programme des nations unies pour le dÉveloppement€¦ · web viewthe congo possesses unusual...

RESPONSE TO GEF COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTSDemocratic Republic of Congo PROTECTED AREAS BIODIVERSITY PROJECT

(Ref GEF/C.10/3, Vol I: Biodiversity Projects, Agenda 7)Comments From GEF Council member (1998)

Response Where in ProDoc

I. From Hans Peter Schipulle, GermanyI1. Three years is too short a duration of the project to produce reliable, sustained results

Following discussions with the Government in DRC, it has been decided to prolong the duration of the project from 3 to 4 years. The main reason is to allow greater flexibility in project implementation, as well as to provide time for the return of security to the country. Therefore (a) the first year will be devoted to careful management in government held territory (west of the country), using primarily government resources, (b) to be followed up with full implementation of three years, which would cover the whole country only upon careful evaluation of progress in the peace process and rebel troops disengagement in the eastern and northern part of the country. The focus of the 4 year project will be on addressing the current emergency situation, and therefore building the capacity of ICCN (human, material, technical etc.) up to internationally acceptable standards of functioning; this would lay the ground work for sustaining biodiversity conservation in general, and the possibilities of following up with a regular, long term project for biodiversity conservation in DRC. This Implementation Strategy is described in paragraph 5.

Paragraph 5

I.2. Given political stability and the security problems in the eastern part of DRC, the German experts there are still waiting to resume work, but Germany will extend cooperation with DR Congo for biodiversity conservation.

A cease fire was signed among DRC belligerents in Lusaka in September 1999, it is now being implemented by all signatory parties

UN military peace observers are already on the ground in rebel as well as government held territories

Political parties have been re-instated in May 2001 and can now work; ways to avoid human right abuses are being discussed in a national conference; and press freedom is being proclaimed by the new government in Kinshasa

A national dialogue was facilitated in 2002 by former Botswana President Masire, and this dialogue brought about an agreed constitution and power sharing mechanisms for 70% of the country. All these would lead to a democratic regime to follow national elections.

Because of this agreement 70% of the country: (west and north up to northeast), are again accessible by the government

Despite insecurity in the country, conservation NGOs have continued operations in the field: WCS and GIC in the Ituri Forest; WWF and DFGF in Virunga; WWF in Garamba; UNESCO with United Nations Foundation monies is now

Letter of co-financing from GTZ

DR Congo protected areas

supporting the five world heritage sites in DR Congo including one in government held territory (Salonga) and four in rebel held territories (Garamba, Kahuzi, Virunga and the Ituri Forest); and GTZ is active in Kinshasa ICCN Directorate (Project Parcid) as well as in Kahuzi-Biega.

There is a need for a close coordination between GTZ and UNDP/UNOPS projects.

ICCN, the Congolese Park Service, and its ongoing partners (NGO and donors) have put together a mechanism for coordination, and agreed on priority actions during the previous war, even in remote areas of the eastern part of the country where rebels were active. Two meetings were organized in April 1999 at Naivasha, Kenya and one in Paris in July 1999. A third meeting took place on 20 November 1999 in Naivasha again, and a fourth coordination meeting took place in Kinshasa (Nganda) in February 2002.

A representative of UNDP participated actively in the programmatic meetings for the GTZ project with ICCN (PARCID) in December 1998.

Also, Mr.Georg Dörken, the Chief Technical Advisor of GTZ-ICCN (PARCID) project participated (along with USAID, international and local NGOs, UNDP, Government officers) in the 17 February 1999 local appraisal committee meeting for this UNDP-GEF protected areas project.

In May and June 2001 as well as in May and June 2002 the government, UNDP GTZ (see new Parcid project CTA Wolf Schecken) and ICCN negotiated a coordination strategy for a concerted implementation of this project among partners, and this was later on accepted by all the partners including both GTZ and UNESCO and active NGOs for conservation in DR Congo. This strategy as described in the new paragraph 55 of the project document is hinged on a coordinating committee to be composed of (a) the General manager of ICCN and (b) the three CTA of major projects in the Congo protected areas (GTZ, UNESCO-UNF, and UNDP-GEF) and to meet at least every six months to ensure synergy and coordination of efforts among partners.

See letters of co-financing by UNESCO-UNF and GTZ.

Paragraph 5

The German government has envisaged extend cooperation with DR Congo. 1998 negotiations will take place to send an expert for supporting the Director General of ICCN

The GTZ project to assist the Directorate General of ICCN was effective as of June 1998. The project was renewed in January 2002, Mr. Wolf Scheckenback is now the German expert in place in Kinshasa, and replaced, Mr. Georg Dörken, the former CTA for that project.

Also another GTZ CTA Dubonnet was based in Bukavu up to May 2001, and since June 2001 he has been replaced by Mr. Klein.

As mentioned above, the GTZ project has been

See letter of co-financing by GTZ

2


an active partner in coordinating and finalizing this Project Document with Government, ICCN and UNDP.

II. Comments from Christophe Crepin, French Council Member (11/24/97)There are a number of inconsistencies between the main text and its various annexes…Footnote 1 refers to 28 management units whereas paragraph 31 to 31 units, and the figure of 16 is given in the text.. The text and its various annexes should be redrafted so that they are more detailed and consistent.

There are 28 field sites/management units where project operations will take place within 16 protected areas and national parks as described in paragraph 14 and re-written footnote 2 page 17 . In addition, there are three cities where there are Directorates of ICCN: Kinshasa’s Directorate General; and Bukavu and Goma’s Provincial Directorates, which originated from an earlier decentralization experiment that has succeeded. Thus the project will be operational in 31 units.

The 28 management units with their sub-headquarters, are distributed in the 16 protected areas selected for this GEF project. Some PAs have 2, 3 or 4 administrative sub-headquarters (see annex 2a; for instance Virunga has 4 such places; that is, Rwindi, Lulimbi, Rumangabo and Mutsora. Hence there is a sum total of 28 such management units as listed in the project document (see Project Document, Annex 2a and its footnote).

Footnote 2 and paragraph 45

Annex 2a and its footnote

Although the project is a move to decentralize the protected areas management system through 16 sites no explanations are given regarding their necessary management and coordination, or how they will be networked.

The directorate general of ICCN has the responsibility to coordinate the protected areas system. At least three functional activities that ensure networking and management coordination for the system are included in the Project Document in paragraph 51 :

(a) daily communications by two-way radios between the ICCN directorate general and each of the other 30 protected areas management unit;

(b) regular site visits by directorate general staff to the protected areas management units; and

(c) quarterly reports from each management units are sent to the directorate general.

Paragraph 53

To identify ecotourism as a major source of profit is unrealistic in the present context of insecurity.

During the 4 initial years of protected areas rehabilitation, it is not expected that eco-tourism will be undertaken in Congo’s protected areas (except perhaps in a few spots such as at the Presidential Park of N’Sele in the suburb of Kinshasa where for instance foreign residents of Kinshasa and particularly UN peace keeping mission members frequent). However, it is expected that the 4 year project will develop mechanisms for the protected areas system to be self sustaining and revenue generating, for application later on during ensuing phases.

Annex 3: Logical framework, Activity 4.3.

3


Among those mechanisms one can cite eco-tourism as well as some trophy hunting schemes. This has been clarified in the Logical Framework , Output 4. Activity 4.3.

The map is virtually illegible, and some of the protected areas names are missing on the map.

A new clearer map is attached that depicts the 16 protected areas where rehabilitation will be taking place.

See new Map annex 7.

The investment needed to equip 31 management units needs clarification

Paragraph 52 (penultimate and last lines) in the Project Document refers to the equipment needed for the 31 Management Units. A full list of required inputs is given in Annexes 2A and 2B of the Project Document.

Clarified Annex 2a and 2b, and paragraph 54, last line

A paragraph on the sustainability and financial maintenance of these 16 sites once the project is completed would be useful.

The main tenet of this 4 year emergency rehabilitation project is that when ICCN is strengthened enough to be back on its feet again, it will be able to generate sustained revenues from protected area regular operations, and eventually from some new schemes such as eco-tourism and trophy hunting, etc. (see paragraph 35 ; and annex 13---sub-contact on revenue generating schemes)

As an example, during the second semester of 1999, tourism has been launched again at the Presidential Park of N’sele. During the first month, US$500 were collected from tourists by ICCN. Also Kundelungu and Upemba National Parks in Katanga generated around US$1,000 in 1999 and 2000, through park visits by fishermen. Furthermore, there is ample precedence for revenue generation, for example, between 1986 and 1993 Virunga and Kahuzi Biega National Parks in the Kivu provinces generated monthly US$60,000 from wildlife viewing, particularly due to the gorillas. The project will endeavor to bring ICCN back to its previous standards of operation, provided that political stability and peace are re-established in the country within the 4 year period. As mentioned previously, the chances of this condition to being met is now more than ever realistic. This rehab project therefore does not guarantee financial sustainability, but sets the enabling environment for future interventions that would do so.

Paragraph 35, and annex 13 sub-contract on revenue generating schemes

III. Comments from Darryl Dunn Council Member representing Australia, New Zealand, and the Rep of Korea (21st November 1997)This project seeks to rehabilitate protected areas in DRC. The process outlined for achieving this is consistent with GEF operational guidelines. The global benefits for re-establishing the protected areas is

These constructive and supportive remarks are well appreciated, and they reflect the complex reality in DR Congo, while showing that the situation is nevertheless amenable to biodiversity conservation.

4


significant. The DRC is recognized as being among the two most important countries in Africa in terms of biological diversity given its genetic, specific and ecosystemic diversities. Constituency supports this project noting concerns of the country’s political stability.IV. Comments from Ad. Koekkoek, Netherlands Council Member (1/13/98)The project focus is on supporting international NGOs. Government involvement in formulation was almost absent and is hardly foreseen in implementation

Out of 20 people who attended the project’s formulation (ZOPP) workshop, 15 were managers of protected areas and the directorate general of ICCN; therefore Government has actively participated in the preparation of the project.

As is standard procedure for all UNDP Local Appraisal Committee Meetings, ICCN staff from the Directorate General, as well as two participants from the current Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Cooperation and Foreign Affairs were present at the February 1999 meeting. Only two people from NGOs (national and international) were involved. In May 2001, negotiations between UNDP and Government took place in Kinshasa to update the project proposal and devise an implementation strategy and coordination of efforts following current positive situation in DR Congo (Partner NGOs were kept informed of the outcome).

Output no.1 will deal with legal framework to be implemented at 95% by the Ministry of the Environment.

Government staff , including staff from ICCN, prepared along with the CTA of PARCID project and UNDP officers various annexes of this Project Document including Annexes 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, and 14.

Moreover the government is providing the major co-financing for project especially for Output 1 ; and ICCN staff, who are government employees would assist project implementation throughout. Wherever international NGOs provide assistance this will be in conjunction with ICCN park rangers, conservators, etc who are also on government payrolls.

In conclusion this is a partnership project between government and NGOs that recognize and builds on their respective capacities.

Annexes 7 to 14, including logframe developed by ICCN, NGOs, and government staff…

Paragraph 62 on the Director General of ICCN as the major player of the coordinating committee

See Letter of Co-financing by government

Social and economic dimensions of the project are not well developed and conservation matters outside the protected areas is not adequately put

The 4 year rehabilitation project is intended to put ICCN back on its feet for basic functioning, including training and assigning park managers. Once the structure is in place, then it will be

See Annex 3. Logframe, Output 5, Activities 1&2 ;

5


forward. possible to build collaborative management arrangements with local communities. Such a structure and capacity for participative planning is needed in order to slow down and stop the rapid rate of encroachment into the park systems (e.g. over the past 5 years local community’s fields have encroached into several PA; other examples of encroachment are coltan mining such as in Kahuzi and Ituri Forest, poaching, encroachment on habitats, charcoal making, etc). Only then can a dialogue between the Protected Area management and local communities be progressively fostered. Nevertheless it is expected that community based initiatives will be initiated where possible during the 4 years of the project, to set the stage for a larger and longer termed community-based biodiversity conservation project later on. At least $300,000 have been allocated in the budget to look into social dimensions and to start pilot dialogue with some communities around PA in the Kivu provinces (see Annex Logframe, Output 5, Activities 1&2).

The strategy for the implementation of the $300,000 for social-economic dimensions and development outside PA is as follows:

Dialoguing with local committees installed around PA;

Agricultural capacity reinforcement for farmers (agro-forestry; selected seeds, new improved agricultural techniques, anti-erosion measures, etc.);

Community tree plantations to avoid/lessen park tree depredation by charcoal makers; and

Assistance in the development of social infrastructures (dispensaries, schools, etc.).

Additional funds for community work will be provided through the UNESCO-UNF World Heritage Sites project takes around 5 Pas.

Paragraph 55 - 57

Paragraph 12 deals with establishing a national environmental fund, partly with UNDP resources, but it does not give details of the replenishment, the management and direct objectives of the fund.

In the process of the implementation of national environmental action plan, which also covers PAs, the Government of Democratic Congo (DRC) through the Ministry of the Environment will set up an environmental fund to support environmental activities in the country. The fund descriptions are not in this GEF protected areas brief, it is rather in the NEAP implementation project, which is a parallel project (see UNDP-Kinshasa) to this, and that is due to start in 2003. The environmental fund will receive monies out

See paragraph 19 and new footnote 1.

6


of a percentage of taxes related to the environment in the country, such as taxes on tourism, timber cutting, garbage collection, etc. Over the past 15 years, two such environmental sub-funds have already existed in DRC, namely on tourism (Fond de Promotion Touristique) and on timber harvesting (Fond de Reconstitution du Capital Forestier). These two sub-funds will be merged in the Environmental Fund, and other environmental taxes will be levied and added to the package.

7

/tt/file_convert/5f2ccc94bed2e061cd5d6a79/document.doc

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

PROJECT DOCUMENT

Country : Democratic Republic of the Congo

Project Title : Rehabilitation of Protected Areas

Project Number : ZAI/97/G31/A/1G /31

8


Project Duration : 48 months

Starting Date : May 2003

GEF Implementing Agency : UNDP

Executing Agency : UNOPS

National Counterpart Agencies: Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservancy and Tourism; Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN); and the Comité Interministériel du Suivi de la CNUED (CIC).

Project SummaryThe project will assist DRC in (a) restructuring the ICCN, (b) rehabilitating back to basic functioning of the protected areas, and (c) initiate the involvement of local communities in the management of its protected areas system to ensure the conservation of its important biological diversity.

Approved:

______________________________________ __________On behalf of the Government of Date the Democratic Republic of the Congo

_______________________________________ __________On behalf of the Executing Agency, UNOPS Date

___________________________________ __________

PROJECT FINANCINGUNDP-GEF US $ 5,917,000UNDP-TRAC US$ 1,501,440

Government (In Kind) US $ 1,784,000

GTZ/EU PARCID project and K-Biega project US$ 4,000,000

UNESCO/UNF/BelgiumWHS projects US$ 3,195,912

MacArthur Foundation projectsUS$ 690,000

WWF and related projects US$1,548,000

Total co-finance: US$12,719,352Total project: US$18,636,352

9


On behalf of UNDP Date

10


ACRONYMS

APR Annual Project ReviewCARPE Central African Regional Programme for EnvironmentCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCCF Country Coorperation FrameworkCIC Inter-ministerial Coordination CommitteeCTA Chief Technical AdvisorDFGF Dian Fossey Gorilla FundDG Director GeneralDRC Democratic Republic Of Congo EEC European Economic CommissionEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationGEF Global Environment FacilityGIC Gilman Investment CorporationGDP Gross Domestic ProductGTZ German Agency for Technical CoorperationICCN Congolese Institute for Conservation of NatureIMF International Monetary FundIUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureMECNT Ministry of Environment, Conservation, Nature and TourismNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategic Action PlanNEAP National Environmental Action PlanNEF National Environment FundNGO Non Governmental OrganizationNPA National Project AdministratorPCC Project Coordination CommitteePDF Project Development FundPIR Project Implementation ReportPSC Project Steering CommitteeREIMP Regional Environmental Information Management ProjectSTAP Scientific Technical Advisory PanelTOR Terms of ReferenceTPR Tripartite Project ReportUNF-UNECSO United Nations Fund- United Nations Education, Cultural and Scientific OrganizationUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNOPS United Nations Office for Project ServicesUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWCS World Conservation SocietyWHC World Heritage CentreWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

11


Contents

Update on the main Strategic Direction of the Project

Country / Sector Background / Context

Project Objectives and Description

Rationale for GEF Financing

Sustainability and Participation

Lessons Learned and Technical Review

Project Financing and Budget

Incremental Costs and Cost Effectiveness

Issues, Actions, and Risks

Institutional Framework and Project Implementation

Legal Context

Annexes: 1. Project Input Budget

2.a. ICCN Basic rehabilitation needs

2.b. Budget for equipment for ICCN basic operations

3. Logframe Analysis

4. Incremental Cost Analysis

5. Synopsis of 1991 Review of ICCN by the World Bank

6. STAP Technical Review and Response

7. Map of Congo’s Protected Areas

8. Project Indicative Workplan

9. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

10. Public Involvement Plan

11. Terms of References

12. Co-financing commitment letters

13. Government Endorsement Letter

14. References Cited

12


SUMMARY OF LOCAL PROJECT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (LPAC) RECOMMENDATIONS

During the LPAC held on 17 February 1999, the Committee approved the project pending amendments to the PRODOC as follows :

1. Integrate the project’s activities with that of the GTZ project so as to harmonized the two interventions,

2. Reformulate the Logical Framework of the project, in order to strengthen the aspect of awareness

raising in Outcome 4, 3. Establish the development of a National Plan for Protected Areas systems as an outcome of the

project, in view of its importance to the project.

4. Redefine the project’s indicators of success in order to make them more quantitative.

These amendments have been taken into account in the current document.

Furthermore, meetings held on May and June 2001, and May and June 2002, between the Government, UNDP, GTZ, UNESCO/UNF and ICCN, resulted in a negotiated coordination strategy for a phased implementation of this project, based on achievement of benchmarks specified in Annex 3, which is reported in the 2002 UPDATE.

13


UPDATE ON STRATEGIC DIRECTION (2002)

1. The UNDP-GEF project ZAI/97/G31/A/31, which is entitled “Rehabilitation of Protected Areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)” aims at conserving the country’s important biodiversity through assistance to the Congolese park service to get back to its feet after long neglect, excessive management centralization, and civil strife. The Project Brief was approved by GEF Council on 4th November 1997, however, development of this operational Project Document was kept on hold during the civil unrest of 1999-2002. With the advent of pacification efforts (peace accords, UN observers, etc.), UNDP deems it an opportune time to revitalize the process of not only this GEF project, but also the UNDP financed project for Policy reform in this sector (considered as co-financing). Increasing signs of illegal poaching and encroachment onto the Protected Area (PA) system and resources are being seen, thus providing even greater urgency to the matter.

