Docstoc

Tunisia Protected Areas - resubmitted PAD

Document Sample
Tunisia Protected Areas - resubmitted PAD Powered By Docstoc
					Document of
                                         The World Bank



                                                                       Report No: 23339-TUN




                                  PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

                                                ON A

                                       PROPOSED GEF GRANT

                          IN THE AMOUNT OF US$5.3 MILLION EQUIVALENT

                                              TO THE

                                       REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA

                                               FOR A

                            PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

                                            April 29, 2002



Rural Development, Water and Environment Department
Middle East and North Africa Region
                                CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
                                  (Exchange Rate Effective )
                         Currency Unit = Tunisian Dinar (TND)
                               TND 1 = US$
                                 US$1 = TND


                                        FISCAL YEAR
                             January 1 -- December 31


                                  ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ANPE     National Environment Protection Agency
APAL     Agence de Protection et d’Aménagement du littoral
ASIL     Agricultural Sector Investment Loan
ASIL2    Second Agricultural Sector Investment Loan
BCT      Central Bank of Tunisia
CAS      Country Assistance Strategy
CG       Coordination Group
CP       Contrat Programmes
CRDA     Regional Agricultural Development Council
DC       Development Committees
DG       Development Groups
DGBGTH   Direction of Barrages and Technical Studies
DGF      Directorate General of Forestry
DGFIOP   Directorate General of Finance and Investments
DGLP     Directorate General of Land Use Planning
FARAH    Financial Accounting Reporting and Auditing Handbook
FDP      Forestry Development Project
FMR      Financial Monitoring Report
FMS      Financial Management System
GFIC     Groupements Forestiers d'Intérêt Collectif
GIC      Local Interest Groups
GOT      Government of Tunisia
IA       Implementing Agencies
PSC      Project Steering Committee
JBIC     Japanese Bank for International Cooperation
LCD      Local Council for Development
LDC      Local Development Committee
M&E      Monitoring and Evaluation
MED      Ministry of Economic Development
MF       Ministry of Finance
MELP     Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning
METAP    Mediterranean Technical Assistance Program
MOA      Ministry of Agriculture
NEAP     National Environmental Action Plan
ONTT     Office National du Tourisme Tunisien
OPDI     Pilot Operations of Integrated Development
OPDI     Pilot Integrated Development Operations
PATC    Action Plan for Cultural and Environmental Tourism
PMU     Project Management Unit
PIP     Project Implementation Plan
PMT     Park Management Team
QAG     Quality Assessment Group
RSCN    Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature
SIPF    Système d'Information pour la Planification Forestière
SOE     Statement of Expenditure
SSEPN   Système de Suivi Evaluation des Parcs Nationaux
STDP    Second Forestry Development Project
TFDP    Third Forestry Development Project
TG      Trésorerie Générale
TOR     Terms of Reference
UNDP    United Nations Development Program
WSIL    Water Sector Investment Loan

                         Vice President:        Jean-Louis Sarbib
              Country Manager/Director:         Christian Delvoie
                Sector Manager/Director:        Letitia Obeng
        Task Team Leader/Task Manager:          Shobha Shetty
              TUNISIA
PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT


            CONTENTS
A. Project Development Objective                                                       Page

   1. Project development objective                                                       2

   2. Key performance indicators                                                          2

B. Strategic Context
   1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project      2
   2. Main sector issues and Government strategy                                          3
   3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices                  5

C. Project Description Summary

   1. Project components                                                                  6
   2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project                       7

   3. Benefits and target population                                                      8

   4. Institutional and implementation arrangements                                      10
D. Project Rationale

   1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection                          12
   2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and other development agencies         13
   3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design                                14
   4. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership                                   16
   5. Value added of Bank support in this project                                        16
E. Summary Project Analysis
   1. Economic                                                                           17
   2. Financial                                                                          18
   3. Technical                                                                          18
   4. Institutional                                                                      19
   5. Environmental                                                                      21
   6. Social                                                                             22
   7. Safeguard Policies                                                                 23
F. Sustainability and Risks
   1. Sustainability                                                                     24
   2. Critical risks                                                                     25
   3. Possible controversial aspects                                                     28
G. Main Conditions
   1. Effectiveness Condition                                                            28
   2. Other                                                                              28
H. Readiness for Implementation                                                          29
I. Compliance with Bank Policies                                                         29
Annexes

Annex 1: Project Design Summary                                                         30
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description                                                   37
Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs                                                        43
Annex 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Summary, or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Summary          44
Annex 5: Financial Summary for Revenue-Earning Project Entities, or Financial Summary   47
Annex 6: Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements                                      48
Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule                                                    57
Annex 8: Documents in the Project File                                                  58
Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits                                                 59
Annex 10: Country at a Glance                                                           61
Annex 11: STAP Review and Response                                                      63
Annex 12: Social Assessment                                                             69




MAP
                                                        TUNISIA
                                   PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

                                           Project Appraisal Document
                                           Middle East and North Africa Region
                                                         MNSRE


Date: May 22, 2002                                        Team Leader: Shobha Shetty

Country Manager/Director: Christian Delvoie               Sector Manager/Director: Letitia A. Obeng
Project ID: P048315                                       Sector(s): VM - Natural Resources Management
                                                          Theme(s): Environment
Focal Area: B - Biodiversity                              Poverty Targeted Intervention: N



Project Financing Data


 [ ] Loan      [ ] Credit      [X] Grant     [ ] Guarantee        [ ] Other:


For Loans/Credits/Others:
Amount (US$m):
Financing Plan (US$m):       Source                                 Local           Foreign           Total
BORROWER/RECIPIENT                                                     4.24             0.00            4.24


LOCAL COMMUNITIES                                                      0.16             0.00            0.16
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY                                            3.59             1.74            5.33
FOREIGN MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS                                      0.15             0.00            0.15
(UNIDENTIFIED)




Total:                                                                 8.14             1.74            9.88


Borrower/Recipient: GOVERNMENT OF TUNISIA


Responsible agency: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
Ministry of Agriculture
Address: 30 rue Alain Savary, 1002 Tunis
Contact Person: Mr. Ahmed Ridha Fekih Salem, Director General, DGF
Tel: (216-1) 842 687              Fax: (216-1) 801 922             Email:
Other Agency(ies):
Ministry of Environment and Land Use Planning
Address: Centre Urbain Nord, Cedex 1080, Tunis
Contact Person: Mr. Najib Trabelsi, Director-General, Environment
Tel: (216-1) 702 779                Fax: (216-1) 238 411              Email: DGEQV@mineat.gov.tn
Address: Ministry of International Cooperation and Foreign Investment
Contact Person: Mr. Kamel Ben Rejeb, Director-General
Tel: 216-1-798-522                 Fax: 216-1-799-069               Email: Multilaterale@mci.gov.tn
  Estimated Disbursements ( Bank FY/US$m):
              FY                 2003     2004     2005      2006         2007         2008         2009
                Annual             0.50     1.20     1.30      1.50         0.50         0.33
             Cumulative            0.50     1.70     3.00      4.50         5.00         5.33


   Project implementation period: September 2002- August 2008




OCS PAD Form: Rev. March, 2000

A. Project Development Objective

1. Project development objective: (see Annex 1)
The project's main development objective is improved management and protection of selected national parks for the
purposes of conserving biodiversity of global importance and contributing to the overall improvement in welfare of local
populations.

2. Key performance indicators: (see Annex 1)
Two categories of performance indicators have been identified. The first category would pertain to those with direct
impact on the global environment (technical bioindicators) and the second would include those pertaining to
improvement in the socio-economic conditions of local populations. The first category would include: (i) stabilization or
improvement of demographic status of key bio-indicators specific to each national park (vegetative cover and distribution;
local animal/bird populations; water management program for Ichkeul) - see annex 1 for key species in each park. The
second category would include: (ii) % of activities of the Annual Work Program that are entrusted to local communities;
(iii) the participatory process for the management plans and annual work programs through the Local Council for
Development (CLD) and the Project Management Team (PMT) is functional; (iv) number of tourism concessions in each
of the three parks; (v) overall improvement in management effectiveness as defined by the IUCN scorecard; and (vi)
creation of permanent deputy conservators in the three parks in charge of community and public relations.

B. Strategic Context
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (see Annex 1)
Document number: 20161-TN Date of latest CAS discussion: 04/27/2000

The proposed project directly supports the CAS objective of consolidating long-term development in the environment and
natural resources management sector through the protection of Tunisia's natural resources. The project would assist the
Government of Tunisia in improving the conservation of biodiversity within the protected areas through implementation
of management plans at three national parks together with local communities and capacity building at the regional and
local levels to assure sustainable ecosystems management and monitoring.

1a. Global Operational strategy/Program objective addressed by the project:
The proposed project complies with GEF operational strategy in the area of biodiversity conservation. It primarily
addresses the GEF Operational Program in the Biodiversity Focal Area OP 1 (Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems). It also
addresses, to a limited extent, OP 2 (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems) in one of the project sites (Lake
Ichkeul National Park).
Tunisia has ratified the following major international environmental conventions and agreements dealing with the
protection of natural habitats and related species – CITES (1974); UNESCO World Heritage (1974); Ramsar Convention
(1979); Bonn Convention (1986); Desertification Convention (1979); Berne Convention (1995), and the Biological
Diversity Convention (1993). Tunisia is also one of 6 countries participating in the regional UNDP/GEF Conservation of
Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Region Project to conserve biodiversity in the coastal ecosystems.
The proposed project will not include coastal ecosystems but the activities in the latter would strongly complement the
proposed project's interventions.
The project is designed to support, through its relevant outputs, the following articles of the Convention on Biological
Diversity:
       Article 6 - General measures for conservation and sustainable use (conservation management plans for selected
       sites of biological and ecological interest);
       Article 7 - Identification and Monitoring
       Article 8 - In-situ conservation (strengthened protected areas and environmentally sustainable development in
       areas adjacent to protected areas, rehabilitation and restoration of fragile ecosystems);
       Article 11 - Incentive measures (Participatory programs implemented with local populations);
       Article 13 - Public education and awareness (improved public awareness on nature protection).

2. Main sector issues and Government strategy:
Sector importance: Of the 870 species of plants that are rare, threatened, or endemic in North Africa, about 150 occur in
Tunisia. There are an estimated 2200 species of plants in Tunisia, but less than 2 percent represent globally threatened
vascular plants (IUCN, 1997). At the national level, there are 239 rare and 101 very rare species. Tunisia's rare flora
include 6 species endemic to the country, and about 80 species endemic to North Africa and the northern Sahara. Many of
the plants are valuable as a genetic resource. Important forage plants (medicago, hedysarum), medicinal plants (Myrtus
communis, Urginea maritima, daphne gnidium), fiber plants (Stipa tenacissima) and plants of food value occur (Olea,
Capparis). There has been a decline in forest cover – from 3.3 million hectares in the Roman era to 841,000 hectares at
present, but several activities through Bank-supported projects have addressed this issue and forest cover is improving
again, albeit slowly.
         Tunisian fauna is relatively less well studied, and has been in a substantive decline over the past century. At
present, all large mammals (except the wild boar, Sus scrofa barbarus) are considered threatened. About 80 species of
mammals, 362 species of birds, and more than 500 species of reptiles and fish can still be found. Several mammal species
are endemic to North Africa. Rare and endangered mammals (IUCN Red Book, 1985) include the barbary hyena(Hyaena
hyaena berbera), barbary deer (Cervus elaphus berberus), dorcas gazelle (Gazelle dorcas massaesyla), cuvier’s gazelle
(G. cuvieri), and the slender-horned gazelle (G.leptoceros). Rare and endangered birds listed in the IUCN Red Book that
occur in Tunisia include, inter alia, the white stork, marbled teal, white-headed duck, red kite, peregrine falcon, bearded
vulture, and the Houbara bustard. Globally threatened species (all) number 110.
Root causes of biodiversity loss: Forest and vegetation degradation still continues due to burgeoning population pressures
with overgrazing, fuelwood and fodder collection being the primary culprits. This has exacerbated erosion and
significantly contributes to the soils that are lost annually to desertification. Inappropriate cultivation techniques in the
steppes have resulted in wind erosion and dune formation. Enforcement of protective measures is weak due to the absence
of multi-disciplinary management plans, low awareness, and weak institutional capacity.
Absence of participatory approaches to protected area management: While the intent of the protected area system is well-
founded and is of great importance for the preservation and enhancement of biological diversity, there is a clear need for
the management systems currently in place to go beyond the traditional approach to conservation. Hunting, overgrazing,
and inappropriate agricultural practices of local communities continue to pose a threat to the integrity of many of the
protected areas. Since about 10 percent of the Tunisian population (~ 1 million) live within forest areas and/or in the
vicinity of protected areas, it is essential that the management of the protected areas integrate the needs of the local
communities while conserving natural resources. Designing management plans that incorporate greater stakeholder
participation with the objective of linking conservation of biological diversity in protected areas with improved local
social and economic development will be essential to ensure long-term conservation.
Inadequate institutional capacity: The Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning (MELP) is in charge of policy
formulation, planning and regulation, with the Directorate General of Forestry (DGF) in the Ministry of Agriculture
(MOA) being responsible for management of the protected areas through on the ground daily surveillance, protection and
management activities. There is no substantial overlap in the two mandates, but coordination between the two Ministries
is weak, and better integrative mechanisms especially for data management are required. Habitat loss and poaching are
seriously threatening much of the national fauna. Fauna are in need of protection through improvement of law
enforcement capabilities. Budgetary constraints, lack of equipment and trained staff have reduced national park protection
to the minimum.
Land tenure issues: Some of the national parks have local communities living within the park boundaries. In the Ichkeul
N.P, there are about 65 families living within the park. It is GOT policy not to evict anyone already living in the park,
although no new families are allowed to settle within park boundaries hereafter. In Jbil, the park is apparently still used
seasonally by the adjacent tribes, including the Mrazig, the Sabria, and the Adhar and Ghrib. In the Spring months there
are many families that go from Douz to spend time in the desert and there is still hunting (although forbidden), in part
because of foreigners that come specifically for this purpose. There is lack of clarity on whether the tribes that previously
used this area still consider that they have rights of access to the park area and its resources, primarily as a passage way to
other grazing areas. The land tenure status of the former collective lands is also ambiguous.
Government strategy: Tunisia accords a high significance to biodiversity conservation and sustainable uses in its
development effort. There is a strong political commitment towards enhanced conservation efforts and its successful
integration into a wider economic, social and cultural context. There is a growing realization that earlier natural resources
management interventions have sometimes failed to fully achieve their objectives because community participation and
insight into the planning, prioritization, and management process were limited. There is now a high-level commitment to
participatory natural resources management in the Ministry of Agriculture which is moving to a reorientation from top-
down planning in favor of a collaborative approach with resource user groups such as the Development Committees
(CDs) in the Bank-financed Natural Resources Management Project (Ln - 4162) and the Northwest Mountainous
Development Project (Ln - 3691), and Groupements Forestiers d'Interet Collectif (GFICs; some of which were formerly
Associations Forestieres d'Interet Collectif, AFICs) as in the Second Forestry Development Project (Ln - 3601). User
groups have been promoted first with rural potable water and tubewell irrigation perimeters, but are still at their infancy
among forest users and soil conservation groups, and are yet to be extended to rangeland users. The Ninth Development
Plan (1997-2001) identifies protection of forests, national parks, and improved and rationalized management systems as a
key element of a sustainable natural resources management strategy.
A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan were developed in a very participatory manner under a Biodiversity
Enabling Activity (GEF-funded; the World Bank being the Implementing Agency) and were adopted by the Government
in 1998. University academics, research institutes, and environmental NGOs (local and international) provided useful
inputs into the preparation of the Biodiversity Strategy. The strategy also benefited from bilateral assistance from
Germany and Sweden. The key priorities of the national strategy are strengthening the biodiversity knowledge base,
prevention of the erosion of genetic resources, improved protection and management of critical ecosystems, integration of
biodiversity conservation in relevant sectoral strategies, and strengthening of the institutional and regulatory framework.
GoT is actively looking to GEF and other donors to finance the main elements of its Action Plan and meet its obligations
under the Biodiversity Convention. GoT officially requested the Bank for assistance in obtaining GEF funds for a
protected areas management project in July 1998.
The proposed project is in line with the national priorities as articulated in the "Strategie Nationale de Conservation et de
Developpement de la Flore et de la Faune Sauvages et des Aires Protegees" (July 2001) prepared under the recently closed
Second Forestry Development Project.

3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices:
The proposed project will be the first to give concrete content to the Biodiversity Strategy adopted in June 1998. It will
assist the Government of Tunisia in the implementation of integrated management plans with increased community
participation that would provide a basis for replicability for management of other protected areas important for both
national and global biodiversity. The proposed project would strengthen the capacity of the Directorate General of
Forestry (DGF) to plan, implement, and coordinate biodiversity conservation at the local and national levels. The project
preparation efforts will take a close look at complementarity and leveraging issues with other Bank-financed projects
(Natural Resources Management Project (ongoing) and the Northwest Mountainous Areas and Forestry Development
Project (under preparation) and a number of community-based and environmental education projects sponsored by UNDP,
the EU, and GTZ.

At the initial stage of preparation, this project was conceived of as an important element in the National Forest and Pasture
Development Strategy, and as part of a potential follow on project after the Second Forestry Development Project (SFDP)
which closed in May 2001. However, the National Forest and Pasture Development Strategy was delayed in its
preparation and it is only now that it has been received. The Government of Tunisia (GoT) and the Bank are keen on
reviewing the Strategy in depth before proceeding with any follow on project. In March 2000, the Japanese Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC) and GoT began implementation of a 5-year Integrated Forest Management Project in the
north of the country. In the meantime, however, the experience under the SFDP with the pilot operations incorporating
local participation in forest management has imparted many useful lessons to the design of this project the key ones being
the importance of capacity building (of both the implementing agency as well as the beneficiary populations) and a phased
implementation to permit a "learning by doing" approach. Overall, the results of this component were instrumental in
ensuring the inclusion, for the first time, of funding for the socio-economic development of forest populations into GoT's
5-year Economic Development Plan (2002-2006).

The project is thus fully in line with GoT's strategy in the forestry sector, and more broadly, natural resource management.
Although it would have been preferable to mainstream this project with a follow on forestry project, it was agreed with
GoT that this project would proceed in order not to lose the momentum of the extensive preparation work already
completed. The project would also liaise closely with the Northwest Mountainous Areas and Forestry Development
Project which will also adopt similar participatory approaches to natural resources management.

The project design and implementation will also involve the Office National du Tourisme Tunisien (ONTT) under the
Ministry of Tourism who are part of the technical working group (along with the Ministry of Environment and the DGF,
Ministry of Agriculture) constituted under the Steering Committee. The GoT has recently completed an action plan for
promotion of cultural tourism and ecological tourism (PATC, Plan d'Action de Promotion de Tourisme Culturel et de
l'Environnement, 2000-2004) on tourism management and development. The Government is aware of the positive
linkages between cultural/natural heritage and the tourism industry, and the strong impacts on local employment from
cultural tourism and nature conservation. International competition for tourism earnings have impelled GoT to
acknowledge the need to adjust its tourism policies. As part of its wider objective to expand high-value and niche tourism,
GoT is interested in developing the potential for ecotourism in the country's national parks. The seven sites selected under
the Bank's Cultural Heritage Project (ongoing) do not specifically include the three national parks under the proposed
project. However, they form part of the larger sample of 31 sites of intervention developed by GoT which includes 5
national parks/reserves, of which two are included in the proposed project (Bouhedma and Ichkeul). The Ministry of
Tourism expects to use the proposed project as a vehicle to promote ecotourism initiatives. The proposed biodiversity
project will build on the momentum generated by recent planning initiatives, and establish clear links with ongoing donor-
financed projects and other national projects.

Selection of project sites:

The three project sites were selected primarily on the basis of their importance to global biodiversity. Since this is
Tunisia's first major protected area management project, it was also deemed important to include representativeness as a
criterion in the selection in order to develop ecosystem-specific management plans that could be replicated elsewhere in
the country. Each of the ecosystems represented by the three sites is distinct and will present different challenges to its
sustainable management. It was decided to limit the number of parks to three in order to keep the project size manageable
by the existing institutional capacity.
C. Project Description Summary
1. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed cost breakdown):
The project includes the following three components: (all $ amounts are indicative only)

Component 1: Institutional Strengthening ($2.02 M): The objective of this component will be to reinforce the
institutional capacity of the Directorate General of Forestry (Ministry of Agriculture) and the Ministry of Environment
in the sustainable protected areas management. This component will support the following: (i) strengthening of the
Project Management Unit; (ii) training; (iii) technical and scientific studies; and (iv) establishment of a scientific
monitoring system for the protected areas. The training programs would have a strong regional focus with modules
targeting park management personnel, local governments at the regional Commissariats Régionaux de Développement
Agricole (CRDA) level, and other potential partners (including the private sector and NGOs) in participatory
approaches to protected areas management. It will also include training programs for the Directorate General of Forestry
(Ministry of Agriculture), Ministry of Tourism, and the Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning at the central
level (where justified).

Component 2: Protected Areas Management ($U.S 7.18 M): The objectives of this component are to: (i) manage and
restore the ecosystems in the three national parks to protect the globally important flora and fauna; (ii) assist in the
development of ecotourism activities; and (iii) establish, with the local populations, community development plans
compatible with the objectives of sustainable biodiversity conservation. The three parks (out of 8) chosen include
Ichkeul, Bouhedma, and Jbil. These three parks cover unique and distinctly different ecosystems – wetland, arid-
mountain/pseudo savanna, and desert respectively (see Annex 2 for a brief description of each park). The project will
develop detailed management plans, provide equipment, training and small infrastructural facilities in all three sites. In
addition, it will establish mechanisms to reduce the unsustainable use of natural resources, particularly those resources
that in the past were shared common resources such as grazing lands and forests. The project will develop strategies for
ecotourism that will demonstrate the links between conservation and economic benefits for the local communities. The
management plans will emphasize not only the technical aspects (inventory, infrastructure, surveillance), but also
strategic and sustainability issues (participatory review and assessment of existing management plans and practices by
local communities, negotiations with communities on priority activities to reduce pressures on the protected areas,
support for alternative livelihoods consistent with biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources,
scientific monitoring), and would be implemented during the project period. This component would also include the
(parallel) cofinancing by the French GEF for the Bouhedma and Jbil national parks. Under the ecotourism component,
the following activities are envisaged: (i) global study on the potential for, and modalities to develop ecotourism around
national parks and reserves including tourism concessions with a focus on the three project sites; (ii) creation and
infrastructural equipment for recreation areas, parking, entry gates, botanical garden, animal enclosures within the park ;
(iii) equipment and material for the welcome centers and ecomuseums (including construction of a new ecomuseum at
Douz for Jbil); (iv) purchase of horse-drawn carriages and other modes of eco-friendly internal transport; (v) support for
the creation of local community homestays in Ichkeul; (vi) information campaign and production of documents to
promote ecotourism (posters, maps, guides, postcards etc.) and (vii) training of ecoguides and the staff of the welcome
centers and ecomuseums in protected area management/conservation in accordance with the training component under
component 1. These activities will be complemented by the baseline activities to promote ecotourism by GOT in the
parks of Ichkeul and Bouhedma under the PATC. This envisages the development of supporting infrastructure outside
the park environs including improvements in electrification, rural water supply, and communication facilities,
improvement of access roads, planting of trees, signage and directions, construction of toilets and waste disposal areas,
and construction of a geological museum at Ichkeul.

