ii) to expanding models of collaborative fisheries management (i.e. co-management) to a larger scale to reduce fishing pressure and restore stocks. Rather the project would be implemented with an emphasis on economic growth and diversification in the targeted areas, and on maintenance of the four existing pilot sites for fisheries co-management with no broader replication. (i) (ii) Component 1: Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries. Without GEF funds, this component would focus solely on maintaining the four pilot sites for fisheries co-management initiated under the GIRMaC project, with no replication by the Government. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$5.5 million, of which US$2.9 million IDA would finance the maintenance of the 4 pilot sites. Component 2: Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries. Without GEF funds, this component would focus solely on reducing the impact of offshore industrial shrimp fisheries on the ecosystems and implementing a national fishing vessel registration system. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$3.2 million. (iii) Component 3: Poverty Alleviation Measures for Fishing Communities and Alternative Livelihoods for Fishers and Fish Processors. This component will focus on establishing and strengthening revenuegenerating activities in targeted fishing communities, in particular for fishers and their families, in order to offset any negative socioeconomic impacts resulting from fisheries resource management measures. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$3.5 million. No GEF resources will be applied as co-financing to this component. (iv) Component 4: Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation. Without GEF funds, this component will focus on supporting the Ministry of Maritime Economy to manage and implement the project in the context of the Letter of Sector Policy, but without significant attention to monitoring and evaluation of results, as well as information-sharing and replication. The baseline costs for this component are estimated at approximately US$6.7 million. Benefits. Implementation of the baseline scenario investment program described above will be expected to generate national benefits as a result of the increased economic development of rural fisheries communities in the central coastal region, as well as continued implementation of local fisheries management pilot sites and national vessel registration. Most of the coastal communities in the region targeted by the project are almost entirely dependent on the overexploited fisheries, so that the activities of the project to encourage alternative livelihoods to fishing will help diversify these economies and provide new sources of revenues. The baseline scenario would therefore lead to increased investments in local economic development in targeted communities, along with continued support for pilot examples of collaborative fisheries management systems to reduce overexploitation. These key features of the baseline scenario would provide significant support to improved livelihoods, as well as ongoing support to pilots in collaborative fisheries resource management in rural fisheries communities in Senegal. The baseline scenario would, however, be insufficient to produce the global benefits arising from reducing the overexploitation of the fish stocks supporting the coastal fisheries of Senegal, by failing to replicate the good examples of co-management from the pilot sites to other communities in order to firmly establish fisheries 47

management measures in previously open access fisheries, as well as to implement measures to protect the health of the ecosystems which support these fisheries, and specifically the critical habitats present in these areas. Communities would not be empowered to more sustainably manage the fish resources, nor to incorporate the identification and protection of critical coastal habitats into project-supported development efforts. Similarly, they would not have funds to establish protected fishing zones as part of the project, focusing more on poverty alleviation activities. Nor would these efforts address the wider relationship between coastal fisheries and ecosystems, and particularly between the role of habitats and fish stocks. Thus, several potential global benefits of more sustainably managing the coastal fisheries resources would be overlooked, including: The protection of the significant ecosystem services provided to fisheries and rural communities by critical habitats; The mitigation of potential threats to critical habitats and species that may arise directly or indirectly from the economic development of targeted fisheries communities if habitat and ecosystem conservation is not factored into local development; and The significant opportunities for replicating and further developing the pilot sites for empowering communities to reduce overexploitation of the fish stocks, and coupling these management measures with habitat and ecosystem protection, thereby supporting both development and global environment objectives. GEF Alternative Scope and Costs. With support from the GEF, an expanded program could be undertaken comprising activities focused on empowering communities and local governments to work together to reduce overexploitation of the targeted fish stocks, and to identify and conserve critical coastal habitats in parallel with rural community development and fisheries co-management efforts. Essentially, the GEF alternative would build fishing effort and overexploitation reduction efforts into the local economic development activities of the project, including the following incremental activities: (i) (ii) (iii) Replication of successful models of collaborative, or co-management of the fish resources to help reduce fishing effort and overexploitation of these globally significant fisheries. Approximately US$2.65 million in GEF resources would be applied to empower interested communities in the central coastal region of Senegal in order to replicate and implement successfully-tested models of comanagement. This would include empowering communities to reduce fishing pressures, and to sign legal agreements with the Government to take measures towards this end, that would be funded by the project. Support for rehabilitation of critical coastal habitats in order to help restore the depleted fish stocks. Approximately US$2.85 million in GEF resources would be applied in the central coastal region targeted by the project in order to: identify and establish protected fishing zones, restore reef ecosystems to help replenish the fish stocks, encourage the introduction of access rights to these critical habitats, reduce the by-catch and impacts on the ecosystems of coastal industrial shrimp vessels, and introduce global market incentives to help encourage long-term sustainable fishing practices. Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system in the Ministry of Maritime Economy that can incorporate information on results into real-time management decisions, particularly by ensuring that management decisions are taken on the basis of information on the protection of key habitats. More specifically, US$0.5 million in GEF resources would be allocated to help establish a real-time monitoring and evaluation system, which can also feed information to the communities to inform their decision-making, as well as support overall institutional strengthening and project management in the Ministry of Maritime Economy. Benefits. In addition to the national benefits associated with the baseline scenario, global benefits of the GEF alternative include: (i) mainstreaming community-based efforts to reduce overexploitation of the fish stocks into the broader economic development efforts and production sectors promoted in rural coastal communities by the project, and (ii) ensuring that the rehabilitation of ecosystems and conservation of critical coastal habitats underpins any fisheries management efforts in the central coastal region of Senegal, as a model that would be replicated to both the northern and southern regions of the country. Incremental Cost Matrix The total costs of the baseline scenario is estimated to be US$18.9 million. The GEF alternative is estimated at US$24.9 million. The incremental costs of the GEF alternative is therefore estimated at US$6 million. 48

Component Cost Category US$ Million Domestic Benefit Global Benefit 1. Co-Management of Coastal Fisheries Baseline 5.5 Maintenance of pilot Some modest activities in comanagement reduction of of fish stocks, fishing effort on national vessel registration the fish stocks. program. With GEF Alternative 8.15 Replication of successful models of co-management of the fish resources to help reduce fishing effort and overexploitation of these globally significant fisheries. Incremental 2.65 2. Rehabilitation of Ecosystems Essential for Coastal Fisheries Baseline 3.2 Reduced by-catch in the offshore industrial shrimp fisheries With GEF Alternative 6.05 Increased protection of spawning grounds for key fish stocks, higher yields and profits from the fisheries. Incremental 2.85 3. Alternative Livelihoods and Accompanying Social Measures Baseline 3.5 Increased local development in central coastal region, economic diversification, reduction of capacity in the fisheries With GEF 3.5 Reductions in fishing pressure on globally significant but heavily overexploited fish stocks. Protection of critical habitats and rehabilitation of ecosystems essential for supporting healthy fish stocks. Reduction in number of fishers placing pressures on the fish stocks. Alternative Incremental 0 4. Institutional Strengthening for Fisheries Management, Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Totals Baseline 6.7 Development of a new Fisheries Code, and national resource management plans With GEF Alternative Incremental 0.5 Baseline 18.9 With GEF 24.9 Alternative Incremental 6.0 7.2 Implementation of a results-based monitoring and evaluation system, project management Strengthened institutional and policy framework for management of the fisheries and fish stocks Transmission of information on fish stock recovery and management, replication lessons learned of 49

Annex 16: Matrix of Stakeholder Participation Plan KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER Government Civil Society Coastal fishing communities Local Fishers Committees (CLPs) Local Artisanal Fisheries Councils (CLPAs) Private Sector : Fish processors, traders, middlemen Private Sector: Small-scale fishing vessel owners, financiers Private Sector: Small-scale fishing vessel captains, crew CAPABILITIES/CURRENT ROLE IN SENEGAL Policy & law enforcement Coordination and planning Resource allocation Technical assistance, representation of fishing groups, implementation of pilot activities Low involvement in fisheries management Local labor supply Set management rules and measures for local fisheries Only very few currently created Forum for stakeholders and local Government to discuss resource management Early stages of establishment currently Local labor and source of food supply Current overcapacity Large financial interests in open access, finance migratory fleets of smallscale vessels Local labor supply, little involvement in resource management INTERESTS IN PROJECT Institutional capacity building Improved effectiveness of fisheries management Increased revenue capture Improved funding Ecosystem conservation Improved collaboration with government in fisheries management Increased empowerment Improved income from fisheries Economic diversification Empowerment to set management rules for the fisheries, increase profitability Institutional capacity building Technical support Increased reliability of supply Could potentially lose access to fishing grounds Increased profitability New livelihood opportunities POSSIBLE CONFLICTS/MITIGATION STRATEGY Closing open access to the fisheries resources has been politically difficult for the Government in Senegal Empowering resource users to take more of the responsibility for management and to push for restrictions on access, reductions in fishing pressure Strengthening capacity of the Government agencies to become more demand-based, and to devolve some of the responsibility for management to the users. Civil society capacity is high for international NGOs, who have assumed directly responsibility for local conservation measures in some cases, and in cases for local fishers associations the capacity to represent specific users is still low Promoting consultation fora at both the national and multi-community level, to achieve consensus on necessary resource management measures. Potential restrictions on access or reduction of fishing effort could lead to loss of income and livelihoods: Establishment of Fishers Reconversion Fund to provide direct compensation to those negatively impacted by project-supported activities to better manage the fish resources. CLPs will need significant support from Government to function as envisaged: Providing technical assistance and capacity building measures directly targeted at CLPs to ensure they can fulfill their mandate. CLPAs could be captured by elite interests, or non-representative of communities: Establishment of sound policy framework for CLPAs, mandating broad participation Ensuring feedback mechanisms are in place for communities to communicate any difficulties with CLPAs Processing operations in Senegal are currently hampered by unreliable supply, and overinvestment in the past. Project-supported measures to help increase the sustainability of the fisheries and rehabilitate the fish stocks, will help improve both supply chains and profitability. Powerful and politically influential financial interests in maintaining the status quo of open access could pose a threat to community-led efforts to set management measures and access restrictions in the fisheries: Providing enforcement support through the project to communities, to support implementation of agreed-upon management measures Small-scale fishers not directly targeted by the project could still benefit from measures to increase sustainability and profitability in the fisheries, but may face access restrictions in some cases: Baseline studies will identify resource users to ensure compensation for any losses, even for external fishers. 50

STAKEHOLDER Multilateral and bilateral partners CAPABILITIES/CURRENT ROLE IN SENEGAL Organized in an informal donors group KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INTERESTS IN PROJECT Will monitor implementation of project and Letter of Sector Policy with possibility to move towards a SWAp approach POSSIBLE CONFLICTS/MITIGATION STRATEGY Donor partners are in agreement in support of the Government s new Letter of Sector Policy, and based on the results of this project could be willing to pool funds in a future SWAp. 51

Annex 17: Senegal Fisheries Sector Letter of Policy République du Sénégal Un Peuple - Un but - Une foi Ministère de l Economie Maritime et des Transports Maritimes Lettre de Politique Sectorielle des Pêches et de l Aquaculture AVRIL 2007 52

SIGLES ET ACRONYMES ADEPME : Agence de Développement et d'encadrement des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises APA : Agence pour la promotion de l aquaculture APE : Accord de Partenariat Economique CEDEAO : Communauté Économique des États de l'afrique de l'ouest CEP : Cellule d'études et de planification : CITES : Commerce International des Espèces de Faune et de Flore sauvages menacées d Extinction COMHAFAT : Conférence ministérielle sur la coopération halieutique entre les états riverains de l océan atlantique COPACE : Comite des pêches pour l atlantique centre-est CSRP : Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches CTI : Comite technique interministériel DITP : Direction des industries de transformation de la peche DPCA : Direction de la peche continentale et de l aquaculture: DPM : Direction des pêches maritimes DPSP : Direction de la protection et de la surveillance des pêches DSRP : Document de stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté FPE : Fonds de Promotion Economique GIRMaC : Gestion intégrée des ressources marines et côtières HACCP : Système d analyse des dangers et de maîtrise des points critique (Hazard Analysis Critical Point) ICCAT : Commission internationale pour la conservation des thons de l atlantique IRD : Institut de recherche pour le développement OMC : Organisation Mondiale du Commerce OMVG : Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Gambie OMVS : Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal OP : Organisations professionnelles PDPCA : Plan Directeur de la Pêche Continentale et de l Aquaculture PNAE : Programme National d Action pour l Environnement PNASA : Programme National de Sécurité Alimentaire PNDA : Programme national de développement de l aquaculture PME : Petites et Moyennes Entreprises QIT : Quota individuel transférable SCS : Suivi, Contrôle et Surveillance SCA : Stratégie de Croissance Accélérée TAC : Total admissible de capture TRIE : Transport routier inter - états UCAD : Université Cheikh Anta DIOP UE : Union Européenne UEMOA : Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine ZEE : Zone Economique Exclusive 53

