Project Brief Identifiers



Download 0.93 Mb.
Page4/8
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size0.93 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

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



Annex 1 a: Project Design Summary


BURKINA FASO: Sahel Integrated Lowland Ecosystem Management



Hierarchy of Objectives

Key Performance Indicators

Data Collection Strategy


Critical Assumptions

Sector-related CAS Goal:

Sector Indicators:

Sector/ country reports:

(from Goal to Bank Mission)

Reduce poverty by

supporting opportunities

for employment and income-generating activities for the poor, and by increasing the productivity of rural assets (labor and land) through the conservation and renewal of natural resources (pages 13,14,18).


Incidence of rural poverty (percent of rural population)

- Rural employment

- Rural income

- Labor productivity

- Land productivity

- Rate of deterioration of natural resources

(National natural resources account indicators)


- Country poverty profile

- Annual UNDP report

- Annual Statistics

- Country Monitoring

(Projects M&E reports)


- Political stability

- Adequate resources availability and successful implementation of Government’s plans and strategies



Program Purpose:

End-of-Program Indicators:

Program reports:

(from Purpose to Goal)

Sustainable mitigation and alleviation of poverty and vulnerability of rural communities by conserving and improving their natural resource base, particularly in the lowland areas of the Sahel.


- Increase in average rural income and particularly in the income of the rural poor and decline in inter-annual rural income variation;


- Program Monitoring and Evaluation Reports, Impact studies and Beneficiaries assessment in particular


- No severe drought or other agro-climatic catastrophe and stress factors


Program Phasing:
Phase 1: Initiation and pilot testing of local IEM capacity building and of local/regional IEM investments in 100 villages;

Phase 2: Confirmation and implementation of IEM local capacity building and investment mechanisms in 200 additional villages;

Phase 3: Consolidation and expansion of local IEM capacity building and local investment mechanisms in 300 additional villages


-Increase in average crop and livestock yields per hectare and per day of work;

-Increase in land surface with improved soil and water management infrastructure and sustainable agricultural practices as adopted by rural communities;

- Proportion of rural communities with integrated ecosystem management plans under implementation
- Decrease in land conflicts (crop growers versu pastoralists, landlords via tenants)
- Positive changes in biological diversity indicators at ecosystem, species and genetic level.

-Decrease in vulnerability to climate change factors (drought) and increase in use of suitable adaptation measures

-Positive changes in soil restoration parameters (declining erosion/soil loss, acidification, salinity, etc.)

-Improved quality of international waters and protection of their shared basins

-Strengthened policy and legal framework for integrated ecosystem management


- National agricultural statistics reports
- Agricultural technology adoption studies



- Support to public and private technology development and transfer systems maintained and improved






GEF Operational Program:










OP12 on Integrated Ecosystem Management

Measurable changes in biological diversity, in particular agro-biodiversity

increase in soil carbon sequestration,

decrease in vulnerability to climate change land restoration and

protection of international waters



Project Reports

Monitoring and Evaluation Impact Results


National and international environment assessment reports

Local, national and global environmental

concerns are internalized by central and

local governments as well as by local

communities in their decision-making

processes


Global Objective:

Outcome / Impact Indicators:

Project reports:

(from Objective to Purpose)

To generate multiple global

environmental benefits such as:



Positive changes in biological diversity indicators, particularly agro-biodiversity indicators;

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation reports, in particular environmental effects and impact studies

Environmental effects and impact of the program can be identified, are significant enough and can be measured

(a) rehabilitation of soil and water resources to stop and reverse desertification

Use of adaptation measures to decrease vulnerability to climate change








(b) increase in carbon storage capacity and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, decrease in vulnerability to climate change

Decline in greenhouse gas emission in rural areas;







(c) conservation and rehabilitation of biodiversity, agro-biodiversity in particular, by supporting favorable changes in ecosystem management patterns and technology adoption in the targeted region in the medium to long-term;

Positive changes in soil restoration parameters (declining erosion/soil loss, acidification, salinity, etc.);







(d) stop and reverse to some extent the deterioration of the Volta and Comoe international waters

Carbon sequestration in the soils (increase in organic matter content of soils); Improved quality of International waters increase in protection of shared basins.









