Document of

The World Bank

Report No: 23339-TUN

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

ONA

PROPOSED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 4.2 MILLION (US$5.3 M1LLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA

FOR A

PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

June 4, 2002

Rural Development, Water and Environment DepartmentMiddle East and North Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EUQIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective May 17, 2002)

Currency Unit = Tunisian Dinar (TND)TND I = US$0.69

US$1 = TND 1.45

FISCAL YEARJanuary I - December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANPE National Environment Protection AgencyAPAL Agency for the Protection of the Water FrontASIL Agncultural Sector Investment LoanASIL2 Second Agncultural Sector Investment LoanBCT Central Bank of TunisiaCAS Country Assistance StrategyCG Coordination GroupCP Contract ProgramsCRDA Regional Agncultural Development CouncilDC Development CommitteesDG Development GroupsDGETH Direction of Barrages and Technical StudiesDGF Directorate General of ForestryDGFE Directorate General of Finance andDGLP Directorate General of Land Use PlannmngFARAH Financial Accounting Reporting and Auditing HandbookFDP Forestry Development ProjectFMR Financial Monitonng ReportFMS Financial Management SystemGFIC Forestry Groups of Local InterestGIC Local Interest GroupsGOT Government of TunisiaIA Implementing AgenciesISC Inter-Ministerial Steenng CommitteeJBIC Japanese Bank for International CooperationLCD Local Council for DevelopmentLDC Local Development CommitteeM&E Monitonng and EvaluationMELP Ministry of Environment and Landuse PlanningMETAP Mediterranean Technical Assistance ProgramMOA Ministry of AgncultureNEAP National Environmental Action PlanONTT National Tounsm OfficeOPDI Pilot Operations of Integrated DevelopmentOPDI Pilot Integrated Development OperationsPCU Project Coordination UnitPIP Project Implementation PlanPMT Park Management TeamPMU Project Management UnitQAG Quality Assessment GroupRSCN Royal Society for the Conservation of NatureSIPF Information System for Forestry PlanningSOE Statement of ExpenditureSSEPN Monitoring and Evaluation System of National ParksSTDP Second Forestry Development ProjectTFDP Third Forestry Development ProjectTG General TreasuryTOR Terms of ReferenceUNDP United Nations Development ProgramWSIL Water Sector Investment Loan

Vice President: Jean Louis SarbibCountry Director: Chnstian Delvoie

Sector Director: Letitia ObengTask Team Leader: Shobha Shetty

TUNISIAPROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

CONTENTS

A. Project Development Objective Page

1. Project development objective 22. Key perfornance indicators 2

B. Strategic Context

1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project 22. Main sector issues and Government strategy 33. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices 5

C. Project Description Summary

1. Project components 62. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project 73. Benefits and target population 84. Institutional and implementation arrangements 10

D. Project Rationale

1. Project altemnatives considered and reasons for rejection 122. Major related projects financed by the Bank and other development agencies 133. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design 144. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership 165. Value added of Bank support in this project 17

E. Summary Project Analysis

1. Economic 172. Financial 183. Technical 184. Institutional 195. Environmental 206. Social 217. Safeguard Policies 23

F. Sustainability and Risks

1. Sustainability 242. Critical risks 243. Possible controversial aspects 27

G. Main Conditions

1. Effectiveness Condition 282. Other 28

H. Readiness for Implementation 29

L. Compliance with Bank Policies 29

Annexes

Annex 1: Project Design Summary 30Annex 2: Detailed Project Description 37Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs 43Annex 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Summary, or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Summary 44Annex 5: Financial Summary for Revenue-Earning Project Entities, or Financial Summary 47Annex 6: Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements 48Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule 58Annex 8: Documents in the Project File 59Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits 60Annex 10: Country at a Glance 62Annex 11: STAP Review and Response 64Annex 12: Social Assessment 70

MAP(S)EBRD 31835

TUNISIAPROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Project Appraisal Document

Middle East and North Africa RegionMNSRE

Date: June 4, 2002 Team Leader: Shobha ShettyCountry Manager/Director: Christian Delvoie Sector Manager/Director: Letitia A. ObengProject ID: P048315 Sector(s): VM - Natural Resources Management

Theme(s): EnvironmentFocal Area: B - Biodiversity Poverty Targeted Intervention: N

-Proj6ct FInancing Data1 ] Loan [ I Credit pX] Grant ( Guarantee 1 1 Other:

For LoanslCreditslOthers:Amount (US$m):Fliatijpg Plan (US$m): Source Local. Forelg'n* TbtalBORROWER/RECIPIENT 4.24 0.00 4.24LOCAL COMMUNITIES 0.16 0.00 0.16GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 3.59 1.74 5.33FOREIGN MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS 0.15 0.00 0.15(UNIDENTIFIED)Total: 8.14 1.74 9.88Borrower/Reciplent: GOVERNMENT OF TUNISIAResponsible agency: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTUREMinistry of AgricultureAddress: 30 rue Alain Savary, 1002 TunisContact Person: Mr. Ahrned Ridha Fekih Salem, Director General, DGFTel: (216-1) 842 687 Fax: (216-1) 801 922 Email:

Other Agency(ies):Ministry of Environment and Land Use Planning

Address: Centre Urbain Nord, Cedex 1080, TunisContact Person: Mr. Najib Trabelsi, Director-General, EnviromnentTel: (216-1) 702 779 Fax: (216-1)238411 Email: DGEQV@mineatgov.tnAddress: Ministry of International Cooperation and Foreign InvestmentContact Person: Mr. Kamel Ben Rejeb, Director-GeneralTel: 216-1-798-522 Fax: 216-1-799-069 Email: Multilateralenmci.gov.tn

Estimated Disbursements l Bank FY/US$m):,3 20v03 2004 1 ,2005 V 2006 1 290°06 1 -2008 l Q *

Annual 0.50 1.20 1.30 1.50 0.50 0.33Cumulative 0.50 1.70 3.00 4.50 5.00 5.33

Project Implementation period: September 2002- August 2008= w0 F- r bO amc

A. Project Development Objective

1. Project development objective: (see Annex 1)

The projectes main development objective is improved management and protection of selected national parksfor the purposes of conserving biodiversity of global importance and contributing to the overall improvementin welfare of local populations.

2. Key performance Indicators: (see Annex 1)

Two categories of performance indicators have been identified. The first category would pertain to thosewith direct impact on the global environment (technical bioindicators) and the second would include thosepertaining to improvement in the socio-economic conditions of local populations. The first category wouldinclude: (i) stabilization or improvement of demographic status of key bio-indicators specific to eachnational park (vegetative cover and distribution; local animal/bird populations; water management programfor Ichkeul) - see annex I for key species in each park The second category would include: (ii) % ofactivities of the Annual Work Program that are entrusted to local communities; (iii) the participatoryprocess for the management plans and annual work programs through the Local Council for Development(CLD) and the Project Management Team (PMT) is functional; (iv) number of tourism concessions in eachof the three parks; (v) overall improvement in management effectiveness as defined by the IUCN scorecard;and (vi) creation of permanent deputy conservators in the three parks in charge of community and publicrelations.

B. Strategic Context

1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (see Annex 1)Document number: R 2000-46 Date of latest CAS discussion: 04/27/2000

The proposed project direcfly supports the CAS objective of consolidating long-term development in theenvironment and natural resources management sector through the protection of Tunisia's natural resources.The project would assist the Government of Tunisia in improving the conservation of biodiversity within theprotected areas through implementation of management plans at three national parks together with localcommunities and capacity building at the regional and local levels to assure sustainable ecosystemsmanagement and monitoring.

la. Global Operational strategy/Program objective addressed by the project:

The proposed project complies with GEF operational strategy in the area of biodiversity conservation. Itprimarily addresses the GEF Operational Program in the Biodiversity Focal Area OP 1 (Arid and Semi-AridEcosystems). It also addresses, to a limited extent, OP 2 (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems) inone of the project sites (Lake Ichkeul National Park).

Tunisia has ratified the following major intemational environmental conventions and agreements dealing withthe protection of natural habitats and related species - CITES (1974); UNESCO World Heritage (1974);Ramsar Convention (1979); Bonn Convention (1986); Desertification Convention (1979); Beme. Convention(1995), and the Biological Diversity Convention (1993). Tunisia is also one of 6 countries participating inthe regional UNDP/GEF Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems in the Mediterranean RegionProject to conserve biodiversity in the coastal ecosystems. The proposed project will not include coastalecosystems but the activities in the latter would strongly complement the proposed project's interventions.

The project is designed to support, through its relevant outputs, the following articles of the Convention onBiological Diversity:

-2 -

* Article 6 - General measures for conservation and sustainable use (conservation management plansfor selected sites of biological and ecological interest);

* Article 7 - Identification and Monitoring* Article 8 - In-situ conservation (strengthened protected areas and environmentally sustainable

development in areas adjacent to protected areas, rehabilitation and restoration of fraile ecosystems);* Article 11 - Incentive measures (Participatory programs implemented with local populations);* Article 13 - Public education and awareness (improved public awareness on nature protection).

2. Main sector Issues and Government strategy:

Sector importance: Of the 870 species of plants that are rare, threatened, or endemic in North Africa, about150 occur in Tunisia. There are an estimated 2200 species of plants in Tunisia, but less than 2 percentrepresent globally threatened vascular plants (IUCN, 1997). At the national level, there are 239 rare and 101very rare species. Tunisia's rare flora include 6 species endemic to the country, and about 80 speciesendemic to North Africa and the northem Sahara. Many of the plants are valuable as a genetic resource.Important forage plants (medicago, hedysarum), medicinal plants (Myrtus communis, Urginea maritima,daphne gnidium), fiber plants (Stipa tenacissima) and plants of food value occur (Olea, Capparis). Therehas been a decline in forest cover - from 3.3 million hectares in the Roman era to 841,000 hectares atpresent, but several activities through Bank-supported projects have addressed this issue and forest cover isimproving again, albeit slowly.

Tunisian fauna is relatively less well studied, and has been in a substantive decline over the pastcentury. At present, all large mammals (except the wild boar, Sus scrofa barbarus) are consideredthreatened. About 80 species of mammals, 362 species of birds, and more than 500 species of reptiles andfish can still be found. Several mammal species are endemic to North Africa. Rare and endangeredmammals (IUCN Red Book, 1985) include the barbary hyena (Hyaena hyaena berbera), barbary deer(Cervus elaphus berberus), dorcas gazelle (Gazelle dorcas massaesyla), cuvier's gazelle (G. cuvien), andthe slender-homed gazelle (G.leptoceros). Rare and endangered birds listed in the IUCN Red Book thatoccur in Tunisia include, inter alia, the white stork, marbled teal, white-headed duck, red kite, peregrinefalcon, bearded vulture, and the Houbara bustard. Globally threatened species (all) number 110.

Root causes of biodiversity loss: Forest and vegetation degradation still continues due to burgeoningpopulation pressures with overgrazing, fuelwood andfodder collection being the primary culpnts. This hasexacerbated erosion and significantly contributes to the soils that are lost annually to desertification.Inappropriate cultivation techniques in the steppes have resulted in wind erosion and dune formation.Enforcement of protective measures is weak due to the absence of multi-disciplinary management plans, lowawareness, and weak institutional capacity.

Absence ofparticipatory approaches to protected area management: While the intent of the protected areasystem is well-founded and is of great importance for the preservation and enhancement of biologicaldiversity, there is a clear need for the management systems currently in place to go beyond the traditionalapproach to conservation. Hunting, overgrazing, and inappropriate agricultural practices of localcommunities continue to pose a threat to the integrity of many of the protected areas. Since about 10 percentof the Tunisian population (- 1 million) live within forest areas and/or in the vicinity of protected areas, it isessential that the management of the protected areas integrate the needs of the local communities whileconserving naturl resources. Designing management plans that incorporate greater stakeholder participationwith the objective of linking conservation of biological diversity in protected areas with improved local socialand economic development will be essential to ensure long-term conservation.

Inadequate institutional capacity: The Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning (MELP) is in chargeof policy formulation, planning and regulation, with the Directorate General of Forestry (DGF) in the

-3-

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) being responsible for management of the protected areas through on theground daily surveillance, protection and management activities. There is no substantial overlap in the twomandates, but coordination between the two Ministries is weak, and better integrative mechanisms especiallyfor data management are required. Habitat loss and poaching are seriously threatening much of the nationalfauna. Fauna are in need of protection through improvement of law enforcement capabilities. Budgetaryconstraints, lack of equipment and trained staff have reduced national park protection to the minimum.

Land tenure issues: Some of the national parks have local communities living within the park boundaries. Inthe Ichkeul N.P, there are about 65 families living within the park. It is GOT policy not to evict anyonealready living in the park, although no new families are allowed to settle within park boundaries hereafter. InJbil, the park is apparently still used seasonally by the adjacent tribes, including the Mrazig, the Sabria, andthe Adhar and Ghrib. In the Spring months there are many families that go from Douz to spend time in thedesert and there is still hunting (although forbidden), in part because of foreigners that come specifically forthis purpose. There is lack of clarity on whether the tribes that previously used this area still consider thatthey have rights of access to the park area and its resources, primarily as a passage way to other grazingareas. The land tenure status of the former collective lands is also ambiguous.

Government strategy: Tunisia accords a high significance to biodiversity conservation and suswtainable usesin its development effort. There is a strong political commitment towards enhanced conservation efforts andits successful integration into a wider economic, social and cultural context. There is a growing realizationthat earlier natural resources management interventions have sometimes failed to fully achieve theirobjectives because community participation and insight into the planning, prioritization, and managementprocess were limited. There is now a high-level commitment to participatory natural resources managementin the Ministry of Agriculture which is moving to a reorientation from top-down planning in favor of acollaborative approach with resource user groups such as the Development Committees (CDs) in theBank-financed Natural Resources Management Project (Ln - 4162) and the Northwest MountainousDevelopment Project (Ln - 3691), and Groupements Forestiers d'Interet Collectif (GFICs; some of whichwere formerly Associations Forestieres dInteret Collectif, AFICs) as in the Second Forestry DevelopmentProject (Ln - 3601). User groups have been promoted first with rural potable water and tubewell irrigationperimeters, but are still at their infancy among forest users and soil conservation groups, and are yet to beextended to rangeland users. The Ninth Development Plan (1997-2001) identifies protection of forests,national parks, and improved and rationalized management systems as a key element of a sustainable naturalresources management strategy.

A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan were developed in a very participatory manner under aBiodiversity Enabling Activity (GEF-funded; the World Bank being the Implementing Agency) and wereadopted by the Govemment in 1998. University academics, research institutes, and environmental NGOs(local and intemnational) provided useful inputs into the preparation of the Biodiversity Strategy. The strategyalso benefited from bilateral assistance from Germany and Sweden. The key priorities of the nationalstrategy are strengthening the biodiversity knowledge base, prevention of the erosion of genetic resources,improved protection and management of critical ecosystems, integration of biodiversity conservation inrelevant sectoral strategies, and strengthening of the institutional and regulatory framework. GoT is activelylooking to GEF and other donors to finance the main elements of its Action Plan and meet its obligationsunder the Biodiversity Convention. GoT officially requested the Bank for assistance in obtaining GEF fundsfor a protected areas management project in July 1998.

The proposed project is in line with the national priorities as articulated in the "Strategie Nationale deConservation et de Developpement de la Flore et de la Faune Sauvages et des Aires Protegees" (July 2001)prepared under the recently closed Second Forestry Development Project

-4 -

3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices:

The proposed project wij be the first to give concrete content to the Biodiversity Strategy adopted in June1998. It will assist the Government of Tunisia in the implementation of integrated management plans withincreased community participation that would provide a basis for replicability for management of otherprotected areas important for both national and global biodiversity. The proposed project would strengthenthe capacity of the Directorate General of Forestry (DGF) to plan, implement, and coordinate biodiversityconservation at the local and national levels. The project preparation efforts will take a close look atcomplementarity and leveraging issues with other Bank-financed projects (Natural Resources ManagementProject (ongoing) and the Northwest Mountainous Areas and Forestry Development Project (underpreparation) and a number of community-based and environmental education projects sponsored by UNDP,the EU, and GTZ. At the initial stage of preparation, this project was conceived of as an imnportant element inthe National Forest and Pasture Development Strategy, and as part of a potential follow on project after theSecond Forestry Development Project (SFDP) which closed in May 2001. However, the National Forest andPasture Development Strategy was delayed in its preparation and it is only now that it has been received.The Government of Tunisia (GoT) and the Bank are keen on reviewing the Strategy in depth beforeproceeding with any follow on project In March 2000, the Japanese Bank for Intenational Cooperation(JBIC) and GoT began implementation of a 5-year Integrated Forest Management Project in the north of thecountry. In the meantime, however, the experience under the SFDP with the pilot operations incorporatinglocal participation in forest management has impaited many useful lessons to the design of this project thekey ones being the importance of capacity building (of both the implementing agency as well as thebeneficiary populations) and a phased implementation to permit a "learning by doing" approach. Overall, theresults of this component were instrumental in ensuring the inclusion, for the first time, of funding for thesocio-economic development of forest populations into GoTs 5-year Econonic Development Plan(2002-2006). The project is thus fully in line with GoTs strategy in the forestry sector, and more broadly,natural resource management Although it would have been preferable to mainstream this project with afollow on forestry project, it was agreed with GoT that this project would proceed in order not to lose themomentum of the extensive preparation work already completed. The project would also liaise closely withthe Northwest Mountainous Areas and Forestry Development Project which will also adopt similarparticipatory approaches to natural resources management.

The project design and implementation will also involve the Office National du Tourisme Tunisien (ONTT)under the Ministry of Tourism who are part of the technical working group (along with the Ministry ofEnvironment and the DGF, Ministry of Agriculture) constituted under the Steering Committee. The GoT hasrecently completed an action plan for promotion of cultural tourism and ecological tourism (PATC, Pland'Action de Promotion de Tourisme Culturel et de l'Environnement, 2000-2004) on tourism managementand development. The Government is aware of the positive linkages between cultural/natural heritage and thetourism industry, and the strong impacts on local employment from cultural tourism and nature conservation.International competition for tourism earnings have impelled GoT to acknowledge the need to adjust itstourism policies. As part of its wider objective to expand high-value and niche tourism, GoT is interested indeveloping the potential for ecotourism in the countrys national parks. The seven sites selected under theBanks Cultural Heritage Project (ongoing) do not specifically include the three national parks under theproposed project. However, they form part of the larger sample of 31 sites of intervention developed by GoTwhich includes 5 national parks/reserves, of which two are included in the proposed project (Bouhedma andIchkeul). The Ministry of Tourism expects to use the proposed project as a vehicle to promote ecotourisminitiatives. The proposed biodiversity project will build on the momentum generated by recent planninginitiatives, and establish clear links with ongoing donor-financed projects and other national projects.

-5-

Selection of project sites:

The three project sites were selected primarily on the basis of their importance to global biodiversity. Sincethis is Tunisia's first major protected area management project, it was also deemed important to includerepresentativeness as a criterion in the selection in order to develop ecosystem-specific management plansthat could be replicated elsewhere in the country. Each of the ecosystems represented by the three sites isdistinct and will present different challenges to its sustainable management It was decided to limit thenumber of parks to three in order to keep the project size manageable by the existing institutional capacity.

C. Project Description Summary

1. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed costbreakdown):

The project includes the following three components: (all $ amounts are indicative only)

Component 1: Institutional Strengthening ($2.02 M): The objective of this component will be to reinforcethe institutional capacity of the Directorate General of Forestry (Ministry of Agriculture) and the Ministryof Environment in the sustainable protected areas management. This component will support the following:(i) strengthening of the Project Management Unit; (ii) training; (iii) technical and scientific studies; and (iv)establishment of a scientific monitoring system for the protected areas. The training programs would have astrong regional focus with modules targeting park management personnel, local governments at the regionalCommissariats Regionaux de Developpement Agricole (CRDA) level, and other potential partners(including the private sector and NGOs) in participatory approaches to protected areas management. Itwill also include training programs for the Directorate General of Forestry (Ministry of Agriculture),Ministry of Tourism, and the Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning at the central level (wherejustified).

Component 2: Protected Areas Management ($U.S 7.18 M): The objectives of this component are to: (i)manage and restore the ecosystems in the three national parks to protect the globally inportant flora andfauna; (ii) assist in the development of ecotourism activities; and (iii) establish, with the local populations,community development plans compatible with the objectives of sustainable biodiversity conservation. Thethree parks (out of 8) chosen include Ichkeul, Bouhedma, and Jbil. These three parks cover unique anddistinctly different ecosystems - wetland, arid-mountain/pseudo savanna, and desert respectively (seeAnnex 2 for a brief description of each park). The project will develop detailed management plans, provideequipment, training and small infrastructural facilities in all three sites. In addition, it will establishmechanisms to reduce the unsustainable use of natural resources, particularly those resources that in thepast were shared common resources such as grazing lands and forests. The project will develop strategiesfor ecotourism that will demonstrate the links between conservation and economic benefits for the localcommunities. The management plans will emphasize not only the technical aspects (inventory,infrastructure, surveillance), but also strategic and sustainability issues (participatory review andassessment of existing management plans and practices by local communities, negotiations withcommunities on priority activities to reduce pressures on the protected areas, support for alternativelivelihoods consistent with biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, scientificmonitoring), and would be implemented during the project period. This component would also include the(parallel) cofinancing by the French GEF for the Bouhedma and Jbil national parks. Under the ecotourismcomponent, the following activities are envisaged. (i) global study on the potential for, and modalities todevelop ecotourism around national parks and reserves including tourism concessions with a focus on thethree project sites; (ii) creation and infrastructural equipment for recreation areas, parking, entry gates,botanical garden, animal enclosures within the park; (iii) equipment and material for the welcome centers

-6 -

and ecomuseums (including construction of a new ecomuseum at Douz for Jbil); (iv) purchase ofhorse-drawn carriages and other modes of eco-friendly internal transport; (v) support for the creation oflocal community homestays in Ichkeul; (vi) information campaign and production of documents to promoteecotourism (posters, maps, guides, postcards etc.) and (vii) taining of ecoguides and the staff of thewelcome centers and ecomuseums in protected area management/conservation in accordance vith thetraining component under component 1. These activities will be complemented by the baseline activities topromote ecotourism by GOT in the parks of Ichkeul and Bouhedma under the PATC. This envisages thedevelopment of supporting infastructure outside the park environs including improvements inelectrification, rural water supply, and communication facilities, improvement of access roads, planting oftrees, signage and directions, construction of toilets and waste disposal areas, and construction of ageological museum at Ichkeul.

Component 3: Public Awareness ($US 0.68 M): This component would aim to build public support forbiodiversity conservation at the local/park level and regional/governorate level. Action plans will targetpriority groups such as local governments, site visitors, and local school children for raising the awarenessof specific stakeholder groups about the importance of, and opportunities for, biodiversity conservationwithin the three parks. Possible delivery mechanisms include mass media, formal and informal education,and development of linkages with local NGOs, schools, tourism agencies, and other organizations topromote public understanding about biodiversity resources. For each of the parks, flagship species/themes(espece phare) have been identified that will form the nucleus of all public awareness campaigns as well asresearch, monitoring and conservation activities. These would be the accacia raddiana, and the sandgazelle (gazelle leptoceros) for the parks of Bouhedma and Jbil respectively and the theme of waterresources management for the case of Ichkeul. Activities will be developed at the local/community levelaround these key species/themes in order to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustainlong-term biodiversity conservation.

, Coiilponeft .ZSector , Cobsts iiRanci '; B,ank. 8 .Rn andIf ______________ (US$M) XTtilUA fnJiI 4V$) ___

1. Capacity Building and Institutional 2.02 20.4 0.00 0.0 1.55 29.1Institutional Strengthening: Development2. Protected Areas Natural Resources 7.18 72.7 0.00 0.0 3.25 61.0Management: Management3. Public Awareness and Other Education 0.68 6.9 0.00 0.0 0.53 9.9Education: I I

Total Project Costs 9.88 100.0 0.00 0.0 5.33 100.00.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0

Total Financing Required 9.88 100.0 0.00 0.0 5.33 100.0

2. Key poUcy and institutional reforms supported by the project:

This project is the first major initiative in Tunisia dedicated to improving the management of the nationalparks. It is also the Bank's first GEF operation in Tunisia in national parks management. The Governmentconsiders this to be a pilot project specifically pertaining to the following aspects:

(i) involvement of local communities in the development and management of the parks;(ii) introduction of ecotourism activities; and(iii) improving financial sustainability of the parks.

-7-

The project will support the development of a truly participatory approach to protectd areas managementin the three project sites. Participatory approaches used in other Bank projects (CDs, AFICs) will beadapted to suit local conditions. The project will support the introduction of ecotourism action plans at eachsite. Insofar as the financial sustainability is concerned, the project will support the introduction of newrecurrent cost financing mechanisms for the three parks (including, but not limited to increased ecotourismrevenues and private concessions) with a view to transferring greater management responsibilities to thelocal community groups. The government has agreed to test these new approaches by year 4 of projectimplementation. These new financial mechanisms as well as the participatory management approachesimplemented during this project will provide the basis for replication in other national parks and reserveswithin the broader government strategy for national parks management with a view to promoting greaterinvolvement of local communities and increased financial sustainability.

