Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003427 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-94483) ON A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 2.54 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF CÔTE D’IVOIRE FOR A PROTECTED AREA PROJECT (PARC-CI) June 14, 2015 Global Practice Environment and Natural Resource Management (GENDR) Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective December 31, 2014) Currency Unit = West African FCFA Franc 1.00 = US$ 0.00185632 US$ 1.00 = FCFA 538.7000 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AFD French Agency for Development (Agence française de développement) ANADER National Agency for Rural Development (Agence Nationale d’Appui au Développement Rural) AVCD Village Association for Conservation and Development (Association Villageoise de Conservation et Développement) C2D Debt Reduction and Development Contract (Contrat de Désendettement et de Développement) CGL Local Management Committee (Comité de Gestion Local) CPS Country Partnership Strategy DZNE Directorate for North-East Zone (Direction Zone Nord Est) FPRCI Foundation for Parks and Reserves of Côte d’Ivoire (Fondation Parcs et Réserves de la Côte d’Ivoire) GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objective GEPRENAF West African Pilot Community-Based Natural Resources and Wildlife Management Project (Gestion Participative des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune) GIZ German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) GoCI Government of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (Gouvernement de la Côte d’Ivoire) HQ Headquarter IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KFW German Development Bank (KFW Entwicklungsbank) KPI Key Performance Indicator M&E Monitoring and Evaluation METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool NGO Non-Governmental Organization OIPR Agency in charge of Parks and Reserves of Côte d’Ivoire (Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves) PAD Project Appraisal Document PAG Development and Management Plan (Plan d’aménagement et de gestion) PCGAP National Protected Area Management Program (Programme Cadre de la Gestion des Aires Protégées) PNC Parc National de la Comoé (National Park Comoé) PNGTER Rural Land Management and Community Infrastructure Development Project (Projet National de Gestion des Terroirs et Equipment Rural) UNESCO United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture WCF Wild Chimpanzee Foundation WHS World Heritage Site SeniorGlobal Practice Director: Paula Caballero Practice Manager: Benoît Bosquet Project Team Leader: Douglas J. Graham ICR Team Leader: Douglas J. Graham CÔTE D’IVOIRE PROTECTED AREA PROJECT CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 3. Assessment of Outcomes 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 6. Lessons Learned 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing Annex 2. Outputs by Component Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results Annex 6. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Annex 7. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders Annex 8. List of Supporting Documents MAP A. Basic Information Project Name: Protected Area Project Country: Côte d’Ivoire (PARC-CI) Project ID: P111290 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-94483 ICR Date: ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Original Total USD 2.54M Disbursed Amount: USD 2.217M Commitment: Revised Amount: N/A Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: B Implementing Agencies: Office of Parks and Reserves (OIPR) Foundation for the Park and Reserves (FPRCI) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: GIZ, KfW, AFD, WWF, WCF, UNESCO B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 01/23/2008 Effectiveness: 07/21/2009 01/15/2010 Appraisal: 06/25/2008 Restructuring(s): 09/18/2013 Mid-term Approval: 04/30/2009 10/29/2012 12/08/2012 Review: Closing: 11/30/2013 12/31/2014 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Government: Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of Moderately Implementing Satisfactory Supervision: Satisfactory Agencies: Overall Bank Moderately Overall Borrower Satisfactory Performance: Satisfactory Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Quality at Entry project at any time No None (QEA): (Yes/No): Problem project at any Quality of No None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Forestry 100 50 Public Administration, Agriculture, fishing and forestry 50 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Biodiversity P 60 Small and medium enterprise support S 0 Environmental policies and institutions 30 Participation and civic engagement 10 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Ousmane Diagana Madani M. Tall Practice Manager: Benoît Bosquet Marjory-Anne Bromhead Project Team Leader: Douglas J. Graham Nyaneba E. Nkrumah ICR Team Leader: Douglas J. Graham ICR Primary Author: Gabriele Rechbauer F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objective (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) The Global Environment Objective is to improve the sustainable management of the fauna and habitat of the Comoé National Park. Revised Global Environment Objective (as approved by original approving authority) GEO was not revised. (a) GEO Indicators Actual Value Original Target Values Formally Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value (from approval Target Values Completion or documents) Target Years GEO Indicators as confirmed/approved at restructuring Indicator 1: Reduction in poaching of wildlife (percentage) Value 2.9 indices/10 km No target set 1.16 indices/10 km 0.75 indices/10 (quantitative (60% reduction) km or (74% reduction) Qualitative) Date 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 12/31/2014 achieved Exceeded (123%). Baseline and target added at restructuring. Poaching decreased due to Comments a combination of enabled surveillance based on increased staffing, training, improved (Incl. % equipment and infrastructure rehabilitation as well as awareness raising and participatory achievement) community-engagement measures. Indicator 2 : Abundance of three bio-indicator species for Comoé National Park (percentage) Value Hartebeest 24.27/100 + 46 % +41% (quantitative km Hartebeest 35.73/100 km Hartebeest or Buffalo 2.7/100 km Buffalo /3.94/100 km 33.95/100 km Qualitative) Kob 2.12/100 km Kob /3.10/100 km Buffalo 2.36/100 km Kob 4.9/100 km Date 01/15/2010 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 achieved Comments Partly achieved (89%). Longer-term observations are needed to confirm fauna trends (incl. % observed. The indicator replaced the original GEO indicator (#3 below). The decrease in achievement) anthropogenic pressures through the reestablished management of CNP supported recovery of animals in the park. (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicators as confirmed/approved at restructuring Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Intermediate Outcome Indicators Funds mobilized by the Foundation for National Parks through fundraising Indicator 1 : (number; percentage) Value US$ 3.112m (i) US$ 3.5m (i) US$ 5.37m (i) US$ 41.196m (quantitative (ii) 5% (ii) 5% (ii) 5.20% or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 12/31/2014 Exceeded (437% average). The baseline was adjusted to include funds mobilized at Comments project start. Indicator measured (i) funds mobilized and (ii) rate of return on capital (incl. % investment in percentage. Funds raised included sinking and endowment funds from achievement) various donors targeting Comoé, Tai and Banco National parks (see annex 2). CNP fringe communities able to receive radio transmissions from the project Indicator 2: radio transmissions (percentage) Value (quantitative 32 75 70 39.30 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 12/31/2014 Comments Partly achieved (56%). The baseline was recalculated at restructuring (from 15 % to (incl. % 32%). Three conventions with local radios (Bouna, Nassian, Dakabala) were signed achievement) thereby extending the MAB radio network in CNP. A disconnect between good awareness results (86%) and the weak performance on radio transmission received is noted and attributed to survey and indicator limitations. Indicator 3 : Training of OIPR field staff in participatory park management (number) Value 0 26 24 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 09/18/2013 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Comments Nearly achieved (92%). The quality of the training is evidenced through satisfactory (incl. % results evidenced in community surveys at closure (see annex 2 and 5). achievement) Indicator 4 : Training of OIPR staff (number) Value 76 122 122 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 09/18/2013 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Comments Achieved (100%). Training was provided through 25 training modules and included (incl. % staff from other OIPR zones (see annex 2 for details). achievement) Indicator 5 : Management effectiveness score in protected area management increased (percentage) Value ≤35 70 70 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Achieved (100%). Baseline METT not available but retrospectively estimated. The Comments final METT shows improvements in law enforcement, demarcation, participatory (incl. % planning and management instruments, biomonitoring data, research, funding, achievement) awareness raising, community engagement and infrastructure. Indicator 6 : Involvement of local communities in park management plan (percentage) Value 0 70 89.90 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Exceeded (128%). 125 communities living within 10 km of park boundaries were Comments involved in park management activities such as ecomonitoring, patrolling, reopening (incl. % park roads and tracks, border work, training, awareness raising, management plan achievement) development, park management committee and establishment of village organizations (AVCD). Indicator 7 : Presence of livestock in the park (number) Value 28.01 indices/10km 7 indices/10km 0.30 indices/10km (quantitative (75 % reduction) (98.9% reduction) or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Comments Exceeded (132%). Livestock presence in the park was highly successfully reduced (incl. % due to implementation of community-engagement measures, awareness raising, achievement) participatory planning and management with strong support from local government and traditional authorities. Indicator 8 : Area brought under enhanced biodiversity protection (hectare) Value 0 1,149,150 1,149,150 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Comments Achieved (100%). METT category changed for CNP from 35% to 70% (see indicator (incl. % 5 above). achievement) Indicator 9 : Village centers with a park conservation organization (percentage) Value 0/25 19/25 (75 %) 20/25 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 Comments Achieved (105%). Target was added after restructuring. Eight more park conservation (incl. % organizations (AVCDs) were established in non-village centers. The AVCDs are the achievement) village-based awareness-raising partner of OIPR and a condition for microprojects. Dropped GEO and Intermediate Outcome Indicators Indicator 3 : Change of encounter rate of key indicator fauna species (percentage) Value 0.0279/km Kob +5% No data (quantitative or 0.3688/km for Qualitative) Hartebeest 0.0163/km Hippopotamus 0.0256/km Waterbuck Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Revised at restructuring due to measureability issues. This GEO indicator was replaced (incl. % by GEO indicator #2. achievement) Indicator 1 : Comoé based OIPR staff trained and equipped (number) Value (quantitative 0 >76 76 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Achieved (100%). Dropped at restructuring and replaced by two new indicators (incl. % focusing on general OIPR staff and theme of training. achievement) Indicator 2 : Training plan executed in the first 18 months (percentage) Value (quantitative 0 100 75 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 07/15/2011 10/30/2012 Comments Partly achieved (75%). Dropped at restructuring as indicator was focusing only on (incl. % first 18 months. 15 training sessions for 76 of OIPR staff realized. achievement) Indicator 4 : Reduction in signs of illegal human activity in the park (percentage) Value Livestock: 28.01/10 60 No data (quantitative km or Qualitative) Tracks: 2.9/10 km Agricultural fields: 0,42/10 km Camps: 0.09/10 km Timber extraction: 0.03/10 km Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Dropped at restructuring as perceived unrealistic in view of limited funds available and (incl. % because better indicators measured illegal human activity (i.e. livestock in park and achievement) poaching). Indicator 5 : Increase in the number of poachers caught in the first three years (number) Value (quantitative 0 40 (3 years) 54 or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Exceeded (135%). Dropped at restructuring as it covered only first three years and (incl. % because a GEO-level indicator measured the actual reduction of poaching, a more achievement) reliable measurement than number of arrested poachers which is highly sensitive to a number of factors. Increase in area covered by surveillance in the Comoé National Park Indicator 6 : (percentage) Value 0 70 80 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Exceeded (114%). Dropped at restructuring due to unspecific methodology and (incl. % because the surveillance of the park was measured through the METT indicator (in achievement) part) and better outcome indicators for the success of surveillance were defined. Indicator 7 : Poachers caught that are convicted (percentage) Value 0 80 5 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Not achieved (6%). Dropped at restructuring. After parallel funds for livelihood Comments projects were cancelled, OIPR decided to support incentive-based community- (incl. % engagement measures rather than focusing on prosecution of poachers. Nonetheless, achievement) 356 offenders were apprehended during implementation. Indicator 8 : Land management contracts with communities (number) Value 0 8 15 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Partly achieved (50%). Dropped at restructuring due to loss of funds for microprojects. (incl. % achievement) Indicator 9 : GEF METT tracking tool shows that trends are improving in PA management (percentage) Value No baseline 50% improvement No data (quantitative of baseline score or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Revised at restructuring (see above revised indicator # 5). (incl. % achievement) Indicator 10: Target population trained in biodiversity issues (percentage) Value 0 70 60 (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Partly achieved (86%). Dropped at restructuring due to loss of funds for microprojects. (incl. % Training was delivered on bush fire prevention, park management and biodiversity achievement) conservation. Participants aware of link between microprojects and the park conservation Indicator 11 : (percentage) Value 0 100 No data (quantitative or Qualitative) Date achieved 01/15/2010 11/30/2013 09/18/2013 Comments Dropped at restructuring. PNGTER parallel funded microprojects did not materialize (incl. % due to early closing. Better indicators measured implication of local actors in park achievement) conservation. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 12/28/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 06/04/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.25 3 03/25/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.60 4 12/19/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.77 5 07/04/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.88 6 01/05/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.21 7 07/10/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.46 8 03/22/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.75 9 10/27/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.03 10 12/29/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.12 H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings Amount Board at Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made PDO Change in USD DO IP millions 09/18/2013 N S S 1.46 A level two restructuring involved: (i) One-year extension of closing date from Nov. 30, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2014; (ii) Changes in indicators to improve quality and measurability; (iii) Reallocation of funds between categories; and (iv) Change in disbursement estimates due to extension. I. Disbursement Profile 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal (a) Country and Sector Context 1. Socio-demographic context: At appraisal, Côte d’Ivoire (322,463 km2) had a population of 18.8 million inhabitants of which 49 percent lived in urban areas. Population growth averaged 2 percent. Most of the country’s inhabitants have been living along the coastal region; apart from the capital area (Abidjan and its agglomeration represents about 30 percent of the total population), the rest of the country is sparsely populated. The country is heavily dependent on agriculture. At appraisal, agriculture employed over 67 percent of the country’s labor force 1 and contributed 25 percent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 2 2. Political conflict. Years of political and military crisis (2000-2006) 3 and poor governance had taken a heavy toll on the country, transforming the once model African nation into an unstable state. The country experienced a fragile peace in 2007 (Ouagadougou Peace Accord) calling for the merging of the rebel movement “Forces Nouvelles” in the northern and western parts of the country with the Government forces in the south. A transitional Government was established, the buffer zone between the two forces was dismantled and the militias disarmed. 3. Economic context: During the conflict and crisis from 2000-2006, the annual per capita real GDP declined 2.1 percent. The reduced income from agriculture resulted in increased poverty levels (less than 1.25 US$/day) from 29.66 percent in 2002 to 35.04 percent in 2008. The Gross National Income (GNI) per capita fell from US$1,123 in 1999 to US$991 in 2008. 4 The HDI (Human development Index) was 0.427 in 2008 (ranked 171 of 187). 5 4. Biodiversity and protected areas. Côte d’Ivoire has the highest level of biodiversity in West Africa mainly found in its interior protected areas (PA). The PA network is comprised of eight national parks and six nature reserves, which account for about 6 percent of the country’s territory (2.1 million hectares, see map on last page). Together, these diverse habitats protect about 90 percent of regionally endemic mammals and birds. The national parks constitute the largest intact ecosystems of Guinean forest and Sudanian savanna ecosystem, including the Comoé National Park.6 5. However, the management of these PAs was becoming increasingly unsustainable over the last decade mainly due to a severe lack of financial resources. The period of political unrest starting in 2002 further worsened the natural resource depletion and environmental degradation. The main identified threats to PA conservation in the country related to habitat loss and overexploitation through 1 Source: CIA Côte d’Ivoire World Factbook. 2 Source: Côte d’Ivoire, 2008, World Databank, World Bank. 3 The actual civil war started in 2002 and ended in 2004. 4 Source: Côte d’Ivoire, 2008, World Databank, World Bank. 5 Source: UNDP HDI database. 6 According to the Biodiversity Atlas of West Africa, Volume III, Côte d’Ivoire (2010), BIOTA, the CNP contains about 135 mammals, 27 insectivore and 40 chiroptera species, 35 species of amphibian, 60 species of fish, 71 species of reptiles and 497 species of birds of which five are endangered world-wide; and 620 plant species. 1 poaching, agricultural encroachment and livestock grazing. Most PAs were left unattended by government authorities, leaving the door open for accelerated poaching resulting in dwindling loss of large mammals and biodiversity assets. 6. Insufficient funding for PA. Government funding to the PA network had fallen below critical levels: US$1.2 million per year for recurrent costs of the PA network including salaries for 167 staff from the Office of Parks and Reserves of Côte d’Ivoire (OIPR) 7 and 4 staff from the Foundation of Parks and Reserves of Côte d’Ivoire (FPRCI) 8 in 2008. 9 By 2008, most donors had pulled out of the sector or shifted their priorities, 10 except for the German cooperation which continued to provide support to the Tai National Park. 11 7. Comoé National Park (CNP). CNP was established in 1968 and is located in the northwest part of the country between the Comoé and Volta rivers (bordering partly Burkina Faso). It is the largest park in Côte d’Ivoire (1.15 million hectares), the third largest in West Africa and is one of the 20 largest parks of the world. During the political and military crisis, most of the park was located within the rebel-controlled zone and the park authorities, based in Bouna, left the area. Without any management in place for nearly a decade (2002 to 2010), the park suffered from high levels of poaching and encroachment for farming, fishing and cattle grazing. As a consequence of the increasing threats, the CNP, a World Heritage Site (WHS) since 1983, was put on the WHS list of sites in danger in 2003. 12 However, a rapid assessment done by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2006 and by Wild Chimpanzee Foundation (WCF) in 2008 delivered evidence of the existence of diversified habitats and fauna (but in very low numbers) despite high anthropogenic pressure up to then. The park habitat and boundaries were found still relatively intact. 8. PA Sector reform. The Government, supported by its development partners including the World Bank, engaged since 1995 in an ambitious sector reform leading to the adoption of a “National Protected Area Management Program” (PCGAP) in 2000 13. The financial needs for its implementation were estimated at US$100 million (2002). One key pillar was to advance a substantial institutional and legal reform. In 2002, at the outbreak of the crisis, the Parliament adopted a new law, 14 which established OIPR as an autonomous parastatal, entrusted to park and reserve 7 OIPR was established by law on February 11, 2002 as the authority in charge of the management of the country’s parks and reserves. 8 FPRCI was introduced by the 2002 law and created as an association responsible for long-term fundraising for national parks on November 20, 2003. It received the status of a public utility organization in January 2009. A sister organization FPRCI-UK was established in 2009 to allow for international capital investment. 9 From 2000 to 2008 less than 1% of the national annual budget was earmarked for environment, forestry and mining sector (CEA June 2010 – WB report 54429-CI). 10 At appraisal, WWF and WCF continued to provide small grants to the protected area system. 11 Both German development partners, KFW Entwicklungsbank (KfW) and GTZ (Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, GIZ since 2011) have been long-term (over 20 years) supporters of the Taï National Park. 12 UNESCO puts WHS on the list of sites in danger if threatened by impacts due to civil unrest, reduction in large mammals due to uncontrolled poaching and absence of efficient management. CNP is a WHS and Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) Reserve. 