57532 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) March 2009 Evaluation Office G LOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) March 2009 (The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in November 2008.) Evaluation Report No. 45 © 2009 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Internet: www.gefeo.org Email: gefevaluation@thegef.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF Council or the governments they represent. The GEF Evaluation Office does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi- nations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The GEF encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. ISBN-10: 1-933992-20-4 ISBN-13: 978-1-933992-20-4 [Note that the ISBN for this publication was corrected June 2009 and consequently differs from that in the printed version.] Credits Director of the GEF Evaluation Office: Robert D. van den Berg Task Manager: Lee Alexander Risby, Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Team: Kai Schmidt-Soltau, Paolo Cerutti, Julius Chupezi-Tieguhong, and Joachim Nguieboouri, consultants Editing and design: Nita Congress Printing: Professional Graphics Printing Co. Cover photo: "The Road to Results," Paolo Cerutti. Evaluation Report No. 45 A FREE PUBLICATION Contents En Français avant-propos.............................................................................................................................. F-1 remerciements .......................................................................................................................... F-3 1. Principales conclusions et recommandations ...................................................................F-4 1.1 Contexte ........................................................................................................................................................ F-4 1.2 Méthodologie .............................................................................................................................................. F-5 1.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. F-6 1.4 Recommandations.................................................................................................................................... F-10 1.5 Questions émergentes concernant le DAR ........................................................................................ F-12 Notes .................................................................................................................................................................... F-12 EnGLisH Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... i acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... iii abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... iv 1. Main Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Evaluation Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Emerging Issues Relating to the RAF......................................................................................................... 8 Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Evaluation Framework .......................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Key Questions ............................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.4 Scope of the Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.5 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 iii 2.6 Implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 3. Context of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Country Context ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Environmental Resources in GEF Focal Areas ...................................................................................... 16 3.3 Environmental Legal Framework ............................................................................................................. 22 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon ............................................................................................ 26 4.1 Portfolio Breakdown .................................................................................................................................... 26 4.2 GEF Support in the Context of Total ODA ............................................................................................ 34 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon .................................................................................. 36 5.1 Potential Results of Projects under Implementation ........................................................................... 36 5.2 Catalytic Effects ............................................................................................................................................ 45 5.3 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................. 46 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50 6. relevance of GEF support to Cameroon ............................................................................. 51 6.1 Integration of the GEF into National Sustainable Development ...................................................... 51 6.2 GEF Funding and Ownership .................................................................................................................... 53 6.3 RAF Relevance to Cameroon .................................................................................................................... 54 6.4 GEF Support for Environmental Action Plans ...................................................................................... 56 6.5 Relevance of GEF Support for Global Environmental Benefits......................................................... 57 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 58 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon ......................................................... 59 7.1 Time and Effort Needed to Develop and Implement a Project ......................................................... 59 7.2 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities in Project Implementation ................................................. 65 7.3 The GEF Operational Focal Point and National Committee ............................................................. 67 7.4 Lessons Learned across GEF Projects ..................................................................................................... 68 7.5 Synergies among GEF Stakeholders and Projects................................................................................. 69 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 69 annexes A. Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................................... 71 B. Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................................................................ 80 C. Project Interview Guide ................................................................................................................................ 83 D. GEF Portfolio in Cameroon.......................................................................................................................... 88 E. Documents Reviewed and Works Cited .................................................................................................... 93 F. Interviewees ....................................................................................................................................................108 G. Workshop Participants ................................................................................................................................111 H. Country Response ........................................................................................................................................113 iv GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Boxes 5.1 Physical and Economical Displacement from National Parks Supported by the GEF ................ 39 5.2 GEF SGP Acts against Corruption .......................................................................................................... 47 5.3 Mixed Outcomes in Working with Stakeholders.................................................................................. 48 5.4 Some Benefits, Some Negatives, at Lobéké National Park ................................................................. 49 Figures 3.1 National CO2 Emissions between 1950­2004 ....................................................................................... 18 4.1 GEF National Projects in Cameroon by Focal Area and Modality ................................................... 28 4.2 GEF Funding for National Projects in Cameroon by Agency and Focal Area ............................... 28 4.3 GEF Funding for National Projects in Cameroon by Executing Agency and Focal Area ........... 29 4.4 GEF Funding for Regional and Global Projects Including Cameroon by GEF Agency and Focal Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 4.5 GEF Funding for Cameroon Projects by Replenishment Period and Focal Area ......................... 31 4.6 ODA to Cameroon between 1990 and 2006 .......................................................................................... 34 4.7 National Funding for Cameroon's Key Ministries in the Environmental Sector .......................... 35 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle ....................................................................................................................................... 60 7.2 Average Duration of Activity Cycle for Cameroon Projects by GEF Agency ................................ 62 7.3 Flow of Funds for Implementation of Microprojects under the Lake Chad Project .................... 64 Tables 1.1 GEF National Projects in Cameroon by Focal Area and Funding ...................................................... 1 3.1 Estimates of Biodiversity in Cameroon ................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Main Sources of Gas Emissions in Cameroon....................................................................................... 18 3.3 International Environmental Conventions and Agreements Ratified by Cameroon................... 23 4.1 GEF-Supported Projects in Cameroon Included in the Evaluation ................................................. 27 4.2 Main Activities of Evaluated National and Regional/Global Projects in Cameroon, by Focal Area and Modality ....................................................................................................................... 32 4.3 GEF Funding to Cameroon by GEF Phase, Focal Area, and Agency ............................................... 33 4.4 Cofinancing/GEF Contribution Ratio by GEF Phase .......................................................................... 33 4.5 National Funding for the Environmental Sector in Cameroon ......................................................... 34 5.1 Microprojects under the Lake Chad Basin and Niger River Basin Projects Visited by the Evaluation Team ................................................................................................................. 44 6.1 Relevance of GEF-Supported Projects to Cameroon Action Plans, Strategies, and Programs . 56 6.2 Relevance of GEF-Supported Projects to International Environmental Conventions and Treaties ............................................................................................................................................................ 57 7.1 Duration of Activity Cycle in GEF-Supported FSPs in Cameroon .................................................. 60 7.2 Duration of Activity Cycle in GEF-Supported Enabling Activities in Cameroon......................... 61 7.3 Duration of Activity Cycle in GEF-Supported Regional and Global Projects in Cameroon ..... 62 7.4 Planned and Actual Durations of National and Regional Projects in Cameroon ......................... 63 7.5 Management Costs for the Lake Chad Project: Simplified Matrix .................................................. 65 Contents v avant-propos Le présent rapport est le septième d'une série important des ressources qui sont allouées à la d'examens de portefeuilles-pays (EPP) réalisés préservation de sa biodiversité au titre du Dis- par le Bureau de l'évaluation du Fonds pour l'en- positif d'allocation des ressources. La présente vironnement mondial (FEM). Ces évaluations évaluation aurait dû être intégrée au Rapport de portent sur la totalité de l'aide du FEM au niveau l'examen annuel de portefeuilles-pays présenté d'un pays, tous programmes et Entités d'exécution au Conseil du FEM en avril 2008. Mais, lors de la confondus. Globalement, ces études visent à : 1) présentation du projet de rapport à Yaoundé en évaluer dans quelle mesure les activités financées février 2008, les différents acteurs concernés ont par le FEM s'inscrivent dans le cadre des stratégies émis de sérieuses réserves sur la qualité de la par- et priorités nationales et des grands défis écolo- tie du rapport consacrée aux constatations sur la giques au coeur de la mission de l'institution ; 2) viabilité à long terme et les effets sociaux néfas- évaluer le mode d'exécution et les résultats des tes des projets de préservation de la biodiversité. activités financées par le FEM. Le Bureau de l'évaluation s'est engagé à reformu- ler le rapport en tant que de besoin, à revoir les Les examens de portefeuilles-pays sont réalisés en constatations et à effectuer des enquêtes supplé- totalité et de manière indépendante par le Bureau mentaires dans le sud-est du pays, afin d'élargir la de l'évaluation, et, si possible en partenariat avec portée des vérifications faites sur place et d'amé- d'autres bureaux d'évaluation des Entités d'exé- liorer la qualité générale du rapport. Le document cution du FEM, des administrations nationales et préliminaire a été de nouveau présenté au comité des organisations non gouvernementales. national de coordination des activités du FEM et La présente évaluation fait partie d'une série à d'autres acteurs de la société civile et chercheurs d'examens de portefeuilles-pays qui portent sur lors d'un atelier qui a eu lieu à Limbé vers la fin du l'aide que le FEM apporte à l'Afrique subsaha- mois de juin 2008. C'est donc avec plaisir que nous rienne. D'autres évaluations ont été réalisées au notons que le travail supplémentaire réalisé a per- Bénin, à Madagascar et en Afrique du Sud. Plu- mis d'améliorer la qualité de l'évaluation dans son sieurs critères ont présidé au choix du Came- ensemble. Les travaux de Limbé étaient très enri- roun, notamment la taille de son portefeuille, chissants et, bien que des divergences d'interpré- son statut de réserve mondiale de biodiversité, la tation subsistaient, les constatations présentées formule originale de l'aide budgétaire pour finan- ci-après ont été, dans l'ensemble, bien reçues par cer le Programme sectoriel forêts et environne- le comité national de coordination des activités du ment au moyen de l'aide budgétaire et le volume FEM. F-1 Nous sommes parvenus à la conclusion que le terme de l'environnement. Nous constatons que le FEM contribuait de manière positive à la préser- Cameroun a désormais la possibilité de s'attaquer vation de la biodiversité d'importance mondiale aux principaux problèmes environnementaux liés qu'abrite le pays, et en particulier au renforcement à la biodiversité des forêts et à la dégradation des et à l'élargissement de son réseau d'aires proté- sols par le biais du Programme sectoriel forêts et gées. Le FEM a plus particulièrement contribué au environnement (PSFE), du Programme de micro- renforcement du régime de protection des forêts financements et du Projet de gestion durable des tropicales du Cameroun. Il a également permis au écosystèmes agro-pastoraux et des sols. pays de commencer à s'attaquer à d'autres problè- La réponse du Gouvernement camerounais à mes environnementaux, tels que la dégradation l'évaluation figure en annexe au présent rapport. des sols, l'adaptation au changement climatique Nous souhaitons que cette évaluation incite le et la prévention des risques biotechnologiques. En Gouvernement à renforcer davantage le secteur outre, l'aide du FEM correspond bien au caractère de l'environnement et sa collaboration avec le mondial du mandat de l'institution ainsi qu'aux FEM à l'avenir. Les résultats de la présente éva- politiques et plans nationaux. Toutefois, malgré luation seront intégrés dans le deuxième rapport ces aspects positifs, nous avons relevé plusieurs de l'examen annuel de portefeuilles-pays qui sera problèmes, à commencer par des lacunes dans présenté au Conseil du FEM en juin 2008. la gestion financière, notamment des cas de cor- ruption, les problèmes récurrents de capacités au sein des administrations nationales et locales qui réduisent leur aptitude à oeuvrer efficacement en faveur de la protection de l'environnement, ainsi que l'insuffisance des incitations socioéconomi- Rob D. van den Berg ques permettant d'assurer la protection à long Directeur du Bureau de l'évaluation F-2 Examen de portefeuilles-pays du FEM : Cameroun (1992­2007) remerciements Le présent rapport a été préparé sous la direction Une version préliminaire de ce document a été de Lee Alexander Risby, chargé d'évaluation au présentée à Yaoundé le 15 février 2008 aux diffé- Bureau de l'évaluation du FEM, par une équipe rentes parties prenantes, à savoir les représentants constituée de quatre consultants : Kai Schmidt- du Gouvernement, les Entités d'exécution du FEM, Soltau, Paolo Cerutti, Julius Chupezi-Tieguhong les organisations non gouvernementales et d'autres et Joachim Nguieboouri. acteurs de la société civile. Les avis recueillis lors de cet atelier nous ont amenés à entreprendre des étu- L'administration camerounaise, en particulier des supplémentaires, notamment sur le terrain, qui Justin Nantchou du ministère de l'Environnement ont débouché sur la version finale révisée présentée et de la Protection de la nature et point focal tech- à Limbé le 24 juin 2008. Nous tenons tout particu- nique du FEM, a été très coopérative et a parti- lièrement à exprimer notre reconnaissance à Sékou cipé activement à la présente évaluation. Nous Touré, commissaire au règlement des conflits du remercions aussi le Centre de recherche forestière FEM, qui a animé ce dernier atelier. internationale (CIFOR Cameroun) et la Banque mondiale pour le soutien logistique qu'ils nous Le Bureau de l'évaluation assume l'entière respon- ont fourni. sabilité du contenu du présent document. F-3 1. Principales conclusions et recommandations 1.1 Contexte Dans la logique du cadre de référence et de l'ob- Le Cameroun fait partie du FEM depuis la phase jet général des examens de portefeuilles-pays du pilote en 1992, époque à laquelle le Fonds a fourni FEM, les objectifs particuliers de l'évaluation de un financement à l'appui de la préparation du Pro- l'aide du FEM au Cameroun étaient les suivants : jet de préservation et de gestion de la biodiversité z évaluer de façon indépendante la pertinence et (GEF ID 85). Depuis lors, le Cameroun a pris part l'efficacité de l'aide du FEM sous les angles sui- à neuf autres projets nationaux auxquels le FEM vants : dispositifs nationaux et mécanismes de a contribué à hauteur de 25,25 millions de dollars décision dans le domaine de l'environnement ; au total. Comme l'illustre le tableau 1.1 ci-après, mandat du FEM et effets positifs sur l'environ- environ 71 % des ressources du FEM ont servi à nement mondial ; et politiques et procédures financer des projets dans le domaine d'interven- du FEM ; tion « diversité biologique », 25 % dans le domaine z évaluer l'efficacité et les résultats des projets d'intervention « dégradation des sols » et 1 % et achevés et en cours dans chaque domaine d'in- 2 % respectivement dans les domaines « chan- tervention ; gements climatiques » et « polluants organiques z partager les réactions et les acquis avec : 1) le persistants » (POP). Le Cameroun participe à 19 Conseil du FEM dans le cadre de son méca- projets régionaux et mondiaux dans les domaines nisme de décision sur l'allocation des ressources d'intervention « eaux internationales », « diversité et l'élaboration des politiques et des stratégies ; biologique » et « changements climatiques ». 2) le pays du point de vue de son association Tableau 1.1 avec le FEM ; 3) et les Entités d'exécution et les organisations participant à l'élaboration et à la aide du FEM au Cameroun, par domaine d'intervention mise en oeuvre des projets financés par le FEM. Financement du % du Le Cameroun a été retenu notamment pour les Domaine d'intervention FEM (UsD M) total raisons suivantes : la taille de son portefeuille lié à Diversité biologique 18,24 71,35 la biodiversité et axé sur la préservation des forêts, Changements climatiques 0,27 1,00 la formule originale de l'aide budgétaire pour Dégradation des sols 6,35 25,00 financer les projets, l'importance des ressources POP 0,49 1,90 affectées à la biodiversité dans le cadre du Dispo- Activités intersectorielles 0,20 0,75 sitif d'allocation des ressources (DAR) ; et son sta- Total 25,55 100,00 tut de réserve mondiale de biodiversité. F-4 1.2 Méthodologie z L'examen du portefeuille-pays est un exercice difficile, car les projets du FEM ne s'organisent L'examen du portefeuille du Cameroun a été réa- pas autour d'un programme national assorti lisé entre septembre 2007 et avril 2008 par une d'objectifs, d'indicateurs et de cibles pour mesu- équipe du Bureau de l'évaluation du FEM et qua- rer les résultats attendus ; tre consultants ayant une connaissance approfon- die du secteur de l'environnement au Cameroun. z Il est difficile d'isoler les résultats directement La méthodologie incluait une série de compo- attribuables au FEM. Nous n'avons donc pas santes combinant des méthodes de collecte de cherché à attribuer au FEM l'impact de certai- données qualitatives et quantitatives et des outils nes activités sur le développement, mais à exa- normalisés d'analyse. Des documents de différen- miner la contribution du Fonds aux résultats tes sources (projets, gouvernement, société civile, pris dans leur ensemble ; Entités d'exécution du FEM, etc.) ont été utilisés z L'évaluation des résultats est axée, dans la pour jeter les bases de l'évaluation. La qualité de mesure du possible, sur les effets et les impacts ces documents a été préalablement examinée. plutôt que sur les produits ; Pour l'analyse quantitative, des indicateurs ont servi à évaluer l'efficacité de l'aide du FEM, les z L'évaluation des impacts des initiatives finan- projets étant pris comme unités d'analyse (délais cées par le FEM n'est pas un processus simple : et coûts de préparation et d'exécution des projets, de nombreux projets ne précisent pas claire- par exemple). Nous avons utilisé des outils et pro- ment ou suffisamment les impacts ni même tocoles types que nous avons adaptés au contexte parfois les effets attendus. La présente évalua- du Cameroun. Un certain nombre de projets ont tion se limitant à des sources de données secon- été sélectionnés pour des visites de site selon des daires, il n'a pas été possible de rassembler des critères d'achèvement, d'approches utilisées pour données primaires pour compléter les rapports le projet ou pour ses composantes, d'accessibilité, de projet ou mettre en évidence les impacts ou de temps et de ressources limitées. les effets des activités ; Notre évaluation porte essentiellement sur neuf z Les résultats dont il est fait état proviennent de projets « nationaux », c'est-à-dire exécutés sur le diverses sources ; certains découlent d'une éva- territoire camerounais, et 11 projets régionaux luation externe et d'autres sont tirés de rapports dont 5 sur les eaux internationales, auxquels le de projet et d'entrevues internes ; pays a participé. Ces projets ont été choisis parce z Nous avons fait beaucoup d'efforts pour ras- qu'ils ont connu une forte adhésion au niveau du sembler un ensemble de données claires et fia- pays. L'évaluation complète de la pertinence des bles sur les projets et les documents qui y sont résultats globaux et de l'efficacité des projets régio- liés ; les données disponibles, notamment la naux par rapport à leurs coûts sort du cadre du liste des projets du portefeuille du FEM, sont présent examen de portefeuille-pays, qui n'analyse divergentes, incomplètes et disparates ; que les composantes camerounaises. Les projets nationaux et régionaux en cours de préparation z Les avis des acteurs concernés sur une version ont été exclus de cette évaluation. préliminaire du présent rapport, donnés par écrit ou exprimés pendant l'atelier de consulta- La réalisation des examens de portefeuilles-pays tion qui a eu lieu le 15 février 2008, ont été pris est limitée par plusieurs facteurs : en compte lors de la finalisation des conclusions 1. Principales conclusions et recommandations F-5 et des recommandations, mais aussi des consta- en promouvant le développement par des mesu- tations, présentées aux chapitres 5, 6 et 7 sur res visant à améliorer l'exploitation forestière. lesquels elles se fondent. Administré par la Banque mondiale, le Projet de 1.3 Conclusions préservation et de gestion de la biodiversité (GEF ID 85) a joué un rôle moteur, jetant les bases du résultats et efficacité du portefeuille PSFE, notamment en continuant à développer le dispositif d'aires protégées. S'agissant du Pro- Conclusion 1 : Le portefeuille du FEM est de gramme de microfinancements, les deux premiers nature à avoir un impact positif de portée mon- diale sur la préservation de la biodiversité. Des projets financés au milieu des années 90 ont per- effets salutaires sont visibles au niveau local, mis d'introduire l'apiculture et la domestication mais ils n'incitent pas encore suffisamment à de plantes indigènes autres que les produits fores- préserver ce patrimoine. tiers ligneux sur les hauts-plateaux de Bamenda. L'aide du FEM a beaucoup contribué à la planifica- L'objectif était d'encourager la préservation des tion initiale, puis à l'élargissement et à la gestion forêts et de permettre aux acteurs locaux d'adop- du dispositif d'aires protégées du Cameroun, per- ter des méthodes d'exploitation éprouvées, qui mettant notamment de renforcer la consultation ont depuis été transposées dans des centaines de des acteurs concernés et d'améliorer le recueil villages. D'autre part, l'ONG associée à la culture et la gestion des données dans le domaine de la de produits forestiers non ligneux (Heifer Inter- préservation de la biodiversité. Elle a également national) a diffusé les enseignements tirés de cette permis de sensibiliser les populations locales à expérience à travers l'ensemble de son réseau. ces questions. Mais des progrès restent à faire, Les projets financés par le FEM dans le domaine surtout pour ce qui est des forêts communautai- de la préservation de la biodiversité qui étaient res, outil de renforcement de la préservation de la achevés ont permis de créer diverses incitations à biodiversité par les populations locales et de par- l'échelle locale, telles que la possibilité d'exploiter tage des avantages économiques et autres qui en légalement des ressources comme le bois d'oeuvré résultent. et l'écorce de Prunus africana, la chasse com- L'aide du FEM a plus particulièrement permis de merciale (dans les parcs des savanes du Nord), la mieux faire connaître l'importance de la préserva- chasse de subsistance (à Campo Ma'an et à Lobéké, tion de la biodiversité et de jeter les bases de la par exemple), l'écotourisme à petite échelle, et création de 24 300 km2 d'aires protégées, dont 5 d'autres activités, telles que la récolte et la produc- parcs nationaux, 44 unités de gestion de proximité tion de miel. Il s'agissait d'essayer de trouver une des ressources naturelles et 39 forêts communau- formule qui limiterait l'accès aux ressources tout taires. La formule des aires protégées a été trans- en proposant des mesures de compensation pour posée à l'échelle nationale et régionale et pourrait fournir des moyens de subsistance. Toutefois, plu- renforcer le régime de préservation d'un espace sieurs de ces mécanismes, tels que les forêts com- de 300 000 km2. En outre, le PSFE financé par la munautaires et l'écotourisme, ne fonctionnent pas Banque mondiale, les bailleurs d'aide bilatérale et de manière efficace, n'étant pas encore à même le FEM est à même d'avoir des effets positifs dura- d'inciter suffisamment les populations concernées bles sur l'état environnemental de la planète et à soutenir la préservation de la biodiversité. En d'inciter davantage à préserver la biodiversité tout outre, nous avons relevé des risques importants de F-6 Examen de portefeuilles-pays du FEM : Cameroun (1992­2007)) déplacement d'activités économiques. Ces risques nouvelles sur les lisières des forêts et en finançant tiennent à l'application plus stricte de la législation les projets « Solutions de rechange à l'agriculture environnementale, une évolution qui s'explique sur brûlis » (GEF ID 277 et 390), administrés par par le renforcement de la capacité à gérer le dispo- le Programme des Nations Unies pour le dévelop- sitif d'aires protégées. pement (PNUD), qui ont conduit les décideurs à repenser les ressorts de l'utilisation des terres à l'in- Conclusion 2 : Le FEM aide le Cameroun à s'atta- terface forêt-agriculture en milieu tropical humide. quer à d'autres problèmes environnementaux, L'aide du FEM a permis au Cameroun de commu- en particulier dans les domaines d'intervention niquer toutes les informations requises par l'ensem- « eaux internationales » et « dégradation des ble des conventions ouvrant droit aux financements sols ». de l'institution. Certaines des activités habilitantes Dans le domaine des eaux internationales, les menées à cette fin, dans le domaine des polluants financements du FEM ont permis de resserrer la organiques persistants (POP), par exemple, sont en coordination intergouvernementale dans le golfe cours et les rapports auxquels elles doivent donner de Guinée, le bassin du lac Tchad et le bassin du lieu n'ont pas encore été déposés. Niger, de renforcer les capacités de divers acteurs, et de dresser bon nombre d'états des lieux à par- Conclusion 3 : La faible viabilité financière, tir desquels vont être préparés des plans d'action institutionnelle et socioéconomique met en danger les résultats du portefeuille du FEM au stratégiques. Les populations rurales accueillent Cameroun. favorablement les activités pilotes menées sur les sites témoins, même si la pertinence de certains Nous avons constaté que la gestion financière est microprojets de protection des eaux internatio- perfectible et que la viabilité financière demande nales n'est pas clairement établie. En outre, on ne un effort plus suivi de renforcement des capacités. peut affirmer à ce stade que tous les microprojets Les problèmes de gestion financière sont souvent sont viables à long terme ou qu'ils peuvent être liés à des capacités insuffisantes et à un manque transposés à plus grande échelle, les populations de contrôle, comme le montrent les rapports de locales s'identifiant peu à ces initiatives. plusieurs projets financés par le FEM et du fonds fiduciaire Cameroon Mountains Conservation L'aide du FEM à l'appui de la lutte contre la dégra- Foundation. Quelques mesures ont déjà été pri- dation des sols devrait permettre la définition et ses pour remédier à cette situation. Ainsi, le PSFE la diffusion de méthodes éprouvées de gestion comporte aujourd'hui un système de suivi et de durable des sols, le renforcement des capacités à gestion financière qui atténue le risque financier, l'échelon local et l'émergence d'un régime foncier et le Programme de microfinancements a été plus efficace au plan des coûts et des résultats. Le relancé en mettant davantage l'accent sur la viabi- Cameroun pourrait ainsi se doter d'un outil effi- lité financière et la justification comptable. cace de lutte contre la dégradation des sols et la désertification, mais la mise en oeuvre sur le ter- Les investissements réalisés dans le renforcement rain n'a pas encore démarré. des capacités au début du Projet de préservation et de gestion de la biodiversité et les activités Dans le domaine des changements climatiques, habilitantes menées depuis lors privilégient en les financements du FEM ont joué un rôle de cata- général l'échelon national. En revanche, à l'éche- lyseur en donnant accès à des données témoins lon régional et local, nous avons constaté que les 1. Principales conclusions et recommandations F-7 capacités du ministère de l'Environnement et de multipartite à long terme, permet de mobiliser les la Protection de la nature (MINEP) et du minis- pouvoirs publics, la société civile, le secteur privé tère des Forêts et de la Faune (MINFOF) sont et les populations locales pour s'atteler au pro- faibles, le premier étant encore moins bien armé blème de la gouvernance de l'environnement et de que le second. Les services compétents n'avaient l'insuffisance des investissements dans le secteur, donc guère la possibilité d'appuyer les initiatives et de remédier ainsi au manque de viabilité finan- importantes, comme les forêts communautaires cière, institutionnelle et socioéconomique. Cela à l'intérieur et à la périphérie des aires protégées. étant, il est encore trop tôt pour évaluer les résul- Ce constat confirme les conclusions de la Banque tats d'un programme qui n'a toujours pas atteint sa mondiale dans son audit technique du Projet de vitesse de croisière. préservation et de gestion de la biodiversité (Ban- que mondiale 2003a). L'aide des bailleurs de fonds Pertinence de l'aide du FEM et les financements publics n'ayant pas pris le relais, nous avons aussi constaté une dégradation Conclusion 4 : L'aide du FEM correspond bien de certains des résultats que ce projet avait per- aux objectifs environnementaux du Cameroun au plan national et international. mis d'obtenir en renforçant les capacités, au Jardin botanique de Limbé, par exemple. Cette situation Depuis le début des années 90, le Cameroun a met en évidence le lien qui existe entre la viabilité adopté un ensemble de lois et politiques environ- institutionnelle et la viabilité financière. nementales pour mieux protéger sa riche biodi- versité. Ainsi, l'élaboration des politiques de pré- La viabilité socioéconomique de la préservation servation des forêts tire parti des expériences du de la biodiversité pose des problèmes qui n'ont pas pays en matière de gestion communautaire et de encore été examinés sous tous les angles. Jusqu'ici, la participation des différentes parties prenantes les effets positifs locaux et/ou les incitations qui à l'effort de préservation. C'est dans ce contexte accompagnent les actions de préservation de la qu'ont été préparés les projets du FEM dans le biodiversité et de protection de l'environnement ne sont généralement pas d'un niveau suffisant domaine de la préservation de la biodiversité, pour encourager la majorité des populations rive- continuant à promouvoir l'élaboration de politi- raines des aires protégées à adhérer à cet effort. ques et de stratégies dans des secteurs, tels que la Il existe aujourd'hui de nombreuses possibilités prévention des risques biotechnologiques, l'adap- encore inexploitées, telles que le développement tation au changement climatique et la dégrada- du tourisme et le renforcement des moyens d'ac- tion des sols, répondant aux besoins du pays et tion des populations locales pour leur permettre l'aidant à s'acquitter des obligations qui lui incom- de gérer et exploiter efficacement les ressources bent au titre des conventions internationales sur forestières, contribuant par là même au recul de l'environnement. la pauvreté et à l'amélioration de l'état environ- Financé par le FEM, la Banque mondiale -- par son nemental de la planète. Par ailleurs, les mesures Don à l'appui de la politique de développement des visant à améliorer la gestion du dispositif d'aires secteurs forêt et environnement (GEF ID 1063) -- protégées et à le développer comportent un risque et par d'autres bailleurs d'aide bilatérale, le PSFE élevé de retombées socioéconomiques négatives. renforce la préservation des ressources forestiè- Du côté positif, le Programme sectoriel forêts res, mais favorise aussi leur exploitation durable. Il et environnement, objet d'une aide budgétaire pourrait aussi servir de modèle à l'harmonisation F-8 Examen de portefeuilles-pays du FEM : Cameroun (1992­2007)) de l'aide environnementale des bailleurs de fonds d'intervention du FEM trouvent confirmation dans les autres pays du bassin du Congo. Admi- au Cameroun : la complexité et l'inefficacité du nistré par la Banque mondiale, le Projet de gestion cycle des activités du FEM sont des obstacles à durable des écosystèmes agropastoraux et des l'élaboration des projets. sols, rattaché au Programme national de dévelop- La majorité des acteurs au Cameroun -- pouvoirs pement participatif du Cameroun (PNDP) (GEF publics, Entités d'exécution et ONG -- ont criti- ID 2549) exploite les synergies existant entre les qué le cycle des activités du FEM, appliqué aux incitations qui résultent de la création de moyens anciens projets. Ils ont notamment relevé les len- de subsistance locaux, le développement de proxi- teurs de l'instruction des demandes, les coûts de mité et la gestion plus efficace de l'environnement, transaction élevés en termes de ressources finan- dans le droit fil des priorités nationales et de l'ac- cières et humaines, et le manque de précisions et cent mis au plan international sur le développe- d'informations sur les raisons des retards. Le délai ment d'initiative locale. moyen d'instruction d'un projet national de grande envergure était de 3,6 ans, et la durée de son exé- Conclusion 5 : Le portefeuille du FEM cadre bien cution de 5,2 ans, soit 1,5 an de plus que prévu. On avec les priorités nationales et internationales, estime à environ 1 million de dollars le coût de la mais l'identification et la préparation des pro- préparation d'un projet de grande envergure, soit jets relèvent d'initiatives extérieures, et l'ad- près de trois fois le plafond officiel dans le cycle hésion plus active du pays aux actions menées d'activité précédent. Ces problèmes confirment reste problématique. les conclusions de la récente Évaluation conjointe En général, les idées de projets n'émanent pas du cycle des activités et des modes d'intervention des acteurs nationaux. Les promoteurs des pro- du FEM (GEF EO 2007b). jets sont généralement des Entités d'exécution du FEM et des organisations non gouvernementales Conclusion 7 : Les mécanismes de gestion du internationales. Le gouvernement joue un rôle savoir et de prise en compte des enseigne- plus passif, recevant pour approbation des idées ments tirés des projets sont faibles et restent et propositions qui lui conviennent. Dans le cas du perfectibles. PSFE, plus la mise en oeuvre du projet progresse, Les projets du FEM, comme celui sur la préser- plus les autorités se l'approprient. vation et la gestion de la biodiversité, et le Projet régional d'appui à l'environnement et à l'infor- Le processus d'élaboration et d'application des lois, mation de la Banque mondiale (GEF ID 47) ont stratégies et plans d'action nationaux reposant lar- permis de créer une masse de connaissances qui gement sur des expériences, un appui technique ont été bien gérées pendant l'exécution des acti- et une aide financière externes, l'appropriation du vités. Toutefois, l'examen de la situation à l'issue programme de réformes par les autorités gagne- des projets révèle quelques faiblesses, comme par rait à se renforcer pendant la programmation des exemple le manque de structures d'appui institu- activités dans le cadre du DAR et au-delà. tionnel et financier pour continuer à développer et diffuser les connaissances1. Nous avons égale- Efficacité par rapport aux coûts ment observé que des mécanismes importants Conclusion 6 : Les conclusions de l'Évaluation comme le Centre d'échange d'informations sur conjointe du cycle des activités et des modes la biodiversité ne fonctionnent pas actuellement 1. Principales conclusions et recommandations F-9 faute de financements de l'État et/ou des bailleurs compte à l'occasion du quatrième bilan global du de fonds. Cet aspect pose la question plus large de FEM en 2009. la viabilité à long terme des institutions et de l'ac- recommandation n°2 : Le FEM doit se doter cès à un financement public de la gestion du savoir d'une stratégie pour améliorer la capacité à faire au service de celle de l'environnement. face aux problèmes environnementaux à carac- tère mondial en afrique subsaharienne. Le partage des acquis porte en général davantage sur les bons résultats que sur les enseignements à Cette stratégie pourrait comporter plusieurs tirer des échecs. Nous avons constaté une certaine volets, à savoir : réticence à faire face aux problèmes et à tirer les z Renforcer le mécanisme des points focaux du enseignements des échecs, comme dans le cas des FEM pour qu'il fonctionne de façon plus effi- forêts communautaires et de la Cameroon Moun- cace, favorise une adhésion plus active des pays tains Conservation Foundation. Comme on le aux projets réalisés et aide à promouvoir une verra plus loin, le point focal technique manque de approche coordonnée des financements mul- ressources pour participer dans de bonnes condi- tipartites. Le FEM doit s'employer plus active- tions à l'élaboration des projets, aux activités de ment à favoriser un fonctionnement adéquat et suivi et de supervision et au transfert des connais- efficace du mécanisme des points focaux. sances, ce qui n'incite pas le pays à reprendre à son compte les enseignements tirés de l'expérience. z Faciliter la création de partenariats pour mobi- liser davantage de ressources à l'appui de la mise en oeuvre des conventions internationales 1.4 recommandations dans lesquelles le FEM joue un rôle. À l'adresse du Conseil du FEM z Favoriser l'intégration, la coordination et la concertation efficaces et stratégiques des recommandation n°1 : Le FEM doit continuer de acteurs nationaux dans le secteur de l'envi- suivre les résultats de l'aide budgétaire au Pro- gramme sectoriel forêts et environnement pour ronnement, en mettant notamment l'accent déterminer si cette formule peut être appliquée sur la participation des points focaux pour les dans d'autres pays. conventions internationales. Le PSFE n'est pas encore suffisamment monté en z Réduire les coûts de transaction pour les pays puissance pour donner une idée claire des résul- bénéficiaires en appliquant leurs procédures tats obtenus. Nous considérons qu'il propose une lorsque celles-ci satisfont aux critères du FEM solution pouvant avoir des effets plus positifs que (ou de ses Entités d'exécution). l'approche-projet classique, à horizon plus immé- z Examiner l'efficacité du mécanisme actuel des diat. Il permet en effet de renforcer les capacités points focaux et réfléchir à un autre mode de financières, institutionnelles et individuelles, de fonctionnement plus adapté aux pays africains. favoriser des changements de comportement ayant un effet d'entraînement et de promouvoir recommandation n°3 : Le FEM doit envisager de promouvoir davantage la formule des fonds une harmonisation durable de l'aide des bailleurs fiduciaires pour pérenniser les effets positifs de de fonds avec davantage de souplesse. son action sur l'environnement mondial. Le Bureau de l'évaluation du FEM continuera de Le manque de viabilité financière des résultats des suivre l'évolution de ce programme dont il rendra projets ponctuels est un problème courant. Dans F-10 Examen de portefeuilles-pays du FEM : Cameroun (1992­2007)) les années 90, le FEM a soutenu la formule des social que la création d'aires protégées fait sup- fonds fiduciaires pour garantir la viabilité à long porter aux populations locales. terme des aires protégées, après l'achèvement des Le Gouvernement camerounais doit continuer projets. L'évaluation récente de l'impact du fonds de travailler avec les Entités d'exécution du FEM fiduciaire de Bwindi-Mgahinga a confirmé l'effica- et ses autres partenaires pour faire en sorte que cité de cette formule pour renforcer durablement la question de la viabilité sociale des aires pro- les capacités de gestion, financer des dépenses de tégées soit plus systématiquement prise en fonctionnement et inciter les populations locales à compte. Dans le contexte des écosystèmes de la préserver la biodiversité. Le Conseil devrait envi- forêt tropicale du Cameroun, cela passe par une sager de privilégier à nouveau les fonds fiduciaires amélioration du régime des concessions forestiè- afin de pérenniser les acquis écologiques à carac- res aux communautés villageoises et un meilleur tère mondial. accès aux produits forestiers non ligneux, pour montrer que la préservation de la biodiversité À l'adresse du Gouvernement peut avoir des effets positifs pour les populations camerounais locales. recommandation n°4 : La question du respect En outre, le Cameroun a un potentiel écoutouris- des politiques et des règles relatives à la pro- tique important et sous-exploité. Appuyée par les tection de l'environnement est à examiner mécanismes voulus de participation et d'incitation d'urgence. (fiscale par exemple) au profit du secteur privé et L'autoévaluation des capacités nationales à ren- des acteurs locaux et par l'amélioration des politi- forcer peut être le point de départ d'une réflexion ques (visa et droits de douane) et infrastructures des autorités camerounaises sur la façon dont nationales (liaisons aériennes et routières), la mise elles pourraient accroître les crédits budgétaires en valeur de ce potentiel peut créer des emplois alloués au secteur de l'environnement et s'attaquer et des concessions forestières pour les populations à quelques-uns des problèmes environnementaux locales, ce qui élargirait leurs moyens de subsis- clés du pays, comme la dégradation des sols et tance et les inciterait à préserver la biodiversité à l'adaptation au changement climatique. Le prin- l'intérieur et à la périphérie de nombreuses aires cipal défi à relever est celui du respect des textes protégées. À cet égard, le Cameroun gagnerait à législatifs et réglementaires en vigueur, notam- s'inspirer des expériences des pays de l'Afrique ment ceux relatifs au dispositif national d'aires orientale et australe2. protégées. Les autorités se préparent à définir et appliquer des politiques anticorruption et à amé- À l'adresse des Entités d'exécution du FEM liorer l'efficacité et la gestion des administrations publiques. Ces mesures pourront mettre à profit recommandation n°6 : Les Entités d'exécution du FEM doivent resserrer leur collaboration avec les premiers enseignements tirés du Programme les autorités camerounaises et les autres acteurs sectoriel forêts et environnement, et le redémar- concernés pour que le pays s'identifie davan- rage du Programme de microfinancements. tage aux actions menées. recommandation n°5 : il faut proposer des Le manque d'appropriation des projets par le pays compensations et des incitations sous forme de est l'un de nos principaux constats. Cette appro- moyens de subsistance en contrepartie du coût priation peut être améliorée par : 1. Principales conclusions et recommandations F-11 Un appui apporté au point focal technique et aux 1.5 Questions émergentes membres du comité national de coordination des concernant le Dar activités du FEM pour renforcer leur rôle en les Le Bureau de l'évaluation réalisant actuellement associant à la conception des projets et aux mis- un examen à mi-parcours du DAR, il n'a pas été sions de supervision et de suivi, et en institution- jugé indiqué de formuler des conclusions et des nalisant l'échange d'informations. recommandations finales à ce sujet. Le DAR reste Un appui aux idées de projets et de programmes cependant une question d'actualité au Cameroun. émanant des autorités camerounaises dans le Nous récapitulons ci-après les principaux points cadre du DAR. soulevés pendant l'évaluation : Les indices du DAR reflètent globalement la capa- recommandation n°7 : Les Entités d'exécu- cité du Cameroun à contribuer à l'amélioration tion du FEM doivent réfléchir à la possibilité de l'état environnemental de la planète au plan de de conduire des audits réguliers de la gestion financière des projets et envisager de prendre la préservation de la biodiversité. Les indices de des mesures de renforcement des capacités résultat prennent également en compte les diffi- pour l'améliorer. cultés liées à la gouvernance et à la transparence dans le secteur de l'environnement. À en juger par le portefeuille du Cameroun et les enseignements se dégageant des projets qui le Les quelques acteurs qui connaissent suffisamment composent, la gestion financière et l'administra- le DAR voient dans ce dispositif une étape positive tion des opérations sont des domaines dans les- vers une adhésion et une participation plus actives quels des gains d'efficacité peuvent être réalisés au à la définition, à l'élaboration et à la mise en oeuvre plan des coûts et des résultats. Les Entités d'exécu- des projets reflétant aussi bien les priorités du pays tion du FEM ont un rôle clé à jouer en : que les priorités mondiales du FEM. Toutefois les entretiens récents avec le Secrétariat du FEM sur z aidant à renforcer les capacités des acteurs la programmation des ressources du DAR ont été concernés pour améliorer la gestion financière jugés unilatéraux, et les autorités camerounaises et à faire ressortir son impact sur le rapport et les acteurs de la société civile ont estimé que le coût-efficacité des opérations et la viabilité des mécanisme utilisé, la téléconférence, n'était pas un résultats obtenus. moyen efficace de communiquer l'information de z intégrant la gouvernance dans le secteur de l'en- façon détaillée et transparente. vironnement à l'effort national de lutte contre la corruption et de réforme de la fonction publi- notes que. 1. Ces constatations confirment celles de la Banque mondiale (2004). z fournissant les ressources nécessaires pour conduire périodiquement des audits qui per- 2. Voir FEM (2006), The Nature and Role of Local Benefits in Global Environmental Programs. mettront de s'assurer du bon équilibre dépen- Bureau de l'évaluation du FEM. Washington ; et ses-résultats et pour rendre publiques les IFC (2006), Eco-lodges: Exploring Opportunities conclusions de ces exercices. for Sustainable Business. IFC. Washington. F-12 Examen de portefeuilles-pays du FEM : Cameroun (1992­2007) Foreword This report is the seventh in a series of country to the GEF Council in April 2008. However, at the portfolio evaluations produced by the Evaluation draft report presentation held in Yaoundé in Feb- Office of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). ruary 2008, there were