Project Manager - Global Environment Facility

M EDIUM SIZED P ROJECT B RIEF

THE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE

CORRIDOR IN TANZANIA

P ROJECT S UMMARY

P ROJECT I DENTIFIERS

1 Project Name: The Development and

Management of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife

Corridor in Tanzania

3. Country in which the project is being implemented: Tanzania

5. GEF Focal Area(s): Biodiversity

2. GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP

4. Country Eligibility: Tanzania ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 8th March 1996

6. Operational Program: Strategic Priority 1 ;

Catalysing sustainability of protected areas. Forest

Ecosystems (OP3).

7.

Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs:

Tanzania regards its wildlife as both a unique natural heritage and a resource that is of great importance, both nationally and globally. Its importance lies in the biological diversity of the species and habitats found in the country. This project is firmly based on these national priorities. The National Environmental Action Plan

(1994), the National Conservation Strategy (1995), the Environment Policy (1997) and both the Wildlife and

Forest Policies (1998) stress the importance of a viable Protected Areas Network and the need to maintain transboundary linkages. Tanzania has established a network of protected areas covering some 25% of the land surface as a basis for conserving its country’s biological diversity. The new Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (WPT)

(1998) directs Government to focus on the following objectives:



Maintaining and developing the wildlife protected areas network by involving all stakeholders in the conservation and management, especially local communities.



Facilitating the establishment of a new category of protected area, known as Wildlife Management Area

(WMA), where people have the mandate to manage and benefit from their conservation efforts thus taking care of corridors, migration routes and buffer zones.



Cooperating with neighbouring countries in the conservation of migratory species and the transboundary ecosystems.

Community participation forms an integral focus of the WPT and hinges on wildlife protection and utilisation.

Four WPT objectives support community participation in the protection and utilisation of wildlife resources.

These are as follows:



To promote the conservation of wildlife and its habitats outside core protected areas by establishing

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs).



To transfer the management of WMAs to local communities thus taking care of corridors, migration routes and buffer zones as well as to ensure that local communities obtain substantial and tangible benefits from wildlife conservation.



To ensure that wildlife is appropriately valued in order to reduce illegal off-take and to encourage sustainable use by rural communities.



To create an enabling environment, which will ensure that legal and sustainable wildlife schemes directly benefit local communities.

In January 2003 the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism manifested the intention of the WPT regarding community-based conservation with the endorsement of the Wildlife Management Area Regulations and the

MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 1

Guidelines for the Designation and Management of WMAs.

The National Forest Policy of 1998 emphasises the role of forestry in rural development and conservation through the sustainable supply of forest products, increased employment and income earnings and ecosystem stability, forest biodiversity, water catchment and soil fertility. It also recognises the role of community involvement in natural resources management and particularly addresses the issue of community forests. It introduces the concept of Village Forest Reserves managed by village governments or other designated entities by village governments based on sustainable management objectives.

Both Wildlife and Forest Policies provide for conservation and sustainable management of natural resources on village land aiming to provide for a win-win situation between conservation and sustainable development/livelihoods. This is in line with the countries development strategies in particular the second phase of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) that includes sustainable resource use as a means to alleviate and eliminate poverty as a major determinant.

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (awaiting approval from cabinet), stresses the importance of community involvement in natural resource management and conservation and transboundary natural resource management.

8.

GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement:

Letter from OFP of 2000 is in Annex 1.

A.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES

1.

Project Rationale and Objectives:

Rationale:

The Selous – Niassa Wildlife corridor is classified as a threatened miombo woodland ecosystem linking the

Selous and Niassa Game Reserves, two of the largest protected areas in Tanzania and Mozambique. If the predicted development pressures on this Corridor are not addressed this corridor and associated conservation

Impact indicators: benefits could lose its ecological integrity and so conservation role in the next six - seven years.

Goal

Wide scale adoption of the Wildlife Management



50% of land currently within Game Controlled

Areas Initiative throughout the country increases area Area status is protected for conservation purposes of land under biodiversity conservation. through the WMA initiative by 2010.



National population numbers of key species and habitats found outside formal protected areas maintained or enhanced by 2010.



Increased number of people involved in biodiversity conservation activities through the

Purpose

WMA initiative.

Biodiversity and habitat are conserved in the globally significant Selous - Niassa miombo forest corridor of 

Tanzania.

By the end of the project 15,000 ha of land within the corridor is protected for conservation purposes through the WMA initiative.



By the end of the project monitoring confirms no further loss of land to agricultural or other


Immediate Objectives

1. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor is effectively conserved, with the establishment of a network of village wildlife management areas that are protected, managed and utilised sustainably by the local communities with the assistance of Local

Government and Wildlife Division.

2. Benefits from wildlife management enhance the livelihood security of villages with WMAs, and promote the long-term conservation of the corridor. intensive land use purposes in the identified corridor area



By the end of the project poaching incidences within the corridor are reduced by 60 % from the baseline developed by SCP (year 1 of project)



Population numbers of key species maintained or enhanced from the baseline developed by the SCP

(Year 1 of project)



By the end of the project a system of WMAs, cover

15,000ha is developed and functional within the

Niassa-Selous corridor



By the end of the project 12 community leaders and authorities within the corridor are trained to manage natural resources issues



Local communities from 12 target villages are fully involved in the WMA process by the end of the project with recognition of the value of WMAs.



By the end of the project monitoring confirms that agricultural activities and settlements do not prevent wildlife movements



Independent monitoring confirms that, by the end of the project, 6 villages receive an increase in financial or other benefits from the WMAs.



Five years after the project ends WMAs are still being actively managed and are conserving the

Performance Indicators:

Over 30% of households in the local community are targeted in awareness raising activities by end of year 3

Exchange visits are undertaken by at least ten community members from each village to WMAs in the northern sector of the corridor by end of year 3

Annual exchange visits undertaken by local and district authority personnel to WMAs in the northern corridor by end of year 3.

Formal meeting undertaken each year between Wildlife

Authorities of Selous/Rovuma of Tanzania and Niassa

GR of Mozambique

Completed GIS database for ecological and socioeconomic data for the corridor by the end of year 3 wildlife corridor

Project Outputs

1 Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among local communities, local and

District Authorities.

GEF contribution: $184,450

Others contribution: $ 200,000

Total: $384,450

2 Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to serve as decisionmaking tools for communities and local authorities


Others contribution: $340,000

Total: $458,580

3 A network of WMA associations effectively established and managed throughout the corridor


Database being actively used to inform management decisions by end of year 3.

Ten members of the community from each of the 12 target villages trained to implement WMA after 1½


Others contribution: $370,000

Total: $909,905

Output 4. Protection of the Sasawara Forest

Reserve through community participation


Others contribution: $50,000 (Govt)

Total: $101,335

Output 5: Dissemination of best practice for community managed protected areas

GEF contribution $ 92,230

Others contribution $100,000 (Govt)

Total $192,230 years.

Mapping of boundaries of the WMAs completed with the participation of 12 target villages by end of year 2.

WMA management plan developed and under implementation with the participation of all 12 target villages by end of year 2.

Official records and documents of the gazettement of

WMAs and AAs by end of year 2.

120 village scouts trained and equipped for antipoaching exercises by end of year 2.

At least 2 income generating projects in each village based on sustainable utilisation of natural resources by end of year 3.

Records and official Memorandum of Understanding for joint management of Sasawara Forest Reserve by end of year 2.

Joint Management Plan developed and being implemented by end of year 2

Existence of an active network of participants of WMA initiatives by year 2.

At least 2 newsletters produced and disseminated annually to encourage replication of best practices

Participation of project staff and community representatives in 2 WMA fora annually

Completed case study of Selous-Niassa WMA experience disseminated to policy leaders of WPT with lessons on Protected Area System Planning, design and monitoring.

At least 3 visits to project sites undertaken by policy leaders by the end of the project.

At least 3 visits to project sites undertaken by targeted government staff by the end of the project.

2.

Estimated Budget (in US$)

GEF:

Co-financing:

Sub-total:

TOTAL:

GTZ/SCP

986,500 US$

500,000

IZW/GTZ 340,000

Govt Input 160,000

UNDP –SGP 60,000

1,060,000 US $

2,046,500 US$


INFORMATION ON INSTITUTION SUBMITTING PROJECT BRIEF

Information on project proposer : Selous Conservation Programme of Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

Date of initial submission of project concept: First draft submitted in November 1999

B.

INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

3.

Project Identification Number: PIMS 1135

4.

Implementing Agency contact person:

Dr. Alan Rodgers, Regional Coordinator for Biodiversity, GEF/UNDP; <alan.rodgers@undp.org>

Sharon Laws, Technical Expert, Biodiversity, GEF/UNDP; sharon.laws@undp.org

Project linkage to Implementing Agency program:



UNDP Tanzania has a long history of support to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism through both project support from TRAC and trust fund resources, and project activity with GEF (Cross Borders,

Mnazi Bay, Eastern Arc projects).



UNDP is a major partner with the Government of Tanzania in a programme that is mainstreaming natural resource and environment issues into the second generation of Tanzania’s PRSP. This programme involves considerable partnerships with all Divisions of the Natural Resource Ministry.



UNDP has a substantive focus on governance issues and poverty alleviation/livelihoods support.

Governance involves decentralisation and community empowerment; issues which underpin the philosophy of this project through the WMA framework. A core element of this project is enhanced livelihoods; and

UNDP has direct experience of working with and empowering women’s groups in Songea districts for livelihood enhancement. The Small Grants Programme of UNDP has linkages in Rovuma Region; and

UNDP TRAC resources for Small Grants are expected to co-finance livelihood support during the project lifetime (confirmation before work programme approval).


T HE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SELOUS NIASSA WILDLIFE CORRIDOR IN

TANZANIA

COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

Country Eligibility

1. Tanzania ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 8 th March 1996. Tanzania is eligible for technical assistance from UNDP.

Country Drivenness

2. Tanzania has established a network of traditional protected areas covering some 25% of the land surface as a basis for conserving its country’s biological diversity. Recognising the limitations of the ‘fines and fences’ conservation approach, the Government of Tanzania is now seeking to embrace local communities in conservation initiatives. Currently, under the

Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (WPT) 1998, efforts are underway to devolve some management responsibilities to local communities by establishing a new category of protected area, known as Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) thereby creating an opportunity for communities to directly benefit from wildlife schemes. WMAs are provided for under the new Wildlife Bill

(2004) expected to be enacted by Parliament this year. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism endorsed regulations and guidelines for the design and management of WMA’s in January 2003. The WMA initiative is in its infancy and is being piloted in sixteen areas in

Tanzania. The WMA’s will complement existing formal protected areas, improve biodiversity conservation by increasing the area of land under protection whilst at the same time contribute to the improvement of livelihoods of local communities. WMAs are legal entities, established by formal gazettement process after approval at national and local level.

As with other PAs, they can be degazetted at the agreement of all parties. WMAs (and Village

Forest Reserves) remain as village land (i.e. they cannot be appropriated for private sector development; but they are legally designated for the purpose of resource conservation. This project, which aims to conserve the Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor through the formation of

WMAs, will build upon experiences in the buffer zone to the Selous Game Reserve, which forms the northern part of the corridor under the Selous Conservation Programme (SCP). The

Selous – Niassa Corridor is of specific national importance as a key part of the “Rovuma or

Mtwara Corridor Development Zone” (see below) for which tourism opportunity is a major component. This intervention will also be instrumental to informing the creation of other

WMAs throughout the country.

3. The SCP is an initiative of the Wildlife Division, supported by GTZ, one component of which aims to reduce pressures on the Selous Game Reserve by working with local communities in the surrounding buffer zones. Through the implementation of the WMA process this programme will improve the livelihoods of local communities whilst at the same time ensuring conservation objectives are met. Wildlife, if it is to be conserved, must be seen to produce tangible benefits, which enhances the quality of the lives of rural communities.

There is presently still little competition between human and wildlife interests in extensive areas of the Corridor. This provides an ideal situation in which to introduce wildlife utilisation schemes from which rural communities fully benefit. The Wildlife Division wishes to extend the SCP programme to cover the whole of the Selous-Niassa corridor. PDF A activities, which formed the basis for this proposal, supported a number of planning workshops attended by Regional, District and local authorities, village chairman and other associated stakeholders. Support for the project was high.

4. Sasawara Forest Reserve is the only protected area in the wildlife corridor and so becomes a key satellite site in the corridor area. The Forest Department has requested assistance in the development of a collaborative forest management (CFM) process for Sasawara under this


proposed project. The concept of CFM through village governments based on sustainable management objectives is highlighted in the National Forest Policy of 1998. This project aims to build upon experiences elsewhere in the country to conserve the Sasawara Forest using a community participatory approach.

5. The Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor project offers the opportunity to test conservation through a community-based approach. The experiences will be used to inform and influence the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, in particularly the WMA initiative. If successful, experiences will be replicated throughout the country thereby contributing to the development of a national network of community managed protected areas.

6. The implementation of the project will build on:

 Sustainable natural resource management through the creation of a network of Wildlife

Management Areas in the Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor. This is guided by the Wildlife

Policy of Tanzania, and subsequent regulations and guidelines.

 Community Based Forest Management guided by the Forestry Policy of Tanzania, and subsequent guidelines.

 A focus on transboundary conservation issues as highlighted in the NBSAP, WPT and the

Mtwara Corridor project concept.

 Capacity building to transfer management responsibility and promote local initiatives in the direct management of biodiversity, in compliance with the policy of decentralization adopted by the Government.

Endorsement

7. The GEF Operational Focal Point has endorsed the project; see Annex 1.

PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

Program Designation & Conformity

8. The proposed community based project in the Selous-Niassa corridor is consistent with

Operational Program 3: Forest ecosystems. Furthermore, the project will directly address

GEF Strategic Priority I in the biodiversity focal area: Catalyzing Sustainability for Protected

Areas.

In particular sub activity 1) improve opportunities for sustainable use, benefit sharing and broad stakeholder participation among communities – indigenous groups and private sector.

The focus of the project is on building the capacities of local communities to manage and benefit from the utilization of land for wildlife conservation. . In this way the project will enable Tanzania to expand its area of land under protection using a new conservation paradigm in a cost effective manner. Under the guidance of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania this project will contribute to the development of a network of community managed protected areas that in turn, as a linking corridor, will support the sustainability of the two formal Game

Reserves.

9. Most forest and biodiversity destruction is a result of social and economic factors. The project will address these pressures through activities that devolve management responsibilities to local communities creating an environment for communities to directly benefit from wildlife as a form of land use. Project components are being developed and tested as a replicable model for similar unprotected yet valuable eco-systems found in rural areas. This will be achieved by building the capacities and awareness of the local communities to translate the Wildlife Policy and Forest Policy of Tanzania, in particular the formation of Wildlife Management Areas and Village Forest Reserves, into practice. By ensuring the communities derive tangible benefits from the wildlife and natural resources on


their land, community participation in the sustainable use of wildlife populations and other natural resources will be assured.

Project Context

10. Twenty five percent of Tanzania’s surface is protected under the traditional conservation paradigm. Whilst this approach is important for conserving biodiversity (see the National

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan) the conservation community is increasingly recognising the value of community based conservation approaches to complement these formal protected areas. This is critical in a country where livelihoods are so dependent upon natural resources. In the past the alienation of key stakeholders from management of resources has been a considerable limitation to achieving biodiversity conservation goals.

The Government of Tanzania has recognised that an alternative management technique, that embraces local communities, is necessary and, through the introduction of the Wildlife Policy and specifically the WMA initiative, has created the environment in which this can be achieved. Currently however limited knowledge and capacities are barriers preventing this policy being translated into action. Whilst WMA’s have been trialed in some areas, experience is limited, and unless special efforts are made there is a danger that the opportunities presented by the WMA initiative may not be captured to their full extent. This project aims to facilitate a progression towards a network of viable community managed protected areas by removing key barriers that currently hinder the wide adoption of WMAs throughout the country. By developing capacities and knowledge, and raising awareness of this valuable tool at a number of levels in society, the project will increase the land under biodiversity conservation and complement the formal protected area system in Tanzania whilst at the same time improving livelihoods.

11. The Selous Game Reserve is Tanzania’s largest Protected Area, with globally significant wildlife and habitat values. The Selous has become a model of conservation development, with tourist hunting providing significant and sustainable financial returns. The Selous-Niassa miombo woodland ecosystem of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique is one of the largest and most significant trans-boundary natural ecosystems in Africa, covering over

154,000 km 2 . 110,685km 2 of this ecosystem is conserved through various categories of protection (Annex 3). Two Game Reserves are critical for the protection of this globally important area; the Selous Game Reserve, covering 47,000km 2 making it the largest protected area in eastern and central Africa, and the Niassa Game Reserve of Mozambique - one of

Mozambique’s largest PA’s of 42.400 km 2 .

