FINANCING PLAN (IN US$): · Web viewChange in amount of FONAMA and FONADEFO financial disbursements FONAMA and FONADEFO are non-functional. By 2012 FONAMA and FONADEFO are dispersing

* Submission Date: September, 2009

Resubmission: February 16, 2010

PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION GEFSEC PROJECT ID1: 3757GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 4185COUNTRY(IES): Equatorial Guinea PROJECT TITLE: CBSP – Strengthening the National System of protected areas in Equatorial Guinea for the effective conservation of representative ecosystems and globally significant biodiversityGEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP OTHER EXECUTING PARTNERS: Ministry of the Fisheries and Environment (MdePyMA)GEF FOCAL AREAS: FULL-SIZED PROJECTBIODIVERSITY,FULL-SIZED PROJECT SO-1GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): BP-SP 3

NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: CBSP - STRATEGIC PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE CONGO BASIN

A. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK Project Objective: To reduce or eliminate the policy, legal, capacity, and socio-economic barriers that now prevent EG’s protected areas system function to protect globally significant biodiversity

Project Components Type Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs

Indicative GEF Financing*

Indicative Co-financing* Total ($)

% %1. Policy framework and Strategy for the management of PAs is developed

TA Of the 514,048 ha of PAs, which are largely paper parks, at least 250,000 ha are on the path to effective management (as measured by increased RAPPAM2 scores; baseline to be determined during the project preparation phase)

Following pressures on biodiversity are reduced (baselines and targets tbd during PPG):(i) Containment of forest clearance for slash-and-burn agriculture and timber production

I.1EG's NBS updated, expanded to include carbon resources, adopted, and in force.

I.2EG environment and biodiversity sector laws revised, rationalized, and extended to eliminate conflicts, clarify roles and responsibility, and fully realize the objectives of the revised NBS.

I.3A strategy for carbon neutral economic development designed, adopted, and implemented.

I.4FONAMA and

484,707 37.% 823,922 63% 1,308,629

1 Project ID number will be assigned initially by GEFSEC.2 WWF’s “Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management” tool, for PA networks

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENTPROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT THE GEF TRUST FUND

INDICATIVE CALENDARMilestones Expected Dates

Work Program (for FSP) Nov. 2009CEO Endorsement/Approval Mar. 2010GEF Agency Approval Apr. 2010Implementation Start June 2010Mid-term Review (if planned) June 2012Implementation Completion May 2014

http://gefweb.org/uploadedFiles/Documents/Council_Documents__(PDF_DOC)/GEF_31/C.31.11%20Results%20Based%20Management%20Framework.pdf

Project Objective: To reduce or eliminate the policy, legal, capacity, and socio-economic barriers that now prevent EG’s protected areas system function to protect globally significant biodiversity

(ii) Local threatened species populations are stable

Private sector, NGOs and CBOs are effective partners in managing protected areas

At the level of the NSPA, diversification of funding sources and better coverage of recurrent costs (monitored using PA Finance Scorecard.

FONADEFO are enabled as long-term financial mechanisms to support protected areas and biodiversity management by having complete financial designs and founding documents prepared and submitted to MdePyMA for presentation to the President, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers.

2. Improved institutional and individual capacities for the management of PAs

TA Improved competencies for PA management among PA management department staff (National Institute for Protected Areas, NIPA), staff in individual PAs, local administration, NGOs, and Universities (at least 50% increase in competence levels using the UNDP Capacity Dev. Scorecard

Improved knowledge about the country’s biodiversity and capacity to carry out systematic monitoring within the NSPA allows for better PA management

II.1A national program of biodiversity and forest carbon measurement and monitoring against a baseline enables adaptive management of EG protected areas and participation in international carbon markets as a mechanism of long-term, stable financial support for biodiversity protection and management.

II.2The capacity of Guinean NGO's and community organizations to play an effective role as partners with government ministries and agencies in biodiversity management is improved.

II.3At least four Guineans, selected from MdePyMA, MdeAyB, INDEFOR, UNGE, and Guinean NGOs, receive advanced degrees from institutions in Latin America, North

465,166 23% 1,530,042 77% 1,995,208


America, and Europe enabling them to introduce and advocate modern biodiversity protection and protected areas management to EG.

II.4At least thirty Guineans from MdePyMA, MdeAyB, INDEFOR, UNGE, and Guinean NGOs receive intensive, Guinea-focused training in protected areas management through a field-based seminar held in EG and modeled on field courses taught at CATIE (Costa Rica) and CSU (Colorado).

II.5MdePyMA establishes a field management unit enabled with staff, training, equipment, and budget to implement updated management plans for the Bioko Biodiversity Corridor (Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and a connecting corridor).

3. Sustainable PA management approaches demonstrated in 3 pilot sites

(2 at Rio Muni and 1 in Bioko Island; choice will be made during project preparation phase)

TA Management plans are prepared and implemented for the protected areas of the Bioko Island Landscape Corridor, the Monte Alen/Río Muní ecological landscape, and Río Campo that improve functional landscape connectivity and integrate broad stakeholder participation in decision-making.

III.1Management plans for Monte Alen, Río Muní, Río Campo, Pico Basilé, and Caldera de Luba are prepared with the broad participation of stakeholders including local communities.

III.2Highest priority field implementation actions as specified in new or updated management plans for Monte Alen, Río Muní, Río Campo, Pico Basilé, and Caldera de Luba are

641,491 23% 2,106,355 77. % 2,747,846


Public understanding of the value to humans of species and ecosystem biodiversity and the way protected areas maintain those values is improved, alleviating conflict and creating support for the EG protected areas system.

The economic relationship between protected areas and local populations improves by mitigating persistent conflicts and by proactively searching for sustainable economic contributions of protected areas to local economies.

carried out.

III.3A public environmental education program, implemented through radio, television, printed materials, and a schools curriculum, improves public understanding of the value of biodiversity to EG’s economy and human well-being, its current status in EG, and the role of a protected areas system in sustaining its benefits, and creates strong, stable public support for funding biodiversity management.

III.4.A business plan for primate- and bird-focused ecotourism based on the Bioko Forest Corridor prepared and presented to potential investors and tour operators.

III.5.A crop damage mitigation program designed and implemented using new field research that quantitatively characterizes crop damage by wild animals resident in Río Campo and Monte Alen-Río Muní sites improves public attitudes and support for EG’s protected areas system.

III.6.A forested ecological corridor linking the Caldera de Luba and Pico Basilé formally established by the EG government secures ecological


connectivity across critical elevation ecotones used and critical for the protection and persistence of Bioko Island’s endangered species, including seven of Africa’s most threatened primates.

4. Project management 176,818 27% 472,481 73% 649,299

Total project costs 1,768,182 26% 4,932,800 74% 6,700,982*List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component.

**TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.

B. SOURCES OF CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT (expand the table line items as necessary)

Name of Co-financier (source) Classification Type Project ($) %*Government of Equatorial Guinea Nat'l Gov't Grant 3,000,000 60,8%Government of Equatorial Guinea Nat'l Gov't In-kind 1,120,000 22,7%Conservation International NGO Grant 44,560 0,9%Conservation International NGO In-kind 178,240 3,6%BBPP Private Sector Grant 60,000 1,2%BBPP Private Sector In-kind 300,000 6,1%ANDEGE NGO In-kind 30,000 0,6%UNDP-CO Exec. Agency Grant 200,000 4,1%Total Co-financing 4,932,800 100%

C. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)

Project Preparation a

Project b

Totalc = a + b

Agency FeeFor comparison:

GEF and Co-financing at PIF

GEF financing 50,000 A 1,768,182 1,818,182 181,818 2,000,000Co-financing 45,788 B 4,932,800 4,978,588 5,288,298Total 95,788 6,700,982 6,796,770 181,818 7,288,298

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY (IES) SHARE AND COUNTRY(IES)* : n/a

E. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:

http://gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C21/C.20.6.Rev.1.pdf

ComponentEstimated

person weeks(only GEF)

GEF($)Other sources

($)Project total

($)

PersonnelLocal consultants*Policy Consultant 13 8,736 8,736 17,472Legal Consultant 27 18,225 17,550 35,775Economic Development Consultant 10 6,620 6,620 13,240Financial Consultant 15 10,140 10,140 20,280Biodiversity Consultant 0 0 41,400 41,400Protected Areas Planning Consultant 24 16,224

16,224 32,448Protected Areas Management Training Consultant

53,375 3,375 6,750

Protected Areas Management Training Consultant

53,375 3,375 6,750

Business Consultant 0 0 14,850 14,850Crop Damage Mitigation Researcher 14 9,660 23,460 33,120Project Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant 0 0 11,040 11,040 113 76,355 156,770 233,125International consultants*Policy Consultant 16 48,000 0 48,000Legal Consultant 34 102,000 0 102,000Carbon Consultant 16 48,000 0 48,000Financial Consultant 24 72,000 0 72,000Biodiversity Consultant 24 72,000 0 72,000Protected Areas Planning Consultant 20 60,000 0 60,000Protected Areas Training Consultant 10 30,000 0 30,000Business Consultant 10 30,000 0 30,000

Sub-total int’l consultants 154 462,000 0 462,000Total 267 538,355 156,770 695,125

* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.

F. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST

Cost ItemsTotal

Estimated person weeks

GEF($)

Other sources ($)

Project total ($)

Personnel from MdePyMA (including Project Director, Project Sub-Director, Project Financial Director and Project Technical Managers), assigned staff from MdeAyB, INDEFOR, and UNGE, and CI Technical Assistant

169 $145,594 $141,916 $287,510

Local consultants 16 0 $11,032 $11,032 Travel 0 $24,205 $24,205 Equipment and furniture 0 $54,000 $54,000 Communications and audiovisual equipment

0 $64,761 $64,761

Supplies 0 $20,383 $20,383 Grants 0 0 0Information Technology Equipment $31,224 $31,224 $62,448 Rental and Maintenance - Premises 0 $33,122 $33,122 Rental and Maintenance – Tech Equipment

0 $10,616 $10,616

Professional Services 0 $5,172 $5,172 Audiovisual and Print Prod costs 0 $15,924 $15,924 Miscellaneous expenses 0 $60,126 $60,126 Total 416 $176,818 $472,481 $649,299

G. DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE A “NON-GRANT” INSTRUMENT? yes no X (If non-grant instruments are used, provide in Annex E an indicative calendar of expected reflows to your agency and to the GEF Trust Fund).

H. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M &E PLAN:

1. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from the UNDP/EEG Regional Coordination Unit in Dakar. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex A provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The METT tool (see Annex E), Financial Scorecard (Annex F) and Capacity Assessment Scorecard (Annex G) will all be used as instruments to monitor progress in PA management effectiveness. The M&E plan includes: inception report, project implementation reviews, quarterly and annual review reports, a mid-term and final evaluation. The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized in the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

Monitoring and reporting3

Project Inception Phase

2. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP/EEG Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU), as well as UNDP/EEG (HQs) as appropriate. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goal and objective, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise, finalizing the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable

3 As per GEF guidelines, the project will be using the BD 1 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). New or additional GEF monitoring requirements will be accommodated and adhered to once they are officially launched.

performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP/EEG team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible RCU staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP/EEG reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Review Report (ARR), as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.

Monitoring responsibilities and events

3. A detailed schedule of project review meetings will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Project Board Meetings and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities. Day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Director based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Director will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. The Project Director will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project, in consultation with the full project team, at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP/EEG RCU. Specific targets for the first year’s implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.

4. Measurement of impact indicators related to global biodiversity benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop, using METT scores. The measurement of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the Implementing Partner, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

5. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Project Steering Committee (PSC). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be PSC meetings two times a year. The first such meeting will be held within the first six months of the start of full implementation.

6. The Project Director in consultation with UNDP-CO and UNDP/EEG RCU will prepare a UNDP/EEG PIR/ARR and submit it to PSC members at least two weeks prior to the PSC meeting for review and comments. The PIR/ARR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussion in the PSC meeting. The Project Director will present the PIR/ARR to the PSC, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the PSC participants. The Project Director also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the PIR/ARR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary. The PSC has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks will be developed at the Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

7. The terminal PBM is held in the last month of project operations. The Project Director is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and UNDP/EEG RCU. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the terminal PBM in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the PBM. The terminal meeting considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying

particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

8. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP/EEG RCU as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to project sites based on an agreed upon schedule to be detailed in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Project Board can also accompany. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP/EEG RCU and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all Project Board members, and UNDP/EEG.

Project Reporting

9. The Project Director in conjunction with the UNDP/EEG extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. The first six reports are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while the last two have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.

10. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed Firs Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan will include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the RCU (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation. When finalized, the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP/EEG’s RCU will review the document.

11. An Annual Review Report shall be prepared by the Project Director and shared with the Project Board. As a self-assessment by the project management, it does not require a cumbersome preparatory process. As minimum requirement, the Annual Review Report shall consist of the Atlas standard format for the Project Progress Report (PPR) covering the whole year with updated information for each element of the PPR as well as a summary of results achieved against pre-defined annual targets at the project level. As such, it can be readily used to spur dialogue with the Project Board and partners. An ARR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Project Board meeting to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The ARR should consist of the following sections: (i) project risks and issues; (ii) project progress against pre-defined indicators and targets and (iii) outcome performance.

12. The Project Implementation Review (PIR) is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for Project Directors and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project team. The PIR should be prepared with stakeholder participation in July and discussed with the CO and the UNDP/EEG Regional Coordination Unit during August with the final submission to the UNDP/EEG Headquarters in the first week of September.

13. Quarterly progress reports: Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP/EEG RCU by the project team.

14. UNDP ATLAS Monitoring Reports: A Combined Delivery Report (CDR) summarizing all project expenditures, is mandatory and should be issued quarterly. The Project Director should send it to the Project Board for review and the Implementing Partner should certify it. The following logs should be prepared: (i) The

Issues Log is used to capture and track the status of all project issues throughout the implementation of the project. It will be the responsibility of the Project Director to track, capture and assign issues, and to ensure that all project issues are appropriately addressed; (ii) the Risk Log is maintained throughout the project to capture potential risks to the project and associated measures to manage risks. It will be the responsibility of the Project Director to maintain and update the Risk Log, using Atlas; and (iii) the Lessons Learned Log is maintained throughout the project to capture insights and lessons based on good and bad experiences and behaviours. It is the responsibility of the Project Director to maintain and update the Lessons Learned Log.

15. Project Terminal Report: During the last three months of the project, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, objectives not met, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

16. Periodic Thematic Reports: As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP/EEG or the Implementing Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. UNDP will request Thematic Reports from the project team in written form and will clearly state the issue or activities that the team needs to report on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.

17. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contributions to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national, and international levels.

18. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.

Independent evaluations

19. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows: An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at exactly the mid-point of the project lifetime. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation, and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the UNDP/EEG RCU.

20. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Project Board meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at

impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the UNDP/EEG RCU.

Learning and knowledge sharing

21. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition, the project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/EEG sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/EEG Regional Unit has established an electronic platform for sharing lessons between the project coordinators. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based, and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/EEG shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting, and reporting on lessons learned.

Audit Clause

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

Table 1 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and BudgetType of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$

Excluding project team Staff time

Time frame

Inception Workshop

PSC EO PIOs UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa

$25,000

Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report EO PIOs UNDP-CO

None Immediately following IW

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators

PSC and EO will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop

$6,000

Start, mid and end of project

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis)

Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Coordinator

Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs

To be determined as part of the AWP preparation.

$9,000

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of AWP

APR and PIR EO PIOs UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa

None Annually

TPR and TPR report PSC EO PIOs UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa

None Every year, upon receipt of APR

Steering Committee Meetings PD PM

None Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$Excluding project team

Staff time

Time frame

PSC EO UNDP-CO

year

Periodic status reports PD PM PIOs

$5,000 To be determined by Project team and UNDP-CO

Technical reports PD PM PIOs Hired consultants as needed

$15,000 To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term External Evaluation PD PM PIOs UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa External Consultants (i.e. evaluation

team)

$30,000 At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation PD PM PIOs UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa External Consultants (i.e. evaluation

team)

$50,000 At the end of project implementation

Terminal Report PD PM PIOs UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa External Consultant

None At least one month before the end of the project

Lessons learned PD PM PIOs UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa

(average 3,000 per year)

$9,000

Yearly

Audit PD PM PIOs UNDP-CO


$3,600

Yearly

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)

UNDP-CO UNDP/EEG’s RCU for West & Central

Africa (as appropriate)


$9,000

Yearly

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses $ 168,800

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO SOLVE IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED

23. Located in the Gulf of Guinea, Equatorial Guinea straddles the Equator between Gabon and Cameroon. It comprises a mainland area of 26,000 km² (called Río Muní) and an archipelago of volcanic islands with an area of 2,051 km². The country’s territorial waters stretch into the Atlantic Ocean. The climate is typically equatorial, with an annual rainfall that varies from 1,400 to 1,500 mm. 24. Equatorial Guinea’s biodiversity is very rich and of global significance, including interglacial biodiversity sanctuaries. The country’s rugged topography and low human population density in certain areas, in combination with high rainfall and the absence of a distinct and severe dry season, has led to the existence of a large variety of ecosystems which contributes to a high diversity of wild species of flora and fauna. The relatively high year-round humidity favors the presence of many small under storey plant species. The mainland area includes several

postulated Pleistocene forest refuge areas that are centers of high species diversity and endemism, particularly for plants. The mangroves of the mainland coast also contain many endemics. 25. The islands, as is typical for insular biotas, have lower species diversity but higher endemism than the mainland. Bioko Island is one of the most biologically significant places in Africa. It has seven threatened primates, more than any other site in Africa, an important nesting beach for four species of sea turtles, over 35 species of rare, restricted range, and/or endemic birds, 50 endemic plants, and many other taxa of conservation significance including one AZE species (Mysorex eisentrauti, Eisentraut’s mouse shrew). EG has the fourth largest primate fauna in Africa (Chapman et al. 19994) and, for its area, the highest primate diversity in Africa, if not the world (Hearn et al. 20065). Bioko Island with its 11 species of primates, the majority of which are endemic subspecies and half are endangered, is Africa's most significant location for primate biodiversity. There are still areas of old-growth rainforest that have survived due to the island’s rugged terrain; this same topography creates a diversity of habitats from coastal mangrove to sub-alpine meadow. The Gran Caldera de Luba lies in the south, a volcanic crater whose sheer walls create an isolated refuge for eleven species of primates. To the north is Pico Basilé, which rises to 3,011m. Tables 2 and 3 provide some data on the biodiversity of Equatorial Guinea.

