GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) PROPOSAL
FOR PDF BLOCK B GRANT:
PIPELINE ENTRY AND CEO APPROVAL OF THE PDF B
Project Title:
Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa
Implementing Agency:
United Nations Environment Programme
Executing Agencies:
Ethiopia:
Ghana:
Uganda:
Zambia:
International:
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organisation (EARO)
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO)
Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ)
CAB International (CABI)
World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Requesting Countries:
Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia.
GEF Focal Area:
Biodiversity
GEF Operational
Programmes:
1,2, and 3.
Total Cost of PDF B:
US$ 1,400,000
PDF-B Funding Requested: US$ 700,000
from GEF:
PDF-B Co-funding:
US$ 700,000
PDF-B co-funding by source
Source
Cash (US$)
In kind (US$)
Total
Ethiopia
Ghana
Uganda
Zambia
CABI
IUCN
180,000
40,000
95,000
95,000
95,000
95,000
50,000
50,000
95,000
95,000
95,000
95,000
230,000
90,000
Total
220,000
480,000
700,000
Block A grant awarded:
US$ 25,000
PDF-A Co-funding:
US$ 50,000
Estimated Starting Date
of PDF B:
Estimated Duration
of PDF B:
May 2003
12 months
Estimated Starting Date
of Full Project:
Jan 2005
Estimated Total Costs
Of Full Project
US$ 9,000,000
(GEF: US$ 4,000,000. Cofinancing: US$5,000,000.
Full Project Duration:
5 years
2
List of Acronyms
ASARECA
AU
CABI
CBD
CHM
COMESA
COP
CORAF
EAC
ECOWAS
FARA
GISP
IAPSC
IAS
ICRAF
IGAD
IMPECCA
IPPC
ISPM
ISSAP
IUCN
NBSAP
NEPAD
PRA
SADC
WTO
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Central Africa
African Union
CAB International
Convention on Biological Diversity
Clearing-House Mechanism
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
Conference of the Parties
West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and
Development
East African Community
Economic Community of West African States
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
Global Invasive Species Programme
Interafrican Phytosanitary Council
Invasive Alien Species
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
Intergovernmental Authority on Development
International Mycoherbicide Programme for Eichhornia crassipes
Control in Africa
International Plant Protection Convention
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures
Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan
World Conservation Union
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development
Pest Risk Analysis
Southern African Development Community
World Trade Organisation
3
I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT (BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION)
1. Invasive alien species (IAS) are the second greatest cause of biodiversity loss on planet
earth, only habitat destruction posing a greater threat. They pose a global threat to the
conservation of biodiversity through their proliferation and spread, displacing or killing
native flora and fauna and affecting ecosystem services. They are particularly damaging
in geographical or ecological islands, which are rich in endemic species, while in
continental areas invasive species also affect and alter ecosystem processes, including
water and nutrient cycles and food chains. Invasive plants can lower water tables and
affect the survival of native vegetation and the availability of water resources to animals
and man over vast areas. Invasive plants smother, out-compete and displace indigenous
species, changing the composition and function of entire ecosystems.
2. Action to prevent and mitigate the effects of invasive alien species has been focused
largely within developed countries. However, in developing countries, invasive alien
species cause similar or worse problems, for development as well as conservation of
biodiversity. In Africa the scope of the problem is exemplified by invasive alien plants
that affect both natural and man-made ecosystems, and interfere with access to water,
decrease water tables and hamper the restoration of degraded land and reforestation.
Many serious invasive species problems have been intentionally introduced through
development assistance programmes. Alien trees and shrubs like pines, eucalypts,
Lantana camara, Prosopis juliflora, Chromolaena odorata, Mimosa pigra and various
Australian acacias are spreading over vast areas of natural grassland, affecting fire
regimes, the local flora and the movement of wild animals, thereby altering ecosystems
and threatening their integrity. In isolated mountain “islands”, such as the Eastern
Usambara range in Tanzania, alien trees are displacing a highly endemic and unique flora.
3. But the most obvious and severe impact of alien plants in Africa is in sensitive wetland
and aquatic ecosystems, where tropical American floating water plants, like water fern,
water lettuce and water hyacinth, form thick mats on water bodies, reducing light and
oxygen, affecting biodiversity, fishing and navigation. They also stimulate rapid
succession and loss of aquatic habitats. Invasive alien water plants threaten African
wetlands of unique global value, including many Ramsar sites.
4. There are already many examples of IAS that are posing a threat to biodiversity and
associated economic activity in Africa, and under current trends, it is likely that the
situation will deteriorate. On the one hand the pathways through which alien species
invade are becoming more numerous, and on the other there are a number of barriers that
are constraining countries in Africa from addressing the problem effectively.
5. There are several well recognized pathways through which alien species reach new areas.
Ironically, one of the most important is intentional introduction. Many invasive tree
species such as Prosopsis spp. and Acacia spp. have been introduced because of their
potential benefits, but while they have indeed provided some benefits, the unanticipated
costs have often turned out to be greater. The very traits that make an agroforestry species
desirable may be those that make it more likely to be invasive.
6. Accidental introduction of aliens is also likely to increase. Trade is now recognized as an
engine of development, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and regional trade
blocs are promoting expanded trade. Increased trade means increased risks of ‘hitch
hiker’ aliens arriving in countries, placing greater responsibility for their detection on
4
quarantine services. While all trade poses a risk, ballast water in ships is recognized as
one of the most significant pathways of invasion for marine species.
7. A number of countries in Africa have major tourism industries, and as more tourists visit a
country, so the risk of accidental introductions increases. The very ecosystems and
biodiversity that draw the tourists are themselves increasingly threatened as the number of
tourists rises.
8. An additional route through which IAS are introduced is in aid shipments; Parthenium
hysterophorus is thought to have arrived in Ethiopia this way. While such shipments
should decrease as Africa’s economies develop, food aid shipments will continue to be
necessary for the foreseeable future.
9. Thus there are good reasons why the opportunities for alien species to enter Africa can be
expected to increase; indeed it is desirable that the opportunities do increase, since they
signify and are associated with economic development. The overall strategy for
addressing invasive species cannot therefore rely on eliminating the pathways. Rather it
must be a two-pronged approach which aims to reduce the risks presented by those
pathways, and to eradicate or control those species that will inevitably on occasion breach
the defenses. In Africa there are a number of barriers to effective adoption of this strategy
for managing IAS, which we here group into four categories.

The policy environment within which most countries in Africa are operating is
fragmented and weak. Because of the range of pathways through which IAS might enter
a country, and the many social, economic and biological impacts they can have, effective
IAS management must adopt a broad multi-sectoral approach. The relevant policies,
laws and regulations, and the institutional and operational responsibilities for addressing
IAS issues are often ill defined, and scattered between different ministries, hindering a
coordinated approach and often delaying appropriate action.

The critical information required by the different stakeholders is not available. There
are at least three reasons why this is the case. First there may be inadequate
communication between the different parties. A fragmented policy environment actually
demands a high degree of communication, not only between arms of government, but
also with the private sector and general public. Second, the necessary information in a
country may not exist; in many parts of Africa, where the lists of weeds present do exist,
they are out of date, quite apart from information on their impact on biodiversity. Third,
globally there is an increasing body of relevant information, but due to lack of capacity, it
is often not accessible.

The implementation of prevention and control programmes is slow or inadequate. The
other three barriers listed here clearly hinder implementation of appropriate risk
management measures when methods are known, but in some cases there may be no
known method for dealing with an IAS. The capacity and resources to research and
develop solutions may be lacking, and environmental problems that are less visible tend
to be given lower priority, due to a lack of awareness and appreciation of their gravity.
Many invasive species also provide benefits to some stakeholders, and difficulties in
evaluating the costs and benefits, and resolving conflicts of interest, can further delay
appropriate action.
5

Capacity is lacking. Effective IAS management requires institutional, human and
physical resources that are often unavailable in developing countries in Africa. The
multi-sectoral nature of the problem means that although some of the necessary capacity
may be available, shortage of capacity in another area can be a stumbling block. In
recent decades the capacity to undertake biological control in Africa has greatly
increased, and while it still needs strengthening, the lack of capacity in other areas means
that this important management method is hindered. Some other relevant areas, such as
environmental economics, are relatively new disciplines, and so capacity is lacking in
most countries.
10. Africa exemplifies the true risk of ignoring invasive alien species problems. Some of its
problems have been appreciated for many years and, even mitigated in certain areas, but
despite this, they have been allowed to grow and spread further through lack of awareness,
information, skills, policy frameworks and necessary inter-departmental cooperation at the
national and regional level. For instance, effective, biological management of water
hyacinth was implemented as long ago as the 1970s in Sudan, but the plant then spread
throughout Eastern and Western Africa with no action until the early 1990s. In Lake
Victoria, water hyacinth grew from a small, manageable infestation to a dense carpet of
40,000 ha before proven management methods were applied. Many more water systems
in African countries remain infested and are unlikely to benefit from this experience
without a concerted effort. The accelerating problem of the negative impact of invasive
plants and other species will severely compromise efforts to place ecosystem management
programmes on a sustainable footing unless effective schemes for the prevention and
mitigation of these species are integrated into these efforts.
11. Clearly, the problem of invasive plants is continental in magnitude and thus the proposed
project has a geographical strategic focus at its core. The project will focus initially on
removing the barriers to invasive plant management in four countries in Africa: Ethiopia,
Ghana, Uganda and Zambia. These countries have elected to participate and support the
project for 2 reasons:


First, they have all prioritised invasive species, both in their NBSAPs and other plans
as noted above, and by taking part in various regional and international fora and
meetings (including the September 2000 GISP meeting in South Africa) convened to
address the issue and develop coordinated responses to the problem. All are
concerned about the impact of invasive plants on biodiversity and on their economy,
and have requested CABI, GISP and others for assistance on the subject. There is
therefore a strong likelihood that the planned activities will be successful, and will
serve as good examples to other countries in the regions, facilitating the uptake and
application of the lessons learned; and
Second, the countries represent different geographical regions on the continent, so that
as foci of lessons for replication and dissemination in neighbouring countries, the
project will have impact over a wide area.
12. Initially the project will work in the four countries. However, as experience and successes
accumulate, the project will broaden to engage neighbouring countries, catalysing uptake
of lessons learned, and promoting regional cooperation. Only in this way can the legacy
of isolated, local success and broad, continental failure be overcome. Invasive alien
species do not respect political boundaries and problems can be expected to spread
through contiguous ecosystems, as recognised in the draft Guiding Principles. Without a
comprehensive, regional approach, invasive alien species problems have the potential to
6
provide endless opportunities for donor-assisted national “fire fighting” exercises against
the latest alien threat. The regional workshops to be held towards the end of the project
will assess the needs, if any, for a follow-on project, to facilitate wider uptake and
replication in countries not directly involved in this project.
13. The above paragraphs have provided an overview of the invasive species problem in
Africa and the rationale and strategy behind the participation of these four countries in the
project; we now consider the specific threats in the requesting countries.
Ethiopia
14. Ethiopia has a relatively high degree of endemism (12%), covering a wide range of
ecosystems in four principal biomes; savanna, montane grasslands, thickets and wooded
steppe, and desert steppe. Around 7000 species of higher plants have been recorded, and
in the afromontane zone as much as 75% of the flora is endemic. Forest cover has
reduced to 3%, though 58 areas have been designated as National Forest Priority Areas.
Nearly 6,000 species of animals have been recorded, including the big game
disproportionately important to eco-tourism and a number of endangered species unique to
Ethiopia such as walia ibex, mountain nyala, simen jackal and gelada monkey. For both
its flora and fauna, the Simen Mountain National Park is a Natural World Heritage Site
(criteria iii and iv), but was placed on the list of World Heritage in Danger in 1996 due to
loss of biodiversity. Ethiopia’s biodiversity is also globally important as a source of crop
genetic diversity, being one of the 12 Vavilov centers. Arabica coffee and teff originate in
Ethiopia, and it is a centre of diversity for many other crops including sorghum, finger
millet, sesame, durum wheat and others, as well as numerous species with as yet untapped
potential.
15. Invasive species have been identified by the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE) and
the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (draft) as posing a major threat to biodiversity
and economic well being of the population. However, little attempt to assess the status of
IAS has been made, so those species known to be threats are those that are already
widespread. Prosopis juliflora was intentionally introduced as an agroforestry species in
the Awash basin, but now threatens agricultural land and protected areas in the Awash
National Park. It is aggressively invading pastoral areas in the Middle and Upper Awash
Valley, and Eastern Harerge, destroying natural pasture, displacing native trees, forming
impenetrable thickets, and reducing grazing potential. Parthenium hysterophorus was
introduced accidentally through aid shipments, and is spreading rapidly, causing up to
90% reduction in forage production. Its impact in natural habitats has not been assessed,
but it clearly poses a major threat to rangelands. Eichhornia crassipes is present in
Ethiopia, and is most serious in the White Nile watershed and the Awash river system,
with the usual impacts on ecosystem function and human activities.
16. Attempts to combat the threat of invasives in Ethiopia have followed the usual piecemeal
approach, they have not been coordinated across sectors, and have focused mainly on
attempting to address the major invaders. The emphasis is on tackling problems that
threaten agriculture and human activity, there being insufficient resources, capacity or
information available to address the threats to natural ecosystems.
Ghana
7
17. There are three main vegetation zones in Ghana; the coastal savanna, the forest zone, and
the northern savanna, with various sub-categories within each. The savannas cover
roughly two-thirds of the country, and the forests one third. The western border area with
Cote d'Ivoire has the highest faunal diversity and highest precipitation, and is probably a
refuge from past dry periods. The forestry commission has designated 29 of the nearly
300 forest reserves as Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (GSBAs), on the basis of
their containing the highest concentrations of biodiversity. The West African Upper
Guinea Forest Ecosystem is recognized as one of the 25 global biodiversity hotspots.
There are around 3,000 species of vascular plant recorded from Ghana, and around 1,200
vertebrates, nearly three quarters of which are birds. A number of the endemic bird
species are on the Red list, but the country is also important for migratory waterbirds, as it
is situated on the border of the East Atlantic flyway and the Mediterranean flyway.
Invertebrates are not well documented, though Lepidoptera diversity and endemism is also
high in the high forest areas. The only natural lake system in Ghana is Bosomtwi, but the
huge Volta Lake created in 1964 which inundated nearly 5,000km2 of natural forest has
had a major impact on the biodiversity of the area. A number of islands in the lake are
now wildlife reserves. The Owabi Wildlife Sanctuary just outside Kumasi is a Ramsar
site, and an important stopover point for migratory birds. Five other Ramsar sites are all
coastal lagoons, important for waterbirds, globally threatened turtles and mammals.
18. Over 250 species of exotic plant species have become naturalized in Ghana, and over 20
of these can be categorized as invasive. The water weeds Eichhornia crassipes, Salvinia
molesta, Pistia stratiotes and Azolla filiculoides are all invasive, the first being particularly
damaging and the target of a classical biological control project. Water weeds pose threats
to the Tano River and associated lagoons, the River Volta and parts of the Lake. Major
terrestrial invasives include Chromolaena odorata, Broussonetia papyrifera and Leucaena
leucocephala. Chromolaena and Leucaena are colonizers of disturbed forests and
savanna woodlands, where they prevent regeneration and displace indigenous species,
posing a threat to the biodiversity and to sustainable utilization of the forests. The Afram
Headwaters Forest Reserve is threatened by the invasion of Broussonetia as well as
Chromolaena.
19. The National Biodiversity Strategy highlights the fact that many sectors are responsible
for contributing to alien species colonization, including transport, trade, housing &
infrastructure amongst others, as well as the natural resources and environment sectors.
Thus a cross sectoral approach will be required to address the issue effectively. At present
this is not occurring, but this should be incorporated in the National Biodiversity Action
Plan now being developed.
Uganda
20. For its size, Uganda is home to a high number of species. Nearly 19,000 have been
recorded, almost half of them insects, 7000 plants, and about 2,000 vertebrates. Such
diversity is due in part to the wide range of elevations and habitats, although Uganda has
experienced severe deforestation, cover falling from about 45% in 1900 to less than 8%
today. Wetlands are of major significance in Uganda, covering about 13% of the territory.
The driest regions are steppes and thickets in the northeast, while Mount Elgon in the East
and the Rwenzoris in the West have high elevation forests, bamboo and tree heath, and
high moorlands. Both of these mountains are ecological islands in the surrounding
savannas. Uganda has 6 of the 12 major centers of plant endemism in Africa (White,
1983).
8
21. Uganda boasts two National World Heritage sites (criteria iii and iv), the Rwenzori
Mountains National Park and the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park. The
Rwenzori have a high level of endemism particularly in the afro-alpine zone, and several
trees are found only there or in the other forests of S.W. Uganda. Bwindi is unusual in
that it is one of the few remaining areas in East Africa where lowland and montane forests
meet, and as a probable refuge in the Pleistocene has exceptionally high biodiversity.
Although it is the most diverse forest in East Africa for several plant groups, the species
lists are no doubt far from complete. Half of the country’s 400 known tree species are in
Bwindi, including the globally threatened Lovoa swynnertonii. Bwindi also has an
exceptionally diverse fauna, including about 35% of the world population of mountain
gorillas. Uganda has one Ramsar site, Lake George, which is also a UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve. The site has a rich flora, while over 50 fish species have been recorded from the
lake, and it is an important overwintering site for many species of palearctic water birds.
22. Over twenty species of plants are known to be invasive in Uganda, including the
widespread water weeds, E. crassipes, P. stratiotes, S. molesta and A. filiculoides.
Uganda has developed capacity in biological control, and this has been put to good effect
against water hyacinth. As part of the GEF Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Project, there has been good inter-institutional collaboration including working to a
strategy and action plan developed by a national technical committee, and involving the
Presidential Economic Council. However, E. crassipes is still seen as a threat in Lake
Albert, along with Vossia cuspidata. Lantana camara, a widespread weed in Africa, is a
threat to Budongo forest, Iganga/Pallisa and Mt. Elgon National Park, while B. papyrifera
is also a threat in Budongo. The introduced Acacia spp. and Mimosa pigra are also
invasive in a number of areas in Uganda.
23. The Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan identifies invasive species as
a threat to biodiversity, and proposes strategies for addressing the threat in the aquatic
resource and forestry sectors, which cover the key sites of globally important biodiversity
described above. However, despite the experience with water hyacinth, invasive species
issues are not dealt with in a coordinated way, there being a wide range of legislation and
institutions relating to the problem.
Zambia
24. It is estimated that Zambia has over 5,500 species of plant, with around 1400 species of
vertebrate recorded, including over 700 birds. On the plateau, miombo woodland
dominated by Brachystegia and Julbernadia is prevalent. In the hotter, drier Lwangwa
and Zambezi valleys, mopane woodland occurs, and there are extensive wetlands and
flood plains in various areas. Patches of lowland forest occur in the northwest, and of
montane forest in the northeast. Three centers of endemism are known; Lwangwa valley
(East), Mbala (North East) and Solwezi-Mwinilunga (NorthWest). The over 200 species
of mammal are important for Zambia’s ecotourism, but at least half of the 22 key species
are threatened. Wetlands and water bodies, comprising around 6% of the territory, are
particularly important for biodiversity conservation, and Zambia has two Ramsar sites and
several more proposed. The Bangweulu swamp at Chikuni is the 10th largest swamp in
Africa, and is rich in bird species, including the globally threatened crane Grus
carunculatus. Over 80 species of fish and an endemic antelope also occur at the site,
along with many other mammals. The other Ramsar site, Kafue Flats (Lochinvar and
Blue Lagoon), is a natural floodplain. The threatened G. carunculatus is present, one of
9
over 400 bird species recorded at Lochinvar. The endemic Kafue lechwe (Kobus leche
kafuensis) is unique to the flats, and there are about 55 species of fish. Zambia has a short
stretch of shoreline to Lake Tanganyika, which has very high levels of endemism.
25. Invasive species are threatening both the Ramsar sites and other parts of the country. Of
the common aquatic weeds, E. crassipes is most problematic, occurring in Bangweulu
swamps, and the Kafue River and Flats. Biological control has been attempted, though
not very successfully, partly for logistic reasons, and also because the Kafue River is
heavily polluted. Mimosa pigra is a major threat at Chunga lagoon, where it covers up to
30% of the area. Lantana camara is displacing indigenous vegetation in the Mosi-oaTunya National Park. Salavinia molesta and Leucaena leucocephala are also identified as
invasive in Zambia.
26. Zambia’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was approved in 2001, and IAS
are covered under goal 1, which is to ensure the conservation of the full range of Zambia’s
natural ecosystems. A specific objective is to protect natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
A separate Strategy and Action Plan has been prepared for the wetlands, those areas being
of high priority and threatened by a number of factors including IAS. The Environmental
Council of Zambia has prepared an ‘Aquatic Weed Map of Zambia’. As in many African
countries, some effort have been made to control individual alien species, but there has
been no attempt to address the causes of the problems, through the multi-sectoral approach
that is necessary.
II. SUMMARY: PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION
27. The goal, purpose, outputs and activities of the proposed project are shown in the Draft
Logical Framework (Annex B) developed during the PDF-A. This will be refined and
more detail added during the PDF-B.
28. The goal of the project is to protect ecosystem, species and genetic diversity from invasive
alien species, for global, national and community benefit. The project will contribute to
this goal through its purpose of removing the barriers to effective prevention and
management of IAS in four pilot countries; Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia. The
focus will be on invasive plants, as this group poses the greatest current threat, and
because a number of invasive plant species have been identified (as described above) in
the four countries requiring immediate attention. Invasive plants in both terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems will be addressed.
29. Benefit at the global level will be through the conservation of biodiversity of global
significance. In the sections above, the biodiversity in each of the countries has been
summarised, and Annex A shows global priorities for habitat conservation within each
country. In addition, invasive species pose a threat to sustainable development at the
national level. Tourism is important to the economy of three of the four countries, and is
dependent to a large degree on the rich biodiversity present. Invasive species can also
affect national economies through damage to agriculture, forestry and other livelihoods
based on natural resources. Aquatic water weeds cause damage through impaired
navigation, fishing, and power generation. Threats to any of these economic endeavours
unavoidably impacts on poor communities, as the large proportion of the population in all
three countries depends on natural resources for their livelihoods.
10
30. As described above, four categories of barriers to IAS management have been identified,
so there will be four components of the full project, each addressing one set of barriers:




Strengthening the enabling policy environment for IAS management
Provision and exchange of critical information amongst key stakeholders in IAS
management
Implementation of IAS control and prevention programmes
Building capacity for sustainable IAS management.
These four components are described further below (see Annex B for listing of activities).
Strengthening the enabling policy environment
31. The Global Invasive Species Programme had made considerable progress in developing
generic action plans, strategies and legal frameworks, and Decision VI/23 of the CBD
contains guiding principles. The activities under this objective will build on this work,
applying, adapting and implementing as necessary in the four countries. An Invasive
Species Strategy and Action Plan (ISSAP) will be developed in each country, and used to
guide further activities, which will include a revision, if necessary, of other policies, plans,
laws and regulations. The institutional arrangements for managing IAS will also be
reviewed and a coordinating mechanism developed, both within government and with the
private sector and local communities. A key activity will be to develop and implement
financial mechanisms to ensure sustainability of IAS management, particularly those that
generate revenue from the private sector and reduce reliance on central government
funding.
Provision and exchange of key information amongst key stakeholders in IAS
management
32. Appreciation of the IAS problem is still poor in most African countries, so raising the
general awareness and understanding of the issues will be essential. Different
stakeholders will be targeted through different components of the campaign, addressing
the different routes through which IAS may enter, as well as promoting the need for coordinated action to manage IAS already present. The status and impact of IAS already
present in each country will be documented through surveys addressing biological, social
and economic impacts, and procedures will be instigated to ensure the information can be
regularly updated.
33. Appropriate channels for information flow will be a function, in part, of the institutional
arrangements developed under objective 1, and communication procedures will be
established to utilize these channels. External communication and information flow will
also be addressed, particularly with international and regional organizations that serve as
nodes in global information flow. The communication and dissemination of information
from the project countries to regional and international organizations, and accessing of
external information by the four countries, will both be addressed.
Implementation of IAS Control and Prevention Programmes
34. Prevention is a key component of IAS management, so a number of activities will aim to
reduce the probability of invasives entering the countries. Pest risk analyses have not
previously addressed environmental risks, so the IPPC has recently drafted a supplement
11
to ISPM 11 (Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests) covering environmental risk. Pest
Risk Analysis including environment risk assessment will therefore be implemented.
Monitoring and reporting systems for early detection of invasives will be developed and
implemented, focusing on ecosystems that are most vulnerable to invasion, and most
likely to suffer damage. Early detection allows the possibility of eradication, requiring a
rapid response capability that will be established as part of output 4. Control programs
will adopt participatory approaches where appropriate, to allow resolution of potential
conflicts, to improve sustainability and to contribute to awareness raising. Monitoring and
documenting the impact of control operations will be undertaken to allow improvement to
procedures in the future, and to provide evidence of the value of IAS control.
35. The IAS identified in each country, and the priority species, are shown in the country
reports in the Annexes E-H. During the international stakeholder workshop, a consolidated
list of eleven priority species was agreed as shown in Annex C. Some of these species are
common to all countries, while others are problematic only in particular countries. Some
of the other countries in the continent where these species are known to be invasive are
also indicated, showing the potential for replication of the management approaches
developed during this project.
36. Annex D lists potential pilot sites for the project, also agreed during the international
stakeholder workshop. The sites were identified using the following criteria; so as to
provide a range of experience and situations from which lessons can be learned:




In each country both wetland/aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems should be included,
covering a range of biodiversity.
The sites should include some well known and well established invasive plants, common
to many countries.
The sites should include some new or emerging invasive plants that are either absent from
or not recognized as invasive in other countries.
The sites should include situations in which some conflict of interest exists which will
need resolving.
37. Details of the control programmes will be developed during the PDF-B, but several of the
species are well known weeds for which control methods are available. Biological control
has been implemented elsewhere for several of the species, and this is likely to be an
important component. As biological control involves the introduction of additional aliens,
appropriate risk analyses will be conducted, and IPPC ISPM3 on introduction of
biological control agents will be adhered to. Where control methods do not exist, plans
for the necessary research will be made and implemented.
38. Thus the project will not resolve all site specific IAS problems in each country, but will
address selected problems, based on the criteria above which will be refined further during
the PDF-B. Annexes C and D provide preliminary lists for prioritized species and sites,
from which the species and sites to be included in the control programmes will be
selected.
Building Capacity for Sustainable IAS Management
39. Based on the needs assessment undertaken during the PDF-B, and modified as appropriate
to take account of the institutional cooperation mechanisms that are established under
objective 1, a capacity building programme will be implemented. The primary focus of
12
the programme will be on human resources, with necessary training provided to existing
staff. However, to ensure available capacity in the longer term, support will be provided
to the education sector to include IAS issues in school and tertiary education curricula.
Some essential equipment will be provided as required to quarantine services (particularly
inspection units at border points such as air and sea ports), and to weed control units,
including a rapid response team. National delegates will be facilitated to participate in the
global bodies relating to IAS, which will contribute to building local capacity as well as
fulfilling international obligations.
40. Dissemination of the lessons learned will adopt a proactive approach, to promote
replication in other countries in Africa. As well as the usual print and electronic
dissemination materials, opportunities for face-to-face dissemination and promotion to
other African countries will be created. These would include short term attachments to the
nascent ‘IAS units’ for officers from neighbouring countries; road shows in which
officers from the participating countries travel to other countries to present their
experiences; study tours to ongoing control operations for officers from both within and
outside the country. As a project under GISP, the GISP secretariat being established in
South Africa will assist with global dissemination.
III. SYNCHRONICITY WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES IN BIODIVERSITY
DURING GEF PHASE III and UNEP’s SUPPORT TO IAS
41. The proposed project is fully consistent with the Strategic Priorities in Biodiversity for
GEF Phase III and in particular priorities two and four. In addition, the project will pilot
integrated ecosystem management approaches in addressing the problem of IAS.
42. Consistent with priority two of the Strategic Priorities, the project will develop individual,
institutional and systemic capacity of stakeholders to prevent control and manage IAS and
their impacts on national economies as well as on biodiversity in globally significant
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The enabling policy environment will be strengthened
with a specific focus on revising as necessary existing policies, plans, laws and regulations
related to IAS. A key activity will be to identify and implement strategies to ensure
financial sustainability of IAS management, particularly those that will generate revenue
from the private sector and reduce reliance on central government funding. In addition,
IAS awareness raising and education activities will be executed.
43. UNEP has been an active participant and supporter of the Global Invasive Species
Programme since its inception and also served as the GEF Implementing Agency for the
Medium Size Project “Development of Best Practices and Dissemination of Lessons
Learned for Dealing with the Global Problem of Alien Species that Threaten Biological
Diversity”. During the MSP project executing agencies produced the following best
practice guidelines: Assessment of Best Management Practices, Economics of Invasives,
Education, Legal and Institutional Frameworks, Risk Assessment, Pathways/Vectors of
Invasives, Global Change & Invasives, Early Warning Systems. Sections of these
products and other information were then integrated into the Toolkit for Best Prevention
and Management Practices of Invasive Alien Species. The proposed project seeks to
apply the tools and methods developed during the MSP which is fully consistent with the
objectives of priority four of the Strategic Priorities to improve the effectiveness of
dissemination and application of best practices and tools from projects and programs to
improve the sustainability of GEF impacts in the biodiversity focal area.
13
44. UNEP has also taken the lead in assisting stakeholders to develop the Framework Action
Plan for the Environment under NEPAD (The New Partnership for African Development)
with support of an MSP from the GEF. Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is identified as a
Programme Area for the Action Plan along with Desertification, Poverty and
Environment, Forests, Marine and Coastal Environment including Freshwater, Health and
Environment, Climate Change and Wetlands. According to the programme of work
adopted by the steering committee of the MSP and at the kind invitation of the
Government of South Africa, a thematic workshop, attended by 17 Technical Experts
from Africa, on invasive alien species was held in Pretoria, South Africa on 23-24 January
2003. In collaboration with the Government of South Africa, UNEP produced a
background document on IAS for consideration at the meeting and facilitated the
identification and preparation of 14 concept notes to support project interventions on IAS.
During the course of the meeting, the proposed PDF B was presented as an ongoing
initiative that would support the goals of the IAS programme, which is to “To minimise
the impact of IAS on the African continent’s people, economies and ecological systems”.
The TWG expressed it support of the PDF B initiative as an example of how the issue of
IAS could be addressed in Africa through the application of best practice.
IV. ELIGIBILITY
45. The project will support pilot interventions to prevent, control and or manage IAS in arid
and semi-arid ecosystems (OP 1), marine and freshwater ecosystems (OP 2) and forest
ecosystems (OP 3) all of global significance (see Annex C for prioritized invasive alien
plants and Annex D for preliminary list of pilot sites.) Consistent with the objectives of
each OP, the proposed intervention will conserve globally significant biodiversity by
mitigating the impact of invasive alien plants through the application of best practice for
prevention and/or management, depending on the circumstances of each site.
46. The requesting countries ratified the CBD as follows:
Ethiopia:
Ghana:
Uganda:
Zambia:
05/04/1994
29/08/1994
08/09/1993
28/05/1993
Ghana, Uganda and Zambia are also signatories to the Ramsar Convention, and this project
will enable them to comply with Resolution VII.14 on invasive species and wetlands.
V. INCREMENTAL COSTS
47. National level efforts to address the problem of IAS in Africa currently occur in three
largely separate areas:
 Prevention by quarantine services, which are concerned primarily with preventing the
import of pests of agriculture, and rarely consider environmental risks
 Management of agricultural weeds, by agricultural research organisations, which may or
may not pose a threat to the environment;
 Management of major invasive weeds such as water hyacinth which not only threaten the
environment but also have severe social and economic impacts.
14
48. Thus IAS whose main impact is in natural habitats and ecosystems are rarely considered
either in terms of preventative measures, or as targets for control programmes. Current
efforts to prevent the introduction of IAS, or manage those that are already present, are
generally poorly coordinated, and usually involve only a subset of the stakeholders
identified in the country reports.
49. The alternate scenario is that mechanisms are established allowing coordinated action
against IAS that threaten biodiversity. GEF funding is sought for the incremental costs of
establishing an integrated ecosystem approach to management including preventative
measures, and for implementing management of priority IAS that are primarily a threat to
globally important biodiversity. Co-financing will therefore be sought for the activities
providing community and national economic benefits through management of IAS that
primarily impact on agriculture and other economic activity.
VI. LINKAGES WITH OTHER GEF and NON-GEF INTERVENTIONS
50. There are few projects specifically concerned with control of invasive species, the
exception being for water hyacinth. One of the 10 components of the GEF funded Lake
Victoria Environmental Management Programme (LVEMP) concerns water hyacinth
control. The project has reported 80% reduction in the area of hyacinth on the lake,
achieved largely through biological control with the involvement of lakeshore
communities. The capacity and expertise developed in Uganda during that work will be
drawn on in this project to assist the other countries. The project as a whole had a poor
start, but particularly in Uganda and Tanzania rapid improvements were made and it is
now seen as highly successful. This was attributed to the Governments acquiring full
ownership of the project, specifically the Government scientists and managers, some of
whom are already directly involved in the current project.
51. CAB International also coordinates a programme developing a mycoherbicide for water
hyacinth (IMPECCA), and field trials of the product could be undertaken through the
proposed project.
52. The WB is currently implementing a PDF B in SADC with the long-term objective to
attain sustainable integrated planning and management of transboundary water resources.
The creation of an enabling environment for the effective management, eradication and
control of aquatic weeds in the SADC region is one of the key elements of integrated
sustainable water resources planning and management, given the negative impact the
weeds have on the quality and quantity of the water as well as on its various economic
uses. The PDF B will assist in the finalization of the process of selection of representative
pilot water bodies and the definition of activities to be conducted for testing mitigation
and control of aquatic weeds, as well as the establishment of a framework for an
information and data base necessary for project design and implementation, which would
be continuously updated and upgraded for the sustainable control and management of the
aquatic weeds in the long-term. The full project is to be submitted during FY 04. The
proposed UNEP GEF project will establish formal linkages with the WB project once the
PDF B is initiated to ensure that experiences between both project design processes can be
shared and that the activities proposed in each project are complementary. As Zambia is
not participating in the field aspects of the WB PDF-B in SADC, there will be added value
in sharing information and data on the prevention and management of aquatic weeds (a
15
component of both projects) in Zambia (and the three other participating countries i.e.
Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda) with other SADC countries participating in the WB PBF-B.
53. While there are few projects related to control of invasives, there are many projects
concerned with conservation of biodiversity, and to which this project therefore relates.
The specific threats being addressed by those projects could jeopardise the success of
control efforts under this project, while IAS could constrain the success of other projects.
There is thus considerable scope and need for linkages with these projects at both the
national and site level. Annex J summarises GEF and other related interventions.
54. At national level linkages will be made through involvement of key personnel, and some
such links have already been established. The manager of the water hyacinth biological
control project in Uganda (under LVEMP) attended the regional stakeholders’ workshop
(Annex J), and the national executing agencies in the proposed project are also executing
agencies or partners in a number of the related projects. National coordinators of related
projects will be invited to relevant meetings and workshops, and workplans will be
exchanged and coordinated where necessary, including undertaking joint activities. Links
at international level will be made by the project coordinator in a similar fashion.
55. UNDP’s Southern Africa Biodiversity Support Program (SABSP), in which Zambia is a
participant is supporting a range of activities aimed at managing alien invasive species.
This includes, inter alia, the development of regional information systems, and technical
guidelines and other reference materials to inform management efforts at the regional and
country levels. The project is providing funding for training to boost individual capacities
within the region to confront IAS management problems. At the first SC meeting of the
PDF B UNDP will be invited to present their progress to date and opportunities for
collaboration will be evaluated.
56. At the site level involvement of all stakeholders will be sought during the planning and
implementation of invasive species control activities. This will include representatives
from related projects working at the same sites, and possibilities for local integration of
activities will be pursued.
VII. NATIONAL and REGIONAL LEVEL SUPPORT
51. National workshops have been held in each of the four countries. All four workshops
were opened by Government Ministers, and brought together officers from different
stakeholder groups. Country reports are provided in the Annexes E-H. An international
consultative workshop was held for senior managers from the four participating countries
at which the components of the PDF-B were finalized, and the draft log frame for the full
project agreed (Annex I).
52. The key supporting documents from the four countries are listed below. These contain the
strategies and policies referred to in Section I, and prioritise the prevention, management
and control of invasive alien species.
Ethiopia
 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in preparation
 Second National Report to CBD (2001)
 Environmental Policy (1997)
16


National Policy on Biodiversity Conservation and Research (1998)
Ethiopian Forestry Action Plan (1994)
Ghana
 National Biodiversity Strategy (2002)
 National Biodiversity Action Plan being prepared
Uganda
 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001)
 National Policy for Conservation and Management of Wetland Resources (1995)
 First National Report to CBD (1998)
 Second National Report to CBD (2001)
 State of the Environment Report (2000)
Zambia
 First National Report to CBD (1997)
 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001)
 Zambia Wetlands Strategy and Action Plan
 State of the Environment Report (2001).
 State of the Environment: Zambesi Basin (2000)
 Zambia Forestry Action Plan
54. Chapter 19 of the East African Community Treaty concerns co-operation in environment
and natural resources. Invasive species are not mentioned explicitly, but the countries
agree to co-operate in the protection and conservation of their natural resources against all
forms of degradation, and a strategy has been prepared to tackle aquatic invasive weeds.
The ECOWAS Treaty enshrines similar objectives, addressed operationally by the
Technical Commission on the Environment and Natural Resources. The COMESA and
SADC treaties likewise provide for the regulation and control of alien species. The New
Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) includes an environmental initiative, and
IAS is one of eight sub-themes. A draft background document has been prepared,
recommending development of seven programmes (Awareness raising, Capacity Building,
Terrestrial IAS, Aquatic IAS, Ballast Water, Prevention at Airports, Islands’ IAS).
VIII. SUSTAINABILITY (including financial) AND REPLICATION
55. By institutionalising holistic, cross-sectoral IAS management within the relevant
government ministries and agencies, some measure of sustainability is anticipated. The
project will create awareness of the need for such an approach, and have demonstrated its
value. However, government financial allocation to IAS activities is unlikely to be
adequate, and alternative financial mechanisms will be required. This will be addressed
under component 1, in which options for funding IAS activities will be investigated.
Some Plant Health Inspectorate Services in Africa are already charging for their services,
and this is a clear opportunity for developing financial sustainability of prevention
measures. Funding the control of IAS could be based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle,
which would require appropriate laws and regulations. For international imports of plants
that risk analysis shows are potentially invasive, importers might be required to contribute
to the necessary monitoring after import.
17
56. Implementation of any mechanism for financing IAS management will depend on the
capacity to demonstrate economic impacts of IAS. Thus one of the areas for training will
be in environmental economics, including methods for assessing non-use values of
biodiversity and natural resources.
57. There is good potential for replication of the project outputs, as the barriers to IAS
prevention and control are common to many countries in Africa. Many of the priority IAS
in the pilot countries are already present in other countries in Africa (see Annex C), so
there will be immediate opportunities for replication in the specific area of weed
management.
58. A replication strategy will be developed during the PDF-B, but one component is expected
to be through NEPAD. As indicated in the previous section, NEPAD is developing an
IAS initiative, emphasising the linkage between IAS and economic development. As the
NEPAD initiative takes shape during the PDF-B, there will be a need to ensure the two
programmes are complementary, and to develop the potential synergies. Similar
considerations will be made as GISP phase 2 gets under way and the secretariat is
established in South Africa. If possible, cofinancing will be sought through the NEPAD
process.
IX. DESCRIPTION OF PDF B ACTIVITIES
59. PDF-B activities will test and refine the findings of the PDF-A, undertake preliminary
field surveys, conduct capacity assessments, design tools and instruments, and develop a
co-financing plan, all contributing to the preparation of a full project brief. The PDF-B
activities are described under each of the four components envisaged in the full project,
together with a fifth group of activities concerning management and financing.
1. National Plans and Policies for Prevention and Control of IAS
60. Activity 1. Analysis of existing plans and policies. National policies, legislation,
regulations, strategies and action plans relating to the prevention and control of IAS will
be reviewed and analysed for the four countries. The analysis will identify gaps,
inconsistencies and conflicts that need to be addressed during the full project.
61. Activity 2. Stakeholder analysis. The current and potential roles of the national
stakeholders identified during the PDF-A will be evaluated to assess the options for
institutionalization of IAS management. (See country reports in Annexes E-H for
preliminary stakeholder analyses). During the full project these options will be further
evaluated and appropriate measures implemented to promote sustainability.
62. Activity 3. Evaluate the baseline conditions. Together with the analyses from activities
1 and 2, the baseline conditions with regard to IAS plans and policies will be determined.
This will include a review of relevant activities planned to address national development
goals (and which impinge on IAS management), and also other GEF and non-GEF
interventions (see section V and Annex J).
2. Public Awareness and Information Management
63. Activity 4. Develop instruments and tools for IAS impact assessment. Monitoring the
occurrence and impact of IAS is essential for prioritising and directing control activities.
18
The information required and methods for collecting, storing and analyzing the data will
be developed, drawing on the World Conservation Monitoring Centre Handbooks on
Biodiversity Information Management. Biological impacts to be considered occur at the
genetic, species and ecosystem level, while social and economic impacts must also be
assessed. Existing and planned databases will be used and contributed to, including the
GISP global database and the proposed distributed network of IAS databases to be
developed with the CHM under the GISP-CBD Momorandum of Co-operation (MoC).
Under the MoC, GISP acts as an international thematic focal point for the CHM.
64. Activity 5. Pilot surveys. The instruments developed under activity 4 will be piloted in
each country. This will also provide additional information for confirming the selection of
project sites to be included under component 3 (Management and Control of IAS) of the
full project.
65. Activity 6. Prepare communication strategy. Communication is key to the prevention
and control of IAS, and while awareness is rising, there is still a lack of understanding and
appreciation of the issue amongst all stakeholders, including the public, the private sector,
and the responsible authorities. The lessons learned from the full project will also need
communicating and disseminating (see activity 10).
A communication strategy
encompassing both these areas will be prepared for inclusion in the full project brief,
including a baseline evaluation and identification of opportunities for synergies with
related projects.
Management and Control of IAS
66. Activity 7. Evaluate baseline conditions. For the priority invasive species identified
during the PDF-A, the baseline conditions will be evaluated, together with the GEF
alternative. Information from activity 5 will be used in this evaluation.
67. Activity 8. Identify and plan control projects. Criteria for the selection of sites and
species to include in the control projects will be agreed, such as: availability of a control
methods; clear incremental benefits; opportunity for synergism with other related
activities; potential for wide participation. The criteria will be used to identify a
maximum of two sites in each country. For the priority species at each site, potential
control options will be identified. Potential sites are listed in Annex D, and projects will
be developed at planning workshops to be held in each country.
Capacity Building and Dissemination of Lessons
68. Activity 9. Needs Assessments. Training needs will be determined during the
stakeholder workshops and the control project development workshops, and during the
associated preparatory work. The IPPC Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation tool will also
be used to determine needs. A training programme for the different groups of stakeholders
will be developed for implementation in the full project. Categories of training will
include (but not be restricted to): biology, ecology and taxonomy of IASs; risk analysis for
quarantine authorities; control techniques for implementing scientists, field staff;
participatory methods for facilitating community involvement in control. Physical
resource needs will also be assessed, for example in relation to the information and
equipment needs of quarantine authorities, and equipment and facilities for
implementation of biological and other control methods. As part of the assessment the
baseline conditions with regard to capacity will be determined.
19
69. Activity 10. Dissemination and replication strategy. As part of the overall project
communication strategy, a dissemination and replication strategy will be developed for
execution in the full project (see activity 6). This will include identification of appropriate
national, regional and international dissemination pathways. At the regional level links
will be established with FARA, SADC, EAC, IGAD, ECOWAS, ASARECA, CORAF,
COMESA. At the international level dissemination options through GISP, IPPC
secretariat, IAPSC (AU) and international research organizations involved in distributing
plant species (such as ICRAF) will be evaluated.
Management and co-ordination of PDF-B
70. Activity 11. International steering committee meetings. A steering committee will be
constituted comprising one senior representative from each of the four countries, one
representative each from UNEP, CABI and IUCN, and 3 or 4 internationally recognized
experts covering the broad range of IAS issues. The first meeting will be held immediately
after the PDF-B commences to provide guidance for the PDF-B implementation, and a
second will be held at the end of the PDF-B phase to review the findings and finalize the
project brief and support documentation.
71. Activity 12. National and international stakeholder workshops. In each country a
stakeholder workshop will be held to agree the national components of the full project and
the roles of the different stakeholders from all relevant sectors. This will include managers
of related projects, to identify potential synergies and joint activities. The workshops will
discuss the co-financing arrangements for the full project and the measures required to
ensure sustainability of IAS management after the project ends. An international
workshop will be held to finalise the full project brief.
72. Activity 13. Develop co-financing plan. The steering committee will review the cofinancing needs of the full project and develop a plan to secure the identified
requirements. The PDF-B coordinator will lead the fundraising and resource mobilisation
activities, building on the links with international donor organisations established during
the PDF-A, and developing further links as necessary.
73. Activity 14. Project coordination. A project coordinator will be appointed to manage
the PDF-B activities. She/he will be responsible for: Terms of Reference for the National
Coordinators, Technical Coordinators and Consultants; liaising with and supporting
national coordinators in the development and implementation of their work plans under
the PDF-B; establishing links with related international initiatives; writing the project
brief; leading the resource mobilization strategy.
74. Activity 15. Preparation of Project brief. The project coordinator will author the
project brief and supporting documentation, in consultation with the national stakeholders,
co-ordinators and the steering committee.
X. PDF BLOCK B OUTPUTS
75. Outputs of the PDF-B will be:

National reports identifying gaps, inconsistencies and conflicts in existing plans and
policies
20












Options for national institutional arrangements for sustainable IAS management
IAS Survey and impact assessment instruments and procedures
Protocols for data storage and analysis
Results of pilot surveys
Communication strategy for IAS management and dissemination and replication of
lessons learned
Evaluation of baseline conditions at sites selected for IAS control programmes
Plans for IAS control programmes
Identified roles of stakeholders (including related projects) in the full project
Training and equipment needs assessments
Steering committee reports
Co-financing plan for full project including commitments for cash and in-kind
contributions
Project brief and supporting documentation.
XI. ITEMS TO BE FINANCED BY THE PDF-B ACTIVITIES
76. See Costs Table and Implementation Plan on the following pages.
21
COSTS TABLE - FRAMEWORK BUDGET BY ACTIVITY
GEF
US$
Government
contributions
Other
cofunders
TOTAL
31100
16000
15000
62100
47700
27300
20000
95000
32100
16000
15000
63100
49100
25200
30000
104300
73000
47000
5000
125000
16500
8500
10000
35000
26500
16000
24000
66500
100000
56000
20000
176000
29000
13100
20000
62100
23000
11900
15000
49900
20000
12000
9000
41000
112000
60000
20000
192000
30000
15000
26000
71000
Activity 14
Project coordination.
90000
48000
55000
193000
Activity 15
Preparation of Project brief
20000
8000
36000
64000
700,000
380,000
320,000
1,400,000
Activity 1
Analysis of existing plans and
policies.
Activity 2
Stakeholder analysis.
Activity 3
Evaluate the baseline
conditions.
Activity 4
Develop instruments and tools
for IAS impact assessment.
Activity 5
Pilot surveys.
Activity 6
Prepare communication
strategy.
Activity 7
Evaluate baseline conditions
Activity 8
Identify and plan control
projects.
Activity 9
Needs Assessments
Activity 10
Dissemination and replication
strategy.
Activity 11
International steering
committee meetings.
Activity 12
National and international
stakeholder workshops.
Activity 13
Develop co-financing plan
TOTAL COSTS
22
WORKPLAN AND TIMETABLE.
Activities
2003
May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
2004
Jan Feb
Mar Apr
Activity 1
Analysis of existing plans and policies
Activity 2
Stakeholder analysis.
Activity 3
Evaluate policy baseline conditions.
Activity 4
Develop instruments and tools for IAS
impact assessment.
Activity 5
Pilot surveys.
Activity 6
Prepare communication strategy.
Activity 7
Evaluate control baseline conditions.
Activity 8
Identify and plan control projects.
Activity 9
Needs Assessments.
Activity 10
Dissemination and replication strategy.
Activity 11
International
steering
committee
meetings.
Activity 12
National and international stakeholder
workshops.
Activity 13
Develop co-financing plan.
Activity 14
Project coordination.
Activity 15
Preparation of Project brief
23
ANNEXES
A. Conservation Status of Major Habitats in the Requesting Countries
B. Draft Full Project Logical Framework
C. Prioritised Invasive Alien Plants in the four countries
D. Proposed Pilot Sites
E. Country Report Ethiopia
F. Country Report Ghana
G. Country Report Uganda
H. Country Report Zambia
I. Regional Stakeholders’ Workshop Report
J. Related Projects
24
Annex A. Conservation Status of Major Habitats in the Requesting Countries
Taken from the UNEP World Conversation Monitoring Centre’s Biodiversity Bulletin No. 1,
Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics.
Major Habitat
Global Priority for Conservation Action
Lowest
Lowland moist – short dry season. Dry (semi-) evergreen
rain forest (<1000m)
Lowland moist – long dry season. Sudanian woodland and
dry evergreen forest
Lowland moist – long dry season. Sudanian woodland, dry
evergreen forest & savanna
Lowland moist – long dry season. Zambezian miombo and
dry evergreen forest
Lowland sub dry. Dry evergreen forest and grass savanna
Lowland sub-dry. Zambezian miombo, mopane, dry
deciduous forest
Lowland very dry/ sub-arid. Dry savanna, steppe & thicket
Lowland very dry/ sub-arid. Tree & bush pseudo-steppe
E. Africa
Premontane moist. Transition forest (1000-1800m)
Premontane moist. Transition woodland & forest (10002000m)
Premontane moist. Transition woodland, evergreen thicket
(1000-2000m)
Premontane dry. Scrub forest, (Semi-) evergreen thicket
Premontane dry. (Semi-) evergreen shrub & thicket (15002000m)
Premontane dry. Evergreen shrub Juniperus forest (15003000m)
Montane moist. Montane evergreen forest (1800-3000m)
Montane moist. Juniperus forest (2000-3000m)
Montane moist. Alpine scrub. E. Africa (3000m)
Low
Ghana
High
Highest
Ghana
Uganda
Zambia
Ghana
Zambia
Uganda
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Uganda
Uganda
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Uganda
Ethiopia
Uganda
Uganda
Zambia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Uganda
25
Annex B. Draft Full Project Logical Framework
Narrative
Goal:
Ecosystem, species and genetic
diversity in Africa protected from
invasive alien species, for global,
national and community benefit.
Purpose:
Barriers to effective prevention and
management of invasive alien
species removed in pilot countries
of Ghana, Ethiopia, Uganda and
Zambia
Outputs:
1. Enabling
environment
strengthened for prevention and
management of invasive alien
species
Indicators
Means
Verification
of
Assumptions
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
To be completed
during PDF-B
2. Appropriate information on the
risks, impacts and management
of invasive alien species
available
to
identified
stakeholders.
3. Strategies for the prevention and
management of invasive alien
species implemented.
4. Capacity to implement invasive
alien species prevention and
management strengthened.
26
Annex B. Draft Full Project Logical Framework (continued)
Activities:
Output 1. Enabling environment strengthened for prevention and management of invasive alien
species
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Develop national IAS strategies and action plans.
Revise environmental and quarantine strategies, plans and policies in line with IAS strategy
Create mechanisms for institutional collaboration and coordination in IAS management
Develop mechanisms for promoting cooperation between all stakeholders, including private sector,
local communities.
1.5 Review national laws and regulations relating to IAS, and recommend changes to close gaps, and
resolve any inconsistencies
1.6 Develop and implement mechanisms for financing ongoing IAS activities, from the public and private
sector.
Output 2. Appropriate information on the risks, impacts and management of invasive alien species
available to identified stakeholders.
2.1 Devise and implement publicity and awareness campaigns targeting different stakeholders including
indigenous communities, general public, private sector, government and policy makers.
2.2 Conduct national surveys to document presence and impact of IAS.
2.3 Implement national communication strategies for ensuring effective transfer of information between
stakeholders, concerning risks, impacts and actions, and laws and regulations concerning IAS.
2.4 Facilitate external communication and information exchange particularly with the CHM, IPPC
secretariat, regional organisations and neighbouring countries.
2.5 Identify sources of information, expertise and solutions concerning invasive alien species in Africa
and elsewhere to be used in the pilot countries.
Output 3. Strategies for the prevention and management of invasive alien species implemented.
3.1 Incorporate environmental risk and impact analyses into quarantine procedures.
3.2 Establish monitoring and reporting systems for early detection of IAS (both intentional and
unintentional imports) with special attention to vulnerable ecosystems.
3.3 Implement control projects identified by the PDF-B for priority IAS threatening globally important
biodiversity.
3.4 Evaluate and document impact of control activities.
3.5 Where control methods for the priority IAS are not already known, develop and implement research
programmes as necessary.
3.6 Devise and implement mechanisms for involving all stakeholders in control programmes including
procedures for resolving conflicts of interest.
Output 4. Capacity to implement invasive alien species prevention and management strengthened.
4.1 Build a rapid response mechanism for responding to IAS, including human, financial, regulatory, and
institutional resources and support
4.2 Conduct training programme for different stakeholders.
4.3 Establish specialist IAS positions in natural resource management agencies
4.4 Provide equipment and material support to quarantine departments, border crossings, and weed
control units.
4.5 Facilitate participation of national delegates in relevant international bodies, such as the Interim
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
4.6 Formulate programmes for including IAS in school and university curricula.
4.7 Dissemination of information and lessons learned
4.8 Promoting replication to neighbouring countries and regional organisations
27
Annex C. Prioritised Invasive Alien Plants in the 4 Countries
The table lists all the species occurring in the top five priorities in the four countries, denoted
by the symbol . Species also listed as invasive in a country, but not occurring in the top five
priorities are indicated ().
Invasive Plant Species
(area of origin)
Eichhornia crassipes
(South America)
Lantana camara
(Central & South America)
Striga spp
(indigenous & Asia)
Mimosa pigra
(Central America)
Salvinia molesta
(Brazil)
Chromolaena odorata
(Central & South America)
Broussonetia papyrifera
(East Asia)
Leucaena leucocephala
(Central America)
Prosopis juliflora
(Central & South America)
Parthenium hysterophorous
(Central & South America)
Cymbopogon afronardus
(possibly S Asia)
Ethiopia Ghana
Uganda Zambia Other African Countries




Many countries

()


Many countries

()
()

Many countries
()
()


Many countries

()

Many countries





()
()


()
West,
Central
and
Southern Africa
Few countries in East
Africa
Many countries
Many countries
Kenya,
Mozambique,
South
Africa,
Madagascar,
Indian
Ocean Islands
Southern and NorthEastern tropical Africa
28
Annex D. Proposed Pilot Sites
The following have been proposed as sites for the full project. During the PDF-B they will be
assessed in more detail.
Country
Ghana
Ethiopia
Site
Tano River System
Afram Headwaters Forest Reserve
Nyankapala,
Northern
(agrobiodiversity)
Awash Basin and Gambela
Savanna
Harerge
Koba Alamata
Uganda
Lake Albert
Iganga and Palisa
Rakai, Lake Mburo National Park
Zambia
Kafue River System
Kafue Flats (Lochinvar and Blue Lagoon
National Parks)
Mosi-oa-Tunya and Victoria Falls National
Park
Invasive Plants
Eichhornia crassipes
Chromolaena odorata
Broussonetia papyrifera
Striga spp
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Parthenium hysterophorus
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Parthenium hysterophorus
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Cymbopogon afronardus
Mimosa pigra
Cymbopogon afronardus
Eichhornia crassipes
Mimosa pigra
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
29
Annex E
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Country Report on
National Stakeholders Workshop on
Invasive Alien Species
“Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa”
17-18 August 2002, Addis Ababa
Prepared by
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
P. O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Tel.: + 251-1-462236 or 462270; Fax: +251-461294 or 461251;
E-mail: earodg@telecom.net.et; iar@telecom.net.et
August 2002
30
Contents
1. Background
27
2. Introduction
28
3. Objectives
29
4. Outputs
29
4.1 Identification and prioritization of Invasive Alien Species
29
4.2 Currently available information (preliminary inventory) on IAS.
31
4.2.1. Prosopis juliflora
31
4.2.2
Parthenium hysterophorus
31
4.2.3
Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth)
32
4.2.4
Other alien and indigenous invasive species
32
4.3 Major stakeholders that have an interest in IAS.
32
4.3.1 National Stakeholders
32
4.3.2 International Stakeholders
33
4.4
Inventory of relevant national and regional projects that address invasive
alien species
4.5
33
Assessment of baseline conditions in relation to proposed project components
4.5.1
Information management and its application
37
4.5.2
Development of policies and plans to support Integrated management
37
of IAS
4.5.3
Assessment and control of IAS
4.5.4 Capacity building and disemination of lessions learned
39
39
5. List of policy and programme /strategy documents relevant to invasive alien
species management.
40
6. Appendices
31
1. Background
Ethiopia occupies the interior of the Eastern Horn of Africa stretching between 3° and 15°N
latitude and 33° and 48°E with a total land area of about 1,127,127 km2. The current
population is estimated at 65 million with about 3 % annual population growth. The average
population density in Ethiopia is about 34 persons/km2, and ranges between 8 and 95
persons/km2. About 85% of the population is rural with their living drawn from subsistence
agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of the national economy with about 80% of the total
employment and 85% of the earnings from export. The principal exports are of primary
agricultural products, which include arabica coffee, oil seeds and pulses, flowers, vegetables,
sugar, skins and hides
Ethiopia is a country of great geographical diversity, with high and rugged mountains, flattopped plateaux and deep gorges, incised river valleys and rolling plains. The country is
endowed with great ecological and biological diversity. The altitudinal variation, ranging from
110 meters below sea level to high mountains reaching up to 4620 meters above sea level,
affords the country a wide range of climatic conditions. This has created diverse and suitable
environments, which are home to large number of flora and fauna. Owing to this diversity in
climate and terrain, Ethiopia enjoys an extremely rich and unique floral and faunal diversity.
The flora of Ethiopia is heterogeneous and has a rich endemic element. It is estimated to
contain between 6,500–7,000 species of higher plants, of which about 12% are endemic.
Endemism is particularly high in the arid lowlands.
Ethiopia has one of the richest avifauna in mainland Africa, and also a number of endemic
large mammals. Although few studies have been done on the groups, six reptile and 33
amphibian species are known to be endemic. Even less is known about insects and the other
groups of vertebrates, but they are likely to contain at least the same proportion of endemic
species.
Ethiopia is one of the 12 Vavilov Centers of crop genetic diversity in the world. Large
numbers of cultivated plants and their wild relatives are found in Ethiopia. To cite just a few
examples; Coffee (Coffee arabica), teff (Eragrostis tef), enset (Ensete Ventricosum), and
anchote (Coccinea abyssinica). The country is also one of the main centers of diversity for a
number of crops e.g. sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), finger millet (Eleusine coracana), field pea
(Pisum sativum), lentil (Lens culinaris), chick pea (Cicer arietinum), perennial cotton
(Gossypium arboreum), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), caster oil bean (Ricinus communis)
and sesame (Sesamum indicum). The country is also an important center for linseed (Linum
usitatissimum), durum wheat (Triticum durum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) and potential
industrial crops such as Cordeuxia edulis and Vernonia galamensis.
The increasing movement of different species, through the aid of humans and animals from
place to place, is having a negative impact on local ecosystems. IAS are creating problems in
ecosystems, biodiversity, health, economics and several aspects of human welfare. The
increase in the human population and the high pressure that this exerts on the biological
resources accelerates the changes in the land use pattern. This continued conversion of land to
agriculture and grazing, mining, construction and other uses makes the natural ecosystem
unsuitable for native species, while at the same time this situation provides an ideal
opportunity for IAS to invade new areas and expand their geographical dimension.
32
The reduction of crop yield by weeds, the degradation of protected ecosystems (mainly
national parks), increasing damage from pests and pathogens, the disruption of irrigation,
drainage, water supply and sanitation schemes are among the major problems caused by IAS.
Currently, IAS are of a great concern posing particular problems to development as well as
being a threat to biodiversity conservation. Foremost among these is parthenium weed
(Parthenium hysterophorus), although major problems are also being caused by water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), mesquites (Prosopis juliflora), Lantana camara, and the
parasitic weeds of Striga, Orobanche and Cuscuta species.
The Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE), BSAP and other policy and strategy documents
have acknowledged the eminent threat posed by IAS to the country’s biological resources and
the ecosystem at large.
2.
Introduction
Ethiopia is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and has gone far in
developing a Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) in line with its commitments
under the convention. Besides this, various activities related to the implementation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, have been carried out or are being carried out by various
institutions in the country. Nevertheless, there are wide ranges of issues that have to be
addressed in order to tackle chronic and emerging problems that affect the global significant
biodiversity resources of Ethiopia.
For two decades, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) have been one of the emerging problems
facing Ethiopia. This has been identified by the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE) and
Ethiopia’s BSAP as one of the major threats to its biodiversity and economic well being.
Little effort has been made so far to assess the status of IAS and design a management system
to mitigate their effects. Some studies have been undertaken by the Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organisation (EARO) and by graduates of higher learning institutions on specific
aspects of IAS in Ethiopia.
Cognisant of the fact that this globally significant problem requires regional collaboration;
EARO has been working with CAB International (CABI) in developing an initiative for,
‘Removing barriers to invasive plant management in Africa.’
Accordingly, a PDF-A project proposal was developed by CABI in consultation with EARO,
the implementing agency, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) operational focal point for Ethiopia. The project proposal was
then submitted to United Nations Environment Program UNEP/GEF and approved in June
2002.
During this process, it was attempted to make the necessary information available at a very
early stage of preparing the draft project proposal through the consultation of major
stakeholders in Ethiopia. Moreover, the subsequent national workshop has brought together
the lead international stakeholders (i.e. CABI and IUCN), who are expected to make
recommendations on the content and direction of the project and participate directly during
the entire project cycle.
33
The present report is a summary of the findings, as well as recommendations on the way
forward following the national stakeholders workshop. The report also contains basic
information that is required for the preparation of a PDF-B project proposal, which is required
for developing a full GEF project brief. The PDF-B grant is required to undertake the
necessary preparatory and consultation work and establish working relations at community as
well as national and regional levels. The project proposal will also establish institutional
arrangements for co-ordination, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
3. Objectives
The objectives of the national workshop were:
 Identify and prioritise invasive alien species, and indicate geographical regions where they
constitute a proximate threat to locally and globally significant biodiversity,
 Collect and collate currently available information (preliminary inventory) on alien plants,
 Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants,
 Conduct an inventory of relevant national and regional projects that address invasive alien
species and that may impact, even unintentionally, the proposed project,
 Assess the base line conditions in relation to each component of the project.
4. Outputs
During the workshop, the seriousness of the problem and the threats posed by IAS in
important ecosystems in Ethiopia were discussed at greater depth. Some of the threats that
were discussed include those that can be seen on dams built for hydroelectric power
generation, rivers, rangelands, irrigation canals, national parks and other reserve areas, and
agricultural fields, as well as potential threats to human health, the conservation of
biodiversity and the environment at large.
The workshop has identified the following main findings in plenary and group discussions as
per the objectives set out in the PDF-A proposal.
4.1
Identify and prioritise IAS, and indicate regions where they constitute a
proximate threat to locally and globally significant biodiversity.
In the absence of detailed background fact-finding studies, prioritisation of IAS was done by
considering facts such as the magnitude of the invasiveness, threats to local biodiversity,
socio-economic and human health impacts. Accordingly, the following preliminary
prioritisation was agreed upon during the workshop (Table 1).
34
Table 1. Identified and prioritised Invasive Alien Species in Ethiopia.
Identified Species
Preliminary Prioritisation
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Parthenium hysterophorous
Prosopis juliflora
Striga spp.
Acacia spp.*
Orobanche spp.
Cuscuta campestris
Argemone mexicana
Verbesina enceliodies
Opuntia Spp.
* probably a native species
Prosopis juliflora
Parthenium hysterophorous
Striga spp.
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Acacia spp.*
Geographical distribution of the identified priority invasive plants within the different regional
states of Ethiopia.
Oromia Regional State:
Parthenium hysterophorus
Prosopis juliflora
Striga spp.
Lantana camara
Eichhornia crassipes
Orobanche spp.
Acacia spp.
Somali Regional State:
Parthenium hysterophorus
Lantana camara
Prosopis juliflora
Afar Regional State:
Prosopis julifora
Partheinum hysterophorus
Acacia senegal
Tigray & Amhara Regional States:
Striga spp.
Orobanche spp.
Parthenium hysterophorus
Prosopis juliflora
Opuntia spp.
Southern Nations, Nationalities & Peoples Regional state:
Eichhornia crassipes
35
Gambella Regional State:
Eichhornia crassipes
Proposed pilot Sites
The following have been proposed as sites for the full project. During the PDF-B they
Assessed in more detail.
Site
Invasive Plant
Awash Basin & Gambela
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Parthenium hysterophorus
Eichhornia crassipes
Harerge
Lantana camara
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Parthenium hysterophorus
4.2
Collect and collate currently available
Kobo Alamata
Striga sppinformation (Preliminary inventory) on
Prosopis sp
alien plants.
Parthenium hysterophorus
4.2.1 Prosopis juliflora
The species was purposely introduced as a forestry tree in the Awash basin and is now
threatening the protected areas of Awash National Park as well as irrigated agricultural land. It
is also aggressively invading pastoral areas of the Middle and Upper Awash Valley and the
eastern part of Hararge. In spite of some uses and benefits from some species in the genus, the
species introduced to Ethiopia is known for its numerous harmful effects on the livelihood of
the local people. In this regard, the benefits of Prosopis have been dramatically outweighed
by the overall loss of natural pasture, displacing of native trees, reduction in stocking rate,
toxicity to livestock, formation of impenetrable thickets d increased incidence of crop pests.
Though the extent of the invasion is not known, the invaded area is estimated at about 4000
ha. The species is ranked as one of the three top priority invasive species in the country.
4.2.2
Parthenium hysterophorus
This neo-tropical weed was introduced in the 1980s to Ethiopia through grain shipments for
famine relief. It is spreading rapidly and is having a substantial impact in arable land, pasture
and grazing land. It is reported to reduce forage production by up to 90%. Sorghum grain
yield losses varied from 40-97%, depending on the year and site, if Parthenium weed is left
uncontrolled throughout the cropping season (Tamado, et al. 2002). This invasive species is
not used as forage and is not favoured by livestock on vast areas of the rangelands. Medical
and veterinary effects of this species are just starting to come to light in some parts of the
country.
36
4.2.3 Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth)
Over the last 30 years, water hyacinth has been slowly spreading in Ethiopia, but is most
serious in the White Nile watershed of South-west Ethiopia, towards Sudan, and in the Awash
River system, which supports major agricultural activities. Major fresh water lakes e.g. those
of the Great Rift Valley are infested. Hydroelectric schemes, fishing, transport, water loss
through evapo-transpiration, irrigation and disease vectors are all issues to be addressed.
4.2.4 Other alien and native invasive plant species
Lantana camara is spreading over vast areas of natural grasslands in Hararge and
neighbouring localities of the Somali Regional State (eastern Ethiopia). There is not much
awareness of the problem.
Alien parasitic weed species are also important pests of grain cereals (Striga spp.); legumes,
oilseeds and vegetables (Orobanche spp. and Cuscuta spp.) causing heavy losses exceeding
80% of potential yield or in some instances complete crop failure. Verbesina encelioides is a
very recent introduction in the southeastern parts of Ethiopia and may soon spread into other
areas.
Native species such as Acacia drepanolobium and Acacia mellifera are also encroaching on
the rangelands of the Borena Zone of Oromiya National Regional State, which is known for
its endemic cattle breeds in the country and the problem is threatening the biodiversity in
rangeland ecosystems as well as the development of livestock production.
The aforementioned invasive species are growing out of control in agricultural lands,
rangelands, national parks, waterways, lakes, rivers, power dams, roadsides and urban green
spaces with great economic and ecological consequences.
4.3
Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants
4.3.1 National stakeholders
4.3.1.1
Federal and Regional Institutions
 Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organisation (EARO)
 Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
 Higher Learning Institutions
 Addis Ababa University (AAU)
 Alemaya University (AU)
 Bahr Dar University
 Jima University
 Mekele University
 Southern University
 Ambo College of Agriculture
 Ministry of Water Resource
 Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
 Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission (ESTC)
 Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR)
 Ministry of Water Resource
 Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation Organisation (EEPCO)
 Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organisation (EWCO)
37
 Coffee and Tea Authority (CTA)
 Ethiopian Sugar Industry Support Center Sh. Co.
 Regional State Governments
 Regional Agricultural Research Institutes
 Regional Agricultural Development and Natural Resources Bureaux
 Peasants & Urban Development Associations
4.3.1.2 Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s)
 Professional Societies
 Ethiopian Weed Science Society (EWSS)
 Plant Protection Society of Ethiopia (PPSE)
 Crop Science Society of Ethiopia (CSSE)
 Biological Society of Ethiopia (BSE)
 Forestry Society of Ethiopia (FSE)
 Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society (EWNHS)
 Christian Relief Development Agency. (CRDA)
 Gudinna-Tumssa Foundation
 Care-Awash
 ELFORA Agro–Industries PLC
 Forum for Environment
 Farm Africa
4.3.2 International Stakeholders:
 CAB-International (CABI)
 The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
 Global Environment Facility (GEF)
 United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
 German Agency for Technical Co-operation (GTZ)
 Swedish International Development Agency (Sida)
 Man and Biosphere (MAB)
 World Food Program (WFP)
 World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
 Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation (NORAD)
 International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
4.4
Conduct an inventory of relevant national and regional projects that address
invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, the proposed
project
Details of the GEF and Non-GEF projects that may have direct and indirect impacts on IAS
management are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
38
Table 2. List of GEF projects related to IAS management in Ethiopia
No
Project Title
1
1.1
National Projects
Dynamic
Farmer-Based
Approach
to
the IBCR
Conservation
of
Plant
Genetic Resources
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Strengthening
the
Conservation
and
Management of Protected
Area System of Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s
National
Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (BSAP)
Conservation
and
Sustainable
Use
of
Medicinal Plants
Integrated Conservation and
Development in the Simen
Mountains of Ethiopia:
Amhara NRS
Conservation
and
Management of Biodiversity
in the Proposed Alatish
National Park: Ethiopia:
Amhara NRS
Conservation
of
Dry
Mountain
Forests
in
Borana-Ethiopia:
Oromia
NRS
National
Agency
Implementing GEF
Status
Implement
ing
Agency
UNDP
This project was going on for the last six years and completed in
Dec.2001. The main objective of the project was to develop sustained
capacity within Ethiopia to promote in situ conservation and sustainable
utilization of landraces/farmers varieties together with associated
indigenous knowledge
The Project has been approved by GEF and implementation is expected to
start soon.
IBCR
UNDP
The project was started on March 2001, and is currently under
implementation
IBCR
World
Bank
UNDP
EWCO
The project is under implementation since 2001.
Amhara
state
Amhara
state
National
National
Regional UNDP
The project has been endorsed by EPA and approved by MOFED.
UNDP/GEF’s response is awaited.
Regional UNDP
The project has been endorsed by EPA and approved by MOFED.
UNDP/GEF’s response is awaited.
Oromia National Regional UNDP
State with SoS Sahel
This is a medium size project currently under review by the proponent and
EPA for endorsement.
39
No
Project Title
1.8
Development
of
the
National
Biosafety EPA
Framework for Ethiopia
National Capacity Building
Needs Self Assessment for EPA
global
environmental
management – Ethiopia
1.9
2
Regional/International
Projects
2.1
The Impact of Climate
Change on Agriculture in
Africa
(11
African
Countries)
Coping
with
Drought:
Update on Use of Climate
Information. (Eight African
Countries)
Integrating
Land
Degradation Concerns in
Development Policy in
Eastern Africa (4 countries)
Botanical and Zoological
Taxonomic Networks in
Eastern Africa
2.2
2.3
2.4
National
Agency
Implementing GEF
Status
Implement
ing
Agency
This project document is currently under review by MOFED for approval.
UNEP
UNEP
This is A PDFA project endorsed by EPA and approved by UNEP.
Implementation is expected to start soon.
EPA has endorsed the project and approval by the GEF is awaited.
NMSA
World
Bank
NMSA
UNDP
EPA has written to UNDP a letter of support for further development of
the proposal. Approval by the GEF is awaited
IBCR
UNEP
EPA has endorsed the project concept. Approval by GEF is awaited
AAU
UNDP
EPA has endorsed the project concept. Approval by GEF is awaited
40
Table 3. List of Non GEF projects related to IAS management in Ethiopia
N
o
Project Title
1
Eastern Africa Regional
Wetlands Conservation and EPA/NORAD
Support Programme
2
Woody Biomas Inventory
and Strategic Plan Project
Savanna
wood
land
management study project
Invasive weed eradication
campaign
Ethiopian Flora project
3
4
5
6
7
National
Implementing
Agency
MOA
MOA/GTZ
supposed
GTZ
AAU-Biology
Dep’t
Borena Lowland Pastoral
Development Project
GTZ
Forest Genetic Resource IBCR
Conservation Project
Status
Fund for preliminary assessment is secured from IUCN/NORAD and filed assessment has already
being under taken by Task Force Members drawn from Governmental and non-Governmental
institutions. Full fledged Project Proposal for Regional Wetlands Conservation will be prepared
based on the country reports from Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya by IUCN/NORAD.
This Project was under implementation since 1990. Under this project inventory, covering about
300,000 km2 has been conducted. Producing 29 maps and 18 reports.
This was a study project designed for one year and the work was completed in September 1997
The project began in 1980 with the objective of writing up flora of Ethiopia, building-up a National
Herbarium and related library. The promotion of scientific activities in taxonomic botany, forestry,
plant ecology and plant physiology were the main activities. Between 1980 and 1999 the staff of
the national herbarium and the collaborator institutions published over 210 papers. Most of the
flora volumes intended to be prepared at the inception of the project are finalised and they cover
several families and species. The project is expected to finalise the write up of the flora by the end
of 2002.
Native Acacia spp. bush encroachment management
It is finically and technically supported by GTZ and commenced in August 1998. The first phase
of the project ends in July 2001.
41
4.5
Assessment of base line conditions in relation to each component of the project
proposal
4.5.1 Information management and its application
The Workshop realised that some modest efforts have been made on a limited scale with
regard to information dissemination mechanisms concerning IAS in Ethiopia through: local
newspapers, mass media (radio and TV broadcast); publications in the form of journal articles,
proceeding papers, technical manuals, extension leaflets, posters, awareness creation
seminars, training at various levels and annual conferences of professional societies.
Gaps identified were:
 Lack of database on IAS and their impacts,
 Lack of guides to the identification and risk of invasive plants,
 Lack of information on the situation of IAS in national parks, protected areas
and various ecosystem types (other than agro-ecosystems),
 Lack of continuation of information dissemination efforts,
 Absence of evaluation mechanisms for the effectiveness of the
information dissemination activities.
Prominent among the conclusions in this issue were:
 The need for a concerted and co-ordinated national information exchange and
dissemination system of IAS for effective inventory of knowledge and
seriousness of the problem.
 Promotion of the exchange of technical information on the management of IAS
among various stakeholders within and outside Ethiopia.
 Need to increase community awareness on IAS problem
4.5.2 Development of policies and plans to support integrated management of IAS
It was recognised that Ethiopia has identified invasive species management and control as a
priority in its Environmental policy, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP),
National Development Policies and various strategies indicated below:

Ethiopia has approved its Environmental Policy on 2nd April 1997. The policy has got
11 cross sectoral and 11 sectoral policy elements. One of the policy elements which is
relevant to IAS states that:
"To ensure that the importation, exportation and exchange of genetic and species
resources is subject to legislation, e.g., to ensure the safeguarding of community in
national interests, the fulfilling of international obligations, quarantine, etc. Above all
biological material which is self regenerative and impossible to control once allowed
to get out of control may result in the most insidious and damaging form of pollution
which is biological pollution, thus the importation and use of biological material
including those genetically engineered should be under stringent regulation".
 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of Ethiopia has also
identified IAS management and control as a priority. Moreover, the following
42
issued/drafted laws, strategies acts and legislations are among the relevant policy
environments for IAS.
 The first Quarantine Law: issued in 1971 known as Plant Protection Decree (PPD)
No. 56 of 1971, to control the movement of plant products with the intention of
avoiding the entry of exotic injurious pests into the country.
 Seed Act: issued in 1998 by the National Seed Industry Agency (NSIA). This Act
lists 58 weed species as highly damaging to crop production and states the need for
strict inspection to prevent the entry and spread of the listed weeds in the country
through seeds of improved cultivars. This Act prohibits the sale and planting of seeds
contaminated by certain weed seeds and requires information on contamination by
weed seeds to be included in the label.
 Agricultural Research Strategy: documents issued by EARO
 National Weed Science Research Project Strategy
 National Plant Protection Research Program Strategy
 National Forestry Research Strategic Plan
 The Federal land Administration and Utilisation (No. 89/1997) proclamation States
the following:
"... Any land holder has obligations to comply with obligations imposed pertaining
to pernnial trees, soil and water conservation, both side planting and other
development works, control weeds, compensate damage caused, avoiding planting
of prohibited plants and undertakings of some restricted activities..." based on this
proclamation the Amhara regional state issues decree ( No. 12:92) stating that
"... Land holders are obliged to protect their land holdings from Striga and
Parthenium..."
 Regulation No.4/1992 from Council of Ministers on plant quarantine specifies plants
requiring permits and of those totally prohibited.

Draft law on Introduction of exotic biological control agents: Draft proposal of
legislation for introduction of exotic biological control agents prepared by the Ministry of
Agriculture.
The inescapable gaps emphasised by the workshop were:





These various efforts were being pursued largely in isolation, with little
exchange of information and linkage between policy implementing institutions,
Over lapping of policy operations and without the benefit of coordinating
frame work to set individual efforts in proper context
Lack of a noxious Weed Act describing duties and responsibilities of various
stakeholders in the management of invasive weeds and other problematic
noxious weeds.
Little attention given to the enforcement of the Quarantine Legislation and
other Environmental and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations
Lack of policy and stringent restriction on introduction of biological control
agents for research against invasive and noxious weed species.
43
Recommendation: There is a need to review and analyse the existing policies, legislations,
acts and strategies and develop a comprehensive legislation for the control and management
of IAS.
4.5.3 Assessment and control of IAS
The workshop participants recognised that:
 Limited assessments have been done on IAS with regard to their actual and potential
threat to biodiversity conservation, agricultural development and local community
welfare.
 Research on management of IAS lacks focus and regrettably limited control methods
have been studied on parthenium (timing and frequency of hand pulling /hoeing and
chemical control); on prosopis (cutting from below 10 cm underground and use of
burnt oil).
 Monitoring work on spread and invasions has been done through routine questionnaire
surveys but only in agricultural lands
The gaps identified under this item were:



Data recordings based on systematic assessment on geographical distribution, the
magnitude of the problem and economic importance of invasive plant species are
lacking.
No attempts have been done on utilisation of bio-control agents on the
management of invasive plant species.
Study on aquatic invasive species is largely non-existent.
Considering the broad dimensions of the problem and the fact that no tangible research effort
made locally the workshop underlined the need for:
 Assessing and documenting of available methods for prevention and early control of
the already existing IAS,
 Identifying those invasive plant species which can raise conflicts of interest and best
ways to resolve them with balanced considerations between saving the biodiversity
and the socio-economics values on case-by case basis,
 Identifying and initiating pilot projects for the control of priority invasive plants,
 Arrangement of technology dissemination and adoption on solutions implemented in
other related regional programs to local conditions.
4.5.4 Capacity building and dissemination of lessons learned
Under this agenda item the workshop participants realised that:
 National Research Strategy Plans on areas of Weed Science, Plant Protection, Forestry
and Dry land Agriculture, which include research on invasive plants are already
developed by EARO.
 EARO is in the process of establishing six new research centres in IAS prone areas of
the Somali, Afar and Borena pastoral and agro-pastoral lands.
44
Under this topic the following gaps were identified based on the different groups and plenary
session discussions.
 Lack of funds for strengthening the existing capacity in weed science research
including IAS.
 Lack of specific skilled/trained manpower on IAS (research and extension).
 Lack of full time assigned researchers for IAS.
 Weak inter-institutional linkage on information dissemination and networking.
To alleviate the current problems on capacity building and dissemination of lessons learned
the workshop participants endorsed the following recommendations:
 Assessment of training and infrastructure needs for IAS research and extension
activities,
 Establishment of inter-institutional linkage and information networking with related
regional programs,
 Enhancement of experience sharing through publications,
participation in regional workshops and study tours.
5. List of Policy and Programme/Strategy documents relevant to Invasive Alien Species
Management.
 Environmental Policy of Ethiopia: The Environmental Policy of Ethiopia, which
was approved in April 1997, is the result of the Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia
(CSE). The CSE dealt with eleven sectoral and eleven cross-sectoral issues. The CSE
has been prepared in five volume documents;
Volume I - Describes the resource base of Ethiopia and
examines causes and effects of the existing situation.
Volume II – Presents a policy and strategy framework.
Volume III – Deals with institutional issues.
Volume IV – Presents a plan of prioritised action.
Volume V – Gives list of projects, some funded and being
implemented and others only proposed with estimated costs.
Based on the CSE eleven Regional States of the country has prepared their respective
Regional Conservation Strategies.
 National Action Plan to Combat Desertification and mitigate the effects of
Drought: As per the ratification of the UNCCD in 1997 by Ethiopia, EPA being a
focal point for the implementation of the convention, National Action Plan (NAP) has
been prepared. Based on the NAP, Afar, Somali, Amhara and Tigrai Regional Sates
have started preparing their respective Regional Action Programmes (RAPs) to
combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought.
 The National Policy on Biodiversity Conservation and Research (NPBCR)
(1998): The major objective of the NPBCR is to ensure that Ethiopian plant, animal
and microbial genetic resources and ecosystems are conserved, developed, managed
and utilised sustainably.
45
 The National Agricultural Research Policy and Strategy (1993): The Policy sets
the framework for research in agriculture. The important place of resources
conservation and environmental protection when promoting agriculture has been
clearly stated in the document.
 Environmental Laws in the making: There are a number of legislative pieces in the
final stage of the drafting process, of which, the three most salient proclamations
which are endorsed by the Council of Ministers and awaiting approval by the
Parliament are: Draft Proclamation on Institutional Arrangement for Environmental Protection,
 Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Proclamation,
 Draft Pollution Control Proclamation
 Water Resources Management Proclamation (2000): The Water Resource
Management Proclamation provides various uses of water stipulating conditions for
water resources development, utilisation, conservation, protection and control. The
latter includes the issuance of environmental standards particularly of water pollution.
 Ethiopian Forestry Action Plan (EFAP): The Ethiopian Forestry Action Plan
(EFAP) was completed in 1994 providing framework for the National Forestry Action
Programme and the Ethiopian Forest Policy was prepared based on EFAP and some of
the Regional states have also prepared their respective Regional Forestry Action Plans
(RFAPs).
 National Biotechnology Policy and Strategy (Draft): The general objective of this
draft is to promote biotechnology development and to use it, taking due measures to
meet safety concerns to overcome important social, economic and environmental
problems with the view of improving the quality of life. The draft law has rigorous
provisions on risk assessment and risk management to ensure human and biodiversity
health and environmental integrity as well as socio-economic well - being.
46
Appendix 1. Program of National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species
National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species
Workshop Theme: “Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa”
17-18 August 2002, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia
Programme
Venue: Hiruy Meeting Hall, EARO HQs, Addis Abab, Ethiopia
Rapporteurs: Dr. Tesfaye Bekele & Mr. Yitebetu Moges
Saturday: 17 August 2002
TIME
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
PRESENTER
09:00-09:30
09:30-09:40
09:40-09:50
09:50-10:20
10:20-10:30
10:30-11:00
Registration of Participants
Welcome Address
Introduction to the Workshop
Opening Address/Role of EPA in Managing Invasive Alien Species
Introduction of Workshop Participants
Coffee/Tea Break
EARO
Dr. Demel Teketay, DG EARO
Dr. Sarah Simons, CAB International
Dr. Tewolde B/G/Egziabher, GM, EPA
Participants
EARO
Chairperson: Dr. Abera Debelo
11:00-11:15
11:15-11:30
11:30-11:45
11:45-12:00
12:00-12:15
12:15-13:00
13:00-15:00
Introduction to IUCN
Introduction to CAB International
Global Invasive Species Program
Current Status of NBSAP and Agricultural/Biodiversity Policy on
Invasive Alien Species in Ethiopia
Role of EARO in Managing Invasive Alien Species
General Discussion
Lunch Break
Dr. Geoffrey Howard, IUCN
Dr. Sarah Simons, CAB International
Dr. Geoffrey Howard, IUCN
Dr. Fassil Kebebew, IBCR
Dr. Demel Teketay, DG, EARO
Participants
EARO/Imperial Hotel
Chairperson: Dr. Yonas Yemeshaw
15:00-15:30
15:30-16:00
16:00-16:30
16:30-17:00
Overview of Invasive Alien Species in Ethiopia
Biology and Management of Parthenium Weed (Parthenium
hyseterophorus) in Ethiopia
Coffee/Tea Break
Some Biological Characteristics that Foster the Invasion of Prosopis
17:00-17:30
18:00-20:00
General Discussion
Cocktail
juliflora
Mr. Rezene Fessehaie, EARO
Dr. Tamado Tana, AU
EARO
Mr. Hailu Shiferaw (Demel Teketay, Sileshi
Nemomissa & Fassil Assefa)
Participants
EARO/Imperial Hotel
Sunday: 18 August 2002
Chairperson: Mr. Rezene Fessehaie
09:00-09:30
09:30-09:40
09:40-10:30
10:30-11:00
11:00-11:30
11:30-12:30
12:30-13:00
13:00-15:00
Field Report on Invasion of Prosopis juliflora in the Afar National
Regional State
Introduction to Purposes and Duties of Group Discussions
Group Discussions
Coffee/Tea Break
Representative of Team of Experts
Group Discussions Continued
Presentation of Group Reports
Discussion on Group Reports
Participants
Group Representatives
Participants
EARO/Imperial Hotel
Lunch Break
Dr. Sarah Simons/Dr. Demel Teketay
Participants
EARO
Chairperson: Mr. Getachew Eshete
15:00-16:00
16:00-16:45
16:45-17:00
The Way Forward
Discussion on The Way Forward
Closing Remarks
Dr. Sarah Simons/Dr. Demel Teketay
Participants
Dr. Abera Debelo, DDG EARO
47
Appendix 2. List of participants on the National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive
Alien Species
National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species
Workshop Theme: “Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa”
17-18 August 2002, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia
List of Participants
No.
1
2
3
4
Name
Dr. Geoffrey Howard
Dr. Sarah Simons
Ms. Serah M. Mutisya
Dr.
Tewolde
B/G/Egziabher
Mr. Getachew Eshete
Mr. Setotaw Birhanu
Mr. Ababu Anage
Mr. Shewaye Derebe
Dr. Demel Teketay
Dr. Abera Debelo
Institution
IUCN
CAB International
CAB International
EPA HQs
Country
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Ethiopia
EPA HQs
EPA HQs
EPA HQs
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
EPA HQs
Ethiopia
EARO HQs
Ethiopia
EARO HQs
Ethiopia
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Dr. Geletu Bejiga
Dr. Yonas Yemshaw
Mr. Rezene Fessehaie
Mr. Demissew Sertse
Dr. Tesfaye Bekele
Dr. Sisay Feleke
Mr. Yitebetu Moges
Dr. Endale Bekele
Mr. Amha Tadesse
Mr. Esayas Tena
EARO HQs
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mr. Genene Dejene
Mr. Solomon Zewdu
Dr. Tamado Tana
Mr. Hailu Shiferaw
Mr. Melese Maryo
Dr. Fassil Kebebew
Bureau of Agriculture, ANRS
Bureau of Agriculture, ANRS
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Mr. Zenebe Woldu
Mr. Berhanu G/Medhin
Mr. Kassahun Yirga
Dr. Yaynu Hiskias
Mr. Dereje Tadesse
Dr. Fasil Reda
Mr. Mitiku Tikisa
IBCR
Ethiopia
Ministry of Agriculture HQs
Ethiopia
Coffee & Tea Authority HQs
Plant Protection Society of Ethiopia
Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
SOS (Sahel) Borena Zone, Oromia Regional State
Ethiopia
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mr. Abraham G/Hiwot
EARO HQs
Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Forestry Research Centre, EARO
Forestry Research Centre, EARO
Forestry Research Centre, EARO
Werer Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Werer Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Werer Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Werer Agricultural Research Centre, EARO
Department of Plant Sciences, Alemaya University
Addis Ababa University
Addis Ababa University
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research HQs
(IBCR)
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
48
Appendix 3. Bibliographic lists of published materials on invasive species in Ethiopia
Fasil Reda. 1994. The biology and control of Parthenium. pp.1-6. In Rezene
Fessehaie (ed.). Proceedings of the 9th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Weed
science committee. 9-10 April, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. EWSC, Addis Ababa.
Frew M., Solomon K. and Mashilla D.1996. Prevalence and distribution of
Parthenium hysterophorus L. in eastern Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of First Annual
Conference of the Ethiopian Weed science society. November 24-25, 1993, Addis
Ababa Ethiopia. EWSS, Addis Ababa.
Hailu Shiferaw 2002. Some Biological Characteristics that foster the invasion of
Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC. at middle Awash Rift Valley are a, Northeast Ethiopia.
Msc. thesis, Addis Ababa University PP 75.
Mesfin Tadesse .1991. A note on Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Compositae).
Sinet Newsletter. Vol. 14. No. 2.
Medhin, B. G. 1992. Parthenium hysterophorus, a new weed problem in
Ethiopia. FAO plant protection Bulletin 40,49.
Stroud, A. and Getachew Aweke. 1989. Proposal for water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) control program for Ethiopian Electric Light and Power Authority
(EELPA), (Available from EELPA).
Stroud, A.. 1994. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in
Ethiopia pp. 7- 16.
Tamado, T., O.,Ohlander ,L-and Milberg , P. 2002. Interference by the weed
Parthenium hysterophorus L. with grain Sorghum: Influence of weed density and
duration of competition . International Journal of pest management. 48 (In press).
Tamado, T., O.,Ohlander ,L. and Milberg , P. 2000. Weed flora in arable fields
of eastern Ethiopia with emphasis on the occurrence of Parthenium hysterophorus.
Weed research, 40, 507-521.
49
Annex F
Country Report on
Invasive Alien Species in Ghana
“Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa”
A summary of findings from a National Stakeholders Workshop
held
18-19 September 2002, Accra, Ghana.
Prepared by
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CRIG)
P.O. Box M.32
Accra,
Ghana
Ph: 021 777651-4 Fax: 021 777655/021 779809
September 2002
50
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
OUTPUTS
47
48
49
49
Output 1: Sites where invasive alien species constitute a proximate threat to globally
significant biodiversity identified and prioritised
49
Output 2: Currently available information (preliminary inventory on alien plants in these 50
areas collected and collated
Output 3: All major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants identified
51
Output 4: An Inventory of national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF) that address
invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, on the
52
proposed project conducted
Output 5: Methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each component
of the project (as per project proposal) developed
52
APPENDICES
55
51
Background:
Ghana lies along the Gulf of Guinea in West Africa between longitudes of 3o5’W and 1o10’E
and latitudes of 4o35’N and 11oN. It covers an area of about some 239,000 km2 with a
southern coastal shoreline of 550 km. The country is bordered by Togo to the east, La Cote
d’Ivoire to the west and Burkina Faso to the north.
Ghana extends over three main biogeographical zones: the Guinea Congolian in the southwest, the Sudanian in the north and the Guinea-Congolian/Sudanian transitional zone in the
middle and in the south-east. A fourth region, the Volta, has recently been identified based on
the butterfly fauna in the country (Larsen, 1994).
There are three main vegetation zones in Ghana; the coastal savanna, the forest zone, and the
northern savanna, with various sub-categories within each. The savannas cover roughly twothirds of the country, with two of the three types of savanna being represented in Ghana i.e.
the Guinea or Tall Grass Savanna and the Sudan or Short Grass Savanna.The remaining third
are covered by different types of forest, ranging from from the wet evergreen, with an annual
rainfall 1700-2300 mm, to dry semi-deciduous, with an annual rainfall of 1100mm to
1200mm annually.
The western border area with Cote d'Ivoire has the highest faunal diversity and highest
precipitation, and is probably a refuge from past dry periods. The forestry commission has
designated 29 of the nearly 300 forest reserves as Globally Significant Biodiversity Areas
(GSBAs), on the basis of their containing the highest concentrations of biodiversity. The
West African Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem is recognized as one of the 25 global
biodiversity hotspots. There are around 3,000 species of vascular plant recorded from Ghana,
and around 1,200 vertebrates, nearly three quarters of which are birds. A number of the
endemic bird species are on the Red list, but the country is also important for migratory
waterbirds, as it is situated on the border of the East Atlantic flyway and the Mediterranean
flyway. Invertebrates are not well documented, though Lepidoptera diversity and endemism
is also high in the high forest areas. The only natural lake system in Ghana is Bosomtwi, but
the huge Volta Lake created in 1964 which inundated nearly 5,000km2 of natural forest has
had a major impact on the biodiversity of the area. A number of islands in the lake are now
wildlife reserves. The Owabi Wildlife Sanctuary just outside Kumasi is a Ramsar site, and an
important stopover point for migratory birds. Five other Ramsar sites are all coastal lagoons,
important for waterbirds, globally threatened turtles and mammals.
Over 250 species of exotic plant species have become naturalized in Ghana, and over 20 of
these can be categorized as invasive. The water weeds Eichhornia crassipes, Salvinia
molesta, Pistia stratiotes and Azolla filiculoides are all invasive, the first being particularly
damaging and the target of a classical biological control project. Water weeds pose threats to
the Tano River and associated lagoons, and the River Volta and parts of the Lake. Major
terrestrial invasives include Chromolaena odorata, Broussonetia papyrifera and Leucaena
leucocephala. Chromolaena and Leucaena are colonizers of disturbed forests and savanna
woodlands, where they prevent regeneration and displace indigenous species, posing a threat
to the biodiversity and to sustainable utilization of the forests. The Afram Headwaters Forest
Reserve is threatened by the invasion of Broussonetia as well as Chromolaena.
In Ghana, as in many other countries, people associate biodiversity with the direct economic
values that can be derived from it. To some extent, there is appreciation for its indirect use
value with regards to ecological and environmental functions of watershed and catchment
52
protection, erosion control and air pollution reduction. In the conservation and use of
biodiversity in Ghana, little premium is put on its option existence values. This is the result of
the growing demand of people to satisfy present socio-economic needs by exploiting
resources at rates and levels that jeopardize the system’s ability to sustain these rates and
levels. In addition, the entire spectrum of biodiversity values is unknown to many Ghanaians
given also that the mode of value assessment is generally cumbersome, unreliable and
unsophisticated. Annex 1 gives an indication of the elements constituting the apparent total
economic value of a forest ecosystem. Tutu et al. (1993) conservatively estimated the annual
cost of deforestation and land degradation to the Ghanaian economy at about 4% of GDP,
approximately US$54 billion.
Ghana was once renowned for its extensive forests and wooded savanna, but that has changes
drastically. Tropical forests originally extended over 145,000 km2, although only 10.9-11.8%
of the original cover remains. The main threats to biodiversity are habitat degradation as a
result of deforestation, desertification, mining and quarrying, bushfires, and wildlife hunting;
pollution and the increasingly important threat of invasive alien species. Alien plant species
including Chromolaena odorata and Leucena leucocephala have colonised many degraded
forests, displacing indigenous species.
Ghana signed the convention Biological Diversity in 1992, and ratified it in 1994. In line with
the programme for implementation of the convention, a Biodiversity Country Study was
undertaken to provide baseline information on the country’s biological diversity and it also
identified a number of measures that have to be put in place to ensure the conservation and
sustainable management of the country’s biological diversity. Article 6 of the Convention
provides for countries to develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use
of their biological diversity, and in fulfilment of this provision, Ghana has recently published
its National Biodiversity Strategy (2002). The strategy highlights the fact that many sectors
are responsible for contributing to alien species colonization, including transport, trade,
housing & infrastructure amongst others, as well as the natural resources and environment
sectors. Thus a cross sectoral approach will be required to address the issue effectively. At
present this is not occurring, but this should be incorporated in the National Biodiversity
Action Plan now being developed.
Introduction:
This country report on ‘Invasive alien species’ is a summary of the findings of a National
Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species, with the theme ‘Removing barriers to
Invasive Plant Management in Africa.’ The workshop was undertaken as an activity of a PDFA project funded jointly by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the US State
Department, and co-ordinated by CAB International. The workshop was organised by the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the executing agency for the project in
Ghana, and was held at Bay View Hotel, Accra, on the 18-19 September 2002. It was
attended by 25 participants representing 15 organisations (see Appendix 2).The overall aim of
the workshop was to obtain base-line information on the current status of invasive alien
species in Ghana. In his welcome address, the Hon. Minister of Environment and Science,
Profesor Dominic Fobih observed that globalisation through technology was virtually
transforming the world into a single village and had facilitated the movement of people, goods
and services across bio-geographical regions. In a subsequent interview with the Ghanaian
Times (21st September 2002), the Chief Director, Ministry of Environment and Science, Mr
Edward Osei Nsenkyire, who also participated in the workshop, went on to state that the Oti
53
Tributary of the Volta River is under serious threat following an invasion by water hyacinth.
The situation has affected fishing development, the depth of the river and the delivery of
water which is used to generate electricity.
Objectives:
1. Complete the process of identification and prioritisation of sites where invasive alien
species constitute a proximate threat to globally significant biodiversity.
2. Collect and collate currently available information (preliminary inventory) on alien plants
in these areas.
3. Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants.
4. Conduct an inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF) that
address invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, on the proposed
project.
5. Develop methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each component of the
project (as per project proposal).
Outputs:
1. Sites where invasive alien species constitute a proximate threat to globally significant
biodiversity identified and prioritised.
Initially 24 sites were identified as sites where invasive alien species constitute a proximate
threat to globally significant biodiversity. From the initial list, 7 sites – 3 water bodies and 4
terrestrial sites - were selected on the basis of the importance of the biodiversity, together with
the perceived threat posed by alien invasive:
Water Bodies
Tano River/Lagoon (Water hyacinth, Salvinia and Hippo Grass)
Lake Volta (Oti Arm) (Water hyacinth and Hippo Grass)
Lower Volta River (Hippo Grass)
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Bia South Forest Reserve (Siam Weed/Acheampong/Busia)
Northern Savanna Zone (Witch weed)
Accra Plains (Siam Weed/Acheampong/Busia and Leuceana)
Afram Headwaters Forest Reserve (Pulp Mulberry/Siam Weed/Acheampong/Busia)
The sites were then prioritised on the basis of the magnitude of impact on biodiversity as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Afram Headwaters Forest Reserve
Lake Volta (Oti Arm)
Bia South Forest Reserve
Accra Plains
Lower Volta River
54
2. Currently available information (preliminary inventory) on alien plants in these
areas collected and collated.
A preliminary list of 30 invasive alien species was compiled.
Azolla filiculoides (Red Water Fern)
Broussonetia papyrifera (Pulp Mulberry/Yorke)
Chromolaena odorata (Siam Weed/Acheampong/Busia)
Commelina spp.*
Cyperus imperata* (Atadwe)
Eicchornia crassipes (Water hyacinth)
Leucaena leucephala (Leucaena)
Gliricidia sepium (Gliricidia)
Salvinia molesta
Striga hermonthica*
Striga asiatica
Cercropia peltata (French Odwuma)
Vossia cuspidata* (Hippo Grass)
Lantana camara
Mimosa pigra
Nelumbo lutea
Mellingtonia sp.
Azadiracta indica (Neem/Abode)
Mucuna pruriens
Enteromorpha flexuoasa*
Polygonum senegalense*
Pistia statiotes
Limnocharis flava
Rottboelia cochinchinensis
Vallisneria spiralis/gigantea
Ceratophyllum demersum*
Tectona grandis (Teak)
Typha domingensis* (Cat tail)
Mistletoe
* denotes that species is indigenous
From this initial list, 5 invasive alien species which currently pose a major threat to globally
significant biodiversity were prioritised as follows:
Eicchornia crassipes
Chromolaena odorata
Salvinia molesta
Broussonetia papyrifera
Leucaena leucocephala
In addition, another invasive alien species was prioritised as a potential threat to globally
significant biodiversity:
Cercropia peltata
55
Striga hermonthica and Vossia were also prioritised as invasive species although it remains to
be confirmed whether or not these species are indigenous or exotic.
3. All major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants identified.
Initially, a list of 30 potential stakeholders was compiled. These were then grouped into
categories as Governmental, Non-Governmental, Associations, and Private Sector.
Governmental
Ministry of Environment and Science (MES)
Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA)
Ministry of Lands and Forestry (MLF)
Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME)
Ministry of Local Government (MLG)
Ministry of Works and Housing (MWH)
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR in MES) - Water Research Institute
(WRI), Crops Research Institute (CRI), Soil Research Institute (SRI), Forestry Research
Institute of Ghana (FORIG), Savanna Agricultural Research
Institute (SARI).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA in MES)
Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD in MOFA)
Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA in MOFA)
Forestry Commission (FC in MLF) – Wildlife Division, Forest Services Division
Volta River Authority (VRA in MME)
District Assemblies (DA’s in MLG)
Water Resources Commission (WRC in MWH)
University of Ghana
University of Cape Coast
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) – Institute of Renewable
Natural Resources (IRNR).
Non-Governmental Organisations
Wildlife Society
Friends of the Earth
CARE
Green Earth
Conservation International
56
Associations
Wildlife Exporters Association
Ghana Institute of Professional Foresters
National Canoe Fishermen Association
Ghana Timber Association
Tree Growers Association
Inland Boat Owners Association
Private Sector
Timber Companies
Volta Lake Transport
Beneficiaries
Farmers
Fishermen
4. An inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF) that
address invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, on the
proposed project conducted.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Biocontrol of Chromolaena (Implemented by Crops Research Institute; Funded by
Government of Ghana).
Integrated Mycoherbicide Programme for Water Hyacinth Control in Africa
(IMPECCA) (Implemented by CAB International; Funded by Dannida).
Waterweed management in West Africa/Ghana Water Bodies (Implemented by
Environmental Protection Agency and FAO in Ghana).
Integrated management of the Volta River Basin (Implemented by Environmental
Protection Agency; Funded by GEF).
5. Methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each component of the project
(as per project proposal) developed.
Component 1: Information Management and its Application






At present, there is central co-ordination of information on invasive alien species in
Ghana, and no formal mechanism for managing existing information on IAS.
A number of institutions under CSIR (CRI, WRI, FORIG and SARI etc.) are currently
involved in gathering information on IAS, which is subsequently reported in the Annual
Reports of CSIR.
Other institutions involved in gathering information on IAS include EPA, and the Wildlife
Division of the Forestry Commission.
Most of the existing information on IAS in Ghana is restricted to only 3 species i.e. E.
crassipes, C. odorata and Striga spp.
It was suggested that the establishment of a national policy would improve the
management of information through formal co-ordination mechanisms.
Responsibility for managing information on IAS resides with the EPA, who come under
MES, however, at present there is no formal mechanism whereby EPA disseminates
57


information on IAS to the extensionists, who come under MOFA, and subsequently, the
target beneficiaries i.e. fishermen, farmers and indeed the public at large.
Similarly, there is no clear mechanism whereby information on a potential IAS at the
grassroots level e.g. a farmer, is then relayed to the appropriate body within MES (unless
it directly impacts on agricultural productivity, in which case the information would be
channelled via the front line extensionists through to MOFA).
Dissemination methods and material currently utilised by EPA include national radio and
newspaper articles.
Component 2: Development of Plans and Policies to Support Integrated Management of
Invasive Species





The draft National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP) (1999) has now been
separated into two documents i.e. a National Biodiversity Strategy Document (NBSD)
which is now complete and scheduled to be submitted to the Government on 24
September 2002. A second document, a National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP), will
be developed after the launch of the NBSD.
The draft NBSD is general and not particular on IAS. However, policies to address
invasives will be drawn from the NBSD and there will be a chapter dealing with ‘invasive
colonization’ in which all of the relevant institutions will be listed.
The NBSD proposes the setting up of a National Biodiversity Steering Committee
(NBSC), which is already in place, and a Biodiversity Unit, which will be mandated to
deal with IAS issue. The first task of the NBSC is to develop the NBAP.
Although not explicitly mentioned, the issue of IAS is covered in Parliamentary Acts No.
307 of 1965, which are still in force. Copies of the relevant acts are kept in the EPA
library.
The status of the Environmental Management Committee needs to be formalized within
the District Assemblies.
Component 3: Assessment and control of Invasive Alien Species








Routine monitoring and assessment activities for IAS are not currently being undertaken
because of insufficient Government funding.
CSIR and EPA undertake ad hoc assessments of certain IAS in specific locations e.g. Lake
Volta, or in response to reports at the grass roots level. Funding for these assessments is
usually through donor-funded projects and to a lesser extent using limited Government
funding.
The Forestry Department has undertaken surveys using satellite imagery although this is
limited to certain species of IAS.
EPA has a centre for remote sensing but current activities are restricted to known
infestations only.
For some of more recent invasives e.g. Broussonetia, there is an urgent need to quantify
the extent of the invasion and evaluate control options.
PPRSD has overall responsibility for quarantine regulatory measures. Interceptions of IAS
have occurred at various ports of entry.
Control measures are available for the two most important IAS (including biological
control, physical and chemical control methods), however, limited funding means that the
implementation of the necessary measures is inadequate.
Technologies for the management of other IAS is available in Ghana but as a result of
inadequate funding, are not being implemented.
58
Component 4: Capacity Building and Dissemination of Lessons Learned






In general, human capacity within the national institutions to manage IAS does exist
although the numbers of trained staff are low, and the skills are fragmented throughout a
number of different institutions.
The issue of IAS would be better managed with further training of some scientists and
technicians in specific areas e.g. taxonomy.
There is an urgent need for further training in IAS, especially at the District Assembly
level.
In terms of facilities, there is a need for additional equipment to enable the effective
monitoring and management of IAS e.g. Computers to access databases, rearing facilities
for biological control programmes etc.
Current situation regarding dissemination of lessons learned to other countries in the
region is well developed. Every three years there is a workshop of affected countries with
funding provided by the World Biological Organisation and the host country. A regional
project funds regular meetings on water hyacinth. The Permanent Joint Commission for
International Co-operation, also deals with IAS, and meets twice per year. Currently
countries in the sub-region which are involved are Burkina Faso and Mali. ECOWAS is
also involved in dissemination of Lessons on IAS.
IAPSO is no longer effective as a regional co-ordination body for dissemination of lessons
learned on IAS.
59
Appendix 1
PROGRAMME
NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS’ WORKSHOP ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES
18 – 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2002 - ACCRA, GHANA
Day 1 – Wednesday 18th September, 2002
8.30 a.m. – 9.00 a.m.
9.00 a.m.– 9.15 a.m.
REGISTRATION
Welcome Remarks
CSIR-AFFS Staff
Chief Director, MES
9.15 a.m. – 9.30 a.m.
Introduction to Workshop
Dr. Sarah Simons
9.30 a.m. – 9.45 a.m.
Presentation on IUCN
Dr. Peter Howard
9.45 a.m. – 10.00 a.m.
Presentation on CAB International
Dr. Sarah Simons
10.00 a.m. – 10.15 a.m.
Presentation on Global Invasive Species Dr. Sarah Simons
Programme
10.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m.
COFFEE BREAK
10.45 a.m. 11.15 a.m.
Overview of Invasive Alien Species in Prof. A.A. Oteng-Yeboah
Ghana
11.15 a.m. – 11.30 a.m.
Current status of NBSAP and Plant Protection Regulatory
Agricultural Policy on Invasive Alien Services Directorate (PPRSD),
Species in Ghana
MOFA
11.30 a.m. – 11.45 a.m.
Role
of
National
Environment Environmental
Management Authority in Managing Agency
Invasive Alien Species
11.45 a.m. – 12.00 p.m.
Role of National Agricultural Research Deputy Director-General, CSIROrganization in Managing Invasive AFFS
Alien Species
12.00 p.m. – 12.15 .m.
12.15 p.m. – 12.30 p.m.
Role of other Relevant Institutes/ CSIR-WRI, CSIR-CRI, UGL,
Organizations in Managing Invasive CSIR-SARI
Alien Species
DISCUSSION
12.30 p.m. – 2.00 pm.
LUNCH
2.00 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.
Compile a Preliminary Inventory of Botany Department,
Invasive Alien Species in Ghana
Univ. of Ghana
EPA (Natural Resources)
Protection
60
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m.
COFFEE BREAK
3.30 p.m. – 5.00 p.m.
5.00 p.m. – 5.30 p.m.
Complete the Process of Identification Prof. E.A. Gyasi
and Prioritization of Sites where (Facilitator) – To lead
Invasive Alien Species Constitute a
Threat to Biodiversity
DISCUSSION
6.00 p.m. – 8.00 p.m.
COCKTAIL RECEPTION
Day 2 – Thursday 19th September, 2002
9.00 a.m.– 10.30 a.m.
Develop and Discuss Methods for Prof. E.A. Gyasi
Evaluating Baseline Conditions within (Facilitator) – To lead
each Component of the Project (as per
proposal)
10.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.
COFFEE BREAK
11.00 a.m. – 12.30 p.m.
Develop and Discuss Methods for Prof. E.A. Gyasi
Evaluating Baseline Conditions within (Facilitator) – To lead
each Component of the Project (as per
proposal)
12.30 p.m. – 2.00 p.m.
2.00 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.
LUNCH
Compile an Inventory of Relevant Prof. E.A. Gyasi
National and Regional Projects (GEF (Facilitator) – To lead
and non-GEF) that Address Issues
Relating to Invasive Alien Species
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m.
COFFEE BREAK
3.30 p.m. – 4.00 p.m.
Identify all Major Stakeholders that Prof. E.A. Gyasi
have an Interest in Invasive Alien (Facilitator) – To lead
Species
4.00 p.m. – 5.00 p.m.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
5.00 p.m.
WORKSHOP ENDS
61
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (18 – 19 SEPTEMBER 2002)
ADDRESS
REPRESENTATIVE
1
NAME OF
OGRANIZATION
University of Ghana
2
Forestry Commission
3
Conservation International David Kpelle
Ghana
4
Plant
Protection
and Dr. Anthony Richmond PPRSD
Regulatory
Service Cudjoe
(MOFA)
Directorate
P. O. Box M.37
Accra
National
Science
& Dr. Martin A. Odei
NASTEF
Technology
P.O. Box M.32
Accra
Environmental Protection Carl Fiati
P. O. Box M.326
Agency
Ministry Post
Accra
Council for Scientific and Prof. Alfred A. Oteng- P. O. Box M.32
Industrial
Research Yeboah
Accra
(CSIR)
Global
Environment Dr. Solomon Quartey
GEF
Small
Facility (GEF)
Programme
P.O. Box 1423
Accra
5
6
7
8
TELEPHONE
FAX
E-MAIL
Dr. David D. Wilson
021 500381
Ext. 3267 /3277
020 813331
021 500305
wilsondd@ug.edu.gh
Komla
Obed
Yerenchi
051 22377
020 5111085
Department of Zoology
University of Ghana
Legon
Accra
Kass- Resource
Management
Support Centre
Forest Services Division
P. O. Box 1917
Kumasi
P. O. Box KA 30426
Accra
021 780906
021 762009
cioaa@ghana.com
024 256239
027 7402313
021 302638
icpcc@ghana.com
021 765237
ma-odei@yahoo.com
021 664697 / 8
021 662690
cfiati@epa.ghana.org
021 777655
021 779809
aayeboah@yahoo.co.uk
affscsir@ucomgh.com
021 773889
gefsgp@hotmail.com
Office
021 777651-4
021 774380
027 554931
Grants 021 227323
62
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CSIR
–
Savanna Dr. Victor Attuquaye P. O. Box 52
Agricultural
Research Clottey
Tamale
Institute (CSIR-SARI)
Green Earth Organization Raphael Foli Fiagbomeh P. O. Box AN 16641
Accra-North
Accra
CSIR – Crops Research James Abanaah Timbilla P. O. Box 3785
Institute (CSIR-CRI)
Kumasi
Wildlife Division
Mike Adu-Nsiah
P. O. Box M.239
Accra
University of Ghana
Dr. (Mrs.) Essie T. Blay Department
of
Crop
Science, University of
Ghana
Legon, Accra
Ministry of Environment Moses Hensley Duku
PPME
and Science
P.O. Box M.232
Accra
Council for Scientific and Prof. Emmanuel Owusu- Ag. Director-General
Industrial
Research Bennoah
(CSIR), P.O. Box M.32
(CSIR)
Accra
Ministry of Environment Mr.
Edward
Osei Chief Director
and Science
Nsenkyire
Ministry of Environment
and Science
P.O. Box M.232
Accra
CSIR – Water Research Kweku Amoako Atta
Water Research Institute
Institute (CSIR-WRI)
De-Graft-Johnson
CSIR, P. O. Box 38
Achimota or
P. O. Box M.32, Accra
Council for Scientific and Dr. Joseph Cobbina
CSIR – AFFS
Industrial Research
P. O. Box M.32
(CSIR)
Accra
071 22411
071 25251
071 23197
catuq@yahoo.com
021 232762
021 230455
greeneth@ncs.com.gh
051 50221/2
051 60142
jtimbilla@yahoo.com
021 662832
021 666476
madunsiah@yahoo.com
021 513592
Essie-blay@hotmail.com
021 666049
021 662264
021 666828
mosesduku@yahoo.com
021 760166
021 777651 - 4
021 779809
021 777655
eobennoah@ucomgh.com
affscsir@ucomgh.com
021 666049
021 662264
021 673336
021 666828
mest@africaonline.com.gh
021 775354
021 779512 - 4
021 761030
wri@ghana.com
021 777651– 4
024 267631
021 779809
021 777655
j_cobbina@hotmail.com
63
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Council for Scientific and Dr. Felix O. Anno- CSIR – AFFS
Industrial Research
Nyako
P. O. Box M.32
(CSIR)
Accra
Volta River Authority
Michael K. Dade
Health Services Dept.
Volta River Authority
Akosombo
Fisheries
Services Dr. Peter Ziddah
FSD, MOFA
Directorate
P. O. Box 630
Accra
Jomoro District
Dr. Kingsley Mickay MOFA
Aryee
P. O. Box 7
Half Assini
CAB International
Dr. Sarah Simons
CAB International
Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633 - 00621
Nairobi, Kenya
CAB International
Ms. Serah Mitisya
CAB International
Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633 – 00621
Nairobi, Kenya
World
Conservation Dr. Peter Howard
Wildlife Division
Union (IUCN)
(Forestry Commission)
P. O. Box M.239
Accra
021 777651 – 4
0277 888625
021 779809
021 777655
foanyako@yahoo.com.uk
0251 20321
021 776005
mdade@akosombo.vra.co
m
021 776071 - 2
021 776005
031 21356
031 32932
+ 254 2 52 4462/ + 254
524450
522150
2 S.simons@cabi.org
+ 254 2 52 4462/ + 254
524450
522150
2 S.mutisya@cabi.org
020 2012274
021 666476
howard@ghana.com
64
Annex G
Country Report on
Invasive Alien Species in Uganda
“Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa”
A summary of findings from a National Stakeholders Workshop
held
26-27 September 2002, Entebbe, Uganda
Prepared by
National Agricultural Research Organisation
P.O. Box 295
Entebbe,
Uganda.
Ph.:+256-41-320341/2
Fax: 256-41-484314
September 2002
65
BACKROUND
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
OUTPUTS
62
64
64
64
Output 1: Sites where invasive alien species constitute a proximate threat to
globally significant biodiversity identified and prioritized
64
Output 2: Currently available information (preliminary inventory on alien
plants in these areas collected and collated
65
Output 3: All major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants identified 66
Output 4: An Inventory of national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF)
that address invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally,
on the proposed project conducted
67
Output 5: Methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each
component of the project (as per project proposal) developed
68
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
74
75
66
BACKGROUND
Uganda is a landlocked country situated on the equator from 4oN to 1oS and stretching from
29.5o- 35.0oW. It is one of the smallest states in eastern Africa covering an area of 236,000
km2 composed of 194,000 km2 dry land, 33,926 km2 open water and 7674 km2 of permanent
swamp (Langdale-Brown et al., 1964; Langlands, 1973).
Much of the country lies on a plateau at altitudes ranging from 900 – 1500 m above sea level.
The rift valley along the western border is represented by two troughs occupied by Lakes
Albert, Edward and George. Between these depressions lies the glaciated Horst Mountain of
the Rwenzori range, rising to the highest peak in the country at 5,100 m. The lowest point in
Uganda is near Nimule town on the border with Sudan at about 600m above sea level.
Mean annual maximum temperatures range from 18o-35oC while the corresponding minimum
range is from 8o -23oC. Relative humidity is often high ranging from 70 – 100%. Much of the
country receives from 1000–1500 mm of rain per annum - the amount increasing with
altitude. Generally the south of the country experiences two rainy seasons while the north
experiences only one long wet season.
Uganda’s unique bio-geographical location including its altitudinal and climatic variation, has
resulted in an extremely rich biodiversity. Uganda harbours 7 of Africa’s 18 plant Kingdoms –
more than any other African country – and its biological diversity is one of the highest on the
continent (Davenport and Matthews, 1995). According to the National Data Bank at MUIENR
(1999), nearly 19,000 species have been recorded in Uganda, almost half of them insects,
7000 plants and about 2000 vertebrates. It boasts more than half of all African bird species,
and is second only to the Democratic Republic of Congo in terms of number of mammal
species (Uganda ranks 9th in the world). Details on the status and trends in biodiversity in
Uganda can be found in The Biodiversity Country Report (1996), First National Report to the
CBD (1998) and the National Biodiversity Assessment Report (1999), among others. Uganda
has 6 of the 12 major centers of plant endemism in Africa (White, 1983).
Biodiversity hot spots in Uganda






Mgahinga Gorilla National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable National Park – the mountain
gorilla (Gorilla gorilla berengei) and other regionally and globally important species.
Rwenzori Mountain National Park – bay duiker (Cephahaphus leucogaster)
Sango bay wetlands and forest ecosystem – important tree species of global significance.
Dry mountains of Karamoja (Napak, Morungole, Kadam, Timu and Moroto) – regionally
and globally important species.
Lake Victoria – cichlid and Nile perch species (alien species invasion)
Papyrus swamps of Lake Edward, George and Bunyonyi have the endemic papyrus species
(Chloropeta gracilirostris)
Source: Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2002)
According to Langdale-Brown et al. (1964) there are at least 90 types of natural and seminatural vegetation communities in Uganda. These have been subjected to various levels of
human activities and have been significantly modified (see Box).
67
Major Biodiversity Ecosystems in Uganda
Natural Ecosystems





Forests – high medium altitude forests, savannah mosaics and woodland savannah
Woodlands
Savannah – dominate drier areas of the country
Wetlands – areas with impeded drainage, swamp, papyrus and grass swamps
Open Water (aquatic) = 5 major lakes, 160 minor lakes and an extensive river system
Modified Ecosystem



Agro-ecosystems – e.g. sugar cane, tea, coffee plantations, agro-pastoral systems
Forest Plantations – of indigenous and exotic species
Irrigation Schemes
Source: Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2002)
Uganda’s biodiversity represents one of the vital economic resources that the country has. The
State of Environment Report for Uganda, 2000/2001 indicates that the direct economic benefit
of Uganda’s biodiversity is in the region of US$ 550 million, while the indirect benefits are
conservatively put at US$ 200 million per year, contributing well over 50% of Uganda’s
GDP. In addition to the direct gains in government revenues, biodiversity resources also
support some of the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of Uganda’s population. The rural
people, the landless and women are highly dependent both on biological resource utilisation
and on the diversity of resources that provide them with choice and fall back in times of
drought, unemployment or other times of stress.
Despite this vital importance, biological resources continue to be lost, mainly although not
exclusively through human induced causes including habitat destruction, pollution and
increasingly, invasive alien species. Invasive alien species are now recognised as one of the
greatest biological threats to our planet’s environmental and economic well being, and are
considered to be the greatest cause of species endangerment and extinction. There is no better
example of the threat posed by invasive alien species here in Uganda than water hyacinth
(Eicchornia crassipes).
Over twenty species of plants are know to be invasive in Uganda, including the widespread
water weeds E. crassipes, P. stratiotes, S. molesta and A. filiculoides. Uganda has developed
capacity in biological control, and this has been put to good effect against water hyacinth. As
part of the GEF Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project, there has been good interinstitutional collaboration including working to a strategy and action plan developed by a
national technical committee, and involving the Presidential Economic Council. However, E.
crassipes is still seen as a threat in Lake Albert, along with Vossia cuspidata. Lantana
camara, a widespread weed in Africa, is a threat to Budongo forest, Iganga/Pallisa and Mt.
Elgon National Park, while B. papyrifera is also a threat in Budongo. The introduced Acacia
spp and Mimosa pigra are also invasive in a number of areas in Uganda. Urgent measures are
therefore required at all levels to conserve Uganda’s biological diversity and ensure
sustainable use of its components with a view to achieving sustainable development
68
The Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan identifies invasive species as a
threat to biodiversity, and proposes strategies for addressing the threat in the aquatic resource
and forestry sectors, which cover the key sites of globally important biodiversity described
above. However, despite the experience with water hyacinth, invasive species issues are not
dealt with in a coordinated way, there being a wide range of legislation and institutions
relating to the problem.
INTRODUCTION
This country report on ‘Invasive alien species’ is a summary of the findings of a National
Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species, with the theme ‘Removing barriers to
Invasive Plant Management in Africa.’ The workshop was undertaken as an activity of a PDFA project funded jointly by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the US State
Department, and co-ordinated by CAB International. The workshop was organised by the
National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), the executing agency for the project in
Uganda, and was held at the Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel, Entebbe, on the 26-27
September 2002. The overall aim of the workshop was in to obtain base-line information on
the current status of invasive alien species in Uganda. The Hon. Israel Kibirige Sebunya,
Minister of State for Agriculture (Agriculture) in the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry
and Fisheries (MAAIF) officially opened the workshop and in his opening speech, challenged
the project to assist Uganda in tackling the invasive plant species, which are on record for
having threatened the national economy and people’s livelihoods. The workshop was attended
by 15 participants representing 8 organisations (see Appendix 2).
OBJECTIVES
6. Complete the process of identification and prioritization of sites where invasive alien
species constitute a proximate threat to globally significant biodiversity.
7. Collect and collate currently available information (preliminary inventory) on alien plants
in these areas.
8. Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants.
9. Conduct an inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF) that
address invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, on the proposed
project.
10. Develop methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each component of the
project (as per project proposal).
OUTPUTS
Output 1. Sites where invasive alien species constitute a proximate threat to globally
significant biodiversity identified and prioritised.
Initially 28 sites listed below were identified as sites where invasive alien species constitute a
threat to globally significant biodiversity.
1. South Busoga Forests
2. Budongo Forest Reserve (Senna siamia, Broussonetia papyrifera)
3. Cattle Corridor (Cymbopogon afronnondrus)
69
4. Kabale District (Black Wattle)
5. Mabira Forest Reserve (Broussenetia papyrifera; Lantana camara)
6. Kagoma Forest Reserve
7. Iganga (Lantana camara)
8. Nakasongola (Acacia hockii)
9. Mbarara (Cymbopogon)
10. Eastern Uganda District (witchweed, striga)
11. Mpigi District (Oxalis latifolia)
12. Wakiso District (Oxalis latifolia)
13. Lake Kyoga (Vossia)
14. Kagera River Basin
15. River Katonga Area
16. Murchison Bay
17. Upper River Nile
18. Lake Bisinia
19. Lake Albert
20. Mt. Elgon National Park (Lantana camara)
21. Wetlands in Western Uganda
22. Bwindi Forest
23. River Kapujan (Bisina)
24. River Gweri (Bisina)
25. River Rwizi
26. Rakai (Mimosa pigra)
27. Wakiso (Mimosa pigra)
28. West Nile (Arua) Acacia
From the initial list, five sites listed below were selected based on the importance of the
biodiversity, together with the perceived threat posed by invasive alien species:





Budongo Forest – Lantana camara; Broussonetia papyrifera
Iganga/Pallisa – Lantana camara
Lake Albert – water hyacinth, Vossia
Rakai – Mimosa pigra, Cymbopogon afronordus
North Nile/Arua – Acacia sp.
Output 2. Currently available information (preliminary inventory) on alien plants in
these areas collected and collated.
A preliminary list of 30 invasive alien species was compiled.
Acacia hockii
Acacia mearnsii
Agave sp. (Sisal)
Azolla filiculoides (Red Water Fern)
Bidens pilosa
Broussonetia papyrifera (Pulp Mulberry/Yorke)
Commelina spp.
Cymbopogon afronordus
Cynodon dactylon
Datura stromonium
70
Digitaria scalarum (Couch Grass)
Eucalyptus spp.
Eicchornia crassipes (Water hyacinth)
Imperata cylindrica (Spear Grass)
Lantana camara
Leucaena leucephala (Leucaena)
Mimosa pigra
Opuntia dilenii.
Oxalis latifolia
Pistia stratiotes (Water Cabbage)
Prosopis juliflora
Salvinia molesta
Cassia siamea
Sesbania sesban
Solanum incarnum
Striga hermonthica
Witchweed
Olimu (Luo)
From this initial list, seven invasive alien species, which currently pose a major threat to
globally significant biodiversity, were prioritised as follows:
Eicchornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Cymbopogon afronnondrus
Broussonetia papyrifera
Mimosa Pigra
Acacia hockii
Vossia cuspidate
Output 3. All major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants identified.
Initially, a list of 30 potential stakeholders was compiled.
Governmental
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation (MU)
Fisheries Department (MAAIF)
National Agricultural Research Organisation
Ministry of Water Land and Environment
Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries
Forest Department (MLWE)
Uganda Wildlife Authority
CITES Management Authority (MTTI)
NAADS (National Agricultural Advisory Services) under MAAIF
Makerere University (Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Science, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources)
Agricultural & Forestry Colleges
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
Uganda Investment Authority
Uganda National Council for Science and Technology
71
Faculty of Veterinary medicine (MU)
Mbarara University of Science & Technology
Gulu University
Presidents Office
Makerere Institute of Social Research (MU).
Districts Councils
Non-governmental organisations
Joint Energy & Environment Project
Nature Uganda
Environmental Alert
Uganda Biodiversity Network
Advocates Coalition for Environment and Development
UNFA – Uganda National Farmers Association
Private Sector
Private Sectors (fish factories, private forest transport companies
Center for Basic Research
Beneficiaries
Farmers
Fishing Communities
Politicians
Output 4. An inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF)
that address invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, on the
proposed project conducted.
Project Name
1.Lake Victoria
Environment
Management
Projects I and II
2. Plant Resources of
Tropical Africa
3.Indigenous Food
Plants
4. Integrated Lake
Management- L
Kyoga
and
L.
George
5.Impact Assessment
of Pastoral Weeds in
S.W.Uganda
6.Integrated
Control
of
Cymbopogon in S.
Implementing Institution
Ministry of Agriculture
Industry and Fisheries/NARO
Funding Agency
Animal Global
Environment
Facility
/World Bank
Department of Botany, Makerere
University
Makerere University,
Chemistry Department
Wageningen University
IDRC,
DFID/CARE
NARO – PhD Study
DANIDA/USAID
NARO
DANIDA
72
W. Uganda
7.Nile
Basin
Initiative
8.Albertine Rift
Valley Conservation
Project
9. CymbopogonCultural
Perceptions
and Economics
10.Striga
Management
11.Conservation of
Natural High Forests
12.Cross Boarder
Biodiversity
WB Trust Fund
GEF/WWF
NARO – MSc Study
DANIDA
Crop Science, Makerere University
IPM and Rockefeller
Foundation
EU
Forest Department, Ministry of Water,
Land and Environment
Makerere University, Institute of
GEF/UNDP/NEMA/MU
Environment and Natural Resources IENR
(MUIENR)
MUIENR)
MUIENR
13.National
Biodiversity Data
Bank
14.Plant Resources Department of Botany Makerere
University - M.Sc Study
15.Lake Victoria
Partnership
Forest Department, Ministry
16.National
Water,
Biomass Project
Land and Environment.
17.Mt. Elgon
Ministry of Water,
Land and Environment.
Conservation and
Development
Project
18.Mt.
Elgon Ministry of Water,
Regional
Land and Environment.
Biodiversity
Management Project
Ministry of Water,
19.National
Land and Environment
Wetlands
Programme
20.PIAN – UPE
21.Kagera
River
Basin Management
22.Environmental
GOU
Management
Capacity Building
23. RELMA
NORAD
SIDA
of NORAD
NORAD
NORAD
WID – Dutch
PDFA – UNDP
GEF – UNDP – PDFB –
WB
73
Output 5. Methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each component of the
project (as per project proposal) developed.
Component 1: Information Management and its Application
Management
It was noted that there is very little information on Invasive Alien Species in general, and even
the little that there is seems to be scattered and not organised. The greatest detailed
information available is on the Water Hyacinth. This information exists within the institutes
that happen to have produced it and is not shared with other institutions. Every 2 years,
however, NEMA produces a report on the state of the Environment and it is thought they may
include invasive species in the coming report and distributes it to other institutions.
It was noted that collection and management of information on invasive species was a big
problem in Uganda. A directive was issued by government where all citizens were requested
to submit any information they may have to the National Bureau of Statistics at their own
costs but it is not known whether this directive was taken seriously or not. A lot of
information might indeed exist with individuals, but in the absence of an organised system to
collate it, it is difficult to know what is and what is not available.
It was perceived that NEMA is a regulatory body and that it is the role of different ministries
(Agriculture, Environment e.t.c) to collect information on the environment and send it to
NEMA. After cross checking with NEMA, the correct position is that it is NEMA’s role to
collect information on biodiversity including invasive species. NEMA also acts as a linkage
on all issues on environment.
On the role of NARO in Management of invasive species, it was explained that NARO works
on issues of priority to the clients, and these are often issues that directly affect productivity
and people’s livelihoods. One example is the Water Hyacinth on which NARO has collected a
lot of information. There could also be some information in NARO on cymbopogon that the
PhD. student is working on. There is a project on biodiversity developed by NARO under the
medium -term plan.
Another problem that was identified was that individuals in leadership positions in Ugandan
did not appreciate the value of information in general and on invasive alien species in
particular. Therefore, there was a felt need to sensitise the leaders because this weakens in the
system does not allow information to filter through.
According to the law, Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) should
have some of the information on invasive species.
Application
How does a farmer get information on new or existing invasive species that could potentially
be a threat? Through agricultural extension agents who in turn get their information from
workshops and through interacting with Ministry of Agriculture in planning meetings. It was
noted that at the district level, the Department of Production, headed by a District Production
Co-ordinator, also includes an environment officer. A farmer on the other hand reports to the
extension agent in case of any new invasive plant species. The extension agent will then take
the information to the Ministry of Agriculture for direct action. The Ministry of Agriculture
74
will solicit for action from other Ministries/agencies in case a direct solution is not available
in house.
There are Environment Officers at all the Local Council (LC) levels of the decentralised
government system in Uganda. If empowered to function effectively through training with
raised awareness of the issue of invasive species, it is likely that they would handle it
effectively. It was however pointed out that realistically Environment offices exist in some
districts and not others. These offices are especially active in districts that have battled the
Water Hyacinth of late. NEMA has started training the different committees in the
decentralised government structure through its various projects in the districts. Currently, 26
districts are benefiting from funding provided through NEMA to carry out various projects.
Summary on Component 1
 There is hardly any information on the other major invasive species identified.
 Information on water hyacinth is available within institutes but not shared adequately
with all stakeholders.
 Noted that NEMA is responsible for collecting and collating information on the
environment. Different agencies that collect this information also send it to NEMA.
 NEMA is a young organisation and has not covered all areas it is supposed to cover.
Every 2 years, it compiles and disseminates information on the state of the environment.
 There may be information in the Ministry of Lands, Water and Environment but it is not
shared.
Action:
Dean, Faculty of Science, Makerere University should follow up with the Executive Director
of NEMA on further issues of collection, availability and flow of information on invasive
species with NEMA and liaise with NARO.
Component 2: Development of Plans and Policies to Support Integrated Management of
Invasive Species
A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) has been drafted and presented to
the NEMA board. It will be submitted to government before end of the year.
There are sectoral strategies in the NBSAP. In the Open Water Resources Sector, the strategy
is concerned with problems of introduction and management of invasive flora and fauna. In
the Forest Sector, it is concerned with some existing flora and the diminishing diversity
through dominance of the invasive species. It also talks about cross breeding and erosion of
indigenous species, increased colonisation by alien species, genetic erosion and the possible
use of indigenous knowledge to manage biodiversity. National Environment Guidelines on
both fauna and flora Invasive Species was drafted in 1995.
The meeting noted that there is a quarantine unit in the MAAIF, under the department of Crop
Protection. This unit formerly funded by FAO is weak and often lacks adequate funding.
Another problem is that of policing borders. There is need to harmonise quarantine
regulations among the East African countries in order to ease implementation of necessary
control measures on invasive species. Apparently within the East African Community, under
the committee on environment and natural resources talks are on going to strengthen control
at the borders.
75
In Uganda, there was a Task Force to oversee the control of the water hyacinth, and it was that
Task Force that recommended the introduction of weevils as a control measure on Lake
Victoria. After wider consultation with the countries that share the lake, Government of
Uganda cleared the introduction of the weevils, which eventually brought the hyacinth under
control. It may be useful to have a more lasting committee of stakeholders to oversee the
management of other invasive species.
In order to develop a meaningful strategy to deal with invasive species, there is need to look at
existing legislation in the various ministries e.g. Agriculture, Wildlife and Antiquities, Water,
Lands and Environment etc, and examine a number of existing statutes - Water statute 1996,
National Forest Policy, Plant varieties Act, NEMA Statute, NARO Statute, Water Act,
Uganda Wildlife Statute, National Environment and Action Plan, Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan, etc. that in part talk about invasive species.
Action:

A representative of the MAAIF was requested to contact the Plant Quarantine Unit to find
out more about the level of discussion on harmonisation of the quarantine regulations in
East Africa and the measures that exist on monitoring invasive species in the region.

NARO was requested to take a lead in examining the content of existing statutes with
respect to invasive species and biodiversity.
Component 3: Assessment and control of Invasive Alien Species
Assessment
There does not appear to be any single body specifically responsible for the assessment of the
status of invasive species in Uganda. In general terms, however, NEMA is responsible for
national environmental assessment, including biodiversity.
In practice, invasive species (flaura and fauna) are assessed on an ad hoc basis. They are
assessed and managed by Ministries that happen to be in charge of the activities affected by
the invasive species when there is need. In the case of the water hyacinth, MAAIF is
nationally responsible for control. The Fisheries Department of MAAIF carries out routine
assessment of the water hyacinth on Lake Victoria and Lake Albert under the LAVEMP 1
funding but the assessment is limited because of lack of funding. Hopeful LVEMP 2 will
include water hyacinth component. Pulp mulberry control in Mabira forest will be under the
forestry department.
Through its research activities, NARO carries out routine monitoring of the water hyacinth
but does not have the national responsibility for this activity. Recently it produced two reports
on the water hyacinth following a request from the Office of the President. Uganda Wildlife
Authority may be undertaking assessment in the national parks. A few studies have been done
on acacia and there is an on-going study on the control of cymbopogon in Mbarara.
Re-emergence of the water hyacinth in some parts of Lake Victoria and other places
underscores the importance of the choice of biological control as the main method of control.
76
Water Hyacinth control activities which include Mechanical control and weevil release are
still continuing on Lake Victoria.
On Lake Kyoga work funded by Egypt to remove the floating suds and reduce seasonal
flooding. This activity may be damaging the biodiversity on this lake as no environment
impact assessment study has been done.
Summary on Component 3






There does not seem to be any specific body responsible for monitoring, assessment and
management of invasive species. Action springs up when a species becomes an economic
threat.
A comprehensive national strategy on the control of invasive species is needed. The
NBSAP is a first step in this direction.
It is only the water hyacinth on L. Victoria and Albert that is monitored by FIRRI/NARO
and the MAAIF as part of the LAVEMP and Government of Uganda funding.
For the terrestrial invasive species and other water bodies, there is ad hoc monitoring.
The water hyacinth lesson does not seem to have awakened government and other
stakeholders to put in place a proactive monitoring mechanism for invasive species.
There is lack of a clear linkage between biodiversity management and poverty alleviation,
which is the cardinal strategy of GOU. This linkage should be developed and brought to
the forefront.
Component 4: Capacity Building and Dissemination of Lessons Learned
Capacity Building
There is no well-structured strategy to build capacity in the area of invasive species. Teaching
at University does encompass a few elements on invasive species e.g control of striga. The
term Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is not common and is not understood by many, otherwise
there is capacity in the country to carry out the taxonomy work. There exists a fair amount of
human resource capacity and equipment within institutes but the incentives to retain the staff
are lacking. There is need for co-ordination of this fragmented capacity.
Development of a well-structured course on IAS at University level may be desirable.
Teachers of this course will need to be supported by research in this area. In the meantime, it
may be desirable to consider the use of private consultants knowledgeable on IAS to fill the
gap. Training of staff in relevant institutions like NEMA who can go out and teach people at
lower levels such as the district and local council environment officers and farmers is
necessary.
Dissemination of Lessons Learned.
Exchange of information on management of IAS through the region is inadequate. Formation
of a specific committee on Natural Resources and Environment under the East African
Community might be a starting point towards this goal.
Use of the print media radios and newsletters has helped in disseminating information on the
water hyacinth. There are other organisations that disseminate information on biodiversity and
invasive species in the region. Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation is one such body on Lake
77
Victoria. There are other regional bodies e.g the East African Committee on Natural
Resources and the E.A. Council for Science and Technology all under the East African
Community. There is a regional channel for information dissemination on pests, which could
be used for disseminating information on IAS. There is BIONET, which could also work as a
channel of information.
Can ASARECA play a role? If research efforts on IAS in the region were intensified through
the National Research Programmes, certainly ASARECA would play a significant role in
disseminating information. Mechanisms in place in the region for disseminating lessons learnt
to other countries need to be strengthened. If funding is made available it would be desirable
to develop a body for this, may be under the East African Community. In the meantime,
existing structures/networks can be used.
78
REFERENCES
Davenport, T. and Matthews, R. (1995) A wealth of species come to light. Swara (Nairobi) 18
(3): 26-29.
First National Report to CBD (1998)
Langdale-Brown, I., Osmaston, H.A. & Wilson, J.G. (1964) The vegetation of Uganda and its
bearing on land-use, Government of Uganda, Entebbe.
Langlands, B.W. (1973) A Preliminary Review of Land Use in Uganda. Occasional Paper
No. 43, Department of Geography, Makerere University, Kampala.
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001)
National Policy for Conservation and Management of Wetland Resources (1995)
Second National Report to CBD (2001)
State of the Environment Report (2000)
79
Appendix 1: FINAL PROGRAMME
Uganda - National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species
Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel, Entebbe – September 26-27, 2002.
Day 1
9.00am – 9.15am:
9.15am - 9.30 am:
9.30am - 9.45 am:
9.45am – 10.00am:
10.00am–10.15am:
10.15am–10.30am:
10.30am–10.45am:
Welcome Remarks – DG/NARO (Chair)
Statement by the GEF Focal Point (PS/ST - MFPED)
Opening of Workshop by Minister of State - MAAIF
Introduction to Workshop (Dr Sarah Simons)
Presentation on IUCN (Dr Geoffrey Howard)
Presentation on CAB International (Dr Sarah Simons)
Presentation on Global Invasive Species Programme
(Dr. G. Howard)
10.45am – 11.15am: Coffee Break
Dr. J. Ogwang – Chair
11.15am – 11.30am: Overview of Invasive Alien Species in Uganda – Dr G.M Mutumba,
Dean Faculty of Science, Makerere University
11.30am – 11.45am: Current status of NBSAP and Agricultural Policy on Invasive Alien
Species in Uganda – Mr J. Ecuru, UNCST
11.45am – 12.00am: Role of National Environment Management Authority in managing
Invasive Alien Species – Mr. George Lubega Matovu, NEMA
12.00am – 12.15pm: Role of National Agricultural Research Organisation in managing
Invasive Alien Species – Dr. J.Ogwang/Dr.C Ebong, NARO
12.15pm – 12.30pm: Role of other relevant institutes/organisations in managing Invasive
Alien Species
12.30pm – 13.00pm: Discussion
13.00pm – 14.30pm: LUNCH
14.00pm – 15.00pm: Compile a preliminary inventory of Invasive Alien species in
Uganda
15.00pm – 15.30pm: Coffee Break
15.30pm – 17.30pm: Complete the process of identification and prioritisation of sites
where Invasive Alien Species constitute a threat to biodiversity.
18.00pm – 20.00pm: Cocktail Reception
Day 2
9.00am – 10.30am:
Develop and discuss methods for evaluating baseline conditions
within each component of the project (as per proposal)
80
10.30am – 11.00am: Coffee Break
11.00am – 12.30pm: Develop and discuss methods for evaluating baseline conditions
within each component of the project (as per proposal)
13.00pm – 14.00pm: LUNCH
13.30pm – 15.00pm: Compile an inventory of relevant national and regional projects
(GEF and non-GEF) that address issues relating to Invasive Alien
Species
15.00pm – 15.30pm: Coffee Break
15.30pm – 16.00pm: Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in Invasive
Alien Species
16.00pm – 17.00pm: General Discussion
17.00pm:
Closing Remarks – DG/NARO and Workshop Ends
81
Appendix 2: List of Participants
NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS WHORKSHOP ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES
ENTEBBE, UGANDA, 26TH TO 27TH SEPTEMBER 2002
NAME
Ogwang James Apenyo
POSITION
Entomologist/
Senior Research
Officer
EMPLOYER
National
Agricultural
Research
Organisation
Makerere
University
Osiru David S.O.
Professor
Mutumba Medi
Field Officer
Ebong Cyprian
Senior Research National
Officer
Agricultural
Research
Organisation
Mutumba Gerard Majella
Senior Lecturer
Makerere
University
Anguzu Robert
Publications
Assistant
Kiwuso Peter
Research Officer
National
Agricultural
Research
Organisation
National
Agricultural
JEEP
ADDRESS
Namulonge Agricultural
Institute
P.O. Box 7084
KAMPALA.
Dept. of Crop Science
Makerere University
P.O. Box 7062
KAMPALA
P.O. Box 4264
KAMPALA
Namulonge Agricultural
Institute
P.O. Box 7084
KAMPALA.
TELEPHON/E-MAIL
Research jamesogwang@hotmail.com
Fax: 256 – 75 - 726554
Mobile: 077-402064
256 – 41 – 533580
-acss@starcom.co.ug
Mobile: 077-311560
256 – 41 – 510310
JEEP@IMUL.COM
Research cyprian.ebong@narodanida.or
g
or cyprianebong@yahoo.com
Fax: 075-726559
Mobile: 077-200342
Mutumba@AVU.org
Fax: 256 – 41 – 531061
Mobile: 075-625415
Dept. of Botany
Makerere University
P.O. Box 7062
KAMPALA
National
Agricultural
Research
Organisation
P.O. Box 295
ENTEBBE
Forestry Resources Research Institute
P.O. Box 1752
256 – 41 - 320341/2
Fax: 256 – 41 – 321070
anguzurob@yahoo.co.uk
Mobile: 077-409975
256 – 41 – 255164
Fax: 256 – 41 – 255165
77
NAME
EMPLOYER
ADDRESS
Research
KAMPALA
Organisation
Natural
National
National Environment Management
Resources
Environment
Authority (19-21 Jinja Road)
Management
Management
P.O. Box 22255
Specialist
Authority
KAMPALA
Principal
Government
of Ministry of Finance, Planning and
Economist
Uganda
Economic Development
P.O. Box 8147
KAMPALA
Senior
Ministry of Finance, Planning and
Economist (Desk
Economic Development
Officer
for
P.O. Box 8147
Environment)
KAMPALA
Deputy Director National
National
Agricultural
Research
General
Agricultural
Organisation
Research
P.O. Box 295
Organisation
ENTEBBE
TELEPHON/E-MAIL
Mobile: 077-420582
Ecuru J.
Science
Secretary
UNCST
P.O. Box 6884
KAMPALA
256 – 41 – 250449
uncst@forcom.co.ug
Mugide R.
Research Officer
Fisheries Resources Research Institute
P.O. Box 343
JINJA
Mutisya Serah
Executive
Assistant
Uganda National
Council
for
Science
and
Technology
National
Agricultural
Research
Organisation
CAB
International
Simons Sarah
Deputy Director
CAB
256 – 43 – 120484
Fax: 256 – 43 – 120192
firi@infocom.co.ug
rmugide@fir.go.ug
254 – 2 524462/50
Fax: 254 - 2 – 522150
s.mutishya@cabi.org
254 – 2 524462/50
Lubega Matovu George
Okudi Robert Bellarmine
Sgobbi Alessandra
Otim Nape William
POSITION
CAB International
P.O. Box 63300621
NAIROBI
CAB International
256 – 41 – 251064
Fax: 256 - 41 – 232680
glubega@nemaug.org
245 – 41 – 342367
Fax: 256 – 41 – 342370
Okudi@nao-edf.net
245 – 41 – 342367
Fax: 256 – 41 – 342370
Mobile: 077612599
TANKY@zoom.co.uk
256 – 41- 320178
Fax: 256 – 41 – 321070
onape@infocom.co.ug.
wonape@infomail.com
78
NAME
POSITION
Howard Geoffrey
Regional
IUCN
Programme
Coordinator
Senior Principal National
Research Officer Agricultural
Research
Organisation
Gumisiriza Gadi
EMPLOYER
International
ADDRESS
P.O. Box 63300621
NAIROBI
IUCN
P.O. Box 68200
NAIROBI
National
Agricultural
Organisation
P.O. Box 295
ENTEBBE
TELEPHON/E-MAIL
Fax: 254 - 2 – 522150
s.simons@cabi.org
254 – 2 – 890605/12
Fax: 254 – 2 – 890615/407
gwh@iucnearo.org
Research 256 – 41 – 320341/2
Fax: 077-484314
79
Annex H
Country Report on
National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien
Species in Zambia
Theme: “Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa”
A report on the findings of a National Stakeholder Workshop held
12-13th September 2002, Lusaka, Zambia.
Prepared by
Environmental Council of Zambia
P.O. Box 35131
Lusaka,
Zambia
Ph: +260-1-254130/1 Fax: +260-1-250230/254164
September 2002
80
Contents
Background
82
Introduction
84
Objectives
84
Outputs
85
4.1 Collect and collate currently available information on IAS.
85
4.2 Complete the process of Identification and prioritisation of stes where
85
Invasive Alien Species (IAS) constitute a proximate threat to globally significant
biodiversity
4.3 Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in IAS.
86
4.4 Inventory of relevant national and regional projects that address invasive
86
alien species (GEF and non-GEF funded)
5.
4.5 Assessment of baseline conditions in relation to proposed project components
87
Appendices
89
81
BACKGROUND
Zambia is a landlocked country in the Southern Africa Region which is located from latitudes of
8o to 18oS and longitudes of 22o- 33oE. The country occupies an area of 752,614 Km 2 and
shares borders with Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola,
Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe.
The whole country lies on the Central African Plateau at altitudes ranging from 1000-1600 m
above sea level, giving it a moderately cool, sub-tropical climate - average temperatures range
from a mean monthly minimum of 10oC to a mean monthly maximum of 30oC, whilst rainfall
varies from 700mm in the south to 1500mm in the north. The plateau landscape is dissected by
two main river systems; namely the Zambezi and its tributaries, Kafue and Luangwa; and the
Chambeshi-Luapula system, which is part of the Congo River Basin. The natural vegetation is
savanna woodland dominated by miombo which cover around 50% of the country. Mopane and
munga woodlands cover much of the hot and dry southern valleys of the Zambezi and Luangwa.
It is estimated that Zambia has over 5,500 species of plant, with around 1400 species of
vertebrate recorded, including over 700 birds. On the plateau, miombo woodland dominated by
Brachystegia and Julbernadia is prevalent. In the hotter, drier Lwangwa and Zambezi valleys,
mopane woodland occurs, and there are extensive wetlands and flood plains in various areas.
Patches of lowland forest occur in the northwest, and of montane forest in the northeast. Three
centers of endemism are known; Lwangwa valley (East), Mbala (North East) and SolweziMwinilunga (NorthWest). The over 200 species of mammal are important for Zambia’s
ecotourism, but at least half of the 22 key species are threatened. Wetlands and water bodies,
comprising around 6% of the territory, are particularly important for biodiversity conservation,
and Zambia has two Ramsar sites and several more proposed. The Bangweulu swamp at Chikuni
is the 10th largest swamp in Africa, and is rich in bird species, including the globally threatened
crane Grus carunculatus. Over 80 species of fish and an endemic antelope also occur at the site,
along with many other mammals. The other Ramsar site, Kafue Flats (Lochinvar and Blue
Lagoon), is a natural floodplain. The threatened G. carunculatus is present, one of over 400 bird
species recorded at Lochinvar. The endemic Kafue lechwe (Kobus leche kafuensis) is unique to
the flats, and there are about 55 species of fish. Zambia has a short stretch of shoreline to Lake
Tanganyika, which has very high levels of endemism.
Zambia has 14 ecosystems based on vegetation types (Fanshawe, 1971). These fall into four main
divisions (see Box). In addition, Zambia also has fresh water aquatic ecosystems and anthropic
land cover types, especially different forms of agricultural land uses. The acquatic ecosystem
consists of natural and man made lakes and the major perennial rivers. Man made lakes cover
about 9000 km2. Anthropic ecosystems or land use/land cover types range from cropland to
fallow, tree plantations, and the built-up environments. Ecosystems with the highest biodiversity
are munga and miombo woodlands and grasslands. Montane forest, although of limited extent has
the highest number of endemic woody plants.
Zambia has also identified agricultural biodiversity as an important form of biodiversity upon
which more than 600,000 households depend directly for their livelihood. Agro-biodiversity in
this respect is defined as the variation between and within crop and livestock species. This
82
diversity is affected by historical factors and differences in farming systems, agro-ecological and
socio-economic conditions.
The need to conserve biodiversity in Zambia derives its importance from the fact that the
economic and livelihood activities of the general population (rural and urban) depends on natural
resource utilization. Directly the sectors of agriculture and fisheries, forestry, wildlife and tourism are
biodiversity dependent. Indirectly, other sectors including mining, manufacturing, transport,
trading and financial services depend on biodiversity either for inputs or markets. The total
contribution of biodiversity to the national economy in Zambia is not known because the value of
most activities based on the use of biodiversity is not reflected in national accounts. Nevertheless,
the contribution of agriculture, forestry and fishing to GDP was 17.2% in 1996 and 16% in 1997.
A sector-based analysis shows that biodiversity utilization plays a significant role in the national
economy. For example, the charcoal industry employs about 450,000 people in production,
distribution and marketing. In 1993, revenue from wildlife-based tourism was estimated at $52
million which represented about 5.4% of Zambia’s export earnings. These figures represent a
narrow window through which the value of biodiversity resources to the national economy is
currently perceived.
Main Categories of Ecosystem in Zambia

