PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)
PROJECT TYPE: Full-size Project
TYPE OF TRUST FUND: GEF trust Fund
PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Title:
Country(ies):
GEF Agency(ies):
Other Executing Partner(s):
GEF Focal Area (s):
Name of parent program (if
applicable):
 For SFM/REDD+ [ ]
Expansion and Strengthening of Angola’s Protected Area system
Angola
GEF Project ID:
UNDP
GEF Agency Project ID:
Ministry of Environment (MINAMB)
Submission Date:
Biodiversity
Project Duration(Months)
n/a
Agency Fee:
t.b.d.
4464
August 30 2011
60
580,000
A. FOCAL AREA STRATEGY FRAMEWORK:
Focal Area
Objectives*
Expected FA
Outcomes
Expected FA Outputs
Indicative
Financing from
the GEF TF ($)
BD1:
Improve
Sustainability
of Protected
Area System
1.1: Improved Increased coverage of threatened ecosystems and threatened
management
species:
effectiveness of
1. New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of
existing and
unprotected ecosystems.
new protected
2. New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of
areas.
unprotected threatened species (number).
Project management cost
Total project costs
Indicative
Cofinancing
($)
5,510,000
14,105,000
290,000
5,800,000
1,395,000
15,500,000
B. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Project Objective: To enhance the management effectiveness, including operational effectiveness and ecosystem representation of
Angola’s Protected Area System, with due consideration for its overall sustainability, including ecological, institutional and financial
sustainability.
Project
Component
Grant
Type
1. Legal,
Planning,
Policy,
Institutional
and Financial
Frameworks for
PA Expansion
and
Management
TA
Expected Outcomes
Expected Outputs
Improvement in key
indicators at the level of the
PA system show better
governance and capacity
for PA management:
- The Angolan Protected
Area Expansion Strategy
(APAES) is implemented
with full policy,
institutional and
regulatory backing,
resulting in: 23 of the
country’s 32 main
vegetation types being
represented in the PA
estate (from a baseline of
only 11 at present).
- By the end of the project,
the PA system will cover
91,370 sq km or 7.3% of
the national territory (from
a baseline of 82,320 sq km
or 6.6% -- see Table 3).
 PA system is effectively expanded,
incorporating 905,000 ha of new PAs (based
on criteria of ‘conservation importance’,
‘urgency’ and ‘opportunity’ – see
elaboration on this in Part II, B1) and in line
with the recommendations from the Angolan
Protected Area Expansion Strategy; this will
result in the establishment of 11 new PAs
(see Table 4), providing increased coverage
and significantly better bio-geographic
representation to critical ecosystems within
the PA estate.
 The overall financial sustainability of the
national PA system is improved through: (i)
improved government budgeting for and
public investment in PAs (reaching at
approx. $4 million p.a.); (ii) additional PA
financing is secured through partnerships
with private sector (oil and gas industry);
(iii) business planning and tools for costeffective PA management are developed and
implemented at the PA system’s level; (iv)
existing tools for revenue generation are
Indicative
Financing
from GEF TF
($)
1,000,000
Indicative
Cofinancing
($)
3,200,000
1
Project
Component
Grant
Type
Expected Outcomes
Improved financial
sustainability of national
PA system: by project
end, scores of the PA
Finance Scorecard
increase by 20% and the
annual financing gap for
optimal expenditure
scenarios decreases by
50% vis-a-vis the
baseline)
- Improved capacity for PA
system management at the
systemic, institutional and
individual levels: this is
evidenced by an increase
of 20% in the overall
results of the Capacity
Development Scorecard
Expected Outputs
-
2. PA
Rehabilitation
and
Management
models at
existing PAs
Inv /
TA
PA management
effectiveness assured in 3
priority national parks
(target PAs); this mitigates
direct threats to
biodiversity over an area of
at least 18,460 sq km
including varied vegetation
groups (forest/savanna
mosaics, Acacia/Adansonia
savannas and thickets,
edaphic grasslands,
swamps and Miombo
woodlands and savannas),
as evidenced by:
- Improved management
capacity in target PAs for
general management, PA
& business planning and
community engagement,
measured by 30%
increases in METT scores




improved (e.g. PA entry fees) and new ones
tested (e.g. concessions, licenses and levies);
(v) revenue retention within the PA system
is ensured; (vi) combining all of the above
elements, the financing needs of an enlarged
PA system are projected over 10 years (“PA
financing roadmap”) and a multi-faceted
strategy for meeting those needs enters into
fully-fledged implementation by the
project’s year 3.
A roadmap for fulfilling the management
needs of the 11 new PAs and for the further
expansion of the PA estate (in line with the
recommendations from the CBD’s Aichi
Target 11) is agreed upon, with its funding
needs duly built in the 10-year ‘PA finance
roadmap’.
Central level PA management capacity is
significantly enhanced: (i) National Institute
of Biodiversity and Conservation Areas
(INBAC) vested with a strong and clear
legal mandate for the establishment and
management of protected areas; (ii) it is able
to strategize, plan, monitor its results and
learn; (iii) it has improved capacity to attract
funding and enter into useful public- private
community partnerships to manage protected
areas; (iv) it has an adequate staff
complement with key HR skilled in
protected area planning and management
(with special focus on PA finance); and (v) it
is equipped to fulfil its institutional mandate
and has access to the necessary information
and knowledge for the purpose.
PA site rehabilitation and operationalisation
works completed at Quiçama, Cangandala
and Bicuar National Parks (NPs): (i) staffing
the PAs; (ii) building, rehabilitating and
maintaining infrastructure; (iii) procuring
and maintaining equipment; and (iv)
rendering, and outsourcing certain services
(e.g. wildlife monitoring and research).
PA management plans for Quiçama,
Cangandala and Bicuar NPs are
operationalised, and provide for: (i)
zonation of PAs for strict protection,
tourism, and sustainable use of natural
resources by PA adjacent communities; (ii)
the regulation and management of natural
resources within PAs and adjacent areas
(including sustainable use of resources by
communities); (iii) fire management system
emplaced; (iv) effective law enforcement
governing wildlife poaching; wood
harvesting and other natural resource use;
and (v) PA governance, including
Indicative
Financing
from GEF TF
($)
4,510,000
Indicative
Cofinancing
($)
10,905,000
2
Project
Component
Grant
Type
Indicative
Financing
from GEF TF
($)
Expected Outcomes
Expected Outputs
against baseline assessed
at project initiation
- Critical habitats within
target PAs actively
managed and the impact
of the intervention is
demonstrated by improved
ecological indicators (e.g.
vegetation cover,
incidence of fire, status of
indicator species)
- Populations for selected
taxa within target PAs
show improved ecosystem
management (species,
baseline, targets and
measurement methods
t.b.d. during PPG)
- Land use zonation within
PAs and in surrounding
areas is effective on the
ground by project end (as
independently assessed)
participation of PA adjacent communities in
PA management, and the development of
conflict resolution mechanisms;
 Systems and tools for monitoring key PA
management functions and outcomes are
operational in Quiçama, Cangandala and
Bicuar NPs: (i) METT assessments become
widespread tool for gauging the
effectiveness of PA functions and their
management; (ii) long-term ecological
monitoring systems are in place for targeted
species and ecosystems, establishing
thresholds for resource use and informing
PA management; (iii) monitoring
enforcement of regulations (including
effectiveness of surveillance, interception,
prosecution).
