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