significant concerns raised Using the country as the unit of analysis, these by stakeholders regarding the quality of the report evaluations examine the totality of GEF support relating to findings on sustainability and negative across all GEF Agencies and programs. The overall social impacts of biodiversity conservation proj- objectives for undertaking such studies are (1) to ects. The Evaluation Office agreed to reformulate evaluate how GEF-supported activities fit into the the report where needed and to revisit findings national strategies and priorities as well as within and conduct additional fieldwork in the southeast the global environmental mandate of the GEF, and of Cameroon to increase the coverage of project (2) to provide an assessment of the results of GEF- site verification and improve the overall quality of supported activities and how these activities are the report. The revised draft was presented to the implemented. GEF National Committee and other civil society Country portfolio evaluations are conducted fully and academic stakeholders at a workshop held in and independently by the Evaluation Office and, Limbe in late June 2008. I am pleased to report when possible, in partnership with other evalua- that the extra work conducted improved the over- tion offices of GEF Agencies, governments, and all quality of the evaluation. The discussions held nongovernmental organizations. in Limbe were very productive, and, although some differences of interpretation remained, the This assessment was part of a series of country findings outlined below were broadly welcomed portfolio evaluations examining GEF support in by the National Committee. Sub-Saharan Africa. Other evaluations took place in Benin, Madagascar, and South Africa. Camer- The evaluation found that GEF support has con- oon was selected based on its large portfolio, its tributed positively to the conservation of Camer- importance as a global biodiversity hotspot, its oon's globally important biodiversity, in particu- unique budgetary support approach through its lar to strengthening and expanding its protected Forestry and Environment Sector Program, and its area system. Most notably, the GEF contributed large allocation for biodiversity under the Resource to an increase in the protected status of Camer- Allocation Framework. It was originally intended oon's tropical forests. The GEF has also enabled to include this evaluation in the Annual Country Cameroon to begin to address other environmen- Portfolio Evaluations Report which was presented tal concerns such as land degradation, climate i change adaptation, and biosafety. Financing has the Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Manage- also been consistent with its global mandate and ment project. Cameroon's national policies and plans. Despite The response of the government of Cameroon these steps forward, the evaluation found several to the evaluation has been added as an annex to challenges, such as weak financial management, this report. I hope that the evaluation will be an including incidences of corruption; continu- inspiration for the government of Cameroon to ing capacity constraints within the government's further strengthen its environment sector and national and local institutions which reduce their future engagement with the GEF. The results of ability to act as effective stewards of the environ- this evaluation will be incorporated into the sec- ment; and inadequate socioeconomic incentives ond Annual Country Portfolio Evaluations Report, to support environmental sustainability. The eval- to be presented to the GEF Council in June 2008. uation recognizes that Cameroon has an opportu- nity to address the most significant environmental weaknesses in forest biodiversity and land degra- dation through the Forest and Environment Sec- Rob van den Berg tor Program, the Small Grants Programme, and Director, Evaluation Office ii GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Lee A preliminary document was initially presented Alexander Risby, Evaluation Officer of the GEF in Yaoundé, Cameroon, on February 15, 2008, to Evaluation Office, and consisting of four consul- national stakeholders, including representatives of tants: Kai Schmidt-Soltau, Paolo Cerutti, Julius the national government, GEF Agencies, nongov- Chupezi-Tieguhong, and Joachim Nguieboouri. ernmental organizations, and other civil society partners. Comments received on this draft led to Members of the government of Cameroon--in further work undertaken, including fieldwork; this particular, Justin Nantchou of the Ministry of in turn led to a revised final draft which was pre- the Environment and Nature Protection, who sented to stakeholders in Limbe, Cameroon, on serves as the GEF operational focal point--pro- June 24, 2008. Special recognition should be given vided full cooperation and actively participated to Sekou Touré, the conflict resolution commis- in this evaluation. The team is also grateful for sioner of the GEF, who chaired the final workshop. the logistical support provided by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) The Evaluation Office is fully responsible for the and the World Bank. contents of the report. iii abbreviations ADIE Association for Environment and NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Development Information (Association Action Plan pour le Développement de l'Information NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment Environnementale) NGO nongovernmental organization CBD Convention on Biological Diversity ODA official development assistance CPE country portfolio evaluation PCB polychlorinated biphenyl DSDSR Strategy Document for the Development of the Rural Sector PNDP National Program for Participatory Development (Programme National de DFID Department for International Développement Participatif) Development FESP Forest and Environment Sector Program POP persistent organic pollutant FFEM French GEF (Fonds Français pour PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper l'Environnement Mondial) RAF Resource Allocation Framework FSP full-size project REIMP Regional Environment and Information GDP gross domestic product Project GEF Global Environment Facility SGP Small Grants Programme GTZ German Organization for Technical UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Cooperation (Gesellschaft für Desertification Technische Zusammenarbeit) UNDP United Nations Development IUCN International Union for the Conservation Programme of Nature UNEP United Nations Environment MINEF Ministry of the Environment and Programme Forestry UNFCCC United Nations Convention on Climate MINEP Ministry of the Environment and Nature Change Protection UNOPS United Nations Office for Project MINFOF Ministry of Forests and Fauna Services MSP medium-size project WWF World Wide Fund for Nature iv 1. Main Conclusions and recommendations 1.1. Background Based on the overall purpose of the GEF coun- try portfolio evaluations (CPEs) and their Cameroon's participation in the Global Envi- terms of reference, the evaluation of GEF sup- ronment Facility (GEF) started in the GEF pilot port to Cameroon had the following specific phase in 1992 with the preparation of the World objectives: Bank­implemented Biodiversity Conservation and Management project (GEF ID 85). Since then, z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- Cameroon has been involved in an additional nine ciency of GEF support in the country from national projects (valued at a total of $25.55 mil- several points of view: national environmental lion). As table 1.1 shows, about 71 percent of the frameworks and decision-making processes, GEF funding has gone to support projects in the the GEF mandate and achievement of global biodiversity focal area, 25 percent to land degra- environmental benefits, and GEF policies and dation, and 1 percent and 2 percent, respectively, procedures to climate change and persistent organic pollut- ants (POPs). There are 19 regional and global z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- GEF projects in which Cameroon participates, pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant addressing international waters, biodiversity, and focal area climate change. z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making pro- cess to allocate resources and develop policies and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- Table 1.1 tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies and organizations involved in the preparation GEF national Projects in Cameroon by Focal area and Funding and implementation of GEF support Focal area support (million $) % of total Cameroon was selected for evaluation based on, Biodiversity 18.24 71.35 among other factors, its significant biodiversity Climate change 0.27 1.00 portfolio relating to forest conservation, its unique Land degradation 6.35 25.00 budgetary support approach,1 its allocation for POPs 0.49 1.90 biodiversity under the GEF Resource Allocation Multifocal 0.20 0.75 Framework (RAF), and its importance as a global Total 25.55 100.00 biodiversity hotspot. 1 1.2 Evaluation Methodology z CPEs are challenging, as the GEF does not operate by establishing country programs that The Cameroon CPE was conducted between specify expected achievement through pro- September 2007 and April 2008 by an evaluation grammatic objectives, indicators, and targets. team comprised of staff from the GEF Evaluation Office and four consultants who possessed exten- z Attribution is another area of complexity. The sive knowledge of the Cameroon environmental evaluation does not attempt to provide a direct sector. The methodology included a series of com- attribution of development and even environ- ponents making use of a combination of qualita- mental results to the GEF, but assesses the tive and quantitative data collection methods and contribution of GEF support to overall achieve- standardized analytical tools. Several sources of ments. information from different levels (project, gov- z The assessment of results is focused, where ernment, civil society, GEF Agencies, and so on) possible, at the level of outcomes and impact, were the basis for the evaluation. The quality of rather than outputs. these documents was reviewed before they were included. The quantitative analysis used indicators z Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded initia- to assess the efficiency of GEF support using proj- tives is not straightforward. Many projects ects as the unit of analysis (time and cost of pre- do not clearly or appropriately specify the paring and implementing projects, and so forth). expected impact and sometimes even the The evaluation team used standardized tools and outcomes of projects. As this evaluation was protocols for the CPEs and adapted these to the restricted to secondary sources, there was no Cameroonian context. Projects were selected for scope to conduct primary research to supple- visits based on whether they had been completed ment project reports or identify impact and or were near completion, project and/or project outcomes. component approaches, accessibility, and time/ z Results reported come from various sources: resource constraints. some have been established through external evaluation, and others are drawn from internal The main focus of the evaluation is the nine project reports and interviews. national projects implemented within the bound- aries of Cameroon. An additional 11 regional z The evaluation team has struggled to estab- projects, including 5 in the international waters lish a clear and reliable set of data on projects focal area, in which Cameroon participates were and project documentation. The available data, reviewed; these were selected because they had including the list of projects in the GEF port- significant in-country involvement. A full assess- folio, contained inconsistencies, gaps, and dis- ment of the regional projects' aggregate results, crepancies. relevance, and efficiency was beyond the scope of Stakeholder comments on a draft of this report, this CPE, given that only the Cameroon compo- made in writing and at a consultation workshop nents were assessed. National and regional project held on February 15, 2008, have been taken proposals under preparation were not part of the into account in finalizing the conclusions and evaluation. recommendations as well as the findings, pre- Several limitations were taken into account while sented in chapters 5, 6, and 7, on which these conducting the evaluation: are based. 2 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 1.3 Conclusions case of the Small Grants Programme (SGP), two of the first projects funded in the mid-1990s intro- results and Effectiveness of the Portfolio duced apiculture and the domestication of indig- enous nontimber forest products in the Bam- Conclusion 1: The GEF portfolio has the poten- enda Highlands to enhance incentives for forest tial to generate global environmental benefits conservation and enable local actors to establish in biodiversity conservation. although local benefits are visible, these are not yet able to best practices which have since been replicated in provide substantial incentives to support con- hundreds of communities. Furthermore, lessons servation activities. from the nontimber forest products experience have been shared by the nongovernmental orga- GEF support was instrumental in the initial plan- nization (NGO) involved--Heifer International-- ning, expansion, and management of the Camer- across its network. oon protected area system, including providing for improved stakeholder consultation and knowl- Completed biodiversity conservation projects edge generation and management in the biodi- supported by the GEF have put in place vari- versity conservation sector. With GEF support, ous local incentives, including community forest local communities were sensitized on biodiversity management, with opportunities for legal extrac- conservation issues; however, there is still ground tion of resources such as timber and Prunus bark; for improvement, particularly in relation to com- commercial hunting (in the northern savannah munity forestry as a tool for enhancing community parks) and subsistence hunting (for example, conservation and ensuring the sharing of the eco- in Campo-Ma'an and Lobéké); small-scale eco- nomic and noneconomic benefits of conservation. tourism opportunities; and other activities such as honey collection and production. In doing so, Notably, GEF support provided the foundation for GEF-supported projects have attempted to deliver enhanced recognition of biodiversity conservation an approach that balances restricting access to and the creation of 24,300 square kilometers of pro- resources and compensatory measures for liveli- tected areas, including 5 national parks, 44 com- hoods. However, many of the incentives, such as munity-based natural resource management units, community forestry and ecotourism, are not work- and 39 community forests. This protected area ing effectively and are thus not yet able to provide approach has been replicated at the national and sufficient incentives to support biodiversity con- regional levels and could enhance the conservation servation. Furthermore, the evaluation identified status of a 300,000-square-kilometer area. Addi- the potential for significant economic displace- tionally, the Forest and Environment Sector Pro- ment risks associated with enhanced enforcement gram (FESP) supported by the World Bank, bilat- of environmental laws as capacities to manage the eral donors, and the GEF has the potential to secure protected area system are improved. and sustain global environmental benefits as well as enhance development incentives for conservation Conclusion 2: The GEF is enabling Cameroon to through improvements in the logging industry. address other environmental issues, particu- The Biodiversity Conservation and Management larly in the international waters and land degra- dation focal areas. project played a catalytic role in terms of laying the foundation for the FESP, including further GEF financing for international waters has development of the protected area system. In the enhanced intergovernmental coordination in the 1. Main Conclusions and recommendations 3 Gulf of Guinea, Lake Chad Basin, and Niger River are often linked to insufficient management Basin; enhanced the capacity of various actors; capacity and oversight; this is reported by several and produced a good number of baseline assess- GEF-funded projects and the Cameroon Moun- ments while strategic action plans are pending. tains Conservation Foundation trust fund. Some The implementation of pilot activities in demon- improvements have already been implemented: stration sites are welcomed by rural populations, for example, the FESP has in place a monitoring but the relevance of some of the microprojects for and financial management system that mitigates the protection of international waters is unclear. financial risk, and the SGP was relaunched with Furthermore, it is presently uncertain whether all enhanced emphasis on financial sustainability and microprojects are sustainable or can be scaled up, accountability. as local ownership is weak. The initial investments in capacity development GEF support to combat land degradation should through the Biodiversity Conservation and Man- result in the identification and dissemination of agement project and enabling activities have best practices on sustainable land management, tended to focus on national-level institutions. In local-level capacity enhancement, and a more contrast, the evaluation found that the capacities effective and efficient land tenure system. This of the Ministry of the Environment and Nature might provide Cameroon with an effective tool to Protection (MINEP) and the Ministry of Forests combat land degradation and desertification, but and Fauna (MINFOF) at the regional and local field-level implementation has not yet begun. levels were weak, with MINEP notably more underresourced than MINFOF. Consequently, lit- GEF financing for climate change played a cata- tle opportunity existed for staff to support impor- lytic role in terms of generating new knowledge tant initiatives, such as community forestry in and on forest margin benchmarks and, through its around protected areas. This finding confirms Alternatives to Slash and Burn initiatives (GEF ID those from the World Bank's technical audit of the 277 and 390) implemented by the United Nations Biodiversity Conservation and Management proj- Development Programme (UNDP), transformed ect (World Bank 2003a)2. Furthermore, the evalu- the way decision makers think about the factors ation noted that some of the capacity development shaping land use at forest-agriculture interfaces in achieved under the Biodiversity Conservation and the humid tropics. GEF support enabled Camer- Management project has been eroded due to lack oon to fulfill all its reporting requirements from of follow-on donor support and government fund- all conventions that are eligible for GEF financing; ing (as with, for example, the National Herbarium some of these enabling activities, such as that for at Limbe), illustrating the link between institu- POPs, are ongoing and the reports still pending. tional and financial sustainability. Conclusion 3: The results of the GEF portfolio in The socioeconomic sustainability issues relat- Cameroon are at risk because of weak financial, ing to biodiversity conservation have yet to be institutional, and socioeconomic sustainability. comprehensively addressed. At present, the level The evaluation found room for improved financial of local benefits and/or incentives for communi- management and a need to promote more assidu- ties to support conservation and environmental ous capacity development to ensure financial protection is generally not sufficient to provide sustainability. Problems in financial management conservation incentives to the majority of the 4 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) populations surrounding protected areas. Many Cameroon's FESP, which is supported by the untapped opportunities exist, particularly with GEF and the World Bank--specifically through regard to tourism and empowerment of com- the Forest and Environment Development Pol- munities to effectively manage and benefit from icy Grant (GEF ID 1063)--as well as by other forest resources, which could contribute to pov- bilateral donors, is further advancing both con- erty reduction and global environmental benefits. servation and sustainable resource extraction of Furthermore, the potential for negative socioeco- forest resources, and has the potential to serve nomic trade-offs vis-à-vis improvement in man- as a model for donor-harmonized environmen- agement and expansion of the protected area sys- tal assistance in other countries in the Congo tem is high. Basin. The Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Promotion under Cameroon's On the positive side, the FESP, which is based National Program for Participatory Develop- on a multidonor, long-term budgetary support ment (PNDP) project implemented by the World approach, provides the opportunity for the gov- Bank (GEF ID 2549) builds relevant synergies ernment of Cameroon, civil society, the private among local livelihood incentives, community sector, and communities to together engage in an development, and improved environmental effort to address environmental governance and management, thus reflecting national priori- underinvestment in the sector--and, by so doing, ties and international emphasis on community- address financial, institutional, and socioeconomic driven development. sustainability. It is too early to assess the results of this initiative, since the program has only recently Conclusion 5: although the GEF portfolio is rel- been implemented. evant for national and international priorities, project identification and preparation are exter- relevance of GEF support nally driven, and enhancing country ownership is challenging. Conclusion 4: GEF support is relevant to Camer- oon's national and international environmental Project concepts tend not to originate from in- agenda. country stakeholders. Rather, project proponents have tended to be GEF Agencies and international Since the early 1990s, Cameroon has developed a NGOs; the government has taken a more passive set of national environmental laws and policies to role, receiving ideas and proposals for approval, improve protection of its significant biodiversity. albeit ones with which it agrees. In the case of For example, the country's development of for- the FESP, government ownership is increasing as estry conservation policies has drawn on its expe- implementation continues. riences relating to community forest management and stakeholder involvement in conservation. GEF Because the process of elaborating and imple- biodiversity projects have been developed within menting national laws, strategies, and action plans this framework; they have continued to advance has drawn heavily on external experiences, tech- policy and strategic development in areas such nical support, and financial assistance, govern- as biosafety, climate change adaptation, and land ment ownership of the reform agenda provides degradation that has responded to national needs opportunities for enhancement during Resource as well as helped Cameroon fulfill its obligations Allocation Framework (RAF) programming and to international environmental conventions. beyond. 1. Main Conclusions and recommendations 5 Efficiency function because of a lack of government and/or donor funding. This touches on a larger issue relat- Conclusion 6: The findings of the Joint Evalu- ing to sustainability of institutions and availability ation of the GEF activity Cycle and Modalities of government funding for knowledge manage- were confirmed in Cameroon: the complexity and inefficiency of the GEF activity Cycle have ment to inform environmental management. presented barriers to project development. The sharing of experiences has tended to empha- The majority of stakeholders in Cameroon-- size success more than an effort to learn lessons including the government, GEF Agencies, and from failure. The evaluation found that there is NGOs--expressed negative views of the GEF some reticence to confront and learn from prob- Activity Cycle in relation to previous projects, in lems and failures, such as with community for- terms of long periods taken for processing, associ- estry and the Cameroon Mountains Conserva- ated high transaction costs in terms of financial tion Foundation. The GEF operational focal point and human resource inputs, and a lack of clarity lacks the resources to be adequately involved in and information relating to delays. National full- project development, monitoring, supervision, size projects (FSPs) took an average of 3.6 years to and knowledge sharing, thus decreasing country move from project entry to implementation and ownership of lessons learned. an average of 5.2 years for implementation; that is, they took 1.5 years longer than planned. The costs 1.4 recommendations of project preparation are estimated at around recommendations to the GEF Council $1 million for FSPs, which is about three times the amount officially available under the previous recommendation 1: The GEF should continue Activity Cycle. These issues confirm the findings to monitor the results of the FEsP budgetary of the recent Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity support approach to see whether this approach could be followed in other countries. Cycle and Modalities (GEF EO 2007b). The FESP is still not sufficiently mature to enable Conclusion 7: Knowledge management and les- clear judgment on its results. The evaluation rec- son learning are weak, and there are opportuni- ognizes that the program offers a potentially ben- ties for enhancement. eficial alternative to the short time horizons of GEF projects such as the Biodiversity Conservation traditional project-based approaches in terms of and Management project and the World Bank­ providing greater flexibility for financial, institu- implemented Regional Environment and Informa- tional, and individual capacity development; cata- tion Project (REIMP) (GEF ID 47) have generated lytic changes in behavior; and harmonization of a considerable body of knowledge, which has been donor efforts in the long term. well managed in the course of project implemen- The GEF Evaluation Office will continue to moni- tation. However, the ex post situation has revealed tor the progress of the FESP and will report on this some weaknesses, such as a lack of institutional and modality in the GEF Fourth Overall Performance financial support structures to continue knowledge Study in 2009. generation and dissemination.3 The evaluation also observed that important mechanisms, such as the recommendation 2: The GEF should develop a Clearing-House Mechanism of the Convention strategy to improve capacities to address global on Biological Diversity (CBD), currently do not environmental issues in sub-saharan africa. 6 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Development of such a strategy could include sev- The Council should consider placing a renewed eral elements: emphasis on trust funds to sustain global environ- mental gains. z Strengthen the GEF focal point mechanism to function effectively, improve country owner- recommendations to the Government of ship, and help develop a coordinated approach Cameroon for partnership funding. The GEF must play a more active role in enabling proper and effective recommendation 4: Compliance with environ- functionality of the focal point mechanism. mental policies and regulations requires urgent attention. z Facilitate the creation of partnerships to increase The National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) the mobilization of resources for implementing provides a starting point for the government the global conventions related to the GEF. of Cameroon to consider in terms of providing z Facilitate effective and strategic integration, increased budgetary resources to the environ- coordination, and dialogue among environ- mental sector to address some of the country's mental actors at the country level, particularly key environmental problems such as land degra- with regard to the participation of global con- dation and climate change adaptation. The main vention focal points. challenge to be faced is that of compliance with the environmental laws and regulations that have z Reduce transaction costs for the recipient been put in place, especially in the country's countries by adopting country-based proce- system of protected areas. The government is dures when these meet GEF (or GEF Agency) taking steps to develop and implement anticor- requirements. ruption policies as well as to improve the effec- z Review the effectiveness of the current focal tiveness and management of public agencies. The point mechanism and consider an alternative emerging experiences regarding the FESP and the mode of operation more suitable for African relaunching of the SGP provide inspiration for countries. new interventions. recommendation 3: The GEF should consider recommendation 5: Local communities need to further supporting trust funds as an approach be provided with appropriate livelihood incen- to improving the sustainability of global envi- tives and compensation to offset the social costs ronmental benefits. of protected areas. Weaknesses in financial sustainability are a com- The government of Cameroon should continue to mon issue associated with project-based interven- work with the GEF Agencies and other partners to tions. In the 1990s, the GEF supported trust funds ensure that social sustainability of protected areas as an approach to secure sustainability for pro- is addressed more assiduously. In the tropical for- tected areas beyond the life of projects. The recent est ecosystems of Cameroon, this means that the impact evaluation of the Bwindi-Mgahinga Trust government will need to take further action to Fund (GEF EO 2009) confirmed the effectiveness improve community forestry concession systems of this approach for the augmentation and mainte- and access to nontimber forest products to ensure nance of management capacities, recurring costs, that benefits of conservation can be demonstrated and provision of incentives for local communities. to communities. 1. Main Conclusions and recommendations 7 In addition, Cameroon has significant underex- z Providing capacity development for stakehold- ploited ecotourism potential, which--with appro- ers to improve financial management and dem- priate involvement and incentive structures for onstrate its relationship to efficiency, effective- the private sector and community stakeholders ness, and sustainability of outcomes (for example, tax incentives) and national policy z Linking environmental governance to ongoing (visa and customs changes) and infrastructure national efforts to combat corruption and civil improvements (air and road links)--could provide service reforms increased livelihood benefits and incentives for conservation in and around many of the protected z Providing resources for regular auditing to areas, through employment and community con- ensure an appropriate balance is struck between cessions. In this regard, Cameroon could learn expenditures and results and to make audit from experiences in East and Southern Africa.4 results public recommendations to the GEF agencies 1.5 Emerging issues relating to the raF recommendation 6: The GEF agencies need to work more closely with the government of Cam- Because the GEF Evaluation Office is presently eroon and other stakeholders to enhance coun- conducting a review of the RAF at its midterm try ownership. point of implementation, it was not considered appropriate to make final conclusions and rec- Weak country ownership is a significant finding of ommendations regarding the RAF in this CPE. the evaluation. Ownership could be strengthened Nevertheless, the RAF is a current issue for Cam- in the following ways: eroon. The following paragraphs summarize the z Provide assistance to the GEF operational main points raised during this evaluation: focal point and members of the GEF National z The RAF indexes broadly reflect Cameroon's Committee to strengthen their roles through potential to deliver global environmental benefits involvement in project design, supervision/ related to biodiversity conservation. The perfor- monitoring missions, and formalized sharing mance indexes also reflect the challenges related of information. to environmental governance and transparency. z Support the government of Cameroon­led project and program concepts under the RAF z The RAF was received by the few stakeholders in order to build ownership. who were sufficiently aware of it as a positive step toward enhanced ownership and partici- recommendation 7: The GEF agencies should pation in the identification, elaboration, and consider regular auditing of and capacity implementation of projects that reflect both enhancement measures to improve the finan- national and GEF global priorities. However, cial management of projects. recent discussions with the GEF Secretariat The Cameroon portfolio and associated project on RAF programming were perceived as one- experiences demonstrate that financial manage- sided, and government of Cameroon and civil ment and administration is an area that presents society stakeholders commented that the pro- opportunities for improvement in efficiency and cess used for discussions (teleconferencing) effectiveness. The GEF Agencies have a key role to was not an effective means for the detailed and play in terms of the following: transparent conveyance of information. 8 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) notes 3. The finding confirms those of the World Bank (2004c). 1. This refers to its multidonor, long-term support of the forest and environment sector, which is dis- 4. See GEF EO (2006b) and IFC (2006). cussed later in this report. 2. See annex E for references cited in this report. 1. Main Conclusions and recommendations 9 2. Evaluation Framework 2.1 Objectives several points of view: national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes, The GEF Council has asked the GEF Evaluation the GEF mandate and achievement of global Office to conduct country portfolio evaluations. environmental benefits, and GEF policies and The overall purpose of these evaluations is two- procedures.1 fold: (1) to evaluate how GEF-supported activities fit into national strategies and priorities as well as z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- within the global environmental mandate of the pleted/ongoing projects in each focal area.2 GEF, and (2) to provide the Council with additional z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to information on the results of GEF-supported activ- (1) the GEF as an objective base for its decision- ities and how these activities are implemented. making processes on resources, policies, and In 2007, the Evaluation Office selected for country strategies; (2) Cameroon on its participation in evaluation from among 160 GEF-eligible coun- the GEF; and (3) the GEF Agencies. tries--based on a stratified randomized selection and a set of strategic criteria--four countries in 2.2 Key Questions Africa: Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar, and South The conduct of the CPE was guided by the follow- Africa. Cameroon was selected for evaluation on ing key questions: the basis of, among other factors, its large portfo- lio in terms of GEF funding and cofinancing, its z Results and effectiveness of GEF support unique program approach in terms of its budget- ­ What are the results (outcomes) of com- ary as opposed to project-based support to the pleted and ongoing projects? forestry and environment sector, its significant ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal portfolio emphasis on forestry and biodiversity, area and country levels? its expected large allocation for biodiversity under ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will the RAF, and its importance as a global biodiver- be achieved for those projects that are still sity hotspot. under implementation? The Cameroon CPE had the following specific z Relevance of GEF support objectives (see annex A): ­ Is GEF support relevant to the Poverty z Independently evaluate the relevance and Reduction Strategy Plan and environmental efficiency of GEF support in Cameroon from priorities, national development needs and 10 challenges, and action plans for GEF national z At the project level, project documents, project focal areas? implementation reports, terminal evaluations, ­ Are the GEF and its Agencies supporting project technical audits, reports from monitor- environmental and sustainable development ing visits, and documents produced by projects prioritization and national decision-making z At the country level, national sustainable devel- processes? opment agendas, environmental priorities and ­ Is GEF support relevant to the objec- strategies, GEF focal area strategies and action tives of the various global environmental plans, the GEF-supported NCSA, and global conventions? and national environmental indicators ­ Is Cameroon supporting the GEF mandate z At the GEF Agency level, country assistance and focal area programs and strategies with strategies and frameworks and their evalu- its own resources and/or support from other ations and reviews, including technical and donors? financial audits z Efficiency of GEF support z Evaluative evidence at the country level from GEF Agencies and other donors active in the ­ How much time, effort, and financial environmental sector resources does it take to develop and imple- ment projects by type (modality) of GEF z Review of published and unpublished scientific support? sources relating to project sites ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and z Interviews with GEF stakeholders, including coordination among different stakeholders GEF Agencies, government departments, and in project implementation? Cameroon's global convention focal points ­ How effective is the dissemination of GEF z Interviews with GEF beneficiaries and sup- project lessons and results? ported institutions, including NGOs ­ What are the synergies in GEF project pro- z Field visits to project sites gramming and implementation among the different stakeholders? z Information from national consultation work- shops ­ What is the financial, institutional, socio- economic, and environmental sustainability The quantitative analysis used indicators to assess of GEF support? the relevance and efficiency of GEF support using ­ To what extent have GEF operations changed projects as the unit of analysis (indicators such as with the introduction of the Resource Allo- linkages with national priorities, time and cost cation Framework? of preparing and implementing projects, and so on) and to measure GEF results (progress toward 2.3 Methodology achieving global environmental impacts) and per- formance of projects (such as implementation and The methodology included a combination of completion ratings). qualitative and quantitative data collection tech- niques. The qualitative aspects of the evaluation The evaluation team used standard protocols to included the following: assess individual projects, including project review 2. Evaluation Framework 11 protocols to conduct the desk and field reviews, z Mount Koupé, Biodiversity Conservation and and interview guidelines to conduct interviews Management project--community meetings in with different stakeholders (see annex C). Kola Carrefour, Kola Indigene, and Nyassoso and discussions with local-level stakeholders in All national and some regional projects were Nkongsamba, Buea, and Limbe visited, and key participants in enabling activi- ties were interviewed. Five projects were or are z Mount Cameroon, Biodiversity Conserva- implementing subprojects at the local level, and tion and Management project; United Nations 20 community meetings were carried out to eval- Environment Programme's (UNEP's) Improved uate the results of these projects, while attempt- Certification Schemes for Sustainable Tropical ing to ensure a representative cross-section of Forest Management (GEF ID 1895)--commu- GEF project experiences taking into account nity meetings in Bakingili and Bimbia and dis- regional representation within Cameroon; cov- cussions with local-level stakeholders in Limbe erage of forest, savannah, coastal, and maritime and Buea zones; selection of protected areas among those z Maroua, UNDP's Reversal of Land and Water supported by the GEF; coverage of both protected Degradation Trends in the Lake Chad Basin areas and buffer zones; coverage of aspects of the Ecosystem project (GEF ID 767)--commu- portfolio at a single site; and practical and logisti- nity meetings in Kaykay, Eheing, Gamak, and cal concerns. Madide and discussions with local-level stake- holders in Maroua The following field sites were visited to conduct verification:3 z Garoua, Biodiversity Conservation and Man- agement project and the World Bank's Revers- z Campo-Ma'an National Park and its buffer ing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the zone, Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- Niger River Basin project (GEF ID 1093--com- ment project--community meetings in Efulani munity meetings in Boki, Tokombere, Gou- 2, Akom 2, Eboudje, and Efamiesokie and dis- mougou, and Uruchero and discussions with cussions with local-level stakeholders in Akom local-level stakeholders in Garoua 2, Campo, and Kribi z Lobéké National Park and its buffer zone, Bio- z Kilum-Ijim, Biodiversity Conservation and diversity Conservation and Management proj- Management project; UNDP's Community- ect--meetings with the Ministry of Forests and Based Conservation in the Bamenda Highlands Fauna, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), project (GEF ID 772)--community meetings and communities in Abuh, Oku, and Vokai and discussions with local-level stakeholders in Fundong, Oku, and 2.4 scope of the Evaluation Bamenda The CPE sample included all national projects z Bamenda, SGP projects on Sustainable Bee- and regional/global projects in which Cameroon farming in the Northwest Province and Biodi- has significant involvement at the policy or pilot- versity Conservation by 11 Rural Communities demonstration level (see chapter 4). in the Highland Zone--discussions with exe- cuting agencies in Bamenda and beneficiaries The CPE covers only those GEF projects that are in Abuh, Oku, and Vokai completed or are now under implementation. The 12 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) evaluation did not consider pipeline proposals or and GEF focal area strategies. Furthermore, the canceled pipeline projects. Those regional and interconnected nature of support makes it chal- global projects in which Cameroon participates lenging to consider GEF support in isolation. The at the policy level and/or through demonstration CPE consequently does not attempt to attribute and pilot activities were included; thus, only issues environmental results directly to the GEF. and activities related to and implemented within Of the projects under implementation, the FESP Cameroon are assessed as opposed to activities in is the most important. Unfortunately, the results partner countries. The CPE covers all GEF Agen- of this initiative are not yet measurable, because cies in all focal areas, and includes the SGP. The it has only been operational for a short time. The GEF portfolio is defined as the aggregate of all evaluation does, however, take into account the these activities. GEF support is provided through process "outcomes" of the preparation of the FESP partnerships and coordination with (and through) and other projects under implementation, such many institutions. The evaluation addresses the as the Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Man- contribution of GEF support to overall achieve- agement Promotion project conducted under the ments, that is, to establish a credible link between PNDP. what the GEF supported and its implications. The evaluation addresses how GEF support has func- The evaluation was faced by several specific tioned in partnership with Cameroon government limitations: ministries and other institutions, donors, the pri- vate sector, and civil society through questions z Only a small number of projects have been on roles and coordination, synergies and comple- completed or are now under implementation. mentarities, and knowledge sharing. z Reporting of results for completed projects tends to be at the output and outcome level, and The context in which projects were developed, none of these have yet been subject to impact approved, and implemented constitutes a focus evaluations. of the evaluation. This includes an assessment of national sustainable development and envi- z Time and resource constraints made it impos- ronmental policies, strategies, and priorities; the sible to visit all sites covered by completed proj- legal environment in which these policies are ects or those under implementation. implemented and enforced; GEF Agency coun- z Many reports and documents were difficult to try strategies and programs; and GEF policies access, despite extensive efforts on the part of (including the RAF), principles, programs, and the evaluation team in requesting information strategies. from stakeholders during the fieldwork and in follow-up email communication; stakeholder 2.5 Limitations response was uneven. Because the GEF does not have country programs, z Because of time constraints, some information no GEF framework has predetermined strate- obtained on the ground during the field phase gic objectives against which to assess results or could not be triangulated before elaboration effectiveness. The evaluation thus measured the of the draft report. This final report reflects portfolio against global environmental benefits as reviewer comments and additional information specified in the national environmental framework provided. 2. Evaluation Framework 13 2.6 implementation notes The CPE was conducted by an independent eval- 1. Relevance--the extent to which the objectives of the GEF activity are consistent with beneficiaries' uation team. The GEF operational focal point for requirements, country needs, global priorities, Cameroon provided logistical and administrative and partners' and donors' policies. Efficiency--a support to the evaluation. The draft report was measure of how economically resources/inputs initially presented to stakeholders on February 15, (funds, expertise, time, and so forth) are converted to results. 2008, in Yaoundé (see annex G). Participants and other stakeholders provided comments and rec- 2. Results--the output, outcome, or impact (intended ommendations, which were taken into account or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF activity. Effectiveness--the extent to which the in producing the final draft, which was presented GEF activity's objectives were achieved or are for response and discussion to the government of expected to be achieved, taking into account their Cameroon, civil society, academics, and staff of relative importance. the GEF Implementing Agencies on June 24, 2008 3. Field verification entailed following up on existing (see annex H). evaluative data where possible. This was a major part of the evaluation; in total, 75 person-days of field verification were conducted. 14 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 3. Context of the Evaluation This chapter briefly summarizes the context for the end of the depression, Cameroon's economy the evaluation in terms of both the environmen- has recovered, with moderate annual growth of tal framework in Cameroon and the mandate and 4.5 percent in real gross domestic product (GDP) operations of the GEF. and low inflation of 2 percent a year. This recov- ery is based on a comprehensive reform agenda, 3.1 Country Context which also resulted in changes in the way in which Cameroon is a country characterized by diversity. natural resources--especially forests--are man- It spans a territory of 475,000 square kilometers aged and exploited. In April 2006, it reached the and has 15 million inhabitants. Cameroon owes its completion point under the World Bank­Interna- nickname of "Afrique en miniature" to its unique tional Monetary Fund Enhanced Heavily Indebted location between the Equator and the Sahel, Poor Countries Initiative and became eligible for which produces extremely diverse ecosystems and further debt relief from the International Mon- landscapes. Cameroon hosts 200 ethno-linguistic etary Fund, the International Development Asso- groups, making its diversity in this area significant. ciation, and the African Development Fund under Poverty remains widespread: about 40 percent of the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. Since the the population lives under the poverty threshold start of recovery in 1994, per capita GDP has only of $1 per day, and the country is off track in meet- reached two-thirds of its predepression level, and ing most of the Millennium Development Goals most social indicators have not improved. (Republic of Cameroon 2003a). Poverty reduction remains an important socio- In the early 1980s, Cameroon was one of Africa's economic challenge for the government of Cam- economic success stories. However, economic and eroon, and the country adopted a comprehensive policy weaknesses in the country were exposed poverty reduction strategy in 2003. Corruption in the mid-1980s, when sharp declines in coffee, and low management capacity have impeded pov- cocoa, and oil prices led to a 60 percent decline erty reduction efforts, although the government in the external terms of trade. These conditions, and donors--in recognition of this issue--have combined with an overvalued exchange rate, taken efforts to address the underlying causes. a fiscal crisis, and economic mismanagement, Improvements have become visible in recent resulted in prolonged economic stagnation and years, yet much work remains in terms of further rapid accumulation of public debt. The economic augmenting financial management capacities and depression continued until the early 2000s. Since civil service reforms. 