Authorized Document of Disclosure The World Bank Public FOR OFFICIAL USEONLY ReportNo. 34714-GA Authorized PROJECTAPPRAISAL DOCUMENT ONA Disclosure GRANT FROM THE Public GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND INTHE AMOUNT OFUS$lO.OMILLION TO THE Authorized REPUBLIC OF GABON FOR A Disclosure STRENGTHENING CAPACITY FOR MANAGINGNATIONAL PARKS AND BIODIVERSITY PROJECT Public March6, 2006 Authorized Environmentallyand Socially Sustainable Development 3 Country Department07 Disclosure Africa Region Public This document has a restricteddistributionandmay beusedby recipientsonly inthe performanceof their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise bedisclosedwithout WorldBank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective Estimation for February 14,2006) Currency Unit - CFA Franc 548 FCFA=US$1 FISCALYEAR January 1-December 3 1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADIE Association for the Development o f Environmental Information AFD Agence Francaise de Dkveloppement (French Development Agency) AfDB African Development Bank ANGAP National Association for the Management o f Protected Areas ANPN Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (National Agency o fNational Parks) CAR Central African Republic CARPE Central African Regional Programfor the Environment CAWHFI Central African World Heritage Forest Initiative CBFP Congo Basin Forest Initiative CNPN Conseil National des Parcs Nationaux (National Council for National Parks) COMIFAC Confkrence des Ministres en Charge des Forgts d'Afrique Centrale (Central African Conference o f Forest Ministers) CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Review CPFP Congo Basin Forest Partnership CQS Consultant Qualification Selection CTC CyberTracker Conservation DFC Direction de la Faune et de la Chasse (Wildlife and HuntingDirectorate) D P L Development Policy Loan EC European Commission ECOFAC EcosystBmesForestier d 'Afrique Centrale (Forest Ecosystems o f Central Africa) ENEF Ecole Nationale des Eaux et Forgts (National Forestry School) ESI Environmental Sustainability Index FA0 Food and Agriculture Organization FFEM Fonds Francais pour 1'Environnement Mondial (French Fundfor the Global Environment) FMR Financial Management Report GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility IAPSO Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ILO International Labor Office IPDP Indigenous People Development Plan IRET ResearchInstitute for Tropical Ecology M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEFPEPN Ministryo fForest, Fisheriesand Environment METT Monitoring and EvaluationTracking Tool MIKE Monitoring o f Illegal Killingo f Elephants NCB National Competitive Bidding NGO Non-Governmental Organization OED Operations Evaluation Department OP Operational Programs PFE Projet Foret et Environnement (Forestry project) P I U Project Information Unit PSFE Forest and Environment Sector Program PSVAP Programme Sectoriel de Valorisation des Aires Protigies (Sector Program for Valorization o f Protected Areas) QCBS Quality and Cost Based Selection RAPAC Rbeaux d'Aires Protigies en Afrique Centrale (Central African Network o f Protected Areas) REIMP RegionalEnvironmental Information Management Program SA Special Account SMF Sustainable Forest Management SNBG State-owned Timber Trade Company SOE Statement o f Expenditure SP Strategic Priorities TCM Technical Management Committees U N D P UnitedNations Development Program U S A I D United States Agency for International Development wcs World Conservation Society WWF World Wide Fundfor Nature Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani, AFRVP Country Director: Ali M.Khadr, AFC07 Sector Manager Joseph Baah-Dwomoh, AFTS3 Task Team Leader: Laurent Debroux, AFTS3 FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise disclosed without World Bank authorization. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. SRATEGIC CONTEXTAND RATIONALE ................................................................................................... 1 A.1 Country and sector issues........................................................................................................................... 1 A.2 Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement................................................................................................ 2 A.3 Higher level objectives to which the project contributes......................................................................... 3 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 B.l Lending instrument......................................... ...................................................................................... 4 B.2 Project development objective and key indicators................................................................................... 5 B.3 Project global environment objective and key indicators ....................................................................... 5 B.4 Project components..................................................................................................................................... 5 B.5 Lessons learned and reflected inthe project design................................................................................. 8 B.6 Alternatives considered and reason for rejection................................................................................... 10 C. IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 10 C.1 Partnership arrangements (Institutional coordination)........................................................................ 10 C.2 Institutional and implementation arrangements.................................................................................... 11 C.3 Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes / results ................................................................................... 12 C.4 Sustainability and replicability ................................................................................................................ 12 C.5 Critical risks and possible controversial aspects.................................................................................... 14 C.6 Loan/credit/grant conditions and covenants .......................................................................................... 17 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 17 D.1 Economic and financial analyses ............................................................................................................. 17 D.2 Fiduciary............................................................ ............................................................................... 18 D.3 Social (stakeholder involvement) ............................................................................................................. 18 D.4 Environment.............................................................................................................................................. 19 D.5 Safeguard policies ..................................................................................................................................... 19 D.6 Policy exceptions and readiness............................................................................................................... 20 ANNEX1 COUNTRY AND SECTORPROGRAMB A C K G R O ~.................................................................................... 21 - D ANNEX2 -MAJOR RELATED PROJECTSFINANCEDBY THE BANKAND/OR OTHERAGENCIES................................... 24 ANNEX3 -RESULT FRAMEWORK MONITORING AND ............................................................................................... 30 ANNEX 4 -DETAILED PROJECTDESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 37 ANNEX 5 -PROJECT COSTS ...................................................................................................................................... 54 ANNEX 6 - IMPLEMENTATIONARRANGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 57 ANNEX7 -FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTDISBURSEMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS ......................................................... 60 ANNEX8-PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................................... ANNEX9-ECONOMIC AND FINANCIALANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 67 IV ANNEX 10. POLICIES SAFEGUARDS ...................................................................... 76 ANNEX 11. PREPARATION AND SUPERVISION ........................................................................................... PROJECT 79 ANNEX 12 . IN THE PROJECTFILE DOCUMENTS ......................................................... .......................... 81 ANNEX13. OF LOANS AND CREDITS ... STATEMENT ANNEX 14. AT A GLANCE COUNTRY .......................................................................... 97 ANNEX 15 .INCREMENTALCOSTS A ANNEX16 . ROSTERREVIEW ...................................................................................................................... STAP 100 ANNEX17 - GEFSTAKEHOLDERPARTICIPATION PLAN ........................................................................................ 124 ANNEX18 - MAP34299....................................................................................................................................... 100 V GABON Strengthening Capacity for Managing National Parks and Biodiversity Proiect Document AFRICA AFTS3 Date: February 27, 2006 Team Leader: Laurent Debroux Country Direcior: Ali Mahmoud Khadr Sectors: Forestry (60%); General agnculture, Sector ManagedDirector: Joseph Baah-Dwomoh fishingand forestry sector (20%); Miningand Project ID:PO70196 other extractive (20%) Lending Instrument: Specific InvestmentLoan Themes: Environmental policies and institutions (P);Biodiversity (P);Other environment and natural resources management (S) Environmental screening category: A Global Supplemental ID:PO70232 Team Leader: Laurent Debroux Lending Instrument: Specific InvestmentLoan Sectors: Forestry (100%) Focal Area: B-Biodiversity Themes: Environmental policies and institutions Supplement FullyBlended?: N o (P);Biodiversity (P);Other environment and natural [ 3 Loan [ ] Credit [XI Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing (US$m.): 10.0 BORROWEWRECWl~N'l' 3.60 0.00 3.60 GLOBALENVIRONMENTFACILITY 10.00 0.00 10.00 FOREIGNMULTILATERAL 13.10 0.00 13.10 INSTITUTIONS (UNIDENTIFIED) Total: 26.70 0.00 26.70 Borrower: Government o f Gabon Gabon Responsible Agency: MinistryofEconomic Forestry, Water, Fisheries &Environment VI Does the project depart from the CAS in content or other significant respects? Re$ ' PAD A.3 [ ]Yes [ X I N O Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Re$ PAD D.7 [ ]Yes [XINO Have these been approved by Bank management? [[ ]Yes [XINO ]Yes [ IN0 I s approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? Does the project include any critical risks rated "substantial" or "high"? Re$ PAD C.5 [XIYes [ ] N o Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Re$ PAD D.7 [XIYes [ ] N o Global Environment objective Re$ PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 The Project Development Objective i s "Biodiversity i s protected and managed in a sustainable way and contributes to the diversification o f the national economy, through strengthened capacities of parks and wildlife authorities". By working in national parks and surrounding buffer zones and production landscapes the GEF intervention will adopt an integrated approach to biodiversity conservation. Implementation of concrete on-the-ground activities will strengthen organizational and operational capacities o f national parks and wildlife authorities (the AWN and the Ministry o f Forests - MEFPEPN). Project description[one-sentence summary of each component] Re$ PAD B.3.a, Technical Annex 4 Component 2 - Expanding Gabon's protected area coverage (national level) Component 1 - Institutional strengthening of the AWN (national level) Component 3 - Direct support to selected national parks (site level) Component 4 - Wildlife management inproduction landscapes (site level) Which safeguard policies are triggered, ifany? Re$ PAD 0.6, Technical Annex 10 Five safeguard policies are triggered by the GEF intervention. As the project's overarching objective i s conservation o f natural resources, it i s expected to have a positive impact on Environment (OP/BP/GP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OPBP 4.04) and Forests (OPBP 4.36). With respect to Forests the project will not finance logging operations and will not finance activities that logging companies are required to undertake by law. The project being undertaken in the framework o f the overall PSFE i s also expected to have positive or neutral impacts on Involuntary Resettlement (D 4.20, being revised as OP 4.11) and Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10). However, a Resettlement Framework and an Indigenous People Plan are being prepared for the entire PSFE. Mitigation measures for Involuntary Resettlement (D 4.20, being revised as OP 4.11) will include extensive consultation and negotiation concerning the boundaries of new protected areas. The creation o f community forests in buffer zones and increased employment opportunities from national parks are also relevant mitigation measures. In Loango National Park there are an estimated 20 people, within the park. Extensive consultation i s being carried out with these villages and mitigation measures defining activities and geographical limits are currently being established. In Moukalaba an estimated 50 people, are within the park boundary. Mitigation measures will be undertaken. With respect to Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) a small community o f pygmies i s thought to occasionally use the southern part o f the Lop6 National Park. Their traditional livelihoods are not affected by park management activities as no restrictions are placed on their movements or activities. Agreements will be negotiated to ensure indigenous people are not involved in commercial poaching on protected species. Further details on safeguard issues are provided inAnnex 10. Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for: NA. Board presentation: March 28,2006 Loadcredit effectiveness: June 15, 2006 Covenants applicable to project implementation. A. SRATEGICCONTEXT AND RATIONALE A.l Country and sector issues 1. Key elements of the sector and poverty reduction strategy. Since 1960, Gabon has developed an oil-based economy. In 1996, oil accounted for 58 percent o f Government revenues. However Gabon's oil resources are projected to decrease in the forthcoming years and there i s an urgent need to diversify the economy. The forestry and environment sector i s seen as an obvious alternative to compensate for the declining contribution o f the oil sector to Gabon's economy. With forest covering 85 percent o f the territory, Gabon i s one o f the most densely forested counties in Africa and in the world. However the current oil decline i s likely to increase pressure on Gabon's rich forests, fisheries and biodiversity endowments as alternative income sources, with the risk o f unsustainable exploitation, loss o f biodiversity and poor benefits for local populations. 2. Gabon's interim poverty reduction strategy (2003) puts strong emphasis on diversifying the economy while at the same time taking steps to ensure that renewable natural resources are protected and sustainably managed. Under this new strategy, the targeted sectors are forests (Gabon's main industrial sector), fisheries, and biodiversity conservation. It i s expected that their development will directly impact on employment and will lead to a broader and more equitable sharing o f revenues, while having an induced impact on other sectors (for instance, infrastructure: transport and communication services). The 2004 Letter o f Sector Policy, adopted under leadership o f President Bongo Ondimba, emphasizes that biodiversity conservation through sound management and valorization o f the national parks network should make an important contribution to the national economy, through employment and ecotourism spin offs. 3. Key constraints and country steps to address them. The main threats to non-oil natural resources in Gabon are: (i) persistence o f unregulated logging activities resulting in depletion o f timber resources and ecosystem alterations, (ii) commercial poaching to supply the lucrative urban markets, and (iii)uncontrolled inshore and offshore fishing. Addendum 1to Annex 4 provides an analysis o f the threats to biodiversity, its root cases and mitigation strategies. Furthermore until now the forestry sector has made an insufficient contribution to the national economy because o f the low levels of local value-added through processing, the inadequate pricing policies and complex fiscal system resulting inpoor collection o f revenues, unsustainable logging, lack o f transparency and lack o f enforcement. Lack o f clear management systems and o f human technical and financial resources for biodiversity conservation and natural resource management i s also a key constraint. T o meet these challenges, Gabon has embarked upon a series ofpolicy decisions and reforms: 1. The 2001 Forest Code introduces mandatory sustainable management o f production forests, and the 2004 Finance Law simplified the fiscal regime and the procedures for collection o f forest revenues. 2. In August o f 2002 President Bongo Ondimba and his government created a network o f 13 national parks covering 28,371 h2, i.e. 10.6 percent o f the country's surface area. An inter- ministerial government committee, the Conseil National des Parcs Nationaux (CNPN) was established to oversee the process leading to effective management o f the network. The government i s currently drafting a law that will set the legal framework for national parks in Gabon, and create the Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (ANPN) in charge o f managing the parks'. 'The ANPN would be attached to the President's office. 1 3. In May 2004, the government adopted a Letter of Sector Policy which sets out the governance and policy reform agenda for increasing the natural resources contribution to the economic diversification and to poverty alleviation in a sustainable manner. The Letter o f Policy puts emphasis on greater transparency and law enforcement in forest, biodiversity and fisheries. 4. Following the adoption o f the Letter o f Policy, the government put in place a moratorium on allocation o f new logging rights pending the adoption o f transparent procedures and it decided to remove the monopoly o f the State-owned Timber Trade Company (SNBG). It also for the first time disclosed the official list and maps o f loggingpermits. 4. This Letter of Policy provides the rationale for Gabon's Forest and Environment Sector Program (PSFE) which the country i s currently preparing. The PSFE i s piloted by the Ministry o f Forest, Fisheries and Environment (MEFPEPN)'. It builds on National Action Plans prepared by national working groups on forests, biodiversity and environment (both supported by GEF-UNDP) and tourism. The long term objective o f the PSFE program i s to help the country move away from oil dependency and to diversify the national economy on the basis o f sustainable management o f forests, fisheries and biodiversity resources. The objectives are articulated around 5 components: PSFE Component 1 Sustainable forest management including wildlife inproduction landscapes PSFE Component 2 Fisheries and coastal zone management PSFE Component 3 Development o f the national parks network PSFE Component 4 Valorization o f other environmental goods and services PSFE Component 5 Institutional strengthening, research and training 5. Eligibility for GEF co-financing. Gabon ratified the Convention on Biodiversity (1997)' the Framework Convention on Climate Changes (1987), the CITES (1989), the RAMSAR (1987), the Convention of London (1992), and the Convention on marine environment and coastal zones o f the West and Central Africa region (1988). 6. Coherence with national or sector development plans, regional inter-governmental agreements. The GEF intervention clearly falls within the national priorities expressed inthe Letter o f Policy and the PSFE. It will support component 3 (development o f the national parks) and component 1 (wildlife management in production landscapes) o f the PSFE. This GEF intervention also clearly falls within priorities at the regional level as it builds on the unprecedented political commitment expressed in the Yaounde Declaration on Conservation and Sustainable Management o f Forests, signed by the Heads o f State o f six central African nations including Gabon, and implemented through the COMIFAC (Confdrence des Ministres en Charge des For& d 'Afrique Centrale). The proposed project also falls firmly within the framework o fthe Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) launchedbythe United States and South Africa at the Johannesburg WSSD in 2002 and supported by 29 public and private partners. The CBFP focuses on 11landscapes o f highbiodiversity value, 5 o f which fall within Gabon. A.2 Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement 7. Gabon's unique combination o f exceptionally abundant and diverse natural resources with a low population density (22 hectares o f forest per capita) presents a favorable context for implementing a sustainable development strategy which will avoid large-scale environmental damages and which will also benefit the global community. In a recent report issued at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Gabon received the highest ranking o f any African country in the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). This high score was achieved because the high level and degree o f intactness o f Gabon's biodiversity, the fact that a large proportion o f its national temtory has been placed under The preparation of the Forest and environment Sector Program (PSFE) i s being coordinated by the Ministry of Forest and Environment'sCellulede Planification et Suivi-Evaluation(CPSE). 2 environmental protection and that in consequence it has the lowest risk o f any African nation experiencingmajor environmental deterioration inthe short and mediumterm. 8. The Bank and the GEF have become key players in forest sector reform in Central Africa and have been major catalysing forces in the preparation o f the PSFE which, from the start, has been a participative process under the leadership o f the Gabonese government and involving the main donors (AFD, French Cooperation, EC, US, ADB, UNDP, IBRDand GEF), private sector and international and national NGOs. The proposed GEF project was developed in synergy with other donors' interventions, especially the IBRD, so as to mutually reinforce each other. 9. The forest and biodiversity agenda has recently enjoyed clearly expressed leadership from the highest political level. Cross-sectoral ministries (Finances, Plan) and the President's office are closely involved in steering the reform agenda forward. However, experience tends to show that without external support the pace o f reforms may slow down considerably. By providing external and neutral policy advice, the Bank has an important role to play in keeping the forestry and environmental sector reform agenda on track. The proposed GEF project will contribute to the institutional reform process underway withrespect to the creation o fthe ANPN. 10. The Bank and the GEF also play a key-role with their ability to convene other donors and bring all players into the comprehensive national sector-wide PSFE framework. The Bank and GEF can help coordinate donors' priorities, as well as catalyze funds from other investors. With regard to the national parks and biodiversity conservation agenda, the GEF i s also expected to play an important catalytic role inpromoting the landscape approach to biodiversity conservation. The PSFE program is being prepared through multi-donor missions which are an important instrument for donor coordination and investment stimulation. A.3 Higher level objectives to which the project contributes 11. Bank's contribution to Gabon's sector and poverty reduction objectives. Gabon's Letter o f Policy and PSFE program- and the GEF operation insupport o f it - are at the core o f Gabon's strategy to mitigate the impact o f oil decline, diversify the national economy on the basis o f sustainable management o f non-oil natural resources. 12. Consistency with CAS objectives. The GEF intervention i s consistent with the draft CAS objectives o f promoting economic diversification and improving management o f public resources both financial and natural. The project will contribute directly to the CAS and PSFE goals by intervening in 2 priority areas that have been identified for Gabon: Support to diversifiing the economy and promoting the private sector. Within the PSFE framework, the GEF intervention supports new sectors o f the economy based on the sustainable use o f natural resources (forests, fisheries, and biodiversity) while emphasizing the involvement of the private sector in this development. It aims to lay the foundation for possible development o f eco-tourism in Gabon, providing employment and revenue-generating activities inrural areas. By reducing unsustainable use o f natural resources, this GEF interventionhelps set the scene for sustained economic development. 0 Improved management of public resources including natural resources. The GEF intervention will contribute directly to strengthening o f public sector effectiveness, in particular through its support to the AGPN and to the wildlife authority3. It will also contribute to poverty reduction by 'The wildlife authority is the Direction de la Fame et de la Chasse (DFC) under the Direction GPnPrale des Eaus et For& (DGEF) within the Ministry of Water & Forest, Fisheries, Environmentand ProtectionofNature (MEFPEPN) 3 building civil society's capacity through the stakeholders' involvement in every aspect of the project. 13. Relevance to GEF operational program goals. The proposed GEF intervention addresses the objectives o f the GEF Operational Programs (OP) 1: Forest ecosystems and OP 2: Coastal, marine and fresh water systems. It i s consistent with the objectives o f the two OPs by supporting threat remediation activities at selected P A sites o f high global significance, and promoting the broad-based participation o f local communities in site management activities. Furthermore, the project will facilitate the development and adoption o f sustainable natural resource management practices for wild natural biodiversity resources inproduction landscapes. 14. The project primarily contributes to GEF Biodiversity Strategic Priorities (SP) #1-Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas, although it also shows significant contribution to SP# 2-mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in production systems. GEF-3 Strategic Priorities states that protected areas are the cornerstones o f conservation and that biodiversity must be increasingly mainstreamed by emphasizing support for conservation beyond protected areas. It also states that the approach should move beyond a projects-based emphasis to systematically supporting country enabling environments and long-term institutional building. Through activities designed under the various components o f the PSFE, in particular activities related to institutional capacity building o f the A W N and Ministry o f Forests, capacity building o f the stakeholders, increasing the protected area coverage to include sites o f special biological significance, establishing effective management systems in the existing national parks targeted under the project and improving wildlife management in production landscapes, the project directly contributes towards the two Strategic Priorities. The key objective i s to consolidate and strengthen management o f the P A systemwith a view towards assuring its long-term sustainability. B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION B.l Lending instrument 15. The proposed GEF project will be implemented through a US$10 million grant to the government o f Gabon within the framework o f the PFSE program. It complements an IBRD loan in support o f components 1 (forest), 2 (fisheries), 4 (environment) and 5 (institutional capacity building) o f the PSFE. This IBRD operation is packaged as a Development Policy Lending (DPL) given the PSFE emphasis on policy reforms in those sectors. Both GEF and IBRD operations fit within the framework o f the overall PSFE program, they are mutually reinforcing and they complement other donors. However, both operations remain separate. N o GEF resources will be channelled through a budget support type mechanism. 16. Long-term objectives of the PSFE program. The long-term objective o f the PSFE i s to help the country move away from oil dependency and to diversify the economy on the basis o f sustainable management o f forest, fisheries and biodiversity resources. This objective i s expressed in the Letter o f Sector Policy. It calls for significant policy and governance changes in how natural resources are managed with a focus on greater transparency, law enforcement and civil society participation. The PSFE i s a sector-wide, multi-donor program led by the Ministry o f Forest with some activities to be undertaken by the Ministryo f Finance and the AWN. It is estimated that the total cost o f the overall PSFE program will be around US$lOO million. The Biodiversity component o f the overall program i s estimated at US$40.7 million. 4 B.2 Project development objective and key indicators 17. The Project Development Objective i s "Biodiversity is protected and managed in a sustainable way and contributes to the diversijkation of the national economy, through strengthened capacities of parks and wildlife authorities". By working in national parks and surrounding buffer zones and production landscapes the GEF intervention will adopt an integrated approach to biodiversity conservation. Implementation o f concrete on-the-ground activities will strengthen organizational and operational capacities o f national parks and wildlife authorities (the AWN and the Ministry o f Forests - MEFPEPN). 18. Key performance indicator: 0 Effective implementation o f ANF'N's management plans for key national parks4, leading to socio- economic benefits such as employment generation and ecotourismby Year 5. B.3 Project global environment objective and key indicators 19. The Global Environmental Objective i s "Biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin is enhanced". The Congo basin constitutes the world's second largest tropical forest. With forest covering 85 percent o f its territory Gabon accaunts for approximately 15 percent o f the Congo Basin rainforest. It encompasses three of the world's globally important Eco-regions and it has a particularly high level o f biodiversity and endemism. It has low human population density and therefore it has a higher chance o f success in protecting biodiversity than most other tropical countries. Enhancing the conservation o f biodiversity in Gabon will therefore make a significant contribution to biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin, and at the global level. 0 1 million hectares o f areas suitable for biodiversity protection status identified and proposed for formal gazettement by Year 5. 0 1 million hectares o f key national parks with 80 percent increase in management effectiveness score (as measured by the METT/WWF/WB site level tracking tool) leading to biodiversity conservation, employment generation and ecotourism development, by Year 5. 0 5 million hectares o f production landscapes in buffer zones with increased wildlife management effectiveness, as measured by indicators o f surveillance efforts and levels o f wildlife off-take, by Year 5. B.4 Project components 20. The project will comprise 4 components' with two intervening at the national level and two targeting sites inthe field: GEF Component 1 Institutional strengthening o f the AWN (national level) GEF Component 2 Expanding Gabon's protected area coverage (national level) GEFComponent 3 Direct support to selected national parks (site level) GEFComponent 4 Wildlife management inproductionlandscapes (site level) Components 1, 2 and 3 o f the proposed GEF intervention support component 3 o f Gabon's PSFE. Component 4 o f the proposed GEF interventionsupports component 1of the PSFE. 21. In order to ensure that GEF funds are used in the most effective and cost efficient manner, a number o f strategic decisions were made in order to identify how best to target the use o f funds. The 'Not as indicated by an improved level of management effectiveness accordingto the WWF/WB site level tracking tool. to be confused with the five PSFE components 5 financial resources required to ensure proper management o f all 13 national parks greatly exceeds the level o f funding that could reasonably be requested from GEF within the framework o f this project. Conservative estimates o f annual costs for management o f the national parks network are US$6 million a year, i.e. 30 millions for 5 years. 22. Rendering the new ANPN operational at the national level is clearly a precondition for the development o f the national parks network. This constitutes component 1 o f the GEF intervention. Gabon has committed to setting aside an additional 1 million hectares under conservation status. This target requires social and ecological surveys and local consultations, which constitute component 2 o f the GEF intervention. 23. With respect to field activities (components 3 and 4 o f the GEF intervention) it was considered important to target the funds in specific national parks and their buffer zones. Loango, Mukalaba6, Mayumba, Lop6 and BatCkt National Parks and their buffer zones were selected to receive project support. A number o f criteria were used to identify these 5 priority landscapes': 0 These five parks and their buffer zones present an exceptionally wide range o f ecosystems, and therefore a very high level o f biodiversity. Furthermore since the Loango-Mukalaba-Mayumba landscape encompasses marine and coastal ecosystems the GEF intervention i s effectively able to address marine conservation issues (fisheries, oil pollution, marine mammals) which have been particularly neglected in Gabon untilnow. This will also allow synergies to be developed with the GEF-UNDPGulfo f Guinea Large Marine EcosystemProject. 0 The five national parks between thempresent the highest ecotourismpotential inGabon. 0 The intervention will address trans-border biodiversity conservation issues, which is a government priority for regional integrationwithin the framework o f the COMIFAC. 0 The presence o f active conservation partners (EC, WWF, WCS, research institutions) operating in these five landscapes brings added value to the GEF contribution. Alone their financial contributions are insufficient to render the parks fully operational but in partnership with the GEF, the likelihood o f achieving the required level o f management is greatly enhanced. Furthermore these conservation partners bring their particular skills and experience to the service o f the ANPNthus contributing to capacity building. 0 By maximising the chances of achieving tangible success inthese sites over the next 5 years the project and its conservation partners, who are already bringing considerable resources to the partnership, will serve as a catalyst for leveraging additional support for Gabon's national parks network, both internally and externally, as well as financially and politically. Component 1:Institutionalstrengthening of the ANPN-Nationallevel 24. At the time this GEF interventionbegins, the AWN will be a newly-created institutionwith little capacity to oversee the management o f the new network o f national parks. Rendering the new ANPN operational at the national level i s therefore a precondition for biodiversity conservation and biodiversity- based economic diversification in Gabon. It i s essential that ANPN's role be one o f providing support to field activities on the basis o fneeds defined inthe field. To this end a light central structure at the national level will delegate as much responsibility as possible to individual national parks. Key inputs will include support to the following activities: 0 Selection and training o f a core o f key staff (8 senior staff). 0 Establishment o f administrative, financial and humanresources management structures. 0 Establishment o f capacities to coordinate conservation, law enforcement and M&E activities. 0 Establishment o f an effective communications / public awareness strategy. Loango and Mukalaba National Parks and their buffer zones form the so-called "Gamba Complex" Only parks with a clear demarcation from logging concessions have been taken into consideration. Parks where geographical overlapping with previous forest concessions have not beentotally solved were not considered for GEF support. 6 0 Implementationo f the ANPN's replication plan. 0 Definition o f a sustainable funding strategy and establishment o f a foundation or other sustainable fundingmechanisms. Construction and equipment o f ANPN's head office inLibreville. 0 Support to day to day management o f the project, implementation o f the monitoring and evaluation tracking tool, and implementation o f the project's social and environmental management plan, all for activities under the responsibility o f the ANPN. 25. Key outputs will be an operational headquarter for the A M , with strengthened capacities to coordinate and monitor field activities in the network o f national parks, to manage funds and human resources effectively, to implement the project's socio-environmental management plan, to ensure day to day management o f the project for activities under the responsibility o f the ANPN, and communicate with national and international stakeholders. Significantly, establishment o f sustainable fundingmechanisms to secure the future o f Gabon's national parks network will also be an important output. The GEF intervention will finance various types o f activities that are necessary to help Gabon design the most suitable endowment fund. The project will help draw experiences and lessons from other countries, and adapt to the country specific context. These activities include legal and finance advisory services, workshops, study tours, training, etc. Although at this stage it i s not foreseen that the GEF project contributes to the endowment fund, this option might be envisaged in the course o f project implementation after the fund has indeedbeen created, or it could be the subject o f a follow-on operation. Component 2: Expanding Gabon's protectedarea coverage National level - 26. Gabon has committed to achieving 4 million hectares of protected area by the year 2010, i.e. 1 million hectares more than its current coverage. This component i s designed to help Gabon move towards this goal. Inputswill include: 0 The training and equipping o f protected area assessment survey teams. 0 The implementation o f a nation-wide survey o f sites to identify and prioritise areas with potential for protected area status. 0 Extensive consultation with local stakeholders. 27. Notably, the boundaries o f the new network o f national park were identified during a 3-year biological and socio-economic evaluation covering the entire country which was undertakenjointly by the DFC, D W and WCS. This evaluation was planned in two phases: (i)evaluation o f all large blocks likely to merit the status o fNational Park; and (ii)identification o f all small-scale biodiversity phenomena that were not captured in the parks (fragile, diverse mountains ecosystems, wetlands, caves, inselbergs, fluvial refuge forests, restricted geological formations that give rise to unique plant or animal communities, sacred forest patches in populated areas, etc.). This second category would mainly contribute to creating a complimentary series o f biodiversity (and cultural) sanctuaries and other less restrictive protected areas. The status o f the ``shies de consewation" (approximately 500.000 ha within the 10mha o f sustainably managed forests concessions - CFAD) will also be clarified. This component i s a logical follow up to the 3 year protected area evaluation that led to the creation of the national parks network. 