12. The Selous – Niassa wildlife corridor consists of natural miombo woodland covering

8000 km 2 of sparsely settled area over a distance of 160 km, that provides a significant biological link between the Selous Game Reserve to the Ruvuma River (a large wide permanently flowing waterway), which forms the International Boundary between Tanzania and Mozambique. The Niassa Game Reserve is on the southern bank of the Ruvuma River.

13. The northern part of the corridor, of some 3,000 sq km and 60 km in length, runs from the

Selous GR southwards to the Songea-Tunduru main road. This is protected through the

“North East Undendeule Forest Reserve” and the new village based provisional Wildlife

Management Areas (WMAs) being formed as part of the Selous Game Reserve’s buffer-zone project. The Wildlife Department and Selous Conservation Programme (SCP) implement this project on the basis of Tanzania's Community Based Conservation concept. The SCP is a joint programme of the Wildlife Division and the German Agency for Technical Cooperation

(GTZ). The southern part of the corridor of some 4-5,000 sq km falls within Namtumbo and

Tunduru Districts of Ruvuma Region and runs southwards for about 100 km from the

Songea-Tunduru Road to the Ruvuma River. It has not received any conservation attention in the past but its protection is critical to the continuity of the corridor. A set of maps is provided in Annex 2.


14. Further to the east another but more precarious wildlife corridor between the Selous and

Niassa Game Reserves may still exist. This corridor includes the Lukwika/Lumesule Game

Reserve in Masasi District and areas of Tunduru, Nachingwea and Liwale Districts. The dense settlements to the east of Tunduru, along the roads and along the eastern reaches of the

Rovuma in Tunduru District have almost closed the linkage. WWF has financed aerial surveys of this area (May and October 2000). A nucleus of Community Based Conservation is already initiated around Lukwika/Lumesule Game Reserve with the active involvement of the

Game Warden, private sector hunting company and the District Council. WWF has shown interest in the eastern corridor under their regional miombo woodland programme. The project is under preparation, with funding from WWF Europe, and forms additional potential co-finance to this GEF MSP.

15. Formalising and conserving this currently unprotected southern part of the still viable western wildlife corridor will allow permanent biological linkage between the two protected area systems in Tanzania and Mozambique. This is a priority issue for a number of reasons;

(1) the importance of the corridor per se for biodiversity; (2) its importance in linking two major protected areas facilitating both animal movements and gene flow between species of global importance; (3) the potential to benefit the livelihoods of the local communities by demonstrating wildlife as a viable form of land use; and (4) the contribution it will make to developing a national network of community managed WMAs. See Annex 4 for details on the benefits provided by wildlife corridors.

Biodiversity of Global Significance

16. The miombo woodland communities of south-east Tanzania and northern Mozambique form an ecotone between the coastal forest and thicket communities and the larger miombo tracts towards the west 1 . The site of intervention is rich in tree species of conservation significance including African Blackwood ( Dalbergia melanoxylon ), Mvule ( Milicia excelsa ),

Mninga ( Pterocarpus angolensis ). Thickets, wetlands and several streams intersect the woodland, with riverine forests draining towards the Ruvuma River. The thickets and riverine forests are exceptionally rich in species, and south-east Tanzania has been described as a minor centre of plant diversity and endemism 2

17. The Selous Game Reserve is an acknowledged World Heritage Site and houses Africa’s largest elephant, buffalo, sable and other wildlife populations. The Niassa Game Reserve of

Mozambique is well renowned for its large elephant population. Niassa has been supported by the private sector for the past 10 years, and peripheral hunting areas attract trophy-hunting tourists. Niassa Game Reserve is briefly described in Annex 3. The Selous – Niassa Wildlife corridor provides a significant biological link between these two reserves. In addition to its role in enhancing connectivity and gene flow at a broad landscape scale, it has a great value in its own right as a habitat for plant and animal communities. The corridor area supports large numbers of globally significant, threatened and CITES listed large mammal species, including the elephant ( Loxodonta africana

), Roosevelt’s sable antelope (

Hippotragus niger rooseveltii ), wild dog ( Lyacon pictus ) and the endemic Niassa wildebeest ( Connochaetes taurinus cooksoni ) and Peter's Oribi ( Ourebia ourebi petersi ). The corridor is acknowledged as a main movement route for elephants between Tanzania and Mozambique (see Annexes 4 and 5).

18. Sasawara Forest Reserve in Tunduru District forms part of the project area protecting large patches of riverine forest, thicket and miombo woodland. This would create a satellite

1 The miombo values are well captured in WWF’s ecoregion accounts. The south-east Tanzanian miombo are acknowledged as a priority for conservation.

2 Eg Dr K Vollesen of Kew Gardens in litt., and see Burgess & Clarke. 2001 Coastal Forests of East

Africa book, IUCN.


core area within the centre of the corridor area. The Ruvuma River, to the south of the corridor, has been described as Africa’s least known and least polluted major river system 3 . It is an Important Bird Area and has a distinctive wetland community.

Linkages to Past and Ongoing GEF Support

19. Tanzania has benefited from a large GEF portfolio; especially in the biodiversity focal area; dating back to 1992 and the regional project Institutional Support for the Protection of

East African Biodiversity. :Whilst many of these projects have addressed Protected Areas; none have been directly involved in the wildlife sector. There are GEF projects in many other sectors:



Marine



Lakes



Forests



Agrobiodiversity

Mnazi Bay

Lakes Tanganyika, Victoria and Rift Valley

Jozani, Eastern Arc, Coastal Forests

PLEC, LUCID Research.

Recently GEF has developed support looking at the livestock – wildlife compatibility issues in northern Tanzania.

20. This GEF portfolio has however developed useful lessons on project management, on stakeholder involvement and participatory processes, and on benefit flows to local communities. This latter is demonstrated by the ongoing GEF Sec Study on “Local Benefits” in the UNDP/GEF Jozani Project on Zanzibar. This Selous Niassa Project will link into this learning network.

Socio-economic Context: Social Issues

21. The land within the corridor area is contained within the titled boundaries of some 12 large rural villages, and administered under the provisions of the Village Land Act of 1995.

Villages are administered by Village Governments – which are responsible through the subdistrict administrative levels of ward and division to the District Councils in Namtumbo and

Tunduru Districts. Wildlife resources belong to the state and their utilisation is subject to rules and regulations of the Wildlife Sector, and the exploitation of certain forest products is subject to forestry legislation.

22. People are of mixed origins, some coming from Mozambique during the liberation wars in the 1960’s, with agriculture (maize and beans, with cashew nuts as a cash crop), hunting and forestry pursuits (timber and honey) providing the basis for most livelihoods. Annual rainfalls (800mm plus in a single rainy season) allow good crops, but whilst Rovuma region is a grain surplus area, transport difficulties to distant markets means much grain is wasted.

Livelihood issues are based around serious income deficits. Whilst food security is adequate, there are few sources of cash income. Existing possibilities are non-regulated and probably non-sustainable resource use – legal and illegal wildlife harvesting, fishing, charcoal preparation, honey collection and timber felling.

23. From 1970 to 1986 or so people were largely contained within collective ujamaa or socialist villages, with communal large block farmland. Since 1986 a more capitalist ideology has allowed a movement back to old ancestral lands with a more scattered habitation pattern.

Village land-use policies suggest that villages allocate land for varied uses – settlement, different cultivation needs (e.g. rice in low lying – wetlands), and wild or natural areas be left for forestry and wildlife purposes. Village areas are large (several hundred square kilometres), of which perhaps ten percent is cultivated or recent fallow. Recent Wildlife Policy and

3 Al Duda of GEF Secretariat to IUCN – Geoffrey Howard (pers com)


Programmes present opportunities for wildlife areas to be communally managed as Wildlife

Management Areas (WMAs) for both livelihood and conservation benefits. This programme is in its infancy but has been successfully piloted in the northern section of the corridor.

WMAs allow hunting, cattle-grazing, tree harvesting, honey-harvesting, fishing etc but not settlement or cultivation.

Biodiversity Threats

24. The Selous Conservation Programme, through the PDF A process, has identified increasingly severe threats to the continuity of Selous-Niassa corridor, which if left unattended, will block the link between these two major protected areas.

Uncontrolled and unplanned conversion of land for agricultural and ribbon strip development

25. The high human population growth rate 4 (>2.5% pa) in the corridor area is predicted to lead to agricultural expansion for both cash and food crops. This development could convert much of the still biologically intact corridor to cultivation, especially along the major roads and rivers (as is seen in the heavily impacted eastern corridor). Unless efforts are made to ensure the integrity of the corridor the natural habitat will be fragmented and destroyed as damaging land-uses increase, as experiences from other parts of the country have shown. The obstruction of the movements of large herbivores such as elephant will result in increased human – wildlife conflicts. As elephants and other “conflict” mammals will not be tolerated in agricultural areas, this process will eventually lead to the loss of this valuable tract of land and its wildlife resources.

26. The major road (the Songea - Tunduru - Mtwara on the sea-coast highway) and village roads (mainly Amani - Magazini - Ligusenguse) provide an attraction for settlement and cultivation. Whilst there are still gaps between villages, these are closing as a ribbon of strip development continues along the road. The Songea – Tunduru highway is to be upgraded with the economic development of the “Mtwara Corridor”, an initiative by Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania to develop the area between Mtwara and Lake Malawi. The road and the

Ruvuma River will become magnets for development. The upgrading of the road itself is not seen as a serious threat to corridor linkages, as other examples in Tanzania demonstrate (the tarmac Morogoro – Iringa highway crossing Mikumi National Park for instance, does not block animal movements). However unless the corridor is recognised as being of critical importance and steps are made to restrict ribbon development in the area, a barrier will be formed between the two world’s largest protected miombo ecosystems and elephant habitats.

Unsustainable and illegal resource utilisation

27. The de facto open access to the resources of the corridor creates poaching opportunities for meat for the local market and poaching for ivory. This provides for an increase in household incomes, either through money earned on the open market or through economizing on food resources normally purchased. The common histories of people on both sides of the boundary and the ease of crossing the Ruvuma River means that poaching, especially the

‘high value’ poaching of ivory has a transboundary component.

28. Within this proposed GEF SCP corridor there are no permanent settlements and agriculture on the Ruvuma River itself, but there are seasonally concentrated fishing activities and snare-lines from poachers along the river and some of its tributaries. These activities disturb and prevent mammals from crossing, drinking and feeding in the riverine forests especially in the dry season, when fishing activities are at their peak and animals are

4 Tanzania’s overdue national census took place in August 2002. Initial analysis suggests a rate of 2.8% in these two districts.


dependent on the river for water and food. Further, uncontrolled fishing and fishing methods

(use of fish poison) deplete the fish stocks of the river and disturb the aquatic fauna.

29. Uncontrolled commercial logging for valuable and marketable timber species also takes place, and will increase with the growth of the major towns and the improvement of the road system. If not controlled or prevented it will ultimately lead to a genetic depletion of some valuable species (the same phenomenon was observed in other areas round Selous Game

Reserve; in Kilwa and Rufiji District). The Sasawara Forest Reserve (385 km 2 ), located almost in the centre of the corridor (see map in Annex 2), is a core area for the protection of biodiversity and landscape linkages. Satellite images and reports indicate that heavy encroachment and destruction from human activities like farming and settlement take place in the eastern part of the reserve.

30. Furthermore habitat degradation often results from uncontrolled wildfires, caused by the local population seeking easier honey and forest resource harvesting.

Root causes of biodiversity threats

31. The root causes of these threats are inter-related, each compounding the other. Main causes are: the lack of enforcement of regulations; insufficient information is known about the area to demonstrate its value and so lobby for its protection, the awareness of the potential benefits of wildlife as a form of land use is low, the knowledge and skills to capitalize on wildlife as a form of land use is not yet apparent. These issues are discussed below. For a more detailed threat analysis, see Annex 6.

Lack of enforcement of regulations

32. The corridor falls outside the protection of the Game Reserves, and so the de facto open access of the area results in little incentive to protect the natural resources. Communities seek short-term benefits and, with no long-term stake in the resources, the rate of depletion of resources and land will accelerate as the population grows. Enforcement of regulations relating to wildlife hunting is restricted to the Game Reserves and, whilst poaching of wildlife in all areas is illegal, the government has inadequate manpower and resources to control hunting elsewhere. Poaching is a transboundary problem; the still limited coordination between the Tanzanian and Niassa Reserve authorities results in opportunities for illegal hunting being pursued. The capacity of the forestry department to adequately enforce regulations in the Sasawara forest area is limited, and communities, who derive no benefits from the reserve, will benefit more from land conversion or logging.

No adequate institutional system in place to manage the land

33. The natural resources in the corridor fall under the jurisdiction of the Local and District authorities. However insufficient human and financial resources exist for adequate protection or enforcement of regulations. The communities have no management authority over the resources on the land and this exclusion leaves them with little incentive to manage these resources sustainably in the long term.

Knowledge and skills to translate the Wildlife Management Area and Community Managed

Forest Reserve components of the Wildlife Policy and Forest Policy into practice are limited

34. The overall national development policy framework is for greater levels of real decentralisation and empowerment of local community groups. This is promoted through the concept of Wildlife Management Areas with village control and ownership as key principles.

Transfer of such authority necessitates high levels of capacity to allow successful management and utilisation of the WMAs and an equitable distribution of benefits for that utilisation. Until recently there has been no effort or structure capable of managing natural resources within the community, the WMAs offer this opportunity but currently the capacity


to implement the WMA policy within the local communities is low, and limited knowledge and skills will compromise the success of the WMA initiative.

Lack of economic alternatives and awareness of the potential benefits of wildlife as a form of land use is low.

35. Integrally linked to limited knowledge and skills, is low levels of awareness of wildlife as a recognised form of land use. Wildlife found in agricultural areas frequently cause crop damage which threatens livelihoods; consequently the perception among local communities is negative. Unless these perceptions can be changed, the opportunities provided by wildlife in the generation of economic benefits will not be realized. Wildlife can be a more economically viable form of land use in areas where keeping livestock yields low returns due to limited grazing opportunities and high numbers of tsetse fly. These conditions are characteristic of the Selous-Niassa corridor.

Awareness of the global value of the corridor is low among land planners and developers.

36. Initial studies have highlighted the importance of the Selous-Niassa corridor (see Annex

4 & 5 ) in maintaining a corridor between two of the largest game reserves in East Africa for both animal movement and for genetic flow and as an important biodiversity repository in its own right. However awareness of this value and potential economic benefit among land planners and developers is low. With the conservation value of this area unrecognised, short term benefits from rapid development will undermine the integrity of the area in the next 6-7 years and form a barrier between the two game reserves.

The corridor has no protection status.

37. Until recently little was known about the importance of the corridor in linking up the

Selous and Niassa Game Reserves and the levels of biodiversity within the area. Under PDF

A activities and the SCP initial research has demonstrated the value of the area (Annex 5).

However the area currently has no existing level of protection. Limited information and dissemination of information to local authorities compromises efforts to conserve the area.

Baseline Course of Action

Supporting policies

38. At the national level the government, through the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, has begun to introduce community empowerment and conservation in the concept of Wildlife

Management Areas, which are areas of village land set aside for wildlife conservation and use. Village control and ownership within national guidelines are key principles. This initiative is in its infancy with regulations and guidelines only released in January 2003. The

Wildlife Policy defines WMA as “ an area declared by the Minister to be so and set aside by the Village Government for the purpose of biological natural resources conservation

”. The

WPT devolves management responsibility to local communities and creates an environment for communities to directly benefit from the wildlife schemes and management of natural resources.

The procedures to be followed for the establishment of WMAs and the specific role of the institutions involved such as villages and their CBOs, the District Council and the

District Natural Resources Advisory Body, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the

Wildlife Division and the NGOs are laid down in detail in the Regulations for the

Establishment of WMAs and its Guidelines (Annex 10).

39. The demarcation of WMAs requires considerable initial investment into land-use planning – as wildlife and cultivation (the other major form of land use) are not compatible.

Following the delimitation of WMAs, considerable capacity building is necessary to allow successful management and utilisation of the WMAs, and an equitable distribution of benefits from that utilisation. The WMA concept is being piloted in a select group of villages and village clusters across Tanzania. The villages of the northern part of the corridor were


included and project development processes have led to the inclusion of the southern villages as part of this project support.

Existing conservation efforts in the region

Formal conservation efforts

40. The protected areas in the proposed corridor are managed by the Ministry of Natural

Resources and Tourism. The Selous Game Reserve is managed by the Wildlife Division at a relatively high level. This is facilitated by considerable funding from a sustainable tourist hunting industry and infrastructure support from SCP and the ADB. Efforts under the SCP, focusing on villages in the buffer zones surrounding the reserve, have helped to reduce poaching incidences within the Selous. The Niassa Game Reserve in north Mozambique is adequately managed, with considerable national commitment and growing external support.

Mozambique Wildlife and Forestry Department have developed a major World Bank Project

Document, seeking some 40 million US$ for Trans-Boundary Conservation Initiatives, The

Niassa (to Selous) area is a priority for support (pers.com. TFCA Project Mozambique).