15 The government's Poverty Reduction Strategy covering tropical forest and savannah fauna. Some Paper (PRSP) recognizes that improving manage- 9,000 species of flora, 297 species of mammals, ment capacity in the environmental sector will 849 species of birds, 451 species of fish, 373 spe- be needed to achieve more sustainable manage- cies of amphibians and reptiles, and 39 species ment of natural resources (Republic of Cameroon of butterflies inhabit the country (see table 3.1). 2003b). Improvements in capacity are expected to Cameroon's natural resource base includes biodi- enhance growth in forestry, agriculture, and tour- versity of considerable global significance. South- ism, and therefore enhance livelihoods and con- west Cameroon is part of the Guinean Forests of tribute to poverty reduction. Consequently, most West Africa biodiversity hotspot,1 and the coun- donor environmental programs (including the try's volcanic mountains are home to more than GEF) are concentrated on the forest sector and 30 endemic bird species.2 Cameroon ranks fifth its biodiversity. More recently, the focus has been in Africa in diversity of plants and wildlife after expanded to sustainable land management and the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, regional international waters. Another focus with Madagascar, and Tanzania. Cameroon is ranked a large number of enabling activities is to harmo- second in primate diversity in Africa behind the nize the national environmental policy agenda Democratic Republic of Congo. with international priorities and allow Cameroon to fulfill its commitments in view of international Table 3.1 conventions and treaties. Estimates of Biodiversity in Cameroon Number In its Forest and Environment Sector Program, the government committed itself to a series of envi- Category of species Total Endemic Threatened ronmental and fiscal policy and legislative reforms, Plants 9,000 156 74 particularly in the forestry sector, intended to Mammals 297 10 27 improve its contribution to rural development Birds 849 11 17 and economic growth. The government also Fish 451 54 35 elaborated a National Action Plan to Fight Deser- Amphibians & reptiles 373 19 3 source: Ministry of the Environment and Forestry, www.biocam.net/. tification and Land Degradation, enhanced legal frameworks in view of international waters and persistent organic pollutants, and voiced its con- In recent decades, Cameroon has recorded sig- cern on climate change during the U.N. General nificant pressure on its biodiversity and biological Assembly of 2007. resources (most notably in coastal marine, humid tropical forest, and wooded tropical savannah 3.2 Environmental resources in ecosystem zones). The government's 2005 report GEF Focal areas to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity suggests that the status of the major ecosystems Biodiversity appears to have degenerated and that no action has Nearly 90 percent of all African ecosystems are yet been taken to remedy the situation (MINEP represented in Cameroon, including the Sahe- 2005a). Projections from meteorological data sug- lian, Sudanian, tropical rainforest, Afromontane, gest that by 2060, Cameroon will experience a net coastal, and marine ecoregions. The country's increase in temperature of 1.8°C, a net decrease of wildlife is among the continent's most diverse, ­559 millimeters of rainfall, and a sea level rise of 16 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 0.4 meters. The main threat for fauna is that gene by the Ministry of Forests and Fauna to address banks and arboreta maintained in most of the international concerns; this ultimately resulted ecosystems are in a bad state and that ex situ con- in the medium-term FESP. As stated above, this servation of threatened breeds has degenerated. program constitutes an important element of Invasive species are degrading pastureland, and the government's strategy for poverty reduction, forest exploitation continues unabated as the main and is outlined in the National Poverty Reduc- threat to flora, despite seemingly strict legislation. tion Strategy and specified in Cameroon's Strat- Overall, the rate of biodiversity loss through non- egy Document for the Development of the Rural sustainable use appears to be greater than the rate Sector (DSDSR).3 The government uses three of conservation and mitigation. Control measures programs--the FESP, the PNDP, and the Support recommended by research are generally inad- Programme to Community Development--to equately applied. The main obstacles encountered achieve sustainable development for rural areas, include institutional weakness, inadequate fund- which are inhabited by about 50 percent of the ing, inadequate capacity, and poor governance 15 million Cameroonians. While the latter two (MINEP 2005a). programs target the rural development of villages, rural councils, and land under agricultural pro- Cameroon's network of protected areas presently duction with the help of participatory develop- covers 15.2 percent of national territory or 7.2 mil- ment plans and microprojects, the FESP focuses lion hectares. This network includes 15 national on forests and other areas that human habita- parks, 17 wildlife reserves, 4 wildlife sanctuaries, 14 tion has not transformed. The FESP aims at the forest reserves, 2 integrated ecological reserves, 3 sustainable management of natural resources to zoological gardens, 120 community forests under improve the living conditions of the people and management conventions, 20 sport hunting zones, conserve biodiversity. It thus follows the logic of and 20 hunting zones under community manage- the "Implementation Plan of the World Summit ment, 3 biosphere reserves, 2 Ramsar sites, and 1 on Sustainable Development" (UN 2002), which World Heritage site. Cameroon has committed concludes the following: "Sustainable forest man- itself in its 1994 forestry law to put 30 percent of agement of both natural and planted forests and its surface area under sustainable management; for timber and nontimber products is essential to this is one of the highest proportions worldwide. achieving sustainable development and is a criti- The government ratified the CBD in October cal means to eradicate poverty."4 1994 and, with GEF support, produced a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in Climate Change 1997 and three national reports on the status of The government of Cameroon ratified the United biodiversity conservation in 2001, 2003, and 2005. Nations Framework Convention on Climate The fourth report to the CBD is waiting for fund- Change (UNFCCC) in October 1994. With GEF ing to be produced. support and based on the national greenhouse In March 1999, Cameroon convened the Regional gas inventory in the sectors of energy, agricul- Summit for Forest Conservation and Management ture, water, waste, industry, and land use, the first and declared the country's political commitment national communication was elaborated in 2001. to reform the sector (Declaration of Yaoundé). An Taking 1994 as the baseline, the national commu- emergency countrywide action plan was designed nication suggested that greenhouse gas emissions 3. Context of the Evaluation 17 in the atmosphere are 43 million metric tons of liquid and solid fuels, plus emissions from gas flar- carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents. The main gases ing and cement production, only emissions from emitted are CO2 (55.9 percent), methane (25.3 per- liquid fuels and cement production are significant cent), and nitrous oxide (18.8 percent); agricultural and thus shown in table 3.2. activities and land-use changes account for the majority of emissions. international Waters Cameroon is part of four international bodies of Figure 3.1 shows historical trends in CO2 emis- water:5 the Gulf of Guinea, the Congo Basin, the sions from industrial production, starting in Niger Basin, and the Lake Chad Basin. 1950. Although the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center measures emissions from gas and Cameroon has a 1,500-kilometer coastline facing the Gulf of Guinea; its territorial waters extend for 35,000 square kilometers. Cameroon is one of Figure 3.1 five countries whose coasts form part of the Gulf national CO2 Emissions between 1950­2004 of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem. In the north- Thousand metric tons of carbon ern part of the country, Lake Chad is shared with 2,500 Chad, Niger, and Nigeria. Additionally, many riv- Total fossil fuel CO2 emissions ers are shared with neighboring countries (Neba 2,000 Liquid fuels 1987). All of these international waters are used for CO2 emissions from 1,500 cement production economic activities such as maritime transport, fishing, mangrove forest harvesting, hydrocarbon 1,000 extraction, and tourism. Because these activities 500 and their wastes affect related ecosystems and their biodiversity, the government of Cameroon 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2004 included the sustainable management of coastal zones as a major component of its 1996 National source: CDIAC, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/. Environment Management Plan and established a Table 3.2 Main sources of Gas Emissions in Cameroon nitrous Carbon nitrogen CO2 Methane oxide monoxide oxide nMVOC Total source Gigogram-equivalent of COx gases emitted % of total Energy 2,216.0 859.3 164.3 769.1 24.4 98.4 3,239.7 7.4 Industry 387.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.2 22.5 387.0 0.9 Agriculture 0.0 8,828.0 7,607.4 650.3 110.8 0.0 16,435.0 37.8 Land use change 21,979.0 187.7 18.6 78.2 2.2 0.0 22,186.0 50.4 Waste 0.0 1,274.5 465.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,739.5 4.0 Total 24,583.0 11,149.6 8,255.3 1,509.3 137.6 120.8 43,988.0 100.0 Percent 55.9 25.4 18.8 100.0 source: First National Communication Report to the UNFCCC. notes: NMVOC = nonmethane volatile organic compounds. 1 gigogram = 1,000 tons. 18 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) list of priority intervention areas and actions. The used, awareness of their danger has spread, so the strategy for inland waters has been based both on majority of pesticides used now are organophos- cooperation accords (involving Lake Chad and the phorus and carbamate based. It is estimated that Niger and Congo Basins) and on the inclusion of 70 percent of the fertilizer applied finds its way rivers and their ecosystems in transboundary pro- into the atmosphere or into surface waters, leav- tected area networks. ing only about 30 percent to be utilized by the tar- geted crop plants. These nutrients, coupled with The Guinea Current dominates the coast of sewage pollution, are a serious threat to lagoons Cameroon and its neighboring countries, stretch- (Portmann and others 1989). ing from Guinea Bissau in the north to Angola in the south. The countries bordering the Gulf The Congo River Basin contains the world's sec- of Guinea have experienced rapid increases in ond largest tropical forest, covering 1.2 million population, industrialization, and urbanization in square kilometers in six countries and account- the past 40 years. Population growth attributable ing for a quarter of the world's remaining tropical to high birth rates and migration from interior forest. This vast area hosts a wealth of biodiver- provinces has resulted in a population density of sity, including more than 10,000 species of plants, 250 to 300 persons per square kilometer. The fast- 1,000 species of birds, and 400 species of mam- growing cities have been unable to provide sanita- mals. Most of Africa's great apes--chimpanzees tion and sewage treatment. In Doaula, only 2 per- and gorillas--live here. Almost all of Africa's for- cent of households have access to sewerage, and est elephants live in the Congo Basin, continually the facilities for wastewater treatment are hardly transforming the forest to provide habitat for other operational. These factors have contributed to species and dispersing seeds of key plant species. significant degradation of the natural resources Some 30 million people also reside in Congo and biodiversity of the coastal and international Basin forests and rely on them for food, medicine, waters of the Gulf of Guinea and adjacent fresh- and shelter. The tropical forests are a crucial buf- water catchment areas. fer against global climate change; their dense veg- etation acts like a huge sponge to absorb green- The region also faces problems of fisheries deple- house gases. Although it is generally agreed that tion, water pollution, loss of habitat and biodi- Congo Basin ecosystems have not yet suffered the versity, and coastal erosion, exacerbated by poor damage observed in many other regions, regional land use planning and inadequate management governments and donors advocate action to avoid capacity to control and address threats. For exam- similar deleterious situations as in Southeast Asia ple, overfishing has reduced populations of many and the Amazon. fish species, while overcutting of mangroves for firewood, building, and salt drying have affected The Niger River is Africa's third longest river natural habitats. Twenty-eight percent of the (after the Nile and Congo); its basin encompasses mangroves and significant marshlands around the nearly 1.5 million square kilometers and covers Wouri Estuary near Douala have been decimated. 7.5 percent of the continent. Great potential exists A number of rural and agricultural practices for harnessing the river's waters for hydropower, affect the marine and coastal environment, espe- irrigable lands, productive agriculture, and fish- cially the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. eries and for improving navigation to promote Although organochlorine-based pesticides are still the flow of goods and people across borders in 3. Context of the Evaluation 19 underdeveloped areas. To date, 7 of the 9 Niger agronomic importance that are found only in the River Basin countries are among the 20 poorest basin. The ecological and economic integrity of in the world. The basin's population is about 110 the basin is threatened by the large decrease in its million with an average annual growth rate of hydrological yield, induced by long-term reduc- 2.8 percent. Given declining per capita income, tions in mean rainfall in the region, coupled with poverty has reached critical levels. Further- burgeoning human demands on land and water more, vulnerability to droughts and poverty has resources. increased, and most of the population lives with- out sustainable access to basic services such as Land Degradation potable water, health care, and adequate food. It is estimated that 72 percent of arable land and Poor land and water management practices, 31 percent of pastoral land in Africa are degraded.6 coupled with high water variability basinwide, Cereals in Cameroon currently yield on average contribute to severe ecosystem degradation in 1.0 ton per hectare and, although comparable to an already poverty-stricken environment. The other countries in the region, are far below the increased need for energy and limited access to 4.8, 2.2, 5.7, and 3.0 tons per hectare yields for electricity compel basin populations to use wood China, India, the United States, and the world, and charcoal for domestic purposes. Overexploi- respectively. The productive capacity of the land tation of these materials results in deforestation is falling, because of shorter fallow rotations, low and biodiversity loss. Cumulatively, these factors or erratic rainfall, soil erosion, loss of fertility from are perpetuating a vicious cycle of environmen- soil mining, declining soil organic matter content, tal degradation, which in turn directly threatens and overgrazing. Land degradation in advanced rural communities whose livelihoods depend stages is occurring across many areas of Camer- on these ecosystems. Over the years, these fac- oon and has materialized in food insecurity in the tors have put severe pressure on land and water Sudano-Sahelian zone as well as in the Western resources. zone. Between 1971 and 1998, per capita cereal Lake Chad is Africa's fourth largest lake. With an production declined from 157 to 85 kilograms. average depth of only 1.5 meters, its surface area Although cultivable arable land covers about 15 has fluctuated between 2,000 and 25,000 square percent of total surface area, per capita arable kilometers, depending on inflows. The topographic land has fallen precipitously: from 0.86 hectares basin extends across 2.3 million square kilometers, in 1968 to 0.46 hectares in 1996. Because agro- and the livelihoods of more than 20 million people silvopastoral activities account for slightly more depend on resources closely associated with the than half of Cameroon's gross national product lake. Human development indicators, food pro- and occupy about two-thirds of the working pop- duction, and daily calorie intake are all decreasing ulation, land degradation has a social dimension and will further decrease in view of a fast-growing as well as an environmental one. Poverty is more population. Lake Chad is also the second largest pronounced in rural areas (86 percent), especially wetland in Africa, and, together with its associated among smallholders who are highly dependent on wetlands, hosts biodiversity of global significance: the land. Land degradation threatens the struc- more than 370 inventoried bird species, of which tural integrity of the ecosystems on which Cam- a third are migratory; endangered species, such eroon's globally unique biodiversity depends via as the Lake Lere manatee; and endemic plants of direct and indirect disruption of the functioning 20 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) of vital environmental services (for example, soil Neither the plan nor its associated national inven- nutrient and organic carbon retention, and hydro- tory are yet finalized. Nevertheless, it is known that logical functions); it also checks the short- and Cameroon does not manufacture any intentionally long-term productive capacity of the primary sec- released substances such as pesticides and indus- tor and represents a key barrier to increasing agri- trial chemicals; thus, the main source of entry cultural yields. for these is importation. The primary sources of unintentional releases are through uncontrolled Given that agricultural yields represent a key combustion, controlled combustion processes element of any equation to boost rural sectoral such as incineration, and incomplete combus- growth, land degradation is increasingly viewed tion of motor vehicle engines. According to POP as an issue of vital importance and seen as both experts, the levels of pesticide releases varied a cause and consequence of poverty. Camer- throughout the years, with the last major releases oon's PRSP identifies food insecurity, poor mar- of DDT, Dieldrin, and Aldrin occurring between ket integration, and unsustainable use of natural the 1950s and 1970s. Heptachlor and chlordane resources as major challenges to the rural sector's had confined uses for termite spraying until the growth and notes that changes in ecosystems and early 1990s and have limited nationwide con- declining soil fertility, among other factors, dete- tamination. The presence of transformers con- riorate the productive environment. Land degra- taminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) dation thus represents a fundamental challenge to above acceptable levels is assumed to be limited, bolstering economic growth, sustaining rural live- as there are not many transformers in Cameroon lihoods, and reducing the incidence and severity because of its low level of development (UNEP of poverty. 2000). Cameroon ratified the U.N. Convention to Com- In 2006, the Ministry of Agriculture applied for a bat Desertification (UNCCD) in 1997 and pub- change of regulation to allow the importation of lished its UNCCD National Action Plan in 2006; DDT. This request was denied, and thus, because this action plan is further specified in an imple- POP pesticides and PCBs are no longer approved mentation plan for 2007­09. The plan suggests for importation, intentional releases into the envi- focusing the interventions of various governmen- ronment have been effectively curbed, except tal bodies and donor agencies on five strategic when they are imported illegally. Current levels of themes: participatory land management, sustain- contamination, which are very confined and local- able natural resource management, rehabilitation ized for soils, are therefore expected to decrease of deteriorated land and enhancement of soil fer- in the future--especially if highly contaminated tility, capacity enhancement, and transboundary areas can be cleaned and contaminated mate- collaboration (MINEP 2006a, p. 50). rial disposed of or sealed from further contact by humans or animals. As soon as the inventory is Persistent Organic Pollutants finalized, the GEF-supported Africa Stockpiles Cameroon passed a law regulating toxic and dan- Program, jointly implemented by the World Bank gerous wastes in 1989; it ratified the Stockholm and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants United Nations (GEF ID 1348), will help Camer- in 2005 and began, with GEF financial support, oon avoid further contamination through profes- to elaborate its National Implementation Plan. sional deposition or destruction. 3. Context of the Evaluation 21 3.3 Environmental Legal plan had a five-year time frame (1995­2000) and Framework identified 82 projects to be carried out, with an ini- tial focus on dissemination of the legal documents The environmental legal and policy framework to all concerned actors (MINEF 1997). Along with in Cameroon stems from the national constitu- the forest policy and especially after the 1992 Rio tion of January 18, 1996, which states that "every Summit, the government elaborated its National person shall have a right to a healthy environ- Environmental Management Plan. The plan was ment. The protection of the environment shall finalized at the beginning of 1996; later the same be the duty of every citizen. The State shall year, a national environmental law was passed ensure the protection and improvement of the (No. 96/12, August 5, 1996) that provided the plan environment." with the requisite legal framework. During the Until the 1980s, the environment was not treated same period, the management of fire/fuelwood in a cohesive, integrated fashion: the Ministry was integrated into the new national energy pro- of Agriculture managed forests, the Delega- gram. In addition, as mandated by Cameroon's tion of Tourism managed wildlife and protected 1994 ratification of the CBD, the country--with areas, and no governmental body title used the GEF support--prepared its NBSAP, adopting it in word "environment." Although several concerns 1999. related to the environment were integrated into Under the double influence of the Millennium overall planning, this approach did not result in Development Goals and the PRSP, the environ- a homogeneous environmental strategy and legal mental sector has, since 2000, embraced, the social framework. and economic dimensions of sustainability. Conse- In the early 1990s, Cameroon developed the quently, Cameroon's DSDSR elaborates strategies Tropical Forest Action Plan, which highlighted to ensure agricultural and environmental sustain- the fact that deep institutional and legal reforms ability as instruments for promoting food security, were needed to establish a transparent, equi- increasing agricultural production, and reducing table, and sustainable management system for rural poverty. Based on this guidance, the FESP, forest resources (Nssah and Gockowski 2000). In PNDP, and UNCCD National Action Plan address the context of the CBD, a series of reforms were quite comprehensively the key issues of biodiver- put in place to address these issues: the creation sity conservation and land degradation within the of a Ministry of the Environment and Forestry poverty reduction agenda. (MINEF) in 1992; the drafting of a zoning plan in Cameroon has been actively involved in nego- 1993 that aimed to set clear boundaries between tiations leading to the establishment of a proto- production, protection, and other areas; and elab- col regulating the safety of transboundary move- oration of a new forest law (No. 94, January 20) in ment of living modified organisms and genetically 1994 regulating forests, wildlife, and fisheries. modified organisms, and a law on biosafety was While the institutional and legal framework was adopted in 2000. Since Cameroon forms part of being improved, discussions on how to guaran- the Congo Basin, which plays a global role in car- tee implementation of legal texts continued at the bon sequestration and climate regulation, slow- national and international levels until 1995, when ing deforestation is extremely important. In its the National Forest Action Plan was finalized. The Initial National Communication to the UNFCCC, 22 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Cameroon established a detailed program for implementation status of Laws, Policies, reinforcing national capacity, transferring appro- and Plans priate technology, and putting in place mecha- Cameroon's policy framework resulted in the nisms for compensation and substitution. In 2002, issuance of a number of regulatory instruments it adopted a National Energy Action Plan for Pov- by the administration during the 1990s and later. erty Reduction. With the notable exclusion of the 1994 forest law, all other legislation was issued after the environ- ratification of Environmental Conventions mental law and thus refer to it on specific environ- Cameroonian environmental policy and laws are mental issues, as follows: in line with the international processes developed z Law No. 89/027 (December 29, 1989) regulates on this subject. The country ratified the interna- toxic and dangerous waters. tional treaties and conventions listed in table 3.3, and their international principles have been trans- z Law No. 90/013 concerns the protection of lated into national laws. plants; its implementation decree No. 92/223 Table 3.3 international Environmental Conventions and agreements ratified by Cameroon Convention/agreement Year of ratification Chad Basin Treaty 1964 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1968 African Timber Organization 1974 Agreement on the Joint Management of Flora in the Lake Chad Basin 1977 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 1981 Convention on the Niger River Basin 1982 Abidjan Convention 1984 World Heritage Convention 1982 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1983 International Agreement on Tropical Timber 1983 Central African Cooperation Agreement on Wildlife Conservation 1983 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1985 Montreal Protocol on the Control of Chlorofluorocarbons 1987 Vienna Convention on Ozone 1989 Bamako Convention 1991 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1994 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 1994 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 1997 Stockholm Convention 2005 Kyoto Protocol 2002 Rotterdam Convention 2002 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 2006 Brazzaville Treaty 2006 3. Context of the Evaluation 23 (May 25,1992) is aimed at protecting plants Main Challenges and Gaps against pests/diseases. Notwithstanding the broad reach of Camer- z Law No. 94 (January 20, 1994) regulates forests, oon's environmental policy and legal framework wildlife, and fisheries. The law's implementing in terms of the issues covered and institutions decree, No. 95/531/PM, was issued in August involved, the country faces several implementa- 1995. tion challenges. z Law No. 96/12 (August 5, 1996), or the envi- There are incongruences among land tenure ronmental law, regulates all aspects related laws, systems, and the environmental law. The to environmental management. More than land tenure system has not been integrated into 20 implementing decrees are scheduled in the the reform process on environmental manage- law; to date, only a very few have been issued. ment. This has resulted in incongruences in rural The most recent one, No. 0577/PM (February areas--that is, land and resources are held in forms 23, 2005), fixes the modalities for environmen- of customary ownership, whereas the 1974 Land tal impact assessments. Tenure Law makes all land state owned that is not demarcated as private, thereby overriding custom- z Law No. 98/005 (April 14, 1998), or the water ary ownership. Furthermore, the 1994 Forestry law, regulates all aspects related to water man- and Wildlife Law prohibits all commercial natural agement and its relation to public health. resource use on nonprivate land, while promot- z Law No. 99/013 (December 22, 1999), or the ing community involvement in forestry through oil code, regulates oil operations and related community forestry reserves. These reserves are environmental issues, prospecting, and conceptually meant to provide opportunities for research. communities to benefit economically from for- ests, although commercial and subsistence use are z Law No. 2000/02 (April 17, 2000) regulates not clearly defined (Sharpe 1998). maritime areas. Reforms other than those specifically linked to z Law No. 001 (April 16, 2001), or the mines code, timber harvesting have often been considered and its application decrees regulate land and secondary. The economic crisis has impeded the marine mining activities in Cameroon. Several development of sufficient institutional capacity to environmental issues are considered, notably allow for government engagement on issues other those linked to marine exploitations. than those focusing on economic growth. Con- z Law No. 2003/003 (April 21, 2003) regulates sequently, for a long time, the environment and phytosanitary protection. forests have been seen as a source of income, pri- marily through timber harvesting, and striking a z Law No. 2003/006 (April 21, 2003) establishes balance with conservation has presented a persis- safety regulations governing modern biotech- tent challenge. An example is provided by the con- nology in Cameroon. It regulates the use of cept of community forests introduced by the 1994 genetically modified organisms and their links law as an instrument to allow rural populations with human health. to enhance their livelihoods through the sustain- z Law No. 2003/007 (July 10, 2007) regulates able management of up to 5,000 hectares. Despite activities of fertilization. the intentions of the law, community forests 24 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) have sometimes been used by logging companies mobile indigenous peoples are underrepresented and elites as a type of logging permission, which in forest and protected area management (Mayaka granted access to community land to harvest all 2002, Ribot and Oyono 2006, Sharpe 1998). high-value timber species as quickly as possible, The government of Cameroon clearly recognizes in the face of any concerns for sustainability and the challenges discussed above.7 One of the major improved local livelihoods. At present, only a few objectives of the recent FESP is to improve national examples of community forests show promis- institutional capacities so that the government will ing results in terms of environmental and social be able to fill the implementation gap between the outcomes (Oyono 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Ribot and legal framework and actual practice. Oyono 2006), although MINFOF is developing a handbook to improve awareness and implementa- notes tion of community forestry. 1. www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/west_ MINFOF and MINEP technical capacity is lim- africa/Pages/biodiversity.aspx. ited. The recently produced NCSA for Global 2. These montane regions support a number of Environmental Management stated that Camer- endemics: the Mount Cameroon francolin (Fran- oon would need an investment of around $140 colinus camerunensis) and the Mount Cameroon speirops (Speirops melanocephalus) are endemic million to be capable of managing the environ- to Mount Cameroon; the Mount Kupe bush-shrike ment in line with international standards. This (Malaconotus kupeensis) is largely confined to report is provisional and is awaiting validation by Mount Kupe, where only 21 square kilometers of stakeholders. habitat remains (the species has recently been dis- covered at two additional sites). The conservation Public participation in the management of for- of the forests of Mount Oku is the last remaining hope for two species, Bannerman's turaco (Tauraco est and wildlife resources remains problematic. bannermani) and the banded wattle-eye (Plat- The 1994 forestry policy prescribes active partici- ysteira laticincta), which are restricted to montane pation of the population in the conservation and forests in the Bamenda-Banso Highlands. management of forest resources, but such par- 3. For discussion of the link between the FESP and the ticipation remains underdeveloped, due in part to country's PRSPs, see Ngomba (2003) and Oksanen resistance to decentralized power--which is also and Mersmann (2003). underdeveloped. This is linked to unclear roles and 4. For the importance of forests for poverty reduc- responsibilities of governmental structures, civil tion, see Scherr, White, and Kaimowitz (2003). society, and local communities, which often do 5. Most of the information in this section is taken not have adequate skills for proper management from project documents. of the redistributed resources. Other elements are the weak technical management capacity of 6. The primary reference for this section is the GEF project document for the Sustainable Agro-Pasto- NGOs and the difficult shift in the private sec- ral and Land Management Promotion project. tor from being loggers to serving as participatory forest managers, emphasizing sustainable social, 7. Some of these issues have been explored in detail in previous evaluative studies, such as Nssah economic, and environmental returns. As a result, and Gockowski (2000). See also research papers the customary ownership, needs, and livelihoods by Oyono (2004a, 2004b, 2004c) and Ribot and of rural populations and the specific livelihoods of Oyono (2006). 3. Context of the Evaluation 25 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 4.1 Portfolio Breakdown projects in Cameroon, including those that were not considered by the evaluation team. Over the past 15 years, the GEF has supported a fairly narrow range of activities in Cameroon, national Projects by GEF Focal area and with national full-size projects and medium-size Modality projects (MSPs) focused primarily on biodiversity As of this writing, Cameroon has completed conservation, and thereby reflecting Cameroon's five GEF-supported projects and has five under primary global environmental resources. implementation: The following criteria were used to select projects z The completed projects consist of one FSP and for further analysis: one MSP in the biodiversity focal area and three z Activities carried out in Cameroon exclu- enabling activities, two of which are in biodi- sively (national projects, both FSPs and MSPs) versity and one in climate change. Together, that are under implementation or completed, these five projects total $15.53 million, of which excluding all pipeline activities and canceled $7.68 million is GEF funding. pipeline projects z The projects under implementation consist of z Activities carried out in Cameroon that are one FSP in biodiversity, one FSP in land deg- part of regional or global projects under imple- radation, one MSP in biodiversity (biosafety), mentation or completed, with significant pol- and one enabling activity each in the POPs icy-based and/or demonstration/pilot activities and multifocal areas. These projects total within Cameroon, again excluding all pipeline $226.55 million, of which GEF funding accounts activities1 for $17.87 million (see figure 4.1). Based on the above criteria, the group of activities In Cameroon, the biodiversity focal area accounts considered in this evaluation are those shown in for the majority of projects in the GEF portfo- table 4.1. lio--60 percent of total funding. The other focal areas each account for 10 percent of the portfo- All nationally based FSPs, MSPs, and enabling lio. Most of the biodiversity projects are enabling activities were included in the evaluation, along activities aimed at assisting the government in the with 11 of 19 regional and/or global projects; all of development and elaboration of plans, strategy, these were either completed or under implemen- and environmental policy. The most significant tation. Annex D presents a complete list of GEF nonbiodiversity investment is in land degradation, 26 Table 4.1 GEF-supported Projects in Cameroon included in the Evaluation GEF Focal GEF agency/national support Total cost Project title area executing agency Modality (million $) (million $) Completed national projects (5) 7.68 15.53 Biodiversity Conservation and Management BD WB/MINEF/WWF and others FSP 6.10 12.53 Community-Based Conservation in the Bamenda Highlands BD UNDP/Birdlife MSP 1.00 2.35 Preparation of National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan and First BD UNEP/MINEF EA 0.30 0.30 National Report to the U.N. CBD Clearing-House Mechanism BD UNEP/MINEF EA 0.01 0.01 Preparation of the Initial Communication Related to UNFCCC CC UNEP/MINEF EA 0.27 0.34 national projects under implementation (5) 17.87 226.55 Forest and Environment Development Policy Grant BD WB/MINFOF/MINEP FSP 10.27 126.80 Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Promotion LD WB/Ministry of Planning FSP 6.35 98.35 (under the PNDP) Support to the Implementation of the National Biosafety BD UNEP/MINEP MSP 0.56 0.67 Framework National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environmental MF UNEP/MINEP EA 0.20 0.22 Management Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent POPs UNEP/MINEP EA 0.49 0.52 Organic Pollutants: National Implementation Plan for Cameroon Completed regional and global projects (5) 18.28 36.21 Regional Environmental and Information Management Project BD WB/Association for Environ- FSP 4.38 15.69 ment and Development Information Country Case Studies on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation CC UNEP EA 2.00 2.00 Assessment Alternatives to Slash and Burn I CC UNDP/World Agrofor- FSP 3.00 6.00 estry Centre Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn II CC UNDP/World Agrofor- FSP 3.00 6.37 estry Centre Water Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf IW UNDP/MINEF FSP 6.00 6.15 of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem regional and global projects under implementation (6) 62.61 174.92 Conservation of Transboundary Biodiversity in the Minkebe- BD UNDP FSP 10.48 45.08 Odzala-Dja Interzone in Gabon, Congo, and Cameroon Improved Certification Schemes for Sustainable Tropical Forest BD Centre for International MSP 0.99 1.45 Management Forestry Research/ Forest Stewardship Council Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Lake Chad IW UNDP/WB/Lake Chad FSP 10.29 13.42 Basin Ecosystem Commission Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River IW UNDP/WB/Niger Basin FSP 13.38 30.28 Basin Authority Combating Living Resource Depletion and Coastal Area Degrada- IW UNDP/UNEP/MINEP FSP 21.45 55.32 tion in the Guinea Current through Ecosystem-Based Regional Actions Demonstrating and Capturing Best Practices and Technologies for IW Ministry of Tourism MSP 6.02 29.37 the Reduction of Land-Sourced Impacts Resulting from Coastal Tourism note: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; EA = enabling activity; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal; WB = World Bank. 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 27 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 GEF national Projects in Cameroon by Focal area GEF Funding for national Projects in Cameroon by and Modality agency and Focal area Number Million $ 10 Enabling activity 30 8 MSP 6 FSP 25 4 Land degradation 20 POPs 2 Multifocal 0 15 Bio- Climate Land POPs Multi- Total Climate change diversity change degrad- focal ation 10 Biodiversity note: Includes both completed projects and those under 5 implementation. 0 World UNDP UNEP Total Bank specifically the World Bank's Sustainable Agro-Pas- toral and Land Management Promotion project. note: Includes both completed projects and those under implementation. national Projects by GEF agency and Executing agency The major GEF Agency in Cameroon is the World Bank, which performs most of the national FSPs The relative dominance of the World Bank is par- and some of the major regional initiatives, such as tially due to the presence of in-country expertise those in Lake Chad and the Niger Basin (this latter and, hence, the ability to meet with stakeholders is jointly implemented with UNDP). UNEP imple- to help them in developing project proposals. It ments most of the enabling activities, with UNDP also benefits from a long history of engagement in supervision of this portfolio, and some regional the environmental and forestry sectors.2 initiatives. UNDP has the smallest national port- folio; it implemented one MSP and is involved in The World Bank has implemented the following several regional programs. projects in Cameroon: Figure 4.2 shows all completed and in progress z Three projects in two focal areas, all of them national FSPs, MSPs, and enabling activities by FSPs, which represent nearly 90 percent of the GEF Agency and focal area. The figure shows the GEF portfolio under implementation or com- dominance of the biodiversity area and of the World pleted ($22.72 million) Bank; these two account for more than $18 million z Two of the FSPs (one completed and one under and $23 million in GEF funding, respectively. The implementation) addressing biodiversity con- other focal areas have only received funding for servation, predominantly in the humid tropical enabling activities of between $0.2 and $0.5 million forest area of southern Cameroon to assist with policy and regulatory development, as well as helping Cameroon fulfill its reporting obli- z One FSP addressing sustainable land manage- gations to the global environmental conventions. ment/land degradation 28 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) UNEP's GEF portfolio of national projects consists Figure 4.3 of one MSP supporting biodiversity (biosafety) GEF Funding for national Projects in Cameroon by and enabling activities assisting the government Executing agency and Focal area in reporting to the environmental conventions Million $ and protocols, including the UNFCCC, CBD, and 20 Stockholm Convention on POPs. Together, these Land degradation 18 projects represent $1.8 million of the GEF portfo- POPs 16 Multifocal lio, or 7 percent of total funding. 14 Climate change UNDP's GEF portfolio of national projects has Biodiversity 12 been limited to one MSP in the biodiversity focal 10 area addressing the Bamenda Highlands. This 8 project accounts for $1 million in funding, or 6 4 percent of the total GEF portfolio. 4 Notably, the African Development Bank, Food and 2 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 0 MINEP/ Ministry of International International Fund for Agricultural Development, MINFOF Planning NGOs and United Nations Industrial Development note: Includes both completed projects and those under Organization have no national GEF project port- implementation. folio. There is also no private sector involvement in the portfolio. regional Projects by GEF agency and The government is the main national executing Focal area agency partner for the GEF, through the Ministries Cameroon has extensive involvement in GEF-sup- of Forests and Fauna, Environment and Nature ported regional and global projects. Since 1992, it Protection (both of which were, until 2004, part of has participated in 19 such regional and global MINEF), and Planning. Together these ministries projects (see annex D). Eleven were considered execute two FSPs in the biodiversity focal area, one in this evaluation (see table 4.1), of which five are FSP in the land degradation focal area, and five completed and six are currently under implemen- enabling activities, all of which total $24.54 mil- tation; these account for $80.89 million in total lion (see figure 4.3). funding.3 These projects fall under the following focal areas (see figure 4.4): International NGOs such as WWF, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Birdlife International z Biodiversity. Three of five regional/global have played significant roles in assisting with the biodiversity projects are World Bank initia- implementation of the GEF Biodiversity Conser- tives, including the Regional Environment and vation and Management project; specifically, they Information Management Project. The other each received GEF funding for implementing proj- FSP in this focal area is a UNDP project, Con- ects in and around several protected areas. Bird- servation of Transboundary Biodiversity in life International also implemented the Bamenda the Minkebe-Odzala-Dja Interzone in Gabon, Highlands MSP. Congo, and Cameroon (TRIDOM) (GEF ID 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 29 Figure 4.4 Degradation in the Guinea Current Large GEF Funding for regional and Global Projects Marine Ecosystem through Ecosystem-Based including Cameroon by GEF agency and Focal area Regional Actions (GEF ID 1188)--which is executed by the United Nations Industrial Million $ Development Organization--continues that 90 80 initiative. UNDP and the World Bank jointly UNEP 70 implement two FSPs addressing land and water 60 UNDP World Bank degradation in the Lake Chad and Niger Basin 50 40 ecosystems, and UNEP has one FSP to dem- 30 onstrate best practices in reduction of land- 20 sourced impacts of tourism. Altogether, these 10 five projects account for $57.04 million, making 0 Bio- Climate Int'l Total international waters the most significant regional diversity change waters portfolio in which Cameroon participates. note: Includes both completed projects and those under implementation. small Grants Programme The SGP in Cameroon began implementation in 1095). The fifth biodiversity project is an MSP 1993. In its first round, 11 projects with a total implemented by UNEP, Improved Certification value of $0.4 million were funded (see annex D). Schemes for Sustainable Tropical Forest Man- The Cameroon SGP was suspended in 1996 agement. Together, the biodiversity projects because of irregularities in project management total $15.85 million. procedures and suspected mismanagement of funds by the SGP national coordinator (see chap- z Climate change. One enabling activity in this ters 6 and 7). It was relaunched in early 2007 at focal area was implemented by UNEP to pro- the request of the Cameroon GEF National Com- duce a series of adaptation country case stud- mittee. In March of that year, a national strategy ies. UNDP implemented two global FSPs, both was elaborated, focusing the SGP thematically in of which have focused on research and dem- the international waters and biodiversity conser- onstration into alternatives to slash-and-burn vation focal areas and geographically in the south- agriculture and were executed by the World ern coastal areas and in the north. This strategy Agroforestry Centre. All three projects, which provided the framework for five full projects and represent $8 million in total funding, are now one grant for proposal elaboration, accounting for complete; there are currently no climate change a total of $0.15 million over two years. Four of the regional/global initiatives in which Cameroon projects focus on community-based management participates.4 of coastal and arid ecosystems, complement- z International waters. UNDP implemented ing the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem the Water Pollution Control and Biodiver- projects and following up on some of the achieve- sity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Large ments of the completed Biodiversity Conserva- Marine Ecosystem FSP (GEF ID 393). A jointly tion and Management project. The remaining implemented UNDP-UNEP FSP, Combating project complements reforestation microprojects Living Resource Depletion and Coastal Area financed under the Lake Chad initiative. 30 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) The SGP is managed by an independent staff in Figure 4.5 the UNDP country office. It is under the supervi- GEF Funding for Cameroon Projects by sion of a National Steering Committee, with rep- replenishment Period and Focal area resentatives from the government (three mem- Million $ bers), private sector (one member), academia (one 70 member), GEF Agencies (two members), and civil 60 society (five members). International waters 50 Climate change GEF Projects by Objective 40 Biodiversity Table 4.2 summarizes the aggregated objectives 30 addressed in the project and SGP activities sup- 20 ported by the GEF in Cameroon. These objectives 10 reflect the dominance of biodiversity conservation 0 project activities. Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 phase GEF Funding by replenishment Period notes: Includes both completed projects and those under imple- mentation. Small amounts were allocated to the POPs and multi- The following summarizes the emphases in GEF focal areas, but are not shown here. SGP activities are not included. funding from the pilot phase through to the GEF-3 replenishment period (see figure 4.5 and the alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture table 4.3): initiative. The lack of national approvals dur- z Pilot phase. Three FSPs were approved dur- ing this period derives from a combination of ing the GEF pilot phase: the Biodiversity Con- factors, including low in-country capacity and servation and Management project addressing poor governance--which contributed to the national protected area management, the initial delayed implementation of the Biodiversity Gulf of Guinea regional project addressing pol- Conservation and Management project--and a lution and biodiversity, and the global project lack of focus from the GEF. Total funding in this addressing climate change mitigation through period was $9.96 million. alternatives to slash-and-burn agriculture. z GEF-2 (1998­2002). Again, no national FSPs Only the initial phase of this last-mentioned were approved in this period, and for the same project was completed during the pilot phase. underlying reasons: poor capacity and restruc- Total funding during the pilot phase was $15.1 turing within the government. One MSP was million. approved, the initiative in the Bamenda High- z GEF-1 (1995­98). No national FSPs or MSPs lands executed by Birdlife International. An were approved during this replenishment enabling activity to support biosafety frame- period. Instead, three national enabling activi- work implementation was also approved, as was ties addressing biodiversity and climate change the regional FSP for Lake Chad. Total funding global convention reporting, and one regional allocated for the period was $11.85 million. enabling activity focusing on adaptation z GEF-3 (2002­06). This period saw an increase research were approved. Two regional projects in GEF national operations in Cameroon with were approved including the second phase of the approval of two large FSPs--the Forest and 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 31 Table 4.2 Main activities of Evaluated national and regional/Global Projects in Cameroon, by Focal area and Modality Focal area FsP MsP Enabling activity sGP Biodiversity y Terrestrial protected y Community y Preparation of the Cameroon y Work with local areas establishment and forestry and National Report to the CBD NGOs and com- management conservation y Establishment of a clearing- munity-based y Management and system y Support for imple- house mechanism organizations planning mentation of y Support for implementation of on sustainable y Capacity development for envi- national forestry national biosafety plan livelihood strat- ronmental management and law and policy egies/practices forestry conservation y Regional coopera- in high-value tion on forestry biodiversity y Regional cooperation on certification coastal and forestry conservation and schemes marine areas management y Community- y Alternative livelihood based projects generation with indige- y Community forestry nous people on y Support for forestry and envi- sustainable use ronmental policy development of biodiversity and implementation for conserva- y Biodiversity monitoring and tion of native reporting crops, medici- y Improving regional environ- nal plants, and mental information and knowl- other non- edge management timber forest products Climate y Research and demonstration to y Preparation of national com- y Community- change reduce and provide alternatives munication to the UNFCCC based projects to slash-and-burn agriculture y Additional capacity building on ecotourism on climate change adaptation contributing to International y Regional cooperation on inter- y Demonstrating the promotion waters national waters management best practices in of biodiversity for the Gulf of Guinea, Lake reducing degra- conservation Chad, and Niger River Basin dation generated y Regional strategic action plan- by land-based ning and implementation of coastal tourism demonstration activities Land y Sustainable rural development degradation and poverty reduction y Building local government and community capacity to manage natural resources and preserve global biodiversity y Soil erosion reduction measures and improved water manage- ment techniques POPs y Preparation of national plan for implementing the Stockholm Convention Multifocal y NCSA to manage the global environment 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Table 4.3 $3 million for a global coastal mangrove con- GEF Funding to Cameroon by GEF Phase, Focal servation project. area, and agency Million $ Table 4.4 shows variations in cofinancing across Pilot the different GEF phases. Cofinancing varies dra- Parameter phase GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 Total matically from a ratio of 1.05 for cofinancing to National 6.10 0.34 1.56 17.31 25.31 GEF support of national projects in the pilot phase projects to a low of 0.2 in GEF-1. This variation can be Biodiversity 6.10 0.31 1.56 10.27 18.24 explained by the substantial cofinancing available Climate 0 0.27 0 0 0.27 for the Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- change ment project in the pilot phase and the absence Land 0 0 0 6.35 6.35 degradation of major activities in GEF-1 and GEF-2. The ratio POPs 0 0 0 0.49 0.49 for GEF-3 of 12.64 is attributable to two World Multifocal 0 0 0 0.20 0.20 Bank­led projects--the FESP initiative and the World Bank 6.10 0 0 16.62 22.72 sustainable land management investment--both UNDP 0 0 1.00 0 1.00 of which are blended with assistance from the UNEP 0 0.34 0.56 0.69 1.59 World Bank's International Development Asso- Regional/ 9.00 9.62 10.29 39.96 68.87 ciation as well as substantial bilateral assistance. global Consequently, Cameroon is placed well above the Cofunding 6.43 0.07 1.46 218.8 226.76 GEF 2005 cofinancing ratio average of 4.1 (GEF note: Cofunding to regional projects is not included. Data do not include funding for SGP. EO 2006a). Table 4.4 Environment Development Policy Grant and the Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Man- Cofinancing/GEF Contribution ratio by GEF Phase agement Promotion project in, respectively, the GEF phase ratio biodiversity and land degradation focal areas. Pilot phase 1.05 Two enabling activities were also approved for GEF-1 0.20 POPs and NCSA. Three regional FSPs were GEF-2 0.90 approved, including the second phase of the GEF-3 12.64 Gulf of Guinea initiative, the Niger Basin proj- average a 8.95 a. Total cofinancing divided by GEF contribution. ect, and the Minkebe-Odzala-Dja Interzone projects. One regional MSP was approved, the forest certification schemes initiative. Total summary funding for this period was $57.27 million. National projects have used more than $25 mil- z GEF-4 (2006­10). Under the new RAF, Cam- lion in GEF financing since 1992. The majority of eroon has received an individual allocation for funding has been through the FSP modality and biodiversity conservation of $11.6 million, of has been particularly dedicated to three large which $5.8 million must be programmed in the projects--Biodiversity Conservation and Man- first two years of RAF implementation. To date, agement, Forest and Environment Development Cameroon has only used $0.15 million of this Policy Grant, and Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and initial allocation and has programmed a further Land Management Promotion--which received 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 33 more than 85 percent of the total investment. Figure 4.6 Support to enabling activities was more limited, ODa to Cameroon between 1990 and 2006 both in terms of number of projects and level of funding. $/person 60 4.2 GEF support in the Context of 50 Total ODa 40 Between 2003 and 2007, Cameroon received 30 between $300 million and $450 million in official development assistance (ODA) each year, albeit 20 with great fluctuation from one year to the next 10 (note that the ODA was support for all sectors, not just the environment). According to the lat- 0 1990 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 est World Bank country assistance evaluation (2001), France was, on average, the most active source: Government of Cameroon. development partner. In 1985­97, it provided around 45 percent of overall ODA to Cameroon. figures show that the national funds allocated to In general, bilateral agencies--with 73 percent of address environmental issues are presently rather ODA--are much more strongly represented than limited and that MINEP is receiving significantly multilaterals: European Union, 14 percent; World less financial support than the MINFOF. Bank, 9 percent; and United Nations, 0 percent. The GEF, with an average annual contribution of Nevertheless, it should be noted that the alloca- around $4.5 million, is one of Cameroon's smaller tion for the environmental sector almost doubled partners, but it is very visible in the environmental within the past three years, has increased threefold sector and is the lead donor in POPs and climate since 2000, and is rising faster than the overall bud- change work. In the biodiversity and land degrada- get. Figure 4.7 underlines this positive dynamic. tion sectors, the GEF could be more visible and is generally perceived as a grant facility managed by Table 4.5 the World Bank. ODA provided to Africa overall national Funding for the Environmental sector in has increased by 70 percent in the past 15 years,5 Cameroon but in 2006 Cameroon received 22 percent less in Million $ ODA than it had 15 years before (see figure 4.6). Year MinFOF MinEP Total 2005 16.2 1.1 17.3 Table 4.5 gives an indication of how ODA pro- 2006 19.1 3.8 22.9 vided for the environmental sector is allocated 2007 28.9 6.5 35.4 across the relevant Cameroonian ministries. These source: Government of Cameroon. 34 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Figure 4.7 national Funding for Cameroon's Key Ministries in the Environmental sector MINEP 14 1.2 MINFOF MINEF 12 1.0 Percentage of total budget 10 0.8 Billion CFA 8 0.6 6 0.4 4 2 0.2 0 0.0 2000/2001 2001/2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 notes: Bars show funding in billion CFAs for the ministries; lines show the percentage of total budget represented by each ministry's funding. CFA 455 = $1. Overall, however, the environment receives about 3. Funding is by project and not by country. In most 0.5 percent of the national budget, which is sig- cases, it is not possible to identify the precise coun- try allocation for GEF regional and global projects. nificantly below the resources required to address environmental problems.6 4. The development of regional climate change proj- ects focused on building capacity for mini- and microhydropower by UNDP was recently dropped notes as a priority for GEF funding. 1. Implementation status and recommendations from Cameroon stakeholders were also taken into 5. Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation account in selecting regional and global projects and Development, OECD Stat 2008 (http://oberon. for evaluation. sourceoecd.org/rpsv/dotstat.htm). 2. See World Bank OED (2000). 6. See IMF-IDA (2006). 4. The GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 35 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon This chapter reviews the results, effectiveness, and 5.1 Potential results of sustainability of GEF support in the context of the Projects under implementation country's and GEF's goals and priorities. The fol- lowing key questions were posed: Biodiversity z What are the aggregated results of GEF support Results from Completed National Projects at the focal area and country levels? The GEF-supported Biodiversity Conservation and Management project was Cameroon's first z What is the likelihood that objectives will be biodiversity conservation­focused project and a achieved for those projects that are still under vehicle for implementing the 1994 Forestry and implementation? Wildlife Law, particularly regarding protected z What are the results (outcomes) of completed areas. The project focused on six sites (two in the and ongoing projects? tropical forest biome, three in the Afromontane z What is the sustainability (financial, institu- biome, and one in the northern Sudanic biome) tional, socioeconomic, and environmental) of and aimed to enhance the protection status of GEF support? these sites through financial and technical sup- port. It also provided assistance to the National In addressing the issue of results, the evaluation Herbarium in Limbe to enhance the process of carried out verification of the two completed documenting Cameroon's biodiversity. A direct full- and medium-size projects (respectively, outcome of the project has been the creation of Biodiversity Conservation and Management and five national parks, two of which have not yet been Community-Based Conservation in the Bamenda fully gazetted. The fact that Cameroon enlarged its Highlands) and the completed enabling activi- protected area network from 20,504 square kilo- ties, based on existing evaluative evidence and meters to 72,118 square kilometers--an increase reports. It did not independently measure results from 4.3 percent to 15.2 percent of the national or attempt to assess impact. For ongoing projects, territory--between 1992 and 2007 can be partly such as the Forest and Environment Development attributed to GEF support for this sector. The ris- Policy Grant, the evaluation assessed potential ing number of protected areas under management results based on project plans and so forth, as well plan and well staffed, and the improved scores for as informed comments proffered by stakeholders protected area management effectiveness of seven regarding ongoing processes and activities. major protected areas indicates that biodiversity 36 management is improving. Furthermore, Waltert also helped establish the "landscape approach" to and others (2005) suggest that the biodiversity in conservation (with technical input from WWF Cameroon's protected areas is richer and more and the Wildlife Conservation Society), which is diverse than in areas that are not protected. In this attempting to mainstream biodiversity concerns respect, the outcomes have increased the potential into commercial logging operations and community for long-term national and global environmental and indigenous people's resource use needs within benefits, assuming that issues regarding sustain- and adjacent to protected areas, using manage- ability can be successfully addressed. ment planning as a framework for making resource use agreements. The project piloted the landscape Visible environmental outputs achieved by the GEF approach beyond the boundaries of protected areas portfolio in biodiversity include the following. to Unités Techniques d'Opération around Campo- In Southeast Cameroon, three national parks Ma'an, which allowed for regular coordination and have been created (Boumba Bek, Lobéké, and communication among local community repre- Nki) along with 14 hunting zones, putting a sentatives, MINFOF, logging companies, agribusi- total area of 26,920 square kilometers under nesses, and hunters. The approach has now been protection. Supported by a regional trust fund more widely adopted in other protected areas financed by Germany's state aid bank, WWF con- such as Lobéké National Park and Mbam Djeram tinues to work with reduced funds and is help- National Park. ing MINFOF keep key operations functioning in Mount Cameroon (2,500 square kilometers), anticipation of new investment through the FESP. which is one of 25 global biodiversity hotspots and ranges from sea level to an altitude of 4,095 In the Savannah ecosystem, the protection sta- meters, is scheduled to be fully protected as a tus has been enhanced for 31,300 square kilo- national park based on demarcation and nego- meters, which includes the three existing national tiation activities supported under the Biodiversity parks (Faro, Benoue, and Bouba-Ndjidah) and and Conservation Management project. Surveys the newly created adjacent 28 game management document increased crop destruction, which areas. Sixty-five community-based game guards suggests that wildlife populations are recovering were trained and equipped. (O'kah 2002). In the south of Cameroon, the Campo-Ma'an Mount Koupé (42 square kilometers) and Mount National Park, with a total surface area of 2,640 Bakossi (950 square kilometers) are scheduled square kilometers, was established. The number for full protection as Bakossi National Park as of game guards was increased from 3 to 35, and a follow-up to demarcation of conservation core they were provided with equipment and training. zones and restrictions put in place through agree- Because the park was created as an environmen- ments with the government-installed traditional tal compensation measure for the Chad-Cam- chiefs (village leaders). Because of this protection eroon pipeline, a certain percentage of revenues measure, the mandrill population has begun to generated by the pipeline are earmarked for park recover (Wild, Morgan, and Dixson 2005). management and channeled to WWF, which pro- vides technical and financial assistance to MIN- Ecological monitoring carried out in 1987­2003 FOF. Campo-Ma'an is seen as the best staffed and in the Kilum-Ijim Forest (170 square kilometers) equipped national park in Cameroon.1 The project suggests that GEF-supported demarcation of 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 37 boundaries and creation of community forests visited the tourism opportunities are under- not only stopped deforestation but were able exploited because of poor access and siting of to turn the process around. Between 1958 and facilities, and lack of investment, expertise, and 1999, 50 percent of the montane forest was lost knowledge.3 to deforestation, but 7.8 percent had been recov- z Thirty-nine community forests have been cre- ered between 1988 and 2001; the area destroyed ated at the Campo-Ma'an (15), Mount Cam- each year by fires has been reduced by two-thirds eroon (4), Kilum-Ijim (18), and Southeast (2) (Abbot and Thomas 2001, Cunningham and oth- sites. Five are fully operational, and two gen- ers 2002).2 erate income (respectively, $12,000 per year The GEF portfolio has also generated a variety of and $25,000 per year). However, the evalua- tion found that incomes are not reported to tangible socioeconomic benefits to support and the communities for the Bimbia-Bonadikombo encourage conservation activities, albeit with some community forest; in Vokai, the management caveats and exceptions: team misused the funds. There is thus much z Sustainable game management areas provide room for improvement in terms of manage- approximately $20,000 a year to the com- ment effectiveness and efficiency. These find- munities in northern Cameroon (MINFOF ings confirm previous studies of community 2007) and $100,000 a year to the communi- forestry in Cameroon. ties in Southeast Cameroon (Logo, Abessolo, z Alternative income-generating activities (snail and Koulbout 2007) as part of the landscape farming, mushroom production, game farming) approach to mainstreaming biodiversity con- have proved challenging to establish and sus- servation incentives outside boundaries of pro- tain after the end of the projects, due to lack of tected areas. ability within communities to maintain capaci- z Apiculture produces incomes of around $60,000 ties and to develop markets for products. a year for communities in the Northwest Prov- z Redistribution of forest exploitation taxes ince and additional but smaller incomes at could be considered partly as a local benefit of other sites. The initial phase of the SGP was the protected area, but no positive correlation instrumental in promoting apiculture in the presently exists between protected areas and Bamenda Highlands, and honey production income from forest taxes. has flourished. A number of local cooperatives have been established, which allow farmers to According to ministry records, GEF-supported market their honey efficiently and effectively. projects have interacted and will continue to interact with the livelihoods of a large number of z Ecotourism provides approximately $2,000 a people: year to the communities around the Campo- Ma'an National Park; $1,200 to the communities z 300,000 people in Northern Cameroon around Mount Koupé; and $1,000 to the com- z 250,000 people around Mount Cameroon munities around Kilum-Ijim, including tem- z 150,000 people, including 40,000 indigenous porary employment to about 20 tourist guides Baka in Southeast Cameroon at Mount Cameroon. However, the evaluation observed that in many of the protected areas z 140,000 people around Mount Koupé 38 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) z 60,000 people among the 700 indigenous Bagyéli and Bakola around the Campo-Ma'an Box 5.1 National Park Physical and Economical Displacement from national Parks supported by the GEF z 50,000 people around Kilum-Ijim The creation of the Lake Lobéké and Boumba Bek National Parks--supported by the GEF under the Bio- The overall potential for positive or negative diversity Conservation and Management Project--led results is not known, as socioeconomic surveys to the physical displacement of several Baka communi- were either not conducted or were found to be of ties and economic displacement of around 8,000 peo- ple who depend on the parklands for more than 50 poor quality. Nevertheless, research suggests that percent of their livelihoods. The establishment of the GEF projects have caused or will potentially cause parks represented a loss of income of about $1.5 mil- economic displacement: lion a year to these people. Although the real figure in 2008 might be somewhat lower because surveillance z Around Mount Cameroon, a detailed assess- is not 100 percent effective, the $0.52 per person per ment suggests that the planned national year generated through the community hunting zones (Logo, Abessolo, and Koulbout 2007; WWF 2004) can- park could restrict access to resources by not offset these income losses of approximately $190 250,000 people and result in income losses per person per year. Even if the surveillance was effec- valued at $1 million a year and increased crop tive only to 1 percent, people would still lose nearly damage by animals. These costs are normally four times as much as the gain from sustainable natu- ral resource management (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau not compensated by MINFOF, because no 2006). These findings have been further documented funds are available, although the 1994 Forestry by a number of studies, including detailed land use and Wildlife Law requires compensation at studies financed by the German Organization for replacement cost. Technical Cooperation (GTZ), a comprehensive multi- disciplinary assessment of the region financed by Yale z Communities near Lobéké National Park University, and two studies focusing on the negative reported some losses of customary rights over impacts imposed on the livelihoods and culture of Baka populations. the forest, and livelihoods have been affected by crop-raiding. There are currently no mecha- nisms for managing human-wildlife conflict. Although WWF and other stakeholders are across the populations that live within and around working to put in place mechanisms to create protected areas. incentives for community support for conserva- In terms of biosafety, GEF assistance enabled tion (see box 5.1), some local communities view Cameroon to elaborate a national biosafety frame- the park and projects as providing little benefits work, which includes a national law (2003) and a to alleviate impoverishment or mitigate restric- procedural framework (2006) to implement the tions in access (see also Ndameu 2003, Yasuoka law at all border posts (including ports and air- 2006). port) in line with the principles agreed on in the In sum, the completed GEF projects have contrib- Cartagena Convention. It was observed that con- uted to the generation of significant conservation trol posts exist and carry out searches. outcomes in terms of expanding Cameroon's pro- tected area system, as well as developing a range Potential Results from Ongoing National Projects of socioeconomic incentives. These initiatives will Since 1999, the government of Cameroon and clearly need to receive further support to scale up the international community have designed the 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 39 FESP based on experiences gained from the Bio- the existing protected area network (72,118 square diversity Conservation and Management project. kilometers) and assist in identification and demar- Officially adopted in May 2004, the FESP's main cation of additional parks and reserves to achieve objective is to support the line ministries respon- the objective of a protected area network that cov- sible for implementing environmental policies, ers 30 percent (140,000 square kilometers) of the notably MINFOF and MINEP. The FESP has five Cameroonian national territory. components: Annual working programs will be prepared by z Environmental and social follow-up MINEP and MINFOF, both at the central and decentralized levels. Activities previewed by these z Sustainable management of forest production programs are then funded by the ministries' bud- z Management of wildlife and protected areas gets, which are in turn increased through donor budgetary support. Each one of the five compo- z Management of the forest by local communi- nents has a list of milestones and triggers. All trig- ties gers are grouped into a matrix, which is used by z Strengthening of institutional capacities the donors to assess the programs' performance. To guarantee optimal coordination among the MINEP has technical responsibility for the first Ministry of Finance, MINFOF, and MINEP, a component; MINFOF manages the remaining Facilitation Committee has been established, components. The Ministry of Finance, although which should supervise all activities related to the not involved in the technical management, man- FESP. ages the FESP funds. FESP funds started to finance the programs' activ- The FESP has a total budget of $127 million and ities in July 2007. As of December 2007, MINEP consists of two different funding mechanisms, had used about 90 percent of the assigned annual budgetary support and a basket fund, imple- funds, whereas MINFOF had used only 30 per- mented to help the ministries manage the budget cent. In view of the GEF-supported activities, support efficiently. The rest of the funds will come most funds were allocated for purchase of equip- from the government budget and donors' credits ment at the national and provincial levels and have or grants through budgetary support. The World resulted in limited field activities. Hence, although Bank has been instrumental in facilitating the the potential of the FESP is very significant, it will budgetary support approach with other bilateral require a longer period to show outcomes. donors, such as the U.K. Department for Interna- tional Development (DFID) and has worked with The protected areas supported under the FESP the government since 2000 to put in place a long- with assistance from the GEF represent 0.1 percent term approach premised on capacity development of the surface area of the planet. Any enhancement and investment, using a programmatic structure in protection status is thus likely to have positive as opposed to a traditional "project." impacts on global biodiversity, as well as on car- bon sequestration. As part of the FESP, the GEF grant of $10 million will be used to sustain, under component 3, the The FESP includes an Indigenous Peoples Devel- achievements of the Biodiversity Conservation opment Plan to ensure that the development and Management project to enhance protection of process fully respects the dignity, human rights, 40 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) economies, and culture of indigenous peoples and intergovernmental organization, to produce a broad community support of affected indigenous large number of documents and distribute them populations through free, prior, and informed in the six countries. The outcome was a com- consultations. The plan presents guidelines that prehensive database of relevant documents and will avert any potentially adverse effects on indig- information (containing around 18,000 items at enous peoples' communities or, if avoidance does project closure) to be managed by project-trained not prove feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compen- environmental information managers and library sate for such negative impacts. An additional goal managers (107 people) from the national member of the plan is to ensure that indigenous peoples organizations and associated NGOs. receive social and economic benefits that are cul- turally appropriate and inclusive in both gender Potential Results from Ongoing Regional and Global and intergenerational terms. Projects The regional TRIDOM project (approved in 2006) As a national sector program, the FESP has a good has used the integrated biodiversity conservation chance of being sustainable, because all activi- approach developed under the Biodiversity and ties will be implemented through MINFOF and Conservation Management project to enhance MINEP and therefore will result in enhanced conservation in and around national parks in ownership and capacity throughout the imple- the Republic of Congo, Gabon, and Cameroon. mentation process (although some procedural Through UNDP, the project's Implementing barriers now exist as delineated in chapter 6). Agency, the GEF has provided $10.5 million to this According to the project document, the FESP is large-scale multidonor project with a total budget financially viable, because sustainable forestry of $45.0 million. The project is at an early stage of will in the long run generate sufficient tax reve- implementation; however, its potential environ- nues to sustain the functioning of MINFOF and mental benefits are significant, because it will use MINEP at a much higher level and enable them to an integrated biodiversity conservation approach guarantee effective management of the protected to enhance conservation on 160,000 square kilo- areas. This economic sustainability will require meters, including Odzala-Kokoua National Park that close attention be paid to community issues, in the Republic of Congo; Minkebe National Park, particularly if creation of new parks and reserves Mwangne National Park, and Ivindo National results in potential economic and/or physical Park in Gabon; and Nki National Park, Boumba displacements. Bek, and Dja Biosphere Reserve in Cameroon. Any enhancement in protection status is likely to results of Completed regional and Global have a positive impact on global biodiversity. Projects The Regional Environmental and Informa- The global Improved Certification Schemes for tion Management Project was approved in 1997 Sustainable Tropical Forest Management proj- with the World Bank as Implementing Agency ect has been under way since January 2005 by the to sensitize the population in six countries of the Center for International Forestry Research and Congo Basin on biodiversity conservation and the Forest Stewardship Council with a budget of general environmental issues. The GEF contri- just below $1 million for three countries, and uses bution enabled the Association for Environment the Community Forest of Bimbia-Bonadikombo and Development Information (ADIE), a regional as one of two pilot sites in Cameroon. Although 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 41 this community forest is large enough to generate and the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in visible incomes (total income $25,000 in 2006 or 1999. These were the first consistent and com- $5 per person per year), the local community cur- prehensive documents on the subject and are rently lacks sufficient awareness of the income- therefore fundamental to all future planning and generating potential of the community forest implementation in the sector. They also helped model. So far, the management team (based in in streamlining Cameroonian approaches in view Limbe) has yet to sensitize the communities suf- of international standards and best practices, and ficiently on their role and responsibilities, as well enhanced the capacities of the government staff as rights to income generated. Some positive out- and international NGOs involved. As in the case comes have been reported for this community for- of the Support to the Implementation of the est, but more equitable sharing of benefits--which National Biosafety Framework project, which is needed to make it a sustainable and meaningful established a national biosafety framework in line community forest--has not yet been realized. with international standards, the number of ben- eficiaries of the capacity enhancement of these Institutional Development and Capacity output-oriented works was limited to around four Enhancement people each in MINEF. As noted above, through The Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- ADIE, the REIMP sensitized the population in six ment project was structured around a steering countries of the Congo Basin to biodiversity con- committee, chaired by the MINEF minister, and servation and general environmental issues. executed by a project management unit which The draft report of the 2007 NCSA concludes that disbursed funds to the international NGOs imple- $140 million is needed to enable national actors to menting the project at the site level. Regarding address national and global environmental priori- institutional development at the local level, the ties effectively; this underlines the seriousness of program was instrumental in promoting a multi- the capacity gap within the government. actor approach, enhancing the capacity of future conservators enlisted in the wildlife school in Gar- Climate Change oua and governmental staff involved in project implementation (especially at the savannah site). The National Adaptation Program of Action, Several enabling activities were set up to main- currently under development by the government, stream biodiversity conservation and the outcomes highlights that coastal and semiarid (Sahelian) and experiences of this biodiversity project. The zones are the most vulnerable to climate change. project also contributed to capacity building at the Major climate change impacts are expected in National Herbarium, notably increasing its ability northern zones on agriculture and animal hus- to map, collect, and store specimens. It linked the bandry and, in coastal areas, on mangroves and herbarium to Kew Gardens in London, facilitat- industrial infrastructure. Projected sea level rise ing the exchange of information and personnel to could exacerbate coastal erosion, induce changes in mangrove areas with disruption of the food assist with on-the-job training. Since the end of the chain, negatively affect the reproductive areas of project, the herbarium has had difficulty maintain- many fish species, and cause floods. GEF support ing capacity because of a lack of funding. has been quite instrumental in the sector as, under The CBD enabling activity resulted in the pub- the UNFCCC project, the GEF helped Cameroon lication of the first national CBD report in 1997 carry out inventories on greenhouse gas emissions 42 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) and elaborate the Initial National Communication Cameroon are still a major threat to safety, health, to the UNFCCC. and the environment" (Alemagi 2006). As the strategic plan is not yet available, even as an early The GEF supported two climate change global draft, it is difficult to determine whether the goals research projects focused on reducing slash- of the projects (recover and sustain depleted fish- and-burn agriculture (and forest loss) by pro- eries, restore degraded habitats, and reduce land moting alternative agricultural practices and thus and ship-based pollution by establishing a regional slowing land use changes that contribute to cli- management framework for sustainable use of liv- mate change. The two projects suggested detailed ing and nonliving resources) can be achieved and measures to strengthen implementation, manage- whether the sensitization and awareness raising ment, and governance of alternatives to slash and were sufficient to ensure sustainable funding from burn and how communal ownership and manage- the 16 member states. Results may become visible a ment can solve the "tragedy of the commons." To few years after the strategic plan has been finalized enable such changes, the projects recommended and implementation, scheduled for 2009, begun. capacity enhancement and linking global environ- mental and local benefits through systems such The Lake Chad Project and the Niger Basin as payment for environmental services. The key Project use a similar approach to assist, respec- challenge now is implementation by the govern- tively, the Lake Chad Basin Commission and Niger ment and other stakeholders. The main results of Basin Authority in establishing strategic action the research have been included in the program plans based on transboundary diagnostic assess- of most centers and programs of the Consultative ments while implementing pilot activities in dem- Group on International Agricultural Research. onstration sites. Both projects are being executed jointly by the World Bank and UNDP and are international Waters implemented by regional commissions. The Lake The Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem 1 Chad Project asked the United Nations Office and 2 Projects supported the establishment of the for Project Services (UNOPS) to invite NGOs to Gulf of Guinea and Guinea Current Commissions, carry out field-oriented activities; the Niger Basin which aim to harmonize and coordinate coastal Project appointed for this function a microproj- zone development and management through ect grant officer. In Lake Chad, the International a strategic action program based on a compre- Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is the hensive transboundary diagnostic analysis. The local executing agency; it elaborated draft man- projects' major achievement was the Accra Dec- agement plans for two of the three subsystems laration (1998) and elaboration of several baseline (Lake Chad and Waza Logone Plain) and provided assessments; the strategic action plan and imple- funds to local NGOs to implement microprojects. mentation of pilot activities in nine demonstra- After weaknesses in microgrant management tion plots have not yet commenced. The capaci- became apparent in September 2007, the contract ties of some 500 scientists have been enhanced of the microproject grant officer under the Niger during the planning process and the awareness Basin Project was terminated; as of this writing, a of national decision makers has been raised. A successor has yet to be appointed. detailed evaluation suggests that the pilot proj- ects "have had little or no discernible impacts and Ten of the microprojects of these two projects that industrial activities along the Atlantic coast of were visited (see table 5.1). They use reforestation 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 43 Table 5.1 Microprojects under the Lake Chad Basin and niger river Basin Projects Visited by the Evaluation Team agency Local nGO Location Project title Cost ($) Lake Chad Project--Lake Chad Commission (executing agency), iUCn (subimplementor) UNDP EnviroProtect Bogo Récupération des hardes et d'amélioration des sols à travers le 11,111 reboisement et l'utilisation du composte World Bank EnviroProtect Bogo Récupération des hardés et d'amélioration des sols à travers le 11,111 reboisement et l'utilisation du composte UNDP CFAID Eiheng Stabilisation des terres cultivables pour l'amélioration de la cul- 9,937 ture du sorgho de saison sèche dans le micro-bassin UNDP AIDR Guirvidig Prévention des maladies hydriques dans trois villages 11,111 World Bank FEB Guirvidig Projet pilote de culture fourragère 6,667 World Bank GIC CAPEG Maga Projet de culture de deux hectares d'oignon 4,871 niger Basin Project--niger Basin authority (executing agency) UNDP GIC CAPEG Gounougou Amélioration d'une pépinière fruitière et forestière UNDP Horizon Info Pitoa Création d'une pépinière fruitière et forestière UNDP Horizon Info Pitoa Construction des foyers améliores portables et non portables UNDP GTE Sahel Lagdo Réduction des effets du déboisement versant de la retenue d'eau artificielle and agroforestry to combat land degradation and in training on the use of compost, but that they enhance rural livelihoods (support to agricultural will not use it as it does not make sense for their production, irrigation, and rural infrastructure). agricultural practices. Although these microprojects were welcomed by the population, several lack a clear relationship Based on these findings, the microprojects face to the protection of water resources and de facto many challenges to becoming sustainable or to international waters. For example, it is difficult to reaching a point where they can be scaled up. establish a link between reopening dried-up irri- gation channels, which will potentially encourage Land Degradation less water to be returned to Lake Chad, and the Cameroon's 1996 National Environmental Man- objective of this project, which, according to the agement Plan paid significant attention to land project document, is to ensure that "Lake Chad degradation, protection, and restoration, espe- is sustainably protected by concerted, integrated cially concerning agriculture and soil protection. management of the basin's resources." Such links In 1997, Cameroon ratified the U.N. Convention are clear in reforestation and agroforestry micro- to Combat Desertification. Although desertifica- projects at the local and global levels, but currently tion is defined by the UNCCD only in the con- the results of these projects have yet to be realized. text of arid, semiarid, and dry subhumid regions, In Bogo, a large signboard was established, but the in its UNCCD National Action Plan, Cameroon 1,210 tree seedlings planted by the villagers for adopted a wider definition to include all eco- EnviroProtect are not protected against the sun or systems found in its national territory and the animals or provided with water. Members of the impacts that land degradation is having on them. local population indicated that they participated In the context of the ongoing Sustainable Agro- 44 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Pastoral and Land Management Promotion likely to produce POPs and established the Cam- project, a survey was carried out to identify 17 eroon Pesticide Action Network to allow for the representative target communities in which 60 exchange of information on POPs. communal microprojects totaling $2.4 million At present, effective management of POPs is a and 150 community microprojects totaling $1.2 major challenge for the country. GEF support in million could be implemented to enable com- establishing a national implementation plan could munities to combat land degradation. Successful potentially have a significant influence and sensi- microprojects would then be replicated in other tize decision makers, government officials, indus- communities to achieve widely visible impacts. try, large-scale plantations, and civil society on Although the UNCCD National Action Plan, POPs. When the inventories and plan are finalized, which is the immediate outcome of the UNCCD Cameroon will become eligible for funding under regional project, provided the larger framework, the GEF-supported Africa Stockpiles Program, the Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Manage- which was established to eliminate all stockpiles ment Promotion project should result in (1) iden- of obsolete pesticides. tification and dissemination of best practices, (2) capacity enhancement for at least 100 community- 5.2 Catalytic Effects based organizations, (3) more effective and effi- The Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- cient land tenure and land use conflict litigation ment project experience regarding external exe- commissions to solve agro-silvopastoral conflicts, cution through international NGOs resulted after and (4) biodiversity enhancement by increasing the project ended in a considerable shift by the vegetative cover on at least 250 square kilometers. government to become more involved in the bio- If the initiative proves successful, Cameroon will diversity conservation and forestry sector. In this have an effective tool for combating land deg- regard, with World Bank and bilateral donor influ- radation and desertification in order to achieve ence, it laid the foundation for the FESP. There is national and international objectives. now opportunity for the outcomes of the Biodi- versity Conservation and Management project Persistent Organic Pollutants to be further scaled up and reinforced under the Cameroon ratified the Stockholm Convention on FESP all across Cameroon. POPs in 2006. In preparing the National Imple- mentation Plan for the convention, the GEF-sup- The two climate change­related research projects ported POPs enabling activity carried out some on slash-and-burn agriculture played a catalytic initial inventories, which suggested that industry role in view of knowledge on forest margin bench- and agriculture are the main sources of pollution marks and played a significant role in transform- by POPs, while household and municipal waste ing the way that decision makers think about the play a minor role. Dioxins and furans are unin- factors shaping land use at forest-agriculture inter- tentionally produced by incinerators, chemical faces in the humid tropics. They have resulted in industries, wildfires, and putrefaction processes. the elaboration of a good number of projects and Chemical products such as PCBs and hexachlo- initiatives that use the instruments tested here to robenzene are found in industrial units, research fight deforestation and to stabilize forest habitats. laboratories, and municipal and industrial waste Although influential at the international level, deposits. The project also identified a list of sites they have not had much influence in Cameroon, 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 45 as research has documented that deforestation of and incremental tax receipts of about $12 million tropical forest habitats in Central Africa is rather a year following improved recovery and a reduc- limited; therefore, the need to promote alterna- tion in illegal logging. According to this projec- tives to traditional slash-and-burn agriculture is tion, once completed, the FESP will increase gov- not a priority in Cameroon (Ickowitz 2006). ernment recurrent costs by around $3 million a year, about $2 million of which will be for manag- Two of the earlier SGP projects on beekeeping ing existing and new protected areas. Assuming and indigenous nontimber forest products that FESP implementation gains momentum with played a catalytic role in introducing apiculture increased government capacity and concerted and the cultivation of nontimber forest products efforts to improve the sustainability of the logging in the Northwest Province. The beneficiaries indi- industry to ensure socioeconomic return in the cated that GEF support allowed them to establish long run, Cameroon will move toward enhanced best practices that have since been reproduced financial sustainability of the protected area sys- without donor assistance in hundreds of commu- tem. Furthermore, many untapped opportunities nities. It also provided the ground for formal trade exist in the tourist sector, which is currently under- of these products, which are today sold under the developed despite Cameroon's wealth of natural label of the Northwest Bee Farmer Association attractions. The contribution of the tourism sector and Heifer Project International all over the coun- toward financial and socioeconomic sustainability try. Heifer Project International has also taken the of biodiversity conservation is constrained by many lessons from the project and disseminated them factors including lack of tax incentives for investors, through its own international network. visa and customs issues that make it more difficult for tourists to visit, poor transport infrastructure, 5.3 sustainability and lack of quality tourist accommodations.5 Financial The Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Man- Environmental projects addressing the issues of agement Promotion project does not lend itself land degradation on arid lands should be able to to cost-benefit analysis for several reasons: (1) generate economic benefits within 10 to 20 years; because investments will be demand driven (that investments in tropical forest ecosystems might is, their nature cannot be known beforehand); (2) take 60 to 90 years before yielding economic ben- eligible microprojects, while strengthening the efits.4 Cameroon's national initiatives dealing with agropastoral sector, would not be directly produc- environmental issues, such as the FESP and the tive in nature; and (3) economic benefits of capac- Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Management ity building are difficult to quantify. Promotion project, are economically viable--all other things being equal--and their economic Because of the lengthy delay between the end of rate of return is expected to range from 13 to 18 the Biodiversity Conservation and Management percent, as detailed below. project and the start of the Forest and Environ- ment Development Policy Grant supporting World Bank analysis suggests that the FESP will the FESP, some of the outcomes achieved under help secure Cameroon's natural resource base, the completed projects are beginning to erode which would in turn generate a sustainable stream because of lack of funds from donors and the gov- of annual fiscal revenues in excess of $65 million ernment. For example, the National Herbarium in 46 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Limbe was--under the Biodiversity Conservation Box 5.2 and Management project and with support from DFID--able to provide important knowledge- GEF sGP acts against Corruption based services to the government, international The SGP began operations in Cameroon in the mid- 1990s. Although it developed several innovative and NGOs, and the private sector on plant biodiver- catalytic projects, its work was suspended in 1996 sity; now, with only small amounts of funding because of irregularities in project management pro- from the government, the organization is quickly cedures and mismanagement of funds. An audit com- losing staff and infrastructure capacity to fulfill its missioned by UNDP and UNOPS subsequently con- firmed corruption involving the national coordinator. role as a depository and service provider. It also cited inadequate supervision (contributed to by a lack of geographic focusing of grants) and monitor- Regarding other challenges to financial sustain- ing oversight of national coordinator staff as a factor ability, the evaluation noted that for three of the six in allowing misappropriation of funds to take place. sites assisted under the Biodiversity Conservation The audit stated that "the laxity in the management and Management project, the Cameroon Moun- of the project by UNOPS" and inadequate administra- tive and financial support and monitoring by UNDP tains Conservation Foundation was established to had resulted in the mismanagement of funds, with, bridge the financial gap between the end of GEF among other irregularities, the disbursement of funds and other financial support and implementation to "ghost projects." The audit results led to the decision to halt SGP operations in Cameroon. of the FESP. When the foundation closed in 2006 because of financial irregularities, the financial At the request of the GEF National Committee, SGP operations were relaunched in Cameroon in 2006. sustainability not only of sites supported under the The reinstated program appears to have learned from GEF projects was seriously compromised, but also the previous experience, and, in its first year, provided several other sites supported by--among others-- funding mostly to projects in one geographic area to DFID, the German Organization for Technical enable efficient and effective supervision and focus the potential on achievement of environmental and Cooperation (GTZ), and the Swiss NGO Helvetas livelihood results. The current national coordinator and lost their financial follow-up and sustainable exit UNDP country office staff are maintaining high stan- strategy (CAMCOF 2007). dards of control and supervision of grantees to ensure continued effective use of funding. Several initiatives--including the SGP, the Niger Basin Project, and the Bamenda Highlands proj- ect--have experienced problems with financial implementation framework was fully operational, management.6 These experiences reveal the need international conservation NGOs were instru- for improvement in monitoring and supervision mental in taking the lead in implementing and on the part of the government, the GEF Agen- supervising the detailed activities. Thus, the proj- cies, and the relevant international NGOs. In the ect did not significantly contribute to building case of the SGP, positive steps have been taken to national and local government capacity, particu- relaunch the program with enhanced financial larly in MINEF (World Bank 2003a). The techni- controls and supervision to reduce the risk of cor- cal audit conducted by the World Bank in 2003 (p. ruption (see box 5.2). 