Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR0000748

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TRUST FUND NUMBER 20412)

ON A

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 6.5 MILLION (US$8.7 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA

FOR A

HIGH FOREST BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT

FEBRUARY 20, 2008

AFTEN AFCW1 Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 2007)

Currency Unit = Cedi

Cedi = US$ ------ US$1.00 = -----

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 - December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAC Annual Allowable Cut ALIF Alternative Livelihood Investment Fund CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBAG Community Biodiversity Advisory Group CFMU Collaborative Forest Management Unit CIF Community Investment Fund CWMP Coastal Wetlands Management Project DFID Department for International Development (UK) DPL Development Policy Loan EC European Commission EU European Union ERMP Environmental Resources Management Project FC Forestry Commission FD Forestry Department FIMP Forestry Inventory Management Project FRMP Forest Resource Management Project FSD Forestry Services Division GEF Global Environmental Facility GPRS Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy GSBA Globally Significant Biodiversity Area IDA International Development Association IUCN World Conservation Union MEST Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology MLFM Ministry of Lands, Forestry, and Mines MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development MTR Midterm Review NGO Non Government Organization NREG Natural Resource Environmental Governance Program NRMP Natural Resources Management Project PAD Project Appraisal Document PADP Protected Areas Development Program PCU Project Coordination Unit PPA Provenance Protection Areas PPMED Project Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement WD Wildlife Department Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Ishac Diwan Sector Manager: Marjory-Anne Bromhead Project Team Leader: Edward Felix Dwumfour ICR Team Leader: Beatrix Allah-Mensah

iii

GHANA HIGH FOREST BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information i B. Key Dates i C. Ratings Summary i D. Sector and Theme Codes ii E. Bank Staff iii F. Results Framework Analysis iv G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs vii H. Restructuring vii I. Disbursement Graph viii

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 6 3. Assessment of Development Outcomes 12 4. Assessment of Risk to GEO Outcome 215. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 22 6. Lessons Learned 24 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners 25 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing 27 Annex 2. Outputs by Component 28 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 33 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes 34 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Result 37 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results 44 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower’s ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR 45 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders 49 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents 50 Annex 10. Other Important Information 51 Annex 11. Additional Information for GEF Purposes 57 MAP 60

i

A. Basic Information Country: Ghana Project Name:

Ghana:NAT.RES.MANAGEMENT

Project ID: P000946,P045188 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-30910,TF-20412 ICR Date: 02/20/2008 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: APL,SIL Borrower: GOVT OF GHANA Original Total Commitment:

XDR 6.9M,USD 8.7M Disbursed Amount: XDR 6.9M,USD 8.7M

Environmental Category: A,C Focal Area: B Implementing Agencies: Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Ghana:NAT.RES.MANAGEMENT - P000946

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 01/31/1996 Effectiveness: 06/09/1999 06/09/1999 Appraisal: 11/24/1997 Restructuring(s): Approval: 06/04/1998 Mid-term Review: Closing: 09/30/2000 06/30/2003 GH-GEF Forest Biodiversity SIL (FY98) - P045188

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 08/01/1997 Effectiveness: 06/09/1999 06/09/1999 Appraisal: 11/24/1997 Restructuring(s): Approval: 06/04/1998 Mid-term Review: 03/31/2006 05/28/2001 Closing: 04/30/1999 06/20/2007 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes Satisfactory GEO Outcomes Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome Moderate Risk to GEO Outcome Moderate Bank Performance Moderately Satisfactory

ii

Borrower Performance Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry Unsatisfactory Government: Unsatisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Moderately Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Moderately Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance Moderately Satisfactory Overall Borrower

Performance Moderately Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Ghana:NAT.RES.MANAGEMENT - P000946

Implementation Performance Indicators QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating:

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): No Quality at Entry

(QEA) None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): No Quality of

Supervision (QSA) None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status

GH-GEF Forest Biodiversity SIL (FY98) - P045188

Implementation Performance Indicators QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating:

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): No Quality at Entry

(QEA) None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): No Quality of

Supervision (QSA) None

GEO rating before Closing/Inactive Status Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes Ghana:NAT.RES.MANAGEMENT - P000946

Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 9 9 Forestry 46 46 Other social services 38 38 Sub-national government administration 7 7

iii

Theme Code (Primary/Secondary) Administrative and civil service reform Secondary Secondary Biodiversity Primary Primary Environmental policies and institutions Primary Primary Participation and civic engagement Primary Primary Rural non-farm income generation Secondary Primary GH-GEF Forest Biodiversity SIL (FY98) - P045188

Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 40 40 General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 60 60

Theme Code (Primary/Secondary) Biodiversity Primary Primary Other rural development Primary Primary Participation and civic engagement Secondary Primary E. Bank Staff Ghana:NAT.RES.MANAGEMENT - P000946

Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Jean-Louis Sarbib Country Director: Ishac Diwan Mats Karlsson Sector Manager: Marjory-Anne Bromhead Mary A. Barton-Dock Project Team Leader: Edward Felix Dwumfour Edward Felix Dwumfour ICR Team Leader: Beatrix Allah-Mensah ICR Primary Author: Sati Achath GH-GEF Forest Biodiversity SIL (FY98) - P045188

Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Ishac Diwan Ishac Diwan Sector Manager: Marjory-Anne Bromhead Marjory-Anne Bromhead Project Team Leader: Edward Felix Dwumfour Edward Felix Dwumfour ICR Team Leader: Beatrix Allah-Mensah ICR Primary Author: Sati Achath

iv

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The global environment objective was to increase the ecological security of globally significant biological resources, especially within threatened tropical moist forest ecosystems. Specific objectives were to: (i) protect a significant portion of forest biodiversity through implementing an ecosystem approach to management within the high forest zone that involves strengthening management of national parks and taking selected high-biodiversity forest reserves out of production; (ii) improve knowledge of the distribution and status of rare, threatened and endemic species through targeted surveys to better focus conservation measures; (iii) enhance biodiversity protection within multiple-use production forests through exclusion of critical habitats from logging; and, (iv) ensure sustainability and preserve genetic diversity of non-timber forest species that are collected by rural populations for medicinal and consumptive uses, by improved data collection, monitoring, harvest regulation, and sustainable management within forest reserves and/or at currently deforested areas at the forest margins. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) Global Environment Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The objective was not revised. Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority

v

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas Established Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

Nil. Selected 30 GSBAs are part of a gazetted PA system.

30 GSBAs identified and demarcated

30 GSBAs identified and demarcated

Date achieved 06/09/1999 06/20/2003 12/31/2006

Comments (incl. % achievement)

Legal description of the GSBA has been completed by the Attorney Generals Department and forwarded to Cabinet for onward submission to Parliament for re-gazettement. This is beyond the control of the Implementing Agency. However, it is likely to occur by the end of 2008. The task is about 95% completed

(b) GEO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Integrity of fragile habitats and ecosystems (GSBAs) secured

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

All selected 30 GSBAs are part of a gazetted PA system. However, zero number of areas set aside as GSBA All selected 45 PP As are part of a gazetted PA system. However, zero number of areas set aside as PPAs

30 GSBAs identified and demarcated 45 PPAs within production forest reserves identified and demarcated

30 GSBAs identified and demarcated 42 PPAs identified and demarcated

Date achieved 06/09/1999 06/20/2003 12/31/2006

Comments (incl. % achievement)

(i) Two Project Outcome Indicators were distinguishable at Appraisal to monitor the performance of the project towards meeti ng the global program objective. The baseline scenario was that the 30 GSBAs were already to be identified in already gazetted PA

Indicator 2 : The stability of threatened and rare species populations

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

No baseline information on threatened and endangered flora and fauna species in the GSBA

-291 different bird species representing 48 families stabilized. - 4 globally threatened species i.e.Phyllastrephus

vi

baumani , Bleda eximia, Illadopsis rufescens and Criniger oliveraceus protected in 9 GSBAs - Other threatened flagship species occurring

Date achieved 06/09/1999 05/31/2007 Comments (incl. % achievement)

(c) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Baseline studies to identify confirm and document globally significant biodiversity areas (GSBAs)

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

Nil 25% of 30 GSBAs demarcated 30 GSBAs

demarcated

Date achieved 06/09/1999 07/08/2001 12/31/2004 Comments (incl. % achievement)

vii

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs -

Actual Disbursements (USD millions) No. Date ISR

Archived DO GEO IP

Project 1 Project 2

1 01/27/1999 S S 0.00 0.00

2 07/02/1999 S S 0.00 0.00

3 11/26/1999 S S 1.14 0.00

4 06/22/2000 S S 1.65 0.00

5 10/30/2000 S S 1.98 0.00

6 12/18/2000 S S 2.45 0.00

7 08/29/2001 S S S 4.87 0.00

8 04/02/2002 U S S 6.13 0.00

9 06/06/2002 S S S 6.60 0.00

10 12/12/2002 S S S 8.24 0.00

11 05/31/2003 S S S 8.58 0.00

12 06/30/2005 S S S 9.02 0.00

13 12/06/2005 S S S 9.02 0.00

14 07/20/2006 S S S 9.02 0.00

15 02/05/2007 S S S 9.02 0.00

H. Restructuring (if any) Not Applicable

viii

I. Disbursement Profile P000946

P045188

1

1. Project Context, Development and Global Environment Objectives and Design (this section is descriptive, taken from other documents, e.g., PAD/ISR, not evaluative):

1.1 Context at Appraisal (brief summary of country and sector background, rationale for Bank

assistance):

Country and Sector Background: Ghana comprises two broad ecological zones: the high forest and the savanna. The high forest zone covers roughly one third of the country and supports two thirds of the population. Most of the country's economic activities (cocoa, oil palm, rubber, timber and mining) are concentrated in this zone. At the turn of the century, the area of high forest was 8.2 million ha, by 1998 this had been reduced to about 1.7million ha, of which 1.64 million ha was within the 216 forest reserves gazetted in the 1930s. Since then, almost all off-reserve forest had been clear-felled under a deliberate policy to open up farm land. It was not until 1994 that this policy was reversed and controls were put in place to extend harvesting of the small remaining off-reserve resource over a longer period. Within the reserves, about 0.4 million ha were degraded (mainly by bushfires) and in need of replanting, 0.35 million ha were classified as needing permanent protection (hill and swamp sanctuaries, biodiversity, etc.), and the remaining 0.9 million ha were classified suitable for timber production. Based on forest inventories, the estimated sustainable annual allowable cut (AAC) from the high forest was 1.0 million m3 of round logs for the wood processing industry, with half coming from reserve forests and half from scattered trees on farmland, off-reserve.

The key natural resource management issues in Ghana were land and forest degradation and the loss of biodiversity associated with unsustainable harvesting levels, in the high forest and the savanna zones, and with inappropriate farming practices. In the high forest, where the problem was more easily quantifiable, the logging rate was unsustainable, and the commercial existence of several tree species was under severe threat. The main underlying problems included: (i) a forest royalty system that did not price trees at their real economic value; (ii) ineffective sectoral institutions with overlapping responsibilities; (iii) insufficient involvement of communities who owned the trees and woodlands in the management of the resource; (iv) weak institutional capacity in the wildlife sector and little involvement of communities in the management and sustainable use of the wildlife resource; and (v) weak inter-agency coordination in planning and monitoring natural resource use, particularly at the regional and district levels.

In Ghana all forest and savanna woodland reserves are owned by the local communities and traditional authorities, and government's role was to manage these resources in trust for the people. This situation was reflected in Government's natural resource policy embodied in the Forestry and Wildlife Policy and the Forest Development Master Plan (1996-2000). This policy aimed to: (i) ensure a sustained and adequate supply of forest and woodland products; (ii) prevent further environmental degradation due to forest depletion and inappropriate farming practices; and (iii) stimulate community involvement in the management of the resources and enhance the economic well-being of rural residents.

Other strategies included the National Biodiversity Strategy and the Forest Protection Strategy. These strategies sought to: (i) safeguard genetic and indigenous species diversity through an ecosystem approach; (ii) improve knowledge of the distribution and status of rare, threatened and endemic species through targeted surveys; (iii) enhance the protection of critical areas for migratory species through improved monitoring and habitat management; and (iv) ensure sustainability and preserve genetic diversity within timber and non-timber forest species through data collection, regulation of harvesting, and proactive management for sustainable production within forest reserves. Rationale for Bank assistance: The GEF-supported High Forest Biodiversity Conservation Project (the project) was fully blended with the Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP), which was originally planned as a ten-year multi-donor financed investment lending. Phase I of NRMP (NRMP-1) aimed at

2

assisting the Government of Ghana (GOG) to implement its policy of protecting, rehabilitating and sustainably managing national land, forest and wildlife resources by: (i) institutionalizing viable sustainable land, forest and wildlife management systems nationwide; and (ii) establishing effective national policy and institutional framework and developing collaborative natural resource management systems. The NRMP I closed in June 2003, without the planned Phase II becoming effective. However, the GEF agreed that its funded Component 5 of the NRMP should continue as a project on its own. This resulted in the High Forest Biodiversity Conservation Project (HFBCP). The project complemented NRMP-1 by aiming to establish effective systems for the protection of 30 globally significant biodiversity areas (GSBAs) in all tropical forest biomes in Ghana in four regions within the High Forest Zone, namely; Ashanti, Eastern, Central and Western regions. The project focused on communities living at the periphery of these GSBAs. The project was consistent with the Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS)1 for Ghana (dated August 13, 1997). One of the aims of the CAS was to promote environmentally sustainable, social and economic development through capacity building within communities to encourage environmental protection and sustainable natural resource management; and also contribute to rural poverty. The project aimed to build and expand on advances made in natural resource management under Forest Resource Management Project (FRMP) and Environmental Resource Management Project (ERMP) and on pilot experience gained under Forestry Investment Management Project (FIMP) and the Forest Sector Development Project (FSDP), both financed by Department for International Development (DFID). A considerable number of bilateral and multilateral donors were involved or interested in financing activities within the sector. Leadership by the Bank would encourage adoption of necessary structural reforms to improve sectoral performance overall through a multi-donor financed sector investment program. Ministry of Lands, Forestry, and Mining (MLFM) strongly supported this coordinated approach by donors. 1.2 Original Global Environmental Objectives (GEO)and Key Indicators [as approved]:

Global Environment Objective. The global environment objective was to increase the ecological security of globally significant biological resources, especially within threatened tropical moist forest ecosystems. Specific objectives were to: (i) protect a significant portion of forest biodiversity through implementing an ecosystem approach to management within the high forest zone that involves strengthening management of national parks and taking selected high-biodiversity forest reserves out of production; (ii) improve knowledge of the distribution and status of rare, threatened and endemic species through targeted surveys to better focus conservation measures; (iii) enhance biodiversity protection within multiple-use production forests through exclusion of critical habitats from logging; and, (iv) ensure sustainability and preserve genetic diversity of non-timber forest species that are collected by rural populations for medicinal and consumptive uses, by improved data collection, monitoring, harvest regulation, and sustainable management within forest reserves and/or at currently deforested areas at the forest margins.

1 Document number:17002-Gi

3

Key Indicators: See Section 2.3 (M&E Design) 1.3 Revised PDO (GEO) (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification: The objective was not revised. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries (original and revised; briefly describe the “the primary target group” identified in the PAD and as captured in the PDO/GEO, as well as any other individuals and organizations expected to benefit from the project): • Community-Based Groups: Traditional authorities, women’s groups, and farmers: The project would

provide alternative livelihood support to many community members through the Community Investment Fund (CIF) also referred to as the Alternative Livelihood Fund (ALIF). Some community members were expected to earn additional incomes through boundary cleaning, anti-poaching, and patrolling against fire whilst enhancing their understanding of the importance of natural resources management and biodiversity conservation.

