TANAPA Southern Tanzania PAs: PIF

advertisement
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)
PROJECT TYPE: FULL SIZED PROJECT
THE GEF TRUST FUND
Submission Date: 7 April 2009
Resubmission date: 16 April 2009
PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
INDICATIVE CALENDAR*
GEF PROJECT ID1:
PROJECT DURATION: 60 months
Milestones
Expected Dates
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 3253
mm/dd/yyyy
COUNTRY: Tanzania
Work Program (for FSP)
TBD
PROJECT TITLE: Strengthening the Protected Area Network in
CEO Endorsement/Approval
Dec 2010
Southern Tanzania: Improving the Effectiveness of National Parks in
Agency Approval Date
Feb 2011
Addressing Threats to Biodiversity
Implementation
Start
Mar
2011
GEF AGENCY: UNDP
Mid-term Evaluation (if
Sep 2013
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER: Tanzania National Parks
planned)
(TANAPA), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Tanzania
Project Closing Date
Mar 2016
GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(s): BD-SP3-Strengthening Terrestrial PA Systems
PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT (if applicable): NA
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Project Objective: The biodiversity of Southern Tanzania is better represented and buffered from threat within National Parks.
Project
Expected Outcomes
Components
Integrating
TA A working model for
management
integrating management of
of NPs and
NPs and wider production
broader
landscapes is piloted and
landscapes in
adapted in 7 Districts in
Southern
Southern Tanzania and
Tanzania
secures wildlife corridors
and dispersal areas covering
over 30,000 km2 in the
Ruaha–Usangu-Kipengere
and Kitulo– Livingstone
ecological landscapes
PAs expanded to
encompass ecologically
sensitive areas adjacent to
Kitulo NP (Mt Rungwe) and
Ruaha NP (Usangu Game
Reserve), totalling over
10,000 km 2 over baseline
of 10,712 km2.
No net loss of natural
habitat in major habitat
blocks identified as critical
for wildlife dispersal and at
least 40% reduction in
hunting pressures in these
blocks (baseline to be
determined during project
preparation).
Integrated landscape
management approach is
replicated by TANAPA in at
least one additional
ecological landscape in
southern Tanzania.
1
Expected Outputs
Inter-sectoral District land management
coordination mechanism is emplaced in
the Ruaha–Usangu-Kipengere- Kitulo–
Livingstone landscapes of Southern
Tanzania, to ensure that biodiversity
management in National Parks, and
wildlife migration corridors and
dispersal areas is factored into decisionmaking governing land use management.
GEF
Co-financing
($)
%
($)
%
775,000 16 4,150,000 84
Total
4,925,000
Tanzanian National Parks Authority
(TANAPA) and 7 pilot District
Authorities plan, implement, and
monitor biodiversity management
measures (systematic conservation plan
defines wildlife corridors and dispersal
areas, EIA and impact management
stipulations in place to avoid and/ or
mitigate development impacts in
sensitive areas, monitoring and reporting
systems are in place, and enforcement
measures are operational).
Kitulo NP is finally gazetted, with
Parliamentary approval secured. For
both Kitulo and Ruaha NPs, boundaries
for PA extensions are demarcated,
public consultations are completed and
management plans are prepared, taking
into account the outcomes for both.
TANAPA has a staffed community
extension services to ensure effective
engagement between communities and
park authorities and dispute resolution.
TANAPA has the competence and staff
skills to lead land use planning,
management and monitoring in
landscapes; to assess hydrological
Project ID number will be assigned by GEFSEC .
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
1
Project Objective: The biodiversity of Southern Tanzania is better represented and buffered from threat within National Parks.
Project
Components
Expected Outcomes
Expected Outputs
GEF
($)
%
Co-financing
($)
%
Total
dynamics, make predictions of climate
change trends and gauge long term
impacts on biodiversity conservation.
Operations
TA Core NP operations
Support for INV strengthened in Southern
NP
Tanzania covering over
Management
33,000 km2 leading to the
in Southern
effective detection and
Tanzania
deterrence of poaching and
fire risks. This is evidenced
in a reduction in poaching
activity, retaliatory wildfires
set by poachers, and grazing
of cattle where proscribed.
Systematic staff training programme
4,000,000 39 6,200,000 61
covering all aspects of PA operations
ensures 300 rangers and other field staff
meet necessary competencies for
planning, administration, conflict
resolution, policing and enforcement).