Table 2. Biological diversity of Equatorial GuineaGroup Continental area (Río Muní) Bioko Island Annobón Island

Number of Species

Endemism%

Number of Species

Endemism%

Number of species

Endemism%

Mammals > 100 - > 65 28 2 0Birds 300-600 - 143 1 9 22Reptiles > 25 ? 52 2 7 29Amphibians 40-50 ? 33 3 0 -Fish 167 ? 34 ? 4 25Higher plants 4,000-5,000 ? > 1,000 9 > 200 15

Source: MdePyMA (2009)

Table 3: Endangered speciesTaxonomic Group IUCN Updated proposal World Resources Institute

Endangered species Listed species Mammals 12 23 16 184Birds 4 4 5 172Reptiles 2 8 2 91Amphibians 10 2 1 29Inland fresh water fish 2 83Higher plants 23 3,250


26. The country is endowed with significant natural resources, especially, timber, fisheries, and petroleum. The economy is now almost entirely based on the latter; since 1999 oil production has accounted for over 90% of GDP. After decades of low economic growth (even negative growth between 1968 and 1985), Equatorial Guinea has been experiencing rapid economic growth due to the discovery and exploitation of off-shore oil and gas. This economic growth has not been matched by improvement in the living conditions of the population.27. In 2001, the country’s population was estimated at 1,044,999 inhabitants, of which 61.2% lived in rural areas. This census is widely viewed as over-estimating the total population and exaggerating the number of rural residents. But it is certainly true that until recently, most Guineans lived in a rural, non-cash economy based on

4 Chapman CA; Gautier-Hion A; Oates JFJF; Onderdonk DA. (1999) African primate communities: Determinants of structure and threats to survival. In JG Fleagle, C Janson, and KE Reed (Eds.), Primate Communities (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5 Hearn G; Morra WA; Butynski T.M. (2006) Monkeys in trouble: the rapidly deteriorating conservation status of the monkeys on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. Unpublished report for the Government of Equatorial Guinea, Malabo. 27 pp.

swidden agriculture and direct use of nearby forest resources. Wild forest resources (vegetables, fruits, flowers, honey, resins, mushrooms, medicinal plants, and wild animals) played a significant economic and nutritional role in these communities. The recent oil and gas boom, however, is transforming EG’s economy and rapidly urbanizing its society. In competition with the new, urban, cash-based economy of oil and gas, such traditional livelihoods are melting away and rural residents are rapidly emigrating to cities. This has reduced the density of humans in daily contact with forests and the number of people who are directly dependent on forest resources for their livelihoods. In many ways, this is a positive development for biodiversity conservation. For example, there are now many near-abandoned villages whose neglected swiddens are in the middle stages of forest regrowth.28. The most important current threats to biodiversity within NSPA and its buffer zones are: 1) bushmeat hunting which occurs extensively and in some areas and for some species is unsustainably intensive; 2) local timber harvesting within NSPA and unsustainably poor practices and inefficiency in NSPA buffer zones; 3) localized damage from sand mining on beaches and in freshwater streams and rivers; 4) localized disruption from infrastructure expansion; and 5) localized chemical pollution from dumping. Of these bushmeat hunting is the most serious threat, with a demonstrated potential to extirpate some species locally including some that IUCN lists as endangered or critically endangered. Unsustainable timber extraction for local markets is the second most serious threat. Both are traditional forest activities that have recently evolved into threats under new pressures to earn cash with few alternatives available.29. Potential future threats include: 1) climate change and consequent habitat changes and species range shifts; 2) forest conversion from industrial agricultural expansion; 3) a reintroduction of unrestrained timber harvests for export as logs; 4) ecological damage from tourism and ecotourism development; 5) terrestrial oil and gas operations; and 6) mining operations.1.2.1 Bushmeat hunting 30. The most important current threat is unsustainable, unregulated bushmeat hunting. Bushmeat hunting is an traditional practice that new hunting tools and socio-economic pressures have transformed into a threat. Its potential effect on prey species is variable depending on their ecological and demographic characteristics, but for some slowly reproducing species Colobus satani, for example, hunting can eliminate a local population. For restricted range endemic species, such as on Bioko Island, local extinction is global extinction. The spatial distribution of bushmeat hunting’s effect varies with forest accessibility, distance to markets, and what alternative employment is available. Bushmeat hunting is prohibited within EG’s NSPA; hunting, transporting, selling, buying, possessing, and eating any primates is banned everywhere in the country; and killing any IUCN listed species is illegal everywhere. But legal prohibitions are ineffective because not enforced. Eating bushmeat is an entrenched cultural tradition that creates a persistent demand even among urban dwellers. Because of EG’s new wealth, this demand is price inelastic. Powerful individuals within the government and the military are involved in providing guns and supplying ammunition to hunters for a share of the meat or profits. Except for a few exceptionally skillful hunters, commercial bushmeat hunting is hard, dangerous, laborious, and unprofitable for the hunters. But it is one of the few sources of cash available to rural people. 1.2.2 Local timber harvesting31. Local, small-scale loggers, many milling lumber freehand with chainsaws for the local construction market Most timber harvesting in EG is now done by. Their activities follow no harvesting or management plan. Woods practices are poor and there is no enforcement of harvesting regulations. The activity occurs mostly in community forests through an agreement between a local logger/sawyer and the village president with proceeds variously distributed to the village residents. An advantage of local timber harvesters is that they usually fell and mill trees in the forest and carry out the lumber without cutting access roads. However, since this in labor intensive, most trees are taken close to existing roads leading to over harvesting of accessible forests.1.2.3 Export timber harvesting 32. For most years since independence and after the collapse of its plantation agriculture, timber was EG’s principle export and source of foreign exchange. The country allowed foreign timber companies to log its forests heavily without harvesting plans and using very poor woods practices, particularly on the Okoumé-rich coastal mainland. Most, if not all, forests in EG, including most parts of NSPA, were logged, at least of their large-diameter, old growth trees. Some areas have been left as degraded, species-poor, remnants of the original forest. The Chinese Rimbunan Hijau group accounted for approximately 70% of EG timber production, working as a sub-contractor to Guineans holding concessions, and exporting almost the entire volume as logs. Timber harvests

have exceeded the estimated sustainable volume of 450,000 m3 most years since 1995. Since oil and gas production began in 1995, however, timber’s relative contribution to foreign exchange has become negligible. The government decreed a ban on log exports in 2007 to allow the country’s forests to recuperate. Export volume has dropped to minimal levels and several concessions have stopped operations. If the ban on log exports holds, export timber harvesting as a direct threat has stopped, but the consequences of past poor logging practices will persist for many years. 1.2.4 Potential economic development 33. EG’s economy is growing rapidly. There are now investors with capital and political power sufficient to finance large development projects able to destroy biodiversity on a large scale. Poorly planned tourism infrastructure on Corisco Island, for instance, has silted EG’s only coral reefs. Large infrastructure projects underway have no environmental review. Planned industrial agriculture carries the potential of widespread and permanent biodiversity damage. Biodiversity’s economic contributions, because many are indirect environmental services, are widely unrecognized and under-appreciated, making biodiversity vulnerable to destruction in favor of more direct and obvious economic development.1.2.5 Forest degradation and loss 34. In the middle of the 20th century EG experienced rapid rates of forest conversion to plantation agroforestry plantations (e.g., cacao, coffee, tropical fruits) on both Bioko and the mainland. Many of these plantations were abandoned after independence in 1968, reverted to a mix of secondary forest and remnant plantation, and recovered many ecosystem service values of the original forest, if not its biodiversity richness. At present EG imports most of its food, including tropical fruits and crops from Gabon and Cameroon that are well suited to EG’s climate and soils. With development capital increasingly available from oil revenues, there is pressure to develop industrial agriculture to reduce expensive food imports or create new sources of economic growth (oil palms). For many reasons (e.g., fewer land tenure conflicts), converting uninhabited forest to agriculture is more attractive than secondary forest. This threat could devastate EG’s biodiversity resources.35. As of 2005, it was estimated that there were 1,632,000 ha of tropical forest left in EG, down from 1,860,000 ha in 1990. Thus, EG lost 12.3% of its forest cover in the 15 year period following 1990, for an annual average deforestation rate of about -0.84%. Using general estimations for the Congo Basin, this suggests that at least 93 million tons of carbon are stored as above-ground biomass (with perhaps another 37 m tons of carbon as below ground and deadwood biomass).6 36. The table below provides data on the number of hectares of different general types of vegetation. This is based on results from CUREF’s work in the late 1990s.

Table 4. Estimated original and present (1990s) area of each EG forest.

Vegetation typeOriginal area

(ha)Present area

(ha)Original

percent areaPresent

percent areaMAINLAND Lowland moist forest 2,397,662 347,832 92.16% 13.37%

Degraded lowland moist forest 1,250,000 0.00% 48.05%Montane forest 200,538 91,068 7.71% 3.50%Degraded montane forest 20,600 0.00% 0.79%Secondary forest 546,200 0.00% 20.99%Heath & grassland 3,500 3,500 0.13% 0.13%Cultivation/settlement 342,500 0.00% 13.16%TOTAL 2,601,700 2,601,700 100% 100%

BIOKO Lowland moist forest 126,160 48,620 62.55% 24.11%Degraded lowland moist forest 8,580 0.00% 4.25%Montane forest 74,940 37,505 37.15% 18.59%Degraded montane forest 20,195 0.00% 10.01%Secondary forest 80,000 0.00% 39.66%

6 http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Equatorial_Guinea.htm

Heath & grassland 600 600 0.30% 0.30%Cultivation/settlement 6,200 0.00% 3.07%TOTAL 201,700 201,700 100% 100%

ANNOBÓN Lowland moist forest 1650 760 97.06% 44.71%Degraded lowland moist forest 190 0.00% 11.18%Montane forest 0 0.00% 0.00%Degraded montane forest 0 0.00% 0.00%Secondary forest 400 0.00% 23.53%Heath & grassland 50 50 2.94% 2.94%Cultivation/settlement 300 0.00% 17.65%TOTAL 1,700 1,700 100% 100%

GUINEA ECUATORIAL

Lowland moist forest 2,525,472 397,212 90.03% 14.16%Degraded lowland moist forest 0 1,258,770 0.00% 44.87%Montane forest 275,478 128,573 9.82% 4.58%Degraded montane forest 0 40,795 0.00% 1.45%Secondary forest 0 626,600 0.00% 22.34%Heath & grassland 4,150 4,150 0.15% 0.15%Cultivation/settlement 0 349,000 0.00% 12.44%TOTAL 2,805,100 2,805,100 100% 100%

37. The table below provides an estimate of the carbon contained in these same forests using standard conversion factors based on forest type.

Table 5. Estimate of the carbon contained in Equatorial Guinea forests

Vegetation typePresent

area (ha)

Carbon density (tC/ha)

Present total C stock

(million tC)

Original total C stock

(million tC)

Annual deforestatio

n/

degradation C loss

(million tC)

Total deforestatio

nC loss

(million tC)

Total degradatio

n C loss (million tC)

Annual deforestatio

n/

degradation C loss

(million tC)Mainland Lowland moist forest 347,832 231.200 80.419 554.340 1.045 1.045

Degraded lowland moist forest 1,250,000 173.400 216.750 0.000 2.818 72.250 2.818Montane forest 91,068 188.420 17.159 37.785 0.223 0.223Degraded montane forest 20,600 141.315 2.911 0.038 0.970 0.038Secondary forest 546,200 145.260 79.341 1.542 46.940 1.542Heath & grassland 3,500 78.060 0.273 0.273 Cultivation/settlement 342,500 43.446 14.880 0.000 64.306 TOTAL 2,601,700 411.733 592.398 5.666 64.306 120.161 5.666

Bioko Lowland moist forest 48,620 231.200 11.241 29.168 0.146 0.146Degraded lowland moist forest 8,580 173.400 1.488 0.000 0.019 0.496 0.019Montane forest 37,505 188.420 7.067 14.120 0.092 0.092Degraded montane forest 20,195 141.315 2.854 0.037 0.951 0.037Secondary forest 80,000 145.260 11.621 0.226 6.875 0.226Heath & grassland 600 78.060 0.047 0.047 Cultivation/settlement 6,200 43.446 0.269 1.164 TOTAL 201,700 34.586 43.335 0.520 1.164 8.322 0.520

Annobón Lowland moist forest 760 231.200 0.176 0.381 0.002 0.002Degraded lowland moist forest

190 173.400 0.033 0.011 0.000

Montane forest 0 188.420 0.000Degraded montane forest 0 141.315 0.000Secondary forest 400 145.260 0.058 0.001 0.034 0.001Heath & grassland 50 78.060 0.004 0.004 Cultivation/settlement 300 43.446 0.013 0.056 TOTAL 1,700 0.284 0.385 0.004 0.056 0.045 0.004

Guinea Ecuatorial

Lowland moist forest 397,212 231.200 91.836 583.889 1.194 1.194Degraded lowland moist forest 1,258,770 173.400 218.271 2.838 72.757 2.838Montane forest 128,573 188.420 24.226 51.905 0.315 0.315Degraded montane forest 40,795 141.315 5.765 0.075 1.922 0.075Secondary forest 626,600 145.260 91.020 1.769 53.850 1.769Heath & grassland 4,150 78.060 0.324 0.324 Cultivation/settlement 349,000 43.446 15.163 0.000 65.526 TOTAL 2,805,100 446.603 636.119 6.190 65.526 128.529 6.190

1.2.6 Climate change 38. The potential effects of global climate change on EG biodiversity are difficult to predict. Some studies suggest that tropical Africa may become relatively drier and wet forest habitat may contract. EG’s wet forest biodiversity, therefore, may face habitat loss. Many of EG’s wet forest species survived past climatic drought by retreating to areas of climatic stability. These “climatically stable forest”, still exist in EG and may offer refuge against climate change to many species if protected and ecological connectivity allows species a path of retreat.39. CUREF designed EG’s NSPA, which was then established by Ley 4/2000 sobre Áreas Protegidas en la República de Guinea Ecuatorial. It includes 13 units with 514,048 ha of terrestrial area and 76,952 ha of coastal marine waters. The GoEG has signed an agreement with CI to convert 500,000 ha of timber concessions to a National Forest. With this addition, EG would bring 37% of its national terrestrial territory within NSPA.

Table 6. Areas of NSPA unitsCategory Name Terrestrial (ha) Marine (ha)Scientific reserve Gran Caldera de Luba 51,000

Playa de Nendyi 275 225National Parks Pico Basilé 33,000

Monte Alén 200,000Altos de Nsork 70,000

Natural Monuments Piedra Bere 20,000Piedra Nzas 19,000

Natural Reserves Río Campo 33,000Monte Temelón 23,000Punta Llende 5,500EstuaRío Río Muní 50,500 9,500Islas Corisco y Elobeyes 1,795 46,205Isla Annobón 2,088 21,022

National Forest (proposed) Bosque Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial 600,000TOTAL (existing) 514,048 76,952


40. NSPA is generally well designed: 1) it is ecologically representative; 2) it captures the most important concentrations of terrestrial biodiversity; 3) it encompasses probably viable populations of most of EG’s globally important species; 4) its ecological functions are generally intact; 5) it includes economically, culturally, scientifically, and spiritually important biodiversity resources; and 6) it currently covers 17% of national terrestrial area and a proposed expansion includes another 20%.

41. EG’s NSPA includes some design weaknesses: 1) it does not include several critical ecological corridors; 2) it does not adequately protect ecological connectivity between terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, between terrestrial and coastal/marine ecosystems, and between freshwater and coastal/marine ecosystems; 3) some important terrestrial ecotones are arbitrarily truncated by existing PA boundaries; and 4) populations of some globally important species remain unprotected.42. NSPA is not currently functional: 1) there is no comprehensive system management plan; 2) no system unit has a fully complete management plan providing clear objectives, governance and implementation guidance, a budget, and a staffing plan; 3) NSPA has no secure, stable, or remotely adequate financing; 4) NSPA has almost no infrastructure or major equipment resources; 5) NSPA has inadequate staff resources, particularly field staff, and the existing staff have few opportunities to advance professionally; and 6) NSPA administrative structure is extremely hierarchical and centrally controlled which stifles staff initiative and morale.43. NSPA has the potential to contribute tremendously to global conservation and to reinforce the natural resource foundation of EG’s economic, social, and cultural prosperity – but socio-economic, policy, legal, administrative, and capacity barriers now block achieving this potential.

Map 1. Equatorial Guinea, NSPA, and proposed project demonstration sites.

44. The NSPA covers 21.5% of the country’s territory, which is considered one of the most widespread in Africa. However, most of the protected areas within this network unfortunately exist only on paper. Until 2001, Monte Alen NP was one of the few protected areas in the country that was actively managed, primarily supported through an EU-funded program titled CUREF (Conservation et utilisation rationnelle des écosystèmes forestiers; 1996-2001). This ambitious program also helped the country in defining its NSPA. Recent withdrawal of this support greatly jeopardized progress made under this program. More recently, the Government, through the National Institute for Forest Development (INDEFOR), has signed a financial and technical agreement with Conservation International (CI) to promote conservation in the Monte Alen (Equatorial Guinea)/Monts de Cristal (Gabon) Landscape. The other protected area that has received some attention is the Caldera de Luba Scientific

Reserve, through support from a Guinean/American NGO Bioko Biodiversity Protection Project (BBPP), which has undertaken conservation protection, research, education, and public awareness raising activities.45. While the country has taken important strides in terms of establishing the legislative foundation for the NSPA and defining the network, the logical next step is to ensure that the network is representative of the country’s diverse ecosystems and to strengthen its management effectiveness. The proposed long-term solution to conserve EG’s representative ecosystems and globally significant biodiversity is to make EG’s NSPA function as an effective mechanism to protect biodiversity from the threats mentioned above. Except for a lack of ecological corridors connecting its individual units, on biological criteria CUREF designed an admirable protected areas system. But NSPA has not achieved its intended conservation role for non-biological reasons. EG environmental policy is neither complete nor consistent. NSPA’s legal, financial, and administrative context results from an accretion of confusing and contradictory laws, its institutional and staffing capacity has stagnated or declined for a decade, and NSPA has little public or government support, because its contributions to local and national economies are obscure while it clearly creates socio-economic burdens on nearby populations. Overcoming these barriers is necessary to achieve the long-term solution.46. The following barriers were identified:

Policy Barriers

Table 7. Policy barriers

Barriers Explanation/root causes Recommended actionsExisting NBS is incomplete 1. NBS was developed internally by one ministry with little

consultation or participation from other stakeholders;2. NBS does not address the forestry sector;

1. Revise NBS with full participation from all environmental sector stakeholders;2. Revise NBS to include the forestry sector;

Biodiversity protection and management is not integrated into national economic development plans

1. The national 20-year economic development plan makes no mention of the need to protect and manage the indirect contributions biodiversity resources make to the national economy; it makes no mention of the potential revenues from sustainable, non-destructive exploitation of biodiversity resources; it does not call for a carbon neutral development although given the present non-industrial nature of EG’s economy, it could probably be carbon neutral with little adjustment.

1. Conduct an analysis and carbon-accounting of the present EG economy and produce recommendations for how the economy could become carbon neutral;2. Revise the 20-year national economic development plan to reach carbon neutrality within 5 years;

Laws enacted to implement the National Biodiversity Policy and other aspects of the environmental sector policy are incomplete, unclear, and often contradictory.

1. Environmental sector laws were drafted and enacted piecemeal over more than a decade and have never been systematically review and rationalized.2. Rivalry between MdeAyB and MdePyMA prevented collaboration in the preparation of the National Biodiversity Policy and its enabling laws.3. Frequent change of ministers has hampered systematic preparation of enabling legislation.

1. Systematically analyze current protected areas laws to identify conflicts and inefficiencies and prepare revisions to correct them;2. Consult a broad representation of stakeholders in a revision of environmental sector laws;3. Make INDEFOR, EG’s protected areas management agency, an implementing agency for both MdeAyB and MdePyMA equally, but with an independent budget and staff answerable to the Prime Minister using UNGE as a model.4. Through legislation create an environmental sector coordinating body as called for in EG’s National Biodiversity Policy framework;

Existing biodiversity protection laws are often not enforced.

1. There are no guards at most protected areas due to lack of a stable and sufficient budget;2. Where guards exist, they are poorly equipped and trained;3. Guard salaries are not competitive with some forms of illegal activity;4. Many guards are recruited from local communities making them reluctant to enforce laws on their neighbors, family, tribe and friends;5. Some higher officials encourage or demand non-enforcement of biodiversity laws

1. Train, equip, and pay protected areas guards better;2. Include information on illegality in public environmental education campaign;3. Increase funding for NSPA;4. Diversify funding for NSPA to include sources that are clearly dependent on NSPA function;5. Ensure that local communities receive direct economic benefits from NSPA6. Involve local communities in NSPA co-management

Confusion and uncertainty exists about which ministry and/or agency has authority to take decisions and implement management interventions.

1. NBS is incomplete and often contradicts laws in application.2. NBS was not implemented through laws and new institutions leaving old laws and institutional structures in place with ambiguous authority;3. Ministries and agencies that NBS would replace resist changes that reduce their power and authority;

1. Fully implement a revised NBS by preparing and enacting new laws that realize NBS policy goals;2.

Local communities, NGOs, and the 1. NBS policies in favor of broad participation in biodiversity 1. Consult a broad representation of stakeholders in a revision of

private sector do not meaningfully participate in decisions concerning biodiversity protection and NSPA management.

protection and NSPA management are not implemented in legislation;2. Non-GoEG participation may be interpreted as a political challenge to the central government and ruling party; 3. There is no funding for participatory meetings and planning involving non-GoEG stakeholders.

environmental sector laws;2. Clarify and strengthen policy supporting the role of NGOs and local community organizations in decision-making and management of protected areas and biodiversity resources;3. Clarify and strengthen policy requiring sharing biodiversity-derived revenues with local communities;4. Develop a clear policy to support sustainable management of community forests.

Capacity Barriers

Table 8. Capacity barriers

Barriers Explanation/root causes Recommended actionsBiodiversity protection and protected areas management lack sufficient or stable funding

1. Lack of political support;2. Ministerial confusion and rivalry block disbursements of approved funds;3. Bureaucratic inefficiency blocks disbursements of approved funds;4. Finance Ministry distrust of the institutional capacity of INDEFOR to use funding efficiently and effectively

1. Make FONAMA and FONADEFO functional by developing their financial and governance designs;2. Seek funding in the international carbon markets through REDD projects;3. Develop clear protected areas management plans with credible workplans and budgets;4. Build the capacity among Guinean conservation NGOs to prepare and submit successful project proposals;

Lack of biological information prevents best practices in protected areas management. In particular, there are no monitoring baselines to allow adaptive management.