3. Benefits and target population:

Global and regional benefits: The project will result in global and regional benefits by contributing tosustainable conservation management in three of Tunisia's well-known national parks covering about180,000 ha. representing diverse ecosystems with biodiversity of global and regional importance. Theproject will also establish linkages and collaboration to support and benefit from conservation initiatives inneighboring countries. The global benefits include: (a) conservation of critical Saharan and Mediterraneanwetland habitats and enhancing the probability of their long-term conservation; (b) development ofincentives to maintain protected areas in the long-term; (c) established capacity to ensure adequatemanagement of protected areas sustainably; and (d) new knowledge concerning the feasibility ofcommunity-based natural resource conservation approaches and the factors associated with success.

Two of the sites (Bouhedma and Jbil) are important priorities under the Bonn Convention for theconservation of Sahelo-saharan antelopes. The Ichkeul lake and marshes have long been recognized(together with Dofiana in Spain, the Camargue in France and the El Kala region in Algeria) as one of thefour major wetland areas in the western basin of the Mediterranean. The Ichkeul National Park is a veryhigh-profile site in Tunisia (covering an area of some 12,000 hectares) being one of the few sites listedunder three intemational agreements: (a) Biosphere Reserve (1977); (b) World Heritage Convention(1979); and (c) Ramsar Convention (1980). However, the development activities upstream of the lake haveresulted in a cut-off from freshwater sources that has posed a serious threat to the health of the LakeIchkeul ecosystem. As a result, the park was included in the Ramsar's Convention Montreux Record("Record of Ramsar sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likelyto occur") thus indicating the great threat to which the wetland is exposed. The project would support theupdating and calibration of the mathematical model (financed as part of an extensive study on the park byKfW during 1993-95) for the management of the lake using test releases of freshwater in order to establisha scientific basis and calendar for the releases of freshwater necessary for maintaining the health of thelake's ecosystem. The lake and marshes of the park provide habitat for hundreds of thousands of migratorybirds (in particular ducks, geese, storks and flamingos). Improving the management of the park would helpincrease the numbers of wintering ducks and coots have decreased from an average of 200,000 individualsto a level situated around 50,000 at present. Other important species include the wintering geese, herons,egrets, the globally threatened Marbled Teal (Anas angustirostris), Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio porphyrio), and the White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala) (also globally threatened). The national park of BouHedma is home to the extremely rare gazelle dorcas, and the oryx antelope. Other fauna of importance arethe striped hyena, golden jackal and crested porcupine. The park houses 8 of the 14 species recognized asendemic in the National Biodiversity Study such as the Acacia raddiana, Juniperus phoenicea,Pistacia atlantica, Thymelea sempervirens, Tetrapon villosus, Tricholena teneriffe, and

- 8 -

Cenchrus ciliaris, and Digitaria communtata. In addition, the park has potential for there-introduction of fauna, relatives of species that once roamed but have since disappeared, such as thegazelle dorcas, oryx - the straight homed antelope, addax (desert antelope), and red-neck ostriches. Some ofthese have already been re-introduced in the park in limited numbers. The national park of Jbil is arelatively new park and consists of very unique Saharien ecosystems that have not been very well studiedthus far. The park contains internationally important biodiversity, some of which is found only in Tunisia.Globally important species include the sand gazelle (gazella leptoceros), gazella abiod, and remarkableflora like caligonum that attain several meters in height in the sand dunes of the grand erg.

National benefits: Investments, training, and decentralized institutional arrangements would addresspriority conservation planning and management problems common to many important and threatenedbiodiversity sites throughout Tunisia and elsewhere in the region and would, therefore, provide models forreplication in priority conservation sites in other parts of the country and region. The improvedmanagement of the protected areas and buffer zones will help in the conservation of important plant andanimal species within their native habitats. The project would contribute to broadening the livelihoodstrategies of participating comnunities and contribute to the long-term stability of the ecosystems throughimproving the welfare of the local populations. National-level beneficiaries include GoT (MELP,MA/DGF, MT) whose institutional capacity will be strengthened to address biodiversity conservationneeds. The project will improve Tunisia's institutional arrangements and strengthen its capacity forbiodiversity conservation while raising public awareness and providing improved opportunities forenvironmental and conservation education.

At the local level, the project would build mechanisms and capacity to assist local stakeholders,specifically, the local communities dependent on the resources of the protected areas, local governments,and NGOs to participate in the preparation and implementation of conservation management plans. Resultsfrom the social assessment carried out at the three parks during project preparation have indicated that theproject will contribute to poverty alleviation objectives (See Annex 12 for details). In Ichkeul, incomeinequalities are stark, with more than 500/o of the families in the park earnng less than 1000 DT/year (-$U.S715) and less than 5% possessing annual average incomes of more than 45,000 DT/year(-U.S$32,000). In Bouhedma, as in Ichkeul, there is a wide variation in income distribution, from 3,000DT per household a year (an average per capita income of 253 DT or USD $177) to about 5,000 DT ayear. This means that half of the population is below the poverty line. In fact, the majority of thehouseholds in the park are considered officially indigent, which gives them access to subsidized medicalservices with a payment of lODT a year, but there are households so poor in Bou Hedma that they cannotafford even this. In spite of the material economic poverty of the people of Bou Hedma, the traditionalculture remains vibrant. Women produce traditional artisan work such as carpets, fly (tent strips), cerealbags, all woven on traditional looms. The project will support the development of the traditional knowledgeand capacity of the artists and artisans to make this a potentially important source for income improvementand for the provision of altemative livelihoods. Sustainable management of the project sites will benefitpoor rumral communities and local economies adjacent to the sites through stimulation of socio-economicdevelopment including ecotourism as well as activities based on the sustainable management of naturalresources of protected areas. The project is also expected to have a positive gender impact because most (ifnot all) of the traditional artisanal work is produced by women, and women are also involved in gatheringfuel to feed their families, agriculture, grazing etc. The public awareness component will be focussed on thelocal communities (especially on women) in and around the protected areas and at the local govemments inorder to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain a participatory approach to protected areasmanagement.

-9-

4. Insttutional and Implementation arrangements:

Implementation period: 6 years

As with the project preparation process, an Inter-Ministedal Project Steering Committee (PSC) comprisingrepresentatives from the Ministry of Agdculture, Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning, Ministryof Tourism, Leisure, and Artisanat, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Development, and Ministryof International Cooperation wiUl be retained during project implementation. The PSC wiU be chaired by theMinistry of Environment and Landuse Planning. It wil be responsible for providing overaU strategicguidance, project oversight, and assistance in resolving issues associated with project implementation.

Project Coordination at the National Level: Currently, the Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning(MELP) has overal responsibility for managing the project preparation grant and overaU projectpreparation. However, during appraisal it was agreed that the project management unit would be located inthe Directorate General of Forests (DGF) within the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) due to the fact that thebulk of the activities under the project fall under the purview of the MOA. The transfer of responsibilityfrom MELP to MOA during project implementation has been discussed with and fuUy supported by aU theconcerned Ministries.

The Project Management Unit (PMU) (Unite de Gestion du Projet). The Project Management Unit wilbe the central unit responsible for the coordination of project activities and wiUl ensure the soundness of thetechnical, scientific, and financial aspects of project implementation. The PMU wiU coordinate and ensurethe coherence of proposed actions proposed by the Park Management Teams (see below). The proposedactions wiU be discussed at the Local Development Committee (LDC) (Conseil Local de D6veloppement).The PMU wiU submit the annual work programs and budgets to the ISC for validation. The PMU wiU alsoensure that the technical, human, and financial means wiU be made available to the implementing agenciesand that the latter wil work in accordance with agreed-on procedures.

The Local Development Council (LDC) (Conseil Local de Developpement). At the level of eachDelegation, this Council has the functions of (i) participating in the formulation and implementation of theenvironmental protection plans, programs of nature conservation, and natural resources management plans;(ii) advising on programs of local development and proposing priorities and progamming as wel asparticipating in the formulation of regional development plans. Within the project, the Council wil be thefocal point and forum for the discussion of the proposed park management plans as weUl as the annual workprograms.

The Park Management Team (P) (Equipe de Gestion du Projet). A Park Management Team wiUl beformed at each park, and will be responsible for the action planning and programming. The ParkConservator wiU lead it. The team will include representatives of the Ministries of Environment andTourism, and will work in close collaboration with the representatives of the local population through theintermediation of the selected members of the Development Committees (see below) (Comites deDeveloppement). Technical staff will be available to assist these teams. The Conservator is responsiblefor the day-to-day organization and execution of activities in the park by the authority vested in him by theRegional Agncultural Development Council (CRDA).

- 10-

The Development Committees (DC) (Comits de Developpement). These committees will be the base levelinstitutions for the representation of the population, in order to ensure (i) participation of the communitiesin the identification of local development measures within a social-economic space (terroir), (ii) theprovision of all relevant information on the needs of the populations they represent, (iii) mobilization andorganization of the population to facilitate their participation in the development of the park managementplans. As they become more experienced, the Development Committees will have the option of becominglegally recognized development entities such as Local Interest Groups (Groupements d'Inte^t Collectifs,GIC), Development Groups (Groupements de Developpement, GD), cooperatives, etc.

The DCs will be organized at the outset of the project with the necessary accompanying measures includingawareness and training programs, so that the participation of the local communities in the formulation ofthe park management and development plans will be ensured from the beginning. These plans, with theireconomic and social objectives, will take into account the actions necessary for the conservation ofbiodiversity and will be based on an improved use of potential and available natural resources. They willinclude activities that will permit the local population's development of, and rational management of thenatural resources in the protected areas. These community development plans will be an integral part ofthe park management plans. Local communities would thus participate in project implementation in severalways. First, they would participate in the formulation of sustainable management plans which directlyaffect them. Second, they will have a financial interest in the park's management since they will be primarysources of local knowledge as well as labor. Third, they would also participate through the establishmentof contractual arrangements, Contrat Programmes (CP), with the implementing agency, NGOs or otheragencies with whom they may be involved. The DC approach has been tested in the ongoing projects(Natural Resources Management; North-West Mountainous Areas Development) and has proven to besuccessful.

2. Institutional and implementation arrangements:

Financida management The financial management arrangements are detailed in annex 6 andsummarized below.

Accounting and Financial framework The Financial Management System (FMS) in place in the MOAand MELP, is based on principles and procedures defined by the legal framework applicable to the pubicsector and more specifically to governmental institutions. MA implementing agency for the project ismaintaining an accounting system based on the cash basis and the outline of budget components accordingto the provisions of the Public Accounting Law. Execution of the public expenditures isdecentralized at the level of the CRDA. Technical Directorates at the central level, as is the casefor DGF, are playing a strategic and overseeing roles according to the agreed five year plan andthe annual budget. Projects with financing from external donors, are managed at the central levelthrough a unit which is officially designated, to coordinate and oversee the projectimplementation. A team of specialist is nominated to control eligibility of expenditures,compliance with legal documents and donors requirements, at the stages of budgeting,procurement, and disbursement as well as accounting and reporting duties. The Central Bank ofTunisia (CBT) is the authorized institution to proceed with all payments from special accounts(SA) and to issue SOEs for replenishment. Direct payments are handled directly by DGF. Inaddition, the DGF also handles the transmission of eligible payments to the CBT which has overallresponsibility for the management of the Special Account.

- 1-

Accounting and financial reporting for the project. Accounting and financial reporting will be assuredcentrally by the Project Management Unit (PMU) within DGF. DGF and MELP would be responsible forfinancial management and accounting duties for activities managed under their responsibility. CRDAs andthe regional directorates of MELP involved in the project implementation at the regional level, wouldmaintain simplified accounts and analysis of the activities managed under their responsibility. Suchreports would be sent respectively to the DGF and MELP every three months for accounting andmonitoring purposes. DGF and MELP would maintain accounting records for components under theirresponsibility, prepare and disseminate sub-project accounts and financial reports. MELP would alsoensure timely transmission of these accounts and reports to DGF. DOF would be responsible foraggregating the financial data and the issuing of the Financial Monitoring Report to the Bank every sixmonths. DGFE will assist DGF during the first to improve the financial management capacity of theaccounting and financial team.

Audit. The General Controller of Finance (CGF), as auditor acceptable to the Bank, will be appointed tocarry on an annual audit according to the International Standards of Auditing as issued by the InternationalFederation of Accountants and the Bank's Guidelines and specific Terms of Reference (TORs) acceptableto the Bank. The auditor will express a professional opinion on the annual project financial statements. Anannual audit report will be made available to the Bank within six months of the close of each fiscal year.

Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements. The PMU would be responsible, with inputs from allimplementing units, for monitoring of financial and physical progress on investment implementation, forprogress reporting on the execution of policy measures and development impact, for coordinatingdisbursement. On these basis, the PMU will prepare agreed reports.

The above arrangements were detailed during appraisal and reconfirmed at negotiations.

D. Project Rationale

1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection:

Project preparation considered and rejected the following alternatives:

* Focus on all 8 National Parks and 4 of 16 Reserves. This scenario was not selected due to the limitedresources available to implement a project of this size. Sites were selected so as to include: (a)representation of different ecosystems; (b) examples of the major challenges to biodiversityconservation in Tunisia, and (c) biodiversity of national and global significance. In addition, thefeasibility of implementing conservation management given the limited institutional capacity within theDGF towards a more participatory approach to protected area management was taken intoconsideration in selecting the location and number of sites. Experience gained at these three sites willallow for a phased "learning by doing" approach.

* Creation of a separate protected area management agency. There is no substantial overlap between theMELP, in charge of policy formulation, planning, and regulation, and the DGF which manages theprotected areas. Joint managemnent of the Ichkeul N.P is a good example of collaboration between theMELP and DGF. It was agreed with GoT that while efficiency gains would be sought through theproject with specific emphasis on capacity and institution building, no major revamping through thecreation of a separate agency would be required at this time.

* Privatization of the protected areas: While this suggestion has merit in its potential for reducingGovernment costs associated with protected area management, the Government currently lacksadequate regulatory and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that biodiversity conservation concerns

- 12 -

would not take second place to the drive for profit in areas where concessions are possible. Further,given the question of limited profitability, it is not clear that there would be sufficient demand from thepnvate sector to take over the complete management of the parks. However, the project preparationwill examine the possibility of partal concessionmng of activities to the private sector in order toincrease revenues and improve efficiency.The project will help strengthen the Government's capacity toregulate and monitor biodiversity conservation, while exploring a range of options for future financingand decentralized management of protected areas.

2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agendes (completed,ongoing and planned).

Latest SupervisionSector Issue Project (PSR) Ratngs

(Bank-flnanced proJects only)ImplBmentation Development

Bank-financed Progress (IP) obe {DO)

Participatory natural resources Natural Resource Management S Smanagement; poverty alleviation Project (Ln 4162, $26.5 m,

ongoing)

Improved forestry management Second Forestry Development S SProject (Ln 3601; $65m, closedMay 2001)

Rural development; sustainable range, Northwest Mountainous Areas S Sforest, and farming activities Development Project (Ln 3691;

$26.0 m, closed June 2001)Coastal Zone Management (World Gulf of Gabes Marine andBank/GEF) Coastal Resources Protection

Project (under preparation)Participatory natural resources Northwest Mountainous Areasmanagement; poverty alleviation and Forestry Development

Project (under preparation)Other development agenciesEuropean Union/EC: Conservation of naturalConservation of natal resources resources in the humid zones of

the Mediterranean (RegionalMEDWET Project: TunisiaProject Site: Sebkhat ElKelbia)-ongoing

UNDP/GEF: Conservation of Wetland andBiodiversity conservation Coastal Ecosystems in the

Mediterranean Region (Tunisiaproject sites -Dar Chichou,Korba Kelibia, and ElHaouaria)- ongoing

UNDP/GEF/FFEM: Marine Protected Areas (underBiodiversity conservation preparation)UNDP-GOT: Development of alternativeAlternative livelihoods livelihoods for populations in

- 13 -

and around the N.P of El Feidja(ongoing)

GTZ - environmental management Ongoing technical assistanceprojects

JBIC - Forestry Management Integrated ForestryManagement Project

Gernany - Resource conservation Promotion of ResourceConservation and GameManagement (1992-95)

IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly Unsatisfactory)

3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design:

This is the first Bank-supported GEF project in Tunisia and the first GEF/Bank project focusing onprotected areas management in Tunisia. Lessons leamned have been drawn to a large extent from the Bank'sexperience in the forestry sector in Tunisia and other Bank/GEF projects in the region and elsewhere. Thepreparation process is also focussing on lessons learned from other community-based natural resourcesmanagement initiatives.

From OAG review of GEF-supported biodiversity projects in Africa: (i) Integration of the biodiversityconservation agenda into the broader national development agenda is essential; (ii) Biodiversity projectsneed to focus more on methods for dealing with socio-economic pressures in perimeter zones wherepopulations may be dependent on forest exploitation; (iii) Project design should take into account technicaland stakeholder reviews in the final design; and (iv) Clearly defined goals and objectives are essential tofocus on project efforts, monitor progress, and demonstrate impact. On a broad level, the QAG'srecommendation to include more environmental expertise in developing the CAS has been implemented inthe Tunisia case. The new Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) has had a substantial input from theenvironment/rural development sectors with a special mission that prepared the Environmental Input to theTunisia CAS report. The CAS includes the proposed Bank/GEF projects in its focus on consolidatinglong-term development in environment and natural resources management.

The proposed project would also seek to identify complementarities with ongoing environment/natualresource management projects in order to better mainstream biodiversity conservation. The biodiversityconservation efforts in the proposed project will seek to emphasize the underlying causes of biodiversityloss (overgrazing, fuelwood overexploitation etc.). The proposed project design supports detailed socialanalyses of the park populations and would define options and mitigation strategies to endangeredlivelihoods if there is to be a limitation in the use of resources.

From Bank-wide Portfolio Review of Biodiversitv Projects: The portfolio review identified 9 criteria toassess the strengths and weaknesses of biodiversity projects in quality at entry: borrower ownership;stakeholder participation; clarity of objectives and components; application of lessons learned;identification of critical risks; integration of biodiversity into project design; detail of implementationplanning; analysis of institutional capacity; use and adequacy of indicators. In the proposed project,borrower ownership is high. Since it is a free-standing biodiversity project, integration of biodiversity intoproject design is a given. The proposed project supports preparatory studies that will address the othercriteria in detail.

From Bank Review of Issues in Ecotourism and Conservation: In a review of 23 protected areas withprojects designed to generate local economic development found that while many projects promoted

- 14 -

ecotourism, few generated substantial benefits for either parks or local people. In most countries,ecotourism alone will not promote conservation - rather, it is one component with other elements likeimproved education, improved access to information, improvements in park management, and increasedeconomic opportunities other than just ecotourisnL The review also recommends zoning as a managementtool to ensure controlled tourism does not degrade the park's biodiversity resources as was the case with theTangkoko DuaSaudara Nature Reserve in Indonesia where "ecotourists control Tangkoko, probably to thedetriment of wildlife", and the Royal Chitwan Park in Nepal where despite well organized educationprograms, "disturbances to the ecology have become obvious features".

The proposed project will explore the potential for ecotourism in each park and zoning will be an essentialfeature in defining how visitation will take place. In Tunisia, the disturbances due to increased tourism is anegligible risk. Indeed, the challenge would be how best to develop this potential while mitigating anynegative effects. Baseline surveys will be carried out on the seasonality of tourism interest, activities oftourism in the park including the type of tourist attracted, type of visitor experience desired by the touristand the associated infrastructure expected, in addition to strong baseline data on the ecosystemcharacteristics. Any promotion of ecotourism in the project sites will be strictly managed. Public awarenessand environmental education are important components of the proposed project.

Tunisia Forestry Development Project (Ln 2870-TUN: closed) and Second Forestry Development Project(Ln 3601-TUN: closed): As the first forestry operation financed by the Bank in Tunisia, the ForestryDevelopment Project (FDP) was the testing ground to provide the technical and institutional basis for thefollow-on Second Forestry Development Project (SFDP). The FDP eliminated price distortions andmonopolistic situations in the sector, and the implementation agencies and population developed a newawareness of the need for environmentally sound exploitation of forest resources. The FDP and SFDP haveunderlined the need for participation by the local populations in forest and pasture management Theongoing experience with OPDIs (Pilot Operations of Integrated Development) has indicated that where theutilization of a participatory methodology is new for the implementing agency and communities, a phasedapproach should be used to allow a "learning by doing" approach. This is particularly important foractivities such as the OPDI, where rapid implementation would most likely not permit enough time to carryout training activities, thereby leaving the local community groups in a weak position to adequatelyparticipate. The SFDP has also shown that investments linked to participatory activities should be carriedout after an initial phase of consultations and training of beneficiaries. These activities will allow time forcommunities to adjust to working as a group, be cohesive and develop participatory mechanisms;capacity-building of NGOs as well as user groups is critical to ensure successful implementation. In theproposed project, the local communities have already begun the process of organizing themselves. Trustfumds have been identified to support capacity-building of these nascent groups in the interim period beforethe project becomes effective.

Jordan: Conservation of the Dana and Azraq Protected Areas Project (GEF/World Bank/UNDP): The keyfactor behind the success of Dana was the involvement of the local population (Bedouins inside the reserveand villagers around it) in the forefront of the project from the very start Building on local skills andinitiatives, mixed with a new vision and new ideas, opportunities were created for local people to gain alivelihood from the nature reserve without destroying it. Carefully-regulated ecotourism gives local people afair share of the action and dividends while "putting nature first". The institutional strengthening componentof the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) produced a revitalized RSCN with a clearvision, with a truined and motivated staff and, most importantly, with the will to make the protection ofJordan's natural heritage succeed in.practice.

-15 -

The proposed project has also identified similar issues and has included in the project design a detailedparticipatory process involving local communities and local/regional institutions, NGOs to develop andimplement management plans for the protected areas that will balance the need for protecting the parks andmeeting the needs of the local people. Institutional strengthening of the DGF is also an importantcomponent of the project The project preparation phase includes a study tour to Dana for the parkconservators, and other DGF and MELP personnel to learn from the Jordanian experience and work withRSCN to set up customized training programs for Tunisian staff.

Morocco: Protected Areas Management Project: Although this project is still in an early implementationphase, the key aspects in project design were a decentralized implementation structure and the involvementof the local populations in the preparation of the six Douar Development Plans to be implemented in thefirst year as part of the conservation management plans.

The proposed project will also bring together the local communities, and NGOs, with the local forestryarrondissements in the respective govemorates in a participatory fashion to gain the commitment of thelocal people.

4. Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership:

The Government of Tunisia has established a proper strategic framework for biodiversity protection andenvironmental management: (i) A National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and the State of theEnvironment were completed in 1997; (ii) a number of intemational conventions (Biodiversity, Bonn,Ramsar, etc.) have been ratified, and (iu) A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan weredeveloped in a very participatory manner under a biodiversity Enabling Activity (GEF-funded; the WorldBank being the Implementing Agency) which were adopted by the Government in 1998. Universityacademics, research institutes, and environmental NGOs (local and international) provided useful inputsinto the preparation of the Biodiversity Strategy. The strategy also benefited from bilateral assistance fromGermany and Sweden. Tunisia accords a high significance to biodiversity conservation and sustainableuses in its development effort There is a strong political commitment towards enhanced conservationefforts and its successful integration into a wider economic, social and cultural context There is ahigh-level commitment to participatory natural resources management Ongoing World-Bank financednatural resources management/forestry projects have involved local communities in a participatoryapproach to project implementation. The recent Tunisia CAS (FYOO-FY03) includes the proposed projectin the lending/grant operations.

The Government requested assistance from the World Bank to prpare a possible GEF project for protectedareas/biodiversity in July 1998. The preparation grant is being executed by the Ministry of Environmentand Landuse Planning (MELP). An Interministerial Steering Committee was formed in 1999 to overseepreparation and implementation of the project. This committee comprises representatives from the Ministryof Environment and Land Use Planning (MELP), Ministry of Agriculture (DGF), Office National deTourisme Tunisien (ONTT), Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, Ministry of Education, Agence Nationale de la Protection de l'Environnement (ANPE),Agence de Protection et d'Amenagement du littoral (APAL), Ministry of International Cooperation, andATLAS (NGO). The technical working group (with representatives from MELP, DGF, and ONTT) hasbeen closely involved in the formulation of the terms of reference for the preparatory study which wasapproved by the Steering Committee in April 2000. This group was also responsible for the preparation ofthe bidding documents, and the bid evaluation which were completed in December 2000. TheFrench-Tunisian consortium which was awarded the contract for the preparation study commenced work inmid-February 2001.