Component 3: Public Awareness ($US 0.68 M): This component would aim to build public support for biodiversity
conservation at the local/park level and regional/governorate level. Action plans will target priority groups such as local
governments, site visitors, and local school children for raising the awareness of specific stakeholder groups about the
importance of, and opportunities for, biodiversity conservation within the three parks. Possible delivery mechanisms
include mass media, formal and informal education, and development of linkages with local NGOs, schools, tourism
agencies, and other organizations to promote public understanding about biodiversity resources. For each of the parks,
flagship species/themes (espèce phare) have been identified that will form the nucleus of all public awareness
campaigns as well as research, monitoring and conservation activities. These would be the Accacia raddiana, and the
sand gazelle (Gazelle leptoceros) for the parks of Bouhedma and Jbil respectively and the theme of water resources
management for the case of Ichkeul. Activities will be developed at the local/community level around these key
species/themes in order to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain long-term biodiversity conservation.

                                                     Indicative               Bank        % of         GEF        % of
          Component                   Sector           Costs      % of     financing      Bank     financing      GEF
                                                      (US$M)      Total      (US$M)    financing     (US$M)    financing
1. Capacity Building and         Institutional           2.02       20.4     0.00          0.0        1.55       29.1
Institutional Strengthening:     Development
2. Protected Areas               Natural Resources       7.18       72.7     0.00          0.0        3.25       61.0
Management:                      Management
3. Public Awareness and          Other Education         0.68        6.9     0.00          0.0        0.53         9.9
Education:




           Total Project Costs                           9.88     100.0      0.00          0.0        5.33      100.0

                                                         0.00       0.0      0.00          0.0        0.00        0.0
    Total Financing Required                             9.88     100.0      0.00          0.0        5.33      100.0



2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project:
This project is the first major initiative in Tunisia dedicated to improving the management of the national parks. It is
also the Bank's first GEF operation in Tunisia in national parks management. The Government considers this to be a
pilot project specifically pertaining to the following aspects:

(i) involvement of local communities in the development and management of the parks;
(ii) introduction of ecotourism activities; and
(iii) improving financial sustainability of the parks.

The project will support the development of a truly participatory approach to protected areas management in the three
project sites. Participatory approaches used in other Bank projects (CDs, AFICs) will be adapted to suit local conditions.
The project will support the introduction of ecotourism action plans at each site. Insofar as the financial sustainability is
concerned, the project will support the introduction of new recurrent cost financing mechanisms for the three parks
(including, but not limited to increased ecotourism revenues and private concessions) with a view to transferring greater
management responsibilities to the local community groups. The government has agreed to test these new approaches by
year 4 of project implementation. These new financial mechanisms as well as the participatory management approaches
implemented during this project will provide the basis for replication in other national parks and reserves within the
broader government strategy for national parks management with a view to promoting greater involvement of local
communities and increased financial sustainability.
3. Benefits and target population:
Global and regional benefits: The project will result in global and regional benefits by contributing to sustainable
conservation management in three of Tunisia's well-known national parks covering about 180,000 ha. representing
diverse ecosystems with biodiversity of global and regional importance. The project will also establish linkages and
collaboration to support and benefit from conservation initiatives in neighboring countries. The global benefits include:
(a) conservation of critical saharan and Mediterranean wetland habitats and enhancing the probability of their long-term
conservation; (b) development of incentives to maintain protected areas in the long-term; (c) established capacity to
ensure adequate management of protected areas sustainably; and (d) new knowledge concerning the feasibility of
community-based natural resource conservation approaches and the factors associated with success.

Two of the sites (Bouhedma and Jbil) are important priorities under the Bonn Convention for the conservation of
Sahelo-saharan antelopes. The Ichkeul lake and marshes have long been recognized (together with Doñana in Spain, the
Camargue in France and the El Kala region in Algeria) as one of the four major wetland areas in the western basin of the
Mediterranean. The Ichkeul National Park is a very high-profile site in Tunisia (covering an area of some 12,000
hectares) being one of the few sites listed under three international agreements: (a) Biosphere Reserve (1977); (b) World
Heritage Convention (1979); and (c) Ramsar Convention (1980). However, the development activities upstream of the
lake have resulted in a cut-off from freshwater sources that has posed a serious threat to the health of the Lake Ichkeul
ecosystem. As a result, the park was included in the Ramsar's Convention Montreux Record ("Record of Ramsar sites
where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur") thus indicating the great
threat to which the wetland is exposed.

The project would support the updating and calibration of the mathematical model (financed as part of an extensive
study on the park by KfW during 1993-95) for the management of the lake using test releases of freshwater in order to
establish a scientific basis and calendar for the releases of freshwater necessary for maintaining the health of the lake's
ecosystem. The lake and marshes of the park provide habitat for hundreds of thousands of migratory birds (in particular
ducks, geese, storks and flamingos). Improving the management of the park would help increase the numbers of
wintering ducks and coots have decreased from an average of 200,000 individuals to a level situated around 50,000 at
present. Other important species include the wintering geese, herons, egrets, the globally threatened Marbled Teal (Anas
angustirostris), Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio porphyrio), and the White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala) (also
globally threatened). However, due to the deterioration of the ecosystem, according to the IUCN, all reed-dependent
species such as purple heron, purple gallinule and reed warblers have almost disappeared. The national park of Bou
Hedma is home to the extremely rare gazelle dorcas, and the oryx antelope. Other fauna of importance are the striped
hyena, golden jackal and crested porcupine. The park houses 8 of the 14 species recognized as endemic in the National
Biodiversity Study such as the Acacia raddiana, Juniperus phoenicea, Pistacia atlantica, Thymelea
sempervirens, Tetrapon villosus, Tricholena teneriffe, and Cenchrus ciliaris, and Digitaria communtata. In
addition, the park has potential for the re-introduction of fauna, relatives of species that once roamed but have since
disappeared, such as the gazelle dorcas, oryx - the straight horned antelope, addax (desert antelope), and red-neck
ostriches. Some of these have already been re-introduced in the park in limited numbers. The national park of Jbil is a
relatively new park and consists of very unique Saharien ecosystems that have not been very well studied thus far. The
park contains internationally important biodiversity, some of which is found only in Tunisia. Globally important species
include the sand gazelle (Gazella leptoceros), gazella abiod, and remarkable flora like calligonum that attain several
meters in height in the sand dunes of the grand erg.

National benefits: Investments, training, and decentralized institutional arrangements would address priority
conservation planning and management problems common to many important and threatened biodiversity sites
throughout Tunisia and elsewhere in the region and would, therefore, provide models for replication in priority
conservation sites in other parts of the country and region. The improved management of the protected areas and buffer
zones will help in the conservation of important plant and animal species within their native habitats. The project would
contribute to broadening the livelihood strategies of participating communities and contribute to the long-term stability
of the ecosystems through improving the welfare of the local populations. National-level beneficiaries include GoT
(MELP, MA/DGF, MT) whose institutional capacity will be strengthened to address biodiversity conservation needs.
The project will improve Tunisia's institutional arrangements and strengthen its capacity for biodiversity conservation
while raising public awareness and providing improved opportunities for environmental and conservation education.

At the local level, the project would build mechanisms and capacity to assist local stakeholders, specifically, the local
communities dependent on the resources of the protected areas, local governments, and NGOs to participate in the
preparation and implementation of conservation management plans. Results from the social assessment carried out at the
three parks during project preparation have indicated that the project will contribute to poverty alleviation objectives
(See Annex 12 for details). In Ichkeul, income inequalities are stark, with more than 50% of the families in the park
earning less than 1000 DT/year (~ $U.S715) and less than 5% possessing annual average incomes of more than 45,000
DT/year (~U.S$32,000). In Bouhedma, as in Ichkeul, there is a wide variation in income distribution, from 3,000 DT per
household a year (an average per capita income of 253 DT or USD $177) to about 5,000 DT a year. This means that
half of the population is below the poverty line. In fact, the majority of the households in the park are considered
officially indigent, which gives them access to subsidized medical services with a payment of 10DT a year, but there are
households so poor in Bou Hedma that they cannot afford even this. In spite of the material economic poverty of the
people of Bou Hedma, the traditional culture remains vibrant. Women produce traditional artisan work such as carpets,
flij (tent strips), cereal bags, all woven on traditional looms. The project will support the development of the traditional
knowledge and capacity of the artists and artisans to make this a potentially important source for income improvement
and for the provision of alternative livelihoods. Sustainable management of the project sites will benefit poor rural
communities and local economies adjacent to the sites through stimulation of socio-economic development including
ecotourism as well as activities based on the sustainable management of natural resources of protected areas. The project
is also expected to have a positive gender impact because most (if not all) of the traditional artisanal work is produced
by women, and women are also involved in gathering fuel to feed their families, agriculture, grazing etc. The public
awareness component will be focussed on the local communities (especially on women) in and around the protected
areas and at the local governments in order to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain a participatory
approach to protected areas management.

4. Institutional and implementation arrangements:
Implementation period: 6 years

As with the project preparation process, an Inter-Ministerial Project Steering Committee (PSC) comprising
representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning, Ministry of Tourism,
Leisure, and Artisanat, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Development, and Ministry of International
Cooperation will be retained during project implementation. The PSC will be chaired by the Ministry of Environment
and Landuse Planning. It will be responsible for providing overall strategic guidance, project oversight, and assistance in
resolving issues associated with project implementation.

Project Coordination at the National Level: Currently, the Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning (MELP) has
overall responsibility for managing the project preparation grant and overall project preparation. However, during
appraisal it was agreed that the the project management unit would be located in the Directorate General of Forests
(DGF) within the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) due to the fact that the bulk of the activities under the project fall
under the purview of the MOA. The transfer of responsibility from MELP to MOA during project implementation has
been discussed with and fully supported by all the concerned Ministries.

The Project Management Unit (PMU) (Unité de Gestion du Projet). The Project Management Unit will be the central
unit responsible for the coordination of project activities and will ensure the soundness of the technical, scientific, and
financial aspects of project implementation. The PMU will coordinate and ensure the coherence of proposed actions
proposed by the Park Management Teams (see below). The proposed actions will be discussed at the Local
Development Committee (LDC) (Conseil Local de Développement). The PMU will submit the annual work programs
and budgets to the ISC for validation. The PMU will also ensure that the technical, human, and financial means will be
made available to the implementing agencies and that the latter will work in accordance with agreed-on procedures.

The Local Development Council (LDC) (Conseil Local de Développement). At the level of each Delegation, this
Council has the functions of (i) participating in the formulation and implementation of the environmental protection
plans, programs of nature conservation, and natural resources management plans; (ii) advising on programs of local
development and proposing priorities and programming as well as participating in the formulation of regional
development plans. Within the project, the Council will be the focal point and forum for the discussion of the proposed
park management plans as well as the annual work programs.

The Park Management Team (PMT) (Equipe de Gestion du Projet). A Park Management Team will be formed at each
park, and will be responsible for the action planning and programming. The Park Conservator will lead it. The team will
include representatives of the Ministries of Environment and Tourism, and will work in close collaboration with the
representatives of the local population through the intermediation of the selected members of the Development
Committees (see below) (Comités de Développement). Technical staff will be available to assist these teams. The
Conservator is responsible for the day-to-day organization and execution of activities in the park by the authority vested
in him by the Regional Agricultural Development Council (CRDA).

The Development Committees (DC) (Comités de Développement). These committees will be the base level institutions
for the representation of the population, in order to ensure (i) participation of the communities in the identification of
local development measures within a social-economic space (terroir), (ii) the provision of all relevant information on
the needs of the populations they represent, (iii) mobilization and organization of the population to facilitate their
participation in the development of the park management plans. As they become more experienced, the Development
Committees will have the option of becoming legally recognized development entities such as Local Interest Groups
(Groupements d'Intérêt Collectifs, GIC), Development Groups (Groupements de Développement, GD), cooperatives,
etc.

The DCs will be organized at the outset of the project with the necessary accompanying measures including awareness
and training programs, so that the participation of the local communities in the formulation of the park management and
development plans will be ensured from the beginning. These plans, with their economic and social objectives, will take
into account the actions necessary for the conservation of biodiversity and will be based on an improved use of potential
and available natural resources. They will include activities that will permit the local population’s development of, and
rational management of the natural resources in the protected areas. These community development plans will be an
integral part of the park management plans. Local communities would thus participate in project implementation in
several ways. First, they would participate in the formulation of sustainable management plans which directly affect
them. Second, they will have a financial interest in the park's management since they will be primary sources of local
knowledge as well as labor. Third, they would also participate through the establishment of contractual arrangements,
Contrat Programmes (CP), with the implementing agency, NGOs or other agencies with whom they may be involved.
The DC approach has been tested in the ongoing projects (Natural Resources Management; North-West Mountainous
Areas Development) and has proven to be successful.

2. Institutional and implementation arrangements:

Financial management. The financial management arrangements are detailed in annex 6 and summarized
below.

Accounting and Financial framework. The Financial Management System (FMS) in place in the MOA and MELP, is
based on principles and procedures defined by the legal framework applicable to the pubic sector and more specifically
to governmental institutions. MA implementing agency for the project is maintaining an accounting system based on the
cash basis and the outline of budget components according to the provisions of the Public Accounting Law.
Execution of the public expenditures is decentralized at the level of the CRDA. Technical Directorates at the
central level, as is the case for DGF, are playing a strategic and overseeing roles according to the agreed five
year plan and the annual budget. Projects with financing from external donors, are managed at the central
level through a unit which is officially designated, to coordinate and oversee the project implementation. A
team of specialist is nominated to control eligibility of expenditures, compliance with legal documents and
donors requirements, at the stages of budgeting, procurement, and disbursement as well as accounting and
reporting duties. The Central Bank of Tunisia (CBT) is the authorized institution to proceed with all payments
from special accounts (SA) and to issue SOEs for replenishment. Direct payments are handled directly by
DGF. In addition, the DGF also handles the transmission of eligible payments to the CBT which has overall
responsibility for the management of the Special Account.

Accounting and financial reporting for the project. Accounting and financial reporting will be assured centrally by
the Project Management Unit (PMU) within DGF. DGF and MELP would be responsible for financial management and
accounting duties for activities managed under their responsibility. CRDAs and the regional directorates of MELP
involved in the project implementation at the regional level, would maintain simplified accounts and analysis of the
activities managed under their responsibility. Such reports would be sent respectively to the DGF and MELP evry three
months for accounting and monitoring purposes. DGF and MELP would maintain accounting records for components
under their responsibility, prepare and disseminate sub-project accounts and financial reports. MELP would also ensure
timely transmission of these accounts and reports to DGF. DGF would be responsible for aggregating the financial data
and the issuing of the Financial Monitoring Report to the Bank every six months. DGFE will assist DGF during the first
to improve the financial management capacity of the accounting and financial team.

Audit. The General Controller of Finance (CGF), as auditor acceptable to the Bank, will be appointed to carry on an
annual audit according to the International Standards of Auditing as issued by the International Federation of
Accountants and the Bank's Guidelines and specific Terms of Reference (TORs) acceptable to the Bank. The auditor
will express a professional opinion on the annual project financial statements. An annual audit report will be made
available to the Bank within six months of the close of each fiscal year.

Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements. The PMU would be responsible, with inputs from all implementing units,
for monitoring of financial and physical progress on investment implementation, for progress reporting on the execution
of policy measures and development impact, for coordinating disbursement. On these basis, the PMU will prepare
agreed reports.

The above arrangements were detailed during appraisal and reconfirmed at negotiations.
D. Project Rationale
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection:
Project preparation considered and rejected the following alternatives:

    Focus on all 8 National Parks and 4 of 16 Reserves. This scenario was not selected due to the limited resources
    available to implement a project of this size. Sites were selected so as to include: (a) representation of different
    ecosystems; (b) examples of the major challenges to biodiversity conservation in Tunisia, and (c) biodiversity of
    national and global significance. In addition, the feasibility of implementing conservation management given the
    limited institutional capacity within the DGF towards a more participatory approach to protected area management
    was taken into consideration in selecting the location and number of sites. Experience gained at these three sites will
    allow for a phased "learning by doing" approach.

    Creation of a separate protected area management agency. There is no substantial overlap between the MELP, in
    charge of policy formulation, planning, and regulation, and the DGF which manages the protected areas. Joint
    management of the Ichkeul N.P is a good example of collaboration between the MELP and DGF. It was agreed with
    GoT that while efficiency gains would be sought through the project with specific emphasis on capacity and
    institution building, no major revamping through the creation of a separate agency would be required at this time.

    Privatization of the protected areas: While this suggestion has merit in its potential for reducing Government costs
    associated with protected area management, the Government currently lacks adequate regulatory and monitoring
    mechanisms to ensure that biodiversity conservation concerns would not take second place to the drive for profit in
    areas where concessions are possible. Further, given the question of limited profitability, it is not clear that there
    would be sufficient demand from the private sector to take over the complete management of the parks. However, the
    project preparation will examine the possibility of partial concessioning of activities to the private sector in order to
    increase revenues and improve efficiency.The project will help strengthen the Government's capacity to regulate and
    monitor biodiversity conservation, while exploring a range of options for future financing and decentralized
    management of protected areas.
2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies (completed, ongoing and
planned).
                                                                             Latest Supervision
             Sector Issue                           Project                    (PSR) Ratings
                                                                        (Bank-financed projects only)


                                                                        Implementation   Development
 Bank-financed                                                           Progress (IP)   Objective (DO)
 Participatory natural resources         Natural Resource Management          S                S
 management; poverty alleviation         Project (Ln 4162, $26.5 m,
                                         ongoing)

 Improved forestry management            Second Forestry Development          S                S
                                         Project (Ln 3601; $65m,
                                         closed May 2001)
 Rural development; sustainable range,   Northwest Mountainous Areas          S                S
 forest, and farming activities          Development Project (Ln
                                         3691; $26.0 m, closed June
                                         2001)
 Coastal Zone Management (World          Gulf of Gabes Marine and
 Bank/GEF)                               Coastal Resources Protection
                                         Project (under preparation)
 Participatory natural resources         Northwest Mountainous Areas
 management; poverty alleviation         and Forestry Development
                                         Project (under preparation)




Other development agencies
 European Union/EC:                      Conservation of natural
 Conservation of natural resources       resources in the humid zones
                                         of the Mediterranean
                                         (Regional MEDWET Project:
                                              Tunisia Project Site: Sebkhat
                                              El Kelbia)-ongoing
 UNDP/GEF:                                    Conservation of Wetland and
 Biodiversity conservation                    Coastal Ecosystems in the
                                              Mediterranean Region
                                              (Tunisia project sites -Dar
                                              Chichou, Korba Kelibia, and
                                              El Haouaria)- ongoing
 UNDP/GEF/FFEM:                               Marine Protected Areas (under
 Biodiversity conservation                    preparation)
 UNDP-GOT:                                    Development of alternative
 Alternative livelihoods                      livelihoods for populations in
                                              and around the N.P of El
                                              Feidja (ongoing)
 GTZ - environmental management               Ongoing technical assistance
                                              projects
 JBIC - Forestry Management                   Integrated Forestry
                                              Management Project
Germany - Resource conservation               Promotion of Resource
                                              Conservation and Game
                                              Management (1992-95)




IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly Unsatisfactory)

3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design:
      Sector & Themes             KM
This is the first Bank-supported GEF project in Tunisia and the first GEF/Bank project focusing on protected areas
management in Tunisia. Lessons learned have been drawn to a large extent from the Bank's experience in the forestry
sector in Tunisia and other Bank/GEF projects in the region and elsewhere. The preparation process is also focussing on
lessons learned from other community-based natural resources management initiatives.
From QAG review of GEF-supported biodiversity projects in Africa: (i) Integration of the biodiversity conservation
agenda into the broader national development agenda is essential; (ii) Biodiversity projects need to focus more on
methods for dealing with socio-economic pressures in perimeter zones where populations may be dependent on forest
exploitation; (iii) Project design should take into account technical and stakeholder reviews in the final design; and (iv)
Clearly defined goals and objectives are essential to focus on project efforts, monitor progress, and demonstrate impact.
On a broad level, the QAG's recommendation to include more environmental expertise in developing the CAS has been
implemented in the Tunisia case. The new Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) has had a substantial input from the
environment/rural development sectors with a special mission that prepared the Environmental Input to the Tunisia CAS
report. The CAS includes the proposed Bank/GEF projects in its focus on consolidating long-term development in
environment and natural resources management.

The proposed project would also seek to identify complementarities with ongoing environment/natural resource
management projects in order to better mainstream biodiversity conservation. The biodiversity conservation efforts in the
proposed project will seek to emphasize the underlying causes of biodiversity loss (overgrazing, fuelwood
overexploitation etc.). The proposed project design supports detailed social analyses of the park populations and would
define options and mitigation strategies to endangered livelihoods if there is to be a limitation in the use of resources.

From Bank-wide Portfolio Review of Biodiversity Projects: The portfolio review identified 9 criteria to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of biodiversity projects in quality at entry: borrower ownership; stakeholder participation;
clarity of objectives and components; application of lessons learned; identification of critical risks; integration of
biodiversity into project design; detail of implementation planning; analysis of institutional capacity; use and adequacy of
indicators. In the proposed project, borrower ownership is high. Since it is a free-standing biodiversity project, integration
of biodiversity into project design is a given. The proposed project supports preparatory studies that will address the other
criteria in detail.

From Bank Review of Issues in Ecotourism and Conservation: In a review of 23 protected areas with projects designed to
generate local economic development found that while many projects promoted ecotourism, few generated substantial
benefits for either parks or local people. In most countries, ecotourism alone will not promote conservation - rather, it is
one component with other elements like improved education, improved access to information, improvements in park
management, and increased economic opportunities other than just ecotourism. The review also recommends zoning as a
management tool to ensure controlled tourism does not degrade the park's biodiversity resources as was the case with the
Tangkoko DuaSaudara Nature Reserve in Indonesia where "ecotourists control Tangkoko, probably to the detriment of
wildlife", and the Royal Chitwan Park in Nepal where despite well organized education programs, "disturbances to the
ecology have become obvious features".

The proposed project will explore the potential for ecotourism in each park and zoning will be an essential feature in
defining how visitation will take place. In Tunisia, the disturbances due to increased tourism is a negligible risk. Indeed,
the challenge would be how best to develop this potential while mitigating any negative effects. Baseline surveys will be
carried out on the seasonality of tourism interest, activities of tourism in the park including the type of tourist attracted,
type of visitor experience desired by the tourist and the associated infrastructure expected, in addition to strong baseline
data on the ecosystem characteristics. Any promotion of ecotourism in the project sites will be strictly managed. Public
awareness and environmental education are important components of the proposed project.