2. Indeed, major institutional issues to be addressed by the project include: (a) insufficient financial, material, and trained human resources to ensure basic operations of protected areas; (b) excessive centralization in the management of protected areas; and (c) non-participation of local communities in the conservation and management of protected areas. In addition to the baseline output (supported by UNDP) of creating supportive policy, legislation, institutional, and social environment for protected areas, the project incremental outputs (supported by GEF) will consist of three major outputs: (a) a restructured and decentralized ICCN is put in place; (b) essential functioning is restored to all protected areas through supply of essential human, material, and financial resources; and (c) participatory and community-based management of protected areas are defined and executed.

3. The project forms a part of a broader UNDP supported program of environmental support and training to the Congo. It also builds upon and complements several past and on-going projects including those of: the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Gilman Investment Corporation (GIC) at the Okapi Wildlife Reserve and Ituri Forest; the German Technical Assistance (GTZ) at Kahuzi Biega National Park; the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Europe (DFGF)’s initiatives in Mount Tshiaberimu and Virunga Conservation Center; WWF projects in Garamba and Virunga National Parks; previous World Bank (Japanese Trust Fund) support to protected area planning; USAID support to NGO initiatives; the European Union to the Kivu region and the Virungas in particular; and UNESCO support to various World Heritage Sites.

4. The project will be executed by UNOPS and administered by an internationally recruited Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) up to the second year, on a full time basis, based at the ICCN Head Office. A national counterpart will assist the CTA during the first two years, and will take over and lead for the last two years of the project. The CTA in collaboration with the national counterpart will fine tune a workplan and oversee implementation of project activities, particularly the needed institutional restructuring of ICCN, under the supervision of a Project Steering Committee, and in collaboration with the other co-financing interventions (PARCID, UNF/UNESCO WHS).

14


Phased Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of the DRC Protected Areas Project

5. At the end of June 2002 the country is divided, of which the southern and western part is under government control, including the ICCN General Director’s office and 9 protected areas out of the 16 where the UNDP-GEF project will have to intervene. The other part (north and east) is under the rebel control with the remaining 7 out of 16 sites. It is practical to spread the implementation of the GEF-UNDP project over a period of 4 years. The first year would start on the government-controlled side and gradually cover all sites according to the outcomes of the pacification efforts. There is now signature of a power sharing accord between the government and the rebellion of the northern and north-eastern part of the country, as well as the presence of United Nations observers at the front line and the progressive disengagement of the belligerents. The following strategy is adopted for the gradual implementation of UNDP-GEF project on the DRC Protected Areas, and for building the synergy and the co-ordination of the efforts between all the partners in place:

The project will be spread over 4 years The first year will be devoted to starting up the project beginning with the activities achievable

at the ICCN General Directorate level, policy environment and other capacity building activities. The emphasis will be put on the elaboration of management tools, building on the 1991 institutional ICCN study update by the World Bank, and on the finalization of the ICCN restructuring. The activities in the protected areas will most likely start in the western and the south-eastern parts of the country in the 9 protected areas under government control; but may include 4 protected areas in the north-east (Garamba, RFO Ituri, Biri-Uéré and Maïko), where the rebellion has just concluded a power sharing accord with the government. The decision on exactly how to phase this strategy between the sites will be taken during a participatory “Inception Workshop” to be held within 3 months of effective start up. The major donor partners, including WB, GTZ, UNESCO and the INGOs will also be invited. A phased strategic plan for the rehabilitation of the 16 protected areas will be developed.

It is expected that project activities in the sites will first commence with a series of assessments (biodiversity status; infrastructure needs; elements needed to start participatory planning and implementation). The decision on exactly how to phase this strategy between the sites will be taken during a participatory “Inception Workshop” to be held within 3 months of effective start up. The major donor partners, including WB, GTZ, UNESCO and the INGOs will also be invited to participate in developing this plan. A phased strategic plan for the rehabilitation of the 16 protected areas will be developed.

At the end of the first year, an evaluation will be carried out to assess progress; the main indicators will be : the success of the country pacification efforts; the degree of security and government control over the eastern protected areas; and results/recommendations of the assessments. Lessons learnt from the implementation of the UNF-UNESCO project in the rebellion controlled territory will be used as a secondary indicator.

Starting from the second year, following the evaluation results, rehabilitation work will commence in the priority sites. At that moment, the lessons learnt from the UNF/UNESCO project, from PARCID and from the first year of the GEF project will influence the implementation strategy of the GEF-UNDP project.

A mid-term evaluation will be carried out at the end of the second year while the final evaluation will be carried out at the end of the fourth year.

A GEF project CTA will be appointed on full time basis for the two first years. A Congolese government counterpart will be appointed as the project national director. In addition, a Project Administrator will be engaged during the entire length of the project, who will supervise the continuity of the project for the last two years. Nevertheless, an international consultant can be used during the 3rd and the 4th year for the control of the project progress if necessary.

For better synergy and good co-ordination of initiatives with the same global objective of conservation of the DRC protected areas biodiversity, a co-ordination committee will be put in

15


place and will consist of at least the three UNF-UNESCO, PARCID, UNDP-GEF projects CTAs and the ICCN General Director. This committee will meet every 6 months to co-ordinate partners’ efforts and evaluate the progress achieved. Thus, all these projects will work together to synchronize co-funding and progress.

In addition, a Project Steering Committee will meet every 6 months and will consist of representatives of all stakeholders and co-funding partners.

6. An annual tripartite review and a final independent evaluation will ensure project monitoring. Overall supervision will be by UNDP country office in Kinshasa, and regional UNDP GEF coordinators.

Country/Sector Background/Context

Introduction:

7. In response to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC until recently known as Zaire) request for assistance in the basic rehabilitation of its protected areas system in an effort to conserve biological diversity and to ensure its national park service to be back on its feet, the GEF Council of October 1997 approved the incremental costs of the project in the amount of US $6,307,441. This incremental funding is part of a greater project of US$ 19,951,441 aiming at the implementation of the provisions of the recently completed DRC’s National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). This Project Document is the tool for the execution of the GEF allocation, which will allow DRC to (a) restructure, (b) rehabilitate, and (c) allow local communities to participate in the management of its protected areas system to ensure the conservation of its mega-biodiversity.

8. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is recognized as being among the two most important countries in Africa in terms of biological diversity given its genetic, specific, and ecosystemic diversities (Mittermeier and Werner 1989, Doumenge 1990; McNeely et al. 1990). Protected areas represent approximately 7.7% (18,050,690 ha) of the countries land mass (234,488,500 ha). However, as a consequence of the policies of the previous political regime the country’s protected areas have suffered a long period of decline culminating in the appropriation of most of their remaining management resources during the recent liberation war. In view of the new political regime a number of major donors are preparing to restart their assistance programmes to the RDC and these are expected to include investments in biodiversity conservation. However, there is an immediate need to restore basic functions to protected areas and to put in place a conducive policy, legislative, and institutional environment on which these longer term rehabilitation efforts can be built. This is the purpose of this initial three year GEF contribution.

Context

9. Over the past 32 years, the RDC has been through tremendous economic, social, and political difficulties including a stagnant economy, hyperinflation, precipitous declines in real wages, and the subsequent dependence of a majority of the citizenry on an informal subsistence economy based on uncontrolled natural resource exploitation. These political, economic, and social forces caused most donor organizations- including the World Bank and USAID, to suspend their aid programs in the early 1990s. In 1996 the IMF/World Bank concluded that economic stability and recovery were progressing, given that inflation fell in 1995 from an estimated 9,000% to only 189%, and that the government showed a surplus in its operating budget. While against this background a number of the major multilateral and bilateral donors were considering restarting their normal assistance programmes and UNDP had been asked to prepare a donor Round Table, major political changes in May 1997 have provided new impetus to these initiatives. The replacement of the previous 32 year long political regime, following a

16


brief liberation struggle by the Allied Democratic Forces for the Liberation of the Congo (AFDL), has established new era of hope and rapid social, political and economic transformation is being effected. In this new context many donors are restarting their normal assistance programs and UNDP, for example, is reinforcing its on-going aid program, which now has a current balance of $41 million.

10. While it is anticipated that within two years many of these donors will restart their assistance programmes to biodiversity conservation activities in the DRC, there is a need to establish a sound political, legislative and institutional base for this work, as well as to immediately restore basic functions at priority protected areas. This is a short, three year, project designed to do exactly this. It will lay the groundwork for more ambitious donor funded biodiversity planning and management efforts by a number of donors including the World Bank, USAID, the European Union and the German government who have all encouraged UNDP to develop this project. The major international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), who have been continuing biodiversity conservation work in the Congo over the last few years, have also participated in its development. These include WWF, DFGF, and WCS.

11. Over the past two years, important progress in environmental planning on the part of governmental and non-governmental organizations has been taking place in the Democratic Congo. Playing a key role in this is the Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism (MENCT). As part of a long-term planning programme started after the Earth Summit on Environment and Development in 1992, the ministry established the special multi-agency Comité Interministériel de Coordination (CIC), to focus on:

formulating a National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), with assistance from UNDP;

completing a Biodiversity Country Study, sponsored by UNEP-GEF; and

developing a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), again with UNDP-GEF support.

12. During 1996 and 1997, again with UNDP support, the CIC formulated a NEAP for the country. The NEAP recognizes biodiversity as a major component of the environmental sector in the Democratic Congo and key priorities laid out in the NEAP are:

the establishment of a supportive policy, legislative, financial and social environment for both environmental activities in general and biodiversity activities in particular; and

an emergency rehabilitation of DRC’s protected areas (PA) to ensure biodiversity conservation.

13. With support from UNEP and UNDP, the CIC organized the first national biodiversity seminar from 1-4 July 1995. At this time priorities were agreed on for development of the NBSAP and the first outline of the present project was developed. Project preparations were completed at a second national planning workshop on 9 and 10 July 1997, again supported by UNDP, where details of the immediate rehabilitation of the protected areas system were worked out.

14. With the support of PNUE and UNDP, the CIC organized from 1st to 4th July 1995 the first national seminar on biological diversity. The accord was concluded at that time on the importance of the elaboration of the Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (NBSAP) and the present project was outlined. The logical framework of the project was completed at a second national planning workshop held on 9 and 10 July 1997, again with the

17


support of UNDP where details of immediate rehabilitation of the protected areas system were finalize

Biodiversity Overview and Global Importance:

15. The Democratic Congo harbors an unusually wide range of biomes, ecosystems and habitats when compared to other African countries including: tropical forests (52% of total land area), woodland savannas (30% of total land area), grassland savannas (16% of total land area), and, to a lesser extent, afromontane forests, mangroves, papyrus, peat bogs, pools and seasonally inundated savannas (dambos), dry evergreen forests (muhulus), and dry woodlands (miombos) (Goodson 1988; Hedeberg 1979). In terms of species diversity, the Congo is ranked first among African countries for several taxonomic classes including: 409 species of mammals; 1086 species of birds; 216 species of amphibians; 280 species of reptiles; 48 species of butterflies; 10,000 species of angiosperms of which 3,000 are endemic to the Congo (McNeely et al. 1990). Rates of endemism for freshwater fish species in the Congo's lakes and rivers is estimated at 70% (Seligman 1991, McNeely et al. 1990).

Threats to Biodiversity:

16. Historically, low overall human population densities (17 inhabitants/km²) and low deforestation rates (0.5% per annum) have resulted in low human land-use impacts on the Congo's biodiversity resources. Nevertheless, a sustained 3.9% per annum growth in human population since 1950 in the Kivu region of east (Wils et al. 1976; Institut National de la Statistique 1984) has resulted in permanent conversion of vast forested areas into a mosaic of agricultural and degraded landscapes. Representative ecosystems in the Albertine rift, an area with extremely high endemism (Pomeroy 1993), have become surrounded by areas where the human population density exceeds 300 individuals per square kilometer (Institut National de la Statistique 1984; Shiva 1995).

17. In western Congo the Marine Mangrove Park, which houses endangered West African manatees, off-shore oil drilling and commercial fishing have left only 50% of the coastal marine ecosystem intact. In the north-east human pressures on resources have been further exacerbated by the arrival of refugees from the Sudan in 1991 and Rwanda in 1994 and rapid habitat degradation has been experienced in the areas around the Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Ituri Forest), and Garamba, Kahuzi-Biega, and Virunga National Parks (Languy 1995, Biswas et al. 1994). New settlers have invaded protected areas such as Kundelungu, Garamba, Maïko, and Upemba National Parks. At Salonga National Park organized teams have poached elephants in areas where exploitation by local populations is reportedly otherwise negligible.

Social/Cultural/Economic Issues:

18. Until recently the Congo has had one of the most unstable economies in the world including a drop in GDP from US$ 14.76 billion in 1980 to US$9.56 billion in 1990. The annual inflation rate was estimated at 6,000% and annual per capita income stood at US$ 90. Under these dire conditions, the informal economic sector thrived in the Congo with more than 75% of the population making a living from informal activities such as subsistence agriculture, including animal husbandry, and hunting and gathering. The Congo possesses unusual cultural diversity with some 360 recognized tribal groups that complicate governance by a central government as well as attempts at community-based development. On the ground, dual conflicting land tenure systems greatly complicate all aspects of daily living. While local people claim ancestral rights

18


over land, the State has enacted a law (Bakajika Law) asserting exclusive ownership and control over access of land and the natural resources on it.

Institutions/Regulations:

19. Two key institutional and regulatory factors, including a weak policy, legislative and institutional environment, and a weak protected areas management agency, currently impede effective management for biodiversity conservation. These issues are noted in the NEAP. The conflict between the traditional land tenure systems and centrally enacted legislation is to be addressed through new legislation. New environmental legislation will establish a National Environment Agency (NEA) and National Environment Fund (NEF)1. Environmental considerations are also to be introduced into all regional and sectoral planning and procedures for environmental impact assessments are to be put in place. A national environmental education programme is also to be carried out, focusing on the areas around protected areas and using the church as one vehicle of communication.

20. Responsibility for the management of protected areas is delegated from the Ministry of Environment Nature Conservation and Tourism (MECNT) to the parastatal Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN). Recommendations from the first national seminar on biodiversity as well as conclusions from existing studies (e.g. World Bank Assessment of ICCN in 1991, European Community Review of ICCN in 1990), Biodiversity Country Study, NEAP, and the July 1997 project development workshop, all point to the need to review and streamline the functioning of ICCN through decentralization and adoption of improved management approaches. Major institutional issues include:

(a) insufficient financial, material, and trained human resources to ensure basic operations of Protected Areas;

(b) excessive centralization in the management of protected areas; and

(c) Non-participation of local communities in the conservation and management of protected areas.

Prior or ongoing assistance:

21. The project development process, funded under GEF PDF Block A (ZAI/94/G42 “Vers une strategie de la biodiversite” for $25,000), included a combined UNEP-UNDP organized national biodiversity seminar (also attended by the World Bank and other bi- and multi-lateral donor agencies as well as local and international NGO) which identified priorities for the development of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) to be completed following the UNEP-GEF project GF/0313-94-64 on Biodiversity Country Study. The seminar also called for immediate action to safeguard 16 active sites (2) for protected areas already

1 In the NEAP implementation process which covers the rehabilitation of protected areas, the DRC government, with the support of a UNDP project, will put in place a National Fund for Environment (FNE). This fund is fully described in the NEAP project, not in this project document. The FNE will integrate two existing funds : (a) the Tourist Promotion Fund and (b) Forest Capital Reconstitution Fund, which are sustained by taxes on air ticket for tourism, forest exploitation, refuse collection, etc. These two funds have been existing in the country for more than 15 years2(?) The sixteen ICCN active sites for protected areas are altogether subdivided into twenty-eight management units or “STATIONS,” here reside local park managers and their administrative support staff. Generally National Parks have several

19


identified as the most important sites for biodiversity conservation in the Democratic Congo. These are: Virunga, Garamba, Kahuzi-Biega, Maïko, Upemba, Kundelungu and Salonga National Parks, as well as Nsele, Muanda (mangroves park), Ituri (Okapi Wildlife Reserve) Bombo-Lumene, Swa-Kibula, Mangaï, Bushimaï, Bili-Uere, Luama Forest or Game Reserve. These sites were identified over a period of time and on the basis of various studies, most notably a series of studies undertaken by the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and the World Bank, and on which there is consensus amongst both national and international experts on their importance in preserving critical habitats and biodiversity in the Congo. However there are non-active conservation sites such as Itombwe that will need intervention on a later stage.

22. The present project forms a part of a broader UNDP program of environmental support and training to the Congo which is composed of an Preparatory assistance project ZAI/94/004 “Strategic management of environment”, ZAI/96/G31 “National biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan”. It also builds upon and complements several past and on-going projects including those of: the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Gilman Investment Corporation (GIC) at the Okapi Wildlife Reserve and Ituri Forest; the German Technical Assistance (GTZ) at Kahuzi Biega National Park; the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund (DFGF)’s initiatives in Mount Tshiaberimu and Virunga Conservation Center; WWF projects in Garamba and Virunga National Parks; previous World Bank (Japanese Trust Fund) support to protected area planning; USAID support to NGO initiatives; the European Union to the Kivu region and the Virungas in particular; and UNESCO support to various World Heritage Sites. Relevant GEF support includes the country study (UNEP), National BSAP (UNDP), Emergency Support to the Virungas (UNDP), and the Regional Environmental Information Management Project -REIMP (World Bank).

23. The present project relies also on several past and current projects and complement them, namely the following: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Gilman Investment Corporation (GIC) at the Okapi wild fauna reserve and in the Ituri forest; German agency for technical co-operation (GTZ) to the Kahuzi-Biega national park; Diana Fossey Fund initiatives for gorillas (DFGF), to the Tshiaberimu mount and Virunga conservation centre; world Fund for nature projects in the Garamba and Virunga national parks ; on the previous support lent by the world Bank (special allocation Japanese fund) to the planning of protected areas ; on the support of the United States Agency for International Development to NGOs initiatives ; on the support of the European Union to Kivu region and to Virungas in particular ; and on the UNESCO support to various world heritage Sites.

24. The project will also complement the ICCN General Directorate’s PARCID DG/ICCN institutional capacity building support project. This is in the process of being implemented, under GTZ funding. The cost of the first phase of the project amounts to US $ 1,200,000. The support of this project will allow the ICCN to be restructured in order to put in place a rational human resources management system, to improve its financial management system, to promote tourist activities, to undertake studies necessary to increase knowledge on protected areas, and to improve work framework and conditions.

