FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):€¦ · Web viewP073020 . Country: Cameroon. Project Title: Forestry and Environmental Sector Adjustment Credit (FESAC) GEF Implementing Agency: World Bank

AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: P073020 COUNTRY: CameroonPROJECT TITLE: Forestry and Environmental Sector Adjustment Credit (FESAC)GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: World BankOTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): Cameroon Ministry of Environment and ForestsDURATION: 5 years (2004-2009)GEF FOCAL AREA: BiodiversityGEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP1: Arid and Semi-arid Zones Ecosystems; OP2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, OP3: Forest Ecosystems; OP4: Mountain EcosystemsGEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: SP1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas; SP2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors; SP4: Generation and Dissemination of Best Practices for Addressing Current and Emerging Biodiversity IssuesESTIMATED STARTING DATE: December 1,2004IA FEE: US$ 839,000

CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN: Hectares of land under improved management for conservation protection; Hectares of productive landscapes, including land around protected areas that are under productive use, but support habitats and ecosystems.

Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government(s):Nantchou Ngoko Justin, Secretary General Date: April 1, 2004 Ministry of Environment and Forestry

FINANCING PLAN (US$)GEF PROJECT/COMPONENTProject 10,000,000PDF B 267,150Sub-Total GEF 10,267,150

CO-FINANCING*IDA 15,000,000Govt. of Cameroon 27,000,000European Commission 2,000,000DFID 13,000,000CIDA 10,000,000AFD 8,000,000KfW 6,800,000WWF 2,300,000WCS 800,000FEDEC 800,000FFEM 1,100,000Funding Gap 29,732,850Sub-Total Co-financing: 116,532,850Total operation Financing:

126,800,000

*Details provided under the Financial Modality and Cost Effectiveness section

Approved on behalf of the World Bank. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Review Criteria for work program inclusion

Steve Gorman, For GEF Executive Coordinator,

Project Contact PersonChristophe Crepin (World Bank) 202-473-9727, <[email protected]>

The World Bank Date: April 5, 2004

1

PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARYGEF COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM SUBMISSION

1. SUMMARY

Background Rationale

This operation is designed to promote an overall landscape/ecosystem management approach in Cameroon by linking sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation. The forest sector is Cameroon’s largest non-public sector employer and non-oil export earner. The country exports the highest volume and value of wood of all African countries and has the continent’s greatest wood processing capacity. At the same time, much of Cameroon’s biodiversity is found within its forest ecosystems, some of which are protected in a large system of national parks and reserves that cover about 14 percent of the national land area. The network of Cameroon’s protected area is composed of 10 National Parks, 6 faunal reserves, 1 wildlife sanctuary, 31 hunting zones in the savanna and 10 hunting zones in the forest overlaying UFAs (FMUs). There are also a number of proposed protected areas and critical sites (details in Annex 9 of the Brief). Pressures and threats faced by protected areas in Cameroon are similar to those of other west/central African countries, including poaching, temporal occupation (land invasion), bush fires, exploitation in PA, illegal trade in species (commercial), forest exploitation etc. Besides given Cameroon’s relatively low population density and good crop growing conditions, land scarcity per se is not a leading factor for resource degradation. More specific root causes identified are (1) lack of agricultural inputs to stabilize fertility levels, and farmers’ familiarity with adequate crop rotations, (2) lack of opportunities to derive sustainable benefits from wildlife management; (2) weak support and funding to plan and manage protected areas (3) inadequate incentives for involving good corporate citizens in conservation and game reserve management (4) the persistence of a context that tolerates inequity and does not stimulate participation (section B.2 of the project brief provides further details).

The operation will focus on Ecosystem Units, areas comprising interconnected protected areas, hunting zones and gazetted production forests. By strengthening national institutions, civil society and the private sector, the operation will improve the quality and effectiveness of forest management and ecosystem protection, maintain the productive capacity of ecosystems and promote more environmentally and socially responsible forest management. The proposed Forest and Environment Sector Adjustment Program (FESAP or PSFE) pursues sustainable forests management and biodiversity conservation goals in an integrated fashion. It will be supported by IDA and GEF through a Forest and Environment Sector Adjustment Credit (FESAC). For purposes of coherency both the program and the operation will hitherto be referred to as FESAC.

Rationale for choice of an Adjustment Instrument

Analytical Work on Bank Experience with Adjustment in the area of Forest and Environment: Analytical work undertaken by the OED1 and by the World Resources Institute2 concluded that under certain circumstance, adjustment lending can effectively foster forest policy reform and reform implementation. These reports note that previous forest policy reviews by the Bank and other partners focused on the positive and negative impacts of project specific investment loans and emphasized the unintended, usually negative, social and environmental impact of structural adjustment efforts. The WRI report reviewed the Bank experience in Papua New Guinea, Cameroon, Indonesia and Kenya, and concluded that: a) World Bank support should broaden 1 Forest Policy Implementation Review, OED, 20002 The Right Conditions – The World Bank, Structural Adjustment and Forest Policy Reform, WRI, 2000

2

beyond forest sector management efficiency to embrace more fundamental equity and sustainability considerations; b) the Bank should use adjustment instruments only with Governments that have demonstrably internalized the importance of reforms and the necessity of reform implementation; c) Bank supported forest and environment adjustment should link the forest and governance agendas.

The recommendations resulting from the key pieces of analytical work on the Bank experience with adjustment in the area of forest and environment are grouped in seven areas in the WRI report. These are: a) application of safeguard; b) sustained sectoral engagement; c) stakeholder engagement; d) conditionality engineering; e) staffing and incentives; f) selectivity; and g) governance agenda.

The design of the proposed FESAC builds upon the overall findings and recommendations of the above analytical work.

Emerging Bank Experience with Adjustment in the Environmental Sector: While forest and the environment continue to feature as components of more traditional multisectoral policy-based adjustment, a growing number of prominent environment operations use sectoral, programmatic and institutional adjustment as a vehicle for Bank support. Examples considered include the recently-approved and soon-to-be approved environment loans for the Philippines, Mexico, Bulgaria, Brazil, Colombia, and Cameroon3. From these it becomes clear that a trend towards using adjustment in the environment sector is clearly emerging.

In general looking at the full set of these operations the major highlights of these operations are that: a) all include multiple conditions for tranche release, even though there may be a single tranche; b) some operations include elements of policy reform and reform implementation; c) some operations help increase national capacity building and contribute towards national funding and leveraging additional funds for environmental programs; and d) most operations help establish intersectoral linkages and win support from Environment sector institutions. Significantly, also notable is that all the operations show satisfactory implementation and implementation completion ratings.

Consequently, FESAC has been designed based on these past experience in adjustment loans and on the lessons that emerged from these operations (including Mexico, Bulgaria, Philippines, Columbia). Some of the major lessons learned from the successful operation in Mexico include: (a) importance of a strong analytical base (which includes technical, institutional, and political economy analyses) and a good understanding of the institutional framework, including both the informal and formal rule aspects is essential. (b) ensuring that the weakest have a voice and are not disproportionately affected, and how best to ensure that within the country’s particular institutional setting, both changes in the formal rules in the short term, as well as longer term behavioral changes, are emphasized; (c) in adjustment loans typically inter-sectoral coordination is a slow process and needs continuous budgetary and technical support and; (d) focusing on a few central actions and on impact and results more broadly in the design of the Program.

3 Mexico: Programmatic Environment Structural adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 71360); Bulgaria: Environment and privatization support Adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 45380); Philippines: Environment and Natural Resources Sector Adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 33600); Columbia: Programmatic Sustainable Development Structural Adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 71630).

3

The operation also draws upon the lessons learned from several environment technical assistance operations in the environment sector. A first major lesson from these operations is the importance of aligning institutional incentives with the implementation of environmental components and the importance of public participation and transparency in cross-sectoral and politically charged projects. Relevant lessons learned from the recently-closed Colombia Urban Environment Management TA Project and the Colombia Urban Transport Project include the importance of the upfront establishment of results and impact indicators, as well as inter-institutional coordination mechanisms

A lesson of general relevance that emerged from the operation in Bulgaria is that when considering alternative lending instruments, the Bank’s main value added is linked to (i) the introduction of an appropriate policy and regulatory framework; (ii) the transfer of international best practices in assessing environmental risks and identifying cost-effective ways of addressing them; and (iii) the definition of proper mechanisms for the implementation of environmental policies and activities. Therefore it needs to be understood that well designed adjustment operations can be more effective than sector investment loans to address specific problems that often prove intractable with other instruments. The first one is taking forest and environment issues out of an institutional ghetto where they do not receive the attention of central financial authorities, other Government Departments and the justice system, and whose cooperation is key for the success of forest and environment programs.

Cameroon- a good candidate for the proposed sectoral adjustment approach: Cameroon appears to be a good candidate for sector adjustment on three main grounds: a) past experience; b) current situation of the sector; and c) Mainstreaming forest sector support into the future directions decided for Bank Portfolio

a) Past Experience: All Bank Forest Sector Investment Lending failed in Cameroon. World Bank support began with the funding of three Provincial rural development projects in 1978, 1980 and 1984. They involved development of small-scale industrial plantations and erosion control. In 1982, the first full-fledged forest project was approved. It ended in 1990 following troubled implementation and cancellation of about US$ 12.0 million of a US$ 17.0 million loan. No more forest related sector investment lending took place since then. Between 1990 and 1997, the Bank focused exclusively on policy dialogue to improve the forest policy framework and eliminate major distortions in Cameroon. Forest reforms featured prominently in the Third Structural Adjustment Credit for Cameroon. Experience showed that the Forest and Environment Sector did not have the capacity to reform itself while enjoying discrete support through operations it could manage almost independently of other Government and non-Government partners. At the same time, lack of incentives for central financial authorities to be involved in the sector, resulted in extremely low level of national funding and chronic problems with counterpart funding.

While the situation seemed to improve during the final phase of the recently closed GEF supported PGCP, the reasons for heightened Government attention and improved performance should be traced to the policy and functional links the Bank team was able to build between the GEF operation, the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project and CASIII.

b) Current situation of Cameroon and of the sector: Cameroon and the proposed FESAC meet the need for all necessary requirements for a successful forest and environmental adjustment as

4

outlined in the before mentioned OED and WRI studies. More specifically, the country has in place a body of reforms and legislation that demonstrate strong commitment to change. In other words, the operation will not be buying reforms the Government may be unwilling to pursue, but rather providing a structured framework and result-based incentives for reform implementation.

In forest-rich countries where forest funds have been established, and certainly in Cameroon, performance of forest and environment programs does not depend on resource availability per se, and external financing of selected expenditures, as is the case in traditional projects does not offer adequate solutions. Rather, sector performance depends upon the quality of inter-sectoral linkages, on giving central financial authority’s direct responsibility for securing national and donor funding to the sector, and on the ability to gather high level political support to the agreed reforms and to the team of reformers leading the reform process. Given that Cameroon needs strengthening of national institutions, merging individual projects into a national forest program and adopting this program as the sole sector development program for national agencies and donors to follow and contribute to, the structural adjustment offers a more flexible opportunity for addressing these issues. c) Mainstreaming forest sector support into the future directions decided for Bank Portfolio : In line with the “Result-based 2003 CAS” this operation adopts an “outcome-based approach, and thus is mentioned as an adjustment operation in the 2003 CAS and the ROC has cleared this operation as an adjustment. Furthermore, the CAS announces that during its implementation period Bank portfolio will shift from project-based to a programmatic approach. FESAC is also consistent and based upon Bank’s experience with the PRSP, which also uses a credit instrument, PRSC (Poverty Reduction Support Credit), to support selective cross-cutting themes, such as the PRSC for Benin. Besides promoting inter-sectoral collaboration and coordination, PRSC’s are also based upon an agreed set of measurable indicators for tacking progress of their operations. As designed, this operation will help lead process of change in the Bank portfolio in Cameroon, will ascertain the best conditions for forest sector support and will help integrate them into future PRSC operations.

Additionally, the February 2004 draft ICR of the same operation concluded that in the Cameroon environment, adjustment is a more suitable instrument to operate in the forest sector. Using an adjustment instrument is expected to help: reward results rather than financing individual inputs; mobilize high level attention to forest and environment issues from the Prime Minister's office and from Ministries other than Forests; stimulate systemic improvements in the sector's procurement and financial management capacity, and its ability to mobilize and absorb financial resources effectively. Using this approach will also help provide MINEF with a critical mass of resources to implement a consolidated national forest and biodiversity program, instead of being dependent on large number of separate donor-led operations.

The case for using an adjustment instrument grew even stronger following the success of the forest component of the Third Structural Adjustment Credit for Cameroon (SACIII), and the realization that in implementing SACIII forest sector reforms the Government demonstrated its ability to mobilize financial resources, and procure goods and services in a timely, effective and relatively transparent manner. A review of SACIII undertaken by QAG in September 2002 concluded that forest sector structural and policy reforms had been well-implemented and were likely to achieve their intended objective. The Country Team recommended that the new FESAC

5

operation build upon the successful experience of the SACIII and maintain the momentum this operation helped create.

Against the above background, FESAC has been designed based on the fact that the operation will address head-on the implementation challenges that have traditionally hampered successful conventional development lending in Cameroon (slow disbursements, insufficient or out-of-sync counterpart funds, and the disconnect between stated goals and outcomes of financed activities). While packaged as a SECAL, FESAC was prepared in a manner typical of investment operations and programmatic sector lending; the design, planning and consultation processes were those used for investment operations as were the economic, social and environmental impact analyses, and applicable safeguard policies.

Rationale for GEF and Bank involvementThe FESAC finds its origin in the 1996 Cameroon Country Assistance Strategy, which noted the need for a forest program and stated that Cameroon's long-term development should be associated with sustainable use of natural resources, including forests and biodiversity. The 1998 update of the CAS included natural resources management as one of five major challenges to be addressed. The operation is consistent with, and specifically referred to in, Cameroon’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan (PRSP), the 2003 CAS FY04-06 lending program, and the HIPC framework. In the 2003 CAS, forestry is singled out as a key sector for assistance in the goals of continuing the implementation of on-going macro and structural reforms and building a foundation for broad-based poverty alleviation. Additionally this operation complies with the selected Bank’s Operational Directives on natural habitats, forestry, indigenous people and involuntary settlement (Annex 12 of the Brief provides a summary analysis of the compliance against the operational directives).

The Bank has led the forest policy reform process in Cameroon for the past 10 years, and has established a constructive dialogue with key players in the sector. The Bank is uniquely positioned to generate further confidence in the forestry sector, ensure long-term support from other donors, ensure balance among different points of view and guarantee representation of a wide variety of stakeholders and interests. Sustainable management of forests and effective protection of national parks and reserve is specifically consistent with the CAS goal of strengthening the institutional framework for improved pro-poor economic management & service delivery through Bank assistance. Because the operation will also require significant involvement of the private sector, it also contributes to the second goal of Bank assistance, namely supporting private sector development to diversify the economy and accelerate growth. Given the past experience of the Bank in the region, further involvement of the Bank is based on the lessons learnt from earlier experiences (described later in section 5 -core commitments and linkages, of this executive summary).

An important strategic priority of GEF is the landscape approach as well as the mainstreaming of biodiversity in production landscape. In line with the GEF strategic priority, FESAC will help connected forests under different regimes to be managed according to a greater plan that accounts for the potential and specificity of each and for biodiversity. GEF’s contribution to this operation will directly help ensure the creation of 176,000 ha new protected area of intact mangrove’s forest and in a tropical forest area known to have the highest level of speciation in Cameroon. The proposed network of protected areas and critical conservation sites under FESAP will cover an area of about 4.6 million hectares (not including the ZICs or sport hunting zones).

6

Of this about 1.4 million hectare is considered to be effectively managed today as part of the baseline. And of the total area FESAC will contribute to the effective management of 1.86 million hectares core protected area not including the forest and wildlife resources in the peripheral zones of the targeted “Ecosystem Units” (details are provided in the incremental costs analysis, annexed at A). Other financial support to FESAP (from EU, French Bilateral, WWF and WCS) will contribute to the effective management of another 1.5 million hectare. During the initial 3 years FESAC will promote the creation of an improved institutional framework that will allow strengthening of the institutional capacity and financial sustainability of the protected areas.

ObjectivesThe operation’s development objective is to strengthen public and private efforts to achieve socio-economically and ecologically sustainable use of national forest and wildlife resources. Within this objective, the operation seeks to: (1) promote the sustainable management of rainforests and savanna lands; (2) increase local community involvement in and benefits from sustainable management of natural resources; (3) improve the institutional and organizational capacity to implement new policies and regulations for forest management and timber industry development; and (4) enhance conservation of biodiversity and supply environmental services of national and global relevance.

The operation's global objective is to improve the long-term prospects for globally important biodiversity within Cameroon's network of Ecosystem Units.

Outputs and ActivitiesThis operation has been designed to overlap with, enhance and support the country’s annual forest sector programs, through five components which are essentially policy areas to be supported through the adjustment credit. These are: (1) Regulation and Environment Information Management; (2) Production Forests Management; (3) Protected Area and Wildlife Management; (4) Community Forest Resources Management; and (5) Institutional Strengthening, Training and Research. The operation’s outputs for each component are summarized below. More details on each sub-component and its activities and tasks are provided in the GEF Brief (Annex 2: Detailed Description) and Annex B (Logframe) at the end of this Executive Summary.

1. Regulation and Environment Information Management: This component aims to provide the Government of Cameroon with all the information and tools needed to elaborate comprehensive plans for environment and natural resource management. It will have three subcomponents:

1.1 Environmental Regulations and Impact Assessment: This sub-component will contribute to (i) preparation of environmental standards; (ii) drafting and approbation of environmental regulations; (iii) information and training on regulation enforcement; (iv) preparation of a guide for impact assessment and training for its use; (v) environmental audits; and (vi) studies on financial and fiscal mechanisms for sustainability of impact assessment.

1.2 Cartography and Multi-resource Inventories: This subcomponent will fill the information gaps in the current vegetation maps and inventories of Cameroon and organize a database on timber and non-timber forest products.

1.3 Information and Environmental Awareness: This subcomponent will foster the dissemination of environmental information to all concerned parties.

7

Activities funded under this overall component in line with the GEF mandate and strategic priorities for biodiversity under GEF-3 will include (i) contribution to biodiversity overlay under subcomponents 1 and 2, (ii) environmental awareness campaign, and (iii) design and implementation of a communication strategy under subcomponent 1.3.

The overall output for Component 1 will be: Tools for the sustainable management of the forest-environment sector are put in place and well used by all actors in the sector. GEF related outputs will primarily include enhanced environmental awareness and strengthened cartographic services of MINEF.

2. Production Forests Management: This component aims to create incentives for private companies to manage their forest concessions in a sustainable manner, as well as to reinforce the control of logging activities. The focus will be on commercial forests around PAs that are supported under component 3 (ecosystem approach). It will have five subcomponents:

2.1 Completion of the Country Zoning Plan: This subcomponent will extend the zoning plan to cover the entire country, rather than just the southern zone. It will involve consultation with local communities and include the national network of protected areas.

2.2 Implementation of Forest Management Plans: This subcomponent will help national institutions and other bodies to ensure a landscape approach, a biodiversity overlay in the preparation of management plans and an independent monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the forest management plans for the humid forest production zone.

2.3 Promotion of a Comprehensive Wood Product Industrialization: This sub-component will involve the elaboration and implementation of an industrialization strategy to ensure the sustainable use of forest products and establish incentives to promote a modern and diversified forest industry.

2.4 Control Operations and Sanctions: This subcomponent will assist the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MINEF) in reinforcing its capacity to support control and enforcement for the biodiversity overlay of the impact on protected areas. A consistent strategy of control will be established and sufficient resources will be dedicated to control missions.

2.5 Valorization of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP): This subcomponent will promote NTFPs in both the national and international market.

The overall output for Component 2 will be: Production forests are managed in a sustainable manner and according to legal norms and customs, and the wood production sector and NTFPs valorized in an efficient manner. GEF related outputs in line with GEF mandate and strategic priorities for biodiversity under GEF-3 would include an expanded land use zoning plan, effective implementation of the control strategy and enhanced MINEF capacity to monitor and oversee project activities.

3. Protected Area and Wildlife Management: This component aims to improve management of protected areas and ensure biodiversity conservation while strengthening economic development and securing community benefits. It will have eight subcomponents:

3.1 Biodiversity Planning and Zoning: This subcomponent will support the validation and implementation of an up-to-date network of protected areas and parks,

8

representing more than 90 percent of national biodiversity and covering nearly 17 percent of the national land area. Annex 9 of the Brief provides details of the PA system profile, problems and threats and the PA prioritization process.

3.2 Knowledge and Information Management: This subcomponent will set up a management information system (MIS) linking socio-economic and biological inventories and management plans.

3.3 Participatory Protected Area and Community Wildlife Area Management: This sub-component will strengthen efforts to involve local populations and develop legal frameworks to enhance partnerships and co-management arrangements, both to facilitate and regulate access of local people to NTFPs inside protected areas and wildlife resources in peripheral zones and to ensure redistribution of income from protected areas and wildlife to local communities.

3.4 Design and Implementation of Protected Area Management Plans: This subcomponent will strengthen Government capacity to manage wildlife resources in both national parks and protected areas.

3.5 Optimization of Economic Benefits of Protected Areas and Hunting Zones: This subcomponent will help to define roles and set in place institutional structures to guarantee coherence and synergy among ministries and ensure that protected areas fully contribute to the local and national economies through ecotourism, technology transfer, protected area access fees, fees from grant of access to research and other means.

3.6 Legal and Institutional Reform of Protected Areas and Hunting Zone Management: This subcomponent will focus on reorganizing and strengthening the Department of Wildlife and Protected Areas and the conservation services, as well as establishing new institutional and financial arrangements for managing Cameroon’s wildlife and protected area system

3.7 Sustainable Financing of Wildlife and Protected Area Conservation: This subcomponent will coordinate existing funding initiatives for conservation and further develop a sustainable financing strategy and action plan for the PA network and biodiversity conservation.

3.8 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) Update: This subcomponent will establish a new inter-Ministerial committee to review and update the NBSAP, based on the latest developments in the area.

The overall output for Component 3 will be: A network of protected areas and community-managed wildlife areas, representative of national and regional biodiversity, is sustainably managed with significant benefits for the local and national economies (in particular through focus on ecotourism, technology transfer, protected area access fees, fees from grant of access to research etc.) GEF related outputs in line with GEF mandate and strategic priorities for biodiversity under GEF-3 will include an operational MIS in priority UTOs, improved knowledge of the status of flagship species known in and around the targeted PAs and enhanced capacity to design and implement PA management plans.

4. Community Forest Resources Management : This component aims to promote sustainable uses of natural resources to enhance community revenues. It will have three subcomponents:

4.1 Community Forestry: This subcomponent will help create and strengthen the capacities of agencies mandated for working with communities in the area of rural

9

land management and agro-forestry, as well as the technical capacity of local communities. Under this subcomponent, the focus will on community forests around PAs that are supported under subcomponent 3 and emphasis will be laid to ensure a landscape approach, biodiversity overlay in community forest management and sustainable use of wildlife and NTFPs.

4.2 Reforestation and Forest Regeneration: This subcomponent will initially concentrate on supporting small-scale activities by individuals, groups and communities, mostly in northern and western Cameroon, where sylvicultural successes have already been proven. Activities within the component will also include project-sponsored plantation schemes to attract potential carbon finance partners. Such carbon related opportunities will add tangible value for all stakeholders and will particularly increase benefits from the planter's perspective.