41. Transboundary ‘poaching’ has been reported on a number of occasions and recent dialogue between Niassa GR authorities and Rovuma Wildlife authorities (facilitated by the

PDF A activity of this project) has led to an informal agreement in collaboration in the prevention of such incidences. A formal agreement with regular transfer of information and follow-up on reported incidences will be necessary.

42. Outside the Reserve the districts have limited capacities to manage wildlife. There is a

District Game Officer and a small number of scouts, who do their best to cope with the difficult tasks of anti-poaching, administering hunting and problem animal control, but their ability is limited. The Wildlife Division maintains a zonal anti-poaching unit in Songea, which is in charge of anti-poaching activities in the southern regions. The proposed corridor falls into its area of responsibility. The anti-poaching unit concentrates on commercial level elephant poaching around the Selous Game Reserve and along the border with Mozambique.

43. The Sasawara Forest Reserve, under the Forest Division, is virtually unmanaged and suffers from illegal utilisation and encroachment.

Community conservation

44. Community based Conservation has become a cornerstone of Tanzania’s strategy to manage biodiversity outside its core protected areas. The involvement of communities in conservation processes was a key principle promoted by GTZ in the buffer zone around the

Selous Game Reserve in the mid 1990’s. The success of this programme facilitated the development of the WMA policy. This is being piloted, cofinanced by GTZ, under Selous

Conservation Programme (SCP) in the northern part of the Selous-Niassa corridor. Since

1993/1994 thirteen villages have developed land use plans with the assistance of the respective Land Offices. The land use survey includes the provision of land certificates to the villages. Amongst other forms of land use, Village WMAs have been demarcated as areas for sustainable wildlife utilisation.

45. The village scouts and village officials have been trained in the Government training centre at Likuyu (Community Based Conservation Training Centre, CBCTC). Training in basic management tools like bookkeeping, planning, budgeting is also carried out by the

District Community Development Officers. The SNV (Netherlands Volunteer Assistance) provides support to such capacity building. The District Game Officers (DGOs) of Tunduru and Namtumbo Districts have been trained and put in charge of the supervision of the programme in their Districts. The villages derive revenue from the sale of meat from their quota. The meat is sold in the villages and the proceeds are used for managing the wildlife area and for small village development programmes. The potential is modest, but the meat augments the protein supply in the village and helps undercutting the market for poached


meat. They also carry out crop protection themselves. The Programme has raised awareness of local communities and authorities for conservation efforts.

46. Nationally there is currently a growth in the demand for quality tourist hunting areas; blocks are being divided and quotas increased. Considerable revenues from tourist trophy hunting are already being generated in the two hunting blocks in the north of the corridor, however presently benefits go mainly to central government, and only 11 % to districts.

Under the new WMA regulations, the villages throughout the corridor will receive revenue from resident game fees, tourist hunting game fees, tourist hunting block fees, concession fees, bed night fees and WMA entry fees. Whereas the potential for photographic tourism in the corridor is presently still small, safari hunting has considerable potential, particularly high quality sable hunting and other species. The CAMPFIRE models in Zimbabwe, as well as the

WMAs facilitated by SCP in the northern buffer zones of the SGR, show the potential for success in such ventures and it is expected that given adequate awareness and capacity, the

WMAs will attract significant tourist investment from the private sector.

47. The SCP is part of a much wider effort to promote the WMA approach. GTZ, DANIDA,

USAID, and various NGOs (African Wildlife Foundation, Frankfurt Zoological Society) provide support to communities in different locations (Katavi-Rukwa, Saadani, Ugalla,

Serengeti, Massailand, Wami-Mbiki) to implement the Regulations for Wildlife Management

Areas. The approach is uniform as prescribed by the Regulations and includes: sensitisation and training, land use planning including delineation of WMAs, formation of community based organisations, formation of District advisory committees, development of a

Management Zoning Plan, application for Authorised Association-status, develop and implement business plans.

48. Furthermore, central government efforts to revise the legislation and to strengthen capacities at a ministry level are being supported jointly by USAID and GTZ. The purpose of the GTZ Community Wildlife Management Project is to ensure the Wildlife Division is in a position to introduce CBC countrywide. Under the project a Government Advisor is attached to the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in Dar es Salaam.

The project operates countrywide and concentrates on areas where wildlife and people coexist.

The outputs associated with this project are:



CBC-section in Wildlife Division is established and operational



A countrywide strategy for implementation of the concept exists



Financial mechanisms for CBC are worked out



The legal framework is developed



A CBC training approach fro communities, wildlife staff and institutions is developed.

49. USAID is carrying out a "Capacity Building for Environmental and Wildlife Policy

Implementation" programme through WWF USA. The programme addresses the second

USAID strategic objective (SO2): Improved Conservation of natural resources.

It focuses on 3 intermediate results:



Key natural resources policies applied



Increased effectiveness of institutions that support natural resource conservation



Community based conservation regimes functioning in target areas.

50. CBC has been integrated into the curricula of the wildlife training institutions of

Tanzania (Mweka Wildlife College, Pasiansi Wildlife Training Institute) with the aim of building a cadre of personnel with the ability to implement the WMA approach. In addition the Community Based Conservation Training Centre, located in the corridor in Likuyu, trains village scouts and functionaries, and has focussed on CBC since its inception.


51. The Selous Conservation Programme and other WMA initiatives have demonstrated that

1) there is a demand amongst local communities for managing wildlife resources and this can be readily translated into revenue benefiting livelihoods; 2) building capacity amongst local communities to manage wildlife does lead to improved conservation; 3) poaching in the village areas supported by the SCP and neighbouring Selous Game Reserve has decreased significantly and wildlife is returning to areas where it had been absent for many years. This is mainly due to the change of attitude towards wildlife. Wildlife is now a legal source of income and therefore worthy of protection. This has led to improved anti-poaching by the villages.

Research

52. The SCP is supporting a special programme to investigate the status and migration routes of the populations of key mammal species in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, (Annex 5).

This has demonstrated that the corridor is a migratory route for elephants between Tanzania and Mozambique. Furthermore the corridor provides a genetic link (e.g. sable and wild dog) between two of eastern Africa’s larger wildlife protected areas, ensuring long term viability.

This research will continue to monitor wildlife movements in the corridor in the future. The

Wildlife Division is monitoring the WMA process, including baseline survey. The maps in

Annex 2, 5 are data from the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, who are mandated to monitor wildlife resources.

Agricultural extension

53. The Ministry of Agriculture, via its Regional and District Agricultural officers, support agricultural extension activities including agricultural land use planning at village level. No direct donor support exists in the target districts but local authorities do implement some national programmes on enhancing agricultural production and improved cashew farming. At present there is little direct linkage between such land planning initiatives from agriculture and those from wildlife/forestry at village or district level. A failure to coordinate activities can lead to conflicting policies, and conflict on the ground at village level.

Summary

54. Whilst the northern area of the corridor is being conserved for wildlife under community protection through the WMA system, the southern area has no form of protection status.

Under the existing baseline scenario the conservation value of the corridor at this site specific level is likely to be lost within the next 6-7 years. The ribbon development and upgrading of the Songea – Tunduru road is expected to provide a magnet for settlement and cultivation and unless efforts are made to maintain the integrity of the corridor by ensuring its conservation in future development plans the value of this area and link between Niassa and Selous Game

Reserves is likely to be lost.

55. The Wildlife Policy provides an exciting tool, in the form of Wildlife Management

Areas, to address issues threatening biodiversity loss in a cost effective and sustainable manner. WMAs have been successfully tested in the northern part of the corridor and have demonstrated both benefits to livelihoods and conservation objectives. This is an encouraging situation, however, a number of barriers exist that, without external intervention, will prevent the adoption of WMA’s. The capacities of communities and local and regional authorities to translate the policy into action are limited and the awareness of wildlife as a viable form of land use is low. These barriers exist both at this site specific level but also throughout the country. Unless these barriers can be overcome the opportunities presented by the WMA initiative at a national level will be compromised and land valuable for conservation purposes, such as the Selous Niassa corridor will be irreplaceably converted for agriculture or other intensive land use purpose.


RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

56. This project aims to formalise and conserve the currently unprotected corridor of natural woodland that links the Selous to the Niassa Reserve. This will be achieved by promoting the concept of Wildlife Management Areas successfully piloted in the northern area of the corridor. By demonstrating the value of the WMA initiative to achieving conservation goals the project will help create the enabling environment necessary for the national adoption of the WMA initiative and the formation of a national network of community managed protected areas. Such a network will complement the existing formal protected areas system and increase the area of land conserved for biodiversity.

57. The overall purpose of the proposed project is the long-term conservation of community, species and genetic biological diversity of the miombo forest ecosystem within the protected areas of northern Mozambique and southern Tanzania by developing an effective wildlife corridor. This will be achieved by the formation of village WMAs connecting the Selous and

Niassa Game Reserves, managed by the communities and forming a continuous system of protected areas from Tanzania to Mozambique.

GEF ALTERNATIVE

58. The project will address emerging GEF priorities of: Catalyzing sustainability of

Protected Areas (PAs) in particular improving opportunities for sustainable use, benefit sharing and broad stakeholder participation among communities. Project components have been designed to support the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania directly by contributing to the establishment of a network of protected area systems that are managed by local communities.

59. The project will specifically promote and establish a network of community-based managed Wildlife Management Areas and empower the local community as managers in order to enable conservation and sustainable use of the wildlife corridor. This will be based on the successful model being piloted in the Selous Buffer Zone; which is in northern area of the corridor. Through an active replication component the project will facilitate the development of a national system of community managed protected areas contributing to strengthening the overall protected area system. Without the GEF Alternative, the baseline situation will continue such that there will be continuing and rapid conversion of land for agricultural purposes and unsustainable use of natural resources within the southern sector of the corridor. This will result in the loss of the integrity of the corridor and formation of a barrier between the two reserves. At a national level the opportunities presented by the WMA initiative may fail to be captured compromising the future for biodiversity conservation.

60. The GEF increment will focus on providing technical assistance and capacity building for community based conservation management. Agreed co-financing will cover both incremental and non-incremental issues (total 1,060,000 US $).

PROPOSED PROJECT STRATEGY

61 To achieve conservation and development in the southern sector of the Selous-Niassa corridor the project is taking a community based conservation approach based upon experiences in the northern area of the corridor. This aims to empower communities to manage the land for wildlife conservation purposes with the subsequent benefits of improving livelihoods, conserving biodiversity and maintaining the integrity of the wildlife corridor.

62. Specifically the project will develop local competencies in sustainable resources management within the corridor and promote conservation and biodiversity management by improving the human capacity to manage wildlife resources. In compliance with the WPT


policy of Tanzania, these actions aim at empowering populations at local level and involving them in all aspects of conservation programmes.

63. The project, building on experiences from the northern area of the corridor, will provide further lessons in the challenges and opportunities in implementing the WMA initiative of the

WPT policy. Lessons learnt will be widely disseminated to facilitate the replication of similar community based conservation initiatives throughout the country; thereby contributing to a national system of community managed protected areas.

64. The Immediate Objectives are:



The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor is effectively conserved, with the establishment of a network of village wildlife management areas that are protected, managed and utilised sustainably by the local communities with the assistance of Local Government and

Wildlife Division.



Benefits from wildlife management enhance the livelihood security of villages with

WMAs, and promote the long-term conservation of the corridor.

65. The activities planned as part of the project will last four years. During this time local communities and decentralized authorities will learn how to manage their wildlife resources in a sustainable manner. This project will be formulated so as to build on the lessons learnt from the programme in the northern area of the corridor. These experiences will facilitate this process and for this reason 4 years is felt to be an adequate time frame. At the end of the project, the principal outputs will be the following:



Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among communities, local and district authorities



Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to serve as decision-making tools for communities and local authorities.



A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor



Protection of the Sasawara Forest Reserve through community participation



Dissemination of best practice for community managed protected areas

EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

66. The following outputs and activities do not take place sequentially. They are inter-related and take place concurrently. The success of the project will depend upon the interaction between these varying components.

Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among communities, local and district authorities

(GEF $ 184,450 and GTZ-GoT $200,000)

67 A key barrier to the conservation of the corridor is the lack of awareness among the community and local planning authorities of the importance of the corridor for biodiversity and, in particular, the opportunities to capitalise on wildlife as a viable form of land use. This component targets these key stakeholders with specific activities to address this barrier. In particular it will identify and work with other agencies, such as agriculture, to ensure a coordinated approach to land management is taken in the area. This will avoid a situation of conflicting policies, providing disincentives for conservation in the corridor. Furthermore the component provides support for TBNRM linkage between Tanzania and Mozambique, and so addresses issues relating to transboundary coordination for conservation aiming to raise awareness and facilitate coordination efforts to reduce poaching incidences including reduction of cross border illegal trade in wildlife.


Activity 1.1: Carry out a stakeholder analysis and develop a public participation plan that targets all land users to ensure they are informed and can participate in project activities.

Activity 1.2: Design and implement an effective education campaign to inform communities about natural resources conservation and sustainable utilization and the Government policies and regulation regarding the role of communities in NRM, particularly in implementing

WMAs. Specific activities will be developed for target user groups such as fishermen on the

Ruvuma River.

Activity 1.3: Facilitate exchange of experience and site visits by local communities to villages in the northern part of the corridor of the Selous Buffer zone.

Activity 1.4: Facilitate exchange of experiences and site visits by local authorities to villages in the northern part of the corridor of the Selous Buffer zone.

Activity 1.5: Facilitate the involvement of agricultural agencies at village and district level and others identified in Activity 1.1 in the project activities to ensure that sectoral policies do not conflict the projects activities.

Activity 1.6: Facilitate meetings between the Government/Wildlife Division of Tanzania and the Government/DNFFB and SGDRN of Mozambique in order to develop trans-boundary anti-poaching agreements and cooperation.

Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to serve as decision-making tools for communities and local authorities.

(GEF $ 118,580 and IZW $340,000)

68. Reliable biological and socio-economic databases will be created for the Corridor. This work has been initiated under the SCP providing initial evidence of the conservation importance of the area and will be further progressed under this component. An integrated team of scientists, relevant government agencies, partner organizations and the local communities will complete the surveys. The databases will be created in the first two years of the project completed in a number of stages; (1) Collect and evaluate all current biological and socio-economic data. (2) Based on results from the original data, identify and conduct further biological and socio-economic studies (3) The socio-economic studies will be completed during year one while (4) Biological studies will be completed during years one and two. Socio-economic studies will identify primary economic practices and natural resources needs of the communities. Biological studies will include further refinement of the species inventories in the corridor, identification of threatened species, and needs assessments for the endemic species including, species endemic to the corridor, their specific range and habitat needs. (5) Data collected will be verified geographically with GPS and topographic maps which will contribute to the completion of an appropriate zoning of natural resource usage. A specific activity focusing on fishing activities at Ruvuma River will be carried out resulting in the development and implementation of proposals for special protection of crossing points for wildlife.

69. The databases will serve as both a decision-making tool for future management and in the provision of critical information to justify the importance of conserving the corridor. The implantation of activities under Output 3 below will be based on information and analysis developed in the Corridor database. Furthermore, the database will allow participatory monitoring and evaluation of the project’s impacts. Local knowledge about biodiversity will form an integral part of this output and be captured as part of the WMA process.

Activity 2.1: Carry out regular participatory wildlife/land-use surveys of the project area in order to monitor the animal distribution and human activities within the boundaries of the corridor and WMAs and to feed into conservation planning exercises.


Activity 2.2: Carry out a study on fishing activities at Ruvuma River and is tributaries; develop and implement proposals for appropriate sustainable management regarding special protection of crossing points for wildlife.

Activity 2.3: Carry out regular socioeconomic surveys to be repeated at regular intervals to monitor the impact of WMA activities on the livelihoods of local communities.

Activity 2.4: Integrate results from the continuing cofinanced Selous Niassa Corridor

Research Project into project activities.

Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor. (GEF $ 539,905 and GTZ-GoT $370,000).

70. This component aims to develop a network of WMAs in the southern corridor by building upon experiences and lessons learnt under the SCP in the northern sector. This component will be guided by the National Wildlife Policy and the regulations and guidelines for the establishment of WMAs. Activities have been designed with this purpose in mind. The ultimate aim of this component is to develop a situation whereby local communities have the capacity to manage the land in the corridor for wildlife purposes. This will result in benefits to both livelihoods and conservation objectives. The integration of WMA’s into local development plans will ensure that wildlife is seen as a viable land use option and subsequently land is recognised for this purpose. This will ensure future developments, for example around the Mtwara-Songea road will not compromise conservation objectives. The envisaged reduction in poaching, unsustainable resource use and retention of the land for conservation purposes will ensure that the value of the area, as a corridor linking the Selous and Niassa Game Reserves, is maintained and maximised. It is critical that communities gain tangible benefits from the WMA that translates into improved livelihoods. If not, there will be no incentive to manage the land for wildlife purposes and conversion for agricultural activities and unsustainable natural resource use will continue. In addition to focusing on wildlife utilisation this component will explore opportunities for sustainably harvesting other natural resources such as fish, honey, timber, medicinal plants, fibres etc. with coordination of other agencies such as the Forest Department, Fisheries Department etc. These offer an opportunity for income generation and resource substitution providing direct benefits to local households. Critical to the success of this output is that activities targeting transboundary poaching will build upon efforts in Output 1 to facilitate local communities to combat this problem. Initial start up costs will be funded but taken over by the functioning WMAs by the end of the projects lifespan.

