thegef.org · Web viewSECTION 1 : BRIEF NARRATIVE 4 ... of Zambia GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia GTZ German Technical Aid Agency HDI Human Development Index HDR Human

UNDP PRO DOC

The Government of the Republic Zambia-----------------------------------------------------United Nations Development Programme-----------------------------------------------------

Global Environment Facility------------------------------------

PIMS 1937

Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas System

1

Project Brief

The main purpose of the project is to strengthen the enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the National Protected Areas System. The project will put in place appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks in order to provide new tools for public/ community/ private/ civil society management partnerships. It also aims at strengthening and enhancing the existing institutional capacities for improved Protected Areas representation, monitoring and evaluation and business and investment planning. The Project is closely tied to the Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy, which identifies tourism based on the country's wildlife assets to be the second most important growth sector for the country. Ultimately, the project envisages to make Zambia a tourism destination of choice based on a National Protected Areas System comprising a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems that are effectively safeguarded from human-induced pressures through management partnerships that contribute not only to economic development, but similarly, rural development.

UNDP PRO DOC

Table of Contents

SECTION 1: BRIEF NARRATIVE 4

PART I. SITUATION ANALYSIS 4

PART II: STRATEGY 5

(I) NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR PROTECTED AREAS 5

(II) PROJECT STRATEGY 6

PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 8

(I) EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS 8

PART IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

APPENDIX A PROJECT DOCUMENT 14

ACRONYMS 14

CONTEXT 16

I. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT 16

II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT 18

III. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT 24

IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT 25

BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION 27

V. THREATS 27

VI. THE APPROACH TAKEN FOR PROJECT DESIGN 28

VII. BASELINE 29

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF PA 29

DONOR SUPPORT TO THE PA SECTOR 35

ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION 35

VIII. GRZ STRATEGY FOR PROTECTED AREAS 35

IX. DESCRIPTION OF THE GEF/PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 36

X. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: 45

ELIGIBILITY AND LINKAGES 45

XI. ELIGIBILITY FOR GEF FUNDING 45

XII. CONFORMITY WITH COP GUIDANCE AND GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 45

XIII. LINKAGES WITH OTHER GEF INITIATIVES 46

XIV. LINKAGES WITH THE UNDP COUNTRY PROGRAM 47

XV. LINKAGES WITH GRZ PRIORITIES/POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 49

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 50 XVI. EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS 50

XVII. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS 52

XVIII. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES 53

XIX. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 54

2

UNDP PRO DOC RISKS, PRIOR OBLIGATIONS, SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY 55 XX. RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX 55

XXI. PRIOR OBLIGATIONS 56

XXII. SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT RESULTS 56

XXIII. REPLICABILITY 58

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LESSONS LEARNED 59 XXIV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 59

XXV. LESSONS LEARNED 60

LEGAL CONTEXT 60

LOGFRAME 61

ANNEX 1: PROFILE OF THE PROTECTED AREA (PA) SYSTEM IN ZAMBIA 90 ANNEX 2: TERMS OF REFERENCE 102

ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PLAN 112

ANNEX 4: MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN 122

ANNEX 5: REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNT FROM CBNRM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA 128

ANNEX 6: REPLICATION STRATEGY 134

ANNEX 7: REFERENCES 139

ANNEX 8: MATRIX OF RESPONSES TO GEF COUNCIL COMMENTS 144

TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN___________________________________________________ 149

SIGNATURE PAGE_________________________________________________________________ 168

3

UNDP PRO DOC

SECTION 1: BRIEF NARRATIVE

Part I. Situation Analysis

Protected Areas System: Zambia’s Protected Area system is considerably larger than the global mean and is line with the Millennium Development Goals 7 “Ensure environmental sustainability” and its indicator, “land area protected to maintain biological diversity”. The most important Protected Areas PAs in Zambia are the 19 national parks (NP) and 35 game management areas (GMA) – together they cover over 30% of the territory of Zambia. The parks and GMAs together provide exceptionally large bio-geographical complexes with the potential, if well managed, to conserve viable populations of even those species that occur naturally at low densities. Legally, the national parks clearly provide the highest level of protection for biodiversity, and provide the bulwark of the national PA estate. Nevertheless, wildlife populations have been depleted through hunting pressure in many sites, and conservation infrastructure is generally rudimentary.

The GMAs generally have good potential for biodiversity conservation. However, few of the GMAs currently provide effective buffers to NPs, there being little distinction in management between ecologically sensitive areas, such as corridors for wildlife movements, and larger dispersal areas, where less intensive management is possible. GMAs include settlements and farmlands within their borders. At the legal level, there are no restrictions on land use within GMA – in particular there are no restrictions on conversion to agriculture. With few exceptions, however, human populations in GMAs are generally low enough to allow co-existence with healthy wildlife populations that can support sustainable harvests if soundly managed. Like the NP, the GMAs also suffer from difficult access and a lack of infrastructure. Traditional chiefs have the right to lease the land under the Lands Act of 1995, which could be tied to commercial joint ventures in GMAs. ZAWA’s concurrence would be required.

Tourism has been identified as a driving key growth sector for poverty reduction and employment generation. The sector represents a significant opportunity because it is already a sizable contributor to GDP, it is a recognized leader in foreign exchange earnings, and it has the potential to create numerous benefits through its linkages to the rest of the economy. 25% of visitors to Zambia come as tourists. Expectations of economic growth through development of the tourism sector are high1. The wildlife in the PAs is the main tourist attraction in Zambia. Thus effective management of the PA is one of the critical elements for tourism development.

Policy and Legislative Frameworks

Responsibility for wildlife and habitat protection was traditionally vested in the local chief on behalf of the villagers. The chief controlled the allocation of land for use by households, and access to forest and wildlife resources. In legislation enacted to set up game reserves in the 1940s, the ownership and access to wildlife resources was taken away from the local chiefs and vested in the State. This process continued, resulting in the alienation of local people from the management of wildlife and natural resources. It did, however, lay the basis for the creation of Zambia’s Protected Areas System.

Zambia is however, in the process of developing an all-embracing national environmental policy to bring together the numerous sectoral policy frameworks and environmental strategies. These policies under review include the National Conservation Strategy (NCS) whose objectives included maintenance of Zambia’s biodiversity and sustainable use of the country’s renewable resources; the policy for National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia (1998); the Zambia Wildlife Act, Act No. 12 of 1998; the Forestry Policy (1998); the Forestry Act Cap 311 of 1973; and the Fisheries Act, cap 311 of 1974.

1 WB SEED Project Appraisal Document, September 2003.

4

UNDP PRO DOC

Institutional Framework

The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) is directly or indirectly responsible for most environmental and natural resource management in Zambia. MTENR plays a coordinating role, which includes the crucial responsibility of policy formulation for these sub-sectors. The MTENR’s role also embodies the facilitation and monitoring of the implementation of international agreements, conventions and treaties, with a view to promoting the country’s conservation interests as well as meeting international obligations.

The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) is the key institution for PA and wildlife management in Zambia. It has the legal status of statutory body (a type of parastatal), and was established by Act of Parliament No. 12 of 1998. It commenced operations in 2000. ZAWA’s mission is to contribute to the preservation of Zambia’s heritage, ecosystem and biodiversity for present and future generations through the conservation of Zambia’s wildlife. It is responsible for the management of the national parks and GMAs. GMA are to be managed in partnership with communities. An independent board of directors appointed by Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources governs it.

The Division of Fisheries (DoF), in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, has a mandate for promoting the development of commercial fishing, enforcement of regulations and laws and for registration of fishermen and their boats. It has authority to oversee all fisheries gazetted areas and is extremely interested in community programs. DoF, however, has very little capacity or resources to do any of this. Fisheries is one of the most underdeveloped sectors in the country.

The Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) was established under the Environmental Protection Control Act No. 12 of 1990 and has responsibility for monitoring the state of the environment in the country including all gazetted areas. With funding from the Netherlands, ECZ had an active program of monitoring of wildlife populations in PA in the late 1990s. Although ECZ’s monitoring of wildlife stopped with the end of this funding, ECZ still have this unfunded mandate. ECZ has been seeking to transfer this function to ZAWA – and asking to ZAWA to pay for it.

Non-government partners in PA management

Zambia has been a leader in forming innovative partnerships with non-governmental organizations for the management of protected areas. This was largely a spontaneous reaction to the high level of poaching resulting from the institutional void of the 1980s and 1990s. Two prominent examples are Kasanka Trust Limited in Kasanka NP, and Frankfurt Zoological Society in North Luangwa NP. They both operate under formal agreements with ZAWA, and have been active since the late 1980s. A more recently created entity is Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ), which exists to reduce poaching and increase community development in the Lower Zambezi area. A number of international NGOs also have operations in Zambia, including, IUCN, WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society and African Wildlife Foundation.

Part II: Strategy

(i) National Strategy for Protected Areas

The PDF B project development process has solidified the emerging GRZ strategy for the National Protected Areas System. The GEF guidance for Strategic Priority 1 on “Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas” has had considerable influence on the GRZ’s strategy development. The review of lessons learned in Zambia and in the region done as part of the PDF B process has also fed into this strategy development process.

Protected areas in Zambia are seen as lying on a continuum running from the High level of management on one end of the spectrum to those with Low levels or no management at all on the other. At present the NPs in Zambia run the full gamut of this spectrum. The vast majority of GMAs have Intermediate levels of

5

UNDP PRO DOC

management effectiveness to none at all. Against this background, GRZ, recognizing that it cannot raise management effectiveness to optimum levels throughout the PA estate immediately owing to budgetary and other constraints, is pursuing a phased approach to capacity building and investment in the National PA System. It is in this regard, it has sought assistance from GEF/UNDP to concretize and implement the strategy for effective management of PA. The envisaged strategy will focus on development of an overall conservation plan for the national Protected Areas System, in the interim; the GRZ will pursue the following interventions over the medium-term:

ZAWA will concentrate on the management of a core set of high priority national parks with strong tourism potential2, which will serve as growth hubs for conservation.

A PA reclassification exercise would be undertaken, to identify priority areas in need of management action (informing the temporal sequence of site level capacity building and investment work, across the PA estate), ensuring that biodiversity conservation priorities are defined, that the PA estate is bio-geographically representative and ensuring that PA classification and management intensity is matched to management objectives at the site level.

GRZ will develop and pass new legislation that increases the effectiveness of the National System of PA by exploiting opportunities for enhanced biodiversity conservation that are not possible under existing categories of PA. The will include the creation of new categories of PA. Two principal new candidate categories have emerged from the project development process. The Community Conservation Areas (CCA) category of PA would maximize incentives for conservation for communities by giving nearly full control over resources and the revenues derived from these resources while preventing conversion to agriculture or other land uses. The second change would allow portions of national parks to be zoned as ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas (SHA). This would be done for sections of national parks that have little or no present photo-tourism potential, thereby converting them from cost centers to profit centers for ZAWA, while still ensuring a high level of biodiversity conservation and enhancing ZAWA’s overall financial viability. This will require a change in the legal status of these national parks. These two proposed new categories will be developed and validated through a participatory process involving all key stakeholders.

Simultaneously, ZAWA would pilot an expanded range of public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management, with a view to expanding management options for both old and new categories of PA. Steps will be taken to strengthen the underpinning policy framework, and to develop institutional capacities to assure strong regulatory oversight of these partnerships. The new partnerships are expected to allow core management operations to be strengthened across the PA system, more rapidly than under the traditional paradigm.

Attention would be paid to strengthening core systemic and institutional level capacities, including capacities for business planning, monitoring and evaluation, financial management and other key functions.

These interventions will set the stage for the gradual expansion of management interventions across the larger protected area system, focusing on priority areas, identified through the reclassification exercise.

(ii) Project Strategy

The project will provide core strategic support to strengthen the National Protected Areas System – the system of core priority protected areas that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective. More specifically, this will include NP, GMA and new categories be created with project assistance (CCA and SHA are the principal candidate categories identified during project preparation). It will work to move PA management effectiveness from the low end towards the effectively managed end of the spectrum. This will be done through legal and policy reforms, improved governance and institutional capacity building. Two field demonstration sites will be used for testing and implementing the legal and policy reforms, for

2 Currently listed in PRSP as Mosi oa Tunya, Kafue NP, Lower Zambezi NP and Luangwa NP

6

UNDP PRO DOC

developing public/private/civil society/community partnerships and other new tools and strategies for effective PA management.

As the term “effective management” of PA is used in a very broad sense in this project design. The following have been identified as key elements of effective management of the national Protected Areas System:

Definition of the key management objectives (biodiversity conservation, tourism development, trophy hunting, multiple use management, etc.) for each priority site identified from the reclassification planning;

Based on the bio-physical and socio-economic parameters for each priority site, selection of the category of PA that is most suitable;

Selection the form(s) of management most suitable for the site (ZAWA-managed or any suitable combination of public/private/civil society/community partnerships;

Development of business plans for achieving objectives and covering costs in the most cost effective manner;

Development of the most cost-effective mix of enforcement techniques, M&E systems, infrastructure development, staffing, sustainable natural resource systems, administrative systems, communications and marketing, joint ventures, etc.

The Goal, Project Objective, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities of the project are closely aligned with GRZ policies as presented in the NBSAP and closely reflect the recent evolution of strategic thinking within MTENR/GRZ. The project will address the root causes of threats to biodiversity in the priority PA. The project has specifically been designed to overcome the barriers to effective biodiversity conservation in priority PA. The project is strongly in line with the PRSP, providing support to economic growth and poverty reduction. The project confirms Zambia’s commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the Millennium Development Goals, MDG number 7, in particular. One of the key constraints to development of the tourism sector will be addressed by restoring PA wildlife populations through improved management effectiveness.

Goal The project will make a major contribution to the achievement of the following: A National PA System that comprises a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems is effectively safeguarded from human-induced pressures through effective management partnerships and serves to make Zambia into a tourism destination of choice.

Project Objective has been defined: Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the system of PAs that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective, will be strengthened. At present only national parks and GMA are relatively effective in conserving biodiversity, with NP providing a much stronger legal base. The project will expand the range of categories of PA that provide effective biodiversity conservation and will enhance management capacities at the national level and at the field level through the development of new partnerships for managing new categories of PA.

This will be achieved through the following three complementary Outcomes:

Outcome 1 Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new tools for public/ community/ private /civil society PA management partnerships.Outcome 2 Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced capacities for PA representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.Outcome 3 PA management options expanded through development and field-testing of innovative private-public-community management partnerships for new categories of PA.

The field-level demo sites will focus on the development of partnerships and capacities of the key stakeholders, especially of the local communities in the present GMAs at each site. The reclassification at

7

UNDP PRO DOC

each demo site will be a highly participatory process putting local stakeholders in the forefront of the process. The major emphasis at the demo sites will be on building local stakeholder capacities, especially those of the community management structures of the new CCAs. The project will develop partnerships between communities, NGOs, ZAWA, private sector investors in both photo safari and trophy hunting industries and traditional authorities.

Part III: Management Arrangements

(i) Execution and Implementation Arrangements

The project will be nationally executed. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources Management (ENRM) in the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) will be the designated institution for the management of the project. As the designated institution, ENRM will be responsible for managing the project including the timely delivery of inputs and the outputs. ENRM will through the PIU coordinate the activities of all the other implementing agencies (MTENR, NRCF, WWF, KTL, CLZ, and ZAWA) to ensure the efficient and timely project implementation and the attainment of maximum impacts. ENRM will lead and coordinate the preparation of annual work plans and will also coordinate the interventions of all the other implementing agencies at the field demonstration sites, including facilitating the identification and contracting of all international consultants. WWF and other implementing agencies (e.g., KTL, UNV) will be contracted by MTENR with whom they will sign an MOU.

The Ministry of Finance and National Planning being the coordinator of aid and technical assistance will have an overall oversight and monitoring role on the part of Government. The project will receive high-level policy guidance and orientation from the project’s Steering Committee (SC). The SC will be chaired by MTENR and will be composed of the Permanent Secretaries of concerned ministries plus UNDP.

A Project Coordination Group (PCG) functioning as the Technical Advisory Group will provide technical support to the project. The PCG will be composed of 14 individuals from relevant government line ministries, implementing partners, Field Demonstration Agency and allied partners, PIU, civil society, private sector associations (tourism/safari hunting sectors), and experts appointed in their own right. The PCG will also be a planning authority of the project and will oversee and advise on the day-to-day implementation of the project and will meet every quarter for the life of the project.

A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will play a key role in project implementation. It will be attached to ENRM and will be headed by Project Technical Coordinator (PTC). He/she will work under the supervision of the Directorate of ENRM and will be responsible to UNDP for the proper application of all UNDP administrative and financial regulations and procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds.

Further, a Protected Areas Systems Specialist (PASS) and a Natural Resources Economist (NRE) will support the PTC. The PASS and NRE will be highly qualified international consultants recruited through UNOPS. In this regard the MTENR enter into agreement with UNOPS through a letter of agreement. The PASS will be a full time advisor during the first two to three years of the project and will conduct annual support missions to the project, which will coincide with the PCG’s annual review meetings for the remainder of the project’s life. The NRE will conduct annual support missions beginning in the 2 nd year of the project up to the end of the project. The PIU will have overall responsibility for project management, administrative, technical and financial reporting. UNDP will assist in the procurement of equipment and local consultants for the project as needed/requested.

MTENR will have lead responsibility for the development of the policy and legal reforms under Outcome 1 and MTENR will monitor and oversee the implementation of PA sector laws and policies. ZAWA will be the lead implementing agency for Outcome 2. Under Outcome 3, WWF shall play a duo role. Firstly, it will act as the Field Facilitation Agency (FFA) for the forging and testing of links and partnerships between the private sector partners and communities as options for natural resource management; secondly, WWF will

8

UNDP PRO DOC

provide key technical support to both sites in the areas of biodiversity surveys, image interpretation, reclassification planning, the development-based M&E systems and other specialized technical inputs needed at the two sites.

In fulfillment of its role as the Field Facilitation Agency (FFA), WWF shall be assisted by ZAWA and other field partners. WWF, in conjunction with the communities, will identify an acceptable private sector partner at each site who shall assume the leadership role in activities to test the private/public/community partnerships. The process for the identification of the private sector partners shall include intensive tripartite consultations between a) Communities, WWF and KTL in Bangweulu and b) between Communities, WWF and CLZ in Chiawa. In the event that the consultations are stalled at any of the sites, the concerned community and WWF shall seek new private sector partners. However, in the Kafinda GMA, Bangweulu Basin, where the local community has already identified a private sector partner (Kasanka Trust Limited) project activities will start while awaiting the outcome of consultations in other project areas.

As a lead Field Facilitation Agency, WWF will sub-contract parts or whole activities related to the field demonstration sites to field partners such as KTL in Bangweulu or CLZ in Chiawa in consultation with the communities. WWF will have primary responsibility for on-the-ground implementation and support to communities as well as for awareness raising, support for a highly participatory approach to reclassification planning, support for community-level capacity development, development of community-based natural resource management systems, support for development of community-based enforcement systems and the development of NR-based income generating activities. The private sector partners and the communities at the two sites shall identify and set up suitable and sustainable management structures to service the joint community/public/private sector initiatives. The project shall assist in empowering such community/private sector structures through training and skills provision.

Demonstration Site Working Groups (DSWG) operating alongside WWF and serviced by the Demonstration Site Manager will be set up at each site with the primary responsibility of distributing functions and activities to key field partners, approve annual work plans and budgets, monitor progress, and support the work of the Field Demonstration Site Manager.

Implementation of Outcome 1 MTENR will be the lead implementing agency for all legal and policy reforms under Outcome 1. Background studies and legal drafts will be contracted for by the PIU/UNDP. Stakeholder workshops will be organized by the PIU. ZAWA will provide co-financing for improving their financial management of revenue sharing with CRB. Support for improved financial management and governance at the CRB and VAG level will be done under competitively awarded contracts through the PIU/UNDP. Funding will be provided by DANIDA for the functioning of the NRCF for the first three years. This will then be picked up under UNDP/GEF funding for the final three years.

Implementation of Outcome 2 The work on reclassification priorities will be done through direct support to ZAWA’s Research, Policy and Planning Department and will also be supported by competitively awarded contracts (PIU/UNDP). The PIU will play a strong advisory role on the reclassification methodologies. The development and application of economic, financial and business planning tools will make use of a lead natural resource/environmental economics consultant (NRE). ZAWA, WWF, Forestry Department, and National Heritage Commission will do modifications to the METT and use it for monitoring PA management effectiveness under this project. The review of M&E systems will be done under NEX contract and the adaptive testing of these systems will be done primarily by ENRM assisted by consultants. The development of the Conservation, the Investment and the Marketing Plans will involve all the necessary key stakeholders with the assistance of contractors.

Implementation of Outcome 3 All implementing agencies working at the two field demonstration sites will be coordinated by WWF, who will be assisted in this by the PIU. WWF and field partners will be directly involved with awareness raising, enforcement, reclassification planning and the development of improved M&E systems. WWF will be the lead field facilitation agency at each site, and will initially be responsible for most operational, field level activities and for different forms of community support.

9

UNDP PRO DOC

However, this responsibility shall be passed on to the private sector/community partnership, which shall coordinate these functions through its own management structure.

Financial Arrangements

Both GEF and UNDP/TRAC funds will be administered by UNDP. The PIU will manage all local service providers. The PTC will manage the funds for the local staff and operating expenses of the PIU. UNDP will advance funds for a three-month period. At the end of the three month period, the PIU will submit justification for expenses and the funds spent will be renewed by UNDP.

Criteria and procedures will be developed for performance-based contracts with service providers. Under performance-based contracts, the service provider will be paid only for work completed. Work partially completed will be paid on a pro rata basis.

The project will comply with UNDP’s monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements as spelled out in the UNDP Programming Manual. The PIU PTC will have lead responsibility for reporting requirements to UNDP.

Part IV. Monitoring and Evaluation

The project is strongly focused on increasing PA management effectiveness. The development and use of appropriate tools for monitoring management effectiveness are therefore critical. In establishing the Baseline, the WWF/World Bank Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) was applied to 5 NP and 4 GMA including 3 NP and 3 GMA at the field demonstration sites. The results appear to be quite meaningful, but the tool could be much approved by modifying it to the Zambia context. This will be done as a priority during the first year of the project. The new modified tool will then be applied to all NP and GMA during the first year to provide a complete baseline for PA management effectiveness. Both the METT and the modified METT will be applied to those sites already measured for the Baseline in 2004 – this will be done to allow a proper correlation between the rankings of the two tools. All NP, GMA and newly created PA of new categories will again be ranked with the modified METT just before the mid-term and at the end-of-project.

Another area of emphasis of the project is on the expansion and multiplication of PA management partnerships. A number of public/private partnerships already exist, but there is no formal system for monitoring these partnerships. The modified METT will be used to compare the effectiveness of different forms of management partnerships. New M&E tools will be developed for monitoring how well management partners respect the new policy framework to be developed for management partnerships and how well they respect signed MOU or leases. Likewise, there need to be monitoring safeguards developed so that ZAWA or MTENR can ensure that CCA managers are respecting the basic conditions for CCA – such as the ban on conversion to agriculture. The two mid-term and the EOP evaluations will place a particular emphasis on capturing lessons learned concerning management partnerships.

Other areas of emphasis will be on the development of community-managed M&E systems, especially for monitoring wildlife populations for trophy hunting, and on the development of systems for monitoring ecosystem health and biodiversity. It is critical that monitoring of game populations be seen as a basic cost of doing business for trophy hunting. Community managers need assistance in developing systems that are scientifically valid and that are within their means to implement.

Quarterly progress reports will be prepared by the PIU. Annual Project Reviews (APR) will be done annually by the PIU and completed by the UNDP CO. The project will be overseen by the Steering Committee. Annual Tripartite Reviews of the project will be involve GRZ/ZAWA, UNDP and the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator and the PIU. Two mid-term reviews (MTR) will be conducted at the end of year 2 and year 4 and a final evaluation near the end of year 6. The primary purpose of the MTR will be

10

UNDP PRO DOC

to identify strengths and weaknesses, to reinforce what works well and to make mid-term corrections to correct weaknesses.

Responsibilities for monitoring the specific indicators in the log frame will be divided between the PIU, ZAWA, the executing agencies for the field demonstration labs and contractors hired to conduct independent monitoring of indicators. The full M&E plan is presented in Annex 4.

Audit

The Government will provide UNDP with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of project funds according to the established procedures set out in the UNDP Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

PART V: LEGAL CONTEXT

This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of Zambia and the United Nations Development Programme.