1. INTRODUCTION En 2000, le Gouvernement du Sénégal a organisé de larges concertations nationales sur la pêche et l aquaculture pour revisiter la stratégie de développement du secteur de la pêche appliquée au cours des deux dernières décennies et procéder aux ajustements nécessaires afin de mieux répondre aux enjeux et défis nouveaux posés au secteur. Ces concertations nationales sur la pêche et l aquaculture 2000 ont ainsi permis de définir les axes stratégiques majeurs appelés à guider le travail de réforme dans le secteur de la pêche et de l aquaculture, à savoir : - assurer une gestion durable de la pêche et de l aquaculture, tout en maintenant leur viabilité économique ; - satisfaire la demande nationale en produits halieutiques ; - améliorer et moderniser les conditions d exercice de la pêche artisanale et de l aquaculture vivrière ; - accroître la valeur ajoutée des produits halieutiques ; - développer un système durable de la pêche et des activités aquacoles ; - renforcer la coopération bilatérale, sous régionale, multilatérale et internationale en matière de pêche et d aquaculture. Depuis l adoption de la stratégie de développement durable en 2001, le secteur de la pêche a été confronté à des évolutions notables, résultant à la fois des dynamiques sectorielles internes, des progrès accomplis dans la mise en œuvre de la stratégie, mais également des nouvelles missions assignées au secteur dans le cadre des politiques publiques nationales (DSRP, SCA). En janvier 2004, un bilan d étape de la mise en œuvre de la stratégie de développement du secteur de la pêche a été réalisé par l ensemble des acteurs de la pêche et de l aquaculture (administration, organisations professionnelles, ONG et bailleurs de fonds du secteur). Ces assises ont marqué une étape importante de la politique des pêches en conduisant les autorités du Département à afficher une politique volontariste et cohérente de réforme dont l axe majeur consiste à donner la priorité à l aménagement des pêches. C est ainsi qu il a été décidé que les choix prioritaires de programmation des actions de l Etat et des bailleurs de fonds devront désormais être orientés vers les axes stratégiques suivants : - traiter en priorité les questions relatives à la réduction des surcapacités, au contrôle de l accès aux ressources, à la maîtrise de l effort de pêche et au renforcement du degré de responsabilisation des pêcheurs ; - développer une politique publique visant à «placer le pêcheur au cœur de la réforme». Outre cette inflexion majeure intervenue dans les politiques relatives à la pêche de capture, le gouvernement a décidé en 2005 de mener en parallèle, une politique de développement accéléré de l aquaculture, justifiée par les limites objectives de croissance de la production des pêches de capture et aussi par l existence d un potentiel hydrographique favorable à cette nouvelle activité. Le développement de l aquaculture vise principalement à compenser la baisse de la production de capture qui constitue une menace sérieuse pour la sécurité alimentaire et l approvisionnement en protéines d origine animales de la population sénégalaise, menace amplifiée du reste par la croissance démographique et son corollaire, l augmentation des besoins alimentaires. L importance économique et sociale de la pêche au Sénégal a aussi conféré à ce secteur, une place primordiale dans les politiques macroéconomiques en cours. Le DSRP 1 ( 2003-2005) a ainsi inscrit la pêche parmi les leviers de l axe «création de richesses» de la stratégie, lui assignant ainsi un rôle central dans la lutte contre la pauvreté. Ce rôle assigné au secteur a été consolidé par le DSRP II (2006-2010). La stratégie nationale de croissance accélérée (SCA) promue par le DSRP II s appuie également sur la grappe des produits de la mer et de l aquaculture qui figure parmi les 5 secteurs de l économie nationale à haut potentiel économique, devant être les leviers d une croissance accélérée de l économie nationale. 54

Ces évolutions récentes de la politique sectorielle caractérisées par : (i) un recentrage des priorités sur l aménagement des pêcheries; (ii) la promotion de l aquaculture ; (iii) la valorisation des produits halieutiques ; (iv) ainsi qu une contribution optimale du secteur à la croissance et à la réduction de la pauvreté ont amené le Gouvernement à élaborer une lettre de politique sectorielle visant les objectifs suivants: 1 - Définir les options politiques fortes du Gouvernement sur la base d un diagnostic actualisé de la situation du secteur et d une bonne compréhension des enjeux du moment ; 2 - Disposer d un cadre de référence permettant d orienter et de rendre cohérentes les interventions de l Etat et des partenaires au développement dans le secteur de la pêche et de l aquaculture au cours des trois prochaines années; 3 - Améliorer l efficacité de la politique sectorielle par l introduction de modalités de suivi de la mise en œuvre des actions et mesures prioritaires. I Bilan diagnostic du secteur I. 1 - Situation et contexte actuel Le secteur de la pêche apporte une contribution importante à l économie du pays, mesurable par quelques indicateurs clés. Il représente environ 2% du PIB total et comptabilise 600 000 emplois directs ou indirects. Sa part dans les exportations totales du pays est de 32%. Les produits de la pêche jouent aussi un rôle primordial dans l alimentation des populations, avec une contribution de 70 % aux apports nutritionnels en protéines d origine animale. Conscient des potentialités dont recèle le secteur, l Etat du Sénégal s est évertué, depuis l indépendance, à mettre en œuvre des politiques susceptibles de contribuer au soutien et au développement des activités de pêche et à les soutenir. L objectif visé à travers ces politiques est de permettre à cette branche de l économie sénégalaise de contribuer à l alimentation des populations, de créer des emplois et de générer des devises par les exportations de produits halieutiques. Actuellement, le secteur des pêches fait face à une crise environnementale et socio-économique grave, qui menace la survie des communautés de pêche, risque de compromettre l approvisionnement en poisson des populations et de l industrie halieutique et plus généralement, la contribution du secteur à la croissance économique et à la lutte contre la pauvreté En effet, entre 1988 et 2003, les captures des espèces démersales qui apportent l essentiel de la valeur ajoutée du secteur ont chuté de 32% en moyenne. Les exportations de produits halieutiques ont également enregistré une baisse notable, de l ordre de 26%. Cette évolution défavorable est liée principalement aux mauvaises pratiques de pêche et à la surcapacité qui ont entraîné une surexploitation des principales espèces démersales côtières. La crise du secteur est aujourd hui aggravée par le fait que le redéploiement de l armement national industriel et artisanal dans les pays de la sous région devient problématique à cause des politiques de restriction de l accès aux ressources halieutiques des ZEE de ces pays. S agissant de la pêche continentale, force est de constater que les déficits pluviométriques successifs (sécheresse) de ces dernières décennies et la modification des régimes hydrologiques des principaux cours d'eau (constructions de barrages et aménagements hydro-agricoles) ont entraîné une réduction notable des captures. L aquaculture, bien qu elle existe depuis longtemps comme activité, n arrive pas à dépasser le stade embryonnaire en raison de multiples contraintes qui entravent son développement. Elle est potentiellement une alternative à la baisse de la production halieutique car partout dans le monde, les pêches de captures stagnent en volume, les débarquements ayant atteint le potentiel exploitable. En revanche, la croissance annuelle de la production de l aquaculture est largement supérieure à celle des pêches de captures marines et continentales ainsi qu à celle de la production de la viande d élevage. Par conséquent, il est impératif que des efforts conséquents soient engagés, afin 55

qu à l instar de ce qui se passe à l échelle mondiale, l aquaculture, au Sénégal aussi, contribue à l augmentation de la production de poissons, les pêches de capture, de toute évidence, ayant atteint leurs limites. A l échelle internationale, le secteur des pêches fait face à de nouveaux défis au plan des échanges commerciaux, notamment les nouvelles exigences commerciales de l OMC consécutives aux subventions des pêcheries, à la disparition des préférences commerciales, l obligation de compétitivité, l avènement de l APE en 2008 et l ouverture des marchés régionaux et sous régionaux à la concurrence internationale. En outre, l accès des produits halieutiques sénégalais aux marchés d exportation traditionnels (UE notamment) deviendra de plus en plus drastique compte tenu des exigences croissantes de ces marchés en matière de normes sanitaires. Ce contexte appelle des réformes vigoureuses et urgentes visant à assainir et à aménager le secteur de la pêche ainsi qu à promouvoir le développement de l aquaculture afin que cette branche de l économie reste dans le peloton de tête des secteurs créateurs de richesse et participe durablement à la lutte contre la pauvreté. Le Gouvernement a déjà posé des actes décisifs dans la mise en œuvre de ces réformes illustrés par quelques actions phares : définition de nouvelles conditions d accès avec l introduction du permis de pêche artisanale ; ouverture de chantiers d envergure dans le domaine de la maîtrise des capacités de capture (élaboration du Programme d ajustement des capacités de pêche maritime, Programme national d immatriculation des pirogues,audit de la flotte démersale côtière ); amélioration de la gouvernance du secteur par l introduction de la cogestion et la mise en place des Conseils Locaux de pêche; renforcement notable des moyens opérationnels de la surveillance des pêches ; mise en œuvre de politiques de conservation de la ressource et de l environnement marin (instauration du repos biologique, création de récifs artificiels, gestion intégrée des ressources marines et côtières, création d aires marines protégées) ; création d une cellule de restructuration industrielle et Elaboration d un plan de restructuration industriel ; Actions de mise aux normes de l amont de la filière ; création d une Agence pour la Promotion de l Aquaculture (APA) et élaboration d un programme prioritaire de développement de la pêche continentale et l aquaculture au Sénégal. La Lettre de politique sectorielle vise à accélérer ces réformes, à accroître leur efficacité en renforçant notablement la cohérence des interventions, des projets et programmes publics sur la base d objectifs clairement définis, priorisés et hiérarchisés. Elle vise en même temps à fédérer toutes les initiatives de l Etat et des partenaires au développement (bailleurs de fonds, ONG) autour d un document de référence consensuel. I. 2 - ANALYSE DES CONTRAINTES MAJEURES DU SECTEUR Les contraintes majeures auxquelles le secteur fait face sont à la fois d'ordre technique, économique, institutionnel et socioculturel. Elles sont globalement sériées comme suit : (i) Les contraintes liées à l exploitation des ressources halieutiques et de ses impacts sur l environnement marin : - Fortes capacités de prélèvement entraînant une surexploitation et une dégradation des principaux stocks de fond avec risque d effondrement pour certains et pleine exploitation pour d autres ; - Existence d un régime d accès insuffisamment contrôlé de la pêche artisanale ayant pour conséquence une expansion non maîtrisé du parc piroguier; - Accroissement des conflits entre les différents types de pêche du fait de trop fortes capacités de production face à une raréfaction de la ressource halieutique ; - Dégradation continue des habitats marins et des zones côtières liée à la pollution et l érosion côtière ; 56

(ii) Les contraintes liées au système de gestion actuel des ressources halieutiques : - Faiblesse du système de gestion des pêches et absence d un système d aménagement basé sur des plans de gestion intégrés des différentes pêcheries nationales fondés sur des mesures techniques, sociales et économiques cohérentes articulées autour d objectifs clairs de gestion des pêcheries ; - Faibles capacités de la recherche et dépendance financière des programmes de recherche des fonds de l accord de pêche avec l Union Européenne. On note encore une faiblesse des connaissances scientifiques portant sur les principaux stocks exploités, leur potentiel exploitable et l effort de pêche permissible sur les ressources halieutiques de la ZEE nationale; - Manque de politique cohérente de surveillance des pêches référencée à des objectifs d aménagement précis ; faible efficience de la politique actuelle de surveillance des pêches ; (iii) Les contraintes liées à l exercice de la pêche artisanale et de ses activités connexes : - Inadaptation et insuffisance des infrastructures de base dans les centres de pêche (aires de débarquement, aires de transformation, moyens de conservation et de transport des produits, pistes de production) ; - Faiblesse de la politique de gestion des infrastructures de pêche en matière de normes, d hygiène, et de traçabilité des produits, ce qui pose clairement aujourd hui le problème de la mise aux normes de l amont de la filière ; - Mauvaise hygiène des sites de transformation des produits artisanaux entraînant des risques sanitaires pour les populations ; - Importance des pertes après capture; - Absence de mise aux normes des pirogues et moyens de transport participant aux filières d exportation des produits de la pêche vers l Europe ; - Insuffisance de la formation et faiblesse organisationnelle des acteurs des différentes filières ; - Inexistence de réglementations et contrôles encadrant l exercice des métiers connexes à la pêche artisanale (transformation artisanale, mareyage) ; - Système de financement des activités peu contributif à une véritable politique de modernisation des activités ; - Propension encore faible des pêcheurs artisans à l application de mesures de sécurité en mer et à adopter de pratiques de pêche responsable ; (iv) Les contraintes spécifiques au secteur industriel : - Vétusté de l armement industriel expliquant en partie les performances techniques médiocres d une flotte dont la moyenne d âge est très élevée ; - Diminution constante des rendements économiques, conséquence de l augmentation des coûts de capture (hausse du carburant) et de la baisse des rendements physiques. Ce phénomène est aggravé par la réduction du rayon d action des chalutiers liée à la restriction des activités des navires dans les eaux des pays limitrophes. - Risques de privation de l autorisation d exporter sur les marchés européens pour les navires congélateurs à cause de manquements aux normes sanitaires ; 57

- Faible contribution de certains segments de la flotte à la création de la valeur ajoutée sur le territoire national (navires congélateurs) ; - Surdimensionnement des unités de transformation à terre dans un contexte de diminution des approvisionnements de la pêche ; - Baisse de la compétitivité des entreprises à terre principalement liée au renchérissement du coût de la matière première ; ce phénomène est accentué par le faible niveau de valorisation des produits exportés ; - Maintien de pratiques ou situations malsaines de survie de certaines entreprises préjudiciables au bon développement du secteur industriel (sous-traitance, faillites frauduleuses, non respect des normes légales de gestion financière des entreprises etc.) ; - Difficultés d accès à des financements stables et durables ; - Crise structurelle de la filière thonière ; (v) Les contraintes propres à la pêche continentale : - Baisse notoire de la production halieutique liée aux déficits pluviométriques successifs (sécheresse) de ces dernières décennies et à la modification des régimes hydrologiques des principaux cours d'eau (constructions de barrages et aménagements hydro-agricoles) ; - Obsolescence de la réglementation nationale en vigueur ; - Absence de données statistiques complètes et récentes sur tous les plans d eau ; - Insuffisance de la formation et faiblesse organisationnelle des acteurs ; - Manque d intérêt des institutions de crédit pour le sous-secteur et difficultés d accès au crédit pour les pêcheurs ; (vi) Les contraintes liées à la pratique de l aquaculture : - Faiblesse des connaissances sur la disponibilité en eau et sur le potentiel hydrique et manque d études sur les potentialités aquacoles de certaines espèces de poissons et sur les sites d élevage ; - Faiblesse des rendements des exploitations aquacoles ; - Insuffisance en nombre des fermes pilotes, nécessaires pour multiplier les expérimentations, fournir les intrants et l encadrement de proximité ; - Insuffisance en nombre et qualité du personnel d encadrement ; - Difficultés d accès au foncier ; - Inefficacité de la coordination entre la Recherche et le Développement ; - Coûts élevés des aménagements aquacoles et des intrants (alimentation) qui influent sur les coûts de production et la rentabilité de l activité ; - Absence d un environnement incitatif pour les privés, de savoir-faire et de capitaux à moyen et long terme ; - Forte concurrence des autres types d activités (agriculture, élevage ou pêche) jugées plus rentables ; 58

- Mauvais positionnement commercial des produits d élevage sur les marchés notamment par rapport aux produits de capture (prix, réseau distribution, promotion surtout s il s agit de produits nouveaux par rapport aux habitudes alimentaires existantes) ; (vii) Les contraintes institutionnelles du secteur : - Insuffisance en nombre et en qualité de l encadrement technique administratif et financier du secteur face aux enjeux actuels, notamment ceux portant sur la gestion et l aménagement des pêcheries, la restructuration de l aval de la filière et sa mise aux normes d hygiène et de salubrité, le développement de l aquaculture ; - Non engagement du processus d ajustement des institutions du secteur par rapport à la nouvelle problématique de l aménagement des pêches. Ce retard se traduit par une difficulté latente des structures administratives, professionnelles, de cogestion et de recherche à exécuter de façon optimale les nouvelles missions de l aménagement des pêches. Il est en même temps révélateur d incohérences parfois notées dans la pratique de ces institutions ; - Faible capacité d analyse, de suivi et de coordination des structures administratives ; - Inadaptation des institutions administratives et des systèmes de financement des activités de pêche de capture artisanale, continentale et industrielle ; - Diversité et manque de coordination des interventions des administrations publiques, des ONG et des bailleurs de fonds dans le secteur ; - Faiblesse des systèmes d information pour appuyer l analyse et la planification sectorielle en particulier dans les domaines économiques. II - OBJECTIFS ET STRATEGIES DE DEVELOPPEMENT DU SECTEUR II. 1 - Objectifs de développement Le contexte actuel des pêches sénégalaises est marqué par la prégnance des politiques publiques nationales qui donnent la priorité à la réduction de la pauvreté. Ces politiques publiques sont en phase avec le diagnostic actuel posé sur le secteur et situent parfaitement les défis et enjeux sectoriels. Le DSRP II, document de politique économique et sociale pour la croissance et la réduction de la pauvreté constitue à cet égard le cadre de référence des interventions du gouvernement, des partenaires au développement et des autres acteurs (société civile et secteur privé notamment). Le document de stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté a inscrit la pêche parmi les leviers de l axe «création de richesses» de la stratégie, lui assignant ainsi un rôle central dans la lutte contre la pauvreté. Les objectifs stratégiques assignés au secteur dans le cadre du DSRP II sont : (i) assurer la gestion durable et la restauration des ressources halieutiques ; (ii) satisfaire la demande nationale en produits de la pêche; (iii) valoriser les ressources halieutiques et moderniser la pêche artisanale ; (iv) promouvoir la professionnalisation et la qualification accrue des acteurs du secteur de la pêche et de la transformation ; (v) améliorer le système de financement des 59

activités de la pêche et de l aquaculture ; (vi) renforcer la coopération régionale et sous-régionale des pêches. La stratégie de croissance accélérée, partie intégrante du DSRP II, a notablement renforcé le rôle et la place des activités de pêche et d aquaculture en élisant ce secteur dans le groupe des 5 grappes à haut potentiel de croissance et dont l effet d entraînement sur l ensemble des autres secteurs économiques est avéré. Pour le sous-secteur de la pêche, le principal enjeu de la politique sectorielle tel que défini par la SCA est la régénération de la rente halieutique et l accroissement de la valeur ajoutée des activités à terre. La nature de cet enjeu a été clairement posée dans le document de la SCA dans les termes suivants : «Le modèle de développement qui a eu cours dans le secteur la pêche depuis de nombreuses années a inexorablement conduit à la dissipation de la rente halieutique (valeur des ressources naturelles). La rente et les avantages économiques qui peuvent dériver de l exploitation des ressources halieutiques par le biais d activités à terre performantes et créatrices de valeur ajoutée et d emplois constituent aujourd hui le principal enjeu de la grappe. Une bonne gestion des ressources halieutiques basée sur des principes de durabilité (économique, biologique et sociale) permettrait de relever le défi de la croissance que pose le projet de la Stratégie pour une Croissance Accélérée. Ainsi, la capacité à remettre le secteur en situation de produire de la richesse en rapport avec la valeur intrinsèque des ressources naturelles constitue la pierre angulaire de toute politique de croissance économique accélérée pour les pêcheries sénégalaises». Il apparaît donc clairement que dans la hiérarchie des objectifs stratégiques assignés au secteur des pêches, la SCA place au premier rang l objectif de gestion durable et de restauration des ressources halieutiques dont l atteinte permettra de recréer la rente halieutique largement dissipée. La politique sectorielle tient compte de cette expression de priorité et veillera à ce que les actions de l Etat et des partenaires au développement, ainsi que les moyens disponibles soient ajustés et mis en cohérence avec cette nécessité. S agissant de l aquaculture, la réalisation de la politique sectorielle aura pour cadre le Programme national de développement de l aquaculture (PNDA) ayant déjà fait l objet d une validation en conseil interministériel. Les moyens qui seront mobilisés dans le cadre de la SCA pour l aquaculture participeront à la réalisation du PNDA. L objectif global visé par le PNDA est d impulser et de vulgariser l aquaculture pour en faire une alternative rapide de lutte contre la pauvreté. En termes spécifiques, les objectifs visés sont : - Contribuer à l accroissement de la production aquacole pour atteindre le cap des 100 000 tonnes / an à l horizon 2010 ; - Contribuer à la réduction de l effort de pêche de capture ; - Contribuer à la résorption du gap alimentaire des populations ; - Ancrer les techniques d élevage en milieu rural ; - Développer un engouement au sein des populations, pour la pratique de l aquaculture ; - Relever les revenus des populations défavorisées, par la création d emplois et de richesses productifs et durables (réduction de l exode rural) ; - Re dynamiser le sous secteur de l ostréiculture. II. 2 - Stratégies de développement Objectif 1 : Gestion durable et restauration des ressources halieutiques et de leurs habitats: Pour atteindre cet objectif, le Gouvernement mettra en œuvre en priorité des stratégies autour des axes suivants : a) La maîtrise et la gestion des capacités de pêche maritime en adéquation avec les potentiels de captures permissibles: Dans ce cadre, l accent sera mis sur les actions suivantes jugées prioritaires : 60

a.1 L ajustement des capacités de pêche maritime : Il s agit d une nécessité autour de laquelle existe déjà un consensus large des acteurs du secteur et qui a déjà fait l objet d un programme qui doit se traduire par une réduction rapide et forte de l effort de pêche et des mesures d accompagnement à la sortie du secteur. La mobilisation des partenaires au développement pour le financement de ce programme est une des priorités actuelles du gouvernement. L ajustement des capacités de pêche tiendra aussi compte des résultats de l audit de la flotte de pêche démersale côtière destiné, entre autres, à contrôler les caractéristiques techniques des navires et leur conformité vis-à-vis des dispositions de la loi et de la réglementation relatives au pavillon et aux autorisations de pêche. a.2 L immatriculation des pirogues à travers le programme national d immatriculation des pirogues. a.3 La consolidation du registre national des navires de pêche. a.4 : L élaboration d un plan national de gestion de la capacité de pêche qui sera élaboré et constituera le cadre devant permettre au gouvernement de contrôler la capacité de pêche future. b) Le contrôle de l accès aux ressources halieutiques : Le contrôle de l accès aux ressources halieutiques sera prioritairement axé sur : b.1 la généralisation et l effectivité du permis de pêche artisanale : L institution d un permis de pêche artisanale et son application effective constituent une urgence pour le contrôle de l accès aux ressources halieutiques dans le sous-secteur artisanal. b.2 La mise en place d un système de concessions de droits d accès aux ressources halieutiques permettant de réguler l accès par zones et groupes d espèces. En pêche artisanale, les récipiendaires des droits d usage concédés seront les nouvelles institutions locales crées en vue de responsabiliser, d appuyer et de faire participer les communautés de pêcheurs à la gestion des pêches (conseils locaux des pêches, conseil national consultatif des pêches, structures de cogestion, autres initiatives à la base, etc..). Un cadre contractuel devant régir les conditions dans lesquelles les communautés de pêcheurs bénéficieront des droits d usage concédés sera élaboré par l administration des pêches en concertation avec les représentants des usagers. La mise en place d un système de concessions de droits d accès aux ressources halieutiques dans la pêche artisanale sera aussi conçue comme un moyen devant permettre d accélérer et de faciliter l instauration et la gestion du permis de pêche dans le cadre d un transfert de responsabilité. En pêche industrielle, l élaboration des plans d aménagement des pêcheries permettra de définir les améliorations possibles et nécessaires au système actuel de concessions de droits de pêche (licences), tenant compte des objectifs et mesures d aménagement fixés (gestion par TAC, QIT, etc.) c) l instauration de plans d aménagement des pêcheries : L instauration progressive de plans d aménagement des pêcheries, commençant par les stocks les plus menacés, est seule à même d'assurer la durabilité de la ressource et de l'activité de pêche (durabilité biologique, économique, et environnementale). Ces plans constitueront la clef de voûte de l ajustement des capacités de pêche et des mesures de contrôle de l accès ; d) la promotion d une politique de conservation de l habitat marin et de la ressource dans le cadre d une gestion intégrée des zones côtières : Elle demeure une préoccupation constante, compte tenu de l état de dégradation progressif des écosystèmes marins. Le Gouvernement mettra en œuvre en relation avec les partenaires au développement, les institutions professionnelles et la société civile, un aménagement rationnel, intégré et durable des environnements marins et côtiers. Aussi, le Gouvernement mettra en place une stratégie nationale principalement basée sur l immersion des récifs artificiels et la création d un réseau d aires marines protéges ; ces instruments sont à considérer comme des outils d aménagement et auront donc à s intégrer dans la politique d aménagement et le schéma général de concession de droits d usage. La politique de conservation de la ressource sera aussi promue à travers les approches écosystémiques. e) le renforcement et l adaptation de la recherche halieutique : La recherche halieutique, appelée à jouer un rôle de premier plan en matière d aménagement des pêcheries, sera renforcée mais surtout tournée vers 61

l aménagement des pêches, compte tenu de la rareté de certaines espèces, de l affluence de nouveaux intervenants et des menaces et agressions multiformes de l écosystème marin. Il convient cependant, face aux difficultés sérieuses auxquelles est confrontée la recherche halieutique au Sénégal depuis quelques années, de procéder en urgence à l état des lieux, en examinant les contraintes et faiblesses aux plans scientifique, institutionnel et humain en vue de définir un plan de restructuration et de renforcement de ses capacités et ce faisant, améliorer sa contribution à la gestion des pêches. L état des lieux concernera principalement le CRODT mais également une réflexion sur la contribution aux efforts de recherche halieutique nationaux des autres structures de recherche présentes au Sénégal, notamment l IRD et l UCAD. Le Gouvernement s engage à mettre à la disposition de la recherche halieutique des moyens appropriés, stables et réguliers une fois celle-ci diagnostiquée et restructurée. d) l optimisation des moyens de suivi, de contrôle et de surveillance des pêches : La surveillance des pêches a absorbé beaucoup de ressources ces cinq dernières années se traduisant par un effort d investissement sans précédent de l Etat : acquisition de 6 vedettes de surveillance côtière, construction de nouvelles générations de stations côtières ; installation d un système côtier de radars ; installation du VMS ; acquisition d un nouvel aéronef etc. Cependant, les résultats obtenus ne sont pas encore satisfaisants. A court et moyen terme, l accent devra être mis moins dans l augmentation des moyens d investissement que leur valorisation à travers une utilisation rationnelle des moyens existants. Il conviendra surtout de mettre en place les dotations budgétaires nécessaires pour leur bon fonctionnement. Il s agira en même temps de repenser la surveillance dans le but d accroître son efficacité et son efficience. A cet effet, les options stratégiques et opérationnelles en matière de surveillance, le choix des moyens ainsi que le cadre institutionnel approprié feront l objet d une réflexion stratégique dont la visée est de mettre la surveillance des pêches au service des institutions chargées de l aménagement des pêches. Objectif 2 : Satisfaction de la demande nationale a) Promouvoir le secteur de la pêche continentale et de l aquaculture : Le Gouvernement relancera la pêche continentale par la dynamisation de la recherche en pêche continentale, la protection des réserves de pêche et des zones de frayères, la création d'une base de données statistiques et la régulation de l accès. En matière d aquaculture, la priorité sera donnée à l aquaculture vivrière car les productions afférentes ont pour effet d augmenter l offre de produits, de garantir la sécurité alimentaire et des approvisionnements des industries. L Etat favorisera son développement dans les zones à fort potentiel aquacole sur la base d études technicoéconomique garantissant la rentabilité de l exploitation. La politique sectorielle sera principalement basée sur l exécution du PNDA. L Agence pour la Promotion de l Aquaculture sera la cheville ouvrière de l exécution de ce programme. La priorité sera aussi donnée à la mise en place des conditions préalables de développement de l aquaculture au Sénégal. Il s agit notamment : - de l accélération de la mise en œuvre des réformes transversales relatives à l application effective de la sécurité foncière ; - de l émergence de nouveaux opérateurs fabricants d aliment afin de permettre la production d aliments à forte teneur en protéine ; - de la défiscalisation des intrants ; - de la réalisation des infrastructures économiques de base notamment pour l accès à l eau, l aménagement des étangs, des parcs ostréicoles, les facilités de distribution (pistes et routes d accès, marchés et aires de traitement/stockage, etc.) ; 62

- de la formation et l accompagnement de pisciculteurs témoins. b) réduire les pertes post captures : La satisfaction de la demande nationale passera également par une minimisation des pertes post captures grâce à l augmentation des infrastructures de conservation du poisson frais dans les zones côtières mais aussi dans les localités de l intérieur du pays. Le programme frigorifique dont la première phase a été bouclée sera un des instruments d exécution de cette politique. L exécution de sa seconde phase requiert la mobilisation des partenaires au développement. La promotion de la transformation artisanale par le développement d infrastructures de qualité et de technologies de production améliorées participera aussi à la réduction des pertes post captures. Objectif 3 : La valorisation optimale des ressources Avec la raréfaction de la ressource halieutique, la politique de développement de la pêche ne peut plus être axée sur l augmentation des captures, mais sur une meilleure valorisation de la production, une promotion des produits aquacoles. L amélioration de la contribution du secteur à la création de la richesse nationale et à la satisfaction de la demande nationale en produits halieutiques suppose une valorisation accrue des ressources. Cette idée constitue un des temps forts de la stratégie sectorielle de croissance accélérée. Le thème de la valorisation des ressources constitue également un enjeu prioritaire de taille au regard des exigences croissantes de mise aux normes sanitaires prévalant sur les marchés traditionnels d exportation. A cet égard, un accent particulier sera mis sur la sauvegarde et le maintien de l agrément à l exportation dans les marchés de l UE. les axes stratégiques suivants seront mis en oeuvre dans le cadre de la valorisation des ressources : Au niveau de la pêche artisanale - La réalisation d infrastructures valorisant la production et permettant aux professionnels de la pêche artisanale d exercer leurs activités dans de meilleures conditions de travail, d hygiène et de qualité. Dorénavant, les infrastructures qui seront réalisées répondront à des normes strictes permettant de garantir la qualité, l hygiène et à moyen terme la traçabilité des produits. Un accent particulier sera mis sur l état sanitaire des embarcations, des sites de production et de transformation artisanale. Les investissements futurs de l Etat seront également consacrés à la réhabilitation des infrastructures existantes dans le sens de leur mise aux normes. Progressivement, de manière réaliste et méthodique, il sera visé l extension du concept HACCP à la filière artisanale. - L amélioration des conditions de transformation et de commercialisation des produits frais sera recherchée avec un accent particulier sur la préservation de l hygiène et de la qualité ainsi que la réduction des pertes par une amélioration des procédés de production, de transformation et de commercialisation. - L assainissement des métiers de la transformation et du mareyage par l élaboration et la mise en œuvre de réglementations définissant les conditions d accès et d exercice de ces métiers. L accès à ces diverses professions sera réglementé à travers l instauration de cartes professionnelles. Au niveau de la pêche industrielle La politique sectorielle visera en priorité : 1 - Le maintien des acquis en ce qui concerne la politique de mise aux normes des entreprises. La politique sectorielle sera principalement axée à court et moyen terme sur la réalisation du programme d urgence de sauvegarde de l agrément national axé sur : - le renforcement de la performance de l autorité compétente à la base ; - la remise à niveau des unités de production (établissements et bateaux congélateurs et glaciers) ; 63

- le renforcement de capacité du personnel technique de l industrie halieutique par des actions de formation pour une meilleure compréhension du système HACCP ; - le renforcement des moyens réglementaires par la prise d un certain nombre d arrêtés relatifs au contrôle des produits de la pêche ; - la sensibilisation et l accompagnement des responsables de laboratoire dans le processus de mise sous assurance qualité en vue de l accréditation ; 2 - L assainissement et la restructuration de la filière de transformation industrielle sur la base des actions identifiées par la stratégie sectorielle de croissance accélérée. Celles-ci portent sur : - l élaboration d un programme de restructuration et la mise en place d un fonds de restructuration industrielle ; - la réalisation des expertises juridiques, comptables, fiscales et immobilières nécessaires aux projets de restructuration des entreprises sous forme de fusions, rachats, prises de participations, joint-ventures etc. - le renforcement des contrôles et l instauration de sanctions visant à réprimer les pratiques déloyales (soustraitance) ; - le gel de nouvelles implantations d unités industrielles pour une période de trois ans sur les créneaux définis comme saturés ; - faciliter par un rôle d intermédiation (plate-forme d information et d orientation) l accès des entreprises aux dispositifs actuels d appui (programme de mise à niveau, FPE etc.) 3 - L amélioration du fonctionnement de la filière de la transformation industrielle par l incitation au débarquement des prises ; 4 - La relance de la filière de la transformation industrielle, une fois restructurée et assainie. L Etat s évertuera à mobiliser auprès des bailleurs de fonds, des ressources à long terme pour accompagner le développement des entreprises ; 5 - La relance de la filière thonière principalement axée sur la fusion de la plate-forme thonière. Objectif 4 : La qualification des professionnels du secteur L alphabétisation et le renforcement et ensuite l amélioration de la qualification des professionnels du secteur constituent un facteur indispensable pour l accompagnement des réformes envisagées et l atteinte des objectifs de développement sectoriels. C est pourquoi, le gouvernement initiera des programmes de formation et de perfectionnement étendus aux différents acteurs de la filière. Seront notamment privilégiés les thèmes portant sur la gestion des ressources halieutiques, les pratiques de pêche responsable, la sécurité des pêcheurs artisans, l'hygiène et la qualité des produits aux stades de la production de la manutention de la transformation et de la commercialisation l acquisition de connaissances de base indispensables aux diverses professions (pêcheurs, mareyeurs, transformateurs et distributeurs). Objectif 5 : Le financement des activités Il s agira de mettre à la disposition des professionnels du secteur des instruments financiers permettant de satisfaire les besoins d investissement et d exploitation dans des conditions compatibles, d une part avec l exploitation durable de la ressource, d autre part avec la viabilité financière des activités de pêche S agissant de la pêche artisanale, le gouvernement recherchera et mettra en place des lignes de crédit destinées à financer les professionnels. Ces moyens financiers seront prioritairement orientés vers les institutions de micro finance et les systèmes de financement décentralisés qui interviennent actuellement dans le sous-secteur et qui ont fait la preuve de leur dynamisme et efficacité. 64