4.3 Promotion of Fuelwood Supply: This sub-component will encourage amendments to the regulatory framework for harvesting fuelwood, promote community managed master plans to supply fuelwood to city markets, and create incentives for the establishment of local enterprises to operate both within and outside gazetted forests.

The overall output for Component 4 will be: Local people participate in environment and forest decision-making processes, benefit from revenue that devolves from the use of forest and wildlife resources and policy/regulation on plantation that incites private investment. GEF related outputs in line with GEF mandate and strategic priorities for biodiversity under GEF-3 would include an increase in carbon stocked in wildlands and plantations, and sustainable use of wildlife and NTFPs.

5. Institutional Strengthening, Training and Research: This component aims to address the present inability of the Government of Cameroon and its partners to implement the ambitious forest sector policy it has defined. It will have four subcomponents:

5.1 Restructuring the ONADEF in ANAFOR: This subcomponent will help with the transition from ONADEF (National Forest Agency) to ANAFOR and strengthen the new agency’s capacity.

5.2 Strengthening MINEF: This subcomponent will focus on the mandate of the MINEF and help implement a reform plan (already validated by the Minister) for the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

5.3 Rehabilitating Education and Research in the Forestry and Environment Sector: This sub-component will focus on strengthening the existing educational framework for the forest and environment sector through program enrichment, training and recruitment of teachers, rehabilitation of buildings and acquisition of equipment, and development of regional and international partnerships.

5.4 Participation and Collaboration: This subcomponent will strengthen private sector, NGO and community-based organizations that will be taking on some of the responsibilities of public sector agencies related to forests and environmental management. This subcomponent will strengthen these actors by disseminating information, promoting consultative and participatory processes, developing knowledge management systems as a vehicle for transferring positive experiences and lessons, fostering partnerships and preparing a replication plan for successful replication of the project.

10

The overall output for Component 5 will be: Institutional and organizational strengthening ensures efficient implementation of national forest policy. GEF related outputs will include enhanced capacity building and strengthening of MINEF, a replication plan and improved partnerships within various agencies in line with the GEF mandate and strategic priorities for capacity building under GEF-3.

Indicators and Triggers:

The operation’s main performance indicators are included in a set of tangible achievements (triggers) tightly linked to the disbursement of the three tranches of IDA and GEF funds. Details on triggers and their link to disbursements are provided in Addendum 2 to Annex B of this Executive Summary. Specific indicators for tranche release per component are provided in Table 1, Annex 6 (M&E system) of the GEF Brief. The key performance indicators for measuring progress toward improved forest management and ecosystem protection are included in the table.

More details on specific indicators for each component and the overall operation’s development objective may be found in Annex 1 of the GEF Brief and Annex B (Logical Framework of the National FESAP) of this summary.

AssumptionsThe critical assumptions upon which overall operation’s success depends include:

The highest political leadership continues to be directly involved in the forest and environment sector management.

The Government allows the community empowerment process to go forward. Cameroon's international credibility as to governance and commitment to environment

increases.There are also additional key assumptions for each individual operation’s component, which are included in the project design summary (Annex B to the Executive summary and Annex 1 in the GEF Brief)

RisksThe critical risks to operation’s completion are based upon the failure of the critical assumptions listed above. Additional potential risks include:

Regulations and information management are not available as needed. MINEF is unable to mobilize adequate staff. FSF is not allowed to function transparently and efficiently both in Yaounde and in

Ecosystem Units. Government does not allow community empowerment over forest management to

proceed. The Office of the President of Cameroon will cease to involve itself in promoting the

country’s international standing. Procurement and financial management capacity is unable to increase rapidly and be

maintained as core function of MINEF's departments and agencies

More details on the full range of risks to the project can be found in Section F (Sustainability and Risks) of the GEF Brief.

2. COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

11

Country EligibilityCameroon ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994, and prepared and approved a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in 2002. Cameroon is eligible for World Bank and GEF funding.

Country DrivennessIn the last several years, the Government of Cameroon has shown an increasingly strong commitment to the forest sector and conservation. At the Yaounde Summit in March 1999, the President of Cameroon convened the First Central African Heads of State Summit on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of the Tropical Forest Ecosystems of the region. Commitments made by the Heads of State during the Summit were later translated into action through the national Plan de Convergence. The Ministers of Forestry and Environment from the participating countries also drew up a joint action plan for conservation and sustainable forest management.

A ten-person mission, led by the Minister of Forests and including high level representatives from the President’s Office, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Finance and Budget, Planning, and the operation preparation team visited the World Bank and GEF to formally submit a comprehensive operation design document for this operation and discuss next steps. Once reassured of strong donor support, the Government formally launched its Forest and Environment Sector Program in June 2003 as its sole development and management program in the forest and biodiversity sector, and invited donors to supplement the resources that the Government was initially able to allocate to start the operation.

The Government’s decision to maintain and extend its network of protected areas to represent national biodiversity, demonstrates a strong commitment to conservation, considering the lost opportunity costs of logging activities on those lands. At the national level the government is driven by the implementation of the 1994 Forest policy, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and more specifically by the consolidation and enhancement of reforms introduced through SACIII.

3. GEF PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

Fit to GEF Operational Program and Strategic PriorityThis operation is consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy for its Biodiversity focal area and supports the objectives set out in several GEF Operational Policies. The operation supports OP1 (Arid and Semi-arid Zones Ecosystems) through savanna habitat conservation in and around Waza in the northernmost portion of the country, OP2 (Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems) through conservation activities in the Ndongore mangroves and crater lakes areas, OP3 (Forest Ecosystems) through activities in Campo Ma’an and Korup Coastal Congolese forests, and OP4 (Mountain Ecosystems) through several protected areas in the Mount Cameroon chain.

The operation also clearly falls under the GEF Strategic Priorities for Biodiversity, including SP1 (Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas) by building capacity and strengthening the public good functions of forest institutions for long-term sustainability, promoting forest management and biodiversity conservation, catalyzing community initiatives, promoting public-private

12

partnerships and using innovative financing mechanisms; SP2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Production Landscapes and Sectors) by facilitating the mainstreaming of biodiversity into production systems, developing specific work programs in the fields of environmental monitoring, policy oversight and law enforcement and market incentive measures, and promoting community-based forest economic activities; and SP4 (Generation and Dissemination of Best Practices for Addressing Current and Emerging Biodiversity Issues) by supporting the dissemination of best practices and experiences, as part of its replication plan from the project to improve the sustainability of GEF impacts in the biodiversity focal area. Without GEF funds, it is likely that national forest zoning would be carried out exclusively for timber production forest, with community forests and protected areas planned and managed independently of each other.

The operation is also consistent with the four main pillars of the FY04-06 GEF Business Plan in the following ways:

1. Strategic planning for enhancing impact on the ground, through a priority setting exercise that selected the most important protected areas within the Cameroon landscape and the operation targeting investments in specific areas with the aim of improving local management capacity.

2. Strengthening country ownership and enhancing country performance, through a results-based approach, with results set by Cameroonian stakeholders, that enables the to genuinely support a national program through its own national financial instruments.

3. Building on the partnership and performance of the GEF Agencies by mobilizing IDA/GEF resources to complement UNDP/GEF support to the operation through the new CAMCOF Foundation and through an MSP mobilized by an international NGO.

4. Maintaining institutional effectiveness, through the combination of IDA and GEF Bank budget resources that enables the Bank as GEF implementing agency to mobilize professional and multiple skills both for quality preparation and implementation.

Finally, the operation is significantly contributing to the GEF Council's call, under GEF3, for the following biodiversity performance measures:

17 million additional hectares of land under “improved” management for conservation (the would help management effectiveness in 2.3 million hectares of protected areas); and

no less than 7 million additional hectares in productive landscape and seascapes, including in and around protected areas that are under productive use that maintain biodiversity (the operation will help management effectiveness in an additional 2.5 million hectares of community forests, hunting zones and gazetted production forests).

Sustainability (including financial sustainability) As long as the Government remains committed to improving forest management and removing and avoiding barriers to better forest stewardship by public institutions, private operators and communities, improvement of the forest and ecosystem conservation and management can be sustainable in Cameroon. The goal of this operation is to support Government reforms, but move from a strictly reforming agenda to a field operation and demonstration agenda. Sustaining a field-based agenda will require reasonable assurance of future recurrent financing through taxes and national budget increases. By reforming the tax structure and increasing the professionalism of private operators in production forests and hunting zones, the operation will generate more income more efficiently, and a share of profit sufficient to generate incentives for sustainable practices.

13

When looking specifically at the financial sustainability and recurrent cost implications of the project’s protected area and biodiversity component, it is to be noted that wildlife reserves, hunting concessions and protected areas have revenues that are too small to cover their own management costs. The proposed operation will address financial sustainability issues as the protected area network is secured and various management and credible options for financing other than grants or credit become available. Overall annual recurrent costs for maintaining Cameroon’s protected area network are estimated at DDS 2.5 million per year. This level of funding was raised in the past from international donors and mostly used by NGOs for area-based projects. While there are no signs that funds for conservation will be tapering off in Cameroon, FESAC will help create the foundation for long term predictability and sustainable funding of the protected area network through increased, more efficient and monitorable public expenditures, financial endowments or other mechanisms. Two Foundations already exist, FEDEC to finance environmental offsets of the construction if the Chad-Cameroon pipeline in Campo Ma'an & Mbam Djerem, and CAMCOF for the western mountainous ecosystem. More are planned including a national foundation that would manage a national endowment. While no capital is identified for such endowment yet, it is expected that FESAC will help stimulate the establishment, strengthening and capitalization of such a foundation & its endowment.

Significantly, the operation will include the development of a financial sustainability strategy and action plan for the PA network and biodiversity conservation. The basic elements of this financial sustainability strategy and action plan are improved government policies, increased government support for the PA network, cost-effectiveness and creation of a conservation trust fund. These elements have been designed in line with the operations components and key indicators, which focus upon improving the regulatory framework (through components 1, 3 and 5), providing support for effective management of PAs within the network and development of the sustainable financing strategy (through component 3). The process of putting in place the strategy and action plan is expected to begin in the first phase of the implementation of the operation. However it needs to be borne in mind that the process of endorsement through the government is a slow and long process and as a result requires flexibility in its approval stages. To ensure a timely and effective result, the preparation of a draft strategy will be a trigger for release of floating tranche two and an approved financial strategy for implementation will be the trigger for release of the floating tranche 3 (see Annex 5).

Sustainability of the operation at the local level will be sought by proposing options that make financial and social sense at the family, community and local enterprise level. Success at the local level will depend on achieving sustainable production that adequately meets local needs for forest products, the attractiveness of operation activities to relevant stakeholders, and the capacity to mobilize long-term funding for global externalities. The operation is committed to implementing a genuine participatory and community empowerment process, to ensure a high degree of ownership by the beneficiaries.

In the context of the need to maintain the level of public expenditure, following the closing of the operation it is noteworthy to indicate that the project does not involve a large increase of public spending after the end of FESAC (see also section E of the Brief on fiscal impact). Resources potentially available for the forest sector through the existing Forest Fund Mechanism exceed largely what is actually allocated and spent in the sector. The FESAC will enable the sector to increase its capacity to deliver on its work program and convince central financial authorities that allocated amounts are spent on worthwhile activities. As to maintaining a steady level of

14

replacement of investments and new investments, it is reasonable to think that donor interest in Cameroon will not cease with the end of the project. Furthermore, it is expected that especially after HIPC debt reduction to Cameroon, donor support will not be vital to financing the sector. However it will continue to be extremely important to leverage high level political support and visibility for the environmental and forest agenda.

Replicability

Given its focus on results and its consistency with Governments’, donors’ and Bank’s growing preference for result-based interventions and budget support funding mechanisms, the operation appears to be highly replicable. The operation offers the Government and the donor community a flexible framework for collaboration among themselves and with the Government in the implementation of national sector reform and development programs. Based on the 2003 CAS document, the activities initiated under the present operation would be taken up for replication under a future PRSC operation.

Replication Plan: This operation itself is expected to generate additional lessons which can lead to the development of strategies for the long-term financing of the protected area network in other regions. Given that the operation will lead to building enough credibility for effectively managing institutions responsible for Cameroon’s protected area system, best practice experiences could be shared with other countries in the region or within remaining areas in the same geographic location through other sources of funding. An important output of the operation will be strengthened national and international partnerships between the government, private/public sector, national institutions, bilateral and multilateral donors. These enhanced partnerships and an enhanced donor coordination will create an atmosphere of shared and evolving responsibilities and would prove to be a strong vehicle for future replication. The training and capacity building activities planned under the rehabilitating education and research in the forestry sector component, will lead to increased capacities at both the individual and institutional levels. These capacities will be further exploited for development of future programs and projects. A replication plan will be prepared by the end of Tranche two.

Stakeholder InvolvementKey stakeholders in this operation include the people of Cameroon, national institutions and NGOs, local governments, villages and communities in forest/woodland adjacent communities, and forest companies and traditional small-scale saw-millers. The international community interested in global environmental and governance issues should also be included among the operation stakeholders. The operation will also work closely with international conservation NGOs, which have played a major role in the conservation, financing and promotion of biodiversity in Cameroon over the last decade. During preparation, a detailed stakeholder mapping exercise was completed to identify different types of stakeholders and the special needs and opportunities for collaboration with each group. Based upon which a stakeholder participation plan has been elaborated for FESAC which has been annexed at 10 in the GEF Brief.

Since January 2001, the operation’s concept has been discussed publicly with a range of stakeholders. The participatory consultation process has included:

Two national seminars, in June 2000 and December 2002, with field-level staff, NGOs, representatives of the private sector and the national press;

15

Regular meetings with projects, donors, private sector and NGO representatives in Yaounde, as well as other parts of the Government such as the Ministries of Finance, Agriculture and Land Management and the Prime Minister's Office;

Workshops specifically dedicated to local NGOs and external MINEF staff; and Field missions to the provinces, including ten regional workshops.

Monitoring and EvaluationThe operation will be subject to supervision and evaluation as any other operation. The operation will notably have more intensive scrutiny than for development projects because all indicators of outcome need to be evaluated and found satisfactory at the time of tranche release. The basis for evaluation will be the matrix of actions and outcome. The Bank and the Government have agreed on a subset of representative indicators that will trigger tranche disbursement for both IDA and GEF financing of the project. For more details on triggers and disbursement mechanisms, see Addendum A to Annex 5 (Matrix of actions and Indicators) and Table 1 Annex 6 (M&E system) of the GEF Brief. Monitoring of these indicators will be carried out by the implementing agencies, with verification by independent technical auditors.

The government is committed to the overall performance indicators that are identified for tranche release. In that context for this operation the overall outcomes including the biodiversity and sustainable forestry related outcomes will be tracked and monitored through the M&E system (Annex 6) developed for the project. In addition the setting up of the ecological monitoring system has been made an important sub-component of FESAP Component 3 to ensure effective measurement of performance. It must also be understood that under the SECAL arrangement floating tranches II and III would be released only after conditions of the fixed tranche I have been satisfactorily met. Once appraised and included in the policy matrix and legal agreement, all conditions for tranche release become binding and should be met. Changing or waiving conditions will require specific authorization from Management or the Board and should be noted in the operation’s documentation.

At the national level, monitoring and evaluation will be overseen by the monitoring and evaluation team in MINEF. This team will be responsible for collecting data, ensuring the preparation and distribution of monitoring reports, signaling problems highlighted by the monitoring data, researching and proposing solutions to these problems, and ensuring the smooth functioning of the monitoring and evaluation network.

Within each regional directorate of forests, a regional monitoring and evaluation team will be responsible for collecting data, sending data to the national monitoring team, and disseminating monitoring reports at the regional level. The financial team will be in charge of ensuring an up-to-date information system related to financial and accounting information for the project. Specialized services will be contracted out for monitoring of implementation of forest management plans, for biomonitoring, geographical information database management, auditing of financial management and procurement. Achievements will be verified by Bank and donor technical missions and by independent technical auditors and monitors specially contracted for that purpose.

As to the involvement of NGOs in the monitoring process, WRI-GFW and Global Witness have participated in SACIII and will participate in the FESAC. The design of the biodiversity

16

component of this operation was undertaken in collaboration with WWF. These agencies as well as other partners will continue to be associated in the implementation of this operation.

Baseline data has been collected and catalogued prior to program implementation, to reflect the baseline and the target to be achieved. The proposed network of protected areas and critical conservation sites under the national FESAP will cover an area of about 4.6 million hectares (not including the ZICs or sport hunting zones). FESAC will contribute to the effective management of 1.8 million hectares. Other financial support to FESAP (from EU, French Bilateral, WWF and WCS) will contribute to the effective management of another 1.5 million hectare. Therefore the total area that would be effectively managed under FESAP would be 3.3 million hectare. Of this as part of the baseline, about 1.3 million hectare is considered to be effectively managed today. Data has been collected from both public and private institutions, as well as the databases of the national monitoring and evaluation team. Once monitoring reports are generated from the data during the project, the coordinating agency (Secretary General of MINEF) will consult them and request information from the system when necessary to identify problems, discuss them with the Minister if needed, and react quickly to improve program performance. The information will also be used by donors, the Government, communities (particularly those involved in Component 4), NGOs and the private sector to assess program implementation and learn about the progress of activities in which they are involved.

4. FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESSThe total cost of the national program has been estimated by the government and its partners at US$126,800,000. The World Bank would support the government in the implementation of the national program by providing US$15,000,000 from IDA and US$10,000,000 from GEF through a Sector Adjustment Credit (SECAL).

Co-financing SourcesName of Co-

financier (source)Classification Type Amount

(US$) Status*IDA Implementing

AgencyLoan 15,000,000 Pledged

Government of Cameroon

Government Cash Funding 27,000,000 Pledged

European Commission

Multilateral agency

Grant 2,000,000 Pledged

DFID Bilateral Development Agency


CIDA Bilateral Development Agency


AFD Bilateral Development Agency

Grant 8,000,000 Under negotiation

KfW Bilateral Development


17

AgencyWWF NGO Grant 2,300,000 PledgedWCS NGO Grant 800,000 PledgedFEDEC Trust Fund Grant 800,000 PledgedFFEM French GEF Grant 1,100,000 PledgedFunding Gap 29,732,850Sub-Total Co-financing 116,532,850

* Reflect the status of discussion with co-financiers. If there are any letters with expressions of interest or commitment, please attach them.

The EU, DFID, Germany, Canada, France and other donors to the forest sector have adopted the Government’s Forest and Environment Program as the sole framework to channel their assistance to Cameroon. The Donors have agreed to channel their support to this Program through two main coordinated instruments: a) sector adjustment and targeted budget support to ease investments; and b) basket funding to meet the costs of national and international technical assistance. The two approaches are complementary, and the combination is endorsed by the donor community as a whole because it will allow to link funding and technical support to the achievement of the results.

GEF and DFID will join the Bank in providing financial support to the Government. Donors less comfortable or familiar with the use of adjustment or budget-based programmatic instruments, such as Canada and Germany will help create a Government managed basked fund for Technical Assistance. DFID and the EU will channel part of their funding this way as well. France’s support will focus on promoting forest management, one of the key areas of the operation. French support will be in the form of financing to enable forest companies to fulfill their obligations in relation to forest management planning and implementation.

Bank administered resources including IDA, GEF and DFID to the tune of US$ 15 million, US$10 million and US$ 8 million, are to be disbursed in three tranches, one fixed tranche to be released at effectiveness, and two floating tranches (two and three) to be released as against conditions that involve the implementation of agreed upon work programs and activities. The amounts to be disbursed are as follows: Fixed Tranche One (US$ 8.0 million); Floating Tranche Two (US$ 12.0 million); Floating Tranche Three (US$ 13.0 million). These Bank-administered resources will be transferred to MINEFIB against the achievement of measurable results. The Government will prepare and share with the Bank and other Donors detailed annual programs designed to achieve the triggers.

5. INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

Core Commitments and Linkages

This operation will replicate and further build on experiences of the previous GEF-funded Biodiversity Conservation and Management Program (PCGBC) and the 1998 World Bank-supported Third Structural Adjustment Credit for Cameroon (SAC III). In the context of PCGBC, its contribution to conservation efforts in Cameroon can be summarized as an initiative that took into consideration growing concerns of conservation in the exercise of zoning and planning for development, in the setting in place of varied systems of participatory management, development of landscape approaches, an increase in basic knowledge, and the acquisition of

18

capacity and experience in the management and coordination of a program with multiple donors and executing agencies. Annex 8 (Experiences and Lessons learnt) provides details on how these past experiences have helped the design of this operation. Overall the major achievements of these programs has been the success of a landscape approach to the conservation of biodiversity building partnerships with stakeholders in the periphery of protected areas and the development of effective partnerships and mutual respect between MINEF and operation executors, mostly international conservation NGOs, which has created an atmosphere of shared and evolving responsibilities. This operation will extend that spirit of cooperation and partnership to confirm and enhance the role of the Government in the management of its protected areas and to build the necessary institutional framework for conservation.

To help the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MINEF) prepare the FESAC, GEF provided financial assistance in the form of a PDF-B focusing on Component 3 “Biodiversity”. Annex 7 of the Project brief highlights the main conclusions of the studies that were carried out and how the outcomes of these PDF-B studies have contributed to the design of FESAC. Under this PDF-B, a system-wide assessment of the present status of protected area4 and of their management effectiveness5 was implemented. Important conclusions for the wildlife and protected areas sectors were drawn. System-wide analyses showed that the existing network of protected areas had a number of important gaps. Consultations with scientists lead to the proposal of an extended network of protected areas with inclusion of mountain, coastal/mangrove/marine and wetlands ecosystems and the forest- savanna transition zone. A number of proposed protected areas and critical sites were confirmed for inclusion into the system. Overall the PDF-B studies enabled MINEF to broaden their biodiversity vision for Cameroon and to develop an institutional reform plan for the Wildlife and Protected Areas Department, to review Cameroon’s protected area network and PA management effectiveness. Significantly, the studies also helped the WWF/MINEF task force to elaborate a draft strategy for wildlife and protected areas of Cameroon. The strategy is structured around the sub-components of FESAC’s Component 3 “Biodiversity”. It describes in general terms the context for each of the sub-components and it proposes the key activities and outputs required to progress in each of these issues. The strategy, once adopted, would contribute to the up dating of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).

Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between and among IAs and EAs

MINEF as the executing agency, has the overall responsibility for the coordination, planning and monitoring and evaluation of the project. However the MINEF will work in partnership with many different stakeholders and coordination mechanisms have been put in place to define clear roles and responsibilities for project implementation. There is significant level of interest in Cameroonian biodiversity by the international NGO and donor community. WWF, IUCN, WCS, and Birdlife International, among others, all have long-standing programs in Cameroon. The European Union, and the French, German, Canadian and British bilateral development cooperation agencies also have a long history of protected area financing, and their commitment remains significant. In recent years, two foundations have emerged: the Foundation for the Environment and the Development of Cameroon (FEDEC), which was set up with Bank assistance to safeguard biodiversity impacted by the construction of an oil pipeline; and the 4 (Evaluation of Cameroon Biodiversity & Development of a Vision for Conservation & Sustainable Management of Natural Ecosystems, MINEF/WWF, Dec. 2002)5 (Evaluation of management effectiveness of Cameroon protected area system, MINEF/WWF, Nov. 2002.)