- 16 -

5. Value added of Bank and Global support In this project:

The Bank has had a long-standing dialogue with Tunisia in the forestry sector and, more broadly, naturalresource management through the two Forestry Development Projects, Natural Resource ManagementProject, Northwest Mountainous Area Development Project In the environment sector, the Bank has beeninvolved in technical assistance through the Meditemnean Technical Assistance Program (METAP)mainly in the area of Environmental Impact Assessment, and policy support in the integration of theenvironment into specific sectors of waste management, water, tourism, transport, and trade. The proposedproject will be the Bank's first GEF operation in Tunisia. Despite existing bilateral support for theenvironment sector in Tunisia, the Government has requested that the Bank continue to be engaged in orderto continue the policy dialogue, secure donor coordination, and bring international best practices to bear onthe design and implementation of the country's first GEF protected areas management project.

The GEF value added comes from its global experience in the design, implementation, and financing ofbiodiversity projects. The GEF support is justified by the regional and global value of the project sites'biodiversity. GEF funding will help raise visibility and global support for the management of Tunisia'sprotected areas and reserves. It wil also enable the project to target globally valued and threatened plantsand habitats. Other GEF/Bank biodiversity projects in the region (notably, Morocco, Jordan) will provideopportunities for promotion of exchange of ideas, cross-fertilization with other GEF projects, andstrengthened biodiversity monitoring and evaluation, review, and scientific oversight

Consultation. Collaboration and Coordination between Implementing Agencies (As'): The project has beendeveloped in close consultation with UNDP who are currently working with the Govemment in analternative livelihoods project in the national park if El Feidja. Lessons learned from this project areincluded in the project design. In addition, UNDP is also preparing a GEF project on marine protectedareas which has been coordinated with this project as well as the Bank's Gulf of Gabes project also underpreparation. The local UNDP representative has participated in several wrap-up meetings after Bankmissions. GTZ which has a strong presence in the Ministry of Environment has assured the Bank ofsupport during project implementation

E. Summary Project Analysis (Detailed assessments are in the project file, see Annex 8)

1. Economic (see Annex 4):O Cost benefit NPV=US$ million; ERR = % (see Annex 4)O Cost effectiveness* Incremental CostO Other (specify)A standard cost-benefit analysis is not usuaUy conducted for GEF biodiversity projects. Instead, anincremental cost analysis has been carried out as part of project preparation. The project design seeks toemphasize cost-effectiveness through minirnizing budget impact, maximizing involvement of the localcommunities, using existing institutions, and building on existing studies and experience.

Incremental costs: The incremental costs are expected to cover project expenditures on components thathave global benefits. Project activities that have global benefits are eligible for GEF-financing. Thebaseline expenditure scenario has been calculated to establish current and planned funding amounts forbiodiversity conservation and protected area management at the three project sites and for national-level

- 17 -

planning dunng the life of the project. The estimated difference between the cost of the baseline scenanoand the cost of the GEF alternative represent the incremental costs. This represents the incremental cost ofachieving global environmental benefits through strengthening policy and institutional frameworks forprotected areas management and biodiversity conservation, developing mechanisms for sustainableresource use in the buffer zones, strengthening local and national capacity for conservmng globalysignificant biodiversity, and enhancing public awareness of global enviromnental issues pertaining tobiodiversity conservation. It is expected that the GEF contribution towards the incremental costs would beof the order of $5.33 miDion (with a French GEF contribution of about $0.1 million). (See Annex 4 for ICanalysis)

2. Financial (see Annex 4 and Annex 5):NPV=US$ million; FRR = % (see Annex 4)Conventional financial rate of return analysis is usually not carried out for GEF biodiversity projects. Totalgovernment financing during the project implementation period is estimated to be about U.S$ 4.24 milionequivalent. This wiDl mainly go towards meeting baseline costs that result in primarily national benefits.The incremental costs, which generate the global environmental benefits, will be financed through the GEFgrant and the French GEF (parallel cofinancing) and will be of the order of $5.43 million equivalent

During the first year of project implementation, a study wil be launched to examine options for ensuringfinancial sustainability of the park management in the long-term, inter alia, revolving funds, privateconcessions, share of ecotourism revenues etc. Agreement was reached with the Government that theoutcome of this study wil be implemented on a pilot basis towards the final years of projectimplementation. It is expected that these new financial mechanisms as well as the management approachesidentified during this project will provide the basis for mainstreaming these aspects in the broadergovernment strategy for national parks management with a view to promoting increased financialautonomy.

Fiscal Impact:

The project is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the GoT budget. Recurrent costs of theproject are estimated at about $200,000 annualy on average which is about 0.3% of the total recurrentbudget of the MA.

3. Technical:Moving away from top-down "technician" input, the project will implement an approach to protected areamanagement that is inclusive of stakeholders and integrated into the rural landscape. The choice for such anapproach implies technical solutions that are diffue, often based on traditional knowledge, and adapted toparticipatory plamning and decision-making processes. Fortunately, Tunisia has already acquiredexperience in this domain with the implementation of the UNDP project in El Feija National Park withWWF assistance and several other (Bank and non-Bank financed) natual resources management projects.

Two of the project parks, Jbil and Bou Hedmna, are nested in terrestrial arid ecosystems where the threat tovegetation and wildlife is best addressed with a significant decrease of consumptive activities. Still, severalfamilies traditionally use the parks' rangeland and a grazing or browsing ban is not socially acceptable.The project will thus rely heavily on dialogue to organize a different utilization of the rangeland. Theparticipatory dialogue will be the opportunity for current users to draw upon their indigenous knowledgeand traditional range use techniques. Park managers will present range users with scientifically tested"natural succession enhancement techniques" such as zoning, rotations, consideration of plant-rest period,avoidance of most fragile areas, temporary fencing, etc. as well as and for extreme cases, assisted

- 18 -

regeneration such as scarification of crusted areas, seeding, revegetation of dunes etc. The objective is todefine, and agree on, a resource-use approach that is both acceptable to the communities and favorable tothe vegetation and wildlife. Drastic technical solutions of the past, such as permanent fencing, will beavoided as much as possible.

The Ichkeul National Park, which is a very ecologically sensitive wetland, will require much more technicalinput than those of the arid land parks. The operation of the mathematical model, the monitoring andanalysis of the physico-chemical parameters of the lake, as well as the decision on water release andsluice-gate operation, require equipment and scientific skills that are currently beyond both the communitiesand park managers. This would inherently imply a less participatory process. The National EnvironmentAgency (ANPE) will ensure technical management of the lake water supported by the General Directorateof Dams and Major Hydraulic Works (Direction G6n6rale des Barrages et des Grands TravauxHydrauliques (DGBGTH)). Local knowledge and participatory decision-making will still be relevant toIchkeul but is likely to be limited to the management and use of the mountain resources (jebel) as well as toother activities such as ecotourism development.

In all cases, technical input will be required for the final design of Park Management Plans as well as toconduct ecological monitoring (e.g. line transect or aerial survey of wildlife) and, generally for all researchactivities whose scientific protocols will be defined and implemented by universities.

Replicability: Because the approach is new and based on dialogue as well as because the ecosystems atstake have high recovery inertia, results may be slow and it may take time before robust lessons areavailable. Still, if early success can be demonstrated, the Government of Tunisia intends to replicate thisapproach in the other national parks in the country. The community participation aspects in particular areexpected to be utilized in the management plans of the other national parks and reserves, as well as innatural resource management projects. This project is viewed as an opportunity for "learning-by-doing" andthe choice of the three sites offers a variety of ecosystems and management styles that can be usefulelsewhere in the country. Multi stakeholder dialogue and partnership is gradually reaching nationalstrategies and decision-makers. It is likely to be registered as one of the main thrust of the envisionedchanges to the sections dealing with park and wildlife management in the existing legislation. It should benoted that the approach tested in the desert park of Jbil could be used in the proposed Morocco Bas DraaNational Parck, which protects a similar ecosystem, and vice-versa. The latter is currently in the WorldBank/GEF pipeline for preparation.

4. Institutional:

4.1 Executing agencies:

Currently, MELP is responsible for project preparation with oversight by the multi-disciplinary steeringcommittee. However, during project implementation, DGF (Ministry of Agriculture) will take the lead foroverall project coordination. This is due to the fact that most of the field-level activities will fall directlyunder the domain of the MOA and hence, would be better placed than MELP to carry out projectcoordination and implementation.

4.2 Project management:

The proposed project will have a project management design that is synonymous with the Ministry ofAgriculture's (MOA's) management of its overall investment budget Project accounts and financialmanagement will be an extracted sub-set of the MOA's detailed accounts for its investment budget. Thedecentralization of the investment and recurrent cost budgets to the CRDAs initiated in the Second ForestryDevelopment Project (SFDP) will continue with overall guidance and M&E being undertaken by DGF at

-19-

the central level.

4.3 Financial Management

The financial management system relating to this project was reviewed with the objective to determinewhether the project has in place an adequate financial management system as required by the Bank underOP/BP 10.02. The assessment, which included visits to MOA (DGF and DGFIOP), MELP, Ministry ofFinance (MF), and Ministry of Economic Development (MED), was focused on the accounting system,internal control, planning, budgetng and financial reporting system to be used during projectimplementation, as well as the fonrat and contents of the project Financial Monitoring Report (FMR) tobe submitted by the Bank. The financial management arrangements suggested for the project satisfies theBank's minimum financial management requirements. The reporting system used for the WSIL andAgriculture Services Project, will be extended to cover the proposed project.

The identified risk area assessed as medium, is related to implementation of the project by two independententities and their regional structures. This risk would be mitigate by the issuing of defined rules andprocedures in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) and a close supervision by Bank's staff during the firstyear.

4.3 Procurement issues:

The CRDAs have gained considerable experience in procurement matters through theimplementation of ongoing Bank-financed projects. The decentralization of procurement willcontinue under the proposed project The experience gained under ASIL, ASIL2 and the SFDPwill prove useful in the implementation phase of the proposed project in the CRDAs of Bizerte(Ichkeul N.P), Kebili (Jbil N.P), and Sidi Bouzid (Bouhedma N.P).

Disbursement Issues:

Disbursements from the GEF grant would be made on the traditional system (reimbursements with fulldocumentation and against Statements of Expenditure - SOEs, and direct payments). As with otheroperations, all efforts would be made to ensure better coordination between physical and financialimplementation aspects.

4.4 Financial management issues:

The DGF will provide, with effective and efficient staff input, the essentials of a Project Management Unit.This unit will be strengthened under the project in terms of M&E capacity, equipment and necessarysoftware. It will maintain computerized project accounts and supporting documentation and records so asto pernit a comprehensive itemized trace of all transactions. Copies will be forwarded to the Central Bankof Tunisia which will manage paymnents out of a Special Account These accounts and procurementdocumentation processes have already been tested under the ongoing Bank projects and have proven fullysatisfactory. The DGF will also implement a reporting system acceptable to the Bank.

5. Environmental: Environmental Category: C (Not Required)5.1 Summarize the steps undertaken for enviromnental assessment and EMP preparation (includingconsultation and disclosure) and the significant issues and their treatment emerging from this analysis.

The project is not expected to have any negative environmental impacts of any kind. It is expected togenerate significant positive environmental benefits through the establishunent of effective managementsystems to conserve the natural integrity and biodiversity of Tunisia's ecosystems in three national parks.Infiastructure-related activities are expected to be small-scale involving mainly the refurbishment of visitor

-20-

centers, marked trails, and signage. They will be carried out in a manner that minimizes negativeenvironmental inpacts. This will be done through ensuring that the relevant environmental provisions inaccordance with Bank guidelines are specified in the terms of reference (TORs) and all constructioncontracts. The protected area management plans to be developed under the project will involve definition ofland and resource use zones within the parks and define specific measures to be undertaken to ensuresustainable management of the biodiversity resources. Key stakeholders will include the local communities,CRDAs, and NGOs. The development of the management plans will include all the key stakeholders andconstitutes an environmental management plan per se. No resettlement is envisaged. The Bank will ensurethat all the three management plans are designed in accordance with the standards set out by the safeguardpolicies, specifically those pertaining to OD 4.01 and the new guidelines (O.P 4.12) pertaining to impactson local populations in legally designated parks and protected areas.

5.2 What are the main features of the EMP and are they adequate?

n.a

5.3 For Category A and B projects, timeline and status of EA:Date of receipt of final draft: n.a

5.4 How have stakeholders been consulted at the stage of (a) environmental screening and (b) draft EAreport on the environmental impacts and proposed environment management plan? Describe mechanismsof consultation that were used and which groups were consulted?

n.a

5.5 What mechanisms have been established to monitor and evaluate the impact of the project on theenvironment? Do the indicators reflect the objectives and results of the EMP?

Monitoring indicators include biodiversity indicators as well as indicators of public participation.

6. Social:6.1 Summarize key social issues relevant to the project objectives, and specify the project's socialdevelopment outcomes.

Social analyses have been carried out at each of the project sites as part of project preparation. These haveincluded a thorough analysis of previously existing documents (including legal documents) and studies aswell as field consultations with a broad range of stakeholders, including government, institutional, localtourist and commercial organizations, and direct beneficiaries. Annex 12 provides a detailed discussion ofthe common key points and conclusions of these assessments. These analyses show the specific problemsin each of the parks that contribute to biodiversity degradation. One of the root causes lies in the deeppoverty of the inhabitants, and their use of some of the parks' resources in view of a lack of other livelihoodopportunities. Thus, technical measures to support biodiversity conservation must include accompanyingsocial measures developed jointly with the inhabitants in or adjacent to the parks in order to stand a chanceof success. The preparation studies document clearly that the populations living either within the parks'boundaries (minimal) or adjacent to them, have a great interest in participating in the project. They see theproject as an opportunity to contribute to the conservation of the biodiversity resources which theyrecognize as precious, and at the same time derive income from employment in conservation and parkmanagement activities. The assessments have also identified the environmental, social, economic, andcultural opportunities and constraints that must be addressed in each of the park management plans to bedeveloped and implemented with the direct participation of beneficiaries, NGOs and government agenciesadhering to the guidelines prescribed in Guidelines for Using Social Assessment to Support PublicInvolvement in World Bank-GEF Projects.

6.2 Participatory Approach: How are key stakeholders participating in the project?

- 21 -

Participation in project identification and preparation: The basic concept and objectives of the proposedproject were identified as top priorities in the National Biodiversity Study and Action Plan. This plan wasdeveloped under a Biodiversity Enabling Activity (GEF-funded; the World Bank being the ImplementingAgency) and was adopted by the Government in 1998. University academics, research institutes, andenviromnental NGOs (local and international) provided useful inputs into the preparation of theBiodiversity Strategy. The project preparation has been guided by an Interministerial Steering Committeewhich has representatives from all the key Ministries as well as NGO representation, and in consultationwith local level governments and stakeholder/beneficiaries. These consultations have led to theawareness-raising of the population about biodiversity conservation and their role in its management, andhave led to the formation of development committees at the community level that will eventually beformalized as Groupements dfnteret Collectif The process of project preparation has also bridged animportant gap between the administration and the local populations.

6.3 How does the project involve consultations or collaboration with NGOs or other civil societyorganizations?

The NGO, Atlas, is a member of the project's national steering committee. In the past, other NGOs havebeen involved with DGF in the pilot integrated development operations component (OPDIs) of the SFDP.Experience under the SFDP has shown that many of the NGOs are new and do not have sufficient capacityto carry out the training and awareness-raising that were foreseen under the OPDI component. The projectpreparation team has examined the obstacles previously faced by the OPDIs and plans to address theseinefficiencies within the project. One of these problems is the legitimacy of representation of thecommunities in these associations and groupements. The project would address these issues by theformalization of the naturally existing community groups in creation of Comites de Developpement andsubsequently into other associational forms. These groupings (either AFICS or others) could serve aspotential collaborators in the planning and development of the protected area management plans. It isplanned that NGOs which are sufficiently mature will be tapped where possible for information exchangeand collaboration. The project will also work with other conservation NGOs such as the WWF Alliance inNorth Africa to ensure complementarity of activities and benefit from any possible synergies.

6.4 What institutional arrangements have been provided to ensure the project achieves its socialdevelopment outcomes?

The project envisages the creation of protected area management plans that are based in the regionalCRDA. These area management plans will be developed jointly with the concerned population in andaround the protected areas. These plans will include a definition of the roles of the communities and localorganizations in park management, the ways in which the communities will develop alternative livelihoodsand reduce or eliminate the use of any park resources, and will also define the processes of participationthat will be an intrinsic part of the overall set of management plans. The institutional arrangements neededat each of the proposed sites will be different in each case, but the broad principles will be that themanagement functions will be shared between the CRDA-DGF and the groups of primary beneficiariesorganized at the local levels specifically for this project. The stakeholders' own reaction has been that thebest guarantee of success, and achievement of the planned social development outcomes, is the genuineparticipation of all stakeholders.

6.5 How will the project monitor performance in terms of social development outcomes?

The creation of associations of benficiaries and their participation in the formulation of the managementplans, will be the first steps in raising the awareness of the population of beneficiaries and other interestedstakeholders about the objectives of the project and the expected social outcomes, among others the key oneof poverty alleviation. These plans will establish mechanisms for appropriate local participatory monitoring

- 22 -

and evaluation by the concerned stakeholders and beneficiaries. The indicators to monitor performance willfocus on the social benefits derived by the population in and around the parks, including their employmentopportunities, access to alternative sources of livelihood and revenue, and the benefits derived from directparticipation in the management of the parks and their resources.

7. Safeguard Policies:7.1 Do any of the following safeguard policies apply to the project?_

Policy A0JkiIcllitEnvironmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) * Yes 0 NoNatural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) 0C Yes NoForestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) 0 Yes * NoPest Management (OP 4.09) 0 Yes * NoCultural Property (OPN 11.03) 0 Yes * NoIndigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) 0 Yes * NoInvoluntary Resettlement (OPIBP 4.12) * Yes 0 NoSafety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) 0 Yes * NoProjects in Internatlonal Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) 0 Yes * NoProjects In Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)* 0 Yes * No

7.2 Describe provisions made by the project to ensure compliance with applicable safeguard policies.

The proposed project is in its entirety devoted to solve the questions of biodiversity conservation with aparticipatory approach. Infrastructure-related activities are expected to be small-scale involving mainly therefurbishment of visitor centers, marked trails, and signage. They will be carried out in a manner thatminimizes negative environmental impacts. This will be done through ensuring that the relevantenvironmental provisions in accordance with Bank guidelines (OD 4.01) are specified in the terns ofreference (TORs) and all construction contracts. The management plan will thereby constitute anenvironmental management plan and the Bank will ensure that this conforms to the standards of OD 4.01as a condition for financing. The project has also ensured that the activities are in accordance with theguidelines specified in O.P 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement. In order to guarantee this, a ProcessFramework (conforming to para 7 of OP4.12) acceptable to the Bank has been submitted as a condition ofappraisal. This includes, inter alia, provisions to ensure that local people will not be evicted from the parksor restricted in habitual access to them without their consent (except for restrictions on commercialhunting), and that participatory plans with full and informed prior consent will be developed to reducepressure on resources within the protected areas. This Process Framework will be referred to in the legaldocuments. The formation of Development Committees (DCs) will provide the means by which they canjointly and voluntarily undertake protection of park resources and find alternatives to the use of anyresources to which they currently have access. There is no anticipated action that will result in resettlementor in any further restriction of access to the resources in the existing parks. The management plans to bedeveloped under the project will be in accordance with Bank safeguard policies and will not conitravene anypolicy requirements. These same plans will define land and resource use zones within the parks andidentify the specific measures to be undertaken to ensure sustainable management of the biodiversityresources. Key stakeholders in the formulation of the management plans will include the local communities,CRDAs (park conservators in particular), and NGOs. The development of the management plans willinclude all the key stakeholders and will constitute an environmental management plan per se. The projectteam as well as the team responsible for the preparation studies have taken into account all appropriatesafeguard policy issues. The key issue in the project is that of legalizing or otherwise recognizing thecurrent occupants of the parks, and in the case of lbil, of recognizing the legitimate users of the park

- 23 -

spaces. The Administration is receptive to the idea of inclusion of the park occupants in the process ofdeveloping park management plans, but is constrained on the legal front regarding regularizing their status.The challenge of the project wiU be to ensure that participation is truly inclusive and meaningful to thelocal communities including the current occupants of the park. The Process Framework provides a basis forensuring this while meeting the requirements under O.P 4.12.

F. Sustalnability and Risks

1. Sustainabillty:

Social sustainability: The project design envisages the participation of local communities and otherstakeholders in the development and implementation of the park management plans which should ensure .social sustainability. Active participation of NGOs and the potential participation of CDs and GFICs(where applicable) are also envisaged. The Govemment's continuing commitmnent to decentralization wilalso contribute to the social sustainability of the project.Financial sustalnability: The continued recurrent cost funding of the park management after the projectcloses has been assured by the Govemment of Tunisia. The government recognizes that an effective systemof protected areas is an essential element of sustainable forest management and have committed tocontribute to the baseline costs of the project. The track record of the Government in earlier Bank-financedprojects, specifically in the area of natural resources management in this regard has been good. Examplesinclude the Northwest Mountainous Area Development Project, First and Second Forestry DevelopmentProjects, the Natural Resources Management Project, and the Agricultural Sector Investment ProjectHowever, it is also recognized that current public expenditures on management of the other five nationalparks wiU be insufficient to develop and maintain the necessary management plans for effectiveconservation of biodiversity. Discussions during project preparation and pre-appraisal have indicated thatthe Govemment is wiUing to explore new options to ensure financial sustainability. A detailed study is to beundertaken in this regard to examine options such as allocating a share of the ecotourism revenues tosupport the management of the three parks in the project, setting up of trust funds for each park with thesponsorship of large public and private sector enterprises etc. Other mechanisms under considerationinclude a earmarked share of sales revenue of a line of special products from the national parks andearmarking special taxes on lodging and transport in the national parks. The capitalization of the specificfinancing mechanisms for the thee parks in the project as well as the other five parks wil be tested in thefinal years of the project based on the results of the study. The government has carried out a study ofecotourism potential in five national parks (of which two are included in this project) as part of its PATC.The project wiU also finance a more detailed feasibility study on ecotourism in this project to address theissue of financing long-term recurrent costs.

2. Critical Risks (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column of Annex 1):

Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation MeasureFrom Outputs to ObjectiveThe current institutional framework does M The institutional framework for parknot provide the necessary incentives and management is imperfect, centralized, andwork environment for park staff and bureaucratic and based on outdated concepts ofpartners to apply their newly acquired exclusion and control. Institutional reform ofskills and use technical/management tools. national parks management is envisioned and

will be supported by the project The Tunisianadministration can provide, under the rightguidance, an environment for adequate

-24 -

perfornance and opportunities. The project willprovide advisory services and training tofacilitate change.

The administrations of parks and dams M The Bank is confident that the watercannot agree on a reasonable five -year management authority in the Ministry ofrule and calendar for water release; Agriculture, the National Environment

Protection Agency (ANPE) and the parks arecommitted to finding a solution to the freshwater needs of Ichkeul. The project will financethe calibration and fine-tuning of themathematical model/technical solutions in orderto provide a solid scientific basis for thecalendar for water releases.

The current drought experienced by S Tunisia has expenenced four consecutive yearsTunisia continues during the five-year of drought. Beyond the serious impact onproject period; agriculture, it also dininishes the water storage

of the dams upstream of Lake Ichkeul. If thedrought lasts longer, and with the increasingurban needs for water, it may be difficult tojustify substantial release into the lake. Thedrought is also affecting the quality of grazingareas in and around Bou-Hedma & Jbil.Communities who are already poor may find iteven more difficult to engage in the projectactivities and bear its constraints. Should thedrought continue, the project will refocus someactivities from park management to droughtmitigation to ensure that this event does not leadto additional resource off-take in the selectedparks.

Tourism concessions are not granted on a N The involvement of tourist operators will becompetitive and transparent basis that gradual and kept to a relatively low scale.maximizes involvement of communities Concessions that are granted will concemand benefits the communities and the limited activities and will be closely monitoredparks. in order to fulfill professional and ethical

requirements. Park management activitiesincluding new tourism activities are designed toinclude specific benefits for theparks'populations.

Because of important subsistence needs M From social assessments and discussions withthat are met by the natural resources of communities, the Bank is reasonably confidentthe park, local populations do not react that communities are willing to account forpositively to the conservation awareness conservation needs. However, many aremessages. extremely poor and uneducated and may not be

able to either give the attention required to themessages or to modify behavior to account forthem. The project will attempt to identify themost vulnerable groups and help them, as a

-25 -

priority, with alternative livelihood activities andtraining.

Constraints induced by better management M The project's Process Framework has beenand surveillance of the parks which cannot formulated to ensure that populations do notbe solved by the project, are not addressed suffer from the added constraint of better parkby other development programs. surveillance. However, because the parks are

in areas of relatively high poverty, aparticipatory approach will seek to definemechanisms that can both alleviate poverty andconserve biodiversity Nevertheless, the areassurrounding the parks will need much moredevelopment attention than the project canprovide. The Bank is confident that theGovemment and other projects (e.g. IFAD) arenow increasing their support to these areas topromote overall socio-economic development

From Components to OutputsThe DGF lacks financial management and M The assessment of the financial and procurementprocurement capacity to enable timely management in the project management unit inavailability of project services, goods or DGF has identified shortcomings and proposedwork and monitoring of expenditures; a plan for capacity building. The Bank will

closely supervise this unit to ensure that itsperformance meets Bank standards.