Expected situation at the end of the project

25. At the end of this project, the following results will be achieved:

The ICCN will be restructured, decentralized and reinforced through, among others, putting in place an efficient management and communication system and human as well as logistical resources capacity building ;

such management units (stations) whereas each game and forest reserve has only one station.

20


The protected areas normal functioning will be restored and a conservation plan will be elaborated for each site ;

Capacity for protected areas and environment conservation and management by villages and local communities will be built.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

Project Strategy:

26. This project will contribute directly to the conservation of biological diversity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by creating a supportive policy, legislative, financial, institutional and social environment for protected areas while at the same time setting in motion a long term process to both rehabilitate and strengthen these protected areas. Rather than attempting to carry out the latter in its entirety, the project will take the initial steps of assisting ICCN to undertake a fundamental restructuring towards a decentralized management organization, of restoring essential functioning to the 16 priority protected areas, and assisting ICCN to develop new approaches to protected area management based on a more participatory approach to conservation. In this way the project will provide a sound structural and functional basis for the long term rehabilitation of the entire protected area system of the DRC. This second stage is expected to be supported by a variety of donors and may include additional support from the GEF.

27. The project retained the rehabilitation of 16 protected areas disseminated through the entire DRC territory and which are threatened with disappearance following anarchic occupation, overexploitation of resources and destruction of rare species. At present an unknown number of species and ecosystems are directly threatened because of the near total collapse of national service capacity of protected areas to ensure management of the latter. Most of the parks lack basic management means. These threats are amplified in the eastern part of the country since 1994 with first the arrival of Rwandan and Burundi refugees, then population displacement and finally the war and insecurity that reign since 1999. This war and insecurity situation caused the suspension of conservation activities in this part of the country. But the situation now has improved to allow resumption of activities in this area.

28. Thus, serious threats hang over biological diversity at national level as well as at international level and efforts must be agreed upon to wipe them out and put in place a durable rehabilitation, protection and conservation plan. While waiting for the country to recover its territorial integrity (occupation of the eastern part making protected areas in that part inaccessible from other provinces), the project will start its activities with its support to the ICCN restructuring and with the rehabilitation of protected areas situated in the non occupied part and must extend them progressively to the eastern part as soon as the conditions allow it. Thus, once the project is approved, the CTA, the national administrator and the ICCN experts must set up a working plan which take into account the situation of the country and establish the situation of these inaccessible areas in order to define in detail the nature of the support to provide to each of these areas and start of activities.

29. The project’s implementation will be sequenced in such a way as to ensure results. The first year of the project will focus on assessments, policy enactment, capacity building, training, restructuring of ICCN, and a strategic management plan for the national PA system, including a strategic plan for rehabilitation of the 16 protected areas. The second year will focus on

21


commencement of rehabilitation of the priority sites as determined in the strategic plan; and demonostration of co-management model in selected sites. The final two years will focus on finalizing and consolidating rehabilitation; leveraging additional investment in protected area systems through the systems plan; and consolidating preliminary lessons learnt from co-management models tested in selected sites (see indicative workplan, Annex 8). The benchmark indicators (see Annex 3) are: a restructured and functioning ICCN; protected areas policies in place; a nationally validated protected area systems plan; guidelines for environmental impact assessments; a strategic plan for the rehabilitation of the 16 protected areas; 16 sites rehabilitated; a demonstration model developed and tested in selected communities for community participation in protected areas co-management.

Project Development Objective:

30. Within the overall objective of ensuring conservation of the important biodiversity of the Congo basin the specific objective of the project is:

To establish a sound structural and functional basis for protected area planning and management in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Immediate objectives

31. Four specific objectives or outputs are anticipated (these and the activities associated with them are detailed in the logical framework table - Annex 2.):

Output 1. A supportive policy, legislative, institutional, financial, institutional and social environment for protected areas is created.

32. This will be achieved through updating national legislation on the environment, and particularly that relating to protected areas and land tenure; elaborating procedures for environmental impact assessment and incorporating environmental issues into regional and sectoral planning; establishing a national environmental information system; and supporting the development of environmental education programmes targeted at the populations living around key protected areas. The possibility of creation of a National Environment Fund will also be explored for later investment.

Output 2. The Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation is restructured and a decentralized system of protected area management is put in place.

33. In accordance with the various institutional analyses of ICCN conducted in recent years, and in particular the World Bank study of 1991, ICCN will restructure itself towards a decentralized institution with a small headquarters policy, planning, monitoring and technical support unit providing support to relatively autonomous protected area management units. Similarly a new system of financial management and accounting will be put in place. Associated with its new decentralized structure, the vast size of the country, and the difficulty in communications, ICCN will design and implement a system for communication and information gathering and exchange between its functional units. It will also develop a national protected areas system plan.

Output 3. Develop and disseminate a national protected area system plan.

22


34. This output will be achieved by first carrying out data collection in the field and conducting documentary studies needed for PA management planning. These activities will put in place a consultative process for the elaboration of a national Protected Area management system plan, which will be validated through dissemination to the public and subject to government approval.

Output 4. Essential functioning is restored to all protected areas through supply of essential human, material, and financial resources.

35. The minimum essential equipment for protected area and headquarters operation, including vehicles, radios, bicycles, camping equipment, etc (see Annex 3) will be acquired. A technical retraining programme will be established and all “Conservator” level staff will receive refresher training, including instruction in their new responsibilities under a decentralized management system. Revenue generating systems, based on tourism receipts, will also be re-established and essential visitor services put back in place. These activities are specifically designed to facilitate the planning and launching of broader rehabilitation efforts supported by other donors and specific details of essential support will be adjusted as appropriate as such programmes are launched.

Output 5. Approaches to participatory and community-based management of protected areas in the Congo are defined on the basis of analysis of experience in at least 5 pilot sites.

36. Current protected area management approaches in the Congo are primarily based on historical exclusionary systems of management. Alternative approaches involving local community participation have in the past been experimented with by a number of NGO’s. These activities will be restored as pilot demonstration sites for use both in staff retraining, and, on the basis of analysis and lessons learned from them, as the basis for developing more general participatory approaches to protected area management in the Congo.

RATIONALE FOR GEF FINANCING

37. The project responds directly to the “Forests” operational programme of the GEF. Maintaining an effective network of protected areas in the Congo is essential for in-situ forest conservation. In terms of globally significant biological diversity D. R. of Congo is one of the two richest countries in Africa. In addition to a known 409 species of mammals, 1,086 species of birds, 216 species of amphibians, 280 species of reptiles and more than 10,000 species of angiosperms, of which at least 3,000 are endemic to the Congo, it is thought that there are many species as yet undescribed in the dense tropical forests that cover 52% of the country’s land area. A number of these, such as the northern white rhinoceros, African elephant, mountain and Grauer’s gorilla, manatee, okapi, bonobo and Congo peacock, are well-known flagship species and sub-species. In addition to its species diversity Congo supports a wide range of ecosystems including marine, montane and lowland forest, and savanna habitats.

38. Currently an unknown number of species and ecosystems are under direct threat because of the virtually complete breakdown in the ability of the national protected areas institution to manage these protected areas. Basic essentials for management do not exist at most parks.

39. This project is very much country-driven. The Democratic Congo was among the first countries to sign at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) and to ratify (1994) the Convention on Biological Diversity. Despite the political and economic conditions of the last 32 years the country has made important steps towards improved environmental management in general and biodiversity conservation in particular.

23


Through the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism, the country is engaged in an active long-term participatory process for environmental planning which includes biodiversity conservation as a primary objective. Activities already carried out, or in process, include:

i) the development and implementation of a National Environment Action Plan;

ii) a comprehensive assessment of the status and threats to its biological diversity, from the formulation of a Biodiversity Country Study to the development of a NBSAP;

iii) the organization of a series of national seminars on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and

iv) the organization in July 1997 of a project planning workshop by ICCN.

40. The project prevents the loss of previous investments. Organizations such as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund (DFGF-Europe), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Int.), the European Union (EU), German Technical Assistance (GTZ), and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) already have invested considerable human, material, and financial resources at protected areas such as Salonga, Garamba, Virunga, and Kahuzi-Biega National Parks. The World Bank, through a Japanese Trust Fund, has provided extensive assistance to ICCN and partner NGOs such as WWF and IUCN to develop management plans for many of the Congo's gazetted protected areas. The European Union has offered general support for refugee relief and agricultural development in the Kivu province and is in the process of restarting its support to Salonga National Park under the ECOFAC programme. While some of the benefits of these previous investments have already been lost because of the recent political and economic situation, action at this time when the adverse political and economic forces have been removed can prevent further losses.

41. The project leverages significant additional financing immediately as an essential part to a broader UNDP environmental support program in the Congo, the project includes cross-sectoral co-financing with government agencies and partner NGOs. It also lays a critical foundation for the revival of other bi-lateral and multi-lateral donor financed biodiversity conservation programs in the Congo.

TARGET BENEFICIARIES

42. The target beneficiaries of this project are:

the Ministry of environment and its technical services like as ICCN, CIC and all protected areas,

the population and communities the world through the conservation of biodiversity

SUSTAINABILITY AND PARTICIPATION

Sustainability:

43. By building a sound structural and functional foundation for protected area management in the Congo this project will create an effective operational context for long-term in-situ conservation measures. While financial means for long-term protected areas management do not currently

24


exist in the Congo important components of the project include the establishment of an environmental trust fund, the establishment of a new system of financial management, the restoration of basic revenue generating functions, including gorilla based tourism, and the development of a protected areas system plan that will include a long term financial plan for sustainability taking into account both the economic realities in-country and the need to design a lower-cost, more financially sustainable, decentralized approach to protected areas. Further, financial sustainability is not anticipated at the end of this first three year GEF capacity building investment. An explicit result of this project is to have laid the groundwork for further donor support to protected areas and biodiversity conservation in the Democratic Congo, as well as creating the conditions whereby the once lucrative eco-tourism industry based on gorilla visitation can restart.

Participation:

44. Project preparation has involved extensive discussions with and between many government departments, academic institutions, and NGOs. The first national biodiversity seminar joined 130 participants including representatives from local communities and local and provincial administrators as well as central government and donor representatives. The ICCN project planning workshop was attended by managers from various Protected Areas, NGO representatives, advisors to the MECNT, and UNDP personnel.

45. The planning components of the project will follow a participatory methodology designed to engage representatives from all sectors of society in a process of consultation and decision-making regarding the direction and scope of protected areas planning and management in the Congo. In this it will draw on the pilot activities in community participation to be restored at various key protected areas. The refresher training of managers will include lessons from these participatory activities and should lead to further discussions between managers and local communities at all of the country's sixteen active protected areas.

Lessons Learned and Technical Review Lessons Learned:

46. The development of this project draws on a wide range of experience both in the Congo and elsewhere by a wide range of actors including IUCN, ICCN, WWF, DFGF, WCS, GIC, GTZ, the EU, UNHCR, UNDP, the World Bank, and GEF STAP technical reviewers. At a macro level it was guided by the need to have in place a supportive political, legislative, institutional, financial and social environment. At the middle level it was guided particularly by the conclusions from the World Bank (1991) institutional review of ICCN, as well as increasing experience with protected areas worldwide which points to the need to decentralize protected area management retaining a core policy, planning and monitoring unit while giving management responsibility to protected area units. It was also guided by experience throughout Africa which shows that lower cost more participatory approaches to protected areas management are essential for financial sustainability. At the micro-level project design is guided by a number of innovative pilot activities in community participation in protected area management which, like numerous similar experiments worldwide, suggest that carefully organized participatory management activities with community members can increase mutual understanding regarding on-site management objectives and subsequently reduce over-exploitation in protected areas. Finally the project is guided by UNHCR’s and UNDP’s own recent experience over the last three years in the Congo in both managing and administering environmental projects associated with refugee impacts in eastern D. R. of Congo and the preparation of the NEAP and the implementation of the GEF financed biodiversity country study and biodiversity strategy and action plan.

25


Technical Review:

47. A 1996 an earlier version of this proposal was reviewed by Drs. Michael Harrison and Annie Gauthier-Hion from the GEF STAP roster. Harrison's comments reflected a general precautionary approach regarding the implementation of projects in the Congo, then Zaïre, because of the risks associated with the then political and economic situation. Gauthier-Hion shared several of Harrison's concerns and identified an apparent overemphasis on sites focusing on endangered mega-fauna in northeastern Congo. The reason for the latter was that at that time these sites were the most critically threatened, are considered vitally important biologically because of their very high rates of endemism, and were sites where international NGO’s were still active and success could be reasonably anticipated. In view of the changed political and social circumstances, however, there is a need to not only work on these mega-biodiversity sites, but also the other sites in the west of the country where protectged areas infrastructure has deteriorated. This proposal now addresses all 16 priority sites as identified by the various biodiversity planning processes described above. These 16 sites are both in the northeast and in the western parts of the country. These 16 priority sites are divided into 31 management units or stations.

48. This project recognizes fully the difficulties of working in the Democratic Congo, but in view of recent political developments there is hope for social, economic, and political stability and further improvement in the near future. Also in view of the experience of CIC and UNDP in implementing various environmental activities, including emergency response measures in the Virunga’s and the preparation of a NEAP, biodiversity country study, and now the BSAP, it is felt that a carefully designed and closely monitored three-year project geared specifically at addressing the inherent problems of the Democratic Congo can be effectively carried out at this point in time. This project is also critical to paving the way for other donor investments in that in addition to establishing a sound basis for future biodiversity conservation activities it demonstrates the feasibility of biodiversity support activities under current conditions.

49. The STAP technical review of the latest proposal assists in highlighting the critical delicate balance that must be achieved during project implementation. On the one hand “protective” functions must be restored to existing protected areas as an urgent priority, while on the other hand a new more participatory and community development based approach to protected area management must be introduced and adopted. In this regard lessons from the APN approach in Madagascar, which show that individual and institutional reorientation are more important in the short term than the provision of alternatives, are relevant. Similarly, the history of the COBRA project in Kenya demonstrates the difficulties associated with achieving such reorientation. Project design takes these lessons into account by providing only for the restoration of critical basic protective functions and combining these with retraining that addresses the need for more participatory and developmentally oriented approaches. While the STAP reviewer particularly notes the need for close integration of outputs 3 and 4 in order to address this issue, project design assumes that there will be close integration of all 4 outputs since outputs 3 and 4 are both fundamentally linked to political commitment and decentralization at both ICCN (output 2) and higher government (output 1) levels. Again, as the reviewer notes, the key will be to ensure that the correct balance and timing is achieved throughout implementation and this has been clarified in the text.

50. The above is critically related to project duration. This project provides for an initial GEF contribution over a period of 4 years. However, the background context includes other interventions that have a longer duration. The first 5 years of what can be taken as a rolling programme is described. Currently there is commitment from the highest levels of government for an election process to take place two years from now. It is assumed that in the light of political developments and commitments over the course of the next two years a second phase

26


of GEF investment will follow. Consequently the time frame for the present GEF intervention, including one year for the design of the follow-on investment project, is three years. The text of the proposal has been reworded to clarify this.

PROJECT FINANCING AND BUDGET

51. The following is the budget of the combined project, by component (see Input Budget in Annex 1). All co-financing commitment letters are in Annex 12. An indication of sequencing of implementation is provided in the second column of the table. The first three outputs will be conducted primarily in the first year (it should be noted that some sub-activities may continue during the 2-4 years – see workplan Annex 8 for more details). Upon successful evaluation, the last two outputs will be implemented starting year 2. In this manner, about 18% of GEF funds is expected to be disbursed in the first phase (year 1).

Summary Budget by Component (US$)

Component Phase (year)

GEF* Government

UNDP Other Donor**

TOTAL

1. General Policy Environment 1 0 0 1,501,440 1,500,000 3,001,4402. Restructuring and ICCN Decentralization

1 783,315 114,261 0 500,000 1,397,576

3. Protected Area System plan 1 200,000 50,000 0 0 250,0004. Essential Eqpt & Training 2-4 3,833,485 1,010,444 0 6,855,912 11,699,8415. Participatory Management 2-4 1,100,200 609,295 0 1,178,000 2,887,495Total 5,917,000 1,784,000 1,501,440 9,433,912 18,636,352

*GEF amount excludes PDF A for $25,000**UNESCO/UNF and GTZ/EU, Mac Aurther Foundation, WWF.

52. The total amount of expected co-financing reported in the Brief (in 1997) was $13,594,000.. Since then, and due to the security situation, most donors withheld their contributions. Recently a few, notably some INGOs, EU, GTZ and UNESCO have restarted their activities. By the time of submission of the Project Document for CEO endorsement, some of the planned co-financing had already been disbursed. The amount of co-financing actually confirmed that covers the period of the current project is $12,719,352, which represents funds not yet disbursed by the previously identified co-financiers, as well as new funding coming in as of 2003. Some partners have already invested in emergency infrastructure needed by a few of the protected areas. This amount is therefore subtracted from the GEF increment, bringing the GEF increment slightly down to $5,917,000 (compared to $6,295,000 requested at the time of Work Program Entry).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS

27


Government contributions

53. Government contributions amount to the equivalent of 1 784 000 US dollars and will cover ICCN operation costs and its different protected areas, salaries of the counterpart personnel as well as the supply of equipment, rooms and offices that will accommodate the project. The ICCN general manager’s office has the responsibility of managing and co-coordinating the protected areas system in the DRC; it relies on three provincial management offices (Bukavu, Goma and Lubumbashi) and stations in each of the protected areas that are run by wardens and ensure the daily management of reserves with the support of an administrative and surveillance (park rangers) personnel. Through this network, of which each sit is endowed with communication radios, the ICCN general management co-ordinates the management of protected areas by notably: (a) Daily communication by radio with the 30 other sites of the project; (b) regular visit by the general management personnel in protected area sites and (c) by half-yearly reports from sites to the general management.

GEF Contributions

54. In view of the implementation of the full project, the GEF inputs amount to 5, 917, 000 US dollars (not including the PDF A) and they consist of (see Annex 2a for the detailed input budget):

Services of a principal technical adviser for 24 months; Services of a national administrator of the project for 48 months; A provision to ensure punctual consultations services required during the

implementation of the project; Services of the administrative support (an administrative and accountant assistant, two

secretaries and drivers) ; Services of national experts and consultants; Various subcontracts relating to i) putting in place a transparent financial management

system, ii) ICCN restructuring and decentralization, iii) putting in place a communication and information system, iv) developing the protected area system plan; v) rehabilitation of the Virunga training centre, vi) restoration of the protected areas minimal functioning, and vii) application of a participative approach;

Office equipment (computer, photocopier, fax), 31 vehicles, 31 radiophones, 3 motorcycles, 83 bicycles, 13 speed-boats and various basic equipments for protected areas operations (see annex 2.A.) are necessary for doing up the minimum functioning of the DRC protected areas network supported by this rehabilitation project.