19

Cameroon Mountains Conservation Foundation (CAMCOF), which was established with UNDP and DFID support for mountain ecosystems.

Nevertheless, although there has not been a lack of funding for protected areas in Cameroon in recent years, many of the large biodiversity programs of the 1990s came to an end between 2001 and 2003. The new USAID Congo Basin Forest Partnership initiative provides financial support to a few sites only. Furthermore, many of the funds that are leveraged by donors and NGOs bypass national institutions and are site specific, therefore promoting a protected area management system where the Government is often absent. The government remains weak in this area, partially as a legacy of past poor government practices and also because of its lack of capacity to manage the area of land under protection, which has recently doubled. By specifically targeting the government framework for improved protected area management and the capacity of the national institution and its staff, GEF funding will complement existing programs and help improve the strength of the Government as a partner in biodiversity conservation.

The operation will complement several other GEF supported activities in Cameroon that satisfy all key GEF eligibility criteria, in particular the UNDP supported CAMCOF and the Bayang Mbo-MSP. Through CAMCOF the UNDP GEF is helping mountain forest communities to embark in forest management thereby enabling connectivity between protected areas, summits or along slopes with important altitudinal gradients. A streamlined approach has been developed for effective coordination between the two GEF Implementing Agencies, keeping in mind the respective comparative advantages for capacity building and investment activities.

Project Implementation ArrangementFESAC implementation will involve the Ministries in charge of Forests and Environment, Planning, Finance and Agriculture. The Secretariat General of MINEF will be the overall coordinator for the operation and will be responsible for providing guidance and oversight of administrative and financial procedure used by MINEF and for ensuring that external audits are organised annually to assess the quality of financial management and procurement. The different departments of MINEF – including forests, general affairs, protected areas and wildlife, wood promotion and transformation, cooperation and projects, ANAFOR, provincial and departmental delegations and protected area UTOs – will be responsible for management of their specific components or sub-components and daily implementation of the project. Field implementation arrangements will be based on a clear division of tasks between the private and public sectors, with the public sector limiting its role to overall coordination, policy formulation, enforcement of regulations, control, interfacing with partners and monitoring performance.

Although MINEF has overall responsibility for the coordination, planning and monitoring and evaluation of the project, the need to work in partnership with many different stakeholders will require a number of national and regional consultation mechanisms. At the national level, a Steering Committee will be created to give overall direction to the project, and each MINEF department responsible for a specific component will be supported by a technical committee. At the provincial level, program committees will be created to ensure coordination between the different executing parties in the field. Finally, the FESAC will benefit from consultation with the CPPM (Comité de Concertation des Partenaires de MINEF) a committee that has successfully operated for about three years facilitating communication and helping build a common vision amongst technical and financial international partners of MINEF in Cameroon.

20

ANNEX A: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

I. OVERVIEW

Global Biodiversity RelevanceSituated in the Gulf of Guinea-- transition between Central and Western Africa sub-regions-- Cameroon stretches over 475 000 km2. Because of its geographical location and its particular geological and climatic history, it is characterized by a rich ecological, cultural and anthropological diversity and ecological transitions. Cameroon occupies an almost unique niche in terms of its biodiversity. It extends from the fringes of the Sahara desert, including part of one of Africa’s most important freshwater lakes, Lake Chad through an entire range of climatic and vegetation zones, south to the rain forest biome of the Congo Basin drainage system. It extends from the highest mountain in West and Central Africa, Mount Cameroon at 4,085 meters elevation down to sea level and below. There are afro-alpine communities at the higher elevations showing affinities with the flora of East Africa’s mountains and Madagascar. The marine coastal waters shelter endemic corals, unique along the entire western coast of Africa. There are marine turtle nesting beaches and extensive mangrove swamps and tidal wetlands of great importance to palearctic migratory wading birds. Crater lakes, the result of Cameroon’s tectonic history, are the smallest areas on earth where speciation has been documented; Barombi Mbo Lake, scarcely two kilometers in diameter, contains seventeen fish species, eleven of which are endemic cichlids. Africa’s chequered climatic history with many periods of cool, dry climate alternating with warm, wet phases has driven the evolutionary processes as forests have alternately expanded and retreated; the fluctuating ecotones extending from lowland forest to the afro-alpine summits are an evolutionary system that is very rare elsewhere in West Africa. One of the consequences is that Cameroon possesses both great species richness and very high levels of endemism. Pleistocene forest refuges (such as the lowland Cross-Sanaga and Cameroon Highlands forests) are today’s biological hotspots.

The results of this history and of these processes are striking. More than 200 species of woody plant have been recorded in a square quadrant of 0.1 ha near the Korup National Park, a figure that is higher than for the supposedly more diverse forests of South-East Asia and South America. In Korup itself, over 5% of the highly diverse tree flora is narrowly endemic. Cameroon possesses some 409 species of mammals, second only to the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country five times as large and representing an important 8.8% of the world’s total mammal species. Cameroon has 848 species of birds, four times the total for the British Isles: Korup alone, 0.5% the size of Britain has more bird species (347 c.f. 240). Nine thousand species of vascular plants have been recorded with at least 156 endemic species, including some 45 on Mount Cameroon alone. Well over 1000 butterfly species have been recorded from the forests of the Bight of Biafra, which is also a centre of diversity for frogs with eight genera largely limited to the region. Cameroon possesses 171 species of amphibian, including the Goliath frog, Conraua goliath that can weigh up to 5Kg, she also has 210 reptile species and 138 fish species. Cameroon possesses about half of Africa’s total of some 52 higher primate species, including narrow endemics such as the Drill, Mandrillus leucophaeus.

Sector Development Programmes:Cameroon finalized its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and distributed it to the World Bank and IMF staff on April 9, 2003. The process of elaborating the PRSP was critically followed by the international community. Cameroon signed up to the Convention of Biological

21

Diversity in 1994 and prepared a National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (NBSAP). A technical panel adopted the NBSAP in April 2002. Even if the political process of approval is not completed, the GoC has already decided to maintain & extend a network of protected areas, representative of the national biodiversity. This initiative represents a strong commitment considering the opportunity costs of logging activities; the fiscal loss is estimated around US$9 millions per year. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF) elaborated a sector wide program, the Forest Environment Sector Programme (FESP), with a strong emphasis on biodiversity conservation and management. Cameroon was the driving force behind the Yaoundé Declaration on the sustainable utilization and conservation of the Tropical Forests in the Central Africa Sub-region and it continues to be an active player in COMIFAC.

International SupportThere is already extraordinary significant interest for Cameroon biodiversity from the international NGO & donor community. WWF, IUCN, WCS, Birdlife international, to name a few, have long-standing program in Cameroon. The European Union, the French, German, Canadian & British cooperation also have a long history of protected area financing and their commitment remains significant. Of particular interest is the newly emerged Foundation for the Environment and the Development of Cameroon (FEDEC) set-up with Bank assistance in the framework of safeguarding biodiversity impacted by the construction of a pipeline (funding from COTCO). The Government institution in charge of protected area, DFAP, is also reorganizing to better manage protected and wildlife areas, but is limited in capacity & in financial resources. Most donors have channeled their funds through foundations and NGOs but they also recognize the necessity to support MINEF’s institutions.

II. FOREST MANAGEMENT & BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN CONTEXT

GoC has made strides in the forestry sector over the past decade. A Forestry Law was enacted in 1994, which has facilitated several positive projects and results. The Government led courageous reforms, establishing a transparent and competitive system to award logging rights, a joint program under the Ministries in charge of Forests and Finance to step up recovery of forest taxes and curb illegal logging. These reforms are implemented with the government continual strong commitment. They have helped Cameroon create a solid foundation of policy, legislation, regulations and partnerships, upon which forest management and biodiversity conservation can be grounded.

A number of past initiatives, have had positive effects on resolving tenure access conflicts. For example SACIII has helped establish the competitive award of concessions with participation of independent observers, adopt a national strategy for allocation of logging rights, adopt six major reforms regarding taxation and industrialization, design and implement a Forest tax revenue Enhancement Program, change the distribution of forest rent to include the local population, adopt rules for the design of forest management plans, establish a guarantee system to ensure compliance with management plans, allowing joint supervision of implementation of management plans and establishing community priority rights to areas to be reserved as community forests.

While achievements have been made, the forestry sector is still fragile, corruption is high and illegal logging continues to be a problem. Its eradication can only be ensured through significant

22

strengthening of the government and non-governmental institutions concerned with implementation and oversight of new regulations, rights and obligations.

Cameroon has an extensive network of existing and proposed protected areas and has shown commitment to allocate new areas for conservation to ensure representativeness of its protected areas system

The Biodiversity Conservation & Management Programme (French acronym PCGBC) that started in 1995 was the first concerted multi-donor and multi-partner initiative strengthening protected area management in Cameroon (see Annex 8 of GEF Brief – Experiences and lessons learned from PCGBC). Through this program, the protected area network was expanded, particularly in the forest and mountain ecological zones. Most protected areas that had international NGO support achieved a minimum level of management effectiveness and as a result their integrity has been ensured

The integrity of protected areas of local or national biological importance, having received no project support, has been compromised. A compounding factor is that the Cameroon protected area classification system as defined in the 1994 Forest law, is restrictive and contains no categories of protected areas allowing inclusive management approaches. This renders some of the protected areas unmanageable within the present legal framework.

Few projects, even those with large budgets, have had positive effect on resolving tenure and access conflicts in and around protected areas, with the exception for Lobéké National Park, Kilum Ijum and Kupé where, during the process of creation, extensive consultation with local communities has been led and use rights of local people over some protected area resources recognized.

Natural resources management in the peripheral zones, at the landscape level, has become a major strategy in conservation management in Cameroon. Partnerships have been developed with private sector to mitigate the impact on wildlife of logging activities, road development and immigration into otherwise sparsely populated areas. Corridor functions are identified for inclusion in management plans for forest concessions and regional development plans. Newly allocated forest concessions (UFAs) bordering protected areas have had a requirement to carry out an Environment Impact Assessment.

To address the remaining gaps in national policies, the GoC has prepared a National Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan (NBSAP). NBSAP encourages provincial authorities to provide adequate protection for endangered species and habitats within the context of forest sector programs and to bring all conservation areas under ‘scientific management’. The NBSAP is broad based, so within the context of preparing the FESAP, it was enhanced in 2002 by the design of a Protected Area & Wildlife Management Strategy and Action Plan (French acronym SCFAP) followed a priority-setting exercise which lead to the identification of 50 protected areas, some already existing some not, which together would secure about 90% of the country biodiversity.

In broad terms, the FESAC aims at strengthening the institutional framework in the environment sector to manage Cameroon’s forestry and wildlife resources in a sustainable manner and ensure that the sector contributes significantly to the national economy, local development and poverty reduction. In the context of the FESAC, an institutional reform will be implemented in which the

23

roles of the different concerned parties in protected area management--Government, private sector, local communities and civil society, NGOs and service providers--will be better defined and the responsibilities clearly shared.

III. BASELINE

DescriptionWithin this institutional and policy context the FESAC seeks to improve the institutional and organization capacity of MINEF to implement new policies and regulations for forest, wildlife and protected area management and timber industry development in partnership with communities and the private sector. The operation will disburse in tranches on the basis of agreed targets. Annex 5 describes the indicators and triggers for tranche release. The operation will adopt a broad sectoral lending approach, and as such, donor contributions to the operation are notional and will be allocated through annual workplans based on the achievement of projected targets and triggers. The operation will include the following components.

1. Regulation and environment information management2. Production forests management3. Protected area & wildlife management4. Community forest resources management5. Institutional strengthening, training & research

Component 1, Regulation and environment information management, will be implemented through 3 sets of activities: (i) Environmental regulations & impact assessment, (ii) Cartography and multi-resources inventories, (iii) Information and environmental awareness.

Component 2, Production Forests management, will be implemented through 5 types of activities: (i) Completion of the Country Zoning Plan, (ii) Implementation of Forest Management Plans, (iii) Promotion of a comprehensive wood product industrialization, (iv) Control operations and sanctions, and (v) Valorization of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP).

Component 3, Protected area & wildlife management, will be implemented through 8 main types of activities: (i) Biodiversity planning & zoning, (ii) Knowledge & information management, (iii) Participatory protected areas & community wildlife areas management, (iv) Design & implementation of protected area management plans, (v) Optimization of economic benefits of protected areas & hunting zones, (vi) Legal & institutional reform of PA & hunting zones management, (vi) Sustainable financing of wildlife & PA conservation and (viii) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) up-date.

Component 4, Community forest resources management, will be implemented through 3 activities: (i) Community Forestry, (ii) Reforestation and forest regeneration, and (iii) Promotion of fuel wood supply.

Component 5, Institutional strengthening, training & research, will be implemented through 4 groups of activities: (i) Restructuring the ONADEF, (ii) Strengthening the MINEF, (iii) Rehabilitating education and research in forestry and environment sector and (iv) Participation and collaboration.

24

The biodiversity dimension of the FESAC is distributed over all component with a strong emphasis in component 3, Protected area and Wildlife Management. It aims at completing and sustainably managing a network of protected areas which will ultimately represent and conserve at least 90% of Cameroon’s biodiversity, as well as establishing connectivity with, and improving management of, biologically important areas that are under production regimes such as production forest, community forests, and wildlife management areas. To enhance biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit sharing, three major strategic axes are addressed in FESAC:

A representative network consistent with national and local development aspirations and manageable with regards to realistic forecasts of future available human and financial resources. It should reconcile ecological representative ness with Cameroon’s socio-economic aspirations to better frame future conservation actions;

Local people become real partners in the management of biodiversity assets and protected areas, without this, protected areas have no future in Cameroon;

An institutional framework and financial mechanisms defined to ensure resourceful and efficient management of the protected area network in the long-term.

System Boundary

The scope of the proposed operation is not location-specific, but rather national. The operation will strengthen national institutions, the civil society and private sector in ways that forest and ecosystem protection will be more effective and forest use better managed, controlled as well as environmentally and socially responsive.

The system boundary is the forestry and environment sector in Cameroon. It encompasses management of Cameroon’s biodiversity and protected areas network, forest management and exploitation - both commercially and communally -, timber transformation, plantations, fuel wood, valorisation of NTFPs, control and monitoring mechanisms and institutional strengthening.

Benefits

The combination of integrated management of protected areas with surrounding UFAs, ZICs, Community Forests and ZICGCs as landscapes or “Ecosystem Units” should make biodiversity conservation in combination with sustainable forest and wildlife exploitation relevant to Cameroon and its rural population. Cameroon’s endowment with rich biological resources with high economic value and its progressive forest policy make it possible to achieve this challenge. The PSFE’s contribution to poverty alleviation is potentially high.

There are also some ”systemic” benefits, which have long terms implications for forest management in Cameroon. For example, the FESAC seeks to establish a comprehensive long-term plan of forest resource management, based on a performing knowledge of the natural resources at the national scale. The optimization of sustainable management of production rainforests is expected to generate substantial fiscal benefit for the country. It will be achieved

25

through effective implementation of management plans, collaboration with industry, diversification of the production and effective control systems.

Benefits will be derived from reorganized forest institutions capable of ensuring effective and transparent implementation of new policies, capturing adequate shares of forest revenues for the state and local communities, involving key stakeholders.

All of the above will generate substantial environmental benefits such as limit soil erosion, maintain fertility & forest cover and, maintain functioning ecosystems with secondary biodiversity & significant wildlife populations in production forests outside protected areas.

Biodiversity conservation will be substantial under the baseline: several protected areas, production forest, community forest & wildlife management areas will be created and better managed. With the proliferation of private and community hunting areas, significant biodiversity and economic benefit is expected. Over the past years, safari hunting has increased with attendant results for the country taxes; however, a plateau will be reached if the practices are not optimized. Overall, the capacity of DFAP both in the centre and in protected areas is not likely to improve to the point that they indeed pilot the sector and implement the national strategy

To appreciate the importance of the forestry and wildlife sector the following annual gross production and revenue values can be advanced:

The total value of 3 million m3 of timber exported: (@$ 150/m3)) $ 450 million Revenue on timber production: $ 60 million Formal employment in sector: 90,000 people Total value artisan timber production (0.3 million m3 @ $100/m3) $ 30 million Informal labour in artisan timber sector 6,000 people Total value of bushmeat $ 40 million Revenue on sport hunting $ 1.5 million Annual value of firewood production in 2 towns of north Cam. $ 15 million Annual value of other NTFPs ……………. Potential annual income from community forests (200) $ 6 million Eco-tourism …………….

CostsThe GoC preparation team assisted with various consultants has prepared an overall budget for the first 5 years of FESAC. The total baseline costs constitute $115.4 million. Total secured baseline costs for the FESAC during the five-year program period are estimated at US$ 85.7 million in current value, with another US$ 29.73 as unsecured funding.

Several sources of financing represent the baseline cost of FESAC. All baseline donor contributions will be allocated across the operation components on an annual basis, corresponding to the achievement of projected outputs and triggers. It is thus not possible at present to be more precise about showing the donor contributions to individual components. As envisaged, EU as well as DFID funding will be through budget support as is proposed for IDA and GEF funding. The amounts pledged will be reviewed and reconfirmed during the final evaluation of the FESAC preparations foreseen for the months March-April 2004. It should be

26

noted that pledged contribution of several donors, ACDI, EU, WWF, WCS, DFID, FEDEC, includes significant, but unidentified, technical assistance. Thus the figures below represent only two thirds of their actual allocation to represent better their real contribution to FESAC, and include a “funding gap” which will, in great part, be filled through the dedicated costs of this technical assistance.

In addition, the Government of Cameroon contribution to protected areas & wildlife is calculated by reallocating wildlife taxes toward the sector. This reform is only possible through the dialogue initiated with the leverage of World Bank GEF resources.

Finally, several other donors have expressed an interest in the FESAC, and for a couple, their potential contributions are under negotiation. If secured, these funds would also feed into the current projected funding gap of the FESAC. Among the SNV are discussing internally each the magnitude of their contribution.

Sources of Baseline Financing US$ million

Government of Cameroon 27.0European Union 2DFID 13CIDA 10KfW 6.8IDA 15.0WWF 2.3WCS .8FEDEC .8AFD 8.0Funding Gap 29.7

Total 115.40

IV. GEF ALTERNATIVE

The proposed Forest and Environment Sector Adjustment Credit (FESAC) will help the government of Cameroon implement and further refine the sector policy and institutional reforms initiated under the Third Structural Adjustment Credit, will promote sustainable management of natural resources, improve sector efficiency, and enhance local and national revenue capture. The operation will do so by strengthening national institutions and civil society, and creating the conditions for local communities and the private sector to invest in the management, conservation and development of forests and natural resources. Rather than pushing for new reforms, the proposed operation will allow Cameroon to stay on the course in a reform process that is already unfolding.

With the GEF alternative, the FESAC Development objective and components are unchanged. The GEF alternative would augment funds to the areas falling already under the program, but would also contribute to the content and form of these baseline program elements, assuring the

27

maintenance of the forest cover and globally significant biodiversity resources in Cameroon, though the following ways:

A dialogue between protected area stakeholders & stakeholders of community forest, production forests (called UFA in Cameroon) & private operator of hunting zones (called ZIC in Cameroon) has been structured. This has enabled the emergence of the concept of Ecological Units through which planning of a large ecologically coherent area is carried out thereby effectively connecting areas of biodiversity importance that under either conservation or production regimes.

By focusing on DFAP’s support, it will increase its capacity to pilot the sector and implement the strategy in the field, reform the country legislation, optimise the management of wildlife areas, hunting practices and revenues and improve community-based management of wildlife areas

By adopting a budget support mechanisms to the Special Wildlife Fund (French acronym FSF) and Special Forest management Fund (FSAF), FESAP will leverage added resources from wildlife and timber taxes by ensuring that the management of the funds becomes transparent, efficient and audited. An improvement of the funds efficiency will improve donor confidence with a multiplier effect of resources.

By focusing on results the national program will not only improve the ownership of MINEF & DFAP’s but also accelerate the speed of new protected areas, community forest & hunting zone creation and to achieve management effectiveness. To this effect disbursement triggers have been set in such a way that tranches are realized on the basis of graduation from a degree of Management Effectiveness to another (see also Annex 5).

By setting it’s triggers sector-wide, FESAP guaranties that MINEF & DFAP works on many fronts and with all partners to catalyse progress in all 26 protected areas targeted by FESAC.

It should be noted that in addition to the World Bank/GEF other small incremental sources for financing to FESAC include:

The French GEF (FFEM-US$1.1) is completing EU resources for the management of the Faro and Bouba Ndjida National Parks where the last hunting dogs and black rhino of west Africa remain.

To a small extent regional resources for ECOFAC (EU), the Congo Basin Initiative (USAID) and tri-national protected areas will assist conservation of Dja, Lobéké, Boumba Bek & Nki in contiguous biodiversity rich areas in Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, CAR & Congo; they are not tallied in the baseline or as incremental financing.

System BoundaryThe system boundary of the GEF alternative is not different than the baseline FESAC. Without GEF financing, biodiversity improvement in selected sites will be limited in quality and intensity and perhaps not commensurate with needs. GEF would complement existing financing to secure more sustainable conservation of globally and nationally significant habitats, species and genomes within eight under-funded “Ecosystem Units” comprising of UTOs, adjacent UFAs and community forests. GEF resources through FESAP will seek results in these Ecosystem units (1)

28

Waza with Lac Chad and Logone plains, (2) Korup, Takamanda and Rumpi Hills complex, (3) Bakossi & Mount Kupe complex, (4) Campo Ma’an & Campo-Marine complex, (5) Mbam & Djerem, (6) Ndongoro mangroves, (7) Boumba Bek/Nki complex et (8) Bénoué complex.

The participatory nature of the GEF alternative lays emphasis on the involvement of the NGO’s, TA and the private sector. The Government and the private sector have already started contracting serious NGOs (WWF, WCS, IUCN, WRI/GFW etc) for environment and forest related work. This will continue in the future and will expand once FESAC resources are available. Regarding the TA discussions are quite advanced on setting up a basket funding to enable donors to contribute TA resources. Interested donors are the EU, DFID, Canada, and Germany. Management of this basket funding would be by GTZ or the WB through a TF. This TA would include support by specialists in the field of financial management, audits, forest management and information systems, Independent Observers (i.e. Global Witness or equivalent)

BenefitsThe incremental benefit of the GEF (& IDA) support is two-fold. For the long term the incremental benefit relates to building confidence in Cameroon’s forestry sector in general and, for GEF, more specifically to contribute to building an institutional framework that creates confidence in Cameroon managing its protected areas, which, in turn, should attract sustainable funding for Cameroon’s Protected Area’s Network. Without an active support from the World Bank and GEF the present situation of weak institutional frameworks in the sector is unlikely to evolve.

For the short term the operation in line with GEF mandate will make an important contribution to financing the setting up of conservation services, infrastructure and processes in the selected Ecosystem Units. Without GEF contribution these Ecosystem Units would be limited in their funds, only be partially managed and much of the previous achievements would be lost. The selected Ecosystem Units are amongst the most important in Cameroon, since they are a mirror of the entire protected area network.

GEF’s contribution to this operation will help ensure the creation of 176,000 ha new protected area of highly intact mangrove’s forest and in an area known to have the highest level of speciation in Cameroon. Furthermore, it will considerably contribute to the effective management of 1,859,300 ha core protected area not including the forest and wildlife resources in the peripheral zones of the targeted “Ecosystem Units”.