Staff appointed to the UCP, SSEPN and S The Bank's assessment of staff capacity isparks do not possess sufficient time and ambivalent. Among the people likely to be keyexpertise to fulfill the mission that is project players, many have a solid capacity andrequested from them. commitment both to the new park management

approach and to plannig for theirimplementation. Unfortunately, staff qualityappears to be highly variable, and appointmentsoften are not based on capacity or pastperformance records nor congruent with thework load. The Bank has required that a systemfor monitoring of staff redeployment andperformance be set-up.

Annual Government budget enables the M The Administration possesses sufficient staff toproposed redeployment of staff; redeploy them to the identified key positions in

parks. The Bank will closely supervise theseappointments and has required that the DGFpresent a time-bound plan to fulfill the humanresource requirements as defined by the project

The park administration and its partners S Poaching by outsiders in desert areas is asucceed in stopping poaching in ibil; serious issue in the Sahara, Sahel and Asian

deserts. While the Tunisian administration,park management authorities and localcommunities are adamant that this practice mustbe stopped, it may not be easy to achieve. TheBank will ensure that such events are

-26-

documented and highlighted in the mediathrough component 3. Current changes beingproposed in the Forestry Code may be moreeffective in controlling these practices in thefuture.

Sociocultural and tenure constraint are not M Land and resources tenure in arid pastoral areasobstacles to the modification of the Jbil are always diffuse and difficult to understand.Park limits. The project will fund aU necessary work to

increase this understanding among allstakeholders, including the govemment, andestablish bases of mutual understanding.Because the proposed management of the parkis participatory and designed to improve the useof pastoral resources and other resource usepractices, the Bank is confident that thecommunity wiUl endorse the proposal tore-define the park's boundaries. The initial stepsmay be taken but not completed during the lifeof the project because of the time required toredesignate boundaries.

Schoolteachers agree to the additional N Past experiences with school teachers in Tunisiaworkload required to implement the have shown that they are usuaUy very interestedconservation awareness program in in broadening the scope of their teachingprimary schools. particularly when the subject is related to the

environment and when new didactic material isprovided. The Bank rates this risk as very low.

Overall Risk Rating S Despite the above analysis that ranks most risksas being Low or Moderate, the Bank assessmentof implementation capacity (procurement,financial management) and staff performanceleads to an overaU risk ranking as substantial.The potential for the continuation of the currentdrought contributes to this ranking. Still,because this project is viewed by theGovermment as a pilot to a new approach topark management and because the parkadministration is committed to a legal andinstitutional reform, it is important that the Bankand GEF remain parlners and help with aninstrument that can assist these reforms and testthem in the field.

Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N(Negligible or Low Risk)

3. Possible Controversial Aspects:

None.

- 27-

G. Main Conditions

1. Effectiveness Condition

None.

2. Other [classify according to covenant types used in the Legal Agreements.]

Covenants

The Recipient shall no later than March 31, 2003, establish and thereafter maintain for each ProjectNational Park in a form and with functions, membership, staffing and resources satisfactory to the Bank aPark Management Team. Each PMT shall be responsible for the planning and programmning of Projectactivities to the Project National Park

The Recipient shall no later than June 30, 2003, establish and thereafter maintain for each Project NationalPark in a form and with functions, membership, staffing and resources satisfactory to the Bank aDevelopment Committee.

Accounts and Audits

The Government will assure that the annual audit reports, with an opinion on the statements of expenditureused for certain disbursements and on the special account, are sent to the Bank within six months of the endof the fiscal year of the Borrower.

The Recipient will open and manage a Special Account in dollars.

Management Aspects

The Recipient will take all necessary steps to assure that the Project Steering Committee for ovemallmanagement of the project is established and functional no later than October 31, 2002.

The Recipient will take all necessary steps to assure that the Project Management Unit (PMU) isestablished and functional with the necessary technical and human resources acceptable to the Bank nolater than December 31, 2002.

Monitoring, Review and Reporting

The Recipient will prepare and furnish for the Bank's review and comments not later than March 31 andSeptemnber 30 in each fiscal year, a report, in a form satisfactory to the Bank, on the progress achievedduring the preceding six months in the financial and physical implementation of the project, and onperformance and impact indicators.

A mid-term review would take place by June 30, 2005.

- 28-

H. Readiness for Implementation

0 1. a) The engineering design documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the startof project implementation.

Z 1. b) Not applicable.

1 2. The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start ofproject implementation.

1 3. The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and of satisfactoryquality.

O 4. The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G):

A draft for Item 3 has been received and will be finalized at appraisal.

1. Compliance with Bank Policies

3 1. This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.El 2. The following exceptions to Bank policies are recommended for approval. The project complies with

all other applicable Bank policies.

Shobha ShettyTeam Leader Letitia A. Obeng stian Delvoie '

Sector Manager/Director . untry Manag rlDirector

- 29 -

Annex 1: Project Design SummaryTUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

= Key P1lformance Data ,C4(Wo S- -HI r.hyW,,ObJ9ectIves Indicators . x .-

Sector-related CAS Goal:. Sector Indicators: Sectorl country reports: (from Goal to Bank Mission)Consolidating long-term Successful protected area Biodiversity monitoring Continued political support atdevelopment through management approaches system all levels for sustainableprotection of the environment replicated in other national protected area managementand sustainable use of natural parks and reserves in Tunisia and biodiversity conservation;resources. with a resulting improvement

in biodiversity conservation.Protecting biodiversitycontributes positively to localcommunities and the nationaleconomy.

GEF Operational Program:OP 1: Arid and Semi-Arid ZoneEcosysteas (Primary); oP2:Coastal, Marine, and FreshwaterEcosystems

Global Objective: Outcome I Impact Project reports: (from Objective to Goal)Indicators:

Management and protection GoT continues to implementof biodiversity in three Ichkel policies/programs aimed atselected protected areas (PAs) - 2 stands of Potamogeton are Scientific monitoring; wildlife promoting sustainablein Tunisia results in reestablished in Y5 inventory; vegetation transect; management of protectedarresting/reversing trends in - index of land-cover of sirpaies satellite images areas;

arretin/reersig tend in increaes by 50% in Y5 aesbiodiversity degradation. - average frequency index of Annual reports of conservators

geese increases by 200% and partner research institutions Public support for biodiversity(comparison of ref. average of (IRA, ANE, etc.) conservation may developYrs -1, 0, I to average of Y2, 3 more slowly than the rate that4) Survey reports consolidated in would have been required tolSou-Hedma the SSEPN (French acronym for support government actions in- Pop. of gazelles dorcas 150 National Park Monitoring and time to avoid permanentind., mhoor 40 & oryx 150 Evaluation System) damage to Tunisia'sdistributed in al protected zonesof the park by Y6 Progress and supervision biodiversity.- Abundance index of Acacia reports.radiana > 2m increases inBou-Hedma and its surroundingby Y6Ibil- Abundance index of sandgazelles and dorcas gazellesincreases by 15% in Tbil and itssurrounding by Y6

Improved management of the % of population (disaggregated Surveys carried out by a Other partners (Government orthree parks contributes to the by gender) convinced of the specialized firm to assess other donors) provide additionalimproved welfare of the direct and indirect economic public opinion at the support towards economicpopulations within and interest of the three parks: beginning, middle and end of dalevelPtint and POverty

Y3 Y6 alleviation in the vicinity of the

- 30 -

around the parks. Direct 10 20 project. three parks since the projecfs

Indirect 10 20 potential for poverty alleviationis limited.

15% of park budget is allocatedto services rendered by localcommunities in Y6.

Annual reports of parkMonetary benefits (DT) conservators (detailing localcaptured by the local expenditures and receipts ofpopulations (disaggregated by revenues notably fromgender) ecotourism)

Park EmploymentRevenuesIchkeul a bBouhedma c dJebil e fPercentage of women who:a) belong to the DevelopmentCommittees;b) play active leadership rolesin their organization;

-31 -

Key Performance ' Data C4(! I, . ' ' t, r' '

,1ffle'J chy of Q Wectlves Indicators _____________________; ____________________

Output from each Output Indicators: Project reports: (from Outputs to Objective)Component:1. Institutional 1. I At least 80%/o of the Annual Annual reports; Annual Work The current institutionalStrengthening: Work Programs are implemented Programs; Supervision Aide framework provides the necessaryCapacity of the administration every year; memoire; Audits incentives and work environment(forestry, environment, for park staff and partners totourism) and their partners 1.2 Equipment and works are apply their newly acquired skillsacquired or contracted according and technical/management tools.(scientific community and to procurement planning in 80%a elocal populations) for of cases;biodiversity conservation andprotected area management is 1.3 Planning, monitoring andimproved at the central, budget control are consideredregional,and local levels. satisfactory from Y2 on.

1.4 From Y2 on, the AnnualWork Programs and AnnualReports are satisfactory

1.5. High-level park staff, chiefs Monitoring and evaluationof forests "arrondissemenf', reports of training results andconservators of the three parks follow up of trainees; Annualand their deputies master and use report of PMUcommunity planning andcommunication tools in Y6.1.6. 500h of members of localcommunities who have benefitedfrom training are involved in apark management related activityin Y61.7. 100% of permanent staff of Research activity reports;the three parks have received publications; Annual reports oftraining to upgrade their skills partner research institutions;and adapt them to their position. cross verification of above

documents with ManagementPlans, Annual work Programs.

1.8. Results from monitoring andresearch are used in theManagement Plans and in theAnnual Work Program designfrom Y2 on at Bou-Hedma,Ichkeul and Y3 on at Jbil.

1.9. The SSEPN is used in daily Cross verification of SSEPNmanagement of the three parks database with Annual Workfrom Y3 on. Programs and Annual reports;

field supervision; Mission reportsfrom SSEPN cental staff.

2. Protected AreasManagement: 2.1. The three parks have Regional plans; Management Before the end of YI, theThe national parks of Bou influenced the regional plans for Plan of each park; Minutes of administrations of parks andHedma, Ichkeul, and Jbil are water, livestock, agriculture, regional consultation meetings. dams agree on a reasonableHedter managched andtably are forestry and tourism. six-year rule and calendar forbetter managed, suitably water release.

- 32 -

integrated in the rural economy Minutes of LDC meetings; crossand contribute to local verification of minutes with The current drought does notdevelopment Annual Work Programs. extend over the six-year project

period.22. The participatory process forthe Management Plans andAnnual Work Programs input bythe Local Council forDevelopment LCD (consultation)and Park Management Team(design) are functional from Y2on.2.3. % implementation of the Tableaux de bords of planningProject action plan in the three and monitoring of activities;parks: Y3 (50°h) & Y6 (100%) Conservator's annual reports.2.4. Reduction of illegal activity Reports and datasheet ofindex in the three parks and monitoring of illegal activities;periphery between Yl and Y6. Conservator's annual reports.Brac .Graz. Circul .Cut

- Ichlkeul na 2 na 2- Bou-H. na 2 na 2- Tbil 2 na 2 2

2.5. In Y6, at least one tourism Concession contracts; Records of Tourism concessions are grantedconcession operates satisfactory tour operators, concessionaires; on a competitive and transparentto the CLD and CD on each of independent evaluation of basis that maximizes involvementthe three parks. concession in Y6. of communities and benefits the

communities and the parks.2.6. Socio cultural and ecological Sociocultural and ecologic studyinformation required to modify report; minutes of meeting withthe limits of the Jbil National stakeholders; "enquetepark are available in Y3. commodo-incomnmodo".

2.7. The water management Datasheet; Annual reports of lakeprogram leads to expected results monitoring, minutes of meetingson the physico-chemical with dam authority.parameters of the waters of LakeIchkeul.2.8. The IUCN scorecard notation Expert report from scoring in Yl,indicates that all three parks have 3 and 6.improved management -by 5% inY3 and 10% in Y6.

3. Public Awareness: 3.1. In each of the three parks Terms of Reference and job In spite of important needs forAttitudes and behavioral pattems administration has created descrption; Annual report of P ark resources, peripheralof the administration, local positions of permanent deputies and Conservators; Supervision. populations react positively to theauthorities as well as their private onservators in charge of relations conservation awareness messages.and community partners and communication withdemonstrate a comrmitment communities and the privatetowards protecting the countts operators.natural heritage in the three parks.

3.2. % of activities of the Annual Annual reports of CD as annexed Constraints induced by better mgtWork Programs that is entrusted to to the Conservators' Annual and surveillance of the parks,communities: Reports. which cannot be solved by the

Y3 Y6 roject, are addressed by other-Ichkeul 10 15 Opinion survey of targeted development programs;-Bou-Hedma 10 15 pulation.-Jbil 5 10

- 33-

3.3. % of the population of parks Summary of scores achieved each Teachers may be reluctant to addand surrounding who is sensitive yea. to their pedagogicto the flagship themes of the three responsibilities;

Jbil Gazelle blanche 25Bou-L Acacia radiana 25Ichkeul Water release 253A. % of pupils of targetedclasses in primary school of thetr parks having achieved a 700score to a test on the park and itsvalue:

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y640 50 60 65 70 70

-34 -

.Key*pbrfofmance k)*wo,=HierarChy of ObJectIivs Indicators - , ., ..__ r_____

Project Components / Inputs: (budget for each Project reports: (from Components toSub-components: component) Outputs)1. Capacity building and U.S $ 2.02 million 5-year budget plan updated on a The DGF financial _mgementinstitutional strengthening (GEF: $1.55 million) yearly basis; Annual Work and procurement capacity is1.1 Organizational Program of the PMU; Financial sufficiently conpetent to enabledevelopment reports; Audit report timely availbility of project1.2 Interpretive and education servces, goods or work andcapacity monitoring of expenditur1.3 Training Annual report of the PMU; Staff appointed to the UCP and1.4 Research and monitoring TORs; Contract monitoring, SSEPN posses sufficient timeprograms Monitoring of conventions and and expertdse to fulfill the1.5 Institutional strengthening MoU; Training modules, scornng mission that is demanded ofequipment and reports; publications; them.1.6 Policy studies monitornng manuals.1.7 Project Coordination Unit

2. National parks: U.S $ 7.18 million Annual reports of the The proposed redeployment ofmanagement of the three (GEF: $3.25 million) Conservator, Management Plans; personnel to meet project needsparks Field visit (supervision); Contract is effected.2.1 Park management monitoring, Minutes of importantplanning meetings; Minutes of work Staff appointed to the parks2.2 Equipment and small civil reception. possess sufficient time andworks Equipment and smaH civfexpertise to fulfill the missionworks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~that is mresteed from them.2.3 Ecological, socioeconomicsurveys The park administration and its

partners succeed in stoppingpoaching by people originatingoutside the lbil region.

Sociocultural and tenureconstraints are not obstacles tothe modification of the lbil Parkboundaries.

3. Public awareness and U.S $ 0.68 million Annual reports of the PMU; Annual Govemment budgeteducation (GEF: 0.53 million) Supeavision; Contract enable the proposed recruitment3.1 Development of monitoring; Education material or affectation.educational packages (posters, etc.) Minutes of work3.2 Development of media achievement (e.g. eco museum in Staff appointed to the UCPprograms promoting Douz). possess sufficient time and

p.ograms promoting expertise to fulfill the missionbiodiversity conservation that is demanded of them.3.3 Outreach and educationprograms for local Schoolteachers agree to thecommunities additional workload required to

implement the conservationawareness progranm in primaryschools.

-35 -

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan:

Monitoring of the project will be divided into two: (a) scientific monitoring and evaluation, based on theagreed-on biological indicators and the analysis of the effects of management measures used by the project onthe biodiversity; and (b) monitoring of project physical and financial implementation taking into accountproject progress.

M&E will be carried out by the PMU with technical backstopping provided by the deputy coordinator fromMEAT. In line with guidance received from the STAP reviewer, a specific and simple monitoring mechanismwould be prepared in order to allow the personnel to know when and what to measure, to take maximumadvantage of patrols, and to guarantee a systematic data collection. The design will include the selection ofindicators to evaluate communities, animal and plant populations and other processes identified as prioritywithin the national parks. The design would consider the evaluation of monitoring activities and the suitabilityof indicators, in order to make improvements in the mechanism. Guidelines suggested by the STAP review willbe followed.

At the local level, because of the diverse nature of the stakeholders, clauses will be introduced in thecontracts/conventions with the local Development Committees (CDs). The CDs will be responsible for updatingthe PMTs on the progress of their community development plans in order to receive necessary funds. Thecommunity development facilitators (animateurs) will assist in the collection and validation of the data. TheCRDAs will furnish quarterly progress reports to the PMU which will then consolidate the individual reports.The reports will be prepared every six months and would include the physical and financial progress. Theoutcome and impact indicators will furnished on an annual basis. The project will have an in-depth mid-termreview. The review would assess progress and redesign project elements as necessary.

- 36 -

Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

By Component:

Project Component 1 - US$2.02 millionInstituffonal strengthening:

The objective of this component will be to reinforce the institutional capacity of the Directorate General ofForestry (Ministry of Agriculture), the CRDAs, the Ministry of Enviromnent and Landuse Planning(MELP) and their regional directorate, and other partners in sustainable protected areas management Thiscomponent will support the following: (i) support for the Project Management Unit; (ii) training; (iii)research studies; and (iv) establishment of a scientific monitoring and evaluation (M&E) informationsystem for the national parks.

(i) Project management: The project will support the strengthening of the Project Management Unit in theDGF through technical assistance for assuring the monitoring and supervision of the project. This willinclude recruitment of specialized M&E consultants, and eq!upment and software necessary for financialmanagement This sub-component would also include support for the mid-term review in the third year ofproject implementation.

(ii) lai gggL.The traing programs would focus on the personnel responsible for the day-to-daymanagement of the park as well as staff in the relevant Ministries and their partners who are involved in theadministron of the parks. This sub-component would be critical in assuring the smooth implementationof the project since the current staff do not possess the necessary capacities in order to carry out all thefunctions pertaining to protected areas management. Specifically, the emphasis on the participatoryapproach in this project demands relatively new skills of the DGF personnel who have been used to a moreclassic "command and control" approach. The program also envisages the training of people outside theadmunistration who are, nevertheless, closely involved in the management of protected areas in the countrysuch as local associations, tourism operators etc. It is estimated that around 100 persons will be trained inthis regard. The program would also support the recruitment of a specialized training consultant who willprovide the necessary trainers (national and international) to carry out the proposed program. The programwill include the following: (a) on-the-job training This would include 5 modules, each module organizedaround several thematic sessions including management of a GEF/World Bank project; conservationmanagement; environmental education; improving public awareness of the importance of theenvironment/biodiversity centered around the flagship species/themes identified in each park (Gazelleblanche for Jbil; Acacia radiana for Bouhedma, and the theme of water resources management in Ichkeul);(b) training of trainers: It is proposed to create a "pole" of 5 students specializing in conservationmanagement who would benefit from more detailed instruction through 13 weeks of in-depth trainingabroad and in Tunisia. This will be done through a contract with an appropriate training institution; (c)Diploma training- Currently, Tunisia lacks specialists trained in the scientific domains related tobiodiversity conservation and management The project would support scholarships for graduate studentsdesiring to specialize in disciplines pertaining to ecology and biodiversity conservation. Four scholarshipsare envisaged: Mediternanean ecology, flora and fauna of ecosystems, Tunisian biodiversity, andsocio-economic community development

(iii) Research Studies: The project will support four baseline studies common to all three parks pertainingto: (i) monitoring the dynamics of vegetation in the parks and the establishment of phytoecological maps;(ii) preparation of an inventory and monitoring of reptile populations; (iii) Inventory and monitoring of birdpopulations; and (iv) inventory and monitoring of the mammal populations. In addition, this sub-componentwill support specific research studies in each park. For Ichkeul, the project will support the research into

-37 -

the mathematical modelling governing the water resources management aspects of the lake. The long-termviability of the lake depends entirely on the execution of a well-conceived, scientifically justified plan forthe releases of water into the lake that takes into account existing (old and new) dams upstream of the lake.The mathematical model developed in 1995 by BCEOM needs to be updated and improved to take intoaccount current physical realities and needs to be calibrated (with experimental releases of water) to be ableto serve as a genuine management tool. The project would support this research modeling exercise so thatthe park management would thus have a convincing protocol (based on solid scientific data that have beentested) to present to the authorities managing the dams upstream (DGBGTH) in the Ministry of Agriculturewho can then integrate the ecological needs of the lake in the overall plan for water resources managementin northem Tunisia (Plan Directeur de l'Eau du Nord). The project would also support the researchactivities on the biological and physical parameters of the lake to strengthen the capacity of the NationalEnvironmental Protection Agency (ANPE) to carry out its scientific monitoring and surveillance activities.For Bouhedma, the project envisages two research studies - the first on the ecology and dynamics of theacacia radiana and the second on the ecology of the parasitic insects that prey on the acacia. In Jbil, theresearch studies will focus on the biology and ecology of the sand gazelle, and the ecology and behavior ofthe houbara bustard.

(iv) M&E Information System: The project will support the establishment of a system of M&E of NationalParks (Systeme de Suivi Evaluation des Parcs Nationaux - SSEPN). This will be lodged in the departmentof national parks in the Director General of Forestry (DGF). The SSEPN will build on the existing resultsand data from the database for forestry planning (Systeme dInfornation pour la Planification Forestiere -SIPF) which is currently in operation in the DGF. A team of three technicians will be assigned to theSSEPN and will be trained to serve the project's M&E needs, benefitting from the experience of theexisting SIPF team and some of its equipment A node will also be established in each park and in theMinistry of Environment. The training of the technicians and the park conservators will focus on using theSSEPN as a management tool. The basic spatial data are already available for Bouhedma and Jbil at theDirectorate General of Land Use Planming (DGLP) prepared by the National Center of Tele-detection andthe data from the project SAIDE using the "Corinne" nomenclature. Ichkeul will benefit from theacquisition of orthophotos (1/25,000) under the SIPF. Additional data will be obtained as required duringproject implementation. A specialized consulting firm will be recruited for the design and implementation ofthe system as well as the training of the ultimate users. The SSEPN will utilize the Corinne nomenclature(project SAIDE) which is in the process of being adopted at the national level in the framework of theGEONAT project (updating of the national maps project).

Project Component 2 - US$7.18 millionProtected Areas Management:

The objective of this component would be: (i) manage and restore the ecosystems in the three national parksto protect the globally important flora and fauna; (ii) assist in the development of ecotourism activities; and(iii) establish, with the local populations, community development plans compatible with the objectives ofsustainable biodiversity conservation. The tree parks (out of 8) chosen include Ichkeul, Bouhedma, andlbil. These three parks cover unique and distinctly different ecosystems - wetland, arid-mountain/pseudosavanna, and desert respectively. Overall, there exists no management plan for any of the three parks. Themanagement is ad hoc and does not systematically take into account the needs and input of the localcommunities who live in and around the parks. In all the three parks, the key professional manager is thepark conservator with the majority of the remaining personnel being workers and/or temporary labor. Theproject envisages strengthening the technical and management capacity in the parks with a view to efficientimplementation of the eventual management plans. For the park of Ichkeul, the management plan would bebased on the extensive work already carried out under a KfW financed study (1993-95) which came upwith several recommendations for the management of the park, especially the water resources management

-38 -

aspects. The components under the community development for each of the parks are detailed in the socialassessment are presented in Annex 12.

Ichkeul NJP: The Ichkeul N.P is divided into three physiographic units - the lake (89 sq. km), thewetlands/marshes (30 sq. kIn), and the mountain (14 sq. kIn). The existing zonation comprises two focireflecting the different natural milieux - the mountain and the wetlands forming one zone and the lake theother. The management objective in the first zone is the conservation of natural resources. In the secondzone, the objective is the sustainable management of the lake especially the fisheries resources. Currently,the fishery is the lake is under the exclusive operation of a private firm under a 30-year concession. Thezonation proposed has been adopted from the recommendations of the KfW-financed study.

Currently, the park is under the responsability of a park conservator at the engineer-level who is under thesupervision of the head of the Forestry Section of the CRDA (Chef d'Arrondissement Forestier). Theconservator is assisted by seven workers (ouvriers) who have a very basic level of education. The park alsohas a cellule managed by the ANPE which is located in the welcome center. The ANPE team ismultidisciplinary comprising three professional staff and one technician. This team will be reinforced by atwo engineers (one from ANPE and one from DGBGTH) who will be responsible for the calibrating andupdating of the mathematical model that was financed under the KfW study in 1993-95. The rest of theteam is concerned with the monitoring of the quality of the lake. The current management of the park is adhoc and draws on some recommendations of the Kfw-financed study but are restricted to purely technicalaspects. There is no significant, coherent management plan that takes integrates the socio-economicdevelopment of the local communities in the management of the park. The park has a manned entry gate, awelcome center, and an ecomuseum. The park also has running water and electricity in the administrativebuildings. There is a paved road that leads to the ecomuseum but visitors are not permitted to use this. TheTinja sluice regulates the flow of water between the lake Ichkeul and lake Bizerte and controls the salinity.Mechanization of this sluice is envisaged under the project There are two 4X4 vehicles one of which isequipped with a radio unit. The workers also have 4 motorcycles and 7 horses. The park however does nothave a telephone, the material in the ecomuseum is outdated, and the laboratory is under-equipped.