13 PCGAP aimed at establish an institutional and legal framework (i.e. OIPR with administrative and financial autonomy; a foundation to support the financial efforts of the Government, a national scientific council), reinforce training for agents and local communities, develop and implement an improved management plan for each protected area; integrate development projects and involve local residents of the peripheries. 14 Law for the Management and Financing of Parks and Reserves 2002-102, 11 February 2002. 2 management and allowed for the creation of a private foundation to finance the park system. The FPRCI was created in 2003 to fulfill this function. Importantly, the law introduced community participation in OIPR park management through “land management contracts” 15. 9. Key sector issues related to PA management identified at appraisal included: (i) poverty and demographic growth augments poaching levels; (ii) lack of understanding of the value and benefit that protected areas can provide to local communities; (iii) lack of financial, technical and human resources to effectively patrol and manage the CNP; (iv) lack of engagement strategy to involve communities in park management activities; and (v) decline in the capacity of the national park management system to withstand systematic pressures on the parks. (b) Rationale for Bank Assistance 10. The Bank had been very actively supporting the Government since 1995 in the establishment of the ambitious and comprehensive PCGAP (see footnotes 14 and 19) and brought other donors on board. It proposed to deliver its support through a 15-year programmatic approach with a US$40 million credit from the International Development Association (IDA) and a US$16 million grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). In 2004, the proposed project was withdrawn because of the political insecurity and conflict led to non-payment of debt arrears, resulting in a general Bank suspension of disbursements to the country. In 2007, the Bank received a new request for PA support and reengaged in 2008 in Côte d’Ivoire. The proposed project addressed two of the three objectives of the Bank’s Interim Strategy Note (FY08-09), namely livelihood support and provision of basic services for crisis-affected populations and institution building. (c) Higher level objectives 11. The higher-level objectives to which the project contributed were long-term poverty reduction in surrounding communities as a prerequisite for sustainable management of the Comoé National Park and global biodiversity protection of the last remaining intact blocks of savannah forest ecosystem in western Africa with corridor links to protected areas in Burkina Faso. 1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (a) Global Environment Objective 12. The GEO, as stated in the project Appraisal Document (PAD) and the Grant Agreement, was to improve the sustainable management of the fauna and habitat of Comoé National Park. (b) Key Performance Indicators 13. The PAD and the grant agreement had two key performance indicators: − 60 percent reduction in poaching of wildlife − 5 percent change in the encounter rate of key indicator fauna species 15 These land management contracts (contrats de gestion de terroir) are between the “manager” of a protected area and the surrounding rural communities representated by non-governmental entities. They define the contracted interventions of community members in park management such as patrolling, maintenance, tourism etc. 3 1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 14. The GEO was not revised but the results framework was revised through a level 2 restructuring (see data sheet). The revisions aimed to improve clarity and measurement. One Key Performance Indicator (KPI) “Encounter rate of key fauna species” was revised as: − 46 percent average increase in abundance of three bio-indicator species (buffalo, kob, hartebeest) for Comoé National Park. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries, 15. The project targeted two beneficiary groups: OIPR and FPRCI as national institutions supporting protected area management and poor rural communities living at the fringe of the Comoé National Park (177,000 people) 16. The project aimed at enhancing the institutional, financial, technical and operational performance of OIPR and FPRCI. The project was further expected to benefit community members and local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from enhanced park management and alternative livelihood options. The protection and management of the biodiversity resources in the CNP was expected to generate local, national and global environmental benefits. 1.5 Original Components 16. The GEO was to be achieved through the implementation of four interrelated components (see annex 1b for details on planned and actual financing). 17. Component 1: Institutional, Financial, and Technical Strengthening for Protected Area Management and Oversight (Total cost US$5.174 million, of which GEF US$1.016 million). This component was intended to strengthen the capacities of the OIPR Headquarter and OIPR’s Directorate for North-East Zone (DZNE) as well as FPRCI through technical assistance, training and equipment. It comprised two sub- components: 1.1. Capacity Building for the OIPR (Total cost US 2.694 million, of which GEF US$0.704 million - implemented by OIPR) and 1.2. Support to the Establishment and Operations of the FPRCI (Total cost US$2.48 million, of which GEF US$0.3.12 million - implemented by FPRCI). 18. Component 2: Management Planning and Implementation for Comoé National Park (Total cost US$1.336, of which GEF US$1.0 million). The component comprised three sub-components: 2.1. Up-dating the Comoé Park Management Plan (Total costs funded by GEF US$0.04 million); 2.2. Implementation of the Management Plan (Total costs US$1.056 million of which GEF US$0.76 million and GoCI US$0.296 million); and 2.3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring (Total costs US$0.240 million of which GEF US$0.2 million and WCF US$ 0.04 million). 19. Component 3: Support to Park Communities (Total cost US$1.47 million of which parallel funded through PNGTER US$1.2 million and GEF US$0.27 million). 16 Estimated population living around the CNP based on the national census of 1998 is 177,000 inhabitants. 4 This component was meant to support development and livelihood investments in communities (microprojects) surrounding the CNP funded by another World Bank project under implementation, the “Projet National de Gestion des Terroirs et Equipment Rural (PNGTER).” 17 Support for income-generating activities was expected to discourage these communities from extracting resources inside the CNP (e.g. poaching, herding). GEF funds were earmarked for engaging adjacent communities in park rehabilitation measures using land management contracts, for training of community members and for awareness raising campaigns. 20. Component 4: Project Management and Results Monitoring (Total cost US$0.999 million, of which GEF US$0.254 million and GoCI US$0.392 million). This component was meant to support project management and monitoring supported by a small project management unit at OIPR DZNE and Headquarters. 1.6 Revised Components 21. The project components were not revised. 1.7 Other significant changes Table 1. Changes during implementation Change Comments Design and cofinancing (shortly after effectiveness) Loss of PNGTER funds for Earmarked parallel IDA funded PNGTER resources (US$1.2 component 3 alternative livelihood million) did not materialize as the project was closed earlier than options/microprojects expected. Mobilization of alternative funds (500 million FCFA from AFD/C2D) was launched but funds became available only after project closure. To demonstrate community support, OIPR supported the development of three pilot microprojects on the basis of its new community partnership approach and manual. Restructuring level 2 (09/18/2013) Extension A 13-month extension was granted to compensate for implementation breaks during the post-conflict time in 2011 and treasury budget delays in 2013. Disbursement schedule An adjustment of the disbursement schedule to address the extended project implementation period was needed. Reallocation of proceeds A reallocation between disbursement categories was introduced to ensure sufficient funds were available for priority activities. Revision of indicators A revision of the indicators was carried out to improve measurability and quality of the results framework. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry (a) Soundness of background analysis and analytical work. 22. The project was prepared in a post-conflict period as a pilot initiative promoting opportunities for future scaling up into a larger program. The preparation time was short 17 PNGTER was implemented from 04/1998 to 08/2010 (included a 2-year extension to make up for two periods of suspension (2000 to 2002 and 2004 to 2008). It aimed at enhancing rural livelihood conditions by improving land tenure system, strengthening capacity of people and institutions related to local deveopment and to support small- scale investments for sustainable management of natural resources, agriculture and rural infrastructure. The 2008 restructuring narrowed the geographic focus including communities surrounding the CNP as new beneficiaries. The microproject component disbursement was only 25% of the planned amount used primarily for health and education issues. It closed with an “Unsatisfactory” rating and an undisbursed balance of approximately US$10 million. 5 (5 months from concept to appraisal) explained by the fact that some preparation had taken part as part of detailed PCGAP 18 design and the agreement among stakeholders to intervene urgently to address the increasing threats to the PA system. No preparation funds were requested from GEF. WCF carried out a rapid post-conflict assessment of the CNP in 2008. GTZ funded three key CNP baseline studies (infrastructure status, the socio-economic assessment and the aerial survey) in 2010. Preparation included a visit to the second flagship park, the Tai National Park, and consultations with key stakeholders including other donors and NGOs. The weakness of the sector work prior to appraisal related to the lack of an up-dated and thorough problem and stakeholder analysis after years of conflict as demonstrated by the below. No economic or financial analysis was done given the capacity-building focus and lack of tourism potential in the park in the near future. 23. Alignment with CAS and Sector Priorities. The project was aligned with the objectives of the Bank’s Interim Strategy Note (FY08-09). It was meant to contribute to two of three objectives through its component 3 supporting livelihoods and basic services in crisis-affected park fringe communities and its component 2 supporting capacity building of OIPR and FPRCI. The project was also in line with GoCIs strategic priorities as defined in the 2002 PA framework law and the PA Management Program (PCGAP) prioritizing capacity building activities for FPRCI and OIPR. 24. Lessons from past projects. Lessons from previous projects in the Côte d’Ivoire including the World Bank/GEF funded West African Pilot Community-based Natural Resources and Wildlife Management project (GEPRENAF), 19 German long-lasting support to the second largest park, the Tai National Park, and activities funded by the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) Man and Biosphere Program (MAB) in the country were taken into account. 20 However, the project preparation and design could have included additional lessons from other post- conflict PA projects. (b) Assessment of project design 25. The intended causal link between the GEO outcomes and the components was a direct one. All three technical components were interlinked and focused with the main complexity being the institutional set-up splitting execution between the two agencies, OIPR and FPRCI and within OIPR between headquarters (HQ) and CNP management 18 PCGAP aimed to establish an efficient and sustainable system for protection and valorization of national parks and reserves. It targeted (i) capacity strengthening for management and surveillance; (ii) sustainable financing mechanism to cover part of operational costs; and (iii) establishment of OIPR. Its preparation was detailed and lengthy (more than 10 years) and supported by multiple donors including the Bank. The WB “National Protected Area Management Program” (P037583) was planned as APL with (IDA US$20m for phase 1 covering CNP, Mont Nimba and Mont Peka and US$20m for phase 2) and GEF (US$16m – mostly intended to support FPRCI with an endowment). Preparation studies for PCGAP were supported through two GEF preparation requests totaling to US$521,500. The Bank cancelled its support to PCGAP in 2004 due the political crisis and suspension of disbursements. Subsequently, GEF funds were suspended and finally cancelled. The WB project was cancelled in the system in 2009. The new GEF4 RAF policy allowed accessing only a tiny fraction (US$ 2.54m) for a new biodiversity project, PARC-CI. 19 GEPRENAF targeted the Comoé ecosystem. The ICR pointed among other lessons on the need for sustainable financing mechanism (endowment), the balanced support to enable a partnership between governmental institutions and communities for conservation efforts; using radio communications to fight poaching and to professionalize anti- poaching measures. 20 Lessons pointed at the benefits of community microprojects, the organization of communities in AVCDs and the use of local radios for awareness raising (radio Boutourou). 6 (DZNE). The component three was designed to complement PNGTER activities in the periphery of the park and provided a causal link between investments and benefits expected to flow to communities. 26. Design strengths. The project design was relevant to the project objective, combining priority investments for CNP management with institutional capacity building. Strong points were the focus on addressing the main threats in the CNP (i.e. poaching, herding), strengthening and rebuilding park management capacity, developing and implementing a participatory park management plan and enhancing capacity of the FPRCI to serve as a sustainable and viable financial mechanism for the PA network. 27. Design weaknesses. (i) The GEO was conventional for a classic PA management project and flexible enough to cater for a post-conflict situation in the CNP. Nonetheless, it could have been more focused and realistic acknowledging the emergency state of the park, the capacity building focus of the national institutions as well as the very limited project funds and duration compared to the size and challenges at the time. A more convincing project objective could have been formulated focusing on reestablishing a management system of the CNP and the intended catalytic function. (ii) Another shortcoming was the informal partnership arrangements with PNGTER to support component 3. As community involvement and support was identified as one of the key elements of success to achieve the GEO, the parallel cofinancing from PNGTER should have been better prepared and assessed (risk analysis did not include a related risk). (iii) The proposed M&E system was weak with an inconsistent results framework (i.e. selection of indicators, lack of methodology and baseline), absence of a M&E manual and lack of analysis on effective ways to build an efficient M&E system (using partnerships and a clear methodology) for the CNP. Looking backward, the KPIs focused on longer-term threat control results and yet only partial data on the ecosystem value had been made available at project closure 21. c) Assessment of project’s strategic choices 28. The strategic choices to use the limited project resources were sound as confirmed during the QER in 2008 22 : First, the project selected CNP as a pilot to demonstrate better biodiversity management given its undoubtable biodiversity and habitat value in the country and region. Second, it focused on basic and cost-efficient measures for park management (increased staffing, re-equipment, core access to the park and controlling poaching). Third, it provided capacity support to the newly created institutions OIPR and FPRCI for system-related park management. The largely debated choice to not channel project funds through the FPRCI but to enable FPRCI to finalize its instruments and mobilize additional funds was not detrimental as seen by the large amount of funds mobilized at closure. (d) Institutional set-up for implementation arrangements 21 These issues are recognized in the up-dated management plan and improvements to cover separately vegetation and habitat from species including lions and elephants addressed. 22 QER (May 2008) raised the issues of (i) complexity to limited funds available (2.54 million instead the earmarked 56 m of PCGAP); (ii) the use of the FPRCI as mechanism to channel project funds under a sinking fund arrangement instead the use of standard project accounts and (iii) the choice of CNP as a large pilot site in a post-conflict area. 7 29. The project had two implementation agencies (OIPR and FPRCI). To compensate with insufficient capacity at appraisal, a small Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was established within OIPR to support project planning, procurement, financial management and monitoring and evaluation function. 23 The project’s interventions in CNP (10 hours from Abidjan) required the establishment of a field-based management team in Bondoukou. Assessment: The implementation arrangements were kept simple. Selecting OIPR and FPRCI as the implementing agencies was appropriate and worked well. The 2009 framework agreement between these agencies clarified and improved an effective working relationship between benefitting overall PA management over the long term. The choice to establish a small PCU split between HQ and DZNE to support OIPR was sound, notably as OIPR had no experience with World Bank (WB) projects. However, implementation experiences indicated that PCU support functions could have been better integrated into the OIPR hierarchical system to avoid the sense of having parallel functions. (e) Risk assessment 30. Overall, project risks were assessed as "substantial”. 24 Financial and procurement risks were assessed as “high” recognizing that this was the first World Bank project that OIPR implemented. Assessment: Risks were generally correctly identified and rated. However, the risk assessment lacked two risks of which one materialized during implementation, namely the lack of PNGTER funds and support for local development and livelihood options in fringe communities. This was even more important as the expected results from component 3 (awareness raising and community-engagement for conservation and park management) could not be disconnected from the livelihood support. The other missing risk related to the challenges to restore resource protection and mitigate the (regional) driven anthropogenic threats in such a large park after a decade without any management with very limited funds. (f) Quality at entry – Moderately Satisfactory 31. The overall rating for quality at entry and readiness for appraisal is moderately satisfactory. The design was aligned with the Government’s PCGAP and the Bank’s Interim Strategy and the analytical basis supporting the project design at a post-conflict stage was adequate. The Government showed commitment and mobilized 46 OIPR staff to kick-start the project. However, in hindsight the design showed some weaknesses particularly related to the GEO and RF, the risk assessment and the lack of a M&E manual. 25 2.2 Implementation 32. Project implementation spanned nearly five years. The main milestones impacting implementation included the (i) post-electoral crisis in 2010 at project start, (ii) loss of funds from PNGTER in 2010; and (iii) Country Director (CD) approved 23 The PCU comprised a project manager (Bondoukou), a procurement specialist (Abidjan) and two project accountants (one in Abidjan and one in Bondoukou). Government appointed a financial manager and M&E specialist. 24 The main risks identified included: (i) insufficient initial commitment from protected area staff to benefit from and capitalize on training; (ii) low OIPR staff levels to ensure adequate surveillance of the parks; (iii) inadequate fundraising results; (iv) post-conflict risk; (v) lack of training of staff in procurement; (vi) multi-stakeholder increase financial risks and (vii) conflict with communities due to access restriction and loss. 25 A project implementation manual (without an M&E manual) was delivered in March 2010. 8 level two restructuring in September 2013. Key factors affecting the project implementation are summarized below. 33. Post-election conflict (2010–2011) impacted project activities and assets. The project was particularly affected as the park was located in the northern rebel-controlled region, which was subject to civil strife and instability. During this period, the project lost 6 vehicles; Information Technology (IT) and office equipment and furniture (value of stolen goods totaling approximately US$103,000 - later replaced partly with funds from Government and from Japan) which impacted implementation and the project came to a complete halt with no activity for 6 months. The project “restarted” after the end of the Bank’s suspension on May 11, 2011. 26 The PCU operated from more distant Bondoukou 27 until June 2014 before they could move back to the rehabilitated offices in Bouna. 34. Loss of funds for community support microprojects. Due to unsatisfactory performance, PNGTER closed unexpectedly more than 1 year earlier than anticipated and the project “lost” US$1.2 million in funds earmarked for microprojects in CNP surrounding communities (about 177,000 people). 28 Despite efforts from OIPR and the World Bank, alternative funds could not be accessed during project implementation. As one response, OIPR piloted three microprojects on the basis of its newly developed community-engagement manual. 29 The implementation of the CNP community- engagement strategy developed under the project was nonetheless highly effective to engage local residents positively in achieving the project objective. 30 Community support projects started only after project closure with funds from C2D/AFD. 35. Lower governmental counterpart funding but incremental actions for surveillance. According to the legal agreement, the Government was expected to transfer to OIPR US$1.76 million per year for CNP management recurrent costs including salaries of OIPR staff and to FPRCI US$0.14 million per year. Actual total counterpart funding to OIPR and FPRCI for operational costs including salaries reached sixty-eight percent of the amount (see annex 1). This impacted at times the scale of surveillance operations in the CNP but OIPR managed to overcome generally these challenges by adjustments in planning and securing additional support. Importantly, OIPR managed to secure Government’s additional support (estimated US$330,000) from 2011 to 2013 for the use of staff from the transitional security force (army) in CNP, thus significantly strengthening the existing patrol staffing situation and increasing law enforcement effectiveness in the CNP. 31 26 Source: OIPR annual reports and email communications during and after ICR mission. 