Activity 3.1: Establish the institutional arrangements necessary for the WMAs

Activity 3.2: Undertake training of members of the various WMA institutions and village scouts;

Activity 3.3: Facilitate the communities to establish the required infrastructure and associated equipment for the village institutions;

Activity 3.4: Integrate results of land surveys and land use planning activities, carried out in

Output 1 and 2, for the identification of WMAs and undertake mapping and border demarcation of the WMAs;

Activity 3.5: Facilitate the development of management plans for the WMAs including associated village bye-laws and advise the AA’s with the implementation of the management plan and natural resource utilisation;

Activity 3.6: Facilitate the gazettement of the WMA, integration of WMA’s into local development plans and declaration of the CBO as an Authorised Association (AA).


Activity 3.7: Support village, District and Central Government game scouts in anti-poaching operations until communities earn sufficient income from their WMAs to take over

Activity 3.8: Facilitate legal advice for lease of contracts, concessional agreements and other business activities when necessary.

Activity 3.9: Facilitate the involvement of District agricultural, forest and fisheries extension officers (targeted in Output 1) to work with local communities in a resource use planning exercise to identify and develop opportunities for income generation through products such as fish, honey, timber, medicinal plants,

Activity 3.10: Carry out training for the development of business plans of the CBOs (AAs) and advise on investments of benefits generated from the WMAs for village development

Output 4: Protection of the Sasawara Forest Reserve through community participation

(GEF $ 51,335 and Other $50,000)

71. This component aims to target specifically a core area in the corridor, the Sasawara Forest

Reserve, to address the immediate threats of encroachment and logging activities. Activities will be in line with the National Forest Policy and aim to ensure a community participatory approach is taken to management of the forest reserve. Ultimately this component aims to improve the livelihoods of the local communities by ensuring benefits are derived from the sustainable utilisation of forest resources, whilst at the same time achieving conservation objectives. Unless sufficient benefits are generated from forest management, with a real impact upon improving livelihoods, there will be no incentive to manage the forest resources sustainably.

Activity 4.1: Work closely with the Forest Department, identify the reserve’s boundaries in the field and evaluate the status of protection and encroachment.

Activity 4.2: Define and propose options for the improvement of its protection and joint management between adjacent villages and the Forest Department regarding the wildlife utilisation

Activity 4.3: Facilitate a Memorandum of Understanding about the joint management and protection between the villages and the Forest Department

Activity 4.4: Facilitate a process of developing and implementing a joint management plan on

Saswara Forest

Activity 4.5: Record experiences and lessons learnt for dissemination among key practitioners to inform similar initiatives elsewhere in the country.


(GEF $ 92,230 and GTZ $100,000)

72. This component aims to ensure that lessons learnt from community involvement in natural resources; both in the WMAs and PFM reserves are captured and disseminated widely to inform similar processes throughout Tanzania and that lessons are made available across the border into Mozambique. As demonstrated in the baseline section this project is part of a much wider effort to promote the WMA approach. Support from these similar initiatives and the involvement of senior wildlife staff in the project will help to ensure that the WMA approach is adopted and replicated throughout the country. Experiences will be drawn from

Cross Borders and Jozani Forest Project, amongst others, to identify the most effective dissemination strategies. Mechanisms will be created to ensure the capacity built, lessons learnt and experiences continue to be shared and replicated after the project has ended. In addition the project will develop specific learning experience on Protected Area System


Planning (corridor, dispersal area approaches) and disseminate these experiences so as to influence wildlife policy and practice.

Activity 5.1: Promote a network between the WMA initiatives nationally in order to share challenges, successes and best practices and to identify how best to disseminate lessons learnt.

Activity 5.2: In collaboration with other members of the network, record experiences and lessons learnt from the WMA process for dissemination e.g. newsletters, case studies, NGO fora among key practitioners to inform similar initiatives elsewhere in the country and in adjacent areas in Mozambique.

Activity 5.3: Target policy leaders of the WPT, for example through site visits, videos, presentations and workshops, to ensure that lessons learnt from the Selous-Niassa project and other similar initiatives influence policy decisions for the implementation of WMAs.

Activity 5.4: Key government staff from identified target sites elsewhere in the country, are facilitated to allow exchange of experience and site visits to the project area to demonstrate best practice and encourage replication of both WMA and Protected Area System Planning

FINANCING PLAN AND INCREMENTAL COSTS

73. The GEF alternative is US$ 986,500 (See Annex 7 for detailed incremental cost analysis) plus a total baseline across the four years of US$ 2.4 million. Co-financing amounts to

$1,060,000. All co-financing is confirmed in writing in Annex 13.

Incremental cost assessment

74. Without the support of the GEF and leveraged cofinance the integrity of the Selous-Niassa is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Short term benefits of agricultural conversion and limited awareness of the potential benefits of wildlife as a viable land use option will lead to the area rapidly loosing its conservation potential.

The baseline scenario has a current yearly cost of US$ 600,000, which is cost incurred by:

Wildlife Division,

Regional, District and Sub-District inputs including agriculture,

250,000$

200,000$ plus inputs from communities, 50,000$

Donor support to agriculture, decentralisation and poverty alleviation 100,000$

75. The legislation is in place for the establishment of WMAs, however unless the capacity and awareness of the local communities can be developed the opportunity to conserve communal land of global biodiversity importance in the Selous-Niassa corridor will be lost.

GEF assistance is necessary to facilitate the translation of the policy into implementation and will serve as a model for the further replication of such initiatives in other areas of the country. In this way the project will directly contribute to ensuring the sustainability of a national network of community managed protected areas.

Cofinancing is provided as follows:

76.

IZW is carrying out research, in conjunction with SUA, TAWIRI and GTZ, in the course of the identification and establishment of the corridor 340,000$.

77.

GTZ continues to support the northern part of the corridor during this coming four-year period, and is involved in support to the WMA at national level (GTZ provides the inputs of expatriate Community Wildlife Advisor to the Wildlife Division, as well as broader training


opportunities in community issues). GTZ provide oversight to the overall corridor process.

This is estimated at 500,000$, 100,000$ per annum for the corridor inputs and 100,000$ overall for community – WMA processes across the project period.

78.

Government of Tanzania will provide increased support into the corridor process, making available time from regional and district wildlife staff, as well as district administration inputs through villages and village extension processes. This additional time is costed at 20,000$ pa per each of two districts four 4 years totalling 160,000$.

79.

UNDP will provide support to community livelihood enhancement based on natural resource use during the project period. UNDP TRAC resources will support at least one community project per District at an estimated cost of 30,000$ per project. This is a total of

US$ 60,000.

A detailed incremental cost analysis is provided in Annex 7.


BUDGET

The GEF Budget by Input in US $ is as follows:

Component

PDF A

MEDIUM SIZED PROJECT

Personnel

Subcontracts *

Training *

Equipment

Travel

Evaluation and back-stopping mission(s)

Miscellaneous

MS Project GEF Total in $US

GEF Cost

US$

13,500

278,400

268,000

111,000

82,500

83,450

82,350

80,800

1,000,000

* NOTE: These items are costed per activity in the log-frame in Annex 8.

Sustainability, Cost effectiveness, Replicability and Risk Assessment

Sustainability

80. The project design and existing baseline situation combine to ensure social, ecological and financial sustainability in a number of ways; (1) existing legislation empowering local people to manage wildlife resources through WPT (2) demonstration for WMAs and lessons learnt from the process in the northern section of the corridor which will guide the project in the southern corridor (3) the project aims to build human resource capacity sufficiently to assume management of the WMAs by the end of the four year project; (4) the WMAs are designed to improve the livelihoods of the communities involved and this has proved to have worked in the northern corridor; (5) the project aims to ensure the collaboration of a number of stakeholders; agriculture, land developers, conservation agencies and private sector to promote a integrated approach to the management of this area. Recognition of the corridor as an important tract of land for community conservation activities by other agencies such as agriculture will help to ensure conflicting initiatives, that are incompatible with conservation aims, are not promoted in the area; (6) the WMAs will generate sufficient revenue to be self sustaining by the end of the project; (7) protection of the corridor ecosystem will ensure ecological sustainability facilitating the flow of wildlife populations and contributing to enhancing gene flow and ensuring the long term integrity of the ecosystem.

81. Under this project the local population will have the right to manage their land resource issues by the establishment of WMAs through the adoption of national policies that provide legal empowerment for wildlife management to the local community. This is necessary for the long-term success of the project because it empowers and builds community governance as well as confidence in their ability to manage resources.

82. Capacity development is targeted as one of the core outputs. The project seeks to provide local people with needed expertise, as well as basic infrastructure and efficient organizations and institutions. Furthermore, the project will be implemented in a way that will enhance both local expertise and ownership for biodiversity conservation to encourage further activities when the proposed project finishes. The end of the project should change local knowledge,

Draft MSP brief 13 th November 2003 SNL 24

infrastructure and values in such a way that will preclude a return to the present unsustainable scenario.

83. The sustainability of the project depends on the economic viability of the network of village wildlife management areas that make up the Corridor. The successful CBC scheme in the North of the Corridor shows that the costs of the management by the villages (deploying village scouts, carrying out anti-poaching, harvesting of animals and sale of meat, budget planning and execution) can be recovered by the proceeds from the wildlife management. The costs to be borne by GEF refer to the set up of the system and are not recurrent.

Cost Effectiveness

84. This project will be particularly cost-effective in view of the size and overall scope of the system addressed. The WPT and WMA initiative are in place and provide the enabling environment for promoting community based management approaches. WMAs have been trialed in the northern sector of the corridor with success. This previous experience will facilitate the implementation of this project. Formal protected area management is costly and

Tanzania has neither the resources nor land availability to designate a greater area for such protection. This project will however build the capacities of local communities to translate the WMA policy into practice and in this way will, not only benefit livelihoods, but reduce the costs of conservation management and enhance prospects for successes by embracing local stakeholders to manage and benefit from their wildlife resources.

Replicability

85. This project will further test and implement the WMA initiative under the WPT. This is only being piloted in a number of areas and this project offers an opportunity to build on lessons from the northern corridor and to further replicate in the southern areas of the corridor. The concerns in community conservation initiatives are consistent across the country and, given similarities in culture and resource issues, strategies that are in place and functional will be replicated in other regions of the country. The Central and regional governments have already shown strong approval for the approach of the project (see endorsement letters)

86. Output 5 focuses specifically on the dissemination of best practice for community management of protected areas relating both to WMAs and PFM reserves. This output will aim to ensure that lessons learnt from this project will feed into the implementation of WMAs and PFM Reserves in other areas of the country thereby contributing to the development of a national sustainable network of community managed protected areas.

87. The involvement of senior officials of the Wildlife Division and Planning Division of the

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in the projects steering committee will help to ensure that experiences from this project influence the WPT, guiding the establishment of

WMAs in the future.

Risk Assessment

88. Risks to the project and activities to counter risks include the following;

Identified Risk

Ecologically destructive projects are implemented in the corridor area

WMA management processes which are not based on democratic principles, and revenues that are inequitably distributed

Mitigation approach

The project aims to ensure that the scale of benefits from sustainable natural resource use in the corridor provides sufficient incentive to prevent conversion to agriculture.

The project will develop capacity in fund management and the setting up of village institutions with democratic principles to overcome this potential risk.


Unrealistic expectations of community and other stakeholders

Development along the

Mtwara – Songea road prevents animal movements

The project will maintain good relationship with all stakeholders and through an environmental awareness process will ensure realistic achievements of the project are communicated.

Land use planning exercises will be carried out and results integrated into local development plans to ensure that wild life is recognised as a viable land use option in the area.

Awareness will be raised among local authorities and communities as to the benefits derived from using wildlife as a land use option and of the importance of maintaining the wildlife corridor.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

89. The PDF Block A grant was used (13,500$ GEF, 25,000$ via GTZ) to hold stakeholder consultations and identified some key groups identified below.

Local communities

90. The local communities will benefit from sustainable natural resource management, improvements of social facilities and infrastructure and furthermore in empowerment and capacity to manage resources. Income flows will markedly increase when the income from safari hunting accruing to the villages will be available. The villages of the corridor area were sensitized during separate village assembly meetings. All Village Governments were enthusiastic and applied to join the project via their respective Districts. Initial social assessments have been prepared under the programme development activity for all villages so far known to have a stake in the corridor. During the actual planning process for the WMAs these assessments will be intensified.

Local authorities

91. The Local Government at Regional and District level and the relevant Village

Governments are key stakeholders in the project and instrumental in the implementation of

WMAs. These institutions have been involved from the very beginning of the development of the wildlife corridor project. Representatives of the Region and District administrations, including agricultural, forestry, fisheries and land planning, have actively participated in discussion meetings about the corridor and WMAs. District Game Officers work closely with

Selous Conservation Programme. Further discussions involved meetings with the District

Natural Resources Advisory Committees, whose members are the District Natural Resource

Technicians and the representatives of villages with Wildlife Management Areas. The meetings were chaired by the District Commissioner or the District Executive Director.

Conservation Agencies and Wildlife Division

92. SCP/GTZ is assisting the Selous Game Reserve Authority and implements community based conservation initiatives, including WMAs in the buffer zone of Selous Game Reserve in Namtumbo and Tunduru District, in cooperation with the District Authorities. SCP is the implementing agency for the proposed project.

Stakeholder consultations under the PDF A process

93. A “Conservation Expert Meeting”, of biologists, natural reserve planners and major project stakeholders was convened in April 2001 to discuss the concept of a wildlife corridor.

Three main questions were asked:

1. How will a corridor enhance the biodiversity of the overall Selous Niassa ecosystem?

2. By what methods should the corridor be secured and managed?

3. What is the optimum design of a wildlife corridor in these circumstances?


The expert meeting was seen as essential part of project development and the results and conclusions of the meeting have formed an integral part of this project brief (Annex 4 & 9).

94. This project is designed as a simple country project as all interventions and implementation takes place in Tanzania. The geographic gap in corridor design is all in

Tanzania. However since initial concept design, the project has been cognizant of the need to increase cooperation across the international border to the Niassa Game Reserve in

Mozambique. Niassa Game Reserve and Mozambique are potential beneficiaries of this project, as the natural resources will be part of larger “landscape level” protected area system with expected global benefits in ecological viability.

The project has developed linkages with Mozambique at several levels, and will continue these linkages (see Activity 5.3) with more formal process. Linkages have been at: a) PA Levels. Following the first formal exchange in Songea (see para 55 & foot note 5) there have been three follow up meetings; two have been in Niassa Game Reserve.

There is now compatible radio contact. b) National Levels. The last meeting was at World Parks Congress in Durban (in

September 2003); between Director Wildlife Mozambique; Dy Director (Wildlife

Conservation) Tanzania; Senior Field Staff and GTZ – Selous Conservation

Programme Co-Finance. c) Development Level. The Mtwara Corridor has the Selous Niassa Conservation

Corridor on its agenda in seeking cooperation and investment into the trans-boundary areas. d) Donor Levels. Project development agencies are in touch with co-finances on

Mozambique side – e.g. Fauna Flora International (FFI) who will be funding Niassa

Game Reserve, also using the title of Niassa – Selous Corridor.

95. In June 2001, a final stakeholder meeting took place in Songea, the relevant regional capital to discuss the corridor with all relevant stakeholders. Representatives from Niassa

Game Reserve in Mozambique attended.

5

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TIMELINE

96. The project will be executed by the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural

Resources and Tourism and implemented by GTZ International Services under NGO execution arrangements with UNDP. Note that GTZ-IS implements the present activity in the northern part of the corridor. GTZ-IS will assure the effective implementation of field activities and assume first line accountability for financial management.

97. At field level the District Natural Resources Officers and Wildlife Officers will assume responsibility for support to villages until Village Associations are created and have capacity for more autonomy. A District level “technical committee”, District Natural Resources

Advisory Body, will assure linkages between wildlife agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and land sectors, under the chairmanship of the District Commissioner or representative.

98. A Project Technical Steering Committee will be established, under the chairmanship of

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (or his

5 Such attendance underlined the level of cooperation across the border. Permissions were obtained for

Mozambique officials to cross the Ruvuma River on foot, where Tanzania officials collected them, and their passports were stamped in Songea town.


representative). Committee membership will include representatives of Wildlife Division,

Selous Game Reserve, Regional / District Authorities, Forestry. Agriculture and UNDP and

GTZ-IS. Further operational details will be developed during project document completion.