The following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the UNDP Resident Representative only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project document have no objections to the proposed changes, that is to say revisions which do not involve significant changes in the outcomes, outputs or activities of a project, but are caused by rearrangement of inputs agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation.

The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

SECTION 2: TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

The total budget for this project is $7 million consisting of $ 6million from GEF and $1million from UNDP TRAC. The work plan and budget for the GEF contribution is broken-down per output are presented on pages 151 to 169. While UNDP contribution will be covered under a supplemental project to be attached to this main project.

11

UNDP PRO DOC

SECTION3: Letters of Endorsement

12

UNDP PRO DOC

13

UNDP PRO DOC

Appendix A

AcronymsADB African Development BankADMADE Administrative Management Design for Game AreasAMU Area Management UnitAPR Annual Project ReviewCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource ManagementCBO Community-Based OrganizationCCA Community Conservation Area (new category to be created)CCA Common Country AssessmentCCD Convention to Combat DesertificationCEMP Community Environmental Management ProgramCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraCLZ Conservation Lower ZambeziCO Country Office (UNDP)COP Conference of the PartiesCRB Community Resource BoardCSO Central Statistics OfficeDANIDA Danish International Development Agency DoF Division of FisheriesDP Decentralization PolicyECZ Environmental Council of ZambiaEOP End-of-projectESP Environmental Support ProgrammeEU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFD Forest Department in MTENRFINNIDA Finnish Development Agency GDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information SystemGMA Game Management AreasGNP Gross National ProductGPAZ Game Producers Association of Zambia GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia GTZ German Technical Aid Agency HDI Human Development IndexHDR Human Development ReportHIPC Highly Indebted Poor Countries (Initiative)IDA International Development Agency (World Bank)IUCN World Conservation Union KTL Kasanka Trust LimitedLIRDP Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Programme LZNP Lower Zambezi National ParkMAC Ministry of Agriculture and CooperativesM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMETT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MoLA Ministry of Legal AffairesMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMT Mid-term

14

UNDP PRO DOC

MTENR Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural ResourcesMTR Mid-Term ReviewNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNCS National Conservation Strategy (1985)NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNHCC National Heritage Conservation Commission NORAD Norwegian Agency for International Development NP National ParkNPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service (ZAWA’s predecessor)NRCF Natural Resources Consultative ForumNRE Natural Resource EconomistNRM Natural Resources ManagementOP Operational Program (GEF)PA Protected AreaPASS Protected Areas Systems SpecialistPC Peace CorpsPCV Peace Corps VolunteerPDF-B Project Development Fund – Block B (GEF)PID Planning and Information Department of MENRPIU Project Implementation UnitPS Permanent SecretarySADC Southern African Development CommunitySARPO Southern Africa Regional Program Office (WWF)SEED Securing the Environment for Economic DevelopmentSHA Safari Hunting Area (proposed new PA category)SIDA Swedish International Development AgencySLAMU South Luangwa Area Management UnitSNRM Sustainable Natural Resources ManagementSTAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (GEF)SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threatsTOR Terms of ReferenceUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDP/TRAC UNDP-Target for Resources Assignment from the CoreUNEP United Nations Environment ProgramUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNOPS United Nations Office for Project ServicesUNV United Nations VolunteerUSAID United States Agency for International Development WCS Wildlife Conservation SocietyWECSZ Wildlife and Environmental Conservation Society of ZambiaWHS World Heritage SiteWPO Wildlife Police Officer (ZAWA)WSAP Wetlands Strategy and Action Plan WWF World Wide Fund for Nature WWF-SARPO WWF-Southern Africa Regional ProgrammeZAFCOM Zambia Forestry Commission (proposed)ZAWA Zambia Wildlife AuthorityZEP Zambian Education ProgramZFAP Zambia Forestry Action Plan

15

UNDP PRO DOC

Context

I. Environmental Context

1. Global importance of biodiversity Zambia lies at the heart of the Miombo Ecoregion, listed as a WWF Global 200 Ecoregion because of its high species richness. It is also referred to as the Zambezian Regional Center of Endemism, an area of some 3,770 million km2, covering parts of 11 countries and extending from the Katanga Province (DRC) to the Vaal River in South Africa. The Miombo Ecoregion supports important populations of fauna, particularly large mammals. It is also floristically diverse, harboring some 8,500 plant species, of which approximately 54% are endemic. WWF-SARPO (2002) has identified 26 areas of special biodiversity importance within the Ecoregion, based on a) the occurrence of endemic species; b) high species diversity; c) important or globally significant populations and; d) incorporating, or essential for significant animal movements. The nine areas that are found totally or partially within Zambia are the following:

The Luapula/Mweru-wa-Ntipa complex The Chambeshi/Bangweulu basin The Luangwa-Luano rift system The Kafue Flats The Upper Zambezi plains The Zambezi headwaters The “Four Corners” area consisting of adjacent parts of Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and

Zambia. The Middle Zambezi Valley Lake Tanganyika

2. Zambia extends over most of the central parts of the Miombo Ecoregion that is also the center of diversity for the 22 or so Brachystegia and Julbernadia species after which the eco-region is named. The two other important eco-regions in Africa that extend to Zambia are East African Montane Ecoregion (Nyika/Mafinga Hills area) and the Great Lakes Ecoregion (Lake Tanganyika).

3. The floristic diversity of Zambia is variously estimated at between 6,000 to 7,000 species (Thole et. al., 1996), out of the 8,500 total for the Ecoregion. The fauna inventory is estimated at 83 species of amphibians, 165 species of reptiles, 733 species of birds, 233 of mammals, and 408 of fish (MENR 1999). The inventory of invertebrates is incomplete. The country constitutes an important repository for several CITES listed species including African elephant, leopard, black lechwe (Kobus leche smithmani) and shoebill crane (Balaeniceps rex). Further, the country is important for the conservation of avifauna. Birdlife International has identified 31 Important Bird Areas in Zambia covering 86,413 km2. Two Wetlands of global significance have been listed under the Ramsar Convention, namely the Kafue Flats (Lochnivar and Blue Lagoon National Parks) and Bangweulu Wetlands (Chikuni area). Zambia has huge areas of wetlands. Approximately 45,000km2 (6%) of Zambia’s total surface area of 752,620sq km is covered with water in the form of marshes, swamps, lakes, rivers and streams.

4. Zambia presents one of the best country-level opportunities for conserving prime representative examples of the biodiversity of the Miombo Ecoregion. This opportunity is a function of the low rural population density, the still extensive areas of largely intact natural ecosystems and the political stability the country has historically enjoyed.

5. Zambia’s National Protected Areas System (PA) is considerably larger than the global mean. GRZ adheres to the Millennium Development Goals including Goal 7 “Ensure environmental sustainability” and its indicator, “land area protected to maintain biological diversity”. The most important PAs in Zambia are the 19 national parks (NP) and 35 game management areas (GMA) – together they cover over 30% of the territory of Zambia. The NP form the core of the PA system – parks alone cover 8.5% of the country. Conventional tourism based on game-viewing is the main economic use permitted within the NP. A full 85% of the GMA were intentionally created as buffer areas to NPs – in total, they

16

UNDP PRO DOC

cover over 22% of the territory. The rationale is that NPs should protect nucleus breeding populations of wildlife; spillover populations may then be utilized in GMAs, generating benefits and incentives for local communities in these zones. Trophy hunting is an important economic activity in GMA that have viable wildlife populations.

6. The parks and GMAs together provide exceptionally large bio-geographical complexes with the potential, if well managed, to conserve viable populations of even those species that occur naturally at low densities. Legally, the national parks clearly provide the highest level of protection for biodiversity, and provide the bulwark of the national PA estate. Nevertheless, wildlife populations have been depleted through hunting pressure in many sites, and conservation infrastructure is generally rudimentary.

7. Zambia’s first PAs were created in the 1920’s as game reserves under the Game Ordinance of 1925 (Prior to independence, the Luangwa Game Reserve was declared in 1904 at the instigation of the Administrator of what was then North-Eastern Rhodesia.) The creation of PA has continued over most the century, with large areas gazetted since independence in 1964. The criteria used a half century ago (Chi Chi, 2004) for the selection of areas for national park establishment were:

a. presence of species requiring special protection;b. areas unsuited to agriculture, either because the soils were unsuitable for cultivation or

because of the presence of tsetse flies that precluded the raising of domestic animals, especially the bovines; and

c. areas in which human settlements were absent or sparse.In spite of these criteria, in general criterion (a) did not play a major role in the designation of national parks. Consequently, the majority of national parks were located in areas that qualified on the basis of criteria (b) and (c). Notice that ecosystem/habitat conservation was not a criterion for park establishment.

8. The 2002 assessment of national parks summarized in Table 1 presents a qualitative assessment of the condition of these national parks – based primarily on wildlife populations. The table suggests that 11 of the 19 national parks were either declining or degraded in status. An older estimate, (Chabwela, 1996) reports that when the populations of key species are considered then, up to 14 (74%) of the 19 national parks had either been depleted or were on a downward trend.

Table 1 – Status of Zambia's National Park EstatesNational Park Condition National Park ConditionBlue LagoonKafue KasankaLavushimandaLiuwa PlainLochnvarLower ZambeziLuambeLukusuziLusenga Plain

StableDecliningStabilizationDegradedStableStableRecoveringDecliningDegradedDegraded

Mosi-Oa-TunyaMweru-WantipaIsanganoNorth LuangwaNsumbuNyikaSioma NgweziSouth LuangwaWest Lunga

StableDegradedDegradedRecoveringDecliningDecliningDecliningStableDeclining

After MTENR and UNDP/GEF 2002

9. The GMAs generally have good potential for biodiversity conservation. However, few of the GMAs currently provide effective buffers to NPs, there being little distinction in management between ecologically sensitive areas, such as corridors for wildlife movements, and larger dispersal areas, where less intensive management is possible. GMAs include settlements and farmlands within their borders. At the legal level, there are no restrictions on land use within GMA – in particular there are no restrictions on conversion to agriculture. With few exceptions, however, human populations in GMAs are generally low enough to allow co-existence with healthy wildlife populations that can support

17

UNDP PRO DOC

sustainable harvests if soundly managed. Like the NP, the GMAs also suffer from difficult access and a lack of infrastructure. Traditional chiefs have the right to lease the land under the Lands Act of 1995, which could be tied to commercial joint ventures in GMAs. ZAWA’s concurrence would be required.

10. Zambia also has large areas contained within 490 forest reserves, and much smaller areas within 2 wildlife sanctuaries, 2 bird sanctuaries, two fisheries gazetted areas (that are outside of the NP or GMA) and 3687 national heritage sites of which 5 are classified as ecological sites. The forest reserves are further categorized as either national or local forests, but nearly all of the forest reserves are presently neglected and largely unmanaged and unprotected. They provide little effective conservation of biodiversity at present. For the purposes of this report, they are not considered to be part of the National System of PA.

II. Socio-Economic Context

11. Social Context Previously known as Northern Rhodesia, Zambia came into existence in 1924, and attained independence in 1964. Zambia has a democratic form of government and elections are held regularly every five years, the last in 2001. At independence the population was 3.2 million, and this has since tripled. The 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses estimated the population for Zambia to be at 5.7 million, 7.8 million and 9.9 million respectively, though the population growth rate has shown a steady decline from 3.1% (1969 to 1980) to 2.7% (1980 to 1990) to 2.4% (1990 to 2000).

12. HIV/AIDS This slow-down in the growth rate in recent times can partly be attributed to high rates of HIV prevalence in the country, estimated at 16% of the population aged 15-49 3. Life expectancy in 2000 was estimated to be 504 years, and if current trends continue, it is projected to be as low as 33 years by the year 2010. The Living Conditions Monitoring Survey estimated there was a total of 500,000 HIV/AIDS related orphans in Zambia in 1996 and that figure was expected to double by the year 2000 (CSO, 1998).

13. Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with about 35% of its population living in urban areas. Despite some 72 language groups in Zambia, the incidence of ethnic conflict is low. Although it is surrounded by a number of countries that have undergone very turbulent times in the past four decades, Zambia has been one of the most stable countries in southern Africa.

14. Gender Customary law and practice often place women in subordinate positions with respect to property ownership, inheritance and marriage, despite constitutional and legislative provisions to the contrary. Although poverty affects both sexes, it is largely feminized with women being the most severely affected. Female concentration in the lower paying, less skilled occupations results in an estimated 90% of wages and cash income being paid to men. In practice, women are largely excluded from decision making positions.

15. Poverty is pervasive in Zambia. The UNDAF5 describes poverty in Zambia as clearly widespread, deep and gender biased, noting that there is a critical need for greater targeting of development resources towards the poor and vulnerable groups, and the improved participation of the poor in decision-making.

16. As an overall indicator of development, the Human Development Index (HDI)6 provides a useful summary of Zambia’s development history (see Table 2), showing steady progress until 1985. Since then Zambia experienced a rapid decline in its overall performance. Zambia’s ranking over the same period has declined steadily, and is now 163rd out of 175 (the total number of countries in the ranking

3 Zambia Demographic Health Survey4 CSO 20005 UN Development Assistance Framework for Zambia, 20026 A UNDP measure combining life expectancy, access to education (combination of enrolment and adult literacy rates), and GDP per capita.

18

UNDP PRO DOC

has increased over time). Besides the decline in HDI value, this can partially be attributed to the improved performance of other countries. More striking – of all the countries for which HDI data is available between 1975 and 2001, Zambia is one of only three where the latest HDI value is lower than it was in 1975.

Table 2 – Zambia’s Human Development performance for selected years7

Year HDI Value Ranking8

1975 0.462 691980 0.470 871985 0.478 951990 0.461 1081995 0.414 1232001 0.386 163

17. The first millennium goal aspires to reduce by half the number of people living under US$1 a day. According to the UN HDRError: Reference source not found, in 2001, 63% of the population fell into this category.

18. Through the 1990s, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) undertook a series of surveys to investigate the nature of poverty, which are summarized below in . This table shows that:

Between 1991 and 1998 there has been an increase in overall poverty, and a marginal decline in extreme poverty;

In the rural areas there has been a slight decline in both overall and extreme poverty, while in urban areas there has been a noticeable increase;

Although a rural-urban disparity still exists in 1998, the gap between the two has narrowed.

Table 3 – Overall and extreme poverty in Zambia, 1991-19989

19. Economy For most of the period since independence, Zambia’s economy was a centrally planned economy that was highly dependent on copper mining. Currently the country is implementing an economic recovery program that is intended to promote economic growth, stabilize the economy, promote the private sector, privatize state-owned activities and improve infrastructure and social services delivery systems. Progress has been slow, and GDP growth rate has fluctuated from 2.2% in 1999 to 3.6% in 2000, 4.9% in 2001 and 3.0 in 2002. In 2003, GDP per capita was US$ 78010.

20. Since 1991, Zambia has embarked on a new economic liberalization agenda that is still being followed. It seeks to reverse the negative impacts of the old policies and advocates a greatly expanded private sector involvement in the economy. This new philosophy and approach have found practical expressions through stricter adherence and implementation of World Bank and IMF recommended economic reforms, such as:

7 Source: UN HDR, 20038 Ranked out of 100 countries where data is available.9 Source: PRSP, 200210 UN HDR, 2003

19

UNDP PRO DOC

A Structural Adjustment Program which seeks also to curb and eventually eliminate government deficit spending;

A Economic Liberalization Program which emphasizes the private sector as the appropriate engine of economic growth and the need therefore for its encouragement, promotion, involvement and active participation and expansion in the economy; and

A Privatization Program which has been used as the principal means of expanding the stake of the private sector and curbing the active participation of the government in the economy through selling off hitherto monolithic parastatal sector companies and organizations into the private ownership.

21. Zambia is one of six Southern African countries classified as a highly indebted poor country (HIPC), and has about US$7 billion owed to external debtors. Key to qualifying for debt relief under the HIPC scheme is a privatization program involving the sale of Zambian National Commercial Bank (ZANACO), the power utility ZESCO and the telecommunications supplier ZAMTEL.

22. Mining earns approximately 80% of the foreign exchange, accounts for 8.5% of formal employment and for 7% of GDP. Zambia is thus extremely vulnerable to shifts in the price and production of copper. The production of copper has been declining steadily since 1970 (prices have risen in the past year) and this is a major factor contributing to the high levels of poverty in the country. Following the sharp slump in international prices of copper and the January 2002 announcement of Anglo-American PLC to withdraw from its investment in the largest privatized copper mine, GRZ requested the World Bank’s assistance in developing a diversification strategy to mitigate the economic effects of the copper crisis. The GRZ Copper Crisis Task Force, funded by the World Bank, developed a diversification strategy that identified tourism, agribusiness and gemstones as the three high potential sectors in Zambia.

23. Agriculture The majority of Zambians depend on agriculture-related activities for livelihood, with 67% of the labor force employed in agriculture11. The importance of this sector to Zambian people can also be seen in the 75% of Zambia’s 600,000 farms, which are ‘small-scale’ (less than 9 hectares)12. Zambia has an abundance of resources, which could be exploited to stimulate agricultural and rural development with 12% of the country classified as suitable for arable use. It has been targeted as one of the driving engines of economic growth. With the current decline in mining, focus is being switched to the potential of agriculture and related agribusiness elements. The sector’s high dependence on rainfall results in significant fluctuations in growth, but a more serious threat to long-term growth is the rising cost of inputs such as energy and fertilizer.

24. Fisheries and Forestry Capture fisheries is one of the most neglected sectors in the country. Officially, fisheries contribute 1.2% to GDP and about 300,000 households are involved. There are nine major fisheries – most of them are based on the country’s massive wetlands and river systems. Official figures put the contribution of the forestry sector to GDP as between 0.9 and 3% (MENR 1997). These figures are likely to be gross underestimates of the contribution of forest resources to Zambia's economy, because the bulk of transactions involving forestry resources go undetected by official accounting mechanisms (MENR 1997). Also, the value of charcoal production is counted under manufacturing rather than the forest sector. In fact, wood-based fuels from the country’s forests and woodlands account for 71% of the nation's energy consumption, and 96% of household energy consumption (MENR 1997).

25. Tourism The Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), which provides the framework for public investment and coordinated donor support for development, targets tourism development as the second most important sector for economic growth and poverty reduction after agriculture. Tourism in Zambia depends primarily on national parks and GMAs. Over medium to longer term horizons, the PRSP should provide a vehicle for mobilizing significant investment finance for the tourism sector, and

11 WB SEED Project Appraisal Document, September 2003.12 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Agriculture Bulletin 2000

20

UNDP PRO DOC

underpinning PA estate. The priority national parks targeted under the PRSP are Livingston/Victoria Falls followed by the Kafue, Lower Zambezi and Luangwa NPs. The PRSP recognizes that the large areas of national parks and GMA are comparative advantages for Zambia in the tourism sector.

26. The World Bank Copper Crisis Task Force also identified tourism as a driving key growth sector. The sector represents a significant opportunity because it is already a sizable contributor to GDP, it is a recognized leader in foreign exchange earnings, and it has the potential to create numerous benefits through its linkages to the rest of the economy. 25% of visitors to Zambia come as tourists. Expectations of economic growth through development of the tourism sector are high13.

27. The wildlife in the PAs is the main tourist attraction is Zambia. Zambia has the largest wildlife estate in the sub-region but the level of tourism development is very low compared to other countries in the region. It earns less than US$2 per hectare from wildlife utilization compared to South Africa and Zimbabwe that earn about US$16 per hectare, and Botswana and Namibia that earn about US$8 per hectare (the figures from South Africa and Botswana include income from game ranches and this inflates the per hectare revenue. Revenue for Zambia is only from GMA). In the 19 national parks and 35 GMAs, only 5% of the available area is developed for tourism14. Data on the beds, revenues and jobs generated by protected areas are exceptionally difficult to obtain. The following estimates are therefore intended to be indicative (Figure 1). Nevertheless they demonstrate, on the one hand, the underperformance of Zambian protected areas when it comes to generating park income ), economic turnover and jobs, and on the other hand, the huge potential for growth once growth-supportive policies, effective management systems and investments are in place.

28. Although Figures 1 and 2 illustrate differences in the levels of revenue generation from PA in different southern African countries, one must not conclude that high revenue generation implies effective biodiversity conservation. For example, the Pilanesburg and Phinda parks in South Africa are small-sized, encircled by a game-proof fence, “ecological” islands, totally artificial and comparable to zoological gardens. They should not serve as models for biodiversity conservation in Zambia. Similar differences in hunting income from GMAs in southern African countries are shown in Figure 3. It is estimated that for every dollar earned from hunting and tourism in landholder or park fees, tour operators turn over some $3 and $10 respectively, which contributes to the economic multiplier effect15.

Figure 1 – Comparison of Tourism Bed Capacity in Zambia and South Africa

Comparison of Bed Denisities in Protected Areas

00.0020.0040.0060.0080.01

0.0120.0140.0160.0180.02

(DSI, 2004) Note: The first 9 sites are in Zambia (Mosi Oa Tunya to Blue Lagoon).

13 WB SEED Project Appraisal Document, September 2003.14 PRSP, p.6815 DSI, 2004

21

UNDP PRO DOC

Figure 2 – Comparison of Park Fee Income in Zambia and South Africa

Park Revenues per Hectare

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

(DSI, 2004) Note: The first 9 sites are in Zambia (Mosi Oa Tunya to Blue Lagoon).

Figure 3 – Rough comparison of hunting Income in Zambia and Southern Africa

(DSI, 2004) Note: There are two different estimates for Zambia.

29. Lack of road/transport infrastructure is often a constraint to successful commercial exploitation of an area for conventional tourism. However, trophy hunting is much less dependent on good infrastructure. Where wildlife populations are adequate, trophy hunting can generate immediate benefits that will in turn generate direct economic incentives for GMA communities to conserve the wildlife. There are large areas of national park, which are currently cost centers for management, which fit this description: poorly developed infrastructure with relatively high wildlife populations.

30. Two recent events created a serious financial crisis for PA funding. The 2001 moratorium on hunting resulted in a revenue loss of approximately Kwacha10 billion (US$2 million), while the non-allocation of hunting blocks in the 2002 hunting season resulted in K13.5 (US2.7 million) of lost revenue.

31. Tourism and sustainable financing for PA management are both dependent on wildlife populations. The principal source of funding for PA management comes from tourism levies – from game viewing and hunting. The lower the number of tourists and trophy hunters, the lower the revenue to finance ZAWA and the lower the incentives for communities to conserve their game and its habitat. While game

22

UNDP PRO DOC

viewing also requires much better road access and infrastructure, it is dependant first and foremost on the existence of healthy wildlife populations. Restoring wildlife populations requires effective PA management. An example of this relationship is found in South Luangwa NP, the second largest park in Zambia. As a result of major investments in PA management and infrastructure, mostly by NORAD, recurrent costs for South Luangwa NP, depreciation of capital not included, have recently become largely self-financing out of tourism levies.

32. Some of the greatest external threats to the wildlife-tourism sector in Zambia are from the high macro-economic costs encountered, both financial and regulatory. There is a need to liberalize policies towards private and community sectors, for example by reducing non value-adding bureaucratic procedures and encouraging revenue generation and full retention, or major opportunities will be lost.

33. Costs of operating commercially in the wildlife tourism sector in Zambia are, in general, extremely high compared to its neighbors. Tax rates are high, as are import tariffs. One major intangible contributing factor is the high level of transaction costs, which include a plethora of regulations and permits, slow legal systems and weak property rights. These combine to inhibit and constrain commercial development in the tourism sector.

34. The issue of weak tenure is a serious constraint on economic development in Zambia, and especially the growth of the commercial wildlife sector. The present situation in respect to land and resource rights often results in de facto open access regimes, with little internalization of costs and benefits, and therefore low levels of responsibility and re-investment in the resource base. Weak tenure is a constraint to economic development.

35. Zambia has 3687 national heritage sites listed in the national register of the National Heritage Conservation Commission (NHCC). Many of them are in NP and GMA. They represent an underdeveloped tourism potential that, if properly developed, could contribute to tourism development and sustainable financing for PA.

36. The southern Bangweulu Wetlands and the Lower Zambezi NP/Chiawa GMA complex provide examples of the linkages between wildlife, tourism and PA management. In the mid-80s, Kasanka and Lavushi Manda NP and the adjoining GMA were largely unmanaged with little tourism development. Wildlife in the two parks was very heavily depleted. Starting in 1986, the group that became Kasanka Trust Limited (KTL), took over management of Kasanka NP on a 10 year renewable lease. They have controlled poaching, restored wildlife and invested in lodge facilities to the point where tourism revenues are now covering a large part of operational costs. Without similar investments, wildlife populations in Lavushi Manda remain at very low levels and it has almost no management and almost no attraction for tourists. Most of the wildlife in the surrounding GMAs is highly concentrated around the ZAWA wildlife police officers post at Chikuni because of the relative protection they enjoy next to the post.