27 The office is 175 kilometers away from the park entrance requiring more than 2 hours in travel time. 28 The 2010 May mission suggested that the Government should compensate the loss of PGNTER funds but in view of limited governmental resources this could not materialize. 29 Direct beneficiaires were 68 persons out of 588 residents (see annex 2 for more details). 30 Reasons provided by OIPR during the ICR mission include favorable social cohesion among CNP adjacent villages, strong engagement and impact from traditional authorities as well as a low population density. 31 Source: OIPR annual reports and email communications during and after ICR mission. 9 36. Adjustments during restructuring. As introduced during the MTR 32, a level-two restructuring resulted in a one-year extension to compensate for a six-month project standstill due the Bank’s suspension (December 2010 to April 2011) following the post- election crisis, improved the results framework and led to a minor reallocation of funds between disbursement categories and estimates particularly related to component 3. 37. Incomplete biomonitoring. Late 33 and less extensive surveys were carried out and a biomonitoring strategy for CNP involving key actors could not been finalized during implementation. This impacted reporting to UNESCO WHS, the finalization of the management plan and reporting on KPIs. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization (a) Overall M&E rating: Moderately Satisfactory 38. M&E design and quality: Moderately Unsatisfactory. The results framework in the PAD included a few poorly defined indicators lacking baseline data, targets and methodology 34 . There was an inconsistency between indicators reported in the summary and the detailed monitoring tables. 35 Some indicators measured more than one aspect (e.g. staff trained and equipped; funds mobilized (included funds and rate of return). 36 One indicator (radio coverage) lacked clarity (i.e. measuring radio coverage or actual listening to radio messages). More, the initial RF did not propose a qualitative indicator to measure overall OIPR and FPRCI institutional capacity gains. 39. M&E implementation: Moderately Satisfactory. OIPR’s learning curve resulted in improved M&E quality and performance as evidenced by delivery of two METTs, aerial and pedestrial as well as community surveys (see data sheet, annex 2). OIPR’s M&E function was done by a qualified planner in Abidjan and staff at zone level - all trained in M&E. At MTR, the need to revise the indicators to improve their quality, attribution to GEO and measurability was agreed by all stakeholders. The level 2 restructuring resulted in a revised improved results framework and an M&E framework defining baselines and methodology for each indicator (the latter required substantial time to finalize). OIPR produced its semestrial and annual reports in adequate quality using the results framework indicators. It delivered a completion report and issued two complementary independent evaluation studies. Weaker points included that the newly developed CNP savannah biomonitoring methodology was reviewed but not validated at the time of project closure. A GEF request at approval related to the establishment and validation of such methodology by OIPR’s Scientific Council (not established at completion). The revised M&E manual that was requested by the Bank at restructuring, 32 MTR recommendations focused on: extension, revision of indicators, compensation of funds for loss of PNGTER ressources, additional funds needed for rehabilitation of the infrastructure and increased staffing for mobile law enforcement. 33 Due to a national ban on using small planes following some deadly accidents, the 2013 aerial survey was postponed until June 2014. 34 A rapid baseline study on the fauna status in CNP was carried out by WCF in 2008 as part of the preparation process (funded by the Bank) and used to inform the original RF. Complementary baseline studies were done later in 2010 (funded by GIZ) including assessment of CNP infrastructure and community issues. 35 Indicators listed on the summary page of the RF in the PAD but disappeared in the actual RF: (i) Number of foundation staff and key members of the Board fully trained; and (ii) Number of trainings session for the Foundation members in each identified skill area. 36 For example: “Number of OIPR staff and formed measures” two different aspects. “Number of poachers convicted” is outside the project’s control. “Reduction in poaching” was too general and lacked methodology. 10 was not completed until 2013. Importantly, the KPIs were informed through only two comparable aerial surveys (2010 and 2014), which focused mainly on threats and key species. 37 The development of partnerships with research institutions including the research station in the southern part of CNP was not prioritized mainly due the delayed reopening of the station in 2014. 38 40. M&E Utilization: Moderately Satisfactory. M&E was included in OIPR’s management and helped to plan and direct project intervention. Important, most of the revised indicators and associated methodology have been integrated in the new CNP management plan and OIPR’s national M&E system and are used to a large extent in follow-up projects by other donors (German Development Bank (KfW), German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ) and UNESCO). Weaker points included that M&E data was not widely disseminated (e.g. OIPRs or FPRICs webpage), a comprehensive CNP biodiversity M&E system was not yet finalized at closure due to the inclusion of stakeholder contributions 39 and that M&E lacked data on monitoring broad-based community benefits. However, GIZ and KFW plan to support the finalization of a biodiversity M&E system covering savannah and forest ecosystems governed and completely mastered by OIPR in the Taï and Comoé NP in 2015. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance (a) Safeguard Compliance – Rating Satisfactory 42. Environmental and Social Safeguards. The project was correctly designated as a category B project and triggered two safeguard policies: Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12). An Environmental and Social Impact Analysis (ESIA) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) 40 were prepared in consultative manner and disclosed on June 23, 2008. The restructuring did not change the safeguard policies and no other safeguard actions were required during implementation. The project complied with the safeguard policies. The safeguard ratings had been satisfactory throughout the project. 43. Environment. The rating for environmental safeguards compliance is satisfactory. Environmental safeguards policies and procedures were complied with. OIPR mainstreamed compliance with environmental safeguards in the investments (rehabilitation of park roads, buildings and screening and approval of three pilot microprojects) as documented. The staff was trained on environmental safeguards and the implementation manual contained adequate guidance. 37 The PAD planned to support more foot surveys to complement the aerial surveys. However, the methodology for foot surveys was not compatible with the results of the aerial survey. Finally, only one foot survey instead of three per year was carried out in 2012. 38 The external funded research station in the South of CNP managed by the German University Julius-Maximilian from Wuerzburg was built in 2000. It suffered severe infrastructure damages and losses during the crisis in 2002 and reopened only by mid-2014. Current research studies reveal greater than expected numbers of chimpanzees. The partnership with the station and the Abidjan university is planned for 2015. 39 Recommandations from 2014 workshop include: (i) increase of park coverage from currently 6 to 10 better 20 %; (ii) revise data collection system from current use of standard transsects; (iii) separate habitat and vegetation (every 5 years new satelites imagery and aerial survey) from fauna monitoring (the latter including lion and elephant monitoring). OIPR’s approach is to develop and apply a biomonitoring methodology for the entire PA network and not individually which implies time-intensive consultations and alignments. 40 RPF focused on implementation of component 3 that was impacted by the loss of PNGTER funds for microprojects. 11 44. Social. Compliance with social safeguards policies is rated satisfactory. 41 The project implementation did not trigger any resettlement actions and no issues occurred during implementation. Although the RPF recommendations were implemented, there was a lack of systematic attention by the Bank’s team to follow-up with OIPR and ensure specific social safeguard reporting. (b) Financial Management Compliance. Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 45. Financial management (FM) performance. The consolidated FM performance covering both implementation agencies, OIPR and FPRCI, was rated moderately satisfactory. 42 The project complied with all financial covenants. Eighteen trimestral and two semestrial IFRs were submitted by OIPR on time and they were of acceptable quality. The opinions of the external audit reports were unqualified except for 2013. 43 Most of the agreed financial management actions arising from FM supervision reviews were properly addressed. The training sessions provided by the Bank helped to strengthen OIPR’s financial management capacity also to deal with local service providers (NGOs) with weak capacity. 46. Shortcomings that improved over time related to the issues of (i) internal control system 44 , (ii) late withdrawal applications, and (iii) budget execution rate. With hindsight, the staffing arrangement combining consultants and civil servants at OIPR HQ and on site-level was perceived as less effective due to different contractual conditions. A weakness related to insufficient counterpart allocation impacting implementation until the end 45. (c) Procurement Compliance. Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 47. Procurement performance. The consolidated procurement performance for OIPR and FPRCI was moderately satisfactory. The procurement execution rate at closure was 98 percent. 46 The Bank provided substantial training and follow-up support as demonstrated by the high execution rate. There was no evidence of deviation from Bank procurement policy. 48. Shortcomings: Because of perceived procurement risks, the Bank required that a substantive proportion of the procurement be subject to prior review, which became cumbersome due to the numerous local service provider contracts with NGOs and community associations. Generally, procurement deadlines were met and activities started and completed within the planned timeframe. Sometimes late payments and the need for better filing and back-up were noted. At site level, the Zone director and project-funded accountant handled local-level procurement. The staffing arrangements 41 The project complied with proposed actions in the strategic framework (annex 1 of RPF) for populations in PAs such as local participatory park management committee, demarcation of borders, capacity building for OIPR staff on participatory management, community-engagement strategy etc. 42 FM performance was rated in all ISRs in the satisfactory range. 43 The qualified opinion was received due to irregularities in the procurement process for acquisitions of goods and services to be paid with counterpart funds related to the date on the report for evaluation of suppliers. This was explained and justified by the PCU. 44 The 2010 audit identified the lack of supporting documentation for counterpart funding. The 2012 audit 2012 raised the issue of the lack of a physical inventory of immovables, back-up of project data, supporting documentation for accounting positions “advances” and “other receivables”. 45 Delayed payment caused at times demotivation of staff including strikes and at closure, OIPR lacked US$136,000 to pay for outstanding salaries. 46 All except two activities were completed (one being vehicle maintenance and the other a training event of the DG OIPR totaling US$ 17,000). 12 in the field were not effective and the local level procurement and financial management was transferred to Abidjan. This contributed to some delays due to the distance involved for signing. The use of the Procurement Cycle Tracking System (PROCYS) system was cumbersome and contributed to delays. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 49. Community-engagement. Although initially planned as a parallel funded activity, microprojects supporting adjacent communities could not be funded during project implementation. At completion, the C2D (debt-conversion with France) concluded its preparation and implementation of the community-engagement manual supported by PARC-CI has been initiated. 50. Sustaining institutional capacity. Considerable progress has been made to build and strengthen OIPR’s national, regional and local as well as FPRCI’s capacity since appraisal. Institutional capacity needs to be maintained for which the Government and other development partners such as GIZ, KfW and AFD are committed as demonstrated by the new projects and funds secured. 47 These projects will sustain and substantially enhance the project’s achievements and investments. 51. Sustaining and expanding management of CNP. One of the key results of the project has been the 10-year management plan for the CNP, validated prior to project closure. Implementation has been launched in 2015 and is supported by AFD, GIZ, KfW and the Government. A request to UNESCO/WHS has been formulated in January 2015 to request the withdrawal from the list of WHS sites in danger, a decision is expected in June 2015. The focus of the post-completion operations are maintaining PARC-CI’s efforts on (i) institutional capacity, (ii) equipment and infrastructure investments for park management, and (iii) local development support in the park periphery. 52. Use of FPRCI as financial mechanism. At project closure, FPRCI had leveraged highly satisfactorily funds for PA management in the country. More, it managed to receive additional endowment capital and a new project (C2D) is transferring funds directly to FPRCI confirming its capacity and role in the sector. FPRCI will be the financial mechanism in charge of administrating C2D funds. OIPR will open an account for each park and submits work plans to FPRCI for funding. 53. Regional cooperation. In July 2014, OIPR signed a memorandum of understanding with Burkina Faso to collaborate on transboundary protected area management. A revival of the WB/GEF funded GEPRENAF model would enhance the value of the CNP investments. 48 54. Replication. The project supported OIPR with capacity building and the development of park management instruments (management plan, biomonitoring methodology, community engagement strategy, etc.), all of which serves the overall 47 French funded CORENA project includes a component “Conservation of Parks and Reserves”: €4.6 million for three parks (Azagny, CNP and Mont Sangbe. Cp. 1 Strengthening administrative and financial management PA; For each national park: business plan, tourism plan, communication docs; capacity building FPRCI and OIPR; Cp. 2 Technical management of PA; Equipment (IT, plane, office, infrastructure) and biomonitoring; Cp. 3 microprojects; radio and Cp. 4 Endowment. Implementation starts in 2015. 48 Support for this is expected from EU’s funded PAPE program currently focusing on Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger mais it is intended to include the CNP as regional pilot for land use management. 13 PA network in the country due to OIPR’s rotation scheme of staff and efforts to structure PA management in a systematic way. 55. External support to CNP. At project closure, there were three major projects supporting the national park system and particularly CNP nearing implementation: (i) KfW: €10 million for infrastructure in CNP, (ii) GIZ: €6 million for infrastructure support around CNP, and (iii) C2D: €4.6 million for support to OIPR, CNP in three parks (CNP, Azagny and Mont Sangbé) including up-date of the PCGAP framework. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 56. Relevance of GEO: Substantial. As stated earlier, the GEO was well aligned with GoCIs priorities and strategies and with the Bank's Interim Strategy. The relevance at appraisal was evidenced by strong commitment from Government to move forward with implementation of the PCGAP even without donor funds in times of crisis. The GEO remained relevant at completion, as reflected in GoCIs environmental priorities for up-dating and strengthening the institutional framework and capacity and to restore the national parks through investments, surveillance and community-engagement stated in the National Development Plan (2012-2015). At the time of this ICR, the new Country Partnership Framework (CPF) is at the concept stage. The draft CPF concept note includes an assessment of the achievement of objectives of the previous strategy document, and concludes that objective 2.3. “Sustainable management of the fauna and habitat of the Comoe National Park is improved”, under Pillar 2, has been achieved. The CPF proposes to support Cote d’Ivoire in achieving inclusive growth through building human capital and enhancing the country’s strategic role in regional development. Thus, the GEO is broadly aligned with the proposed CPF cross-cutting areas: Governance, Land, and Spatial Inequality. The GEO remained consistent at completion with global priorities for biodiversity conservation through effective management of PAs as defined in the GEF6 biodiversity strategy and the convention’s Aichi targets. 57. Relevance of Design and Implementation: Substantial. Although there were a few shortcomings such as the analytical underpinnings and M&E, the project design was conducive to its intended function serving as a catalyst for future investments in the CNP. It balanced institutional and human capacity building with priority investment support and community involvement, and focused both on technical and financial sustainability for the CNP. This was substantially relevant for a national park that was abandoned for nearly a decade. 49 External funding that became available to implement the CNP management plan supports similar design elements. 58. Overall Rating Relevance: Substantial 3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objective 59. The GEO “to improve the sustainable management of the fauna and habitat of the Comoé National Park” was achieved as demonstrated by the change in the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) category from a score of below or 49 The Bank was the only development partner at the time to support OIPR and FPRCI in relaunching management activities of the PA network and the CNP after a decade of conflict, instability and degradation. 14 equal 35 to 70 percent 50, the positive results of the 2014 aerial survey and the outcomes described in detail below. 60. At closure, the biodiversity-rich CNP is enjoying a reestablished and functional management system developed with limited project funds in a post-conflict period under poor conditions. This was achieved through increased deployment and capacity building of OIPR staff, priority investments reopening access and surveillance measures inside the park, rehabilitation of selected buildings and patrol stations, equipment and operational support for surveillance and importantly good community- engagement. The project was instrumental in “up-dating” the 2001 management plan and in developing a number of park management tools such as the surveillance strategy, community-engagement strategy. The project’s results achieved additional spill-over effects related to OIPR’s capacity and management of the PA network. Despite the transfer of limited funds PARC-CI to FPRCI, its catalytic role contributed to FPRCI’s highly successful fundraising benefitting the sustainable management of the CNP and the broader PA network. A presentation of the key outputs compared to those initial planned is found in Annex 2. Outcome 1: Sustainable financing for PA management – Rated High (GEF US$0.298m spent) 61. The outcome target was highly satisfactorily achieved as shown by the indicator (IOI3) measuring external funds mobilized by FPRCI (see tables in annex 2 below). At closure, FPRCI leveraged US$41.2 million including increasing its endowment capital from US$3.2 million to US$26.2 million. 62. The funds generated at present focus on the two national flagship parks (CNP and Tai National Park). FPRCI is transferring US$150,000 in 2015 as a starting point to OIPR for CNP recurrent expenditures. Importantly, the German debt conversion has opted since 2012 to use FPRCI as a financial mechanism to channel financing to the Tai NP, and since 2014 to the CNP. Government’s own contribution was realistically not expected to increase. The project’s limited support to the FPRCI (basic equipment, training, outreach including webpage and networking) and to the CNP at a time where no other development partner supported CNP was considered as a key contributor to this achievement. It should be acknowledged that FPRCI received additional institutional support from other partners including KFW (PCPNT project with 200.000 EUR from 2011 to 2014) and the Government. 51 Outcome 2: Improved management of CNP – Rated High (GEF US$0.904m spent) 63. The outcome was satisfactorily achieved, particularly considering the departure point in CNP with nearly 10 years of no management. Compared to the pre-project situation, staff numbers were increased from 48 to 76, staff was trained, equipped and a participatory new management plan is in place. OIPR DZNE relocated back to the Bouna headquarters close to the CNP entrance. The impact of better management 50Note that 2010 baseline METT was not done and only estimated. METT 2012 was assessed at 56%. 51FPRCI training on instutitional communication, fundraising, accountability and financial management was funded by GoCI while training on communication and environmental marketing, fundraising strategies, governance of environmental funds and extractive industries was funded by RedLaC and training on financial management was funded by IUCN. 15 reducing threats on the CNP biodiversity value within a short period of time (4.5 years) and very limited resources for a park of that size is impressive. The improved management is hoped to contribute to a removal of the CNP from the UNESCO list of WHS in danger requested by the Government at closure. A core achievement has been the development a highly participatory management plan that was validated in December 2014. 52 Additional planning and strategic documents on outreach, surveillance, community engagement, and biomonitoring were developed in parallel. Implementation focused correctly on addressing the main threat of poaching by enabling surveillance related activities 53: increase in staffing, reopening of a main park road from Bania to Gawi (90 km) and maintenance of park roads (557 km inside and 30 km at the park border), rehabilitation of selected patrol posts and buildings (11), regular patrolling (272 missions of 27,990 man-days), aerial and pedestrial surveys (3), demarcation and signage (150 posts and 6 signs), training of OIPR staff including DZNE (122), awareness raising of adjacent communities including use of community labor for patrolling, maintenance and fire fighting, and establishment of a well- functional local participatory multi-stakeholder park management committee with decision-making rights. 