3A · Web viewdemonstrated skills in office computer use - word processing, spreadsheets. Duty stations The NPC will be based at the project office in Sarh. S/he will make periodic

UNDP Project Document

Government of Chad United Nations Development Programme

Main partners

Ministry of Environment and WaterEuropean Union

Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (FFEM) CARE InternationalFrench Co-operation

Project Title:

Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Moyen-Chari

CHD/03/G31PIMS 836

Manda National Park (MNP), located in southeastern Chad, was declared a National Park in 1965, and is one of the last wildlife refuges in the Moyen-Chari. Since that time, globally significant biodiversity at MNP has experienced periods of relative quietude as well as times of substantial anthropogenic disturbance. Currently, vegetation at this 114,000 ha. biodiversity haven remains in relatively good condition, though wildlife populations are continuing to recover slowly from a period of extreme poaching during Chad’s late 1970’s – early 1980’s Civil War. Continuing moderate levels of disturbance are threatening this recovery. Under the baseline scenario, this disturbance would almost certainly continue, and could potentially lead to irreversible degradation.

The GEF alternative will demonstrate a long-term shift in current unsustainable practices within Moyen-Chari by focusing on the MNP and its associated landscapes. It would ensure the conserva-tion and sustainable use of MNP and its immediate surroundings while demonstrating the use of wildlife corridors as a technique for rehabilitating and maintaining the biological diversity of south-eastern Chad. This immediate objective would be achieved through the following specific outcomes: (i) MNP would operate according to well-functioning and adaptive systems – including staffing, reg-ulatory, ecological and compliance monitoring systems and sustainable use protocols – that were de-signed and implemented through a participatory management planning process; (ii) Residents of sur-rounding communities and migratory pastoralists would place significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while concurrently playing an active and participatory role in MNP’s conservation, rehabilitation and related planning, and; (iii) One or more wildlife corridors would function in sup-port of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife and in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and nearby wildlife-rich areas.

Project document draft 4.1 of 16 May 2004

Contents

List of abbreviations iiiSection 1: UNDP Project DocumentPart Ia Situation analysis 1Part Ib Strategy 1Part Ic Risks and sustainability 2Part Id Incremental cost and incremental cost analysis 3Part Ie Stakeholders’ involvement 4Part IIa. Strategic Results Framework 6IIb. Project entities 13Part III Management arrangements 14Part IV Legal context 18Total budget and Work Plan 20Annual Budgets 27Signature page 49Annexe 1.1 Terms of reference 1.1.1 TORs for Project Mangement 501.1.2 TORs for Project Staff 621.1.3 TORs for international consultants 661.1.4 TORs for national consultants 701.1.5 TORs for sub-contractors 80Annex 1.2 Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 91Annex 1.3 Regulations concerning Manda National Park 104Annex 1.4 Detailed response to Council member comments 111

Section 2 GEF Approved Project Brief Annex 1 : Problem to be solved 115Annex 1.A Logical Framework matrix 125

Annex 2 : Legal and policy baseline 132

Annex 3 : Table of lessons incorporated into project design 134Annex 4 : STAP Review report 135Annex 5 : Co-financing letter Separate

file Attachment: METT / Tracking tool 138

ii


List of abbreviations

MEW Ministry of Environment and WaterMNP Manda National ParkNPC National Project Co-ordinator NPD National Project Director PIME Project Implementation and Monitoring ExpertPIP Project Inception PhasePMU Project Management UnitPSC Project Steering CommitteeRCU Regional Coordination UnitUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

iii


Part Ia Situation Analysis

The project will help to ensure that the globally and nationally significant biodiversity of southeastern Chad is sustainably used by, and provides benefits to, current generations while being conserved for the benefit of future generations. A detailed description of the problem to be addressed is provided in Part 2.b.i of Section 2 of this document. The relevant outcome in Strategic Results Framework (SRF) of the Country Cooperation Programme is Improved national capacity to monitor environmental conditions and trends and to assess policy performance in promoting environmental sustainability. The national institutional and legal framework for Protected Area Management is described in Annex 2 of Section 2. A description of lessons learned that have influenced project design is still provided in Part 2 (Annex 3). The independent review of the project design is provided in Annex 4 of Section 2.

Part Ib Strategy

Chad’s approach to sustainable development while conserving biodiversity and its national commitment to these goals are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Linkages Between Project and National/Sector Plans, Policies & StrategiesSpecific National/Sector Development Plan, Policy, or Strategy

Project’s Consistency with National/Sector Development Plan, Policy, or Strategy

Chad’s constitution of 31 March 1996 and subsequent policy statements provide an overall mandate for decentralization, which continues to be put into practice. Its emphasis is on ensuring widespread public participation in the management of community affairs and development. Thus, Article 48 of the Constitution requires that “the State and the decentralized territorial communities must ensure the protection of the environment”.

The project supports the goals of the decentralization process by demonstrating, and promoting the replication of, a decentralized strategy of protected area management, particularly involving local communities and NGOs.

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) adopted by Government through Decree 198/PR/MEE/00 of 9 May 2000 does not identify specific priority sites, but: (i) notes the importance and biological richness of Chad’s Sudanian zone; (ii) highlights the threats to biodiversity and their underlying causes in the Sudanian zone; (iii) notes the poor relations between local populations and many protected areas in the country, and; (iv) defines within its logical framework a set of five results

The project: (i) is located within the nationally important Sudanian zone, in and around one of Chad’s two national Parks; (ii) addresses many of the threats to biodiversity and underlying causes identified in the NBSAP; (iii) aims at demonstrating a sustainable approach towards improving relations between local populations and protected areas, and; (iv) will support achievement of each of the five results identified within the NBSAP’s logical framework.

Chad’s Rural Development Strategy, presented to development partners during a sectoral follow-up meeting to the Geneva IV Round Table Conference of October 1998 includes environmental issues as one of four major areas of concern.

The project will directly support one of the four main objectives of the rural development strategy, i.e., restoration and protection of ecosystem processes, particularly problems linked with human activities.

1


Specific National/Sector Development Plan, Policy, or Strategy

Project’s Consistency with National/Sector Development Plan, Policy, or Strategy

The Convergence Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests in Central Africa originated at the First Summit of Central African Heads of State, held on this matter from 12 to 17 March 1999 in Yaoundé which resulted in the commitments set forth in the Yaoundé Declaration.

The project supports several of the priority actions identified in the plan, including: reinforcing actions aimed at increasing rapid participation of the rural population in the sustainable management of ecosystems and reserving adequate space for their socio-economic development; taking measures to harmonize actions for forest ecosystems and other sectoral programmes, including reforestation, transportation and agriculture; implementing concerted actions aimed at stopping large-scale poaching and any other unsustainable use of biodiversity resources in the sub-region by involving all stakeholders, in particular economic operators and the population.

This project will contribute to achieving UNDP’s Second Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) for Chad, which runs from 2001-2005. The project links closely with both thematic focal areas of the CCF, i.e., the fight against poverty and governance. In the area of poverty reduction, the project will support two of the CCF approaches, which are:

Development of economic opportunities for the poor through support for self-employment and the promotion of private initiative: The self-employment activities to be encouraged will represent contributions to combating poverty. UNDP will devote major efforts to training the officials of savings and loans cooperatives (COOPEC) with a view to ensuring autonomous operation of the network whose establishment it supported;

Initiatives to reduce vulnerability of the environment: UNDP will support the development of energy resource management initiatives and strategies at the community level.

Part Ic Risks and sustainability

Risks: The major risk is that of persistence of the old habits of management on its own that have long characterized the administration of the Park. The adoption by the authorities of new guidelines in order to readjust the Park to participatory management supported by a firm will of the population to take an active part in the joint management process will serve to reduce the mistrust.

Climate variability is a constant factor. In the short run (i.e. the period of the project), it could destabilize the process of restoration of the ecosystems, resulting in less than impressive results and impacts of the project.

A final risk relates to the possibility that project benefits are captured by particular communities or by particular societal segments. It is expected that the framework for stakeholder participation established by the project will help to avoid this by creating a transparent decision-making process. However, the project will carefully monitor impacts, especially of component 2, to ensure the equitable sharing of project benefits along gender, ethnic and age lines.

2


Sustainability: The GEF alternative involves a one-time investment to develop the technical, managerial and operational framework for effective management of MNP through an array of capacity-building activities for park management staff, local government authorities, and community leaders. The project’s strong emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation will also improve possibilities for sustainability by enhancing a common vision for the management of biodiversity, and building ownership for such a vision.

The project does not rely heavily on international experts, but rather places emphasis on building the capacities of local experts. Thus, for example, the main long-term international expert will be recruited on a retainer basis to provide part-time support and training throughout the project duration. In addition, key Park staff will be given technical training. It is expected that a critical mass of national-level expertise will be reached during the course of the project, thus substantially reducing the long-term needs for international expertise in PA management techniques.

It is expected that Government will finance the costs of long-term maintenance of the PA system and is specifically committed to do so in the case of MNP. With this in mind, the project will avoid creating high-maintenance operational systems at the project site, but will focus on essential needs for conserving biodiversity. In addition, the project in conjunction with the Zakouma project, will investigate various mechanisms for sustainable financing, including ecotourism charges, etc., as a source of financing support to complement regular budgetary allocations. Finally, Government budgetary support for recurrent costs is expected to increase with the arrival of oil revenues.

Part Id Incremental cost and incremental cost analysis

The process for jointly estimating incremental cost with in-country project partners involved consultations with Government, other partners active in the Baseline, and potential co-funders to determine their areas of priority and commitments. The Baseline costs are estimated at $10,744,500. The Alternative will build on this baseline for a total cost of $13,273,250. The increment is estimated at $2,528,750. Of this increment, GEF is expected to contribute $1,400,000, and other co-financing will be obtained from both baseline activities (government and donor activities that are essential for achieving the GEF objectives and are managed as an integral part of the same project) and new funding, for a total of $1,635,000 in co-financing. The total cost of the project is therefore $3,035,000.

The project’s direct global environmental objective is the conservation and sustainable use of globally significant biodiversity within Manda National Park, its buffer zone, and selected corridors in Moyen-Chari. GEF-supported activities at the two broader geographic levels – (i) cantons surrounding MNP and (ii) greater Moyen Chari – will enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable usein MNP as well as generate sustainable development benefits for local communities.

The baseline, business as usual, situation is that the Park will continue to try to exclude farmers and pastoralists from using the resources inside the park, thus leading to greater tension and conflicts, increased threat to biodiversity of global significance, and greater forgone benefits and opportunity costs.

The GEF alternative will address immediate threats and remove barriers currently preventing the conservation and sustainable use of globally significant biodiversity at MNP, its buffer and priority corridor zones. Park management capacities will be increased and the role of local communities will be significantly altered from the current negative role of threat source to a positive one of active participant in PA management and sustainable use activities. The corridor between Manda and

3


Zakouma will be managed so that it can facilitate the rehabilitation of threatened animal populations, and in the long term, substantially reduce the genetic isolation facing these populations.

Baseline sustainable development expenditures within the systems boundary of the project outcomes are estimated at US$10,744,500. Including the above baseline expenditures, the total cost of the alternative necessary to ensure sustainable development and the conservation of globally significant biodiversity is US$13,273,250. The total additional, or incremental cost, which is the difference between the baseline and the alternative project, is US$2,528,750

Part Ie. Stakeholders’ involvement1

The project aims at generating a strong sense of commitment to biodiversity conservation and ownership over the management of biodiversity resources amongst a broad base of stakeholders. Broad-based stakeholder consultation and participation have therefore been integral to the project design process. During a first, extended consultation stage which took place during the PDF-B, a broad range of stakeholders was consulted, including: the administrative authorities (Prefect, Sub-Prefect, Mayor), the heads of the fauna and fishery sectors, MNP, the Inspector of Forests, ONDR, pastoralism, tourism by NGOs, various associations and groups of fishermen, farmers and pastoralists directly or indirectly involved with the Park, park management and support committees, resource persons, the prefect delegate for environment and water. In addition, a number of meetings were held with the canton and village heads of the four cantons of Niellim, Djoli, Balimba and Kokaga.

The participatory process initiated under the PDF-B will continue under the full project. Stakeholder participation will occur at two levels: the project decision-making process; and implementation of project-related interventions.

Pastoral use of the park is subject to different interpretations : farmers want it prohibited (because it is competitive), park rangers do not understand that it can be potentially complementary to wildlife production; and pastoralists understand well that they can be compatible, and have no other choice but to use park resources. The project’s challenge is to bring all these different stakeholders to a common understanding and vision on how to sustainably manage the natural resources while conserving globally significant biodiversity.

The bill regulating forest, fauna and fisheries (Act 14/98 of 7 August 1998) defines the general principles of environmental protection, with two basic principles that underly the project’s objectives, namely: (i) the principle of sustainability, which calls for rational, balanced and equitable management of resources, showing concern for the present and the future while preserving biological diversity; (ii) the principle of participation, which entails taking into account the views, needs and interests of all actors concerned.

In conformity with these new rules for participatory management of natural resources by the State and local communities, the implementation of the project will be based on a platform comprising a Coordination and Development Committee for Manda National Park. This will be a deliberative body involving all stakeholders in the Park. The Committee will be able to evolve in the long term in order to become an association for the development of the Park.

The cantons will participate in this Committee through their duly mandated representatives. These will be designated by election following deliberation in the General Assemblies of the Cantonal Local

1 See also Part II, Project brief, Annex 5, Public Participation Strategy.

4


Development Committees (CCDL). These in turn represent community village development committees. The project will work with these structures to ensure that community development action plans and the cantonal development action plans expressly contain the commitments of the communities to sustainable exploitation of resources and the protection of MNP. The plans are of two years duration in order to permit the implementation of operations and their evaluation with a view to drawing up subsequent plans based on the prior experience and lessons.

5


Part II.a Strategic Results Framework

A detailed logframe matrix is provided in Annex A of Section 2.

Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Improved national capacity to monitor environmental conditions and trends and to assess policy performance in promoting environmental sustainability Outcome indicator as stated in the Country Programme Results and Resources Framework, including baseline and target: Key aggregate indicators for assessing environmental sustainability are adopted and regularly updated by the government. Baseline: There is no integrated database concerning environmental questions. SRF End Target: An environmental database is available and regularly updated Applicable Strategic Area of Support: SAS: G3-SGN1-SASN3 – Monitoring AssessmentPartnership Strategy: A consultation forum on environmental issues will be set up, in particular in the context of the oil project monitoring and of the SNRP implementation. This forum will allow the national and external partners to monitor the environmental impacts of the various programmes being implemented. UNDP’s role will be to support the creation of this forum as well as its operations. The major partners include the World Bank, which will support taking environment into consideration in all development projects, the European Union which will support the rehabilitation of the country’s national parks, CILSS which will support taking into consideration the impacts of desertification on environmental conditions, and France which support national park management. In addition, the European Union, the World Bank and France are interested in participating with UNDP in mitigating the conflicts between farmers and transhumants which arise from environmental issues.

6


Project title: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Moyen-ChariProject Number: CHD/98/G41

Intended Outputs

Output targets for 2003-2009 Indicative Activities / Activity Areas

Inputs

Outcome 1: MNP operates within a well-functioning, participatory management system

By end of Year 4, at least 50% of MNP have strengthened capacities as a result of training in areas in connexion with their activities, such as forestry, wildlife management, etc.

Activity Area 1.1 Staff development Activity Area 1.1 inputs 71300 - Local consultants (TOR #10: Human resource man-

agement) - $9,000 71300 - Local consultants (Training facilitators) - $4,500 71600 - Travel (Study tours, fellowships and workshops for

field staff) - $24,000 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) - $3,000 74000 - Miscellaneous related expenses - $3,911

Total direct inputs for AA 1.1: $44,411 Updated and more appropriate set of

regulations in place by end of Year 2.Activity Area 1.2 Regulatory development and implementation

Activity Area 1.2 inputs 71300 - Local consultants (TOR #11: Legislative regulatory

review) - $13,000 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) - $3,500 74000 - Miscellaneous (Meeting expenses) - $5,706

Total direct inputs for AA 1.2: $22,206 Baseline ecological monitoring data are

compared to data collected during the evaluation phase (Year 2), thus providing clear guidance on environmental trends and threat reduction.

Activity Area 1.3 Ecological monitoring and data management

Activity Area 1.3 inputs 72100 – Contractual services – companies (Sub-contract #1 /

TOR #17: Baseline impact indicator surveys) - $10,000 72100 – Contractual services – companies (Sub-contract #2 /

TOR #18: Follow-up indicator survey I) – $12,000 72100 – Contractual services – companies (Sub-contract #3 /

TOR #18: Follow-up indicator survey II) – $12,000 72200 – Equipment (for ongoing monitoring, to be specified

under SC#1) - $11,000 74000 – Miscellaneous (e.g., workshop expenses) - $4,962

Total direct inputs for AA 1.3: $49,962

7



Intended Outputs


Inputs

A strategic anti-poaching plan is in place (Year 1) and compliance monitoring is effective

Activity Area 1.4 Compliance monitoring

Activity Area 1.4 inputs 71300 - Local consultants (TOR #12: Compliance monitoring

plan) - $8,000 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) - $2,250 72100 - Contractual services - Companies (TOR #19 / SC#4:

Urgent infrastructural improvements [ see also AA 2.2]) - $21,000

72200 – Equipment (Small vehicles, communications, etc., to be specified in compliance monitoring plan) - $10,500

74000 – Miscellaneous (e.g., workshop expenses) - $2,661

Total direct inputs for AA 1.4: $44,411 Management plan adopted by end of Year

3.Activity Area 1.5 Management planning and implementation

Activity Area 1.5 inputs 71200 - International consultant (TOR# 8: Management plan-

ning expert) - $31,000 71300 - National consultants (TOR# 13: Management plan-

ning experts). Total funding: $26,000 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel): $21,000 72100 - Contractual services - Companies (SC #5 / TOR #20:

Management plan implementation [ see also AA 2.2]). - $85,000

74000 – Miscellaneous (workshop expenses): $3,541

Total direct inputs for AA 1.5: $166,541

Summary of lessons learnt completed and distributed at national level by Year 5.

Activity Area 1.6 Lessons learnt for policy and regulatory reform

Activity Area 1.6 inputs 71300 - Local consultants (workshop organization) - $7,500 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) - $4,500 74000 – Miscellaneous (workshop expenses) - $4,653

Total direct inputs for AA 1.6 : $16,653

8



Intended Outputs


Inputs

Project management Activity Area 1.7 Project management (Outcome 1)

Activity Area 1.7 inputs 71200 - International consultants (PIMA and evaluation) -

$65,890 71300 - Local consultants (national professionals and consult-

ants) - $73,000 71400 - Contractual services – individuals (Admin. Support) -

$ 26,000 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) - $ 28,000 72200 – Equipment - $ 20,000 75110 – Facilities and Admin Services - $45,926 74000 - Miscellaneous - $ 9,000 74100 – Professional services – reporting - $8,000

Total inputs for AA 1.7 : $275,816Outcome 2: Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are using resources sustainably within MNP, and its buffer’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from sustainable development

Identified key transhumant groups benefitted from awareness and development programmes.

Activity Area 2.1 Community outreach and awareness raising among local communities and transhumants regarding MNP

Activity Area 2.1 inputs 72100 - Contractual services - Companies (TOR #21 / Sub-

contract #6: Community outreach and awareness raising) Total funding: $70,314

74000 - Miscellaneous - $4,630

Total direct inputs for AA 2.1: $74,944 70% of the neighbouring communities

participated in Park conservation and rehabilitation activities and derived incomes therefrom.

Activity Area 2.2 Community participation in MNP conservation and rehabilitation activities

Activity Area 2.2 inputs 72100 - Contractual services - Companies (TOR #19 / Sub-

contract #4 - Urgent infrastructural improvements (see also AA 1.4). Total funding: $29,669

72100 - Contractual services - Companies (TOR #20/ Sub-contract #5: Implement new management plan activities [see also AA 1.5]. Total funding: $44,404

71300 - Local consultants (TOR #14: Traditional community knowledge gathering). Total funding: $8,333

71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) - $6,410 74000 – Miscellaneous (e.g., Meeting expenses) - $5,556


9



Intended Outputs


Inputs

Micro-entreprise and micro-credit programmes are in place and members of neighbouring communities benefited therefrom

Activity Area 2.3 Participatory design and implementation of small-scale community development projects and micro-credit program

Activity Area 2.3 inputs

71200 - International consultant (TOR #9: Micro-credit and micro-enterprise specialist) - $10,648

72100 - Contractual services – Companies (Sub-contract #7 / TOR #22 - Micro-credit & community development). Total funding: $115,741

71600 - Travel - $9,259 74000 – Miscellaneous - $4,136

Total direct inputs for AA 2.3 : $139,784 Protocols for sustainable use of MNP

natural resources established with full participation of all stakeholders distributed.

Activity Area 2.4 Pilot implementation of sustainable use protocols

Activity Area 2.4 inputs 72100 - Contractual services – Companies (Sub-contract #8 /

TOR #23: Implement sustainable use protocols). Total fund-ing: $92,592

72200 – Equipment (basic equipment to support sustainable use activities)- $9,259

74000 – Miscellaneous - $3,624

Total direct inputs for AA 2.4: $105,475 Project management Activity Area 2.5: Project management

(Outcome 2)Activity Area 2.5 inputs 71200 - International consultants (PIMA and evaluation) -




Total inputs for AA 2.5 : $330,245

10



Intended Outputs


Inputs

Outcome 3: One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and other priority protected areas in Moyen-Chari, and in support of sustainable pastoral management

Regular reports on presence of fauna population along selected migration corridors

Vegetation surveys show stable or improved plant life in demonstration corridors

Activity Area 3.1 Ecological data collection and analysis

Activity Area 3.1 inputs 71300 – Local consultants (TOR #15: Planning for data gath-

ering and analysis). Total funding: $8,500 71600 – Travel (mission costs / local travel) - $3,200 72100 - Contractual services – Companies (Sub-contract #9 /

TOR #24: Ecological and socio-economic data gathering and analysis in corridors). Total funding: $62,000


Total direct inputs for AA 3.1: $74,943 Monitoring systems established along

key corridors, in partnership with the local population

Activity Area 3.2 Monitoring and information systems developed along key migratory corridors

Activity Area 3.2 inputs 72100 - Contractual services – Companies (Sub-contract #10 /

TOR #25: Developing partnerships with local people in mi-gratory corridors. Total funding: $85,185


Total direct inputs for AA 3.2 : $88,821 Transhumant pastoralists report fewer

conflicts with crop farmers Activity Area 3.3 Demonstrate methods for enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife corridors

Activity Area 3.3 inputs 71300 - Local consultant (TOR #17: Development of co-man-

agement plan) - $8,333 71600 – Travel (mission costs & land use planning workshop

expenses) – $13,889 72100 - Contractual services – Companies (Sub-contract #11 /

TOR #26: Enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife corridors) - $106,481



11



Intended Outputs


Inputs

Project management Activity Area 3.4: Project management (Outcome 3)

Activity Area 3.4 inputs 71200 - International consultants (PIMA and evaluation) -




Total inputs for AA 3.4 - $238,004

12


Part II.b Summary and Detailed Budgets

This section presents summaries of the GEF and UNDP cash contributions as well as Government’s in-kind contribution.

i. GEF cash contribution (US$)

Budget line

Description Amount

71200 International consultants 153,37171300 Local consultants 221,25971400 Contractual services – individuals 79,35371600 Travel 176,04872100 Contractual services – companies 504,82472200 Equipment 67,42675110 Facilities and Admin Services 103,70474000 Miscellaneous 69,00574100 Professional services 25,010

TOTAL 1,400,000

ii. UNDP cash contribution (US$)

Budget line

Description Amount

71200 International consultants 78,14871300 Local consultants 105,42871600 Travel 9,25972100 Contractual services – companies 241,56272200 Equipment 19,80075110 Facilities and Admin Services 37,03774000 Miscellaneous 8,766

TOTAL 500,000

iii. Government in-kind contribution2

Description AmountPersonnel 40,768SubcontractsTrainingEquipmentMiscellaneousAdministrative charges 4,232TOTAL 45,000

2 Breakdown to be provided.

13


Part III. Management Arrangements

III.a Key national and international agencies

The major national and international agencies having roles in project implementation and oversight are identified below.

i. National Executing Agency: Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW)The responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW) as the national executing agency (or “Designated Institution”) will include:

Coordinating and monitoring the mobilization of the financing from various sources, in close collaboration with partners involved in the project, including mobilizing contributions from Government itself;

Participating in project planning and in monitoring the technical aspects of the project, including regular site visits and monitoring progress against benchmarks and expected outputs;

Chairing the Project Steering Committee meetings; Maintaining productive, regular and professional communication with UNDP, UNOPS and

other project stakeholders to ensure the smooth progress of project implementation.

ii. GEF Implementing Agency: UNDPThe United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the GEF Implementing Agency for the present project. It is accountable to GEF for everything in connection with the implementation of the project and, in this capacity, has a number of important responsibilities, outlined below. Such responsilities are shared between the UNDP-Chad Country Office and the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) in Dakar:

UNDP Country Office in Chad :3 UNDP Chad will maintain oversight responsibility for project implementation and direct responsibility for fulfilling the duties and obligations of a GEF Implementing Agency. It will provide technical and administrative backstopping to the Project Management Unit (PMU) to ensure results-oriented management and proper administration of funds. It will monitor, in close cooperation with the PMU, and facilitate project disbursement operations, staff recruitment and procurement processes. It will also monitor resource mobilization of baseline and co-finance as defined in the project brief and document. Financial transactions will be subject to annual audits undertaken by internationally certified auditors.

