Programme Des Nations Unies Pour Le Développement
DR Congo protected areas
RESPONSE TO GEF COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS
Democratic Republic of Congo PROTECTED AREAS BIODIVERSITY PROJECT
(Ref GEF/C.10/3, Vol I: Biodiversity Projects, Agenda 7)
Comments From GEF Council member (1998) / Response / Where in ProDocI. From Hans Peter Schipulle, Germany
I1. Three years is too short a duration of the project to produce reliable, sustained results / Following discussions with the Government in DRC, it has been decided to prolong the duration of the project from 3 to 4 years. The main reason is to allow greater flexibility in project implementation, as well as to provide time for the return of security to the country. Therefore (a) the first year will be devoted to careful management in government held territory (west of the country), using primarily government resources, (b) to be followed up with full implementation of three years, which would cover the whole country only upon careful evaluation of progress in the peace process and rebel troops disengagement in the eastern and northern part of the country. The focus of the 4 year project will be on addressing the current emergency situation, and therefore building the capacity of ICCN (human, material, technical etc.) up to internationally acceptable standards of functioning; this would lay the ground work for sustaining biodiversity conservation in general, and the possibilities of following up with a regular, long term project for biodiversity conservation in DRC. This Implementation Strategy is described in paragraph 5. / Paragraph 5I.2. Given political stability and the security problems in the eastern part of DRC, the German experts there are still waiting to resume work, but Germany will extend cooperation with DR Congo for biodiversity conservation. / ¨ A cease fire was signed among DRC belligerents in Lusaka in September 1999, it is now being implemented by all signatory parties
¨ UN military peace observers are already on the ground in rebel as well as government held territories
¨ Political parties have been re-instated in May 2001 and can now work; ways to avoid human right abuses are being discussed in a national conference; and press freedom is being proclaimed by the new government in Kinshasa
¨ A national dialogue was facilitated in 2002 by former Botswana President Masire, and this dialogue brought about an agreed constitution and power sharing mechanisms for 70% of the country. All these would lead to a democratic regime to follow national elections.
¨ Because of this agreement 70% of the country: (west and north up to northeast), are again accessible by the government
¨ Despite insecurity in the country, conservation NGOs have continued operations in the field: WCS and GIC in the Ituri Forest; WWF and DFGF in Virunga; WWF in Garamba; UNESCO with United Nations Foundation monies is now supporting the five world heritage sites in DR Congo including one in government held territory (Salonga) and four in rebel held territories (Garamba, Kahuzi, Virunga and the Ituri Forest); and GTZ is active in Kinshasa ICCN Directorate (Project Parcid) as well as in Kahuzi-Biega. / Letter of co-financing from GTZ
There is a need for a close coordination between GTZ and UNDP/UNOPS projects. / ¨ ICCN, the Congolese Park Service, and its ongoing partners (NGO and donors) have put together a mechanism for coordination, and agreed on priority actions during the previous war, even in remote areas of the eastern part of the country where rebels were active. Two meetings were organized in April 1999 at Naivasha, Kenya and one in Paris in July 1999. A third meeting took place on 20 November 1999 in Naivasha again, and a fourth coordination meeting took place in Kinshasa (Nganda) in February 2002.
¨ A representative of UNDP participated actively in the programmatic meetings for the GTZ project with ICCN (PARCID) in December 1998.
¨ Also, Mr.Georg Dörken, the Chief Technical Advisor of GTZ-ICCN (PARCID) project participated (along with USAID, international and local NGOs, UNDP, Government officers) in the 17 February 1999 local appraisal committee meeting for this UNDP-GEF protected areas project.
¨ In May and June 2001 as well as in May and June 2002 the government, UNDP GTZ (see new Parcid project CTA Wolf Schecken) and ICCN negotiated a coordination strategy for a concerted implementation of this project among partners, and this was later on accepted by all the partners including both GTZ and UNESCO and active NGOs for conservation in DR Congo. This strategy as described in the new paragraph 55 of the project document is hinged on a coordinating committee to be composed of (a) the General manager of ICCN and (b) the three CTA of major projects in the Congo protected areas (GTZ, UNESCO-UNF, and UNDP-GEF) and to meet at least every six months to ensure synergy and coordination of efforts among partners. / See letters of co-financing by UNESCO-UNF and GTZ.
Paragraph 5
The German government has envisaged extend cooperation with DR Congo. 1998 negotiations will take place to send an expert for supporting the Director General of ICCN / ¨ The GTZ project to assist the Directorate General of ICCN was effective as of June 1998. The project was renewed in January 2002, Mr. Wolf Scheckenback is now the German expert in place in Kinshasa, and replaced, Mr. Georg Dörken, the former CTA for that project.