Hierarchy of Objectives

Key Performance Indicators

Data Collection Strategy

Critical Assumptions

Output from each Component:

Output Indicators:

Project reports:

(from Outputs to Objective)

1- IEM Capacity Building

- The capacity of local communities and of local and central governments to understand, plan, request, finance and implement IEM investments, and to undertake integrated ecosystem management (IEM) activities , with potential global benefits, is strengthened


At least 60 percent of the villages targeted in the first phase have an IEM component (or land & water use plan) in their local development plans, and the latter includes at least one integrated ecosystem management (IEM) goal.
IEM committees exist in at least 60 percent of the villages targeted during the first phase, they have received some capacity building support and have demonstrated some capacity to successfully mobilize resources, plan and implement IEM activities.
National and global IEM action plans have been publicized through workshops and media activities at the national level and in at least half of the regions where the projects intervention sites are located
At least one IEM policy forum is active at the national or regional level and at least one policy reform is being negotiated or adopted
Information on sustainable IEM financing is available to at least half of the village communities targeted during the first phase and north-south partnership contracts are being at least negotiated by 5 communities


Local integrated development plans (including local IEM plans)
M&E Reports and surveys
CVGT annual activities and budget reports


Government maintains its support to decentralized rural development
There are no major constraints to the design of IEM plans and to the formulation of local integrated development plans
IEM concerns are relatively high priority-concerns for the communities
financial resources are available in a timely and efficient manner

















2- Local IEM investments
A series of Local and regional IEM investments and studies, with potential local and global environmental and economic benefits are carried out to supplement classic IEM investments of CBRDP or PNDRD in 600 sites

At least 60 percent of the villages or village clusters targeted during the first phase have successfully carried out at least one IEM investment;
At least one regional IEM research or study has been carried out per region targeted in the first phase
At least 10 percent of villages targeted in the first phase have adopted or are beginning to adopt IEM approaches or techniques for production and IEM

Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation reports
Annual Reports of the Service Providers

Local financial institutions are available to channel effectively and efficiently the local investment funds to the communities
Corruption or ineligible use of funds are absent or limited, so that the funds are mostly used for their designated purposes
IEM concerns are relatively high priority-concerns for the communities
financial resources are available in a timely and efficient manner

3. Land Tenure Security
Land use contracts are effective between temporary land users and landlords or land priests, particularly for lowlands. Land identification . negotiation and conflict resolution mechanisms are in place.

At least one land use contract is successfully agreed upon and signed with official local government seal in 60 percent of the villages targeted during the first phase.


At least 60 percent of the villages targeted during the first phase (Project) have access to at least one land identification, negotiation and conflict resolution unit or mechanism.
At least 50 percent of lowland temporary users express a greater sense of land security

Provincial PCU reports


CVGT annual activities and budget reports
Service providers activity reports
Results of beneficiaries assessments
Other Project M&E reports

Land ownership and land use issues are not too sensitive issues that could lead to social or political unrest in the villages if addressed by the project


Modern land use contracting is compatible with the traditional land tenure system
A minimum local technical capacity for land identification, measurement and conflict resolution is in place
local governments institutions exist and are sufficiently equipped to deal with land issues

4. Program Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation
Administrative Staff, supplies and infrastructure are in place to effectively and efficiently facilitate Project implementation

A well functioning information system in place and effectively used for project management, internal and external monitoring and evaluation


A well functioning Environmental and Social Impact Assessment unit for sub-projects is in place


Annual activities and budgets executed as planned in at least 60 percent of cases
Time lag between CVGT contract and disbursement of investment fund less than 30 days in at least 60 percent of cases
At least 60 percent of service providers contracts satisfactorily completed within the given time and budget frame
Administrative cost of local investments below 30 percent in at least 50 percent of cases
Internal M&E system in place and adequately staffed and equipped
External M&E effectively carried out by CONAGESE at least once during the first phase
M&E data base in place, functioning and well maintained
Ex-post environmental effect and impact studies effectively carried out
A prototype of the national natural resources accounting system has been designed

PCU Administrative and financial reports

Basic staff competence and training are adequate
No counter productive government intervention in the PCU's coordination activities
No social or political unrest within the Project staff availability of adequate number of service providers and of local contractors to perform works




