Co-Funding: -UNDP; -GTZ-Parcid; -UNF-UNESCO- WHS

55. The GTZ intervention will focus on two aspects: (a) support to Kahuzi-Biega national park for 2.5 millions Euro up to 2004 and (b) support to the ICCN (PARCID) general management for 1 million Euro up to end 2004. The objective of the GTZ Kahuzi-Biega project is to ensure the protection of natural resources in the park in harmony with the needs of the neighboring population. The Kahuzi-Biega will bring, in addition to its long experience in park protection, a particular experience in integration of the neighboring population. This approach can serve as an example to protected areas and can be applied directly. The objective of the PARCID projects, on the basis of studies by the World Bank and the GTZ, to build institutional capacity of the general management so that it can play fully its leading role towards its protected areas and its co-coordinating role towards its co-operation partners. To this effect, PARCID will actively accompany restructuring and reorganization activities in harmony with the CTP of the UNDP-GEF programme and on the basis of an operation plan jointly elaborated, and if necessary, will take in charge part of planned activities. In this way,

28


a synergy will be reached by the close co-operation of the two projects. Like in the past, PARCID will then support and advise ICCN in the planning, co-ordination and transposition of its own activities. In addition, it will be particularly important to support ICCN in the co-ordination and harmonization of activities of many partners. The two GTZ projects fit as a complement into the UNDP-GEF global programme and complement it.

56. The sites centre of the UNESCO World Heritage co-fund two projects to DRC protected areas for 4 years since 2001. These are: (a) the «Conservation of biodiversity in armed conflicts regions » United Nations Foundation-UNESCO project; it supports 5 DRC protected areas registered as World Heritage Sites (WHS), namely Kahuzi-Biega, Virunga, Garamba, RFO Ituri and Salonga for a sum of US $2,895,912 (UNF); and (b) the project on the « promotion of the conservation of community based biodiversity of the world heritage sites » for 300,000 Euro (Belgium). Contrary to the UNDP-GEF project, these two UNESCO World Heritage Centre projects will operate simultaneously in the rebel and government zones and can bring experience lessons to extend the UNDP-GEF intervention to rebellion controlled zones if after one year, efforts to pacify the country do not succeed. Otherwise, the world heritage centre projects will support, in partnership with the UNDP-GEF project the actual management of protected areas (product 1), like training park rangers, payment of bonus to park rangers (product 4).

57. The UNDP support to the environment sector in DRC serves as the base to the protected area rehabilitation project, particularly its product 1 on the legal framework of the environment sector, which follows the PNAE recommendations. Furthermore, the framework of co-operation of countries (CCP) between the UNDP and the DRC for the period 2003-2005 has planned a US $ 1.3 million for the environment sector, which will support the implementation of the PNAE set up in 1998 with the assistance of UNDP. The protected area rehabilitation project was conceived for the implementation of PNAE prescriptions for the biodiversity sector in the protected areas. UNDP has already funded since the year 2000 the updating of existing legal texts in the environment sector and focusing on water, the forest, fishing, and the code for environment for US $201.440.

Incremental Costs and Cost Effectiveness

Incremental Costs:

58. The incremental cost analysis (see Annex 4 for details) illustrates that the level of financial and technical resources dedicated to protected areas management in the baseline is not sufficient to conserve the extraordinary species diversity and endemism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In order to secure these benefits, significant actions need to be taken to address weaknesses in the policy, institutional, and regulatory environment. Further, the need to create an institutional and legal environment conducive to conservation efforts is particularly important to revitalize efforts from other parts of the donor community.

59. The cost of baseline activities, including projected expenditures on all aspects of conservation management at the national level and field sites, amounts to US$ 13,150,000 over five years. The costs of incremental activities under the GEF alternative amount to US$ 18,636,352, of which US$ 1,501,440 will be provided by UNDP as co-financing for implementation of the NEAP, and more particularly strengthening of the national protected areas policies. US$ 1,784,000 will be provided by the government, US$ 4,000,000 by GTZ/EU, US$ 3,195,912 by UNESCO/UNF, $690,000 by MacArthur Foundation, and $1,548,000 from WWF. The GEF will contribute US 5,917,000 towards these incremental costs. GEF financing amounts to 32% of the total costs of the alternative course of action.

29


Cost Effectiveness:

60. The project will achieve long-term cost effectiveness by creating an environment conducive to effective protected area planning and management in the Congo and by assisting ICCN restructure itself towards a decentralized, more cost-efficient organization. In addition its actions provide immediate support to simply reestablish the essential minimum basic management functions of protected areas. These investments will allow preventive planning and capacity building which will leave ICCN better able to handle situations on the ground and thus reduce future costs incurred by such real pressures on protected areas as human encroachment, and prepare ICCN for additional donor financing which this project will actually directly leverage.

ISSUES, ACTIONS, AND RISKS

61. The project rests on five premises:

(i) that the new government of the Congo will continue to change the political, social and economic environment in the direction of stability and transparency;

(ii) that the government of the Congo, including MECNT, CIC, ICCN, and other partner agencies, is making a genuine attempt to establish an effective structural and functional environment for biodiversity planning and management;

(iii) that suitable national legislation is enacted that resolves the conflict between central and traditional approaches to land tenure;

(iv) that ICCN accepts the institutional restructuring recommendations included in the World Bank report and is willing to undertake the restructuring process;

(v) that other donors are indeed ready to return to support the more extensive rebuilding of Congo’s protected areas after this initial rehabilitation.

62. There are reasons to expect that all these assumptions will be met. Government reforms are continuing to move forward and a two year transition period has been set. Both the MECNT, CIC, and ICCN have been closely involved in the development of this and the NBSAP development process is already underway. All parties seem to accept and support the project's objectives. The need for new legislation is clearly laid out in the NEAP and the government seems committed to the development of the NEA and the incorporation of environmental concerns into all sectoral and regional planning. Most of the major donors have made concrete steps towards restarting their activities in the new Democratic Congo, and the World Bank as well as the International Monetary Fund are renegotiating their programs with the new political leadership of the country. USAID is considering restarting its development program in the Democratic Congo with the extension of the CARPE (Central African Regional Programme for the Environment) project into Congo and the organization of a donor round table.

63. Despite this the project must deal with significant issues pertaining to the ongoing fragility of political, economic, and social systems in the Congo. These factors include: hyperinflation; conflicting land tenure policies and local landlessness; migration; influxes of refugees from Rwanda, Burundi, and Sudan; and wide dependence on the land-based informal economy. The new government has promised economic and monetary reforms to lead first to stabilization of

30


the economy and later on to its growth. However, the project's approach of decentralization, institution building, and a strong move towards more participatory approaches to protected area management, represent fundamental shifts in current administrative direction and, if successful, are expected to make biodiversity planning and management less dependent on centralized bureaucracies and less susceptible to waves of economic, political, and social instability.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Institutional Framework and GEF Implementing Agency and other Donor Coordination:

64. The project is placed under the supervision of the Ministry of Environment, Nature conservation and fisheries, which is in charge of the management of environment policy and problems (setting up a favorable political, legislative, institutional, financial and social environment). The ICCN is the national implementation agent of the project and will be assisted, whenever possible and according to need, by any technical service of the Ministry of Environment.

65. The present project will be implemented by the UNOPS. As implementation agent, the UNOPS will provide technical assistant and equipment, and will ensure setting up and building capacities as regards management of protected areas through conception and implementation of a training programme. In the field, the UNOPS will contract out to NGOs some activities linked to the restoration of the basic protected areas functioning.

66. A Steering Committee (or Board of Management) will be instituted and will consist of: representative from the Ministry of Environment, the ICCN, national and international NGOs participating in pilot activities; and major donors and co-financiers such as the UNDP, the UNF-UNESCO, the German Agency for Technical Co-operation (GTZ). The Board of Management will be of consultative and decision-making nature and will also facilitate mobilization of necessary additional resources while watching over the co-ordination and coherence of different interventions. To also ensure synergy and non duplication of efforts, a committee for co-ordination with parallel-funded projects will be formed and composed specially of CTAs of the three projects in parallel implementation (UNDP-FEM, UNESCO-UNF, GTZ-EU), the ICCN general manager and the project national administrator.

67. A Project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be established in Kinshasa, consisting of the National Project Director (who is the government counterpart and ICCN General Director), the CTA, a Project Administrator, and support staff. All except the ICCN General Director, will be employed with GEF funding. The PCU will be responsible for delivery of impacts and results of the project, and will do so through the coordination of various subcontracts and engagement of national and international consultants. The draft TORs for the subcontracts are provided in Annex 11. The type, profile and TORs for the international and national consultants will be decided in consultation with UNDP-GEF, UNDP-Kinshasa, UNOPS and ICCN, during an Inception Meeting in the first 3 months of the project, and based on the annual workplans.

68. DRC’s biodiversity is universally known for its global significance. The country is huge and has an extensive PA system, covering many National Parks of extraordinary dimensions. The needs for PA management are commensurately big and there is therefore a strong justification for additional GEF funding over and above UNDP’s intervention. The Government of DRC is preparing a national forest and biodiversity program in which management of protected areas will play a key-role. In this framework, the World Bank is supporting policy reforms, investment programs and is preparing a

31


complementary project concept to our UNDP proposal. We have discussed the scope of their intervention and have agreed on its major thrust to ensure synergy. It has been agreed that both UNDP and WB’s project will support the first phase of DRC’s longer-term national multi-donors programme. The WB’s concept would complement UNDP’s emergency intervention to rehabilitate the entire system, including its institutional management capacity to minimal levels and creating the appropriate enabling policy environment. In this regard, it has been agreed that the capacity building component of both operations will be developed through a sector-wide institutional review including MINAFFET and ICCN, so as to be complementary to each other and to other donors’ upcoming operations for site-level interventions at selected protected areas, The full details for ensuring that both interventions would be fully complementary in the framework of DRC’s national forest and biodiversity program, would be articulated at the inception workshop of the UNDP project to be held at the beginning of project implementation.. Also, once pipeline entry for the Bank concept has been awarded, the WB would be having a seat on the proposed Project Steering Committee, with the understanding that this would be reciprocal for UNDP on the Bank’s project. Furthermore, the World Bank’s project will mainstream biodiversity into DRC’s broader policy reform agenda and into DRC’s priority post-conflict reconstruction and poverty alleviation strategies (HIPC, PRSP). In that the GEF/WB operation will greatly increase the chance of success and the sustainability of upcoming conservation efforts in DRC including the proposed GEF/UNDP project.

Project Monitoring, Evaluation and Overall Supervision:

69. In view of past circumstances in the country this project will be subject to particularly intense monitoring and scrutiny by UNDP and the Steering Committee will also establish and closely monitor project checkpoints. Overall monitoring and supervision will be carried out in accordance with standard UNDP and GEF procedures. The project will be subject to an annual TPR and PIR accordingly to GEF and UNDP procedures and policy on project monitoring. Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) and the National Coordinator shall prepare and submit to each tripartite meeting a project performance evaluation report (combined APR/PIR). A project terminal report will be prepared for consideration at the terminal review meeting.

70. The project shall be subject to the mid-term review eighteen months after the start of full implementation and to a final independent evaluation at least six months prior termination. The organization, terms of reference and timing will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.

LEGAL CONTEXT

71. This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic Service Agreement between the Government of D. R. of Congo (renamed Democratic Republic of the Congo) and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on 27 May 1976. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement. In order to promote flexibility in the implementation and management of this UNDP project the following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the UNDP Resident Representative only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project document have no objections to the proposed changes:

(a) Revisions in, or addition of, any of the annexes of the project document;

32


(b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;

(c) Mandatory semi-annual revisions which rephase the delivery of agreed project inputs, or reflect increased expert or other costs due to inflation, or take into account agency expenditure flexibility.

72. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

33


73. LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 Project Input BudgetAnnex 2a ICCN Basic Rehabilitation NeedsAnnex2b Budget for Requirements neededAnnex 3 Log Frame AnalysisAnnex 4 Incremental Cost AnalysisAnnex 5 A Synopsis of the 1991 review of ICCN by World BankAnnex 6 STAP Technical Review of GEF ProposalAnnex 7 Map of the Congo Protected AreasAnnex 8 Project Work PlanAnnex 9 Monitoring and Evaluation PlanAnnex 10 Public involvement Plan OutcomesAnnex 11 Terms of ReferenceAnnex 12 Co-financing lettersAnnex 13 References cited

34


Annex 1. PROJECT INPUT BUDGET

COUNTRY:Democratic Republic of Congo

PROJECT NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: Congo Protected Areas

BL DESCRIPTION EXECUTING m/m 2003 m/m 2004 m/m 2005 m/m 2006 TOTAL TOTAL AGENCY Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars m/m Dollars 10 PROJECT PERSONNEL 11 11-01 International Experts 11-02 Chief Technical Advisor UNOPS 12 195000 12 195000 24 390,00011-03 International Consultants UNOPS 4 42000 4 42000 2 21000 2 21000 12 126,00011-99 Sub-Total 16 237,000 16 237,000 2 21,000 2 21,000 36 516,00013 Administrative Support 13-01 Administrative assistant/acc.UNOPS 12 14400 12 14400 12 14400 12 14400 48 57,60013-02 Secretary UNOPS 12 16800 12 16800 12 16800 12 16800 48 67,200

13-03 Drivers UNOPS 12 12000 12 12000 12 12000 12 12000 48 48,00013-99 Sub-Total 36 43,200 36 43,200 36 43,200 36 43,200 144 172,80015 Monitoring & Evaluation 15-01 Monitoring & Evaluation 15-02 Official missions UNOPS 30000 30000 30000 30000 120,00015-99 Sub-Total 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,00016 Mission Costs 16-01 Missions UNDP UNOPS 3000 3000 3000 3000 12,00016-02 Missions UNOPS UNOPS 3000 3000 3000 3000 12,00016-03 Evaluation missions (3) UNOPS 10000 60000 0 60000 130,00016-99 Sub-Total UNOPS 16,000 66,000 0 6,000 0 66,000 154,00017 National Consultants

g:\natproj\drcongo\proareas\D. R. of Congo3.doc 26/06/2003 05:11:00 AM 35


17-01 National Consultants UNOPS 8 16000 8 16000 8 16000 8 16000 32 64,00017-02 National Administrator UNOPS 12 24000 12 24000 12 10000 12 24000 48 82,00017-99 Sub-Total 20 40,000 20 40,000 20 26,000 20 40,000 80 146,00019 COMPONENT TOTAL 72 366,200 72 416,200 58 126,200 58 200,200 260 1,108,80020 CONTRACTS

21-01Financial Management Systems UNOPS 28000 28500 27000 28500 112,000

21-02Institutional assessment, restructuring UNOPS 54000 54000 34000 29000 171,000

21-03Information and Communications Systems UNOPS 34000 34000 0 0 68,000

21-04Protected Areas Systems Plan UNOPS 200000 200,000

22-01Virunga training center rehabilitation UNOPS 145570 119000 264,570

23-01Reactive revenue generating Systems UNOPS 0 0 75000 22150 97,150

24-01 Ituri Forest Reserve UNOPS 0 92,000 100000 100000 300,00024-02 Garamba National Park UNOPS 0 92,000 195000 71510 358,51024-03 Maiko National Park UNOPS 0 92,000 72500 82500 247,000

24-04Kundelunga & Upemba National Park UNOPS 0 107,150 140000 139000 386,150

25-01Community based approaches UNOPS 24000 41,000 76,000 43000 184,000

20-99 Sub-Total 340,000 540,650 865,070 634,660 2,380,38029 COMPONENT TOTAL 340,000 540,650 865,070 634,660 2,380,38030 TRAINING 32 Other Training 32-01 Study tours UNOPS 22500 23425 22,500 0 20000 88,42532-02 Workshops UNOPS 40000 40000 25000 0 15000 120,00032-99 Sub-Total 62,500 63,425 47,500 0 35,000 208,42539 COMPONENT TOTAL 62,500 63,425 47,500 0 35,000 208,42545 EQUIPMENT



45-01 Maintenance of equipment UNOPS 114000 134000 122000 98000 468,00045-02 Local procurement UNOPS 60000 50000 20000 10000 140,00045-03 International procurement UNOPS 660100 400000 75000 1,135,10045-99 Sub-Total 834,100 584,000 217,000 108,000 1,743,10049 COMPONENT TOTAL 834,100 584,000 217,000 108,000 1,743,10050 MISCELLANEOUS 52 Reporting including Audit

52-01Reporting Cost including audit UNOPS 5000 5000 5000 5000 20,000

52-02 Sundry UNOPS 4000 4500 4700 4800 18,00052-99 Sub-Total 9,000 9,500 9,700 9,800 38,00059 COMPONENT TOTAL 9,000 9,500 9,700 9,800 38,000 Project Total 72 1,611,800 72 1,613,775 58 1,265,470 58 987,660 5,478,705 UNOPS AOS UNOPS 128,945 129,102 101,238 79,010 438,295 99 GRAND TOTAL 72 1,740,745 72 1,742,877 58 1,366,708 58 1,066,670 260 5,917,000

Annex 2.A. ICCN BASIC REHABILITATION NEEDS



Sites # of Stations

Need for Training Needs in Basic Equipment for Protected Areas Operations

(3) ParkRangers

Conservators Vehicles Radio Transceivers

Walkie-Talkies

Motorcycles

Bicycles Outboards

Typewriters Tents

HQ Kinshasa 1 - - 1 1 10 - - - 1 -PD Goma 1 - - 1 1 2 - - - 1 -PD Bukavu 1 - - 1 1 2 - - - 1 -Virunga NP 4 200 8 4 4 20 - - 3 4 2Garamba NP 2 200 4 2 2 10 2 10 - 2 2Kahuzi-Biega 3 100 6 3 3 10 2 - - 3 2Maïko NP 3 300 4 3 3 10 4 10 - 3 5Upemba NP 3 200 4 3 3 20 2 20 2 3 2Kundelungu 1 100 2 1 1 10 2 10 1 1 2Salonga NP 3 400 4 3 3 - 4 20 4 3 2N’sele 1 20 2 1 1 4 - - 1 1 -Muanda 1 50 2 1 1 4 - - 1 1 1Epulu RFO 1 50 2 1 1 4 1 6 - 1 2BomboLumene

1 50 2 1 1 4 1 2 - 1 1

Swa-Kibula 1 50 2 1 1 4 1 2 - 1 1Mangaï 1 20 2 1 1 4 1 - 1 1 1Bushimaï 1 30 2 1 1 4 1 2 - 1 1Bili-Uere 1 100 2 1 1 4 1 2 - 1 2Luama 1 20 2 1 1 4 1 2 - 1 1TOTAL 31 1,890 50 31 31 130 23 86 13 31 27

3(? ) Stations constitute administrative management units within protected areas in the Democratic Congo. There operate a conservator, park rangers and other ICCN administrative support personnel. Forest and game reserves generally has each only one such station or management unit, whereas national parks often harbor each several stations. These are: (a) Rwindi, Lulimbi, Rumangabo, and Mutsora for Virunga National Park; (b) Lubutu, Loya, and Manguredjipa for Maïko National Park; (c) Tshivanga, N’djovu, and Itebero for Kahuzi-Biega National Park; (d) Mabwe, Kayo, and Lusinga for Upemba National Park; (e) Nagero and Gangala na Bodio for Garamba National Park; (f) Anga, Botshima and Monkoto for Salonga National Park; and (g) Katwe for Kundelungu National Park.



