UNDP PRO DOC
The Government of the Republic Zambia
----------------------------------------------------United Nations Development Programme
----------------------------------------------------Global Environment Facility
-----------------------------------PIMS 1937
Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas System
Project Brief
The main purpose of the project is to strengthen the enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the
National Protected Areas System. The project will put in place appropriate policy, regulatory and
governance frameworks in order to provide new tools for public/ community/ private/ civil society
management partnerships. It also aims at strengthening and enhancing the existing institutional capacities
for improved Protected Areas representation, monitoring and evaluation and business and investment
planning. The Project is closely tied to the Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy, which identifies tourism
based on the country's wildlife assets to be the second most important growth sector for the country.
Ultimately, the project envisages to make Zambia a tourism destination of choice based on a National
Protected Areas System comprising a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems that are effectively
safeguarded from human-induced pressures through management partnerships that contribute not only to
economic development, but similarly, rural development.
1
UNDP PRO DOC
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: BRIEF NARRATIVE
4
PART I. SITUATION ANALYSIS
4
PART II: STRATEGY
5
(I) NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR PROTECTED AREAS
5
(II) PROJECT STRATEGY
6
PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
8
(I) EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
8
PART IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
APPENDIX A PROJECT DOCUMENT
14
ACRONYMS
14
CONTEXT
16
I.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
II.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
18
III.
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
24
IV.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
25
BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION
27
V.
27
THREATS
VI.
THE APPROACH TAKEN FOR PROJECT DESIGN
VII.
BASELINE
28
29
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF PA
29
DONOR SUPPORT TO THE PA SECTOR
35
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION
35
VIII.
35
GRZ STRATEGY FOR PROTECTED AREAS
IX.
X.
DESCRIPTION OF THE GEF/PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
36
45
ELIGIBILITY AND LINKAGES
45
XI.
45
ELIGIBILITY FOR GEF FUNDING
XII.
CONFORMITY WITH COP GUIDANCE AND GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
45
XIII.
LINKAGES WITH OTHER GEF INITIATIVES
46
XIV.
LINKAGES WITH THE UNDP COUNTRY PROGRAM
47
XV.
LINKAGES WITH GRZ PRIORITIES/POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
49
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
50
XVI.
50
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
PROJECT BENEFICIARIES
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
52
53
54
2
UNDP PRO DOC
RISKS, PRIOR OBLIGATIONS, SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY
55
XX.
55
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX
PRIOR OBLIGATIONS
SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT RESULTS
REPLICABILITY
56
56
58
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LESSONS LEARNED
59
XXIV.
59
XXV.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
LESSONS LEARNED
60
LEGAL CONTEXT
60
LOGFRAME
61
ANNEX 1: PROFILE OF THE PROTECTED AREA (PA) SYSTEM IN ZAMBIA
90
ANNEX 2: TERMS OF REFERENCE
102
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PLAN
112
ANNEX 4: MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN
122
ANNEX 5: REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNT FROM CBNRM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
128
ANNEX 6: REPLICATION STRATEGY
134
ANNEX 7: REFERENCES
139
ANNEX 8: MATRIX OF RESPONSES TO GEF COUNCIL COMMENTS
144
TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN___________________________________________________ 149
SIGNATURE PAGE_________________________________________________________________ 168
3
UNDP PRO DOC
SECTION 1: BRIEF NARRATIVE
Part I. Situation Analysis
Protected Areas System: Zambia’s Protected Area system is considerably larger than the global mean and
is line with the Millennium Development Goals 7 “Ensure environmental sustainability” and its indicator,
“land area protected to maintain biological diversity”. The most important Protected Areas PAs in Zambia
are the 19 national parks (NP) and 35 game management areas (GMA) – together they cover over 30% of
the territory of Zambia. The parks and GMAs together provide exceptionally large bio-geographical
complexes with the potential, if well managed, to conserve viable populations of even those species that
occur naturally at low densities. Legally, the national parks clearly provide the highest level of protection
for biodiversity, and provide the bulwark of the national PA estate. Nevertheless, wildlife populations have
been depleted through hunting pressure in many sites, and conservation infrastructure is generally
rudimentary.
The GMAs generally have good potential for biodiversity conservation. However, few of the GMAs
currently provide effective buffers to NPs, there being little distinction in management between ecologically
sensitive areas, such as corridors for wildlife movements, and larger dispersal areas, where less intensive
management is possible. GMAs include settlements and farmlands within their borders. At the legal level,
there are no restrictions on land use within GMA – in particular there are no restrictions on conversion to
agriculture. With few exceptions, however, human populations in GMAs are generally low enough to allow
co-existence with healthy wildlife populations that can support sustainable harvests if soundly managed.
Like the NP, the GMAs also suffer from difficult access and a lack of infrastructure. Traditional chiefs have
the right to lease the land under the Lands Act of 1995, which could be tied to commercial joint ventures in
GMAs. ZAWA’s concurrence would be required.
Tourism has been identified as a driving key growth sector for poverty reduction and employment
generation. The sector represents a significant opportunity because it is already a sizable contributor to
GDP, it is a recognized leader in foreign exchange earnings, and it has the potential to create numerous
benefits through its linkages to the rest of the economy. 25% of visitors to Zambia come as tourists.
Expectations of economic growth through development of the tourism sector are high 1. The wildlife in the
PAs is the main tourist attraction in Zambia. Thus effective management of the PA is one of the critical
elements for tourism development.
Policy and Legislative Frameworks
Responsibility for wildlife and habitat protection was traditionally vested in the local chief on behalf of the
villagers. The chief controlled the allocation of land for use by households, and access to forest and wildlife
resources. In legislation enacted to set up game reserves in the 1940s, the ownership and access to wildlife
resources was taken away from the local chiefs and vested in the State. This process continued, resulting in
the alienation of local people from the management of wildlife and natural resources. It did, however, lay
the basis for the creation of Zambia’s Protected Areas System.
Zambia is however, in the process of developing an all-embracing national environmental policy to bring
together the numerous sectoral policy frameworks and environmental strategies. These policies under
review include the National Conservation Strategy (NCS) whose objectives included maintenance of
Zambia’s biodiversity and sustainable use of the country’s renewable resources; the policy for National
Parks and Wildlife in Zambia (1998); the Zambia Wildlife Act, Act No. 12 of 1998; the Forestry Policy
(1998); the Forestry Act Cap 311 of 1973; and the Fisheries Act, cap 311 of 1974.
1
WB SEED Project Appraisal Document, September 2003.
4
UNDP PRO DOC
Institutional Framework
The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) is directly or indirectly
responsible for most environmental and natural resource management in Zambia. MTENR plays a
coordinating role, which includes the crucial responsibility of policy formulation for these sub-sectors. The
MTENR’s role also embodies the facilitation and monitoring of the implementation of international
agreements, conventions and treaties, with a view to promoting the country’s conservation interests as well
as meeting international obligations.
The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) is the key institution for PA and wildlife management in Zambia.
It has the legal status of statutory body (a type of parastatal), and was established by Act of Parliament No.
12 of 1998. It commenced operations in 2000. ZAWA’s mission is to contribute to the preservation of
Zambia’s heritage, ecosystem and biodiversity for present and future generations through the conservation
of Zambia’s wildlife. It is responsible for the management of the national parks and GMAs. GMA are to be
managed in partnership with communities. An independent board of directors appointed by Minister of
Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources governs it.
The Division of Fisheries (DoF), in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, has a mandate for
promoting the development of commercial fishing, enforcement of regulations and laws and for registration
of fishermen and their boats. It has authority to oversee all fisheries gazetted areas and is extremely
interested in community programs. DoF, however, has very little capacity or resources to do any of this.
Fisheries is one of the most underdeveloped sectors in the country.
The Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) was established under the Environmental Protection Control
Act No. 12 of 1990 and has responsibility for monitoring the state of the environment in the country
including all gazetted areas. With funding from the Netherlands, ECZ had an active program of monitoring
of wildlife populations in PA in the late 1990s. Although ECZ’s monitoring of wildlife stopped with the end
of this funding, ECZ still have this unfunded mandate. ECZ has been seeking to transfer this function to
ZAWA – and asking to ZAWA to pay for it.
Non-government partners in PA management
Zambia has been a leader in forming innovative partnerships with non-governmental organizations for the
management of protected areas. This was largely a spontaneous reaction to the high level of poaching
resulting from the institutional void of the 1980s and 1990s. Two prominent examples are Kasanka Trust
Limited in Kasanka NP, and Frankfurt Zoological Society in North Luangwa NP. They both operate under
formal agreements with ZAWA, and have been active since the late 1980s. A more recently created entity is
Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ), which exists to reduce poaching and increase community
development in the Lower Zambezi area. A number of international NGOs also have operations in Zambia,
including, IUCN, WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society and African Wildlife Foundation.
Part II: Strategy
(i) National Strategy for Protected Areas
The PDF B project development process has solidified the emerging GRZ strategy for the National
Protected Areas System. The GEF guidance for Strategic Priority 1 on “Catalyzing Sustainability of
Protected Areas” has had considerable influence on the GRZ’s strategy development. The review of lessons
learned in Zambia and in the region done as part of the PDF B process has also fed into this strategy
development process.
Protected areas in Zambia are seen as lying on a continuum running from the High level of management on
one end of the spectrum to those with Low levels or no management at all on the other. At present the NPs
in Zambia run the full gamut of this spectrum. The vast majority of GMAs have Intermediate levels of
5
UNDP PRO DOC
management effectiveness to none at all. Against this background, GRZ, recognizing that it cannot raise
management effectiveness to optimum levels throughout the PA estate immediately owing to budgetary and
other constraints, is pursuing a phased approach to capacity building and investment in the National PA
System. It is in this regard, it has sought assistance from GEF/UNDP to concretize and implement the
strategy for effective management of PA. The envisaged strategy will focus on development of an overall
conservation plan for the national Protected Areas System, in the interim; the GRZ will pursue the
following interventions over the medium-term:





ZAWA will concentrate on the management of a core set of high priority national parks with
strong tourism potential2, which will serve as growth hubs for conservation.
A PA reclassification exercise would be undertaken, to identify priority areas in need of
management action (informing the temporal sequence of site level capacity building and
investment work, across the PA estate), ensuring that biodiversity conservation priorities are
defined, that the PA estate is bio-geographically representative and ensuring that PA
classification and management intensity is matched to management objectives at the site level.
GRZ will develop and pass new legislation that increases the effectiveness of the National
System of PA by exploiting opportunities for enhanced biodiversity conservation that are not
possible under existing categories of PA. The will include the creation of new categories of PA.
Two principal new candidate categories have emerged from the project development process. The
Community Conservation Areas (CCA) category of PA would maximize incentives for
conservation for communities by giving nearly full control over resources and the revenues
derived from these resources while preventing conversion to agriculture or other land uses. The
second change would allow portions of national parks to be zoned as ZAWA-managed Safari
Hunting Areas (SHA). This would be done for sections of national parks that have little or no
present photo-tourism potential, thereby converting them from cost centers to profit centers for
ZAWA, while still ensuring a high level of biodiversity conservation and enhancing ZAWA’s
overall financial viability. This will require a change in the legal status of these national parks.
These two proposed new categories will be developed and validated through a participatory
process involving all key stakeholders.
Simultaneously, ZAWA would pilot an expanded range of public/private/civil society/community
partnerships for PA management, with a view to expanding management options for both old and
new categories of PA. Steps will be taken to strengthen the underpinning policy framework, and
to develop institutional capacities to assure strong regulatory oversight of these partnerships. The
new partnerships are expected to allow core management operations to be strengthened across the
PA system, more rapidly than under the traditional paradigm.
Attention would be paid to strengthening core systemic and institutional level capacities,
including capacities for business planning, monitoring and evaluation, financial management and
other key functions.
These interventions will set the stage for the gradual expansion of management interventions across the
larger protected area system, focusing on priority areas, identified through the reclassification exercise.
(ii) Project Strategy
The project will provide core strategic support to strengthen the National Protected Areas System – the
system of core priority protected areas that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective. More
specifically, this will include NP, GMA and new categories be created with project assistance (CCA and
SHA are the principal candidate categories identified during project preparation). It will work to move PA
management effectiveness from the low end towards the effectively managed end of the spectrum. This will
be done through legal and policy reforms, improved governance and institutional capacity building. Two
field demonstration sites will be used for testing and implementing the legal and policy reforms, for
2
Currently listed in PRSP as Mosi oa Tunya, Kafue NP, Lower Zambezi NP and Luangwa NP
6
UNDP PRO DOC
developing public/private/civil society/community partnerships and other new tools and strategies for
effective PA management.
As the term “effective management” of PA is used in a very broad sense in this project design. The
following have been identified as key elements of effective management of the national Protected Areas
System:





Definition of the key management objectives (biodiversity conservation, tourism development, trophy
hunting, multiple use management, etc.) for each priority site identified from the reclassification
planning;
Based on the bio-physical and socio-economic parameters for each priority site, selection of the category
of PA that is most suitable;
Selection the form(s) of management most suitable for the site (ZAWA-managed or any suitable
combination of public/private/civil society/community partnerships;
Development of business plans for achieving objectives and covering costs in the most cost effective
manner;
Development of the most cost-effective mix of enforcement techniques, M&E systems, infrastructure
development, staffing, sustainable natural resource systems, administrative systems, communications and
marketing, joint ventures, etc.
The Goal, Project Objective, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities of the project are closely aligned with GRZ
policies as presented in the NBSAP and closely reflect the recent evolution of strategic thinking within
MTENR/GRZ. The project will address the root causes of threats to biodiversity in the priority PA. The
project has specifically been designed to overcome the barriers to effective biodiversity conservation in
priority PA. The project is strongly in line with the PRSP, providing support to economic growth and
poverty reduction. The project confirms Zambia’s commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity
and to the Millennium Development Goals, MDG number 7, in particular. One of the key constraints to
development of the tourism sector will be addressed by restoring PA wildlife populations through improved
management effectiveness.
Goal The project will make a major contribution to the achievement of the following: A National PA
System that comprises a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems is effectively safeguarded from
human-induced pressures through effective management partnerships and serves to make Zambia into a
tourism destination of choice.
Project Objective has been defined: Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the system of PAs
that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective, will be strengthened. At present only national
parks and GMA are relatively effective in conserving biodiversity, with NP providing a much stronger legal
base. The project will expand the range of categories of PA that provide effective biodiversity conservation
and will enhance management capacities at the national level and at the field level through the development
of new partnerships for managing new categories of PA.
This will be achieved through the following three complementary Outcomes:
Outcome 1 Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new
tools for public/ community/ private /civil society PA management partnerships.
Outcome 2 Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced
capacities for PA representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA
system planning.
Outcome 3 PA management options expanded through development and field-testing of innovative
private-public-community management partnerships for new categories of PA.
The field-level demo sites will focus on the development of partnerships and capacities of the key
stakeholders, especially of the local communities in the present GMAs at each site. The reclassification at
7
UNDP PRO DOC
each demo site will be a highly participatory process putting local stakeholders in the forefront of the
process. The major emphasis at the demo sites will be on building local stakeholder capacities, especially
those of the community management structures of the new CCAs. The project will develop partnerships
between communities, NGOs, ZAWA, private sector investors in both photo safari and trophy hunting
industries and traditional authorities.
Part III: Management Arrangements
(i) Execution and Implementation Arrangements
The project will be nationally executed. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Management (ENRM) in the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) will be
the designated institution for the management of the project. As the designated institution, ENRM will be
responsible for managing the project including the timely delivery of inputs and the outputs. ENRM will
through the PIU coordinate the activities of all the other implementing agencies (MTENR, NRCF, WWF,
KTL, CLZ, and ZAWA) to ensure the efficient and timely project implementation and the attainment of
maximum impacts. ENRM will lead and coordinate the preparation of annual work plans and will also
coordinate the interventions of all the other implementing agencies at the field demonstration sites,
including facilitating the identification and contracting of all international consultants. WWF and other
implementing agencies (e.g., KTL, UNV) will be contracted by MTENR with whom they will sign an
MOU.
The Ministry of Finance and National Planning being the coordinator of aid and technical assistance will
have an overall oversight and monitoring role on the part of Government. The project will receive highlevel policy guidance and orientation from the project’s Steering Committee (SC). The SC will be chaired
by MTENR and will be composed of the Permanent Secretaries of concerned ministries plus UNDP.
A Project Coordination Group (PCG) functioning as the Technical Advisory Group will provide technical
support to the project. The PCG will be composed of 14 individuals from relevant government line
ministries, implementing partners, Field Demonstration Agency and allied partners, PIU, civil society,
private sector associations (tourism/safari hunting sectors), and experts appointed in their own right. The
PCG will also be a planning authority of the project and will oversee and advise on the day-to-day
implementation of the project and will meet every quarter for the life of the project.
A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will play a key role in project implementation. It will be attached to
ENRM and will be headed by Project Technical Coordinator (PTC). He/she will work under the supervision
of the Directorate of ENRM and will be responsible to UNDP for the proper application of all UNDP
administrative and financial regulations and procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds.
Further, a Protected Areas Systems Specialist (PASS) and a Natural Resources Economist (NRE) will
support the PTC. The PASS and NRE will be highly qualified international consultants recruited through
UNOPS. In this regard the MTENR enter into agreement with UNOPS through a letter of agreement. The
PASS will be a full time advisor during the first two to three years of the project and will conduct annual
support missions to the project, which will coincide with the PCG’s annual review meetings for the
remainder of the project’s life. The NRE will conduct annual support missions beginning in the 2 nd year of
the project up to the end of the project. The PIU will have overall responsibility for project management,
administrative, technical and financial reporting. UNDP will assist in the procurement of equipment and
local consultants for the project as needed/requested.
MTENR will have lead responsibility for the development of the policy and legal reforms under Outcome 1
and MTENR will monitor and oversee the implementation of PA sector laws and policies. ZAWA will be
the lead implementing agency for Outcome 2. Under Outcome 3, WWF shall play a duo role. Firstly, it will
act as the Field Facilitation Agency (FFA) for the forging and testing of links and partnerships between the
private sector partners and communities as options for natural resource management; secondly, WWF will
8
UNDP PRO DOC
provide key technical support to both sites in the areas of biodiversity surveys, image interpretation,
reclassification planning, the development-based M&E systems and other specialized technical inputs
needed at the two sites.
In fulfillment of its role as the Field Facilitation Agency (FFA), WWF shall be assisted by ZAWA and
other field partners. WWF, in conjunction with the communities, will identify an acceptable private sector
partner at each site who shall assume the leadership role in activities to test the private/public/community
partnerships. The process for the identification of the private sector partners shall include intensive tripartite
consultations between a) Communities, WWF and KTL in Bangweulu and b) between Communities, WWF
and CLZ in Chiawa. In the event that the consultations are stalled at any of the sites, the concerned
community and WWF shall seek new private sector partners. However, in the Kafinda GMA, Bangweulu
Basin, where the local community has already identified a private sector partner (Kasanka Trust Limited)
project activities will start while awaiting the outcome of consultations in other project areas.
As a lead Field Facilitation Agency, WWF will sub-contract parts or whole activities related to the field
demonstration sites to field partners such as KTL in Bangweulu or CLZ in Chiawa in consultation with the
communities. WWF will have primary responsibility for on-the-ground implementation and support to
communities as well as for awareness raising, support for a highly participatory approach to reclassification
planning, support for community-level capacity development, development of community-based natural
resource management systems, support for development of community-based enforcement systems and the
development of NR-based income generating activities. The private sector partners and the communities at
the two sites shall identify and set up suitable and sustainable management structures to service the joint
community/public/private sector initiatives. The project shall assist in empowering such community/private
sector structures through training and skills provision.
Demonstration Site Working Groups (DSWG) operating alongside WWF and serviced by the
Demonstration Site Manager will be set up at each site with the primary responsibility of distributing
functions and activities to key field partners, approve annual work plans and budgets, monitor progress, and
support the work of the Field Demonstration Site Manager.
Implementation of Outcome 1 MTENR will be the lead implementing agency for all legal and policy
reforms under Outcome 1. Background studies and legal drafts will be contracted for by the PIU/UNDP.
Stakeholder workshops will be organized by the PIU. ZAWA will provide co-financing for improving their
financial management of revenue sharing with CRB. Support for improved financial management and
governance at the CRB and VAG level will be done under competitively awarded contracts through the
PIU/UNDP. Funding will be provided by DANIDA for the functioning of the NRCF for the first three
years. This will then be picked up under UNDP/GEF funding for the final three years.
Implementation of Outcome 2 The work on reclassification priorities will be done through direct support
to ZAWA’s Research, Policy and Planning Department and will also be supported by competitively
awarded contracts (PIU/UNDP). The PIU will play a strong advisory role on the reclassification
methodologies. The development and application of economic, financial and business planning tools will
make use of a lead natural resource/environmental economics consultant (NRE). ZAWA, WWF, Forestry
Department, and National Heritage Commission will do modifications to the METT and use it for
monitoring PA management effectiveness under this project. The review of M&E systems will be done
under NEX contract and the adaptive testing of these systems will be done primarily by ENRM assisted by
consultants. The development of the Conservation, the Investment and the Marketing Plans will involve all
the necessary key stakeholders with the assistance of contractors.
Implementation of Outcome 3 All implementing agencies working at the two field demonstration sites
will be coordinated by WWF, who will be assisted in this by the PIU. WWF and field partners will be
directly involved with awareness raising, enforcement, reclassification planning and the development of
improved M&E systems. WWF will be the lead field facilitation agency at each site, and will initially be
responsible for most operational, field level activities and for different forms of community support.
9
UNDP PRO DOC
However, this responsibility shall be passed on to the private sector/community partnership, which shall
coordinate these functions through its own management structure.
Financial Arrangements
Both GEF and UNDP/TRAC funds will be administered by UNDP. The PIU will manage all local service
providers. The PTC will manage the funds for the local staff and operating expenses of the PIU. UNDP will
advance funds for a three-month period. At the end of the three month period, the PIU will submit
justification for expenses and the funds spent will be renewed by UNDP.
Criteria and procedures will be developed for performance-based contracts with service providers. Under
performance-based contracts, the service provider will be paid only for work completed. Work partially
completed will be paid on a pro rata basis.
The project will comply with UNDP’s monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements as spelled out in
the UNDP Programming Manual. The PIU PTC will have lead responsibility for reporting requirements to
UNDP.
Part IV. Monitoring and Evaluation
The project is strongly focused on increasing PA management effectiveness. The development and use of
appropriate tools for monitoring management effectiveness are therefore critical. In establishing the
Baseline, the WWF/World Bank Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) was applied to 5 NP
and 4 GMA including 3 NP and 3 GMA at the field demonstration sites. The results appear to be quite
meaningful, but the tool could be much approved by modifying it to the Zambia context. This will be done
as a priority during the first year of the project. The new modified tool will then be applied to all NP and
GMA during the first year to provide a complete baseline for PA management effectiveness. Both the
METT and the modified METT will be applied to those sites already measured for the Baseline in 2004 –
this will be done to allow a proper correlation between the rankings of the two tools. All NP, GMA and
newly created PA of new categories will again be ranked with the modified METT just before the mid-term
and at the end-of-project.
Another area of emphasis of the project is on the expansion and multiplication of PA management
partnerships. A number of public/private partnerships already exist, but there is no formal system for
monitoring these partnerships. The modified METT will be used to compare the effectiveness of different
forms of management partnerships. New M&E tools will be developed for monitoring how well
management partners respect the new policy framework to be developed for management partnerships and
how well they respect signed MOU or leases. Likewise, there need to be monitoring safeguards developed
so that ZAWA or MTENR can ensure that CCA managers are respecting the basic conditions for CCA –
such as the ban on conversion to agriculture. The two mid-term and the EOP evaluations will place a
particular emphasis on capturing lessons learned concerning management partnerships.
Other areas of emphasis will be on the development of community-managed M&E systems, especially for
monitoring wildlife populations for trophy hunting, and on the development of systems for monitoring
ecosystem health and biodiversity. It is critical that monitoring of game populations be seen as a basic cost
of doing business for trophy hunting. Community managers need assistance in developing systems that are
scientifically valid and that are within their means to implement.
Quarterly progress reports will be prepared by the PIU. Annual Project Reviews (APR) will be done
annually by the PIU and completed by the UNDP CO. The project will be overseen by the Steering
Committee. Annual Tripartite Reviews of the project will be involve GRZ/ZAWA, UNDP and the
UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator and the PIU. Two mid-term reviews (MTR) will be conducted at the end
of year 2 and year 4 and a final evaluation near the end of year 6. The primary purpose of the MTR will be
10
UNDP PRO DOC
to identify strengths and weaknesses, to reinforce what works well and to make mid-term corrections to
correct weaknesses.
Responsibilities for monitoring the specific indicators in the log frame will be divided between the PIU,
ZAWA, the executing agencies for the field demonstration labs and contractors hired to conduct
independent monitoring of indicators. The full M&E plan is presented in Annex 4.
Audit
The Government will provide UNDP with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit
of the financial statements relating to the status of project funds according to the established procedures set
out in the UNDP Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally
recognized auditor the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.
PART V: LEGAL CONTEXT
This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic Assistance
Agreement between the Government of Zambia and the United Nations Development Programme.
The following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the UNDP
Resident Representative only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project document
have no objections to the proposed changes, that is to say revisions which do not involve significant changes
in the outcomes, outputs or activities of a project, but are caused by rearrangement of inputs agreed to or by
cost increases due to inflation.
The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and
with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds
according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be
conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the
Government.
SECTION 2: TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN
The total budget for this project is $7 million consisting of $ 6million from GEF and $1million from UNDP
TRAC. The work plan and budget for the GEF contribution is broken-down per output are presented on pages
151 to 169. While UNDP contribution will be covered under a supplemental project to be attached to this
main project.
11
UNDP PRO DOC
SECTION3: Letters of Endorsement
12
UNDP PRO DOC
13
UNDP PRO DOC
Appendix A
Acronyms
ADB
ADMADE
AMU
APR
CBD
CBNRM
CBO
CCA
CCA
CCD
CEMP
CITES
CLZ
CO
COP
CRB
CSO
DANIDA
DoF
DP
ECZ
EOP
ESP
EU
FAO
FD
FINNIDA
GDP
GEF
GIS
GMA
GNP
GPAZ
GRZ
GTZ
HDI
HDR
HIPC
IDA
IUCN
KTL
LIRDP
LZNP
MAC
M&E
METT
MoLA
MOU
MT
MTENR
African Development Bank
Administrative Management Design for Game Areas
Area Management Unit
Annual Project Review
Convention on Biological Diversity
Community-Based Natural Resource Management
Community-Based Organization
Community Conservation Area (new category to be created)
Common Country Assessment
Convention to Combat Desertification
Community Environmental Management Program
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Conservation Lower Zambezi
Country Office (UNDP)
Conference of the Parties
Community Resource Board
Central Statistics Office
Danish International Development Agency
Division of Fisheries
Decentralization Policy
Environmental Council of Zambia
End-of-project
Environmental Support Programme
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Forest Department in MTENR
Finnish Development Agency
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Geographic Information System
Game Management Areas
Gross National Product
Game Producers Association of Zambia
Government of the Republic of Zambia
German Technical Aid Agency
Human Development Index
Human Development Report
Highly Indebted Poor Countries (Initiative)
International Development Agency (World Bank)
World Conservation Union
Kasanka Trust Limited
Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Programme
Lower Zambezi National Park
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
Monitoring and Evaluation
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
Ministry of Legal Affaires
Memorandum of Understanding
Mid-term
Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources
14
UNDP PRO DOC
MTR
NBSAP
NCS
NEAP
NGO
NHCC
NORAD
NP
NPWS
NRCF
NRE
NRM
OP
PA
PASS
PC
PCV
PDF-B
PID
PIU
PS
SADC
SARPO
SEED
SHA
SIDA
SLAMU
SNRM
STAP
SWOT
TOR
UNDAF
UNDP
UNDP/TRAC
UNEP
UNFCCC
UNOPS
UNV
USAID
WCS
WECSZ
WHS
WPO
WSAP
WWF
WWF-SARPO
ZAFCOM
ZAWA
ZEP
ZFAP
Mid-Term Review
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
National Conservation Strategy (1985)
National Environmental Action Plan
Non-Governmental Organization
National Heritage Conservation Commission
Norwegian Agency for International Development
National Park
National Parks and Wildlife Service (ZAWA’s predecessor)
Natural Resources Consultative Forum
Natural Resource Economist
Natural Resources Management
Operational Program (GEF)
Protected Area
Protected Areas Systems Specialist
Peace Corps
Peace Corps Volunteer
Project Development Fund – Block B (GEF)
Planning and Information Department of MENR
Project Implementation Unit
Permanent Secretary
Southern African Development Community
Southern Africa Regional Program Office (WWF)
Securing the Environment for Economic Development
Safari Hunting Area (proposed new PA category)
Swedish International Development Agency
South Luangwa Area Management Unit
Sustainable Natural Resources Management
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (GEF)
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threats
Terms of Reference
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Development Programme
UNDP-Target for Resources Assignment from the Core
United Nations Environment Program
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Office for Project Services
United Nations Volunteer
United States Agency for International Development
Wildlife Conservation Society
Wildlife and Environmental Conservation Society of Zambia
World Heritage Site
Wildlife Police Officer (ZAWA)
Wetlands Strategy and Action Plan
World Wide Fund for Nature
WWF-Southern Africa Regional Programme
Zambia Forestry Commission (proposed)
Zambia Wildlife Authority
Zambian Education Program
Zambia Forestry Action Plan
15
UNDP PRO DOC
Context
I.
Environmental Context
1. Global importance of biodiversity Zambia lies at the heart of the Miombo Ecoregion, listed as a
WWF Global 200 Ecoregion because of its high species richness. It is also referred to as the Zambezian
Regional Center of Endemism, an area of some 3,770 million km2, covering parts of 11 countries and
extending from the Katanga Province (DRC) to the Vaal River in South Africa. The Miombo Ecoregion
supports important populations of fauna, particularly large mammals. It is also floristically diverse,
harboring some 8,500 plant species, of which approximately 54% are endemic. WWF-SARPO (2002)
has identified 26 areas of special biodiversity importance within the Ecoregion, based on a) the
occurrence of endemic species; b) high species diversity; c) important or globally significant
populations and; d) incorporating, or essential for significant animal movements. The nine areas that are
found totally or partially within Zambia are the following:
 The Luapula/Mweru-wa-Ntipa complex
 The Chambeshi/Bangweulu basin
 The Luangwa-Luano rift system
 The Kafue Flats
 The Upper Zambezi plains
 The Zambezi headwaters
 The “Four Corners” area consisting of adjacent parts of Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and
Zambia.
 The Middle Zambezi Valley
 Lake Tanganyika
2. Zambia extends over most of the central parts of the Miombo Ecoregion that is also the center of
diversity for the 22 or so Brachystegia and Julbernadia species after which the eco-region is named.
The two other important eco-regions in Africa that extend to Zambia are East African Montane
Ecoregion (Nyika/Mafinga Hills area) and the Great Lakes Ecoregion (Lake Tanganyika).
3. The floristic diversity of Zambia is variously estimated at between 6,000 to 7,000 species (Thole et. al.,
1996), out of the 8,500 total for the Ecoregion. The fauna inventory is estimated at 83 species of
amphibians, 165 species of reptiles, 733 species of birds, 233 of mammals, and 408 of fish (MENR
1999). The inventory of invertebrates is incomplete. The country constitutes an important repository for
several CITES listed species including African elephant, leopard, black lechwe (Kobus leche
smithmani) and shoebill crane (Balaeniceps rex). Further, the country is important for the conservation
of avifauna. Birdlife International has identified 31 Important Bird Areas in Zambia covering 86,413
km2. Two Wetlands of global significance have been listed under the Ramsar Convention, namely the
Kafue Flats (Lochnivar and Blue Lagoon National Parks) and Bangweulu Wetlands (Chikuni area).
Zambia has huge areas of wetlands. Approximately 45,000km2 (6%) of Zambia’s total surface area of
752,620sq km is covered with water in the form of marshes, swamps, lakes, rivers and streams.
4. Zambia presents one of the best country-level opportunities for conserving prime representative
examples of the biodiversity of the Miombo Ecoregion. This opportunity is a function of the low rural
population density, the still extensive areas of largely intact natural ecosystems and the political
stability the country has historically enjoyed.
5. Zambia’s National Protected Areas System (PA) is considerably larger than the global mean. GRZ
adheres to the Millennium Development Goals including Goal 7 “Ensure environmental sustainability”
and its indicator, “land area protected to maintain biological diversity”. The most important PAs in
Zambia are the 19 national parks (NP) and 35 game management areas (GMA) – together they cover
over 30% of the territory of Zambia. The NP form the core of the PA system – parks alone cover 8.5%
of the country. Conventional tourism based on game-viewing is the main economic use permitted
16
UNDP PRO DOC
within the NP. A full 85% of the GMA were intentionally created as buffer areas to NPs – in total, they
cover over 22% of the territory. The rationale is that NPs should protect nucleus breeding populations
of wildlife; spillover populations may then be utilized in GMAs, generating benefits and incentives for
local communities in these zones. Trophy hunting is an important economic activity in GMA that have
viable wildlife populations.
6. The parks and GMAs together provide exceptionally large bio-geographical complexes with the
potential, if well managed, to conserve viable populations of even those species that occur naturally at
low densities. Legally, the national parks clearly provide the highest level of protection for biodiversity,
and provide the bulwark of the national PA estate. Nevertheless, wildlife populations have been
depleted through hunting pressure in many sites, and conservation infrastructure is generally
rudimentary.
7. Zambia’s first PAs were created in the 1920’s as game reserves under the Game Ordinance of 1925
(Prior to independence, the Luangwa Game Reserve was declared in 1904 at the instigation of the
Administrator of what was then North-Eastern Rhodesia.) The creation of PA has continued over most
the century, with large areas gazetted since independence in 1964. The criteria used a half century ago
(Chi Chi, 2004) for the selection of areas for national park establishment were:
a. presence of species requiring special protection;
b. areas unsuited to agriculture, either because the soils were unsuitable for cultivation or
because of the presence of tsetse flies that precluded the raising of domestic animals,
especially the bovines; and
c. areas in which human settlements were absent or sparse.
In spite of these criteria, in general criterion (a) did not play a major role in the designation of national
parks. Consequently, the majority of national parks were located in areas that qualified on the basis of
criteria (b) and (c). Notice that ecosystem/habitat conservation was not a criterion for park
establishment.
8. The 2002 assessment of national parks summarized in Table 1 presents a qualitative assessment of the
condition of these national parks – based primarily on wildlife populations. The table suggests that 11
of the 19 national parks were either declining or degraded in status. An older estimate, (Chabwela,
1996) reports that when the populations of key species are considered then, up to 14 (74%) of the 19
national parks had either been depleted or were on a downward trend.
Table 1 – Status of Zambia's National Park Estates
National Park
Condition
National Park
Condition
Blue Lagoon
Stable
Mosi-Oa-Tunya
Stable
Kafue
Declining
Mweru-Wantipa
Degraded
Kasanka
Stabilization
Isangano
Degraded
Lavushimanda
Degraded
North Luangwa
Recovering
Liuwa Plain
Stable
Nsumbu
Declining
Lochnvar
Stable
Nyika
Declining
Lower Zambezi
Recovering
Sioma Ngwezi
Declining
Luambe
Declining
South Luangwa
Stable
Lukusuzi
Degraded
West Lunga
Declining
Lusenga Plain
Degraded
After MTENR and UNDP/GEF 2002
9. The GMAs generally have good potential for biodiversity conservation. However, few of the GMAs
currently provide effective buffers to NPs, there being little distinction in management between
ecologically sensitive areas, such as corridors for wildlife movements, and larger dispersal areas, where
less intensive management is possible. GMAs include settlements and farmlands within their borders.
At the legal level, there are no restrictions on land use within GMA – in particular there are no
restrictions on conversion to agriculture. With few exceptions, however, human populations in GMAs
17
UNDP PRO DOC
are generally low enough to allow co-existence with healthy wildlife populations that can support
sustainable harvests if soundly managed. Like the NP, the GMAs also suffer from difficult access and a
lack of infrastructure. Traditional chiefs have the right to lease the land under the Lands Act of 1995,
which could be tied to commercial joint ventures in GMAs. ZAWA’s concurrence would be required.
10. Zambia also has large areas contained within 490 forest reserves, and much smaller areas within 2
wildlife sanctuaries, 2 bird sanctuaries, two fisheries gazetted areas (that are outside of the NP or GMA)
and 3687 national heritage sites of which 5 are classified as ecological sites. The forest reserves are
further categorized as either national or local forests, but nearly all of the forest reserves are presently
neglected and largely unmanaged and unprotected. They provide little effective conservation of
biodiversity at present. For the purposes of this report, they are not considered to be part of the National
System of PA.
II.
Socio-Economic Context
11. Social Context Previously known as Northern Rhodesia, Zambia came into existence in 1924, and
attained independence in 1964. Zambia has a democratic form of government and elections are held
regularly every five years, the last in 2001. At independence the population was 3.2 million, and this
has since tripled. The 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses estimated the population for Zambia to be at 5.7
million, 7.8 million and 9.9 million respectively, though the population growth rate has shown a steady
decline from 3.1% (1969 to 1980) to 2.7% (1980 to 1990) to 2.4% (1990 to 2000).
12. HIV/AIDS This slow-down in the growth rate in recent times can partly be attributed to high rates of
HIV prevalence in the country, estimated at 16% of the population aged 15-493. Life expectancy in
2000 was estimated to be 504 years, and if current trends continue, it is projected to be as low as 33
years by the year 2010. The Living Conditions Monitoring Survey estimated there was a total of
500,000 HIV/AIDS related orphans in Zambia in 1996 and that figure was expected to double by the
year 2000 (CSO, 1998).
13. Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with about 35% of its population
living in urban areas. Despite some 72 language groups in Zambia, the incidence of ethnic conflict is
low. Although it is surrounded by a number of countries that have undergone very turbulent times in the
past four decades, Zambia has been one of the most stable countries in southern Africa.
14. Gender Customary law and practice often place women in subordinate positions with respect to
property ownership, inheritance and marriage, despite constitutional and legislative provisions to the
contrary. Although poverty affects both sexes, it is largely feminized with women being the most
severely affected. Female concentration in the lower paying, less skilled occupations results in an
estimated 90% of wages and cash income being paid to men. In practice, women are largely excluded
from decision making positions.
15. Poverty is pervasive in Zambia. The UNDAF5 describes poverty in Zambia as clearly widespread, deep
and gender biased, noting that there is a critical need for greater targeting of development resources
towards the poor and vulnerable groups, and the improved participation of the poor in decision-making.
16. As an overall indicator of development, the Human Development Index (HDI) 6 provides a useful
summary of Zambia’s development history (see Table 2), showing steady progress until 1985. Since
then Zambia experienced a rapid decline in its overall performance. Zambia’s ranking over the same
3
Zambia Demographic Health Survey
CSO 2000
5
UN Development Assistance Framework for Zambia, 2002
6
A UNDP measure combining life expectancy, access to education (combination of enrolment and adult
literacy rates), and GDP per capita.
4
18
UNDP PRO DOC
period has declined steadily, and is now 163rd out of 175 (the total number of countries in the ranking
has increased over time). Besides the decline in HDI value, this can partially be attributed to the
improved performance of other countries. More striking – of all the countries for which HDI data is
available between 1975 and 2001, Zambia is one of only three where the latest HDI value is lower than
it was in 1975.
Table 2 – Zambia’s Human Development performance for selected years7
Year
HDI Value
Ranking8
1975
0.462
69
1980
0.470
87
1985
0.478
95
1990
0.461
108
1995
0.414
123
2001
0.386
163
17. The first millennium goal aspires to reduce by half the number of people living under US$1 a day.
According to the UN HDR7, in 2001, 63% of the population fell into this category.
18. Through the 1990s, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) undertook a series of surveys to investigate the
nature of poverty, which are summarized below in
19. Table 3. This table shows that:
 Between 1991 and 1998 there has been an increase in overall poverty, and a marginal decline in
extreme poverty;
 In the rural areas there has been a slight decline in both overall and extreme poverty, while in
urban areas there has been a noticeable increase;
 Although a rural-urban disparity still exists in 1998, the gap between the two has narrowed.
Table 3 – Overall and extreme poverty in Zambia, 1991-19989
Year
Zambia
Rural
Overall
poverty
1991
1993
1996
1998
Extreme
poverty
69.7
73.8
69.2
72.9
Urban
Overall
poverty
58.2
60.6
53.2
57.9
Extreme
poverty
88.0
92.2
82.8
83.1
Overall
poverty
80.6
83.5
68.4
70.9
Extreme
poverty
48.6
44.9
46.0
56.0
32.3
24.4
27.3
36.2
20. Economy For most of the period since independence, Zambia’s economy was a centrally planned
economy that was highly dependent on copper mining. Currently the country is implementing an
economic recovery program that is intended to promote economic growth, stabilize the economy,
promote the private sector, privatize state-owned activities and improve infrastructure and social
services delivery systems. Progress has been slow, and GDP growth rate has fluctuated from 2.2% in
1999 to 3.6% in 2000, 4.9% in 2001 and 3.0 in 2002. In 2003, GDP per capita was US$ 78010.
21. Since 1991, Zambia has embarked on a new economic liberalization agenda that is still being followed.
It seeks to reverse the negative impacts of the old policies and advocates a greatly expanded private
sector involvement in the economy. This new philosophy and approach have found practical
7
Source: UN HDR, 2003
Ranked out of 100 countries where data is available.
9
Source: PRSP, 2002
10
UN HDR, 2003
8
19
UNDP PRO DOC
expressions through stricter adherence and implementation of World Bank and IMF recommended
economic reforms, such as:
 A Structural Adjustment Program which seeks also to curb and eventually eliminate
government deficit spending;
 A Economic Liberalization Program which emphasizes the private sector as the appropriate
engine of economic growth and the need therefore for its encouragement, promotion,
involvement and active participation and expansion in the economy; and
 A Privatization Program which has been used as the principal means of expanding the stake of
the private sector and curbing the active participation of the government in the economy through
selling off hitherto monolithic parastatal sector companies and organizations into the private
ownership.
22. Zambia is one of six Southern African countries classified as a highly indebted poor country (HIPC),
and has about US$7 billion owed to external debtors. Key to qualifying for debt relief under the HIPC
scheme is a privatization program involving the sale of Zambian National Commercial Bank
(ZANACO), the power utility ZESCO and the telecommunications supplier ZAMTEL.
23. Mining earns approximately 80% of the foreign exchange, accounts for 8.5% of formal employment
and for 7% of GDP. Zambia is thus extremely vulnerable to shifts in the price and production of copper.
The production of copper has been declining steadily since 1970 (prices have risen in the past year) and
this is a major factor contributing to the high levels of poverty in the country. Following the sharp
slump in international prices of copper and the January 2002 announcement of Anglo-American PLC to
withdraw from its investment in the largest privatized copper mine, GRZ requested the World Bank’s
assistance in developing a diversification strategy to mitigate the economic effects of the copper crisis.
The GRZ Copper Crisis Task Force, funded by the World Bank, developed a diversification strategy
that identified tourism, agribusiness and gemstones as the three high potential sectors in Zambia.
24. Agriculture The majority of Zambians depend on agriculture-related activities for livelihood, with 67%
of the labor force employed in agriculture11. The importance of this sector to Zambian people can also
be seen in the 75% of Zambia’s 600,000 farms, which are ‘small-scale’ (less than 9 hectares)12. Zambia
has an abundance of resources, which could be exploited to stimulate agricultural and rural
development with 12% of the country classified as suitable for arable use. It has been targeted as one of
the driving engines of economic growth. With the current decline in mining, focus is being switched to
the potential of agriculture and related agribusiness elements. The sector’s high dependence on rainfall
results in significant fluctuations in growth, but a more serious threat to long-term growth is the rising
cost of inputs such as energy and fertilizer.
25. Fisheries and Forestry Capture fisheries is one of the most neglected sectors in the country. Officially,
fisheries contribute 1.2% to GDP and about 300,000 households are involved. There are nine major
fisheries – most of them are based on the country’s massive wetlands and river systems. Official figures
put the contribution of the forestry sector to GDP as between 0.9 and 3% (MENR 1997). These figures
are likely to be gross underestimates of the contribution of forest resources to Zambia's economy,
because the bulk of transactions involving forestry resources go undetected by official accounting
mechanisms (MENR 1997). Also, the value of charcoal production is counted under manufacturing
rather than the forest sector. In fact, wood-based fuels from the country’s forests and woodlands
account for 71% of the nation's energy consumption, and 96% of household energy consumption
(MENR 1997).
26. Tourism The Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), which provides the framework for
public investment and coordinated donor support for development, targets tourism development as the
second most important sector for economic growth and poverty reduction after agriculture. Tourism in
11
12
WB SEED Project Appraisal Document, September 2003.
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Agriculture Bulletin 2000
20
UNDP PRO DOC
Zambia depends primarily on national parks and GMAs. Over medium to longer term horizons, the
PRSP should provide a vehicle for mobilizing significant investment finance for the tourism sector, and
underpinning PA estate. The priority national parks targeted under the PRSP are Livingston/Victoria
Falls followed by the Kafue, Lower Zambezi and Luangwa NPs. The PRSP recognizes that the large
areas of national parks and GMA are comparative advantages for Zambia in the tourism sector.
27. The World Bank Copper Crisis Task Force also identified tourism as a driving key growth sector. The
sector represents a significant opportunity because it is already a sizable contributor to GDP, it is a
recognized leader in foreign exchange earnings, and it has the potential to create numerous benefits
through its linkages to the rest of the economy. 25% of visitors to Zambia come as tourists.
Expectations of economic growth through development of the tourism sector are high 13.
28. The wildlife in the PAs is the main tourist attraction is Zambia. Zambia has the largest wildlife estate in
the sub-region but the level of tourism development is very low compared to other countries in the
region. It earns less than US$2 per hectare from wildlife utilization compared to South Africa and
Zimbabwe that earn about US$16 per hectare, and Botswana and Namibia that earn about US$8 per
hectare (the figures from South Africa and Botswana include income from game ranches and this
inflates the per hectare revenue. Revenue for Zambia is only from GMA). In the 19 national parks and
35 GMAs, only 5% of the available area is developed for tourism14. Data on the beds, revenues and jobs
generated by protected areas are exceptionally difficult to obtain. The following estimates are therefore
intended to be indicative (Figure 1). Nevertheless they demonstrate, on the one hand, the
underperformance of Zambian protected areas when it comes to generating park income
29. Figure 2), economic turnover and jobs, and on the other hand, the huge potential for growth once
growth-supportive policies, effective management systems and investments are in place.
30. Although Figures 1 and 2 illustrate differences in the levels of revenue generation from PA in different
southern African countries, one must not conclude that high revenue generation implies effective
biodiversity conservation. For example, the Pilanesburg and Phinda parks in South Africa are smallsized, encircled by a game-proof fence, “ecological” islands, totally artificial and comparable to
zoological gardens. They should not serve as models for biodiversity conservation in Zambia. Similar
differences in hunting income from GMAs in southern African countries are shown in Figure 3. It is
estimated that for every dollar earned from hunting and tourism in landholder or park fees, tour
operators turn over some $3 and $10 respectively, which contributes to the economic multiplier effect15.
13
WB SEED Project Appraisal Document, September 2003.
PRSP, p.68
15
DSI, 2004
14
21
UNDP PRO DOC
Figure 1 – Comparison of Tourism Bed Capacity in Zambia and South Africa
Comparison of Bed Denisities in Protected Areas
M
os
i- o
Lo a- T
w
un
er
ya
Z
S
ou am
be
th
Lu zi
N
o r an
th gw
Lu a
an
gw
K
a
as
an
ka
K
af
Lo ue
ch
in
v
ZA ar
M
B
lu B I
A
e
La
go
M on
ad
ik
P
ila we
ne
sb
ur
g
K
ru
ge
r
P
hi
nd
a
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
(DSI, 2004)
Note: The first 9 sites are in Zambia (Mosi Oa Tunya to Blue Lagoon).
Figure 2 – Comparison of Park Fee Income in Zambia and South Africa
Park Revenues per Hectare
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
M
os
i- o
Lo a- T
w
un
er
ya
Z
S
ou am
be
th
Lu zi
N
o r an
th gw
Lu a
an
gw
K
a
as
an
ka
K
af
Lo ue
ch
in
v
ZA ar
M
B
lu B I
A
e
La
go
M on
ad
ik
P
ila we
ne
sb
ur
g
K
ru
ge
r
P
hi
nd
a
-
(DSI, 2004)
Note: The first 9 sites are in Zambia (Mosi Oa Tunya to Blue Lagoon).
Figure 3 – Rough comparison of hunting Income in Zambia and Southern Africa
Income from Hunting in Southern Africa
16
14
12
10
US$ /
ha
8
6
4
2
0
South Africa
(DSI, 2004)
Zimbabwe
Botswana
Namibia
Zambia
Zambia
Note: There are two different estimates for Zambia.
22
UNDP PRO DOC
31. Lack of road/transport infrastructure is often a constraint to successful commercial exploitation of an
area for conventional tourism. However, trophy hunting is much less dependent on good infrastructure.
Where wildlife populations are adequate, trophy hunting can generate immediate benefits that will in
turn generate direct economic incentives for GMA communities to conserve the wildlife. There are
large areas of national park, which are currently cost centers for management, which fit this description:
poorly developed infrastructure with relatively high wildlife populations.
32. Two recent events created a serious financial crisis for PA funding. The 2001 moratorium on hunting
resulted in a revenue loss of approximately Kwacha10 billion (US$2 million), while the non-allocation
of hunting blocks in the 2002 hunting season resulted in K13.5 (US2.7 million) of lost revenue.
33. Tourism and sustainable financing for PA management are both dependent on wildlife populations. The
principal source of funding for PA management comes from tourism levies – from game viewing and
hunting. The lower the number of tourists and trophy hunters, the lower the revenue to finance ZAWA
and the lower the incentives for communities to conserve their game and its habitat. While game
viewing also requires much better road access and infrastructure, it is dependant first and foremost on
the existence of healthy wildlife populations. Restoring wildlife populations requires effective PA
management. An example of this relationship is found in South Luangwa NP, the second largest park in
Zambia. As a result of major investments in PA management and infrastructure, mostly by NORAD,
recurrent costs for South Luangwa NP, depreciation of capital not included, have recently become
largely self-financing out of tourism levies.
34. Some of the greatest external threats to the wildlife-tourism sector in Zambia are from the high macroeconomic costs encountered, both financial and regulatory. There is a need to liberalize policies
towards private and community sectors, for example by reducing non value-adding bureaucratic
procedures and encouraging revenue generation and full retention, or major opportunities will be lost.
35. Costs of operating commercially in the wildlife tourism sector in Zambia are, in general, extremely high
compared to its neighbors. Tax rates are high, as are import tariffs. One major intangible contributing
factor is the high level of transaction costs, which include a plethora of regulations and permits, slow
legal systems and weak property rights. These combine to inhibit and constrain commercial
development in the tourism sector.
36. The issue of weak tenure is a serious constraint on economic development in Zambia, and especially the
growth of the commercial wildlife sector. The present situation in respect to land and resource rights
often results in de facto open access regimes, with little internalization of costs and benefits, and
therefore low levels of responsibility and re-investment in the resource base. Weak tenure is a
constraint to economic development.
37. Zambia has 3687 national heritage sites listed in the national register of the National Heritage
Conservation Commission (NHCC). Many of them are in NP and GMA. They represent an
underdeveloped tourism potential that, if properly developed, could contribute to tourism development
and sustainable financing for PA.
38. The southern Bangweulu Wetlands and the Lower Zambezi NP/Chiawa GMA complex provide
examples of the linkages between wildlife, tourism and PA management. In the mid-80s, Kasanka and
Lavushi Manda NP and the adjoining GMA were largely unmanaged with little tourism development.
Wildlife in the two parks was very heavily depleted. Starting in 1986, the group that became Kasanka
Trust Limited (KTL), took over management of Kasanka NP on a 10 year renewable lease. They have
controlled poaching, restored wildlife and invested in lodge facilities to the point where tourism
revenues are now covering a large part of operational costs. Without similar investments, wildlife
populations in Lavushi Manda remain at very low levels and it has almost no management and almost
no attraction for tourists. Most of the wildlife in the surrounding GMAs is highly concentrated around
23
UNDP PRO DOC
the ZAWA wildlife police officers post at Chikuni because of the relative protection they enjoy next to
the post.
39. The Lower Zambezi/Chiawa complex enjoys some of the best access of the entire PA in the country.
Significant investments in tourist lodges had already been made by the early 90’s. Before and during
the transformation of NPWS into ZAWA, poaching in the NP and the GMA began to spiral out of
control and the lodge owners saw the wildlife, their economic base, was severely threatened. They and
others joined together to form the NGO Conservation Lower Zambezi. With both their own funds and
other funds they were able to mobilize, they were able to stop the worst of the poaching and the
decimation of wildlife population that took place in many PA during that period. CLZ, with DANIDA
support, is now investing heavily in environmental education for GMA communities.
III.
Policy and Legislative Context
40. Responsibility for wildlife and habitat protection was traditionally vested in the local chief on behalf of
the villagers. The chief controlled the allocation of land for use by households, and access to forest and
wildlife resources. In legislation enacted to set up game reserves in the 1940s, the ownership and access
to wildlife resources was taken away from the local chiefs and vested in the State. This process
continued, resulting in the alienation of local people from the management of wildlife and natural
resources. It did, however, lay the basis for the creation of Zambia’s Protected Areas System.
41. The Game Ordinance of 1925 created Zambia’s first game reserve in Luangwa. National parks and
game management areas were formally provided for under the National Parks and Wildlife Act No. 57
of 1968, created by the National Parks Declaration Order of 1972, and Statutory Instrument No. 44 of
1972, which established the basis for the current network of wildlife protected areas. Game
management areas, which surround national parks and serve as buffer zones against disruptive land-use
practices, emerged only in the early 1970s under the Game Management Area Declaration Order of
1971. GMAs were created with the overall objective of providing a framework within which to
integrate wildlife management into rural development (Lungu, 1990).
42. The Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 provides for the current management structure for Zambia's protected
areas. The Act outlines the rationale for the new Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), its
responsibilities concerning protected areas, and how it is to be involved in the regulation of hunting in
GMAs and game ranches (ZAWA, 2002). It provides for protected species, licensing, entry in wildlife
protected areas, management planning requirements for national parks and game management areas and
the enforcement of wildlife related activities for compliance with international agreements. The Act
also provides for the creation of local level community institutions, Community Resource Boards
(CRBs) and along with GMA legislation represents an effort to return at least some rights of resource
management to local communities.
43. CRBs were designed to enable communities to benefit from the natural resources of the GMA. The
1998 Act allows for co-management of each GMA between ZAWA and the CRB. The GMA often
cover very large areas, presenting serious challenges for good governance between the CRB and its
constituents. In June 2002, ZAWA agreed to share c 45% of hunting license revenues (not profits) with
the CRB and 5% with traditional leaders. Very recently, they agreed with the CRB to redo the formula
for sharing revenues and to base this on the sharing of costs on a case-by-case basis. The GMA
category of PA is relatively weak in a legal sense, because there are no restrictions on conversion of
natural areas in the GMA to other land uses, and to agriculture in particular. In this respect, GMA are
little different from open areas.
44. The Wildlife Act of 1998 allows for potential devolution of authority to CRBs for wildlife
management. However, GMA residents have no formal, legal rights to benefit from the management of
any natural resources. Progress in GMAs is made exceedingly difficult by the existence of a plethora of
different sector authorities, most with small capacities, while the primary stakeholders, the villagers,
24
UNDP PRO DOC
have little authority. While policy, pubic pronouncements and legislation suggest that the potential for
CBNRM in Zambia is high, there is considerable slippage between stated intention and practice.
45. Fisheries resources are managed under the Fisheries Act of 1974. The Division of Fisheries (DoF),
created the same year, is responsible for implementing the Act. Fisheries were managed as a natural
resource until 1982, when DoF was transferred to Agriculture. This reflected a significant policy
change with fisheries now managed primarily as food production systems. Current laws and policies
make no allowance for the participation of communities in fisheries management. Notwithstanding,
there are pilot activities to develop community-based fisheries management approaches at least two
sites in Zambia.
46. Zambia is a signatory to the International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD -- Rio de Janeiro,
1992), the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar, 1971), World Heritage
Convention (WHC) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
47. Zambia is in the process of developing an all-embracing national environmental policy to bring together
the numerous sectoral policy frameworks and environmental strategies. These policies under review
include the National Conservation Strategy (NCS) whose objectives included maintenance of Zambia’s
biodiversity and sustainable use of the country’s renewable resources; the policy for National Parks and
Wildlife in Zambia (1998); the Zambia Wildlife Act, Act No. 12 of 1998; the Forestry Policy (1998);
the Forestry Act Cap 311 of 1973; and the Fisheries Act, cap 311 of 1974.
IV.
Institutional Context
Government
48. The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) is directly or indirectly
responsible for most environmental and natural resource management in Zambia. MTENR plays a
coordinating role, which includes the crucial responsibility of policy formulation for these sub-sectors.
The MTENR’s role also embodies the facilitation and monitoring of the implementation of international
agreements, conventions and treaties, with a view to promoting the country’s conservation interests as
well as meeting international obligations.
49. The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) is the key institution for PA and wildlife management in
Zambia. It has the legal status of statutory body (a type of parastatal), and was established by Act of
Parliament No. 12 of 1998. It commenced operations in 2000. ZAWA’s mission is to contribute to the
preservation of Zambia’s heritage, ecosystem and biodiversity for present and future generations
through the conservation of Zambia’s wildlife. It is responsible for the management of the national
parks and GMAs. GMA are to be managed in partnership with communities. An independent board of
directors appointed by Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources governs it.
50. The establishment of ZAWA was part of a broad and much larger package of ongoing reforms
implemented by GRZ since 1991 that aim to reduce government subventions to various sectors. ZAWA
was designed to supercede the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), which had become
increasingly dysfunctional over the previous 30 years: this context of decreased capacity aggravated by
a mix of other factors, led to 90% of Zambia’s elephant population being lost due to poaching between
independence and the end of the century. In the same period, the black rhino disappeared from the
country.
51. The creation of ZAWA was a difficult and turbulent process. The final transition stage from NPWS to
ZAWA left an institutional void at the field level that resulted in the decimation of wildlife populations
in many NPs and GMAs. Staff numbers were reduced from 4,400 under NPWS to 1,400 under ZAWA.
Infrastructure in the NPs and GMAs is dilapidated in most cases, and non-existent in some. The
establishment of ZAWA took off without the re-capitalization that would have enabled it to carry out
25
UNDP PRO DOC
effective and efficient resource protection, monitoring programs and infrastructure development.
ZAWA lacked adequate transport to carry out its work, and this is still a problem: from a total of 77
vehicles owned by ZAWA in March 2004, only about 17% were reliable (Since then, ZAWA has had
part of their vehicle fleet renewed through a grant from NORAD).
52. ZAWA has passed through a traumatic transformation process during its first two years, with political
interference in the filling of the upper management positions. It is now increasing in stability, having
had both a substantive board and senior staff in place for over two years. ZAWA has recently been
making rapid strides to assert itself in the field and to expand its capacities. With funding incentive
based from NORAD, poaching is generally under control in 9 of the 19 national parks, representing
63% of the total area. However, ZAWA still has an excessive and under-funded mandate, and still has
to develop substantial capacity in terms of human resources and management systems.
53. The Division of Fisheries (DoF), in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, has a mandate for
promoting the development of commercial fishing, enforcement of regulations and laws and for
registration of fishermen and their boats. It has authority to oversee all fisheries gazetted areas and is
extremely interested in community programs. DoF, however, has very little capacity or resources to do
any of this. Fisheries is one of the most underdeveloped sectors in the country.
54. The Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) was established under the Environmental Protection
Control Act No. 12 of 1990 and has responsibility for monitoring the state of the environment in the
country including all gazetted areas. With funding from the Netherlands, ECZ had an active program of
monitoring of wildlife populations in PA in the late 1990s. Although ECZ’s monitoring of wildlife
stopped with the end of this funding, ECZ still have this unfunded mandate. ECZ has been seeking to
transfer this function to ZAWA – and asking to ZAWA to pay for it.
55. Key points on the capacity of other institutions relevant to the PA sector are summarized as follows:
 The Forestry Department, also under MTENR, is responsible for all gazetted national and local
forest reserves but political will and FD capacity are so weak that management is effectively
absent from forest reserves. Illegal logging is rampant, the department has virtually no capacity
to control agricultural encroachments into the forestry estate, the collection rate of license fees
for most commercial forest products is less than 5%, and there are essentially no functional
natural forest management systems in place.
 The National Heritage Conservation Commission is responsible for overseeing all national
heritage and plaque sites, the most famous being Victoria Falls, which is a World Heritage Site,
and located within Mosi Oa Tunya National Park. Other sites are poorly managed due to lack of
resources.
Non-government partners in PA management
56. Zambia has been a leader in forming innovative partnerships with non-governmental organizations for
the management of protected areas. This was largely a spontaneous reaction to the high level of
poaching resulting from the institutional void of the 1980s and 1990s. Two prominent examples are
Kasanka Trust Limited in Kasanka NP, and Frankfurt Zoological Society in North Luangwa NP. They
both operate under formal agreements with ZAWA, and have been active since the late 1980s. A more
recently created entity is Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ), which exists to reduce poaching and
increase community development in the Lower Zambezi area. A number of international NGOs also
have operations in Zambia, including, IUCN, WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society and African
Wildlife Foundation.
57. African Parks is the first for-profit, private sector business partner for PA management in Zambia. They
have just signed a 20-year lease with ZAWA in June 2004 for the management of Liuwa Plains NP.
They plan to operate the park as a business, making the investments in park management and
infrastructure necessary to bring the park up to a condition where they can attract large, private, tourism
26
UNDP PRO DOC
sector investors – and perhaps turn a profit on their own investments. The newly signed lease in Zambia
is the most recent of several similar African Parks investments in African PA in at least four countries.
Baseline Course of Action
V.
Threats
58. Threats to biodiversity have been greatly reinforced by increasing poverty over the last three decades.
The main threats to biodiversity at a landscape level include over-hunting of wildlife, unsustainable
exploitation of forest produce (especially for sawtimber and urban wood energy supplies) and clearance
of forests, wetlands and grasslands for agriculture. Major underlying causes of these threats have been
poverty and the lack of economic alternatives associated with the rapidly declining economic conditions
in the country during the 80s and 90s, the decline in the motivation and the resources of State
institutions -- especially the old National Parks and Wildlife Service – and rapid demographic growth in
the country.
59. Anti-poaching efforts came to a virtual halt for several years during the institutional void during the late
90s leading up to the creation of ZAWA. Elephant populations in Zambia fell by roughly 90% from the
1950s to the 1990s. The black rhino was eliminated from Zambia during the same period. Table 4
shows the impact of poaching on the comparison of stocking rate to carrying capacity of 9 NP and
GMA. (The overstocking of Mosi oa Tunya NP has since been addressed by ZAWA through a culling
operation.) Poaching has been facilitated by the growing availability of guns related to political
instability in neighboring countries.
Table 4 – Comparison of National Parks and GMA Stocking Rates with Expected Carrying
Capacities
Protected Area
Size
Mean
Current Stocking
Stocking Rate
(Km²)
Annual
Rate to Carrying
(LSU/Km²)
Rainfall
Capacity %
(mm)
South Luangwa NP
9,505
600
65.2
6.5
Kafue NP
22,400
800
8.4
1.4
Mosi-oa-Tunya NP
66
500
357
26.3
Kasanka NP
390
900
16.6
3.3
Lavushi Manda NP
1,500
900
1.2
0.2
Lupande GMA
4,840
600
16.1
1.6
Munyamadzi GMA
3,300
600
33.7
3.4
Lumimba GMA/Luambe NP
4,500
600
13.7
1.4
Kafue Flats GMA (Kafue
6,100
600
18.2
1.8
8,400
900
5.4
1.1
Lechwe only)
Bangweulu
Swamps
(Lechwe only)
(DSI, 2004)
60. For most of the post-colonial era, the government focused its resources on the mining sector, which
brought the greatest revenue to the country compared to other sectors. Protected areas were not seen as
27
UNDP PRO DOC
a priority and resources political commitment dedicated to PA and wildlife conservation declined.
Recently, with the drop of world prices for Zambian export minerals (copper, zinc, lead, cobalt and
coal), the government has re-focused its attention on the agricultural and the tourism sectors as sources
of major revenue to the country. The reliance of tourism on wildlife, NP and GMA has helped bring
new resources to bear on anti-poaching and PA management.
61. The annual rate of deforestation in Zambia ranges between 250,000 and 300,000 hectares per year
(Chidumayo 1996). Queiroz (1997) notes that out of 39 protected forest sites, 29 were being openly
utilized or encroached.
VI.
The Approach Taken for Project Design
62. PA management has clearly been shown to be an effective means of biodiversity conservation in
Zambia, wherever effective management partnerships and adequate resources are applied. This has
been shown to be true at North and South Luangwa NP, at Kasanka NP and Lower Zambezi NP and
more recently at Kafue (DSI – 2004). Over half of NPs, representing roughly 2/3 of the total area under
parks, now have basic enforcement and field presence in place. In areas subject to sound management,
wildlife populations are recovering – sometimes dramatically – proving the utility of the PA estate as a
safeguard against key threats.
63. Key challenges for the most effective use of PA for biodiversity conservation are; a) how to use the
limited resources available for PA management in the most cost effective manner to achieve maximum
impact for biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, and, b) how to develop sustainable
financing for PA management. Expansion of the range of public/private/civil society/community
partnerships has been identified as a key to achieving maximum impact with GRZ/ZAWA’s limited
resources. Furthermore, the experience previously cited of South Luangwa NP has clearly shown how
investments in effective PA management and infrastructure can lead to sustainable PA financing – at
least for those NP with good tourism potential (DSI, 2004).
64. This UNDP/GEF project will contribute to improvements to the overall effectiveness of the
management of the National System of PA. The approach adopted for achieving this consists of
identification of barriers to effective PA management and the development of measures to overcome
these barriers. First the key barriers to increasing PA management effectiveness are identified and
analyzed. The barriers include a full mix of legal, policy and governance constraints and a range of key
institutional capacity constraints. From this a framework of objectives, outcomes, outputs and activities
are identified for overcoming or surmounting the barriers.
65. There are two cross-cutting themes to the GEF approach. The first is to bring a strong business planning
approach to PA management – to develop strategies for using these limited resources in the most
effective way to achieve maximum impact. The second is the need to build and expand upon Zambia’s
already impressive body of public-private partnerships and to develop public/private/civil
society/community partnerships for PA management.
66. The National System of PA is viewed as a continuum of PA whose management effectiveness ranges
from Low to High -- from those having only minimal levels of protection and management through an
Intermediate category of management effectiveness to a small number of well-managed PA. The
project has no illusions about solving all the problems of the PA system or of leaving all priority PA in
the well-managed category at the end of the project. Rather the project will seek to shift the overall
level of PA management effectiveness from the Low towards the High end of the scale – to move as
many PA as possible from the Low-level of management class into the Intermediate and to shift more
of the Intermediates into the High level of management group.
67. The country does not have the resources to effectively manage on its own all of its very large PA estate.
The traditional conservation management paradigm, centered on State control, is unworkable over such
28
UNDP PRO DOC
a large area, given projected funding shortfalls and human resource constraints. The parastatal ZAWA
has made very impressive strides since its recent creation, but ZAWA cannot possibly manage by itself,
all of the 8.5% of the country set aside as NP, let alone the 22% of the country gazetted as GMA. There
is a need to prioritize interventions and to strengthen key conservation functions in priority PAs within
the estate. This will require: a) an overall conservation/reclassification plan for the National Protected
Areas System -- to focus efforts spatially and temporally; b) development of new management tools
involving public/private/civil society/community partnerships – that will allow conservation goals to be
achieved more cost effectively and quickly than otherwise possible; c) development of core institutional
capacities for PA management.
68. The overall conservation/reclassification plan will identify spatial and temporal priorities. The project
will develop a range of tools and capacities for effective PA management. Those sites identified as
priorities for tourism development will require both investments in infrastructure, beyond capacity
building. Investments in infrastructure for PA access will come primarily from donors and selected
partners, as has been done in the past by NORAD in South Luangwa NP and Kasanka Trust in Kasanka
NP. Investments in lodges and other tourism facilities will be made by the private sector. Where
wildlife populations are high and access infrastructure is in place, private sector investments have never
been lacking.
VII.
Baseline
Barriers to Effective Management of PA
69. In recent years, Zambia has taken major steps to provide a strong legal base for PA management, to
reduce the role of the state, to streamline park management, to increase the rights and incentives of
local communities for wildlife management and to target PA-based tourism as a key sector of economic
growth and poverty reduction. However, the Baseline is characterized by a number of significant
barriers to effective PA management.
70. Limited choice of categories of PA The limited opportunities offered by existing categories of PA in
Zambia serves as one barrier. At present, only national parks, when properly managed, provide good
assurance of biodiversity conservation. The GMA category presents a relatively strong potential for
conservation because of the substantial incentives offered to communities/ managers from the revenues
generated by trophy hunting. However, the lack of any legal restrictions on conversion to smallholder
agriculture, commercial farming or other land uses is a major barrier to effective biodiversity
conservation over time. This could potentially be addressed through land use planning in GMA, but this
is not an effective legal tool and Zambia and has rarely been shown to be effective in the African
context. Reviews of lessons learned in southern Africa (Annex 5) indicate that management by
communities is often the most effective form of wildlife management. The Wildlife Act of 1998 does
allow for co-management with ZAWA, but it only allows for a partial devolution of authority to
communities within the GMA. The gazetted category of forest reserves has proven to be almost totally
ineffective in Zambia for ensuring biodiversity conservation.
71. There are no PA categories in Zambia that disallow clearing/conversion of natural areas while allowing
trophy hunting – i.e., that combine the strong economic incentives from trophy hunting with
interdictions against land clearing/conversion. There are large areas in national parks that do not
presently have the access/infrastructure needed for game-viewing-based tourism, but that do have
adequate access for trophy hunting. Such areas at present are cost centers for ZAWA while having the
potential to be profit centers. The DSI report prepared as part of project preparation argues that
“Hunting can generate the revenues necessary to maintain large areas of the Zambezi Valley
Escarpment in Lower Zambezi National park or dense miombo woodlands in Kafue National Park”
(DSI 2004).
72. Also, a strong argument can be made, given the extremely long history of co-evolution of man and
wildlife in Africa, that totally excluding hunting is not necessarily a good thing for ecosystem
29
UNDP PRO DOC
conservation. Counter-intuitively, areas that are hunted sustainably may be ecologically more sound
with healthier animals and vegetation than tourism areas. Formal hunting, moreover, is a valuable tool
for creating incentives for protecting wildlife and for displacing poaching. Mosi oa Tunya is the one
park in Zambia where effective exclusion of hunting has lead to overpopulation of wildlife and to
visible deterioration of habitats.
73. Poor ecosystem representativeness The current PA system serves as a barrier to effective biodiversity
conservation in another way, because the categories of PA that provide the most effective means of
biodiversity conservation, do not provide adequate, representative coverage of the full range of
Zambian ecosystems. If we accept the rule of thumb of 10% of total area of each
ecosystem/habitat/vegetation type as being adequate coverage, then Figure 416 shows that only four of
Zambia’s 14 vegetation types recognized by Hearn et al (2001) are adequately covered by national
parks. There is moderate coverage of a further three, minor protection of three, and nil coverage of four.
This shows that Zambia’s national parks were not designed specifically for the purpose of protecting
representative biological communities.
74. If one would include the significantly lower level of protection offered by GMA, then 10 of 14 have at
least 10% of their geographic area covered by the two categories. However, another unknown is the
extent of deforestation in protected areas. Deforestation is estimated to be very high for the country in
general. Although only two NP are known to be significantly impacted (Isangano and Lower Zambezi),
the problem is much more widespread in the GMA where conversion to agriculture is legal. Clearly,
gap analysis and reclassification of Zambia’s PA are needed to ensure effective biodiversity
conservation. (Recognition of this need for reclassification was the original impetus for this project.)
Figure 4 – Extent and Protection of Zambia’s Major Vegetation Types
Extend
and Protection
of Zambia's
Major Vegetation
Extent
and Protection
of Zambia’s
Major Vegetation
Types Types
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Forest Reserves (%)
GMAs (%)
Parks (%)
20%
10%
M
op
an
H
e
al
op
Br
hy
ac
ti c
ky
A.
st
eg
P
ol
ya ia
ca
nt
ha
M
io
m
bo
M
on
ta
n
W
oo e
dl
an
Ev
d
er
gr
ee
n
Ka Sw
am
la
ha
p
ri
G
ra
ss
W
Ta a te
r
ll
m
io
m
D
bo
ec
id
u
Se
ou
m
i-a s
qu
at
ic
0%
(DSI, 2004 – done as part of project preparation)
16
DSI, 2004
30
UNDP PRO DOC
75. The Hearne et al vegetation map used for the gap analysis in Figure 4 is not necessarily the best choice
of map for this purpose – that question must be fully addressed during project implementation. Figure 4
does, however, illustrate very well the type of analysis to be done during the reclassification planning.
76. Inadequate definition of the optimal role of the state Another barrier in Zambia, as in so many
countries, is the absence of clear definition on what should be the optimum role of the State in PA
management. ZAWA has large, unfunded mandates. There is need for a more coherent system for
deciding where to invest limited resources. Key questions include:
 Under what conditions should the State directly manage PA with their own resources?
 Under what conditions should the State enter into partnerships or lease agreements with the
private sector, NGOs, other civil society entities, and/or communities?
 When should the State totally cede control/ ownership/ management to communities or to the
private sector?
 Are communities better suited to manage wildlife for trophy hunting than the State?
77. The Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 mandated the restructuring of the government’s National Parks and
Wildlife Service into the new Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). Under the umbrella of the Ministry
of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, ZAWA has the institutional status of a statutory body
(a type of parastatal), allowing it considerably more flexibility than a government agency. This has been
a very positive development and has lead to a much more dynamic situation than that which existed
before with more possibilities for innovative approaches and partnerships. The Ministry has oversight
responsibility over ZAWA, but has not established formal mechanisms for doing so. All of this, along
with the impossibility of ZAWA fulfilling all of its mandates with its own resources, makes it that
much more important to better define the optimal role of the State.
78. No policy frameworks for private/public/community partnerships Another barrier to biodiversity
conservation is the absence of legal and policy frameworks for private/public/community partnerships
for PA management. In the absence of clear policies, ZAWA is left in a largely passive mode where it
reacts to initiatives advanced by the private sector. Partnerships developed have been opportunistic and
situational. Lack of a clear policy framework for partnerships sometimes leads to misunderstandings
and mistrust. Inevitably this leads to problems and confusion on such issues as minimum conditions for
MOU or leases, sharing of costs and benefits (questions of equity), roles and rights of communities and
traditional leaders, mechanisms for oversight, the definition of grounds for early termination of a lease
or MOU, etc. All of these questions are currently dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps, more
importantly, ZAWA has no basis for proactively promoting partnerships for the management of PA for
which it lacks the resources to manage itself.
79. Insufficient forms of management partnerships The development and multiplication of such
partnerships presents one of the only options that Zambia has for expanding the numbers and area of
PA under effective management. The effectiveness of existing partnerships need to be examined so that
existing models may be improved, new models may be developed and effective partnerships promoted
and replicated. There are very promising opportunities for expanding the numbers and forms of
public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management. New partnerships with
communities may present a particular opportunity. For example, the cost of enforcement by wellsupervised CRB scouts is only a third or less of that of ZAWA-managed NP. (This may change if labor
laws require full-time CRB scouts to be paid full benefits similar to those paid to ZAWA WPO).
ZAWA-community partnerships for PA management could potentially be much more cost-effective.
(Source: Preliminary findings of economic assessment of PA underway by DSI). The development of
community/private/civil society partnerships for PA management also represents a new area of
opportunity. In addition to cost-effectiveness, all forms of partnerships need also to be evaluated in
terms of their effectiveness for biodiversity conservation.
80. Insufficient incentives for community-based management are another barrier that is rooted in the
present legal and policy framework for CBNRM. Although significant progress has been made, much
31
UNDP PRO DOC
of what is called CBNRM would be better categorized as revenue sharing. The Administrative
Management Design for Game Areas (ADMADE) program that was initiated in 1987, is the oldest
vehicle for community involvement in wildlife management and has spread to over 20 GMA. It was
much more a program of revenue sharing with communities, however, than of co-management. The
LIRDP/SLAMU projects had a long history of support to GMA communities and experimented with
full transfer of hunting revenues in the Lupande GMA next to South Luangwa NP. (This experiment
ended with the hunting ban and the two-year loss of hunting revenues that followed). The 1998 Wildlife
Act laid the legal basis for co-management of GMA by ZAWA and Community Resource Boards
(CRB). ZAWA now shares 45% of trophy license revenues with CRB. CRB employ their own village
scouts who are trained by ZAWA and work under the direction of ZAWA wildlife officers. Very
recently, ZAWA has begun involving CRB directly in the setting of hunting quotas and moving
towards a new formula of revenue sharing to be based on the sharing of management costs and profits.
81. However, experience and lessons learned from six reviews of CBNRM in Zambia and in southern
Africa (see Annex 5) both indicate that two of the most critical factors for the success of communitybased wildlife management are; a) the degree of devolution of authority (i.e., the sense of control or
ownership) to the community to control the resource and; b) the amounts of the revenues generated for
the communities (DSI, 2004). The probability of successful wildlife management is generally
maximized when communities have full control over the resource and when they receive and manage
all the revenues generated. People rapidly develop capacity (or demonstrate capacities they already had)
when they have the rights to benefit from their resources and to exclude others from doing so. In these
respects, the Wildlife Act, in its present form, sets clear limits on the powers of the CRB. Devolution of
authority in Zambia has been very partial and key management decisions generally remain firmly in the
hands of ZAWA.
82. ZAWA, as the regulatory agency for wildlife and GMAs and also a direct beneficiary of wildlife
revenues, is faced with a conflict of interest. Creating optimal conditions for CBNRM could require an
already cash-strapped ZAWA to give up a substantial portion of the income they earn from trophy
hunting in the GMA. Mitigation measures would need to be sought to make up for this. These may
include:
 Growing the revenue base. Investments underway in NP management and infrastructure will lead to
increased private sector investment and a larger revenue base for ZAWA and other PA managers;
 The potential zoning of NP to create safari-hunting areas out of portions of NPs that do not have
adequate access for conventional tourism could increase ZAWA’s revenues.
83. Also, the CRB, by law, is a “centralized” structure that may cover all, or a large portion of an entire
GMA (CRB boundaries correspond to chiefdoms). Having a single structure for large geographic areas
violates the principle of subsidiarity, greatly complicates problems of governance for these rural
populations and increases the risks of “elite” capture of the CRB. These factors also serve as
disincentives for CBNRM.
84. The Wildlife Act allows for co-management of wildlife. The Forestry Act, once enabling legislation is
passed, would allow for co-management of forest resources. There is interest in developing legislation
for co-management or community-based management of fisheries resources. But each act calls for the
establishment of a separate community management structure. There is no legislation that allows
communities to manage all of the renewable resources within their traditional lands through a single
management structure.
85. Limited stakeholder participation There is limited stakeholder participation at both the national and
local levels in the PA sector. At the national level, there are no established mechanisms for civil society
inputs into the protected area sector. MTENR has responsibility for oversight of ZAWA and of the PA
sector, but needs civil society input to make informed decisions and to develop effective policies.
ZAWA is mandated with biodiversity/natural heritage conservation on the one hand, and is under
pressure from GRZ, on the other, to become financially independent. This inherent conflict of interest
32
UNDP PRO DOC
necessitates a strong role from civil society in order to seek balance between competing objectives. It is
believed that much of this can be achieved through increased transparency and direct involvement of
civil society counterparts.
86. In addition to limited participation, there is need for improved financial management at national and
local levels to minimize conflicts and mistrust. One of the causes of conflict and tensions between
ZAWA and CRB communities is the lack of transparency on the sharing of revenues. CRB’s are now
supposed to receive 45% of hunting license fees, but they very often don’t know what they are
receiving 45% of – they don’t know if they are getting their fair share. And exactly the same type of
problem exists between CRB and the Village Action Groups (VAG) and community members. There is
often lack of transparency in the handling of finances by the CRB – leading to conflict and mistrust.
And all of this leads to lack of incentive for wildlife conservation in the GMA.
87. Sustainable PA financing dependent on tourism development Insufficient conditions for rapid
growth of the tourism sector poses a barrier to biodiversity conservation, because tourism revenues
from photo safaris and from trophy hunting are the main sources of sustainable financing for PA
management. Major constraints to tourism development are poor access, lack of tourism infrastructure,
and depleted wildlife populations. To attract private sector investors, one must rebuild the wildlife
populations from their presently low levels. But rebuilding wildlife populations requires front-end
investments in effective PA management over something like 10-15 years. Such investments may come
from government, donors or private sector/civil society management partners. This “chicken-and-egg”
relationship between investments, restoration of wildlife populations and sustainable financing is
illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5 - Linkage between tourism development and sustainable financing of PA management
Growth of
tourism and
hunting
levies cover full
management costs
EXTERNA
L INPUT
Effective
protected area
management
attraction of
private
sector
investors
High wildlife
populations
adequate
protection
88. Business planning tools rarely applied to PA management Proper business planning has only been
applied to PA management in Zambia in a rudimentary fashion. The lack of economic and financial
tools for measuring and comparing the efficiency of different forms of PA management, for quantifying
costs and benefits and of using these estimates to develop PA business plans is another barrier to
enhancing PA management effectiveness for biodiversity conservation. To date, even the private sector
partners have made little use of business planning for NP management. The newly arrived African
Parks17 will probably become one of the key actors in the development of this tool in Zambia. The
relative efficiency of different forms of management partnerships should be a key consideration in
17
African Parks is a private sector company that has just signed a 20-year lease for the management of
Liuwa Plains NP
33
UNDP PRO DOC
choosing where to use each tool. For example, analyses done in project preparation (DSI, 2004) have
shown that the cost of enforcement by well-supervised CRB is about a fourth of the cost of enforcement
by ZAWA. This has lead to the recent idea of developing ZAWA-CRB partnerships for enforcement in
NP, whereby ZAWA could contract adjoining CRB to do anti-poaching patrols in the parks.
89. There is equally a great need for business planning at the PA system level. There should have been a
proper financial analysis of the feasibility of becoming self-financing before ZAWA’s creation.
Immediately following ZAWA’s creation, there should have been a 10-15 year business plan developed
with a sound analysis of management costs and of the investments and other financial means needed to
cover these costs. Many of the assumptions made when creating ZAWA proved to be false. The
application of business planning to the National Protected Areas System should be a key tool to
determine where management by ZAWA can eventually become self-financing, the investments needed
and the time periods required. Business planning should guide the development of public/private/civil
society/community partnerships for PA management and it should help define those PA that are critical
for biodiversity conservation for which subsidies from government or other parties will be necessary.
90. M&E systems are another barrier to effective biodiversity conservation. Methodologies for monitoring
wildlife populations are relatively well-developed, but very little has been done on techniques to
monitor ecosystem health. The Environment Council of Zambia formerly operated a Dutch-funded
system for monitoring of wildlife populations, but this ended when donor funding ended in about 2000.
At present, there is very little routine monitoring of wildlife populations and almost no monitoring of
PA ecosystem health. There is no monitoring of forest cover loss in Zambian PA. ZAWA has not had
funds for an operational M&E program. Zambia’s databases on key habitats, species, their protection,
protected areas and major threats (especially agriculture/settlements) are very weak. Data are scarce,
there are often question marks about methodology and replicability, and for almost every aspect the
gaps far out shadow the data. There is no effective formal monitoring or regulation of ZAWA itself by
MTENR. Nor is there any formal system of monitoring of PA management partnerships.
91. A review (Chabwela and Gaile, 2004) of existing M&E systems done as part of project preparation
identified the following gaps:
 The existing M&E system cannot answer the question of whether or not the existing PA system
indeed covers the most important biodiversity for the country;
 PA objectives are defined broadly, are general for all Protected Areas, there are few site-specific
measurable objectives and the objectives are not translated into measurable targets and
measurable indicators. This does not allow one to evaluate whether the current management
systems are achieving the stated objectives;
 Conservation values of the PA system are defined in very general terms with limited focus on
site-specific significance;
 Suitability, adequacy and appropriateness of management processes are not regularly assessed.
The same is true for management efficiency and the appropriateness of methods, activities and
inputs;
92. Conservation plan for the PA system Another barrier to biodiversity conservation is the lack of an
overall conservation plan for the National Protected Areas System. Addressing all of the individual
barriers presented above are all critically important, but effective conservation of biodiversity in
Zambia will require that they all be integrated into an overall reclassification and conservation plan for
the National System. The plan should address the needs for creation, reclassification and degazetting of
PA, including the use of new categories of PA that may be created through legal reforms. It should
identify the core PA that would be managed directly by ZAWA and those for which different forms of
partnerships will be developed. It should identify opportunities for, and need for, transboundary
conservation areas and should identify the key types of initiatives needed for their realization. It should
make strong use of business planning to identify financially viable forms of PA management
partnerships based on analyses of effectiveness and efficiency. It should develop realistic plans for
monitoring and evaluation and knowledge management. Finally the plan should include an investment
34
UNDP PRO DOC
plan and a marketing plan. The marketing plan should be used to attract private sector investors, private
sector and community management partners and to mobilize resources from government and donors.
Donor Support to the PA Sector
93. Details of donor support to the PA sector are found in the ICA Annex of the Project Executive
Summary. Highlights are given here.
94. NORAD is the lead donor supporting ZAWA and NP and GMA management in Zambia. They have
been funding South Luangwa NP, the second largest in the country, and adjoining GMA, since about
1986. With NORAD’s assistance, this park has been restored and tourism has developed to the point
where ZAWA is now able to cover most recurrent costs of parks management out of tourist entrance
fees and other tourism related levies. The 5’th phase of NORAD’s support will concentrate on PA
infrastructure. NORAD is providing funding to ZAWA for an “emergency” anti-poaching program in
five of the national parks. The program’s monitoring system has shown very positive results in
dramatically reducing poaching and beginning to restore wildlife populations.
95. Frankfurt Zoological Society and Kasanka Trust Limited have successfully supported the restoration,
and management North Luangwa NP and Kasanka NP since the late 1980’s. DANIDA and WCS have
been supporting GMA management, CBNRM and alternative livelihoods with GMA communities.
WWF, FZS, and CLZ are active in environmental education.
96. The tourism development component of the new SEED project will target Kafue NP and Mosi oa
Tunya NP – two of main parks targeted for tourism development and poverty reduction under the
PRSP. Most of the funding for Kafue NP will come from NORAD (developed under a separate project
document) and supplemented by World Bank and GEF. African Parks plans to invest $5 million in a
20-year program of restoration and management of Liuwa Plains NP.
Alternative Course of Action
VIII.
GRZ Strategy for Protected Areas
97. The PDF B project development process has solidified the emerging GRZ strategy for the
National Protected Areas System. The GEF guidance for Strategic Priority 1 on “Catalyzing
Sustainability of Protected Areas” has had considerable influence on the GRZ’s strategy development.
The review of lessons learned in Zambia and in the region done as part of the PDF B process has also
fed into this strategy development process.
98. Protected areas in Zambia are seen as lying on a continuum running from the High level of management
on one end of the spectrum to those with Low levels or no management at all on the other. At present
the NPs in Zambia run the full gamut of this spectrum. The vast majority of GMAs have Intermediate
levels of management effectiveness to none at all. Against this background, GRZ, recognizing that it
cannot raise management effectiveness to optimum levels throughout the PA estate immediately owing
to budgetary and other constraints, is pursuing a phased approach to capacity building and investment
in the National PA System. The project will develop an overall conservation plan for the national
Protected Areas System, In the interim, the GRZ will pursue the following interventions over the
medium-term:
 ZAWA will concentrate on the management of a core set of high priority national parks
with strong tourism potential18, which will serve as growth hubs for conservation.
 A PA reclassification exercise would be undertaken, to identify priority areas in need of
management action (informing the temporal sequence of site level capacity building and
investment work, across the PA estate), ensuring that biodiversity conservation priorities are
defined, that the PA estate is bio-geographically representative and ensuring that PA
18
Currently listed in PRSP as Mosi oa Tunya, Kafue NP, Lower Zambezi NP and Luangwa NP
35
UNDP PRO DOC



classification and management intensity is matched to management objectives at the site
level.
GRZ will develop and pass new legislation that increases the effectiveness of the National
System of PA by exploiting opportunities for enhanced biodiversity conservation that are
not possible under existing categories of PA. This will include the creation of new
categories of PA. Two principal new candidate categories have emerged from the project
development process. The Community Conservation Areas (CCA) category of PA would
maximize incentives for conservation for communities by giving nearly full control over
resources and the revenues derived from these resources while preventing conversion to
agriculture or other land uses. The second change would allow portions of national parks to
be zoned as ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas (SHA). This would be done for sections
of national parks that have little or no present photo-tourism potential, thereby converting
them from cost centers to profit centers for ZAWA, while still ensuring a high level of
biodiversity conservation and enhancing ZAWA’s overall financial viability. This will
require a change in the legal status of these national parks. These two proposed new
categories will be developed and validated through a participatory process involving all key
stakeholders, and with the application of necessary safeguards, to ensure that biodiversity
management goals are satisfied.
Simultaneously, ZAWA would pilot an expanded range of public/private/civil
society/community partnerships for PA management, with a view to expanding management
options for both old and new categories of PA. Steps will be taken to strengthen the
underpinning policy framework, and to develop institutional capacities to assure strong
regulatory oversight of these partnerships. The new partnerships are expected to allow core
management operations to be strengthened across the PA system, more rapidly than under
the traditional paradigm.
Attention would be paid to strengthening core systemic and institutional level capacities,
including capacities for business planning, monitoring and evaluation, financial
management and other key functions.
99. These interventions will set the stage for the gradual expansion of management interventions across the
larger protected area system, focusing on priority areas, identified through the reclassification exercise.
IX.
Description of the GEF/Project Alternative
Development and Project Objectives
100. Project Preparation: Project development has been jointly financed by UNDP/GEF (through a
PDF B grant) and the GRZ. The project development process was highly participatory. Preparation
commenced in May 2003 with the creation of a Project Preparation Secretariat within MTENR staffed
by two Zambian professionals. Civil society institutions through competitively awarded contracts did
much of the background work. Contracts were awarded for: a) Conservation Assessment, b) Institutions
and Policy Assessment, c) Conservation Planning, and, d) Monitoring and Evaluation. An international
GEF project development specialist assisted in the design and the drafting of the GEF Project Brief.
MTENR was engaged in policy dialogue during the whole process. The National Biodiversity Working
Group provided high-level oversight and validation of the design. The contractors and Secretariat
solicited input from a broad range of PA stakeholders in the preparation of this project.
101. Project Objectives The project will provide core strategic support to strengthen the National
Protected Areas System – the system of core priority protected areas that have biodiversity conservation
as a major objective. More specifically, this will include NP, GMA and new categories be created with
project assistance (CCA and SHA are the principal candidate categories identified during project
preparation). It will work to move PA management effectiveness from the low end towards the
effectively managed end of the spectrum. This will be done through legal and policy reforms, improved
governance and institutional capacity building. Two field demonstration sites will be used for testing
36
UNDP PRO DOC
and implementing the legal and policy reforms, for developing public/private/civil society/community
partnerships and other new tools and strategies for effective PA management.





102. As the term “effective management” of PA is used in a very broad sense in this project design. The
following have been identified as key elements of effective management of the national Protected Areas
System:
Definition of the key management objectives (biodiversity conservation, tourism development, trophy hunting,
multiple use management, etc.) for each priority site identified from the reclassification planning;
Based on the bio-physical and socio-economic parameters for each priority site, selection of the category of PA
that is most suitable;
Selection the form(s) of management most suitable for the site (ZAWA-managed or any suitable combination of
public/private/civil society/community partnerships;
Development of business plans for achieving objectives and covering costs in the most cost effective manner;
Development of the most cost-effective mix of enforcement techniques, M&E systems, infrastructure
development, staffing, sustainable natural resource systems, administrative systems, communications and
marketing, joint ventures, etc.
103. The Goal, Project Objective, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities of the project are closely aligned
with GRZ policies as presented in the NBSAP and closely reflect the recent evolution of strategic
thinking within MTENR/GRZ as presented in Section 2.3.2. The project will address the root causes of
threats to biodiversity in the priority PA. A threats matrix is presented in the Protected Areas Annex
(Annex 1). The project has specifically been designed to overcome the barriers to effective biodiversity
conservation in priority PA as presented in the Baseline in Chapter 2. The project is strongly in line
with the PRSP, providing support to economic growth and poverty reduction. The project confirms
Zambia’s commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the Millennium Development
Goals, MDG number 7, in particular. One of the key constraints to development of the tourism sector
will be addressed by restoring PA wildlife populations through improved management effectiveness.
104. Goal The project will make a major contribution to the achievement of the following Goal: A
National PA System that comprises a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems is effectively
safeguarded from human-induced pressures through effective management partnerships and serves to
make Zambia into a tourism destination of choice.
105. One Project Objective has been defined: Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the
system of PAs that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective, will be strengthened. At present
only national parks and GMA are relatively effective in conserving biodiversity, with NP providing a
much stronger legal base. The project will expand the range of categories of PA that provide effective
biodiversity conservation and will enhance management capacities at the national level and at the field
level through the development of new partnerships for managing new categories of PA.
106.
This will be achieved through the following three complementary Outcomes:
Outcome 1 Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new
tools for public/ community/ private /civil society PA management partnerships.
Outcome 2 Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced
capacities for PA representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA
system planning.
Outcome 3 PA management options expanded through development and field-testing of innovative
private-public-community management partnerships for new categories of PA.
37
UNDP PRO DOC
Outcome 1: Policy, Legal and Regulatory Frameworks
Appropriate policy, legal and regulatory frameworks will be put in place providing new tools for
public/community/private/ civil society PA management partnerships
107. Policy and legal reforms will address several barriers including the following: a) lack of a clear,
updated legal/policy framework for reclassification of PA; b) inadequate range of categories of PA as
needed to ensure biodiversity conservation and adequate coverage of critical habitats; c) absence of
frameworks for public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management; d) unclear
definition of relative roles of traditional leaders and communities for community management and comanagement; and, e) unnecessary and confusing multiplication of separate sectoral structures for NRM
at the village level. These policy and legal reforms will be undertaken as part of a normal evolutionary
process that is common to all sectors of government. The process for realizing these reforms will be
highly participatory and will be done under the umbrella of MTENR. Each will start with an update of
best practices and lessons learned both in Zambia and in the region. Special studies will be
commissioned as needed. Policy options for addressing each of the barriers will be identified. Key
issues and policy options will be debated through the Natural Resources Consultative Forum, using this
structured platform for bringing key stakeholders and civil society into the policy development process.
Regional workshops will be organized to obtain stakeholder input from the nine provinces. The
ministry will take the results of this process and craft them into formal laws and policies. National
workshops will be held for stakeholder validation of the final drafts.
108. Reclassification Policies for reclassification will be developed. The policy will cover
reclassification priorities and criteria and procedures for reclassification. It will define the respective
roles of government and non-government stakeholders. The reclassification policy will cover a)
changes to the status of gazetted areas from one PA category to another; b) creation of new gazetted
areas, and; c) degazetting of existing PA.
109. New PA categories New categories of priority PA (or possibly more) will be created – categories
that provide a solid legal basis for effective biodiversity conservation. All new categories of priority PA
will disallow conversion to agriculture or other “unnatural” land uses (the major weakness of the
GMA). The first new candidate category will be a community-managed conservation area (CCA) where
sustainable, commercial use of wildlife (e.g., trophy hunting) and other NR is allowed. The new law
will allow the communities to enter into partnerships and joint ventures with private and parastatal
entities (ZAWA), either for PA management or for investments in commercial, natural resource-based
enterprises. The option of a progressive transfer of responsibilities from ZAWA to communities will be
examined. CCA could be created out of GMA and potentially out of forest reserves or open areas. PA
Boundaries would be redrawn to exclude agricultural areas. Communities would be required to commit
to no agricultural conversion within the new boundaries – or lose their management and use rights as a
consequence.
110. The second proposed new category of PA will provide for ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas
(SHA). These would be created primarily out of sections of national parks that currently have low
potential for photo safaris due to poor access, but where analyses show that trophy hunting may be an
ecologically viable, and much more financially attractive, management option. This would be done by
changing the legal status, and perhaps of the name, of the national park to allowing zoning for
conventional tourism areas and for ZAWA-Managed Safari Hunting Areas. Alternatively, the SHA
could be a new category of PA in itself. The zoning option would seem to be the preferred option,
allowing the park to be rezoned over time as the relative advantages or markets for each type of land
use evolve. Legal reforms that allow trophy hunting in portions of national parks that currently have
insufficient access for conventional tourism, will allow such areas to be converted from cost centers to
profit centers. This will allow limited financial resources to be used more effectively to bring a larger
portion of the overall PA network under effective management. Other appropriate categories of PA may
potentially emerge from the participatory policy/legal reform process.
38
UNDP PRO DOC
111. The creation of new categories of PA, and the reclassification of PA in Zambia, will take into
account developments on the international stage with view to the harmonization of the set of PA
categories. This will be done to make the information on Zambia’s PA comparable with those of other
regions and in order to avoid duplication of work.
112. Policy framework for partnerships The project will provide assistance to MTENR to complete the
development of a clear policy framework for public/private/civil society/community partnerships for
PA management. The ZAWA board of directors has already initiated this process. The guidelines
developed will be used by ZAWA in two ways: a), to judge the merits of proposals initiated by private
sector entities or community groups that approach ZAWA with their own ideas, and to negotiate
partnerships with these entities for those proposals that have merit, and; b) more importantly, to
proactively seek out appropriate local or international partners as needed to bring important PA under
management in situations where ZAWA lacks the needed resources. Regulations will be developed to
define minimum conditions for such partnerships, to define key indicators to be monitored and to define
the acceptable grounds for nullifying an established partnership. National parks will be a focus of these
policies, but policies for appropriate partnerships for GMA and the new categories of PA to be created
will also be developed. Again, policy development will be highly participatory and will include all of
the established PA management partners (Kasanka Trust, FZS, African Parks, etc…) PA community
representatives, PA sector investors (lodges, trophy hunting companies) etc.
113. Rights and roles of traditional leaders and communities The project will support the development of
policy guidelines to clarify the relative rights and roles of communities and traditional leaders in PA
management and CBNRM. The Wildlife Act of 1998 was the first attempt to partially address this
question. Traditional chiefs were given the nebulous role of “patrons” of the CRB. The role of
traditional authorities has been a recurring question confronted in the selection of the field
demonstration sites for this project. A review of experiences to date will be commissioned and the
views of all key stakeholders will be sought out. Close attention will be paid to the need to provide
adequate incentives for sustainable PA management as well as considerations of good governance and
existing laws.
114. Community-level NRM structures The project will support the development of policies that allow a
community to have, if they chose, a single management structure for wildlife, forests, fisheries and
other (non-agricultural) natural resources that occur within the lands that they manage or are to manage.
In addition to communities and CRB, key stakeholders are MTENR, Department of Forestry, ZAWA,
and Fisheries Department in MAC. Inter-agency policies will be harmonized basic on lessons learned
and best practices for CBNRM.
115. Civil society participation and knowledge management The Natural Resources Consultative Forum
will provide a platform for civil society input on important NRM/PA sector issues. The NRCF will
commission thematic background studies on topics of special relevance. It will organize workshops,
seminars and debates on policy and technical issues. It will facilitate the sharing of experiences, the
distillation of lessons learned and the preparation and diffusion of publications on key topics. Advisory
notes/policy briefs to relevant ministries and institutions will be developed. NRCF will facilitate
information sharing on donor activities and availability of funds. It will set up a reference library for
storage and sharing of information with stakeholders. The NRCF will be a key mechanism for
stakeholder input into the legal and policy reforms supported by the project and will provide MTENR
will civil society input on the implementation of PA/NRM sector policies and legislation. The NRCF
will be used to introduce new tools developed by the project and will be a mechanism for sharing
experiences from the field demonstration sites.
116. Improved financial management The project will support improved financial governance at the
GMA and CCA levels. ZAWA will develop transparent mechanisms for the sharing of revenues with
CRB, including the issuance of financial statements showing the calculated basis of revenue sharing.
Furthermore, transparent mechanisms, safeguards and guidelines for good governance and financial
39
UNDP PRO DOC
mechanisms will be developed and implemented at the level of the CRB, the VAG and their
constituents, and any new CCA structures that may be created.
Outcome 2. Institutional Capacity Strengthening
Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced capacities for PA
representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.
117. The project will support the development of a range of strategically identified capacities to
overcome barriers to biodiversity conservation through more effective management of the National
Protected Areas System. All of these capacities fall under the heading of improved knowledge
management – improved methods of collecting and analyzing data to produce information needed for
management of the National System. The capacity building will culminate in the production of an
overall reclassification and conservation plan for the National System. ZAWA will be the lead
implementing agency for Outcome 2 and the principle beneficiary of this capacity building.
118. Identification of Reclassification Priorities The project will provide funding for the identification of
priority sites for reclassification as needed to ensure that the National Protected Areas System includes
bio-geographically representative coverage of the full spectrum of natural ecosystems/habitats/natural
vegetation types in Zambia. The goal will be to have, on average, 10% of the original coverage of each
ecosystem/habitat/vegetation type included, where this is still possible, in a category of PA that
provides effective biodiversity conservation. Other socio-economic criteria reflecting national priorities
will also be developed and applied to the reclassification planning. The Hearne et al vegetation map of
2000 will be analyzed against the 1976 vegetation map (and others, if they exist) to determine which
provides the most meaningful representation of ecosystem differences for the gap analysis. The
preliminary gap analysis done as part of project preparation will be checked and strengthened. Forest
cover loss in NP, GMA and forest reserves will be analyzed using manual, visual interpretation of
satellite imagery – categorizing deforestation as none, low, medium and high. This analysis will be used
to identify GMA and forest reserve candidate sites that could be upgraded to a higher PA category that
would ensure more representative biodiversity conservation. GIS maps of existing settlements will also
be used as surrogates of human pressures. For ecosystems that are not adequately covered by existing
gazetted areas, the satellite imagery will be used to identify candidate sites in open areas for the
creation of new protected areas. NP, GMA and forest reserves that have been heavily encroached by
agriculture and settlements will be identified as candidates for declassification. Landsat Thematic
Mapper satellite imagery recently purchased by the Forest Department will be used for this analysis
where it is available and will be complemented by newly purchased imagery.
119. Bio-physical and socio-economic assessments will be done of sites that are identified as candidates
for upgrading or for the creation of new PA. The condition of habitats and wildlife populations will be
evaluated as well as the nature and severity of threats to each site. The values and attitudes of the local
communities and other stakeholders vis-à-vis the conservation of the candidate site will be assessed, as
well as the economic potential of managing each site for game viewing or trophy hunting. ZAWA,
donors, civil society, researchers etc will summarize all of this information in a synthesis document on
reclassification priorities that can immediately be exploited. This will later be integrated into the overall
Conservation Plan for the National Protected Areas System. In the Conservation plan, biodiversity
priorities for reclassification will be weighed against other factors such as costs, potential for achieving
self-financing and contributions to economic development through tourism development, socio-cultural
values, etc. In the Conservation Plan, reclassification will be linked to measurable goals and indicators.
The project will not actually reclassify PA except at the two field demonstration sites.
120. Tools for improving PA business planning and management efficiency Resources available in
relation to PA management needs will remain very limited in Zambia into the foreseeable future.
40
UNDP PRO DOC
Investments into PA management must be based on sound business planning so that the greatest
impacts may be achieved effectively and efficiently with the resources available. A key aspect of
improved knowledge management will be the development of tools for assessing economic efficiency.
One may look at PA economic efficiency as the challenge of maximizing net socio-economic benefits
to society without pushing systems over degradation thresholds.
121. For PA management efficiency, the project will define cost coefficients for the different forms of
public/private/civil society/community management partnerships for each category of PA. Costs and
benefits of PA management will be analyzed in both economic and financial terms. These tools will
then be used to develop capacities for sound business planning for PA management. A PA business
plan will entail a sound estimate of the costs of PA management accompanied by a plan for the types of
investments needed and the time periods needed for cost recovery, where this is possible. These
business planning tools will also be applied to the National Protected Areas System as a whole. In
particular, business-planning tools will be used to better define ZAWA’s role in PA management based
on a financial assessment of the possibilities to achieve self-financing. It will also help to better define
the nature and amounts of GRZ and donor investments that will be needed to achieve sustainable
financing over the core set of PA that ZAWA will manage directly. Business planning will also be a
key tool in defining those PA that will be best managed by public/private/civil society/community
partnerships or by communities with public and/or private partners.
122. An analysis of the capital and recurrent costs of each protected area combined with an assessment
of its revenue generating potential of each park when combined with the identification of biodiversity
conservation priorities from the Reclassification planning should lead to the following type of
classifications:
 Protected areas that are financially viable, or can be so in the short term
 Protected areas that can be financially viable in the longer term, and have high biodiversity
value (including investment requirements)
 Protected areas that are unlikely to be financially viable, but have high biodiversity values
(suggesting alternative funding mechanisms are required such as Trusts)
 Protected areas that are unlikely to be viable and with low biodiversity values (suggesting
degazetting)
123. The same type of analysis will also be critical in identifying portions of national parks that could be
much more efficiently managed as SHA while still ensuring high levels of biodiversity conservation.
124. Monitoring and Evaluation Improved capacities for monitoring and evaluation will be developed. A
particular emphasis will be placed on adapting tools for monitoring PA management effectiveness, for
identifying or improving indicators and techniques for monitoring wildlife populations and ecosystem
health/biodiversity and for monitoring public/ private/ community partnerships for PA management.
With the overall focus of this project on improving PA management effectiveness, it is critical for
Zambia to have an effective tool or tools for monitoring this. Monitoring of ecosystem
health/biodiversity is a capacity that is almost totally absent at present in Zambia. Wherever trophy
hunting is done in PA, monitoring of wildlife populations should be considered as a basic, necessary
cost of doing business. Testing and development of community-based M&E systems will be done at the
two field demonstration sites. All aspects of M&E development will be based on reviews of best
practices and lessons learned in Zambia and in the region.
125. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) that was developed jointly by WWF and
the World Bank was used to establish Baseline values for nine NP and GMA. The numerical rankings
were found to correspond quite well, in general, with the perceived levels of management effectiveness
for the PA concerned. However, a number of weaknesses of the tool, in the Zambian context, were
identified and recommendations have been developed. The METT will be modified for Zambia
conditions. This will be done as a priority during the first year. It will be applied to all NP and GMA
41
UNDP PRO DOC
during the first year to complete the Baseline. This will be repeated before the mid-term and the end of
project. Application of the tool will be done by independent entities to minimize bias.
126. Monitoring of ecosystem health and biodiversity will allow PA managers to take corrective actions
before critical thresholds are passed. It will look at the key aspects:
 Ecosystem health – to ensure that ecosystem process and habitats are not degraded over
recovery thresholds
 Biological diversity – to ensure that individual species populations are not reduced below a
recovery threshold
127. The development of M&E systems for PA management partnerships will be done in conjunction
with the new policy framework that will be developed for these partnerships. It will allow MTENR,
ZAWA and others to monitor the effectiveness of the partnerships and the respect of minimum
conditions established by the policy framework and by MOU between the partners
128. PA System Conservation Plan The results of the reviews of lessons learned and best practices in
Zambia and in the region, the opportunities provided by the new legal, policy and governance
frameworks developed, the identification of biodiversity conservation and reclassification priorities, the
analyses of PA management effectiveness and efficiencies by type of PA management partnership, the
new M&E techniques and other tools developed will all be integrated under a PA System Conservation
Plan. The System Plan will identify the networks of Pas of different categories that need to be
developed and effectively managed to ensure optimal conservation of the ecosystems and priority
species in the country while contributing to tourism/economic development and poverty reduction. The
System Plan will identify, on a site-by-site basis, the most appropriate PA category and the appropriate
forms of management partnerships. It will identify the needs for reclassifying from one category to
another, gazetting a limited number of new PA and degazetting of others. The Plan will define the
relative roles of ZAWA, communities and NGO/private sector partners in PA management. It will
cover enforcement, M&E etc.
129. Investment Plan and Marketing Plan The Conservation Plan will be complemented by investment
and marketing plans. The investment plans will define the investments needed in enforcement, access
roads, tourism infrastructure, vehicles, offices, etc. This will be complemented by a marketing plan that
ZAWA, government and communities can use to interest investment partners needed for priority PA.
These investment partners would include private sector tourism operators, private sector/civil society
PA managers/co-managers, donors and others.
Outcome 3: Field Demonstrations
PA management options will be expanded through the development and field-testing of innovative
private-public-community partnerships for management of new categories of PA.
130. The two field demonstration sites will be used to apply the new legal, policy and governance
frameworks and to test and develop the new tools for enhancing PA management effectiveness. The
field sites will be used to apply legislation/policies and methodologies for reclassification. New
community-managed conservation areas (CCA) will be one of the principal reclassification options at
both sites and the creation of a SHA is an option for the mountainous portion of Lower Zambezi NP.
The CCA and/or CRB management structures will have responsibility for management of all of the
renewable natural resources within the CCA/GMA boundaries. The new policy guidelines for defining
the roles of traditional chiefs in CBNRM will be put into practice at the field sites. The development of
partnerships between CCA/community management structures and local NGOs (KTL and CLZ) with
proven track records in PA management will be key features at both sites. Business planning,
community-managed M&E systems and other tools will be applied and developed on these sites.
42
UNDP PRO DOC
Criteria for the selection of the two sites included the presence of biodiversity of global importance,
opportunities for reclassification and opportunities for private/community/public partnerships.
Bangweulu Wetlands Demonstration Site
131. Bangweulu is huge wetlands complex with biodiversity of undisputed global importance. The
wetlands in the GMAs have the world’s only populations of the endemic wetlands antelope, the black
lechwe, and are critically important for shoebill stork and other birds. The Complex includes a Ramsar
site and Important Bird Areas (recognized as IBA by Birdlife International). There are three national
parks, six GMA and several forest reserves in the Complex, but only Kasanka National Park has a
functioning management system. The management of Kasanka NP by Kasanka Trust is one of the best
and oldest examples of a public/private PA management partnership in Zambia and in the southern
African region. Starting work at Kasanka in 1986, the group that soon thereafter became Kasanka Trust
Limited (KTL), have successfully restored wildlife populations from highly depleted levels and have
mobilized significant resources that they have invested in the park. KTL, however, is committed to a
long term presence in the Bangweulu area and is also providing support to Kafinda and other GMA
communities.
132. The field demonstration site will be located in the southern portion of the Bangweulu Wetlands in
the triangle defined by Chikuni (where most of the black lechwe are concentrated), Kasanka NP and
Lavushi Manda NP. This area includes the GMA of Bangweulu, Chikuni and Kafinda and two forest
reserves – one between Kasanka and Lavushi Manda NPs and one just south of Kasanka NP. Antipoaching efforts in the existing GMA will be strengthened from the very beginning. A major focus at
Bangweulu will be on the participatory reclassification exercise. Biophysical and socio-economic
surveys will be conducted as part of the reclassification planning and will lead to the identification of
reclassification options. The planning process will be a highly participatory one with local communities
playing the key role for analyzing and choosing between reclassification options for the GMA.
Opportunities for reclassifying Lavushi Manda NP and the forest reserve included in the area and noninhabited open areas will be studied. A high priority will be placed on ensuring strong conservation
status for the black lechwe and shoebill stork habitats and populations. The project will seek to establish
wildlife corridors connecting the two NP and Chikuni. The creation of CCA will be one of the principal
reclassification options. Much of the efforts will be directed towards developing NR management
systems and the needed management and governance capacities for the CCA/community managers. The
project will assist CCA/community managers to develop a multiple use management plan(s) focusing
on wildlife and fisheries (fishing is the main economic activity in much of the area). Strong support will
be developed for a partnership between the new community managers and the Kasanka Trust.
133. ZAWA will coordinate all the field-level interventions at Bangweulu and will also play direct
implementation roles in enforcement, reclassification planning and the development of M&E systems.
The other field partners will be KTL, WWF and Peace Corps. KTL, WWF and Peace Corps all have a
history of involvement in the Bangweulu area. KTL is registered in Zambia as a trust and manages
Kasanka NP under lease agreement with ZAWA. They have a sister organization in Great Britain that
does fund raising for them. At Kasanka NP, they directly manage anti-poaching, road/infrastructure
construction and maintenance, a research program and park administration in addition to the
construction and management of two tourist lodges in the park. They also have an active community
support program in Kafinda GMA and they lease (from ZAWA) and manage Shoebill Camp (a lodge)
near Chikuni. Wildlife populations in Kasanka NP have been successfully restored from very depleted
levels and the infrastructure, results and impacts of KTL’s work are easy to see.
134. WWF started working in the Bangweulu Wetlands in 1985 and has conducted a number of projects
that have benefited from funding from a range of different donors. The projects have covered integrated
wetlands management, communities as resource managers, environmental education and the
development of a “cultural village”. The results and impacts of past projects are modest. They are just
about to start implementation of a new project called “Conservation and management of critical sites
43
UNDP PRO DOC
for sustainable livelihoods in the Bangweulu Basin in northeastern Zambia” – funded by WWFSweden/SIDA.
135. Peace Corps currently have three environment/natural resources volunteers working in within the
area of the field demonstration site. They work in CBNRM, agroforestry and in community capacity
building.
136. Based on an assessment of the capacities of each of these partners, it has been decided that KTL
will be the lead field partner for on-the-ground activities and for all of the community-level capacity
building support for communities and community resource management structures. KTL will
coordinate and supervise the work of the PCVs. PCVs will be posted to villages within the field
demonstration area and will work intensively with communities and community managers on capacity
development. WWF will provide a range of technical expertise to support ZAWA and the other field
partners. The principal areas of technical support will be in reclassification planning and M&E system
development. Refer to the logframe for details on the roles of each partner.
Lower Zambezi/Chiawa Demonstration Site
137. The Lower Zambezi NP with the adjoining Chiawa GMA comprise the second field demonstration
site. This complex is one of the few areas in Africa with viable, breeding populations of African wild
dog combined with a large enough geographical area to maintain/conserve viable populations. The local
NGO Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ) played a key role preventing the wildlife populations in the
park from becoming severely depleted in the late 1990s, as they were in so many areas. Local lodge
owners, farmers and others created the NGO in 1995 in response to the high levels of poaching that
were out of control due to the institutional void before and during the creation of ZAWA.
138. The Lower Zambezi field site will focus on the development of a community/CLZ partnership for
the development of community management of wildlife and other natural resources. The creation of a
CCA out of the existing Chiawa GMA is the prime option considered here, but this will depend on the
results of the legal/policy reform process for new PA categories. CLZ has recently begun focusing
much of its efforts on the communities of the Chiawa GMA. Wildlife is depleted but recovering on
much of this GMA and most of the habitat is in very good shape. Wildlife populations are very good in
the vicinity of the CLZ camp and environmental education center in the eastern end of the GMA near
the border of LZNP. With the adjacent park, prospects for restoring wildlife are very good if proper
incentives and protection can be developed. The relative ease of access of Chiawa GMA and the
concentration of lodges gives Chiawa an exceptionally good economic potential. Chieftainness Chiawa
has given a strong endorsement to the creation of the CCA. The hunting company holding a 15-year
lease is also interested in working with communities and in investing in wildlife restoration and
reintroduction efforts. Collaborative mechanisms will be built between the managers of the community
conservation area and ZAWA as manager of the NP.
139. The process of creating the CCA will include a participatory negotiation of new boundaries to
include allowances for corridors that will allow wildlife access to the Zambezi River during the dry
season. A particular accent will be put on zoning the new CCA to separate areas devoted to photo
safaris from the larger areas zoned for trophy hunting. Zoning will be part of an overall management
plan to be developed. The project will focus primarily on the development of the capacities of the
community managers for governance, business management, natural resource management, M&E, etc.
CLZ will be the community’s main partner in developing these capacities.
140. The opportunity for zoning out a part of the mountainous portion of Lower Zambezi NP as a SHA
will be studied as one the reclassification options for the Chiawa/LZNP Complex. Because of its poor
access and low use for conventional tourism, this portion of LZNP has been suggested as a potential
site for a SHA. As ZAWA already has the needed expertise and capacities for managing wildlife for
44
UNDP PRO DOC
trophy hunting, the project’s only role here will be for the reclassification planning and for the
necessary regazzeting of the park if the decision is made to create a SHA.
141.
The implementation modalities for the Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Complex will be similar to those at
Bangweulu. ZAWA will coordinate all field partners and will play direct implementation roles for the
same functions as at Bangweulu. WWF and Peace Corps will also play similar roles at Chiawa. The
main difference is that the main field partner at Chiawa will be Conservation Lower Zambezi. WWF
and Peace Corps are not currently active at Chiawa.
142. Conservation Lower Zambezi was created by conservationists, safari tour operators/lodge owners
and other LZNP/Chiawa GMA stakeholders in 1995 and is registered as an NGO. It is focused on the
conservation of the fauna and flora of LZNP and Chiawa GMA and on the empowerment and
development of communities in Chiawa GMA. Until ZAWA became functional on the ground, CLZ
focused strongly on anti-poaching activities in LZNP and the GMA. Now, CLZ supports scientific
research and are developing a major environmental education program for GMA communities. It is
completing a Base Camp and, with DANIDA funding, an environmental education center in Chiawa
GMA just outside the eastern border of LZNP. They have maintenance facilities, lodging, radio
communications, vehicles and a spotter plane.
X.
Alternatives considered:
143. A number of alternative strategies were evaluated, as the basis for project intervention. The first
option and original orientation of the PDF B proposal was to focus activities solely on reclassifying the
PA system. While a valid activity, this option was discarded. Without accompanying capacity
development and development of new conservation management arrangements, it is unlikely that the
objective of rationalizing, consolidating and strengthening the PA system would be realized if one
stopped at the level of reclassifying. Indeed, as any reclassification must be based on a participatory
process involving local communities and stakeholders, reclassification on its own could lead to
heightened expectations that could not be met if resources for effective management do not follow.
144. A second option was to focus on all protected/gazetted landscapes, including forest reserves, where
biodiversity conservation is a subsidiary management objective. This was discarded, so as not to dilute
intervention. Intervention in the forest estates would necessitate efforts to integrate conservation
objectives into the forestry sector, which while critical, would involve different conservation methods
than those required/ involved in the core PA estate. Also, the capacity development needs in the forest
sector are so large they could not be adequately addressed within the resources available to this project.
A more focused approach, concentrating on the core estate is expected to yield more durable and timely
management impacts. However, the project will include forest reserves in the PA reclassification
analysis, identifying reserves that need to be upgraded to a higher conservation status, as necessary, to
ensure that bio-geographic representation targets are satisfied.
Eligibility and Linkages
XI.
Eligibility for GEF Funding
145. The GRZ ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in May 1993. As a recipient of UNDP
technical assistance, the GRZ is eligible for GEF funds under paragraph 9b of the Instrument.
XII.
Conformity with COP Guidance and GEF Strategic Priorities
146. COP 7 Guidance Early in 2004, the CBD COP 7 made a declaration on protected areas that is very
supportive of key elements of the design of this project. First is a general statement concerning their
adoption of the new work program:
45
UNDP PRO DOC
“…the COP adopts the annexed work program with the objective of establishing and maintaining
by 2010 for terrestrial areas…effectively managed and ecologically representative national and
regional PA systems…”
147. The work program consists of four program elements. Goals for each element that are most relevant
to this project are the following:
Element One:
 Establish and strengthen national and regional systems integrated into a global network;
 Integrate PA into the broader land- and sea-scapes;
 Substantially improve site-based planning and management.
Element Two:
 Promote equity and benefit-sharing;
 Enhance and secure the involvement of communities and relevant stakeholders.
Element Three:
 Provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for PAs;
 Build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs;
 Develop, apply and transfer appropriate technologies for PAs;
 Ensure financial sustainability of PAs and national and regional systems of PAs.
Element Four:
 Develop and adopt minimum standards and best practices for national and regional PA systems;
 Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of PA management;
 Assess and monitor PA status and trends, and;
 Ensure that scientific knowledge contributes to the establishment and effectiveness of PAs and
PA systems
148. GEF Strategic Priorities This project meets the requirements for GEF financing under Strategic
Priority I (SP I): Strengthening National Systems of PA. It will build capacity at both national and local
levels. It places a strong emphasis on building new public-private partnerships and improving the policy
framework for such partnerships. It seeks to develop a new category of community-managed PA in the
landscapes surrounding national parks and to strengthen the management of the existing GMA buffers.
These new PA will be linked with park management and will enhance community incentives for the
conservation of national parks. It will emphasize business planning and sustainable financing at both
the PA and the system level. Collectively, these actions are expected to make a major contribution
towards progressing management of the PA system, in terms of assuring management effectiveness,
through capacity building and rationalization.
149. In line with the emerging guidance for SP1, the project has been designed using the following
sequence of analyses:
 Description of the global biodiversity significance;
 Analysis of threats to biodiversity;
 Articulation of the approach used to tackle these threats;
 Analysis of the barriers to implementing the chosen approach;
 Description of the logical objective and outcome tree to address these barriers.
XIII.
Linkages with other GEF Initiatives
150. Zambia completed its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), as required by the
CBD, in November 1999 with UNDP/GEF Enabling Activity funding. Cabinet, making it an official
GRZ policy document, has approved the NBSAP.
151. In 2001, UNDP-GEF supported a GEF information and dialogue workshop for Zambian
stakeholders. The idea for this current project was first conceived at that workshop and was based
46
UNDP PRO DOC
directly on specific goals of the recently approved NBSAP. The current proposal is a country driven
project that originates from the NBSAP.
152. Sustainable Land Management in the Miombo Woodlands Ecosystem is a US$740,000 World
Bank/GEF MSP working in Central Province. It works mostly in the agricultural sector but will also
seek to develop an integrated ecosystem management approach.
153. Lukanga Swamps is another World Bank GEF project working in Southern Province NNE of
Lusaka. It is an integrated ecosystem management project that was just approved in Feb 2004. The
Project Implementation Unit will maintain frequent contact with both the Miombo Woodlands and the
Lukanga Swamps Projects to share experiences and lessons learned.
154. The Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification Project (SEED) is a five-year IDA and
GEF project that will provide support to the gemstone, agriculture and tourism sectors. GEF funding in
the amount of US$4 million will support improved PA management in the Kafue and Mosi oa Tonya
National Parks in support of tourism development based on those two NP. The project will improve NP
administration and management, infrastructure development, park-level M&E systems, public/private
partnerships and CBNRM in park buffer areas. Co-financing is still being negotiated, but NORAD
plans to contribute US$20,000,000 to Kafue NP – half to road infrastructure and half to park
management. Exceptionally close contacts will be maintained with the tourism/PA component of this
SEED Project. In particular, their input on policy reforms, management partnerships, business planning
for PA and on M&E systems will be sought.
155. NCSA The Government has initiated the National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) project with
UNDP/GEF support as a first step towards capacity enhancement in the environment and natural
resources sector. The objective of the NCSA is to prepare a comprehensive capacity analysis of gaps
and a training plan for all stakeholders involved in the protection and management of environment and
biodiversity. The NCSA process will feed into the PA capacity requirements that will be addressed by
the project.
156. NAPA Government has requested assistance form UNDP/GEF for support in mitigating the impact
of climate change by developing and implementing a National Adaptation Programme of
Action (NAPA). The NAPA serves as a road map for the country towards the implementation of
climate change adaptation activities that contribute to the achievement of the MDG- 7. The NAPA
process consists of identification of all coping activities for climate change, prioritizing them and
formulating priority projects for adaptation as well as strengthening the capacity to adapt to longer-term
climate changes and contributes towards raising awareness about the urgency to adapt to adverse effects
of climate and climate change. In this regard, the project will benefit from the NAPA process by having
strategies for mitigating the impacts of climate change in the wildlife sector that would feed in into the
policy, legal and management frameworks for effective management of the PA.
XIV. Linkages with the UNDP Country Program
United Nations Programming Framework
157. The three key UN programming documents of greatest relevance to this project are the CCA, the
UNDAF and the CCF. The UN in Zambia is currently operating under the Common Country
Assessment (CCA) of 2000. The CCA was a pre-requisite for the development of Zambia’s first United
Nations Development Framework (UNDAF). The UNDAF is the planning framework for the
development operations of the UN system at the country level. The UN has ensured that a linkage exists
between the CCA/UNDAF and the country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Thus the
collective programming by the UN system in Zambia is directly related to the priority programs of the
PRSP. Finally, the Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) for Zambia 2202-2006 outlines the main
axes of UNDP’s support to GRZ within the UN Development Framework. The CCF is based on key
government policy documents.
47
UNDP PRO DOC
158. The CCA recognizes poverty reduction as the national development priority. UN support is to play
a catalytic role taking a human rights-based approach. CCA strategic foci of relevance are the
following: a) the right to participation (good governance, decentralization, capacity building,
information and communication technology); b) right to an adequate standard of living; c) equal rights
(gender); d) overcoming factors that impinge on the realization of the above, especially HIV/AIDS; e)
support to Zambia in implementing agreements of UN global conferences.
159. UNDAF specifies that the goal of UN assistance to Zambia is “to pursue a rights-based approach to
development with a special focus on poverty reduction including the reduction of gender disparities.”
UNDAF identifies three strategic areas of intervention: a) employment; b) social services, and; c)
governance. In addition, there are three cross-cutting issues: a) HIV/AIDS; b) gender; c) regional
integration
160. Specific UNDAF objectives, agreed to by GRZ, that are of particular relevance to this project are
the following:
 Support civil society participation in the design and implementation of socio-economic policies
and plans and for monitoring the achievement of the Millennium Declaration commitments.
 Enhance community participation in decision-making at the local level;
161. The CCF specifies that UNDP’s strategic support to the CCF should focus on up-stream policy and
strategic support to the Government in the following areas
i. Good governance with a focus on human rights, decentralization, economic governance and
public accountability;
ii. Development and implementation of frameworks for a multi-sectoral response to the
HIV/AIDS epidemic;
iii. Enhance environmental protection and the sustainable management of natural resources
162. The CCF specifies that gender and the enhanced use of information and communication technology
will be fully integrated into all UNDP program areas. It goes on to say, “By the end of 2006 UNDP’s
support will have contributed to building the capacity of environmental authorities to enforce standards
that promote sustainable natural resources management. The 16 international conventions to which
Zambia has acceded will have been internalized through legal reforms, new regulatory frameworks and
improved enforcement and reporting.”
163. UNDP supports the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The most relevant of these goals is to “ensure
environmental sustainability”. Of the three targets, the one that is directly relevant to this project is
stated as “integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs, and
reverse the loss of environmental resources.”
Linkages with other UNDP Projects
164. Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management UNDP is currently supporting
this 5-year (2002-6) project. The project objective is to enhance managerial capacity for environmental
protection and sustainable management of natural resources as well as for coordinating the
implementation of environmental international conventions. To achieve this objective, the project
focuses on the following:
 Environmental policy development including support to civil society organizations and
communities to enable their effective participation in the formulation and review processes;
 Strengthening of the existing institutional mechanisms for enforcement of environmental standards
and the sustainable management of natural resources in the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and
Natural Resources (MTENR), Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), Environment Council of
Zambia (ECZ) and Zambia Meteorological Department (ZMD).
48
UNDP PRO DOC
165. The development of the environment policy will provide an umbrella for the subsidiary policies
such as those envisaged in the new Zambia PA project. In this regard, subsidiary policies will benefit
from the environment policy by providing the mutual enforcement, seal gaps and minimize
contradictions that may exist in the subsidiary policies.
166. Enhanced Local Governance for Poverty Reduction The UNDP support is directed at
enhancement of capacity for implementation of the Decentralization Policy (DP), which focuses on the
devolution of power and empowering the local communities. The implementation of the DP will assist
the communities to create institutions that will be supported by legal framework. The envisaged CCAs
would benefit from this arrangement and operate within the confines of DP that will also be
supplemented by PA policy.
XV.
Linkages with GRZ priorities/policies and programs
167. The wildlife sector has been identified by the GRZ as a priority sector. The Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper (PRSP) identifies tourism (which is strongly reliant on the national parks and GMA) as
the second major sector after agriculture for economic growth and poverty reduction. Donors have
responded in kind and NORAD, World Bank and DANIDA are providing funding in consequence.
168. The GRZ has undertaken very difficult steps to improve governance and effectiveness in the sector.
The former National Parks and Wildlife Service was dissolved and new staff was competitively
recruited to the Zambia Wildlife Authority with staff levels reduced from 4150 to 1400. Major reforms
for co-management and revenue sharing with communities have been undertaken for the GMA.
Government has also signaled its receptivity to new forms of public/private partnerships for NP
management. The development of this project was lead and coordinated by a Secretariat within the
MTENR. The Project Manager of the Secretariat is directly responsible to the Director of Environment.
The policy dialogue with the MTENR during project preparation is further evidence of the GRZ’s
commitment to policy reforms.
169. The concept for this project was strongly driven by the GRZ. The basic idea for the project was
advanced by the former Director of Environment at a UNDP-sponsored GEF information workshop in
2001. The project idea corresponds directly to a number of the Goals and Objectives the UNDP/GEFfunded National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (approved by the GRZ Cabinet in 1991). The
most relevant are the following:
 Goal 1: Ensure the conservation of a full range of Zambia's natural ecosystems through a
network of PA;
 Goal 3: Improve the legal and institutional framework and human resources to implement the
strategies for conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits from
biodiversity;
 Goal 4: Sustainable Use and Management of Biological Resources;
 Goal 6: Ensure the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Zambia's biological resources.
170. Project development was lead by a project development secretariat in MTENR. A Zambian NGO, a
Zambian consulting firm and Zambian consultants under contract with MTENR conducted five
background studies. There was a continuous dialogue between the project development secretariat and
MTENR officials as the project design evolved through its various phases. MTENR successfully lead
the search for amicable solutions to disagreements over the choice between strategic project options.
MTENR successfully organized stakeholder workshops at the two pilot sites.
49
UNDP PRO DOC
Project Management and Stakeholder Participation
XVI.
Execution and Implementation Arrangements
171. The project will be implemented over a period of six years beginning in early 2005. The project will
be nationally executed. The Zambia Wildlife Authority will be the designated institution for the
management of the project. The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR)
will have an overall oversight and monitoring role on the part of GRZ. In addition, UNDP will assist in
the procurement of equipment and local consultants for the project as needed/requested. The project
will receive high-level policy guidance and orientation from the project’s Steering Committee. The SC
will be chaired by MTENR and will be composed of the Permanent Secretaries of concerned ministries
plus UNDP. The SC will meet twice a year during the first two years and once a year thereafter. The
Technical Advisory Group will provide technical support to the project. The TAG will be composed of
10 individuals from government and civil society (including tourism/safari hunting sectors) selected on
the basis of their competence. It will meet quarterly during the first year and every six months
thereafter. Finally, all of the implementing partners and the donors for the project will form a Project
Coordination Group that will meet every four months.
172. As the designated institution, ZAWA will be responsible for managing the project including the
timely delivery of inputs and the outputs. ZAWA will coordinate the activities of all the other
implementing agencies (MTENR, NRCF, WWF, KTL, CLZ and PC) to ensure the efficient and timely
project implementation and the attainment of maximum impacts. ZAWA will lead and coordinate the
preparation of annual work plans. ZAWA will coordinate the interventions of all the other
implementing agencies at the field demonstration sites. ZAWA will enter into an agreement with
UNOPS for the identification and contracting of all international consultants. KTL, CLZ and WWF will
be contracted by UNDP. United Nations Volunteers (UNV) field partners will work under MOU with
ZAWA and UNDP.
173. A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will play a key role in project implementation. It will be
attached to ZAWA and will be headed by a Zambian national with the title of Project Technical
Coordinator (PTC). He/she will work under the supervision of the ZAWA DG and will be responsible
to UNDP for the proper application of all UNDP administrative and financial regulations and
procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds. The PTC will be a national consultant and will fill this
post for six years. A Protected Areas Systems Specialist (PASS) and a Natural Resources Economist
(NRE) will support the PTC. The PASDS will be a highly qualified international consultant recruited
through UNOPS. He/she will be a full time advisor during the first two years of the project and will
conduct periodic support missions to the project for the remainder of the project. The NRE will conduct
periodic support missions during the life of the project. The PIU will have overall responsibility for
project management, administrative, technical and financial reporting. The PIU will manage the
selection process for all local contracts and recruitment of local consultants. This will include
preparation of TOR, call for bids and organization of the selection process. This will all be done in
close coordination with UNDP and contracts will be let by UNDP. The PIU will oversee and coordinate
the execution of all local contracts. The PIU will have a small support staff.
174.
MTENR will have lead responsibility for the development of the policy and legal reforms under
Outcome 1, ZAWA will be the lead implementing agency for Outcome 2 and ZAWA, assisted by
WWF, will coordinate the implementation of field activities implemented by ZAWA and field partners
NGOs under Outcome 3. ZAWA will have implementation responsibilities for enforcement,
reclassification planning and development of M&E systems at the field sites. The lead field
implementation agencies at each site will be KTL and CLZ at Bangweulu and Chiawa, respectively.
MTENR will monitor and oversee the implementation of PA sector laws and policies.
175. WWF will provide key technical support to both field demonstration sites in the areas of
biodiversity surveys, image interpretation, reclassification planning, the development of community-
50
UNDP PRO DOC
based M&E systems and other specialized technical inputs needed at the two sites. WWF will work
with ZAWA and the lead field partners at each of the two sites. All of WWF’s support to the two field
sites will be coordinated by ZAWA.
176. Kasanka Trust Limited will be the lead field partner for the Bangweulu Field Demonstration Site.
KTL will have primary responsibility for on-the-ground implementation and support to communities.
KTL will have responsibilities for awareness raising, support for a highly participatory approach to
reclassification planning, support for community-level capacity development, development of
community-based natural resource management systems, support for development of community-based
enforcement systems and the development of NR-based income generating activities.
177. Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ) will be the lead field partner for the Chiawa/Lower Zambezi
Field Demonstration Site. CLZ will have primary responsibility on-the-ground implementation and
support to communities in what is now the Chiawa GMA. This will include responsibilities for
awareness raising, supporting a highly participatory approach to reclassification planning, supporting
community-level capacity development, development of community-based natural resource
management systems, support for the development of community-based enforcement systems and the
development of NR-based income generating activities.
178. The project focuses at building capacity at the systemic, institutional and individual levels for PA
management. It contributes to a process, which is expected to continue beyond the project life, with
funding from Government and the donor community. Accordingly, a major focus is placed on
integrating the wildlife sector into the PRS, and other budgetary allocation devices, as needed to assure
continuity of funding over the long term for effective replication of project outcomes. A six-year time
horizon is considered sufficient to deliver the intended outcomes.
179. Implementation of Outcome 1 MTENR will be the lead implementing agency for all legal and
policy reforms under Outcome 1. Background studies and legal drafts will be contracted for by the
PIU/UNDP. Stakeholder workshops will be organized by the PIU. ZAWA will provide cofinancing for
improving their financial management of revenue sharing with CRB. Support for improved financial
management and governance at the CRB and VAG level will be done under competitively awarded
contracts through the PIU/UNDP. Funding will be provided by DANIDA for the functioning of the
NRCF for the first three years. This will be then be picked up under UNDP/GEF funding for the final
three years (MTENR is committed to the creation of NRCF, but the institutional host of the NRCF has
not yet been selected.)
180. Implementation of Outcome 2 The work on reclassification priorities will be done through direct
support to ZAWA’s Science Department and will be supported by competitively awarded contracts
(PIU/UNDP). The PIU PASS will play a strong advisory role on the reclassification methodologies.
The development and application of economic, financial and business planning tools will make
considerable use of a lead natural resource/environmental economics consultant (NRE). Modifications
to the METT and its use for monitoring PA management effectiveness will be done under local contract
with a qualified neutral party. The review of M&E systems will be done under NEX or UNOPS
contract and the adaptive testing of these systems will be done primarily by ZAWA assisted by
consultants. The development of the Conservation Plan, the investment plan and the marketing plan
will involve ZAWA, the PIU, and contractors with input from civil society.
181. Implementation of Outcome 3 All implementing agencies working at the two field demonstration
sites will be coordinated by ZAWA, who will be assisted in this by WWF. ZAWA will be directly
involved with awareness raising, enforcement, reclassification planning and the development of
improved M&E systems. Technical support to both sites will be provided by WWF under contract with
UNDP. KTL and CLZ will be the lead field implementation agencies at each site, responsible for most
operational, field level activities and for different forms of community support. PCV will provide
51
UNDP PRO DOC
capacity building support to communities and to community management structures, doing this under
the general coordination of ZAWA and the day-to-day coordination of KTL and CLZ.
182. The smooth functioning and the possibility of conflicts/misunderstandings at the two field
demonstration sites will be monitored closely to nip any potential problems “in the bud”. Every three or
four months, coordination visits to each site will be organized by the PIU/ZAWA. MTENR, UNDP, PC
or others may participate in these field visits. Two or three days will be spent at each site with visits to
all key stakeholders to review progress, successes and constraints and concerns of each party. A plan of
action will be developed for each potential problem identified and follow-up will be monitored
carefully.
183. A Steering Committee (SC) comprised of the Permanent Secretaries (PS) of the Ministry of
Environment, Tourism and Natural Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of
Lands, Ministry of Finance and UNDP would provide Steering Committee High Level Policy Guidance
and Project Oversight. The SC will meet twice a year during the first two years of the project (the
period during which most of the new policies and legislation will be developed) and once a year
thereafter.
184. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Technical support to the project will be provided by the
Technical Advisory Group. This group of about 10 members will be composed of individuals who are
selected based on their reputation and competence in their respective fields. The TAG will include
representatives of private sector/civil society PA management partners and tourism sector private
investors (associations representing tourism operators/lodge owners and hunting companies).
185. Donor Coordination MTENR will play the lead role in donor coordination for the environment
sector and for this project through the Sector Advisory Group on Tourism.
186. Intellectual Property Rights on Data, Study Results, Reports, etc. All data, study results,
information, reports, etc. generated with UNDP project funds will be the property of UNDP and the
GRZ.
XVII. Financial Arrangements
187. Both GEF and UNDP/TRAC funds will be administered by UNDP. The PTC will assist ZAWA and
UNDP to manage project resources. The PIU will manage all local service providers. The PTC will
manage the funds for the local staff and operating expenses of the PIU. UNDP will advance funds for a
three-month period. At the end of the three month period, the PIU will submit justification for expenses
and the funds spent will be renewed by UNDP.
188. Criteria and procedures will be developed for performance-based contracts with service providers.
Under performance-based contracts, the service provider will be paid only for work completed. Work
partially completed will be paid on a pro rata basis.
189. The project will comply with UNDP’s monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements as spelled
out in the UNDP Programming Manual. The PIU PTC will have lead responsibility for reporting
requirements to UNDP.
190.
Annual audits will be completed in line with UNDP procedures.
191. A total of US$ 6 million in financing is requested from the GEF to cover the incremental costs of
project implementation. Co-financing amounting to US$ 35.091 million has been committed.
52
UNDP PRO DOC
Co-financing Sources
Name
of
Co- Classification
financier (source)
GRZ/ZAWA
Government
UNDP/TRAC
Implementing
Agency
NORAD
Bilateral donor
DANIDA
Bilateral donor
KTL
NGO
WWF
NGO
Sub-Total Co-financing
Type
Amount (US$)
Status*
Government
funds
Grant
12,310,000
Confirmed
2,000,000
Confirmed
Grant
Grant
NGO funds
NGO funds
17,500,000
1,400,000
1,220,000
661,000
35,091,000
Confirmed
Confirmed
Confirmed
Confirmed
XVIII. Project Beneficiaries
192.
As a biodiversity project, the project is designed to have global benefits through improved
conservation of globally important ecosystems and species in Zambia. The following institutions and
stakeholders will be the principal beneficiaries at the country level:
193. The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources will be the principle beneficiary
of the improved legal and policy frameworks. Project resources will be used to assist the ministry in
developing new legislation and policies that are critical for improving the effectiveness of PA
management in Zambia. Furthermore, the participatory process for developing laws and policies will
give the new legal and policy frameworks a strong grounding of support from key stakeholders.
Support for the Natural Resources Consultative Forum will also provide the Ministry with solid inputs
on policy development from civil society – this will facilitate MTENR’s oversight role for ZAWA and
other PA areas managers. The PA System plan, the investment plan and the marketing plan will also be
key strategic documents for MTENR.
194. Zambia Wildlife Authority is the main national institution responsible for the management of the
wildlife estate in Zambia and will thus be a focus in the project implementation process. Policy and
legal reforms should greatly assist ZAWA in the development of effective public/private/civil
society/community partnerships for protected area management. The project will also result in the
strengthening of ZAWA’s role through the provision of strategic inputs focusing on reclassification
planning, development of M&E techniques and knowledge exchange. The development of business
planning capacities in ZAWA will be particular project focus as will the development of more cost
effective PA management approaches and of improved management partnerships. Improved systems
for financial transparency in the sharing of revenues with CRB should greatly improve ZAWA’s
working relationships with these community structures. Reclassification planning, the PA System plan,
the investment plan and the marketing plan will all be critical strategic documents for ZAWA to better
define its core niche in PA management, to make it more effective and efficient as the principal
institution with a mandate for biodiversity conservation and with a secondary role of contributing to
tourism development and poverty reduction. These strategic documents will also enable it to mobilize
management partners, private sector investors and donor support. Experiences from the project
demonstration sites will be used to roll over the protected area reclassification plan into other GMAs
and National Parks.
195. Local communities Policy, legal and institutional reforms which will ensue from the project will
empower local communities, especially those in the Game Management Areas, to participate more
equitably in the sustainable management of protected areas. Transparency in the sharing of revenues
will greatly increase incentives for GMA conservation and management and will put the CRB/ZAWA
co-management partnerships on a much firmer footing. Governance training for CRB/VAG and CRB
53
UNDP PRO DOC
community representatives will give all parties a much clearer understanding of their rights and
responsibilities.
196. Local communities in the field demonstration sites will be special beneficiaries. The new CCA
managers will enjoy the highest level of empowerment and the strongest rights to collect and manage
their own NR-derived revenues of any communities in Zambia. The focus of efforts in the field
demonstration sites will be on the building of the capacities of the community managers including skills
in business planning, financial management, governance, resource estimation and monitoring, law
enforcement and adaptive management.
197. In a broader sense, local communities will benefit from increased employment opportunities from
the private sector tourism investors who will be attracted by new investment opportunities that follow
the restoration of viable wildlife populations that results from more effective PA management.
198. Private Sector Tourism Investors Better protected area management practices will result in
improved wildlife estates in National Parks and GMA. This in turn will lead to an increase in the flow
of photographic safari tourists as well to an increase in hunting concessions in rehabilitated GMA. This
increased tourist traffic will be the engine of growth for private sector investments which will in turn
lead to increased foreign exchange earnings at local level and employment opportunities for local
communities. The lodge owners in Chiawa GMA and Lower Zambezi NP, the trophy hunting lease
holder for Chiawa GMA and future private sector investors in the Chiawa/LZNP complex will be
beneficiaries of the project. For the Bangweulu Complex, tourism and trophy hunting are only poorly
developed at present. KTL is managing the fly-in camps/lodges in Kasanka NP and Shoebill Camp near
Chikuni on an interim basis. Most of the tourism sector beneficiaries at this field demo site will be
future investors.
199. Civil Society Conservation Community The project will work with and support the work of the
civil society conservation community, particularly in the promotion of advocacy for policy and legal
reforms and for the general improvement of protected area management. The Natural Resources
Consultative Forum will receive support from the project in promoting dialogue between various
stakeholders involved in the PA sector. The NRCF will provide key civil society input into the
participatory policy and legal reforms of Outcome 1.
200. Division of Fisheries The Bangweulu field demonstration site is a very important fishery area and
the project will assist the development of sustainable fisheries management. The project will
significantly contribute to its conservation and development. The Department of Fisheries will benefit
from capacity building and from direct involvement in the development of innovative, communitymanaged fisheries on this site
XIX.
Stakeholder Participation
201. The legal and policy reforms strengthen and clarify the rights and roles of private sector and
community stakeholders. The new models of public/private/civil society/community partnerships will
be specifically targeted to involve these stakeholders directly in the management of PA and in the
benefits of PA management. The new category of PA for community management of wildlife and other
resources will be a major step in strengthening community control of land and resources and in
maximizing the revenue they receive from natural resource management.
202. The approaches used to effect legal and policy reforms, improved governance, institutional capacity
building and field-testing of new partnerships will involve all of the important stakeholders in the PA
sectors. The process for policy reforms will involve inputs from, and subsequent validation by,
stakeholders from the regional and national levels. Stakeholders will include communities, traditional
leaders, PA private sector investors, national and international NGOs and appropriate government and
54
UNDP PRO DOC
parastatal institutions. The Natural Resources Consultative Forum will provide a formal mechanism for
civil society stakeholders to have direct input into key issues concerning the PA sector.
203. Institutional capacity development will support a balanced mix of capacities in the parastatal
ZAWA and in civil society institutions. This is critical for good governance because of the internal
conflict within ZAWA’s mandates. ZAWA is charged, on the one hand, with conservation of
biodiversity and natural areas, while on the other hand, they are being pushed strongly by government
to generate enough revenues to cover their own costs. In addition to capacity development in ZAWA,
the project will support capacity development in civil society institutions to enable them to have both a
solid knowledge base and inputs in PA policy development.
204. The field-level demo sites will focus on the development of partnerships and capacities of the key
stakeholders, especially of the local communities in the present GMAs at each site. The reclassification
at each demo site will be a highly participatory process putting local stakeholders in the forefront of the
process. The major emphasis at the demo sites will be on building local stakeholder capacities,
especially those of the community management structures of the new CCAs. The project will develop
partnerships between communities, NGOs, ZAWA, private sector investors in both photo safari and
trophy hunting industries and traditional authorities.
Risks, Prior Obligations, Sustainability and Replicability
XX.
205.
Risk Analysis Matrix
Key Risks: the following risks and risk identification measures have been identified
Risk
Risk
Rating
External pressures on national M
parks and protected areas
increase significantly.
Risk Mitigation Measure
Continued over harvest of M
wildlife. Sustainability cannot
be assured until populations
recover
Anti-poaching methods are quite well tested and proven at
other NPs. Recent innovations are bringing costs down
substantially. The project will strengthen monitoring and
enforcement at the community level. Trophy hunting will only
be considered an option in areas where there are adequate
wildlife populations. This issue will be addressed as part of the
reclassification effort.
The strengthened M&E system would provide an early
warning of increasing pressures, allowing ZAWA and its
partners to intervene where pressures warrant.
M
Private sector/communities
do not respond positively to
improved policies/incentives.
M
Tourism does not develop as
hoped and tourism levies do
not cover most of the
recurrent costs of PA
management.
M
The new policy framework for private/public/community
partnerships will clarify and codify the rights and
responsibilities of each party. Sound business planning for PA
will identify private sector investment opportunities.
Integration of private sector investors into legal/policy reforms
and planning processes builds confidence for investors. The
development of multiple use management approaches on
community-managed lands diminishes dependence on the
single safari-hunting sector.
55
UNDP PRO DOC
The approval/enactment of
needed legal and regulatory
framework is delayed.
Government
does
not
effectively
address
documented cases of malgovernance.
Adequate staffing profiles/
numbers in ZAWA is not
maintained relative to core
PA management functions.
M/S
Support to the Natural Resources Consultative Forum
(NRCF)19 will bring civil society and donor pressure to bear on
government policy makers. The participatory process of policy
formulation will minimize risk of delays.
M
Increased transparency and civil society input and oversight
through the NRCF will greatly improve the visibility of malgovernance, making it much harder for GRZ to ignore.
M
The development of a clear business plan for ZAWA will
provide GRZ and the donors providing core support to ZAWA
a roadmap towards financial sustainability for many of
ZAWA’s functions.
Stakeholder conflicts cannot
be successfully mediated.
Overall Risk rating
The participatory design process minimizes this risk and the
participatory, transparent execution will also reduce risks of
conflicts.
M+
Risk rating – H (high Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), and N (Negligible or Low Risk)
Risks refer to the possibility that assumptions defined in the logical framework may not hold.
XXI.
Prior Obligations
XXII. Sustainability of Project Results
206. One of the key aspects of sustainability is the chicken-and-egg mutual interdependence of PA
management and tourism development that is illustrated in Figure 5. Two main types of investments are
needed – investments in enforcement and PA management to restore wildlife populations and
investments in infrastructure needed for tourism development. This project will develop tools and a
Reclassification and Conservation plan for the National System of PA that will strategically guide
investments in these two areas. Investments in infrastructure for PA access will come primarily from
donors. Investments in effective PA management will come from ZAWA, GRZ, donors and the full
range of PA management partners. The recent history of donor support would indicate that these are
realistic expectations. Investments in tourism infrastructure will come from private sector investors.
These tools will be developed so that the investment resources available can have maximum impact on
biodiversity conservation of priority sites and high impacts on tourism development and poverty
reduction through management systems and partnerships that are as financially sustainable as possible.
207. Project activities have been specifically designed to accelerate the uptake of good management
practices across the PA estate. This cannot be achieved all at once, but in a carefully sequenced manner,
progressively seeking to ensure sound management effectiveness in all priority PA. The assessment and
economic analysis of PA management effectiveness will focus on identifying the forms of PA
management partnerships that are financially the most efficient, that provide the greatest incentives for
PA managers and that are financially self-sustainable. Some of the most promising of the new forms of
partnerships will be tested at the field demo sites. The development of a clear policy framework for
public/private/civil society/community partnerships will simplify and render transparent the entry
conditions for potential private and community PA management partners.
19
The Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) is a national forum which will be established as part
of the project, to facilitate civil society input into environmental and PA sector issues.
56
UNDP PRO DOC
208. The project will build on Zambia's already promising experiences with public private partnerships
for management of national parks -- seeking to expand on this to also bring local communities into the
public/ private partnerships for both existing and new categories of PA. The overall conservation plan
to be developed will seek to better define ZAWA’s roles and responsibilities in conformity with their
absorptive capacity and in lines with the assessed potential for self-financing of PA that they will
manage directly themselves. GRZ commitment to the policy reforms specified in this design document
and their timely approval would be key elements to sustainability.
209. At the level of the field demonstration sites, the development of PA/natural resource management
funds that are self-financed out of revenues from hunting, tourism and other natural resource-based
enterprises will be a key aspect of support to community-managed PA. However, it is unlikely that
community-managers can be totally self-sufficient at the end of six years. Therefore, another key to
sustainability is the choice of two successful private sector partners with established track records in
conservation and PA management as partners of the new CCA managers. This will greatly increase the
probability for sustainability. Kasanka Trust and CLZ are both locally-based with long term
commitments towards conservation and will almost certainly be there to continue to support their
community partners beyond the close of this current project.
210. The ability of these two partners to continue support to CCA managers beyond the end of this
project is, of course, dependent on the sustainability of their own funding. Kasanka Trust has a welldeveloped track record in fund-raising. Their most important tool has been the creation of a sister
organization in the UK whose principal purpose is fund-raising for KTL. One of KTL’s particular
strengths is in the area of funding for research. They have just been awarded US$ 370,000 by the
Darwin Initiative to conduct research based on PA management needs. KTL’s research coordinator in
the field is attempting to develop an eco-research program that would actually raise money for PA
management. Research “volunteers” from developed countries will actually pay for the experience of
working on research in a setting like the Bangweulu Complex.
211. CLZ’s most reliable source of funding comes from their corporate membership – especially the
lodge owners in Chiawa and LZNP. Recognizing that the conservation of Chiawa and LZNP are in their
direct financial interest, the lodge owners contribute a percentage of their bed-night fees to CLZ. CLZ
has also been successful in mobilizing funding from donors like DANIDA and also sponsors other
fund-raising activities in Zambia. CLZ’s main focus in coming years will be on supporting the
empowerment and development of communities in Chiawa GMA and on environmental education of
communities around LZNP.
212. The identification of tourism as the second highest priority sector in the PRSP will contribute to
sustainability through increased investments in the sector resulting in increased tourist entry fees,
hunting license fees and other sources of revenue that provide incentives and cover PA management
costs. Preliminary analyses conducted as part of project preparation indicate that investments in
protected areas management can be financially viable in Zambia. The project will continue to refine the
conditions under which different forms of management and of management partnerships will yield
positive returns on investments and will use this information to mobilize new management partnerships.
213. A study entitled “A Financial and Economic Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Managing the
Protected Area Estate” was conducted as part of the PDF B project development process. Its purpose
was to provide a financial and economic analysis of the costs and benefits of managing Zambia’s
protected area estate. Readily available information on the economics and finances of tourism and
protected areas in Zambia being highly deficient, this study required a significant amount of primary
data collection and collation.
214. Park based tourism currently generates USD 40 million in direct turnover to tourism operations,
75% of which is in Livingstone and much of the remainder in South Luangwa (USD4m) and Lower
Zambezi (USD 3m). Assuming an economic multiplier of 4, this still translates into USD 160 million of
57
UNDP PRO DOC
economic impact in Zambia (MTENR estimates USD 120m). The tourism industry is in its infancy, but
growing steadily at about 10% per annum. Taking a conservative assumption that park-based tourism
will triple in the next ten years implies: That national parks will be close to covering their core
operational costs
 Direct tourism turnover of USD 120 million annually
 Economic impact of USD 500 million annually.
215. On a per area basis, Zambia’s protected areas will be generating less than 20% of those historically
evidenced in Zimbabwe and South Africa, suggesting that these estimates are technically realistic, and
that the long term potential from growth of this “cluster” industry is even higher. Nevertheless, getting
to this point will require that significant support be provided to ZAWA’s recurrent budget to protect the
resource base (say, USD50 million over ten years). It will also require substantial capital investment in
buildings, roads and capacity building (say USD100 million over ten years). Recent assistance to the
sector indicates that this level of assistance to the sector is not unreasonable.
216. Safari hunting currently generates USD 1.3 million to landholders, USD 4 million in direct outfitter
turnover, and perhaps USD 8-16 million in economic impact. Good administration in the short term,
especially the allocation of quotas to highest values and measures to encourage more spread out use of
wildlife in GMAs, could triple these figures over night. Wildlife populations in GMAs are currently
below 5-10% of carrying capacity. If measures are taken to internalize the costs and benefits of wildlife
management in GMAs and on other land (i.e. the wildlife producer can retain full benefit), and to
ensure sound governance, therefore, within twenty years the output of Zambia’s hunting sector could be
increased by five to ten times. This would generate:
 USD 20-40m in landholder income,
 USD 60-120 million in outfitter turnover, and
 more than USD 250 million in total economic impact.
217. In conclusion, if Zambia’s wildlife resource is well managed it has the potential to generate
economic activity of approximately USD 750 million annually.
XXIII. Replicability
218. The field demonstration sites are key to replicability of project interventions. New legislation and
policies must be applied and made to work in the field and new tools for PA management must be field
tested before one can expect ZAWA, PA management partners and donors to invest in replicating the
new approaches. In this sense, Bangweulu Field Demonstration Site is considered to be an excellent site
for testing and demonstrating methodologies for reclassification because it represents so many of the
variables to be dealt with in PA reclassification country-wide. It has very poorly protected endemic and
threatened species of global importance, a rich complex of terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, a mix of
national parks representing the two ends of the spectrum of management effectiveness, three GMA with
highly variable levels of wildlife populations and management effectiveness, two unmanaged forest
reserves, a RAMSAR site, poorly motivated ZAWA wildlife police officers, low incentives for
communities to protected wildlife, unoccupied open areas suitable for inclusion in CCA and elephants
and other game that move throughout the whole area that are badly in need of permanent corridors.
219. Both sites are judged to have excellent potential for the creation of CCAs. Bangweulu and Chiawa
GMAs have viable game populations that can immediately generate revenues from trophy hunting and
with good potential for joint ventures with private sector tourism investors. If community management
of wildlife works as well in Zambia as it does in Namibia and Botswana, then the potential for rapid
replication of CCA should be excellent. DANIDA is especially interested in community empowerment
for resource management. They plan to invest $20 million into the environment/PA sector starting in
2008 and are potentially interested in investing in replication of the CCA model.
58
UNDP PRO DOC
220. Improved financial governance and transparency are key elements to replication of co-management
systems at the level of GMA. Much of the conflict and distrust between CRBs and ZAWA is due to
misunderstandings in the sharing of revenues from trophy hunting. CRB don’t know what they are
getting 45% of. Resolving this is quite a simple matter and should provide strong incentives for GMA
communities to engage in co-management with ZAWA.
221. The proposed new CCA category of PA should have strong potential for replicability. The CCA
category will allow strong devolution of authority to communities and maximum benefits to
communities – these are the two principle lessons learned from multiple reviews of CBNRM across the
southern African region (Annex 5). There is every reason to believe that these principles will also hold
true in Zambia. A key to replication of the CCA will be training workshops for representatives of all of
the GMA and CRB in the country, to be held at functioning CCA at the two field sites during the last
three years of the project. This will give GMA community representatives the possibility to directly
interact with CCA managers and community members and the ability to judge for themselves the merits
of applying for CCA status for their own GMA.
222. The replicability of the proposed SHA would be one of the easiest challenges. ZAWA already has
the basic capacities needed to sustainably manage wildlife for trophy hunting. The reclassification and
conservation planning will identify the portions of parks that are most suitable for SHA. These parks
then need to be reclassified/regazetted to allow for zoning for SHA – this is primarily a “paper
exercise” and not costly. Where wildlife populations are adequate, the new SHA can quickly become
profit centers for ZAWA – and can help to subsidize investments in enforcement needed to restore
wildlife in other suitable areas.
223. The knowledge management component of the NRCF will also play a key role in replicability of
project interventions. NRCF will identify key lessons learned through the commissioning of thematic
assessments, sharing of stakeholder experiences and through conferences and debates on PA sector
issues. Lessons learned will be published and widely distributed.
Monitoring, Evaluation and Lessons Learned
XXIV. Monitoring and Evaluation
224. The project is strongly focused on increasing PA management effectiveness. The development and
use of appropriate tools for monitoring management effectiveness are therefore critical. In establishing
the Baseline, the WWF/World Bank Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) was applied to
5 NP and 4 GMA including 3 NP and 3 GMA at the field demonstration sites. The results appear to be
quite meaningful, but the tool could be much approved by modifying it to the Zambia context. This will
be done as a priority during the first year of the project. The new modified tool will then be applied to
all NP and GMA during the first year to provide a complete baseline for PA management effectiveness.
Both the METT and the modified METT will be applied to those sites already measured for the
Baseline in 2004 – this will be done to allow a proper correlation between the rankings of the two tools.
All NP, GMA and newly created PA of new categories will again be ranked with the modified METT
just before the mid-term and at the end-of-project.
225. Another area of emphasis of the project is on the expansion and multiplication of PA management
partnerships. A number of public/private partnerships already exist, but there is no formal system for
monitoring these partnerships. The modified METT will be used to compare the effectiveness of
different forms of management partnerships. New M&E tools will be developed for monitoring how
well management partners respect the new policy framework to be developed for management
partnerships and how well they respect signed MOU or leases. Likewise, there need to be monitoring
safeguards developed so that ZAWA or MTENR can ensure that CCA managers are respecting the
basic conditions for CCA – such as the ban on conversion to agriculture. The two mid-term and the
59
UNDP PRO DOC
EOP evaluations will place a particular emphasis on capturing lessons learned concerning management
partnerships.
226. Other areas of emphasis will be on the development of community-managed M&E systems,
especially for monitoring wildlife populations for trophy hunting, and on the development of systems
for monitoring ecosystem health and biodiversity. It is critical that monitoring of game populations be
seen as a basic cost of doing business for trophy hunting. Community managers need assistance in
developing systems that are scientifically valid and that are within their means to implement.
227. Quarterly progress reports will be prepared by the PIU. Annual Project Reviews (APR) will be done
annually by the PIU and completed by the UNDP CO. The project will be overseen by the Steering
Committee. Annual Tripartite Reviews of the project will be involve GRZ/ZAWA, UNDP and the
UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator and the PIU. Two mid-term reviews (MTR) will be conducted at the
end of year 2 and year 4 and a final evaluation near the end of year 6. The primary purpose of the MTR
will be to identify strengths and weaknesses, to reinforce what works well and to make mid-term
corrections to correct weaknesses.
228. Responsibilities for monitoring the specific indicators in the logframe will be divided between the
PIU, ZAWA, the executing agencies for the field demonstration labs and contractors hired to conduct
independent monitoring of indicators. The full M&E plan is presented in Annex 4.
XXV. Lessons Learned
229. Importance of improving PA management effectiveness. During the concept stage and the PDF
B stage, it was intended that the project would focus primarily on reclassification and sustainable
management of all categories of protected areas in Zambia. However, during project design, it was
learned that lack of management capacity is a much greater barrier to improved biodiversity
conservation in Zambia and the project has been refocused in this direction. Reclassification planning
remains a key element of the project, but its relative importance has been reduced in comparison with
the focus on improved management effectiveness.
230. Forestry sector It was learned that the institutional capacity development needs in the forestry
sector are overwhelming and could not be adequately addressed by this single project. Improved
management effectiveness of forest reserves and open area forests would require a completely new and
separate project.
231. CBNRM Much of what is called CBNRM in Zambia would be better categorized as revenue
sharing. Only recently has ZAWA begun to involve CRBs in management decisions. Devolution of
authority is very partial. The most important conditions for CBNRM are only partially met in Zambia.
This presents special opportunities for applying lessons learned from the region.
232. Stronger Coordination The background consultant studies done as part of project preparation were
treated too much as stand alone studies. Project preparation could have been strengthened by more
frequent and well-organized interactions and joint brainstorming sessions with the four consultant
groups and other key actors.
Legal Context
233. This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic
Assistance Agreement between the Government of Zambia and the United Nations Development
Programme.
234.
The following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the
UNDP Resident Representative only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project
60
UNDP PRO DOC
document have no objections to the proposed changes, that is to say revisions which do not involve
significant changes in the outcomes, outputs or activities of a project, but are caused by rearrangement of
inputs agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation.
235. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements,
and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds
according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will
be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged
by the Government.
Log frame
236. The detailed log frame for the project is presented here in two tables. The first table presents the
Goal, the Project Objective and the three Outcomes with their Key Performance Indicators, Means of
Verification and Critical Assumptions/Risks for each Objective. The second table presents the Outputs,
Output Indicators, Activities, Responsibilities and Annual Targets.
61
UNDP PRO DOC
Results Measurement Table
Objectives
PROJECT
OBJECTIVE:
Enabling
frameworks and
capacities
for
managing
the
system of PAs that
have biodiversity
conservation as a
major
objective
will
be
strengthened.
Key Performance Indicator Target
Year Six
The GRZ-approved Reclassification
and Conservation Plan for the National
System of PA is being implemented.
Under the Plan, priority sites for
reclassification have been identified as
needed to achieve 10% coverage of
each ecosystem/ vegetation type
ensures conservation of globally
important ecosystem biodiversity. New
categories of PA providing effective
biodiversity conservation have been
created through new legislation. The
most appropriate category of PA and
the most appropriate forms of public/
private/
community
management
partnerships have been identified for
each priority site.
At end-of-project (EOP), there will
have been a net movement of 25% of
NP and 20% of GMA to a higher
category of management effectiveness
using the following preliminary
definition of METT categories:
 60-96
High
 25-60
Intermediate
 Less than 25
Low
All newly created CCA and SHA will
have at least an Intermediate ranking.
Baseline
Baseline: Of the 14 major
ecosystem/ vegetation types
only 4 are adequately (10+ %)
covered by NPs. There is no
overall
monitoring
of
management effectiveness. 9
NPs are largely unmanaged.
No other PA category ensures
effective conservation.
Unmodified METT baseline
values for 5 NP and 4 GMA
are as follows:
NP: Kasanka – 70 Mosi
oa Tunya – 61 Lower
Zambezi – 52 Lavushi
Manda – 19 Liuwa Plains
– 49
GMA: Chiawa – 42
Bangweulu – 35 Kafinda
– 24
West Zambezi – 18
Critical
Benchmarks &
Target Date
Reclassification
priorities identified
Year 3.
Mid-term: 10 and 5%
of NP and GMA,
respectively,
will
have moved to a
higher
METT
category.
Sampling
Frequency
Additional
Information
Mid-term
reviews end
Yr 2 and end
Yr 4 and
final
evaluation
Reclassification
will be done by
project only at
the two field
demonstration
sites.
Every
3
years (Yr 1,
end Yr 3 and
mid Yr 6
In Yr 1, both
the METT and
the
modified
METT will be
measured,
allowed
comparisons
between the two
indices.
62
UNDP PRO DOC
Objectives
OUTCOME 1:
Appropriate
policy, regulatory
and
governance
frameworks are in
place
providing
new tools for
public/
community/
private/
civil
society
PA
management
partnerships
Key Performance Indicator Target
Year Six
At EOP, the following legislation,
policies and policy guidelines have
been adopted:
 New policies for reclassification
 A new law for the creation of 2
new categories of PA (CCA and
SHA)
 A new policy framework for
public/private/
civil
society/community partnerships
for NP, CCA, GMA & SHA
 A new policy allowing for a single
community-level
management
structure for all renewable natural
resources
 New policy/guidelines on the roles
of traditional leaders in CBNRM.
Baseline
Baseline: None of these
laws/policies/guidelines exist.
The 1998 Wildlife Act allows
for only limited devolution of
authority to communities.
Large areas of NP are not
usable
for
photo-tourism
because
of
lack
of
infrastructure but are very
suitable for trophy hunting.
Hunting could be a sustainable
land use contributing to the
financial sustainability of
biodiversity conservation of
the system but it is not legal.
Each NR sector requires
communities to create a
separate
community
management structure. There
is much confusion as to what
the roles of traditional leaders
in CBNRM should be.
Critical
Benchmarks &
Target Date
Participatory process
of developing new
laws and policies Yr
1
&
2.
Text
completed Yr 3. New
laws and polices
adopted Yr 4 (except
for law for new PA
categories)
Sampling
Frequency
Additional
Information
Mid-term
reviews end
Yrs 2 & 4
and
Final
Evaluation
Legislation for
new
PA
categories will
be delayed in
order
to
integrate
lessons learned
and experiences
from two field
demo sites
63
UNDP PRO DOC
Objectives
OUTCOME 2:
Institutional
capacities for PA
system
management
strengthened
including
enhanced
capacities
for
improved
PA
representativeness
, monitoring and
evaluation,
business
and
investment
planning and PA
system planning.
Key Performance Indicator Target
Year Six
Baseline
By EOP, at least 2 CCA are created and
are support by community-private
partnerships.
No CCA exist nor any legal
basis for their creation
ZAWA uses business planning as a
standard tool for PA management
planning. The relative financial costeffectiveness of the common forms of
management partnerships has been
quantified and is used in system
planning.
Baseline: Business planning
for PA management is only
weakly developed by ZAWA
and its partners. The costeffectiveness of different
partnerships is unquantified.
The Reclassification and Conservation
Plan for the national system of PA is
the basic document guiding the
reclassification,
management
and
development of priority PA in Zambia.
The investment and marketing plans
are used to mobilize and direct PA
sector investments by private sector
investors, donors and GRZ and to
identify and mobilize partners for PA
management.
Baseline:
None of these
documents exist. ZAWA has a
strategic plan that contains
some elements
Critical
Benchmarks &
Target Date
CCA at field demo
sites are functional by
Yr 3. Law is passed
Yr 5 and CCA at
field
sites
are
gazetted Yr 6
Mid-term: The cost
effectiveness
of
existing partnerships
has been analyzed.
Mid-term: Important
elements
of
the
Conservation
Plan
are
under
development
–
reclassification
priorities,
business
planning tools and
M&E tools.
Sampling
Frequency
Additional
Information
Mid-term
reviews end
Yrs 2 & 4
and
Final
Evaluation
Mid-term
reviews end
Yrs 2 & 4
and
Final
Evaluation
Final
Evaluation
Yr 6
The
cost
effectiveness of
partnerships is
used in the
Conservation
Plan to help
determine the
most effective
forms
of
management
partnerships for
each
priority
site
for
reclassification
The
Plan
identifies
the
appropriate PA
category(ies)
for each priority
site, the forms
of management
partnerships
and
the
investments
needed.
64
UNDP PRO DOC
Objectives
OUTCOME 3:
PA management
options expanded
through
development and
field-testing
of
innovative
private-civil
society-publiccommunity
management
partnerships
for
new categories of
PA.
Key Performance Indicator Target
Year Six
Baseline
Critical
Benchmarks &
Target Date
Mid-term:
Chiawa GMA: 45
Bangweulu GMA: 40
Kafinda GMA: 33
Kasanka NP: 73
Lavushimanda NP:
30
Sampling
Frequency
Additional
Information
Yr 1, end
Yr 3 and end
Yr 6
The METT will
be modified in
Yr 1 and the
modified
METT will be
used
for
monitoring PA
management
effectiveness
The
final
decision
to
create CCA will
be made by the
communities in
each GMA
Management effectiveness index of all
field demonstration site PA are
increased as below with a minimum
ranking of Intermediate for all sites.
EOP:
Chiawa GMA: 50
Bangweulu GMA: 45
Kafinda GMA:45
Kasanka NP: 75
Lavushimanda NP: 35
New PA created out of the Chiawa,
Bangweulu/Chikuni
and
Kafinda
GMA are legally gazetted and under
community management structures
certified under the new CCA law.
They are supported by private/civil
society (non-government) partners.
Baseline:
Chiawa GMA: 42
Bangweulu GMA: 35
Kafinda GMA: 24
Kasanka NP: 70
Lavushimanda NP: 19
Baseline: All sites have
conventional GMAs with
limited
involvement
of
communities in management.
Mid-term: All CCA
are
functionally
operational
with
community managers
supported by private
sector partners.
Mid-term
reviews end
Yrs 2 & 4
and
Final
Evaluation
The GMA/CCA’s M&E systems show
that the populations of large antelopes
in the CCA have increased by 30%
since the beginning of the project.
Baseline: To be established in
Yr 1
Mid-term:
increase
Anti-poaching and basic management
costs are covered by CCA NR
management funds fed by revenues
from the marketing of sustainably
managed NR/biodiversity.
GMA with hunting leases
have basic management funds,
but only for hunting revenues
Funds
will
be
expanded as new
resources are brought
under management
Annual
monitoring
in
those
GMA/CCA
with hunting
leases
Mid-terms
end Yr 2 &
Yr 4 and
EOP Final
Evaluation
15%
65
UNDP PRO DOC
Hierarchy of Objectives, Key Performance Indicators, Means of Verification and Critical Assumptions/Risks
Hierarchy of
Key Performance Indicators
Means of verification
Critical
Objectives
Assumptions/Risks
 GRZ remains committed
Goal:
A National PA System
to
biodiversity
that comprises a
conservation
representative sample of
 Political stability and
Zambia’s ecosystems is
law and order are
effectively safeguarded
maintained
from human-induced
 No major outbreak of
pressures through
ungulate diseases
effective management
 Realized
value
of
partnerships and serves
wildlife sector to the
to make Zambia into a
economy
enhanced
tourism destination of
through
PRSP
choice.
implementation
 Continued commitment
of GRZ to realization of
MDGs
 Macro-economic
environment is positive
 Growth policies are propoor with adequate rural
dimension
 The
GRZ-approved
Reclassification
and  GRZ-approved
 External pressures on
PROJECT
Conservation Plan for the National System of PA is
Conservation Plan for
national
parks
and
OBJECTIVE:
Enabling
frameworks
being implemented. Under the Plan, priority sites
the National System of
protected areas do not
and
capacities
for
for reclassification have been identified as needed to
PA
significantly increase.
managing the system of
achieve 10% coverage of each ecosystem/vegetation  Synthesis document (by  Self-financing,
PAs
that
have
type ensures conservation of globally important
Yr 3) identifying sites
economically
viable,
biodiversity conservation
ecosystem biodiversity. New categories of PA
needed to ensure 10%
forms of management
as a major objective will
providing effective biodiversity conservation have
representation.
are developed.
be strengthened.
been created through new legislation. The most
 Private
appropriate category of PA and the most appropriate
sector/communities
forms of public/ private/ community management
respond positively to
partnerships have been identified for each priority
improved
site.
policies/incentives.
66
UNDP PRO DOC
Hierarchy of
Objectives
Key Performance Indicators


Baseline: Of the 14 major ecosystem/ vegetation
types only 4 are adequately (10+ %) covered by
NPs. There is no overall monitoring of management
effectiveness. 9 NP are largely unmanaged. No
other PA category ensures effective conservation.
Mid-term: Priority sites for reclassification and
effective management as needed to achieve 10%
representation of all ecosystem/vegetation types
have been identified.

At end-of-project (EOP), there will have been a net
movement of 25% of NP and 20% of GMA to a
higher category of management effectiveness using
the following preliminary definition of METT
categories:
 60-96
High
 25-60
Intermediate
 Less than 25
Low
All newly created CCA and SHA will have at least
an Intermediate ranking.
Baseline will be completed in Yr 1 using the
modified METT for Zambia PA. Unmodified
METT baseline values for 5 NP and 4 GMA are as
follows:
NP: Kasanka – 70, Mosi oa Tunya – 61, Lower
Zambezi 52, Lavushi Manda – 19, Liuwa Plains –
49;
GMA: Chiawa 42, Bangweulu – 35, Kafinda – 24,
West Zambezi – 18
Mid-term: 10 and 5% of NP and GMA,
respectively, will have moved to a higher METT
category.
By EOP, and additional 5.7 million hectares of NP
and GMA will have been brought under effective
management (METT rating of Intermediate or
High)
Baseline: 0 ha.
Means of verification
Critical
Assumptions/Risks
The METT will be
modified for Zambia in
Yr 1. It will be applied
to all NP, GMA (and
new CCA and SHA as
they are created) in Yr
1, mid-term and EOP
under contract with an
independent institution.
In Yr 1, both the METT
and the modified
METT will be applied
in order to allow
correlation between the
two.
67
UNDP PRO DOC
Hierarchy of
Objectives
OUTCOME
1:
Appropriate
policy,
regulatory
and
governance frameworks
are in place providing
new tools for public/
community/
private/
civil
society
PA
management
partnerships
Key Performance Indicators








OUTCOME 2:
Institutional capacities
for
PA
system
management
strengthened including
At EOP, the following legislation, policies and
policy guidelines have been adopted:
New policies for reclassification
A new law for the creation of 2 new categories of
PA (CCA and SHA)
A new policy framework for public/private/ civil
society/community partnerships for NP, CCA,
GMA & SHA
A new policy allowing for a single communitylevel management structure for all renewable
natural resources
New policy/guidelines on the roles of traditional
leaders in CBNRM.
Baseline: None of these laws/policies/guidelines
exist. The 1998 Wildlife Act allows for only limited
devolution of authority to communities. Large areas
of NP are not usable for photo-tourism because of
lack of infrastructure but are very suitable for
trophy hunting. Hunting could be a sustainable land
use contributing to the financial sustainability of
biodiversity conservation of the system but it is not
legal. Each NR sector requires communities to
create a separate community management structure.
There is much confusion as to what the roles of
traditional leaders in CBNRM should be.
Mid-term: New laws/policies/guidelines are going
through the approval process. New CCA are
functional but not formally gazetted.
Means of verification





The law is passed by
parliament.
The
policies are adopted by
Cabinet.
The policy/guidelines
are
adopted
by
MTENR.
The functionality of
the CCA is verified by
the MTR.
Legal certificate for the
CCA.




By EOP, at least 2 CCA are created and are support
by community-private partnerships.
ZAWA uses business planning as a standard tool for 
PA management planning. The relative financial
cost-effectiveness of the common forms of
management partnerships has been quantified and is 
used in system planning.
Critical
Assumptions/Risks
Government
remains
committed to policy
reforms
needed
to
engender pubic/private/
civil
society
management
partnerships
Timely
approval/enactment of
legal and regulatory
framework
Government addresses
documented cases of
mal-governance
Agreement reached on
civil
society
representation.
Legal
documents
gazetting the CCA
Masters level business 
planner(s) employed by
ZAWA.
Written business plans
for 8 PA.
Government
remains
committed
to
reclassifying PAs and
redesignating sites as
needed
to
achieve
68
UNDP PRO DOC
Hierarchy of
Objectives
enhanced capacities
improved
representativeness,
monitoring
evaluation, business
investment planning
PA system planning.
Key Performance Indicators
for
PA
and
and
and
OUTCOME 3:
PA management options
expanded
through
development and field
testing of innovative
private-civil
societypublic-community
management
partnerships for new
categories of PA.
Baseline: Business planning for PA management is
only weakly developed by ZAWA and its partners.
The cost-effectiveness of different partnerships is
unquantified.
Mid-term: The cost effectiveness of existing
partnerships has been analyzed.
 The Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the
national system of PA is the basic document guiding
the reclassification, management and development
of priority PA in Zambia. The investment and
marketing plans are used to mobilize and direct PA
sector investments by private sector investors,
donors and GRZ and to identify and mobilize
partners for PA management.
Baseline: None of these documents exist. ZAWA
has a strategic plan that contains some elements
Mid-term: Important elements of the Conservation
Plan are under development – reclassification
priorities, business planning tools and M&E tools.
Management effectiveness index of all field
demonstration site PA are increased as below with a
minimum ranking of Intermediate for all sites.
Baseline:
Chiawa GMA: 42
Bangweulu GMA: 35
Kafinda GMA: 24
Kasanka NP: 70
Lavushimanda NP: 19
Mid-term:
Chiawa GMA: 45
Bangweulu GMA: 40
Kafinda GMA: 33
Kasanka NP: 73
Lavushimanda NP: 30
EOP:
Chiawa GMA: 50
Means of verification






Report
on
effectiveness
management
partnerships.
MTR
Final Evaluation
costof 

Approved,
published 
Conservation Plan for
the National System of
PA

Approved investment
plan
Final evaluation


Zambia-adapted
METT
applied by independent
contractors



Critical
Assumptions/Risks
conservation goals
Multi-stakeholder
consensus achieved on
reclassification plan.
Investor
confidence
remains positive over
the long term
Tourism growth meets
projected
targets in
tourism sector plan .
Adequate
staffing
profiles/numbers
maintained relative to
core PA management
functions
Institutions are willing
to share data and to
cover the costs of data
collection and sharing
Stakeholder
conflicts
can be successfully
mediated
No adverse changes in
threat
profiles
at
demonstration sites
Regional
political
stability is maintained
There
is
sufficient
social
capital
in
communities to comply
with
accountability
requirements that come
with
increased
empowerment.
69
UNDP PRO DOC
Hierarchy of
Objectives
Key Performance Indicators



Bangweulu GMA: 45
Kafinda GMA:45
Kasanka NP: 75
Lavushimanda NP: 35
New PA created out of the Chiawa,
Bangweulu/Chikuni and Kafinda GMA are legally
gazetted and under community management
structures certified under the new CCA law. They
are supported by private/civil society (nongovernment) partners.
Baseline: All sites have conventional GMAs with
limited
involvement
of
communities
in
management.
Mid-term: All CCA are functionally operational
with community managers supported by private
sector partners.
The GMA/CCA’s M&E systems shows that the
populations of large antelopes in the CCA has
increased by 30% since the beginning of the project.
Baseline: To be established in Yr 1
Mid-term: 15% increase
Anti-poaching and basic management costs are
covered by CCA NR management funds fed by
revenues from the marketing of sustainably
managed NR/biodiversity.
Means of verification
Critical
Assumptions/Risks
CCA gazetting documents
Certificate of registration
of CCA management body
under new CCA law.
MOU
between
CCA
managers
and
private
partners
MTR
Final Evaluation
CCA
M&E
systems
confirmed
by
aerial
surveys
Analysis of CCA account
books
70
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs, Output Indicators, Activities, Responsibilities and Annual Targets
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
Output 1.1 Legal drafts
of
legislation/policies/
guidelines
prepared
based on studies and
literature reviews
Background reviews and
draft legislation, policies
and policy guidelines will
be
completed
for
reclassification of PA, the
creation of new categories
of PA, for PA management
partnerships, for CBNRM
management structures and
for the role of chiefs in
CBNRM.
Baseline: No reviews have
been done.
MT 4 reviews and drafts
completed.
Activity 1.1.1. Conduct an updated literature review of lessons
learned regarding optimal categories of PA and of reclassification
policies in Zambia and in Southern and Eastern Africa resulting in
draft policy for reclassification of PA and draft legislation for new
categories of PA, particularly a) community-managed conservation
areas (CCA) and; b) ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas (SHA)
Activity 1.1.2. Conduct an updated review and lessons learned
concerning public-private-civil society-community partnerships in
Zambia and in Southern and Eastern Africa resulting in policy
framework drafts for partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA and SHA
Activity 1.1.3. Conduct an updated review and synthesis of lessons
learned concerning optimum forms of community management
structures for multiple resource management in Zambia and in
Southern and Eastern Africa resulting in policy drafts allowing for
a single community management structure for all NR.
Activity 1.1.4. Conduct a SWOT/scenario analysis of present roles
of traditional leaders in Zambia and review of lessons learned
resulting in policy/guidelines drafts defining the roles of traditional
leaders and communities in CBNRM/PA management
Activity 1.2.1. Conduct three regional workshops for stakeholder
inputs to the four legal/policy/guidelines drafts
Activity 1.2.2. Conduct a national stakeholder workshop for
validation of amended legal/policy/guidelines
Output
1.2
Draft
legislation/
policies/
guidelines are amended
through a participatory
process of stakeholder
inputs and validation
Output
1.3.
New
legislation, policies and
guidelines adopted
Draft legislation, policies
and guidelines amended
and validated through
stakeholder inputs:
Baseline: No actions taken.
MT: All stakeholder inputs
completed
New legislation allows for
the creation of CCA and
SHA.
New
policies
adopted
for
PA
management partnerships
and for single community
management structures for
multiple use CBNRM.
Guidelines adopted for
roles of chiefs in CBNRM.
Activity 1.3.1. Finalize the legal text for new reclassification
policies and guide them through the adoption process.
Activity 1.3.1. Finalize the legal text for the creation of the new
categories of PA and guide them through the adoption process
Activity 1.3.2. Finalize the text of policy framework for
public/private/civil society/community partnerships and guide this
through to its adoption.
Activity 1.3.3. Finalize the policy text allowing for a single
community-level management structure for all renewable natural
resources and guide this through to its adoption
Responsibilit
ies
MTENR
Contractor
Annual Targets
1 review completed Yr 1
1legal draft policy Yr 1
1 legal draft legislation
Yr 1
MTENR
Contractor
1 review completed Yr 1
1 policy draft completed
Yr 1
MTENR
Contractor
1 review completed Yr 1
1 policy draft completed
Yr 1
MTENR
Contractor
1 analysis completed Yr
1
1
draft
guidelines
completed Yr 1
3 regional stakeholder
workshops Yr 1&2
1 national validation
workshop Yr 2
MTENR
MTENR
MTENR,
MoLA
MTENR
MTENR
MTENR
Text finalized Yr 4, New
legislation adopted Yr 6
Text finalized Yr 2; New
legislation adopted Yr 4
Policy text finalized Yr 2
New policy adopted Yr 4
Policy text finalized Yr 2
New policy adopted Yr 4
71
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output 1.4. A Natural
Resources Consultative
Forum for civil society
input on PA/NRM sector
issues,
for
thematic
assessments and sharing
of experiences and for
knowledge management,
with development and
diffusion
of
lessons
learned,
is
made
operational.
Output
1.5.
Development of good
governance for financial
accountability
for
GMA/CCA
Output Indicator
Activities
Baseline: None of these
exist.
MT Adoption process
underway except for the
legislation on new PA
categories
PA
communities,
GMA/CCA
managers,
tourism
investors,
private/civil society PA
managers, NGOs and other
civil
society
actors
participate in open debates
on key PA sector issues.
Lessons
learned
are
documented and diffused.
Baseline: No structured
fora for civil society
inputs; misinformation is
common.
MT:
NRCF
fully
operational.
All CRB receive financial
statements giving basis of
revenue
sharing.
All
CRB/CCA
boards
&
selected
community
representatives
receive
training in safeguards and
accountability.
Baseline: CRBs commonly
don’t know the amount
they receive a share of.
Standard guidelines not
developed.
MT: Guidelines developed.
All 55 CRBs and new
Activity 1.3.4. Finalize the guidelines on the role of traditional
leaders and communities in CBNRM and guide them through the
necessary steps to their adoption process
Responsibilit
ies
MTENR
Annual Targets
Text
of
guidelines
finalized Yr 2; New
guidelines adopted Yr 4
Activity 1.4.1. Develop networks of concerned stakeholders for key
sectors, identify key issues, prepare thematic assessments/field
visits and develop reference library.
NRCF
MTENR,
ZAWA
Issues
identified
at
beginning of each year
The four policy reforms
will be debated in Yr 2
4
project
funded
background papers per
Yr.
4 NRCF fora per year
4
advisory
notes/
briefing papers prepared
and distributed per year.
Activity 1.4.2. Organize workshops, seminars and civil society
debate, produce advisory notes for relevant ministries/institutions,
prepare and diffuse publications of lessons learned on effective PA
management/ CBNRM.
NRCF
Activity 1.5.1. Review of procedures and lessons learned in Zambia
and in the region
MTENR,
Contract
Review completed Yr2
Activity 1.5.2 Develop a full set of procedures/guidelines for
transparency, safeguards and accountability for financial
management of CCA & GMA
MTENR,
Contract
Activity 1.5.3.
Training in procedures/principles for sound
financial governance are provided to CRB and CCA boards and
non-board members of GMA and CCA communities.
MTENR,
Contract
Guidelines finalized Yr
3; ZAWA provides CRB
with financial statements
with each disbursement
showing
basis of
revenue sharing
Training
modules
completed Yr 2; 2 day
training
workshops
conducted in each of the
35 GMA and all CCA in
Yr 2 & 3
72
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
CCA
have
training.
Output 2.1 Identification
of priority sites for
reclassification
to
complete the National
System of PA
Output
2.2
Natural
resource economics and
business planning tools
Activities
Responsibilit
ies
MTENR
(PASS)
Annual Targets
received
Activity 1.5.4 Improve MTENR oversight and monitoring of the
implementation of PA sector laws and policies.
Oversight/monitoring
system/criteria
developed
Yr
1.
Oversight
and
monitoring implemented
Yr 1-6
PA and open area sites that
are
in
need
of
reclassification and/ or
effective management to
ensure
representative
coverage of Zambia’s
ecosystems/biodiversity
are identified (and are
integrated
into
the
Conservation
Plan)
Reclassification of PA
completed at two field
demonstration sites.
Baseline: A preliminary
gap analysis was done as
part of project preparation
but this did not include the
identification of candidate
sites.
MT: Synthesis document
on
identification
of
reclassification priorities
completed. Reclassification
planning completed for
two field demonstration
sites.
Activity 2.1.1. Compile spatial data on biodiversity and PA, and
refine the draft methodology, including conservation criteria and
targets, for reclassification through literature review and
stakeholder inputs.
Activity 2.1.2. Identify candidate sites for reclassification by
conducting a gap analysis of the National System of PA, including
the following;
 Review and update the existing gap analysis conducted by DSI
in 2004 (See Figure 4);
 Identify candidate sites for reclassification by analyzing forest
cover loss/ecosystem conversion analysis of all NP and GMA
and other sites that could potentially fill identified gaps in
coverage by priority PA using manual interpretation of satellite
imagery;
Activity 2.1.3. Conduct field-level bio-physical status assessments
of the candidate sites identified.
 Confirm that the site is accurately classified by vegetation type
on the base map.
 Determine the level of depletion of wildlife populations and the
potential for restoring viable ecosystems;
 Analyze the interest of local stakeholders in the creation or
upgrading to a priority PA.
Activity 2.1.4. Conduct final synthesis to produce priority listing of
sites for reclassification needed to ensure that an average of 10% of
all ecosystem/vegetation types are covered by the National System
of PA
ZAWA,
MTENR
NRCF,
Contract
ZAWA,
Contract
Methodology
revised/adopted Yr 1
ZAWA,
Contract
40 six-day site visits
(including travel) by 4man teams in Yr 2 & 3
ZAWA,
Contract
ZAWA uses business
planning as a standard tool
for
PA
management
Activity 2.2.1 Apply natural resource economic analysis to PA to
better define priority setting for PA conservation and management;
ZAWA,
Contract
(NRE)
Final synthesis document
completed in Yr 3
Brief
summary
document
for
wide
distribution completed
Yr 3
Analyses completed for
6 PA (NP, GMA and
new categories) Yr. 1&2
Gap analysis revised
using GIS Yr1
Forest cover loss
analysis Yr 1 and 2
73
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
are
developed
for
enhanced
PA
management efficiency
planning. The relative
financial cost effectiveness
of the common forms of
management partnerships
has been quantified. The
investments needed for 15
unmanaged priority PA
have been estimated.
Baseline:
Business
planning
is
poorly
developed by ZAWA and
its partners. The costeffectiveness of different
partnerships
is
unquantified. ZAWA is
doing investment profiles
on the NP it manages.
MT: The cost effectiveness
of existing partnerships has
been analyzed. 2 training
modules
for
business
planning
have
been
developed.
Activity 2.2.2. Apply financial assessment tools to determine cost
coefficients and relative efficiencies of different public/private/civil
society/community PA management partnerships;
Output 2.3 Efficient,
effective monitoring and
evaluation systems are
developed for priority PA
management
The METT has been
modified for Zambia and is
used as a standard tool for
all PA managed by, or in
partnership with, ZAWA.
Monitoring of wildlife for
trophy
hunting
is
increasingly accepted as a
cost of doing business.
Techniques for monitoring
ecosystem health have
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA,
Contract
(NRE)
Activity 2.2.3. Strengthen local institutional capacities for the use
of business planning for PA management (e.g. definition of optimal
levels of law enforcement, investments needed to achieve selffinancing, etc.)
ZAWA,
Contract with
business
school
(NRE)
Activity 2.2.4 Develop investment profiles for priority unmanaged
PA (as identified for reclassification)
Activity 2.2.5 Adapt business planning tools to define the types of
public/private/civil society/community partnerships best suited for
unmanaged priority PA/sites identified for reclassification
Activity 2.3.1.
Modify the METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool) to
develop Zambia-specific tool and apply it to the priority PA (will
include effectiveness of partnerships and compliance with policies
and MOU)
ZAWA,
(NRE)
ZAWA,
Contract
(NRE)
ZAWA,
MTENR
Contract
Activity 2.3.2. Conduct an in depth review of the effectiveness
(including cost effectiveness) of M&E systems in Zambia and in
Southern and Eastern Africa with a focus on monitoring of wildlife
populations, ecosystem health and management partnerships.
ZAWA,
Contract
(NRE)
Annual Targets
1 study of existing
partnerships in Yr 1&2
1 study of new
partnerships in Yr 4
Development
of
2
training modules
for
protected areas business
planning by a business
school – one for
professions
lacking
business backgrounds Yr
2 and one module for
CBNRM managers Yr 3;
2
wk
professional
training for 8 trainees – 1
in Yr 2 and 1 Yr 4 ; 9 1wk training workshops
for community managers
– 3 each in Yr 3, 4 and 5;
Masters level training for
2 ZAWA professionals
Yrs 1-3
15 profiles developed in
Yr 3 & 5
Analysis completed Yr
3&4
METT modified in Yr 1;
Modified tracking tool
applied to 19 NP & 35
GMA in Yr 1, and all
NP, GMA and newly
created PA at mid-term
and at EOP
1 study conducted in Yr
1&2
74
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output 2.4 Systematic
Conservation Planning
Output Indicator
Activities
been developed.
Baseline:
METT
is
unmodified.
Little
monitoring is done on an
operational basis.
MT: Improved
M&E
techniques are being tested.
Activity 2.3.3. Test and adaptively modify improved M&E systems
at 8 NP/GMA and for all management partnerships.
The Reclassification and
Conservation Plan for the
national system of PA is
the basic document guiding
the
reclassification,
management
and
development of priority PA
in Zambia. The marketing
plan is used to mobilize
and direct PA sector
investments by private
sector investors, donors
and GRZ and to identify
and mobilize partners for
PA management.
Baseline: None of these
documents exist. ZAWA
has a strategic plan that
contains some elements
MT: Work not yet begun
Activity 2.4.1. Integrate the identified reclassification priorities, the
business planning tools, the improved M&E systems, and other PA
management tools into an overall Conservation Plan for the
national system of priority PA.
ZAWA
Contract
Activity 2.42. Develop an investment plan for the national system
of PA
Activity 2.4.3. Develop a Marketing plan to interest investment
partners needed for priority PA
ZAWA
Contract
(NRE)
Contract
ZAWA
Activity 3.1.1 Identify and develop profiles of all stakeholders
ZAWA, KTL
Bangweulu Field Demonstration Site
High level of awareness
Output 3.1
Awareness raising and amongst community in
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA,
CRB,
Contract
,
Annual Targets
Implementation Yr 2-6
in 3 NP and 5 GMA
selected in Yr 1,
Operational tests and
annual internal
evaluation for adaptive
improvement in Yrs 2 to
5
Work conducted in Yr4
&5
3 regional and 1 national
validation workshop Yr
5
System plan published
Yr 5
Development of
investment plan Yr 5&6
Development of market
plan Yr 5&6
Stakeholder
profiles
established Yr 1
75
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
two-way dialogue with
stakeholders
on
the
Bangweulu
field
demonstration
site
objectives
and
participatory approach
project area and bordering
areas of the projects
objectives methods and
goals. Active participation
from all sectors with all
parties sharing knowledge
and lessons learned.
Baseline:
Traditional
leaders, CRB, selected
community representatives
and local officials/technical
services are informed and
support
the
project
objectives.
MT: All sociological and
geographic
sectors
of
community are aware of
the project and are
represented by participants
in the project activities.
Essential infrastructure for
functioning of the project
is in place.
Baseline: KTL and ZAWA
Chikuni post have radio
communications. Almost
no road maintenance in
area.
MT: CRB, ZAWA camps,
project staff and strategic
points equipped with radio
communications.
Planned, managed and
supported cost efficient
protection measures in
place to conserve resources
as appropriate in each PA.
Co-operation
between
government agencies and
Activity 3.1.2 Meet with traditional leaders, CRB and community
representatives, government authorities, technical services, NGOs,
others to fully discuss project objectives, targets, outcomes and
participatory approaches to be used.
Output 3.2 Strategic
infrastructure established
Output 3.3
Cost-effective protection/
enforcement established
for wildlife and other
natural
resources
in
project area based on
consultations
with
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA, KTL
Annual Targets
1 2-day workshop high
level, 2 2-day workshops
for 30 participants
Activity 3.1.3. Conduct awareness raising and develop 2-way
dialogue with all project area communities by project extension
officers with public meetings, written materials, video and drama
presentations
KTL, PCV
30 1-day workshops
conducted by project
staff at 30 strategic
centers Yr 1. Written
summaries prepared of
each.
Activity 3.2.1 Establish telecommunications network for
CRB/communities in project area for communications amongst
themselves and with ZAWA, KTL, PC and UNV.
Activity 3.2.2 Repair/open strategic access roads and landing strips
ZAWA, KTL
Radio network in place
Yr 1
KTL
Activity
3.2.3.
Build/rehabilitate
offices/facilities/lodging for project needs
equip
ZAWA, KTL
Maintenance
and
upgrading of strategic
access
Construction,
rehabilitation
and
maintenance over 6 Yr
Activity 3.3.1 Evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and effectiveness
of the present enforcement systems (ZAWA wildlife police officers
(WPO), CRB community scouts and KTL scouts), review lessons
learned from other PA managers in Zambia and develop an
integrated, cost-effective, incentive-based enforcement plan for the
GMAs, Lavushi Manda NP and Kasanka NP.
ZAWA, KTL
and
Evaluation completed by
staff
plus
local
consultant 1 mo. Yr 1
Qtr 2
Enforcement
Plan
completed by staff Yr 1
76
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
communities.
Output 3.4 Increased
capacity for community
managers for planning,
governance,
record
keeping,
financial
management,
business
Output Indicator
Activities
community
managers
across wildlife, fisheries
and forestry.
Baseline: ZAWA, CRBs
and KTL have scouts but
ZAWA units and CRB are
not well managed or
supported so have limited
effectiveness
and
operational scope. Few if
any Fisheries and Forestry
Officers are working in the
Project Area
MT:
Existing
units
functioning
well
and
adapting to new roles and
responsibilities
from
emerging plans. Fisheries
and
Forestry Officers
provide support as needed.
ZAWA WPO, community
scout equipped, motivated,
well managed and working
in close cooperation.
Activity 3.3.2 Recruit/redeploy and equip community scouts/WPO
(including transport, equipment and accommodation, management
support and incentives.) and implement enforcement plan
Community PA managers
have the capacities needed
to sustainably manage the
natural resources of the
PA, including capacities
for
good
governance,
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA, KTL
Activity 3.3.3 Provide training of community scouts and WPOs
ZAWA,
Activity 3.3.4 Provide training for PA managers directly
responsible
for
managing
enforcement
officers/scouts.
ZAWA, KTL
Activity 3.4.1. Conduct village-level workshops on strategic
capacities needed during reclassification planning, e.g. participatory
planning processes, good governance principles of transparency,
accountability, equity, involvement of women and minority groups,
systems of checks and balances, etc.
KTL, PCV
Annual Targets
ZAWA (24 scouts),CRB
Community scouts (60)
deployed & equipped
9 x 6-week local courses
Community
Scout
Training for 15 scouts
each
Yr
1-Yr4.5
community scouts attend
6 wk external training in
Zambia Yr s3-4
5
ZAWA
WPO
specialized
external
training in Zambia Yrs
2-5
Annual
2-week
workshop
for
Community, ZAWA and
KTL
managers
coordination and education
on newly developing
PAs and enforcement
systems.
Annual
enforcement workshops
Yrs1-6
1 local consultant 2 mos
develops modules and
trains staff. 30 x 2 day,
village-level workshops
conducted by staff Yr 1
& 2.
77
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
skills,
gender
empowerment
and
HIV/AIDS
awareness
and prevention
business management and
planning, NR management
and adaptive management.
Traditional
leaders,
ZAWA, local government
and technical service staff
and
NGO
understand
critical needs for CBNRM
support and monitoring.
Raised awareness amongst
wider community means
leaders and representatives
enjoy the informed support
of community at large.
Baseline: Indications are
that the communities have
a strong desire to be
involved
in
planning,
decision
making
and
implementation of resource
management but lack the
technical and governance
skills needed to be
effective.
MT: Capacities built to a
level where representatives
and leaders can play an
active part in the drafting
of plans for new Protected
Areas and their associated
management
Activity 3.4.2.
Conduct training workshops for CRB/CCA
managers, community leaders, ZAWA and local government staff
in financial management, resource management, community
development, business skills, management skills including adaptive
management, democratic processes, gender empowerment
leadership and HIV/AIDS awareness and its links to
environment/community development
Output 3.5
Reclassification options
identified based on biophysical
and
socioeconomic
studies
Comprehensive
sociological
and
biodiversity/ecological
database and maps exist for
Project Area.
Responsibilit
ies
KTL, PCV
Activity 3.4.3 Organize exchange visits with other community PA
management/CBNRM pilot projects in Zambia and sub-region
ZAWA, KTL
Activity 3.4.4 Develop and implement conservation awareness
education program with schools, leaders and broader community.
Project extension officers liaise closely and regularly with schools
and adult groups using printed materials, video, drama and
educational visits to wildlife areas.
KTL, PCV
Activity 3.4.5 Training of trainers to build up a corps of incommunity trainers to continue the work after the end of the project
period, under supervision of CRB and other community groups.
Activity 3.5.1. Compile and analyze all existing spatial information
on ecosystem/habitat/vegetation types, species occurrences and
range, presence of critical species (threatened and endangered),
limits of gazetted areas (NP, GMA, FR, RAMSAR site, other),
settlements, road networks, etc.
KTL, PCV
WWF,
ZAWA, KTL
Annual Targets
48
3-day
training
workshops
@20
participants each for
CRB/CCA managers and
community
leaders
spread over six years4 3day training workshops
held each year for
technical services. local
government, traditional
leaders and local NGO
staff leaders Yrs2-6
1 Exchange visit in
Zambia per yr for 5
participants each Yr 1,
2,3,4 1 exchange visit in
sub-region Yr 2 5
participants
Each School in Project
Area
(estimate
30)
visited each year for CA
education
Yrs16Educational
Drama
Tour conducted visiting
10 sites each year Yrs1610
School/adult
conservation
groups
taken on conservation
visit to P.A. in Project
Area each year Yrs1-6
4 1 wk workshops Yr 5
&6
Compilation by 1 local
consultant x 1.5 mos.
completed Yr 1
78
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
completed.
Output Indicator
Activities
Baseline: Kasanka NP and
Kafinda GMA are quite
well surveyed but other
areas only very partially.
There is no clear picture of
the status or distribution of
resources
and
their
interaction
with
the
community.
MT: Surveys published of
wildlife, fisheries and
habitats. Comprehensive
community survey report
published. GIS map of
project area developed
showing
habitats,
vegetation,
wildlife,
fisheries,
settlement,
agriculture and other sociogeographic
features.
Reclassification
options
identified
Activity 3.5.2 Acquire and analyze satellite imagery of field demo
site to assess ecosystem/habitat/vegetation types, extent of
agriculture, settlements, roads and other man-made features, signs
of habitat degradation, possibilities for establishing corridors, etc.
Responsibilit
ies
WWF
&
ZAWA
Activity 3.5.3. Conduct aerial survey of project area to complement
image analysis, assess wildlife populations, vegetation types and
human activities. Survey to use manual strip counting and video
recording.
Activity 3.5.4 Conduct biological ground surveys to determine
presence and ranges of rare, threatened, endangered species and to
complement aerial analyses of wildlife populations (using line
transect for wildlife counts)
Activity 3.5.5 Conduct technical and participatory surveys of
fishery resources and current fishing practices and develop
management recommendations.
WWF,
ZAWA
KTL
Activity 3.5.6. Conduct a survey of the field demonstration site to
identify national heritage sites and develop recommendations for
integrating them into PA management and community development
activities
Activities 3.5.7 Conduct community survey of entire project area
using participatory techniques to evaluate economic activities and
production systems, resource utilization and dependence,
commercial and non-commercial biodiversity products, attitudes to
resources and biodiversity, resource and land tenure systems,
nutrition, access to social services, social structures, concerns and
aspirations, systems of governance.
Activity 3.4.7 Synthesize and analyze all studies conducted to
develop a preliminary set of reclassification and zoning options for
Bangweulu, Chikuni and Kafinda GMAs, Lavushi Manda NP,
Forest Reserve #210 and open areas.. _
NHCC, PCV
&
WWF,
ZAWA,
KTL, PCV
WWF, DoF,
PCV
Annual Targets
Satellite
imagery
acquisition
and
interpretation by 1 local
consultant 1.5 mos and
staff completed Yr
Aerial
survey
and
analysis completed Yr 1
Biological
ground
surveys
3
local
consultants x 2 mos
completed Yr 1 & 2
Fisheries management 1
international consultant 3
wks 1 local consultant
1.5 mo. DoF staff 1 mo
conduct
surveys
&
prepares
recommendations.
Survey completed by
NHCC Yr 2
KTL, PCV,
Yr1Community surveys
completed by staff plus 2
local
consultants
x
2mos.Analysis of data
staff + local 2 local
consultants x 2mos.
ZAWA,
WWF, KTL,
PCV
Publication of biological
surveys, publication of
community
survey,
publication of GIS Maps
Yr1
and
Yr2,
Reclassification options
identified Yr2
79
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
Output 3.6
Plan for Reclassification
of
Protected
Areas
(including creation of
new types) and for land
use zoning within PA and
of
open
areas
is
developed with strong
stakeholder participation.
Reclassification and zoning
plan prepared for PA and
natural areas within the
project area. Area re-zoned
for new or reclassified PA
using both existing and
new PA categories in line
with new national policies
and legislation. Land use
zoning agreed within PA as
part
of
an
overall
conservation and land use
strategy for the project
area.
Baseline: The present
designation
and
classification of PA within
the project area is seen as
unsatisfactory
by
all
parties. GMA, There is no
land use planning or
zoning of GMA and other
Activity 3.6.1 Village-level workshops to present reclassification
options and to facilitate analysis and debate of the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each (choice of types of
PAs/zoning, roles and responsibilities, negotiation of new
PA/zoning boundaries, alternative forms of community
management structures).
Activity 3.6.2 Higher level workshops involving representatives of
all local stakeholder groups including communities, traditional
leaders, government agencies, NGO’s, local investors to
analyze/debate reclassification and land use options. (Liaison with
Project activities under sections 1 and 2 of log frame to co-ordinate
local findings with developments at national level on the creation of
new PA types (CCA and SHA)
Activity 3.6.3 Conduct financial feasibility analyses of
reclassification options.
Activity 3.6.4 Central workshop with representatives of all
stakeholders to agree creation/reclassification of PA, redefinition
of existing PAs and land use zoning of all land in project area.
Activity 3.6.5 Prepare and distribute draft Reclassification/Land
Use Zoning Plan including the agreed land use restrictions and
resource management policies for the each type of area, and invite
further consultation for any adjustments.
Responsibilit
ies
KTL, PCV
Annual Targets
30
2-day
local
workshops
run
by
project staff Yr 2
ZAWA, KTL
6 3-day workshops for
20 people Yr 2
KTL (NRE)
Local consultant 1.5 mos
produced study Yr 2
3-day workshop 20
people Yr 2
ZAWA, KTL
ZAWA, KTL
30 1-day workshops
project staff. 3 2-day
CRB –level workshops
20 people each
80
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output 3.7
Creation/ reclassification
of PA completed
Output 3.8. Sustainable
natural
resource
management systems are
developed
for
community-managed PA
Output Indicator
Activities
areas to ensure corridors or
other conservation goals
despite the area’s critical
biodiversity of global
importance.
MT: Agreement reached of
new type(s) of Protected
Area within the project
area which balance the
need for conservation with
the economic aspirations of
the community and which
can be enforced in a
consensual manner for the
benefit of all. An overall
Conservation Strategy is
translated into land use
zoning of PA and open
areas as appropriate taking
into account economic
needs, traditional rights
and
conservation
of
biodiversity.
New and reclassified PA
are legally gazetted
Baseline: Agreement in
principle
on
reclassification process
MT: Legal procedures
initiated.
Adaptive
management
systems are functional for
the wildlife, fisheries and
other natural resources of
the CCA(s)/GMAs. The
CCA/GMA M&E systems
shows that the populations
Activity 3.6.6 Final central workshop with representatives of all
stakeholders
to
make
final
amendments
to
the
Reclassification/Land Use Zoning Plan.
Activity 3.7.1 Apply the legal procedures specified under the new
legislation and policies on reclassification (Outcome 1) and new
categories of PA for the CCA/PA to be reclassified.
Activity3.7.2 Modify and register community-management
structures as appropriate for CCA/GMA.
Activity 3.7.3 Organize formal inauguration ceremonies for the
new/reclassified PA.
Activity 3.8.1 Identify, analyze and prioritize the natural resourcebased products and market chains for the current and potential
economic uses of natural resources in the GMA/project area.
Activity 3.8.2 Identify all the user groups and actors associated
with the existing market chains, their tradition access and tenure
rights, their traditional NR management systems/techniques, their
organizational structures and their capacities.
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA, KTL
Annual Targets
2-day workshop
people.
25
ZAWA, KTL
ZAWA, KTL
ZAWA,
KTL, WWF
ZAWA,
KTL, PCV
ZAWA,
KTL, PCV
Field staff Yr 1 & 2
Field staff Yr 1 & 2
81
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
of large herbivores in the
CCA have increased by
50% since the beginning of
the project.
Baseline: Large parts of
Kafinda GMA have good
habitat but almost no large
wildlife. There is little
enforcement in the three
GMA except around the
ZAWA post at Chikuni.
The wetlands fisheries are
an open access resource
that is heavily overfished.
Most
resources
of
commercial
value are
heavily exploited but not
managed sustainably.
MT: NR management
techniques are being tested,
monitored and adaptively
modified. The plan for
NRM-based
revenue
generation
is
being
implemented.
Activity3.8.3. Develop management plans for testing a mix of
traditional and modern techniques for adaptively managing wildlife,
fisheries and other natural resources for priority products/uses
identified in 3.2.1
Activity 3.8.4 Develop and implement a plan for the development
of natural resource-based revenue generating activities (including
opportunities for improved processing, storage, transport and
marketing of products)
Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Field Demonstration Site
High level of awareness
Output 3.9
Awareness raising and amongst community in
two-way dialogue with project area and bordering
stakeholders
on
the areas of the projects
Chiawa/Lower Zambezi objectives methods and
field demonstration site goals. Active participation
objectives
and from all sectors with all
participatory approach
parties sharing knowledge
and lessons learned.
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA,
KTL, WWF,
PC
KTL, PC
Annual Targets
30-man
day
study
completed Yr 1 & 2
(same group as previous)
Plan completed Yr 2;
Implementation Yr 2-6
200 man-days staff time
&
90
man-days
consultant time
Funds established Yr 2
with staff assistance.
Activity 3.8.5 Develop and implement community-managed
natural resource management funds that are fed by revenues from
trophy, hunting, tourism joint ventures, fishing, forest products etc.
Activity 3.8.6 In collaboration with the national PIU, test and
develop community-based monitoring systems for the monitoring
of wildlife for science-based quota-setting, of partnerships/joint
ventures by community managers and for the monitoring of
governance practices of community managers by community
members.
KTL, PCV
Activity 3.8.7 Develop business plans for each community
management structure for covering enforcement, monitoring and
other NR management costs, generating profits and making
investments in new ventures.
Activity 3.8.8 Each community structure holds annual adaptive
management reviews with all partners/technical services to distill
lessons learned and to modify management plans/interventions in
each sector.
KTL (NRE)
ZAWA,
KTL, PCV
Estimated 3 CRB/CCAlevel 3 day review
meetings 15 people/yr
Yr 1-6 and est. 15
village-level
2-day
meetings per yr Yr 3-6.
Activity 3.9.1 Identify and develop profiles of all stakeholders
ZAWA, CLZ
Activity 3.9.2 Meet with traditional leaders, CRB and community
representatives, government authorities, technical services, lodge
owners, trophy hunting lease holder, NGOs, others to fully discuss
project objectives, targets, outcomes and participatory approaches
to be used.
ZAWA, CLZ
Stakeholder
profiles
established Yr 1 by
project staff
2-day meetings with 1
Chieftainness and her
headmen; 1 2-day 20
participants workshop Yr
WWF,
ZAWA,
KTL, PCV
International consultant
3 wk each Yr 1 & 3,
Local consultants 1 mo
each yr Yr 1-6 Wildlife
monitoring functional Yr
1. Governance Yr 2
Partnership monitoring
Yr 3
Local consultant 1.5 mos
Yr 2 and 2 mos Yr 3
82
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output 3.10 Strategic
infrastructure established
Output 3.11
Background
surveys
completed
for
reclassification planning
Output Indicator
Activities
Baseline:
Traditional
leaders, CRB, selected
community representatives
and local officials/technical
services are informed and
support
the
project
objectives.
MT: All sociological and
geographic
sectors
of
community are aware of
the project and are
represented by participants
in the project activities.
Essential infrastructure for
functioning of the project
is in place.
Baseline: CLZ, the ZAWA
Chirundu Post and many
lodge owners have radio
communications but not
the
CRB/communities.
Little road maintenance in
area for community access
roads.
MT:
CRB/communities,
PCV and UNV and
strategic points equipped
with
radio
communications.
Comprehensive
biodiversity/
ecological
and sociological database
and maps exist for Project
Area.
Baseline:
LZNP
is
moderately well surveyed
Activity 3.9.3. Conduct awareness-raising and develop 2-way
dialogue with all project area communities by project extension
officers to build solid foundation of local, contextual knowledge.
Responsibilit
ies
CLZ, PCV
Annual Targets
2 x 6 1-day workshops
conducted by project
staff at 6 strategic
centers Yr 1. Written
summaries prepared of
each.
Activity 3.10.1 Establish telecommunications network for
CRB/communities, chieftainness and project staff for
communications amongst themselves and with ZAWA and project
staff.
Activity 3.10.2 Repair/open strategic access roads and landing
strips
Activity
3.10.3
Build/rehabilitate
and
equip
offices/facilities/lodging for project needs
ZAWA, CLZ
Radio network in place
Yr 1
CLZ
Roads improvements Yr
1&2
Offices,
facilities,
lodging
built/rehabilitated/equipp
ed Yr 1 & 2
Activity 3.11.1 Compile existing data and conduct
biological/ecological surveys/analyses to determine presence and
ranges of rare, threatened, endangered species needed as inputs for
identifying reclassification options including boundaries, zoning
and corridors for the proposed CCA and for the creation of a SHA
in LZNP.
WWF,
ZAWA, CLZ
ZAWA, CLZ
Compilation by 1 local
consultant x 1.5 mos.
completed Yr 1
Biological
ground
surveys
3
local
consultants x 1.5 mos.
completed Yr 1 & 2
83
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output 3.12
One (or more) new
community-managed
conservation
areas
(CCA) are established on
the basis of public/
Output Indicator
Activities
but other areas only very
partially. There is no clear
picture of the status or
distribution of resources
and their interaction with
the community.
MT: Surveys published of
wildlife, fisheries and
habitats. Comprehensive
community survey report
published. GIS map of
project area developed
showing
habitats,
vegetation,
wildlife,
fisheries,
settlement,
agriculture and other sociogeographic
features.
Reclassification
options
identified
Activity 3.11.2 Acquire and analyze satellite imagery of field demo
site to assess ecosystem/habitat/vegetation types, extent of
agriculture,
settlements,
roads
and
other
man-made
disturbances/impacts, signs of habitat degradation, possibilities for
establishing corridors, etc
Activity 3.11.3. Conduct aerial survey of project area to
complement image analysis, assess wildlife populations, vegetation
types and human activities.
Activity 3.11.4 Survey the field demonstration site to identify
national heritage sites and develop recommendations for integrating
them into PA management and CCA/tourism development
activities
Activity 3.11.5 Conduct community survey in and around Chiawa
GMA using participatory techniques to evaluate economic activities
and production systems, resource utilization and dependence,
commercial and non-commercial biodiversity products, attitudes to
resources and biodiversity, resource and land tenure systems, access
to social services, social structures, concerns and aspirations,
systems of governance.
Activity 3.11.6 Synthesize and analyze all studies conducted to
develop a preliminary set of reclassification and zoning options for
Chiawa GMA and LZNP
The CCA is legally
gazetted. Its management
structure
is
legally
registered under the new
CCA law. The boundaries
of the CCA provide
Activity 3.12.1 Village-level workshops to present reclassification
options and to facilitate analysis and debate of the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each (creation of new CCA,
zoning, roles and responsibilities, negotiation of new PA/zoning
boundaries, alternative forms of community management
structures).
Responsibilit
ies
WWF,
ZAWA
Annual Targets
WWF,
ZAWA, CLZ
Satellite
imagery
acquisition
and
interpretation by 1 local
consultant 1.5 mos and
staff completed Yr
2 days aerial surveys Yr
1
NHCC,
UNV, PCV
Survey completed
NHCC Yr 2
CLZ, PCV
Community
surveys
completed by staff plus 2
local consultants x 2
mos. Yr1
ZAWA,
WWF, CLZ
CLZ, PCV
Analysis of data staff +
local 2 local consultants
x 2mos. Publication of
biological
surveys,
publication
of
community
survey,
publication of GIS Maps
Yr1 and Yr2
Reclassification options
identified Yr2
6 2-day local workshops
run by project staff Yr 2
CLZ, PCV
by
84
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
private partnerships, to
provide
effective
conservation
of
ecosystems with species
of global importance.
wildlife with access to the
Zambezi River during the
dry season.
Baseline:
Rapid
development along the
Zambezi risks to cut off all
corridors to the river. Local
populations have marginal
incentives to conserve the
area and its biodiversity.
MT: The borders of the
CCA(s) are defined. The
management structure is
functional (but not
registered as a CCA). The
managers are receiving
100% of trophy hunting
revenues.
Activity 3.12.2 Higher level workshops involving representatives
of all local stakeholder groups including communities, traditional
leaders, government agencies, NGO’s, local investors to
analyze/debate reclassification and land use options. (Liaison with
Project activities under sections 1 and 2 of log frame to co-ordinate
local findings with developments at national level on the creation of
new PA types (CCA and SHA)
Activity 3.12.3 Facilitate the negotiation of CCA borders and
zoning including possible inclusion of adjoining open areas,
establishment of permanent wildlife corridors to access the
Zambezi River and exclusion of areas zoned for agriculture.
Output 3.13 Sustainable
natural
resource
management systems are
developed for the new
CCA
Adaptive
management
systems are functional for
the wildlife and other
natural resources of the
CCA(s). The CCA M&E
systems shows that the
populations
of
large
herbivores in the CCA has
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA, CLZ
ZAWA, CLZ,
PCV
Activity 3.12.4 Review lessons learned in Zambia and the subregion on appropriate forms of community management structures
(with particular emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity) and
create or modify the community management structure or structures
for the new CCA.
WWF, CLZ
Activity 3.12.5 Apply the legal procedures for gazetting of the new
CCA and registration of the CCA management structure(s) as
specified under the new legislation and policies on reclassification
and new categories of PA
Activity 3.12.6 Organize formal inauguration ceremonies for the
new/reclassified PA.
Activity 3.12.7 Assist/support the negotiation of formal
partnerships in support of PA managers (CCA&CLZ&ZAWA?&
trophy hunting company?)
Activity 3.13.1 Evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and
effectiveness of the present PA enforcement system using ZAWA
WPO and CRB community scouts, review lessons learned from
other PA managers in Zambia and develop a cost-effective,
incentive-based enforcement plan for Chiawa GMA that is
integrated with LZNP enforcement.
ZAWA, CLZ
Annual Targets
1 3-day workshops for
25 people Yr 2
Staff organize 10 2-day
village level meetings Yr
2; 8
meetings with
contiguous open areas
communities to explore
their possible inclusion
Yr 2
Review by project staff
Yr 2; 6 1-day workshops
Yr
2
Structures
functional Yr 2; CCA
management structures
registered Yr 4
Gazetting process in Yr
4 & 5; Legal certificate
obtained Yr 5
ZAWA, CLZ,
WWF
ZAWA, CLZ
Ceremony Yr 5
ZAWA, CLZ
WWF
Evaluation completed by
staff
plus
local
consultant 1 mo. Yr 1
Qtr 2
Enforcement
Plan
completed by staff Yr 1
Annual
enforcement
workshops Yrs1-6
MOU completed Yr 2
85
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
increased by 40% since the
beginning of the project.
Baseline:
Wildlife
populations are excellent in
the vicinity of the CLZ
camp in eastern Chiawa.
Although
generally
depleted in the rest of the
GMA, but they do support
trophy hunting. The CRB
has recently participated in
quota setting for the first
time. Most resources of
commercial
value are
heavily exploited but not
sustainably managed.
MT: NR management
techniques are being tested,
monitored and adaptively
modified. The plan for
NRM-based revenue
generation is being
implemented.
Activity 3.13.2 Recruit/redeploy and equip additional community
and WPO scouts as needed (including transport, equipment and
accommodation, management support and incentives.) and
implement enforcement plan
Activity 3.13.3 Provide training of community scouts and WPOs
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA, CLZ
ZAWA
Activity 3.13.4 Implement enforcement plan
ZAWA, CLZ
Activity 3.13.5 Identify game management/investment options,
conduct economic/financial analyses to determine the viability and
profitability, and develop a wildlife management and investment
plan for the new CCA including establishment of zones for photo
safaris and trophy hunting.
WWF,
ZAWA, CLZ
Annual Targets
ZAWA (4 scouts),CRB
Community scouts (20)
deployed & equipped
2 x 6-week local courses
Community
Scout
Training for 15 scouts
each Yr 1-Yr4;
4
community scouts attend
6 wk external training in
Zambia Yr s3-4
3
ZAWA
WPO
specialized
external
training in Zambia Yrs
2-5Annual
1-week
workshop
for
Community
ZAWA
managers of scouts for
co-ordination
and
education on newly
developing PAs and
enforcement systems
CCA
assumes
full
responsibility
for
enforcement Yr 5
Project subsidies for
enforcement
diminish
progressively to 0 by Yr
6
Project staff + 1 local
consultants x 1 mos Yr 2
86
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
Activity 3.13.6 Identify, analyze and prioritize other biodiversity
products and markets chains for the current and potential economic
uses of the CCA.
o Identify user groups, their organizational structures and their
capacities;
o Analyze the traditional resource access rights;
o Analyze the sustainability of current uses;
o Identify value-added opportunities through better storage,
processing, transport, respect for market standards, etc.
o Identify priority products and market chains for development
Activity 3.13.7 Develop adaptive management systems for testing
and developing natural resource management techniques for the
priority biodiversity products and for their integration with the
wildlife management of the CCA.
o Select traditional/modern NRM techniques for testing;
o Apply the techniques, monitor periodically evaluate the results
and modify local code/rules/systems for NR management
accordingly
Activity 3.13.8 Develop and implement a plan for the development
of natural resource-based revenue generating activities (including
opportunities for improved processing, storage, transport and
marketing of products)
Activity 3.13.9 Assist the CCA managers to negotiate the roles and
responsibilities of other institutions (Chieftainness, District, DF,
DoF and stakeholder institutions and to formalize the agreements as
written MOU.
Activity 3.13.10 Support/assist the negotiation/development of
joint ventures between the CCA managers and private sector
partners
Responsibilit
ies
CLZ, PCV
ZAWA, CLZ,
PCV
Annual Targets
Project staff Yr 1&2
ZAWA, CLZ
Study on traditional and
modern techniques by
project staff with 1 mos
local consultant Yr 2;
Study to develop of
protocol/plans
for
adaptively
testing
management techniques
staff
plus
local
consultant 2 mos Yr 2
(same
contract
as
above);
Implementation Yr 2-5
staff time + 3 mos local
consultant
Plan completed Yr 2;
Implementation Yr 2-5
Local consultants 50
days
MOU signed Yr 2-3
CLZ
Ongoing Yrs 3-6
CLZ, PCV
87
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output Indicator
Activities
Output 3.14 The needed
capacities for sustainable
management of the new
CCA are developed
A portion of the revenues
from all commercial NRbased
products
are
reinvested in a natural
resource
management
fund. The CCA managers
have
mastered
basic
bookkeeping and record
keeping skills. Accounts
and records are openly
accessible to all CCA
members. Trophy hunting
quotas are based on the
CCA’s wildlife monitoring
system. The CCA is
reinvesting some of their
income in ways specified
by their business plan.
Baseline: The CRB has no
M&E capacity and no
business plan. It has no
management fund. Basic
administrative
and
financial
management
capacities of are very low.
Activity 3.14.1 Conduct village-level workshops on strategic
capacities needed during reclassification planning, e.g. participatory
planning processes, good governance principles of transparency,
accountability, equity, involvement of women and minority groups,
systems of checks and balances, etc.
Activity 3.14.2. Develop administrative and financial management
capacities of the CCA managers (including management structures
at village and CCA levels)
Accounting & bookkeeping skills
Record keeping
General
management
skills
including
adaptive
management
Business management
Responsibilit
ies
WWF, CLZ,
PCV
Annual Targets
9 x 2-day village-level
workshops
run
by
project staff Yr 1
CLZ, PCV
Development of training
modules by project staff
Yr
1;
10
3-day
workshops per yr Yr 2 to
6, 1 exchange visit in
Zambia per yr for 5
participants each Yr 1, 2,
3, 4, 1 exchange visit
subregion Yr 2 5
participants
Activity 3.14.3 Development of capacities for good governance
(transparency, representation, inclusion of women and
minority/disadvantaged groups, financial safeguards, etc.) for
managers and community members
Activity 3.14.4 Develop self-financing mechanism(s) (management
funds fed by a portion of revenues derived from NR use) for
CCA/natural resource management
CLZ, PCV
28 1-day workshops /yr
Yr 2-6
CLZ, PCV
Activity 3.14.5 Develop and implement a business plan for the
management of the CCA and village including plans for joint
ventures, reinvesting profits into profitable activities, etc.
WWF, CLZ
Activity 3.14.6 Develop community capacities for monitoring and
evaluation of:
o biodiversity, fisheries, wildlife
o management structure(s)
o partnerships and joint ventures
Activity 3.14.7 Develop an HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention
program and understanding of links to environmental degradation
for CCA managers, scouts and members
ZAWA,
WWF, CLZ,
PCV
Procedures/guidelines
for management fund
Yrs 2 & 3; Fund
operational Yr 2-3
Business plans prepared
by staff and local
consultant 1 mo. Yr 3;
Implementation Yr 3-5
Staff plus 4 man-months
consultant time Yr. 2-6
(mostly Yr 2)
CLZ, PCV
Awareness
and
prevention
program
implemented Yr 2-5
88
UNDP PRO DOC
Outputs
Output 3.15 Opportunity
to
create
ZAWAmanaged Safari Hunting
Area
out
of
the
mountainous portion of
LZN assessed.
Output Indicator
Activities
Activity 3.15.1 Conduct a SHA options workshop including
stakeholders from national level and Lower Zambezi area to
provide stakeholder inputs on the options for creation of a SHA in
LZNP.
Activity 3.15.2 Undertake the formal gazetting/reclassification of
LZNP/SHA in lines with the new legislation/policies on
reclassification and creation of SHA
Activity 3.15.3 Develop and implement modified enforcement plan
specific to the needs of the new SHA
Activity 3.15.4 Establish wildlife monitoring system for sciencebased setting of hunting quotas.
Responsibilit
ies
ZAWA, CLZ,
WWF, PCV
Annual Targets
3-day workshop Yr 3
ZAWA
SHA registered Yr 4
ZAWA CLZ
Plan developed yr 3;
Implemented Yr 4-6
System developed in
collaboration with IO 2
at national level Yr 2-6
ZAWA, CLZ
]
89
Annex 1: Profile of the Protected Area (PA) System in Zambia
Protected Area Profile
Zambia’s most important categories of protected area are national park (NP) and game management area
(GMA). The 19 NPs in Zambia cover an area of 63,580 km2, and the 35 GMAs cover 167,557 km2 – 8.5%
and 22.3% of the total land area respectively. Approximately 490 forest reserves (FR) also cover large areas
(around 75,000 km2, about 10.2% of the country), but the precise number and area covered is difficult to
establish due to frequent de-classification and new additions and the lack of an updated database in the
Forest Department (FD). There are four other categories of public-managed PAs: wildlife sanctuaries (2
gazetted), bird sanctuaries (2 gazetted), protected fisheries, Ramsar sites (Wetlands of International
Importance for Migratory Birds) (2 gazetted) and Heritage sites20[1]. Other PA categories include game
ranches, botanical and zoological parks.
Table 1 - Categories of Protected Areas in Zambia and their stated objectives
Protected
Area
National
Parks
No.
19
Game
Management
Areas
35
National
Forests
180
Local Forests
Wildlife
Sanctuaries
310
02
Purpose
Act/Policy
For the conservation and enhancement of
wildlife ecosystems, biodiversity and of objects of
aesthetic, pre-historic, geological, archaeological and
scientific interest for the present and future
generations.
For the promotion of opportunities for the
equitable and sustainable use of special qualities.
To provide for the sustainable use of wildlife
and effective management of the wildlife habitat in
communally owned lands..
To enhance the benefits of GMAs to local
communities and to wildlife.
To serve as buffer areas for wildlife species
that move outside the NPs.
To provide for the development and
implementation of management Plans and
involvement of local communities.
Exclusively for the conservation and
development of forests for the purpose of securing
supplies of timber and other forest produce.
Protecting watersheds, providing protection
against floods, erosion and desiccation.
Maintaining the biodiversity, ecological
balance and the flow of rivers as well as cultural
values.
For the conservation and development of
forests for the purpose of securing supplies of timber.
Affording protection to land and water supplies
and maintaining the biodiversity and ecological
balance of the local area.
Wildlife Act
No.10 1998
ZAWA
Wildlife Act
No.10 1998
ZAWA
Forest
Act
No.39 1973
Forestry
Dept
To ensure that natural conditions necessary to
protect natural significant species, biotic
communities or physical features of environment
where these may require specific human
manipulation for their perpetuation.
Authority
Proposed
Forest
Act
1999
Forest
Act
No.39 1973
Proposed
Forest
Act
1999
Policy
for
National
Parks
and
Wildlife,
1998
Forestry
Dept
ZAWA
UNDP PRO DOC
Protected
Area
Bird
Sanctuaries
No.
02
Protected
Fisheries
Private Game
Ranches
Community
Game
Ranches
26
01
Purpose
Wildlife Act
No.10 1998
ZAWA
Promoting fish management, production and
sustainable utilization of fisheries resources.
Fisheries Act
1974
Draft Policy
Wildlife Act
No.10 1998
Fisheries
Dept
To enhance ex-situ conservation of wildlife
ecosystems and biodiversity.
To promote wildlife conservation through the
involvement of the private sector.
Diversification of the wildlife gene pool
To enhance wildlife production for economic
and social purposes for the developer.
To develop a viable economic development for
the developer as well as for the rural community.
Rural economic empowerment with the benefit
on the environment.
77
To ensure conservation of unique heritage in
perpetuity as well as for public enjoyment and
education.
01
To ensure conservation of unique heritage in
perpetuity as well as for public enjoyment and
education.
Ramsar Sites
(5
other
proposed
sites)
02
59
Authority
For the conservation, protection and
enhancement of unique birdlife ecosystems and
biodiversity significant to the nation.
National
Monuments
(Natural
&
Cultural Sites)
World
Heritage Sites
(Victoria
Falls)
Botanical
reserves
Act/Policy
Private
Landowner
Policy 1998
Wildlife Act
No.10 1998
Policy 1998
Local
Community
&
Private
Sector
National
Heritage
Conservation
Act
National
Heritage
Conservation
Act
NHCC
For the conservation and enhancement of
wetland ecosystems and biodiversity especially as
waterfowl habitats of international significance.
Sustainable management and utilization of
wetland resources.
Proposed
Wetlands
Policy 2001
Now ZAWA
For the preservation of important plant genetic
resources.
Forest
Act
No.39 1973
Wildlife
Policy 1998
NHCC
(Before
it
was
Environmen
tal Council
of Zambia)
Forestry
Dept
Proposed
Forest
Act
1999
Source: DSI, 2004
The distribution of NP and GMA by watershed is given in Table 2 below. Amongst the major categories of
PA in Zambia, only managed NPs give a high level of protection. Only NPs offer legal protection from
conversion and extractive activities, as they are designated as sites for biodiversity conservation and tourism.
In GMAs, the Wildlife Act only protects classified game species, which are then hunted under license.
Conversion to agriculture and other land uses are allowed under GMA legislation. FRs are classified as
national forest or local forest. However, FRs are unmanaged and largely unprotected and do not represent at
present an effective category of PA.
Table 2 - Extent of National Parks and Game Management Areas in Zambia by river basin
River basin
National parks
Game management areas
Name
Area (ha) Number Area (ha) % basin Number21[2] Area (ha) % basin
Upper Zambezi
26,286,040
4
1,068,600
4.1
7
5,516,000
21.0
91
UNDP PRO DOC
Middle Zambezi
1,482,800
Luangwa
13,874,050
Kafue
15,620,040
Chambeshi-Luapula 16,176,030
Tanganyika
1,821,030
Total
75,259,990
Source: Chi-Chi, 2004
1
5
3
5
1
19
409,200
1,673,800
2,326,000
674,400
206,300
6,358,300
27.6
12.1
14.9
4.7
11.3
8.4
1
10
8
8
0
34
234,400
5,305,900
3,806,900
1,892,500
0
16,755,700
15.8
38.2
24.4
11.7
0
22.3
The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) has management responsibility for NPs and GMAs. The 1998
Wildlife Act specifies that the management of GMAs is to be done in partnership with local communities,
and provides for the establishment of Community Resources Boards (CRBs) that can be involved in revenue
sharing and co-management of wildlife in GMAs. Currently there are 54 CRBs in the country. The same act
also provides for the establishment of private game ranches. The Forest Department (FD) administers Forest
reserves. The 1999 Forest Act provides for the establishment of Joint Forest Management Committees
(JFMCs) to be involved in the co-management of some FRs. However, no such committee has been
established in the country.
Little is known and documented about the state of ecosystems in the PAs system22[3]. Similarly, there is no
systematically updated information on the state of wildlife populations in both NPs and GMAs. Most
wildlife experts in Zambia believe that there has been a drastic decline in populations of large mammals in
the country in the last 20 to 30 years. For example, the black rhino is believed to be extinct and the elephant
population has declined to 22,000 from nearly 250,000 in the 1960s. Because of poor census data for wildlife
species, it is difficult to determine the conservation status of wildlife populations. However, the IUCN Red
Data List shows that at least 13 mammal and 9 bird species in Zambia are either endangered or vulnerable.
Threats to biodiversity range from poaching to habitat loss arising from agricultural expansion, but the
magnitude of these threats is poorly established. The significant threats and their root causes are presented in
Table 3.
SUMMARY OF KEY FEATURES
Management objectives
Table 3 below presents the formal management objectives of the different categories of PA. As most of the
gazetted areas in categories other than NP and GMA are unmanaged, these objectives are often not applied.
Almost all of the PA management objectives listed, save for education, and are primary objectives for at
least one PA category. Two management objectives – preservation, of species and genetic diversity and
maintenance of environmental services, are primary in national parks, protected fisheries, botanical reserves,
and national forest reserves. This is in line with the basic protection functions of Zambia’s PA institutions.
Notably, national parks and national forest reserves combine protective measures (including natural/cultural
features), scientific research, and education as secondary objectives. The national forest reserve category
does allow sustainable use of resources only in the form of selective logging under license but the same
management objective is a primary one under local forests reserves as these are a source of goods and
services for the local people. Similarly, the sustainable use objective is important for GMAs.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE
NP
GMA
PF
BR
LFR
NFR
HS
Table 3 - Mix of Management Objectives for Zambian Protected Areas
Scientific Research
Wilderness protection
Preservation of species and genetic diversity
Maintenance of environmental services
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
~
2
~
92
UNDP PRO DOC
Protection of specific natural/cultural features
Consumptive/Non-Consumptive
Tourism
recreation
Education
Sustainable use of resources
Maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes
Source: WWF, 2004
and
2
1n
c
2
~
~
2
3
3
3
1c
~
3
3
2
1
3
2
~
~
2
~
~
2
1
~
2
2n
c
2
2
~
1
1n
c
2
3
1
Key: 1-Primary Objective; 2-Secondary Objective; 3-Potentially applicable; ~ Not applicable; c/ncConsumptive/Non-Consumptive; NP-National Park; GMA-Game Management Area; PF-Protected
Fisheries; BR- Botanical Reserve; LFR-Local Forest Reserve; NFR-National Forest Reserve, HS-Heritage
Site
National Parks
National Parks (NPs) are natural areas established for the purpose of protecting the integrity of one or more
ecosystems for present and future generations and the provision of a foundation for spiritual, scientific,
educational, recreational and visitor opportunities which are environmentally and culturally compatible with
conservation objectives. These objectives are achieved through the exclusion of exploitation or occupation
that is inimical to the purposes for which the national park was established. The major characteristics of
Zambia’s NPs are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 - Major characteristics of National Parks in Zambia
Name
Blue Lagoon
Isangano
Kafue
Kasanka
Area (km2)
450
840
22,400
390
Major ecosystem
Floodplain grassland
Swamp grassland
Woodland
Woodland & Dambo grassland
Lavushi Manda
1,500
Woodland
Liuwa Plain
3,660
Floodplain grassland
410
Floodplain grassland
Lochnivar
Lower Zambezi
4,140
Woodland & Floodplain Grassland
Luambe
Lukusuzi
2,540
2,720
Woodland
Woodland
Lusenga Plain
880
Mosi-oa-Tunya
66
Woodland & Grassland
Woodland
Mweru Wantipa
3,134
Woodland & thicket
North Luangwa
4,636
Woodland
Nsumbu
Nyika
2,020
80
Aquatic & Woodland
Montane Grassland
Sioma Ngwezi
5,276
Woodland
Major threats
Invasive alien species
Livestock grazing
Poaching
Agricultural clearing
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Livestock grazing
Mining
Agricultural clearing
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Agricultural clearing
Mining
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Agricultural clearing
Invasion by alien species
Agricultural clearing
Poaching
Mining
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Poaching
93
UNDP PRO DOC
Name
South Luangwa
West Lunga
Area (km2)
9,050
1,680
Major ecosystem
Woodland
Forest
Major threats
Uncontrolled burning
Poaching
Uncontrolled burning
Source: Chi-Chi, 2004
The major threats to biodiversity in NPs are over-hunting/poaching, encroachment, uncontrolled bush
burning and, for parks in wetlands, invasion by alien species and over fishing. The classification of the
condition of national park by the ZAWA is based on the occurrence of activities or invasive alien species
that are inimical to the purposes for which the national park was established. Using ZAWA’s system,
national parks in which unauthorized settlements, mining and livestock grazing occur are considered
encroached, while those with invasive alien species are considered degraded. Out of the 19 national parks,
two are degraded (Lochnivar and Mosi-oa-Tunya) and six are encroached (Lukusuzi, Mweru-Wantipa,
Nsumbu, Isangano, Sioma Ngwezi and Lower Zambezi). Lochnivar NP has been invaded by the prickly
bush, Mimosa pigra, while Mosi-oa-Tunya NP has been invaded by Lantana camara and water hyacinth,
Eichhornia crassipes. There are also boundary disputes in Kafue and Mosi-oa-Tunya NPs. Lochnivar NP is
also affected by livestock grazing. In addition, several national parks have suffered greatly from excessive
illegal hunting (poaching) which now threatens the viability of a number of larger mammals, especially those
with a low intrinsic growth rate. Well stocked parks include South Luangwa, North Luangwa, Kasanka,
Lochnivar, Blue Lagoon and Luambe.
NP Stakeholder analysis
The following stakeholder analysis in Table 5 looks primarily at authority (statutory, management, planning,
and regulation), investment and benefits. It shows a fairly healthy picture with a single primary authority
that is also the primary beneficiary. The main concern is that there is no effective formal monitoring or
regulation of ZAWA itself.
NP SWOT analysis
The strengths, weakenesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis in Table 5 emphasizes that ZAWA
is a new institution with many capacity constraints but is at least reasonably structured to successfully
manage national parks. It can expect significant donor support provided it continues to perform and to
develop reasonable policies. The greatest external threats are the high macro-economic costs (financial and
bureaucratic) for the wildlife-tourism sector in Zambia. Internally, there is a danger that if ZAWA does not
radically liberalize its policies towards the private and community sectors (e.g. reduce non value-adding
bureaucracy and encourage revenue generation and full retention), then major opportunities will be lost.
Short term financial survival also reduces ZAWA’s vision in terms of encouraging the sector.
Table 5 - SWOT Analysis for National Parks
Strengths
•
Single authority responsible
•
Large, potentially valuable, parks estate
•
ZAWA appears politically stable (after years of
instability)
Weaknesses
•
ZAWA is both the regulatory and management
authority
•
Goals, indicators and monitoring not in place
•
Many stakeholders have low capacity and ZAWA
monopolizes sector
•
Wildlife depleted and infrastructure ramshackle
•
Unable to manage at least half of the parks
(lacking capacity and resources)
Opportunities
•
Governance and capacity of ZAWA reasonable and
improving
•
Donors, particularly NORAD, willing to invest in ZAWA
•
At least seven parks can be viable within ten years
(building on growth of tourism in the region)
•
ZAWA prepared to experiment with performance
management, outsourcing, etc.
•
Buffer parks by modifying policy to encourage
community and private wildlife management in buffer zones
•
To take seriously the emerging protected area paradigm
of using parks as engines of economic growth
Threats
•
ZAWA focuses on institutional survival (financial) at the
expense of national gain (economic)
•
Excessive expansion of ZAWA and imposition of
overhead expenses
•
High cost structure of Zambia makes viability challenging
•
Poor relationship between ZAWA and private sector,
including excessive short term fees limiting re-investment and
growth
94
UNDP PRO DOC
•
Serious neglect of wildlife management capacity
in Zambia for several decades
•
Mandates and policies for park management
unclear, e.g. biodiversity goals not defined, nor trade
off with social goals
•
•
Continued depletion of wildlife and infrastructure
Excessive mandate, and inability to meet this
Source: DSI, 2004
Game Management Areas
Most game management areas (GMA) were created as buffers around NPs refer to Tables 6 and7. The
justification for the establishment of GMAs is that they provide viable alternatives to commercial agriculture
in areas of low agricultural potential. Unlike national parks, progress in GMAs is made exceedingly difficult
because of the plethora of sector authorities (many/most with little capacity), while the primary stakeholders
(i.e. the villagers) have little authority and are largely excluded from benefit. ZAWA intends for
communities to retain 45-50% of revenues, which is a considerable improvement from previously, but may
not be sufficient incentive for successful CBNRM. License fees for fish and timber are extracted from
communities, and consequently use is de facto open access. With the complexity of planning authorities,
coordinating land use in GMAs is extremely difficult and the economically sub-optimal settlement in areas
such as Chiawa and Lupande is a major concern for the growth of the wildlife-tourism sector. Of critical
importance, GMA residents have no formal legal rights over the sale, management and benefit of any natural
resources. While policy, rhetoric and even legislation suggest that the potential for CBNRM in Zambia is
high, there is considerable slippage between stated intention and practice.
The huge potential for profitable community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in communal
areas in Zambia is undermined by the absence of strong rights to manage, benefit and sell these products.
This problem is exacerbated by over-centralized institutional structures and elite capture where attempts
have been made to do CBNRM, and by generally weak CBNRM support capacity. Should the will to make
CBNRM work emerges, there are certainly the resources and techniques to do so with a high probability of
success, and at least in the wildlife sector the legislation is already in place.
Wildlife populations are at great risk in GMAs because there are no controls on land use. Given the high
poverty levels and over-dependence on extensive low productivity agriculture in the rural areas of the
country, agricultural expansion is continuously encroaching upon wildlife habitats in GMAs. Other threats to
biodiversity in GMAs include unsustainable hunting of wildlife species, logging and uncontrolled bush
burning. The impact and root causes of these threats are presented in Table 6
Table 6 - Attributes of Zambia’s GMAs
Name
Bangweulu (with Chikuni)
Bilili Springs
Chambeshi
Chiawa
Kalasa Mukoso
Chibwika-Ntambu
Chisomo
Chizela
Kafinda
Kafue Flats
Kaputa
Kasonso-Busanga
Luano
Lukwakwa
Lumimba
Lunga-Luswishi
Lupande
Size
km2
6,470
3,080
620
2,344
675
1,550
3,390
2,280
3,860
5,175
3,600
7,780
8,930
2,540
4,500
13,340
4,840
Buffer for
Lavushi Manda
Kafue
Isangano
Lower Zambezi
None
West Lunga
South Luangwa
West Lunga
Kasanka
Blue Lagoon and Lochinvar
Lusenga Plain, Mweru Wantipa
Kafue
None
West Lunga
Lukusuzi, Luambe, North and South Luangwa
Kafue
South Luangwa
95
UNDP PRO DOC
Size
Name
km2
Buffer for
Luwingu
1,090 Isangano
Machiya-Fungulwe
? None
Mansa
2,070 None
Mukungule
? North Luangwa
Mulobezi
3,420 Kafue
Mumbwa
3,370 Kafue
Munyamadzi
3,300 North and South Luangwa
Musalangu (Fulaza and ChikwaChifunda GMAs)
17,350 North Luangwa
Musele Matebo
3,700 West Lunga
Namwala
3,600 Kafue
Nkala
194 Kafue
Rufunsa
3,179 Lower Zambezi
Sandwe
1,530 South Luangwa
Sichifulo
3,600 Kafue
Tondwa
540 Lusenga Plain, Mweru Wantipa
West Petauke
4,140 South Luangwa
West Zambezi
38,070 Liuwa Plain and Sioma Ngwezi
Source: various, including Macmillan Map of Zambia and ZAWA Five Year Strategic Plan
GMA Stakeholder analysis
The stakeholder analysis for GMAs in Table 7 shows a much more fragmented arrangement than in the NPs,
with many more authorities and potential beneficiaries. The breakdown between those with authority for
management, and the other stakeholders is also spread more widely than for NPs.
GMA SWOT analysis
The following table is a SWOT analysis for GMAs. The focus is on the huge potential, which is limited by
weak legislation and limited devolution.
Table 7 - SWOT Analysis for Game Management Areas
Strengths
ZAWA Act provides a base for moving towards full
devolution, and forestry and fisheries sectors are
discussing CBNRM
Strong evidence from region that principled
CBNRM works
Zambia has more inherent potential (land, wildlife,
forests, etc.) than neighbouring countries
Weaknesses
Legislation allows for conversion to agriculture and
other land uses.
Too many single sector authorities with little
accountability or capacity for performance, yet
landholder communities have little/no authority (no land
rights or rights to NRs)
Opportunities for devolution not taken and enabling
policy/practice not in place
Targeted at inappropriate level (i.e. at
Opportunities
Huge inherent potential provided by
low population densities and large areas of
land
The knowledge to implement CBNRM
with a high probability of success is
available
Substantial funding is available for
performing programmes
General attitude that CBNRM and
community empowerment has potential
Evidence that communities respond
rapidly to rights/benefit based approaches
Threats
Failure to convert lip service support
into real devolution
Lack of technical capacity
Proliferation of parallel single sector
NR institutions at community level
Elite capture (by chiefs, CRBs) if
devolution, policy and guidelines not got
right from the start
Embarking on “CBNRM” without
96
UNDP PRO DOC
representational rather than participatory levels of
governance) that is ineffective and allows elite capture
Devolution of rights partial and weak. For wildlife,
communities get 45% of benefits, but no rights to control
management or sale, and other sectors worse,
Act not converted into enabling SI legislation and
policy
Weak, non-cooperating, CBNRM support agencies
Many stakeholders have low capacity and ZAWA
monopolizes sector
Wildlife depleted and infrastructure ramshackle
Commercial performance of Zambian wildlife sector
way below regional levels
Source: DSI, 2004
following correct principles or monitoring
and adaptively managing process
High cost structure of Zambia makes
viability challenging
Continued depletion of wildlife and
infrastructure
Capture of funding by non-performing
NGOs / agencies
Weak private, NGO, civil and state
sectors
97
UNDP PRO DOC
THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY AND ROOT CAUSES ANALYSIS
The threats and root causes of the biodiversity loss in Protected Areas and alternative strategy for addressing them are presented in Table8.
Table 8 - Threats and root causes of biodiversity loss in Zambia PA
Relevant to
NP/GMA
Threat
Unsustainable
illegal
harvesting of wildlife for
subsistence
and
commercial use
Biological Impacts
Reduction in
wildlife numbers,
especially of large
mammals, sometimes to
local extinction
Root Causes
Poachers consider the benefits to be gained
from poaching to be greater than the risks of
being caught and prosecuted
Alternative Strategy
Strengthen enforcement by increasing
budget and staffing level in ZAWA
Incentive-based payments for game
guards
Better training and equipment for game
guards
Loss of biodiversity
Collapse of
symbiotic systems
Innovative partnerships between ZAWA
and CRB for more cost-effective antipoaching in NP
Barrier: Current legal and policy
frameworks serve to constrain the
empowerment and incentives for communities to
manage wildlife and other natural resources.
Devolution of authority for wildlife
management to communities
Creation of a new category of
community managed PA
Transparent financial management
procedures for the sharing of revenues
between ZAWA and CRB and between CRB
and VAG/communities
98
UNDP PRO DOC
GMA
Trophy
hunting
unsustainable levels
at
Loss of wildlife
species, especially large
mammals
Hunting licenses are awarded by ZAWA
without sound, science-based monitoring of
wildlife populations for quota-setting;
Monitoring for science-based quota
setting is required as a standard cost of doing
business for sustainable hunting
Monitoring of wildlife populations has not
been instituted as a necessary cost of doing
business for trophy hunting
Regional review of M&E systems to
select and adapt the most cost-effective
systems for Zambia.
Develop community-based monitoring
systems that communities are obliged to
implement for quota setting.
Oversight by MTENR and civil society
to ensure that quotas are based on science
based monitoring
Pressure to increase quotas to increase
revenues for ZAWA, traditional chiefs,
communities, etc.
ZAWA is faced with an internal conflict,
mandated with biodiversity conservation while
pushed by government to become financially
self-sustaining
Inadequate supervision of licensed hunters,
including safari hunters
Barrier: Resource rights Wildlife
belongs to the government and not to local
communities.
Civil society inputs/oversight of sector
Increase incentives for CRB and GMA
communities through devolution of authority
and increased revenues
I|nternal community-level controls
through improved governance at CRB and
village level
Empowerment of communities leads
them to recognize that when hunters exceed
their quotas, it is the communities revenues
that decrease
Improvements in the supervision of
legal hunters by WPO and village scouts to
ensure compliance with hunting quotas
99
UNDP PRO DOC
GMA/FR
Unsustainable commercial
and
non-commercial
harvesting
of
wood
products
Habitat degradation
and loss of wildlife
populations
Illegal timber cutters perceive that the
benefits of illegal logging outweigh the risks of
being caught.
Strengthen enforcement by increasing
budget and staffing level in ZAWA (for NP)
and FD (for GMA)
Incentive-based payments for guards
Better training and equipment for game
guards
NP/GMA
Conversion of habitat to
agriculture and settlement
Barrier: Resource rights Forest resources
belong to the State and access is controlled by
the state
Devolution of authority to legally
constituted community management
structures.
Communities have little incentive to
protect/manage forest resources
Integration of forest management with
other forms of natural resource management
under a common village-level management
structure.
Barrier: Management model there are no
tested/proven models of natural forest
management
Development of pilot natural forest
management models, especially for
community-based management
Reduction and/or
loss of wildlife habitats
Barrier: PA category Conversion to
agriculture is legal and permitted within GMAs.
Contraction and
fragmentation of
distribution ranges of
wildlife species and loss
of movement corridors
Land use plans in GMAs do not have the
legal clout to prevent abuses
Creation of a new category of
community-managed PA that disallows
conversion of habitats.
Changes to
hydrological systems
Farmers will clear land for agriculture in
NPs if the risk of penalties is too low.
Legislation reforms to make land use
plans an effective legal instrument for
conservation.

Strengthen enforcement by
increasing budget and staffing level in
ZAWA (for NP)
Limited political commitment to deal with 
Economic analysis to convince
encroachment in NPs
decision-makers and authorities of the
importance of stopping encroachment
NP/GMA
Use of habitat
livestock grazing
for
Habitat degradation
and introduction of
livestock diseases to
wildlife species
Herders will graze cattle in NP if benefits
are greater than the risk of penalties.
More effective enforcement
100
UNDP PRO DOC
Conversion for mining
Pollution
Wildlife sector is given lower priority than
agriculture and mining
Economic and financial analyses to
show the importance of the wildlife sector.
Development of the wildlife sector so
that it contributes significantly to local and
national socio-economic development
NP/GMA
Excessive fishing
and destructive fishing
methods:

Building of weirs
to trap breeding fish

Use of fish
poisons.

Use of undersize
Fishing
during the closed
season (breeding
season)
Reduction of fish in
the food chain: impacts on
higher trophic levels
Disturbance to fish
breeding and other
wildlife.
Disturbance to
hydrology.
Toxic damage from
poisons.
Barrier: Resource rights De facto open
access resource
Increasing population.
Large, growing seasonal influx of nontraditional fishermen
Lack of alternative income and food
sources.
Almost total lack of control by responsible
government agencies.
Poor understanding of ecology.
Assessment of fishery resources status
and identification of traditional and modern
management techniques for testing
Empowerment of local populations for
community-based fisheries management.
Testing and development of sustainable
fisheries techniques plan with stakeholders.
Enforcement of agreed rules/code by
community and government.
Enhanced revenues from improved
processing and marketing of fish (in
conjunction with a fisheries management
system)
Community NR management fund fed
by % of revenues
NP/GMA
NP/GMA
Invasion of wetlands by
alien species
Uncontrolled
burning
bush
Habitat degradation
and loss of indigenous
species
No effective controls on the introduction
of invasive alien species
Development of a national policy on
invasive alien species
Inadequate knowledge on alien species and
lack of appropriate control measures
Research on alien species and
development and implementation of
appropriate control measures
Degradation of
wildlife habitats and
destruction of wildlife
food resources
Breakdown in the authority of traditional
leaders (GMA)
Development of fire control programs
as part of NP/GMA management plans
Inadequate research and knowledge on the
impacts of fire on wildlife and habitat
Involvement of traditional authorities
and local people in fire control activities
101
Annex 2: Terms of Reference for Project Personnel and for Project Management Structures and
Implementing Agencies
A. Terms of Reference for Key Personnel
A. 1. Project Technical Coordinator
The Project Technical Coordinator shall be the Head of the Project Implementation Unit. He/She shall report
directly to the Director of Environment and Natural Resource Management Department (ENRMD), which
will be the focal point of the Executing Agency and will be responsible to UNDP for the proper application
of all UNDP administrative and financial regulations and procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds.
A.1.1 the functions of the Project Technical Coordinator
a. To serve as Team Leader at the Project Secretariat and as Technical Coordinator of the whole Project.
b. Mobilise all project inputs implementation of the project and smooth for functioning of the project
Secretariat
c. Ensure that project activities provided for in the consolidated action plans and budgets are effectively
implemented by Implementing Agencies and Project Staff and that they contribute to the meeting of
immediate objectives of the project.
d. Ensure that financial resources are allocated and utilized in accordance with the Project Financial
Management Plan.
e. Initiate draft contracts for consultants for approval by the Project Working Group and the Project
Steering Committee.
f. Ensure that consultants produce reports timely in accordance with the terms of each contract.
g. Prepare Quarterly and Annual financial and technical reports for submission to the MTENR, the
Project Working Group, and the Project Steering Committee and to UNDP/GEF.
h. Organise meetings of the Project Steering Committee and those of the Working Group as well as
those provided for in the Project Workplan and to act as secretary to the same.
i. Ensure active participation by all stakeholders in all facets of the project.
j. Monitor project to evaluate progress being made
k. Prepare Annual Project Review Report and organise the meeting for the stakeholders to appraise the
report.
l. Review technical reports for completeness before submitting to stakeholders
A.1.2 Key Qualifications of the Project Technical Coordinator
The Project Manager will be a Senior Expert with considerable experience of at least 12 years in project
management. He/She will hold a higher degree in biological sciences, ecology or in any field related to
biodiversity conservation. He/She will have extensive experience of not less than 10 years natural resources
management and a good track record for having contacts with professionals, government institutions and the
donor community based in Zambia. Other key attributes required would be managerial and leadership skills,
and experience in guiding sectoral legal and policy reviews, strategic planning, and results oriented
management and financial management. Experience in the organization of community-level and national
workshops/meetings as well as in regional and inter-agency coordination and knowledge of government and
donor procurement procedures, will be of distinct advantage. The candidate will also have strong team
building, interpersonal skills and strategic thinking/planning.
A.2 Demonstration Site Manager
The Demonstration Site Manager at each site shall be the lead project technical coordinator at that level.
He/She shall report directly to the Head of the designated Demonstration Site Implementing Agency on all
administrative matters but shall work very closely with the Technical Advisor (WWF) on matters related to
the technical aspects of the project. The DSM shall also to liaise closely with the Project Technical
Coordinator, particularly on reporting requirements and monitoring of project activities.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
A.2.1 Functions of the Demonstration Site Manager
To serve as technical team leader at the Project Demonstration Site.
Ensure that project activities provided for in the site-level action plans and budgets are effectively
implemented to meet the relevant immediate objective(s).
Ensure that project staff, including UNVs prepare Quarterly and Annual reports on their activities
and in accordance with their job descriptions.
Prepare site-level consolidated Quarterly and Annual reports for submission to the Demonstration
Site Working Group, the Head of Implementing Agency and to the Project Manager.
Coordinate the work of consultants at site level.
Organize meetings of the Demonstration Site Working Group and to act as its secretary.
To ensure the active participation by all key stakeholders in all facets of the project.
To act as the principal technical link between the community and the Implementing Agencies in the
testing and operationalisation of management options.
A.2.2 Key Qualifications of the Demonstration Site Manager
The Demonstration Site Manager will be an experienced professional with at least 10 years experience in
Project Management work. He/She will hold a minimum qualification of MA/MSc. in either the social
sciences or in biodiversity conservation related sciences. Extensive Experience in the implementation of
rural development projects will be highly desirable, including the ability to work with multidisciplinary
teams of different socio-cultural background as well as with local communities using PRA techniques.
Experience in organizing community level workshops and the development of training materials will be
essential. The ideal candidate will also have strong oral and communication skills as well as good managerial
and leadership skills. Knowledge of financial management and any experience gained in the management of
protected areas will be of an added advantage.
A.3. Protected Areas Systems Specialist (Consultant)
The PASS shall act as an advisor to Director of Environment and Natural Resources/ Project Technical
Coordinator. The specific areas of advisory focus shall be in the following areas:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Provide technical advise on bring about reforms for effective management of the Protected Areas
System
Improvement of MTENR role in oversight and monitoring of the implementation of Protected Area
Sector laws and policies;
Sectoral policies and legal reforms;
Development of the Protected Areas Reclassification Plan;
Testing of new options for Protected Areas Management through public/private/community
partnerships.
A.3.2 Qualifications of the Protected Areas Systems Specialist
The Protected Areas Systems Specialist shall be a highly qualified international consultant with a minimum
qualification of a MSc. Degree in natural resource management, ecology or biological sciences. He/She shall
have extensive experience of not less than 10 years in Protected Area Management, particularly in regard to
the key result areas of the project, namely, sectoral legal and policy reforms, strengthening protected area
management institutions, and reclassification of protected areas, and community based natural resources
management. Working experience in the Southern Africa region and understanding of the issues related to
the management of regional protected area systems will be essential as well as the ability to work in a multicultural .The Protected Areas Systems Specialist shall be an Advisor employed on full time basis for the first
two years of the project and on a visiting basis, through annual support missions, for the rest of the project.
A.103
He/She shall be based at the Project Secretariat and shall report to the Project Technical Coordinator in the
course of implementing his/her assignment.
A.4. Project Accountant
A.4.1 Functions of the Project Accountant
The Project Accountant will report to the Project Technical Coordinator and will be based at the Project
Secretariat.
The job purpose is to provide requisite financial accounting services to ensure that all relevant reports,
proposals and other related financial transactions are written, documented, and presented in an acceptable
manner and in accordance with accounting standards approved by UNDP/GEF and the Government of the
Republic of Zambia.
A.4.2 Duties and Responsibilities
The successful candidates will be responsible for all the financial management activities of the Project. Key
skills required will include financial planning, budgeting, statutory legislation, payroll and benefits
administration. Specific duties will include the following:
a. Ensuring Quarterly and Annual accounts are prepared in accordance with generally acceptable
accounting principles to reflect a true and fair view of the project’s financial performance and
financial position.
b. Facilitate audits by providing information and any relevant data to external auditors etc to ensure that
audit is concluded within the stipulated time.
c. To coordinate reports and audits of accounts at the Project Demonstration Sites.
d. To prepare and furnish the Project Technical Coordinator or Head of Implementing Agency with data
required preparing periodic and final accounts.
e. To analyse accounts against the approved budget to determine variances and reasons for deviations.
f. Ensure that payments are accompanied by authorized supporting documents and that they are duly
approved and in line with payment vouchers.
g. To prepare Quarterly and Annual income and expenditure statements, variance analysis and balance
sheets which reflect an up-to-date picture of the current financial position of the project.
A.4.3 Qualifications of the Project Accountant
The post demands for self-discipline, high integrity, trustworthiness and honesty. Applicants will posses a
degree in accountancy and ACCA/CIMA plus a minimum of 5 years post qualifying experience. Hands-on
experience of QuickBooks and/or ACCPAC will be an added advantage. Applicants will also be a member
of ZICA. Experience in GRZ/donor-funded multi-sectoral development programmes in a financial
management or accounting capacity will be a distinct advantage.
A.5 Project Technical Officer (Secretariat)
The Technical Officer at the Project Secretariat will be the main technical assistant to the Project Technical
Coordinator on the technical coordination of project activities.
A.5.1 Functions of the Project Technical Officer
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Setting up meetings for the Project Steering Committee and the Project Working Group.
Timely production of minutes for the meetings of the Project Steering Committee and the Project
Working Group.
Assist the Project Manager in the preparation of Inception, Quarterly and Annual reports and other
essential reports.
Assist the Project Technical Coordinator in monitoring the progress of project activities.
Undertake logistical activities for the recruitment of project consultants.
A.104
f.
g.
h.
Assist the Project Technical Coordinator in the coordination of the work of consultants.
Participate in the preparation of background materials for use in discussions and briefing sessions.
Carry out any other specific activities deemed necessary in the furtherance of the project objectives,
including the collection, registration and maintenance of information on project activities by
reviewing reports and through first hand sources.
A.5.2 Qualifications of the Project Technical Officer
Technical Officers shall have at least a Master’s degree in environment, and/or natural resources
management or any other related field. They will be highly motivated personalities with strong
management, communication, networking, coordinating and inter-personal skills, and a willingness to
undertake extensive travel within the country. Fluency in spoken and written English will be essential. A
working knowledge of any of the main languages in the project sites will be an advantage. Knowledge of
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and a high level of computer literacy will be essential.
A.6 Project Technical Officer (Demonstration Sites)
A.6.1 Functions of the Project Technical Officer (Demonstration Site)
a.
Assist the Demonstration Site Manager with the preparation of training materials and the
organization of community training workshops including the provision of training.
b.
Organize meetings of the Demonstration Site Working Group, and ensure timely production
of minutes.
c.
Assist the DSM in coordinating the work of staff at the Demonstration Sites, including the
inputs of technical departments such as ZAWA, Forestry and Fisheries Departments and the
National Heritage Conservation Commission.
d.
Undertake any other duties deemed necessary for meeting project objectives as may be
assigned by the Demonstration Site Manager.
A.6.2.Qualifications of the Project Technical Officer (Demonstration Site)
Technical Officers shall have at least a BA/BSc. Qualification in the Social Sciences or in environment,
and/or natural resources management or any other related field. They will be highly motivated personalities
with strong management, communication, networking, coordinating and inter-personal skills, and a
willingness to undertake extensive travel within the project area
Fluency in spoken and written English will be essential. A working knowledge of any of the main
languages in the project sites will be an advantage.
Knowledge of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and computer literacy will be essential.
A.7 Natural Resources Economist (Consultant)
A.7.1 Functions of the Natural Resources Economist
The Natural Resources Economist shall be a consultant engaged to manage and provide inputs in the
assessment of the economics of the protected area management, and to advise on the socio-economic
aspects and management of Community Conservation Areas. The Natural Resources Economist (NRE)
will provide services through annual support missions beginning in the second year of the project up to the
end of the project.
A.7.2 Qualifications of the Natural Resources Economist
The Natural Resources Economist shall be a highly qualified international consultant with a minimum
qualification of a Master’s degree in Natural Resource Economics. He/She shall have extensive experience
of not less than 15 years in natural resource management. Experience with community-based natural
resource management will be essential, as well as the experience of working in the Southern African
region and understanding of issues related to protected areas management. Ability to work in a multicultural setting would be essential.
A.105
A. 8. International United Nations Volunteers
A.8.1 Functions of the UNV (International)
The UNV (International) shall be part of the project implementation team at the Project Demonstration Site
and shall be a well-qualified technical person with relevant experience. He/she shall report directly to the
Demonstration Site Manager, and shall be based in the project demonstration site area.
The specific functions of the UNV (International) shall be as follows:
a.
To prepare materials (such as brochures, leaflets, etc) for awareness raising among community
members.
b.
To assist the Demonstration Site Manager and the site level project consultants in preparing
training materials for communities and in organizing village-level workshops.
c.
To assist the Demonstration Site Manager and site level project consultants in undertaking biophysical and socio-economic studies of the project area and in the development of the area
reclassification and management plans as well as the creation and operationisation of the
community conservation areas.
d.
To participate in research targeted to meet protected area and natural resource management needs.
e.
To assist the Demonstration Site Manager in the establishment, maintenance and use of strategic
project infrastructure.
f.
To assist the Demonstration Site Manager in the development and application of monitoring and
evaluation systems at demonstration site level.
g.
Other duties as may be assigned by the Project Demonstration Site Manager.
A.8.2. Qualifications
The International UNV shall possess a minimum qualification of a Master’s degree in Natural Resources
Management or in a field related to rural development. He/she shall have experience in working with rural
communities of not less than five years. Experience/working in Southern African region and understanding
of issues related to protected areas management will be a distinct advantage. Ability to work in a multicultural setting would be essential. Good communication skills and excellent inter-personal skills will be
essential.
A. 9. United Nations Volunteers (National)
A.9.1. Functions of the UNV (National)
The UNV (Local) shall be part of the project technical team at the demonstration site level. The UNV
(Local) shall be a Zambian citizen with extensive knowledge of the socio-economic and political-cultural
setting of the project area. The UNV (Local) shall report directly to the Demonstration Site Manager and
shall be based in the project demonstration site area.
The specific functions of the UNV (Local) shall be as follows:
a.
Local communities mobilisation
b.
Conducting PRAs in the communities
c.
Training communities
A.9.2. Qualifications
The UNV (Local) shall have a B.A degree in Sociology or development studies. Understanding of local
customs, traditions, and the socio-economic setting of the area will be essential. The UNV (National) shall
have excellent communication and inter-personal skills. Knowledge of the local language will be essential. A
working experience of at least three years in rural development initiatives would be an advantage.
B. Terms of Reference for Project Support Staff
B.1. Assistant Accountant (Project Demonstration Site)
B.1.1. The Job Purpose
A.106
The job purpose is to provide all the necessary financial accounting services to ensure that all relevant
reports, proposals and other financial transactions are written, documented, and presented in an acceptable
manner and in accordance with accounting standards approved by UNDP/GEF and the Government of the
Republic of Zambia.
B.1.2 Duties and Responsibilities
The successful candidate will be responsible for all the financial management activities of the Project. Key
skills required will include financial planning, budgeting and monitoring the financial expenditure in line
with the workplan . Specific duties will include the following:
 . Ensuring Quarterly and Annual accounts are prepared in accordance with generally acceptable
accounting principles to reflect a true and fair view of the project’s financial performance and financial
position.
 Facilitate audits by providing information and any relevant data to external auditors
 To coordinate reports and audits of accounts at the Project Demonstration Sites.
 To prepare and furnish the Project Technical Coordinator or Head of Implementing Agency with data
required preparing periodic and final accounts.
 To analyse accounts against the approved budget to determine variances and reasons for deviations.
 Ensure that payments are accompanied by authorized supporting documents and that they are duly
approved and in line with payment vouchers.
 To prepare Quarterly and Annual income and expenditure statements, variance analysis and balance
sheets which reflect an up-to-date picture of the current financial position of the project.
B.1.3. Qualifications of the Assistant Accountant
 Grade 12 School Certificate with at least a credit in English and Mathematics.
 Minimum Qualification of AAT/NATECH or equivalent.
 Computer literacy, and knowledge of accounting software an advantage.
 At least three years practical experience.
 Experience with Donor funded programmes an advantage.
 High degree of integrity.
B.2. Administrative Assistant
B.2.1 Duties and Responsibilities
 Responsible for Reception and Secretarial duties of the National Coordination Office (Secretariat)
 Provides Secretarial Support to Project Coordinator and other Project Staff
 Ensures smooth flow of correspondence and communication
 Types documents, correspondence, administrative forms and any other material as required.
 Carries out tasks for the production and distribution of reports, including photocopying, collating, etc.
 Acts as receptionist and referring visitors or callers to the appropriate office and responding to
telephone inquiries.
 Operates electronic and fax systems, maintaining a log of incoming communications and assisting in
calculating related operating costs.
 Maintaining updated directories, telephone lists, addresses and other relevant guides or references,
including correspondence logs and manuals, files and office records.
 Maintains stock of administrative stationery, and ensuring that new supplies are obtained as and when
necessary.
B.2.2 Qualifications
The required qualifications will be as follows:
a.
Diploma in Social Sciences or Administration as minimum.
b.
High computer literacy that includes MS Word, Spreadsheet, PowerPoint Presentation, and PCbased electronic communication systems.
c.
Good command of spoken and written English
d.
Excellent interpersonal skills with a professional and efficient approach.
A.107
e.
f.
At least 3 years of experience in a similar position.
Secretarial training in typing, shorthand and office management an advantage.
B.3 Project Driver/Cleaner
B.3.1 Duties and Responsibilities
 Transport authorized personnel to designated locations in project areas throughout the country.
 Perform administrative errands and tasks not limited to the use of vehicle.
 Regular assessment of all project vehicles to ensure that they are properly cared for and maintained.
 Handle all processing of paperwork related to the registration of all project vehicles.
 Serve as focal point for the maintenance and service contractors to ensure that quality of service is
given in the maintenance of all project vehicles.
 Cleaning offices
 Photocopies and binds documents
 Reports all faults within offices to the management
 Collects/delivers mail and other office requirements
 Ensures that offices are secured at all times
 Any other duties as may be assigned by the senior project management
B.3.2 Qualifications
 Full Form V (Grade 12) certificate with a good pass in English.
 Clean Driver’s License.
 Sober character.
 Minimum 5 years relevant experience.
 Previous experience with Projects/NGOs and/or International Organisations highly desirable.
 Ability to work independently and extensively.
C. Terms of Reference for Project Management structures and Implementing Agencies.
C.1 Project Steering Committee.
The Project Steering Committee will be established at the National Level to facilitate project
Coordination .The Committee, whose membership will not exceed twelve (12) would include the following:
C.1.1 Composition of the Committee.










Permanent Secretary - MTENR (Chair)
Permanent Secretary – Ministry of Finance (Budget)
Permanent Secretary – Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Director – Environment and Natural Resources Management Department.
Director – General- ZAWA.
Director – Forestry Commission.
Director –Fisheries Department.
Executive Director – National Heritage Commission.
Project Manager – (Ex – officio) - Secretary.
UNDP / GEF Representative.
C.1.2 Functions of the Committee
The Project Steering Committee shall have the following specific functions:
a. To provide high-level Conceptual and Policy guidance to the Project.
b. To Review reports from the project Secretariat and project partners and to oversee the project
progress and performance including the resolution of implementation problems.
A.108
c.
d.
e.
f.
To Approve Annual Work plans and Budgets on behalf of the government,
To Report on the Progress of the Project to Sponsors on a Quarterly and Annual basis
To sanction appointment of major contractors on the project.
Raise the level of awareness of the importance of the project within high-level bodies of the
government.
The Steering Committee will meet twice a year at the beginning and middle of the year.
C.2 The Project Working Group
The project working group (PWG) will be the de facto planning authority of the project and
one which will oversee the day- to-day implementation of the project. The group will
prepare Annual Budget work plans and will meet quarterly to receive and review
project progress Reports.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
C.2.1 Composition of the Project Working Group
Project implementing Agencies
Line Ministries Representatives
Demonstration Site Managers
Donor Organizations (UNDP,DANIDA)
Project Accountant
Project Manager
Director of the ENRM Department (Chair)
C.2.2 Functions of the Project Working Group
The functions of the project-working group will be as follows:
a. To review and adopt the Project Implementation Plan.
b. To Approve Annual Budgets and Work plans.
c. To Monitor Project Performance through Quarterly progress review
meetings.
d. To review regularly progress reports, workshop reports and consultant
reports.
e. To provide any technical assistance as deemed necessary to facilitate
the effective Implementation of the Project and to select and recommend
the Appointment of Consultants.
C.3 Demonstration Site Working Group (DSWG)
C.3.1 Composition of the Demonstration Site Working
The following will be the members of the DSWG:
a. Primary Implementing Agencies ( e.g. WWF, Kasanka Trust Ltd)
b. Demonstration Site Manager
c. CRB Chairpersons
d. Area Councilor(s)
e. Representative Village Headmen
f. Local officials of technical departments (ZAWA, Forestry, Fisheries, NHC, Water Affairs, Lands).
g. UNV/ Peace Corps Volunteer(s).
h. His/Her Royal Highness of the area or appointed Representative.
C.3.2 Functions of the DSWG
As the main Site level Planning Authority, the DSWG will have the following functions:
a. To approve annual work plans and budgets for the Demonstration Site project activities.
b. To monitor the progress of the project through Quarterly and Annual review meetings.
c. To approve all nominees from the community for specialized skill training and to approve
appointments of local project staff.
A.109
d. To oversee the negotiation of boundaries for project activities.
e. To recommend any actions deemed necessary for meeting the project objectives at site level.
C.4 Project Secretariat






C.4.1 Composition of the Secretariat.
The project Secretariat shall consist of the following Personnel:
Project Manager
Accountant
Technical officer
Office Administrative Assistant
Driver/Office orderly
Cleaner
C.4.2 Functions of the Secretariat
The Project Secretariat shall be the nerve centre for the overall coordination of all project activities. The
responsibilities of the Secretariat shall be:
a. To coordinate the preparation of annual work plans and budgets for demonstration sites,
MTENR activities as well as for other Primary Implementing Agencies.
b. To coordinate the acquisition and delivery of project inputs.
c. To coordinate the appointment of project staff and consultants.
d. To promote effective communication between project partners.
e. To act as Secretariat to the project steering committee.
f. To monitor the performance of the project and to report on constraints affecting effective
implementation of the project
g. To prepare consolidated quarterly and annual reports for submission to the Project Steering
Committee, UNDP/GEF and to the Government.
C.5 Functions of Field Implementing Agencies
Implementing Agencies shall function as sub-contractors for implementing specific components of the
project. These shall be selected on the basis of their comparative strengths, acceptability by local
communities and other technical considerations. The functions of the implementing agency shall be specified
in the contract of engagement between the Implementing Agency and the Executing Agency, but shall
include the following:
1. To implement project activities as specified in the contract;
2. To participate in the meetings of the Project Working Group and those of the Demonstration Site
Working Group, including annual work planning and budgeting.
3. To submit financial and technical Quarterly and Annual reports on the project components being
implemented to MTENR and UNDP/GEF through the Demonstration Site Manager on all matters
related to the implementation of sub-contracted project components.
4. To partner with local communities in the testing of new options for protected areas management
through public/private/community partnerships.
C.5.1 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) shall play a duo role under Outcome 3 of the project i.e.
expansion of the options for protected area management through development and field-testing of
innovative private/civil society/public/community partnerships. Firstly, WWF shall act as the Field
Facilitation Agency (FFA) for the forging and testing of links and partnerships between the private
sector partners and communities as options for natural resource management. This process will include
identifying, together with the local communities, private sector partners with which to test the
partnerships with local communities. Secondly, WWF will provide technical support to both sites in the
A.110
areas of biodiversity surveys, image interpretation, reclassification planning, the development-based
M&E systems and other specialized technical inputs needed at the two sites.
C.5.2 Private Sector Partners
Apart from undertaking the above functions specified for project field implementing agencies, the
private sector partners will be the long-term partners for local communities in testing and
institutionalizing preferred options for protected area management, such as Community Conservation
Areas (CCA).
C.6. Functions of Line Departments in Project Implementation
The Zambia Wildlife Authority, Forestry and Fisheries Departments and the National Heritage Commission,
will be responsible for implementing parts of immediate objective Nº2 related to their own capacity building
as PA institutions (Table 1). Additionally, the testing and institutionalisation of the resource management
options will require the continued presence and commitment of these technical line departments to provide
extension services to local Communities. These services will be required throughout the six-year duration of
the project. The delivery of their services will be affected through the Site Manager and later through the
management structures on the ground. In order to enable these institutions play an effective role in legal and
policy reforms as well as in the operationisation of the preferred management options, these institutions will
also need to have their capacity strengthened under immediate objective Nº2. They will, thus, undertake to
implement those activities aimed at strengthening themselves.
A.111
ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PLAN
SUMMARY
In preparation for the Project Document on the reclassification and sustainable management of
Zambia’s Protected Area Management, the key stakeholders in protected area buffer zones and the
larger protected area support zones were identified and an analysis of their capabilities and potential
role in project implementation undertaken. The following table categorises stakeholders in terms of
both their influence (power over outcomes), and their importance (how affected they are by the project
outcomes).
Table 5 – Categorisation of influence on, and impact of project outcomes on different stakeholder
High importance
Low importance
Low influence
High influence
 Communities (inc. tradit. Chiefs) living close to
NPs
 Forest Department
 Fisheries Department
 Communities (inc. tradit. Chiefs) and CRBs in, or
close to GMAs,
 ZAWA
 MTENR













IUCN
WWF
WCS
AWF
Min. of Local Government and Housing
ECZ
NHCC
District Councils
Department of Water Affairs
Min. of Lands
Min. of Agriculture and Cooperatives
Donors
NRCF
Socio-economic and socio-cultural life in Zambia
 Economy
Zambia is a landlocked country in Southern Africa, with a total land area of 752,000 km². It has abundant
natural resources and fine wildlife affording the country with significant tourism potential for creating
employment and earning foreign exchange earning. It is also endowed with various minerals and precious
stones such as copper, emeralds, zinc, lead and cobalt, and was once a single commodity economy dependent
on copper. Agricultural potential is high, but the commercial sector and upstream and downstream linkages
remain weak. Administratively, the country is divided into 9 provinces, which are further subdivided into 72
districts.
The economy, however, is small, with excessive non-value-adding regulation. Costs are extremely high
compared to neighbours. Tax rates are high, as are import tariffs, but perhaps one of the major intangible
contributing factors is the high level of transaction costs. This includes a plethora of regulations and
permissions, slow legal systems and weak property rights.
A.112
 Population
The population of Zambia has continued to grow. The 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses estimated the
population for Zambia to be at 5.7 million, 7.8 million and 9.9 million respectively. However, annual
population growth rate show a decline from 3.1% between 1969 to 1980 to 2.7% between 1980 and 1990,
and most recently 2.4% between 1990 and 2000. Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in subSaharan Africa with about 35% of its population in urban areas. Despite some 72-language groups in
Zambia, ethnic conflict is low.
 Poverty
Poverty is a serious problem in Zambia. A series of national surveys summarized by Central Statistics Office
(CSO) for 1991, 1993, 1996 and 1998 show that poverty remains severe throughout the country, but
especially in rural areas (see Table 6).
Table 6 - Overall and Extreme Poverty in Zambia by Residence
Zambia
Rural Area
Year
Overall
Extreme
Overall
Extreme
Poverty
Poverty
Poverty
Poverty
1991
70%
58%
88%
81%
1993
74%
61%
92%
84%
1996
69%
53%
83%
68%
1998
73%
58%
83%
71%
Source: CSO-2000 Census of population and housing
Urban Area
Overall
Extreme
Poverty
Poverty
49%
32%
45%
24%
46%
27%
56%
36%
Zambia’s economy has since independence in 1964 been dependant on copper mining, and until 1991 was
centrally planned. Currently the country is implementing the economic recovery programme, intended to
promote economic growth, stabilize the economy, promote the private sector, privatize state owned activities
and improve infrastructure and social services delivery systems. Whilst there has been progress since the
beginning of the programme, it has been slow. GDP growth has fluctuated from 2.2 % in 1999 to 3.6% in
2000, 4.9% in 2001 and 3.0% in 2002.
 Land Tenure
Weak tenure is a serious constraint on economic development in Zambia. It certainly constrains the growth
of a commercial wildlife sector. Confusion over land and resource rights also results in open access use
regimes, with little internalization of costs and benefits, and therefore low levels of responsibility and reinvestment in the resource base. Weak tenure is perhaps the major reason that Zambia remains a land of
potential, rather than actualization of this potential.
 Political Stability
In Zambia’s favour, the country has been stable politically and despite internal conflicts in many
neighbouring countries has remained peaceful. Democratic elections are held regularly, and an attempt by
the previous President to extend his term of office to a third term was foiled.
A.113
Key Stakeholders and a Review of their Capability, Roles and Potential Conflicts in Zambia’s Protected Area Management
The key stakeholders relevant to the management of Protected Areas include government, private sector and civil society.
Table 7 – Key stakeholders, their capabilities and interests, and potential sources of conflict
Key Stakeholder
Capabilities/Current Role in Protected Area
Management
Zambia Wildlife 
Statutory Authority with responsibility for
Authority (ZAWA)
management of National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries,

Oversight / management of GMAs (including
allocation of concessions and retention/ distribution
of revenues)

Enforce rules and regulations; formulate and
interpret policies including communities and
private sector

To regulate the management and utilization of
the protected areas natural resource

Provision of services (guides/guards) to
tourism,

Monitoring of wildlife
Ministry
of 
Initiate policy and legal reforms for PA sector
Tourism,

Overall
coordination
of
National
Environment and
Environmental Action Plans
Natural Resources
(MTENR)
Environmental

Statutory Authority with mandate (but limited
Council of Zambia
capacity) to regulate and monitor the management
(ECZ)
and utilization of natural resources in the PAs.
Traditional Chiefs

Interests in Reclassification Project
Potential Conflicts and Mitigation Strategies


Clarification of role/s and PA
policy

Assistance with managing
some Pas

Assistance with developing
private and community models

Potential recipients of PA
funding

Potential source and recipient
of project funding

Undertake protected areas
legal and policy reforms and
establishment of guidelines

Possible recipient of project
funding
Allocation of land to the locals and investors 
Powerful in local context, so
for settlements, agriculture and other developments
play an important role in

Control of many community activities
communities and GMAs
ZAWA is both the regulatory and
management Authority

ZAWA opposes full fiscal devolution to
communities because of impact on ZAWA
income

Income generating focus may conflict
with conservation objectives
MITIGATION:
 Quality facilitation of role negotiation process
 Source funding for 10-15 years until ZAWA
is independently sustainable
 Exposure / training / upgrading of leadership
to emphasize broader national economic and
biodiversity role

Lack of capacity to effectively regulate
ZAWA, ZAFCOM etc.
MITIGATION:

Quality facilitation in define realistic
mandate

Lack of capacity to regulate ZAWA,
ZAFCOM etc and to enforce the EPPCA

Conflicts with ZAWA, MTENR over
regulation responsibility
MITIGATION:

Quality facilitation in define realistic
mandate

Empowerment of communities may
threaten chief’s monopoly on power
MITIGATION:

Clear institutional policies and guidelines
(which must be democratic, accountable,
transparent and equitable if they are to work)
A.114
Key Stakeholder
Capabilities/Current Role in Protected Area Interests in Reclassification Project
Management
Community

Supposed to lead the management of wildlife 
Interested in funding and
Resource Boards
sector in GMAs (but lack capacity and institutional
technical support.
(CRBs)
definition)

Could
be
considerably

Legal power to prepare and enforce rules and
empowered by proposed role
regulations for effective management of NR
changes, leading to significant

Strong tendency towards lack of transparency
subsequent
sustainable,
in management of community affairs
community-initiated development

CRB at field sites interested in
becoming CCA managers
Ordinary
community
members
Private Sector
Landholders
District Councils
Potential Conflicts and Mitigation Strategies

Elite capture, lack of transparency is a
serious threat

Lack of resources and skills reduce
effective participation

Community goals and objectives may not
be compatible with conservation needs
MITIGATION:
 Clear policy and guidelines
 Active monitoring of conformance with
CBNRM principles
 Effective CBNRM support agencies
 Effective use of producer forums
 Effective dissemination of information, such
as revenue earned, disbursed, etc.

De facto these are the prime users of natural 
Strong
interest
in 
At the bottom of the pile, so any
resources (albeit in a highly disempowered,
empowerment for psychological as
empowerment brings conflict with ‘higher’
disorganised and open access framework)
well as economic reasons
authorities

Generally capable when empowered

Can be highly effective MITIGATION:
managers of natural resources
 Clearly defined devolutionary policy
supported
by
guidelines,
information,
monitoring and access to legal restitution

Potentially
effective
natural
resource 
Clarification and liberalization 
Income generating focus of business may
managers with the capacity to produce both
of regulatory environment could
conflict with conservation goals
biodiversity and economic benefits
release considerable potential

Lack of trust between government

Tend to be disempowered by present
officials and private sector
regulations, or at least confused by them

Hence sector is much smaller than it should
be, but is nevertheless experimenting – the primary
crucible of innovation

Employment opportunities to the local
communities

Contributing to revenue generation of the PAs
through payment of concession fees

Formulation and enforcement of bye-laws

Securing
benefits
for 
May be threatened by empowerment of

Preparation of land use plans (legal rights but
members
communities
limited capacity and some role confusions)

Coordinating and preparation of district
development plans and projects
A.115
Key Stakeholder
Capabilities/Current Role in Protected Area
Management
Forest Department 
Statutory mandate to establish, protect and
manage national forests, ecosystems and
biodiversity

Undertaking inventories and monitoring of
forest resources

Responsible for all forest reserves in the
country

Legal mandate to regulate management and
use of forest resources

Extract revenues from legal use of timber (but
currently only collect 3% of fees)
Fisheries

Development of commercial fishing and
Department
enforcement of fishing regulations and laws (i.e.
fish ban)

Regulate use and management of fisheries in
the country as well as registration of fishermen and
their boats
NHCC

Statutory agencies that regulates use and
management of all national heritage sites

Protect and conserve all heritage sites

Promotion and interpreting of cultural and
heritage site
Department
of 
Provide guidelines for protection of
Water Affairs
watersheds and catchment areas
Department
of 
Regulate management and use of land
Lands
Donors

Interests in Reclassification Project

Potential Conflicts and Mitigation Strategies
May bring the weakness of 
Compete with communities over forestthis agency into sharper perspective
related income

May oppose transparency and role
clarification
MITIGATION:
 Clear roles for FD and communities
regarding timber and NTFPs

Much potential to initiate 
Few conflicts, and may welcome
effective
community
based
community initiatives and possible support of
fisheries
policy formulation needs

Potential role in supporting
field demonstration sites

Minor
player,
although 
Potential for major conflict over use of
reclassification will affect NHCC
revenues from Victoria Falls

Identification of new heritage MITIGATION
sites at field demonstration sites
 Clear ruling by MTENR on use of Vic Falls
revenues

Minor players

Minor

Funding programs and projects for effective 
management of the resources such as preparation of
general management plans, capacity building, 
Biodiversity inventories and monitoring.

CBNRM Support 
Initiating some CBNRM programmes, mainly 
Agencies
and
in wildlife or livelihood (i.e. agricultural sector)
International

Carry out some conservation programmes in
NGOs
biodiversity conservation (mediocre track record)

Could be critical if Project
gets to the point of discussing land
tenure
Framework for investment in
sector
Integration with on-going
(and much larger) protected area
initiatives
Co-financing
of
project
activities
Interest in taking on project
management
roles,
including
CBNRM support
More financial support and
institutional growth

Unclear. A role in resolving the many
conflicts over land

Lack
of
coordination
between
overlapping project agreement

Project agreements poorly interpreted and
applied
MITIGATION
 Informal coordination through Forum

Conflict over roles and access to GEF
money
MITIGATION:
 Impose tight field impact performance
controls measures and peer review
 Consider demand driving support, e.g.
communities get vouchers to purchase support
of their choice
A.116
Key Stakeholder
Capabilities/Current Role
Management

Tend to be weak
in
Protected
Area Interests in Reclassification Project
Potential Conflicts and Mitigation Strategies
Potential to strengthen local 
Conflict over roles and access to GEF
NGOs
money

Tendency
to
become
pseudo
consultancies rather than genuine grass-roots
advocacy groups
MITIGATION
Link grants strongly to performance and long
term mandate
CBOs

Tend to be weak or non-existent

Much potential to strengthen  Tend to be subservient to government and
these as part of civic strengthening
national organizations
MITIGATION
 Grant clear rights, and make available legal
recourse
Natural Resources 
Envisaged role as formal meeting place for 
Much potential as a vehicle 
Battles over control of NRCF slowing
Consultative
government agencies, NGOs, donors and the
for policy discussions, and for peerimplementation
Forum
private sector
based monitoring systems
MITIGATION

Envisaged role is development of technical
 Focus on substantive issues
assessments and Advisory Notes to Ministers
Local NR NGOs

A.117
Participation Plan
The following pages outline the stakeholder participation plan for the project.
 Legal and policy reforms
Stakeholders from all nine provinces are invited to three regional stakeholder workshops, to gather their
input on five legal and policy reform processes: policies for reclassification, new PA categories, PA
management partnerships, community management structures and the role of traditional leaders. Civil
society will debate policy reforms through the project-funded Natural Resources Consultative Forum. A
national stakeholder workshop then follows, which focuses on validating and amending the draft policies
and guidelines.
 Improved governance frameworks
NRCF
The Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) will be a national forum which will be established to
facilitate civil society input into environmental and PA sector issues. Participants will include representatives
of community PA managers, private and civil society PA management partners, private sector tourism
operators, environmental NGOs, government and donors. NRCF itself will be a key mechanism for
stakeholder participation on legal and policy reforms supported by the project.
Financial management
Local community management institutions (CRB and VAG) and selected community members in all 34
GMA across the country will receive training in sound financial governance, to enhance accountability and
transparency at local levels. This will empower community managers to know and better defend their rights
concerning benefit sharing from ZAWA and will enable VAG and community members to know and defend
their rights concerning benefit sharing from the CRBs.
 Reclassification
The initial process of refining reclassification criteria will be done in conjunction with stakeholder input
ranging from local to national levels, supplemented with a literature review of experience outside Zambia.
The reclassification plan will be part of the Conservaion Plan for the National System of PA. Its formulation
will involve regional and national workshops for stakeholder inputs and validation.
 M&E systems
Improved systems for monitoring and evaluating wildlife populations and ecosystem health will be
developed. Initial research and design will be done by experts, but the core of the task will be undertaken
through extensive field testing and adaptation. A small number of PAs and their local communities will be
selected, where the evolving systems will be deployed, using local community members (trained ZAWA and
village scouts, as well as other local community members). The results, feedback and experience from the
testing will be used to enhance and refine the systems for implementation across the country.
 Conservation Plan
Preparation of the overall Conservation Plan will necessitate four workshops: three regional and a nationallevel, designed to draw upon different sources of knowledge and expertise, and to ensure that the plan
reflects a multi-stakeholder consensus For each potential priority site for reclassification, field visits will
investigate the degree of support for individual site reclassification, at the local level.
 Field Demonstration Sites
Overview
IO3 is concerned with demonstrating the potential of the laws, policies and tools developed in IO1 and IO2,
at the two field demonstration sites (FDS) in Bangweulu and Chiawa/Lower Zambezi. The intention at both
is to combine a highly participatory reclassification exercise with implementation of new community
management structures. To this end they follow similar sets of processes, which will run in parallel at the
two sites, though the balance is very different between the two: at Bangweulu, the emphasis is on the
reclassification planning of this complex site, while at Chiawa / Lower Zambezi, the emphasis is on the
creation and development of a new community-managed conservation area under the new legislation to be
developed. The creation of the CCA will involve the nearly full devolution of authority to communities and
will enable communities to retain the full benefits from the commercial use of the CCA resources.
As part of the project proposal preparation, local stakeholder groups and community members were invited
to workshops at both field sites. The outline of project objectives and proposed mechanisms for participation
were presented, and discussed. The intention at these workshops was, as with every activity and process
listed below, to gather as much input and feedback as possible, from stakeholders at every level. This input
will be incorporated into the project design in a dynamic, adaptive fashion.
Once project implementation begins, the first steps build intensively on the preliminary site workshops:
further discussions with traditional leaders, CRB and community representatives, government authorities and
NGOs to refine the project objectives. This will be in conjunction with a broad-based awareness-raising
process carried out at the community level. Both will operate in two directions: project staff will have an
opportunity to present the project framework, while community members will have the opportunity to
contribute their knowledge and experience, influencing the outcomes.
These first tentative steps are critical for securing broad support from the community for the project. At this
point, the project must neither demand nor promise too much, as both can erode support and develop into
cynicism as the project proceeds.
Reclassification at the FDS
Throughout the preparation of reclassification options, there is funding for a small number of community
representatives to meet regularly with the consultants undertaking the technical analyses. This is to further
the value of exchanges between consultants and local stakeholders: the consultants will be able to benefit
from the local knowledge and field expertise of FDS inhabitants, while the stakeholders will benefit from an
increased understanding of the techniques employed, resulting in increased understanding and support for
technical approaches to conservation and protected area design.
Project staff will influence the reclassification process only as far as ensuring that the reclassification
analysis is completed, and a list of options presented, and facilitating discussions of those options. The
decision to create, or not create a new PA at Bangweulu will be made by representatives from local
communities and national bodies. The final decision will be taken through an extensive series of workshops
held at a range of levels, reflecting the importance of securing input and support from all levels of
community.
Fisheries Management in the Bangweulu Wetlands
Participatory approaches will be used to investigate the complex issues concerning fishery resources in the
Bangweulu area. In combination with technical analyses, input from local people will be used to develop
management recommendations for fisheries. After a preliminary list of possible options has been identified,
the principle of subsidiarity of decision-making, should ensure that decisions are made at the lowest possible
level of authority.
CCA management
The creation of community-managed PA at Chiawa, and probably at Bangwaelu, will be the most advanced
form of participation. As with reclassification, the framework will be set up by the project, while the
decision-making will only operate in consultation with local stakeholders. Communities will be given nearly
full powers to control access and to manage the lands and resources within the boundaries of the new CCA
and to collect and manage the revenues from the use of these resources. Representative community
management structures will be based on good governance principles of transparency, equity and
accountability.
Capacity building
A major portion of project resources at the field sites will be invested in the development of capacities at the
level of communities and the community managers. This will address, where necessary, issues of effective
participation, planning, management, recordkeeping, bookkeeping, business management accountability,
transparency, involvement of women and minority groups – all of which are important outside of the project
in the wider context of democratisation and strengthening of civil society. Further capacity building will take
place with the current and potential community wildlife and NR managers, to address the skills needed to
manage wildlife effectively: adaptive management, democratic processes, and so on. A key to sustainability
will be the development of local CCA/NR management funds to be fed out of a portion of the revenues
derived from NR use.
A.119
Exchange visits will be organised, to projects and programmes within Zambia and in the wider southern
Africa sub-region. The aim is to make best use of the wide range of experiences from other sites, to learn and
incorporate those lessons into project implementation.
Enterprise development
The project will support community and user group participation in the development of small to medium
income-generating businesses based on NR products, ranging from ecotourism to the sustainable use of NR,
and will be addressed under IO3, at the field sites. There is much experience with community-based
enterprise development in the wildlife sector in southern Africa, including joint ventures between
communities and private sector partners for game viewing/ecotourism and for safari hunting. Other NRbased income generating activities may include such diverse products/activities as mushrooms, beekeeping,
fuelwood production from managed forests, etc.
 Cross-sectoral issues
Partnerships
Central to this Project is the development of innovative partnerships for PA management, between different
combinations of public, private/civil society and community actors. MTENR will develop a new policy
framework for PA management partnerships under IO 1. A formal monitoring system for these partnerships
will be developed under IO 2 and the modified METT will be used for monitoring the effectiveness of these
partnerships. New forms of partnerships, especially civil society/community partnerships, will be tested at
developed at the two field sites.
HIV/AIDS
Sub-Saharan Africa is seriously affected by HIV/AIDS – it is home to 70% of people who have been
infected, or have developed AIDS23. In Zambia, 17% of rural households have experienced an HIV/AIDSrelated death24. The impacts of the epidemic permeate into all parts of society, including interactions with the
environment. The effects are felt particularly strongly with the death and long-term illness of economically
and physically active workers, which reduces agricultural labour supply and necessitates a switch to
alternative sources of food and income – often harvesting of wild food sources and illegal hunting of
wildlife. Livestock may also be sold, to pay for medicines and the care of patients, which reduces long term
sustainability of food and income. HIV/AIDS limits development in all parts of society and leads to an
overall increase in poverty – this is a self-reinforcing link as poverty can increase the prevalence of
AIDS/HIV. Since the links between poverty and environmental degradation are also strong, the epidemic has
a strong negative effect on the health of the environment.
Gender
The position of women in Zambian society is improving, but still leaves much room for improvement. All
state institutions involved in environmental management and ZAWA in particular need considerable support
to improve both their gender sensitivity and community participation approaches. Planning for PA
management should always incorporate gender issues into the development agenda, in order to reduce the
gender gap by a) targeting both men and women in its activities and providing sufficient investment funds to
assist in improving the gender balance, and b) training community members, civil society in institution staff
and government staff in gender sensitive approaches. Overall the project envisages improved gender equity
development at community, institutional and civil society levels.
There are differences in the way men and women participate in environmental issues. For example, men
place a higher level of trust in scientific information, while women value open discussion. Women in rural
areas, such as the demonstration sites, are often busier with domestic work than men, such that they have less
time available for participation, so are likely to be underrepresented. These differences should be
acknowledged and investigated further at the implementation sites, for better design and implementation of
participatory processes.
23
24
SIDA (2003) The Environment, Natural Resources and HIV/AIDS
Figure for 1998, in Zambia PRSP (2002)
A.120
 Participatory Mechanisms
Table 8 – Participatory mechanisms, by immediate outcome
Project
Participatory mechanisms
Element
IO1
a) Review of lessons learned from stakeholder experience of CBNRM in Zambia and
across southern Africa
b) Regional workshops for stakeholder input
c) National workshops for stakeholder input
d) NRCF – a major platform for stakeholder input into legal and policy reforms and
other PA sector issues.
e) Capacity building: in consultation with local people, knowledge and skills gaps will
be identified and addressed.
IO2
f) Refine criteria for reclassification through stakeholder workshops and input.
g) Investigate and secure support for reclassification at field sites through visits.
h) Direct participation of CRBs in development of M&E systems
i) Regional and national workshops for stakeholder input and validation of Conservation
Plan
IO3
j) PDF-Phase stakeholder meetings to confirm stakeholder approval of project
objectives.
k) Awareness-raising and 2-way dialogue at project implementation to capitalise on
support.
l) Village level capacity-building workshops to build core skills required in
reclassification exercise.
m) Training for CCA managers, with consultation as above.
n) Exchange visits within and outside Zambia – to share ideas and experience.
o) Technical and participatory survey to identify best practice for fisheries.
p) Extensive community surveys using participatory techniques.
q) Multiple stakeholder-workshops to debate advantages and disadvantages of
reclassification options.
r) Final, participatory workshop to decide on reclassification option (including no
change).
s) Test/develop science-based monitoring tools.
t) Annual adaptive management meetings to ensure CCA management is following a
sustainable path.
A.121
ANNEX 4: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
Content
This annex contains drafts plans for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems for project management. This
is followed by Addendum 1, a review of the World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
(METT) and recommendation for its modification for use in Zambia.
1. Project Level
M&E is an essential tool for measuring project impact and for informing decision-making at the project
level. The proposed scheme aims to provide accurate, timely and relevant information to aid implementation
at the national level, as well as for the field demonstration sites. Through a process of scheduled and
informal reviews, feedback will be drawn on to improve project delivery. These processes, augmented by
financial auditing will ensure that project implementation exhibits the attributes of accountability and
transparency. The M&E system is composed of three components: monitoring, reporting, and adapting. The
project will be implemented through an adaptive framework which feeds the findings of monitoring into
operational planning, enabling management strategies to be modified to reflect the evolving situation. The
recommendations emerging from the reports should be evaluated and incorporated into management
wherever required as part of an on-going adaptive process. The plan laid out below is split into reporting and
monitoring– the systematic adoption of recommendations arising is assumed to take place at every stage.
a) Responsible agencies/offices
The following agencies and offices will be involved either in monitoring, evaluating or reporting on the
project.
Steering committee (SC)
Composed of the Permanent Secretaries from four Ministries and a representative of UNDP Zambia,
the SC will have the highest policy-level responsibility for oversight, guidance and monitoring. The
four ministries are: Tourism, Environment, Natural Resources; Agriculture and Cooperatives; Lands;
and Finance and National Planning. The SC will meet twice a year during the period of intensive work
or legal and policy reform during the first two years and will meet once per year after that. The SC
will provide oversight and guidance for the project from a policy and programmatic perspective, will
ensure the full integration and support of their ministries and will address problems and constraints,
and propose solutions where appropriate.
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
The TAG will be a group of 10 individuals from government and civil society who will be selected
based on their competence in their fields. It membership will include individuals from private sector
safari hunting and tourism operators, as well as private and civil society sector operators involved in
PA management (such as African Parks and Frankfurt Zoological Society). Bi-annually it will review
and provide advice on all technical and organisational issues related to project management, especially
related to the new tools, strategies and policies.
Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resource (MTENR)
MTENR has responsibility for developing PA legislation and policies and oversight of ZAWA. As the
executing agency for the project, they will carry out routine, weekly monitoring of the project.
Through their Project Implementation Unit, they will have daily responsibilities for project inputs and
monitoring. Monitoring by the MTENR of the field demonstration sites will be especially important,
as these field level experiences will be used to enrich the policy and legal reform process. MTENR
will also closely monitor the findings and recommendations of the results of the civil society
inputs/debates through the NRCF. MTENR will integrate these inputs into project monitoring and into
legal and policy reforms.
UNDP/GEF Regional Technical Coordinator (RTC)
The RTC will monitor the project through the APR and through communications with the UNDP CO.
The RTC act as the principle conduit between UNDP Lusaka, UNDP/GEF New York, and GEF.
Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)
ZAWA will play the lead role in the monitoring and coordination of field sites and field
implementation partners. ZAWA HQ and the PIU will conduct quarterly field site visits (sometimes
accompanied by representatives of MTENR and/or UNDP) to monitor progress, identify problems and
take measures to resolve them.
Project Implementation Unit (PIU)
The PIU is charged with day-to-day of management of all local contracts and for coordinating the
inputs of international consultants The PIU will have responsibility for the preparing/synthesizing
quarterly and annual reports using the quarterly and annual reports of all the implementing agencies
for the project. The PIU has specific responsibility for monitoring the indicators specified as their
responsibility in Table 9 below and will monitor the timeliness of the execution of the project
workplan.
Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF)
NRCF will be a national forum established to facilitate civil society input into environmental and PA
sector issues. Membership of the forum will include representatives of community PA managers,
private and civil society PA management partners, private sector tourism operators, environmental
NGOs, government and donors. Key legal and policy reforms supported by the project will be
addressed by NRCF, as well as other PA sector issues identified by the project. Civil society will thus
play an indirect role in project monitoring through the NRCF.
b) Periodic reporting mechanisms
Quarterly
Reporting on implementation progress will take place on a quarterly basis. Each implementing agency will
prepare their own quarterly report in time for the PIU to use them to prepare an overall quarterly report for
the project. Quarterly reports will allow for routine and frequent problem-identification and problem-solving,
to ensure smooth implementation.
Annual Project Report – APR
The APR meets both UNDP and GEF annual reporting requirements. It is a self-assessment prepared by the
PIU and completed by the UNDP CO. It will detail progress achieved in meeting project objectives,
especially in relation to the work plan. It will also cover constraints to progress, measures already taken to
overcome them, recommendations for tackling future constraints, and lessons learned by the PIU.
UNDP Country Office (UNDP CO) and UNDP/GEF Regional Technical Coordinator will, as appropriate,
conduct yearly visits to the project field sites
c) Monitoring
Table 9 lists the principle impact indicators used, along with the justification for their choice and the
institutional responsibility for monitoring the indicators.
A.123
Table 9 - Principle indicators, rationale and responsibility for monitoring
Level
Indicator
Rationale
Project
The GRZ-approved Conservation Plan
Achievement of 10% coverage
Objective for the National System of PA is being
is a global target, which will
implemented. Under the Plan, priority
be modified where
sites for reclassification have been
appropriate. This indicator
identified as needed to achieve an
puts the emphasis on
average of 10% coverage of each
conservation of ecosystemecosystem/vegetation type (Hearns) to
level biodiversity. An
ensure conservation of globally
objective analysis of optimal
important ecosystem biodiversity. The
categories and management
most appropriate category of PA and the system for each priority site is
most appropriate forms of public/
a key innovation of this
private/ community management
project.
partnerships have been identified for
each priority site.
Approved, published Conservation Plan The Conservation Plan is
for the National System of PA
essential for defining priorities
and measures to achieve
optimal conservation with
limited resources. Government
approval for the Plan is
critical.
At end-of-project (EOP), there will have Improving management
been a net movement of 25% of NP and effectiveness is the greatest
20% of GMA to a higher category of challenge to increasing
management effectiveness using the protection of Zambia’s PAs.
following preliminary definition of
METT categories (The METT score is
an
indicator
of
management
effectiveness. 10 PA were ranked during
project preparation. The METT baseline
will be established for all NP and GMA
during Yr. 1):
60-96
High
25-60
Intermediate
Less than 25 Low
All newly created CCA and SHA will
have at least an Intermediate ranking.
Responsibility
PIU & ZAWA
& Final
evaluation
MTENR & PIU
& Final
evaluation
Local contract
managed by PIU
to apply the
modified METT
in Yr 1, 3 and 6
A.124
Level
Outcome
1
Indicator
At EOP, the following legislation,
policies and policy guidelines have been
adopted:
 New policies for reclassification of
PA
 A new law for the creation of 2 new
categories of PA (CCA and SHA)
 A new policy framework for
public/private/ community
partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA &
SHA
 A new policy allowing for a single
community-level management
structure for all renewable natural
resources
 New policy/guidelines on the roles
of traditional leaders in CBNRM.
Rationale
Each legal / policy reform is
targeted to overcome policy
barriers to improving PA
management effectiveness and
biodiversity conservation.
Responsibility
ZAWA & PIU
& Final
evaluation
At least 2 CCA are created and are
supported by community-private
partnerships.
Lessons learned from
community-based wildlife
management in southern
Africa indicate that maximum
devolution of authority and
maximisation of revenues are
the two most important factors
for success. The CCA are
based on these principles.
Lack of transparency in
revenue-sharing is considered
a key constraint to effective
partnerships and reduces
incentives for community
management and conservation.
ZAWA & PIU
& Final
evaluation
ZAWA uses business planning as a
standard tool for PA management
planning. The relative financial costeffectiveness of the common forms of
management partnerships has been
quantified and is used in system
planning.
Use of business planning for
PA management is one of the
key innovations for managing
PAs on a sustainable basis,
and ensuring the efficient use
of limited resources.
PIU and part of
modified METT
at MT and EOP
The Conservation Plan for the national
system of PA is the basic document
guiding the reclassification,
management and development of
priority PA in Zambia. The investment
and marketing plans are used to
mobilize and direct PA sector
investments by private sector investors,
donors and GRZ and to identify and
mobilize partners for PA management.
The final evaluation will
determine that these plans are
not just sitting on a shelf, but
that they are being used and
applied as a key strategy
document.
MTENR & PIU
& Final
evaluation
All CRB receive financial statements
giving basis of revenue sharing. All
CRB/CCA boards and selected
community representatves receive
training in financial safeguards and
accountability.
Outcome
2
Done as part of
PIU contract for
applying
modified METT
at MT and EOP
A.125
Level
Outcome
3
Indicator
Management effectiveness index of all
field demonstration site PA are
increased as below with a minimum
ranking of Intermediate for all sites.
 Chiawa GMA: 50
 Bangweulu GMA: 45
 Kafinda GMA:45
 Kasanka NP: 75
 Lavushi Manda NP: 35
All CCA created out of the Chiawa,
Bangweulu/Chikuni and Kafinda GMA
are legally gazetted and under
community management structures
certified under the new CCA law. They
are supported by private (nongovernment) partners.
The CCA’s M&E systems shows that
the populations of large herbivores in
the CCA has increased by 50% since the
beginning of the project.
Anti-poaching and basic management
costs are covered by CCA NR
management funds fed by revenues
from the marketing of sustainably
managed NR/biodiversity.
Rationale
Use of the modified METT
will provide a measure of how
effective the project has been
at increasing management
effectiveness in each of the
target PAs.
Responsibility
PIU contract for
applying
modified METT
at MT and EOP
Legal gazetting of the new
CCA and registration of
community management
structures are critical to the
sustainability of the CCA
beyond the end of the project.
PIU & Final
evaluation
Trophy hunting and game
viewing will generally be
principle economic activities
in the CCA, and both are
dependent on wildlife
populations. An increase in
population will demonstrate
the capacity of CCA
management in protecting
wildlife/conserving
biodiversity.
The ability to cover
management costs out of
revenue is essential to the
sustainability of the CCA.
CCA M&E
system as
verified by
ZAWA and
aerial surveys by
lead field partner
at each site
Inspection of
CCA account
books by
ZAWA and PIU
d) Independent evaluation
In addition to the reviews and reports compiled by project staff, the project will be subjected to two
independent, external evaluations, at the mid-term, and towards completion. Both evaluations will be
conducted by mixed teams of international and national consultants.
Mid-term review
This review will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of project design and the progress made towards the
achievement of objectives. It will concentrate on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project
implementation, highlighting analysing key issues, and presenting initial lessons learned about project
design, implementation and management. Of principal importance are recommendations for building upon
project strengths and for corrective measures to overcome project weaknesses.
Final evaluation
Three months prior to the end of the project, another independent external evaluation will take place,
focussing on lessons learned, and evaluating the impacts and sustainability of results, including the
contribution made to capacity development and to the achievement of global environmental goals.
A.126
e) Audit clause
Auditing is another form of project monitoring. The PIU will provide the Resident Representative with
certified periodic financial statements, including an annual audit of financial statements relating to the status
of UNDP/GEF funds, according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance
Manuals. The audit will be conducted by a legally recognised auditor, engaged by the PIU and will cover all
project components.
f) Knowledge Development and Management
The information produced, and knowledge gained from the reporting processes will be made available to as
wide an audience as possible. The proposed system for sharing information is planned to operate both
internally within the project and externally.
Internal
The outputs from the reporting processes detailed above should provide the input for ongoing adaptation of
project implementation, at all levels. The full value of the various reports can only be realised if the
information contained within is made available to the widest possible group of interested parties. This is
particularly important for this project, as activities will take place at a number of different sites and policy
levels: an efficient system for information dissemination is therefore vital to ensure coordination between the
dispersed activity sites (both geographical and political) and to eliminate or reduce duplication of efforts.
The system should ensure delivery between the following:
 PIU and site implementation units;
 nationwide workshops;
 ZAWA;
 MTENR;
External
 UNDP/GEF;
 UNEP;
 Ministries, government agencies;
 Across sub-region (southern Africa, SSA);
 Global – relevant projects, programmes and initiatives outside of UNDP/GEF system;
 NGOs;
 Other UN projects (eg Policy project)
Media
Depending on the relevant target audience, any of the following media could be used (in most cases more
than one should be used):
 printed media – either photocopied or professionally printed;
 verbal communication – workshops and presentations;
 electronic distribution – floppy disk, CD-ROM or emailed soft-copies of documents;
 website – this should act as a central repository for all other types of media, as well as contact
details;
 e-mail distribution lists – to regularly update all interested parties;
g) Adaptation
As recommendations from the above reports and reviews become available, the PIU in conjunction with
implementing agencies should make arrangements to put them into practice.
A.127
ANNEX 5: REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM CBNRM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
Jones, B.T.B. (2003) Lessons learned from the philosophy and practice of CBRNM in Southern Africa.
Paper for Southern African workshop in preparation for the WPC, 2003.
 Background
Crucial elements for successful CBNRM implementation:
a) economic incentives: benefits must exceed costs to guarantee investment of time, effort and
resources by the landholder
b) devolution of rights and tenure over land and resources
c) collective proprietorship
d) appropriate scale (social and ecological)
e) community empowerment
“if a resource is valuable and landholders have the rights to use, benefit from and manage the resource, then
sustainable use is likely”
This rests on 3 assumptions:
1) the resource is given a focused value that can be realised by the landholder
2) authority is devolved form central to community bodies
3) collective proprietorship functions

Specific Lessons:
Economic
1. Economic incentives are difficult to apply where income has to be divided between large numbers of
people and/or different institutions. However, where income is relatively high, where there are small
numbers of people, and where income accrues directly to local residents, then economic incentives
can have an impact. Evidence from CAMPFIRE25 demonstrates that economic instrumentalism can
work where income from wildlife is high and the number of beneficiaries is low or especially poor:
in this case the success was believed to be due to significant institutional change in those areas.
2. Economic incentives are not sufficient alone, particularly where income to households is relatively
small. It is crucial to ensure that strong proprietorship is devolved to local jurisdictions. Local
managers need to be able to determine the level of use and the methods of use without requiring
quotas and permits from government. A 1999 study of ADMADE and LIRDP26 concluded that
illegal off-take continued at pre-project intervention levels partly because the individual returns from
hunting far outweighed a resident’s share of the benefits from the projects.
3. Where economic benefits are perceived by residents to be high/useful and devolution reaches the
lowest appropriate levels, then CBNRM is at its most effective.
Political
4. Problems with devolution of authority probably represent the biggest single obstacle to CBNRM in
Southern Africa. Constraints to devolution include:
a. Policy change is often limited and conditional compromises, based on existing legislation
which is not necessarily ideal of adequate. CBNRM in Southern Africa typically bestows
resource rights, but not land rights
b. In Zambia, communities tend to be passive recipients of income, without engaging in active
management, partly because state retains high degree of control. For example, hunting ban
in 2001 remove the main opportunity for communities to benefit from wildlife.
c. Attempts by government to regain control lost through decentralisation, for example, in
Namibia through attempted re-interpretation of new legislation to require conservancies to
25
26
Reference on page 9: Bond, 2001
Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (reference on page 9: Gibson, 1999)
acquire permits and quotas: this was successfully resisted by communities and NGOs
working with them, and this is a highly positive sign.
d. There is a need to address the in-built tendency of bureaucratic hierarchies to seek increased
authority from above, while resisting its devolution to levels below.
5. There is a large gap between new policies, and the institutional ethos of most organisations
responsible for its application. Many wildlife officials do not trust local communities, and fear there
will be no role for themselves. CBRNM needs to be “mainstreamed” as an acceptable conservation
tool.
a. The Tanzanian National Parks Authority (TANAPA) provides an example of where
institutional reform was achieved, by: mainstreaming community conservation; selling the
idea to officials as being beneficial to their work and not diminishing their authority;
performance evaluated on basis of relationships with neighbours; community conservation
applied alongside law enforcement and not as alternative.
6. New institutions for management face challenges in establishing themselves among other competing
sources of authority, especially traditional leaders. They must also establish internal legitimacy: this
is easier if social units are cohesive and collaboration is voluntary. This is also made easier if the
new institutions can deliver benefits that are important to members: whether financial or intangible.
7. Accountability: community wildlife management committees tend to concentrate more on
accountability upwards to donors and technical support organisations, rather than downwards to the
organisation’s members.
8. Security of tenure over land is an important foundation for sustainable management of land and
resources by local communities. Without such security of tenure, many attempts to manage
individual resources sustainably are undermined.
Practical
9. Putting “collective proprietorship” into practice has proved difficult: in Zimbabwe and Botswana,
pre-definition of communities using existing administrative units was simple and quick, but often
brings together groups which would not cooperate. But in Namibia, self-definition led to the reopening of long-standing land, ethnic and tribal disputes. Giving rights to communities represented
by committees enables local elites to capture the decision-making process – there is a need to ensure
that collective proprietorship is enjoyed by the majority of residents and resource users.
10. From Mozambique27: it appears that a combination of regulation and control by game scouts,
coupled with wildlife income used for grinding mills, and improvements to schools, village shops
etc, has provided incentives for changing behaviour.
11. The ADMADE and LIRDP projects did not adequately exclude those who continued to hunt
illegally. This promoted free-riding: individuals benefiting without modifying their resource use
activities. This can have an important impact on whether communities opt for public works or
household dividend. For example, by building a classroom, a person obeying the rules might be
excluded from benefiting because they have no children at school, while a poacher with children will
benefit while continuing to hunt.
12. CBNRM programmes in Southern Africa have tended to focus on empowering committees that
represent relatively large numbers of people. This creates the danger of a centralisation of decisionmaking removed from the lowest appropriate levels.
13. There is sufficient evidence from Southern Africa to suggest that conservation of wildlife and other
natural resource need not be confined to formally proclaimed state-run areas28.
14. A number of examples are emerging29 where scaling up is beginning to take place with the lowest
levels such as village bodies forming the foundations of accountable natural resource management
governance systems.
27
28
Referenced page 9
Refer page 16
A.129

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Strategies to improve performance of community-based approaches:
Current policy and legislation should be revised on the basis
of the evidence linking sustainable management with strong proprietorship and strong economic
incentives.
This implies the strengthening of the rights of local
communities over their land and natural resources. Governments should give up their hold over crucial
areas of decision-making and maintain an overall regulatory/supervisory function rather than a control
function.
Devolution should be based on the lowest appropriate level
of jurisdiction. From there, scaling up should take place, where necessary, through the delegation of
authority upwards.
Institutional reform of wildlife agencies needs to be
promoted and supported so that CBNRM can be “mainstreamed” and accepted by officials. The gap
between the philosophy embodied in policy and the philosophy of the implementing institutions needs
to be closed.
CBNRM practitioners should continue to lobby for secure
group tenure over communal land. Group land rights that include rights of exclusion, should be
promoted as a fundamental pre-requisite for sustainable management and the establishment of
community conserved areas.
Models such as those used in South Africa for the
restitution of land rights for communities who lost their land under apartheid should be developed for
protected areas. This would restore proprietorship over the land to communities who were evicted from
their land for the establishment of protected areas.
In order to increase the impact of economic benefits,
income should reach household level. Support agencies need to give more attention to methods of
income distribution that promote direct household benefit (e.g. the household distributions pioneered
by CAMPFIRE where recipients then return any cash earmarked for community projects)
Decision-making about use of income should be taken at
village level rather than at the supra committee level, ensuring greater participation by residents
Communities should be supported in maximising their
income generation opportunities within acceptable environmental and social limits and taking into
account tourist carrying capacities.
Martin, R. (2003) Condition for Effective, Stable and Equitable Conservation at the National Level in
Southern Africa. Paper prepared for a Workshop prior to World Parks Congress 2003.
This paper was prepared for a workshop prior to the World Parks Congress, 2003. As such, it focuses on
National Parks, but does make extensive reference to land outside tight state control. The key points are
summarised below.
He summarises all the socio-economic research findings on communities and conservation in Southern
Africa since 1980 very simply as:
1. Devolution of authority to communities or landholders is a ‘cardinal input’
2. Promotion of economic value for wild resources provides a positive incentive to conserve, provided
it is coupled to the first.
National Parks are not held to be the pinnacle of conservation, given the many examples of failing stateprotected areas, and the many successful conservation examples outside state-protected areas.
“The soundest strategy for a state wildlife agency is to seek financial self-sufficiency for each protected area
under its control and to divest itself of areas which are economically unsustainable” (De La Harpe, 1998)
29
Refer pages 16 and 17
A.130
The current state of community involvement in management is limited: in no southern African country can it
be claimed that the first necessary condition for successful conservation outside national parks, that of
devolution of authority for natural resources to landholders, has been fully met.
The centrality of links between poverty and environmental degradation are mentioned in the context of
Zimbabwe: “simple demography, political instability and economic depression are causing movements of
destitute people and forcing them to turn to the environment for the means of survival”.
Exclusionary policies for PA management are failing, so the real issues for PA in the future are:
a) how can the full potential of their forest and wildlife resources be harnessed in sustainable national
and local economic development ?
b) how can they be integrated into larger landscapes with a wider stakeholder participation in their
management ?
The author goes on to suggest ‘real world’ financial partnerships as a solution, which would provide:

genuine joint management of the park by government and local stakeholders;

a channel for investment in the park by concerned supporters;

a mechanism under which the park could receive its revenues directly, re-invest them in both
capital and recurrent costs, and achieve financial self-sufficiency.
“The devolution of legal authority to landholders to manage and benefit from wildlife on their land is
without doubt the single most important factor in successful conservation outside state protected
areas” (Martin, 1993)
The paper ends with comments about the black-hole which is corruption. Seeing the potential benefits from
conservation, “many bureaucrats seek to position themselves as ‘gate-keeper’ for any activity which might
involve the issue of a permit, license of concession. To achieve this it is often necessary to go against
existing provisions of the law, or withdraw rights and powers which had legally been granted to members of
the public.” The antidote, he concludes, “lies in the proper practice of democracy”.
Child, B. (2003?) Principles, Practice and Results of Community Wildlife Management in Southern
Africa
1. Careful consideration of scale is vital: “meeting under a tree” defines a community at a scale that
allows for high levels of transparency, involvement and participatory democracy30.
2. Innovative tools for spending money generated by wildlife is perhaps the most powerful tool yet
available to CBNRM31.
3. Despite significant investment in diversification, wildlife has been the subject of entrepreneurial
activity for four decades, so the product is well developed.
Critical elements for sustainable use of resource: (the Price – Proprietorship - Subsidiarity Hypothesis):
PRICE – resource must be valuable
PROPRIETORSHIP – this value must be captured by landholders (not stakeholders)
SUBSIDIARITY – decisions must be taken at the lowest possible level
30
31
Refer page 11
Refer page 10
A.131
The Fast track – focus is on devolving property The Slow track – focuses on capacityrights:
building and hopes communities will
- requires political will,
demand property rights:
- proven to be extremely effective,
- unproven,
- relatively cheap,
- a possible approach where there is
- relies on adaptive management.
limited political will
- expensive because of (1) conflicts,
(2) difficulty of building capacity
where communities have few rights
Murphree, Marshall W. (2000). Boundaries and Borders. Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial
Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP),Bloomington,
Indiana, USA 31 May-4 June 2000.
The key comments from this seminal article by Murphree (2000) are listed in bullet form:
 Protected areas have generally been uncritically linked with state ownership and management;
 Other IUCN Commissions observe that protected areas address only a fraction of global biodiversity
concerns and point out the sense of alienation experienced by local peoples whose land and resources
have been expropriated to create national parks;
 These commissions advocate inclusive policies where local people, acting collectively, are provided with
incentives to take responsibility for and benefit from the economic development which protected areas
can provide;
 Similar policy shifts are occurring in a number of international conservation and development agencies
and the old notion of “fortress conservation” is being displaced by new ideas of development through
community conservation and sustainable use;
 Performance of projects based on these new approaches has generally been well below expectations.
 Amongst the proximate reasons for failure are the following –
o Cohesive communities have been hard to identify;
o Incentives for cohesion are absent or do not cover the transaction costs involved in developing or
maintaining cohesion;
o The process requires time frames well beyond the impatient log frames of conventional donor
project development; and
o Conservationists have tended to ‘colonise’ and capture projects and local actors have diverted
projects away from their central objectives.
 The ultimate and most fundamental reason for failure has been that the critical ingredient for
project success, that of devolution of authority and responsibility, has been missing;
 Governments (and NGO implementing agencies) have continued to retain ultimate power to shape
objectives and control benefits;
o see community involvement as the same thing as “compliance”;
o see participation as the same thing as “co-opting” communities; and
o are reluctant, as politicians and bureaucrats, to surrender the power and control of access to resources
which is essential for robust devolution.
Hence most of the projects involving communities in natural resource management have simply become an
exercise in “aborted devolution”.
He further stresses the need for alignment of authority, responsibility and incentives:
 Authority without responsibility is meaningless or obstructive;
 Responsibility without authority cannot be effective;
 Without responsibility or authority, there are no incentives to invest, manage or control.
A.132
USAID (1998) Assessment of CBNRM in Southern Africa. Prepared by Agricultural Development
Consultants, Inc.
1. The dependent users of natural resources on common lands respond positively and effectively to the
needs to manage and conserve those resources when they acquire the authority and responsibility to
act for enhancement of their benefits.
2. The intent of conservation law or policy is best achieved when the people are motivated to
participate with officials to achieve the objectives of that law or policy.
3. CBNRM programs are process oriented and evolutionary in nature; they do not spring fully formed
into existence, nor do they mature rapidly. Progress is incremental, building on a series of successive
changes as the motivation of the participants’ increases.
4. The national policy environment within a country allows for replication of CBNRM activities within
that country, but differences in the institutional environments among countries makes it impossible
to replicate programs from one country to another. Instead, CBNRM principles and lessons are
adapted to each country's unique environment.
IUCN (1997) Community Wildlife Management in Southern African – A Regional Review. Evaluating
Eden Series, Working Paper 11
1. Differential inputs must result in differential benefits: those bearing a higher cost should receive
higher benefits.
2. There must be incentive for good management: greater rewards from better management.
3. The unit of proprietorship must be the same as the unit of production, management and benefit.
4. The unit of proprietorship should be as small as possible.
A.133
ANNEX 6: REPLICATION STRATEGY
The Reclassification and Effective Management project was developed from a detailed identification and
analysis of barriers to effective management of the PA estate in Zambia. Strategies for overcoming these
barriers include the development of improved legal, policy and governance frameworks, new and more
effective forms of PA management partnerships and other tools for effective PA management.
At present, the management of PA in Zambia runs the full gamut of a spectrum ranging from a high level of
effective management to low levels of effectiveness. The overall approach of the project is to shift as many
PA as possible from the lower positions on this spectrum towards the higher levels of effective management.
Improving management effectiveness will involve the development of measures to overcome barriers,
testing, adapting and proving this measures and then mobilizing stakeholders and resources for replicating
them.
Several activities will be undertaken to ensure that lessons that emerge during and from the project
are captured and shared with relevant stakeholders. Measures for identifying and replicating lessons
include the following:
1.
The very design of this project has been strongly influenced by a half dozen reviews of
lessons learned and best practices of community-based wildlife management in southern African.
Thus the very basis for the project design is the replication of some of the measures that have been
shown to work best across the sub-region;
2.
The improved governance framework in Outcome 1 will include a strong knowledge
management component. There is no suitable forum at present for exchanges experiences and
lessons learned in the PA sector. The creation of the Natural Resources Consultative Forum will fill
this gap. Knowledge management will be one of the key functions of the NRCF. NRCF will conduct
reviews, assessments, identification of best practices and issues papers and will provide a
participatory forum for the presentation and debate of issues by key PA sector stakeholders;
3.
The two field demonstration sites (FDS) are key elements of the strategy for replicability. FDS
will have a strong focus on community-managed conservation areas (CCA). Nothing is more
effective in the replication of CBNRM than having villager-to-villager exchanges. Representatives
of all the CRB in the country will be brought to the two FDS in the last two years of the project for
awareness raising and direct person-to-person contact with CCA managers and members;
4.
Two mid-term reviews at the end of Yrs 2 and 4 and the final evaluation near the end of Yr 6
will play keys roles in identifying project elements that are ready for replication and in developing
recommendations/strategies for their effective replications;
5.
A key function of the project M&E system is for adaptive management. This includes the
identification of what works – and is ready for replication – and the modification of what is not
working in order to better achieve project objectives;
6. Other bodies that will play strategic roles in replication will include the Steering Committee, the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and the Project Coordination Group. The Project Coordination
Group will be one of the most effective means of replication because it includes the major donors to
the PA sectors and most of the key PA managers/management partners.
The detailed project replication strategy will be based on lessons that emerge from the first phase of the
project.
A.134
Strategy
1.
1.a
Anticipated
Results
and
impacts
Outcome 1: Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are
society/community PA management partnerships
 Improved policy and legal frameworks will At End-of-Project (EOP), the
include policies for reclassification of PAs following legislation, policies
and new legislation for two new proposed and policy guidelines have
categories of PA that will provide effective been adopted:
biodiversity conservation. The first will be  New
policies
for
a
community-managed
PA
where
reclassification
conversion to agriculture or other land uses  A new law for the creation
is not allowed but where communities
of 2 new categories of PA
enjoy full control and benefits from the
(CCA and SHA)
sustainable, commercial use of wildlife and  A new policy framework
other NR. A second category of ZAWAfor public/private/ civil
managed safari hunting areas will be
society/community
created out of sections of national parks
partnerships for NP, CCA,
that have low potential for photo safaris
GMA & SHA
but where trophy hunting may be a much  A new policy allowing for
more financially attractive management
a single community-level
option.
management structure for
all
renewable
natural
resources
 New policy/guidelines on
the roles of traditional
leaders in CBNRM.
Anticipated Replication strategy/ roll out.
in place providing new tools for public/private/civil
 The new policies for reclassification will be based
on the on-the-ground, highly participatory
approaches developed at the two field
demonstration sites. This will make the policies,
and their application, as practical, as adapted to
Zambian conditions, and, therefore, as replicable as
possible;
 The finalization of the CCA policies will be
delayed until Yr 4 in order to benefit from the FDS
experience, making the new legislation based on
real-life field experience.
 Representatives of all the CRBs in Zambia will be
brought to the new FDS CCAs for awareness
raising and training in CCA benefits and
management;
 Funding for the creation of new CCA will be
mobilized through the NRCF and the Project
Coordination Group.
 New partnerships will be tested at the FDS. The
advantages and disadvantages of each form of
partnership will be analyzed by all stakeholders
through the NRCF, the TAG and the Project
Coordination Group.
 The CCA management structures will be
empowered to manage all renewable natural
resources. This will be replicated in other GMA
through modifications of the existing CRB and
through the transformation of GMA/CRB into
CCA. The Steering Committee and the donors of
the Project Coordination Group will ensure that
this approach is integrated into the forest and
fisheries sectors.
Strategy
2
2a
Anticipated
Results
and Anticipated Replication strategy/ roll out.
impacts
 Participation in PA sector governance will  PA
communities,  The advantages and strengths of all these legal and
be improved through the creation of a
GMA/CCA
managers,
policy reforms will be assessed, presented and
formal stakeholder platform (Natural
tourism
investors,
debated through the knowledge management
Resources Consultative Forum) for civil
private/civil society PA
function of the NRCF. NRCF stakeholders and
society inputs into PA sector issues.
managers, NGOs and other
donors will invest in the replication of the best
Improved,
transparent
financial
civil
society
actors
practices and successes. (NRCF is funded at
management systems will be developed for
participate in open debates
$570,000)
revenue sharing between ZAWA and CRB
on key PA sector issues.  All CRB and representatives of all GMA
and between CRB and their community
Lessons
learned
are
communities will receive training in transparent
constituents.
documented and diffused.
financial management and good governance
procedures.
Outcome 2: Institutional capacities for PA system management are strengthened including enhanced capacities for PA
representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.
 A key activity will be the identification of  PA and open area sites that  Reclassification
methodologies
are
reclassification priorities for improved
are
in
need
of
tested/developed at the two FDS for replication
representativeness of the National PA
reclassification and/ or
elsewhere;
System. An expanded conservation
effective management to  Reclassification priorities will be identified by Yr
assessment will include a gap analysis of
ensure
representative
3. NRCF and other stakeholders will have
the coverage of ecosystems by existing PA,
coverage
of
Zambia’s
participated in their identification. NRCF will
identification of candidate PA/sites for
ecosystems/
biodiversity
mobilize resources for reclassification and for the
filling gaps, forest cover loss analysis of
are identified (and are
development of effective management partnerships
candidate sites followed by bio-physical
integrated
into
the
for the priority sites.
surveys/status assessments on the ground
Conservation
Plan)
leading to the final identification of
Reclassification of PA
reclassification priorities.
completed at two field
demonstration sites.

New tools for assessing economic 
efficiency and for PA business planning.
One will seek to define cost coefficients
and
the
forms
of
different
public/private/civil society/ community
management partnerships that are the most
effective and financially sustainable for the
priority PA. Investment profiles will be
ZAWA
uses
business 
planning as a standard tool
for
PA
management
planning. The relative
financial cost-effectiveness
of the common forms of
management partnerships
has been quantified and is
Capacity/human resources for operational use of
economic/financial planning tools will be built in
ZAWA and PA management partners through short
and long-term project-funded training.
A.136
Strategy
developed for priority unmanaged PA


Anticipated
Results
and Anticipated Replication strategy/ roll out.
impacts
used in system planning.
Improved capacities for monitoring and 
evaluation will be developed. Particular
emphasis will be placed on the monitoring
of PA management effectiveness by
modifying the WWF/WB METT tracking
tool for Zambian conditions. Other foci
will be on systems for monitoring of
ecosystem health and monitoring of PA
management partnerships. Monitoring of
wildlife populations for trophy hunting will
emphasize local managers monitoring
capacities complemented by central level
capacities for oversight/spot checking.
Testing of improved site level M&E will
be done at the two demonstration sites.
The METT has been
modified for Zambia and is
used as a standard tool for
all PA managed by, or in
partnership with, ZAWA.
Monitoring of wildlife for
trophy
hunting
is
increasingly accepted as a
cost of doing business.
Techniques for monitoring
ecosystem health have been
developed.

All of this will be integrated under a PA 
System Reclassification and Conservation
Plan that will include PA creation,
reclassification
&
declassification,
business and marketing planning and
M&E. Realistic targets for the total land
area of PA will be set. Business planning
for the PA system will include the
identification of effective management
forms for specific PA, investment planning
and sustainable financing. This will be
complemented by a marketing plan to
interest investment partners needed for
priority PAs
The Reclassification and 
Conservation Plan for the
national system of PA is the
basic document guiding the
reclassification,
management
and 
development of priority PA
in Zambia. The investment
and marketing plans are
used to mobilize and direct
PA sector investments by
private sector investors,
donors and GRZ and to
identify
and
mobilize
partners
for
PA
management.