54 Outcome 3: Strengthened OIPR and FPRCI institutional and staff capacity – Rated High (GEF US$0.583m spent) 64. The outcome was satisfactorily achieved (see details in annex 2). While initially the training topics for the then 52 CNP-based OIPR agents were broad, training measures after the restructuring focused on participatory management as the key issue for success in managing the CNP and other PAs in the country. The current OIPR staff has gained competencies in anti-poaching control, biomonitoring, Geographic Information System (GIS), Global Positioning System (GPS) as well as management skills. Due to OIPR’s staff rotation scheme, capacity gains will be deployed throughout the PA network. FPRCI’s capacity gains are demonstrated by its highly successful fundraising results and donor agreement to manage C2D project funds. Outcome 4: Increased community conservation awareness and engagement in park management – Rated Substantial (GEF US$0.18m spent) 65. The outcome was satisfactorily achieved despite loss of parallel funds for alternative livelihood options. A beneficiary survey at completion showed that 89 percent of CNP adjacent communities are aware of biodiversity and demonstrate a positive attitude towards park conservation (see annex 5 for details). However, the 2010 socio-economic baseline study did not assess related issues making evaluation of actual gains difficult. 66. The effective implementation of the community engagement strategy resulted in improved knowledge, interest and participation 55 demonstrated through awareness raising campaigns in 72 adjacent villages, establishment of 23 village conservation 52 The Minister signed the bylaw for its application on March 8, 2015. 53 During project implementation, 356 offenders (poachers, herders, gold miners and fishermen) were apprehended. 54 Sources: OIPR annual progress reports and completion report. 55 An example of the improved understanding and engagement by communities in collaborative management was the request to OIPR by community members in Toupe to adjust the boundaries to conserve a gallery forest bordering the river Kinkene (Toupe). 16 groups (20 AVCDs 56 and 3 non village centers), use of 3 local radios for reaching out to all CNP adjacent communities, establishment of a participatory and well-functioning local park management committee with community, local authority and Government representation, use of villagers for joint patrolling (about 20 percent of paid community members) 57 and for operation and maintenance of park tracks. Importantly for the integration of park management in local development and land use planning was the signing of a convention with the Regional Council of Bounkani. The project supported the use of local NGOs as service providers 58 for example for training of 70 community members from 22 village centers in bush fire prevention. 59 This contributed to achieving a reduced level of poaching, herding and agriculture encroachment in the park and a better relationship with OIPR. Outcome 5: Improved livelihoods for communities surrounding CNP – Rated Low (GEF US$0.088m spent for microprojects and see outcome 4) 67. The outcome was not achieved due to the loss of funds from PNGTER and delays accessing alternative funds from other sources 60. Nonetheless, OIPR supported the use of community members for park patrols, biomonitoring and O&M tasks, which generated direct benefits. In addition the project supported the piloting of three livelihood-support microprojects 61 on the basis of the community-engagement manual developed. The ICR evaluation is that these efforts were commendable to demonstrate OIPR’s support for fringe communities, however due to the lack of funds, experience, institutional arrangements and time left results are modest showing the need for a robust microproject scheme including commercialization and microfinancing aspects. At closure, OIPR and FPRCI mobilized funds from AFD to develop the livelihood support component of CNP management. Outcome 6: Reduced threats to the park – Rated Substantial (see outcome 2 for GEF US$ spent) 68. The outcome is achieved satisfactorily considering the results of the 2014 aerial survey compared to 2010. Project interventions contributed mainly to these results although it is noted that the recent Ebola crisis in the region has generally decreased the demand for bush meat. 62 The time frame and approach is likely insufficient to provide robust data but certainly indicates a very encouraging trend 63 (see map below). An in- country debate on the suitability of the methodology has been carried out and resulted 56 The AVCDs are expected to be OIPR’s partner in charge of village-based awareness-raising and microprojects. 57 For example in 2014, the patrol team carried out 169 patrols with the participation of community members resulting in 2 243-man days paid worth about US$ 18,000. 58 The project signed 8 contracts with local NGOs including such as Beni-haly, Termites, SOS Comoé, Bitakoulessa and Deprerenaf. 59 The NGO Lucofeubrou received an award from the presidency in August 2014 for leading the most performing bush fire prevention committee. 60 UNESCO and WWF provided limited parallel funded support for other microprojects around CNP. 61 Bee-keeping, poultry and gardening in three different fringe communities (Kakpin, Yalo and Toungbo-yaga) with technical support from the National Agency for Rural Development (ANADER). 62 The outbreak of the 2013 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa resulted in nation-wide awareness raising campaigns from the Government on the risks related to bush meat consumption contributing to reduce bush meat demand. However, in absence of data on illegal bush meat trade in the country, the contribution of Ebola on the estimated decrease in the supply (meaning poaching) is difficult to quantify. 63 Data related to fauna trends need further analysis to determine the likely reasons for the changes. 17 in a number of recommendations. 64 69. At the same time a new threat, small-scale gold mining, emerged during the last 65 year. OIPR immediately reacted through a number of awareness raising activities (media, local committee, collaboration with local authorities) and reinforcement of surveillance posts and motorbike equipment for improved mobility of DZNE staff. 70. Considering that achievement of outcomes is rated substantial and the GEO achievement on the basis of the revised indicators is rated satisfactory, efficacy is rated substantial.66 3.3 Efficiency 72. The design and structure of the project was not amenable to a classical stand- alone financial or economic analysis at appraisal, as the institutional, environmental and capacity building long-term benefits were and remain difficult to quantify. The project design and arrangements resulted in a very efficient use of the limited resources to achieve the satisfactory results of project activities. 73. Despite the budget constraints (US$2.54 million total, US$0.3 million to FPRCI), the project funds helped FPRCI to improve its institutional performance as demonstrated by the excellent fundraising results (US$41.2 million – exceeding significantly the initial target of US$5.37 million) ensuring sustainable management of the CNP and the national PA network (see annex 2). 74. Moreover, there are few or no projects in Africa that have been designed to cover such a huge park with such a small amount of funds and that have successfully reestablished effective management conditions. A study suggested that the minimum effective management of a PA in Africa would require on average recurrent expenditures (actual running costs including local salaries but without start-up, replacement, technical assistance, survey and M&E costs) of US$50 per year per km2. 67 If applied to CNP, this would amount to US$574,650 per year and sum up to US$2,873,250 over a five-year period, which is significantly higher than the actual project funding for CNP management, which included also core replacement costs for infrastructure damages during the conflict period. 75. The following findings from implementation demonstrated how efficiently project funds were used at CNP site and institutional level to achieve the GEO (see for details annex 2): 64 They include supplementing standardized aerial surveys covering about 20% of the CNP with species-specific surveys (focus on elephant, lion) and separate vegetation assessments on the basis of satellite imagery (all part of the new management plan). 65 While until the second half of 2014, no gold miner was caught, OIPR caught 79 during the remaining months of 2014. Among the explanations for threat increase are the increased mobility of gold miners, availability of metal detectors and high gold price (US$ 32/gram). In November 2014, the local management committee of CNP destroyed in November 31 metal detectors confiscated from 62 gold miners caught in CNP. 66 One of the GEO indicators and some of the intermediate outcome indicators were revised during restructuring to improve quality and measurability but the nature of the changes did not justify the use of a disbursement-split evaluation. 67 Source: Allard Blom “An estimate of the costs of an effective system of protected areas in the Niger Delta – Congo Basin Forest Region” in Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2661-1678, 2004. 18 − Use of community-based contracts for O&M, biomonitoring and patrolling in the CNP (reduced overall costs but high incentive for community support); 68 − Use of NGOs (eight service contracts) for awareness raising and bush fire prevention (reduced costs and stronger acceptance from communities) with one NGO (Lucofeubrou) receiving an award for leading the best performing bush fire prevention committee in 2014; − Cost-effective choice to use the limited project funds mainly for local level information and participation and for surveillance activities while keeping the replacement/rehabilitation of goods/infrastructure at a low level; − Cost-effective low OIPR overhead costs through (i) use of lean PCU (only essential staffing and equipment), (ii) use of mainly OIPR staff and very limited consultants, (iii) use of complementary staff for patrolling from other agencies (army, former rebels), (iv) use of field-based training avoiding high transportation costs; − Improved OIPR institutional management and performance at PA network level through consolidated training open to OIPR staff from other PAs and expanded scope and scale of PA management tools to the benefit of broader PA-network and future funding from other development partners; − Leveraging funds during implementation to support planned and additional project activities including for lost assets during crisis (Japan, MAB/UNESCO, UICN, KfW, GIZ); − One project extension for only a year limiting dispersion of funds for project administration; and − No misprocurement or fraudulent use of funds. Overall Rating Efficiency: Substantial 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating: Satisfactory 76. The overall outcome rating is Satisfactory, which is evidenced by a substantial rating for relevance; a substantial for efficacy and a substantial for efficiency. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 77. Poverty. While reduction was not an explicit objective of the project, the rural poor (about 170,000 people) surrounding the CNP in Côte d’Ivoire depend mainly on the availability of the natural resources for their livelihoods. As a result of the PARC- CI community members received additional income for participating in patrols (total of 2243 man-days throughout implementation (US$18,012), informant services and short- term work opportunities for O&M in the CNP. 69 Benefits to community members and gender aspects were not systematically assessed and documented. Unfortunately, the loss of parallel funds from PNGTER excluded livelihood support microprojects and support from C2D is only expected after project closure. The project funded three pilot microprojects for total of US$88,000 (see annex 2 and 5). (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 78. The project contributed to institutional strengthening not only for the main target groups OIPR and FPRCI, but also helped build institutional capacity for local 68 Project design aimed at using 25 % of community workers for O&M (see PAD). In reality nearly all community members of the surrounding villages were involved. 69 For example in 2011, local O&M works amounted to US$ 74,000. 19 authorities and local Government as well as local NGOs through participating in the development of the CNP management plan and the local management committee. 70 At ICR, these benefits cannot be quantified and were not measured. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 79. The project contributed to reestablish governmental authority in the former rebel-controlled zone. The OIPR PARC-CI temporary office in Bondoukou was used by other services from the then newly established Ministry of Environment. 80. As a result of the consultations on how to address the emerging threat of gold mining in the CNP, the Ministry of Mines is now requesting a prior notice from the Ministry of Environment before issuing mining permits. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 81. Two independent beneficiary surveys in CNP adjacent communities (total of sample 726 people) 71 were carried out as part of the final evaluation exercise at completion. Globally, community members expressed their satisfaction with OIPR’s management of the CNP (see annex 5). 4. Assessment of Risks to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 82. At completion, there are two main risks for sustainable management of the CNP: (i) insufficient funding and staffing and (ii) decline in community support. 83. Funds/staffing: The project support resulted in augmented staffing and equipment that increased the recurrent costs to be covered. 72 However, taking into account GoCIs commitment as demonstrated through continued funding for recurrent costs and infrastructure rehabilitation during implementation, allocation of additional staff (volunteers) and the availability of significant flow of external financial resources to CNP and OIPR raised by FPRCI (US$ 1.62 million for 2015 including first payments from FPRCI’s endowment) 73 over the next years, the risk is considered moderate. 74 The Government is expected to continue supporting the recurrent costs of the CNP through a regular budget line. 83. Social: The results from implementing the community engagement strategy were satisfactory and the up-coming support for microprojects and OIPR’s continued focus on participatory management is expected to further strengthen the community 70 The CNP Local Management Committee was created in 2012 as a consultative and supervising body for the park. It includes 15 members such as the Regional Council, municipalities; traditional authorities; tourism operators; regional directors of tourism, NGO and AVCD representatives, OIPR, Research station. The president is the prefect from the region with the largest area of the CNP. The meetings of the committee are scheduled to take place in all administrative regions. 71 501 people were interviewed for the survey on participatory park management and radio documentation (C. G. Kapie) and 250 people for the general evaluation survey (Yves Joel Dirabou). 72 Patrol premium fees, O&M for vehicles purchased, patrol fees and rations. etc. 73 Funding sources for CNP implementation of 2015 workplan include FPRCI (US$556,000), GIZ (US$216,100), C2D (US$295,300), KfW (US$421,733) and others (US$130,322). 74 In 2014, FPRCI provided for the first time US$388,000 to Tai National Park and to CNP US$ 150,000 for recurrent costs. Starting 2015, Tai will receive US$800,000/year and CNP US$600,000/year from endowment fund investments. 20 engagement in park management and implementation of the new management plan priorities (integration of CNP in local development through AVCDs including knowledge-sharing on resource use options and development of GEPRENAF alike voluntary natural reserves in the park periphery). The risk is considered low. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry – Rating Moderately Satisfactory 84. Bank performance in identification, preparation assistance and appraisal of the project was moderately satisfactory (see 2.1). 75 Within a short preparation period (five months), the Bank’s team worked with OIPR and FPRCI to develop a rather conventional PA management project that was in line with GoCIs PA reform agenda. According to the external evaluation survey, the process did not include local level consultations with social groups, local authorities and government. A QER took place in May 2008 (see para. 25) and raised a number of design issues, which were addressed during the pre-/appraisal mission and final design. 85. Weaknesses: The performance was affected by moderate shortcomings, such as incomplete identification of risk factors and mitigation measures, weak quality of the results framework including an ambitious and unspecific GEO, lack of up-dated baseline studies for CNP at appraisal, 76 incomplete arrangement for accessing PGNTER parallel funding 77 and lack of an M&E manual. However, most of these design shortcomings were either addressed during implementation or did not significantly affect the project outcomes. As a reminder, the preparation context was challenging and sensitive in view of the cancellation of the Bank’s PCGAP program and significant loss of GEF grant resources. 78 This situation could have been used by the team to undertake a more detailed participatory problem analysis to avoid top-down perceptions of some stakeholders and improve the Bank’s standing in the sector. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 86. Overall, the Bank’s supervision was undertaken by a team with adequate technical and operational skill mix 79 and Bank policies and procedures were well applied and pursued. The Bank regularly supervised the project even during the period 75 There were three non-country based TTLs during project preparation (concept to Board approval), which is not considered a best practice. 76 Only a rapid assessment of the biodiversity status of the CNP done by WCF in 2008 was available at appraisal. In 2010, GTZ funded three essential baseline studies including a socio-economic study. Consequently, the project design could not make use of these findings at appraisal. 77 It was planned that PGNTER would support a joint technical team comprising PARC-CI, OIPR and ANADER to deliver microprojects and to use the same manual. A collaboration agreement should be signed to clarify the financing arrangement and the implementation schedule. However, this never materialized. 78 Several non-governmental agencies formally complained about the cancellation of the PCGAP project and related IDA and GEF funding in a letter to the President of the World Bank Mr. Wolfowitz (May 15, 2007) signed by SOS Forets, Afrique Nature and Forum of NGOs for the Environment and Sustainable Development. 79 There were three task team leaders, all senior environmental sector staff with the first one and last based in Washginton and the second based in Abidjan (2010– 2013), which was considered a beneficial arrangement by OIPR and FPRCI. The social and environmental safeguard function was for the most part carried out by the TTLs. This is judged acceptable in view of the low safeguards risk of project activities following the loss of PGNTER resources. 21 of crisis when the WB office in Abidjan was evacuated thereby limiting implementation interruption effects and ensuring fast recommencing of project activities in 2011. It carried out 7 physical supervision missions led by the TTL over the course of the 4.5- year project life, which is considered appropriate but only two site-visits. 80 The missions identified correctly implementation bottlenecks and provided detailed action plans in aide memoires to address them. However, the Bank team’s efforts to remind the Government on a regular basis of meeting its full counterpart-funding obligation could have been a stronger focus of missions. In view of limited data on the actual conservation status and to improve the OIPR CNP M&E, the TTL encouraged OIPR to carry out a CNP biomonitoring methodology study in 2013, which is considered instrumental for CNP’s sustainable management. 81 The ISRs were filed regularly and ratings were on balance candid. 87. The TTLs kept a basic dialogue with other donors involved in the sector to mutually enrich and harmonize interventions. During the early years, when implementation was moving slowly, the Bank’s country office fiduciary team dedicated its efforts to support OIPR in accelerating implementation and troubleshooting activities resulting in satisfactory execution of work plans. Following the loss of PGNTER funds, the TTL identified and assessed a number of options with OIPR and the country team (such as using counterpart funds, requesting additional financing, mobilizing funds from other development partners) but without being able to resolve it during implementation. It was only at the restructuring, that actions were introduced to address the loss of community-livelihood support in the project design. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory 88. The Bank's performance in both preparation and supervision is rated moderately satisfactory and the overall rating is also moderately satisfactory. 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 89. The Government showed adequate commitment to its own PA reform agenda and to the achievement of the GEO. It satisfactorily met the covenants in the legal agreement. The commitment is evidenced by: (i) providing regular counterpart funding to OIPR for staffing and recurrent costs in CNP and to FPRCI. Although there has been a regular replenishment of the counterpart account, governmental counterpart funds for operating costs did not perform in accordance with the financial plan defined at appraisal; 82 (ii) stepping in to address the alarming poaching situation in CNP with an 80 Missions were carried out in: May 2010, November 2011, May 2012, December 2012 (MTR), June 2013, October 2013 and January 2014. (The December 2010 mission was cancelled due to the crisis.) Financial management and procurement specialists carried out additional missions but without travelling to the CNP. 81 GIZ funded this biomonitoring methodology study in 2014. 82 At appraisal, annual counterpart funding to OIPR (US$1.62 million) was meant to support: (i) assignment of 46 staff to CNP management, (ii) rehabilitation of buildings and park tracks; and (iii) electricity and communication expenses. Further, counterpart funding of US$140,000) per year was planned for FPRCI (see legal agreement 22 additional allocation of US$0.33 million from 2011-2013 for equipment and operating costs; 83 (iii) mobilization of sixty former rebels and their CNP deployment for 8 months in 2014; (iv) at closure securing sixty additional forestry interns (Agents des Eaux et Forests) to strengthen OIPR field staffing capacity (dispatched primarily to CNP and Tai National Park); and (v) requesting UNESCO to reassess the status of CNP in order to proceed with the withdrawal of CNP as WHS in danger. 