Annex 2.B. Budget for equipment needed for ICCN basic operations

Quantity and Item Unit cost (US $)

Total costs (US $)

31 Vehicles (4x4) Land cruiser 40,000 1,240,00031 radio-transceivers (Yaesu) 2,000 62,000130 walkie-talkies 300 39,00023 motorcycles 3,000 69,00086 bicycles 120 10,32013 outboard engines (Yamaha) 1,000 13,00031 typewriters 800 24,80027 heavy duty tents (5-7 persons) 1,000 27,000TOTAL $1,485,120

This is only indicative and will be confirmed after development of the Strategic plan for rehabilitation.

g:\natproj\drcongo\proareas\D. R. of Congo3.doc 26/06/2003 05:11:00 AM39


Annex 3. PROJECT LOGFRAME

Project Strategy Objectively VerifiableIndicators

Means of Verification Assumptions/Risks

Global Objective

To ensure conservation of biodiversity in the Congo through an effective protected areas system

Rare and threatened species in Congo remain extant or increase in numbers.New species are not added to the endangered lists.

Periodic scientific inventories. Protected areas can provide an effective means of conserving biological diversity in the DRC.

Specific Objective

To establish a sound structural and functional basis for protected area planning and management in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

At least 75% of Protected areas functioning effectively by the end of the second year.

Functional evaluations and audits.Donor support forthcoming.

Governmental policy is favorable to improving PA management.Governmental policy favors increase of ICCN resources.

g:\natproj\drcongo\proareas\D. R. of Congo3.doc 26/06/2003 05:11:00 AM Annex 3. Project Logframe40




OUTPUT 1 A supportive policy, legislative, institutional, financial and social environment for protected areas is created.

Protected Area and Environmental Legislation updated by end of first year. Govt. financial support to PA’s. Community level conflicts reduced by 30% by end of second year. All communities adjacent to protected areas involved in activities related to protected area development from the start.

EvaluationsPRA’s

as above

Activity 1.1 Update national environmental legislation relevant to protected areas

Legislative Code by end of year 1.

Legislative Code Legislature able to act during interim government

Activity 1.2 Incorporate NEAP provisions into regional and sectoral planning.

Sectoral Plans updated by year 2

Planning documents Sectoral and local planning institutions operating.

Activity 1.3 Establish functional environmental education programmes around key protected areas

At least 30% of population aware of environmental issues by year 3

PRA’s

Activity 1.4 Elaborate and apply procedures for environmental impact assessments

EIA Texts by year 2EIA applied to at least 30% of development plans by year 4

TextsEvaluation

Appropriate legislation enacted.

Activity 1.5 Establish a national environmental information system

System established by second year and generates information for use in mass media, continuously and by year 4

Evaluation Institutional rivalries do not become a problem





OUTPUT 2 ICCN is effectively restructured and a decentralized system of PA management is in place

ICCN is providing effective planning and monitoring support to protected areas.All 16 Protected areas functioning at 75% effectiveness by end of the project.At least 75% of Protected area managers have capacity and authority to make decisions by end of project

Evaluations ICCN core administration prepared to devolve power to decentralized structure.Sufficient trained managers to staff decentralized organization.

Activity 2.1 Update the 1991 WB institutional assessment of ICCN. Design & implement restructuring and decentralization.

Existence of plan spelling out roles and responsibilities of different organizational units, job descriptions of key personnel, after first four months.A plan showing institutional mandates and responsibilities developed in first trimester of project.ICCN core unit significantly reduced in size by end of year 1.Protected Area managers have increased capacity and authority by year 1.

Institutional organigramme.Procedures manuals

The plan is adopted by the ICCN board of trustees.Commitment to the plan by ICCN senior management.Resistance to change is overcome.

Activity 2.2 Design and establish a decentralized system of financial management and accounting.

Protected Areas receive regular disbursements from HQ, which are increased by 50% by year 2.Protected Areas retain an agreed proportion of the

AuditsInstitutional audit

Secure local systems can be put in place.





revenues they generate, by year 3.

Activity 2.3 Design and implement an ICCN communication and information system to serve and ensure technical and administrative functions.

Internal policy cohesion across organization achieved by year 1.Data on protected areas performance available, by year 2An ICCN website created by year 2.

Institutional audit Identification and establishment of viable and measurable indicators feasible.

OUTPUT 3 A national PA management and rehabilitation plan is developed and put in place

Existence of plan by the end of first year

Evaluation Sufficient capacity exists

Activity 3.1 :

Carry out data collection in the field and conduct documentary studies needed for PA management planning.

75% of needed PA planning data collected by year 1

The majority of PAs are visited by the 6th month

Station reports and Site data

Activity 3.2 :

Put in place a consultative process in view of the elaboration of a national Protected Area management system plan.

At least 5 workshops between adjacent communities and park management and related sectors. Existence of draft plan by middle of year 1

Seminar organized –

Elaborate Draft workshop

Sufficient capacity exists

Activity 3.3 :

Organize a national seminar to validate the national plan to be subjected to government approval and support vulgarization of its implementation.

PA management plan and presented to partners and stakeholders by first trimester of second year.

Plan is available

OUTPUT 4 Essential functioning is restored to all protected

Current activities by poachers and bandits are diminished in

PA program commonly agreed between ICCN and the

State subsidies to ICCN are timely released





areas through supply of essential human, material and financial resources

the PA, by year 3 Government Financial statements vs annual budgetary provisions

Activity 4.1 Provide critical basic equipment for management to all protected area units and their supporting provincial offices.

1 vehicle & 1 radio transceiver are provided to each PA station and ICCN HQ. All staff have uniforms. Basic camping equipment is available in all priority PA’s, by year 3 and the remainder by year 4

Periodic reports from AP stations

Activity 4.2 Design and establish a technical training system within ICCN

Training manual in place.50% ICCN staff received at least 1 3 week training session, by year 1Motivation and skills increased, by year 2

Training report Governmental policy promotes training on PA management

Activity 4.3 Re-activate revenue generating systems from ecotourism.

Revenues significantly increase by year 4

Reports and audits The country remains stable and government policy favors tourism.

Activity 4.4 Facilitate the launch of long term rehabilitation efforts.

Donor efforts launched, by middle of year 4.

Reports & evaluations Government carries through on its political commitments and donor confidence is restored

OUTPUT 5.

Approaches to participatory and community-based management of protected areas in the Congo are integrated into ICCN strategies on the basis of experience and analysis of activities tested at pilot sites.

Successful models, Analyses and plans in place in 5 selected pilot sites.

EvaluationsPRA’s

Traditional societies are willing to share their wisdom and knowledge on traditional management systemsSuitable legislation (land tenure reforms, conservation, participation of communities in PA management, etc.) is enacted and applied

Activity 5.1 Consult, inform and sensitize Protected Areas surrounding

At least two meetings of sensitization held for each pilot

Site reports Local communities attend sensitization meetings





populations on management, conservation and sustainable utilization of environmental resources at pilot sites.

site by year 2

At least four meetings of sensitization held for each pilot site by year 4

Activity 5.2 Restore and maintain existing pilot activities with participating organizations

Pilot activities functioning, by year 2

EvaluationsPRA’s

Participating institutions fulfill their commitments

Activity 5.3 Monitor and evaluate pilot activities and develop approaches for application at other sites.

Replication models developed by year 4

EvaluationPRA Monitoring reports.Analyses.Plans

Community cooperation



ANNEX 4. INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

1. Broad Development Goals

1.1. Following a sustained period of political instability and economic decline, government policies are geared towards facilitating political and economic reconstruction. However, despite severe political, economic, social and institutional constraints, the government is committed to supporting conservation--- with an emphasis on rehabilitating and strengthening the system of Protected Areas. Given the inter-determination of ecological systems and the DRC’s economy, support for conservation makes strategic sense4.

1.2 The RDC ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in late 1994 and has established a broad network of Protected Areas, encompassing just over 7.5% of the landmass. As a follow up to the Earth Summit in 1992, the government instituted a long-term environmental planning programme with an interagency government committee, the Comité Interministériel de Coordination (CIC), established to co-ordinate it. The programme has focused on finalizing and implementing a National Environmental Action Plan, completing a UNEP-sponsored Biodiversity Country Study, and developing a National Biodiversity Strategy.

1.3 In addition to identifying the development of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan as a priority, a national biodiversity seminar held in July 1995 and attended by a cross-section of stakeholders in the conservation arena called for immediate action to safeguard the 16 existing or proposed Protected Areas. These sites, though not fully representative of the country’s biological diversity, nevertheless harbor a great range of endangered flora and fauna and are deemed by conservation biologists to have an especially high conservation value.

2. Global Environmental Objective

2.1 The global environmental objective of this project is to establish the foundations for the long-term conservation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's rich storehouse of biological diversity. The project has leveraged significant co-financing from UNDP that at the macro-level will improve the operating environment within which conservation projects must operate. The dual initiatives represent a substantial window of opportunity for securing future conservation with potentially sizeable benefits at the global level.

2.2 In overall terms, the country ranks as the richest in Africa in terms of its biodiversity. A range of habitat types are represented, including tropical moist forests, montane forests, woodland and grassland savannahs (both the northern and southern savannahs are represented), miombo woodlands, dry evergreen forests and important wetlands. Though the inventory is incomplete, the known species endowment includes 409 species of mammals, 1086 species of birds, 216 species of amphibians, 280 of reptiles, a huge range of invertebrate species, and 11,000 species of flora of which 3,000 are endemic. Some 70% of freshwater fish species are believed to be endemic. A great range of flagship species for conservation are represented, including three sub species of gorillas, common and pygmy Chimpanzees (plus an additional 29-30 species of primates), forest and savannah Elephants, Northern White Rhinos, 30 species of antelopes including the Okapi, and predators such as Lions, Leopards and the African Golden cat.

4 The rural populace is in large part dependent on subsistence agriculture, hunting, fisheries and the harvest of forest products for survival, and ecological goods and services provided by the country’s rich endowment of biological diversity underpin these systems of production.

Annex 4. Project Logframe46


2.3 The global community stands to benefit substantially from the conservation of biodiversity in the RDC, and conversely, to face a welfare loss if species and key habitats are extirpated. Benefits include future recreational use values, including nature and adventure tourism, existence values derived from knowledge of the existence of wild flora and fauna, particularly flagship species, and future productive uses of wild resources.

3. Baseline

3.1 There is considerable spatial variation in both the type and magnitude of threats facing biodiversity in the RDC. Biodiversity, to a great extent, is to be maintained through a network of Protected Areas. But Protected Areas have not been immune from anthropogenic pressures. Proximate threats include hunting, both for protein and the local and international trade in wildlife5, forest clearance for agriculture, the unsustainable harvest of biological resources, including fuelwood and minor forest products, and the direct and indirect impacts of mineral exploration and development in ecologically sensitive areas. Unsustainable logging poses a growing threat. Finally, in western Congo, commercial fishing and offshore oil drilling have degraded the coastal marine ecosystem.

3.2 The root causes of these threats are complex and interconnected. Though the country is potentially wealthy-- with a sizeable minerals sector-- past economic mismanagement has led to a dislocation of the rural economy. The livelihood options of the vast majority of the rural populace are extremely limited, and conditions of poverty have forced poorer communities to degrade wildlands and unsustainably exploit wildlife. These problems have been compounded by a lack of surety over land tenure, and forced expulsions of communities from ancestral lands in the past have led to invasions of several National Parks by the landless poor. Finally, in the country’s eastern regions, pressures on natural environments have been exacerbated by a string of recent refugee crises.

3.3 A critical lacuna in addressing the threats to biodiversity loss in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the weakness in the policy, institutional, and regulatory environment. Indeed, this has been identified as a priority concern by the National Environment Action Plan. In particular, there is a fundamental conflict between traditional land tenure arrangements wherein local people claim ancestral rights and State-enacted laws. This conflict over ownership and control of land and its natural resources poses daunting impediments to community-based development making it more difficult to secure efficient and equitable solutions.

3.4 The country has little capacity to manage Protected Areas and regulate uses of biological resources. The institutional capacity of the Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), the agency responsible for conservation management, is especially weak. A fundamental problem is that Parks management has tended to be highly centralized, with little delegation of authority to the regions. Moneys tend to be absorbed at the central level rather than allocated to field operations, the financial management system is extremely weak, and communications poor. Reviews of the ICCN conducted by the World Bank and the European Union in 1991 and 1990 respectively, have emphasized the need to restructure the ICCN as a catalytic step in rehabilitating, strengthening and extending the Protected Areas system. The results of the World Bank review are presented in annex 4. [The situation has worsened since the review was undertaken.]

3.5 The costs of conservation management have historically been met through Government budget appropriations, donor assistance and revenues from Gorilla trekking tours in the Virunga and Kahuzi Biega Protected Areas. The country has in the past received substantial donor support, but many donors suspended their programmes in the early 1990’s to protest non-payment of external debt and economic 5 Poaching has been a substantial problem in all Protected Areas, with antelopes, hippopotamuses and other large fauna being taken for protein and elephants, cats, gorillas and other species being culled for the trade in wildlife parts. Hunting pressures on primates are heavy throughout the country.



misadministration. There has been little funding available for conservation from the public purse in the past five or so years owing to a serious fiscal crisis. To cap this, civil strife has caused the eco-tourism industry to all but collapse. Limited site-specific support for conservation management activities has been provided by international NGOs, but resources have been inadequate. These circumstances have had serious repercussions for the Parks, with no moneys available for the maintenance of infrastructure and equipment. In areas where civil disorder has been a problem, theft of equipment has been rampant. The Parks lack even the most basic resources needed to maintain operations6.

3.6 The funding crisis has often meant that field staff have been forced to endure long periods without being paid, compelling them to seek alternative means of livelihood. This in turn has led to a serious loss of morale and dereliction of duty. The conjunction of all these factors has meant that many Protected Areas have become “paper parks”, lacking active management operations. The result has been an increase in poaching, illegal harvesting of wild resources, incursions by local communities and other problems.

3.7 A major problem in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is that conservation management programmes have tended to be administered from the top-down. The needs and priorities of local communities have tended to be ignored by park managers, leading to growing conflicts. There has, however, been some experimentation with involving communities in conservation management at the Okapi Wildlife reserve, Kahuzi-Biega, Virunga and Garamba National Parks, with the support of various donor bodies and NGOs. The challenge remains to apply the lessons learned at these sites, plus those learned from community conservation efforts in neighboring countries, to the Protected Area system as a whole.

3.6 The baseline is the "business as usual" situation, whereby the country’s Protected Areas system will continue to collapse, except where supported or managed by international NGO's and other donors. These threats will only be ameliorated over time (their resolution is contingent on political stability, good governance and sound economic management). In the longer term, there is a need to extend coverage of the protected area system to make it more representative of the country’s diverse ecosystems. The immediate challenge, however, is to create a more conducive institutional environment for future conservation efforts through restructuring the ICCN, to provide Protected Areas with basic operating equipment, to provide basic training to field personnel, and to support and extend community conservation programmes.

4. GEF Alternative

4.1 Quite clearly, given prevailing financial and human capital constraints and the magnitude of the unmet need for conservation, substantial financial and technical assistance will be required from the international community to achieve conservation objectives. Although the government is committed to making fundamental institutional and operational management changes, it simply cannot shoulder the costs without assistance. Though donor bodies are considering rebuilding their conservation programmes as the political situation stabilizes, they are loath to do so unless the existing institutional structures are over hauled. This project, designed to do just this, is needed as a long-term investment catalyst (i.e. to increase confidence in the system of conservation management).

4.2 A related point is that other donor programmes will take time to come on stream – given that they remain on the drawing board. Basic equipment and training is required at the field level to enable a minimal level of operations to occur in the interim period. Failure to provide such support is likely to

6 Several Protected Areas have been virtually abandoned for lack of resources and infrastructure.



have grave consequences in terms of foreclosing future conservation, as already severe pressures spin out of control.

4.2 The GEF sponsored alternative will improve prospects for biodiversity conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by establishing a sound structural and functional basis for the management of Protected Areas. In summary, the project will:

i. Create a supportive policy, legislative, institutional, and social environment for Protected Areas, by establishing a National Environment Agency and a National Environment Fund. Environmental legislation, particularly that relating to land-tenure, will be updated and procedures for mainstreaming environmental issues into regional and sectoral planning such as, Environmental Impact Assessments will be elaborated. This component will also establish a national environment information system and initiate environment education programmes among populations bordering key protected areas.

ii. Restructure the ICCN as a sound and viable decentralized agency with the technical, administrative and financial capacity to plan and manage the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Protected Areas, with the goal of ensuring a more effective and cost-efficient delivery of conservation programmes. The project will implement the recommendations made in the 1991 assessment of the institutional capacity of the ICCN, though as a first step, this assessment will be updated and revised. Amongst other things, the project will clarify the roles and responsibilities of staff, improve the financial management and accounting system, formalize reporting structures and strengthen systems of communication.

iii. Provide minimal ongoing support to ICCN field units to maintain critical basic protected area functions. The project will supply basic equipment to these units and provide some training to field staff. The project will perform a training needs assessment for ICCN staff and design and establish a technical training system within the agency. Options for generating revenues at the field level will be investigated, including from hunting and tourism activities, but mainly from other donor bodies. An assessment of the unmet need for conservation and review of funding shortfalls will be undertaken at each site, as a basis for planning and prioritizing future interventions.

iv. Restore past NGO initiatives that experiment with involving local communities in Protected Area management as pilot demonstration sites. Review the strengths and weaknesses of these pilot sites with a view to assessing the lessons learned and applying best practice methods at other sites. This component will help establish suitable decision making mechanisms that involve local community representatives in conservation, and provide training to park personnel in methods and tools for participatory management.