Tunisia Forestry Development Project (Ln 2870-TUN; closed) and Second Forestry Development Project (Ln 3601-TUN;
closed): As the first forestry operation financed by the Bank in Tunisia, the Forestry Development Project (FDP) was the
testing ground to provide the technical and institutional basis for the follow-on Second Forestry Development Project
(SFDP). The FDP eliminated price distortions and monopolistic situations in the sector, and the implementation agencies
and population developed a new awareness of the need for environmentally sound exploitation of forest resources. The
FDP and SFDP have underlined the need for participation by the local populations in forest and pasture management. The
ongoing experience with OPDIs (Pilot Operations of Integrated Development) has indicated that where the utilization of a
participatory methodology is new for the implementing agency and communities, a phased approach should be used to
allow a “learning by doing” approach. This is particularly important for activities such as the OPDI, where rapid
implementation would most likely not permit enough time to carry out training activities, thereby leaving the local
community groups in a weak position to adequately participate. The SFDP has also shown that investments linked to
participatory activities should be carried out after an initial phase of consultations and training of beneficiaries. These
activities will allow time for communities to adjust to working as a group, be cohesive and develop participatory
mechanisms; capacity-building of NGOs as well as user groups is critical to ensure successful implementation. In the
proposed project, the local communities have already begun the process of organizing themselves. Trust funds have been
identified to support capacity-building of these nascent groups in the interim period before the project becomes effective.

Jordan: Conservation of the Dana and Azraq Protected Areas Project (GEF/World Bank/UNDP): The key factor behind
the success of Dana was the involvement of the local population (Bedouins inside the reserve and villagers around it) in
the forefront of the project from the very start. Building on local skills and initiatives, mixed with a new vision and new
ideas, opportunities were created for local people to gain a livelihood from the nature reserve without destroying it.
Carefully-regulated ecotourism gives local people a fair share of the action and dividends while "putting nature first". The
institutional strengthening component of the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) produced a revitalized
RSCN with a clear vision, with a trained and motivated staff and, most importantly, with the will to make the protection
of Jordan's natural heritage succeed in practice.

The proposed project has also identified similar issues and has included in the project design a detailed participatory
process involving local communities and local/regional institutions, NGOs to develop and implement management plans
for the protected areas that will balance the need for protecting the parks and meeting the needs of the local people.
Institutional strengthening of the DGF is also an important component of the project. The project preparation phase
includes a study tour to Dana for the park conservators, and other DGF and MELP personnel to learn from the Jordanian
experience and work with RSCN to set up customized training programs for Tunisian staff.

Morocco: Protected Areas Management Project: Although this project is still in an early implementation phase, the key
aspects in project design were a decentralized implementation structure and the involvement of the local populations in
the preparation of the six Douar Development Plans to be implemented in the first year as part of the conservation
management plans.

The proposed project will also bring together the local communities, and NGOs, with the local forestry arrondissements in
the respective governorates in a participatory fashion to gain the commitment of the local people.

4. Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership:
The Government of Tunisia has established a proper strategic framework for biodiversity protection and environmental
management: (i) A National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and the State of the Environment were completed in
1997; (ii) a number of international conventions (Biodiversity, Bonn, Ramsar, etc.) have been ratified, and (iii) A
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan were developed in a very participatory manner under a biodiversity
Enabling Activity (GEF-funded; the World Bank being the Implementing Agency) which were adopted by the
Government in 1998. University academics, research institutes, and environmental NGOs (local and international)
provided useful inputs into the preparation of the Biodiversity Strategy. The strategy also benefited from bilateral
assistance from Germany and Sweden. Tunisia accords a high significance to biodiversity conservation and sustainable
uses in its development effort. There is a strong political commitment towards enhanced conservation efforts and its
successful integration into a wider economic, social and cultural context. There is a high-level commitment to
participatory natural resources management. Ongoing World-Bank financed natural resources management/forestry
projects have involved local communities in a participatory approach to project implementation. The recent Tunisia CAS
(FY00-FY03) includes the proposed project in the lending/grant operations.

The Government requested assistance from the World Bank to prepare a possible GEF project for protected
areas/biodiversity in July 1998. The preparation grant is being executed by the Ministry of Environment and Landuse
Planning (MELP). An Interministerial Steering Committee was formed in 1999 to oversee preparation and
implementation of the project. This committee comprises representatives from the Ministry of Environment and Land Use
Planning (MELP), Ministry of Agriculture (DGF), Office National de Tourisme Tunisien (ONTT), Ministry of Tourism,
Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Education, Agence Nationale de la Protection de
l’Environnement (ANPE), Agence de Protection et d’Aménagement du littoral (APAL), Ministry of International
Cooperation, and ATLAS (NGO). The technical working group (with representatives from MELP, DGF, and ONTT) has
been closely involved in the formulation of the terms of reference for the preparatory study which was approved by the
Steering Committee in April 2000. This group was also responsible for the preparation of the bidding documents, and the
bid evaluation which were completed in December 2000. The French-Tunisian consortium which was awarded the
contract for the preparation study commenced work in mid-February 2001.

5. Value added of Bank and Global support in this project:
The Bank has had a long-standing dialogue with Tunisia in the forestry sector and, more broadly, natural resource
management through the two Forestry Development Projects, Natural Resource Management Project, Northwest
Mountainous Area Development Project. In the environment sector, the Bank has been involved in technical assistance
through the Mediterranean Technical Assistance Program (METAP) mainly in the area of Environmental Impact
Assessment, and policy support in the integration of the environment into specific sectors of waste management, water,
tourism, transport, and trade. The proposed project will be the Bank's first GEF operation in Tunisia. Despite existing
bilateral support for the environment sector in Tunisia, the Government has requested that the Bank continue to be
engaged in order to continue the policy dialogue, secure donor coordination, and bring international best practices to bear
on the design and implementation of the country's first GEF protected areas management project.

The GEF value added comes from its global experience in the design, implementation, and financing of biodiversity
projects. The GEF support is justified by the regional and global value of the project sites' biodiversity. GEF funding will
help raise visibility and global support for the management of Tunisia's protected areas and reserves. It will also enable
the project to target globally valued and threatened plants and habitats. Other GEF/Bank biodiversity projects in the
region (notably, Morocco, Jordan) will provide opportunities for promotion of exchange of ideas, cross-fertilization with
other GEF projects, and strengthened biodiversity monitoring and evaluation, review, and scientific oversight.

Consultation, Collaboration and Coordination between Implementing Agencies (IAs): The project has been developed in
close consultation with UNDP who are currently working with the Government in an alternative livelihoods project in the
national park if El Feidja. Lessons learned from this project are included in the project design. In addition, UNDP is also
preparing a GEF project on marine protected areas which has been coordinated with this project as well as the Bank's Gulf
of Gabes project also under preparation. The local UNDP representative has participated in several wrap-up meetings after
Bank missions. GTZ which has a strong presence in the Ministry of Environment has assured the Bank of support during
project implementation.

F. Sustainability and Risks
1. Sustainability:
Social sustainability: The project design envisages the participation of local communities and other stakeholders in the
development and implementation of the park management plans which should ensure social sustainability. Active
participation of NGOs and the potential participation of CDs and GFICs (where applicable) are also envisaged. The
Government's continuing commitment to decentralization will also contribute to the social sustainability of the project.

Financial sustainability: The continued recurrent cost funding of the park management after the project closes has been
assured by the Government of Tunisia. The government recognizes that an effective system of protected areas is an
essential element of sustainable forest management and have committed to contribute to the baseline costs of the project.
The track record of the Government in earlier Bank-financed projects, specifically in the area of natural resources
management in this regard has been good. Examples include the Northwest Mountainous Area Development Project, First
and Second Forestry Development Projects, the Natural Resources Management Project, and the Agricultural Sector
Investment Project. However, it is also recognized that current public expenditures on management of the other five
national parks will be insufficient to develop and maintain the necessary management plans for effective conservation of
biodiversity.

Discussions during project preparation and pre-appraisal have indicated that the Government is willing to explore new
options to ensure financial sustainability. A detailed study is to be undertaken in this regard to examine options such as
allocating a share of the ecotourism revenues to support the management of the three parks in the project, setting up of
trust funds for each park with the sponsorship of large public and private sector enterprises etc. Other mechanisms under
consideration include a earmarked share of sales revenue of a line of special products from the national parks and
earmarking special taxes on lodging and transport in the national parks. The capitalization of the specific financing
mechanisms for the three parks in the project as well as the other five parks will be tested in the final years of the project
based on the results of the study. The government has carried out a study of ecotourism potential in five national parks (of
which two are included in this project) as part of its PATC. The project will also finance a more detailed feasibility study
on ecotourism in this project to address the issue of financing long-term recurrent costs.

2. Critical Risks (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column of Annex 1):


                   Risk                         Risk Rating                  Risk Mitigation Measure
From Outputs to Objective
The current institutional framework does             M            The institutional framework for park
not provide the necessary incentives and                          management is imperfect, centralized, and
work environment for park staff and                               bureaucratic and based on outdated concepts
partners to apply their newly acquired                            of exclusion and control. Institutional reform
skills and use technical/management                               of national parks management is envisioned
tools.                                                            and will be supported by the project. The
                                                                  Tunisian administration can provide, under the
                                                                  right guidance, an environment for adequate
                                                                  performance and opportunities. The project
                                                                  will provide advisory services and training to
                                                                  facilitate change.
The administrations of parks and dams      M   The Bank is confident that the water
cannot agree on a reasonable five -year        management authority in the Ministry of
rule and calendar for water release;           Agriculture, the National Environment
                                               Protection Agency (ANPE) and the parks are
                                               committed to finding a solution to the fresh
                                               water needs of Ichkeul. The project will
                                               finance the calibration and fine-tuning of the
                                               mathematical model/technical solutions in
                                               order to provide a solid scientific basis for the
                                               calendar for water releases.
The current drought experienced by         S   Tunisia has experienced four consecutive
Tunisia continues during the five-year         years of drought. Beyond the serious impact
project period;                                on agriculture, it also diminishes the water
                                               storage of the dams upstream of Lake Ichkeul.
                                               If the drought lasts longer, and with the
                                               increasing urban needs for water, it may be
                                               difficult to justify substantial release into the
                                               lake. The drought is also affecting the quality
                                               of grazing areas in and around Bou-Hedma &
                                               Jbil. Communities who are already poor may
                                               find it even more difficult to engage in the
                                               project activities and bear its constraints.
                                               Should the drought continue, the project will
                                               refocus some activities from park management
                                               to drought mitigation to ensure that this event
                                               does not lead to additional resource off-take in
                                               the selected parks.
Tourism concessions are not granted on a   N   The involvement of tourist operators will be
competitive and transparent basis that         gradual and kept to a relatively low scale.
maximizes involvement of communities           Concessions that are granted will concern
and benefits the communities and the           limited activities and will be closely monitored
parks.                                         in order to fulfill professional and ethical
                                               requirements. Park management activities
                                               including new tourism activiteis are designed
                                               to include specific benefits for the
                                               parks’populations.
Because of important subsistence needs     M   From social assessments and discussions with
that are met by the natural resources of       communities, the Bank is reasonably confident
the park, local populations do not react       that communities are willing to account for
positively to the conservation awareness       conservation needs. However, many are
messages.                                      extremely poor and uneducated and may not
                                               be able to either give the attention required to
                                               the messages or to modify behavior to account
                                               for them. The project will attempt to identify
                                               the most vulnerable groups and help them, as a
                                               priority, with alternative livelihood activities
                                               and training.
Constraints induced by better              M   The project’s Process Framework has been
management and surveillance of the             formulated to ensure that populations do not
parks which cannot be solved by the            suffer from the added constraint of better park
project, are not addressed by other            surveillance. However, because the parks are
development programs.                          in areas of relatively high poverty, a
                                               participatory approach will seek to define
                                               mechanisms that can both alleviate poverty
                                               and conserve biodiversity Nevertheless, the
                                               areas surrounding the parks will need much
                                               more development attention than the project
                                               can provide. The Bank is confident that the
                                               Government and other projects (e.g. IFAD) are
                                               now increasing their support to these areas to
                                               promote overall socio-economic development.




From Components to Outputs
The DGF lacks financial management         M   The assessment of the financial and
and procurement capacity to enable             procurement management in the project
timely availability of project services,       management unit in DGF has identified
goods or work and monitoring of                shortcomings and proposed a plan for capacity
expenditures;                                  building. The Bank will closely supervise this
                                               unit to ensure that its performance meets Bank
                                               standards.
Staff appointed to the UCP, SSEPN and      S   The Bank's assessment of staff capacity is
parks do not possess sufficient time and       ambivalent. Among the people likely to be
expertise to fulfill the mission that is       key project players, many have a solid
requested from them.                           capacity and commitment both to the new park
                                               management approach and to planning for
                                               their implementation. Unfortunately, staff
                                               quality appears to be highly variable, and
                                               appointments often are not based on capacity
                                               or past performance records nor congruent
                                               with the work load. The Bank has required
                                               that a system for monitoring of staff
                                               redeployment and performance be set-up.
Annual Government budget enables the       M   The Administration possesses sufficient staff
proposed redeployment of staff;                to redeploy them to the identified key
                                               positions in parks. The Bank will closely
                                               supervise these appointments and has required
                                               that the DGF present a time-bound plan to
                                               fulfil the human resource requirements as
                                               defined by the project.
The park administration and its partners   S   Poaching by outsiders in desert areas is a
succeed in stopping poaching in Jbil;          serious issue in the Sahara, Sahel and Asian
                                               deserts. While the Tunisian administration,
                                               park management authorities and local
                                               communities are adamant that this practice
                                               must be stopped, it may not be easy to achieve.
                                               The Bank will ensure that such events are
                                               documented and highlighted in the media
                                               through component 3. Current changes being
                                               proposed in the Forestry Code may be more
                                               effective in controlling these practices in the
                                               future.
Sociocultural and tenure constraint are    M   Land and resources tenure in arid pastoral
not obstacles to the modification of the       areas are always diffuse and difficult to
Jbil Park limits.                              understand. The project will fund all
                                               necessary work to increase this understanding
                                               among all stakeholders, including the
                                               government, and establish bases of mutual
                                               understanding. Because the proposed
                                               management of the park is participatory and
                                               designed to improve the use of pastoral
                                               resources and other resource use practices, the
                                               Bank is confident that the community will
                                               endorse the proposal to re-define the park’s
                                               boundaries. The initial steps may be taken but
                                               not completed during the life of the project
                                               because of the time required to redesignate
                                               boundaries.
Schoolteachers agree to the additional                    N            Past experiences with school teachers in
workload required to implement the                                     Tunisia have shown that they are usually very
conservation awareness program in                                      interested in broadening the scope of their
primary schools.                                                       teaching particularly when the subject is
                                                                       related to the environment and when new
                                                                       didactic material is provided. The Bank rates
                                                                       this risk as very low.




Overall Risk Rating                                       S            Despite the above analysis that ranks most
                                                                       risks as being Low or Moderate, the Bank
                                                                       assessment of implementation capacity
                                                                       (procurement, financial management) and staff
                                                                       performance leads to an overall risk ranking as
                                                                       substantial. The potential for the continuation
                                                                       of the current drought contributes to this
                                                                       ranking. Still, because this project is viewed
                                                                       by the Government as a pilot to a new
                                                                       approach to park management and because the
                                                                       park administration is committed to a legal and
                                                                       institutional reform, it is important that the
                                                                       Bank and GEF remain partners and help with
                                                                       an instrument that can assist these reforms and
                                                                       test them in the field.


Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N(Negligible or Low Risk)



3. Possible Controversial Aspects:
None.

G. Main Conditions
1. Effectiveness Condition
None.
2. Other [classify according to covenant types used in the Legal Agreements.]
Accounts and Audits

The Government will assure that the annual audit reports, with an opinion on the statements of expenditure used for
certain disbursements and on the special account, are sent to the Bank within six months of the end of the fiscal year of
the Borrower.

The Recipient will open and manage a Special Account in dollars.

Management Aspects

The Recipient will take all necessary steps to assure that the Project Steering Committee for overall management of the
project is established and functional no later than October 31, 2002.

The Recipient will take all necessary steps to assure that the Project Management Unit (PMU) is established and
functional with the necessary technical and human resources acceptable to the Bank no later than December 31, 2002.

Monitoring, Review and Reporting

The Recipient will prepare and furnish for the Bank's review and comments not later than March 31 and September 30 in
each fiscal year, a report, in a form satisfactory to the Bank, on the progress achieved during the preceding six months in
the financial and physical implementation of the project, and on performance and impact indicators.

H. Readiness for Implementation
 The engineering design documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of project
        implementation.
1. b) Not applicable.

2. The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of project implementation.
3. The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and of satisfactory quality.
 The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G):

A draft for Item 3 has been received and will be finalized at appraisal.

I. Compliance with Bank Policies
1. This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
 The following exceptions to Bank policies are recommended for approval. The project complies with all other applicable
      Bank policies.
        Annex 1: Project Design Summary

                                      TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

\



                                            Key Performance             Data Collection Strategy
     Hierarchy of Objectives                   Indicators                                            Critical Assumptions
    Sector-related CAS Goal:            Sector Indicators:              Sector/ country reports:   (from Goal to Bank
                                                                                                   Mission)
    Consolidating long-term             Successful protected area       Biodiversity monitoring    Continued political support at
    development through                 management approaches           system                     all levels for sustainable
    protection of the environment       replicated in other national                               protected area management
    and sustainable use of natural      parks and reserves in Tunisia                              and biodiversity
    resources.                          with a resulting improvement                               conservation;
                                        in biodiversity conservation.
                                                                                                   Protecting biodiversity
                                                                                                   contributes positively to local
                                                                                                   communities and the national
                                                                                                   economy.




    GEF Operational Program:
    OP 1: Arid and Semi-Arid Zone
    Ecosystems (Primary); OP2:
    Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater
    Ecosystems
Global Objective:                Outcome / Impact                     Project reports:                    (from Objective to Goal)
                                 Indicators:
Management and protection of                                                                              GoT continues to implement
biodiversity in three selected   Ichkeul                                                                  policies/programs aimed at
protected areas (PAs) in         - 2 stands of Potamogeton are        Scientific monitoring; wildlife     promoting sustainable
Tunisia results in               reestablished in Y5                  inventory; vegetation transect;     management of protected
arresting/reversing trends in    - index of land-cover of sirpaies    satellite images                    areas;
biodiversity degradation.        increases by 50% in Y5
                                 - average frequency index of         Annual reports of conservators      Public support for
                                 geese increases by 20%               and partner research institutions   biodiversity conservation
                                 (comparison of ref. average of       (IRA, ANE, etc.)                    may develop more slowly
                                 Yrs -1, 0, 1 to average of Y2, 3                                         than the rate that would have
                                 4)                                   Survey reports consolidated in      been required to support
                                 Bou-Hedma                            the SSEPN (French acronym for       government actions in time to
                                 - Pop. of: gazelles dorcas 150       National Park Monitoring and        avoid permanent damage to
                                 ind., mhoor 40 & oryx 150            Evaluation System)                  Tunisia's biodiversity.
                                 distributed in all protected zones
                                 of the park by Y6                    Progress and supervision
                                 - Abundance index of Acacia          reports.
                                 radiana > 2m increases in Bou-
                                 Hedma and its surrounding by
                                 Y6
                                 Jbil
                                 - Abundance index of sand
                                 gazelles and dorcas gazelles
                                 increases by 15% in Jbil and its
                                 surrounding by Y6


Improved management of the       % of population (disaggregated       Surveys carried out by a            Other partners (Government or
three parks contributes to the   by gender) convinced of the          specialized firm to assess          other donors) provide additional
improved welfare of the          direct and indirect economic         public opinion at the               support towards economic
populations within and around    interest of the three parks:         beginning, middle and end of        development and poverty
the parks.                                            Y3      Y6      project.                            alleviation in the vicinity of the
                                 Direct               10      20                                          three parks since the project's
                                 Indirect             10      20                                          potential for poverty alleviation
                                                                                                          is limited.
                                 15% of park budget is allocated
                                 to services rendered by local
                                 communities in Y6.                   Annual reports of park
                                                                      conservators (detailing local
                                 Monetary benefits (DT)               expenditures and recipts of
                                 captured by the local                revenues notably from
                                 populations (disaggregated           ecotourism)
                                 by gender)
                                          Park Employment
                                 Revenues
                                 Ichkeul        a          b
                                 Bouhedma c              d
                                 Jebil          e          f
                                 Percentage of women who:
                                 a) belong to the Development
                                 Committees;
                                 b) play active leadership
roles in their organization;
                                      Key Performance                 Data Collection Strategy
 Hierarchy of Objectives                 Indicators                                                       Critical Assumptions


Output from each                 Output Indicators:                   Project reports:                  (from Outputs to Objective)
Component:
1. Institutional                 1.1 At least 80% of the Annual       Annual reports; Annual Work       The current institutional
Strengthening:                   Work Programs are implemented        Programs; Supervision Aide        framework provides the
Capacity of the administration   every year;                          memoire; Audits                   necessary incentives and work
(forestry, environment,                                                                                 environment for park staff and
tourism) and their partners      1.2 Equipment and works are                                            partners to apply their newly
(scientific community and        acquired or contracted according                                       acquired skills and
local populations) for           to procurement planning in 80%                                         technical/management tools.
biodiversity conservation and    of cases;
protected area management is
improved at the central,         1.3 Planning, monitoring and
regional,and local levels.       budget control are considered
                                 satisfactory from Y2 on.

                                 1.4 From Y2 on, the Annual
                                 Work Programs and Annual
                                 Reports are satisfactory

                                 1.5. High-level park staff, chiefs   Monitoring and evaluation
                                 of forests “arrondissement”,         reports of training results and
                                 conservators of the three parks      follow up of trainees; Annual
                                 and their deputies master and use    report of PMU
                                 community planning and
                                 communication tools in Y6.

                                 1.6. 50% of members of local
                                 communities who have benefited
                                 from training are involved in a
                                 park management related
                                 activity in Y6

                                 1.7. 100% of permanent staff of
                                 the three parks have received        Research activity reports;
                                 training to upgrade their skills     publications; Annual reports of
                                 and adapt them to their position.    partner research institutions;
                                                                      cross verification of above
                                 1.8. Results from monitoring and     documents with Management
                                 research are used in the             Plans, Annual work Programs.
                                 Management Plans and in the
                                 Annual Work Program design
                                 from Y2 on at Bou-Hedma,
                                 Ichkeul and Y3 on at Jbil.

                                 1.9. The SSEPN is used in daily
                                 management of the three parks        Cross verification of SSEPN
                                 from Y3 on.                          database with Annual Work
                                                                      Programs and Annual reports;
                                                                       field supervision; Mission
                                                                       reports from SSEPN central
                                                                       staff.

2. Protected Areas
Management:
The national parks of Bou         2.1. The three parks have            Regional plans; Management          Before the end of Y1, the
Hedma, Ichkeul, and Jbil are      influenced the regional plans for    Plan of each park; Minutes of       administrations of parks and
better managed, suitably          water, livestock, agriculture,       regional consultation meetings.     dams agree on a reasonable six-
integrated in the rural economy   forestry and tourisms.                                                   year rule and calendar for water
and contribute to local                                                                                    release.
development.                      2.2. The participatory process       Minutes of LDC meetings; cross
                                  for the Management Plans and         verification of minutes with        The current drought does not
                                  Annual Work Programs input by        Annual Work Programs.               extend over the six-year project
                                  the Local Council for                                                    period.
                                  Development LCD
                                  (consultation) and Park
                                  Management Team (design) are
                                  functional from Y2 on.