90. Weaker aspects: In view of the insufficient counterpart funding, operating expenses of the project for CNP management could not be fully covered during implementation impacting at times the performance of park management activities. (b) Implementing Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory 91. PARC-CI was implemented by two implementing agencies, each is assessed separately below: 92. FPRCI: Highly Satisfactory. FPRCI’s performance under the project was highly satisfactory as demonstrated by a successful disbursement of 99.7 percent and substantial exceeding the performance indicator related to fundraising and achieving a number of positive institutional outcomes (see annex 2). There were no fiduciary issues; FM and procurement performance was satisfactory. FPRCI’s contribution to the financing of PA needs in the country at project closure has exceeded expectations. 93. OIPR: Satisfactory. OIPR’s performance under the project was satisfactory. The final consolidated project disbursement rate was 87.3 percent. Despite initial weak capacity at OIPR and lack of experiences with World Bank projects, OIPR’s management, supported by a small PCU, was effective after a short learning curve. 84 It demonstrated flexibility, adaptability and diligence in finding solutions to overcome challenges such as insufficient counterpart funding for operational costs and investments, compensating the loss of PNGTER parallel funds for community livelihood projects with C2D AFD funds and for the loss of project funded vehicles with Japanese funds. There were no safeguard issues. FM and procurement performance were both rated in the satisfactory range throughout implementation. OIPR was also efficient in engaging other development partners in follow-up support ensuring sustainability of initial efforts to reestablish PNC management. Capacity building efforts in procurement, financial management and M&E were mainstreamed in OIPR’s agency system. On the weaker side, project execution was impacted by some (externally as well as internally caused) delays. At closure, the Scientific Council was not yet established 85. section V.D. p. 19). The sum of counterpart funds for OIPR staffing and recurrent costs of CNP as well as FPRIC was US$5.17 million - about 65% of the planned amount for 4.5 years (see annex 1 and annex 2).. 83 In 2011, the Ministry in charge of Economy and Finance decided to allocate FCFA200 million to OIPR to address the alarming issue of poaching in the CNP. The funds were used from 2011 to 2013 to improve patrol equipment and operational costs under the so-called “opération transitoire de sécurisation du PNC”. 84 Progress, not considering the political events and standstill, of execution of the annual work plan was: 28% in 2010, 51% in 2011 and 70% in 2012, then on average 85%. This is further demonstrated by an increase in disbursement capacity until the project end. 85 It was only at project end in 2014, that the CNP based research station reopened. The operationalization of the SC is planned for 2015. 23 (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory 94. Both the FPRCI and the OIPR closely managed project implementation, monitored progress toward achieving the global environmental objective and were effective in working with the Bank team during formal supervision missions, and through regular correspondence. Taking into account the minor shortcomings at Governmental side with providing lesser than expected counterpart contribution, overall Borrower performance rating is satisfactory. 6. Lessons Learned 95. Dependency on parallel funding to achieve significant outcomes is an important risk factor to be addressed. The project design and outcomes relied on the achievement of community-development results in CNP fringe communities from a separately Bank- funded project. This was an unidentified risk and should have been mitigated by a detailed plan for coordination (for example as an effectiveness condition) between the two projects or by the identification of a fallback option. 96. Conventional livelihood microprojects are not the only elements to be considerered to achieve community engagement in park management as long as such engagement measures generate direct benefits to communities. The design of the community component of the project used a combination of microprojects, awareness raising, local capacity-building and participatory planning. With the loss of PNGTER resources for microprojects, the expectation would have been that communities disengage from project efforts. However, the project demonstrated that using community contracts providing for local employment in park rehabilitation, maintenance, biomonitoring and patrolling instead of microprojects could be as effective or even more in triggering a positive behavioral change towards park management objectives. 86 97. Projects in post-conflict countries need detailed situation and risk analysis. Due to the urgent need for rapid intervention and previous work done under PCGAP, the project did not carry out any studies or lengthy and detailed consultation but used preliminary rapid assessments funded by development partners and NGOs. A more robust assessment involving the key actors, stakeholders and donors in the sector could have been used to improve the GEO, define methodology and clear baselines for all indicators, expand the risk analysis and tap into lessons from protected area management projects in other post-conflict countries. 87 98. Performance of projects can be improved through incentive-based arrangements for governmental servants. OIPR’s financial management team was initially composed of civil servants. When the project funded a procurement and 86 In this case, key favorable elements included the existence of a legal framework introducing community-contracts for PA management, the cultural and socio-demographic conditions, engaged traditional authorities, capacity building of OIPR staff, use of trustful local NGOs seeking synergies with other local development issues such as health and education, a participatory park management plan and a local management committee. 87 Management of PA in post-conflict period can be seen as important element of government and donor efforts to manage national capital for conservation, assist local communities in recovery and provide income to population and national economy, while still maintaining biodiversity. Further, care must be taken to assess opportunities and risks in employing ex-combatants as law enforcement staff. Capacity constraints, infrastructure/equipment damages as well as loss of critical management systems and data need to be assessed and considered. (USAID: Biodiversity conservation and crisis, 2008). 24 accountant consultant for the PCU, the salary discrepancy caused distortion and demotivation resulting in at times slower execution. Projects preparation should consider additional (non-salary-based) incentives for civil servants such as tailored training and coaching measures. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies 99. The Implementing Agencies’ completion report (see Annex 7) is comprehensive and detailed. It does not raise any issues that require comments from the Bank. Comments received by OIPR on the translated ICR report were addressed in the final version. (b) Cofinanciers None received. (c) Other partners and stakeholders None received. 25 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) 88 Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Components estimates Estimate Appraisal (USD millions) (USD millions) Cp. 1 Institutional, Financial and 1.02 0.89 87 Technical Strengthening for PA Management and Oversight Cp. 1.1. OIPR 0.70 0.58 83 Cp. 1.2. FPRCI 0.32 0.30 94 Cp. 2 Management Planning and 1.0 0.73 73 Implementation for the CNP Cp. 2.1. Design Management Plan 0.04 0.03 75 Cp. 2.2. Implementation Mgmt. Plan 0.25 0.17 68 Cp. 2.3. Monitoring 0.71 0.54 76 89 Cp. 3 Support to Park Communities 0.27 0.18 67 90 Cp. 4 Project Management and Results 0.25 0.37 148 Monitoring Total Baseline Cost 2.54 2.17 Advance 0.17 Total Project Costs 2.54 2.34 92.13 Total Financing Required 2.54 (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Cofinancing (USD Appraisal 91 (USD millions) millions) Borrower In-kind/grant 7.6 92 5.17 93 68 Global Environment Grant 2.54 2.34 92 Facility World Bank/IDA Parallel 1.2 0 0 (PNGTER) WCF Parallel 0.04 0 IUCN 94 Parallel 0.07 WWF Associated 95 2.00 3.11 155 88 The table shows project costs for GEF funding only. 89 The component 3 allocations were adjusted at restructuring to US$ 0.18 million. 90 Considering reallocation at restructuring, the component 3 was financed 100%. 91 It should be recognized that appraisal estimate were done for 4 years while actual project duration was 4.5 years (excluding 6 months standstill). 92 According to the PAD ICA, direct GoCI contribution for PARC-CI was estimated US$ 3.73. The finance agreement however stated an annual contribution of US$1.76m (US$0.56m for OIPR and US$0.14m for FPRCI), thus a total of US$7.6 million for four years. 93OIPR received the equivalent of US$963,640 over 4.5 years for recurrent costs; US$2.9 million over 4.5 year for salaries while FPRCI received US$980,000 for 4.5 years. The total allocation including the additional US$0.33 million for temporary security force was US$5.17 million. 94 IUCN provided parallel cofinancing for the up-dating of the CNP management plan (US$41,371) and for the training of agents from the mobile law enforcement unit (US$30,000). 95 Associated funding is defined as funding related to the activities related to project objectives and outcomes. 26 German Associated 2.14 15.9 97 743 cooperation 96 Japan Associated 2.62 98 Total 15.52 29.21 188% 96 German funding to the sector accounted as parallel cofinancing in the incremental cost analysis included the endowment fund contribution for Tai National Park. At completion, GIZ and KfW funding to the sector included in 2012 US$ 5.4 million Tai National Park; US$ 7.064 million endowment for Tai National Park and in 2014 US$ 6 million Comoé National Park; US$ 9.5 million endowment for Comoé National Park and KfW US$ 6.56 million endowment for Tai Sapo. 97 German cooperation funded three CNP baseline studies in 2010 in the amount of US$ 100,000 (included). 98 Amount for equipment used for CNP management. 27 Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component 1: Institutional, Financial and Technical Strengthening for Protected Area Management and Oversight Planned (PAD) Actual Comments Sub-component 1.1. Capacity building for OIPR Training of HQ staff: 13 2010: Training in GIS, anti-poaching, procurement By MTR: 76 OIPR staff have been trained in 15 Topics: finance, procurement, administration 2011: Training modules in GPS, accounting software, project training sessions during the first 3 years including management, project M&E, administration and procurement 29 on participative methods of park management. Training at CNP/DZNE level: Number not (38 staff) specified but expected 48 2012: Training in METT tool use (71 staff including 11 staff By completion: Total of 122 OIPR staff trained Topics: wildlife mgmt., financial and administrative from other services). (76 planned) in 25 training modules (20 management, community engagement, ICT, 2013: Training of 1 FM staff. planned): biomonitoring, court cases, surveillance 12 training session in GPS, human rights, WHS management, Project management and institutional capacity: Excel, etc. (58 DZNE staff) • Administrative, procurement and financial (Training should be completed within 18 first 2014 : Training in climate change adaptation capacity management (including WB procedures); months. Training service providers were meant to building (Senegal, 10 staff), GIS, motorboat use, safeguards • Environmental and social safeguards include Baoufle Training School, Forestry School, policies, M&E, basic military skills, anti-poaching, radio use, (WB); Wildlife School, and NGOs.) GIS, GPS. • Software use including Excel (Note: Data on precise number of persons trained per • project M&E; training module and session not consistently available.) • project management (Paris); See also chart 1 below. • Fundraising; institutional communication (Paris) Park management: • GPS; • GIS; • Study tour in Benin (Pendjari); • METT; • Participatory management and diagnostic • Bush fire prevention; • Biomonitoring; • Surveillance strategies; anti-poaching techniques • Radio and communication systems. • WHS risk management; • Human rights and children rights 28 Equipment for OIPR staff: 2010: 8 cars, 10 motorbikes, fuel. 2011: 5 air conditioners, IT material (14 computers, 6 DZNE level: 8 vehicles; 1 large truck; 5 motorbikes; laptops, 14 printers, 1 scanner, 1 video projector, office 10 laptop computers; 1 laser printer; 1 fax, 1 furniture and equipment (fax, photo), 5 GPS, 23 internet photocopier, 1 projector equipment, radio system, keys). surveillance equipment and small canoe 2012: 1 generator, DVD reader, laptop, projector; tents, raincoats, drinking bottles etc. 2 cars equipped with geo- HQ level: 1 4x4 vehicle surveillance material. 2013: 74 uniforms, 2 GPS, 2 motorbikes, 34 tents, 76 For partners: NGOs 2 motorbikes drinking bottles. Cofinancing Japan 99: 9 pickups, 5 motorbikes, 9 GPS, 3 computers, 1 laptop, 1 tablet, 13 electricity stabilizator, 1 photocopier, 2 printers. 2014: 3 satellite phones, 2 motor boats, 2 GPS, 10 bullet proof jackets, 20 life vest, 50 hand cuffs, 129 raincoats, 104 tents, 1 car 4x4, 5 radios, 5 chain saws, 8 radio antennas, microphones, battery charger, 1 fire fighting equipment. 99 Not initially planned to compensate for equipment loss. 29 Chart 1: Number of OIPR staff trained per theme throughout implementation (HQ, DZNE/CNP and other zones) Total budget: US$102,953 Anti- Software GIS, 5 poachin accounting, 9 Procedural Manual, g, 35 Procurement, 1 16 Financial Management, 4 Project management, 2 GPS, 27 Administration, 1 Knowledge exchanges, 5 Total, 243 Planning and M&E, 2 Jurisdictional procedures, 17 METT, 36 Strategy for surveilance, 37 Human rights, 22 Participatory measures, 24 30 Sub-component 1.2. Support to Establishment and Operations of the FPRCI Training and equipment: − Implementation of communication strategy including web site, special events, brochures See below for details: − Training in fundraising, grant writing, asset management, FM − 1 external trip for fundraising − Implementation of fundraising strategy − 1 vehicle Foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation national and Fundraising Flow of funds for PAs training 100 equipment instruments including international (see tables below) communication outreach and partnerships 2011: Accountant trained 2011: 1 car, 1 2011: Strategic plan 2010- 2010: Identification public 2011: Finance 2014: Financial support for Taï in software use; training photocopier & 2013 finalized & approved; and private partners at proposal developed operational cost plan developed; Director office Investment strategy for national and regional level for Taï Park with (US$380,000). 101 trained in fundraising, furniture. UEMOA finalized; Fund 2011: 6 consultations with KFW. Financial business plan 2013: 1 laser raising strategy under Government & developing agreement signed Agreement signed with OIPR for development printer, office development; webpage partners; 1 Board meeting. with KFW. CNP operational costs 2012: Director trained in furniture. developed. Workshop with Critical Mobilized 17,5 (US$150,000), from 12/14 to business communication 2013: Production of a movie Ecosystem Partnership Fund millions FCFA from 02/15 (to cover community and private sector (2 and communication support; (CEPF). UICN for engagement measures, awareness sessions). investment strategy modified; Member of Conservation management plan. raising, capacity building for 2013: 2 training sessions 2014: Strategic plan up-dated; Finance Alliance (FCFA). 2013: Preparation of OIPR community liaison staff). in Senegal & update of communication plan Partnership established with financial convention Madagascar; training in and implementation. 10 foundations (African with AFD for 3 English; mission to Paris Environmental Fund parks including and London (FPRCI UK). Committee). PNC. 2014: Training in audit, Regular participation in 2014: project outreach/event meetings of the National proposal for Debt organization and Budget Committee. swap agreement with extractive industries. 2013: Participation in general Germany (€10 assembly meeting of CAFÉ million) developed. 100 Parallel and cofunding training: GoCI supported training on institutional communication and fundraising and on accountability and financial management; RedLaC supported training on communication and environmental marketing, fundraising strategies, governance for environmental funds and extractive industries; IUCN supported training on financial management and disbursement. 101 Planned activities to be supported: border maintenance, maintenance of buildings, patrolling, awareness raising, operational support to DZSO. 31 network (Madagascar); Fund raising meeting with private sector; 3 Board meetings, 1 General Assembly meeting. 2014: Convention with RTI signed. Participation in World Park Congress (Sydney) and General Assembly CAFE network. Private sector events organized (petit dejeuner de la Foundation). Table 2: FPRCI fundraising results at project closure (12/31/2014) Year Project/Sinking funds (US$) Endowment funds (US$) Donors Comments 2009 WWF International Endowment for Tai National Park 3,112,000 2012 5,400,000 7,064,000 Germany Debt conversion program (Tai National Park) 2012 6,000,000 France C2D 1st tranche 2013 60,000 GEF/UNEP Preparation funds for Banco National Park 2014 3,500,000 9,500,000 Germany Debt conversion (Comoé National Park) 2014 6,560,000 KfW Endowment Tai-Sapo Total 14,960,000 26,236,000 Total 41,196,000 Table 3: FPRCI Portfolio (12/31/2014) FPRCI portfolio size: US$35.2 million Capital investment US$13.154 million Portfolio performance 9.30 % 32 Table 4: Governmental counterpart contribution to FPRCI Planned Disbursed to FPRCI Comment 2010 US$318,000 US$240,000 (75%) 2011 US$150,000 US$150,000 (100%) 2012 US$170,000 US$170,000 (100%) 2013 US$340,000 US$340,000 (100%) Delayed due to budget vote delay. 2014 US$80,000 US$80,000 (100% Total US$1,058,000 US$980,000 (93%) Table 5: Budget execution of counterpart funding to OIPR (in FCFA) by December 31, 2014 excluding salaries Category/Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL Notified budget 192 321 270 88 829 275 100 794 722 204 083 000 46 200 000 632 228 267 Budget transferred 144 240 953 88 829 275 100 794 722 204 083 000 46 200 000 584 147 950 Execution rate 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92,38% 33 Component 2: Management Planning and Implementation for the Comoé National Park Planned (PAD) Actual Comments Sub-component 2.1. Updating the Comoé Park Management Plan Up-dated 2001 CNP Mgmt. Plan inclusive of 2011 – 2014: Management Plan up-dated and presented in 2010: Cofinancing GTZ for 3 preparatory community role; up-dated fauna data, action-plan, participatory workshops in 2013 and 2014. Final validation by OIPR studies in CNP: Aerial inventory, socio- maps, annual work plan including support to a Board in December 2014. economic study, infrastructure assessment consultant inside and outside the park (estimated at 1.4 The new management plan objective is: The PNC management billions FCFA) system reverses the trend of natural resources degradation. Result 1: PNC resources are protected and managed rationally. Cofinancing IUCN for management plan Indicators: (i) The encounter rate of selected indicator species up-date: US$41,371. (hartebeest, Buffalo, Kob, Elephant, Antelope) increases by 5% from year 3 (2017). (ii) Illegal activity indices decrease by at least 25% per year from year 2 (2016). (iii) The distance leakage of a sample of indicator species is reduced by at least 50% in year 3 (2017). (iv) The decline in the encounter rate of domestic animals is 50% annually Result 2: PNC management is supported by local stakeholders. Indicators: (i) 75% reduction in conflicts recorded between OIPR and actors from the periphery of Year 3 (2017); (ii) 50% regression of offenses from the 3rd year (2017); (iii) 20% of communities integrate rational management of natural resources issues each year. Result 3: The ecological monitoring and research is used for PNC management decisions. Indicators: (i) 75% of the recommendations of the annual reports on the state of the environment are taken into account in the management of the park. Result 4: PNC funding available. Indicators: (i) 50% of the operational needs for the PNC management are provided by the FPRCI and other sources of funding from Year 5 (2019) Result 5: The PNC infrastructure is rehabilitated and improved. Indicators: (i) At least 50% of the tracks and buildings being rehabilitated or constructed are for each update - A new text redefining the boundaries of the PNC is taken by the Government in the 2016 maturity (Year 2) Result 6: PNC is managed efficiently. Indicators: (i) The implementation rate is at least 40% by the end of Year 5 (end of 2019). (ii) The Management plan is updated at the end of Year 5 (2019). (iii) At least one corridor is established between the PNC and 34 other protected areas in the region. (iv) The PNC is removed from the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger Sub-component 2.2. Implementation of the Management Plan (i) Surveillance Activities: design and implement a 2011: 29 OIPR staff dispatched to CNP (total 77) surveillance strategy for the North-East sector, 2011-2012: New surveillance strategy developed and finalized bonus for informants (tracking with GPS, mapping) 2013: Up-date of surveillance strategy (ii) Support to minor infrastructure-repair of pre- 2011: Rehabilitation of 166 km park trails, 30 km boundaries (6 At completion: existing roads, repair of one or two pre-existing conventions with NGOs and local communities); rehabilitation of one − Rehabilitation of 5 OIPR park park office for OIPR field staff; anti-bush fire office building in Bondoukou buildings at Gawi and 1 building at campaigns, improved signage; habitat 2012: 13 agreements/contracts with local NGOs for maintenance of Koutouba; rehabilitation and land management and 269 km de trails and 128 km boundaries. − Rehabilitation of 5 OIPR offices surveillance contracts with communities 1 participatory planning workshop including all stakeholders (NGOs, and housing buildings (3 at Bouna local authorities, communities, local Government) to identify role of HQ and 2 at Dabakala; communities. − Rehabilitation of 90 km of road 2013: Rehabilitation of 6 buildings and 2 houses in Dabakala; tracks within the CNP (Bania – rehabilitation of 90 km park roads (Bania-Gawi). Rehabilitation of 6 Gawi); park information signs. Installment of 150 demarcation posts. − Rehabilitation of a crossing-point Rehabilitation of a crossing point (Gawi). Maintenance of 269 km of within the CNP; park trails. − Manual maintenance of 557 km of 2014: Maintenance of 238 km park trails. Opening of 141 km of park road tracks within the CNP and 30 boundary trails (west side). km surrounding the CNP Cofinancing UNESCO 11,5 millions FCFA for 13 signs and 144 − Implantation of 6 information demarcation posts. panels and 150 demarcation posts Consultation with local communities to review and agree on − Relocation of DZNE offices to boundaries including local authorities. Bouna (06/14) (iii) Comoé Park Monitoring Activities 2010: 1 aerial survey (funded by GTZ) At completion: 272 patrols executed (27 990 (biomonitoring, poacher activity, surveillance 2012: Implementation of the new surveillance strategy: man days) resulting in arrest of 356 monitoring, METT) 58 patrol missions (32 OIPR / 26 OTS ; 9424 man days) ; poachers, confiscation of 69 guns and 1824 Results: 113 people arrested (47 poachers, 45 transhumance herders, munitions of caliber 12. 