Hierarchy of Objectives

Key Performance Indicators

Data Collection Strategy


Critical Assumptions

Project Components / Sub-components:

Inputs: (budget for each component)

Project reports:

(from Components to Outputs)

(1) Capacity building (local and institutional)
Support to extra-ordinary IEM Governance bodies

Creation of IEM enabling environment

IEM information, education and communication

Sustainable IEM financing capacity building




(US$,000,000) % of total

2.0 44.4


PCU and CVGT Annual activities and budget reports




(2) Local Investment Funds
Village investment funds

Regional IEM research and applied studies fund





1.8 40.0








(3) Land Tenure security support

0.2 4.4







(4) Project Coordination ,Administration, Monitoring and Evaluation

0.3 6.7







Price Contingencies

0.2 4.4



















Annex 1 b Related World Bank Programs Activity Comparison and Differentiation Matrix


CBRDP

Community Based Rural Development Program

BASE PROGRAM


SILEM

Sahel Integrated Lowland Ecosystem Management Program

INCREMENTAL PROGRAM


PAGEN

National Natural

Ecosystem Management

Program


Funding and Focus







Donors: IDA & Others (IFAD and Bilateral donors)

Focus: Decentralization Support, Poverty Reduction & IEM

Donor: GEF

Focus: Multi-focal (desertification/land restoration, biodiversity, agro-biodiversity, climate change, international waters) OP12, OP13
Blended within CBRDP

Donor: GEF

Focus: Biodiversity , OP1
Stand-alone project

Intervention Zone







Nationwide,

2000 villages in Phase 1

2000 villages in Phase 2


Nationwide with priority for the Sahel

- 100 villages or lowland sites in Phase 1

- 200 villages or lowland sites in Phase 2

including sites around Government- protected natural habitats



Inside natural wildlife

habitats officially protected by the Government, in

particular 4 wildlife conservation units across

the country



Capacity Building

(local and institutional capacity)




Administrative, political and fiscal decentralization capacity building for local governments and rural communities:
Local capacity building
Awareness raising on project objectives, regrouping of villages into "terroirs" , establishment of village land management committees :CVGT and CIVGT

CVGT/CIVGT training program (organizational management and sub- project management, HIV/AIDS training and awareness)

Technical support to community organizations (support to CVGT and CAS for carrying out annual investment plans)
Institutional Capacity Building
Training of field operators/service providers

Support to Government administrative decentralization institutions at provincial, regional and national levels



Capacity building of rural communities , of their service providers and of the public and national institutions at large for rational planning of Integrated Ecosystem Management, so as to induce preventive measures, such as sustainable land use intensification of some cultivated areas, to protect natural habitats (officially protected by Government, traditionally protected by communities, unclassified but important and deserve protection)
Local and institutional capacity building

Integrated ecosystem management planning with communities, using GIS database

Support to specific extra-ordinary IEM associations, committees or clubs with potential positive global environment impact (desertification mitigation committees, endangered medicinal plants conservation clubs, endangered crop species and wildlife conservation clubs, international rivers protection clubs, etc.);

Creation of IEM enabling environment with the IEM Policy Forum to propose and implement policy reforms in areas of (i) land tenure security, (ii) access to fertilizers & crop-livestock integration, (iii) incentives for time-lagged IEM benefits, (iv) support national land and water management policy formulation

IEM information, education and communication for: (i) dissemination of national environment/IEM strategies and action plans, (ii) preservation and dissemination of indigenous knowledge on environment and IEM, (iii) dissemination and transfer of IEM technology information (research results), (iv) capacity building for IEM policy dialogue and for natural resource conflict prevention and resolution;

Sustainable IEM/Environment financing capacity building with: (i) South-North IEM financing partnership skills building and support to facilitation office (ii) development of local IEM/ Environment financing mechanisms

Training for all the above


Capacity building of

Government forest service

agents and of peripheral communities of officially

protected natural wildlife

habitats for interventions

within the protected areas


National capacity building

to support decentralized management of protected

areas (forestry department)

Support to project scientific and steering committees

Establish anti-poaching unit in DGEF (Water and Forestry Directorate)