UNDP Chad will oversee and verify the proper use of funds through: the “cash advance requests” made by the PMU, quarterly workplans, quarterly financial reports, activity progress reports (and/or other reports generated from UNDP’s project management software).

UNDP Chad will participate in Project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings and monitoring missions. The office will introduce and sensitize project staff and consultants to UNDP work planning, adaptive management and financial reporting requirements, formats and processes, particularly during the Project Inception Phase (PIP).4 UNDP

3 TOR for the UNDP Country Office in Chad are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #5.4 TOR for the PIP are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #1.

14


may provide additional assistance upon request by Government, through Letters of Agreement for Support Services (as per the UNDP Programming Manual).

UNDP-GEF Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU), Dakar and UNDP/GEF Core Unit, New York: UNDP-GEF’s Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU), and in particular the UNDP-GEF Regional Co-ordinator for Biodiversity and International Waters for West / Central Africa, is responsible for project oversight, ensuring that the project maintains principles of incrementality while achieving global environmental benefits. The UNDP/GEF Regional Co-ordinator has an important role in monitoring project implementation and in ensuring that GEF funds are used in accordance with GEF eligibility rules, policies and norms. The Regional Co-ordinator will serve as a key link between UNDP Chad and the GEF, advising the former on the nature of UNDP’s responsibilities as an officially designated GEF “Implementing Agency” and the appropriate means of fulfilling these. Finally, the UNDP/GEF Executive Coordinator in New York will report regularly on project delivery to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Council.

iii. Project Executing Agency: United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)UNDP, in its capacity as GEF Implementing Agency, in agreement with the Governement, is entrusting the execution of the projec to the Africa Regional Office of the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), based in Dakar. This office will be responsible for overall project execution, in conformity with the work plan included in this project document. UNOPS enjoys a comparative advantage as a result of its experience in managing UNDP-GEF projects and its specific responsibilities will include the following:

Putting into place, coordinating and managing day-to-day project activities through the PMU; Ensuring the quality of studies conducted and overseeing the smooth performance of

activities in general, in accordance with UN System procedures. For this purpose, oversight missions will be carried out by the expert in project implementation and monitoring;

Procuring goods and services on a transparent and competitive basis, e.g., review and approval of TOR/specifications for personnel/contractors/vendors and required bidding documentation, and awarding and entering into contracts of recruitment or procurement;

Maintaining a separate project account for the accountability of project funds; Ensuring advanced funds are used in accordance with agreed workplans and project budget; Preparing, authorizing and adjusting commitments and expenditures; ensuring timely

disbursements, financial recording and reporting against budgets and work plans; Managing and maintaining budgets, including tracking commitments, expenditures and

planned expenditures against budget and work plan; Making available approved GEF funds while maintaining a reasonable level of due diligence

with respect to the project’s expenditures in order to ensure the proper administration of UNDP-GEF funds, e.g., that a proper project budget and accounting of project expenditures are maintained;

Ensuring GEF funds are used in accordance with GEF eligibility rules, policies and norms in order to achieve the expected outcomes approved by the GEF Council;

Participating in the various tripartite meetings, and evaluations, and any process which might affect project activities and objectives, through the PIME.

iv. Associated agency: CARE Chad

15


Several project activities will be sub-contracted to the Chad offices of CARE International (at N’djamena and Sarh), which has long experience working in the Moyen-Chari region and at MNP.

III.b Project structures

The project will be anchored institutionally within the Directorate of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas, whose director will assume the functions of National Projet Director (NPD), who will chair the PSC. The NPD will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of PSC guidelines and ensure the smooth implementation of the project in behalf of the Governement. In his capacity as official representative of the designated institution, the NPD will be responsible for obtaining project expected outputs.

Within this Directorate, a small liaison and coordination unit will be created, with one assistant to provide technical and administrative support to the various missions and other activities (organizing meetings and workshops, contract monitoring, etc.).

The project team will work on creating a scientific and technical advisory committee that will meet at least twice a year.

i. Project management unit (PMU)5

A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established at the project site, specifically in Sarh). The PMU will be led by a National Project Coordinator (NPC), who will be selected by a panel established for this purpose, with participation by the main project partners. Once selected, the NPC, with the technical and contract-issuing support of UNDP Chad and UNOPS, will recruit PMU staff members, including a Project Implementation Expert (PIE), a Monitoring & Evaluation officer, an administrative officer, a secretary/assistant and a driver.

PMU staff will be hired using standard UNOPS hiring procedures, including a transparent process of open advertisement and individual project contracts for all project-funded positions. UNDP will invite UNOPS to utilize its networks and experience in recruiting international positions to ensure best available expertise are hired.

ii. Project Steering Committee6

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will meet on an annual basis with the role of overseeing project planning, implementation and performance. It will consist of national and local-level representatives from each of the project partners. The PSC will be responsible, inter alia, for adopting annual work programmes prepared by the PMU. It will monitor the project’s implementation to ensure timely progress in attaining the desired results, and efficient coordination with other projects.

The PSC will be chaired by the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Environment and Water and will consist of one member from each of the following organizations:

One parliamentary representative from the region; One representative of each riparian district; The UNDP representative;

5 TOR for the PMU are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #2.6 TOR for the PSC are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #3.

16


The Secretary-General of the Ministry of Environment and Water; The Director of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas; One representative of the Ministry of Planning, Development and Cooperation; One representative of NGOs/associations active in the project area; The National Project Coordinator; One representative of the technical and financial partners.

iii. Co-ordination and development committee for Manda National park (CDC-MNP)7 This will be a deliberative body involving all MNP stakeholders. The Committee will eventually evolve into an association for development of the Park.

The local cantons will participate in this Committee through their duly mandated representatives. These will be designated by election following deliberation in the General Assemblies of the Cantonal Local Development Committees. These in turn represent community village development committees to be established. The project will work with these structures to ensure that community development action plans and the cantonal development action plans expressly contain the commitments of the communities to sustainable exploitation of resources and the protection of MNP. These plans are of two years duration in order to permit the implementation of operations and their evaluation with a view to drawing up subsequent plans based on prior experience and lessons learned.

III.c Project staffing and technical support

i. National project coordinator (NPC)8

The National Project Coordinator (NPD) will be responsible for day-to-day project management as head of the PMU. The NPC will ensure smooth implementation of the project in accordance with the project document and UNDP and GEF procedures. He/she shall liaise directly with designated officials of the PSC, existing and potential project donors, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PSC or by the NPC him/herself. He/she shall be responsible for coordinating, overseeing the preparation of, and the delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the project. He/she will supervise all project staff in the PMU as well as the project budget. The NPC will prepare an annual work plan on the basis of the project document, under the general supervision of the PSC and in close consultation and coordination with the Directorate of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas and UNDP. He will act as the Secretary to the PSC.

ii. Project implementation and monitoring expert (PIME)9

The PMU will receive periodic support from an international Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME), who will carefully monitor and support the implementation of all project components. This expert will undertake periodic visits to the PMU and to the project site in order to review the progress of project implementation as compared with the defined baseline and with respect to the benchmark indicators highlighted in the Logical Framework Matrix (LFM).10 The PIME will represent one way of introducing international best practices to the project site. PIME mission reports will follow an agreed format and will represent an important technical source for keeping the UNDP Chad desk officer, UNDP-GEF Regional Co-ordinator and UNDP-GEF Regional Manager informed concerning developments in project 7 TOR for the CDC-MNP are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #4.8 TOR for the NPC are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #6.9 TOR for the PIME are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #8.10 See Section 2, Annex 1.

17


implementation. Support from the PIME will gradually decline over the course of project implementation, e.g., from three months in Year One to 1.5 months in Year Six.

iii. Other PMU Staff11

1. Other PMU staff will include one officer in charge of Monitoring & Evaluation activities, who will provide support to the NPC for the organization and conduct of the various missions. He will be responsible more specifically for analyzing and capitalizing on mission reports, collecting and monitoring indicator data, etc. The PMU will also include as an administrative and contracts officer as well as a secretary/assistant and a driver.

III.d. Processes

i. Project Inception Phase12

2. An initial cash advance will be made to undertake a Project Inception Phase (PIP), with the aim of staffing and establishing the PCU, building implementation capacity, preparing a detailed project workplan and undertaking a number of important preparatory tasks.

ii. Project evaluation and monitoring3. A draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has been developed as part of the present document13 and will be further refined during the PIP.

The WWF/WB Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool will be used and the first activity of the project team will be to develop a baseline for this purpose.

Part IV. Legal Context

This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of Chad and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on 14 October 1977. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement.

UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and all rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be extended mutatis mutandis to GEF.

The UNDP Resident Representative in Chad is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the agreement thereto by GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes:

a) Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs

or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;

11 TORs for other PMU staff will be developed during the PIP.12 TOR for the PIP are found in Annex 1.1, TOR #1.13 The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is found in Annex 1.3.

18


c) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and

d) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project Document.

19


TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

Expected Outcomes

Output / Activity Area with corresponding indicators

Timeframe Responsible party

Planned budget

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Source Description AmountOutcome 1: MNP operates within a well-functioning, participatory management system

1.1 Staff development (By end of Year 4, at least 50% of MNP have strengthened capacities as a result of training in areas in connexion with their activities, such as forestry, wildlife management, etc.)

x GEF 71300 - Local consultants $13,500

x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $27,000

x x x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $3,911

Sub-total $44,411

1.2 Regulatory development and implementation (Updated and more appropriate set of regulations in place by end of year 2)


x GEF 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) $3,500

x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous (Meeting expenses) $5,706

Sub-total $22,206

1.3 Ecological monitoring and data management (Baseline ecological monitoring data are compared to data collected during the evaluation phase (Year 2), thus providing clear guidance on environmental trends and threat reduction)

x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $34,000

x GEF 72200 - Equipment $11,000

x x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $4,962

Sub-total $49,962

20


1.4 Compliance monitoring (A strategic anti-poaching plan is in place (Year 1) and compliance monitoring is effective)


x GEF 71600 - Travel $2,250

x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $21,000


x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $2,661

Sub-total $44,411

1.5 Management planning and implementation (Management plan adopted by end of year 3)

x GEF 71200 - International consultants $31,000


x GEF 71600 - Travel $21,000

x x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $85,000


Sub-total $166,541

1.6 Lessons learnt for policy and regulatory reform (Lessons learnt synthesized and disseminated at national level by year 5)

x x x GEF 71300 - Local consultants $7,500

x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,500


21


Sub-total $16,653

1.7 Project management

x x x x x x GEF 71200 - International consultants $65,890

x x x x x x GEF 71300 - Local consultants $73,000

x x x x x x GEF 71400 - Contractual services - Individuals $26,000

x x x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $28,000

x x x x x x GEF 72200 - Equipment $20,000

x x x x x x GEF 75110 – Facilities and Admin Services $45,926

x x x x x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $9,000

x x x x x x GEF 74100 - Professional services (Reporting) $8,000

Sub-total $275,816

TOTAL OUTCOME 1 $620,000

Outcome 2 - Residents of surrounding communities

and transhumants

are placing significantly less

pressure on MNP’s natural

2.1 Community outreach & awareness raising among local communities & transhumants


x x x UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $37,006

x x UNDP 74000 - Miscellaneous $4,630

Sub-total $74,944

22


resources, while obtaining

benefits from sustainable

development

2.2 Community participation in MNP conservation and rehabilitation activities


x x x x UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $44,404

x UNDP 71300 - Local consultants $8,333


x x x x x x GEF 74000 – Miscellaneous $5,556

Sub-total $94,372

2.3 Community development & micro-credit program

x UNDP 71200 - International consultants $10,648

x x x UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - companies $115,741

x UNDP 71600 - Travel $9,259

x x x x UNDP 74000 - Miscellaneous $4,136

Sub-total $139,784

2.4 Pilot implementation of sustainable use methods

x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - companies $48,181


x x GEF 72200 - Equipment $9,259


Sub-total $105,475

23



x x x x x x UNDP 71200 - International consultant $67,500

x x x x x x UNDP 71300 - Local consultants $97,095



x x x x x x UNDP 72200- Equipment $19,800

x x x x x x UNDP 75110 – Facilities and Admin Services $37,037




Sub-total $330,425

TOTAL OUTCOME 2 $745,0003 - One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and other priority

3.1 Ecological data collection and analysis


x x GEF 71600 - Travel $3,200

x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $62,000

x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $1,243

24


protected areas in Moyen-Chari, and in support of sustainable pastoral management

Sub-total $74,943

3.2 Monitoring and information systems developed along key migratory corridors



Sub-total $88,821

3.3 Demonstrate methods for enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife corridors


x x x x x GEF 71600- Travel $13,889

x x x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services -

Companies $106,481

x x x x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $4,529

Sub-total $133,232


x x x x x x GEF 71200 - International consultant $56,481

x x x x x x GEF 71300 - Local consultants $63,426



x x x x x x GEF 72200- Equipment $16,667

25





Sub-total $238,004TOTAL OUTCOME 3 $535,000

OUTCOMES 1-3 TOTAL $1,900,000

26


YEAR 1Expected Outcomes



Planned budget

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source Description AmountOutcome 1: MNP operates within a well-functioning, participatory management system


x x GEF 71300 - Local consultants $13,500

x x GEF 71600 - Travel $3,000


Sub-total $17,500

1.2 Regulatory development and implementation (Updated and more appropriate set of regulations in place by end of year 2)


x x GEF 71600 - Travel $3,500


Sub-total $22,206

1.3 Ecological monitoring and data management (Baseline ecological monitoring data are compared to data collected during the evaluation phase (Year 2), thus providing clear guidance on ecological trends and trends in threat reduction)



Sub-total $11,500



x x GEF 71600 - Travel $2,250

Sub-total $10,250

1.7 Project managementx x x x GEF 71200 - International

consultants $14,000

x x x x GEF 71300 - Local consultants $12,000

27


x x x x GEF 71400 - Contractual services - Individuals $3,500

x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,500

x x x x GEF 72200 - Equipment $3,500

x x x x GEF 75110 – Facilities and Admin-Services $8,156


x x x x GEF 74100 - Professional services (Reporting) $1,500

Sub-total $48,656

TOTAL OUTCOME 1 $110,112 Outcome 2 - Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are placing significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from sustainable development



x UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $4,000

Sub-total $8,000



UNDP 71300 - Local consultants $8,333

GEF 71600 - Travel $987

GEF 74000 – Miscellaneous $1,000

$19,320


x UNDP 71200 - International consultants $10,648

x UNDP 71600 - Travel $9,259

x x x UNDP 74000 - Miscellaneous $1,000

28


Sub-total $20,907


x x x x UNDP 71200 - International consultant $11,250

x x x x UNDP 71300 - Local consultants $15,300


x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $7,000

x x x x UNDP 72200- Equipment $3,300

x UNDP 75110 – Facilities and Admin-Services $5,047

x GEF 75110 – Facilities and Admin-Services $2,399



Sub-total $52,296


3 - One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and other priority protected



x x GEF 71600 - Travel $1,600


x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $600

Sub-total $41,7003.2 Monitoring and information systems developed along key migratory corridors x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services -

Companies $30,000

29


areas in Moyen-Chari, and in support of sustainable pastoral management


Sub-total $31,200


x x x x GEF 71200 - International consultant $9,500



x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,000

x x x x GEF 72200- Equipment $3,000

GEF 75110 – Facilities and Admin-Services $8,512



Sub-total $42,012


OUTCOMES 1-3 TOTAL $325,547

30


Year 2Expected Outcomes



Planned budget



x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $8,000


Sub-total $9,000



Sub-total $11,000





Sub-total $34,161


x x GEF 71200 - International consultants $31,000


x x GEF 71600 - Travel $21,000

Sub-total $78,000


x 71300 - Local consultants $2,500

x 71600 - Travel $1,500

31


x 74000 - Miscellaneous $1,500

Sub-total $5,500


x x x x GEF 71200 - International consultants $8,000



x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $5,500





Sub-total $50,973


Outcome 2 - Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are placing significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from





Sub-total $33,500



GEF 71600 - Travel $1,500

GEF 74000 – Miscellaneous $1,000

32


sustainable development

$16,500


x x x x UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - companies $38,241


Sub-total $39,241





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $7,000






Sub-total $57,197



x x GEF 71600 - Travel $1,600


x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $643

33


Sub-total $33,243




Sub-total $31,200



x x x GEF 71600- Travel $3,000



Sub-total $32,333





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,000





Sub-total $43,922


34



35


Year 3

Expected Outcomes



Planned budget


1.1 Staff development (By end of year 4, at least 75% of MNP staff have minimum --- level of academic background, with at least 50% having training in related fields such as forestry, wildlife management, etc.)

x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $8,000


Sub-total $9,000


GEF 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $12,000

GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $1,500

Sub-total $13,500




Sub-total $34,541





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,500




36



Sub-total $48,185

TOTAL OUTCOME 1 $105,226Outcome 2 - Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are placing significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from sustainable development





Sub-total $33,444



UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - Companies $7,000

x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $1,000

x x x x GEF 74000 – Miscellaneous $1,000

Sub-total $15,669




Sub-total $41,000





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $7,000


37






Sub-total $56,727





Sub-total $26,421





Sub-total $27,000





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,000


38





Sub-total $40,454






Planned budget



x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $8,000

x x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $911

Sub-total $8,911



Sub-total $31,000



x 71600 - Travel $1,500


Sub-total $5,500

1.7 Project management x x x x GEF 71200 - International consultants $8,000

39




x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,500





Sub-total $41,433




x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $1,000


$16,000




Sub-total $38,636


x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - companies $16,000

x x UNDP 72100 - Contractual services - companies $14,000



40


Sub-total $36,300





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) $7,000






Sub-total $57,333






Sub-total $27,4813.4 Project management x x x x GEF 71200 - International consultant $9,500



x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel)

$4,000

41






Sub-total $38,839



42





Planned budget

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source Description Amount 1.5 Management planning and

implementation (Management plan adopted by end of Year 3)


Sub-total $23,000





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,500





Sub-total $40,180




x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $1,000

43



$16,000


x x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - companies $17,000




Sub-total $36,559





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $7,000






Sub-total $53,723


44






Sub-total $24,000





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel (Mission costs / local travel) $4,000





Sub-total $37,560



45





Planned budget

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source Description Amount 1.3 Ecological monitoring and data

management (Baseline ecological monitoring data are compared to data collected during the evaluation phase (Year 2), thus providing clear guidance on ecological trends and trends in threat reduction)



Sub-total $13,962



x 71600 - Travel $1,500


Sub-total $5,653





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,500





Sub-total $46,389


46




x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $923

x x x x GEF 74000 – Miscellaneous $556

$10,883


x x x x GEF 72100 - Contractual services - companies $15,181



Sub-total $32,616





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $7,000






Sub-total $53,149


47





x x x GEF 74000 - Miscellaneous $529

Sub-total $22,418





x x x x GEF 71600 - Travel $4,299




x x x x GEF 74100 - Professional services (Reporting) $870

Sub-total $35,217



48


SIGNATURE PAGE

UNDP-GEF project Number : CHD/03/G31PIMS 836Title : Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the

Moyen Chari

Duration : 6 years

Countries : Chad

ACC/UNDP (Sub) Sector : G3: Environment

GEF Focal Area : Biodiversity

GEF Operational Programme : OP 1

GEF Strategic Priority : BD-1 (Catalyzing sustainability of PA’s)

GEF Implementing Agency : UNDP

Executing Agency : UNOPS

Estimated Starting Date : April 2005

49

FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):

1 GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT

Project 1,400,000PDF A 0PDF B 261,360PDF C: 0Sub-Total GEF 1,661,360

2 CO-FINANCINGUNDP TRAC 500,000EU (Zakouma) 350,000France 640,000CARE International 100,000Government (inkind) 45,000Sub-Total Co-financing 1,635,000

TOTAL Project Financing (without PDF B)

3,035,000

3 Financing for associated activities if any: 3,590,000


Approved on behalf of the Government of Chad

_______________________________________________________Date: _____________________

Approved on behalf of UNDP Chad:

_______________________________________________________Date: _____________________

Approved on behalf of UNOPS Dakar:

_______________________________________________________Date: _____________________

50


Annexes to Section 1

Annex 1.1 Terms of reference 501.1.1 TORs for project management – processes and structures

TOR #1: Project Inception Phase (PIP)TOR #2: Project Management Unit (PMU) TOR #3: Project Steering Committee (PSC)TOR #4: Co-ordination and Development Committee for Manda National ParkTOR #5: UNDP Country Office

1.1.2 TORs for project staff 62TOR #6: National Project Coordinator (NPC) TOR #7: Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME)

1.1.3 TORs for international consultants 66TOR #8: Management planning expertTOR #9: Micro-credit and micro-enterprise specialist (MMS)

1.1.4 TORs for national consultants 70TOR #10: Human resource managementTOR #11: Legislative and regulatory expertTOR #12 Compliance monitoring planTOR #13: Management planningTOR #14 Traditional community knowledge gatheringTOR #15: Planning for data gathering and analysis in corridorsTOR #16: Development of co-management plan

1.1.5 TORs for sub-contracts 80TOR #17: Baseline indicators surveyTOR #18: Follow-up indicators surveyTOR #19: Urgent infrastructural improvementsTOR #20: Implement new management plan activitiesTOR #21: Community outreach, awareness raising and participationTOR #22: Micro-credit / community developmentTOR #23: Implement sustainable use protocolsTOR #24: Ecological and socio-economic data gatheringTOR #25: Developing partnerships with local people in corridorsTOR #26: Enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife / livestock corridors

Annex 1.2 Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 91

Appendix 1.3.1 GEF guidelines for Implementing Agencies to conduct Terminal Evaluations

98

Annex 1.3 Regulations concerning Manda National Park 104

Annex 1.4 Detailed response to Council Member comments 111

51


ANNEX 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.1.1 Terms of Reference for Project Management – Processes and Structures

Title Project Inception Phase (PIP)Terms of reference ID# 1 Budget line NAType of contract & ID# NA Activity Area reference(s) NA

The Project Inception Phase (PIP) is an opportunity for project stakeholders to become acquainted with the project – its agreed strategy, expected outputs and outcomes, risks, etc. It is also an opportunity to finalise any outstanding implementation details and present them to UNDP and MEW for clearance and then the PSC for approval. The PIP also brings new momentum to the project after the relatively quiet period during the project approval process.

UNOPS will provide an initial cash advance for the PIP upon receipt of the standard Cash Advance Request form from MEW, for the costs of the deliverables listed below. No additional workplan will be required.

Overview

The NPC is expected to meet with all stakeholders during the Inception Phase. This may be a mix of individual appointments and group meetings and/or workshops. In the spirit of cooperation underpinning this project, all parties should be invited to participate and contribute to the PIP.

The PIP should include formal and informal training for the Project Team by MEW. This should cover an introduction to the organization, its procedures and arrangements, as well as a sharing of project-specific knowledge from existing MEW initiatives. The NPC and the rest of the Project Team should also receive training from UNDP. This will include an overview of UNDP rules and procedures from UNDP-Chad, introduction to the office, as well as a briefing on GEF matters from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinator.

The NPC leads the PIP (with assistance from the PIME) and should refer to all previous project comments, including those of the STAP Roster Expert, GEF Secretariat, UNDP-GEF, and GEF Council members. MEW and UNDP will provide copies of all relevant documentation.

The PIP is expected to last approximately 3-4 months. Monthly updates of progress should be provided to the UNDP Resident Representative through meetings at the UNDP office. More regular and informal contact should be maintained through the responsible UNDP Program Officer.

An Inception Workshop should be held during Month 3 of the Inception Phase. The NPC and PIME will be responsible for developing the agenda for this workshop, while the NPC and additional PMU members will help to organize it. This workshop will be an opportunity for all stakeholders to meet within a common forum. Local site-level representatives will need to be chosen in a participatory manner to attend this workshop and the follow-up meeting of the Project Steering Committee (PSC).

The NPC and the PIME will be jointly responsible for preparation of an Inception Report. The draft Inception Report should be shared with UNDP and MEW as soon as available and before being circulated to other stakeholders following the Inception Workshop. The agreed draft Inception Report should then be circulated for comments to all stakeholders before a revised final draft Inception Report is sent to PSC members.

52


The first meeting of the Project Steering Committee should mark the conclusion of the PIP. The meeting is expected to endorse the contents of the Inception Report and address any remaining institutional blockages standing in the way of full project implementation. Preparatory meetings between MEW and UNDP should be held well in advance of the PSC in order to reach agreement on key issues before seeking PSC approval. This will also be an opportunity to clarify UNDP’s role in annual workplan reviews, measurement of progress indicators and impact indicators, TPRs and annual work planning exercises.

Workplan / Checklist

Table 1 below presents a roughly chronological workplan for the period following the drafting of the present project document. The chronology begins with the signature by the GEF Executive Secretary of the project document.