1. The National Biodiversity Institute called for in the NBS is not implemented through legislation.2. The environmental sector coordinating mechanisms called for in the NBS, and which would oversee a national biodiversity survey are not implemented through legislation.3. EG lacks sufficient technically trained people to design and carry out a national biodiversity research program.4. There is a lack of understanding that adaptive management requires a baseline in order to measure a response to management.5. There is little awareness that participation in international carbon markets requires credible baseline measurement and monitoring of carbon stocks

1. Establish a national biodiversity survey in collaboration with foreign research institutions, but implemented by Guineans;2. Establish an inventory of carbon stocks in EG forests meeting standards required by international carbon markets;3. Carry out a timber inventory of EG forests;4. Provide qualified Guineans advanced degree training in biodiversity research, forestry, and sociology at foreign institutions;

Lack of socio-economic information hampers the ability of protected areas management to be responsive to local communities.

1. Lack of trained sociologist able to design and conduct field research;

1. Carry out a socio-economic survey of communities in protected areas buffer zones to create a baseline of quantitative indicators;

Lack of materials and examples specific and relevant to EG weakens the message of existing public environmental education activities

1. EG receives little international attention for its biodiversity2. Logistics in EG are difficult

1. Carry out a field expedition to EG mainland to collect photographic/video imagery of Guinean biodiversity and rural lives.

.Few Guineans have completed advanced studies in biodiversity science and management

1. UNGE-FMA does not offer advanced training or more than Licenciatura degrees2. EG academic institutions are not accredited so their graduates cannot be accepted directly into foreign graduate programs3. Little financial support available for study abroad4. GoEG financial support for foreign study is focused on priorities other than biodiversity5. Many foreign academic institutions require English proficiency

1. Provide study grants to allow at least two Guineans/year to be studying for Master’s or PhD degrees in biodiversity science and management at European, North American, or Latin American institutions2. Seek scholarships/financial aid from foreign institutions to help Guineans to study abroad

Field management staff have little recent or advanced training in biodiversity and protected areas management

1. Since CUREF there have been inadequate resources available for training field staff2. Most regional training is in French or English3. Training available outside of EG uses examples or is conducted at locations not relevant to EG

1. Develop and conduct in EG a field-based, Spanish language training for field staff taught by biodiversity and protected areas management modeled on the CATIE/CI “seminario móvil”

GoEG has no biodiversity protection/management presence on Bioko Island

1. INDEFOR is based on the EG mainland2. INDEFOR’s capital budget including funds to open an INDEFOR presence on Bioko has never been disbursed

2. Establish a MdePyMA field management unit for Bioko protected areas administered from MdePyMA headquarters in Malabo

Governance Barriers

Table 9. Governance barriers

Barriers Explanation/root causes Recommended actionsThere is little public support for NSPA.

1. Few Guineans receive any direct economic benefit from the existence of NSPA;2. Local populations experience NSPA mostly as a restriction of access to traditional and critically needed biodiversity resources;3. Extremely centralized decision-making within NSPA leaves local populations feeling little ownership or responsibility for NSPA;4. NSPA buffer zone farmers suffer crop damage from wild animals emerging from protected areas

1. Implement a sustained public education campaign to improve public understanding of protected areas as a mechanism to protect biodiversity resources;2. Implement meaningful co-management to enable local concerns and issues to be addressed in NSPA management decisions and implementation;3. Implement a field research project to quantify the extent and location of crop damage;4. Implement an appropriate crop damage mitigation program;

There is little government support for NSPA.

1. NSPA is perceived as being a low-priority, unimportant government responsibility;2. NSPA administration is not trusted to spend government funds effectively and transparently;3. NSPA is seen as a financial burden with no economic returns

1. Develop and circulate policy papers that clearly make the case that a well-managed NSPA can greatly enhance EG’s international reputation;2. Broaden NSPA management implementation to involve Guinean NGOs and international organizations required to meet high standards of accountability and transparency;3. Develop carbon projects to capture carbon value in the international markets;4. Develop ecotourism projects whose existence is clearly dependent on the existence and well-managed condition of NSPA.

Illegal bushmeat hunting is widely tolerated

1. Bushmeat hunting is lucrative for those supplying guns, ammunition, and supplies;

1. Better and more aggressive enforcement of bushmeat hunting laws;

2. Bushmeat hunting is one of very few rural activities that provide cash;3. Unrestricted hunting is an entrenched cultural tradition;4. Bushmeat is a luxury good endowing status;5. Bushmeat is a critical source of protein for rural populations.

2. Implement studies that clearly document individual backers of illegal bushmeat hunting;3. Provide economically viable sources of cash income to rural communities;4. Support and stabilize rural migration to urban centers;5. Implement a sustained public education campaign that addresses bushmeat hunting;

47.

48. Support to removing or reducing the above barriers constitutes the essential rationale for the present project and forms the basis for its three outcomes. If these barriers were reduced or removed, EG’s protected area system would become demonstrably more functional, biodiversity protection would measurably improve, and global and national biodiversity conservation benefits would result.49. The project objective is to make EG’s protected area system effective in protecting species- and ecosystem-level biodiversity. The project’s outcomes and outputs are described below.

Outcome 1: Policy framework and Strategy for the management of PAs is developed

50. Under Outcome 1, comprehensive and consistent EG’s national policies, creating the context for species and ecosystem biodiversity conservation and following international best practices, will be fully implemented by legislation that clearly defines institutional roles, responsibilities, and authority.51. As envisioned in the NBS, it is also expected that FONAMA and FONADEFO will be implemented through enabling legislation, comprehensive technical design, and initial government investment and become functional mechanisms to provide long-term financing for biodiversity protection and protected areas management.

Outcome 2: Improved institutional and individual capacities for the management of PAs

52. Under Outcome 2, the knowledge about the country’s biodiversity and capacity to carry out systematic monitoring will be improved to enable better adaptive management of protected areas and access to the potential of international carbon markets as a non-destructive source of sustainable revenue for PA management and for the local population.53. Additionally, improved technical knowledge and training, and improved institutional capacity will allow Guinean government ministries and agencies, NGOs, and individuals to more effectively implement species and ecosystem biodiversity conservation through NSPA.

Outcome 3: Sustainable PA management approaches demonstrated in 3 pilot sites

54. Under Outcome 3, management plans will be prepared or updated for the protected areas of the Bioko Island Landscape Corridor, the Monte Alen/Río Muní ecological landscape and Río Campo, which improve functional landscape connectivity and integrate broad stakeholder participation in decision-making. As a follow-up, the project will support implementing the highest priority management plan actions.55. Furthermore, public understanding of the value to humans of species and ecosystem biodiversity and the way protected areas maintain those values will be improved, alleviating conflict and creating support for the EG protected areas system.56. Finally, the economic relationship between protected areas and local populations will improve by mitigating persistent conflicts and by proactively searching for sustainable economic contributions of protected areas to local economies.

Global environmental benefits57. Considering that many species of flora and fauna are under threat of extinction, by reducing pressures on endangered species and globally significant species, including the Western Lowland Gorilla, the Green Tortoise and the African Bush Elephant, this project will generate significant benefits for the global community. It will develop effective protection for 23 threatened species of plants, 16 threatened mammals, 2 threatened reptiles, and 1 amphibian. By improving management for the climatically stable refuge forest areas located within the targeted PAs, this project will protect many regionally important plant and animal species, including commercially important timber species, whose ranges would be expected to contract to these refugia with climate change. By ensuring effective conservation of representative ecosystems through an operational network of protected areas, the project will secure a range of ecosystem services, including the sequestration of carbon dioxide. Among other advantages, these forests are extremely rich in biodiversity which has enormous untapped pharmaceutical, nutritional and agricultural potential. At the national level, the project will develop effective protection for forest resources that provide essential environmental services, particularly the recycling

24

of nutritive substances, water and soil protection and atmospheric gaseous exchange. The EG protected areas system is the source of water for almost the entire population of EG. The project will clarify and rationalize environmental policy and laws, reinvigorating and reorienting this sector’s socio-economic contributions to EG. It will create the context to encourage GoEG investment in NSPA as a source of national pride and positive international reputation.

B. DESCRIBE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS

58. The enactment of Law number 1/2000 of 14 May 2000 relating to protected areas management in Equatorial Guinea shows that the country has the political will to promote protected areas as one approach to conserving its globally significant biodiversity. The project is in line with the National Programme for Environmental Management that sets out policies and procedures for the sustainable management of ecosystems, and underscores national environmental issues such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, limited supply of drinking water, and the contamination of lands, air and water.59. This project will contribute to the implementation of actions envisaged in component 11 of the Second National Conference Strategy Paper, which provides strategic guidelines for reducing poverty by 2020. This project will also contribute to the National Forestry Action Plan of Equatorial Guinea (NFAP-EG, 2003), which constitutes a strategic framework aimed at intensifying and harmonizing the country’s traditional forest policies and practices in order to develop sound forest conservation, protection and management actions. This project provides a good opportunity for implementing and coordinating such actions on the ground. Finally, the project fits with the framework of the UNCCD National Action Program (PAN) intended to tackle desertification from sectoral angles: agriculture/fisheries, food security, natural resources management, and energy.

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAM:

60. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of GEF Biodiversity Strategic Objective 1 (Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems) and specifically Strategic Program 3 (Strengthening Terrestrial Protected Area Networks), as it will help remove barriers to PA management at the systemic level by building a governance framework based on different management options, including co-management, to operationalize PAs that heretofore existed only on paper. It will address capacity weaknesses at the institutional and individual levels through the reinforcement of NIPA, the implementation of a National Training Plan for PA management and the promotion of participatory approaches for the sustainable use of natural resources by local communities for alternative livelihoods. This project will also seek to improve fund raising capacities of PAs by making the case for investment in PAs.61. The project is part of an umbrella Programme, the GEF Strategic Program for Sustainable Forest Management in the Congo Basin (USD 40 million in GEF resources spread over 5 regional projects and 8 national projects, to be executed in collaboration with UNDP, UNEP, WB and FAO). The Programme covers six countries of the Basin and aims at reversing the current rate of deforestation and degradation of ecosystems, maintaining ecosystem functioning and conserving ecosystem values as the biodiversity and carbon-based capital of the Congo Basin. This project fits into the following components of the Strategic Program: Component 1 “Maintaining ecosystem functioning, values and carbon-based capital”, as it will strengthen the

national network of protected areas in order to avoid deforestation and conserve biodiversity of global significance

Component 3 “Strengthening the policy, regulatory, institutional and sustainable financing framework for sustainable ecosystem management”, as it will help build institutional capacity and the underlying policy and regulatory framework for sustainable forest management in Equatorial Guinea.

D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES

62. This project will be implemented in coordination with initiatives from sub-regional integration and/or technical cooperation organizations such as (i) the Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC), (ii) the Conference on Central African Moist Forest Ecosystems (CEFDHAC), which was established in 1996 to ensure

25

http://gefweb.org/uploadedFiles/Projects/Templates_and_Guidelines/C31-10%20Revised%20Focal%20Area%20Strategies-07-23-07_Final.pdf

the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources through the coordination of multiple-actor consultation frameworks, and (iii) the Central Africa Protected Areas Network (RAPAC), which was established in May 2000 as a regional association bringing together the administrations charged with the management of protected areas from seven countries in the sub-region. 63. The project will work in close coordination with another GEF-funded and UNDP-implemented projects aimed at building institutional capacity for land management, developing a national inventory on the causes of soil degradation and deforestation and mainstreaming SLM. The objective will be to capitalize on synergies and avoid duplication.64. The project will overlap broadly and collaborate with CI-led activities in the Monte Alen-Monts de Cristal landscape USAID-funded through the Congo Basin Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). These activities include conservation planning for Monte Alen and Río Muní, support for the development of economic alternatives in communities peripheral to protected areas, support for the development of Guinean conservation NGOs (particularly ANDEGE), technical training, biodiversity field research, and socio-economic baseline fieldwork.65. The project will be complemented by a CI-led, US Fish and Wildlife (USF&W) funded baseline survey of the status of western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), and forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis).The objectives of this project include: 1) a modern, national database on its great apes and elephants; 2) a baseline for meaningful monitoring and adaptive management; 3) specific, clear, and pragmatic conservation action plans for great apes and elephants; 4) trained, equipped, and experienced field monitoring teams; and 5) supportive institutional and public constituencies for great ape and elephant conservation.66. The project will also seek, especially for its interventions at Pico de Basilé National Park, collaboration with the Bioko Biodiversity Protection Program (BBPP), a joint initiative carried out by the Drexel University and the National University of Equatorial Guinea in partnership with Conservation International (CI) and the National Institute for Forest Development (INDEFOR).

E DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH INCREMENTAL REASONING:67. The project addresses the main barriers that prevent EG from effectively protecting its species and ecosystem biodiversity: 1) an incomplete national biodiversity policy framework incompletely implemented by confusing, inconsistent, and contradictory laws; 2) a level of institutional and individual capacity insufficient to apply best practices in the management of biodiversity and the national system of protected areas, including a lack of diversified, sufficient and stable funding; and 3) widespread lack of public and government understanding of biodiversity’s socio-economic contributions and the function of a protected areas system in protecting and maintaining those benefits.

Baseline Activities

68. INDEFOR carries out very few independent activities, hampered by a lack of operational budget. Through ECOFAC, an EU-funded project that is scheduled to end in 2009, INDEFOR staff participate in field enforcement and management activities at Monte Alen. An ECOFAC consultant prepared a draft of Monte Alen’s first management plan. INDEFOR has no effective field presence at any other protected area of NSPA. Without ECOFAC, INDEFOR spends $275,000 annually on baseline activities (including staff salaries and infrastructure maintenance).69. MdePyMA has no field staff and no field management activities. MdePyMA staff prepared legislation drafts and supporting documents for the Environmental Law and the NBS. MdePyMA staff is active in EG environmental policy and participate in international environmental treaties and treaty meetings. MdePyMA spends $250,000 annually on baseline activities (including staff salaries and infrastructure maintenance).70. CI maintains an office in Bata, EG. CI works closely with MdeAyB, INDEFOR, MdePyMA, UNGE, ANDEGE, and other NGOs to improve EG biodiversity conservation. CI support for field activities occurs through ANDEGE. These activities include modest levels of biological and socio-economic field research, a management plan for Altos de Nsork, development of BNGE, public sensitization, and development of

26

economic alternatives. Every year CI supports technical training of a few individuals directly. CI spends $150,000 on annually baseline activities (including staff salaries and infrastructure maintenance).71. UNGE and BBPP collaborate on field conservation on Bioko Island, monitoring the status of primates and sea turtles, sensitizing local communities, and running an undergraduate course in field tropical ecology. BBPP maintains a field research station on Bioko that has encouraged visits by international researchers. FEM continues a strong, degree-granting program in environmental studies at UNGE. UNGE/BBPP spends $150,000 annually on baseline activities (including staff salaries and infrastructure maintenance).72. ANDEGE baseline activities include preparing a management plan for Río Campo funded by RAPAC, a sensitization program in local communities and on radio and television, field biological and socio-economic research, and developing economic alternatives for rural residents. CI funds some of these activities. ANDEGE spends $50,000 on annually baseline activities.

Baseline Policy and Institutional Context

73. The baseline state of EG’s policy and institutional context is described Section I, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 above. CI supported an ANDEGE study of the policy and legal conflicts hampering coordination between MdeAyB and MdePyMA. Other than this there are no baseline efforts apply this analysis or otherwise resolve the conflicts that block effective biodiversity protection and management. 74. Under the business-as-usual scenario, EG’s protected areas system would continue to stagnate as a well-conceived collection of paper parks providing neither species nor ecosystems biodiversity effective protection. In this scenario, some of Africa’s most endangered species are likely to go extinct and the Congo Basin’s richest forests degraded by unrestrained exploitation. The continued lack of supportive policies and regulations and enforcement capacities will erode the conservation status of these areas, ultimately leading to the loss of key ecosystem services and the loss of species of global significance.75. Under the alternative scenario, EG’s protected areas system would be strengthened sufficiently to function as designed for protecting species and ecosystem biodiversity: 1) there will be a strong, clear, and complete national biodiversity policy; 2) this policy will be enabled by a set of laws that clearly define institutional roles and authority, provide a mechanism for national coordination, and require the participation of NGOs and community organizations in protected areas planning and implementation; 3) new mechanisms and sources of protected areas financing will provide secure and sufficient funding; 4) a broad, diversified and sustained campaign of public environmental education will generate support; 5) individuals will be trained to study and manage biodiversity effectively; 6) a biological baseline will allow adaptive management and participation in international carbon markets; 7) a 20,000 ha ecological corridor will link Bioko Island’s two protected areas, protecting endangered species access to critical habitat.

Summary of Costs

76. The total cost of the project, including co-funding and GEF funds, amounts to US$7,018,182. Of this total, co-funding constitutes about 74.8% or US$5,250,000. GEF financing comprises the remaining 25.2% of the total, or US$1,768,182. The incremental cost matrix in the Project Document provides a summary breakdown of baseline costs and co-funded and GEF-funded alternative costs.

F INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED. Outline the risk management measures Risk Risk

rating Risk Mitigation strategy

Policy recommendations and draft legislation may not be accepted by EG government.

Medium The strategy to minimize this risk is carefully to prepare acceptance of policy and legal revisions within the GoEG through close consultation with affected ministries and agencies and presentations to key decision makers.

Match funding from the government High The strategy to minimize this risk is 1) clearly and forcefully

27

Risk Risk rating

Risk Mitigation strategy

may not materialize. to present the benefits to the EG economy and EG’s world standing of effective biodiversity protection through NSPA and 2) develop several mechanisms for NSPA funding that credibly provide long-term financial support without a burden on the GoEG annual budget. Some of these mechanisms require the GoEG to provide trust fund capitalization, which the GoEG has already agreed to in principle.

Illegal bushmeat hunting continues to be supported by politically powerful individuals immune from control

High The strategy to minimize this risk is to include a focus on to social and economic harm of uncontrolled and unsustainable bushmeat hunting as part of the project’s public education campaign in the expectation that a change in public attitudes will lower market demand and decrease tolerance for the illegal forms of the activity.

Activities may experience delays due to limited Guinean technical capacity.

Medium The strategy for policy and legal revision is to contract technically qualified international consultants to work with Guinean counterparts. International consultants will provide technical capacity for training outcomes. The risk for implementation activities at demonstration sites is mitigated by training provided in Outcome II.

Inter-ministerial and inter-agency rivalries may undermine project activity implementation.

Medium to High

The strategy is 1) to address the source of rivalry early in the project through policy and legal revision; 2) to involve all GoEG stakeholders in project management and decision-making through the PSC; 3) CI as EO will be a neutral and objective go-between; and 4) giving all GoEG stakeholders substantial implementation roles through consultancies to staff individuals within rival ministries and responsibility for project outputs.

Activities may experience delays in finding appropriately skilled and available staff and consultants.

Medium The strategy is to involve all relevant EG ministries and agencies to widen the available pool of Guinean individuals for recruitment into the project as consultants or project staff. The project will tap CI own staff as international consultants as well as exploit CI wide contacts to recruit independent international consultants.

Project activities may be delayed because highly centralized GoEG decision-making is focused on other matters.

Medium The Minister of the Environment will chair the PSC, which will give the project visibility and access to decision-makers within the GoEG. Other high-level staff within MdePyMA, MdeAyB, and UNGE, with personal access within the GoEG, are directly involved in the project and will be advocates for timely decision-making.

Climate change could lead to changed distributions of biodiversity components, and reduce ecosystem functioning

Low A focus on maintaining landscapes (as opposed to small patches) with sufficient buffer zone protection will enhance the inherent capacity of the ecosystem to adapt to climate change. Potential effects of climate change and identifying ecosystems and species most likely to be threatened by climate change will be made an integral part of protected area management plans.

G EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN

77. Cost effectiveness has been carefully considered throughout the project design. Cost efficiencies will be tapped by: 1) focusing on correcting systemic sources of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, thereby having a leveraged impact on the entire NSPA instead of just the project sites; putting a focus on establishing the long-

28

proposed, but never implemented, long-term funding mechanisms for NSPA and biodiversity conservation so that project results can be extended beyond GEF funding; 3) emphasizing improving institutional and individual capacities, thus ensuring that project impact will be long-term; 4) giving Guinean NGOs, which have demonstrated effectiveness and efficiency, prominent roles in field implementation; 4) building on existing and planned projects that have in-hand funding, for example the conservation program of BBPP, CARPE- and USF&W funded activities of CI, and RAPAC-funded PA planning at Río Campo of ANDEGE; and 6) involving many institutions as Project Implementing Organizations, enabling a Project Unit and project staff to be assembled from across such organizations from the most capable and motivated individuals.

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT:

78. The project will be executed by the Ministry of Fisheries and Environment (MdePyMA), following UNDP guidelines for nationally executed projects. The Executing Organization (EO) will sign the grant agreement with UNDP and will be accountable to UNDP for the disbursement of funds and the achievement of the project objective and outcomes, according to the approved work plan. The EO will develop and sign sub-agreements with PIOs and contracts with individual consultants that will specify deliverables contributing to project outcomes and appropriate budgets. These contracts will be the principle EO mechanism to coordinate and organize project implementation. EO responsibilities will include:

a. Provide the Project Director, Project Sub-Director, two Project Technical Managers, and the Project Financial Manager;

b. Coordinate the meetings of the PSC;c. Participate in PSC meetings as a PSC chair (Minister) and Secretary (Project Sub-Director);d. Develop, sign, and oversee the implementation of sub-agreements with IOs;e. Provide project administration, accounting, and day-to-day coordination and logistics support;f. Ensure and coordinate stakeholder involvement in the project implementation;g. Facilitate and monitor procurement of equipment and other physical inputs as required for the success of the

project;h. Maintain regular communications with UNDP-CO and UNDP/EEG RCU and the Government of EG;i. Prepare and provide project technical reports in a format and a schedule agreed on with UNDP;j. Prepare and provide project financial reports in a format and a schedule agreed on with UNDP;k. Prepare and provide project monitoring and evaluation in a format and a schedule agreed on with UNDP.

79. The project will establish a Project Steering Committee (PSC) and a Project Management Unit (PMU) to ensure coordination and communication among project implementing organizations (PIOs) and as a mechanism of communication to GoEG ministers (the Minister of the Environment will chair the PSC) and to local communities (local communities near project sites will be represented on the PSC). 80. Steering Committee (PSC) will ensure project strategy is accomplished as planned. PSC membership will include UNDP-CO, MdePyMA, MdeAyB, UNGE, ANDEGE, a representative of Bioko communities, a representative of mainland communities, the Project Director, and the Project Director. The PSC will review annual work plans, budgets, and financial and technical reports. The PSC will meet semi-annually. The Minister of MdePyMA representative will chair the meetings and the Project Director will serve as Secretary, arranging the meetings, circulating documentation for review, taking minutes and prepare reports from the meetings.81. Project Management Unit (PMU): The project administration and coordination will be carried out by a PMU under the overall guidance of the PSC. The PMU will include:

a. A Project Director (PD) will be a MdePyMA employee and be responsible for maintaining the project’s strategic focus and objectives in coordination with the PSC. The PD will spend approximately 50% time on the project.

b. A Project Sub-Director (PSD) will be a MdePyMA employee and be responsible for overall day-to-day project coordination, management, and implementation of project activities leading to project outputs. The PM will be a full-time project hire.

c. A Project Financial Manager (FM) will be a MdePyMA employee and be responsible for overall financial management, reporting, and transparency. The FM will be a full-time project hire.

d. A Bioko Technical Manager (BTM) will be an MdePyMA employee and be responsible for supervising implementation activities carried out by the Bioko Field Unit, and the Bioko-based IOs UNGE and BBPP. The BTM will supervise the accomplishment of baseline biological research on Bioko (Output II.1), management plans for the Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and the Bioko Forest Corridor (Output III.1), the public environmental

29

education campaign activities on Bioko (Output III.2), the Bioko ecotourism business plan (Output III.3), and the design and establishment of the Bioko Forest Corridor (Output III.5). In accomplishing these outputs, the BTM will receive technical support from Conservation International through the Project Technical Assistant, the Biodiversity Consultant, the Protected Areas Consultant, the Ecotourism Consultant, and the Legal Consultant. The BTM will be a full-time project hire.

e. A Mainland Technical Manager (MTM) will be a MdePyMA employee and be responsible for supervising implementation activities carried out on the mainland and at Project Sites 2 and 3 by mainland-based IOs INDEFOR, MdeAyB, and ANDEGE. The MTM will supervise the accomplishment of baseline biological research on the mainland (Output II.1), new or updated management plans for Río Campo, Monte Alen, and Río Muní (Output III.1), the public environmental education campaign activities on the mainland (Output III.2), and the crop damage research and mitigation program (Output III.4). The MTM will receive technical support from Conservation International through the Project Technical Assistant, the Biodiversity Consultant, and the Protected Areas Consultant. The BTM will be a full-time project hire.

f. A Technical Assistant (TA) will be a Conservation International employee and be responsible for providing overall technical assistance and advice to the project through close contact with the PD, SPD, BTM, and MTM. The TA will also sit on the PSC and help in the preparation of any English language project reports. The TA will supervise eight international project consultants contracted through CI to accomplish policy revisions (Output I.1), legal revisions (Output I.2), carbon neutral development (Output I.3), the design of long-term financial mechanisms (Output I.4), support for a national biodiversity research program (Output II.1), training in protected areas management (Output II.4), support for the preparation of management plans (Output III.1), and the preparation of a Bioko ecotourism business plan (Output III.3). In addition, the TA will supervise a sub-contract with ANDEGE to strengthen Guinean conservation NGOs (Output II.2). The TA will devote approximately 50% time to the project

82. Project Implementing Organizations (PIO) will assume technical responsibility for individual outcomes specified by terms of reference (TOR) within sub-agreement contracts signed with the EO. The stakeholder section above has described the following PIOs in more detail.

a. Ministerio de Pesca y Medio Ambiente (MdePyMA)b. Ministerio de Agricultura y Bosques (MdeAyB)c. Facultad de Estudios Medioambientales de la Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial (FEM–UNGE)d. Conservation International (CI)e. Amigos de la Naturaleza y Desarrollo de Guinea Ecuatorial (ANDEGE)f. Asociación de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo de Guinea Ecuatorial (ADMAD)g. ADMAD-REFADD h. Bioko Biodiversity Protection Project (BBPP)

83. UNDP EG Country Office (UNDP-CO) will fulfil the duties and responsibilities of a GEF Implementing Agency. It will be responsible for financial oversight of the project and ensure that GEF project funds are spent as intended. It will work with the project’s EO to ensure proper financial reporting of expenditures and disbursement of project funds according to work plans approved by the PSC. UNDP-CO will ensure that project activities are executed according to plan and that the project delivers outputs supporting its objectives. It will arrange and undertake periodic monitoring missions, including visits to project sites, and participate in the meetings of the PSC. UNDP-CO will help organize and participate in project planning efforts, including the Project Inception Workshop. UNDP-CO will appoint a Project Representative tasked to participate in the PSC, to maintain regular communications with the Executing Organization and to remain well informed of the project’s progress, and to contribute strategically to the project. UNDP-CO is particularly well positioned to coordinate a synergistic interaction between the Project and other projects UNDP supports in EG.84. UNDP/EEG’s Regional Coordination Unit for West & Central Africa, through its Regional Technical Advisor for Biodiversity in Central Africa, will be responsible for ensuring that the project adheres to the principles of incrementality while achieving global environmental benefits. The Regional Technical Advisor will provide guidance to the UNDP Country Office and project staff concerning UNDP’s responsibilities as the GEF Implementing Agency and GEF norms and policies. The Regional Technical Advisor will provide periodic reports on project progress to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Council. The Regional Technical Advisor will also play a key role in facilitating access to resources and expertise located in UNDP’s regional and international headquarters to support the project and its objectives.

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:

30

85. In nearly all cases, the project remains closely aligned with the design and intention of the original PIF. Outputs, representing the project’s strategy to achieve its outcomes, have been elaborated in greater detail than was possible at the time of the PIF, but this represents additional detailing rather than any fundamental change in direction. Expected outcomes remain the same as those identified at the time of PIF submission. 86. The project has a tight focus on overcoming policy, capacity, and governance barriers to an effective NSPA and biodiversity conservation in EG. These barriers and the priority actions to overcome them were more clearly and specifically identified during the project preparation phase through the work of a team of Guinean consultants familiar with EG and both the positive and negative aspects of Guinean biodiversity conservation. Their conclusions were presented and verified in a broadly representative workshop and again in a smaller technical workshop. The consensus develop through this process has been incorporated in the current project design.87. No significant changes in budget allocations have been introduced. The anticipated co-financing source from the EU through its ECOFAC field program is not available since ECOFAC has ended its activities in EG. Other aspects, such as global environmental benefits expected, incremental reasoning, etc., have remained unchanged since the time of PIF submission.

PART V. AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement.

Yannick GlemarecGEF Executive Coordinator, UNDP

Abdoulaye NdiayeProject Contact Person

Date: February 16, 2010 Tel. and Email: [email protected]; +221 33 869 0661

31

mailto:[email protected]

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK Project strategy

Objectively verifiable indicators

Baseline Target Sources of verification

Assumptions

Objective: To reduce or eliminate the policy, legal, capacity, and socio-economic barriers that now prevent EG’s protected areas system function to protect globally significant biodiversity

Change in RAPPAM Assessment

Pico Basilé

Caldera de Luba

Río Campo

Monte Alen

Río Muní

y 15 15 15 19 19m/y 28 28 30 29 29m/n 27 27 25 23 23

n 79 79 79 78 79

30% of RAPPAM questions (45 of 149) improve by at least one increment;At least 60 increment improvements overall;

Results of annual RAPPAM re-analysis

1. Government will provide timely and sufficient match funding.2. Project will receive high-level government support.3. GoEG accepts

the proposal to decree the Bioko Forest Corridor

4. GIS capacity developed and supported within the University (Facultad de Estudios Medioambientales de la Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial - FEM–UNGE)

5. Global demand for timber remains low (linked to global economy)

6. No catastrophic natural mortality (avian flu, etc)

Change in funds expended by GoEG on NSPA and biodiversity conservation

$285,000/year $1,333,083/year Financial reports of MdePyMA, MdeAyB, and INDEFOR

Change in PA area

367,000 ha 387,000 ha GoEG decree establishing the Bioko Forest Corridor

Area of refugia forest under better management

A study from Missouri Botanical Garden has mapped the presence in EG of Pleistocene refugia forest areas within the current system of PAs (specifically Monte Alen NP for this project)

At least 50% management effectiveness for Monte Alen NP

METT Score card ; GIS analysis

Change in forest cover and carbon storage in the 2 main habitats for biodiversity in selected protected areas (i.e. Lowland moist forest and Montane forest)

The existing baseline data for EG vegetation is from a CUREF study released a decade ago

Achieve an annual average deforestation of less than 0.5% in the 2 selected habitats within project sites

Monitoring reports from analysis of Landsat images

Population of endemic birds in Pico Basilé, Caldera de Luba

There are no data available for quantitative baselines at this time. Baseline to be established at year 1 of project.

Populations of endemic bird species maintained stable

Faunal surveys

32

Project strategy



Assumptions

Scientific Reserve, Monte Alén and Río MuniThe status of the following primate species and other emblematic species in Bioko Island and Rio Muni: western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), and forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis)

There is no baseline data at this time. A baseline on the population of these species is established and a monitoring system is in place

Faunal surveys

Outcome 1: A Policy framework and Strategy for the management of PAs is developed

Number of revised policies and laws enacted/adopted

EG National Biodiversity Policy framework is non-functional. By 2011 a revised National Biodiversity Policy enacted that supports a role for NGOs and community organizations in biodiversity management

7. Government will provide timely and sufficient match funding.8. Project will receive high-level government support.9. Ongoing negotiations shaping international carbon markets will create a market that EG can exploit.EG government supports introducing

Environmental sector laws are unclear and contradictory. By 2012 a new environmental sector law clearly defines complementary roles and responsibilities for MdePyMA, MdeAyB, and INDEFOR

Capacity assessment scorecard

33

Project strategy



Assumptions

carbon neutrality into the national 20-year development plan.

No environmental sector coordinating body exists. By 2011 an environmental sector coordinating body created, staffed, and budgeted.

EG’s 20-year national development plan is not carbon neutral. By 2012 EG’s 20-year national development plan revised to be carbon neutral.

Change in amount of FONAMA and FONADEFO financial disbursements

FONAMA and FONADEFO are non-functional. By 2012 FONAMA and FONADEFO are dispersing 50% of recurrent and operational costs of NSPA and biodiversity management including grants to Guinean conservation NGOs.

34

Project strategy



Assumptions


Capacity Assessment Scorecard

Policy FormulationSystemic 4/out of 6Institutional 2/out of 3

ImplementationSystemic 5/out of 9Institutional 8/out of 27Individual 3/out of 12

Engagement and consensusSystemic 2/out of 6Institutional 3/out of 6Individual 2/out of 3

Info and knowledgeSystemic 1/out of 3Institutional 1/out of 3Individual 2/out of 3

MonitoringSystemic 2/out of 6Institutional 4/out of 6Individual 0/out of 3

Policy Formulation5/out of 63/out of 3

Implementation6/out of 910/out of 275/out of 12

Eng and consensus3/out of 64/out of 63/out of 3

Info and knowledge2/out of 32/out of 33/out of 3

Monitoring3/out of 65/out of 61/out of 3

Capacity assessment scorecard

Management Effectiveness of PAs at project sites as measured by the METT Scorecard (Annex B)

Pico Basilé NP – 13.5%Caldera de Luba Scientific Reserve – 27.1%Monte Alen NP – 37.5%Río Muní Natural Reserve – 16.7%Río Campo Natural Reserve – 19.8%

Pico Basilé NP – 25%Caldera de Luba Scientific Reserve – 40%Monte Alen NP – 50%Río Muní Natural Reserve – 25%Río Campo Natural Reserve – 25%

Application of METT in line with monitoring and evaluation component of the project

Improved financial sustainability for NSPA, as measured by the Financial Sustainability Scorecard (Annex C)

Legal and regulatory framework11.5% - 9 out of 78Business planning11.5% - 7 out of 61Tools for revenue generation3.5% - 2 out of 57Total9.2% - 18 out of 196

24.4% - 19 out of 78

24.6% - 15 out of 61

10.5% - 6 out of 57

20.4% - 40 out of 196

Financial Sustainability scorecard

35

Project strategy



Assumptions

Number of community dialogue committees

There is currently no dialogue committee in the targeted PAs. Twelve pilot community dialogue committees created, with each holding 4-6 meetings per year, with records of topics discussed (via meeting notes);

Agreements signed with dialogue committees


Number of new or revised management plans

Recent management plans exist only for Monte Alen and Río Campo. There are no management plans for the Monte Alen/Río Muní landscape or for the Caldera de Luba/Pico Basilé landscape.

By 2010 updated management plans exist for Monte Alen, Río Muní, Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and Río Campo

Text of management plans for Monte Alen, Río Muní, Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and Río Campo

Government will provide timely and sufficient match funding.

Project will receive high-level government support

Appropriate consultants are available

GoEG responds positively to proposed crop damage mitigation plan

GoEG responds postively to proposed Bioko Forest Corridor

Existence of ecotourism business plan

No organized, profitable ecotourism exists based on Bioko Island’s rare and endangered primates and birds

By 2012 a business plan for primate- and bird-focused ecotourism on Bioko exists

A business plan document for primate- and bird-focused ecotourism on Bioko

Percent of crop damage that is mitigated

Crop damage from wild animals is unmanaged and unmitigated By 2012 a quantitative survey of credible wild crop damage exists and a plan for appropriate mitigation prepared and submitted to the GoEG

Consultant report on crop damage and a written mitigation plan as submitted to the GoEG

Gazetting of the Bioko Forest Corridor

The critical ecological transect between the Caldera de Luba and Pico Basilé, and the wild animals moving between the two, are unprotected, unmanaged, and vulnerable to forest conversion

By 2012 the Bioko Forest Corridor is gazetted

Decree to establish the Bioko Forest Corridor as submitted to the GoEG

Existence of MdePyMA field management unit for the Bioko Forest Corridor

No management authority has an effective presence on Bioko Island By 2012 MdePyMA has established a 5-person field management unit assigned to the Bioko Forest Corridor

Staffing, budget, and activity record of the MdePyMA field management unit

36

Project strategy



Assumptions

Outcome 1: Policy framework and Strategy for the management of PAs is developed

1. EG's NBS updated, expanded to include carbon resources, adopted, and in force.2. EG environment and biodiversity sector laws revised, rationalized, and extended to eliminate conflicts, clarify roles and responsibility, and fully realize the objectives of

the revised NBS.3. A strategy for carbon neutral economic development designed, adopted, and implemented.4. FONAMA and FONADEFO are enabled as long-term financial mechanisms to support protected areas and biodiversity management by having complete financial

designs and founding documents prepared and submitted to MdePyMA for presentation to the President, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers.


1. A national program of biodiversity and forest carbon measurement and monitoring against a baseline enables adaptive management of EG protected areas and participation in international carbon markets as a mechanism of long-term, stable financial support for biodiversity protection and management.

2. The capacity of Guinean NGO's and community organizations to play an effective role as partners with government ministries and agencies in biodiversity management is improved.

3. At least four Guineans, selected from MdePyMA, MdeAyB, INDEFOR, UNGE, and Guinean NGOs, receive advanced degrees from institutions in Latin America, North America, and Europe enabling them to introduce and advocate modern biodiversity protection and protected areas management to EG.

4. At least thirty Guineans from MdePyMA, MdeAyB, INDEFOR, UNGE, and Guinean NGOs receive intensive, Guinea-focused training in protected areas management through a field-based seminar held in EG and modeled on field courses taught at CATIE (Costa Rica) and CSU (Colorado).

5. MdePyMA establishes a field management unit enabled with staff, training, equipment, and budget to implement updated management plans for the Bioko Biodiversity Corridor (Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and a connecting corridor).


1. Management plans for Monte Alen, Río Muní, Río Campo, Pico Basilé, and Caldera de Luba are prepared with the broad participation of stakeholders including local communities.

2. Highest priority field implementation actions as specified in new or updated management plans for Monte Alen, Río Muní, Río Campo, Pico Basilé, and Caldera de Luba are carried out.

3. A public environmental education program, implemented through radio, television, printed materials, and a schools curriculum, improves public understanding of the value of biodiversity to EG’s economy and human well-being, its current status in EG, and the role of a protected areas system in sustaining its benefits, and creates strong, stable public support for funding biodiversity management.

4. A business plan for primate- and bird-focused ecotourism based on the Bioko Forest Corridor prepared and presented to potential investors and tour operators.5. A crop damage mitigation program designed and implemented using new field research that quantitatively characterizes crop damage by wild animals resident in Río

Campo and Monte Alen-Río Muní sites improves public attitudes and support for EG’s protected areas system.6. A forested ecological corridor linking the Caldera de Luba and Pico Basilé formally established by the EG government secures ecological connectivity across critical

elevation ecotones used and critical for the protection and persistence of Bioko Island’s endangered species, including seven of Africa’s most threatened primates.

37

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS

Equatorial Guinea: Sustainable forest management in Equatorial Guinea for the conservation of representative ecosystems and globally significant biodiversityPIF submitted for Council Comments in 12 September 2008

Response to Comments

Comments Response Ref. in Project Document

From GEFSec at PIF/work programme inclusion : - Confirm the letter of endorsement.- Please develop mapping tools.- Include a monitoring program with a baseline developed during the preparation phase.- Confirm co-financing and partnerships.- Confirm innovative ways for project implementation to reinforce tangible results on the field.- The PIF is very ambitious and very generic. The purpose of the PPG is to clarify the situation (capacities, existing efforts, environmental situation, social situation, economy, financing) and to narrow the outcomes, outputs, and activities. The GEFSEC invites the IA to develop, in close collaboration with authorities, a reasonable project which will take benefit from previous efforts (CI, CARPE, EU). Please focus the PPG on this purpose.

This has been taken into account and addressed during the PPG process.

From STAP: STAP has no objection to this proposal.STAP finds the project particularly ambitious in that the proponents believe that conservation planning, business cases, modifications to rules and agreements with NGOs will lead to the containment of forest clearance for slash-and-burn and timber production, and will stabilize locally threatened species populations. Nevertheless, the interventions are commensurate with the budget and there is some scientific rationale for them (although the emphasis on the capacity and lack of plans and rules as key barriers to conservation outcomes may not ultimately be correct).