10,200,000
Funds, human resources and equipment
(surveillance equipment, ranger
uniforms and provisions, firefighting
equipment) are provided and deployed to
address threats to NPs in a cost effective
manner. [Business plans set cost co
efficients for all prescribed PA functions
and rolling operations plans define site
management priorities.]
Management Effectiveness
Score for NPs in Southern
Tanzania increased over the
baseline score by at least
40%. (baseline to be
determined during project
preparation).
Stable populations of
indicator species including
predators (lion, wild dog)
and ungulates (Elephant,
Buffalo and Sable antelope).
A joint (TANAPA-Community-DistrictPrivate Sector) stakeholder group
formed to address overall management
issues in NPs and adjacent Village
Wildlife Management Areas is
established (committee formed, joint
management plan developed, and joint
enforcement systems emplaced using the
Management Orientated Management
System(MOMS) in Ruaha NP (covering
a total area of 25,000 km2).
A sustainable finance plan is developed
approved and implemented for the NP
system. Business Planning is mandated
for all NPs, along approved best practice
guidelines Together, these define
management costs for different NP sites,
provides accurate revenue forecasts
(from gate fees, concessions, film rights
and other permissible uses to private
sector investments), and matches
revenue to priority management needs.
Project
management
Total
529,550
31 1,150,000
69
1,679,550
5,304,550 31 11,500,000 69
16,804,550
B. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE if available, ($)
Sources of Co-financing
Project Government Contribution
GEF Agency(ies)
Bilateral Aid Agencies
Multilateral Agencies
NGOs
Total Co-financing
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
Type of Co-financing
Cash from TANAPA
In Kind Support from District
Administrations and Forestry and
Beekeeping Division
Cash from UNDP
Amount
11, 000,000
500,000
11,500,000
2
C. INDICATIVE FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
Project Preparation Amount
GEF financing
Co-financing
0
0
0
Total
Project (b)
5,304,550
11,500,000
16,804,550
Total *
c=a+b
5,304,550
11,500,000
16,804,550
Agency Fee
530,455
530,455
*The GoT will request a GEF PPG amount of US$ 149,995 for Project preparation.
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY (IES), FOCAL AREA(S) AND COUNTRY(IES) NA
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO ADDRESS IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED:
1)
Tanzania is a major repository of globally significant biodiversity, ranking amongst the top countries in
tropical Africa in terms of the distinct eco-regions represented, and in species richness / species endemism. Tanzania
lies at the meeting point of six major bio-geographic zones (the dry Somali-Masai, the Soudanian savannas, the
Zambezian woodlands, the Guinea-Congolian forest, the coastal forest mosaic and the scattered afro-montane / afroalpine areas). Well over thirty major vegetation communities are recognized – housing more than 11,000 plant species,
with >15% endemism. The species inventory includes 300+ mammal species, over 1100 species of birds, one of the
largest avi-faunas in Africa, with 56 species of global conservation concern, and over 360 species of herpetofauna, of
which 99 species are endemic. Tanzania contains three areas designated by Conservation International as Global
Biodiversity Hotpots (Eastern Afro-montane forests, the Coastal Forests, and the southern reaches of the Albertine
Rift Forests to the far west), as well as eight WWF Critical Eco-Regions. These are the Albertine Rift Montane
Forest; Kenya-Tanzania Montane Forest; Eastern Arc Forest; Southern Rift Forest / Grassland mosaic; Coastal Forest
Mosaic; Guinea-Congolian Forest Mosaic; Acacia Savanna and Miombo Woodland. The Miombo woodlands and
Acacia Savanna of Tanzania constitute huge wilderness areas that support some of the largest assemblages of large
mammals in the World, including large herbivores (e.g. elephant, hippo, giraffe, buffalo); migratory plains game (e.g.
zebra, wildebeest, gazelle); and large predators (African wild dog, lions, leopards, cheetahs and two species of
hyena).The country is also a major staging post and destination for avifauna migrating south during the boreal winter.
2)
The high turnover of biodiversity across the landscape presents a challenge to conservation managers, as it
means large areas need to be managed so as to conserve a bio-geographically representative sample of biodiversity.
Protected Areas (PAs) provide the principal means for protecting the country’s biodiversity values. The PA network is
amongst the largest in Africa, covering 27% of the land area (almost 250,000 km2), and consists of 651 sites. There are
several categories of PA, which operate under different institutional arrangements. These are (in declining order of
conservation standing): National Parks, Forest Nature Reserves, Game Reserves, Forest Reserves, the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area and Wildlife Management Areas. The national PA system includes 15 National Parks, 33 Game
Reserves, the NgoroNgoro Conservation Area, and over 600 Forest Reserves. These totals exclude Wildlife
Management Areas, Village Land Forest Reserves and Game Controlled Areas, most of which are on village land and
serve to regulate sustainable natural resource use, but also can act as corridors and dispersal areas for wildlife.