37. The Lower Zambezi/Chiawa complex enjoys some of the best access of the entire PA in the country. Significant investments in tourist lodges had already been made by the early 90’s. Before and during the transformation of NPWS into ZAWA, poaching in the NP and the GMA began to spiral out of control and the lodge owners saw the wildlife, their economic base, was severely threatened. They and others joined together to form the NGO Conservation Lower Zambezi. With both their own funds and other funds they were able to mobilize, they were able to stop the worst of the poaching and the decimation of wildlife population that took place in many PA during that period. CLZ, with DANIDA support, is now investing heavily in environmental education for GMA communities.

III. Policy and Legislative Context

38. Responsibility for wildlife and habitat protection was traditionally vested in the local chief on behalf of the villagers. The chief controlled the allocation of land for use by households, and access to forest and

23

UNDP PRO DOC

wildlife resources. In legislation enacted to set up game reserves in the 1940s, the ownership and access to wildlife resources was taken away from the local chiefs and vested in the State. This process continued, resulting in the alienation of local people from the management of wildlife and natural resources. It did, however, lay the basis for the creation of Zambia’s Protected Areas System.

39. The Game Ordinance of 1925 created Zambia’s first game reserve in Luangwa. National parks and game management areas were formally provided for under the National Parks and Wildlife Act No. 57 of 1968, created by the National Parks Declaration Order of 1972, and Statutory Instrument No. 44 of 1972, which established the basis for the current network of wildlife protected areas. Game management areas, which surround national parks and serve as buffer zones against disruptive land-use practices, emerged only in the early 1970s under the Game Management Area Declaration Order of 1971. GMAs were created with the overall objective of providing a framework within which to integrate wildlife management into rural development (Lungu, 1990).

40. The Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 provides for the current management structure for Zambia's protected areas. The Act outlines the rationale for the new Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), its responsibilities concerning protected areas, and how it is to be involved in the regulation of hunting in GMAs and game ranches (ZAWA, 2002). It provides for protected species, licensing, entry in wildlife protected areas, management planning requirements for national parks and game management areas and the enforcement of wildlife related activities for compliance with international agreements. The Act also provides for the creation of local level community institutions, Community Resource Boards (CRBs) and along with GMA legislation represents an effort to return at least some rights of resource management to local communities.

41. CRBs were designed to enable communities to benefit from the natural resources of the GMA. The 1998 Act allows for co-management of each GMA between ZAWA and the CRB. The GMA often cover very large areas, presenting serious challenges for good governance between the CRB and its constituents. In June 2002, ZAWA agreed to share c 45% of hunting license revenues (not profits) with the CRB and 5% with traditional leaders. Very recently, they agreed with the CRB to redo the formula for sharing revenues and to base this on the sharing of costs on a case-by-case basis. The GMA category of PA is relatively weak in a legal sense, because there are no restrictions on conversion of natural areas in the GMA to other land uses, and to agriculture in particular. In this respect, GMA are little different from open areas.

42. The Wildlife Act of 1998 allows for potential devolution of authority to CRBs for wildlife management. However, GMA residents have no formal, legal rights to benefit from the management of any natural resources. Progress in GMAs is made exceedingly difficult by the existence of a plethora of different sector authorities, most with small capacities, while the primary stakeholders, the villagers, have little authority. While policy, pubic pronouncements and legislation suggest that the potential for CBNRM in Zambia is high, there is considerable slippage between stated intention and practice.

43. Fisheries resources are managed under the Fisheries Act of 1974. The Division of Fisheries (DoF), created the same year, is responsible for implementing the Act. Fisheries were managed as a natural resource until 1982, when DoF was transferred to Agriculture. This reflected a significant policy change with fisheries now managed primarily as food production systems. Current laws and policies make no allowance for the participation of communities in fisheries management. Notwithstanding, there are pilot activities to develop community-based fisheries management approaches at least two sites in Zambia.

44. Zambia is a signatory to the International Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD -- Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar, 1971), World Heritage Convention (WHC) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

24

UNDP PRO DOC

45. Zambia is in the process of developing an all-embracing national environmental policy to bring together the numerous sectoral policy frameworks and environmental strategies. These policies under review include the National Conservation Strategy (NCS) whose objectives included maintenance of Zambia’s biodiversity and sustainable use of the country’s renewable resources; the policy for National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia (1998); the Zambia Wildlife Act, Act No. 12 of 1998; the Forestry Policy (1998); the Forestry Act Cap 311 of 1973; and the Fisheries Act, cap 311 of 1974.

IV. Institutional Context

Government

46. The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) is directly or indirectly responsible for most environmental and natural resource management in Zambia. MTENR plays a coordinating role, which includes the crucial responsibility of policy formulation for these sub-sectors. The MTENR’s role also embodies the facilitation and monitoring of the implementation of international agreements, conventions and treaties, with a view to promoting the country’s conservation interests as well as meeting international obligations.

47. The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) is the key institution for PA and wildlife management in Zambia. It has the legal status of statutory body (a type of parastatal), and was established by Act of Parliament No. 12 of 1998. It commenced operations in 2000. ZAWA’s mission is to contribute to the preservation of Zambia’s heritage, ecosystem and biodiversity for present and future generations through the conservation of Zambia’s wildlife. It is responsible for the management of the national parks and GMAs. GMA are to be managed in partnership with communities. An independent board of directors appointed by Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources governs it.

48. The establishment of ZAWA was part of a broad and much larger package of ongoing reforms implemented by GRZ since 1991 that aim to reduce government subventions to various sectors. ZAWA was designed to supercede the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), which had become increasingly dysfunctional over the previous 30 years: this context of decreased capacity aggravated by a mix of other factors, led to 90% of Zambia’s elephant population being lost due to poaching between independence and the end of the century. In the same period, the black rhino disappeared from the country.

49. The creation of ZAWA was a difficult and turbulent process. The final transition stage from NPWS to ZAWA left an institutional void at the field level that resulted in the decimation of wildlife populations in many NPs and GMAs. Staff numbers were reduced from 4,400 under NPWS to 1,400 under ZAWA. Infrastructure in the NPs and GMAs is dilapidated in most cases, and non-existent in some. The establishment of ZAWA took off without the re-capitalization that would have enabled it to carry out effective and efficient resource protection, monitoring programs and infrastructure development. ZAWA lacked adequate transport to carry out its work, and this is still a problem: from a total of 77 vehicles owned by ZAWA in March 2004, only about 17% were reliable (Since then, ZAWA has had part of their vehicle fleet renewed through a grant from NORAD).

50. ZAWA has passed through a traumatic transformation process during its first two years, with political interference in the filling of the upper management positions. It is now increasing in stability, having had both a substantive board and senior staff in place for over two years. ZAWA has recently been making rapid strides to assert itself in the field and to expand its capacities. With funding incentive based from NORAD, poaching is generally under control in 9 of the 19 national parks, representing 63% of the total area. However, ZAWA still has an excessive and under-funded mandate, and still has to develop substantial capacity in terms of human resources and management systems.

51. The Division of Fisheries (DoF), in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, has a mandate for promoting the development of commercial fishing, enforcement of regulations and laws and for

25

UNDP PRO DOC

registration of fishermen and their boats. It has authority to oversee all fisheries gazetted areas and is extremely interested in community programs. DoF, however, has very little capacity or resources to do any of this. Fisheries is one of the most underdeveloped sectors in the country.

52. The Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) was established under the Environmental Protection Control Act No. 12 of 1990 and has responsibility for monitoring the state of the environment in the country including all gazetted areas. With funding from the Netherlands, ECZ had an active program of monitoring of wildlife populations in PA in the late 1990s. Although ECZ’s monitoring of wildlife stopped with the end of this funding, ECZ still have this unfunded mandate. ECZ has been seeking to transfer this function to ZAWA – and asking to ZAWA to pay for it.

53. Key points on the capacity of other institutions relevant to the PA sector are summarized as follows: The Forestry Department, also under MTENR, is responsible for all gazetted national and local

forest reserves but political will and FD capacity are so weak that management is effectively absent from forest reserves. Illegal logging is rampant, the department has virtually no capacity to control agricultural encroachments into the forestry estate, the collection rate of license fees for most commercial forest products is less than 5%, and there are essentially no functional natural forest management systems in place.

The National Heritage Conservation Commission is responsible for overseeing all national heritage and plaque sites, the most famous being Victoria Falls, which is a World Heritage Site, and located within Mosi Oa Tunya National Park. Other sites are poorly managed due to lack of resources.

Non-government partners in PA management

54. Zambia has been a leader in forming innovative partnerships with non-governmental organizations for the management of protected areas. This was largely a spontaneous reaction to the high level of poaching resulting from the institutional void of the 1980s and 1990s. Two prominent examples are Kasanka Trust Limited in Kasanka NP, and Frankfurt Zoological Society in North Luangwa NP. They both operate under formal agreements with ZAWA, and have been active since the late 1980s. A more recently created entity is Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ), which exists to reduce poaching and increase community development in the Lower Zambezi area. A number of international NGOs also have operations in Zambia, including, IUCN, WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society and African Wildlife Foundation.

55. African Parks is the first for-profit, private sector business partner for PA management in Zambia. They have just signed a 20-year lease with ZAWA in June 2004 for the management of Liuwa Plains NP. They plan to operate the park as a business, making the investments in park management and infrastructure necessary to bring the park up to a condition where they can attract large, private, tourism sector investors – and perhaps turn a profit on their own investments. The newly signed lease in Zambia is the most recent of several similar African Parks investments in African PA in at least four countries.

Baseline Course of Action

V. Threats

56. Threats to biodiversity have been greatly reinforced by increasing poverty over the last three decades. The main threats to biodiversity at a landscape level include over-hunting of wildlife, unsustainable exploitation of forest produce (especially for sawtimber and urban wood energy supplies) and clearance of forests, wetlands and grasslands for agriculture. Major underlying causes of these threats have been poverty and the lack of economic alternatives associated with the rapidly declining economic conditions in the country during the 80s and 90s, the decline in the motivation and the resources of State institutions -- especially the old National Parks and Wildlife Service – and rapid demographic growth in the country.

26

UNDP PRO DOC

57. Anti-poaching efforts came to a virtual halt for several years during the institutional void during the late 90s leading up to the creation of ZAWA. Elephant populations in Zambia fell by roughly 90% from the 1950s to the 1990s. The black rhino was eliminated from Zambia during the same period. Table 4 shows the impact of poaching on the comparison of stocking rate to carrying capacity of 9 NP and GMA. (The overstocking of Mosi oa Tunya NP has since been addressed by ZAWA through a culling operation.) Poaching has been facilitated by the growing availability of guns related to political instability in neighboring countries.

Table 4 – Comparison of National Parks and GMA Stocking Rates with Expected Carrying CapacitiesProtected Area Size

(Km²)Mean

Annual Rainfall (mm)

Current Stocking Rate to Carrying

Capacity %

Stocking Rate (LSU/Km²)

South Luangwa NP 9,505 600 65.2 6.5

Kafue NP 22,400 800 8.4 1.4

Mosi-oa-Tunya NP 66 500 357 26.3

Kasanka NP 390 900 16.6 3.3

Lavushi Manda NP 1,500 900 1.2 0.2

Lupande GMA 4,840 600 16.1 1.6

Munyamadzi GMA 3,300 600 33.7 3.4

Lumimba GMA/Luambe NP 4,500 600 13.7 1.4

Kafue Flats GMA (Kafue

Lechwe only)

6,100 600 18.2 1.8

Bangweulu Swamps

(Lechwe only)

8,400 900 5.4 1.1

(DSI, 2004)

58. For most of the post-colonial era, the government focused its resources on the mining sector, which brought the greatest revenue to the country compared to other sectors. Protected areas were not seen as a priority and resources political commitment dedicated to PA and wildlife conservation declined. Recently, with the drop of world prices for Zambian export minerals (copper, zinc, lead, cobalt and coal), the government has re-focused its attention on the agricultural and the tourism sectors as sources of major revenue to the country. The reliance of tourism on wildlife, NP and GMA has helped bring new resources to bear on anti-poaching and PA management.

59. The annual rate of deforestation in Zambia ranges between 250,000 and 300,000 hectares per year (Chidumayo 1996). Queiroz (1997) notes that out of 39 protected forest sites, 29 were being openly utilized or encroached.

VI. The Approach Taken for Project Design

60. PA management has clearly been shown to be an effective means of biodiversity conservation in Zambia, wherever effective management partnerships and adequate resources are applied. This has been shown to be true at North and South Luangwa NP, at Kasanka NP and Lower Zambezi NP and more recently at Kafue (DSI – 2004). Over half of NPs, representing roughly 2/3 of the total area under parks, now have basic enforcement and field presence in place. In areas subject to sound management,

27

UNDP PRO DOC

wildlife populations are recovering – sometimes dramatically – proving the utility of the PA estate as a safeguard against key threats.

61. Key challenges for the most effective use of PA for biodiversity conservation are; a) how to use the limited resources available for PA management in the most cost effective manner to achieve maximum impact for biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, and, b) how to develop sustainable financing for PA management. Expansion of the range of public/private/civil society/community partnerships has been identified as a key to achieving maximum impact with GRZ/ZAWA’s limited resources. Furthermore, the experience previously cited of South Luangwa NP has clearly shown how investments in effective PA management and infrastructure can lead to sustainable PA financing – at least for those NP with good tourism potential (DSI, 2004).

62. This UNDP/GEF project will contribute to improvements to the overall effectiveness of the management of the National System of PA. The approach adopted for achieving this consists of identification of barriers to effective PA management and the development of measures to overcome these barriers. First the key barriers to increasing PA management effectiveness are identified and analyzed. The barriers include a full mix of legal, policy and governance constraints and a range of key institutional capacity constraints. From this a framework of objectives, outcomes, outputs and activities are identified for overcoming or surmounting the barriers.

63. There are two cross-cutting themes to the GEF approach. The first is to bring a strong business planning approach to PA management – to develop strategies for using these limited resources in the most effective way to achieve maximum impact. The second is the need to build and expand upon Zambia’s already impressive body of public-private partnerships and to develop public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management.

64. The National System of PA is viewed as a continuum of PA whose management effectiveness ranges from Low to High -- from those having only minimal levels of protection and management through an Intermediate category of management effectiveness to a small number of well-managed PA. The project has no illusions about solving all the problems of the PA system or of leaving all priority PA in the well-managed category at the end of the project. Rather the project will seek to shift the overall level of PA management effectiveness from the Low towards the High end of the scale – to move as many PA as possible from the Low-level of management class into the Intermediate and to shift more of the Intermediates into the High level of management group.

65. The country does not have the resources to effectively manage on its own all of its very large PA estate. The traditional conservation management paradigm, centered on State control, is unworkable over such a large area, given projected funding shortfalls and human resource constraints. The parastatal ZAWA has made very impressive strides since its recent creation, but ZAWA cannot possibly manage by itself, all of the 8.5% of the country set aside as NP, let alone the 22% of the country gazetted as GMA. There is a need to prioritize interventions and to strengthen key conservation functions in priority PAs within the estate. This will require: a) an overall conservation/reclassification plan for the National Protected Areas System -- to focus efforts spatially and temporally; b) development of new management tools involving public/private/civil society/community partnerships – that will allow conservation goals to be achieved more cost effectively and quickly than otherwise possible; c) development of core institutional capacities for PA management.

66. The overall conservation/reclassification plan will identify spatial and temporal priorities. The project will develop a range of tools and capacities for effective PA management. Those sites identified as priorities for tourism development will require both investments in infrastructure, beyond capacity building. Investments in infrastructure for PA access will come primarily from donors and selected partners, as has been done in the past by NORAD in South Luangwa NP and Kasanka Trust in Kasanka NP. Investments in lodges and other tourism facilities will be made by the private sector. Where

28

UNDP PRO DOC

wildlife populations are high and access infrastructure is in place, private sector investments have never been lacking.

VII. Baseline Barriers to Effective Management of PA

67. In recent years, Zambia has taken major steps to provide a strong legal base for PA management, to reduce the role of the state, to streamline park management, to increase the rights and incentives of local communities for wildlife management and to target PA-based tourism as a key sector of economic growth and poverty reduction. However, the Baseline is characterized by a number of significant barriers to effective PA management.

68. Limited choice of categories of PA The limited opportunities offered by existing categories of PA in Zambia serves as one barrier. At present, only national parks, when properly managed, provide good assurance of biodiversity conservation. The GMA category presents a relatively strong potential for conservation because of the substantial incentives offered to communities/ managers from the revenues generated by trophy hunting. However, the lack of any legal restrictions on conversion to smallholder agriculture, commercial farming or other land uses is a major barrier to effective biodiversity conservation over time. This could potentially be addressed through land use planning in GMA, but this is not an effective legal tool and Zambia and has rarely been shown to be effective in the African context. Reviews of lessons learned in southern Africa (Annex 5) indicate that management by communities is often the most effective form of wildlife management. The Wildlife Act of 1998 does allow for co-management with ZAWA, but it only allows for a partial devolution of authority to communities within the GMA. The gazetted category of forest reserves has proven to be almost totally ineffective in Zambia for ensuring biodiversity conservation.

69. There are no PA categories in Zambia that disallow clearing/conversion of natural areas while allowing trophy hunting – i.e., that combine the strong economic incentives from trophy hunting with interdictions against land clearing/conversion. There are large areas in national parks that do not presently have the access/infrastructure needed for game-viewing-based tourism, but that do have adequate access for trophy hunting. Such areas at present are cost centers for ZAWA while having the potential to be profit centers. The DSI report prepared as part of project preparation argues that “Hunting can generate the revenues necessary to maintain large areas of the Zambezi Valley Escarpment in Lower Zambezi National park or dense miombo woodlands in Kafue National Park” (DSI 2004).

70. Also, a strong argument can be made, given the extremely long history of co-evolution of man and wildlife in Africa, that totally excluding hunting is not necessarily a good thing for ecosystem conservation. Counter-intuitively, areas that are hunted sustainably may be ecologically more sound with healthier animals and vegetation than tourism areas. Formal hunting, moreover, is a valuable tool for creating incentives for protecting wildlife and for displacing poaching. Mosi oa Tunya is the one park in Zambia where effective exclusion of hunting has lead to overpopulation of wildlife and to visible deterioration of habitats.

71. Poor ecosystem representativeness The current PA system serves as a barrier to effective biodiversity conservation in another way, because the categories of PA that provide the most effective means of biodiversity conservation, do not provide adequate, representative coverage of the full range of Zambian ecosystems. If we accept the rule of thumb of 10% of total area of each ecosystem/habitat/vegetation type as being adequate coverage, then Figure 416 shows that only four of Zambia’s 14 vegetation types recognized by Hearn et al (2001) are adequately covered by national parks. There is moderate coverage of a further three, minor protection of three, and nil coverage of four.

16 DSI, 2004

29

UNDP PRO DOC

This shows that Zambia’s national parks were not designed specifically for the purpose of protecting representative biological communities.

72. If one would include the significantly lower level of protection offered by GMA, then 10 of 14 have at least 10% of their geographic area covered by the two categories. However, another unknown is the extent of deforestation in protected areas. Deforestation is estimated to be very high for the country in general. Although only two NP are known to be significantly impacted (Isangano and Lower Zambezi), the problem is much more widespread in the GMA where conversion to agriculture is legal. Clearly, gap analysis and reclassification of Zambia’s PA are needed to ensure effective biodiversity conservation. (Recognition of this need for reclassification was the original impetus for this project.)

Figure 4 – Extent and Protection of Zambia’s Major Vegetation Types

Extend and Protection of Zambia's Major Vegetation Types

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Mopane

Haloph

ytic

Bracky

stegia

A. Poly

acanth

a

Miombo

Montan

e

Woodlan

d

Evergr

een

Swamp

Kalaha

ri Gras

sWater

Tall m

iombo

Decidu

ous

Semi-a

quati

c

Forest Reserves (%)

GMAs (%)

Parks (%)

(DSI, 2004 – done as part of project preparation)

73. The Hearne et al vegetation map used for the gap analysis in Figure 4 is not necessarily the best choice of map for this purpose – that question must be fully addressed during project implementation. Figure 4 does, however, illustrate very well the type of analysis to be done during the reclassification planning.

74. Inadequate definition of the optimal role of the state Another barrier in Zambia, as in so many countries, is the absence of clear definition on what should be the optimum role of the State in PA management. ZAWA has large, unfunded mandates. There is need for a more coherent system for deciding where to invest limited resources. Key questions include:

Under what conditions should the State directly manage PA with their own resources? Under what conditions should the State enter into partnerships or lease agreements with the

private sector, NGOs, other civil society entities, and/or communities? When should the State totally cede control/ ownership/ management to communities or to the

private sector? Are communities better suited to manage wildlife for trophy hunting than the State?

75. The Zambia Wildlife Act of 1998 mandated the restructuring of the government’s National Parks and Wildlife Service into the new Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). Under the umbrella of the Ministry

30

Extent and Protection of Zambia’s Major Vegetation Types

UNDP PRO DOC

of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, ZAWA has the institutional status of a statutory body (a type of parastatal), allowing it considerably more flexibility than a government agency. This has been a very positive development and has lead to a much more dynamic situation than that which existed before with more possibilities for innovative approaches and partnerships. The Ministry has oversight responsibility over ZAWA, but has not established formal mechanisms for doing so. All of this, along with the impossibility of ZAWA fulfilling all of its mandates with its own resources, makes it that much more important to better define the optimal role of the State.

76. No policy frameworks for private/public/community partnerships Another barrier to biodiversity conservation is the absence of legal and policy frameworks for private/public/community partnerships for PA management. In the absence of clear policies, ZAWA is left in a largely passive mode where it reacts to initiatives advanced by the private sector. Partnerships developed have been opportunistic and situational. Lack of a clear policy framework for partnerships sometimes leads to misunderstandings and mistrust. Inevitably this leads to problems and confusion on such issues as minimum conditions for MOU or leases, sharing of costs and benefits (questions of equity), roles and rights of communities and traditional leaders, mechanisms for oversight, the definition of grounds for early termination of a lease or MOU, etc. All of these questions are currently dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps, more importantly, ZAWA has no basis for proactively promoting partnerships for the management of PA for which it lacks the resources to manage itself.

77. Insufficient forms of management partnerships The development and multiplication of such partnerships presents one of the only options that Zambia has for expanding the numbers and area of PA under effective management. The effectiveness of existing partnerships need to be examined so that existing models may be improved, new models may be developed and effective partnerships promoted and replicated. There are very promising opportunities for expanding the numbers and forms of public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management. New partnerships with communities may present a particular opportunity. For example, the cost of enforcement by well-supervised CRB scouts is only a third or less of that of ZAWA-managed NP. (This may change if labor laws require full-time CRB scouts to be paid full benefits similar to those paid to ZAWA WPO). ZAWA-community partnerships for PA management could potentially be much more cost-effective. (Source: Preliminary findings of economic assessment of PA underway by DSI). The development of community/private/civil society partnerships for PA management also represents a new area of opportunity. In addition to cost-effectiveness, all forms of partnerships need also to be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness for biodiversity conservation.

78. Insufficient incentives for community-based management are another barrier that is rooted in the present legal and policy framework for CBNRM. Although significant progress has been made, much of what is called CBNRM would be better categorized as revenue sharing. The Administrative Management Design for Game Areas (ADMADE) program that was initiated in 1987, is the oldest vehicle for community involvement in wildlife management and has spread to over 20 GMA. It was much more a program of revenue sharing with communities, however, than of co-management. The LIRDP/SLAMU projects had a long history of support to GMA communities and experimented with full transfer of hunting revenues in the Lupande GMA next to South Luangwa NP. (This experiment ended with the hunting ban and the two-year loss of hunting revenues that followed). The 1998 Wildlife Act laid the legal basis for co-management of GMA by ZAWA and Community Resource Boards (CRB). ZAWA now shares 45% of trophy license revenues with CRB. CRB employ their own village scouts who are trained by ZAWA and work under the direction of ZAWA wildlife officers. Very recently, ZAWA has begun involving CRB directly in the setting of hunting quotas and moving towards a new formula of revenue sharing to be based on the sharing of management costs and profits.