28. The expected outcome i s an increase in the surface area o f proposed protected area coverage to include sites o f special biological and/or cultural significance, which are not covered by the current national parks network. Specific outputs will be assessment survey reports identifying priority sites and appropriate protection status. Component 3: Direct support to selected national parks- Site level 7 29. Taking into account other donors' interventions, direct GEF support within the parks i s limited to Loango, Mukalaba and Mayumba National Parks. GEF support for production landscapes surrounding protected areas (component 4) covers these three parks plus Lope and Bateke. Key inputs will include support to the following activities: 0 Establishment o f key park infrastructures, including headquarters and guard posts. 0 Training and equippingstaff to carry out effective park management and law-enforcement. 0 Developing a long-term ecological and patrol-based monitoring program. 0 Activities aimed at improving the sustainability o f onshore and offshore fishing. 0 Development o f ecotourism and other revenue-generating activities with private operators. 0 Support for the implementationo f the project's social and environmentalmanagement plans 0 Support for the development o f participatory management structures with local populations. 30. The expected outcome i s the establishment o f effective management inthe targeted national parks and the creation o f socio-economic benefits for the local communities and for Gabon as a whole. The key outputs will be: 0 Approved zoning and management plans for Loango, Mukalaba and Mayumba. 0 Operational management structures: infrastructures, equipment, surveillance teams. 0 Effective stakeholder participation inPA management (local populations, private sector). 0 Effective monitoring systems operational (ecological and patrol-based monitoring). Component4: Wildlife managementoutsidenationalparks 31. This component is designed to mainstream biodiversity in production landscapes (logging concessions, community forests). It targets the buffer zones o f Loango, Mukalaba, Mayumba, Lop6 and Bateke national parks. It will be based on the deployment o f 3 mobile units, a system which has been successfully piloted by WWF in the Mink6b:bC area over the past 4 years. K e y inputs will include support to the following activities: 0 Training, equipping and deploying mobile units operating out o f Tchibanga, Iboundji and Lekoni. 0 Extensive consultation with the private sector operators (logging, oil), local communities and politico-administrative authorities for the implementation o f collaborative mechanisms for wildlife management. 0 Support to efficient day to day management o f the project, implementation o f the monitoring and evaluation tracking tool, and implementation o f the project's social and environmental management plan, all for activities under the responsibility o f the Ministryo f Forests. 32. The expected outcome will be a strengthened capacity o f the wildlife authority to enforce its regulations inlogging concessions, as well as provisions o f forest management plans dealing with wildlife protection, and an enhanced implication o f local communities for wildlife management activities through collaborative management agreements, as well as efficient day to day management o f the project, implementation o f the monitoring and evaluation traclung tool, and implementation o f the project's social and environmental management plan, all for activities under the responsibility o f the Ministry o f Forests. 33. The four components o f the proposed intervention are designed to effectively address the sector issues and development challenges identified in section Al, i.e. diversifying the economy on the basis o f sustainable management o fnatural resources. B.5 Lessonslearnedandreflectedinthe project design FromWorld Bank projects a 34. Projet For2ts et Environnement (PFE). First, although the limited scope of the PFE did not allow for an integrated approach, the PFE provided the basis for the development o f the PSFE as a broader multi-donor sector-wide program. Non-governmental stakeholders and the private sector, who were insufficiently involved in the PFE, will be more closely involved in the PSFE planning, implementation and M&E processes. Second, although significant capacity building was achieved and the PFE contributed to the elaboration o f the new forest code, transparency in forest management and law enforcement remained low. Strong political commitment and cross-sectoral coordination are necessary conditions to implement policy reforms under the PSFE. Third, the GEF intervention will reinforce effective decentralization o f wildlife and national parks authorities by building capacities in the field in collaboration with experienced partners. 35, Regional Environmental Information Management Program (REIMP). Although the REIMP was a regional program, its ambitious objective o f improving access to, and use of, environmental information for public and private users in the Congo basin, was highly relevant to Gabon. Despite a number o f successes an important lesson to be learned i s that in a complex multi-stakeholder program o f this type, a good communications strategy and regular and sustained coordinationbetween different partners from the outset is critical. This important lessonhas been integrated into the GEF project preparation and design. FromnonWorld Bankprojects 36. TIUDOM Cameroon-Gabon-Congo (GEF-UNDP). Although implementation o f this important trans-border conservation initiative has only just started, lessons learned duringthe preparation phase can be integrated into this GEF intervention. Inparticular the need for implicating highlevel local authorities (Provincial Governors) in the preparation phase i s critical for buy-in at the implementation phase. Although the TRIDOM i s a regional project involving Gabon, Cameroon and the Republic o f Congo, its Gabonese component falls within the scope o f the PSFE. Some o f the TRIDOM activities will thus be implemented in synergy with other donors' support to the PSFE including the proposed GEF-WB intervention. The TRIDOM and this GEF-WB cover different parks, and the TRIDOM does not directly support the ANPN at national level. However, the fact that two projects will be carrying out similar activities in different parts o f the country within the framework o f one single PSFE national program will allow for valuable exchange o f experiences. Both the TRIDOM and this GEF-WBwill be included in the overall PSFE planning and M&E systems. 37. EcosystBmes Forestiers dYfrique Centrale (ECOFAC). Lessons learned by this regional EC- funded program (of which Lop6 was the Gabon component) have been integrated into the project. In particular, it was shown that successful tourism in the African tropical forest habitat must be based on charismatic "flagship" species if tourists are to be attracted to central Africa, which has yet to become a recognised international tourist destination. The need to develop local ground operators, serving as the linkbetweeninternationaltour operators andthe tourist sites, is another important lessonlearned. 38. W F Minkkbk project. WWF has successfully engaged with logging companies to ensure enforcement o f wildlife regulations and forest management plans. Memoranda o f Understanding, negotiated in a fully transparent manner and then signed by all the stakeholders (private sector, communities, provincial authorities) have proved to be powerful tools for law enforcement and voluntary commitments by private operators. They also contribute significantly to local ownership o f wildlife management issues. The lessons learned from these experiences will be capitalised incomponent 4 o f this GEF intervention, whichreplicates the Minkebe approach. 39. Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). The CBFP i s one o f the first examples in Central Africa o f a conservation initiative being implemented on a landscape scale, including community-based conservation and partnerships with the private sector. An innovative approach involving alliances of 9 NGOs working together in a single landscape with a common objective is proving to be successful and has obliged NGOs to work together in a manner that they have been unused to doing inthe past. Tailoring sufficient resources to the scale o f the interventioni s also an important lesson that can be learned. B.6 Alternatives considered and reasonfor rejection. 40. Three alternatives were considered. 1. The alternative o f a "fully blended" project with IBRD, although initially considered, was rejected because the IBRD operation i s packaged as a D P L which involves budget support which cannot be supported by the GEF. 2. Another possibility was to concentrate the GEF operation only on national parks (component 3 o f the PSFE) and not to address conservation issues outside o f the national parks in the production landscapes. This option, although considered at the concept stage, was finally rejected as it was deemed critical to include production landscape within the scope o f this project. Sound wildlife management in buffer zones o f national parks i s essential to prevent the parks from becoming isolated islands o f biodiversity. Gabon has the rare advantage o f having large areas o f relatively intact forest habitats containing rich assemblages o f species outside protected areas. By intervening in these zones the GEF intervention has the opportunity to act before it i s too late by preventing the process o f natural resource impoverishment from occurring. This choice i s in line with strategic priority 2 o f the GEF-3 Biodiversity Focal Area. 3. The third alternative, o f no project and no GEF support to the PSFE, was rejected because protecting Gabon's exceptional biodiversity i s absolutely critical to safeguarding the integrity o f the Congo basin's natural heritage. This would be too much o f a lost opportunity for the global environment. Setting aside of 10 percent o f the national territory for biodiversity conservation involves important opportunity cost for Gabon. Foregone revenues from logging and possibly from miningmay amount to several millions o f dollars a year. Competition for space from extractive industries i s tough, especially at a time when Gabon i s facing oil decline and needs to secure alternative revenues. Failure from the international community to at least share the cost o f managing the parks may discourage Gabon from keeping these areas highconservation status and exempt o fextractive industries. C. IMPLEMENTATION c.1 Partnership arrangements (Institutional coordination) 41. The GEF intervention i s designed to build on and strengthen existing partnerships in Gabon. A number o f NGOs (WCS, WWF) and bilateral fundingagencies (EC, AFD and FFEM,ADB) are investing considerable resources in supporting the government's agenda for biodiversity conservation, national parks management, and capacity building within the framework o f the overall PSFE program. Coordination o f national parks management has been further strengthened through the creation o f the CNPN and, soon, the ANPN. 42. By agreeingto work within the structure o f the CNPN/ANPN,the conservation projects currently active in Gabon are effectively ensuring that parallel funding i s brought to the GEF intervention. Pooled funding in support to Gabon's network o f national parks might be considered in the future through the setting up o f a multi-donor foundation. 10 43. Institutional coordination o f the GEF intervention will be achieved within the framework o f the PSFE through the PSFE Steering Committee composed o f representatives from the President's Office, Ministry of Forest, AGPN, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Planning. The commission will have a supervisory and decisional role. Consultation and coordination between all partners at the national level, including civil society, donors and the private sector, will be achieved at the same time through the PSFE multi-stakeholder planning and M&E workshops. C.2 Institutionaland implementationarrangements 44. From the outset the GEF intervention was conceived as part o f the overall PSFE. However in January 2002 the Government put on hold the preparation o f the PSFE, and thus the GEF operation, in order to draw lessons from previous projects in the sector. The PSFE was only restarted a year and a half later in June 2003. Important institutional developments occurred in between: the creation o f an entire national parks network in 2002, the setting up o f the CNPN attached to the President's office and the drafting o f a new law that will formally create the ANPN. The design and institutional set up o f the PSFE, and o f the GEF intervention, had to be updated accordingly. The creation o f the CNPN and the preparatory discussions on the ANPN caused some institutional perplexity and tensions. Only inlate 2004 did it become clear that national parks will be managed by AWN within the Presidency while other protected areas (reserves, sanctuaries) will remain with the Ministryo f Forests (MEFPEPN). 45. Inorder to take into account this new institutional arrangement, and thus effectively support the management o f biodiversity inside and outside national parks in Gabon, the proposed GEF operation will be implementedby two agencies, within the overarching framework o fthe PSFE: (i) The Agence Nationale des P a m Nationaux (ANPN) will take responsibility for components 1 and 3 o f the GEF intervention dealing directly with the national parks. However, by the time the GEF project becomes effective, the newly created ANPN will still have limited administrative capacities to fulfil its large and complex mandate. (ii) The Ministry o f Forests (MEFPEPN) will take responsibility o f components 2 and 4 o f the GEF intervention dealing with the creation o f new protected areas and with wildlife management inproduction landscapes'. 46. The choice o f these two implementing agencies i s essential if the biodiversity conservation objectives o f the project are to be addressed in a fully integrated manner (see section B.6). Details o f the implementation arrangements and how the components will be managed are provided in Annex 6 o f the project. 47. A single project implementation manual will be preparedjointly by ANPN/MEFPEPN before the beginning o f the project. It i s likely that both implementing agenciesEIUs will share the same technical assistance for financial management, procurement and accounting. There will be three special accounts: (a) for components 1 and 3 under the ANPN; (b) for components 2 and 4 under the MEFPEPN; and (c) for the counter-parts funds. With regard to implementation o f activities in the field a collaboration agreement will be designed by the two agencies, especially for buffer zones o f the national parks, and attached to the grant agreement. 48. Annual budgets and work plans will be prepared jointly by the two implementing agencies and their NGO partners. They will be approved by the PSFE Steering Committee, and disbursed by the Within the Ministry of forest, Environmentand Fisheries,the responsibility of managingwildlife rests with the Direction de la Fume et de la Chusse (DFC) which belongsto the Direction Ge`ne`rule des Euux et For& (DGEF). The DFC is also referred as "Wildlife authority". It also has responsibility for managing protected areas other than the national parks such as the Hunting Reserves. 11 implementing agencies (ANPN and MEFPEPN) according to standard World Bank procedures. This includes annual payments to the partner NGOs for carrying out the activities described in their terms o f references inthe framework o f service provider contracts. c.3 Monitoringand evaluation of outcomes/results 49. Monitoring and evaluation of this GEF intervention will follow the overall PSFE M&E process. Inaddition, inthe case o fANPN, one of the priorities o fthe project will beto assist ANPNto establish its own M&E system to monitor progress in developing the national parks network. Information collected at park level will flow up to the national level. The monitoring strategy developed at the beginning o f the project will determine the nature o f the information transferred and the procedures for transferring information to the national level. Monitoring units will be established in each o f the parks and these site- based monitoring units should have the capacity to undertake a first level o f analysis so that the park wardens can act in a timely manner. Monitoring will be according to a clear methodology so that it can be replicated in other sites year after year. Experience shows that good quality monitoring requires a heavy investment in on-the-ground training and supervision. This investment will be a priority o f the GEF intervention since the project's ability to follow progress towards achieving its objectives i s dependent on the quality and pertinence o f the data collected. The METTNWF tracking tools will be used for monitoring and evaluation o f project outcomes, and will be fine-tuned and customized to fit with the context and challenges specific to the Gabon and to the selected sites. The baseline scenario will be built usingexisting data available at MEFPEPN, CNPN and their NGO partners. It will be builtaroundthe two following pillars: (a) abundance and distribution o f key-species inthe three national parks (e.g. sea turtles and forest gorillas); and (b) intensity o f threats from poaching, logging, and other extractive uses in and around the parks. The project will monitor the evolution o f these two sets of parameters overtime on an annual basis. The project's detailed result framework & indicators and, its monitoring arrangements are provided in Annex 3. A duly completed METT - adjusted as necessary to reflect the specificities o f the Gabonese context - will be establishedbefore project effectiveness. It will include all METT baseline and target values listed inAnnex 3 (Table on Monitoring Arrangements). c.4 Sustainability andreplicability 50. Borrower's commitment.Gabon's commitment to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use o f natural resources as motors o f economic development i s clearly expressed inits Letter o f Sector Policy. The creation o f the national parks network (covering over 10 percent o f Gabon's surface area) and o f the CNPN/ANPN translates this expression o f political will into firm action. To some extent Gabon's commitment can be measured by the opportunity cost related to the setting aside o f 10% o f the national territory for biodiversity conservation. Foregone revenues from logging and possibly from mining represent potentially may amount to several millions o f dollars a year at a time when Gabon i s facing oil declines and needs to secure alternative revenues. Furthermore Gabon's willingness to borrow from IBRD, AFD and ADB, despite its limitedborrowing capacity and thus the necessity to be selective inits investments, i s also a clear sign o f its commitment to the PSFE objectives. Finally Gabon's commitment to trans-boundary land-use management for biodiversity conservation (e.g. the TRIDOM initiative), within the framework o f the COMIFAC process, should also be noted. However, local buy-in for the national parks needs to be further strengthened and will ultimately depend on how much economic benefits the parks will provide at local level. The project-funded guards -both ANPN's and DFC's- will be taken over by the government with permanent status before the project ends (year 4). 51. Sustainability. Key factors contributing to the sustainability o f the GEF intervention are: (a) placing the intervention within a programmatic approach (PSFE) reflecting the governments own priorities, rather than having it as a stand-alone project; (b) an integrated "landscape" approach favoring mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation outside protected areas; (c) participation by stakeholders, i.e. 12 representatives o f local communities, local leaders, political, military and administrative authorities, private sector and N G O will be systematically solicited particularly for wildlife management activities in the buffer zones and for the assessment o f additional protected areas; (d) conservation i s likely to bring local benefits (parks employment, ecotourism) and local communities will continue to benefit from wild game through sustained off-take in the buffer zone; (e) sustainable funding i s expected to be gradually mobilized to cover core management costs through the setting up o f a foundation and through increased government budget allocations (the latter as a function o f the economic benefits generated for the country. An important output ofthe project is the development o f a national strategy for sustainable fundingwhich will provide options for sustainable financing mechanisms; and (0 capacity transfer to ANPN and DFC will be achieved throughjoint implementation o f field activities on the basis o f co-management and on- the-j ob training with experienced NGO partners. 52. Financial sustainability: Significantly, a particular emphasis will be placed on trying to achieve financial sustainability in order to secure the future o f the national parks system. The project will therefore develop a national strategy to support the costs o f the ANPN and the national parks through the combined implementation o f an ensemble o f diversified financing mechanisms. On-going efforts will focus on keeping updated data on actual funding sources and needs for both capital and recurrent costs, based on the implementation o f the National Parks System Management Plan and individual park management plans. With support from international conservation finance experts and through a participatory process including representatives from the ANPN, Government, donors, NGOs, local communities and private sector, an in-depth feasibility study o f various mechanisms adapted to the National Parks System, such as user's fees, debt-relief mechanisms, sponsoring, etc., will be conducted, including an analysis o f the legal requirements to implement them. Based on such a review, the implementation of a number o f these mechanisms will be promoted. Special emphasis will be placed on the creation and endowment of a foundation (trust fund) as foreseen inthe current draft Law on National Parks, including the development and adoption o f its legal instruments (statutes, by-laws), operation manual, grant manual, fundraising strategy and investment strategy. The GEF intervention will finance various types o f activities that are necessary to help Gabon design the most suitable endowment fund.The project will help draw experiences and lessons from other countries, and adapt to the country specific context. These activities include legal and finance advisory services, workshops, study tours, training, etc. Although at this stage it is not foreseen that the GEF project contributes to the endowment fund, this option might be envisaged in the course o f project implementation after the fund has indeed been created, or it could be the subject o f a follow-on operation. The sustainable financing plan will be considered as a benchmark at the mid-ternreview o f the project. Implementation o f these mechanisms will be monitored on an ongoing basis and specific strategies adapted accordingly. Additional information i s available in component 1, Annex 4. The sustainable financing plan will be considered as a benchmark at the mid-term review o f the project. 53. Full financial and institutional sustainability is unlikely to be achieved in the lifetime o f the project. Progress towards sustainability will depend on how much social and economic benefits the parks will actually generate in the next five years. In order to stimulate institutional sustainability and country ownership, the government will start taking on the salaries o f the guards before the end o f the project. 54. Replicability. As the project matures and reaches completion, it is expected to generate lessons with important bearing on conservation strategies in other areas with similar conservation issues and socio-economic fundamentals. 55. Key institutional aspects o f the PSFE as a national multi-donor sector-wide program have a large potential for replication. The fact that this GEF project i s part o f a nation-wide sector program will facilitate exchange o f experiences and replication o f successful approaches in other regions o f the country. Second, the fact that the Gabon's parks were all created at the same time and that they are fkom 13 the outset being developed as a network is also a factor that will foster replication. Third, the regional integration process driven by the COMIFAC makes it likely that replication will also take place across boundaries within the Congo Basin. 56. As a result o f the capacity buildingand training of individuals, and institutions inthe duration o f the project, the achievements will be expanded in other regions o f the country. The replication approach will include facilitating exchange o f information and good practices (knowledge transfer) through information dissemination workshops which include publication o f project result documents, and multi- stakeholder negotiations at both the grass-roots and national levels. The knowledge management systems that will be developed will be accessible by conservation practitioners working in other areas providing a vehicle for transferring positive experiences and lessons. Additionally, a public awareness campaign will be implemented to enable both increased awareness and environmental behavioral change. Staff exchange visits with other parks in the network will be organized to ensure replication o f successful components and diffusion o f lessons learned. It i s intended to include media campaigns at the national level, production o f PA related education materials aimed at school children in the region and printed and audiovisual materials distributed through local media. A budget has been earmarked for such knowledge transfer and institutional strengthening activities. 57. Within Gabon, through support to PSFE the GEF project will contribute substantively to the achievement o f GoG's long-term conservation goals. From the outset a key strategy o f the PSFE has been to nest environment into development, and to ensure synergy with donors worlung on the ground. The donor coordination system established for the project provides a vehicle for replication. At both the local and regional levels, community exchanges and study tours are expected to play a sizeable role in disseminating information. 58. Technical elements o f the proposed GEF intervention which have potential for replication in Gabon and in the Congo Basin are: (a) models developed for ensuring compliance with wildlife regulations by logging companies and models for collaborative wildlife agreements with local communities, cultivating interest amongst local communities for replication; (b) development o f ecotourism in the marine and forest environments; (c) innovative patrol-based and ecological monitoring techniques; and (d) sustainable fundingmechanisms for a network o fnational parks. 59. Component 1 of the proposed GEF intervention will specifically help ANPN implement its replication strategy, stimulating sharing experience and staff exchanges between parks. This i s an essential part o f the ANPN's coordination mandate that will be supported by the proposed GEF intervention. C.5 Critical risks and possiblecontroversialaspects 60. Although the project i s expected to provide significant environmental and socio-economic returns, it also carries the following risksg, for which mitigation measures have been designed and will be given special attention in the course o f project implementation. The overall risk rating o f the proposed GEF interventionis betweenModest (M)and Substantial (S). Risk Risk RiskMitigation Measures Rating Project Development Objective High (H)-risk greater than 75 percentprobability that the outcome/result will not be achieved Substantial(S) -risk between 50 and 75 percent Modest (M) -risk between25 and 50 percent Low or Negligible (N)- risk o f less than 25 percent that the outcomehesultwill not be achieved. 14 The law on nationalparks, or an ordinance [fthe law cannot be submittedto the Assembly indue time, xeating the ANPN, i s not passed. :he CNPN intends to create the ANPN through an xdinance. Inany case, the creation o f the ANPN and the ippointment o f key-staff will be a condition for Zffectiveness. Lack o f collaboration betweenANPN and Legal mission statements and collaboration agreement MEFPEPN, especially for the management Detweenthe ANPN and the Ministry will be attached to the 3 f buffer zones o f the national parks Srant Agreement. Bothinstitutions will be accountable [components 3 and 4 o f the project). before the PSFE Steering Committee. On the ground, Technical Management Committees including staff from both institutions will undertakejoint planning and evaluation. Presidential leadership for national parks makes it likely to arbitrate ifnecessary. Lack o f constituency at the national level The ANPN's communications and marketing strategy will and among local authorities and local be designed to specifically target the national constituency. communities for the national parks network. All stakeholders will participate inlocal advisory groups. Local buy-infor the parks will ultimately depend on tangible benefits being delivered. Lack o f coordination among donors inthe All donors agreed to work within the overarching PSFE area o f biodiversity conservation generates framework. This nationalmulti-donor sector-wide approach overlaps or divergences inproject leads to coherent donors projects and homogenous coverage approaches, and fails to bridge critical o f the country's program. fundinggap. Lack o f collaboration between ANPN/ The proposed government/NGO partnerships rely on long- MEFPEPN and their NGOpartners for field standing relationships between MEFPEPNKNPN and the activities, or the partnerships do not NGOs inquestion. Mutual trust i s stronger inthe case o f strengthen ANPN/MEFPEPN's capacities. CNPN than inthe case o f MEFPEPN.However all parties share common goal to make Gabon's national parks a success. A contractual relationship with clear TOR, joint planning o f activities, single responsibility for financial management and regular reporting to the ANPNMEFPEPN inthe framework o fmulti-stakeholders local advisory groups, helps prevent and settle potential disagreements in the course o f the project. Conservation NGObeing contractedto The proposed contracts with experienced NGOs include not implement field activities may prevent only implementation o f conservation and research activities, public institutions from buildingtheir own but also academic and on-the-job training ofthe ANPN and capacities. MEFPEPN local staff inthe areas o f conservation, planning and evaluation, communication and administrative management. All activities will be planned, carried out and monitoredjointly by the DFC/ANPN and their NGO partner following the principle o f co-management. Financial responsibilityhowever will rest with the NGOpartner for activities stated intheir TOR, and it will rest with MEFPEPNiANPN for other activities where NGO are not directly involved such as purchase o f equipment and infrastructure. Shortcomings o f Gabon's enabling CNPN already actively involves relevant stakeholders environment for tourism ingeneral (private sectors, other ministries) to help improve the (ineffective local operators, costly air travel, enabling tourism environment and remove extra-sectoral weak hotel services) make it difficult to take constraints. Partnerships with private operators o n the advantage o f the parks' potential for eco- ground will also help target and market appropriate tourist tourism; and failure to develop eco-tourism "packages". More broadly, it should be noted that full undermines Government and local success with eco-tourism i s not absolutely necessary to stakeholders' commitment for biodiversity. achieve the project's DGO/DPO. Conservation efforts are likely to generate other socio-economic and environmental 15 ienefits. Insufficient government counterpart funds 3 %sure continued encouragement from the international for biodiversity conservation threaten the :omunity for the strong Presidential leadership that has sustainability o f the intervention. lriven the national parks agenda and that should materialize .nadequatebudget allocation to ANPN. Pursue the jevelopment o f new funding mechanisms, based on a mix ifnational and international fundingincludingthe setting ip o f a trust fund. Taking over the project-funded guards 2efore the end o f the project, on the government's payroll with permanent status, will be part o f the grant agreement. To Component Results The government's target o f protecting the S 4 significant number o flogging permits are expectedto be integrity o f the parks and creating new returned to the public domain as a result o f enforcing the protectedareas may be injeopardy or new forest and fiscal laws, and a moratorium on new forest unattainable inview o f the current level o f soncessions i s inplace pending the adoption o f more attribution o f logging concessions, and in transparent procedures. A participatory forest zoning will be view o f un-transparent procedures o f sarried out under the Component 1o f the PSFE making allocation logging, miningand other likely a move towards more consistent and transparent land extractive concessions. use planning inthe future. However, inthe short-term, an agreement will be adopted with other ministries, especially mining, to ensure that ANPN and MEFPEPNare consulted before any allocation ina high-biodiversity value area. Disputes over logging concessions that were N The sites targeted by the project are not affected by this lost when some o f the parks were established problem which inconsequence is not expected to impact on are not settled, and logging companies the project's achievements. The problemhowever exists in operating inbuffer zones are unwilling to other national parks and needs to be resolved. This issue engage inthe forestry management plan will be dealt with as part o f Component 1o f the PSFE with process. support by IBRD and other donors. An estimated 120people live inside the M The project will help assess the possibility to review the Loango and Mukalaba parks. Respecting boundaries o f the parks depending o n the geographical their traditional rights and protecting setting. The project will also help (a) design participatory biodiversity might prove difficult especially zoning within the parks to ensure that traditional users' with regardto hunting. rights o fpre-existing people are not affected; and (b) develop comanagement initiatives specifically targeting inside-park settlements. Giventhe relatively small number o f individuals, agreements tailored to each specific situation are likely to be found, including preferred access to park employment, and other park related income generating activities and benefits. Pre-existing individuals will be registered to a\foidattracting additional dwellers to the park. Logging companies fail to engage inforest S MEFPEPN to enforce wildlife regulations and wildlife management plans and they do not mobilize related measures o f the forest management plans. Encourage sufficient resources to manage wildlife economies o f scale by persuading logging companies to huntingissues intheir concessions share the costs o f wildlife protection component o f their Insufficient support for law enforcement management plans (Component 1o f PSFE supported by against commercial poaching will reduce the IBRDand other donors). Inthe meantime, the law effectiveness o f the intervention. enforcement strategy will be designed so that it does not hurtbasic legitimate interests o fthe majority o ftraditional users including indigenous people. Involvement o f administrative, military, political andjudiciary local authorities inPSFE planning and M&E. Illegal logging, fishing or miningpractices S Under Components 1and 2 o f the PSFE, the monitoring and are carried out within the parks, and the enforcement capacity o f the forest and fisheries authorities authorities do not have the adequate will be strengthened(various donors' contributions) and monitoring and enforcement capacity. priority will be given to protecting critical sites. The project Integrity o f natural habitats is seriously will specifically support ANPN field services and their 16 threatened. NGOpartners to strengthen their capacity to detect industrial logging, fishing or mining activities within parks boundaries. Insufficient public awareness o f the public M ANPN's communications strategy should specifically target health threats posed by consumption o f this important issue. bushmeat (SIV-HIV, Ebola, Hepatitis etc.) resulting inundiminished pressure on wildlife for the bushmeat trade. C.6 Loanlcreditlgrant conditions and covenants 61. The conditions for project effectiveness are as follows: (a) the creation o f the ANPN and the nomination o f its Executive Director; and (b) the recruitment o f the procurement and financial management staff; (c) the adoption o f a joint Project Implementation Plan including the baseline monitoring and evaluation tracking tool; and (d) the conclusion o f technical assistance contracts with conservation NGOs for implementing parts of components 2, 3 and 4 o f the project according to TOR acceptable to the Bank. 62. Taking over the project-funded guards (both ANPN's and DFC's) before the end o f the project, on the government's payroll and withpermanent status, will be a clause o f the grant agreement. 63. The IBRD DPL, although focussing on policy reforms in the forest, mining and fishing sectors, also covers key outcomes of the national parks component o f the PSFE which are linked to the objectives o f the proposed GEF project. The triggers for disbursement o f the IBRD tranches include: the drafting of the new law on national parks, the completion o f a socio-environmental impact assessment prior to any new miningproject; and the maintaining o f the integrity o f national parks. D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY D.l Economic and financial analyses 64. A preliminary economic analysis o f the PSFE program was conducted in 2002, and will be updated in the final stage o f PSFE preparation. The direct and indirect environmental benefits from the program are: preservation o f 8 to 10 million hectares o f production forest, preservation o f aquatic resources, and conservation o f biodiversity over 4 million hectares. For the part o f the program funded through loans (IBRD, AFD, AfDB) it i s estimated that the burden o f loan repayments will not exceed the extra tax revenue that the program's reforms will generate from the forest and fisheries sectors, on condition that the 2004 Finance L a w i s enforced and tax collection secured, that transparent auction mechanisms are used for future logging permits, and that similar reforms are implemented inthe fisheries sector. 65. Environmental benefits from the creation and management o f protected areas and the conservation o f biodiversity are difficult to asses in monetary terms. Withrespect to the GEF intervention, an analysis o f the costs and the qualified benefits (tourism potential, sustainable harvest o f natural resources, reduced downstream damages, etc.) o f the National Parks and Wildlife Management in Production Landscapes components i s presented in Annex 9. The analysis estimates that the two components would cost about US$66.7 million (net present value terms over 20 years) in investment and recurrent costs. On the benefit side, no quantification o f costs was carried out for the reasons mentioned above. However, if the project succeeds in halting the degradation o f the project areas, important on-site benefits will be generated. In the project areas themselves, regionally outstanding ecosystems would be protected and their outstanding potential for attracting tourism preserved. Also, instead o f destructive and 17 illegal extractive activities, sustained non-timber forest products harvesting, fishing and hunting will take place. Over the long run, potential on-site benefits mainly associated with recreation and sustained natural resources harvesting should be able to matchproject costs. 