36) stated that ...capacity building of MINEF field conserva- institutional tion services has been weak. We must note that Because the Biodiversity Conservation and Man- the financial means of the Biodiversity project agement project was designed before the national strengthened most of the MINEF partners' 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 47 [international NGOs'] activities and served little to the true reinforcement of MINEF field Box 5.3 capacities. Mixed Outcomes in Working with stakeholders Based on field observations of the situation in The evaluation revealed both successes and failures many of the sites visited, institutional sustainabil- with regard to projects' attempts to build and sustain ity is precarious, as the field cadre of MINFOF and institutional capacities. MINEP staff wait for FESP investment funds to An example in the Biodiversity Conservation and arrive. For example, in northern savannah parks, Management project was in the savannah site where WWF worked closely with the ministry representative, five years after project closure, the control bri- supported the capacity enhancement of the ministry gade established to fight illegal hunting is down staff involved, and enabled one of them to become a to six staff members with no vehicle; each of the key player in MINEP/MINFOF and one of the architects parks is down to 15 staff members with one car of the FESP. The management plan for the Benoue National Park was fully endorsed by the ministry as it (none for Faro) and two bicycles. Although some was completely involved in the plan's elaboration, but additional funds ($2.2 million) were provided by here the problem of sustainability materialized at the the French GEF (FFEM) to elaborate management level of the local game guards. They were trained and plans for Bouba-Ndjida and Faro, local ministry their salary provided by the project. When funding ended, they could not be maintained because opera- staff members indicated that they are presently tional funds provided to the provincial delegations are unable to implement these plans because of limited considered insufficient to pay for any additional game staffing and operational budgets (see box 5.3). guard. In contrast, at the Kilum-Ijim site supported under the The overarching issues, however, relate primar- Biodiversity Conservation and Management and Bam- ily to insufficient government baseline funding to enda Highlands projects, MINEF local and provincial provide a foundation for institutional sustainabil- representatives were not sufficiently involved in the project's field activities and were therefore unwilling ity. The FESP intends to address this by improving to take over day-to-day responsibilities when Birdlife the flow and sustainability of revenues from log- International closed its Cameroon program down. ging and other activities to maintain and augment institutional sustainability after the FESP ends. communities and directly depending on the pro- tected areas supported by the GEF. This success socioeconomic has been a strong incentive in reducing the inci- Only modest achievements were made under the dence of forest fires in Kilum-Ijim. GEF projects completed to date to provide local incentives to support biodiversity conservation. Community forestry has been promoted by both Microprojects on community forestry, ecotour- completed GEF projects and under the ongoing ism, reforestation, snail farming, game ranching, certification project, but success has been difficult sport hunting, agroforestry, and adapted agricul- to achieve. Five community forests are fully opera- ture were supported during project implementa- tional; of those, only two are generating income tion periods. Their ex post sustainability proved for communities. The experience of the Bamenda challenging in the absence of follow-up donor or project highlights some of the key problems with government support (see box 5.4). However, api- community forests. The project attempted to culture has been successful, generating an esti- develop 18 community forests; at the project's end mated $0.1 million in income for the involved in 2004, many had fulfilled the guidelines under 48 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) the Forestry and Wildlife Law and were recog- communities to obtain adequate socioeconomic nized by MINFOF as community forests and benefits from their forests.7 allowed to extract certain resources. Field obser- vations showed that, in 2007, only two community Enhancement in incomes from apiculture is cer- forests were still functioning and were only able tainly an achievement, but it cannot provide alter- to do so because Birdlife International staff helped native livelihoods or compensate communities for obtain new funds to assist them. The main barri- restrictions in access. The GEF is presently using ers to communities in developing and managing the safeguard system of its Agencies to ensure the forests relate to the complexity of community compliance with international safeguard stan- forestry laws and regulations and the concomi- dards. Although the Biodiversity Conservation and tant lack of understanding of the law (which is Management project was implemented before the also related to low educational levels and literacy World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement in rural areas) and a lack of capacity to produce, provided specific measures for protected area cre- implement, and monitor operations plans. Thus, ation and management, the policy will apply to the the process of complying with the law and obtain- FESP, because its objective is to enhance the pro- ing community forest status has been slow with- tected area network while ensuring that no one out external support. At present, it is difficult for will face economic or physical displacement. Box 5.4 some Benefits, some negatives, at Lobéké national Park A major assumption associated with the gazettement of Lobéké National Park was that creation of the park would not negatively affect local communities if a participatory approach was adopted. However, field verifications revealed gaps in the level of local participation and a mix of benefits and negative results. Positive Results z Wildlife fees and annual forestry fees generated through the Biodiversity and Conservation Management project have been used to improve local social services such as potable water, schools, and payments for teachers. However, there is still a lack of funding from donors, NGOs, and the government to meet local development needs. z Some ecotourism has been generated, with current visitation by national and foreign tourists numbering around 300 persons. But ecotourism is currently constrained by lack of infrastructure, park facilities, and financial management. z Local committees have been created to manage the annual forestry fees and hunting fees. While some local livelihood benefits have been achieved thereby, the committee schemes suffer from lack of transparency and poor governance by local officials, leaving room for improvement in efficiency of operations. Negative Results z There is a lack of information within communities regarding the functioning of the local committees and their use of funds. z In the four villages visited, communities had little awareness of the park management plan or its implementation, sug- gesting that further efforts are needed to achieve a participatory approach to park management. z Many of the local communities, particularly the indigenous Baka pygmies and Bangandos perceive the project--and the park--as negative because it restricts them from subsistence hunting, and alternative resource extraction opportu- nities are lacking (although there are ongoing initiatives to zone areas of the park where Baka can extract resources). z Crop-raiding by park animals is currently a major threat to local livelihoods. Complaints made by communities were common, but no mechanism exists to mitigate crop-raiding. 5. results of GEF support to Cameroon 49 It is a positive step that the FESP has adopted an 2. An update to these studies has shown that the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan, which area under forest has grown in the Oku area of the Bamenda Highlands (Jonathan Barnard, Birdlife looks to ensure the socioeconomic sustainability International, personal communication). of indigenous peoples' communities and their live- lihoods and to provide them with legal access to 3. See GEF EO (2006b). This study highlighted simi- lar challenges and barriers to tourism development forests for subsistence needs, including hunting. as a tool to incentivize conservation in many GEF projects. The policy agenda established with and supported by the GEF presents challenges regarding mainte- 4. This is based on assumptions for specific high- nance of the rights and livelihoods of local com- value tropical hardwoods and time of regeneration and so on. munities (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2006). In the long run, this might result in increased con- 5. These findings have been highlighted by donors flicts between the population and protected area such as GTZ. management, as already has been reported in East 6. This last project closed in early 2004, more than a Africa (GEF EO 2006b), and undermine the envi- year ahead of schedule. Two audits (Conseils and ronmental sustainability of the protected areas Auditeurs Associes 2002, UNDP 2002a) suggest financial irregularities, but this is disputed by Bird- network. life International, which managed and supervised the project from its headquarters in Cambridge, notes United Kingdom. 1. WWF has reported that for 2007­08, there is a 7. These observations are confirmed by several other funding gap of approximately $200,000, which will studies, including Brown and Schreckenberg (2001) affect the implementation of the management plan and Sharpe (1998); also see www.cedcameroun.org/ and the development of the national park. actu/contenu_actu.php?id=30. 50 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 6. relevance of GEF support to Cameroon This chapter reviews the relevance of GEF support new forest and environmental laws and was able in the context of both the country's and the GEF's to draw on experiences coming out of the United goals and priorities and summarizes the findings Nations Conference on Environment and Devel- in relation to the following key questions: opment in Rio de Janeiro. This resulted in the 1994 Forestry and Wildlife Law, which paved the z Is GEF support in line with Cameroon's Poverty way to community involvement in forestry man- Reduction Strategy Paper and environmental agement and commercial timber extraction, as priorities? well as conservation. At the time, the law was seen z Does GEF support have country ownership, as a considerable step forward, both for Camer- and is it country driven? oon and within the region (Brown and Schreck- enberg 2001). It was within the context of this law z How relevant are the RAF indexes (global envi- and other environmental policies (for example, ronmental benefits and performance) to Cam- the National Environmental Management Plan eroon's priorities? and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action z Does GEF support help development needs Plan) that GEF projects were developed, thus and reduce gaps? ensuring relevance to the national situation. z Are GEF-supported projects in line with Forests have a profound significance in poverty national environmental action plans? reduction in Cameroon, as forestry accounts for z Is GEF support targeting actions that contrib- 9 percent of the GDP and around 20 percent of ute to global environmental benefits? export revenue. Directly employing more than 12,000 workers, the sector is the largest formal employer in rural areas. Given the concentration 6.1 integration of the GEF into of poverty in forest zones and its role as the prin- national sustainable Development cipal source of cash income for the rural poor, the Cameroon's global environmental resources and impact of forest development on the poor is sig- GEF portfolio primarily relate to biodiversity con- nificant; this is implicitly recognized in the 1994 servation; hence, when assessing the integration Forestry and Wildlife Law as well as the FESP. and relevance of GEF-funded projects, the empha- In addition to providing exchange for necessi- sis is primarily on biodiversity and particularly ties that require cash payments, such as school on forest conservation and management. In the fees, medicine, and clothing, forests are a source 1990s, Cameroon embarked on the elaboration of of food, shelter, domestic energy, and traditional 51 medicines, all of which are essential to the vast z Promote the sustainable management of majority of Cameroon's poor. This has been con- natural resources by raising awareness about firmed by a joint World Bank­International Mon- and support for mechanisms of coordination etary Fund PRSP assessment, which singled out among all stakeholders, the value of resources the forest sector as an engine of specifically pro- and innovative management methods, adop- poor economic growth, as well as an important tion of land use plans, and conflict resolution area of economic diversification in terms of pro- frameworks viding a hedge against the vulnerability of national It is clear that GEF interventions in the Sustain- income to export price shocks in the petroleum able Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Pro- and/or agricultural sector (IMF-IDB 2006). Given motion, Lake Chad, Niger Basin, and Gulf of all this, the Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- Guineau 1 and 2 projects contribute to and are ment, Bamenda Highlands, Forest and Environ- fully congruent with these national development ment Development Policy Grant, TRIDOM, and objectives. Improved Certification Schemes for Sustainable Tropical Forest Management projects are fully in Because Cameroon is not a significant emitter line with and a valid contribution to the PRSP. of carbon dioxide (emissions of an estimated 43 The other focus of the GEF portfolio--sustainable million metric tons a year), climate change has land and water resource management--is also not featured prominently in national govern- congruent with the PRSP. The PRSP identifies ment strategies such as the PRSP. The GEF has poverty, food insecurity, poor market integra- also not targeted Cameroon with funding for tion, and unsustainable use of natural resources climate change mitigation interventions; Camer- as major challenges to rural sector growth and oon does not have an individual allocation under emphasizes the fact that changes in the ecosystem the Resource Allocation Framework for climate and declining soil fertility, among other factors, change. Cameroon is a participant in the World degrade the productive environment. Land deg- Bank non-GEF partnership to reduce global gas radation thus represents a fundamental challenge flaring from oil production operations, which to reaching the overarching goals of Cameroon's has the potential of reducing greenhouse gas PRSP--namely, to bolster economic growth in the emissions. In other ways as well, climate change rural sector, sustain rural livelihoods, and reduce is beginning to gain greater prominence in gov- the incidence and severity of poverty. This is ernment of Cameroon environmental priorities clearly delineated in the DSDSR, which elaborates in relation to monitoring and research,1 adapta- on four central points in achieving the objectives tion, and vulnerability as it relates to sustainable of the PRSP in rural areas: land management, agricultural development, and coastal development and in relation to forest z Modernize the agricultural production appara- management and carbon (credit) sequestration/ tus by addressing the issue of land tenure and storage (Molua and Lambi 2007). ensuring access to water and resources The enabling activities are also contributing to two z Restructure the institutional framework priorities of the PRSP, as they enable the sustain- z Create a legal environment conducive to rural able management of natural resources and build development by promoting access to informa- capacity; these are cornerstones of Cameroon's tion and markets social strategy as well. 52 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 6.2 GEF Funding and Ownership also have the potential of improving government understanding and ownership. The interviews conducted and documents reviewed of completed and ongoing projects clearly revealed The process of elaborating and implementing that project concepts tend not to originate from in- national laws, strategies, and action plans has country stakeholders. At a practical level, project drawn heavily on external experiences and tech- proponents have tended to be the GEF Agencies nical support, which was mostly concentrated at and international NGOs; the government of Cam- the national level. Ownership has not yet reached eroon takes a more passive role in that it receives all decentralized structures of government. For ideas and proposals for approval, albeit ones with example, it was observed during site visits that, which it agrees. Country ownership or drivenness although progressive concepts such as specific is then built into the government stakeholders user rights for indigenous peoples in national parks through the preparation process or during imple- are well received by the international community, mentation. Many government interviewees stated they are not always implemented in the field, as that capability and an understanding of what is local staff members do not always have the req- "GEF-able" and of the formats required for stake- uisite knowledge or capacity--or hold the same holders to write their own proposals were lacking, views. This situation has been exacerbated by the and it was easy to ask the GEF Agencies or external relatively short time frames of project approaches. international consultants to assist them in accessing The FESP is attempting to overcome this last with GEF funding. However, both MINFOF and MINEP a 10-year time frame in order to allow ownership interviewees noted a beneficial change when com- and capacity to be built sustainably. paring the earlier Biodiversity Conservation and Government ownership of the reform agenda Management project with the subsequent Forest is challenging, and indeed, most of the reforms and Environment Development Policy Grant proj- have been linked to external donor condition- ect: the former was largely externally driven and alities and have had difficulty in gaining the full executed; for the latter, the World Bank and other commitment of those in charge of implementing donors are being more proactive in encouraging the the reform agenda at the national and local levels. government to take a leading role. For example, one One example is the NBSAP, prepared in 1999 with of this project's initial activities is to sensitize MIN- support from the GEF as an obligation resulting FOF and MINEP officials on the content of their from Cameroon's 1994 signing of the CBD. Most national program and assist them in developing of the actions outlined in the NBSAP have proved skills to access funds and hence begin investments. difficult to implement, and the performance level Basic capacity development has focused on annual predicted for 1999 had not yet been achieved by operations planning and results-based budgeting. 2005, according to the country's Third National These procedures and structures will enable gov- Report to the CBD (MINEP 2005b). Low levels of ernment staff to gain confidence and build owner- ownership and leadership capacity have delayed ship of the program. Until this is achieved, effective the elaboration of implementing decrees needed ownership will remain more with the donors than to enforce general laws. To be effective, the 1996 with the government. environmental law was scheduled to address key More recent and ongoing changes in GEF project issues in 20 implementing decrees, but many proposal procedures and greater clarity in over- are unimplemented, creating opportunities for all strategies and frameworks such as the RAF renewed action. 6. relevance of GEF support to Cameroon 53 At the local level, efforts at community involvement The RAF performance indexes are based on previ- and public participation indicate uneven ownership ous/historical portfolio performance; World Bank of the reform agenda. Following international best country environment policy and institutional practice laws, strategies and action plans call for assessment; and a broad government framework the involvement of all stakeholders and ask MIN- indicator, which takes into account aspects such FOF, MINEP, and their partners to work closely as property rights, rule-based governance, trans- with rural communities and indigenous peoples, parency, and corruption. Because Cameroon is but implementation depends largely on the indi- characterized by comprehensive environmental vidual inclination of park managers. None of the policy and laws, albeit with limited governance rural community forestry groups visited during the capacity in the environmental sector and within evaluation were able to explain the basic elements government as a whole; and because it is plagued of national policy that they need to know to imple- by issues related to transparency, rent-seeking ment community forest concessions. This is mainly behavior, and corruption, the RAF performance due to lack of awareness and capacity development indicators are able to capture both the positives as well as lack of assistance from MINFOF local and challenges of performance in Cameroon. officials in sensitizing and assisting communities in learning their rights and responsibilities. Biodiversity The RAF indexes for biodiversity are developed Communities have tended to rely on external from several separate but related data sets, such as international NGOs (such as Birdlife International countries' terrestrial ecoregion components and or WWF) or knowledgeable individuals to help complexity--including subsets for represented them translate law into practice. Although this has species, threatened species, represented eco- led to some positive results, these have tended to region, and threatened ecoregion--and marine erode once the NGO has withdrawn. For example, biodiversity equal to the sum of credits from all it was observed during visits to community forests marine species in the territorial waters. These formerly supported through the Biodiversity Con- were then used to assess each country's ability to servation and Management and Bamenda High- produce global environmental benefits. lands projects that communities did not have suf- ficient knowledge, power, or capacity to maintain The results of the analysis reveal that GEF-sup- their community forests (such as writing and sub- ported projects have largely focused on the most mitting annual operating plans or environmental significant biodiversity in Cameroon in forest and impact assessments). These field findings are con- mountain area ecoregions, particularly in relation firmed by independent research (Oyono 2004b, to the Guinea forest biodiversity hotspot. GEF support has targeted conservation at the spe- Ribot and Oyono 2006, Sharpe 1998). cies and subspecies levels, including many of the country's areas containing endemic and threat- 6.3 raF relevance to Cameroon ened species (Mount Koupé, Mount Cameroon, Because the GEF does not have or use standard- and Campo-Ma'an, among others). In coastal and ized indicators to measure global environmental marine areas, GEF support has not been as strong, benefits, the evaluation has used the implicit RAF although this will change in the near future with criteria for biodiversity and climate change as the implementation of the coastal mangroves potential environmental indicators.2 project now under preparation. 54 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Projects have often concentrated on larger priority consultations to establish their priorities for proj- tropical forest areas in urgent need of conserva- ect funding. The Cameroon operational focal tion action representing the most critical biodiver- point engaged with other in-country government sity resource, which is responsible for Cameroon's stakeholders, the GEF Agencies, civil society, and high RAF rating on the Global Benefits Index for the private sector in 2006 to produce a list of indic- Biodiversity. Important ecosystems and the bio- ative project concepts for biodiversity in accor- diversity of the northern savannah (Sahelian eco- dance with Cameroon's national priorities and the region) have received less emphasis;3 however, the applicable RAF allocation. These concepts were RAF indexes and data sets overall reflect Camer- submitted to the GEF Secretariat by the govern- oon's major biodiversity resources and potential ment a month before the scheduled October 2006 to generate benefits well. discussion on the GEF country portfolio. This discussion between the Cameroon GEF National Climate Change Committee and the GEF Secretariat was held via The GEF Benefits Index for Climate Change pro- teleconference and, during it, the committee was vides a relative ranking of countries in meeting the told that many of its project concepts were ineli- GEF's RAF climate change objectives. The index is gible for GEF funding. Furthermore, the govern- derived from the following indicators: ment was informed that it should submit "large" z Greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 from fossil (full-size) projects for approval on mangroves and fuels, cement production, and other sources sustainable forestry, thus apparently ruling out the (emissions from changes in land use are not development of MSPs in the immediate future and considered) reducing opportunities for assistance in the devel- opment of national NGO capacities and commu- z Carbon intensity adjustment factor4 nity participation in GEF activities. Given that Cameroon is a lower emitter of carbon dioxide, the RAF index reflects this and the coun- Members of the GEF National Committee reported try's lack of allocation for mitigation activities is to the evaluation team their disappointment with justified. The index does not presently take into what they held to be a one-sided approach on the account important aspects such as vulnerability and Secretariat's part, with little or no explanations adaptation to climate change (these are outside the or technical assistance offered. Members stated RAF) or potential to store/sequester CO2 through that the process was not transparent and did little forest resources, which would lead to a potential to enhance country ownership or participation increase in the RAF allocation for Cameroon. or relevance to country priorities. Interviewees emphasized that a face-to-face meeting would raF implementation in Cameroon have been more conducive than the teleconfer- The RAF was received by national stakeholders ence approach taken. as a positive step toward enhanced ownership The experience of the RAF negotiations has tended and participation in the identification, elabora- to confirm the common perception held by mem- tion, and implementation of projects that reflect bers of the GEF National Committee that project national and global priorities. concepts are externally driven. The GEF Secre- In mid-2006, the GEF Secretariat invited all coun- tariat was asked by the evaluation team to provide tries with individual RAF allocations to hold minutes of the teleconference, but it was unable 6. relevance of GEF support to Cameroon 55 to produce a record of the discussion beyond the the context of, or with direct support from, exchange of letters after the event. This lack of doc- GEF-supported projects. Consequently, a umentation does not foster transparency or effec- strong link exists between GEF-supported tive knowledge management of what are important projects and national environmental action discussions with country recipients.5 plans, and all projects are linked to at least one action plan. Table 6.1 presents the results 6.4 GEF support for Environmental of the relevance analysis and shows that all action Plans GEF projects have been congruent with and/ As stated before, most environmental action or have contributed to the development of plans in Cameroon have been elaborated in new policy. Table 6.1 relevance of GEF-supported Projects to Cameroon action Plans, strategies, and Programs national environmental action plan national strategy/program inC- TFaP nEMP nFaP nBsaP FCC nEaPPr naPCD PrsP DsDsr PnDP FEsP Project 1991 1995 1996 1999 2001 2006 2006 2003 2004 2004 2005 REIMP Biodiversity CBD Adaptation 1 UNFCCC Slash & Burn 2 Slash & Burn 1 LME 1 Lake Chad Bamenda Forest & Env. Niger TRIDOM LME 2 Biosafety 1 Certification NCSA Tourism POPs Sust. Land Mgmt note: TFAP = Tropical Forest Action Plan; NEMP = National Environmental Management Plan; NFAP = National Forest Action Plan; INC-FCC = Initial National Communication to the UNFCCC; NEAPPR = National Energy Action Plan for Poverty Reduction; NAPCD = National Action Plan to Combat Desertification; LME = Large Marine Ecosystem. Project is linked to action plan, strategy, and so on. Project is delivering impacts to action plan, strategy, and so on. 56 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 6.5 relevance of GEF support for congruent with a focus on global environmental Global Environmental Benefits issues, although inconsistencies existed regarding some of the international waters microprojects. A review of all national and sampled regional Some weaknesses were observed regarding adher- GEF-funded projects showed that they were ence to GEF operational principles, particularly vis- designed and approved on the basis of their rel- à-vis country ownership/drivenness, stakeholder evance to international and/or regional environ- involvement, monitoring, and catalytic role. mental treaties. Table 6.2 presents an overview of the relevance assessment for all projects. Regarding generation of global environmental benefits, the two completed projects (Biodiversity In terms of relevance to the GEF mandate and Conservation and Management and Bamenda operational principles, all projects were fully Highlands) tried to achieve a balance between Table 6.2 relevance of GEF-supported Projects to international Environmental Conventions and Treaties sust. Land Mgmt slash&Burn1&2 Forest & Env. Certification Biodiversity adaptation Lake Chad stockpiles Biosafety LME 1&2 TriDOM UnFCCC rEiMP nCsa niger POPs CBD Convention/treaty Chad Basin Treaty Conservation of African Nature and Natural Resources Africa Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources The African Timber Organization Joint Mgmt of Flora in the Lake Chad Basin International Trade in Endangered Species Convention Niger River Basin Abidjan Convention World Heritage Convention Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals International Agreement on Tropical Timber Central African Cooperation on Wildlife Conservation U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Montreal Protocol Vienna Convention on Ozone Bamako Convention UNFCCC CBD Project is linked to action plan, strategy, and so on Project is delivering impacts to action plan, strategy, and so on. 6. relevance of GEF support to Cameroon 57 centralized management systems (protected areas, there is an improved opportunity to directly target law enforcement, and so on) and community-based, local communities and national environmental locally managed microprojects (community forests, civil society organizations to address biodiversity ecotourism, reforestation, and so on). However, conservation and sustainable land management it has been a challenge to deliver this approach in and thus enhance stakeholder involvement in GEF practice, and opportunities exist for improvement. issues. The protected area system expansion can be largely GEF-funded projects enabled the development of attributed to the Biodiversity Conservation and comprehensive frameworks (policies and legisla- Management project, and it has now more than tion) and strategic actions (PRSP, DSDSR, FESP, doubled in size as compared to the start-up of GEF PNDP, and national reports to the global conven- assistance in 1992 with the creation of several new tions), which constitute the current enabling envi- national parks, thus contributing to conservation of ronment for the management of natural resources. globally important biodiversity. The projects sup- The projects also assisted in their implementa- ported in the international waters focal area have tion. Although this has ensured that Cameroon high national, regional, and global relevance, but responds to the international conventions and have not yet resulted in significant activities on provides the foundation for securing global envi- the ground. Microprojects under these initiatives, ronmental benefits, implementation and sustain- especially the construction of wells and rehabilita- ability challenges remain, particularly regarding tion of irrigation schemes, potentially offer some socioeconomic issues and developmental incen- local livelihood benefits, but their linkage to global tives to environmental protection. environmental benefits in terms of creating a sys- tem of sustainable incentives to enhance commu- notes nity water and land management is presently less 1. The Cameroon government recently stated its clear. The Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land intent to establish a climate change research and monitoring station for West and Central Africa. If Management Promotion project, funded to com- successful, this effort will be a very positive step bat land degradation, has not begun to disburse toward monitoring the impact of climate change funds at a local level, but the link to the World on tropical forests. Bank and the national multidonor sector program 2. See www.thegef.org/interior_right.aspx?id=82. PNDP has significant potential for delivering rele- vant results that demonstrate sustainable linkages 3. For example, the last remaining population of western black rhino in that area is now thought to between the environment and development and be extinct. thus contribute to UNCCD goals. 4. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon equiva- GEF funding has also contributed to increased lent emitted per unit of economic activity (kilo- public awareness about environmental concerns grams carbon/$1 GDP); the adjustment factor (biodiversity, climate change, international waters, is the ratio of carbon intensity in 1990 to carbon intensity in 2000. The adjustment factor is mul- land use management, waste management, and tiplied by the level of the above emissions. This organic pollutants) and to building national capac- seeks to reward countries that have reduced car- ity (at the individual, institutional, and system bon intensity levels through energy efficiency or levels) to address environmental issues at various increased use of renewable energy sources. levels from central government to local communi- 5. Source: Email exchanges and meetings with GEF ties. Furthermore, with the relaunching of the SGP, Secretariat staff, September 17­18, 2007. 58 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon This chapter reviews the efficiency of GEF-sup- ongoing, even though interviews confirmed it was ported activities and addresses the following completed in 1998. questions: 7.1 Time and Effort needed to z How much time, effort, and financial resources does it take to develop and implement projects Develop and implement a Project by type (modality) of GEF support? The recently completed evaluation of the GEF z What are the roles, types of engagement, and Activity Cycle (GEF EO 2007b) presented the first coordination among different stakeholders in comprehensive analysis of how projects are pre- project implementation? pared, approved, and implemented and is, there- fore, used as the main reference for this section. z How successful is the dissemination of GEF project lessons and results? The GEF Activity Cycle has six steps: concept development, preparation, approval by the GEF z What are the synergies in GEF project pro- Secretariat and Council, approval by the Imple- gramming and implementation among the dif- menting Agencies, implementation, and comple- ferent stakeholders? tion (figure 7.1); the cycle differs slightly depending z To what extent have GEF operations changed on the modality used (FSP, MSP, enabling activ- with the introduction of the Resource Alloca- ity, SGP). In addition, the cycle differs for global tion Framework? and regional projects as opposed to national proj- ects, as the detailed design at the country level is An important issue in trying to answer these ques- undertaken after appraisal and therefore requires tions is the absence of detailed project information. an additional planning process after approval. In general, the GEF does not systematically com- Moreover, all GEF Agencies have their own proj- pile and conduct quality control of project data ect cycles, which overlap and sometimes conflict (for example, project cycle dates, implementation with that used by the GEF. status, and financing). Uncertainties about where projects are within the project cycle are common. The majority of government employees inter- For example, the enabling activity Preparation of viewed stated that they found the project cycle National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan, and confusing and inefficient. They saw it as a "black First National Report to the CBD was approved box," which required specialist and often inter- in 1996, but is indicated in the GEF system as still national consultant knowledge to access. Those 59 Figure 7.1 GEF activity Cycle B D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Predesign/ Approval by Design/ Council/work Approval by IAs/ concept executing Implementation Completion development preparation program inclusion agencies A C E Entry into GEF GEF CEO Project start-up pipeline endorsement executing GEF-supported projects in the field proposals for relevance, and a technical review have emphasized the urgent need for harmoniza- committee conducts a full appraisal of relevant tion to avoid submitting documents using differ- submissions; this in turn is used by the National ent formats and templates to satisfy the various Steering Committee for its appraisal. Once an needs of the GEF Secretariat, the government, and SGP microproject is approved, the national SGP the GEF Agencies. In the case of the Niger Basin coordinator located in the UNDP country office is and Lake Chad projects, four separate versions of authorized by UNOPS to sign a memorandum of documents were sometimes needed, because the understanding and begin disbursement. projects are jointly executed by the World Bank Cameroon's SGP has only recently started up, and and UNDP. Because these variant documents all analyses of its projects have not been included in have slightly different contents and uses, project this evaluation of efficiency. supervision, monitoring, and evaluation become even more difficult, as it is unclear which write-up Time needed to Prepare GEF Projects is the "real" one. Table 7.1 shows that there is considerable variation The processing of SGP projects is different from in the time it takes for a proposed FSP to move from that of other GEF projects. The SGP National one phase to another. On average, it takes about 3.6 Steering Committee makes decisions on proj- years (1,320 days) for a project to move from pro- ect proposals. The national coordinator screens gram entry to start-up (steps A to E in figure 7.1). Table 7.1 Duration of activity Cycle in GEF-supported FsPs in Cameroon Days Project aB BC CD DE BE aE Biodiversity Conservation and Management 70 762 0 0 1,032 1,102 Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Promotion 237 167 41 -- -- -- Forest and Environment Development Policy 0 889 595 0 1,537 1,537 average 102 606 212 0 1,285 1,320 average (in years) 0.3 1.7 0.6 0.0 3.5 3.6 notes: -- = unavailable or unreliable data. See figure 7.1 for stages of GEF Activity Cycle (A­E). 60 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) To place Cameroon in the context of other coun- The preparation times of enabling activities have tries for which portfolio evaluations have been generally been short, as they do not require GEF conducted, this is about 50 percent higher than Council approval. The average processing time the results for both Costa Rica and the Philippines has been 131 days, or a little over 4 months (see (GEF EO 2007a, 2008). table 7.2). The relatively long processing times in Cameroon For regional projects, preparation times averaged relate to several project-specific factors: more than three years (see table 7.3). This long lead time is generally due to project complexity, which z The Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- in turn is based on the involvement of a larger ment project required a number of studies to number of stakeholders, thus requiring more time be completed during preparation; it was also to obtain input and gain agreement. In this regard, the first GEF operation in Cameroon (and one several government interviewees involved in the of the first there for the World Bank). Thus, preparation of biodiversity and international waters although the preparation time was long, these projects asserted that the complexity of communi- delays were largely unavoidable. cation and logistical problems often held up pro- z The Forest and Environment Development cesses such as focal point endorsement. Policy Grant implemented by the World Bank GEF Agency processing times for national and in support of Cameroon's FESP is in part a fol- regional projects vary by the size and complex- low-up to the above-mentioned project, and ity of the projects with which they are involved its preparation has taken more than four years. in the region/country. Thus, UNEP, which only This long lead time is mainly because the World implements enabling activities in Cameroon, Bank has been engaged in a prolonged policy dialogue with the government of Cameroon on environment and forestry issues. Furthermore, Table 7.2 the project's budget support­based, as opposed Duration of activity Cycle in GEF-supported to project support­based, approach and need Enabling activities in Cameroon for comprehensive donor harmonization has BE taken a significant amount of time. Project (days) Country Case Studies on Climate Change 408 z The Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Man- Impacts and Adaptations Assessment ­ Phase 1 agement Promotion project was developed to Preparation of National Biodiversity Strategy, -- be blended with existing PNDP operations; Action Plan and First National Report to CBD hence, its preparation has taken much less time Enabling Activity for the Preparation of Initial 44 Communication Related to the UNFCCC than either of the biodiversity projects. Clearing-House Mechanism 17 z Preparation of the national MSP took only National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global 116 148 days, or almost 5 months. This speed was Environmental Management partially attributable to the project's building Enabling Activities for POPs Convention: 205 National Implementation Plan for Cameroon on existing international NGO interventions. average for all enabling activities 131 Also, the executing agency, Birdlife Interna- (0.4 year) tional, has a long history of operations in the notes: -- = unavailable or unreliable data. For enabling activities, Bamenda Highlands, the site of the MSP. CEO approval was used as a proxy for step B (Council approval); there is no step A or C. 