99. The project will begin with an inception workshop. The project manager will review the project document prior to the workshop and recommend revisions in light of the present situation. This may include updating the log frame and institutional arrangements. The project manager will present the finalised work plan and first quarterly plan to the Project

Technical Steering Committee. All key stakeholders will participate and the workshop will offer an opportunity to ensure coordination between all the players and establish a common ground of understanding necessary to ensure the smooth running of project implementation.

100. GTZ has a long history of working with communities in the establishment of Selous

Buffer Zones and with WMAs in the northern corridor, and will be able to translate lessons from this process. This experience will serve as the basis for implementation of WMAs in the southern part of the corridor.

Project Duration – Schematic Workplan

Project duration: 48 months (4 years)

OUTPUTS:

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among local communities, Local and District authorities.

Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to serve as decision-making tools for communities and local authorities x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

X

X

Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor x x x x x x x x x x x X

Output 4: Protection of the Sasawara Forest

Reserve through community participation x x x X x x x x x

Output 5: Dissemination of best practice and linkages to policy formation x x x x x x X

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

101. The management of wildlife is currently not recognised as a viable land use option and awareness raising and capacity development among the local communities will be key activities in the process of this project. Involvement of the local population in the proposed activities will closely depend on how the population is empowered to manage the resources in their village territories. Local communities will play a major role in the project and more precisely in the conduct of conservation activities and the management of the WMAs within the corridor. Without their full commitment land in the corridor will be converted to agriculture and the conservation integrity of the area will be lost. The projects success will hinge on demonstrating wildlife as a viable land use option and furthermore that the benefits provided outweigh those generated from agricultural conversion.


102. Each component will be highly participatory to ensure full stakeholder buy-in and multistakeholder partnerships for cost-effective implementation of the activities and their sustainability. It is critical that a holistic approach is taken to land management in the area to avoid a conflict of policies. For this reason agricultural agencies and land use planning commission must be integral players to the process. Opportunities will be sought to involve private operators, particularly in the hunting areas where the promotion of economic activities can be linked with environmental management.

103. The development of a detailed public involvement plan under Output 2 will ensure that all stakeholders are targeted and involved in project activities and avoid situations of conflicting policies in the project area.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

104. Monitoring and evaluation activities will measure project progress using quantifiable indicators of project achievements. These indicators will also measure the level of involvement of stakeholders and the performance of the actions undertaken to achieve the project.

105. The project will be monitored and evaluated in close collaboration with GTZ and the

Wildlife Division and will follow the guidelines established by UNDP-GEF.

Objectives:



To analyse project progress, impacts and achievements



To assess the relationship between activities planned in the project document and those implemented in the field, using performance indicators





To re-orient the project as needed (adaptive management)

To draw recommendations for future natural resources management transfer of activities to other areas



To allow inter-project evaluations and systematic exchange (with other GEF projects)



To develop long term M & E processes assessing the success and ecological and socio-economic sustainability of the WMAs and the corridor after project closure.

106. The monitoring and evaluation plan includes monitoring of project progress, ecological monitoring and socio-economic monitoring. The WWF/WB Management Effectiveness

Tracking Tool will be used to analyse management effectiveness in the WMA’s (details are provided in Annex 12). The details of the M&E plan are presented in Annex 11 and will be finalised by the Project Manager at the start of his assignment.

L EGAL C ONTEXT :

107. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the

Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of Tanzania and the United

Nations Development Programme. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement.

108. UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility

(GEF), and all rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be extended mutatis mutandis to GEF.

109. The UNDP Resident Representative in Tanzania is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he has verified the


agreement thereto by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the

Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes: a) Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document; b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outcomes or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation; c) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and d) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project

Document.

Audit Requirement

110. GTZ-IS 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.


LIST OF ANNEXES

1.

Endorsement Letter from OFP

2.

Map of Project Site

3.

Categories of Protected Areas in the Corridor Area

4.

Justification of the Selous – Niassa Corridor, and Corridor Design Principles

5.

Selous Conservation Project; initial research for the corridor.

6.

Threats/root causes matrix

7.

Incremental Cost Analysis

8.

Logical Framework Analysis

9.

Details of stakeholder meetings

10.

Responsibilities for the administration of WMAs

11.

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

12.

World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

13.

Co-financing Letters

14.

Acronym list

15.

References


ANNEX 1: ENDORSEMENT LETTER


ANNEX 2: Map of the Corridor Area


ANNEX 3: CATEGORIES OF PROTECTED AREAS IN THE CORRIDOR

The Selous – Niassa woodland ecosystem of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique is one of the largest and most significant trans-boundary natural ecosystems in Africa 6 , covering over 154,000 km 2 (see maps of the project area in Annex 2). In this ecosystem several categories of protected areas have a combined protection status of 110,685 km 2 . In Tanzania these are as follows:

The Selous Game Reserve

Wildlife Management Areas as buffer zones of Selous Game Reserve

Mikumi National Park

Kilombero Game Controlled Area

Muhuwesi Game Controlled Area / Forest Reserve

Mwambesi Game Controlled Area / Forest Reserve

Lukwika – Lumesule and Msanjesi Game Reserves

Sasawara Forest Reserve

Total

47,000 km 2

7,500 km 2

3,000 km 2

6,500 km 2

1,500 km 2

1,000 km 2

400 km 2

385 km 2

67,285 km 2

In Mozambique the areas are:

Niassa Game Reserve 42,400 km 2

6 The Selous-Niassa Trans-Boundary Area is highlighted in the Southern Africa Report on Trans-

Boundary Systems (Biodiversity Support Programme, Griffin 1998).


ANNEX 4: Justification of the Selous – Niassa Corridor, and Corridor Design Principles

A) Introduction – The Role of Wildlife Corridors in Conservation.

There is a considerable body of scientific literature on the role and significance of wildlife corridors for conservation. The Expert Meeting in Dar es Salaam reviewed much of this literature. Of particular importance was a review paper in the journal Conservation Biology:

“Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?” 7 We quote from this paper:

Conservation biologists generally agree that landscape connectivity enhances population viability for many species, and that until very recently most species lived in well-connected landscapes. As human activities often sever natural connections between landscape elements, many conservationists have advocated the retention of habitat corridors. However conservation values accrue only IF the organisms in real landscapes do use the corridors to bring about connectivity. This has not been proved. This paper (Beir and Noss1998) reviews the literature to evaluate scientific evidence that corridors do serve as conduits for movement.

A corridor is described as “a linear habitat, embedded in a dissimilar matrix, that connects two or more larger blocks of habitat, and that is proposed for conservation on the grounds that it will enhance or maintain the viability of specified wildlife populations in the habitat blocks”. In our case the linear habitat is protected miombo woodland in a matrix of shifting cultivation and degraded woodland. The specified populations include elephant, sable, wilddog, oribi etc.

The authors conclude that “evidence from well designed studies generally supports the utility of corridors as a conservation tool. No study has demonstrated negative effects of corridors

(e.g. transmission of disease pathogens). Corridor sceptics are concerned about the high cost of establishing corridors – certainly each project should be considered carefully in terms of cost and conservation benefit”.

Note that the cost of this corridor is not high compared to the size of the corridor itself, and the value and size of the two larger habitat blocks.

The literature does stress the need for careful corridor design to suit the pattern of organism movement. This was fully taken into account during the design of the Selous – Niassa corridor. The expert meeting determined that the corridor had to allow for three patterns of movement:

1.

Large mammal movement back and forth along the corridor, as seasonal movements that approach the regularity of a migration (elephant), and less regular (wild dog).

2.

Connectivity through continuous interbreeding sub-populations, such as sable antelope.

Individual animals will not travel along the whole corridor, but their genes will.

3.

Habitat connectivity in terms of habitat stepping-stones for movements of dispersing organisms such as plants via their germinules, and birds and other mobile organisms.

Corridor design has to allow free movement, i.e. not be too narrow (e.g. tunnel or hedgerow like), but to allow elephant movement without damage to adjacent crops, and be wide enough to encompass e.g. sable, hartebeest home ranges with space for attendant carnivora. These issues are discussed below: a.

Size of the protected area: The general conservation principle is that wildlife areas should be as large as possible to maintain genetic diversity. However, the Selous and Niassa

Reserves already are amongst the biggest in Africa. Therefore the argument of PA size is

7 Beir, P. and Noss, R.F. 1998. Conservation.Biology. 12 (6) 1241 – 1252.


not the most important one in the context of this project, although there many believe that protected areas cannot be too big to preserve biodiversity. b. Landscape connectivity: With its dimensions of 160 km in length and 30 km in width the corridor is defined as a landscape linkage. It comprises broad tracts of natural habitat with no or little human impact. The dimensions of the corridor will allow even the largest herbivore, the African elephant, to migrate undisturbed between two of large elephant ranges of the world, Selous and Niassa Game Reserves.

Research in the nineteen seventies about the impact of human settlements on wildlife in the

Miombo woodlands of Selous Game Reserve (Matzke, Rodgers 1978) pointed out that people and larger wildlife could not coexist in close proximity because both need and use the same habitat. Species vary in their tolerance to settlement. Duikers, bushpigs, leopards, jackals survive in proximity. Sable buffalo, hartebeest and other gregarious ungulates, as well as wild dog and cheetah, have very limited tolerance. Land required for human settlements and farming should be separated from wildlife habitats. Thus the connectivity of the corridor can only be ensured with an appropriate land-use plan within village lands, which will ensure the effective protection of the habitat.

There are three major potential bottlenecks in the corridor, where settlements attracted by roads and the river might threaten the corridor: the Tunduru-Songea Road, the village road between Amani and Ligusenguse, and the Ruvuma River.

The Ruvuma River itself does not block gene flow per se , because larger mammals and birds can easily cross. Flying insects cross the river using the many islands as stepping-stones.

Reptiles and amphibians use the tributaries of Ruvuma River and the wetlands, especially in the rainy season, for dispersal. The problem is land-use on the Tanzanian or northern bank, where in the dry season there are concentrated fish camps etc. Major wildlife crossing points have to be identified within the wildlife corridor along the Ruvuma River. The exclusion of any human activities near these crossing points must be taken in consideration while preparing management plans. One km wide disturbance free crossing points are needed.

Fishing activities and methods will have to be regulated. c. Will the Corridor Link Species Gene Pools? The question whether the corridor is linking gene pools by natural habitat, can be answered as follows:

Natural habitat is found throughout the corridor. Human population density is still relatively low and the still insular agricultural patterns allow for a connected area of relative wilderness between the two reserves. There is no need to resettle people. The corridor exists and needs to be secured.

Is it wide enough? The existing human land use pattern allows for a corridor, which is at its narrowest point (the Tunduru-Ruvuma Road) at least 20 km wide. This is considered wide enough.

What are the social criteria of acceptance? The project aims for the protection of the wildlife corridor through the creation of a network of village Wildlife Management Areas. This requires that the local communities concerned will be included in the active planning, protection and management of these areas and that they will derive substantial benefits from wildlife management for their own development as stipulated in the Wildlife Policy of

Tanzania. Benefits could include legal supply of game meat, obtained through an annual hunting quota for each village, and income in terms of cash from sustainable utilisation of wildlife (photo or hunting tourism). Thus the area, which currently contributes little to the cash economy of the country, will provide permanent income and will ensure the sustainability of the corridor.


Improved wildlife management will reduce destructive wildfires. The villages will also be able to take into consideration the utilisation of other natural resources like forestry, beekeeping and fisheries while preparing their management plans. The establishment of

Village Forest Reserves will lead to sustainable logging and harvesting of minor forest products for the benefit of the villages. The enforcement of regulations will be the responsibility of the village governments and their organs and the Local District Government.

Core Areas : Two major PA's (Selous and Niassa) anchor the corridor and act as reservoirs at either end. The Sasawara Forest Reserve, located almost in the middle of the corridor, and some adjacent areas to the north and west of it is a potential core area and has to be an integral part of the conservation strategy. At present the reserve is under serious threat. It is administered by the District Forest Officer on behalf of Central Government’s Forest and

Beekeeping Department. Serious deforestation in the eastern part of the Reserve indicates that the forest sector has neglected this area in the past. Several options to improve the protection of the reserve exist: A joint management agreement between the adjacent villages and the

Forest Department regarding resource utilisation could be negotiated, where the villages commit themselves to respect the borders and protect the Reserve. In return they will benefit from improved resource access.


ANNEX 5: SELOUS RESEARCH PROJECT; INITIAL RESULTS OF WILDLIFE

MOVEMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR

In order to prepare the GEF corridor programme a research programme, financed by the

German Government under its Tropical Ecology Support Programme, has been initiated. The

Selous-Niassa Corridor Research Project is carried out in cooperation with various institutions; the Wildlife Department, Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI),

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Institute for Zoo Biology & Wildlife Research

Berlin (IZW) and Selous Conservation Programme/GTZ.

Currently, the status and migration routes of the populations of key mammal species in the

Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor are to a certain extent unknown, even though good educated guesses as to the populations and movements of the key species exist. The research project aims to identify the distribution patterns and the traditional migration routes of elephants and those of other large mammals. This will help inform the WMA process and contribute to a wider debate on the importance and conservation value of wildlife corridors for key species such as elephants.

Concrete objectives are:



Definition of the area that requires protection as a wildlife corridor in particular with respect to elephant movements, in order to assist the preservation of the genetic viability and persistence of two of the largest elephant populations in Africa and the implementation of attempts to minimize conflicts between wildlife and local communities, particularly farmers.



Assessment of the population size, health status and reproductive potential of key wildlife species, primarily elephants, that are valuable in terms of hunting licences and non-consumptive photo-tourism to local communities and the Government, to enable the setting of quotas for sustainable consumption.

From the first year of research the following preliminary results have emerged:

1.

Elephants occur throughout the Corridor. Roosevelt Sable antelope, eland and greater kudu are widespread (a map of sable distribution is provided as an example on page 35) .

Liechtenstein hartebeest has a locally restricted distribution, whereas there is currently no evidence that Niassa wildebeest still exist in the Corridor. African wild dogs are strictly seasonal, but when present are widespread throughout the southern section of the

Corridor. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor should be viewed as an internationally important wildlife area.

2.

The Corridor contains a number of well established, traditional movement routes for wildlife, and numerous areas that are important as seasonal or year-round habitats for elephants and other wildlife species.

3.

Seasonal movements by elephants and other wildlife are linked to the monsoon rains between November and April. Elephants move northwards between March and April and southwards between June and December. Elephants from Mozambique cross into

Tanzania between June and December. Key factors influencing these movements are availability of water, food and, in some places, increased human disturbance. Major sources of water and forage for elephants during the dry season are riverine forests and permanent swamps.

4.

Satellite-based radio-tracking of individual corridor elephants showed that two intensively tracked elephants (male and female) moved on average between 0.8 and 2.5 km/day during both dry and wet season within modest home ranges. One elephant moved longer distances consistent with the idea of at least seasonal migrations. The elephant


population in the Corridor is likely to consist of resident herds, and probably migratory groups as well. It is currently unclear whether Corridor elephants have always been resident, whether migratory movements are limited to extreme conditions, or whether anthropogenic changes already restrict wildlife movements.

5.

Human derived changes, particularly in terms of cultivation for cash crops, have already begun to affect wildlife. Intense and scattered cultivation is now widespread throughout the southern section of the Corridor (see map overleaf). Extensive cultivation along the

Songea-Tunduru road and along the road from Ligusenguse to Lusewa in the southern section now leaves few places safe to cross for wildlife. Several traditional key movement routes for elephants and other wildlife already have to cross roads or cultivated areas, or are on the periphery of such areas.

6.

Illegal exploitation of wildlife resources is particularly prominent in the southern section of the Corridor. Illegal fishing along the Ruvuma and its tributaries is widespread, and trans-boundary poaching for wildlife meat and trophies (ivory) continues. The project found an elephant carcass apparently shot for its tusks 5 km away from the Ruvuma River in May 2001.

7.

Several wildlife species damage crops, attack livestock and/or people. The frequency of such attacks and the total acreage damaged are modest. In response, the appropriate authorities undertake measures to protect crop and people against elephants, hippos, buffaloes, lions and leopards. Conflicts with wildlife are currently not considered a key factor preventing people developing their livelihoods within the Corridor.


Maps illustrating sable distribution and human activity


ANNEX 6: THREATS, ROOT CAUSES AND IMPACTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM

Current Situation Threats

Increasing biodiversity loss in the Selous-Niassa corridor



Increase in conversion of natural land for agricultural purposes

Blocking of wildlife movements in the corridor

Increasing depletion of natural resources





Ribbon strip development along roads and rivers

Unsustainable resource

Root Causes



Awareness of wildlife as a viable form of land use is low



Lack of economic alternative



Limited knowledge and skills of communities to translate the WPT into practice



Insufficient human, financial, materials and means for control



No institutional system exists to manage the land



No protection status



Planning is not aware of the importance of the corridor or of the potential income derived from wildlife as a form of land use



No protection status of the



 corridor

Insufficient enforcement of regulations

Solutions the corridor (Output 1).