66. Financial benefits from ecotourism on the other hand can be estimated. Based on a realistic scenario at project completion (2,000 visitors in the LoangoiMukalaba complex and 1,000 visitors at Mayumba), additional fiscal revenues would cover respectively 10 percent and 30 percent o f the two parks recurrent costs. The higher recurrent costs o f Loango/Mukalaba (generated by a more complex natural resources management situation) imply that, in order to reach fiscal sustainability, the park will have to target about 22,000 visitors per year. Mayumba on the other hand, could be fiscally sustainable at about 3,500 visitors per year. D.2 Fiduciary 67. Transparency and efficiency in procurement activities will be very relevant for the success o f the project. To achieve this target, the two agencies incharge o f implementation (MEFPEPN and AWN) will be supported by experienced NGOs such as WWF and WCS and/or other specialised NGO for most o f the components o f the project. A reliable procurement and implementation plan will be submitted for each component by each o f the NGOs for the Client and Bank review. The procurement plan will be the main tool for the monitoring o f the implementation activity and will have to be regularly updated. Most o f the initial procurement activities for the procurement o f goods will be based on simple but efficient procurement methods such as LAPS0 and international shopping thus allowing a quick establishment o f the implementing agencies procurement units. Similarly, procurement o f works (small constructions and rehabilitation) will be mostly carried out by national contractors ad foreign contractors already established in Gabon. Recruitment of NGO and consultants will use appropriate selection methods, including sole source and selection based on qualifications, which will assure the recruitment o f the most experienced and locally knowledgeable NGOs and consultants. Finally, transfer o f skills and training programs in management and procurement, will receive priority and will be started from inceptionto allow for a quick establishment/strengtheningo f the implementationand procurementunits. D3. Social (stakeholder involvement) 68. Stakeholder involvement. There has been full participation o f project beneficiaries and stakeholders inproject preparation. A GEF Stakeholder Participation Plan has been drawn up (see Annex IS), which highlights the capabilities, roles and interests o f the stakeholders in the project. This has been achieved through a lengthy consultation process with local communities, administrative authorities and the private sector (oillgas companies, tour operators, logging companies) for the development o f the Loango-Mukalaba complex zoning and management plan. The results o f a week long workshop organized inJanuary 2005 by the CNPN to develop the National Park System Management Plan also served as an important baseline for project design. 69. Stakeholders benefits and risks. The project might provide significant benefits to the primary stakeholders, i.e. rural population: (a) increased participation in decision making processes; (b) legal recognition and protection o f customary rights; (c) sharing o f benefits resulting from the sustainable use of natural resources"; and (d) income opportunities such as jobs in conservation, eco-tourism. Given the low population densities in rural Gabon, and the scarcity o f job opportunities, the installation o f lo Currently bushmeat exploitation in Gabon i s characterized by unregulated access and virtually no consideration o f traditional user rights. Villagers practicing subsistence off-take for local consumption find themselves in conflict with commercial poachers, often from outside of the zone, practicing intensive poaching which results in a noticeable impoverishment o f the wildlife resources. One of the intended outcomes o f the collaborative management activities to be undertaken by component 4 o f the GEF intervention will be a clearer definition of user rights leading to stronger local ownership o f the bushmeat resources and reduced conflict with law enforcement agencies. 18 functioning national parks can certainly have a positive economic impact in terms o f stimulating the local economy. 70. The project also embodies significant risks and negative impacts for the primary stakeholders. The main risks are: (a) physical and/or economic displacement from the national parks and protected areas; (b) crops destruction due to increasedwildlife populations inbuffer zones; (c) income losses due to law enforcement; (d) discrimination o f immigrants and indigenous people due to uncertain legal status and marginalization in decision making bodies; and (e) insufficient benefit sharing due to low level o f participation. 71. Main structural problems are: (a) inadequate competence o f the governmentalbodies inthe social domain, benefit sharing and pro-poor mechanisms; (b) low level o f legal recognition of traditional and user rights especially for indigenous peoples and immigrants; and (c) marginalization o f the rural population in general and the indigenous peoples and immigrants inparticular. 72. The government of Gabonhas elaborated a comprehensive social management plan for the PSFE, which addresses the risks and enhances the possible benefits o f the PSFE in general and the GEF project inparticular. Together with social safeguard instruments (Resettlement Policy Framework & Indigenous Peoples Development Plan) it provides the ground to guarantee that the project does not increase the poverty and marginalization o f rural populations, but enhances the reform process aiming at poverty reduction and good governance. D4. Environment 73, The following environmental issues needto be raised: 0 Tourism rules, such as concessions agreements, technical prescriptions for infrastructures, tourism activities, will be developed inthe course o f the project and the necessary regulations adoptedby AWN. 0 Regulations governing small scale fishing operations (inshore and offshore) will also be strengthened on the basis o f fishing impact studies that will be undertaken during the course o f the PSFE program. 0 Collaborative agreements for wildlife management ensure greater transparency since local community leaders and local authorities all sign the agreements. This reduces potential for conflict and reinforces local ownership o f wildlife resources by providing a framework for controlling excessive off-take, for example by commercial hunters from outside o f the zone. 0 Oil pollution monitoring on the beaches is one o f the planned field activities in Loango and Mayumba. This will contribute to leveraging improved operation standards by the o f f shore oil companies since chemical analyses allow sources o f pollution to be traced to particular drillingplatforms. D5. Safeguard policies 74. Five safeguard policies are triggered by the GEF intervention. A Socio-Environmental Impact Assessment for the whole PSFE program was conducted in 2002 and was updated in 2005. It includes specific sections on the GEF project. It also includes an Indigenous People Development Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework and a Process Framework. The GEF project subscribes fully to their recommendations, to the social and environmental management plan, the resettlement policy framework and the indigenous peoples development plan. The implementation o f these plans and frameworks will be monitored in the context o f the IBRD Natural Resources Management Development Policy Loan as a condition for disbursement o f the second tranche. 19 75. As the project's overarching objective is conservation of natural resources, it is expected to have a positive impact on Environment (OPIBPIGP 4.0 l), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) and Forests (OPIBP 4.36). With respect to Forests, the project will not finance logging operations and will not finance activities that logging companies are requiredto undertake by law. 76. The project i s going to affect the rural populations in and near the national parks. The Government has committed that the project will not involve any involuntary physical resettlement. However, access to the natural resources of the parks and their buffer zones mightbe restricted (economic displacement). The extent and shape o f such restrictions will only be specified in the management plans to be elaborated in the context o f the project and the PSFE. In line with OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) a resettlement policy framework has been elaborated. This has been done for the entire PSFE inMay 2005. Mitigation measures inthe context o f the elaboration o f the management plans for the national parks and their buffer zones will reduce as much as possible the loss o f access to resources (economic displacement) and the physical displacement. For all national parks resettlement action plans will be elaborated. The Government has committed itself in the social management plan and the resettlement policy framework o f the PSFE to provide timely and effective compensation (preferable land based) at the full replacement costs for all people affected by the national parks. 77. In Loango and Moukalaba National Parks there are an estimated 120 people living inside the parks. Extensive consultation i s being carried out with these villages and mitigation measures defining activities and geographical limits are currently being established. 78. The resources o f some areas covered by the project are used by Indigenous Peoples''. In accordance with the OP 4.20 (revised as OP 4.10) an Indigenous People Development Plan has been elaborated for the entire PSFE inMay 2005. The Government has committed itself to provide indigenous peoples with the right to continue to use the natural resources o f the thirteen national parks for subsistence and provide effective and timely compensation for losses resulting from restrictions in the area o f commercialisation o f these natural resources. The Indigenous People Development Plan prescribes a full array o f activities to establish equal opportunities for the indigenous people in the area o f capacity building, participation, income opportunities and benefit sharing. Further details on safeguard issues are provided inAnnex 10. D6. Policy exceptions and readiness: 79. The proposed GEF operation does not require any exception from Bank policies and it meets the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation. IIPygmy groups have not been reported in neither Loango, Mukalaba and Mayumba national parks. However, pygmy groups have been reported in the southern part of the Lop6 National park, of which the buffer zone is covered by the project. Pygmy groups are also present in other areas that will be surveyed as part of the component 2 o fthe project. 20 Annex 1- Country and Sector Program Background ANNEX1 COUNTRY AND SECTOR PROGRAMMEBACKGROUND - Country and sector issues. Since 1960, Gabon has developed an oil-based economy. In 1996, oil accounted for 79 percent o f exports, 58 percent o f Government revenues, and 42.5 percent o f gross investment. The entire country has been organized around the sharing o f the oil rent. However, oil revenues are not sustainable and have generated little benefits to the poorest part o f the population. This oil-based economy has led to sharp contradictions in the country's picture: with a per capita GNP estimated at US$3,300 in 1999, Gabon's income i s well above the Sub-Saharan African average, while social indicators are barely higher than SSA averages. However, since the early 2000s, Gabon has been experiencing a sharp decline in oil revenues. Major oil sources have not been discovered for several years and a new discovery would take several years before operations could start. Consequently, there i s an urgent need for Gabon to move away from oil dependency, and develop new sustainable and more diversified sources o f growth. Gabon's draft poverty reduction strategy (2003) puts emphasis on the sustainable management o f renewable natural resources and the production o f environmental services, which will become new pillars o f the country's future economy. Under this new strategy, the targeted sectors are forest (Gabon's main industrial sector), fisheries, and biodiversity. It i s expected that their development will directly impact on employment and will lead to a broader and more equitable sharing o f revenues, while having an induced impact on other sectors (for instance, infrastructure: transport and communication services). It should contribute to increasing revenues at central and local levels, promoting small and medium-size national entrepreneurship, and directly impacting on rural development and poverty reduction, especially inremote areas. With forest covering 85 percent o f the territory, Gabon is one o f the most densely forested counties in Africa and in the world. These resources have important local, national and global values that need to be preserved. However, the current oil decline is likely to increase pressure on Gabon's rich forests, fisheries and biodiversity endowments, as alternative income sources with the risk o f unsustainable exploitation of these resources. It is also necessary for Gabon to avoid the replication o f the "oil scenario", and to ensure that revenues are sustainable and equitably shared with the national community. Although timber has been exploited since 1960, the forest sector has until recently made little contribution to the economy because o f low levels o f domestic value-added through processing, the complex fiscal system resulting in poor revenue collection, unsustainable logging, lack o f transparency and lack o f enforcement will and capacity. Elements for concern include: 0 Lack of transparency inthe planninghcheduling, procurement and geographical distribution o f the permits i s a concern and has led to several cases o f overlapping concession permits. 0 Levels o f trust inthe private sector are low. Inparticular there i s considerable disquiet about what i s referred to as a ((two track ))process where management and industrialization investment efforts are not recognized, and where non respect o f national laws and regulations i s a more lucrative alternative than compliance. Several contradictory operational frameworks coexist: (i) CFADs under sustainable management plans, (ii)CFADs or PFAs with no sustainable management plan, (iii)exploitation in rural areas, or (iv) unpunished illegal exploitation. This situation has resulted in negative outcomes both in terms o f access costs for the entrepreneurs and interms o f revenues for the country. This loss of confidence has caused a significant slow down inthe industrializationandmanagementplanprocesses since 2001. 0 Management planning i s currently carried out by only a small number o f operators on approximately 7 million hectares. Half o f Gabon's concessions still fall under the old system of free access to the natural resources, where operators are not tied to any management planning and do not carry out any form o f logging monitoring. Concessions are obtained through unofficial means and 52 percent o f the concessions, accounting for 45 percent o f the allocated areas, are owned by operators that lease them in order to collect individual rents without developing activities or investments. 21 Annex 1- County and Sector Program Background 0 The capacity of the administration to control and monitor the forest sector is weak (the DGEF's investment budget for 2004 was a mere 30m FCFA). Statistics are far from reliable (for example estimates o f the annual production vary between 2.5 and 4.1 millions o f metric tons) and cross- referencing between the data o f allocated concessions rarely takes place. Exploitation without permits, or under various forms o f waivers, seems to be occurring increasingly but the scale and scope o f these types o f operation are not documented. 0 When the national parks network was created it was found that around 800,000 ha o f attributed forest concessions, including CFAD's under management plans, now overlapped with the new national parks. This situation penalizes those actors who have made a commitment to designing and implementing sustainable management plans. The government has confirmed its intention to resolve this issue (attribution o f alternative permits) but progress has been slow. 0 Participation o f nationals in the timber industry i s weak. Coupes familiales, PTE's and PFA's, attributed to national entrepreneurs are generally leased out to rent seekers. This has a negative impact on fiscal revenues, local employment and returns for rural communities. However a number o f positive developments inthe forest sector can be noted: 0 A clear forest sector policy has now been established within the new legal framework constituted by the 2001 Forest Code and the 2004 Finance Law. The government's priority is now the systematic implementation o f these laws. Further refinement is likely to take place inthe future. 0 Approximately 7 million hectares o f forest are currently being exploited under sustainable management plans. The 2001 Forest Code states that all forests from the public estate should be under sustainable management plans by December 2005. This i s unlikely to be achieved and the transition phase i s likely to be extended. 0 With respect to fiscal reform a series o f studies were undertaken between 1999 and 2002. This was followed by a difficult period o f negotiations between the government and the logging industry, but an agreement now appears to have been reached with regards to the new fiscal regime established inthe 2004 Finance Law. 0 Local transformation capacity increased dramatically from 7 percent to 30 percent between 1996 and 2003. After the initial phase o f investment, the challenge for the Gabonese industry i s to improve industrial performance by moving towards finished products, reducing waste and using by-products. 0 Ina landmark decision inAugust 2002 the government created 13 new National Parks covering 28 371 km2(more than 10.6 percent o f the countries a surface area, including 1293 km2o f marine ecosystems). The parks consist o f large, intact ecosystems and capture a maximum portion o f Gabon's biodiversity. A target o f 4 mha o f protected areas has been set by the government. 0 Following the adoption o f the Letter o f Policy, the government put in place a moratorium on allocation o f new logging rights pending the adoption o f transparent procedures and it decided to remove the monopoly o f the State-owned Timber Trade Company (SNBG). The 2002 Forest Code and the 2004 Finance L a w were the starting points o f a major transformation o f the forest sector. The government's Letter o f Policy and its Priority Reform Agenda, approved by the government in May 2004 under President's leadership, are key documents which set out the government's governance and policy reform agenda for increasing the natural resources contribution to the economic development and poverty alleviation in a sustainable manner. The Reform Agenda is built around four pillars: (a) transparency, accountability and greater participation o f civil society; (b) enforcement o f existing laws and agreements; (c) alignment of the instruments in accordance with the stated objectives through policy and economic reforms; (d) involvement o f all cross-sectoral governing bodies. The 2004 Letter o f Sector Policy i s the rationale for the national PSFE program (Programme Sectoriel For& et Environnement) which the country is currently preparing. 22 Annex 1- Countvy and Sector Program Background Details of Gabon's PSFE program. The long term objective o f Gabon's PSFE national sector program i s to help the country move away from oil dependency and to diversify the national economy on the basis o f sustainable management of forests, fisheries and biodiversity resources. The PSFE i s a national sector- wide program prepared by the government o f Gabon to support a set o f policy reforms and capacity buildingefforts that are key to achieve the overarching objective. The objectives o f the PSFEare o f an economic, environmental and social nature: Economic: Improve the investment climate and create sustainable employment, fiscal revenues, and induced impacts on other sectors. Ensure equitable sharing of revenues among private sector, the state and local communities. Environmental: Preserve globally important natural ecosystems, wildlife and other environmental goods and services, secure the sustainability o f Gabon's natural resource base (forests, fisheries, biodiversity). Social: Reduce poverty, improve living conditions, increase sustainable employment and enhance participation o f the civil society in general and the rural population in particular in decision- making processes and benefit sharing. The PSFEprogram comprises 5 components: PSFE Component 1 Sustainable forest management including wildlife inproduction landscapes PSFE Component 2 Fisheries and coastal zone management PSFE Component 3 Development of the national parks network PSFE Component 4 Valorization o f other environmental goods and services PSFE Component 5 Institutional strengthening, research and training The present GEF proposal i s designed to support the National Parks and the Wildlife Management components o f the PSFE (components 3 and 1 o f the PSFE). It builds on the recent reforms that the government has undertaken with respect to biodiversity conservation, and in particular the creation of the national parks network. This was accompanied by the creation of an inter-ministerial government committee, the Conseil National des Pares Nationaux (CNPN), placed under the Presidency and whose membership comprises the government Ministries, international and local NGOs and donors. The government i s currently drafting a national parks law that will create a semi autonomous national agency to manage national parks (Agence Nationale des Pares Nationaux) and a Foundation which will be the instrument through which sustainable fundingwill be developed. The following donors are likely to contribute to the various components o f the PSFE: AfDB, France (SCAUAFD), USAID, GEF/WB, BRD, European Commission, GEFLJNDP,FAO. 23 Annex 2 -Major Related Projects Financed By TheBank and OtherAgencies ANNEX2 MAJOR - RELATEDPROJECTSFINANCEDBY THE BANKAND / OR OTHERAGENCIES World Bank and GEF/WB PFE - Projet Forits et Environnement. The IBRD financed this program from 1993 to 2001. The PFE outcomes were judged Moderately Satisfactory by OED. The PFE improved the institutional framework o f Gabon's forest and environmental sector. The creation o f the Ministry's external services (the provincial inspection offices), the modernization o f the ENEF and the DIARF, and a wide training program are major PFE achievements. Two reforms were included in the 1993 loan agreement: the enactment o f the Environment Law and a reform o f forestry taxation. The Law on Environment was enacted in 1993 but its first application decree came in 2002. Fiscal studies eventually led to the 2004 Finance Law. The PFE actively contributed to the elaboration o f the Forestry Code that was finally passed in2001, This was infact the driving force behindthe 1998project review. The PFEalso supported studies that provide a useful analytical basis for the implementation o f a national sector-wide reform and investment program. REIMP - Regional Environmental Information Management Program. This was a regional multi- stakeholder (public-private) program initiated by the BanWGEF. Key funding agencies were the GEF, the EC, France, Canada and AfDB. The program's aims were to: improve the circulation of environmental information, provide users with environmental information meeting their demand; and strengthening national capacities for environmental information management. This was an ambitious program given the multitude o f data bases, o f greatly varying quality, dispersed throughout the sub region in research institutions, government departments, NGOs and the private sector. An underlying principle was that in order for the structure to be sustainable mechanisms would have to be put in place to ensure that the activities paid for themselves. The program led to the creation o f an Association for the Development o f Environmental Information (ADIE) which was supported by the Bank, the EC and France. A positive output from the ADIE has been the initiation o f a series o f training modules in GIS and remote-sensing implemented through the ENF in Gabon and the IUT in Douala. Coordination o f such an ambitions multi- stakeholder program has however proved difficult, as have efforts to achieve financial sustainability. Management weaknesses at ADIE have also proved to be a constraint. Overall the results were unsatisfactory and the funding agencies have largely withdrawn their financial support. The REIMP outcomes were judged satisfactory by OED. IBRD support to PSFE. A new IBRDoperation i s inpreparation. It will support components 1,4 and 5 o f Gabon's PSFE (forest, environment and institutional strengthening) and possibly component 2 (fisheries). This IBRD operation is being prepared in close synergy with other donors' support to PSFE especially with the proposed GEF project. This IBRD operation might be packaged as a Development Policy Lending (DPL) given PSFE's focus on policy reforms in the forest and fisheries sectors. This IBRD operation will be based on the 2004 Letter o f Sector Policy. EuropeanCommission The European Commission has been one o f the most important funding agencies for biodiversity conservation in Central Africa over the past 15 years (>70 million Euros). In Gabon the EC is currently supporting several initiatives: ECOFAC. This i s a regional forest conservation project covering 6 countries in the sub region and intervening in a protected area in each country. The Gabon component o f ECOFAC fits into Gabon's PSFE as an important contribution to Component 3 on National Parks. ECOFAC was initiated in 1992 and i s coming to the end of its third phase. The program has helped establish functioning protected area operations ina network o f protectedareas inthe sub region. It has also undertaken biodiversity inventories and wildlife surveys and has developed tourism activities in some o f the sites where the potential i s highest (e.g. where viewing o f flagship species such as gorillas or forest elephant i s possible). It has also 24 Annex 2 -Major Related Projects Financed By TheBank and OtherAgencies pioneered innovative methods for monitoring conservation and park management activities, notably through the use o f the CyberTracker monitoring tool. As the first conservation project with a regional dimension in central Africa ECOFAC has contributed significantly to regional integration for conservation. Inparticular it has played a key role inthe emergence o f an association o f protected areas in central Africa (Rkseau d'Aires Protkgkes en Afrique Centrale - W A C ) which will play a central role in the implementation o f the next phase o f EC funding for protected areas. ECOFAC i s also implementing the EspBces Phares program which aims at improving the conservation o f 4 emblematic "flagship" species: the lowland gorilla, the forest elephant, marine turtles and whales. By focusing on these species the project aims to improve protection o f the habitats (inparticular the protected areas) where they occur and, where possible, develop revenue generating activities based on their valorization (tourism, research). The program is implementedby ECOFAC. Ecole Nationale des ForCts. There i s a severe shortage o f qualified human resources for the forest and biodiversity sector. The shortage i s being felt particularly acutely at the current time as Gabon moves to implement its new Forest Code, which imposes sustainable forest management techniques on the forest industry.The EC's support to the ENF, Gabon's only training centre for the forestry sector, is therefore an important contribution to capacity building for sustainable forest management. Furthermore the EC's intervention i s designed to ensure that the biodiversity conservation component o f the ENF curriculum i s reinforced. This program i s an important contribution to Component 5 o f the PSFE focusing on institutional strengthening and training. PSVAP - Programme Sectoriel de Valorisation des Aires Prot6gde.s. This programme directly supports Component 3 o f the PSFE. It comprises o f three components. Component 1provides support to the CNPN and has played an important role in preparing the way for the creation o f the national parks management authority (ANPN). In particular the PSVAP has been a leading partner in the drafting o f the National Parks Law which makes provision for the creation the ANPN, and the creation o f a Foundationwhich will be the instrument for ensuring sustainable funding for the national parks network. Component 2 targets specifically the development o f tourism activities in the Gamba complex. Component 3 supported the rehabilitation o f Gabon's Research Institute for Tropical Ecology (RET) which was one of the pioneering researchinstitutions for forest ecology incentral Afnca duringthe 60s and 70s. Other EC-funded initiatives that fall into Gabon's PSFE framework are: CvberTracker Conservation (CTC). CyberTracker Conservation i s a south African association created to develop and promote ecological monitoring through the use o f an innovative data collecting tool that i s simple to use but can collect geo-referenced data o f high complexity which are automatically integrated into a GIS system. Through a grant from the EC CyberTracker Conservation has been providing technical support to the Loanga-Mukalaba complex monitoring program initiatedby WWF. MIKE - Monitorina of Illegal Killing of Elephants. This i s a program initiated by CITES and funded by the EC which aims to provide data on the status o f elephant populations and poaching levels o f African and Asian elephants. As part o f this Africa and Asia-wide program surveys have been conducted in several areas o f Gabon including LopC, MinkCbC and the Loango-Mukalaba complex. Both the CTC and MIKEprograms will help develop the ANPN's M&E system. SMF C3 - Sustainable Forest Manaaement. This program i s implemented by WWF in partnership with the Univeristy o f Gembloux. It intervenes in three countries, Cameroon, Gabon and CAR. The objective has been to work with logging companies to strengthen their capacities to monitor progress in implementationtheir management plans. This project provides a good basis for component 1 o f the PSFE. 25 Annex 2 -Major Related Projects Financed By TheBank and OtherAgencies Fisheries. Within the framework o f the Fisheries agreement the EC has targeted funds for improving capacity building for monitoring exploitationo f fish resources. France (AFD and SCAC) Through its two development institutions, France has been supporting initiatives aimed at reforming the forest sector and implementing sustainable forest management. Three instruments have been used. France is a key-partner for Gabon inthe preparationo f the PSFE. 0 The French cooperation (SCAC) provides permanent technical assistance to the Ministry o f Forests inthe areas o f Forest Management, Fisheries, Environment and Planning and M&E. 0 AFD provides credit lines to private companies through local banks (BGD,BICIG). Through this mechanism, companies have been able to benefit from loans to finance up to 70 percent of the costs of developing their forest management plans. At present these loans have enabled some 2 million hectares o f forest to come under sustainable management. The conditions imposed by the bank for obtaining loans appear to have been a limiting factor for many o f the smaller logging companies. 0 The third instrument is the Fonds Franqais pour I'Environnement Mondial (FFEM) which i s designed to complement the activities financed through the loans. Specifically these are grants targeting the environmental and social components o f the management plans. A FFEM grant to W A C has also been mobilisedinsupport o f tourism activities developed by ECOFAC inseveral national parks in the sub region. In Gabon the FFEM intervention has supported forest tourism activities at Mikongo camp in LopC. Finally an FFEMproposal to support the CAWHFI initiative (see below) i s in pipeline. The principle objective i s to support the development o f wildlife management plans in collaboration with local populations and logging companies in the buffer zones o f protectedareas. UNDP GEF - TRIDOM.A US10 million grant from the GEF/UNDP, to be implemented by WWF, has recently been initiated. This program targets trans-border biodiversity conservation and land use planning in the vast, essentially undisturbed, forest block covering northeast Gabon, southwest Cameroon and northwest Congo. The area, covering some 5000 kmz,links a number o f important protected areas and aims to set in place land use plans which will ensure biological connectivity between a number o f important protected areas inthe zone: Dja, Nki and Boumba Bek in Cameroon, MinkCbt and Mwagne in Gabon and Odzala in Congo. Although implementation o f this important trans-border conservation initiative has only just started, lessons learned during the preparation phase have been integrated into this GEF project. In particular the need for implicating high level local authorities (Provincial Governors) in the preparation phase i s critical for buy-in at the implementation phase. Although the TRIDOM i s a regional project involving Gabon, Cameroon and the Republic o f Congo, its Gabonese component falls within the scope o f the PSFE. The TRIDOM and this GEF/WB cover different parks and the TRIDOM does not support the ANPN at the national level. However, the fact that two projects will be carrying out similar activities in different parts o f the country will allow for valuable exchange o f experiences. GEF - Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystems Program: The Gulf o f Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) extends from Guinea Bissau to Gabon. The project aims to develop a regional approach to prevention o f pollution and conservation o f biodiversity in the Gulf o f Guinea LME. The project is formulating a program for pollution control, developing mechanisms to promote the health o f the ecosystem, and i s setting up demonstration sites. It i s also providing institutional strengthening, training and water quality and ecological monitoring. 26 Annex 2 -Major Related Projects Financed By The Bank and OtherAgencies UnitedStates CARPE (Central African Regional Program for the Environment). This i s a long-tern initiative by USAID to address the issues of deforestation and biodiversity loss in the Congo Basin. CARPE works with Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic o f Congo, Democratic Republic o f Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and Sao Tome e Principe. CARPE's partners include American private voluntary organizations and appropriate federal agencies. CBFP - Congo Basin Forest Initiative. The United States and South Africa, along with 27 public and private partners, launched the CBFP at the WSSD inJohannesburg on September 4,2002. The goal o f this wide-ranging partnership i s to promote economic development, poverty alleviation, improved governance, and natural resources conservation through support for a network o f national parks and protected areas, well-managed forestry concessions, and assistance to communities who depend upon the Conservation o f the outstanding forest and wildlife resources o f eleven key landscapes in six Central African countries. Five o f these landscapes occur wholly or partly inGabon. They are: 0 Monte Alen-Mont de Crista1 Inselbergs (Gabon and Equatorial Guinea) 0 Loango/Moukalaba/Mayumbaa/ConkouatiLandscape (Gabon, Congo and DRC) 0 Lope-Chaillu-Louesse Landscape (Gabon and Congo) 0 Dja-Minkebe-Odzala Tri-national Landscape (Cameroon, Congo and Gabon) 0 Leconi-Bateke-Lefini Landscape: (Gabon and Congo) Priorities o f the CBFP are to: 0 Provide people sustainable means o f livelihood through well-managed forest concessions, sustainable agriculture, and integrated ecotourism programs. 0 Help countries develop a network o f effectively managed national parks, protected areas, and corridors. 0 Improve forest and natural resource governance through community-based management, combating illegal logging, and enforcing anti-poaching laws. The U.S. i s administering and funding its CBFP activities through CARPE. France has recently taken over the CBFP facilitation. CARPE i s providing 12 million dollardyear o f support to the CBFP for 2004-2006 for the six countries. Further funding after this period i s likely to be mobilised. Netherlands The Dutch government supports biodiversity conservation in Gabon through two interventions: support for the rehabilitation and operationalization the National Herbarium, and field support to the WWF program in the Gamba complex (Mukalaba, Loango) for environmental education activities and sustainable local fishing activities. UNESCO CAWHFI initiative. The Central African World Heritage Forest Initiative was initiated by the World Heritage Centre o f UNESCO with funding from the United Nations Foundation (UNF) and matching funds provided by a number o finternational conservation NGO's includingWWF, WCS, CI, and the JGI. Three trans-border landscapes are targeted: the Dzanga-NouabalC-LobCkC protected area complex o f CAR, Congo and Cameroon; the Dja-Mink6bC-Odzala complex o f Cameroon, Gabon and Congo; and the Conkouati-Mayumba complex o f Gabon and Congo. The project focuses on biodiversity conservation and the strengthening o f protected area management in potential World Heritage Sites that all these sites represent. All these interventions fall within Component 3 o f the PSFE. 27 Annex 2 -Major Related Projects Financed By TheBank and OtherAgencies International Conservation NGOs International NGO's working with a wide variety o f public and private funding sources (EC, US, UNF, GEF, Foundations, private donors) implement a number o f conservation and appliedconservation research projects throughout the country. Their interventions cover a wide range o f activities including protected area support, wildlife management in buffer zones and production landscapes, and capacity building through on the job training and grants for higher studies in regional institutions or Universities in Europe and the USA. In Gabon the principal international NGO's are WWF and WCS. They have been present for well over a decade and have a long term vision for their interventions in central Africa, and Gabon in particular. WCS and WWF played a key role in the identification and creation o f Gabon's network o f 13 National Parks. Since 2000 the Smithsonian Institution has been conducting a biodiversity inventory and monitoring program in the Gamba complex. The work has been supported by the Shell Foundation's Sustainable Energy Programme and locally by Shell Gabon. Capacity building for inventory work, and public awareness have been important outputs. Kyoto University and M a x Plank Institute Boththese researchinstitutes are conducting ecological research on great apes inthe Gamba complex. Summary of donors' support to Component 3 of Gabon's PSFE, and related activities GEF-PNUD biodiversity conservation and landuse Approximately US$2-3 million allocated planningproject. for activities inGabon. European Commission ECOFAC Lopi. Support park management and Supports PSFE Component 3. ecotourism development. This i s part o f Approximately US$3.5 million for a larger regional EC fundedforest activities inGabon (Lop6 NP). conservationprogramcovering six countries inthe subregion. It also includes the "espkces phares" project (focusing on gorillas inLopC). ENF National Forest school (ENF) Capacity Supports PSFE Component 5 building for the forestry sector through Approximately 2.5 mEuros to be training at the national forestry school. disbursedover 3 years. PSVAP 0 CNPN Supports PSFE Component 3 Gamba complex 4.7 mEuros allocated. 