Through a participatory re-analysis, verified in two project planning workshops, a team of Guinean consultants have proposed a different analysis of the reasons for EG’s NSPA ineffectiveness. These consultants identified policy and legal shortcomings causing inter-ministerial conflict as the main barriers to a functional PA system. Compared to this systemic difficulty, involvement of local communities, NGOs, and lack of management plans are secondary. The project includes Outcomes and Outputs that address involving local communities and NGOs in environmental management and the preparation of management plans, but the key activities are on establishing an enabling policy, legal, and financial context.

para. 45 and Tables 5-8

38


The project proposes to increase community participation in protected area management, which is hypothesized to decrease pressure on forest PA resources. Although such participation is commonly identified as a key ingredient in successful conservation initiatives, it is time-consuming and expensive, and there is little credible empirical evidence that demonstrates such approaches yield substantially better environmental outcomes than projects without significant participatory components. A forthcoming paper in Conservation Biology (“An assessment of 100 questions of greatest importance to the conservation of global biodiversity”) identifies as an important open question the role public participation in conservation decision-making plays in conservation success. The budget for this project may not allow a formal test of the conservation impact of local participation in PA management, but project proponents should consider if such a test is feasible rather than simply assume the common wisdom is correct. Although the word “test” is used repeatedly in the PIF, the design of this test is not clear. STAP is willing to advise the project proponents to consider if it would be possible design a formal test given the site and budget context.

The objective of the project is to operationalize the co-management structures already proposed by the GoEG in the 2003 Environmental Law, but never enabled by follow-up legislation. At present decision-making by the government is very centralized and based on an administrative structure that has been undermined, but not replaced by the Environmental Law. Other things being equal, a functional mechanism to involve local communities is preferable to leaving these communities unconsulted. But the project does not identify lack of local co-management as the crucial barrier to an effective NSPA. The project does not intend a formal test of the co-management hypothesis.

paras. 45 and Table 6

Unmentioned risk: STAP would like to emphasize the difficulty of translating “diversified revenue streams” (or any capacity building) into conservation results in nations that have a history of poor governance, which is therefore a risk to project success and which should be constructively dealt with.

The final project design gives establishing “diversified revenue streams” concrete objectives: 1) implementing the existing (FONADEFO) or proposed (FONAMA) conservation funding mechanisms by providing the GoEG financial design, governance design and all legal founding documents needed for enacting enabling legislation, 2) ensuring the required baseline carbon data are available to a standard that will allow EG to tap revenue from international carbon market if these become viable; and 3) providing EG’s first rigorous business plan for ecotourism, a source of NSPA funding often assumed to be economically viable but for which there is little information and, in the ECOFAC project, at least one contrary example.

Tables 4 & 9

At GEF Council during Nov 2008 WPComments from France: In term of biodiversity, the objectives of the project are relevant but the difficulties with governance system in Equatorial Guinea need a special attention to the institutional framework supported by the project, with a special attention to the local community

Outcome 1 of the project will deal with providing a framework which will clearly define institutional roles, responsibilities, and authority.This includes the local communities, whose capacities for PA management and biodiversity conservation will be enhanced through training plans and their involvement in PA management strengthened in the pilot sites through

Tables 11, 12 & 13

39


participation.Favorable opinion subject the above consideration.

their participation in the development of management plans.

Comments from Germany: The project aims at strengthening the National Protected Area system and is not a Sustainable Forest Management Project. The project title should be revised. Expected outcomes seem ambitious, given the short (3 year) project implementation period, the multi-level character of the project and its dependency on several co-financing sources. Proposed changes in national policies, PA management and financing as well as community participation in PA co-management typically require more time, especially given the current lack of capacity in NIPA.

The proposal does not elaborate on how the policy level, capacity development and local implementation activities can be effectively linked to ensure that a consistent approach is applied at all levels.

An extension of the proposed project implementation period should be considered as an option to address these issues.

Project outcomes should include a long-term funding strategy of the NSPA.

Links with regional COMIFAC initiatives should be more clearly developed to show the project contribution to the regional COMIFAC convergence plan.

Risks associated with high levels of expected national co-funding seem considerable and should be addressed during further project preparation.

The project title has been changed and project duration expanded to 4 years.

This has been addressed in the project document and the 3 outcomes of the project have been designed to ensure that the project objective will be achieved.

The project duration has been extended to 4 years.

A long-term funding strategy of the NSPA is foreseen with the implementation of the existing (FONADEFO) or establishment (FONAMA) of conservation funding mechanisms. This is explained in Part II, Section D

The risk that match funding from the government may not materialize was included. See Part II, section F.

From GEFSec: Comments at CEO Endorsement Request first submission (10/13/09)Is the global environmental benefit measurable?

Not clear. Two tables are added in the text (Tables 4 and 5 of this document). Table 4 Tables 1 and 2;

40


Qualitative information is given. However, the GEFSEC would like to find a baseline based on some quantitative information on habitats (number of ha), globally threatened species (transects, numbers, index, etc), and other potential Global Environment Benefits (carbon e.g.). This point was requested at PIF level for CEO endorsement.- Please clarify if such information is available.- Clarify how the Global Environment Benefits will be measured.

gives the number of hectares of different general types of vegetation based on work that CUREF did in the late 1990’s – hence the information is a decade old. INDEFOR has the original data as a vegetation map. This is the best existing baseline data for EG vegetation. Table 5 is an estimate of the carbon contained in these same forests using standard conversion factors based on forest type.

Part of how Global Environmental Benefits will be measured would come from the two tables 4 and 5 and a GIS intersection of the CUREF vegetation map with the boundaries of the protected areas system plus the proposed forest corridors. The global benefits measurement would therefore be the estimate of the percent of the remaining hectares of each forest type that would be protected through this project. The global benefit of avoided release of the carbon contained within forest protected by the GEF project would be a straightforward calculation based on hectares of forest type protected and the carbon/ha for each forest type.

Moreover, a number of botanical surveys (e.g. Sunderland, 20057), especially those completed by Missouri Botanical Garden (Leal, 20058) indicate that botanical species richness is quite high and that in the higher altitudes (e.g. Monte Mitra), botanical species endemism ranges from 47% to 78%, with new species being discovered during each survey (e.g. Pseudagrostistachys africana; Scaphopetalum obangianum). This is consistent with current theory that much of the EG highlands represent a Pleistocene refuge (Leal, 2005), and that many portions of EG forest are remnants of forest that have remained relatively unchanged for 18,000 years. This of course increases forest richness and endemism, increasing global biodiversity value, but is also significantly important with respect to current global climate change, with high-altitude refuge areas hypothesized to remain more stable and resistant to future changes in temperature and rainfall. By improving management for the refuge forest areas located within the targeted PAs, this project will protect many regionally important

7 Sunderland TCH. (2005). A biodiversity assessment of the Monte Mitra forest, Monte Alén National Park, Equatorial Guinea. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

8 Leal M. (2005) Missouri Botanical Garden activities CARPE II 3 year report 2004/2006,October 2006

41


plant and animal species whose ranges would be expected to contract to these refugia with climate change. The measurement of this global benefit would be based on the area of refugia forest that the GEF project will bring under better management (and this will be substantial).

Additionally, recent limited surveys of herpetofauna suggest that some areas of EG (e.g., Monte Alén) may be the most diverse in Central Africa (Lasso et al., 20029), but data are insufficient to create a quantitative baseline at this time.

There are no data available for quantitative baselines for small mammals, invertebrates and amphibians at this time.

Is the project design sound, its framework consistent & sufficiently clear (in particular for the outputs)?

No major change in the final document.However, the GEFSEC would like to ask some clarifications on the role and involvement of key partners and the methods that will be employed for participation.- In the baseline, a very useful information is available on existing partnerships between EG institutions and foreign partners. The GEFSEC would like to know how the EG universities and other training centers will be involved in the component 1 to increase capacities and the number of graduates in the country.

UNGE is the principal higher education institution with faculty engaged in conservation education; implementation, and research. In 2005, with technical and financial support from CI and CARPE, UNGE created a department and degree program in Environmental Studies (FMA). This department now regularly receives a budget from the government of EG. UNGE is active in EG biodiversity conservation and directly involved in the management of Bioko’s protected areas originally through the Facultad de Agricultura and more recently through the newly created Facultad de Estudios Medioambiental. FEM-UNGE trains more than 50 students a year through its Bachillerato and Licenciatura programs.

UNGE has a close partnership with BBPP (Bioko Biodiversity Protection Program supported by Drexel University) to carry out research and conservation on Bioko. FMA faculty and students have been deeply involved with BBPP and conservation on Bioko Island and FMA faculty and students participate in annual expeditions to the Caldera de Luba. UNGE and BBPP collaborate on field conservation on Bioko Island, monitoring the status of primates and sea turtles, sensitizing local communities, and running an undergraduate course in field tropical ecology. BBPP maintains a field research station on Bioko that has encouraged visits by international researchers. FEM continues a strong, degree-granting

9 Lasso CA; Rial AI; Castroviejo J; De la Riva EI (2002). Herpetofauna del Parque Nacional De Monte Alén (Río Muni, Guinea Ecuatorial). Graellsia, 58(2): 21-34.

42


- For instance, will the Drexel University be involved in this component 1? As recommended in the Barcelona Guidelines, long term partnerships between universities should be encouraged.

- Please, confirm the number and importance (provisionary budget) of partnerships between the Executing Organization and the "Implementing Organizations" (MdeAyB, FAM-UNGE, CI, ANDGE, ADMAD, AMAGE, and BBPP).

- The participation of local communities is obviously welcome in the component 3. However, could the IA give further information on methods, indicators, and the sustainability of the approach (post-project situation)?

program in environmental studies at UNGE. UNGE/BBPP spends $250,000 annually on baseline activities (including staff salaries and infrastructure maintenance).

For this project, Drexel University, through BBPP, will be encouraged to create a long-term partnership with UNGE to support training and capacity building in biodiversity conservation, biological research, and GIS research.

A partnership chart is provided in the section “Additional information” of the Prodoc

The project intends to establish "dialogue committees" in at least 12 key communities as pilot activities. The project will engage communities on multiple training and awareness raising fronts using a principle methodology based on community-based dialogue committees. Secondarily, via Output III.3, the project will develop a public environmental education program, implemented through radio, television, printed materials, and a schools' curriculum, improves public understanding of the value of biodiversity to EG’s economy and human well-being, its current status in EG, and the role of a protected areas system in sustaining its benefits, and creates strong, stable public support for funding biodiversity management. Third, some pilot communities will directly receive alternative livelihoods interventions. A final feature of our strategy will be to strengthen local civil society organizations to participate in landscape biodiversity conservation and natural resource management implementation, including the critical activity of monitoring indicator species to measure management effectiveness. ANDEGE in the Monte Alen segment has been a notable success of this strategy. As a cofinancing in this project, CI, as part of its series of interventions under USAID CARPE program in 2010, also has the task to help local communities prepare and implement management plans for the forest areas over which they have traditional resource exploitation rights. None now have any plans or strategies for sustainable harvesting or management. For 2010, ANDEGE is negotiating agreements with three key communities in

43


BNGE to prepare community forest management plans whose implementation would be supervised and supported by ANDEGE. The London Zoological Society, a CI partner in EG, will also be delivering alternative livelihoods project to local communities from 2010-2012, first near Monte Alen, and then secondarily for other protected areas of Rio Muni.

One additional indicator on public participation is added in the SRF under component 2.

To achieve post-project sustainability, the project will seek to institutionalize the community dialogue committees in the management plans for protected areas under review in 2010.

Is the value-added of GEF involvement in the project clearly demonstrated through incremental reasoning?

OK, but please, cf cell.8, develop the monitoring information on Global Environment benefits.

See above response to cell.8.

Is the GEF funding level of other cost items (consultants, travel, etc.) appropriate?

- Most of the project staff will be recruited by the Ministry of Environment. Please, confirm if project staff will be civil servants from the Ministry or if they will be additional staff paid by the project. Please confirm, there will not be a double salary system.

- Please, clarify the budget for the project director. In the text (section 76), the ToR shows that the Project director will work at half-time on the project. However, the budget shows 189 weeks x US$ 969: this is the cost for a full time position.

- Please clarify the outputs that are expected for the two grants budgets (component 2, $149,860; Component 3, $127, 394).

Project staff are civil servants who will be allocating a certain percentage of their time to the project (see GEF-funded weeks in bracket under the second column of the table in Annex C).

No staff member will receive more than 100% full time equivalent salary. There will not be a double salary system.

Project Director will be full time position. However, GEF funds will cover only 50% (95 weeks) of his/her salary and the government will cover the other half, as a co-financing.

Component 2 Output II.1 A national program of biodiversity and forest carbon measurement

and monitoring against a baseline enables adaptive management of EG protected areas and participation in international carbon markets as a mechanism of long-term, stable financial support for biodiversity protection and management.

Output II.2 The capacity of Guinean NGO's and community organizations to play

44


- Please, provide the number and the range of subcontracts with "implementing organizations".

an effective role as partners with government ministries and agencies in biodiversity management is improved.

Component 3

Output III.3 A public environmental education program, implemented through radio, television, printed materials, and a school curriculum, improves public understanding of the value of biodiversity to EG’s economy and human well-being, its current status in EG, and the role of a protected areas system in sustaining its benefits, and creates strong, stable public support for funding biodiversity management.

See partnership chart which is provided in the section “Additional information” of the Prodoc (PART II: Approximate financial flow between Ministry of Fisheries and Environment (executing organization) and implementing partners)

Are the confirmed co-financing amounts adequate for each project component?

Please confirm the co-financing amounts (are the letters of co-financing available?).

The following letters are provided:- CI: 222,800$ (44,560 in cash and 178,240 in-

kind)- ANDEGE: 30,000$ in-kind- UNDP: 200,000$ in cash- Government: 4,120,000$ (cash and in-kind).

Has the Tracking Tool been included with information for all relevant indicators?

- Please, check if the all sections of the METT template have well been completed (http://www.thegef.org/interior_right.aspx?id=230)(see project general information, p.4 and 5 of the METT template).

The METT template has been completed.

Annex E

Does the proposal include a budgeted M&E Plan that monitors and measures results with indicators and targets?

Yes. There is a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the project indicators and targets. However, the GEFSEC would like to know if there is a Monitoring programme to measure results on the field in terms of Global Environment benefits (see cell.8).

Table 14 of the prodoc, within the activities under output II.1., describes clearly how the monitoring programme will be developed. Additionally, three biodiversity indicators were added in the project logical framework. The key species described in this updated logical framework will be specifically monitored through this project.

For instance, as part of CI’s co-financing for this project, CI is conducting a

Table 14

45


one-year conservation survey of western gorilla Gorilla gorilla gorilla, western chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes, and forest elephant Loxodonta cyclotis in Río Muni during calendar year 2010. The IUCN lists these species as globally endangered (IUCN 2007) and Río Muni holds important, unprotected populations of these species. CI has received a grant award from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), and with this award and match funds, has designed a project to collect data on these species' spatial distributions, population sizes, demographic trends, and impinging threats. These data will be used to develop national conservation action plans and to establish in EG the technical capacity, supporting constituencies, and stable funding to sustain interventions to protect these species. EG has no monitoring baseline to enable adaptive management of great apes and elephants. This USFW project will establish a comprehensive monitoring baseline and safely store the data in multiple, accessible national and international databases. CI will design a monitoring protocol to detect trends based on a sampling interval of five years. This project will leave in EG the equipment and technical capacity to collect and analyze monitoring data, and plans that integrate monitoring into conservation action. At this project's conclusion early in 2011, 1) EG will have a modern, national database about its great apes and elephants; 2) EG will have a baseline for meaningful monitoring and adaptive management; 3) EG will have specific, clear, and pragmatic conservation action plans for great apes and elephants; 4) EG will have in place well-trained and well-equipped, experienced field monitoring teams; and 5) EG will have supportive institutional and public constituencies for great ape and elephant conservation. These results will represent a substantial contribution to great ape and elephant protection, a widely acknowledged global conservation priority.

From GEFSec: Comments at CEO Endorsement Request second submission (12/02/09)Are the confirmed co-financing amounts adequate for each project component?

The IA mentions the letters of endorsement for 4 partners (but we do not find them in the sending), and there is no confirmation for the Spanish Cooperation and BBPP. Please, confirm and provide all letters of co-financing. Thanks.

The letters of co-financing are provided. Due to the lack of letter from the Spanish Cooperation, this partner was removed from the list and its expected co-financing subtracted from the total co-financing.

46


Is the global environmental benefit measurable?

The environmental baseline has been completed and the Environmental Monitoring has been developed. However, please confirm the carbon values included in the table 2 (p.7 of the project document) and provide the reference used. What are the standard conversion factors mentioned in the text?

The total carbon stock seems quite high. The references provided by the STAP are from 25 to 100 TC/ha depending if the tropical forest is degraded or unlogged. Here the average is 159 TC/ha. (http://stapgef.unep.org/docs/Activities/WKS/SFM/Blaser_presentation.pdf)

The conversion factors used come from the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (2003) “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.” (Eds. Penman, J, Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., and Wagner, F.)

As explained above, the C stock estimations in table 2 were extracted from data shown in Table 1 of the project document. Table 1 provides an estimation of original and present area of each EG forest. T Butynski (BBPP) provided estimates for Bioko, C Kernan (CI) provided estimates for Annobón and EG mainland estimation was based on CUREF project’s forest ecosystem classification and land use maps.

EG's forests are generally in good condition, therefore the CUREF forest classes were interpreted as not degraded, particularly since CUREF did distinguish a class of degraded forest. The average of 159 tC/ha cited in the review sheet seems high, since the conversion factors gave a lot of weight to rainfall and EG has a relatively high rainfall, particularly on Bioko. Plus, EG does have forests on both Bioko and the mainland that have never been logged, so have they high standing biomass.

Table 2, p.7

From GEFSec: Comments at CEO Endorsement Request third submission (02/08/10)Is CEO Endorsement being recommended?

Please, check the total figures in the table A (result framework), the total for cofinancing is wrong (4,932,800 instead of 4,922, 800).

Then, due to additionnal back and forth, that will be difficult to follow the indicative calendar. A CEO endorsement in March 2010 seems more reasonable, taking into account the 4 week webposting period.

Done.

Done.

47


Please, note that a last mistake was found on the summary page of cofinancing letters.

Done.

48

ANNEX C: PROJECT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT

Position Titles

Estimated person weeks (for GEF finance)

US $/ person week Tasks to be performed

Project Director 189 (GEF-95) 969 Supervise and coordinate the project to ensure its results are in accordance with the Project Document and the rules and procedures established in the UNDP Programming Manual;

Assume primary responsibility for strategic project management - both organizational and substantive matters – budgeting, planning and general monitoring of the project;

Maintain regular contact with UNDP-CO on project implementation issues;

Liaise with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the GoEG; Ensure GoEG co-financing contributions are provided within the agreed

terms; Prepare and manage inter-ministerial project agreements; Ensure adequate information flow, discussions and feedback among the

various stakeholders of the project; Assume overall responsibility for supporting PSC effectiveness; Ensure adherence to the project’s work plan, prepare revisions of the

work plan, if required; Assume overall responsibility for ensuring that GEF quarterly project

progress reports are prepared, as well as any other reports requested by the Executing Organization and UNDP;

Work with the Technical Assistant and UNDP to prepare terms of reference for national and international consultants;

Supervise the Project Sub-Director, Bioko Technical Manager, Mainland Technical Manager, and the Financial Director

Monitor the expenditures, commitments and balance of funds under the project budget lines, and draft project budget revisions;

Undertake any other actions related to the project as requested by UNDP or the National Project Director.