• Government institutions: The Ministries of Lands, Forestry, and Mines (MLFM) and Food and

Agriculture (MOFA), Forestry Commission (FC) especially Forestry Services Division (FSD) and Wildlife Division (WD), and District Assemblies (DAs) were to receive capacity building to establish a robust result-based M&E system and collaborative resource management, and logistical support in the form of vehicles, office equipment, and computers and accessories.

• Private Institutions: Apex Bank and Rural and Community Banks: By disbursing CIF funds, the project

would contribute to increasing the capital base and client base of these banks and help them improve on their micro-credit and client management skills and knowledge, and monitoring and evaluation.

• Research Institutes and Academia: The project envisioned working with institutions such as Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science & Technology (KNUST), Forest Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG), and the University of Ghana. By their close collaboration, the project would benefit them indirectly by providing them with adequate financial resources to strengthen their research capacity.

• School clubs: Students participating in school clubs would be introduced to the importance of

biodiversity conservation. The project would educate them and build awareness on the importance of biodiversity protection at the community and district levels.

1.5 Original Components (as approved): The project consisted of five components as follows: Component 1: GSBA Site Preparation and Development of Management Plans. Analysis of global priorities for conservation of botanical diversity in Ghanaian forests had identified, within the existing forest reserve system, a potential network of thirty reserves which were proposed for either full (11) or partial (19) protection to provide global security for floristic diversity. The total area of these reserves represented approximately 400,000 ha or 25 percent of the existing forest reserve system that would be included in the conservation program. Of this total, approximately 130,000 ha would be permanently excluded from logging exploitation or other consumptive harvesting. These areas included both the finest remaining examples of "pristine" or "old growth" forests as well as some of the last surviving remnants of forest formations that were extremely rare in Ghana and elsewhere in the sub-region.

4

Through a systematic process of participatory, strategic and operational planning, the project would develop integrated management plans for the GSBAs to be implemented under a collaborative management program with local communities. Specific project financed activities would include: mapping, delineation and demarcation of GSBAs; establishment of a community-based monitoring program for key indicators; support for development of community based enterprises with direct linkage to biodiversity conservation objectives; and integration of biodiversity conservation with the general FD initiative for collaborative management of forest resources both on and off reserve. The baseline studies would be completed and 25 percent of the proposed GSBAs demarcated in the first two years of the program, corresponding to NRMP-I. Component 2: Baseline Surveys, Applied Research and Monitoring. The project would finance applications-oriented research in support of the objectives of sustainable conservation and locally based management. The project would draw on completed work such as the recommendations on forest protection in Ghana from the National Forest Inventory, emerging priorities from ongoing work such as the Important Bird Areas surveys, and studies to be commissioned under the project such as a national assessment of primate conservation priorities and options. Component 3: Identification and Establishment of Provenance Reserves. For identification of GSBAs, the project would seek to extend conservation more effectively into the domain of the production forest reserves which represents some one million ha, or about 60 percent of the reserved forest estate. By extending the botanical and zoological surveys into this domain the project will identify critical natural habitats for fauna and important sites for preservation of genetic diversity in tree stocks and other flora. Component 4: Alternative Livelihood Investments. The project would establish a revolving facility to finance income generating small scale enterprises and invest in alternative livelihood projects that would: (i) improve the economic status of the communities living around the GSBAs and encourage them to participate in the program and forgo income previously generated from the newly designated GSBAs; and (ii) relieve pressure on biological resources by supporting alternative development options. Investment in plantation development, whereby communities who forego income from harvesting rights in GSBAs would be compensated with shareholdings in new plantation developments off-reserve would be strongly supported Component 5: National Capacity Building. An explicit aim of the project was to involve national NGOs, CBOs, academic and research institutions in implementation to build country capacity for collaborative resource management with maximum involvement of local communities in planning, implementation and monitoring activities. This component would emphasize the empowerment of local communities to play a lead role in reserve management. To this end the project would finance decentralization of management to district and community levels and grassroots public awareness activities under the wildlife component as well as specific site enhancement activities such as fire break establishment, border clearing and enrichment planting as pilots in five reserves during NRMP I. 1.6 Revised Components: During the extension of the project in 2004, it was agreed that activities in the PA peripheries needed to be intensified to enhance off-reserve landscape management and this led to the project placing emphasis on targeting areas lying within 5km. radius from the boundaries of the GSBAs. This was meant to ensure a holistic approach to the whole issue of PA management to include landscape management that ultimately secures the integrity of the GSBAs in the long-term. This refocusing however did not constitute a restructuring.

5

1.7 Other significant changes (in design, scope and scale, implementation arrangements and schedule, and funding allocations): While there were no changes in the project’s design, scope and scale, there were changes in the project’s schedule, implementation arrangements, and funding allocation as mentioned below: Project Schedule. The schedule of the project was revised twice. The closing date of the project was extended first by 18 months from September 30, 2004 to June 20, 2006, so as to complete all outstanding activities, with the aim of achieving the project's objectives and to impact positively on beneficiaries. It was extended for a second time for 12 months to June 20, 2007, in order to complete some ongoing critical activities such as Community Investment Fund, Ecotourism and Off-Reserve Landscape Management. Implementing Arrangements. Initially, the project was coordinated from the Forestry Commission secretariat with the Project Coordinator directly under the supervision of the Chief Executive of the Commission. However, in 2004, a new Project Team Leader was appointed under the direct supervision of the Executive Director of Forest Services Division (FSD), which is one of the three divisions under the Forestry Commission. Under the new management, the implementation of project activities was mainstreamed into the activities of the Regional and District Forest Service Division offices and implementation of field activities were decentralized to the District Managers and Range Supervisors. Resources (human and financial) were deployed to the field level to ensure effective project implementation and supervision. This change helped in speeding up the project implementation and to ensure mainstreaming of project activities and long term sustainability. For further details, see Section 2.2 (Institutional and implementation constraints). Funding Allocations. During implementation, the Grant Agreement amount of $8.7 million was revised three times to reallocate funds among expenditure categories. The reallocations are shown in the table below.

Category Original

Allocation (USD)

Reallocation –Sept 2004 (USD)

Reallocation –May 2006 (USD)

Reallocation –June 2007

(USD) Civil Works 700,000 400,000 470,000 611,815

Goods 850,000 1,150,000 900,000 1,003,634 Consultants’ services and

Training 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,400,000 3,144,202

Sub-grant ALIF

2,500,000 2,500,000 2,530,000 2,529,957

Operating Cost 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,400,000 1,410,392 Unallocated 800,000 300,000

Total 8,700,000 8,700,000 8,700,000 8,700,000

The reasons for the first reallocation of funds in September 2004 were as follows: (i) Civil Works: The funds originally allocated under this category were reduced due to the fact that most of the scheduled activities under this category had been completed at a lower cost than originally estimated. (ii) Goods and Equipment: In order to sustain the enthusiasm and active participation of communities in biodiversity conservation, a number of community-based interventions had been identified. These new interventions required additional resources and hence the need to increase the budget under this category. (iii) Consultancy, Workshops and Training: In addition to the ALIF, it was proposed that GSBA fringe communities would be supported in other livelihood activities such as fruit tree crop production and agro-based initiatives. This would require additional funds for community sensitization, organization of training workshops, consultancy and NGO/Community contracts to design the modalities for implementation. The second reallocation, in May 2006, was done for the following reasons: (i) Civil Works: Due to the extension of the project, it was decided that the demarcation and pillaring of the 42 PPAs could be done and this required reallocation (ii) Goods and Equipment: The project had financed most of the planned goods

6

and equipment that were needed to support the execution of project activities, and sustain the enthusiasm and active participation of communities in biodiversity conservation. Therefore funds could be released for reallocation to other categories to finance outstanding activities during the extension period like the 42 PPAs. (iii) Consultancy, Workshops and Training: In addition to the ALIF, it was proposed that the project would continue to provide support to GSBA fringe communities in other livelihood activities such as fruit tree crop production and agro-based initiatives. This required additional funds for community sensitization, organization of training workshops, consultancy and NGO/Community contracts to implement identified activities. (iv) ALIF: The increase in the proposed new budget for the ALIF was to support business activities. (v) Operating Costs: Additional resources were needed to support the implementation of project activities, track progress and evaluate impact. Some funds under Category 2 were moved to Category 5. The reasons for the third reallocation in June 2007 were as follows: (i) Civil Works: As a result of price fluctuations over the years on the domestic market, cost of eligible expenses rose by the time certain activities such as demarcations were approved and commissioned. This had caused an overrun of the budget under this category. (ii) Goods and Equipment: The funds originally allocated under this category were not adequate to cover the expenses, which resulted in over-spending. In order to cover the additional expenses, funds had to be reallocated from the Training Category (Category 3) (iii) Consultancy, Workshops and Training: Having completed most activities under this category, part of the remaining funds were reallocated to cover additional expenses needed in categories 1, 2 and 5. (iv) ALIF: There was no movement of funds in this Category. (v) Operating Costs: Additional resources were needed to cover the implementation of the remaining activities. Therefore, funds were reallocated from Category 3 to cover the amount needed. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design, and Quality at Entry (including whether lessons of earlier operations were taken into account, risks and their mitigation identified, and adequacy of participatory processes, as applicable): During preparation, the project design took into account lessons learned from previous Bank-assisted projects in the forestry sector in Ghana. Likewise, the design considered the risk factors and appropriate measures were adopted to mitigate all major risks identified at appraisal. The project also provided a participatory framework involving stakeholders and direct beneficiaries in the preparation processes. Lessons Learned from previous Bank-assisted projects. Lessons learned from Forest Resource Management Project included the following: • natural resource management projects should be envisaged as long-term programs made up of a series

of projects, or phases with the requisite skill set in implementing Ministries and agencies • prior to a major infrastructure development or wide-scale resource management there is need for an

effective sector policy environment and efficiently operating sector institutions • institutional strengthening may imply fundamental change far beyond training programs and provision

of improved facilities and equipment • all stakeholders need to be involved in the planning of resource use, and local communities should

gain an equitable share of the revenue generated • effective monitoring and evaluation systems is an important element in project implementation.

7

Principal lesson from the Environmental Resource Management Project: • Strengthening the capacity of sectoral agencies for environmental management and mainstreaming

environmental protection should be a standard value of sectoral activity. Principal Lesson from the Coastal Wetlands Management Project (CWMP) • Involvement of the Wildlife Department in project management helped in gaining valuable experience

in locally-based cooperative management of protected areas. Such experience translates into achievement of project goal of safeguarding globally important biodiversity within a management regime that recognizes the use and access rights of local residents and seeks to stimulate economic growth compatible with acceptable conservation values.

Risks and Risk Mitigation Measures. The table below shows the risks and mitigation measures identified in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD).

Risk Risk Rating Mitigating Measure Comments

Difficulty in recruiting adequately qualified managerial, administrative and technical personnel

Substantial Agreement on new compensation and incentive structure for reformed agencies and implementation of new management approach based on annual performance contracts

This risk pertained to the implementation of NRMP-1, and was not applicable to this project. FRMP consultants continued to stay during the implementation of this project.

Political will is insufficient to ensure new forest policy regulations are enforced without exception

Moderate High-level government assurance given during appraisal, including possibility of incorporating performance bonding for concessionnaires

During NRMP-1, government commitment was attained. Reforms were approved by the Parliament and became Acts to regulate forest resource management.

Inter-ministerial cooperation and coordination weakly implemented and new staff positions not filled with qualified personnel.

Moderate Extensive participatory planning among collaborating agencies carried out and agreement reached on TORs and qualifications for new staff positions to be created and on changes in institutional structures

During NRMP-1, government established Natural Resource Environment Coordination Committee co-chaired by the Minister of Environment & Science and the MLFM.

Incentives to communities are insufficient to sustain conservation efforts

Moderate

Identify means to increase the sustainable flow of benefits or to maintain revenues at an adequate level, mainly through progressively increasing administratively adjusted resource prices.

The project established CIF, even though its implementation started late. Further, boundary cleaning, boundary maintenance and other activities were subcontracted to communities, which enabled them to earn extra income.

Adequacy of Participatory Processes. The project was characterized by a strong participatory approach from the outset. Project preparation included consultation, collaboration, and information sharing with stakeholders and beneficiaries such as cultivators/community groups, intermediary NGOs, academic institutions, local governments, and donors. Project preparation included a number of innovative pilots to

8

involve communities and specifically targeted stakeholder groups (e.g., rural women, youth groups) in harvesting and management of non-timber forest resources, maintenance of boundaries and firebreaks and other revenue-generating enterprises. Personnel of the Ghana Wildlife Society (GWS) and other agencies were consulted on the definition of community education and public awareness components financed by the project, the design of research, monitoring and evaluation procedures, and guidance on implementing community investment components of the project based on the experience gained under the GEF-financed Coastal Wetlands Management Project. Quality of Design. The GEF-supported HFBCP was a fully blended operation with the multi-year and multi-donor supported Natural Resource Management Program. The Bank’s lending instrument was an Adaptable Program Lending which provided investment support while GEF financing supported incremental expenditures in establishing sustainable protected area management systems. The HFBCP which was a component of the NRMP-1, was affected by the drawbacks of the mother project. For example, the NRMP-1 was considered to be ambitious and complex, with a very short time frame for preparation. Modalities for the ALIF component were considered as part of implementation activities and not factored into the design and the implementation of major policy, institutional and legislative reforms expected to be completed within 2 years. This was an uphill task in a country that was re-introducing democratic principles in national governance. In addition to other factors, these flaws in the design contributed to implementation delays. 2.2 Implementation (including any project changes/restructuring, mid-term review, Project at Risk status, and actions taken, as applicable): The project was not restructured. In its early stages it was at risk status because of the slow pace of fulfillment of the main loan conditions and implementation of project activities, inadequate and untimely release of counterpart funding, and lack of trust in communities on the formation of GSBAs despite the sensitization and consultations made during the preparation and implementation stages. The Bank conducted a Mid-term Review (MTR) in June 2001, focused on the attainment of the GEO, its relevance, and the expected project and global outputs, using the key performance indicators as indicated in the PAD with emphasis on the forestry and wildlife activities. One major outcome of the MTR was the recommendation to step up and expand PA management activities to the off-reserve landscape. This shift of emphasis but did not impact on the GEO or require any amendment to the Grant Agreement. 2.3 Factors outside the control of implementation agency The technical steps in processing regazettement of the selected GSBAs include surveying and pillaring, demarcation and formulation of legal descriptions. The implementing agency has completed these steps as in 2006. The legal descriptions have been approved by the Attorney General’s Office and the Cabinet. The final step that remains to be done is for Parliament to declare through law the establishment of these sites as Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas, a process which is completed with a publication in the Ghana Law Gazette. This final process of proclamation is beyond the direct control of the implementing agency, i.e. the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines. 2.4 Factors subject to government control or implementation agency • Parliamentary Processes: These processes that include approval and ratification by Cabinet and

Parliament, respectively of policy, institutional and legislative reforms took longer than anticipated.

9

These delays affected project effectiveness for about one year since the approvals were part of the pre-loan effectiveness conditions and subsequent implementation activities.