0.3 mEuros 0 Makoukou-IRET remainto be mobilised. SFM- C3 Forestry Sector - country wide Supports PSFE Component 1 Strengthening implementation o f 0.1 mEuros remainedto be disbursed. sustainable forestry management plans with targeted logging companies France(AFD) Sustainable Forest Management The Supports PSFE Component 1. AFD provides loans to logging 5.2 million Euros have beenmobilised. companies for the elaboration o f their A hrther 5.5 mEuroremains to be management plans. Three million mobilised. I s also likely to support hectares have been covered. ANPN, but details remainto be decided. 28 Annex 2 -Major Related Projects Financed By TheBank and OtherAgencies France (FFEM) a. Sustainable Forest Management. Supports PSFE Components 1 and 3 Grants to support the implementation o f ,a) 1.2 mEuros have been disbursed. environmental and social measures o f ).2m Euros remain to be mobilised. forest management plans. b. Lop6 National Park: support for :b) 0.4 mEuros have been disbursed. tourism development 1.05 mEuros remainto be mobilised. c. Mayumba National Park buffer zone: :c) Likely to start in2006. support for wildlife management in bufferzones. UNESCO - UNF(CAWHFI) Gamba, Mayumba-Conkouati, Supports PSFE Component 3. TRIDOM.Regional biodiversity 4pproximately US$0.3 mdisbursed in conservationproject focusing on 3abon, and a further U S 0 . 6 mto be potential World Heritage Sites. mobilized. United States (CARPE / Regional environmental program Supports PSFE Component 3. CBFP) covering 6 countries with activities in ZuGent (2005-2006)funding for Gabon inGamba, Mayumba, Minkebe, Sabonese CARPE sites approximately Monte Cristal. 4.9 m$ (Loango, Mukalaba, Mayumba, MinkebC, Ivindo, Lopt, Battke, Monte Cristal, Mwange, Birougou) Remaining amount to be disbursed incurrent phase US$2.3 m.Implemented through WCS and WWF. The Netherlands National Herbarium. Technical Supports PSFE Component 5 assistance and research Project ending Feb 2005. Support to the Gamba complex through Environmental education activities in the IUCNNetherlands committee. the Gamba complex. WWF Minktbt national Park, Gamba complex Supports PSFE component 3. Support for the establishment and Fundingsources CARPE, EC, private management o f national parks. donors. Participation ina nationwide study to identify the network of national parks. Gabon's National Parks network. Supports PSFE component 3. Nationwide study to identify a network Fundingsources: CARPE(US$4.9 mfo ofnational parks, support for 2005-2006), private foundations and management of specific protected areas, donors. conservation related research. Working with a wide variety o fpublic andprivate hnding sources. John Aspinall Foundation BatCkC - Reintroductiono f gorillas and US$0.45 mfor 2005-2006. Dark management. Kyoto University Mukalaba - Researchon great apes M a x Plank Institute Mukalaba - Researchon great apes Smithsonian Institute Gamba - Inventories o f biodiversity Current phase ending 2005. US$0.6 m remaining to be disbursed. Funding from Shell Foundation and Shell Gabon. CyberTracker Minktbt - Monitoring techniques A 1.6m Euro grant from ECcovering sites in 16 countries inwest, central and southern Africa. IFAW Gamba - Elephant monitoring N.B. Other donors and development agencies supporting other components of the PSFE not directly related to National Parks and Biodiversity Conservation are not listed here. This i s the case o f AfDB which will support the fisheries component, and SCAC which provides long-term technical assistance to the Ministryfor Forest, Fisheries and Environmental management as well as planning and M&E. 29 Annex 3 -Result Framework And Monitoring ANNEX3-RESULTFRAMEWORKMONITORING AND Project Development/ Global Use o f results information EnvironmentalObjectives Outcome indicators ;EO: liodiversity conservation in the 1 million hectares o f areas suitable Ifthe additional areaproposed :ongo basin is enhanced. for protection status identified and for conservation i s lower than proposed for formal gazettement. 1 million hectares, this might indicate that land-use planning so far lacked consistency and transparency and that competition from extractive industries is now too high to reach the country's goal of4 millions hectares o f protected areas. Ifthe scope and effectiveness 1 million hectares o f key national o f park management does not parks with increased management increase this could indicate effectiveness (as measured by the that insufficient resources are METT/WWF site level tracking tool) beinginvested inprotected leadingto biodiversity conservation areas and ecotourism development by Yr 5. Ifthe levels ofwildlife off- take in production areas do no1 5 million hectares o fproduction diminish,this could indicate landscapesinbuffer zones with that incentives and increased wildlife management enforcement are insufficienttc effectiveness, as measured by compete with other resource indicators o f surveillance efforts and uses. levels o f wildlife off-take, by Year 5. 9DO: Increase in revenues, jobs and 3iodiversity is protected ana Doubling o f employment (number of other park-related benefits nanaged in a sustainable waj jobs, total salaries) and ecotourism indicates successful rnd provides socio-economk (number o f visitors, annual revenues) valorization o fthe park and .eturns. by Yr 5. secures local commitment for the parks. `ntermediateResults Results Indicators UseofOutcome Monitoring 7omponent 1 strengthenedinstitutional o ANPN headquarters is established 3 Flagspossible gaps incapacities :apacities o f the ANPN at the and equipped by end o f Yr 1 and iational level 100%o f core senior staff (8) recruitec by end o fYr 1. o Yr 2 -Yr 5 evaluates the o Systems for finance and human performance o fthe Agency: in resources management; monitoring implementing its strategy for and evaluation; communication; managing the network o f parks; ecotourism development; and in sustaining national and local sustainable funding, are operational. commitments for the parks; and inattracting international public and private interests. 5'omponent 2 dentification o f possible o % o fthe targeted surface area o Assesses progress towards tdditional protected areas surveyedand identified for possible achieving the government's 1million hectares) protection status, including local target o f 4 million hectares o f consultations. protected areas. 30 Annex 3 -Result Framework And Monitoring Project Development/ Global Use o f resultsinformation Environmental Objectives Outcomeindicators :omponent 3 trengthenedmanagementof Loango, Mukalabaand Mayumba I Assesses the level of political ,oango, Mukalaba and Mayumba managementplansendorsed (Yr3) commitment to managementof ational parks. the parks at both local and nationallevels. % of staff operational, infrastructure ) Assessesproject implementation in place. progress. % infractionsper man-dayofpatrol ) Assesses effectiveness of law etc) decreasescompared with baseline enforcementand park at start ofproject. management activities. Parkstotally exempt of industrial ) Assesses effectiveness of law extractiveoperations(logging, enforcement and park mining, fishing, etc). management activities,as well as multi-ministerial coordinatior and highest-levelpolitical commitmentto improved governanceand integrityofthe nationalparks network. Abundanceindicesofkeybio- 2 Decreasingabundance indices indicatorsremain stable or increases would indicateincreasedthreats comparedwith baselinemeasured at and/or ineffectivemanagement. start of project (baselineimidlend). Howevermigratoryspecies ma) still be under threat outsideof nationalterritorial boundaries (whales, turtles). Increasein employment,revenues 3 Assesses progresstowards and other socio-economicbenefits Gabon's objectiveto develop from differentsources includingpark eco-tourismand other park- activities, eco-tourism, other non- basedeconomic diversification extractiveuses. inrural areas. % increaseincommunity 3 Determineslocalbuy-in for participationas measuredby parks management issues. attendance at public meetingsand numbersofparticipativecollaboratio agreements. 7omponent 4 Component 4 strengthenedwildlife o % oftrainedand equipped staffingof o Assessesprojectimplementation nanagement inproductionand requiredmobilebrigades(baseline0) progress. ,urallandscapes inthe periphery ifnationalparks. o % of interventionzone (5 million o Assesses effectivenessoflaw hectare) free of commercialhunting enforcementactivities.If activities, with wildlife-related bushmeat volumes increase for measures of forest managementplan! the ~ame surveillance effort this effectively implemented and might indicatethat law enforced. enforcementmeasures are inadequate. o Numberofwildlife management o Assessesthe level ofbuy-in for agreements with privatesector wildlife management by local operators and local communities and stakeholders. authorities. 31 .-c 3C ._ m I ni g g m m m N s s W 0 p' v) It I ! c, v) L &I 9L L m bo a .I c, 0L k . . .I v) 3$ Ewe E g s 0 cc 0 -g 0 m s s g 0 W 0 VI VI g s s VI d N vl g s s N VI VI g I I . ). . * .. . . . . g I 1 1 I m I I > . . . . . Annex 3 -Result Framework And Monitoring Arrangements for results monitoring: Monitoring and Evaluation will follow the PSFE's global M&E process. In the case of ANPN (components 1 and 3 of the project), the project will assist ANPN to establish its own M&E program. Monitoring units will be established in each of the national parks. Experience shows that good quality monitoring requires a heavy investment in on-the-ground training and supervision. This investment will be a priority o f the GEF intervention since the project's ability to follow progress towards achieving its objectives is dependent on the quality and pertinence o f the data collected. Broadly speaking two kinds o f information are required: ecological data (bio indicators, biodiversity threat levels, etc.) to monitor the impact o f conservation measures taken, and project performance data (surveillance effort, consultation effort, revenue levels, financial investments, etc.) to monitor progress o f project implementation. A detailed monitoring and evaluation program will be established at the start o f the project. While protocols may vary because of the particular operational contexts o f each component, the clear aim should be to develop a scientific protocol that produces data that are comparable (and analyzable) across the intervention zone. The site based monitoring units should have the capacity to undertake a first level o f analysis so that the park wardens can act ina timely manner. This will require each national park to have its own GIS system, trained staff and the necessary hardware for field collection o f data (CyberTracker, GPS, computers, etc.) which the project will provide. The design o f ecological and patrol-based monitoring systems to be undertaken in the field will draw on the lessons learned by a number o f projects active inprotected areas inthe central Africansub-region (see annex 3). Inparticular theproject willtap into the experiences gained by the WWF, WCS, Cyber Tracker Conservation, and the Max Plank Institute all o f whom are working inthe Loango-Mukalaba complex. With respect to monitoring of conservation activities and their impact (patrol-based monitoring, ecological monitoring) ECOFAC, WWF and WCS have shown that a high level o f training and supervision is necessary inorder to ensure that useable information is collected. Involvingpark guards in the collection and interpretation o f data (for example through the innovative Cyber Tracker data collection tool) has also proved to be highly motivating for the guards and contributes to good morale. Component 2 and 4 undertaken by the DFC will use similar monitoring methods and tools but with a smaller scope. In particular less emphasis will be placed on monitoring populations o f bio indicators inthe forest. Insteadmore emphasis will be placedon gathering data onpopulations and quantities of species hunted (quantities, age-sex class, species compositions, etc.) in samples intercepted by the mobile units. Information collected at site level must flow up to the national level (ANPN headquarters, Ministry). The monitoring strategy developed at the beginning o f the program will determine (a) the nature (level o f analysis) of the information transferred, and (b) the procedures for transferring information to the national level. A participatory management planning processes has been followed by the government and its conservation partners in the Loango-Mukalaba complex and in Lop& This has allowed broad participation in the validation o f consolidated management plans for the parks. The interventions proposed for the GEF project will build on the experiences of this planning process. The Loango- Mukalaba complex, with its mosaic o f national parks and interlinked zones o f varying protection status, i s currently considered a testing ground for the development o f a model of integrated natural resource management to serve as an example for Gabon. The METTiWWF tracking tools will be used for monitoring and evaluation o f project outcomes, and will be fine-tuned and customized to fit with the context and challenges specific to the Gabon and to the selected sites. The baseline scenario will be built using existing data available at MEFPEPN, CNPN and their NGO partners WWF, WCS. OK. It will be articulated around the two following pillars: (a) abundance and distribution o f key-species in the three national parks (e.g. sea turtles and 35 Annex 3 -Result Framework And Monitoring gorillas); and (b) intensity of threats from poaching, logging, and other extractive uses in and around the parks. The project will monitor the evolution of these two sets of parameters overtime on an annual basis. A duly completed METT -as adjusted in line with the specificities of the Gabonese context- will be establishedbefore project effectiveness.It will include all METT baseline and target values listedinthe table above (Annex 3: Monitoring Arrangements). 36 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description ANNEX4 -DETAILEDPROJECTDESCRIPTION Importance of Gabon's biodiversity for the global environment. Gabon contains three Terrestrial Ecoregions as defined by WWF as the world's most outstanding examples o f each major habitat types (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998): the Congolian Coastal Forest, the Northwestern Congolian Lowland Forests and the Western Congolian Forest-Savanna Mosaic. In addition, there are significant stands o f central African mangroves along the coast and patches o f Congolian-Zairean swamp forests in the northeast. Furthermore several priority freshwater systems occur within the country as well as 850 km o f coastline and highly productive marine systems. In recognition o f the ecological integrity o f these ecosystems Gabon recently was placed 12tho f 146 countries evaluated (and first in Africa) in the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) which was announced in January 2005 at the World Economic ForuminDavos, Switzerland. Much o f the Congo Basin's unique biodiversity i s represented inGabon: 0 Gabon's marine environment, including Mayumba, i s unusually productive for tropical countries. Over 500 species o f fishes have been recorded to date, in addition to six species o f whales, including a globally significant breeding ground for humpback whales, and a recently discovered population o f rare humpback dolphins; 0 Although Gabon contains just 2.5 percent o f Africa's mangroves Pongara and Akanda national parks represent 25 percent o f all protected mangroves and play key ecosystem functions inmarine fish reproduction and stabilization o f the coastline close to Libreville; 0 Globally 60 percent o f humanity lives in the planet's coastal zone, resulting generally in serious environmental degradation. In Gabon over 70 percent o f the population lives in the coastal sedimentary basin but remarkably much o f the ecosystem remains more or less pristine and i s remarkably varied, including key beaches for nesting turtles, rich coastal savannas and lagoon systems, vast freshwater swamp systems and coastal forests extending unbroken down to the beach. Loango i s the best remaining example o f this ecosystem inAfrica; 0 The Congolian Coastal Forests contain three major Pleistocene refuges (Monts de Cristal, Moukalaba and LopC) which have sheltered forest biodiversity during climate change through geological time. These sanctuaries o f biodiversity rival South American forests in diversity and have highlevels o fplant (25 percent o f an estimated 6-8,000 plant species) and animal endemism; 0 The Northwestern Congolian Forests (MinkCbC, Ivindo and Mwagne) are representative o f the forests o f the heart o f the Congo Basin, biogeographically separated from the rest o f Gabon by the Ogooue river barrier. These forests are lower in species richness but harbor exceptionally high numbers o f large mammals. They include patches o f Congolian-Zairean swamp forests and exceptional inselbergecosystems adding greatly to their biodiversity; 0 The Western Congolian Forest-Savanna Mosaic (Plateau BatCkC and parts of LopC) has played a key role in driving evolution o f forest species, and harbors small populations o f species not generally associated with Gabon, such as lions and hyenas. It i s this variety and the fact that the best examples have been protectedwithin the National Park network that makes Gabon truly remarkable. By working in and around Mayumba, Loango, Moukalaba, Lop6 and BatCkC, the GEF Gabon program (in synergy with GEF TRIDOM, which covers the Northwestern Congolian Forests) will ensure that almost all o f Gabon's diversity is represented in the two complimentary GEF initiatives and in synergy with other donors' projects in support o f PSFE. 37 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description The comparative advantages of Gabon over other countries o f the sub-region in terms of biodiversity conservation challenges and opportunities can be summarized as follows: 0 Gabon has an exceptionally highbiodiversity and contains 3 o f the WWF Eco-regions. 0 Very low human population densities, particularly inrural forested areas. 0 Very low levels o f forest loss (less than 0.5 percent per year). Large areas of forest which, untilvery recently, have not beensubjectedto industriallogging. Gabon i s therefore in the relatively rare situation for a central African nation o f having the opportunity o f establishing sustainable loggingpractices before large scale damage to forests and wildlife occurs. Inview ofthe various threats to biodiversity inGabon, a threats androot causes analysis was done for the sites targeted under the project. The analysis provides (see Addendum 1 to this Annex 4) alternative strategies to reduce and remove the threats. Institutional context of the intervention. The PDO/GEO are concerned with enhancing biodiversity conservation and sustained natural resource management. Gabon has recently made major strides in this field by the creation o f a network o f 13 national parks and the drafting o f a law creating a semi- autonomous national parks authority (Agence Nationale des P a m Nationaux). The GEF intervention i s designed to capitalise on this advance by providing support to this embryonic structure in order to render it operational and sustainable as quickly as possible. This will involve support at the national level (creation o f the ANF'N), and targeted support in priority field sites. The GEF intervention will take an integrated approach to biodiversity conservation by supporting interventions in areas outside the national parks as well. This approach i s necessary since a major part o f Gabon's natural resources, and therefore a significant part o f its biodiversity, lies outside o f national parks (which cover approx. 11% o f Gabon's surface area). Since 83% o f the country i s covered by forest, where industrial timber extraction i s the dominant sector o f activity, this means that much o f the country's biodiversity lies within logging concessions. If national parks are to avoid becoming islands o f biodiversity surrounded by areas of impoverished natural resources, it i s necessary to adopt an integrated "landscape" approach. The responsibility for management o f national parks lies with the ANPN, attached to the President's Office, while management o f wildlife outside national parks i s the responsibility o f the MEFPEPN. This division o f responsibilities for natural resource conservation and management introduces some institutional complexity with respect to the implementation o f the GEF intervention. Only inlate 2004, it became clear that the national parks will be managed outside the MEFPEPN by the ANPN. An integrated national parks-buffer zone approach i s therefore essential in order to reinforce collaboration between the two institutions. The components. By the time the project starts, the ANPN will be a new institution with insufficient capacities, particularly human resources, to oversee the management o f the new network of national parks. Since the National Parks Law creating the AWN has not yet been passed the responsibility for management o f the national parks network falls to the CNPN (Conseil National des P a m Nationaux - an interministerial Council attached to the Presidency). Once the ANPN i s created the CNPN will revert to its originally planned role as an advisory body with responsibility for overseeing the implementation o f Gabon's national parks policy. The new ANPN will therefore have almost no institutional capacities at the moment o f its creation. A priority of the GEF intervention i s therefore to assist with rendering this new institution operational. This will be the objective of Component 1. With respect to site level activities (Components 3 and 4) it was considered important to target the use o f funds insuch a way as to enhance biodiversity conservationinthe 3 Terrestrial Ecoregions (as defined in WWF's Ecoregion classificiation) that occur in Gabon: the Congolian Coastal Forest, the Northwestern Congolian Lowland Forests and the Western Congolian Forest-Savanna Mosaic. The landscapes targeted 38 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description by the GEF intervention are the Loango,Mukalaba and Mayumba national parks and their buffer zones, and the buffer zones o f Lopt and Bateke. A number o f criteria were used to identify the intervention sites. First the parks network was assessed with respect to 4 criteria: (i) biodiversity value (ii)ecotourism potential (iii)potential for trans-border collaborative biodiversity conservation (iv) potential for rapidly achieving concrete results (e.g. because o f existing structures/partners). The following priority sites emerged from this assessment: the Gamba complex (Loango and Moukalaba), Mayumba, Lopt, Minkebe and BattkC. In addition, the existence o f clear demarcation between park boundaries and production landscapes was taken into account. A gap analysis o f fundingresources (see figures inAnnex 15 - Incremental costs) for the sites was then made in order to identify where GEF funding could be most effectively targeted. MinkCbC was eliminated from the list at this stage since it already benefits, albeit indirectly, from a substantial US$lO million grant from the GEF-UNDP (TRIDOM) the aims o f which are to strengthen trans-border land use management planning o f the vast zone linking the different protected areas in Gabon (Minktbt, Mwagne), Cameroun (Dja, Nki, Boumba Bek) and Congo (Odzala). Furthermore MinkCbC also currently receives EC funding specifically to strengthen wildlife management inthe buffer zone o f the park. Of the 5 sites retained by the above assessment it was considered important to target a substantial proportion o f the funds in a single landscape comprising un unintemptedblock o f 3 national parks and their interlinked buffer zones (Loango, Moukalaba, Mayumba) and to target the interzone between Lop6 NP and Batekt which would complement ongoing park management support being provided by other partners (EC, US, NGO). The choice o f sites i s thereforejustified as follows: 0 The Loango, Mukalaba and Mayumba national parks, together with their buffer zones, present an exceptionally wide range o f ecosystems, and therefore a very high level o f biodiversity. In particular this landscape encompasses marine and coastal ecosystems which allow the GEF intervention to address marine Conservation issues (fisheries, oil pollution, marine mammals) which have been particularly neglected in Gabon untilnow. 0 Both Mayumba and Battkt are contiguous with national parks in neighbouring Congo. Trans- border biodiversity conservation i s a government priority for regional integration within the framework o f the COMIFAC. 0 The Loango-Mukalaba complex and Mayumba between them present the highest ecotourism potential in Gabon, followed by Lop6 and BatCkt. 0 The presence o f active conservation partners (EC, WWF, WCS, research institutions) operating in all the sites brings added value to the GEF contribution. Alone their financial contributions are insufficient to render the management o f the parks and their buffer zones fully operational but in partnership with GEF the opportunity o f achieving the required level o f management i s greatly enhanced. Furthermore these conservation partners bring their particular skdls and experience to the service o f the national parks and wildlife management authorities thus contributing to capacity building. 0 By maximising the chances o f success inthese sites the project and its conservation partners will serve as a catalyst for leveraging additional resources for biodiversity conservation inGabon. As mentioned above the interventions proposed in support of Lopi and BatCkC are designed to complement existing activities in the national parks by targeting specifically their buffer zones. Lop6 has received external support (EC, NGOs, research institutions) for many years and a new phase o f EC funding for the park is scheduled to start at the end of 2005. This has resulted inthe establishment of an internationally renowned research station (operational since 1982), the development o f ecotourism activities (the park i s one o f Gabon's principal tourist destinations) and the elaboration o f a management plan that will be officially adopted during2005. However untilrecently the south o f the park has received 39 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description very little attention (partly because o f difficulty o f access) and almost no attention has been given to the park's buffer zone. Lope i s surrounded by several large logging concessions most o f whom are currently elaborating their management plans, which, in conformity with the Forest Code, will address issues o f wildlife management. At least two companies (Leroy and Bordamur) have already initiated wildlife management measures. A GEF intervention targeting the production landscape around Lop6 will therefore complement the ongoing management activities within the park; also the national railways, the "Transgabonais", crosses LopC. The train i s a key factor in the national bushmeat trade, and the GEF intervention will allow for collaborative action between the railway company and wildlife authorities. Finally Gabon's first Biodiversity Sanctuary, the Iboundji Biodiversity Sanctuary, located in the buffer zone to the south east o f the park, i s in the final stages o f gazettement and will therefore benefit from the GEF intervention. The biological importance o f BatCkC lies inthe fact that it is located inthe humidforesthavannah ecotone birds. It is also contiguous with the Zanaga - Lebama national park in Congo Republic offering and therefore encompasses a unique assemblage o f forest and savannah species, particularly mammals and opportunities for trans-border biodiversity conservation. Because o f the interesting mix o f forest and savannah ecosystems, and the attractive landscapes that this produces, the potential for tourism i s considerable, particularly inthe buffer zone to the north west o f the park boundary. Finally a component o f the GEF intervention will focus on working towards Gabon's target o f 4 m ha o f protected areas, announced at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and contained in the 2004 Lettre de Politique. The new national parks network currently covers nearly 3 m ha. While Gabon may not intendto create any more national parks several other sites o f particular biological interest merit further assessment with a view to according them protected area status. The GEF intervention will contribute to this important countrywide assessment and local consultations. To summarise, the GEF project will be articulated around actions at the national level (institutional support for the new ANPN, countrywide protected areas assessment), and the field level (enhancing management intargeted national parks and buffer zones). Detailedprojectdescription The project will be implemented through a US$10 million grant to the Government o f Gabon. The project period i s 5 years. The overall Global Environmental Obiective i s to enhance biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin. The Congo basin constitutes the world's second largest block o f tropical forest. With forest covering 85 percent o f its territory Gabon accounts for approximately 11 percent o f Africa's tropical forest block and has a particularly high level o f biodiversity. Enhancing the conservation o f biodiversity in Gabon will therefore make a very significant contribution to biodiversity conservation inthe Congo basin as a whole. Inorder to contribute to this long-term goalthe specific objective, or Proiect Development Obiective, is to strengthen institutional capacities o f national parks and wildlife authorities to manage conservation and sustainable use o f natural resources inprotected areas and their buffer zones (production landscapes, rural zones). The creation o f CNPN and ANPN has generated some institutional complexity. National parks will be managed by the ANPN located within the President's Office while other protected areas (reserves, sanctuaries) are managed by the MEFPEPN. Inorder for the GEF-Bank intervention to take into account this new institutional arrangement and thus effectively support the management o f biodiversity inGabon, the project will be subdivided into 4 components: 2 dealing with national parks through the ANPN, and 2 dealing with biodiversity conservation in production and rural landscapes through the DFC o f the 40 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description MEFPEPN. However it i s essential that both institutions recognise the importance o f close collaboration for the implementation o f project activities since all the components are tightly interlinkedand success in one component will greatly influence success in another. COMPONENT 1:INSTITUTIONALSTRENGTHENINGOF THE ANPN Government's estimated contribution: US$1.04 m Other donors' contributions to institutional strengthening: $5.85 million (of which EC: $4.9m; US: $0.5m; UNESCO:$O.4Sm). GEFcontribution: US$1.8million Problems to be addressed. By the time the project starts, the ANPN will be a new semi-autonomous institution without the necessary capacities, particularly human resources, to oversee the management o f the new network o f national parks. Since the National Parks Law creating the ANPN has not yet been passed the responsibility for management o f the national parks network falls to the CNPN. Once the ANPN is created the CNPN will revert to its originally planned role as an advisory body with responsibility for overseeing the implementation o f Gabon's National Parks policy. In addition to the creation o f the ANPN the National Parks Law makes provision for a Scientific Committee and the creation of a Trust Fund (Foundation) which will be the basis for the agency's sustainable funding mechanism. Gabon's intention i s to create a light central structure whose principle objective will be to provide the necessary services and support to the national parks which will allow them to function in as independent manner as possible (elaboration o f annual budgets and work plans, financial management, operational decision making, fund raising, partnerships and contractual relationships with local operators, etc.). An analysis of the institutional, technical and financial requirements necessary to fulfil this role was conducted during the preparation phase o f the GEF project (Pousse 2005) and the results have been used to develop the current proposal. Expected outcome. The institutional issues that this component will address can be summarised as an almost total lack o f institutional and operational capacities o f ANPN. Gabon has no tradition o f national parks management since there were none prior to the creation o f the 13 parks. Therefore the expected outcome will be a fully operational ANPN with the capacities to implement its National Parks System Management Plan (Plan Cadre de Gestion des Parcs Nationaux) and coordinate activities in the network ofnationalparks. The support from GEF to this component will focus on achieving the following outputs: 0 The necessary equipment and infrastructures to house the Agency 0 An organisational structure, comprising 8 senior staff, capable o f supporting and coordinating all aspects o f park management inthe national parks network. The central structure will comprise the following key elements: - Executive Secretariat incharge o f overall management o f the ANPN, strategic planning and international and national coordination (1person) - Monitoring and Evaluation unit responsible for consolidation o f annual budgets, work plans and evaluation (1 person) - InformationTechnology and GIS unit (1person) - - Human Resources Managementunit (1person) - Administration and Financial Management unit (2 persons) Park Management- Ecological Monitoring - Research unit (1person) -- Ecotourismunit(1person) Communications- Outreach unit (1person) 41 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description 0 Short term expertise supplied by external specialists covering various aspects o f training (financial and administrative management, IT, M&E, park management, communications, ecotourism etc.). Lessons learned from similar experiences (creation o f a new semi-autonomous protected area structures) will also be built into the training process. In particular the lessons learned from the creation o f Madagascar's National Association for the Management o f Protected Areas (ANGAP), with support form the World Bank, will be capitalised (including through a study tour), since the situation currently faced by Gabon i s very similar to that which Madagascar was facing at the time ANGAP came into being. 0 A particular emphasis will beplaced on tryingto achieve financial sustainability inorder to secure the future o f the national parks system. The project will therefore develop a national strategy to support the costs o f the ANPN and the national parks through the combined implementation o f an ensemble o f diversified financing mechanisms. On-going efforts will focus on keeping updated data on actual funding sources and needs for both capital and recurrent costs, based on the implementation o f the National Parks System Management Plan and individual park management plans. With support from international conservation finance experts and through a participatory process including representatives from the ANPN, Government, donors, NGOs, local communities and private sector, an in-depth feasibility study o f various mechanisms adapted to the National Parks System, such as user's fees, debt-relief mechanisms, sponsoring, etc., will be conducted, including an analysis o f the legal requirements to implement them. Based on such a review, the implementation o f a number o f these mechanisms will be promoted. Special emphasis will be placed on the creation and endowment of a foundation (trust fund) as foreseen in the current draft Law on National Parks, including the development and adoption o f its legal instruments (statutes, by-laws), operation manual, grant manual, fundraising strategy and investment strategy. Implementation o f these mechanisms will be monitored on an ongoing basis and specific strategies adapted accordingly. 