Table 1: Inception Phase Checklist

By end of month …

Activity Responsibilities

1 Signature of project document by UNOPS and UNDP Chad

UNDP Chad, UNOPS Dakar

1 Cash advance of $___ provided by UNOPS Dakar to UNDP Chad to cover costs of inception phase

UNOPS Dakar

1 Official nomination of National Project Director (NPD)

MEW

1 Selection and recruitment of National Project Coordinator (NPC)

UNDP Chad, MEW, UNOPS Dakar

2 Preparation and submission to UNOPS Dakar of office equipment and vehicle procurement specifications

NPC, UNDP Chad

2 Selection and recruitment of remaining PMU staff members

NPC (recommends), MEW (clears), UNOPS Dakar or UNDP Chad (clears/recruits)

2 Installation of project team within premises at Sarh and N’djamena

MEW

2 Review the capacity of MEW and the PMU to provide project implementation services and day-to-day project management

UNDP (including UNDP-Chad’s Management Support Unit and UNDP/GEF’s RCU in Dakar

3 First mission of PIME UNOPS Dakar (Identification and recruitment)

3 Training of PMU and MEW staff in UNDP and UNOPS processes and procedures

UNDP Dakar, UNOPS

3 Organize a National Inception Workshop PMU, UNDP Dakar, RC (attends), UNOPS Dakar (attends)

3 First meeting of the PSC PMU (co-ordinate), MEW (issue invitations and chair)

4 Preparation of draft and final Inception Reports PMU

53


Inception phase deliverables

The expected output of the Inception Phase is an Inception Report. The Report is the responsibility of the NPC, with direct support from the PIME and the project team and co-operation from all project stakeholders. The Inception Report should include the following:

1. Detailed and final project institutional arrangements Final level of representation and individual membership of the PSC and confirmation of

willingness to participate (written confirmations annexed to report). Draft rules of procedure for the PSC (description of how developed and annex draft rules) Final draft TORs for sub-contracts to be issued in Year 1 (based on drafts found in

present project document) A project organizational chart (donors, government, MEE, project bodies, project staff,

contractors), including reporting lines An assessment of the technical capacities of the implementing agency do undertake

required implementation tasks.

2. Clarified roles and responsibilities – and ensure capacities – of project team members, particularly vis-à-vis project outcomes

Final TORs for PMU staff (following review by NPC, clearance by UNDP and Directorate of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas)

Clarified roles and responsibilities of all participants (PIME, PMU, MEE, UNDP, Local Government, etc.)

Identified links and coordination between project positions and activities Link each project position to the workplan and delivery of project outcomes Strengthen links to project stakeholders (particularly national and local government, as

well as local communities) Describe training provided in required UNDP reporting and project management

requirements, as well as general GEF expectations.

3. Planning and preparation for Year 1 of the project A detailed workplan for the first year of implementation. A project budget revision if necessary. Detailed and finalised TORs for all sub-contracts to be issued during Year 1 in-line with

the information provided in the Project Document. A Project Operations Manual (in French) and description of training provided Status update on all sources of co-financing (based on detailed discussions with relevant

project managers, etc.). To include latest activities, planning, links with GEF project, etc

4. An Adaptive Management framework for the implementation of the project Annual work planning process, including setting yearly targets/milestones that are

understood by all stakeholders Clear process for monitoring workplan implementation Links to project outcome indicators (impact indicators), progress indicators and the

Logical Framework Identify significant Project Risks (possible barriers to successful project implementation

and identified externalities that may reduce project effectiveness). Prepare a detailed risk management strategy for project implementation

Review the project’s Monitoring Plan and expand if necessary. Ensure there are measurable indicators of impact at the Output, Purpose and Goal levels of the LogFrame. Ensure baseline data are in place for all indicators. Review the progress indicators set out in the LogFrame and improve as necessary.

54


Title Project Management Unit (PMU)Terms of reference ID# 2 Budget line NAType of contract & ID# NA Activity Area reference(s) NA

The project has been designed to operate almost entirely at site level, in line with Chad’s policy of decentralized management. Therefore, the main office of the Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established in Sarh. A small sub-office will be located in N’Djamena to provide office space for project staff and consultants while there. Both the N’djamena and Sarh offices will also need to have adequate facilities for meetings.

The PMU will ensure that project implementation proceeds smoothly through well-written workplans and carefully designed administrative arrangements that meet UNDP’s requirements.

The Project Management Unit will be comprised of:

1. National Project Coordinator (NPC)2. Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME)3. Project Monitoring & Evaluation Officer (PMEO)4. Administrative and Contracts Assistant (ACA)5. Secretary/assistant6. Driver

The responsibilities of the PMU, in association with the UNDP and UNOPS, will include the following:

to manage day-to-day implementation of the project, coordinating project activities in accordance with the rules and procedures of UNDP/GEF and based on the general guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC);

to provide overall project co-ordination, while acting as an independent and unbiased guarantor of co-operation and information exchange;

to convene quarterly Project Implementation Meetings (PIMs) in order to review progress in implementing project workplans;

to ensure, together with UNOPS and UNDP, that specified tasks are outsourced to suitable national and international consultants and/or sub-contractors through competitive bidding processes. PMU responsibilities in this regard include development of bidding documents and terms of reference;

to organize project-level meetings and workshops, e.g., inception workshop, Project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings, etc.;

to work closely with UNDP Chad in organising and providing technical and logistic support and coordination to all missions and assignments by international and national consultants;

to develop, in co-operation with MEW as relevant, details of equipment procurement, and; to prepare overall project reporting.

55


Title Project Steering Committee (PSC)Terms of reference ID# 3 Budget line 15.03Type of contract & ID# NA Activity Area reference(s) NA

The Project Steering Committee (PSC) will provide overall guidance and support to project implementation activities. The Government of Chad and UNDP will establish the PSC upon signature of the project document. Participating institutions (see below) will nominate representatives to the PSC in writing during the Inception Phase. Each PSC member must be sufficiently senior so that the individual has sufficient authority to make decisions on behalf of the institution or agency that s/he represents.

The first meeting of the PSC will take place towards the end of the Inception Phase, or approximately four months following project signature. By this time, staff of the Project Management Unit (PMU) will have been recruited, and the first Annual Workplan (see below) will have been prepared by them, together with draft Rules of Procedure for PSC meetings. Annual PSC Meetings, each two days in duration, will continue being held thereafter. Six PSC meetings are planned during the life of the project.

The membership of the PSC will consist of one representative from each of the following institutions: One parliamentary representative from the region; One representative of each riparian district; The UNDP representative; The Secretary-General of the Ministry of Environment and Water; The Director of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas; One representative of the Ministry of Planning, Development and Cooperation; One representative of NGOs/associations active in the project area; The National Project Coordinator; One representative of the technical and financial partners.

The National Project Coordinator (NPC) supported by the Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME) and other PMU staff, will act as Secretary to the PSC. At least two weeks prior to each PSC meeting (with the exception of the first meeting), the NPC will be responsible to disseminate a written Annual Report to all PSC members. This report will detail the activities and achievements of the project during the preceding year and compare these with the goals set out during that year’s annual workplan. The Annual Report will highlight both achievements as well as difficulties encountered and will analyze the reasons for success / failure.

The NPC will likewise present an Annual Workplan prior to the PSC meeting. This workplan will represent an elaboration and detailing of the activities described in the project brief and project document for the coming year.

In cases where the workplan proposes a deviation from the general course outlined in these documents, it should present clear justification for such changes, as well as reference to further documentation, i.e., Quarterly and Annual Reports, etc., supporting the proposed changes. These practices are designed to ensure that the work undertaken by the project team follows the overall course laid out in the project brief and project document, while also allowing for flexibility and adaptation to unexpected conditions and changes.

56


The specific tasks to be achieved during each Annual Meeting include the following:

to adopt Operating Rules (at its first meeting); to review and assess the progress of the Project and its components – particularly with respect

to its Logical Framework Matrix (LFM) and associated Process and Impact Indicators – as highlighted in the Annual Report;

to provide policy guidance and decisions to the NPC and the PMU team; to review and approve the Annual Workplan (including updated budgets of the Project and its

activities) and the preceding year’s Annual Report, and; to ensure mainstreaming of project activities and outcomes into Government plans, policies

and actions.

Although the PSC will have decision-making power as well as advisory functions, it will not have the authority to alter the project goal, outcomes or Activity Areas. However, the PSC may alter specific project activities and/or implementation arrangements, including arrangements for sub-contracts (ensuring due process is followed), if there is clear and consistent evidence against project output indicators (based on progress reports and adaptive management outputs) that the project activities are failing to deliver project outputs, or the sub-contracts are failing to meet their obligations under their Terms of Reference.

In addition to participating in the Annual PSC Meetings, each PSC member will have the following year-round responsibilities with respect to the project:

to act as the project’s spokesman within the PSC member’s institution / government department and keep it informed of the progress of project activities;

to help to provide strategic direction on the workplan; to support the cross-sectoral approach of the project by creating mechanisms for interaction

with NGOs and other stakeholders; to continue to seek additional funding to support the outputs and activities of the project

beyond the lifespan of GEF funding, and; to disseminate lessons learned and encourage replication of best practices among the PSC

member’s institution/government department and relevant constituents.

57


Title Co-ordination and Development Committee for Manda National Park

Terms of reference ID# 4 Budget line 33.06Type of contract & ID# NA Activity Area reference(s) NA

1. This will be a deliberative body involving all MNP stakeholders. The Committee will eventually evolve into an association for development of the Park.

2. The local cantons will participate in this Committee through their duly mandated representatives. These will be designated by election following deliberation in the General Assemblies of the Cantonal Local Development Committees. These in turn represent community village development committees. The project will work with these structures to ensure that community development action plans and the cantonal development action plans expressly contain the commitments of the communities to sustainable exploitation of resources and the protection of MNP. The plans are of two years duration in order to permit the implementation of operations and their evaluation with a view to drawing up subsequent plans based on the prior experience and lessons.

58


Title UNDP Country Office Terms of reference ID# 5 Budget line NAType of contract & ID# NA Activity Area reference(s) NA

Under its agreement with the Global Environment Facility, UNDP (and Executing Agency/ies) provide a core set of services for each UNDP/GEF project. The following ToR describes these services, which are to be carried out in accordance with UNDP’s and the respective executing agency’s operational policies and procedures. This includes UNDP applying its standard due diligence requirements related to financial, economic, legal, environmental, social, and technical aspects.

Project Approval and Start-up Prepare legal documents (project document) and others for approval by the stakeholders. Assist the national counterpart to establish project management structure in country. Assist project execution agency to draft TORs and select experts for implementation and

provide support to organize project startup workshop.

Outputs: Project Document for Signature by Country. Project Initiation Report.

Implementation Supervision/Management Oversight

Day-to-day implementation support

Supervision of international and national consultants’ recruitement process) Authorize salary/consultancy fees/missions Supervise consultants’ work, review and approve outputs

Sub-Contracts Supervise sub-contractors' work, ensuring inputs as per contract TORs Ensure payments are made accordingly and that milestones are met Provide critical review of sub-contractors performance

Project Co-ordination/cross-project learning Monthly meetings with project implementing agency to ensure smooth project

implementation Participate in Steering Committee meeting to ensure smooth project implementation Keeping clear communications and taking necessary interventions to ensure co-

ordination between different co-financiers in implementing and completing project activities

Facilitate cross-sectoral work of the project and the CPB by lending UNDP’s support to these activities and this goal.

Encourage and enable cross-project learning among the project and UNDP”s other projects;

59


Lend UNDP’s support to and take part in project round tables and workshops Maintain contacts with other environmental and development projects supported by

various donors and cultivate cooperative ties with this project. Strengthen project’s relationships with the private sector by lending UNDP’s support,

prestige to project efforts in this regard.

Training/Workshop Making appropriate arrangements for the logistical and technical support of the training

and workshop activities

Awareness Disseminate relevant information to host/other countries in the region through UNDP

COs Share project best practices with other UNDP offices with project interest on energy

portfolio Share training materials from training workshops for other similar workshops organized

by the UNDP CO Disseminating information through website created under the project Create links between this project and other GEF projects, and linking up national and

international scientific communities that are addressing similar issues Working with media and journalists to publicize project activities.

Equipment/Office premises: Review & approve specifications Identify suppliers of goods and services Assist in evaluating contract and awarding contract (when necessary) Undertake Customs clearance Assist with procurement of services (furniture in setting-up office, telephone etc.) Authorize budgets for rent and payment.

Project implementation supervision Participate in every steering committee meeting Mount at least one supervision mission per year, including briefing operational focal points

on project progress. Provide technical guidance, as necessary, for project implementation. Field Visits: Ensuring visits to the project at its site at least once a year; preparing and

circulating reports no later than two weeks after the end of the visit. Provide technical backstopping when needed and play and ongoing trouble shooting role Ensure any project document revisions are done properly and in-line with GEF requirements

by consulting UNDP-GEF colleagues. Review, edit, respond to project reports Conduct policy negotiations when required.

Financial Management and Accountability Make direct payments and ensure flow of funds for project activities; Pay advances to the Executing Agency and review financial reports. Training of staff of implementing agency on financial disbursement and reporting

60


Oversee financial monitoring, record keeping, and reporting. Make budget revisions in cooperation with Executing Agency and the Government.

1st. revision within two months of the signing of the project document to reflect the actual starting date and to enable the preparation of a realistic plan for the provision of inputs for the first full year.

Annual revision approved by 10 June of each year to reflect the final expenditures for the preceding year and to enable the preparation of a realistic plan for the provision of inputs for the current year.

Carry out ongoing fundraising efforts for the project’s long term financing.

Reporting, Monitoring, Evaluation

Technical Reporting Monitor the implementation of the workplan and timetable Ensure progress reports are prepared and submitted timely Ensure Annual Programme Reports (APR) are prepared and submitted to UNDP CO and

transmitted to UNDP-GEF 15 days prior to Tripartite Review Meetings.

Monitoring and Evaluation Undertake project monitoring/site visits Organize TPR meeting, participate and ensure that decisions are taken on important issues. Contribute to preparation of TPR reports Ensure the development of clear guidelines for assessing project progress and impact, for

improving monitoring, and for identifying lessons learned and including them in the following years’ workplans

Undertake mid-term review, including possible project restructuring. Send copy to GEFME Prepare and finalize TOR for evaluation (mid-term and final evaluation) Ensure appropriate logistical and technical arrangements are made for the evaluation team

and mission.

COMPLETION

Oversee preparation of Project Completion Report/Terminal Evaluation and submission of the report to GEFME.

Operational completion activities. Determining when the project is operationally complete and advising all interested parties accordingly.

Oversee preparation of project closing documents Ensure projects are financially completed no more than 12 months after operational

completion by ensuring the final budget revision is promptly prepared and approved.

Output Mid-term Review Report Annual Project Implementation Reports Independent evaluation reports Project Completion/Terminal Evaluation Report

61


1.1.2 Terms of Reference for Project Staff

Title National Project CoordinatorTerms of reference ID# 6 Budget line 71300Type of contract & ID# One-year

renewableActivity Area reference(s) NA

The National Project Coordinator (NPC) will be responsible for day-to-day project management as head of the PMU. The NPC will ensure smooth implementation of the project in accordance with the project document and UNDP and GEF procedures. He/she shall liaise directly with designated officials of the PSC, existing and potential project donors, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PSC or by the NPC him/herself.

He/she shall be responsible for coordinating, overseeing the preparation of, and the delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the project. He/she will supervise all project staff in the PMU as well as the project budget. The NPC will prepare an annual work plan on the basis of the project document, under the general supervision of the PSC and in close consultation and coordination with the Director of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas and UNDP.

Overall duties

Under the guidance of the Director of Fauna Conservation and Protected Areas and UNDP, the NPC will have the following responsibilities:

1. Ensure smooth implementation of the project in accordance with the project document and UNDP's procedures.

2. He/she will supervise all project staff in the PMU as well as the project budget. Certify attendance sheets, and oversee the establishment and operation of a project personnel performance assessment scheme.

3. Work with project staff members and consultants to help each one utilize a practical and simple method for helping to determine the impact of project activities – of training activities, of workshops, the process of developing new laws and policies.

4. Coordinate, monitor and be responsible to the PSC for implementation of the Work Plan;5. Ensure consistency among the various program elements and related activities provided or

funded by other donor organizations;6. Work with UNDP N’djamena to prepare Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors;7. Foster and establish links with other related GEF programs and, where appropriate, with

other relevant regional programs;8. Provide technical input to project activities where appropriate;9. Be an ex-officio member of the PSC and be responsible for the preparation, organization, and

follow-up necessary to the effective conduct of PSC business; 10. Submit quarterly reports of relevant project progress and problems to the PSC;11. Integrate the various co-funded initiatives with GEF funded activities;12. Organize round table discussions on project successes and failures, as per the workplan13. Encourage an atmosphere of adaptive management in the project office, where people focus

on meaningful results “on the ground”, rather than simply the spending of funds or reports.

14. Oversee an effective ongoing project monitoring program and development of a process whereby the project assesses best practices as it gains experience.

62


15. Collaborate with UNDP to ensure that specified project tasks are outsourced to suitable consultants and/or organizations.

Specific roles related to implementation of project Activity Areas

A key role of the NPC, and of the Project Management Unit (PMU) as a whole, will be to supervise and co-ordinate the inputs of various national and international consultants. However, the project’s limited budget means that it will not be possible to rely on consultants to undertake all substantive project activities. It will therefore be essential for the NPC and the Project Monitoring & Evaluation Officer (PMEO), as full time technical staff, to have strong technical backgrounds and to utilize these backgrounds in contributing actively to project outputs.

Qualifications graduate degree in biodiversity conservation, project management, or some directly related

field (e.g. wildlife and fisheries management, natural resource management, natural resource economics, etc.);

extensive experience in fields related to the assignment; at least five years experience as a senior project manager. excellent inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills; familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations strongly preferred, in

particular those of the GEF and its partners (UNDP, the World Bank, major NGOs, and current and future potential additional donors);

excellent French-language writing skills; previous work experience in the region on issues directly related to the project; ability and willingness to travel, and; demonstrated skills in office computer use - word processing, spreadsheets.

Duty stationsThe NPC will be based at the project office in Sarh. S/he will make periodic visits to N’djamena, but should spend at least 70% of the time on site.

63


Title Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME)

Terms of reference ID# 7 Budget line 71200Type of contract & ID# Retainer (?) Activity Area reference(s) NA

I. BackgroundThe Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME) will represent the primary source of international technical support for project implementation. The PIME will monitor and support the implementation of all project components, primarily by means of annual visits to N’djamena and to the project site. This in-country support will be supplemented by periodic home-based support, which will include responding to technical queries, commenting on technical reports, etc. Despite his/her part-time status, the PIME will be considered as a member of the Project Management Unit (PMU), and as such will work closely with the National Project Coordinator (NPC).

II. Timing, duration and duty stationsThe PIME will be recruited by the project on a retainer basis for a pre-determined number of months annually.14 A total of 13 months support over the life of the project is envisaged. The majority of support will be provided during annual missions, timed to coincide with major project monitoring events, such as the annual meeting of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). This will be supplemented by ad-hoc, home-based support. The schedule of support will be as follows:

Year w/m in Chad w/m home-based1 2.5 0.52 2 0.53 1.5 0.54 1.5 0.55 1.5 0.56 1 0.5

It is expected that approximately 50% of the time spent in country will be spent at the project site, with the remaining 50% spent in N’djamena.

III. Description of work responsibilities Overall, the PIME will have the following general responsibilities:

1. To ensure that the project maintains strategic direction during implementation and that it becomes an active member of a learning network of GEF projects.

2. To sharpen the project’s focus on quality outputs, and to emphasize a learning and adaptive approach to project management and implementation.

14

64


3. To introduce international best practices to project managers by serving as a conduit for ongoing UNDP/GEF best practice input to project implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This will include – working in co-operation with UNDP-GEF’s Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) in Dakar – the development of linkages between the project and other UNDP/GEF projects implemented in West Africa, as well as in other parts of the world.

--------------------14 It would be useful to engage the PIME for an initial 3-year period, in order to ensure consistency, i.e., so that a new PIME does not need to be identified and/or recruited each year.

During annual missions to Chad, the PIME will have the following specific responsibilities:

1. To liaise with UNDP, the PMU and MEW in order to identify, and find solutions to, problems and challenges facing project implementation;

2. To review the progress of project implementation as compared with the defined baseline and with respect to benchmark indicators highlighted in the Logical Framework Matrix (LFM) (see Section 1, Annex 1.2).

3. To facilitate a learning and adaptive approach to project management and implementation by asking questions of key project personnel, including: “What are we learning and how are we incorporating it into our project implementation process?” and “Are we meeting our indicators of success?”

4. To lead an annual project management and evaluation exercise. 5. Upon request of the NPC, revise, update, and/or prepare detailed Terms of Reference for

positions as they come up for hire during project implementation; 6. To support the development and dissemination of a lessons learned/best practices

handbook derived from the project.

During the first mission, (s)he will have the following responsibilities:

7. Prepare an outline of the legislative and regulatory report (see TOR #12) and assist in the identification and selection of suitable consultants.

Ad-hoc home-based support will include the following:

8. Providing technical comments on draft sub-contract and consultancy reports produced under the project.

9. Responding to technical queries from project partners.10. Within constraints imposed by communications systems, participate in twice-annual

teleconferences / videoconferences with key Chad-based project partners. 11. Other support as requested by the NPC, within the constraints imposed by the availability

of working days.

IV. Qualifications Ability to work in the French language Detailed knowledge of project design and implementation arrangements and experience with

key stakeholders; At least five years of experience with UNDP and GEF project development and

implementation; Proven experience in successfully working with adaptive management/monitoring & best

practice assessment; Well developed leadership, inter-personal, communication and negotiating skills, as well as a

proven ability to work effectively in groups;

65


Previous work experience in Africa; Post-graduate university education. Reliability, initiative, thoroughness and attention to detail.

66


1.1.3 TORs for International Consultants

Title Management Planning Expert (MPE) Terms of reference ID# 8 Budget line 71200Type of contract & ID# SSA Activity Area reference(s) 1.5

I. Background Activity Areas 1.1-1.4 of the project each involve matters of significance to planning. Conclusions in each of these areas will therefore be built upon to form a comprehensive management plan for MNP, which will be prepared during Year 2 for implementation during Year 3 of the project. Additional activities beyond those identified in the project brief, including infrastructure investments, will be formulated and implemented under the auspices of this management plan. The management plan will also stipulate areas for sustainable use (see Activity Area 2.4). Finally, the management plan will develop appropriate mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits with local communities in the event that tourism revenues increase.

Management plan activities will be designed with the close co-operation and participation of local communities surrounding MNP. These communities will also strongly participate in implementation, thereby benefiting from enhanced employment opportunities during the period of project implementation.

In preparing the management plan, the consultants will be able to count upon GEF funding for implementation from the following budget lines:

BL 20.05 – Implement new management plan activities BL 20.08 – Implement sustainable use protocols

Thus, priority activities should be designed based on the above-described financing envelope. Additional activities should also be proposed and put forward to donors for possible leveraged co-financing.

The management plan will be prepared by a team of four consultants – three nationals and one international. Its development will include a series of consultations with local stakeholders.

II. Description of work responsibilities The consultant will undertake two missions to Chad over a roughly four-month period.

Prior to the first mission, (s)he will receive copies of all project documentation produced to date and will be briefed via teleconference by, inter alia, the Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME).

During the first mission, the MPE will:

67


meet with Government, UNDP, PMU and national park staff to discuss and review project outputs to date and goals / objectives for the remainder of the project, in particular the future management goals of MNP;

hold planning meetings with three national consultants who will already have been recruited for preparation of the management plan, along with Government and UNDP, in order to:

(i) provide orientation to the work of the national consultants and clarify their TORs,

(ii) develop a detailed outline of the management plan, with designation of responsibilities among all four team members,

(iii) prepare a detailed working plan for the 6-month consultancies of the national consultants, along with his/her own contribution, and

(iv) share international experience in developing management plans;

visit the project site and participate in a first round of management plan consultations with local stakeholders;

prepare a final mission report.

The MPE will also be available during this period between the missions to have e-mail correspondence with the national consultants concerning issues arising.

Prior to the second mission, the MPE will receive copies of the draft final reports of the national consultants (constituting draft sections of the management plan), as well as other relevant updates.

During the second mission, the MPE will:

hold debriefing meetings with the national consultants’ team for updating on progress in developing the management plan, including reports of consultations held, etc;

meet with Government, UNDP, PMU and national park staff to discuss progress in developing the management plan and steps in finalization;

visit the project site to participate in a final (?) round of management plan consultations with local and national-level stakeholders.

Within one month following the completion of the second mission, the national consultants will deliver final drafts of their sections of the management plan. These will be integrated and edited by the MPE and delivered in finalized form as his/her final report no more than one month later.

III. Timing, duration and duty stationsThe duration of the MPE’s assignment will be 75 working days, to be provided over a roughly

68


six-month period. The consultant’s time will be allocated between the project site (c. 35 working days), N’djamena (c. 20 working days) and home-based work, including drafting and finalization of the management plan (20 working days).

The assignment is expected to commence towards the end of Year 2 of the project. However, the consultancy will not commence until an updated and more appropriate set of MNP regulations has been legally approved (see project indicators).

IV. Qualificationsa. Minimum of 5 years experience in protected area planning and management in Africa;b. Experience in working with and developing effective partnerships with local communities,

NGOs and government agencies;c. Knowledge and skills in various aspects of conservation area operations and field

management, including participatory approaches in management, operational planning, enforcement, community outreach, conservation awareness building, and conflict resolution;

d. Good interpersonal skills and a track record in providing on-the-job training; e. Excellent French and English communication skills.

69


Title Micro-credit and micro-enterprise specialist

Terms of reference ID# 9 Budget line 71200Type of contract & ID# SSA Activity Area reference(s) 2.3

I. Background Various possible micro-projects for reducing pressures on demonstration site resources have been highlighted in background studies conducted under the PDF-B.15 The project will conduct cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses of these interventions prior to funding any of them. A micro-credit programme will be developed to provide seed funding for some of these small projects, and will be made available to all members of the community, making sure there is equitable access by women, different ethnic groups, sedentary vs. mobile populations, etc.