8 gold miners, of which 3 poachers were convicted. Penalties for gold miners: 9,6 millions FCFA. 37 guns, 1486 cartridges and 170 carcasses confiscated. Implementation of ecological monitoring program: 5 missions; Training and equipment for 18 community members and 8 OIPR staff to participate in pedestrian survey; 1 pedestrian survey. 1 contract with local NGO to train villagers from 19 communities on bush fire management. 35 2013: 81 regular patrols (8667 man days) and 21 mobile patrols (4806 man/days) of which 1869 man/days served by community members. Results: 64 people arrested (poaching, illegal fishing, grazing and gold mining). 16 guns, 105 cartridges, 6 bikes, 2 boats, 2 carcasses, 23 fishing nets confiscated. Contract signed with the CI Army and OIPR to carry out joint patrols. Workshop on pedestrian survey. 2014: 1 aerial survey and validation workshop. 135 patrols (9899 man days of which 2243 community man days). Additional 60 temporary staff from the demobilization disarming reintegration program were dispatched to CNP from 04 to 12 / 2014. Results: 174 people arrested (79 gold miners). Discussion about a collaboration framework with Research Station started. 36 The following charts and tables present findings from the aerial surveys in 2010 and 2014: Chart 2: Spatial distribution of livestock identified during aerial survey in 2010 (left) and 2014 (right) 37 Chart 3: Indication of human activities observed during aerial surveys in 2010 and 2014 38 Table 6: Signs of human activities observed during aerial surveys in 2014 compared to 2010 Signs of human activities in 2014 Signs of human activities in 2010 Type of Observation Number Number observed in Total number Encounter rate CNP Encounter rate Encounter rate CNP Encounter rate observation observed in CNP GEPRENAF 102 area observed (#/100km) GEPRENAF (#/100km) (#/100km) GEPRENAF (#/100km) Human Foot trails 155 34 189 7.50 3.90 29.0 43.1 activities Dirt roads 88 148 236 4.20 16.8 06.7 23.0 and tracks Agricultural 25 255 280 1.20 2.90 04.2 4.2 fields Bush fires 13 14 27 0.60 1.60 0.60 1.0 Other trails 10 03 13 0.50 0.30 0.00 0.00 Camps 07 83 90 0.30 9.40 0.90 31.90 Water 05 0 05 0.20 0 0.20 0.2 points Other signs 03 08 11 0.10 0.90 1.40 1.50 of human activities People 04 23 27 0.20 2.60 1.90 12.90 Villages 03 31 34 0.10 3.50 0.10 1.90 Trees cut 0 03 03 0 0.30 0.30 1.10 Livestock 0 02 02 0 0.20 0.30 0.90 holding area Total 313 604 917 15.1 68.70 45.7 175.80 Domestic Beef 64 1191 1255 7.30 139.5 279.6 184,50 animals Sheep 0 123 123 0 14.0 0.00 20.60 Others 0 19 19 0 2.20 0.00 0.00 Total 64 1333 1397 3.1 151.7 280.1 210.10 102 GEPRENAF activities are not considered as illegal as the area is not placed under restricted resource use. 39 Component 3: Support to Park Communities The map below shows the location of fringe communities surrounding the CNP and adjacent protected areas. Chart 4: Map of fringe communities (2015) 40 Planned (PAD) Actual Comments Community Awareness Activities: up-grading and 2010: IEC campaign Bouna & Nassian; At completion: expanding MAB radio network in Nassian; public Exchange visit AVCD Nassian; − 72 villages reached by awareness campaigns; specific training on 2011: 3 IEC missions in Bouna & Nassian. awareness campaign biomonitoring Study on radio coverage of CNP. − 3 contracts with local radio 3 conventions with local radios signed (Bouna, Nassian, Dakabala) stations established (Bouna, 2013: Radio programs. Cofinancing MAB/UNESCO for radio support. Nassian, Dabakala) IEC campaigns (1000 village participants, local authorities, school, − Communication material covered by radio). produced and distributed (T- Outreach event at ANADER 20-year celebration. shirts, calendar and brochures) 2014: First CGL meeting covered by radio, TV and internet. Evaluation survey showed: Awareness raising on gold mining threats to CNP in Dabakala (12 62 % of fringe communities have a radio villages). 29 village meetings with AVCDs, local authorities, NGOs 39 % received messages and private sector on tourism and border issues. 90 % feel they are associated in planning 3 conventions with local radio renewed. and management of CNP 86 % were reached by communication 80 % of leaders confirm a behavioral change 103 Training for project partners (AVCDs, communities, 2010: Study on community training needs local NGOs) on project, poaching and other threats, 2011: Contracting local NGO for training of villagers in bush fire importance of CNP, governance issues, training of prevention: 70 community members from 19 targeted villages trained park communities in bush fire prevention. 2013: 24 AVCDs in the 5 CNP sectors sensitized and training provided by local NGOs. Social assessment of park fringe communities 2010: GTZ funded baseline assessment. No further assessment except final evaluation rapid survey in selected villages. Establishment of local management committee Land management contract signed between OIPR and Regional comprising community associations, local economic Council of Bounkani. 2012: CGL established. 58 meetings hold. 103 Study: Collecte des données du PARC-CI relatives a la proportion des communautés riveraines impliquées de manière effective dans la préparation et l’implémentation du plan de gestion du Parc national de la Comoé; la proportion de populations riveraines du PNC recevant les émissions radios des activités du projet par Charles KAPIE. G, Dec. 2014 41 operators, prefectures, general and municipal 2014: 3 CGL meetings. Meetings with livestock holders and councils and NGOs. Government to address transhumance threat. Participation of DZNE in local committee to address gold mining threat. Establishment of technical team supporting 2012: 10 AVCDs established (Bouna, Nassian, Tehini). PNGTER livelihood activities: Create and education 2014: 20 AVCD established in targeted villages. of AVCDs in environmental awareness, NRM and 3 microprojects developed and implemented by AVCDs each funded in conservation the amount of US$22 500 supported by NGOs and ANADER: Yalo (onions - 5 tons produced), Kakpin (bee-keeping – 55 kg of honey produced) and Toungboyaga (poultry) Table 7: Presentation of three microprojects piloted during PARC-CI Location Village Type of Outputs Number of beneficiaries Lessons learned residents microproject (number) AVCD Yalo 220 Onion production 2 ha of onion fields; 50 women (Dawori group) 5 tons of onions harvested; Revenues used for school canteen; Increase of women savings. AVCD 479 Bee-keeping for 25 bee-hives (of which 20 11 young community members Need to prepare better full cycle Kakpin honey production type “Kenya” and 5 type from training to commercialization “Langstrop”; 11 young residents trained to become bee-keeper AVCD 289 Chicken 420 chicks; chicken feed, barn 7 young community members Timing, transport to be carefully Toungo- constructed. previously trained by another project planned to avoid loss and lack of Yaga in traditional poultry market. Total 988 68 42 Component 4: Project Management and Monitoring for results Planned (PAD) Actual Comments Project coordination and financial management capacity: 1 project 2010: 1 project manager, 1 procurement specialist, 2 accountants recruited. manager, 1 procurement specialist and 2 accountants Project launching workshop (02/2010). Development of project documents: Procurement plan, implementation manual including administrative, procurement and financial management. Signing of bylaw 00588/MINEEF/MEF on May 6, 2010 related to institutional framework for PARC-CI management. 22 coordination meetings including 8 with TTL at WB office in Abidjan. Project management instruments developed (workplan, reporting schedule, mission schedule etc.). 3 field missions. 1 annual report. 1 audit report. IFRs. 2011: 1 annual report. 1 audit report. IFRs. 2012: 1 annual report. 1 audit report. IFRs. 2013: 1 annual report. 1 audit report. IFRs. 2014: 1 annual report. 1 audit report. IFRs. Completion report (external evaluation and OIPR/FPRCI report as well as community survey). 43 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis At appraisal, no real economic and financial analysis was carried out. Protected areas are usually considered a net cost to local and national economies, as they do not generate significant revenue, in contrast to landscapes with for example agriculture, logging or mining. 104 The PAD refers to the lack of viable tourism potential for the CNP at this early stage in a post-conflict environment but valued the rehabilitation efforts as a first step in the process. The financial analysis assessed roughly the current funding situation to the PA system in Côte d’Ivoire including the Government’s contribution to OIPR and FPRCI (US$1.5 million per year) and the initial endowment of the FPRCI expected to generate about US$100,000 per year assuming a 5 percent return rate. The PARC-CI’s assumption was to support the Government with awareness building and active lobbying of decision makers for greater Government budgetary allocation by year 5 to ensure an increase in staffing for the parks and reserves and to support FPRCI to fundraise more funding particularly with the private sector. ICR assessment: At closure, tourism is still far from being a viable option for the CNP. 105 Acknowledging the post-conflict situation and limited funds, an institutional assessment of the costs (and future benefits) of OIPRs protected area network including Tai National Park and CNP was not a priority. The ICR lacked data to assess the CNP management effectiveness improvements achieved during project implementation (i.e. cost-efficient management options for law enforcement, rehabilitation and community engagement) compared to a comparable protected area in Africa. A counterfactual analysis (situation in the CNP in absence of a project intervention) was not considered as none of the other national parks in Côte d’Ivoire supported such an assessment. The project had clearly a catalytic role and contributed to FPRCIs capacity to increase the financial sustainability of the CNP and the entire PA network. 104 Source: Allard Blom “An estimate of the costs of an effective system of protected areas in the Niger Delta – Congo Basin Forest Region” in Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2661-1678, 2004. 105 The only remaining tourism accommodation in the vicinity of the CNP is the Kafolo Safari lodge built in 1974 in the Kong department in the north (40 rooms, 80 beds). The operator is part of the local management committee. The only high-standard hotel in the south of the Park closed in 1992. Between 1993 and 2002, tourism existed on a very small and steadily decreasing scale of about 100 – 500 tourists per year (source: Frauke Fischer “Status of CNP and the effects of war”) 44 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Nyaneba E. Nkrumah Sr. Natural Resources Mgmt. Spec. GENDR TTL Peter J. Kristensen Sector Leader Environment GENDR Team member Emmanuel Y. Nikiema Sr. Natural Resources Mgmt. Spec. GENDR Team member Frederick Addisson Institution/Community Specialist Consultant Team member Salimata D. Follea Natural Resources Mgmt. Spec. GENDR Operations Specialist Wolfgang M.T. Chadap Finance Officer LOAFC Disbursement Bella Lelouma Diallo Sr. Financial Management Specialist GGODR Financial Management Sameena Dost Country Lawyer/Senior Counsel LEGAF Legal Maurice Adoni Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement Nina Chee/Africa Olojoba Environmental Safeguards Specialist ASPEN Safeguards Cheick Sagna Social Specialist SFTEG Social Safeguards Virginie Vaselopulos Program Assistant AFTEN Team support Ernestina Aboah-Ndow Program Assistant AFCF2 Team support Gayatri Kanungo Consultant AFTEN ENR specialist Frederick Addison Consultant Community specialist Supervision/ICR Maurice Adoni Senior Procurement Specialist GGODR Procurement Kignopron Coulibaly Temporary GENDR Team support Sr. Financial Mangement Saidou Diop GGODR Financial Management Specialist Salimata D. Follea Natural Resources Mgmt. Spec. GENDR Team member Assiata Houedanou Soro Sr Program Asssistant AFCF2 Team support Jean-Michel G. Pavy Senior Environmental Specialist GENDR Team member Douglas J. Graham Senior Environmental Specialist GENDR TTL Africa Eshogba Olojoba Senior Environmental Specialist GENDR TTL Virginie A. Vaselopulos Senior Program Assistant GENDR Team support Assiata Houedanou Soro Sr. Program Assistant AFCF2 Team support Nyaneba E. Nkrumah Sr. Natural Resources mgmt. Spec. GENDR TTL Akoua Gertrude Tah ET Temporary AFCF2 Team support Abdoulaye Gadiere ET Consultant GENDR Team member Marie Bernadette Darang Information Assistant AFTN1 Team support Kishor Uprety Senior Counsel LEGAM Legal Barabara Nalugo Team Assistant AFMUG Team support Oumar Toure Consultant AFTMW Team member Senior Social Development Lucienne M. M’Baipor AFTCS Social Safeguards Specialist Mariame Bamba Team Assistant AFCF2 Team support Gabriele Rechbauer Consultant GENDR ICR author 45 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY08 6.30 75.05 FY09 28.17 13.88 Total: 34.47 88.93 Supervision/ICR FY10 9.23 16.96 FY11 8.55 9.07 FY12 8.52 10.95 FY13 7.92 8.72 FY14 6.84 3.60 Total: 41.06 43.90 46 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results The CNP is surrounded by villages with estimated 177,000 residents focusing their economic activities on small-scale (0.77 to 2.6 hectares) agriculture, mainly for yam and cashew. Livestock holding and herding are not suitable for the region due to the climate and tse-tse fly presence. However, the area is subject to transhumance (North to South). There are 13 ethnical groups with the majority being the Lobi. Two beneficiary surveys were conducted as part of the project’s evaluation. As part of the external project evaluation assignment, the consultant visited 15 village centers in three of the five CNP sectors (Bouna, Nassian and Tehini) to carry out a beneficiary survey with 240 community members. Further consultations included representatives from local Government, traditional authorities, NGOs, local radios and AVCDs. 106 The second survey focused on awareness raising results (evaluation of two project indicators) and carried out interviews of 501 community members and 79 representatives from social groups including local radio and NGOs of all five CNP sectors (Nassian, Bouna, Tehini, Kong and Dabakala). 107 Below is a summary of key points and selected tables from both studies: Strong points and achievements: 1. Partnerships with local stakeholders were designed as service provider contracts. 2. Selection of local NGOs helped to achieve community engagement and support instead of external consultants and was complementary to other local development issues such as Ebola, aids etc. 3. Community employment for reopening and maintenance of park tracks generated significant revenues for villagers and helped to attract previous “illegal” park users for conservation related activities. Revenues were often used to pay school fees. 4. Community members perceive OIPR now more as a support structure against previous “forest guards” which fulfilled basically a police function. Villagers have expressed their motivation and cooperation willingness to support CNP management. 5. Establishment of AVCDs, as the entry point to gain access to microprojects, filled an institutional gap at local level. 6. Strong participation and support from local government and traditional authorities in project implementation was conducive to project results. 7. Ninety percent of community members interviewed expressed their involvement in CNP planning and management. 8. Eighty-seven percent of community members interviewed claim to have been sensitized by the awareness raising measures. Eighty percent des traditional leaders believe that a behavioral change has taken place. 106 Evaluation Finale du Proejct PARC-CI, Rapport Principal, Consultant Yves Joel Dirabou, Janvier 2015 107 Collecte des donnees du PARC-CI relative a la proportion des communautes riveraines impliquees de maniere effective dans la preparation et l’implementation du plan de gestion du PNC et la propotion de populations riveraines du PNC recevant les emissions radio des activites du projet, Charles G. Kapie, Decembre 2014 47 Table 8: Results from EOP survey on awareness raising campaign (translated) Responses Questions Yes No No opinion # % # % # % TOTAL Is it necessary to forbid access to CNP? 201 83,8% 37 15,4% 2 0,8% 240 Is it necessary to patrol CNP? 204 85,0% 35 14,6% 1 0,4% 240 Are you willing to provide information to protect CN? 105 43,8% 124 51,7% 11 4,6% 240 Are local people sufficient aware of CNP? 189 78,8% 48 20,0% 3 1,3% 240 Do you know the boundaries of the CN? 104 43,3% 135 56,3% 1 0,4% 240 Do you think that poaching was reduced? 198 82,5% 38 15,8% 4 1,7% 240 Source: Final evaluation report: Yves Joel Dirabou, January 2015 Table 9: Survey results on perception of CNP (translated) Questions Responses Communities Government No opinion # % # % # % TOTAL To whom belongs the CNP? 152 63,3% 78 32,5% 10 4,2% 240 Who should protect the CNP? 112 46,7% 124 51,7% 4 1,7% 240 Source: Final evaluation report: Yves Joel Dirabou, January 2015 Table 10: Comparison of socio-economic baseline study with EOP survey (translated) GIZ study 2010: 2014 EOP Survey: Observations Constraints Assessment of constraints Project impact and Ebola Extreme level of poaching Limited poaching consequences Timber exploitation Less frequent timber extraction. Agricultural encroachment Less agricultural encroachment Some hidden places exist. Dumping of waste and human Still the same excrements Transhumance High reduction Herders move to Ghana Lack of governmental control Strong presence by OIPR Weak presence and staffing of OIPR 100% of units deployed in the field Weak conscience of institutional All institutional actors are sensitized and actors engaged Weak demarcation of boundaries Still challenging Feeling of displacement Not an issue anymore Good collaboration with OIPR High level of poverty Still the same Traditional practice of bush fires Improved Weaker points and gaps: 1. NGOs stated the need to participate more in activity planning (location and timing). 2. Unclear legal status of local radios delayed signing of contracts. 3. Lack of opportunity for local radios to develop new conservation talks as OIPR predefined and delivered radio messages to air. 4. More frequent consultations were suggested by local Government structures to ensure follow-up on agreed actions. 5. Lack of funds/insufficient funds for mobility support for traditional authorities and awareness raising sessions to cover adequately project intervention zone. 6. Only thirty-nine percent of interviewed community members received radio talks funded by the project. 48 Summary of ICR mission site visits in Kakpin and Toungbo-yaga: The beneficiaries interviewed by the team noted they were satisfied with the support from OIPR, particularly from the community engagement officer. In the case of Kakpin, the young beekeepers expressed their satisfaction with the training, equipment and experience received. The community members explained that honey is the second commodity after cashew and on high-demand. Previously, villagers went into the park and gathered honey by burning. The priority issue to successfully continue this activity is to connect the product to the markets as the rural roads in the area are in bad condition and the village is very remote. As of now, the honey bottled is not yet commercialized. In the case of Toungbo-yaga, (construction of small barn, purchase of chicks, transport, animal feed) the results are mixed due to delays with delivery of chicks missing the core festive season with high demand. In the future, the technical support from ANADER needs to be well coordinated by OIPR to ensure correct planning and execution of activities. 49 Annex 6. Summary of borrower’s ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The following completion report summary was submitted by OIPR in December 2014. 1. Description et démarrage du projet 1.1 Historique -Contexte politique et cadre institutionnel Le Parc national de la Comoé (PNC) s’étend sur une superficie de 1.149.150 hectares d’un seul tenant au nord-est de la Côte d’Ivoire, entre les latitudes 8°30 – 9°37 Nord et les longitudes 3°07 – 4°26 Ouest. Site du Patrimoine mondial et formant, avec sa zone périphérique, une réserve de biosphère, il se trouve dans la zone de transition entre la savane soudanienne et les formations forestières du domaine guinéen. Cette situation est à l’origine de la variété de ses paysages et de sa grande diversité biologique. Il est l’un des trois maillons essentiels de la « diagonale écologique » de la Côte d’Ivoire et offre, sur le plan touristique, les meilleures perspectives pour la vision de la grande faune. Le contexte du projet est marqué par une volonté politique des autorités de la Côte d’Ivoire de mettre en route la démocratie, entachée par une crise militaro-politique et un engagement de la communauté internationale et des partenaires au développement d’assister le pays. Dans ce cadre, le FEM a convenu avec le Gouvernement ivoirien de se focaliser sur la relance de la gestion durable du Parc national de la Comoé, compte tenu de l’état de braconnage préoccupant dont ce parc fait l’objet. Cet appui se fonde aussi sur le fait que d’importants efforts ont été consentis par le pays dans la lutte contre l’érosion de la diversité biologique à travers l’adoption de la loi n° 2002-102 du 11 février 2002 relative à la création, à la gestion et au financement des parcs nationaux et réserves, la création de l’Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves et de la Fondation pour les Parcs et Réserves. Le projet a été développé dans une période d’instabilité marquée par des tensions entre les différentes forces politiques du pays et une transition politique difficile à la suite de la rébellion armée de 2002 à 2010. Durant cette période, l’appareil d'Etat a été fortement fragilisé, la cohésion sociale mise à mal et les outils de production économique fortement perturbés. Les élections présidentielles qui ont eu lieu à la fin de l'année 2010 ont entrainé un véritable chaos politique, économique et occasionné de nombreux morts dans un conflit armé pour la possession du pouvoir. Depuis avril 2011, le pays a fortement évolué vers une situation de retour à un fonctionnement normal. Cette normalisation politique se poursuit même si le double défi de la réconciliation nationale et de la cohésion sociale reste dans une certaine mesure à relever. Dans cette perspective, le Gouvernement a procédé à l’actualisation du plan national de développement (PND), d’un coût global d'environ 11.000 Milliards de Francs FCFA, qui retrace les axes majeurs d’intervention sur la période 2012-2015 dans l’optique de faire de la Côte d’Ivoire un pays émergent à l’horizon 2020. -Situation économique et sociale Après un déclin catastrophique, l’économie ivoirienne s’est rapidement redressée dès la fin de la crise post-électorale (avril 2011), grâce à la normalisation de la situation sécuritaire et à la reprise des exportations et de l’aide internationale. La récession a ainsi pu être limitée à 4,7% en 2011 et le pays poursuit sa reprise avec une croissance de 8,8% en 2013 contre 9,8% en 2012. La croissance devrait se poursuivre à un taux moyen de 9% en 2014 et 2015, grâce à la poursuite des réformes sociales et l’amélioration du climat des affaires. L’activité économique est portée par les investissements réalisés dans les infrastructures de transport et par le secteur des télécommunications avec l’attribution de licences de troisième génération. Malgré ces bonnes perspectives, des défis importants sont à relever. La première priorité consiste à rendre la croissance durable et inclusive, pour qu’elle réponde aux besoins pressants d’une population jeune en quête d’emploi. La compétitivité du pays reste également à améliorer, 50 notamment dans les domaines douanier, financier, agricole, du transport et du renforcement des capacités de la main-d’œuvre nationale. 