¨ Also another GTZ CTA Dubonnet was based in Bukavu up to May 2001, and since June 2001 he has been replaced by Mr. Klein.
¨ As mentioned above, the GTZ project has been an active partner in coordinating and finalizing this Project Document with Government, ICCN and UNDP. / See letter of co-financing by GTZ
II. Comments from Christophe Crepin, French Council Member (11/24/97)
There are a number of inconsistencies between the main text and its various annexes…Footnote 1 refers to 28 management units whereas paragraph 31 to 31 units, and the figure of 16 is given in the text.. The text and its various annexes should be redrafted so that they are more detailed and consistent. / ¨ There are 28 field sites/management units where project operations will take place within 16 protected areas and national parks as described in paragraph 14 and re-written footnote 2 page 17 . In addition, there are three cities where there are Directorates of ICCN: Kinshasa’s Directorate General; and Bukavu and Goma’s Provincial Directorates, which originated from an earlier decentralization experiment that has succeeded. Thus the project will be operational in 31 units.
¨ The 28 management units with their sub-headquarters, are distributed in the 16 protected areas selected for this GEF project. Some PAs have 2, 3 or 4 administrative sub-headquarters (see annex 2a; for instance Virunga has 4 such places; that is, Rwindi, Lulimbi, Rumangabo and Mutsora. Hence there is a sum total of 28 such management units as listed in the project document (see Project Document, Annex 2a and its footnote). / Footnote 2 and paragraph 45
Annex 2a and its footnote
Although the project is a move to decentralize the protected areas management system through 16 sites no explanations are given regarding their necessary management and coordination, or how they will be networked. / ¨ The directorate general of ICCN has the responsibility to coordinate the protected areas system. At least three functional activities that ensure networking and management coordination for the system are included in the Project Document in paragraph 51:
· (a) daily communications by two-way radios between the ICCN directorate general and each of the other 30 protected areas management unit;
· (b) regular site visits by directorate general staff to the protected areas management units; and
· (c) quarterly reports from each management units are sent to the directorate general. / Paragraph 53
To identify ecotourism as a major source of profit is unrealistic in the present context of insecurity. / · During the 4 initial years of protected areas rehabilitation, it is not expected that eco-tourism will be undertaken in Congo’s protected areas (except perhaps in a few spots such as at the Presidential Park of N’Sele in the suburb of Kinshasa where for instance foreign residents of Kinshasa and particularly UN peace keeping mission members frequent). However, it is expected that the 4 year project will develop mechanisms for the protected areas system to be self sustaining and revenue generating, for application later on during ensuing phases. Among those mechanisms one can cite eco-tourism as well as some trophy hunting schemes. This has been clarified in the Logical Framework , Output 4. Activity 4.3. / Annex 3: Logical framework, Activity 4.3.
The map is virtually illegible, and some of the protected areas names are missing on the map. / A new clearer map is attached that depicts the 16 protected areas where rehabilitation will be taking place. / See new Map annex 7.
The investment needed to equip 31 management units needs clarification / Paragraph 52 (penultimate and last lines) in the Project Document refers to the equipment needed for the 31 Management Units. A full list of required inputs is given in Annexes 2A and 2B of the Project Document. / Clarified Annex 2a and 2b, and paragraph 54, last line
A paragraph on the sustainability and financial maintenance of these 16 sites once the project is completed would be useful. / ¨ The main tenet of this 4 year emergency rehabilitation project is that when ICCN is strengthened enough to be back on its feet again, it will be able to generate sustained revenues from protected area regular operations, and eventually from some new schemes such as eco-tourism and trophy hunting, etc. (see paragraph 35; and annex 13---sub-contact on revenue generating schemes)
¨ As an example, during the second semester of 1999, tourism has been launched again at the Presidential Park of N’sele. During the first month, US$500 were collected from tourists by ICCN. Also Kundelungu and Upemba National Parks in Katanga generated around US$1,000 in 1999 and 2000, through park visits by fishermen. Furthermore, there is ample precedence for revenue generation, for example, between 1986 and 1993 Virunga and Kahuzi Biega National Parks in the Kivu provinces generated monthly US$60,000 from wildlife viewing, particularly due to the gorillas. The project will endeavor to bring ICCN back to its previous standards of operation, provided that political stability and peace are re-established in the country within the 4 year period. As mentioned previously, the chances of this condition to being met is now more than ever realistic. This rehab project therefore does not guarantee financial sustainability, but sets the enabling environment for future interventions that would do so. / Paragraph 35, and annex 13 sub-contract on revenue generating schemes
III. Comments from Darryl Dunn Council Member representing Australia, New Zealand, and the Rep of Korea (21st November 1997)
This project seeks to rehabilitate protected areas in DRC. The process outlined for achieving this is consistent with GEF operational guidelines. The global benefits for re-establishing the protected areas is significant. The DRC is recognized as being among the two most important countries in Africa in terms of biological diversity given its genetic, specific and ecosystemic diversities. Constituency supports this project noting concerns of the country’s political stability. / ¨ These constructive and supportive remarks are well appreciated, and they reflect the complex reality in DR Congo, while showing that the situation is nevertheless amenable to biodiversity conservation.