0 Efficient day to day management o f the project, implementation o f the monitoring and evaluation tracking tool, and implementation o f the project's social and environmental management plan, all for activities under the responsibility o f the AWN. 0 Implementation o f the ANPN's replication plan. COMPONENT2: EXPANDING GABON'S PROTECTEDAREA COVERAGE: Government s contribution: US$0.14 million GEF contribution: US$1.12million Context and issues to be addressed.The boundaries o f the new network o f national park were identified duringa 3-year biological and socio-economic evaluation covering the entire country. This evaluation was planned in two phases: (i)evaluation of all large blocks likely to merit the status o f National Park; (ii)identification o f all small-scale biodiversity phenomena that were not captured in the parks (fragile, diverse mountains ecosystems, wetlands, caves, inselbergs, fluvial refuge forests, restricted geological formations that give rise to unique plant or animal communities, sacred forest patches inpopulated areas, etc.). This second category would contribute to creating a complimentary series o f biodiversity sanctuaries and other less restrictive protected areas. The status o f the ``shies de conservation'' (approximately 500.000 ha within the 10m ha o f sustainably managed forests concessions - CFAD) will also be clarified. Similar sanctuaries inthe "domaine rural" will also be assessed. The project will help assess the relevance and feasibility of community reserves as an emerging concept in Central Africa. It will build upon ongoing experiences in Congo-Brazzaville (Lossi Gorilla Community Reserve) and in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Tayna Gorilla Community Reserve). The vast OgoouC delta i s a particularly important area both for biodiversity conservation and as a vital natural resource base (particularly fish) for local populations, and i s undoubtedly a prime candidate as a 42 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description Biosphere Reserve. However scale o f the work requiredto evaluate and protect this area falls outside the scope o f this project and would be more appropriately addressed through a stand alone project. Expected outcomes. The expected outcome i s a 1 m ha increase in the surface area o f protected area coverage to include sites o f special biological significance which are not covered by the current protected area network. This outcome i s inline with Gabon's stated policy o f achieving 4 m ha o f protected areas as specified inthe Lettre de Politigue. , Results and activities. This activity builds upon and continues a 3-year biological and socio-economic evaluation covering the entire country which was undertaken jointly by DFC, D W and WCS. In the first year the focus will be on formalizing the status o f sites that have already been identified and on formalizing, a standardized methodology for evaluation o f forest sanctuaries. Forest management specialists from logging companies currently involved in the sustainable management planning will also participate in the development o f methodologies. This phase may involve undertaking a number o f field trials. Field surveys will start towards the end o f the first year and will be completed by year 4 o f the project. A core team o f about 10people will be responsible for the execution o f this component. This component will work in close collaboration with INC and DIARF to develop a geo-referenced database. An evaluation unit will be established within the DFC (or DGE) although the headquarters o f the evaluation will likely be the Vembo data unit set up by the Smithsonian Institute (for coastal areas), the SEGC research station (for the central mountains region) and the IRET Research Station at Mpassa for north east Gabon. The process leading to the creation o f these protected areas will involve a desktop evaluation o f potential sites followed by field surveys to determine possible boundaries o f sites. The official procedure leading to gazettement will then be followed (consultation and negotiation with local stakeholders, official publication o f proposed sites and finally a gazettement mission in which local stakeholders give their agreement). This activity will be implemented with specific focus on local consultations and participation. Specific outputs will be assessment survey reports identifying priority sites and appropriate protected area status, and the implementation o f the formal process for protection of these sites (consultations, negotiations, gazettement). COMPONENT3: SUPPORTTO SELECTEDNATIONAL PARKS Government's estimated contribution: US$1.4 million International NGOs: $2.25 rn (of which US$0.93from WCSand US$1.29from WWF,see Annex 5) Internationalfunding agencies: $1.95 million (of which USAIDLJSG: $1.4m; UNESCO: $O.SSrn) GEF contribution: US$5.22 million Context and problems to be addressed Loango and Mukalaba National Parks, i.e. the "Gamba Complex". Loanga and Mukalaba national parks along with a network o f interlinkedbuffer areas form the Gamba complex. The Gamba complex i s located in the south-western part o f Gabon along the Atlantic Coast. It has a total surface area of 12,281 km2, contains a unique mosaic o f habitats including seashores, mangroves, rain forest, savannas, lagoons and swamps, with a high level o f biodiversity. In between the two parks i s an intermediate zone o f protected areas including formal hunting zones and faunal reserves overlapping with village territories and community lands for agriculture, hunting and fishing, Gamba town and oil exploitation and exploration permits. The total population o f the complex amounts to 9500 inhabitants o f whom 7500 lives in Gamba town, located in between the two parks. The village populations, as well as a large number o f Gamba 43 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description residents, are involved in traditional subsistence activities such as slash and burn cultivation, fishing and hunting.However, most of the complex population is dependent on the oil industry and inparticular on Shell's, presently the main operator. Large-scale oil production started around 1965 and peaked around 1997. Since then, oil industry activity levels have been decreasing gradually. The key long-term threats from the decline in oil production in the Gamba complex, in particular the cessation of Shell's activities, are that lower environmental standards might be applied by smaller operators (increased risks for spills), and the lack o f economic opportunities "after oil" would compel many o f the residents to turn to unsustainable exploitation o f natural resources. Commercial logging operations in the periphery o f the complex also represent a threat to the complex through illegal logging operations (non-respect o f concession limits) and the improved access to the forest for bushcommercial bushmeat huntingthat their operations provide. Finally both parks lack infrastructure, staffing, operational capacity and law enforcement. Mayumba National Park. Mayumba national park protects an area o f coastal sea o f approximately 900km2, and a narrow lkm x 60km strip o f beach and coastal vegetation populated with forest elephant, buffalo, gorilla, chimpanzee, mandrill, leopard, and sitatunga. Habitats include coastal forests, mangroves, savannas, lagoons, and a 15 kmband o f the Atlantic Ocean. It i s the only park in Gabon dedicated to the protection o f marine life. It i s one o f the most important nesting beaches for marine turtles on earth (densities o f up to 20 f e m a l e s h during the nesting season), and i s on the migration route o f a major humpback whale population. It may also be one o f the most important protected areas for the rare humpback dolphin, whose numbers have yet to be evaluated in the area. Manatees, a highly endangered species elsewhere in Africa, occur in the lagoon. Sharks and rays appear to be abundant in the area, and bony fishes are also found in large numbers. Intensive illegal fishing by coastal trawlers appears to have impacted the area severely however, and local fishermen complain o f greatly reduced catch sizes, fuelling a greater reliance on similarly destructive fishing practices. In addition to decimating fish stocks and disturbing fragile sediments, trawlers are also thought to be responsible for the many olive ridley turtles that wash up dead on the beaches o f Mayumba each year - drowned in fishing nets then cut 1oose.Currently the main threats to this park are illegal offshore fishing by commercial trawlers, unsustainable artisanal fishing inthe lagoon, and environmental risks linkedto offshore oil production and exploration. The Park also lacks infrastructure, staffing, operational capacity and law-enforcement. In the Republic o f Congo, the Conkouati national park i s contiguous with the southern boundary o f the Mayumba national park, offering the exciting opportunity to create a trans-frontier protected area which offers real opportunities for addressing regional issues such as turtle conservation, oil pollution and fisheries control. The Mayumba area i s also o f enormous potential for eco-tourism development, due to its marine species, terrestrial species, its landscapes (lagoons, mangroves, forests and beaches), and its cultural and sporting attractions.-Marine conservation and research are in their infancy in Gabon. It i s envisaged that as Gabon's only marine park, Mayumba will develop into a `Marine Hub' for the nation and the region. Marine issues are seldom spatially restricted, and the Mayumba national park, while providing protection to marine life within its borders, recognizes the need to address many o f its own conservation needs at a national and region level in order for lasting progress to be made. Mayumba NP aims to stand as an example o f how to provide coastal and marine conservation, and will also become a centre for marine research and for the training o f a new generation o f marine conservationists and researchers. The GEF intervention will help provide the structural backbone upon which this Marine Hub can be built, affording this vital realm the protection and wise management needed for the conservation o f species, habitat and genetic diversity, food security, and sustainable economic development. Expectedoutcome The expected outcome o f this component i s the establishment o f effective management in the three national parks and their buffer zones. The priorities for park management in Mayumba and the Gamba/Loanga-Mukalaba complex include: 44 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description 0 approved zoning and managementplan; 0 operational management structures: infrastructures, equipment, surveillance teams; 0 development o f stakeholder participation(local populations, private sector); and 0 effective monitoring and law enforcement systems (patrol-based monitoring and conservation related research). Results and activities: In synergy with other partners, GEF funding will focus on achieving the following results through a variety o f activities: Loango-Mukalaba (Gamba complex) 0 Consolidating and implementing the Gamba complex management plan. In view o f the changed context since the first draft master plan was produced in 1995 (creation o f national parks, AWN, possible pull-out o f Shell-Gabon) it has become urgent to review the zoning, protected area status and management regimes for the areas between the two national parks. Furthermore there i s a need to strengthen the dialogue between conservation organisations, Shell-Gabon, other oil and gas operators and the relevant government authorities. As a result o f a thorough consultation process catalysed by WWF, the Gamba Complex Management Committee, composed o f the three wardens and field representatives from the Wildlife and Fisheries authorities, WWF, WCS, the EC PSVAP, Smithsonian Institute, local authorities (governors) and local NGOs, was created in 2004. The committee meets every six months, ensures proper co-ordinationbetween all actors and i s the official platform for catalysing a participative discussion on zoning, legal status and management regime's for the complex. As such it will catalyse the completion the finalization o f the overall management plan for the complex. Building and rehabilitation of park infrastructure: GEF will complement park authoritiy resources and WWF resources under CARPE and CAWHFI funding to provide support to the establishment o f operational infrastructures at Tchibanga, Mourindi, Sette Cama, Iguela, Ombout, Panga, Digoudou, Moujonfi and Peny. Hiring, training and equipping staff to carry out effective park management and law-enforcement activities: A minimumof 45 ecoguards are required to ensure regular surveillance in the central southern, eastern and north eastern parts o f the Gamba complex. 0 Currently park authorities, with support from WWF (through CAWHFI and CAFVE), have a combined total o f 20 people to cover 12,000 km2.These teams are adequately equipped and trained but are too thinly spread to assure continuous conservation presence in all identified pressure areas. GEF funding would allow the guard force to be brought up to full operational capacity. 0 Fine tune and expand theparks' long-term ecological andpatrol-based monitoring program. An essential tool for successful Park management i s a GIS data centre in which all monitoring data collected in the field i s centralized and analyzed. WWF, in collaboration with the EC funded Cybertracker monitoring program, the Max Planck Institute and the MIKE program, has set up such a centre at Vembo-Gamba and has been undertaking pilot activities since 2003. Methodologies will be fine tuned through the GEF project and will serve as a model for monitoring in Gabon's national parks network. Innovative data collection tools (e.g. the CyberTracker) currently being used in the Gamba complex will be strengthened and developed. Monitoring data collected would include, amongst others, indices o f key animal species abundance and distribution, abundance, and type o f illegal human activities, patrol effort (frequency, distribution), tourism activities, beach clean-up operations, marine turtle information, community fishing, human-elephant conflict, etc. 45 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description Social-economic monitoring. Following extensive social economical studiesby WWF in 1998 and 1999, WWF developed in 2004 a social-economical monitoring framework that aims to monitor, over time, social economical development o f the rural communities in the Gamba Complex. The GEF project will allow the geographical scope of these studies, to include all villages inthe north and eastern periphery o f the Gamba Complex. 0 The development of ecotourism potential, in co-operationprivate operators. These activities will be dependent on the elaboration o f a legal framework for tourism activities in national parks which will be developed within the framework o f Component 1 (support to ANPN). On the basis o f this legal framework the tourist activities currently undertaken by several private operators in the Gamba complex will be regulated and monitored. Inparticular mechanisms will de developed to ensure that (i) part o f the revenue generated i s captured by the national park and used to fund park management activities and (ii) benefits for local populations (through employment, services and sharing o f revenues) are ensured. The important local market o f expatriate residents will be targeted in the ecotourism strategy. These potential clients generally have the necessary financial resources and, more importantly, are accustomed to local conditions (eg. services) which, for the moment, are inferior to the more well know African tourist destinations. e Developing participatory management with local populations and engaging with the private sector (Shell, logging companies). Activities will include: - Participatorymanagement is already being developed within the framework ofWWF's current activities in the Gamba complex and this will be further developed. Local communities are represented on the park's technical management committee and specific activities to enhance capacities o f local associations have also been initiated and will be intensified. For example the project will reinforce the capacities o f the "Asociation des P2cheur.s du Dkpartement de Ndougou " (APDN) with a view to developing sustainable fishing activities by local fishermen. This involves defining agreed fishing zones and methods and will include the implementation o f a system for monitoring fish catches. Out-sourcing o f tourist guiding to local NGOs i s another initiative that i s currently being developed and which will be supported by the GEF intervention.The project's socio-economic monitoring program will also provide a forum for maintaining a permanent dialogue with local communities. - Shell-Gabon: WWF has successfully engaged with Shell Gabon to address key conservation- development issues through two programs: the Shell Bushmeat Action Plan and the Shell Sustainable Livelihoods Program. The Bushmeat Program addresses the problems o f the bushmeat trade induced by the presence o f the town o f Gamba (a town which has grown up entirely due to the presence o f Shell Gabon) and involves collaborative actions leading to reducing the trade and consumption o f bushmeat in the town. The Sustainable Livelihoods program aims to identify and implement a diversity o f income generating initiatives that enhance the sustainable livelihoods o f people living in and around Gamba town while assuring the long term management and protection o f biodiversity in the Gamba complex. Broadly the objectives are to build scenarios that consider alternative "after-oil" futures, provide training skills and support to local people inorder for them to maximise opportunities for non-oil related employment, and promote local economic diversification through business development and micro-finance support targeting the start-up or growth of non-oil related small enterprises. Shell Gabon will also be engaged to participate in the establishment o f the Gamba Complex Conservation Centre and the finalisation o f its business plan. On a broader level, the dialogue with Shell should also aim to look at ways that this company, as part o f its "exit strategy" from Gamba, might be persuaded to at least match the GEF contribution for conserving biodiversity o f this area. These discussions would be initiated at ANPN head quarters level, with technical input form the site. - Loagingcompanies: The parks authorities will collaborate closely with the wildlife authorities (Component 4) to ensure enforcement o f wildlife management regulations in the logging concessions surrounding the park. 46 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description - Industrial fishing: Illegal trawling at the lagoon outlets of Iguela, Sette Cama and Nyanga are considered by local fishermen and sport fishermen, as the principal cause for their decline in catch over the last years. Currently, a trawling surveillance strategy i s under development, using land-based teams with occasional boat support to spot, record and report on illegal presence o f boats to the Fisheries Department. However, many stakeholders agree that the installation o f artificial barriers at those sites would be a far more sustainable solution to the problem. This idea has been informally discussed with oil companies as Shell Gabon and TotalFinaElf, and a technical note for a feasibility study has been presented to the DG o f Fisheries by the AFD. The feasibility study would assess the physical feasibility o f installation o f obstructions at those sites, but also lobby for acceptation o f the idea by Government and identify concrete participationby the oil industry. Mayumba 0 Elaboration and adoption of a managementplan. As Mayumba i s a new national park no draft management plan exists. Research and monitoring data, together with the results o f local consultations to be carried out within the framework o f the project, will therefore feed in to this management process. 0 Construction of park management infrastructures: This will include establishment o f headquarters in Mayumba town, housing for senior staff, a workshop / boathouse and fuel depot, marine conservatiodresearch lab. 0 Hiring, training and equipping stafl A core staff o f no more than 15 people (including 6 ecoguards) i s required to ensure effective park management and law-enforcement. As this i s a marine national park the accent will be on marine activities and equipment (ocean-going surveillance vessels, etc.). 0 Specijk conservation-related research and long-term ecological monitoring program. Specific studies and monitoring o f fish stocks and off-take, marine mammals and turtles in and around the park are necessary in order to identify ways in which threats can be reduced and conservation improved (eg Turtle Exclusion Devices on trawler nets, ecotourism based on turtle and/or whale watching). Monitoring o f oil pollution will also be an important activity and will contribute to leveraging better operational practices and controls from the private sector. Close collaboration with the Monitoring Unit o f Loango and Moukalaba-Doudou Np will be maintained in order to ensure, where appropriate, cross fertilisation o f ideas and experiences. 0 Engaging the private sector (oil companies, commercialfishing companies): Fishing companies will be engaged inorder to ensure respect o fpark boundaries and fishingregulations, and enhance the sustainability o f their fishing practices (turtle exclusion devices, joint monitoring activities...). A dialogue with oil companies operating off shore will also be installed in order to reduce the risks o f oil pollution. Their implication in solutions for sustainable hnding for the park will also be explored. 0 Assessment of tourism potential: This will involve evaluating the feasibility o f potential revenue generating tourist activities, particularly whale and other marine mammal watching, and planning of tourist development consistent with the conservation objectives o f the Park. 0 Develop participatory management with local populations: This activity will likely involve working with local fishermen to promote sustainable fishing practices. Lessons in the Gamba complex (e.g. with the ADPN fishermans' association) will be capitalised inMayumba. COMPONENT 4: MANAGEMENT OFWILDLIFE OUTSIDE PROTECTEDAREA. Government's contribution: US0.25 million Other donors' contributions: $3.1 million (of which WESCO: $0.6m; US:$l.4m; EC:$l.lm). GEF contribution: US1.83 million 47 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description Context and problems to be addressed. The establishment o f a well-designed national park network i s a key first step in a long-term land management process which should integrate conservation and sustained exploitation as two complementary activities. However in order to avoid the parks becoming isolated islands o f biodiversity good forest management in surrounding buffer zone (including logging concessions) i s essential for their long term integrity. Parks also provide services to surrounding concessions, in particular acting as sources o f replenishment (reservoirs) off regularly hunted animal species. Uncontrolled and unsustainable huntingpractices are widespread in logging concessions because of: (i) access for commercial hunters deep into the forest blocks using logging roads and company easy vehicles, (ii) poor government capacities for enforcement o f wildlife laws, and (iii)the absence o f company regulations to control huntingactivities inthe concession. Currently bushmeat exploitation in Gabon i s characterized by unregulated access and virtually no consideration o f traditional user rights ("tragedy o f the commons"). Villagers practicing subsistence off- take for local consumption find themselves in conflict with commercial hunters, often from outside o f the zone, practicing intensive huntingwhich results in a noticeable impoverishment o f the wildlife resources. Local ownership of wildlife resources needs to be reinforced if villagers are to buy-into more sustainable wildlife exploitation practices. Expected outcomes. The expected outcome o f this component will be improved wildlife management in production landscapes and community forests bordering five national parks (Loango, Mukalaba-Doudou, Mayumba, Lope and Bateke). Specifically this would involve: 0 The establishment o f mobile brigades operating out o f Tchibanga (covering Loango, Mukalaba- Doudou and Mayumba), Iboundji (covering southern part o f Lope) and Lekoni (covering Bateke) to control illegal hunting activities along strategic communications axes (rivers, main roads, logging roads). 0 The commitment o f logging companies to the establishment and enforcement o f company rules and regulations prohibiting the hunting o f protected species and regulating all other hunting activities inthe concession. 0 The establishment o f collaborative wildlife management agreements with local communities aimed at achieving a more sustainable level o fbushmeat off-take. 0 The efficient day to day management o f the project, the development and implementation o f the monitoring and evaluation tracking tool, and the implementation o f the project's social and environmental management plan, all for activities under the responsibility o f the Ministry o f Forest. Resultsand activities: 0 Training and equipping o f mobile brigades operating out o f the Provincial Inspection structures in Tchibanga, Iboundji and Lekoni. These mobile units (eight to 12 people) will be based on the successful model developed around MinkkbC by DGEF and WWF and will be comprised o f DFC and/or Provincial Inspection agents as well as ecoguards working in the neighbouring national parks. The park wardens o f the national parks will be closely involved in planning and supervising the activities o f the mobile brigades through the parks' Technical Management Committees (TMC) which will bring together provincial inspection officers, national park wardens and representatives o f partner NGOs operating in the landscape. The mobile unit operating out o f Iboundi will work in close collaboration with the Ecofac IV program for Lope (due to start at the end o f 2005) and which i s planning to focus particularly on management o f conservation issues in the buffer zones o f Lope. Synergies will< also be developed with the EC/WWF Sustainable Forest Management 4 project which i s working with logging companies (eg SBL) who have expressed a desire to reinforce their wildlife management capacities in their concessions. A close and permanent collaboration between AWN and MINEFEPN for the 48 Annex 4 -Detailed Project Description implementation o f these activities i s absolutely essential for the success o f this component. This collaboration will be ensured at the national level through the PSFE Steering Committee, and on the ground through the national park TMC. 0 Logging companies will be engaged with a view to encouraging them to establish better controls on wildlife exploitation in concessions. This will entail advising with the elaboration o f company rules and regulations concerning hunting in the concessions and establishing strategies and operational procedures to ensure effective implementation. This i s a legal requirement under the Forest Law but logging companies do not have the know-how in this field and are increasingly soliciting advice from specialists. The GEF resources will be used to play the role o f a facilitator in this process and will not finance activities that the logging companies are legally bound to undertake themselves. 0 Extensive consultation with local Communities and local politico-administrative authorities will be undertaken to raise awareness o f the long-term benefits from sustainable huntingpractices and to establish collaborative mechanisms for wildlife management. Collaborative agreements will establish basic sets o f rules that the communities agree to abide by, and will focus on the need for communities to exercise their own controls over bushmeat exploitation in order to enhance local "ownership" of the resource (e.g. controlling access by commercial hunters coming from outside o f the zone). Wide stakeholder implication in these agreements (traditional community leaders, elected representatives, local administration will all be signatories) i s important in order to ensure transparency and avoid conflicts with law enforcement agencies. Support to the efficient day to day management of the project, to the development and implementation o f the monitoring and evaluation tracking tool, and to the implementation o f the project's social and environmental management plan, all for activities under the responsibility o f the Ministryo f Forest. 49 .e 2 = e , > I d * I - cu... .e v) -0 12 % u &...... ."FI 0 r3 z 3 d 0 0 3 -3 6 (I .-M E s M M I m v) Annex 5 -Project Cost ANNEX5 -PROJECT COSTS These four components are only a subset o f the entire Parks-Biodiversity Component o f the PSFE. This subset i s limited to activities and parks that are directly supported by the GEF intervention. For a comprehensive description o f the whole Parks-Biodiversity Component o f the PSFE, refer to Annexes 2 and 15. The total cost o f this Component o f the PSFE i s estimated US$40.7 million. 54 Annex 5 -Project Cost Summary o f currently secured external funding for the whole national Darks network: Adequatelyfunded. Loango, Mukalaba, Mayumba, Lope, Minkkbe, BatCke, Ivindo: approx. $12.8 million confirmed for the period 2005-06, with good expectations of further funding. Current funding sources are CAFVE, EC, UNESCO (CAWHFI-UNFIFFEM), WWF (core funds), WCS (core funds). I I TOTAL 1 GEF [ Government 1 1 1 I WCS WWF Intl donors (US, I UNESC0,EC) Component 1 (ANPNI Totalrequired for establishment ofANPN 2.8 m% - Investments I I I TraveVFieldallowances 20528 20528 I 0 1 GenerallMeetings and Workshops I I 139623 I 139623I 0 1 Annex 5 -Project Cost Partiallyfunded. Biougou, Waka, Mwange, Cristal: $2.3 million confirmed for 2005-06. Current funding sources: CARPE, EC, UNF,WWF, WCS. Unfunded. Pongara, Akanda. 56 Annex 6 -Implementation Arrangements ANNEX6-IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS Partnership arrangements (Institutionalcoordination). The GEF intervention is designed to build on and strengthen existing partnerships in Gabon. A number o f NGOs, (WCS, WWF) and bilateral funding agencies (e.g. European Commission - ECOFAC, PSVAP) are investing considerable resources in supporting the government's agenda for biodiversity conservation, protected area management and capacity building within the framework o f the overall PSFE program. Coordination o f conservation activities have been further strengthened as a result o f the creation o f the CNPN/ANPN. By agreeing to work within the structure o f the CNPNIANPN the conservation projects currently active in Gabon are effectively ensuringthat parallel fundingi s brought to the GEF intervention. Institutional coordination o f the GEF intervention will be achieved within the framework o f the PSFE through a sub-commission o f the PSFE Steering Committee. The commission will meet once a year and will have a supervisory and decisional role. Consultation and coordination between partners will be achieved at the same time through the organization o f multi-stakeholder workshops. At the start o f the project a Procedures Manuel will be produced by a working group appointed by the PSFE Steering Committee. This manual will define the roles and responsibilities o f the different stakeholders involved in implementation of the program and will define the administrative, financial and technical reporting proceduresthat will govern project implementation (Annex 7). Institutional and implementation arrangements. The GEF intervention as proposed in the Block B grant proposal o f 2001 was originally conceived as part o f the biodiversity component o f the PSFE as proposed in 2001. However inJanuary 2002 the government put on hold the preparation o f the PSFE (and thusthe GEFproject) inorder to draw lessons from previousprojectsinthe sector. Itwas restartedinJune 2003. As a result o f this delay and the decision by the Gabonese government to create the entire national park network, the scope of the GEF program needs to be updated. The new design needs to take into account the institutional changes that occurred while project preparation was on hold. The creation o f the CNPN (and o f the soon-to-be created ANPN) has generated some institutional complexity: national parks will be managed by ANNP located within the President's Office, while other protected areas (reserves, sanctuaries) are managed by the MEFPEPN. In order to take into account this new institutional arrangement, and thus effectively support the management o f biodiversity inside and outside national parks inGabon, the proposed GEF operation will be implemented by two agencies, within the overarching framework o f the PSFE: 0 TheAgence Nationale des P a m Nationaux (ANPN) will take responsibility for components 1and 3 of the GEF interventiondealing with the national parks. 0 The Ministv 0fForest.s (MEFPEPN) will take responsibility o f components 2 and 4 o f the GEF intervention dealing with the creation o f new protected areas and with wildlife management in productionlandscapes'*. The choice o f these two implementing agencies i s essential if the biodiversity conservation objectives o f the project are to be addressed ina fully integrated manner (see section B.6). Components 1& 3 (main beneficiary/implementingagency: ANPN). Components 1and 2 o f the GEF intervention will be implemented under the responsibility o f the ANPN. However, by the time the GEF '* Withinthe Ministry of forest, Environmentand Fisheries, the responsibility of managing wildlife restswith the Direction de la Faune et de la Chasse (DFC) which belongs to the Direction Ge`nkrale des Eaw; et For& (DGEF). The DFC i s also referredas "Wildlife authority". It also has responsibility for managing protected areas other than the national parks such as the Hunting Reserves. 57 Annex 6 -Implementation Arrangements project becomes effective, the newly created ANPN will still have limited administrative capacities to fulfillits large and complexmandate. Under component 1 (setting up the ANPN), the GEF intervention will provide technical assistance to strengthen administrative and financial capacities o f the ANPN at the national level. The ANPN, with assistance in financial and administrative management, will act as PIU. With regard to component 3 (direct support to selected parks), implementation o f project activities in the field will be shared between the ANPN and NGO partners, with clearly demonstrated experience in the field inGabon, within the framework o f service provider contracts. This option i sjustified by the fact that the expertise that the NGOs bring has yet to be acquired by the ANPN and that their in-depth knowledge o f the sites in question will ensure effective and timely achievement o f GEF project activities. The park warden and the NGO technical assistance will work in partnership within the framework o f the park's technical management committee to elaborate annual work plans and budgets, and monitor their implementation. This principle o f co-management will contribute directly to capacity building for national AWN staff. The NGOs will work inthe framework o f detailed terms o f references defined by the ANPN and will report to the ANPN as primary beneficiary o f the grant. In addition, wherever possible, local NGO's should be implicated inproject activities inorder to strengthen their capacities. Components 2 & 4 (main beneficiary/implementingagency: MEFPEPN).Components 2 and 4 of the GEF interventionwill be implementedunder the responsibility ofthe MEFPEPN. The component 2 (assessment o f the new protected areas) will be undertaken by the MEFPEPNwithin the framework o f a service provider contract with an NGO that has pioneered similar work in the past in Gabon and has the demonstrated technical expertise in the Gabonese context to undertake this kind o f evaluation and consultation process. As with component 3 above, the principle o f co-management will apply, the NGO technical assistance working in partnership with a national counterpart designated by the Ministry.The NGO will work inthe framework of detailed terms o f references defined by the Ministry and will report to it as primary beneficiary o f the grant. The partner NGO for the assessment o f the new protected areas i s WCS. Wherever possible, local NGO's should be implicated in project activities in order to strengthen their capacities. The component 4 (wildlife management in production landscapes) replicates the successful Minkebe approach inthe southern part o f the country. It will be implemented under the responsibility of the DFC o f the MEFPEPN in close collaboration with an NGO that has successfully pioneered the mobile brigade approach in Gabon. The NGO will provide technical assistance to the DFC and to the provincial brigades through a service provider contract. A s with Component 3 above, the principle o f co-management will apply, the NGO technical assistance working in partnership with DFC and the provincial brigades. The NGO will work inthe framework of detailed terms o freferences defined by the MEFPEPNand will report to the Ministry as primary beneficiary o f the grant. The partner NGO for wildlife management in production landscapes i s WWF. Wherever possible, local NGO's should be implicated inproject activities inorder to strengthentheir capacities. A single project implementation manual will be prepared jointly by ANPNMEFPEPN before the beginning o f the project. It i s likely that both implementing agencies/PIUs will share the same technical assistance for financial management, procurement and accounting. There will be three special accounts: (a) for components 1 and 3 under the ANPN; (b) for components 2 and 4 under the MEFPEPN; and (c) for the counter-parts funds. With regard to implementation o f activities in the field a collaboration agreement will be designed bythe two agencies, especially for buffer zones o f the national parks, and attachedto the grant agreement. 58 Annex 6 -ImplementationArrangements Annual budgets and work plans will prepared jointly by the two implementing agencies and their NGO partners, will be approved by the PSFE Steering Committee, and disbursed by the implementingagencies (AWNand MEFPEPN) according to standard World Bank procedures. This includes annual payments to the partner NGOs for carrying out the activities described intheir terms ofreferences inthe framework of service provider contracts. The contractual relationship between the ANF'NMEFPEPN and NGO partners will involve: a 5 year service provider contract with clear terms o f reference, joint annual planning o f activities, single responsibility for financial management, and regular reporting to the ANF'NMEFPEPN in the framework of multi-stakeholders local advisory groups. All activities will be planned, carried out and monitored jointly by the DFC/ANPN and their NGO partner following the principle o f co-management. Financial responsibility however will rest with the NGO partner for activities stated in their TOR, and it will rest with MEFPEPN/ANPN for other activities where NGO are not directly involved such as purchase o f equipment and infrastructure. 59 Annex 7 -Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ANNEX7-FINANCIALMANAGEMENT AND DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS Project Implementation Unit and Financial Management Capacities. This project will be implemented by two implementingunits: (a) the "Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux" (ANPN) for components 1 and 3; and (b) a PIU under the MEFPEPCN for components 2 and 4. Based on project implementation arrangements, each entity will have the overall responsibility for the preparation consolidation o f its financial statements. A qualified Financial Management and Procurement specialist will be appointed at the MEFPEPCN level to undertake issues o f component two and four. Similarly, the ANPNwill be assisted and strengthened through the recruitmento f an adequate financial management and procurement expertise to assist in all financial management, procurement and monitoring aspects o f the components under ANPN. The coordination and reporting mechanisms between ANPN and MEFPEPN and the other entities involved in the program will be looked at to ensure the arrangements in place will allow for smooth implementation o f the program's activities as well as to ensure that grant proceeds are used only for the purposes for which the funds are granted, with due regard to economy, efficiency, and the sustainable achievement o f the program's development objectives.The financial capacity o f the MEFPEPCN's PIU and ANPN should therefore be acceptable to the Bank before project effectiveness so that at the outset o f the implementation o f activities, it has an appropriate accounting, internal control and relevant financial reporting system inplace. The accounting software. The accounting system i s based on a well functioning computerized system. To that end the financial management and accounting unitswill have to be equipped with a computerized and integrated financial management appropriate to the scale o f the program and capable o f recording and reporting in a timely manner the program's activities by components, activities, expenditures categories and sources o f funds. This computerized financial management system will be multi-currency and should include the following modules: general accounting, cost accounting, monitoring and evaluation, asset management, preparation o f withdrawal applications, report generating including FMR (Financial Monitoring Report). The selected firm will have to provide the software. A fully functioning financial system is considered as condition o f credit effectiveness. Manual of procedure. A common Project Administrative, Financial and Accounting Manual should be put inplace both at the ANPN and the MEFPEPCNPIUunit.This manual should describe: (i) overall the organization o f the program including an organizational diagram andjob description o f the key persons o f the two units; (ii)the accounting system which will be on accrual basis; (iii) main transaction cycles; the format, content and timing o f the project financial reporting including FMRs; (iv) the various operational procedures including budget management, management o f asset, procurement o f goods and services and disbursement; and (v) internal control and management o f external audit. Staffing The Financial Management and Procurement Specialists as well as the other Project key persons should be adequately qualified and familiar with Bank procedures. Fiduciary staff at the MEFPEPCNwill work closely with their counterpart in the Bank during the whole life o f the project. The Financial Management and Procurement staff will attend workshop and training sessions on the new financial management and computerized systembefore project effectiveness. Reporting. The ANPN and MEFPEPCNwill prepare at least two sets of financial reports: The quarterly Financial monitoring Reports (FMRs, as required by the Bank) and the annual project's financial statements. The quarterly FMRs agreed upon appraisal will be prepared and submitted to the Bank 45 days after closing o f the quarter following the date o f effectiveness. The FMRs will be based on formats developed in the Bank's Guidelines on Financial Monitoring Reports, agreed to with the Administrator and the accountants with some adjustments. FMRs will include financial, physical progress and 60 Annex 7 -Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements procurement information that i s useful to the Borrower while also providing the Bank with sufficient information to establish whether: (i)funds disbursed to the project are being used for the purpose intended; (ii) project implementation i s on track; and (iii) budgeted cost will not be exceeded. The annual financial statements will comprise and will not be limited to: (i) the Statement o f Source and Application o f Funds for the program duringthe current financial year, and cumulatively since the start o f the program during the current financial year, (ii)the statement o f expenditures (SOEs); (iii) Special Account the Statement/ Reconciliation; and (iv) the Project Account Statement/ Reconciliation and any other financial report the Accountant deems necessary and relevant. A copy o fthe new FinancialMonitoring Guideline will beprovidedto the implementingunitsbythe Bank Financial Management Specialist. ProjectFinancialManagement Capacity StrengtheningAction Plan To ensure that the above mentioned financial management system requirements will be met in due time to declare the project effectiveness, an action plan i s proposed hereafter with task to be performed as well as target completion date. Action Tasks Target Conditionality completion date 1. Accounting proceduresmanual Establish the Project 08/15/2005 Negotiations Administrative, Financial Accountant and executing Manual. 