                                  2.3. % implementation of the         Tableaux de bords”" of planning
                                  Project action plan in the three     and monitoring of activities;
                                  parks: Y3 (50%) & Y6 (100%).         Conservator’s annual reports.

                                  2.4. Reduction of illegal activity   Reports and datasheet of
                                  index in the three parks and         monitoring of illegal activities;
                                  periphery between Y1 and Y6.         Conservator’s annual reports.
                                            Brac.Graz. Circul.Cut
                                  - Ichkeul na 2 na          2
                                  - Bou-H. na 2 na           2
                                  - Jbil    2 na 2            2

                                  2.5. In Y6, at least one tourism     Concession contracts; Records
                                  concession operates satisfactory     of tour operators,                  Tourism concessions are granted
                                  to the CLD and CD on each of         concessionaires; independent        on a competitive and transparent
                                  the three parks.                     evaluation of concession in Y6.     basis that maximizes
                                                                                                           involvement of communities and
                                  2.6. Socio cultural and              Sociocultural and ecologic study    benefits the communities and the
                                  ecological information required      report; minutes of meeting with     parks.
                                  to modify the limits of the Jbil     stakeholders; "enquete
                                  National park are available in       commodo-incommodo".
                                  Y3.
                                                                       Datasheet; Annual reports of
                                  2.7. The water management            lake monitoring; minutes of
                                  program leads to expected            meetings with dam authority.
                                  results on the physico-chemical
                                  parameters of the waters of Lake
                                  Ichkeul.
                                                                       Expert report from scoring in
                                  2.8. The IUCN scorecard              Y1, 3 and 6.
                                  notation indicates that all three
                                  parks have improved
                                  management - by 5% in Y3 and
                                  10% in Y6.
3. Public Awareness:                   3.1. In each of the three parks      Terms of Reference and job        In spite of important needs for
Attitudes and behavioral patterns      administration has created           description; Annual report of     park resources, peripheral
of the administration, local           positions of permanent deputies      PMU and Conservators;             populations react positively to
authorities as well as their private   conservators in charge of            Supervision.                      the conservation awareness
and community partners                 relations and communication                                            messages.
demonstrate a commitment               with communities and the
towards protecting the country's       private operators.
natural heritage in the three parks.                                        Annual reports of CD as           Constraints induced by better
                                       3.2. % of activities of the Annual   annexed to the Conservators’      mgt and surveillance of the
                                       Work Programs that is entrusted      Annual Reports.                   parks, which cannot be solved by
                                       to communities:                                                        the project, are addressed by
                                                  Y3                                                          other development programs;
                                       Y6                                                                           - Ichkeul 10                 15
                                       Bou-Hedma 10
                                       15
                                       Jbil           5                     Opinion survey of targeted
                                       10                                   population.

                                       3.3. % of the population of parks
                                       and surrounding who is sensitive
                                       to the flagship themes of the
                                       three parks:
                                       Jbil Gazelle blanche      25         Summary of scores achieved        Teachers may be reluctant to
                                       Bou-H. Acacia radiana 25             each year.                        add to their pedagogic
                                       Ichkeul Water release     25                                           responsibilities;

                                        3.4. % of pupils of targeted
                                       classes in primary school of the
                                       three parks having achieved a
                                       70% score to a test on the park
                                       and its value:
                                       Y1 Y2        Y3      Y4                                           Y5   Y6
                                       40 50        60     65 70
                                       70
                          Key Performance   Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives      Indicators                                Critical Assumptions
Project Components / Sub-         Inputs: (budget for each   Project reports:                    (from Components to
components:                       component)                                                     Outputs)
1. Capacity building and          U.S $ 2.02 million         5-year budget plan updated on a     The DGF financial management
institutional strengthening       (GEF: $1.55 million)       yearly basis; Annual Work           and procurement capacity is
1.1 Organizational                                           Program of the PMU; Financial       sufficiently competent to enable
development                                                  reports; Audit report.              timely availability of project
1.2 Interpretive and education                                                                   services, goods or work and
capacity                                                                                         monitoring of expenditures.
1.3 Training
1.4 Research and monitoring                                  Annual report of the PMU;           Staff appointed to the UCP and
programs                                                     TORs; Contract monitoring;          SSEPN posses sufficient time
1.5 Institutional strengthening                              Monitoring of conventions and       and expertise to fulfill the
equipment                                                    MoU; Training modules, scoring      mission that is demanded of
1.6 Policy studies                                           and reports; publications;          them.
1.7 Project Coordination Unit                                monitoring manuals.


2. National parks: management U.S $ 7.18 million             Annual reports of the               The proposed redeployment of
of the three parks            (GEF: $3.25 million)           Conservator; Management             personnel to meet project needs
2.1 Park management planning                                 Plans; Field visit (supervision);   is effected.
2.2 Equipment and small civil                                Contract monitoring; Minutes of
works                                                        important meetings; Minutes of      Staff appointed to the parks
2.3 Ecological, socioeconomic                                work reception.                     possess sufficient time and
surveys                                                                                          expertise to fulfill the mission
                                                                                                 that is requested from them.

                                                                                                 The park administration and its
                                                                                                 partners succeed in stopping
                                                                                                 poaching by people originating
                                                                                                 outside the Jbil region.

                                                                                                 Sociocultural and tenure
                                                                                                 constraints are not obstacles to
                                                                                                 the modification of the Jbil Park
                                                                                                 boundaries.
3. Public awareness and           U.S $ 0.68 million         Annual reports of the PMU;          Annual Government budget
education                         (GEF: 0.53 million)        Supervision; Contract               enable the proposed recruitment
3.1 Development of                                           monitoring; Education material      or affectation.
educational packages                                         (posters, etc.) Minutes of work
3.2 Development of media                                     achievement (e.g. eco museum        Staff appointed to the UCP
programs promoting                                           in Douz).                           possess sufficient time and
biodiversity conservation                                                                        expertise to fulfill the mission
3.3 Outreach and education                                                                       that is demanded of them.
programs for local
communities                                                                                      Schoolteachers agree to the
                                                                                                 additional workload required to
                                                                                                 implement the conservation
                                                                                                 awareness program in primary
                                                                                                 schools.
                                         Monitoring and Evaluation Plan:

Monitoring of the project will be divided into two: (a) scientific monitoring and evaluation, based on the agreed-on
biological indicators and the analysis of the effects of management measures used by the project on the biolodiversity;
and (b) monitoring of project physical and financial implementation, taking into account project progress.

M&E will be carried out by the PMU with technical backstopping provided by the deputy coordinator from MEAT. In
line with guidance received from the STAP reviewer, a specific and simple monitoring mechanism would be prepared in
order to allow the personnel to know when and what to measure, to take maximum advantage of patrols, and to guarantee
a systematic data collection. The design will include the selection of indicators to evaluate communities, animal and
plant populations and other processes identified as priority within the national parks. The design would consider the
evaluation of monitoring activities and the suitability of indicators, in order to make improvements in the mechanism.
Guidelines suggested by the STAP review will be followed.

At the local level, because of the diverse nature of the stakeholders, clauses will be introduced in the
contracts/conventions with the local Development Committees (CDs). The CDs will be responsible for updating the
PMTs on the progress of their community development plans in order to receive necessary funds. The community
development facilitators (animateurs) will assist in the collection and validation of the data. The CRDAs will furnish
quarterly progress reports to the PMU which will then consolidate the individual reports. The reports will be prepared
every six months and would include the physical and financial progress. The outcome and impact indicators will
furnished on an annual basis. The project will have an in-depth mid-term review. The review would assess progress and
redesign project elements as necessary.
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description

                            TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

By Component:

Project Component 1 - US$2.02 million
Institutional strengthening:

The objective of this component will be to reinforce the institutional capacity of the Directorate General of Forestry
(Ministry of Agriculture), the CRDAs, the Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning (MELP) and their regional
directorate, and other partners in sustainable protected areas management. This component will support the following: (i)
support for the Project Management Unit; (ii) training; (iii) research studies; and (iv) establishment of a scientific
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) information system for the national parks.

(i) Project management: The project will support the strengthening of the Project Management Unit in the DGF through
technical assistance for assuring the monitoring and supervision of the project. This will include recruitment of specialized
M&E consultants, and equipment and software necessary for financial management. This sub-component would also
include support for the mid-term review in the third year of project implementation.

(ii) Training: The training programs would focus on the personnel responsible for the day-to-day management of the park
as well as staff in the relevant Ministries and their partners who are involved in the administration of the parks. This sub-
component would be critical in assuring the smooth implementation of the project since the current staff do not possess
the necessary capacities in order to carry out all the functions pertaining to protected areas management. Specifically, the
emphasis on the participatory approach in this project demands relatively new skills of the DGF personnel who have been
used to a more classic "command and control" approach. The program also envisages the training of people outside the
administration who are, nevertheless, closely involved in the management of protected areas in the country such as local
associations, tourism operators etc. It is estimated that around 100 persons will be trained in this regard. The program
would also support the recruitment of a specialized training consultant who will provide the necessary trainers (national
and international) to carry out the proposed program. The program will include the following: (a) on-the-job training:
This would include 5 modules, each module organized around several thematic sessions including management of a
GEF/World Bank project; conservation management; environmental education; improving public awareness of the
importance of the environment/biodiversity centred around the flagship species/themes identified in each park (Gazelle
blanche for Jbil; Acacia radiana for Bouhedma, and the theme of water resources management in Ichkeul); (b) training of
trainers: It is proposed to create a "pole" of 5 students specializing in conservation management who would benefit from
more detailed instruction through 13 weeks of in-depth training abroad and in Tunisia. This will be done through a
contract with an appropriate training institution; (c) Diploma training: Currently, Tunisia lacks specialists trained in the
scientific domains related to biodiversity conservation and management. The project would support scholarships for
graduate students desiring to specialize in disciplines pertaining to ecology and biodiversity conservation. Four
scholarships are envisaged: mediterranean ecology, flora and fauna of ecosystems, Tunisian biodiversity, and socio-
economic community development.

(iii) Research Studies: The project will support four baseline studies common to all three parks pertaining to: (i)
monitoring the dynamics of vegetation in the parks and the establishment of phytoecological maps; (ii) preparation of an
inventory and monitoring of reptile populations; (iii) Inventory and monitoring of bird populations; and (iv) inventory and
monitoring of the mammal populations. In addition, this sub-component will support specific research studies in each
park. For Ichkeul, the project will support the research into the mathematical modelling governing the water resources
management aspects of the lake. The long-term viability of the lake depends entirely on the execution of a well-
conceived, scientifically justified plan for the releases of water into the lake that takes into account existing (old and new)
dams upstream of the lake. The mathematical model developed in 1995 by BCEOM needs to be updated and improved to
take into account current physical realities and needs to be calibrated (with experimental releases of water) to be able to
serve as a genuine management tool. The project would support this research modeling exercise so that the park
management would thus have a convincing protocol (based on solid scientific data that have been tested) to present to the
authorities managing the dams upstream (DGBGTH) in the Ministry of Agriculture who can then integrate the ecological
needs of the lake in the overall plan for water resources management in northern Tunisia (Plan Directeur de l'Eau du
Nord). The project would also support the research activities on the biological and physical parameters of the lake to
strengthen the capacity of the National Environmental Protection Agency (ANPE) to carry out its scientific monitoring
and surveillance activities. For Bouhedma, the project envisages two research studies - the first on the ecology and
dynamics of the acacia radiana and the second on the ecology of the parasitic insects that prey on the acacia. In Jbil, the
research studies will focus on the biology and ecology of the sand gazelle, and the ecology and behavior of the houbara
bustard.

(iv) M&E Information System: The project will support the establishment of a system of M&E of National Parks
(Systeme de Suivi Evaluation des Parcs Nationaux - SSEPN). This will be lodged in the department of national parks in
the Director General of Forestry (DGF). The SSEPN will build on the existing results and data from the database for
forestry planning (Systeme d'Information pour la Planification Forestiere - SIPF) which is currently in operation in the
DGF. A team of three technicians will be assigned to the SSEPN and will be trained to serve the project's M&E needs,
benefitting from the experience of the existing SIPF team and some of its equipment. A node will also be established in
each park and in the Ministry of Environment. The training of the technicians and the park conservators will focus on
using the SSEPN as a management tool. The basic spatial data are already available for Bouhedma and Jbil at the
Directorate General of Land Use Planning (DGLP) prepared by the National Center of Tele-detection and the data from
the project SAIDE using the "Corinne" nomenclature. Ichkeul will benefit from the acquisition of orthophotos (1/25,000)
under the SIPF. Additional data will be obtained as required during project implementation. A specialized consulting firm
will be recruited for the design and implementation of the system as well as the training of the ultimate users. The SSEPN
will utilize the Corinne nomenclature (project SAIDE) which is in the process of being adopted at the national level in the
framework of the GEONAT project ( updating of the national maps project).

Project Component 2 - US$7.18 million
Protected Areas Management:

The objective of this component would be: (i) manage and restore the ecosystems in the three national parks to protect the
globally important flora and fauna; (ii) assist in the development of ecotourism activities; and (iii) establish, with the local
populations, community development plans compatible with the objectives of sustainable biodiversity conservation. The
three parks (out of 8) chosen include Ichkeul, Bouhedma, and Jbil. These three parks cover unique and distinctly different
ecosystems – wetland, arid-mountain/pseudo savanna, and desert respectively. Overall, there exists no management plan
for any of the three parks. The management is ad hoc and does not systematically take into account the needs and input of
the local communities who live in and around the parks. In all the three parks, the key professional manager is the park
conservator with the majority of the remaining personnel being workers and/or temporary labor. The project envisages
strengthening the technical and management capacity in the parks with a view to efficient implementation of the eventual
management plans. For the park of Ichkeul, the management plan would be based on the extensive work already carried
out under a KfW financed study (1993-95) which came up with several recommendations for the management of the park,
especially the water resources management aspects. The components under the community development for each of the
parks are detailed in the social assessment are presented in Annex 12.

Ichkeul N.P: The Ichkeul N.P is divided into three physiographic units - the lake (89 sq. km), the wetlands/marshes (30
sq. km), and the mountain (14 sq. km). The existing zonation comrpises two foci reflecting the different natural milieux -
the mountain and the wetlands forming one zone and the lake the other. The management objective in the first zone is the
conservation of natural resources. In the second zone, the objective is the sustainable management of the lake especially
the fisheries resources. Currently, the fishery is the lake is under the exclusive operation of a private firm under a 30-year
concession. The zonation proposed has been adopted from the recommendations of the KfW-financed study.
Currently, the park is under the responsability of a park conservator at the engineer-level who is under the supervision of
the head of the Forestry Section of the CRDA (Chef d'Arrondissement Forestier). The conservator is assisted by seven
workers (ouvriers) who have a very basic level of education. The park also has a cellule managed by the ANPE which is
located in the welcome center. The ANPE team is multidisciplinary comprising three professional staff and one
technician. This team will be reinforced by a two engineers (one from ANPE and one from DGBGTH) who will be
responsible for the calibrating and updating of the mathematical model that was financed under the KfW study in 1993-
95. The rest of the team is concerned with the monitoring of the quality of the lake. The current management of the park is
ad hoc and draws on some recommendations of the Kfw-financed study but are restricted to purely technical aspects.
There is no significant, coherent management plan that takes integrates the socio-economic development of the local
communities in the management of the park. The park has a manned entry gate, a welcome center, and an ecomuseum.
The park also has running water and electricity in the administrative buildings. There is a paved road that leads to the
ecomuseum but visitors are not permitted to use this. The Tinja sluice regulates the flow of water between the lake Ichkeul
and lake Bizerte and controls the salinity. Mechanization of this sluice is envisaged under the project. There are two 4X4
vehicles one of which is equipped with a radio unit. The workers also have 4 motorcycles and 7 horses. The park however
does not have a tepephone, the material in the ecomuseum is outdated, and the laboratory is under-equipped.

Ichkeul is Tunisia's best-known national park and has about 50,000 visitors per year, mainly due to its proximity to the
capital, Tunis. However, the socioeconomic development upstream has posed a serious threat to the health of the Lake
Ichkeul ecosystem. As a result, the park was included in the Ramsar's Convention Montreux Record ("Record of Ramsar
sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur") thus indicating the great
threat to which the wetland is exposed. The project would support the updating and calibration of the Kfw-financed
mathematical model for the management of the lake using test releases of freshwater in order to establish a scientific basis
and calendar for the releases of freshwater necessary for maintaining the health of the lake's ecosystem. This component
would support the park management with the necessary infrastructural improvements (buildings, improvements in
trails/routes in the park), equipment, vehicles, and the development of a participatory approach to include the local
populations in the management plan of the park. A local PMT which would include the local authorities, the park
administration and representatives of the communities would be established. The project also envisages the recruitment of
an "animateur" to facilitate and strengthen all community development activities. Under the management and restoration
of ecosystems, four programs will be financed: the first involves technical assistance for the direct management of the
park including the training and equipment of 10 eco-guards, elaboration of a program of internal planning and regulation,
with zoning and sector aspects. The latter would be carried out in the field with the participation of the population living
in and around the park. A preliminary public awareness campaign is envisaged in order to sensitize the local populations.
The process of formalization of the development committee into a legally recognized AFIC has already started with the
majority of the residents of the park already being members. It is expected that it will be legalized by early 2002 (Details
in Annex 12). The second program pertains to the rehabilitation of the lake's ecosystem. This would include establishment
of a permanent monitoring system to monitor the additional flows of fresh water into the lake; mechanization of the
existing sluice which governs the flow of water between the lakes of Ichkeul and Bizerte; maps and bathymetric control;
dredging; and an observatory for monitoring fish production. The third program would address the rehabilitation of the
marshes, and the fourth program would address the vegetation of the mountain (jebel) ecosystem. Based on the KfW
study, the following activities under the rehabilitation of the marshes over the course of the project implementation
period: closures around the areas of Ghezala and El Melah and a review of the closure option for Joumine; completion of
the "tabia" on the Joumine; evaluate the potential surface and groundwater resources that can be mobilized for the
inundation of the wetlands and establishment of a hydraulic management plan specifically for the wetlands;
decontamination of the effluents of the wastewater which get dumped into the watershed of the lake; substitution of the
practice of "elevage sauvage" by providing alternative sources of revenue for the park habitants; and carrying out
scientific monitoring of the reconstitution of the habitats and the resulting changes in frequentation by the bird
populations.

Bouhedma N.P: This park covers the governorates of Sidi Bouzid (11,000 ha) and Gafsa (5500 ha). The northern
boundary of the park is the mountain (jebel) of Bouhedma and there are several zones: 3 core protected areas, 3 buffer
zones, and 2 zones of "temporary occupation". Officially, there are about 2500 habitants in the park who live in the latter
two zones. Insofar as the existing human resource capacity is concerned, the only professional staff is the conservator, the
majority of the other personnel (between 60-120 people) being daily labor recruited from the park population or the area
surrounding the park.

Current infrastructure in the park (Bordj Bouhedma) includes a depot, an administrative office, lodging for the
conservator, the ecomuseum, and basic accomodation for about 12 persons. The Bordj is not equipped with
communication facilities or electricity but has running water. Several enclosures have been constructed between 1984-90
to house the animals introduced in this habitat. There is one 4x4 and three (ancient) tractors as well as four motorcycles. A
project in the 1980s with GTZ assistance resulted in a plan in 1986 which however, is far from a management plan per se.
The focus of the plan is essentially on soil and water conservation measures, and does not take into account the complete
boundaries of the park, the conservation objectives in the short, medium, and long-term, a coherent strategy for the
utilization of the park spaces, the expected outcomes and the identification of suitable monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms and indicators.

As in Ichkeul, this component would support necessary infrastructural improvements (buildings, improvements in
trails/routes in the park), equipment, vehicles, and the development of a participatory approach to include the local
populations in the management plan of the park. The project would also finance the construction of lodgings for the park
agents, an entry post with a deep well; improvement in the capacities of the CRDA (Sidi Bouzid) that would house the
local GIS. As with Ichkeul, a local PMT which would include the local authorities, the park administration and
representatives of the communities would be established. Under the management and restoration of ecosystems, four
programs will be financed: the first will include support for the direct management of the park including the financing of a
motorized corps of ecoguards (6), and elaboration of a program of internal planning and regulation, with zoning and
sectoral aspects. The second program would address the rehabilitation of the Acacia raddiana pseudo-savanah. The third
would focus on the improvement of the protection of the wild animals in the park and lastly, this component would
support the potential for reintroduction of large animals in close collaboration with the proposed French GEF regional
project on the reintroduction of the sahelo-saharien antelopes in accordance with the Convention on Migratory Species
(CMS/Bonn Convention). The project would also support the transfer of addax to a more suitable park (like Jbil) and the
sale of the ostriches which are not currently in their natural milieu.

Jbil N.P: This is the largest and most recent of the three national parks. Very little has been done to actually "manage"
the park thus far. There is one conservator who is based in the CRDA of Kebili but who does not have regular access to
means of transport that would enable him to carry out his functions, in however limited a manner. There are also five
guards who are also limited in their capacity to carry out any control due to lack of communication facilities with the
exterior. Unlike the other two parks, there is no ecomuseum or welcome center in this park. The sole infrastructure that
exists is an entry gate at one of the boundaries of the park. In order to accomodate the transhumance and right of passage
for the nomad population, the project envisages the eventual revision of the existing boundaries of the park.

This component would support the CRDA of Kebili with necessary infrastructure, vehicles, and equipment for managing
the work at the field level, and the development of a participatory approach to include the local populations that are
customary users of the park space, and other stakeholders in the management plan of the park. For improved logistics, a
base would be established at the port of entry in the north of the park with the necessary lodgings, offices, deep wells, and
fuelling station. As with the other two parks, a local PMT which would include the local authorities, the park
administration and representatives of the communities would be established. In addition to the programs for the direct
support for the management of the park per se, this component would also include a program for the protection of the
Gazella leptocero and Gazella dorcas, protection of the vegetative cover of the Grand Erg, and the reintroduction of large
animals in close collaboration with the proposed French GEF regional project on the reintroduction of the sahelian
antelopes. The project also envisages the revision of the boundaries of the park with a view to extending its limits. The
project will work in close coordination with other relevant development activities planned for the region, notably the
IFAD project on rangeland management. The Action Plan for the park has identified illegal hunting (by the habitants of
the nearby towns like Douz as well as foreigners) as one of the root causes for the loss of animal biodiversity in the park.
Thanks to the recent political commitment at the highest levels, measures will be taken by the CRDA and the DGF to
enforce the ban on illegal hunting. With a view to improve public awareness and change behavioral patterns among the
local communities, the project would also support the construction of an eco-museum at Douz that will focus on the
intertwined concepts of the local culture and the desert as a unique environment.