79. However, experience and lessons learned from six reviews of CBNRM in Zambia and in southern Africa (see Annex 5) both indicate that two of the most critical factors for the success of community-based wildlife management are; a) the degree of devolution of authority (i.e., the sense of control or ownership) to the community to control the resource and; b) the amounts of the revenues generated for

31

UNDP PRO DOC

the communities (DSI, 2004). The probability of successful wildlife management is generally maximized when communities have full control over the resource and when they receive and manage all the revenues generated. People rapidly develop capacity (or demonstrate capacities they already had) when they have the rights to benefit from their resources and to exclude others from doing so. In these respects, the Wildlife Act, in its present form, sets clear limits on the powers of the CRB. Devolution of authority in Zambia has been very partial and key management decisions generally remain firmly in the hands of ZAWA.

80. ZAWA, as the regulatory agency for wildlife and GMAs and also a direct beneficiary of wildlife revenues, is faced with a conflict of interest. Creating optimal conditions for CBNRM could require an already cash-strapped ZAWA to give up a substantial portion of the income they earn from trophy hunting in the GMA. Mitigation measures would need to be sought to make up for this. These may include: Growing the revenue base. Investments underway in NP management and infrastructure will lead to

increased private sector investment and a larger revenue base for ZAWA and other PA managers; The potential zoning of NP to create safari-hunting areas out of portions of NPs that do not have

adequate access for conventional tourism could increase ZAWA’s revenues.

81. Also, the CRB, by law, is a “centralized” structure that may cover all, or a large portion of an entire GMA (CRB boundaries correspond to chiefdoms). Having a single structure for large geographic areas violates the principle of subsidiarity, greatly complicates problems of governance for these rural populations and increases the risks of “elite” capture of the CRB. These factors also serve as disincentives for CBNRM.

82. The Wildlife Act allows for co-management of wildlife. The Forestry Act, once enabling legislation is passed, would allow for co-management of forest resources. There is interest in developing legislation for co-management or community-based management of fisheries resources. But each act calls for the establishment of a separate community management structure. There is no legislation that allows communities to manage all of the renewable resources within their traditional lands through a single management structure.

83. Limited stakeholder participation There is limited stakeholder participation at both the national and local levels in the PA sector. At the national level, there are no established mechanisms for civil society inputs into the protected area sector. MTENR has responsibility for oversight of ZAWA and of the PA sector, but needs civil society input to make informed decisions and to develop effective policies. ZAWA is mandated with biodiversity/natural heritage conservation on the one hand, and is under pressure from GRZ, on the other, to become financially independent. This inherent conflict of interest necessitates a strong role from civil society in order to seek balance between competing objectives. It is believed that much of this can be achieved through increased transparency and direct involvement of civil society counterparts.

84. In addition to limited participation, there is need for improved financial management at national and local levels to minimize conflicts and mistrust. One of the causes of conflict and tensions between ZAWA and CRB communities is the lack of transparency on the sharing of revenues. CRB’s are now supposed to receive 45% of hunting license fees, but they very often don’t know what they are receiving 45% of – they don’t know if they are getting their fair share. And exactly the same type of problem exists between CRB and the Village Action Groups (VAG) and community members. There is often lack of transparency in the handling of finances by the CRB – leading to conflict and mistrust. And all of this leads to lack of incentive for wildlife conservation in the GMA.

85. Sustainable PA financing dependent on tourism development Insufficient conditions for rapid growth of the tourism sector poses a barrier to biodiversity conservation, because tourism revenues from photo safaris and from trophy hunting are the main sources of sustainable financing for PA management. Major constraints to tourism development are poor access, lack of tourism infrastructure,

32

UNDP PRO DOC

and depleted wildlife populations. To attract private sector investors, one must rebuild the wildlife populations from their presently low levels. But rebuilding wildlife populations requires front-end investments in effective PA management over something like 10-15 years. Such investments may come from government, donors or private sector/civil society management partners. This “chicken-and-egg” relationship between investments, restoration of wildlife populations and sustainable financing is illustrated in Figure 5.Figure 5 - Linkage between tourism development and sustainable financing of PA management

Error: Reference source not found

86. Business planning tools rarely applied to PA management Proper business planning has only been applied to PA management in Zambia in a rudimentary fashion. The lack of economic and financial tools for measuring and comparing the efficiency of different forms of PA management, for quantifying costs and benefits and of using these estimates to develop PA business plans is another barrier to enhancing PA management effectiveness for biodiversity conservation. To date, even the private sector partners have made little use of business planning for NP management. The newly arrived African Parks17 will probably become one of the key actors in the development of this tool in Zambia. The relative efficiency of different forms of management partnerships should be a key consideration in choosing where to use each tool. For example, analyses done in project preparation (DSI, 2004) have shown that the cost of enforcement by well-supervised CRB is about a fourth of the cost of enforcement by ZAWA. This has lead to the recent idea of developing ZAWA-CRB partnerships for enforcement in NP, whereby ZAWA could contract adjoining CRB to do anti-poaching patrols in the parks.

87. There is equally a great need for business planning at the PA system level. There should have been a proper financial analysis of the feasibility of becoming self-financing before ZAWA’s creation. Immediately following ZAWA’s creation, there should have been a 10-15 year business plan developed with a sound analysis of management costs and of the investments and other financial means needed to cover these costs. Many of the assumptions made when creating ZAWA proved to be false. The application of business planning to the National Protected Areas System should be a key tool to determine where management by ZAWA can eventually become self-financing, the investments needed and the time periods required. Business planning should guide the development of public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management and it should help define those PA that are critical for biodiversity conservation for which subsidies from government or other parties will be necessary.

88. M&E systems are another barrier to effective biodiversity conservation. Methodologies for monitoring wildlife populations are relatively well-developed, but very little has been done on techniques to monitor ecosystem health. The Environment Council of Zambia formerly operated a Dutch-funded system for monitoring of wildlife populations, but this ended when donor funding ended in about 2000. At present, there is very little routine monitoring of wildlife populations and almost no monitoring of PA ecosystem health. There is no monitoring of forest cover loss in Zambian PA. ZAWA has not had funds for an operational M&E program. Zambia’s databases on key habitats, species, their protection, protected areas and major threats (especially agriculture/settlements) are very weak. Data are scarce, there are often question marks about methodology and replicability, and for almost every aspect the gaps far out shadow the data. There is no effective formal monitoring or regulation of ZAWA itself by MTENR. Nor is there any formal system of monitoring of PA management partnerships.

89. A review (Chabwela and Gaile, 2004) of existing M&E systems done as part of project preparation identified the following gaps:

The existing M&E system cannot answer the question of whether or not the existing PA system indeed covers the most important biodiversity for the country;

PA objectives are defined broadly, are general for all Protected Areas, there are few site-specific measurable objectives and the objectives are not translated into measurable targets and

17 African Parks is a private sector company that has just signed a 20-year lease for the management of Liuwa Plains NP

33

UNDP PRO DOC

measurable indicators. This does not allow one to evaluate whether the current management systems are achieving the stated objectives;

Conservation values of the PA system are defined in very general terms with limited focus on site-specific significance;

Suitability, adequacy and appropriateness of management processes are not regularly assessed. The same is true for management efficiency and the appropriateness of methods, activities and inputs;

90. Conservation plan for the PA system Another barrier to biodiversity conservation is the lack of an overall conservation plan for the National Protected Areas System. Addressing all of the individual barriers presented above are all critically important, but effective conservation of biodiversity in Zambia will require that they all be integrated into an overall reclassification and conservation plan for the National System. The plan should address the needs for creation, reclassification and degazetting of PA, including the use of new categories of PA that may be created through legal reforms. It should identify the core PA that would be managed directly by ZAWA and those for which different forms of partnerships will be developed. It should identify opportunities for, and need for, transboundary conservation areas and should identify the key types of initiatives needed for their realization. It should make strong use of business planning to identify financially viable forms of PA management partnerships based on analyses of effectiveness and efficiency. It should develop realistic plans for monitoring and evaluation and knowledge management. Finally the plan should include an investment plan and a marketing plan. The marketing plan should be used to attract private sector investors, private sector and community management partners and to mobilize resources from government and donors.

Donor Support to the PA Sector

91. Details of donor support to the PA sector are found in the ICA Annex of the Project Executive Summary. Highlights are given here.

92. NORAD is the lead donor supporting ZAWA and NP and GMA management in Zambia. They have been funding South Luangwa NP, the second largest in the country, and adjoining GMA, since about 1986. With NORAD’s assistance, this park has been restored and tourism has developed to the point where ZAWA is now able to cover most recurrent costs of parks management out of tourist entrance fees and other tourism related levies. The 5’th phase of NORAD’s support will concentrate on PA infrastructure. NORAD is providing funding to ZAWA for an “emergency” anti-poaching program in five of the national parks. The program’s monitoring system has shown very positive results in dramatically reducing poaching and beginning to restore wildlife populations.

93. Frankfurt Zoological Society and Kasanka Trust Limited have successfully supported the restoration, and management North Luangwa NP and Kasanka NP since the late 1980’s. DANIDA and WCS have been supporting GMA management, CBNRM and alternative livelihoods with GMA communities. WWF, FZS, and CLZ are active in environmental education.

94. The tourism development component of the new SEED project will target Kafue NP and Mosi oa Tunya NP – two of main parks targeted for tourism development and poverty reduction under the PRSP. Most of the funding for Kafue NP will come from NORAD (developed under a separate project document) and supplemented by World Bank and GEF. African Parks plans to invest $5 million in a 20-year program of restoration and management of Liuwa Plains NP.

Alternative Course of Action

VIII. GRZ Strategy for Protected Areas

95. The PDF B project development process has solidified the emerging GRZ strategy for the National Protected Areas System. The GEF guidance for Strategic Priority 1 on “Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas” has had considerable influence on the GRZ’s strategy development.

34

UNDP PRO DOC

The review of lessons learned in Zambia and in the region done as part of the PDF B process has also fed into this strategy development process.

96. Protected areas in Zambia are seen as lying on a continuum running from the High level of management on one end of the spectrum to those with Low levels or no management at all on the other. At present the NPs in Zambia run the full gamut of this spectrum. The vast majority of GMAs have Intermediate levels of management effectiveness to none at all. Against this background, GRZ, recognizing that it cannot raise management effectiveness to optimum levels throughout the PA estate immediately owing to budgetary and other constraints, is pursuing a phased approach to capacity building and investment in the National PA System. The project will develop an overall conservation plan for the national Protected Areas System, In the interim, the GRZ will pursue the following interventions over the medium-term:

ZAWA will concentrate on the management of a core set of high priority national parks with strong tourism potential18, which will serve as growth hubs for conservation.

A PA reclassification exercise would be undertaken, to identify priority areas in need of management action (informing the temporal sequence of site level capacity building and investment work, across the PA estate), ensuring that biodiversity conservation priorities are defined, that the PA estate is bio-geographically representative and ensuring that PA classification and management intensity is matched to management objectives at the site level.

GRZ will develop and pass new legislation that increases the effectiveness of the National System of PA by exploiting opportunities for enhanced biodiversity conservation that are not possible under existing categories of PA. This will include the creation of new categories of PA. Two principal new candidate categories have emerged from the project development process. The Community Conservation Areas (CCA) category of PA would maximize incentives for conservation for communities by giving nearly full control over resources and the revenues derived from these resources while preventing conversion to agriculture or other land uses. The second change would allow portions of national parks to be zoned as ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas (SHA). This would be done for sections of national parks that have little or no present photo-tourism potential, thereby converting them from cost centers to profit centers for ZAWA, while still ensuring a high level of biodiversity conservation and enhancing ZAWA’s overall financial viability. This will require a change in the legal status of these national parks. These two proposed new categories will be developed and validated through a participatory process involving all key stakeholders, and with the application of necessary safeguards, to ensure that biodiversity management goals are satisfied.

Simultaneously, ZAWA would pilot an expanded range of public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management, with a view to expanding management options for both old and new categories of PA. Steps will be taken to strengthen the underpinning policy framework, and to develop institutional capacities to assure strong regulatory oversight of these partnerships. The new partnerships are expected to allow core management operations to be strengthened across the PA system, more rapidly than under the traditional paradigm.

Attention would be paid to strengthening core systemic and institutional level capacities, including capacities for business planning, monitoring and evaluation, financial management and other key functions.

97. These interventions will set the stage for the gradual expansion of management interventions across the larger protected area system, focusing on priority areas, identified through the reclassification exercise.

18 Currently listed in PRSP as Mosi oa Tunya, Kafue NP, Lower Zambezi NP and Luangwa NP

35

UNDP PRO DOC

IX. Description of the GEF/Project AlternativeDevelopment and Project Objectives

98. Project Preparation: Project development has been jointly financed by UNDP/GEF (through a PDF B grant) and the GRZ. The project development process was highly participatory. Preparation commenced in May 2003 with the creation of a Project Preparation Secretariat within MTENR staffed by two Zambian professionals. Civil society institutions through competitively awarded contracts did much of the background work. Contracts were awarded for: a) Conservation Assessment, b) Institutions and Policy Assessment, c) Conservation Planning, and, d) Monitoring and Evaluation. An international GEF project development specialist assisted in the design and the drafting of the GEF Project Brief. MTENR was engaged in policy dialogue during the whole process. The National Biodiversity Working Group provided high-level oversight and validation of the design. The contractors and Secretariat solicited input from a broad range of PA stakeholders in the preparation of this project.

99. Project Objectives The project will provide core strategic support to strengthen the National Protected Areas System – the system of core priority protected areas that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective. More specifically, this will include NP, GMA and new categories be created with project assistance (CCA and SHA are the principal candidate categories identified during project preparation). It will work to move PA management effectiveness from the low end towards the effectively managed end of the spectrum. This will be done through legal and policy reforms, improved governance and institutional capacity building. Two field demonstration sites will be used for testing and implementing the legal and policy reforms, for developing public/private/civil society/community partnerships and other new tools and strategies for effective PA management.

100. As the term “effective management” of PA is used in a very broad sense in this project design. The following have been identified as key elements of effective management of the national Protected Areas System:

Definition of the key management objectives (biodiversity conservation, tourism development, trophy hunting, multiple use management, etc.) for each priority site identified from the reclassification planning;

Based on the bio-physical and socio-economic parameters for each priority site, selection of the category of PA that is most suitable;

Selection the form(s) of management most suitable for the site (ZAWA-managed or any suitable combination of public/private/civil society/community partnerships;

Development of business plans for achieving objectives and covering costs in the most cost effective manner;

Development of the most cost-effective mix of enforcement techniques, M&E systems, infrastructure development, staffing, sustainable natural resource systems, administrative systems, communications and marketing, joint ventures, etc.

101. The Goal, Project Objective, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities of the project are closely aligned with GRZ policies as presented in the NBSAP and closely reflect the recent evolution of strategic thinking within MTENR/GRZ as presented in Section 2.3.2. The project will address the root causes of threats to biodiversity in the priority PA. A threats matrix is presented in the Protected Areas Annex (Annex 1). The project has specifically been designed to overcome the barriers to effective biodiversity conservation in priority PA as presented in the Baseline in Chapter 2. The project is strongly in line with the PRSP, providing support to economic growth and poverty reduction. The project confirms Zambia’s commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the Millennium Development Goals, MDG number 7, in particular. One of the key constraints to development of the tourism sector will be addressed by restoring PA wildlife populations through improved management effectiveness.

102. Goal The project will make a major contribution to the achievement of the following Goal : A National PA System that comprises a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems is effectively

36

UNDP PRO DOC

safeguarded from human-induced pressures through effective management partnerships and serves to make Zambia into a tourism destination of choice.

103. One Project Objective has been defined: Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the system of PAs that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective, will be strengthened. At present only national parks and GMA are relatively effective in conserving biodiversity, with NP providing a much stronger legal base. The project will expand the range of categories of PA that provide effective biodiversity conservation and will enhance management capacities at the national level and at the field level through the development of new partnerships for managing new categories of PA.

104. This will be achieved through the following three complementary Outcomes:

Outcome 1 Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new tools for public/ community/ private /civil society PA management partnerships.

Outcome 2 Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced capacities for PA representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.

Outcome 3 PA management options expanded through development and field-testing of innovative private-public-community management partnerships for new categories of PA.

Outcome 1: Policy, Legal and Regulatory Frameworks Appropriate policy, legal and regulatory frameworks will be put in place providing new tools for public/community/private/ civil society PA management partnerships

105. Policy and legal reforms will address several barriers including the following: a) lack of a clear, updated legal/policy framework for reclassification of PA; b) inadequate range of categories of PA as needed to ensure biodiversity conservation and adequate coverage of critical habitats; c) absence of frameworks for public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management; d) unclear definition of relative roles of traditional leaders and communities for community management and co-management; and, e) unnecessary and confusing multiplication of separate sectoral structures for NRM at the village level. These policy and legal reforms will be undertaken as part of a normal evolutionary process that is common to all sectors of government. The process for realizing these reforms will be highly participatory and will be done under the umbrella of MTENR. Each will start with an update of best practices and lessons learned both in Zambia and in the region. Special studies will be commissioned as needed. Policy options for addressing each of the barriers will be identified. Key issues and policy options will be debated through the Natural Resources Consultative Forum, using this structured platform for bringing key stakeholders and civil society into the policy development process. Regional workshops will be organized to obtain stakeholder input from the nine provinces. The ministry will take the results of this process and craft them into formal laws and policies. National workshops will be held for stakeholder validation of the final drafts.

106. Reclassification Policies for reclassification will be developed. The policy will cover reclassification priorities and criteria and procedures for reclassification. It will define the respective roles of government and non-government stakeholders. The reclassification policy will cover a) changes to the status of gazetted areas from one PA category to another; b) creation of new gazetted areas, and; c) degazetting of existing PA.

107. New PA categories New categories of priority PA (or possibly more) will be created – categories that provide a solid legal basis for effective biodiversity conservation. All new categories of priority PA will disallow conversion to agriculture or other “unnatural” land uses (the major weakness of the

37

UNDP PRO DOC

GMA). The first new candidate category will be a community-managed conservation area (CCA) where sustainable, commercial use of wildlife (e.g., trophy hunting) and other NR is allowed. The new law will allow the communities to enter into partnerships and joint ventures with private and parastatal entities (ZAWA), either for PA management or for investments in commercial, natural resource-based enterprises. The option of a progressive transfer of responsibilities from ZAWA to communities will be examined. CCA could be created out of GMA and potentially out of forest reserves or open areas. PA Boundaries would be redrawn to exclude agricultural areas. Communities would be required to commit to no agricultural conversion within the new boundaries – or lose their management and use rights as a consequence.

108. The second proposed new category of PA will provide for ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas (SHA). These would be created primarily out of sections of national parks that currently have low potential for photo safaris due to poor access, but where analyses show that trophy hunting may be an ecologically viable, and much more financially attractive, management option. This would be done by changing the legal status, and perhaps of the name, of the national park to allowing zoning for conventional tourism areas and for ZAWA-Managed Safari Hunting Areas. Alternatively, the SHA could be a new category of PA in itself. The zoning option would seem to be the preferred option, allowing the park to be rezoned over time as the relative advantages or markets for each type of land use evolve. Legal reforms that allow trophy hunting in portions of national parks that currently have insufficient access for conventional tourism, will allow such areas to be converted from cost centers to profit centers. This will allow limited financial resources to be used more effectively to bring a larger portion of the overall PA network under effective management. Other appropriate categories of PA may potentially emerge from the participatory policy/legal reform process.

109. The creation of new categories of PA, and the reclassification of PA in Zambia, will take into account developments on the international stage with view to the harmonization of the set of PA categories. This will be done to make the information on Zambia’s PA comparable with those of other regions and in order to avoid duplication of work.

110. Policy framework for partnerships The project will provide assistance to MTENR to complete the development of a clear policy framework for public/private/civil society/community partnerships for PA management. The ZAWA board of directors has already initiated this process. The guidelines developed will be used by ZAWA in two ways: a), to judge the merits of proposals initiated by private sector entities or community groups that approach ZAWA with their own ideas, and to negotiate partnerships with these entities for those proposals that have merit, and; b) more importantly, to proactively seek out appropriate local or international partners as needed to bring important PA under management in situations where ZAWA lacks the needed resources. Regulations will be developed to define minimum conditions for such partnerships, to define key indicators to be monitored and to define the acceptable grounds for nullifying an established partnership. National parks will be a focus of these policies, but policies for appropriate partnerships for GMA and the new categories of PA to be created will also be developed. Again, policy development will be highly participatory and will include all of the established PA management partners (Kasanka Trust, FZS, African Parks, etc…) PA community representatives, PA sector investors (lodges, trophy hunting companies) etc.

111. Rights and roles of traditional leaders and communities The project will support the development of policy guidelines to clarify the relative rights and roles of communities and traditional leaders in PA management and CBNRM. The Wildlife Act of 1998 was the first attempt to partially address this question. Traditional chiefs were given the nebulous role of “patrons” of the CRB. The role of traditional authorities has been a recurring question confronted in the selection of the field demonstration sites for this project. A review of experiences to date will be commissioned and the views of all key stakeholders will be sought out. Close attention will be paid to the need to provide adequate incentives for sustainable PA management as well as considerations of good governance and existing laws.

38

UNDP PRO DOC

112. Community-level NRM structures The project will support the development of policies that allow a community to have, if they chose, a single management structure for wildlife, forests, fisheries and other (non-agricultural) natural resources that occur within the lands that they manage or are to manage. In addition to communities and CRB, key stakeholders are MTENR, Department of Forestry, ZAWA, and Fisheries Department in MAC. Inter-agency policies will be harmonized basic on lessons learned and best practices for CBNRM.

113. Civil society participation and knowledge management The Natural Resources Consultative Forum will provide a platform for civil society input on important NRM/PA sector issues. The NRCF will commission thematic background studies on topics of special relevance. It will organize workshops, seminars and debates on policy and technical issues. It will facilitate the sharing of experiences, the distillation of lessons learned and the preparation and diffusion of publications on key topics. Advisory notes/policy briefs to relevant ministries and institutions will be developed. NRCF will facilitate information sharing on donor activities and availability of funds. It will set up a reference library for storage and sharing of information with stakeholders. The NRCF will be a key mechanism for stakeholder input into the legal and policy reforms supported by the project and will provide MTENR will civil society input on the implementation of PA/NRM sector policies and legislation. The NRCF will be used to introduce new tools developed by the project and will be a mechanism for sharing experiences from the field demonstration sites.

114. Improved financial management The project will support improved financial governance at the GMA and CCA levels. ZAWA will develop transparent mechanisms for the sharing of revenues with CRB, including the issuance of financial statements showing the calculated basis of revenue sharing. Furthermore, transparent mechanisms, safeguards and guidelines for good governance and financial mechanisms will be developed and implemented at the level of the CRB, the VAG and their constituents, and any new CCA structures that may be created.

Outcome 2. Institutional Capacity StrengtheningInstitutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced capacities for PA representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.

115. The project will support the development of a range of strategically identified capacities to overcome barriers to biodiversity conservation through more effective management of the National Protected Areas System. All of these capacities fall under the heading of improved knowledge management – improved methods of collecting and analyzing data to produce information needed for management of the National System. The capacity building will culminate in the production of an overall reclassification and conservation plan for the National System. ZAWA will be the lead implementing agency for Outcome 2 and the principle beneficiary of this capacity building.

116. Identification of Reclassification Priorities The project will provide funding for the identification of priority sites for reclassification as needed to ensure that the National Protected Areas System includes bio-geographically representative coverage of the full spectrum of natural ecosystems/habitats/natural vegetation types in Zambia. The goal will be to have, on average, 10% of the original coverage of each ecosystem/habitat/vegetation type included, where this is still possible, in a category of PA that provides effective biodiversity conservation. Other socio-economic criteria reflecting national priorities will also be developed and applied to the reclassification planning. The Hearne et al vegetation map of 2000 will be analyzed against the 1976 vegetation map (and others, if they exist) to determine which provides the most meaningful representation of ecosystem differences for the gap analysis. The preliminary gap analysis done as part of project preparation will be checked and strengthened. Forest cover loss in NP, GMA and forest reserves will be analyzed using manual, visual interpretation of satellite imagery – categorizing deforestation as none, low, medium and high. This analysis will be used

39

UNDP PRO DOC

to identify GMA and forest reserve candidate sites that could be upgraded to a higher PA category that would ensure more representative biodiversity conservation. GIS maps of existing settlements will also be used as surrogates of human pressures. For ecosystems that are not adequately covered by existing gazetted areas, the satellite imagery will be used to identify candidate sites in open areas for the creation of new protected areas. NP, GMA and forest reserves that have been heavily encroached by agriculture and settlements will be identified as candidates for declassification. Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery recently purchased by the Forest Department will be used for this analysis where it is available and will be complemented by newly purchased imagery.