1.2 Objectifs du projet Le PARC-CI a visé à réaliser deux des trois objectifs de la Note de stratégie intérimaire de la Banque mondiale (FY 08-09) en appui à la reprise d’urgence post-conflit de la Côte d’Ivoire : (a) la composante 3, qui appuie les moyens d’existence et les services de base dans les communautés riveraines des parcs affectées par la crise, est financée par le FEM ; et (b) le projet, à travers la composante 1, appuie également le développement des capacités et le renforcement de l’Office ivoirien des parcs et réserves et la Fondation, qui respectivement gère et finance les parcs nationaux et réserves en Côte d’Ivoire. -Objectifs du projet L’objectif de développement et environnemental global du projet est de renforcer la gestion durable de la faune et de l’habitat du Parc national de Comoé (PNC). L’Objectif du projet sera atteint par (a) le renforcement de la capacité de l’Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves à gérer les parcs ; (b) l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre d’un plan de gestion participatif pour le PNC ; et (c) l’amélioration de l’éducation environnementale des communautés du PNC pour leur permettre de comprendre les préoccupations relatives à la biodiversité et de participer à la mise en œuvre du plan de gestion. Le projet vise spécifiquement à inverser la spirale de dégradation de la diversité biologique du Parc national de la Comoé par la mise en place d’un système de gestion modèle. 1.3 Composantes du projet Prévu pour une durée de quatre (4) ans (2010-2013), le PARC-CI a été prorogé d’un an, ainsi le projet a été clôturé à la fin de 2014. Il s’articule en quatre composantes : Composante 1 : Renforcement institutionnel, financier et technique pour la gestion et la supervision des aires protégées -Sous-composante 1.1 : Renforcement des capacités de l’Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves (OIPR) est mise en œuvre au Siège de l’OIPR à Abidjan et au niveau de la Direction de Zone Nord-est (DZNE) à Bouna Le projet apporte un appui au renforcement des capacités (formation, équipements) au profit du personnel de l’OIPR chargé du Parc national de Comoé, du personnel et des spécialistes d’approvisionnement et spécialistes financiers à Abidjan. En termes de formation, un accent est mis sur le renforcement de l’expertise technique et scientifique de l’OIPR, notamment sur les méthodes de conservation participative. -Sous-composante 1.2 : Appui à la mise en place et au fonctionnement de la Fondation des Parcs et Réserves de la Côte d’Ivoire (FPRCI). Le projet finance les activités de renforcement des capacités susceptibles de renforcer la capacité de la Fondation à mobiliser et à gérer un (des) fonds de dotation/d’amortissement. Composante 2 : Planification et mise en œuvre de la gestion pour le Parc national de la Comoé -Sous-composante 2.1 : Actualisation du Plan de gestion du Parc national de Comoé Cette sous-composante porte sur la mise à jour du plan d’aménagement et de gestion du Parc national de Comoé de 2001. -Sous-composante 2.2 : Mise en œuvre du Plan de gestion La mise en œuvre du Plan de gestion concerne l’exécution des fonctions de gestion du parc tels que l’aménagement, la surveillance, le suivi-écologique. -Sous-composante 2.3 : Suivi de l’impact de la Biodiversité Un système de suivi biologique adapté à l’écosystème de la savane de l’impact, basé sur un inventaire aérien et pédestre, devra être mis en place afin de disposer de données sur les 51 activités humaines illégales et les ressources animales. Composante 3 : Appui aux populations riveraines du parc Cette composante apporte un appui aux communautés riveraines du parc, par des campagnes de sensibilisation, la formation sur des thématiques en liaison avec la biodiversité et le développement de microprojets en vue de leur permettre de participer activement à la gestion du parc. Composante 4 : Gestion du Projet et suivi des résultats Cette composante vise à assurer la bonne gestion du projet à travers une organisation et la mise en place d’un système d’information efficace. Elle porte sur l’appui à la gestion du projet et la réalisation des audits annuels. 1.4 Organisation des ministères et autres agences dans la mise en œuvre du projet. Le présent projet met en relation six (6) acteurs principaux que sont : - Le promoteur (Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Salubrité Urbaine et du Développement Durable) qui représente les intérêts de l’Etat de Côte d’Ivoire, bénéficiaire du financement ; - Le Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances qui joue le rôle d’agent fiduciaire du projet ; - Les Services déconcentrés des Ministères de l’Intérieur, de la Justice, de l’Agriculture qui accompagnent le projet à travers les composantes 2 et 3 ; - l’Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves (OIPR) qui a la responsabilité de l’exécution technique des composantes 1(a), 2 et 3 du projet conformément à l’accord de don ; - et la Fondation pour les Parcs et Réserves de Côte d’Ivoire (FPRCI) : Association d’utilité publique, elle a la responsabilité de l’exécution technique de la composante 1(b) du projet conformément à l’accord de don. - le bailleur de fonds (Banque mondiale/ FEM) qui apporte une assistance technique et financière pour l’atteinte des objectifs assignés au projet. 2. Conception, exécution, réalisation et impact du projet 2.1 Evaluation de la conception du projet La conception du projet, faite dans la période post-conflit, a procédé d’une approche inclusive et participative pour l’identification et l’analyse des problèmes sectoriels que rencontrent le secteur des parcs nationaux et réserves de Côte d’Ivoire en général et singulièrement le PNC (braconnage, déficit de financement, non implication des communautés dans les activités de gestion du parc, etc.). Cette approche s’est traduite par des séances de travail et des consultations lors de la mission préparatoire de la Banque Mondiale en 2008, durant laquelle les structures d’exécution (OIPR et FPRCI) ont pu préciser leurs besoins, traduits à travers les composantes du projet, et apporter des améliorations à l’orientation du projet. Le projet s’est aussi adapté aux nouvelles situations offertes par l’amélioration du climat sécuritaire du pays, en facilitant l’extension de ses actions à l’ensemble du parc et de sa périphérie après des concertations avec les différentes parties prenantes. L’identification d’acteurs locaux et partenaires du projet a aussi procédé de la même approche participative. Les missions conjointes menées sur le terrain lors de sa préparation, ont retenu comme partenaires au projet certaines ONG locales telles que LUCOFEUBROU et DEPRERENAF. Ces structures devraient accompagner certaines actions du projet, notamment la maintenance des infrastructures (entretien du réseau routier à l’intérieur du parc, des limites et des sentiers), la gestion de l'habitat (feux précoces dans la savane) et la sensibilisation pour le changement de comportement des populations à l’égard du parc. Actuellement, ces ONG ont gagné en notoriété chacune dans le domaine qui la concerne. Le cas de l’ONG LUCOFEUBROU, distinguée meilleur comité de lutte contre les feux de brousse par la présidence de la 52 République de Côte d’Ivoire le 7 aout 2014, mérite d’être cité. Certains enseignements tirés de la mise en œuvre des projets antérieurs financés par des organismes internationaux ont également été pris en compte dans la conception du projet. Il s’agit notamment du Programme sur l’Homme et la Biosphère du PNUD / UNESCO mettant l’accent sur : - l’amélioration de la perception du parc à travers la mise en œuvre de microprojets ; - la structuration des populations en AVCD comme interface avec les gestionnaires du parc ; - l’utilisation des radios de proximité dans la sensibilisation à l’instar de la radio Boutourou, autre produit du projet MAB UNESCO. Dans le même ordre d’idée, le projet dans sa conception, a proposé que soit capitalisée l’expérience acquise du projet pilote Ouest-Africain de gestion participative des ressources naturelles et de la faune (GEPRENAF), financé également par le FEM. Ces bases, qui ont prévalu à la conception du projet, répondent d’une approche cohérente et pragmatique même si en raison de la situation sécuritaire certaines analyses approfondies au niveau des acteurs n’ont pu être menées. 2.2 Evaluation des principaux résultats obtenus dans chacune des composantes du projet au regard des objectifs convenus Composante 1 : Renforcement des capacités de l’Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves Le projet a permis de renforcer les capacités de plus de 122 agents de l’OIPR sur environ 25 thématiques en liaison avec la gestion des aires protégées, contre une prévision de 76 agents. Il a également permis de doter la Direction de Zone Nord-est de l’OIPR de 10 véhicules 4x4 [dont 7 emportés lors de la crise postélectorale], de 10 motos, et de 2 camions à plateau pour la surveillance ainsi que d’importants matériels bureautiques, informatiques et techniques. Grâce au Japon, ces équipements ont été renforcés en 2014, de 10 autres véhicules 4x4, 5 motos et de divers autres matériels techniques. Appui à la mise en place et au fonctionnement de la Fondation pour les Parcs et Réserves de la Côte d’Ivoire. La Fondation a bénéficié, dans le cadre du projet, des 4 formations prévues dans les domaines de la gestion financière, la communication, la mobilisation de financement, l’utilisation du logiciel comptable et de l’organisation évènementielle. Ces capacités logistiques ont été aussi renforcées en matériels roulant, informatique et bureautique. Le projet a permis de réaliser l’étude sur la clarification du statut fiscal de la Fondation en vue de proposer un décret relatif à ce nouveau statut fiscal. Les différentes actions de renforcement de capacités ont permis à la Fondation d’établir un partenariat avec 10 Fondations ; elle fait désormais partie d’un réseau de 11 Fondations africaines liées par un partenariat à travers le CAFE (Consortium Africain des Fonds environnementaux). Le projet a également permis à la Fondation de se doter d’un plan de communication, d’une étude sur les perspectives de partenariat avec le secteur privé ainsi que d’un site web. Divers outils de gestion, notamment le plan stratégique 2010-2013, les stratégies d'investissement dans l'espace UEMOA et de mobilisation ont été finalisées et validées par le Conseil d'Administration. Le choix de la Fondation comme canal pour le financement pérenne des parcs nationaux de Taï et de la Comoé, dans le cadre de la conversion de dette de la République d'Allemagne ainsi que pour la composante « Préservation des Parcs et Réserves » au titre du C2D (2014/2015), illustre bien les effets positifs du projet sur cette structure. Composante 2 : Actualisation du Plan de gestion du Parc national de Comoé 53 En prélude à l’actualisation du plan de gestion du parc et à l’appui de l’Allemagne, quatre (4) études portant sur l’identification des besoins de formation de la radio Boutourou, l’inventaire aérien de la faune, le volet socio-économique et l’état des infrastructures du PNC ont été financées par la GIZ. Ces études ainsi que les consultations menées dans un processus participatif et itératif ont permis de mettre à jour le plan d’aménagement et de gestion du Parc national de la Comoé (2015-2024). Mise en œuvre du Plan de gestion En application du plan d’aménagement de 2001, plusieurs actions techniques ont été réalisées par le projet. Ces actions portent, entre autres, sur la remise en état de 11 bâtiments à usage de bureau et à usage technique, le reprofilage de 90 km de piste (Bania-Gawi), la remise en état d’un ouvrage de franchissement, l’entretien manuel de 557 km de piste intérieures et de 30 km de limites avec le concours des organisations locales et l’implantation de 6 panneaux d’information et de 150 bornes de délimitation. Au terme du projet, il reste à achever le reprofilage de 188 km et l’ouverture manuelle de 257 km de limites et pistes intérieures. Le projet a permis de doter le parc d’une nouvelle stratégie de surveillance et de réaliser 272 missions de surveillance pour 27.990 HJ. Ces opérations de surveillance ont permis d’appréhender 356 contrevenants dont 78 braconniers, 115 bouviers, 93 orpailleurs et 18 pêcheurs. Il convient de relever que la sensibilisation, avec l’aide des autorités administratives, politiques et coutumières, a été privilégiée par le projet en lieu et place des poursuites judiciaires en vue de réduire au maximum les impacts sociaux négatifs du projet. Dans cette optique, seulement 42 contrevenants ont été condamnés dont 21 braconniers, 8 orpailleurs. Au total, 69 fusils et 1824 munitions de calibre 12 ont été saisis. Cette stratégie a fait l’objet d’une évaluation qui a permis de dégager les mesures correctives nécessaires. Suivi de l’impact de la Biodiversité Un contrat a été signé avec la WCF pour la réalisation des opérations de suivi biologique. Dans ce cadre, 2 inventaires aériens ont été réalisés en 2010 et en 2014 et un suivi pédestre en 2012. Ces inventaires ont permis de disposer de données permettant de dégager des tendances en ce qui concerne l’évolution des ressources fauniques et des pressions anthropiques. Par ailleurs, conformément aux recommandations de la mission de supervision de 2013, une étude pour la définition d'une méthodologie de suivi biologique adaptée au PNC a été réalisée du 25 au 31 mai 2014 et validée du 11 au 13 juin 2014. Des options pour le suivi écologique plus opérationnel ont été proposées et devront encore faire l’objet de concertation entre l’ensemble des partenaires techniques pour le suivi des habitats et des populations animales. Composante 3 : L’un des axes majeurs de cette composante a trait à la formation des communautés riveraines sur des thématiques environnementales et au financement des projets communautaires ou générateurs de revenus au profit des riverains afin de développer des alternatives socio- économiques au profit des communautés riveraines. Cet axe d’action, qui devrait être exécuté par le PNGTER, n’a pu être mis en œuvre du fait de retrait de ce financement qui avait suscité beaucoup d’espoir au sein des communautés locales. Le projet, à travers la campagne d’informations et de sensibilisation autour du parc et des séances de travail avec les populations, a permis à l’OIPR de diffuser la législation en matière de gestion des aires protégées en Côte d’Ivoire et de présenter la nouvelle approche de collaboration avec la population. 54 L’appui apporté par le projet en terme de structuration des organisations locales a également permis à 20 villages centres sur les 25 existants de se doter d’associations de conservation et de développement (AVCD) actives pouvant conduire les initiatives de développement de leurs localités. En dépit du retrait des fonds du PNGTER, le projet a pris l’initiative de financer des microprojets pilotes d’aviculture, d’apiculture et de maraichers dans 3 villages de la périphérie. 8 conventions d’entretien du parc avec les associations et les ONG locales ont été signées et exécutées dans l’optique de mettre en évidence les retombées positives et profits dont pourraient bénéficier les populations de l’existence de ce parc. Composante 4 : Après la mise en place de ses organes (UCP, Cellule d’exécution), le projet a pourvu l’OIPR d’une cellule de passation de marchés qui reste fonctionnelle. Le projet a également permis la mise en place et le fonctionnement du Comité de Gestion Locale du Parc national de la Comoé. Le suivi évaluation et les audits financiers annuels ont été régulièrement menés. 78 marchés sur 80 prévus ont été réalisés (97%) et les mesures de sauvegarde environnementale et sociale ont été appliquées. Niveau d’atteinte des indicateurs clé du projet Suite aux recommandations de la mission de revue à mi-parcours, tenue du 08 au 14 décembre 2012, 11 indicateurs clés ont été retenus pour mesurer l’efficacité du projet en lieu et place des 15 indicateurs initiaux. En fin décembre 2014, les progrès enregistrés se présentent comme suit : ▫ % de réduction du braconnage : 74% de réalisation contre 60% attendu ; ▫ % de variation du taux de rencontre du principal indicateur des espèces de la faune : 1,41 contre 1,46 attendu, ce qui correspond à un croît moyen annuel de 9% pour les 3 espèces de bovidé. La variation du taux de rencontre de chaque espèce se présente comme suit : Nbre indices Variation Espèces Croît annuel 2010 2014 (%) Bubales 24,27 33,95 1,399 8,75% Buffles 2,7 2,36 -0,87 -3,31% Cobes de Buffon 2,12 4,91 2,31 23,36% TOTAL 29,09 41,22 1,41 9,10% ▫ % d’agents de l’OIPR intervenant dans le projet ayant reçu au moins une formation au terme du projet : 100% Au total, 122 agents de diverses spécialités de l’OIPR ont reçu au-moins une formation sur une thématique sur une prévision de 76. Le projet a permis de renforcer les capacités techniques du personnel au-delà des prévisions créant ainsi un pool de compétences pour la mise en œuvre des activités de gestion des parcs nationaux et réserves. ▫ % d’agents spécialisés de l’OIPR formés sur les méthodes participatives de gestion de parcs nationaux au terme du projet : 92% contre 100% attendu Au total, 24 agents ont été formés sur les techniques d'animation rurale, l’approche participative et l’élaboration des plans de développement locaux sur une prévision de 26. ▫ Evolution des fonds mobilisés par la Fondation pour les Parcs et Réserves de Côte d’Ivoire : + 100% de fonds mobilisés pour une prévision de 35,8% Montant mobilisé de 2010 à 2014 : 48,69 millions dont $3.68 millions (WWF international) en 2010, $14,73 millions (KfW/Allemagne) en 2012, $7,092 millions (C2D/France) en 2013 et $23,12 millions (Allemagne) en 2014. 55 Valeur du portefeuille : 5,20% de rendement moyen contre 5% attendu. De 2011 à 2014, la valeur générée par le portefeuille investi est donc de $1 4747 069. Annuellement, de 2011 à 2014, les rendements respectifs de -1.96% (plus-value générées : -$66 176), 7.26% ($274 859), 6.72% ($414 750) et de 8.61% ($843 783) ont été réalisés. ▫ Evolution des indices de présence des animaux domestiques dans le Parc national de la Comoé (PNC) : 98,9% de réduction réalisée contre 75% attendu (n indice 2014 = 0,31/10 km et n indice 2010 = 28,01/10 km) ▫ Superficie (ha) du parc sous gestion améliorée : 1 149 150 ha La valeur du METT n’a pas pu être déterminée en 2010, pour servir de référence et mettre en évidence les changements réalisés. Mais, nous convenons que lors du démarrage du projet, le parc ne disposait pas d’un système de gestion fonctionnel. La valeur du METT en 2010 est donc de toute évidence ≤ 35%. En 2014, la valeur déterminée du METT est de 66 (soit 70%). De ce fait, il n’est donc pas exagéré d’affirmer que la valeur du METT est passée de la catégorie minimale à la catégorie suivante (comprise entre 35% et 75%), avec une superficie placée sous protection renforcée de 100% de l’aire du parc. ▫ % d’amélioration des indicateurs du FEM METT : 66 contre 75 attendu (52 en 2012) ▫ Pourcentage des populations riveraines du PNC qui reçoivent les transmissions radio des émissions sur le projet : 39,31% contre 75% attendu ; ▫ % de communautés riveraines qui sont impliquées de manière effective dans la préparation et l’implémentation du plan de gestion : 89,87% contre 70% attendu ▫ % villages-centre dotés d’associations pour la conservation du parc : 80% contre 75% attendu. Par le biais du projet, 20 villages-centre autour du PNC sont dotés d’associations de conservation et de développement actives (AVCD), sur une prévision de 25. 2.3 Impact du projet dans la mise en œuvre des différentes politiques nationales. A la sortie de la crise, conformément aux actions de politique à engager diligemment, le projet visait ainsi : - d’une part, à appuyer le développement des capacités et le renforcement de l’Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves et la Fondation, chargés respectivement de la gestion et du financement pérenne des parcs nationaux et réserves ; - et d’autre part, à appuyer les moyens d’existence et les services de base dans les communautés riveraines des aires protégées affectées par la crise. A travers ce projet, les politiques en matière de l’administration du territoire, agricole, forestière, minière, touristique et environnementale ont été impactées de façon directe ou indirecte par ledit projet. Le premier impact significatif est la restauration de l’autorité de l’Etat sur la gestion de ses biens en situation post-conflit. Alors que la crise électorale de 2010 était à son paroxysme, la présence de l’OIPR, avec la formation des forestiers commandos nouvellement recrutés, en zone dite CNO, a permis de créer la confiance des autres services de l’Etat qui se sont redéployés progressivement. Le bureau de l’OIPR à Bondoukou a même permis d’abriter certains services du Ministère de l’Environnement, nouvellement mis en place. Le projet a permis également au personnel de la Station de recherche en écologie d’être en confiance et de sécuriser les biens de ladite station réhabilitée après la crise. Ce faisant, le projet a contribué à la consolidation de la coopération bilatérale entre la Côte d’Ivoire et l’Allemagne. Du point de vue environnementale, le changement perceptible après cinq années de mise en œuvre du projet demeure la préservation d’un écosystème soudano-guinéen riche d’une diversité biologique exceptionnelle et important dans la lutte contre le changement climatique local et sous-régional. En effet, le PARC-CI a contribué au maintien de la valeur universelle exceptionnelle qui a prévalu à l’inscription du PNC sur la liste du Patrimoine mondial (Cf. Rapport de Mission de suivi réactif de l’UNESCO en 2013) en dépit des agressions que le parc 56 a subi en périodes de crises. Au plan institutionnel : Les capacités des gestionnaires technique (OIPR) et financier (FPRCI) ont été ont été renforcées pour assumer leur rôle de façon durable. Par le biais du projet, les activités de recherche dans le parc, stoppées depuis 2002, ont été relancées. Des thèmes de recherche d’étudiants ivoiriens et d’autres nationalités sont développés au profit des universités et centres de recherches. Néanmoins, l’éducation du public et surtout des élèves ou acteurs du monde scolaire a été insuffisamment développée pour les raisons évoquées en ce qui concerne la composante 3. Du point de vue touristique, le potentiel naturel est un atout pour la valorisation touristique. Le rapprochement avec Côte d’Ivoire Tourisme à travers une convention en préparation a été favorisé en partie par ce retour du PNC comme un autre pôle potentiel après les parcs nationaux de Taï et du Banco. Du point de vue social et de l’administration du territoire, la présence du projet a contribué à renforcer une dynamique sociale forte. Les communautés se sentent concernés par la protection du parc, surtout dans les zones où les leaders communautaires participent aux activités du parc. L’action des autorités administratives et des organisations non gouvernementales locales bien représentées dans le Comité de gestion locale y participe également. Les microprojets mis en œuvre dans certains villages ont permis de faire percevoir la réalité des retombées de la présence du parc et de consolider les liens au sein des communautés pour le bien commun. De même, divers emplois (écologues ou auxiliaires villageois désignés par les populations pour prendre part aux activités de gestion du parc) ont été créés. La convention de gestion de terroirs signée avec le Conseil Régional du Bounkani est un signe fort de cette appropriation du parc et de son rôle important perçu dans l’aménagement du territoire et du développement local. En matière agricole : En développant le concept de la gestion durable des ressources naturelles à la périphérie du PNC, le projet a renforcé la synergie d’actions avec les partenaires du monde agricole. Toutefois, la non-exécution du volet relatif à l’appui aux populations riveraines n’a pas permis d’amplifier cette action. En matière de politique minière, le projet a contribué au renforcement de la protection du parc contre l’orpaillage en favorisant une plus grande synergie d’action entre les services miniers et l’OIPR dans l’octroi de titres ou des autorisations d’exploration. Ainsi, le Ministère des mines demande l’avis préalable du Ministère de l’environnement avant l’attribution des permis miniers. 