<p> INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS DATASHEET APPRAISAL STAGE</p><p>I. Basic Information Date prepared/updated: 07/28/2008 Report No.: AC3684 1. Basic Project Data Country: Cote d'Ivoire Project ID: P111290 Project Name: Ivory Coast Protected Area Project Task Team Leader: Nyaneba E. Nkrumah GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity Global Supplemental ID: Estimated Appraisal Date: June 24, 2008 Estimated Board Date: October 20, 2008 Managing Unit: AFTEN Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Sector: Forestry (100%) Theme: Biodiversity (P);Small and medium enterprise support (S) IBRD Amount (US$m.): 0.00 IDA Amount (US$m.): 0.00 GEF Amount (US$m.): 2.54 PCF Amount (US$m.): 0.00 Other financing amounts by source: BORROWER/RECIPIENT 10.72 EC: European Commission 2.00 GERMANY: German Technical Assistance Corporation (GTZ) 6.78 UN UNESCO 0.04 World Wildlife Fund 0 .01 19.55 Environmental Category: B - Partial Assessment Simplified Processing Simple [] Repeater [] Is this project processed under OP 8.50 (Emergency Recovery) Yes [ ] No [X] or OP 8.00 (Rapid Response to Crises and Emergencies)</p><p>2. Project Objectives The PDO is: To improve the management of the National Parks, particularly the Comoe, through a)increased capacity of the Office of Parks and Reserves, b) improved management activities, c)improved community participation in park management and d)increased access to financing for the parks. </p><p>Problem Definition: Poor management of protected areas, inadequate financing levels and low staff capacity in the park management service have adversely affected biodiversity levels in all the national parks. This is compounded by a surrounding fringe community which places no biological or conservation value on the fauna in the park. Instead, the fauna is seen as a source of economic livelihood and poaching in this area is the key threat to the park. The lack of alternative livelihoods and, in particular, alternative sources of protein, makes it difficult to expect real long-term change in the behavior of park communities. </p><p>Design Solution: Given the small amount of financing available, the project cannot tackle all the outlined issues nor can it expect, in four years, to cause a significant increase in biodiversity in the parks. Its goal is therefore to improve participatory management of the national parks system through (i) increasing the capacity of the Office of Parks and Reserves to manage the parks in an effective yet participatory manner through training and provision of equipment and improving the capacity of the Foundation to access financing for the parks; (ii) using a pilot park, the Comoe National Park (CNP) to model a strategy/approachfor improved parks management. This approach focuses on changing the behaviors of community members by exposure them to public awareness campaigns with a biodiversity/conservation content and (iii) participatory management (with communities) of the CNP. To tackle the livelihood problem, the project, with IDA cofinancing, will (iv) fund an alternative livelihoods program in the park-fringe communities. To ensure that the strategy works, Government also has to play their part given the scarce resources available under GEF. In a post-conflict country with little rule of law for the last few years, the ability of the OIPR to staff up and enforce the park’s no poaching rules, with community understanding and participation, is essential to the success of this project. </p><p>Key outcome indicators of the project will be as follows (see more detail in Annex 3) (i) # of staff trained (OIPR and Foundation); (ii) % increase in funds from investment and fundraising; (iii) # of park fringe communities aware of the importance of biodiversity; (iv) % coverage of park by radio emissioins; (v) # of land management contracts; (vi) % increase in area covered by regular patrols/surveillance; # of community members participating in micro-projects. </p><p>3. Project Description Component 1: Institutional, Financial and Technical Strengthening for Protected Area Management and Oversight addresses the need to ensure that adequate individual, institutional and financial capacities are in place to manage the National Parks System. Subcomponent 1.1 is implemented by the Office of Parks and Reserves at Headquarters and by their field offices at the Zone level. Subcomponent 1.2 is implemented by the Foundation. </p><p>Component 1 will finance: </p><p>• Training for OIPR staff, including (a) scientific and technical training on park management in Sahel ecosystems; (b) finance, procurement, administration and planning training; (c) participatory protected area management; (d) bio-monitoring; (e) surveillance; (f) court case and evidence presentation and (g) monitoring and evaluation • Equipment, including (a) vehicles, motorcycles, faxes, printers, photocopies and other office equipment in the Comoe field offices but also in headquarters where need is clear and defined; (b) equipment to set up an effective communication system for the Comoe park; (c) equipment for surveillance activities-camp beds, GPS, etc. • Training and Equipment for the Foundation including training on (a) Monitoring and Evaluation; (b) donor workshops, grant writing workshops and (d) software, web design contracts, etc for implementation