5. Scope of Analysis

5.1 The project will impact a wide swathe of conservation management activities. The systems boundary for the incremental cost estimation includes planning and administrative systems, operations at the PA site level plus community conservation activities. The analysis includes existing and proposed Government programmes and those of NGO’s that would occur in the baseline situation irrespective of the GEF intervention. These are considered to be the baseline. The analysis also includes those known interventions that will be sponsored by other donor bodies, as well as additional contributions that the government will make, as a part of the implementation of this project. These, including co-funding from UNDP for implementation of the NEAP, are treated as incremental.



5.2 The changes that will be evoked though implementation of this project (in terms of its catalyzing additional investments) have as far as possible been captured in the analysis. However, given uncertainty regarding future donor programmes and the outcome of negotiations between these bodies and the government of the Democratic Congo, these figures should be considered only as a rough approximation. The actual magnitude of investment could potentially be substantially greater.

5.3 In the short-term, few incidental domestic benefits are envisaged resulting from this project. In the longer term the sound institutional basis established will provide a basis for additional donor investment. As a result of this, communities living around Protected Areas should benefit from clearer arrangements for access to resources, and at certain sites, such as the Virungas, benefit from considerable tourism revenues. In the longer term, the Democratic Republic of the Congo will also benefit significantly from having avoided the loss of some its significant biodiversity heritage at a time when it was unable to prevent this loss itself. In particular, contributory values of biodiversity to primary resource production will have been safeguarded.

5.4 These benefits are not treated as avoided costs in this analysis because they fall mainly in the future, are uncertain, and are highly discounted in present value terms at the national level. In addition, because they are diffuse, being captured by a number of stakeholders, cost-recovery is largely precluded.

6. Incremental Costs

6.1 The cost of baseline activities, including projected expenditures on all aspects of conservation management at the national level and field sites amounts to US$ 13,150,000 over five years. This includes government funding plus expenditures by donor bodies and NGOs that are not contingent on the implementation of the GEF Alternative.

6.2 The costs of incremental activities under the GEF alternative amount to US$ 18,636,352 of which amount US$ 1,501,440 will be provided by UNDP as co-financing for implementation of the NEAP, more particularly for strengthening the protected areas policies. US$ 4,000,000 will be parallel funding through GTZ/EU, and $3,195,912 will be parallel funding through UNF/UNESCO/Belgium, $690,000 through MacArthur Foundation, and $1,548,000 through WWF.

6. The GEF contribution towards these incremental costs amounts to US$ 5,917,000 which will be the amount disbursed by the project. These costs amount to 21% of the total costs of the alternative course of action and 38% of the incremental costs.



Incremental Cost Matrix:Cost/ Benefit Baseline (B) Alternative (A) Increment (A-B)Domestic Benefits

Protected Areas provide opportunities for tourism development, but poor management is eroding development potential.

Biodiversity provides contributory values to primary production by mediating the supply of ecological goods and services, but the future productivity of the primary resource sectors is threatened by a loss of ecological integrity.

Options values for future uses of biodiversity, including from biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries diminishing.

Weak institutional capabilities and capacity of ICCN serve as a disincentive for donor investment in PA system.

Improvement of protected area management safeguards biodiversity and its economic values.

Steps to improve protection of representative ecosystems within PA network.

Enhancement of institutional capacity of ICCN and facilitation of basic operations in PAs.

Options for future income generation from recreational uses of Protected Areas maintained.

Functional values of biodiversity as a natural capital element in the production functions of primary resource industries protected.

Maintenance of option values for future uses of biological resources.

Improved opportunities for leveraging donor moneys for conservation activities.

Global Benefits Direct and indirect use, option and existence values captured from biological diversity but threatened by anthropogenic pressures.

Lack of effective institutional mechanism for managing Protected Areas resulting in poor returns from conservation investments and limiting sustainability.

Lack of even the most basic equipment and dearth of trained field personnel is hampering PA operations.

Lack of suitable participatory models to involve local communities in conservation management; growing conflicts between communities and park authorities with contra-conservation

Catalytic steps to rehabilitate, strengthen, and extend the system of Protected Areas.

Strengthening of institutional capacity of ICCN and of administrative, financial management /accounting, and communications and reporting systems.

Minimal equipment provided and training conducted

Review and application of lessons learned from existing participatory/ community conservation schemes in the RDC and neighboring countries, with training of park personnel in methods and tools for enabling

Enhanced foundations for successful long-term biodiversity conservation.

Conservation management capacity enhanced at the national and local levels improving ability to respond to threats.

Basic PA operations facilitated as interim measure until other donor sponsored programmes come on stream and political and economic situation fully stabilizes.

Management measures more responsive to needs and priorities of communities reducing conflict



Cost/ Benefit Baseline (B) Alternative (A) Increment (A-B)implications. participation. between them and PA authorities

and lessening pressures on biodiversity.

Costs

Supportive policy, legislative, financial, and social environment for PAs.

Total: US$ 3,001,440 GEF: noneCofinancing: US$ 1,501, 440Co-finance:UNESCO-UNF= US$1, 500,000

Total: US$ 3,001,440

CostsRestructuring and decentralization of ICCN

. Total: US$ 5,000,000 Total: US$ 6,397,576

GEF: US$ 783,315Cofinancing:Govt: US$ 114,261GTZ/EU: $500,000

Total: US$ 1,397,576CostsProtected Area systems plan

Total: US$ 250,000GEF: US$ 200,000Co-financing:Govt: US$ 50,000

Total: US$ 250,000CostsEssential equipment and training for PAs

Total: US $ 5,825,000 Total: US$ 17,524,841GEF: US$ 3,833,485Cofinancing:Govt: US$ 1,010,444UNESCO-UNF: US$ 1,395,912GTZ: US$ 3,500,000MacArthur: US$ 414,000WWF: $946,000

Total: US$ 11,699,841CostsParticipatory Total: US$ 2,325,000 Total: US$ 5,212,495

GEF: US$ 1,100,200Cofinancing:



Cost/ Benefit Baseline (B) Alternative (A) Increment (A-B)Management in PAs

Govt: US$ 609,295UNESCO-UNF:US$300,000MacArthur: US$ 276,000WWF: US$ 602,000

Total: US$ 2,887,495CostTotals Total: US$ 13,150,000 Total Costs: US$ 31,786,352

Incremental Costs to be funded by GEF: US$ 5,917,000

Co-financing: US$ 12,719,352TOTAL: US$ 18,636,352



Annex 5. A Synopsis of the 1991 Review of ICCN by the World Bank

The institutional review of ICCN by the World Bank was made in July 1991, and it was articulated in two axes: (a) a technical review, that was conducted by two consultants (Drs. Bosquet and Vangu); and (b) a review of the organization (ICCN), its management, and its human resources that was performed by two other consultants (Mrs Laura McPherson and Mr. Tshimanga). The review pointed out that ICCN was clogged with bureaucracy, that it was lacking clarity in its management systems, that there was a insufficient training for the personnel, and the inadequacy of the financial resources for its functioning. Specifically, from the institutional review of ICCN by the World Bank, the following constraints and problems that impeach ICCN capacities to conserve and manage sustainably the protected areas in the Democratic Congo became apparent and were formulated.

1º Most financial resources of ICCN (75 to 85%) are spent in the park headquarters in Kinshasa for only 5% of ICCN's personnel due to a strong centralization of its management system.

2º In the field, within the protected areas, the administrative organization follows a military structure, and it is aimed at fighting poachers and punishing people caught to contravene the parks and reserves' rules. As a corollary, the park rangers and staff have not had much training or experience on how to deal more friendly with the neighboring people, nor how to interpret natural wonders to tourists.

3º The ICCN is lacking material resources, and its financial resources for functioning are very slim. ICCN internal revenue originate mainly from the tourism visitation of Virunga and Kahuzi-Biega National Parks, which organize visits to the Mountain Gorillas. Other income for ICCN originates mainly from the Public Treasury, and it supports personnel salaries and operating costs. Unfortunately, funds from the Democratic Congo's public treasury are unreliable, and public servants in the Democratic Congo and public sector personnel often go without pay check for more than 12 consecutive months.

4º Park rangers and ICCN staff are also underpaid ($2 to $5 per month per park ranger), and as a consequence they are not motivated to perform their duties.

5º Decisions are extremely centralized at the level of the ICCN, Chief Executive Officer (PDG), who does not delegate power to the local park managers. The World Bank's review recommended the decentralization of the ICCN management system.

6º Because of the inadequacy of the financial and management capabilities at ICCN, the review recommends to strengthen the financial management system and move it toward accountability and transparency. Also the review calls for training a cadre of accountants as requested and started by the European Economic Community (EEC) after its financial review of ICCN in 1990.

7º The review recommends to rapidly perform a legal revision and devise a coherent policy toward conservation of nature and biodiversity resources in the Congo, and to put in place a better surveillance capability for national parks.

8º Also it is recommended to devise a sound scheme to generate sustainable income from game reserves, that are under the management of ICCN. This would include the Zoo of Nsele and the Bombo Lumene Game Reserve, which are located in the vicinities of Kinshasa, a large city of 4,000,000 people.

9º Restructuring of the ICCN park headquarters is called upon by the review, and the acquisition of a suitable, better equipped building for the park headquarters.

10º The communication system, particularly the ICCN radio network (of transceivers) linking parks and the headquarters, has to be improved. The radio network should be used in conjunction with an ad hoc operational manual for park managers to help in the decentralization and fast response to field problems. The operational manual has been developed with the help of the European Community in 1990, but it is not yet applied.

11º The review calls for the redynamization of ICCN research capabilities in regard of the specificities of each protected area. Fundamental and applied research may be performed under contracts with ICCN by outside individual researchers and research institutions.

Annex 5. ICCN Review54


12º A management plan has to be made for each protected area in the Congo, and every plan should be integrated into local development schemes. Also ICCN should introduce the use of personal computers for the management of protected areas.

13º Revenue generating capabilities of ICCN have to be strengthened, such as tourism through adequate determination of visitation fees, a better bookkeeping and accounting, a ban of tourism monopoly (such as the gorilla touring at Djomba as well as the management of the Rwindi's Hotel in Virunga National Park), etc. Game ranching and farming alternatives could be considered as well by ICCN, which should particularly identify in that field potential private managers to work in partnership with ICCN.

14º Alternative venues to generate (non-traditional) income by park resources, such as the lease for tourism of ICCN's fixed wing planes, etc., should be devised.

15º ICCN, in consultation with local tribal leaders, should proceed in gazetting all protected areas. There is urgency, to do so, for Upemba and Kundelungu National Parks in the Katanga province, where park rangers are being repelled by the local people.

16º GoZ should set aside more protected areas to cover critical sites and other center of endemisms, such as forest refugia rich of biodiversity resources, which are not yet represented in the current network of protected areas. New sites would include: the Okapi National park; the Mangrove Marine Park; the Lomako Forest Reserve; and the Luo, Semliki, Tongo and Mount-Hoyo Reserves.

17º The review recommends to develop anew, under new terms and grounds, the system of assistance to ICCN's protected areas by international NGOs in conservation to lead to a genuine partnership for a shared leadership.

Annex 5. ICCN Review55


Annex 6a. STAP Technical Review

Annex 6. STAP Technical Review56


Annex 6b. Response to STAP review

A 1996 an earlier version of this proposal was reviewed by Drs. Michael Harrison and Annie Gauthier-Hion from the GEF STAP roster. Harrison's comments reflected a general precautionary approach regarding the implementation of projects in the Congo, then Zaïre, because of the risks associated with the then political and economic situation. Gauthier-Hion shared several of Harrison's concerns and identified an apparent overemphasis on sites focusing on endangered mega-fauna in northeastern Congo. The reason for the latter was that at that time these sites were the most critically threatened, are considered vitally important biologically because of their very high rates of endemism, and were sites where international NGO’s were still active and success could be reasonably anticipated. In view of the changed political and social circumstances this proposal now addresses all 16 priority sites as identified by the various biodiversity planning processes described above. These 16 priority sites are divided into 31 management units or stations.

This project recognizes fully the difficulties of working in the Democratic Congo, but in view of recent political developments there is hope for social, economic, and political stability and further improvement in the near future. Also in view of the experience of CIC and UNDP in implementing various environmental activities, including emergency response measures in the Virunga’s and the preparation of a NEAP, biodiversity country study, and now the BSAP, it is felt that a carefully designed and closely monitored three-year project geared specifically at addressing the inherent problems of the Democratic Congo can be effectively carried out at this point in time. This project is also critical to paving the way for other donor investments in that in addition to establishing a sound basis for future biodiversity conservation activities it demonstrates the feasibility of biodiversity support activities under current conditions.

The STAP technical review of the latest proposal assists in highlighting the critical delicate balance that must be achieved during project implementation. On the one hand “protective” functions must be restored to existing protected areas as an urgent priority, while on the other hand a new more participatory and community development based approach to protected area management must be introduced and adopted. In this regard lessons from the APN approach in Madagascar, which show that individual and institutional reorientation are more important in the short term than the provision of alternatives, are relevant. Similarly, the history of the COBRA project in Kenya demonstrates the difficulties associated with achieving such reorientation. Project design takes these lessons into account by providing only for the restoration of critical basic protective functions and combining these with retraining that addresses the need for more participatory and developmentally oriented approaches. While the STAP reviewer particularly notes the need for close integration of outputs 3 and 4 in order to address this issue, project design assumes that there will be close integration of all 4 outputs since outputs 3 and 4 are both fundamentally linked to political commitment and decentralization at both ICCN (output 2) and higher government (output 1) levels. Again, as the reviewer notes, the key will be to ensure that the correct balance and timing is achieved throughout implementation and this has been clarified in the text.

The above is critically related to project duration. This project provides for an initial GEF contribution over a period of 4 years. However, the background context includes other interventions that have a longer duration. The first 5 years of what can be taken as a rolling programme is described. Currently there is commitment from the highest levels of government for an election process to take place two years from now. It is assumed that in the light of political developments and commitments over the course of the next two years a second phase of GEF investment will follow. Consequently the time frame for the present GEF intervention, including one year for the design of the follow-on investment project, is three years. The text of the proposal has been reworded to clarify this.

Annex 6. STAP Technical Review57


ANNEX 7 MAP OF THE CONGO’S PROTECTED AREAS

58


Annex 8. Project Work Plan

OUTPUT 1: Political, legislative, institutional, financial and social environment favorable to Protected Areas

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4Activity 1.1 Update national environmental legislation

X X X X

Activity 1.2 Incorporate NEAP provisions into regional and sectoral planning.

X X X

Activity 1.3 Establish functional environmental education programmes around key protected areas

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Activity 1.4 Elaborate and apply procedures for environmental impact assessments

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Activity 1.5 Establish a national environmental information system

X X X X

OUTPUT 2: The I.C.C.N is effectively restructured and a decentralized Protected Area management system is put in place

Year 1 Year 2 Year3 Year4

Activity 2.1 Update the 1991 WB institutional assessment of ICCN. Design & implement X X X X X X X X X X

59


restructuring and decentralization.

Activity 2.2 Design and establish a decentralized system of financial management and accounting.

X X X X X X

Actviity 2.3 Design and implement an ICCN communication and information system to serve and ensure technical and administrative functions.

X X X X X X

Work Plan continuationOUTPUT 3: A national Protected Area management plan is developed and put into practice.

Activity 3.1 Carry out data collection in the field and conduct documentary studies needed for PA management planning.

X X X X X X X

Activity 3.2 Put in place a consultative process in view of the elaboration of a national Protected Area management system plan.

X X X

Activity 3.3 Organize a national seminar to validate the national plan to be subjected to government approval and support vulgarization of its implementation.

X X

Work Plan continuation

60


OUTPUT 4: Essential functioning is re-established in indispensable human, material, and financial resources.

Activity 4.1 Provide critical basic equipment for management to all protected area units and their supporting provincial offices.

X X X X X X X X X

Activity 4.2 Design and establish a technical training system within ICCN

X X XX X X X X X X X X X

Activity 4.3 Re-activate revenue generating systems from ecotourism.

X X X X X X X

Activity 4.4 Facilitate the launch of long term rehabilitation efforts.

X X X X X X X X X X X

61


Work Plan continuation OUTPUT 5: Protected Areas participatory and community management approaches in Congo are defined on the basis of experimentation and activities conducted on pilot sites.

Activity 5.1 Consult, inform and sensitize Protected Areas surrounding populations on management, conservation and sustainable utilization of environmental resources at pilot sites.


Activity 5.2 Restore and maintain existing pilot activities with participating organizations


Activity 5.3 Monitor and evaluate pilot activities and develop approaches for application at other sites.

X X X X

62


Annex 9: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Ongoing project monitoring will be provided in accordance with established UNDP procedures and will be provided by the UNDP County Office with support from UNDP/ GEF. Overall supervision of the Project will be the responsibility of the Project Director.

The total cost allocated to monitoring and evaluation is $274,000 in GEF funding.

Monitoring & Evaluation

Tripartite Review (TPR)

The tripartite review (TPR) is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every twelve months by representatives of the Government, the executing agency and UNDP, and the first such meeting to be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The Project Support Unit shall prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and to submit to UNDP. The APR must be ready two weeks prior to the TPR.

The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The National Project Director/CTA presents the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The NPD/CTA also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Six-monthly APR’s will be provided during the first two years of the project to ensure that design and inception activities are closely monitored, and subsequently the APR will be done on an annual basis. Separate reviews of each state component may also be conducted if necessary. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators will be built into the project in consultation with UNDP.

Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)

The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The Project support Unit is responsible in preparing the Terminal Report, and to submit to UNDP. It shall be prepared in draft sufficiently in advance to allow review and technical clearance by the executing agency at least two months prior to the terminal tripartite review. The Terminal Report will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its immediate objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective, and decides whether any actions are still necessary.

Project Implementation Review (PIR)

A major tool for monitoring the GEF portfolio and extracting lessons is the annual GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects.

The PIR is mandatory for all GEF projects that have been under implementation for at least one year at the time that the exercise is conducted. A project becomes legal and implementation activities can begin when all parties have signed the project document. The PIR questionnaire is sent to the UNDP country office, usually around the beginning of June. It is the responsibility of the Project Director/CTA to complete the PIR questionnaire, with the oversight of the UNDP Country Office.

63


The PIR will include an Annex on progress made during the project as it relates to the benchmarks on the security situation in the country.

First-year evaluation

The project will conduct an extra-ordinary evaluation at the end of the firest year. The purpose of this evaluation is to consider whether the conditions for effective implementation have been met. The basic indicators to be used are : the success of the country pacification efforts; the degree of security and government control over the eastern protected areas; and results/recommendations of the assessments. Lessons learnt from the implementation of the UNF-UNESCO project in the rebellion controlled territory will be used as a secondary indicator. The results of the evaluation will be considered, adopted by the firest year tripartite review.