Project Component 3 - US$ 0.68 million
Public Awareness:

This component would aim to build public support for biodiversity conservation at the local/park level and governorate
level. Action plans will target priority groups including local communities, local/regional governments, site visitors, and
local school children to raise the awareness of specific stakeholder groups about the importance of, and opportunities for,
biodiversity conservation within the three parks. Possible delivery mechanisms include mass media, formal and informal
education, and development of linkages with local NGOs, schools, tourism agencies, and other organizations to promote
public understanding about biodiversity resources. For each of the parks, flagship species/themes (espèce phare) have
been identified that will form the nucleus of all public awareness campaigns as well as research, monitoring and
conservation activities. These would be the Accacia raddiana, and the white gazelle (Gazelle leptoceros) for the parks of
Bouhedma and Jbil respectively and the theme of water resources management for the case of Ichkeul. Activities will be
developed at the local/community level around these key species/themes in order to develop the grassroots awareness
necessary to sustain long-term biodiversity conservation. Activities will be developed at the local/community level in
order to develop the grassroots awareness necessary to sustain long-term biodiversity conservation.
  Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs

                                   TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT


                                                                                                  Local                  Foreign                 Total
                       Project Cost By Component                                                US $million             US $million            US $million
Institutional Strengthening                                                                          1.24                     0.57                   1.81
Protected Areas Management                                                                           5.59                     0.80                   6.39
Public awareness and education                                                                       0.37                     0.23                   0.60




Total Baseline Cost                                                                                  7.20                     1.60                   8.80
 Physical Contingencies                                                                              0.35                     0.07                   0.42
 Price Contingencies                                                                                 0.59                     0.07                   0.66
                                            Total Project Costs1                                     8.14                     1.74                   9.88


                                     Total Financing Required                                        8.14                     1.74                   9.88


                                                                                                  Local                  Foreign                 Total
                         Project Cost By Category                                               US $million             US $million            US $million

Goods                                                                                                   0.86                      0.59                   1.45
Works                                                                                                   1.95                      0.00                   1.95
Services                                                                                                1.31                      0.75                   2.06
Training                                                                                                0.46                      0.26                   0.72
Community works                                                                                         0.80                      0.00                   0.80
Incremental operating costs                                                                             1.82                      0.00                   1.82
Contingencies                                                                                           0.94                      0.14                   1.08



                                                           Total Project Costs1                         8.14                      1.74                   9.88


                                                    Total Financing Required                            8.14                      1.74                   9.88


      1 Identifiable taxes and duties are 0 (US$m) and the total project cost, net of taxes, is 9.88 (US$m).   Therefore, the project cost sharing ratio is 53.96%
      of total project cost net of taxes.
                            Annex 4 Incremental Costs and Global Environment Benefits


                            TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Overview

1. The objective of the GEF Alternative is to strengthen the national system of protected areas in Tunisia and
promote sustainable conservation management, with increased participation of local populations, within the
ecosystems of the project-supported areas. The project supports, through relevant project outputs, Articles 6, 8, 11,
and 13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Tunisia on May 3, 1995. Article 6: General Measures for
Conservation and Sustainable Use; Article 8: In-situ Conservation; Article 11: Incentive Measures; Article 13: Public Education and Awareness.
Specific project components include: (a) capacity building and institutional strengthening; (b) development of
management plans in three national parks; and (c) public awareness and education. The GEF Alternative intends to
achieve these outputs at a total incremental cost of US$ 5.49 million. The proposed project should be viewed as
complementary to existing activities in Tunisia.

Baseline Scenario

2. Tunisia accords a high significance to biodiversity conservation and sustainable uses in its development effort.
There is a strong political commitment towards enhanced conservation efforts and its successful integration into a
wider economic, social and cultural context. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan were developed in a
very participatory manner under a Biodiversity Enabling Activity (GEF-funded; the World Bank being the
Implementing Agency) and were adopted by the Government in 1998. However, thus far, the recommendations and
priorities outlined in the Action Plan have not yet been concretized. Management plans for the national parks are
either non-existent, minimal, or ad hoc. The management activities that do exist in some parks tend to be top-down,
with the exception of the plans recently developed for the parks of Chaambi and Feidja. The Government is also in the
process of diversifying its tourism strategy to include nature and cultural tourism. In this regard, two of the three
national parks in this project (Ichkeul and Bouhedma) will benefit from improvements in infrastructure around and
within the parks, equipment for the ecomuseums, training etc. The human resource capacity to manage the parks will
continue to remain limited. Protected area management initiatives will continue to be ad hoc and sporadic, lacking an
overall coherent strategy and vision. The recommendations of the recent Presidential Commission on National Parks
Management represent a significant advance, but in the absence of their operationalization, will remain in the realm of
theory. The regional French GEF project on the reintroduction of the Sahelian antelopes will target the parks of
Bouhedma and Jbil, but will be restricted to the specific technical activities related to the reintroduction of the species.
In the absence of the GEF funding, it is unlikely that the protection of biodiversity of global importance can be
achieved. The estimated costs of the baseline are: (i) GOT funding of salaries and routine management activities
($2.1m) in the three parks; (ii) UNDP funding of public awareness and institutional strengthening in relation to the
Feidja National Park project ($280,000); (iii) the regional project (French GEF/GOT) on reintroduction of sahelian
antelopes in Bou Hedma and Jbil National Parks ($148,000); (iv) GOT’s development of tourism-related activities in
2 of the 3 national parks ($2.1 million), Bouhedma and Ichkeul; and (v) limited number of training, capacity building,
and environmental education activities ($43,100). The total estimated baseline is $4,671,100.

3. Implementation of the Baseline Scenario will result in limited protection of biodiversity, increased domestic
environmental benefits related to    forest and natural resource management as well as soil conservation, increased
participation in conservation, and some improvement in protecting coastal areas in Tunisia’s protected areas.
Development of ecotourism will result in improved infrastructure facilities but in the absence of clear management
plans, there is also the risk of increased destruction of existing biodiversity. Progress will be made in achieving
broader development goals related to strengthening environmental management and improved social and rural
development. As a consequence of the current course of action, Tunisia’s protected areas will likely continue to be
managed in an ad hoc manner, without the participation of the local populations in a systematic and meaningful
manner. Poorly-managed recreational uses may degrade the biodiversity in the national parks and reserves. The long-
term implications of these activities includes the steady loss of globally significant biodiversity over the next two
decades.

GEF Alternative

4. The GEF Alternative would build on the Baseline Scenario by protecting three representative major ecosystems;
conserving threatened remnant ecosystems and species; providing opportunities for local populations in and around
protected areas; increasing public awareness about biodiversity conservation; and supporting participatory approaches
to sustainable natural resource conservation. Implementation of the GEF Alternative would make possible activities
and programs that would not have been possible under the Baseline Scenario. For instance, the proposed project will
fill one of the key gaps in protected areas management in Tunisia through the introduction of management plans that
are technically sound and have the buy-in of local populations. Scientific research activities promoting biodiversity
conservation through monitoring and evaluating the status and distribution of species and of ecosystems will be
supported under the GEF Alternative. While both the Baseline Scenario and the GEF Alternative support biodiversity
conservation in Tunisia’s national parks, with both domestic and international benefits, only the latter option would
ensure long-term conservation and sustainable utilization through strengthened on-site management, outreach to and
involvement of local communities and local governments, and development of viable approaches to sustainable
natural resource use in national and natural parks. One of the three project sites, Ichkeul National Park was, in 1990
included in the Ramsar's Convention Montreux Record ("Record of Ramsar sites where changes in ecological
character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur") thus indicating the great threat to which the wetland is
exposed. The GEF alternative would support the updating and calibration of the mathematical model for the
management of the lake (financed by KfW, 1993-95) using test releases of freshwater in order to establish a scientific
basis and calendar for the releases of freshwater necessary for maintaining the health of the lake's ecosystem. With
management and conservation measures based on a long-term plan, greater public commitment to conserving the
areas and the creation of institutional and participatory mechanisms supported under the project, the GEF Alternative
would produce the institutional, social, and economic framework required to restore and conserve over the long-run,
the biodiversity in the three pilot areas, thereby generating significant biodiversity benefits within these three globally
significant ecosystems.
   5. The total cost of the GEF Alternative is estimated at US$ 9.88 million, as presented in the summary table. The
   difference between the cost of the Baseline Scenario (US$ 4.67 million) and the cost of the GEF Alternative (US$
   9.88 million) is estimated at US$ 5.49 million of which the GEF contribution is US$5.33 million.

                             Table 1:INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY (2002-2008) IN $US

Component                           Baseline           Alternative                    Incremental Cost
                                                                             GEF       Other Sources      Total
1. Institutional                    616,900             2,021,000      1,540,000                  1,540,000
strengthening
2. Protected Areas                  3,768,400           7,179,500      3,250,000    155,200      3,405,200
Management
3. Public awareness                 285,800              677,500          540,000                    540,000
Total                               4,671,100           9,878,000      5,330,000    155,200      5,485,200
   Annex 5: Financial Summary

                           TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT
                                                 Years Ending
                                                  in US$'000
                                                      IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD


                              Year 1   Year 2        Year 3     Year 4    Year 5    Year 6    Year 7
Total Financing Required
 Project Costs
 Investment Costs             1163.9    3202.2        1427.6      792.7     720.5     461.4      0.0
 Recurrent Costs               231.6     270.4         352.2      381.9     430.3     443.3
Total Project Costs           1395.5    3472.6        1779.8     1174.6    1150.8     904.7      0.0


Total Financing               1395.5    3472.6        1779.8     1174.6    1150.8     904.7      0.0

Financing
  IBRD/IDA                       0.0       0.0           0.0        0.0       0.0      0.0       0.0
  Government                   925.5    1946.1         165.4      308.4     583.4    480.7       0.0
      Central                    0.0       0.0           0.0        0.0       0.0      0.0       0.0
      Provincial                 0.0       0.0           0.0        0.0       0.0      0.0       0.0
  Co-financiersGEF             452.3    1470.0        1547.9      820.6     512.2    526.6
User Fees/Beneficiaries          0.0      20.5          41.6       32.7      23.6     36.8
Other                           17.8      36.0          24.9       12.9      31.5     25.3       0.0

 Total Project Financing      1395.6    3472.6        1779.8     1174.6    1150.7   1069.4       0.0

Other                            0.0      0.0           0.0        0.0        0.0      0.0       0.0

Main assumptions:
  Annex 6: Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements

                         TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

  Procurement

  Procurement responsibilities: To ensure smooth implementation, the Project Management Unit (PMU) at the DGF in
  the Ministry of Agriculture will have overall responsibilities for coordination of procurement activities under the
  project. The PMU has acquired experience in dealing with Bank-financed procurement under the previous Forestry
  projects but this capacity will be reinforced under this project. The National Project Coordinator will coordinate
  procurement activities through the PMTs and the Regional Commissariats for Agricultural Development (CRDAs)
  who will be responsible for launching their own bids and supervising their projects. The DGF and the Ministry of
  Environment and Landuse Planning will be responsible for preparing the bidding documents at the national level.

  Overall, the Bank is satisfied that the local procurement procedures are acceptable. Although the Tunisian legislation
  is in line with Bank Guidelines, certain rules and procedures however, are not acceptable to the Bank. These issues
  mainly concern the use of two envelopes in bidding for works and goods, and open competitive bidding for hiring
  consultants. Under this project, the Bank's procurement procedures will take precedence and this will be specified in
  the grant agreement. The Bank carried out an assessment of the procurement capacity of the implementing agency and
  has judged that the overall risk is low.

Procurement methods (Table A)


  Procurement of goods and works will be done in accordance with the World Bank's guidelines: Procurement under
  IBRD Loans and IDA Credits, issued in January 1995 and revised in September 1997 and January 1999. Consulting
  services, technical assistance and training financed under the grant will be procured in accordance with the
  Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers, issues in January 1997 and revised
  in January 1999. The draft procurement plan for the first year is attached as an Excel file below:
                                     Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements
                                                    (US$ million equivalent)

                                                                                    Method1
       Expenditure Category                        ICB            Procurement                             N.B.F.      Total Cost
                                                                                        Other2
                                                                     NCB
                                                                                       (Local
                                                                                     shopping )
1. Works                                           0.00                1.40               0.00             0.79          2.19
                                                  (0.00)              (0.76)             (0.00)           (0.00)        (0.76)
2. Goods                                           0.32                1.15               0.09             0.00          1.56
                                                  (0.22)              (0.87)             (0.07)           (0.00)        (1.16)
3. Services                                        0.00                0.00               2.29             0.00          2.29
Consultants                                       (0.00)              (0.00)             (2.05)           (0.00)        (2.05)
4. Training                                        0.00                0.00               0.00             0.81          0.81
                                                  (0.00)              (0.00)             (0.00)           (0.74)        (0.74)




5. Community works                                 0.00                0.00               0.92             0.00          0.92
                                                  (0.00)              (0.00)             (0.62)           (0.00)        (0.62)
6. Recurrent costs                                 0.00                0.00               0.00             2.11          2.11
                                                  (0.00)              (0.00)             (0.00)           (0.00)        (0.00)
     Total                                         0.32                2.55               3.30             3.71          9.88
                                                  (0.22)              (1.63)             (2.74)           (0.74)        (5.33)


1/      Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Grant. All costs include contingencies.
2/      Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of
        contracted staff of the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental
        operating costs related to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project funds to local government
        units.

     3/ Direct contracting for community works only.
        - Tableau procurement 1ere annee.xls

                               Table A1: Consultant Selection Arrangements (optional)
                                              (US$ million equivalent)

                                                           Selectio   Method
    Consultant Services                                       n
   Expenditure Category        QCBS     QBS       SFB       LCS        CQ       Other     N.B.F.      Total
                                                                                                      Cost1
A. Firms                       0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00       0.00
                               (0.00)   (0.00)   (0.00)    (0.00)     (0.00)    (0.00)    (0.00)      (0.00)
B. Individuals                 0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00       0.00
                               (0.00)   (0.00)   (0.00)    (0.00)     (0.00)    (0.00)    (0.00)      (0.00)
                     Total     0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00       0.00      0.00      0.00       0.00
                               (0.00)   (0.00)   (0.00)    (0.00)     (0.00)    (0.00)    (0.00)      (0.00)

  1\ Including contingencies

            Note: QCBS = Quality- and Cost-Based Selection
                  QBS = Quality-based Selection
                  SFB = Selection under a Fixed Budget
                  LCS = Least-Cost Selection
                  CQ = Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications
                  Other = Selection of individual consultants (per Section V of Consultants Guidelines),
                  Commercial Practices, etc.
                  N.B.F. = Not Bank-financed
                  Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Grant.
Prior review thresholds (Table B)

   Works contracts equal or above a threshold of $500,000 equivalent, contracts for goods equal to or US$400,000, and
   consultant contracts equal to or above the equivalent of US$100,000 for firms and US$50,000 for individuals would
   be subject to the Bank's prior review. However, no civil works above the $500,000 threshold are expected to be
   financed under the project. The review process would cover about 20 percent of the total contract amounts. This
   percentage is low essentially due to the small number of small civil works contracts, and is deemed acceptable given
   the satisfactory procurement of the same implementing agencies under other Bank projects and the acceptability to the
   Bank of National competitive Bidding procedures. For other procurement, the Borrower shall furnish all information
   and documentation that the Bank may reasonably request, prior to the submission of the related withdrawal
   application.
                                                                                               Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review 1


                                                                                                                           Contract Value                                    Contracts Subject to
                                                                                                                             Threshold                 Procurement              Prior Review
   Expenditure Category                                                                                                   (US$ thousands)                Method                 (US$ millions)
1. Works                                                                                                                     >=30,000                      NCB                        n.a
                                                                                                                              <30,000                 Local Shopping                  n.a
2. Goods                                                                                                                       >=400                       ICB                   All contracts
                                                                                                                         <400 and >=30,000                 NCB                  No prior review
                                                                                                                              <30,000                 Local Shopping                  n.a
3. ServicesFirms                                                                                                               >=100                      QCBS                   All contracts
                                                                                                                                <100                      QCBS                 None (post-review)

                                                                                                                                >=50               Consultant Guidelines   TORs, SL, TORs contract
Individuals                                                                                                                      <50               Consultant Guidelines         TORs only
4. Miscellaneous
5. Miscellaneous
6. Miscellaneous



                                                                                                                     Total value of contracts subject to prior review:     $2.0 million


                                                                                                                              Overall Procurement Risk Assessment

                                                                                                                                                Low

   Frequency of procurement supervision missions proposed: One every 12 months (includes special procurement
   supervision for post-review/audits)

   _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



   1 Thresholds generally differ by country and project. Consult OD 11.04 "Review of Procurement Documentation" and
   contact the Regional Procurement Adviser for guidance.
   Disbursement

Allocation of grant proceeds (Table C)

   Allocation of Grant proceeds by disbursement category and percentages financed by the Grant are presented in Table
   C below:
                                         Table C: Allocation of Grant Proceeds

           Expenditure Category              Amount in US$million              Financing Percentage
1. Works                                              1.38                              60%
2. Goods                                              1.16             100% of foreign expenditures; 100% of
                                                                         local expenditures (ex-factory), and
                                                                         80% of local expenditures for items
                                                                                   procured locally
3. Consultant services and training                   2.79                                *




Total Project Costs                                   5.33


Total                                                 5.33

   * to be confirmed
Financial Management

General Framework. The Financial Management System (FMS) in place at the MOA, implementing agency for the
project, is based on principles and procedures defined by the legal framework applicable to the pubic sector and more
specifically to governmental institutions. The main characteristics of this system are the following:

Accounting system. An accounting system based on the cash basis and the outline of budget components is
operational and reflected on legal books according to the regulation described in the Code of Public Accounting. The
public accounting system is computerized. The application called ADAB allows to reflect the initial budget allocation
by line Ministry and budget components as well as amounts committed and disbursed as the implementation is going
forward during the fiscal year.

Budgeting system. Based on the programs and actions to be undertaken, the MOA issues an annual budget for
commitments. The annual budget is submitted for approval to the Ministry of Finance (MF), structure in charge of a
close control through its specialized units. In terms of sources of funds, the general budget includes the GOT's
contribution as well as funds allocated by different donors for the implementation of specific projects. The accounting
system ADAB is used by all the technical Ministries at the central level to commit expenditures and to ensure that all
the expenditures are done according to the agreed allocations as reflected in the annual “loi de finances”.

National Disbursements Procedures. These are the following :

At the central level. The budget execution is subject to authorization for payment on a transaction level. This specific
authorization process aims at ensuring that the expense to be paid has been budgeted, and to issue the official
instruction to release the funds by the “Trésorerie Générale”.

At the regional level. The payments are still made through the governmental budget however the procedures of
payments are decentralized and executed by the regional entities. Based on the authorization of payments, the
Trésorerie Générale (TG) transfers the needed funds to the regional entities on a quarterly basis. The funds are
released subject to the presentation of detailed reports on the use of funds and forecasts.

Project financed by International donors. With regards to projects that are financed through the Ministry of
International Cooperation, payments for foreign exchange are for the most part, centralized for the eligible portion.
The mechanism in place involves four parties with the following specific roles: (i) the regional entities, such as
CRDA are responsible for implementation and issuing of the applications for withdrawal, (ii) technical departments
such as DGF, at the central level are responsible for reviewing the technical aspects, compliance with law and
procedures, and consistency of the supporting documentation, (iii) the project coordinator, through the designated
financial unit, is responsible for the review of the eligibility of the expenditures and submission of request to the Bank
(e.g. direct payments) or to the Central Bank of Tunisia (e.g. SOEs), for the release of the funds; and (iv) the Central
Bank of Tunisia (BCT) which plays the role of manager of the special account, is acting as MOF representative, and
play an important role of control of eligibility and compliance with legal and project documents. BCT is responsible
for the replenishment of the Special account.

Control of the budget expenditures. A fiduciary responsibility of control of public expenditures is assigned to MOF
through a specialized audit department "Contrôle General des Finances" (CGF) and to the Audit Court (Cour des
Comptes) that has a judiciary role of supervision of public finance and the authority to deliver final approval
("quitus") of the management and accounts of public funds. For managing the external debt, MOF has implemented in
1996 a new computerized system called "SIADE".

Project Monitoring. The DGF acquired through implementation of several projects including those financed by the
Bank (e.g. Forestry Development Project and Second Forestry Development Project) an experience in accounting and
financial monitoring. A specialized unit is responsible for issuing periodical reports combining physical
implementation data as well as financial information related to commitments, payments from the budget and
disbursement from loans. This unit is playing a role of aggregation of data, for transactions executed by the CRDAs
and has the responsibility of preparation of the disbursement documents as well as issuing of project financial
statements.

Specific arrangements for the projects.
Based on the institutional arrangements agreed for the project implementation, two groups of entities are involved.
The first is consisted of regional entities (CRDA, and Regional Directorates of Environment). The second is the
technical departments of both MOA and MELP. The MOA through the DGF, would be the general coordinator of the
project and where the PMU will be located and headed by a National Project Coordinator. The PMU will be
responsible for a close monitoring of the project and evaluation of physical performance, including procurement,
finance, budgeting, and accounting duties. The PMU is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of an
acceptable financial management system. The DGF has gained considerable experience in financial management
though the implementation of previous Bank-financed projects and hence is expected to demonstrate a reasonable
knowledge and understanding of World Bank procurement, disbursement, project accounting, and financial reporting.
DGF should play a role of official vis à vis for the project implementation and thus is responsible of producing
consolidated financial data and progress reports.

Staffing and duties at the central level. The Project Management Unit (PMU), is consisting of: (i) the National Project
Coordinator from DGF; (ii) the Deputy Coordinator nominated from MELP; (iii) a financial and accounting specialist;
and (iv) a procurement specialist. The project team at the central level will coordinate all the project activities to be
implemented at the regional level and report to the steering committee. The experience gained under previous projects
has been assessed as adequate for the implementation of the proposed project.

Staffing and duties at the regional level. In each park, a PMT will be established which will be headed by the park
conservator (who belongs to the Forestry Arrondissement of the CRDA) and the representatives of the regional
environment directorates (DREs), and the Ministry of Tourism as well as the DCs. The CRDAs and the DREs would
be responsible for the implementation of the project components within the governorate, according to the defined
institutional framework. The accounting specialist in each CRDAs will serve as the regional focal point in accounting
and disbursement fields including periodic transmission of analytical sheets (transactions related to commitments and
disbursements ) and copy of supporting documents to the PMU.

Accounting and reporting. The DGF has acquired experience in accounting and reporting for project with financing
from external donors through previous projects (mainly SFDP). The Financial and Accounting Unit (FAU) within
DGF consists of five accounting and financial staff. DGFIOP is expected to provide an assistance in project
accounting and reporting during the first year of implementation in order to help DGF to acquire the needed expertise
in project financial management mainly through the use of the accounting and reporting software installed for WSIL
and Agricultures Services Projects. To establish a sound financial management system, and an acceptable system for
the accounting, monitoring and evaluation, each agency/technical department involved in the project will designate
officially a coordinator responsible for issuing sub-project accounts and sub-Financial Monitoring Reports.

Financial and accounting policies. These are reflected in the PIP and aim at ensuring transparency, providing clarity
regarding financial aspects to the various stakeholders and finance staff, ensuring uniformity, and enforcing
accountability. These policies inter-alia cover the following aspects: (i) expenditures which, would be treated as
project expenditures including their classification; (ii) expenditures, which would be eligible for reimbursement from
the grant funds; and (iii) accounting rules and procedures.