of a communication strategy geared at reaching potential investors. </p><p>Component 2: Participatory Management of the Comoe National Park addresses biodiversity conservation more directly by financing the implementation of a management plan for the Comoe National Park. This component is implemented by the OIPRfield unit(s) with HQ guidance. </p><p>Component 2 will finance: </p><p>Updating the Comoe National Park Management Plan including (a) support to a consultant or consultancy firm or NGO to work with the OIPR and fringe communities to update the Comoe Park Management Plan while improving the baseline data forkey species. Implementation of the Management Plan (a) a quick survey of the integrity of the park boundaries and the level of agricultural encroachment using satellite imagery; (b) support to surveillance activities and the design of a surveillance strategy for the park; (b) support to minor infrastructure- repair of pre-existing roads; (c) anti-bush fire campaigns; (d) increasing visibility of the park through improved signage; (e) habitat rehabilitation (f) pilot land management contract(s) with communities. Biomonitoring Impact Monitoring (a) assessment of flora and fauna in the Park; (b) impact of surveillance activities; (c) tracking of poaching activities. </p><p>Component 3: Support for Park Communities </p><p>This component finances the park communities, defined as the 200,000 people living on the park fringes, through public awareness campaigns, biodiversity training, land management contracts and alternative livelihoods. This training is to enable park communities to understand the importance of biodiversity, to give them real alternatives to poaching, and permit them, with training, to be able to participate in park management. The component will be implemented by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) with assistance from the OIPR field-based staff and the PCU. </p><p>Component 3 will finance: </p><p>Community Awareness Activities, including (a) upgrading and expansion of the MAB radio network in Naissan; (b) public awareness campaigns, including school-children specific campaigns using radio, theatre, etc; (c) specific training on biomonitoring, park management, bush-fire prevention. Training for project partners including (a) general training on the project and its goals; (b) training on poaching and other threats to the park; (c) training on the importance of the park, its benefits (biological, ecological and financial); (d) training on governance issues. Livelihood Activities using funds from the PGNTER project (IDA), including (a) contract or MOU with WWF to assist in the implementation of this component (contract would cover community trainings, public awareness campaigns, the preparation of manuals/guidelines on the livelihood activities- technical and process oriented; (b) operational expenses for technical support from Government institutions; (c) equipment for livelihood activities (coops, fencing, animal breeding stock, etc); (d) environmental impact assessment of each subproject. </p><p>Component 4: “Project Management and Monitoring for Results” </p><p>This component finances project management and monitoring. This includes general project coordination through a project management unit. </p><p>Component 4 will finance: </p><p>Project coordination and financial management, including (a) a project manager, (b) a monitoring and evaluation specialist with an ecology background; (c) financial management and accounting training for project management staff at the Foundation and the OIPR (d) independent financial and implementation control; (e) Monitoring and Evaluation for Foundation staff and (e) the annual audit </p><p>4. Project Location and salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis The project will occur at a national scale for capacity building and at a local scale, in the Comoe National Park and its fringe communities Ivory Coast. During preparation of theEnvironment and Social Impact Assessment (EA), a formal consultation was carried out in the Comoe National Park. In addition, the communities have had extensive discussions with the protected area management authorities, NGOs serving as technical assistant and/or consultant sociologists. The information they provided was used to for the creation of the new park law, to design the project, and draft the EA. The EA has been finalised to reflect the modified project and was disclosed on June 22, 2008 in the Infoshop. </p><p>5. Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialists Ms Nina Chee (AFTEN) Ms Yvette Laure Djachechi (AFTCS) 6. Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) X Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) X Forests (OP/BP 4.36) X Pest Management (OP 4.09) X Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) X Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) X Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) X Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) X Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) X Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) X</p><p>II. Key Safeguard Policy Issues and Their Management A. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues 1. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts: From an environmental and social safeguards point of view, this project is a Category B project. This is because the environmental and social impacts are expected to be minimal, site-specific and manageable to an accepted level. There are two World Bank safeguards policies applicable to the project: Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). </p><p>There are two types of impacts of the project (a) possible impacts from Component 2, which relates to the repair/rehabiliation of park roads and (b) unknown, ex-ante impacts stemming from Component 3, which is demand-driven and hence the range, scale, location and number of subprojects are unknown. </p><p>2. Describe any potential indirect and/or long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area: Environmental Safeguards:An Environmental Assessment was done for this project. Potential minor negative impacts are associated with the road rehabilitation/repair to be undertaken by the project. Possible adverse effects include dust, noise, soil erosion along tracks, especially in case of lack of maintenance or poor drainage, destruction of plant species in habitats, destruction of vegetation and increased attacks on wildlife by vehicle particularly if not accompanied by increased surveillance. There are some minor possible adverse effects associated with signage- including destruction of habitat and soil impaction. Other possible project impacts may include but are not limited to: (i) soil erosion; (ii) sedimentation of water bodies due to clearing land for construction; (iii) improper waste management; (iv) contamination of soil and water bodies. </p><p>Social Safeguards: Currently, there are no obvious resettlement issues in the project’s intervention area and therefore a RAP is not needed at this stage. In addition, civil works (roads rehabilitation) will occur only in the parks where there is no human settlement or risk to humans. A Resettlement Process Framework (RPF) has however been prepared because Bank guidelines indicate that since the fringe communities were, 40 years ago, living in the parks, there may still be some outstanding compensation issues. </p><p>For component 3, which focuses on supporting alternative livelihoods, there is some difficulty inherent in defining what the real environmental and social impacts of envisioned sub-projects are, and determining what mitigation measures should be put in place. As a result of this, the project has developed an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). These are social safeguards instruments to address potential loss of economic activitiy or land loss on the part of individuals or groups in the project intervention zones. The ESMF systematically addresses environmental and social issues in the screening and categorization, design and implementation, as well as operational and maintenance phases. It includes: (i) systematization of environmental and social impact assessment for all identified sub-projects before investment; (ii) procedures for conducting sub- projects specific environmental impact assessments; (iii) capacity strengthening and awareness raising campaigns for stakeholders for better implementation and monitoring of project safeguard measures; and (iv) roles and responsibilities for environmental control and monitoring. Potential impacts from micro-projects may include (i) loss of land or other assets leading to loss of shelter, property, economic resources or access to resources. If this occurs, a RAP will be prepared for each sub-project and the following steps will be taken: (i) a participatory diagnostic will be carried out; (ii) a census survey of families, cultivation income etc to create a database; (iii) all options will be examined to avoid displacement and/or seek acceptable mitigation or compensation measures. </p><p>3. Describe any project alternatives (if relevant) considered to help avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The impacts are already minimized- there are no populations in the park and the roadworks, which takes place in the parks will have a minimal impact on humans. In terms of livelihood activities, every effort will be made to avoid displacement of people or property. </p><p>4. Describe measures taken by the borrower to address safeguard policy issues. Provide an assessment of borrower capacity to plan and implement the measures described. The EA identified the major issues and impacts associated with the implementation of the PARC-CI project (with the exception of subprojects under component 3). There are some possible negative impacts associated with roads works but no serious social impacts given that the works are being conducted within the park and away from community settlements and community lands. Mitigation measures are therefore enforced through contractor performance monitoring with supervision from the Office of Parks and Reserves. In order to ensure that the contractor is fully aware and prepared for the management of health, safety and environmental aspects of the contract, the Contractor will be required to fill out a management plan (MP) for the specific works to be executed under his contract. This should outline possible negative risks, mitigation actions, budget and role/responsibility to ensure that measures and followed up and tracked. The management plan should be reviewed and approved by the Office of Parks and Reserves Director General before