 The participation of PA adjacent
communities in conservation compatible
livelihoods activities (including employment
opportunities generated by PA rehabilitation
works) ease up the pressure on PA
resources.
Project management Cost
Total project costs
Indicative
Cofinancing
($)
290,000
5,800,000
1,395,000
15,500,000
C. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE AND BY NAME IF AVAILABLE, ($)
Sources of Co-financing
for baseline project*
National Government
GEF Agency
Bilateral Aid Agency (ies)
Private Sector
CSO
Total Co-financing
Name of Co-financier
Project Government Contribution
GEF Agency - UNDP Angola
Bilateral Aid Agencies engaged in BD management
Private Sector companies engaged in supporting conservation
International, national and local NGOs and Foundations
Type of Cofinancing**
Grant
Grant
Grant
In-kind
Grant and In-kind
Amount ($)
10,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
500,000
15,500,000
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY AGENCY (IES), FOCAL AREA(S) AND COUNTRY(IES)1
GEF
TYPE OF
AGENCY
TRUST FUND
UNDP
GEF TF
Total GEF Resources
1
2
FOCAL AREA*
Biodiversity
Country name/Global
Angola
Project
amount (a)
5,800,000
5,800,000
Agency Fee (b)2
580,000
580,000
Total c=a+b
6,380,000
6,380,000
In case of a single focal area, single country, single GEF Agency project, and single trust fund project, no need to provide information for this table
Please indicate fees related to this project as well as PPGs for which no Agency fee has been requested already.
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH:
A.1.1. THE GEF FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES:
The proposed project advances GEF Biodiversity Objective 1 “Improve Sustainability of Protected Area Systems” (BD1) and
specifically Outcome 1.1 “Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas”. Currently, the Angolan PA system
has two main weaknesses: first, the system falls short in terms of its bio-geographic representation—with several terrestrial ecosystems
3
currently under-represented1; second, constituent PAs in the current system have sub-optimal management effectiveness and are not
effectively mitigating the threats to ecosystems, flora and fauna. The project is designed to address both sets of weaknesses
simultaneously. It will improve ecosystem representation in the PA system and it will strengthen PA management operations at key sites,
as both sets of interventions are needed. This will be underpinned by investments at the system’s level, to strengthen the institutional
foundations and financing framework for PA management. The project will increase the coverage of terrestrial PAs in Angola to include
23 of the 32 mapped vegetation types (up from a current 11 vegetation types covered). As a result, the species-rich moist lowland,
escarpment and montane forests will be incorporated into the PA system, among other unique habitats that are currently not protected.
These ecosystems stand to be lost or degraded unless prompt action is taken to bring them under protection. The expansion will add
9,050 sq km to the existing PA estate, increasing the coverage from approximately 6.6% to 7.3% of the national territory. Through onthe-ground interventions planned under Component 2, the project will enhance the capacity of the PA authority to deliver PA functions,
including management planning, monitoring, surveillance of malpractices and law enforcement. It will also address the needs of PA
adjacent communities, for example by managing human-wildlife conflicts and developing activities that generate local socio-economic
benefits.
This is an opportune moment to strengthen Angola’s PA system as a whole, ensuring that it effectively fulfils its purpose as a storehouse
of protected biodiversity while safeguarding natural capital vital to development (including ecosystem services, such as water
provisioning, and future tourism development potential). Although the two-pronged objective, targeting both PA expansion and
rehabilitation, may seem ambitious at this juncture, a combined approach is critical given the current reality. Firstly, it is necessary to
increase PA management effectiveness of existing parks by taking immediate, pragmatic action on-the-ground to address threats. This
should not be postponed. Secondly, the areas identified for PA expansion have been selected based on the following criteria: (1)
importance (uniqueness, irreplaceability); (2) urgency (vulnerability, threat); and (3) opportunity (low societal cost of setting land aside
for conservation). Notably, the opportunity cost attached to land in Angola is increasing. There is currently a unique window of
opportunity to establish the planned new protected areas—which is likely to be foreclosed in the future. Angola’s economy is growing
fast; although the country faces severe social and economic problems, and remains a LDC, the fiscal situation is improving. The
Government is preparing to increase investment in PA management, to cover investment and recurrent costs. There is a need to develop
institutional capacities and know-how for PA management and cost effective management solutions, to ensure that these investments
yield solid environmental benefits. The project will address this need and by doing so, it will enhance the sustainability of the PA
system.
A.2. NATIONAL STRATEGIES AND PLANS OR REPORTS AND ASSESSMENTS UNDER RELEVANT CONVENTIONS, IF APPLICABLE:
The Government is requesting GEF funding for this project under the GEF V financing window, to advance its national policy priorities
for biodiversity conservation. The project is designed to implement key elements of Angola’s National Environment Management Plan
(NEMP, approved in 2009), its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, approved in 2006), and its National Protected
Areas Expansion Strategy (currently under development, based on a 2006 evaluation of the National PA System carried out by
MINAMB, and an earlier review carried out in collaboration with IUCN). 2 In particular the project is in line with the NBSAPs’ Strategic
Area C. ‘Biodiversity Management in Protected Areas’; E. ‘The Role of Communities in Biodiversity management’; F. ‘Institutional
Strengthening’; and H. ‘Management, Coordination and Monitoring’. The government of Angola recognizes its commitments as
signatory of the CBD and has undertaken in its Medium Term Economic and Social Development Plan (2009-2013) to promote
sustainable development and economic growth while systematically protecting Angola’s biodiversity and natural resources. In particular,
the government has shown a clear commitment to expanding the PA system, the Minister for Environment recently having set a target of
expanding by 2020 the PA system to cover 15% of the national territory. By increasing the area of the PA estate and strengthening PA
management effectiveness, this project will make a significant contribution to realisation of the revised CBD Program of Work on PAs.3
B.
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
B.1. DESCRIBE THE BASELINE PROJECT AND THE PROBLEM THAT IT SEEKS TO ADDRESS:
Global biodiversity significance. Angola is blessed with an exceptionally rich biodiversity endowment. With a land surface of
1,246,000 sq km, it boasts the greatest diversity of biomes and ecoregions in any single African country—from the desert biome of the
southwest, through arid savannas of the south, extensive miombo woodlands of the interior plateau, to the rainforests of Cabinda, Zaire,
Uige and Lunda Norte Provinces. Relict Afro-montane forests of considerable bio-geographic importance occur in isolated valleys of the
high mountains in Huambo, Cuanza Sul, Huila and Benguela provinces (Table 2). According to surveys undertaken in the 1970s, more
than 25% of Angola is covered by a mosaic of moist forest and tall grass savannas, of which a small percentage (2.2%) is moist
evergreen forest. 53% of the landscape is covered by miombo woodlands and savannas, and 11% by arid mopane and acacia savannas
and dry forests (Huntley 1974). The sheer size of the country and its inter-tropical geographical location result in high faunal and floral
1
This project will not deal with the challenges of providing adequate coverage to marine ecosystems in the PA system.
A new policy paper titled ‘Strategic Plan for the Protected Area Network’ outlines the core ideas behind Angola’s PA expansion strategy. It is being prepared for wide
discussion. It will eventually be submitted for approval by the Council of Ministers. The Plan will amongst other things take into account PA finance considerations.