Project Sub-Director

175 (GEF-88) 583 Provide general, day-to-day administrative support to ensure the smooth running of the project management unit;

Provide logistical support to the Project Director and project international consultants;

Supervise the implementation activities as specified in the terms of reference of agreements with CI;

During the visits of foreign experts, bear the responsibility for their visa support, transportation, hotel accommodation etc;

Keep files with project documents, expert reports; Control the usage non expendable equipment (record keeping, drawing

up regular inventories); Keep regular contact with project IOs to inform them about the project

details and changes; Assume overall responsibility for the proper handling of logistics related

to project workshops and events; Draft correspondence and documents; finalize correspondence of

administrative nature; edit reports and other documents for correctness of form and content;

Arrange duty travel; Act on telephone inquiries, fax, post and e-mail transmissions, and co-

ordinate appointments; Perform any other administrative/financial duties as requested by the

Project Director; Organize and coordinate the procurement of services and goods under the

project.Financial Director

178 (GEF-89) 583 Under supervision of Project Director, responsible for all aspects of project financial management

Maintain the project’s disbursement ledger and journal; Organize control of budget expenditures by preparing payment

documents, and compiling financial reports; Assume overall responsibility for the meeting financial delivery targets

set out in the agreed annual work plans, reporting on project funds and

49

Position Titles



related record keeping; Ensure project financial transparency

Bioko Technical Manager

210 (GEF-75) 474 Work with the Project Director, Technical Assistant, and UNDP to prepare terms of reference for national consultants and subcontractors implementing activities on Bioko;

Assume overall responsibility for implementation of Bioko project activities;

Supervise the implementation activities as specified in the terms of reference of agreements with IOs UNGE and BBPP;

Work with the M&E consultant to collect, organize, and analyze M&E indicator measures for project activities on Bioko;

Provide international consultants logistic and other support to ensure their technical assistance to Bioko implementation activities;

Work with and supervise Bioko IO preparation of required technical and financial reports conforming to the schedule and format required in their agreement and terms of reference;

Regularly and as requested provide the Project Director, Sub-Director, and Technical Assistant updates on the status of project implementation activities on Bioko;

Work with the international and local Legal Consultants to prepare a draft decree for the Bioko Forest Corridor;

Work with the international and local PA Planning Consultants, and Bioko IOs to prepare management plans for the Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and the Bioko Forest Corridor;

Mainland Technical Manager

172 (GEF-63) 477 Work with the Project Director, Technical Assistant, and UNDP to prepare terms of reference for national consultants and subcontractors implementing activities on the mainland;

Assume overall responsibility for implementation of mainland project activities;

Supervise the implementation activities as specified in the terms of reference of agreements with IOs MdeAyB, INDEFOR, ANDEGE;

Work with the M&E consultant to collect, organize, and analyze M&E indicator measures for project activities on the mainland;

Provide international consultants logistic and other support to ensure their technical assistance to mainland implementation activities;

Work with and supervise mainland IO preparation of required technical and financial reports conforming to the schedule and format required in their agreement and terms of reference;

Regularly and as requested provide the Project Director, Sub-Director, and Technical Assistant updates on the status of project implementation activities on the mainland;

Work with the local Legal Consultant to prepare documents to establish a crop damage mitigation program;

Work with the international and local PA Planning Consultants, and Bioko IOs to prepare management plans for the Río Campo, Monte Alen, Río Muní;

Bioko management unit member

207 (GEF-63) 318 Under the supervision of the Bioko Technical Manager, and in coordination with the Bioko IOs UNGE and BBPP, carry out implementation activities leading to the accomplishment of project Outputs and Outcomes for the Bioko project site.

Participate in field biodiversity and carbon research to establish these baselines for Bioko;

Participate in the preparation of management plans for the Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, and the Bioko Forest Corridor;

Participate in the public environmental education campaign as implemented on Bioko;

Assist as needed in field studies or information gathering needed to design and prepare legal documents to support the creation of the Bioko Forest Corridor;

Assist in providing logistical and other support for international and local consultants working on project activities on Bioko;

Bioko management unit

207 (GEF-63) 318 Under the supervision of the Bioko Technical Manager, and in coordination with the Bioko IOs UNGE and BBPP, carry out

50

Position Titles



member implementation activities leading to the accomplishment of project Outputs and Outcomes for the Bioko project site.




















Technical Assistant

120 (GEF-32) 3,000 Provide the PSC, Project Director, and Sub-Director and other project staff technical advice and support as needed;

Work with the Project Director and UNDP to prepare terms of reference for national and international consultants and subcontractors;

Organize the search and selection of international consultant candidates; Guide the work of consultants and subcontractors and oversee

compliance with the agreed terms of reference, work plan, and budget; Coordinate, review, and provide technical approval of international

consultant technical reports and deliverables; Provide English translation of key documents as required; With the assistance of the Sub-Director and Technical Managers, provide

international consultants logistic and other support; Develop an implementation agreement with ANDEGE for Output II.2; Supervise the implementation of sub-contracted activities leading to the

accomplishment of Output II.2;For Technical AssistanceLocal consultantsPolicy Consultant 26 (GEF-13) 672 Output I.1: The local Policy Consultant will work closely with the

international Policy Consultant to conduct workshops and interviews

51

Position Titles



to gather information about current EG environmental policies, to review and analyze these policies, to develop recommended changes to EG policies, and to work closely with the local Legal Consultant to prepare draft legislation to effect these changes. The local Policy Consultant will also assume responsibility for obtaining background policy documents, arranging contacts and interviews, and organizing workshops, interviews, and organized discussions as needed to effectively achieve Output I.1 and present the final consultancy deliverables. The local policy consultancy will coincide with that of the international policy consultancy.

Legal Consultant 53 (GEF-27) 675 Output I.2: The local Legal Consultant will work closely with the international Legal Consultant to review and analyze current EG environmental sector laws, conduct workshops and interviews, prepare recommended changes to EG laws and prepare draft legislation to effect these changes. The local Legal Consultant will also assume responsibility for obtaining background legal documents, arranging contacts and interviews, and organizing workshops, interviews, and organized discussions as needed to effectively achieve Output I.2 and present the final consultancy deliverables. The local legal consultancy will coincide with that of the international Legal consultancy.The local Legal Consultant will also work with the Crop Damage Mitigation Researcher and local Financial Consultant to draft legislation that will enable a financial mechanism to compensate farmers in zones peripheral to Project Sites 2 and 3 that suffer crop damage caused from wild animals and.

Economic Development Consultant

20 (GEF-10) 662 Output I.3: The Economic Development Consultant will work closely with the international Carbon Consultant as counterpart to calculate the current EG carbon budget, analyze the national 2020 economic development plan, identify the sources of carbon emissions, and provide recommendations for steps that can be taken to result in a carbon-neutral economy for EG by 2020. The Economic Development Consultant will support Output I.3 by providing local expertise and knowledge of the EG economy and development planning, contacts, data, and access to other experts. The Economic Development Consultant will prepare any Spanish language translations and will help the international Carbon Consultant prepare final consultancy deliverables.

Financial Consultant

20 (GEF-15) 676 Output I.4: The local Financial Consultant will work closely with the local Financial Consultant to conduct workshops and interviews to gather information about FONAMA and FONADEFO, to review and analyze these funding mechanisms, to develop recommended changes to FONAMA and FONADEFO, and to work closely with the local Legal Consultant to prepare draft legislation to effect these changes. The local Financial Consultant will help arrange, facilitate, and participate in at least one presentation of the recommended changes in FONAMA and FONADEFO to the GoEG at the ministerial level. The local Financial Consultant will provide specific expertise and knowledge of FONAMA and FONADFO, contacts, data, and access to experts. The local Financial Consultant will prepare and/or review any Spanish language translations and will help the international Financial Consultant prepare final consultancy deliverables.The local Financial Consultant will also work with the Crop Damage Mitigation Researcher and local Legal Consultant to design a financial mechanism too compensate farmers in zones peripheral to Project Sites 2 and 3 that suffer from crop damage caused from wild

52

Position Titles



animals and to draft appropriate enabling legislation.Biodiversity Consultant

60 (GEF -0) 690 Output II.1: The Biodiversity Researcher will work closely with the international Biodiversity Consultant to design and implement a National Biodiversity Research program that will establish a baseline for biodiversity status and carbon stocks in EG. The local Biodiversity Consultant will assist the international Biodiversity Consultant design a national research strategy and field protocols to accomplish these goals, help introduce and train local Guinean scientists to carry out this strategy and these protocols, participate with these Guinean scientists in establishing field baseline research at each of the Project Sites, and help collect, organize, analyze, and present research results. The local Biodiversity Consultant will help the international Biodiversity Consultant and the international Carbon Consultant calculate current EG carbon stocks and quantify and map changes and trends in these carbon stocks. The local Biodiversity Consultant will facilitate the work of the international Biodiversity Consultant in general and specifically help arrange and prepare at least one presentation of the consultancy results to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

Protected Areas Planning Consultant

48 (GEF-24) 676 Output II.4: The local Protected Areas Planning Consultant will work closely with the international Protected Areas Planning Consultant to develop or update management plans for the protected areas at all Project Sites: Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, Río Campo, Monte Alen, Río Muní, and the Bioko Forest Corridor and the Monte Alen-Río Muní ecological transect. The local Protected Areas Planning Consultant will help develop a standard management plan format for the EG NSPA. The local Protected Areas Planning Consultant will arrange and facilitate planning meetings with stakeholder participation, help incorporate their views and interests into the management plans, and will ensure the validation of these plans at further stakeholder meetings. The local Protected Areas Planning Consultant will arrange and facilitate at least one presentation of the consultancy results to the GoEG at the ministerial level. The local Protected Areas Planning Consultant will provide Spanish translations of the final management plan documents.

Protected Areas Management Training consultant (2)

10 (GEF-5)10 (GEF-5)

675675

Output III.1: Two local Protected Areas Management Training Consultants will assist the international Protected Areas Training Consultant as teaching assistants to prepare and teach a one-month seminar on protected areas management for 40 Guinean technicians based in the field in EG. The seminar will be modeled closely on similar field seminars taught at CATIE in Costa Rica and CSU in the United States completed by the local Protected Areas Management Training Consultants. The local Protected Areas Management Training Consultants will help the international Protected Areas Training Consultant adapt the seminar to the GE NSPA, including identifying relevant field problems, planning course logistics, facilitating meetings with stakeholders, as well and performing teaching assistant duties. The local Protected Areas Training Consultants will help the international Protected Areas Training Consultant prepare a printed seminar course book and methodology manual as a permanent reference for participants.

Business Consultant

22 (GEF-0) 675 Output III.3: The local Business Consultant will work closely with the international Business Consultant to help prepare a ecotourism business plan based on Bioko’s primate and bird endemics. The local Business Consultant will provide local expertise and knowledge of the local EG business environment, potential investors, and the

53

Position Titles



GoEG Tourism Ministry. The local Business Consultant will support achieving the objective of providing a clear, objective analysis of whether current conditions on Bioko would support an economically viable ecotourism business.The local Business Consultant will also assist the international Business Consultant to prepare a national ecotourism development strategy identifying current barriers to the growth of viable ecotourism and recommending specific measures that could be taken by the GoEG to overcome these barriers. The local Business Consultant will arrange and facilitate at least one presentation of consultancy results to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

Crop Damage Mitigation Researcher

48 (GEF-14) 690 Output III.4: The PSC and CI will identify the Crop Damage Mitigation Researcher and CI will contract this person under its sub-agreement with MdePyMA. With the technical assistance of the Project Technical Assistant, this local consultant will design a field research program to quantify the location, frequency, seasonality, type, value, crop, and species parameters of crop damage caused by wild animals in the periphery of Project Sites 2 and 3. The Crop Damage Mitigation Researcher will then develop recommendations for an equitable mitigation program, working with the local Legal Consultant and local Financial Consultant to design a financial mechanism for compensation and draft appropriate enabling legislation.

Project Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant

16 (GEF-0) 690 The Project Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant will assume overall responsibility for organizing and coordinating all monitoring and evaluation activities to ensure compliance with the M&E plan schedule of meetings and reports. The Project Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant will develop a draft evaluation report, discuss it with the project team, government, and UNDP, and as necessary participate in discussions to realign the project time-table/logframe at the mid-term stage. The standard UNDP/EEG project evaluation TOR will be used.The Project Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant will ensure collection of relevant data necessary to use in the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool;The Project Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant will assume overall responsibility for reporting on project progress vis-à-vis indicators in the logframe.

International consultantsPolicy Consultant 16 (GEF-16) 3,000 Output I.1: The International Policy Consultant will work closely

with the local Policy Consultant will work closely with the local Policy Consultant to conduct workshops and interviews to gather information about current EG environmental policies, to review and analyze these policies, to develop recommended changes to EG policies, and to work closely with the local Legal Consultant to prepare draft legislation to effect these changes. The International Policy Consultant will participate in at least one presentation of the recommended changes to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

Legal Consultant 34 (GEF-34) 3,000 Output I.2: The International Legal Consultant will work closely with the local Legal Consultant to review and analyze current EG environmental sector laws, conduct workshops and interviews, develop recommended changes to EG laws and prepare draft legislation to effect these changes. The International Legal Consultant will participate in at least one presentation of the recommended changes to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

54

Position Titles



Carbon Consultant

16 (GEF-16) 3,000 Output I.3: The International Carbon Consultant will work closely with the local Economic Development Consultant to calculate the current EG carbon budget, analyze the national 2020 economic development plan, identify the sources of carbon emissions, and provide recommendations for steps that can be taken to result in a carbon-neutral economy for EG by 2020. The International Carbon Consultant will work closely with the local Legal Consultant to draft documents the MdePyMA can use to propose formally changes to EG’s 2020 National Economic Development Plan that will effect carbon neutrality.

Financial Consultant

24 (GEF-24) 3,000 Output I.4: The International Biodiversity Consultant will work closely with the local Financial Consultant to conduct workshops and interviews to gather information about FONAMA and FONADEFO, to review and analyze these funding mechanisms, to develop recommended changes to FONAMA and FONADEFO, and to work closely with the local Legal Consultant to prepare draft legislation to effect these changes. The International Financial Consultant will participate in at least one presentation of the recommended changes in FONAMA and FONADEFO to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

Biodiversity Consultant

24 (GEF-24) 3,000 Output II.1: The International Biodiversity Consultant will work closely with the local Biodiversity Consultant to design and implement a National Biodiversity Research program that will establish a baseline for biodiversity status and carbon stocks in EG. The International Biodiversity Consultant will design a national research strategy and field protocols to accomplish these goals, introduce and train local Guinean scientists to carry out this strategy and these protocols, support these Guinean scientists to establish field baseline research at each of the Project Sites, and work closely with these scientists to collect, organize, analyze, and present their research results. The international Biodiversity Consultant will work closely with the international Carbon Consultant to calculate current EG carbon stocks and to quantify and map changes and trends in these carbon stocks. The International Biodiversity Consultant will participate in at least one presentation of the consultancy results to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

Protected Areas Planning Consultant

20 (GEF-20) 3,000 Output II.4: The international Protected Areas Planning Consultant will work closely with the local Protected Areas Planning Consultant to develop or update management plans for the protected areas at all Project Sites: Caldera de Luba, Pico Basilé, Río Campo, Monte Alen, Río Muní, and the Bioko Forest Corridor and the Monte Alen-Río Muní ecological transect. The international Protected Areas Planning Consultant will develop a standard management plan format for the EG NSPA. With the local Protected Areas Planning Consultant, the international Protected Areas Planning Consultant will conduct planning meetings with stakeholder participation, incorporate their views and interests into the management plans, and validate these plans with further stakeholder meetings. The international Protected Areas Planning Consultant will participate in at least one presentation of the consultancy results to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

Protected Areas Training Consultant

10 (GEF-10) 3,000 Output III.1: The international Protected Areas Training Consultant will to prepare and teach a one-month seminar on protected areas management for 40 Guinean technicians based in the field in EG and modeled closely on similar field seminars taught at CATIE in Costa Rica. The seminar will visit several EG protected areas and use the local situation as a field problem for the participants to analyze and to design a solution. The international Protected Areas Training

55

Position Titles



Consultant will complete a two-week preliminary visit to EG protected areas in order to adapt the experience of CATIE to EG and to design the seminar to be a pragmatic and applied study of the EG NSPA appropriate for NSPA technical and field staff. The international Protected Areas Training Consultant will work closely with the local Protected Areas Training Consultants as teaching assistants. The international Protected Areas Training Consultant will prepare and provide to participants printed seminar course book and methodology manual as a permanent reference.

Business Consultant

10 (GEF-10) 3,000 Output III.3: The international Business Consultant will work closely with the local Business Consultant to prepare a ecotourism business plan based on Bioko’s primate and bird endemics. The business plan will analyze potential ecotourism products, potential markets, required investment and recurrent business costs, revenue estimates, costs and benefits for local communities, and potential business profits. The objective will be to provide a clear analysis of whether current conditions on Bioko would support an economically viable ecotourism business.Based on the results of the analysis of Bioko ecotourism the international Business Consultant will also prepare a national ecotourism development strategy identifying current barriers to the growth of viable ecotourism and recommending specific measures that could be taken by the GoEG to overcome these barriers. The international Business Consultant will participate in at least one presentation of consultancy results to the GoEG at the ministerial level.

56

DETAILS ON ** LINE ITEMS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET

Cost items GEF ($)

Other sources ($)

Project Total ($)

Comments

Project Unit salaries

145,594 141,916 216,552 169 weeks of Project Unit time. GEF funds cover 50% of PNU staff except for the CI Technical assistant, which is covered 25% by GEF funds and 75% by CI.

Local M&E consultant

0 11,032 11,032 16 weeks for a local M&E consultant compensated as in Annex C.

Equipment and furniture

0 24,205 24,205 $5,000 in office equipment; $45,000 for a project vehicle, $4,000 for office furniture

Travel to project sites

0 54,000 54,000 32 local tickets @$200; 12 weeks local subsistence @ $750/week, and $8,493 in other travel expenses

Communications and internet access

0 64,761 64,761 64 weeks of land telephone, mobile telephone, email subscriptions and internet connectivity @~196/week; $51,343 for installation of satellite internet

Office supplies 0 20,383 20,383 $20,383 for office supplies and publicationsIT equipment 31,224 31,224 62,448 10 computers @$2500; software for each @$3000, and

computer supplies for each @$500;Office rent and other recurrent costs

0 33,122 33,122 $27,177 for office rent, custodial services, and utilities; $5,945 for meeting room rental

Professional services

0 15,924 15,924 $10,616 for audit services

Translations 0 10,616 10,616 $5,172 for translation costs

IT equipment maintenance

0 5,172 5,172 $15,924 for technology equipment maintenance

Miscellaneous expenses

0 60,126 60,126 $60,126 for insurance, bank charges, claims and adjustments, storage and sundry expenses

Total 176,818 472,481 649,299

57

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS

A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN.

88. The PPG objective has been met. The main output of the PPG is the GEF Endorsement Request. In addition, the following outputs were delivered:

(i) Situation analysis for EG including an overview of EG’s NSPA and a review of the policy, legal, socio-economic, and capacity context for biodiversity conservation;

(ii) Project strategy including a redefined goal, objective, components, and outcomes; outputs and activities; and a full project budget;

(iii) Defined indicators, risks, and assumptions;(iv) Risk analysis;(v) Incremental reasoning and expected global, national, and local benefits; and an incremental cost

analysis;(vi) An analysis of project sustainability and replicability;(vii) A proposed management and implementation structure;(viii) A monitoring and evaluation plan;(ix) A stakeholder involvement plan;(x) Baseline completion of RAPPAM, METT, Capacity Assessment Scorecard, and the Financial

Assessment Scorecard.

B. DESCRIBE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, IF ANY.

89. Findings during the PPG stage have been incorporated into the design of the project and there are no concerns regarding project implementation.

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW:

Project Preparation Activities Approved

Implementation Status

GEF Amount ($)Co-financing amount

Amount Approved

Amount Spent To-

date

Amount Com-mitted

Uncommitted

Amount*RAPPAM Completed 4,626 4,626 0 0 2,550

METT Completed 4,626 4,626 0 0 2,550Overview of the EG NSPA

Completed 4,626 4,626 0 0 2,550

Threats, root causes and barriers assessment

Completed 4,626 4,626 0 0 2,550

Capacity Assessment Scorecard

Completed 1,709 1,709 0 0 684

Financial Assessment Scorecard

Completed 1,709 1,709 0 0 684

Project design workshop Completed 10,157 10,157 0 0 5,977Preparation of Project Document

Completed 6,274 6,274 0 0 13,453

Document translation Partially completed

2,000 1,500 500 0 1,333

Project validation workshop

Completed 2,626 2,626 0 0 4,550

Preparation of Final Partially 5,021 4,346 675 0 8,907

58

Project Preparation Activities Approved

Implementation Status

GEF Amount ($)Co-financing amount

Amount Approved

Amount Spent To-

date

Amount Com-mitted

Uncommitted

Amount*Project Document completedPreparation of PPG financial report

Partially completed

2,000 500 1,500

Total 50,000 47,325 2,675 0 45,788 * Uncommitted amount should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. Please indicate expected date of refund transaction to Trustee.