Ichkeul is Tunisia's best-known national park and has about 50,000 visitors per year, mainly due to itsproximity to the capital, Tunis. However, the socioeconomic development upstream has posed a seriousthreat to the health of the Lake Ichkeul ecosystem. As a result, the park was included in the Ramsar'sConvention Montreux Record ("Record of Ramsar sites where changes in ecological character haveoccurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur") thus indicating the great threat to which the wetland isexposed The project would support the updating and calibration of the Kfw-financed mathematical modelfor the management of the lake using test releases of freshwater in order to establish a scientific basis andcalendar for the releases of freshwater necessary for maintaining the health of the lake's ecosystem. Thiscomponent would support the park management with the necessary infrastructural improvements(buildings, improvements in trails/routes in the park), equipment, vehicles, and the development of aparticipatory approach to include the local populations in the management plan of the park. A local PMTwhich would include the local authorities, the park administration and representatives of the communitieswould be established. The project also envisages the recruitment of an "animateur" to facilitate andstrengthen all community development activities. Under the management and restoration of ecosystems.four programs will be financed: the first involves technical assistance for the direct management of the parkincluding the training and equipment of 10 eco-guards, elaboration of a program of internal planning andregulation, with zoning and sector aspects. The latter would be carried out in the field with the participationof the population living in and around the park. A preliminary public awareness campaign is envisaged inorder to sensitize the local populations. The process of formalization of the development committee into alegally recognized AFIC has already started with the majority of the residents of the park already beingmembers. It is expected that it will be legalized by early 2002 (Details in Annex 12). The second program

-39 -

pertains to the rehabilitation of the lake's ecosystem. This would include establishment of a permanentmonitoring system to monitor the additional flows of fresh water into the lake; mechanization of theexisting sluice which governs the flow of water between the lakes of Ichkeul and Bizerte; maps andbathymetric control, dredging; and an observatory for monitoring fish production. The third program wouldaddress the rehabilitation of the marshes, and the fourth program would address the vegetation of themountain (jebel) ecosystem. Based on the KfW study, the following activities under the rehabilitation of themarshes over the course of the project implementation period. closures around the areas of Ghezala and ElMelah and a review of the closure option for Joumine; completion of the "tabia" on the Joumine; evaluatethe potential surface and groundwater resources that can be mobilized for the inundation of the wetlandsand establishment of a hydraulic management plan specifically for the wetlands; decontamination of theeffluents of the wastewater which get dumped into the watershed of the lake; substitution of the practice of"elevage sauvage" by providing alternative sources of revenue for the park habitants; and carrying outscientific monitoring of the reconstitution of the habitats and the resulting changes in frequentation by thebird populations.

Bouhedma N.P: This park covers the govemorates of Sidi Bouzid (11,000 ha) and Gafsa (5500 ha). Thenorthern boundary of the park is the mountain (jebel) of Bouhedma and there are several zones: 3 coreprotected areas, 3 buffer zones, and 2 zones of "temporary occupation". Officially, there are about 2500habitants in the park who live in the latter two zones. Insofar as the existing human resource capacity isconcerned, the only professional staff is the conservator, the majority of the other personnel (between60-120 people) being daily labor recruited from the park population or the area surrounding the park.

Current infrastructure in the park (Bordj Bouhedma) includes a depot, an administrative office, lodging forthe conservator, the ecomuseum, and basic accommodation for about 12 persons. The Bordj is notequipped with communication facilities or electricity but has running water. Several enclosures have beenconstructed between 1984-90 to house the animals introduced in this habitat There is one 4x4 and three(ancient) tractors as well as four motorcycles. A project in the 1980s with GTZ assistance resulted in aplan in 1986 which however, is far from a management plan per se. The focus of the plan is essentially onsoil and water conservation measures, and does not take into account the complete boundaries of the park,the conservation objectives in the short, medium, and long-term, a coherent strategy for the utilization ofthe park spaces, the expected outcomes and the identification of suitable monitoring and evaluationmechanisms and indicators.

As in Ichkeul, this component would support necessary infirasructural improvements (buildings,improvements in trails/routes in the park), equipment, vehicles, and the development of a participatoryapproach to include the local populations in the management plan of the park. The project would alsofinance the construction of lodgings for the park agents, an entry post with a deep well; improvement in thecapacities of the CRDA (Sidi Bouzid) that would house the local GIS. As with Ichkeul, a local PMT whichwould include the local authorities, the park administration and representatives of the communities wouldbe established. Under the management and restoration of ecosystems four programs will be financed thefirst will include support for the direct management of the park including the financing of a motorized corpsof ecoguards (6), and elaboration of a program of internal planning and regulation, with zoning andsectoral aspects. The second program would address the rehabilitation of the Acacia raddianapseudo-savanah. The third would focus on the improvement of the protection of the wild animals in thepark and lastly, this component would support the potential for reintroduction of large animals in closecollaboration with the proposed French GEF regional project on the reintroduction of the sahelo-saharienantelopes in accordance with the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS/Bonn Convention). The projectwould also support the transfer of addax to a more suitable park (like Jbil) and the sale of the ostricheswhich are not currently in their natural milieu.

-40-

Jbil N.P: This is the largest and most recent of the three national parks. Very little has been done toactually "manage" the park thus far. There is one conservator who is based in the CRDA of Kebili but whodoes not have regular access to means of transport that would enable him to carry out his functions, inhowever limited a manner. There are also five guards who are also limited in their capacity to carry out anycontrol due to lack of communication facilities with the exterior. Unlike the other two parks, there is noecomuseum or welcome center in this park. The sole infrastrcture that exists is an entry gate at one of theboundaries of the park In order to accomodate the transhumance and right of passage for the nomadpopulation, the project envisages the eventual revision of the existing boundaries of the park.

This component would support the CRDA of Kebili with necessary infrastructure, vehicles, and equipmentfor managing the work at the field level, and the development of a participatory approach to include thelocal populations that are customary users of the park space, and other stakeholders in the managementplan of the park. For improved logistics, a base would be established at the port of entry in the north of thepark with the necessary lodgings, offices, deep wells, and fuelling station. As with the other two parks, alocal PMT which would include the local authorities, the park administration and representatives of thecommunities would be established. In addition to the programs for the direct support for the management ofthe park per se, this component would also include a program for the protection of the Gazella leptoceroand Gazella dorcas, protection of the vegetative cover of the Grand Erg, and the reintroduction of largeanimals in close collaboration with the proposed FFEM regional project on the reintroduction of thesahelian antelopes. The project also envisages the revision of the boundaries of the park with a view toextending its limits. The project will work in close coordination with other relevant development activitiesplanned for the region. The Action Plan for the park has identified illegal hunting (by the habitants of thenearby towns like Douz as well as foreigners) as one of the root causes for the loss of animal biodiversity inthe park- Thanks to the recent political commitment at the highest levels, measures will be taken by theCRDA and the DGF to enforce the ban on illegal hunting. With a view to improve public awareness andchange behavioral patterns among the local communities, the project would also support the construction ofan eco-museum at Douz that will focus on the intertwined concepts of the local culture and the desert as aunique environment

Project Component 3 - US$ 0.68 mililonPublic Awareness:

This component would aim to build public support for biodiversity conservation at the local/park level andgovernorate level. Action plans will target priority groups including local communities, local/regionalgovernments, site visitors, and local school children to raise the awareness of specific stakeholder groupsabout the importance of, and opportunities for, biodiversity conservation within the three parks. Possibledelivery mechanisms include mass media, formal and informal education, and development of linkages withlocal NGOs, schools, tourism agencies, and other organizations to promote public understanding aboutbiodiversity resources. For each of the parks, flagship species/themes (espece phare) have been identifiedthat will form the nucleus of all public awareness campaigns as well as research, monitoring andconservation activities. These would be the Accacia raddiana, and the white gazelle (Gazelle leptoceros)for the parks of Bouhedma and Jbil respectively and the theme of water resources management for the caseof Ichkeul. Activities will be developed at the local/community level around these key species/themes inorder to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain long-term biodiversity conservation.Activities will be developed at the local/community level in order to develop the grassroots awarenessnecessary to sustain long-term biodiversity conservation.

-41 -

Annex 3: Estimated Project CostsTUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Projeot 'Q(tBy Coi1p.oiet .E l $hiIiBb UQS'$llionInstitutional Strengthening 1.24 0.57 1.81Protected Areas Mnagement 5.59 0.80 6.39Public awareness and education 0.37 0.23 0.60Total Baseline Cost 7.20 1.60 8.80Physical Contingencies 0.35 0.07 0.42Price ContingencIes 0.59 0.07 0.66

Total Project Costs1 8.14 1.74 9.88Total Financing Required 8.14 1.74 9.88

ProJect,Cos4By Category u I I) 'J1£j l ol. 2 ust$,m4ikw)

Goods 0.86 0.59 1.45Works 1.95 0.00 1.95Servlces 1.31 0.75 2.06Training 0.46 0.26 0.72Community works 0.80 0.00 0.80Incremental operating costs 1.82 0.00 1.82Contingencies 0.94 0.14 1.08

Total Project Costs1 8.14 1.74 9.88Total Financing Required 8.14 1.74 9.88

Identfiable taxea and dutie are 0 (USSrm) and e total projed coa n of taxes, Is 9.88 (USSm). Thebacf the project cost sharing ratio is 53.96% of totalprject coost net of te

-42 -

Annex 4 Incremental Costs and Global Environment Benefits

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECTOverview

1. The objective of the GEF Altemative is to strengthen the national system of protected areas inTunisia and promote sustainable conservation management, with increased participation of localpopulations, within the ecosystems of the project-supported areas. The project supports, thmugh relevantproject outputs, Articles 6, 8, 11, and 13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Tunisia onMay 3, 1995. Article 6: General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use; Article 8: In-situ Conservation; Article 11:Incentive Measures; Article 13: Public Education and Awareness. Specific project components include: (a) capacitybuilding and institutional strengthening; (b) development of management plans in three national parks; and(c) public awareness and education. The GEF Altemative intends to achieve these outputs at a totalincremental cost of US$ 5.49 miUion. The proposed project should be viewed as complementary toexisting activities in Tunisia.

Baseline Scenario

2. Tunisia accords a high significance to biodiversity conservation and sustainable uses in itsdevelopment effort There is a strong political commitment towards enhanced conservation efforts and itssuccessful integration into a wider economic, social and cultural context The National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan were developed in a very participatory manner under a Biodiversity EnablingActivity (GEF-funded, the World Bank being the Implementing Agency) and were adopted by theGovernment in 1998. However, thus far, the recommendations and priorities outlined in the Action Planhave not yet been concretized. Management plans for the national parks are either non-existent, minimal,or ad hoc. The management activities that do exist in some parks tend to be top-down, with the exceptionof the plans recently developed for the parks of Chaambi and Feidja. The Government is also in the processof diversifying its tourism strategy to include nature and cultural tourism. In this regard, two of the threenational parks in this project (Ichkeul and Bouhedma) wil benefit from improvements in nfisucurearound and within the parks, equipment for the ecomuseums, training etc. The hunman resource capacity tomanage the parks will continue to remain linited. Protected area management initiatives will continue to bead hoc and sporadic, lacking an overaU coherent strategy and vision. The recommendations of the recentPresidential Commission on National Parks Management represent a significant advance, but in theabsence of their operationalization, wil remain in the realm of theory. The regional French GEF project onthe reintroduction of the Sahelian antelopes will target the parks of Bouhedma and Jbil, but will berestricted to the specific technical activities related to the reintroduction of the species. In the absence ofthe GEF funding, it is unlikely that the protection of biodiversity of global importance can be achieved.The estimated costs of the baseline are: (i) GOT funding of salaries and routine management activities($2.lm) in the three parks; (ii) UNDP funding of public awareness and institutional strengthening inrelation to the Feidja National Park project ($280,000); (iii) the regional project (French GEF/GOT) onreintroduction of sahelian antelopes in Bou Hedma and Jbil National Parks ($148,000); (iv) GOT'sdevelopment of tourism-related activities in 2 of the 3 national parks ($2.1 million), Bouhedma andIchkeul; and (v) limited number of training, capacity building, and environmental education activities($43,100). The total estimated baseline is $4,671,100.

3. Implementation of the Baseline Scenario will result in limited protection of biodiversity, increaseddomestic environmental benefits related to forest and natural resource management as well as soilconservation, increased participation in conservation, and some improvement in protecting coastal areas in

-43 -

Tunisia's protected areas. Development of ecotourism will result in improved infrastructure facilities but inthe absence of clear management plans, there is also the risk of increased destruction of existingbiodiversity. Progress will be made in achieving broader development goals related to strengtheningenvironmental management and improved social and rural development As a consequence of the currentcourse of action, Tunisia's protected areas will likely continue to be managed in an ad hoc manner, withoutthe participation of the local populations in a systematic and meaningful manner. Poorly-managedrecreational uses may degrade the biodiversity in the national parks and reserves. The long-termimplications of these activities includes the steady loss of globally significant biodiversity over the next twodecades.

GEF Alternative

4. The GEF Alternative would build on the Baseline Scenario by protecting three representativemajor ecosystems; conserving threatened remnant ecosystems and species; providing opportunities for localpopulations in and around protected areas; increasing public awareness about biodiversity conservation;and supporting participatory approaches to sustainable natural resource conservation. Implementation ofthe GEF Alternative would make possible activities and programs that would not have been possible underthe Baseline Scenario. For instance, the proposed project will fill one of the key gaps in protected areasmanagement in Tunisia through the introduction of management plans that are technically sound and havethe buy-in of local populations. Scientific research activities promoting biodiversity conservation throughmonitoring and evaluating the status and distribution of species and of ecosystems will be supported underthe GEF Alternative. While both the Baseline Scenario and the GEF Alternative support biodiversityconservation in Tunisia's national parks, with both domestic and international benefits, only the latteroption would ensure long-term conservation and sustainable utilization through strengthened on-sitemanagement, outrewh to and involvement of local communities and local govemments, and developmentof viable approaches to sustainable natural resource use in national and natural parks. One of the threeproject sites, Ichkeul National Park was, in 1990 included in the Ramnsar's Convention Montreux Record("Record of Ramsar sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likelyto occur") thus indicating the great threat to which the wetland is exposed. The GEF alternative wouldsupport the updating and calibration of the mathematical model for the management of the lake (financedby KfW, 1993-95) using test releases of freshwater in order to establish a scientific basis and calendar forthe releases of freshwater necessary for maintaining the health of the lake's ecosystem. With managementand conservation measures based on a long-term plan, greater public commitment to conserving the areasand the creation of institutional and participatory mechanisms supported under the project, the GEFAlternative would produce the institutional, social, and economic framework required to restore andconserve over the long-run, the biodiversity in the three pilot areas, thereby generating significantbiodiversity benefits within these three globally significant ecosystems.

- 44 -

5. The total cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated at US$ 9.88 million, as presented in the summarytable. The difference between the cost of the Baseline Scenario (US$ 4.67 million) and the cost of the GEFAlternative (US$ 9.88 million) is estimated at US$ 5.49 million of which the GEF contribution is US$5.33million.

Table 1:NCREMENTAL COST SUMTMARY (2002-2008) N $US

Component Baseline Alternativ Incremental Coste GEF Other Sources Total

1. Institutional 616,900 2,021,000 1,540,000 1,540,000strengthening

2. Protected 3,768,400 7,179,500 3,250,000 155,200 3,405,200Areas Management

3. Public 285,800 677,500 540,000 540,000awarenessTotal 4,671,100 9,878,000 5,330,000 155,200 5,485,200

-45-

Annex 5: Financial Summary

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Years EndingIn US$'000

|Year I I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 1 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7Total FinancingRequired

ProJect CostsInvestment Costs 1163.9 3202.2 1427.6 792.7 720.5 461.4 0.0Recurrent Costs 231.6 270.4 352.2 381.9 430.3 443.3

Total Project Costs 1395.5 3472.6 1779.8 1174.6 1150.8 904.7 0.0.Total Financing 1395.5 3472.6 1779.8 1174.6 1150.8 904.7 0.0

FinancingIBRDIIDA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Govemment 925.5 1946.1 165.4 308.4 583.4 480.7 0.0

Central 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Provincial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Co-flnanclersGEF 452.3 1470.0 1547.9 820.6 512.2 526.6User Fees/Beneflciarles 0.0 20.5 41.6 32.7 23.6 36.8Other 17.8 36.0 24.9 12.9 31.5 25.3 0.0Total Project Financing 1395.6 3472.6 1779.8 1174.6 1150.7 1069.4 0.0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Main assumptions:

- 46 -

Annex 6: Procurement and Disbursement ArrangementsTUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Procurement

Procurenent responsibilities: To ensure smooth implemnentation, the Project Management Unit (PMU) atthe DGF in the Ministry of Agriculture will have overall responsibilities for coordination of procurementactivities under the project. The PMU has acquired experience in dealing with Bank-financed procurementunder the previous Forestry projects but this capacity will be reinforced under this project. The NationalProject Coordinator will coordinate procurement activities through the PMTs and the RegionalComninssariats for Agricultural Development (CRDAs) who will be responsible for launching their ownbids and supervising their projects. The DGF and the Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning willbe responsible for preparing the bidding documents at the national level.

Overall, the Bank is satisfied that the local procurement procedures are acceptable. Although the Tunisianlegislation is in line with Bank Guidelines, certain rules and procedures however, are not acceptable to theBank. These issues mainly concem the use of two envelopes in bidding for works and goods, and opencompetitive bidding for huing consultants. Under tis project, the Bank's procurement procedures will takeprecedence and this will be specified in the grant agreement The Bank carried out an assessment of theprocurement capacity of the implementing agency and has judged that the overall risk is low.

Procurement methods (Table A)

Procurement of goods and works will be done in accordance with the World Bank's guidelines:Procurement under EBRD Loans and IDA Credits, issued in January 1995 and revised in September 1997and January 1999. Consulting services, technical assistance and tuining financed under the grant will beprocured in accordance with the Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World BankBorrowers, issues in January 1997 and revised in January 1999. The draft procurement plan for the firstyear is attached as an Excel file below:

-47 -

Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements(US$ million equivalent)

'Procuremerit. MOtUdExpenditu'rie Category ICB NCB O"Or 411.F. ' oit'

1. Works 0.00 1.40' 0.00 0.79 2.19

(0.00) (0.76) (0.00) (0.00) (0.76)2. Goods 0.32 1.15 0.09 0.00 1.56

(0.22) (0.87) (0.07) (0.00) (1.16)3. Services 0.00 0.00 2.29 0.00 2.29Consultants (0.00) (0.00) (2.05) (0.00) (2.05)4. Training 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.74) (0.74)5. Community works 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92

(0.00) (0.00) (0.62) (0.00) (0.62)6. Recurrent costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 2.11

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Total 0.32 2.55 3.30 3.71 9.88

(0.22) (1.63) (2.74) (0.74) (5.33)

"Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Grant All costs include contingencies.2 1Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of

contracted staff of the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incrementaloperating costs related to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project funds to local governmentunits.

3/ Direct contracting for community works only.

-48 -

-Tableau procurement lere annee.xis

Table Al: Consultant Selection Arrangements (optional)(US$ million equivalent)

Consultant Servlces .6E*peiidftureCateUaW , QCBS ; 0 SF5 ____ .

A. FIrms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

B. Individuals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00I (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

1\ Including contingencies

Note: QCBS = Quality- and Cost-Based SelectionQBS = Quality-based SelectionSFB = Selection under a Fixed BudgetLCS = Least-Cost SelectionCQ = Selecton Based on Consultants' QualificatonsOther = Selection of individual consultants (per Section V of Consultants Guidelines),Commercial Practices, etc.N.B.F. = Not Bank-financedFigures In parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Grant.

-49 -

Prilor revlew thresholds (Table B)Works contracts equal or above a threshold of $500,000 equivalent, contracts for goods equal to orUS$400,000, and consultant contracts equal to or above the equivalent of US$100,000 for firms andUS$50,000 for individuals would be subject to the Banles prior review. However, no civil works above the$500,000 tbreshold are expected to be financed under the project. The review process would cover about20 percent of the total contract amounts. This percentage is low essentially due to the small number ofsmall civil works contracts, and is deemed acceptable given the satisfactoxy procurement of the sameimplementing agencies under other Bank projects and the acceptability to the Bank of National competitiveBidding procedures. For other procurement, the Borrower shall furnish all information and documentationthat the Bank may reasonably request, prior to the submission of the related withdrawal application.

Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review'

ContradtVaiue :,Threshold . , .

; openditum,CCategory (US$thousands) i " iM*to., ., (O*# i.1 .1. Works >-30,000 NCB n.a

<30,000 Local Shopping n.a2. Goods >-400 ICB All contracts

<400 and >=30,000 NCB No prior review<30,000 Local Shopping n.a

3. ServicesFimis >=100 QCBS All contracts<100 QCBS None (post-review)

Individuals >50 Consultant Guidelines TORs, SL, TORs contract<50 Consultant Guidelines TORs only

4. Miscellaneous _

5. Miscellaneous6. Miscellaneous

Total value of contracts subject to prior review: $2.0 million

Overall Procurement Risk Assessment

Low

Frequency of procurement supervision missions proposed: One every 12 months (includes specialprocurement supavision for post-review/audits)

Thresholds generally differ by country and project. Consult OD 11.04 "Review of ProcurementDocumentation" and contact the Regional Procurement Adviser for guidance.

-50-

Disbursement

Allocation of grant proceeds (Table C)Allocation of Grant proceeds by disbursement category and percentages financed by the Grant arepresented in Table C below:

Table C: Allocation of Grant Proceeds

Expenditure Category Amou-nt.lnIvsS$htllI^.v} f h8s1. Works 1.38 600%2. Goods 1.16 1000/% of foreign expenditures; 100% of

local expenditures (ex-factory), and 80%of local expenditures for items prcued

locally

3. Consultant services and ttuining 2.79Local 960%International 88%

Total Project Costs 5.33

Total 5.33

-51 -

Flnanclal Management

General Framework The Financial Management System (FMS) in place at the MOA, implementingagency for the project, is based on principles and procedures defined by the legal framework applicable tothe pubic sector and more specifically to governmental institutions. The main characteristics of this systemare the following:

Accounting svste' An accounting system based on the cash basis and the outline of budget components isoperational and reflected on legal books according to the regulation described in the Code of PublicAccounting. The public accounting system is computerized The application called ADAB allows to reflectthe initial budget allocation by line Ministry and budget components as well as amounts committed anddisbursed as the implementation is going forward during the fiscal year.

Budgeting system. Based on the programs and actions to be undertaken, the MOA issues an annual budgetfor commitments. The annual budget is submitted for approval to the Ministry of Finance (MF), structurein charge of a close control through its specialized units. In terms of sources of funds, the general budgetincludes the GOT's contribution as well as funds allocated by different donors for the implementation ofspecific projects. The accounting system ADAB is used by all the technical Ministries at the central level tocommit expenditures and to ensure that all the expenditures are done according to the agreed allocations asreflected in the annual "loi de finances".

National Disbursements Procedures. These are the following:

At the central level. The budget execution is subject to authorization for payment on a transaction level.This specific authorization process aims at ensuring that the expense to be paid has been budgeted, and toissue the official instruction to release the funds by the 'Tr6sorerie Generale".

At the regional level. The payments are still made through the governmental budget however the proceduresof payments are decentralized 'and executed by the regional entities. Based on the authorization ofpaymnents, the Tr6sorerie G6n&rale (TG) transfers the needed funds to the regional entities on a quarterlybasis. The funds are released subject to the presentation of detailed reports on the use of funds andforecasts.

Project financed by International donors. With regards to projects that are financed through the Ministry ofInternational Cooperation, payments for foreign exchange are for the most part, centralized for the eligibleportion. The mechanism in place involves four parties with the following specific roles: (i) the regionalentities, such as CRDA are responsible for implementation and issuing of the applications for withdrawal,(ii) technical departments such as DGF, at the central level are responsible for reviewing the technicalaspects, compliance with law and procedures, and consistency of the supporting documentation, (iii) theproject coordinator, through the designated financial unit, is responsible for the review of the eligibility ofthe expenditures and submission of request to the Bank (e.g. direct payments) or to the Central Bank ofTunisia (e.g. SOEs), for the release of the funds; and (iv) the Central Bank of Tunisia (BCT) which playsthe role of manager of the special account, is acting as MOF representative, and play an important role ofcontrol of eligibility and compliance with legal and project documents. BCT is responsible for thereplenishment of the Special account.

Control of the budget expenditures. A fiduciary responsibility of control of public expenditures is assignedto MOF through a specialized audit department "Contr6le General des Finances" (CGF) and to the AuditCourt (Cour des Comptes) that has a judiciary role of supervision of public finance and the authority to

-52 -

deliver final approval ("quitus") of the management and accounts of public funds. For managing theexternal debt, MOF has implemented in 1996 a new computerized system called "SIADE".