Awareness of wildlife as a viable form of land use is raised through exchange visits to the northern sectors of



Formation of WMA and capacities of communities built to manage wildlife resources results in greater returns from wildlife than from agricultural land use (Output 3).



Communities have legalized authority through the formation of AAs to manage the village land within the corridor (Output 3).



Opportunities for other economic activities - in addition to wildlife hunting - such as sale of honey, medicinal plants etc. are maximised. (Output 3).



Southern sector of the corridor has recognised protection status under the WMA scheme (Output 3).



Awareness of wildlife as a viable form of land use is raised through exchange visits to the northern sectors of the corridor (Output 1).



Databases demonstrate the biodiversity value of the corridor justifying its protection (Output 2).



Southern sector of the corridor has recognised protection status under the WMA scheme (Output 3).



Land planning exercises within the WMA process ensure that development activities will not effect the integrity of the conservation area (Output 3).



Transferring management rights and responsibilities will reduce the illicit poaching and fishing activities and


Current Situation Threats Root Causes utilisation

- Poaching including cross border poaching

- Uncontrolled fishing and fishing methods

- Intentional or uncontrolled fires

- Uncontrolled logging

- Forest encroachment



Resource harvesting is carried out for short term benefits



Lack of economic alternatives



Lack of motivation to conserve/manage in a sustainable manner



No incentives to protect and sustainably use resources



Populations have no management responsibility of the natural resources or Sasawara forest



Knowledge and skills to implement WMAs and community based forest management is limited



Transboundary coordination is limited opening up opportunities for poaching

Solutions incidences of wildfires in the corridor. Local populations are extremely effective in guarding their resources when management rights are transferred

(Output 3).



Land planning exercises within the WMA process will take a long term approach to the management of resources (Output 3).



Tourism revenues and other identified income generating activities will provide an alternative to unsustainable resource use (Output 3 and 4).



Transferring management rights and responsibilities will reduce the illicit logging and encroachment in the

Sasawara forest. Local populations are extremely effective in guarding their resources when management rights are transferred (Output 4).



Capacities are built to empower communities to make decisions regarding the management and sustainable utilisation of natural resources within the WMA and

Sasawara forest reserve and furthermore to ensure that benefits derived are directly accrued to these communities (Output 3 and 4).



Improved transboundary coordination and collaboration results in a decrease in poaching incidences (Outputs 1 and 3).


ANNEX 7: INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX

(Note that GEF alternative/increment figures per output are based on the activity costs per output as in the logframe below, plus pro-rata costs across the personnel, equipment travel lines etc in the budget table on pg23).

Baseline GEF Alternative Increment

Domestic Benefits

Global Benefits

Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among local communities, local and district authorities

Communities in the Selous-Niassa corridor convert natural land for agriculture and use resources unsustainably as not aware of any economic alternatives.

Little is known about the value of the corridor making it difficult to justify its conservation.

Communities lack the knowledge and skills required to translate the

WMA initiative of the WPT and

CFM initiative of the Forestry

Policy into practice.

Continuing land conversion and unsustainable resource use results in barrier formation between the

Selous-Niassa Game Reserves and depletion of globally significant biodiversity.

Limited awareness of wildlife as an economically viable land use and of opportunities in the WMA initiative results in land being used for agriculture and other resource use, degrading biodiversity. Other land-usage impacts on biodiversity

Limited awareness of wildlife as an economically viable form of land use among local and district authorities results in sectoral policies being pursued with little concern for the protection of wildlife resources.

No transboundary collaboration allows cross border poaching to continue

Total Baseline: $540,000

Communities assume responsibility of managing land in the corridor through

WMA scheme.

Enhanced/alternative livelihood opportunities and more efficient land use practices increase incomes and reduce pressure on the wildlife corridor.

Formation of WMA and

CFM agreements and empowering communities as managers, enables both conservation and sustainable use of globally significant wildlife.

Greater awareness of opportunities of using wildlife land use and of

WPT among communities and local authorities.

Sectoral policies in the corridor recognize need to conserve the area and use land for wildlife purposes.

Linkages between Niassa

GR and Tanzania Wildlife offices in Rovuma Region reduce transboundary poaching incidences

GEF: $ 184,450

Other: $ 200,000

Baseline: $ 540,000

Total: $ 924,450

Formation of WMA results in opportunities for alternate income activities resulting in improved livelihoods of local communities.

Globally significant biodiversity conserved.

Awareness raised of

WPT and opportunities it presents among both communities and local/district authorities.

Sectoral policies conform to utilization of corridor for wildlife.

Improved ability to tackle transboundary poaching incidences through improved collaboration between

Tanzania Wildlife and

Niassa Game Reserve.

GEF: $ 184,450

GTZ GoT: $ 200,000

T OTAL : $384,000

Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic

Limited ecological and socioeconomic data exists leading to inadequate management.

Databases of key species, habitats and socioeconomic information will enable informed land

Databases created and regularly updated and used to inform management decisions.


databases for the corridor to serve as decision making tools for communities and local authorities

Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively established and managed throughout the corridor

Output 4: Protection of the Sarawasa

Forest Reserve through community participation

Output 5:

Dissemination of best practice community managed protected areas

Total

Baseline

Initial studies show the area is important for global biodiversity, but more detailed information is necessary to justify improved conservation of the area.

Total Baseline : $100,000

Lack of capacity of community and local Forest Department staff

(institutions, skills, resources, authority) necessary to establish

PFM Reserve

Total Baseline: $ 80,000

Lack of capacity (institutions, skills, resources, authority) to implement the WMA initiative of

WPT. Village governments develop resources in ways impacting on biodiversity

Total Baseline : $ 1,700,000

WMA and PFM are at their infancy in Tanzania resulting in limited opportunities for new initiatives to be guided from experiences elsewhere.

Subsequently these are learning processes that will involve considerable time and investment.

Total Baseline: $ 80,000

$ 2,400,000

GEF Alternative planning decisions to be made on WMA planning and management

GEF: $ 118,580

Other: $ 340,000

Baseline: $100,000

Total: $ 558,580

12 villages involved in establishment of WMA in southern sector of the

Selous-Niassa corridor.

Villages assisted in income support

GEF: $ 539,905

Other: $ 370,000

Baseline: $1,700,000

Total: $2,609,905

Capacity built and Forest

Reserve operating under a co-management system between communities and the local forest department.

GEF: $ 51,335

Other: $ 50,000

Baseline: $80,000

Total: $ 181,335

Lessons learnt and experiences are captured and disseminated nationally and internationally facilitating replication and benefiting similar processes in the future.

GEF: $ 92,230

Other: $100,000

Baseline: $ 80,000

Increment

GEF: $ 118,580

IZW: $ 340,000

Total: $ 458,580

Capacity built, land planning undertaken,

WMA gazetted and managed. Livelihoods supported. Biodiversity sustainably conserved.

GEF: $ 539,905

GTZ/GoT/UNDP:

$ 370,000

Total: $ 909,905

MOU completed and abided to for sustainable conservation of

Sasawara Forest Reserve

GEF: $51,335

Other: $ 50,000

Total: $ 101,335

Best practice and lessons learnt disseminated, facilitating replication contributing to a national network of community managed protected areas

GEF: $ 92,230

GTZ: $100,000

Total: $192,230

Total: $272,230

$ 4,546,500 $ 2,046,500


ANNEX 8 : LOG FRAME MATRIX

Logframe

Matrix

Project title:

The Development and Management of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor in Tanzania

Country: Tanzania

Project strategy

Project Goal

Wide scale adoption of the

Wildlife Management Areas

Initiative throughout the country increases area of land under biodiversity conservation.

Objectively verifiable indicators



50% of land currently within Game

Controlled Area status is protected for conservation purposes through the WMA initiative by 2010.



National population numbers of key species and habitats found outside formal protected areas maintained or enhanced by 2010.



Increased number of people involved in biodiversity conservation activities

Purpose through the WMA initiative.



By the end of the project 15,000 ha of

Biodiversity and habitat are land within the corridor is protected for conserved in the globally conservation purposes through the WMA significant Selous - Niassa miombo forest corridor of initiative.



By the end of the project monitoring

Tanzania. confirms no further loss of land to agricultural or other intensive land use purposes in the identified corridor area



By the end of the project poaching incidences within the corridor are reduced by 60 % from the baseline developed by

SCP (in year 1)



Population numbers of key species maintained or enhanced from the baseline developed by the SCP (in year 1)



Official records indicating area of land under WMA protection



National State of Environment

Report or similar



WWF/WB Management

Effectiveness Tracking Tool





Database records

WMA reports



Official records indicating area of land under WMA protection



WWF/WB Management



Sources of verification

Effectiveness Tracking Tool

Data base records with details of animal movements and socio-

Estimated project period: 4 years

Prepared in August 2003 economic activities



Records of poaching incidences by village game scouts



Data base records with details population numbers of key species

Assumptions

Political stability, law and order are maintained.

Government continues to support WMA initiative.

No natural event, such as flooding, occurs detrimentally affecting ecosystems.

Political stability, law and order are maintained.

No natural event, such as flooding, occurs detrimentally affecting the ecosystem.

Immediate Objectives

1. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife

Corridor is effectively conserved, with the establishment of a network of village wildlife management areas that are protected, managed and utilised sustainably by the local communities with the assistance of Local

Government and Wildlife

Division.

2. Benefits from wildlife management enhance the livelihood security of villages with WMAs, and promote the long-term conservation of the corridor.



By the end of the project a system of

WMAs, cover 15,000 ha is developed and functional within the Niassa-Selous corridor



By the end of the project 12 community leaders and authorities within the corridor are trained to manage natural resources issues



Local communities from 12 target villages are fully involved in the WMA process by the end of the project.



By the end of the project monitoring confirms that agricultural activities and settlements do not prevent wildlife movements



Independent monitoring confirms that, by the end of the project, 6 villages receive an increase in financial or other benefits from the WMA’s and that these benefits continue in the five years after the project

 Five years after the project ends WMA’s are still being actively managed and are conserving the wildlife corridor



AAs



Official reporting on training.



Signed documentation by authorities





Official government documentation declaring WMAs and associated and community members involved in WMA

Formal reporting on development of

WMA

Database records with socioeconomic details



Database records with ecological and socio-economic details



Household surveys



Focus groups



Socio-economic and ecological data base



Official Government reports

Community willingness to implement conservation strategies.

Local and District government willingness to share authority for conservation initiatives.

Community willingness to implement conservation strategies.

No unforeseen investment, such as a mine or a dam, is implemented in the area that displaces communities from the land.

Draft MSP brief 13 th

November 2003 SNL


Outputs:

1.

Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among communities, local and district authorities

2.

Creation of reliable ecological and socioeconomic databases for the corridor to serve as decision-making tools for communities and local authorities

Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification

Over 30% of households in the local community are targeted in awareness raising activities by end of year 3

Exchange visits are undertaken by at least ten community members from each village to

WMAs in the northern sector of the corridor by end of year 3

Annual exchange visits undertaken by local and district authority personnel to WMAs in the northern corridor by end of year 3.

Formal meeting undertaken each year between

Wildlife Authorities of Selous/Rovuma of

Tanzania and Niassa GR of Mozambique

Completed GIS database for ecological and socio-economic data for the corridor by the end of year 3

Database being actively used to inform management decisions by end of year 3.



Official project reporting



Report of exchange visits



Minutes of cross border meetings



Biodiversity, socio-economic and

GIS documents completed and available to partners and communities



Completed computer database available to partners and decision makers Completed map of proposed boundaries



Assumptions

Staff from Mozambique continue to be willing to cooperate in cross border cooperation

The communities, and researchers work together to compile information for the database.


Outputs:

3.

A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor

Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification

Ten members of the community from each of the 12 target villages trained to implement

WMA after 1½ year.

Mapping of boundaries of the WMAs completed with the participation of 12 target villages by end of year 2.

WMA management plan developed and under implementation with the participation of all 12 target villages by end of year 2.

Official records and documents of the gazettement of WMAs and AA’s by end of year 2.

120 village scouts trained and equipped for anti-poaching exercises by end of year 2.

At least 2 income generating projects in each village based on sustainable utilisation of natural resources by end of year 3.






Completed map illustrating boundaries available



Completed Management Plan

Document available.



Signed documentation by the national government creating and legalizing the WMA.



The number of patrol documented and impact are monitored through the reduction in poaching incidences

 Official project reporting for IGP’s



Legal documentation establishing the three tiers.



Completed Document available.

Assumptions

Communities are willing to follow decisions made by community elected committees.

4.

Protection of the Sasawara

Forest Reserve through community participation

Records and official Memorandum of

Understanding for joint management of

Sasawara Forest Reserve by end of year 2.

Joint Management Plan developed and being implemented by end of year 2



Official document of Memorandum of Understanding available



Management Plan document available and official project reporting

Forestry staff have indicated support for the project and it is assumed that they are therefore willing to share authority for the management of the forest reserve


November 2003 SNL

Project strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification

Outputs:

5. Dissemination of best practice for community managed protected areas

Existence of an active network of participants of WMA initiatives by year 2.

At least 2 newsletters produced and disseminated annually to encourage replication of best practices

Participation of project staff and community representatives in 2 WMA fora annually

Completed case study of Selous-Niassa WMA experience disseminated to policy leaders of

WPT addressing both WMA and system boundary.

At least 5 visits to project sites undertaken by policy leaders by the end of the project.

At least 5 visits to project sites undertaken by targeted government staff by the end of the project.



Email exchange and minutes of meetings



Availability of newsletters



Minutes of for a meetings



Official case study document




Assumptions

Policy advisors are receptive to recommendations resulting from the experiences of WMAs in the Selous-

Niassa corridor

Government staff our willing to visit the field.


November 2003 SNL

Details of activities for each output

Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the corridor among communities, local and district authorities

Activity 1.1: Carry out a stakeholder analysis and develop a public participation plan that targets all land users to ensure they are well informed and can participate in the projects activities.

Cost US$ ( specified for the cost of activity only

– excludes staff costs, equipment, M&E, etc. covered in the input budget page 23)

70,000

Activity 1.2: Design and implement an effective education campaign to inform communities about natural resources conservation and sustainable utilization and the Government policies and regulation regarding the role of communities in NRM, particularly in implementing WMAs. Specific activities will be developed for target groups such as fishermen on the Ruvuma River.

Activity 1.3: Facilitate exchange of experience and site visits by local communities to villages in the northern part of the corridor of the

Selous Buffer zone.

Activity 1.4: Facilitate exchange of experiences and site visits by local authorities to villages in the northern part of the corridor of the

Selous Buffer zone.

Activity 1.5: Facilitate the involvement of agricultural agencies at village and district level and others identified in Activity 1.1 in the project activities to ensure that sectoral policies do not conflict the projects activities.

Activity 1.6: Facilitate meetings between the Government/Wildlife Division of Tanzania and the Niassa Game Reserve staff

Mozambique in order to develop trans-boundary anti-poaching agreements

17,000

13,000

5,000

10,000

5,000

20.000


November 2003 SNL

Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to serve as decision-making

tools for communities and local authorities

Activity 2.1: Carry out regular participatory wildlife/land-use surveys in order to monitor animal distribution and human activities within the corridor and WMAs and to feed results in the conservation planning exercises.

Activity 2.2: Carry out a study on fishing activities at Ruvuma River and is tributaries; develop and implement proposals for appropriate sustainable management regarding special protection of crossing points for wildlife.

Activity 2.3: Carry out regular socioeconomic surveys to be repeated at regular intervals to monitor the impact of WMA activities on the livelihoods of local communities.

Activity 2.4: Integrate results from the Selous Niassa Corridor Research Project into project activities.

45,000

20,000

10,000

10,000

5,000


November 2003 SNL

Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor

Activity 3.1: Establish the institutional arrangements necessary for the WMAs

Activity 3.2: Undertake training of members of the various WMA institutions and village scouts

Activity 3.3: Facilitate the communities to establish the required infrastructure and associated equipment for the village institutions

Activity 3.4: Integrate results of land surveys and land use planning activities, carried out in Output 1, for the identification of WMAs and undertake mapping and border demarcation of the WMAs

Activity 3.5: Facilitate the development of management plans for the WMAs including associated village bye-laws and advise the AA’s with the implementation of the management plan and natural resource utilisation

Activity 3.6: Facilitate the gazettement of WMA, integration of WMA’s into local development plans and declaration of the

CBO as an Authorised Association (AA).

Activity 3.7: Support village, District and Central Government regional game scouts in anti-poaching operations until communities earn sufficient income from their WMAs to take over

Activity 3.8: Facilitate legal advice for lease of contracts, concessional agreements and other business activities when necessary.