117. Bio-physical and socio-economic assessments will be done of sites that are identified as candidates for upgrading or for the creation of new PA. The condition of habitats and wildlife populations will be evaluated as well as the nature and severity of threats to each site. The values and attitudes of the local communities and other stakeholders vis-à-vis the conservation of the candidate site will be assessed, as well as the economic potential of managing each site for game viewing or trophy hunting. ZAWA, donors, civil society, researchers etc will summarize all of this information in a synthesis document on reclassification priorities that can immediately be exploited. This will later be integrated into the overall Conservation Plan for the National Protected Areas System. In the Conservation plan, biodiversity priorities for reclassification will be weighed against other factors such as costs, potential for achieving self-financing and contributions to economic development through tourism development, socio-cultural values, etc. In the Conservation Plan, reclassification will be linked to measurable goals and indicators. The project will not actually reclassify PA except at the two field demonstration sites.

118. Tools for improving PA business planning and management efficiency Resources available in relation to PA management needs will remain very limited in Zambia into the foreseeable future. Investments into PA management must be based on sound business planning so that the greatest impacts may be achieved effectively and efficiently with the resources available. A key aspect of improved knowledge management will be the development of tools for assessing economic efficiency. One may look at PA economic efficiency as the challenge of maximizing net socio-economic benefits to society without pushing systems over degradation thresholds.

119. For PA management efficiency, the project will define cost coefficients for the different forms of public/private/civil society/community management partnerships for each category of PA. Costs and benefits of PA management will be analyzed in both economic and financial terms. These tools will then be used to develop capacities for sound business planning for PA management. A PA business plan will entail a sound estimate of the costs of PA management accompanied by a plan for the types of investments needed and the time periods needed for cost recovery, where this is possible. These business planning tools will also be applied to the National Protected Areas System as a whole. In particular, business-planning tools will be used to better define ZAWA’s role in PA management based on a financial assessment of the possibilities to achieve self-financing. It will also help to better define the nature and amounts of GRZ and donor investments that will be needed to achieve sustainable financing over the core set of PA that ZAWA will manage directly. Business planning will also be a key tool in defining those PA that will be best managed by public/private/civil society/community partnerships or by communities with public and/or private partners.

120. An analysis of the capital and recurrent costs of each protected area combined with an assessment of its revenue generating potential of each park when combined with the identification of biodiversity conservation priorities from the Reclassification planning should lead to the following type of classifications:

Protected areas that are financially viable, or can be so in the short term Protected areas that can be financially viable in the longer term, and have high biodiversity

value (including investment requirements) Protected areas that are unlikely to be financially viable, but have high biodiversity values

(suggesting alternative funding mechanisms are required such as Trusts)

40

UNDP PRO DOC

Protected areas that are unlikely to be viable and with low biodiversity values (suggesting degazetting)

121. The same type of analysis will also be critical in identifying portions of national parks that could be much more efficiently managed as SHA while still ensuring high levels of biodiversity conservation.

122. Monitoring and Evaluation Improved capacities for monitoring and evaluation will be developed. A particular emphasis will be placed on adapting tools for monitoring PA management effectiveness, for identifying or improving indicators and techniques for monitoring wildlife populations and ecosystem health/biodiversity and for monitoring public/ private/ community partnerships for PA management. With the overall focus of this project on improving PA management effectiveness, it is critical for Zambia to have an effective tool or tools for monitoring this. Monitoring of ecosystem health/biodiversity is a capacity that is almost totally absent at present in Zambia. Wherever trophy hunting is done in PA, monitoring of wildlife populations should be considered as a basic, necessary cost of doing business. Testing and development of community-based M&E systems will be done at the two field demonstration sites. All aspects of M&E development will be based on reviews of best practices and lessons learned in Zambia and in the region.

123. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) that was developed jointly by WWF and the World Bank was used to establish Baseline values for nine NP and GMA. The numerical rankings were found to correspond quite well, in general, with the perceived levels of management effectiveness for the PA concerned. However, a number of weaknesses of the tool, in the Zambian context, were identified and recommendations have been developed. The METT will be modified for Zambia conditions. This will be done as a priority during the first year. It will be applied to all NP and GMA during the first year to complete the Baseline. This will be repeated before the mid-term and the end of project. Application of the tool will be done by independent entities to minimize bias.

124. Monitoring of ecosystem health and biodiversity will allow PA managers to take corrective actions before critical thresholds are passed. It will look at the key aspects:

Ecosystem health – to ensure that ecosystem process and habitats are not degraded over recovery thresholds

Biological diversity – to ensure that individual species populations are not reduced below a recovery threshold

125. The development of M&E systems for PA management partnerships will be done in conjunction with the new policy framework that will be developed for these partnerships. It will allow MTENR, ZAWA and others to monitor the effectiveness of the partnerships and the respect of minimum conditions established by the policy framework and by MOU between the partners

126. PA System Conservation Plan The results of the reviews of lessons learned and best practices in Zambia and in the region, the opportunities provided by the new legal, policy and governance frameworks developed, the identification of biodiversity conservation and reclassification priorities, the analyses of PA management effectiveness and efficiencies by type of PA management partnership, the new M&E techniques and other tools developed will all be integrated under a PA System Conservation Plan. The System Plan will identify the networks of Pas of different categories that need to be developed and effectively managed to ensure optimal conservation of the ecosystems and priority species in the country while contributing to tourism/economic development and poverty reduction. The System Plan will identify, on a site-by-site basis, the most appropriate PA category and the appropriate forms of management partnerships. It will identify the needs for reclassifying from one category to another, gazetting a limited number of new PA and degazetting of others. The Plan will define the relative roles of ZAWA, communities and NGO/private sector partners in PA management. It will cover enforcement, M&E etc.

41

UNDP PRO DOC

127. Investment Plan and Marketing Plan The Conservation Plan will be complemented by investment and marketing plans. The investment plans will define the investments needed in enforcement, access roads, tourism infrastructure, vehicles, offices, etc. This will be complemented by a marketing plan that ZAWA, government and communities can use to interest investment partners needed for priority PA. These investment partners would include private sector tourism operators, private sector/civil society PA managers/co-managers, donors and others.

Outcome 3: Field Demonstrations PA management options will be expanded through the development and field-testing of innovative private-public-community partnerships for management of new categories of PA.

128. The two field demonstration sites will be used to apply the new legal, policy and governance frameworks and to test and develop the new tools for enhancing PA management effectiveness. The field sites will be used to apply legislation/policies and methodologies for reclassification. New community-managed conservation areas (CCA) will be one of the principal reclassification options at both sites and the creation of a SHA is an option for the mountainous portion of Lower Zambezi NP. The CCA and/or CRB management structures will have responsibility for management of all of the renewable natural resources within the CCA/GMA boundaries. The new policy guidelines for defining the roles of traditional chiefs in CBNRM will be put into practice at the field sites. The development of partnerships between CCA/community management structures and local NGOs (KTL and CLZ) with proven track records in PA management will be key features at both sites. Business planning, community-managed M&E systems and other tools will be applied and developed on these sites. Criteria for the selection of the two sites included the presence of biodiversity of global importance, opportunities for reclassification and opportunities for private/community/public partnerships.

Bangweulu Wetlands Demonstration Site

129. Bangweulu is huge wetlands complex with biodiversity of undisputed global importance. The wetlands in the GMAs have the world’s only populations of the endemic wetlands antelope, the black lechwe, and are critically important for shoebill stork and other birds. The Complex includes a Ramsar site and Important Bird Areas (recognized as IBA by Birdlife International). There are three national parks, six GMA and several forest reserves in the Complex, but only Kasanka National Park has a functioning management system. The management of Kasanka NP by Kasanka Trust is one of the best and oldest examples of a public/private PA management partnership in Zambia and in the southern African region. Starting work at Kasanka in 1986, the group that soon thereafter became Kasanka Trust Limited (KTL), have successfully restored wildlife populations from highly depleted levels and have mobilized significant resources that they have invested in the park. KTL, however, is committed to a long term presence in the Bangweulu area and is also providing support to Kafinda and other GMA communities.

130. The field demonstration site will be located in the southern portion of the Bangweulu Wetlands in the triangle defined by Chikuni (where most of the black lechwe are concentrated), Kasanka NP and Lavushi Manda NP. This area includes the GMA of Bangweulu, Chikuni and Kafinda and two forest reserves – one between Kasanka and Lavushi Manda NPs and one just south of Kasanka NP. Anti-poaching efforts in the existing GMA will be strengthened from the very beginning. A major focus at Bangweulu will be on the participatory reclassification exercise. Biophysical and socio-economic surveys will be conducted as part of the reclassification planning and will lead to the identification of reclassification options. The planning process will be a highly participatory one with local communities playing the key role for analyzing and choosing between reclassification options for the GMA. Opportunities for reclassifying Lavushi Manda NP and the forest reserve included in the area and non-inhabited open areas will be studied. A high priority will be placed on ensuring strong conservation status for the black lechwe and shoebill stork habitats and populations. The project will seek to establish wildlife corridors connecting the two NP and Chikuni. The creation of CCA will be one of the principal

42

UNDP PRO DOC

reclassification options. Much of the efforts will be directed towards developing NR management systems and the needed management and governance capacities for the CCA/community managers. The project will assist CCA/community managers to develop a multiple use management plan(s) focusing on wildlife and fisheries (fishing is the main economic activity in much of the area). Strong support will be developed for a partnership between the new community managers and the Kasanka Trust.

131. ZAWA will coordinate all the field-level interventions at Bangweulu and will also play direct implementation roles in enforcement, reclassification planning and the development of M&E systems. The other field partners will be KTL, WWF and Peace Corps. KTL, WWF and Peace Corps all have a history of involvement in the Bangweulu area. KTL is registered in Zambia as a trust and manages Kasanka NP under lease agreement with ZAWA. They have a sister organization in Great Britain that does fund raising for them. At Kasanka NP, they directly manage anti-poaching, road/infrastructure construction and maintenance, a research program and park administration in addition to the construction and management of two tourist lodges in the park. They also have an active community support program in Kafinda GMA and they lease (from ZAWA) and manage Shoebill Camp (a lodge) near Chikuni. Wildlife populations in Kasanka NP have been successfully restored from very depleted levels and the infrastructure, results and impacts of KTL’s work are easy to see.

132. WWF started working in the Bangweulu Wetlands in 1985 and has conducted a number of projects that have benefited from funding from a range of different donors. The projects have covered integrated wetlands management, communities as resource managers, environmental education and the development of a “cultural village”. The results and impacts of past projects are modest. They are just about to start implementation of a new project called “Conservation and management of critical sites for sustainable livelihoods in the Bangweulu Basin in northeastern Zambia” – funded by WWF-Sweden/SIDA.

133. Peace Corps currently have three environment/natural resources volunteers working in within the area of the field demonstration site. They work in CBNRM, agroforestry and in community capacity building.

134. Based on an assessment of the capacities of each of these partners, it has been decided that KTL will be the lead field partner for on-the-ground activities and for all of the community-level capacity building support for communities and community resource management structures. KTL will coordinate and supervise the work of the PCVs. PCVs will be posted to villages within the field demonstration area and will work intensively with communities and community managers on capacity development. WWF will provide a range of technical expertise to support ZAWA and the other field partners. The principal areas of technical support will be in reclassification planning and M&E system development. Refer to the logframe for details on the roles of each partner.

Lower Zambezi/Chiawa Demonstration Site

135. The Lower Zambezi NP with the adjoining Chiawa GMA comprise the second field demonstration site. This complex is one of the few areas in Africa with viable, breeding populations of African wild dog combined with a large enough geographical area to maintain/conserve viable populations. The local NGO Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ) played a key role preventing the wildlife populations in the park from becoming severely depleted in the late 1990s, as they were in so many areas. Local lodge owners, farmers and others created the NGO in 1995 in response to the high levels of poaching that were out of control due to the institutional void before and during the creation of ZAWA.

136. The Lower Zambezi field site will focus on the development of a community/CLZ partnership for the development of community management of wildlife and other natural resources. The creation of a CCA out of the existing Chiawa GMA is the prime option considered here, but this will depend on the results of the legal/policy reform process for new PA categories. CLZ has recently begun focusing much of its efforts on the communities of the Chiawa GMA. Wildlife is depleted but recovering on

43

UNDP PRO DOC

much of this GMA and most of the habitat is in very good shape. Wildlife populations are very good in the vicinity of the CLZ camp and environmental education center in the eastern end of the GMA near the border of LZNP. With the adjacent park, prospects for restoring wildlife are very good if proper incentives and protection can be developed. The relative ease of access of Chiawa GMA and the concentration of lodges gives Chiawa an exceptionally good economic potential. Chieftainness Chiawa has given a strong endorsement to the creation of the CCA. The hunting company holding a 15-year lease is also interested in working with communities and in investing in wildlife restoration and reintroduction efforts. Collaborative mechanisms will be built between the managers of the community conservation area and ZAWA as manager of the NP.

137. The process of creating the CCA will include a participatory negotiation of new boundaries to include allowances for corridors that will allow wildlife access to the Zambezi River during the dry season. A particular accent will be put on zoning the new CCA to separate areas devoted to photo safaris from the larger areas zoned for trophy hunting. Zoning will be part of an overall management plan to be developed. The project will focus primarily on the development of the capacities of the community managers for governance, business management, natural resource management, M&E, etc. CLZ will be the community’s main partner in developing these capacities.

138. The opportunity for zoning out a part of the mountainous portion of Lower Zambezi NP as a SHA will be studied as one the reclassification options for the Chiawa/LZNP Complex. Because of its poor access and low use for conventional tourism, this portion of LZNP has been suggested as a potential site for a SHA. As ZAWA already has the needed expertise and capacities for managing wildlife for trophy hunting, the project’s only role here will be for the reclassification planning and for the necessary regazzeting of the park if the decision is made to create a SHA.

139. The implementation modalities for the Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Complex will be similar to those at Bangweulu. ZAWA will coordinate all field partners and will play direct implementation roles for the same functions as at Bangweulu. WWF and Peace Corps will also play similar roles at Chiawa. The main difference is that the main field partner at Chiawa will be Conservation Lower Zambezi. WWF and Peace Corps are not currently active at Chiawa.

140. Conservation Lower Zambezi was created by conservationists, safari tour operators/lodge owners and other LZNP/Chiawa GMA stakeholders in 1995 and is registered as an NGO. It is focused on the conservation of the fauna and flora of LZNP and Chiawa GMA and on the empowerment and development of communities in Chiawa GMA. Until ZAWA became functional on the ground, CLZ focused strongly on anti-poaching activities in LZNP and the GMA. Now, CLZ supports scientific research and are developing a major environmental education program for GMA communities. It is completing a Base Camp and, with DANIDA funding, an environmental education center in Chiawa GMA just outside the eastern border of LZNP. They have maintenance facilities, lodging, radio communications, vehicles and a spotter plane.

X. Alternatives considered:

141. A number of alternative strategies were evaluated, as the basis for project intervention. The first option and original orientation of the PDF B proposal was to focus activities solely on reclassifying the PA system. While a valid activity, this option was discarded. Without accompanying capacity development and development of new conservation management arrangements, it is unlikely that the objective of rationalizing, consolidating and strengthening the PA system would be realized if one stopped at the level of reclassifying. Indeed, as any reclassification must be based on a participatory process involving local communities and stakeholders, reclassification on its own could lead to heightened expectations that could not be met if resources for effective management do not follow.

142. A second option was to focus on all protected/gazetted landscapes, including forest reserves, where biodiversity conservation is a subsidiary management objective. This was discarded, so as not to dilute

44

UNDP PRO DOC

intervention. Intervention in the forest estates would necessitate efforts to integrate conservation objectives into the forestry sector, which while critical, would involve different conservation methods than those required/ involved in the core PA estate. Also, the capacity development needs in the forest sector are so large they could not be adequately addressed within the resources available to this project. A more focused approach, concentrating on the core estate is expected to yield more durable and timely management impacts. However, the project will include forest reserves in the PA reclassification analysis, identifying reserves that need to be upgraded to a higher conservation status, as necessary, to ensure that bio-geographic representation targets are satisfied.

Eligibility and Linkages

XI. Eligibility for GEF Funding

143. The GRZ ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in May 1993. As a recipient of UNDP technical assistance, the GRZ is eligible for GEF funds under paragraph 9b of the Instrument.

XII. Conformity with COP Guidance and GEF Strategic Priorities

144. COP 7 Guidance Early in 2004, the CBD COP 7 made a declaration on protected areas that is very supportive of key elements of the design of this project. First is a general statement concerning their adoption of the new work program:

“…the COP adopts the annexed work program with the objective of establishing and maintaining by 2010 for terrestrial areas…effectively managed and ecologically representative national and regional PA systems…”

145. The work program consists of four program elements. Goals for each element that are most relevant to this project are the following: Element One:

Establish and strengthen national and regional systems integrated into a global network; Integrate PA into the broader land- and sea-scapes; Substantially improve site-based planning and management.

Element Two: Promote equity and benefit-sharing; Enhance and secure the involvement of communities and relevant stakeholders.

Element Three: Provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for PAs; Build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs; Develop, apply and transfer appropriate technologies for PAs; Ensure financial sustainability of PAs and national and regional systems of PAs.

Element Four: Develop and adopt minimum standards and best practices for national and regional PA systems; Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of PA management; Assess and monitor PA status and trends, and; Ensure that scientific knowledge contributes to the establishment and effectiveness of PAs and

PA systems

146. GEF Strategic Priorities This project meets the requirements for GEF financing under Strategic Priority I (SP I): Strengthening National Systems of PA. It will build capacity at both national and local levels. It places a strong emphasis on building new public-private partnerships and improving the policy framework for such partnerships. It seeks to develop a new category of community-managed PA in the landscapes surrounding national parks and to strengthen the management of the existing GMA buffers. These new PA will be linked with park management and will enhance community incentives for the conservation of national parks. It will emphasize business planning and sustainable financing at both the PA and the system level. Collectively, these actions are expected to make a major contribution

45

UNDP PRO DOC

towards progressing management of the PA system, in terms of assuring management effectiveness, through capacity building and rationalization.

147. In line with the emerging guidance for SP1, the project has been designed using the following sequence of analyses: Description of the global biodiversity significance; Analysis of threats to biodiversity; Articulation of the approach used to tackle these threats; Analysis of the barriers to implementing the chosen approach; Description of the logical objective and outcome tree to address these barriers.

XIII. Linkages with other GEF Initiatives

148. Zambia completed its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), as required by the CBD, in November 1999 with UNDP/GEF Enabling Activity funding. Cabinet, making it an official GRZ policy document, has approved the NBSAP.

149. In 2001, UNDP-GEF supported a GEF information and dialogue workshop for Zambian stakeholders. The idea for this current project was first conceived at that workshop and was based directly on specific goals of the recently approved NBSAP. The current proposal is a country driven project that originates from the NBSAP.

150. Sustainable Land Management in the Miombo Woodlands Ecosystem is a US$740,000 World Bank/GEF MSP working in Central Province. It works mostly in the agricultural sector but will also seek to develop an integrated ecosystem management approach.

151. Lukanga Swamps is another World Bank GEF project working in Southern Province NNE of Lusaka. It is an integrated ecosystem management project that was just approved in Feb 2004. The Project Implementation Unit will maintain frequent contact with both the Miombo Woodlands and the Lukanga Swamps Projects to share experiences and lessons learned.

152. The Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification Project (SEED) is a five-year IDA and GEF project that will provide support to the gemstone, agriculture and tourism sectors. GEF funding in the amount of US$4 million will support improved PA management in the Kafue and Mosi oa Tonya National Parks in support of tourism development based on those two NP. The project will improve NP administration and management, infrastructure development, park-level M&E systems, public/private partnerships and CBNRM in park buffer areas. Co-financing is still being negotiated, but NORAD plans to contribute US$20,000,000 to Kafue NP – half to road infrastructure and half to park management. Exceptionally close contacts will be maintained with the tourism/PA component of this SEED Project. In particular, their input on policy reforms, management partnerships, business planning for PA and on M&E systems will be sought.

153. NCSA The Government has initiated the National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) project with UNDP/GEF support as a first step towards capacity enhancement in the environment and natural resources sector. The objective of the NCSA is to prepare a comprehensive capacity analysis of gaps and a training plan for all stakeholders involved in the protection and management of environment and biodiversity. The NCSA process will feed into the PA capacity requirements that will be addressed by the project.

154. NAPA Government has requested assistance form UNDP/GEF for support in mitigating the impact of climate change by developing and implementing a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA). The NAPA serves as a road map for the country towards the implementation of climate change adaptation activities that contribute to the achievement of the MDG- 7. The NAPA process consists of identification of all coping activities for climate change, prioritizing them and

46

UNDP PRO DOC

formulating priority projects for adaptation as well as strengthening the capacity to adapt to longer-term climate changes and contributes towards raising awareness about the urgency to adapt to adverse effects of climate and climate change. In this regard, the project will benefit from the NAPA process by having strategies for mitigating the impacts of climate change in the wildlife sector that would feed in into the policy, legal and management frameworks for effective management of the PA.

XIV. Linkages with the UNDP Country ProgramUnited Nations Programming Framework

155. The three key UN programming documents of greatest relevance to this project are the CCA, the UNDAF and the CCF. The UN in Zambia is currently operating under the Common Country Assessment (CCA) of 2000. The CCA was a pre-requisite for the development of Zambia’s first United Nations Development Framework (UNDAF). The UNDAF is the planning framework for the development operations of the UN system at the country level. The UN has ensured that a linkage exists between the CCA/UNDAF and the country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Thus the collective programming by the UN system in Zambia is directly related to the priority programs of the PRSP. Finally, the Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) for Zambia 2202-2006 outlines the main axes of UNDP’s support to GRZ within the UN Development Framework. The CCF is based on key government policy documents.

156. The CCA recognizes poverty reduction as the national development priority. UN support is to play a catalytic role taking a human rights-based approach. CCA strategic foci of relevance are the following: a) the right to participation (good governance, decentralization, capacity building, information and communication technology); b) right to an adequate standard of living; c) equal rights (gender); d) overcoming factors that impinge on the realization of the above, especially HIV/AIDS; e) support to Zambia in implementing agreements of UN global conferences.

157. UNDAF specifies that the goal of UN assistance to Zambia is “to pursue a rights-based approach to development with a special focus on poverty reduction including the reduction of gender disparities.” UNDAF identifies three strategic areas of intervention: a) employment; b) social services, and; c) governance. In addition, there are three cross-cutting issues: a) HIV/AIDS; b) gender; c) regional integration

158. Specific UNDAF objectives, agreed to by GRZ, that are of particular relevance to this project are the following:

Support civil society participation in the design and implementation of socio-economic policies and plans and for monitoring the achievement of the Millennium Declaration commitments.

Enhance community participation in decision-making at the local level;

159. The CCF specifies that UNDP’s strategic support to the CCF should focus on up-stream policy and strategic support to the Government in the following areas

i. Good governance with a focus on human rights, decentralization, economic governance and public accountability;

ii. Development and implementation of frameworks for a multi-sectoral response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic;

iii. Enhance environmental protection and the sustainable management of natural resources

160. The CCF specifies that gender and the enhanced use of information and communication technology will be fully integrated into all UNDP program areas. It goes on to say, “By the end of 2006 UNDP’s support will have contributed to building the capacity of environmental authorities to enforce standards that promote sustainable natural resources management. The 16 international conventions to which Zambia has acceded will have been internalized through legal reforms, new regulatory frameworks and improved enforcement and reporting.”

47

UNDP PRO DOC

161. UNDP supports the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The most relevant of these goals is to “ensure environmental sustainability”. Of the three targets, the one that is directly relevant to this project is stated as “integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs, and reverse the loss of environmental resources.”

Linkages with other UNDP Projects

162. Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management UNDP is currently supporting this 5-year (2002-6) project. The project objective is to enhance managerial capacity for environmental protection and sustainable management of natural resources as well as for coordinating the implementation of environmental international conventions. To achieve this objective, the project focuses on the following: Environmental policy development including support to civil society organizations and

communities to enable their effective participation in the formulation and review processes; Strengthening of the existing institutional mechanisms for enforcement of environmental standards

and the sustainable management of natural resources in the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR), Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), Environment Council of Zambia (ECZ) and Zambia Meteorological Department (ZMD).