2. Reporting Agree o n format for FMR and 08/15/2005 Negotiation ability to prepare FMR demonstrated 3. External auditor Appropriate terms o f reference 08/15/2005 Negotiations (TOR) for the external auditor to be developed and agreed. Prepare a shortlist o f firms o f qualified auditors to be invited to submit proposals for conducting the external audit 4. Financialand administrative Formalize the legal status o f 12/31/2005 Effectiveness autonomy o f ANPN A N P N 5. Appointment o f fiduciary staff Appoint staff incharge o f financial 11/30/2005 Effectiveness and assistance management, accounting and procurement and recruit external assistance 6. Special Accounts Open two special accounts at a 11/30/2005 Effectiveness acceptable local Bank 7. Installation o f the integrated Design, installation, configuration, 11/30/2005 Effectiveness financial and accounting system testing, and training o f staff. Audit Arrangements. The AWN and MEFPEPCN will be responsible of preparation and implementation o f annual financial and technical audits o f the Project. The project's consolidated financial statements will be audited annually by an independent auditor acceptable to the Bank in accordance with auditing standards also acceptable to the Bank. Audit reports o f reasonable scope and detail will be submitted to the Bank within six months o f the end of the audited period. The auditor will provide a unique opinion on: (i) the project financial statement o f expenditures (SOE); (iii) Special Account the (SA); and (iv) the project account. 61 Annex 7 -Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements The auditor will also issue a separate management report on internal and operational procedures, outlining any recommendations for improvements to internal accounting controls and operational procedures identified as a result o f the financial statement audit at the level o f the two units. Detailed terms o f reference for the selection o f the project's auditor should be prepared, discussed and agreed during negotiation. The Audit Scope will be tailored the project's specific risks in accordance with Bank's requirements and agreed with the Borrower. The selection o f an auditor acceptable to the Bank i s a condition o f effectiveness. Technical audit. Activities under execution will be subject to technical audits. These may be ordered and managed, either systematically or randomly, by the ANPN and the MEFPEPCN. Disbursement Arrangement. The computerized system described above will allow inputs at different levels to capture all disbursement to be effected under the project. Statement of Expenditures (SOE), Disbursement for all expenditures should be against full documentation for expenditure item under contracts valued at less than: (a) US$150,000 for goods; (b) US$lOO,OOO for consulting contracted awarded to firms; (c) US$50,000 for consulting awarded to individuals. All the supporting documents for SOE will be retained at the implementing unit by the firm and will be readily accessible for review by periodic Bank supervision missions and external auditors. Suecials Accounts. To facilitate project implementation and reduce the number of withdrawals applications, the Government will open two special accounts. Disbursements from these accounts would initially be made on the basis o f incurred eligible expenditures (transaction based disbursements). The Bank would then make advance disbursements from the proceeds o f the loan by depositing into a Borrower-operated SA to expedite project implementation. The advance to the SA would be used by the Borrower to finance the share o fproject expenditures under the proposed credit. Another acceptable method o f withdrawing funds from the Loan i s the direct payment method, involving direct payments from the Loan to a thirdparty for works, goods and services upon the Borrower's request. Payments may also be made to a commercial bank for expenditures against the Bank's special commitments covering a commercial bank's Letter o f Credit. The Bank's Disbursement Letter stipulates a minimum application value for direct payment and special commitment procedures. A copy o f the disbursement letter will be provided to the implementingunitsbefore negotiation. The Bank will have the right, as reflected in the Loan Agreement, to suspend disbursement o f the funds if reportingrequirements are not complied with. Flow of funds. Resources needed for the financing o f program activities will flow from: (i)the Loan Account for direct payments to be made by the Bank to suppliers, and (ii)the Special accounts (maintained in a commercial bank acceptable to the Bank) for the other activities. The authorized Representatives o f the respective project's implementation units will sign all the checks for payment to be made under the Special Account under the supervision o f the project Financial Management Specialist at the MEFPEPCN and the ANPN. The project accountant will prepare the required supporting documents and the withdrawal applications for the replenishment o f Special Accounts to be submitted to the Bank at least once a month. 62 ANNEX8­ PROCUREMENT Background. The legislative and institutional environment for public procurement is undergoing a drastic change which will substantially modify and greatly improve the transparency and efficiency of procurement in Gabon. A new procurement code, consistent with international practices and acceptable to the Bank, was released in December 2002, and two new monitoring and tendering boards have been established. A preliminary assessment of the country institutional and legislative framework was carried out in November-December 2004, while a Country Procurement Assessment Review (CAPR) is envisaged for mid-2006. Several programs of capacity building in procurement, under ADB financing, are ongoing and are expected to considerably improve handling of procurement at central and provincial level. Present procurement capacity however is still very low and old practices (based mostly on awards on single source) are still in use at most ministries. The GEF project has taken into account these institutional weaknesses for the design and implementation of the Grant. Assessment of institutional set-up for procurement. The institutional setup for the implementation of the Grant has taken into account both the new distribution of responsibilities between MEFPEPN (forestry and wildlife management) and the newly created ANPN (national parks), and the very low implementation capacity of both agencies. The GEF operation therefore will be implemented in parallel by the two agencies which will oversee two components each, closely assisted by experienced, specialized NGOs and under the overall supervision of the PSFE steering committee. In particular, ANPN (and its NGO partners) will implement components 1 and 3 related to national parks, and MEFPEPN (and its NGO partners) will oversee components 2 and 4 related to wildlife management. Apart of the partnership with the NGOs, both ANPN and MEFPEPN will count on at least one experienced procurement staff from previous forestry projects. In addition, key staff of both organizations will attend advanced procurement courses either at the ILO (Turin) or CESAG (Dakar) training facilities. The design should assure therefore a relatively smooth handling of procurement under the Grant. The overall project risk would be high if no NGO would be involved, but may considered as average once the recruitment of NGO is fully accomplished. Procurement Plan and Directives. Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Banks "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Loan/ Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for prequalification, estimated costs, prior to review requirements, and time frame are agreed upon between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. In addition, the procurement plan will be available in the project,,s database and the banks external website. Table X shows the summary of main contracts to be awarded. Procurement of Works. Works procured under this project would include: small construction works and upgrading of operational infrastructure for an overall estimated value of about US$700,000. Distributed as follows: Component 3 (ANPN) Construction/upgrading of the Libreville HQ, Mukalaba / Loango and Mayumba parks infrastructure (total cost US$540,000). Component 4 (MEFPEPN) construction/upgrading of infrastructure for mobile brigades (total cost US$100,000). 63 Most of the individual contracts for works are estimated to cost less than US$200,000 and cannot be packages together given the large distance between them. Only two structures therefore located at Mukalaba and Loango would require the use of international competitive bidding ICB and will be advertised under a General Procurement Notice (GPN) in both Development Business online and dgMarket. Banks Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) will be used for all ICB. National Competitive Bidding (NCB).will be used for all contracts estimated to cost less than US$200,000. It will follow the new national procedures which are acceptable to the bank and will use standard bid documents based on Bank SBD, with suitable modifications. Small works and rehabilitation works of less than US$50,000 may be awarded through request of quotations from not less than three (3) national bidders. Procurement of Goods. Goods procured under this project would include vehicles to be used for research, monitoring and surveillance; field and office equipment, computers and radios for the mobile brigades; and small patrol boat for an overall amount of about US$1,900,000. Distributed as follows: Components 1 and 3 (ANPN) for a total value of about US$1,300,000. Components 2 and 4 (MEFPEPN) for a total value of about US$600,000. ICB will be used for all packages above the monetary threshold of US$150,000 and for all items not readily available in Gabon. Large contracts for ICB will be advertised under a GPN on Development Business online and dgMarket. Bank SBDs will be used for all ICB and (with suitable modifications) for contracts to be awarded under national competitive bidding (NCB) procedures. In addition to NCB, which will be used for contracts below the monetary threshold of US$150,000, IAPSO will be used for the purchase of vehicles and office equipment for which standardisation is required. Small value contracts of less than US$50,000 will be awarded on the basis of international / national shopping procedures by requesting offers from not less than three (30 qualified suppliers. National procedures, which have been reviewed and found consistent with bank procurement guidelines, will be used for both NCB and shopping procurement methods. Procurement of non-consulting services. Procurement of non-consulting services would include the recruitment of guards for the national parks and the selection of mobile brigades und the components 3 and 4 of the GEF grant. Selection of guards will be carried out through advertisement and an assessment of qualifications, giving special consideration to locally experienced staff. Previous experience in the sector and professional / technical qualifications will also be taken into account, similar to procedures followed under section V (Individual consultants) of Bank consultants guidelines. Procurement of consulting services. Procurement of consultants and training services will constitute the dominant procurement activity under the project. The basic contracts under the GEF grants will be the service contracts with specialised and very experienced NGOs, such as WWF and WCS, which will assist both ANPN and MEFPEPN in their implementation function, will conduct research and monitoring activities; carry out training of newly recruited staff and execute surveys and consultation work with stakeholders. The contracts will include the purchase of field equipment and a prominent transfer of skills component. Other consulting services included in the projects are those for capacity building and studies. Selection of consultants will follow procedures under the Consultants guidelines (May 2004 edition). Major assignments will be advertised under a GPN published on Development Business on line and dgMarket. on or before project negotiations. Selection methods will include Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) for most consulting services above the estimated contract amount of US$100,000 and selection based on Consultant Qualifications (CQS) for most contracts below that threshold and 64 for assignments by institutions for capacity building and studies. Procedures described under section 3.16 of the Guidelines (Selection of NGOs) will be used for the recruitment of two or more experienced and specialised NGOs such as WWF and WCS which will assist the two implementing agencies in the coordination and implementation of the GEF operation. In accordance to paragraph 3.16, the NGO may be recruited on a sole source basis provided they would fully satisfy the relevant criteria outlined under paragraph 3.10, and in particular the prerequisite of possessing special expertise for the assignment. Sole source may also be used for specialized courses such as those for procurement training (either ILO at Turin or CESAG / ISADE at Dakar). Short lists including both international and national consultants will be used for most assignments above US$100,000 equivalent for contract. Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$100,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the consultant guidelines. Operating costs. GEF grant will finance operational costs, including travelling costs and field allowances for newly recruited guards ad brigades and seminar / workshops expenses. Frequency of procurement supervision. In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank officers, the capacity assessment of the implementing agency has recommended supervision missions to visit the field to carry out Post review of procurement actions at a six-(6) month interval. Table X - Summary of contracts to be procured: 65 Implementing Agency Construction / Upgrading Infrastructure for ANPN (Component 1&3) Contruction/upgrading 540,000 ANPN (HQ, bases in Mukalaba, Loango, Mayumba) ANPN Construction / Upgrading Infrastructure (Component 4) Contruction/upgrading bases of operations 100,000 MEFPEPN Acquisition of Equipment for ANPN (Component 1 & 3) 1,300,000 ANPN Acquisition for MEFPEPN (Component 2 & 4) 600,000 MEFPEPN Consultant Services - Contract with international NGOs Component 2 900,000 MEFPEPN Component 3 - Loango 1,366,865 ANPN Component 3 - Moukalaba 900,000 ANPN Component 3 - Mayumba 988,130 ANPN Composante 4 1,020,755 MEFPEPN Training 450,000 ANPN Operational Costs Components 1 & 3 1,350,000 ANPN Components 2 & 4 484,250 MEFPEPN TOTAL 10,000,000 66 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis ANNEX9 -ECONOMICAND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The main objective of the project is support effective conservation o f biological diversity and landscape management in Gabon through (i) the protection and non-extractive management o f the 15 national parks and; (b) the conservation o f biodiversity in other protected areas as well as in production (logging concessions) and rural (community forests) landscapes adjacent to the parks. Very few data exist with which to evaluate the extent o f the benefits likely to be generated by the project. This reflects the weakness of data collection in Gabon but also the difficulty o f measuring and valuing many o f the effects involved and the very short history o f efforts to do so anywhere inthe world. Because o f these limitations, the analysis presented here i s limited to providing an analytical framework for the evaluation o f both financial and economic benefits. The financial analysis will calculate tentative sustainability thresholds in terms o f ecotourists visits to project PA. The economic analysis will qualify the main benefits according to originating activities in order to provide indications on which project- related activities are likely to contribute more to the economic viability. Financial analysis Fiscal sustainability The financial analysis concentrates on the fiscal sustainability o f the three National Parks where project intervention will take place, Mayumba, Loango and Mukalaba (the last two forming the "Gamba complex". The analysis estimated fiscal sustainability thresholds in terms o f visitors' number. A with project scenario was elaborated assuming that a number o f market-based instruments become part o f the legal framework for biodiversity conservation in Gabon 13. The table below presents the main assumption of the analysis. Parameter Assumption withproject Tourist number Between 100 and 10,000 per year Duration o f stay between 2 and 10 days per visit with an average o f 6 nights per visit Average daily expenditure Assuming declining prices (from 400 to 200 US$/person /day) as visitors number expands Revenue generating instruments Entrance fee Entrance fees ranging from 2 to 10 US$/person/day with an average Private concessions for running a park o f 6 US$/person/day facility (lodge, safaris and ocean tours) Assuming concessions be auctioned and price would represent 30% o f net anticipatedbenefit from runningthe facility Hotel tax 5% hotel tax (per visit) Royalties 5% on sale value o f souvenirs and handicraft Income and value added tax Assumed at 15% o f on-site ecotourism-related expenditures For the purposes o f the analysis, fiscal sustainability has been defined as the capacity to raise fiscal revenues from a given protected area at least equivalent to its recurrent costs. Fiscal revenues would include park entrance fees, private concessions for operating facilities within the park boundaries, hotel tax in areas inside and surrounding the park, royalties on souvenirs and handicrafts as well as value added and income tax on ecotourism-related expenditures (such as traveling to and from PA site, hotel, meals, l3At present, no provisionsexistwithin Gaboneselaw to raise entrance fees or other taxes onprotectedareasvisits. 67 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis guided tours and other ecotourism sports and leisure). Recurrent costs have been defined based on proposed GEF interventions as well as additional contributions from donors and NGO's likely to maintain their support inthe coming years. Results are shown inthe table below. Table 2: Recurrent costs and fiscal revenues generated by Gamba and Mayumba NP Number of tourists per year (with entrance fee of 6 USSlpersonldayand averaqe stay of 6 niqhts) I 0 0 200 500 1.000 2.000 3.000 5.000 10.000 Gamba complex % of recurrentcost covered 1Yo 2% 3% 14% 23% 46% Additionalfiscal revenue (US$ million/year) 0 08 012 0 2 0 0,89 146 2 90 Additional public expenditure Starting year 6 (US$ millioniyear)a/ 6.27 627 6 2 7 6 27 6 27 6,27 Mayumba NP %ofrecurrent cost covered 8% 11% 21% 95% 157% 312% Additional fiscal revenue (US$ millioniyear) 0.10 014 121 2.00 3 98 Additional public expenditure Starting year 6 (US$ million/year)ai 1.27 127 012277 1.27 127 1,27 ai Assumed equiwlent to recurrent costs Based on a realistic scenario at project completion (2,000 visitors at the Gamba complex and 1,000 visitors at Mayumba NP), additional fiscal revenues would only cover respectively 10% and 33% o f the parks recurrent costs. The higher recurrent costs o f Gamba (generated by a more complex natural resources management situation) imply that, in order to reach fiscal sustainability, the park will have to target about 22,000 visitors per year. Mayumba on the other hand, could be fiscally sustainable at about 3,500 visitors per year. B.Economic analysis The project activities include (a) institutional strengthening o f the ANPN; (b) expanding Gabon's protected area coverage and representativity; (c) support to selected national parks14; and (d) wildlife management outside national parks inproduction land~capes'~. Economic costs The main assumptions o f the economic analysis are: (a) the analysis covers 20 years; (b) economic costs and benefits are calculated by applying a standard conversion factor o f 0.9 to all financial prices; (c) recurrent costs are assumed to be borne throughout the 20 years; and (d) the cost o f the creation o f the ANPN i s accounted for according to the cost share (as compared to the total PA system) o f the three selected NP where GEF interventionwill take place. Table 3 below shows both the financial (see annex 5) and the economic costs o f the project. The total economic cost o f the project i s US$11.4 million. The present value o f projectedeconomic costs over 20 years i s US$66.7 million. The total economic cost o f an integrated system o f 15 National Parks (covering 10percent o f Gabon or 27,000km2) and a complimentary system o f smaller biodiversity sanctuaries and reserves (13,000 km2) representing all o f the varied ecosystems in Gabon, would be around US$40 million and its present value (over 20 years) around US$260 million. ''Loangobuffer l4 andMukalaba(Gambacomplex) and Mayumba. In the zones ofLopeNP andBatCkCNP. Inaddition, mobile brigadesoperatingout of Tchibanga, Iboundji and Lekoni to control illegal huntingactivitieswill be established. 68 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis Table3: Financialand economicCosts Costs in US$ Financial costs Economic costs Component 1 (ANPN) Totalrequiredfor establishment ofANPN 2.3 rn $ a/ - Investment b/ 1.385.755 365.108 Recurrent costs b/ 907.171 239.014 Total ANPN 2.292.926 604.122 GoG ANPN 460.000 121.197 GEF ANPN 1.832.926 482.925 Component 2 (da assessment) Totalrequiredfor enlarging protectedarea coverage to 4 m ha 1.3m $ - Investment 389.245 350.321 Recurrent costs 886.094 797.485 Total p/a assessment 1.275.340 1.147.806 GoG p/a assessment 147.170 132.453 GEF p/a assessment 1.128.170 1.015.353 Component 3 lnatlonal Darks) Totalrequiredfor entire nationalparks network 30.5 m $ a/ - Loanqo-Mukalaba Investment 2.190.113 1.971.I 02 Recurrent costs 4.903.019 4.412.717 TotalLoango-Mukalaba 7.093.132 6.383.819 GoG Loango-Mukalaba 1.005.660 905.094 GEF Loango-Mukalaba 5.478.725 Mavumba Investment 936.245 842.621 Recurrent costs 899.396 809.457 TotalMayumba 1.835.642 1.652.077 GoG Mayumba 124.528 112.075 GEFMayumba 1.540.002 Total Loango/Mukalaba/Mayumba 8.928.774 8.035.896 GoG Loango/Mukalaba/Mayumba 1.130.169 1.017.170 Partners Loango/Mukalaba/Mayumba 2.246.000 2.246.000 GEF Loango/Mukalaba/Mayumba 5.550.585 4.770.726 ComDonent 4 (wildife manapement) 1.800.283 Totalrequiredfor wildlifemanagement in Gabon 6.0in S e/ - Investment 525.094 472.585 Recurrent costs 1.275.189 1.147.670 Total Wildlife management 1.800.283 1.620.255 GoG wildlife management 311.321 260.189 GEF wildlife management 1.488.962 1.340.066 Consolidated Total required for the whole PA system a/ 40.100.000 40.100.000 Total project 14.297.322 11.408.078 Investment 5.426.453 4.001.736 Recurrent 8.870.869 7.406.342 funding a/ GEF 10.000.643 9.857.070 GOG 2.048.679 1.551.009 funding gap a/ 25.802.878 NPV total project costs over 20 years 66.692.310 a/ refersto the funding of the full PA system bl Economiccosts accordingto the cost share of the two selected NP (Gamba and Mayumba) as compared to the total PA system. Opportunity costs. Inaddition to the costs of implementing the project, there would also be opportunity costs from foregoing use of protected areas for other productive uses such as agricultural activity; (b) logging; and (c) hunting and fishing especially inthe buffer zones o f the Lopi and BatekC national parks. Animal damages to crops inthese buffer zones and inadjacent agricultural areas should also be accounted for among the opportunity costs. 69 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis On-site benefits Gabon's biodiversity has benefited for the last four decades from the reliance o f the economy on oil and from the relatively low human population density in the countryside. Agriculture i s a marginal economic activity that poses no threat to the environment. The agricultural sector's contributed about 8.7 percent to GDP in 2003 (well below sub-Saharan average) and rural population was 16 percent o f total in 2003 (against an average o f 64 percent for sub-Saharan Africa). Oil exports accounted for 39 percent o f GDP in 2003 l6but the government is anticipatinga significant decrease inthe medium-long run. Beside oil, natural resources exploitation i s mostly concentrated on timber and commercial illegal hunting. Timber extraction represents the second largest export (9 percent o f GDP) after oil. Despite these two threats, the nature-tourism potential o f Gabon i s nearly intact and ranks among the highest in the sub- Saharan Africa given the size (in both absolute and percentage terms) o f its protected areas network (2.8 million ha and 11 percent o f the country's area, the same percentage o f Costa Rica, a leading country in the ecotourism market), the outstanding biodiversity endowment, and the beauty and pristine state o f the natural landscapes. Hence, the anticipated decline in oil revenues and the overall nature-tourism potential are the main factors that pushed the government to choose ecotourism as one important alternative economic driving force. Gabon i s therefore inthe unusual position o fbeing able to act well before it i s too late. However, the current national conservation effort i s one in which a limited number o f Gabon's national parks are receiving external donor support. This support i s limitedboth intime and scale. Within the areas to be protected, two main categories o fnon-extractivebenefits are likely to be generated: preservation o f biodiversity and recreational/tourist benefits. Inaddition extractive uses are taking place in production landscapes adjacent to the parks under the form o f timber and non-timber forest products harvest, huntingand fishing. Ingeneral, although qualitative information i s available on many o f these on- site benefits, data are insufficient to quantify them. Non-extractiveuses A variety o f pristine and globally critical ecosystems are present in the project area (see annex 4). The economic value o f the conservation o f this biodiversity could be approximated by using a contingent valuation analysis through which the willingness to pay for option, existence and bequest values o f biodiversity can be derived. In the present conditions, this sophisticated and time consuming analysis could not be carried out. In light of the above, the proposed protected areas have considerable potential for recreational use by Gabon residents and for attracting foreign tourists, especially inlight o f the growing interest inecotourism worldwide. The estimation o f this potential i s presented inthe table below. l6Source for all three data: Gabonat a Glance, World Bank, Sept. 2004. 70 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis Table 4: Ecota rismpotentialin Gabon Ecological Ecological carrying capacity Investmentsrequired carrying capacity tourists of Gabon's protectedarea system AssumDtions: National parks 2,8 million 1200 tourists in 200 ha of PAiecotourist Upgradeof road, air and sea network ha Gabon " 6 days per visit transportationsystemto 180days ecotourismseason PA's. Significantly increase hotel Tourist carrying capacity: 420,000 facilities in PA's. tourists per year Create tourist-oriented services such as car rentals AssumDtions: and efficient banking. Huntingreserves 0.48 300-400 tourists 500 ha of hunting reservehunter Better hygienic conditions in (Wonga-WonguC) mi11ionha (accordingto PSFE 6 days per visit food and lodging. economic analysis 180days hunting season Reduce cost of international of 2002) airfaresthrough charter Tourist carrying capacity: 28,800 flights. huntersper year For the protected areas selected for GEF intervention, the ecotourism potential is clearly illustrated in terms of tourist attractions, international status and tourist facilities inthe table 5 below. Table 5: Ecotourismpotentialin Gamba and mayumba NP Moukalaba NP Gorillas and elephantson the beach Diverselandscapes Turtles Loango offers tourists breathtaking Little known and rarely visited up to The Mayumbabeaches have the largest panoramas with elephant, buffalo, hippo, now, the site offers a rich variety of concentrations of nesting leatherback turtles gorilla and leopardventuring on the natural scenery - different types of on earth. white beachfront, a unique sight in the forest, the savannas of the Nyanga world. plains, the Doudoumountains, the Whalewatching immense papyrusmarshes close to the Observationof whales, now very popular, Whales mouth of the river Nyanga, and the i s available. The largest concentration and variety of Raphiamarshes of the Rembo Ndogo. whales and dolphins after South Africa. Sport fishing Humpback Whales and even Killer Larger mammals There is ahuge potential for sport fishing, Whales are easily observable. These include special species such as the especially at the mouth of the Banio lagoon. waterbuck, a savanna antelope. Wildernessbeaches Hundredsof elephants congregate in the Endlesswhite beaches The area has over 100 kilometers of papyrusmarshesduring the dry season. The ideal seaside site with completely uninhabited coast. This is one of the empty beaches. most beautiful spot on Africa's western Apes coast where forests, savannas, wetlands, The DoudouMountains could become Location between ocean and lagoon lagoons and ocean come together. an important site for observing gorillas Largemammals can easily be observed on and chimpanzees. The density of gorillas the thin stripofland, which separates the Sport fishing is very high. sea from Banio lagoon. Loango is internationally renowned as a site for tarpon ofrecord size, as well as International status International status many other large sea fish. The National Park is acknowledged by The most important beach on earth for IUCN as a critical site for conservation. leatherback turtles, Mayumba is proposed International status as a World Heritage Site. A transboundary Previously classified as a faunal reserve, Tourist facilities park hasbeen proposed, linking Mayumba the zone is acknowledged by IUCN as a The WWF started up a management with the Conkouati National Park inCongo "Source:MylhevanderDonk,TourismintheGambaComplex,anEvaluation"WWF,April2004. 71 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis Ramsar site and has recently been reached using the Tchibanga-Doussala proposed as a World Heritage Site road. The Doudou Mountains have Tourist facilities previously been logged so there is a Projects funded by the EuropeanUnion and Tourist facilities network o f old forestry roads. The WCS ensure the surveillance o f turtle nests A management programwas started by existing Moukalaba fauna brigade could Hotels exist providing suitable WWF in 1996; The two existing DFC develop into an important base for the accommodation for tourists. Mayumba is brigades are important foundations for protection o f the Park most easily accessible by plane the futureprotection of the zone; and ITourist camps at Iguela and Sette Cama cater for international guests. Source:National geographicwebsite: httD://aabonnationaluarks.comipnD-home/~u-national~arks/l The eco-tourist potential o f the selected sites i s quite evident from the above description by the National Geographic Society. However, this potential will certainly not unfold by itself. It will require significant investments in hotel, lodges and other travel accommodations, cheaper international airfares, better road infrastructure, air and sea transportation to protected areas sites", tourist-oriented services such as car rentals and efficient banking system and better hygienic conditions in food and lodging. One additional problem that could prevent Gabon from becoming one o f Africa's new leading ecotourist destinations i s the country's extremely highcost o f living" mainly fuelled by the presence o f the oil industry. At present, there is very limited ecotourism in Gabon2'. However, some level o f ecotourism should develop in the coming future in light o f the above-mentioned arguments. No data are available for estimating the increase in ecotourist visits in the four parks where GEF intervention will take place. The PSFE economic analysis was assuming 900 additional tourists per year once the protected area system was inplace2'. Inthis project's financial analysis, tourism is conservatively assumed to increase to 2,000 and 1,000 visitors by year 6 in the Gamba complex and Mayumba Np respectively (in 2003, 350 tourists visited the Gamba complex). Revenue from entrance fees from those tourists would, o f course, form only a very small portion o f the benefits to Gabon from tourism in the protected areas. The key issue in the magnitude o f these total benefits i s the extent to which these areas stimulate additional tourism and lead to longer stays and higher expenditures from tourists coming for other reasons. The experience o f Costa Rica22illustratedinbox 1below, suggests that both effects are likely to be significant, but data inthis field are still limited. DecisioniAnalysis Partners, a US firm, it is to study transportation infrastructure needs for Gabon's national parks in order to elaborate a transportation strategy for air strips and accessroads to the PA's. l 9The Economist Intelligence Unit consistently ranks Libreville, Gabon's capital and largest city, has one of the world's most expensive cities, ahead ofNew York, Paris, and London. 2o O f the roughly 120,000 foreigners who visit Gabon every year, the majority are employees of energy companies and only about one percent are tourists (source: Globalization's Good, Bad, and Ugly Effects on Ecotourism in Gabon - Could Gabon be the next ecotourism destination? - website: littp:l~u.u.u.u.u.u..~lobalencision.ore`index.~hu`~ftis~~~ction=~ib~~r~.~~riiit&~rinter~ieii~l~=l &cateqorv=I &itemid=6?3 The analysis assumes an average of 30 tourists present in the park system throughout the year. Assuming a more realistic ecotourism season o f 6 month and an average visit o f 6 days, this would result in 900 tourists per year. 22 It's clear that Costa Rica is a distant reference for Gabon. Nevertheless, it is one o f the best documented country-size ecotourism initiatives and provides interesting data on the potential benefits that can be achieved in this activity. 72 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis Box 1:EcotourisminCosta Rica Costa Rica has aggressively marketed itself as an ecotourism destination. Over three-quarters o f all tourists visit at least one national park. The top parks receive over 100,000 visitors annually, o f which over half were foreign tourists. Inthe `second tier' o f parks and reserves (omitting the popular beach and volcano parks) the average number o f foreign visitors in 1992 ranged from 4,000 to 19,000 (with an average o f 7,000). The Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve had 50,000 visits (40,000 by foreigners) in 1995; o f the foreign visitors, 24% hadtraveled to Costa Rica specifically to visit the Reserve. Fees for visiting parks and reserves were about US$1-2 untillate 1994, when they were raised to US$15 for foreigners. Pressure from the tourist industryled to this beingreducedto US$lO for tourists onpackage tours or who pre-purchase entrance passes. The Monteverde Reserve charges entrance fees o f US$8-16 for foreigners. Estimated total tourism earnings per tourist arrival were about US$l,OOO in 1995. Visitors to the Monteverde reserve, for example, spent about US$1,300 inthe country. Conservatively, if earnings per tourist were only 20 percent o f the level observed in Costa Rica, each extra visit stimulated by the parks system would result in US$200 in additional income from tourism which would represent an additional income o f US$600,000 per year (assuming 3,000 additional visitors per year inthe two selectedPA-see above). Thepresent value over 20 years o fthe resultingincome streamwould be about US$4 million o f which US$0.8 million could be considered a net benefit. Extractive uses The establishment and enforcement o fprotected areas has a twofold impact on extractive uses. Onthe one hand, it reduces the short-term benefits by limitinghalting the unsustainable activity (poaching, illegal fishing and over-harvesting or illegal harvesting o f timber and non-timber forest products). On the other hand, it allows a utilization o f biodiversity and natural resources that can be sustained over time. Inthe first case, the intervention entails an opportunity cost beard by poachers, illegal loggers and fishermen. In the second case, it provides an indefinite flow o f benefits for local populations and other users that are willing to abide by the rules o f sustainable utilization. Both these impacts have to be accounted for in the analysis, as they are complementary. It should be noted that when using a sufficiently long time horizon, the present value o f the benefits stream from sustainable uses often exceeds the short term benefits o f illegal and unsustainable practices. Hunting. Currently, bush-meat exploitation in Gabon is characterized by unregulated access and virtually no consideration o f traditional user rights. Villagers practicing subsistence off-take for local consumption find themselves in conflict with commercial hunters, often from outside o f the zone, practicing intensive huntingwhich results ina noticeable impoverishment o fthe wildlife resources. The box 2 below presents a view o f the bush-meat issue. Box 2: The bush-meat trade A part o f the ecotourism industry has refised to take Gabon seriously as a tourist destination until the government begins to take a tougher stand against the country's thriving bush-meat trade. The killing o f rare wildlife for food and cultural artifacts was once believed to be an activity exclusively o f the native pigmies. Today, most observers recognize that the bush-meat trade, said to be worth $50 million U S annually, has become a part o f mainstream society inGabon. For a country with an almost non-existent agricultural industry, meat &om forest elephants, chmpanzees, gorillas, and other native animals is a popular-and often preferable-substitute to beef, poultry, or pork. A traditional Gabonese Chstmas often includes chimpanzee or gorilla instead o f turkey. Of course killing and selling rare animals is illegal, but laws mainly go un-enforced because o f a combination o f conuption, a lack o f resources by law enforcement, and social apathy to the problem. Timber industry has also had an adverse effect on Gabon's wildlife population. In a January 2001 meeting in Cameroon, the Convention o n International Trade in Endangered Species found that the increasing commercialization o f trade has led to some 68 species inGabonbeing threatened by poaching. Source: Globalization's Good, Bad, and Ugly Effects on Ecotourism in Gabon- Could Gabon be the next ecotourisrn destination? website: h~://www.alobalenvision.ore/index.ohu?fuseaction=libran/.Drint&orinterfriendl~l &cateeory=l &itemid=673 73 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis Illegal hunting i s particularly severe in logging concessions in the buffer zones o f Lop6 NP and BatCkC NP23where logging companies will be encouraged to establish better controls on wildlife exploitation in concessions. This will entail advising with the elaboration o f company rules and regulations concerning hunting in the concessions and establishing strategies and operational procedures to ensure effective implernentati~n~~.Project interventions will thus improve wildlife management in P A buffer zones by reducing illegal and unsustainable hunting and ensuring local populations will be able to enforce their customary rights on traditional hunting. Fishing. Both marine and in-land fishing activities are present in the two selected protected areas the Gamba complex and the Mayumba NP). Both represent a threat to con~ervation~~and will be brought within sustainable levels through specific studies o f fish stocks (inand around the parks) that will identify ways in which threats can be reduced and conservation improved (e.g. Turtle Exclusion Devices on trawler nets, ecotourism based on turtle and/or whale watching). Also, engaging the companies operating commercial fishing vessels in order to enhance the sustainability o f their fishing practices (enforcement o f park boundaries, fishing regulations, monitoring activities,...) will be part o f the project intervention. In addition, WWF i s presently working with local fishermen communities in order to promote more sustainable fishingpractices both inMayumba and Gamba. Non-timberproducts.Many products are harvested from boththe buffer zones and the actual areas to be protected, including fuelwood, fruits and various herbs for medicinal or aromatic purposes. Some o f these products could likely continue to be harvested, on a sustainable basis, after protection i s put in place. Agreements will be negotiatedwith local stakeholders to secure traditional users rights. Timber products. In order to avoid the parks becoming isolated islands o f biodiversity, good forest management in surrounding buffer zone (including logging concessions) i s essential for their long term integrity. The project will help enforce wildlife regulations and wildlife-related measures o f the forest management plans as defined by the new Forest Code. It i s not envisaged though for the project to be involved in monitoring compliance with timber-related aspects o f the forest management rules. No logging, plantationor timber regeneration benefits can be ascribed to the project. Off-site benefits. Other typical downstream benefits o f arrested or reduced degradation in the protected areas such as (a) preventiono f soil erosion; (b) hydrological control; (c) flood control; (d) reduced damage to downstream activities; (e) increased availability o f drinking water; and (0 prevention o f salt water intrusion are not likely to be significant in view o f the good general environmental conditions (limited human pressure, limited encroachment through slash and burn agriculture and good forest cover) o f the landscapes where project interventions will take placez6.These good environmental conditions are the results o fthe factors described inpar 12 above. 