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon 61 Table 7.3 Duration of activity Cycle in GEF-supported regional and Global Projects in Cameroon Days Project aB BC CD DE BE Regional Environment and Information Management Project -- 186 1,871 0 2,181 Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Lake Chad Basin 13 1,065 6 0 1,081 Ecosystem Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin 1,445 346 24 0 447 Water Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea -- -- -- 0 879 Large Marine Ecosystem Combating Living Resource Depletion and Coastal Area Degradation in the 1,319 271 58 0 260 Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem through Ecosystem-Based Regional Actions Alternatives to Slash and Burn -- -- -- 0 653 Global Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Agriculture, Phase II -- 34 363 0 397 Conservation of Transboundary Biodiversity in the Minkebe-Odzala-Dja 0 889 595 0 1,537 Iterzone in Gabon, Congo, and Cameroon Improved Certification Schemes for Sustainable Tropical Forest Management n.a. n.a. 3,754 0 3,764 Reduction of Land-Sourced Impacts Resulting from Coastal Tourism 1,142 366 96 0 462 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Assessment, Phase I n.a. n.a. 408 0 408 Total 3,919 3,157 7,175 0 12,069 average 784 451 797 0 1,097 average (in years) 2.2 1.2 2.2 0 3.0 notes: -- = unavailable or unreliable data; n.a. = not applicable. See figure 7.1 for stages of GEF Activity Cycle (A­E). has the most efficient processing time; followed with regard to forms and review criteria required by UNDP, which has regional FSPs only, and the by the GEF Secretariat; these have the potential World Bank. As already stated, the World Bank's to delay project preparation under the RAF. The longer project preparation is mainly due to the GEF Secretariat has imposed a maximum project long lead time required for the Biodiversity Con- preparation period of 22 months from concept servation and Management project and the FESP, which have necessitated significant engagement Figure 7.2 with government (see figure 7.2). average Duration of activity Cycle for Cameroon Projects by GEF agency The evaluation was not able to quantify the effects of the RAF on project preparation time, because Days all but one of the project concepts currently under 1,500 3.4 years development had not been submitted to the GEF 1,000 Secretariat as of September 2007 (and hence 1.7 years remained pre-pipeline). However, several govern- 500 0.9 years ment and GEF Agency staff members interviewed 0 expressed views indicating that project cycle World UNDP UNEP Bank requirements continued to be complex and sub- ject to significant changes in format, particularly note: Duration is time between project approval and project start-up. 62 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) submission to beginning of implementation; based funds--up to $25,000 for concept papers, enabling on feedback received during the evaluation, this activities, and most MSPs (block A grants); up time frame might be difficult to meet in practice. to $350,000 for full proposals for FSPs (block B grants); and up to $1 million for exceptionally actual Project Completion Dates complex operations (block C grants)--insuffi- The average planned length of implementation for cient. For example, in the case of the Sustainable the Cameroon FSPs (national and regional) was Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Promotion 3.8 years (see table 7.4); however, the actual aver- project, the project team indicated that prepara- age length of implementation was approximately tion took two years and required 25 percent of 5.2 years. For MSPs, planned implementation was the time of two World Bank staff members, 100 3.0 years, and actual implementation was approxi- percent of the time of a national PNDP staff mem- mately 3.5 years. These differences arose primar- ber (focal point), and around 15 percent of the ily from changing project context. For example, workload of eight local staff members. Addition- the Biodiversity Conservation and Management ally, the 10 people on the PNDP technical com- project overestimated the government's ability mittee each invested five days a year to the project. to implement the project, which resulted in poor According to the World Bank, the time required disbursement and eventual restructuring of the to prepare a proposal for a GEF FSP takes as much project--and thus to delayed implementation. time as does any other World Bank project, but the Bank provides up to $2 million in the prepa- Cost to Prepare a GEF Project ration of smaller projects compared to the GEF's Under the former project Activity Cycle, the GEF $350,000. To compensate for this shortcoming and provided funding for project preparation in the to reduce costs, proposals have often been elabo- form of project development facility grants to rated by World Bank staff members themselves, the GEF Agencies. Stakeholders considered these but this raises trade-offs in terms of baseline data, Table 7.4 Planned and actual Durations of national and regional Projects in Cameroon Target actual Planned duration Difference Project completion date completion date (years) (days) FsPs Regional Environment and Information Manage- 6/30/2003 6/30/2003 5 0.00 ment Project Alternatives to Slash and Burn I 12/1/1995 12/31/1997 2 761 Slash-and-Burn Agriculture, Phase II 6/1/1996 12/31/1997 3 578 Water Pollution Control and Biodiversity Con- 10/30/1998 3/1/1998 5 -243 servation in the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem Biodiversity Conservation and Management 12/31/1999 3/31/2003 4 1,186 average difference 456 MsPs Community-Based Conservation in the 5/31/2004 12/31/2004 3 214 Bamenda Highlands 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon 63 stakeholder involvement, and country ownership international NGOs (WWF and others). Much and participation. more complex is the funding scenario used in the Niger Basin and Lake Chad projects (see Lack of demand and insufficient funds for project figure 7.3), which uses seven levels of funds dis- preparation have resulted in only two MSPs hav- bursement. This complexity produces significant ing been prepared in Cameroon to date. In the management costs (see table 7.5) and a long paper case of the Bamenda Highlands project, this was trail, as reporting at each level occupies significant only possible because the proposal was elaborated staff time. by the international NGO drawing on internal resources. Figure 7.3 Most enabling activities are implemented within the framework of global/regional umbrella projects, Flow of Funds for implementation of Microprojects under the Lake Chad Project which were approved by the GEF Council to enable GEF Agencies to appraise specific country activi- ties. In turn, national actors are able to copy and use GEF most of a country proposal from the framework project. This has made project preparation rela- World UNDP tively straightforward, but has resulted in generic Bank proposals that face challenges regarding baseline data and/or targeted implementation planning. Lake Chad In sum, government and GEF Agency stakehold- Basin Commission ers criticized the project preparation process. At present, improvements under the newly imple- mented project cycle have yet to be seen by stake- UNOPS holders in Cameroon. IUCN Cost to implement a GEF Project In addition to project costs, which usually include a management fee to the national implementer averaging about 10 percent, the GEF provides its Implementing Agencies with funds for supervi- sion; since 2006, this allocation has been 10 per- Local NGOs cent of project costs; previously, it was 9 percent. The Biodiversity and Conservation Management project used a four-level approach to implement Local activities: the GEF disbursed to its Implementing authorities Agency (the World Bank), which provided funds against justification to the project's executive sec- retariat, which in turn disbursed against action Microproject Microproject Microproject plans and progress reports to the implementing 64 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Table 7.5 potentially a good mechanism to enhance country Management Costs for the Lake Chad Project: ownership and responsibilities, but it is too early simplified Matrix to assess the actual efficiency or effectiveness of Fee investment budget this model beyond noting that, in design, it is more Level (%) ($) streamlined than a traditional project approach. GEF Secretariat 1,000,000 20,880 GEF Agency (World 10 Turning to enabling activities, the NCSA proj- Bank­UNDP) ect spent 20 to 25 percent of its funds for proj- Executing agency (Lake 20 ect administration. It is questionable whether the Chad Basin Committee) elaboration of the NCSA report required the full UNOPS 10 attention of three people (a coordinator, secretary, Service provider (IUCN) 10 and accountant) for 30 months, as the technical Local NGO 10 work was conducted by consultants. A provisional Village and local 20 administration report has been submitted to UNEP which will Disbursement budget ($) 47.89 478,872 10,000 undergo validation. In sum, the efficiency of GEF-supported projects It has been noted that this rather complex man- leaves room for improvement in terms of time and agement and supervision system does not protect use of resources. The Cameroon portfolio of proj- projects from management irregularities and/or ects would benefit from regular auditing to ensure expensive activities. For example, in the microproj- that an appropriate balance is struck between ects implemented by EnviroProtect in Bogo under results and expenditures. the Lake Chad project, the project cost, according to documents provided by IUCN, is $22,000. The 7.2 stakeholder roles and main outcome in view of reforestation is the plant- responsibilities in Project ing of 1,210 seedlings with a total market value of approximately $400 ($0.20 to $0.30 each). How- implementation ever, the costs for the planting even when trans- Who implements and Executes Projects? portation and watering are factored in (estimated About 60 percent of the funding for national and to be $200) indicates cost-inefficiency. regional/global projects, and 30 percent of the The funding model used by the FESP in conjunc- projects, have been channeled through the World tion with the Forest and Environment Develop- Bank. UNDP was or is involved in the implemen- ment Policy Grant project seems more streamlined tation of 35 percent of the funds and 39 percent and efficient than the above-outlined procedures, of the projects. Interestingly, UNEP, which does because disbursement is made directly through a not have an office in Cameroon, is the most active budgetary support mechanism. According to the Implementing Agency in view of the number of project documents, the GEF disburses funds to projects it handles; this is because of its lead role the World Bank, which transfers them in install- in the implementation of enabling activities. No ments directly to the government, to enable MIN- other GEF Agencies are involved in project imple- FOF and MINEP to carry out specific activities in mentation in Cameroon except for the Food and protected area management (project component Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 3) within the overall FESP framework. This is which is engaged in two regional projects with 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon 65 total GEF funding of $2.1 million.1 The World might be appropriate in Gabon where qualified Bank and UNDP maintain a presence in Camer- human resources within the National Park Service oon and have staff in their resident missions to are limited, this decision seems to undermine the manage, among other responsibilities, their GEF- augmentation of government capacities. funded projects. Despite the existence of some GEF "signposts" The official executing agencies are either govern- around the country--especially in the north-- ment entities related to the environment (MINEF to indicate the involvement of GEF in projects was involved in seven projects; its successor minis- (particularly microprojects), GEF funding is not tries, MINEP and MINFOF, have been involved in always well publicized. Quite often, implement- seven and three projects, respectively, since 2004), ing and executing agencies and subcontractors do other ministries (one project for the Ministry of not inform the public regarding who has financed Planning and one for the Ministry of Tourism), or the projects. At some project sites (for example, intergovernmental bodies (the Lake Chad Com- Mount Koupé, Kilum-Ijim, and Campo-Ma'an), mission, Niger Basin Authority, and ADIE have the population and most stakeholders had never each been involved with one project). In the field, heard of the GEF and believe that the projects projects are executed by international NGOs (col- were funded by WWF, Birdlife International, or lectively, these are responsible for nearly half of the the World Bank. Furthermore, on its various proj- projects: WWF executes four, Birdlife International ect Web sites, UNDP does not indicate that fund- two, and IUCN and the Wildlife Conservation ing for these projects was provided by the GEF. Society one each), international intergovernmen- The GEF is thus largely a "silent partner" in the tal agencies (both UNEP and UNDP execute two majority of its projects in Cameroon, with virtually projects), or international research institutes (the no profile outside of a relatively small number of Center for International Forestry Research and the government officials and World Bank and UNDP World Agroforestry Centre execute one and two staff. GEF visibility may improve at the local level projects, respectively). Other ministries, including as the SGP matures over the next 5 to 10 years. the Ministry of Higher Education and the Ministry of Science and Research, are absent from imple- are stakeholders' roles and responsibilities Clear? mentation arrangements, and thus opportunities have been missed to efficiently capitalize on their Roles and responsibilities for national projects are expertise in areas such as knowledge management, clearly set forth in the memoranda of understand- setting research agendas, and raising public aware- ing signed between the GEF and the executing ness through education. agencies and those between an executing agency and its relevant partners at the site level; a similar MINFOF and MINEP are becoming increasingly level of clarity does not seem to exist for regional involved in the execution of national projects, projects. Also, it must be noted that a significant although this approach has not yet been taken in capacity gap exists between MINFOF and MINEP, the regional projects. For instance, the regional on the one hand, and the GEF Agencies and inter- TRIDOM project uses ECOFAC, a program of the national NGOs assisting in implementation at European Union aimed at sustainable conservation the site level, on the other; this sometimes under- and use of forest ecosystems in Central Africa, to mines officially assigned roles and responsibilities. implement the project at the site level. While this For example, interviewees from MINFOF and 66 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) MINEP at the provincial and local levels indicated with laws. For instance, in 2001, MINFOF signed that they depend on the operational and financial a decision that suspended the harvest of commu- support of international NGOs and that becom- nity forests using industrial means, thereby--ille- ing actively involved in the implementation and gally2--setting aside the implementing decree of supervision of GEF projects is challenging. the 1994 forests law signed by the prime minister. A similar situation exists regarding the relation Overall, the reality of stakeholder relations and between the GEF Agencies and the government. As cooperation in the field differs from the official the salaries of international organizations are sig- version presented in planning documents and nificantly above official salaries in the government, memoranda of understanding, and provides sig- highly qualified and motivated staff have left the nificant opportunities for capacity enhancement government to serve in international organizations and clarification to improve the efficiency of GEF and the private sector. This "brain drain," together projects. with high fluctuation and regular transfers of staff, has resulted in a situation where the GEF Agencies 7.3 The GEF Operational Focal take the lead in planning, elaborating, and seeking Point and national Committee financial support for operations. For example, it The GEF uses two mechanisms in an effort to has taken a considerable amount of sensitization create country ownership and integration of and training to enable and empower MINFOF and national and GEF priorities: the political and MINEP staff to understand what the FESP is and operational focal points and the GEF National how it is to be implemented by the government. Committee. Progress is often slow, which is reflected in cur- rent disbursement lags, but the program is likely The government created an interministerial GEF to become more efficient as the cadre of MIN- National Committee with members drawn from, FOF and MINEP staff become more accustomed among others, MINEP, MINFOF, the Ministry of to focusing on institutional performance and new Agriculture and Rural Development, the Minis- ways of working. try of Planning, universities, forestry companies, and civil society, which provides a useful range of The 2004 reorganization of the MINEF into MIN- viewpoints from which to consider GEF issues. FOF and MINEP, and the concomitant institu- The committee's primary responsibility is to tional overlapping and fragmentation, slowed review GEF project proposals and discuss strate- development and, subsequently, implementation gic matters, such as the relationship of the RAF of the FESP. For example, protected areas were to Cameroonian priorities. Before the recent dis- initially put under the mandate of MINEP and cussion with the GEF Secretariat regarding RAF were later moved back to MINFOF. The MINEP funding priorities, the GEF National Committee mandate still provides opportunities for further had developed a strategy to identify and prioritize clarification and capacity enhancement. During certain environmental issues, such as adaptation field visits, the evaluation team observed signifi- and coastal biodiversity. This is a positive devel- cant differences between MINFOF staff who were opment and contrasts with the approach taken in better resourced than their MINEP colleagues. earlier GEF replenishment periods, when project Examples also exist in which fragmentation of development was not guided by any overall direc- decision-making authority led to contradictions tion or subject to interministerial review. 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon 67 Interviews highlighted some challenges that are project, Bamenda Highlands Project, and so currently preventing the committee from being forth, although partly documented, were not more effective and efficient. First, it is not system- fully used in the elaboration of other projects atically involved during project preparation until such as those in Lake Chad and the Niger Basin. a proposal is submitted for review; this means the Furthermore, the issue of financial mismanage- committee's role is reactive rather than proactive. ment (as in the case of the Cameroon Mountains Consequently, there is no time available for dis- Conservation Foundation and Bamenda) has not cussion or interaction with the stakeholders and tended to receive the acknowledgment or follow- GEF Agency. Second, neither the committee nor up from stakeholders necessary to ensure that the operational focal point are involved in project lessons can be drawn to improve financial man- implementation or supervision/monitoring, and agement in future projects. thus they have no way to monitor the health of the An inconsistent level of documentation and portfolio systematically. As long as such a situa- knowledge management reduces the opportu- tion continues to exist, the operational aspects nities to use lessons learned. For example, for will be challenging. the Biodiversity Conservation and Management project and the REIMP, Web sites were estab- 7.4 Lessons Learned across GEF lished in which significant amounts of project Projects information and data were posted. But in other There has been some success in documenting cases, such as the Bamenda project, informa- and sharing lessons deriving from GEF projects tion has not been properly catalogued at the in Cameroon. Some lessons are well documented, local level, and although the exit strategy was especially for the GEF-supported research proj- meant to put in place sufficient safeguard for ect on Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Farming, knowledge management, it was not effectively and the outcomes of the Biodiversity Conserva- executed or monitored. Further, the government tion and Management project serve as a blue- entity in charge of knowledge management-- print for similar initiatives and for government which between 2000 and 2003 gathered quite policies and strategies throughout the region. a large number of reports from projects imple- Most of these lessons have been disseminated mented by and with MINEF--became dysfunc- and used in other projects at the regional and tional when GEF and GTZ funding ran out. In national levels. For example, the shortcomings 2007, the office had not paid rent or utilities for of the Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- about two years, and numerous documents had ment project relating to weak capacity devel- disappeared or are no longer accessible. MIN- opment with the government resulted in the FOF and MINEP have no functional library, and FESP strongly emphasizing this aspect alongside reports are mostly kept by those in charge. The investment activities. picture in provincial and local offices is similarly characterized by an absence of or very limited This lesson sharing does not occur in cases access to information. Nonetheless, some highly where project components have not been suc- motivated staff at the local level (for example, the cessful. For example, lessons on ecotourism, and MINEP divisional delegate in Boyo) have taken alternative income-generating activities under up the challenge and used their own funds to col- the Biodiversity and Conservation Management lect, store, and use lessons learned. 68 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 7.5 synergies among GEF other themes, such as climate change and POPs, stakeholders and Projects is lower, as GEF-supported activities are imple- mented through enabling activities with relatively There have been ongoing attempts to establish a limited funds and opportunities to build syner- mechanism for strategic planning, coordination, gies and communication. On the other hand, and lessons learned in order to boost synergies the recent UNFCCC reporting and emphasis on among the portfolios of the various stakehold- adaptation and vulnerability and linkages to for- ers. The results are mixed and highly dependent ests represents an encouraging step on the part of on the dedication of the multilateral and bilateral the government to build interministerial and dis- representatives involved in the monthly official ciplinary synergies outside the scope of a project. development assistance coordination meetings. The attempt to use the PRSP and national sector strategies such as the DSDSR to enhance synergy notes within official development assistance was quite 1. This project was not included in the regional sam- successful, and the World Bank­initiated elabo- ple looked at in this evaluation. ration of the FESP and PNDP has resulted in the 2. A decision, being an administrative act, can legally buy-in of most other stakeholders, although the only be used to clarify a hierarchically superior act, magnitude of commitment varies. Synergy on not to modify it fundamentally or suspend it. 7. Efficiency of GEF-supported activities in Cameroon 69 annex a. Terms of reference a.1 Background and introduction For example, the evaluations may yield lessons learned for the GEF strategic objective on sustain- The GEF Council has requested that the GEF able forest management (particularly with respect Evaluation Office conduct evaluations of the GEF to Cameroon and Madagascar). portfolio at the country level: GEF country port- folio evaluations. The overall purpose of these About 90 percent of African ecosystems are found evaluations, as requested by the Council, is two- in Cameroon. They include the Sahelian, Suda- fold: (1) to evaluate how GEF-supported activi- nian, tropical rainforest, Afromontane, coastal, ties fit into the national strategies and priorities as and marine ecoregions. Thus, the presence of a well as within the global environmental mandate diversity of plants and wildlife ranks Cameroon of the GEF, and (2) to provide the Council with fifth in Africa after the Democratic Republic of additional information on the results of the GEF- Congo, South Africa, Madagascar, and Tanzania. supported activities and how these activities are With regard to the diversity of its primates, Cam- implemented. eroon is ranked second in Africa behind the Dem- ocratic Republic of Congo. Cameroon has one Countries are selected for portfolio evaluations of the highest proportions of land area devoted among 160 GEF-eligible countries, based on a to conservation, with 14 percent of the country's stratified randomized selection and a set of stra- land area designated as national parks, reserves, tegic criteria. In 2007 the Evaluation Office will sanctuaries, and conservation concessions. undertake a series of four CPEs in Africa: Mad- agascar, Benin, Cameroon, and South Africa. A significant proportion of the country's biodi- Among several considerations, Cameroon was versity is associated with primary forests, which selected based on its large portfolio, its unique cover about 21 million hectares. Biodiversity is program approach (for example, budgetary sup- threatened by unsustainable resource extraction. port to the forestry and environment sector), The interrelated causes of natural resource deg- significant portfolio emphasis on forestry and radation include pressures for agricultural expan- biodiversity, its expected large allocation for bio- sion through forest conversion under slash-and- diversity under the Resource Allocation Frame- burn production systems, poorly defined property work, and its importance as a global biodiversity rights and a breakdown in traditional regulatory hotspot. Synthesizing the four CPEs will allow the mechanisms, use of charcoal and fuelwood for Office to assess and report on experiences and domestic energy, poorly regulated commercial common issues across different types of countries. exploitation of forests for timber, and concessions 71 for extractive industries. The rate of Cameroon's Bank implemented). Several significant regional forest loss has slowed since the early 1990s, but initiatives have also been implemented to address remains around 0.65 percent per year or about international waters in the Gulf of Guinea and 120,000 hectares. Lake Chad, as well as cross-border forest biodi- versity shared with Congo and Gabon (mainly The government of Cameroon's most recent Pov- UNDP implemented). erty Reduction Strategy Paper (2003) recognizes that sustainable management of natural resources In Cameroon, the GEF has invested about will contribute to enhancing growth in forestry $25.55 million in 10 projects (not including regional industry, agriculture, and tourism and therefore or global projects) for environmental manage- enhance livelihoods and contribute to poverty ment, mostly focused on biodiversity and forestry reduction. Consequently, most donor environ- ($18.24 million). In 2006, the GEF invested $6.35 mental programs (including the GEF) in Camer- million in a World Bank­implemented sustainable oon are concentrated in the forest sector/biodi- land management/land degradation project. In versity conservation. The World Bank, UNDP, and addition, five enabling activities address biodiver- the GEF (and other donors) are also addressing sity conservation, climate change, biosafety, and land degradation and international waters issues persistent organic pollutants. The project pipeline on a national and regional scale. has been in transition following the introduction The government of Cameroon has committed of the GEF RAF in July 2006. Cameroon has an itself to a series of environment and fiscal policy individual allocation for biodiversity conserva- and legislative reforms, particularly in the for- tion of $11.9 million, of which $6 million has to be estry sector, aimed at improving its contribution utilized within two years of RAF implementation. to rural development and economic growth. Fis- Cameroon is part of the group allocation for cli- cal reforms have improved forest revenue col- mate change mitigation under the RAF. lection, expanded the number of production The main Agencies implementing GEF support units, improved local government revenues, and in Cameroon are the World Bank and UNDP, improved production efficiencies and profitabil- with some regional projects and global projects ity, while reducing the area under active logging. undertaken by UNDP, UNEP, the Food and Agri- Illegal logging by the forest industry has been culture Organization of the United Nations, the significantly reduced; however, it has increased International Fund for Agricultural Development, in the informal sector, alongside the commercial- and the United Nations Industrial Development ization and trade in bush meat and poaching of Organization. endangered species. The government has com- mitted itself to further implementation of reforms and capacity development through the Forest and a.2 Objectives of the Evaluation Environment Sector Program. Based on the overall purpose (above) of the GEF CPEs, the evaluation for Cameroon will have the GEF funding has mainly focused on biodiversity following specific objectives: conservation through activities to support the protected area system and forestry in Camer- z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- oon. More recently, the focus has been expanded ciency of GEF support in a country from sev- to sustainable land management (mainly World eral points of view:1 national environmental 72 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) frameworks and decision-making processes, the needs and challenges, and action plans for GEF mandate and achievement of global envi- the GEF's national focal areas? ronmental benefits, and GEF policies and pro- ­ Are the GEF and its Implementing Agencies cedures. supporting the environmental and sustain- z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- able development prioritization and deci- pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant sion-making process of the country? focal area.2 ­ Is GEF support in the country relevant to the objectives of the different global environ- z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to mental benefits (biodiversity, greenhouse (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making gases, international waters, POPs, land deg- process to allocate resources and to develop radation, and ozone)? policies and strategies (particularly with regard to forestry), (2) the country on its participation ­ Is the country supporting the GEF mandate in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies and and focal area programs and strategies with organizations involved in the preparation and its own resources and/or support from other implementation of GEF support. donors? z Efficiency of GEF support The CPE will also be used to provide information ­ How much time, effort, and financial resources and evidence to other evaluations conducted by does it take to develop and implement proj- the GEF Evaluation Office, specifically the mid- ects by type of GEF support modality? term evaluation of the RAF, evaluation of the cat- alytic role of the GEF, and evaluation of partner- ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and ships and umbrella projects. The evaluation will coordination mechanisms among different address the performance of the GEF portfolio in stakeholders in project implementation? terms of relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness, ­ How successful is the dissemination of GEF and the contributing factors to this performance. project lessons and results? ­ What are the synergies between GEF project The CPEs do not have an objective of evaluating programming and implementation among or rating the performance of the GEF Agencies, GEF Agencies, national institutions, GEF partners, or national governments. The evalu- projects, and other donor-supported proj- ation will analyze the performance of individual ects and activities? projects as part of the overall GEF portfolio, but ­ What is the sustainability of GEF support?3 without rating such projects. z Results and effectiveness of GEF support a.3 Key Evaluation Questions ­ What are the results (outcomes and impacts) of completed (and if appropriate, ongoing) The conduct of the GEF CPE will be guided by the projects? following key questions: ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal z Relevance of GEF support area and country levels? ­ Is GEF support relevant to the national sus- ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will tainability development agenda and envi- be achieved for those projects that are still ronmental priorities, national development under implementation? annex a. Terms of reference 73 Each question is supported by an evaluation matrix. Table a.1 The matrix (see annex B) contains a tentative list Focus of Evaluation by Project status of indicators or basic data, potential sources of Project rele- Effective- status vance Efficiency ness results information, and methodology components and Completed Full Full Full Full will be validated or further developed by the eval- Ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood uation team once the evaluation work starts. As a Pipeline Expected Processes n.a. n.a. basis, the evaluation will use the indicators in the SGP Expected Processes n.a. n.a. GEF project documents; however, weaknesses of Regional Partially Full Likelihood Likelihood monitoring and evaluation have been mentioned note: n.a. = not applicable. The main focus of the evaluation will be in past project evaluations and may pose chal- relevance and efficiency; it will explore possible methodologies on how to evaluate project effectiveness and results. lenges to the assessment. Substantive indicators will thus be complemented by indicators and data from the government of Cameroon's Forest and GEF support is provided through partnerships/ Environment Sector Program and other donors, coordination with (and through) many institu- NGOs, and institutions involved in monitoring; tions. In the case of Cameroon, the interconnected GEF corporate indicators, such as the biodiversity nature of support for environment in forestry-bio- scorecard/protected area management effective- diversity conservation and sustainable land man- ness (WWF), and relevant indicators used in the agement (land degradation) makes it challenging RAF. Not all the information is (or will be) of a to consider GEF support separately. The CPE quantitative nature. will not attempt to provide a direct attribution of a.4 scope and Limitations development results to the GEF, but will address the contribution of GEF support to the overall The CPEs will cover all types of GEF-supported achievements--that is, to establish a credible link activities in the country at all stages of the proj- between what GEF supported and its implications. ect cycle (pipeline, ongoing, and completed) and The evaluation will address how GEF support has implemented by all GEF Agencies in all focal functioned in partnership with government min- areas, including applicable GEF corporate activi- istries and other institutions, donors, the private ties, such as the Small Grants Programme. The sector, and civil society by questions on roles and GEF portfolio is defined as the aggregate of all coordination, synergies and complementarities, these activities. The stage of the project will deter- and knowledge sharing. mine the expected focus (see table A.1). There are 10 approved projects in the portfolio. The GEF does not have country programs, so Only one full-size project and one medium-size there is no GEF strategic framework with prede- project have been completed: termined objectives against which to assess results or effectiveness. The evaluation will therefore z Biodiversity Conservation and Management consider the portfolio of projects and activities, project, implemented by the World Bank their objectives, internal coherence, and how the z Community-Based Conservation in the Bam- portfolio has evolved. The country programs of enda Highlands, implemented by UNDP the GEF Implementing Agencies, as agreed with the government of Cameroon, will be considered The ongoing full-size projects of significance to a relevant framework for GEF support. the evaluation are as follows: 74 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) z Forest and Environment Development Pro- and financial resources available for the evalua- gram tion, such projects will only be included if a project implementation unit is located in the country or a z Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Manage- significant demonstration/pilot site is located in ment Promotion under the National Commu- the country. The following regional/projects have nity Development Program Cameroon components that will be covered in the Due to the paucity of completed projects, the evaluation (however, others may also be identified evaluation will pay particular attention to assess- during initiation mission consultations): ing the design and implementation progress of z Water Pollution Control and Biodiversity Con- those projects that have recently begun. servation in the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Of the 10 projects, 5 are enabling activities. These Ecosystem (UNDP; completed) cover a larger range of focal areas: the First National z Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends Report to the Convention on Biodiversity, Clear- in the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem (World Bank ing-House Mechanism, National Communication and UNDP) to UNFCCC, National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management, and POPs z Conservation of Transboundary Biodiversity in National Implementation Plan. the Minkebe-Odzala-Dja Interzone in Gabon, Congo, and Cameroon (UNDP) The GEF Small Grants Programme was approved z First Regional Micro-/Mini-Hydropower for Cameroon in 1996, but was temporarily sus- Capacity Development and Investment in pended in 1999 (after a negative audit report). The Rural Electricity Access in Sub-Saharan Africa SGP was restarted in 2005, and, as of August 2007, (UNDP) six grants were approved and are under imple- mentation. The results of completed grants will z Combating Living Resource Depletion and be assessed, but it is proposed to evaluate the SGP Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea Cur- strategy and geographical focus; synergies with rent LME [Large Marine Ecosystem] through other GEF, donor, and NGO activities; and imple- Ecosystem-Based Regional Actions (UNDP) mentation mechanisms. Given the time and resource limitations, it will not The project pipeline (RAF-4 list) includes bio- be possible to cover all regional and global proj- safety/biodiversity (mangroves) and climate ects with government of Cameroon participation. change mitigation investments, with program- The programmatic approach followed under the ming of about $3 to $6 million. The evaluation will Forest and Environment Development Program is assess the process of RAF consultations and impli- a unique element in the GEF Cameroon portfolio cations thus far, including changes to the pipeline. and was subject to much discussion by the GEF This will also feed into the midterm evaluation of Council prior to grant approval. Under the key the RAF to be undertaken by the GEF Evaluation question on efficiency, the evaluation will consider Office in 2008. The evaluation will not directly the aspects of coordination and partnering, har- assess pipeline projects. monization, synergies, and learning. This would Regional and global projects are developed and include a review of coordination mechanisms; approved in a different context. Given the time coordination among components, government annex a. Terms of reference 75 ministries, and donors; complementarity of fund- reports from monitoring visits, and documents ing; and long-term vision. This assessment will produced by projects feed into an upcoming GEF evaluation of partner- z At the country level, national sustainable devel- ships and umbrella projects in 2008­09. opment agendas, environmental priorities and In addition, the context in which these projects strategies, GEF focal area strategies and action are approved and are being implemented con- plans, GEF-supported NCSA, and global and stitutes a focus of the evaluation. This includes national environmental indicators a historical assessment of the national sustain- z At the Agency level, country assistance strate- able development and environmental policies, gies and frameworks and their evaluations and strategies, and priorities; the legal environment reviews, specifically from the World Bank, in which these policies are implemented and UNDP, and the African Development Bank enforced; GEF Agency country strategies and pro- grams; and GEF policies, principles, programs, z Evaluative evidence at the country level com- and strategies. ing from GEF Evaluation Office evaluations, such as the Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activ- a.5 Methodology ity Cycle and Modalities and the overall per- formance studies, or from national evaluation The GEF CPEs will be conducted by staff of the organizations GEF Evaluation Office and international and local consultants: the evaluation team, led by a task z Evaluative evidence at the country level from manager from the GEF Evaluation Office. The GEF Agencies and other donors active in the team should include technical expertise on for- Cameroon environment sector or the country estry and biodiversity and protected area manage- situation ment, local community involvement and natural z Statistics and scientific sources, especially for resource management, and environmental policies national environmental indicators (this will and laws. The consultants should qualify under include mapping and remote sensing data) the GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines and will be requested to sign a declaration of interest z Interviews with GEF stakeholders, including to indicate no recent relationship with GEF sup- other bilaterals (U.K. Department for Inter- port in the country. national Development, French Development Agency, Canadian International Development The methodology includes a series of components Agency), GEF Agencies (World Bank, UNDP, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative United Nations Industrial Development Orga- methods and tools. The qualitative aspects of the nization), the European Union, government evaluation include a desk review of existing docu- departments (ministries of environment; for- mentation. Given the complex nature of the proj- estry; agriculture, livestock, and fisheries; tour- ects and the many donors and other stakeholders ism; and wildlife and protected areas), GEF involved, many reports, reviews, and studies exist. national focal points (present and past), and all The expected sources of information include the national global convention focal points following: z Interviews with GEF beneficiaries and sup- z At the project level, project documents, project ported institutions, including NGOs (IUCN, implementation reports, terminal evaluations, Birdlife International, Wildlife Conservation 76 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Society, and WWF) and associations (Forestry Evaluation Office prepared country-specific terms Industry Union) of reference. Following recruitment of the evalua- tion team, the following tasks will be undertaken: z Field visits to project sites z Information from national consultation work- 1. Collect information and conduct a literature shops review to extract existing reliable evaluative evidence. The quantitative analysis will use indicators to 2. Prepare the following specific inputs to the assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF support evaluation:4 using projects as the unit of analysis (that is, link- ages with national priorities, time and cost of pre- z GEF portfolio database, which describes all paring and implementing projects, and so forth) GEF-supported activities within the coun- and to measure GEF results (that is, progress try, basic information (GEF Agencies, focal toward achieving global environmental impacts) areas), implementation status, project cycle and performance of projects (such as implemen- information, GEF and cofinancing financial tation and completion ratings). information, major objectives and expected (or actual) results, key partners per project, The evaluation team will use standard tools and and so on. protocols for the CPEs and adapt these to the Cam- z Country environmental framework, which eroon context. These tools include a project review provides the context in which GEF projects protocol to conduct the desk and field reviews of have been developed and implemented GEF projects and questionnaires for interviews (this framework may already be available, with different stakeholders (see annex C). prepared by GEF Agencies or national gov- All ongoing and closed projects will be visited. ernments). This document will be based on The evaluation team will decide on specific sites information on environmental legislation, to visit based on the initial review of documenta- environmental policies of each govern- tion and balancing needs for representation, that ment administration (plans, strategies, and is, (1) regional representation within Cameroon; so on), and the international agreements (2) coverage of both forest protected areas, savan- signed by the country presented and ana- nahs, and coastal and maritime zones; (3) selec- lyzed through time so as to be able to con- tion of varied protected areas among those sup- nect with particular GEF support. ported by the GEF; (4) opportunity to cover both z Global environmental benefits assessment, protected areas and buffer zones; (5) possibility which provides an assessment of the coun- of covering several aspects of the portfolio at one try's contribution to the GEF mandate and site; (6) coverage of areas not supported by the its focal areas based on appropriate indica- GEF for counterfactual purposes; and (7) practical tors, such as those used in the RAF (for bio- and logistical concerns. diversity and climate change) and others in project documents. a.6 Process and Outputs The national focal point will be requested to pro- Based on an initial review of documentation con- vide support to the evaluation, such as identifica- cerning the GEF portfolio in Cameroon, the GEF tion of key people to be interviewed; support to annex a. Terms of reference 77 organize interviews, field visits, and meetings; presented to the Council at its April 2008 meeting. and identification of main documents. The GEF The key milestones of the evaluation are presented Agencies will be requested to provide support to in table A.2. the evaluation regarding their specific projects or activities supported by the GEF, including identifi- cation of key project and Agency staff to be inter- notes viewed, participation in interviews, arrangement 1. Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of the GEF activity are consistent with beneficiaries' of field visits to projects, and provision of project requirements, country needs, global priorities, and documentation and data. partner and donor policies, including changes with time; efficiency: the extent to which results have The main output will be an evaluation report, avail- been delivered with the least costly resources pos- able in English and French. The GEF Evaluation sible (funds, expertise, time, and so on). Efficiency Office will bear full responsibility for the content is also called cost-effectiveness or efficacy. of the report. The draft report will be presented in 2. Results: the output, outcome, or impact (intended a stakeholder workshop in Cameroon for the gov- or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF ernment of Cameroon and national stakeholders, activity; effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF including project staff, donors, and GEF Agen- activity's objectives were achieved or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative cies. Comments will be requested from them on importance. factual issues. The final report will be synthesized together with the other three CPEs and presented 3. The CPE will address four dimensions of sustain- ability: financial, institutional, socioeconomic, and to the GEF Council at its April 2008 meeting. environmental. The evaluation will be conducted between August 4. These inputs are working documents and are not 2007 and March 2008; the final report will be expected to be published as separate documents. 78 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Table a.2 Evaluation's Key Milestones Milestone Deadline 1. Country -specific terms of reference: draft for circulation September 7, 2007 2. Project review protocol and questionnaires September 24, 2007 3. Initial country visit to Cameroon by Evaluation Office task manager: September 25­October 10, y In-country launch of evaluation 2007 y Introduction of evaluation team y National consultations and briefing for relevant stakeholders y Comments on terms of reference and issue identification y Initial interview/discussions with World Bank, UNDP, NGOs, government of Cameroon officials, national and convention focal points y Initiation of GEF project reviews y Preliminary field visits to completed projects: Bamenda Highlands; Biodiversity Conser- vation and Management (2­3 sites) 4. Main fieldwork/data collection: October 11­November 20 y Interviews with project stakeholders 2007 y Field visits and drafting of GEF project reviews 5. Global environmental benefits assessment and environmental framework for Cameroon December 31, 2007 6. Desk review of information for all GEF projects completed December 15, 2007 7. Drafting of report November 20­December 20, 2007 8. First draft January 5, 2008 9. National one-day workshop (in Yaoundé) to present preliminary findings (in French and January 25­February 15, 2008 English) 10. Draft report for comments February 15­28, 2008 (probable) 11. Final country report (in English and French) May 2008 12. Final country report with government of Cameroon response (in English and French) End of May 2008 13. Second workshop for government of Cameroon to provide a response to the final draft June 24, 2008 14. Final country report for publication End of June 2008 15. Presentation to GEF Council November 2008 annex a. Terms of reference 79 annex B. Evaluation Matrix Key question indicators/basic data sources of information Methodology component is GEF support relevant to... Country's sustainable y GEF support is within the country's y Country level over time y Desk review of relevant development agenda sustainable development agenda and y Interviews with gov- country-level information and environmental environmental priorities ernment officials y Desk review of project priorities? y GEF support has country ownership and y Project review information is country based (project origin, design, y National consultation y National consultation and implementation) workshops workshops y Level of GEF funding compared to other y Donors, civil society y Interviews ODA in the environment sector y Country environmental framework y GEF portfolio analysis Country's develop- y GEF supports development needs y Country-level and GEF y Desk review of relevant ment needs and (income generating, capacity building) Agency strategies country-level information challenges? and reduces challenges y Interviews with gov- y Desk review of project y GEF modalities and project components ernment officials information and instruments (FSPs, MSPs, enabling y Project reviews y Desk review of GEF Agency activities, small grants, Agency blended y Donors and civil country strategies projects, technical assistance, microcred- society y National consultation its, and so on) are according to country's workshops needs and challenges y Interviews y Country environmental framework y GEF portfolio analysis National GEF focal GEF support linked to the National Envi- y GEF-supported y Desk review of relevant area action plans ronmental Action Plan; National Communi- enabling activities country-level information (enabling activities)? cations to UNFCCC; national POPs; NCSA y Interviews with y Desk review of project government officials, information NGOs, and Agencies y Desk review of country y Project reviews strategies y SGP country strategy y Interviews y Country environmental framework 80 Key question indicators/basic data sources of information Methodology component Global environmen- y Project outcomes and impacts are related y Country-level data y Desk reviews of project- tal indicators and to the RAF Global Benefit Index (for biodi- y Project reviews level information vice versa (biodi- versity and climate change) and to other y M&E frameworks y Country environmental versity, greenhouse global indicators for POPs, land degrada- framework y Convention action gases, international tion, and international waters y GEF portfolio analysis plans waters, POPs, land y GEF support linked to national commit- degradation)? y RAF, project indicators, ments to global conventions biodiversity, and pro- tected area effective- ness scorecard GEF mandate and y GEF activities, country commitment, y Project reviews y Desk reviews of coun- focal area programs and project counterparts support GEF y Interviews with GEF try- and project-level and strategies? mandate and focal area programs and Secretariat staff and information strategies (catalytic and replication) technical staff from y Country environmental y Relevance of GEF focal point GEF Agencies framework y National coordination of GEF support y GEF-4 programming y Global environmental strategy benefits assessment y Evaluations y GEF portfolio and pipeline analysis is the GEF support efficient? Time, effort, and y Process indicators: project processing y Project reviews y Desk review of project-level money required to timing (according to project cycle steps), y Interviews with GEF information develop and imple- preparation and implementation cost by Secretariat, Agencies, y Project field visits ment a project, by type of modality; project cycle steps in and government y Country environmental type of GEF support Cameroon y Joint Evaluation of the framework modality y Project dropouts from PDF and GEF Activity Cycle and y Global environmental cancellations Modalities benefits assessment y Work program entry y RAF pipeline y GEF portfolio and pipeline y CEO endorsement y Project budgets and analysis y Start staff y Proposed versus. actual closing y M&E budgets and y Phase transition activities y GEF versus cofinancing y Evaluations y Field visits Roles, engagement, y Level of participation y Project reviews y Desk review of project and coordination y Roles and responsibilities of actors y Interviews with project information, interviews, among different y Coordination among projects staff and workshops stakeholders in proj- y Field visits y Country environmental y Complementarity of GEF support ect implementation framework y Evaluations Lessons learned Project design, preparation, and implemen- y Project reviews and y Desk review of project-level between GEF tation have incorporated lessons from previ- documents information projects ous projects within and outside the GEF y Interviews with project y Interviews and workshops staff and donor and y GEF portfolio and pipeline NGO partners analysis y Field visits annex B. Evaluation Matrix 81 Key question indicators/basic data sources of information Methodology component Synergies among y Acknowledgment of each other's y Project reviews y Desk review of project GEF Agencies in GEF projects y Interviews with information, interviews, programming and y Communication between Agencies Agency staff and workshops implementation y Technical support between Agencies y Interviews with NGOs y Country environmental framework y GEF portfolio analysis Synergies among y Acknowledgment of each other's y Project reviews y Desk review of project national institutions projects y Interviews with project information, interviews, for GEF support in y Communication between institutions staff and workshops programming and y Technical support between institutions y Field visits y Country environmental implementation framework y Global environmental benefits assessment y GEF portfolio analysis Synergies between y Acknowledgment of each other's y Project reviews y Desk review of project GEF support and projects y Interviews with NGOs information, interviews, other donors support y Communication between institutions and bilateral donors and workshops y Technical support between institutions y Field visits y Country environmental y Complementarity of GEF support y Donor evaluations framework Sustainability of GEF y Likelihood of financial and economic y Project reviews y Desk review of project support resources available y Interviews with NGOs information, interviews, y Level of stakeholder ownership and and bilateral donors and workshops awareness y Field visits y Country environmental y Legal frameworks, policies, and gover- y Evaluations framework nance structures y GEF portfolio analysis y Systems for accountability and transpar- ency, technical know-how y Environmental risks is GEF support effective? At the project level y Project outcomes and impacts y Existing ratings for project outcomes (self-ratings and independent ratings) y Project reviews y Changes in global benefit indexes and y Field visits y Desk review of projects and other global environmental indicators y Completed project field visits At the aggregate y Aggregated indicators from above evaluations/midterm y Interviews with govern- level (portfolio and y Catalytic and replication effect and implementation ment officials program) by focal y Contribution by the GEF reports y Global environmental area y Evaluative evidence benefits assessment At the country level y Aggregated indicators from above y Project evaluations, y GEF portfolio analysis y Overall outcomes and impacts of GEF phase evaluations support y Catalytic and replication effect 82 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) annex C. Project interview Guide C.1 Topics for Discussion and 5. To what extent are government officials Questions with Government involved in monitoring and evaluation? z Barriers to involvement? agencies with Experience with GEF z Role of independents? Projects 6. To what extent is the government aware of the involvement in GEF Portfolio new GEF Resource Allocation Framework? 