2.4 Analyse critique de l'action de la Banque mondiale et du Gouvernement Au démarrage du projet, la Banque mondiale et la partie ivoirienne ont convenu de la prise en main progressive du Parc national de la Comoé en regroupant les services de terrain dans les Secteurs de Bouna (Secteurs de Téhini, Bouna, Kong) et de Nassian (Secteurs de Nassian, Dabakala). Les deux parties avaient décidé que les activités de sensibilisation concerneront l’ensemble du parc tandis que les mesures riveraines se dérouleront sur la zone prioritaire d’intervention. Les brigades mobiles, localisées à Bondoukou devaient effectuer une rotation des équipes à Nassian et à Bouna. Cette option, si elle est pertinente, fragilisait ainsi les efforts au Nord et à l’Ouest compte tenu de la grande étendue du parc. La décision de redéployer l’ensemble des services a véritablement permis de reprendre en main la totalité du parc et d’impliquer l’ensemble des acteurs riverains dans le pilotage du projet. Tout au long du projet, la Banque mondiale a joué un rôle d’appui conseil à l’Unité de Coordination qui mérite d’être relevé. Ces conseils ont visé, notamment le maintien d’un appui budgétaire à un niveau appréciable de l’Etat afin d’assurer la couverture des charges de fonctionnement de la coordination du projet. Cet appui financier a été régulier sur la durée du 57 projet mais a connu de forte variation passant de 192 millions de FCFA en 2010 à 88 en 2011, 100 en 2012, 204 en 2013 et 46 millions en 2014. Cette variation, couplée aux difficultés de trésorerie, a eu un impact sur l'exécution du projet. 2.5 Appréciation de l'action de la Banque mondiale au cours de l'exécution du projet - Principales décisions ayant favorisé l'exécution du projet Les principales décisions ayant favorisé l’exécution du projet sont : o Prolongation de la durée du projet Cette décision majeure prise par la Banque mondiale sur demande du Bénéficiaire eu égard aux perturbations sociopolitiques survenues au cours des deux premières années du projet s’est avérée indispensable pour l’atteinte des objectifs fixés notamment en termes d’accroissement du niveau d’exécution des plans de travail et du taux de décaissement du projet. o Allègement du dispositif d’élaboration des DRF par l’introduction systématique des DRF électroniquement Cette décision ou directive de la Banque mondiale a fortement contribué à un allègement systématique des documents à fournir pour la production des Demandes de Retrait de Fonds (DRF). La réduction des délais de transmission et de traitement des DRF à la Dette publique, qui en est découlé, a permis au projet de rehausser son taux de décaissement. - Principales décisions ayant freiné l'exécution du projet Aucune décision en la matière n’a été enregistrée par le Gouvernement. - Suivi du projet par la Banque mondiale La supervision du projet par la Banque mondiale a été exécutée de manière satisfaisante avec cinq (5) missions de supervision et une revue à mi-parcours. En outre, le projet a enregistré diverses missions de supervision de la gestion financière et de revue de la passation des marchés. - Missions de suivi et de consultations Des missions d’appui et de coordination ont été menées au niveau de la région cible du projet et auprès des parties prenantes notamment les communautés riveraines du parc (sensibilisation de masse, appui à la sensibilisation des radios communautaires, appui aux ONG locales, etc.). - Principales leçons à tirer Les financements du projet, axés sur les conditions de reprise en main du parc, ont été bien ciblés. Cependant, l’étendue des besoins du PNC n’a pas permis de satisfaire tous les aspects prioritaires d’investissement en particulier les outils de gestion de feux, les réhabilitations de pistes, des mares et les bâtiments à usage de bureau ou servant de poste de surveillance. 2.6 Appréciation de l'action du Gouvernement au cours de l'exécution du projet. - Principales décisions ayant favorisé l'exécution du projet Deux décisions majeures prises par le Gouvernement ont véritablement permis une bonne exécution du projet. Ces décisions portent sur (i) le financement, en 2012, de l’opération transitoire de sécurisation du parc d’un montant de 200 millions, (ii) la prise en charge de certaines charges de fonctionnement du projet. Cette opération de sécurisation a permis d’engager des actions de surveillance intensive et d’affirmer ainsi l’autorité de l’Etat sur l’ensemble du parc. - Principales décisions (ou absence de prise de décisions) ayant freiné l'exécution du projet Le retard accusé pour la signature de l’arrêté modificatif du budget 2013 a fortement perturbé la bonne marche du projet. - Suivi du projet au niveau des ministères de tutelle et/ou des agences d'exécution Le suivi externe de l’avancement du projet a été régulièrement assuré par le Ministère de tutelle et le Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances à travers les réunions, les sessions du Conseil de 58 gestion de l’OIPR et les revues de portefeuille qui ont permis de trouver des solutions aux difficultés majeures rencontrées. - Principales leçons à tirer Le Gouvernement a démontré sa capacité à développer des initiatives pour assurer la réussite du projet malgré l’enveloppe réduite et la situation sécuritaire fragile au démarrage du projet. 2.7 Evaluation de l'efficacité et de la qualité des relations entre la Banque mondiale et le Gouvernement durant l'exécution du projet Le projet a bénéficié de la synergie d’action et du climat convivial entre la Banque mondiale et le Gouvernement. La restructuration du projet, à travers la réallocation des fonds, la revue des indicateurs, l’élaboration du manuel de suivi évaluation et l’actualisation d’exécution du projet, pour une meilleure atteinte des objectifs, se sont réalisées de façon concertée et constructive. Les Avis de Non objection (ANO), dans l’ensemble, ont été obtenus dans les délais impartis. La régularité des réunions de coordination et la flexibilité dans les prises de décision ont favorisé l’anticipation sur des situations de blocage de certaines activités. 2.8 Evaluation des performances des différentes institutions, bureaux d'études et consultants ayant participé à la réalisation du projet (coûts, bénéfices) 2.8.1. Cabinet Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) Le PWC a réalisé deux missions d’audit des comptes du projet pour les exercices 2010 et 2011. Les rapports d’audit ont été remis dans les délais prescrits par le contrat. 2.8.2. Cabinet KPMG Le Cabinet KPMG a réalisé deux missions d’audit des comptes du projet pour les exercices 2012 et 2013. Les rapports d’audit ont été remis dans les délais prescrits par le contrat. 2.8.3. Convention OIPR et WCF Une convention entre l’OIPR et la WCF a été signée à l’entrée en vigueur du projet pour le suivi écologique du PNC. Les rapports des activités de suivi écologique, jugés satisfaisants, sont disponibles. 2.8.4. Convention avec les organisations locales Plusieurs conventions ont été signées avec des ONG locales, des associations villageoises et des radios locales pour mener des activités de reprofilage, d’entretien manuel des pistes, de gestion de terroirs et de sensibilisation des populations. La mise en œuvre de ces conventions a connu des difficultés liées à la production, par les prestataires, de documents administratifs et financiers nécessaires au règlement des prestations. Cette difficulté a été résolue après plusieurs séances de travail avec ces prestataires qui ont dû régulariser leur existence administrative auprès des autorités compétentes. 2.8.5. Les Entrepreneurs et Fournisseurs Plusieurs entrepreneurs locaux ont contribué à la réhabilitation de bâtiments à usage de bureau et l’entretien des pistes du parc. La plupart des contrats ont été exécutés dans les délais impartis, et la qualité des ouvrages est jugée satisfaisante. Les fournisseurs, au nombre de la trentaine ont respecté dans l’ensemble leurs délais contractuels, et leurs fournitures sont de bonne qualité. 2.8.6. Les consultants Le projet a engagé un Chef de projet chargé de la planification, un comptable et un spécialiste en passation de marchés en 2010. En outre, des assistants en gestion financière et passation des marchés ont renforcé pendant 2 ans l’équipe fiduciaire du projet. Les performances de ces consultants sont appréciables dans l’ensemble. Il est toutefois important de noter que le Chef de Projet a joué plus un rôle de suivi et d’évaluation de la mise en œuvre du projet qu’un rôle 59 de coordination et de gestion du projet. Cette action a été plutôt assurée par le Coordonnateur du projet qui n’était autre que le Directeur Général de l’OIPR. La mise à jour du PAG du PNC a nécessité le recrutement d’un consultant dont l’intervention est jugée satisfaisante. 2.8.7. Le Gouvernement Le Gouvernement a fait preuve d’une performance acceptable dans l’exécution du projet surtout au niveau du maintien de sa contribution financière et de la prise en main du parc. Les procédures d’acquisition des biens et services de la Banque ont été respectées par le Gouvernement. L’unité de coordination du projet a régulièrement adressé à la Banque les rapports d’exécution. 3. Evaluation économique et financière du projet 3.1 Coût total du projet - Prévisions de départ et coûts réels pour les différentes composantes et catégories de dépenses du projet L’appui du FEM, de 2,54 millions $US, n’a pas varié à la suite d’une réallocation des ressources par catégories lors de la prorogation du projet. Le tableau 1 ci-dessous résume les coûts par composantes et par catégories de dépenses. Tableau 2 : Situation des décaissements IDA en $US au 31 décembre 2014 du PARC-CI Description de la catégorie Initial Alloué Décaissé Non décaissé Totaux 2 540 000 2 133 453,03 406 546,97 Travaux, Services des consultants (y compris 1 les audits), Formation, Coûts opérationnels pour 1 300 000 1 380 000 1 117 257,93 262 742,07 les Composantes 1 (a), 2 (a), 3 et 4 du Projet Travaux, Services des consultants (y compris 2 les audits), Formation, Coûts opérationnels pour 313 000 313 000 248 134,47 64 865,53 la Composante 1 (b) 3 Travaux pour la Composante 2 (b) du Projet 247 000 187 000 124 779,39 62 220,61 Travaux, Services des consultants, Formation, 4 680 000 660 000 470 103,55 189 896,45 la Composante 2 (c) du Projet DA-A Avance au Compte Désigné 0.00 173 177,69 173 177,69 Source : Dépenses effectives enregistrées (client connection) à la date du 31/12/14 Les décaissements ont commencé en fin mars 2010, trois mois après la date d’entrée en vigueur du Don. À la date du 31 décembre 2014, le montant global des décaissements du don IDA s’élève à 2,133 millions $US, soit un taux de décaissement de 84%. Ce taux sera de 92,13% en fin avril2015 lorsque les règlements en cours seront finalisés. Le montant non décaissé s’élèvera à 199 814,64 $US (7,83%). - Valeur et niveau de recouvrement de la contrepartie du Gouvernement Suivant les termes de l’accord de financement, la contrepartie de l’Etat devrait être de 1 760 000 $US dont 744 480 000 francs FCFA pour l’OIPR et à 140 000 $US pour la Fondation des Parcs et Réserves de Côte d’Ivoire. Ces fonds devraient couvrir les charges de fonctionnement de la Coordination (prise en charges des agents de l’Etat, charges d’abonnements, dépenses de terrain etc.). Les ressources mobilisées par l’Etat se sont élevées à 632 228 267 FCFA, soit un taux de réalisation effectif de 85% en ce qui concerne l’OIPR. Les décaissements et le niveau de recouvrement de la contrepartie du Gouvernement s’élèvent respectivement à 578 863 512 FCFA (taux de décaissement de 91%) et à 584 147 950 FCFA sur (soit un taux de 92%). 3.2 Coûts récurrents engendrés par le projet et ayant un impact sur le budget de l'Etat 60 La mise en œuvre du projet a engendré des coûts récurrents qui auront un impact budgétaire sur le budget de l’Etat. Il s’agit : - des primes de missions et des équipements techniques de patrouille pour assurer la continuité de la surveillance ; - des frais de rémunération du personnel et agent de l’Etat intervenant sur le projet durant la période de grâce pour assurer la clôture du projet ; - des frais d’entretien et de réparation des véhicules acquis dans le cadre du projet ; - des frais de fonctionnement de la direction en charge du parc. 3.3 Conséquences prévisibles de la fin du projet sur les structures institutionnelles mises en place dans le cadre du projet La fin du projet entraîne inéluctablement la fin des organes de pilotage et de gestion du projet (Comité de pilotage, l’Unité de coordination, la cellule d’exécution). Mais les entités d’appui (AVCD, Comité de gestion locale) devraient être pérennisées en raison de leurs actions pour la conservation du parc. 3.4 Principales leçons à tirer Le projet a constitué une occasion opportune pour les responsables des parcs nationaux et réserves de se familiariser avec les méthodes et procédures en matière de gestion de projet. Il permet également à l’OIPR et la Fondation d’être plus opérationnels pour les projets futurs. Le projet a permis de restaurer l’autorité de l’Etat et d’améliorer les conditions pour assurer la protection du parc. En définitive, le projet a permis de relancer les activités de gestion le Parc national de la Comoé. 4. Perspectives pour la pérennisation des acquis Pour consolider les acquis et surtout les pérenniser, il convient de : - développer des projets d’envergure de conservation des parcs nationaux et réserves à travers le mécanisme de financement existant afin de consolider et pérenniser les acquis de ce projet pilote ; - apporter une assistance plus accrue aux populations riveraines du Parc national de la Comoé et des autres aires protégées. L’intervention consisterait à mettre l’accent sur les investissements d’envergure ou communautaires devant permettre aux populations d’adapter leurs besoins dans un environnement modifié par les effets des changements climatiques ; 5. Conclusion Le PARC-CI a été conçu et mis en œuvre pour apporter une réponse à la dégradation des aires protégées de Côte d’Ivoire. Le choix du Parc national de la Comoé, dont les populations de faune ont été réduites de façon drastique durant les deux dernières décennies, constituait un site pilote idéal pour relancer la conservation. Le projet, à travers les résultats obtenus, a réalisé de belles performances de manière générale. Sa mise en œuvre a non seulement permis de restaurer l’autorité de l’Etat sur ce parc mais également de freiner le processus d’érosion de sa diversité biologique. Sur onze (11) indicateurs clés du projet, 7 ont été entièrement atteints. Pour ce qui est de la principale menace, notamment le braconnage, qui pesait sur les ressources fauniques, le projet a permis de réduire de 74% les indices par rapport à son niveau de 2010. Il a, également permis de freiner la transhumance des animaux domestiques à un taux de 98,9% comparativement son niveau de 2010. En dehors du buffle, de l’éléphant et du lion pour lesquels des études spécifiques devraient être diligentées pour confirmer les tendances, les populations de bubales et de cobs connaissent une augmentation appréciable. Par ailleurs, le projet a doté l’OIPR d’une masse d’agents susceptibles d’assurer le pilotage de la gestion durable des aires protégées. Il a également amélioré la capacité de mobilisation des 61 ressources de la Fondation dont les performances ont été au-delà des prévisions. Bien qu’ayant produit des résultats satisfaisants, le projet a été confronté à des difficultés notamment le retrait des fonds destinés à la composante 3. Pour pérenniser les acquis du projet, la partie ivoirienne propose qu’une assistance soit envisagée à l’effet : - de développer des projets d’envergure de conservation des parcs nationaux et réserves à travers le mécanisme de financement existant afin de consolider et pérenniser les acquis de ce projet pilote ; - d’apporter une assistance plus accrue aux populations riveraines du Parc national de la Comoé et des autres aires protégées. L’intervention consisterait à mettre l’accent sur les investissements d’envergure ou communautaires devant permettre aux populations d’adapter leurs besoins dans un environnement modifié par les effets des changements climatiques ; 62 Annex 7. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders None received. 63 Annex 8. List of Supporting Documents 1. Project documents  Project Appraisal Document for Côte d’Ivoire Protected Area Project (PARC-CI); Report No: 46322-CI, April 7, 2008  Global Environment Facility Grant Agreement between Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development acting as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility; GEF Grant Number TF 094483, July 21, 2009  Global Environment Facility, Project Agreement between International Bank for Reconstruction and Development acting as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility and Fondation des Parcs et Réserves de Côte d’Ivoire, GEF Grant Number TF 094483, July 21, 2009  Restructuring Paper on proposed project restructuring of Côte d’Ivoire Protected Area Project; Report No: RES11636, August 7, 2013  Project Implementation Manual version initial and update: Manuel d’exécution du projet, Mars 2010 et Aout 2014  Resettlement Process Framework (RPF), PR688 “Cadre de Politique de Réinstallation Involontaires des Populations”, 2008  Environmental and Social Impact Assessement (ESIA), E1931, “Evaluation d’Impact Environnemental et Social”, March 2008 2. Mission reports  Aide-Mémoire de mission préparatoire du PCGAP, Janvier 27 – Février 16, 2008  Aide-Mémoire de la mission de réévaluation/évaluation du PARC-CI Côte d’Ivoire, Juin 9 – 28, 2008  Desktop Aide-Mémoire based on SMO for mission planned for December 5-10, 2010  Aide-Mémoire, November 14 - 21, 2011  Aide-Mémoire de la mission d’appui a la mise en oeuvre du PARC-CI Côte d’Ivoire, Mai 21 – 29, 2012  Aide-Mémoire de revue a mi-parcours du PARC-CI Côte d’Ivoire, Décembre 8 – 14, 2012  Aide-Mémoire de la mission de supervision du PARC-CI Côte d’Ivoire, Octobre 1 – 9, 2013 3. Fiduciary reports  Audit reports covering 2010 – 2013  IFRs: Rapport de suivi financier du PARC-CI trimestriel 2011, 2012, 2013 4. WB documents  GEF Project Identification Form (PIF), December 12, 2007  Minutes of the PCN Review Meeting, January 24th, 2008  Minutes of Quality Enhancement Review for PARC-CI, June 3, 2008  Implementation Status Reports (number 1 to 10)  Post Procurement Review March 2012 (Gnoleba Meguhe)  FM Supervision report 10/2014  WB Implementation Completion and Results Report on a Credit in the Amount of SDR 29.6 Million to the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire for a Rural Land Management and Community Infrastructure Development Project, No. ICR00001525, February 8, 2011 64 5. OIPR and FPRCI documents Project management  Revised COSTAB, February 2010  OIPR Project annual progress reports 2010 – 2014  OIPR Project second semestrial report 2014, January 2015  OIPR Mid-term review report: Rapport a mi-parcours du PARC-CI, 2010-2012, November 2012  OIPR Evaluation of community engagement efforts at project closure: Collecte des données du PARC-CI relatives a la proportion des communautés riveraines impliquées de manière effective dans la préparation et l’implémentation du plan de gestion du PNC et la proportion de populations riveraines du PNC recevant les émissions radio des activités du projet, Charles Kapie, Décembre 2014  OIPR Final evaluation report: Evaluation finale du Projet PARC-CI, Yves Joël Dirabout, Janvier 2015 Project outputs  OIPR CNP surveillance strategy, March 2012  OIPR Community Engagement Manual: Manuel d’exécution des Mesures Riveraines, Novembre 2012 (version provisoire)  OIPR METT CNP 2012 and 2014  OIPR and WCF Pedestrial Survey Report: Rapport de l’inventaire pédestre de la faune (Mars – Aout 2012)  OIPR and WCF Aerial Survey Report: Rapport de l’inventaire faunique par survol du 17 au 24 avril 2014, Juin 2014  OIPR CNP Management plan: Plan d’aménagement et de gestion du PNC, période 2015 – 2024 5. Other relevant documents  RCI: Cinquième Rapport National sur la Diversité Biologique, Mars 2014  GIZ baseline studies (2010) related to CNP fauna and habitat, infrastructure and socio-economic situation  OIPR UNESCO WHS report: Etat de conservation du PNC Côte d’Ivoire, Janvier 2015  Parks Vol 14 No 1 War and Protected Areas 2004: Frauke Fischer: Status of the Comoé National Park, Côte d’Ivoire, and the effects of war  RCI: Loi no2 2002-102 du 11 février 2002 relative a la création, à la gestion et au financement des parcs nationaux et des réserves naturelles  RCI: Décret No 2002-359 du 24 juillet 2002 portant création, organisation et fonctionnement de l’Office Ivoirien des parcs et réserves  Protocole portant composition et fonctionnement du comite inter-état de mise en oeuvre de l’accord de coopération pour la conservation des ressources naturelles partagées entre le Gouvernement du Burkina Faso et le Gouvernement de la République de Côte d’Ivoire  Biodiversity Atlas of West Africa, Volume III, Cote d’Ivoire, BIOTA, Soluleymane Konate and Dorothea Kampmann (eds.) 2010  USAID: Biodiversity Conservation and Crisis, Key Issues for Consideration, November 2008 65 MAP 66