PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)
PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT
THE GEF TRUST FUND
S
Re-Submission Date: 28 September 2007
PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3428
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 2760
COUNTRY (IES): Tanzania
PROJECT TITLE: Extending the Coastal Forest Protected Area
Subsystem
GEF AGENCY (IES): UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNERS: Forest Agencies of Governments of
Tanzania and Zanzibar, National Environment Management Council
(Tanzania) & WWF East African Office
GEF FOCAL AREAS: Biodiversity
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM (S): SFM-BD-SP3
INDICATIVE CALENDAR
Milestones
Expected
Dates
Work Program (for FSP)
Nov 2007
CEO Endorsement/Approval
Dec 2008
GEF Agency Approval
Feb 2009
Implementation Start
March 2009
Mid-term Review
Dec 2011
Implementation Completion
March 2014
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Project Objective: The spatial coverage and management effectiveness of the Coastal Forest PA sub system is expanded and strengthened.
Project
Components
1.
Governance
framework
for PA
expansion
2.
Institutional
Capacity
within PA
authorities in
Zanzibar and
Tanzania
mainland is
strengthened
Type
Expected Outcomes
TA
TA
0.2mill ha (70% of
total) of CF
landscape under
improved
conservation.
Improved coverage
of CF in PA system,
with > 2 BD
important CF blocks
up-graded as FNRs.
>10 non-protected
patches gazetted as
new PAs.
-Management
effectiveness
indicator for PA
institutions shows
improvement over
baseline (the project
will use a systemic
management
effectiveness
indicator scorecard—
this will cover the
different spheres of
government)
- PA management
mainstreamed into
land use planning (to
contain negative
externalities from
development)
- Incidence of threat
reduced as the rate of
interception of
malfeasance
increases
Expected Outputs
Indicative GEF
Financing*
($)
%
Indicative Cofinancing*
($)
%
Total ($)
- Addendum to Conservation
Strategy for CF for PA
reclassification
- Information needed to satisfy
gazettal requirements in place
- PA boundaries established
- Participatory management
planning undertaken, leading to
preparation of management Plans
and regulations for all sites
- Legal work undertaken to
facilitate PA gazettal
1,000,000
50
1,000,000
50
2,000,000
National Level Institutions
- Systems plan in place defining
staffing structures, roles,
responsibilities, competencies,
deployment, administrative
processes, accountability and
decision making capabilities,
financial management and human
resource management.
-Improved systems level
operations systems ensures
optimum deployment of system
resources (funds, staff,
equipment) to address hotspots
under pressure
- PA Business Plans prepared for
all new/ reclassified NPs/ FNRs
- PA managers/ rangers skills set
in place in NPs/ FNRs for
conservation functions
(enforcement, policing, reporting,
survey/ monitoring work,
participatory management)
- Systems in place (reporting,
records and action) to over see
1,000,000
50
1,000,000
50
2,000,000
1
district level policing.
District Level Institutions
- PA management integrated into
district land use plans in 6
districts;
- Permissible sustainable uses
defined in FRs to guard against
contra –conservation use
- PA Business Plans prepared for
all new Forest Reserves under
district jurisdiction
- PA managers/ rangers skills set
in place in FRs for conservation
functions (sustainable use
oversight, enforcement, policing,
reporting, survey/ monitoring
work, participatory management)
- PA enforcement functions
strengthened, with enforcement
activities designed and executed
using enforcement economics as a
basis for defining the minimum
deterrent needed to enforce
regulations
3. New PA
management
options and
partnerships
piloted
TA
Reduced pressures on
coastal forests from
forest-adjacent
communities
1,200,000
27
3,300,000
73
4,500,000
350,000
28
900,000
72
1,250,000
3,550,000
36
6,200,000
64
9,750,000
- 5 JFM systems in place for PAs
in locales where this is seen as
necessary as a solution against
threats (institutions established,
roles and responsibilities defined
and participants trained to provide
management oversight). The total
area covered is 98,000 hectares.