Project Accounting System. The overall principles for project accounting are the following :

(i) Project accounting would cover all sources of project funds, and all utilization of project funds including payments
made and expenditures incurred. All project-related transactions (whether involving cash or not) would be taken into
accounts in the accounting and reporting system. Disbursements made by the World Bank and the transaction
proceeded through the Special Account maintained by BCT would also be included in the project accounting system.
Counter part funds will be shown separately.

(ii) Project-related transactions and activities would be distinguished from other activities. This distinction would be
reflected at the data-capture stage. An identifiable Trial Balance for the project capturing all projects receipts,
expenditures, and other payments under the project would be prepared. CRDA would be held to transmit on a
trimestriel basis, separate progress statements (spread sheets summarizing transactions committed and /or disbursed)
with copy of all supporting documents to the PMU. Aggregation of data would be the responsibility of PMU.

(iii) The Chart of Accounts for the project should conform to the classification of expenditures and sources of funds as
indicated in the project documents (Project Implementation Plan, Project Appraisal Document, COSTAB) and the
budget breakdown. The Chart of Accounts should allow data to be captured in a manner to facilitate financial
reporting of project expenditures by: (i) project components; (ii) expenditure allocation; and (iii) disbursement
categories.

(iv) Reconciliation between the Project Financial Statements, Financial Monitoring Reports and the legal accounting
records (mainly ADAB, SIADE, approved financial statements for the independent entities) would be done at the
level of DGF by the FAU.

The flow of funds will be as follows :

 Payments from state budget would be the responsibility of CRDA and DRE, at the regional level, and DGF and
DGEQV at the central level. This consist of disbursement approval and payment through “Trésorerie Générale”
accounts and sub accounts.
 Payments from GEF’s funds through SOEs, would be processed exclusively at the central level. DGF would be
held to review supporting documents and attest eligibility of expenditures before transmission of the documents to the
Central Bank (SOEs and WA) and the Bank when direct payments are requested. Request for replenishment would be
the responsibility of BCT.
 BCT would be responsible of payments from special accounts and issuing of monthly statements and their
transmission to PMU and the Bank.

Internal Controls. The procedures included in the PIP include the following internal control mechanisms :

(i) operation of a budgeting system, and regular monitoring of actual financial performance with budgets and targets;

(ii)    adoption and operation of simple, clear and transparent financial and accounting policies which would govern
financial management of and accounting for the project (as described earlier).

(iii)       at the transaction level, establishment and operation of policies, procedures and systems for ensuring
standard internal controls such as checking of expenditures, appropriate documentation, levels of authorization,
segregation of duties, periodic reconciliation, physical verification, easy access to supporting documents etc. ;

(iv) BCT and MOF will provide the PMU on a monthly basis, with statement of accounts for both Special account
and grant account. The financial and accounting specialists will do a monthly reconciliation of balances and will
ensure to explain any detected difference between accounting records and statements.

(v) establishment and operation of a comprehensive aggregation mechanism, including the issuing of annual project
financial statements and bi-annual Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR).
Financial Management Reports

Financial Monitoring Reports for the project would be generated from the computerized financial management
system. These reports would be management-oriented (i.e., summaries rather than transactional details) and would be
used for the monitoring and implementation of the project. The FMR includes the following tables :

 Summary of expenditures committed and disbursement by component
 Summary of expenditures committed and disbursement by category
 Summary of the procurement process and procedures
 Summary of sources and uses of funds


Project Financial Statements to be submitted to the auditor would include (i) a statement of sources and utilization of
funds or Balance Sheet, indicating funds received from GEF and from the state budget, project expenditures, and
assets and liabilities of the project; (ii) schedules classifying project expenditures by components and expenditure
categories; (iii) a Special Account Reconciliation Statement; and (iv) a Statement of Withdrawals made on the basis
of Statements of Expenditure (SOEs).

Audit Arrangements

As an exception to the Bank requirements and guidelines, the accounts and financial statements of the project would
be audited by the
“Contrôle Général des Finances” (CGF), who would be the Project Auditor. The annual project financial statements
audited by CGF would be
submitted to the Bank within 6 months of the close of GOT’s fiscal year.

The audit would be comprehensive and cover all aspects of the project (i.e., all sources and utilization of funds, and
expenditures incurred). The audit will be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing. Terms of
Reference (TORs) for this assignment should cover an audit of financial transaction, and an assessment of the
financial management system, including review of internal control mechanisms. Each CRDA as well as structures at
the central level would provide the auditor with access to project-related documents and records, and information
required for the purposes of the audit. The Auditor would carry out a concurrent audit during the fiscal year, to bring
to management's attention any issue, which needs to be addressed. This would strengthen internal controls, and would
also facilitate early completion of the annual audit. The auditor will perform the audit according to: (i) the
International Standards of Auditing as issued by the International Federation of Accountants, (ii) Bank’s Guidelines
and (iii) specific Terms of Reference (TORs) acceptable to the Bank. The auditor will express a professional opinion
on the annual project financial statements, SOEs and SA transactions and will submit to the Bank an annual audit
report within 6 months after the end of each government fiscal year

Disbursement Arrangements

     Withdrawals from the proceeds of the GEF Trust Fund will be based on the traditional disbursement methods of
the Bank, using direct payments , requests for special commitments and reimbursement applications , either fully
documented or using Statement of Expenditures (SOEs) as per applicable procedures. As projected by Bank’s
standard disbursement profiles, disbursements would be completed four months after project closure. Disbursements
would be made against standard Bank documentation.

i) Special Account (SA) : To facilitate disbursement of eligible expenditures for works , goods , services and
training the Government will open a special account at the Central Bank to cover eligible project expenditures to be
managed and administered by the Central Bank . Authorized allocation of the special account would be US$ 350, 000
covering an estimated 4 months of eligible expenditures financed by the Grant. The Central Bank will be responsible
for submitting, on behalf of the Project Management Unit (PMU) monthly replenishment applications with
appropriate supporting documentation for expenditures incurred and will retain and make the documents available for
review by Bank supervision missions and project auditors. To the extent possible, all eligible project expenditures
should be paid through the special account . Specifically all eligible project expenditures of less than US$ 50,000
equivalent shall be paid from the SA.

    The Special Account will be replenished through the submission of Withdrawal Applications on a monthly basis
and will include reconciled bank statements and other documents as my be required

ii) Use of Statement of Expenditure (SOEs): All applications to withdraw proceeds from the grant will be fully
documented, except for : (i) expenditures of contracts with an estimated value of US$ 500,000 each or less for works,
iii) expenditures of contracts with an estimated value of US$ 400,000 each or less for goods , iii) US$ 100,000 or less
for consulting firms and (iii) US$ 50,000 or less for individual consultants and training , which may be claimed on
the basis of Statements of Expenditures (SOEs). Documentation supporting expenditures claimed against SOEs will
be retained by the PMU and will be available for review when requested by Bank supervision missions and project
auditors. All disbursements will be subject to the conditions of the grant Agreement and the procedures defined in the
Disbursement Letter.
   Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule

                          TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Project Schedule                                              Planned                        Actual

Time taken to prepare the project (months)                  18                              32
First Bank mission (identification)                         10/01/1998                      10/01/1998
Appraisal mission departure                                 02/18/2002                      02/25/2002
Negotiations                                                04/15/2002
Planned Date of Effectiveness                               09/02/2001


   Prepared by:
   Ministry of Environment and Landuse Planning and Ministry of Agriculture with input from the World Bank.

   Preparation assistance:
   GEF Preparation Grant (PDF- Block B)

   Bank staff who worked on the project included:
        Name                                               Speciality
Shobha Shetty, MNSRE                         Economics/Institutions
Concepcion del Castillo, MNSRE               Sociology
Jean-Michel Pavy, AFTES                      Natural Resources Management
Samia Msadek, MNSRE                          Financial Management
Maurice Gress, MNACS                         Procurement
Nadia Gouhier, MNSRE                         Procurement
Susan Shen, EASES                            Peer reviewer -Ecology
Robert Kirmse, LCSEN                         Peer reviewer - protected areas management
Hernan Torres, GEF -STAP                     Peer reviewer - external (GEF)
Dominique Bichara, LEGMN                     Legal
Hovsep Melkonian, LOAG1                      Disbursement
Marie-Francoise How Yew Kin, MNSRE           Team Assistant
Salah Darghouth, MNSRE                       Sector Manager, Water and Environment
Petros Aklilu, MNSRE                         Sector Manager, Rural Development
Rene Cipriani                                Integrator/Project Management
Annex 8: Documents in the Project File*

                         TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT


A. Project Implementation Plan
Draft Procurement Plan (1st year) February 2002.
PIP.

B. Bank Staff Assessments
PCD March 28, 2001
Pre-appraisal mission: BTO dated December 3, 2001
Technical report on ecotourism dated November 27, 2001
Appraisal mission aide-memoire and BTO: March 18, 2002

C. Other
Consultant diagnostic reports on the three parks; research; training; GIS; dossier d'execution. Process Framework (O.P
4.12)
*Including electronic files
                                                Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits

                                        TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT
                                                                      07-Nov-2001

                                                                                                                                     Difference between
                                                                                                                                         expected
                                                                      Original Amount in US$ Millions                                    and actual
                                                                                                                                      disbursementsa



Project ID           Purpose                                   IBRD           IDA                   GEF        Cancel.    Undisb.     Orig     Frm Rev'd
             FY




P064082      2001   TRANSPORT SECTOR INVESTMENT PROJECT           37.60        0.00                     0.00       0.00      38.11      3.73          0.00


P048825      2001   TN-CULTURAL HERITAGE                          17.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      17.11      0.00          0.00


P005750      2001   TN-AGRIC. SUPPORT SVCS                        21.33        0.00                     0.00       0.00      21.84      0.67          0.00


P050945      2000   TN-Education PAQSET I                         99.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      97.01      0.18          0.00


P035707      2000   TN-WATER SECTOR INVESTMENT PROJECT           103.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00     100.06     -2.08          0.00


P055814      1999   TN-EXPORT DEVELOPMENT                         35.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      24.66     13.10          0.00


P043700      1998   TRANSPORT SECTOR INV                          50.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      18.51     24.56          0.00


P050418      1998   TN-ASIL 2                                     42.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00       5.69      9.75          0.00


P005746      1998   TN-HEALTH SECTOR LOAN                         50.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      25.65     23.90          0.00


P005741      1998   HIGHER EDUC. II                               80.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      59.10     31.04          0.00


P046832      1997   MUNICIPAL DEV. II                             80.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00       1.77      7.61          0.00


P005731      1997   TN-GREATER TUNIS SEWERAGE                     60.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      39.79     22.32          0.00


P005736      1997   NATURAL RESOURCE MGM                          26.50        0.00                     0.00       0.00      14.06     14.10          0.00


P005745      1996   2ND EMPL. & TRG.                              60.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      20.86     21.54          3.54


P040208      1996   TN-INDUSTRY SUPPORT INSTITUTION               38.70        0.00                     0.00       6.32      16.80     26.03          0.00


P005749      1995   RURAL ROADS                                   51.50        0.00                     0.00       0.00       1.61      0.71          0.00


P005743      1995   SECONDARY EDUCATION                           98.30        0.00                     0.00       0.00       9.92     17.37       17.37


P005589      1995   SOLAR WATER HEATING                            0.00        0.00                     4.00       0.00       1.42     -1.22          0.00


P005680      1995   TN-WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE                  58.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      12.24     11.91          0.00


P005726      1992   HIGHER EDUCATION                              75.00        0.00                     0.00       0.00      15.79     22.19       22.19




                                                      Total:   1082.93         0.00                 4.00           6.32     542.03    247.41        43.10
                                                   TUNISIA
                                            STATEMENT OF IFC's
                                          Held and Disbursed Portfolio
                                                  MAY-2001
                                              In Millions US Dollars

                                                             Committed                                     Disbursed
                                                           IFC                                           IFC


FY Approval   Company                            Loan       Equity      Quasi        Partic     Loan      Equity   Quasi      Partic
1998/00       BIAT                                0.00        0.29       0.00         0.00       0.00       0.29    0.00       0.00
1995          Maghreb IM Bank                     0.00        0.33       0.00         0.00       0.00       0.33    0.00       0.00
1986/92/98    SITEX                               0.00        0.77       0.00         0.00       0.00       0.77    0.00       0.00
1973/75       Sousse-Nord                         0.00        0.59       0.00         0.00       0.00       0.59    0.00       0.00
1998          Tuninvest                           0.00        4.59       0.00         0.00       0.00       4.59    0.00       0.00


                    Total Portfolio:             0.00        6.57           0.00       0.00       0.00      6.57       0.00     0.00




                                                         Approvals Pending Commitment


FY Approval   Company                               Loan        Equity             Quasi      Partic




              Total Pending Commitment:             0.00             0.00           0.00       0.00
Annex 10: Country at a Glance

                  TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT
                                                                         M. East      Lower-
POVERTY and SOCIAL                                                       & North     middle-
                                                              Tunisia     Africa     income         Development diamond*
2000
Population, mid-year (millions)                                   9.6        296       2,046                          Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)                              2,090      2,040       1,140
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)                                 20.1        602       2,327
Average annual growth, 1994-00
Population (%)                                                    1.4         2.0         1.0
Labor force (%)                                                   2.5         2.8         1.3       GNI                                          Gross
                                                                                                    per                                         primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1994-00)                                               capita                                   enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)              8           ..          ..
Urban population (% of total population)                          66          59          42
Life expectancy at birth (years)                                  73          68          69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)                          24          44          32
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)                         9           ..         11                 Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)               ..         89          80
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)                              29          35          15
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)            118          95         114                       Tunisia
     Male                                                        122         102         116                       Lower-middle-income group
     Female                                                      114          88         114

KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
                                                     1980       1990        1999        2000
                                                                                                    Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)                                     8.7       12.3       21.0        19.5
Gross domestic investment/GDP                         29.4       32.5       26.8        27.4
                                                                                                                             Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP                     40.2       43.6       42.2        44.0
Gross domestic savings/GDP                            24.0       25.5       24.6        23.9
Gross national savings/GDP                               ..      27.1       24.6        23.5
Current account balance/GDP                           -4.3       -5.5       -2.1        -4.2       Domestic
Interest payments/GDP                                  2.6        3.2        2.4         3.1                                                 Investment
                                                                                                   savings
Total debt/GDP                                        40.3       62.4       56.6        54.5
Total debt service/exports                            13.9       24.1       16.1        20.2
Present value of debt/GDP                                ..         ..      56.2           ..
Present value of debt/exports                            ..         ..     121.0           ..
                                                                                                                       Indebtedness
                                      1980-90      1990-00      1999        2000    2000-04
(average annual growth)
GDP                                          3.3       4.7        6.1         4.7         6.2                       Tunisia
GDP per capita                               0.8       3.0        4.7         3.4         4.8                       Lower-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services                5.6       5.1        4.7         6.6         5.7


STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
                                                     1980       1990        1999        2000        Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
                                                                                                   20
Agriculture                                           14.1       15.7       12.9        12.3
                                                                                                   10
Industry                                              31.1       29.8       28.0        28.8
  Manufacturing                                       11.8       16.9       17.9        18.2            0
Services                                              54.8       54.5       59.0        58.9       -10
                                                                                                               95      96          97   98     99      00

Private consumption                                   61.5       58.2       59.9        60.5       -20
General government consumption                        14.5       16.4       15.5        15.7
                                                                                                                             GDI             GDP
Imports of goods and services                         45.6       50.6       44.4        47.6


                                                   1980-90    1990-00       1999        2000       Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
                                                                                                  15
Agriculture                                            2.8        2.4       11.6         -1.0
Industry                                               3.1        4.6        5.1          5.2     10
  Manufacturing                                        3.7        5.5        6.2          6.2
                                                                                                   5
Services                                               3.5        5.3        5.7          5.3
                                                                                                   0
Private consumption                                    2.9        4.3         5.8         5.2                 95       96          97   98    99       00
General government consumption                         3.8        4.1         4.3         4.7      -5
Gross domestic investment                             -1.8        3.6         4.8         9.1                          Exports               Imports
Imports of goods and services                          1.7        3.8         3.0         9.6

Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
   be incomplete.
                                                                                                                                              Tunisia
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
                                         1980     1990     1999     2000    Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
                                                                            8
(% change)
Consumer prices                              ..     6.5      2.7      2.9   6

Implicit GDP deflator                     12.8      4.5      3.8      2.4   4

Government finance                                                          2

(% of GDP, includes current grants)                                         0
Current revenue                           28.7     26.4     29.2     29.0                95             96         97          98         99           00
Current budget balance                     8.8      2.3      4.5      4.9                           GDP deflator                         CPI
Overall surplus/deficit                    0.9     -4.6     -2.2     -2.9

TRADE
                                         1980     1990     1999     2000
                                                                             Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)                      2,395    3,517    5,873    5,840   10,000
  Fuel                                   1,347      607      420      651
  Agriculture                               88      398      667      470    7,500
  Manufactures                             905    1,995    4,058    4,005
                                                                             5,000
Total imports (cif)                      3,623    5,525    8,481    8,564
  Food                                     388      506      557      538    2,500
  Fuel and energy                          799      487      541      827
  Capital goods                            742    1,235    2,233    2,099          0
                                                                                         94        95         96        97       98       99      00
Export price index (1995=100)                ..     77      122        ..
Import price index (1995=100)                ..     86      118        ..                           Exports                         Imports
Terms of trade (1995=100)                    ..     90      103        ..

BALANCE of PAYMENTS
                                         1980     1990     1999     2000
                                                                            Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services            3,517    5,191    8,793    8,606   0
                                                                                    94        95         96        97          98       99        00
Imports of goods and services            3,986    5,986    9,248    9,311
                                                                            -1
Resource balance                          -469     -795     -455     -705
Net income                                -293     -497     -890     -941   -2
Net current transfers                      390      613      902      825
                                                                            -3
Current account balance                   -373     -679     -443     -821
                                                                            -4
Financing items (net)                     438      596     1,132     578
Changes in net reserves                   -65       83      -690     243    -5

Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)    599      804     2,272    1,760
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)          0.4      0.9       1.2      1.4

EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
                                         1980     1990     1999     2000
(US$ millions)                                                              Composition of 2000 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed     3,527    7,690   11,872   10,610
  IBRD                                     269    1,346    1,323    1,211                           G: 909               A: 1,211
  IDA                                       68       59       41       39                                                             B: 39
Total debt service                        544     1,431    1,565    1,921                                                                 C: 32
  IBRD                                     37       214      269      229
  IDA                                       1         2        2        2
                                                                                                                                         D: 2,183
Composition of net resource flows
                                                                                 F: 3,640
  Official grants                          26       174      73        3
  Official creditors                      251       342     121        0
  Private creditors                       102      -197     389      214
  Foreign direct investment               236       185     337      731
  Portfolio equity                          0         0       0        0                                                     E: 2,596

World Bank program
 Commitments                              171       29      194      202    A - IBRD                                                 E - Bilateral
 Disbursements                             52      213      210      136    B - IDA           D - Other multilateral                 F - Private
 Principal repayments                      15      112      168      152    C - IMF                                                  G - Short-term
 Net flows                                 37      100       42      -17
 Interest payments                         23      104      103       80
 Net transfers                             14       -3      -62      -96

Development Economics                                                                                                                          9/17/01
                                                     Additional
                                                     Annex 11

                                           STAP Review and Response:

                      TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

                                             Reviewer: Hernán Torres

1.   Assessment of the scientific and technical soundness of the project.

The scientific value of the proposed project is based on the fact that the three national parks were selected on the basis
of their importance to the regional and global biological diversity. Each of the ecological regions represented by the
three national parks is distinct and will present different challenges to its effective management.

Technically, the project is well structured to achieve the main goal intended, which is: To improve the management
and protection of the selected national parks for the purpose of conserving biological diversity of global importance.

To reach this goal the project is organized in three components well articulated among each other. Their contents
should allow the achievement of the desired goal if the project is implemented appropriately.

From a conceptual point of view, the project proposes an important tool which is the participation of local communities
in the management of the national parks by establishing local Development Committees. In addition to this, the project
will look for appropriate technical approaches, institutional frameworks and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

It was decided to limit the number of national parks to three in order to keep the project size manageable by the
existing institutional capacity. This is extremely important, considering that this is the Tunisia´s first major protected
areas management project.

2.   Identification of the global benefits of the project.

The important biological diversity protected in the three selected Tunisian national parks is well known. Bouhedma
and Jbil National Parks are important priorities under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals.
Ichkeul National Park is listed as World Heritage Site under the Convention on World Heritage and as Ramsar Site
under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The UNESCO´s Man and the Biosphere Program recognizes Ichkeul
National Park and Bouhedam as Biosphere Reserves.

 Bouhedma National Park protects an important habitat for rare artiodactyls such as the Dorcas Gazelle (Gazelle
dorcas) and the Oryx (Oryx dammah). The national park also protects 8 of the 14 endemic plant species of the country.
 Jbil National Park protects unique Saharan ecosystems and internationally important biological diversity, some of
which is found only in Tunisia. The national park protects a globally important antelope species such as the Slender-
Horned Gazelle (Gazella leptoceros) and a unique plant species (Calligonum) which attain several meters in height.
 Ickeul National Park is recognized as one of the four major wetland areas in the western basin of the
Mediterranean. The other three are Doñana National Park in Spain, the Camargue in Southern France and the El Kala
region in Algeria. The national park is a critical habitat for the globally threatened Marbled Duck (Anas angustirostris)
and the White-Headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala).

Both Bouhedma and Jbil national parks also have potential to be re-populated with species from other parts of the
Sahelo-Saharan region. An important fact considering that recently the Government of Tunisia has worked to re-
introduce extirpated antelope species in the country. This is part of an overall action plan which the governments of
several Sahelo-Saharan countries, together with specialists from the World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Wild
Fund for Nature and local groups have worked out under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals
to reestablish viable populations of six antelope species in a large area.

Therefore, the successful implementation of the project in the selected national parks is globally significant and the
World Bank/GEF support is justified for the following reasons:

   It will strengthen the conservation of critical Saharan and wetland habitats;

   It will develop incentives to maintain these protected areas in the long term;

   It will establish capacity to ensure adequate management of these protected areas in the long term;

   It will promote community participation in the management of the national parks selected; and

   It will establish links and collaboration with neighboring countries.

3.     Evaluation of the project compliance with GEF objectives, operational strategy and guidance in
       biodiversity focal areas.

The project will strengthen the management of key national parks in Tunisia with increased participation of local
communities for the purpose of conserving biological diversity of global importance. This coincides with the GEF
Operational Strategy in terms of biological diversity conservation and with the operational programs N° 1: Arid and
Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems and N° 2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

4.   Assessment of the project´s significance and potential benefits.

The project is significant because it will increase and improve the existing protected areas management capacity with
new skills needed to manage and conserve important biological diversity.

The improvement of the existing management capacity will be achieved by implementing the following components:

 Capacity building and Institutional Strengthening. This component includes training programs, establishment of a
national database on biodiversity and strengthening the ability to monitor changes in biodiversity, studies on
institutional issues including environmental legislation and additional funding mechanisms for protected areas.
     Protected areas management. This component includes the application of new skills in planning and management
of protected areas, sustainable resource management, alternative livelihood mechanisms and ecotourism strategy.
     Public awareness and education. This component includes the development of an awareness and education
strategy by using mass media, formal and informal education mechanisms, and by developing links with local non-
governmental groups, schools, tourism agencies, and other organizations to promote public understanding about
biological diversity resources.