23 Uncontrolled and unsustainable hunting practices are widespread in logging concessions because of (i)easy access for commercial hunters deep into the forest blocks using logging roads and company vehicles, (ii)poor government capacities for enforcementofwildlife laws,(iii) the absenceof company regulationsto controlhuntingactivitiesinthe concession. 24 This is a legal requirement under the Forest Law but logging companies do not have the know-how in this field and are increasinglysoliciting advice from specialists. The GEF resourceswill be used to play the role of a facilitator in this process and *'In will not finance activitiesthat the logging companies are legally boundto undertakethemselves mayumba, intensive illegal fishing by coastal trawlers appears to have impacted the area severely and local fishermen complain of greatly reduced catch sizes, fuelling a greater reliance on similarly destructive fishing practices. In addition to decimating fish stocks and disturbing fragile sediments, trawlers are also thought to be responsible for the many olive ridley turtles that wash up dead on the beaches of Mayumba each year - drowned in fishing nets then cut loose. In addition, unsustainableartisanalfishing takes place inthe lagoon. 26 Itshould be noted that Monts de Crista1NP (which was not selected for GEF intervention under this project) plays a very importanthydrologicalrole, as it is locatedinthe watershedof the dam that supplies electricity to Libreville. 74 Annex 9 -Economic And Financial Analysis C. Conclusions The costs and the qualified benefits of the project are summarized below. Table 6: Project costs andbenefits Project costs ta o f Gamba and Mayumba NP ? ~ Total quantified benefits Unknown but likely to match costs I The project would cost about US$66.7 million innet present value terms over 20 years, in investment and recurrent costs. On the benefit side, no quantification o f costs was carried out for the reasons mentioned above. However, if the project succeeds in halting the degradation o f the project areas, important on-site benefits will be generated. Without the project, a large portion o f the environmental and economicalvalue of these areas mightbe lost or reducedinthe coming years, as well as Government and local stakeholders' commitment for nature conservation. In the project areas themselves, regionally outstanding ecosystems would be protected and their outstanding potential for attracting tourism preserved. Also, instead o f destructive and illegal extractive activities, sustained non-timber forest products harvesting, fishing and huntingwill take place. Over the longrun,potential on-site benefits mainly associated with recreationand sustained natural resources harvesting should be able to match project costs. 75 Annex I O - Safeguard Policies ANNEX10-SAFEGUARDSPOLICIES Five safeguard policies are triggered by the GEF intervention. As the project's overarching objective i s conservation o f natural resources, the project i s expected to have a positive impact on Environment (OP/BP/GP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) and Forests (OP/BP 4.36). Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) A Socio-Environmental Impact Assessment for the whole PSFE program was conducted in 2002 and was updated in 2005. It includes specific sections on the GEF project. It also includes an Indigenous People Development Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework and a Process Framework. The GEF project subscribes fully to their recommendations, to the social and environmental management plan, the resettlement policy framework and the indigenous peoples development plan. The socio- environmental mitigation plan, the indigenous people development plan, the resettlement policy framework, and the process framework will apply to all PSFE activities including the management o f the national parks and the creation o f new protected areas. The implementation o f these plans and frameworks will be monitored in the context o f the IBRD Natural Resources Management Development Policy Loan as a condition for disbursement o f the secondtranche. The GEF intervention specifically targets the National Parks and the Forest Management component o f the PSFE programme through support to existing national parks, to expansion o f protected areas coverage and to wildlife management in production landscapes. N o adverse impacts on the environment are anticipated. On the contrary activities undertaken by the project are designed to reduce already existing environmental risks (e.g. oil pollution on the beaches, unsustainable harvesting o f forest animals). Social and Environmental Impact Assessments were elaborated for the entire PSFE and include sections on the GEF project. Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) The objective o f the GEF intervention is to conserve important areas o f natural habitat in national parksand their buffer zones. There are, therefore, nomitigationmeasures required. Forests (OP/BP 4.361 The GEF intervention aims to promote forest conservation by supporting management o f forested national parks (LopC, Mukalaba, Loango) and wildlife management in production zones peripheral to these protected areas. The project will not finance logging operations and will not finance activities that logging companies are required to undertake by law. By reducing the hunting pressure in production zones the project will prevent forest degradation that results from extirpation o f animal species which are important pollinators and seed dispersers (elephants, duiker, primates, wild pig etc.). By helping enforce sustainable forest management plans in production forests, the project will help move towards independent certification o f forest concessions. 76 Annex I O -Safeguard Policies Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, beingrevised as OP 4.10) There are around 10,000 indigenous people (4% o f the rural population) in Gabon. They have close ties to the forests including those areas protected in several national parks such as MinkCbe, Ivindo and Lope. No pygmy communities are reported living in or near Loango, Mukalaba and Mayumba national parks that will receive direct support from the project. A community o f pygmies is thought to occasionally use the southern part o f the Lop6 national park, o f which the project will cover the buffer zone. I t is also quite likely that the new protected areas to be identified in the context of the project might be used by indigenous people. The project will pay special attention to their needs and interests to guarantee, that the project fosters full respect for their dignity, human rights, and cultural uniqueness and ensure that indigenous peoples do not suffer adverse effects from the project and receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits. The project subscribes fully to the Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) that was prepared and adopted in the context o f the PSFE, and which provides comprehensive compensation measures to establish equal legal, technical, financial, organisational and cultural opportunities. The assessment for additional protected areas will be conducted with full local and public consultations. Specific consultations methods will be used to ensure that claims o f the pygmies communities are taken into account. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) The Socio-environmental impact assessment indicates that an estimated about 4,500 people live near or inside the newly created national parks andare likely to be affected positively or negatively by the project. It also estimates that another 3,500 people live in or near areas that might be considered for the creation o f additional protected areas under the project. These 8,000 people face the risk o f being economically and to a lower extend physically displaced. The government has committed that the project will not result in involuntary physical resettlement. However, it i s likely that in some cases access to resources such as hunting o f wildlife species will be limited (economic displacement) due to the existence o f the park and enforcement o f wildlife regulations outside the parks. First mitigation measures in form o f policy and legal advice during the elaboration o f the law on national parks was put in place by the project to minimise the expected impacts. The law recognises now the traditional rights o f these people and provides the ground for an effective and timely implementation o f further mitigation strategies outlined in the resettlement policy framework o f the PSFE. As the intensity and shape o f the impact is still to be defined in the management plans o f the national parks to be elaborated in the context o f the project - policy framework is in accordance with the OP 4.12 - to -the key principal o f the resettlement minimise physical resettlement and the loss o f access to resources as much as possible. This is particular true for indigenous people. The government has subscribed to the notion that they should be still allowed to use the natural resources o f the national parks for subsistence, while receiving full and timely compensation at full replacement costs for the loss o f the commercialisation o f these resources. As available landseems not to be the problem in Gabon the compensations should be as much as possible land based. Detailed compensation schemes will be participatory defined in resettlement action plans for all national parks and protected areas supported in the context o f the GEF project. Extensive consultation and negotiation will be developed concerning the boundaries o f new protected areas, as well as the creation of community forests inbuffer zones and increasedemployment opportunities from nationalparks. The GEF intervention itself covers three national parks (Loango, Mukalaba, Mayumba), and various buffer zones (those o f Lope and Bateke). InLoango there are an estimated 40 people living within the park. These villages are situated on the lagoons in North Loango (Bonne Terre, Obiro and Yombe) and South Loango (Sounga). The inhabitants practice fishing, and limited subsistence hunting and agriculture. Extensive consultation is currently being carried out with Sounga village and mitigation measures defining activities and geographical limits are currently being established. In Moukalaba there are an estimated 80 people living within the park boundary in four villages: Peny, Digoudou and Mouenda villages. Reportedly, these villages came into being at the time that commercial logging was taking place in this area. Logging has now stopped and it is quite possible that the people will move away in search o f 77 Annex 10- Safeguard Policies employment opportunities. However consultation and mitigation measures will be undertaken within the framework of the project, including revision of the park boundaries if geographically relevant; participatory zoning of multiple-use areas within the parks in accordance with local dwellers' traditional areas; priority in developing co-management initiatives; preferred access to employment; and setting-up revenue-sharing mechanisms. These pre-existing people will be registered so as to prevent any advantages that they may benefit from within the framework of the mitigation measures from acting as an attraction for new people to enter the park. 7% Annex 11-Project Preparation and Supervision ANNEX11:PROJECTPREPARATIONAND SUPERVISION Institutions in charge of the project preparation. From the onset the GEF intervention was conceived as part o f the overall PSFE, which is coordinated and monitored by the CPSE (Cellule de PlaniJication et de Suivi Evaluation) o f the MINEF. However, in line with recent institutional developments related to the creation o f the national parks network in 2003, two agencies will be in charge of the implementation o f the project: The Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (ANPN) will take responsibility for components 1 and 3 dealing directly with the nationalparks. Inthe field, implementationo f activities will be shared between the ANPN and its NGO partners (WCS and WWF). This option i sjustified by the fact that the expertise that the NGOs bring has yet to be acquired by the AGPN and that their in-depth knowledge o f the sites in question will ensure effective and timely achievement o f GEF project activities. 0 The Ministry o f Forest through the Direction de la Faune et de la Chasse (DFC) will take responsibility o f components 2 and 4 dealing with the creation o f new protected areas and with wildlife management in production landscapes. Both components 2 and 4 will be undertaken by DFC inpartnership with WCS, the leadingNGO in Gabon with the necessary expertise to undertake this kind o f evaluation, and with WWF, which has successfully pioneered the mobile brigade approach inGabon. Preparation funds. The project preparation has beneficiated from a US$295,000 GEF PDF-B aiming to assist the Government in : (a) participatory review o f the protected areas network; (b) definition o f the monitoring and evaluation indicators on biodiversity conservation and their operational applicability to the protected areas network; (c) carrying out o f technical and economic studies; (d) carrying out o f national and locally decentralized workshops; and (e) establishment o f a Website and an Internet forum on biodiversity. GEF PDF-B funds have been managed by the CPSFE along with a PPF and a PHRD. Timeline PCN/PCD April 2001 GEFPipeline Entry May 2001 GEF Council June 2005 Appraisal June 2005 Negotiations September 2005 Board/RVP approval October 2005 Planned date o f effectiveness December 2005 Planned date o f mid-term review December 2007 Planned closing date December 2010 Task Team (Bank Staff and consultants) Laurent Debroux Task team Leader AFTS3 Giuseppe Topa Lead Forest Specialist AFTS3 Mohammed Bekhechi Lead Legal Adviser LEGEN Fridolin Ondobo Financial Management Specialist AFTQK Bella Diallo Financial Management Specialist AFTQK Francesco Sarno Lead Procurement Specialist AFTPC Rick Tsouck Economist PREM Pacome Kossy Consultant AFTS3 Gayatri Kanungo Consultant AFTS4 Robert Robelus Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTS4 Dan Aronson Sr. Social Science Specialist Consultant 79 Annex II -Project Preparation and Supervision Sheela Reddi Program Assistant AFTS3 Carlo Bravi Economist FAO-CP FabienPousse Institutional Specialist FAO-CP 80 Annex 12-Documents in the Project File ANNEX 12: DOCUMENTSINTHEPROJECTFILE The following documents are inthe project file: 1. Socio-environmental impact assessment 2. Indigenous Peoples Development Plan, Cadre de Politique et Cadre ProcCdural de Reinstallation 3. Aide-memoires 81 Annex 13 - Statement Of Loans and Credits ANNEX 13: STATEMENT OFLOANSAND CREDIT Gabon Statement of IFC's Held and Disbursed Portfolio As of 1213112004 (InUSDollarsMillions) Held Disbursed FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Quasi Partic 2002 VAALCOGabon 3.75 0 0 '0 3.75 0 0 0 Total Portfolio: 3.75 0 0 0 3.75 0 0 0 a2 Annex I 4 - Country At A Glance ANNEX 14: COUNTRY AT A GLANCE Gabon at a glance 9/15/04 Sub- Upper- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan middle- Gabon Africa income Deveioprnent diamond' 2003 Population, mid-year (millions) 1.3 703 335 Life expectancy GNI per capita (Atlas method. US$) 3,580 490 5,340 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 4.8 347 1,788 Average annual growth, 1997-03 Population (%) 2.3 2.3 1.2 Labor force (%) 1.8 2.4 1.8 GNi Gross Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1997-03) capita enrollment Poverty(% of population below nationalpovertyline) Urban population (% of total populaflonJ 84 36 76 Life expectancyat birth (years) 53 46 73 1 Infant mortality (per 7,000 live births) 63 103 19 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 12 Access to improved water source Access to an improved water source (% ofpopulation) 86 58 89 illiteracy (% ofpopulation age 15+) 35 9 Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population) 134 87 104 * * """Gabon Male 135 94 104 Upper-middle-income group Female 134 80 104 KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1983 1993 2002 2003 1Economic ratios. GDP (US$ billions) 3.4 4.4 5.0 5.6 Gross domestic investmentJGDP 35.2 22.4 28.4 31.3 Trade Exports of goods and servicesIGDP 61.3 48.8 59.5 67.4 1 Gross domestic savingslGDP 53.0 36.7 48.4 54.5 Gross national savingslGDP 21.4 28.7 44.1 Current account balancelGDP 2.1 -1.3 6.1 8.1 Interest paymentsiGDP 1.6 0.8 3.2 2.3 Total debffGDP 27.0 88.1 71.3 87.7 Total debt serVicelexpOrtS 10.9 5.9 12.0 10.3 Present value of debffGDP 70.9 Present value of debffexports 103.4 Indebtedness 1983-93 1993-03 2002 2003 2003-07 (average annualgrowth) GDP 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.4 -0.1 = * i = ~ Gabon GDP per capita -1.6 -0.2 0.8 1.2 -2.2 Upper-middle-income group Exports of goods and services 5.9 -0.7 3.1 3.2 3.4 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1983 1993 (% of GDPJ Agriculture 6 5 8 5 Industry 568 430 Manufacturing 4 5 7 1 Services 367 485 Private consumption 29.8 48.0 .. -40 1 General governmentconsumption 17.2 15.3 m=--GDI --O-GDP 1983-93 1993-03 2003 Growth of exports and imports ( O h ) I (average annual growth) Agriculture 0.1 1.o 4.9 5.4 3 0 T Industry 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.9 15 Manufacturing 0.0 Services 1.2 2.5 3.1 3.6 0 Private consumption 0.7 4.4 5.3 4.9 15 General governmentconsumption Gross domestic investment -6.7 3.3 -0.8 1.6 '----Exports +Imports Imports of goods and services Note: 2003 data are preliminary estimates. This table was producedfrom the Development Economics central database. * The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. if data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete. a3 Annex 14- Country At A Glance Gabon PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1983 1993 2002 2003 Inflation ("4) Domestic prices 1 (% changel 45 Consumer prices 10.7 -8.9 0.1 0.5 30 Implicit GDP deflator 2.9 1.1 5.9 -9.1 15 Government finance 0 (% of GDP, includes current grants) -15 Current revenue 22.9 24.4 26.9 30 Current budget balance -0.6 9.1 10.7 Overall surplus/deficit -5.7 3.6 4.5 TRADE 1983 1993 2002 2003 (US$ millions) Export and import levels (US$ mill.) Total exports (fob) 2,000 2,326 3.080 3,278 Oil 1,778 2,138 2,203 4,000 T Timber 318 442 517 Manufactures Total imports (cif) 725 835 1,266 1,345 Food 166 158 168 Fuel and energy 11 199 212 I Capital goods 320 363 386 99 00 01 Exportprice index (1995=100) 100 97 98 02 Import price index (1995=100) 50 Exports 8Imports O3 Terms of trade (1995=100) 202 BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1983 1993 2002 2003 loT (US$ millions) Current account balance to GDP (%) 1 Exportsof goods and services 2,201 2,637 3,394 3,632 Imports of goods and senices 1,757 1,868 2,201 2,295 Resource balance 444 770 1,192 1,337 Net income -283 -633 -713 -818 Net current transfers -195 -175 -180 Current account balance 72 -50 305 340 Financing items (net) -189 -21 -273 -274 Changes in net reserves 117 79 -31 -66 Memo: Reservesincluding gold (US$ millions) r Conversionrate (DEC. iocal/US$) 381.1 349.6 697.0 501.2 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1983 1993 2002 2003 (US$ millions) Composition of 2003 debt (US$ mill.) Total debt outstanding and disbursed 915 3,861 3,546 3,792 IBRD 15 86 50 49 IDA 0 0 0 0 Total debt service 243 157 407 375 IBRD 3 8 12 8 IDA 0 0 0 0 Composition of net resource flows Ofticial grants 31 65 54 Ofticial creditors 7 60 -170 -124 Privatecreditors -65 -2 16 -73 Foreign direct investment 112 -114 123 Portfolioequity 0 0 0 2734 World Bank program Commitments 0 23 0 0 A IBRD E Bilateral Disbursements 1 0 2 2 B IDA -- D Other multilateral - F Pnvdte Principal repayments 2 5 8 6 C-IMF G Short-tern --- Net flows -1 3 -6 -3 Interestpayments 1 4 4 2 Nettransfers -2 -1 -10 -6 ~ Note:This table was produced from the DevelopmentEconomics central database. 9/15/04 84 Annex I 5 -Incremental CostAnalysis ANNEX15: INCREMENTAL COSTS ANALYSIS Context andbroaddevelopmentgoals Gabon's economy has been based on oil revenue since the 1960's. Oil supplies are declining and the government wishes to diversify its economy. The forest sector i s seen as an obvious alternative source o f revenue but this is likely to lead to increased pressure on natural resources (and thus biodiversity) and poor benefits for local people, through unsustainable exploitation. Timber i s the second most important export item after oil. The forest sector therefore represents not only biodiversity o f global significance but also a resource o f intense national economic focus. Gabon's draft poverty reduction strategy puts strong emphasis on sustainable management o f renewable natural resources. It i s also a signatory o f the Convention on Biological Diversity as well its several other international conventions. It has developed national plans for forests, environment and biodiversity and i s part o f the COMIFAC process, promoting sustainable forest management and regional integration through trans-border conservation. Gabon has a new Forestry Law, which i s still poorly implemented. The 2004 Letter o f Sector Policy emphasises Gabon's intention to ensure biodiversity conservation through sound management and valorisation o f a network o f protected areas which it anticipates will contribute to the national economy. Gabon's Letter o f Sector Policy i s the rationale for the PSFE, a multi- sectorial, multi-donor program for the environment. At the same time Gabon made a landmark decision in 2002 to create a network o f 13 national parks, covering nearly 11percent (2,9 mha) o f the land area o f the country, and further committed itself to achieving a target o f 4 millionhectares o f protected areas by 2010. Gabon has very limited public sector capacity to plan, oversee and control natural resource use. In particular it has almost no experience in the field o f protected area management. With the creation o f the network o f national parks there is now an urgent need to develop the capacities and resources to manage them. Gabon i s working on a draft National Parks Law which, among other things, will create a national parks management authority, the ANPN and a Foundation to ensure sustainable funding for the network. To this end several funding agencies and NGOs have started working closely with Gabon to develop the national parks network at the national level and at the site level. ThisproposedGEFproject is designedwithin the framework o fthe overall PSFEprogram, inparticularto support Components 1 and 3 o f the PSFE. The GEF project will be complemented by an IBRD loan, likely to be packaged as a Development Policy Lending (DPL) given its focus on policy reforms in productive sectors. However, both operations will remain separate. GlobalEnvironmentObjective As part o f a broader Congo basin biodiversity vision, 11 landscapes o f global conservation significance have been identified across the Congo basin. Five o f these landscapes occur wholly or partially in Gabon (the highest figure for any o f the Congo basin countries), an indication of Gabon's remarkable global importance in terms o f its contribution to biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin (see Annex 4 for a summary o f Gabon's unique biodiversity richness). Given that the global objective o f the project i s "Biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin is enhanced", by focusing on three of the landscapes the GEF intervention will contribute significantly to (i) improving connectivity between protected areas (ii) increasing the size o f managed areas through an integrated approach and (iii)enhancing international collaboration for biodiversity through trans-border collaboration. The GEF intervention will therefore contribute significantly to achieving the GEO objective o f enhancing biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin. Baselinescenario a5 Annex 15 -Incremental Cost Analysis The baseline situation i s one in which most o f the newly created national parks in Gabon are little more than "paper parks" lacking the technical and financial resources to undertake real management, and in which illegal extraction o f natural resources typically occurs with impunity. Since Gabon has such a low human population density in rural areas these threats, while serious (because o f the commercial nature o f the exploitation), have not yet pushednatural resource impoverishment to the point of "no return" as has occurred inmany forested areas in West Africa. Gabon i s therefore inthe unusualposition ofbeing able to act before it i s too late. The current baseline situation i s therefore one in which a limited number o f Gabon's national parks are receiving external donor support. This support i s limited both intime and scale and, in the absence o f an effective protected areas coordinating structure, has tended to be donor / NGO driven. Outside o f national parks commercial logging i s the dominant feature o f the landscape. The 2001 Forest Code introduced the principle o f sustainable forest management but progress with developing management plans has been slow because o f lack o f clear rules for management plans, absence o f a coherent forest zoning and lack o f enforcement will and capacity, which have resulted in a situation where non respect o f national laws and regulations is a more lucrative alternative than compliance. Under the new Forest Code the management plans that logging companies are required to elaborate must address the question o f wildlife management inthe concessions. However technical capacities inthis field are lacking and enforcement capacities are weak, resulting in widespread uncontrolled commercial bushmeat hunting in concessions. The network of logging roads, penetrating deep into relatively undisturbed forest blocks, enables hunters to exploit areas rich in wildlife and transport the bushmeat rapidly to the urban markets. An innovative model o f wildlife management in production zones, based on mobile brigades, has been tested in the buffer zone of MinkCbC NP (with WWF support) but this successful approach has yet to be extended to other areas o f Gabon. For many Gabonese, particularly those living in the coastal zone, fishing is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative protein source as bushmeat becomes scarcer. In some places, there are clear signs that unsustainable small-scale "artisanal" fishing, both inshore and offshore, is beginning to occur. This situation i s exacerbated by the activities o f commercial fishing vessels operating illegally in the coastal zones (inside the legal limit). Little i s currently being done to address these important issues. Other threats to natural resources in the coastal zones come from the oil industry. These include oil pollution along Gabon's 800 km o f beaches, and disturbance to marine mammals (Gabon's coastal waters harbour the most important breeding population of southern Atlantic humpback whales) and reptiles (the Mayumba beaches constitute the world's most important breeding ground for the leatherback turtle). Gabon receives significant support from external partners for biodiversity conservation. This i s partly linked to Gabon's recent commitment to create 13 national parks (the CBFP initiative was launched at the same time), but also reflects the long term effort made by some NGOs and funding agencies (notably WWF, WCS, EC) to promotebiodiversity conservation inGabon. Over the last 4 years direct support on the ground to national parks and/or their buffer zones from external partners was US$8.7 m. At the national level external partners provided significant support through capacity building (e.g. EC support to the ENF) and support to CNF'N. This accounted for US$1.9 m. France's AFD i s providing financial support to private companies for sustainable forestry management planning (US$2.83 m in 2005) and direct support to biodiversity conservation through the UNESCO/FFEM/CAWHFI instrument (US$1.6 m). In the context o f the three national parks, Loango, Moukalaba and Mayumba, there i s limited donor support from CBFP and NGO core-funding. Inthe last 4 years this fundingamounted to a total of US$2.4. Baseline fundingover the next five years (2006-2010) will be as follows: 86 Annex 15 -Incremental Cost Analysis 0 NGOs (WWF and WCS) funding sources (excluding US, EU, UNESCO funding) are secured at US$2.2 m. 0 Direct support to biodiversity conservation through UNESCO (CAWHFUFFEM-UNF) instrument will amount to US$l.6 m 0 The EC (through its ECOFAC phase IV, PSVAP, Mikebe and Especes Phares) has long term visions for their interventions in Gabon. The EC an amount o f US$ 6.0 mi s secured. 0 The U S (CARPE through the CBFP initiative) also has long term visions for their interventions in Gabon. For 2006, the U S (CARPE) has secured $3.3 m. In total secured funding from Government, international NGOs and donor agencies for 2006-2010 amounts 16.7 million dollars. Inaddition, new projectsare inprocessing for atotal of 14million dollars. First,the US-funded CARPE-2 i s under processing for an amount o f at least US$ 6 m for 2007-2010. The definitive approval will be granted on September 2006. Second, France (AFD), which took over the facilitation o f the CBFP process at the Heads o f State Summit in Brazzaville in February 2005, will reinforce its support for biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin, including Gabon. This support in the amount o f US$ 8.0 for 2006-2010 inGabonis currently underprocessing. The definitive approvalisbe expectedbythe end of2006. The GEFalternative Against the background baseline scenario, the GEF alternative will provide the important institutional advances required at the national level, while at the same time contribute to the essential field based biodiversity conservation activities for which insufficient resources are currently available, through providing options for long term institutional and financial sustainability. The alternative has been designed following extensive consultations with the partners on the ground, and will not only complement ongoing actions but will actually help reorient the actions o f the various partners to align their activities inline with the GEF project in order to meet a common global environmental objective Such a coordinated effort i s intended to provide the necessary impetus to the national parks management system inmoving towards a more sustainable and better managed system. Overall the GEF alternative will allow national parks to move from their present-day piecemeal existence, dependent on unpredictable (and often uncoordinated) short-term external funding cycles, to a more stable existence in which the national parks management authority (AWN) effectively coordinates national parks activities, and the donor interventionsfrom which they benefit, throughout the park network and sets the stage for a more sustained basis for park management, both technical and financial. While it i s unrealistic to expect that the national parks network will be fully operational after 5 years, the GEF alternative i s expected to establish the necessary framework (institutional, technical and financial) that will serve as a catalyst for long term support. Achieving financial sustainability for the parks network i s one o f the ANPN's main long-term objectives and one that the GEF intervention will seek to support. At this stage however, it is impossible to predict with any precision how the situationwill have evolved after 5 years. Donor intentions in the wake o f the Brazzaville Summit are still evolving and much will depend on Gabon's ability to create the appropriate enabling environment to allow the county's undoubted tourist potential to be realised and revenues captured for national parks. The GEF alternative will allow Gabon to undertake a program that would generate global, regional and national benefits. The GEF alternative would comprise o f (i) the identification o f suitable areas to expand the protected areas network capturing a more complete representation o f Gabon's biodiversity and proposed for formal gazettement, (ii)a significantly expanded array o f conservation and sustainable wildlife management activities in landscapes comprising selected clusters o f national parks and `their buffer zones, and (iii) enhanced institutional capacities through the creation o f an operational ANPN, and the strengthening o f the Wildlife Department's capacities to intervene outside national parks. The 4 87 Annex 15 -Incremental Cost Analysis components o f the project and their associated outputs are summarised in the main text (B.4) and presented in detail inAnnex 4. Elements of the extensive gaps analysis conducted for the three protected areas supported under the project are reflected in Addendum 1 to this Incremental Cost Annex (Annex 15). This has been discussed further under the incremental activities definedinthe GEF alternative section. Incremental Activities to Generate Global Benefits The activities of the GEF project have been designed to meet the gaps identified in the baseline avoiding any major overlap and to help leverage support from donors present on the ground. Given that the global objective of the project i s "Biodiversity conservation in the Congo basin is enhanced", the project design has taken into account that collaboration and synergy with donor agencies i s essential for the success o f the project. Notably, component 3 o f the project involves donor contributions from three other agencies. The activities o f this component have been articulated such that contributions o f the various donors will be realigned to meet a common objective. Component 1: Strengthening AGPN (US$1.8 million from GEF). GEF assistance would, over the 5 year period, transform the reforms that were initiated under the baseline scenario into concrete results. In particular the ANPN will develop the institutional and technical capacities to begin effectively managing the new national parks network. This component will be mainly financed by the GEF during the first five years o f its existence. The CNPN (which carries out the functions o f the future AWN while waiting for the National Parks law to be passed) currently benefits from technical assistance from the EC within the framework o f the PSVAF' programme and C I (tourism development) as well as the technical assistants o f Gabon's conservation partners whose expertise i s regularly sought. If satisfactory progress i s made with structuring and operationalizing the ANPN in the first 2 years, it i s anticipated that raised credibility o f the agency will attract other funding partners to invest inthe project. K e y Outputs: An operational headquarter for the A M , with strengthened capacities to coordinate and monitor field activities inthe network o fnational parks, to manage funds and human resources effectively, communicate with national and international stakeholders and to establish sustainable funding mechanisms to secure the future o f Gabon's national parks network. Component 2: Expanding, Gabon's protected area network (US$1.12 million from GEF) This component will be primarily financed by the GEF grant along with the Government. Government's participation will be inthe form o f salaries o f the national personnel affected to the project. Inthe absence o f the GEF support it i s likely that only a very few surveys would be undertaken and certainly none o f the essential and costly stakeholder consultation meetings, which are a prerequisite for gazettement of a new protected area, would be carried out. As a result, without GEF intervention Gabon's biodiversity representation inprotected areas will remain incomplete. K e y Outputs: Increase in the surface area o f proposed protected area coverage to include sites o f special biological and/or cultural significance, which are not covered by the current national parks network; assessment survey reports identifyingpriority sites and appropriate protection status. Component 3: Support to selectednational parks (US$5.22 million from GEF) This component has been designed to allow national park management levels to be raised to the required standard for effective management o f the national parks over a period o f 5 year duration. It is anticipated that this will: (i)generate additional revenue through successful ecotourismactivities, (ii) as a model serve for management o f the other protectedareas inthe network and consequently, and (iii} leverage additional fundingfor the network through enhanced internationalcredibility. 