Activity 3.9: Facilitate the involvement of District agricultural and natural ressources extension officers (targeted in

Output 1) to work with local communities in a resource use planning exercise to identify and develop opportunities for income generation through products such as honey, timber, medicinal plants,

Activity 3.10: Carry out training for the development of business plans of the CBOs

200,000

30,000

5,000

20,000

30,000

5,000

45,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

5,000


November 2003 SNL

Output 4: Protection of the Sasawara Forest Reserve through community participation

Activity 4.1: Working closely with the Forest Department, identify the reserve’s boundaries in the field and evaluate the status of protection and encroachment.

Activity 4.2: Define and propose options for the improvement of its protection and joint management between adjacent villages and the Forest Department regarding forest utilisation

Activity 4.3: Facilitate a Memorandum of Understanding about the joint management and protection between the villages and the Forest Department

Activity 4.4: Facilitate a process of developing and implementing a joint management plan on Saswara Forest


Activity 5.1: Promote a network between the WMA initiatives nationally in order to share challenges, successes and best practices and to identify how best to disseminate lessons learnt.

Activity 5.2: In collaboration with other members of the network, record experiences and lessons learnt from the WMA process for dissemination e.g. newsletters, case studies, NGO fora among key practitioners to inform similar initiatives elsewhere in the country and in adjacent areas in Mozambique.

Activity 5.3: Target policy leaders of the WPT, for example through site visits, videos, presentations and workshops, to ensure that lessons learnt from the Selous-Niassa project and other similar initiatives influence policy decisions for the implementation of WMAs.

Activity 5.4: Target government staff from identified target sites elsewhere in the country and facilitate exchange of experience and site visits to the project area to demonstrate best practice and encourage replication

19,500

4,000

3,500

5,000

7,000

35,000

1,000

9,000

15,000

10,000


November 2003 SNL

ANNEX 9: DETAILS OF STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

1.

Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor; Expert meeting 20 th April 2001

This meeting was convened to discuss: i) Why would securing the corridor enhance the biodiversity of the ecosystem? ii) By what methods should the corridor be secured and managed.

The meeting was attended by a number of scientists, government wildlife experts, district conservation staff, UNDP-GEF, GTZ and staff from the Selous Game Reserve. The results and conclusions of the meeting formed an integral part of this project brief (see Annex 4) and will be taken into consideration for the implementation of the project. The opportunities to cooperate with Niassa Game Reserve and other projects in the Ruvuma Region were also discussed.

2.

Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor; The Songea Stakeholder Meeting 28 th -29 th June 2001.

This was the culmination of a series of village level awareness meetings and initiatives, in all twelve potential village WMA sites. Village leaders from the southern area met village leaders from the pilot sites in the northern Buffer Zone sites. All district staff were briefed using the District Natural Resource Officers (DNRO) as the focal points, DNROs coordinate

District Wildlife, District Forest and District Fisheries and Environment issues.

This meeting took place in Songea, the relevant regional capital to discuss the Corridor with all relevant stakeholders (totalling 56 in number) present. Stakeholders included:

The Local Government at Regional and District level (including District Natural Resource

Advisory Committees) and the relevant Village Governments, SCP-GTZ, representatives from Selous GR, representatives from Niassa GR in Mozambique and UNDP-GEF.

A number of issues were discussed as follows:



Awareness raising to the communities on policy, legal framework and regulations governing the wildlife policy



Awareness creation on the existing biodiversity within the Selous-Niassa Corridor



Division and management of the area for community conservation as per regulations



Preventive measures against poaching on reserved areas



Proper recording and evaluation on availability and utilization of existing resources

Constraints: It was agreed that despite the recent developments, the project had encountered the following constraints:



Delayed Gazzetement of the Wildlife Management Authorities



Delayed approval of the regulations governing such authority



The absence of a pronouncement of the rights of the user rights



Change of the wildlife policy and the laws governing Land



Delay in announcing such changes



Ineffectiveness of cases against poachers



Insignificant punishments



Delays in concluding cases of poachers



In many occasions poachers are left scot free

3) Other Meetings.

Project proponents held meetings with central and district government offices in the

Agriculture field, and with SNV who had been working with agricultural planning capacities at village level. We learned that there is little ongoing donor or mainstream government project support in these areas. (Note that stakeholder meeting outputs are in the national language – Swahili. Copies can be made available if needed).


November 2003 SNL

ANNEX 10: R ESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF WMA S

(These notes are taken from Government Regulations and Guidance on Use of Regulations)

R OLE OF V ILLAGES

All conservation activities in Wildlife Management Areas shall be under the control and management of villages that may, where necessary, co-operate with the Director, the

Tanzania National Parks Authority and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority.

R ESPONSIBILITIES OF V ILLAGE G OVERNMENT

The Village Government shall be responsible in the management of Wildlife Management

Areas for the following:

(a) Coordination of natural resources management activities at village level;

(b) Preparation of Land Use Plans;

(c) Formulating natural resources management by-laws;

(d) Monitoring the activities of Authorized Associations and report to the Village

Assembly and District Council;

(e) Providing land for the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas;

(f) Ensuring that there exists a secure and favorable business environment in

Wildlife Management Areas;

(g) Ensuring that Authorized Associations implement sectoral policies; and

(h) Entering into Agreements with Authorized Associations on the management of Wildlife Management Areas.

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND

AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATIONS

Establishment of a Community Based Organisation

Every village intending to acquire a Wildlife Management Area shall form a Community

Based Organization in accordance with the Societies Ordinance, Cap. 337 of the Laws of

Tanganyika.

(2) The Community Based Organization established for the purpose of managing a Wildlife

(a)

Management Area shall have a Constitution whose provisions shall include information on the following:

The description of the Wildlife Management Area stating the following:

(i) Name

(ii) Boundaries

(iii) Size

(iv) Location

(v) Objectives

(b) Name of participating District(s) and village(s)

(c) Qualification of membership

(d) Office bearers, their qualification and tenure

(e) Description of the organizational structure providing for those accountable to the

villagers, Village Government and those linked to the District Council

(f) Roles and responsibilities of the different organs

(g) Relationship with the Village Government

(h) Financial management

(i) Methods of resolving conflicts

(j) Code of conduct and disciplinary measures


November 2003 SNL

Applications for Authorised Association status

(1) All applications for Authorized Association status shall be lodged with the Director.

(2) Applications for Authorized Association status shall only be made by duly registered Community Based Organizations that have fulfilled all the requirements provided for in these regulations.

(3) The Director shall make known to the Community Based Organization aspiring to become an Authorized Association the general conditions for managing a

Wildlife Management Area.

F UNCTIONS OF A UTHORIZED A SSOCIATIONS

Authorized Associations may perform the following functions in the management of Wildlife

Management Areas:

(a) Acquire Wildlife Management Area status of village land set aside for wildlife conservation and management;

(b) Manage Wildlife Management Areas in accordance with existing General

Management Plan and laws;

(c) Review General Management Plans for the Wildlife Management Areas and Strategic

Plans for the Authorized Associations;

(d) Recruit Village Game Scouts from within the villages forming the Wildlife

Management Areas and coordinate activities of Village Game Scouts;

(e) Participate in developing by-laws;

(f) Negotiate and enter into contractual agreements regarding the utilisation of resources in Wildlife Management Areas;

(g) Promote transparency and accountability;

(h) Ensure equitable sharing of benefits;

(i) Manage conflict/arbitration on matters pertaining to Wildlife Management Areas;

(j) Be accountable to the Village Assembly;

(k) Report and seek authorisation of investment from Village Assemblies;

(l) Co-opt technical experts as required;

(m) Protect resources and ensure conservation of biodiversity in Wildlife Management

Areas;

(n) Carry out activities related to problem animal control;

(o) Ensure efficient financial management;

(p) Ensure and maintain proper records and provide quarterly, semi–annual and annual reports to village assemblies meetings;

(q) Oversee the collection and payment of required fees and taxes;

(r)

(s)

Identify personnel and organize their training;

Undertake investments and developments;

(t) Liaise with other institutions for information and technological exchange;

(u) Apprehend illegal users and hand them over to relevant authorities;

(v)

Acquire and dispose of the Association’s property;

(w) Undertake resource monitoring;

(x) Acquire arms and ammunition and shall maintain a register of the arms and ammunition.


November 2003 SNL

E MPLOYMENT OF V ILLAGE G AME S COUTS

Village Game Scouts shall be employed by Authorized Associations and shall be charged with the following functions:

(a) to protect natural resources within the boundaries of the village(s);

(b) to protect the lives and properties of villagers from problem animals;

(c) to ensure sustainable utilisation of the resources;

(d) to collect and store basic information and data for the purpose of wildlife monitoring;

(e) to collect trophies;

(f) to guide visitors in Wildlife Management Areas;

(g) to maintain a register of daily activities and report regularly to the Authorized

Association;

(h) to guard the borders of the Wildlife Management Areas against encroachment;

(i) to take part in fire control and management; and

(j) to take part in anti-poaching activities.

R ESPONSIBILITIES OF D ISTRICT C OUNCIL

The responsibilities of the District Council shall be:

(a) to facilitate applications by a Community-Based Organization to become an

Authorized Association and to establish Wildlife Management Areas;

(b) to ensure that the District Advisory Body is functional;

(c) to form a linkage between the Authorized Association and the Wildlife Division;

(d) to approve natural resource by-laws;

(e) to approve Land Use Plans;

(f) to implement and monitor adherence to the wildlife laws in and outside Wildlife

Management Areas; and to endorse investments in Wildlife Management Areas.

E STABLISHMENT OF A D ISTRICT N ATURAL R ESOURCES A DVISORY B ODY

The District Council shall establish a District Natural Resources Advisory Body for matters relating to the co-ordination and administration of Wildlife Management Areas

Composition of District Natural Resources Advisory Body

The members of the District Natural Resources Advisory Body who shall comprise of the following:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

District Commissioner who shall be the Chairperson;

District Executive Director;

District Game Officer who shall be the Secretary;

District Land Officer;

District Forestry Officer;

District Bee-Keeping Officer;

District Community Development Officer;

District Fisheries Officer;

A Representative or representatives of Authorized Associations;

A Representative from the Game Division;

A Representative from Tanzania National Parks Authority where applicable;

A Representative from the Ngorongoro Area Conservation Authority where

(m) applicable.

The composition of the District Natural Resource Advisory Body shall

(n) observe gender representation and mainstreaming.

The Advisory Body may co-opt experts as resource person to provide technical advice but these shall have no voting power.


November 2003 SNL

F UNCTIONS OF D ISTRICT N ATURAL R ESOURCES A DVISORY B ODY

The functions of the District Natural Resources Advisory Body shall be:

(a) to act as a forum of arbitration and resolution of conflicts;

(b) to resolve major land and natural resource conflicts in Wildlife Management Areas;

(c) to reconcile interests of major stakeholders in Wildlife Management Areas;

(d) to provide and co-ordinate technical advice to Authorized Associations;

(e) to provide legal advice in contractual undertakings by Authorized Associations;

(f) to facilitate setting of wildlife quotas by Authorized Associations in collaboration with the District Game Officers or a designated wildlife authority;

(g) to furnish the appropriate District Council Standing Committee with the deliberations of the Technical Advisory Body; and

(h) to advise the District Council on investments in Wildlife Management Areas;

(i) All cross-sectoral issues in the management of Wildlife Management Areas shall be overseen and administered by the District Advisory Body.


November 2003 SNL

ANNEX 11: MONITORING AND E VALUATION PLAN

Ongoing project monitoring of the national components will be provided in accordance with established UNDP procedures and will be provided by the UNDP County Office with support from

UNDP/ GEF.

1. Reporting

The Project support Unit will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports:

(a) Inception Report (IR)

The inception report is to be prepared by the Project Manager with the assistance of III as relevant. The IR will be prepared no later than three months after project start-up and will include a detailed Work plan and Budget for the duration of the project, progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and any proposed amendments to project activities or approaches. The report will be circulated to all the parties who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. The report will also be reviewed by UNDP Country Office and UNDP/GEF to ensure consistency with the objectives and activities indicated in the Project Document.

(b) Annual Project Report (APR) and PIR

The Annual Project Report (APR) is designed to obtain the independent views of the main stakeholders of a project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. The

APR aims to: a) provide a rating and textual assessment of the progress of a project in achieving its objectives; b) present stakeholders' insights into issues affecting the implementation of a project and their proposals for addressing those issues; and c) serve as a source of inputs to the Tripartite Review (TPR). The main project stakeholders participate in the preparation of the APR.

The APRs will be prepared every six months during the first year of the project, and then annually. The APRs will detail activities undertaken since the last APR, milestones reached, key results and achievements, problems encountered and any other issues that need to be highlighted.

The APR will use the format of the Streamlined APR/PIR provided by UNDP-GEF.

Information from this document will be used by the Regional Coordinator to compile the PIR for GEFSEC.

(c) Periodic Status Reports

As and when called for by the Project Director, III, the government or UNDP, the Project

Manager will prepare Status Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity as stipulated by the querant. The request for a Status Report will be in written form, and will clearly state the issue or activities which need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. The parties are requested to minimise their requests for Status Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for the preparation of these Reports.

(d) Technical Reports

Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specialisations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report the Project Manager will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates.

Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent

APRs. One obligatory technical reporting tool will be the use of the WWF/WB Management

Reporting progress at protected area sites 59

Effectiveness Tracking Tool, which will be completed by project staff and those managing the

WMA’s. This simple site-level tracking tool enables management practices to be assessed using a framework with specific criteria. This is attached as Annex 12.Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants as Final Reports for their technical inputs, and should be comprehensive, specialised analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites.

Project Publications (e)

Project Publications will form a key method of crystallising and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications will be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of books, journal articles or multimedia publications. These Publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The Project Director will determine if specific

Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with the government and other parties and with the help of external specialists and staff where necessary) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognisable format and identity. These

Publications will form the most visible public output of the Project, and as such should be prepared and presented to the highest scientific and technical standards.

(f) Project Terminal Report

During the last three months of the project the Project Manager will prepare the Project

Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarise all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met and missed, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities over the fiveyear duration. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

(g) Other Publications and Publicity Activities

In order to ensure international dissemination of project results , a high-quality publication of results will be prepared, based upon the Project Terminal Report and previous Project

Publications. All publications and publicity will clearly carry the GEF logo, as well as the

Government and UNDP logos.

2. Monitoring & Evaluation

Tripartite Review (TPR)

The tripartite review (TPR) is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every twelve months by representatives of the Government, the executing agency and UNDP, and the first such meeting to be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The Project

Manager shall prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and to submit to UNDP. The APR must be ready two weeks prior to the TPR.

The APR/PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The

Project Director presents the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The Project Director also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Six-monthly

APR’s will be provided during the first two years of the project to ensure that design and inception activities are closely monitored, and subsequently the APR will be done on an annual basis. Separate reviews of each state component may also be conducted if necessary. Monitoring and Evaluation

Indicators will be built into the project in consultation with UNDP.

Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)

The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The Project Manager is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report, and submitting to UNDP. It shall be prepared in draft sufficiently in advance to allow review and technical clearance by the executing agency at least two


months prior to the terminal tripartite review. The Terminal Report will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its immediate objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective, and decides whether any actions are still necessary.

Project Implementation Review (PIR)

A major tool for monitoring the GEF portfolio and extracting lessons is the annual GEF Project

Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects.

The PIR is mandatory for all GEF projects that have been under implementation for at least one year at the time that the exercise is conducted. A project becomes legal and implementation activities can begin when all parties have signed the project document. The PIR questionnaire is sent to the UNDP country office, usually around the beginning of June. It is the responsibility of the Project Director to complete the PIR questionnaire, with the oversight of the UNDP Country Office.

Mid-term Evaluation

An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year. The Mid-Term

Evaluation will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organisation, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.

Final Evaluation

An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The organisation, terms of reference and timing of the final evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.

3.

Regular Monitoring and Evaluation

The project will also be closely monitored by the UNDP Country Office through quarterly meetings or more frequently as deemed necessary with the Project Director. This will allow to take stock and to trouble shoot of any problems pertaining to the project quickly to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

4. Learning and Knowledge Sharing



To identify and participate in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.



To identify, analyze, share and communicate lessons learned that may be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. The need to identify and analyse lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessons is on an as-needed basis, but not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format for categorising and reporting lessons learned.



To ensure that the Term of Reference for consultants recruited by the project incorporate mechanisms that capture and share lessons learned through their inputs to the project, and to ensure that the results are reflected in the reporting format described above.

I NDICATIVE WORKPLAN FOR M ONITORING AND E VALUATION

Type of M&E activity Lead responsible party in bold Time frame


Inception Report

APR/PIR

TPR and TPR report

Progress reports

Mid-term External

Evaluation

Final External

Evaluation

Terminal Report

Audit

Visits to field sites

Lessons learnt

Project Manager

The Government, UNDP Country

Office , Executing Agency, Project

Team, UNDP/GEF Task Manager 8 , and Target Groups

The Government, UNDP Country

Office , Executing Agency, Project

Team, UNDP/GEF Task Manager, and

Target Groups

Project Manager

At the beginning of project implementation

Every year, at latest by June of that year

Every year, upon receipt of APR

To be determined by Executing

Agency

At the mid-point of project implementation.