1. Which GEF projects has your agency been z If, yes what do you see as the advantages? involved with in the following: z Disadvantages? z Designing z RAF = country drivenness/increased gov- z Implementing ernment control? z Completed or ongoing project z Whose priorities: government or the GEF? z None, if not why? z Trade-offs? Efficiency of GEF implementation in z Change in modalities? Cameroon 7. How are GEF operations coordinated in Cam- 2. In your opinion, what is the role of the GEF in eroon? Cameroon? z What is the role of the GEF national focal z How do you think the GEF assists Cameroon? point? ­ Challenges faced? 3. What is your experience of the GEF project z What is the role of the GEF committee? design and implementation processes? What ­ How long has it been in existence? is your perception of the process? ­ Membership? z How do they compare with other donors? ­ Advantages/disadvantages? z Perceptions of the GEF Secretariat and Imple- 8. What would be your recommendations for menting Agencies (World Bank and UNDP) improving the implementation processes of 4. To what extent do you think Cameroon GEF the GEF in Cameroon? operations have improved since the beginning relevance of involvement in 1991? 9. To what extent has the GEF supported the z What mechanisms are available for proj- development of national environmental laws/ ects to learn from each other? policy or strategies? z How do government agencies learn? 83 z To what extent has the GEF assisted imple- z Show list/confirm mentation? z Where has GEF support for policy/strategy Efficiency of GEF implementation in been most helpful and why? Cameroon 2. What is your experience with the GEF project 10. To what extent are national policies/strategies cycle? owned by the government? z Efficient/inefficient? z Perceptions of many plans and strategies? z Quality of guidance from GEF Secretariat? z Which strategies does the government use/ implement? Responsiveness? z Quality of interaction with government z To what extent have the following been use- ful to government and why (for example, in partners? identifying concepts/ideas for GEF projects)? 3. Who does what in each of the steps? What is ­ National reports to environmental con- the role of the different stakeholders? ventions (CBD, UNFCCC, POPs) 4. How much time, effort (measured in human ­ National Capacity Self-Assessment resources), and money does it take to develop 11. What is your perception about the country a GEF operation? ownership and drivenness of GEF-supported 5. To what extent does your Agency coordinate initiatives? with other Implementing Agencies and bilat- z How are GEF project concepts developed? erals/NGOs to develop and implement GEF z Whose idea? operations results z How (for example, GEF committee)? 12. What have been the key results of GEF proj- z Give examples? Good coordination? ects in Cameroon? z What are the factors that influence good coordination? z Shortcomings and why? z Poor coordination experiences, why? z Areas for improvement? 6. How are lessons and best practices currently Any documents that we must include in our lit- being shared between GEF projects? erature review regarding the implementation of the GEF through your agency in Cameroon and/ 7. How are your Agency's GEF projects moni- or any of the GEF focal areas? tored and evaluated in Cameroon? z Supervision how often? C.2 Topics for Discussion/Questions z Mix of skills used in supervision? with GEF agencies 8. What have been the implications of the RAF GEF international agency Portfolio implementation for Cameroon? 1. Please review the list of projects attached and z Improved flexibility/predictability of fund- confirm the data, in particular, those cells ing? that are empty, which implies we do not have z Increased/decreased Implementing Agency information. coordination/competition? 84 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) z Empowered/disempowered government? C.3 Topics for Discussion with z Increased/reduced opportunities for GEF nGOs with Experience with the GEF operations? GEF nGO Portfolio 9. What have been the main problems and chal- 1. In what projects is your NGO participating? lenges in implementation? What can be done What type of participation? to overcome these problems and challenges in future support? 2. Links between projects/coordination, if any? 10. What would be your recommendations for Efficiency of GEF implementation in improving the implementation processes of Cameroon the GEF in Cameroon? 3. How much time, effort (measured in human resources), and money does it take for [name the relevance NGO] to develop and implement a project? 11. How is GEF support relevant to the following: 4. What mechanisms do you have in place to z National environmental laws and policies? share lessons coming from projects within Where has GEF support for environmental your organization and other relevant projects/ law/policy been most helpful? agencies in Cameroon? z How a balance is struck between national priorities (poverty reduction/development) 5. How do you conduct monitoring and evalua- and global (GEF) priorities? tion of your projects? z Your Agency's country framework (for 6. Are you aware of the RAF? If yes, what have example, CASs) and mandate (poverty been the implications of RAF implementation reduction and economic growth)? for this country for NGOs? 12. What is your perception about the country z Advantages/disadvantages? ownership and drivenness of the GEF-sup- 7. What would be your recommendations for ported initiatives? improving the implementation of the GEF results projects in Cameroon? 13. What have been the results of GEF activities relevance implemented through your Agency, at (pro- 8. What are the main environmental issues/ vide examples) problems in Cameroon? z The outcome level (changes in behavior, z To what extent do you think the GEF assis- policies, enabling environment, removal tance is targeted/designed to address them? of barriers, or sustainable management 9. What is your perception about the country of natural resources and biodiversity) and ownership and drivenness of the GEF-sup- most important ported initiatives? Any documents that we must include in our litera- 10. To what extent is the GEF involved in support- ture review regarding the implementation of the ing your organization's strategy and agenda? GEF through your Agency in Cameroon and/or any of the GEF focal areas? z Involvement in full-size project annex C. Project interview Guide 85 z Medium-size project 11. Geographical focusing? And why? z Small grants z What is the structure of the portfolio? z Which focal area has dominance and why? results ­ Measures taken to address this? 11. What have been the key results of the GEF projects/programs with which you have been 12. To what extent has the SGP involved GEF involved in Cameroon? focal points in governance/oversight of SGP operations? Any documents that we must include in our lit- erature review regarding the implementation of 13. What is the relationship between the SGP and the GEF through your agency in Cameroon and/ convention reporting by the government of or any of the GEF focal areas? Cameroon? 14. How are focal points (GEF and convention) C.4 national Coordinator­national involved in the SGP? steering Committee 15. To what extent does the SGP contribute to GEF "visibility" in Cameroon? Overview/General Questions 1. Please tell us briefly about yourself/your back- 16. What are the main country objectives? Vision ground? How did you come to be involved or logic behind it or main assumptions behind with SGP and environmental issues? the strategy? 2. National coordinator role and responsibilities? 17. Has it changed through the years and why? 3. History of the SGP in Cameroon? 18. What is the process for putting together the strategy? Project Cycle Process z Who is involved and why? 4. What is the project application process? z Potential conflicts and tensions among 5. Project development: how is advice given? stakeholders: how are these resolved? z When, who, and how? Links with GEF MsPs and FsPs 6. How much time does it take for each step? 19. To what extent do the new SGP country strate- What is the total time? gies link with the FSP/MSP country portfolio? 7. What are the transaction costs for NGOs/ z If, so which project and why? community-based organizations (CBOs)? results 8. What the main barriers for NGOs/CBOs for 20. From your experience, what are the major applying to the SGP? results of the Cameroon SGP so far? 9. Acceptance versus rejection rates? z What is the potential, based on working z What criteria? with communities? relevance sustainability 10. Focus/focal area priorities for SGP Cameroon: 21. To what extent have the results of the SGP how were these selected? been sustainable? 86 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) z Sustainability (positive/negative) C.5 Other stakeholders/Focus ­ Give examples? Groups (Communities/Field staff 22. What are the main risks that compromise sus- and so On) tainability of SGP projects? 1. Involvement with the GEF project: what, z Exit strategies? How? when, how, and why? Lesson Learning/replication/scale-Up z Roles and responsibilities? z Type of assistance provided? 23. Take a situation in which you have good proj- ect results: how do you disseminate results? 2. Awareness of the GEF project? 24. How does the SGP address replication/scale- 3. Results: up? z What were the benefits? z Give examples of replication, factors neces- z What were the challenges/shortcomings? sary, and so on? z Barriers and opportunities? z Negatives? z Examples of failures/constraints? 4. Relevance to the following: Efficiency z Local/regional development and environ- 25. How much does it cost to administer the SGP? ment issues? 26. What are main elements/line items of the z Poverty-environment issues? costs? z Government policies and laws (rules and regulations)? z What factors influence the SGP costs? 5. Efficiency: 27. To what extent has the SGP been able to lever- age cofinancing (in-kind or monetary)? z Time for implementation? z Resources provided: enough/not enough z Do you have a strategy for raising cofinanc- and why? ing? z From who? 6. Sustainability: z What are the main strengths and barriers z What is happening now? Realities on the in this area? ground for stakeholders? Any documents that we must include in our lit- z Challenges and opportunities? erature review regarding the implementation of z Follow-on assistance? the GEF through your agency in Cameroon and/ 7. Catalytic effects: or any of the GEF focal areas? z Replications: how? processes? z Causes, factors, barriers, and so on? annex C. Project interview Guide 87 annex D. GEF Portfolio in Cameroon D.1 national, regional, and Global Projects Cost (million $) GEF Focal Executing iD Country/region Project name area Modality stage ia agency GEF Total 85 Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation BD FSP Complete WB WWF and 6.097 12.527 and Management others, MINEF 153 Cameroon Preparation National Biodi- BD EA Complete UNEP MINEF 0.3 0.3 versity Strategy, Action Plan and First National Report to CBD 180 Cameroon Enabling Activity for the CC EA Complete UNEP MINEF 0.265 0.335 Preparation of Initial Com- munication Related to the UNFCCC 427 Cameroon Clearing-House Mechanism BD EA Ongoing UNEP MINEF 0.013 0.013 Enabling Activity 772 Cameroon Community-Based Con- BD MSP Complete UNDP Birdlife 1 3.091 servation in the Bamenda Highlands 1063 Cameroon Forest and Environment BD FSP Ongoing WB MINFOF 10.267 126.8 Development Policy 1367 Cameroon Support to the Implementa- BD MSP Ongoing UNEP MINEP 0.56 0.671 tion of the National Biosafety Framework for Cameroon 1625 Cameroon Promoting Community- BD FSP Pipeline/ UNDP Birdlife 0.144 12.32 Based Conservation of Glob- Canceled ally Significant Biodiversity in Priority Forest Sites within Cameroon Mountain Range 1839 Cameroon Private Sector/GEF Cofinanc- CC FSP Pipeline/ UNDP UNDP 0.176 0.176 ing of Global Warming Canceled Mitigation in Cameroon through Biomass Conserva- tion, Restoration 1976 Cameroon National Capacity Self- MF EA Ongoing UNEP MINEP 0.2 0.22 Assessment for Global Envi- ronmental Management 2023 Cameroon Enabling Activities for the POPs EA Ongoing UNEP MINEP 0.499 0.519 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants: National Implementation Plan for Cameroon 88 Cost (million $) GEF Focal Executing iD Country/region Project name area Modality stage ia agency GEF Total 2549 Cameroon Sustainable Agro-Pastoral LD FSP Ongoing WB Ministry of 6.35 98.35 and Land Management Pro- Planning motion under the PNDP 3326 Cameroon Development and Institution BD FSP RAF UNEP MINEP 2.8 2.8 of a Monitoring and Control Pipeline System of GMO and Invasive Alien Species at the Entry and Frontier Ports Cameroon Building Indigenous Forest BD FSP RAF WB MINFOF 2.09 Management Enterprises in Pipeline Production Forest areas Cameroon Congo Basin Biodiversity Sus- BD FSP RAF WB and MINFOF 2.1 tainable Funding Mechanism Pipeline UNDP Cameroon Integrated Ecosystem Man- BD FSP RAF UNDP MINEP 2 agement of Mangroves Pipeline 47 Regional (Cameroon, Regional Environment and BD FSP Complete WB AIDE 4.378 15.691 Central African Repub- Information Management lic, Congo, Equatorial Project Guinea, Gabon, and Congo DR) 167 Global (Antigua and Country Case Studies on CC EA Complete UNEP UNEP 2 2 Barbuda, Cameroon, Climate Change Impacts and Estonia, and Pakistan) Adaptations Assessment 277 Global (Indonesia, Cam- Global Alternatives to Slash- CC FSP Complete UNDP World Agro- 3 6.37 eroon, Brazil, Thailand, and-Burn Agriculture Phase II forestry and Peru) Centre 390 Global (Brazil, Camer- Alternatives to Slash and CC FSP Complete UNDP World Agro- 3 6 oon, and Indonesia) Burn forestry Centre 393 Regional (Benin, Cam- Water Pollution Control and IW FSP Complete UNDP MINEF 6 6.513 eroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Biodiversity Conservation Ghana, Nigeria, and in the Gulf of Guinea Large from 1997, Togo) Marine Ecosystem 402 Global (Bolivia, Bul- Pilot Biosafety Enabling BD EA Complete UNEP MINEF 2.744 2.744 garia, Cameroon, China, Activity Cuba, Egypt, Kenya, Hungary, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Namibia, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federa- tion, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia) 406 Regional (Burkina Faso, African NGO-Government BD MSP Complete UNDP Birdlife 4.544 11.664 Cameroon, Ethiopia, Partnership for Sustainable Ghana, Kenya, Sierra Biodiversity Action Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uganda) 767 Regional (Cameroon, Reversal of Land and Water IW FSP Ongoing UNDP/ Lake Chad 10.294 13.424 Central African Repub- Degradation Trends in the WB Comm., lic, Chad, Niger, and Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem IUCN Nigeria) annex D. GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 89 Cost (million $) GEF Focal Executing iD Country/region Project name area Modality stage ia agency GEF Total 884 Global (Cameroon, Reduction of Environmental IW FSP Ongoing UNEP/ FAO 4.78 9.22 Colombia, Costa Rica, Impact from Tropical Shrimp FAO Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, Trawling through Introduc- Mexico, Nigeria, Philip- tion of By-Catch Technologies pines, Trinidad and and Change of Management Tobago, and Venezuela) 1093 Regional (Benin, Reversing Land and Water IW FSP Ongoing WB/ Niger 13.375 30.277 Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Degradation Trends in the UNDP Basin Burkina Faso, Cam- Niger River Basin Authority eroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, and Niger) 1095 Regional (Cameroon, Conservation of Trans- BD FSP Ongoing UNDP WWF 10.463 45.083 Congo, and Gabon) boundary Biodiversity in the Minkebe-Odzala-Dja Interzone in Gabon, Congo, and Cameroon 1188 Regional (Angola, Combating Living Resource IW FSP Ongoing UNDP/ UNIDO 21.449 55.32 Benin, Cameroon, Depletion and Coastal Area UNEP Congo DR, Côte Degradation in the Guinea d'Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Current LME through Equatorial Guinea, Ecosystem-Based Regional Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Actions Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Congo) 1348 Regional (Botswana, Africa Stockpiles Program POPs FSP Ongoing WB/FAO MINEP 25.7 60.7 Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Lesotho, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Ethiopia) 1394 Regional (Burkina Faso, Climate, Water and Agricul- CC MSP Closed WB MINEF, 0.7 1.24 Cameroon, Egypt, ture: Impacts on and Adapta- WWF Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, tion of Agro-Ecological Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Systems in Africa South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) 1609 Global (Cameroon, Renewable Energy Enterprise CC FSP Ongoing UNEP/ UNEP 8.7 49.2 Tanzania, Zambia, Development: Seed Capital Asian Cambodia, Indonesia, Access Facility Devel- Philippines, Thailand, opment Ghana, Vietnam, Bank Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, Belize, and Costa Rica) 1895 Global (Brazil, Mexico, Improved Certification BD MSP Ongoing UNEP Center for 0.987 1.454 and Cameroon) Schemes for Sustainable Int'l Forestry Tropical Forest Management Research, Forest Stewardship Council 90 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Cost (million $) GEF Focal Executing iD Country/region Project name area Modality stage ia agency GEF Total 2092 Global (Cameroon, Tan- Coastal Resilience to Climate BD MSP Ongoing UNEP WWF 1 2 zania, Fiji, and India) Change: Developing a Gener- alizable Method for Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptation of Mangroves and Associated Ecosystems 2129 Regional (Senegal, Demonstrating and Captur- IW FSP Ongoing UNEP Ministry of 6.015 29.371 Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, ing Best Practices and Tech- Tourism Mozambique, Sey- nologies for the Reduction chelles, Tanzania, Cam- of Land-Sourced Impacts eroon, and Gambia) Resulting from Coastal Tourism 2385 Regional (Cameroon, First Regional Micro/Mini- CC FSP Pipeline/ UNDP UNDP 19.174 140.51 Mali, Central African Hydropower Capacity Devel- Canceled Republic, Benin, Togo, opment and Investment in Gabon, Rwanda, Rural Electricity Access in Congo, Congo DR, and Sub-Saharan Africa Burundi) 2469 Regional (Algeria, Supporting Capacity Build- LD MSP Complete WB Int'l Fund 0.9 1.8 Benin, Botswana, ing for the Elaboration of for Agri- Burkina Faso, Burundi, National Reports and Coun- cultural Cameroon, Cape Verde, try Profiles by African Parties Develop- Central African Repub- to the UNCCD ment lic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethio- pia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, and Mauritania) note: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; EA = enabling activity; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; IA = Imple- menting Agency; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal; UNIDO = United Nations Industrial Development Organiza- tion; WB = World Bank. annex D. GEF Portfolio in Cameroon 91 D.2 small Grants Programme Focal Project name area Executing agency Cost ($) Furtherance of Biodiversity Conservation by Some Rural Communities in BD Heifer Project International 40,000 the Highland Zone Media Environment Sensitization in Cameroon MF Media Environment Sensitization 45,915 Group Production of Kenya Top Bar Hives for Northwest Bee Farmers BD Northwest Bee Farmer Association 36,888 Public Collection and Management of Household Garbage in Urban CC Fondation pour une Action Rationali- 49,130 Centers sée des Femmes sur l'Environnement Conservation of Primary and Sacred Forests in the West Province BD Action pour un Développement 37,880 Equitable, Intégré, et Durable Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management in the BD Comite de Développement 28,900 Batchingou Area MEWAOU Reforestation and Pasture Improvement and Environmental Protection LD Cameroon Baptist Convention Health 6,000 Board Land Use Management in Zouzoui and Moutourwa in the Sudano- LD Zouzoui and Moutourwa Village 40,000 Sahelian Zones Women and Environmental Protection in the SOLIDAM BD Solidarité des Femmes pour le Dével- 30,000 oppement d'Akak Integrated Management of Lake Mokounounou and Ngoko River IW Association pour le Développement 50,000 Durable et Intégré Pasture Improvement and Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands in the LD Tongo Tassa 24,000 Adamawa Province Promotion des Fumoirs Améliorés et Renforcement des Capacités BD Association pour la Protection des 39,956 des Femmes à l'Ecologie à Travers le Reboisement et l'Exploitation Écosystèmes Marins, Côtiers, et des Economiquement Durable de Type Participatif dans les Mangroves des Zones Humides Pêcheries de l'Estuaire Projet de Renforcement des Capacités des Communautés Côtières dans BD Cameroon Wildlife Conservation 34,789 la Gestion Durable des Ecosystèmes de Mangroves de la Reserve de Society Faune de Douala-Edea Strengthening Wetland Management through Community Organization BD Watershed Task Group 27,858 and Prioritized Sustainable Livelihood Options in the Lake Ossa Complex Community-Based Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation and Management BD GIC Malimba Ocean 16,651 through Sustainable Bivalve Exploitation and Processing of the Douala- Edea Reserve Projet de Restauration des Sols par l'Agroforesterie dans le Mayo-Kani a LD GREEN SAFE 29,518 Guividig Avant-Projet du Microprojet de la Protection de la Biodiversité et BD Eglise Protestante Africaine Pro- 1,226 d'Appui/Accompagnement à l'Agriculture Durable chez les Pygmées gramme ARUVA-KTM Bakola de Lolodorf note: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal. 92 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited E.1 Documents reviewed for the --. 2003. "Mid-Term Review of the Community Based Conservation in the Bamenda Highlands Evaluation Projects." Abbot, J. I. O., and D. H. L. Thomas. 2001. "Understand- Bosworth, D., and H. Brown. 2007. "After the Timber ing the Links between Conservation and Develop- Wars: Community-Based Stewardship/Response: ment in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon." In Forest Management." Journal of Forestry 100(5): World Development 29(7), 1115­136. 271. Agromisa Foundation. 2005. "Exploring Endogenous Brendan, J., and A. Forbes. 2002. "Program Planning Livestock Development in Cameroon." Report on Workshop CAMCOF." December 10­12, 2002. the ELD workshop at Yaoundé, Cameroon, June 12­18, 2005. AgroSpecial no. 3. Brockington, D., and J. Igoe. 2006. "Eviction for Con- servation. A Global Overview." Conservation and Akoa Akoa, R. J. 2007. "Economic Analysis of Commu- Society 4(3): 424­70. nity Forest Projects in Cameroon." Master's thesis, University of Goettingen, Faculty of Forest Science Brown, D. 2000. "Strategy for DFID Support to Civil and Wood Ecology. Society Development in Cameroon." Alemagi, D. 2006. "Mitigating Industrial Pollution Brown, D., and K. Schreckenberg. 2001. "Community along the Atlantic Coast of Cameroon: An Over- Forestry: Facing up to the Challenge in Cameroon." view of Government Efforts." The Environmenta- In Rural Development Forestry Network. Network list 26: 41­50. paper 25a. Autorité du Bassin du Niger. 2007. "Rapport de la Mis- CAMCOF (Cameroon Mountains Conservation Foun- sion d'appui et de suivi de la mise en oeuvre du pro- dation). 2006. "GEF Project Development Work- gramme de micro subventions effectuée au Came- shop PIMS 2612: Catalyzing the Sustainability roun du 24 Avril au 7 Mai 2007." Projet: Inversion of Protected Areas in the Cameroon Mountain des Tendances à la Dégradation des Terres et des Range through Community-based Conservation Eaux dans le bassin du fleuve Niger. and Sustainable Use." February 13­14, 2006, Kribi, Cameroon. Banque Africaine de Developpement, Fonds Africain de Developpement. 2005. Cameroun-"Document --. 2007. "Forensic Audit Report on Cameroon de Strategie par pays 2005­09." Mountains Conservation Foundation (CAM- COF)." April 2004 to May 2006. Yaoundé. Batamak, P., and J. L. Roux. 2004. Minutes concerning CR réunion PNUD DFID-CAMCOF February 26, 2004. CED (Development in Cameroon) and Forest Peoples Program. 2005. "Protecting and Encouraging Tra- Belot, M. 1999. "Follow-up Audit Mission Cameroon." ditional Sustainable Use in Cameroon: Customary Africa 2000 Network and GEF Small Grants Pro- Use of Biological Resources by Local and Indige- gramme. For UNOPS. nous Peoples in Western Dja Reserve, Cameroon." BirdLife International. 1996. "Proposal for the Conser- Case Study on Indigenous Peoples and Protected vation of Mount Kupe, Cameroon." Areas. 93 Cernea, M. M., and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. "Poverty Coulthard, N. 2006. Report on work carried out for Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Con- CAMCOF on "UNDP/GEF Project Preparation" servation and Resettlement." World Development during 2­16 January 2006. 34(10): 1808­30. Cruz, C. 1996. Comments from Council and GEFSEC CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricul- on project proposal to Avani Vaish concerning 153 tural Research). 2002. "Alternatives to Slash and UNEP EA National Report to CBD. Burn. Summary Report and Synthesis of Phase II DFID (Department for International Development). in Cameroon." 2002. Country Strategy for Cameroon 2002. --. 2005. "Report of the External Review of the Diangha Fuchi, E. 2003. "Community Forestry: Evolu- Systemwide Programme on Alternatives to Slash tion, Achievements, and Challenges of the CFM and Burn (ASB)." Process in the Ijim Site." Chomitz, K. M., and others. 2007. "Overview. At Log- Dione, O. 2006. "Implementation Status Results and gerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduc- Report. Africa, 3A-GEF Niger River Basin (FY04)." tion, and Environment in the Tropical Forests." For Project ID: P070256. the World Bank. Djeumo, A. 2001. "The Development of Community CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research). Forests in Cameroon: Origins, Current Situation 2004. "Medium-Size Project Proposal. Request and Constraints." Rural Development Forestry Net- for GEF Funding. Project Title: Improved Certi- work, network paper 25b. fication Schemes for Sustainable Tropical Forest Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. 2007. "The Protected Areas Management." Benefits Assessment Tool. A Proposal Methodol- --. 2005. "Issues Relating to Reducing Emissions ogy." For WWF. from Deforestation in Developing Countries." Sub- Earth Trends. 2003. "Earth Trends Country Profiles: mission to the UNFCCC. Climate and Atmosphere - Cameroon." Collomb, J.-G. and H. Bikié. 2000. "1999­2000 Alloca- ECORYS Nederland BV. 2006. Abstract of Evaluation tion of Logging Permits in Cameroon: Fine-tuning of the European Commission's Support to the Central Africa's Auction System." For Global Forest Cameroon. Watch Cameroon. Environmental Resources Management and ERE Devel- COMIFAC (Central African Forest Commission). 2006. opment. 2003. "Cadre de Gestion Environnemen- "4ième Session ordinaire du conseil des Ministres tale et Sociale: Programme National de Dével- de la COMIFAC. Rapport general de la reunion oppement Participatif." For the government of des experts preparatoire au conseil des ministres, Cameroon. Malabo, 20 septembre 2006." Etoungou, P. 2003. "Decentralization Viewed from --. 2007. "Rapport de la mission d'experts pour la Inside: The Implementation of Community Forests reflexion sur un systeme de suivi-evaluation du in East Cameroon." Environmental Governance in plan de convergence de la COMIFAC." Africa. Working Paper #12. Conseils and Auditeurs Associes. 2002. "Audit Report Eves, H., R. Hardin, and S. Rupp, eds. 1998. Resource on the Financial Statements of the Community- Use in the Trinational Sangha River Region of Based in the Bamenda Highlands between Jan. 1, Equatorial Africa: Histories, Knowledge Forms, 2002 and June 30, 2002." and Institutions. Bulletin No. 102. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. 1998. "The Upper-Sangha in the Time of the Concession Companies." In H. Evina, F. 2003. Mission report for DRR/PMSU. Eves, R. Hardin, and S. Rupp, eds., Resource Use Fall, O. 2001. "Enabling Activities for the Implemen- in the Trinational Sangha River Region of Equato- tation of the United Nations Framework Conven- rial Africa: Histories, Knowledge Forms, and Insti- tion on Climate Change in Cameroon." UNEP/ tutions, pp. 72­84. Bulletin No. 102. New Haven, GEF Subproject GF/2200-97-45. Final evaluation CT: Yale University. of project. 94 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United --. 1996f. "Community Level Environmental Nations). 2006. "Technical Support Unit to the Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- ASP." Project implementation report. ence in Environmental Protection in Batchingou." FFEM (French GEF). 2005. "Conservation de la Bio- --. 1996g. "Community Level Environmental diversité dans les Parcs Nationaux au Faro et Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- de Bouba N'Djida et leurs zones rattachées au ence in Integrated Land Management in Adamawa Cameroun." Province." Fomété, T. 2001. "The Forestry Taxation System and --. 1996h. "Community Level Environmental Micro- the Involvement of Local Communities in Forest Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experience in Inte- Management in Cameroon." Rural Development grated Management of Lake Mokounounou and the Forestry Network, network paper 25b. River Ngoko on the Cameroon-Congo Frontier." Fonseca, de G. A. B. and others. 2007. "No Forest Left --. 1996i. "Community Level Environmental Behind." PLoS Biology 5(8), e216. Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Expe- rience in Land Use Management in Zouizoui Forbes, A. and J. Besong. 2002. "Participatory Biodi- and Moutourwa Villages in the Sudano-Sahelian versity Conservation Strategy for Mt. Cameroon. Zone." Striving to Demonstrate a `Win-Win' Situation for Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction." CMBL Series --. 1996j. "Community Level Environmental Paper 1. Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- ence in Sustainable Beefarming in the North West Forboseh, P. F. 2002. "Report about Kilum-Ijim Forest Province." Project and Birdlife International/MINEF for the Ecological Monitoring Programme." --. 1996k. "Community Level Environmental Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- Forest Stewardship Council. 2006. "Overview of ence in Women and Environmental Protection in Advances between 16th May 2005 and 30th April SOLIDAM Villages." 2006." --. 1999a. "Medium-Size Project Brief: Community Global Environment Facility (GEF). 1993. "Regional Based Conservation in the Bamenda Highlands." Water Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conser- vation in the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosys- --. 1999b. "PDF-B Project Proposal TRIDOM." tem (LME)." Project document. --. 2000a. Comments from Council Members --. 1996a. "Operational Strategy of the Global (Reference to GEF/C.15/3) concerning Cameroon: Environment Facility." Community-based Conservation in the Bamenda Highlands. --. 1996b. "Community Level Environmental Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- --. 2000b. "Development of a Strategic Action ence in Afforestation and Pasture Improvement in Program (SAP) for the Guinea Current Large Mbingo." Marine Ecosystem." UNDP, UNEP. GEF Secretar- iat Review: PDF B Approval. --. 1996c. "Community-Level Environmental Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Expe- --. 2000c. "Global Reduction of Environmental rience in Biodiversity Conservation by 11 Rural Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawling through Communities in the Highlands Zone." the Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technolo- gies and Change of Management." Project brief. --. 1996d. "Community Level Environmental Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- --. 2001a. GEF Secretariat concept agreement ence in Collection and Management of Domestic review concerning Cameroon: Support for the Garbage in Yaounde City." Implementation of the National Biosafety Frame- work for Cameroon. GEFSEC Project ID: 1367. --. 1996e. "Community Level Environmental Micro-Project. The GEF/SGP Cameroon Experi- --. 2001b. "Support to the Implementation of the ence in Conservation of Primary and Sacred For- National Biosafety Framework for Cameroon." ests in the Western Province." GEF concept paper. annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 95 --. 2001c. "Support to the Implementation of the Framework for Cameroon." Individual PIR Report National Biosafety Framework for Cameroon." 2004. GEF Project ID: 330. MSP Project brief. --. 2004h. Project Development Facility. Request --. 2001d. "Support to the Implementation of the for pipeline entry and PDF Block approval. Project National Biosafety Framework for Cameroon." title: Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Manage- Project summary. ment Promotion under the National Community Development Program Support Project (PNDP). --. 2003a. "Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin." Agency's Project --. 2005a. Correspondence between GEF and ID: PIMS 260. GEF Council Work Program Sub- World Bank and cover memo concerning FEDPG. mission. Project executive summary. --. 2005b. "Draft Report of the second PSC meet- --. 2003b. "GEF Project Cycle. An Update." ing of the LCBC GEF Project." GEF/C.22/Inf.9. Nov 5, 2003. --. 2005c. "FY GEF Annual Portfolio Review. Indi- --. 2003c. "GEF Council Work Program Submis- vidual Project Implementation Review Report." sion: Combating Living Resource Depletion and GEFSEC Project ID: 1367. Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea Current --. 2005d. "FY05 GEF Annual Portfolio Review. LME through Ecosystem-Based Regional Actions." Individual Project Implementation Review Report: Project executive summary. Reduction of Environment Impact from Tropi- --. 2004a. "Project Summary: Supporting Capacity cal Shrimp Trawling; through the Introduction of Building for the Elaboration of National Reports By-Catch Reduction Technologies and Change of and Country Profiles by African Parties to the Management." GEF Secretariat ID: 884. UNCCD." GEF Medium-Size Project Brief. --. 2005e. "Medium-Size Project. Coastal Resil- --. 2004b. Project Development Facility. Request ience to Climate Change: Developing a Generaliz- for Pipeline entry and PDF Bloc B Approval: First able Method for Assessing Vulnerability and Adap- Regional Micro/Mini-Hydropower Capacity tation of Mangroves and Associated Ecosystems." Development and Investment in Rural Electricity GEFSEC Project ID: 2092. Access in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agency's Project --. 2005f. "GEF Council Work Program Submis- ID: PIMS#3085. sion: First Regional Micro/Mini-Hydropower --. 2004c. "Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Capacity Development and Investment in Rural Management Promotion under the Community Electricity Access in Sub-Sahara Africa." Project Development Support Program." Project executive executive summary. summary. --. 2005g. "GEF Council Work Program Submis- --. 2004d. "GEF Council Work Program Sub- sion: Renewable Energy Enterprise Development: mission for Forestry and Environmental Sector Seed Capital Access Facility." Project executive Adjustment Credit (FESAC)." Project executive summary. summary. --. 2005h. "Project Executive Summary. GEF --. 2004e. "GEF Council Work Program Submission. Council Work Program Submission: African Conservation of Transboundary Biodiversity in the Micro/Mini Hydropower Initiative." GEFSec Proj- Minkebe-Odzala-Dja Interzone in Gabon, Congo, ect ID: 2385. and Cameroon." Project executive summary. --. 2005i. "OPS3: Progressing Toward Environ- --. 2004f. "Work Program: Comments from Council mental Results. Third Overall Performance Study Members (Reference to GEF/C.23/5-April 20, 2004) of the Global Environment Facility." Executive Ver- Concerning Cameroon: Forestry and Environment sion. June 2005. Sector Adjustment Credit" (World Bank). --. 2006a. "Evaluation du Portefeuille-Pays. Ter- --. 2004g. "Implementation of National Biosafety mes de référence Standard." Approuvé par Rob D. Framework Cameroon. Project title: Support to van den Berg, Directeur, Bureau des évaluations the Implementation of the National Biosafety du FEM. 96 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) --. 2006b. "GEF Country Portfolio Evaluations. --. 2007j. "Request for Project Preparation Grant Pilot Phase-FY06." Approach Paper. (PPG): Building Indigenous Forest Management Enterprises in Production Forest Areas in South- --. 2006c. Letter to Mr. Justin Nantchou Ngoko east Cameroon. concerning GEF 4. --. 2007k. "Resource Allocation Framework: Mid- --. 2006d. "Note on the Selection Criteria for the Term Review. Terms of Reference" (1st Draft). GEF Country Portfolio Evaluations." --. 2007l. "GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Phil- --. 2006e. "Project Identification Form for the ippines (1992­2007)." Final Draft (unedited). Project: Congo Basin Innovative Conservation." --. 2007m. "Programme de Microfinancements --. 2006f. "Revised Executive Summary. GEF du FEM. Canevas de présentation d'un projet GEF Council Work Program Submission: Demonstrat- Small Grants Programme Cameroon." ing and Capturing Best Practices and Technolo- gies for the Reduction of Land-Sourced Impacts --. 2007n. "Programme de Microfinancements Resulting from Coastal Tourism." du FEM. Réunion du Comité National de Pilotage du GEF Small Grants Programme - Cameroon, --. 2006g. GEF Secretariat concept agreement Yaoundé 19 Juin 2007." review concerning Cameroon: Sustainable Agro- Pastoral and Land Management Promotion under --. 2007o. "SGP Country Strategy for Utilization of the National Community Development Program RAF Funds. SGP Country Program information." Support Project (PNDP). --. 2007p. "Strategie Nationale. Programme de --. 2006h. "CM-Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Microfinancements du Fonds pour l'Environne- Land Management Promotion Project." Project ment Mondial (PMF/FEM). GEF Small Grants appraisal document. Program - Cameroon." --. 2007a. Decision by mail concerning Focal Area GEF and ABN (Global Environment Facility and Niger Strategies and Strategic Programming for GEF-4. Basin Authority). 2007. "Mission d'appui et de GEF/C.31/10). suivi de la mise en oeuvre du programme de micro subventions du projet GEF/ABN (in Garoua)." --. 2007b. "Concept Agreement Review Concerning the Project: Support to Cameroon's National Forest GEF and PECL (Global Environment Facility and and Environment Sector Development Program." Pacific Environment Consultant Ltd.). 2007. "GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007)." --. 2007c. "Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Final Draft (unedited). Programming for GEF-4." GEF and UNEP (Global Environment Facility and --. 2007d. "GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: United Nations Environment Programme). 2003. Costa Rica (1992­2005)." "Proposal for PDF-B Grant: Reduction of Envi- --. 2007e. "GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: ronmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Philippines (1992­2007)." GEF/ME/C.31/3. Introduction of Policy Changes and Strengthening Public-Private Partnerships." --. 2007f. "GEF Evaluation Office: BTOR for Cam- eroon CPE Mission." Memorandum. --. 2004. "Premier Projet Régional de Renforce- ment des Capacités en Micro et Mini Hydroé- --. 2007g. "Project Brief. Cameroon: Forestry and lectricité et d'Investissement pour la Fourniture Environmental Sector Adjustment Credit." de Service de Base en Milieu Rural en Afrique --. 2007h. "Project Identification Form (PIF): Subsaharienne. Etude de pré-faisabilité pour la Building Indigenous forest Management Enter- détermination des sites favorables à l'implantation prises in Production Forest Areas in Southeast des micro et minis centrales hydroélectriques au Cameroon. Cameroun." Mission report. --. 2007i. "Project Identification Form for the --. 2006. "Project Brief: Demonstrating and Cap- Project: Building Indigenous Forest Management turing Best Practices and Technologies for the Enterprises in Production Forest Areas in South- Reduction of Land-Sourced Impacts Resulting east Cameroon." from Coastal Tourism." annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 97 Global Forest Watch Cameroon. 2003. "An Overview insecticides naturels pour la protection du Niebe of Logging in Cameroon." dans les cuvettes de decrue du Lac Tchad. IMF-IDA (International Monetary Fund­Interna- Logo, P. B., J.-A. Abessolo, and D. Koulbout. 2007. tional Development Association). 2006. "Repub- "Toward Conservation Benefiting the Poor in lic of Cameroon: Joint Staff Advisory Note on the Cameroon? Origins and Update of the ZICGC Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Third Annual Experience in Participatory Management and Inte- Progress Report." http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ grated Development of Protected Areas in Lobéké, scr/2006/cr06261.pdf. "Boumba-Bek and Nki in Southeastern Cameroon." In G. Oviedo and P. van Griethuysen (eds.), Poverty, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Equity and Rights in Conservation, pp. 80­99. Gland: 2004. "Cameroon Case Study. Analysis of National IUCN. Strategies for Sustainable Development." Unedited working paper. www.iisd.org/measure/capacity/ Maisels, F., T. Sunderland, B. Curran, K. v. Loeben- sdsip.asp. stein, J. Oates, L. Usongo, and others. 2007. "Cen- tral Africa's Protected Areas and the Purported IUCN. 2006. Manage Better to Conserve. 2006 annual Displacement of People: A First Critical Review report. Regional Office for Central Africa. of Existing Data." In K. H. Redford and E. Fearn, --. 2007a. Plan de gestion de la plaine d'inondation eds., Protected Areas and Human Displacement: de Waza Logone. Projet FEM/CBLT. Inversion des A Conservation Perspective. New York: Wildlife Tendances à la Dégradation des Terres et des Eaux Conservation Society. dans le Bassin du Lac Tchad. Manikowski, S. 2007. "Mid-Term Review: Reversal of --. 2007b. Rapport du suivi et evaluation a mi-par- Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Lake cours, exécuté par l'AIDR: Programme de Micro- Chad Basin Ecosystem LCB-GEF Project." For Subventions du Projet Pilote Diagnostic du Rivage UNOPS. et de la partie Nord du Lac Tchad. Projet approvi- Marco, J. de. 2002. "Handover Notes by Outgoing Proj- sionnement en eau potable dans quatre villages de ect Manager, Community-Based Conservation in la plaine de Waza Logone (Kaikai, Margu, Mour- the Bamenda Highlands." la'ha et Sifna). Mayaka, T. B. 2002. "Wildlife Co-Management in the --. 2007c. Rapport du suivi et evaluation a mi-par- Bénoué National Park-Complex, Cameroon: A cours, exécuté par l'Enviro-Protect and Antenne Bumpy Road to Institutional Development." World de Maroua: Programme de Micro-Subventions du Development 30(11): 2001­16. Projet Pilote Diagnostic du Rivage et de la partie Nord du Lac Tchad. Projet recuperation des `har- Mbile, B., and others. 2005. "Linking Management and des' et amelioration de la fertilite des sols à trafers Livelihood in Environmental Conservation: Case le reboisement et l'utilisation du compost dans le of the Korup National Park, Cameroon." Journal of Lawanat des Madide, arrondissement de Bogo, Environmental Management 76(2005): 1­13. Province de l'Extreme Nord du Cameroun. Mengang, J. M. 1994. "Evolution of Natural Resource --. 2007d. Rapport du suivi et evaluation a mi-par- Policy in Cameroon." Yale F&Es Bulletin, cours, exécuté par les GICs de Louvoung, Maga, pp. 39­48. Meiwi, Mourla et Zinata: Programme de Micro- Mertens, B., and others. 2000. "Impact of Macroeco- Subventions du Projet Pilote Diagnostic du Rivage nomic Change on Deforestation in South Cam- et de la partie Nord du Lac Tchad. Projet de deve- eroon: Integration of Household Survey and loppement des cultures maraicheres dans l'arron- Remotely-Sensed Data." World Development 28(6): dissement de Maga, villages de Louvoung, Maga, 983­99. Meiwi, Mourla et Zinata. Mimbimi E. P. 2007. Presentation: GEF Project Activi- Jiago, R., and C. Fapa. 2007. Rapport du suivi et eva- ties - Cameroon Component. luation a mi-parcours, exécuté par le CEDC pour UICN: Programme de Micro-Subventions du MINEF (Ministry of the Environment and Forestry). Projet Pilote Diagnostic du Rivage et de la par- 1997. "Convention on Biological Diversity. National tie Nord du Lac Tchad. Projet de promotion des Report." 98 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) --. 1999. "Biodiversity Status Strategy and Action --. 2006b. "Letter to Mrs. Carole Megevand, The Plan." World Bank/DFID, Yaoundé concerning the Sus- tainable Management of the Environment and --. 2003a. "Synthèse des Acquis du Programme de Biodiversity Conservation Programme." Conservation et de Gestion de la Biodiversité au Cameroun (PCGBC) 1995­2003." --. 2006c. Rapport Financier du Projet d'Elabo- ration du Plan National de Mise en Oeuvre de la --. 2003b. "Programme de Conservation et de Ges- Convention de Stockholm sur les POPs." tion de la Biodiversité au Cameroun. Secretariat Executif. Acquis de la periode 1995­2003. Efforts --. 2007a. Letter to Madam Barbut, CEO/Chair- de conservation pour un développment durable." man of GEF concerning endorsement for project Building Indigenous Forest Management Enter- --. 2003c. "Programme de Conservation et de prises in Production Forest Areas in Southeast Gestion de la Biodiversité." Cameroon. --. 2003d. "Summary of the Achievements of the --. 2007b. Letter to Madam Barbut, CEO/Chair- Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation and Man- man of GEF concerning endorsement for project agement Programme (PCGBC) 1995­2003." Congo Basin Biodiversity Sustainable Funding Mechanisms. --. 2003e. "Biodiversity Conservation and Man- agement Programme." --. 2007c. "Operationalisation du PAN/LCD). Pro- gramme d'Action Triennal (2007­09)." --. 2003f. "Indigenous Peoples Development Plan for the FESP." --. 2007d. "Project for the Development and Insti- tution of a Monitoring and Control System of --. 