3
In particular, Para 1(a) and (b) of decision X/31, where in Parties have agreed to enhance coverage, quality and representativeness of PAs; Para 32 (a) wherein Parties
have agreed to improve, diversify and strengthen PA governance types; Para 14 (a) and Target 11 wherein Parties agreed to take concerted efforts to integrate protected
areas into wider landscapes and seascapes and sectors, in order to address anticipated climate change impacts and increase resilience to climate change.
2
4
diversity, displaying a reasonable level of endemism4. The rich bird fauna includes 915 species, while 266 freshwater fish species have
been recorded. Accurate checklists for the country’s reptile and amphibian fauna are yet to be compiled, but at least 78 amphibian and
227 reptile species are known to occur. Over 6,650 species of plants have been recorded, including the unique Welwitschia mirabilis – a
‘living fossil’ representing one of the earliest known plant families. Also, the country harbours large mangrove forests (in the Congo,
Dande, Cuanza and Cunene river estuaries) and has a 1,610 km shoreline along the biologically rich Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem.
Threats to biodiversity. Angola’s terrestrial biodiversity, the focus of this project, faces growing threats linked to habitat / land use
change and overexploitation of natural resources. Deforestation driven by agriculture, livestock rearing and domestic energy production
(with 80% dependence on firewood and charcoal) has led to widespread degradation of forest ecosystems. The FAO estimated Angola’s
deforestation rates in 2003 as being 0.2% per annum – a rate believed to have gone up since. The country’s once abundant large mammal
fauna has been severely depleted, but scattered remnant populations of all 275 mammal species known from Angola have survived the
heavy hunting pressure that occurred during the long civil war and can recover over the long-term with appropriate wildlife management
measures.5
The Protected Area System. The Angolan PA estate is currently comprised of six national parks, one regional park, one strict nature
reserve and five partial reserves, all established during colonial times. The surface area covered by the estate amounts to 82,320 sq km
(Table 1). Management and oversight of the PA estate is the prime responsibility of MINAMB’s National Directorate for Biodiversity,
which manages most of the sites directly6 counting on a small technical team and, in the case of terrestrial PAs, support from park
wardens and forestry guards deployed by the Forestry Development Institute (IDF). The Institute is attached to the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development and Fisheries, and it is responsible for the management of forests and wildlife (e.g. issuance of
logging and hunting permits). In turn, MINAMB is responsible for the management of the sites themselves (e.g. infrastructure, landscape
management, control of access to sites). The combined operational budget of MINAMB and the Forestry Development Institute for PA
management is currently less than $1-1.5 million per annum, one of the lowest PA budgets in Africa. As a result, PA management
effectiveness is low and so is the overall national capacity for PA management (at the systemic, institutional and individual levels).
Many of the areas listed in Table 1 lack up-to-date management plans and their infrastructure requires rehabilitation—in many cases
having been destroyed during the war. Many sites have minimum personnel and equipment relative to their management needs. On a
more positive note, the Government is in the process of establishing the new National Institute of Biodiversity and Conservation Areas
(INBAC), which will assume operational responsibilities for PA management. Yet, much more is needed to raise the conservation
effectiveness of Angola’s PA system. Pursuing this goal is a priority to the extent that biodiversity conservation has become a national
priority, in part because of increasing recognition amongst policy makers of the importance of ecosystem goods and services to the
economy.
Table 1. The Protected Areas estate of Angola*
Name
Area, sq km
Category
Date of
Centre of endemism
Reference to vegetation
establishment
types in Table 3
Iona
15,150 National Park
1937
Karoo-Namib
21, 27, 28, 29
Cameia
14,450 National Park
1938
Zambezian
17, 31
Quiçama
9,960 National Park
1938
Zambezian
11, 23, 30
Luando
8,280 Strict Nature Reserve
1938
Zambezian
17, 18
Bicuar
7,900 National Park
1938
Zambezian
15, 18
Mupa
6,600 National Park
1938
Zambezian
15, 18, 20
Namibe
4,450 Partial reserve
1957
Karoo-Namib
27,28
Cangandala
630 National Park
1963
Zambezian
18
Chimalavera
150 Regional Park
1972
Karoo-Namib
27
Mavinga
5,950 Partial Reserve**
1966
Zambezian
25
Luiana
8,400 Partial Reserve**
1966
Zambezian
25
Bufalo
400 Partial Reserve
1974
Karoo-Namib
27
* Does not include hunting concessions or Coutadas. ** To be re-gazetted as national park (actual area is still under discussion).
The Angolan PA system remains embryonic. It is not yet configured and capacitated at the systemic-institutional level and significant
funding remains to be mobilised. As it is, individual sites fall short of effectively conserving globally significant biodiversity, which is
under accelerating pressure from numerous human activities. Existing terrestrial PAs cover less than 6.6% of the land surface, and leave
unprotected 21 out of the country’s 32 vegetation types.
Quoting the 2006 NBSAP: “Of the estimated over 5.000 plant species that are believed to exist in the country (without mentioning the vast flora wealth of Cabinda
Province), 1.260 are endemic – making Angola the second richest country in Africa in endemic plants. The diversity of mammals is also one of the richest on the continent,
with 275 recorded species. Bird resources are diversified. Angola has 872 catalogued species. About 92% of the avifauna of southern Africa occurs in Angola.”
5
E.g. a small breeding group of the country’s national symbol, the Giant Sable antelope, believed for many years to be extinct, has recently been established in Cangandala
National Park in Malange. This relict herd is being actively managed within a fenced area for reproduction and rehabilitation of the population with funding from the oil
company Esso. The initiative is however limited to the capture and initial PA rehabilitation phase.
6
There are a few exceptions to direct management by MINAMB, such as parts of Quiçama managed by Kissama Foundation.
4
5
Context. Angola has a population of 16 million spread unevenly across the country. Most people live in urban centres in the provinces
of Luanda, Huambo, Benguela, Bié and Cunene, while vast areas in Cuando Cubango are sparsely populated. The economy is growing
rapidly, fuelled by the growth of the petroleum sector which has brought a ‘development bonanza’ to many parts of the country, but
particularly to Luanda City. From the time of independence in 1975 to 2002, armed conflict caused over 1.5 million deaths, the
displacement of an estimated 4 million refugees, and the destruction of infrastructure over extensive areas of the country. As a
consequence of the war, poverty is a serious problem with 68% of Angolans living below the poverty line of US$1.70 per capita per day
(95% of the rural dwellers, 57% of the urban ones). Since the end of the war in 2002, Angola has undergone profound socio-economic
transformations, in particular (i) from a situation of war, destruction and dislocation of its population, to a situation of peace, national
reconstruction and resettlement; (ii) from a centralized economy to a process of developing a market economy; (iii) from a centralized
governance regime to a regime of more devolved power, and to one of increased provincial and municipal autonomy; and (iv) from the
use of colonial era legislation to a new body of laws – including extensive reform and improvement of environmental legislation.
At the time of proclamation in the 1930s and 1950s, most of Angola’s PAs had small resident human populations. As a consequence of
the war, the displacement of civilian populations has led to the further occupation of many PAs, a situation that cannot be easily
reversed. Most settlements are however localized, so adequate zonation and land use planning within PAs and adjacent areas have good
chances of providing a mechanism for reducing negative impacts of irregular occupation, while catering to socio-economic development.
The baseline project. The government’s annual budgetary allocation for the ‘environment sector’ in general is substantial—reaching
nominally some $50 million in 20117. This includes a wide range of sub-sectors of environmental management: natural resource
management, water resource management and management of extractive industries. Moreover, this public investment is managed
through several line ministries in charge of several sectors and sub-sectors (environment, agriculture, fisheries, land use planning to
name a few). State-lead investments provide funding to a number of governmental programmes that seek to manage land-based, coastal,
riverine and inland waters ecosystems, but also to protect aquifers, combat pollution and counteract land degradation. In November
2010, the Environment Fund was created. Although it remains to be fully capitalised, the prospects are promising. In addition, the
government’s specific investment in conservation is likely to increase in the next few years, e.g. through the new Kavango-Zambezi
Transfrontier programme or “KASA”, which will lead to the establishment of a large transfrontier conservation area in a vast zone
straddling Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Furthermore, the expected approval of the ‘Strategic Plan for the
Protected Area Network’ is also bound to trigger and attract increased investments in the rehabilitation of protected areas throughout the
country (likely from 2012 on). The mentioned Strategic Plan clearly states: “The Government of Angola recognizes the importance of
conserving biodiversity and the designation and protection of areas of ecological importance [...]”. It further indicates that the
government “should establish a national and permanent budgetary allocation to ensure adequate and reliable finance to the planning,
development, establishment, creation, implementation, management, protection, monitoring and routine maintenance of the National
Network of Conservation Areas.”
Besides public investments, other baseline investments for this project include a number of other programmes and projects supporting
environmental management in general. The African Development Bank provides funding to an ongoing project to support the
environment sector (ESSP), aimed at developing national capacities for environmental management. Several conservation initiatives are
underway, such as the efforts to enhance the conservation status of the Giant Sable at Candangala National Park (supported by Esso and
other corporate players) and the management of a small fenced area of Quiçama National Park (under the leadership of the Kissama
Foundation – a national NGO). On-going PA rehabilitation initiatives are planned in some PAs, for instance Bicuar National park, which
is receiving funding from Deutsche Bank in partnership with a Spanish firm, though it remains limited in terms of duration and scope.
These PA initiatives contribute in general to the conservation agenda, but are largely site-based and project-driven. Compared to the
overall level of investments in the environment sector, specific investments in protected area management (including government,
private sector, NGO and donor financed) remain modest—less than $1.5 million p.a. These investments also lack coherence, in terms of
addressing PA management priorities. There is thus a need to reconfigure investments and scale them up to address PA management
needs.
The proposed long-term solution. The long term conservation solution is to create a functional, representative and sustainable system
of protected areas that effectively buffers biodiversity from threats—current and future. A number of barriers stand in the way of
realising this proposed solution:
Barriers
Inadequate capacity
at the systemic level
for PA management:
the policy, legal,
institutional and
Elaboration
The relatively weak state of knowledge available on the status of Angola’s biodiversity is well known. An adequate
overarching strategy for managing and expanding Angola’s PA system would need to rely on improved knowledge and
appropriate data systems. For the terrestrial biome, this barrier was initally overcome by focusing on existing studies
based on vegetation types (see Table 2, 3 and 4) and defining, through the initial PA expansion strategy, priority areas
for gazettal, which were incorporated in the draft for the ‘Strategic Plan for the Protected Area Network’. Both the PA
Includes national programmes under the budget items ‘environment’ (in general) plus ‘development and sustainable management of forest resources’. Another $100
million is reported allocated to ‘combating environmental degradation’ and pertains primarily to investments in erosion control and pollution. (Source: Ministry of
Finance's website, Summary of current expenses per programme 2011.)
7
6
financial
frameworks for the
management of the
PA system have
deficiencies that
need to be addressed
Existing PAs
display low level of
management
effectiveness and
PA institutions and
staff have deficient
capacity to manage
PA units as effective
centres of
biodiversity
conservation.
expansion strategy and the rehabilitation of key national parks are part and parcel of the mentioned new Strategic Plan.
The government will press ahead with new legislation establishing new areas in an effort to address deficiencies in the
bio-geographic representation of ecosystems in the PA estate. However, at the PA system’s level, there are a number of
barriers still to be overcome for ensuring the success of such initiative. At the heart of all PA systemic issues, is the
issue of finance. The general level of investment in PA management is currently low, though on the increase. Yet, there
is the need to ensure that government budgeting for the PA systems is adequate, equitable, well targeted, and that it is
sustained over time. There is also the need to ensure that this investment is catalytic, e.g. that it will attract and leverage
other investments, say from private sector, NGOs, communities, etc. Deficiencies in revenue generation from PAs and
for the PA system are equally part of the finance barrier and need to be addressed. While tools could be explored for the
purpose, PA investment needs and trends, as well as the prospects for revenue generation, remain to be assessed. On the
legal front, further delays in the approval and implementation of the Law on Forests, Wildlife and Protected Areas
could undermine efforts to expand the PA estate and operationalise management within existing PAs. Furthermore, the
current PA and forest management practices do not adequately address the interests and objectives of local populations.
The legal and policy elements for their participation in PA management remain to be enshrined in new legislation. At
the institutional front, clarifying the mandate and attributions of different government bodies, in particular, those of the
new INBAC and of IDF for the delivery of PA functions (planning, monitoring, enforcement and the like), is essential.
This may become a barrier if the restructuring process becomes lengthy, contentious and if it does not ensure the
creation of critical technical and managerial posts and budget lines to ensure the effective operation of PA institutions.
Also, a key barrier for the success of a strategy that both seeks to expand the PA estate and rehabilitate existing PAs is
to ensure that the human resources assigned to it are both sufficient in number and have the adequate capacity to fulfil
their role.
The rehabilitation of the existing PAs is a priority within the PA strengthening agenda. The process must start with a
realistic assessment of the baseline situation for each PA using METT and similar tools. These have not been used in
Angola before. A comprehensive PA infrastructure assessment and assets survey also remains to be carried out. Besides
the general lack of management and operational planning, a key barrier to a more effective PA estate is that many of its
units are understaffed. Existing staff have received limited training in essential PA management functions, and none in
critical topics such as development of revenue-generating schemes, financial planning and management, or outreach to
and collaboration with local communities within and bordering PA units. Despite the potential for activities like photo
safaris, bird-watching, and combined cultural-ecological visits, PAs in Angola have yet to pursue the development of
ecotourism, exploring, where applicable, the involvement of private sector investors in PA infrastructure
development—some pilot experiences exist, however. Furthermore, there are good prospects for engaging partnerships
in the management and support to PAs (e.g. with foundations, NGOs, academia and investors). Yet, a key barrier to it is
the deficient capacity to create and maintain these partnerships. Also, several of the national parks do not count on
management boards, where key stakeholders could more effectively participate in PA management. Area surveillance,
enforcement, fire control and ecological monitoring are carried in ad hoc and non-systematic manner. Finally, although
the knowledge and information basis on different human settlements within and around PAs is largely insufficient and
incomplete, it is known that local populations are neither organized nor trained in sustainable resource management &
conservation in order to realize benefits from the establishment, rehabilitation and management of protected areas.
B. 2. INCREMENTAL /ADDITIONAL COST REASONING: DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTALACTIVITIES REQUESTED FOR GEF
FINANCING AND THE ASSOCIATED GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (GEF TRUST FUND) TO BE DELIVERED BY THE
PROJECT:
The Government of Angola is requesting GEF support through this project to remove, in an incremental manner, the existing barriers to
the management effectiveness of the Angolan PA system. The project's Goal is to conserve Angola's globally significant biodiversity by
strengthening PA management effectiveness and improving the ecosystem representation within the PA system. Two components are
planned:
Component 1) National PA System Governance Framework (Legal, Policy, Planning, Institutional and Financial) for Protected
Area Management. The project will address PA management gaps in terms of the overarching legal, policy and institutional
frameworks, and also establish a road map and take measures to secure necessary government budgetary appropriations and other funds
for the PA system. The project will also facilitate the approval of the Law on Forests, Wildlife and Protected Areas, which will clearly
define, without overlaps, roles, responsibilities and institutional mandates with respect to PA management. The project will support the
institutional development of INBAC (i.e. beyond the mere decree that creates the new body). This pertains to adequately staffing and
equipping the new institute. MINAMB/INBAC staff will be trained and a National PA Training & Certification Plan will be developed
and executed in order to address the most pressing PA management capacity gaps. 8 This will be done in close collaboration with related
projects, such as the UNDP/GEF’s National Biodiversity Project (with focus on Iona) and the African Development Bank’s
Environmental Sector Support Project (ESSP), which is facilitating formal tertiary and technical training of MINAB’s staff, including in
areas such as biodiversity and natural resource management. The project will also contribute towards implementation of the PA
expansion programme through the proclamation of 11 new PAs in critically important lowland, escarpment and montane forests. The
fast-tracked gazettal of new PAs will be achieved through the development of legal texts to proclaim new areas and, where needed,
8
This may also apply to IDF, depending on the resulting institutional framework enshrined in the Law on Forests, Wildlife and Protected Areas to be approved.
7
targeted demarcation actions on the ground, with support from provincial and local authorities among others. Finally, a phase II of the
APAES will be outlined and agreed upon, in line with CBD Aichi Target 11. 9 The approval of APAES Phase II will also provide a
framework for fulfilling the management needs of the 11 new PAs established under this component and mobilise the funding for it.
Component 2) Rehabilitation and management models at four pilot PAs. The project will support the rehabilitation of the Quiçama,
Cangandala and Bicuar10 National Parks, which collectively cover an area of over 18,000 square kilometers. Management and
operational plans will be developed and will define priority actions, cost coefficients for PA functions, human resource needs and
infrastructural development, as well as rehabilitation and maintenance needs in all three parks. The project will support implementation
of these plans, including (i) staffing the PAs; (ii) building, rehabilitating and maintaining infrastructure; (iii) procuring and maintaining
equipment; and (iv) rendering, and outsourcing certain services (such as wildlife monitoring and research). The aim is to strengthen and
ensure the internalisation of a number of PA functions that are either deficient or currently not being delivered under current
management regimen. The project will support zonation within the parks and their boundary demarcation (including mapping and public
consultation). This is particularly important in the parks where human settlement exists and activities incompatible with the conservation
objectives of a category II PA are occurring. The bottom line is that some form of harmonization of the activities and expectations of the
local populations currently living, legally or illegally, within Angola’s Protected Areas must be established. Management plans
developed with the participation and consent of local communities, will also establish resource use thresholds in different zones (strict
protection, tourism sustainable harvest of fuelwood; grazing and other uses), and systems for monitoring and enforcing resource use
stipulations. Measures will be taken to address direct threats to biodiversity, including from poaching and uncontrolled wildfires—both
by increasing the capacity of PA rangers to monitor threats and enforce management regulations, but also through community based
natural resource management. Systems will be in place for monitoring the sites’ ecology, and the effectiveness of management
measures. This will be done in partnership and collaboration with stakeholders currently active in the areas, e.g. Kissama Foundation in
Quiçama, the Esso financed Giant Sable project in Cangandala and the Deutche Bank funded rehabilitation project in Bicuar. Multi
stakeholder management boards and other applicable fora will be put in place as vehicles for consultation, decision-making and conflict
resolution. Finally, the project will support an income generating initiative for target communities as a means to facilitate the
collaboration of community members in the management of sites and to provide them with alternatives to activities that currently
threaten biodiversity.
Global benefits. The GEF funding will secure critically important biodiversity and deliver global benefits including the expansion of the
PA network and the restoration and improved conservation of the habitat of endangered species such as Lowland Gorilla Gorilla gorilla,
Western Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes, (plus 18 other primate species) and many endemic mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and plant
species. In particular, the lowland, escarpment and montane forest habitats that they occupy will be secured, bringing the total number of
vegetation units within the PA network to 23 out of the 32 vegetation types recognised in Angola, and a total of 10 of the 15 WWF
ecoregions found in Angola. The addition of the eleven new PA units (Table 4) will increase Angola’s PA system by a total of 9,050 sq
km and more than double the current ecosystem representation in the PA estate. By project end, the total protected area estate will have
expanded from 6.6% to 7.3% of the national territory, and PA coverage will better represent the globally significant and critical
ecosystems in the country. Furthermore, the active rehabilitation of three national parks will ensure enhanced conservation security over
18,460 sq km. It will avert threats to biodiversity in several vegetation groups in the Zambezian centre of endemism, which is rich in
fauna and flora within Angolan territory (see the specifics in Table 5). This includes, among others, the habitat in the region between the
Cuango and Luando Rivers where the critically endangered sub-species Hippotragus niger variani still survives.
B.3. DESCRIBE THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED BY THE PROJECT INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF GENDER
DIMENSIONS, AND HOW THESE WILL SUPPORT THE ACHIEVEMENT OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT BENEFITS (GEF TRUST
FUND):
In considering the socio-economic benefits of protected area rehabilitation and expansion, it is important to recognize the recent history
of Angola. Protected areas were established under colonial rule, where access was restricted to the privileged elite, and local
communities disenfranchised. This was followed by nearly three decades of civil war, where PAs were heavily exploited, primarily
through the hunting of wildlife to meet protein needs. The displacement of millions of people into urban informal settlements further
alienated a majority of Angolan people from the natural environment. Against this background, there is a need to change attitudes and
value systems regarding biodiversity across the population at large. Nationally, there is however a growing awareness of national
heritage – exemplified by the naming of the national football team the ‘Palanca pretas’ (Giant sable antelope), renaming the main coastal
fishing city – Tombua – after Welwitschia mirabilis, and the use of Welwitschia as a popular brand name. Trivial as these advances
might appear, they indicate a change from historical adverse perceptions of biodiversity amongst the populace to one of national
awareness and pride – essential in any process of integrating biodiversity values and benefits into a war-ravaged country’s socioeconomic development. The project will make a major contribution towards further cultivating national pride in natural heritage. At the
local level, PA development will mobilise significant investments in rehabilitation of infrastucture, training of PA personnel, basic
Target 11 reads: “By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for
biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas
and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.”
10
National parks have been prioritised for rehabilitation in the ‘Strategic Plan for the Protected Area Network’. The three targeted parks were selected to benefit from this
project because of the level of threat, the potential for the development of ecotourism and because of lack of other funding.
9
8
ecotourism facilities and guides, and opportunities for improved sustainable agricultural activities on the periphery of the PAs. It will
pave the way for other investments, some of which can generate profit. Together with the sustainable livelihoods programme foreseen
under Component 2, these activities are bound to generate some 2,000 direct jobs and many more indirect ones. The project will take
specific measures to accommodate the subsistence and livelihood needs of PA resident and adjacent communities, permitting sustainable
natural resource use opportunities in designated areas, and building the capacity of PA rangers and communities to collectively plan,
monitor and enforce management measures to ensure sustainability.
Gender equity has always been given high priority in Angola – and this is reflected in the environment sector, where the Minister is a
fisheries biologist, and many of her senior management and technical team are female graduates. In developing the field staff for PAs,
special attention will be given to gender balance and to ensuring that the benefits of PA development are equitably shared both in work
opportunities and in provision of a supportive environment for working mothers. Similarly, the needs of women will be given special
consideration in the PA management regimen to be developed, including with regard to gender representation in the PA Management
Boards and natural resource management.
B.4 INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES FROM BEING
ACHIEVED:
Risk
Rating Management Strategy
Capacities at different
H
A key activity under the project is to thoroughly assess the long-term needs for the development of PA management
levels of government
capacity (including capacity for improving the PA system’s financial sustainability). Linked to this, the project will
and the finance
facilitate the preparation of strategy for addressing these needs, as part of the overall strategy for sustaining the
dedicated to PA
enlarged PA system. The project is in fact a crucial step in addressing these capacity gaps through a long-term and
management increase
three-tiered approach (i.e. improving systemic, institutional and individual capacities). Yet, it is worth noting that the
at a slower pace than
UNDP/GEF projects (including this one and the GEF4 National Biodiversity Project) are not alone in addressing the
required by the needs
many identified PA management capacity gaps. More specifically, close collaboration with the AfDB’s ESSP project
of a rehabilitated and
will ensure that the formal tertiary and technical training of MINAB’s staff in areas such as biodiversity and natural
expanded PA system.
resource management (as well as other capacity building efforts) will effectively result in improved PA management
capacity. This may e.g. involve the placement of capable individuals in PA management leadership positions,
including in the field. Finally, high level political support will ensure that the PA agenda continues to grow in
prominence and as a priority within the national development paradigm.
Delays in staffing the
M
UNDP is currently engaged with the government of Angola in high-level discussions for the consolidation and
new PA institution
approval of its Environment Programme. The effective approval of the Law on Forests, Wildlife and Protected Areas
and in approving key
and the successful establishment and funding of INBAC are key topics in this dialogue. It is expected that by the end
policy/legislation
of the project development phase, these issues will already be satisfactorily addressed by government. If needed,
may compromise the
UNDP will invest own resources in targeted consultancies for facilitating the review of draft legislation, consultations
achievement of
and the adequate planning of INBAC’s institutional development. Other donor stakeholders (e.g. EU, African
conservation targets.
Development Bank, Spain and Norway) are equally involved in ensuring these barriers are overcome so that they will
not represent a risk to PA and forestry related initiatives. This collective approach to management of this risk by
interested parties will continue.
Attitudinal rigidities
H
The involvement of communities living within and around PAs in the management of these areas is still incipient in
amongst the local
Angola. In fact, there is limited knowledge about how many settlements there are, their locations and size, and their
populace viz. PAs
impact on the protected landscape. In any case, a clear strategy for the active participation of communities in PA
inhibit efforts to
management, including PA benefit sharing, will be developed and implemented. This will guide the implementation
change practices that
of the sustainable natural resource use initiatives that will be implemented under component 2. These same
degrade natural
communities will be represented on PA management boards—giving them a voice as to how PAs are being managed.
resources and
Locally appropriate solutions to manage contra conservation land uses will be developed, with the full participation of
threaten biodiversity
communities.
Land tenure conflict
M
Clear land use zonation and management arrangements are to be developed, ensuring that the rights of each
may hamper the
stakeholder are preserved, and defining their duties as well. The application of such protocols will be duly monitored.
consolidation and
With the exception of the Afro-montane forests, all of the proposed new PAs are in areas of low population density
expansion of PAs.
and low opportunity cost of land. For existing PAs, rehabilitation activities include zonation and conflict resolution
mechanisms (to be implemented with the full involvement of local communities) as a means to address potential land
conflict risks.
Climate change will
L
This project will establish landscape scale buffer areas and where possible, corridors connecting PAs, which can act
exacerbate habitat
as a safeguard for PAs against the undesired effects of climate change by allowing biodiversity to alter distribution
fragmentation in
patterns in response to climate change effects. PA expansion is in and on itself a climate change adaptation strategy.
terrestrial
ecosystems.
B.5. IDENTIFY KEY STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT INCLUDING THE PRIVATE SECTOR, CIVIL SOCIETY
ORGANIZATIONS, LOCAL AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES, AS APPLICABLE:
The proposed project offers a unique opportunity to develop a stakeholder community around the PA theme – both within the framework
of PA rehabilitation activities, and also in expanding the PA system. Key stakeholders at government level (ministries of environment,
9
agriculture, science and technology, education, etc.), within the extractive sector (Esso, BP, TOTAL and De Beers), and the nascent
NGO sector (Juventude Ecologica Angolana, Associação para o Desenvolvimento Rural e Ambiente, and others) – will be actively
drawn into the process of PA rehabilitation and expansion due to the inherent interest that can be stimulated by well managed and
successful projects. While the government agencies, both national and provincial, must give policy and budgetary support and exert
leadership, civil society must be engaged to ensure legitimacy and transparency of the entire biodiversity governance system. At the
local level, the project will have to give special emphasis to developing participatory processes with the communities living within and
adjacent to the PAs to ensure a fair and informed agreement about land use redefinition and where appropriate, zonation. While some of
these people are relatively recent occupants of PA land (and some are technically illegal), many are traditional occupants of the land, and
some (Khoisan, Himba, Mucubal) have rightful claims to use of these areas. All local population groups will be offered opportunities to
participate in the development of the PA system, and to share in its benefits through work opportunities, social services and sustainable
livelihoods resulting from the project. This will be ensured through the involvement of Angolan NGOs and CSOs, the strengthening of
PA management boards and other consultative fora at PA level and the active involvement of the press in key project interventions.
B.6. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:
The project and the PA agenda will be fully integrated into MINAMB’s programme of work and it is part and parcel of the new UNDP
Overarching Programme in Support of the Environment Sector in Angola. Collaboration with other initiatives, programmes and projects
will be ensured in order to mobilise not only co-financing to the project, but wider government support, including from the Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development and its Institute for Forestry Development. Without these efforts, the attempts to clarify mandates
for PA management would not be successful.
It is important to stress that this PIF has been carefully designed to complement – and not overlap with – another important UNDP/GEF
PA project (the National Biodiversity Project with focus on Iona National Park) and for which EU co-funding is being negotiated.
Component 2 of the mentioned Iona project focuses on strengthening the institutional capacity to manage the PA network. Although
related, there will be no overlap with respect to capacity building activities in both project. The development of both projects is being
closely coordinated by MINAMB and UNDP to ensure that planned activities are complementary. Furthermore this project has a strong
focus on capacity for dealing with the issue of PA finance, while the National Biodiversity Project focuses on general capacity for PA
network planning, communication, monitoring and evaluation systems.
In addition, this project will build on the lessons and successes from other UNDP/GEF projects (past and present), including: (1) the
Enabling Activities project that supported the preparation of Angola’s NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and
Preparation of the First National Report to the Conference of the Parties; (2) the LD project Capacity Building for Sustainable Land
Management in Angola; and (3) key International Waters initiatives in which Angola participates (in particular the Environmental
Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Basin – EPSMO and Integrated Management of Benguela Current
Large Marine Ecosystem – BCLME). Synergies and collaboration with a number of non-UNDP projects will be sought. In particular,
collaboration and coordination with the AfDB ESSP project will be crucial for optimising capacity development results. The ESSP is
contributing to the establishment, construction, equipping and staffing of the National Institute for Biodiversity and Conservation Areas
and the Environmental Training School. Also, a GTZ pilot project for the integration of ex-combatants in PA rehabilitation is offering
interesting solutions to the HR needs in PA surveillance works. Although the GTZ project is reaching its end in 2011 and the approval of
a new phase is still unclear, such initiatives will be particularly useful in the implementation of the APAES that this project supports.
At the level of pilot sites, synergies will be sought with different PA strengtheing projects, programmes and initiatives, inter alia: (i) the
the Giant Sable survival programme in Candangala National Park (supported by corporate players); (ii) the several SADC sponsored
TFCA initiatives, in particular in the south-east (Kavango-Zambezi “KASA” TFCA) and the north-west (Maiombe Forest TFCA) southwest (Iona-Skeleton TFCA); (iii) PA strengthening initiatives in Quicama’s fenced area (with Kissama Foundation), in Cangandala
(supported by Esso and others) and in Bicuar (funded by Deutsche Bank via a Spanish firm).
C. DESCRIBE THE GEF AGENCY’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROJECT:
‘Protected Areas’ are one of UNDP’s signature programmes and the agency has a large portfolio of PA projects across Africa dealing
with PA institutional and management strengthening, as well as PA network expansion. These projects implement strategies attuned to
the African reality. The UNDP Country Office in Angola, supported by the UNDP Regional office in South Africa, will oversee and
provide support to this project, relying on UNDP's country-level coordination experience in integrated policy development, human
resources development, institutional strengthening, and non-governmental and community participation.
C.1 INDICATE THE CO-FINANCING AMOUNT THE GEF AGENCY IS BRINGING TO THE PROJECT:
UNDP will provide $2,000,000 in direct co-financing to this project in the form of a grant. The source is UNDP’s core funds (TRAC). In
addition, UNDP and the government will help leverage the rest of the co-financing necessary for meeting the targets proposed under this
PIF. MINAMB is currently negotiating a public investment programme for PAs and INBAC. It is worth noting the UNDP has been
supporting capacity building for biodiversity management in Angola for the past 14 years, since the inception of a support programme
co-funded by Norway and UNDP. These previous interventions have in many respects prepared the ground for the set of PA related
10
activities proposed under this project. UNDP has demonstrated its comparative advantage to be the GEF agency for this project based on
its large global portfolio, extensive experience in this PA management, in developing the capacity at the system’s level (policy,
governance, institutions and management know-how) to allow for the strategic expansion and strengthening of Angola’s PA system. The
present project, as well as the recently inherited PA project with focus on Iona NP, will benefit from, as well as contribute to, UNDP’s
past and current work in Angola, particularly in relation to sustainable environmental management.
C.2
HOW DOES THE PROJECT FIT INTO THE GEF AGENCY’S PROGRAM (REFLECTED IN DOCUMENTS SUCH AS UNDAF, CAS,
ETC.) AND STAFF CAPACITY IN THE COUNTRY TO FOLLOW UP PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:
UNDP Angola is in the final stages of development and approval with the government of an overarching programme in support to the
environment sector in Angola. Its goal is to “strengthen national capacities to mainstream environmental protection into national
development plans and programmes within a pro-poor growth perspective”. The programme will congregate a number of related
initiatives financed by government, donor agencies (including the EU and the AfDB) and private sector. It will also provide the sectorwide framework for the PA agenda to flourish. More specifically, this project contributes to Outcome 2 of the mentioned UNDP
Environment Programme (Effective implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and the National Environment
Management Plan). The UNDP Country Office counts on at least three professional staff dedicated to the environment portfolio (plus
support from operations and senior management). This team is supported by UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit (including a
Portuguese speaking Regional Technical Advisor and support staff assisting with M&E and delivery oversight, among other tasks). Two
key strategy documents provide a chapeau for the project’s fit within the UN’s and UNDP’s Programmes in Angola: respectively the
United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UDAF) and the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP). As for the first, this
project will make a key contribution to UNDAF’s Support Area 4 (Sustainable Economic Development), under which a concerted UN
approach is geared to provide a framework for national and decentralized institutions strengthened integrated rural development,
ensuring food security with due consideration for environmental protection, natural resource management and adaptation to climate
change. With respect to the CPAP, recommendations from the 2009 CPAP Annual Review indicated that UNDP should focus on
building strategic ties and defining priorities for its engagement in environmental protection at the central level with the Ministry of
Environment. As a result, the Environment Programme (2011-2013) was prepared through a consultative process and will be launched in
2011. The Environment Programme will contribute in particular to CPAP’s pillar #4 on Environment and Sustainable Development.
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): (Please attach the
Operational Focal Point endorsement letter(s) with this template. For SGP, use this OFP endorsement letter).
NAME
Mr. Pedro Samuel
POSITION
CEO for the National Environment Fund and
GEF Operational Focal Point
MINISTRY
Ministry of Environment
DATE (Month, day, year)
Apr 28 2011
B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF/LDCF/SCCF policies and procedures and meets the
GEF/LDCF/SCCF criteria for project identification and preparation.
Agency
Coordinator,
Agency name
Yannick
Glemarec,
UNDP/GEF
Executive
Coordinator
Date
Signature
(Month, day, year)
August 30, 2011
Project Contact Person
Fabiana Issler, Regional
Technical Advisor for
Biodiversity, Africa,
UNDP / Environment
Finance Group
Telephone
Email Address
+27-123548182
fabiana.issler@undp.org
11
Annex Tables to the PIF
Table 2. Major biomes/vegetation groupings and mapped vegetation units (Barbosa 1970) in Angola
Biome/vegetation grouping
Barbosa units
Area, km2
Moist forests
1,2,3,4
27 879
Forest/savanna mosaic
7 – 11; 13, 14; 22; 26
295 930
Afro-montane forest
5,6
170
Miombo woodlands and savannas
15 – 19; 24,25
671 806
Mopane woodlands and shrublands
20,21
78 109
Acacia/Adansonia savannas and thickets
23, 27
57 521
Edaphic grasslands
12, 30 - 31
110 945
Desert
28, 29
14 340
Percentage
2,2
23,5
0.01
53,5
6,2
4,6
8,8
1,1
Table 3. Vegetation types of Angola (from Barbosa 1970; Huntley 1974) with the area of each falling within the protected areas
listed in Table 2. In addition, the 11 new protected areas proposed in this report, indicated in italics, will increase the coverage of
Angola’s 32 vegetation types from the current 11 to a total of 23, thereby more than doubling the representation of Angola’s biodiversity
in the Protected Area system, while only increasing the area under conservation management by less that 10%.
Vegetation
type
Formation, moisture regime
1.
Forest, humid, evergreen,
2.
Forest, semi-deciduous
3.
Typical genera
Total area, km2
481
Protected
area, km2
current/
New
200
% of total
area currently
protected
0
Protected area
Existing/
proposed
3,765
200
0
Maiombe
Forest, humid, semi-deciduous
Gilbertio dendron,
Tetraberlinia
Gossweilerio
dendron, Oxystigma
Celtis, Albizia
20,989
350
0
4.
5.
Forest, dry, semi-deciduous
Forest, humid, semi-deciduous
Cryptosepalum
Newtonia, Parinari
2,163
160
0
50
0
0
6.
Forest, humid, semi-deciduous
Podocarpus
10
150
0
7.
Forest/savanna mosaic, humid
Piptadeniastrum, Bosqueia
13,699
0
0
Serra Pingano,
Gabela, Serra Kumbira
Serra da Neve, Serra da
Chela
Morro Moco, Morro
Namba,
-
8.
9.
10.
Forest/savanna mosaic, humid
Forest/savanna mosaic, humid
Forest/savanna mosaic, mesic
79,631
27,798
11,465
300
0
0
0
0
0
Lagoa Carumbo
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Forest/savanna mosaic, mesic
Thicket/savanna mosaic, humid
Thicket/savanna mosaic, humid
Thicket/savanna mosaic, mesic
Woodland /thicket mosaic,
mesic
Woodland, humid
Marquesia, Berlinia
Celtis, Hyparrhenia
Allanblackia,
Entandraphragma
Pteleopsis, Adansonia
Landolphia, Hyparrhenia
Annona, Piliostigma
Crossopteryx, Heteropogon
Baikiaea, Ricinodendron
14,900
46,705
27,798
12,497
16,422
745
900
0
0
9,497
5
0
0
0
72
Quicama
Lagoa Carumbo
Bicuar, Mupa
Julbernardia, Brachystegia
138,754
150
0
Brachystegia,Marquesia
Brachystegia, Julbernardia
Brachystegia
Colophospermum
Colophospermum, Acacia
Cochlospermum, Combretum
Adansonia, Sterculia
Brachystegia, Burkea
224,393
74,333
5,367
69,777
8,332
27,718
21,951
114,560
1,882
7,693
0
3,551
0
100
9,028
0
3
26
0
5
0
0
41
0
25.
26.
27.
Woodland, humid
Woodland, humid
Woodland, mesic
Woodland, mesic
Woodland, mesic
Savanna/woodland, humid
Thicket/savanna mosaic, arid
Woodland, savanna mosaic,
mesic
Savanna-woodland, mesic
Savanna-woodland, mesic
Savann-grassland mosaic, arid
Morro Moco
Morro Namba
Luando, Cameia
L, B, Cangandala
Iona, Mupa
Serra Kumbira
Quicama
-
Baikiaea, Guibourtia
Adansonia, Peucedanum
Acacia, Commiphora
142 580
108,231
35,570
3000
400
9,056
7
0
27
28.
Grassland, shrubland, sub-desert
Aritida, Welwitschia
9,934
7,311
74
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Maiombe
-
Luiana
Serra Mbango
Iona, Namibe,
Chimalavera
Iona, Namibe
12
Vegetation
type
29.
30.
31.
32
Formation, moisture regime
Desert
Swamp
Grassland, floodplain
Grassland, montane
Typical genera
Total area, km2
Odyssea, Acanthosicyos
Cyperus, Typha
Loudetia
Protea, Stoebe
4,406,
1,362
49,990
12,898
Protected
area, km2
current/
New
4,406
186
14,024
100
% of total
area currently
protected
100
14
31
0
Protected area
Existing/
proposed
Iona
Quicama
Cameia
Morro Moco, Morro
Namba
Table 4. Priority areas for gazettal according to the Angolan Protected Area Expansion Strategy (APAES)
Name of the proposed new PA
Maiombe
Serra Pingano
Lagoa Carumbo
Serra Mbango
Floresta da Gabela
Serra Njelo, Floresta de Kumbira
Morro Namba
Morro Moco
Serra da Neve
Mussuma
Serra da Chela
Indicative hectarage of proposed priority areas
for expansion according to the APAES (ha)*
40,000
35,000
200,000
40,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
500,000
20,000
Note
Província de Cabinda, 4.40 S; 12.32 E; altitude 350 m
Província do Uige, 7.41 S; 14.53 E; alt. 750 m
Província da Lunda Norte, 7.48 S; 19.56 E; alt. 850 m
Província de Malange, 8.44 S; 17.06 E; alt. 1100 m
Província do Cuanza Sul, 10.42 S; 14.18 E
Província do Cuanza Sul, 11.00 S; 14.17 E
Província do Cuanza Sul, 11.52 S; 14.44 E; alt.2420 m
Província do Huambo, 12.25 S; 15.11 E; alt. 2620m
Província de Namibe, 13.42 S; 13.09 E; alt. 2489 m
Província de Moxico, 14,00 S; 21,45 E; alt.1050 m
Província da Huila Province, 15.00 S; 13.16 E; alt.
2327 m
Total indicative hectarage
905,000
* The precise hectarage of proposed sites is still under discussion, to the extent that the ‘Strategic Plan for the Protected Area Network’ is still
undergoing technical scrutiny and wider consultations. At CEO Endorsement stage, more precise figures for the PA expansion to be financed both by
the GEF and the project’s associated co-financing will be presented.
Table 5. Key features and threats of the national parks targeted for rehabilitation under this project.
Bicuar
7,900 sq km
Quiçama
9,600 sq km
Cangandala
630 sq km
Established as a hunting reserve in 1938. National park since 1964.
Located in Huíla Province and surrounded by several agro-pastoral small settlements.
The vegetation is typically woody and bush savannah with extensive woodland-thicket mosaics.
The park harbours large populations of buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer), leopards, gnus, kudus and various species of buck in large
numbers. Hunting pressure, lack of management and sub-effective anti-poaching measures are threatening faunal populations.
Uncontrolled fire is a main hazard during the dry season.
Established as a hunting reserve in 1938. National park since 1957.
Located in Northern Angola, 75 km south from Luanda, between the Atlantic Ocean, the Cuanza river and the Longa river.
The park straddles significant variations in vegetation, from the banks of the Cuanza river in the north into the park with mangroves,
dense forest, forest-savannah mosaics, woodland and dry tropical forest with cacti and baobab trees. The park still harbours rich and
varied fauna, including the threatened African manatee (Trichechus senegalensis), roan (Hippotragus of equinus), the typically
Angolan primate talapoin (Miopithecus talapoin), marine turtles (all threatened) and varied avifauna. Currently only a small fraction of
the park is being managed, in spite of the park's potential for ecotourism. Some areas are dedicated to activities and settlements not
normally associated with a national park. A national road cuts through the park in its north-south axe.
Established as an integral nature reserve in 1963. National Park since 1970.
Located in Malanje Province in the confluence of several important rivers.
The park was initially established to protect the Giant Sable Antelope (Hippotragus niger variani), which is critically endangered.
Currently, the park contains a sanctuary, or a fenced area, where a captive breeding programme for the Giant Sable is being carried out
with the only surviving population of this sub-species. The park harbours otherwise varied flora and fauna. A mosaic of open miombo
bushveld and savannah occur. Brachystegia-bushveld are found on the water partitions and open grasslands in the lower-lying drainage
lanes. The potential for eco-tourism is considerable. Threats to biodiversity include uncontrolled hunting and burning by the resident
population—likely some 5,000 inhabitants by now.
13