In short, the increment and the justification of GEF finance is building inclusive management in internationally important Ecosystem Units (landscapes of PAs plus peripheral zones) as well as the facilitation of an institutional framework that is accountable and that invites confidence from a variety of potential donors.

An important Strategic priority of GEF is the landscape approach as well as the mainstreaming of biodiversity in production landscapes. In line with GEF strategic priorities, FESAC will help connected forests under different regimes to be managed according to a greater plan that accounts for the potential and specificity of each and for biodiversity. Without GEF funds, it is likely that national forest zoning would be carried out exclusively for timber production forest with community forests and protected areas planned and managed independently of each other.

29

GEF leveraging impact will help include biodiversity into national forest planning and leverage protected area conservation outcomes. Other donors and NGOs are already leveraging substantial amounts. However, most of these resources bypass the national institutions and therefore promote a protected area management system where a central partner, the Government, is weak, as a legacy of past poor governance practices and because the recent doubling of protected areas left it with much less capacity than needed. In meeting the GEF’s strategic priorities, FESAC by targeting specifically the framework for improved protected area management as well as the capacity of the national institution and its staff is in the position to help re-establish an imbalance that ultimately would be negative to biodiversity. Most importantly, the GEF support will help leverage at least as much in-country resources as it disburse by improving wildlife tax collections (concession and trophy fees) as well as the management and effective use of the national Protected Area and Wildlife Fund.

GEF Alternative Costs

A FESAC that delivers the above benefits over the landscape and within protected areas is estimated to cost US$126.53 millions. The baseline cost for the operation is US$ 115.4. Therefore the incremental cost for this operation is estimated at $ 11.13 million. Of which the World Bank is seeking GEF assistance to the tune of US$10.0 million. Other incremental sources to meet the total incremental costs include the FFEM (French GEF US$1.1). The economic importance of the forestry and wildlife sector the following annual gross production and revenue values was appreciated to be over $500 million. This investment is to accompany a highly important and sensitive sector for it to contribute in a sound and long-term manner to Cameroon’s economy and poverty alleviation efforts

IV. OPERATION COSTS

FESAC support will lead the Government to expand its forest and biodiversity program by US$ 11.13 million, increasing the Government projected expenditures for biodiversity management programs. Of which the World Bank is seeking GEF assistance to the tune of US$10.0 million.

The GEF alternative would result in an expansion of expenditures projected by the Government during the period 2004 and ending in 2009. As compared to current expenditures on protected area and biodiversity management programs, the GEF alternative would represent a modest financial increase in investments but leverage a much greater dollar-equivalent biodiversity outcome. The GEF increment would particularly benefit particularly Component 3 “Biodiversity”. For this component in fact the significance of benefits is higher at the global than at the local level and the Government is less inclined to invest.

Summary Matrix of Domestic and Global benefits

Component Category Domestic Benefit Global BenefitC1. Regulation and environment information management

Baseline Environment laws are applied through improved regulation, test of national capacity for environmental assessment, etc.

Multi resource inventories led at the national scale & up-dated vegetation

Better application of generic environmental laws may have an impact on the protection of natural assets against external corporate aggressions such mining and logging.

Resource inventory and maps includes data relevant to biodiversity of international

30

maps and strengthened cartography service of the MINEF.

Zoning Plan operational with participatory surveys and demarcation completed.

Consistent information on natural resources collected and disseminated to all concerned parties.

value such as threatened species and habitat.

Zoning plan accounts for already identified new protected areas.

Biodiversity friendly behavior & practices of target groups improves with implementation of an Environment Information System.

With GEF Alternative

Improved national capacity for biomonitoring and maintenance of bio database.

Multi-resource inventory includes areas of global biodiversity value and scientifically verify that indeed proposed new protected areas would secure 90% of Cameroon’s biodiversity.

C2. Production Forest management

Baseline Improved management of production forest provides economic benefits to private sectors, Government through increased taxes, communities through increased employment & environmental services (less erosion, more soil fertility)

Management plans are effectively designed, adopted & implemented in production forests. A voluntary code of conduct or certification processes is adopted by the industry.

Control strategy of forestry laws is developed and effectively implemented and Penalties are recovered.

An effective high tech equipment (code-bare) for tracking timber flows and related financial transactions is operational.

Maintenance of forest cover both in production & community forests provides substantial benefit in terms of carbon sequestration & biodiversity conservation.

The organization of NTFP market and the increase in offer responds to national and international demand and foster better stewardship of such resources by logging companies.

Management plans records suitably designed rotations and zoning as well as provides for wildlife, cover, protection and corridors.


National zoning of gazetted production forest takes into account for the distribution of important biodiversity areas & species reallocate land for conservation or productive wildlife management, ensure than connectivity principles are respected.

Corridors within FESAP-targeted UFAs and to UTOs and Community forests are designed and implemented which allows a better movement of wildlife in/out of production areas.

More UFAs possess and implement Management plans that suitably accounts for biodiversity concerns and connectivity to other UFAs or UTOs.

Additional corridors account for rare or threatened habitats and species.

C3. Protected Baseline Improved management of protected areas With substantial assistance of NGOs,

31

area & wildlife management

provides economic benefits to private operators of hunting zones, to Government through marginally improved taxes and to community through some employment and additional environment services of natural forests (pharmacopoeia, wild meat, food, etc.).

Country as a whole benefits from better preserved protected areas but the Government institutional role is not established and sustainability is weak.

several globally important protected areas do improves (Korup, Lobeke, Dja, Nki, Bouba Bek, Mont Cameroon, etc.). But the improvement is still mainly the result of NGO involvement and not sufficiently appropriated as a public duty by the Government.

FEDC support Campo Ma'an & Mbam Djerem enables modest community dialog, baseline studies & implementation of management plan.


Benefits obtained with the baseline are optimized through a much stronger and transparent involvement of DFAP both as the national pilot and in the field.

The legal & institutional reforms are systemic benefit to Cameroon whose capacity to steer protected areas and optimize their national benefit is increased.

With the optimization of Community wildlife areas, employments increases and revenue capture by communities and communes also increases and fuel local development

A strong involvement of DFAP and better field capacity multiples the effect of NGO’s assistance and improves its long lasting prospect.

New globally important protected areas, such as Ndongore and Ebo are created.

The result-based mechanisms enables the standardization of protected area management plans and monitoring of outcomes & information management, this has the long term potential to decrease conservation cost through economy of scale.

The legal & institutional reforms have the potential to multiply the capacity & commitment of protected area staff, thereby securing further protected areas with global biodiversity.

Long term financing for conservation is improved through a widening of sources of income, as well as by helping foundations‘ capacity to be strengthen through further capitalization.

C 4. Community forest resources management

Baseline Improved communal/community capacity for management of community forest as demonstrated by the area of forests, woodlands and plantations with simple mgt plans & under community-based management.

Improve public capacity to deliver information and services to communities on natural resource management.

Several major cities in the northern savanna zone have adopted fuel wood

Maintenance of forest cover both in production & community forests provides substantial benefit in terms of carbon sequestration & biodiversity conservation.

But benefit limited since many ecosystem functions are not preserved and connectivity to UTO & UFA marginally considered.

32

master plans and created rural fuel wood markets.


Creation of long-term capacity through CAMCOF for completing other sources of financing that are directed for protected areas.

Improved communal/community capacity to plan for biodiversity and wildlife dimensions when designing/implementing community-forest mgt plan.

CAMCOF’s capacity & endowment contributes significantly to connectivity between extremely important protected area & registering their planning & conservation within a biologically mountainous landscape of worldwide value.

Communal/community mgt plans of rural forest within the FESAP-targeted Ecosystem unit are connected with adjacent UTOs & UFAs and account for biodiversity issues relevant at the landscape scale such as elephant/predators movements.

C5. Institutional strengthening, training & research

Baseline Reorganized MINEF and restructured ONADEF, with devolution of productive functions to the private sector.

Effective planning and monitoring of MINEF activities both at central and external levels.

Transparent financial mechanisms with MINEF.

Transparent dialogue and effective partnership with logging industry, local administration, civil organizations, and other concerned parties.

Increased capture of forest resource rents on behalf of the State and local communities.

Overall improvement in country’s forestry institution, in the framework on increased Governance and resource stewardship does increase the visibility of Cameroon at the international level and may attack more funding for conservation.


Biodiversity issues more prominently accounted for in the organigrams, set-up, human resources, and capacity of institutions dealing with forests.

Forest resources rents are, in small proportion, utilized for the benefit of conservation in the forest and protected area funds.

NA

TOTAL Baseline 115.4Alternative 126.53Total increment

11.13

Requested to GEF

10.0

Annex B. Logical Framework of the National FESAPCAMEROON

33

Key Performance Data Collection Strategy Hierarchy of Objectives Indicators Critical Assumptions

Global development objective: Improve the long term - For 4 out of 14 targeted PAs Biomonitoring reports & Reduced degradation from prospect of globally important Bioindicators improve 10% analysis improved forest and land biodiversity within between Year 1 (baseline) management does increase Cameroon's network of and operation end6. GIS output from spatial and revenues accrued to Govt. and Ecosystem Units ground data benefits local communities.

- For 10 out of 14 PAsencroachment illegal Management plansactivities is less than 20%at operation end7.

- Two "Ecosystem Unit" implement Mgt plans for interconnected UTO, UFA &

community forests

Development Outcome / Impact Reports: (from Objective to Goal) Objective: Indicators: Improve the institutional and organizational capacity of MINEF to implement new policies and regulations for forest, wildlife and protected area management and timber industry development in partnership with communities and the private sector

1. Effective implemention of institutional and organizational reform of MINEF and its agencies.

1. MINEF Annual Reports, assessments by independent consultants; reports from well-respected NGDs; site visits by Bank staff.

The highest political leadership continues to be directly involved in the forest and environment sector management.

2. All gazetted production forest & 30% hunting zone management plans established and fully operational with local community involvement.

2.MINEF Annual Reports, assessments by independent consultants; reports from well-respected NGDs; site visits by Bank staff.

The Government allows the community empowerment process to go forward.

3.1 50% of protected areas & hunting zones in the 26 priority UTD have become a source of economic benefit for communities.

3.1 MINEF Annual Reports, assessments by independent consultants reports from well-respected NGDs.

Cameroon's international credibility as to governance and commitment to environment increases.

3.2. Nine of the 26 priority protected areas have progressed two DDME (Degree of Development & Management Effectiveness )

6 For each of the 14 protected areas a list of three bioindicators species--species that react well to management prescription such as the duikers cohort in forests or cobs in savannas--will be compiled at appraisal & validated in year 1. Population indices, as proxi to populations size, will be calculated. Data collection will be carried out along variable-width line transects, frequency observation at fixed spots (e.g. saline clearings) or other scientifically-accepted population indices measuring method.7 Spatial Encroachment is defined as the area between the official limit of a protected areas and an imaginary line connecting points where illegal activities are detected.

Illegal land-use (agriculture, logging, etc.) is detected using satellite images or aerial photographs followed by ground truthing.

34

4. Local communities revenues are increased through (i) direct management of natural resources in 200 community forests and CW A (ii) effective redistribution of forest-related taxation

MINEF annual reports; PSRF reports: independent surveys from NGDs.

Hierarchy of Objectives Key Performance Indicators Data Collection Strategy Critical Assumptions

Output from each Component: Output Indicators: Reports: (from Outputs to Objective)

Output 1: Tools for the sustainable management of the forest-environment sector are put in place and well used by all actors in the sector

1.1 Environmental regulatory framework completed and implemented (no. of EIA followed through;

1.1 Governmental Decrees and Arretes; site inspection; EIA reports

Government is supportive to reforms in environment management and all parties are involved.

1.2 Environmental monitoring system set up and operational

1.2 Environmental audits and reports of independent consultants.

01.1 All parties have been largely involved in the definition of the zoning plan and will respect the

distribution of land - uses.1.3 (a) Cartographic services of MINEF strengthened

1.3 (a) Annual reports by the MINEF cartography service; maps.

1.3 (b) Consistent information on natural resources collected and disseminated to all concerned parties. Effective implementation of the communication strategy.

1.3 (b) Web-site and publication of reports and leaflets; Reports

Output 2 Production forests are managed in a sustainable manner and according to legal norms and customs, and the wood production sector and NTFPs valorized in an efficient manner

2.1 National land use zoning plan in place and operational

2.1 Prime Minister Decree, validating the zoning plan.

02.1. The share of responsibilities between public entities, private sector and local communities are clear and well-known by all parties.

2.2 (a) Council forests and FMUs gazetted and delimited

2.2 (a+b) Annual report of SDIAF/MINEF. Reports of independent consultants and well-respected NGOs, Site Annual Reports of inspections.

2.2 (b) Management plans effectively implemented in all production forests.

2.2 ( c ) PCI triggers certification and voluntary codes of conduct

2.2 (c ) Assessment of existing codes of conduct and certification processes

2.3 Sectoral policy on wood processing developed and number of reforms implemented (increase in the number of marketable species and in the capacity of secondary and tertiary transformation)

2.3 Production statistics of transformation units; Statistics of exports collected at port customs.

2.4 PFNL market is organized: increased offer responds to national and international demand.

2.4 Statistics on production and consumption of PFNL. Reports from independent consultants

2.5 (a) Control strategy developed and effectively implemented

2.5 (a) Publication of infraction register; monthly reports of the Independent Observer.

2.5 (b) Inter-ministerial system to monitor penalties and sanctions operational

2.5 (b) Minutes of meetings and Prime Ministerial Decree creating platform

35

Output 3. A network of protected areas & community-managed wildlife areas, representative of national and regional biodiversity, is sustainably managed with significant benefit for the local & national economy

3.1(a) PA network integrated into national land use zoning plan 3.1(a) Decree on Zoning plan;

O3.1 The investment environment and potential local economic benefits are sufficiently attractive for private operators and local communities to participate

3.1(b) Number of new protected areas gazetted in coastal marine, montane and wetland ecosystems

3. (a) Decrees for the gazetting of new protected areas.

O3.2 Sufficient resources can be transferred from the international community towards the local communities in Cameroon to compensate for opportunity costs of natural resources set aside for global environmental services

3.2 (a) MIS operational (i.e. w/ functional system of spatial/field data collection, treatment & diffusion) in priority UTOs.

3.2 (a) MIS output & demonstration; maps; Wildlife survey reports, etc.

O3.3 The fiscal set-up for wildlife and protected areas is designed so as to capture and cover significant recurrent costs.

3.2 (b) Status of flagship species known in and around protected areas 3.2 (b) Wildlife reports

3.3 (a) Framework for local community participation in UTOs formalized

3.3 (a) Ministerial Order; Cahier des charges of the wildlife/P A management plan; Reports of independent consultants; site inspections.

3.3 (b) Community Based Wildlife Management in all peripheral zones

3.3 (b) Reservation document of community wildlife zones; simple management plans

3.4 (a) Manual of procedures for management plans developed 3.4 (a) Manual

3.4 (b) A minimum of 8 protected areas and 10 hunting zones have a new officially approved management plan by 2008

3..4 (b) Signed Arête approving mgt plans; UTP/DFAP annual report

3.4 ( c ) 10 priority UTOs are 80% staffed and equipped following management plans

3.4 ( c ) DFAPIUTO annual reports; site visit

3.5 (a) FSF annual income reaches 1.5 billion CFA in year 4 and 5

3.5 (a) FSF reports &audits; DFAP annual report

3.5 (b) Improved revenue management in favor of local communities

3.5 ( c ) Increased number of tour operators in and around protected areas

3.6 Organizational framework for Protected Area Management established and made operational

3.7 Improved funding for Cameroon’s Protected Area network

3.8 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan revised and updated

3.8 Publication in the official journal and in environmental press

36

Output 4: Local people participate in environment and forest decision making processes, and benefit from revenue that devolves from the use of forest and wildlife resources

4.1 1 million Hectares of community forests and woodlands under community-based management.

4.1.1 Results of the community forest service

O4.1 Local populations are fully aware of their rights and obligations and adequately empowered to stimulate their active participation in sustainable forest management.

4.2 (a) A new policy/regulation on plantation incites private investments 4.2 (a) Publication in official journal

4.2 (b) 15.000 Hectares of plantation under a private or community-based management at the national scale after 5 years.

4.2 (b) Site inspections and independent consultant.

4.3 Fuel wood master plan and rural fuel wood markets established around major cities in the savannah zone

4.3 Annual review of master plans and financial reports on organized rural fuel wood market sales

Output 5: Institutional and organizational strengthening ensures efficient implementation of national forest policy

5.1 ANAFOR reorganized and made functional

5.1 Legislative instruments approved and necessary regulations promulgated

O5.1 Implementation of reforms and legislations is sustained with support from current group of reformers and with collaboration from industry and other parties with vested interests

5.2(a) Effective planning and monitoring of MINEF activities at the central decentralized level

5.2 (a) Annual Work Plan for all MINEF services

5.2 (b) Transparent financial mechanisms within MINEF 5.2 (b) External financial audits

5.2 (c ) Effective re-organization and improved human resource management following proposed institutional reforms5.3 Rehabilitated education and research system in forest and environment sector

5.3 Statistics and programs for national schools; scientific seminars

5.4 Effective information dissemination and preparation of replication plan5.5 Transparent dialogue and effective partnership with logging industry. Local administrative authorities, civil organizations, and other concerned parties

5.5 Bi-annual report of forest industry unions. Local and international environmental press

Overall program performance indicators

1. Effective distribution of forest taxation quota to local governments bodies and promotion of poverty alleviation activities/services

Independent consultant survey

2. Increased capture of forest resource rents on behalf of the State and local communities

Joint reports MINEF/MINFIB on performance of forest revenue recovery and external audits

37

38

Tools for the sustainable management of the forest-environment sector are put in place and well used by all actors in the sector

RESULT 1

Production forests are managed in a sustainable manner and according to legal norms and customs, and the wood production sector and NTFPs valorised in an efficient manner

RESULT 2

A network of protected areas & community-managed wildlife areas, representative of national and regional biodiversity, is sustainably managed with significant benefit for the local & national economy

RESULT 3

Local people participate in environment and forest decision-making processes, and benefit from revenue that devolves from the use of forest and wildlife resources

RESULT 4

Institutional and organizational strengthening ensures efficient implementation of national forest policy

RESULT 5

1.1 Environmental regulations and an appropriate finance mechanism in place and functionalSet in place environmental regulations

Evaluate the environmental impact of forestry activities Explore finance mechanisms

1.2 Improved environmental monitoring1.2.1 Set in place and render operational an environmental monitoring system.

1.3 Improved environmental information management and sensitisation

1.3.1 Set into place an Environmental Information System in MINEF

1.3.2 Organise environmental sensitisation campaigns

1.3.3 Strengthen communication means between actors

2.1 National Land-use Zoning plan in place2.1.1 Phase 5 zoning completed2.1.2 Phase 6 and 7 zoning completed2.1.3 Zoning plan for the dry and wet savannah’s completed2.1.4 Actualisation of the zoning plan for the southern part of Cameroon 2.2 Management of production forests2.2.1Gazettement of forest management units, council forests and unallocated production forests2.2.2 Develop and seek approval of management plans (MPs) for FMU and council forests2.2.3 Develop MPs for unallocated production forests and forest plantations2.2.4 Monitor the implementation of MPs for FMUs, council forests, and implement MPs of unallocated production forests2.2.5 Promote the certification of FMUs and labelling of forest products2.2.6Carryout multi-resource inventory of 400,000 ha of mangrove forests 2.3 Valorise and transform wood Product sector 2.3.1 Define and implement Sectoral policy on added value to wood products2.4 Valorise Non Wood Forest Products2.4.1 Identify Non Wood Forest Product chains and define management and marketing strategies2.4.2 Carry out research and development and provide support to Non Wood Forest Product handling networks

3.1 Biodiversity maintained through a representative network of Protected Areas (PAs) at the national and regional levels3.1.1 Finalize and validate biological and socio-economic vision for a PA network3.1.2 Gazettement and creation of new PA3.1.3 Strengthen trans-boundary collaboration3.2. Knowledge of resources and monitoring and evaluation improved3.2.1 Set into place a system for information management and a data bank on wildlife and PAs3.2.2 Implement system for information management and ecological monitoring for all PAs3.2.3 Studies and research (reconnaissance missions, biological and socio-economic inventories)3.2.4 Promotion and coordination of applied research in and around PAs3.3 Access by local communities to the management of wildlife resources and PAs secured3.3.1 Development of appropriate regulations3.3.2Promote the participation of local communities in the management of PAs3.3.3 Promote community management of wildlife within peripheral zones of PAs3.3.4 Promote dialogue between the conservation services, local elites and riparian communities, economic operators and other administrative authorities3.4 Management tools for PAs and wildlife developed and implemented3.4.1 Implement the National Anti-poaching Strategy3.4.2 Develop and implement MPs for major PAs3.4.3 Develop and implement MPs for other prime conservation sites.