- Sustainable use thresholds
established (timber, firewood,
charcoal)
- links to sustainable domestic
markets established (through
parallel donor schemes aimed at
improving charcoal management
or improving supply chain
management)
- Sustainable use monitoring and
adaptive resource management
systems piloted
4. Project
management
Total costs
B. INDICATIVE FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
Project Preparation
Project
GEF Grant
Co-financing
100,000
3,550,000
150,000
6,200,000
Total
250,000
9,750,000
Agency Fee
Total
365,000
4,015,000
365,000
10,365,000
6,350,000
C. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE ($), IF AVAILABLE
Co-financing Source
Project Government Contribution
Cash
0
In-kind
Total
600,000
600,000
2
Co-financing Source
Cash
GEF Agency (ies)
Bilateral Aid Agency (ies)
Multilateral Agency (ies)
Private Sector
NGO
Total co-financing
350,000
3,500,000
0
250,000
1,500,000
5,600,000
In-kind
Total
0
0
0
0
0
600,000
350,000
3,500,000
0
250,000
1,500,000
6,200,000*
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA (S), AGENCY (IES) SHARE AND COUNTRY (IES)*: N/A
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO SOLVE IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL BENEFITS :
1. Tanzania has an extensive Protected Area network covering 27% of the land area (almost 250,000 km2).
The Network provides the mainstay of national policies and associated efforts to conserve the country’s high
biodiversity values. The PA network includes 651 national sites in several management categories operating
under different institutional jurisdictions. The categories are (in declining order of conservation standing):
National Parks, Forest Nature Reserves, Game Reserves, Forest Reserves and the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area1. Village Forest Reserves / Wildlife Management Areas may be established at local levels. In spite of the
vast coverage of the PA estate, gaps remain in terms of ecosystem representation, particularly in the ‘higher’ PA
categories which provide the greatest long-term conservation security. Recent national analyses (e.g. BSAP,
Tropical Forest Action Plan) have identified two main gaps: (i) the globally significant Coastal Forests
“Hotspot”; and (ii) National Parks in Southern Tanzania, as not representative of biodiversity patterns and
processes. The Government has requested GEF support via UNDP to strengthen biodiversity management
fundamentals within the PA network, by improving bio-geographic representation within it. This project deals
with the first of these concerns, and will be complemented by a second project to be submitted in the latter half
of GEF IV to address the second. While conceptualized as a larger PA initiative, a two-pronged approach is
needed to address different ecological and institutional fundamentals that characterize these spatial priorities.
2. Tanzania has three distinct forest-based global biodiversity “hotspots”. These are the Eastern Arc Forests
(95% in Tanzania), the Albertine Rift Forests (5% in Tanzania) and the Coastal Forests (CF) shared with Kenya
and Mozambique, with 40% in Tanzania. This project addresses the Coastal Forests ecosystem, arguably the
most threatened of all hotspots on earth2 with extremely high endemism - approaching 25% in woody plants,
and up to 50% in less mobile animal taxa. Coastal forests in Tanzania exist as small fragmented forest patches
on a variety of substrates each with a distinct set of taxa, with high gamma diversity. There are some 103
recognized CF patches, grouped into 6 distinct priority landscapes, including Zanzibar; and covering almost
1,200 sq kms of closed evergreen forest, doubled when including adjacent coastal woodland areas.