II. Description of work responsibilities The consultant will have the following responsibilities:

Conduct an extended site visit in order to assess socio-economic conditions and propose a mechanism for providing support for community development and credit;

Review and derive lessons learned from recent and ongoing development interventions interventions in the area, particularly those of project partners

Finalize a TOR for a sub-contract for community development and micro-credit. This will ultimately be aimed at providing alternative livelihoods that reduce pressures on MNP resources.

III. Timing, duration and duty stationsThe duration of the MMS’s assignment will be 5 working months over an 18-month period. The consultant’s time will be allocated between the project site (3 working months), N’djamena (1 working month) and home-based support (1 working month). The assignment is expected to take place during Years 2-3 of the project.

IV. Qualificationsa. Extensive experience with micro-credit and micro-enterprise development;b. Advanced degree in Resource Economics, Environmental Economics, or related fields;c. Familiarity with natural resource issues;d. At least five years experience in developing country setting;e. Excellent communication skills;f. Fluency in French and English; g. Ability to work with various stakeholder groups.

15 See Section II, Project brief.

70


1.1.4 TORs for National Consultants

Title Human resource management Terms of reference ID# 10 Budget line 71300Type of contract & ID# SSA Activity Area reference(s) 1.1

I. BackgroundRe-invigoration of Manda National Park (MNP) staff is essential for project success and will be ensured through a combination of re-profiling, retirement and staff recruitment, followed by development and implementation of a comprehensive staff training programme. Training will take advantage of existing facilities at national and sub-regional levels, through mechanisms such as joint training with the Zakouma project staff, and possible utilization of a regional training centre recently established in neighbouring Cameroon. Training will cover wildlife management; range management; participatory co-management; community relations; and other topics.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe consultant will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC). (S)he will develop and help to implement a detailed programme to strengthen human resources capacities and management at Manda National Park (MNP).16 This will include the following specific tasks:

i. Review MNP staffing requirements and develop a staffing plan, with clear job descriptions including job requirements (education, etc.) and responsibilities

ii. Staff profiling against job descriptions, i.e., determine what are existing skills of current Park staff and if/how they can contribute within new structure

iii. Recommend staff changes as necessary, including retirement packages and advise on procedures for new staff recruitment. Should involve careful consideration of the advantages and/or disadvantages of hiring for certain positions locally, i.e., from villages surrounding MNP.

iv. Once new staff are in place, with appropriate job descriptions, develop and oversee the launching of a staff training programme.17 This programme is expected to include:o site-based training by national and international experts;o staff exchanges and joint training programmes with Zakouma National Park;o regional-level training, e.g., through ECOFAC programme in Cameroon.

v. Review staff remuneration levels and propose possible sustainable incentive programmes.

III. Timing and locationThe consultancy is expected to run for a 4-month period, beginning immediately following the inception phase. Work will be undertaken at N’djamena and Sarh.

IV. ReportingThe consultant will prepare an intermediate and a final report regarding the assignment.

16 See Activity Area 1.1 of Project Brief. 17 The actual costs of the training programme, e.g., consultants, course fees, travel, etc., will be funded from elsewhere in the project budget. Training recommendations made by the consultant should take into account the costs of various training options and the size of the budgetary envelope.

71


Title Legislative and Regulatory Experts (LRE)


I. BackgroundThe regulatory structure approved in 1998 requires a careful review and evaluation, following which a revised regulatory structure will be established. This process will include an early review of the three-Committee structure proposed, but never implemented, under existing regulations. If appropriate, these Committees will then be established and will help to guide the remainder of the regulatory revision process. Village-level participation in this process is considered essential to ensure subsequent co-operation.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesA team of two consultants (socio-economist and ecologist) will develop and implement a programme to strengthen the regulatory system at Manda National Park (MNP).18 This will include the following specific tasks:

i. undertake a performance review of experience under current regulatory arrangements (No 17/MEE/DG/DPFPN/98 of 23 June 1998);

ii. develop proposals for regulatory revisions including, inter alia, details of new sustainable use protocols;

iii. provide substantive leadership for broad-based (village-level) stakeholder consultations and round-table discussions / negotiations, chaired by MEE, on nature of revised regulations;

iv. support the final adoption and wide dissemination of a revised regulatory regime

The consultants will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC). The Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME) will comment on all draft reports.

III. Timing and locationThe consultancy will run for a 2-3 month period, beginning immediately following the inception phase. Work will be undertaken at N’djamena and the project site.

IV. ReportingThe consultants will prepare unified draft and final reports, including a revised draft regulatory structure. A preliminary outline of this report should be prepared by the PIME during the Inception Phase and appended to the present TOR.

18 See Activity Area 1.2 of Project Brief.

72


Title Compliance monitoring plan Terms of reference ID# 12 Budget line 71300Type of contract & ID# SSA Activity Area reference(s) 1.4

I. BackgroundWhile other activity areas are expected to help substantially reduce pressures arising from surrounding communities, it will nevertheless be important to strengthen existing levels of compliance monitoring. This will be accomplished through development of a detailed participatory compliance monitoring plan, along with provision of necessary equipment and related infrastructure improvements. Compliance monitoring will be participatory, i.e., local communities (both sedentary and pastoral) will be directly involved first in defining sustainable use levels, and then in helping to prevent usage above these levels within MNP.

II. Responsibilities and oversightThe consultant will develop a cost-effective and sustainable programme for compliance monitoring at MNP. This will involve preparing a detailed compliance monitoring plan, including patrolling schedules and methods, reporting protocols, procedures to follow in cases of non-compliance and capacity building needs – training, infrastructure and equipment needs, etc. The plan will take into account recent experience with encroachment, poaching etc., and their control at both MNP and Zakouma National Park. It will therefore be necessary for the consultant to assess current levels and types of encroachment-related threats facing biodiversity as part of the overall assignment.

The consultant will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU), will report directly to the National Project Coordinator (NPC) and will consult closely with MNP staff and other stakeholders in preparing the plan. The Project Implementation and Monitoring Expert (PIME) will review draft and final versions of the Plan, either from home base or while in country, depending on timing.

III. Timing and locationThe consultancy will take place over a 3-month period, beginning immediately following Government endorsement of the Staffing Review (see TOR #11), around Q4 of Year 1 (see workplan). Work will be undertaken at the project site and at the capital.

IV. ReportingThe consultant will prepare draft and final versions of the compliance monitoring plan.

V. Follow-up and linkages with other project activitiesThe Plan should be widely communicated among project stakeholders, who will thus be made aware that their activities within MNP will be coming under substantially greater scrutiny. Equipment purchases, infrastructural improvement and any necessary training should immediately follow upon adoption of the Plan.

In designing the Plan, the consultant should bear in mind the scale of human and financial resources available for its implementation. In particular, (s)he should take into account the human resources available for its implementation (see Staffing Review, TOR #11). The Staffing Review should thus already have been endorsed by Government prior to initiation of this consultancy. In addition, since the plan will represent the basis upon which, inter alia, Urgent Infrastructural

73


Improvements (see TOR #19) will be undertaken, the plan should be in line with the scale of financial resources available for the latter. Finally, the Plan will form a key pillar of the overall management plan to be put together in Year 3 of the project.

74


Title Management planning experts Terms of reference ID# 13 Budget line 71300Type of contract & ID# SSA Activity Area reference(s) 1.5

I. BackgroundActivity Areas 1.1-1.4 of the project each involve matters of significance to planning. Conclusions in each of these areas will therefore be built upon to form a comprehensive management plan for MNP which will be prepared during Year 2 for implementation during Year 3 of the project. Additional activities beyond those identified in the project brief, including infrastructure investments, will be formulated and implemented under the auspices of this management plan. The management plan will also stipulate areas for sustainable use (see Activity Area 2.4). Finally, the management plan will develop appropriate mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits with local communities in the event that tourism revenues increase.

In preparing the management plan, the consultants will be able to count upon GEF funding for implementation from the following budget lines:

BL 20.05 – Implement new management plan activities BL 20.08 – Implement sustainable use protocols

Thus, priority activities should be designed based on the above-described financing envelope. Additional activities should also be proposed and put forward to donors for possible leveraged co-financing.

The management plan will be prepared by a team of four consultants – three nationals and one international. One of these consultants will be designated as National Team Leader. Team members’ backgrounds should reflect the inter-disciplinary approach being followed by the project and should therefore represent a combination of biological / ecological and social scientific expertise.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe consultants will work in close co-operation with the international Management Planning Expert (MPE). This expert will be responsible for finalizing the TORs of the national experts, thereby defining the methodology to be followed in preparing the Plan, including consultations, reporting, etc.

The consultants will also work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC).

III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 4-month period during the second half of Year 2 of the project. Work will mainly be undertaken at the project site, with additional N'djamena-based support provided.

75


IV. ReportingThe consultants will prepare draft and final versions of components of the management plan, to be specified and agreed during the first mission of the international MPE.V. Qualificationsa. Experience in working with and developing effective partnerships with local communities,

NGOs and government agencies;b. Knowledge and skills in various aspects of conservation area operations and field

management, including participatory approaches in management, operational planning, enforcement, community outreach, conservation awareness building, and conflict resolution;

c. Good interpersonal skills and a track record in providing on-the-job training; d. Excellent French and English communication skills. e. Experience in protected area planning and management in Africa will be an advantage.

76


Title Traditional community knowledge gathering: MNP


I. BackgroundLocal communities around MNP – both sedentary as well as transhumant – possess a wealth of knowledge concerning the biodiversity of areas where their families have often lived for many generations. In addition, many such communities have unique and time-tested methods of utilizing the natural resources that this biodiversity constitutes. Understanding local communities’ relationships with, and knowledge of, biodiversity is therefore a key pre-requisite of defining effective strategies for management of the same.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe consultant will undertake a detailed survey aimed at characterizing the type and extent of natural resource use taking place within MNP. Such a survey should maintain a historical perspective in order to indicate which resources have been important in previous years and may have been over-harvested, which resources are currently being (illegally) harvested, etc.

The survey should cover both all main community types, i.e., agricultural, fishing and pastoralists. It should involve field work and collection of original data, i.e., it is not a desk study.

The consultant will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC).

III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 3-month period, beginning immediately following completion of the inception phase. Work will be undertaken at the project site.

IV. ReportingThe consultant will prepare an interim and a final report of findings.

77


Title Planning for data gathering and analysis in corridors


I. Background

Outcome 3 of the GEF project is as follows:

One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and its associated landscapes, and in supporting sustainable pastoral management

Achieving the above outcome will require a wide range of efforts, some of which will be financed directly by the GEF, others of which will be undertaken through co-financing and associated projects, particularly the EU Zakouma project and the FFEM project.

Project partners will be collecting information on wildlife populations, together with land use data, within protected areas and the broader landscape of Moyen Chari. Methods will include the use of aerial and satellite imagery and various methods of ground-truthing. Geographically referenced data will be analysed using GIS methods, permitting an improved understanding of wildlife populations and movements within the area and their relationship with land use and migratory transhumance patterns.

In the case of the present sub-contract, work being undertaken by the Pastoralism/Wild Fauna Interaction Project, supported by FFEM, will be particularly important. This project has been developing ecological and socio-economic data concerning protected areas and the broader landscape in the Moyen Chari region. These areas represent the zone from which MNP’s wildlife populations will need to draw in order to be successfully reconstituted and to remain ‘connected’ to a wider outside gene pool. The EU Zakouma project will also be important, albeit for a more geographically restricted area within the vicinity of Zakouma National Park.

II. Tasks / responsibilities

The main tasks to be undertaken by the consultant are the following:

Review data and analysis prepared by the FFEM and Zakouma projects, as well as other information sources, concerning the socio-economic and ecological characteristics of the broader landscape level surrounding MNP, particularly the interactions between wildlife and livestock;

Become familiar with the medium-term plans of all relevant projects in the area, as these may have changed somewhat since the formulation of the project brief.

Assess the extent to which the above efforts will provide an adequate information base upon which: (i) to identify and (ii) to work within, wildlife/livestock corridors where GEF efforts will be concentrated;

If possible, identify 1-2 priority demonstration wildlife/livestock corridors for support under the GEF project;

78


If it is determined that information needed to identify wildlife / livestock corridors is lacking, propose additional steps necessary in order to gather such information,

Whether or not such corridors are identified, specify additional information / data needs and propose strategies for its acquisition during the course of the project (see TOR #24).


III. Timing and locationThe consultancy will take place over a 4-month period during Year 1 of the project. Work will be undertaken at N’djamena and in Moyen Chari.

IV. ReportingThe sub-contractor will prepare a final report describing work accomplished.

79


Title Development of co-management planTerms of reference ID# 16 Budget line 71300Type of contract & ID# SSA Activity Area reference(s) 3.3

I. BackgroundActivity Area 3.3 will involve the demonstration of innovative methods for enhancing the effectiveness of selected wildlife/pastoral corridors. The goal is to demonstrate methods by which MNP’s wildlife populations can be rehabilitated and sustained over the longer term, by ensuring sustainable pastoral land management. Target species for rehabilitation via wildlife corridors include the sassaby, waterbuck, bushbuck and the elephant. The project will support the development and enforcement of access corridors for both livestock and wildlife. This may include minimal infrastructure development such as strategically located mini-dams/ponds and salt licks. It will also include establishment of conflict resolution mechanisms with sedentary farmers.


The consultant will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC). (S)he will develop work with local stakeholders to develop a plan for co-management of selected wildlife / pastoral corridors.19

III. Timing and locationThe consultancy will run for a 3-month period, beginning in Year 2 of the project. Work will be undertaken at the project site.

IV. ReportingThe consultants will prepare interim and final reports consisting of draft and final versions of the co-management plan.

19 Additional details of this consultancy will be worked out during the course of implementation of Activity Areas 3.1 and 3.2.

80


1.1.5 TORs for sub-contracts

Title Baseline indicators survey Terms of reference ID# 17 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #1 Activity Area reference(s) 1.3

I. BackgroundWhile some useful baseline ecological and socio-economic data has been collected during the PDF-B process, more will be needed to establish a comprehensive baseline. Such a baseline will be important for developing management strategies as well as for allowing comparison with data gathered during later stages of project implementation in order to measure the project’s impact.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe sub-contractor will be responsible for determining baseline values for the final set of impact indicators to be agreed upon during the Project Implementation Phase (PIP).20 Sources of information and data to complete this task will include:

(i) reports prepared under the PDF-B phase of the project;(ii) official Government reports,(iii) original data to be collected by the sub-contractor through field work to be undertaken at

and around the project site.

The sub-contractor will also be responsible for designing a programme of ongoing ecological and socio-economic monitoring, including data collection and management, to be undertaken during the remainder of the project and beyond. It will be important for this programme to be compatible with other data systems being developed in Moyen-Chari and nationwide.

III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 4-month period, beginning immediately following the inception phase. Work will be undertaken at N’djamena and Sarh.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$10,000. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that a combination of national and international expertise will be needed to complete the assignment.

V. ReportingThe sub-contractor will prepare draft and final reports, including recommendations for regulatory changes. The reports should address practical issues associated with implementing the proposed monitoring programme, e.g., strategies for training project staff, specification of equipment needs, the need for further sub-contracts or other external support, etc. Proposals should take account of the magnitude of funding available through the GEF project.

An outline of the report should be appended to the bid proposal for the assignment and should include details of the proposed methodology to be utilized, particularly for the field work portion of the assignment.

20 Note: It may be necessary to raise/lower the scope of this consultancy depending on the types of changes made to the impact indicators during the PIP.

81


Title Follow-up indicator surveys Terms of reference ID# 18 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contracts #2-3 Activity Area reference(s) 1.3

I. BackgroundFollowing the establishment of a comprehensive baseline and the design of an ongoing monitoring programme (see Sub-contract #1 above), support will be needed for conducting periodic monitoring of ecological and socio-economic indicators, particularly impact indicators.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe tasks and responsibilities for work under this sub-contract will be prepared based on the conclusions of the baseline indicators survey final report. However, they will include providing on-the-job training to MNP staff in ecological monitoring and data management (see BL 32.02).

III. Timing and locationTwo or more sub-contracts will be issued for this assignment, beginning in Year 2 of the project. Work will mainly be undertaken at the project site.

IV. RemunerationThe total value of the sub-contracts to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for these assignments is US$24,000. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contracts. It is expected that qualified national experts will be available to complete the assignment.

V. ReportingThe sub-contractors will prepare draft and final reports. An outline of this report should be appended to the bid proposal for the assignment.

82


Title Urgent infrastructural improvements Terms of reference ID# 19 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #4 Activity Area reference(s) 1.4

I. BackgroundThe present sub-contract is designed to support the implementation of two separate Activity Areas (see Section II, Project Brief). These are:

AA 1.4 Compliance Monitoring: Provide necessary infrastructure and equipment to facilitate compliance

monitoring programme, including transport, communications, road improvements, accommodations for rangers, etc.

AA 2.2 Community participation in MNP conservation and rehabilitation activities Ensure that surrounding communities benefit from employment opportunities

created by conservation and rehabilitation activities within MNP.

It is important to recognize that the measures to be undertaken through this sub-contract represent an attempt to take swift action on-the-ground without waiting for completion of the management plan.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe sub-contractor will undertake infrastructural and related improvements aimed at strengthening the capacities of MNP staff to adequately monitor and control use of MNP. These activities will be undertaken with the close co-operation and participation of local communities surrounding MNP. These communities will thereby receive an immediate benefit from work at MNP in the form of enhanced employment opportunities during the period of project implementation.

Specific tasks to be undertaken will include those described in the compliance monitoring plan (see TOR # 13) as well as other priority measures agreed upon by UNDP, MEW and the PMU.

The consultant / sub-contractor will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC). Potential sub-contractors should provide details in their bid proposals as to how local communities would participate in and directly benefit from the work being undertaken under this sub-contract.

III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 12-month period, mainly during Year 2 of the project. Work will be undertaken at the project site.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$50,669. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that qualified national experts and/or locally-based NGOs will be available to complete the assignment.21

V. Reporting

21 This assessment should be evaluated during the inception phase.

83


The sub-contractor will prepare quarterly progress reports as well as a final report describing work accomplished.

84


Title Implementation of new management plan activities

Terms of reference ID# 20 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #5 Activity Area reference(s) 1.5, 2.2

I. BackgroundDuring Year 2, the project will prepare a management plan. Once adopted by Government, this plan will provide the basis for the present sub-contract.


Specific tasks to be undertaken will be described in the management plan (see TORs #9 & 14).

The consultant / sub-contractor will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC).

III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 36-month period, mainly during Years 3-5 of the project. Work will be undertaken at the project site.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$129,404. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that qualified national experts and/or locally-based organizations will be available to complete the assignment.

V. ReportingThe sub-contractor will prepare a final report describing work accomplished.

85


Title Community outreach and awareness raising Terms of reference ID# 21 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #6 Activity Area reference(s) 2.1

I. BackgroundBuilding on the process of village-level consultations launched under the PDF-B, a series of community outreach and awareness raising activities will be developed and implemented. MNP staff and sub-contractors will work with community leaders to raise awareness concerning project activities related to conservation and sustainable use at MNP, as well as community development and micro-credit activities being supported through project co-financing. Villagers will participate in project planning, particularly in the selection and implementation of community development components. The project will aim to create a positive connection in local stakeholders’ minds between the existence and continued effective protection of MNP and the availability of enhanced development opportunities, employment opportunities, sustainable use options, etc. This is expected to quickly change prevailing attitudes and incentives within local communities towards support for MNP and to encourage collective efforts to reduce or eliminate illegal activities emanating from their own or neighbouring communities. Careful project monitoring will attempt to show the cause-effect relationship between development and threat reduction from individual villages and village clusters. Conclusions will feed back into project decision-making, allowing project strategies to be adapted accordingly.


o Select 10-15 communities around MNP, along with relevant pastoralist groups, for pilot outreach programme. These should include a broad representation of ethnic groups, types of resource users (farmers, fishermen, etc.) and geographic distribution. Beneficiaries should understand the connection between conservation and development.

o Prepare a detailed socio-economic analysis of the above communitieso Develop awareness materials for communicating MNP regulatory developments and

project livelihood activities to beneficiarieso Organize village-level consultations (building on those conducted during PDF-B) to build

awareness of conservation and MNP objectives


III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 36-month period, during Years 1-4 of the project. Work will be undertaken at the project site.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$70,314. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that qualified national experts will be available to complete the assignment.


86


Title Micro-credit / community developmentTerms of reference ID# 22 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #7 Activity Area reference(s) 2.3

I. BackgroundVarious possible micro-projects for reducing pressures on demonstration site resources have been highlighted in background studies conducted under the PDF-B.22 The project will conduct cost-benefit and environmental impact analyses of these interventions prior to funding any of them. A micro-credit programme will be developed to provide seed funding for some of these small projects, and will be made available to all members of the community, making sure there is equitable access by women, different ethnic groups, sedentary vs. mobile populations, etc.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe precise tasks to be undertaken under this sub-contract will be specified by the micro-credit and micro-enterprise specialist. However, they are likely to include the following

a. Undertake a detailed socio-economic analysis of target beneficiary communitiesb. Establish and capitalize a micro-credit and savings scheme for sustainable development

activities that do not negatively impact on conservation and sustainable use. This scheme should be designed to evolve into a permanent financial intermediary.

c. Develop regulations, procedures for access to the micro-credit, and monitoring and evaluation

d. Determine most suitable micro-credit and savings schemes to ensure sustainability of activities adapted to local conditions, taking lessons from UNDP and GEF projects elsewhere;

e. Build capacity of rural associations to determine most profitable and most durable sustainable use activities for micro-projects

f. Establish a continuous participatory assessment of the impact of micro-projects on the standard of living and natural resource conditions.

The sub-contractor will work closely with the Project Management Unit (PMU) and will report to the National Project Coordinator (NPC).

III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 4-year period, beginning at the end of the second year of the project. Work will be undertaken at the project site.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$115,741. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that a locally-based organisation (NGO, etc.) will be available to complete the assignment.


22 See Section II, Project brief.

87


Title Implementation of sustainable use protocolsTerms of reference ID# 23 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #8 Activity Area reference(s) 2.4

I. BackgroundMost if not all uses of natural resources within MNP have been banned in recent years. A regulatory review to be supported by the present project (see TOR #12) is expected to lead to a more flexible set of regulations that allows controlled uses within MNP. The present sub-contract will provide support to these efforts.

II. Tasks / responsibilitiesThe specific tasks to be undertaken under this sub-contract will be drafted by the national consultants conducting the above-mentioned regulatory review and subsequently reviewed by the PCU and project management.


III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 4-year period, during Years 2-5 of the project. Work will be undertaken entirely at the project site.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$92,592. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that national expertise will be available to complete the assignment.


88


Title Ecological and socio-economic data gathering

Terms of reference ID# 24 Budget line 72100Type of contract & ID# Sub-contract #9 Activity Area reference(s) 3.1

I. BackgroundOutcome 3 of the GEF project is as follows:


Achieving the above outcome will require a wide range of efforts, some of which will be financed directly by the GEF, others of which will be undertaken through co-financing and associated projects, particularly the EU Zakouma project and the FFEM project.

Project partners will be collecting information on wildlife populations, together with land use data, within protected areas and the broader landscape of Moyen Chari. Methods will include the use of aerial and satellite imagery and various methods of ground-truthing. Geographically referenced data will be analysed using GIS methods, permitting an improved understanding of wildlife populations and movements within the area and their relationship with land use and migratory transhumance patterns.

In the case of the present sub-contract, work being undertaken by the Pastoralism/Wild Fauna Interaction Project, supported by FFEM, will be particularly important. This project has been developing ecological and socio-economic data concerning protected areas and the broader landscape in the Moyen Chari region. These areas represent the zone from which MNP’s wildlife populations will need to draw in order to be successfully reconstituted and to remain ‘connected’ to a wider outside gene pool. The EU Zakouma project will also be important, albeit for a more geographically restricted area within the vicinity of Zakouma National Park.

II. Tasks / responsibilities23


III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 12-month period during Year 2 of the project. Work will be undertaken at N’djamena and in Moyen Chari.

IV. RemunerationThe value of the sub-contract to be issued by UNOPS Dakar for this assignment is US$62,000. A competitive bidding process should be followed for issuing the sub-contract. It is expected that a national expertise will be able to complete the assignment.

IV. ReportingThe sub-contractor will prepare a final report describing work accomplished.23 The main tasks of this consultancy will be drafted by a National Consultant who will undertake preliminary work under this outcome (see TOR # 15). The resulting task description will be reviewed by the NPC and the PIME before being released to potential sub-contractors.

89


Title Developing partnerships with local people in migratory corridors




On the basis of information gathered under AA-3.1, the project will narrow its focus down to one or at most two priority migratory corridors, which will be targeted for demonstration. Within these areas, partnerships will be developed with local governments and stakeholders in the area, including particularly transhumants, and awareness raised on the concept of corridor management. In an approach analogous to that being taken in the immediate vicinity of MNP, the support and participation of transhumants will be strongly encouraged.

II. Specific tasks / responsibilities24


III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 3-year period, mainly during Years 3-5 of the project. Work will be undertaken at the project site.



24 Tasks to be developed.

90


Title Enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife corridors



One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and its associated landscapes, and in supporting sustainable pastoral management.

Activity Area 3.3 will demonstrate innovative methods for enhancing the effectiveness of selected wildlife/pastoral corridors. The goal is to demonstrate methods by which MNP’s wildlife populations can be rehabilitated and sustained over the longer term, by ensuring sustainable pastoral land management in surrounding areas. Target species for rehabilitation via wildlife corridors include the sassaby, waterbuck, bushbuck and the elephant. The project will work within selected demonstration corridors with Zakouma Park officials, and local government (canton) officials on land use planning (capacity building and planning), as well as with local chiefs and transhumants, to develop and enforce access corridors for both livestock and wildlife. This may include minimal infrastructure development such as strategically located mini-dams/ponds and salt licks. It will also include establishment of conflict resolution mechanisms with sedentary farmers.