4.1 Community forestry: Access to and management of wildlife and forest resources4.1.1 Adapt legal and institutional framework to the exigencies of community management4.1.2 Facilitate the acquisition of space for community management of forest resources4.1.3 Sensitise and train all actors in community management of wildlife and forest resources4.1.4 Develop and implement appropriate technical standards for community managed zones/areas4.1.5 Finalise and adopt a monitoring system for the productivity of community managed zones/areas4.1.6 Develop and implement models for community management4.1.7 Support local entities in the gazettement of council forests4.2 Afforestation and regeneration of forest resources4.2.1 Establishment of a positive institutional environment4.2.2 Establish the necessary legal framework4.2.3 Creation of an FDP4.2.3 Strengthen ANAFOR4.2.4 Capacity building4.2.5 Development of forest plantations4.3 Sustainable management of fuel wood4.3.1 Strengthen Strategic Support Unit4.3.2 Planning and management tools set in place4.3.3 Provide support private operators

5.1 Render operational ANAFOR 5.1.1 Install management structures5.1.2 Carry out studies5.1.3 Develop and implement human resource re-conversion plan5.1.4 Develop and implement re-deployment plan and sale of equipment5.1.5 Support to the organisation and functioning of ANAFOR5.1.6 Support to the setting up of a Fund to support forest plantations5.2 Strengthening MINEF5.2.1 Re-organise MINEF5.2.2 Improve management of human resources5.2.3 Improve management of existing equipment5.2.4 Restore financial functioning of MINEF5.2.5 Manage reforms within MINEF5.3 Rehabilitate national structures for training and research5.3.1 Training5.3.2 Research5.4 Increased participation of actors, managing the PSFE process, and good governance5.4.1 Involve all actors in the management of the sector5.4.2 Set in place the requisite capacity for the management of the PSFE

Addendum 1 to Annex B Results Framework of the national FESAP

39

Tools for the sustainable management of the forest-environment sector are put in place and well used by all actors in the sector

RESULT 1

Production forests are managed in a sustainable manner and according to legal norms and customs, and the wood production sector and NTFPs valorised in an efficient manner

RESULT 2

A network of protected areas & community-managed wildlife areas, representative of national and regional biodiversity, is sustainably managed with significant benefit for the local & national economy

RESULT 3

Local people participate in environment and forest decision-making processes, and benefit from revenue that devolves from the use of forest and wildlife resources

RESULT 4

Institutional and organizational strengthening ensures efficient implementation of national forest policy

RESULT 5

3.5 Contribution of wildlife and PAs to the local and national economy improved3.5.1 Explore main thrusts for formalising and rendering profitable the bush meat trade3.5.2 Review the tax system and set in place a system of adaptive taxation3.5.3 Develop and improve eco-tourist initiatives and promote the setting up infrastructure for tourism3.5.4 Promote pilot initiatives for game ranching3.5.5 Promote the development of research infrastructure in PAs3.6 Legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee a coherent and concerted management set in place3.6.1Harmoniastion and evolution of resource management modes3.6.2 Restructuring of services and the creation of conservation departments3.6.3 Carryout training programmes3.6.4 Ensure the programming, development of tool, and the monitoring and evaluation of programmes in the sector3.6.5 Ensure progress in management modes and financing of PAs3.6.6 Ensure the advancement in the preparation of texts on new gifts3.7 Ssustainable Finance engines for the conservation of wildlife and PAs in Cameroon set in place3.7.1 Improve finance mechanisms and the mobilisation of financial resources3.7.2 Advancement of management modes and financing for PAs3.8 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan updated3.8.1 A national strategy that responds to national development programmes set in place

2.5 Control and monitoring of disputes2.5.1 Define and set into place a strategy for control2.5.2 Strengthen organs and control tools2.5.3 Develop and establish new and innovative technologies2.5.4 Monitor and follow-up disputes

4.3.4 Train actors in good trade practices4.3.5 Support actors in rational use of domestic energy

ADDENDUM 2 TO ANNEX B: MATRIX OF ACTIONS AND INDICATORS (IDA-Supported Program Matrix)AREA/POLICY FIXED TRANCHE

(released at effectiveness)

Setting the foundation for FESAC implementation

FLOATING TRANCH ONE

Rewarding achievements

FLOATING TRANCHE TWO

Rewarding achievements

MACRO AND PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

MACRO AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS – APPLYING TO ALL TRANCHES

Continued and satisfactory implementation of SAC III Forestry reforms Satisfactory implementation of previous year’s work-program (PTA) and satisfactory functioning of FESAC consultative groups (10 provincial ;5 thematic) Satisfactory implementation of MINEF’s revised procedures for budget preparation and execution (i.e. execution of previous year’smbudget) Opening of MINEF’s Treasury budget line according to the ongoing Finance Law, so as to finance implementation of MINEF’s annual work-program

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

Monitoring system and units/consultative groups to monitor socio-environmental impacts according to EIA, IPDP created

Environmental management of CAMRAIL, Campo-Ma’an (and buffer zone FMUs) in compliance with respective Cahier des Charges

EIA, IPDP successfully implemented and audited

EIA, IPDP successfully implemented and audited Regulatory framework for implementation of the Law

on Environment adopted) Decree on the national land use plan for the remaining

parts of the country (regions 6/7 and North) signed

SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF

PRODUCTION FORESTS

Forest law enforcement procedures upgraded: i.e. control chain adopted, clarification of PV elements to all sworn agents

Penalties against currently detected illegal logging applied

All current logging permits, status of infractions and court cases regularly published in national press

Strategy for UFAs allocation adopted and published

Management plans integrating biodiversity and wildlife conservation issues, submitted and approved for all concessions awarded in year 1997 and 2000

Computer-based register of legal cases operational and shared by MINFIB, MINEF and MINJUSTICE

High added-value industrialization policy adopted and first pending reforms launched

All UFAs allocated All UFAs allocated before 2000 managed under a

permanent convention (reflecting biodiversity and wildlife concerns)

Illegal logging reduced to 0 in the Permanent Forest Estate

SIGIF monitoring system used in all field stations

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

PCGBC agents and equipment transferred to DFAP

Annual working plan adopted for 7 of the 14 priority protected areas

FSF managed transparently

Conservation Services (UTOs) created for 5 priority protected areas (including staffing, equipment and infrastructure)

At least 8 priority PAs receive annual budget allocations in a decentrali-zed account

The 7 PAs of the baseline still have a satisfactory score of management effectiveness

Management plan adopted for three priority protected area

Regulatory framework for management of hunting concessions revised

3 new Protected Areas formally gazetted (PM

At least 8 priority protected areas have a functional Park Management Board

At least 6 PAs have community wildlife management activities in the periphery and/or collaborative agreements for NTFPs inside PA

Proposal for future Institutional Framework for the management of protected areas adopted by MINEF

Management plans adopted for 3 more priority protected areas

At least 10 protected areas receive a satisfactory score for management effective-ness

Sustainable management of hunting concessions

40

degree) Cameroon’s PA classification reviewed against

the IUCN Management Categories A draft Sustainable Financial Strategy and

Action Plan for the PA network and biodiversity developed.

implemented on a pilot basis Growing number of PAs collaborating with private

sector and tourism operators Development of a replication plan for dissemination

of best practices The Sustainable Financial strategy and action plan for

the PA network and biodiversity approved.

MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY

FOREST RESOURCES

ANAFOR’s board and management bodies appointed

Studies on ONADEF restructuring completed

Community Forestry Manual of Procedures published

Community Forest Unit reinforced and agents assigned in provincial delegations

Fuelwood Units in Northern Provinces created

ONADEF financial and HR restructuring process completed and ANAFOR operational

RIGC project (PPTE) satisfactorily implemented Incentive/regulatory framework for plantations,

fuelwood revised Forest revenues by local communities utilized in

compliance with PRSP priorities Public information system on local budget

execution implemented

Existing State plantations transferred to private sector and communities

Management plans in community forests compliant Fuelwood markets and community /private

plantations implemented on a pilot level

INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING

MINEF’s organization readjusted according to the recommendations of the Institutional Review

FY04 annual working plans (PTA) adopted at the central and provincial levels

Tender launched to select a firm specialized in computerized system for financial and HR management EU Technical Assistance in financial and administrative management in place at the DAG/MINEF

Assignment and training plan for all MINEF agents validated by the DAG

Bank account opened in all 10 provinces.

MINEF’s Financial and Administrative Directorate (DAG) reinforced with appropriate procedures and an operational computerized system for financial and HR management

Control capacity reinforced (HR and equipment), including SIGIF service

Planning and monitoring services (SG, DCP, DP) reinforced

All MINEF agents assigned according to the HR program

Enhanced system for performance assessment and financial bonuses implemented

Institutional rehabilitation program for Technical Directorates’s and external services (equipment, training) completed

Physical rehabilitation of selected MINEF infrastructure

All provincial, departmental and field stations satisfactorily equipped

41

Annex C (a): REVIEW BY EXPERT FROM STAP ROSTER

By Dr Francis Lauginie, Ph.D. (Sc), DVMAbidjan, March 2004

This analysis is based on the project document dated 19th February 2004

KEY ISSUES

1. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS OF THE PROJECT

General considerationsThe project under consideration is complex, and inevitably so given the objective - the conservation of natural resources, where we too often forget that this encompasses both their preservation and their sustainable management. This global vision has been taken into account extremely well, since the report deals simultaneously with aspects closely linked to the conservation of biological diversity and the will to improve the socio-economic and administrative context.The content shows deep knowledge of the situation and its complexity. In particular, the "Project development objective" (to strengthen public and private efforts to achieve socio-economically and ecologically sustainable use of national forest and wildlife resources, with its four sectors, seems especially coherent.The efforts made in terms of information on the project’s launch are worthy of note, as is the attention paid to lessons from the past.

The five strategic choices ("Five central issues" - see pages 12/13 - "Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices") are justified, in particular choice number 1 which affirms the need to use competent administrative services (the reinforcement of their capacities being accompanied by the delegation of some activities to third parties).This is also the case with choice number 2 ("landscape approach") for which one might nevertheless doubt whether MINEF support is sufficient in this field, since ministries responsible for land development and planning play just as important a role.Choice number 3 is an excellent initiative. In contrast, choice number 4 with its five strategic sub-orientations (while the text mentions only four) seems too ambitious for a project with a five-year life span (see section An ambitious project for too brief a life span).As for choice number 5, quite rightly participation is not restricted to local communities, since the history worldwide of projects called "participatory" have shown the limits of this kind of exclusivity.

Recognition of the vital role of an administration limited to its regalian functions

If ever there were an activity sector where “better State” interference, rather than “less State” is needed, it is in the sector of the conservation of natural resources. Therefore, it is reassuring to note that the project will not seek to by-pass administration but rather to reinforce its regalian role while favouring delegation to third parties of missions for which it cannot provide the greatest competence.

Protected areas and forestry management: complementary sectors, but with different approaches and skills

42

One of the project’s basic assumptions is that "Forest management and biodiversity conservation are interdependent in Cameroon where a large part of biodiversity is to be found within forest ecosystems and where most of the policy and operational actions needed to improve management effectiveness are common to the two". If it is undeniable that:

- a great share of biological diversity is found in forest ecosystems- it is urgent to ensure the establishment and the preservation of the most extensive

network possible of protected areas under various kinds of statuses, and- the management of forest resources needs improvement,

then to tackle the whole range of complex interventions through the forestry administration alone is not necessarily the best solution. The place occupied by the “protected areas“ activities in the logical framework suffices to show that they merit a programme to themselves, to be carried out under specific and more autonomous management. The sustainable production of forest resources and the conservation of national parks and reserves represent fundamentally different missions and aims, calling as they do for approaches and skills that are quite different even though one can sense complementarity, even similarity, in terms of the global environment in particular.The decision to tackle them together in the projects’ implementation seems to be following a fashion (see the somewhat more complex PSFE project in Gabon which adds the Environment and Fishing sectors to those of Forestry and Protected areas).Is such integration the best way to attain conservation aims? Isn’t it more important to have the lightest possible central management structures, but with powerful coordination mechanisms to allow collaborative consideration of problems of national interest? Chances of success will not be bettered by putting everyone in a single basket.What is more, why should we think that forest management and the conservation of biological diversity are closely linked, but not agriculture? The logic of such thoughts might well lead one to create an Agriculture/Forestry/Environment project, even more complex but just as justifiable, or why not (even more extreme) one great global project for the development and management of the rural world.Attention should therefore be drawn to the value of thinking about greater autonomy for Cameroon’s nature conservation sector during this five-year phase.

PlanningWhile the method is internationally recognised by all funding institutions, the usual planning steps by objective do not seem to have been totally respected.

The quality of the problem analysisAs in many projects, there is a description of the present situation. However, this cannot replace the in-depth problem analysis that must be the essential basis of any action programming. It is tempting, when one knows a country or sector well, to cut out the step of systematic thinking about the reasons for improving a given situation. It is not surprising therefore that the weakness of many projects is the lack of a sufficiently in-depth analysis of a sector’s condition. Yet it is this that determines the coherence of the aims/outcomes to be reached and the prioritisation of the activities to be conducted - in a single word, the “architecture“ of the project. If such an analysis was in fact made for the PSFE, it should be included as an appendix, as well as the analysis of the objectives and alternatives, to permit greater understanding of the thinking that led to the present proposal.If insufficient attention was indeed given to the analysis, there must be no hesitation (without questioning all the work already done) in going back to it to ensure the coherence of the proposed measures, and where necessary modifying the project’s architecture. To imagine that one can by-pass this fundamental analysis or this kind of verification is an error that always costs highly (rebuilding the project after an initial phase or an inability to reach objectives).

43

Architecture of the project (action strategy)The project has five components:

Regulation and environment information management Production forests management Protected area and wildlife management Community forest resources management Institutional strengthening, training and research

It is quite understandable, in view of the observations, to allocate one element of the project to the training and strengthening of management capacities; however, it seems far less justifiable to ascribe such importance to the management of environmental information by making it Outcome 1.It is of course always possible to modify a logical framework in an arbitrary way, but this always leads to an imbalance which is particularly clear in this present case, because outcome 1 has only three main activities and seven activities as opposed to five and seventeen for Outcome 2, eight and twenty-eight for Outcome 3, three and seventeen for Outcome 4 and four and seventeen for Outcome 5.As can be seen from the above, Outcome 3, which focuses on protected areas, has a total of 28 activities (i.e. 45% of the activities for the three operational outcomes 2, 3 and 4 combined) and so brings imbalance to the logical framework - thus confirming that it would have been perfectly justifiable to make it operate as a sub-programme with a strengthened coordination for the whole range of Forest/Environment activities.

Description and place of the activitiesThe logical framework and the first draft of the operational plan are yet to be finalised. The activities are sometimes too few to guarantee the achievement of principal activities, while several main activities carry only one activity, with little distinction between the two.The place of certain activities might well benefit from further thought (see details appended).

Definition of the indicatorsThis constitutes the project’s greatest weakness; the conception team, with a few rare exceptions, has merely noted the kind of indicators. These are imprecise, occasionally incomprehensible. The lack of thought given in defining the indicators could cast doubt on the real involvement of the parties concerned.It will be necessary to carry out a complete statement of these indicators, with consideration given to their nature, quality, quantity and their spatial and temporal dimensions (not forgetting that as well as physical outcomes there are indicators of impact and of process). This task, to provide a full description of the indicators, must imperatively be done before the project is negotiated, this by a small group of participants who will later be responsible for implementation. This is not an academic exercise; on the contrary, it is one way to make the project’s originators take all necessary responsibility.The definition of indicators is a contract between the project team and the partners. In its present state, many interpretations are possible, so no serious evaluation could be conducted, and it is virtually impossible to make an objective judgement on the project’s foreseen impact at the end of the five years (see appended details).

Draft operational planThis draft, which should at least show the implementation responsibilities for each principal activity as well as estimates for physical needs and the corresponding costs (such estimates being closely linked to the definition of precise indicators), is not to be found in the appendices of the project document.

44

2. IDENTIFICATION OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

It is clear that the project sets out to solve fundamental questions, taking into account a range of elements and interactions which will determine (at national or sub-regional level) the environmental conditions appropriate for the maintenance of biological diversity and the sustainable management of natural resources.

3. CONNECTIONS WITH GEF OBJECTIVES

The “landscape approach“ and the taking into account of the conservation of biological diversity in several activity sectors, which are at the conceptual basis of this project, are also two priority strategies for GEF. The creation of 176,000 hectares of new protected areas in ecosystems which to date are not at all, or only slightly, represented in the Cameroonian network, is another positive point to note, fitting perfectly within GEF objectives.

4. REGIONAL CONTEXT

This issue has been well covered in the document.

5. REPLICABILITY

The initial situation is specific to Cameroon. It will always be possible to take inspiration from certain aspects to be developed by the project; however, it would be an over-simplification to expect duplication in other places. What is fitting for one country is not necessarily so in another, as it is vital that projects be based upon the finest possible analysis of national sectoral contexts.

6. DURABILITY

An ambitious project for a too brief periodAlthough, as stated above, the project’s objective appears to have a perfect fit with the sector needs "The present operation will ensure that forest resources for biodiversity and environmental purposes are properly defined and suitably secured" (Page 2, lines 1 and 2 of the final paragraph of “Background“ section in A/1, Project Development Objective), it is clear that we find the usual mistake of hoping to attain too much in five years ("to enact institutional reforms, enhance community participation - by planning in particular for the creation of 30 community wildlife areas -, improve control and accountability of forest industry, rehabilitate degraded national parks and biodiversity conservation sites -by programming 5 priority areas for gazettement and 15 for improvement of management effectiveness"). It is realistic to expect to be able to define and set up all the mechanisms necessary to realise the above-mentioned objectives over a period of five years. It is, though, excessive to believe that these mechanisms can be “suitably secured“ in such a short period, all the more so as several groups of activities (institutional reform, participation of external players, community management) usually involve changes in behaviour. When the participation of local communities in the management of some activities is expected, in particular, it is best to be prudent in order to avoid the risk of falling into the well-known downward spiral of expectation - frustration - degradation. Yet again, clear definition of the indicators should be seen as essential so as to limit ambitions to the realm of the possible.

45

It is equally important, even if it is fully understandable that, while they only commit themselves firmly for a period of five years, partners clearly show their readiness to accompany Cameroon’s efforts in this sector over a longer term (ten to fifteen years being a realistic timeframe when one hopes to modify in a significant and sustainable way any given situation concerning the conservation of natural resources).

Insufficient attention paid to the setting up of durable mechanisms for funding the management of the network of protected areas

Only on page 94 (hence in one of the appendices of the project document) is the principle of a private foundation to fund conservation clearly stated. Before that it is only mentioned briefly (page 29, end of section 2 in the "Summary Project Analysis"); yet, this is a vital instrument in planning for the continuance of the functioning of a system of protected areas. This is especially surprising in that GEF has tremendous experience in matters of foundations.

In the section "The specific case of the Foundation", it is planned that "it will make available a new funding mechanism within the PSFE which can be fed directly by the authorities, international institutions, the private sector … The rules for making funds available will thus be modified". This precision seems to indicate that this creation is programmed in the short term, and that the funds generated could be used to finance project activities, i.e. in a period of less than five years.Perhaps it should be borne in mind that the creation of a foundation with some likelihood of success is always a slow process (on average two to three years), and that it often requires legal arrangements (especially in francophone Africa), dialogue between originators and potential partners, and the establishment of precise rules determining relationships with the body responsible for managing the natural areas concerned by this foundation. Furthermore, it is usually best to choose foundations with an everlasting capital (non redeemable) rather than those where the capital can be siphoned off. However, in order to take advantage of a project such as the FESAP to test the working mechanisms of the Foundation, a transition phase (e.g. three to four years) might be envisaged during which a redeemable capital could exceptionally be made available.It seems difficult to reach this stage during the project, however, if such a foundation appears in the presentation document only as an intent, without it having been the subject of more profound thought during its preparation.

The trusteeship for the forestry fundOn page 51, Outcome 5, the place reserved for activity 5.1.6 "Support to the setting up of a Fund to support forest plantations" leads one to think that this fund will be set up within ANAFOR. It would be interesting to know if, in the interest of efficiency, it might not be given greated autonomy.

SECONDARY ISSUES

7. LINKAGES TO OTHER FOCAL AREAS and 8. RELATIONSHIPS WITH SIMILAR OR COMPLEMENTARY PROJECTS

These two issues have been extremely well covered in the document.

46

9. DEGREE OF COMMITMENT OF INVOLVED PARTIES

This kind of evaluation at a distance, based only on the analysis of a project document, does not facilitate the judgement of the true level of commitment of the parties involved. The fact that they were well informed during preparation of the PSFE does not necessarily guarantee future attitudes and behaviour, especially in the light of the fact that these behaviours are always biased because of the inevitable opportunistic expectations that the notification of a large project will certainly arouse.

10. CAPACITIES BUILDING ASPECTS

This is one of the project’s strong points.Nevertheless, it will be a challenge, and one that is vital for the durability of the efforts that will be made, to ensure that the personnel, once trained, will be truly devoted to the mission and be sufficiently motivated to remain in the postings for which they have been specifically trained.Have measures to this effect been foreseen by the authorities (for example, a work contract to serve for a minimum period, perhaps ten years; reimbursement of training costs in cases of resignation, etc.)?

11. INNOVATIVENESS OF THE PROJECT

Two remarkable innovations- The Ecological Units : the will to manage the landscapeWide reference is made to a “landscape approach” with the accent on priority ecological units. Rarely put into operation, this approach is even so the only one likely to respond appropriately to the kind of problems that need addressing. Although one must not underestimate the real difficulty of implementation, the very fact that this project insists upon it must be welcomed, because in many countries the emergence of isolated clumps of nature with an inescapable future of biological impoverishment will become a crucial problem confronting conservationists in years to come.

- The logic of the outcomes: a fundamental change in project conceptionOne of this project’s good qualities is the abandonment of a logic of means to give pride of place to a logic of outcomes, with the attainment of a range of release indicators as a condition for a move to a new phase or, conversely, a complete halt to the project.Even though the indicators are yet to be specified (see the Planning section), the clearly demonstrated determination to check performance is essential. It is important, then, that this be a sacrosanct conditionality in the final agreement.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Migration and the Bonn ConventionConcerning page 6, in the section "Global Operational strategy/Program objective addressed by the project", it is somewhat excessive to claim that the project will help reach objectives in the Bonn Convention on migratory species under the pretext that it will reinforce the protection of species whose individuals cross boarders separating Cameroon from neighbouring countries (Nigeria, RCA, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea). An irregular movement across a few dozen kilometres clearly does not constitute migration per se. In any case, the project already has a sufficiency of worthwhile arguments, some of which are innovative, so there is no need to try to invent others.

47

Institutional aspectsIn respect of the administrative trusteeship, it is wise not to set out to reform just for the sake of reform, and the path chosen, to improve the workings of existing services, is a correct one. However, where weaknesses in the system are clearly evident, might it not be best to open up these institutions to outside partners by bringing them into the decision making process?There is a real danger that the steering committees and other consulting bodies may find themselves reduced to the level of "rubber stamping", with insufficient power to make effective changes. Thus for example, in Chapter 4 - Institutional arrangement, on page 20, it is planned to form technical committees to support MINEF departments, to be made up of members to be designated. What will be the designation procedure, and will non-administration members be among their number?

Equally on page 18, reference is made to a reform plan in the fauna and national parks sector, which is in the process of being validated by MINEF. It is all well and good that the five very general intervention principles are laid out, but it is a pity that this is not taken further in the proposals themselves, with their inclusion as conditionalities in the setting up and pursuance of the project.This lack of firm commitment means that the risk of reform inefficiency (which can easily remain at the level of good intentions or "paper decisions") cannot be discounted. Whereas, of course, it is the institutional framework that will largely determine the durability of the planned activities and justify the confidence of donors and partners.

Number of operational technical units (OTUs)On page 41, 26 OTUs are cited, representing a large number of structures to be managed and supervised. On page 43, though, an indicator states that only 14 units will be targeted by FESAP : "Year one work program ready for 7 of the 14 FESAP-targeted OTUs" . This point needs to be cleared up.

ONADEF/ANAFORThe text does not make clear the evolution of ONADEF (Office National pour le Développement des Forêts/National Agency for the Development of Forests) to ANAFOR (Agence Nationale pour le Développement des Forêts/National Agency for Forest Development). The latter agency appears (see page 57) to have been created in June 2002: "The newly created ANAFOR will support these private and/or collective plantations" whereas on page 5 one of the indicators of performance reads: "ONADEF restructured and ANAFOR operational". How can two institutions that seem to share similar targets possibly co-exist? Conversely, on page 43, one of the conditionalities: "ANAFOR’s board and management bodies appointed" and later (page 47), the indicator for output number 5: "ANAFOR reorganised and made functional" seem to show that this agency, although created, is not operational. In consequence it is difficult to understand from this document alone the kind of system in place and the hoped-for changes, since there is no description of the original situation apart from a general critique, nor is there any present or planned organisation chart.

Clarification and details for the planned management methods are therefore necessary, particularly in light of the importance given to this institutional sector, since Element 5 will swallow almost half of the funding (48.9%).