3)
The Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) is responsible for managing the network of National
Parks. National Parks2 provide the highest conservation standing of all the protected area categories. They are created
through an Act of Parliament, and require an act of parliament to be degazetted, which is difficult to secure. Other PA
categories allow the Minister to degazette areas via simple notification of parliament. Moreover, National Parks permit
no extractive use, unlike other PA categories. As National Parks have higher inherent opportunity costs than other PA
categories, they are likely only ever to cover a small part of the PA estate (currently NPs cover 19% of the PA estate
or 46,523 km2). However, the security they afford means that they provide an important safety net for biodiversity.
Table 1 below provides an overview of the NPs. These are sub divided into categories: the Northern Circuit in
northern Tanzania, and the less known Southern Circuit (22,069 km2) in the Country’s South, which consists of 7
sites, several of which have been established within the last decade, and is important in terms of its bio-geographic
representation.
2
Registered on the WDPA as IUCN Category II PAs.
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
3
NP
Northern Circuit
Arusha
Kilimanjaro
Lake Manyara
Mkomazi
Saadani
Rubondo Island
Serengeti
Saanane
Tarangire
Southern Circuit
Gombe
Katavi
Kitulo Mountains
Mahale Mountains
Mikumi
Ruaha
Udzungwa
Established
Area
Ecoregion
1960
1973
1960
2008
2005
1977
1951
Proposed
1970
552 sq km
1668 sq km
330 sq km
3,245 sq km
1,100 sq km
457 sq km
14,763 sq km
500m2
2850 sq km
Afro Montane Forest
Afro Montane Forest
Acacia Commiphora Woodlands / Lakes
Acacia Commiphora Woodlands
Coastal Woodlands
Equatorial Rainforest / Lake Victoria
Savannah Grassland and Acacia Commiphora Woodlands
Savannah Woodland Mosaic
Acacia Commiphora Woodlands
1968
1974
2005
1980
1964
1964
1992
52 sq km
4,471 sq km
465 sq km
1,613 sq km
3,230 sq km
20,300 sq km
1,990 sq km
Albertine Rift Forests and Grasslands
Western Miombo Woodlands
Southern Rift Forests and Grasslands
Albertine Rift Forests and Grasslands
Eastern Miombo Woodlands
Miombo Woodland/ Acacia Commiphora Woodlands ecotone
Eastern Arc Mountain Forests and grasslands
4)
The National Parks System is underpinned by strong policy and legislation, codified in the National Parks
Ordinance. This was enacted in 1951, but underwent a major revision in 1959. TANAPA operates as an independent
parastatal, and is allowed to retain funds earned from Park fees although it is required to pay income taxes to the
Treasury. National Parks in the northern circuit, including the Serengeti, Arusha and Mt Kilimanjaro NPs tend to be
effectively managed. Finally, the Northern Circuit is a source of considerable tourism income to the country. The
resulting national economic benefits have meant that NPs have consistently had a high place on the national policy
agenda.
5)
Despite these many positive fundamentals, the National Park estate still suffers from some shortcomings:

NPs are not wholly representative of the characteristically complex biodiversity patterns in Tanzania. The
Government is seeking to expand (gazette new areas) NPs and upgrade (to higher categories) other PA
categories to NPs, so as to improve bio-geographic coverage and conservation impact. In furtherance of this
policy, the Government has recently gazetted three new national parks covering inadequately represented
ecosystems, and is in the process of expanding three more. Expansion of the NP system is required in order to
improve bio-geographic coverage (gaps include swamp systems, montane grasslands, lakes, and some forest
types).

Although National Parks are relatively more effective than other PA categories at buffering biodiversity from
threats, they are not immune from threats such as poaching. Tanzanian national parks are not fenced, unlike
parks in Southern Africa, which is one reason why they support large wildlife numbers; wildlife tends to
disperse during the wet season. However, migration corridors and dispersal areas are being settled and farmed.