Project Monitoring. The DGF acquired through implementation of several projects including those financedby the Bank (e.g. Forestry Development Project and Second Forestry Development Project) an experiencein accounting and financial monitoring. A specialized unit is responsible for issuing periodical reportscombining physical implementation data as well as financial information related to commitments, paymentsfrom the budget and disbursement from loans. This unit is playing a role of aggregation of data, fortransactions executed by the CRDAs and has the responsibility of preparation of the disbursement'documents as well as issuing of project financial statements.

Specific arrangements for the projects.Based on the institutional arrangements agreed for the project implementation, two groups of entities areinvolved. The first is consisted of regional entities (CRDA, and Regional Directorates of Environment).The second is the technical departments of both MOA and MELP. The MOA through the DGF, would bethe general coordinator of the project and where the PMU will be located and headed by a National ProjectCoordinator. The PMU will be responsible for a close monitoring of the project and evaluation of physicalperformance, including procurement, finance, budgeting, and accounting duties. The PMU is responsiblefor the establishment and maintenance of an acceptable financial management system. The DGF has gainedconsiderable experience in financial management though the implementation of previous Bank-financedprojects and hence is expected to demonstrate a reasonable knowledge and understanding of World Bankprocurement, disbursement, project accounting, and financial reporting. DGF should play a role of officialvis a vis for the project implementation and thus is responsible of producing consolidated financial data andprogress reports.

Staffing and duties at the central level. The Project Management Unit (PMU), is consisting of: (i) theNational Project Coordinator from DGF; (ii) the Deputy Coordinator nominated from MELP; (iii) afinancial and accounting specialist; and (iv) a procurement specialist The project team at the central levelwill coordinate all the project activities to be implemented at the regional level and report to the steeringcommittee. The experience gained under previous projects has been assessed as adequate for theimplementation of the proposed project.

Staffing and duties at the regional level. In each park, a PMT will be established which will be headed bythe park conservator (who belongs to the Forestry Arrondissement of the CRDA) and the representatives ofthe regional environment directorates (DREs), and the Ministry of Tourism as well as the DCs. TheCRDAs and the DREs would be responsible for the implementation of the project components within thegovemorate, according to the defined institutional framework. The accounting specialist in each CRDAswill serve as the regional focal point in accounting and disbursement fields including periodic transmissionof analytical sheets (transactions related to commitmnents and disbursements ) and copy of supportingdocuments to the PMU.

Accounting and reporting. The DGF has acquired experience in accounting and reporting for project withfinancing from extemnal donors through previous projects (mainly SFDP). The Financial and AccountingUnit (FAU) within DGF consists of five accounting and financial staff. DGFIOP is expected to provide anassistance in project accounting and reporting during the first year of implementation in order to help DGFto acquire the needed expertise in project financial management mainly through the use of the accountingand reporting software installed for WSEL and Agricultures Services Projects. To establish a soundfinancial management system, and an acceptable system for the accounting, monitoring and evaluation,each agency/technical department involved in the project will designate officially a coordinator responsible

- 53 -

for issuing sub-project accounts and sub-Financial Monitoring Reports.

Financial and accountine policies. These are reflected in the PIP and aim at ensuring transparency,providing clarity regarding financial aspects to the various stakeholders and finance staff, ensuringuniformity, and enforcing accountability. These policies inter-alia cover the following aspects: (i)expenditures which, would be treated as project expenditures including their classification; (ii)expenditures, which would be eligible for reimbursement from the grant funds; and (iii) accounting rulesand procedures.

Project Accountine System. The overall principles for project accounting are the following:

(i) Project accounting would cover all sources of project funds, and all utilization of project funds includingpaymnents made and expenditures incurred. All project-related transactions (whether involving cash or not)would be taken into accounts in the accounting and reporting system. Disbursements made by the WorldBank and the transaction proceeded through the Special Account maintained by BCT would also beincluded in the project accounting system. Counter part funds will be shown separately.

(ii) Project-related transactions and activities would be distinguished from other activities. This distinctionwould be reflected at the data-capture stage. An identifiable Trial Balance for the project capturing allprojects receipts, expenditures, and other payments under the project would be prepared. CRDA would beheld to transmit on a trimestriel basis, separate progress statements (spread sheets summarizingtransactions committed and /or disbursed) with copy of all supporting documents to the PMU. Aggregationof data would be the responsibility of PMU.

(iii) The Chart of Accounts for the project should conform to the classification of expenditures and sourcesof funds as indicated in the project documents (Project Implementation Plan, Project Appraisal Document,COSTAB) and the budget breakdown. The Chart of Accounts should allow data to be captured in a mannerto facilitate financial reporting of project expenditures by: (i) project components; (ii) expenditureallocation; and (iii) disbursement categories.

(iv) Reconciliation between the Project Financial Statements, Financial Monitoring Reports and the legalaccounting records (mainly ADAB, SIADE, approved financial statements for the independent entities)would be done at the level of DGF by the FAU.

The flow of funds will be as follows:

* Payments from state budget would be the responsibility of CRDA and DRE, at the regional level,and DGF and DGEQV at the central level. This consist of disbursement approval and payment through"Tr6sorerie G6n6rale" accounts and sub accounts.* Payments from GEF's funds through SOEs, would be processed exclusively at the central level.DGF would be held to review supporting documents and attest eligibility of expenditures beforetransmission of the documents to the Central Bank (SOEs and WA) and the Bank when direct payments arerequested. Request for replenishment would be the responsibility of BCT.* BCT would be responsible of payments from special accounts and issuing of monthly statementsand their transmission to PMU and the Bank

Intemal Controls. The procedures included in the PIP include the following internal control mechanisms:

(i) operation of a budgeting system, and regular monitoring of actual financial performance with

- 54 -

budgets and targets;

(ii) adoption and operation of simple, clear and tanwsparent financial and accounting policies whichwould govem financial management of and accounting for the project (as described earlier).

(iii) at the transaction level, establishment and operation of policies, procedures and systems forensuring standard internal controls such as checking of expenditures, appropriate documentation, levels ofauthorization, segregation of duties, periodic reconciliation, physical verification, easy access to supportingdocuments etc.;

(iv) BCT and MOF will provide the PMU on a monthly basis, with statement of accounts for bothSpecial account and grant account The financial and accounting specialists will do a monthlyreconciliation of balances and will ensure to explain any detected difference between accounting recordsand statements.

(v) establishment and operation of a comprehensive aggregation mechanism, including the issuing ofannual project financial statements and bi-annual Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR).

Financdal Management Reports

Financial Monitoring Reports for the project would be generated from the computerized financialmanagement system. These reports would be management-oriented (i.e., summaries rather thantransactional details) and would be used for the monitoring and implementation of the project. The FMRincludes the following tables:

* Summary of expenditures comnitted and disbursement by component* Summary of expenditures committed and disbursement by category* Summary of the procurement process and procedures* Summary of sources and uses of funds

Project Financial Statements to be submitted to the auditor would include (i) a statement of sources andutilization of funds or Balance Sheet, indicating funds received from GEF and from the state budget,project expenditures, and assets and liabilities of the project; (ii) schedules classifying project expendituresby components and expenditure categories; (iu) a Special Account Reconciliation Statement; and (iv) aStatement of Withdrawals made on the basis of Statements of Expenditure (SOEs).

Audit Afrangements

As an exception to the Bank requirements and guidelines, the accounts and financial statements of theproject would be audited by the"Contr8le General des Finances" (CGF), who would be the Project Auditor. The annual project financialstatements audited by CGF would besubmitted to the Bank within 6 months of the close of GOT's fiscal year.

The audit would be comprehensive and cover all aspects of the project (i.e., all sources and utilization offunds, and expenditures incurred). The audit will be carried out in accordance with International Standardson Auditing. Terms of Reference (TORs) for this assignment should cover an audit of financial transaction,

- 55 -

and an assessment of the financial management system, including review of internal control mechanisms.Each CRDA as well as structures at the central level would provide the auditor with access toproject-related documents and records, and information required for the purposes of the audit. The Auditorwould carry out a concurrent audit dunng the fiscal year, to bring to management's attention any issue,which needs to be addressed. This would strengthen intemal controls, and would also facilitate earlycompletion of the annual audit. The auditor will perform the audit according to: (i) the InternationalStandards of Auditing as issued by the International Federation of Accountants, (ii) Bank's Guidelines and(iii) specific Terms of Reference (TORs) acceptable to the Bank. The auditor will express a professionalopinion on the annual project financial statements, SOEs and SA transactions and will submit to the Bankan annual audit report within 6 months after the end of each government fiscal year

Disbursement Arraneements

Withdrawals from the proceeds of the GEF Trust Fund will be based on' the traditionaldisbursement methods of the Bank, using direct payments , requests for special commitments andreimbursement applications , either fully documented or using Statement of Expenditures (SOEs) as perapplicable procedures. As projected by Bank's standard disbursement profiles, disbursements would becompleted four months after project closure. Disbursements would be made against standard Bankdocumentation.

i) Special Account (SA): To facilitate disbursement of eligible expenditures for works , goods, servicesand training the Government will open a special account at the Central Bank to cover eligible projectexpenditures to be managed and administered by the Central Bank . Authorized allocation of the specialaccount would be US$ 350, 000 covering an estimated 4 months of eligible expenditures financed by theGrant. The Central Bank will be responsible for submitting, on behalf of the Project Management Unit(PMU) monthly replenishment applications with appropriate supporting documentation for expendituresincurred and will retain and make the documents available for review by Bank supervision missions andproject auditors. To the extent possible, all eligible project expenditures should be paid through the specialaccount . Specifically all eligible project expenditures of less than US$ 50,000 equivalent shall be paidfrom the SA.

The Special Account will be replenished through the submission of Withdrawal Applications on amonthly basis and will include reconciled bank statements and other documents as my be required

Ii) Use of Statement of Expenditure (SOEs): All applications to withdraw proceeds from the grant will befully documented, except for: (i) expenditures of contracts with an estimated value of US$ 500,000 each orless for works, iii) expenditures of contracts with an estimated value of US$ 400,000 each or less for goods, iii) US$ 100,000 or less for consulting firms and (iii) US$ 50,000 or less for individual consultants andtraining , which may be claimed on the basis of Statements of Expenditures (SOEs). Documentationsupporting expenditures claimed against SOEs will be retained by the PMU and will be available forreview when requested by Bank supervision missions and project auditors. All disbursements will besubject to the conditions of the grant Agreement and the procedures defined in the Disbursement Letter.

- 56 -

Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

iP'roJ. Sdhe6ule Plannd ITime taken to prepare the project (months) 18 32First Bank mission (identification) 10/01/1998 10/01/1998Appraisal mission departure 02/18/2002 02/25/2002Negotiations 04/15/2002Panned Date of Effectiveness 09/02/2001

Prepared by:

M'inistry of Environment and Landuse Planning and M'inistry of Agriculture with input from the WorldBank

Preparatlon assistance:

GEF Preparation Grant (PDF- Block B)

Bank staff who worked on the project Included:

Name SpecialityShobha Shetty, MNSRE Economics/InstitutionsConcepcion del Casfillo, MNSRE SociologyJean-Michel Pavy, AFTES Natumal Resources ManagementSamnia Msadek, MNSRE Financial ManagementMaurice Gress, MNACS ProcurementNadia Gouhier, MNSRE ProcurementSusan Shen, EASES Peer reviewer -EcologyRobert Kirmse, LCSEN Peer reviewer - protected areas mnanagementHernan Torres, GEF -STAP Peer reviewer - external (GEF)Dominique Bichara, LEGMN LegalHovsep Melkonian, LOAGI DisbursementMarie-Francoise How Yew Kin, Team AssistantMNSRESalah Darghouth, MNSRE Sector Manager, Water and EnvironmentPetros Aklilu, MNSRE Sector Manager, Rural DevelopmentRene Cipriani Integrator/Project Management

- 57 -

Annex 8: Documents In the Project File*TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

A. Project Implementation Plan

Draft Procurement Plan (1st year) February 2002.PIP.

B. Bank Staff Assessments

PCD March 28, 2001Pre-appraisal mission: BTO dated December 3, 2001Technical report on ecotourism dated November 27, 2001Appraisal mission aide-memoire and BTO: March 18, 2002

C. Other

Consultant diagnostic reports on the three parks; research; taining; GIS; dossier dexecution. ProcessFramework (O.P 4.12)*Including electronic files

- 58 -

Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT07-Nov-2001

Drmno ben epecnedand au

Orgnsl Amount In US$ MlkIns disbusements

Pmoje ID FY Prposae IBRD IDA GEF Canoel. Undlsb. Orig Ffn RevdP0o40c2 2001 TRANSPORTSECTORDVESTENrPROJECT 37. 00 0o00 0.00 38.11 S73 0.00P048625 2C01 TN-CULTURAL HERITAGE 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.11 0.00 0.0POOS70 2001 TNAGRIC. SUPPORT SVCS 21.33 o0oo 0.00 .00 21.84 0.67 0.00P050945 20DC T.EAcduanPAQSETI 99.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.01 0.18 0.00P035707 2000 NWATER SECTOR INVESTMENT PROJECT 10o. 0.00 0.00 0.0 10006 -2.08 0.00Po05814 1999 TN-EXPORT DEVELOPMENT 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.58 13.10 0.00P0437C0 1998 TRANSPORT SECTOR INV 50.00 0.00 0.00 oo 18.81 24M 0.00POSD418 1998 TNAS0L2 42.00 0.00 0.00 o.o0 5869 9.78 0.00P00874s 1998 TN-HEALTH SECTOR LOAN 50.00 0.00 0.00 00oo 25.86 23.90 0.00P005741 1M8 HIGHER EDUCG II 80D.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 50.10 31.04 0.00PO46832 1997 MUNICIPAL DEV. U 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.T7 7.81 0.00P005731 1997 TN-GREATER TUNIS SEWERAGE 000 00o 0.00 0.0o 39.79 22.32 o.0oP00573s 1997 NATURAL RESOURCE MGM 28.0 o0 0oo 0.00 14.00 14.10 0.00P006745 1996 2NDEUPL &TRa 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.6 21S4 3.54P04 8 1998 TN4NDUSTRY SUPPORTINSTUTIOnON 38.70 0.0 0.00 6.32 16.80 28.03 0.00P006749 1995 RURAL ROADS 81.60 0.00 0.oo 0.00 1.01 0.71 0.00P005743 1995 SECONDARY EDUCATION 98.30 0.0 0.00 0.00 9.92 17.37 17.37PO05M9 1995 SOLAR WATER HEATNG 00 0.00 4.00 0.00 1.42 -122 0.00PO68O 1995 TN-WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE 58.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.24 11.91 0.00P005728 1992 HIGHER EDUCATION 75.00 0.00 00oo 0.00 18.79 22.19 22.19

Total: 1082.l 3 0.00 4.00 8.32 542.03 247.41 43.10

-59-

TUNISIASTATEMENT OF IFC's

Held and Disbursed PortfolioMAY-2001

In Millions US Dollars

Committed DlsbursedIFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity _Quasi Partic1998/00 BLAT 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.001995 Maghreb IN5 Bank 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.001986/92/98 SrTEX 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.001973/75 Sousse-Nord 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.001998 Tuninvest 0.00 4.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.59 0.00 0.00

Total Portfolio: 0.00 6.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.57 0.00 0.00

Approvals Pending CommitmentFY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic

Tota Pending Commintment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

- 60 -

Annex 10: Country at a GlanceTUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

M. East Lower-POVERTY and SOCIAL a North middle-

Tunisia Africa Income Development dlamrnd2000Population. mid-year (millions) 9.6 296 2,046 Ltfe expectancyGNI per capita (Attas method, US$) 2,090 2,040 1,140GNI (AMsa method. USS btIlIns) 20 1 602 2.327

Averags annual growth, 1994-00

Population I16) 1.4 2.0 .0Labor force ( 2.5 2 8 1.3 GNI - Gross

sto trecentestimate (latest year available, 199400) cpe , e primary

Poverty (IX of population below national poverty line) 8Urban oopulation (X of total populaton) 66 59 42Ltfe expectancy at birth (Years) 73 e6 69Infant mortalitv (Per 1,000 Omv births) 24 44 32Child malnutrition (X of children under S) 9 I, 1I Access to Improved water sourceAccess to an Improved water source I(1 ofpopulaton) .. 89 80lliitracy (1 of population age 15+) 29 35 15Gross primary enrotment (%of school-age population) 116 95 114 Tunlsla

Male 122 102 116 Lower-middle-4ncome groupFemale 114 88 114

KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS1980 1990 1999 2000

Economic ratios'GDP (USS billions) 8.7 12.3 21.0 19.5Gross domestic lnvestmenttGDP 29.4 32.5 26.8 27.4Exports of aoods and services/GDP 40.2 43.6 42.2 44.0 TradeGross domestic sevinas/GDP 24.0 25.5 24.6 23.9Gross national savinas/GDP 27.1 24.6 23.5

Current account balance/GDP -4.3 -5.5 -2.1 -4.2 Domestic InvestmentInterest paymentslGDP 2.6 3.2 2.4 3.1 +aIngsTotal debt/GDP 40.3 62.4 56.6 545 savingsTotal debt servicalexports 13.9 24 1 16.1 20 2Present value of debt/GDP 56.2Present value of debtexpotts 121.0

Indebtedness19S0-90 199040 19t9 2000 2000-04

(average annual growth)GDP 3.3 4.7 6.1 4.7 6.2 7unlsisGDP per caglta 0.8 3.0 47 3.4 4.8 Lower-middle-income groupExports of goods and services 5.6 5.1 4.7 6.6 5.7

STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY1980 1990 1999 2000 Growth of Investment and GDP (%)

(IX of GDP)Aariculture 14.1 15.7 12.9 12.3 3 Industr 31.1 29.8 28.0 28.8 -

Manufacturing 11.8 16.9 17.9 18.2 'Services 54.8 54.5 59.0 58.9 10 5 so 97 e 9a9 00

Private consumption 61.5 58.2 59.9 60.5 aoGeneral govemment consumption 14.5 16.4 15.5 15.7 -Gt iImports of goods and sorvices 45.6 50.6 44.4 47.6 6 0

1960-90 1990-00 1999 2000 Growth of exports wnd Imports (I%)(average annual growth)Aaricuiture 2.8 2.4 11.6 -1.0 1sIndustry 3.1 4.6 6.1 5.2 lo _

Manufacturina 3.7 5.5 6.2 6.2 IServices 3.5 5.3 5.7 5.3

Private consumption 2.9 4.3 5.8 5.2 Os 97 s 99 00General government consumption 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.7 4Gross domestic Investment -1.8 3.6 4.8 1 aE-o-s :ImportsImports of goods and services 1.7 3.8 3.0 96 f

Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.

The diamonds show four key Indicators In the countrV (in bold) compared with Its Income-aroup average, If data are missina, the diamond willbe Incomple.

- 61 -

Tunisia

PRICES and GOVERNMENT FNANCE198 1990 1f 2000 Infltoon (%)

DomoSdcprke(% change) *Consumer prices . 6.6 2.7 2.9 tImplicIt GDP deflator 12.8 4.5 3.8 2.4 4

Govemnment flnan (6 ofGDP, lndudtes cutm3ntgrants) O.. | z Current revenue 28.7 26.4 29.2 29.0 a5 es 57 es a9Current budget balance 8.8 2.3 4.5 4.9 G SP d Wlater *CPIOverall surplus/deficit 0 9 -4 6 -2.2 -2.9

TRADE11980 1990 199 2000 EXPDrt w nd m t level (US$ mlD.)

(US$ mlbons)Total exports (fbb) 2,395 3,517 5,873 5,840 0.000

Fuel 1,347 607 420 651AwriutLbre as 398 667 470 ? .*1Manufactures 905 1,995 4,058 4,005

Total Imports (cIf) 3.623 5,525 8,481 8,564 *-Food 388 SW 557 538 2^0

Fuel and energy 799 487 541 827Capital goods 742 1,235 2, 2099

Export proe index (1995=100) .. 77 122 ..Import pife Indtx (1995=100) .. 86 118 .. KExpot *ImpcrtBTerrmsoftrade(1995100) 90 103

BALANCE o PAYMENTS1980 1i990 19i9 200 Current account balance to GOP %)

(US$ -Dons)Exports of goods and services 3,517 5.191 8,793 8,608 0Imports of goods and seIes 3,986 5.988 8,248 9.311Resource balance 469 -795 -455 -705

Net income -293 -497 -890 -941 I I 1-1- - 1Net currnt transtfen 390 613 902 825

Currnt acoount balance -373 -679 -443 -821

FInandng items (net) 438 596 1,132 578Changes nnet nrserves 45 83 -690 243

Memo:Reserves induding gold (US$ millros) 599 804 2,272 1,760Conversion rate (DEC, loweIUS$) 0.4 09 1.2 1.4

EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS1980 1990 1999 2000

(US$ millions) CompaistIon of 2000 dabt (US mill.)Total debt outstanding and disbused 3,527 7,690 11.872 10,610

IBRD 269 1,346 1,323 1.211 G0o" A: 1211IDA 68 59 41 39 -B39

TotEd debt service 544 1,431 1,565 1,921 c: 32IBRD 37 214 269 229IDA 1 2 2 2

Compositlon of net resource flons F:3 T D:2,183Offidal grants 26 174 73 3Offidal creditors 251 342 121 0Private creditofs 102 -197 369 214 1'Foreign clrect Investment 236 185 337 731Portfolio equity 0 0 0 0 E:2,590

World Bank pogramCommItnents 171 29 194 202 A - lRD E -BsarslDlsbwb ements 52 213 210 136 B- IDA D Other miutllateral F -PrvatPrlndpalrepayments 15 112 168 152 C-I10 G-ShctmmNotflows 37 100 42 -17Interest payments 23 104 103 80Net transfer 14 -3 42 -96

Development Economics 9117101

-62 -

AdditionalAnnex 11

STAP Review and Response:

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Reviewer: Hernin Torres

1. Assessment of the scientific and technical soundness of the project.

The scientific value of the proposed project is based on the fact that the three national parks wereselected on the basis of their importance to the regional and global biological diversity. Each of theecological regions represented by the three national parks is distinct and will present different challengesto its effective management

Technically, the project is well structured to achieve the main goal intended, which is: To improve themanagement and protection of the selected national parks for the purpose of conserving biologicaldiversity of global importance.

To reach this goal the project is organized in three components well articulated among each other. Theircontents should allow the achievement of the desired goal if the project is implemented appropriately.

From a conceptual point of view, the project proposes an important tool which is the participation oflocal communities in the management of the national parks by establishing local DevelopmentCommittees. In addition to this, the project will look for appropriate technical approaches, institutionalframeworks and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

It was decided to limit the number of national parks to three in order to keep the project size manageableby the existing institutional capacity. This is extremely important, considering that this is the Tunisia'sfirst major protected areas management project.

2. Identification of the global benefits of the project.

The important biological diversity protected in the three selected Tunisian national parks is well known.Bouhedma and Jbil National Parks are important priorities under the Bonn Convention on MigratorySpecies of Wild Animals. Ichkeul National Park is listed as World Heritage Site under the Conventionon World Heritage and as Ramsar Site under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The UNESCO'sMan and the Biosphere Program recognizes Ichkeul National Park and Bouhedam as BiosphereReserves.

* Bouhedma National Park protects an important habitat for rare artiodactyls such as the DorcasGazelle (Gazelle dorcas) and the Oryx (Oryx dammah). The national park also protects 8 of the 14endemic plant species of the country.* Jbil National Park protects unique Saharan ecosystems and intemationally important biologicaldiversity, some of which is found only in Tunisia. The national park protects a globally importantantelope species such as the Slender-Homed Gazelle (Gazella leptoceros) and a unique plant species

- 63 -

(Calligonum) which attain several meters in height* Ickeul National Park is recognized as one of the four major wetland areas in the western basin ofthe Mediterranean. The other three are Dofiana National Park in Spain, the Camargue in SouthernFrance and the El Kala region in Algeria. The national park is a critical habitat for the globallythreatened Marbled Duck (Anas angustirostris) and the White-Headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala).

Both Bouhedma and Jbil national parks also have potential to be re-populated with species from otherparts of the Sahelo-Saharan region. An important fact considering that recently the Government ofTunisia has worked to re-introduce extirpated antelope species in the country. This is part of an overaUllaction plan which the governments of several Sahelo-Saharan countries, together with specialists fromthe World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Wild Fund for Nature and local groups have worked outunder the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals to reestablish viable populations ofsix antelope species in a large area.

Therefore, the successful implementation of the project in the selected national parks is globallysignificant and the World Bank/GEF support is justified for the folowing reasons:

* It will strengthen the conservation of critical Saharan and wetland habitats;

* It will develop incentives to naintain these protected areas in the long term;

* It wil establish capacity to ensure adequate management of these protected areas in the long term;

* It will promote community participation in the management of the national parks selected; and

* It wiUl establish links and colaboration with neighboring countries.

3. Evaluation of the project compliance with GEF objectives, operational strategy andguidance in blodiversity focal areas.

The project wilU strengthen the management of key national parks in Tunisia with increased participationof local communities for the purpose of conserving biological diversity of global importance. Thiscoincides with the GEF Operational Strategy in terms of biological diversity conservation and with theoperational progrms N° 1: Arid and Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems and N° 2: Coastal, Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems.