Budget

48

The project sets out good budget control measures. Even so, the total of annual investments for the Forestry/Environment sectors will almost double (page 26: from 14 million to 25 million dollars in annual investments), and it is always difficult to successfully handle at one time both structural reform and an increase in investments. Special attention must therefore be given to controlling the capacities for the efficient use of funds as early as the audits at the end of year 1.On page 29, the total of indirect and direct costs for institutional strengthening represents more than 60% of the entire cost of the project. At first glance, this ratio may appear excessive, but it is perfectly justified by the approach adopted.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Entrust a small preparation team, helped by a planning professional, with the task of:- checking coherence between the proposed logical framework and the initial analysis of

problems- controlling the logic of the presentation of outcomes and activities (the logical

framework’s "architecture" and content)- finalising the definition of the whole range of project indicators (type, quality, quantity,

spatial and temporal dimensions), basing this on realistic criteria, especially in terms of the timeframe

2. Include, as one of the major activities, the introduction of far greater autonomy for services responsible for the conservation of protected areas, creating a specific trigger indicator, as has been done for forestry management (ONADEF/ANAFOR)

3. Seek from the partners a commitment, or at the very least an intention to stay with the process over the timeframe needed to obtain sustainable outcomes for conservation, i.e. ten to fifteen years

4. Give greater priority to the elaboration and the initial setting up of mechanisms for on-going funding for conservation activities

5. Remove the confusion between ONADEF and ANAFOR and describe more clearly the institutional changes and the planned management approaches.

APPENDIX "PLANIFICATION"

NBLe but de cette annexe n'est évidemment pas de prétendre se substituer à un expert en planification. Les quelques exemples ci-dessous sont seulement mentionnés pour illustrer le type de travail qu'il reste à effectuer pour améliorer la planification du projet.

Page 5, certains "Selected Performance Indicators" gagneraient à être précisés, notamment les suivants :

- C 1 : Implementation of regulatory texts on Environmental Management ("milestones")

- C 2 : Number of hectares of productive forests under management plans (quantités, "milestones")

- C 5 : Adjustment of the MINEF's organization (dates par activités)Annual workplan and M&E cycle (à qualifier ; dates)

49

ONADEF restructured and ANAFOR operational (dates)Number of training sessions provided to the MINEF's civil servants (préciser les nombres ; "milestones")

Annexe 1Section Sector-related CAS Goal – Sector IndicatorsL'indicateur "Forest tax collection rates maintained above 90 %" laisse penser que la perception des taxes forestières est déjà à ce remarquable niveau. Est-ce effectivement le cas ?Plusieurs autres indicateurs sont trop imprécis : - Local Government bodies receive shares for local development- At least 60 percent concessions awarded begin implementation of forest management plans- Local communities requesting support perceive this support

Page 45 Global development objective dans le GEF Operational ProgramSpatial integrity of the 10 protected areas initially in groups 2 & 3 is 80% : Quelle est la situation de départ (toujours préférer un taux d'accroissement pour exprimer ce type de résultat) ?

Page 45 Project development objective dans le GEF Operational ProgramIndicateur 4. Local communities revenues are increased through (i) direct management of natural resources in 200 community forests and CW A (ii) effective redistribution of forest-related taxation (à quantifier ; "milestones").

Page 45 Output of each component – Output 11.3 (a) Cartographic services of MINEF strengthened A reformuler car beaucoup trop vague1.3 (b) Consistent information on natural resources collected and disseminated to all concerned parties (périodicité)

Page 46 Output 2 Indicateur 2.2 (c) PCI triggers certification and voluntary codes of conduct (à qualifier)Indicateur 2.3 Sectoral policy on wood processing developed and number of reforms implemented (increase in the number of marketable species and in the capacity of secondary and tertiary transformation) Quel accroissement et sur quelle période ?

Output 3 Indicateur 3.3 (b) Community Based Wildlife Management in all peripheral zones (à préciser, beaucoup trop vague)

Page 47 Output3 Indicateur 33.4 ( c ) 10 priority UTOs are 80% staffed and equipped following management plans A quelles dates ?Compte tenu de leur nature, les trois indicateurs suivants doivent nécessairement être quantifiés en prévoyant, de préférence, une progression lors des phases de mise en oeuvre :Indicateur 3.5 (b) Improved revenue management in favor of local communitiesIndicateur 3.5 (c) Increased number of tour operators in and around protected areas Indicateur 3.7 Improved funding for Cameroon’s Protected Area network

50

Page 48Output 5 Indicateur 5.3 Rehabilitated education and research system in forest and environment sector (comment vérifier un indicateur aussi abstrait ?)Indicateur 5.4 Transparent dialogue and effective partnership with logging industry. Local administrative authorities, civil organizations, and other concerned parties.Pour ces deux indicateurs 5.3 et 5.4, seule la nature des indicateurs est donnée sous une formulation rappelant plus la désignation d'une activité que la définition attendue.

Esquisse de plan d'opérations

Page 51Résultat 1La planification de ce résultat est à retravailler.Les trois sous-activités inscrites :1.1.1 Set in place environmental regulations1.1.2 Evaluate the environmental impact of forestry activities1.1.3 Explore finance mechanismsne sont pas suffisantes pour assurer l'atteinte de l'activité 1.1 - Environmental regulations and an appropriate finance mechanism in place and functional (on s'arrête à l'analyse des mécanismes financiers alors que le but est d'en choisir un et, surtout, de le mettre en place et de le rendre fonctionnel).

L'activité 1.2 - Improved environmental monitoring ne dispose que d'une seule activité : 1.2.1 Set in place and render operational an environmental monitoring system.

Résultat 2. Ce résultat est nettement mieux conçu mais il présente quand même quelques lacunesL'activité 2.3 - Valorise and transform wood Product sector ne dispose, elle aussi, que d'une seule activité : 2.3.1 Define and implement Sectoral policy on added value to wood productsL'activité principale 2.4 - Valorise Non Wood Forest Products englobe des activités et donc des responsabilités d'exécution très différentes (il conviendrait de les subdiviser en créant quatre ou cinq activités au lieu de deux) :2.4.1 Identify Non Wood Forest Product chains and define management and marketing strategies2.4.2 Carry out research and development and provide support to Non Wood Forest Product handling networksRésultat 3L'activité 3.2.1 - "Set into place a system for information management and a data bank on wildlife and PAs" ne risque-t-elle pas de faire double emploi avec la 1.3.1 - "Set into place an Environmental Information System in MINEF" ?

Résultat 44.2 Afforestation and regeneration of forest resources4.2.3 Strengthen ANAFORLe renforcement de l'ANAFOR est difficile à justifier à cette place alors qu'il constitue un élément essentiel du Résultat 5

Page 52L'activité principale 3.8 - National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan updated ne contient qu'une seule activité (3.8.1 A national strategy that responds to national development

51

programmes set in place). Elle n'est d'ailleurs pas réaliste sous sa formulation actuelle car la mise en place d'un tel plan d'action représente un programme à lui seul.

Par ailleurs, les deux activités principales ci-dessous :3.6 Legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee a coherent and concerted management set in place3.7 Sustainable Finance engines for the conservation of wildlife and PAs in Cameroon set in placene sont pas forcément à leur meilleure place. Ne seraient-elles pas à insérer dans le Résultat 5 ? A moins que le fait de les avoir maintenues à cette place ne démontre ainsi, lui aussi, que ce Résultat 3 mérite bien d'être traité de façon autonome ?

52

Annex C (b): RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM STAP REVIEWER

It may be pointed that the STAP review comments are based on the document version dated February 19, 2004. Since then the document has been strengthened and as a result many concerns of the STAP reviewer have been addressed. However significant concerns (in italics) and how they have been addressed are highlighted below.

1. Protected Areas and Forestry management :Medium-term institutional setting for the biodiversity and protected area management

Response: The STAP review recommends that the institutions in charge of biodiversity and protected areas should become more autonomous from other forest-related institutions under MINEF. The reviewer's recommendation is in line with the outcome of the institutional review carried out as part of FESAC preparation, and is built into the FESAC program. During the first two years of operation the strengthened MINEF will propose new institutional scenarios for the biodiversity and protected area sectors. In the meantime it will address the issue of sustainable financing of these institutions and collaboration with other institutions.

2. FESAC Planning: need to review the FESAC logframe, outcomes, activities and indicators

Response: The FESAC team believes that the shortcomings identified by the STAP review are the result of presentational and formatting problems. These may due to the repackaging of a large volume of planning documents into summary tables. However, detailed information for the same are available in the project files and can be provided for further clarity. Overall however, the indicators will be fine tuned and further strengthened if required during appraisal.

It may be highlighted that a highly participatory and detailed planning process was utilized to define the log-frame, outcomes and related project activities. Both MINEF’s field and central level staff, as well as representatives and experts from GTZ, France, Canada, DFID, EU were involved in the design of these documents, which were eventually vetted by the Cabinets of the Ministries of Planning and Forests. Professional facilitators to these exercises included, GTZ, FAO and the company IETD. The exercise also included the preparation of classic tables of activities, indicators and costs which were used as a basis for costing the overall program. Due to the limitation in the length and format of the document, not all details could be included. It may also be pointed out that the team also feels that it would be inappropriate to launch a new planning exercise unless more specific and compelling reasons are provided to justify it and unless the Government and the development partners listed above are convinced that this exercise is useful.

3. Durability : the realism to achieve outcomes in five years

Response: The point has been noted and the team agrees with this point, that more flexibility should be built to allow for adaptation to changing circumstances. To address this issue, the team will propose to transform tranches 2 and 3 into Floating Tranches, to be released once the expected outcomes are fully realized

3.1 Donor commitment exceeding the duration of the operation (up to 20 years)

Response: The point has been noted and it is agreed that obtaining this commitment would be welcome. This approach has been often called for long term development endeavors and has been

53

embraced “in principle” by many donors and the WB. However, experience proves that despite their willingness to do so, Donor agencies have no capacity to forecast future resource availability and geopolitical priorities. For this reason today’s commitment to support the forest sector in Cameroon for the next 15 years would have only minimum impact on future decisions.

Having said that, one can fairly and safely assume that funding to the environment and the forest sectors will continue to be a priority for the Bank and other development partners, especially in Africa. They willingness to support the continuation of the FESAC activities will depend primarily on the commitments to the FESAC goals that the Govt will be able to demonstrate during the present phase of the program.

3.2 Sustainable financing of protected area systems

Response: This issue has been addressed in the document (see section F of the brief on sustainability and risks, p.33-34). Activities leading to the setting up of a trust fund or other sustainable financing mechanism will start after first institutional capacity building of the Direction Faune et Aires Protegees. This is necessary to ensure more comprehensive knowledge of challenges and create in the national institutions more capacity to design and negotiate these new instruments with donors and other investors. It was also felt that unless the Govt of Cameroon is able to improve its international standing and reputation in the field of protected area management it would be difficult to find suitable partners to set up sustainable financing mechanisms.

3.3 How would the level of public expenditure be maintained after the closing of the operation?

Response: The project does not involve a large increase of public spending after the end of FESAC (see section E of the Brief on fiscal impact, p.26). It is important to note that resources potentially available for the forest sector through the existing Forest Fund Mechanism exceed largely what is actually allocated and spent in the sector. The FESAC will enable the sector to increase its capacity to deliver on its work program and convince central financial authorities that allocated amounts are spent on worthwhile activities.

As to maintaining a steady level of replacement of investments and new investments, it is reasonable to think that Donor interest in Cameroon will not cease with the end of the project. Furthermore, it is expected that especially after HIPC debt reduction to Cameroon, donor support will not be vital to financing the sector. However it will continue to be extremely important to leverage high level political support and visibility for the environmental and forest agenda.

3.4. Long term commitments of trained staff to stay on the post (Recommendation: staff trained through FESAC should be requested to serve in his/her post for a set time period).

Response: Regarding the recommendation, it may be pointed out that even if staff were required to commit to stay on the post after training, enforcing this commitment would not be possible because it would against national and international labor law.

4.Opening up to external partners versus strengthening national institutions(Recommendation: the FESAC should rely less on Govt institutions and more on non Govt entities)

54

Response: Working mostly through non Government partners was the approach Donors adopted in the late eighties and throughout the nineties in Cameroon. The GEF project was based on this approach. Experience showed the limitations of this approach (see Annex 8 of the GEF Brief on lessons learnt), and the urgent need to ensure that the Government is enabled to ensure public good functions in the forest and environment sectors (law enforcement, contracting, oversight of partners, capitalization of information and experience, policy oversight). The present operation tries to strike a reasonable balance between the functions and tasks to be performed by public, private and NGO entities.

4.1 How will NGOs, TA and other partners (outside the Government) be involved during implementation ?

Response: The Govt and the private sector have already started contracting serious NGOs (WWF, WCS, IUCN, WRI/GFW etc) for environment and forest related work. This will continue in the future and should expand once FESAC resources are available. As for other loans the Bank cannot force the Govt to use external services, but some tranche triggers will inevitably lead the Govt to work with NGOs and other service suppliers.

As for TA, discussions are quite advanced on setting up a basket funding to enable donors to contribute TA resources. Interested donors are the EU, DFID, Canada, and Germany. Management of this basket funding would be by GTZ or the WB through a TF. This TA would include support by specialists in the field of financial management, audits, forest management and information systems, Independent Observers (i.e. Global Witness or equivalent).

5.Institutional Aspects: alleged weak Government commitment to institutional reform in the field of biodiversity and protected area

Response: It is noted that the reviewer feels that by not including effectiveness conditionalities the Govt shows little commitment to the institutional reform. This is not a correct interpretation. The institutional reform in the field of biodiversity and protected area has been designed in collaboration between the Govt, WWF, IETD and other partners. The Government has at no time resisted advise on these issue. The fundamental principle that was followed was to phase change in ways that builds capacity to design further steps and builds confidence domestically and internationally. The FESAC design team thought that by proposing sudden externally driven institutional changes, would have resulted in transferring the same staff from the old to the new setting without guarantees of real change. The FESAC mandates that DFAP immediate job is to ensure protection of and law enforcement in protected areas. At the same time, it should work with other partners and NGOs plan a re-distribution of tasks between private and public sector entities, design sustainable financing mechanisms and propose the second phase of the institutional reform accordingly.

6.Absorptive Capacity

Response: Regarding the absorptive capacity, the document clearly indicates that implementation of the FESAC supported workplans will not require a large increase of donor and government resources committed for the forest & environment sector in previous years. The estimates indicate that implementing workplans to satisfy FESAC triggers will amount to US$126 millions USD for an initial period of 5 years. This amount represents a reasonable transition from the average US$14 million flow of resources gone to forest and environment sector over the past 10 years. National approved budgets to the sector which averaged US$8 million over the past three years,

55

would not need to increase except for the amount made available through the FESAC. See also section D.4 of the Brief, p24.

X---X---X

56

Annex C (c): RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SECRETARIAT

I. GEF SEC Comments (Review Sheet of October 1, 2003) for Work program inclusion:

Country Ownership1. Letter of endorsement (dated March 1, 2004) is attached.

Project Design

2. The institutional analysis and reform component preparation would be complete and the GEF funds would be tranched according to absorptive capacity of the relevant institutions and disbursements for each tranche would be triggered by achievement of key benchmarks and indicators (all of which would be defined prior to Work program inclusion).

Response: The proposed operation document now reflects all the concerns above. In particular the operation schedule is based on three tranche disbursements, which would be triggered by the achievement of key indicators and benchmarks. Specific indicators/triggers for the release of each tranche in relation to each component has been prepared and included in the document (see Annex 5 of the document). Implementation will be phased following the achievement of progress indicators in the areas of finance mechanisms and human resource management, management effectiveness of targeted protected areas, management effectiveness in forestry concessions as well as forest and wildlife control. The operation proposes joint GEF/IDA budget support with fund transfers based on progress achieved on agreed outputs (triggers).

3. That the baseline for the programme, as well as lessons learnt from previous programmes, is not clear.

Response: The document now fully reflects the baseline context in both the Main sector issues and government strategy sections (section B.2, pg.9). With regards to baseline and previous Bank initiatives in Cameroon the document presents lessons learnt from both GEF PCGBC and SAC III. These lessons and how they have been incorporated into the operation’s design are elaborated in Section D.3, pg23 of the operation’s brief. In summary:

GEF PCGBC: The main lessons on biodiversity conservation emerging from the GEF supported PCGBC can be summarized as follows: (i) increased priority given to conservation in national land-use zoning plans; (ii) testing and implementation of a number of participative approaches; (iii) development of landscape approach; (iv) increased biological and socio-economic knowledge of “ecosystem units”; (v) experience with the coordination of complicated multi-partner program with a number of donors and executing partners (Annex 8 of the document provides details of the lessons learnt and how they were incorporated in

57

the FESAC Design).

SACIII: See Section B.2 (Main sector issues and Government strategy) of the GEF brief for details. In summary the important outcomes of the project which could be adopted as lessons learnt include: (1) a new, simple, transparent and equitable forest taxation system created in consultation with all parties concerned (for the first time it includes a very significant share of revenues to be invested by and on behalf of rural communities); (2) a system of performance bonds created to encourage respect of the rules of the game by industry; (3) a new system for awarding forest concession using an independent observer to improve transparency; (4) independent monitoring of enterprise and Govt. performance in control of forest exploitation activities; (5) collaborative programs involving the Ministries of Forests and Ministry of Finance for enhancing forest taxation; (6) phasing out old and abused logging rights and transparent planning of new concessions; (7) giving voice to local population through priority rights over forest resources in the non-permanent forest domain; (8) establishment of a guarantee system to ensure compliance with management plans; (9) restructuring ONADEF (French acronym for National Forest Development Agency) a parastastal whose functions were at odds with the country’s economic and forest policy.

4. Whether the institutional capacity in Cameroon to implement a large ($128m) programme is strong enough.

Response: The FESAC has largely recognised the needs for institutional strengthening of the forest and environment sector in Cameroon. The sector has had an extensive institutional review and a detailed institutional reform plan will be implemented under the FESAC. It also needs to be understood that FESAC is a multi-partner sector programme with support from a range of donors and involvement of multiple stakeholders. While it will encourage the government to concentrate on its regalien tasks, it will also seek to transfer and delegate commercial and technical functions to third parties. Private sector and international as well as national NGOs will also be fully participating in the sector.

5. The GEF increment is briefly described but the rationale is not clear. Expected at work program inclusion is a thorough Incremental cost Analysis and a stakeholder participation plan.

Response: GEF support will allow the Government to expand its program in the field of biodiversity conservation (component 3) and to streamline biodiversity consideration into all other program components. The outcomes expected of the operation reflect well the expansion of this program into activities and areas that involve relatively higher local costs and global benefits (for example expanding the protected area network and investing in infrastructure for its management). In the absence of GEF support and other grant financing the Government would be unable to implement the proposed program. A detailed cost analysis for the

58

FESAC project, discussing the rationale for GEF involvement has been prepared (See Annex 4 of GEF Brief).

During preparation an extensive stakeholder participation analysis was conducted. Annex 10 of the Brief provides the stakeholder participation plan.

6. Key operation’s review criteria needed tightening including (a) sustainability and risks, (b) Replicability, and (c) fate of previous projects in the country and greater coordination with IAs.

Response:(a) Concerns on issue of sustainability and risks have been addressed. See

Section F. of the GEF Brief.(b) Concerns on issue of replicability have now been addressed. The operation

has developed a replication plan. See section F1.a.(c) The operation’s has been designed as a multi-partner program and has

drawn linkages to the all relevant ongoing projects and programs of other IAs and EAs. See table in Section D.2. Additionally, the incremental cost analysis also reflects clear linkages to other donors including IAs related directly or indirectly to the project.

7. Criteria for selection of sites the operation would be outlined.

Response: See Annex 9 of the GEF Brief which provides details on Cameroon’s protected area profile and the prioritization process for selection of targeted PAs under the program.

II. GEF SEC Comments (Review Sheets of March 24, 2004) for Work program inclusion:

Overall comments1. Change in the choice of financial modality through which the project will be supported (i.e. an adjustment credit loan instead of a regular investment loan complemented with a GEF grant). This rationale for this change as it relates to the delivery of GEF objectives is not convincing as stated. Further, it is not clear to the Secretariat that it is the appropriate instrument for monitoring and achieving conservation objectives. The questions and issues raised above need a fuller elaboration and discussion. The section on financing modality needs to be elaborated upon in this context.

Response: The rationale for the choice of the adjustment instrument has been provided in the Executive summary (p 3-6) and the GEF Brief (pg 2-5 and pg 24-25). Greater details have been elaborated in the next point below. It indicates the background of how the financial modality gained predominance over investment lending.

59

The operation takes an overall landscape approach for improved management which attempts to meet biodiversity conservation and sustainable forestry objectives as one goal. For instance under component 4 the focus will be on PAs that are supported under component 3 and emphasis will be laid to ensure a biodiversity overlay in community forest management and sustainable use of wildlife & NTFPs.

2. Clarification on the Bank decision as it relates to the choice of the AC instrument. Please confirm what is the Bank’s decision as it relates to the choice of this instrument. Has this been decided or is it one of the options under consideration? If the latter, than the GEF Secretariat would like to see a full articulation of the options so that it can make an informed decision of the options under consideration. Or alternatively, the Bank may consider submitting this when there is a clear decision on the choice of the instrument.

Response: The rationale for the choice of the adjustment instrument, Bank’s decision and past experience in adjustment lending and why Cameroon is a good candidate for an adjustment operation have been clarified both in the Executive summary (p2-6) and the GEF Brief (p 2-5). Overall the issue has been clarified in depth as below:

Analytical Work on Bank Experience with Adjustment in the area of Forest and Environment: Analytical work undertaken by the OED8 and by the World Resources Institute9 concluded that under certain circumstance, adjustment lending can effectively foster forest policy reform and reform implementation. These reports note that previous forest policy reviews by the Bank and other partners focused on the positive and negative impacts of project specific investment loans and emphasized the unintended, usually negative, social and environmental impact of structural adjustment efforts. The WRI report reviewed the Bank experience in Papua New Guinea, Cameroon, Indonesia and Kenya, and concluded that: a) World Bank support should broaden beyond forest sector management efficiency to embrace more fundamental equity and sustainability considerations; b) the Bank should use adjustment instruments only with Governments that have demonstrably internalized the importance of reforms and the necessity of reform implementation; c) Bank supported forest and environment adjustment should link the forest and governance agendas.

The recommendations resulting from the key pieces of analytical work on the Bank experience with adjustment in the area of forest and environment are grouped in seven areas in the WRI report. These are: a) application of safeguard; b) sustained sectoral engagement; c) stakeholder engagement; d) conditionality engineering; e) staffing and incentives; f) selectivity; and g) governance agenda.

The design of the proposed FESAC builds upon the overall findings and recommendations of the above analytical work.

8 Forest Policy Implementation Review, OED, 20009 The Right Conditions – The World Bank, Structural Adjustment and Forest Policy Reform, WRI, 2000

60

Emerging Bank Experience With Adjustment In The Environmental Sector: While forest and the environment continue to feature as components of more traditional multisectoral policy-based adjustment, a growing number of prominent environment operations use sectoral, programmatic and institutional adjustment as a vehicle for Bank support. Examples considered include the recently-approved and soon-to-be approved environment loans for the Philippines, Mexico, Bulgaria, Brazil, Colombia, and Cameroon10. From these it becomes clear that a trend towards using adjustment in the environment sector is clearly emerging.

In general looking at the full set of these operations the major highlights of these operations are that: a) all include multiple conditions for tranche release, even though there may be a single tranche; b) some operations include elements of policy reform and reform implementation; c) some operations help increase national capacity building and contribute towards national funding and leveraging additional funds for environmental programs; and d) most operations help establish intersectoral linkages and win support from Environment sector institutions. Significantly, also notable is that all the operations show satisfactory implementation and implementation completion ratings.