88 Annex I 5 -Incremental Cost Analysis The GEF alternative will lend direct support to the Loango, Moukalaba and Mayumba national parks. Analysis o f the baseline support for these parks showed that there i s limited donor support. These three parks are benefiting from the support o f the CBFP programme, CAWHFI-UNF, and NGO core funding. For 2005 this funding amounts to a total o f US$2.4 m for Moukalaba-Doudou, Loango; and Mayumba. Current NGOs funding sources equal US$2.2 m over the next 5 years. Government's funding for 2005 i s estimated at US$O.O9 m. On the basis o f national park management costs o f US$150/kmz/year, the estimated minimummanagement requirements for the entire 13 national parks network over the next five years, including an additional 40 percent o f the total amount for investments, is US$30.5 m. Therefore, incremental activities under this component have been developed in consultation with these donors on the ground, based on an extensive gaps analysis (Addendum 1 to this Annex 15). This analysis shows how the proposed GEF-supported activities will leverage activities that are currently being supported by CBFP, CAWHI and NGO core-funding in the three parks. The analysis also shows in detail activities o f the donors and how the GEF intervention i s meeting the gaps in activities identified therein. It also shows how additional funding from these sources and the proposed GEF-supported activities will complement each other for the period 2007-2010. Consequently a coherent and holistic approach for supporting the three parks has been developed. Extensive discussions with the three donors has resulted in CBFP, C A W H I and NGO core-funding re- adjusting their goals and activities to maximize synergies with the new coming GEF resources. At the level o f each park, starting 2006 and on, the Technical Management Committee will annually develop joint work-plans encompassing CBFP, CAWHFI, NGO and GEF funding. The Technical Management Committee will also run one single M&E system covering all park activities encompassing CBFP, CAWHFI, NGO and GEF funding. Insuch context donor support that has been leveragedis additional to the baseline. It is expected that the proposed GEF intervention will have a further catalytic impact which will result in an increased baseline over the coming years. Significant progress has already been made in the past 6 months since appraisal. These additionalresources would be directed to the parks and buffer zones that are not yet receiving significant support (see Annex 5). They would contribute to partly closing the financing gap indicated inTable 1, below. Key outputs: Approved zoning and management plans for Loango, Mukalaba and Mayumba; Operational management structures: infrastructures, equipment, surveillance teams; Effective stakeholder participation in PA management (local populations, private sector); Effective monitoring systems operational (ecological and patrol-based monitoring). Component 4: Wildlife management outside national parks KJS$1.83 million) The costs o f biodiversity conservation activities outside national parks (e.g. wildlife management in production forests, mobile brigades etc.) is difficult to estimate as there are few examples to draw on for cost estimates and it also depends on the level o f management input.Clearly, biodiversity conservation in the production zones cannot be conducted at the same intensity as innational parks, but a minimum level i s required in order to safeguard ecosystem integrity across the landscapes. T o effectively cover the extended buffer zones of the entire national parks network an amount o f US$6 m over 5 years is probably a minimumrequirement. Initially this component will be financed largely by the GEF. Inthe absence o f the GEF alternative commercial huntingpressure will continue to intensify inthe buffer zones o f the park resulting in impoverishment o f wildlife in these areas and, later, increased poaching levels within the parks. 89 Annex I 5 -Incremental Cost Analysis Key outputs: strengthened capacity of the wildlife authority to enforce its regulations in logging concessions, as well as provisions o f forest management plans dealing with wildlife protection, and an enhanced implication o f local communities for wildlife management activities through collaborative management agreements. IncrementalCosts The total cost for biodiversity conservation inGabon, within the overall PSFE framework, is estimated at US$40.7 million (for the entire network o f 13 parks). The GEF would fund incremental costs, amounting to US$lO.O million, in addition to Government and other donors' contributions. Incremental GEF funding has been committed for activities generating clear global benefits (see incremental cost matrix below). Tables 1 and 2 below provide further details o f the costs for national parks and biodiversity conservation under the PSFE umbrella, and the incremental cost calculations for the four components o f the proposed GEF contribution. Ta At the time of writing this document, the following funding sources are securedapproved for the period 2006-2010 for a total o fUS$ 16.7million 0 Government o f Gabon (US$3.6 million) 0 European Commission (ECOFAC, PSVAP, Mikebe, Espkces phares - US$6.0 million) 0 UNESCO (CAWHFWFEM-UNF)(US$ 1.6 million} 0 US:US$ 3.3 million secured (year 2006 iscovered under CARPE-1) 0 NGOs (WCS and WWF, 2.2 million US$) This $16.7 million co-financing from EC, UNESCO, US, international NGOs and Government complements the four components o fthe proposedGEF grant as follows: The EC-funded PSVAP program ($1.4 m) focuses on institutional capacity building (component 1) through the preparation o f a new law on national parks, preliminary analytical work for the creation o f a foundation for Gabon's national parks, the development o f tourism activities, and the rehabilitation of Gabon's Research Institute for Tropical Ecology. The EC-funded ECOFAC program ($3.5m) focuses on the Lope National Park, Gabon's flagship and first protected area. InLope, ECOFAC helps develop and pioneer innovative methods for biodiversity inventories, monitoring, park management and ecotourism. 90 Annex I 5 -Incremental Cost Analysis Given the spearheading nature o f Lop6 in Gabon's network o f protected areas, ECOFAC's achievements are of nationwide interest. They are a key-contribution to the well-functioning o f the network as a whole, to the strengthening o f the CNPNiANPN as a national institution (component l), and to the effective management of any park in the network. "Especes-phares" ($0.25m) i s a sub-program o f ECOFAC. The EC-funded Minkebe program ($0.85m) supports improved wildlife management in buffer zones and production landscapes (component 4) based on an innovative approach involving mobile brigades. This approach serves as a model for the component 4 o f the proposed GEF grant which will replicate a similar approach to other areas o f Gabon adjacent to five national parks. The UNESCO's CAWHFI program (funded by UNF, $055m) and the US-funded CARPE program ($1.4m) provide support to the Gamba complex (component 3). The proposed GEF project will complement these two programs by supporting the establishment o f operational infrastructures at Tchibanga, Mourindi, Sette Cama, Iguela, Omboue, Panga, Digoudou, Moujonfi and Peny and by enhancing park authorities' equipment, training and field deployment to assure continuous conservation presence in all identified pressure areas. The GEF grant will allow the guard force to be brought up to full operational capacity. It will also help consolidate and implement the Gamba Complex management plan, and develop more participatory approaches with local populations, as well as cooperation with private tour, operators and oil companies. The UNESCO's CAWHFI program ($0.45 from UNF) and the US-funded CARPE program ($1.4 m) will also provide technical AWN with technical assistance in the field o f remote-sensing, mapping, biological surveys and development o f parks business plans, all o f which falls under component 1 incomplementarity with the proposed GEF operation. The UNESCO's CAWHFI program (under FFEM funding, $0.6m) and the US-funded CARPE program ($1.4m) will also support improved wildlife and other biodiversity management inproduction landscapes around national parks (component 4). Together with the EU-funded Minkebe project and with the proposed GEF grant, this will allow an almost complete coverage o f Gabon's high biodiversity value production landscapes with biodiversity protection measures. The Government's contribution ($3.6m) consists mostly in civil servants' salaries, facilities, land acquisitions and operating costs, in addition to the foregone revenues from mining or logging activities that could have taken place had the parks not been created. The contributions from international NGOs (WCS, WWF; $2.2m) consist in basic biological surveys, socio-economic studies, park surveillance, various small-scale pilot activities, and consultations with local stakeholders to ensure local ownership or adhesion to the parks. These activities alone do not suffice to secure physical integrity and institutional sustainability o f Gabon's new network o f national parks, neither to provide tangible conservation-based economic benefits to the surrounding populations. Inadditionto the above-mentioned sources o f funds and to the proposed GEF grant, two new projects are currently being processed by the U S and by France for an estimated total o f 14 million dollars. These two projects are considered as leveraged funds in the context o f this analysis. First, the US-funded CARPE-2 i s under processing for an amount o f at least US$ 6 m for 2007-2010. The definitive approval will be granted on September 2006. Second, France (AFD) will reinforce its support for biodiversity conservation in Gabon. This support in the amount o f US$ 8.0 for 2006-2010 is currently under processing. The definitive approval i s be expected by the end o f 2006. 91 Annex I 5 -Incremental Cost Analysis Table 2: Incremental Cost Matrix the national parks agency (ANPN) Global Environment Inadequate conservation activities in the A strong ANPN providing improved Benefits field, and insufficient international park management services will credibility, will compromise in the long- mitigate threats to biodiversity. It will term Gabon's ability to contribute to also gain credibility in the enhancing biodiversity conservation in international community leading to the Congo Basin better opportunities for leveraging sustainablefunding sources and thus improve biodiversity conservation of the Congo Basinas a whole Domestic benefits Field operations will continue to be National Darks will be manaaed in a I conducted on an ad hoc and decentralized but coordinated uncoordinated manner with little or no manner in line with priorities laid out reference to the priorities of a national in the national parks system park system management plan and with management plan. Improved external partners tending the agenda on management capacities in the sit. Illegal and unsustainable extractive national parks will result in reduced uses of natural resources will continue illegal and unsustainable natural and national parks will continue to resource use. It will also enhance under-perform in terms of their private sector investment for tourism contribution to national economic in national parks which will create development (weak employment direct economic benefits for local opportunities, poorly coordinated communities. Finally a strong ANPN ecotourism activities and little revenue will be better equipped to defend capturedfor nationalparks). national conservation priorities against conflicting national interests. I Benefits globally importantbiodiversityheritage Iresources base outside national parks the long term prospects for biodiversity conservation in the Congo Basin are enhanced Domestic benefits Danger of losing important sites of Protection of additional sites of 1 special interest resulting in loss of special biological and cultural interest biodiversity and impoverishment of will contribute to securing the long natural resources bases used by local term survival of a more complete populations representation of Gabon's natural habitats and will safeguard natural resource bases on which local I populationsdepend. I Costfor 2006-2010(US$) GEF 0 1.12 1.12 GoG 0 0.14 0.14 Total for Component 2 0 1.26 1.26 Benefits activities ana sources or long-term funding will lead in the long term to an erosion of the Congo Basin's biodiversity 92 Annex 1.5 Incremental Cost Analysis - possibilities for achieving sustainable funding Domestic benefits The absence of an approved zoning and A clearly defined and officially management planwill result in continued adopted zoning and management confusion over land use options. This plan will create the framework for will increase the risks of erosion of better biodiversity conservation and biodiversity through uncontrolled valorization of the parks. More exploitation. Ineffective operational effective operational structures on structures will result in inadequate the ground will improve park protection of the parks.The parkswill be protection. The existence of restricted of short term action and will be sustainable sources of funding will unable to adapt activities to a long term allow the parks to plan and vision for management of the parks implement field activities on the basis network. Finally national parks will not of long term objectives. The parks realize the full potential for contributing will become important motors for economic development. 0 5.2 5.2 0.4 1.4 1.o 1.95 1.95 0 (USAID, UNESCO) lntl NGOs 1.8 2.25 0.45 Total for Component 3 4.15 10.80 6.65 Component 4 Strengthening wildlife man Global environment Impoverishment of natural resources in Improved natural resource Benefits buffer zones will increase risks of management over a large landscape fragmentation and lead to erosion of reduces risks of fragmentation and global important biodiversity. thus enhances conservation of Congo Basin's globally important Domestic benefits Poor management of the bush meat Improved wildlife management in trade in buffer zones will lead to buffer zones will ensure long term continued impoverishment of wildlife in sustainability of wildlife off-take and the buffer zones. Weak buy-in by local contribute directly to improving stakeholders for sound wildlife livelihoods of local populations in the management will exacerbate faunal long term. Nl3: An additional $14 m i s expected from U S and AFD for 2007-2010. These two operations are currently being processed. They are considered as leveraged funds inthe context o f this analysis. 93 c m U U -J 4 3 ? 1 ; i i k h .-E I m Annex I 6 - STAP TechnicalRoster Review ANNEX16 STAPTECHINICAL ROSTERREVIEW Review of the Project entitled: "GEFprojectinsupport of Gabon's Forest andEnvironmentSector Program(PSFE)". Olivier Langrand - o.lanqrand@conservation.org February 22,2005 1. Conclusion This is a well-conceived project, aiming at conserving key biodiversity areas of Gabon and buildingon the political momentum generated by the President o f Gabon's decision two years ago to create a network o f 13 National Parks. The project aims at providing means to the structures within the Government o f Gabon to manage biodiversity within national parks (AWN) and outside o f protected areas (MINEF) using the technical support o f international NGOs such as World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). The implementation of this project will contribute to achievingbiodiversity conservation and sustainable economic development in the Congo Basin as expressed in the De`claration de Yaounde! signed in 1999 by Central Africa heads o f state and recentlyre-affirmed duringthe Brazzaville summit held inFebruary 2005. The proposal i s well designed; however, a few structural aspects should be looked at to increase the chances o f this project's success in the long run and of ensuring the effective involvement o f the civil society and the private sector in the execution o f the project. It i s an important project to support that falls well within the parameters o f GEF. It is very clear that Gabon is a logical area for an investment by the donor community interested in addressing biodiversity conservation on a large scale such as GEF-World Bank. 1. Scientific and technical soundness of the project As clearly stated in a number o f sections o f the project proposal document, the area under consideration i s located in the second largest tropical rain forest o f the world, i s recognized as a high biodiversity wilderness area by the international scientific community, and deserves the greatest conservation attention. The specific area targeted by this project, Gabon, i s one o f the most densely forested countries inAfrica and displays a low humandensity. The specifics of Gabon in terms o f biodiversity elements, unique faunal assemblages and exceptional ecosystems functioning are rapidly described page 36 o f the document. The reviewer understands that this is a constraint imposed by the project proposal preparation guidelines. However, the comparative advantages of Gabon over the other counties o f the sub-region, both interms o f conservationchallenges and opportunities to achieve biodiversity conservation, should have been highlighted. In reading the document one should realize that it is a worthy investment in terms of biodiversity conservation and that this project will have an impact on the global conservation objectives as defined by the international community. The reviewerwould then suggest that in future projectproposalsan annex be added to highlight these aspects of biodiversity uniqueness and exceptional ecological phenomena that are contained in the area under consideration and to describe opportunitiesthat are readily available to addressconservationissues. 100 Annex I 6 - STAP Technical Roster Review The surface area protected i s proposed to be the measure of success o f this project. While this i s important, it i s not sufficient and the reviewer would recommend that the proponent select additional criteria to measure success of this biodiversity conservation program such as maintenance of species assemblages, maintenance of species-specific animal and plant populations, prevention of species extinction, surface area under low impact logging, etc. Valuable information about set o f criteria can be found for example on the Global Conservation Fund web site at www.conservation.orq Monitoring should be made according to a clear methodology so that it can be replicated in other sites year after year. The adoption o f a single scientific protocol for the entire project area i s necessary to be able to compare data and conduct analysis at the regionalbasis.It is also important to measure the impact o f the conservation effort at the corridor level to see if the improved management in some areas (i.e. protected areas) does not provoke an increasedpressure in other areas (typical case o f the transfer o f problems). The harmonization o f monitoring and evaluation methodology should be the responsibility o f ANPNand MINEFwith a technical assistance from conservationNGO's. The institutional strengthening o f the Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (ANPN) is the key to the success o f this project in the long run. The reviewer would recommend that during the course o f the implementation of the project the proponents analyze the lessons learned from similar example that took place inthe past ten years in the Africa region and apply the lessons learned from these examples. In Madagascar the National Association for the Management of Protected Areas (ANGAP) was created more than 12 years ago through an important investment from the World Bank inthe context of the National EnvironmentalAction Plan. This is a very similar situation faced today by Gabon with the strengthening o f ANPN as part of a more global environmental initiative placed under the Forestry and Environment Program (PFSE). Lessons learned from the ANGAP initiative that could be beneficial to this proposed project include: the partnership with international conservation NGOs, the emergence o f local conservation groups to replace the international NGOs in the long term, the creation o f a long term funding mechanism to address recurrent costs linked to the management o f protected areas, the involvement o f the private sector in activities linked to protected areas such as ecotourism, and finally the institutional relationships between the institution in charge o f protected areas and the institutions in charge o f biodiversity outside o f protected areas. All o f these aspects are pertinent to the situation described in the project proposal and AWN and MINEF would greatly benefit from a study tour organized inMadagascar. The same recommendationi s also valid for the institutional reinforcement o f MINEF and lessons learned from Madagascar should be taken into account. ANPN and MINEF should be the recipients of the GEF-World Bank funding and should sub-contract international NGOs, such as WWF and WCS as well as local NGOs such as Aventures Sans Frontiires or private partners in the domain of ecotourism and sustainable use of forest products to undertake specific tasks needed to reach the objectives described in the project proposal. It i s critical that ANPN keeps total control of the management of protected areas and i s reinforced by dedicated partners. Contracts to operators need to be specific and result oriented. The reviewer support this business like approach of ANPN and MINEF sub-contracting NGOs and would actually pay for measurable deliverables. The project proposal includes four components, two addressing issues at the national level and two at the site level. The reviewer found useful to learn about the criteria used for the selection o f the priority- protected areas among the 13 national parks will benefit from the support o f the project. The selection process i s technically sound and politically sensible. It seems that a lot o f efforts have been put in the Gamba Complex (Loango and Mukalaba) in the past decade and this area continues to benefit from 101 Annex 16 - STAP Technical Roster Review ample attention by operators such as WWF, WCS, Smithsonian Institution, and those from private tourism. In the course of the implementation of the project it would be interesting to look at the impact that these actions have had on biodiversity conservation of these sites and what the potential funding from GEF World Bank in those areas would bring in the future. Specifically, oil has been exploited in the Gamba Complex for the past 40 years, outside o f the designated National Parks o f Loango, and Mukalaba. However, it i s only recently that oil companies have begun to support conservation activities in these areas. The investment represents a very small fraction o f the benefits that oil exploitation yields. N o investment has been made by oil companies to offset their impact in this area. The reviewer would suggest that in the course of the implementation of the project ANPN enters into dialogue with oil companiesinvolved in the Gamba region with the goal of at least obtaining a matching contribution to that of which GEF World Bank would make toward conserving biodiversity inthis area. The NGO landscape has been dominated by international NGOs for more than 20 years. These NGOs, more specifically WWF and more recently WCS have worked with the government o f Gabon to raise the profile o f biodiversity conservation. Some major successes have recently occurred when the Head o f State decided to create 13 National Parks. The proposal should address the issue of building the capacity of the civil society in order to provoke the emergence of local conservation NGOs.This is essential to build a national constituency to conserve nature and to reduce the operation costs. Building this capacity will require time and efforts and ANPN should address this issue sooner rather than later. Addressing this capacity building issue of the civil society could be done through the sub-contracts that ANPN and MINEF will prepare for international NGOs that should definitely integrate a mentoring component to buildthe capacity o f local NGOs to become operational units. The expansion o f the network o f protected areas needs to be based on the result o f a sound biodiversity gap analysis as it i s described in the project proposal. Additional national parks should provide protection in priority to animal and plant taxa as well as faunal assemblages and unique ecosystems that are currently not present in the network of protected areas. Based on the results of this biodiversity gap analysis, the government should declare areas selected not suitable for logging or mining until the legal protected status has been proclaimed. This refers to GEF Component 3 in the proposal. The issue o f human health associated with the transport and consumption o f bush meat i s not addressed in the threat assessment. This is an important regional concern that is not covered and that has a potential influence on Components 2, 3 and 4. Consuming bush meat puts humans at risk o f diseases such as Hepatitis, Ebola, monkey pox, malaria, measles, yellow fever, S I V (the precursor o f HN) which have all been isolated from wild-caught faunal species. In the context o f tourism development, the potential threat o f an epizooty o f Ebola for example could jeopardize the ability o f Gabon to attract tourists. Taking into account the conservation o f the ecological functions should be an important and attractive element o f the proposal. In the course of the implementation of the project it will important to define a protocol to monitoring ecological functions that are likely to play an important role in the local, regional, and national economies. An economic analysis of the benefits generated by the ecological functions is necessary in order to be able to compare the value of the standing forest versus the logging value of the same forest. For example, one should compare the cost of maintaining the forest taking into account the monetary loss for not logging and the gain through ecological functions. Finally ANPN, in the course of the implementation of the project should institute a payment for services rendered by ecological functions provided by national parks such as water for agriculture, domestic and industrial use as well as for generating electricity. The national electricity company (SEEG) could become an important partner of ANPNby showing the 102 Annex I 6 - STAP TechnicalRoster Review way in paying for ecological processes. The electricity for Gabon's capital city Libreville i s generated out of two hydroelectric dams established on a river coming directly from the Monts de Crista1National Park that protects a large water catchment. The tripling o f the surface of protected areas announced in 2003 by the President of Madagascar was largely based on a cost-benefit analysis of the remaining natural forests found outside o f the current network o f protected areas conducted by the World Bank. The reviewer believes that the responsibility o f such a project i s to look at the long-term benefit for the communities. Cash crops such as cocoa and shade-grown coffee can play a significant role in maintaining wildlife corridors between protected areas. The project should seriously consider restoring this form of agriculture instead off promoting a hunter-gatherer way of life for the communities. The mechanisms to strengthen effective biodiversity conservation in logging concessions should be more ambitious. Standards that are applied by oil companies in Gabon should also be applied to logging operations. Logging companies, with assistance from the scientifickonservation community, should be asked to identify zones o f conservation within their concessions where areas o f specific biological interest or areas important to maintaining key ecological functions would be protected. Logging companies should definitely be engaged to apply new standards and change the way they have been doing business. Key issues that the project should address inengaging the logging companies to be active outside national parks are as follows: Applying the terms of the contracts signed by them interms of no-hunting, closing the roads after exploitation, removing exploitation camps, replanting trees in trails used for extraction, and favoring local employment versus importing manpower. Conservation NGOs in Gabon have established good working relationships with AWN and MINEF. However there i s still a need for additional partners to focus on forest management outside protected areas. The model o f collaboration developed by WWF and a logging company operating around MinkebC National Park should be looked at and possibly duplicated in the other priority areas, such as Lope National Park and Mukalaba. A great deal of attention should be given to partnership with logging companies established near national parks or in key biodiversity areas that are not yet legally protected. This will require time and different skills that those currently present inthe NGOs. Ecotourism i s marginal in Central Africa, including in Gabon where the project i s proposing to be implemented. Not only does this region lack both a tradition o f ecotourism, and infrastructure, but also it is expensive and suffers from a somewhat unjustified bad reputation inthe areas o f political stability and public health. The proponent should consider engaging the private sector and the local population in the protected area management activities. A project is currently under discussion between the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and Conservation International (CI), WCS and a private operator to invest up to 20 million o f dollars ($15 million from OPIC and $5 million from the private operator) to develop eco-tourism projects in Gabon around three selected protected areas. This initiative would greatly complement the GEF-World Bank proposed project. As far as ecotourism i s concerned the proponent should address the issue of benefit sharing in the course of the implementation of the project. If local populations do not receive economic benefit through the management o f protected areas they will not respect them. So far, to my knowledge there i s no case o f benefit sharing between the operators, the government and the local communities (entrance fees, tourism concessions paid to the communities, etc.) These standard practices need to be defined and agreed upon by the different stakeholders before ecotourism can take place in Gabon's national parks. Finally in relation to ecotourism, the project should target the captive audience made up o f expatriate communities living in Gabon who have a strong financial capacity and are accustomed to local conditions. Among them is the staff o f the oil and mining companies established in Gabon and 103 Annex 16 - STAP Technical Roster Review in neighboring countries such as Cameroon and Congo. The cultural tourism is also a potential market. Ba'Aka pygmies are fascinating cultures and they shouldbe promoted as such Conservation and research are an important source o f employment especially in a region where the human density i s low. Bio-prospecting i s another possibility to generate revenues for the local communities that i s part of the Component 4 of the proposal. 2. Structural and institutional issues InGabon the decentralization took place, but the capacity based in the field is weak. There is also an ongoing debate between the newly created ANPN and the Ministry of Forest over the management responsibility of the protected areas. This debate needs to be sorted out as quickly as possible in order to allow the project to function smoothly, and it seems that recently, major progress has been made in this direction. Collaboration between the two entities should be encouraged since the long-term futureof nationalparks is highly dependant uponthe management of national forests. The financial plan i s realistic. However a fundraisingmarketing strategic document should be prepared for each protected area and a long-term funding mechanism should be created as quickly as possible using the model established in Madagascar in which the World Bank, bilateral agencies, international conservation NGOs, private foundations and the government have together created an independentstructure to manage a trust fund dedicated to protected areas. Project implementation mechanism should include a commission where ANPN, MINEF, NGOs, private sector partners and representatives of local communities involved in and around national parks are present. Issues related to management o f protected areas and mining, oil or logging concessions should also be discussed in this forum in order to make sure that all stakeholders share information and that all activities are integrated. The proponents need to be prepared to establish and maintain links with the mining, oil, and logging sectors in order to include them in the stakeholder consultation that will take place in the context o f the project. The NGOs are represented uniquely by international NGOs. There are very few local NGOs in Gabon and one responsibility of such a project would be to promote the emergence of local NGOs by building the capacity of the civil society. This reinforcement o f local capacity should be address by the business-like approach that i s suggested where international NGOs would be sub-contracted with payment linked to clear and measurable deliverables. The proponents need to be prepared to establish and maintain links with the mining, oil, and logging sectors in order to include them in the stakeholder consultation that will take place inthe context o f the project. 3. Identificationof environmental benefits This proposedproject is a masterpiece for conserving the biodiversity o f Gabon. Itwill certainly generate considerable environmental benefit and set standards for the management o f protected areas and natural resources at a regional level. The relatively low human population, the limited number o f stakeholders involved, the field experience o f conservation NGOs active in Gabon, the commitment o f the Gabonese Government toward the promotion o f conservation projects, and finally the involvement o f other major donors in the project area (USAID through CARPE, EC with the ECOFAC program, GEF-UNDP with the TRIDOM project) are factors that will surely play a significant role in the success o f this project submittedto GEF. 104 Annex I 6 - STAP TechnicalRoster Review Biodiversity conservation i s the main objective, but this project i s likely to generate additional environmental benefits through the protection o f important watersheds and also through the fixation o f a very large quantity o f carbon inpreventing deforestation. 4. How does the project fits within the goals of GEF? The project i s generally speaking well designed and i s on line with the GEF strategic priorities. The project combines biodiversity conservation with sustainable economic development. This project put a strong emphasis on the responsibility o f the government reinforced by international conservation NGOs. However, the proposed project does not give the private sector or local NGOs enough importance inthe management o f this project. The prominent role o f international conservation NGOs in the management o f protected areas as planned in this project may prevent the governmental partners to face their responsibilities. 5. Regional Context The project falls perfectly within the national and regional conservation priorities defined by the scientific community with the participation of governments and the private sector. It builds nicely upon the political commitment expressed in the Yaounde Declaration on conservation and Sustainable Management o f Forests signed in March 1999 by Gabon as well as direct neighbors such as Cameroon and Congo. The project contributes significantly to the Plan de Convergence, the priority action plan for the operationalization o f the Yaounde Declaration and confirmed duringthe Brazzaville Summit held in February 2005. Finally the project will play an integral part and be a key element o f the Gabon's Forest and Environment Sector Program (PSFE). 6. Sustainability of the project The project focuses on biodiversity conservation and on sustainable use o f natural resources around protected areas. The sustainability o f the project will depend on various factors such as the success o f the financial plans prepared for individual protected areas, the capacity o f the government to engage private sector operators in activities to take place in and around national parks, and finally, the success in creating a viable trust fund to finance recurrent costs associated with the management o f Gabon's national parks. The reviewer would also recommend that the proponents developed different models o f protected area management and take advantage o f the presence o f stakeholders in the field to initiate co-management practices. This would have the result to reduce the management costs associated with an operation, get a strong buy-inby the local communities and other stakeholders and finally reduce the responsibility o f ANPN and MINEF. There are very few examples of community reserves in Africa, especially in the forest biome. The reviewer would invite the proponent, in the course of the implementation of the project, to look at the Tayna Community Reserve in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, an initiative by Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International (DFGFI) that has several years of existence to see if such a model could become a possible alternative to government managed protected areas. 7. Risks The main risks include poor cooperation between key stakeholders (ANPN, MINEF, NGOs, private sector partners, communities), illegal exploitation o f natural resources (timber and non-timber forest products), pressure to increase timber exploitation to compensate the decrease o f oil revenue (Gabon), land tenure system not favoring investment from the private sector or from the local communities, and 105 Annex I 6 - STAP Technical Roster Review corruption and absence of transparent logging and mining concession attribution process. Obviously, political stability constitutes a key factor that could influence the success of the project. 106 .*C . e. 4 . 0 . 8 . . e . 4 . 2 . 0 0 0 0 I . . e . . . . . a x 9 s t3 ME PI E Z0 r r r a3 0 0 . Annex 18 - Map ANNEX 18 MAP34299 IBRD 34299 GABON NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT POLICY LOAN NATIONAL PARKS, OTHER MAIN PROTECTED AREAS SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS MAIN ROADS PROVINCE CAPITALS RAILROADS NATIONAL CAPITAL PROVINCE BOUNDARIES RIVERS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES Source : CNPN, Conseil National des Parcs Nationaux du Gabon. 10E 12E 14E CAMEROON Minvoul Bitam 2N 2N EQUATORIAL MINKÉBÉ ATLANTIC Oyem vIindo OCEAN GUINEA W O L E U - N T E M Mvoung Djoua Mékambo AKANDA MONTS DE a Mitzic O G O O U É - I V I N D O CRISTAL Abang Makokou Ekata LIBREVILLE To Ovendo Ivindo MWAGNÉ Makoua PONGARA PONGARA Kango C 0 E S T U A I R E Okano IVINDO r Ogooué Ndjolé Booué 0 y s MOYEN- ta CONGO WONGA- OGOOUÉ l LOPÉ WONGUÉ Port Gentil Lambarene Offoué Okondja O G O O U É - L O L O Lac Onangué M o Sébé u Kaulomoutou n O G O O U É - WAKA WAK NGOUNIÉ NGOUNIÉ t a HAUT-OGOOUÉ HAUT-OGOOUÉ M A R I T I M E Chaillu Chaillu i Lagune n Massif Massif Lékoni Omboué Masuku Nkomi Ngounié s MONTS Mouila Mbigou BIROUGOU BIROUGOU Iguéla 2S Mt. Birougou Ogooué 2S LOANGO (1190 m) PLATEAUX PLA BATÉKÉ BA Lagune Ndendé Ndogo MOUKALABA- ALABA- To DOUDOU Zanaga Tchibanga Nyanga To Kayes N YA N G A Mayumba 0 40 80 120 Kilometers To Loubomo GABON MAYUMBA YUMBA 0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles CONGO 4S 4S This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 10E 12E CABINDA (ANGOLA) 14E MARCH 2006