The distribution of these patches is summarised in the following tables (and see map in Annex I):
Priority Landscape
Country
Arabuko - Mombasa
Shimba/Kwale to
Lowland Usambaras
Usambara - Gendagenda
Pugu Hills DSM
Zanzibar & Pemba
Matumbi – Kilwa
Lindi - Rondo
Kenya
Kenya &
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Area
Forest ha
43000
16000
No forest
patches
12
25
No plant
endemics
> 25
>35
32000
3300
7000
7000
5000
8
5
7
5
5
>10
>12
>10
>8
> 80
Notes on Conservation Support
USAID and others
Site of GEF – UNDP Project (2007 -11)
Support via Finnida/WWF
Support by NGO coalition
Support by Norad/Care, GEF in 1992
This project (past GEF in Jozani)
This Project
This project
PT1 The conservation security for biodiversity varies within PA categories. At the better protection level: National Parks
require an Act of Parliament to degazette, and permit no extractive use. Forest Nature Reserves require notification in
Parliament before the Minister can degazette, and allow no extractive use. Game Reserve denotification needs noting in
Parliament; tourist hunting is permissible. At the lower end: Forest Reserves can allow any forest practice from complete
protection to plantations with exotic species, and may be degazetted by the Minister. Forest Reserves are administratively
categorized into protective or productive categories; many are managed by Districts on behalf of the central Government.
2
In terms of remaining forest cover, as a proportion of past cover; and numbers of endangered taxa per ha of extant forest.
3
Zanzibar – Pemba
Landscape
Forest Patch Name
Area (Ha)
Jozani
5000
Tumbatu
3000
Kiwengoma
3000
Unguja Coral Rag *
.. 30000
Ngezi FR (Pemba)
1800
Pemba Coral Rag *
.. 30000
Pemba Ras Mikuyu
2000
Matumbi – Kilwa Landscpe
Forest Patch Name
Kierengoma
Kichi Hills *
Kitope
Tongomba
Namkutwa-Nyamute
Area (Ha)
3500
1400
3400
2500
4600
Lindi-Rondo Landscape
Forest Patch Name
Rondo
Noto Plateau *
Litipo
Chitoa
Ungazetted fragments
Area (Ha)
14000
? patches 1500
1000
5900
1000
Areas are Total Reserve, not all is closed forest (woodland scrub). * Patches are Not Gazetted
Overall endemism is high, with 1750 out of 4050 species endemic to the eco-region (including 28 endemic
genera). Of these 70% are restricted to closed forests/thickets, and 40% are restricted to wetter lowland forest.
Species turn over is high – with forests <100km apart having 80% difference in plant species (70% millipedes).
Site fidelity is high with over 40% of all plant endemics being restricted to a single site. Within the eco-region
there are two main Centres of Endemism (South Kenya {Kwale} to Usambaras in Tanzania, and Lindi Region,
in Lindi the Rondo Forest alone has >60 plant endemics. Other taxa include 12 endemic birds out of 663
species, (Pemba Island is an Endemic Bird Area); 54 endemic reptiles out of 250 species, and millipedes have
>80% endemism and mollusks >70% endemism. Recent details are given in Conservation International’s 2004
Book “Hotspots Revisited” (pp 231-239 on Coastal Forests), see also WWF’s Eco-Regions of Africa (2006).
Detailed scientific analysis started with Burgess, Clarke and Rodgers (1998) Coastal Forests of East Africa:
Status, Endemism Patterns and Causes; Biol J Linnean Society 64 (337-367); and the book “Coastal Forests of
East Africa”, by Burgess and Clarke with Conservation chapters by Rodgers, 2002, IUCN Cambridge.
3. Tanzania has two separate command spheres for biodiversity conservation, namely mainland Tanzania and
the Zanzibar Islands. On the mainland, the Forest and Bee-keeping Division of Government; soon to be
upgraded as the Tanzania Forest Service, is responsible for managing Forest Nature Reserves and some Forest
Reserves. In 1977, Forest Reserves that were considered to have no significant national catchment or timber
values (i.e. most Coastal Forest patches) were passed to district administrations to manage as part of Tanzania’s
decentralization process. District authorities, which also manage timber-rich woodland around CFs, generally
have few staff, limited funding and little conservation interest or capacity. Zanzibar has a separate Forest
Agency: “The Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry” with its own policy, legislative and
funding processes. Whilst responsible for administering terrestrial National Parks, the Department does not
function as a Protected Area Authority per se and lacks the mandate/capacity to administer new PAs effectively.