4. Assessment of the project's significance and potential benefits.

The project is significant because it will increase and improve the existing protected areas managementcapacity with new skiUls needed to manage and conserve important biological diversity.

The improvement of the existing management capacity will be achieved by implementing the folowingcomponents:

* Capacitv building and Institutional Strengthening. This component includes training programs,establishment of a national database on biodiversity and strengthening the ability to monitor changes inbiodiversity, studies on institutional issues including environmental legislation and additional fundingmechanisms for protected areas.

- 64 -

* Protected areas management. This component includes the application of new skiUs in planningand management of protected areas, sustainable resource management, alternative livelihoodmechanisms and ecotourism strategy.* Public awareness and education. This component includes the development of an awareness andeducation strategy by using mass media, formal and informal education mechanisms, and by developinglinks with local non-governmental groups, schools, tourism agencies, and other organizations to promotepublic understanding about biological diversity resources.

The imnplementation of these components is an adequate way to conserve critical habitats and to enhancethe probability of their long term conservation. It will also make possible to establish effectivemanagement capacity, develop incentives to maintain protected areas in the long-term and to introducethe community participation as a new protected area management approach.

5. Potential replicability of the project to other sites.

The inclusion of multiple stakeholders participation in the management of protected areas byestablishing Development Committees is an experience that can be replicated in other areas of thecountry and in the region as weUl. At the same time the management approaches to be applied such asprotected areas planning and management including site interpretation, awareness raising activities,research and monitoring will certainly serve as models to be replicated in the other five protected areasof Tunisia.

Morocco has proposed the establishment of BasDraa National Park which has a similar ecosystem asthat of Jbil National Park The experience gained in Jbil can be replicated in BasDraa, due the fact thatthey face the same management challenges.

6. Estimation of the project's sustainability in institutional, financial and technical terms.

The description of the project indicates that it wiU be institutionaUy, financially and technicalysustainable. An interministerial Steering Commitee with representatives from the Ministry of Finance,the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Environment and LandUse Planning, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of International Cooperation wiUl be formedto provide oversight during project implementation.

The Steering Committee will be retained during project implementation and will be responsible forproviding project oversight advice and assistance in resolving issues associated with projectimplementation.At the national level the Directorate General of Forestry (DGF) wiU assume the responsibility forproject's management during its execution phase. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will beestablished and will have the responsibility for coordination, management, and monitoring andevaluation of the project's development

At the regional level, the PMT wiU coordinate the project activities through local institutions and thenational park conservator who wiU be selected in agreement with local institutions will be thecoordinator of management activities including guard services, community outreach, and monitoringactivities. Local communities wil participate in the project's implementation through the formation ofDevelopment Committees and a Forestry Association in the case of Ichkeul National Park.

-65 -

The experience gained in this project, in terms of financial mechanisms and management approaches,will provide the basis for mainstreaming these factors in the broader government strategy for nationalparks management.

7. Extent to which the project will contribute to the improved definition and Implementationof the GEF strategies and policies.

The project is an important attempt in the strengthening of protected areas management as a means toachieve the conservation of biological diversity in Tunisia. This is an important strategy in theimplementation of the GEF policies.

The project will be the first World Bank/GEF experience in the country and will certainly contribute toincrease awareness and global support for the management of Tunisia's protected areas. In addition tothis, the project has been developed in close consultation with the UNDP/GEF, which at present isworking with the Government of Tunisia in an alterative livelihood project in Feija National Park.UNDP/GEF is also preparing a project on marine protected areas which has been coordinated with thisinitiative.

Other World Bank/GEF biodiversity conservation projects in the region (Morocco and Jordan) will offeropportunities to exchange experiences in terms of biodiversity monitoring and evaluation, review, andscientific oversight

8. Linkages to other focal areas.

The proposed project is also linked to the operational programs N° 1: Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystemsand N° 2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. The project design and implementation is meantto support natural habitat conservation and is aimed at integrating the conservation of natural habitatsand the maintenance of ecological function into national and regional development. The project alsopromotes the restoration of degraded natural habitats.

In addition to this, the project will serve as important tool for Tunisia's response to intemationalconventions such as Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Bonn Convention on MigratorySpecies of Wild Animals, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The National BiodiversityStrategy, already prepared, will be greatly enhanced by this project

9. Degree of Involvement of relevant stakeholders in the project.

The project concept and its components have been prepared with a participatory approach. This activeparticipation of multiple stakeholders will continue during implementation of the proposed activitiesthrough the Steering Committee and the formation of Development Committees and a ForeshyAssociation in the case of Ichkeul National Park.

In addition to this, the project will build mechanisms and capacity to assist local stakeholders -inparticular the local communities dependent on the resources of the national parks, local governments,and non-governmental organizations- to participate in the preparation and implementation ofmanagement plans. The effective management of the selected national parks will benefit poor ruralcommunities and local economies adjacent to the national parks through stimulation of ecotourism aswell as activities based on the sustainable management of natural resources of the national parks.

-66 -

10. Role, potential and importance of capacity building elements and Innovativeness of theproject.

The project will establish operating models to improve protected area management and buildmanagement capacity at the local level in order to replicate this experience and mainstream biologicaldiversity conservation in other national protected areas and natural resources management projects.

The participation of multiple stakeholders in the management of protected areas by establishingDevelopment Committees is the main innovativeness of the project The public awareness action will befocused on the local communities in and around the national parks and the local govermments in order todevelop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain a participatory approach to national parksmanagement

11. Comments on evaluation and monitoring.

The evaluation of project performance will be based on the following general indicators:

Stabilization or improvement of demographic status of key bio-indicators specific to each nationalpark (vegetative cover and distribution; local aninal/bird populations)* Reduction in adverse impacts of resource use (grazing, forest products, etc.) on the biologicaldiversity of the national parks.* Development and implementation of management plans with the active participation of localcommunities including additional financing mechanisms, database on biodiversity and number offamilies participating in alternative livelihood projects.

This evaluation scheme seems appropriate to measure the progress in the implementation of the projecton the ground. To take advantage of this approach could be useful to prepare and implement a specificand simple monitoring mechanism in order to allow the personnel to know when and what to measure, totake maximum advantage of patrols, and to guarantee a systematic data collection. The design shouldinclude the selection of indicators to evaluate communities, animal and plant populations and otherprocesses identified as priority within the national parks.

The design would consider the evaluation of monitoring activities and the suitability of indicators, inorder to make improvements in the mechanism. The following monitoring guidelines may be considered:

* Clima*c monitoring:In certain cases, the lack of climatic information of national parks makes it difficult carry outmanagement activities, therefore there is a need to install meteorological stations and tocomplement those already existing and the current data processing, if any.

* Monitoring offauna andflora populatons:The objective is to make a record of specific populations important for conservation, based onthe abundance and biology of some species. This work should be carried out mainly by thenational park personnel and should be concentrated on key species. However, there will be aneed for support from specialized personnel.

* Monitoring of human actvites:A follow up of human activities including the local communities' use of resources and tourismactivities should be carried out to prevent and to control their environmental impact, based onthe appropriate indicators.

-67 -

Monitoring of ecosystems and sensitive sites:A monitoring of ecosystems and sites defined by zoning, fragility and ecological importanceshould be designed. This is important considering issues such as the evidence of climaticchanges and of the expansion of deserts that are more important in the dry regions. In the caseof this project, it seems necessary to carry out monitoring activities to learn the dynamics ofwater resources and their influence on biological diversity.

Response to STAP Review:

It is encouraging to note that the STAP review is, in general, extremely positive. The projectteam is fully in agreement with the guidance proposed by the STAP reviewer regarding themonitoring aspects. The M&E system presented in Annex 1 has been revised appropriately.Climatic monitoring has also been included in the indicators. The overall M&E will be furtherstrengthened during project appraisal.

-68 -

AdditionalAnnex 12

Social Assessment

TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECTIntroduction

This annex highlights the issues that were raised by the social analyses conducted for the preparation of theProtected Areas project by a joint team of BRL and GEOIDD. Each of the three proposed protected areaspresents a unique social configuration as well as an ecological set of problems and challenges. Because ofthis, the analyses were conducted with the joint participation of a sociologist and technical teams to respondin a holistic manner to the unique challenges posed by each area.

The fimdamental premise underlying the design of this project is that unless communities form an integmlpart of the protected area management and are committed to the protection of the parks' biodiversity, anyinitiative that is highly centralized and controlled will be doomed to failure. As such, this project presents akey departure from other protected area projects in two fundamental ways: (i) it recognizes that theproposed areas are not pristine and untouched, but are still highly significant in terms of biodiversityconservation, but (ii) where human habitation has left its mark and will continue to do so while preservingbiodiversity. By such recognition and through a participatory approach, this project seeks to successfullymainstream the spirit and procedures of biodiversity conservation while working in partnership with thecommunities in and around the parks to ensure that the natural resources on which many householdsdepend, are not totally restricted but are used in a sustainable manner. A Process Framework forCommunity Participation has been prepared by the Tunisian MEAT and accepted by the Bank incompliance with OP 4.12 This framework will be the guide to ensure that the communities of beneficiarieshave an active role in the preparation of the Park Management Plans

Common Social Issues in the Three Parks

Root Causes of Biodiversitv Loss. The social assessments identified the root causes of biodiversity lossfrom the ecosystenic and socio-economic perspectives. The two are linked because the increasingpopulation pressure on the natural resources has exacerbated biodiversity loss and soil erosion primarilythrough overgrazing, and fuel and fodder collection. There are altematives to the way in which theseresources are used, but finding alternatives requires an in-depth understanding of how and why the currentpopulations came to use these areas in the first place.

Human Pressure. In the central and southern part of Tunisia, the population was primarily nomadic untilafter the Second World War. There had been a gradual process of sedentarization, but by and large, inthese sections of the country the population remained mobile, with land use governed by well knowncustomary laws, accompanied by a deep understanding of the links between environment and people, and acultural tradition that continues to be rooted in the conception of desert and humans as a single entity.Meanwhile, in the North, the population was agrarian and suffered the most because of loss of lands tocolonial settlers.

Historically, the process of sedentarization of what was once a nomadic population (Jbil and Bou Hedma)resulted in dramatic changes in land use. Areas which were once used seasonally as nmgeland or grazingland by nomads or trnshumants began to be used year round on a regular basis. This land whose use for

-69 -

agriculture is inappropriate and marginal, began to suffer from the encroachment of agriculture to feed apopulation year round. This process has led not only to a deterioration of the resource base and loss ofbiodiversity, but also to a disturbing cycle of gradual but deepening impoverishment of the population.

Leeal Frameworks. The Tunisian laws governing land tenure and land use (notably the Forestry Code)which were established after Independence (1956), affect the populations of the parks directly. Oncegovemed by customary laws, that were themselves rooted in tribal social forms of organization, thepopulation's traditional land use began to fracture under the French Protectorate. In the highly productiveagricultural areas of the country (north and Sahel region) where land had always been a prized commodity,the impact of colonial establishment had already been felt, and impoverished segments of tribes had beendisplaced to m^ore marginal, mountainous, and less favorable resource areas. However, the Frenchmaintained and accepted the existence of habous (religious trust lands) as well as the collective lands undertribal customary tenure. Because of this the people's production system and land use continued withrelatively few changes. The abolition of the habous and the collective lands after Independence had differenteffects in various parts of the country. In those areas that had already been touched by colonization, it ledto a scramble to privatize what had once been common resources. However, in the central and southemparts of the country, the new legislation had a severe impact because it in fact separated the socialorganization and mode of production of the people from their land. This gave rise to contentious landclaims that still persist today.

The fact is that the legislation is one step removed from the reality of daily life of the people that, to a largeextent, still rely on their traditions, organizational forms and beliefs as a way of goveming their lives.National legislation is only felt in case of conflicts with the law.

This reality is one that is central to the project because the main challenge will be to work for biodiversityconservation, with community participation, while the existing legislation still maintains an outdated andcontrolling approach to the management of natural resources.

Poverty. Finally, the unfortunate pervasive common problem to all three parks is the growing povertyamong the residents within and in the areas surrounding the parks. Because of the combination of factorsoutlined above: restriction of exploitable space, and declining resources in light of a growing population,the main stakeholders of the park space are those that traditionally have received the fewest benefits. Thepoverty constitutes the main obstacle to the conservation of biodiversity, because without adequatealternatives for livelihoods the people cannot do other than to continue over exploiting the resources withinthe park boundaries (which have also been for the most part arbitrarily drawn). The approach developedfor this project is pragmatic in that it assumes that unless this issue of poverty is addressed, and theimplementation of the project recognizes the right of the people to exist and persist apace with thebiodiversity that is being conserved, the project will fail in the long term. This pilot is unique in that it isTunisia's first GEF-funded project, and because it is participatory as well as realistic. Challenges willpersist, but the design that has been put in place is the best that can be entertained at this time.

Ichkeul National Park

The area covered by the park has been considered a unique site since the XIII century. In modem times,different areas of the park came under various jurisdictions: the lake under one agency, the mountain andsurrounding areas under the Domaine Publique, and later (1974) the marsh area of Ichkeul under thejurisdiction of the Departement General des Forets (DGF). The National Park was formed by decree in1980 and under the tutelage of the DGF, which continued to pursue the management philosophy ofestablishing enclosures and forbidding access to the natural resources under their jurisdiction. The park is

- 70 -

an extremely high-profile site being on the World Heritage list as well as being a Ramsar site and Man andBiosphere site.

The park currently is subdivided into three distinct areas: the mountain, the marsh, and the lake, each witha different set of rules and development objectives. The mountain and marsh have rules oriented primarilyto the conservation of natural resources, while the lake has been the subject of economic exploitation andconcomitant protection of the fishing interests. There is intensive farming and livestock raising in the areasimmediately outside the park boundaries.

The ancestors of the current inhabitants of Ichkeul came from the surrounding areas of Sejnane andJoumine and were primarily subsistence farmers and livestock raisers. There were also fishermen thatsubsisted on fishing from the lake with traditional methods. The employment picture changed when themarble quarries opened in the mid-twentieth century, creating an employment growth pole in the midst ofthe Ichkeul natural region. This encouraged the settlement in the park of the poorest families in theGouvemorat of Bizerte that came to be employed in the quarries. According to the preparatory studies, in1991 there were 130 households and 700 inhabitants. Many of these employees were left in Ichkeul whenthe quarries closed in 1993, but because, inter alia, of the restrictions imposed on the use of parkresources, these numbers have declined to about 65 households and about 320 people (in 2001). Themajority of these people live in several small settlements at the southern foot of Ichkeul Mountain, and theycontinue to have rights to live in their traditional homes for the moment, with the tacit understanding thatunder current rules of the DGF the households will slowly disappear as the population ages and there areno available sources of livelihood.

This situation makes for a very impoverished population of primarily day laborers (42 out of 62) receivingan income from either the fishing (two households under the current concessionaire) or employees of thepark (30 positions total of which 15 are generaUy given to the people living within Ichkeul) that areirregular, and opt for the daily wage of 3.5 Dinars a day for an average monthly income of 80 DT a monthwhereas the minimum salary is 200DT. These '¶hadhira" (The term from the Arabic al haadr meansworkers on a site, typically associated with a construction site, but the workers are paid under the RegionalPrograms of Fight Against Poverty as a safety net against total unemployment and destitution, administeredby the municipalities. There are three categories: unskilled, Baccalaureat, and Bac + 2 with the highest paidbeing the latter at minimum salary levels) employees accept this wage because of the lack of alternativeemployment in the immediate area. The households in Ichkeul self-estimated their revenues by category ofemployment as follows: the "hadhira" employees have an average annual income of 1,000 DT; theemployees of the quarries and other surrounding construction sites have an annual average income of 3,700DT; the households with high number of livestock have the highest income levels, averaging about 10,000DT a year including livestock sales and sharecropping. The annual average income of the families withinthe park is about 5400 DT (- U.S$3900) but this masks important disparities. About half of the familieshave a total annual income of less than 1000 DT (- U.S$700) and less than 5% of the population have atotal annual income more than 45,000 DT (- $U.S32,000).

The social assessment data show that livestock raising is one source of subsistence as well as savings forsome of the inhabitants of Ichkeul. However, it should be highlighted that these people are not livestockraisers by tradition as is the case in many other areas of the country. Today, livestock raising for thepeople of Ichkeul and the immediate surrounding area constitutes a coping device and strategy for survival.The distribution of livestock shows this clearly. Livestock is distributed unevenly. The cattle within thepark belongs to an indigenous race, which occupy primarily the mountain zone and run wild. There areonly 36 families out of a total of 65 that actually have cattle, most households average about 8.5 head, andonly one owner has more than 200. In other words, a single owner can use the resources that 25

- 71 -

households could have with 8 head of cattle a piece. This creates a source of pressure for the poorinhabitants to apply the rules of access more equitably since there is currently unequal use and access toresources. Over half of the households in Ichkeul do not own and sheep, and only one household has over200 head. The average per household is 20 sheep. However, these are used as a source of subsistence, andfour households actively raise sheep for the market as well as take in sheep from external households toraise them within the park boundaries which is another source of friction between the households within thepark boundaries. Goats are raised almost exclusively for subsistence and not often sold. Almost all thehouseholds have some chickens used for subsistence, but there is a high mortality rate since there are noveterinary services available and vaccination is not commonly practiced.

This combination of unequal access and use of available resources, and lack of alternative sources ofemployment, has been an important issue raised by the inhabitants of Ichkeul who see that their joint effortto participate in the management of the park and its resources will improve their lot and make the rulestransparent and applicable to all. The remaining households with the park boundaries reflect that theyconstitute the "last bastion" of a rapidly dwindling population and way of life, but all recognize that theexisting inequalities are the critical problems leading to degradation of resources, in the mountain andmarsh areas but also the water quality of the lake.

In spite, or perhaps because of, the impoverished condition of the inhabitants of Ichkeul there is a strongfeeling of solidarity among them and this has contributed to many community initiatives and attempts tocall the attention of government to improve their quality of life and to regulaize their rights to continue tolive within the park boundaries. However, part of the problem arises because the institutional actorsinvolved in Ichkeul have no coordination, and this has resulted in contradictory or piecemeal actions. Forthe most part, the government agencies have not focused on the human development aspects of parkmanagement, but rather the biological and ecological elements. Similarly, the NGOs that have beeninvolved have no clear strategy, and their actions are sporadic and uncoordinated.

The analysis of the constraints posed by the creation of the park without consultation of the affectedpopulation and the rapid deterioration of natural resources point to the need to come to a rapid dialoguebetween the agencies and the concemed population. The perception of the community that they are theguardians of the lake and the mountain and they are at one with their environment is an important elementto consider in this dialogue.

There is a need to produce viable solutions including recommendations for negotiations with the populationof Ichkeul that will improve and restore the natural resources of the park yet pennit the impoverishedinhabitants to improve their economic and social situation. Many solutions have been proposed by theaffected people to reduce the charge on grazing and limit the numbers of all livestock. During thecommunity consultations, a Comite de developpement (CD) was created representing differentstakeholders. This group is a grass roots organization with virtual universal adherence on the part of thecommunity, that at the time of pre-appraisal was in the last stages of being formalized, and will besubsequently acting as an AFIC. In it, the participants already have a substantial number of issues to beresolved and ideas about training and improving their capacity to assist in the park management Therecommendation of the preparation studies is that such groups be legitimized and established asrepresentatives of the local stakeholders under the NGO law of 1988-93 in order to maintain theirautonomy conceming the development activities that they can undertake so that they can participate in themanagement of natural resources while also undertaking other actions external to the park in thesurrounding areas to promote altemative livelihoods. The specific areas of intervention of the CD and theAFIC(s) will have to be defined further as the organization evolves, but it is thought that they ought topromote and initiate the management of the high marsh areas. A team of two community development

- 72 -

facilitators (animateurs) will be recruited under the project to work with the CD. They will be closelyinvolved in the training of the CD members for park management as well as activities that have beenidentified, including the rehabilitation of the hammams (public baths), electrification, improvement in theraising of poultry and rabbits, as well as initial ecotourism activities and products. The communityconsultations also showed that there is a potential role for NGOs like the local WWF and the Associationfor the development of Ichkeul to be involved closely with the CDs.

The pre-appraisal and appmisal missions made specific suggestions for the continued organizationaldevelopment of the CD and training assistance to be given in the interin time until the project is initiated.This is planned to be initiated during the month of May 2002.

Bou Hedma National Park

The natural area of the region between Gafsa and Gabes was traditionally a formation of Accaciaraddiana. The degradation of this environment began as a result of the sedentarization of the populationwhich was, until the first quarter of the twentieth century, transhunant and nomadic. The informationgathered during the social assessment shows is incomplete and somewhat contradictory, hence this is oneissue that has to be clarified during project implementation. The existing information shows that thenational park was created in order to save this environment in 1936 but it was never delimited. At that timethe inhabitants used the lands within the national park "boundaries" on habous lands to which they kepttheir rights. However, when the Tunisian State abolished collective and habous lands in the 1960s, onlysome of the people claimed their rights to those lands as individuals, but the recognition of the title wasdenied by legal intervention in 1961, and continues to this date. Their occupation is precarious and illegal,but nonetheless the local people contest this and thus the clearings within the park boundaries that existedalready in 1936 continue to exist now.

The area that is now the park was subject to more pressure when during World War II Libyan tribesrelated to the local ones in the area settled in Bou Hedma fleeing the Italian occupation. During the periodof 1950 through the 1970s different efforts took place to replant the Acacia and to improve thedeteriorating natural vegetative cover. Bou Hedma was integrated into the intemational network ofBiosphere Reserves in 1977. Finally the park assumed its current configuration in 1980 when it officiallywas designated a national park by decree and thus placed under the tutelage of the Direction G6nerale desForets.

The park has two zones of "temporary occupation" localized in the Communes of Bou Hedma and Haddej,with approximately 320 households and a total population of 2,400. This population contests the legalstatus conferred on the clearing classified as "zones of temporary occupation", which in effect blocks thepossibility for regularizing and clearing the titles to occupancy. Many households were displaced from thetime of the creation of the park through the early 1990s in order to create the core of the park. Today,young couples have to settle in neighboring communes because there is no possibility of expanding theoriginal plots, or leave, having received a mostly symbolic compensation. Because of this irregularity inthe status of the occupants, the park authorities have come to see them as illegally occupying a space that isdestined to be closed.

The complicated land tenure issue is accentuated by the total ignorance on the part of the population aboutthe rationale for the park's existence and its objectives. The social assessment found that in general therewas no awareness on the part of the population as to what a national park is or why they exist There isuniversal ignorance of the concept of biodiversity because there has never been any communication. Nowomen or young girls had ever visited the eco-museum or the park. Few external visitors are allowed,

- 73-

since the permits have to be acquired in Tunis. Previously some of the past conservators established a rigidand inflexible approach that banned the external population from visiting the park at all. This has begun togradually change in most recent years, but the conflict remains that until now the population has beenignored and detached from its environment because of a lack of rapprochement between administrators,scientists, and the local population. This situation must change at all costs if there is to be a future in BouHedma, taking stock of the social reality in which the inhabitants live.

The population has depended traditionally on the extensive grazing of sheep, and to a lesser extent camels,that were the mainstay of the nomadic economy, even with the dramatic reduction of grazing resources dueto closures and drought. The closure of the park automatically restricted access to these formerly usedresources and began a cycle of impoverishment as well as economic change for the population. Some ofthe people turned to rainfed agriculture and there are patches of small irrigated agriculture. However, theefforts are limited by the lack of access of these people to the development programs that exist in the regionbecause of the precarious nature of their occupancy rights.

Given the high level of risks to agriculture and drought together with the limited grazing areas, the onlyrecourse of many households is to try to obtain employment within the park. There is little doubt that thereis a need for manpower and workers in the park. In fact, some of them have worked there for decades butall are still considered "temporary workers" because of budgetary considerations within the DGF. Theonly recourse is to be employed as "adhira" which is the only safety net other than total unemploymentwith a total annual revenue of 1,555 DT. As in Ichkeul, there is a wide variation in income distribution,from 3,000 DT per household a year (an average per capita income of 253 DT or USD $177) to about5,000 DT a year. This means that half of the population is below the poverty line. In fact, the majority ofthe households in the park are considered officially indigent, which gives them access to medical serviceswith a payment of 1ODT a year, and reduction in the costs of medicines. This classification has twoconsequences. First, only the households where there are no permanent salaried persons can qualify for thisclassification, which leaves bereft of treatment the very poor that have "hadhira" types of salaries (3.5 DTa day). The access to medical services is equally precarious since the closest dispensaries are at a 4kilometer distance and the waiting time to see a medical nurse practitioner or doctor is at least 6 hours.Complicating the health situation is a high natality and mortality rate combined. This in spite of thenational efforts of family planning that have dramatically reduced the size of families elsewhere. In BouHedma there are many families with 6 to 8 children. The preferred marriage pattern continues to be thetraditional endogamous cross cousin marriage which also has consequences for a higher incidence of somediseases.