Mid-term Evaluation

An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year. The Mid-Term Evaluation will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.

Final Evaluation

An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the final evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.

Regular Monitoring and Evaluation

The project will also be closely monitored by the UNDP Country Office through quarterly meetings or more frequently as deemed necessary with the National project Director. This will allow to take stock and to trouble shoot of any problems pertaining to the project quickly to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. The UNDP Country Office Task Manager will visit project sites at least once every 6 months. The UNDP-GEF Task Manager will visit the project once every year. Every 15 months an internal evaluation will be conducted by the UNDP-GEF Task Manager perhaps modeled after the “ GEFSEC Managed Project Reviews”.

The indicators listed in the Logframe Annex will be reviewed and further detailed/refined during the Inception Workshop (without affecting the overall goals and immediate objectives° Any change to the indicators related to the goals, immediate objectives, and overall outcomes of the project will require prior approval by UNDP-GEF and perhaps the GEF Secretariat.

The project team will monitor not only the indicators, but will also develop a process to monitor project risks and assumptions.

64


Learning and Knowledge Sharing

To participate in UNDP/GEF networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Forest Conservation from the year 2002, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.

To identify and participate in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.

To identify, analyze, share and communicate lessons learned that may be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. The need to identify and analyze lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessons is on an as-needed basis, but not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format for categorizing and reporting lessons learned.

To ensure that the Term of Reference for consultants recruited by the project incorporate mechanisms that capture and share lessons learned through their inputs to the project, and to ensure that the results are reflected in the reporting format described above.

Reporting

The Project support Unit will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports:

(a) Inception Report (IR)The inception report is to be prepared by the Project CTA with the assistance of the project experts as relevant. The IR will be prepared no later than three months after project start-up and will include a detailed Workplan and Budget for the duration of the project, progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and any proposed amendments to project activities or approaches. The report will also cover the results of the Inception Workshop. The report will be circulated to all the parties who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. The report will also be reviewed by UNDP and GEF to ensure consistency with the objectives and activities indicated in the Project Document.

(b) Semi-Annual Programme/Project Report (APR)

There will be semi-annual progress reports .The Annual Project Report (APR) is designed to obtain the independent views of the main stakeholders of a project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. The APR aims to: a) provide a rating and textual assessment of the progress of a project in achieving its objectives; b) present stakeholders' insights into issues affecting the implementation of a project and their proposals for addressing those issues; and c) serve as a source of inputs to the Tripartite Review (TPR). The main project stakeholders participate in the preparation of the APR.

The APRs will be prepared every six months during the first year of the project, and then annually. The APRs will detail activities undertaken since the last APR, milestones reached,

65


key results and achievements, problems encountered and any other issues that need to be highlighted.

(c) Periodic Status Reports

As and when called for by the Project Director, the government or UNDP, the Project CTA will prepare Status Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity as stipulated by the querant. The request for a Status Report will be in written form, and will clearly state the issue or activities which need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. The parties are requested to minimize their requests for Status Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for the preparation of these Reports.

(d) Technical Reports

Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report the Project Director/CTA will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants as Final Reports for their technical inputs, and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly-defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites.

(e) Project Publications

Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications will be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of books, journal articles or multimedia publications. These Publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The Project Director/CTA will determine if specific Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with the government and other parties and with the help of external specialists and staff where necessary) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format and identity. These Publications will form the most visible public output of the Project, and as such should be prepared and presented to the highest scientific and technical standards.

(f) Project Terminal ReportDuring the last three months of the project the Project Director/CTA will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summaries all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met and missed, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities over the five-year duration. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

(g) Other Publications and Publicity ActivitiesIn order to ensure international dissemination of project results, a high-quality publication of results will be prepared, based upon the Project Terminal Report and previous Project

66


Publications. Finally, it will be useful to hold at least one international workshop at which policy makers in neighboring countries can be made aware of the country’s progress in achieving the project’s goals.

67


Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

9a. Follow-up by the project team, Steering Committee, Audits, Evaluation at the end of 12 months, Midterm evaluation and Final Evaluation

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 41 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Monitoring by the project team,

Supervision mission by UNDP-Kinshasa, UNOPS, and UNDP/GEF

Co-ordination meetings with co-financing project partners

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Independent evaluation (12th month, midterm and final)

X X X

Project Steering Committee meetings

X X X X X X X X

Tripartite meetings, APR-PIRX X X X

68


9b. Monitoring and Evaluation and Indicators

OUTPUT 1: Political, legislative, institutional, financial, and social environment favorable to protected areas

ACTIVITIES PEOPLE IN CHARGE SITES PERIODS INDICATORS

Activity 1.1Updating National environmental legislation.

Ministry of Environment(MENV)

- December 2002- December 2003- December 2004- December 2005

New legislation is available

Activity 1.2Integrate NEAP provisions into regional and sectoral planning.

MENV and ICCN + Project team

- 9 sites in the west and south-east of the country : Salonga, Kundelungu, Upemba, Bombo – Lumene, Swa – Kibula, Mangai, Bushimaïe, N'sele, Muanda Sea Park- 4 Sites in the north-east

(according to country pacification progress)

Bili-Ueré, Ituri RFO, Garamba and Maïko

Each year :- June- April- August- February- July- April- October- January- December- August

Planning documents available

Activity 1.3 Establish environmental education programmes around key protected areas

- MENV- DG – ICCN (DR.DDR-

DT)- Provincial Management- People in charge of the

SITES.

Sites : Salonga, Upemba, Kundelungu,Bombo – LumeneBushimaïe,Mangai

2002 to 2004 Programme elaborated and applied in the retained sites

69


Activity 1.4 Elaborate and apply procedures allowing environmental impact evaluation/assessment

ICCN – Principal Technical Advisor (CTA-UNOPS/CTA Parcid GTZ)

All the sites of the project 2003 procedure elaboration 2004 to 2005 application of procedure in the Sites.

Procedure texts available and putting into practice

Activity 1.5 Create a national environmental information system.

DG-ICCN (DDR-DR, DT ), Project team UNOPS/GEF-PNUD, UNF-UNESCO-PARCID

Project sites 2003 to 2004 Information system created is available on WEB site

OUTPUT 2: The ICCN is actually restructured and a decentralized Protected Area management system is put in place.

ACTIVITIES PEOPLE IN CHARGE SITES PERIOD INDICATORS

Activity 2. 1 Update ICCN institutional evaluation done by the WB in 1991; conceive and implement restructuring and decentralization.

D.G-ICCN and the CTA (GEF-PNUD/UNOPS, PARCID )

D.G and Protected Areas November 2002To January 2004

New organization chart is approved and applied at the D.G and in Protected Areas.

Activity 2.2 : Conceive and set up financial and accounting decentralized system.

D.G-ICCN (Financial management ) the 2 CTA (GEF and PARCID )

D.G and protected Areas January - December 2003

Financial and accounting management is functional

Activity 2.3 : Conceive and implement an ICCN communication and information system meant to ensure technical and administrative functions.

D.G-ICCN (DAF: Material resources management system ) Technical services the 2 CTA

D.G and Protected Areas March- December 2003The system put in place is applied and is functional

70


OUTPUT 3: A national Protected Area management plan is developed and put in practice.


Activity 3.1 : Carry out data collection in the field and conduct documentary studies for PA planning.

D.G ( DDR,DR,DT, NGOs ), in charge of sites

All the retained sites 2003-2004: data collection ; data processing and publication of the plan

Station reports and Site data

Activity 3.2 : Put in place a consultative process in view of the elaboration of a national Protected Area management system plan.

D.G-ICCN, in charge of sites and partners NGOs

All the retained sites 2005 Seminar – Elaborate DRAFT workshop

Activity 3.3 : Organize a national seminar to validate the national plan to be subjected to government approval and support vulgarization of its implementation.

D.G-ICCN and Partners (GEF-PNUD, PARCID, UNF-UNESCO, national and international NGOs)

Kinshasa 2005 Plan is available

OUTPUT 4: Essential functioning is re-established through indispensable human, material and financial resources

ACTIVITIES PEOPLE IN CHARGE SITES PERIOD INDICATORSActivity 4.1 :Provide basic equipment essential to management of all Protected Area units and to their provincial support offices.

Project team (CTA UNOPS/GEF – UNDP)

All 16 site and the 2 provincial offices(Goma,

Bukavu) + DG

2004 - 2006 Equipment available in all retained sites, inventory list

71


Activity 4.2 Conceive and put in place a technical training system within the ICCN.

DG-ICCN, CTA UNOPS/GEF – UNDP, PARCID, UNF – UNESCO

DG (DA-DT-DDR-DR) and the retained sites.

January to May 2003 StudyJune 2003 – 2005system application.

- Training plan is available

- Training reports and number of trained agents.

Activity 4.3: Long term financing

UNDP-GEF project team with the support of partners

All retained sites 2005 -2006 Evaluation reports

OUTPUT 5: Protected area participative and community management approaches in Congo are defined on the basis of experimentation and activities conducted on pilot sites


Activity 5.1 Consult, inform and sensitize Protected Areas surrounding populations on management, conservation and sustainable utilization of environmental resources at pilot sites.

Partners ( GEF UNDP, PARCID, UNF – UNESCO )And people in charge of the sites

Pilot Sites : Salonga, Upemba, Kundelungu, Bombo-Lumene, Bushimaïe and Mangai

- Evaluation mission- Sensitization seminars

Activity 5.2 :Restore and maintain pilot activities with participanting organizations.

People in charge of the sites with the support of partners

Pilot sites 2003 - 2006 according to activity chronogram

- Mission reports- Evaluation reports of

activities realized by retained NGOs

Activity 5.3 : Monitor and evaluate pilot activities and develop approaches allowing to be applied on other Sites

DG-ICCN, in charge of sites with the support of partners and projects- PNUD - GEF- UNF – UNESCO

Pilot sites 2003 - 2006 - sites reports - follow-up and

evaluation reports

72


- GTZ (Parcid)

73


Annex 10. Public Involvement Plan Outcomes

OUTPUT 1: Political, legislative, institutional, financial, and social environment favorable to Protected Areas

Activities Participants Before implementation During implementation After the Project

Activity 1.1.Updating National environmental legislation.

- Ministry of Environment- DG / ICCN- Politico –

administrative authorities

- Deputies- Group leaders- People in charge of the

sites

Consultation at local and national level in the law elaboration process

Participation in updating legislation

Putting at disposal and application of new legislation

Activity 1.2 Integrate NEAP provisions into regional and sectoral planning.

- People in charge of the sites

- DG / ICCN- -Ministry Environment

(MENV)

Conception of the regional and sectoral planning model

NEAP Integration in the regional and sectoral planning

Planning application

Activity 1.3 Institute environmental education programmes around key Protected Areas.

- Local communities- Traditional chiefs- Women- Children- People in charge of

sites- MENV

- Implication in socio-economic investigations

- Implantation of dialog committees

- Setting up implementation plan

- Sensitization and vulgarization on nature conservation

- Implication in development micro-projects through participative methods

- Alternative Income to PA resources

- Better relationship park-populations

- Durable financial contribution

Activity 1.4 Elaborate and apply procedures enabling environmental impact assessment.

Wardens, researchers and ICCN park rangersMENV

Consultative process for procedures definition

Ecological impact evaluation procedures application

Ecological impact follow-up

74


Activity 1.5Create a National environmental information system.

- MENV- DG / ICCN- People in charge of

sites- National NGOs- International NGOs

Ecological information system consultation and conception

Ecological information system implementation

Training and better ecological information circulation

OUTPUT 2: The I.C.C.N is actually restructured and a decentralized Protected Areas management system is put in place

Activities Participants Before implementation During implementation After the Project

Activity 2. 1 Update ICCN institutional evaluation done by the WB in 1991; conceive and implement restructuring and decentralization.

WardensResearchers and ICCN park rangers

Consultations at local and regional level in institutional evaluation updating

Implication in restructuring application

Good restructuring application

Activity 2.2 : Conceive and set up a decentralized system of financial management and accounting.

WardensAccountantsICCN cashiers

Consultation in the elaboration of a decentralized financial and accounting management system

Implication in the decentralized financial and accounting management system

Good decentralization application

Activity 2.3 : Conceive and implement an ICCN communication and information system meant to ensure technical and administrative functions.

- Personnel ICCN- International Egos- (WWF, WCS, SZM,

IRF, Lukuru Wildlife Sanctuary, DFGF, GIC, New Approaches…

Implication in the conception of a communication and information system

Implementation of communication and information system decided of one accord

Good communication and information system application approved

75


OUTPUT 3: A national Protected Area management plan is developed and put in practiceActivities Participants Before implementation During Implementation After the Project

Activity 3.1: Carry out data collection in the field and conduct documentary studies needed for PA planning.

- International NGOs- (WWF, WCS, SZM,

IRF, Lukuru, GIC Institute, New Approaches, SZ Milwaukee, DFGF) and GTZ

- Wardens, researchers and park rangers

- Concerted funding and support commitments;

- Implication in the programme conception and elaboration

- Technical, scientific, logistical support in the implementation of the project ;

- Implementation of the data collection programme

- Better site conservation ;- Better intervention co-

ordination ;- Better site follow-up

Activity 3.2: Put in place a consultative process in view of the elaboration of a national Protected Area management system plan.

ICCN PersonnelLocal administrative authorities,local Communities Protected Areas,Protected Areas partners (safaris, hostelry, etc.)

Implication in the consultative process

Implementation of National AP management system

Better co-ordination in AP management

Activity 3.3: Organize a national seminar to validate the national plan to be subjected to government approval and support vulgarization of its implementation.

- ICCN Personnel- International NGOs- Project team, GTZ

Implication in the preparation of this workshop

- Participation in the workshop

- Workshop reports publication and diffusion

Implementation of the workshop recommendations

OUTPUT 4: Essential functioning is re-established in indispensable human, material and financial resources

Activities Participants Before implementation During implementation After the projectActivity 4.1Develop strategy for

Project teamDonors

Some assessment during PDF B, but not detailed

Based on assessments, develop detailed rehab

Revaluate strategic plan for effectiveness

76


rehabilitation of sites WBICCNGovernment sectorsLocal community reps

enough plan for each site

Activity 4.2:Provide basic equipment essential to management of all Protected Area units and to their provincial support offices.

UNOPS (Project team),GTZInternational NGOs

Concerted funding and support commitment (accords)

- Equipment supplies to sites and their support offices

- Rational utilization of supplied equipment for service needs

Acquired equipment maintenance

Activity 4.3 Conceive and put in place a technical training system within the ICCN.

ICCN Personnel (wardens and researchers)International NGOs

Consultation in the conception of the training system

Putting the system in practice

- Specific and targeted training of technical and scientific personnel

- Personnel capacity building

Activity 4.4: Reactivate income- generating systems based on ecotourism.

- Local communities around concerned protected areas

- International NGOs- Project team (UNOPS),

GTZ- ICCN Personnel

Consultation in the conception of income generating systems

Implication in the application of income generation systems

- AP durable co-funding- System framing

Activity 4.5: Long term financing for Sites

- ICCN Personnel- International NGOs- Project Team

(UNOPS), GTZ

Implication in the projects formulation

Implementation of the rehabilitation programme

Good rehabilitated sites management

77


OUTPUT 5: Protected area participative and community management approaches in Congo are defined on the basis of experimentation and activities conducted on pilot sites

Activities Participants Before Implementation During Implementation After the Project

Activity 5.1 Consult, inform and sensitize Protected Areas surrounding populations on management, conservation and suatainable utilization of environment.

- Wardens and researchers

- Local communities- Project team, GTZ,

International NGOs

- Implication in socio-economic investigations

- Putting in place dialogue committee

- Setting up implementation plan

- Sensitization and vulgarization actions on nature conservation

- Development micro-project in favor of local population through participative method

- Better relationship parks-local population

- Durable financial contribution

- Alternative resources available for populations

Activity 5.2 :Register and support participant local organizations.

- ICCN personnel - International NGO

partners- Local NGOs

Implication in local NGO census programme

Support to local NGOs in community development micro-project activities

- Better relationship parks. local population

- Collaboration local NGOs and ICCN

Activity 5.3 : Monitor and evaluate pilot activities and elaborate approaches allowing to be applied on other Sites

- ICCN personnel- Partners- Project Team, GTZ

Consultation in the formulation of the project

- Implication in the project evaluation follow-up

- Recommendations for other sites

Application of evaluation follow-up recommendations in other sites

78


ANNEX 11. TERMS OF REFERENCE –PRINCIPAL TECHNICAL ADVISOR

The ZAI/97/G31 project, «Protected areas rehabilitation», follows a request by the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is aiming at re-establishing, on one hand, a structural and functional base within the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) and, on the other hand, ensuring the restructuring, planning, and development of protected areas and related reserves. The project will rely on legislative and institutional reforms aiming at enabling resident populations to fully participate in the effort for biological diversity conservation both within and outside protected areas. More specifically, the project is aiming at:

1. Supporting ICCN restructuring and decentralization;2. Restoring protected areas minimal functioning capacity through equipment provision, training and retraining personnel involved in the development of protected areas;3. Putting in place a transparent administrative and financial management system;4. Involving basic populations and communities in view of nature conservation through

participative approach.

TASKS

As counterpart and advisor to the project national Director (DNP to be appointed by the government party), the internationally recruited Principal Technical Adviser (CTA) will have the following responsibilities:

• Ensure daily project management, together with a national project administrator, particularly both human and material UNDP-FEM contributions to the project. In consultation with ICCN leading authorities (board of directors, general manager and management committee, project national Director), the CTA will plan all the project interventions, among other elaborate detailed terms of reference (TOR) of various required consultations during the implementation of the project and supervise all technical missions in the field. Such consultation TORs must be approved by the UNDP and the GEF-UNDP, and the consultant recruitment will follow UNDP standard procedures;

• In consultation with the ICCN general management, the UNDP and the UNDP-GEF, formulate (after a short identification study of rehabilitation needs by site and 3 months capacity building) subcontracts terms of reference and supervise field work undertaken by agencies and sub-contractor NGOs and resident communities engaged in protected areas conservation and durable utilization of related reserves;

• Help the ICCN to update the World Bank assessment-study and to formulate an ICCN restructuring and decentralization programme;

• Support the conception and implementation of an ICCN restructuring and decentralization programme according to previous re-updated studies;

• Help the ICCN general management in the conception and implementation of financial management procedures and performing communication and information systems;

• Help the ICCN to elaborate and implement a protected areas and related reserves management plan in a way to revive conservation and durable biological diversity utilization activities, while ensuring effective community participation;

• Conceive and implement a management capacity building programme of ICCN general and provincial management offices, protected areas and related reserves: establish a state of needs as regards training, identify training centres and elaborate terms of references for different training sessions;

• Conceive and implement a development and participative management model specific to each concerned protected area and to the surrounding population;

• Participate in meetings on consultation and harmonization of sponsors and international NGOs interventions to ICCN;

References79


• Assist, as much as possible, the ICCN Director General in mobilizing fund and in contacts with other sponsors for additional interventions;

• Help the ICCN to identify and implement income generating activities in order to ensure durability of the project actions when it comes to an end;

• Prepare quarterly and annual activity reports. The PTA will help in preparing meetings of the steering committee and co-ordination with other co-financing projects, annual tripartite meetings and will produce follow-up and evaluation documents (APR, PIR, etc.) and other according to nee

Ensure that lessons learned from earlier experiences of this and other projects, especially the UNF-UNESCO Heritage Sites and GTZ Parcid, as well as from monitoring and evaluation as it appears in Annex 9 are used to ensure successful project implementation.