Consequently, FESAC has been designed based on these past experiences in adjustment loans and on the lessons that emerged from these operations (including Mexico, Bulgaria, Philippines, Columbia). Some of the major lessons learned from the successful operation in Mexico include: (a) importance of a strong analytical base (which includes technical, institutional, and political economy analyses) and a good understanding of the institutional framework, including both the informal and formal rule aspects is essential. (b) ensuring that the weakest have a voice and are not disproportionately affected, and how best to ensure that within the country’s particular institutional setting, both changes in the formal rules in the short term, as well as longer term behavioral changes, are emphasized; (c) in adjustment loans typically inter-sectoral coordination is a slow process and needs continuous budgetary and technical support and; (d) focusing on a few central actions and on impact and results more broadly in the design of the Program.

The operation also draws upon the lessons learned from several environment technical assistance operations in the environment sector. A first major lesson from these operations is the importance of aligning institutional incentives with the implementation of environmental components and the importance of public participation and transparency in cross-sectoral and politically charged projects. Relevant lessons learned from the recently-closed Colombia Urban Environment Management TA Project and the Colombia Urban Transport Project include the importance of the upfront establishment of results and impact indicators, as well as inter-institutional coordination mechanisms

A lesson of general relevance that emerged from the operation in Bulgaria is that when considering alternative lending instruments, the Bank’s main value added is linked to (i) the introduction of an appropriate policy and regulatory framework; (ii) the transfer of 10 Mexico: Programmatic Environment Structural adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 71360); Bulgaria: Environment and privatization support Adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 45380); Philippines: Environment and Natural Resources Sector Adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 33600); Columbia: Programmatic Sustainable Development Structural Adjustment Loan (IBRD Loan No 71630).

61

international best practices in assessing environmental risks and identifying cost-effective ways of addressing them; and (iii) the definition of proper mechanisms for the implementation of environmental policies and activities. Therefore it needs to be understood that well designed adjustment operations can be more effective than sector investment loans to address specific problems that often prove intractable with other instruments. The first one is taking forest and environment issues out of an institutional ghetto where they do not receive the attention of central financial authorities, other Government Departments and the justice system, and whose cooperation is key for the success of forest and environment programs.

Why Cameroon is a good candidate for the proposed sectoral adjustment approachCameroon appears to be a good candidate for sector adjustment on three main grounds: a) past experience; b) current situation of the sector; and c) Mainstreaming forest sector support into the future directions decided for Bank Portfolio.

a) Past Experience: All Bank Forest Sector Investment Lending in Cameroon have been highly unsuccessful. World Bank support began with the funding of three Provincial rural development projects in 1978, 1980 and 1984. They involved development of small-scale industrial plantations and erosion control. In 1982, the first full-fledged forest project was approved. It ended in 1990 following troubled implementation and cancellation of about US$ 12.0 million of a US$ 17.0 million loan. No more forest related sector investment lending took place since then. Between 1990 and 1997, the Bank focused exclusively on policy dialogue to improve the forest policy framework and eliminate major distortions in Cameroon. Forest reforms featured prominently in the Third Structural Adjustment Credit for Cameroon. Experience showed that the Forest and Environment Sector did not have the capacity to reform itself while enjoying discrete support through operations it could manage almost independently of other Government and non-Government partners. At the same time, lack of incentives for central financial authorities to be involved in the sector, resulted in extremely low level of national funding and chronic problems with counterpart funding.

While the situation seemed to improve during the final phase of the recently closed GEF supported PCGBC, the reasons for heightened Government attention and improved performance should be traced to the policy and functional links the Bank team was able to build between the GEF operation, the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project and SACIII.

b) Current situation of Cameroon and of the sector: Cameroon and the proposed FESAC meet the need for all necessary requirements for a successful forest and environmental adjustment as outlined in the before mentioned OED and WRI studies. More specifically, the country has in place a body of reforms and legislation that demonstrate strong commitment to change. In other words, the operation will not be buying reforms the Government may be unwilling to pursue, but rather providing a structured framework and result-based incentives for reform implementation.

In forest-rich countries where forest funds have been established, and certainly in Cameroon, performance of forest and environment programs does not depend on

62

resource availability per se, and external financing of selected expenditures, as is the case in traditional projects does not offer adequate solutions. Rather, sector performance depends upon the quality of inter-sectoral linkages, on giving central financial authority’s direct responsibility for securing national and donor funding to the sector, and on the ability to gather high level political support to the agreed reforms and to the team of reformers leading the reform process. Given that Cameroon needs strengthening of national institutions, merging individual projects into a national forest program and adopting this program as the sole sector development program for national agencies and donors to follow and contribute to, the structural adjustment offers a more flexible opportunity for addressing these issues.

c) Mainstreaming forest sector support into the future directions decided for Bank PortfolioIn line with the “Result-based 2003 CAS” this operation adopts an “outcome-based approach, and thus is mentioned as an adjustment operation in the 2003 CAS and the ROC has cleared this operation as an adjustment. Furthermore, the CAS announces that during its implementation period Bank portfolio will shift from project-based to a programmatic approach. FESAC is also consistent and based upon Bank’s experience with the PRSP, which also uses a credit instrument, PRSC (Poverty Reduction Support Credit), to support selective cross-cutting themes, such as the PRSC for Benin. Besides promoting inter-sectoral collaboration and coordination, PRSC’s are also based upon an agreed set of measurable indicators for tacking progress of their operations. As designed, this operation will help lead process of change in the Bank portfolio in Cameroon, will ascertain the best conditions for forest sector support and will help integrate them into future PRSC operations.

Further, the case for using an adjustment instrument grew stronger following the success of the forest component of the Third Structural Adjustment Credit for Cameroon (SACIII), and the realization that in implementing SACIII forest sector reforms the Government demonstrated its ability to mobilize financial resources, and procure goods and services in a timely, effective and relatively transparent manner. A review of SACIII undertaken by QAG in September 2002 concluded that forest sector structural and policy reforms had been well-implemented and were likely to achieve their intended objective. The Country Team recommended that the new FESAC operation build upon the successful experience of the SACIII and maintain the momentum this operation helped create.

Additionally, the February 2004 draft ICR of the same operation concludes that in the Cameroon environment, adjustment is a more suitable instrument to operate in the forest sector. Using an adjustment instrument is expected to help: reward results rather than financing individual inputs; mobilize high level attention to forest and environment issues from the Prime Minister's office and from Ministries other than Forests; stimulate systemic improvements in the sector’s procurement and financial management capacity, and its ability to mobilize and absorb financial resources effectively. Using this approach will also help provide MINEF with a critical mass of resources to implement a

63

consolidated national forest and biodiversity program, instead of being dependent on large number of separate donor-led operations.

While packaged as a SECAL, the present operation was prepared in a manner typical of investment operations and programmatic sector lending; the design, planning and consultation processes were those used for investment operations as were the economic, social and environmental impact analyses, and applicable safeguard policies. This operation will focus on implementing recently approved policies on the ground. In addition to capacity building and strengthening the public good functions of forest institutions, the project will support specific work programs in the fields of environmental monitoring, policy oversight and law enforcement, forest management, biodiversity conservation, and community-based forest economic activities.

Throughout preparation the Country Team recommended that the design of this project should address head-on the issue of political will and the implementation challenges that have traditionally hampered successful conventional development lending in Cameroon (slow disbursements, insufficient or out-of-sync counterpart funds, and the disconnect between stated goals and outcomes of financed activities). The proposed arrangements are also in line with the preference of the Government and most donors, preference, and with the lessons learnt during the implementation period of the forest component of SACIII. One of the advantages of this approach is to leverage and maintain MINEF’s, MINFIB’s and MINEPAT’s Minister-level attention to specific technical and financial goals. Because less intensive oversight of procurement and disbursement are required under an adjustment operation, the Government and the Bank will be able to focus on project goals and milestones. Financial management and procurement will also be monitored. Problems will be noted and resolved as they reach a critical mass and threaten the achievement of project triggers.

The operation will be subject to supervision and evaluation as other Bank lending operations. Scrutiny will be deeper and more intense than for development projects because the full set of indicators of outcome should found satisfactory at the time of tranche release. The basis for evaluation will be the matrix of actions and outcome. The M&E is described in the project documentation. As to the participation of NGOs, WRI-GFW and Global Witness have participated in SACIII and will participate in the FESAP. The design of the biodiversity component of the project was undertaken in collaboration with WWF. These agencies as well as other partners will continue to be associated in the implementation of FESAP.

Based on the strong rationale for an adjustment lending the Bank is fully supportive of the SECAL. It may be emphasized here that section D (pg23-24) in the GEF Brief provides the details on the various alternatives considered and their reasons for rejections.

In general, SILs are structured to reimburse expenditures incurred to achieve certain outcomes. Reimbursements are made for cars, buildings and training regardless the impact these inputs are able to achieve. Past experience shows that especially in Cameroon while expenditures were made, little impact could be seen on the ground. For

64

example while cars and equipment absorbed project financial resources to improve forest patrolling, these were not necessarily put to use to achieve the intended objective. Lack of political will stunted most if not all project efforts. And implementation hurdles shifted the focus of Bank support from substance to process.

Specific Comments1. Comment: Please secure an additional letter from the GEF Focal Point prior to work program inclusion

Response: New letter of endorsement is attached (April, 1,2004).

PROJECT DESIGN2. Comment: Please confirm that the primary OP is the forest ecosystem.

Response: Yes

3. Comment: The project is noted to support three of the biodiversity strategic priorities. For this to be the case, there should be clear monitorable outcomes provided for each SP. The table for selected performance indicators does this for SP 1 and 2 (see additional comment under M&E), but the case for such outcomes has not been made for SP#4 – please do so, if indeed applicable.

Response: As discussed at the bilateral meeting in line with maintaining consistency in the performance indicators, the table has been replaced with the matrix of indicators (see Executive summary Addendum 2 to Annex A) prepared for the overall operation. These now include indicators addressing the above issue.

4. Comment: The project received for work program inclusion has changed financing, and the project now proposes to use an adjustment credit, where the GEF funds will be part of this modality. This raises a policy issue, which needs internal consultation.

Response: It may be clarified that the project has been developed and revised through a series of consultative dialogues both at the field, the Bank and GEFSEC level. This was further discussed at the bilateral meeting.

5. Comment: The E.S. needs to provide a summary of the nature of root causes and underlying threats in relation to biodiversity loss and degradation, and how these will be addressed or have been considered in the design. An explicit articulation of these threats (including logging and forest sector reform) is critical in underlining that the components are responsive to the baseline threat, and that the listed performance indicators, outcomes and outputs are appropriate. Please provide this.

Response: The GEF Brief describes the roots causes and underlying threats in relation to biodiversity loss and degradation (see page 11). However they have been better reflected in the Executive Summary (pg 1). Conservation managers (conservators, technicians

65

from international NGOs, resource persons) confirmed pressures and threats faced by protected areas in Cameroon are similar to those of other west/central African countries but that these threats presented different intensities in the forest and savannah (see table below)

Pressures / Threats Savanna Transition zone

Congolian Forest

Coastal Forest

Mountain zone

Poaching X XX XX XX X

Temporal occupation - land invasion XX X XX X

Bush fires XX X X

Subsistence resource, Exploitation in P A X X X XX X

Trade in species (commercial) X X X XForest exploitation, agribusiness and infra-structure development in peripheral zones

XX X

Generally, the above threats originate from poverty of forest dependent people. However, given Cameroon’s relatively low population density and good crop growing conditions, land scarcity per se is not a leading factor for resource degradation. More specific root causes were (1) expansion of agriculture frontier in the absence of agricultural inputs to stabilize fertility levels, and farmers’ familiarity with adequate crop rotations, (2) lack of meaningful opportunities to derive sustainable benefits from wildlife management at the local level; (2) weak support and funding to plan and manage protected areas (3) inadequate incentives for involving good corporate citizens in conservation and game reserve management (4) the persistence of a context that tolerates inequity and does not stimulate participation.

The expansion of Cameroon’s protected area network was accompanied by dwindling budgets, staff retirement, halted recruitment and salary cuts. Over the past 14 years, protected area management relied principally if not solely on donors funding and organizational support. A MINEF/WWF evaluation of protected area management effectiveness carried out in 2002 concluded that only the protected areas which had received donor attention displayed good effectiveness scores. The same report concluded that project support to protected area management had not resulted in increased management capacity by MINEF and that projects were organizationally and financially unsustainable. It also showed that with few exceptions (Lobéké , Kilum Ijum and Kupé) these projects had not been able to address some of the fundamental problems to conservation such as the population’s tenurial rights on concerned protected areas.

However, the issue will be made more clear in the document to show how the components contribute to address these threats.

6. Comment: What is the baseline biodiversity status at the national level in relation to:(i) protected area;

66

Response: The biodiversity status baseline of larger protected areas which benefited from external funding and technical assistance in the past is generally acceptable. Smaller protected areas are relatively more degraded.

The proposed network of protected areas and critical conservation sites under FESAP will cover an area of about 4.6 million hectares (not including the ZICs or sport hunting zones). As part of the baseline, about 1.4 million hectare is considered to be effectively managed today. FESAC will contribute to the effective management of 1.86 million hectares. Other financial support to FESAP (from EU, French Bilateral, WWF and WCS) will contribute to the effective management of another 1.34 million hectare (see pg. 17 of the Executive Summary).

(ii) in relation to the "mainstreaming of biodiversity in the wider production forests"?

Response: The biodiversity status in production forests varies widely. Wildlife management has not been practiced in the past and stopping hunting and trade of protected species has emerged as a big concern for most forest concessions holders. As timber exploitation is selective the disturbance of forest through exploitation is temporary. A previously logged forest that hasn’t been logged for over 10 years is often biologically very diverse. In Cameroon logging in forest concessions (UFA) is not followed by agricultural encroachment. Agriculture development may follow exploitation of smaller ventes de coupes, where land conversion to other uses is permitted

It may also be pointed out that as part of the operation the policy guiding the preparation and implementation of the sustainable forest management plans does include specific guidance for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in the production forests.

(iii) What is the baseline capacity of key institutions as it relates to biodiversity issues: at central government levels?, site levels. This should indicate what capacity has been built through previous and ongoing GEF support. Some specific qualitative and quantitative assessment needs to be provided.

Response: In Cameroon over the past 15 years a lot of experience has been build up in protected area management, both at national and site levels. There are many lessons learned that are being drawn upon. A capacity assessment has been done based on which the stakeholder participation plan was drawn up. At the baseline level, the management of Cameroon’s protected areas has been a partnership between government (MINEF) and projects and international NGOs (WWF, WCS, IUCN, SNV, EU-Ecofac, GTZ, DFID etc.). This has lead to a situation where most of the PAs with project support have received a high ranking of management effectiveness in a recent assessment of management effectiveness (see GEF Brief-Annex 7 on Outcomes of GEF PDF B Block Grant), but have depended for “80%” on project support to achieve this.

At the baseline level, the capacity of MINEF for the management of the countries biodiversity is still insufficient. Within MINEF three departments have a clear responsibility for biodiversity, the Department of Wildlife and Protected Area (DFAP),

67

the Forest Department (DF, responsible for forest concessions and community forests) and the Permanent Secretariat for the Environment (SPE). These departments came from different ministries at the creation of MINEF 10 years ago. The SPE, coming from the Ministry of Territorial Administration, suffered most from the change of ministry and is still struggling to get to its feet. DFAP has never been very strong as well and, as explained in the GEF BRIEF, did not significantly benefit from the previous large GEF programme in Cameroon (PCGBC – see annex 7 of GEF Brief). The Forest Department has traditionally been strong and was strengthened through previous technical assistance programmes. Coordination between the three departments has always been weak, but was strengthened through the preparation process of the FESAP. It should be noted that the recent strengthening of the Direction de Coopération et des Projects should further improve coordination amongst departments (see pg 13 of GEF Brief).

The Provincial and Departmental Services of MINEF, as well as the Park Management Services, are traditionally weak and starved of funds to execute their work plans. These are targeted for strengthening as one of the main concerns to be addressed by the Institution Reforms.

Coordination amongst ministries has traditionally been weak in Cameroon. Ministries that have an important role to play are MINFIB, MINEPAT and the judicial services. The forestry and environment legislation of Cameroon is generally ill understood by judicial services and clearly not a priority. However, recent efforts to sensitize judges on the forestry laws are giving encouraging results. For national land use planning and zoning, a key ministry is MINEPAT and previous efforts to bring the two ministries together have need been very encouraging.

Based on the capacity assessment it was felt that there is a need to build capacity at both the site and the central level. In particular, the FESAC will capitalize on experiences of protected management under partnership between MINEF and NGOs, but emphasize the need for building capacity in MINEF to play its regalien role, including law enforcement, in protected area and wildlife management.

(iv) What is the current role of the communities in forest and PA management, as the baseline. This again should reflect the results and outcomes of previous and ongoing GEF support;

Response: As a result of the previous programs in the country , it is notable that the role of communities in forest management is growing with by the end of 2003, where some 239 community forests in different stages of development of which 63 with a management plan that are formally attributed, 56 reserved for CF and 120 in the pipeline. Village communities have a priority right to forest allocation of forests in their territory. The role of communities in PA management continues to be very low, mainly because to-date PAs in Cameroon hardly produce any benefits and, therefore, have high opportunity costs for local people. This is an area of concern that the PSFE will address at the ecosystem level by increasing benefits of natural resource exploitation (forestry, wildlife,

68

NTFPs) in peripheral zones to local communities (community forests, forest tax to local councils and communities, community wildlife zones). The previous Cameroon GEF support has introduced the concept of Ecosystem Units and promoted community wildlife and forest management in all its project sites (see GEF Brief Annex 8 on lessons learned from PCGBC). See also pg 35 -36 which discusses the participatory nature and active involvement of the stakeholders in the operation.

(v) In terms of the Ecosystem Units identified for intervention, please indicate whether any of these areas have been supported before.

Response: The following ecosystems identified for support have had project support before:

(i) Korup – ODA / WWF and EU / WWF (project recently closed); (ii) Campo Ma’an – GEF/SNV/Tropenbos (closed) and now FEDEC / WWF; (iii) Bakossi – WWF & CRESS (only research); (iv) Boumba Bek & Nki – GEF/WWF/GTZ; (v) Waza – DGID/IUCN/SNV (project closed); (vi) Benoue – GEF/WWF/SNV/FAC (project closed); (vii) Mbam & Djerem – new site with FEDEC / WCS. (viii) Only Ndongoro Mangroves area will be an entirely new initiative.

All these areas are expected to continue to receive attention as appropriate.

7. Comment: While the success of Forest component of the 3rd Structural Adjustment Credit for Cameroon for forest sector reforms has been attributed in part to the use of this instrument, the rationale for the use of the instrument for the current operation, especially as it relates to the GEF grant is not convincing. The reasons, as cited, for the choice of the adjustment credit (AC) (and the use of the GEF grant as part of this adjustment operation) instead of an investment loan (IL) include the following: fast disbursements, sufficient and synchronized counterpart funding, and better alignment between stated goals and outcomes of financed activities. These reasons, especially as it relates to the GEF funding, are not convincing. First, the suggestion that fast disbursement provided for under the AC is an advantage is contrary to the recurrent lessons and best practices emerging from the M&E which in fact calls for smaller biodiversity projects with funding spread (or phased) over a longer duration. Please justify.

Response: Please see responses to the points 1 and 2, which provide the justification for using the SECAL instead of the SIL. This was further clarified at the bilateral meeting.

8. Comment: What assurances have been built into this operation (be it AC or IL) to ensure that outcomes can be monitored and delivered on more effectively. Please elaborate.

Response: The proposed trigger indicators are defined in such a way that if the triggers are met the conditions are right for investment. A monitoring framework has been

69

proposed (GEF Brief Annex 6 Monitoring and Evaluation system) and for protected areas specifically the WB/WWF Alliance tracking tool for monitoring progress in PA management effectiveness will be annually applied.

9. Comment: It is not clear that the AC is appropriate to meet these demands. Besides oversight under the AC is limited and indicators fewer and conceived at a higher level, and as such this may not be appropriate in the case of biodiversity for the reasons cited above. Does the Bank have any experience from other environment (or biodiversity) related ACs which have informed the design and delivery of this program. Please elaborate, justify the use of AC for biodiversity related objectives.

Response: The IDA sector development and GEF biodiversity objectives have been merged in the proposed operation . They do contribute to meet the same objective. The IDA objective is also to provide support to the sustainable forest management agenda, as is for the GEF. The issue was further discussed at the bilateral meeting. See also point 1 and 2.

10. Comment: it is not clear that all of these funds are in fact a part of the AC. What is more critical than channeling all resources through one instrument is that the goals, objectives and outcomes are linked and that good co-ordination is maintained through tracking and monitoring of key results and outcomes. Programmatic approaches (APLs, through investment loans) meet the same requirements for resource flexibility and sufficiency. Please justify.

Response: The EU, DFID, Germany, Canada, France and other donors to the forest sector have adopted the Government’s Forest and Environment Program as the sole framework to channel their assistance to Cameroon. The Donors have agreed to channel their support to this Program through two main coordinated instruments: a) sector adjustment and targeted budget support to ease investments; and b) basket funding to meet the costs of national and international technical assistance. The two approaches are complementary, and the combination is endorsed by the donor community as a whole because it will allow to link funding and technical support to the achievement of the results (See p18 of the Executive summary and p22 of the GEF Brief).

GEF and DFID will join the Bank in providing financial support to the Government. Donors less comfortable or familiar with the use of adjustment or budget-based programmatic instruments, such as Canada and Germany will help create a Government managed basked fund for Technical Assistance. DFID and the EU will channel part of their funding this way as well. France’s support will focus on promoting forest management, one of the key areas of the operation. French support will be in the form of financing to enable forest companies to fulfill their obligations in relation to forest management planning and implementation.

Additionally, it may be pointed out that in the FESAC, the objectives and outcomes are linked and an effective coordination mechanism is in place to so that results will be

70

closely monitored using the M&E system proposed for the operation (see Annex 6 of the GEF Brief).

11. Comment: While addressing issues at a sector wide level is welcome, the lack of focused identified resources to PA and wildlife conservation up front increases the potential and likelihood that these themes will be undermined in a sector driven by production activities. With AC there is no direct link with expenditures - this is fine for items/sectors/themes high on the governement agenda - but it puts at risk conservation items which do not have the same commitment in most cases - in fact conservation is often a donor supported program for that reason (in fact the project notes that one source of funding for sustainability will continue to be from donors). So it is not clear how conservation outcomes will be assured or not undermined. What safeguards are there in the program that ensure that these funds will not be channeled to more economic oriented activities? Please justify.

Response: See point 8 and 9 above. It may however be clarified here that the indicators and triggers identified for the project do reflect that conservation issues are treated at the same level and their outcomes will be monitored in a similar fashion.

12. Comment: The substantial risks associated with the wildlife and protected arrangement, and community aspect (empowerment) components, coupled with high risk on the procurement and financial management capacity adds further concerns; and further to that on the appropriateness of the adjustment instrument for the GEF related interests. Unless, the case can be made in a compelling way, the overall assessment indicates that GEF related outcomes would be best served through conventional investment related instruments which might appropriately kick in during the second tranche, after critical institutional reforms through the first tranche.

Response: As discussed below see rationale for using the choice of instrument, which has also been discussed above in point 1 and 2. The issue has also been better reflected in the GEF brief (see Section C.4 pgs 22-23).