• Institutional and Implementation Constraints. In the initial years the project was constrained by

institutional and implementation arrangements (staffing numbers and quality, collaboration and coordination, partnerships and participation, communication flaws, etc.). The procurement process was also marked by delays, resulting from cumbersome MLFM’s internal administrative approval processes and procedures, and delays from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning for providing exemptions of customs duty on imported goods and equipment. Barely a year after loan effectiveness was obtained, the project lost the services of the procurement officer and a good replacement was difficult to find. Therefore, for most part of the project’s lifespan there was also no qualified procurement officer for the project and this resulted in disturbing disbursement lags.

Execution of the project activities, however, picked up significantly after suggestions from the Bank in December 2003 for a review of the implementation framework/mechanisms. The suggested measures included the appointment of a team player as project leader and a core project team of highly dedicated professional staff. Also, the Bank’s recommendation requested a decentralization of project implementation by empowering frontline regional and district forestry offices to be in-charge of the execution of project activities. HFBCP activities were mainstreamed into core forestry activities at the district forestry level. Besides, MLFM had appointed a qualified procurement officer and financial management specialist and these recruitments plus the associated training in procurement and financial management helped to improve and shorten considerably the procurement processes. These changes proved positive, contributing to the success and gains achieved in several parts of the project in the field.

• Lack of Mutual Respect and Understanding. The project implementation was initially fraught with lack

of mutual respect and understanding between communities fringing the forest reserves and the staff of the Forestry Commission (FC). In spite of consultations with communities, some were still hostile to the idea of constituting GSBAs due to lack of understanding of their roles and fate regarding the use of the resources. To overcome this challenge, the project management helped in forming Community Biodiversity Advisory Groups (CBAGs) to assist in promoting public education and awareness, as entry point into communities, helping in building trust in the project implementation. The CBAGs through training, partnership and sensitization programmes helped to improve their livelihood security; improved community voice in decision-making and resource management and alerted communities of their rights and responsibilities towards the management and sustainable conservation of natural resources.

• Lack of Counterpart Funds. In the first 2-3 years of the project, the GOG could not provide counterpart

funding on time and in the amounts estimated by the project. The Government had found it difficult to meet the expenditure financing requirements under each disbursement category of the GEF Grant Agreement. This was mainly because the ratios of financing were tied to project age rather than to levels of disbursement. Under this method, GOG’s matching fund required for incremental operating costs had changed from 10% in 1999 and 2000 to 50% in 2001, and this made it difficult for the GOG to come up with timely and adequate counterpart funding, Strict adherence to this financing arrangement had slowed down implementation of the components. After the MTR, the Bank increased GEF’s proportion of the expenditure ratio to 100% for incremental operating costs, and the issue of counterpart funding was thus resolved for the rest of the project period.

• Delay in the Development of Appropriate Modalities for the Alternative Livelihood Fund Component,

had led to implementation delays. The first modality developed was an Endowment Fund. This model

10

was however found to be inappropriate for this project. Subsequently, the concept of Revolving Fund was developed and implemented as a pilot project within five GSBAs in 2004, and then rolled out to the remaining GSBAs in 2006. In addition, it was a challenging task to adequately sensitize community members on what the models entailed and required since most of them were not financially literate to appreciate the concept of savings, banking services, and micro-credits. Further, the project had given more priority to establishing GSBAs, and conducting socio-economic survey and flora and fauna surveys, and less priority to CIF.

• The Institutional Reforms at the FC under the NRMP framework also accounted for the delays in

project implementation. The changes in the FSD including the staff redundancies led to reposting of staff and in the process, the project lost staff members who had been trained specifically to assist in the project implementation. The frequent changes in the ‘home’ of the Project and its Coordinator also affected project performance. Furthermore, the development of the CIF and modalities for implementation brought on board additional institutions which needed to understand the project and flow with their respective roles. These institutions specifically, the APEX Bank and the participating Rural and Community Banks needed to be effectively brought on board. This took some time to be completed through workshops and a number of meetings.

2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization: M&E Design. Two Project Outcome Indicators were developed at Appraisal to monitor the performance of the project towards meeting the global environment objective: (i) Integrity of fragile habitats and ecosystems (GSBAs) secured; and (ii) The stability of threatened and rare species populations. However, no baseline values were available at the beginning of the project. The M&E portion of the project was very weak at the design stage. The PAD had indicated that M&E would be undertaken by the Project Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation Department (PPMED) of the MLFM. Some of the problems related to M&E in this project were: (i) No baseline studies (matrix of indicators and levels of monitoring). (ii) No M&E system in place at appraisal. (iii) Technically competent officers lacked hands-on training in M&E and administrative guidance. M&E Implementation. In 2004 the project contracted the University of Ghana Business School to develop a comprehensive electronic tracking system for monitoring and evaluation. The M&E system used the logical framework with a comprehensive matrix of output indicators (See 1, Annex 10 for details), and activity-output-impact linkages which provided a conceptual framework for both impact evaluation and performance monitoring. The framework established a baseline indicator for evaluation and ensured that the project deliverables were clearly linked to the expected results, and clearly specified impact indicators and their measurements. A reporting system to monitor implementation of project activity and output achievements from community levels through to district regional and national levels. Data collection was at the district and regional levels whilst aggregation using ACCESS software was done at the regional level and forwarded to the project headquarters. M&E Utilization. Appropriate data collected by the FC were used for formulating decisions and for resource allocation in the sector and to guide overall project and sector development. For example, M&E data were used for finalizing collaborative resource management policy for the country. The M&E system for the project has now been adopted as the building block of the FC.

11

2.6 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance (focusing on issues and their resolution, as applicable): There were no safeguard and fiduciary issues related to the implementation of the project. Especially, during implementation, the project did not encounter any social issues such as displacement, relocation, resettlement, and land appropriation. 2.7 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase (including transition arrangement to post-completion operation of investments financed by present operation, Operation & Maintenance arrangements, sustaining reforms and institutional capacity, and next phase/follow-up operation, if applicable): (a) Transition arrangements.

Institutional. At the community level, community members have become collaborators in resource management as they are clearly convinced of the benefits of conservation of natural resources. As a result, Community Fund Management Committees which are comprised of stakeholders from communities will be responsible for activities such as boundary cleaning, patrolling, anti-poaching, and anti-lumbering. The formation of CBAGs has institutionalized the involvement of local communities in natural resources management. The FC will continue to fund the activities of the CBAGS in order to sustain the enthusiasm of the communities in resource management. At the district level, District Assemblies will continue to provide the FC with the same kind of support given during implementation. At the central level, the project activities have been mainstreamed into the regular operation of the FC itself, which would be adequately financed from its internally generated funds and budgetary allocation from the treasury.

The next phase will involve the implementation of the GSBA management plans that were developed under the project. This will be implemented through central government budget support and by donors. With the assistance of GEF Small Grants Program and other donors, some of the potential GSBAs in the Dry Marginal Forest ecosystems are being transformed into ecotourism site with active participation of the local communities.

Financial. The introduction of the CIF is a big incentive to the communities and as a revolving fund, it is expected that when well managed, the communities will continue to collaborate with the FC in the management of the natural resources. At the district level, part of the revenue collected by District Assemblies from the sale of timber and non-timber products will be earmarked for natural resource management and environmental management. At the central level, the Bank and five other development partners are currently discussing support to the MLFM through a sector budgetary support facility in support of the Natural Resource Environmental Governance Program (NREG), a Development Policy Loan (DPL), which would ensure continuous funding of natural resource activities in specific areas for the next three (3) years. In addition, under the Multi-Donor Budgetary Support (MDBS) the Government has approved a financial framework that would guarantee the FC a 100% release of approved budget.

Operation and Maintenance Arrangements. The FC will be absorbing most of the costs through internally generated funds, together with the support from the Central government and the District Assemblies.

Staffing. Generally the quality and quantity of staffing in the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines, the Forestry Commission in particular and the sector institutions are considered adequate. Policies. Since 1998, the Government through the NRMP has pursued a number of policy reforms in the forestry sector. The new focus of these policies is granting greater autonomy in forest management and sharing of benefits to local land owners and forest fringing communities. The Timber Resource Management Act (Act 547) and the Timber Resource Management Act (Amendment, Act 617) are currently under review and is

12

aimed at supporting reforms associated with the legality of timber harvesting. The Forestry Development Master Plan will be reviewed and revised under the proposed NREG/DPL. Monitoring and Evaluation. A robust M&E system that tracks progress and assessing project impacts on beneficiaries and the status of the GSBAs is in place for future operation. Follow-up project by the Bank that might contribute to sustaining benefits, including further monitoring of the project's operation; discuss the desirability of follow-on projects. Through the Sustainable Land Management Initiative of TerrAfrica and Sector Budget Support Program under the Natural Resource and Environment Governance Program (NREG), the government and its Development Partners including the Bank, are developing a longer term support program for the sector. This program would build on lessons learned from this and other natural resource projects and also replicate some good practices in off-reserve landscape management, which are now likely to be the focus of communities as the GSBAs are now wholly protected. The Bank would be putting more emphasis on engaging communities and land owners in trying to incorporate conservation practices on their individual agricultural landscapes. Suggested priority and optimum timing of any future impact evaluation. An impact evaluation is expected to be done in December 2008 and March 2009. This evaluation is likely to be repeated until the protected area management issues are incorporated into subsequent DPL operation. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation (to current country and global priorities, and Bank assistance strategy): The project objectives are still critical to addressing key environmental problems confronting biodiversity conservation in Ghana, and also to protect, rehabilitate, and sustainably manage national land, forest, and wildlife resources within the Upper Guinea forest ecosystem and to sustainably increase the income of rural communities who own these resources. The project had responded directly to a number of national policies related to the environment, especially natural resource management, and biodiversity conservation as stipulated in the National Environment Action Plan, as well as the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy of Ghana (GPRS-II). The project is also consistent with Pillar 1 of the 2007 CAS (Report No: 39822) which aims at sustainable management of natural resources and environment, and priorities include: reforming and building capacity of key regulatory agencies to help them adapt and fulfill their mandates as subvented agencies. 3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives (including brief discussion of causal linkages between outputs and outcomes, with details on outputs in Annex 4): Satisfactory. The project was successful in achieving its objectives. With the inception of the project, conditions of the forests within the GSBAs located in the four regions within the High Forest Zone; Ashanti, Eastern, Central and Western regions, have improved as a consequence of the sustainable management regimes and enforcement of forest protection and resource conservation rules and regulations. The identification of 30 forest reserves and their exclusion from timber harvesting on the merit of their high significance as biodiversity-rich areas has led to: (a) improved forest regeneration; (b) reduced illegal tree felling and group hunting; (c) significant reduction in the drying up of water bodies. It must however be stated that it takes about 10 years for a canopy closure to take place. (See Table 1, Annex 10 for the Map of Ghana showing gazetted Forest Reserves and Protected Areas)

13

The following specific achievements through project implementation demonstrate the direct correlation between the project’s outputs and their resulting outcomes. • biodiversity management is now fully integrated into the core business planning of the FC. • awareness on the importance, willingness and need to protect forest by community members has been

high as they now appreciate and recognize a link between forest health and their own livelihoods. • biodiversity issues have been incorporation into national processes, including the current Growth and

Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS-II). • communities, traditional leaders and District Assemblies are now involved in natural resource

management, monitoring and coordination of environmental protection and improvement of activities at district and community levels

• through the livelihood support program the project might have contributed toward the establishment of

positive relationship between economic development and natural resource conservation within the rural economies. This has made environmental quality a key element in supporting rural economic and social development in the forest regions.

• A sense of ownership of the project as a result of massive sensitization measures, campaigns, joint

programs and collaborative approaches to project activities has been created. Summary of quantitative results achieved under the project are shown in the table below:

The details of the project’s major outcomes and achievements are as follows:

Interventions Achievement/Results

Number of GSBAs and PPAs identified, demarcated, surveyed, pillared

30 and 42 respectively.

Length of green firebreaks established and maintained through community contracts against possible fire hazards

52 km

Number of species from avian families recorded in the Avifauna survey of the seven GSBAs

245 species from 43 avian families

Number of species recorded at the seven GSBAs out of the 180 bird species whose global distribution is restricted to the Guinea-Congo forest of West and Central Africa, and Upper Guinea Forest endemics.

150 species

Number of large mammal species, recorded from the seven GSBAs during the rapid assessment.

31 species

Number of species of butterflies recorded. 92 species (belonging to nine families)

14

(i) Protecting a significant portion of forest biodiversity through implementing an ecosystem approach to management within the high forest zone

Area of high conservation priority forests brought under effective management. Under the project, 30 GSBAs totaling an area of 130,000ha and 42 Provenance Protected Areas (PPAs) were identified and demarcated (i.e., surveyed and pillared) as gazetted forest reserve areas that deserve special conservation and management regimes. These areas have been taken out of production and commercial harvesting of timber and other non-timber forest products (For details of GSBAs, see Table 2, Annex 10). The identification of 30 forest reserves and their exclusion from timber harvesting on the merit of their high significance as biodiversity-rich areas has led to: (a) improved forest regeneration; (b) reduced illegal tree felling and group hunting; (c) significant reduction in the drying up of water bodies. It must however be stated that it takes about 10 years for a canopy closure to take place. Community members have recognized positive trends across the broad spectrum of elements that have traditionally been the bane of forest reserves. In the Beneficiary Assessment survey, about 1,500 out of 2,120 (70%) respondents saw a decreasing trend in farming, clearing and burning in the GSBAs. This was across the board, for all districts and all GSBAs. An even higher percentage (86%), indicated a decreasing trend in accidental fires in GSBAs. 83% of respondents said that the trend of game hunting in GSBAs is decreasing. However, according to 64% of respondents the trend in the production of NTFP production in the GSBAs is increasing. The health of the GSBAs has improved according to 50% of the respondents. They have noted that the forest canopy has improved since the start of the project; over 72% indicated that vegetation along the banks of streams and rivers has improved; whilst a further 76% feel that their rivers and streams now hold water over longer periods. Over 52 km of green firebreaks have been established and are being maintained through community contracts against possible fire hazards. Fruit trees have been planted by community members as buffer with the dual purpose of serving as green fire breaks and income generation for farm owners. Through awareness creation there has been significant reduction in the incidence of wild fires. The CBAGs have been the main rallying point for most of the activities at the community level including cleaning and maintenance of SDF boundaries. Using the perception index to assess the project's impact, about 98% of respondents in the Beneficiary Assessment survey indicated a satisfactory level of being aware of the project; almost 90% of respondents indicated that the project has achieved its objectives; 90% of respondents were unequivocal that the project had benefited them. Public awareness, interest and perception in sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation among target and non-target but neighboring communities have increased and this has resulted in community adoption of sustainable production practices including conservation agriculture, agro-forestry, buffer zone management, incorporation of fruit trees in crop production practices. They further concretize these improvements by noting that the streams and rivers that fringe their communities are able to hold water for longer rather than shorter periods. This is confirmed by about two-thirds of respondents. The project has enhanced the capacity of various stakeholder groups through informal training and skills upgrading in business management, nursery establishment, conservation practices and team building.