The implementation of these components is an adequate way to conserve critical habitats and to enhance the
probability of their long term conservation. It will also make possible to establish effective management capacity,
develop incentives to maintain protected areas in the long-term and to introduce the community participation as a new
protected area management approach.

5.   Potential replicability of the project to other sites.
The inclusion of multiple stakeholders participation in the management of protected areas by establishing Development
Committees is an experience that can be replicated in other areas of the country and in the region as well. At the same
time the management approaches to be applied such as protected areas planning and management including site
interpretation, awareness raising activities, research and monitoring will certainly serve as models to be replicated in
the other five protected areas of Tunisia.

Morocco has proposed the establishment of BasDraa National Park which has a similar ecosystem as that of Jbil
National Park. The experience gained in Jbil can be replicated in BasDraa, due the fact that they face the same
management challenges.

6.      Estimation of the project´s sustainability in institutional, financial and technical terms.

The description of the project indicates that it will be institutionally, financially and technically sustainable. An
interministerial Steering Commitee with representatives from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economic
Development, the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Environment and Land Use Planning, the Ministry of
Agriculture, and the Ministry of International Cooperation will be formed to provide oversight during project
implementation.

The Steering Commitee will be retained during project implementation and will be responsible for providing project
oversight advice and assistance in resolving issues associated with project implementation.
At the national level the Directorate General of Forestry (DGF) will assume the responsibility for project´s
management during its execution phase. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established and will have the
responsibility for coordination, management, and monitoring and evaluation of the project´s development.

At the regional level, the PMT will coordinate the project activities through local institutions and the national park
conservator who will be selected in agreement with local institutions will be the coordinator of management activities
including guard services, community outreach, and monitoring activities. Local communities will participate in the
project´s implementation through the formation of Development Committees and a Forestry Association in the case of
Ichkeul National Park.
The experience gained in this project, in terms of financial mechanisms and management approaches, will provide the
basis for mainstreaming these factors in the broader government strategy for national parks management.

7.      Extent to which the project will contribute to the improved definition and implementation of the GEF
        strategies and policies.

The project is an important attempt in the strengthening of protected areas management as a means to achieve the
conservation of biological diversity in Tunisia. This is an important strategy in the implementation of the GEF policies.

The project will be the first World Bank/GEF experience in the country and will certainly contribute to increase
awareness and global support for the management of Tunisia´s protected areas. In addition to this, the project has been
developed in close consultation with the UNDP/GEF, which at present is working with the Government of Tunisia in
an alternative livelihood project in Feija National Park. UNDP/GEF is also preparing a project on marine protected
areas which has been coordinated with this initiative.

Other World Bank/GEF biodiversity conservation projects in the region (Morocco and Jordan) will offer opportunities
to exchange experiences in terms of biodiversity monitoring and evaluation, review, and scientific oversight.

8.    Linkages to other focal areas.

The proposed project is also linked to the operational programs N° 1: Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems and N° 2:
Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. The project design and implementation is meant to support natural habitat
conservation and is aimed at integrating the conservation of natural habitats and the maintenance of ecological function
into national and regional development. The project also promotes the restoration of degraded natural habitats.

In addition to this, the project will serve as important tool for Tunisia´s response to international conventions such as
Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and the
Convention on Biological Diversity. The National Biodiversity Strategy, already prepared, will be greatly enhanced by
this project.

9.    Degree of involvement of relevant stakeholders in the project.

The project concept and its components have been prepared with a participatory approach. This active participation of
multiple stakeholders will continue during implementation of the proposed activities through the Steering Committee
and the formation of Development Committees and a Forestry Association in the case of Ichkeul National Park.

In addition to this, the project will build mechanisms and capacity to assist local stakeholders -in particular the local
communities dependent on the resources of the national parks, local governments, and non-governmental
organizations- to participate in the preparation and implementation of management plans. The effective management of
the selected national parks will benefit poor rural communities and local economies adjacent to the national parks
through stimulation of ecotourism as well as activities based on the sustainable management of natural resources of the
national parks.

10.     Role, potential and importance of capacity building elements and innovativeness of the project.

The project will establish operating models to improve protected area management and build management capacity at
the local level in order to replicate this experience and mainstream biological diversity conservation in other national
protected areas and natural resources management projects.

The participation of multiple stakeholders in the management of protected areas by establishing Development
Committees is the main innovativeness of the project. The public awareness action will be focused on the local
  communities in and around the national parks and the local governments in order to develop the grassroots awareness
  necessary to sustain a participatory approach to national parks management.

  11. Comments on evaluation and monitoring.

  The evaluation of project performance will be based on the following general indicators:

   Stabilization or improvement of demographic status of key bio-indicators specific to each national park
  (vegetative cover and distribution; local animal/bird populations)
   Reduction in adverse impacts of resource use (grazing, forest products, etc.) on the biological diversity of the
  national parks.
   Development and implementation of management plans with the active participation of local communities
  including additional financing mechanisms, database on biodiversity and number of families participating in alternative
  livelihood projects.

  This evaluation scheme seems appropriate to measure the progress in the implementation of the project on the ground.
  To take advantage of this approach could be useful to prepare and implement a specific and simple monitoring
  mechanism in order to allow the personnel to know when and what to measure, to take maximum advantage of patrols,
  and to guarantee a systematic data collection. The design should include the selection of indicators to evaluate
  communities, animal and plant populations and other processes identified as priority within the national parks.

  The design would consider the evaluation of monitoring activities and the suitability of indicators, in order to make
  improvements in the mechanism. The following monitoring guidelines may be considered:

      Climatic monitoring:
           In certain cases, the lack of climatic information of national parks makes it difficult carry out management
           activities, therefore there is a need to install meteorological stations and to complement those already existing
           and the current data processing, if any.
      Monitoring of fauna and flora populations:
           The objective is to make a record of specific populations important for conservation, based on the abundance
           and biology of some species. This work should be carried out mainly by the national park personnel and should
           be concentrated on key species. However, there will be a need for support from specialized personnel.
      Monitoring of human activities:
           A follow up of human activities including the local communities´ use of resources and tourism activities
           should be carried out to prevent and to control their environmental impact, based on the appropriate indicators.
      Monitoring of ecosystems and sensitive sites:
           A monitoring of ecosystems and sites defined by zoning, fragility and ecological importance should be
           designed. This is important considering issues such as the evidence of climatic changes and of the expansion of
           deserts that are more important in the dry regions. In the case of this project, it seems necessary to carry out
           monitoring activities to learn the dynamics of water resources and their influence on biological diversity.

           Response to STAP Review:

It is encouraging to note that the STAP review is, in general, extremely positive. The project team is fully in agreement
with the guidance proposed by the STAP reviewer regarding the monitoring aspects. The M&E system presented in
Annex 1 has been revised appropriately. Climatic monitoring has also been included in the indicators. The overall M&E
will be further strengthened during project appraisal.
                                                         Additional
                                                         Annex 12

                                                     Social Assessment

                        TUNISIA: PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Introduction

This annex highlights the issues that were raised by the social analyses conducted for the preparation of the Protected
Areas project by a joint team of BRL and GEOIDD. Each of the three proposed protected areas presents a unique social
configuration as well as an ecological set of problems and challenges. Because of this, the analyses were conducted with
the joint participation of a sociologist and technical teams to respond in a holistic manner to the unique challenges posed
by each area.

The fundamental premise underlying the design of this project is that unless communities form an integral part of the
protected area management and are committed to the protection pf the parks' biodiversity, any initiative that is highly
centralized and controlled will be doomed to failure. As such, this project presents a key departure from other protected
area projects in two fundamental ways: (i) it recognizes that the proposed areas are not pristine and untouched, but are
still highly significant in terms of biodiversity conservation, but (ii) where human habitation has left its mark and will
continue to do so while preserving biodiversity. By such recognition and through a participatory approach, this project
seeks to successfully mainstream the spirit and procedures of biodiversity conservation while working in partnership with
the communities in and around the parks to ensure that the natural resources on which many households depend, are not
totally restricted but are used in a sustainable manner. A Process Framework for Community Participation has been
prepared by the Tunisian MEAT and accepted by the Bank in compliance with OP 4.12 This framework will be the guide
to ensure that the communities of beneficiaries have an active role in the preparation of the Park Management Plans

Common Social Issues in the Three Parks

Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss. The social assessments identified the root causes of biodiversity loss from the
ecosystemic and socio-economic perspectives. The two are linked because the increasing population pressure on the
natural resources has exacerbated biodiversity loss and soil erosion primarily through overgrazing, and fuel and fodder
collection. There are alternatives to the way in which these resources are used, but finding alternatives requires an in-
depth understanding of how and why the current populations came to use these areas in the first place.

Human Pressure. In the central and southern part of Tunisia, the population was primarily nomadic until after the
Second World War. There had been a gradual process of sedentarization, but by and large, in these sections of the
country the population remained mobile, with land use governed by well known customary laws, accompanied by a deep
understanding of the links between environment and people, and a cultural tradition that continues to be rooted in the
conception of desert and humans as a single entity. Meanwhile, in the North, the population was agrarian and suffered the
most because of loss of lands to colonial settlers.

Historically, the process of sedentarization of what was once a nomadic population (Jbil and Bou Hedma) resulted in
dramatic changes in land use. Areas which were once used seasonally as rangeland or grazing land by nomads or
transhumants began to be used year round on a regular basis. This land whose use for agriculture is inappropriate and
marginal, began to suffer from the encroachment of agriculture to feed a population year round. This process has led not
only to a deterioration of the resource base and loss of biodiversity, but also to a disturbing cycle of gradual but deepening
impoverishment of the population.

Legal Frameworks. The Tunisian laws governing land tenure and land use (notably the Forestry Code) which were
established after Independence (1956), affect the populations of the parks directly. Once governed by customary laws, that
were themselves rooted in tribal social forms of organization, the population's traditional land use began to fracture under
the French Protectorate. In the highly productive agricultural areas of the country (north and Sahel region) where land
had always been a prized commodity, the impact of colonial establishment had already been felt, and impoverished
segments of tribes had been displaced to more marginal, mountainous, and less favorable resource areas. However, the
French maintained and accepted the existence of habous (religious trust lands) as well as the collective lands under tribal
customary tenure. Because of this the people's production system and land use continued with relatively few changes.
The abolition of the habous and the collective lands after Independence had different effects in various parts of the
country. In those areas that had already been touched by colonization, it led to a scramble to privatize what had once been
common resources. However, in the central and southern parts of the country, the new legislation had a severe impact
because it in fact separated the social organization and mode of production of the people from their land. This gave rise to
contentious land claims that still persist today.

The fact is that the legislation is one step removed from the reality of daily life of the people that, to a large extent, still
rely on their traditions, organizational forms and beliefs as a way of governing their lives. National legislation is only felt
in case of conflicts with the law.

This reality is one that is central to the project because the main challenge will be to work for biodiversity conservation,
with community participation, while the existing legislation still maintains an outdated and controlling approach to the
management of natural resources.

Poverty. Finally, the unfortunate pervasive common problem to all three parks is the growing poverty among the
residents within and in the areas surrounding the parks. Because of the combination of factors outlined above: restriction
of exploitable space, and declining resources in light of a growing population, the main stakeholders of the park space are
those that traditionally have received the fewest benefits. The poverty constitutes the main obstacle to the conservation of
biodiversity, because without adequate alternatives for livelihoods the people cannot do other than to continue over
exploiting the resources within the park boundaries (which have also been for the most part arbitrarily drawn). The
approach developed for this project is pragmatic in that it assumes that unless this issue of poverty is addressed, and the
implementation of the project recognizes the right of the people to exist and persist apace with the biodiversity that is
being conserved, the project will fail in the long term. This pilot is unique in that it is Tunisia's first GEF-funded project,
and because it is participatory as well as realistic. Challenges will persist, but the design that has been put in place is the
best that can be entertained at this time.

Ichkeul National Park.

The area covered by the park has been considered a unique site since the XIII century. In modern times, different areas of
the park came under various jurisdictions: the lake under one agency, the mountain and surrounding areas under the
Domaine Publique, and later (1974) the marsh area of Ichkeul under the jurisdiction of the Département Général des
Forêts (DGF). The National Park was formed by decree in 1980 and under the tutelage of the DGF, which continued to
pursue the management philosophy of establishing enclosures and forbidding access to the natural resources under their
jurisdiction. The park is an extremely high-profile site being on the World Heritage lsit as well as being a Ramsar site and
Man and Biosphere site.

The park currently is subdivided into three distinct areas: the mountain, the marsh, and the lake, each with a different set
of rules and development objectives. The mountain and marsh have rules oriented primarily to the conservation of natural
resources, while the lake has been the subject of economic exploitation and concomitant protection of the fishing interests.
There is intensive farming and livestock raising in the areas immediately outside the park boundaries.

The ancestors of the current inhabitants of Ichkeul came from the surrounding areas of Sejnane and Joumine and were
primarily subsistence farmers and livestock raisers. There were also fishermen that subsisted on fishing from the lake
with traditional methods. The employment picture changed when the marble quarries opened in the mid-twentieth
century, creating an employment growth pole in the midst of the Ichkeul natural region. This encouraged the settlement in
the park of the poorest families in the Gouvernorat of Bizerte that came to be employed in the quarries. According to the
preparatory studies, in 1991 there were 130 households and 700 inhabitants. Many of these employees were left in
Ichkeul when the quarries closed in 1993, but because, inter alia, of the restrictions imposed on the use of park resources,
these numbers have declined to about 65 households and about 320 people (in 2001). The majority of these people live in
several small settlements at the southern foot of Ichkeul Mountain, and they continue to have rights to live in their
traditional homes for the moment, with the tacit understanding that under current rules of the DGF the households will
slowly disappear as the population ages and there are no available sources of livelihood.

This situation makes for a very impoverished population of primarily day laborers (42 out of 62) receiving an income
from either the fishing (two households under the current concesionnaire) or employees of the park (30 positions total of
which 15 are generally given to the people living within Ichkeul) that are irregular, and opt for the daily wage of 3.5
Dinars a day for an average monthly income of 80 DT a month whereas the minimum salary is 200DT. These “hadhira”
(The term from the Arabic al haadr means workers on a site, typically associated with a construction site, but the workers
are paid under the Regional Programs of Fight Against Poverty as a safety net against total unemployment and destitution,
administered by the municipalities. There are three categories: unskilled, Baccalaureat, and Bac + 2 with the highest paid
being the latter at minimum salary levels) employees accept this wage because of the lack of alternative employment in
the immediate area. The households in Ichkeul self-estimated their revenues by category of employment as follows: the
“hadhira” employees have an average annual income of 1,000 DT; the employees of the quarries and other surrounding
construction sites have an annual average income of 3,700 DT; the households with high number of livestock have the
highest income levels, averaging about 10,000 DT a year including livestock sales and sharecropping. The annual average
income of the families within the park is about 5400 DT (~ U.S$3900) but this masks important disparities. About half of
the families have a total annual income of less than 1000 DT (~ U.S$700) and less than 5% of the population have a total
annual income more than 45,000 DT (~ $U.S32,000).

The social assessment data show that livestock raising is one source of subsistence as well as savings for some of the
inhabitants of Ichkeul. However, it should be highlighted that these people are not livestock raisers by tradition as is the
case in many other areas of the country. Today, livestock raising for the people of Ichkeul and the immediate surrounding
area constitutes a coping device and strategy for survival. The distribution of livestock shows this clearly. Livestock is
distributed unevenly. The cattle within the park belongs to an indigenous race, which occupy primarily the mountain zone
and run wild. There are only 36 families out of a total of 65 that actually have cattle, most households average about 8.5
head, and only one owner has more than 200. In other words, a single owner can use the resources that 25 households
could have with 8 head of cattle a piece. This creates a source of pressure for the poor inhabitants to apply the rules of
access more equitably since there is currently unequal use and access to resources. Over half of the households in Ichkeul
do not own and sheep, and only one household has over 200 head. The average per household is 20 sheep. However,
these are used as a source of subsistence, and four households actively raise sheep for the market as well as take in sheep
from external households to raise them within the park boundaries which is another source of friction between the
households within the park boundaries. Goats are raised almost exclusively for subsistence and not often sold. Almost all
the households have some chickens used for subsistence, but there is a high mortality rate since there are no veterinary
services available and vaccination is not commonly practiced.

This combination of unequal access and use of available resources, and lack of alternative sources of employment, has
been an important issue raised by the inhabitants of Ichkeul who see that their joint effort to participate in the management
of the park and its resources will improve their lot and make the rules transparent and applicable to all. The remaining
households with the park boundaries reflect that they constitute the “last bastion” of a rapidly dwindling population and
way of life, but all recognize that the existing inequalities are the critical problems leading to degradation of resources, in
the mountain and marsh areas but also the water quality of the lake.

In spite, or perhaps because of, the impoverished condition of the inhabitants of Ichkeul there is a strong feeling of
solidarity among them and this has contributed to many community initiatives and attempts to call the attention of
government to improve their quality of life and to regularize their rights to continue to live within the park boundaries.
However, part of the problem arises because the institutional actors involved in Ichkeul have no coordination, and this has
resulted in contradictory or piecemeal actions. For the most part, the government agencies have not focused on the human
development aspects of park management, but rather the biological and ecological elements. Similarly, the NGOs that
have been involved have no clear strategy, and their actions are sporadic and uncoordinated.

The analysis of the constraints posed by the creation of the park without consultation of the affected population and the
rapid deterioration of natural resources point to the need to come to a rapid dialogue between the agencies and the
concerned population. The perception of the community that they are the guardians of the lake and the mountain and they
are at one with their environment is an important element to consider in this dialogue.

There is a need to produce viable solutions including recommendations for negotiations with the population of Ichkeul
that will improve and restore the natural resources of the park yet permit the impoverished inhabitants to improve their
economic and social situation. Many solutions have been proposed by the affected people to reduce the charge on grazing
and limit the numbers of all livestock. During the community consultations, a Comité de développement (CD) was
created representing different stakeholders. This group is a grass roots organization with virtual universal adherence on
the part of the community, that at the time of pre-appraisal was in the last stages of being formalized, and will be
subsequently acting as an AFIC. In it, the participants already have a substantial number of issues to be resolved and
ideas about training and improving their capacity to assist in the park management. The recommendation of the
preparation studies is that such groups be legitimized and established as representatives of the local stakeholders under the
NGO law of 1988-93 in order to maintain their autonomy concerning the development activities that they can undertake
so that they can participate in the management of natural resources while also undertaking other actions external to the
park in the surrounding areas to promote alternative livelihoods. The specific areas of intervention of the CD and the
AFIC(s) will have to be defined further as the organization evolves, but it is thought that they ought to promote and
initiate the management of the high marsh areas. A team of two community development facilitators (animateurs) will be
recruited under the project to work with the CD. They will be closely involved in the training of the CD members for
park management as well as activities that have been identified, including the rehabilitation of the hammams (public
baths), electrification, improvement in the raising of poultry and rabbits, as well as initial ecotourism activities and
products. The community consultations also showed that there is a potential role for NGOs like the local WWF and the
Association for the development of Ichkeul to be involved closely with the CDs.

The pre-appraisal and appraisal missions made specific suggestions for the continued organizational development of the
CD and training assistance to be given in the interim time until the project is initiated. This is planned to be initiatied
during the month of May 2002.

Bou Hedma National Park

The natural area of the region between Gafsa and Gabès was traditionally a formation of Accacia raddiana . The
degradation of this environment began as a result of the sedentarization of the population which was, until the first quarter
of the twentieth century, transhumant and nomadic. The information gathered during the social assessment shows is
incomplete and somewhat contradictory, hence this is one issue that has to be clarified during project implementation.
The existing information shows that the national park was created in order to save this environment in 1936 but it was
never delimited. At that time the inhabitants used the lands within the national park “boundaries” on habous lands to
which they kept their rights. However, when the Tunisian State abolished collective and habous lands in the 1960s, only
some of the people claimed their rights to those lands as individuals, but the recognition of the title was denied by legal
intervention in 1961, and continues to this date. Their occupation is precarious and illegal, but nonetheless the local
people contest this and thus the clearings within the park boundaries that existed already in 1936 continue to exist now.

The area that is now the park was subject to more pressure when during World War II Libyan tribes related to the local
ones in the area settled in Bou Hedma fleeing the Italian occupation. During the period of 1950 through the 1970s
different efforts took place to replant the Acacia and to improve the deteriorating natural vegetative cover. Bou Hedma
was integrated into the international network of Biosphere Reserves in 1977. Finally the park assumed its current
configuration in 1980 when it officially was designated a national park by decree and thus placed under the tutelage of the
Direction Générale des Forêts.

The park has two zones of “temporary occupation” localized in the Communes of Bou Hedma and Haddej, with
approximately 320 households and a total population of 2,400. This population contests the legal status conferred on the
clearing classified as “zones of temporary occupation”, which in effect blocks the possibility for regularizing and clearing
the titles to occupancy. Many households were displaced from the time of the creation of the park through the early 1990s
in order to create the core of the park. Today, young couples have to settle in neighboring communes because there is no
possibility of expanding the original plots, or leave, having received a mostly symbolic compensation. Because of this
irregularity in the status of the occupants, the park authorities have come to see them as illegally occupying a space that is
destined to be closed.

The complicated land tenure issue is accentuated by the total ignorance on the part of the population about the rationale
for the park’s existence and its objectives. The social assessment found that in general there was no awareness on the part
of the population as to what a national park is or why they exist. There is universal ignorance of the concept of
biodiversity because there has never been any communication. No women or young girls had ever visited the eco-
museum or the park. Few external visitors are allowed, since the permits have to be acquired in Tunis. Previously some
of the past conservators established a rigid and inflexible approach that banned the external population from visiting the
park at all. This has begun to gradually change in most recent years, but the conflict remains that until now the population
has been ignored and detached from its environment because of a lack of rapprochement between administrators,
scientists, and the local population. This situation must change at all costs if there is to be a future in Bou Hedma, taking
stock of the social reality in which the inhabitants live.

The population has depended traditionally on the extensive grazing of sheep, and to a lesser extent camels, that were the
mainstay of the nomadic economy, even with the dramatic reduction of grazing resources due to closures and drought.
The closure of the park automatically restricted access to these formerly used resources and began a cycle of
impoverishment as well as economic change for the population. Some of the people turned to rainfed agriculture and
there are patches of small irrigated agriculture. However, the efforts are limited by the lack of access of these people to
the development programs that exist in the region because of the precarious nature of their occupancy rights.