QUALIFICATIONS

The candidate must fulfill the following requirements:

• Holder of a high level university degree (doctorate or master in biological science, in natural resource management and conservation or, in administrative reform management) and to have a long experience in management and supervision of environment and natural resources sector projects;

• Ten years experience in the field of conservation in Africa and more particularly in natural resource and protected area management and in participative community development methods;

• Experience in defining and putting in place training programmes in nature conservation, administrative and financial management sector;

• Experience in management and implementation of development projects, preferably in United Nations or in GEF projects;

• Experience in public administration and word processing by computer;• Practical experience of problems linked to legal aspects of nature conservation is an asset;• Master French and English languages; and• Proved writing and communicating capacities.

MANDATE PERIOD AND POSTING PLACE

• 24 months by successive one year contracts, renewable only once• Post based in Kinshasa with frequent trips to national parks and related reserves inside the

country.

RECRUITMENT REQUIREMENT

• L5 level• Appropriate starting date: 1st May 2003

References80


Annex 11b. TERMS OF REFERENCE - NATIONAL PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR

The ZAI/97/G31 project, «Protected areas rehabilitation», follows a request by the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is aiming at re-establishing, on one hand, a structural and functional base within the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) and, on the other hand, ensuring the restructuring, planning, and development of protected areas and related reserves. The project will rely on legislative and institutional reforms aiming at enabling resident populations to fully participate in the effort for biological diversity conservation both within and outside protected areas. More specifically, the project is aiming at:

1. Supporting ICCN restructuring and decentralization;2. Restoring protected areas minimal functioning capacity through equipment provision, training

and retraining personnel involved in the development of protected areas;3. Putting in place a transparent administrative and financial management system;4. Involving basic populations and communities in view of nature conservation through

participative approach.

TASKS

A project national administrator (NPA) will assist and will work under the supervision of the Principal Technical Adviser during the first two years of the project and will be assigned to take over the PTA activities for the years 3 and 4 of the project.

To this effect, the national administrator (NPA) will assist the PTA in the daily management of the project during the 24 first months and will replace him, if need be, for specific tasks, especially in the project administration, meetings and supervision missions in the field. During the 3rd and 4th year of the project, the national administrator will perform all the PTA duties.

The project national administrator will be a member of steering and co-ordination committees and will be in charge of the secretariat.

QUALIFICATIONS

The candidate must fulfill the following requirements:

• Be the holder of a high level university degree (doctorate or master in biological science, in natural resource management and conservation or in administrative reform management) and to have a long experience in management and supervision of environment and natural resources sector projects;

• Eight years experience in the field of conservation in Africa and more particularly in natural resource and protected area management and in participative community development methods;

• Experience in defining and putting in place training programmes in nature conservation, administrative and financial management sector;

• Experience in management and implementation of development projects, preferably in United Nations or GEF projects;

• Experience in public administration and word processing by computer;• Practical experience of problems linked to legal aspects of nature conservation is an asset;• Master French and English languages; and• Proved writing and communicating capacities.

MANDATE PERIOD AND POSTING PLACE

• 48 months by successive one year contracts, renewable three times, according to performance.

References81


• Post based in Kinshasa with frequent trips to national parks and related reserves inside the country.

RECRUITMENT REQUIREMENT

• NOC level• Appropriate starting date: 1st May 2003

References82


Annex 11c. OUTLINE OF TERMS OF REFERENCE - SUBCONTRACTS

More detailed terms of reference (TOR) for subcontracts will be developed by the PTA, the UNOPS and other project partners from its start after a small need identification and feasibility study (under the restructuring and institutional reforms section). These studies and TOR will be approved by the project steering Committee, the UNDP-Kinshasa and the UNDP-GEF co-coordinator. A national invitation to tender will be launched for subcontracts, only conservation national/local and international NGOs active in Congo will be allowed to put in a tender. Selection of the best tender will be done by the project steering committee assisted by the UNOPS (in the person of the PTA) and will be approved by government, the UNDP and the UNDP-GEF.In the event that a suitable local institution is not found the bidding will be open to international and regional institutions. The approved contracts will be signed by the UNOPS and subcontract agencies, namely public or private institutions and national or international NGOs active in the field of nature conservation in DR Congo or in financial analysis systems, institutional restructuring, performing information systems, ICCN administrative personnel, park rangers or warden training, initiation of local communities in participative processes and dialogue with the protected areas personnel. Rough outlines of TOR for different following subcontracts are presented below:

Financial management system Institutional evaluation and restructuring Information and communication system Restoration of Virunga and Kahuzi-Biega training centres Income generating system Rehabilitation of the Ituri Forest Reserve Rehabilitation of the Garamba National Park Rehabilitation of the Maiko National Park Rehabilitation of the Kundelungu National Park Rehabilitation of the Upemba National Park Support to community based approaches

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Study of the current ICCN financial management system Identification of problems and system bottlenecks at all management levels (central to general,

provincial and local management in conservation units) Proposal of solutions Discussions in workshop by the people concerned and selection of best alternatives to improve the

ICCN management system Experimental application of the new system for at least 12 months and formulation of lessons

learnt by the monitoring and evaluation

INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION AND RESTRUCTURATIONUnder the PTA guidance, carry out a rapid study (3months) of capacity building needs and rehabilitation of DR Congo PA sites for detailed formulation of terms of reference and subcontract performance criteria to be proposed for tender by various agencies, actors and people interested in nature conservation in Congo.

On the basis of institutional studies conducted by the World Bank and the portfolio ministry of the DRC in 1991 on the ICCN, perform first an update of these studies and propose adequate restructuring measures for the ICCN to make it more performing in biodiversity conservation, in its income generating capacities for its sustainability and to be able to involve further the resident populations in its management and the sharing of responsibilities and benefits deriving from it.

Propose restructuring measures for the ICCN with performance indicators and organize workshops for analysis and validation of the proposed restructuring

References83


Put in place the proposed restructuring (administration, finance, sustenance system, income collection from tourism and other alternative resources, community participation, communication between ICCN agents, between the ICCN and resident communities, between ICCN and other public or private services, communication and tourist promotion, etc…)

Put in coherence results obtained for each subcontract component for various sites and matters (financial management, tourism, administrative management, communication system between conservation partners, community participation, etc.)

Monitoring and evaluation according to progress indicators

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Study of the current ICCN information system Identification of problems and system bottlenecks at all management levels (central to general,

provincial and local management in conservation units) and proposal of solutions Discussions in workshop by the people concerned and selection of best alternatives to improve the

ICCN information system downstream and upstream Experimental application of the new information system for at least 12 months and formulation of

lessons learnt through the monitoring and evaluation (6months)

RESTORATION OF VIRUNGA AND KAHUZI-BIEGA TRAINING CENTRES Identification of ICCN needs of park rangers and wardens training at Virunga, Kahuzi-Biega and

other reserves in the east of the country (need of paramilitary training, patrols, surveillance, dialogues with communities, basic ecological techniques and nature conservation…)

Minimal rehabilitation of Mabenga and the ecology training centre, and Kahuzi-Biega nature conservation at Cibati, near Lwiro

Preparation of training programmes and preparation of educational material Recruitment of agents to be trained and their accelerated training (3 to 4 months) in different

selected units Application of new techniques learnt in the field Monitoring and evaluation of results obtained, questionnaires to training participants and their

supervisors, observation of performances, etc.

INCOME GENERATING SYSTEM Study of the current ICCN generating system through eco- tourism, synegetics, fishing, residents

use permits, etc. Identification of problems, constraints and system bottlenecks Analysis of opportunities and proposal of solutions Discussions in workshop by interested people and selection of best alternatives to improve the

ICCN income generating system Experimental application of the new system if possible and formulation of lessons learnt through

the monitoring and evaluation

PROTECTED AREA SYSTEMS PLAN Inventory of biodiversity of protected areas (using data generated through other subcontracts where available, and additional data collected where necessary) Analysis of protected area system plan Consultations and validations on national protected area systems plan

REHABILITATION OF THE OKAPI FOREST RESERVE IN ITURI, GARAMBA N.P, MAIKO N.P, KUNDEUNGU N.P, UPEMBA N.P

Identify site rehabilitation needs for each site with the aim of sustainable nature conservation and the revenue generating systems for the ICCN and the resident communities; including the needs

References84


of infrastructure, communications, track rehabilitation, surveillance system, monitoring the ecosystem; training park rangers and resident communities, initiation to participative processes with local communities, etc.

Selection by the ICCN executives, local communities and active agencies of priority actions for each site and progress indicators or performance criteria

Implementation of actions having priority for each site and monitoring of the movement of indicators or performance criteria

Support to surveillance and to monitoring each site and its diversity Evaluation and monitoring of the rehabilitation of the site in terms of biodiversity conservation

and productivity of the income generating system and participation of resident communities…

SUPPORT TO COMMUNITY BASED APPROACHES AROUND VIRUNGAS AND KAHUZI-BIEGA Identify the sites around the Virungas and Kahuzi-Biega for the pilot support of basic

communities Identify the basic communities concerned Identify targeted actions and categories of the population Propose and validate in workshops actions to conduct with other local partners experienced in

alternative systems matters Conduct income generating activities according to Grameen Bank models Conduct ecodevelopment actions around pilot sites (agricultural service roads, support to mass

teaching how to read and write, formulation of ecology school curricula, support to youth clubs in nature conservation; support to local basic initiatives like schools, clinics, etc.

Evaluate and follow through performances and progress Draw lessons learnt from experience and propose outlines of extension of community based

activities

References85


Annex 11d. Terms of References - Project Steering Committee and the Project DRC Protected Areas Biodiversity Co-Funding Co-ordination Committee

Composition

The Project Steering Committee (PCS) will comprise a representative from the Ministry of Environment (Chairman), a representative from the ICCN (Vice-Chairman) and the following members: the PTA of the UNDP-GEF project; the project national administrator (the latter will be in charge of the steering committee secretariat); the PTA of the UNESCO-UNF World Heritage Site project or his representative; one representative of subcontracted international NGOs (WWF, WCS, DFGF…); one national NGO representative; the UNDP representative and other sponsors who would add to the project. The Project Steering Committee will be in charge of the supervision of the project and will have both decision-making and advisory character. It will meet at least every six months and will also facilitate the mobilization of additional resources necessary while watching over the co-ordination and the coherence of different interventions.

Also to ensure synergy and non-duplication of efforts, a Project Co-ordination Committee will be formed as a sub-group of the Steering Committee. This co-ordination committee will be chaired by the ICCN General Manager (or his representative) and will have notably PTAs of the three projects in parallel implementation (UNDP-GEF; UNESCO-UNF; GTZ-EU), the national UNDP-GEF project administrator, who will be in charge of the secretariat.

Mission and Tasks:The Project Steering Committee will be in charge of:

The technical supervision of the project; The approval of technical documents and project financial plans proposed by the project

team; Planning; programming and approval of project and verification of the quality of the

project products/; Continuous self-evaluation of the project; That the project’s activities are updated and well synchronized; etc.

The Project Co-ordination Committee (PCC) will be in charge of: The synergy of actions between DRC PA project and co-funding projects; The non-duplication of efforts between co-funded and parallel projects.

The TPR is the highest decision making body of the project. It will consist of a representative of the Ministry of Environment, a representative from UNDP and one from UNOPS. It will meet once every year to:

Review APR/PIR and recommend changes if necessary to project actions Approval of all subcontracts Approval of all major changes/directions in logical framework, workplan Approval of annual budgets The supervision of the project personnel selection procedure, including the PTA, National

Administrator, experts and other; The approval of the project personnel contracts, their revocation, their sanction, their quotation,

etc. Review of evaluation reports and decisions on recommendations. Approve recommendations made by PSC.

References86


Annex 12: Co-financing Letters

References87


Annex 13 : References

Anonymous 1995. Plan de gestion du parc marin des mangroves. Rapport provisoire de Janvier 1995. Projet ICCN/Banque Mondiale K.77209. 50pp Mimeographed.

Anonymous 1992. A Management and Development Plan for the Ituri Forest Reserve and Okapi Wildlife Reserve (the Congo). Summary and outline document. 19pp. ICCN, WWF

Anonymous 1990. Project Brief, the Congo, forest and environment project. November 13, 1990. Agriculture Operations Division, South Central and Indian Ocean Department. The World Bank. 14pp.

Bieme, L. 1990. La formation des formateurs: l'expérience de l'ICCN et du WWF en zones de Wamba et de Mambasa. Pp. 195-198, In Actes du Séminaire-Atélier Sous-Régional de formation et de recyclage des conservateurs des parcs nationaux et des aires protégées: Burundi, Congo Brazzaville, Ouganda, Rwanda, the Democratic Congo. Rwindi, Parc National des Virunga du 7 au 10 Août 1989. ICCN, UNESCO, MAB, Paris.

Biswas, A.K., H.C. Tortajada-Quiroz, L. Vangu, and L. Gayo 1994. Impact environnemental de la présence des réfugiés rwandais dans le Nord et le Sud Kivu (Congo). PNUD, Bureau Régional pour l'Afrique. Rapport polycopié soumis au PNUD-BSP en Novembre 1994.

Cummings, G. 1997. Virunga Conservation Center. A proposal by the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund.

Colyn, M. 1990. L'enjeu du Parc National de la Salonga dans le maintien de la diversité de la faune et de la flore forestière de l'Afrique Centrale. Pp. 213-218, In Actes du Séminaire-Atélier Sous-Régional de formation et de recyclage des conservateurs des parcs nationaux et des aires protégées: Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Ouganda, Rwanda, the Democratic Congo. Rwindi, Parc National des Virunga du 7 au 10 Août 1989. ICCN, UNESCO, MAB, Paris.

Doumenge, C. 1990. La conservation des écosystèmes forestiers du the Congo. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 242pp.

Goodson, J. 1988. USAID memorandum (concerning biodiversity conservation in the Congo) of 27 June 1988 to the program Office. USAID-Kinshasa.

Hedeberg, I. 1979. Possibilities and needs for conservation of plant species and vegetation in Africa. In Systematic botany, plant utilization and biosphere conservation. Proceedings of a symposium held in Uppsala in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the University. Uppsala.

Hillman Smith, K. 1995. Problématique de la conservation à partir des stocks génétiques réduits, cas des rhinos et autres espèces rares dans le contexte de la conservation de la biodiversité. Document de travail nº 018 du 1er Séminaire National sur la Biodiversité au Congo. 11pp polycopiées.

Languy, M. 1995. Problèmes environnementaux au nord-Kivu liés à la présence des réfugiés rwandais: Identification des interventions réalisées, coordination entre les organismes et propositions d'interventions complémentaires. Rapport de Mission auprès du PNUD; le 21 février 1995. 45 pages polycopiées.

References88


Mbayma, A. 1995. Quelle stratégie pour la conservation des rhinocéros blancs du nord. Document de travail nº 019 du 1er Séminaire National sur la Biodiversité au Congo. 9pp polycopiées.

McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A. Mittermeier, and T. Werner 1990. Conserving the world's biological diversity. The World Bank, World Resources Institute, IUCN, Conservation International, and WWF; Gland Switzerland, and Washington, DC. 193pp.

MECNT 1996. Etat de la Biodiversité au Congo-Kinshasa. Premier Rapport Biodiversity Country Study. Kisantu, Premier Draft, 158pp.

Mittermeir, R.A. and T.B. Werner 1989. Wealth of plants and animal unites "Megadiversity" countries. Tropicus. 4(1): 1, 4 and 5.

Mugangu, T.E. 1995. Vision globale d'une Stratégie Nationale pour la Biodiversité au Congo. Document de travail nº 000 du 1er Séminaire National sur la Biodiversité au Congo. 10pp polycopiées + 1 figure.

Mugangu, T. E. 1995. Catalyzing grassroots sustainable development in the tropical forest of eastern the Congo. An action research proposal submitted to the Rockefeller Foundation by ADEDE, April 3, 1995. 30pp + appendices.

Mugangu, T.E. 1997. Two Mountains-Two Spirits: Involving Local Communities in Gorilla Conservation at Mount Tshiaberimu. 11pp.

Muhindo, M. 1990. Révision du dispositif de surveillance et ébauche du plan d'aménagement du Parc National de la Garamba. Pp 169-177, In Actes du Séminaire-Atélier Sous-Régional de formation et de recyclage des conservateurs des parcs nationaux et des aires protégées: Burundi, Congo, Ouganda, Rwanda, the Congo. Rwindi, Parc National des Virunga du 7 au 10 Août 1989. ICCN, UNESCO, MAB, Paris.

Seligman, N. 1991. An overview of the Congo for strategic planning in biological diversity and tropical forestry issues. Compiled and edited for the World Wildlife Fund. Mimeographed document without page numbering.

Sherburne, J.A., J. Buursink, and T.E. Mugangu 1995. Assessment of needs for wildlife conservation and training in sub-Saharan Africa. An Unpublished Report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The University of Maine, Orono, 123pp.

Smith, F. M. Muhindo, K. Hillman Smith, A. Mbayma 1995. Conservation and development of Garamba National Park and protected areas, the Congo. A project proposal January 1995. 23pp. WWF.

Rham, U. 1966. Les mammifères de la forêt équatoriale de l'est du Congo. Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale. Tervuren, Belgique. Annales, Série in 8º Sci. Zool. 149:36-121

Vangu, L. 1995. Profil socio-économique et stratégies de développement au Congo. Document de travail nº 010 du 1er Séminaire National sur la Biodiversité au Congo. 9pp polycopiées.

References89


90

programme des nations unies pour le dÉveloppement€¦ · web viewthe congo possesses unusual...

Documents