15

• (ii) Improving knowledge of the distribution and status of rare, threatened and endemic species through targeted surveys to better focus conservation measures. Stability of threatened and rare species populations. Due to the high level of human pressures on the forests of the high forest zone, several species are now threatened with extinction either at the national or global levels. Most species found in the GSBAs were threatened with extinction at the global level (according to the 2004 IUCN Red List of threatened species). For mammals, it is noteworthy that four of the six threatened taxa are primates and the Miss Waldron red colobus is now supposed to be extinct in Ghana (although few individuals may survive in Côte d’Ivoire) are found in the project area. Other threatened flagship species occurring in the area include the elephant, the forest-dwelling bongo antelope and for birds the rare bare-headed rockfowl (Picathartes gymnocephalus). (For details see Table 2, Annex 10) A fauna inventory carried out in 2004 in all 30 GSBAs recorded a total of 291 different bird species representing 48 families. The family Pycnonotidae had the highest number of species found in the areas. Four globally threatened species2 are protected in nine GSBAs. In 2007 seven (7) GSBAs were selected to ensure representation of the different high forest vegetation type and also assess how the different intervention measures of the project have helped in stemming habitat degrading activities by local communities. The inventory focused on avifauna, birds, butterflies and large mammals. The 2004 and 2007 surveys however cannot be compared because of variations in scope, methodology and other factors like different ecological zones. The 2007 survey was to give a representation of current status of the threatened species for the purpose of the ICR. This rapid avifauna survey recorded 245 species from 43 avian families. Species recorded comprised of seven (7) globally threatened species and twenty (20) nationally wholly protected species. The threatened species recorded are in the Vulnerable, Near Threatened and Data Deficient Categories of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Included in the species recorded at the seven GSBAs are 150 of the 180 bird species whose global distribution are restricted to the Guinea-Congo forest of West and Central Africa as well as six Upper Guinea Forest endemics. More species of birds were recorded in all the seven GSBAs in this current assessment than in the baseline study, but a relatively high proportion of the species are typically associated with forest edges and open habitats. Thirty (31) large mammal species, of which ten are globally threatened, were recorded from the seven GSBAs during the rapid assessment. The threatened large mammal species included three Globally Endangered and seven Near Threatened species. Seven (7) of the 31 species area are wholly protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife Conservation Regulation. The presence of the globally endangered species such as Chimpanzee, Yellow-flanked Duiker and Bongo, imputes a lot of conservation value to the sites where they were recorded. A total of 92 species of butterflies belonging to nine (9) families were recorded. (For details see 6, Annex 10) With the exception of Tano Offin and Atewa GSBAs, all the other sites assessed have maintained their habitat integrity, with very minimal physical signs of human disturbances. (For details see 7, Annex 10)

2 – Baumann’s Greenbul (Phyllastrephus baumani) at Cape Three Points Green-tailed Bristelebill (Bleda eximia) at nine

locations including Fure and Ndumfri GSBAs; Rofous-winged Illadopsis (Illadopsis rufescens) at Subri and Yellow-bearded Greenbul (Criniger oliveraceus) at Cape Three Point, Disue and Ebi Shelter GSBAs.

16

Combination of traditional values and the intervention measure from the project appear to be working really well for the three Southern Dry Forests. Members of the CBAG in the Southern Dry Forests area demonstrated a great deal of commitment to the protection of the reserves. The boundary lines were well cleaned and their enthusiasm for the GSBAs was very evident. Challenges and Issues. An issue of grave concern to the integrity and biodiversity value of the GSBAs is hunting pressure in almost all the seven GSBAs assessed. (For details see 4 (iii) Annex 10) (iii) Enhancing biodiversity protection within multiple-use production forests through exclusion of critical habitats from logging. Key findings of the floral surveys in the seven GSBAs were the following. (For details see 8, Annex 10) : • Most of the GSBAs assessed maintained a relatively healthy condition during the project

implementation period. Vegetation quality of Abasumba, Ahirasu 1&2 are currently found to be in a more healthier state than reported in 1995 and 2002.

• Some CBAGs are playing their roles effectively in community policing, forest boundary maintenance

and eco-tourism promotion. CBAGs at Asiakwa (Atewa), Asikuma (Subri), Tumantu (Cape Three Points) are commendable.

• Bioquality (a measure reflecting how much biodiversity hotspot a sample of forest is) of seven (7)

GSBAs are within acceptable limits of fluctuation compared with baselines obtained during the 2002 floral surveys.

• Cape Three Point topped the list of GSBAs in terms of floristic diversity, bioquality and vegetation

integrity. A tree species new to science, Schefflerodendron ekpei, was recently described from there. • Atewa and Cape Three Point are attracting a good number of local and international tourists and

researchers. Records kept by Asiakwa CBAGs showed 114 tourists and researchers visited Atewa between August 2005 and August 2007. Records were not available for the rest of GSBAs.

Illegal logging which was rampant in some of the forests (e.g. Cape Three Points Forest Reserve, the cluster of Southern Dry Forests, etc) have been largely curtailed. Also, the rampant bushfires that engulfed most of the southern dry forests continued to be curtailed, resulting in steady improvement of overall health of the sites. The coverage of the endemic species, Talbotiella gentii, found only in few hilly sites in Ghana, has increased as a result of fewer bushfires and control of harvesting of fuelwood. 42 PPAs that have been set up and demarcated (surveyed and pillared) in 45 Production Forest Reserves will help protect critical natural habitats for fauna and preserve genetic diversity in tree stocks and other flora. In the Beneficiary Assessment survey, about 50% of respondents thought that the trend of timber exploitation in the GSBAs is decreasing. Security of natural habitats. Prior to the project implementation, all forest reserves covering the 30 GSBAs had been declared and gazetted as either production forest reserves or protection forest reserves. Regazettement of these sites would give a higher level of protection to them. However, the legal descriptions necessary for regazettement as GSBAs have already been cleared by the Attorney General’s Office and approved by Cabinet, The remaining task, which is the legal declaration by Parliament is beyond the control of MLFM. Meanwhile, all GSBAs have been excluded from timber production and institutional capacities of major stakeholders at both the center and community levels have been built during the project implementation to ensure effective management and protection of these global and national endowments.

17

The project has, in a participatory and consultative way, completed the development of management plans to cover all the 30 GSBAs using the new Manual of Procedures (MoPs) developed by the project. These management plans have been disseminated to the district assemblies, district forest offices, CBAGs and other stakeholders who were all involved in their development for implementation. Baseline information on flora and fauna. (See 9, Annex 10).

(iv) Ensuring sustainability and preserve genetic diversity of non-timber forest species that are collected by rural populations for medicinal and consumptive uses, by improved data collection, monitoring, harvest regulation, and sustainable management .

Enhancing Off-Reserve Landscape Management. A number of communities have started reconfiguring their farming system approaches by incorporating perennial woody fruit-bearing plants such as mangoes and citrus. 25 communities and educational institutions have developed tree nurseries in all project regions. Significant progress was made in engaging the private sector and NGOs in product development and marketing. Some communities within Enchi and Winneba Districts were supported to preserve existing sacred groves to ensure their sustainability. Alternative Livelihood Impact. The CIF was implemented late in 2005 under the following structures: • National Fund Management Committee with oversight responsibility and final approval of CIF

applications • Community Fund Management Committee responsible for vetting and selecting prospective

beneficiaries, and monitoring use of CIF including ensuring the revolving principles are adhered to • ARB Apex Bank as the Fund Manager and Community/Rural Banks as disbursing banks The overall monitoring of the CIF was under the project management team. However, at the community level the rural banks and the CFMCs were responsible for tracking implementation progress of the CIF. The US$2.5 million Community Investment Fund (CIF) established under this project was fully disbursed through rural banks and over 8,000 individuals in communities that fringe the GSBAs have benefited from the fund. Group or individual beneficiaries in beneficiary communities have invested loans contracted under the CIF into setting up alternative income generating ventures at the community level. The type of small business enterprises that were initiated by the project were: grass cutter rearing; bee-keeping; oil palm processing; cassava processing; livestock rearing; flour-based enterprises e.g. baking; plantation development e.g. establishment of woodlots, nurseries, horticulture; snail farming; mushroom production; crop farming; fish farming; and non-timber forest products cultivation e.g. black pepper and the sweetener, Thaumatococcus danielli. Since the actual implementation of CIF on the ground started only in September 2005, it is premature to make a full assessment of its impact on the communities’ alternative livelihood. Besides, in the absence of a well structured surveys and therefore lack of representative empirical data, the ICR team is constrained to depend on the qualitative evidence from the Beneficiary Impact Assessment and the interviews conducted during the field visits to project sites to make a full and concise evaluation of CIF. Household income data collected in 2004, 2005, and 2006 has shown that ALIF beneficiaries were experiencing rise in income levels. Again, qualitative evidence also shows significant improvement in their lifestyles. Furthermore, engagement of

18

beneficiaries in these schemes seem to contributed to wean them off the forest for hunted animals, fruits and other non-timber forest products, which hitherto were the main source of protein or income for these communities. Community members have also indicated a number of benefits that the project has brought in its wake as shown in the Table below. About 90% of the respondents were unequivocal in their perception that the project had benefited them.

District Benefits/Comments Winneba Access to CIF funds and benefit of equipment such as boots,

cutlasses, etc’ Enchi Improvement in the knowledge base of facilitators and

implementers Somanya Benefit of equipment such as boots, cutlasses, etc Tarkwa. Earning additional income. Asankragwa Claimed no benefit from the project

In spite of the progress made, community members also complained about problems, including: (a) difficulty in forming viable business groups; (b) difficulty in qualifying as a business group; (c) bureaucratic processes at banks; (d) delays in accessing loans; (e) delays in withdrawals; (f) complicated structuring of loan disbursements; (g) inadequate funds for all business groups at the same time; (h) inadequate funds for specific businesses that seek to expand and meet other costs; and (i) high interest rates. Some community members who did not receive their loans appeared jittery knowing that the project had ended. This implied that the concept of a revolving fund was not well understood by some community members. (For other challenges, see 10, Annex 10). 3.3 Efficiency (Net Present Value/Economic Rate of Return, cost effectiveness, e.g., unit rate norms, least cost, and comparisons; and Financial Rate of Return): The project did not lend itself to conventional economic and financial analyses since no monetary value can be placed on species and ecosystem conservation. However, the project outcome is deemed efficient based on Section 3.2. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome and GEO Outcome Rating (combining relevance, achievement of PDOs/GEO, and efficiency): Rating: Satisfactory Based on the discussion given in Sections 3.2, the overall outcome is rated as satisfactory. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (if any, where not previously covered or to amplify discussion above): (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development Poverty Impacts. The project helped communities fringing the GSBAs to improve their lives through the implementation of a CIF to provide alternative livelihoods to compensate for lost revenues and/or opportunities as a result of biodiversity conservation for the ‘global community’. Consequently, many people are engaged profitably in several income generating initiatives. M&E data show that within the beneficiary category of the CIF people’s household incomes have improved. In addition, people have developed saving

19

habits with the disbursing rural banks. Similarly, people are able to provide basic formal education for their children and also avail themselves of medical care facilities. Gender Aspects. Even though gender issues were not clearly developed in the project document, there was nevertheless a strong gender orientation in the last couple of years of implementation particularly during the formation of the CBAGs. Both men and women were sensitized on the importance of involving and giving a major role to women in all decision-making and project activities. As a result, women were well represented and integrated into the project and in some places women played lead roles in the implementation of activities of the project. Many women are currently engaged in village-level businesses and trade, and supplementing their income with other eco-friendly activities like snail farming, mushroom production and animal rearing. They have learned to do batik and tye-and-dye cloth for additional incomes. Now they are in a position to contribute financially to household keeping, have become more bold and confident, are taking part in community activities and decision-making process, and thus making meaningful contributions to their families and communities. Project beneficiaries received financial literacy training and are skilled to transact banking operations. Social Development. The implementation of the project has brought a lot of social development in the project areas. It has empowered community members in natural resource management, such as participation in decision-making and actual resource management on the ground by actively doing anti-poaching, boundary patrols and cleaning, bush fire prevention and control, etc. The formation of the CBAGs has also created a social platform where groups meet regularly to plan for their communities and undertake social activities aimed at helping one another in the society. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening (particularly with reference to impacts on longer-term capacity and institutional development): The project resulted in a substantial institutional development impact as demonstrated by the following: • At the community level, 30 CBAGs formed, trained and empowered under the project have

strengthened community involvement in biodiversity conservation. These Groups will continue to be involved in the maintenance and patrol of GSBA boundaries.

• At the District Assembly level, capacity of environmental management committee members has

improved because of the training they received under the project. • At the national level, the project helped in strengthening the institutional capacity of the sector agencies

at all administrative levels. For example, the project assisted MLFM in establishing Policy Planning and M&E Department. The project was also instrumental in setting up digitized M&E system in the Ministry for monitoring its overall activities.

• Institutional reforms that were initiated in the forestry sector have created the necessary culture to

ensure efficiency and transparency in resource management. • The establishment of Biodiversity Unit within the FSD is a significant step for the institutionalization of

biodiversity conservation in Ghana. • The project has assisted in the implementation of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

20

• The project facilitated improvements in the relationship between the FC and the communities around forest reserves. By introducing the participatory approach in forest management the project succeeded in catalyzing this relationship.

For details see Annex 2, Component 5 (National Capacity Building) (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive and negative): Positive Impact • The project led to increased stakeholder interests in environmental conservation issues in the rain

forests and southern savannah ecosystem. The FC’s interest now encompasses not only exploitation but protection of natural resources, whilst public and private agencies have a stronger realization that forest management is not only timber harvesting but also biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection.

• The project has increased the awareness of communities on the importance and need to protect forest

and its resources. There is also a better recognition and appreciation of the link between forest health and the livelihoods of fringe communities.

• The project helped in raising financial literacy in communities, leading to better interaction of

rural/community banks with customers, development of saving habits and understanding of basic banking principles/operations.

• The project helped communities to identify other opportunities besides forest as source for livelihood.

This is important knowledge because of its implications for sustainability of project achievements. • Rural and community banks have been enthusiastic in getting additional credit from NGOs, government

and other Bank-funded projects leading to streamlining of credit administration, which has been a big challenge for the RCBs. This has brought a different level of engagement in rural banks and their clients who are mainly rural people. As a result of the project, RCBs have taken M&E more seriously and using it for selection of beneficiaries, disbursement of loans using the concept of group collateral which is found to be working quite effectively.

Negative Impact • Realizing that the CIF is a reality, a larger number of community members than originally envisioned

have shown interest in the CIF. Unfortunately, the amount provided under the project to support the scheme was inadequate for the larger numbers. As a result, those community members who have not as yet benefited from the CIF were disgruntled and felt that there was no fairness in the system.

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops (optional for Core ICR, required for ILI, details in annexes): See Annex 5

21

4 Assessment of Risk to GEO Outcome Rating: Moderate On the one hand: • The project has been firmly established with institutional and legal structures which will ensure its

sustainability. The GSBA sites are within legally constituted forest reserve areas, and they have been surveyed and pillared within the broader conservation principles with active stakeholder participation that can produce significant gains for biodiversity conservation as well as the development of rural economies.

• In terms of individual outputs, there are outputs and/or activities that will be sustained by the stakeholders

themselves without any outside technical, financial, and logistical support. Some of the activities which could be sustained are management of community forests, management and maintenance of community fruit crops on farmlands as buffer, agro-forestry and soil improvement technologies. These activities conform to the indigenous system of farm management.

• Many community members, mostly men, who were helping in the clearing and demarcation of

boundaries, pillaring etc have been employed as staff of FC to help continue what was started under the project. The development of the management plans are also part of the plans for continuity and sustainability of project activities.

• Overall, the government is interested in ensuring that a bigger portion of the nation is put under

conservation and that adequate resources are allocated for maintenance. • At the policy level, the government is seriously committed to biodiversity conservation. Government’s

active negotiations of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU) for managing forests and timber exploitation in Ghana attest to this commitment. Under VPA, all exported timber should be from sustainably managed forests to ensure that illegal harvesting is totally eliminated.