Under conditions of such impoverishment the people do not understand the penalties imposed fortrespassing or using some of the resources that they need for survival. They also explain that some of theseprohibited resources, including alfa grass for example, are being degraded because they are not being used.That alfa requires periodic cutting for its continued survival, and,, most of all, the women say that theyknow the alfa requirements, they have never degraded the alfa because it was one of the local products onwhich their very existence depended.

In spite of the material economic poverty of the people of Bou Hedma, the traditional culture remainsvibrant. Women produce traditional artisan work such as carpets, flij (tent strips), cereal bags, all wovenon traditional looms. Basket weaving is also well known in the region, but is declining due to restrictionson the use of alfa grass in the park. There is also traditional pottery, as well as physical culture to maintainin the form of petroglyphs, some Berber ruins, and Roman villas all of which are of interest toarchaeologists but have not been well studied. There has been no commercialization of the craf-s and localarts, but the strong traditional knowledge and capacity of the artists and artisans make this a potentially

-74-

important source for income improvement and for the provision of alternative livelihoods.

The problems of the area, in addition to the relation of the people to the park and their poverty, is theremoteness of the area and the lack of access to social services. There is limited access to running water,roads, health and education facilities, electrification and sanitation, all have rendered the population'sexistence even more precarious. Currently there are no community associations except for two waterusers'associations for the existing potable water systems.

However, in the course of the community consultations it became evident that there was total consensus onthe urgent needs that have to be met, including the establishment of a local high school and improved publictransport In addition, of course, the demand for the clarification of the land tenure situation is primordial.But the community has expressed willingness to work with the park administration to jointly use the park'sresources in a sustainable manner (production of honey, aromatic and medicinal plants, ecotourism, etc.).More than anything, these people want recognition that they exist as part of the park; that they have beenthere for generations, and fought for Tunisian independence with others and who are recognized and notinvisible. If there is this recognition, there will be considerable opening for joint efforts to manage the parkand its resources because they would have real as well as symbolic ownership and would insist onmaintaining its integrity.

The pre-appraisal mission defined the need to produce a detailed map of the occupied zone of the parktogether with a census of the occupants and distribution of plots and clearings in order to have a clear ideaand definition of the problems confronting the management of the Zone 2. During the appraisal mission thevisits to the various douars in Zone 2 showed that the location of the douars is still fairly accuratecompared to the French base map, but also that there is a poor understanding of park boundaries, zonation,and mapping among the local and national level representatives of DGF. This is without a doubt one of thekey issues to be addressed early in implementation. The, next steps will include the necessary measures tobegin the process of community organization where the focus will be not on clearing the issues of landtitling, but rather a focus on obtaining a community consensus for common action to preserve theirenvironment as well as to regulate the use of space regardless of official park boundaries. This willeventually deal to a reconsideration of core and buffer zones on the basis of joint technical and sociologicalanalyzes. The proposed approach would be to establish a local Development Committee (as in Ichkeul, andunder the same conditions of autonomy) to bring together representatives of various groups of stakeholders.Three community facilitators would be recruited to assist in the process of group formation. Additionally,there is a need to identify persons that could act as resource persons in the promotion of education andgeneral sensitization of the population to ecological and biodiversity issues. Discussions during projectpreparation with the key government officials have already assured the programming of certain priorityactions to improve the access of the community to the outside world, notably the improvement of the roadnetwork; and electrification; during pre-appraisal, more progress was made with the local authorities as tothe placement of the "college" in the village of El Bouaa adjacent to the Park and initiating theimprovements in potable water supply.

Jbil National Park

The Jbil National Park has recently been created as part of the government's program to attempt to balancethe disparities that have always existed between north and south. The Tunisian South is particularlychallenging because it has been perceived as a "marginal" area divested of resources and with limitedhuman capital development potential. The emergence of tourism in the southwestern part of the countrybegan to change these perceptions, and with them the focus of government to increase development in theseregions. The creation of a national park symbolizes the presence of the state and defines the modalities and

- 75-

orientations for its development. It is against this background that the park must be seen.

The park area was identified in 1986-87 but the official decree creating the park was issued in October,1994. Since then several constructions have begun to delimit the park but the park cannot be said to be"functional". As with other national parks the decree places it under the tutelage of the DGF. The Jbilpark includes areas that were considered state domanial lands as well as collective grazing lands. A total of18,200 hectares of collective grazing land was given to the domain of the state under contractual conditionsthat have till today, not been accepted by many members of the tribes.

The park covers 150,000 hectares situated at the center of a great natural desert region of the Nefzaoua, anancient geographic and territorial entity with a mixture of salt soils, rocky outcrops, and sand, dotted bysome palm trees and covered in the southernmost point by the Grand Erg. It is of difficult access, aminimum of 2 hours from Douz by trail in the heart of marginal lands of the Nefzaoua. The park limitswere defined by general physiographic characteristics and on a map, with only limited consideration ofecological characteristics and distribution of the local fauna by ecosystems. The current park boundaries,thus, are seen as illogical by the local population that can accurately pinpoint where the prized species,such as the white gazelle can normally be found - and protected. It is generally acknowledged that theobjectives of the park and the criteria of viability and functionality will require a reconsideration of theexisting park limits.

There is no permanent habitation in the park. There have always been temporary users of these spaces,including traditional nomads, some small village agglomerations, and recently, tourism. The four maintribes of the Nefzaoua are the Ouled Yacoub, the Merazigues, the Adharas, and the Ghribs-Sabria. Onceall traditional nomads, they have been progressively sedentarized and have increasingly establishedthemselves in adjacent village areas while reducing the area of transhumance progressively. Today, thespace of the park continues to be used differently by all the populations of the area, but most distinctively.

(a) The Merazigues sedentarized in Douz, Kebili and Tozeur, who pay shepherds to take care of theirflocks of sheep and goats. Many of these flocks make use of areas closer to Douz and not necessarilywithin the park boundaries except in certain seasons under certain conditions (rainfall, wind and heat).

(b) the transhumant population including Merazigues and Sabria, that circulate between the Saharanoases and the Saharan grazing areas, alternating between temporary occupation close to the oases andmovement of flocks. They transit the park in well defined seasonal transhumance patterns.

(c) The local nomads belonging to the Tunisian groups, including Sabria and Adharas.

(d) The grand nomads, above all located in the areas south of the Grand Erg including the Rebaya andthe Souf from Algeria that move with large herds without concern for political boundaries, these tend toseasonally exploit the southern and western part of the park.

Even within these categories the social assessment showed that there is a typology of different users andseasons of use that must be understood to ensure the success of any management plan, particularly becausethe park area is one of the important areas of passage between ecosystems and therefore of strategicinportance for the pastoral groups. Although the statistics stopped counting "nomadic households", in1966 there were still 3,000 households in the Tunisian south. Unofficial sources indicate that there are stillabout 200 households in this area that are "mobile in search of grazing".

If there is a feeling of attachment to the land on the part of the inhabitants in Ichkeul and Bou Hedma, in

- 76 -

Jbil, there is more than attachment, because nomadic culture is defined in relation to spaces. This identityis shown in myth and in everyday life. Because of this identity, the claim to being a part of the territorythat is now within the park boundaries is one that must be understood above and beyond land tenure andrights. Even if this population is sedentarized, their ancestral identity continues to show through theirculture, social organization and use of space. This space, so essential for the life of these people, wasdeconstructed with the establishment of the park. Not only did they lose large areas of grazing land, butthey also were de facto recognized as having no rights to these areas by their exclusion from the decisionson the delimitation and use of the space within the park.

The community consultations in Jbil were among the most productive and revealing. Many stakeholderswere consulted, including government agencies, travel bureaus, travelers and tourists, hunters' associations,and other clubs. The most pressing recommendation to emerge from these consultations is the need toestablish a management plan that will be a joint effort between the local stakeholders and the governmentagents in charge of the park administration. The consensus emerged that the largest cause of loss ofbiodiversity in the Jbil park is not the local and seasonal human presence and animal pressure, but is muchmore attributable to illegal hunting, illegal use of motorcycles and four by four vehicles, a lack of means onthe part of the local authorities to actively manage the park and impose sanctions for the transgression ofrules, and the total absence of communication between park authorities and the locally affected population.

Thus, the emerging agenda for action makes it clear that the first block to build an effective managementstructure is the consultation and dialogue with the local populations. These consultations should take intoconsideration the ecological characteristics and requirements of the local wildlife and vegetation making useof the existing and prevailing local knowledge of the park area by its traditional users, prior to redefiningits boundaries. The local culture and population should be given the same consideration and protection asthe gazelles and other endangered species. The employment generated by the park should as a priority begiven to the "sons of the desert" adapted to this harsh environment and the best insurance for its continuedmaintenance.

The Development Committee approach that was favored as a medium of action in the other two parks wasalso favored here by the local population. A separate assessment was also conducted to investigate thepotential for ecotourism in the area of Jbil given the high profile of tourism already in the area.

Safeguard Policy Issues

The proposed project is in its entirety devoted to solve the questions of biodiversity conservation with aparticipatory approach. The Tunisian Government is against resettlement of any of the parks'population,and there is no anticipated action that wi'l result in resettlement or in any further restriction of access to theresources in the existing parks. Nonetheless, the project team as well as the team responsible for thepreparation studies have taken into account the safeguard policy issues including physical cultural propertyas well as resettlement The following general framework will be a guide to community participation andto the approach required to deal with restriction of access to natural resources. It has the endorsement ofboth the Tunisian Government and the Bank, and constitutes the first such document accepted by bothparties.

- 77 -

Process Framework for Community Participation in Biodiversity Conservation andResource Management

Tunisia: Protected Area Management Project

I. Introduction

A. Project Obiectives

The Tunisia Protected Area Management Project seeks to improve the management of three national parks:Ichkeul, Bouhedma, and Jbil so that (i) the improved management contributes to the well being of thepopulations living in and around the parks, and; (ii) the trends of biodiversity degradation in these parks arearrested and/or reversed. The project will reinforce the capacity of the Tunisian Governnent and itspartners to protect and manage biodiversity of national and global importance in a sustainable manner.The implementation of the integrated park management plans with the active participation of thecommunities would provide a model that can be replicated in other similar areas. The project will alsocontribute to the execution of the Tunisian National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan adopted in June1998. The present project design reflects this strategy within its three components: (i) reinforcement ofinstitutional capacity; (ii) protected area management, and; (iii) public awareness and education.

B. Approach

The project's approach to biodiversity conservation is based on community participation that will take intoaccount the needs of the local populations and will associate them in the formulation of the managementplans for each park. Each community has its own unique dynamic. The issue of the size of the populationliving in Ichkeul and its spatial distribution, for example, differ considerably from the situation inBouhedma and Jbil. Thus, the measures and scenarios for participation and the sustainable management ofresources will have to take into account the specific characteristics of each park. The project seeks toestablish the bases for a genuinely participatory approach involving the govermment and the localpopulations. This development will be based on the conviction of both parties of the benefits to be derivedfrom participatory management and will require changes in behavior and attitudes to attain the joint goalsof biodiversity conservation and sustainable improvement of living standards for the populations living inand around the parks. The project envisages the participation of the communities through the creation oflocal development committees (DC) (Comites de Developpement) as described below. The managementplans for each park would be executed for a period of five to fifteen years. The plans will focus not only onthe technical aspects (inventories, infrastructure, surveillance), but also on the strategic socio-economic andsustainabilify issues (including scientific monitoring and evaluation, negotiations with the localcommunities on the key priority actions to reduce the pressure on resources, and to enhance sources ofrevenues and alternative livelihoods) to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and sustainability ofresource use.

C. Institutional Framework

The project's participatory approach to biodiversity conservation and natural resource management will becarried out through the coordination with national, govemorate, and local level institutions. The diverseactivities entailed by the project will require the involvement of other agencies and branches of govemment

- 78 -

(agriculture, education, tourism, scientific research) as well as other actors (construction, tourist operators,consultant offices), socio-professional organizations and NGOs in the field of popular participation andawareness.

The main institutions that will be involved in the implementation of the project and of this processframework will be:

The Project Steering Committee (PSC) (Comite de Pilotage). Is a multidisciplinary body that includesrepresentatives of the following ministries: (i) Environment and Land use Planning, (ii) Agriculture, (iii)International Cooperation and External Investment, (iv) Tourism, (v) Finance, (vi) Economic Development.This committee will define the overall strategy and guidelines to be executed during the project Thecommittee will have oversight of the project's functioning and will evaluate and approve the work programsand annual budgets. In particular, the conmmittee will be responsible for the use and implementation of theProcess Framework during the life of the project.

The Project Management Unit (PMU' (Unite de Gestion du Projet). The Project Management Unit willbe the central unit responsible for the coordination of project activities and will ensure the soundness of thetechnical, scientific, and financial aspects of project implementation. The PMU will coordinate and ensurethe coherence of proposed actions proposed by the Park Management Teams. The proposed actions will bediscussed at the Local Development Committee (LDC) (Conseil Local de Developpement). The PMU willsubmit the annual work programs and budgets to the PSC for validation. The PMU will also ensure that thetechnical, human, and financial means will be made available to the implementing agencies and that thelatter will work in accordance with agreed-on procedures.

The Regional Development Council (RDC) (Conseil Regional de Developpement) The Council is locatedat the level of each Gouvernorat and it is a consultative as well as decision-making body which has, interalia, the following functions: (i) formulation of the regional development plans that must be integrated intothe national social and -economic development plan; (ii) formulation of land-use plans outside of themunicipal boundaries and review of the urban planning for the gouvemorat; (iii) advising on matters ofprograms and projects planned for the gouvemorat by the state and its agencies; and (iv) oversight of theexecution of the regional projects approved by various Ministries. In the project's implementation, theRDC will be the instance of last resort for the resolution of conflicts between the Comites deDeveloppement and the Equipes de Gestion du Projet. (See below section H-D).

The Local Development Council (LDC) (Conseil Local de Developpement). At the level of eachDelegation, this Council has the functions of (i) participating in the formulation and implementation of theenvironmental protection plans, programs of nature conservation, and natural resources management plans;(ii) advising on programs of local development and proposing priorities and programming as well asparticipating in the formulation of regional development plans. Within the project, the Council will be thefocal point and forum for the discussion of the proposed park management plans as well as the annual workprograms.

The Park Management Team (PMT) (Equipe de Gestion du Projet). A Park Management Team will beformed at each park, and will be responsible for the action planning and programming. The ParkConservator will lead it. The team will include representatives of the Ministries of Environment andTourism, and will work in close collaboration with the representatives of the local population through theintermediation of the selected members of the Development Committees (see below) (Comites deD6veloppernent). Technical staff will be available to assist these teams. The Conservator is responsiblefor the day-to-day organization and execution of activities in the park by the authority vested in him by the

- 79 -

Regional Agricultural Development Council (CRDA).

The Development Committees (DC) (Comites de Developpement). These committees will be the base levelinstitutions for the representation of the population, in order to ensure (I) participation of the communitiesin the identification of local development measures within a social-economic space (terroir), (ii) theprovision of all relevant information on the needs of the populations they represent, (iii) mobilization andorganization of the population to facilitate their participation in the development of the park managementplans. As they become more experienced, the Development Committees will have the option of becominglegally recognized development entities such as Local Interest Groups (Groupements d'Interet Collectifs,GIC, Development Groups (Groupements de Developpement, GD), cooperatives, etc.

The DCs will be organized at the outset of the project with the necessary accompanying measures includingawareness and training programs, so that the participation of the local communities in the formulation ofthe park management and development plans will be ensured from the beginning. These plans, with theireconomic and social objectives, will take into account the actions necessary for the conservation ofbiodiversity and will be based on an improved use of potential and available natural resources. They willinclude activities that will permit the local population's development of, and rational management of thenatural resources in the protected areas. These community development plans will be an integral part of thepark management plans.

II. General Principles of the Process Framework

A. The Context: conservation and restriction of access to resources In the Protected Areas

Some of the project components may trigger the Bank's Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12)which also includes specific provision for the loss of access to natural resources in parks and protectedareas. To achieve its objective of biodiversity conservation, the project may require the restriction of accessto the resources in the defined core areas that are currently utilized by the population. The protection ofbiodiversity in the core areas will require the total restriction of access to its resources. In the rest of theparks certain activities will be permitted. The activities planned for the implementation of the project,including those that will result in the formulation of the park management plans, will be negotiated in aparticipatory manner with the population, based on recognution of their needs and with the objective ofreconciling both the social development objectives as well as the biodiversity conservation objective of theproject.

According to national legislation, the protected areas are considered the domain of the state as forestryareas, and activities within them are regulated by the Forestry Code administered by the ForestryDepartment Different activities, including grazing, agriculture, and forestry extraction and other uses arepermitted in some areas. Restrictions on the use of these resources can be envisaged where there is a risk ofincreasingly perturbing the ecosystem's balance, or where human activities pose a direct threat tobiodiversity. These limitations of access are currently regulated by the existing legislation. In the event thatthere is non-conformity with the requiremedts of the Bank's Policy OP 4.12, this process framework will beused.

B. Process Framework for Community Consultation and Particination

Steps for the formulation of a particpatory strategy. The participation strategy will consist of (a)identification and caffying out a census of the people potentially affected by the project; (b) definition ofthe eligibility criteria for the project affected populations; (c) formulation of the criteria for the

- 80 -

identification of vulnerable groups; (d) elaboration of the process for consultation and dialogue; (e)propositions for the inclusion of the population in the implementation of the project

1. Community awareness and mobilization

A PMT will be formed for each protected area. These teams will be the main executors of the processframework when called for through the formulation of action plans that will include:

a) Dissemination of information, the mobilization of stakeholders, and the creation and training ofDCs.

b) Information gathering and analysis concerning the specific use of resources and their socialimpacts.

c) Formulation of a management plan in collaboration with the DCs.

d) Adoption of measures aimed towards the protection of biodiversity in specific zones in cooperationwith the DCs.

2. Participator Measures

a) Participatory Mapping of condition and use of natural resources. Mapping will provide preciseinformation on (a) the spatial and temporal variation of resource use (grazing, collection of fire-wood,medicinal plants, fishing, etc.); (b) methods, location and conditions under which stakeholders and affectedpopulations utilize the specific resources; (c) customary rights and claims. In the project context thehouseholds considered as dependent on the protected areas will be those that have a direct impact on suchareas. The participatory mapping will be an input to the planning for resource use and for the definitionand formulation of the mitigation measures of any negative impacts.

b) Participatorv Diagnostics. Are the base tools for a participatory approach, allowing theidentification of the populations and their activities including seasonal uses of the protected areas, themeans of communicating with the affected people, and the types of resources they use. The diagnostics canalso furnish information on the general use of resources in the surrounding areas and they will be used asthe baseline from which mitigation measures as well as other accompanying measures can be defined(training, integration into the management plans) and for monitoring and evaluation.

c) Participation and Consultation. Consultations with all concerned stakeholders have already takenplace during the preparation of the project These consultations have confirmed the validity of theparticipatory approach as well as underlined the need for compensatory measures required for the people inthe parks and surrounding areas that may lose access to resources. The social analysis during projectpreparation has already proposed the measures that will be required for the diffusion of information toensure the awareness and involvement of the communities from the onset of the project The informationconcerning the planned project activities and the participatory mechanisms will be widely disseminated inboth Arabic and French so that the local populations are informed and involved from the outset of theproject.

3. Creation of the Development Committees and Selection of Representatives for the PMT

The DCs are in the process of being organized and will be operational by the beginning of the project Each

- 81 -

committee will be represented in the PMT. In order to ensure the participation of the communities, theproject will rely on the creation on the development committees at the level of the douar or settlement(terroir) as appropriate. All the concerned population will be able to participate in these committees andthey will select a number of their members to represent them. The modalities will be defined to ensure thatthe interests of women, in particular, are represented in these committees.

For each protected area, a technical inter disciplinary team that will include different specialists will beavailable to assist the park conservator. The team will include (among others) a sociologist/anthropologist,community development specialist, and environmental education and awareness specialists. The training ofthe personnel of the PMT and the assistance for the necessary studies and surveys to be undertaken as wellas the activities for community organization will be the responsibility of the technical support team.

4. Key Steps for the Particigatory Strategy

a) Identification of affected people. There will be a distinction made between the people directlyaffected by the restriction of access to resources in the protected areas and those that claim rights forhistorical reasons (traditional land occupancy, collective lands with a temporary occupancy status").

b) Eligibility Criteria of project affected people. Eligibility criteria will be defined at the outset of theproject. They may include, inter alia, physical presence in the protected areas for a certain number ofyears, dependency on the resources of the protected area, and benefits or claims of use of the resources, etc.

c) Criteria for the identification of vulnerable groups. The most vulnerable groups in a populationshould be identified early and as a priority because they would be the population with immediate needs thatcan only be fulfilled through the use of existing resources to secure their survival and food needs. Criteriafor the identification of these groups could be based on: inability to fulfill their dietary needs, no livestockor only a small number of livestock and/or poultry, degraded and precarious habitats, inability to ensure theschooling of children, use of small plots for subsistence or having tenancy status, lack of permanentincome, lack of access to basic infrastructure, etc. Individuals and/or households meeting these criteria willhave a high priority for training in alternative revenue-generating activities and their participation will beessential in the decision-makdng meetings where reduction of access to resources of the protected areas arediscussed, and participate with inputs to the management plans.

C. Budnet for the Execution of the Process Framework Provisions

The budget for the execution of this process framework is included in the overall project budget(institutional support, training, education, and alternative livelihoods) and no additional budget is envisagedfor its execution.

D. Process of Consultation for Conflict Resolution and Modalities for the Settlement of Clahms.

It is likely that during the project implementation there will be conflicting views and opinions concerningthe utilization of resources of the protected areas. Where such conflicts may arise, the DC and the PMTwill be the forum for dispute resolution. If they cannot reach an acceptable solution they will present theirclaims to the LDC that will strive to reach appropriate solutions and measures. Should conflicts not besolved by these means, the chims will be settled by the RDC.

- 82 -

E. Monitorine and Evaluation of the Process Framework

The measures taken to execute this process framework will be the responsibility of the PMT and will bemonitored by the PMU. The monitoring reports and the measures taken will be submitted to the PSC by thePMU and will be followed closely by the Bank during project supervisions. The performance indicators toensure that the measures included in this process framework are taken into account are included in theproject log-frame (participation of the population in the development committees, implementation ofaccompanying measures, financial benefits accruing to the affected population, claims and disputesettlement, etc.).

An evaluation of the provisions of this process framework will be undertaken in the third and sixth year ofproject implementation.

-83 -

MAP SECTION

IBRD 318355° 9° 10° 11- 12° 13-

M edliterra n ea n Lake Ichkeul National Park izerieSed,terranean PartNaotionaldeVi*= TUNISIA

C Iforrin'sTUNISIE37

oTU n,.e , PROTECTED AREAS_,-,,Jenou aMANAGEMENT PROJECT

z - PROJET GESTION DES-36'Et jS,w,4j_ r,, t AIRES PROTEGEES

-36° '( / f 't 36'

~~ ~~, Maca~~stir

Molidia PROJECT SITESA L G E R I A ,) , SITES DU PROJET

t v +~o,, %( . ,- _, t , RIVERS

LAKES AND SALT LAKES335' 7 J Sidi Bou Zid DACS ET LACS SALTES 35

Bouhedma Nat''i61 Park GOVERNORATE CAPITALS,-f - ,- Parc National , e ohda SCAP/TALES DES GOUVERNORATS

)_ J ,- ~~~~Parc National ubodieema sFX PiJ >st 5.C4 # / Kerkenohls INATIONAL CAPITAL

CAPITALE DU PAYS

0Goafo sa INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES5 - rl . W- g = FRONTIERES INTERNATIONALES

,--- I " ? _ _-5 s -- i- OIt

34' _''_ _ Gobes( ~ ~ Zeur .' ,,-. *Gabes __________________Gabes_3_g s{eUr .- /__ \____o,_SCt- >Gobes , ,0 2~~~~~~~~~~~9 5 5,0 75 10,0

\ ~~~~~~ / >_rX k-_o-t < 2 Dlcrbv3 ~~~~~~~~~~KILOMETERS\ __ ,./"hott el Jer,d \<reGlelil >S

\ 2C-=> te J°

- 7 i,? _@-- ModonJne Mee Mediterranean

- Jbil National Park ,33° Parc Nationale Jbg 33d

s\ * 8 s~~~~~~~~~~~~Tataoutne v Z \

\ 0/ 12- 1,3-

.32' / 32' M0dr' 0. it

SPAIN> / 32 S MediterrJaneon Tun E -

\ ~~~~ ~~/ Alger Tuijgr e:-S.AT\ _- ~ ~ ~3/ jTUN151A vo(n

' ,/ . '> F4Tripoli

ALGERIA LIBYA -30-

31 This mpwas produced by the \ ALGERIAMop Design Unit of The World Bank 31 LIBYAThe boundaries, colors, denominations 25O 25and anyother information shown on * I ,thbs map do not imply, on the port of \ .'..The World Bank Group, ony judgment / \ " I1 -on the legalstatus of any territory, orany endorsement or acceptance of \ *-20- .? .such boundaries M ALI - AIi / NIGER CHAD

B MAL 10°1 j CsA 10MMARCH 2002

IMAGING

Report No. 23339 TUNType: PAD