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