This is leading to increasing human wildlife conflict, to the detriment of wildlife; in some cases numbers have
declined drastically. Unplanned conversion of forest, woodland and wetland to both temporary (shifting
cultivation) and permanent agriculture is a major problem in some areas. Such conversion cuts movement
corridors, reduces dispersal areas, annexes dry-season water points, and reduces viable animal population
sizes. With annual rural population growth of 2.5%, and substantial rural poverty, these pressures are likely to
intensify. Climate change and economic depression will exacerbate such pressures. Moreover, new economic
opportunities, such as the development of a biofuels industry could lead to mass future land use conversion of
natural habitat in certain sensitive landscapes to tree plantations, particularly in wetter parts of Southern
Tanzania.

Some Parks are long established, Serengeti NP is over 50 years old; many others are new, and lack effective
management. A number of recent assessments have shown that the pressures facing NPs can be countered
through effective management. This is a need to improve management in several NPs in the Southern Circuit.

There is an almost total dependence on external tourist arrivals for NP financing; and the dependence on two
older, well established NPs on the northern Tourist circuit for some 75% of all revenues, the newer emerging
parks have very limited tourist inputs, and their revenues do not cover costs (see details in tables below).
This proposal aims to increase the effectiveness of the National Parks in protecting biodiversity and provide for the
long-term ecological, social and financial sustainability of that system. The focus will be on the new and developing
southern Tanzania National Parks. The long term solution underpinning the application is to build the management
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
4
effectiveness of these PAs, to reduce anthropogenic pressures on the sites and secure biodiversity status within them.
The project will develop capacity to apply, sustain and replicate innovative management practices across this estate.
6)
Two major barriers are currently impeding the attainment of the long term solution:
Integration of PA and Landscape Level Management: With the exception of the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem,
National Parks are currently being managed in isolation to the landscapes in which they are located. There is a need to
nest NP management in broader landscape level planning and management, encompassing “buffer zone” Game /
Forest Reserves and village based conservation areas as well as production areas used for agriculture or forestry. The
management system needs to be geared to maintaining vital corridors and wildlife dispersal areas. While the
Government recognizes the need for this, action has been hampered by the fact that the country has a complex
administrative system. The Central Government is responsible for establishing policy and ensuring its effective
implementation. Responsibilities for land use planning and management lie with District administrations. However,
these authorities have very limited capacity to integrate biodiversity management into their work, and lack the
scientific and socio-economic data needed to establish tradeoffs between conservation and economic imperatives.
Thus contra-conservation investments in agriculture or other land uses may be sanctioned, even where wildlife has
significant economic potential. Moreover, the capacity of Districts to regulate unplanned land conversion is weak.
This problem is compounded by inefficient integration of policing activities undertaken by different enforcement
units, for example TANAPA and the Police. A capacity deficit for integrated landscape management is also evident
within TANAPA itself. The complex institutional base, with several different agencies involved, requires careful
definition of roles and mandates within functional partnerships. Effective landscape planning will require negotiation
and conflict resolution, along with solid data sets for decision making and further development of institutional
competencies.
Many National Parks have adjacent Protected Areas, such as forest reserves, or wildlife management areas, which are
not, however, managed by TANAPA. Nature Reserves and critical national Forest Reserves are managed by the
Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, many other Forest Reserves fall
under District Administrations, while Wildlife Management Areas are managed by the Wildlife Division. In practice
coordination of management between these entities tends to be weak at the site level. Nevertheless, such coordination
will be critical to ensure the long term sustainability of National Parks, as uncoordinated management in these areas
simply serves to undermine biodiversity status within the National parks – particularly in some of the smaller sites.
One option is to reconfigure NP boundaries, in order to encompass ecologically sensitive areas. This is complicated by
the fact that there has been no comprehensive overview of PA representation gaps within the past two decades3. The
savanna and woodland ecosystems are relatively well represented in the PA network, in part because they harbour
large wildlife assemblages that are a draw-card for the economically important tourism industry. The northern
mountains and mountain forests are included in the Park network, but the forests, grasslands and wetlands of southern
Tanzania have a less complete coverage. Although many Forest Reserves were established, most were created to
provide forest products and, unlike National Parks, do not serve an overarching biodiversity conservation purpose.
Protected Area Operations: TANAPA maintains a staff presence in all its National Parks, with a total staff
complement of about 1700. Although staff are trained, there are a limited number of specialists. The Northern Circuit
has seen significant investment in PA infrastructure and equipment, with funds ploughed back from tourism receipts.