FOREST
Dry evergreen
Deciduous
Thicket
Montane
Swamp
Riparian

WOODLAND
Chipya
Miombo
Kalahari sand
Mopane
Munga
Termitaria

GRASSLAND
Dambo
Floodplain/swamp

AQUATIC Lakes and rivers

ANTHROPIC
Crop and fallow, forest plantations and built-up areas
Source: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 1998)
Threats to biodiversity in Zambia include habitat destruction, land use conflict, climate change,
Pollution, Cultural and social values, inadequate knowledge and invasive alien species.Invasive
species are threatening both the Ramsar sites and other parts of the country. Of the common
aquatic weeds, E. crassipes is most problematic, occurring in Bangweulu swamps, and the Kafue
River and Flats. Biological control has been attempted, though not very successfully, partly for
logistic reasons, and also because the Kafue River is heavily polluted. Mimosa pigra is a major
83
threat at Chunga lagoon, where it covers up to 30% of the area. Lantana camara is displacing
indigenous vegetation in the Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park. Salavinia molesta and Leucaena
leucocephala are also identified as invasive in Zambia.
Zambia’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was approved in 2001, and IAS are
covered under goal 1, which is to ensure the conservation of the full range of Zambia’s natural
ecosystems. A specific objective is to protect natural ecosystems and biodiversity. A separate
Strategy and Action Plan has been prepared for the wetlands, those areas being of high priority
and threatened by a number of factors including IAS. The Environmental Council of Zambia has
prepared an ‘Aquatic Weed Map of Zambia’. As in many African countries, some effort have
been made to control individual alien species, but there has been no attempt to address the causes
of the problems, through the multi-sectoral approach that is necessary.
INTRODUCTION
Removing barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa was the theme of a National
Stakeholder Workshop on Invasive alien Species conducted in Zambia as part of a PDF-A project
funded jointly by the Global Environment Facility and the US State Department. The ‘Country
Report’ presented here is a summary of the findings from the workshop which was held 12-13th
September 2002 at the Pamodzi Hotel, Lusaka. The Environmental Council for Zambia (ECZ),
together with the Ministry for Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR). The
whole project is co-ordinated by CAB International assisted by IUCN, while the executing
agency for the project in Zambia is ECZ. The overall aim of the workshop was in to obtain baseline information on the current status of invasive alien species in Zambia. The Hon. Mrs Marina
Nsingo, Minister for Tourism, Environment and Natural Resouces (MTENR) officially opened
the workshop and in her opening speech, recognized the serious threat posed by invasive alien
species, both to biodiversity and Zambia’s economy as a whole. The workshop was attended by
30 participants representing 17 organisations (see Appendix 2).
OBJECTIVES




Complete the ongoing process of identification of sites of within each country where alien
invasive species constitute a proximate threat to globally significant biodiversity and collect
and collate currently available information on alien plants in these areas.
Identify major stakeholders in addition to those already known that have an interest in
invasive alien species and include them in the entire project development.
Conduct an inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF) that
address invasive aliens species issues and that may impact, even unintentionally, the proposed
project.
Removals of barriers that obstruct effective action against invasive alien species in Ethiopia,
Ghana, Uganda and Zambia and in doing so contribute to the development goal of the
projects: the conservation of globally significant biodiversity.
84
OUTPUTS
Output 1: Compilation of Preliminary Inventory of Invasive alien Species in Zambia
The plenary identified the following known and potentially invasive species:
Aquatic plants
Terrestrial
Water hyacinth
Mimosa
Typha
Vorsia
Water reeds
Water lily
Cyodon grass
Simba grass
Salvinia
Water lettuce
Azolla
Lantana
Jacaranda
Guava
Cyperus psuulents
Amaranthus
Papyrus
Toona sp
Kasokopyo (Black jack)
Striga
Eucalyptus
Tetonoia
Maesopsis
Gmelina
The aforementioned list was prioritized to give the five most important invasive alien species in
terms of the threat posed to globally significant biodiversity:
1.Eichhornia crassipes
2.Lantana camara
3.Striga hermonthica
4.Mimosa pigra
5.Salvinia molesta
Listing of sites where priority species are predominant in Zambia
1. Chunga lagoon
2. Kafue flats
3. Kariba Dam
4. Bangweulu Swamps
5. Mosi-o-tunya National Park
Mimosa pigra
Eicchornia crassipes
Salvinia molesta
Eicchornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Output 2: Identification and prioritization of sites where IAS constitute a threat to
biodiversity
The areas according to priority;
1. Chunga Lagoon and the Kafue Flats
2. Lake Mweru/ Luapula Basin
3. Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park and the edge of the Zambezi River
4. Copperbelt forest plantation
5. Kaoma Area
85
Output 3: Identification of all major stakeholders that have an interest in IAS
1. Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ)
2. Ministry of Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
3. Forestry Department
4. Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)
5. Ministry of Tourism Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR)
6. University of Zambia (UNZA)
7. Fisheries Department
8. The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
9. Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)
10. Wildlife & Environmental Conservation Society of Zambia (WECSZ)
11. Ministry of Transport and Communications
12. African Wildlife Foundation
13. Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU)
14. Water Affairs Department
15. Zambezi River Authority
16. Local Authorities
17. Private Sector including ZESCO, AHC, Mopani Copper Mines, Bwana Mkubwa, ZCCM
Investment Holdings, Zambia Railways
18. Local communities
19. Media
Output 4: Compilation of Inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and
non-GEF) that address issues relating to IAS and the contact institutions
1. ELC Project – Restoration of Wetlands that are migratory water bird habitats that have been
damaged by invasive weeds – IUCN
2. SABONET (Southern African Botanical Network) Project compiling a botanical inventory of
plant species in Southern Africa – UNZA, Department of Biological Sciences
3. Wetland Management – RAMSAR Sites – ECZ
4. Kafubu Weed Clearance or Vossia control in the Kafubu River – Ministry of Transport and
Communications/ Bwana Mkubwa
5. Industrial Pollution and Prevention Programme including Cleaner Production – ECZ/ ZACCI
6. Weed Map Project – ECZ
7. Weed Control in the Kafue River /Biological Control of Water Hyacinth on the Kafue River ECZ
8. National Plant Genetic Resources Programme (SADC) – Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives
9. Woodland Management Project (ADB funded) – Forestry Department/ MTENR
10. SAFRINET Project (SADC Network on taxonomy) – Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives
11. Capacity Building and Emergency Support (NORAD) – Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)
12. Dry land Biodiversity Conservation Lower Zambezi – MTENR
13. SRP GRC – SADC regional plant Genetics Resources Centre – Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives
86
14. Mechanical Control of Water Hyacinth by Asset Holding Company (AHC) in Sewerage Pond
in the Copperbelt – AHC
15. Protected Areas Management (GEF funded) – MTENR
16. Lake Tanganyika Biodiversity Project – ECZ
17. CONASA
18. Zambia Railways Limited Environmental Management System – ZRL
19. Biodiversity Seed (funded by GEF and IDA) – MTENR/ZAWA
20. Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Project – GEF- Fisheries Department, Malawi and Zambia
21. The Four Corners Transboundary Natural Resources Project - African Wildlife Foundation
(AWF)- Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia
22. Provincial Forestry Action Programme (funded by FINNIDA) – Forestry
Department/MTENR
23. ZIMOZA – IUCN/ MTENR
24. Management of the Kafue Flood Plain below Itezhi tezhi Dam – ZESCO
25. North Luangwa Conservation Project 9 Frankfurt Zoological Society) – Capacity Building
Programme – ZAWA
26. Mechanical removal of Water Hyacinth on Mufulira Stream by Mopani Copper Mines,
Mufulira Division
27. Forest Resource Management (IFAD) – Forestry department/ MTENR
28. Weed Management in Relation with Conservation Farming – Project proposal by Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives – Research Department
29. Students Projects in Crop Science at University of Zambia (UNZA)
30. Weeds of Zambia - Identification and Management – Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives and UNZA
31. IUCN Zambezi Basin Phase II – Sustainable Wetland Management and Utilization - Zambia
and Mozambique - IUCN
Output 5: Develop and discuss method for evaluating baseline conditions within each
component of the project
The project components were outlined as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Information Management and its Application
Development of Plans and Policies to support integrated management of IAS
Assessment and control of IAS
Capacity building and dissemination of lessons learned
Information Management and its Application
The discussion focused on the current status as regards information management in Zambia. It
was reported that studies had been done on the management of the Water hyacinth, lantana and
noxious weeds affecting arable crops. Information on the water hyacinth could be found at the
ECZ whilst information on lantana and other weeds of arable and could be found at the research
department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
However the plenary noted that approximately 10-20% information on knowledge on the
presence of IAS is present but no information is available on the extent of IAS. It was further
87
highlighted that not much dissemination information materials is available on IAS in Zambia.
The plenary indicated that posters on Lantana had been developed in the past though their
distribution had ceased. Other information on Water Hyacinth was said to be available and a
booklet on Weeds of Zambia (1983), though this concentrated on weeds of arable land. It was
noted that most of the literature could be found in the form of gray literature for instance in the
form of field reports and study reports.
How can information on IAS be disseminated in Zambia?
Various suggestions were provided such as through posters, community radios programmes,
newspapers, local magazines such as the Zambian farmer magazine.
It was emphasized that there is need for a more coordinated approach to the dissemination of
information to the wider society in implementation of the proposed project in order to get
maximum input. It was proposed that the Future Search programmes targeted at retirees and
retrenched workers could integrate information on IAS as they discuss agricultural information.
In summary it was concluded that more scientific research should be done thereafter followed by
well-coordinated dissemination through existing extension services.
Information Flow of IAS
The plenary noted that is was important to elevate biodiversity issue as it relates to the impact of
IAS. This was highlighted because it was noted that where little community value is attached to a
particular cause it is difficult to impact information about the cause.
The role and responsibility of the MTENR and ECZ was clear as regards conserving biodiversity
and as such these institutions would spearhead the project. The local authorities were also
identified as key stakeholders in protecting the environment.
Development of Plans and Policies
The paper presented by Mr. Aongola would provide the framework on providing information as
regards current Plans and Policies related to biodiversity conservation.
88
Appendix 1
FINAL PROGRAMME
National Stakeholders Workshop on Invasive Alien Species
12th -13th September 2002, Lusaka, Zambia.
Thursday 12th September 2002
CHAIRPERSON: Mr L. Aongola
9.00am – 9.10am:
9.10am – 9.20am:
9.20am – 9.30am:
9.30am – 9.40am:
9.40am – 9.50am:
9.50am – 10.15am:
Welcome Remarks (Dr Stephen Kunda, ECZ)
Introduction to Workshop (Dr Sarah Simons, CAB International)
Presentation on IUCN (Dr Geoffrey Howard, IUCN)
Presentation on CAB International (Dr Sarah Simons, CAB International)
Presentation on Global Invasive Species Programme
(Dr Geoffrey Howard, IUCN)
Official Opening (Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources)
10.15am – 10.45am:
Coffee Break
CHAIRPERSON: Dr D. Kunda
10.45am – 11.15am:
11.15am – 11.45am:
11.45am – 12.30am:
12.30pm – 14.00pm:
Overview of Invasive Alien Species in Zambia and the role of ECZ in
Managing IAS (Mr Brian Mwanza, ECZ)
Current status of NBSAP and Agricultural Policy on Invasive Alien Species
in Zambia
(Mr L. Aongola, MTENR)
Discussion on the Role of other relevant institutes/organisations in managing
Invasive Alien Species
LUNCH
CHAIRPERSON: Ms M. Phiri
14.00pm – 14.15pm:
14.15pm – 15.30pm:
Overview of Invasive Alien species (Dr Geoffrey Howard, IUCN)
Compile a preliminary inventory of Invasive Alien species in Zambia .
15.00pm – 15.30pm:
Coffee Break
CHAIRPERSON: Ms M. Phiri
15.30pm – 17.00pm:
Complete the process of identification and prioritisation of sites where
Invasive Alien Species constitute a threat to biodiversity.
17.00pm – 17.30pm:
Discussion
18.00pm – 20.00pm:
Cocktail Reception
89
Friday 13th September 2002
CHAIRPERSON: Mr L. Aongola
9.00am – 10.30am:
Develop and discuss methods for evaluating baseline conditions within each
component of the project (as per proposal)
10.30am – 11.00am: Coffee Break
11.00am – 12.30pm:
Develop and discuss methods for evaluating baseline conditions within each
component of the project (as per proposal)
12.30pm – 13.30pm: LUNCH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr A. Sakala
13.30pm – 15.00pm:
Compile an inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and
non-GEF) that address issues relating to Invasive Alien Species
15.00pm – 15.50pm: Coffee Break
15.30pm – 16.00pm:
Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in Invasive Alien Species
16.00pm – 17.00pm:
General Discussion
17.00pm:
Workshop Ends
90
Appendix 2
PARTICIPANTS LIST FOR THE NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHOP ON REMOVING BARRIERS TO INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES (IAS)
MANAGEMENT.
12-13th SEPTEMBER, 2002, PAMODZI HOTEL - CLUB LOUNGE
NO
1
2
3
NAME
Mr. Lubinda Aongola
Mr Albert Chalabesa
Dr Harry.N.Chabwela
4
Prof. Sosten Chiotha
POSITION/INSTITUTION
Director, MTENR
Deputy Director, MACO
Senior Lecturer (Biological
Sciences), UNZA
Regional Director, LEAD-SA
5
6
Dr Patrick Chipungu
Stephen Kunda
Consultant, DENAMS
Weed Scientist, MACO
7
Mr Alfred Kabeleka
Surveyor of Vessels, DEPT. of
MARITIME
8
Mr Joseph Kabwe
Environmental Officer, ZCCMIH
9
Ms.Mwiche Kabwe
10
Mr Willie Kalunga
11
Mr Douglas Kunda
12
Ms Faines Lumbwe
13
Dr. Luke.Mumba
EIA Officer, Environmental
Ccouncil of Zambia (ECZ.
Inspector, Water Council of
Zambia - Environmental Council
of Zambia
Chief Inspector, ECZ
Lecturer, University of Zambia
(UNZA)
Dean, UNZA
ADDRESS
Box 34011,Lsk
P/B 7, Chilanga
Box 32379,Lsk
TELEPHONE
238772 Fax: 238772
278130 Fax: 278130
295516
E-MAIL
aongola@zamnet.zm
chala@zamnet .zm
hchabwela@natsci.unza.zm
Box RW50271,
Lsk
Box 32750,Lsk
Box 710120,
Mansa
Box 50346,Lsk
261557/532
rpd@lead.com.zm
O97- 845566
02-821617 Fax: 01-278871
nlccp@zamtel
259716
096 457468
Fax:251795
O2-245120 Fax; 02-245364
Kabeleka@Netscape.NET
254130/1 Fax: 250230/254164
mkabwe@necz.org.zm
Box 35131,
Lusaka
254130/1 Fax: 250230/254164
wkalunga@necz.org.zm
Box 35131,
Lusaka
Box
32379,Lusaka
Box 32379,
Lusaka
254023
dkunda@zamnet.zm
096-438657
flumbwe@natsci.unza.zm
254406 Fax:254406
lmumba@natsci.unza.zm
Box 20172,
Kitwe
Box 35131,
Lusaka
kabwej@zccm-ih.com.zm
91
14
Mr Wilson.M.Mutale
Factory Floor Manager, BATA
SHOE Co
15
Mr.Fabian M. Malaya
16
Mr.Charles.T.Maguswi
17
Ms. Musonda Mumba
(PHD-STUDENT)
Chief Research Officer, Ministry
of Tourism, Environment &
Natural Resources - Dept of
Forestry
Deputy Director, MACO
Dept of Fisheries.
University of London
18
Mr.Brian J.Mwanza
19
Mr.Gilbert.B.Mutale
20
Mr. Robam Musonda
21
Ms Rhoda Nsama
22
Mr. Vincent R. Nyirenda
23
Ms Nkusuwila Nachalwe
24
Ms Misozi .D. Phiri
25
Mr. Arundel Sakala
26
Ms Monde Zulu
Inspector, Water Pollution
Control, Environmental Council
of Zambia (ECZ)
Manager, Safety & Environment Zambia Railways ltd
Senior Social Scientist, ZESCO
Environment and Social Affairs
Unit
Director, Cultural Academy of
Personal Independence (CHAPI)
Senior Planning Officer Zambia
Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)
Environmental Law Intern,
IUCN
Senior Inspector, Natural
Resources - ECZ
Senior Agricultural Research
Officer, Ministry of Agriculture
& Cooperatives (MACO)
Mt Makulu Research Station
Acting Chief, Agricultural
Research Officer, MACO
Box 399,Kafue
Box 30749
,Lusaka
2nd Floor
Lotti Hse
Cairo Rd
311209/244254
234308/9 Fax:226131/222470
forestry@zamnet.nm
Box 350100,
Chilanga
26 Bedford Way
Geography Dept
Wetlands
Research Unit
London,WCIH
OAP
Box 71302 Ndola
278418 Fax:278173
piscator@zamnet.zm
097 746117
m.mumba@geog.ucl.ac.uk
O2-621048 Fax: 02-621048/
096 753793
bmwanza@eczndola.org.zm
Box 80935,
Kabwe
Box
33304,Lusaka
O5 223030 Fax: 05 223591
dzrh@zamtel.zm
237811
Fax: 237811
musondark@yahoo.com
Box
360070,Kafue
P/B 1. Chilanga
311374/ 097 872107
278129 Fax: 278244
nyirendavr@hotmail.com
7th Floor Lotti
Hse
Box 35131,
Lusaka
P/B 7. Chilanga
231866 Fax: 231867
iucn@zamnet.zm
254023 Fax: 254164
mphiri@necz.org.zm
Telfax: 278141
Pgpsmt@zamtel.zm
P/B 7, Chilanga
278141 Fax: 278130
genetics@zamnet.zm
92
CAB International
27
Ms Serah Mutisya
Executive Assistant, CABI-Kenya
BOX 63300621,NBO
254 2 524462/50
s.mutisya@cabi.org
28
Dr.Sarah Simons
Deputy Director, CABI-Kenya
254 2 524462/50
S.Simons@CABI.ORG
29
30
Mr. Chilekwa Kampeshi
Dr Geoffrey Howard
Consultant
IUCN-Kenya
BOX 633-00621,
NBO
BOX 50625, Lsk
BOX 68200
NAIROBI,
KENYA
Tel: 096 754130
254 2 890605
Fax: 890615
Ckampeshi@hotmail.com
gwh@iucneavo.org
93
ANNEX I
Report on a
Regional Stakeholders Workshop on
Invasive Alien Species
“Removing Barriers to Invasive Species Plant Management in Africa”
CAB International – Africa Regional Centre
5- 6 November 2002 Nairobi.
Prepared by
CAB International - Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633- 00621
Nairobi
Kenya.
Ph: +254-2-524450/62 Fax: +254-2-522150
Email: cabi-arc@cabi.org Internet: http://www.cabi.org
94
1. Background
Following the Phase I Synthesis Conference of the Global Invasive Species Programme
(GISP), held in South Africa, at the end of 2000, a large number of African countries
expressed concern about the status and impact of invasive alien species in Africa. The meeting
succeeded in raising awareness of the problems and issues, and highlighted the urgent need to
take coordinated action. In response, a concept note which ‘sought to remove barriers to
Invasive Plant Management in Africa by mobilizing and strengthening existing regional and
national capacity to extend action to newly affected countries,’ was subsequently submitted to
the GEF project office at UNEP in January 2001. Funding for PDF A grant ($<25,000), with
CAB International as the implementing agency, assisted by IUCN in partnership with four
pilot countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia) was eventually approved in June 2002.
However, the US State Department, who also have a keen interest in issues relating to
invasives, provided us with a further $50,000 of co-financing, and it is the combined
contributions from GEF and the US State Department which have enabled us to proceed with
the recently completed, national stakeholders workshops on Invasive Alien Species in each of
the four participating countries i.e. Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia.
The objectives of the National Stakeholder Workshops were:
1. Complete the process of identification and prioritisation of sites where invasive alien
species constitute a proximate threat to globally significant biodiversity.
2. Collect and collate currently available information (preliminary inventory) on alien plants
in these areas.
3. Identify all major stakeholders that have an interest in invasive plants.
4. Conduct an inventory of relevant national and regional projects (GEF and non-GEF) that
address invasive alien species and that may impact, even unintentionally, on the proposed
project.
5. Develop methods for evaluating the baseline conditions within each component of the
project (as per project proposal).
I’m delighted to be able to report that not only were all four national stakeholder workshops
officially opened by Government ministers, well attended and successful in bringing together
officers from different stakeholder groups, but in each of the participating countries, all of the
workshop objectives were met. The key output from the national stakeholder workshops was a
‘Country Report on Invasive Alien Species’ providing base-line information on the current
status of IAS in each of the four participating countries.
2. Introduction
Following on from the four national stakeholders, a Regional Stakeholders Workshop on
Invaslive Alien Species was organised and hosted by CAB International – Africa Regional
Centre in Nairobi, 5th - 6th November 2002. As with the national stakeholder workshops, the
theme was, ‘Removing barriers to Invasive Plant Management in Africa.’ Workshop
participants included senior representatives from each of the four pilot countries, together with
representatives from GISP, PPRI, IUCN, GEF and CAB International (see Appendix 2). This
report is a summary of the findings from the Regional Stakeholders workshop, the overall
aims of which w to harmonise the information provided by each of the participating countries,
finalise the PDF-B project proposal and complete a draft log-frame for the full project
proposal.
95
Mr Dennis Rangi, Director, CAB International, Africa gave the welcoming remarks in which
he highlighted the potential threat of invasive alien species to the economies of African
countries and emphasised the importance of this project. Dr. Sarah Simons, Deputy Director,
CAB International, Africa gave an introduction to the workshop and Dr. Geoffrey Howard,
Regional Programme Co-ordinator, IUCN, East Africa, gave an overview of Invasive Alien
Species. Finally, Mr. Mark Zimsky, Senior Programme Officer/Biodiversity with the GEF
Office, UNEP, gave a presentation on the mechanisms of how the GEF works. He noted the
importance of the need for all participants to understand the essence of a multi-sectoria
approach as well as the need to address the reasons underlying the choice of the 4 countries.
3. Objectives
In order to achieve the overall aims of the workshop, the specific objectives were:
1. Review preliminary inventory of invasive alien species in Africa
2. Prioritisation of sites where invasive alien species constitute a threat to biodiversity
(across all pilot countries)
3. Finalise inventory of existing projects that specifically address issues relating to invasive
alien species nationally, regionally and globally, and agree the exact nature of proposed
linkages.
4. Agree baseline conditions for each component of the project.
5. Discuss and agree goal, purpose and outputs of the full project logframe.
6. Discuss and agree outputs and activities to be undertaken in each pilot country during the
PDF-B.
7. Discuss and agree a budget for each activity in each country including
4. Outputs
National Reports on the current status of Invasive Alien Species.
Each of the participating countries gave an overview of the current status of Invasive Alien
Species in their respective countries. One major fact that emerged was that governments were
becoming increasingly aware of the danger or potential threat that the invasive alien species
pose both environmentally and economically. At the same time, it was clear that in some
areas of these countries, invasives perceived to be a threat were in actual fact beneficial to
certain communities causing conflicts e.g. in Ethiopia, Prosopis was introduced intentionally
for food, fodder and for soil amelioration.
Major similarities/differences between the pilot countries include the following:
 A major similarity in all the 4 countries is the increasing awareness by the respective
governments of the dangers posed by IAS on the environment and economy.
 Eichhornia crassipes, common to the 4 countries, was mentioned in all the countries as a
very destructive IAS.
 The four reports show there is currently greater awareness of the negative effect of IAS
on agriculture than on the environment and biodiversity.
 In each country there is/are various IAS which are seen as being beneficial specific to a
certain community /communities thereby creating conflicts with efforts aimed at
controlling them e.g. Prosopis in Ethiopia (used as animal fodder) and Chromolaena
Odorata in Ghana (used for medicinal purposes).
96



Lack of proper policies in all the pilot countries was seen as a big obstacle to the
management of IAS
In all pilot countries, certain IAS were introduced intentionally.
Lack of public awareness of the dangers posed by IAS is evident in the four pilot countries
Output 1: Preliminary Review of inventory of IAS in Africa (highlighting similarities
and differences between pilot countries).
Table 1: Lists of all species occurring in the top five priorities in the four countries,
Invasive Plant Species
Ethiopia Ghana Uganda Zambia
Other African
(area of origin)
Countries
Eichhornia crassipes
Many countries
(South America)
Lantana camara
Many countries
(Central & South
America)
Striga spp
Many countries
(indigenous & Asia)
Mimosa pigra
Many countries
(Central America)
Salvinia molesta
Many countries
(Brazil)
Chromolaena odorata
West, Central and
(Central & South
Southern Africa
America)
Broussonetia papyrifera
Few countries in East
(East Asia)
Africa
Leucaena leucocephala
Many countries
(Central America)
Prosopis juliflora
Many countries
(Central & South
America)
Parthenium
Kenya, Mozambique,
hysterophorous
South Africa,
(Central & South
Madagascar, Indian
America)
Ocean Islands
Cymbopogon afronardus
Southern and North(possibly S Asia)
Eastern tropical Africa
Output 2: Prioritisation of sites where IAS constitute a threat to biodiversity.
After detailed discussions, participants agreed and prioritised sites where IAS constitute a
threat to biodiversity. The table below shows the prioritised sites that were identified and
proposed as sites for the full project. These will be assessed more during the PDF B.
Table 2: Proposed Pilot Sites in each of the 4 countries
Country
Site
Invasive Plants
97
Ghana
Ethiopia
Tano River System
Afram Headwaters Forest Reserve
Nyankapala, Northern Savanna
(agrobiodiversity)
Awash Basin and Gambela
Harerge
Koba Alamata
Uganda
Lake Albert
Iganga and Palisa
Rakai, Lake Mburo National Park
Zambia
Kafue River System
Kafue Flats (Lochinvar and Blue
Lagoon National Parks)
Mosi-oa-Tunya and Victoria Falls
National Park
Eichhornia crassipes
Chromolaena odorata
Broussonetia papyrifera
Striga spp
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Parthenium hysterophorus
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Parthenium hysterophorus
Striga spp
Prosopis sp
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Cymbopogon afronardus
Mimosa pigra
Cymbopogon afronardus
Eichhornia crassipes
Mimosa pigra
Eichhornia crassipes
Lantana camara
Output 3: Finalise inventory of existing projects that specifically address issues relating
to IAS nationally, regionally and globally, and agree the exact nature of the proposed
project
Participants discussed existing projects in each of their respective countries including regional
projects that the 4 countries were involved in, identifying linkages were they exist (Appendix
1)
Output 4: Agree baseline conditions for each component of the Project (highlighting
similarities and differences between each country).
In all countries it was agreed that some form of structure does exist but may not be used
effectively and sharing of information is on an ad hoc basis. The process of looking at each of
these components in further detail will be carried out during the PDF B. However, the need to
spell out the roles and responsibilities of the co-ordinating and implementing agencies to
avoid confusion or conflict, was emphasized.
Listed below are the key supporting policy and planning documents from each country that make
reference to the management of IAS. It was noted that the different set-ups in each country can create
conflicts as to who has the mandate to coordinate/monitor IAS activities.
Ethiopia
98
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (still in draft form)
Second National Report to CBD (2001)
Environmental Policy (1997)
National Policy on Biodiversity Conservation and Research (1998)
Ethiopian Forestry Action Plan (1994)
In Ethiopia, as discussed during the national workshop, each institution has its own
mechanism/responsibility for disseminating information as long as it is within the government
structure. There is also a structure within the decentralised institutions/bodies. e.g. EPA has an
environmental centre where information is exchanged
Ghana
1. National Biodiversity Strategy (2002).
2. National Biodiversity Action Plan (in preparation).
In Ghana, there is no single clearing house/institution as far as dissemination is concerned. It was
noted that there is a process at the district level where relevant bodies e.g. in the Volta River area,
monitor activities or emergence of an invasive and report to the relevant institution and this
information then gets relayed to the Ministry of Environment & Science (MES) for eventual
dissemination.
After the National workshop, EPA and CSIR met to agree who is to monitor the coordination of IAS
activities. It was suggested that since both institutions fall under the same Ministry i.e. Environment
and Science (MES), the research should come under CSIR although this remain to be resolved.
Zambia
1. First National Report to CBD (1997)
2. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001)
3. Zambia Wetlands Strategy and Action Plans).
4. State of the Environment Report (2001), published every four years.
5. State of the Environment: Zambesi Basin (2002)
6. Zambia Forestry Action Plan
The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources operates as a coordinating unit. The
Ministry has signed a MoU with all the relevant institutions. When an issue arises, a meeting for
relevant stakeholders is convened. However, it was also noted that institutions may not always be
ready to impart with information which hinders proper coordination.
Uganda
1. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001)
2. National Policy for Conservation and Management of Wetlands Resources (1995)
3. First National Report to CBD (1998)
4. The National Environment Statute (2001)
5. State of the Environment Report (2000)
Uganda has the same process as Ghana at the district level where information is relayed through
relevant bodies in the districts and ultimately reaches the Ministry of Agriculture for dissemination. In
the event that immediate dissemination is required, the Minister for Agriculture will issue a press
release or take it to the Parliament.
The Environmental report is one vessel of information but it stays too high and does not reach its
intended target. NEMA is dealing with the issue by trying to train people at the district level on
environmental issues.
The following was agreed upon:
99





Need for an internal concerted effort for dissemination, exchange of information.
Need to reduce bureaucracy in steps involved in projects by involving only relevant people. e.g.
funds should not be channeled through the Ministry of Finance as in the case of Uganda, because
disbursement becomes a problem
Need to set up a coordinating committee/unit/desk
A loose mechanism of sharing information between neighbouring countries exists but within
established bodies. e.g. the EAC, ECOWAS, etc. Need to have a natural flow of information both
at the regional as well as at the international level.
Need to work with NGO s and donors as they have more experience in issues that require raising
awareness.
Output 5: Discuss and agree goal, purpose and outputs of the full project log frame.
Participants were divided into groups to debate the formulation of the goal, purpose and outputs and
agreed on the following:
a. Project Goal.
Ecosystems, species and genetic diversity in Africa protected from IAS for global, National and
Community benefit.
b. Project Purpose.
Barriers to effective, preventive and management of Invasive Alien Plants/species removed in 4 pilot
countries of Ghana, Ethiopia, Uganda and Zambia.
c. Agreed outputs.
Strategies for the prevention and management of invasive alien species/plants management
strengthened.
It was agreed to add a new activity i.e. ‘Activity 2.5 Participants identified sources of information,
expertise and solutions to the management of specific IAS/Ps in Africa and elsewhere.’ These would
be used efficiently to develop solutions and capacity in Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda and Zambia. Some
participants suggested that Activity 3.5 could be moved to output 2, however, others were of the
opinion that it should remain where it is, so the status quo prevailed.
Output 6: Discuss and agree outputs and activities to be undertaken in each pilot country during
the PDF B.
Participants discussed the proposed acitivities and where necessary changes were made as appropriate.
For full details on each activity refer to PDF B (no.viii). Description of PDF B activities.
Component 1: National Plans and Policies for Prevention and Control of IAS.
Activity 1. Analysis of existing plans and policies. It was noted that each situation varies from country
to country and analysis would involve a lot of work and is a lengthy process. Question was raised on
whether the existing policies are adequate? To this end, it was suggested and agreed that there is need
to look at other acts that may exist and which touch on invasives but use different terms such as
noxious weeds. The analysis is expected to identify gaps, inconsistencies and conflicts that need to be
taken into account during the full project.
Activity 2. Stakeholders analysis. The issue of which stakeholders should be included was discussed
at length. It was agreed that the analysis should involve stakeholders, who above this project, have/will
have the mandate to implement /manage IAS. It was further agreed that the roles of the national
stakeholders identified during the PDF A will be looked at againand taken into consideration.
Activity 3. Evaluate baseline conditions: It was agreed that these baseline conditions will be
100
determined together with activites 1 & 2.
Component 2. Public awareness and Information Management
Activity 4 and Activity 5. Participants felt there was an issue of time pressure in this activity but
nevertheless would try to meet the requirement.
Activity 6. Prepare communication strategy. This activity was endorsed by the participants.
Component 3. Management and Control of IAS
Activity 7. Evaluate baseline conditions: it was noted that this activity seems to appear in different
components. However, it was agreed that the components should be left as they are.
Activity 8. Identify and Plan control projects: participants were happy with the activity as is written in
the PDF B.
Component 4. Capacity Building and Dissemination of lessons.
The need to insert biological, ecological as well as taxonomy in the category of training was agreed
but this would not be restricted to these areas. Other areas of training would include; risk analysis for
quarantine authorities; control techniques and others. It was noted that the needs assessment will show
what is required. The IPPC Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation tool will equally be used to determine
these needs.
Activity 10. Dissemination and replication strategy. A dissemination and replication communication
strategy will be developed to facilitate the implementation of the full project. This will be at the
national, regional and international level. It was agreed that links should be sought at the regional level
with organizations such as FARA, SADC, EAC, IGAD, ECOWAS, ASARECA, CORAF and
COMESA. Dissemination at the international level will be looked at through organizations like GIPS,
IPPC secretariat and IAPSU (AU). Role of international research organizations (such as ICRAF) was
also discussed and it was agreed that they have a role to play and could be involved in the distribution
of plant species.
Activity 11. Establish a steering committee. Participants agreed the need to establish a steering
committee comprising one senior representative from each of the four countries. The committee would
also have one representative from each collaborating institution: UNEP, CABI and IUCN including 3
or 4 internationally recognized experts. After consulting colleagues at home, participants agreed to
identify and recommend relevant people in their countries to be incorporated in this committee.
Activity 12. National and International Stakeholder Workshops. It was agreed that other stakeholders
in the sectors falling under the 4 T’s. Tourism, Transport, Trade and Travel should be included in the
workshops.
Activity 13. Develop Co-financing Plans. The need to look at other/potential donors during the PDF B
was noted. It was agreed that CABI and IUCN will be responsible for looking for co-financing.
Participants were also informed that, above co-financing in kind, GEF would like to see additional
cash. This could be through other donors.
(Ghana is currently preparing a country position that in case any donor is not prepared to accept the
co-financing in kind; facilities, people etc, then the project will not be given clearance).
Activity 14. Project Coordination. Participants agreed that a full time overall coordinator would be
required. This activity will be decided once funds are approved and the national coordinator is the
person in a country who will be given the task of coordinating that activity. It was further agreed that
the person identified should preferably be in agriculture or environment. In the event that the project is
101
within a ministry, there will also be need for a technical person. Participants were requested to look at
the possibility of also hiring a consultant e.g. a lawyer.
Activity 15. Preparation of Project Brief. It was agreed the Coordinator of the project will have the
task of putting the project brief together.
Output 7: Discuss and agree a budget for each activity in each country including Government
contributions and other sources of co-financing.
Participants were provided with overall guidelines on the budget requirements. They were then
requested to go back and agree on country budgets in-house and forward the finalised budget to CABI
within one week.
102
Appendix 1. Preliminary List of Related Projects
Country Project
Ethiopia Strengthening the Conservation
and Management of the Wildlife
Protected Area System
Funder
GEF
Ethiopia Conservation and sustainable use
of medicinal plants
GEF
Ethiopia National Biodiversity Strategy,
Action Plan
GEF
Regional African NGO-Government
Partnership for Sustainable
Biodiversity Action
GEF
Regional Botanical and Zoological
Taxonomic Networks in Eastern
Africa (BOZONET): Linking
Conservation toTaxonomy
Regional Conservation and Sustainable
Use of Biodiversity in
the Gregory Rift Valley Lakes
Regional Eastern Africa Regional
Wetlands Conservation and
Support Programme
GEF
Uganda
Lake Victoria Partnership
Uganda
Striga management
Ghana
Biodiversity Conservation of
Lake Bosumtwe Basin
Northern Savanna Biodiversity
Conservation (NSBC) Project
Integrated Management of the
Volta River Basin
Protected Areas Management and
Sustainable Use (PAMSU)
Institutional Support for the
Protection of East African
Biodiversity
Reducing Biodiversity Loss at
Cross-Border Sites in
East Africa
Lake Victoria Environmental
Management
Community-based Natural
Resources Management and
Ghana
Regional
Uganda
Regional
Regional
Regional
Zambia
Linkage
Planning for a full project. One of the
threats to protected areas is invasives
(eg Prosopis in Awash & Yangudiras
National Parks).
Invasive species pose threat to in situ
conservation sites (Bale Mountain
National Park and surrounds)
Preparation of the NBSAP,
participation in the CHM, preparation
of country report to COP
In Ethiopia focuses on Important Bird
Areas. Multi-stakeholder development
of action plans to conserve
biodiversity.
Taxonomic capacity is necessary for
early detection of invasive species.
GEF
Development of a strategic action plan
for the lakes. This should include
protection from invasives.
Through
Includes policy development, research,
IUCN
capacity building, awareness,
monitoring, all areas of potential
linkage.
Sida
Water hyacinth is a problem in Lake
Victoria
Rockefeller Research on methods for managing an
Foundation invasive
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
Includes biological control of water
hyacinth.
GEF
103
Zambia
Biodiversity Conservation in the
Lukanga Swamps Watershed
Area
Securing the Environment for
Economic Development (SEED)
(not yet approved)
Regional Control Infestation and
Translocation of Aquatic Weeds
(to be submitted)
Regional International Mycoherbicide
Programme for Eichhornia
crassipes Control in Africa
GEF
GEF
DANIDA
Includes sustainable economic
development of Kafue and Mosi-oaTunya national parks, where invasive
plants are present.
Most of the problem weeds to be
controlled are alien. Linkages on
control methods.
Developing an environmentally benign
biopesticide.
104
APPENDIX 2.
FINAL PROGRAMME
Regional Stakeholders Workshop on the Management of Invasive Alien Species in Africa,
CAB International – Africa Regional Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.
5-6th November 2002.
Tuesday 5th November 2002
8.30am – 9.00am:
9.00am – 9.15am:
9.15am – 9.35am:
Registration
Welcome Remarks & Introductions
Mr Dennis Rangi, Director, CAB International, Africa Regional Centre
Introduction to Regional Stakeholders Workshop
Dr Sarah Simons, Deputy Director, CAB International,
Africa Regional Centre
9.35am – 9.55am:
Global Environment Facility (GEF) Project Cycle
Mr Mark Zimsky, Senior Programme Officer/Biodiversity, UNEP/GEF
9.55am – 10.20am:
Overview of Invasive Alien Species
Dr Geoffrey Howard, Regional Programme Co-ordinator, IUCN (Eastern
Africa)
10.20am – 10.45am: Coffee Break
10.45am – 11.00am:
EARO)
11.00am – 11.15am:
11.15am – 11.30am:
11.30am – 11.45am:
11.45am – 12.00pm:
12.00pm – 12.30pm:
Current status of Invasive Alien Species in Ethiopia (Dr D. Teketay, DG,
Current status of Invasive Alien Species in Zambia (Mr Davy Siame,
MTENR)
Current status of Invasive Alien Species in Ghana (Prof. E. OwusuBennoah, Ag DG CSIR)
Current status of Invasive Alien species in Uganda (Dr C. Ebong, NARO)
Discussion on participating country presentations
Review preliminary of inventory of IAS in Africa (highlighting similarities
and differences
between the pilot countries)
12.30pm – 14.00pm: LUNCH
14.00pm – 14-45pm:
Prioritisation of sites where IAS constitute a threat to biodiversity
(across all pilot countries).
14.45pm – 15.30pm:
Finalise inventory of existing projects that specifically address issues
relating to IAS nationally, regionally and globally, and agree the exact
nature of proposed project linkages.
105
15.30pm – 16.00pm: Coffee Break
16.00pm – 17.00pm:
Agree baseline conditions for each component of the project
(highlighting similarities and differences between each pilot country)
17.00pm – 17.30pm:
Discussion
19.00pm – 21.00pm:
Cocktail Reception
Wednesday 6th November 2002
9.00am – 10.30am:
Discuss and agree goal, purpose and outputs of the full project
logframe.
10.30am – 11.00am: Coffee Break
11.00am – 12.30pm:
Discuss and agree outputs and activities to be undertaken in each pilot
country during the PDF-B.
12.30pm – 14.00pm: LUNCH
14.00pm – 15.30pm:
Discuss and agree a budget for each activity in each country including
Government contributions and other sources of co-financing.
15.30pm – 16.00pm: Coffee Break
16.00pm – 17.00pm:
Discuss and agree implementation plan for PDF-B (including executing
agencies, project co-ordinators, workplan, timetable
17.00pm – 17.30pm:
General Discussion
17.30pm:
Workshop Ends
106
APPENDIX 3: List of Workshop Participants.
1.
Ms. Misozi Deborah Phiri
Senior Inspector – Natural Resources
Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ).
Suez Road
P. O. Box 35131, Lusaka
Zambia
Tel: (260) 1 254130/1, 254023/59
Fax: (260) 1 254164
Email: mphiri@ecz.org.zm
2.
Prof. Emmanuel Owusu-Bennoah
Acting Director General
Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
P. O. Box M.32
Accra
Ghana
Tel: (233) 21 760166/777651- 4
Fax: (233) 21 779809
Email: owusubennoah@ucmgh.com
3.
Mr. Moses Hensley DUKU
Deputy Director
Ministry of Environment & Science Technology (MEST)
P. O. Box M.232, Accra
Ghana
Tel: (233) 21 666049/662013
Fax: (233) 21 666828
Email: mosesduku@yahoo.com
4.
Dr. Gadi Gumisiriza
Senior Principal Research Officer-Projects
National Agricultural Research
Organisation (NARO)
P. O. Box 295, Entebbe
Uganda
Tel : (006) 41 320341/320512
Fax : (006) 41 321070
Email : dgnaro@infocom.co.ug; mukiibi@imul.com
5.
Dr. Cyprian Ebong
Senior Research Officer
NARO
Namulonge Agricultural & Animal
Production Research Institute.
P. O. Box 7084
Kampala
Uganda
Tel : (006) 77 200342
Fax : (006) 75 726554
Email : cyprian.ebong@narodanida.org
107
6.
Dr. James Ogwang
Senior Research Officer
NARO
Namulonge Agricultural Research Institute
P. O. Box 7084
Kampala
Uganda
Tel : (006) 77 402064
Fax : (006) 75 726554
Email : jamesogwang@hotmail.com
7.
Dr. Demel Teketay
Director General
Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organisation
P. O. Box 2003
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia.
Tel: (251) 1 454435/462270
Fax: (251) 1 461251/461294
Email: earodg@telecom.net
8.
Mr. Ababu Anage
Team Leader, Biodiversity Conservation
Environment Protection Authority
P. O. Box 12760
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia
Tel: (251) 2 624758
Fax: (251) 1 610077
Email:enva@telecom.net.et
9.
Dr. Brian Van Wilgen
Divisional Support
CSIR
P O Box 320
Stellenbosch, 7599
South Africa
Tel: (27) 21 8882000 (cell 082 454 9726)
Fax: (27) 21 8882693
Email: bvwilgen@csir.co.za
10. Mr. Mark Zimsky
Senior Programme Officer
Biodiversity
Division of GEF Coordination
UNEP
P. O. Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254) 2 623257
Fax : (254) 2 624041/624617
Email : mark.zimsky@unep.org
11. Dr. Geoffrey Howard
Regional Programme Coordinator
IUCN
P. O. Box 68200, City Square
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel : (254) 2 890615
Fax : (254) 2 890605
Email : GWH@iucnearo.org
108
12. Mr. Davy Siame
Senior Planning Officer (Environment)
Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 34011
Kwacha House, Cairo Rd
Lusaka
Zambia
Tel: (260) 97 871768
Fax: (260) 1 222189
Email: siamedavy@hotmail.com
13. Dr. Sean Murphy
CAB International UK Centre
Silwood Park
Buckhurst Road
Ascot
Berks, SL5 7TA
UK
Tel: (44) 1784 470111
Fax: (44) 1491 829100
Email: s.murphy@cabi.org
14. Dr. Sarah Simons
Deputy Director
CAB International Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633-00621
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel : (254) 2 524462/50
Fax : (254) 2 522150
Email : S.Simons@cabi.org
15. Dr. Roger Day
Coordinator, Knowledge & Informations System
CAB International, Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633-00621
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254) 2 524462/50
Fax: (254) 2 522150
Email: R.day@cabi.org
16. Dr. George Oduor
Coordinator, Sustainable Crop and Pest Management
CAB International Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633-00621
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel : (254) 2 524462/50
Fax : (254) 2 522150
Email: G.Oduor@cabi.org
17. Ms. Serah Mutisya
Executive Assistant
CAB International Africa Regional Centre
P. O. Box 633-00621
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel : (254) 2 524462/50
Fax : (254) 2 522150
Email: s.mutisya@cabi.org
109
Annex J. Preliminary List of Related Projects
Country
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Project
Funder
Strengthening the Conservation and GEF
Management of the Wildlife Protected
Area System
Conservation and sustainable use of GEF
medicinal plants
Ethiopia
National Biodiversity Strategy, Action GEF
Plan
Regional
African NGO-Government Partnership GEF
for Sustainable Biodiversity Action
Regional
Botanical and Zoological Taxonomic GEF
Networks in Eastern Africa (BOZONET):
Linking Conservation toTaxonomy
Conservation and Sustainable Use of GEF
Biodiversity
in
the Gregory Rift Valley Lakes
Regional
Regional
Eastern Africa Regional Wetlands Through
Conservation and Support Programme
IUCN
Uganda
Uganda
Lake Victoria Partnership
Striga management
Sida
Ghana
Biodiversity Conservation of Lake
Bosumtwe Basin
Northern
Savanna
Biodiversity
Conservation (NSBC) Project
Integrated Management of the Volta
River Basin
Protected Areas Management and
Sustainable Use (PAMSU)
Institutional Support for the Protection of
East African Biodiversity
Reducing Biodiversity Loss at CrossBorder
Sites
in
East Africa
Lake
Victoria
Environmental
Management
Community-based Natural Resources
Management
and
Biodiversity
Conservation in the Lukanga Swamps
Watershed Area
Securing the Environment for Economic
Development (SEED)
GEF
Ghana
Regional
Uganda
Regional
Regional
Regional
Zambia
Zambia
Regional
Regional
Rockefeller
Foundation
Linkage
Planning for a full project. One of the threats to
protected areas is invasives (eg Prosopis in
Awash & Yangudiras National Parks).
Invasive species pose threat to in situ
conservation sites (Bale Mountain National
Park and surrounds)
Preparation of the NBSAP, participation in the
CHM, preparation of country report to COP
In Ethiopia focuses on Important Bird Areas.
Multi-stakeholder development of action plans
to conserve biodiversity.
Taxonomic capacity is necessary for early
detection of invasive species.
Development of a strategic action plan for the
lakes. This should include protection from
invasives.
Includes
policy
development,
research,
capacity building, awareness, monitoring, all
areas of potential linkage.
Water hyacinth is a problem in Lake Victoria
Research on methods for managing an
invasive
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
Includes biological control of water hyacinth.
GEF
GEF
Control Infestation and Translocation of GEF
Aquatic Weeds (WB implemented PDFB in SADC).
International Mycoherbicide Programme DANIDA
for Eichhornia crassipes Control in Africa
Includes sustainable economic development of
Kafue and Mosi-oa-Tunya national parks,
where invasive plants are present.
Most of the problem weeds to be controlled are
alien. Linkages on control methods.
Developing
biopesticide.
an
environmentally
benign
110