The two mid-term and the final evaluations
($162,000 total) all review the usefulness of the
modified METT. These results are disseminated
widely;
The usefulness of the modified METT is presented
and disseminated to PA sector stakeholders
through the NRCF and the Project Coordination
Group;
MTENR is encouraged to mandate the use of the
METT as a means of government monitoring and
oversight of PA management effectiveness;
Donors are encouraged to fund the use of the
METT through the NRCF and the Project
Coordination Group;
GRZ makes it a policy that monitoring of wildlife
populations will be required as a standard cost of
doing business for CCA and for SHA.
The Conservation Plan, investment plan and
marketing plan will be used by GRZ/ZAWA for
mobilizing donor funding for the sector and for
prioritizing the use of tourism and trophy hunting
levies.
These plans and the economic evaluations that
support them will be used to convince GRZ of the
economic justification for government investments
in the PA sector.
A.137
UNDP PRO DOC
ANNEX 7: REFERENCES
Ansell, W.F.H. (1978) The Mammals of Zambia. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Chilanga.
Araki, S. (2003) Ten years change in population and chitemene shifting cultivation around Mpika area,
Northern Zambia. In: Araki, S. (ed.), Agro-environmental study on the sustainability of
indigenous agriculture in central and southern Africa (pp. 119-134). Kyoto University, Kyoto.
Bingham, M. (2000) Notes on Zambia’s threatened plants. SABONET Red Data List. SABONET,
Pretoria.
Bolnick, D. (19995). A guide to the common wild flowers of Zambia and neighbouring regions. Wildlife
Conservation Society of Zambia, Lusaka.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the approach to
the context. IUCN Social Policy Group. Switzerland.
Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, ed. (1997) Beyond Fences: Seeking Sustainability in Conservation.
IUCN/Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, Gland, Switzerland.
Broadley, D.G. (1971) The reptiles and amphibians of Zambia. The Puku 6: 1-143.
Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P., (eds.) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Burgman, M.A. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (1998) Conservation Biology for the Australian Environment.
Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Central Statistics Office (2002) Food security, health and nutrition information system. CSO, Lusaka.
Central Statistics Office (2003) Zambia 2000 census of population and housing. CSO, Lusaka.
Chabwela H.N. (1998) The Wildlife Sector: A situation Analysis. Environmental Support Programme for
Zambia, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources/IUCN Zambia Country Office
Chabwela, H. and Gaile, B. (2004) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Protected Areas. Consultant
report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems
Project
Chi-Chi Consultants (2004) Conservation needs assessment for Protected Areas in Zambia. Consultant
report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems
Project
Chidumayo, E.N (1996) Handbook of Miombo Ecology and Management. Stockholm Environment
Institute, Stockholm.
Chidumayo, E.N. (1997) Miombo ecology and management: an introduction. Intermediate Technology
Publications, London.
Chidumayo, E.N. (1987) A shifting cultivation land use system under population pressure in Zambia.
Agroforestry 5:15-25.
Chidumayo, E.N. and Aongola, L. (1998) Zambia biodiversity strategy and action plan: The country
study report. IUCN, Lusaka.
Community Based Natural Resources Management and Sustainable Agriculture (CONASA) (2002)
Policy and Legislation Review of the Fisheries, Forestry, Wildlife and Water Sectors vis-a-vis
Community Based Natural Resources Management, HURID
Community Based Natural Resources Management and Sustainable Agriculture (CONASA) (2002)
139
UNDP PRO DOC
Proceedings of Community Based Natural Resource Management Workshop, 25th February –
1March 2002 Fairmount Hotel, Livingstone
Cooperative League of the USA (2001) Chiulukire Local Forest: Joint Forest Management Plan.
CLUSA, Lusaka.
Dahl, R., (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press
Dalal-Clayton, B. and Child, B. (2003) Lessons from Luangwa: The story of the Luangwa Integrated
Resource Development Project. IIED/SLAMU
Davey, A.G. (1998) National System Planning for Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area
Guidelines Series No. 1. World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). IUCN-The World
Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland
Development Services and Initiatives (2004) Conservation Planning for Protected Areas. Consultant
report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems
Project
Dobuzinskis, L., (1992) 'Modernist and Postmodernist Metaphors of the Policy Process: Control and
Stability vs. Chaos and Reflexive Understanding’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 25: 355-80
Environment Council Zambia (2001) State of the Environment in Zambia 2000, ECZ, Lusaka-Zambia
Edmonds, A.C.R. (1976) Vegetation Map of Zambia, 1:500,000. Surveyor General, Lusaka.
Ellison, G. (1990) Common birds of Zambia. Zambia Ornithological Society, Lusaka.
Environmental Council of Zambia (undated) Census data files for selected wildlife species in Zambia.
ECZ (Wildlife Monitoring Project), Lusaka.
Fanshawe, D.B. (1971) The vegetation of Zambia. Government Printer, Lusaka.
Fisher, F., (1995) Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago: Nelson Hall
Forest Department (2003a) Forest status: National Forests. Forest Department, Lusaka.
Forest Department (2003b) Forest resources data. Forest Department, Lusaka.
Foucault, M., (1991) Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault
Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf
Global Environmental Facility (2003) Proposal for PDF Block “B” Grant for “Reclassification and
Sustainable Management of Zambia’s Protected Areas”.
Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., Synge, H., McNeely, J. A. and Gundling, L. (1994) A guide to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland. IUCN Environmental Law Centre,
Environmental Policy and Law paper no. 30.
GRZ (1986) Republic of Zambia Map (1:1,500,000). Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Lusaka
GRZ (1988) Forest Estate 1988 Map (1:1,500,000). Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Lusaka
GRZ (1997) Zambia Forestry Action Plan, Volume II Challenges and Opportunities, Lusaka, Zambia
GRZ (1998) The Zambia Wildlife Act, 1998. Government Printer, Lusaka
GRZ (1999) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources, Lusaka, Zambia
GRZ (1999) National Biodiversity strategy and Action Plan. Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources, Lusaka
GRZ (2002) Draft Strategic Plan for the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources,
Lusaka, Zambia
140
UNDP PRO DOC
GRZ (2002) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Lusaka
GRZ (2002) Transitional National Development Plan 2002-2005, Ministry of Finance and National
Planning, Lusaka, Zambia
GRZ (2002) Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Ministry of Finance and National Planning
GRZ (undated). National Parks and Game Management Areas (Atlas sheet No. 28). Surveyor General,
Lusaka.
Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity
Hill, M. (1997) The Policy Process in the Modern State, London: Prentice Hall
Hirji, R., Mackay, H. and Maro, P. (2002) Defining and mainstreaming environmental sustainability in
water resources management in southern Africa – A summary. SADC, IUCN, SARDC and
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Hogwood, B. and Gunn, L. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hood, R.J. (1967) A guide to the grasses of Zambia. Ministry of Agriculture, Lusaka.
IUCN (1992) Approaches to Environmental Policy Analysis, Southern Africa IUCN-ROSA Handbook
IUCN (1994) Guidelines for Protected area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK.
IUCN (1998) Economic Values of the Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Areas Managers (IUCN
Gland) Switzerland and Cambridge
Jachman, H. (2000) Zambia’s Wildlife Resources – A Brief Ecology, Wildlife Monitoring Unit
Environmental Council of Zambia Lusaka
Jachmann, H. (2002) Comparison of aerial counts with ground counts for large African herbivores.
Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 841-852.
James, A.N. (1999) Institutional constraints to protected area funding. Parks. Vol.9 No.2: 15-26
Kalyocha, G (2000) Sustainability of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)
Programmes: Lessons from the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project LIRDP,
presented at the IUCN Workshop on Development of Criteria for Assessing Sustainability of
CBNRM Programmes in Southern Africa.
Kasama District Development Committee (2002) Kasama district situation analysis. Kasama District
Development Committee, Kasama.
Kasimona, V.N. and Makwaya, J.J. (1995) Present planning in Zambia for the future use of Zambezi river
waters. In: Matiza, T., Crafter, S. & Dale, P. (eds.), Water resource use in the Zambezi basin.
IUCN Wetlands Programme, Gland.
Kornas, J. (1979) Distribution and Ecology of the pteridophytes in Zambia. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, Warszawa, Krakow (Poland).
Lebec, G. and Goodland, R. (1988) Wildlands: their protection and management in economic
development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Lindblom, C. (1959) The Science of ’Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review, Vol. 2: 79-88
Long, N. (1992) From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained?: The Case for an Actor-Oriented
Sociology of Development. In N. Long and A. Long (eds.) Battlefields of Knowledge: The
Interlocking of theory and Practice in Social Research and Development, London: Routledge
Lungu F.B. (1990) Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) and Luangwa
Integrated Rural Development Project (LIRDP) in Kiss A. (ed); Living with Wildlife: Wildlife
Resources Management with Local Participation in Africa, World Bank, Washington
141
UNDP PRO DOC
McNeely, J. (ed.) (1993) Parks for life: report of the IVth World Congress on national parks and
protected areas. IUCN, Gland.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1994) National Environmental Action Plan. Lusaka
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1997) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
Government of Zambia, Lusaka.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) Forestry Department Annual Report
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) Legal, Policy and Institutional Issues of
Biodiversity – Report of the Country Study. Lusaka
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
Government of Zambia, Lusaka.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1999) Forestry Department Annual Report
Metcalfe, S. (1994) The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
(CAMPFIRE). Pages 270-279 in McNeely J, ed. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Ministry of Education (2003) Annual report for 2003. Mongu Provincial Education Office, Mongu.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) Zambia forestry action plan (Vol. II). MENR,
Lusaka.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1999) National biodiversity and action plan. MENR,
Lusaka.
Miombo Working Group (2003) A Preliminary Assessment of Protected Areas in Zambia, for the Miombo
Ecoregion Programme. WWF Zambia Coordination Office, Lusaka.
Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N. and Mittermeier, C.G. (1999) Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and
Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX/Conservation International, Washington, D.C.
Mumeka, A. (1986) Effect of deforestation and subsistence agriculture on runoff of the Kafue river
headwaters, Zambia. Hydrological Sciences Journal 31: 543-554.
Musonda, C.H. (2002) Annual Report for 2002. Mpika District Forestry Department, Mpika.
Muzama Crafts Ltd (2000) Forestry inventory Report, April 2000. Muzama Crafts Ltd, Manyinga.
Mwima (2001) A Brief History of the Kafue National Park. Keodoe 44/1
Nally, R.C., Bennett, A.F., Brown, G.W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., Lillywhite, P. and Ward,
D. (2002) How well do ecosystem-based planning units represent different components of
biodiversity. Ecological Applications 12:900-912.
National Heritage Conservation Commission (undated) National heritage sites register. NHCC,
Livingstone.
National Parks and Wildlife Service and Japan International Cooperation Agency (1998) Kafue National
Park interim management plan. NPWS/JICA, Chilanga.
Pitman, C.R.S (1934) Report of the faunal survey of Northern Rhodesia. Government Printer, Lusaka.
Queiroz, J.S. de, (1997) Environmental threats Assessment: Zambia. Strategic Background Document:
USAID/REDSO/ESA
Schultz, J. (1974) Explanatory study to the land use map of Zambia. Ministry of Rural Development,
Lusaka.
Siampale, A. (2004) Personal Communication.
Sprague, D.S. & Oyama, S. (1999) Density and distribution of chitemene fields in a miombo woodland
environment in Zambia. Environmental Management 24:273-280.
142
UNDP PRO DOC
Storrs, A.E.G. (1979) Know your trees. Forest Department, Ndola.
Storrs, A.E.G. (1982) More about trees. Forest Department, Ndola.
Stromgaard, P. (1989) Adaptive strategies in the breakdown of shifting cultivation: the case of Mambwe,
Lamba and Lala of northern Zambia. Human Ecology 17:427-444.
Stromgaard, P. (1985) A subsistence society under pressure: the Bemba of northern Zambia. Africa
55:40-59.
Sugiyama, Y. (2003) The agricultural policy change and the indigenous agricultural system: The
experience and revaluation of shifting cultivation system in the Northern Province, Zambia. In:
Araki, S. (ed.), Agro-environmental study on the sustainability of indigenous agriculture in
central and southern Africa (pp. 135-158). Kyoto University, Kyoto.
Surveyor General (1988) Forest Estate 1988 Map (1:1,500,000). Surveyor General, Lusaka.
Trapnell, C.G. and Clothier, J.N. (1996) The soils, vegetation and traditional agriculture of Zambia.
Redclifee Press Ltd, Bristol.
UNEP/WWF (2001) Map of Zambezian Miombo/Mopane Woodlands: “Miombo Ecoregion”.
United Nations Environment Program (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, June 1992. UNEP,
Nairobi.
University of Zambia (1987) Middle Zambezi Research Project: Interim report, October 1987. UNZA
(River Basin Research Committee), Lusaka.
Van Gils, H. (1988) Environmental profiles: Western Province, Zambia. ITC, Enschede.
Verboom, R. (1983) Field guide to important arable weeds of Zambia. Department of Agriculture, Mount
Makulu.
Verboom, W.C. (1970-1972) Grasslands of the Southern and Central Provinces of Zambia. Ministry of
Rural Development, Lusaka.
White, F. (1962) Forest flora of Northern Rhodesia. Oxford University Press, London.
World Bank (2003) SEED project appraisal document. World Bank – Private Sector Unit
World Wide Fund for Nature – Zambia (2004) Institutional and Policy Analysis for Protected Areas.
Consultant report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas
Systems Project
World Wide Fund for Nature (2001). Conserving the miombo ecoregion: reconnaissance summary.
WWF-SARPO, Harare.
World Wide Fund for Nature (undated). The birds of Lochinvar National Park. WWF Wetlands Project,
Lusaka.
Yachiyo Engineering (1995) The Water Master Plan for Zambia. Lusaka
Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) (2002) Five-Year Strategic Plan 2003-2007, Volume One, Main
Report. ZAWA, Lusaka
Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) (2002) The Zambia Wildlife Authority Guide to Professional
Hunting in Zambia. ZAWA, Lusaka
143
UNDP PRO DOC
ANNEX 8: MATRIX OF RESPONSES TO GEF COUNCIL COMMENTS
UNDP: PIMS 1937
Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas System
GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation
Comments from Germany
1. Regarding the reclassification of the National System of
Protected Areas, the developments on the international
stage with view to the harmonization of the set of categories
should be taken into account during further planning steps
and project implementation, in order to avoid duplication of
work and to make the available information comparable to
other regions.
Comments from Switzerland:
2. Although the proposal states that the infrastructure
of Zambia’s protected areas is dilapidated and does not
meet international standards it fails to provide solutions
to the problem. The proposed activities concentrate on
(a) generating the policy, regulatory and governance
framework, (b) strengthening the institutional capacity
(ZAWA) and (c) testing innovative private-publiccommunity partnerships via two case studies. If
protected areas are recognized key tourist destinations.
Logically, the basic infrastructure to facilitate tourism
development has to be in place first. The proposal does
not specify infrastructure needs, associated costs, and
how the enhancement of tourism infrastructure will be
accomplished prior to marketing tourism. The product
has to be in place first before revenue can be generated.
Response to Comment

The creation of new categories of PA, and the
reclassification of PA in Zambia, will take into account
developments on the international stage with view to the
harmonization of the set of PA categories. This is
clarified in Paragraph 110.

Infrastructure by itself is not adequate for tourism
development. Investments in effective management are
also necessary in order to restore depleted wildlife
populations. This is explained in Para 32.
The explicit strategy for investments in infrastructure is
presented in the new Paragraph 67. The overall
conservation/reclassification plan will identify spatial and
temporal priorities for conservation. The overriding
current need in Zambia is to strengthen capacities at the
systemic and institutional level, to enhance PA
management effectiveness. First order economic studies
undertaken during the preparatory phase show that PAs
may provide a significant driver for tourism development,
if effectively managed. The GEF / UNDP project will
develop a range of tools and capacities to ensure effective
PA management. While GEF funds will not be allocated
PA infrastructure, partnerships have been established
with the donor community, to ensure infrastructure costs
are met. The aim is to progressively scale up investments
in infrastructure, as foundational PA management
capacity is built.
The project focuses at building capacity at the systemic,
institutional and individual levels for PA management. It
contributes to a process, which is expected to continue
beyond the project life, with funding from Government
and the donor community. Accordingly, a major focus is
placed on integrating the wildlife sector into the PRS, and
other budgetary allocation devices, as needed to assure
continuity of funding over the long term for effective
replication of project outcomes. A six-year time horizon
is considered sufficient to deliver the intended outcomes.
(see Para 178). The changing socio-economic landscape
within Zambia demands that strategies are revised, over
time.

The proposal should also address the problem of how to
meet the expressed need for infrastructure development
for PAs designated as prime tourist destinations
3. The proposed time-frame of six years for the project is
too short to produce meaningful results. It is not possible to
wisely spend 6 million USD in GEF funds plus additional
22 million USD in co-funding within the six year project
cycle.

…The project is of priority concern and should be endorsed
in principle once the concerns raised have been
satisfactorily addressed. This applies in particular to project
duration which should be extended to at least 10 years
while keeping the same budget
4. There also is concern regarding the proposed reclassification of the PA System, in particular regarding the
expected down-grading of National Parks in favour of safari
hunting. Just because a protected area has low tourist
potential does not justify downgrading a National Park into
a hunting concession. National Parks are set aside for
sustainable biodiversity conservation first.

Paragraphs 70, 71 and 97, Bullet 3 lays out the logic for
this proposal. Biodiversity is presently being lost in
Zambia because the PA network suffers from overall
weak management effectiveness. Effective management
of the PA network will demand in turn, the generation of
new revenue streams. Portions of national parks that lack
the necessary infrastructure for tourism development are
cost centers – investments are made in protecting
144
UNDP PRO DOC
GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation
Response to Comment
wildlife, but little or no revenues are generated.

Paragraph 109 has been modified to clarify the logic.

Rezoning inaccessible portions of national parks for
trophy hunting could change these cost centers into profit
centers – at no danger to the wildlife or other biodiversity
of the parks if the trophy hunting is effectively managed.
Such a strategy will allow scarce resources to be used
more effectively to bring a larger portion of the overall
PA estate under effective management – and effective
biodiversity conservation. Rezoning for trophy hunting is
proposed as a strategy for improving the overall
effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in Zambia.

In ecological terms, managing a PA for trophy hunting
does not necessarily involve downgrading. The opening
and maintenance of the roads, lodges, sewer systems, etc
necessary for tourism development of national parks have
significant, unavoidable impacts. The environmental and
biodiversity impacts of hunting are not necessarily larger
than the impacts of roads and tourism development.
5. Although the importance of nature- based tourism in
national parks as a critical revenue generator is fully
acknowledged, tourism interests should not compromise
the ecological integrity of protected areas. In this
context it is outright dangerous to cite South Africa’s
parks such as Pilanesburg or Phinda as models for
Zambia to follow (Figure 1, page 12). Both areas
mentioned are small-sized, encircled by a game-proof
fence, “ecological” islands, totally artificial and
comparable to zoological gardens, They cannot serve as
model for global biodiversity conservation.

Paragraph 29 has been added to make it very clear that
these two parks are not being presented as “models”.
6. Although Zambia has an excellent potential for the
creation of trans-boundary conservation areas that would
strengthen the country’s PA System and dramatically
enhance the tourism industry within a regional context, this
has not been addressed at all by the proposal.

Paragraph 91 has been modified to include the need and
opportunities for transboundary conservation areas in the
overall conservation plan for the PA system
7. Paragraph 70: Trophy Hunting in National Parks is
highly conflictive. To avoid potential problems, especially
with donors who don’t endorse trophy hunting in National
Parks, it is suggested to use “zoning” as a management tool
that would enable this activity.

Bullet 3 of Paragraph 97 makes it clear that zoning is the
preferred option.
8. Paragraph 29: Figure 1 is misleading and raises false
expectations. The parks cited from South Africa should not
serve as models for National Parks to be replicated in
Zambia by downgrading its national parks.

See the response to Comment number 5 above.
9. Paragraph 108:
To create Safari Hunting Areas
inside National Parks just because the parks have low
tourist potential is not justified. Sustainable biodiversity
conservation should come first.

This is covered by the response to Comment number 4
above.
It is strongly recommended that the proposal explore
opportunities for the creation of trans-frontier conservation
areas and the potential for regional tourism including
Zambia's neighbouring countries. This would imply the
generation of an over-arching regional tourism development
plan.
145
UNDP PRO DOC
GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation
Response to Comment
10. Paragraph 126:
Business
plans
and
investment/marketing plans for protected areas are excellent
ideas and follow current international trends.

No response needed
11. Paragraph 166:
The
proposal
provides
insufficient evidence for “country-drivenness” of the
project.

Paragraph 169 has been added. Project development was
lead by a project development secretariat in MTENR. A
Zambian NGO, a Zambian consulting firm and Zambian
consultants under contract with MTENR conducted five
background studies. There was a continuous dialogue
between the project development secretariat and MTENR
officials as the project design evolved through its various
phases. MTENR successfully lead the search for
amicable solutions to disagreements over the choice
between strategic project options. MTENR successfully
organized stakeholder workshops at the two pilot sites.
12. Paragraph 167:
There is some concern regarding
the high number of actors involved in the project. That
makes it difficult to coordinate the different project
components.

The diversity of partners is in line with one of the
recurring themes of the project design – the development
of partnerships for effective PA management. The
necessary coordination mechanisms are already in place,
and will be further strengthened under the project.
13. Paragraph 201:
The risk rating appears too
optimistic reflecting the very high expectations that cannot
be met by the project as presented.

14. Paragraph 202:
The project appears to develop
only the frameworks for investment, but fails to show
where the funds for much needed infrastructure
developments should originate.

The project has been designed based on a thorough
review of the country situation and appropriate
safeguards have been put in place to deal with the risks.
This includes mainstreaming biodiversity into the Poverty
Reduction Strategy and the development of partnership
strategies.
Paragraph 206 has been modified. Investments in
infrastructure for PA access will come primarily from
donors. Investments in effective PA management will
come from ZAWA, GRZ, donors and the full range of PA
management partners. The recent history of donor
support would indicate that these are realistic
expectations. Investments in tourism infrastructure will
come from private sector investors.
Comments from Canada:
16. The Zambian Government has taken decisive steps
since the early 1990s to liberalize the privatize the economy
including the lease of tourist sites to private investors in
Wildlife Protected Areas previously under state control.
This state of affairs does not come out clearly in the project
document.
15. Co-management of wildlife resources in GAME
Management Areas between ZAWA and local
communities is a positive step towards poverty
reduction and empowerment of communities.
However, food security and benefits sharing incentives
should be clearly stated. On the other hand, the local
communities should not only be beneficiaries, but comanagers of the project. In addition, other potential
economic and income-generating opportunities should
be encouraged to avoid over dependency and depletion
of wildlife resources.

See also the response to Comment Number 2.

Paragraph 55 presents Zambia as a leader in the
development of innovative partnerships for PA
management with a variety of groups like Kasanka Trust,
Frankfurt Zoological Society and African Parks.
However, these lease agreements have been done on an
ad hoc basis without any formal policy or legal basis.
This barrier is clearly identified in Paragraph 75.

This is analyzed in Paragraphs 79 to 83 Key points:
ZAWA now shares 45% of revenues with CRB, but
revenue sharing is very different from co-management.
Revenue sharing does not empower communities. And
each CRB covers so many communities that governance
problems of revenue sharing become a major
impediment.

Paragraph 80 states that present Wildlife Act allows for
only partial devolution of authority to GMA
communities.

Paragraph 83 has been added to clarify legal restraints on
sectoral empowerment of communities for NR resource
management. Paragraph 112 states that the project will
146
UNDP PRO DOC
GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation
Response to Comment
undertake legal reform to empower communities to
manage all of their renewable natural resources.
16. Community participation and ownership of the project
for its long-term sustainability should be clearly defined to
include
devolution
of
decision-making
rights,
responsibilities and benefits to local stakeholders,
accomplishment of local participation and ownership of
projects
required
for
sustainable
environmental
conservation and natural resource management.

The project will undertake legal reforms that will
empower communities to control all the resources on
their traditional lands and to make decisions about how
the resources will be used and how the costs and benefits
of resource use will be shared. The project will develop
the legal and institutional framework and the capacities
needed to sustain environmental conservation and natural
resource management.
17. In the past, lack of effective institutional coordination
and information flows at both national and program/project
level has been a major constraint in the environment sector
in Zambia. The GEF Project should therefore identify
institutional structures needed to define roles,
responsibilities and resolve conflict of interests between
stakeholders (traditional leaderships, NGOs, CBOs the
private sector and local communities). The GEF project
should also clearly define the institutional capacity to assist
stakeholders to get fully involved in project activities.

Paragraph 114 – The Natural Resources Consultative
Forum will play a key role in coordination and
information exchange between government and nongovernment stakeholders.

Paragraph 111 The project will develop a clear policy
framework for partnerships for PA management.

Paragraph 112 The project will develop policy guidelines
to clarify the roles of traditional chiefs in NR
management.

Outcome 3.2.3. Paragraphs 116-128 are all about building
capacity of stakeholders.

The project design recognizes poverty and HIV/AIDS as
root causes of the identified barriers rather than barriers
in their own right.

The project design addresses both of these problems.
Wildlife and natural resource management in the CCAs
will be developed as a profit making economic activity
for communities. And Activities 3.4.2. and 3.14.7 of the
logframe provide AIDS awareness and prevention
training at the two field sites.

The project design has sought to achieve an appropriate
balance between global and national benefits. The main
focus of the project is to overcome barriers to effective
PA management by putting PA management on a
sustainable footing, generating economic and financial
benefits for PA stakeholders.

This project is within the GEF strategic priority on
protected areas and focuses on improving the
effectiveness of PA management. It is not directly
focused on CBNRM (See Paragraph 143 under
Alternatives Considered). As that is not the focus of the
project, harmonizing CBNRM systems is beyond the
scope of this project. However, the benefit sharing
schemes and co-management approaches for PAs to be
piloted under the project deal aim explicitly national and
local concerns.

This has been added as an impact indicator to the Project
Objective in the logframe.

Adopting the METT will be an activity of the project.
The modifications to the METT will be based on the
METT shortcomings identified, and the recommended
changes made, in the report “USE OF THE WB/ WWF
MANAGEMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
TRACKING
TOOL (METT) FOR ZAMBIA’S NATIONAL PARKS
18. The GEF project should include poverty and HIV/AIDS
among the key barriers, which may impact on the
sustainability of the project.
19. In addressing Zambia’s environmental issues, external
funded projects should balance global concerns with
national concerns including social/economic opportunities
in the environment sector. Finally, the GEF project should
harmonize the existing Community Based Natural Resource
Management systems and come up with a national system
of CBNRM
Comments from USA:
20. U.S position: Support. Please include the increase in
area under effective conservation management on the cover
page (5.7 million hectare) into the logical framework and
indicate whether this is solely in the protected areas. Also,
please describe how the management effective index is
being adjusted for this project and how the index would be
scored.
147
UNDP PRO DOC
GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation
Response to Comment
AND GMAs” that was done in support of project
development. This report has not been included as an
annex to the Prodoc, but is available through
UNDP/GEF.

The METT questions are currently grouped into six
elements: context, inputs, planning, processes, outputs
and outcomes. It is proposed that the modified METT
will deconstruct the overall score into three groups:
inputs (comprising context and inputs), process
(comprising planning and processes), and outputs
(comprising outputs and outcomes). An overall score
similar to that done for the present METT will be
calculated. In addition, sub-scores grouped by Context,
Planning, Inputs, Processes, Outputs and Outcomes will
be calculated and monitored over time.
148
UNDP PRO DOC
Total Budget and Work plan
United Nations
Programme
Zambia
Development
Year : All
Projet Number :
Projet Title : Reclassification and
Effective
Management
of
Zambia's Protected Areas
Proj.
ID
Expected
Outputs
Key Activities
1.1.1
PA
1.1 Legal/policy/ Reclassification
guidelines draft
Respo
ns
Party Fund Donnor Budget
and
Planned Budget
Total
2005
NEX
62000 10003
Local
71300 consultant
policies lit. review
NEX
1.1.2
Community
management strategy
literature review &
draft
NEX
1.1.3Analysis of role
of
62000 10003
74100Prof services 12,500
12,500
62000 10003
Local
71300 consultant
12,500
12,500
62000 10003
Local
71300 consultant
12,500
12,500
literature review &
draft
NEX
62000 10003
Local
71300 consultant
12,500
12,500
1.2.1 Three regional NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
8,640
4,320
traditional leaders
NEX
1.1.4 Public/private
comm.
(ppc)
partnerships
1.2 Stakeholder
Descrip.
3,000
2006
2007
2008
3,000
4,320
149
2009
2010
UNDP PRO DOC
participation to
workshops
NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
10,500
5,250
5,250
NEX
62000 10003
7,500
7,500
NEX
62000 10003
1,500
1,500
NEX
62000 10003
74100 Prof services 15,000
Materials &
72300 goods
3,000
Local
71300 consultant
1,800
900
900
1.2.2 National stake- NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
2,880
2,880
holder worshop
NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
3,500
3,500
NEX
62000 10003
5,000
NEX
62000 10003
NEX
1.3.1 Finalize legal
1.3 Adoption of text
NEX
new policies/legis 1.3.2 Finalize policy
framework text for
PPC
62000 10003
74100 Prof services 5,000
Materials &
72300 goods
1,000
Local
71300 consultant
600
62000 10003
71600 Travel
5,000
NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
3,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
guide to adoption
NEX
1.3.4
Finalize
guidelines
on role of traditional
62000 10003
71600 Travel
3,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
62000 10003
62000 10003
71600 Travel
3,000
74100 Prof services
1,000
1,000
1,000
amend drafts
partnerships
1,000
600
1,667
1,667
1.3.3 Finalize policy
text for single comm
managt structure and
leaders & comm
1.5 Development 1.5.1
Review
NEX
of NEX
150
1,667
UNDP PRO DOC
of
procedures
3,000
good governance & lessons learned in NEX
62000 10003
& accountability Zambia & the region NEX
62000 10003
NEX
62000 10003
1.5.3 Training in
NEX
procedures
1.5.4
MTENR
oversight
monitoring
3,000
62000 10003
71600 Travel
3,000
Materials &
72300 good
1,000
Local
71300 consultants 40,000
Local
71300 consultants 40,000
13,333 13,333
13,333
NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
3,465
1,155
1,155
NEX
62000 10003
71600 Travel
63,000
21,000 21,000
21,000
NEX
62000 10003
21,000 21,000
21,000
NEX
62000 10003
74100 Prof services 63,000
Materials &
72300 good
21,000
Equip&
72200 furniture
40,000
Rent&maint(
73400 VEH)
36,833
Info
72800 TechEquip 1,500
Info
72800 TechEquip 1,500
7,000
7,000
72500 Suplies
12,000
12,000
71600 Travel
1,000
1,000
449,218
275,792 98,938
Improve
&
of implementation of
PA
sector
laws/policies
NEX
IO 1 Subtotal
3,000
62000 10003
1,000
40,000
1,155
7,000
40,000
36,833
1,500
1,500
66,488
4,667
1,667 1,667
Immedi
ate
objectiv
e2
151
UNDP PRO DOC
2.1 Identification
of
2.1.1 Compilation of NEX
62000 10003 74100 Prof services
3,000
3,000
priority sites for existing data, refine NEX
reclassification methodology & set
criteria & targets,
including
s/holder
wshop
2.1.2
Identify
candidate
NEX
sites for reclassificati
2.13
Validation/verific
NEX
ation of candidate site
62000 10003 72100 Cont servi comp
50,000
25,000 25,000
62000 10003 72100 Cont servi comp
140,000
70,000 70,000
62000 10003 72100 Cont servi comp
150,000
2.1.4 Final synthesis NEX
to produce priority
listing
for
PA
reclassif
2.2 Development
UNOP
of
2.2.1 Apply economic S
economics
&analysis to better
busin
defin
NEX
planning tools
PA managt priorities
UNOP
2.2.2 Determine cost S
62000 10003 72100 Cont servi comp
30,000
30,000
37,908
37,908
62000 10003 71300 Local Consultant
20,000
20,000
62000 10003 71200 Int consultant
24,000
12,000 12,000
coefficients of public/ NEX
private/comm
partners
62000 10003 71300 Local consultant
14,605
7,303
2.2.3 Strengthen local NEX
62000 10003 72100 Contr svc-Comp
10,000
5,000
instit capacities thru NEX
62000 10003 72100 Contr svc-Comp
20,000
10,000
the use of business
62000 10003 72100 Contr svc-Comp
45,000
NEX
6200 10003 71200 Int consultant
150,000
7,303
5,000
10,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
152
UNDP PRO DOC
planning for
PA
manag
NEX 62000 10003 74500 MiscExpenses
2.2.4
Develop UNOP
investm
S
62000 10003 71200 Intl Consultant
profiles for priority
unmanaged Pas
UNOP
2.2.5 Define PPC
S
62000 10003 71200 Intl Consultant
partnerships best suit
for unmanaged Pas
2.3 Development 2.3.1 Modify METT NEX
for Zambian context
of effective monit &
NEX
&
evaluation
systm
apply to priority Pas
2.4.1 Integration of NEX
Reclassification
priorities,
NEX
business
planning
tools
NEX
improved M&E and
other
NEX
management
tools
into over
NEX
conservation plan
60,000
40,000
50,544
35,097
6,666
62000 10003 71300 Local Consults
63,000
63,000
62000 10003 74100 Prof services
3,000
3,000
10,000
10,000
16,848
16,848
16,848
9,477
9,477
9,477
6200 10003 71600 Travel
8,640
8,640
62000 10003 71600 Travel
10,500
10,500
62000 10003 74100 Prof services
20,000
20,000
62000 10003 72300 Materials&goods
5,000
5,000
62000 10003 71400 Cont svc-Individ
2,400
2,400
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,880
2,880
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
6,500
6,500
NEX
62000 10003 74100 Prof services
3,000
3,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
37,908
18,954
18,954
NEX 62000 10003 71300 Local Consult
UNOP
S
62000 10003 71200 Intl Consult
153
UNDP PRO DOC
NEX
62000 10003 71300 Local Consult
10,000
5,000
5,000
NEX
62000 10003 71300 Local Consult
10,000
5,000
5,000
NEX
62000 10003 71300 Local Consult
20,000
20,000
2.4.4 Develop invest NEX
plan for national syst
of PAs
2.4.5
Develop
marktin
NEX
plan to attract invest
partners
62000 10003 71300 Local Consult
20,000
10,000
10,000
62000 10003 71300 Local Consult
20,000
10,000
10,000
IO 2 Subtotal
942,982
Respo
nsible
Proj. Expected
ID
Outputs
Key Activities
Party Fund
Bangweulu Field Demonstration site
3.1.1 Identify &
3.1 Awareness develop
NEX
raising & twoprofiles
of
all
way
s/holders
3.1.2
Meet
with
dialogue with
traditional
NEX
leaders,
CRB
&
s/holders on the community
NEX
representatives, govt
Bangweulu field authorities
Demo
site3.1.3
Conduct
objective
awareness
NEX
and participatory Raising
&develop
241,211 325,969 60,000
Planned Budget
Donno
Descriptio
r
Budget n
Total
2005
62000 10003 71600 Travel
7,000
7,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
5,000
5,000
2006
2007
154,199
115,279 46,325
2008
154
2009
2010
UNDP PRO DOC
approach
3.2 Strategic
infrastructure
established
2way
dialogue with all
project
area
communities
3.2.1
Establish
telecom
network
NEX
3.2.2 Repair/open
NEX
strategic access roads NEX
&landing strips
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
3.2.3
Build,
rehabilitate
NEX
&equip
offices/facilitate
NEX
lodging for project NEX
Comm&Au
62000 10003 72400 dioEq
70,000
Contr svc62000 10003 72100 comp
120,000
NP salary
62000 10003 61100 costs
240,000
NP salary
62000 10003 61100 costs
150,000
NP salary
62000 10003 61100 costs
150,000
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
93,600
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
93,600
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
57,600
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
5,400
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
28,800
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
14,400
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
36,000
MiscellExp
62000 10003 74500 ens
26,100
Rental&
62000 10003 73100 mainte
60,000
Equip
&
62000 10003 72200 furniture 5,000
62000 10003 72200 Equip
&
70,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
900
900
900
900
900
900
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
4,350
4,350
4,350
4,350
4,350
4,350
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
155
UNDP PRO DOC
3.3 Cost effective 3.3.1 Evaluate current NEX
protection/enforc Enforcement
&
e
develop
established
for
wildlife &
an integrated, cost
other
NR
ineffective
incentive
project
based
area based on
cons
enforcement plan
with communities
3.3.2
Recruit/redeploy
NEX
& equip community
scouts
NEX
WPO & implement
enforcement
plan
3.3.3 Provide training NEX
of
community
scouts/WPO
&
implement
enforcement plan
3.3.4 Provide enforce NEX
training
to
PA
managers
3.4 Increased
3.4.1 Conduct village NEX
capacity
for
community
level workshops on
managers
for
planning
strategic capacities
, governance,
needed
during
furniture 20,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 consultants 5,000
General
62000 10003 72000 OpExp
General
62000 10003 72000 OpExp
5,000
20,000
5,000
5,000
105,000 20,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
18,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
15,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
45,000
3,000
45,000
156
UNDP PRO DOC
reclassification
record keeping,
fin
planning
management,
3.4.2
Conduct
gender
training
NEX
Empowerment
&HIV
w/shops for CRB/
AIDS awareness
&
CCA managers
prevention
3.4.3 Exchange visits NEX
with other community
PA
management/CBNR
M pilot
projects in Zambia &
Sub region
3.4.4 Develop &
implement
NEX
conservation
awareness
education program
3.5
3.5.1
Compile
/
Reclassification analyse
NEX
existing
spatial
options identified inform
based
on3.5.2
Acquire
/
biophysical
analyse
NEX
&socioeconomic satellite imagery of
studies completed field demo site
3.5.3 Conduct aerial NEX
survey of project area
to complement image
analysis
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
30,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
16,000
5,000
4,000
4,000
3,000
Audio
62000 10003 74200 Visual
14,000
4,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
1,000
1,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
25,000
25,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
25,000
25,000
5,000
5,000
2,000
2,000
157
UNDP PRO DOC
3.5.5
Conduct
technical &
NEX
participatory surveys
for fishery resources
3.5.6 Field survey to NEX
identify
national
heritage
sites
3.5.7
Conduct
community
NEX
survey
using
participatory
62000 10003 71600 Travel
25,000
25,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
5,000
5,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
1,000
1,000
General
operating
62000 10003 72000 exp.
7,500
5,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
5,000
5,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
10,000
10,000
techniques
3.5.8 Synthesize and NEX
2,500
analyse all studies
conducted to develop
a preliminary set of
Reclassification
&zoning options
3.6
Plan
for
reclassification 3.6.1 Village level
NEX
of PA and for
land
w/shops to present
reclassification
use zoning within options
PA & open areas to facilitate debate &
negotiation for new
is developed with PA
strong a/holder
3.6.2 Higher level
NEX
158
UNDP PRO DOC
participation
w/shops to debate
reclassification
options
3.6.3
Conduct
financial
NEX
feasibility analyses of
reclassification
options
3.6.4
Central
workshop
NEX
to agree on PA
reclassification
options
3.6.5
Prepare
&
distribute
NEX
draft
reclassification/land
use
NEX
zoning plan
3.6.6 Final central
NEX
w/shop to make final
amendments to plan
3.7
Creation/3.7.1 Apply legal
reclassification prece
NEX
3.7.2
Modify
&
of PA completed register
NEX
Community
management
structures
3.7.3 Organise formal NEX
Inauguration
ceremony
for
new
Misc.
62000 10003 74500 expenses
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
3,500
3,500
62000 10003 71600 Travel
1,500
1,500
62000 10003 71600 Travel
1,500
1,500
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
5,000
5,000
3,000
3,000
MiscellExp
62000 10003 74500 ens
5,000
5,000
159
UNDP PRO DOC
reclassification
options
3.8 Sustainable
NR
3.8.3 Develop mgt
NEX
management
systems
plans for testing mgt
of wildlife, fisheries
developed for
&
community
managed PA
other NR
3.8.4 Develop NR
based
NEX
revenue generating
activities
3.8.6
Develop
community
NEX
based M&E systems
3.8.7
Develop
business
NEX
plans
for
each
community
mgt structure
3.8.8
Each
community
NEX
holds annual adaptive
mgt reviews
62000 10003 71600 Travel
10,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
10,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 consultant 25,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 consultant 3,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
Subtotal Bangweulu
Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Demonstration Site
3.9.1 Identify &
3.9 Awareness develop
NEX
Raising
&twoprofiles
of
all
way
s/holders
25,000
2,000
3,000
2,000
1,617,500 496,250 245,250 233,250 216,250
62000 10003 71600 Travel
1,000
213,250 213,250
1,000
160
UNDP PRO DOC
dialogue with
3.9.2 High level meet NEX
to discuss project
s/holders on the objectives
Chiawa /LZ field targets, outcomes and
demo
siteparticipatory
objectiv
approach
&participatory 3.9.3
Awareness
app
raising
NEX
& two way dialogue
with all project area
com
3.10 Strategic
infrastructure
established
3.10.1 Est & maintain NEX
telecommunication
network
3.10.2 Repair/open NEX
strategic access road
and landing strips
3.10.3
Build
/
rehabilitate
NEX
and equip offices/
facilities/
NEX
lodging for project
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,000
2,000
AudioVisua
62000 10003 74200 l
2,000
2,000
Rnt&maint
62000 10003 73300 (IT)
19,667
4,667
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
Contr
62000 10003 71400 Indiv
7,000
6,334
6,666
6,667
6,667
6,667
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
8,333
8,333
8,333
8,333
8,333
8,333
6,667
6,667
6,667
6,667
6,667
6,667
8,000
10,500
10,500
8,000
10,500
10,500
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
Svc
40,000
Contr Svc
62000 10003 72100 Com
30,000 30,000
Contr Svc
62000 10003 72100 Com
20,000 20,000
Equip&
62000 10003 72200 furniture 145,000 145,000
62000 10003 72500 Supplies 12,000
Gen Operat
62000 10003 72000 Exp
50,000
Gen Operat
62000 10003 72000 Exp
40,000
Gen Opera
62000 10003 72000 tExp
58,000
Rnt &maint
62000 10003 73400 VEH
24,000
62000 10003 74100 Prof Svc
161
UNDP PRO DOC
34,000
6,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 Consult
15,000
15,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 Consult
1,000
3.11.3 Conduct aerial NEX
survey of project area
to
complement
image
analysis
62000 10003 71600 Travel
6,000
6,000
3.11.4 Field survey to NEX
identify
national
heritage
sites
3.11.5
Conduct
community
NEX
Survey in & around
Chiawa
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
6,000
6,000
3.11.1
Compile
3.11 Background existing
NEX
surveys
data
&
conduct
completed
biological
for
reclassification &ecological
planning
survey/anal
3.11.2
Acquire
&analyse
NEX
satellite imagery
3.11.6 Synthesize and NEX
analyse all studies to NEX
develop a preliminary
reclass & zoning
3.12 One or more 3.12.1 Village level
new communities
merged
w/shops to debate
NEX
Cont
svc
62000 10003 74100 Indiv
5,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
3,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
3,000
6,000
6,000
4,000
6,000
1000
5,000
3,000
3,000
162
6,000
UNDP PRO DOC
CCA
are
established on the reclass options
basis of public/ 3.12.2 High level
Private
partnership
w/shops to debate
to
provide
effective
reclass options
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
4,000
4,000
conservation of 3.12.3 facilitate the NEX
ecosystems with negotiation of CCA
species of global boarders & zoning
of
global3.12.4
Develop
importance
appropriate
NEX
Community
management
structures
62000 10003 71600 Travel
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
1,200
600
3.12.5 Apply the legal NEX
procedures for gazette
of the new CCA
3.12.6
Organise
formal
NEX
inauguration
ceremony
for new/ reclassified
PA
3.13.1
3.13 Sustainable Evaluatepresent
NEX
PA
enforcement
NR mgt systems system
& develop a cost
are developed for effective
the new CCA
incentive based
enforcement
3.13.2
Recruit/ NEX
600
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
5,000
5,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
3,000
3,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 Consult
5,000
5,000
62000 10003 74100 Prof
163
UNDP PRO DOC
redeploy
& equip additional
NEX
community &WPO
scouts
3.13.3
Provide
training
NEX
of
community
scouts& WPO
3.13.4 Implement
NEX
enforcement plan
3.13.5 Develop a
wlife
NEX
mgt & investment
plan
for the new CCA
3.13.6
Identify,
analyse
NEX
& prioritise biodiverst
products& mkt chains
3.13.7 Develop NR NEX
mgt techniques for
priority biodiversity
products
3.13.8 Develop NR
revenue generating
activities
NEX
3.14 The needed 3.14.1 Conduct tring NEX
w/shops
for
capacities for
CRB/CCA
NEX
sustainable mgt
of
managers
NEX
services
Furn&
62000 10003 72200 Equipt
10,000
10,000
26,665
4,445
4,444
4,444
4,444
4,444
4,444
62000 10003 72500 Supplies
15,333
2,833
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
Gen Operat
62000 10003 72000 Exp
28,333
3,333
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 Consult
5,282
5,000
282
62000 10003 71600 Travel
3,000
1,000
2,000
Local
62000 10003 71300 Consult
8,500
8,500
Local
62000 10003 71300 Consult
20,000
20,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
35,000
5,833
5,833
5,833
5,833
5,833
5,833
62000 10003 71600 Travel
8,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
10,000
5,000
5,000
164
UNDP PRO DOC
the new CCA are
NEX
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
8,000
4,000
4,000
NP salary
62000 10003 61100 costs
977,610 162,935 162,935 162,935 162,935 162,935 162,935
GS salary
62000 10003 61200 costs
121,410 20,235 20,235 20,235 20,235 20,235 20,235
developed
NEX
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
185,600 30,000
35,600
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
Furn&
62000 10003 72200 Equipt
Furn
62000 10003 72200 &Equipt
GenOpera
62000 10003 72000 tExp
Rnt&maint
62000 10003 73400 VEH
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
52,450
5,783
9,333
9,333
9,333
9,333
140,000 15,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
36,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
42,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
62000 10003 73100 Rnt&maint 110,000 10,000
Furn&Equi
62000 10003 72200 pt
30,000 30,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
62000 10003 72500 Supplies 60,000
GenOperat
62000 10003 72000 Exp
1,000
Rent
&
maintenanc
62000 10003 73300 e (IT)
23,600
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
105,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
48,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
100
180
180
180
180
180
3,600
3,600
5,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
10,000
20,000
20,000
15,000
20,000
20,000
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
UNOP
S
UNOP
S
9,333
112,000 112,000
15,000
15,000
18,000
12,000
18,000
20,000
165
UNDP PRO DOC
UNOP
S
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
NEX
62000 10003 71600 Travel
36,000
Furniture
&Equipme
62000 10003 72200 nt
5,000
Furniture
&Equipme
62000 10003 72200 nt
1,500
6,000
62000 10003 72500 Supplies 24,000
Rnt&maint(
62000 10003 73300 IT)
15,000
Prof
62000 10003 74100 services
33,150
62000 10003 71600 Travel
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
NEX
3.14.3 Development
of
NEX
capacities for good
governance
3.14.7
Develop
HIVAID
NEX
awareness program,
understanding of links
to environtal degradat
3.15
ZAWA3.15.1
Conduct
managed
ZAWA
NEX
hunting
area
created
mged SHA options
out
of
the
mountain
w/shop
portion of LZNP 3.15.2 Undertake the NEX
formal
gazetting/
reclassification
of LZNP/ZMHA
54,000
54,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
5,525
5,525
5,525
5,525
5,525
5,525
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
GenOperat
62000 10003 72000 Exp
10,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
3,000
3,000
62000 10003 71600 Travel
5,000
2,500
7,000
5,000
1,500
2,500
166
UNDP PRO DOC
Chiawa/LZ Subtotal
2,990,300 800,840 467,851 424,352 424,752
Grand Total
6,000,000 1,814,092 1,138,008 784,090
400,252 472,252
799,868 730,448 733,494
167
UNDP PRO DOC
United Nations Development Programme
Global Environment Facility
SIGNATURE PAGE
Country: Zambia
UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s):
National Strategies for sustainable development for
integrating of economic, social and environmental issues
Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s):
Goal: Ensuring Environmental sustainability
Service line 3.2 Frameworks and strategies for
sustainable development
Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s):
Management
1. Draft Policy & legal Framework for PA
2. Plan for Reclassification of PA System
3. Sustainable natural resources management systems
developed
5. Cost-effective biodiversity conservation method
involving communities
and Private sector established
and adopted
6. Capacity for PA management enhanced
7. PA Monitoring and Evaluation Plan developed &
implemented
Implementing partner:
Other Partners:
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, MTENR
UNDP CO, ZAW, Department of. Forestry and Fisheries,
Kasanka Trust& CLZ
Programme Period: 2005-2011
Programme Component:
Energy
and
environment
sustainable development
Project Title:
Reclassification and Effective
Management of National Protected
Areas System
Project ID:
ZMB 10 0043458
Project Duration:
6 Years
Management Arrangement: NEX
Agreed by:
On behalf of:
Signature
Date
for
GEF PDF B
GEF FULL PROJECT
Total GEF Budget
Allocated Resources:
Co-financing
(parallel
funding/other resources)
UNDP
National Contribution
Others
Sub-Total Co-financing
TOTAL Budget
334,000
6,000,000
6,334,000
2,000,000
12,310,000
20,781,000
35,091,000
41,425,000
Name/Title
Government of Zambia:
Mrs. P. Mwanagala Permanent Secretary, MFNP,
(B&EA)
Implementing Partner
/Executing Agency:
Mr. R. Mulele Permanent Secretary, MTENR
UNDP:
Mr. A.C. Chuma UNDP Zambia
Resident Representative
169