However, with the exception of Katavi NP, which has received funding from the Government of Germany, Mahale
Mountains, which has received funding from the EU and several NGOs, including the Frankfurt Zoological Society,
the Southern circuit has received limited funding and operational support. There is a need to expand operations to
cover new areas that the Government plans to incorporate into the NP estate, and to provide for boundary notification,
patrol equipment and other essentials, needed for effective policing and enforcement. Although all National Parks,
except Mkomazi and Ruaha, have Management Plans, there is a need to complement these with Business Plans, which
define the cost coefficients for different PA functions, defines revenue options, and ensure that scarce funds are
utilized optimally and are integrated into TANAPA’s overall business model. There is a need to establish partnerships
with tourism operators and other private sector actors, to support certain aspects of PA management. Finally,
community interests are still not adequately catered for in NP management, although TANAPA’s experience with
community conservation and the new land-use categories of wildlife management areas and village forest reserves
provide modalities for community inputs to conservation. Where communities have been excluded from PA
management, and as a consequence, where their livelihood needs have been ignored, majority perceptions remain that
PAs generate few benefits but impose high costs. While policies to work with communities are codified in national
legislation, improved mechanisms to operationalize and test these policies are still needed, as are experiences by
which to inform its wider constituency. At the national level there is still some lack of commitment towards
conservation approaches involving local communities. Existing legislation is not sufficiently understood by
3
Past detailed analyses include H Lamprey in 1975, TFAP in the 1980s, PAWM in 1994/5.
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
5
government officials on-the-ground and by local communities, leading to inconsistent implementation. Trust between
communities, powerful local resource users and government-authorities is often limited and needs to be improved.
Until late 2008, Tanzania’s National Parks Authority had undergone over ten year’s growth in revenues, of which 98%
came from tourism activities. The 2006/2007 annual financial report showed an income of 69 billion T Shs,
(57.5million $ at 2008 rates). This was 69% over 2005/6 figures, and three times that of 2002/03. However, there is a
huge revenue earning differential between parks. From the 14 parks documented in the 2006/7annual financial
statement, two parks (Kilimanjaro 42 % and Serengeti 33 %) raised over 75% of all revenue. The 7 southern parks
between them raised <1.5 % of all revenue. Whilst southern Park revenues increased from /06 to 07, this was minor,
and in ratios was less than the pattern of increase in the north. Currently, TANAPA covers its costs through the cross
subsidization of operations in PAs with limited income from PAs such as the Serengeti and Kilimanjaro NP, which
run at a surplus. However, the income received covers direct costs estimated at 50 billion shillings; it not sufficient to
fully cover the costs of managing the Southern Circuit. There is a need to increase the income earning potential of the
Southern Circuit, through promotion of tourism or other means, while also ensuring that operations are moulded to
ensure cost effectiveness and are prioritised to maximise threat abatement, per dollar invested. This will improve the
efficacy of the existing budgetary cross subsidisation scheme between the Northern NPs and the Southern Circuit.
7)
The project has been designed to address the afore-mentioned barriers through two complementary
components. Interventions will focus on the Southern Tanzanian Circuit, reflecting the fact that with some exceptions,
the management effectiveness of NPs in this region remains sub-optimal, relative to the Government’s desired levels.
Integrating Management of NPs and Broader Landscapes: The project will develop a working model for integrating
management of NPs with surrounding PAs or production lands in wildlife corridors and dispersal areas. Activities will
focus on two landscapes straddling 7 districts, namely the Greater Ruaha landscape and the Kitulo- Livingstone
Landscape (see map in Annex 1). These areas have been selected based on the following criteria: (1) Biodiversity
Significance; (2) Management Need; (3) Management Opportunity; and (4) Government Priority—both areas form
part of the economically important Rufiji River Catchment. The project will set up inter-sectoral district land
administration mechanisms and develop land use plans; to ensure that land in ecologically sensitive areas is allocated
to conservation compatible land uses. Development impact assessments will be undertaken, to define acceptable land
uses and management practices. Support will be rendered to strengthen the enforcement framework, to ensure
compliance and guard against chaotic, un planned economic development, which is leading to habitat degradation and
loss elsewhere in Tanzania. This effort will also seek to ensure that conservation activities within National parks that
lead to avoided GHG emissions or carbon sequestration are accounted for in the National Framework for REDD
(Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). The most critically sensitive areas from an ecological
perspective will be gazetted as extensions to the two NPs in the target landscapes: Ruaha NP and Kitulo NP. This will
bring in the region of 10,000 km2 into the NP estate, and in the case of Ruaha, ensure that a vital wet season wildlife
dispersal area in the Usangu Game Management Area receives effective protection, and in the case of Kitulo, will
expand NP coverage in the under-represented montane grassland biome. Results will be evaluated against control
areas, where there is no such intervention and good practices distilled for replication elsewhere in Tanzania.