4. Recently, mainland Tanzania has begun efforts to upgrade Forest Reserves into National Parks, or Forest
Nature Reserves, which have a higher protection status. Zanzibar has created a National Park and Nature
Reserve. Tanzania is considering gazetting additional areas on the mainland as Forest Nature Reserves.
However, this exercise is incomplete, and significant forest patches remain under-protected, either as poorly
managed Forest Reserves (>70), or lying outside the PA system. Altogether 20 distinct patches have no
protected status, including areas of high endemism and areas providing ecological connectivity between forests.
This means that important components of CF biodiversity remain unprotected within the national PA network.
5. Under an ineffective management scenario, CF patches are being threatened by encroachment, by over
harvesting (timber, poles, fuel, hunting), and degradation by fire. Non-gazetted patches are converted (legally)
to cultivation; and forest connectivity is lost. The normative solution to the conservation predicament facing the
coastal forests would be an expanded and effective PA network, encompassing forest sites with highest global
significance, co-managed by empowered national and local institutions to nationally mandated management
standards. The barriers hampering the achievement of this target condition are: (i) Systemic lack of capacity,
including: (a) Limited oversight by the national PA authorities of decentralized forest PA management entities
and little systematic conservation planning, management coordination, and monitoring; (b) Policy frameworks
governing PA management are often in-compatible with those governing development; the impacts of the latter
on conservation values are not being accommodated in the cost-benefit calculus that underpins decision
making; (c) There is limited business planning to tap into economic opportunities (i.e. tourism); (ii) Weak
4
institutional/individual capacity for protected areas management at all levels from on-ground to HQ
organizations; weaknesses include: mandates, funding, staffing and skills; and (iii) Limited landscape focus,
(a) PA management tends to be focused in situ at the PA site with little consideration of landscape level
fundamentals. There are two problems: first: local communities tend to be excluded from the management
process. As a consequence, their livelihood needs are often ignored, causing them to perceive that PAs generate
few benefits but impose high costs. This is an impediment to efforts to ‘upgrade’ protection or bring
unprotected lands into the PA system. This is compounded by the fact that an open access situation tends to
prevail within Forest Reserves and un-protected forests under district jurisdiction, meaning that forest adjacent
residents do not benefit from conservation. Second, there is limited buffer zone” management in woodlands
abutting coastal forests. Un-sustained harvesting of woodland resources imposes externalities on coastal forest
patches, causing encroachment as resources are depleted. Uncontrolled woodland fires pose a further hazard.
6. The proposed project aims to increase the extent of the Coastal Forest PA systems, and demonstrate ways to
improve their management effectiveness. The main expected outcomes are: (i) Governance framework for PA
expansion created: will result in: (a) Coastal Forest patches gazetted and managed with cost-effective and
sustainable approaches as Protected Areas; (b) Appropriate policy, regulatory, financial and institutional
governance frameworks will be in place, covering the PAs and peripheral “buffer” resources, and providing for
PA functions such as enforcement, planning and site monitoring; (c) Coordination and collaboration among
district and central government protected area level institutions for protected area planning and management,
lead to improved conservation; and (d) financial sustainability plans developed and implemented within all
areas in the network-capitalising on existing/potential tourism and energy scenarios; (ii) Institutional Capacity
within PA authorities in Zanzibar and the mainland is strengthened, to deliver mandated conservation functions
and ensure that conservation efforts are better integrated with development programs; and (iii) New protected
area management options and partnerships trialed at three highest priority landscapes in Zanzibar (57,000ha);
the Kichi–Matumbi Hills (26,000 ha) and greater Rondo system on the Tanzanian mainland (15,000ha). This
involves constituting PAs into core / buffer areas incorporating coastal forests and woodlands, under comanagement with forest-adjacent communities. The project will pilot novel institutional arrangements for this.