59

Annex E. METT Analysis of EG Protected Areas

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name: Sustainable forest management in Equatorial Guinea for the conservation of representative ecosystems and globally significant biodiversity

2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): FSP3. Project ID (GEF): 37574. Project ID (IA): 41855. Implementing Agency: UNDP6. Country(ies): Equatorial Guinea

7. Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

8.Project

duration: Planned 4 years Actual _______ years

9. Lead Project Executing Organization: Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment (MdePyMA)

10. GEF Strategic Program: Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level (SP 1) Increasing Representation of Effectively Managed Marine PAs in PA Systems (SP 2) Strengthening Terrestrial PA Networks (SP 3)

11. Project coverage in hectares

Targets and Timeframe

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type

Foreseen at project start

Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of Project

Achievement at Final Evaluation of Project

Terrestrial ecosystems 367,500 ha 367,500 ha 387,500 haMarine ecosystems 9,500 ha 9,500 ha 9,500 ha

Name Title AgencyWork Program Inclusion

Santiago Engonga

General Director, Fisheries and Environment

Ministry of Fisheries and Environment

Project Mid-term

Final Evaluation/project completion

60

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable.

Name of Protected Area

Is this a new

protected area? Please

answer yes or no.

Area in Hectares—

please specify

biome type

Global designation orpriority lists

(E.g., Biosphere Reserve, World

Heritage site, Ramsar site, WWF Global 200,

etc.)

Local Designation of Protected Area (e.g., indigenous reserve, private reserve, etc.)

IUCN Category for each Protected Area10

I II III IV V VI

1. Reserva Científica Gran Caldera de Luba

no 51,000haWet tropical montane forest

Scientific reserve X

2. Parque Nacional Pico Basilé

no 33,000haWet tropical montane forest, tropical sub-alpine scrub

National park X

3. Reserva Natural Río Campo

no 33,000haWet tropical lowland forest

Gorilla SSC Priority Site Natural reserve X

4. Parque Nacional Monte Alen

no 200,000haWet tropical lowland forest, wet tropical montane forest

National park X

5. Reserva Natural Estuario de Río Muní

no 50,500haWet tropical lowland forest, mangrove9,500haMarine estuary

Natural reserve X

10 I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protectionII. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreationIII. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural featuresIV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management interventionV. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreationVI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

61

METT EVALUATION SUMMARY, PERCENTAGE OF POSSIBLE SCORE BY EVALUATION CATEGORY

Mett evaluation category

Pico Basilé

Caldera de Luba

Monte Alen

Río Muní

Río Campo

Context 46.7% 60.0% 60.0% 33.3% 33.3%Inputs 0.0% 20.0% 26.7% 6.7% 13.3%

Outcomes 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7%Outputs 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Planning 16.7% 27.8% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3%Process 0.0% 13.3% 20.0% 13.3% 10.0%

METT RESULTS

Issue Criteria Pico

Basilé

Caldera de

LubaMonte Alen

Río Muní

Río Campo

1. Legal status Does the protected area have legal status?Context

The protected area is not gazetted

The government has agreed that the protected area should be gazetted but the process has not yet begun

The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the process is still incomplete

The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)

3 3 3 3 3

2. Protected area regulationsAre inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching) controlled?Context

There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area

0 0 0

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively 1 1 Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented

3. Law enforcementCan staff enforce protected area rules well enough?Context

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

0 0

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget)

1 1 1

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

4. Protected area objectivesHave objectives been agreed? Planning

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area

0

The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to these objectives

1 1 1

The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only partially implemented

2

The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these objectives

5. Protected area design Does the protected area need

Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas major management

62

enlarging, corridors etc to meet its objectives? Planning

objectives of the protected area is impossible Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major objectives are constrained to some extent

1 1

Design is not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives, but could be improved

2 2

Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement of major objectives of the protected area

3

6. Protected area boundary demarcation Is the boundary known and demarcated? Context

The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users

1 1

The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management authority and local residents but is not appropriately demarcated

2 2 2

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated

7. Management plan Is there a management plan and is it being implemented? Planning

There is no management plan for the protected area

0 0 0

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

1

An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems

2

An approved management plan exists and is being implemented

Additional points Planning

The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan

1 1 1 1 1

There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan

The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated into planning

8. Regular work plan Is there an annual work plan? Planning/Outputs

No regular work plan exists 0 0 0 0

A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets

1

A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed

A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

9. Resource inventory Do you have enough information to manage the area? Context

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision making

1 1 1

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained

2 2

Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being

63

maintained 10. ResearchIs there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work? Inputs

There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area

0 0 0

There is some ad hoc survey and research work

1

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management

2

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs

11. Resource management Is the protected area adequately managed (e.g. for fire, invasive species, poaching)? Process

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values have not been assessed

0

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are known but are not being addressed

1 1 1

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are only being partially addressed

2

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are being substantially or fully addressed

12. Staff numbers Are there enough people employed to manage the protected area?Inputs

There are no staff 0 0 0

Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities

1 1

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities

Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the site

13. Personnel management Are the staff managed well enough? Process

Problems with personnel management constrain the achievement of major management objectives

0 0 0 0 0

Problems with personnel management partially constrain the achievement of major management objectives

Personnel management is adequate to the achievement of major management objectives but could be improved

Personnel management is excellent and aids the achievement major management objectives

14. Staff training Is there enough training for staff? Inputs/Process

Staff are untrained 0

Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area

1 1 1 1

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

Staff training and skills are in tune with the management needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs

15. Current budget Is the current budget sufficient? Inputs

There is no budget for the protected area 0 0 0 0

The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage

1

The available budget is acceptable, but could be further improved to fully achieve effective management

The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the protected area

16. Security of budget Is the budget secure? Inputs

There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year funding

0 0 0 0 0

There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function adequately without outside funding

There is a reasonably secure core budget

64

for the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs on a multiyear cycle

17. Management of budget Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs? Process

Budget management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness

0 0 0 0 0

Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness

Budget management is adequate but could be improved

Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness

18. Equipment Are there adequate equipment and facilities? Process

There are little or no equipment and facilities

0 0 0 0 0

There are some equipment and facilities but these are wholly inadequate

There are equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps that constrain management

There are adequate equipment and facilities

19. Maintenance of equipment Is equipment adequately maintained? Process

There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities

0 0 0 0 0

There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities

There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there are some important gaps in maintenance

Equipment and facilities are well maintained

20. Education and awareness programmeIs there a planned education programme? Process

There is no education and awareness programme

0 0 0

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this

1 1

There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps

There is a planned and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area

21. State and commercial neighboursIs there cooperation with adjacent land users? Process

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users

0

There is limited contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users

1 1 1 1

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only limited co-operation

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management

22. Indigenous people Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the PA have input to management decisions?Process

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

0 0 0 0 0

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in making decisions relating to management

23. Local communities Do local communities resident or near the protected area have input to

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

0

Local communities have some input into 1 1

65

management decisions?Process

discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions Local communities directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

2 2

Local communities directly participate in making decisions relating to management

Additional points Outputs

There is open communication and trust between local stakeholders and protected area managers

Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented

1 1

24. Visitor facilities Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) good enough?Outputs

There are no visitor facilities and services 0 0 0 0

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation or are under construction

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

2

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

25. Commercial tourism Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management? Process

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area

0 0 0 0 0

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values

There is excellent co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts

26. FeesIf fees (tourism, fines) are applied, do they help protected area management? Outputs

Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected

0 0 0 0 0

The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central government and is not returned to the protected area or its environs

The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority rather than the protected area

There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to support this and/or other protected areas

27. Condition assessment Is the protected area being managed consistent to its objectives? Outcomes

Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded but the most important values have not been significantly impacted 2 2 2 2Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3

Additional pointsOutputs

There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within the protected area and/or the protected area buffer zone

28. Access assessment Is access/resource use sufficiently controlled?Outcomes

Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

0 0 0 0 0

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access or use of the reserve

66

in accordance with designated objectives Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

29. Economic benefit assessmentIs the protected area providing economic benefits to local communities?Outcomes

The existence of the protected area has reduced the options for economic development of the local communities

The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor benefited the local economy

1 1 1

There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but this is of minor significance to the regional economy

2 2

There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to local communities from activities in and around the protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc)

30. Monitoring and evaluationAre management activities monitored against performance?Planning/Process

There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area

0 0 0 0

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

1

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

2

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management

TOTAL SCORE OF A POSSIBLE 96 13 26 36 16 19PERCENTAGE OF POSSIBLE 13.5% 27.1% 37.5% 16.7% 19.8%

67

Annex F: Financial Scorecard for Equatorial Guinea’s National Protected Area System

PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM

Basic Protected Area System Information

Description of Equatorial Guinea’s PAsCategory Name Terrestrial (ha) Marine (ha)

Scientific reserve Gran Caldera de Luba 51,000Playa de Nendyi 275 225

National Parks Pico Basilé 33,000Monte Alén 200,000Altos de Nsork 70,000

Natural Monuments Piedra bere 20,000Piedra Nzas 19,000

Natural Reserves Río Campo 33,000Monte Temelón 23,000Punta Llende 5,500EstuaRío Río Muní 50,500 9,500Islas Corisco y Elobeyes 1,795 46,205Isla Annobón 2,088 21,022

National Forest (proposed) Bosque Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial 600,000Total (existing) 509,158 76,952

Source: Informe nacional sobre la diversidad biológica

This Scorecard has been completed for the 13 existing units of the National Protected Areas System

Protected Areas SystemNumber of sites

Total hectares Comments

National protected areas 13 586,110 Sites conform to EG PA categories as per table above

National protected areas co-managed by NGOs

0 0

State/Munícipal protected areas 0 0Others (define) 0 0

68

Financial Analysis of the EPASA Protected Area System

Baseline year11

(US$)12Year X13

(US$)14Year X+515

(forecasting)(US$)16

Comments

Available Finances 2009(1) Total annual central government budget allocated to NSPA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated (4) and retained within the PA system)

200,000

- national protected areas 200,000- national areas co-managed by NGOs N/A N/A N/A- state/Munícipal protected areas N/A N/A N/A- others N/A N/A N/A

(2) Total annual government budget provided for PA management (including donor funds, loans, debt-for nature swaps)

817,000 (200,000 Government,

200,000 ECOFAC,186,000CARPE,145,000

US Fish & Wildlife,36,000

RAPPAC,50,000

Exxon Mobil)- national protected areas 817,000- national areas co-managed by NGOs N/A N/A N/A- state/Munícipal protected areas N/A N/A N/A- others N/A N/A N/A

(3) Total annual revenue generation from PAs, broken down by sourcea. Tourism - total 0- Tourism taxes 0- Entrance fees 0- Additional user fees 0- Concessions 0b. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) 0

11 The baseline year refers to the year the Scorecard was completed for the first time and remains fixed. Insert year eg 2007. 12 Average conversion rate for 2007 is 1.2213 X refers to the year the Scorecard is completed and should be inserted (eg 2008). For the first time the Scorecard is completed X will be the same as the baseline year. For subsequent years insert an additional column to present the data for each year the Scorecard is completed.14 Conversion rate of 1.22 as of 9 Sept.200815 Year X+5 refers to forecasting annual data for five years in the future from the year the Scorecard is being completed. The data should be be for one year (eg is year X is 2008 then the data should be presented for year 2013). The data would be based on long-term financial plans. If no financial planning has been done then this column can be left blank.16 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate [1.22 as of 9 September 2008]

69

c. Other (specify each type of revenue generation mechanism)

0

(4) Total annual revenues by PA type17

- national protected areas 0- national areas co-managed by NGOs 0- state/Munícipal protected areas N/A- others N/A

(5) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re-investment18

0%

(6) Total finances available to the PA system [government budget plus donor support etc (2)] plus [total annual revenues (4) multiplied by percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re-investment (5)]

817,000

Costs and Financing Needs(7) Total annual expenditure for PAs (operating and investment costs)19

817,000

- national protected areas 817,000- national protected areas co-managed by NGOs 0- state/Munícipal protected areas 0- others 0

(8) Estimation of financing needsA. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs and investments to be covered

2,000,000

B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs and investments to be covered

4,500,000

(9) Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)20

3,683,000

A. Net actual annual surplus/deficit21 -B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios

1,183,000

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios

N/A

17 This total will be the same as for (3) but broken down by PA type instead of by revenue type18 This includes funds to be shared by PAs with local stakeholders19 In some countries actual expenditure differs from planned expenditure due to disbursement difficulties. In this case actual expenditure should be presented and a note on disbursement rates and planned expenditures can be made in the Comments column.20 Financing needs as calculated in (8) minus available financing total in (6) 21 This will be more relevant to parastatals and PA agencies with autonomous budgets

70

FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM

Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks

COMMENT

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue generation by PAs

None(0)

Some(1)

A few(2)

Fully(3)

(i) Laws are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms X(ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax breaks exist to promote PA financing

X

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention and sharing within the PA system

No(0)

Under development

(1)

Yes, but needs improvement

(2)

Yes, satisfactory(3)

(i) Laws, policies and procedures are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA system

X

(ii) Laws, policies and procedures are in place for PA revenues to be retained, in part, at the PA site level

X

(iii) Laws, policies and procedures are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with local stakeholders

X

Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds (trust funds, sinking funds or revolving funds)22

No(0)

Established(1)

Established with limited capital

(2)

Established with adequate capital

(3)(i) A Fund have been established and capitalized to finance the PA system X

None(0)

Some(1)

Quite a few (2) Fully(3)

(ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs X

No(0)

Partially(1)

Quite well(2)

Fully(3)

(iii) Funds are integrated into the national PA financing systems X

Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to government

None(0)

Under development

(1)

Yes, but needs improvement

(2)

Yes, Satisfactory (3)

(i) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA management and associated financial management for concessions

X

(ii) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA management and associated financial management for co-management

X

22 Where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government, award full 9 points

71

(ii) There are laws which allow and regulate delegation of PA management and associated financial management to local government

X

(iv) There are laws which allow private reserves X

Element 5 - National PA financing strategies Not begun(0)

In progress(1)

Completed (3) Under implementation

(5)(i) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national financing strategy

X

No(0)

Yes(2)

(ii) The inclusion within the national PA financing strategy of key policies: X- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs X- Criteria for allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (business plans, performance etc)

X Annual workplan (only for Monte Alen)

- Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect conservation objectives of PAs

X

- Requirements for PA management plans to include financial sections or associated business plans

X

Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems(ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc)

None(0)

Partial(1)

Satisfactory(2)

Full(3)

(i) Economic data on the contribution of protected areas to local and national development

X

(ii) PA economic values are recognized across government X Within the Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests

Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems

No(0)

Yes(2)

(i) Policy of the Treasury towards budgeting for the PA system provides for increased medium to long term financial resources in accordance with demonstrated needs of the system.

X

(ii) Policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management plans.

X

(iii) There are policies that PA budgets should include funds for the livelihoods of communities living in and around the PA as part of threat reduction strategies

X

Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for PA management and financing

None(0)

Partial(1)

Improving(2)

Full(3)

(i) Mandates of institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed X

Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level

None(0)

Partial(1)

Almost there (2) Full(3)

(i) There are sufficient number of positions for economists and financial planners and analysts in the PA authorities to properly manage the finances of the PA system

X

(ii) Terms of Reference (TORs) for PA staff include responsibilities for revenue generation, financial management and cost-effectiveness

X

72

(iii) Laws and regulations motivate PA managers to promote site level financial sustainability (eg a portion of site generated revenues are allowed to be maintained for on-site re-investment and that such finances are additional to government budgets and not substitutional)

X

(iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of sound financial planning, revenue generation and cost-effective management

X

(v) PA managers have the possibility to budget and plan for the long-term (eg over 5 years)

X

Total Score for Component 1 Actual score: 9

Total possible score: 78

12%:

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective management

Comment

Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun(0)

Early stages(1)

Near complete(2)

Completed(3)

(i) PA management plans showing objectives, needs and costs are prepared across the PA system

X 31% of protected areas have at least a draft management plan

(ii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management plans and conservation objectives, are developed for pilot sites

X

(iii) Business plans are implemented at the pilot sites (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives)

X

(iv) Business plans are developed for all appropriate PA sites(business plans will not be useful for PAs with no potential to generate revenues)

X

(v) Financing gaps identified by business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting

X

(vi) Costs of implementing business plans are monitored and contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting

X

Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems

None(0)

Partial(1)

Near complete (2)

Fully completed(3)

(i) Policy and regulations require comprehensive, coordinated cost accounting systems to be in place (for both input and activity based accounting)

X

(ii) There is a transparent and coordinated cost and investment accounting system operational for the PA system

X

(iii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational X(iv) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to national reporting

X

Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on None(0)

Partial(1)

Near completed(2)

Complete and operational

73

financial management performance (3)

(i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by government and are made transparent

X

(ii) Financial returns on investments from capital improvements measured and reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after establishment of a visitor centre)

X

(iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority

X

(iv) Financial performance of PAs is evaluated and reported (linked to cost-effectiveness)

X

Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites

No(0)

Yes(2)

(i) National PA budget is appropriately allocated to sites based on criteria agreed in national financing strategy

X

(ii) Policy and criteria for allocating funds to co-managed PAs complement site based fundraising efforts

X

Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively

Absent(0)

Partially done(1)

Almost done(2)

Fully(3)

(i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA managers

X

(ii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, available and being used to track PA manager performance

X

(iii) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and feed into management policy and planning

X

(iv) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective management

X

(v) PA site managers share costs of common practices with each other and with PA headquarters23

X

Total Score for Component 2 Actual score: 7 Total possible score: 61

11.5%:

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation Comment

Element 1 - Number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA system

None(0)

Partially(1)

A fair amount(2)

Optimal(3)

(i) An up-to-date analysis of all revenue options for the country complete and available including feasibility studies;

X

(ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms generating funds for the PA system

X

(iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial

X

23 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.

74

investment cost)Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA system

No(0)

Partially(1)

Satisfactory (2)

Fully(3)

(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan for user fees is complete and adopted by government

X

(ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry are supportive and are partners in the PA user fee system and programmes

X

(iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed and is made for PA sites across the network based on revenue potential, return on investment and level of entrance fees 24

X

(iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate maximum revenue whilst still meeting PA conservation objectives

X

(v) Non tourism user fees are applied and generate additional revenue X

Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems None(0)

Partially(1)

Completed(2)

Operational(3)

(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan for fee collection is complete and adopted by PA authorities (including co-managers)

X

Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms

None(0)

Partially(1)

Satisfactory(2)

Fully(3)

(i) ComMunícation campaigns and marketing for the public about the tourism fees, new conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile

X

Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs25 None(0)

Partially(1)

Progressing(2)

Fully(3)

(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan for PES is complete and adopted by government

X

(ii) Pilot PES schemes at select sites developed X(iii) Operational performance of pilots is evaluated and reported X(iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway X

Element 6 - Operational concessions within PAs None(0)

Partially(1)

Progressing (2)

Fully(3)

(i) A system wide strategy and implementation plan complete and adopted by government for concessions

X

(ii) Concession opportunities are identified at appropriate PA sites across the PA system

X

(iii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot sites X(iv) Operational performance of pilots is evaluated, reported and acted upon X

Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation mechanisms

None(0)

Limited(1)

Satisfactory(2)

Extensive(3)

(i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration

X

Total Score for Component 3 Actual score: 2Total possible score: 57

24 As tourism infrastructure increases within PAs and in turn increases visitor numbers and PA revenues the score for this item should be increased in proportion to its importance to funding the PA system.25 Where PES is not appropriate or feasible for a PA system take 12 points off total possible score for the PA system

75

3.5%:

76

FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS

Total Score for PA System 18

Total Possible Score196

Actual score as a percentage of the total possible score 9.2%

Percentage scored in previous year26 NA

Signature27: Santiago Engonga, Director General, Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment

26 Insert NA if this is first year of completing scorecard.27 In case a country does not have an official national Protected Areas system, the head of the authority with most responsibility for protected areas or the sub-system detailed in the Scorecard, should sign.