II. Tasks / responsibilities25


III. Timing and locationThe sub-contract will run for a 3-year period, mainly during Years 4-6 of the project. Work will be undertaken within selected migratory corridors in Moyen Chari.



25 Tasks to be developed.

91


Annex 1.2: Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) represents integral aspects of the project’s design. Monitoring and evaluation will be interactive and mutually supportive activities. Monitoring – a continuous process of collecting and analysing information needed to measure the progress of the project toward expected results – will be frequent and thorough. It will provide project managers and stakeholders with regular feedback to help them determine whether the project is progressing as planned. Monitoring will be supplemented by formal evaluations – periodic assessments of project performance and impact. Evaluations will also document what lessons are being learned from experience.

The project’s M&E programme will be guided by a set of indicators, which represent a summary description of the expected results and impacts referred to above. The indicators, first proposed in the project brief’s Logical Framework Matrix (LFM), are adaptable in the sense that they may be subject to revision during the course of project implementation, as project and site management goals are adapted to changing circumstances.26 Indeed, it is expected that the currently proposed set of indicators (see below) will be revised during the Project Inception Phase (PIP).

Aside from standard project functions such as ensuring correct auditing, etc, the primary objective of the project’s M&E component is to help guide the project towards successful achievement of these indicators.

Two broad sets of indicators have been developed, towards which both monitoring and evaluation processes will contribute. The first is designed to keep track of the process of project delivery and implementation. This includes a number of important aspects, such as:

whether the GEF budget is being spent as planned, both in terms of activities supported (staff and consultants recruited, equipment delivered, etc.) and timing of delivery;

whether stakeholders are participating as planned; whether project activities are being implemented, and outcomes achieved, as planned (as

evidenced, inter alia, by the completion of project deliverables as per the project workplan); whether project co-financing has been mobilized and delivered as planned.

Monitoring of the above process indicators can provide project managers with timely information needed for adaptive project management. It may, for example, alert them to capacity difficulties within the project team, project partners or implementing agencies, and help suggest alternative strategies to improve the efficiency of implementation. Process monitoring will be aimed at ensuring that the inputs called for within the project brief, including co-financed inputs, are promptly and appropriately delivered and, as a result, that the activities described are indeed taking place roughly as planned. Where changes to inputs and activities become necessary – often due to a perceived need to adapt the project strategy to changed circumstances – these are to be closely monitored, as well as clearly explained and justified by the project team. Project evaluations will also look closely at process, particularly in cases where implementation bottlenecks have clearly hindered project delivery and performance.

26 Reasons for revising project indicators may include: demonstrated inability (physical or practical) to collect reliable baseline data on an indicator (which implies an inability to measure change from such a baseline with confidence); interim monitoring indicates that target changes are unrealistically high; interim monitoring suggests that target changes have been easily and early on achieved and that more rigorous goals need to be set, and/or; more appropriate indicators have been identified.

92


In many cases, process indicators will not require significant effort to define a baseline, i.e., a point of departure from which the project can measure change. Thus, for example, in the case of an indicator which states “Management plan has been adopted,” the baseline is simply “No management plan.” In other cases, e.g., “Transhumants report fewer conflicts with farmers,” some field work will be required in order to estimate a baseline.

Table 1.3.1 below provides a chronological list of the project’s process indicators, originally presented in the LFM, together with their means of verification and an indication of the possible need for baseline data gathering.

Table 1.3.1: Process indicators to be monitored under M&E programme By end of year …..

Indicator Means of verification

2 Updated and more appropriate set of MNP regulations has been legally approved

Official gazette. Year 2 APR/PIR will highlight, assess and draw lessons from efforts in this area and will propose an intensive strategy for completion during Year 3 if necessary.

2 Compliance monitoring achieves 400% increase in effective areas patrolled compared with baseline.

Baseline to be determined during inception phase; subsequent comparisons to be based on written records of Park management team and reported on in Year 2 APR/PIR, which will carefully assess experience in this area.

3 Management plan has been adopted

Legally adopted management plan. Year 3 APR/PIR will assess efforts to establish a management plan and, if necessary, will propose an intensive strategy to ensure completion / adoption within 6 months.

3 Residents of surrounding communities have benefited from micro-enterprise / micro-credit schemes

Feasibility of indicator should be reviewed during inception phase and modified if necessary. Community-level data to be included in sub-contractors’ report and micro-credit issues are to be highlighted in Year 3 APR/PIR.

3 At least 50% of MNP staff have received training in related fields such as forestry, wildlife management, etc.

Baseline to be determined during inception phase; subsequent comparison to be included in Year 3 APR/PIR, together with detailed analysis of human resources development component (AA 1.1)

4 Pilot program for fuelwood alternative energy supply to Sarh is operational

Baseline assessment to be conducted of fuelwood gathering within MNP; detailed assessment of alternative energy development efforts to be included in Year 4 APR/PIR

3-4 Residents of 50% (yr 3) and 70% (year 4) of surrounding communities have participated in, and earned income from, MPA conservation, rehabilitation activities (road clearing, construction, etc.) and/or its sustainable use protocols

Baseline is effectively zero; detailed and annual records to be kept by Park staff during project implementation and summarised in Year 4 APR/PIR. Failure to meet the year 3 target will trigger a special review of the project’s socio-economic components within the mid-term evaluation.

5 Key identified pastoralist groups have benefited from awareness-raising and development activities, including well digging, micro-credit, and alternate sources of fodder

Year 5 APR/PIR will assess efforts in this area and, if necessary, will propose an intensive strategy to address within final year of project.

93


By end of year …..


5 Transhumants report less conflicts with farmers

Year 5 APR/PIR will assess efforts in this area and, if necessary, will propose an intensive strategy to address within final year of project.

6 Lessons learned are synthesized and disseminated at national level

Final project evaluation will report on experience in this area.

While successful implementation of the project, as measured by its process indicators, is necessary, it not sufficient to ensure the project’s overall success. What is ultimately more important, and must therefore also be carefully monitored and evaluated, is the project’s impact.

In GEF terms, the process of measuring project impact is known as results measurement and it is meant to be achieved through use of a set of impact indicators. Results measurement is aimed at estimating the short-, medium- and long-term results or impacts of the project intervention. While concerned with institutional and other capacity-related impacts, the GEF is particularly concerned with identifying and measuring actual physical or biological impacts on the environment and on biodiversity, as well as socio-economic impacts which may contribute to reduced pressure on biological resources. Compared with process indicators, impact indicators require greater attention to defining a baseline, so that project impacts may be measured based on the ‘distance covered’ from their ecological and socio-economic baseline.

Table 1.3.2 below presents the current set of impact indicators meant to be followed up by the project’s M&E programme.

Table 1.3.2: Impact indicators to be monitored under M&E programme By end of year …..


2 Wildlife surveys at MNP suggest population increases difficult to account for other than by in-migration from corridor

Baseline and follow-up indicator surveys

3 Studies show stable or improved vegetation condition within demonstration corridors


3 Key identified threats have been reduced from baseline levels as follows:oPoaching incidence reduced by 80%oAgricultural encroachment eliminatedoBushfires reduced by 15 % oOther forms of illegal resource extraction reduced by 70%


4 Increased reports of faunal presence along selected migratory wildlife corridors


6 Several formerly extirpated species have been recorded and are believed to be increasing to sustainable population levels, within MNP


6 Threat reduction indices show further substantial reductions in major threats facing MNP biodiversity


Table 1.3.3 below describes the various tools for M&E and their relationship to process and/or impact indicators. It also highlights the responsibilities of various project partners and the budgets allocated for the various activities.

94


Table 1.3.3: Overview of M & E toolsM & E tool Purposes Guidelines for use and breakdown of responsibilities Relationship to process and/or

impact indicatorsBudget

Definition of project baseline

To have available accurate baseline data to enable changes brought about by the project to be demonstrated and measured.

Process and impact indicators will be revised during PIP and TOR (see Annex 1._, TOR #10) will be finalized for data gathering to determine baseline values. Baseline study should be completed within six months following end of inception phase.

Study is designed to sharpen definition of these indicators as well as collect baseline values for them.

$10,000

Ongoing monitoring of process and impact indicators

To provide project managers with an updated quantitative overview of project progress

PMU staff will be responsible for ongoing monitoring of process indicators, as these are closely related to activities being undertaken or supervised by them. A sub-contractor (see Annex 1._, TORs #11 & 12) will have responsibility for monitoring and reporting to the PMU on ecological and socio-economic impact indicators.

This activity will generate data concerning degree of achievement of the selected indicators

26,000 (sub-contracts) + PCU staff time

Annual and periodic budget revisions

To ensure that project funds are managed effectively and are spent for the purposes envisaged in the project brief and project document and to provide project partners with updated information on project delivery and expenditures

Project budget revisions will be prepared by UNOPS, based on substantive inputs from the project team and UNDP Chad. They will be approved by the Resident Representative or Officer-in-Charge. An annual revision is mandatory and must be completed by 10 June. This is to reflect the final expenditures for the preceding year and to enable the preparation of a realistic plan for the provision of inputs for the current year. Other budget revisions may be undertaken as necessary during the course of the project.

Shifting of funds may lead to a need for minor revisions to process indicators as new or revised activities or timing are agreed upon.

N.A.

Substantive budget revisions

To allow for substantive changes in the project’s objectives, immediate objectives, duration, scope of intervention,

Substantive revisions are defined and should be undertaken as set out in the UNDP Programming Manual. Such revisions should be endorsed by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). In addition, if the substantive project revision includes changes to the agreed use of GEF funds, it must be cleared by the

Substantive revisions should be justified, inter alia, based on their perceived positive benefits on process and impact indicators. Conversely, substantive budgetary changes may require changes in either process or

N.A.

95


M & E tool Purposes Guidelines for use and breakdown of responsibilities Relationship to process and/or impact indicators

Budget

or project sites Executive Coordinator UNDP/GEF before being signed. impact indicators. Quarterly operational report

To provide UNDP Chad and UNDP-GEF with quarterly information on project implementation

Each quarter, the NPC is required to prepare a 100-word summary of the project’s substantive and technical progress towards achieving its objectives. The summaries are reviewed and cleared by UNDP-Chad before being sent to the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator.

The quarterly reports should explain successes and failures in implementing the project workplan, with reference to deliverables and other process indicators contained therein.

N.A.

Tripartite review (TPR)

To provide the main project partners – Government, UNDP and UNOPS – with an annual opportunity to assess project implementation and to agree on necessary measures for improvement.

A TPR is a policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the project. A tripartite review must be held once a year. In exceptional circumstances, there may be more than one TPR during a year. The following parties participate in the TPR:

The Government: the Designated Institution and other concerned agencies;

UNDP; The Project Team, and; Other main stakeholders, including

other United Nations agencies and other donors, as deemed appropriate.

The TPR needs to take stock of progress towards achieving process indicators. It should also review whether project managers are correctly utilizing impact indicators. Beginning in Year 3, the TPR should begin looking at findings linked to impact indicators, i.e., whether the project has begun having measurable impacts.

$10,000

Annual Project Report (APR) and Project Implementation Review (PIR)

To provide a kind of project “Annual Report’ of progress and/or difficulties in implementation

The APR/PIR is used as an input to the Tripartite Review (TPR) and must be ready two weeks prior to the TPR meeting. The PCU is responsible for preparing the APR/PIR. It may be completed and submitted via UNDP-Chad to the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator at any time, so long as it covers the July-June GEF reporting period. Normally it is submitted to the Regional Coordinator at the same time that it is prepared for the TPR, with revisions made taking into consideration TPR outcomes. The NPD will present the report at the TPR meeting. It should be noted that the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator is responsible for submitting the APR/PIR for GEF purposes and therefore must be satisfied with the content.

$6,000

96


M & E tool Purposes Guidelines for use and breakdown of responsibilities Relationship to process and/or impact indicators

Budget

Site visits To permit project stakeholders, particularly UNDP Chad, UNDP-GEF and Government, to observe first-hand the activities and progress taking place at the project site.

Site monitoring visits by UNDP Chad should take place on an approximately annual basis and otherwise as needed. It would be useful for annual visits to take place in the immediate period prior to the TPR, so that the UNDP Officer could present his/her observations to that meeting. Site visits should include consultations with local stakeholders, including local government and village leaders. Monitoring visits should also, on at least some occasions, include visits to the Manda – Zakouma corridor area. UNDP-GEF should undertake two site visits during the life of the project.

$12,000

Independent Mid-term Evaluation

To undertake a comprehensive evaluation of project implementation to date and present recommendations on how to improve the project during its second half.

The evaluation will be organized by UNDP-GEF and UNOPS.

The mid-term evaluation represents an important opportunity to review success in achieving process indicators. It may also be possible at this time to observe preliminary indications of project impacts.

$30,000

Final Project Evaluation

See Annex 1.3.1 Guidelines for Implementing Agencies to conduct terminal evaluations

The final project evaluation may represent the final opportunity to gauge project impacts as well as to identify and assess lessons learned from the implementation process

$40,000

97


Appendix 1.3.1: GEF guidelines for Implementing Agencies to conduct Terminal Evaluations

BackgroundTerminal evaluations of projects by Implementing and Executing Agencies under expanded opportunities (IAs/EAs) represent one of the modalities under the GEF M&E evaluation program. All regular and medium sized projects supported by the GEF are required to undergo a terminal evaluation upon completion of implementation.

The present document describes the minimum requirements for terminal evaluations of a GEF supported project, which are considered complementary to those required by IAs/EAs. The guidelines comprise first the principles to conduct terminal evaluations and subsequently the scope of these evaluations. A terminal evaluation reviews the implementation experience and achievement of results of the project in question against the project objectives endorsed by GEF, including changes agreed during implementation.

GEF Principles for conducting terminal evaluations The IAs/EAs responsible for the project will arrange for the terminal evaluation; A team of independent consultants will conduct the evaluation. These consultants should

not have participated substantively during project preparation and/or implementation and should have no conflict of interest with any proposed follow-up phases. It would also be advisable for the team to be comprised of professionals with a wide range of skills – strong analytical and evaluation experience, expertise in technical aspects of the project, global environmental issues, and experience with economic and social development issues.

The duration and scope of the evaluation depends on the complexity of each project and should be reflected in the TORs.

The evaluation should be completed within 6 months of closing of all project activities. Major project stakeholders at the national and local levels should be involved. If the project did not establish a baseline (initial conditions), the evaluator should seek to

determine it through the use of special methodologies so that achievements, results and impacts can be properly established.

It would be advisable to take advantage of the project M&E components and the log frame of the project design (the M&E components should also be evaluated).

Evaluators should have an updated knowledge of GEF policies and strategies. A brief presentation of specific GEF terminology is provided below.

98


ScopeThe scope of the terminal evaluation will depend upon type of project, size, focal area, and country context. However, the following issues should be covered:

An analysis of the attainment of global environmental objectives,27 outcomes/ impacts,28

project objectives,29 and delivery and completion of project outputs/ activities30 (based on indicators).

Evaluation of project achievements according to GEF Project Review Criteria31:1. Implementation approach2. Country ownership/Driveness 3. Stakeholder participation/ Public Involvement4. Sustainability5. Replication approach 6. Financial planning7. Cost-effectiveness8. Monitoring and evaluation

Each terminal evaluation will include ratings on the following criteria: (a) Outcomes/ Achievement of objectives (the extent to which the project's environmental and development objectives were achieved); (b) Implementation Approach; (c) Stakeholder Participation/Public Involvement; (d) Sustainability; and (e) Monitoring & Evaluation. The ratings will be: Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Marginally Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, and N/A. This system will allow consistency across all IAs/EAs.

Terminal evaluations should present and analyze main findings and key lessons, including examples of best practices for future projects in the country, region and GEF (technical, political, managerial, etc.). Evaluations should also have an annex explaining any differences or disagreements between the findings of the evaluation team, the IA/EA or the GEF recipient organization.

A terminal evaluation is not an appraisal of a follow-up phase.32

27 This should be the highest level in the project’s logical framework, which is often labeled the “goal” to which the project contributes. Different implementing agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the “global objective”. UNEP uses “overall project objective” to describe this level, while UNDP has used “development objective”.28 Proposed changes to and effects on the environment and society to be caused by the project.29 "Project objective" are the second highest level of objectives in the logical framework. This are referred to by the World Bank as development objectives, by UNDP as project objectives and by UNEP as “objectives”.30 This refers to outputs, activities or components as described in the Project Document that will contribute to the attainment of the objectives.31 Most of this discussion is based on the GEF Council paper: GEF Project Cycle (GEF/C.16/Inf.7)32 Under special circumstances some projects may require a follow-up phase, even if this was not envisaged initially. In these cases, IA/EA would have to provide substantial justification for the additional GEF funding. Project proposals requesting support for follow-up phases should be accompanied by an independent terminal evaluation of the earlier phase when the project concept is reviewed for pipeline entry. If the current phase of the project is still under implementation, an interim evaluation should be proposed following the GEF Guidelines for Terminal Evaluations. This interim evaluation should be carried out by persons independent from those responsible for the design and implementation of the new phase. The TORs of the interim evaluation should be reviewed and approved by GEF M&E. Furthermore, in these cases, the project concept will be admitted into the GEF pipeline (and any associated PDF-B reviewed and approved if necessary), with the following binding conditions: (i) a terminal evaluation of the project should be submitted along with the project proposal for work program entry; and (ii) the proposal will reflect the experience and lessons of the earlier phase. If either of the above conditions are not met, the

99


Communications with GEF M&EEach IA/EA should confirm by May 15, the terminal evaluation schedule presented with the PIR. This information will include the approximate timing of the completion report. The final evaluation reports will be sent to the GEF M&E unit no later than 4 weeks after the final version is completed.

Role of GEF M&EThe GEF M&E unit will review the final document of all terminal evaluations to identify issues and lessons to complement the annual Project Performance Review (PPR) and to improve the scope and content of future terminal evaluations. The results of the review will be incorporated in the annual PPR to complement findings of other M&E exercises. For a few selected evaluations, which have great learning potential, the GEF unit will participate after agreement with the IA/EA.

Completing a terminal evaluation does not preclude the project from being selected for one of the GEF M&E initiated thematic reviews and evaluations.

Explanation of Terminology

Implementation Approach includes an analysis of the project’s logical framework, adaptation to changing conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in project design, and overall project management.

Some elements of an effective implementation approach may include: The logical framework used during implementation as a management and M&E tool Effective partnerships arrangements established for implementation of the project with

relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into project

implementation Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management.

Country Ownership/Drivenness is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental agendas, recipient country commitment, and regional and international agreements where applicable.

Some elements of effective country ownership/drivenness may include: Project Concept has its origin within the national sectoral and development plans Outcomes (or potential outcomes) from the project have been incorporated into the

national sectoral and development plans Relevant country representatives (e.g., governmental official, civil society, etc.) are

actively involved in project identification, planning and/or implementation The recipient government has maintained financial commitment to the project The government has approved policies and/or modified regulatory frameworks in line

with the project’s objectives

For projects whose main focus and actors are in the private-sector rather than public-sector (e.g., IFC projects), elements of effective country ownership/drivenness that demonstrate the interest and commitment of the local private sector to the project may include:

project will not be recommended for entry into the work program.

100


The number of companies that participated in the project by: receiving technical assistance, applying for financing, attending dissemination events, adopting environmental standards promoted by the project, etc.

Amount contributed by participating companies to achieve the environmental benefits promoted by the project, including: equity invested, guarantees provided, co-funding of project activities, in-kind contributions, etc.

Project’s collaboration with industry associations

i. Stakeholder Participation/Public Involvement consist of three related, and often overlapping processes: information dissemination, consultation, and “stakeholder” participation. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups, institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the GEF-financed project. The term also applies to those potentially adversely affected by a project.

Examples of effective public involvement include:

Information dissemination Implementation of appropriate outreach/public awareness campaigns

Consultation and stakeholder participation Consulting and making use of the skills, experiences and knowledge of NGOs,

community and local groups, the private and public sectors, and academic institutions in the design, implementation, and evaluation of project activities

Stakeholder participation Project institutional networks well placed within the overall national or community

organizational structures, for example, by building on the local decision making structures, incorporating local knowledge, and devolving project management responsibilities to the local organizations or communities as the project approaches closure

Building partnerships among different project stakeholders Fulfillment of commitments to local stakeholders and stakeholders considered to be

adequately involved.

Sustainability measures the extent to which benefits continue, within or outside the project domain, from a particular project or program after GEF assistance/external assistance has come to an end. Relevant factors to improve the sustainability of project outcomes include:

Development and implementation of a sustainability strategy Establishment of the financial and economic instruments and mechanisms to ensure the

ongoing flow of benefits once the GEF assistance ends (from the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and market transformations to promote the project’s objectives).

Development of suitable organizational arrangements by public and/or private sector Development of policy and regulatory frameworks that further the project objectives Incorporation of environmental and ecological factors affecting future flow of benefits. Development of appropriate institutional capacity (systems, structures, staff, expertise,

etc.) Identification and involvement of champions (i.e. individuals in government and civil

society who can promote sustainability of project outcomes)

101


Achieving social sustainability, for example, by mainstreaming project activities into the economy or community production activities

Achieving stakeholders consensus regarding courses of action on project activities.

Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and implementation of other projects. Replication can have two aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in different geographic area) or scaling up (lessons and experiences are replicated within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). Examples of replication approaches include:

Knowledge transfer (i.e., dissemination of lessons through project result documents, training workshops, information exchange, a national and regional forum, etc).

Expansion of demonstration projects. Capacity building and training of individuals, and institutions to expand the project’s

achievements in the country or other regions. Use of project-trained individuals, institutions or companies to replicate the project’s

outcomes in other regions.

Financial Planning includes actual project cost by activity, financial management (including disbursement issues), and co-financing. If a financial audit has been conducted the major findings should be presented in the TE.

Effective financial plans include: Identification of potential sources of co-financing as well as leveraged and associated

financing33. Strong financial controls, including reporting, and planning that allow the project

management to make informed decisions regarding the budget at any time, allows for a proper and timely flow of funds, and for the payment of satisfactory project deliverables

Due diligence due diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.

Cost-effectiveness assesses the achievement of the environmental and developmental objectives as well as the project’s outputs in relation to the inputs, costs, and implementing time. It also examines the project’s compliance with the application of the incremental cost concept. Cost-effective factors include: Compliance with the incremental cost criteria (e.g. GEF funds are used to finance a

component of a project that would not have taken place without GEF funding.) and securing co-funding and associated funding.

The project completed the planned activities and met or exceeded the expected outcomes in terms of achievement of Global Environmental and Development Objectives according to schedule, and as cost-effective as initially planned.

The project used either a benchmark approach or a comparison approach (did not exceed the costs levels of similar projects in similar contexts). A benchmark approach in climate change and ozone projects measures cost-effectiveness using internationally accepted threshold such as 10$/ton of carbon equivalent reduced, and thresholds for the phase out of specific ozone depleting substances measured in terms of dollars spent per kg ($/kg) of each type of ODS reduced.

Monitoring & Evaluation. Monitoring is the periodic oversight of a process, or the

33 Please refer to Council documents on co-financing for definitions, such as GEF/C.20/6. Annex 2 presents a table to be used for reporting co-financing.

102


implementation of an activity, which seeks to establish the extent to which inputs, work schedules, other required actions and outputs are proceeding according to plan, so that timely action can be taken to correct the deficiencies detected. Evaluation is a process by which program inputs, activities and results are analyzed and judged explicitly against benchmarks or baseline conditions using performance indicators. This will allow project managers and planners to make decisions based on the evidence of information on the project implementation stage, performance indicators, level of funding still available, etc, building on the project’s logical framework.

Monitoring and Evaluation includes activities to measure the project’s achievements such as identification of performance indicators, measurement procedures, and determination of baseline conditions. Projects are required to implement plans for monitoring and evaluation with adequate funding and appropriate staff and include activities such as description of data sources and methods for data collection, collection of baseline data, and stakeholder participation. Given the long-term nature of many GEF projects, projects are also encouraged to include long-term monitoring plans that are sustainable after project completion. Any issues related to the quality of backstopping and quality assurance and control of project deliverables listed in the project document should be addressed in this section.

103


Annex 1.3 Regulations concerning Manda National Park

REPUBLIC OF CHAD UNITY – WORK – PROGRESS

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT& WATER

GENERAL DIRECTORATE

DIRECTORATE OF FAUNA & NATIONAL PARKS PROTECTION

ORDERNo. 17/MEE/DPFPN/98

ENDORSEMENT: S.G.G. Setting the Rules & Regulations Of Manda National Park

THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER

Having regard to: the Constitution;Having regard to: Decree no. 200/PR/97 of 16 May 1997, appointing the Prime Minister, Head

of Government;Having regard to: Decree no. 128/PR/98 of 11 May 1998, reorganising the Government;Having regard to: Decree no. 262/PM/SGG/97 of 20 June 1997, setting forth the roles and

responsibilities of Government members;Having regard to: Decree no. 343/PR/MEE/97 of 13 August 1997, organising and setting forth

the roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment and Water;Having regard to: Decree no. 526/PR/MEE/97 of 18 November 1997, effecting appointments to

senior positions within the Ministry of Environment and Water;Having regard to: Decree no. 56/EFPC of 19 March 1965, creating Manda National Park;Having regard to: Order no. 222/MEE/DG/97 of 09 September 1997, setting forth internal

organisation of the Directorate of Fauna and National Parks Protection;Having regard to: Operational requirements.