163. The development of the environment policy will provide an umbrella for the subsidiary policies such as those envisaged in the new Zambia PA project. In this regard, subsidiary policies will benefit from the environment policy by providing the mutual enforcement, seal gaps and minimize contradictions that may exist in the subsidiary policies.

164. Enhanced Local Governance for Poverty Reduction The UNDP support is directed at enhancement of capacity for implementation of the Decentralization Policy (DP), which focuses on the devolution of power and empowering the local communities. The implementation of the DP will assist the communities to create institutions that will be supported by legal framework. The envisaged CCAs would benefit from this arrangement and operate within the confines of DP that will also be supplemented by PA policy.

XV. Linkages with GRZ priorities/policies and programs

165. The wildlife sector has been identified by the GRZ as a priority sector. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) identifies tourism (which is strongly reliant on the national parks and GMA) as the second major sector after agriculture for economic growth and poverty reduction. Donors have responded in kind and NORAD, World Bank and DANIDA are providing funding in consequence.

166. The GRZ has undertaken very difficult steps to improve governance and effectiveness in the sector. The former National Parks and Wildlife Service was dissolved and new staff was competitively recruited to the Zambia Wildlife Authority with staff levels reduced from 4150 to 1400. Major reforms for co-management and revenue sharing with communities have been undertaken for the GMA. Government has also signaled its receptivity to new forms of public/private partnerships for NP management. The development of this project was lead and coordinated by a Secretariat within the MTENR. The Project Manager of the Secretariat is directly responsible to the Director of Environment. The policy dialogue with the MTENR during project preparation is further evidence of the GRZ’s commitment to policy reforms.

167. The concept for this project was strongly driven by the GRZ. The basic idea for the project was advanced by the former Director of Environment at a UNDP-sponsored GEF information workshop in 2001. The project idea corresponds directly to a number of the Goals and Objectives the UNDP/GEF-funded National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (approved by the GRZ Cabinet in 1991). The most relevant are the following:

48

UNDP PRO DOC

Goal 1: Ensure the conservation of a full range of Zambia's natural ecosystems through a network of PA;

Goal 3: Improve the legal and institutional framework and human resources to implement the strategies for conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity;

Goal 4: Sustainable Use and Management of Biological Resources; Goal 6: Ensure the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Zambia's biological resources.

168. Project development was lead by a project development secretariat in MTENR. A Zambian NGO, a Zambian consulting firm and Zambian consultants under contract with MTENR conducted five background studies. There was a continuous dialogue between the project development secretariat and MTENR officials as the project design evolved through its various phases. MTENR successfully lead the search for amicable solutions to disagreements over the choice between strategic project options. MTENR successfully organized stakeholder workshops at the two pilot sites.

Project Management and Stakeholder Participation

XVI. Execution and Implementation Arrangements

169. The project will be implemented over a period of six years beginning in early 2005. The project will be nationally executed. The Zambia Wildlife Authority will be the designated institution for the management of the project. The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR) will have an overall oversight and monitoring role on the part of GRZ. In addition, UNDP will assist in the procurement of equipment and local consultants for the project as needed/requested. The project will receive high-level policy guidance and orientation from the project’s Steering Committee. The SC will be chaired by MTENR and will be composed of the Permanent Secretaries of concerned ministries plus UNDP. The SC will meet twice a year during the first two years and once a year thereafter. The Technical Advisory Group will provide technical support to the project. The TAG will be composed of 10 individuals from government and civil society (including tourism/safari hunting sectors) selected on the basis of their competence. It will meet quarterly during the first year and every six months thereafter. Finally, all of the implementing partners and the donors for the project will form a Project Coordination Group that will meet every four months.

170. As the designated institution, ZAWA will be responsible for managing the project including the timely delivery of inputs and the outputs. ZAWA will coordinate the activities of all the other implementing agencies (MTENR, NRCF, WWF, KTL, CLZ and PC) to ensure the efficient and timely project implementation and the attainment of maximum impacts. ZAWA will lead and coordinate the preparation of annual work plans. ZAWA will coordinate the interventions of all the other implementing agencies at the field demonstration sites. ZAWA will enter into an agreement with UNOPS for the identification and contracting of all international consultants. KTL, CLZ and WWF will be contracted by UNDP. United Nations Volunteers (UNV) field partners will work under MOU with ZAWA and UNDP.

171. A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will play a key role in project implementation. It will be attached to ZAWA and will be headed by a Zambian national with the title of Project Technical Coordinator (PTC). He/she will work under the supervision of the ZAWA DG and will be responsible to UNDP for the proper application of all UNDP administrative and financial regulations and procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds. The PTC will be a national consultant and will fill this post for six years. A Protected Areas Systems Specialist (PASS) and a Natural Resources Economist (NRE) will support the PTC. The PASDS will be a highly qualified international consultant recruited through UNOPS. He/she will be a full time advisor during the first two years of the project and will conduct periodic support missions to the project for the remainder of the project. The NRE will conduct periodic support missions during the life of the project. The PIU will have overall responsibility for project management, administrative, technical and financial reporting. The PIU will manage the

49

UNDP PRO DOC

selection process for all local contracts and recruitment of local consultants. This will include preparation of TOR, call for bids and organization of the selection process. This will all be done in close coordination with UNDP and contracts will be let by UNDP. The PIU will oversee and coordinate the execution of all local contracts. The PIU will have a small support staff.

172. MTENR will have lead responsibility for the development of the policy and legal reforms under Outcome 1, ZAWA will be the lead implementing agency for Outcome 2 and ZAWA, assisted by WWF, will coordinate the implementation of field activities implemented by ZAWA and field partners NGOs under Outcome 3. ZAWA will have implementation responsibilities for enforcement, reclassification planning and development of M&E systems at the field sites. The lead field implementation agencies at each site will be KTL and CLZ at Bangweulu and Chiawa, respectively. MTENR will monitor and oversee the implementation of PA sector laws and policies.

173. WWF will provide key technical support to both field demonstration sites in the areas of biodiversity surveys, image interpretation, reclassification planning, the development of community-based M&E systems and other specialized technical inputs needed at the two sites. WWF will work with ZAWA and the lead field partners at each of the two sites. All of WWF’s support to the two field sites will be coordinated by ZAWA.

174. Kasanka Trust Limited will be the lead field partner for the Bangweulu Field Demonstration Site. KTL will have primary responsibility for on-the-ground implementation and support to communities. KTL will have responsibilities for awareness raising, support for a highly participatory approach to reclassification planning, support for community-level capacity development, development of community-based natural resource management systems, support for development of community-based enforcement systems and the development of NR-based income generating activities.

175. Conservation Lower Zambezi (CLZ) will be the lead field partner for the Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Field Demonstration Site. CLZ will have primary responsibility on-the-ground implementation and support to communities in what is now the Chiawa GMA. This will include responsibilities for awareness raising, supporting a highly participatory approach to reclassification planning, supporting community-level capacity development, development of community-based natural resource management systems, support for the development of community-based enforcement systems and the development of NR-based income generating activities.

176. The project focuses at building capacity at the systemic, institutional and individual levels for PA management. It contributes to a process, which is expected to continue beyond the project life, with funding from Government and the donor community. Accordingly, a major focus is placed on integrating the wildlife sector into the PRS, and other budgetary allocation devices, as needed to assure continuity of funding over the long term for effective replication of project outcomes. A six-year time horizon is considered sufficient to deliver the intended outcomes.

177. Implementation of Outcome 1 MTENR will be the lead implementing agency for all legal and policy reforms under Outcome 1. Background studies and legal drafts will be contracted for by the PIU/UNDP. Stakeholder workshops will be organized by the PIU. ZAWA will provide cofinancing for improving their financial management of revenue sharing with CRB. Support for improved financial management and governance at the CRB and VAG level will be done under competitively awarded contracts through the PIU/UNDP. Funding will be provided by DANIDA for the functioning of the NRCF for the first three years. This will be then be picked up under UNDP/GEF funding for the final three years (MTENR is committed to the creation of NRCF, but the institutional host of the NRCF has not yet been selected.)

178. Implementation of Outcome 2 The work on reclassification priorities will be done through direct support to ZAWA’s Science Department and will be supported by competitively awarded contracts (PIU/UNDP). The PIU PASS will play a strong advisory role on the reclassification methodologies.

50

UNDP PRO DOC

The development and application of economic, financial and business planning tools will make considerable use of a lead natural resource/environmental economics consultant (NRE). Modifications to the METT and its use for monitoring PA management effectiveness will be done under local contract with a qualified neutral party. The review of M&E systems will be done under NEX or UNOPS contract and the adaptive testing of these systems will be done primarily by ZAWA assisted by consultants. The development of the Conservation Plan, the investment plan and the marketing plan will involve ZAWA, the PIU, and contractors with input from civil society.

179. Implementation of Outcome 3 All implementing agencies working at the two field demonstration sites will be coordinated by ZAWA, who will be assisted in this by WWF. ZAWA will be directly involved with awareness raising, enforcement, reclassification planning and the development of improved M&E systems. Technical support to both sites will be provided by WWF under contract with UNDP. KTL and CLZ will be the lead field implementation agencies at each site, responsible for most operational, field level activities and for different forms of community support. PCV will provide capacity building support to communities and to community management structures, doing this under the general coordination of ZAWA and the day-to-day coordination of KTL and CLZ.

180. The smooth functioning and the possibility of conflicts/misunderstandings at the two field demonstration sites will be monitored closely to nip any potential problems “in the bud”. Every three or four months, coordination visits to each site will be organized by the PIU/ZAWA. MTENR, UNDP, PC or others may participate in these field visits. Two or three days will be spent at each site with visits to all key stakeholders to review progress, successes and constraints and concerns of each party. A plan of action will be developed for each potential problem identified and follow-up will be monitored carefully.

181. A Steering Committee (SC) comprised of the Permanent Secretaries (PS) of the Ministry of Environment, Tourism and Natural Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of Lands, Ministry of Finance and UNDP would provide Steering Committee High Level Policy Guidance and Project Oversight. The SC will meet twice a year during the first two years of the project (the period during which most of the new policies and legislation will be developed) and once a year thereafter.

182. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Technical support to the project will be provided by the Technical Advisory Group. This group of about 10 members will be composed of individuals who are selected based on their reputation and competence in their respective fields. The TAG will include representatives of private sector/civil society PA management partners and tourism sector private investors (associations representing tourism operators/lodge owners and hunting companies).

183. Donor Coordination MTENR will play the lead role in donor coordination for the environment sector and for this project through the Sector Advisory Group on Tourism.

184. Intellectual Property Rights on Data, Study Results, Reports, etc. All data, study results, information, reports, etc. generated with UNDP project funds will be the property of UNDP and the GRZ.

XVII. Financial Arrangements

185. Both GEF and UNDP/TRAC funds will be administered by UNDP. The PTC will assist ZAWA and UNDP to manage project resources. The PIU will manage all local service providers. The PTC will manage the funds for the local staff and operating expenses of the PIU. UNDP will advance funds for a three-month period. At the end of the three month period, the PIU will submit justification for expenses and the funds spent will be renewed by UNDP.

51

UNDP PRO DOC

186. Criteria and procedures will be developed for performance-based contracts with service providers. Under performance-based contracts, the service provider will be paid only for work completed. Work partially completed will be paid on a pro rata basis.

187. The project will comply with UNDP’s monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements as spelled out in the UNDP Programming Manual. The PIU PTC will have lead responsibility for reporting requirements to UNDP.

188. Annual audits will be completed in line with UNDP procedures.

189. A total of US$ 6 million in financing is requested from the GEF to cover the incremental costs of project implementation. Co-financing amounting to US$ 35.091 million has been committed.

Co-financing SourcesName of Co-financier (source)

Classification Type Amount (US$) Status*

GRZ/ZAWA Government Government funds

12,310,000 Confirmed

UNDP/TRAC Implementing Agency

Grant 2,000,000 Confirmed

NORAD Bilateral donor Grant 17,500,000 Confirmed DANIDA Bilateral donor Grant 1,400,000 Confirmed KTL NGO NGO funds 1,220,000 Confirmed WWF NGO NGO funds 661,000 Confirmed Sub-Total Co-financing 35,091,000

XVIII. Project Beneficiaries

190. As a biodiversity project, the project is designed to have global benefits through improved conservation of globally important ecosystems and species in Zambia. The following institutions and stakeholders will be the principal beneficiaries at the country level:

191. The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources will be the principle beneficiary of the improved legal and policy frameworks. Project resources will be used to assist the ministry in developing new legislation and policies that are critical for improving the effectiveness of PA management in Zambia. Furthermore, the participatory process for developing laws and policies will give the new legal and policy frameworks a strong grounding of support from key stakeholders. Support for the Natural Resources Consultative Forum will also provide the Ministry with solid inputs on policy development from civil society – this will facilitate MTENR’s oversight role for ZAWA and other PA areas managers. The PA System plan, the investment plan and the marketing plan will also be key strategic documents for MTENR.

192. Zambia Wildlife Authority is the main national institution responsible for the management of the wildlife estate in Zambia and will thus be a focus in the project implementation process. Policy and legal reforms should greatly assist ZAWA in the development of effective public/private/civil society/community partnerships for protected area management. The project will also result in the strengthening of ZAWA’s role through the provision of strategic inputs focusing on reclassification planning, development of M&E techniques and knowledge exchange. The development of business planning capacities in ZAWA will be particular project focus as will the development of more cost effective PA management approaches and of improved management partnerships. Improved systems for financial transparency in the sharing of revenues with CRB should greatly improve ZAWA’s working relationships with these community structures. Reclassification planning, the PA System plan, the investment plan and the marketing plan will all be critical strategic documents for ZAWA to better

52

UNDP PRO DOC

define its core niche in PA management, to make it more effective and efficient as the principal institution with a mandate for biodiversity conservation and with a secondary role of contributing to tourism development and poverty reduction. These strategic documents will also enable it to mobilize management partners, private sector investors and donor support. Experiences from the project demonstration sites will be used to roll over the protected area reclassification plan into other GMAs and National Parks.

193. Local communities Policy, legal and institutional reforms which will ensue from the project will empower local communities, especially those in the Game Management Areas, to participate more equitably in the sustainable management of protected areas. Transparency in the sharing of revenues will greatly increase incentives for GMA conservation and management and will put the CRB/ZAWA co-management partnerships on a much firmer footing. Governance training for CRB/VAG and CRB community representatives will give all parties a much clearer understanding of their rights and responsibilities.

194. Local communities in the field demonstration sites will be special beneficiaries. The new CCA managers will enjoy the highest level of empowerment and the strongest rights to collect and manage their own NR-derived revenues of any communities in Zambia. The focus of efforts in the field demonstration sites will be on the building of the capacities of the community managers including skills in business planning, financial management, governance, resource estimation and monitoring, law enforcement and adaptive management.

195. In a broader sense, local communities will benefit from increased employment opportunities from the private sector tourism investors who will be attracted by new investment opportunities that follow the restoration of viable wildlife populations that results from more effective PA management.

196. Private Sector Tourism Investors Better protected area management practices will result in improved wildlife estates in National Parks and GMA. This in turn will lead to an increase in the flow of photographic safari tourists as well to an increase in hunting concessions in rehabilitated GMA. This increased tourist traffic will be the engine of growth for private sector investments which will in turn lead to increased foreign exchange earnings at local level and employment opportunities for local communities. The lodge owners in Chiawa GMA and Lower Zambezi NP, the trophy hunting lease holder for Chiawa GMA and future private sector investors in the Chiawa/LZNP complex will be beneficiaries of the project. For the Bangweulu Complex, tourism and trophy hunting are only poorly developed at present. KTL is managing the fly-in camps/lodges in Kasanka NP and Shoebill Camp near Chikuni on an interim basis. Most of the tourism sector beneficiaries at this field demo site will be future investors.

197. Civil Society Conservation Community The project will work with and support the work of the civil society conservation community, particularly in the promotion of advocacy for policy and legal reforms and for the general improvement of protected area management. The Natural Resources Consultative Forum will receive support from the project in promoting dialogue between various stakeholders involved in the PA sector. The NRCF will provide key civil society input into the participatory policy and legal reforms of Outcome 1.

198. Division of Fisheries The Bangweulu field demonstration site is a very important fishery area and the project will assist the development of sustainable fisheries management. The project will significantly contribute to its conservation and development. The Department of Fisheries will benefit from capacity building and from direct involvement in the development of innovative, community-managed fisheries on this site

53

UNDP PRO DOC

XIX. Stakeholder Participation

199. The legal and policy reforms strengthen and clarify the rights and roles of private sector and community stakeholders. The new models of public/private/civil society/community partnerships will be specifically targeted to involve these stakeholders directly in the management of PA and in the benefits of PA management. The new category of PA for community management of wildlife and other resources will be a major step in strengthening community control of land and resources and in maximizing the revenue they receive from natural resource management.

200. The approaches used to effect legal and policy reforms, improved governance, institutional capacity building and field-testing of new partnerships will involve all of the important stakeholders in the PA sectors. The process for policy reforms will involve inputs from, and subsequent validation by, stakeholders from the regional and national levels. Stakeholders will include communities, traditional leaders, PA private sector investors, national and international NGOs and appropriate government and parastatal institutions. The Natural Resources Consultative Forum will provide a formal mechanism for civil society stakeholders to have direct input into key issues concerning the PA sector.

201. Institutional capacity development will support a balanced mix of capacities in the parastatal ZAWA and in civil society institutions. This is critical for good governance because of the internal conflict within ZAWA’s mandates. ZAWA is charged, on the one hand, with conservation of biodiversity and natural areas, while on the other hand, they are being pushed strongly by government to generate enough revenues to cover their own costs. In addition to capacity development in ZAWA, the project will support capacity development in civil society institutions to enable them to have both a solid knowledge base and inputs in PA policy development.

202. The field-level demo sites will focus on the development of partnerships and capacities of the key stakeholders, especially of the local communities in the present GMAs at each site. The reclassification at each demo site will be a highly participatory process putting local stakeholders in the forefront of the process. The major emphasis at the demo sites will be on building local stakeholder capacities, especially those of the community management structures of the new CCAs. The project will develop partnerships between communities, NGOs, ZAWA, private sector investors in both photo safari and trophy hunting industries and traditional authorities.

Risks, Prior Obligations, Sustainability and Replicability

XX. Risk Analysis Matrix

203. Key Risks: the following risks and risk identification measures have been identified

Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Measure

External pressures on national parks and protected areas increase significantly.

Continued over harvest of wildlife. Sustainability cannot be assured until populations recover

Private sector/communities

M

M

M

The strengthened M&E system would provide an early warning of increasing pressures, allowing ZAWA and its partners to intervene where pressures warrant.

Anti-poaching methods are quite well tested and proven at other NPs. Recent innovations are bringing costs down substantially. The project will strengthen monitoring and enforcement at the community level. Trophy hunting will only be considered an option in areas where there are adequate wildlife populations. This issue will be addressed as part of the reclassification effort.

The new policy framework for private/public/community

54

UNDP PRO DOC

do not respond positively to improved policies/incentives.

Tourism does not develop as hoped and tourism levies do not cover most of the recurrent costs of PA management.

The approval/enactment of needed legal and regulatory framework is delayed.

Government does not effectively address documented cases of mal-governance.

Adequate staffing profiles/ numbers in ZAWA is not maintained relative to core PA management functions.

Stakeholder conflicts cannot be successfully mediated.

M

M

M/S

M

M

partnerships will clarify and codify the rights and responsibilities of each party. Sound business planning for PA will identify private sector investment opportunities.

Integration of private sector investors into legal/policy reforms and planning processes builds confidence for investors. The development of multiple use management approaches on community-managed lands diminishes dependence on the single safari-hunting sector.

Support to the Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF)19 will bring civil society and donor pressure to bear on government policy makers. The participatory process of policy formulation will minimize risk of delays.

Increased transparency and civil society input and oversight through the NRCF will greatly improve the visibility of mal-governance, making it much harder for GRZ to ignore.

The development of a clear business plan for ZAWA will provide GRZ and the donors providing core support to ZAWA a roadmap towards financial sustainability for many of ZAWA’s functions.

The participatory design process minimizes this risk and the participatory, transparent execution will also reduce risks of conflicts.

Overall Risk rating M +

Risk rating – H (high Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), and N (Negligible or Low Risk)Risks refer to the possibility that assumptions defined in the logical framework may not hold.

XXI. Prior Obligations

XXII. Sustainability of Project Results

204. One of the key aspects of sustainability is the chicken-and-egg mutual interdependence of PA management and tourism development that is illustrated in Figure 5. Two main types of investments are needed – investments in enforcement and PA management to restore wildlife populations and investments in infrastructure needed for tourism development. This project will develop tools and a Reclassification and Conservation plan for the National System of PA that will strategically guide investments in these two areas. Investments in infrastructure for PA access will come primarily from donors. Investments in effective PA management will come from ZAWA, GRZ, donors and the full range of PA management partners. The recent history of donor support would indicate that these are realistic expectations. Investments in tourism infrastructure will come from private sector investors. These tools will be developed so that the investment resources available can have maximum impact on biodiversity conservation of priority sites and high impacts on tourism development and poverty reduction through management systems and partnerships that are as financially sustainable as possible.

19 The Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) is a national forum which will be established as part of the project, to facilitate civil society input into environmental and PA sector issues.

55

UNDP PRO DOC

205. Project activities have been specifically designed to accelerate the uptake of good management practices across the PA estate. This cannot be achieved all at once, but in a carefully sequenced manner, progressively seeking to ensure sound management effectiveness in all priority PA. The assessment and economic analysis of PA management effectiveness will focus on identifying the forms of PA management partnerships that are financially the most efficient, that provide the greatest incentives for PA managers and that are financially self-sustainable. Some of the most promising of the new forms of partnerships will be tested at the field demo sites. The development of a clear policy framework for public/private/civil society/community partnerships will simplify and render transparent the entry conditions for potential private and community PA management partners.

206. The project will build on Zambia's already promising experiences with public private partnerships for management of national parks -- seeking to expand on this to also bring local communities into the public/ private partnerships for both existing and new categories of PA. The overall conservation plan to be developed will seek to better define ZAWA’s roles and responsibilities in conformity with their absorptive capacity and in lines with the assessed potential for self-financing of PA that they will manage directly themselves. GRZ commitment to the policy reforms specified in this design document and their timely approval would be key elements to sustainability.

207. At the level of the field demonstration sites, the development of PA/natural resource management funds that are self-financed out of revenues from hunting, tourism and other natural resource-based enterprises will be a key aspect of support to community-managed PA. However, it is unlikely that community-managers can be totally self-sufficient at the end of six years. Therefore, another key to sustainability is the choice of two successful private sector partners with established track records in conservation and PA management as partners of the new CCA managers. This will greatly increase the probability for sustainability. Kasanka Trust and CLZ are both locally-based with long term commitments towards conservation and will almost certainly be there to continue to support their community partners beyond the close of this current project.

208. The ability of these two partners to continue support to CCA managers beyond the end of this project is, of course, dependent on the sustainability of their own funding. Kasanka Trust has a well-developed track record in fund-raising. Their most important tool has been the creation of a sister organization in the UK whose principal purpose is fund-raising for KTL. One of KTL’s particular strengths is in the area of funding for research. They have just been awarded US$ 370,000 by the Darwin Initiative to conduct research based on PA management needs. KTL’s research coordinator in the field is attempting to develop an eco-research program that would actually raise money for PA management. Research “volunteers” from developed countries will actually pay for the experience of working on research in a setting like the Bangweulu Complex.

209. CLZ’s most reliable source of funding comes from their corporate membership – especially the lodge owners in Chiawa and LZNP. Recognizing that the conservation of Chiawa and LZNP are in their direct financial interest, the lodge owners contribute a percentage of their bed-night fees to CLZ. CLZ has also been successful in mobilizing funding from donors like DANIDA and also sponsors other fund-raising activities in Zambia. CLZ’s main focus in coming years will be on supporting the empowerment and development of communities in Chiawa GMA and on environmental education of communities around LZNP.

210. The identification of tourism as the second highest priority sector in the PRSP will contribute to sustainability through increased investments in the sector resulting in increased tourist entry fees, hunting license fees and other sources of revenue that provide incentives and cover PA management costs. Preliminary analyses conducted as part of project preparation indicate that investments in protected areas management can be financially viable in Zambia. The project will continue to refine the conditions under which different forms of management and of management partnerships will yield positive returns on investments and will use this information to mobilize new management partnerships.