77

Annex G. Capacity assessment scorecard for Equatorial Guinea PA System

Strategic Areas of SupportTotal Possible Score (TPS)

Systemic Institutional Individual

1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme 6 3 -

2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 9 27 12

3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders 6 6 34. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions 3 3 3

5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels 6 6 3

Total 30 45 21

Strategic Areas of Support Baseline ScoresSystemic Institutional Individual

1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme 4 2 -2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 5 8 33. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders 2 3 24. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions 1 1 2

5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels 2 4 0Total 14 18 7

Strategic Areas of Support Baseline score as % of TPS (Average)Systemic Institutional Individual

1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme 67% 67% NA2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 56% 30% 25%3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders 33% 50% 67%4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions 33% 33% 67%

5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels 33% 67% 0%Total 47% 40% 33%

78

Strategic Areas of Support Target score as % of TPS (Average)Systemic Institutional Individual

1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programme2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes 3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge: Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report and learn at the sector and project levels

Total

79

Strategic Area of Support Capacity Level Outcome

Outcome Indicators (Scorecard)

Worst State(Score 0)

Marginal State(Score 1)

Satisfactory State

(Score 2)Best State(Score 3)

1. Capacity to conceptualize and formulate policies, legislations, strategies and programmes

Systemic The protected area agenda is being effectively championed / driven forward

There is essentially no protected area agenda

There are some persons or institutions actively pursuing a protected area agenda but they have little effect or influence

There are a number of protected area champions that drive the protected area agenda, but more is needed

There are an adequate number of able "champions" and "leaders" effectively driving forwards a protected area agenda


Systemic There is a strong and clear legal mandate for the establishment and management of protected areas

There is no legal framework for protected areas

There is a partial legal framework for protected areasbut it has many inadequacies

There is a reasonable legal framework for protected areas but it has a few weaknesses and gaps

There is a strong and clear legal mandate for the establishment and management of protected areas


Institutional There is an institution responsible for protected areas able to strategize and plan

Protected area institutions have no plans or strategies

Protected area institutions do have strategies and plans, but these are old and no longer up to date or were prepared in a totally top-down fashion

Protected area institutions have some sort of mechanism to update their strategies and plans, but this is irregular or is done in a largely top-down fashion without proper consultation

Protected area institutions have relevant, participatorially prepared, regularly updated strategies and plans

2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes

Systemic There are adequate skills for protected area planning and management

There is a general lack of planning and management skills

Some skills exist but in largely insufficient quantities to guarantee effective planning and management

Necessary skills for effective protected area management and planning do exist but are stretched and not easily

Adequate quantities of the full range of skills necessary for effective protected area planning and management are

80





Satisfactory State


available easily available 2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes

Systemic There are protected area systems

No or very few protected area exist and they cover only a small portion of the habitats and ecosystems

Protected area system is patchy both in number and geographical coverage and has many gaps in terms of representativeness

Protected area system is covering a reasonably representative sample of the major habitats and ecosystems, but still presents some gaps and not all elements are of viable size

The protected areas includes viable representative examples of all the major habitats and ecosystems of appropriate geographical scale


Systemic There is a fully transparent oversight authority for the protected areas institutions

There is no oversight at all of protected area institutions

There is some oversight, but only indirectly and in an untransparent manner

There is a reasonable oversight mechanism in place providing for regular review but lacks in transparency (e.g. is not independent, or is internalized)

There is a fully transparent oversight authority for the protected areas institutions


Institutional Protected area institutions are effectively led

Protected area institutions have a total lack of leadership

Protected area institutions exist but leadership is weak and provides little guidance

Some protected area institutions have reasonably strong leadership but there is still need for improvement

Protected area institutions are effectively led


Institutional Protected areas have regularly updated, participatorially prepared, comprehensive management plans

Protected areas have no management plans

Some protected areas have up-to-date management plans but they are typically not comprehensive and were not participatorially

Most Protected Areas have management plans though some are old, not participatorially prepared or are less than

Every protected area has a regularly updated, participatorially prepared, comprehensive management plan

81





Satisfactory State


prepared comprehensive2. Capacity to implement policies, legislation, strategies and programmes

Institutional Human resources are well qualified and motivated

Human resources are poorly qualified and unmotivated

Human resources qualification is spotty, with some well qualified, but many only poorly and in general unmotivated

HR in general reasonably qualified, but many lack in motivation, or those that are motivated are not sufficiently qualified.

Human resources are well qualified and motivated


Institutional Management plans are implemented in a timely manner effectively achieving their objectives

There is very little implementation of management plans

Management plans are poorly implemented and their objectives are rarely met

Management plans are usually implemented in a timely manner, though delays typically occur and some objectives are not met

Management plans are implemented in a timely manner effectively achieving their objectives


Institutional Protected area institutions are able to adequately mobilize sufficient quantity of funding, human and material resources to effectively implement their mandate

Protected area institutions typically are severely underfunded and have no capacity to mobilize sufficient resources

Protected area institutions have some funding and are able to mobilize some human and material resources but not enough to effectively implement their mandate

Protected area institutions have reasonable capacity to mobilize funding or other resources but not always in sufficient quantities for fully effective implementation of their mandate

Protected area institutions are able to adequately mobilize sufficient quantity of funding, human and material resources to effectively implement their mandate


Institutional Potected area institutions are effectively managed, efficiently deploying their human, financial and other resources to the best effect

While the protected area institution exists it has no management

Institutional management is largely ineffective and does not deploy efficiently the resources at its disposal

The institution is reasonably managed, but not always in a fully effective manner and at times does not deploy its resources in the

The protected area institution is effectively managed, efficiently deploying its human, financial and other resources

82





Satisfactory State


most efficient way

to the best effect


Institutional Protected area institutions are highly transparent, fully audited, and publicly accountable

Protected area institutions totally un-transparent, not being held accountable and not audited

Protected area institutions are not transparent but are occasionally audited without being held publicly accountable

Protected area institutions are regularly audited and there is a fair degree of public accountability but the system is not fully transparent

The Protected area institutions are highly transparent, fully audited, and publicly accountable


Institutional There are legally designated protected area institutions with the authority to carry out their mandate

There is no lead institution or agency with a clear mandate or responsibility for protected areas

There are one or more institutions or agencies dealing with protected areas but roles and responsibilities are unclear and there are gaps and overlaps in the arrangements

There are one or more institutions or agencies dealing with protected areas, the responsibilities of each are fairly clearly defined, but there are still some gaps and overlaps

Protected Area institutions have clear legal and institutional mandates and the necessary authority to carry this out


Institutional Protected areas are effectively protected

No enforcement of regulations is taking place

Some enforcement of regulations but largely ineffective and external threats remain active

Protected area regulations are regularly enforced but are not fully effective and external threats are reduced but not eliminated

Protected Area regulations are highly effectively enforced and all external threats are negated


Individual Individuals are able to advance and develop professionally

No career tracks are developed and no training opportunities are provided

Career tracks are weak and training possibilities are few and not managed transparently

Clear career tracks developed and training available; HR management however has inadequate performance

Individuals are able to advance and develop professionally

83





Satisfactory State


measurement system


Individual Individuals are appropriately skilled for their jobs

Skills of individuals do not match job requirements

Individuals have some or poor skills for their jobs

Individuals are reasonably skilled but could further improve for optimum match with job requirement

Individuals are appropriately skilled for their jobs


Individual Individuals are highly motivated

No motivation at all Motivation uneven, some are but most are not

Many individuals are motivated but not all

Individuals are highly motivated


Individual There are appropriate systems of training, mentoring, and learning in place to maintain a continuous flow of new staff

No mechanisms exist Some mechanisms exist but unable to develop enough and unable to provide the full range of skills needed

Mechanisms generally exist to develop skilled professionals, but either not enough of them or unable to cover the full range of skills required

There are mechanisms for developing adequate numbers of the full range of highly skilled protected area professionals

3. Capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders

Systemic Protected areas have the political commitment they require

There is no political will at all, or worse, the prevailing political will runs counter to the interests of protected areas

Some political will exists, but is not strong enough to make a difference

Reasonable political will exists, but is not always strong enough to fully support protected areas

There are very high levels of political will to support protected areas


Systemic Protected areas have the public support they require

The public has little interest in protected areas and there is no significant lobby for protected areas

There is limited support for protected areas

There is general public support for protected areas and there are various lobby groups such as environmental NGO's strongly pushing them

There is tremendous public support in the country for protected areas

84





Satisfactory State



Institutional Protected area institutions are mission oriented

Institutional mission not defined

Institutional mission poorly defined and generally not known and internalized at all levels

Institutional mission well defined and internalized but not fully embraced

Institutional missions are fully internalized and embraced


Institutional Protected area institutions can establish the partnerships needed to achieve their objectives

Protected area institutions operate in isolation

Some partnerships in place but significant gaps and existing partnerships achieve little

Many partnerships in place with a wide range of agencies, NGOs etc, but there are some gaps, partnerships are not always effective and do not always enable efficient achievement of objectives

Protected area institutions establish effective partnerships with other agencies and institutions, including provincial and local governments, NGO's and the private sector to enable achievement of objectives in an efficient and effective manner


Individual Individuals carry appropriate values, integrity and attitudes

Individuals carry negative attitude

Some individuals have notion of appropriate attitudes and display integrity, but most don't

Many individuals carry appropriate values and integrity, but not all

Individuals carry appropriate values, integrity and attitudes

4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge

Systemic Protected area institutions have the information they need to develop and monitor strategies and action plans for the management of the protected area system

Information is virtually lacking

Some information exists, but is of poor quality, is of limited usefulness, or is very difficult to access

Much information is easily available and mostly of good quality, but there remain some gaps in quality, coverage and availability

Protected area institutions have the information they need to develop and monitor strategies and action plans for the management of the protected area system

4. Capacity to mobilize Institutional Protected area institutions Information is Some information Much Adequate

85





Satisfactory State


information and knowledge have the information needed to do their work

virtually lacking exists, but is of poor quality and of limited usefulness and difficult to access

information is readily available, mostly of good quality, but there remain some gaps both in quality and quantity

quantities of high quality up to date information for protected area planning, management and monitoring is widely and easily available

4. Capacity to mobilize information and knowledge

Individual Individuals working with protected areas work effectively together as a team

Individuals work in isolation and don't interact

Individuals interact in limited way and sometimes in teams but this is rarely effective and functional

Individuals interact regularly and form teams, but this is not always fully effective or functional

Individuals interact effectively and form functional teams

5. Capacity to monitor, evaluate, report and learn

Systemic Protected area policy is continually reviewed and updated

There is no policy or it is old and not reviewed regularly

Policy is only reviewed at irregular intervals

Policy is reviewed regularly but not annually

National protected areas policy is reviewed annually


Systemic Society monitors the state of protected areas

There is no dialogue at all

There is some dialogue going on, but not in the wider public and restricted to specialized circles

There is a reasonably open public dialogue going on but certain issues remain taboo.

There is an open and transparent public dialogue about the state of the protected areas


Institutional Institutions are highly adaptive, responding effectively and immediately to change

Institutions resist change

Institutions do change but only very slowly

Institutions tend to adapt in response to change but not always very effectively or with some delay

Institutions are highly adaptive, responding effectively and immediately to change


Institutional Institutions have effective internal mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning

There are no mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting or learning

There are some mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and

Reasonable mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and

Institutions have effective internal mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation,

86





Satisfactory State


learning but they are limited and weak

learning are in place but are not as strong or comprehensive as they could be

reporting and learning


Individual Individuals are adaptive and continue to learn

There is no measurement of performance or adaptive feedback

Performance is irregularly and poorly measured and there is little use of feedback

There is significant measurement of performance and some feedback but this is not as thorough or comprehensive as it might be

Performance is effectively measured and adaptive feedback utilized

87

Total Budget and Workplan

Part I: Total Budget and Workplan

Award ID: tbdAward Title: PIMS 4185 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN EQUATORIAL GUINEA FOR THE CONSERVATION OF REPRESENTATIVE ECOSYSTEMS AND

GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT BIODIVERSITYProject ID: tbdProject Title: PIMS 4185 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN EQUATORIAL GUINEA FOR THE CONSERVATION OF REPRESENTATIVE ECOSYSTEMS AND

GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT BIODIVERSITYExecuting Agency: Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment (MdePyMA), Government of Equatorial Guinea

GEF Outcome/Atlas

ActivityResParty

(IA) SoF

Atlas Budget Account

Code Input

Amount (USD) Year 1 (2010)



Amount (USD) Year 4 (2013) Total (USD)

Budget Notes

OUTCOME 1

GEF 72100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30,578 25,649 21,248 0 77,475 1GEF 71200 INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS 102,000 106,000 56,000 0 264,000 2GEF 71300 LOCAL CONSULTANTS 13,640 14,185 9,484 0 37,309 3GEF 71600 TRAVEL 83,363 0 0 0 83,363 4

Total Component 1 (GEF) 229,581 145,834 86,732 0 462,147 OUTCOME 2

GEF 72100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36,563 34,395 25,406 26,223 122,587 5GEF 71200 INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS 24,500 51,000 13,000 13,500 102,000 6GEF 71300 LOCAL CONSULTANTS 0 6,755 0 0 6,755 7GEF 71600 TRAVEL 21,384 30,507 21,989 20,989 94,869 8

UNDP-CO 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000GEF 72600 GRANTS 20,000 41,600 43,265 44,995 149,860 9

GEF 74100RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - PREMISES 4,780 4,971 5,170 5,377 20,298 10

GEF 74300RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - TECH EQ 800 832 865 900 3,397 11

Total Component 2 (GEF) 108,027 170,060 109,695 111,984 499,766 Total Component 2 (UNDP-CO) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000

OUTCOME 3

GEF 72100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 51,645 53,680 45,644 44,011 194,980 12GEF 71200 INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS 24,823 51,041 20,136 0 96,000 13

88

GEF 71300 LOCAL CONSULTANTS 9,483 9,862 10,256 2,630 32,231 14GEF 71600 TRAVEL 12,855 13,369 13,904 1,982 42,110 15GEF 72400 COMMUNIC & AUDIO VISUAL EQUIP 4,541 4,722 5,572 5,206 20,041 16GEF 72500 SUPPLIES 480 499 519 540 2,038 17GEF 72600 GRANTS 30,000 31,200 32,448 33,746 127,394 18GEF 72800 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIP 3,600 3,744 3,894 4,050 15,288 19

GEF 74100RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - PREMISES 4,800 4,992 5,192 5,399 20,383 20

GEF 74200AUDIOVISUAL & PRINT PROD COSTS 16,830 17,672 18,555 19,483 72,540 21

GEF 74300RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - TECH EQ 1,200 1,248 1,298 2,700 6,446 22

Total Component 3 (GEF) 160,257 192,029 157,418 119,747 629,451 Project Management

GEF 61100 PROJECT UNIT SALARIES 34,286 35,657 37,085 38,566 145,594 23GEF 72800 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIP 15,000 0 16,224 0 31,224 24

Total Project Management (GEF) 49,286 35,657 53,309 38,566 176,818 TOTAL (GEF) 547,151 543,580 407,154 270,297 1,768,182

TOTAL (UNDP-CO) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000PROJECT TOTAL 597,151 593,580 457,154 320,297 1,968,182

TOTAL BUDGET SUMMARY

Responsible Party/ Implementing AgentAmount Year

1 (USD)Amount Year

2 (USD)Amount Year

3 (USD)Amount Year

4 (USD)Total (USD)

GEF 547,151 543,580 407,154 270,297 1,768,182

UNDP-CO (Cash) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000Government of Equatorial Guinea (Cash) 800,639 916,253 727,038 556,071 3,000,000Government of Equatorial Guinea (In kind) 298,905 342,068 271,427 207,600 1,120,000Conservation International (Cash) 12,380 12,180 10,220 9,780 44,560Conservation International (In kind) 58,720 49,520 40,120 29,880 178,240BBPP (Cash) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 60,000BBPP (In kind) 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 300,000ANDEGE (In kind) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 30,000GRAND TOTAL 1,865,295 2,011,101 1,603,459 1,221,128 6,700,982

89

Part II: Budget Notes

General Cost Factors:

90. International consultants are budgeted at $3600 per week. Local consultants are compensated as in Annex C. An annual inflation rate of 8% is assumed for all local costs and 5% for international costs.

OutcomeBudget

note SoFAtlas code Line item Note

OUTCOME 1: 1 GEF 72100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 155 weeks of contracted time: Project Director 85Project Sub-Director 15Financial Director 32Technical Assistant 23

compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $77,475, other sources cover $118,390.

2 GEF 71200 INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS

88 weeks of international consultant time:Policy 16Legal 34Carbon 16Financial 22

compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $264,000.3 GEF 71300 LOCAL CONSULTANTS 111 weeks of local consultant time:

Policy 26Legal 35Carbon 20Financial 30

compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $37,308, other sources cover $37,308. Local consultants will work as counterparts to their respective international colleagues, with extra preparatory and follow-up time.

4 GEF 71600 TRAVEL 28 international RT tickets @$3600; 76 local tickets @$200; 56 weeks international subsistence @ $875/week, 134 weeks local subsistence @ $750/week, and 450 weeks meeting participant subsistence @ $450/week.

OUTCOME 2: 5 GEF 72100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 301 weeks of contracted time:Project Director 36Project Sub-Director 72Financial Director 44Mainland Technical Manager 48Bioko Technical Manager 13Bioko field unit 1 9Bioko field unit 2 9Bioko field unit 3 9Bioko field unit 4 9Technical Assistant 52

compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $122,587 other sources cover $219,886.


34 weeks of international consultant time:Biodiversity 24PA Training 10

compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $102,000.7 GEF 71300 LOCAL CONSULTANTS 80 weeks of local consultant time:

Biodiversity 60

90

PA Training 20compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $6,755 other sources cover $48,126. Local consultants will work as counterparts to their respective international colleagues, with extra preparatory and follow-up time.

8 GEFUNDP-

CO

71600 TRAVEL 24 international RT tickets @$3600; 274 local tickets @$200; 328 weeks international subsistence @ $875/week (for Guineans studying abroad), 39 weeks local subsistence @ $750/week, and 132 weeks meeting participant subsistence @ $450/week. UNDP-CO contributes $50,000/year.

9 GEF 72600 GRANTS $149,858 in grants for biodiversity and carbon baseline field research and to build Guinean NGO capacity.

10 GEF 74100 RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - PREMISES

$20,298 for office rent, meeting room rent, custodial services, and utilities;

11 GEF 74300 RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - TECH EQ

$3,397 for technology equipment maintenance.

OUTCOME 3: 12 GEF 72100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 145 weeks of contracted time:Project Director 20Project Sub-Director 40Financial Director 54Mainland Technical Manager 116Bioko Technical Manager 189Bioko field unit 1 198Bioko field unit 2 198Bioko field unit 3 198Bioko field unit 4 198Technical Assistant 37



32 weeks of international consultant time:PA Training 10PA Planning 10Business 10

Financial 2compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $96,000.

14 GEF 71300 LOCAL CONSULTANTS 126 weeks of local consultant time:Legal 18PA Planning 48Business 12Crop Damage 48

compensated as in Annex C. GEF funds cover $32,231 other sources cover $53,576. Local consultants will work as counterparts to their respective international colleagues, with extra preparatory and follow-up time.

15 GEF 71600 TRAVEL 4 international RT tickets @$3600; 86 local tickets @$200 (for Guinean NGO network meeting travel); 32 weeks international subsistence @ $875/week; 142 weeks local subsistence @ $750/week, 193 weeks meeting subsistence.

16 GEF 72400 COMMUNIC & AUDIO VISUAL EQUIP

$15,403 in audiovisual equipment for a public environmental education/sensitization campaign. $4,639 for land a mobile telephone, email, etc.

17 GEF 72500 SUPPLIES $2,038 in office supplies.18 GEF 72600 GRANTS $127,394 in grants to support a public environmental

education/sensitization campaign.19 GEF 72800 INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY EQUIP15,287 for 3 computers ~@$2500; software for each ~@$3000, and computer supplies for each ~@$500;

20 GEF 74100 RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - PREMISES

$20,298 for office rent, meeting room rent, custodial services, and utilities;

91

21 GEF 74200 AUDIOVISUAL & PRINT PROD COSTS

$72,539 to support a public environmental education/sensitization campaign.

22 GEF 74300 RENTAL & MAINTENANCE - TECH EQ

$6,446 for technology equipment maintenance.

Project Management

23 GEF 61100 PROJECT UNIT SALARIES 169 weeks of salaried time:Project Director 48Project Sub-Director 48Financial Director 48Mainland Technical Manager 8Bioko Technical Manager 8Technical Assistant 9


24 GEF 72800 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIP

5 computers ~@$2500; software for each ~@$3000, and computer supplies for each ~@$500;

92