B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS
7. The project is aligned with the National Forest Policy (1998) and subsequent Forest Act (2002) which
require the conservation of Forest Biodiversity and single out the Coastal Forests as a global and national
priority. Tanzania’s PRSP (MKUKUTA) includes a focus on Forest Conservation, recognizing the need to
ensure an equitable sharing of benefits from management. The project supports the Tanzanian elements of the
Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Eco-region Strategic Framework for Conservation (2005 –2025); and mainland
Tanzania and Zanzibar have agreed to the Coastal Forest Strategy, committing to expand the PA network. The
Project will be implemented through innovative partnerships (centre – district, and government - civil society)
based on the collaborative National Coastal Forest Task Force, set up under the said Strategic Framework.
C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND FIT WITH STRATEGIC
PROGRAMS:
8. This project satisfies the requirements for GEF financing under the new Strategic Priorities for the recently
approved Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management; biodiversity sub program namely, SOI: “Conservation
of Globally Significant Forest Biodiversity”, and within this SO, SP3 – “Extending and Strengthening
Terrestrial Protected Area Networks”. This will include gazettal of new Forest Nature Reserves, and re
classification of priority Forest Reserves under insecure District administration as priority National Forest
Reserves, under the administration of the National Forest Service. Collectively, these measures will serve to
increase the area under effective PA administration for biodiversity conservation and improve forest security.
D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES
9. The project will collaborate closely with other related initiatives in Tanzania. One priority is the WB-GEF
led Marine and Coastal Programme in both the mainland and on Zanzibar. The WB project focuses on
mangroves, and this project on dry coastal forest. There are potential synergies in the development of tourism
networks and efforts to strengthen district management capacity. Further priorities are the World Bank
DANIDA supported Community Forest Programme; and the WWF Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Eco-region
5
Program. The GEF approved funding through UNDP for a sister project in Kenya, that will strengthen the PA
network in Kenya’s coastal forests and is supporting buffer zone management in the Arabuko-Sokoke coastal
forest through the GEF Commercial Insects Project. Close linkages will be maintained with these initiatives. An
associated SFM MSP is planned to address deforestation in western miombo woodlands, reversing poor
agriculture/livestock practices through improved village land-use plans; this is a conceptually different
initiative, focusing on different institutions—and is not focused on protected area management as a vehicle for
forest conservation. The two initiatives will be implemented in parallel, to share lessons and capture synergies.
E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT
10. Without this GEF intervention, there will be a continuing loss of globally significant biodiversity values in
the coastal forests, as un-protected forests are converted to cultivation, and Forest Reserves are overused and
degraded through uncontrolled burning. The continued relegation of the management authority for important
forest patches to District administrations will erode the conservation status of these areas. The Project
Alternative will generate global benefits directly in an area estimated at 98,000 ha across 3 of the 6 priority
conservation landscapes; and indirectly in an additional 150,000 ha. At least two forest blocks of biodiversity
importance will be designated as Forest Nature Reserves (with a longer term target of one Nature Reserve per
Landscape); and at least ten priority forest patches gazetted as FRs under secure management arrangements
with oversight of national authorities. Over 15 “buffer” Village Forest Reserves will be created around forest
PAs in priority landscapes. Collectively, project actions will improve the conservation status of a significant
proportion (70 %) of the coastal forest patches that presently are considered to be under protected and at risk of
degradation.
F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT
OBJECTIVE (S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED. OUTLINE THE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES, INCLUDING
IMPROVING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE, THAT THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO UNDERTAKE:
G.
Risk
Significant increases in externally driven
pressure on forest and protected areas resources
– e.g. logging pressures (Asia’s demand for logs
continues), mining.