En direction de la pêche industrielle, le gouvernement mettra en place un système de financement adapté s appuyant sur des ressources longues pour soutenir la restructuration et la modernisation de l industrie de la pêche mais également des ressources à court, terme pour face aux besoins de trésorerie des entreprises. A cet effet, les structures de financements destinés au financement et à la promotion de la PME (FPE, ADPME) seront davantage mises à contribution. Le gouvernement recherchera aussi de nouvelles lignes de crédit spécifiques auprès des partenaires au développement et les domiciliera dans des institutions de financement adaptées. III - Politiques et mesures d accompagnement Pour garantir son efficacité, la politique de réforme envisagée s appuiera sur une administration des pêches et un cadre juridique et institutionnel rénovés et opérationnels. Elle implique également une gestion participative adossée à des organisations professionnelles fortes et représentatives, la mise en place des concessions de droits d accès auprès des usagers des ressources afin de permettre d assurer à terme une véritable cogestion du secteur. Enfin, la difficulté et surtout l inefficacité d une gestion de la pêche sur des bases purement nationales appelle la nécessité d une coopération internationale et particulièrement une coopération sous-régionale. Les politiques et mesures d accompagnement envisagées seront définies autour des axes suivants : - le renforcement des capacités de l administration L administration des pêches et de l aquaculture sera dotée de moyens humains et matériels à la mesure des enjeux et priorités actuels : politique nouvelle de gestion et d aménagement des pêcheries, surveillance maritime adaptée, recherche halieutique renforcée, promotion d une aquaculture vivrière, restructuration et modernisation de l industrie de la pêche, mise aux normes d hygiène et de qualité des filières de production, de transport, de transformation et de commercialisation, promotion d un dispositif de suivi, de planification et d évaluation plus performant. Le gouvernement veillera à ce que ces priorités soient rigoureusement prises en compte dans la programmation budgétaire, la formation des ressources humaines, le recrutement de nouveaux agents. - l amélioration du dispositif institutionnel Le dispositif institutionnel actuel sera réajusté pour accroître l efficacité des structures administratives et procéder à leur rationalisation. La réforme envisagée fera en sorte que les structures nouvellement crées reflètent au mieux les missions essentielles assignées au département des pêches et les fonctions structurantes devant être mises en place. Elle tiendra aussi compte de la contrainte des ressources humaines limitées et évitera en conséquence toute dispersion pouvant nuire à l efficacité des structures mises en place. Le nouveau découpage institutionnel devra favoriser une prise en charge adéquate des missions, l utilisation optimale des moyens humains disponibles, une répartition claire des compétences entre les structures, la coordination et la synergie des interventions. - la révision du cadre juridique des pêches et de l aquaculture Le cadre juridique des pêches sera révisé et complété pour l adapter aux évolutions constatées et prendre en compte les nouvelles mesures de gestion et d aménagement des pêcheries et aussi l option de l Etat de promouvoir les activités aquacoles. Le dispositif nouveau devra assurer la bonne mise en œuvre des plans d aménagement et principalement modifier les conditions d accès aux ressources halieutiques par l introduction d un système de concession de droits d usage équitable et transparent et prenant en compte l ensembles des usages (conservation, usages récréatifs, usages commerciaux). La révision portera également sur les conditions d exercice et de développement de l activité aquacole. - le renforcement des capacités des organisations professionnelles Les organisations professionnelles (artisanale et industrielle), devront jouer un rôle important dans la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle politique des pêches et de l aquaculture. 65

C est pourquoi, l Etat veillera à accroître le rôle dynamique de ces organisations en leur apportant un appui technique et financier pour leur permettre de développer les différentes filières d activités du secteur, de représenter plus efficacement les métiers de la pêche de capture et d élevage et de participer à la gestion du secteur. Cependant, à l instar des institutions administratives, les organisations professionnelles devront s inscrire dans un nouveau paradigme, déterminé essentiellement par l aménagement des pêches. Elles devront être préparées aux changements qui ne manqueront pas de se produire dans les modes de représentation (organismes de producteurs) mais également au transfert de responsabilité de l Etat en matière de gestion sous couvert de cahiers de charges. - le renforcement de la coopération La politique de renforcement de la coopération va se poursuivre dans le cadre des organismes internationaux, régionaux et sous régionaux, notamment au sein de l ICCAT, la COMHAFAT, l UEMOA, de la CEDEAO, de l OMVS, de l OMVG et de la Commission Sous Régionale des Pêches (CSRP), etc. pour les raisons suivantes : (i) l existence de stocks partagés ou d intérêt commun ; (ii) la mobilité des flottes nationales industrielles et artisanales ; (iii) les accords en matière de pêche ; (iv) La problématique commune de l ajustement des institutions aux nouvelles conditions de raréfaction de la ressource et du rôle croissant des Organisations Régionales et Sous régionales de Pêche dans les pays de la sous région. A cet effet, une attention particulière sera accordée à la mise en œuvre des programmes conjoints en matière de recherche, de contrôle et de surveillance et aussi d aménagements concertés des stocks partagés ou d intérêt commun. Enfin, il sera procédé à la révision des accords internationaux d allocation de droits, notamment l accord avec l UE, pour intégrer les nouvelles options en matière d aménagement. Ont signé : Ministère de l Economie Maritime Ministère de l Economie et des Transports Maritimes et des finances 66

Plan d actions détaillé de la Lettre de Politique Sectorielle des Pêches et de l Aquaculture OBJECTIF GLOBAL : CREATION DURABLE DE RICHESSE POUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT ECONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS FINANCEMENT COUTS En millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.1. Ajustement et renforcement du cadre juridique et institutionnel du secteur des pêches maritimes 1.1.1. Réviser le Code des pêches maritimes pour prendre en compte les nouvelles exigences de régulation de l'accès aux ressources halieutiques dans un schéma de cogestion intégré des pêches : 1.1.1.1. Mettre en place un comité et définir le processus de révision du Code de la pêche ; 1.1.1.2. Définir un cadre institutionnel de l aménagement intégré et participatif des pêcheries ; 1.1.1.3. Institutionnaliser les concessions de droits d accès dans le Code de la pêche 1.1.1.4. Conduire une étude d impact sur la délimitation des zones de pêche et proposer une nouvelle zonation 1.1.1.5. Conduire une étude sur les tailles minimales des espèces principales espèces d intérêt commercial 1.1.1.6. Conduire une étude sur la sélectivité et la réglementation des engins de pêche Texte réglementaire portant création et fonctionnement du comité de révision du Code DPM Rapport technique sur la (autres Directions délimitation des zones de du MEM et Ops) pêche Rapport technique fixant 2007-2008 les tailles minimales des principales espèces d intérêt commercial Conseil des Ministres Nouveau Code des pêches maritimes promulgué Journal Officiel 46 36 M (BM/Girmac) 10M (CRODT) DPM 1.1.2. Réviser l'ensemble des décrets et arrêtés Conseil des Ministres (autres Directions relatifs au secteur, aux institutions publiques Textes réglementaires du MEM et Ops) sectorielles afin de les adapter aux nouvelles adoptés exigences du Code des Pêches Maritimes Journal Officiel 2008-2009 67

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS FINANCEMENT en millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.1.3. Lancer une campagne IEC pour la DPM Nombre de contrôles effectués vulgarisation de la politique et du Code de la (autres Directions Nombre d infractions pêche révisée du MEM, CT Com et constatées Ops) 20 sessions de formation 2008-2010 tenues Nombre d agents formés Nombre d IEC 50 ETAT COOP I 1.1. Ajustement et renforcement du cadre juridique et institutionnel du secteur des pêches maritimes 1.1.4. Doter les institutions des capacités nécessaires à leur fonction telles que définies dans les textes de lois relatifs à l'aménagement des pêcheries 1.1.5. Assurer le renforcement des capacités des acteurs publics et privés dans le domaine de l'aménagement des pêches MEM 2008-2010 MEM 2007-2010 Montant budget alloué à la gouvernance locale Montants de crédits affectés aux institutions locales Nombre de personnes formées 2 sessions annuelles de formation Nombre de voyages d études/stages Nombre de séminaires/ateliers de formation relatifs à l'aménagement des pêcheries Nombre d acteurs formés Budget formation MEM 1 500 300 ETAT COOP I ETAT COOP I 68

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS FINANCEMENT en millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.2 Gestion des capacités de pêche artisanale et industrielle en adéquation avec les potentiels de captures permissibles 1.2.1. Réformer et renforcer le système d'information et d analyse des pêches du Sénégal (SIAPE) 1.2.1.1. Diagnostiquer le système actuel et proposer un nouveau système d information et d analyse des pêches 1.2.1.2. Mettre en place un nouveau système d'information et d analyse des pêches ; 1.2.1.3 Suivre et évaluer le SIAPE Projet de réforme du Système d'information et d analyse des pêches DPM (SIAPE) (autres Directions Séminaire de validation d un rapport du MEM et ANSD) du concept SIAPE Montant de crédits alloués au SIAPE 2008-2010 Rapports annuels de statistiques de pêche édités et diffusés Rapport de SE 450 ----- 340 M (UE/STABEX) 110M ETAT COOP I 1.2.2. Mettre en place l'immatriculation informatisée du parc piroguier (PNI) 1.2.2.1. Mettre en place le Comité de pilotage du programme 1.2.2.2. Lancer une campagne IEC sur le programme 1.2.2.3. Procéder à l immatriculation physique des pirogues 1.2.2.4. Mettre en place un registre national informatisé des pirogues 1.2.2.5. Suivre et évaluer périodiquement le programme Plan IEC textes réglementaires adoptés DPM Nombre de séminaires/ateliers (DMM, DPSP, DPCA) organisés Nombre d embarcations 2007-2009 immatriculées Rapport de suivi / évaluation de l'immatriculation en temps réel mis en place 1 500 775 M (coop. Suisse, Espagnol, BM / Girmac) 210M (UE/STABEX) 515M ETAT 1.2.3. Mettre en oeuvre les recommandations de l'audit du pavillon relatives à la gestion de la capacité 1.2.3.1. Procéder au re jaugeage des TJB douteux 1.2.3.2. Institutionnaliser le gel de l octroi de pavillon sur les ressources démersales 1.2.3.3. Mettre en place un registre national actualisé 1.2.3.4. Suivre et évaluer l état du pavillon ; DMM (DPM, DPSP, PAD, FSPS) 2007-2008 Nombre de navires rejaugés Nombre de navires retirés de la flotte. Registre national informatisé des navires de pêche industrielle mis en place. Acte de gel de l'octroi du pavillon 250 ----- ----- ETAT 69

1.2.4. Elaborer et mettre en oeuvre un plan de gestion des capacités pour la pêche artisanale et la pêche industrielle DPM (autres Directions Plan de gestion élaboré et adopté par du MEM, CEP et le Gouvernement Ops) Rapport périodique de suivi du plan 100 ----- ----- ETAT COOP I 2007-2008 OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS FINANCEMENT en millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.2 Gestion des capacités de pêche artisanale et industrielle en adéquation avec les potentiels de captures permissibles 1.2.5. Mettre en œuvre le programme d'ajustement des capacités de pêche maritime, y compris les mesures d accompagnement à la sortie du secteur 1.2.5.1. Lancer une campagne IEC sur le Programme d ajustement des capacités de pêche 1.2.5.2. Définir les conditions et les modalités de retrait des unités de pêche ciblées 1.2.5.3. Mettre en œuvre le retrait effectif des unités ciblées et les mesures d appui associées 1.2.5.4. Conduire des activités de reconversion et d AGRs. 1.2.5.5. Suivre et évaluer le programme Coordinateur PACPM (autres Directions du MEM, MEF et Ops) 2007-2010 Texte réglementaire sur les conditions et les modalités de retrait des unités de pêche Nombre de sessions IEC Nombre de navires et d embarcations démolis et/ou immergés Nombre d acteurs reconvertis Volume de crédits octroyés Nombre de projets de reconversion financés 35 000 10 MM ETAT 22 MM BAD 1,1MM BM(Girmac) ETAT COOP I 70

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS en FINANCEMENT millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.3. Contrôle des conditions d'accès aux ressources halieutiques et régulation des activités de pêche en concertation avec les usagers 1.3.1. Définir et mettre en place les concessions de droit d'accès pour la pêche artisanale permettant de réguler l accès par zones et groupes d espèces 1.3.2.1 finaliser la réflexion engagée sur les concessions de droits d accès 1.3.2.2. Lancer une campagne IEC et de validation des résultats du groupe de travail auprès des acteurs publics et des professionnels 1.3.2.3. Mettre en place les concessions de droits d accès 1.3.2. Instaurer définitivement le permis de pêche artisanale en liaison avec la mise en place des concessions de droit territorial 1.3.1.1. Mettre en place des mesures de soutien à l instauration du permis 1.3.1.2. Lancer une campagne IEC sur le permis et sur la répartition des recettes 1.3.1.3. Adapter et articuler le permis aux droits de concession 1.3.1.4. Evaluer de la mise en application du permis 1.3.3 Développer et promouvoir les initiatives locales de cogestion des pêcheries artisanales avec les communautés de pêcheurs des sites de pêche CEP-DPM (OPs) 2007-2009 DPM (DPSP, MEF) 2007-2010 DPM 2007-2010 Droits de concession arrêtés et mis en oeuvre 80 % des unités de pêche disposent du permis de pêche Initiatives de co-gestion locales mises en œuvre 275 200M BM/Girmac 75 M UE /STABEX 125 ETAT 2.500 1900M BM(Girmac) 600M BM (Girmac) 1.3.4. Elaborer en concertation avec les usagers des ressources, ensuite institutionnaliser et enfin mettre en œuvre les plans d'aménagement intégrés des pêcheries incluant les mesures techniques de régulation de l'accès aux ressources (concessions de droits) 1.3.4.1. Evaluer les ressources halieutiques aux fins d aménagement des pêches 1.3.4.2. Définir les unités d aménagement des pêcheries 1.3.4.3. Mettre en place un groupe thématique pour la préparation du plan 1.3.4.4. Adopter techniquement et politiquement les plans d aménagement 1.3.4.5 Mettre en œuvre les plans d aménagement des pêches ; 1.3.4.6. Evaluer périodiquement les plans d aménagement des pêches ; DPM (CEP, DMM, DPSP, CRODT, Ops) 2007-2010 Plans d aménagement élaborés et mis en œuvre 1 400 400 M BM (Girmac) AFD STABEX 400M UE/STABEX 600. M ETAT COOP I 71

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS FINANCEMENT En millions F CFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.4 Préservation des écosystèmes marins et restauration des habitats critiques 1.4.1 Développer un réseau d Aires Marines Protégées 1.4.1.1. Adopter le cahier des charges pour la création et la gestion concertée des AMP ; 1.4.1.2. Appuyer les initiatives locales à la mise en place des AMP aux fins d aménagement des pêches ; 1.4.1.3. Evaluer périodiquement l impact des AMP 1.4.2. Promouvoir l immersion de récifs artificiels 1.4.2.1. Lancer une campagne IEC sur le plan stratégique d immersion des récifs artificiels 1.4.2.2. Mettre en œuvre le plan stratégique d immersion des récifs artificiels 1.4.2.3.. Suivre et évaluer périodiquement l impact de l immersion des récifs artificiels 1.4.3. Expérimenter et diffuser des engins de pêche et des techniques plus sélectifs dans les pêcheries industrielles DPM (DPN, DPCA, CRODT) 2007-2010 DPM (FSPS, CRODT, DPSP, PAD, DMM, DGEFM, OPs) 2007-2010 DPM (autres Directions du MEM et Institutions de recherche) 2007-2010 10 AMP sont fonctionnelles 15 récifs artificiels sont immergés 1 100 1.000M BM (Girmac) 1 300 300M BM (Girmac) 100 M ETAT COOP I 1 000M ETAT COOP I 72

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 1 : GESTION DURABLE ET RESTAURATION DES RESSOURCES HALIEUTIQUES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS FINANCEMENT en millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 1.5. Renforcement et adaptation des capacités de recherche halieutique 1.5.1 Conduire une réflexion approfondie sur le plan institutionnel, organisationnel, humain, scientifique et financier du positionnement de la recherche halieutique au Sénégal en appui à la gestion des pêches et à l'aquaculture. 1.5.1.1. Diagnostiquer l état de la recherche halieutique et proposer un plan de réorganisation et de renforcement des capacités de la recherche halieutique 1.5.1.2. Mettre en œuvre le plan de réorganisation et de renforcement des capacités de la recherche halieutique 1.5.1.3. Suivre périodiquement le plan CRODT (autres Directions Plan de redynamisation de la du MEM) recherche halieutique élaboré et mis en oeuvre. 2007-2008 1 125 ETAT COOP I 1.5.2. Mettre en place un accord de partenariat entre la recherche, les organisations professionnelles et l'administration des pêches et de l aquaculture CRODT-MEM OPs 2008 Accord de partenariat signé. ETAT 1.5.3 Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un projet de recherche en appui à l aménagement des pêcheries démersales clés Identification des besoins de recherche Elaboration et mise en œuvre d un projet de recherche DPM-CRODT 2007-2010 Programme de recherchedéveloppement axé principalement sur l aménagement des pêcheries démersales mis en place 600 150M BM (Girmac) 1.6 Optimisation des moyens de surveillance et de sécurité 1.6.1. Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un plan de développement du Système de contrôle et de surveillance des pêches : 1.6.1.1. Diagnostiquer l état du système SCS et proposer un plan de réorganisation et de renforcement des capacités de la DPSP 1.6.1.2. Mettre en œuvre le plan 1.6.1. 3. Suivre et évaluer la mise en œuvre du plan. 1.6.3. Mettre en place un cadre réglementaire pour assurer la sécurité de navigation des embarcations de pêche artisanale DPSP-CEP 2007-2008 Système de contrôle et de surveillance des pêcheries élaboré et mis en oeuvre DMM (autres Directions Réduction de 75 % des du MEM) accidents en mer 2007-2008 2.125 ETAT COOP I 50 ETAT COOP I 73

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 2 : SATISFACTION DE LA DEMANDE NATIONALE AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS (Millions) FINANCEMENT ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 2.1. Promouvoir le secteur de la pêche continentale 2.1.1. Finaliser la révision du code de la pêche continentale (63-40 du 10 juin 1963) 2.1.1.1. Redéfinir la délimitation des eaux continentales 2.1.1.2. Conduire une étude sur la réglementation des engins de pêche 2.1.1.3. Conduire une étude sur la pertinence des zones de frayères actuelles DPCA (autres Directions du MEM) 2008-2009 - Limites écologiques des eaux à caractère continental rétablies - Séminaire de validation de l étude sur la réglementation des engins de pêche - Séminaire de validation de l étude sur les zones de frayères validée - Nouveau code la pêche continentale promulgué 75 ETAT 2.1.2. Restaurer les écosystèmes dégradés 2.1.2.1. Evaluer les ressources halieutiques continentales aux fins de réajustement des capacités de pêche continentales 2.1.2.2. Réaliser une enquête cadre sur les effectifs et les activités socio-économiques des pêcheries continentales 2.1.2 3. Développer la pêche continentale dans les retenues naturelles d`eau par la (cuvettes, barrages, mares, bassins de rétention.) 2.1.1.4. Définir et mettre en place un système de cogestion des plans d eau 2.1.2.5. Assurer un suivi contrôle et surveillance de la Pêche Continentale DPCA DPM DPSP-CEP- CRODT- IRD 2008-2010 - Plan d ajustement des capacités élaboré et adopté. - Rapport définissant les unités de production. - Mise en place d une base de données sur les groupes cibles et les activités. - 30 mares exploitables identifiées repeuplées. - Nombre de zones d inondation (frayères ou niches écologiques) identifiées, délimitées et profilées. - Nombre d alevins collectés à partir des mares temporaires (très éphémères). - Programme de repeuplement annuel des cours d eau élaboré et mis en œuvre (en rapport avec les Etats voisins). - Un plan IEC mis en place (nombre de réunions, séminaires et ateliers organisés) - Plan de cogestion élaboré et adopté - Texte réglementaire sur le suivi, contrôle et surveillance adopté en rapport avec les CLPC ; - 20 brigades de surveillance opérationnelles créées ; - Nombre d infractions de plus en plus réduites 349 Etat /Org 74

2.1.3. Réaliser des infrastructures d accueil et de commercialisation dans les principaux sites d intérêt le long des cours du Sénégal et de certains affluents et moderniser les moyens de production. 2.1.3.1. Identifier les sites favorables à l implantation d infrastructures de base ; 2.1.3.2. Mettre en œuvre un programme de sensibilisation en vue d anticiper sur les impacts potentiels de surcapacités de pêche et de définir les conditions, les modalités de retrait et de destruction des engins de pêche prohibés. 2.1.3.3. Conduire la réflexion sur les mesures d accompagnement et définir les conditions et les modalités d implantation de centrales d achat pour le renouvellement du matériel retiré et d un magasin central pour la modernisation des équipements de pêche 2.1.3.4. Equiper les centres de pêche de points de vente de carburant pêche. 2.13.5. Equiper les sites de pêche continentale de débarcadères sommaires et de berges aménagées DPCA (autres Directions du MEM) 2008-2010 - Rapport technique sur les sites potentiels ; - 12 ateliers et séminaires organisés /spots publicitaires ; - Taux d acceptation appréciable. - Texte réglementaire définissant les conditions de retrait des engins prohibés élaboré et appliqué ; - 3000 engins de pêche prohibés retirés et détruits ; - 10 centrales d achat implantées ; - 4170 engins de pêche pour la modernisation ; - 1 magasin central pour le renouvellement du matériel retiré ; - 3280 engins de pêche - de renouvellement - 15 points de distribution de carburant sous douane implantés - Infrastructures et équipements réalisés et réceptionnés ; - 9 débarcadères sommaires réalisés ; - 14 petites berges aménagées. - 21 magasins de stockage 1 220 Etat / org 2.1.3.6. Equiper les centres de débarquement de magasins de stockage 2.1.4. Valoriser les produits de la pêche continentale 2.1.4.1. Réglementer le métier de mareyage et de transformation. 2.1.4.2. Concevoir, en rapport avec les pêcheurs, des prototypes de pirogues plus modernes et plus sécuritaires ; 2.1.4.3. Fournir des camions frigorifiques aux organisations professionnelles ; 2.1.4.4. Fournir aux populations situées dans les zones enclavées de moyens légers de transport des captures. DPCA (autres Directions du MEM) 2008-2010 - Texte réglementaire élaboré et adopté ; - Nombre de cartes professionnelles délivrées. - 12 réunions de concertation (Etat/Profession) ; - Rapport technique sur les prototypes adoptés ; - 500 pirogues traditionnelles améliorées ; - Taux de motorisation des pirogues motorisables plus accru. - 4 camions frigorifiques fournis aux organisations professionnelles - 15 pirogues de collecte des captures ; - 85 bicyclettes - 14 sites de transformation modernes réalisés - 11 aires de séchage réalisées 75

2.1.4.5. Construire et équiper des aires de séchage et des sites de transformation améliorés. 2.1.4.6. Organiser un réseau d information en matière de commercialisation des produits - Aménagement et équipement d un site pilote de transformation destiné a la transformation du Silure - Autres équipements (claies, bacs, fours..) - Dispositif d information opérationnel et largement utilisé 1 427 Etat /org 2.1.5. Renforcer les capacités des acteurs publics et prives 2.1.5.1. Mettre en œuvre un programme de renforcement des capacités techniques et opérationnelles de la Direction de la Pêche Continentale 2.1.5.2. Sensibiliser les populations riveraines sur les impacts des programmes locaux de repeuplement 2.1.5.3. Organiser des cycles de formation à l intention des professionnels (pêcheurs, mareyeurs, transformatrices etc.) sur des techniques améliorées (Hygiène, conditionnement, manutention transformation etc.) 2.1.5.4. Renforcer les capacités des organes de concertation 2.1.5.5. Renforcer le système de financement des acteurs de la pêche continentale DPCA DPM-DITP 2008-2010 - 10 agents qualifiés ou formés - Moyens techniques et logistiques acquis (locaux fonctionnels, moyens roulant et navigant, équipements divers) - 11 séminaires organisés. - des plans locaux de repeuplement élaborés et exécutés. - Besoins identifies - Nombre de séminaires / ateliers organises - Nombre de bénéficiaires et les moyens mis en œuvre - Texte réglementaire sur les organes de concertation - Organes de concertation (CLP) représentatifs des organisations professionnelles - Nombre d appui et de formation - Texte réglementaire révisé et vulgarisés. - Bénéficiaires identifies. - Mécanismes de financement adaptés. 825 Etat /org 2. 76

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 2 : SATISFACTION DE LA DEMANDE NATIONALE AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A MENER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE SUIVI COUT FINANCEMENT en millions F CFA ACQ NEG AR 2.2.1. Mettre en place un cadre juridique et des régimes économiques et fiscaux adaptés pour le développement de l aquaculture 2.2.1.1. Finaliser l élaboration du code de l aquaculture 2.2.1.2. Elaborer un schéma d occupation des sols dans les domaines public, maritime et fluvial en matière d aquaculture 2.2.1.3. Mettre en place un régime d`exonération sur les intrants et équipements aquacoles autorisés APA- DPCA-APIX 2007-2008 Nouvelle loi et Décret d application promulgués Cartographie des sites aquacoles disponible Adoption d un acte instituant un régime d exonération En COURS ETAT 2.2 Promouvoir le secteur de (pisciculture et ostréiculture) 2.2.2. Mettre en place un programme d appui au développement de la pisciculture sur la base d études technico-économiques et d impact environnemental 2.2.2.1. Aménagement et équipement des infrastructures communautaires de production 2.2.2.2. Aménagement et équipement des fermes pilotes et des centres d essai techniques 2.2.2.3. Empoisonnement des bassins artificiels et naturels potentiellement exploitables 2.2.2.4. Rizipisciculture 2.2.3. Mettre en place un programme d appui à la relance de l ostréiculture 2.2.3.1. Aménagement de bassins de dégorgement et de parcs d`élevage. 2.2.3.2. Aménagement de fermes pilotes de grossissement, d`écloseries et de sites de dégorgement 2.2.3.3. Aménagement d aires de transformation APA 2008-2010 APA 2008-2010 APA 2008-2010 2 000 (500) bassins et étangs en terre et 900 cages et 25 ha de tranchées pour la rizipisciculture amenages 08 fermes pilotes et 02 centres d essai technique mis en place 60 bassins naturels et artificiels empoissonnés Exploitation de 25 ha de tranchées 8 bassins et 10 parcs d élevage aménagés 3 fermes pilotes et un bassin mis en place Nombre d aires aménagées 7 777 ETAT ETAT ETAT 1 097 2.2.4. Renforcer les capacités des acteurs publics et privés 2.2.4.1. Renforcer les capacités des agents et acteurs 2.2.4.2. Renforcer les capacités de la recherche 2.2.4.3. Renforcer le système de financement du sous secteur APA DPCA CRODT-IUPA- CNFTPA 2008-2010 10 agents spécialisés et 100 techniciens et 1500 aquaculteurs formés Etude réalisée sur les mécanismes de financement 2 750 ETAT (0,350) Coop I ETAT- Coop I- B M 77

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 2 : SATISFACTION DE LA DEMANDE NATIONALE AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS FINANCEMENT (Millions FCFA) ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 2.3.1. Développer les infrastructures de conservation du poisson de débarquement 2.3. Réduire les pertes post captures 2.3.1.1. Mettre en œuvre la seconde phase du programme frigorifique 2.3.1.2. Implanter des conteneurs isothermes de relais dans les sites de pêche en milieu continental. 2.3.1.2.. Equiper les embarcations de caisses isothermes ; 2.3.2. Améliorer les infrastructures et les technologies de transformation artisanales 2.3.2.1. Améliorer le système de conditionnement des produits frais ou transformés 2.3.2.2. Former les agents des pêches et sensibiliser les usagers 2.3.3, Développer des infrastructures légères de conservation du poisson à l intérieur du pays 2.3.3.1. améliorer la distribution des produits de pêche continentale dans l intérieur du pays accompagné d un dispositif approprié de conservation des produits de pêche. Coordonnateur du programme (DPM, DPCA) 2008-2010 - 24 fabriques de glace construites et équipées de chambres de stockage - 15 conteneurs isothermes implantés. - 1240 caisses isothermes réalisées et distribuées - Nombre de réunions / séminaires organisés - 1200 femmes formées sur les techniques améliorées et reparties sur - 17 sites - 1500 bénéficiaires. - 12 d unités frigorifiques multifonctionnelles réalisées et rétrocédées (concession) - 9 chambres de stockage 12 000 Etat /org Etat / CJ Etat / CI 78

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 3 : VALORISATION MAXIMALE DES CAPTURES AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLECALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTAT COUTS en FINANCEMENT (1) milions FCFA ACQ. A NEG. A RECH. 3.1. Réalisation des infrastructures et des embarcations valorisant la qualité de la production de la pêche artisanale 3.1.1. Mettre aux normes sanitaires les huit quais de pêche pilotes, pour répondre aux exigences d hygiène et de traçabilité du principal marché d exportation : 3.1.1.1. Réalisation des aménagements et équipement des quais de pêche pilotes 3.1.1.2. Mise en place du dispositif de gestion et de maintenance des infrastructures 3.1.1.3. Formation du personnel et sensibilisation des usagers 3.1.2. Mettre aux normes sanitaires 5 autres quais de pêche : 3.1.2.1. Etude technique et financière de la mise aux normes 3.1.2.2. Réalisation des aménagements et équipement des quais de pêche pilotes 3.1.2.3. Mise en place du dispositif de gestion et de maintenance des infrastructures 3.1.2.4. Formation du personnel et sensibilisation des usagers DPM-DITP (autres Directions du MEM et OPs) 2007-2008 DPM-DITP (autres Directions du MEM et OPs) 2009-2010 Les 8 quais de pêche sont conformes aux normes sanitaires sur les 2 ans 5 nouveaux quais aux normes sont réalisés 2.000 2.600 Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI 3.1.3. Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un programme de modernisation des embarcations de pêche artisanale DPM-DITP (autres Directions du MEM et OPs) 100 2008-2010 3.2. Amélioration des conditions de transformation et de commercialisation des produits frais de la PA 3.2.1. Informer les opérateurs des possibilité offertes par le transport routier inter Etats : 3.2.1.1. Préparation d un document d information 3.2.1.2. Organisation d un Ateliers de sensibilisation 3.2.2. Améliorer le conditionnement et l emballage suivant les marchés 3.2.2.1. Etude des couples produits/marchés et réalisation de fiches techniques 3.2.2.2. Organisation de journées portes ouvertes du conditionnement et de l emballage des produits de la pêche 3.2.3. Créer un marché pilote des produits transformés et frais de la pêche pour la ménagère sénégalaise : 3.2.3.1. Etude de faisabilité technique et financière du projet 3.2.3.2. Construction/Aménagement et équipement DPM (autres Directions du MEM et OPs) 2007-2008 DPM-ITA (OP) 2007-2009 DPM (autres Directions du MEM et OPs) 2008-2009 Information de 90% des opérateurs concernés en 2 ans Vulgarisation de 10 nouveaux produits Marché pilote ouvert et fonctionnel en 2009, utilisé par au moins 30% des ménagères de la zone de chalandise 50 70 300 Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI 79

3.2.4. Créer des ateliers multifonctionnels sur la base d une capitalisation des acquis des diverses expériences des projets de développement de la pêche : 3.2.4.1. Etude de faisabilité 3.2.4.2. Réalisation d un pilote 3.2.4.3. Promotion et démultiplication du pilote DPM (DITP et OPs) 2008-2010 Atelier pilote créé en 2008 et au moins 6 autres ateliers créés à l horizon 2010 2 000 Etat/Pad/CoopI 3.2.5. Réaliser un marché de gros des produits transformés e DPM (DITP et OPs) 800 2008-2010 3.3. Amélioration de l environnement de travail des entreprises de pêche industrielle 3.3.1. Restructurer les entreprises en difficulté 3.3.1.1. Mise en place de plateforme thonière 3.3.1.2. Réalisation d étude de restructuration d entreprises en difficulté 3.3.1.3. Créer et doter un fonds de financement de la restructuration des industries de pêche CRI (DITP, DPM et CEP) 2007-2010 Assainissement à 80% au moins du tissu industriel de la pêche en difficulté et dotation du fonds à hauteur de 50% 11.000 242 (Etat) 125 (PNUD) 10.633 Etat/Pad/CoopI 3.4. Augmentation de la productivité et de la valeur ajoutée des produits à l export 3.3.2. Améliorer l environnement des affaires : 3.3.2.1. Etude relative à l amélioration de l environnement des affaires des industries de la pêche 3.3.2.2. Concertations tripartites Etat- Patronat- Partenaires sociaux 3.3.2.3. Prise de mesures par le Gouvernement et mise en œuvre des recommandations issues du CP du 6/07/06 (mise aux normes et abaissement charges d exploitation) 3.4.1. Réaliser des études stratégiques de relance de l industrie halieutique (études de marchés, analyse de la chaîne de valeur, ) 3.4.2. Mettre en place un système d information des prix en temps réel des produits halieutiques au Sénégal 3.4.2.1. Etude de faisabilité du système à réaliser 3.4.2.2. Mise en place d un pilote et déploiement du Système 3.4.3. Mettre en place un cadre favorable à l amélioration de la compétitivité des produits de la pêche 3.4.3.1. Abaissement des coûts des facteurs de production 3.4.3.2. Abaissement des coûts de distribution et d agence 3.4.3.3. Améliorer la qualité des facteurs de production et des services 3.4.3.4. Améliorer l approvisionnement des industries par des mesures incitatives au débarquement des navires CRI (MEF, DITP, DPM, OP) 2008-2009 CRI (CEP, DITP, OP) 2008-2009 DITP (DPM, CEP, OP) 2008-2009 CRI (DITP, APIX) 2007-2008 Les entreprises de pêche ont des résultats comptables et financiers plus confortables 15.000 Etudes réalisées 600 Système d information opérationnel et utilisé par au moins 30 % des professionnels du secteur de la pêche Les produits de la pêche sont plus compétitifs 250 Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI 80

3.5.1. Créer un Centre d Expérimentation et de valorisation pour le développement de nouveaux produits 3.5.1.1. Etude de faisabilité technique et financière 3.5.1.2. Construction et équipement du centre DITP (DAGE, ITA, OP) 2008-2010 Centre valorisation opérationnel 1.000 Etat/Pad/CoopI 3.5. Renforcement de la diversification et promotion des produits 3.5.2. Organiser des séminaires pour l écocertification des pêcheries et l écolabéllisation des produits 3.5.2.1. Organisation d un séminaire sur la NS 3.5.2.2. Organisation des séminaires sur des écolabels pour le thon (thon péché à la canne), les produits frais et les produits élaborés (crevette de Foundiougne et Casamance, thiof du jour de Kayar) 3.5.3. Créer un Label d Origine pour la promotion de la qualité des produits sénégalais 3.5.3.1. Etude relative à la création du Label 3.5.3.2. Création du Label, protection à l OMPI et promotion 3.5.4. Faire des voyages d études et de benchmarking 3.5.4.1. Réalisation des études from desk 3.5.4.2. Préparation et réalisation des voyages d études et de Benchmarking 3.5.4.3. Elaboration de dossiers monographiques produits/pays et organisation d un séminaire d information DITP (DPM, OP) 2007-2008 OP (DITP, DPM) 2007-2008 OP (DITP, ASEPEX) 2007-2010 3 séminaires organisés sur la période Augmentation de la valeur commerciale des produits labellisés 5 voyages effectués et 5 études monographiques élaborées pour les marchés européens, Maghrébins, Américains et Asiatiques des produits de la pêche 100 350 200 Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/CoopI Etat/Pad/ASEP EX/OPs 81