PROCUREMENT AND FIDUCIARY ASPECTS

With Bank support, the Government undertook a Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) and a Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR) in June 2002 and October 2000 respectively. The recommendations that resulted from these two exercise were integrated into broad ranging public finance and procurement reforms. These reforms include the following measures, among others:

Public Finance Management: (i) ensuring the independence of the Chambre des Comptes, (ii) giving sector ministries responsibility for certifying satisfactory completion of works and acquisition of services, and (iii) setting-up a General Inspection with the full authority to monitor any beneficiary of public funds.

Procurement: (i) introducing administrative transparency and accountability through systematic monitoring of procurement by specialized commissions and independent observers, and ex-post monitoring by independent auditors; (ii) creating a regulatory

71

agency – Agence de regulation des marchés Publics (ARMP); iii) adopting a new procurement code; and iv) enforcing penalties for procurement-related irregularities.

The fundamental elements of the above reforms were reflected as HIPC conditions. They should be in place by the time of HIPC completion (most likely June 2004). In line with ongoing agreements between the Government and the Bank, MINEF will be the first Ministry to adopt fully and in an accelerated manner all the enhancements introduced by the public finance and procurement reforms. The Government has agreed that quality of implementation of new financial and procurement procedures by MINEF should be audited annually to ascertain effectiveness, highlight difficulties encountered, recommend remedial action

Disbursement. The proposed credit will follow the Bank’s new simplified disbursement procedures for structural adjustment credits. The untied balance of payments support will be disbursed against satisfactory implementation of the adjustment operation and not tied to any specific purchases. No procurement requirements will be needed. Once the Credit is approved by the Board and becomes effective IDA will deposit the first tranche into an account opened by the Government at the Caisse Autonome d’Amortissement of Cameroon. The proceeds of the second and third tranche will be deposited after all respective tranche conditions are met. If, after depositing in this account, the proceeds of the Credit are used for ineligible purposes as defined in the Development Credit Agreement, IDA will require the Borrower to either: (a) return the amount to the account for use for eligible purposes, or (b) refund the amount directly to IDA. Although an audit of the deposit account will not be required, the Bank reserves the right to require audits at any time (see following section).

Auditing. It was agreed during preparation that the Operation’s Deposit Account at the CAA and the MINEF Account at Treasury would be audited annually by auditors acceptable to the Bank and in line with TORs satisfactory to the Bank. This requirement is compatible with the fiduciary framework that is emerging for all Bank adjustment lending. The audit of the Deposit Account will verify that Bank Funds were received in the Deposit Account and disbursed into the Treasury. The audit of the MINEF account at Treasury will verify that amounts consistent with credit tranches and approved MINEF work programs were transferred to MINEF in a timely manner, and that their use was consistent with administrative and financial management procedures and other applicable national directives. Receipt of audit reports including action plans that address identified weaknesses will be required along with the reports on tranche conditions would be required at the time of second and third tranche release.

Risk that Government financial management and procurement capabilities may continue to be inadequate and slow down the implementation of the Government Program

The Government’s capacity to implement the operation will depend upon the ability of MINEF to set-up and use the new financial management system the Ministry of Finance has developed and which will be gradually extended to all other public sector institutions.

72

In order to accelerate this process and ensure success, the Government will select a specialized firm to establish computerized financial management of MINEF, install equipment at the central and provincial levels, and train personnel prior to the release of the first tranche. Finding solutions will be key to launching the first PRSC operation, which is planned for FY06. By providing a test case, the proposed operation will benefit from special attention and support from the Ministries of Finance and Planning, and special follow-up by the Cameroon Country team.

CAPACITY OF COMMUNITIES TO MANAGE FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THEIR SHARE OF FOREST REVENUES

Forest-based forest revenues to communities will increase during the life of the operation. These revenues will reach the communities in the form of Govt funding to the decentralization process. The use of these funds is highlighted in the Program Document. Planning and monitoring of the use of funds will be assisted by Bank-and France-financed projects such as the PNDP. Use of funds will be audited annually.

The main emphasis of the investment is in setting up Park Management Services. These are presently integrated into the MINEF organigramme, but should gain more autonomy in institutional reforms. Institutional Reforms need building confidence between government and funding partners, which will be build during the earlier years of PSFE implementation. Therefore, necessary institutional reform cannot be part of the first tranche. The building of the Park Services is possible within the present institutional framework and will be done in such a way that they can be transferred as a whole into a newly created autonomous protected area management institution.

13. Comment: GEF funds are not to be used for commercial forestry. With the use of the AC instrument, the flexible use of funds does not allow this to be exercised. Please comment.Response: It may be clarified that no Bank-administered support (GEF, IDA, and possibly DIFID) will be used to support commercial logging directly or indirectly. No resources will go to the private sector. Loans for preparing forest management plans would be provided by France through the local Banking system.

14. Comment: On a more specific issue: Is there any potential positive or negative repercussions of the Cameroon-Chad pipeline on the project, and in particular related to GEF’s image. What safeguards have been employed in this context?Response: No there are none. Two of the Ecosystem Units targeted for support will be Campo Ma’an and Mbam & Djerem, both created by Cameroon Government as mitigation measures for the Cameroon-Chad pipeline. This will only help ensure their effective management.

73

SUSTAINABILITY15. Comment: Please provide more information on the first (FEDEC), and especially assurance that GEF will not get entangled in any environmentally sensitive issue. Also indicate what scale of resource will be generated through this foundation.

Response: FEDEC has recruited two executing agencies, WWF and WCS, to support MINEF in the management of the above named protected areas. The funding it makes available over a period of three years for each is only $500.000. This is hardly enough for minimum protected activities. GEF funds will be additional and incremental to these funds available and will not be part of any environmentally sensitive issue.

16 Comment: As for CAMCOF - this UNDP-GEF project was not put in the GEF work program (and a PDF process has been recommended). The reference to this here and citation as cofinancing indicates a lack of consultation on the ground and with UNDP.

Response: The above point has been noted. Related financing has been removed from the financing plan (see Cover page of the Executive Summary). However, consultation with UNDP took place and the issues of coherence and integration will be ensured through the PDF B Grant executed by UNDP in collaboration with CAMCOF during the second half of 2004, with the stated objective to re-introduce the proposal into the pipeline latest by January 2005. The team is aware that the PDF process was recommended because CAMCOF is not operational yet and the associated lack of track record and due to the level of complexity and size ($12 million) of the proposed project.

17. Comment: The reference to a performance indicator at the end of tranche 3 is too late and limited. The key elements of what constitutes a financial sustainability strategy and action plan need to be considered from the outset. Please provide key elements of the financial sustainability strategy and action plan - and how they relate to the key components, and with indicators for the key tranches.

Response: The basic elements of the financial sustainability strategy and action plan are included in the document. Emphasis is placed on ensuring sustainability through the following key elements: improved government policies, increased government support for the PA network, cost-effectiveness and creation of a conservation trust fund. These elements have been designed in line with the operations components and key indicators, which focus upon improving the regulatory framework (through components 1, 3 and 5), providing support for effective management of PAs within the network and development of the sustainable financing strategy (component 3). This issue however needs further consultation and discussion during the first phase of implementation. It may however be understood that the process of putting in place the strategy and action plan is expected to begin in the initial phase of the operation. However it needs to be borne in mind that the process of endorsement through the government is a slow and long process and as a result requires flexibility in its approval stages. As part of the indicator and triggers identified for tranche releases, the preparation of a draft strategy will be a trigger for release of floating tranche two and an approved financial strategy for implementation will be the trigger for release of the floating tranche 3 (see pg 38 of the GEF Brief).

74

REPLICABILITY18. Comment: key elements of replication need to be embedded in the design and addressed as part of the implementation from the outset, involving the right partners and stakeholders. Please provide such a plan (especially for Component 3), along with a clearly defined budget to do so, at the latest by CEO endorsement.Response: The point has been noted and will be provided prior to CEO endorsement.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION19. Comment: Please provide a clear indication of the extent of the stakeholder assessment and participation in this and other components. In particular, what is their role during implementation, role in the production forestry - especially in areas of potential conflict? Is any resettlement envisaged - in protected areas, and out of production forests? Please clarify.

Response: It may be pointed out that Annex 10 of the GEF Brief provides a detailed stakeholder participation plan which discusses the capabilities & interests of the stakeholders and also any possible conflicts that may arise and a possible mitigation strategy. However in addition to the same, please see the attached Reference Annex 1(at the end) on “Evolution of responsibilities in Cameroon’s forest sector” for greater clarity.

As for the resettlement issue, no resettlement is envisaged.

20. Comment: Please provide information of private sector participation in the stakeholder assessments, and information on their contribution to co-financing as part of their investment in the logging operations.

Response: As the adoption of management plans has become mandatory for all forest concessions, the private sector will play a key role in the management of Cameroon’s forest production estate. Assuming that management plans for 2 million hectares will be completed and approved during the life of the operation, and given an average of four US$/Ha for management plan preparation, the private sector would contribute US$8 million.

Further, Annex 10 of the GEF Brief on Stakeholder participation plan includes a discussion on the role and capabilities of the private sector. Fielding the context of this operation timber companies in concession bordering protected areas will have to comply with strict regulations including an EIA that needs to be approved prior to beginning any loggingh operation. They will also be obliged to implement companies’-poaching campaigns. A growing number of management plans identify zones of special biodiversity importance and propose measures for conservation. Increasingly forest taxes contribute to local development. Local people are generally more interested having a forest concession attributed next to their village territory then having a protected area.

75

M&E21. Comment: Please indicate what are the "key performance indicators" that the government is legally committed to under the Adjustment Instrument, and how do these ensure delivery of GEF related outcomes. These "mandatory indicators" should be set apart from "recommended set of indicators" – so that a judgment can be made as to what the country has to comply with. How will the project ensure that the recommended set of indicators are also monitored. Please clarify.

Response: See point 3. As also discussed in the bilateral meeting, in an adjustment operation the government is committed to the overall performance indicators that are identified for tranche release. In that context for this operation the overall outcomes including the biodiversity and sustainable forestry related outcomes will be tracked and monitored through the M&E system (Annex 6) developed for the project. Further the appraisal mission’s recommended work of identifying conditions to be met prior to tranche release are to be included in the legal document. In addition the setting up of the ecological monitoring system has been made an important sub-component of FESAP Component 3 to ensure effective measurement of performance.

22. Comment: None of the key performance indicators as listed ensure that biodiversity outcomes and status is improved (from the baseline). Having a management plan does not indicate that. There need to be binding performance indicators which are biodiversity focused. Please add.

Response: Point has been noted and was discussed in detail at the bilateral meeting. The matrix of indicators has been modified to reflect better the biodiversity outcomes (see Addendum 1 to Annex B of the Executive Summary, which is also part of the GEF Brief). However additionally it may be emphasized that FESAC includes two biodiversity performance indicators which contribute to Mainstreaming biodiversity into production landscapes and sectors, namely: 17 million additional Ha of land under ‘improved management for conservation and no less than 7 million additional Ha in productive landscape and sea scapes, including in and around protected areas that are under productive use that maintain biodiversity (see pg 9 of the GEF Brief and 13 of the Ex. Summary). In addition the setting up of the ecological monitoring system has been made an important sub-component of FESAP Component 3 to ensure effective measurement of performance.

23. Comment: What happens if the performance indicators for the tranche are not met? What is the recourse in this case and what are the alternative courses of action - this is not provided. What flexibility exists in the case of the AC loans with regards to on performance? Please clarify.

Response: It must be understood that under the SECAL arrangement tranche II and III would be released only after conditions of tranche I have been satisfactorily met (see pg 22 of the GEF Brief). Once appraised and included in the policy matrix and legal agreement, all conditions for tranche release become binding and should be met.

76

Changing or waiving conditions will require specific authorization from Management or the Board and should be noted in the operation’s documentation.

The proposed matrix within the document (Annex 5) reflects the key elements of the Government program endorsed collectively by the donor community. At the same time, it is very long; it may prove to be cumbersome, exceedingly prescriptive and an impediment to program delivery. Adjustments along the way may be necessary. To ensure that the matrix remains relevant overtime, the team proposes that it should be reviewed in collaboration with the Borrower and co-financiers 18 months after effectiveness. The legal document for the present operation will be drafted in ways that provide adequate flexibility.

24. Comment: Besides MINEF is there any other oversight arrangement for this operation i.e. Project Steering Committee. etc.? The "single" agency for execution, implementation, oversight, recipient of funds, and monitoring of performance lacks safeguards at different stages. Please elaborate.

Response: MINEF has the overall responsibility for the coordination, planning and monitoring & evaluation of the FESAP. As MINEF has to work in partnership with many actors, private sector, local councils and communities, NGOs there has been a need to create a number of consultation platforms at national as well as at provincial level. At the national level a Steering Committee (Comité d’Orientation et Validation) will be created to give overall direction to the FESAP. Each Component of the programme will be implemented under the responsibility of a designated MINEF Department supported each by a technical committee with designated members. At the provincial level programme committees will be installed to ensure coordination between the different executing parties in the field. Experience from the GEF PCGBC has shown that a national level a Steering Committee with representation from the main executants partners and donors as well as sister ministries may be effective in giving direction and solving certain bottlenecks. There is also positive experience with the CCPM (Comité de Concertation des Partenaires de MINEF) in ensuring information exchange and building a common vision amongst technical and financial international partners of MINEF. Experience with programme committees at the provincial level function best if they reunite only actors directly concerned by the programme (different MINEF services, private sector, NGOs and local communities, executants).

25. Comment: For SP#1 the project will contribute to 2.3 million hectares of protected areas under management plan (Component 2). For SP#2 under component 2 and 4 there is mention of productive and community forests under various management plans – but there is no indicator to ensure that biodiversity has been mainstreamed into these management plans, both by communities and the private sector. Please clarify.

Response: The indicators have been better refined to reflect the above concerns (see Addendum 1 to Annex B of the Executive Summary). As a general comment, overall in the operation in forest concession biodiversity concerns are increasingly given

77

importance. Forest management plans must mandatorily address biodiversity and wildlife concerns in logging concessions (series de conservation and measures against illegal hunting are included in management plans). The framework for Community Forests, places emphasis on artisanal production and low-intensity long-term community exploitation.

For Community Forests, there are those with a strong conservation focus (for instance in the highlands region) and there are those with a strong production focus (in the productive forest zones). A community forest bordering a National Park like Campo Ma’an is seen as compensation to local people. Biodiversity in these small community forests will be an issue, but will be secondary to sustainable contribution of the forest to local development.

FINANCING26. Comment: The cofinancing table cites the sources of cofinancing as pledged, but in the incremental cost annex it is indicated that these level of co-financing will not be confirmed till the end of the year. Please clarify.

Response: The cofinancing amounts have been refined to reflect the latest commitment of the donors (see cover page and Annex A of Executive Summary). Though the amounts have been pledged, discussion is open till appraisal which is scheduled in April 2004.

27. Comment: The understanding is as follows: under the AC, the operation will adopt a broad sectoral lending approach, and as such donor contributions to the operation are notional and will be allocated through annual work plans based on the achievement of projected targets and triggers. Is this right, please clarify.

Response: Yes.

28. Comment: The section on "Financial Modality and Cost Effectiveness" is lacking any supportive narrative on the AC instrument, and its cost-effectiveness, as it relates to the financing of this project. Please provide information on the anticipated amount (and sources) of funding which will be channeled through the Adjustment Credit and that which will not. Clarify the expected modality of the remaining funds. In particular, provide an overview of the processes for channeling GEF funds in the FESAC. Recognizing that detailed flow of funds will be determined after appraisal, and that these would be available by CEO endorsement, please provide general information on the proposed arrangements of funds at this stage.

Response: Details will be made available at the time of CEO endorsement. Also see point 10. Annex 3 of the GEF Brief does provide the estimated costs of the projects per donor.

29 Comment: Citing other GEF projects as cofinancing is not appropriate. Please remove reference to both the UNDP MSP and UNDP CAMCOF project. The latter, in fact has not yet been approved for work program inclusion - this point should be noted

78

and reference of linkages and prospective support from it should be amended as necessary.

Response: The necessary changes have been made in the document (see cover page of Executive summary and the GEF Brief).

30. Comment: There is a significant funding gap of $30 million, and there is no explanation of what this shortfall means for the project, and how, when, and from where these funds would be raised from. More importantly, what does this shortfall mean in terms of design and delivery of the program? Please clarify and justify.

Response: The funding gap of $30 million is artificial in that it represents the amount for which there is not formal engagement yet, but is likely to be confirmed post appraisal. It may however be pointed out that since much of this funding is in the pipeline with other donors, the GEF approval to fund FESAC will help strengthen the case with others to formalize their commitment.

31. Comment: Will GEF funds be used for Component 3 which is in need of critical attention or spread across the program (as indicated on pg. 25)?

Response: Through this operation’s adjustment credit the GEF funds will be spread across the entire program, and as per the query above, component 3 (or policy area 3) will also be covered.

32. Comment: Also the EC contribution has been cited in several projects relating to Cameroon, please double check if it is the same as that cited in other GEF projects (e.g. Transboundary project in this work program). Please clarify.

Response: It may be clarified that the “EC contribution” to the operation mentioned within the document is different to the contribution being referred to above for several other projects. This is new and additional money and the EU will finance the independent observer’s services (i.e. global witness) and protected area management as part of the new regional ECOFAC program

COST EFFECTIVENESS33. Comment: The scale of funding being committed to protected areas by the various projects and donors seems to be significant, and raises the question of "duplicate, over funding to the same sites":

(i) What is the value-added of GEF support to these same sites in view of the significant interest and funding by several other donors and partners.Response: The relative importance of the FESAP for poverty alleviation in Cameroon is considerable. The increment from the GEF & IDA support will be considerable. Without it the sector is unlikely to evolve in terms of strengthening policy and institutional environment. Protected area funding has been site related and projects come and go. All

79

the priority Ecosystem Units proposed for GEF & IDA support in the GEF Brief are presently having no or very little funding engagement, because previous programmes (GEF PCGBC, DGIS-WAZA, EU-Korup) have closed down. The increment for GEF finance in the long term is related to building an institutional framework that creates confidence in Cameroon managing its PAs and that would allow for sustainable funding to be available. In the short term, GEF finance would still make an important contribution to finance the setting up of conservation services, infrastructure, processes etc. Without the GEF finance the Ecosystem Units would be starved of funds, only be partially managed and much of the previous achievements would get lost. So, in other words, the increment for GEF finance is building inclusive management in internationally important Ecosystem Units (PAs plus peripheral zones) as well as the facilitation of an institutional framework that is accountable and that invites confidence from potential donors.

See also pg 29 of the GEF Brief which discusses the value added of both the Bank and the GEF.

(ii) Please provide concrete evidence of absorptive capacity of the PA institutions and sites to absorb this scale of funding, recognizing that several of these PAs have received funding, and will be receiving funding from other projects in the pipeline. How will duplication be avoided through a macro-program of this scale and design.

Response: Regarding the absorptive capacity, it has been clarified earlier that the implementation of the FESAC supported workplans will not require a large increase of donor and government resources committed for the forest & environment sector in previous years (see also p28-29 of the GEF Brief). Our estimations indicate that implementing workplans to satisfy FESAC triggers will amount to US$126 millions USD for an initial period of 5 years. This amount represents a reasonable transition from the average US$14 million flow of resources gone to forest and environment sector over the past 10 years. National approved budgets to the sector which averaged US$8 million over the past three years, would not need to increase except for the amount made available through the FESAC.

The big funding initiative such as the USAID financed Congo Basin Partnership only targets the Sangha Tri-National, which includes Lobeke for Cameroon and the Ngoila – Mintoum forest area of the TRIDOM initiative presently developed with a UNDP PDF B grant. Proposed KfW funding will not finance Park Management Services and mainly concentrate on activities in peripheral zones and planning. CAMCOF would equally not fund protected area management itself, it would concentrate on collaborative management, community forestry in peripheral zones etc. In other words, the funding for PA institutions is not high and has dwindled, and currently requires additional support that will be provided through FESAC.

INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION34. Comment: Please provide clarification on the key differences of the World Bank’s role in an AC operation as opposed to an investment loan?

80

Response: See point 1 and 2.

35. Comment: Please clarify the Bank’s role in day today operations in an AC?.

Response: It may be understood that the project cycle for an AC is practically the same, with Appraisal, Supervision and ICR following the same rules.

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION WITH IAs36. Comment: The reference to CAMCOF cofinancing is inappropriate as this has not been approved for work program yet. Please confer with UNDP further on this.

Response: Point has been noted and appropriate amendment has been made (see financing plan on the cover page of both the Executive Summary and GEF Brief).

III. GEF SEC Comments (Review Sheets of April 5, 2004) for Work program inclusion:1. What is the experience of the bank in the application of the AC in environment.

Response: See point 1 and 2 in the section II of GEFSEC comments above.

2. Why is Cameroon a good candidate for the application of the AC.

Response: See point 2 in the section II of GEFSEC comments and pgs 2-5 of this Executive Summary.

3. The outcomes for the biodiversity especially as it related to the components on production forestry and community forestry, need to be strengthened. The baselines should also be clear.

Response: The concern above has been addressed and the indicators have been strengthened. See points, 6, 21, 22 and 23 in section II of GEFSEC comments above.

4 Sustainability needs to be articulated

Response: See point 17 in section II of GEFSEC comments above.

5. The financing of tranches should indicate the nature of the floating tranches.

Response: This has been done. See Addendum 2 to Annex B and section on financial modality and cost-effectiveness in this Executive Summary.

6. The revised ES should include as appropriate, information provided in the written responses to review comments.

81

Response: The responses to justify the various concerns of the GEFSEC have been appropriately incorporated within both the Executive Summary and the GEF Brief. Changes have been made through the documents to better reflect the concerns. For ease in reference, the significant points have been highlighted in yellow in the Executive Summary.

X---X---X

82

I&D / Forestry Sector Institutional Review / Summary of the synthesis report / 23 June 02 83

SECTOR MANAGEMENT

PLANNING AND

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

ZONING AND CLASSIFICATION

FOLLOW UP AND SUPERVISION OF THE FORESTRY

STRENGTHENING MINEF ON ITS PUBLIC SERVICE MISSIONS

Stately functions of the public service

INFORMATION / SENSITISATION,

SUPPORT-ADVICE OF PRIVATE AND COMMUNITY OPERATORS

RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION OF

DRS PROJECTS OR WORKS

DEVELOPING A NETWORK OF PRIVATE SERVICE PROVIDERS OR NGOs

FORESTRY RESOURCE EXPLOITATION / PLANNING IN DP HOUSEHOLDS

PA AND INVENTORY SUSTAINABLE

MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY SPACES

COMMUNITY AND PRIVATE

Sub-contractable support functions Product. functions and transferable comm.

MINEF

NGOs PRIVATE SERVICE PROVIDERS

PRIVATE OPERATORS

COMMUNITIES

EVOLUTION OF PRIVATE OPERATORS TOWARDS PLANNING

INCREASED IMPLICATION OF RURAL COMMUNITIES

ONADE

REPOSITIONING ONADEF

Reference Annex 1: AWAITED EVOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT SITUATION

Present situation

Expected evolution

Documents

FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):€¦ · Web viewP073020 . Country: Cameroon. Project Title: Forestry and Environmental Sector Adjustment Credit (FESAC) GEF Implementing Agency: World Bank