2004. Lettre pour le Monsieur le Ministre des GMOs and Invasive Alien Species at the Entry and Affaires Economiques, de la Programmation et Frontier Ports of Cameroon." de l'Aménagement du Territoire concernant des accords et réglementation au Projet CMR/00/ MINFOF (Ministry of Forests and Fauna). 2007. "Etat G35. des lieux des dossiers de la cooperation et du PSFE." MINEF and GTZ (German Organization for Technical MINPLAPDAT. 2006. "Programme National de Deve- Cooperation). 2003. Rural Livelihood and social loppement Participatif (PNDP). Projet de Promo- infrastructure around Mount Cameroon. tion de Gestion durable des Terres et des Systemes MINEF and KfW. 2004. Outline of the Programme for Agro-Pastoraux." Manuel d'Execution. the sustainable management of natural resources Molua, E., and C. M. Lambi. 2007. "The Economic in the South West Province of Cameroon. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture in Cam- MINEF and WRI. 2003. "Monitoring and Report- eroon." Policy Research Working Paper No. 4364. ing Needs in Support of for African Forest Law Washington, DC: World Bank. Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) Process." Monaco, A. del. 2005. "GEF M&E Terminal Evaluation Summary and recommendations. Review Form for Environment and Information MINEF and WWF. 2002. "Evaluation of Management Management Project (REIMP) of GEF." Effectiveness Cameroon Protected Area System." Mondoa, J. 2006. "Annual report on Project Implemen- MINEP (Ministry of the Environment and Nature Pro- tation for Bimba Bonadikombo Natural Resource tection). 2005a. "Plan d'Aménagement du Parc Management Council." Community Forest National de Campo-Ma'an et de sa Zone periphe- No.1101-77. rique." Draft. Nantchou Ngoko, J. 2007. "Atelier national sur le deve- --. 2005b. "Third National Report to CBD for loppement de la strategie/plan d'action de renfor- the Ministry of Environment and Protection of cement des capacites/Suivi MSP pour la mise en Nature." oeuvre des trois conventions de Rio au Cameroun for National Capacity self needs assessment for --. 2006a. "Plan d'Action National de Lutte Contre global environmental management (GEF/NCSA)." la Desertification (PAN/LCD)." Rapport général des travaux. annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 99 Nasong'o, S., and W. N. Gabsa. 2002. "Environmental Oyono, P. R. 2004a. "Institutional Deficit, Represen- Policy and the Politics of Ecologism in Cameroon tation, and Decentralized Forest Management in and Kenya." Cameroon: Elements of Natural Resource Sociol- ogy for Social Theory and Public Policy." Work- Ndameu, B. 2003. "Protected Areas and Indigenous ing Paper Series: Environmental Governance in Peoples: The Paradox of Conservation and Sur- Africa. World Resources Institute. vival of the Baka in the Moloundou Region." In J. Nelson and L. Hossack, eds., Indigenous Peoples --. 2004b. "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? and Protected Areas in Africa: From Principles to Paradoxes of Natural Resources Management Practice, pp. 215­36. Moreton-in-Marsh, England: Decentralization in Cameroon." In Journal of Mod- Forest Peoples Programme. ern African Studies 42(1): 91­111. Ngandjui, G. 2007. "Rapport d'Evaluation de la mise en --. 2004c. "Assessing Accountability in Camer- oeuvre de la convention sur la diversité biologique oon's Local Forest Management. Are Representa- for the National Capacity Self Needs Assessment tives Responsive?" African Journal of Political Sci- for Global Environmental Management (NCSA) ence 9(1): 126­36. Project." Rapport final. --. 2005. "Profiling Local-Level Outcomes of Envi- Ngong, A. S. 2007. Sketch Map of Boyo Division ronmental Decentralizations: The Case of Camer- for Ministry of the Environment and Nature oon's Forests in the Congo Basin." In Journal of Envi- Protection. ronment and Development 14(2): 1­21 (June 2005). Noupa, P. 2006. "Implementation Status Results and --. 2006. Green and Black Gold in Rural Cameroon: Report. Africa, 3A-GEF Lake Chad Basin (FY03)." Natural Resources for Local Governance, Justice and Project ID: P070252. Sustainability. Working Paper Series. Environmen- tal Governance in Africa. --. 2007. "Plan de Gestion du Rivage et de la Partie Nord du Lac Tchad - UICN/BRAC." PMU and UNDP. 2003. "Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Lake Chad Basin Eco- Ntsama, J. 2006. "National Energy Action Plan (NEAP) system." Project appraisal document. Cameroon." Presentation. Portmann, J. E., C. Biney, C. Ibe, and S. Zabi. 1989. State O'kah, E. M. 2002. "Improving Livelihoods for Local of the Marine Environment in the West and Central People through Participatory Wildlife Management: Africa Region. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Lessons from MCP." Cameroon Mountains Biodi- Studies, No. 108. versity and Livelihood Series, No. 2. Limbe: Mount Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation Centre. Rambaud-Méasson, D. 2007. "Finalisation du Docu- ment du Projet Régional de Développement des Oumarou, D. 2006. "Rapport trimestriel: Inversion Capacités en mini et micro électricité et d'investis- des tendances à la Dégradation des Terres et des sement pour l'access à l'électricité en milieu rural Eaux dans l'Ecosystème du Basin du Lac Tchad." en Afrique Subsaharienne." Mission au Cameroun, RAF/00030954/PO70252 pour le Commission du 12­16 juillet 2007. Bassin du Lac Tchad/Projet Fonds pour l'Environ- nement Mondial (CBLT/FEM). Rantrua, F. 1999. Project Status Report Africa REIMP(CEN.ENV.,INFO) (Project ID: P000003). --. 2007a. "Rapport Semestriel: Inversion des Ten- dances à la Dégradation des Terres et des Eaux --. 2001. Project Status Report Africa REIMP(CEN. dans l'Ecosystème du Bassin du Lac Tchad. Com- ENV.,INFO) (Project ID: P000003). mission du Bassin du Lac Tchad/Projet Fonds pour --. 2002. Project Status Report Africa REIMP(CEN. l'Environnement Mondial." ENV.,INFO) (Project ID: P000003). --. 2007b. "Rapport trimestriel: Inversion des REDD. 2006. "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation tendances à la Dégradation des Terres et des and Degradation (REED) in Cameroon." Camer- Eaux dans l'Ecosystème du Basin du Lac Tchad." oon UNFCCC presentation. RAF/00030954/PO70252 pour le Commission du Bassin du Lac Tchad/Projet Fonds pour l'Environ- REM. 2006. "Independent Monitoring. Progress in nement Mondial (CBLT/FEM). Tackling Illegal Logging in Cameroon 2005­06." 100 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) --. 2007. "Observation Indépendante. Evolution --. 2005b. Loi n° 2005/003 du 28 Avril 2005 du contrôle et des sanctions de l'exploitation fores- autorisant le président de la république à rati- tière illégale au Cameroun." fier la convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants, adoptée le 23 Mai 2001 à Republic of Cameroon. 1996. Loi N° 96/12 du 5 Aout Stockholm. 1996 portant loi-cadre relative à la gestion de l'environnement. Rodriguez, J. P., and others. 2007. "Globalization of Conservation: A view from the South." In Policy --. 2002. "United Nations Development Assistance Forum August. Framework." Roe, Dilys, and others. 2007. "Climate, Carbon, Con- --. 2003a. MDGs Progress Report at Provincial servation, and Communities. An IIED/WWF Level. Prepared for the United Nations Develop- Briefing." ment Group. Rogerson, Andrew, and others. 2006. "Une Arrivée et un --. 2003b. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Wash- Nouveau Départ: Partenariats au Cameroun après ington, DC: International Monetary Fund. le Point d'Achèvement PPTE." Rapport Final de la --. 2006a. "Reunion de validation des priorités Mission Indépendante de Suivi (fév-mars 2006). environnaementales du Cameroun à soumettre au Pour ODI. financement du FEM." Rapport des Travaux. Sali, Aliou. 2007. "Community-Based Conservation --. 2006b. Minutes of Negotiations of the GEF in the Bamenda Highlands." Draft report: final Grant Agreement for the Land Management Proj- evaluation of project (CMR00G345/A/G/71). For ect. Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Manage- UNDP. ment Project under the PAPNDP. --. 2007. "Community-Based Conservation in the --. 2007. "Le Développement des Capacités du Bamenda Highlands. Projet d'Appui à la Protec- Cameroun pour Assurer la synergie entre les tion et à la Regénération de l'Environment et des Conventions Environnementales." Final report for Ressources Naturelles pour un Développement GEF, and UNEP. Durable (APREN)." Final Evaluation of Project CMROOG345/A/G/71. Republic of Cameroon and World Bank. 2005. "Minu- tes des Négociations sur: Don de l'Association Sama Nchunu, J. 2003. "Criminal Law and Environ- Internationale pour le Développement en Appui à ment, Prosecutors, Inspectors, and NGOs in la mise en oeuvre du Programme Sectoriel Forêts Cameroon." For the Foundation for Environment Environnement au Cameroun." and Development (FEDEV). --. 2007. "Mission conjointe de suivi du pro- Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003. "Rural Livelihood and gramme sectoriel forêt et environnent (FESP)." Social Infrastructure around Mount Cameroon." Aide-mémoire. Background information for the Mount Camer- oon Socioeconomic Geographical Information Republic of Cameroon, Prime Minister. 2005. Plan System. d'Action National Energie pour la Réduction de la Pauvreté. Seymour, F. J., and N. K. Dubash. 2000. "The Right Conditions. The World Bank, Structural Adjust- --. 2007. Décret n° 2007/0737 PM du 31 Mai ment, and Forest Policy Reform." 2007 fixant les modalités d'application de la loi n° 2003/006 du 21 avril 2003 portant régime de Sharpe, B. 1998. "First, the Forest: Conservation, `Com- sécurité en matière de biotechnologie moderne au munity' and `Participation' in South-West Camer- Cameroun. oon." Journal of the International African Institute 68(1): 25­45. Republic of Cameroon, President. 2005a. Décret n° 2005/171 du 26 Mai 2005 portant ratification de Sunderlin, W. and J. Pokam. 2000. "Economic Crisis la Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants and Forest Cover Change in Cameroon: The Roles organiques persistants, adoptée le 23 mai 2001 à of Migration, Crop Diversification, and Gender Stockholm. Division of Labor." annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 101 Tekwe, C., and others. 2002. "Participatory Land-Use --. 2002b. "UNDP Annual Project Report (APR) Planning at MCP. Empowering Communities, UNDP/GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR) Achieving Forest Management Goals." CMBL 2002." Project No. RAF/97/G31. Series Paper 4. --. 2002c. "UNDP Annual Project Report (APR). Tiani, A.-M, G. Akwah Neba, J. Nguiébouri, and M. C. UNDP/GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR) Diaw. 2002. "Les Communautés Riveraines du Parc 2002. Community-Based Conservation in the National de Campo-Ma'an: Perceptions, vécu quo- Bamenda Highlands." tidien et participation." Internal report, CIFOR, --. 2002d. "Community-Based Conservation in Yaoundé. the Bamenda Highlands." UNDP Annual Project Timberlake, J., and others. 2003. "African NGO-Gov- Report (APR). UNDP/GEF Project Implementa- ernment Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity tion Report (PIR) 2002­03. Action Project RAF/97/G31." For UNOPS/UNDP. --. 2002e. "UNDP-GEF Response to GEFSEC Ulloa, G. 2006. "REDD Case Studies in Bolivia and Concept Agreement Review CAMCOF." Cameroon." Presentation on the United Nations --. 2003a. "Block A PDF: Knowledge Base for Best Climate Change Conference, Nairobi 2006. Practice and Lessons Learned in the Management of UN (United Nations). 2000. "Bilan Commun de Pays Coral Reefs." 2000." Common Country Assessment (CCA). --. 2003b. Cameroon Rio+10 Assessment. --. 2001. "IDT/MDG Progress. Country Report of --. 2003c. "Community-Based Conservation in the Republic of Cameroon." the Bamenda Highlands." Harmonized APR/PIR --. 2007a. The Millennium Development Goals Report. UNDP Annual Project Report (APR). Report. New York. UNDP/GEF Project Implementation Report (PIR) 2002­03. --. 2007b. "Plan Cadre d'Assistance des Nations Unies Avec le Gouvernement du Cameroun --. 2003d. "Transboundary Collaboration for Eco- (UNDAF) 2008­12." system Conservation: the Mountain Forests of Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria and Tcha- UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). bal Mbabo, Cameroon." Cover page from project 1997. "African NGO-Government Partnerships document. Project No. RAF/01/G43/A/1G/31. for Sustainable Biodiversity Action." Project docu- ment RAF/97/G31/C/1G/31. --. 2003e. "Rapport de Mission: Projet Bamenda Highlands Forest Projet. Deuxieme comité de --. 1998. Division for Audit and Management pilotage." Review. Project Services Audit Section. Manage- ment Audit of the Project - "GEF/SGP" (CMR/92/ --. 2003f. "Community-Based Conservation in G51). Report No. PS/98/54. the Bamenda Highlands." UNDP Annual Project Report (APR). UNDP/GEF Project Implementa- --. 2000a. Letter to Al Duda, GEF Secretariat con- tion Report (PIR) 2002­03. cerning re-submission of PDF-B proposal Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem (Angola, Benin, --. 2004a. "Community-Based Conservation in Cameroon, Congo, DRC, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, the Bamenda Highlands." Annual Project Report Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, (APR) for UNDP/GEF Project 2004. Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra --. 2004b. "Reversal of Land and Water degradation Leone und Togo). trends in the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem: Establish- --. 2000b. "Community-Based Conservation in ment of Mechanisms for Land Water Management." the Bamenda Highlands." Project document. Annual Project Report (APR) for UNDP/GEF Proj- ects 2004. --. 2002a. "Rapport d'Audit sur les Etats Financiers de Community-Based in the Bamenda Highlands." --. 2004c. "Gashaka Gumti-Tchabal Mbabo. Trans- Periode allant du 01 Janvier 2001 au 30 Juin 2002. boundary Conservation Project." Final Narrative No. du projet: CMR00G35/A/1G/71. Rapport Report. Reporting Period September­November definitive. 2004. 102 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) --. 2004d. "Gashaka Gumti-Tchabal Mbabo. in Gabon, Congo and Cameroon." UNDP Project Transboundary Conservation Project." Technical Document. Project No. 1583. Progress Report. Reporting Period September­ --. 2007a. "Adaption of Certification Process for December 2003). Small and Medium-Size Logging Companies to --. 2004e. "Gashaka Gumti-Tchabal Mbabo. Facilitate Market Access for Their Product." Transboundary Conservation Project." Technical --. 2007b. « Projets: Inversion des tendances à la progress and financial report. Reporting period, dégradation des terres et de l'eau des Écosystè- January­March 2004). mes du Bassin du Lac Tchad (www.undp.org)." Le --. 2004f. Programme des Nations Unies pour le PNUD au Cameroun. Développement. "CHOC Cameroun: Changer UNDP and ADB. 2004. "Mission PNUD/FEM/BAD d'Habitudes-S'Opposer à la Corruption." (24 au 30 août 2004). Premier Projet Régional de --. 2004g. "Reversing Land and Water Degradation Renforcement des Capacités en Micro et Mini Trends in the Niger River Basin." Project Docu- Hydroélectricité et d'Investissement pour la Four- ment. Project Budget No: GEFRAF/99/G41). niture de Service de Base en Milieu Rural en Afri- que Subsaharienne." Aide-Memoire. --. 2004h. Projet Microhydro-Note de Situation. A l'attention de Monsieur le Représentant Résident. UNDP and AER. 2005a. "Meeting of the Steering Com- mittee of the GEF-UNDP First Regional Mini/ --. 2005a. "Reversal of Land and Water degrada- Micro-Hydro Capacity Development Initiative tion trends in the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem: and Investment in Rural Electricity Access." Aide- Establishment of Mechanisms for Land Water Memoire. Management." Annual Project Report (APR/PIR) for UNDP/GEF Projects 2005. --. 2005b. "Premier projet regional de renforce- ment des capacités en micro/mini hydroelectricite --. 2005b. "Situation du Portefeuille des Pro- et d'investissement pour la fourniture de services jets FEM. " Note du Bureau de Pays PNUD- base en milieu rural en Afrique Sub-Saharienne. Cameroun. Deuxieme reunion du comité de pilotage." Avril --. 2005c. Government of Cameroon, Gabon and 2005. Aide memoire. Congo-Brazzaville. "Microhydro 1b: First Regional --. 2005c. "Premier projet regional de renforce- Micro/Mini-Hydropower Capacity Development ment des capacités en micro/mini hydroelectricite and Investment in Rural Electricity Access in Sub- et d'investissement pour la fourniture de services Saharan Africa. UNDP Project Document." Proj- base en milieu rural en Afrique Sub-Saharienne. ect No. PIMS #3553. Recommandations, motions et déclaration de la --. 2005d. Governments of Mali, Togo, Benin, deuxième réunion du Comité de pilotage tenue les Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon, Central 27 et 28 avril 2005 à Vienne, Austriche." African Republic, Burundi, Rwanda and DRC. UNDP and GEF. 1993. Global Alternatives to Slash- "African Microhydro Initiative: Regional Micro/ and-Burn. GLO/93/G32/A/1G/31). Mini-Hydropower Capacity Development and Investment for Rural Electricity Access in Sub- --. 1996. Project Implementation Review (PIR) Saharan Africa." UNDP Project Document. 2000 for the project Alternative to Slash and Burn Agriculture, completed project (GLO/95/G32). --. 2005e. "UNDP-GEF Regional Micro Hydro Pro- ject. Request and Justification for Supplemental PDF --. 2002. POPs Enabling Activities. Republic of B Funding. First Regional Micro/Mini-Hydropower Cameroon. Project Name: Enabling Activities for Capacity Development and Investment in Rural the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Electricity Access in Sub-Saharan Africa." Pollutants (POPs): National Implementation Plan for Cameroon. --. 2006a. "Rapport sur la pauvréte rurale au Cameroun." --. 2003. "Project Brief: Reversing Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger River Basin." --. 2006b. "Conservation of Trans-Boundary Bio- diversity in the Minkebe-Odzala-Dja Interzone --. 2004. Draft project Brief TRIDOM. annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 103 --. 2006a. "APR/PIR: Reversal of Land and Water --. 1997b. Proposal for Enabling Activities for the Degradation Trends in the Lake Chad Basin Eco- preparation of initial national communication system. Establishment of Mechanisms for Land related to the UN Framework Convention on Cli- and Water Management." mate Change (UNFCCC). --. 2006b. "Reversal of land and water degrada- --. 1997c. "National Self-Assessment of Capacity tion trends in the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem: Building Needs for Global Environmental Man- Establishment of Mechanisms for Land and Water agement (NCSA)." Proposal for GEF Funding. Management." Final report for the project. --. 2000. "UNEP Chemicals Workshop on the --. 2006c. "Combating Living Resources Deple- Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PcBs) tion and coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea and Dioxins/Furans: Proceedings." Yaoundé, Cam- Current LME through Ecosystem-Based Regional eroon, April 17­20, 2000. Actions." UNDP GEF APR/PIR 2006 (1 July 2005 --. 2001. UNEP Response to the STAP Technical to 30 June 2006). Review of the 8 Biosafety MSPs. --. 2006d. "Reversing Land and Water Degradation --. 2002a. Concept Document for GEF Pipeline Trends in River Niger Basin." UNDP GEF APR/PIR Entry. Project Name: Renewable Energy Enter- 2006 (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006). prise Development. --. 2007. "Improved Certification Schemes for --. 2002b. "Reduction of Environmental Impact Sustainable Tropical Forest Management." Draft from Tropical Shrimp Trawling through the Intro- February 2007. UNEP GEF PIR FY 07. duction of By-Catch Reduction Technologies and Change of Management." Project Document. UNDP and UNEP. 2001. "The Integration of Biodi- versity into National Environmental Assessment --. 2002c. Telefax transmission to GEF concern- Procedures." National Case Studies Cameroon. ing: MFA OP#9 Reduction of Environment Impact Produced for the Biodiversity Planning Support from Tropical Shrimp Trawling; through the Intro- duction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Programme. Change of Management. UNDP and World Bank. 1999. "Reversal of Land and --. 2003d. "GEF Project Concept: Reducing of Envi- Water Degradation Trends in the Lake Chad Basin ronmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Ecosystem." Project Brief. the Implementation of Pilot Demonstration Proj- --. 2002. Submission cover note, project docu- ects, Promoting the Development of Sustainable ment for CEO endorsement: Reversal of Land and Tourism Policies and Strategies and Strengthening Water Degradation Trends/Lake Chad Basin Eco- Public-Private Partnership." system. Response to GEF EC Review. Expedited --. 2003e. PDF Block B Request: Renewable Energy project document. Enterprise Development (REED). --. 2004. "Lake Chad Basin GEF Project." Annual --. 2005a. "Project Brief: Renewable Energy Enter- Progress Report RAF/00/G31/PO70252. prise Development - Seed Capital Access Facility." UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). --. 2005b. "Support for the Implementation of 1994. Global Environment Facility Enabling Activ- the National Biosafety Framework for Cameroon." ity Proposal for the project: National Building Project Document Section 1 - Project Identifica- Strategy, Action Plan and First National Report to tion. Project No. GF/2-02-4. the Convention on Biological Diversity. --. 2005c. "National Self-Assessment of Capacity --. 1996. Global Environment Facility Enabling Building Needs for Global Environmental Man- Activity Proposal for the project: National Build- agement (NCSA)." Proposal for GEF Funding. ing Strategy, Action Plan and First National Report --P. 2006a. UNEP GEF PIR FY 06. 1 July 2005 to to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 30 June 2006: Reduction of Environmental Impact --. 1997a. Global Environment Facility Enabling from Tropical Shrimp Trawling through the Intro- Activity Proposal for Review: Pilot Biosafety duction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Enabling Activity. Change of Management. GEF Project ID: 884. 104 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) --. 2006b. "UNEP-UNIDO-GEF Project on Dem- --. 1999. "Cameroon-Structural Adjustment Loan. onstrating and Capturing Best Practices and Structural Adjustment Credit I. Economic Recov- Technologies for the Reduction of Land-Sourced ery Credit." Performance Audit Report. Report Impacts Resulting from Coastal Tourism." No.19410. UNEP and GEF. 2004. "UNEP-GEF Project on the --. 2001a. Cover-Memo concerning National For- Implementation of the National Biosafety Frame- est and Environment Sector Development Program work for Cameroon." Quarterly Progress Report: 1 Pipeline Entry and PDFB Request-Resubmission. April­30 June 2004 --. 2001b. "Target Research Proposal: Impacts --. 2005. "UNEP-GEF Project on the Implemen- on and Adaption of Agro-Ecological Systems in tation of the National Biosafety Framework for Africa." Medium-Size Project Brief. Cameroon." Operational Report for December --. 2001c. "Support to Cameroon's National Forest 2005. Quarterly Progress Report: 01 October­31 and Environment Sector Development Program December 2005. (FESP)." Global Environment Facility Proposal for --. 2006. UNEP GEF PIR FY 06 (1 July 2005 to 30 PDF Block B Grant. June 2006). Project title: Support for the Imple- --. 2002a. World Bank comments - Pipeline 10 - mentation of the National Biosafety Framework of MPA/MFA/3&4) Cameroon: CAMCOF- PIMS Cameroon. no. 2612. UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development --. 2002b. "African Stockpiles Program (ASP), a Organization). 1999. "Water Pollution Control and Program for the Clean-Up of Obsolete Pesticides Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea in African Countries." Proposal for supplemental Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)." EG/RAF/92/ PDF Block B Grant. G34. Report of the Final In-depth Evaluation Mis- sion: Findings and Recommendations. --. 2002c. "Cameroon: Forest and Environment Sector Development Program (PSFE)." Project --. 2007. "Integrated Coastal Area Management in document. Report No. PID9187). the Kribi Campo Area - Cameroon." Final report. --. 2002d. Project Brief about ASP. Wachter, P. de. 2003. "Cameroon Conservation and Biodiversity Management Program. Technical --. 2003a. "Implementation Completion Report Audit and Lessons Learned." Draft for the World (TF-20957; TF-28673). Report No. 26746. Biodi- Bank. versity Conservation and Management Project." Waltert, M., K. S. Bobo, M. Nsainge, H. Fermon, --. 2003b. "Biodiversity Conservation ICR Termi- M. Mühlenberg. 2005. "From Forest to Farmland: nal Evaluation." Cameroon. Habitat Effects on Afrotropical Forest Bird Diver- --. 2003c. Memorandum of the President of the sity." Ecological Applications 15: 1351­66. International Development Association and the World Bank. 1995a. "Republic of Cameroon. Biodi- International Finance Corporation to the Execu- versity Conservation and Management." Project tive Directors on a Country Assistance Strategy for Document (Report No. 13083-CM). The Republic of Cameroon. Report No.26555. --. 1996b. Memorandum of the President of the --. 2004a. Environment at a Glance 2004. International Development Association to the Cameroon. Executive Directors on a Country Assistance Strat- --. 2004b. GEF project document on a proposed egy of the World Bank Group for The Republic of grant from the global environment facility trust Cameroon. Report No.15275-CM. fund in the amount of USD 6.0 Million to the --. 1997. Proposal for Review for the Project: Cen- Niger Basin Authority (NBA) for the Reversing tral Africa Region: Regional Environmental Infor- Land and Water Degradation Trends in the Niger mation Management Project (REIMP-CA). River Basin. Report No. 26675. --. 1998. Status Report on Biodiversity Conserva- --. 2004c. Implementation Completion Report tion Project Cameroon. Project ID: P000311. (No. 29549) on a grant in the amount of US$4,08 annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 105 Million to the Association pour le Developpement --. 2006f. "Cameroon. Public Expenditure Man- de l'Information Environnementale for a regional agement and Financial Accountability Review." environmental information management program --. 2006g. "Forest and Environment Development REIMP (CEN.ENV.,INFO). Policy Grant (FEDPG)." Project Document Cam- --. 2004d. Implementation Completion Report for eroon: Report No: 33790-CM. a third SAC. Report No. 29996. --. 2007a. "Project Preparation Facility. Opera- --. 2004e. Proposal for supplemental PDF Block B tional Policies OP 8.10." Grant. African Stockpiles Program (ASP), a pro- --. 2007b. Discussion between GEF and World gram for the clean-up of obsolete pesticides in Bank on SLM Project. African countries. --. 2007c. Letter to Mr. Abah Abah, Ministre de --. 2005a. Response to the GEF/Sec Review sheet l'Economie et des Finances concernant la trans- concerning "Cameroon: Sustainable Agro-Pasto- mission de l'Aide-mémoire conjoint DFID-Banque ral and Land Management Promotion under the mondiale Mission multi-bailleurs PSFE. National Community Development Program Sup- port Project (PNDP)." --. 2007d. Letter to Mr. Pierre Methot, WRI concer- nant "Cameroon: Forest and Environment Sector --. 2005b. "Concept Stage for the Project: CM- Program Baseline Indicator Data: Length of Illegal Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Roads in all Parks and Forest Management Units." Promotion under the PNDP." Project Information document (PID). Report No. AB1529. World Bank and Department for International Develop- ment. 2007. PSFE. "Troisième mission de suivi de la --. 2005c. Project document on a proposed grant Banque Mondiale et du DFID." Aide Memoire. from the global environment facility trust fund World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. 2007. (ASP project). Report No.32232-MNA. "A Desk Evaluation of the Implementation of the --. 2005d. "CM-Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and World Bank's 2002 Forest Sector Strategy." Land Management promotion under the commu- World Bank Inspection Panel. 2006. "Investigation nity development support program (PNDP)." GEF Report CAMBODIA: Forest Concession Manage- Project Document. ment and Control Pilot Project." --. 2006a. "Regional Climate, Water and Agricul- --. 2007. "Investigation Report Democratic Repub- ture: Impacts on and Adaption of Agro-Ecological lic of Congo: Transitional Support for Economic Systems in Africa." Implementation Completion Recovery Grant and Emergency Economic and Memorandum (ICM). Social Reunification Support Project" --. 2006b. Republic of Cameroon. "Joint IDA-IMF World Bank OED (Operations Evaluation Depart- Staff Advisory Note on the Poverty Reduction ment). 2000. "Cameroon: Forestry Sector Devel- Strategy Paper. Second Annual Progress Report." opment in a Difficult Political Economy: Country Report No. 35299-CM. Case Study as Part of the Review of the 1991 Forest --. 2006c. "CM-Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Policy." Washington, DC. Land Management Promotion Project under the --. 2001c. "Cameroon-Country Assistance Community Development Program Support Proj- Evaluation." ect (PAPNDP)." Project Appraisal Document. Wunder, S. 2005. "Macroeconomic Change, Competi- --. 2006d. "Interim Strategy Note for the Repub- tiveness, and Timber Production: A Five-Country lic of Cameroon, FY07-08." Report No.37897-CM. Comparison." In World Development 33(1) : 65­86. International Development Association and Inter- national Finance Corporation. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2004. "Implica- tion des Populations Locales dans la Gestion des --. 2006e. "CM-Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Ressources Fauniques dans le Sud-Est Cameroun Land Management Promotion Project under the Mécanisme, Impacts, Contraintes, Opportunités, PAPNDP." GEF Project Document. et Perspectives." 106 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) Yakeu, S. E. 2007a. "Rapport du suivi et evaluation a --. 2007b. Joint Evaluation of the GEF Project mi-parcours, exécuté par l'AIDR pour UICN (Pro- Activity Cycle and Modalities. Evaluation Report jet CBLT/FEM): Programme de Micro-Subven- No. 33. Washington, DC. tions du Projet Pilote Diagnostic du Rivage et de la partie Nord du Lac Tchad. Projet prevention des --. 2008. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The maladies hydriques dans trois villages de la plaine Philippines (1992­2007). Evaluation Report No. d'inondation de Waza Logone." 36. Washington, DC. --. 2007b. Rapport du suivi et evaluation a mi-par- --. 2009. GEF Annual Report on Impact 2007. cours, exécuté par la CFAID pour UICN (Projet Evaluation Report No. 46. Washington, DC. CBLT/FEM): Programme de Micro-Subventions Ickowitz, Amy. 2006. "Shifting Cultivation and Defor- du Projet Pilote Diagnostic du Rivage et de la partie estation in Tropical Africa: Critical Reflections." Nord du Lac Tchad. Projet stabilisation des terres Development and Change 37(3): 599­626. cultivables en vue de l'amelioration de la produc- tion du sorgho de saison seche dans le micro bas- IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2006. Eco- sin du Mayo Tsanaga a Eheng (canton de Guividig, lodges: Exploring Opportunities for Sustainable Arrondissement de Maga). Business. Washington, DC. Yasuoka, H. 2006. "Long-Term Foraging Expeditions Neba, Aaron. 1987. Modern Geography of Cameroon. (Molongo) among the Baka Hunter-Gatherers in London: Longman. the Northwestern Congo Basin." Human Ecology 34(2): 275­96. Ngomba Mollo, Clotilde. 2003. "Forest. Regulations and Policy Objectives in Cameroon." Master's the- Yufanyi, C. 2007. "Community-Based Biodiversity sis. University of Alberta, Department of Rural Conservation Management. Research the goal of Economy. Biodiversity Conservation and Community Devel- opment. A Case Study of the Korup National Park Nssah, Boniface Essama, and James J. Gockowski. 2000. and Its Support Zone, Cameroon." Cameroon: Forest Sector Development in a Difficult Zeh-Nlo, M. 2005. Fonds pour l'Environnement Mon- Political Economy. Washington, DC: World Bank. dial. Note du Bureau de Pays PNUD-Cameroun. Oksanen, P., and C. Mersmann. 2003. "Forests in Pov- Situation du Portefeuille des Projets FEM. erty Reduction Strategies ­ An Assessment of PRSP Processes in Sun-Saharan Africa." Washing- E.2 additional Works Cited in This ton, DC: World Bank. report Ribot, J. C., and René Oyono. 2006. "Decentralization in Africa: An Overview." Africa Development 31(2): Cunningham, A. B., E. Ayuk, S. Franzel, B. Duguma, 1­19. and C. Asanga. 2002. "An Economic Evaluation of Medicinal Tree Cultivation: Prunus africana Scherr, S. J., A. White, and D. Kaimowitz. 2003. "Mak- in Cameroon." Plants and People Working Paper. ing Markets Work for the Forest Communities." Paris: UNESCO. International Forestry Review 5(1): 67­73. GEF EO (Global Environment Facility Evaluation UN (United Nations). 2002. "Plan of Implementation of Office). 2006a. Annual Performance Report 2005. the World Summit on Sustainable Development." Evaluation Report No. 31. Washington, DC. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_ --. 2006b. The Role of Local Benefits in Global POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf. Environmental Programs 2006. Evaluation Report Wild, C., B. Morgan, and A. Dixson. 2005. "Conserva- No. 30. Washington, DC. tion of Drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus) Populations --. 2007a. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: in Bakossiland, Cameroon: Historical Trends and Costa Rica (1992­2005). Evaluation Report No. 32. Current Status." International Journal of Primatol- Washington, DC. ogy 26(4): 759­73. annex E. Documents reviewed and Works Cited 107 annex F. interviewees F.1 individuals Fosi, Mary: Technical Advisor Nr. 1 and CBD Focal Point (MINEP), 1 October 2007 Amine, Mahamat: Dir. DFAP (MINFOF), 18 Septem- ber 2007 Futshi, Emmanuel: MINEP Provincial Delegation Northwest Province, 3 October 2007 Amougou, Joseph: UNFCCC Focal Point (MINEP), 1 October 2007 Jiagho, Remy: IUCN, Manager of Pilot Projects in Cameroon for the Lake Chad Basin Commission, Angu-Angu, Kenneth: IUCN Program Manager, 27 Maroua, 13 October 2007 September 2007 Kaigama, Yaouba: SNV, Senior Governance Advisor, Asaah, Dr. Ebenezar: Tree Propagation Specialists 27 September 2007 ICRAF, 28 September 2007 Koulagna, Denis: Secrétaire Générale, MINFOF, 25 Bene Bene, Lambert Christophe: (WWF Garoua), 15 October 2007 October 2007 Lemnyuy, William: Charge d'etudes Cellule de Projet Billong, Jacques: MINEP Provincial Delegate Nord POPs (MINEP), 12 October 2007 Province, 15 October 2007 Mafanny (Col.), Julie Mbome: MINFOF Conservator Burnley, Gwendoline: Chairwoman of Bimbia- Limbe Botanic Garden 8 October 2007 Bonadikombo Community Forest Association, 9 October 2007 Mimbimi, Parfait: FSC-Cameroon, 25 October 2007 Caen, Sophie de: UNDP RR, 26 September 2007 Machia, Abdoulaye: Delegue MINFOF North Prov- Dohai, Oumarou: Focal point North Cameroon (MIN- ince, 15 October 2007 FOF) for the Lake Chad Basin Commission (CBLT), Mbomgblang, Joseph: (DPFOR/NW MIFOF, 3 Octo- Maroua, 13 October 2007 ber 2007 Dzissin, Dr. Guillaume: Program Development Officer Megevand, Carole: World Bank Former Forestry Spe- Birdlife International, 27 September 2007 cialist, 25 October 2007 Ebwekoh, Monya O'Kah: WWF Limbe, 8 October 2007 Menang-Evouna, Serge: World Bank (Environmental Ebwelle, Fils LeRoy: UNCCD Focal Point (MINEP), 2 Specialist), 24 September 2007 October 2007 Minloh, Bekale Marthe Dr. DAG MINFOF, 30 Octo- Edoa, Gilbert-Didier: Ministry of Finance, General ber 2007 Direction of Budget, 31 October 2007 Mkouonga, Francois Honoré: World Bank Rural Elat, Donald: MINFOF Divisional Delegate Fundong, Development Specialist, 24 September 2007 4 October 2007 Mpeck, Marie-Laure: SGP National Coordinator, 26 Ekoue, Dede: Dep. RR UNDP, 26 September 2007 September 2007 Esendene. Dr. Blaise: Coordinator POPs projects Nantchou, Justin: GEF National Operational Focal (MINEP), 12 October 2007 Point, 22 September ­10 October Evoe, Philippe: Chef service provincial des forêts, Ndokuo, Philip: Birdlife International Bamenda Office, North West Province ­ MINFOF, 3 October 2007 4 October 2007 108 Ngandjui, Germain: Ancien Parc manager Campo- F.2 Village Meetings Ma'an now WWF, 30th September 2007 Ngomba, Clotilde: World Bank, Senior Natural Efoulan II (29 September 2007): Emvama Nicolas, Resource Economist, 12 October 2007 Ekomo Francklin, Bilo'o Alfred, Okom Zang Delphine, Ntimban Hambert, Eko'o Ze Pierre, Andjembe Paul, Ngoun Massouna, Chef service départemental de Akono Pierre, Nkouye'e Emmanuel, Eboto Helène and MINFOF de l'océan, 29 September 2007 Abeng Monique Ngwene, Theophilius Nseme: WWF Limbe, 8 Octo- Akom II: (27 September 2007) Evina Evina Pascal, ber 2007 Mbzo'o Louis, Medjoh Jean Pierre, Elom Daniel, Nkami, Dr. George: PNDP ­ SLM Coordinator, 28 Mengue Paul, Ndi Emile, Boula Pethy Jean, Evina September 2007 Paul Charlot, Efoua Moise, Angoneman Marlyse, Zili Noupa, Paul: IUCN, Manager of Pilot Projects in Mvondo Benjamin, Nyangon Maguy, Eko Myriam, Cameroon for the Lake Chad Basin Commission, 13 Nkono Julien, Obam Charles October 2007 Campement Pygmées d'Ebodjè (30 September 2007): Nyongwen, Joseph: MINEP Provincial Delegate South West Province, 8 October 2007 Ebodjè (30 September 2007): Botoko Louis (président d'Ebotour); Nyamaloba Denis (Secrétaire et chef des Ondoa Enyegue Tobias, Chef de poste forestier et guides and le chef du village) chasse à Akom II, 29th September 2007 Provot, Laurence: Assistante technique MINFOF- Essokié/Afan Essokié (30 September 2007): Mbomeyo DFAP, 17 October 2007 Martin, Mfan Pierre Michel, Zua Luc, Obate Akono André Paulin, Bengon Hyacinthe, Mabally Mendo, Sala, Aron: MINEP Divisional Delegate, Fundong, 4 Verlain Moussa, Mme Ekouma Jeannette, Ndongo October 2007 Mba, Mba Robert, Ekouma Hubert, Somo Honorine, Seck, Ousmane: World Bank Cluster Leader for Sus- Mintcha Didier, Otcha'a David, Ndongo Emmanuel, tainable Development and Task Manager PNDP, 24 Ango Philippe Flavien, Ndo Estther, Andjembe Moise, September 2007 Bindom Serge Patrice and Mintsa Raoul Sida, Amadee: MINEP Clearing House Mechanism Abuh (4 October 2007): Diangha Emmanuel, Focal Point, 1 October 2007 Mbeng Ndunga Ndim, Sanih Thaddeus, Rughong Takor, Philip MINFOF Provincial Delegate South Moses, Simon Song, Mbang Gabriel, Simon Tuangeh, West Province, 8 October 2007 Wainkem Pius and Armstrong Tohbi Tchamba, Dr. Martin: WWF, Technical Director, 27 Oku (5 October 2007): Ngrume Emmanuel, Ngum September 2007 Evyline, Mankoh John, Kan Martin, Nkese Wilfred, Tekeu, Jean Claude: MINEP Focal point strategy of Ngek Francis, Kinen Wilfred, Nkaimbi Andreas, chemical African International Management, 12 Kwantah Patrick, Kengoh Francis, Laah John, Nkeng October 2007 Samson, Ngek Samuel Topa, Giuseppe: Lead Forestry Specialist, World Bank, Vokai (6 October 2007): Lukong, Majoda, Fonyua, 24 August and early September 2007 Mallam Musa, Ngoran Christopher, Mbulav Anthony, Wadt Zele Fonye: MINEP Provincial Delegate North- Woiba Adamu, Kenidith Mbulav, Tatah Domnik, Jame west Province, 3 October 2007 Ndzeqha, Musa Nsinami, Coline Nersiy, Mustapher Waga Beskreo: Chef technique MINFOF North Prov- Berinymy; Bune Ibrahimi; Shufai Ngai, Fai Waikov; ince, 15 October 2007 Lukong Cyprain, Sahmai Phylip. Dairy and Wonglani Wagne Tchapgonovo Jules: MINFOF-Mungo 7 Octo- Nicqilus ber 2007 Kola Carrefour (7 October 2007): Wassouni, Dr. Director (socioeconomist) MINEP ­ Kola autochtone (7 October 2007): HRH Ekambi Gulf of Guinea LME, 1 October 2007 Ndjocke Benoit and others Yantio, M., MINADER: Charge d'etudes assistance Nr. 2 a la cellule projet et programme, 14 November 2007 Nyassoso (7 October 2007): Ekinde Becky Ndamondo and others Zeh-Nlo, Martin: UNDP Environmental Specialist, 2 and 11 October 2007 Bakingili (9 October 2007): annex F. interviewees 109 Bimbia (9 October 2007): Ejong Njuku Alfred, Peter Famak/Maga (14 October 2007): Hassan Mamat and Maina Mbua, Christopher Gama, Bertha Eposi Mal- Dimanchi Richard ima, Jane Enanga Njuku, Eric Ngwen, Katy Mbimbi, Madide (14 October 2007): Akolo Oumakou, Adamou Catherine Mbimbi, Thomson Ekema, Edward Wanjo Bouba, Akoura Oumakou, Issa Djibibi, Bouba Toukou, Njoh, Christina Ngombe and John Ekema Mdumbe Djalibou Tikado, Garda Haji, Nassouka Saidou, Bakori KaiKai/Guirudig (14 October 2007): Hamadon Dai- Hamadou, Gadjama Bouba, Abdouaja, Ahadou Bot- tchoudo, Hamaon Apendire, Youssouffa Apendire, toki, Hakkana Bappa, Aladji Hamaou, Oussoumana, Hamau Mahamat, Bouba, Abdouraman, Bouhou, Adouma Joudou, Hassana, Mamini, Biadom, Bello, Sadon Bouba, Souleyman Youssouffa, Saidon Maha- Halirou, Abdou Bete, Hamadou, Halira, Hamidou, met, Yaya Oumarn, Hamadon, Abba Barka, Moistafa Bouba Adou, Sali, Yaya and Saibou Nouhou, Bakari Youssouffa, Issa Ousmaila, Youssouffa Tokoubere (15 October 2007): Youssoufa, Ismael, Haenad, Issa Youssouffa, Hamidon Bouba, Dusmaila Adamou, Abdou Youssouffa, Adamon Youssouffa, Souleyman, Hama- don, Haman, Dieudonne Ezekiel, Abladam David and Goumougou (15 October 2007): Issalne David and others Douda Apedni Urucheirof, (15 October 2007): Bubakari and others Eheing/Guirudig (14 October 2007): Yougouda, Bouba Ndjidda, Abianha, Youssouffa, Idrissa, Sali, Moussa, Community meetings in and around Lobéké National Adama, Siddi and Mana Park (May 2008) 110 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) annex G. Workshop Participants G.1 February 2008 Workshop Amadee Sida, MINEP Narcisse Mbarga, ANAFOR Prof Jato Johnson, BDCP Prof Veronique Kamgang, University of Yaoundé Paul Nia, CRH/IRGM Zachee Yetgna, CLEY-CA Dr. Fotso Kamnga, CES/DESC MINEPIA Vic Ngwessitchen, Enviro Justin Nantchou, MINEP OFP Marie Laure-Mpeck, UNDP SGP Samson Neckmen, CBSD Cameroon Lukong Majoela Fonyua, BIHKOV FMI Debazou Yantio Yantio, MINADER Catherine Okohko Dieudonne Nwaga, University of Yaoundé Flobert Njiokou, University of Yaoundé Jean Abbe, RFC Adama Haman, MINEP ­ UNCCD FP Georges Mounchassou, MINFOF Samuel Yunkavi, Assoc. of Forest Management Laurent Some, WWF Emmanuel Nchamukong, MINEP Delphine Kika, MINEP Josy Pemboura, MINEP Pierre Noumssi, CRTV Clement Toh, CBCS Birdlife International Edwin Kindzeka, CRTV Jonathan Barnard, Birdlife International Yousuf Isa, CRTV Bella Manga, MINEP/SG Zebrime Mamat, SANDRE Alain Tsobeng, ICRAF Martin Zeh-Nlo, UNDP Baird Koulbout, MINREST Guy P. Dkamela, CARPE Foashom Bewoul, IRAD Ndendsa, EPAB Luc Podie, MINEE Bele Youssonga, Living Earth Ndenoya Possi Desirie, MINEE Pru Galega, NESDA Kombi Mohamandon, MINTOUR Bloua Boukonga, Living Earth Charlotte Fonocho, MINTOUR Tina Kmana, CRTV Dr. Martin Tchamba, WWF Souly Onhiolo Olivier Mouahba, MINEP Dr. Abe Zabbrill, CP/MINEP Serge Evouna Menang, World Bank Lea Melanie Bihinia, CRTV Dr. G. Dzissen, CBCS Birdlife Claude Tohana, West-Echo George Nkami, PNDP Dolette Tchakountio, MINEP Jean Tchouchen, PRGIE Ngaleu, DGB/MINIFI Alphonse Manfor, MINFOF Joseph Amougou, PF UNFCCC MINEP Ibrahim Soare, MINFOF Paolo Cerutti, Eval Team 111 Kai Schmidt Soltau, Eval Team Jean Celestin Thouen, Programme Régional de Ges- Lee Alexander Risby, GEF Evaluation Office tion de l'Information Environnementale Rob D. van den Berg, GEF Evaluation Office Debazou Yantio, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (GEF National Committee) G.2 June 2008 Workshop Zachée Yetgna, CCEY-CA Justin Nantchou Ngoko, GEF OFP-MINEP (GEF Martin Zeh-Nlo, UNDP-Cameroon National Committee) Dolette Tchakountio, MINEP Wassouni, DCPRN/MINEP (GEF National Prudence Galega, NESDA-CAM Committee) Véronique Kamgang K., ENS ­ University of Yaoundé Dieudonné Nwaga, Biotechnology Center University Marie Laure Mpeck Nyemeck, GEF SGP/UNDP of Yaoundé I Translator, MINEP Paul Nia, Centre de Recherche Hydraulique/Institut Roger Fotso, Wildlife Conservation Society de Recherche Géologique et Minière Luc Podie, Ministry of Energy and Water (GEF Narcisse Mbarga, ANAFOR/MINFOF National Committee) Flobert Njiokou, Ministère Enseignement Supérieur/UYI René Ndonou, CAA/Ministry of Finance (GEF Mary Fosi MB., CBD Focal Point-MINEP (GEF National Committee) National Committee) Samson Neckmen, CBSD-Cameroon Joseph Armathé Amougou, CCC Focal Point-(GEF Olivière Mouahba, DCP/MINEP (GEF National National Committee) Committee) LeRoy Ebwelle Jr., CCD Focal Point-MINEP (GEF Alim Hamadadi, DAG/MINEP (GEF National National Committee) Committee) Bernard Foahom, Institut de Recherche Gabriel Ebe Eba, Chief of Project Unit/MINEP Agronomique/MINRESI Ondoua Serge Herve, Jean Abbe, Réseau de Foresterie Communautaire Moussa Seibou, Chief of Cooperation Unit Georges Nkami, PNDP-MINEPAT (GEF National Committee) Sekou Toure, GEF (Moderator) Ibrahim Soare Njoya/Marfor Tangala, DFAP/MIN- Rob D. van den Berg, GEF Evaluation Office FOF (GEF National Committee) Lee Alexander Risby, GEF Evaluation Office 112 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) annex H. Country response (English Translation) Yaoundé, 25 August 2008 From: The Minister, GEF Political Focal Point To: M. Barbut, CEO and Chair Person of the GEF Ref. Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon 1992-2007 Dear Ms. Chairperson: I acknowledge receipt of the final report of the evaluation conducted in Cameroon from October 2007 to June 2008. As a follow up, on behalf of the Cameroonian Government I would like to express our deep gratitude for having involved our country in this rich experience. In fact, Cameroon was very happy to participate in the evaluation process and to help members of the GEF Council achieve their goals. We globally agree with the conclusions and recommendations of this report because in general they show the urgent need of a more efficient cooperation between the GEF and Cameroon. After having received this evaluation report, Cameroon has benefited from important financial invest- ments in all focal areas, which has permitted us to achieve encouraging results that we al know through the assessment carried out by the GEF Evaluation Office. Our efforts must be strengthened not only to capi- talize the achievements, but also to address the major issues that affect the global environment today. When we decided to discuss this report after the national dialogue that we recently organized in Yaoundé with support from the GEF, and where the principal objective was to strengthen the integration and impact of the GEF activities within the national sustainable development policies, our major concern was to obtain a solid base to work from that could give us the lessons about the successes and failures of the past, especially now that we are in a process to identify our national priorities and to develop our national strategy for GEF 4 and GEF5. 113 In accordance to the implementation plan and as a follow up to the national dialogue, the National GEF Committee and other major stakeholders will meet in the next months to discuss the adoption of the GEF national strategy for 2006-2010 and 2011-2015. It is expected that during this meeting the results of the evaluation will be shared in order to ensure a better country ownership. In spite of the constant support of the GEF, we are aware that the future will not be completely easy given the obstacles that the RAF puts in the way of our efforts: in spite of the capacity acquired, resource mobili- zation still is a true challenge. In addition, probably because of the constraints of the RAF, the GEF Execut- ing Agencies and the international Non Governmental Organizations are now shy in their cooperation with the countries, most notably when they are requested for their technical support to develop a project that has not been their initiative. All of the above, in addition to other problems such as the institutional conflicts, insufficient capacities to identify and propose relevant projects; the rigidity of the eligibility criteria of the GEF, and others contrib- ute to seriously compromise the access of our country to the RAF finances. But if because of these problems, we were not capable of taking advantage of the many enriching results that the evaluation process has permitted to obtain, that would be even more terrible for the global environment. Cameroon is fully prepared, as in the past, to work closely with the GEF for the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation report. We intend to actively participate in future programs of financing for forest ecosystems of the Congo Basin, which for us constitutes an initiative to be encouraged. With my most sincere regards and highest consideration. Hele Pierre 114 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) GEF Evaluation Office Publications Number Title Year Evaluation Reports 45 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Cameroon (1992­2007) 2009 44 GEF Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2008 2008 43 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 2008 42 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Madagascar (1994­2007) 2008 41 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Benin (1991­2007) 2008 40 GEF Annual Performance Report 2007 2008 39 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme 2008 38 GEF Annual Performance Report 2006 2008 37 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 2008 36 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 2008 35 Evaluation of the Experience of Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF 2007 34 Evaluation of Incremental Cost Assessment 2007 33 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities 2007 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Costa Rica (1992­2005) 2007 31 GEF Annual Performance Report 2005 2006 30 The Role of Local Benefits in Global Environmental Programs 2006 29 GEF Annual Performance Report 2004 2005 28 Evaluation of GEF Support for Biosafety 2006 Third Overall Performance Study 2005 GEF Integrated Ecosystem Management Program Study 2005 Biodiversity Program Study 2004 Climate Change Program Study 2004 International Waters Program Study 2004 Evaluation Documents ED-3 Guidelines for GEF Agencies in Conducting Terminal Evaluations 2008 ED-2 GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines 2008 ED-1 The GEF Evaluation and Monitoring Policy 2006 Evaluation Office G LOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.gefeo.org