Strengthening NP Operations: Component 1 will reduce the externalities imposed on National Parks from threats
outside NP boundaries. Component 2 will address threats within the NP boundaries by engineering the delivery of an
integrated package of PA management functions. Based on a needs assessment to be undertaken during further
preparation, the project will provide funding for basic infrastructure and field equipment across the Southern Circuit
Sites. An emphasis will be placed on building operations capacity at PA sites that have not previously benefitted from
such investment (i.e. Ruaha/ Kitulo NPs). This support will be accompanied by the development of business plans for
the sites, to define the optimum operations support needed to address threats in a cost effective and sustainable
manner. A systematic staff training program will be supported, geared to meeting staff competency needs. Finally, at
the national Systems level, the Project will assist TANAPA to develop a sustainable financing plan. This will provide
guidelines and norms for site based business planning, provide accurate revenue forecasts, expand income
opportunities (by developing new tourism products in NPs, particularly in the Southern Circuit, letting tourism
concessions in the Southern Circuit, promoting domestic tourism, and seeking investment funds from energy utilities
that benefit from PA management4), with a view to tapping the potential financial returns from the Southern Circuit.
8)
The two landscapes that will be the subject of intervention under the project are both important storehouses of
biodiversity, the status of which will be secured through Component 1. The Kitulo-Livingstone area comprises
Tanzania’s largest montane grassland community. This area is a repository of floristic diversity, with high diversity
found in the orchids, but also harbors red-hot poker, aloes, proteas, geraniums, giant lobelias, lilies and aster daisies.
Southern Tanzania is the country’s major watershed; the Rufiji River has its headwaters in the Livingstone Mountains, and
passes through Ruaha NP; both the Livingstone and Ruaha Landscapes provide important hydrological services, managing water
quality and quantity into downstream hydroelectric plants. There is an incentive for this industry to maintain these services.
4
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
6
Some 30 species are endemic to the area. The site is an Important Bird Area, harboring populations of endangered
blue swallow, Tanzania’s only population of Denham’s bustard, and range-restricted species such as mountain marsh
widow, and Kipengere seedeater. The Greater Ruaha landscape harbours huge wildlife assemblages, in particular of
African elephant (the area supports East Africa’s largest elephant population), has a high diversity of antelopes,
reflecting its location in an ecotone between the Acacia Savannas and Miombo Woodland, large numbers of predators,
including Lion, Leopard and Wild Dog and some 450 species of birds (the site is also an Important Bird Area).
Component 2 will ensure that all NPs in Southern Tanzania have the necessary operational capacities (human capital,
equipment and funding) to address threats to biodiversity within their borders. This will ensure that important samples
of six eco-regions are safeguarded within National Parks, and thus afforded the maximum security possible.
B.
DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL/REGIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS:
9)
The project is aligned with the National Parks Policy, National Forest Policy, the Wildlife Policy and
Environmental Policy of Tanzania. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan stress the importance of
Southern Tanzania’s National Parks and highlight the fact that they have received relatively less management attention
than the Northern Circuit. Tanzania’s Tourism Development Policy and Master Plan stresses the importance of
wildlife management as buttress for the tourism sector. While an economic analysis of the costs/benefits of National
Parks to tourism has not been undertaken, broad data sets from the Tourism Division of Government suggest that: 1)
Tourism receipts increased from US$ 259.44 million in 1995 to US$ 746.02 million in 2004, and that 90% of tourism
was based on wildlife (cf Kenya where >70% is coast based); 2) Tourism currently accounts for 16% of national GDP
(and is rising), and this wider economic impact of tourism is estimated at (2006) US$ 1,858 million and is anticipated
to reach US$ 3,699 million by 2015. 3). While the returns from the tourism industry have provided Tanzania with an
incentive to set aside large swathes of land as protected areas, most of the tourism is concentrated in Northern
Tanzania, and that region receives a disproportionate share of the benefit. Government policy aims at developing
tourism products in the Southern Circuit, both to develop conservation- compatible livelihoods that will provide a
utilitarian incentive for biodiversity management, but also to reduce the stresses placed on some Northern PAs from
visitors. Finally, Tanzania’s Vision 2025 and guiding development paper PRSP 2 or “Mkukuta” stresses the
importance of developing a fully representative system of Protected Areas including National Parks and highlights the
imperative of ensuring concordance between PA management and local governance systems for land use management.
C.
DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:
10)
This project satisfies the requirements for GEF financing under Strategic Objective one in the Biodiversity
Focal Area SP3 – “Strengthening Terrestrial Protected Area Networks”. The project takes a comprehensive approach
towards strengthening the management effectiveness of PAs in conserving biodiversity. The project will directly bring
an additional 10,000 KM2 of land into the NP estate, including under-protected wildlife dispersal areas and poorly
represented montane grasslands and wetlands. The accompanying operations support will improve the status of the
entire Southern NP estate. This will be achieved by improving accountability for decision making, monitoring and
adaptive management, through staff training, and the development of protocols for business planning and annual
operations planning. In order to ensure that existing management capacities and finances are not stretched unduly in
the process, the project addresses capacity needs at the systemic level--- particularly the need to improve institutional
coordination of PA management within landscapes, and integration of NPs into local area development framework.
The project also proposes steps to increase revenue earned by the Southern Tanzania NP system, including from
tourism, and potential investments from hydroelectricity and tourism industries in PA infrastructure and equipment.
D.
JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF FINANCING SUPPORT PROVIDED WITH THE GEF RESOURCES:
11)
GEF support will be provided entirely as grants for technical assistance and investment in management
demonstrations. The project is designed to lift barriers that are currently preventing the effective and sustainable
management of Tanzanian National Parks—in particular those Parks that do not currently generate major economic
returns. This will allow TANAPA to underwrite future NP management costs from its own financial resources.
E.
OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:
12)
This initiative forms part of a suite of GEF supported initiatives that aim at strengthening Tanzania’s complex
PA system (across different PA categories). A World Bank-GEF project is strengthening management of MPAs, while
a UNDP/WB-GEF Project has strengthened management of PAs in the Eastern Arc Mountains, an initiative managed
by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division. A new UNDP-GEF initiative will strengthen the PA sub system in the
Coastal Forests, while a UNDP-GEF supported MSP has created a corridor between the Selous Game Reserve and
Niassa Game Reserve in Mozambique. None of these initiatives work in National Parks, and only the latter works with
the wildlife sector--- the other projects focus on strengthening forest sector institutions. The Selous- Niassa Corridor
Project, the GEF funded component of which is scheduled to close in 2009, has provided valuable lessons pertaining
to the management of wildlife on village lands. This initiative also builds on past support rendered by GTZ / KFW to
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
7
the management of Katavi National Park, and past EU funding to the Northern Circuit NPs and to the Mahale
Mountains National Park as well as USAID support through NGOs to management of certain Northern Circuit NPs,
such as Tarangire NP. The proposed project aims at building on these interventions by supporting management in NPs
such as Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks, that have not received comparable support, and where PA management
effectiveness remains sub optimal. The project will be linked into a community of practice between UNDP-GEF
supported PA initiatives in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Zambia, Namibia and elsewhere, allowing for the cross fertilization of
lessons.
F.
DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT, DEMONSTRATED THROUGH
INCREMENTAL REASONING :
13)
Without this GEF intervention, there will be a continuing loss of globally significant biodiversity values in the
southern area of the Country, despite considerable intervention by the Government. This will happen in three ways.
Firstly, areas of biodiversity significance will remain excluded from the NP system. Secondly, there will be increased
isolation within core PAs, unless landscape planning provides for effective conservation management of dispersal
areas and corridors. Thirdly there will be increased pressures on core NPs, from resource dependent communities, and
reduced capacities / finance to provide adequate protection. Project interventions under the GEF Alternative will add
to, and support, government’s commitment to addressing these complex pressures and problems. Two important
ecological landscapes will be brought under higher management control. Two globally important NPs within them
will be expanded by 10,000 Km2 (doubling the baseline area) to encompass under protected but important
ecosystems. The integrity of these NPs will be secured by integrating their management with that of surrounding
landscapes and corridors on production lands, so safeguarding them from external pressures. This will address a major
threat to biodiversity in Tanzanian National Parks; there is considerable demand to develop a working model for such
integrated management. Moreover, the project will strengthen the management effectiveness of NPs with an
expanded area of 33,000 Km2, by strengthening institutional capacities within TANAPA and staff competencies and
skills for PA management. This will address a past deficit in investment for PA operations in the Southern Circuit.
G.
INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT
OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED, AND THE RISK MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN:
Risk
Landscape planning and subsequent
implementation of plans will be
affected by institutional intransigence,
reducing collaborative efforts between
NPs, District Councils and Villages.
Rating
L/M
The tourism down-turn continues for
longer and at deeper levels than
expected, thus even further reducing
financial viability of the Southern
Circuit.