Training and awareness of

DGEF staff

Studies and workshops for

legal reforms

National information system on conservation

Contribute to wildlife census
Local capacity building to manage protected areas

Technical assistance to

conservators and concessionaires

Training of staff, partners services, villagers, AGEREF associations

(nat. res. & wildlife) with respect

to conservation of protected areas

Diagnostics and studies for each

protected area

materialize limits of protected areas

Prepare and implement

management plans

Key policy reform

Reform of the Forestry Code



Local Investment Funds

(LIF)




LIF finance public good- social, economic and IEM investments
Village and inter-village investment window
soil and water conservation

Reforestation, forest management

structural support for improving animal husbandry

structural support for improving agricultural production

Water supply infrastructure

Feeder road improvement/ infrastructure

Social and economic infrastructure

Renewable energy

Nutrition and health education

AIDS/HIV prevention and mitigation activities

Support for expansion of network of decentralized financial institutions

Training and action research


Provincial window

Large infrastructure projects at provincial level

forest management

pastoral management

socio-economic infrastructures


LIF provides initial financial support to supplemental public and private good- investments to increase local and global environmental benefits and sustainability of CBRDP's public good investments:
Village and inter-village investment window
Investment in IEM planning tools (maps, etc.)

Investment in conservation agriculture or zero-tillage to improve land restoration (live fencing to protect no-till fields, seeds of cover crops, no-till tools and equipment, etc.);

Investment in bio-pesticides (acquisition of materials and equipment)

Investment in agro-biodiversity (seeds of endangered crop species and varieties, multiplication and distribution)

Investment in endangered medicinal plants diversification or domestication

Investment in endangered wildlife, fish and aquatic animals diversification or domestication

Investment to protect non-officially protected natural habitats (holy forests)

Seed money for IEM revolving funds, credit lines and credit guarantee funds

Investment in agricultural production related clean-, low-emission energy saving equipment and infrastructure (e.g., bio-gas pits combined with compost pits, etc.)

Technical assistance and training for all the above


Multi-level research and studies window

studies and action research to support all the above at local, regional and national levels


LIF can also support the top priority IEM sub-project of the local development plan, eligible under CBRDP and useful for global environment, when the CBRDP envelope is insufficient to fund it.



There is no Local Investment Fund

Land Tenure Security







Pilot land tenure security operation in six test sites representing principal systems of land use and ownership problems.

Mechanisms for land tenure security in all areas (uplands, lowlands, forests, rivers) to be developed



Improvement of land tenure security in lowlands at project intervention sites that are outside of CBRDP pilot sites. Focus on land contracts between lowland lords and the poor, and on land conflict prevention/ resolution mechanisms for the poor.

No Land tenure Security

Component






Program Coordination,

Administration, Monitoring and

Evaluation

Support to:

1. the Coordination office/forum of the overall PNDRD

2. Coordination and Management of CBRDP

3. Program and Project Monitoring and Evaluation, including:

real-time monitoring of physical and financial execution of the Project

technical and financial audits of the Project

M&E of economic, environmental and institutional impact of the program

1. Same as CBRDP

The Program is like CBRDP under the overall coordination of PNDRD and will provide marginal support to the Coordination of PNDRD, if necessary

2. Same as CBRDP

The Project and CBRDP will have one and same Coordination and Management structure (Steering Committee, PCU) with in addition:

One Project/SILEM Coordinator


The Project and PRONAGEN have CONAGESE as member of their Steering Committees and Coordinator of their scientific and technical committees
3. The Program and the Project will be subject to the same M&E of CBRDP with the following distinctions:

An indigenous IEM-M&E system

A scientific environment effects and impact M&E system

An external M&E coordinated by CONAGESE

An M&E information system

A pilot national natural resources accounting system








  1. The Project has its own distinct

National Steering Committee, Scientific

and Technical Advisory Council,

including CONAGESE


  1. The Project has its own Coordination

and management structure, with one PMU

per protected area


3. Not specified



Annex 1 c: IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO/ FLOW CHART
1. Information is disseminated about national and global environment and natural resources strategies and action plans such as strategies and action plans for combating desertification, for soil fertility management, for biodiversity, agro-biodiversity climate change, international waters, forestry. CONAGES coordinates the development of the training and information modules. Workshops are organized for CBRDP Service providers and policy makers to know and understand the strategies and action plans. Radio, television awareness programs are produced as well as theatrical shows and booklets in local languages.
2. The lowlands across the country are identified and characterized, with assessment of their potential contributions to poverty reduction and to GEF focal points. A national lowland numeric data base (GIS format) is produced. This work is underway by INERA and IGB
3 Lowlands that have the potentials for contributing significantly to local and global environment and to poverty reduction are identified at the provincial level by the PMU in collaboration with CONAGESE, based on the information in the GIS data base and other secondary information. Potential intervention sites are thus selected for the first and second phase (100 and 200 sites respectively) with priority given to lowland sites in the neighborhood of protected natural habitats.
4. Service providers in each province are trained about the list of potential SILEM villages, and also the list of specific potential IEM activities by village or cluster of villages; that could be of interest [ Eligible activities generally defined in the technical manual of procedures]
5.. The incentive package that will help communities take advantage of the information provided is specified (eligible activities, earmarking or not, how low the cost sharing ratio for the communities, etc.). The manual of procedure provides the necessary guidance on the subject and service providers are trained to use it.
6. The service providers at the provincial level are trained as part of CBRD training program to help communities exploit the GIS maps of their terroirs for integrated ecosystem management (IEM), to provide the environment data information to communities and to work with them to make the best use of such information during participatory diagnosis to design their local development (including environmental management) plan;
7.. Prior to participatory diagnosis, local governments, communities and their CVGTs are informed about their lowland IEM potentials and what IEM assistance is available to them under the project. This includes information on capacity building and investment possibilities;
8. The participatory diagnosis takes place in SILEM villages with service providers assisting communities to use the GIS data base to design their local development plans including IEM/land and water use plans. Communities decide on their local development plans which includes their choices of IEM/environment capacity building activities and investments.
9. The service providers assist the communities in planning, costing and writing their micro-projects as well as their meso-projects (village clusters or regional levels) and in submitting these to local and provincial selection and funding mechanisms (CVGT, CCTP, etc) .
10. Local governments and their IEM institutions, producers organizations, national scientific and IEM /environment institutions etc propose studies or action research and send their proposals to the PCU. The latter sets up a committee coordinated by CONAGESE to make the selection of projects to be funded from the multi-level research and studies window of SILEM.
11. Village and small scale inter-village subprojects are managed by the communities while capacity building activities for several communities, large -scale subprojects, studies and action research subprojects are managed by the PCU via the EOs (Equipes Operationelles provinciales), all using service providers to assist them as needed.
In accordance with the general administrative and financial manual of procedures the PCU plans and executes capacity building activities, including enabling environment activities (e.g., land tenure security, policy reforms).
In accordance with the local investment funds manual of procedures, communities plan and execute their micro and meso investment projects;
There are typical CBRDP activities and incremental IEM activities that can be funded by SILEM. The SILEM addendum to the general administrative and financial manual of procedure is used to identify what is eligible for SILEM funding and related IDA/GEF cost sharing ratios, for capacity building activities as well as for investment sub-projects.




Procedures of Local Investment Fund
Each SILEM village will be eligible for SILEM and CBRDP/PNDRD envelopes in a merged local investment fund.
The CBRDP envelope is $3-5 per individual and per year, while the SILEM envelope is an additional $1-2 per individual and per year. The size of the LIF for communities in SILEM villages would then be about $4-7 per individual and per year. SILEM funds may be invested in various ways.
Funding of complementary IEM enhancing activities
Where at least one of the IEM projects selected by the community in the annual investment plan (AIP) can be funded, when the CBRDP envelope is applied, SILEM will fund a supplemental IEM activity within the AIP that can enhance the utility of the basic IEM investment for local and global environment, up to the limit of its own envelope ($1-2/head/year)
Assuming for instance that the basic IEM investment funded by the CBRDP envelope is a set of contour bounds in the village, the additional investment needed for applying conservation tillage or zero tillage in the fields treated with contour bounds (such as cover crops seeds, live fencing, etc.) on individual farms, will be partly funded by the SILEM envelope, the remaining portion being covered by beneficiaries contributions. Beneficiaries contributions for predominantly private good type of IEM activities could be as high as 25 to 50 percent.
Communities will be informed in advance that if they select certain types of IEM investments (e.g., contour bounds) they are eligible for extra money (still in the form of matching grant) to fund some individual farm-level IEM enhancement activities (e.g., zero tillage) to make the best out of their common basic IEM investment. SILEM will provide part of the extra money needed, with individual grant receivers providing the balance to undertake the specific enhancement activity (zero tillage).
Funding of a core low priority IEM activity
Alternatively, where the CBRDP envelope cannot by itself fund any IEM project within the annual investment plan (AIP), because the priority ranking of IEM activities identified by the communities is too low or for any other reason, the SILEM envelope will be added. If by adding the SILEM envelope a IEM project is next on the priority list of the AIP and can be funded by applying the two envelopes, such a project will be retained and will be funded. If despite the use of the two envelopes no IEM project is next and selected on the priority list, the highest priority IEM project of the AIP, no matter where it is located in the priority ranking order, will be selected, provided that it carries some potential local and global environment benefits, and a well defined replicability scheme. The SILEM envelope will then be applied to implement the selected project with some contribution from the beneficiaries.
Subsidizing beneficiaries’ contributions for IEM investments
A final alternative is using the SILEM envelope to subsidize beneficiaries contributions under an incentive framework, by using for IEM investments in the SILEM villages a co-financing ratio that is lower than the one applied in non-SILEM villages. If needed, during consultations to select final AIP projects to be funded, the SILEM envelope may be used to further reduce beneficiaries’ contributions for IEM investments. This might lead to higher-ranking IEM projects that could then be selected when the CBRDP envelope is applied.

12.. The accounting services of the EOs and PCU calculate annual CBRDP/SILEM envelopes or budgets available to each community and province. They gather project and activity budgets and identify by using the IDA/GEF cost sharing ratios or IEM cost factors , and the manuals of procedures, the activities and the sub-projects that can be funded by SILEM to supplement funding from CBRDP.


13. Annual blended work programs CBRDP/SILEM are submitted to the Steering Committee for approval.
14. Funds are channeled to communities according to manuals of procedures ( LIF and administrative & financial manuals of procedure). To avoid having to hand over two separate checks (one CBRDP and one SILEM) to communities, funds are blended in provincial accounts of the PCU (PNGT), and one blended check is given to communities to implement their Annual Investment plans .
The annual activities and projects are executed with the help of service providers in accordance with technical manuals of procedures
15. The Monitoring and Evaluation system is well designed and in place. The baseline M&E study is completed by consulting firms. Indigenous indicators are identified, service providers and communities are trained to collect M&E data and they collect such data, according to an M&E manual of procedures.
16. The scientific service providers are identified and intervene to collect scientific M&E data to assess environment effects and impact of the project, including changes in management patterns (IEM);
17. All M&E data and analyses are sent annually to PMU for reporting to the steering Committee and to higher authorities;
18. CONAGESE commissions once every three years an external evaluation of the project [budget provided under PMU].

19. A separate GEF special account is set up (already done for the PDF-B) and disbursement is made annually to reimburse on the basis of incremental costs incurred under SILEM and calculated at the level of the accounting units of the PMU using the cost sharing grid.


20. SILEM and CBRDP accounts are audited jointly by same auditor each year, with reports submitted to the Government and IDA/GEF.
Figure 1. Provinces of Burkina Faso


Table 1. Wildlife Biodiversity Reserves of interest for the Project



Name

Classification

Size (hectares)

Year created

Province

Wildlife reserve of Arly

Wildlife reserve of Madjoari

Wildlife reserve of Singou

Wildlife reserve of Bontioli

Wildlife reserve of Arly

Wildlife reserve of Kourtiagou (W Park)

Wildlife reserve of Pama

Wildlife reserve of Nabéré

Wildlife reserve of Bontioli
Total


Full

Full


Full

Full


Partial

Partial


Partial

Partial


Partial

76,000

17,000


192,000

12,700


96,000

51,000


223,700

36,000


29,500
733,900

1954

1970


1955

1957


1954

1957


1955

1957


1957

Tapoa

Tapoa


Gourma

Bougouriba

Gourma

Tapoa


Gourma

Bougouriba

Bougouriba





Table 2. Officially Protected Forest/Natural Habitats of interest for the Project

Province

from North (Sahel) to South (Sudan)


Name of the Natural Habitat

Location

(Departent or Village)



Date of official Classification

Size (hectares)

Soum, Seno, Oudalan

Sylvo- pastoral and partial wildlife reserve of Sahel

Seno, Oudalan, Soum

1970

1,600,000

Sanmatenga

Yabo (Forêt Classée)

FC Dem


FC Nakambé

Kaya

Kaya


1936

1937


1936

1,000

350


2,000

Namentenga

FC Tougouri




1936

40

Sourou

FC Sourou

Yaba

1937

14,000

Passoré

FC Niouma

FC Twéssé



Yako

Yako


1954

1954


735

490


Oubritenga


FC Nakambé
FC Ziga

FC Gonsé


FC Bissiga

Ziniare, Manga, Kombissiri

Ziniaré


Saaba

Zitenga


1953
1953

1953


1941

98,000
9,000

6,000


4,100

Kadiogo

FC Barrage

Ouagadougou

1936, 1941

260

Sanguié

FC Kalio

Pouni

1936, 1940

12,000

Mouhoun

FC Pâ

FC Bonou


FC Tuy

FC Nasébou

FC Sâ

FC Kari


FC Ouoro

FC Toroba

FC Tissé

FC Sorobouty

FC Ballé


Boromo

Boromo,


Bondokuy

Boromo


Dédougou

Dédougou


Dédougou

Dédougou


Dédougou

Boromo


Boromo

1937

1937


1940

1937


1940

1938


1938

1938


1938

1938, 1940

1937


15,625

1,700


50,000

14,000


5,400

13,000


14,000

2,700


21,500

5,800


115,000

Ganzourgou

FC Wayen

Wayen

1941

12,000

Kouritenga

FC Sitenga

Koupéla

1936

840

Houet

FC Maro

FC Bahon


FC Tui

FC Dindérosso

Mare aux Hippopotames

FC Koulima

FC Bansié

FC Mou


FC Dan

FC Téré


FC Kou

FC Péni


FC Koa

FC Bambou

FC Kapo


Houndé

Houndé


Houndé

Bobo-Dioulaosso

Satiri

Bobo-Dioulasso



Bobo-Dioulasso

Bobo-Dioulasso

Bobo-Dioulasso

Kouka


Bobo-Dioulasso

Bobo-Dioulasso

Bobo-Dioulasso

Bobo-Dioulasso

Houndé


1940

1937


1940

1936,1941

1937

1936


1937

1938


1953

1951


1951

1942


1936

1937


1937

50,000

8,500


19,200

2,150


300

34,000


4,300

10,700


117

1,200


350

1,800


9,900

12,000


260

Boulgou

FC Ouilingoré

FC Yakala



Zabré

Tenkodogo



1936

1936


6,850

1,600


Sissili

FC Sissili

Léo

1955

32,700

Nahouri

FC Pic de Nahouri

FC de Nazinga





1938

1953


836

38,300


Bougouriba

FC Dibon

FC Bougouriba

FC Bontioli

FC Nabéré



Diébougou

Diébougou

Diébougou

Diébougou



1954

1955


1957

1953


1,600

20,000


8,500

29,500


Comoé

FC Bérégadougou

FC Bonouna

FC Boulon

FC Kongoko

FC Kaflandé

FC Diéfoula

FC Logoniégué

FC Babolo

FC Gouandougou

FC Dida


FC Toumousséni

FC Yendéré

FC Source de Mohoun

FC Niangoloko



Banfora

Sidéradoufou

Sidéradoufou

Sidéradoufou

Banfora

Niangoloko



Niangoloko

Niangoloko

Sidéradougou

Mangodara

Banfora

Niangoloko



Moussodougou

Niangoloko



1953

1955


1955

1955


1953

1937


1955

1943


1955

1955


1954

1934


1955

1936


5,000

1,300


12,000

27,000


30,000

85,000


29,000

550


9,500

75,000


2,500

700


100

6,654


Poni

FC Koulbi

Batié

1955

40,000
















1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page