IV. Comments from Ad. Koekkoek, Netherlands Council Member (1/13/98)
The project focus is on supporting international NGOs. Government involvement in formulation was almost absent and is hardly foreseen in implementation / ¨ Out of 20 people who attended the project’s formulation (ZOPP) workshop, 15 were managers of protected areas and the directorate general of ICCN; therefore Government has actively participated in the preparation of the project.
¨ As is standard procedure for all UNDP Local Appraisal Committee Meetings, ICCN staff from the Directorate General, as well as two participants from the current Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Cooperation and Foreign Affairs were present at the February 1999 meeting. Only two people from NGOs (national and international) were involved. In May 2001, negotiations between UNDP and Government took place in Kinshasa to update the project proposal and devise an implementation strategy and coordination of efforts following current positive situation in DR Congo (Partner NGOs were kept informed of the outcome).
¨ Output no.1 will deal with legal framework to be implemented at 95% by the Ministry of the Environment.
¨ Government staff , including staff from ICCN, prepared along with the CTA of PARCID project and UNDP officers various annexes of this Project Document including Annexes 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, and 14.
¨ Moreover the government is providing the major co-financing for project especially for Output 1; and ICCN staff, who are government employees would assist project implementation throughout. Wherever international NGOs provide assistance this will be in conjunction with ICCN park rangers, conservators, etc who are also on government payrolls.
¨ In conclusion this is a partnership project between government and NGOs that recognize and builds on their respective capacities. / Annexes 7 to 14, including logframe developed by ICCN, NGOs, and government staff…
Paragraph 62 on the Director General of ICCN as the major player of the coordinating committee
See Letter of Co-financing by government
Social and economic dimensions of the project are not well developed and conservation matters outside the protected areas is not adequately put forward. / ¨ The 4 year rehabilitation project is intended to put ICCN back on its feet for basic functioning, including training and assigning park managers. Once the structure is in place, then it will be possible to build collaborative management arrangements with local communities. Such a structure and capacity for participative planning is needed in order to slow down and stop the rapid rate of encroachment into the park systems (e.g. over the past 5 years local community’s fields have encroached into several PA; other examples of encroachment are coltan mining such as in Kahuzi and Ituri Forest, poaching, encroachment on habitats, charcoal making, etc). Only then can a dialogue between the Protected Area management and local communities be progressively fostered. Nevertheless it is expected that community based initiatives will be initiated where possible during the 4 years of the project, to set the stage for a larger and longer termed community-based biodiversity conservation project later on. At least $300,000 have been allocated in the budget to look into social dimensions and to start pilot dialogue with some communities around PA in the Kivu provinces (see Annex Logframe, Output 5, Activities 1&2).
¨ The strategy for the implementation of the $300,000 for social-economic dimensions and development outside PA is as follows:
ü Dialoguing with local committees installed around PA;
ü Agricultural capacity reinforcement for farmers (agro-forestry; selected seeds, new improved agricultural techniques, anti-erosion measures, etc.);
ü Community tree plantations to avoid/lessen park tree depredation by charcoal makers; and
ü Assistance in the development of social infrastructures (dispensaries, schools, etc.).
¨ Additional funds for community work will be provided through the UNESCO-UNF World Heritage Sites project takes around 5 Pas. / See Annex 3. Logframe, Output 5, Activities 1&2;
Paragraph 55 - 57
Paragraph 12 deals with establishing a national environmental fund, partly with UNDP resources, but it does not give details of the replenishment, the management and direct objectives of the fund. / · In the process of the implementation of national environmental action plan, which also covers PAs, the Government of Democratic Congo (DRC) through the Ministry of the Environment will set up an environmental fund to support environmental activities in the country. The fund descriptions are not in this GEF protected areas brief, it is rather in the NEAP implementation project, which is a parallel project (see UNDP-Kinshasa) to this, and that is due to start in 2003. The environmental fund will receive monies out of a percentage of taxes related to the environment in the country, such as taxes on tourism, timber cutting, garbage collection, etc. Over the past 15 years, two such environmental sub-funds have already existed in DRC, namely on tourism (Fond de Promotion Touristique) and on timber harvesting (Fond de Reconstitution du Capital Forestier). These two sub-funds will be merged in the Environmental Fund, and other environmental taxes will be levied and added to the package. / See paragraph 19 and new footnote 1.
2