L
Land pressure from local communities
and short term gain seekers reduce
attempts for rational landscape level
conservation.
Med
Climate change could lead to changed
distributions of BD components, and
changes in community and private
sector demands on wildlife and forest
resources.
Low
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
Risk Mitigation Measure
TANAPA has selected to work in landscapes where this risk will be
muted, and builds on strong Government will to strengthen
management of the NP Southern Circuit. The project will invest in
building conflict avoidance and resolution skills, and build on existing
institutional mechanisms such as district environmental committees,
and seek to cost economic tradeoffs between wildlife, tourism,
agriculture and other land uses and to reduce opportunity costs thus
reducing the prospects that institutions will not find common ground.
The NP system is heavily dependent on the tourism industry.
Bookings for 2009 are down year on year by 10%. While tourism
numbers are expected to decrease further, the situation is not as
serious as in some other destinations and tourism numbers are
expected to increase again in two years [The country has a number of
iconic attractions, such as Mt Kilimanjaro, Africa’s highest mountain,
which reduces the potential for destination switching.]. The project
strategy aims at building Tanzania’s capability to weather the
economic crisis, including by improving the cost effectiveness of
operations, expanding the tourism product in the Southern Circuit,
tapping into the under-serviced domestic tourism market and assisting
TANAPA to build its Operating Reserve during high tourism years.
Feasibility studies will be undertaken as part of the Systematic
Conservation Plans that will be prepared under component 1. The
project will seek to manage trade-offs between real development
needs and conservation actions within the PA system. Improved
enforcement will serve as a deterrent against rent seeking; the project
will therefore strengthen the enforcement capabilities of Government.
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 a good adaptation policy in the face of
uncertainty (because rainfall in this region is expected to increase; the
maintenance of watershed integrity is critical to avoid major floods).
8
H.
DESCRIBE, IF POSSIBLE, THE EXPECTED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT:
14)
The project might have focused solely on strengthening management of NPs without addressing landscape
level management in parallel. Instead, it seeks to avoid externalities from development outside PAs, that might
foreclose future opportunities for wildlife to access corridors between PAs and wet season refugia outside them. This
is already happening in Tanzania, where some landscapes have already been so altered that wildlife numbers have
fallen drastically (the problem being that the core NPs are not large enough to sustain large wildlife populations). The
project will provide an opportunity for managing NPs as part of a matrix of conservation compatible land uses,
through careful zoning of development and consideration of conservation-development tradeoffs in vetting
applications for development licenses. The important economic contribution made by wildlife tourism to the
Tanzanian economy makes this a workable strategy, as the tradeoffs may be substantial and provide an incentive for
damage avoidance. Another alternative would be to begin fencing PAs, as in Southern Africa, but this would stymie
vital ecosystem processes such as migrations, and as in Southern Africa, lead to a reduction in wildlife numbers.
Active management of meta-populations of threatened species would be needed, which is a costly undertaking. The
proposed approach is considered to be more cost effective in comparison, but is time sensitive in that a delay in the
intervention will reduce the opportunity to take preventive action, and would result in future costs being incurred in
ecosystem restoration, managing wildlife-human conflict, or more active management of wildlife meta populations.
I
JUSTIFY THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF GEF AGENCY:
15)
UNDP is one of the lead GEF agencies working on PA management in Africa; the UNDP-GEF PA portfolio
is strengthening management of 208 existing PAs with a total area of 47,161,194 hectares, and has helped to expand
the PA estate in Africa by gazetting 65 new PAs in the past four years, with a combined total area of 1,185,845
hectares. 35 PAs are in the process of being gazetted. UNDP has particular strengths, aligned to this initiative, in
creating effective PA governance systems and opening new financing options, so as to improve PA management
effectiveness. Component 1 is aligned with UNDP’s work on mainstreaming biodiversity management into economic
sector activities on production lands, including by strengthening institutional arrangements for land use planning and
management.
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF
AGENCY(IES)
A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT (S) ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S):
Ruth Mollel: Permanent Secretary Ministry of Environment
and Tourism, Government of Tanzania
Date:23 March, 2009
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.
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for project
identification and preparation.
Yannick Glemarec
UNDP/GEF Executive Coordinator
Date: April 16, 2009
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
Nik Sekhran,
Project Contact Person:
Tel: 27-829642384
[email protected]
9
Annex 1: Map of Tanzania Showing the Location of National Parks
Source: WWF/UNEP-WCMC, 2009
PIF PAF Tanzania National Parks
10
Download