Rating
Medium
The Planned Tanzania Forest Service may
receive little public support and not attract core
funding. (Same for reforms in Zanzibar)
The District – Central partnership on managing
coastal forests is not practical, leaving us in past
state of uncertain mandates.
That village communities do not benefit from
the VFR process and use CF and Woodlands as
a source of easy income (logs, charcoal), with
less conservation support.
Climate change could lead to both changed
distributions of BD components, and changes in
village demands on forest resources.
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Risk Mitigation Measure
The scale of the past problem and level of government / public
reaction suggests that sustainable use will prevail. This project is
involved at landscape level, with focus on governance processes
from CF to peripheral woodland resource. The project links to
WWF’s initiative on China - Eastern Africa forest trade.
There is strong support at present (e.g. the recent statements of Chief
Secretary and Minister). Recent policy provides for stronger
partnership with CSOs with real involvement on ground.
There has been much analysis in this process, by many stakeholders.
Tanzania is looking at case history carefully, with honest analysis,
which will be in the TFS Framework.
There is considerable investment into Community Based Natural
Resource Management process. VFRs are Community Managed,
WB / Danida funding provides support to these CFM inputs, seeking
to ensure sustainable benefit flows to whole village communities.
A focus on landscapes (as opposed to small patches), with sufficient
buffer zone protection militates against short-term change. The
maintenance of forest cover is good adaptation policy.
DESCRIBE, IF POSSIBLE, THE EXPECTED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT:
11. The small area of remaining coastal forests, coupled with its high endemic biodiversity endowment, places
a conservation premium on this ecosystem type. Once degraded, the costs of rehabilitating this ecosystem are
high, calculated at up to US$ 500 per hectare. The costs of the management strategy proposed herein are
considerably lower—estimated at below US$ 100 per ha per year (including co-finance). Moreover, coastal
forest degradation is known to cause irreversible population losses for some taxa groups, meaning that
rehabilitation is not a feasible approach. A precautionary approach to management of this ecosystem is justified.
Cost efficiencies will be tapped by: (i) improving institutional effectiveness, thus ensuring that the impact-perunit investment is improved; sharing management benefits and costs with other stakeholder groups; and (ii)
managing protected areas at a cluster level, rather than as individual sites, thus generating economies of scale.
H.
JUSTIFY THE GEF AGENCY COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE
6
12. UNDP is selected as the GEF IA by the Government to implement this project. UNDP has considerable
experience in the arena of forest biodiversity protection in Tanzania, as is the case across East Africa, working
with a broad swathe of partner institutions and stakeholders. Past and ongoing forest conservation initiatives
funded by the GEF and implemented through UNDP include the completed Cross Borders Project (a post facto
evaluation of this project has recently been conducted by the GEF Evaluation team, which registered it as a
success), and Jozani Forest initiative in Zanzibar, which set up the first National park in Zanzibar (this PA is in
the coastal forest biome), and on going Eastern Arc Forests Project. Moreover, UNDP is the GEF IA for the
approved Coastal Forests MSP in Kenya. UNDP is thus in a good position to ensure inter-project learning.
UNDP is a member of the Coastal Forest Task Forces. UNDP will provide co-finance for technical assistance,
and cement linkages to governance issues. UNDP’s country programme in Tanzania places emphasis on
environmental governance and associated capacity building. Weak governance is ultimately responsible for
coastal forest extirpation, and it efforts to improve governance and institutional capacities are of-the-essence.
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OFPS AND GEF AGENCIES
A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT (S) ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT
Mr. E. Mugurusi OFP Director Environment
Vice President’s Office Govt of Tanzania
Date: 13 August 2007
B. GEF AGENCY (IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for project
identification and preparation.
John Hough
UNDP/GEF Deputy Executive Coordinator a.i.
Date: August 28, 2006
Nik Sekhran,
Project Contact Person:
Tel: 27-829642384
nik.sekhran@undp.org
7
Annex I: Map of Conservation Area
8