work begins. The review should demonstrate that the contractor’s management plan covers all identified impacts, and has defined appropriate mitigation measures. It should provide: </p><p>• An overview of the MP and impacts related to construction works • Relevant Ivorian legislation and WB standards to which the contractor will comply including how he will monitor that compliance specifying: • Standards against which the monitoring will be set (national and WB) • Which parameters and limits will be monitored • Frequency of monitoring • Internal organization, management and reporting mechanisms put in place for this. </p><p>The Office of Parks and Reserves has sufficient capacity in terms of the number of staff trained in habitat protection, forestry and environment. They will have general knowledge on environmental management and will be able to undertake regular monitoring of Contractors. In addition, in the project there is a social specialist and an ecologist who are members of the implementation team at the Comoe level. These two specialists are charged with following up on all safeguard related issues. </p><p>5. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people. Throughout preparation, both local and international NGOs were consulted and took part in project design and in implementation of other projects. These include: Afrique Nature,WWF, SOS Forest (Tai), WWF (Comoe), WCF, LOCODEBRU (Comoe), Afrique Nature (Mont Sangbe). This level of involvement from NGOs is expected to increase with the PPARC-CI implementation. </p><p>During preparation of the Environment and Social Impact Assessment (ES), a formal consultation was carried out in the Comoe National Park. In addition, with the social assessments prepared by other projects, and as part of drafting management plans, the communities have had extensive discussions with the protected area management authorities, NGOs serving as technical assistant and/or consultant sociologists. The ESMF and RPF were disclosed incountry to Government, NGOs and the project team during a day long workshop. Disclosure will continue by Government through newspapers and putting the document (readily available) in public areas such as libraries. </p><p>B. Disclosure Requirements Date Environmental Assessment/Audit/Management Plan/Other: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 06/22/2008 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/18/2008 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/22/2008 For category A projects, date of distributing the Executive Summary of the EA to the Executive Directors Resettlement Action Plan/Framework/Policy Process: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Yes Date of receipt by the Bank 06/22/2008 Date of "in-country" disclosure 06/18/2008 Date of submission to InfoShop 06/22/2008 Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop Pest Management Plan: Was the document disclosed prior to appraisal? Date of receipt by the Bank Date of "in-country" disclosure Date of submission to InfoShop * If the project triggers the Pest Management and/or Physical Cultural Resources, the respective issues are to be addressed and disclosed as part of the Environmental Assessment/Audit/or EMP. If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why:</p><p>C. Compliance Monitoring Indicators at the Corporate Level (to be filled in when the ISDS is finalized by the project decision meeting)</p><p>OP/BP/GP 4.01 - Environment Assessment Does the project require a stand-alone EA (including EMP) report? Yes If yes, then did the Regional Environment Unit or Sector Manager (SM) Yes review and approve the EA report? Are the cost and the accountabilities for the EMP incorporated in the Yes credit/loan? OP/BP 4.12 - Involuntary Resettlement Has a resettlement plan/abbreviated plan/policy framework/process Yes framework (as appropriate) been prepared? If yes, then did the Regional unit responsible for safeguards or Sector Yes Manager review the plan? The World Bank Policy on Disclosure of Information Have relevant safeguard policies documents been sent to the World Bank's Yes Infoshop? Have relevant documents been disclosed in-country in a public place in a Yes form and language that are understandable and accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs? All Safeguard Policies Have satisfactory calendar, budget and clear institutional responsibilities Yes been prepared for the implementation of measures related to safeguard policies? Have costs related to safeguard policy measures been included in the project Yes cost? Does the Monitoring and Evaluation system of the project include the Yes monitoring of safeguard impacts and measures related to safeguard policies? Have satisfactory implementation arrangements been agreed with the Yes borrower and the same been adequately reflected in the project legal documents?</p><p>D. Approvals</p><p>Signed and submitted by: Name Date Task Team Leader: Ms Nyaneba E. Nkrumah 07/28/2008 Environmental Specialist: Ms Nina Chee 07/28/2008 Social Development Specialist Mr Abdoul-Wahab Seyni 07/28/2008 Additional Environmental and/or Ms Nyaneba E. Nkrumah 07/28/2008 Social Development Specialist(s): Approved by: Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Mr Warren Waters 07/28/2008 Comments: Sector Manager: Mr Herbert Acquay 07/28/2008 Comments: </p>