Skip to Main Navigation

Cote d'Ivoire - Protected Area Project (Inglês)

Ratings for the Protected Area Project for Cote d'Ivoire were as follows: outcomes were satisfactory, risk to development outcome was moderate, Bank performance was moderately satisfactory, and Borrower performance was satisfactory. Some lessons learned included: dependency on parallel funding to achieve significant outcomes is an important risk factor to be addressed. Conventional livelihood micro projects are not the only elements to be considered to achieve community engagement in park management as long as such engagement measures generate direct benefits to communities. Projects in post-conflict countries need detailed situation and risk analysis. Performance of projects can be improved through incentive-based arrangements for governmental servants.

Detalhes

  • Data do documento

    2015/06/14

  • TIpo de documento

    Conclusão da Implementação e Relatórios sobre Resultados

  • No. do relatório

    ICR3427

  • Nº do volume

    1

  • Total Volume(s)

    1

  • País

    Costa do Marfim,

  • Região

    África,

  • Data de divulgação

    2015/06/23

  • Disclosure Status

    Disclosed

  • Nome do documento

    Cote d'Ivoire - Protected Area Project

  • Palavras-chave

    rate of return on capital;beneficiary survey results annex;economic and financial analysis;outputs by components;Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry;French Agency for Development;small and medium enterprise;Participation and Civic Engagement;ip disbursements archived;extension of closing date;national parks and reserves;Environmental and Social Safeguard;Man and Biosphere;intermediate outcome;park management plan;suspension of disbursement;reallocation of fund;gross domestic product;protected area;national park management;environmental safeguard policy;reallocation of proceeds;social safeguard policy;global environmental benefits;biodiversity impact;awareness raising campaign;data collection system;land tenure system;species of bird;species of reptiles;species of fish;natural resource depletion;poor rural community;quality at entry;assessment of risk;long-term poverty reduction;institutional capacity building;amount of fund;exchange rate;Exchange Rates;level of biodiversity;human development index;income from agriculture;local management;enhanced biodiversity protection;assessment of outcome;results framework;aerial survey;sustainable management;land management;fauna species;risk assessment;encounter rate;park conservation;Safeguard Policies;community support;Radio Transmission;baseline study;surrounding community;large mammal;traditional authority;sustainable financing;institutional set-up;livelihood support;development partner;causal link;community survey;alternative funds;forest ecosystem;counterpart funding;National Institutions;alternative livelihood;local radio;anthropogenic pressure;local resident;research station;community benefits;tourism potential;stakeholder analysis;Natural Resources;sector work;local actors;sector priorities;geographic focus;risk analysis;research institution;biodiversity issues;community issues;biodiversity resource;coastal region;education issues;framework law;disbursement profile;research institutions;technical component;Population Growth;partnership arrangement;community involvement;bush fire;hierarchical system;involuntary resettlement;consultative manner;safeguard action;adequate surveillance;social cohesion;financial risk;northern rebel;resource protection;local development;project risk;civil strife;effective work;framework agreement;pilot site;baseline data;governmental resources;steal goods;unsatisfactory performance;operational performance;measure of use;external fund;infrastructure damage;research study;capacities in support;qualitative indicator;sinking fund;evaluation study;sustainable system;capacity strengthening;political crisis;habitat value;financial covenant;governmental institutions;conservation effort;radio communication;project intervention;management capacity;multiple donor;financial mechanism;rural livelihood;community partnership;Environmental Assessment;beneficiary group;community participation;demographic growth;Programmatic Approach;political insecurity;institution building;global biodiversity;international capital;annual budget;civil unrest;outcome indicator;efficient management;legal framework;financial autonomy;small grants;endemic mammals;agricultural encroachment;livestock grazing;government authority;biodiversity assets;insufficient funding;park authority;cattle grazing;rapid assessment;legal reform;nature reserve;uncontrolled poaching;intact ecosystems;savanna ecosystem;financial resource;political unrest;environmental degradation;plant species;habitat loss;Civil War;external partner;long-term observations;project indicator;Environmental Policy;primary author;increase poverty;infrastructure rehabilitation;timber extraction;real gdp;heavily dependent;political conflict;rebel movement;transitional government;buffer zone;park boundary;management committee;agricultural field;community engagement;village organizations;participatory planning;radio network;village center;

Downloads

COMPLETAR RELATÓRIO

Versão oficial do documento (pode conter assinaturas, etc.)

  • PDF oficial
  • TXT*
  • Total Downloads** :
  • Download Stats
  • *A versão do texto é um OCR incorreto e está incluído unicamente em benefício de usuários com conectividade lenta.