O R D E R S :

TITLE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1 Objectives of the Park

In accordance with Article 2 of Decree no. 56/EFPC of 19 March 1965, Manda National Park was created with a view to promoting the propagation, protection and conservation of animal and plant wildlife in the interest of science and education for the benefit, advantage and recreation of the public.

Article 2 Public administration management

104


Manda National Park shall be placed under the administrative oversight of the Prefectoral Delegation of Moyen-Chari and the Sectoral Department of Fauna and National Parks Protection, which includes detachment stations and outposts.

Each detachment station and outpost shall be placed under the command of a leader appointed by way of Prefectoral Order upon nomination by the Head of the Sectoral Department of Fauna and National Parks Protection, and in agreement with the Prefectoral Delegate.

TITLE 2: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Article 3 Mechanisms for joint management with local communities

Park management shall be carried out by mutual agreement between entities established for the purpose, including in particular the Steering Committee, the Development Committee and the Scientific and Technical Committee.

The Steering Committee is the same body as was created under the Project to Support Sectoral Agricultural and Environmental Policies (PAPSAE). It establishes multidisciplinary consultation between the various administrative services, defines orientations, ensures the monitoring of the project or projects being implemented within the Park and its peripheral area and formulates recommendations thereon.

The Development Committee of the peripheral zone of Manda National Park is composed of representatives of the various categories of socio-economic actors present in the zone and of the local administration. This committee issues advisory opinions on the orientations of the management of Manda National Park and its peripheral zone.

The Scientific and Technical Committee is composed of experts in natural resource management. This committee may be requested by the Steering Committee, after consultation with the Development Committee, to conduct necessary scientific and technical studies.

The Steering Committee and the Scientific and Technical Committee are created by orders of the Minister of Environment and Water, whereas the Development Committee is created by a prefectoral decision.

Article 4 Opening hours and access

In accordance with the Decree mentioned under Article 1 hereof, Manda National Park is private state property where any unjustified human presence is prohibited. The Park is open to visitors every day between 15 November to 30 June, from sunrise to sunset.

Access to the Park is allowed only through entrances situated on major tracks and listed below:

N’guéré entranceTallia entranceDjoli entranceKoutou entranceNiellim entranceWaïn entrance

105


These access tracks may be temporarily closed for development work or periodic annual closing, as provided under paragraph 1 of this article.

Any other land access is strictly prohibited to users not belonging to the service, except holders of authorisations of the Ministry in charge of Environment.

Nautical sports may be practised on the sections of the Bahr Sara and Chari rivers bordering the Park, but crafts are required to depart from the guard detachment stations of Manda or Waïn.

Visitors not belonging to the service are strictly prohibited from bearing firearms

Article 5 Right of Entry

Any visitor must obtain authorisation to enter the Park. Such authorisation can only be issued by the Sector Chief who may delegate this power to his deputy.

Visitors must submit to controls conducted at detachment stations and outposts and must imperatively be accompanied by at least one agent at all times throughout their visit.

Article 6 Overflight and Circulation within the Park

Aerial overflight of the Park at altitudes below 200 metres is strictly prohibited except with exceptional authorisation granted by appropriate authorities.

Vehicles are prohibited from driving off observation tracks and travel speed is limited at 40 kph for all categories of vehicles. Use of horn and lights is prohibited.

All visitors are allowed to travel on foot or on bicycle. Such travels must be under escort.

Passage on the footpath between the villages of Hollo and Koutou (former border of the fauna preserve) is allowed for populations living in the vicinity of the Park only on market days at Koutou and in any event under watch by Park conservation agents on the entire length of the footpath. No one is allowed to stray from the footpath while crossing the Park.

Article 7

Domesticated animals may not be permitted to wander, graze or pasture in Manda National Park.

Article 8 Stays in the Park

Visitors wishing to spend the night within the Park must do so at one of the campsites designed for that purpose (Kar, Waïn or Manda). One hour after sunset, all visitors must have reached a campsite or have exited the Park. Night travel is prohibited, except if expressly authorised by the Sector Chief or his deputy. The management of campsites within the Park falls exclusively under the purview of the Sectoral Department of Fauna and National Parks Protection of Moyen-Chari. This department may call upon any expertise, as deemed appropriate.

106


Camping is tolerated within the limits of the Kar campsite, as well as fire for household purposes.

Article 9 Possible Activities within the Park

- Touring on foot, bicycle, horseback or in a light automobile or 4x4- Bathing in the Chari and Bahr Sara rivers - Mountain climbing in the Niellim mountains - Visits of neighbouring villages - Angling (in areas designated therefor)

Article 10 Bush Fires

Lighting a fire outside of a campsite is forbidden to anyone not belonging to the Park Conservation Service.

Article 11 Fees

Each group of visitors must pay directly to the tracker acting as a guide an amount of CFAF 2,500 as compensation.

Park Entrance Fees:

NATIONALSAdults CFAF 500Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 100

FOREIGNERSAdults CFAF 3,000Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 1,500

The following persons are exempt from all taxes, except for overnighting on campsites:

1. Children under 10 years of age2. Civil servants and contractual employees of the Ministry in charge of Environment3. Official representatives mandated by this Ministry4. Members of the Development Committee and the Scientific Committee5. Members of the administrative authorities of Moyen-Chari6. Members of the Steering Committee7. Civil servants and contractual employees of the Ministry of Tourism Development

Excursions in motorised pirogues:

(Requirement: There must be at least five (5) people in groups of visitors)

For one hour

107


NATIONALSAdults CFAF 1,000Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 100Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 10,000

FOREIGNERSAdults CFAF 2,000Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 200Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 20,000

Over one hour

NATIONALSAdults CFAF 500/additional hourChildren (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 50Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 3,000/additional hour

FOREIGNERSAdults CFAF 1,000/additional hourChildren (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 100Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 10,000/additional hour

The duration of the excursion is calculated based on the effective duration as of pirogue start-up. Visitors may ask the pilot to stop in places of their liking and disembark in the Park or neighbouring villages.

Overnighting within the Park

Overnighting in the Boukarous designed for that purpose for one night and per person is subject to the following charges:

NATIONALSAdults CFAF 1,000Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 200Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 10,000

FOREIGNERSAdults CFAF 5,000Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 300

108


Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 50,000

Overnighting outside of the Boukarous for one night and per person is subject to the following charges:

NATIONALSAdults CFAF 500Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 100Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 5,000

FOREIGNERSAdults CFAF 2,500Children (10 to 16 years of age) CFAF 150Groups (over 10 people) CFAF 25,000

Regulations on Recreational Fishing

Only angling is authorised and exclusively on the Barh Sara and Chari rivers. Fishing in interior ponds is strictly prohibited. The minimum catch size is 35 cm for Lates Niloticus (Nile perch) and 30 cm for Hydrocyon Forskalii (dogfish). If caught, any undersize individual of these species must be thrown back immediately into the water.

Fees for one day’s fishing are:

NATIONALS

CFAF 1,000

FOREIGNERS

CFAF 2,000

Article 12 Filming and Photographing

Professional activities involving moving pictures, television or still photography are subject to prior authorisation delivered by the Directorate in charge of National Parks and may require payment of a fee.

Amateur filming or taking of still photographs is free.

Article 13 Rights of User

Collecting straw, collecting honey, wood harvesting and wild fruit gathering (picking?) are strictly prohibited over the entire Park territory.

109


Ritual initiation ceremonies are authorised, under the sole condition that a Park conservation agent already initiated in the local rites accompany the party and attend the ceremonies.

Fishing in the Park’s interior ponds is strictly prohibited.

The sections of the Barh Sara and Chari river courses bordering the Park are an integral part of Manda National Park. Fishing activities in said sections are subject to specific regulations.

Prohibitions of fishing envisioned by traditional chiefs on the above-mentioned rivers must be decided in collaboration with the Sectoral Department of Fauna and National Parks Protection, as well as provisions pertaining to subsequent collective fishing activities.

TITLE 3: FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 14

Non compliance with the provisions of this Order shall be subject to penalties as provided under Title VII of Ordinance no. 14/63 of 28 March 1963.

Article 15

These Rules and Regulations may be modified to take into account changes in Park conditions.

Article 16

The Directorate of Fauna and National Parks Protection shall be responsible for the implementation of this Order which will become effective as of the date of its signature and which will be published and disseminated wherever necessary.

N’djaména, 23 June 1998

The Minister of Environment and Water

[Illegible Paraph] [Round Seal of the Minister of Environment and Water]

MARIAM MAHAMAT NOUR

110


Annex 1.4: Detailed Response to Council Member Comments

Council Member

Text of Comment Response

France This project, studied since 1998, has fortunately been scaled down, from 7 to 1.4 M$ for GEF. Thus it seems better adapted to the local absorption capacity and to the relative importance of the threats on Manda Park.

It is however optimistic on the communities will to preserve the Park and its fauna, in an historical context of a still resented eviction in the sixties. The project success will probably lie in the negotiation of natural resources collecting rights in the Park. As a matter of fact, no economic return can be expected shortly, and economic development in the area, where average income is 0.5 $ per day, will be very slow.

Opinion: no objection

The project proponents have recognized the paramount importance of gaining the support of local communities and have focused project efforts correspondingly. Negotiation of ‘natural resource collecting rights’ will be an important activity, to be preceded by a revision of the current set of regulations. While economic returns from, for example, tourism, will admittedly be slow to arise, it is nevertheless expected that sustainable resource activities will prove sufficiently attractive to ensure the local population’s support for the project. Actions aimed at ensuring sustainable livelihoods within the Park’s buffer zone will prove an additional source of support in this respect.

Switzerland Resembles the Swaziland project, but contains references to the Costa Rica-Talamanca project, which is good. Tchad has low capacity to sustain projects, but has unique eco-systems of global importance.* How will the local inhabitants benefit from revenues from the corridors? Tourism? Eco-tourism? Hunting? A good example is the campfire model in Zimbabwe where - under controlled forms - rich tourists are charged heavily for hunting. The revenues are returned to the local communities for building schools, hospitals etc in return for maintaining the wildlife populations.

The project proponents agree with the characterization of conservation in Chad as having low capacities but important potential due to its high global significance. The ways in which local inhabitants will benefit from revenues in the corridors will be closely examined during project implementation, with all those options mentioned by the Council member to be considered. However, the project proponents do not believe that a direct transfer of the Campfire model used in Zimbabwe will be feasible (see below, response to Germany comment).

Germany Development of a participatory management system

One central aspect of the project proposal is to establish a participatory management system. This is crucial for managing the park in a sustainable way. Due to the diversity of people depending on the use of the park’s natural resources, and the level of conflict already arisen among different stakeholders

Development of a participatory management system

Order no.17/MEE/DG/DFPN/98 (newly attached as Annex 1.3) sets forth NMP’s Internal Regulations. Article 3 of the Order provides for “Mechanisms for Joint Management with Local Communities,” including a steering committee, a committee in charge of development in the park’s peripheral area and a scientific and technological committee. To date, the

111


Council Member


(e.g. indigenous people, transhumants) the development of such a Management Plan has to take into account the specific and different needs of the local population. In several cases, the Project Staff will have to act as mediator in order to develop sustainable solutions. With view to this complex and problematic environment, a detailed analysis of the different stakeholder is still missing but seems to be a necessary precondition to fulfil the project objectives. Referring to a census does not seem to be sufficient in this case.

Additionally, the development of a participatory management system will also include a review of the regulatory framework, as the actual law prohibits all activities within the park. The actual law adopted in 1998 mentioned three committees that have not yet been established, but these committees shall be responsible for the development of the new legislation.

A copy of the actual Order regulating Manda National Park has not been attached to the project documents, in order to deliver some clarification. However, it is at present not clear if these three committees will represent all relevant stakeholders in an appropriate way. For ensuring that the future park legislation will be commonly accepted, we ask for some in-depth information.

Generation and distribution of benefits

According to the project proposal, the elaboration of alternative management practices will enable the local communities to use their resources in a sustainable way.

Many examples for generating additional incomes are mentioned (see para 54. AA-2.3 as well as para 74), but none of these measures is explained in a detailed manner. It would be

joint management mechanism has yet to be established. Nevertheless, this type of participatory mechanism continues to fit within the decentralization process initiated in Chad pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of 31 March 1996. In this context, authority and responsibilities are being officially transferred to rural communities so they may take charge of their own development. To this end, community-based entities for consultation and rural development planning are being established and supported at the local level. The community organisation for the sustainable management of the BINDER/LERE Fauna Preserve has provided an early and relevant pilot experience of this process, which the project will closely examine and seek to adapt to the specific conditions of MNP.

As outlined in the project brief, the above regulatory structure, which was approved in 1998, requires a careful review and evaluation, following which a revised regulatory structure will be established. This process will include an early review of the three-Committee structure proposed, but never implemented, under existing regulations. Following this review, these Committees, or an alternative agreed regulatory structure, will be established and will help to guide the remainder of the regulatory revision process. The project proponents consider village-level participation throughout the process to be essential to ensure subsequent co-operation and eventual success of the project objectives (see also TOR #12, Legislative and regulatory experts).

As far as the availability of information on local communities, the project brief relied upon a socio-economic background study commissioned by the PDF-B (Lawane 1999) as well as a published article by a US anthropologist (Brown Patterson 1996) (see project brief, footnote 8). However, as the Council Member rightly points out, additional, updated data and information will be needed. During the period since project brief approval, some additional information concerning communities in the corridors will have been collected by the associated FFEM project. Nevertheless, a detailed socio-economic analysis of participating stakeholder communities will constitute a key first step in the project’s micro-credit and community development component (see Outcome 2, especially TOR for sub-contract #7). Finally, the collection and analysis of baseline and follow-up socio-

112


Council Member


useful to elaborate concrete development strategies for only a few issues, instead of mentioning plenty opportunities without developing at least one single clear strategy.

Since the creation of additional income sources is vital for the acceptance of the Protected area, further emphasis should be taken on this aspect.

Recommendation

For the above mentioned reasons we suggest a reconsideration of the project proposal by the implementing agency. If further developed, the Secretariat is requested to send a new version of the draft final project documents to Council Members before CEO endorsement.

economic indicators represent important elements of the project’s monitoring and evaluation plan.

Generation and distribution of benefits

As regards the generation and distribution of benefits, it is not realistic to expect the development of income-generating tourism activities in the short term. Reconstitution of the fauna will take a few years. Thus, a simple replication of the Zimbabwean Campfire type of management (see Switzerland comment above) cannot be applied at MNP. Instead, over the first years of the project, emphasis will need to placed on environmentally friendly local development strategies within peripheral territories, i.e., buffer zones around the Park, along with the negotiation of natural resource collecting rights within the Park itself. The advantage of this option is that it will allow a recovery of the Park’s faunal population while limiting anthropogenic pressure thereupon.

Rural enterprise development aimed at promoting income-generating activities based on productive sectors and trade will draw on lessons learnt from the Care Chad experience acquired under its Support to Rural Enterprise project implemented with French Cooperation funding. This project made it possible to investigate various productive sectors such as beekeeping and agricultural product processing (mango, groundnut, shea nut and rosella). Groups created around each activity received grants from Care Chad and training in appropriate technologies for the development of such activities.

Finally, as noted by the Council comments, the PDF-B Phase has not been able to elaborate detailed strategies for income-generating activities. Nevertheless, relevant baseline studies were undertaken during the PDF-B Phase, and several possible strategies were proposed in this regard. As noted, CARE Chad has also had substantial experience in this area, and this experience will be brought to bear on the problem. These and other possible approaches will be carefully examined during the project’s first year, beginning with the inception phase, and one or more approaches selected for

113


Council Member


subsequent implementation.

114


Section 2

GEF Approved Project Brief

Annex 1

Problem to be solved

Sector issues, root causes, threats, barriers, etc., affecting global environment

Environmental baseline

The protected area system of Chad covers two national parks (Manda and Zakouma), integral nature reserves (Fitri), wildlife reserves (Abou Telfane, Bahr Salamat, Binder-Léré, Fada Archei, Mandelia, Ouadi Rimé-Ouadi Achim, and Siniaka-Minia), and several classified forests. The government has also enacted legislation regulating hunting, extraction of forest products, and fishing. The proportion of Chad’s territory under formal protection thus approaches international norms, with 113,890 km2, or 8.8 % of the total territory, being under protection.

Moyen-Chari

The prefecture of Moyen-Chari, in southernmost Chad, has a Sudano-Guinean climate, with the highest average rainfall of any of Chad’s prefectures (900-1350 mm). The dominant vegetation in the area is Sudano-Guinean wooded forest savanna. The natural conditions found in Moyen-Chari are highly conducive to a rich biodiversity. The region represents a point of meeting and convergence between biological species from the forest ecosystems and those from semi-humid and humid environments. Its Sudanian zones, particularly in its southwest where MNP is located, possess significant biological wealth. Major fauna resources characterizing the Sudanian biogeographic zone are well represented in the Moyen-Chari area (see Annex 6 for details). These include several red list species, among them several species of reptiles, such as the African grooved tortoise (Geochelone sulcata), the Senegal and Nubian flapshell turtles (Cyclanorbis senegalensis et Cyclanorbis elegans), large and dwarf crocodiles, pythons, monitor lizards (Varanus exanthematius and Varanus niloticus) and cobras (Nadja nigicolis).

In addition, the presence of a wealth of flora, initially recorded scientifically in studies made in the 1960s and 1970s, has recently been reconfirmed.34

The protected areas in the Moyen-Chari include :

Two National Parks (Manda and Zakouma);35 Protected forest areas (Forêt classée and Forêt domaniale) at Djoli-Kéra, Hellibongo, Nyala

and Hyrnan; Fauna reserves (Réserves de faune) at Bahr Salamat and Siniaka Minia, and; Protected hunting areas (Domains de chasse) at Aouk and Lac Iro.

Manda National Park

Located some 30 km northwest of the town of Sarh, MNP covers a surface are of 114,000 ha. It extends over nearly 85 km from Manda in the southeast to Niellim in the northwest on the N’Djamena-Sarh laterite road and is bordered in the north by the Chari River. It is surrounded by four cantons: Niellim in the northwest, Djoli in the northeast, Balimba in the south, and Kokaga in the

34 See O. Djimadoum (1998).35 Zakouma National Park is located on the border of Moyen Chari prefecture, in Salamat prefecture.

115


southwest. It is also delimited in the west by the N’djamena-Sarh highway, in the east by the Chari River, in the north by the Niellim Mountains and in the south by the Bahr Sara. MNP is roughly located between 9°10’ and 10°02’ north latitude and 17°35’ and 18°05’ east longitude (see Annex 7, Maps).

MNP contains a varied landscape, consisting of seasonal and permanent water masses, sandy plains, dry and humid valleys, lowland marshes, low cuirassed plateaus and hills. MNP is watered by the various branches of the Bahr Sara, a tributary of the Chari River, which makes access difficult during more than half of the year. It enjoys a Sudanian type of climate with yearly rainfall averaging 1,000 mm and yearly average temperature of 28°C with very high average relative humidity (63,3%). This climate has resulted in diverse natural plant formations ranging from dry grassland to gallery-forest and various stages of grass and tree savannah. These formations provide natural habitats to a diverse wild fauna. The floristic physiognomy of Manda Park also reflects soil diversity. In the Niellim Mountains to the north, soils are ferralitic. The area contains rugged landforms, with very steep slopes interspersed with dry or humid valleys. From the south to the north of the Park, the topography is characterized by very gentle slopes with sandy, hydromorphic to dry hydromorphic soils.

Because of its geographical location and mild climate, MNP is a site where species from the forests to the south and the Sudanian region to the north would normally converge. There are two types of ecosystem in MNP:

A terrestrial forest ecosystem: gallery forests, open forests and wooded savannas with some thorny species. According to the study of the fauna and flora population in MNP, 36 the vegetation cover of the Park consists of three major strata: (i) wooded strata; (ii) shrub and bush strata and (iii) grass and herbaceous strata.37

An aquatic ecosystem: The mapping of the Park by the National Centre for Research Support (CNAR) in 1997 showed a total of 14 temporary ponds and 35 permanent ponds. They are located in the land subject to flooding along the left bank of the Chari River.

The diversity of habitats in the Park allows it to support a varied fauna population. However, Manda’s wildlife populations were largely decimated during Chad’s prolonged civil war. Fauna studies employing methods of estimating the presence of certain species have afforded an idea of the change in diversity of fauna in the Park from 1951 to 1996.38 There was a fairly rich variety of fauna from the 1950s until the 1970s. From the 1980s until the start of the 1990s, a very pronounced decline in the fauna population took place. Recovery became apparent in the mid 1990s.

In contrast to the condition of the fauna,the vegetation cover within the Park has not sustained major damage. Recent reports suggest that the various biotopes of the MNP ecosystems remain healthy, despite the virtually permanent presence of nomadic, semi-nomadic and sedentary pastoralists around and “illegally” inside the Park.The Park’s healthy and stable flora is conducive to rapid reconstruction and restoration of fauna populations. From October 1999 to March 2000, monitoring missions inventoried the following species by identifying animal spoor and/or droppings or by vocalization:

Carnivores such as leopard Ruminants such as giraffe; Aquatic mammals such as the hippopotamus Reptiles such as crocodiles, Nile monitor lizards and pythons spp.; A number of bird species observed around watercourses; Abundant fish resources, with the species remaining to be determined.

36 Kolmagne MALLAH NARÉ, 2000. 37 Analysis of the data from five transects (Manda, Sanguélé, Tallia, Koutou and Waïn) yielded knowledge of the most common plant species in the Park, which were inventoried and itemized in the course of PDF-B.38 See Annex 6.

116


The dessimation of big game and bushmeat in the 1980’s and 1990’s affected MNP more than other protected areas because of the close proximity of MNP to urban centers. Although statistics are not complete, it is thought that wildlife populations within the greater Moyen-Chari area remain viable and are of great potential importance to the eventual spontaneous recovery and long-term genetic health of MNP’s fauna populations. These include in particular wildlife populations found within Moyen-Chari’s numerous protected areas, but also wildlife located within the broader productive landscape that lies between and separates these areas.39 These can and do serve as important biological corridors for MNP. The continued ability of wildlife to thrive and to migrate among Moyen-Chari’s protected areas and within its overall productive landscape will thus be critical to the ultimate rehabilitation and long-term genetic health of MNP wildlife populations The global signficance of this hot spot in the Moyen-Chari system (MNP, buffer and priority corridors) rests in the fact that it is one of the last refuges for wildlife in a rapidly changing sudano-sahelian region across Africa. Along with similar refuges provided by the W, Arly, Pendjari Complex and Niokolo Koba (both of which are currently supported through GEF funding), the conservation of the MNP and its associated landscapes will ensure a representativeness of biodiversity conservation across the African landscape..

Technical cooperation baseline

A number of recent and ongoing projects are relevant to the present GEF intervention. These include the following:

Initiatives by French cooperation : French cooperation has thus been the largest donor to MNP. Since 1994, it has been financing the project for rehabilitation and management of the Park through decentralized credit (CDI/1991), the Special Development Fund (FSD/1994) and the General Interest Assistance and Cooperation Fund (FAC-IG/1997) in the amount of 960,000 French francs. In 1998, the scope of assistance was increased and the budget was 80 million CFAF or around 12,137 Euros over two years, covering a number of activities, including park management and infrastructure improvement, awareness promotion and rural development. Execution was assigned to the NGO CARE International. Theoretically, this project ended in May 2001. Pending the effective start-up of the project on conservation of biological diversity in MNP, French cooperation initiated two small projects to maintain the progress made in rehabilitating the Park. These are the Park Support Project (300,000 French francs) and the Entrepreneurship Project (150,000 French francs) covering the period May 2001 – November 2002. The following are among the activities and results of this latest phase:

o The project rehabilitated 240 km of tracks, though they are already obstructed, and six watch towers; five camps did not last long and there is no accommodation. Ecotourism remains impossible under these conditions;

o A conservation structure was rebuilt and currently comprises three detachments, at Manda, Djoli and Niellim, with a total of 38 wardens who are paid monthly salaries of CFAF 8,000, 15,000 and 18,000 depending on grade and equipped with bicycles, a good number of which are no longer in working order.

The Zakouma Project : Zakouma National Park (ZNP) is located approximately 75 km northeast of MNP and currently supports a large portion of the remaining wildlife found in the Moyen-Chari region. Unlike Manda National Park, Zakouma National Park has received very substantial financial support, in this case from the European Union. The first phase of EU support, entitled “Rehabilitation of Zakouma National Park,” had a budget of 1.6 million Euros and lasted from 1989-1993. The second phase, with almost three times the level of financing, or 4.2 million Euros, lasted from 1993-1997 and was followed by a transition phase utilizing special funds which lasted until 2002 and covered eco-development of the

39 Data concerning wildlife populations and land uses within these corridors is being collected by a project supported by the French GEF (see para. 35 below).

117


surrounding population. The third phase, entitled “Conservation and Rational Utilization of Sudan-Sahelian Ecosystems (CURESS),” which started in December 2002, emphasizes activities in support of the surrounding populations, with a major participatory action component. The amount of this latest package is 8.5 million Euros.