Project team, UNDP/GEF headquarters , UNDP/GEF Task

Manager, UNDP Country Office,

Executing Agency

Project team, UNDP/GEF headquarters , UNDP/GEF Task

Manager, UNDP Country Office,

Executing Agency

UNDP Country Office , UNDP/GEF

Task Manager, Project Team

Executing Agency , UNDP Country

Office, Project Team

UNDP Country Office, Executing

Agency

UNDP-GEF, GEFSEC, Project Team,

Executing Agency

At the end of project implementation,

Ex-post: about two years following project completion

At least one month before the end of the project

Yearly

Yearly

Yearly

8 UNDP/GEF Task Managers is a broad term that includes regional advisors, sub-regional coordinators, and GEF project specialists based in the region or in HQ .


ANNEX 12: WWF/WB M ANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS T RACKING TOOL

There is a growing concern amongst protected area professionals that many protected areas around the world are not achieving the objectives for which they were established. One response to this concern has been an emphasis on the need to increase the effectiveness of protected area management, and to help this process a number of assessment tools have been developed to assess management practices. It is clear that the existence of a wide range of situations and needs require different methods of assessment. The World Commission on

Protected Areas (WCPA) has therefore developed a ‘framework’ for assessment 9 . The WCPA framework aims both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting.

The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements:

 it begins with understanding the context of existing values and threats,

 progresses through planning , and

 allocation of resources ( inputs ), and

 as a result of management actions ( processes ),

 eventually produces products and services ( outputs ),

 that result in impacts or outcomes .

The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use (‘the Alliance’) was formed in April 1998, in response to the continued depletion of the world’s forest biodiversity and of forest-based goods and services essential for sustainable development. As part of its programme of work the Alliance has set a target relating to management effectiveness of protected areas: 50 million hectares of existing but highly threatened forest protected areas to be secured under effective management by the year 2005 10 .

To evaluate progress towards this target the Alliance has developed a simple site-level tracking tool to facilitate reporting on management effectiveness of protected areas within WWF and World

Bank projects. The tracking tool has been built around the application of the WCPA

Framework and Appendix II of the Framework document has provided its basic structure.

The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool forms part of a series of management effectiveness assessment tools, which range from the WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation Methodology used to identify key protected areas at threat within a protected area system to detailed monitoring systems such as those being developed by the

Enhancing Our Heritage project for UNESCO natural World Heritage sites. The Alliance has also supported the development of both the WCPA framework and the development of the

WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation Methodology.

9 Hockings, Marc with Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley (2000); Assessing Effectiveness – A Framework for

Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas ; University of Cardiff and IUCN, Switzerland

10 Dudley, Nigel and Sue Stolton (1999); Threats to Forest Protected Areas: Summary of a survey of 10 countries ; project carried out for the WWF/World Bank Alliance in association with the IUCN World Commission on

Protected Areas, IUCN, Switzerland


The WCPA Framework

To maximise the potential of protected areas, and to improve management processes, we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their management and the threats that they face. In the last few years, various methodologies for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas have been developed and tested around the world. The World Commission on

Protected Areas provides an overarching framework for assessing management effectiveness of both protected areas and protected area systems, to give guidance to managers and others and to help harmonise assessment around the world.

Table 1 contains a very brief summary of the elements of the WCPA Framework and the criteria that can be assessed 11 . The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking

Tool has been designed to fulfil the elements of evaluation included in the Framework.

Table 1: Summary of the WCPA Framework

Elements of evaluation

Explanation Criteria that are assessed

Focus of evaluation

Context

Planning

Where are we now?

Assessment of importance, threats and policy environment

Where do we want to be?

Assessment of protected area design and planning

Significance

Threats

Vulnerability

National context

Partners

Protected area legislation and policy

Protected area system design

Reserve design

Management planning

Status

Appropriateness

Inputs

Processes

Outputs

Outcomes

What do we need?

Assessment of resources needed to carry out management

How do we go about it?

Assessment of the way in which management is conducted

What were the results?

Assessment of the implementation of management programmes and actions; delivery of products and services

What did we achieve?

Assessment of the outcomes and the extent to which they achieved objectives

-

-

-

-

-

-

Resourcing of agency

Resourcing of site

Suitability of management processes

Results of management actions

Services and products

Impacts: effects of management in relation to objectives

Resources

Efficiency and appropriateness

Effectiveness

Effectiveness and appropriateness

Questions in the following tracking tool have been ordered to make completion as easy as possible; the element(s) that each refers to are indicated in the left hand column.

11 For a copy of the WWF/WB Framework or a more detailed summary please visit the WCPA web-site at: www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa or contact WCPA at wcpa@hq.iucn.org


Purpose of the World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool has been developed to help track and monitor progress in the achievement of the World Bank/WWF Alliance worldwide protected area management effectiveness target. It is also hoped that the tracking tool will be used more generally where it can help monitor progress towards improving management effectiveness; for example it is being used by the Global Environment Facility.

The Alliance has identified that the tracking tool needs to be:

 Capable of providing a harmonised reporting system for protected area assessment within both the World Bank and WWF;



Suitable for replication;

 Able to supply consistent data to allow tracking of progress over time;



Relatively quick and easy to complete by protected area staff, so as not to be reliant on high levels of funding or other resources;

 Capable of providing a “score” if required;

 Based around a system that provides four alternative text answers to each question, strengthening the scoring system;



Easily understood by non-specialists; and

 Nested within existing reporting systems to avoid duplication of effort.

L IMITATIONS

The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool is aimed to help reporting progress on management effectiveness and should not replace more thorough methods of assessment for the purposes of adaptive management. The tracking tool has been developed to provide a quick overview of progress in improving the effectiveness of management in individual protected areas, to be filled in by the protected area manager or other relevant site staff. As such it is clear that there are strict limitations on what it can achieve: it should not for example be regarded as an independent assessment, or as the sole basis for adaptive management.

Because of the great differences between expectations, resources and needs around the world, the tracking tool also has strict limitations in terms of allowing comparison between sites: the scoring system, if applied at all, will be most useful for tracking progress over time in one site or a closely related group of sites.

Lastly, the tracking tool is too limited to allow a detailed evaluation of outcomes and is really aimed at providing a quick overview of the management steps identified in the WCPA

Framework up to and including outputs . Although we include some questions relating to outcomes, the limitations of these should be noted. Clearly, however good management is, if biodiversity continues to decline, the protected area objectives are not being met. Therefore the question on condition assessment has disproportionate importance in the overall tracking tool.

Guidance notes for using the Tracking Tool

The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool can be completed by protected area staff or project staff, with input from other protected area staff. The tracking tool has been designed to be easily answered by those managing the protected area without any additional research.

All sections of the tracking tool should be completed. There are two sections:


1.

Datasheet : which details key information on the site, its characteristics and management objectives and includes an overview of WWF/World Bank involvement.

2.

Assessment Form : the assessment form includes three distinct sections, all of which should be completed.



Questions and scores: the main part of the assessment form is a series of 30 questions that can be answered by assigning a simple score ranging between 0 (poor) to 3

(excellent) . A series of four alternative answers are provided against each question to help assessors to make judgements as to the level of score given. Questions that are not relevant to a particular protected area should be omitted , with a reason given in the comments section (for example questions about use and visitors will not be relevant to a protected area managed according to the IUCN protected area management Category Ia). In addition, there are six supplementary questions which elaborate on key themes in the previous questions and provide additional information and points. This is, inevitably, an approximate process and there will be situations in which none of the four alternative answers appear to fit conditions in the protected area very precisely. We suggest that you choose the answer that is nearest and use the comments section to elaborate.

 Comments: a box next to each question allows for qualitative judgements to be justified by explaining why they were made (this could range from personal opinion, a reference document, monitoring results or external studies and assessments – the point being to give anyone reading the report an idea of why the assessment was made). In this section we also suggest that respondents comment on the role/influence of WWF or World Bank projects if appropriate. On some occasions suggestions are made about what might be covered in the comments column.



Next Steps: for each question respondents are asked to identify a long-term management need to further adaptive management at the site, if this is relevant.

3.

Final Score : a final total of the score from completing the assessment form can be calculated as a percentage of scores from those questions that were relevant to a particular protected area . (So for example if 5 questions are believed to be irrelevant

(and this is justified in the comments column) then the final score would be multiplied by

29/24 to offset the fact that some questions were not applied.) If the additional questions are relevant to the protected area, add the additional score to the total if they are relevant and omit them if they are not.

Disclaimer

: The whole concept of “scoring” progress is fraught with difficulties and possibilities for distortion. The current system assumes, for example, that all the questions cover issues of equal weight, whereas this is not necessarily the case. Accuracy might be improved by weighting the various scores although this would provide additional challenges in deciding differing weightings. In the current version a simple scoring system is maintained, but the limitations of this approach should be recognised.


Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet

Name of protected area

Location of protected area (country and if possible map reference)

Date of establishment (distinguish between agreed and gazetted*)

Ownership details (i.e. owner, tenure rights etc)

Management Authority

Agreed Gazetted

Size of protected area (ha)

Permanent

Number of staff

Temporary

Budget

Designations (IUCN category, World

Heritage, Ramsar etc)

Reasons for designation

Brief details of World Bank funded project or projects in PA

Brief details of WWF funded project or projects in PA

Brief details of other relevant projects in PA

List the two primary protected area objectives

Objective 1

Objective 2

List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)

Threat 1

Threat 2

List top two critical management activities

Activity 1

Activity 2

Date assessment carried out: _________________________________________________________

Name/s of assessor: _________________________________________________________________

*

Or formally established in the case of private protected areas


Issue

1. Legal status

Does the protected area have legal status?

Context

2. Protected area regulations

Are inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching) controlled?

Context

3. Law enforcement

Can staff enforce protected area rules well enough?

Context

4. Protected area objectives

Have objectives been agreed?

Planning

Criteria

The protected area is not gazetted

The government has agreed that the protected area should be gazetted but the process has not yet begun

The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the process is still incomplete

The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)

There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget)

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations

No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area

The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to these objectives

The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only partially implemented

The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these objectives

5. Protected area design Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas major management objectives of the protected area is impossible

0

1

2

Score

0

Comments

Note : see fourth option for private reserves

1

2

3

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

Possible issue for comment happens if people are arrested?

Possible issue for comment

: What

: does the protected area contain different

Next steps


Issue

Does the protected area need enlarging, corridors etc to meet its objectives?

Planning

6. Protected area boundary demarcation

Is the boundary known and demarcated?

Context

7. Management plan

Is there a management plan and is it being implemented?

Planning

Criteria

Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major objectives are constrained to some extent

Design is not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives, but could be improved

Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement of major objectives of the protected area

The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users

The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management authority and local residents but is not appropriately demarcated

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated

There is no management plan for the protected area

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems

An approved management plan exists and is being implemented

Score

1

2

Comments management zones and are these well maintained?

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

Possible issue for comment : are there tenure disagreements affecting the protected area?

Additional points

Planning

The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan

There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan

The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated into planning

8. Regular work plan

Is there an annual work plan?

No regular work plan exists

A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets

+1

+1

+1

0

1

Next steps


Issue

Planning/Outputs

9. Resource inventory

Do you have enough information to manage the area?

Context

10. Research

Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

Inputs

11. Resource management

Is the protected area adequately managed

(e.g. for fire, invasive species, poaching)?

Process

12. Staff numbers

Are there enough people employed to manage the protected

Criteria

A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed

A regular work plan ex ists, actions are monitored against the plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision making

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained

Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained

There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area

There is some ad hoc survey and research work

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values have not been assessed

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are known but are not being addressed

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are only being partially addressed

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are being substantially or fully addressed

There are no staff

Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities

3

0

1

2

Score

2

3

0

1

2

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

Comments Next steps


Issue area?

Inputs

13. Personnel management

Are the staff managed well enough?

Process

14. Staff training

Is there enough training for staff?

Inputs/Process

15. Current budget

Is the current budget sufficient?

Inputs

16. Security of budget

Is the budget secure?

Criteria

Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the site

Problems with personnel management constrain the achievement of major management objectives

Problems with personnel management partially constrain the achievement of major management objectives

Personnel management is adequate to the achievement of major management objectives but could be improved

Personnel management is excellent and aids the achievement major management objectives

Staff are untrained

Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

Staff training and skills are in tune with the management needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs

There is no budget for the protected area

The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage

The available budget is acceptable, but could be further improved to fully achieve effective management

The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the protected area

There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year funding

There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function adequately without outside funding

There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding

Score

3

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

2

3

0

1

0



Issue

Inputs

17. Management of budget

Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs?

Process

18. Equipment

Is equipment adequately maintained?

Process

19. Maintenance of equipment

Is equipment adequately maintained?

Process

20. Education and awareness programme

Is there a planned education programme?

Process

21. State and commercial

Criteria

There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs on a multi-year cycle

Budget management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness

Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness

Budget management is adequate but could be improved

Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness

There is little or no equipment and facilities

There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly inadequate

There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps that constrain management

There is adequate equipment and facilities

There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities

There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities

There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there are some important gaps in maintenance

Equipment and facilities are well maintained

There is no education and awareness programme

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this

There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps

There is a planned and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users

Score

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0



Issue neighbours

Is there co-operation with adjacent land users?

Process

22. Indigenous people

Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the PA have input to management decisions?

Process

23. Local communities

Do local communities resident or near the protected area have input to management decisions?

Process

Additional points

Outputs

24. Visitor facilities

Are visitor facilities

(for tourists, pilgrims etc) good enough?

Outputs

Criteria

There is limited contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only limited co-operation

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in making decisions relating to management

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Local communities directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Local communities directly participate in making decisions relating to management

There is open communication and trust between local stakeholders and protected area managers

Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented

There are no visitor facilities and services

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation or are under construction

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

25. Commercial tourism

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area

Score

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

+1

+1

0

1

2

3

0

Comments

Possible issue for comment : Do visitors damage the protected area?

Possible issue for comment : examples of contributions

Next steps


Issue

Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?

Process

26. Fees

If fees (tourism, fines) are applied, do they help protected area management?

Outputs

27. Condition assessment

Is the protected area being managed consistent to its objectives?

Outcomes

Additional points

Outputs

28. Access assessment

Are the available management mechanisms working to control access or use?

Outcomes

29. Economic benefit assessment

Criteria

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values

There is excellent co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts

Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected

The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central government and is not returned to the protected area or its environs

The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority rather than the protected area

There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to support this and/or other protected areas

Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded but the most important values have not been significantly impacted

Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact

There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within the protected area and/or the protected area buffer zone

Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

The existence of the protected area has reduced the options for economic development of the local communities

Score

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

0

1

2

3

+1

0

1

2

3

Comments

Possible issue for comment: It is important to provide details of the biodiversity, ecological or cultural values being affected

Possible issue for comment : how does national or regional development impact

Next steps


Issue

Is the protected area providing economic benefits to local communities?

Outcomes

30. Monitoring and evaluation

Planning/Process

TOTAL SCORE

Criteria

The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor benefited the local economy

There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but this is of minor significance to the regional economy

There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to local communities from activities in and around the protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc)

There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management

Score

1

2

Comments on the protected area?

3

0

1

2

3

Next steps


ANNEX 13: CO-FINANCING LETTERS



ANNEX 14 ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST

AA

CBC

Authorised Association (for WMA management)

Community Based Conservation (a process)

CBO

CIMU

CITES

DNRAB

Community Based Organisation (an institution)

Conservation Information Monitoring Unit

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

District Natural Resources Advisory Body

GEF

GIS

GPS

GR

GTZ

IFAD

IUCN

IZW

MoU

NCS

Global Environmental Facility

Geographical Information System

Global Positioning System

Game Reserve

German Agency for Technical Cooperation

International Fund for Agricultural Development

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Institute for Zoo Biology & Wildlife Research Berlin

Memorandum of Understanding

National Conservation Strategy

PA

PRA

Protected Area

Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRSP

SCP

SGR

SODA

SUA

TAWIRI

TRAFFIC

TWCM

UNDP

URT

WMA

WWF

Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

Selous (Game Reserve) Conservation Programme

Selous Game Reserve

Songea Development Action (Programme)

Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania

Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute

Trade Records of Fauna and Flora in Commerce

Tanzanian Wildlife Conservation Monitoring (Programme)

United Nations Development Programme

United Republic of Tanzania

Wildlife Management Area

World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund


Project Manager - Global Environment Facility

The WCPA Framework

Purpose of the World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

Guidance notes for using the Tracking Tool

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet

*

Related documents

Products

Support

Project Manager - Global Environment Facility

The WCPA Framework

Purpose of the World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

Guidance notes for using the Tracking Tool

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet

*

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib