• Sudan
Geographic location where the impacts of the investment may be experienced.
Financial Institutions
  • African Development Bank (AFDB)
International, regional and national development finance institutions. Many of these banks have a public interest mission, such as poverty reduction.
Project Status
Stage of the project cycle. Stages vary by development bank and can include: pending, approval, implementation, and closed or completed.
Bank Risk Rating
Environmental and social categorization assessed by the development bank as a measure of the planned project’s environmental and social impacts. A higher risk rating may require more due diligence to limit or avoid harm to people and the environment. For example, "A" or "B" are risk categories where "A" represents the highest amount of risk. Results will include projects that specifically recorded a rating, all other projects are marked ‘U’ for "Undisclosed."
Voting Date
Dec 15, 2017
Date when project documentation and funding is reviewed by the Board for consideration and approval. Some development banks will state a "board date" or "decision date." When funding approval is obtained, the legal documents are accepted and signed, the implementation phase begins.
A public entity (government or state-owned) provided with funds or financial support to manage and/or implement a project.
  • Agriculture and Forestry
The service or industry focus of the investment. A project can have several sectors.
Project Cost (USD)
$ 5.07 million
Value listed on project documents at time of disclosure. If necessary, this amount is converted to USD ($) on the date of disclosure. Please review updated project documents for more information.
Bank Documents
Primary Source

Original disclosure @ AFDB website

Updated in EWS Feb 20, 2018

Contribute Information
Can you contribute information about this project?
Contact the EWS Team

Project Description
If provided by the financial institution, the Early Warning System Team writes a short summary describing the purported development objective of the project and project components. Review the complete project documentation for a detailed description.


Incidences of climate change (CC) in the Horn of Africa (HoA), as assessed in the AR-5 published by the United nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) are: rising temperatures, rainfall variability, drought, desertification, deforestation and land degradation, floods and other extreme weather events (extreme precipitations, stronger El Ni


Somalia and Sudan are both included in the second phase of DRSLP II. The implementation of these projects will first enable a better carbon sequestration. The improving of water resource mobilization, through the building of boreholes, haffirs and other water infrastructures, and the introduction of new climate resilient practices, such as drought resilient seeds, will benefit communities in having better crop productivity, and thus, boost their economic growth. This process will enable a reduction of conflicts, especially about resources availability. Moreover, the introduction of sustainable land management with activities of reseeding and re-plantation will also have an important impact to reduce natural resources scarcity and poverty, but also on reducing soil erosion and increasing soil fertility. Providing veterinary services and training for communities about new climate resilient practices will improve food security and benefit for the whole regions in reducing conflicts and migrations.

The financial internal rate of return (FIRR) of the Project is calculated at 21%, the net present value (VPV) is estimated at USD 1.71 millions. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) to the project is estimated at 25% and the net present value (NPV) at 12% opportunity cost of capital is estimated at USD 2.19 millions.

The project will have both direct and indirect benefits. Improved livelihoods for the agro-pastoral communities will be the main direct benefit. The emphasis on a multi-level, integrated approach to pastoral development through support and funding for a range of initiatives will help pastoralist communities and households undertake livestock and no-livestock income generating activities, accompanied by awareness raising, information and capacity building.

A parallel dynamic of social inclusion and economic growth will help reintegrate the most vulnerable and marginalized population categories into the local economy and combat the social and economic marginalization in which many pastoral groups are trapped. For instance, the creation of new boreholes and water supply networks in villages will reduce periods of unemployment/inactivity due to lack of irrigation boosting economic growth at the village level and improving villagers' livelihoods. Farmers' income is expected to increase from better crop productivity as a result of sustainable irrigation schemes and the introduction of new adaptive practices and appropriate technological package into crop production.

Additional programme benefits include an increased value of livestock through the setting up of veterinarian services, thus further improving food security, and reducing vulnerability to external shocks such as animal disease outbreak. The efforts of the project to provide micro financing will benefit to pastoralists and agro-pastoralists to diversify their sources of livelihoods.

National economies and regional integration will also benefit from the program. Effective cooperation in the management of water resources and improved rangeland management would reduce conflicts and promote social stability and strengthen regional integration. The development of market infrastructures and the improvement of the delivery of animal health related services, mainly the prevention and control of TADs will contribute to an increase of intra- and extra-regional safe trade in livestock products.

The methodology used to estimate these project benefits is based on a costs benefits analysis. Indeed, assessing the costs and benefits of a program is of essential importance to meaningfully quantify its impacts. Following the GEF approach, a baseline model is required, in this case the DRSLP II and III project. The global environmental benefits and the incremental costs, and besides, the project impacts, are compared to the baseline project without the support of the GEF. This comes down to analysing the situation with and without the additional GEF funded project.

For each country, Somalia and Sudan, this comparison has been made, to assess the economic and financial performances of the country projects.

Investment Description
Here you can find a list of individual development financial institutions that finance the project.

Contact Information
This section aims to support the local communities and local CSO to get to know which stakeholders are involved in a project with their roles and responsibilities. If available, there may be a complaint office for the respective bank which operates independently to receive and determine violations in policy and practice. Independent Accountability Mechanisms receive and respond to complaints. Most Independent Accountability Mechanisms offer two functions for addressing complaints: dispute resolution and compliance review.



The Independent Review Mechanism (IRM), which is administered by the Compliance Review and Mediation Unit (CRMU), is the independent complaint mechanism and fact-finding body for people who have been or are likely to be adversely affected by an African Development Bank (AfDB)-financed project. If you submit a complaint to the IRM, it may assist you by either seeking to address your problems by facilitating a dispute resolution dialogue between you and those implementing the project and/or investigating whether the AfDB complied with its policies to prevent environmental and social harms. You can submit a complaint electronically by emailing,,, and/or You can learn more about the IRM and how to file a complaint at

How it works

How it works