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 4 : AMELIORER LA QUALIFICATION DES PROFESSIONNELS DU SECTEUR AXES STRATEGIQUES 4.1 Améliorer la qualification des acteurs de la transformation artisanale ACTIONS A REALISER 4.1.1 Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un programme d alphabétisation fonctionnelle 4.1.1.1 Réaliser une étude du milieu dans les sites 4.1.1.2 Elaborer le programme d alphabétisation 4.1.1.3 Elaborer et éditer les supports didactiques 4.1.1.4 Former les formateurs 4.1.1.5 Alphabétiser les femmes dans les sites retenus 4.1.2 Mettre en œuvre un programme de vulgarisation et de formation des femmes dans les domaines suivants : techniques améliorées de transformation, de conservation et d'hygiène, gestion 4.1.2.1 Evaluer les résultats acquis en matière de technologies améliorées 4.1.2.2 Créer les équipements nécessaires à l application des techniques améliorées dans les centres pilotes 4.1.2.3 Vulgariser les technologies probantes CALENDRIER D'EXECUTION DPM (DPCA) 2008-2010 DPM (DCPA / ITA) 2008-2010 INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS 50% (3 000) femmes alphabétisées 30% (2 000) femmes formées utilisent les techniques améliorées de transformation, de conservation et d'hygiène dans les sites COUT en Millions FCFA 270 75 ACQ NEG AR FINANCT Etat PaD Coop I Etat PaD Coop I 4.2 Renforcer les capacités des pêcheurs artisans en matière de navigation et de sécurité en mer 4.2.1 Poursuivre les sessions de formations sur la sécurité en mer et sur l utilisation des instruments de navigation 4.2.1.1 Mener une évaluation participative des actions de formation déjà engagées 4.2.1.2 Elaborer et éditer de nouveaux supports didactiques et techniques de la formation 4.2.1.3 Former les pêcheurs DPSP (DPM DPCA / ENFM) 2008-2010 3 000 patrons (capitaines) de pêche formés et capables d appliquer les connaissances acquises 300 Etat 4.3 Intégrer les principes de la qualité dans les opérations de production et de commercialisation dans la filière artisanale. 4.3.1 Réaliser des cycles de formation en direction des pêcheurs et mareyeurs sur les principes de qualité, et de manière spécifique, sur l hygiène et la salubrité notamment pendant la conservation, le transport et la manutention du poisson 4.3.1.1 Elaborer le programme de la formation 4.3.1.2 Elaborer et éditer les supports didactiques et techniques de la formation 4.3.1.3 Réaliser in situ les formations DPM (DITP / DPCA) 2008-2010 2 000 acteurs (pêcheurs et mareyeurs) formés dans les différents domaines 200 Etat 4.4 Renforcer les capacités des professionnels de l aquaculture 4.4.1 Identifier et former les pisciculteurs témoins et les techniciens DPCA (APA) 2008-2010 40 techniciens formés 1 000 aquaculteurs témoins formés 45 305 Cooéperation Etat 82

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 4 : AMELIORER LA QUALIFICATION DES PROFESSIONNELS DU SECTEUR AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER CALENDRIER D'EXECUTION INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUT en FINANCT millions F CFA ACQ NEG AR 4.5.1 Réaliser des mises à niveau au bénéfice des industriels dans le domaine de la gestion des entreprises de pêche 4.5.1.1 Evaluer les besoins en formation des industriels 4.5.1.2 Elaborer le programme de la formation 4.5.1.3 Réaliser les formations DITP (UPAMES / GAIPES) 2008-2010 100 cadres supérieurs et moyens formés 100 Etat op 4.5 Renforcer les capacités du personnel de l industrie 4.6 Améliorer le cadre d exécution des programmes de formation destinés aux professionnels du secteur 4.5.2 Alphabétiser le personnel de production des usines en vue de l application correcte du HACCP 4.5.2.1 Réaliser l étude du milieu préalable 4.5.2..2 Elaborer le programme d alphabétisation 4.5.2..3 Elaborer et éditer les supports didactiques 4.5.2.1.4 Former les formateurs 4.5.2.1.5 Alphabétiser les femmes dans les entreprises retenues 4.5.3 Organiser des sessions de formation, d information et de sensibilisation au profit des responsables Qualité des industries de la pêche 4.5.3.1 Evaluer et Identifier par un questionnaire les besoins en formation et information des industriels 4.5.3.2 Elaborer et éditer les supports didactiques 4.5.3.3 Réaliser les sessions de formation et d information 4.6.1 Mettre en place un cadre paritaire Administration / OP chargé de la planification et du suivi de la mise en œuvre des programmes de formation des professionnels de la pêche 4.6.1.1 Créer un comité paritaire administration / OP 4.5.1.2 Faire valider par le comité paritaire les programmes de formation des professionnels de la pêche 4..5.1.3 Suivi et Evaluation des programmes par le comité paritaire DITP (OPs) 2008-2010 500 personnes alphabétisées par an 210 DITP (OPs) 2008-2010 100 personnes à former sur les 3 ans Directions techniques DAGE (Directions / OP) 2008-2010 Existence d un consensus Administration / OP sur la planification et la mise en œuvre des programmes de formation des professionnels de la pêche 50 - Etat op Etat op 83

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 5 : AMELIORER LE SYSTEME DE FINANCEMENT DE LA PECHE ET DE L AQUACULURE AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER CALENDRIER D'EXECUTION INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUT en millions FCFA ACQ NEG AR FINANCT 5.1 Moderniser et mettre aux normes le sous-secteur artisanal 5.1.1 Renforcer les capacités d intervention des institutions de micro finance intervenant dans le soussecteur de la pêche artisanale (mise en place de lignes de crédit) 5.1.1.1 Evaluer le système actuel de financement de la pêche artisanale 5.1.1.2 Loger des lignes de crédit dans les institutions de micro finance intervenant dans le sous-secteur de la pêche artisanale DPM (CEP) 2008-2010 Rapport d évaluation disponible Des lignes de crédit sont mises en place 3 000 Etat PaD 5.2.1 Faciliter par un rôle d intermédiation (plate-forme d information et d orientation) l'accès des entreprises à terre aux dispositifs actuels d'appui (programme de mise à niveau, FPE, etc.) 5.2.1.1 Préparer et diffuser un document d information 5.2.1.2 Suivi des résultats DITP (DPM CRI) 2008-2010 Plateforme d information et d orientation créée et mise en place au sein de la CRI 10 - - Etat 5.2 Accompagner la restructuration des entreprises à terre 5.2.2 Créer et doter un fonds de financement de la restructuration des industries de pêche 5.2.2.1 Définir les conditions d accès et le mécanisme de fonctionnement 5.2.2.1. Mettre en place la dotation budgétaire de l Etat 5.2.2.2. Instruire des requêtes auprès des bailleurs pour la dotation du fonds 5.2.3 Réaliser une étude de faisabilité d un système d assurance à l exportation DITP (DPM CRI) 2008-2010 CRI (CEP / MEF/ ASEPEX) 2008-2010 Acte de création du fonds pris et dotation du fonds à hauteur de 50% Disponibilité du rapport de l étude de faisabilité au plus tard en juin 2008 10 000 25 Etat Etat PaD 84

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 4 : AMELIORER LA QUALIFICATION DES PROFESSIONNELS DU SECTEUR AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER CALENDRIER D'EXECUTION INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUT en FINANCT millions FCFA ACQ NEG AR 5.3 Accompagner le développement des entreprises de pêche assainies et restructurées 5.3.1 Mettre en place un mécanisme de financement Rechercher des lignes de crédits adaptés 5.3.1.1 Faire un état des lieux du système de financement actuel de la pêche industrielle et définir le mécanisme de financement approprié Identifier de manière exhaustive les lignes de crédit 5.3.1.2 Instruire des requêtes auprès des bailleurs pour l obtention de lignes de crédit CRI (CEP / MEF) 2008-2010 Une ligne de crédits mobilisée 80% du montant de la ligne de crédit utilisés par les bénéficiaires au bout des trois ans 5 - - Etat PaD 85

OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 6 : POLITIQUES ET MESURES D ACCOMPAGNEMENT AXES STRATEGIQUES ACTIONS A REALISER RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS COUTS en FINANCEMENT millionsfcfa ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 6.1 Amélioration du dispositif institutionnel 6.1.1. Elaborer et mettre en œuvre un nouvel organigramme du Département des pêches et de l aquaculture 6.1.1.1.Evaluer l organigramme actuel du MEMTM et proposer un nouvel organigramme conforme aux orientations sectorielles de la pêche 6.2.2.2. Mettre en place le nouvel organigramme MEM 2007-2008 Nouvel organigramme du Département disponible 75 ETAT ETAT 6.2 Renforcement des capacités de l administration et des organisations professionnelles 6.2.1. Elaborer et mettre en œuvre la politique à CT et MT portant sur le recrutement et la formation des ressources humaines du Département des pêches 6.2.1.1 Evaluer le potentiel des ressources humaines et définir les postes et profils requis pour assurer une gestion durable du secteur ; 6.2.1.2. Mettre en œuvre le plan d actions pluriannuel de recrutement et de formation 6.2.2 Doter les services en moyens de travail adéquats 6.2.3 Apporter un appui institutionnel aux OP représentatives 6.2.3.1. Etudier la représentativité, les mandats et les moyens financiers et humains des OP 6.2.3.2. Mettre en œuvre les recommandations de l étude MEM 2007-2008 MEM 2007-2008-2009 MEM 2007-2008-2009 Profils requis et personnel approprié recrutés 3 375 800M UE/STABEX ETAT COOP I OBJECTIF SPECIFIQUE 6 : POLITIQUES ET MESURES D ACCOMPAGNEMENT 86

AXES STRATEGIQUES 6.3 Renforcement de la Coopération ACTIONS A REALISER 6.3.1 Renforcer l'implication technique et financière du Sénégal au niveau des Organisations Régionales de Pêches (CSRP, ICAT, COPACE, COMHAFAT ), des Agences de Coopération intergouvernementale concernées par la pêche et l aquaculture (OMVS, OMVG) et des organismes d'intégration économique (UEMOA, CEDEAO) 6.3.1.1. Recenser les ORP prioritaires nécessitant une participation systématique du Sénégal ; 6.3.1.2. Elaborer un tableau de bord pour le décaissement de la contribution du Sénégal aux OR prioritaires ; 6.3.1.3. Soumettre au SGG le plan indicatif de participation aux réunions statuaires et techniques des organisations prioritaires retenues 6.3.2 Permettre une implication active du Sénégal dans la mise en œuvre des projets en cours de la CSRP dans les domaines de l aménagement, du suivi, contrôle et surveillance des pêches 6.3.3. Réviser les accords internationaux d'allocation de droit de pêche en prenant en compte les nouvelles politiques de réformes du secteur RESPONSABLE CALENDRIER INDICATEURS DE RESULTATS DPM (MAE-MEF-MEM et Structures Montants des cotisations allouées de recherche) et nombres de participation aux 2008-2010 réunions des ORP DPM (CRODT,OPs) 2007-2010 DPM MEF-MEM-OPs 2007-2010 Le Sénégal est impliqué activement dans la mise en œuvre des projets en cours de la CSRP dans les domaines de l aménagement, du suivi, contrôle et de la surveillance des pêches Nombre d'accords révisés et/ou renouvelés COUTS en FINANCEMENT millions FCFA ACQ A NEG. A RECH. 500 ETAT 50 ETAT SIGLES DPM : Direction des Pêches Maritimes DITP : Direction des Industries de Transformation de la Pêche DPSP : Direction de la Protection et de la Surveillance des Pêches DPCA : Direction de la Pêche Continentale et de l Aquaculture APA : Agence pour la Promotion de l Aquaculture GAIPES : Groupement des Armateurs et Industriels de la Pêche du Sénégal UPAMES : Union Patronale des Mareyeurs Exportateurs du Sénégal DAGE : Direction de l Administration Générale et de l Equipement OP : Organisations Professionnelles CRODT : Centre de Recherches Océanographiques de Dakar-Thiaroye CRI : Cellule de Redéploiement Industriel MEF : Ministère de l Economie et des Finances CEP : Cellule d Etudes et de Planification ACQ : Acquis NEG : En Négociation AR : A Rechercher PaD : Partenaires au Développement Coop I : Coopération Internationale 87

Annex 18: Maps SENEGAL: Sustainable Management of Fish Resources Work on a map of the coastal zone, between Cap Vert and Saloum, show the zones of the sea under the jurisdiction of the CLPAs, and then the 4 CLPs created by the GIRMaC, plus the JICA site, and indicate the sites that will be covered by this project. 88