The Pastoralism/Wild Fauna Interaction Project: This is a project for integration of wild fauna and pastoralism under the LEAD initiative, the Chad component of which is financed by the French Global Environment Facility (FFEM). There was not really any cooperation between the activities in Manda National Park and those in Zakouma between 1989 and 2002. However, with the pastoralism/wild fauna interaction project financed by the European Union, it may be possible to contemplate activities relating to knowledge of wild fauna movements, especially the utilization of the area between Manda and Zakouma, which has been identified as an ecological corridor that could serve as a source of supply to MNP for species such as sassaby, water buffalo and elephant. The establishment of soil occupancy maps is of particular interest for monitoring the above species. Furthermore, the results of this project concerning the compatibility of wildlife and livestock production will be very useful and should be disseminated throughout the project.

Initiatives by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The FAO initiative involves implementation of the Special Food Security Programme (PSSA). The objective is to bring about a rapid and sustainable increase in the production of basic food commodities through the use of water in irrigated systems, accelerated introduction of the available improved techniques, diversification of the sources of income of the rural population, strengthening of the organizational capacities of small farmers’ organizations and systematic analysis of the constraints on sustainable development of production. In Chad, the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) has financed the pilot phase of PSSA in the amount of US$690,000. In Moyen-Chari, out of the seven communities covered by PSSA activities, four are in the peripheral zone of MNP. There are Maïrom, Hélibongo, Balimba and Djoli. It should be noted that the diversification component of PSSA has supported beekeeping activities in four communities around the Park, namely Djoli, Nangda and Nguéré I and II with the participation of the NGO Care Chad. The pilot phase of PSSA yielded very encouraging results. Accordingly, FAO made use of its 1997 cooperation agreement with the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) to formulate a proposal for support to PSSA/Chad which will entail full-scale implementation of the pilot phase on the national level in order to step up the activities.

Initiatives by NGOs and operators: The operators directly involved in the management and conservation of MNP are those which are financed by French cooperation. In chronological order, they are the Italian NGO ACRA and CARE Chad:

(i) ACRA. This NGO began implementing the project for rehabilitation of MNP in 1995. The activity report identified three main types of achievement in the context of this project in 1997, the date on which the execution contract ended. They were: (a) Rehabilitation and Management of the Park; (b) Assistance in the socio-economic development of the peripheral zone; (c) information, awareness promotion, empowerment, education, training, studies and research;

(ii) CARE CHAD. This NGO has been active in Moyen-Chari for more than 15 years. Since 1999, it has been the main operator in the Park Rehabilitation and Management Project, following the departure of ACRA. Its action centered on revitalizing the Park (rehabilitation of infrastructure, equipment for the wardens, supply of materials) and support for surrounding communities (beekeeping, pisciculture, forestry). This project was renewed in May 2000. On the basis of its experience on the ground, the NGO CARE Chad is expected to be a key operator in the present GEF project.

118


Initiatives by Swiss cooperation: Historically, the initiatives of Swiss cooperation stem from the experience of Swiss volunteers at the start of the 1960s. These led to the establishment of the Centres for Agricultural Training and Promotion (CFPA) and later the Centres for Rural Training and Promotion (CFPR). These training activities led to the creation of the self-managed markets which are today being operated by ONDR and COTONTCHAD. Since 1994, Swiss Cooperation has continued along the same lines, pursuing specifically the objectives of training and follow-up of trainers and protection of the environment (hunted species and hunting, fishing and aquaculture, silviculture and land management). Swiss cooperation relies on two structures, namely the pilot training centres (on the ground) and the Health and Environment Support Bureau (BASE) based in N’Djaména. Swiss cooperation’s partners in Moyen-Chari are local NGOs such as the Association for the Promotion of African Community Initiatives (APICA) and the Association for the Promotion and Development of Integrated Pisciculture in Chad (APRODEPIT). A number of communities adjacent to the Park, such as Hélibongo, are benefiting from Swiss cooperation activities. Swiss cooperation allocates an annual budget of around 500,000 Swiss francs for development initiatives.

These experiences directly affecting MNP have shown that there is a need for a concerted approach to improvement of Park Management. Ad hoc, small-scale interventions are not capable of maintaining momentum and their impact is quickly lost. There has been too much reliance on a limited number of park personnel, with little capacity, and no efforts to supplement this capacity by involving local people in providing both labor and decisions. NGO interventions have been de-linked from government decision making structures, resulting in government assuming that all is well and paying less attention to MNP. The GEF interevention in MNP and its associated landscapes is aimed at leveraging this baseline towards a coordinated intervention that will have lasting impact on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the Moyen-Chari.

The Zakouma and MNP projects will together strengthen the two most important PAs in Moyen-Chari. MNP will gain valuable lessons from Zakouma on the enhancement of tourism revenues, while Zakouma will gain lessons on integration of pastoralism into PA management. The FFEM project will provide basic models for use by both projects on integration of wildlife and livestock in the corridors. The WB/GEF IEM project currently under preparation will eventually assist in strengthening the national enabling environment, through building capacity of MEE agents, and rationalization of the land tenure system. Together these separate but coordinated initiatives will enhance the sustainability of biodiversity conservation actions in Chad

Threats, causes and barriers baseline

The baseline scenario shows that faunal populations and diversity in MNP have declined as a direct consequence of excessive poaching, and their spontaneous regeneration, although theoretically possible, is hampered by continuing (albeit relatively low) levels of poaching. Furthermore, natural reconstitution from neighboring landscapes is hampered due to fragmentation of the habitat in the corridors and buffer zones.

This section considers the various cause-effect relationships that underlie the above-defined problem. It considers: (i) proximate causes, i.e., direct threats; (ii) intermediate causes, and; (iii) root causes. A concluding sub-section considers barriers which, while not always having a direct cause-effect relationship with the above factors, nevertheless constitute the ‘enabling environment’ within which individual causes, and thus the overall problem, persist.

PROXIMATE CAUSES / THREATS: Major proximate causes, or direct threats to Manda’s biodiversity, include actions taking place at three geographic levels: (i) within MNP itself; (ii) within cantons surrounding MNP, and; (iii) within the broader landscape of protected and unprotected lands in the Moyen-Chari region. Another way of classifying the threats is by their degree of urgency; i.e., some threats (e.g., poaching) are particularly urgent in the short-term, while others are of a more long-term,

119


erosive nature. The following description of threats will include an attempt to characterise these threats according to the above variables.

Poaching (Le braconnage animal) : both within MNP and at the broader geographic levels mentioned above, is among the significant and urgent pressures hindering the full rehabilitation on MNP’s ecosystem. Within MNP itself, intermittent and episodic poaching continues, with the use of throwing knives, arrows and firearms. Some of this activity is believed to be associated with other ‘illegal’ uses of the Park. Thus, transhumant pastoralists and local people who are grazing livestock, or gathering fruit or other resources may be taking wildlife as a profitable sideline to their other activities. Animal poaching is said to have even attained the status of a network of tracks known as “poachers’ tracks”. Similarly, hunting at the broader landscape level, which is largely uncontrolled, is preventing currently reduced or extirpated species from reaching and repopulating MNP. The Bégou district of Sarh, bordering on Kokaga canton and adjacent to the Park, is said to support a significant market for game.

Extensive methods of agriculture : Agricultural practices remains extensive and its itinerant nature gives rise simultaneously to deforestation and soil degradation. The result is that the overall landscape of the region shows a marked distinction between the relatively well-vegetated Parkand its completely human-dominated peripheral region. Thus the Park becomes a potential alternative source of satisfaction of the need for new and fertile land Fortunately, recent instances of fields being cultivated within the Park itself are rare, based on records of offences from 1992 to 1999.40 Therefore this process represents a potential, long-term, threat to MNP’s sustainability.

Transhumant and sedentary pastoralism : In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the numbers of transhumant livestock in Moyen-Chari, which rose from 118,000 cattle and 127,000 small ruminants in 1972 to 498,000 cattle and 185,000 small ruminants in 1993.41

Transhumant pastoralism is perceived by Park officials as a source of serious and constant concern, but its impact varies depending on the number of livestock involved, the duration of their stay and their concentration in the Park zone, which in turn are dependnt on the quality and quantity of rainfall in the rainy season. A poor season may lead to a long stay and heavy concentration in the Park zone. The average duration is on the order of seven months (November to May). At the times when they are present, the semi-transhumant and transhumant pastoralists are to be found in all four cantons. The ethnic groups of pastoralists concerned are Dakara and Missérié Arabs in Balimba canton, and the same ethnic groups together with Foulata in Djoli canton. Over the period 1992 to 1999, most of the offences identified by the wardens responsible for monitoring the Park were committed by transhumant pastoralists introducing cattle into the Park. They do so in full knowledge of Park regulations, and because of not having any other option as their traditional rangelands are increasingly put under plowThus, the Park clearly exercises a strong attractive effect on transhumant pastoralism. However, there is little evidence of land degradation due to this type of grazing. While the extent of lands heavily affected by overgrazing appears thus far to be minimal within the park itself and may not yet be extensive in Moyen Chari as a whole – few statistics are available on this issue – nevertheless it can be a potential threat, if a system is not established to allow controlled and managed transhumant use of Park resources.

To the transhumant livestock must be added the livestock of the indigenous inhabitants, which are continually increasing in number and sometimes going to graze in the Park and increasing the pressure on it. While sedentary livestock farming is associated with the agricultural production system, this relationship has not yet attained the level of integration that permits sustainable utilization of resources from an agronomic standpoint.

40 F. Maingar, 1999.41 Lawane, 1999.

120


In conclusion, whereas traditional agro-pastoral systems were finely tuned to their environmental circumstances, as well as capable of adapting to environmental change and remaining sustainable, recent changes are severely testing this capacity. Factors such as the privatisation of former pastoral land, and shifting horticultural lands for production of export crops, the expansion of areas of extensive agriculture and the establishment of protected areas are combining to limit grazing areas at the same time that herds are increasing. At some point, limits will be reached, unless ways are found to promote compatible uses of rangelands and Park resources.

Use of natural resources : This threat includes the following components:

o Pressure from fishing is felt on the east side of the Park and comes from the many professionals who frequently go to fish in the permanent and temporary ponds and in the waters bordering the Park, in addition sometimes using prohibited tackle or equipment such as “one-finger nets” or explosives. The populations engaged in fisheries are essentially non-indigenous (Ngambaye, Hausa) and sometimes indigenous (Tounia, Mboua, Sara Kaba, Niellim). Clearly, such fishing techniques are inappropriate and evidence of their use would indicate a high likelihood that unsustainable fishing is taking place.

o Felling of timber and cutting of straw: Khaya senegalensis, Isoberlinia doka, Anogeissus leiocarpus, because of their strength, are used for building house roofs and making canoes. Timber is felled to meet domestic energy needs (firewood and charcoal) cutting of palatable shrub species meets the food requirements of domestic sheep and goats. Logs and bundles of Oxytenanthera abyssinica are sent to the market to earn cash income. Straw is cut for the construction and rehabilitation of huts. Data is unavailable to indicate whether current use levels are unsustainable, but the potential clearly exists, exacerbated by a rapid depletion of such resources in surrounding areas.

o Harvesting. The population organizes clandestine harvesting in the Park. It involves picking bush fruits such as Butyrospermum parkii, used to make ointments and edible oil, the fruit of Tamarindus indica, Parkia biglobosa, and Strychnos,while the collection of tree leaves and honey satisfies family consumption needs and generates income. Pharmaceutical plants are also harvested. As is the case of timber felling and straw cutting, there are no clear indications yet whether such activites have already reached unsustainable levels, though clearly all represent disturbances to wildlife populations and carry with them the possibility of the kind of ‘incidental poaching’ referred to above.

Bush fires have the unique characteristic of being at one and the same time harmful and beneficial. The harmful bush fires are the uncontrolled or accidental bush fires caused by the carelessness of a pastoralist or agropastoralist adjacent to the Park or a passenger on board a vehicle travelling on the N’Djaména-Sarh road. It is also recognized that poaching is a source of uncontrolled bush fires. The bush fires that are useful / beneficial to the Park are controlled fires made by the Park administration to ensure visibility or regrowth of food plants for the Park’s fauna. Good monitoring can reduce the uncontrolled and accidental bush fires, but above all the Park needs to be provided with a mechanism for combating them that is jointly managed by the surrounding populations in their joint interest.

INTERMEDIATE CAUSES : The above-described root causes underlie and feed into the following intermediate causes of biodiversity loss:

Local people have few alternatives for fruit and firewood harvesting: Local people, who are surviving on an average income of approximately $0.50 / day, are able to partially meet their food and fuelwood needs through sources within MNP. For many people, these may represent the only, or least the most convenient, sources for obtaining these products. The

121


alternative, of earning cash incomes and purchasing these products, is itself limited by poor access to capital or credit, high levels of rural unemployment, etc.

Resource users have an incentive to maximize harvests: In the absence of effective private or communal property rights, or some type of management structure that limits overall harvests, individual fishermen and other resource users have little incentive to limit harvests of common property resources, but rather face an incentive to maximize harvests.

Pastoralists have few alternatives to using Park resources: In the absence of effective private or communal property rights, and some type of management structure that controls and manages crop expansion into rangelands, pastoralists , who are simultaneously confronted with dwindling rangelands, have no choice but to use Park resources.

Local people and transhumants are not fully convinced of the legitimacy and usefulness of MNP and feel justified in continuing to utilize its resources: In the beginning, when there were not as yet wardens and volunteers, the inhabitants around the Park regarded it as their property. Even the chiefs of the cantons sent the population to bring them certain products (fisheries, hunting, etc.) from the Park. Since the introduction of the forest wardens and Park volunteers and the entry into force of the Park regulations, the surrounding populations have come to understand that they have been excluded from the Park and that it is no longer their property, but rather that of the State. This sense of “exclusion” has led to increasing tension and “illegal” incursions.

Biodiversity conservation has a low priority, particularly outside of protected areas: Clearly, in Chad’s extremely difficult economic conditions, biodiversity existence values are not likely to impact on people’s decisions. People are aware of the reduction in the population of certain species (e.g. bushmeat) but find it easier to get substitutes (e.g. livestock meat) rather than grapple with developing sustainable use regimes when the land tenure and Park regulatory frameworks work against such communal efforts. For Government also, which has very limited budgetary resources, biodiversity conservation must often take its place behind other more urgent priorities. As a result of these factors, land use planning does not incorporate biodiversity considerations. It should be noted that, despite some effort at Zakouma National Park, there has been little success thus far in generating ecotourism revenues in Chad, which could otherwise have helped to affect both community and government decision-making and priorities.

ROOT CAUSES : The following are among the key root causes of biodiversity loss at MNP:

Political instability and a weak Government may be said to lie at the heart of MNP’s present difficulties. It was in the context of Chad’s civil war that much of the loss of fauna populations took place. The central Government’s ability to project authority remains weak in many parts of the country, partly due to very limited budgetary resources. As a result, management structures are only capable of controlling the tip of the iceberg of infringements, usually the ones more easily monitored, such as crop expansion and illegal hunting with guns.42

Poverty remains a crushing burden on the people and environment of Chad. Living in one of the poorest countries in the world, Chad’s people are obliged to take all measures at their disposal to ensure their short-term survival and that of their families, even when such actions, through their environmental impacts, threaten the long-term sustainability of their natural resources.

Population growth in Chad is extremely high, often outstripping on an annual basis increases in economic growth and thus leading to net falls in per capita income. For example, the Moyen-Chari region has an estimated 2.4% annual population growth rate.43 From the standpoint of population density, Moyen-Chari is one of the prefectures where density is very high: according to the 1993 population census there are 16.4 inhabitants/km²; in the rural sub-prefecture of Sarh comprising the four cantons surrounding the Park, the density is 11.6

42 This problem is also considered as a barrier, see para. 41 below.43 Monnery, Sylvie. 1997. “Gestion communautaire et participative du PNM.” Cited in Lawane 1999.

122


inhabitants/km², corresponding to an area of 17,850 km² and a population of 198,113 inhabitants. The urban pressure on MNP comes from the town of Sarh, located some 30 kilometres away, whose population in 1993 was 79,850 inhabitants. The proximity of this growing town constitutes a recognized threat to the Park in terms of satisfaction of essential food needs, but above all for the supply of domestic energy.

BARRIERS : The following barriers provide the enabling environment in which the above-defined threats are able to proceed largely unabated:

Local management capacity barriers : MNP staff are poorly trained, poorly motivated and poorly equipped, and as a result compliance monitoring is limited and ineffective. This barrier is linked to a number of factors including poorly trained and unmotivated staff, limited technical know-how and equipment, etc. Management capacities of local community-based organizations are likewise limited.

Regulatory barriers : MNP’s current regulatory structure is rigid and uncompromising and encourages conflict with surrounding communities.

Informational barriers : Limited information exists concerning ecological changes and wildlife populations in MNP and surrounding areas. Also, policy-makers have limited information and awareness concering the importance of these issues. Finally, local communities possess limited information regarding sustainable use.

Institutional barriers : There are no effective co-ordinating structures to ensure adequate land-use planning in areas surrounding MNP, particularly in potentially important biological corridors.

Socio-economic baseline

According to the 1993 census, the Moyen-Chari prefecture has 738,595 inhabitants, with a mean population density of about 16 inhabitants/km2. The vast majority of this territory’s population consists of relatively homogeneous indigenous ethnic groups known as Sara. Other non-Sara groups (Niellim, N’dam and Gor) practice the same habits and customs. These various ethnic groups are heavily represented in the town of Sarh and its environs, including the Manda region. In 1999, the population census in the area covered by the National Rural Development Office (ONDR) for the eastern Sarh sub-prefecture, including the four cantons surrounding the Park, estimated the total population at 47,661 within 128 communities. A study on the population of Moyen-Chari in 1993 estimated the sedentary population at 96.6% (although this figure is probably less during the dry season when transhumants migrate to the region). Of the Sedentary population, 48.5% are young people under the age of 15, and there is a predominance of women (51.3%) reflecting the effects of the Civil War. The employed economically active (formal sector) population of Moyen-Chari is 55.0%, with economically active men (58.9%) being more numerous than women (51.4%). Population mobility indicators are high everywhere in the prefecture Other groups of migrants from Biltine, Guéra and Chari-Baguirmi prefectures have also established themselves in Moyen-Chari.. Land uses within the area is primarily for agriculture and pastoralism.

The ethnic groups that have long occupied the area surrounding MNP are the Niellim, the Tounia, the Toumak and the Sar or Sara (in agriculture) and the Hausa and Ngambaye (in fisheries). To these must be added certain groups of pastoralists who are becoming semi-sedentary and others seeking to adopt a settled way of life. There are many such transhumant pastoralist ethnic groups, including the Mbororo (native to the Chari-Baguirmi), the Foulate (coming from the Chari-Baguirmi), the Foulbé (from the Mayo-Kebbi), Dakara Arabs (native to the Guéra) and Mysériés and Wazinée Arabs (from Abougoudam).44 The multiple ethnicity of the area makes it imperative that the participatory approach of the project adequately ensures both an equitable sharing of benefits as well as equitable participation by all groups.

44 Brown, Ellen Patterson. 1996. “Projet park Manda, situation socio-economique mai – juin 1996.” Cited in Lawane 1999.

123


The population of this zone immediately surrounding MNP derives its livelihood from agriculture, fisheries, stock-raising, hunting and a little pisciculture (in ponds) and beekeeping (above all in the Koutou zone). The main export crop grown in this zone is cotton. In addition to growing rainfed cotton around the Park, the population cultivates primarily cereals, legumes and root crops. Cultivation methods are extensive, while fallow periods are starting to decline due to population increase. Most of the crop expansion is occurring in non-protected rangelands, although the potential for expansion into the park is always present. Many wild products are also present both in and around the Park; harvesting them makes a major contribution to family food supply and also earns substantial income for families.

To the west of the park, the population depends essentially on agriculture during the rainy season. To the east, on the other hand, the population lives essentially from fisheries. These fishing populations devote the greater part of their time during the dry season to fishing, and during the rainy season to cultivating certain plants such as cotton and cereals. During the dry season, some of them even enter the Park to fish in the permanent ponds.

Since the entry into force of the Park regulations in 1998, cultivation, is no longer practised in the Park.45

According to surveys and discussions on the ground in the cantons adjacent to the Park territory, the results of which are presented in a report on the legal characteristics of the MNP zone, 46 the surrounding populations are not on the whole opposed to the Park’s existence. They do not necessarily lay claim to the territory of the Park, which has been excluded from their ancestral heritage (decree 56/EFPC/65 and decree 243/PR/EFPC/PNR/67). However, they would like recognition of their rights to use the Park in a number of ways, such as: (i) cutting straw and certain timber species to construct their huts; (ii) traditional collective fisheries in the ponds in the Park along the lines of what was formally practised between March and May of each year; (iii) the practice of certain traditional rites at ancestral sites – initiation rites, enthronement rites of traditional chiefs, particularly the land chief, and invocation of the gods at the start of the sowing, harvesting and fishing periods; (iv) harvesting of wild fruits such as Néré and shea nuts.

The populations dispossessed of their land do not appear to be still calling for the cash indemnities which they did not all receive at the time of the Park’s creation (1965-1967), but rather appear to be favourably inclined towards the socio-economic activities being organized around the Park and view them as fair compensation. They would also like measures to be taken to keep away pastoralists who, they believe, destroy the environment and to limit over-exploitation of the ponds and waters by professional or occasional fishermen, some of whom use prohibited gear. They would also welcome better cooperation with the Park administrative staff and wardens in the interests of its conservation.

The perception of the pastoralists, as transhumant populations, has been described in a report on the pastoral ecosystems surrounding MNP.47 The pastoralists interviewed for this study acknowledged the Park’s existence. They were unanimous, however, in not understanding either the justification for its existence or, above all, its usefulness. They felt that the Park was no different from other rangelands, and that consequently the resources to be found there constitute a common heritage available to all the communities that have traditional rights of access.

45Lawane, 1999.46 F. N. MAÏNGAR, April 1999.47 Abdelmadjit M. SALEH and Laounodji DJAMBO. April 1999. “Parc de Manda: Ecosystèmes pastoraux.” Report produced by PDF-B. Mimeo.

124


Annex 1.A - Logical Framework Matrix

Description Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification

Risks and Assumptions

Development

Objective

The globally and nationally significant biodiversity of southeastern Chad is sustainably used by, and provides benefits to, current generations while being conserved for the benefit of future generations

Immediate objectives

(1) To ensure the conservation and sustainable use of Manda National Park (MNP) and its immediate surroundings while (2) demonstrating the use of wildlife/livestock corridors as a technique for rehabilitating and maintaining the biological and genetic diversity of protected areas in southeastern Chad

Threat reduction indices show substantial (>60%) reduction in major threats facing MNP biodiversity by the end of the project.Several fomerly extirpated species have been recorded and are believed to be increasing to sustainable population levels, within MNP by the end of the project.Increased reports of faunal presence along selected migratory wildlife corridors by the end of the project.Wildlife surveys at MNP suggest population increases difficult to account for other than by in-migration from corridor, by end of the project.Sedentary and pastoral communities have benefited from the sustainable use and community development activities.

Ecological monitoring surveys at MNP

Chad maintains political and economic stability

Climatic changes are not overly disruptive

Government revenues increase from oil industry allowing sustainable financing of recurrent costs

125




Outcomes

1 – MNP operates within a well-functioning, participatory management system

By end of year 4, at least 75% of MNP staff have minimum --- level of academic background, with at least 50% having training in related fields such as forestry, wildlife management, etc.

Updated and more appropriate set of regulations in place by end of year 2.

Baseline ecological monitoring data has been collected and is inter-comparable with subsequently gathered data, thus providing clear guidance on ecological trends and trends in threat reduction.

Compliance monitoring achieves 400% increase in effective areas patrolled compared with baseline.

Management plan adopted by end of year 3.

Lessons learnt synthesized and disseminated at national level by year 6

Legal documents, gazettes and notifications

Project annual reports

Annual data reviews beginning end of year 1

Surrounding communities can be convinced that it is in their own interest to abide by new regulations (see outcome 2)

Trained and qualified staff can be encouraged to remain and to build ‘institutional memory’ while encouraging continuity of management

Ecological data can provide meaningful results during relatively short time-frame of project

Observed threat reduction can be sustainably maintained beyond project completion

126




2 – Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are placing significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from sustainable development

Key identified threats have been reduced from baseline levels as follows:oPoaching incidence reduced by

80%oAgricultural encroachment

eliminatedoBushfires reduced by 15 % oOther forms of illegal resource

extraction reduced by 70% Residents of 30% of surrounding

communities have benefited from micro-enterprise / micro-credit schemes by end of year 3

Residents of 70% of surrounding communities have participated in, and earned income from, MPA conservation and rehabilitation activities (road clearing, construction, etc.)

Key identified pastoralist groups have benefited from awareness-raising and development activities, including well digging, micro-credit, and alternate sources of fodder

Pilot program for fuelwood alternative energy supply to Sarh is operational by end of year 4.