Given the high level of risks to agriculture and drought together with the limited grazing areas, the only recourse of many
households is to try to obtain employment within the park. There is little doubt that there is a need for manpower and
workers in the park. In fact, some of them have worked there for decades but all are still considered “temporary workers”
because of budgetary considerations within the DGF. The only recourse is to be employed as “hadhira” which is the only
safety net other than total unemployment with a total annual revenue of 1,555 DT. As in Ichkeul, there is a wide variation
in income distribution, from 3,000 DT per household a year (an average per capita income of 253 DT or USD $177) to
about 5,000 DT a year. This means that half of the population is below the poverty line. In fact, the majority of the
households in the park are considered officially indigent, which gives them access to medical services with a payment of
10DT a year, and reduction in the costs of medicines. This classification has two consequences. First, only the
households where there are no permanent salaried persons can qualify for this classification, which leaves bereft of
treatment the very poor that have “hadhira” types of salaries (3.5 DT a day). The access to medical services is equally
precarious since the closest dispensaries are at a 4 kilometer distance and the waiting time to see a medical nurse
practitioner or doctor is at least 6 hours. Complicating the health situation is a high natality and mortality rate combined.
This in spite of the national efforts of family planning that have dramatically reduced the size of families elsewhere. In
Bou Hedma there are many families with 6 to 8 children. The preferred marriage pattern continues to be the traditional
endogamous cross cousin marriage which also has consequences for a higher incidence of some diseases.

Under conditions of such impoverishment the people do not understand the penalties imposed for trespassing or using
some of the resources that they need for survival. They also explain that some of these prohibited resources, including
alfa grass for example, are being degraded because they are not being used. That alfa requires periodic cutting for its
continued survival, and,, most of all, the women say that they know the alfa requirements, they have never degraded the
alfa because it was one of the local products on which their very existence depended.

In spite of the material economic poverty of the people of Bou Hedma, the traditional culture remains vibrant. Women
produce traditional artisan work such as carpets, flij (tent strips), cereal bags, all woven on traditional looms. Basket
weaving is also well known in the region, but is declining due to restrictions on the use of alfa grass in the park. There is
also traditional pottery, as well as physical culture to maintain in the form of petroglyphs, some Berber ruins, and Roman
villas all of which are of interest to archaeologists but have not been well studied. There has been no commercialization
of the crafts and local arts, but the strong traditional knowledge and capacity of the artists and artisans make this a
potentially important source for income improvement and for the provision of alternative livelihoods.

The problems of the area, in addition to the relation of the people to the park and their poverty, is the remoteness of the
area and the lack of access to social services. There is limited access to running water, roads, health and education
facilities, electrification and sanitation, all have rendered the population’s existence even more precarious. Currently
there are no community associations except for two water users’associations for the existing potable water systems.

However, in the course of the community consultations it became evident that there was total consensus on the urgent
needs that have to be met, including the establishment of a local high school and improved public transport. In addition,
of course, the demand for the clarification of the land tenure situation is primordial. But the community has expressed
willingness to work with the park administration to jointly use the park’s resources in a sustainable manner (production of
honey, aromatic and medicinal plants, ecotourism, etc.). More than anything, these people want recognition that they
exist as part of the park, that they have been there for generations, and fought for Tunisian independence with others and
who are recognized and not invisible. If there is this recognition, there will be considerable opening for joint efforts to
manage the park and its resources because they would have real as well as symbolic ownership and would insist on
maintaining its integrity.

The pre-appraisal mission defined the need to produce a detailed map of the occupied zone of the park together with a
census of the occupants and distribution of plots and clearings in order to have a clear idea and definition of the problems
confronting the management of the Zone 2. During the appraisal mission the visits to the various douars in Zone 2 showed
that the location of the douars is still fairly accurate compared to the French base map, but also that there is a poor
understanding of park boundaries, zonation, and mapping among the local and national level representatives of DGF.
This is without a doubt one of the key issues to be addressed early in implementation. The next steps will include the
necessary measures to begin the process of community organization where the focus will be not on clearing the issues of
land titling, but rather a focus on obtaining a community consensus for common action to preserve their environment as
well as to regulate the use of space regardless of official park boundaries. This will eventually deal to a reconsideration of
core and buffer zones on the basis of joint technical and sociological analyzes. The proposed approach would be to
establish a local Development Committee (as in Ichkeul, and under the same conditions of autonomy) to bring together
representatives of various groups of stakeholders. Three community facilitators would be recruited to assist in the process
of group formation. Additionally, there is a need to identify persons that could act as resource persons in the promotion of
education and general sensitization of the population to ecological and biodiversity issues. Discussions during project
preparation with the key government officials have already assured the programming of certain priority actions to improve
the access of the community to the outside world, notably the improvement of the road network, and electrification;
during pre-appraisal, more progress was made with the local authorities as to the placement of the “college” in the village
of El Bouaa adjacent to the Park and initiating the improvements in potable water supply.

Jbil National Park

The Jbil National Park has recently been created as part of the government’s program to attempt to balance the disparities
that have always existed between north and south. The Tunisian South is particularly challenging because it has been
perceived as a “marginal” area divested of resources and with limited human capital development potential. The
emergence of tourism in the southwestern part of the country began to change these perceptions, and with them the focus
of government to increase development in these regions. The creation of a national park symbolizes the presence of the
state and defines the modalities and orientations for its development. It is against this background that the park must be
seen.

The park area was identified in 1986-87 but the official decree creating the park was issued in October, 1994. Since then
several constructions have begun to delimit the park but the park cannot be said to be “functional”. As with other national
parks the decree places it under the tutelage of the DGF. The Jbil park includes areas that were considered state domanial
lands as well as collective grazing lands. A total of 18,200 hectares of collective grazing land was given to the domain of
the state under contractual conditions that have till today, not been accepted by many members of the tribes.

The park covers 150,000 hectares situated at the center of a great natural desert region of the Nefzaoua, an ancient
geographic and territorial entity with a mixture of salt soils, rocky outcrops, and sand, dotted by some palm trees and
covered in the southernmost point by the Grand Erg. It is of difficult access, a minimum of 2 hours from Douz by trail in
the heart of marginal lands of the Nefzaoua. The park limits were defined by general physiographic characteristics and on
a map, with only limited consideration of ecological characteristics and distribution of the local fauna by ecosystems. The
current park boundaries, thus, are seen as illogical by the local population that can accurately pinpoint where the prized
species, such as the white gazelle can normally be found – and protected. It is generally acknowledged that the objectives
of the park and the criteria of viability and functionality will require a reconsideration of the existing park limits.

There is no permanent habitation in the park. There have always been temporary users of these spaces, including
traditional nomads, some small village agglomerations, and recently, tourism. The four main tribes of the Nefzaoua are
the Ouled Yacoub, the Merazigues, the Adharas, and the Ghribs-Sabria. Once all traditional nomads, they have been
progressively sedentarized and have increasingly established themselves in adjacent village areas while reducing the area
of transhumance progressively. Today, the space of the park continues to be used differently by all the populations of the
area, but most distinctively:

(a)      The Merazigues sedentarized in Douz, Kebili and Tozeur, who pay shepherds to take care of their flocks of sheep
and goats. Many of these flocks make use of areas closer to Douz and not necessarily within the park boundaries except
in certain seasons under certain conditions (rainfall, wind and heat).

(b)     the transhumant population including Merazigues and Sabria, that circulate between the Saharan oases and the
Saharan grazing areas, alternating between temporary occupation close to the oases and movement of flocks. They transit
the park in well defined seasonal transhumance patterns.

(c)     The local nomads belonging to the Tunisian groups, including Sabria and Adharas.

(d)     The grand nomads, above all located in the areas south of the Grand Erg including the Rebaya and the Souf from
Algeria that move with large herds without concern for political boundaries, these tend to seasonally exploit the southern
and western part of the park.

Even within these categories the social assessment showed that there is a typology of different users and seasons of use
that must be understood to ensure the success of any management plan, particularly because the park area is one of the
important areas of passage between ecosystems and therefore of strategic importance for the pastoral groups. Although
the statistics stopped counting “nomadic households”, in 1966 there were still 3,000 households in the Tunisian south.
Unofficial sources indicate that there are still about 200 households in this area that are “mobile in search of grazing”.

If there is a feeling of attachment to the land on the part of the inhabitants in Ichkeul and Bou Hedma, in Jbil, there is
more than attachment, because nomadic culture is defined in relation to spaces. This identity is shown in myth and in
everyday life. Because of this identity, the claim to being a part of the territory that is now within the park boundaries is
one that must be understood above and beyond land tenure and rights. Even if this population is sedentarized, their
ancestral identity continues to show through their culture, social organization and use of space. This space, so essential
for the life of these people, was deconstructed with the establishment of the park. Not only did they lose large areas of
grazing land, but they also were de facto recognized as having no rights to these areas by their exclusion from the
decisions on the delimitation and use of the space within the park.

The community consultations in Jbil were among the most productive and revealing. Many stakeholders were consulted,
including government agencies, travel bureaus, travelers and tourists, hunters’ associations, and other clubs. The most
pressing recommendation to emerge from these consultations is the need to establish a management plan that will be a
joint effort between the local stakeholders and the government agents in charge of the park administration. The consensus
emerged that the largest cause of loss of biodiversity in the Jbil park is not the local and seasonal human presence and
animal pressure, but is much more attributable to illegal hunting, illegal use of motorcycles and four by four vehicles, a
lack of means on the part of the local authorities to actively manage the park and impose sanctions for the transgression of
rules, and the total absence of communication between park authorities and the locally affected population.

Thus, the emerging agenda for action makes it clear that the first block to build an effective management structure is the
consultation and dialogue with the local populations. These consultations should take into consideration the ecological
characteristics and requirements of the local wildlife and vegetation making use of the existing and prevailing local
knowledge of the park area by its traditional users, prior to redefining its boundaries. The local culture and population
should be given the same consideration and protection as the gazelles and other endangered species. The employment
generated by the park should as a priority be given to the “sons of the desert” adapted to this harsh environment and the
best insurance for its continued maintenance.

The Development Committee approach that was favored as a medium of action in the other two parks was also favored
here by the local population. A separate assessment was also conducted to investigate the potential for ecotourism in the
area of Jbil given the high profile of tourism already in the area.

Safeguard Policy Issues

The proposed project is in its entirety devoted to solve the questions of biodiversity conservation with a participatory
approach. The Tunisian Government is against resettlement of any of the parks'population, and there is no anticipated
action that will result in resettlement or in any further restriction of access to the resources in the existing parks.
Nonetheless, the project team as well as the team responsible for the preparation studies have taken into account the
safeguard policy issues including physical cultural property as well as resettlement. The following general framework
will be a guide to community participation and to the approach required to deal with restriction of access to natural
resources. It has the endorsement of both the Tunisian Government and the Bank, and constitutes the first such document
accepted by both parties.
         Process Framework for Community Participation in Biodiversity Conservation and Resource
                                            Management

                                   Tunisia: Protected Area Management Project

                                                      I. Introduction

A. Project Objectives

The Tunisia Protected Area Management Project seeks to improve the management of three national parks: Ichkeul,
Bouhedma, and Jbil so that (i) the improved management contributes to the well being of the populations living in and
around the parks, and; (ii) the trends of biodiversity degradation in these parks are arrested and/or reversed. The project
will reinforce the capacity of the Tunisian Government and its partners to protect and manage biodiversity of national and
global importance in a sustainable manner. The implementation of the integrated park management plans with the active
participation of the communities would provide a model that can be replicated in other similar areas. The project will also
contribute to the execution of the Tunisian National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan adopted in June 1998. The
present project design reflects this strategy within its three components: (i) reinforcement of institutional capacity; (ii)
protected area management, and; (iii) public awareness and education.

B. Approach

The project’s approach to biodiversity conservation is based on community participation that will take into account the
needs of the local populations and will associate them in the formulation of the management plans for each park. Each
community has its own unique dynamic. The issue of the size of the population living in Ichkeul and its spatial
distribution, for example, differ considerably from the situation in Bouhedma and Jbil. Thus, the measures and scenarios
for participation and the sustainable management of resources will have to take into account the specific characteristics of
each park. The project seeks to establish the bases for a genuinely participatory approach involving the government and
the local populations. This development will be based on the conviction of both parties of the benefits to be derived from
participatory management and will require changes in behavior and attitudes to attain the joint goals of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable improvement of living standards for the populations living in and around the parks. The
project envisages the participation of the communities through the creation of local development committees (DC)
(Comités de Développement) as described below. The management plans for each park would be executed for a period of
five to fifteen years. The plans will focus not only on the technical aspects (inventories, infrastructure, surveillance), but
also on the strategic socio-economic and sustainability issues (including scientific monitoring and evaluation, negotiations
with the local communities on the key priority actions to reduce the pressure on resources, and to enhance sources of
revenues and alternative livelihoods) to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and sustainability of resource use.

C. Institutional Framework

The project’s participatory approach to biodiversity conservation and natural resource management will be carried out
through the coordination with national, governorate, and local level institutions. The diverse activities entailed by the
project will require the involvement of other agencies and branches of government (agriculture, education, tourism,
scientific research) as well as other actors (construction, tourist operators, consultant offices), socio-professional
organizations and NGOs in the field of popular participation and awareness.

The main institutions that will be involved in the implementation of the project and of this process framework will be:
The Project Steering Committee (PSC) (Comité de Pilotage). Is a multidisciplinary body that includes representatives of
the following ministries: (i) Environment and Land use Planning, (ii) Agriculture, (iii) International Cooperation and
External Investment, (iv) Tourism, (v) Finance, (vi) Economic Development. This committee will define the overall
strategy and guidelines to be executed during the project. The committee will have oversight of the project’s functioning
and will evaluate and approve the work programs and annual budgets. In particular, the committee will be responsible for
the use and implementation of the Process Framework during the life of the project.

The Project Management Unit (PMU) (Unité de Gestion du Projet). The Project Management Unit will be the central
unit responsible for the coordination of project activities and will ensure the soundness of the technical, scientific, and
financial aspects of project implementation. The PMU will coordinate and ensure the coherence of proposed actions
proposed by the Park Management Teams. The proposed actions will be discussed at the Local Development Committee
(LDC) (Conseil Local de Développement). The PMU will submit the annual work programs and budgets to the PSC for
validation. The PMU will also ensure that the technical, human, and financial means will be made available to the
implementing agencies and that the latter will work in accordance with agreed-on procedures.

The Regional Development Council (RDC) (Conseil Regional de Développement) The Council is located at the level of
each Gouvernorat and it is a consultative as well as decision-making body which has, inter alia, the following functions:
(i) formulation of the regional development plans that must be integrated into the national social and economic
development plan; (ii) formulation of land-use plans outside of the municipal boundaries and review of the urban planning
for the gouvernorat; (iii) advising on matters of programs and projects planned for the gouvernorat by the state and its
agencies; and (iv) oversight of the execution of the regional projects approved by various Ministries. In the project’s
implementation, the RDC will be the instance of last resort for the resolution of conflicts between the Comités de
Développement and the Equipes de Gestion du Projet. (See below section II-D).

The Local Development Council (LDC) (Conseil Local de Développement). At the level of each Delegation, this Council
has the functions of (i) participating in the formulation and implementation of the environmental protection plans,
programs of nature conservation, and natural resources management plans; (ii) advising on programs of local development
and proposing priorities and programming as well as participating in the formulation of regional development plans.
Within the project, the Council will be the focal point and forum for the discussion of the proposed park management
plans as well as the annual work programs.

The Park Management Team (PMT) (Equipe de Gestion du Projet). A Park Management Team will be formed at each
park, and will be responsible for the action planning and programming. The Park Conservator will lead it. The team will
include representatives of the Ministries of Environment and Tourism, and will work in close collaboration with the
representatives of the local population through the intermediation of the selected members of the Development
Committees (see below) (Comités de Développement). Technical staff will be available to assist these teams. The
Conservator is responsible for the day-to-day organization and execution of activities in the park by the authority vested in
him by the Regional Agricultural Development Council (CRDA).

The Development Committees (DC) (Comités de Développement). These committees will be the base level institutions
for the representation of the population, in order to ensure (i) participation of the communities in the identification of local
development measures within a social-economic space (terroir), (ii) the provision of all relevant information on the needs
of the populations they represent, (iii) mobilization and organization of the population to facilitate their participation in
the development of the park management plans. As they become more experienced, the Development Committees will
have the option of becoming legally recognized development entities such as Local Interest Groups (Groupements
d'Intérêt Collectifs ,GIC), Development Groups (Groupements de Développement, GD), cooperatives, etc.

The DCs will be organized at the outset of the project with the necessary accompanying measures including awareness
and training programs, so that the participation of the local communities in the formulation of the park management and
development plans will be ensured from the beginning. These plans, with their economic and social objectives, will take
into account the actions necessary for the conservation of biodiversity and will be based on an improved use of potential
and available natural resources. They will include activities that will permit the local population’s development of, and
rational management of the natural resources in the protected areas. These community development plans will be an
integral part of the park management plans.

                                  II.     General Principles of the Process Framework

A. The Context: conservation and restriction of access to resources in the Protected Areas

Some of the project components may trigger the Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) which also
includes specific provision for the loss of access to natural resources in parks and protected areas. To achieve its objective
of biodiversity conservation, the project may require the restriction of access to the resources in the defined core areas that
are currently utilized by the population. The protection of biodiversity in the core areas will require the total restriction of
access to its resources. In the rest of the parks certain activities will be permitted. The activities planned for the
implementation of the project, including those that will result in the formulation of the park management plans, will be
negotiated in a participatory manner with the population, based on recognition of their needs and with the objective of
reconciling both the social development objectives as well as the biodiversity conservation objective of the project.

According to national legislation, the protected areas are considered the domain of the state as forestry areas, and
activities within them are regulated by the Forestry Code administered by the Forestry Department. Different activities,
including grazing, agriculture, and forestry extraction and other uses are permitted in some areas. Restrictions on the use
of these resources can be envisaged where there is a risk of increasingly perturbing the ecosystem’s balance, or where
human activities pose a direct threat to biodiversity. These limitations of access are currently regulated by the existing
legislation. In the event that there is non-conformity with the requirements of the Bank’s Policy OP 4.12, this process
framework will be used.

B. Process Framework for Community Consultation and Participation

Steps for the formulation of a participatory strategy. The participation strategy will consist of (a) identification and
carrying out a census of the people potentially affected by the project; (b) definition of the eligibility criteria for the
project affected populations; (c) formulation of the criteria for the identification of vulnerable groups; (d) elaboration of
the process for consultation and dialogue; (e) propositions for the inclusion of the population in the implementation of the
project.

1. Community awareness and mobilization

A PMT will be formed for each protected area. These teams will be the main executors of the process framework when
called for through the formulation of action plans that will include:

a)      Dissemination of information, the mobilization of stakeholders, and the creation and training of DCs.

b)      Information gathering and analysis concerning the specific use of resources and their social impacts.

c)      Formulation of a management plan in collaboration with the DCs.

d)      Adoption of measures aimed towards the protection of biodiversity in specific zones in cooperation with the DCs.

2. Participatory Measures

a)      Participatory Mapping of condition and use of natural resources. Mapping will provide precise information on (a)
the spatial and temporal variation of resource use (grazing, collection of fire-wood, medicinal plants, fishing, etc.); (b)
methods, location and conditions under which stakeholders and affected populations utilize the specific resources; (c)
customary rights and claims. In the project context the households considered as dependent on the protected areas will be
those that have a direct impact on such areas. The participatory mapping will be an input to the planning for resource use
and for the definition and formulation of the mitigation measures of any negative impacts.

b)      Participatory Diagnostics. Are the base tools for a participatory approach, allowing the identification of the
populations and their activities including seasonal uses of the protected areas, the means of communicating with the
affected people, and the types of resources they use. The diagnostics can also furnish information on the general use of
resources in the surrounding areas and they will be used as the baseline from which mitigation measures as well as other
accompanying measures can be defined (training, integration into the management plans) and for monitoring and
evaluation.

c)       Participation and Consultation. Consultations with all concerned stakeholders have already taken place during the
preparation of the project. These consultations have confirmed the validity of the participatory approach as well as
underlined the need for compensatory measures required for the people in the parks and surrounding areas that may lose
access to resources. The social analysis during project preparation has already proposed the measures that will be required
for the diffusion of information to ensure the awareness and involvement of the communities from the onset of the project.
The information concerning the planned project activities and the participatory mechanisms will be widely disseminated
in both Arabic and French so that the local populations are informed and involved from the outset of the project.

3. Creation of the Development Committees and Selection of Representatives for the PMT

The DCs are in the process of being organized and will be operational by the beginning of the project. Each committee
will be represented in the PMT. In order to ensure the participation of the communities, the project will rely on the
creation on the development committees at the level of the douar or settlement (terroir) as appropriate. All the concerned
population will be able to participate in these committees and they will select a number of their members to represent
them. The modalities will be defined to ensure that the interests of women, in particular, are represented in these
committees.

For each protected area, a technical inter disciplinary team that will include different specialists will be available to assist
the park conservator. The team will include (among others) a sociologist/anthropologist, community development
specialist, and environmental education and awareness specialists. The training of the personnel of the PMT and the
assistance for the necessary studies and surveys to be undertaken as well as the activities for community organization will
be the responsibility of the technical support team.

4. Key Steps for the Participatory Strategy

a)       Identification of affected people. There will be a distinction made between the people directly affected by the
restriction of access to resources in the protected areas and those that claim rights for historical reasons (traditional land
occupancy, collective lands with a “temporary occupancy status”).

b)      Eligibility Criteria of project affected people. Eligibility criteria will be defined at the outset of the project. They
may include, inter alia, physical presence in the protected areas for a certain number of years, dependency on the
resources of the protected area, and benefits or claims of use of the resources, etc.

c)       Criteria for the identification of vulnerable groups. The most vulnerable groups in a population should be
identified early and as a priority because they would be the population with immediate needs that can only be fulfilled
through the use of existing resources to secure their survival and food needs. Criteria for the identification of these groups
could be based on: inability to fulfill their dietary needs, no livestock or only a small number of livestock and/or poultry,
degraded and precarious habitats, inability to ensure the schooling of children, use of small plots for subsistence or having
tenancy status, lack of permanent income, lack of access to basic infrastructure, etc. Individuals and/or households
meeting these criteria will have a high priority for training in alternative revenue-generating activities and their
participation will be essential in the decision-making meetings where reduction of access to resources of the protected
areas are discussed, and participate with inputs to the management plans.

C. Budget for the Execution of the Process Framework Provisions

The budget for the execution of this process framework is included in the overall project budget (institutional support,
training, education, and alternative livelihoods) and no additional budget is envisaged for its execution.

D. Process of Consultation for Conflict Resolution and Modalities for the Settlement of Claims.

It is likely that during the project implementation there will be conflicting views and opinions concerning the utilization of
resources of the protected areas. Where such conflicts may arise, the DC and the PMT will be the forum for dispute
resolution. If they cannot reach an acceptable solution they will present their claims to the LDC that will strive to reach
appropriate solutions and measures. Should conflicts not be solved by these means, the claims will be settled by the RDC.

E. Monitoring and Evaluation of the Process Framework

The measures taken to execute this process framework will be the responsibility of the PMT and will be monitored by the
PMU. The monitoring reports and the measures taken will be submitted to the PSC by the PMU and will be followed
closely by the Bank during project supervisions. The performance indicators to ensure that the measures included in this
process framework are taken into account are included in the project log-frame (participation of the population in the
development committees, implementation of accompanying measures, financial benefits accruing to the affected
population, claims and dispute settlement, etc.).

An evaluation of the provisions of this process framework will be undertaken in the third and sixth year of project
implementation.
Shobha Shetty
P:\TUNISIA\RE\48315\NEG\Word PAD.doc
May 22, 2002 3:17 PM

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:1/26/2013
language:
pages:88