On the other hand: • There is a potential risk if the government does not create more new forests, there will be a depletion of

forest resources. The installed capacity for wood in Ghana is five times higher than what Ghana’s forests can provide annually on sustainable basis.

• For the financial viability of the existing Revolving Fund, it is important for the Fund Management

Committees and the RCBs to ensure that beneficiaries who received loans under CIF repay their loans without default.

• Change in government policies to release GSBA for other land uses will affect the project’s overall long-

term goal. A good number of the designated GSBAs are within mining areas and there are strong agitations from some quarters against mining in these areas. There is a growing concern that the GOG is inclined to allocate rights for mining bauxite at Atewa and Tano Offin (GOG has already given out prospecting and exploration right to a mining company in the Atewa Forest Range).

• If the FC fails to provide adequate and appropriate inputs such as boots and cutlass to people who are in

charge of boundary cleaning and patrolling GSBAs, they may lose interest in carrying out these activities properly and effectively.

22

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance (relating to design, implementation and outcome issues) 5.1 Bank Performance Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry (i.e., performance through lending phase): Rating: Unsatisfactory. The Bank's performance in the identification, preparation, and appraisal of the project was unsatisfactory. On the one hand, the project was consistent with the CAS and government priorities in the sector at the time and was consistent with the Bank's environmental protection and safeguard strategies. In addition, major risk factors and lessons learned from other earlier projects in the forestry sector were considered and incorporated into the project design. Project preparation was carried out with an adequate number of specialists who had the technical skill mix necessary to address concerns. The Bank provided adequate resources in terms of staff weeks and budget to ensure quality preparation and appraisal work. Given the potential impact of the project on environmentally sensitive areas, a full project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out, and an Environmental Management Plan was prepared and integrated into the final project design. In the course of EIA preparation, twenty-five communities were surveyed, the majority of which were situated adjacent to forest reserves or protected areas. Comments received during the public consultation process were taken into account in producing the final project EIA and the Environmental Management Plan. On the other hand, as mentioned in Section 2.1, being an integral part of NRMP-1, the HFBC project suffered from NRMP-I drawbacks. For example, NRMP-1 was ambitious, the project design was complex, and it was prepared in a rush. On the Bank's part, there was the lack of oversight to signal the risks associated with the complex project design and to take appropriate corrective measures. In addition it failed to properly assess the implementing agency's capacity to coordinate the different project activities and donors. Also, effectiveness was obtained very late because the project had set ambitious effectiveness conditions that were impossible to achieve in the anticipated time. These conditions related to the passage of specific laws to guide the issuance of timber utilization contracts and the formulation and implementation of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. These issues led to serious implementation delays of the NRMP-1 and also of this project. (a) Quality of Supervision (including of fiduciary and safeguards policies): Rating: Moderately Satisfactory. Bank's performance during the implementation of the project was moderately satisfactory. The task team focused on the project’s development impact. Project supervision was intensive, with a mission at least every six months throughout the life of the project. The task team visited project sites and held discussions with key officials of the District Assemblies, rural/community banks, traditional/customary authorities, communities, community-based natural resources management committees (e.g. CBAG, OEF), consultants and other civil society organizations.

Clear and detailed ISR and Aide Memoires attest to the detail-oriented missions and the superior quality of recommendations for each component of the project. Supervision, particularly at the MTR, helped to turn the project around. Bank’s procurement and financial management proficient staff worked with the PCU staff to explain the rules and procedures to be applied during project implementation, with regard to procurement of goods and works, and selection of consultants, accounts and audits, based on the Grant Agreement. These achievements were rather late in coming.

23

However, in the beginning of the project, supervision could have been better had the task team ensured that there were baseline data, an M&E system earlier, that the CIF was implemented earlier and that the M&E recommendations provided at the MTR were followed through. In addition, the task team could have played a more proactive role in its dealings with the government for resolving those issues which were dragging the project implementation. Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance: Rating: Moderately Satisfactory. Based on the Bank’s performance during lending phase and supervision as discussed above, overall Bank performance is rated as moderately satisfactory. 5.2 Borrower Performance NOTE: When the government and implementing agency are indistinguishable, provide rating and justification only for Overall Borrower Performance. The Borrower performance at preparation was unsatisfactory. The project was developed by the Government with the active participation of the MLFM, FC and Ministry of Finance. Indicators of government commitment included the preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and the Protected Areas Systems Plan, and implementation of the Forest Development Master Plan. Assurances were given at negotiations that the GSBAs to be established with GEF financial support would be re-gazetted with appropriate restrictions on uses to safeguard the biodiversity they were designed to protect. Borrower’s implementation performance is rated moderately satisfactory. In the first 3-4 years, government commitment was low in terms of adequacy and timely allocation of counterpart funding. After MTR, the Bank changed the expenditure ratio to 100% and the issue of counterpart funding was thus resolved. Government commitment improved considerably in the later part of the project. The government officials worked closely with the Bank's project team on a continual basis, and cooperated fully with the task team. The supervision missions were frequently joined by staff of the MLFM, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Forestry Commission and officials from ARB Apex Bank (Managers of the Community Investment Fund under the Project). MLFM. Performance of MLFM in the first two years was affected because of delayed appointments of management staff. The Ministry delayed resolving this issue and only well after the MTR were the required adjustments made (by filling two key positions - a new Technical Director for Forestry and a Director for Policy and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation). Other significant problem was MLFM's inaction in carrying out the recommendations by the MTR for improving the M&E of the project. Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The project secretariat was able to strengthen coordination of activities through collaboration with implementing institutions, NGOs, academic institutions and forest fringe communities. The project management was quick to adopt recommendations from the World Bank and other donor-assisted missions. Procedures and requirements of the procurement were adequately followed. Standard procurement regulations according to the World Bank procedures and Ghana Government Procurement Acts were followed. After the MTR, the PCU developed and adopted a monitoring and evaluation operating system as an administrative control mechanism for tracking project performance and taking corrective measures to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of delivery. The overall project financial management system was adequate and satisfactory.

24

The project had an accounting procedures manual, which guided the accounting staff in the performance of their functions. In light of the above discussion, the overall Borrower performance was Moderately Satisfactory. 6. Lessons Learned (both project-specific and of wide general application) Important factors for the success of a project: • There is a need to make a determination, during preparation and appraisal about the level of

government commitment to the project. This helps in determining the appropriate type of project design and implementation arrangements

• Decentralization of operations to lower administrative levels with financial support and clear

responsibilities for disbursement and reporting lines contributes to effective project implementation • Collaboration, cooperation and a good mix of technical staff among the Bank, the Government, and

stakeholders during implementation enhances effective project implementation. • Sense of ownership by communities resulting from sensitization measures, campaigns, joint programs

and collaborative approaches to project activities is critical for the success of a project. Project Design: • Project designs should not be complex and must be tailored to the skills and institutional capacities of

the implementing agency. For an agency with lower capacity, the design should focus on fewer, core project activities.

• Conditions that need parliamentary and cabinet approvals should be avoided as pre-effectiveness

conditions/triggers, as they are likely to delay the start of project implementation. • All key aspects of projects like the CIF concept should be part of both preparation and design to enable

implementation to start early for outcomes to be adequately measured by project closure. The design should be comprehensive enough to encompass key aspects like modus of access, disbursement and marketing.

• Clear baselines should be established before the start of project implementation or at least in the 1st year

of implementation, so that the progress and impact of the project can be realistically measured. • Projects addressing issues such as biodiversity conservation need a specific national anchor agency and

champion in order to succeed. Implementation: • When local communities are engaged upfront in project implementation they develop trust to work with

project teams. • Communities who are dependent on forests for livelihood can be mobilized and engaged in other

profitable ventures not based on forests and forest resources.

25

• A clear communication strategy that provides operationally relevant information to beneficiaries and all stakeholders on a strategic basis should be a key implementation, exit and sustainability pillar for forestry projects involving numerous actors.

Monitoring and Evaluation: • Monitoring and evaluation needs and capacities should be assessed in the first two or three

supervision missions to ensure that capacity building issues are addressed by the implementing agency.

• For a GEF grant, the period under which monitoring of the site is done to measure the project’s

impact, especially on biodiversity conservation projects, should extend for a longer period of time. In addition, the indicators should be realistic and not ambitious.

Sustainability: • A linkage between livelihood and conservation of forest resources is critical for sustainability of

achievements on forest resources management under the project. • A link between communities and rural financial institutions to ensure regular source of funding and

financial support for livelihood activities and non-forest activities is significant in sustaining alternative livelihood programs.

• Strengthening capacity and skills through adequate training in the management of micro-enterprises

will ensure sustainability of livelihood activities without depending on forests. • A watchdog mechanism is necessary to follow-up with rural banks and their beneficiaries, on

repayment of loans from the CIF to ensure that the fund actually revolves to ensure additional disbursement of loans.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies: This section responds to any issues raised in the comments of the borrower, implementing agency, cofinanciers and other partners attached in the respective ICR Annexes. See Borrowers comments attached (b) Cofinanciers: NA (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society): NA

26

27

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent) (Total rows and percentage column will be calculated by the system)

Components Appraisal Estimates (SDR)

Appraisal Estimate (US$)

Actual/Latest Estimate (US$)

Percentage Appraisal

Civil works

500,000 669,230.8 611,791.99 91.41

Goods (including vehicles and equipment)

600,000 803,076.9 1,002,948.66 124.88

Consultant’s Services and training

1,850,000 2,476,153.8 3,128,172.81 126.33

Sub grants under ALIF (Part 5 of the project)

1,850,000 2,476,153.8 2,529,957.33 102.17

Incremental operating Cost

1,000,000 1,338,461.5 1,427,129.21 106.62

Unallocated

700,000 936,923.1 - -

TOTAL ESTIMATES

6,500,000

8,700,000

8,700.000 100

Note: The Borrower did not have the project cost by component since that was not the mechanism used by its project team. So the cost is calculated by categories. (b) Co-financing (The appraisal estimate will be entered from the Financing data in SAP/AUS; Percentage of Appraisal column will be calculated by the system)

Source of Funds Type of Financing

Appraisal Estimate

(US$ million)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(US$ million)

Percentage of Appraisal

[Borrower] [IBRD/IDA] [GEF] 8.7 8.7 [Donor A] [WB-administered TF] [Donor B] [Parallel financing]

28

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Component 1: GSBA Site Preparation and Development of Management Plans a. Site Preparation and Management Planning for GSBAs A total number of 30 forest reserves were identified and excluded from timber harvesting on the merit of their high significance as biodiversity-rich areas. Earlier forest inventory activities had established that these forest reserves have a high content in biological diversity, particularly in terms of their flora. Eleven (11) of these forest reserves are wholly protected while the remaining nineteen (19) are partially covered. These reserves have been categorized as GSBAs and SDFs, with the latter occurring mainly in the Winneba forest district, which has a different, rare ecological setting that makes it amenable to some unique diversity of plants. All the thirty (30) GSBAs were surveyed, demarcated and pillared. The Attorney General’s Department completed legal description for the GSBAs and they have been forwarded to Cabinet for approval and re-gazetting. The survey, demarcation and pillaring of Forty-two (42) PPAs were also completed to ensure continuous protection of these areas for reliable supply of high genetic materials for desired timber species. b. Management Plans In collaboration with the Ghana Wildlife Society and other NGOs, as well as key community members, biodiversity management plans have been written for all GSBAs following the development of a Manual of Procedures. The process involved extensive consultation with local communities and other key stakeholders. c. Capacity Development for GSBA Management The project started with the establishment of the High Forest Biodiversity Conservation Unit within the Forestry Commission. A large number of officers of the FSD and over 1500 members of CBAGs were trained in various aspects of environmental science and forest ecology and biodiversity conservation. The project conducted several workshops and technical review meetings to develop and sharpen skills in the writing of biodiversity management plans. Within the capacity building drive of the project, the herbaria at the Botany Department of the University of Ghana and Resource Management Support Centre (RMSC) have been equipped with computers and an assortment of herbarium supplies. d. Creation of Community Biodiversity Advisory Groups (CBAGs) Through the intervention of the project, CBAGs were formed for all the 30 GSBAs. The CBAGs represent a vital structure that serve as rallying points for ensuring voluntary community participation in project implementation. These groups were involved in forest protection through their patrolling activities. They were of immense help in facilitating data collection/database building within their communities where they worked closely with project consultants in some cases. Regular training programmes were organized for them in order to enhance local capacity in resource management/conservation. Some exposure to forest laws and regulations and general environmental education was provided through such training activities.

29

Component 2: Research and Monitoring Baseline studies were conducted for some critical areas of biodiversity maintenance and these are:

Socio-economic survey Socio-economic surveys were conducted for forest communities living close to 24 of the GSBAs. All socio-economic survey reports for these GSBAs were submitted which have been very useful inputs in the management planning process. They also provided the baseline information that was required for the design of the alternative livelihood investment scheme. Feasibility studies on Ecotourism Potential The project financed studies to determine potentials of the GSBAs and SDFs for ecotourism development. The studies indicated that most of the sites including Atewa and Apedwa Forest Range, Cape Three Points and the cluster of SDFs could be prime areas for community-based ecotourism development. The project was in touch with the Tourist Board to do an initial assessment and to build the right linkages with District Assemblies. The initial assessment included identification of caves, possible locations of walk trails, canopy walkways, among others. Aerial survey and videography Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the FC and Conservation International, the latter conducted an aerial survey and videography that covered 22 GSBAs for the establishment of digital database to support management decisions. This was executed and the product of this activity was installed. Research into modern perspectives of provenance protection Through inventories conducted in the early 90s by the FSD, some provenance areas that possess a considerable population of scarlet species of some desirable features and characteristics were identified and these areas were designated appropriately as Provenance Protection Areas (PPAs). These areas are to serve as sources of genetic material or gene banks for the sustenance of economically threatened, highly commercial timber species. Under the project, a study was conducted to provide modern perspectives on the need for provenance protection of these heavily exploited timber species. A report was submitted and based on this a workshop was organized to validate the recommendations of the study for implementation. Floral surveys Botanical survey was conducted for all the GSBAs to assess their floral content and also to provide vital knowledge on the vegetation e.g. occurrence and distribution of species of very high conservation priority, such as the black star species. An innovation that resulted from the study was the identification of focal areas, which were, intended as permanent areas within the GSBAs with good documentation of species content, for various purposes e.g. research, ecotourism, etc. Faunal Surveys A MoU was signed with the Institute of Renewable Natural Resources of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology to conduct faunal surveys for some 24 priority GSBAs.

30

Conservation Strategy for Talbotiella gentii The project through the Environmental Conservation Unit of RMSC and in collaboration with the Department of Botany, University of Ghana formulated a conservation strategy for Talbotiella gentii. Great Ape Survival Plan The project initiated the development of the Great Ape Survival Plan with the Wildlife Division as the supervising agency. A consultant completed a study on targeted primates which was validated at a stakeholder workshop. Component 3: Management of Southern Dry Forest Areas (SDFs) The objective of this component was to establish six representative protected areas within the southern dry forest ecological belt under the full management of local communities. Floral and fauna surveys were completed for 4 SDFs in the Winneba Forest District. The project also completed the surveying, demarcation and pillaring of 4 SDFs as part of the 30 GSBAs. In addition, over 52 km of green firebreaks have been established and are being maintained through community contracts against possible fire hazards. Fruit trees were planted by community members as buffer with the dual purpose of serving as green fire breaks and income generation for farm owners. The CBAGs have been the main rallying point for most of the activities at the community level including cleaning and maintenance of SDF boundaries. CBAG members noted reductions in forest fires and increasing good health of the sites and adjourning farmlands, which have been attributed to the successful execution of project activities as well as increased levels of awareness and participation. The project financed studies to determine potentials of the GSBAs and SDFs for ecotourism development. The studies have indicated that most of the sites including Atewa and Apedwa Forest Range, Cape Three Points and the cluster of SDFs could be prime areas for community-based ecotourism development. The project was in touch with the Tourist Board to do an initial assessment and to build the right linkages with District Assemblies. The initial assessment included identification of caves, possible locations of walk trails, canopy walks among others. Component 4: Enhancing Livelihood through the Community Investment Fund (CIF) This component aimed at providing alternative livelihood opportunities to communities fringing forest reserves that have been demarcated as GSBAs in order to mitigate the loss of economic opportunities and other benefits obtainable from these reserves. Actual implementation of CIF (also known as the ALIF) started in September 2005. This Component has made significant progress since the last mission in May 2006. The structures and systems established at various levels for the implementation of the scheme continue to work relatively well. Beneficiary and community perception of the ALIF facility and the project as a whole keeps growing and misperceptions and doubts are gradually diminishing. This may be due to the increasing level of community participation and broad-based sensitization that has occurred. Implementation of CIF Actual implementation of CIF started in September 2005. Structures and systems for the implementation were established and a number of enterprises were initiated the structures for the implementation were the following: The National Fund Management Committee, Community Fund Management Committee, ARB Apex Bank, and participating rural banks. The project management team had oversight responsibilities. .

31

Enterprises supported under the CIF The type of small business enterprises that were initiated by the project were as follows:

• Grasscutter rearing • Bee-keeping • Oil palm processing • Cassava processing • Livestock rearing • Flour-based enterprises e.g. baking • Plantation development e.g. establishment of woodlots, nurseries, and

horticulture • Snail farming • Mushroom production • Crop farming • Fish farming • Non-timber forest products cultivation e.g. black pepper and the sweetener,

Thaumatococcus danielli

Component 5: National Capacity Building Capacity building occurred in three ways: (a) planned training and skills upgrading for all kinds of stakeholder groups, (b) sourcing out specific activities to firms, academia and research to perform, and (c) doing-by-learning approach by contracting out specific traditional forest activities such as patrolling, boundary cleaning, and bushfire prevention. The spectrum of stakeholders that received capacity building under the project included: Research Institutes & Academia • Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IRNR) of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology (KNUST) in Kuamsi, Botany Department of the University of Ghana, and Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) collaborated and conducted the biological studies and assisted in the development of management plans to cover the GSBAs.

• The Centre for Biodiversity Utilization and Development (CBUD) of the KNUST trained about 8000

individuals in business planning/development and management, book keeping, etc. Private Sector • Samartex: Provided TA to communities in the propagation of non-timber forest products including the

sweetener, Thaumatococcus danielli. The Company's agroforestry plantation served as a model farm. • Farmbee: A model integrated establishment in a rural environment that specializes in the development

of alternative livelihood schemes which include most of the enterprises supported under the project. Used by the project as a learning center.

• Quarm farms: A model integrated establishment in a rural environment that specializes in agroforestry

and the development of alternative livelihood schemes which include most of the enterprises supported under the project. Used by the project as a learning center for alternative livelihood schemes and agroforestry model farm.

32

Local level institutions

• CBAGs: Acted as community entry point. Mobilized community support for the project and biodiversity conservation. Educated and carried out community awareness campaigns in environmental management and biodiversity conservation. Patrolled and cleaned GSBA boundaries.

• Community Forest Management Committees (CFMCs): Acted as entry points in communities for forest

resource management. Mobilized community support for natural resource management and the protection of wildlife as well as conservation of biodiversity. Educated and carried out community awareness campaigns in forest/wildlife resource management and biodiversity conservation. Patrolled and cleaned forest reserve boundaries.

• Community Fund Management Committees: Set up to manage the implementation of the Community

Investment Fund under the project.

Civil Society Organizations

• Friends of Rivers and Waterbodies: Implemented river bank rehabilitation work under the project. Provided education and created awareness in communities about watershed management and river bank rehabilitation.

• Ghana Wildlife Society (GWS): Provided technical support to the team and community members in

implementation of project activities. Carried out the faunal studies and assisted in the preparation of the management plans.

• Ecological Restoration: worked with communities, facilitated the conservation of Talbotiella gentii and

created awareness and education in communities.

• Conservation International: Provided support to the team and community members in implementation of project activities. Carried out: (i) tourism feasibility studies; (ii) aerial photography and videography work under the project; and (iii) feasibility studies on the community investment fund. Also assisted in the preparation of the management plans and impact assessment.

Enhancing Off-Reserve Landscape Management Interventions targeted areas lying within 5km. radius from the boundaries of the GSBAs and were meant to ensure holistic landscape management that ultimately secures the integrity of the GSBAs in the long-term. Implementation of activities in the off-reserve landscapes has shown significant progress. Community support has grown and participation in the scheme is remarkable. The project created partnerships with academia and research agencies, NGOs and village-level structures and traditional authorities to facilitate the implementation of agreed upon activities. A number of communities have started reconfiguring their farming system approaches by incorporating perennial woody fruit-bearing plants such as mangoes and citrus. 25 communities and educational institutions have developed tree nurseries spread in all four project regions. Project sites were selected and progress was made in engaging the private sector especially in the area of product development and marketing. Again some communities within Enchi and Winneba Districts have been supported to preserve existing sacred groves to ensure their sustainability.

33

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis (including assumptions in the analysis) N/A

34

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/ Specialty

Lending (from Task Team in PAD Data Sheet)

Robert Epworth Task Team Leader AFTS2 Agriculture

Gotz Schreiber Agriculture Economist AFTS2 Economics

James Douglas Forestry Specialist AFTS2 Forestry

Hassan Hassan Environmental Specialist ENV Environmental Information

Ken Creighton Biodiversity Specialist AFTS3 Biodiversity Specialist

Lewis Campbell Bio-resources Engineer AFTS3 Bio-Resources Engineer

Jan Bojo Environmental Economist ENV Environmental Economics

Giuseppe Topa Forestry Specialist AFTS3 Natural Resource Management

Yves Prevost Environmental Specialist AFTEN Environnemental Management

Patience Mensah Agricultural Economist AFTS4 Agricultural Economics

Ernst Lutz Environmental Economist AFTS1 Environmental Economics

Frederick Yankey Financial Management Specialist

AFTFM Financial Analyst

Kofi Awanyo Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement Analyst

Wendy Wiltshire Task Assistant AFTS2 Task Assistant

Agnes Kiss Environmental Specialist AFTS1 Environment

Augusta Molnar Social Development Specialist Consultant Sociology

Julia Falconer Forestry Specialist DFID Forestry

Supervision (from Task Team Members in all archived ISRs)

Edward Dwumfour TTL AFTS4 Natural Resource Management

Ferdinand Tsri Apronti Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement

35

Beatrix Allah-Mensah Social Development Specialist AFTS4 Social Development

Samuel Bruce-Smith Financial Management Consultant

AFTFM Financial Management

Patience Mensah Sr. Agricultural Economist AFTS4 Agricultural Economics

Jonathan Nyamukapa Sr. Financial Mgmt Specialist AFTFM Financial Management

Fred Yankey Financial Mgmt Specialist AFTFM Financial Management

Lucie Tran Operations Officer AFTS4 Rural Development

John D.H. Lambert Medicinal Plant Specialist AFTS3

Ebow Danquah-Smith Financial Mgmt Consultant AFTFM Financial Management

Nyaneba Nkrumah NRM Specialist AFTS4 Natural Resource Management

Enos Esikuri Environmental Specialist ENV Environment, Land Management

Eric Fernandez Land Management Advisor ARD Advisor

Giuseppe Topa Lead Forestry Specialist AFTS3 Natural Resource Management

Mbuba Mbungu Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC

Remileku Cole M&E Consultant AFTS4 Consultant

Rose Ampadu Program Assistant AFCW1

Vicky Bruce-Goga Team Assistant AFCW1

Akosua Gada Team Assistant CD 10

36

(b) Staff Time and Cost (from SAP) (The system pulls data available for all fields)

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

Stage of Project Cycle No. of Staff Weeks US$ Thousands (including travel and

consultant costs) Lending3

FY96-99 TOTAL:

Supervision/ICR FY2001 40,919.88 FY2002 361.15 FY2003 20,622.53 FY2004 23,514.57 FY2005 69,641.99 FY2006 18,323.48 FY2007 16,305.39 FY2008 18,013.84

TOTAL 207,702.83

3 Figures for Lending and Staff Weeks were not available.

37

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results (if any)

The Beneficiary Impact Assessment study adopted an in-depth, comparative and exploratory design method to operationalize the research objectives and to execute the assignment. This approach divided the study into two elements: review of relevant project documents and field data collection. i/. Review of relevant project documents: this involved a desk study of various project literatures including the project document, work plans, evaluation and other reports. The analysis of these documents helped establish the project profile prior to the execution of the study as well as provide a background and context for the study.

ii/. Field data collection: this involved primary data collection using a multiplicity of tools:

a. A Survey Instrument (SI) b. Key Informant in-depth Interviews (KII) c. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) d. Direct Observations (DO)

Data was collected using a variety on tools:

i/. Survey Instrument (SI) – a structured questionnaire was designed and executed on the field to selected respondents. ii/. Key Informant in-depth Interviews (KII) – this approach targeted key people from the community and its institutions who could comment on the project’s impact on the community. Both structured and unstructured interviews were held with identifiable key informants including the national CBAG chairman, various CBAG leaders, CFMC members, business group leaders, FSD officials, opinion leaders, traditional leaders, District Assembly members, District Chief Executives, staff of rural/community banks associated with the CIF and officials of ARB Apex Bank. iii/. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) – community-level discussions were held with key focus groups including community members, business groups, CBAG members, women and youth groups. iv/. Direct Observations (DO) – this was done on selected actors in the community and their institutions. There were several interventions: a number of rural/community bank project staff was followed in their rounds to their clients; a number of business group premises were visited; and a number of CBAG members were also joined on their patrols.

Sampling Techniques Both the random and purposive sampling techniques were used to select the various categories of respondents for the study. A purposive sampling method was used to ensure that all four (regions) covered by the project were selected for the study. Random sampling techniques were then used to select eight out of the 10 forestry districts in which the project was implemented. A combination of purposive and random sampling was used to select 22 out of 30 GSBAs that were covered by the project, ensuring that adequate numbers of both fully protected and partially protected GSBAs were selected. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that all the communities fringing each GSBA were selected. Random sampling was used to select 20 members per forest fringe community. In total, 2,120 community members took part in the study.

38

Data Analysis

Given the investigative nature of the study and to meet the objectives of the assignment, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was the main tool employed. Descriptive accounts, using a thematic analysis and clustering of findings was used for the qualitative aspects whilst summary statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages were used for quantitative analyses.

FINDINGS The following are the major findings in respect of the beneficiaries of the High Forest Biodiversity

Conservation Project: • Awareness creation – the project has raised awareness to very high levels and consequently, there exists

an enormous sense of awareness of the need to protect the forest and a willingness to do so on the part of the community members as they now appreciate and recognize a link between forest health and their own livelihoods.

• Sense of ownership – as a result of massive sensitization measures, campaigns, joint programmes and

collaborative approaches to project activities, community members now share a sense of ownership of the project.

• Enthusiasm – beneficiaries are enthusiastic about the project on two fronts, its activities and the CIF

component. There are, however, some misgivings about whether the level of CIF support can sustain community members and keep them away from the forest forever.

• In terms of overall achievements, it is evident that the HFBCP is perceived to be a roaring success; with

almost 90% of all respondents indicating that the HFBCP is achieving its objectives. • The cross tabulation analysis by districts showed that in terms of percentages, Somanya had the highest

positive responses; followed by Winneba, Nkawie, Tarkwa, Enchi, and Asankragwa. Conversely, Takoradi had the most negative responses, followed by Begoro.

• The sectoral cross tabulation analysis of the respondents’ perceptions by GSBA also showed that the

GSBA with the highest number of positive responses was Fure Headwaters, followed by Sapawsu, Abasomba, Akrabong and Obotomfo. In addition, several GSBAs indicated zero negative responses; Yongwa, Yogaga, Akrabong, Sapawsu, Aboben, Abasomba, Ahirasu I, Ahirasu II and Ndumfri. However, two GSBAs had particularly high numbers of negative responses; Atewa, where there were more negative responses than positive; and Cape Three Points, where 70% of all respondents thought the project had not achieved its objectives.

• The introduction of GSBAs and PPAs has undoubtedly, brought many changes into the lives of the

communities that fringe these reserves. A majority of them note that the overall effects on their individual livelihoods as well as the economic lives of their communities have been positive. However, there is also the recognition that some community members have suffered some hardships which could be characterized as economic.

• It is also quite clear that community members recognize positive trends across the broad spectrum of

elements that have traditionally been the bane of forest reserves. Over 70% of community sees a decreasing trend in farming, clearing and burning in the GSBAs; 86% indicate a decreasing trend in

39

accidental fires in GSBAs; 83% say that the trend of game hunting in GSBAs is decreasing; 50% think that the trend of timber exploitation in the GSBAs is decreasing. In contrast, only about 20% of respondents indicate that the trend of mining activities in the GSBA is decreasing; in fact, about 30% say that the trend has remained the same; 64% of respondents say the trend in the production of NTFP in the GSBAs is increasing.

• It is universally recognized that the HFBCP has also engaged in activities that have improved the health

of GSBAs, PPAs and sacred grooves as well as on flora and fauna. Indeed, the picture painted of the health of the GSBAs, PPAs, sacred grooves, etc is that, the project interventions have had a positive impact along a number of indicators; forest canopies have thickened, vegetation has become denser, animal populations have increased and water bodies seem fuller for longer periods.

• The CIF and the reasons for its establishment are widely known with about 93% of beneficiaries

characterizing it as a ‘good thing’. Whilst it has brought many benefits, community members also complained about problems like delays in accessing loans, delays in withdrawals, complicated structuring of loan disbursements, inadequate funds for business groups in general, inadequate funds for specific businesses that seek to expand and meet other costs and high interest rates.

• Regarding the benefits that communities might have derived from the HFBCP, the respondents list

several. The top listed benefit was ‘benefit of equipment and goods such as boots, cutlasses, raincoats, etc’; followed by ‘earning some income’, ‘CIF funds’, ‘improved knowledge base of facilitators and implementers’, and ‘job creation.’ However, some 10% of respondents indicated that they had reaped no benefit from the project. According to the cross tabulation analysis by district and benefit type, Winneba district indicated access to CIF funds and benefit of equipment/goods such as boots, cutlasses, raincoats, etc’ as its top two benefits; for Enchi district, it was improvement in the knowledge base of facilitators and implementers; Somanya also mentioned benefit of equipment/goods such as boots, cutlasses, etc as its number one; whilst for Tarkwa, it was earning some income. Asankragwa had the highest number of respondents who felt they had gained no benefit from the project; followed by Tarkwa. These must however, be set in context because on the whole, about 90% of the respondents were unequivocal in their perception that the HFBCP had benefited them.

• The cross tabulation analysis of the benefits of the HFPCB by GSBA and benefit type shows that Fure

Headwaters had the most responses followed by Sapawsu, Abasomba, Akrabong, Aboben, Obotomfo and Yogaga. Of this lot, Sapawsu had the highest number of responses for one benefit type, ‘benefit of equipment/goods such as boots, cutlasses, raincoats, etc,’ followed by Yogaga and Aboben. Conversely, Fure Headwaters, with the most respondents overall, also recorded the highest number of respondents who felt they had gained no direct benefit from the project.

• In addition to the overall findings, sectoral analysis of different groups of beneficiaries was also made and

these are also presented as follows: Challenges Faced by Community Members

• They do not have a project plan of their own • They are unaware of the time-table for some project activities • It seems the CBAGs wield all the power at the community level • They would like increased consultation at the grassroots • Information on status of project activities in their individual communities • Controlling illegal farming, lumbering and logging • Controlling illegal mining

40

• Inadequate logistics for CBAGs • The CIF process is fraught with problems • Initial misconception about CIF being grants and not loans • Difficulty in forming viable business groups • Difficulty in qualifying as a business group • Bureaucratic processes at banks • Delays in accessing loans • Delays in withdrawals • Complicated structuring of loan disbursements • Inadequate funds for business groups in general • Inadequate funds for specific businesses that seek to expand and meet other costs • Variability of interest rates • Inadequate access to and lack of sustainability of extension services provided by

MOFA to communities engaged in various livelihood schemes • Inadequate skills training in particular businesses leading to knowledge gaps in

operations • Lack of a ready market for the produce of some business groups • Impact of natural disasters • Death of livestock • Theft of animals and fish from ponds • Poor environmental conditions • Unique problems

a. Interpersonal clashes between business group members b. Opportunistic tendencies of influential community members c. Jealousies directed at successful business group members by other

community members d. Apathy of community members who are non-beneficiaries of CIF

towards other project activities

Challenges Faced by Key Informants CIF Management issues

• Transparency – the beneficiaries of the CIF do not seem to be aware of how decisions are being taken

• Participation – the extent to which beneficiaries are involved in the management of the CIF • Pre-appraisals – how extensively were project gestation periods done before the selection of

businesses • Appraisals – how comprehensive and realistic were business plans • Integrity – the extent to which the system is being abused • Allocation – were some business groups disadvantaged from the start as a result of the quantum

needed to commence operations? • Sustainability – the degree and extent of project outputs being maintained after project closure

41

CIF Service Delivery Issues

• Quantum of resources – actual disbursements made • Technical knowledge – availability of appropriate skills training and capacity building for

business group members • Start-up vs. sustainability – training emphasis not only at initiation stage but during

implementation to ensure sustainability • Acceptability – whether all applications were considered irrespective of nature of business • Good faith – capacity and willingness of business groups to repay loans

Perception and Analysis of the Impact of the HFBCP – By Observation This subsection presents the findings pertaining to the perceptions and impact of the HFBCP by observation through interactions with all categories of beneficiaries: CBAG members, community members, community institutions, focus groups, banks and business groups. The observations noted include:

• Enthusiasm – beneficiaries were enthusiastic about the project on two fronts, its activities and the CIF component. There were some misgivings about whether the level of CIF support could sustain community members and keep them away from the forest forever

• Awareness creation – there exists an enormous awareness of the need to protect the forest and a willingness to do so as the community members recognize a link between forest health and their own livelihoods

• Sense of ownership – community members’ readiness to engage project team on issues of concern to them

• Sense of helplessness – community members and business groups perceived the banks as unwanted interlocutors. The community was informed that there was money ‘coming’ and then they have to apply to banks. Why can’t FSD pay them the money directly?

• Lack of commitment – community members perception of banks as shylocks who have no interest in their wellbeing except to collect money – which is not the bank’s anyway

• Demands – community members’ expectation of additional project financial support • Expectations – initial views that CIF was grant and not loan • False hopes – community members thought CIF was compensation for their lands • Superiority complex – some bank officials had little regard for community members • Unprofitability – some banks felt CIF business was forced on them and were reluctant to offer

advice and generally help business groups to thrive and be profitable • Apartheid - some banks treated CIF borrowers as a different breed of customer – troublesome and

unprofitable • Poor housekeeping – poor monitoring of loans and businesses by some banks • Lack of Experience – some community members had no experience in business planning and

access to market, etc. • Lack of perseverance – some community members too willing to blame everything on ‘bad luck’

and ‘leaving everything to God’ • Reservations – community members’ fears about

a. Skills shortfalls in certain technical areas b. The perceived unwillingness of RCBs to transact business with rural communities c. Pressure to abandon pet projects

42

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing conclusions and challenges and particularly in view of the fact that the project has come to an end, the following recommendations are made:

• Establishment of an exit strategy for the project which addresses issues like a. Overall sustainability of the project b. Embedding and mainstreaming successes so that they can be carried forwards c. A sustainability plan for the provision of logistics for CBAGs

• Improving and streamlining the CIF process • Improved sensitization about concept of CIF as a revolving fund which can only be sustained

with prompt repayments

• Pre-appraisals and appraisals for business group formation and businesses should be strengthened with targeted training initiatives

• Access to loan, withdrawals and disbursements should be streamlined

• CIF should accommodate the need for additional loans for business expansion

• Issues of sustainability of the businesses should be seriously tackled

• RCB project officers should be trained to offer more support and treat community members as

clients not pariahs

• Agencies identified as support groups should be up-and-doing (MOFA, etc)

• Businesses must be helped with their market accessibility and availability issues

• Community members must be trained and prepared for the vicissitudes of the cash economy

• Transparency – the processes of the CIF must be more transparent. The CFMCs should make more efforts to inform their stakeholders of what is happening at all times

• Participation – the membership/complexity of the CFMC must be looked at again. The committee

is not an end. Rather it is a means to an end so its target beneficiaries must see that it is working for them and seeking their welfare at all times

• Pre-appraisals and appraisals of business plans must be more comprehensive and realistic and

must be done thoroughly.

• CIF loans must be fit for the purpose and the quantum of resources must support the businesses planned for

• Interest rates should be standardized for all beneficiary communities.

• Technical knowledge – appropriate skills training and capacity building for business group

members must be more readily available and targeted

43

• Issues of market access and general marketing of especially agricultural produce must be

seriously addressed

• Good faith – community members must be sensitized on the concept of borrowing and repaying to keep the revolving idea going

There is a need to monitor the banks for better services to their clients.

44

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results (if any) NA

45

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower’s ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Project Background The High Forest Biodiversity Conservation Project (HFBCP) of Ghana was funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as a supplementary project to the Ghana Natural Resources Management Program (NRMP). The project sought to develop and promote community involvement in the management of the Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBAs) for ecological security of threatened tropical moist forest ecosystems. The project was implemented by the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines (MLFM) from April 1999 to June 2007. As part of the Credit Agreement, this evaluation was compiled as part of the project completion reports.

The report was compiled by a team of independent consultants and the staff of the Project Management Unit. The main method of collecting data was through desk review of project reports, interviews with key stakeholders and field observations from 22 GSBAs in all the ecological zones.

Findings The review of the project implementation has revealed that in general the project has achieved significant results particularly at the outcome level. The following were the significant findings: 1. The project has mainstreamed biodiversity conservation in conventional forest management practices and enhanced the ecological security of globally significant biological resources, within the threatened tropical moist forest ecosystems. The implementation of the project has enhanced biodiversity conservation within multiple-use production forest through the exclusion of critical habitats from logging. The project identified and demarcated 42 Provenance Protection Areas within production forests and pillared 30 GSBA totalling 130,000 ha. There is a process to enact legislation for the permanent protection of these GSBA. 2. A system for monitoring and evaluating the distribution and status of rare, threatened and endemic species in the forest reserves has been created to enhance biodiversity protection within multiple-use production forests. 3. The implementation of the project has generated global environmental benefits which has contributed to the attainment of the three objectives of the Convention of Biodiversity (CBD) i.e. the conservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of its component; and fair equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. This has reduced the loss of biodiversity in the country. 4. The implementation of the project has provided a safe haven for 291 different bird species representing 48 families. Four globally threatened species – Baumann’s Greenbul (Phyllastrephus baumani), Green-tailed Bristlebill (Bleda eximia); Rofous-winged Illadopsis (Illadopsis rufescens) at Subri and Yellow-bearded Greenbul (Criniger oliveraceus) are fully protected within the GSBA. The project has led to the protection of first schedule species of Ghana’s wholly protected species (endangered species). This has increased the ecological security of globally significant biological resources, especially within threatened arid and semi-arid, forest and mountain ecosystems. 5. The formation of Community Biodiversity Advisory Groups (CBAGs) has institutionalized the involvement of local communities in natural resource management and enhanced off-reserve landscape

46

management especially in the management of woodlots, sacred groves and fruit trees in the dry marginal forest areas. A new civil society which is active in sustainable forest management and which act as a pressure group on resource service providers are emerging at community levels. The project developed adaptive strategies that have improved community voice in decision-making and resource management including their rights and responsibilities. The communities have been given a voice and space for participation in resource management and improved access to, and transparency of, information on natural resource management in the country World Bank Performance The Bank was flexible and adaptable in its lending approaches. During the lending phase, the Bank agreed to extend the programme completion date twice to enable the programme meet its development objectives. The Bank allowed re-allocation of funds to implement certain activities. The Bank’s Implementation Support Missions were constant and on schedule. Although, they turned to act as supervisors and examiners in some cases, instead of partners, the actions agreed upon at the end of the missions greatly helped to steer the programme to achieve the desired outputs. The Task Team Leader at the Banks office in Accra provided technical back-stopping to the implementation process. At various stages in the project implementation, the World Bank staff carried out a number of missions to monitor and assess the project performance. The table 2.1 summarizes the number of missions conducted by the World Bank during the project implementation, the personalities involved and performance rating from the Government perceptive. The project devised a reporting system to monitor implementation of project activity and output achievements from community levels through district, regional, and national levels. Data collected were aggregated at District and Regional levels and forwarded to the project Headquarters for the preparation of quarterly reports. An electronic version of M & E system was designed and installed at district and regional offices which were used for data aggregation. This reporting system provided the opportunity to establish databases for biodiversity conservation monitoring and generated a lot of data on the biodiversity condition of the GSBAs in the country. It also built the capacity of the Forestry Commission staff including the Managers and the Range Supervisors in project management and resource management. These processes allowed the beneficiary communities to participate in the project monitoring and evaluation. The project developed adaptive strategies that have empowered communities in decision-making and resource management including their rights and responsibilities. Government Performance The performance of the Ghana Government in the release of counterpart funds was satisfactory. The MFLM managed to secure funding from other local sources to match the donor funds thus enabling the programme to meet its development objectives. The project management complied with the credit agreements and programme accounts were audited regularly. A Project Coordination Unit (PCU) was established, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister in charge of forestry of the MLFM. The overall responsibility for project administration, procurement and financial management and coordination rested on the Project Management Team which was headed by the Technical Director in charge of Forestry of the MLFM. The project partnered with various Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) during the implementation of the project activities. Among these NGOs were the Ghana Wildlife Society, Friends of Rivers and Water

47

Bodies, Ecological Restoration, and ASNAPP. These NGOs were involved in community education and awareness creation, training of community groups’ project management and conflict resolution. The project also engaged the services of financial institutions to nurture rural entrepreneurs in the development of Alternative Livelihood Activities through banking and financial intermediation. The ARB Apex Bank, disbursed US$2.53 million to participating rural and community banks for on-lending to project beneficiaries. The respective rural banks are helping to cultivate the habit of savings and improve on their financial literacy level. The academia was also involved in the project implementation. Zypher Consult of the University of Ghana Business School was contracted to develop Monitoring and Evaluation framework and an electronic tracking system for the project. Focal persons were selected and trained in the application of the system. The faculty of Renewable Natural Resources of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) was contracted to conduct Flora and fauna surveys of all the GSBAs. The Centre for Biodiversity Utilization and Development also at KNUST was engage in capacity development in small business enterprises and hand-on-demonstration of biodiversity utilization for various business groups. LESSONS LEARNED

• The implementation of the project has created catalytic effects and has demonstrated the need to combine poverty alleviation and environmental concerns by investing in activities that will try to achieve tangible and immediate poverty alleviation through a more sustainable, or a less unsustainable use of the natural resource base.

• Any strategy intervention that wishes to introduce a change from unsustainable to sustainable

utilization must contain four basic, inter-linked, and interrelated services, namely: :

1 Financial incentives or investment opportunities for civil society to engage in improved natural resources management that result in tangible poverty alleviation in the short and medium term

2 Extension/training/awareness creation 3 Regulatory and conducive legal framework 4 Effective implementation of the legal framework

• The formulation and implementation of biodiversity conservation management plans as well as

the implementation of alternative livelihood activities and the budgetary allocations to the Regional and District Forestry office on biodiversity issues demonstrate the existence and sustainability strategies put in place by the project.

Recommendations a). Project implementation approach

• Future biodiversity conservation project should have a comprehensive flexible logical framework with clear targets which could be used to assess project performance and adapt to changing conditions and build partnership in the implementation arrangement. The recipient through the logical framework should adapt to changes and adopt new strategies that can help achieve the project objectives without waiting for joint Implementation Support Missions with the donors before decisions on change could be effected.

48

b) Documentation and knowledge management

• Biodiversity project should device means of ensuring continuous documentation and sharing of information. All data generated and lessons learnt should be shared not only with the technicians but also with the local communities who are the custodians and users of the resources. Future projects should consider knowledge generation and dissemination as part of the project management activities and not as a by-product.

c.) Stakeholder participation

• Stakeholder participation in project management should be well defined at all levels including consultation processes, information gathering sharing and dissemination. The participation of the civil society organization are very essential for project success, therefore project document should spell out the level of their involvement.

49

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders NA

50

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

• Project Implementation Plan • Project Appraisal Document for Ghana: Natural Resource Management Project dated

May 15, 1998 (Report No: 17879) • Aide Memoires, Back-to-Office Reports, and Implementation Status Reports. • Project Progress Reports. • Borrower's Evaluation Report dated September 2007

*including electronic files

51

Annex 10 Other Important Information 1 Output Indicators. Some of the output indicators established in 2004 included: Community Biodiversity Advisory Groups (CBAGs) formed in all GSBA fringe communities; Capacity for CBAGs to create awareness on biodiversity conservation in all GSBA fringe communities built; Community Fund Management Committee (CFMC) established in 30 GSBAs; Baseline surveys to identify and classify 30 GSBAs undertaken by PY06; Demarcate, pillar and legally establish 30 GSBAs by PY06; Confirm, demarcate and pillar 42 PPAs by PY08; Baseline socio-economic and biological surveys in all GSBAs completed by PY07; Management plans for 5 whole coverage GSBAs and biodiversity reports for 25 partial GSBAs prepared by PY07; NTFPs (medicinal plans, leaf wrappers, chewing sticks, sponges etc) domesticated; Fruit and tree crops on farms as buffer to GSBAs/SDFs established by PY07; SDFs identified using satellite imagery and baseline surveys by PY06; SDFs demarcated, pillared and legally established by PY07; Fire protection program including a green firebreak developed and implemented for SDFs by PY07; Baseline surveys for the establishment of Community Investment Fund (CIF) completed by PY06; Consultation and awareness raising on CIF within GSBAs fringe communities and other stakeholders undertaken by PY07; CIF Implementation Manual prepared and operationalised by PY07.

52

2. Map of Ghana (see above) showing gazetted Forest Reserves and Protected Areas

53

3. Table 1. Details of the total GSBAs that has been constituted and gazetted under the project.

Name of GSBA GSBA Area (ha)

Abasumba 100 Ahirasu I & II 100 Akrabong 300 Obotomfo 200 Cape Three Points 2,000 Neug North 2,688 Neug South 7,304 Ndumfri 3,768 Fure headwaters 2,304 Fure River 4,736 Aboben Hills 700 Bandai Hills 1,403 Boin River 7,552 Boin Tano 6,450 Dadieso 17,100 Disue River 2,400 Draw River 12,800 Yoyo River 5,062 Ebi Shelter 2,600 Yogaga 100 Jema Asemkrom 2,048 Tano Nimri 3,456 Tano Offin 10,752 Atewa 23,200 Apedwa 400 Sapawsu 1,513 Subri River 5,120 Krokosua Hills 3,200 Southern Scarp 10 Yongwa 640

TOTAL AREA 130,006

4. Challenges and Issues (i) The GSBAs and forest biodiversity in Ghana are currently facing some challenges. For example, in Ghana, currently it is well known that mining prospecting and exploration concessions are being or have been given out in the Atewa forest ranges and there is an ongoing discussion between the Government, environmental agencies and local communities who are asking why the Government is granting bauxite prospecting and exploration concessions in a designated GSBA. Other issues facing GSBAs are problems of illegal chainsaw logging operators. There is a growing demand (3 times the export volumes) for timber and other wood products domestically and this demand is far higher than what eligible timber utilization contract holders are able to supply to the domestic market. Illegal timber harvesting may be a response to meeting the ever-increasing demand for highly priced timber and other wood products on the domestic market, which are unaffordable to most Ghanaians. In collaboration with the Forestry Commission, the project took a number of steps to reduce illicit timber harvesting in the GSBAs. These included:

54

• Deepening and intensifying public awareness and education campaign • Collaborating with communities in the fight against illegal timber harvesting operations by setting

up and empowering CBAGs and Community Forest Management Committees (CFMC) at the community level to patrol on-and off-reserves

• Instituting co-management and co-administration mechanisms and systems by engaging communities in conventional protected area management activities such as boundary cleaning, anti-poaching, patrolling, fire prevention and control, etc. Communities were paid wages for undertaking these assignments

• Establishing social accountability systems by Government insisting that TUC holders seek concurrence from land owners and farm holders when submitting proposals for TUCs

• Government review of the timber rights allocation procedure (ii) Although the methodologies used in this rapid assessment does not support estimation of species densities, medium to large mammal species appear to exist at relatively low densities throughout all the seven GSBAs. A continuous drastic decline in large mammal populations in areas outside of the Wildlife Protection Reserves or National Parks is one of the biodiversity conservation issues. This situation is attributable to the combined effects of habitat loss and the ever increasing hunting pressure fueled by the economically lucrative bushmeat trade. (iii) Another issue of grave concern to the integrity and biodiversity value of the GSBAs is hunting pressure in almost all the seven GSBAs assessed. The high dependence of people in most rural areas on bushmeat for animal protein is such that hunting in most forest reserves and GSBAs may continue to increase with time unless affordable alternative sources of protein are created in these localities. The CBAGs in the fringe communities should be strengthened to prevent commercial hunting from the GSBAs. The intensity of hunting pressure in most GSBAs is such that, the risk of local extinction of some large mammal species is quite real. In areas such as Tano Offin and Atewa, the combination of high hunting pressure, chainsawing and farm encroachments has the potential to erode the high biodiversity values for which they were designated as GSBAs.

5. Table 2. Threatened and rare species populations.

Taxonomic group Critically endangered Endangered

White-napped mangabey (Cercocebus atys lunulatus)

Western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus)

Rolloway monkey (Cercopithecus Diana

rolloway)

Baer wood mouse (Hylomyscus baeri)

Mammal

Miss Waldron red colobus (Procolobus badius

waldroni)

Pohle’s fruit bat (Scotonycteris ophiodon)

Birds Bleda eximia, Criniger olivaeus and Illadopsis

rufescens

Yellow-throated green bulbul, Green-tailed bristle

bill Copper tailedglossy starling

Amphibian 1 5 Plants 3 18

55

6. A total of 92 species of butterflies belonging to nine families were recorded. The nymphalids which are typically associated with forest conditions were the most diverse with 35 species. Sixteen species of Pieridae were encountered with Eurema spp, and Leptosia alcesta being the most abundant Eurema spp usually associated with open spaces in and along fringes of the forest blocks whiles Leptosia spp, is usually encountered in the undergrowths of high canopy forests. 7. With the exception of Tano Offin and Atewa, all the other sites assessed have maintained their habitat integrity, with very minimal physical signs of human disturbances. Habitat conditions at Tano Offin and Atewa have significantly deteriorated through chainsawing and extensive farm encroachments. The implementation of activities of the project along with the various intervention measures such as the micro-credit scheme in the neighboring communities appear to have achieved little in stemming the forest degradation in the Tano Offin and Atewa GSBAs. 8. Rapid unmeasured sampling techniques employed widely in floral surveys in Ghana, was adopted for the survey in the seven GSBAs selected subjectively to represent the forest types: Wet Evergreen, Moist Evergreen, Upland evergreen and Southern Dry forests. The samples sites were chosen in relation to position in landscape e.g. hilly areas, slopes, swamps, riparian strips, etc. Vascular plant species encountered were recorded within the sample unit along existing roads, foot paths etc. Data obtained were analyzed to generate indices of biodiversity measures e.g. Genetic Heat Index (GHI), Economic Index (EI), and Pioneer Index (PI) for assessing the bioquality of the GSBAs using the ‘star rating system’ (Hawthorne, 1996). Other derived parameters such as forest condition score, species richness, relative abundance, and percentage of native and exotic etc. were used to make informed judgments on the vegetation quality.. 9. Baseline information on flora and fauna. Baseline studies were conducted for some critical areas of biodiversity maintenance as shown below: Socio-economic surveys were conducted for forest communities living close to 24 of the GSBAs. All socio-economic survey reports for these GSBAs were useful inputs in the management planning process. They also provided the baseline information that was required for the design of the alternative livelihood investment scheme. Feasibility studies on Ecotourism Potential. The project financed studies to determine potentials of the GSBAs and SDFs for ecotourism development. The studies indicated that most of the sites including Atewa and Apedwa Forest Range, Cape Three Points and the cluster of SDFs could be prime areas for community-based ecotourism development. The project was in touch with the Tourist Board to do an initial assessment and to build the right linkages with the concerned District Assemblies. The initial assessment included identification of caves, possible locations of walk trails, canopy walkways, among others. Aerial survey and videography were effective tools for assessing resource status. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the FC and Conservation International, the latter conducted an aerial survey and videography that covered 22 GSBAs for the establishment of digital database to support management decisions. This was executed and the product of this activity has been installed. Research into modern perspectives of provenance protection. Through inventories conducted in the early 90s by the FSD, some provenance areas that possess a considerable population of scarlet species of some desirable features and characteristics have been identified and these areas have been designated appropriately as PPAs. These areas are to serve as sources of genetic material or gene banks for the sustenance of economically threatened, highly commercial timber species.

56

Floral surveys. Botanical surveys were conducted for all the GSBAs to assess their floral content and also to provide vital knowledge about the vegetation e.g. occurrence and distribution of species of very high conservation priority, such as the black star species. An innovation that resulted from the study was the identification of focal areas, which were, intended as permanent areas within the GSBAs with good documentation of species content, for various purposes e.g. research, ecotourism, etc. Faunal Surveys. An MoU was signed with the Institute of Renewable Natural Resources of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology to conduct faunal surveys for some 24 priority GSBAs. Conservation Strategy for Talbotiella gentii The project through the Environmental Conservation Unit of RMSC and in collaboration with the Department of Botany, University of Ghana formulated a conservation strategy for Talbotiella gentii. The implementation of the strategy was carried out by an NGO, Ecological Restoration, in collaboration with the communities. Great Ape Survival Plan. The project initiated the development of the Great Ape Survival Plan with the Wildlife Division as the supervising agency. A consultant completed a study on targeted primates which was validated at a stakeholder workshop. 10. The CIF process was fraught with the following problems: (i) initial misconception about CIF being grants and not loans; (ii) lack of a ready market for the produce of some business groups; (iii) some unique problems such as: (a) interpersonal clashes between business group members; (b) opportunistic tendencies of influential community members; (c) jealousies directed at successful business group members by other community members; and (d) apathy of community members who are non-beneficiaries of CIF towards other project activities; (iv) some banks had felt that CIF business was forced on them and were reluctant to offer advice and generally help business groups to thrive and be profitable; and (v) poor monitoring of loans and businesses by some banks. There were also a few pockets of discontentment, resulting likely from miscommunication and impatience on the part of community members who could not access the Fund or had some difficulty with the use of the funds.

57

Annex 11: Additional Information (for GEF purposes) 1 Analysis of attainment of global environmental objectives Achievements. The project was successful in achieving its objectives. With the inception of the project, conditions of the forests within the GSBAs located in the four regions within the High Forest Zone; Ashanti, Eastern, Central and Western regions, have improved as a consequence of the sustainable management regimes and enforcement of forest protection and resource conservation rules and regulations. The identification of 30 forest reserves and their exclusion from timber harvesting on the merit of their high significance as biodiversity-rich areas has led to: (a) improved forest regeneration; (b) reduced illegal tree felling and group hunting; (c) significant reduction in the drying up of water bodies. Effective partnership arrangements were established for implementation of the project with relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region. For example, in the course of EIA preparation, twenty-five communities were surveyed, the majority of which were situated adjacent to forest reserves or protected areas. Comments received during the public consultation process were taken into account in producing the final project EIA and the Environmental Management Plan. Lessons learned. During preparation, the project design took into account lessons learned from previous Bank-assisted projects in the forestry sector in Ghana, including: (i) Forest Resource Management Project; (ii) Environmental Resource Management Project; and (iii) Coastal Wetlands Management Project. Logical framework was used during implementation as a management and M&E tool.

For additional information and analysis, please refer to sections 3.2 (Outcome/achievement of objective) and Annex 2 (Outputs by components) of this document. 2 Country ownership and drivenness The project concept was consistent with Ghana’s national, sectoral or development plans, such as the government's natural resource policy embodied in the Forestry and Wildlife Policy and the Forest Development Master Plan (1996-2000). The project was developed by the Government with the active participation of the MLFM, FC and Ministry of Finance. Indicators of government commitment included the preparation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and the Protected Areas Systems Plan, and implementation of the Forest Development Master Plan. The project has been firmly established with institutional and legal structures which will ensure its sustainability. The GSBA sites have been legally constituted and pillared within the broader conservation principles with active stakeholder participation that can produce significant gains for biodiversity conservation as well as the development of rural economies. Overall, the government is interested in ensuring that a bigger portion of the nation is put under conservation and that adequate resources are allocated for maintenance. At the policy level, the government is seriously committed to biodiversity conservation. Government is signatory to a number of global and international conventions and agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, CITES, Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, etc. The Government’s active engagement in the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) Initiative and the current round of negotiations on the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU) for managing forests and timber exploitation in Ghana attests to this commitment.

58

In the first 3-4 years, government commitment was low in terms of adequacy and timely allocation of counterpart funding. After MTR, the Bank changed the expenditure ratio to 100% and the issue of counterpart funding was thus resolved. Government commitment improved considerably in the later part of the project. 3 Stakeholder participation and public involvement (including gender) The project was characterized by a strong participatory approach from the outset. Project preparation included consultation, collaboration, and information sharing with stakeholders and beneficiaries such as cultivators/community groups, intermediary NGOs, academic institutions, local governments, and donors. Project preparation included a number of innovative pilots to involve communities and specifically targeted stakeholder groups (e.g., rural women, youth groups) in harvesting and management of non-timber forest resources, maintenance of boundaries and firebreaks and other revenue-generating enterprises. Personnel of the Ghana Wildlife Society (GWS) and other agencies were consulted on the definition of community education and public awareness components financed by the project, the design of research, monitoring and evaluation procedures, and guidance on implementing community investment components of the project based on the experience gained under the GEF-financed Coastal Wetlands Management Project. 4 Replication approach/potential Areas which have replication potential include the following:

• Community Investment Fund (CIF). This would enable group or individual beneficiaries in beneficiary communities to invest loans contracted under the CIF into setting up alternative income generating ventures at the village level.

• Decision-making and resource management. The approach adopted by the project would

empower community members in natural resource management, such as participation in decision-making and resource management. The formation of the CBAGs would also create a social platform where groups could meet regularly to plan for their communities and undertake social activities aimed at helping one another in the society.

5 Monitoring and evaluation M&E Design. The M&E portion of the project was very weak at the design stage. The PAD had indicated that M&E would be undertaken by the Project Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation Department (PPMED) of the MLFM. Some of the problems related to M&E in this project were: (i) No baseline studies (matrix of indicators and levels of monitoring). (ii) No M&E system in place at appraisal. (iii) Technically competent officers lacked hands-on training in M&E and administrative guidance. M&E implementation. In 2004 the project contracted the University of Ghana Business School to develop a comprehensive electronic tracking system for monitoring and evaluation. The M&E system used the logical framework with a comprehensive matrix of output indicators (See 1, Annex 10 for details), and activity-output-impact linkages which provided a conceptual framework for both impact evaluation and performance monitoring. The framework established a baseline indicator for evaluation and ensured that the project deliverables were clearly linked to the expected results, and clearly specified impact indicators and their measurements. A reporting system to monitor implementation of project activity and output achievements from community levels through to district regional and national levels. Data collection was at the district and regional levels whilst aggregation using ACCESS software was done at the regional level and forwarded to the project headquarters.

59

M&E utilization. Appropriate data collected by the FC were used for formulating decisions and resource allocation in the sector and to guide overall project and sector development. For example, M&E data were used for finalizing collaborative resource management policy for the country. The M&E system for the project has now been adopted as the building block of the FC. 6 Cost Effectiveness The project did not lend itself to conventional economic and financial analyses since no monetary value can be placed on species and ecosystem conservation. However, the project outcome is deemed efficient based on the project’s following outcomes.

• biodiversity management is now fully integrated into the core business planning of the FC. • awareness on the importance, willingness and need to protect forest by community members has

been high as they now appreciate and recognize a link between forest health and their own livelihoods.

• biodiversity issues have been incorporated into national processes, including the current Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy-GPRS II.

• communities, traditional leaders and District Assemblies are now involved in natural resource management, monitoring and coordination of environmental protection and improvement of activities at district and community levels

• through the livelihood support program the project has promoted positive relationship between economic development and natural resource conservation within the rural economies. This has made environmental quality a key element in supporting rural economic and social development in the forest regions.

• A sense of ownership of the project as a result of massive sensitization measures, campaigns, joint programs and collaborative approaches to project activities has been created.

7. Financial Planning/Costs

Components Appraisal Estimate (US$)

Actual/Latest Estimate (US$)

Civil works 669,230.8 611,791.99 Goods (including vehicles and equipment) 803,076.9 1,002,948.66 Consultant’s Services and training 2,476,153.8 3,128,172.81 Sub grants under ALIF (Part 5 of the project) 2,476,153.8 2,529,957.33 Incremental operating Cost 1,338,461.5 1,427,129.21 Unallocated 936,923.1 - TOTAL ESTIMATES 8,700,000 8,700,000

Note: The Borrower did not have the project cost by component since that was not the mechanism used by its project team. So the cost is calculated by categories.

60

GHANA MAP