Workshop summary reports

Quarterly threat reduction assessments, based on compilation and analysis of daily ranger patrol records

Appropriate, long-term / stable balance can be struck with surrounding communities concerning sustainable use issues

Surrounding communities see the connection between conservation and development

127




3 – One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and its associated landscapes, and in supporting sustainable pastoral management

Increased reports of faunal presence along selected migratory wildlife corridors

Wildlife surveys at MNP suggest population increases difficult to account for other than by in-migration

Transhumants report less conflicts with farmers

Vegetation studies show stable or improved vegetation condition in demonstration corridors

Reports of consultations with members of surrounding communities

Ecological monitoring surveys at MNP

Migratory corridors do not become successful targets of increased attention by poachers or ad hoc transhumants

Activities

Outcome 1 - MNP operates within a well-functioning, participatory management system

Activity Area 1.1 Staff development o Review of MNP staffing requirements, including development and dissemination of a staffing plan, with

clear job descriptions including requirements (education, etc.) and job responsibilities o Staff profiling against job descriptionso Staff changes as necessary, including retirement packages and new staff recruitmento Development and implementation of a staff training programme, including staff exchanges with Zakouma

National Park and joint training programmes. Investigate possibilities of regional-level training through ECOFAC programme in Cameroon.

o Review of staff remuneration levels and examination of possible sustainable incentive programmes

Activity Area 1.2 Regulatory development and implementationo National experts undertake a performance review of experience under current regulatory arrangements

(No 17/MEE/DG/DPFPN/98 of 23 June 1998) and provide proposals for regulatory revisions including, inter alia, possible sustainable use protocols.

o Broad-based (village-level) stakeholder consultations and round-table discussions / negotiations, chaired by MEE, on nature of revised regulations

o Final adoption and dissemination of revised regulatory regimeo Implementation, as appropriate, of sustainable use protocols

Activity Area 1.3 Ecological monitoring and data managemento Review existing ecological monitoring and data management systems created and /or in current use in

Chad, in particular those used by the EU Zakouma and FFEM projectso Design and implement a short-term monitoring and data management programme to establish necessary

baseline data, building on surveys conducted during PDF-Bo Design and pilot implementation of an appropriate and financially sustainable long-term ecological

128




monitoring and data management system for MNP that will be capable of effectively integrating with other systems in southeastern Chad and, where possible, nation-wide. This system should be used initially to verify logframe impact indicators, with respect to changes induced from baseline situation. This should include monitoring of threat reduction indicators as well as more traditional ecological indicators (wildlife populations, etc.).

o Provide necessary equipment for short- and long-term monitoring and data management programmes and provide training in its use

Activity Area 1.4 Compliance monitoring o In conjunction with staffing review (see 1.1 above), prepare a detailed compliance monitoring plan,

including patrolling schedules and methods, reporting protocols, procedures to follow in cases of non-compliance, infrastructure and equipment needs, etc.

o Provide necessary infrastructure and equipment to facilitate compliance monitoring programme, including transport, communications, road improvements, accommodations for rangers, etc.

Activity Area 1.5 Management planning and implementationo Tie together elements of Activity Areas 1.1 – 1.4 into a comprehensive site management plan.o Implementation of additional conservation activities not specified above but rather defined within site

management plan

Activity Area 1.6 Lessons learnt for policy and regulatory reformo Synthesise lessons from Manda and Zakouma projectso Disseminate lessons at national level (parliamentarians, Ministries, NGOs, public)

Outcome 2 – Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are placing significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from sustainable development

Activity Area 2.1 Community outreach and awareness raising among local communities and transhumants regarding MNP o Select 10-15 communities around MNP, along with relevant pastoralist groups, for pilot outreach

programme. These should include a broad representation of ethnic groups, types of resource users (farmers, fishermen, etc.) and geographic distribution. Beneficiaries should understand the connection between conservation and development.

o Develop awareness materials for communicating MNP regulatory developments and project livelihood activities to beneficiaries

o Organization of village-level consultations (building on those conducted during PDF-B) to build awareness of conservation and MNP objectives

o Participatory workshops covering 100% of surrounding communities have been held by end of year 1

Activity Area 2.2 Community participation in MNP conservation and rehabilitation activities

129




o Develop a program for learning from and recording communities’ traditional knowledge of area wildlife and their movements, as well as traditional knowledge of plants. This will include an effort to gather information on wildlife presence and movements within zone surrounding MNP.

o Ensure that surrounding communities benefit from employment opportunities created by conservation and rehabilitation activities within MNP.

Activity Area 2.3 Participatory design and implementation of small-scale community development projects and micro-credit program o Building on investigations conducted during PDF-B Phase, identification and planning of small-scale

community development projects will be accomplished through a participatory process, which helps individual communities develop simple planning approaches to optimize the use of their respective land areas

o Specific activities likely to be implemented include the following: (Note: Additional details will be found in UNDP project document. Goal is to leverage additional co-financing to extend pilot program results to additional communities in years 4-7)

Activity Area 2.4 Pilot implementation of sustainable use protocolso Based on results of Activity 1.2, and with community participation, design, guide, and monitor

implementation of, a clearly defined set of sustainable use activities to be undertaken by licensed residents.

o Monitor and update sustainable use protocols based on ongoing experience

Outcome 3 – One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and its associated landscapes, and in supporting sustainable pastoral management

Activity Area 3.1 Ecological data collection and analysis o Ecological data, particularly concerning wildlife populations, as well as land use data, is collected for

PAs and broader landscape areas in the MNP sub-region. Methods will include aerial and satellite imagery and various methods of ground-truthing.

o Geographically referenced data is analysed using GIS methods, permitting an improved understanding of wildlife populations and movements within the area and their relationship with land use and migratory transhumantce patterns.

o Key migratory corridors for MNP are identified

Activity Area 3.2 Monitoring and information systems developed along key migratory corridors o One or two priority migratory wildlife corridors are selected for demonstrationo Partnerships are developed with local people, including transhumantts, along migratory wildlife

corridors, for exchange of information and support

130




Activity Area 3.3 Demonstrate methods for enhancing the effectiveness of wildlife corridors o Official recognition of defined areas as wildlife/livestock corridors, o Land use planning within these zones, involving local canton governments, local chiefs, transhumants

and Zakouma Park officials were relevanto Regularisation and formal recognition of transhumance rights, within a co-management plan for the

corridor, developed by MPN, Zakouma, and pastoralistso Passive and active methods are tested for enhancing the effectiveness of the corridors as sources for

rehabilitating MNP wildlife populations. These may include the following: re-directing of farmers away from wildlife/livestock corridors; awareness-raising; installation of incentives for wildlife and livestock movements.

o Participatory monitoring and enforcement of the plan

131


Annex 2Legal and policy baseline

The following aspects of the legal and policy baseline situation are worth noting :

Act 14/PR/98 of 17 August 1998 defines general principles of environmental protection. Its overall objective is to establish the principles for sustainable management of the environment and its protection against any form of degradation in order to protect and make use of natural resources and improve the living conditions of the population ;

The Revised Forestry Code, which is still pending adoption, is a law regulating forestry, fauna and fisheries. It is designed to ensure, in the context of Act 14/PR/98, management of forest, fauna and fish resources on a sustainable basis.

Institutional baseline

The National High Committee for the Environment (HCNE), established in 1995, is chaired by the Prime Minister and Head of Government. It brings together 16 Ministries with the goal of promoting, harmonizing and ensuring the implementation of sustainable environment and development strategies and policies. The specific tasks of HCNE are:

To ensure the effective implementation of recommendations aimed at sustainable development;

To ensure the implementation of Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992;

To ensure the effective integration of environment and development; To guide sustainable development policies and ensure their proper implementation; To arbitrate in the case of contradictory options between the priorities of development and of

protecting the environment, and; To mobilize the institutional and social partners in order to promote protection and

improvement of the environment. The Ministry of Environment and Water (MEE) provides the permanent secretariat for HCNE. It is the body that proposes and executes policies and strategies. It operates both through centralized and decentralized services. At the central level, the General Directorate coordinates and guides the activities of the technical department. It is decentralized into regional delegations, including one for Moyen-Chari. One of the technical departments – the National Parks and Fauna Reserves Department – is directly responsible for biodiversity. The Department is organized on the ground into Park and Fauna Reserve Sectors.

Finally, a number of national and international NGOs are active in the area of environmental management (see para. below).

MNP management and regulatory baseline

MNP was established as a regional fauna reserve in 1951. In 1953, it became a Territorial Reserve initially to protect Taurotragus derbianus, the Derby eland. By decree 56/EFPC, it was made a National Park on 19 March 1965. Its status was later amended by decree 243/PR/EFPC/PNR of 23 October 1967. MNP is administratively under the regional delegation for the environment of Moyen-Chari and is the direct responsibility of the Head of the Southern Parks and Fauna Reserves Sector. This responsibility is exercised through three detachments based in Manda, Djoli and Waïn ; at a lower level, the detachments have either a camp and/or a post. Thus the Manda detachment is supported by Kar camp and Guéré post; while the Waïn detachment is supported by Koutou post and Waïn camp.

132


The Park’s human resources, insufficient in number (barely forty) in relation to the area they have to cover (114,000 hectares) and consisting of more than 60 per cent wardens, lack professionalism; even if their paltry salaries were to be increased, this will be a difficult shortcoming to remedy. The inadequate level of professionalism is reflected in major gaps in the preparation of the monthly activity reports and the filling in of monitoring and offence reporting forms. This state of affairs constitutes an explicit index of uncertainty in the monitoring of the Park’s fauna population, for example. Lack of knowledge of either legal or regulatory texts governing their activities means that the wardens are aware neither of the seriousness of the offences committed by delinquents nor of the extent of the required penalties. In addition, other State employees and officials supervising the Park wardens appear unaware of the texts governing State lands, and specifically the protection of biodiversity. Participatory management will be possible only in a situation of trust, assurance and transparency, with a more responsible and professional Park administration that communicates validly with the surrounding communities.

The Park’s infrastructure, comprised of buildings, camps and tracks, has been severely affected by age and by the many socio-political events that have taken place in Chad. The roads through the Park have not been remade since 1979, while the Waïn and Kar camps have existed in name only since February 1998.

The Park Administration, without adequate resources or appropriate leadership, could not protect biodiversity effectively even if the legal framework were to be reformulated in the direction of more participatory and assured management of the Park.

Order No. 17/MEE/DG/DPFPN/98 of 23 June 1998 established the regulatory framework for MNP. It prohibits all activities within the Park – cultivation, grazing, hunting, collection of fruits, cutting of wood and straw, fishing, beekeeping and traditional rites. Article 3 of the Order enacting the regulations provides for a participatory administrative mechanism that comprises three committees:

The steering committee establishes multidisciplinary coordination among the different administrative units, defines guidelines within the Park and peripheral zones and formulates recommendations;

The development committee for the peripheral zones of MNP comprises representatives of various categories of socioeconomic actors present in the peripheral zone and of the local administration;

The scientific and technical committee consists of specialists in natural resource management, including the social disciplines. The committee may be requested by the steering committee, after consultation with the development committee, to conduct scientific and technical studies.

Despite the above regulatory framework, the above-mentioned committees have not yet been established because the MNP management lacks the necessary capacity for providing leadership in adopting a participatory approach to park management. This in turn has prevented the effective establishment of participatory management involving the local communities. Nevertheless, this remains an approach that could be pursued within a context of renewed cooperation.

133


Annex 3

Table 2 : Lessons Incorporated into Project Design

Lessons Learned by Zakouma Design Feature for MNPA lack of awareness promotion and method. There was no awareness promotion/information programme with respect to either the conservation component or the rural development component.

The project will include significant elements for raising awareness among surrounding communities

Confusion between the Park and the project, despite the motivation of the leaders of the rural development component.

Clear development of roles and responsibilities between project staff and Park management staff, and development of an “exit strategy” for the project. The details will be developed during the Appraisal phase.

Good relations between the project and the neighbouring communities are highly dependent on the personalities in each (the project and the population) but also on the involvement and will of the authorities and the poor circulation of information with the populations and the various local authorities.

Efforts will be made to identify key communities where, due either to their ‘role’ as sources of threat or other problems, require supplemental efforts to ensure effective co-operation

The major lesson we can draw is that in Zakouma National Park the protection aspect prevailed over activities for the benefit of the population. The result was, of course, recovery of the fauna, but it did not fundamentally change the attitude of the population towards the Park.

This is something Manda needs to avoid if it is to ensure the sustainability of biodiversity.The project will focus on achieving a long-term and sustainable improvement in the ‘relationship’ between MNP and surrounding communities.

Ad hoc and small scale interventions in the past decade to improving infrastructure and management of MNP have not resulted in sustainable impacts.

An appropriately scaled intervention, over a sustained period of time, and coordinated with government, bilateral donor and NGO efforts, is needed to set MNP management on the right footing.

134


Annex 4

STAP REVIEW REPORT

UNDP regrets that the STAP reviewer was not sufficiently cognizant of GEF mandates and objectives. The STAP reviewer’s comments from an anthropological point of view were helpful in strengthening the pro-poor elements of the project. However, the lack of understanding of the GEF mandate led to a series of reviewer comments that required rebuttal rather than constructive solutions.

The project proponents would like to thank the STAP Reviewer for bringing to their attention a number of important issues related to the importance of local stakeholders, including local communities and transhumants, for the success of the project. The Reviewer provides good insights from an anthropological perspective that are very constructive and have been taken into account in a revised Brief. We share the reviewer’s concern with the welfare of these stakeholders and have made a number of efforts to ensure that the final project design brings no harm to these target groups and, in net terms, proves beneficial to them in the long run.

The overview to the STAP review highlights several principal concerns. The issues associated with these concerns are discussed below, along with the steps taken in this revised draft to address them.

Issue a) : Whether local resource use practices in and around MNP are ‘unsustainable’

The reviewer points out that the project brief “doesn’t persuasively argue that the biodiversity of Manda National Park is subject to ‘substantial anthropogenic disturbance’ due to ‘unsustainable practices’ of fishing, herding and farming carried out by indigenous peoples of the area.” The Brief states that the “substantial anthropogenic disturbance” was due to the decimation of MNP’s wildlife which took place during Chad’s Civil War of the 1970s and 1980s. MNP’s wildlife was nearly destroyed by human actions occurring amidst the acute social disarray and privation that accompanied the Civil War. Currently, wildlife populations remain at low levels – a small fraction of what the protected area could, and previously did, sustain. Thus, the current sustainable take of these populations, which remain well below the area’s maximum sustainable yield, is zero. Present levels of anthropogenic disturbance and poaching of these populations, which appear often to take place incidentally within the context of other activities (herding, felling of timber, etc.), may thus also be characterized as unsustainable.

The STAP reviewer also states “The way the project document has been written conveys, perhaps unintentionally, the position that the well-being of the proposed park and the well-being of the local poor people it seeks to exclude from the park are mutually opposed, and that given the choice the well-being of the park must take precedence.” We believe that this is a misunderstanding of the project’s rationale and the description in the Brief. It has been explained that there are clear win-win opportunities that the project will enhance and sustain. The fact that the population of wild graziers was dessimated due to poaching, means that such a grazing dependent ecosystem can deteriorate unless this is redressed. One way of doing so, is to encourage a rational and coordinated system of pastoral use (domestic graziers), which would also generate benefits to the people. Other win-win strategies have been described in the Brief.

Issue b) : Tragedy of the Commons.

The brief discusses the apparent rapid increase in Moyen Chari’s livestock populations in the past 2-3 decades. This factor, exacerbated by tendencies pointed out by the reviewer, e.g., land privatization for production of export crops, has tended to increase grazing pressures on lands surrounding MNP. Nevertheless, the brief is careful to note that “…the extent of lands heavily affected by overgrazing appears this far to be minimal within the park itself and may not be extensive in Moyen Chari as a whole…” and therefore overgrazing is only a potential threat. The revised brief incorporates

135


references to other causes of land pressure, including land privatization, and adjusts language elsewhere to avoid conveying the impression that transhumant and other pastoralists, or their traditional techniques of land use, are being blamed for the actual or potential threat of land degradation. Furthermore, it has been clarified throughout that the project sees pastoralism as potentially compatible with wildlife conservation.

Issue c) : whether local communities and migratory pastoralists will benefit from, or rather be harmed by, project activities

The baseline, business as usual, situation is that the Park will continue to exclude farmers and pastoralists from using the resources inside the park, thus leading to greater tension and conflicts, as well as greater forgone benefits and opportunity costs. The GEF Alternative will ensure that benefits accrue to local populations in four ways :

1. Controlled access/use in selected areas of the park2. Employment benefits from infrastructure development and potential tourism3. Participation in development of Park management plan, and therefore ownership of the plan.4. Sustainable use and therefore improved productivity of buffer zones.

These aspects have been clarified and highlighted in the revised Brief.

The Reviewer also points out that the Brief “…. doesn’t go on to make a convincing case that livelihoods alternative to those currently practiced will be both economically remunerative and environmentally sound.” This is a good point, and has been added to Component 2. Activities related to micro-project development will first be subject to cost /benefit and environmental impact assessment analyses, using a participatory method as a learning tool for local communities.

The Reviewer questions whether “The actions proposed in the document will not benefit all equally”. We have taken this issue very seriously. It is certainly a risk that the project team needs to be aware of (see section on risk) and the project design incorporates an element of monitoring for equitable sharing of benefits between farmers and pastoralists, between elders and youth; between men and women, and readjusting activities where necessary. Alternative income and sustainable use regimes will be targeted to these groups, and the design of the micro-credit scheme (co-financing) will ensure that it is equitably distributed.

The Reviewer states: “the proposal needs to demonstrate that (a) without the reserve, wildlife is threatened; and (b) that its costs will not be borne by the already poor herders and farmers of the region.” The first point has been made under the “Threats analysis”; wildlife are already threatened due to past poaching and present and potential unsustainable use. On the second point, a distinction has to be made between the existence of the park (which goes back many years), and the actions of the project. The park’s establishment and gazettement has created opportunity costs for the farmers and herders, by prohibiting all access to the resources. The project’s goal is to reduce these costs by allowing sustainable use back into the Park, and provide alternative income generation activities to reduce poverty in the region.

The Reviewers comments on sustainability and replicability therefore have to be seen in light of this response. The benefits of the project will go far beyond just providing additional employment.

Specific comments :

Paragraphs 18-24 : The three ethnic groups are all distinct groups. Cotton is rain-fed and grown by all farmers, some more than others. The Park officials have been able to keep crops out of the park, but it is an ever-present demand/threat. Pastoral use of the park is subject to different interpretations: farmers want it prohibited (because it is competitive), park rangers do not understand that it can be

136


potentially complementary to wildlife production; and pastoralists understand well that they can be compatible, and have no other choice but to use park resources. The project’s challenge is to bring all these different stakeholders to a common understanding and vision on how to sustainably manage the natural resources while conserving globally significant biodiversity.

Paragraphs 33 and 34 : No studies have been undertaken on the impact of the park; all information is anecdotal. Composition of the Committee is intended to include social disciplines; this has been clarified in the Brief. But nevertheless, there is a perceived gap in the capacity of park and canton officials to adequately incorporate social, economic and anthropological perspectives. The capacity building element of Component 1 will redress this. Although details on project implementation are to be worked out during project appraisal, it is expected that the project team will include social experts.

Paragraph 35 : FAO’s irrigation program is not expected to target our project zone.

Paragraphs 38-39 : The proponents are in agreement with the Reviewer’s assessment of pastoral situation, and this is reflected in the fact that the project’s objectives and activities do not exclude transhumants but in fact aim to work with them to develop mutually beneficial land management. The Brief has been edited to better reflect the state of the art in terms of pastoral development. Pastoralists have no option but to use park resources, as their rangelands are diminishing due to encroachment and gazettement. Current strict no-use rules in the Park lead wardens to label any use as illegal, thus increasing tensions. The challenge for the Project is therefore to build capacity of park, canton and farming communities to better understand and integrate pastoral concerns.

Paragraphs 40 and 47 : There is a direct link between poverty and environment. The project’s component 2 is designed to address this issue, by building capacity for local people to participate in biodiversity conservation, as well as provide incentives (such as regulated access to park resources, access to micro-credit) for obtaining benefits at the local level. This aspect has been clarified and better defined in the revised Brief. Indicative activities are also given as examples. However, in keeping with the principle of flexibility and adaptive management, it will be up to the local communities, park management and project team, to concretely define the activities that will be undertaken.

Paragraphs 51 and 52 : The proponents are in agreement with the Reviewer and the Brief has been strengthened as a result of these observations. The types of activities potentially of benefit to pastoralists has been better defined. Component 3 is focusing on developing ecologically viable corridors for both wildlife and livestock.

Paragraph 58 : Component 2 is aimed at ensuring sustainability of benefits to local communities. This will be done through developing and implementing sustainable use regimes. These regimes/protocols when imbedded in canton plans will allow local communities to regulate use, for example by professional fishermen.

Paragraph 63 : The original sentence was an unfortunate transliteration from French and has been edited.

Paragraph 81 : The proponents are in agreement; principles of adaptive management, continuous monitoring and feedback loops, have been built into the project design. The project team and steering committee (which will include representatives of the local communities) have the responsibility of monitoring progress and taking corrective action where necessary. Gender issues are prominent in Component 2 where it is expected that women will be closely involved in community development activities, and in sustainable use regimes for fuel wood, medicinal plants, etc.

137


ATTACHMENT 1 - DRAFT TRACKING TOOL PREPARED January 2005TRACKING TOOL FOR BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN PROTECTED AREAS

I. Background Information on Project1. Country(ies): Chad

Global project Regional project

1.1.1.1.1 3. Names of reviewers completing this form:

Mark Zimsky

1.1.1.1.2

1.1.1.1.3

4. Relationship to project: Project team Executing Agency Consultant X Other (please specify) GEF Secretariat

5. Tracking tool completed at:

work program entry (submission)48

Date competed: October 26, 2004 ______________ mid-term Date completed: ______________ end of project Date completed: ______________

2. Project name: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Moyen-Chari

6. Funding information:GEF Support: $___1.4 million (262,360 PDF B) Co-financing: $_1.635 million Total funding: $_3,035,000

7. Project duration: Planned___6_ years Actual _______ years

8. a. GEF Agency: X UNDP UNEP World Bank ADB AfDB IADB EBRD FAO IFAD UNIDO

8.b Lead Executing Agency(ies)

8. c. GEF Operational Program: drylands (OP 1) coastal, marine, freshwater (OP 2) forests (OP 3) mountains (OP 4) agro-biodiversity (OP 13)

Where relevant: integrated ecosystem management (OP 12) sustainable land management (OP 15)

48 When completed at work program entry, please reflect the actual/baseline situation, not what is intended to be accomplished through the project.

138


9. One paragraph summary of project/key issues to be addressed:

Manda National Park (MNP), located in southeastern Chad, was declared a National Park in 1965, and is one of the last wildlife refuges in the Moyen-Chari. Since that time, globally significant biodiversity at MNP has experienced periods of relative quietude as well as times of substantial anthropogenic disturbance. Currently, vegetation at this 114,000 ha. biodiversity haven remains in relatively good condition, though wildlife populations are continuing to recover slowly from a period of extreme poaching during Chad’s late 1970’s – early 1980’s Civil War. Continuing moderate levels of disturbance are threatening this recovery. Under the baseline scenario, this disturbance would almost certainlycontinue, and could potentially lead to irreversible degradation. The GEF alternative would demonstrate a long-term shift in current unsustainable practices within Moyen-Chari by focusing on the MNP and its associated landscapes. It would ensure the conservation and sustainable use of MNP and its immediate surroundings while demonstrating the use of wildlife corridors as a technique for rehabilitating and maintaining the biological diversity of southeastern Chad. This immediate objective would be achieved through the following specific outcomes: (i) MNP would operate according to well-functioning and adaptive systems – including staffing, regulatory, ecological and compliance monitoring systems and sustainable use protocols – that were designed and implemented through a participatory management planning process; (ii) Residents of surrounding communities and migratory pastoralists would place significantly less pressure on MNP’s natural resources, while concurrently playing an active and participatory role in MNP’s conservation, rehabilitation and related planning, and; (iii) One or more wildlife corridors would function in support of the rehabilitation of MNP10. Key components supported by GEF (briefly list):

1) Management Systems2) Community Development/Community Natural Resources Management3) Wildlife/Livestock Corridor Establishment

11. Outcomes expected (identify GEF related outcomes):Outcome 1: MNP operates within a well-functioning, participatory management systemOutcome 2: Residents of surrounding communities and transhumants are using resources sustainably within MNP, and its buffer’s natural resources, while obtaining benefits from sustainable developmentOutcome 3: One or more wildlife/livestock corridors are functioning in support of the rehabilitation of MNP wildlife, in maintaining ecological connectivity between MNP and other priority protected areas in Moyen-Chari, and in support of sustainable pastoral management

139


12. Types of Protected Area activities supported:

X Enabling environment __X_ Policy, legislation, regulation X Finance and incentives __X_ Capacity building __X_ Education and awareness X Management practices (related to general biodiversity status)

__X_ Institutional arrangementsX Replication/scaling up

LDC Capacity Building13. a. Scope of project:

X Single protected area Multiple protected areas National protected area system(s)

13. b. Level of interventions:

Global Regional National X Sub-national

1.1.2 14. a. Is carbon sequestration an objective of the project? (This question is included for purposes related to the GEF 3 targets for the Climate Change focal area.)

1.1.3 Yes X No Comment:

1.1.4The estimated amount of carbon sequestered is: ______________________

140


15. a. IUCN protected area management category (if classified): Not stated I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection

II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation

III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features

IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention

V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation

VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

15. b. Other national/local designation categories (if any):(e.g. indigenous reserves, private reserves, etc.)

16. a. Extent (in hectares) of protected areas targeted by the project:

X anticipated at work program inclusion achieved by project mid-term achieved at project completion

______114,000___ hectares ___________________ hectares ___________________ hectares

16. b. Approximate number of people directly affected by GEF intervention within protected areas:

17. Names and geographical coordinates of protected area site(s) within project (if relevant):

Manda National Park9 Degrees 10’ and 10 degrees 2’ N Latitude17 Degrees 35’ and 18 degrees 05’ E Longitude

141


Tommaso Balbo di Vinadio/tt/file_convert/5e551bf5103a103122670733/document.doc

142

Documents

3A · Web viewdemonstrated skills in office computer use - word processing, spreadsheets. Duty stations The NPC will be based at the project office in Sarh. S/he will make periodic