56

UNDP PRO DOC

211. A study entitled “A Financial and Economic Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Managing the Protected Area Estate” was conducted as part of the PDF B project development process. Its purpose was to provide a financial and economic analysis of the costs and benefits of managing Zambia’s protected area estate. Readily available information on the economics and finances of tourism and protected areas in Zambia being highly deficient, this study required a significant amount of primary data collection and collation.

212. Park based tourism currently generates USD 40 million in direct turnover to tourism operations, 75% of which is in Livingstone and much of the remainder in South Luangwa (USD4m) and Lower Zambezi (USD 3m). Assuming an economic multiplier of 4, this still translates into USD 160 million of economic impact in Zambia (MTENR estimates USD 120m). The tourism industry is in its infancy, but growing steadily at about 10% per annum. Taking a conservative assumption that park-based tourism will triple in the next ten years implies: That national parks will be close to covering their core operational costs Direct tourism turnover of USD 120 million annually Economic impact of USD 500 million annually.

213. On a per area basis, Zambia’s protected areas will be generating less than 20% of those historically evidenced in Zimbabwe and South Africa, suggesting that these estimates are technically realistic, and that the long term potential from growth of this “cluster” industry is even higher. Nevertheless, getting to this point will require that significant support be provided to ZAWA’s recurrent budget to protect the resource base (say, USD50 million over ten years). It will also require substantial capital investment in buildings, roads and capacity building (say USD100 million over ten years). Recent assistance to the sector indicates that this level of assistance to the sector is not unreasonable.

214. Safari hunting currently generates USD 1.3 million to landholders, USD 4 million in direct outfitter turnover, and perhaps USD 8-16 million in economic impact. Good administration in the short term, especially the allocation of quotas to highest values and measures to encourage more spread out use of wildlife in GMAs, could triple these figures over night. Wildlife populations in GMAs are currently below 5-10% of carrying capacity. If measures are taken to internalize the costs and benefits of wildlife management in GMAs and on other land (i.e. the wildlife producer can retain full benefit), and to ensure sound governance, therefore, within twenty years the output of Zambia’s hunting sector could be increased by five to ten times. This would generate: USD 20-40m in landholder income, USD 60-120 million in outfitter turnover, and more than USD 250 million in total economic impact.

215. In conclusion, if Zambia’s wildlife resource is well managed it has the potential to generate economic activity of approximately USD 750 million annually.

XXIII. Replicability

216. The field demonstration sites are key to replicability of project interventions. New legislation and policies must be applied and made to work in the field and new tools for PA management must be field tested before one can expect ZAWA, PA management partners and donors to invest in replicating the new approaches. In this sense, Bangweulu Field Demonstration Site is considered to be an excellent site for testing and demonstrating methodologies for reclassification because it represents so many of the variables to be dealt with in PA reclassification country-wide. It has very poorly protected endemic and threatened species of global importance, a rich complex of terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, a mix of national parks representing the two ends of the spectrum of management effectiveness, three GMA with highly variable levels of wildlife populations and management effectiveness, two unmanaged forest reserves, a RAMSAR site, poorly motivated ZAWA wildlife police officers, low incentives for communities to protected wildlife, unoccupied open areas suitable for inclusion in CCA and elephants and other game that move throughout the whole area that are badly in need of permanent corridors.

57

UNDP PRO DOC

217. Both sites are judged to have excellent potential for the creation of CCAs. Bangweulu and Chiawa GMAs have viable game populations that can immediately generate revenues from trophy hunting and with good potential for joint ventures with private sector tourism investors. If community management of wildlife works as well in Zambia as it does in Namibia and Botswana, then the potential for rapid replication of CCA should be excellent. DANIDA is especially interested in community empowerment for resource management. They plan to invest $20 million into the environment/PA sector starting in 2008 and are potentially interested in investing in replication of the CCA model.

218. Improved financial governance and transparency are key elements to replication of co-management systems at the level of GMA. Much of the conflict and distrust between CRBs and ZAWA is due to misunderstandings in the sharing of revenues from trophy hunting. CRB don’t know what they are getting 45% of. Resolving this is quite a simple matter and should provide strong incentives for GMA communities to engage in co-management with ZAWA.

219. The proposed new CCA category of PA should have strong potential for replicability. The CCA category will allow strong devolution of authority to communities and maximum benefits to communities – these are the two principle lessons learned from multiple reviews of CBNRM across the southern African region (Annex 5). There is every reason to believe that these principles will also hold true in Zambia. A key to replication of the CCA will be training workshops for representatives of all of the GMA and CRB in the country, to be held at functioning CCA at the two field sites during the last three years of the project. This will give GMA community representatives the possibility to directly interact with CCA managers and community members and the ability to judge for themselves the merits of applying for CCA status for their own GMA.

220. The replicability of the proposed SHA would be one of the easiest challenges. ZAWA already has the basic capacities needed to sustainably manage wildlife for trophy hunting. The reclassification and conservation planning will identify the portions of parks that are most suitable for SHA. These parks then need to be reclassified/regazetted to allow for zoning for SHA – this is primarily a “paper exercise” and not costly. Where wildlife populations are adequate, the new SHA can quickly become profit centers for ZAWA – and can help to subsidize investments in enforcement needed to restore wildlife in other suitable areas.

221. The knowledge management component of the NRCF will also play a key role in replicability of project interventions. NRCF will identify key lessons learned through the commissioning of thematic assessments, sharing of stakeholder experiences and through conferences and debates on PA sector issues. Lessons learned will be published and widely distributed.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Lessons Learned

XXIV. Monitoring and Evaluation

222. The project is strongly focused on increasing PA management effectiveness. The development and use of appropriate tools for monitoring management effectiveness are therefore critical. In establishing the Baseline, the WWF/World Bank Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) was applied to 5 NP and 4 GMA including 3 NP and 3 GMA at the field demonstration sites. The results appear to be quite meaningful, but the tool could be much approved by modifying it to the Zambia context. This will be done as a priority during the first year of the project. The new modified tool will then be applied to all NP and GMA during the first year to provide a complete baseline for PA management effectiveness. Both the METT and the modified METT will be applied to those sites already measured for the Baseline in 2004 – this will be done to allow a proper correlation between the rankings of the two tools. All NP, GMA and newly created PA of new categories will again be ranked with the modified METT just before the mid-term and at the end-of-project.

58

UNDP PRO DOC

223. Another area of emphasis of the project is on the expansion and multiplication of PA management partnerships. A number of public/private partnerships already exist, but there is no formal system for monitoring these partnerships. The modified METT will be used to compare the effectiveness of different forms of management partnerships. New M&E tools will be developed for monitoring how well management partners respect the new policy framework to be developed for management partnerships and how well they respect signed MOU or leases. Likewise, there need to be monitoring safeguards developed so that ZAWA or MTENR can ensure that CCA managers are respecting the basic conditions for CCA – such as the ban on conversion to agriculture. The two mid-term and the EOP evaluations will place a particular emphasis on capturing lessons learned concerning management partnerships.

224. Other areas of emphasis will be on the development of community-managed M&E systems, especially for monitoring wildlife populations for trophy hunting, and on the development of systems for monitoring ecosystem health and biodiversity. It is critical that monitoring of game populations be seen as a basic cost of doing business for trophy hunting. Community managers need assistance in developing systems that are scientifically valid and that are within their means to implement.

225. Quarterly progress reports will be prepared by the PIU. Annual Project Reviews (APR) will be done annually by the PIU and completed by the UNDP CO. The project will be overseen by the Steering Committee. Annual Tripartite Reviews of the project will be involve GRZ/ZAWA, UNDP and the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator and the PIU. Two mid-term reviews (MTR) will be conducted at the end of year 2 and year 4 and a final evaluation near the end of year 6. The primary purpose of the MTR will be to identify strengths and weaknesses, to reinforce what works well and to make mid-term corrections to correct weaknesses.

226. Responsibilities for monitoring the specific indicators in the logframe will be divided between the PIU, ZAWA, the executing agencies for the field demonstration labs and contractors hired to conduct independent monitoring of indicators. The full M&E plan is presented in Annex 4.

XXV. Lessons Learned

227. Importance of improving PA management effectiveness. During the concept stage and the PDF B stage, it was intended that the project would focus primarily on reclassification and sustainable management of all categories of protected areas in Zambia. However, during project design, it was learned that lack of management capacity is a much greater barrier to improved biodiversity conservation in Zambia and the project has been refocused in this direction. Reclassification planning remains a key element of the project, but its relative importance has been reduced in comparison with the focus on improved management effectiveness.

228. Forestry sector It was learned that the institutional capacity development needs in the forestry sector are overwhelming and could not be adequately addressed by this single project. Improved management effectiveness of forest reserves and open area forests would require a completely new and separate project.

229. CBNRM Much of what is called CBNRM in Zambia would be better categorized as revenue sharing. Only recently has ZAWA begun to involve CRBs in management decisions. Devolution of authority is very partial. The most important conditions for CBNRM are only partially met in Zambia. This presents special opportunities for applying lessons learned from the region.

230. Stronger Coordination The background consultant studies done as part of project preparation were treated too much as stand alone studies. Project preparation could have been strengthened by more frequent and well-organized interactions and joint brainstorming sessions with the four consultant groups and other key actors.

59

UNDP PRO DOC

Legal Context

231. This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Government of Zambia and the United Nations Development Programme.

232. The following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the UNDP Resident Representative only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of the project document have no objections to the proposed changes, that is to say revisions which do not involve significant changes in the outcomes, outputs or activities of a project, but are caused by rearrangement of inputs agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation.

233. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

Log frame

234. The detailed log frame for the project is presented here in two tables. The first table presents the Goal, the Project Objective and the three Outcomes with their Key Performance Indicators, Means of Verification and Critical Assumptions/Risks for each Objective. The second table presents the Outputs, Output Indicators, Activities, Responsibilities and Annual Targets.

60

UNDP PRO DOC

Results Measurement TableObjectives Key Performance Indicator Target

Year Six BaselineCritical

Benchmarks & Target Date

Sampling Frequency

Additional Information

PROJECT OBJECTIVE: Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the system of PAs that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective will be strengthened.

The GRZ-approved Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the National System of PA is being implemented. Under the Plan, priority sites for reclassification have been identified as needed to achieve 10% coverage of each ecosystem/ vegetation type ensures conservation of globally important ecosystem biodiversity. New categories of PA providing effective biodiversity conservation have been created through new legislation. The most appropriate category of PA and the most appropriate forms of public/ private/ community management partnerships have been identified for each priority site.

Baseline: Of the 14 major ecosystem/ vegetation types only 4 are adequately (10+ %) covered by NPs. There is no overall monitoring of management effectiveness. 9 NPs are largely unmanaged. No other PA category ensures effective conservation.

Reclassification priorities identified Year 3.

Mid-term reviews end Yr 2 and end Yr 4 and final evaluation

Reclassification will be done by project only at the two field demonstration sites.

At end-of-project (EOP), there will have been a net movement of 25% of NP and 20% of GMA to a higher category of management effectiveness using the following preliminary definition of METT categories:

60-96 High 25-60

Intermediate Less than 25 Low

All newly created CCA and SHA will have at least an Intermediate ranking.

Unmodified METT baseline values for 5 NP and 4 GMA are as follows:

NP: Kasanka – 70 Mosi oa Tunya – 61 Lower Zambezi – 52 Lavushi Manda – 19 Liuwa Plains – 49GMA: Chiawa – 42 Bangweulu – 35 Kafinda – 24 West Zambezi – 18

Mid-term: 10 and 5% of NP and GMA, respectively, will have moved to a higher METT category.

Every 3 years (Yr 1, end Yr 3 and mid Yr 6

In Yr 1, both the METT and the modified METT will be measured, allowed comparisons between the two indices.

61

UNDP PRO DOC

Objectives Key Performance Indicator Target Year Six Baseline

Critical Benchmarks &

Target Date

Sampling Frequency


OUTCOME 1: Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new tools for public/ community/ private/ civil society PA management partnerships

At EOP, the following legislation, policies and policy guidelines have been adopted: New policies for reclassification A new law for the creation of 2

new categories of PA (CCA and SHA)

A new policy framework for public/private/ civil society/community partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA & SHA

A new policy allowing for a single community-level management structure for all renewable natural resources

New policy/guidelines on the roles of traditional leaders in CBNRM.

Baseline: None of these laws/policies/guidelines exist. The 1998 Wildlife Act allows for only limited devolution of authority to communities. Large areas of NP are not usable for photo-tourism because of lack of infrastructure but are very suitable for trophy hunting. Hunting could be a sustainable land use contributing to the financial sustainability of biodiversity conservation of the system but it is not legal. Each NR sector requires communities to create a separate community management structure. There is much confusion as to what the roles of traditional leaders in CBNRM should be.

Participatory process of developing new laws and policies Yr 1 & 2. Text completed Yr 3. New laws and polices adopted Yr 4 (except for law for new PA categories)

Mid-term reviews end Yrs 2 & 4 and Final Evaluation

Legislation for new PA categories will be delayed in order to integrate lessons learned and experiences from two field demo sites

62

UNDP PRO DOC



Target Date

Sampling Frequency


By EOP, at least 2 CCA are created and are support by community-private partnerships.

No CCA exist nor any legal basis for their creation

CCA at field demo sites are functional by Yr 3. Law is passed Yr 5 and CCA at field sites are gazetted Yr 6


OUTCOME 2: Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including enhanced capacities for improved PA representativeness, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.

ZAWA uses business planning as a standard tool for PA management planning. The relative financial cost-effectiveness of the common forms of management partnerships has been quantified and is used in system planning.

Baseline: Business planning for PA management is only weakly developed by ZAWA and its partners. The cost-effectiveness of different partnerships is unquantified.

Mid-term: The cost effectiveness of existing partnerships has been analyzed.


The cost effectiveness of partnerships is used in the Conservation Plan to help determine the most effective forms of management partnerships for each priority site for reclassification

The Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the national system of PA is the basic document guiding the reclassification, management and development of priority PA in Zambia. The investment and marketing plans are used to mobilize and direct PA sector investments by private sector investors, donors and GRZ and to identify and mobilize partners for PA management.

Baseline: None of these documents exist. ZAWA has a strategic plan that contains some elements

Mid-term: Important elements of the Conservation Plan are under development – reclassification priorities, business planning tools and M&E tools.

Final Evaluation Yr 6

The Plan identifies the appropriate PA category(ies) for each priority site, the forms of management partnerships and the investments needed.

63

UNDP PRO DOC



Target Date

Sampling Frequency


OUTCOME 3:PA management options expanded through development and field-testing of innovative private-civil society-public-community management partnerships for new categories of PA.

Management effectiveness index of all field demonstration site PA are increased as below with a minimum ranking of Intermediate for all sites.EOP:

Chiawa GMA: 50 Bangweulu GMA: 45Kafinda GMA:45

Kasanka NP: 75 Lavushimanda NP: 35

Baseline: Chiawa GMA: 42 Bangweulu GMA: 35 Kafinda GMA: 24 Kasanka NP: 70 Lavushimanda NP: 19

Mid-term: Chiawa GMA: 45Bangweulu GMA: 40Kafinda GMA: 33Kasanka NP: 73Lavushimanda NP: 30

Yr 1, end Yr 3 and end Yr 6

The METT will be modified in Yr 1 and the modified METT will be used for monitoring PA management effectiveness

New PA created out of the Chiawa, Bangweulu/Chikuni and Kafinda GMA are legally gazetted and under community management structures certified under the new CCA law. They are supported by private/civil society (non-government) partners.

Baseline: All sites have conventional GMAs with limited involvement of communities in management.

Mid-term: All CCA are functionally operational with community managers supported by private sector partners.


The final decision to create CCA will be made by the communities in each GMA

The GMA/CCA’s M&E systems show that the populations of large antelopes in the CCA have increased by 30% since the beginning of the project.

Baseline: To be established in Yr 1

Mid-term: 15% increase

Annual monitoring in those GMA/CCA with hunting leases

Anti-poaching and basic management costs are covered by CCA NR management funds fed by revenues from the marketing of sustainably managed NR/biodiversity.

GMA with hunting leases have basic management funds, but only for hunting revenues

Funds will be expanded as new resources are brought under management

Mid-terms end Yr 2 & Yr 4 and EOP Final Evaluation

64

UNDP PRO DOC

Hierarchy of Objectives, Key Performance Indicators, Means of Verification and Critical Assumptions/RisksHierarchy of Objectives

Key Performance Indicators Means of verification Critical Assumptions/Risks

Goal: A National PA System that comprises a representative sample of Zambia’s ecosystems is effectively safeguarded from human-induced pressures through effective management partnerships and serves to make Zambia into a tourism destination of choice.

GRZ remains committed to biodiversity conservation

Political stability and law and order are maintained

No major outbreak of ungulate diseases

Realized value of wildlife sector to the economy enhanced through PRSP implementation

Continued commitment of GRZ to realization of MDGs

Macro-economic environment is positive

Growth policies are pro-poor with adequate rural dimension

PROJECT OBJECTIVE: Enabling frameworks and capacities for managing the system of PAs that have biodiversity conservation as a major objective will be strengthened.

The GRZ-approved Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the National System of PA is being implemented. Under the Plan, priority sites for reclassification have been identified as needed to achieve 10% coverage of each ecosystem/vegetation type ensures conservation of globally important ecosystem biodiversity. New categories of PA providing effective biodiversity conservation have been created through new legislation. The most appropriate category of PA and the most appropriate forms of public/ private/ community management partnerships have been identified for each priority site.

GRZ-approved Conservation Plan for the National System of PA

Synthesis document (by Yr 3) identifying sites needed to ensure 10% representation.

External pressures on national parks and protected areas do not significantly increase.

Self-financing, economically viable, forms of management are developed.

Private sector/communities respond positively to improved policies/incentives.

65

UNDP PRO DOC

Hierarchy of Objectives


Baseline: Of the 14 major ecosystem/ vegetation types only 4 are adequately (10+ %) covered by NPs. There is no overall monitoring of management effectiveness. 9 NP are largely unmanaged. No other PA category ensures effective conservation.Mid-term: Priority sites for reclassification and effective management as needed to achieve 10% representation of all ecosystem/vegetation types have been identified.

At end-of-project (EOP), there will have been a net movement of 25% of NP and 20% of GMA to a higher category of management effectiveness using the following preliminary definition of METT categories: 60-96 High 25-60 Intermediate Less than 25 LowAll newly created CCA and SHA will have at least an Intermediate ranking. Baseline will be completed in Yr 1 using the modified METT for Zambia PA. Unmodified METT baseline values for 5 NP and 4 GMA are as follows:NP: Kasanka – 70, Mosi oa Tunya – 61, Lower Zambezi 52, Lavushi Manda – 19, Liuwa Plains – 49; GMA: Chiawa 42, Bangweulu – 35, Kafinda – 24, West Zambezi – 18Mid-term: 10 and 5% of NP and GMA, respectively, will have moved to a higher METT category.

By EOP, and additional 5.7 million hectares of NP and GMA will have been brought under effective management (METT rating of Intermediate or High)Baseline: 0 ha.

The METT will be modified for Zambia in Yr 1. It will be applied to all NP, GMA (and new CCA and SHA as they are created) in Yr 1, mid-term and EOP under contract with an independent institution. In Yr 1, both the METT and the modified METT will be applied in order to allow correlation between the two.

66

UNDP PRO DOC



OUTCOME 1: Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new tools for public/ community/ private/ civil society PA management partnerships

At EOP, the following legislation, policies and policy guidelines have been adopted:

New policies for reclassification A new law for the creation of 2 new categories of

PA (CCA and SHA) A new policy framework for public/private/ civil

society/community partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA & SHA


New policy/guidelines on the roles of traditional leaders in CBNRM.Baseline: None of these laws/policies/guidelines exist. The 1998 Wildlife Act allows for only limited devolution of authority to communities. Large areas of NP are not usable for photo-tourism because of lack of infrastructure but are very suitable for trophy hunting. Hunting could be a sustainable land use contributing to the financial sustainability of biodiversity conservation of the system but it is not legal. Each NR sector requires communities to create a separate community management structure. There is much confusion as to what the roles of traditional leaders in CBNRM should be.Mid-term: New laws/policies/guidelines are going through the approval process. New CCA are functional but not formally gazetted.

By EOP, at least 2 CCA are created and are support by community-private partnerships.

The law is passed by parliament. The policies are adopted by Cabinet.

The policy/guidelines are adopted by MTENR.

The functionality of the CCA is verified by the MTR.

Legal certificate for the CCA.

Legal documents gazetting the CCA

Government remains committed to policy reforms needed to engender pubic/private/ civil society management partnerships

Timely approval/enactment of legal and regulatory framework

Government addresses documented cases of mal-governance

Agreement reached on civil society representation.

OUTCOME 2: Institutional capacities for PA system management strengthened including


Masters level business planner(s) employed by ZAWA.

Written business plans for 8 PA.

Government remains committed to reclassifying PAs and redesignating sites as needed to achieve

67

UNDP PRO DOC



enhanced capacities for improved PA representativeness, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.

Baseline: Business planning for PA management is only weakly developed by ZAWA and its partners. The cost-effectiveness of different partnerships is unquantified. Mid-term: The cost effectiveness of existing partnerships has been analyzed.

The Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the national system of PA is the basic document guiding the reclassification, management and development of priority PA in Zambia. The investment and marketing plans are used to mobilize and direct PA sector investments by private sector investors, donors and GRZ and to identify and mobilize partners for PA management. Baseline: None of these documents exist. ZAWA has a strategic plan that contains some elements Mid-term: Important elements of the Conservation Plan are under development – reclassification priorities, business planning tools and M&E tools.

Report on cost-effectiveness of management partnerships.

MTR Final Evaluation

Approved, published Conservation Plan for the National System of PA

Approved investment plan

Final evaluation

conservation goals Multi-stakeholder

consensus achieved on reclassification plan.

Investor confidence remains positive over the long term

Tourism growth meets projected targets in tourism sector plan .

Adequate staffing profiles/numbers maintained relative to core PA management functions

Institutions are willing to share data and to cover the costs of data collection and sharing

OUTCOME 3:PA management options expanded through development and field testing of innovative private-civil society-public-community management partnerships for new categories of PA.

Management effectiveness index of all field demonstration site PA are increased as below with a minimum ranking of Intermediate for all sites.Baseline:

Chiawa GMA: 42Bangweulu GMA: 35Kafinda GMA: 24 Kasanka NP: 70Lavushimanda NP: 19

Mid-term: Chiawa GMA: 45Bangweulu GMA: 40Kafinda GMA: 33Kasanka NP: 73Lavushimanda NP: 30

EOP: Chiawa GMA: 50

Zambia-adapted METT applied by independent contractors

Stakeholder conflicts can be successfully mediated

No adverse changes in threat profiles at demonstration sites

Regional political stability is maintained

There is sufficient social capital in communities to comply with accountability requirements that come with increased empowerment.

68

UNDP PRO DOC



Bangweulu GMA: 45Kafinda GMA:45Kasanka NP: 75Lavushimanda NP: 35

New PA created out of the Chiawa, Bangweulu/Chikuni and Kafinda GMA are legally gazetted and under community management structures certified under the new CCA law. They are supported by private/civil society (non-government) partners.Baseline: All sites have conventional GMAs with limited involvement of communities in management.Mid-term: All CCA are functionally operational with community managers supported by private sector partners.

The GMA/CCA’s M&E systems shows that the populations of large antelopes in the CCA has increased by 30% since the beginning of the project. Baseline: To be established in Yr 1Mid-term: 15% increase


CCA gazetting documentsCertificate of registration of CCA management body under new CCA law.MOU between CCA managers and private partnersMTR Final Evaluation

CCA M&E systems confirmed by aerial surveys

Analysis of CCA account books

69

UNDP PRO DOC

Outputs, Output Indicators, Activities, Responsibilities and Annual TargetsOutputs Output Indicator Activities Responsibilit

iesAnnual Targets

Output 1.1 Legal drafts of legislation/policies/ guidelines prepared based on studies and literature reviews

Background reviews and draft legislation, policies and policy guidelines will be completed for reclassification of PA, the creation of new categories of PA, for PA management partnerships, for CBNRM management structures and for the role of chiefs in CBNRM. Baseline: No reviews have been done. MT 4 reviews and drafts completed.

Activity 1.1.1. Conduct an updated literature review of lessons learned regarding optimal categories of PA and of reclassification policies in Zambia and in Southern and Eastern Africa resulting in draft policy for reclassification of PA and draft legislation for new categories of PA, particularly a) community-managed conservation areas (CCA) and; b) ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Areas (SHA)

MTENRContractor

1 review completed Yr 11legal draft policy Yr 11 legal draft legislation Yr 1

Activity 1.1.2. Conduct an updated review and lessons learned concerning public-private-civil society-community partnerships in Zambia and in Southern and Eastern Africa resulting in policy framework drafts for partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA and SHA

MTENRContractor

1 review completed Yr 1 1 policy draft completed Yr 1

Activity 1.1.3. Conduct an updated review and synthesis of lessons learned concerning optimum forms of community management structures for multiple resource management in Zambia and in Southern and Eastern Africa resulting in policy drafts allowing for a single community management structure for all NR.

MTENRContractor

1 review completed Yr 1 1 policy draft completed Yr 1

Activity 1.1.4. Conduct a SWOT/scenario analysis of present roles of traditional leaders in Zambia and review of lessons learned resulting in policy/guidelines drafts defining the roles of traditional leaders and communities in CBNRM/PA management

MTENRContractor

1 analysis completed Yr 11 draft guidelines completed Yr 1

Output 1.2 Draft legislation/ policies/ guidelines are amended through a participatory process of stakeholder inputs and validation

Draft legislation, policies and guidelines amended and validated through stakeholder inputs:Baseline: No actions taken. MT: All stakeholder inputs completed

Activity 1.2.1. Conduct three regional workshops for stakeholder inputs to the four legal/policy/guidelines drafts

MTENR 3 regional stakeholder workshops Yr 1&2

Activity 1.2.2. Conduct a national stakeholder workshop for validation of amended legal/policy/guidelines

MTENR 1 national validation workshop Yr 2

Output 1.3. New legislation, policies and guidelines adopted

New legislation allows for the creation of CCA and SHA. New policies adopted for PA management partnerships and for single community management structures for multiple use CBNRM. Guidelines adopted for roles of chiefs in CBNRM.

Activity 1.3.1. Finalize the legal text for new reclassification policies and guide them through the adoption process.

MTENR, MoLA

Text finalized Yr 4, New legislation adopted Yr 6

Activity 1.3.1. Finalize the legal text for the creation of the new categories of PA and guide them through the adoption process

MTENR Text finalized Yr 2; New legislation adopted Yr 4

Activity 1.3.2. Finalize the text of policy framework for public/private/civil society/community partnerships and guide this through to its adoption.

MTENR Policy text finalized Yr 2New policy adopted Yr 4

Activity 1.3.3. Finalize the policy text allowing for a single community-level management structure for all renewable natural resources and guide this through to its adoption

MTENR Policy text finalized Yr 2New policy adopted Yr 4

70

UNDP PRO DOC

Outputs Output Indicator Activities Responsibilities

Annual Targets

Baseline: None of these exist. MT Adoption process underway except for the legislation on new PA categories

Activity 1.3.4. Finalize the guidelines on the role of traditional leaders and communities in CBNRM and guide them through the necessary steps to their adoption process

MTENR Text of guidelines finalized Yr 2; New guidelines adopted Yr 4

Output 1.4. A Natural Resources Consultative Forum for civil society input on PA/NRM sector issues, for thematic assessments and sharing of experiences and for knowledge management, with development and diffusion of lessons learned, is made operational.

PA communities, GMA/CCA managers, tourism investors, private/civil society PA managers, NGOs and other civil society actors participate in open debates on key PA sector issues. Lessons learned are documented and diffused.Baseline: No structured fora for civil society inputs; misinformation is common. MT: NRCF fully operational.

Activity 1.4.1. Develop networks of concerned stakeholders for key sectors, identify key issues, prepare thematic assessments/field visits and develop reference library.

NRCF MTENR, ZAWA

Issues identified at beginning of each yearThe four policy reforms will be debated in Yr 24 project funded background papers per Yr.

Activity 1.4.2. Organize workshops, seminars and civil society debate, produce advisory notes for relevant ministries/institutions, prepare and diffuse publications of lessons learned on effective PA management/ CBNRM.

NRCF 4 NRCF fora per year4 advisory notes/ briefing papers prepared and distributed per year.

Output 1.5. Development of good governance for financial accountability for GMA/CCA

All CRB receive financial statements giving basis of revenue sharing. All CRB/CCA boards & selected community representatives receive training in safeguards and accountability.Baseline: CRBs commonly don’t know the amount they receive a share of. Standard guidelines not developed. MT: Guidelines developed. All 55 CRBs and new

Activity 1.5.1. Review of procedures and lessons learned in Zambia and in the region

MTENR, Contract

Review completed Yr2

Activity 1.5.2 Develop a full set of procedures/guidelines for transparency, safeguards and accountability for financial management of CCA & GMA

MTENR, Contract

Guidelines finalized Yr 3; ZAWA provides CRB with financial statements with each disbursement showing basis of revenue sharing

Activity 1.5.3. Training in procedures/principles for sound financial governance are provided to CRB and CCA boards and non-board members of GMA and CCA communities.

MTENR, Contract

Training modules completed Yr 2; 2 day training workshops conducted in each of the 35 GMA and all CCA in Yr 2 & 3

71

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

CCA have received training.

Activity 1.5.4 Improve MTENR oversight and monitoring of the implementation of PA sector laws and policies.

MTENR (PASS)

Oversight/monitoring system/criteria developed Yr 1. Oversight and monitoring implemented Yr 1-6

Output 2.1 Identification of priority sites for reclassification to complete the National System of PA

PA and open area sites that are in need of reclassification and/ or effective management to ensure representative coverage of Zambia’s ecosystems/biodiversity are identified (and are integrated into the Conservation Plan) Reclassification of PA completed at two field demonstration sites.Baseline: A preliminary gap analysis was done as part of project preparation but this did not include the identification of candidate sites. MT: Synthesis document on identification of reclassification priorities completed. Reclassification planning completed for two field demonstration sites.

Activity 2.1.1. Compile spatial data on biodiversity and PA, and refine the draft methodology, including conservation criteria and targets, for reclassification through literature review and stakeholder inputs.

ZAWA, MTENR NRCF, Contract

Methodology revised/adopted Yr 1

Activity 2.1.2. Identify candidate sites for reclassification by conducting a gap analysis of the National System of PA, including the following; Review and update the existing gap analysis conducted by DSI

in 2004 (See Figure 4); Identify candidate sites for reclassification by analyzing forest

cover loss/ecosystem conversion analysis of all NP and GMA and other sites that could potentially fill identified gaps in coverage by priority PA using manual interpretation of satellite imagery;

ZAWA, Contract

Gap analysis revised using GIS Yr1Forest cover loss analysis Yr 1 and 2

Activity 2.1.3. Conduct field-level bio-physical status assessments of the candidate sites identified. Confirm that the site is accurately classified by vegetation type

on the base map. Determine the level of depletion of wildlife populations and the

potential for restoring viable ecosystems; Analyze the interest of local stakeholders in the creation or

upgrading to a priority PA.

ZAWA, Contract

40 six-day site visits (including travel) by 4-man teams in Yr 2 & 3

Activity 2.1.4. Conduct final synthesis to produce priority listing of sites for reclassification needed to ensure that an average of 10% of all ecosystem/vegetation types are covered by the National System of PA

ZAWA, Contract

Final synthesis document completed in Yr 3 Brief summary document for wide distribution completed Yr 3

Output 2.2 Natural resource economics and business planning tools

ZAWA uses business planning as a standard tool for PA management

Activity 2.2.1 Apply natural resource economic analysis to PA to better define priority setting for PA conservation and management;

ZAWA, Contract (NRE)

Analyses completed for 6 PA (NP, GMA and new categories) Yr. 1&2

72

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

are developed for enhanced PA management efficiency

planning. The relative financial cost effectiveness of the common forms of management partnerships has been quantified. The investments needed for 15 unmanaged priority PA have been estimated. Baseline: Business planning is poorly developed by ZAWA and its partners. The cost-effectiveness of different partnerships is unquantified. ZAWA is doing investment profiles on the NP it manages. MT: The cost effectiveness of existing partnerships has been analyzed. 2 training modules for business planning have been developed.

Activity 2.2.2. Apply financial assessment tools to determine cost coefficients and relative efficiencies of different public/private/civil society/community PA management partnerships;


1 study of existing partnerships in Yr 1&21 study of new partnerships in Yr 4

Activity 2.2.3. Strengthen local institutional capacities for the use of business planning for PA management (e.g. definition of optimal levels of law enforcement, investments needed to achieve self-financing, etc.)

ZAWA, Contract with business school(NRE)

Development of 2 training modules for protected areas business planning by a business school – one for professions lacking business backgrounds Yr 2 and one module for CBNRM managers Yr 3; 2 wk professional training for 8 trainees – 1 in Yr 2 and 1 Yr 4 ; 9 1-wk training workshops for community managers – 3 each in Yr 3, 4 and 5; Masters level training for 2 ZAWA professionals Yrs 1-3

Activity 2.2.4 Develop investment profiles for priority unmanaged PA (as identified for reclassification)

ZAWA, (NRE)

15 profiles developed in Yr 3 & 5

Activity 2.2.5 Adapt business planning tools to define the types of public/private/civil society/community partnerships best suited for unmanaged priority PA/sites identified for reclassification


Analysis completed Yr 3&4

Output 2.3 Efficient, effective monitoring and evaluation systems are developed for priority PA management

The METT has been modified for Zambia and is used as a standard tool for all PA managed by, or in partnership with, ZAWA. Monitoring of wildlife for trophy hunting is increasingly accepted as a cost of doing business. Techniques for monitoring

Activity 2.3.1.Modify the METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool) to develop Zambia-specific tool and apply it to the priority PA (will include effectiveness of partnerships and compliance with policies and MOU)

ZAWA, MTENRContract

METT modified in Yr 1; Modified tracking tool applied to 19 NP & 35 GMA in Yr 1, and all NP, GMA and newly created PA at mid-term and at EOP

Activity 2.3.2. Conduct an in depth review of the effectiveness (including cost effectiveness) of M&E systems in Zambia and in Southern and Eastern Africa with a focus on monitoring of wildlife populations, ecosystem health and management partnerships.


1 study conducted in Yr 1&2

73

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

ecosystem health have been developed.Baseline: METT is unmodified. Little monitoring is done on an operational basis. MT: Improved M&E techniques are being tested.

Activity 2.3.3. Test and adaptively modify improved M&E systems at 8 NP/GMA and for all management partnerships.

ZAWA, CRB, Contract

Implementation Yr 2-6 in 3 NP and 5 GMA selected in Yr 1, Operational tests and annual internal evaluation for adaptive improvement in Yrs 2 to 5

Output 2.4 Systematic Conservation Planning

The Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the national system of PA is the basic document guiding the reclassification, management and development of priority PA in Zambia. The marketing plan is used to mobilize and direct PA sector investments by private sector investors, donors and GRZ and to identify and mobilize partners for PA management. Baseline: None of these documents exist. ZAWA has a strategic plan that contains some elementsMT: Work not yet begun

Activity 2.4.1. Integrate the identified reclassification priorities, the business planning tools, the improved M&E systems, and other PA management tools into an overall Conservation Plan for the national system of priority PA.

ZAWA Contract

Work conducted in Yr4 & 53 regional and 1 national validation workshop Yr 5System plan published Yr 5

Activity 2.42. Develop an investment plan for the national system of PA

ZAWA , Contract(NRE)

Development of investment plan Yr 5&6

Activity 2.4.3. Develop a Marketing plan to interest investment partners needed for priority PA

Contract ZAWA

Development of market plan Yr 5&6

Bangweulu Field Demonstration Site Output 3.1 High level of awareness

amongst community in Activity 3.1.1 Identify and develop profiles of all stakeholders ZAWA, KTL Stakeholder profiles

established Yr 1

74

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

Awareness raising and two-way dialogue with stakeholders on the Bangweulu field demonstration site objectives and participatory approach

project area and bordering areas of the projects objectives methods and goals. Active participation from all sectors with all parties sharing knowledge and lessons learned. Baseline: Traditional leaders, CRB, selected community representatives and local officials/technical services are informed and support the project objectives.MT: All sociological and geographic sectors of community are aware of the project and are represented by participants in the project activities.

Activity 3.1.2 Meet with traditional leaders, CRB and community representatives, government authorities, technical services, NGOs, others to fully discuss project objectives, targets, outcomes and participatory approaches to be used.

ZAWA, KTL 1 2-day workshop high level, 2 2-day workshops for 30 participants

Activity 3.1.3. Conduct awareness raising and develop 2-way dialogue with all project area communities by project extension officers with public meetings, written materials, video and drama presentations

KTL, PCV 30 1-day workshops conducted by project staff at 30 strategic centers Yr 1. Written summaries prepared of each.

Output 3.2 Strategic infrastructure established

Essential infrastructure for functioning of the project is in place.Baseline: KTL and ZAWA Chikuni post have radio communications. Almost no road maintenance in area.MT: CRB, ZAWA camps, project staff and strategic points equipped with radio communications.

Activity 3.2.1 Establish telecommunications network for CRB/communities in project area for communications amongst themselves and with ZAWA, KTL, PC and UNV.

ZAWA, KTL Radio network in place Yr 1

Activity 3.2.2 Repair/open strategic access roads and landing strips KTL Maintenance and upgrading of strategic access

Activity 3.2.3. Build/rehabilitate and equip offices/facilities/lodging for project needs

ZAWA, KTL Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance over 6 Yr

Output 3.3Cost-effective protection/ enforcement established for wildlife and other natural resources in project area based on

Planned, managed and supported cost efficient protection measures in place to conserve resources as appropriate in each PA. Co-operation between government agencies and

Activity 3.3.1 Evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and effectiveness of the present enforcement systems (ZAWA wildlife police officers (WPO), CRB community scouts and KTL scouts), review lessons learned from other PA managers in Zambia and develop an integrated, cost-effective, incentive-based enforcement plan for the GMAs, Lavushi Manda NP and Kasanka NP.

ZAWA, KTL Evaluation completed by staff plus local consultant 1 mo. Yr 1 Qtr 2Enforcement Plan completed by staff Yr 1

75

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

consultations with communities.

community managers across wildlife, fisheries and forestry.Baseline: ZAWA, CRBs and KTL have scouts but ZAWA units and CRB are not well managed or supported so have limited effectiveness and operational scope. Few if any Fisheries and Forestry Officers are working in the Project Area MT: Existing units functioning well and adapting to new roles and responsibilities from emerging plans. Fisheries and Forestry Officers provide support as needed. ZAWA WPO, community scout equipped, motivated, well managed and working in close cooperation.

Activity 3.3.2 Recruit/redeploy and equip community scouts/WPO (including transport, equipment and accommodation, management support and incentives.) and implement enforcement plan

ZAWA, KTL ZAWA (24 scouts),CRB Community scouts (60) deployed & equipped

Activity 3.3.3 Provide training of community scouts and WPOs ZAWA, 9 x 6-week local courses Community Scout Training for 15 scouts each Yr 1-Yr4.5 community scouts attend 6 wk external training in Zambia Yr s3-45 ZAWA WPO specialized external training in Zambia Yrs 2-5

Activity 3.3.4 Provide training for PA managers directly responsible for managing enforcement officers/scouts.

ZAWA, KTL Annual 2-week workshop for Community, ZAWA and KTL managers co-ordination and education on newly developing PAs and enforcement systems. Annual enforcement workshops Yrs1-6

Output 3.4 Increased capacity for community managers for planning, governance, record keeping, financial management, business

Community PA managers have the capacities needed to sustainably manage the natural resources of the PA, including capacities for good governance,

Activity 3.4.1. Conduct village-level workshops on strategic capacities needed during reclassification planning, e.g. participatory planning processes, good governance principles of transparency, accountability, equity, involvement of women and minority groups, systems of checks and balances, etc.

KTL, PCV 1 local consultant 2 mos develops modules and trains staff. 30 x 2 day, village-level workshops conducted by staff Yr 1 & 2.

76

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

skills, gender empowerment and HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention

business management and planning, NR management and adaptive management. Traditional leaders, ZAWA, local government and technical service staff and NGO understand critical needs for CBNRM support and monitoring. Raised awareness amongst wider community means leaders and representatives enjoy the informed support of community at large.Baseline: Indications are that the communities have a strong desire to be involved in planning, decision making and implementation of resource management but lack the technical and governance skills needed to be effective.MT: Capacities built to a level where representatives and leaders can play an active part in the drafting of plans for new Protected Areas and their associated management

Activity 3.4.2. Conduct training workshops for CRB/CCA managers, community leaders, ZAWA and local government staff in financial management, resource management, community development, business skills, management skills including adaptive management, democratic processes, gender empowerment leadership and HIV/AIDS awareness and its links to environment/community development

KTL, PCV 48 3-day training workshops @20 participants each for CRB/CCA managers and community leaders spread over six years4 3-day training workshops held each year for technical services. local government, traditional leaders and local NGO staff leaders Yrs2-6

Activity 3.4.3 Organize exchange visits with other community PA management/CBNRM pilot projects in Zambia and sub-region

ZAWA, KTL 1 Exchange visit in Zambia per yr for 5 participants each Yr 1, 2,3,4 1 exchange visit in sub-region Yr 2 5 participants

Activity 3.4.4 Develop and implement conservation awareness education program with schools, leaders and broader community. Project extension officers liaise closely and regularly with schools and adult groups using printed materials, video, drama and educational visits to wildlife areas.

KTL, PCV Each School in Project Area (estimate 30) visited each year for CA education Yrs1-6Educational Drama Tour conducted visiting 10 sites each year Yrs1-610 School/adult conservation groups taken on conservation visit to P.A. in Project Area each year Yrs1-6

Activity 3.4.5 Training of trainers to build up a corps of in-community trainers to continue the work after the end of the project period, under supervision of CRB and other community groups.

KTL, PCV 4 1 wk workshops Yr 5 & 6

Output 3.5Reclassification options identified based on bio-physical and socio-

Comprehensive sociological and biodiversity/ecological database and maps exist for Project Area.

Activity 3.5.1. Compile and analyze all existing spatial information on ecosystem/habitat/vegetation types, species occurrences and range, presence of critical species (threatened and endangered), limits of gazetted areas (NP, GMA, FR, RAMSAR site, other), settlements, road networks, etc.

WWF, ZAWA, KTL

Compilation by 1 local consultant x 1.5 mos. completed Yr 1

77

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

economic studies completed.

Baseline: Kasanka NP and Kafinda GMA are quite well surveyed but other areas only very partially. There is no clear picture of the status or distribution of resources and their interaction with the community.MT: Surveys published of wildlife, fisheries and habitats. Comprehensive community survey report published. GIS map of project area developed showing habitats, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, settlement, agriculture and other socio-geographic features. Reclassification options identified

Activity 3.5.2 Acquire and analyze satellite imagery of field demo site to assess ecosystem/habitat/vegetation types, extent of agriculture, settlements, roads and other man-made features, signs of habitat degradation, possibilities for establishing corridors, etc.

WWF & ZAWA

Satellite imagery acquisition and interpretation by 1 local consultant 1.5 mos and staff completed Yr

Activity 3.5.3. Conduct aerial survey of project area to complement image analysis, assess wildlife populations, vegetation types and human activities. Survey to use manual strip counting and video recording.

WWF, ZAWA & KTL

Aerial survey and analysis completed Yr 1

Activity 3.5.4 Conduct biological ground surveys to determine presence and ranges of rare, threatened, endangered species and to complement aerial analyses of wildlife populations (using line transect for wildlife counts)

WWF, ZAWA, KTL, PCV

Biological ground surveys 3 local consultants x 2 mos completed Yr 1 & 2

Activity 3.5.5 Conduct technical and participatory surveys of fishery resources and current fishing practices and develop management recommendations.

WWF, DoF, PCV

Fisheries management 1 international consultant 3 wks 1 local consultant 1.5 mo. DoF staff 1 mo conduct surveys & prepares recommendations.

Activity 3.5.6. Conduct a survey of the field demonstration site to identify national heritage sites and develop recommendations for integrating them into PA management and community development activities

NHCC, PCV Survey completed by NHCC Yr 2

Activities 3.5.7 Conduct community survey of entire project area using participatory techniques to evaluate economic activities and production systems, resource utilization and dependence, commercial and non-commercial biodiversity products, attitudes to resources and biodiversity, resource and land tenure systems, nutrition, access to social services, social structures, concerns and aspirations, systems of governance.

KTL, PCV, Yr1Community surveys completed by staff plus 2 local consultants x 2mos.Analysis of data staff + local 2 local consultants x 2mos.

Activity 3.4.7 Synthesize and analyze all studies conducted to develop a preliminary set of reclassification and zoning options for Bangweulu, Chikuni and Kafinda GMAs, Lavushi Manda NP, Forest Reserve #210 and open areas.. _

ZAWA, WWF, KTL, PCV

Publication of biological surveys, publication of community survey, publication of GIS Maps Yr1 and Yr2, Reclassification options identified Yr2

78

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

Output 3.6Plan for Reclassification of Protected Areas (including creation of new types) and for land use zoning within PA and of open areas is developed with strong stakeholder participation.

Reclassification and zoning plan prepared for PA and natural areas within the project area. Area re-zoned for new or reclassified PA using both existing and new PA categories in line with new national policies and legislation. Land use zoning agreed within PA as part of an overall conservation and land use strategy for the project area.Baseline: The present designation and classification of PA within the project area is seen as unsatisfactory by all parties. GMA, There is no land use planning or zoning of GMA and other

Activity 3.6.1 Village-level workshops to present reclassification options and to facilitate analysis and debate of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each (choice of types of PAs/zoning, roles and responsibilities, negotiation of new PA/zoning boundaries, alternative forms of community management structures).

KTL, PCV 30 2-day local workshops run by project staff Yr 2

Activity 3.6.2 Higher level workshops involving representatives of all local stakeholder groups including communities, traditional leaders, government agencies, NGO’s, local investors to analyze/debate reclassification and land use options. (Liaison with Project activities under sections 1 and 2 of log frame to co-ordinate local findings with developments at national level on the creation of new PA types (CCA and SHA)

ZAWA, KTL 6 3-day workshops for 20 people Yr 2

Activity 3.6.3 Conduct financial feasibility analyses of reclassification options.

KTL (NRE) Local consultant 1.5 mos produced study Yr 2

Activity 3.6.4 Central workshop with representatives of all stakeholders to agree creation/reclassification of PA, redefinition of existing PAs and land use zoning of all land in project area.

ZAWA, KTL 3-day workshop 20 people Yr 2

Activity 3.6.5 Prepare and distribute draft Reclassification/Land Use Zoning Plan including the agreed land use restrictions and resource management policies for the each type of area, and invite further consultation for any adjustments.

ZAWA, KTL 30 1-day workshops project staff. 3 2-day CRB –level workshops 20 people each

79

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

areas to ensure corridors or other conservation goals despite the area’s critical biodiversity of global importance. MT: Agreement reached of new type(s) of Protected Area within the project area which balance the need for conservation with the economic aspirations of the community and which can be enforced in a consensual manner for the benefit of all. An overall Conservation Strategy is translated into land use zoning of PA and open areas as appropriate taking into account economic needs, traditional rights and conservation of biodiversity.

Activity 3.6.6 Final central workshop with representatives of all stakeholders to make final amendments to the Reclassification/Land Use Zoning Plan.

ZAWA, KTL 2-day workshop 25 people.

Output 3.7 Creation/ reclassification of PA completed

New and reclassified PA are legally gazettedBaseline: Agreement in principle on reclassification process MT: Legal procedures initiated.

Activity 3.7.1 Apply the legal procedures specified under the new legislation and policies on reclassification (Outcome 1) and new categories of PA for the CCA/PA to be reclassified.

ZAWA, KTL

Activity3.7.2 Modify and register community-management structures as appropriate for CCA/GMA.

ZAWA, KTL

Activity 3.7.3 Organize formal inauguration ceremonies for the new/reclassified PA.

ZAWA, KTL, WWF

Output 3.8. Sustainable natural resource management systems are developed for community-managed PA

Adaptive management systems are functional for the wildlife, fisheries and other natural resources of the CCA(s)/GMAs. The CCA/GMA M&E systems shows that the populations

Activity 3.8.1 Identify, analyze and prioritize the natural resource-based products and market chains for the current and potential economic uses of natural resources in the GMA/project area.

ZAWA, KTL, PCV

Field staff Yr 1 & 2

Activity 3.8.2 Identify all the user groups and actors associated with the existing market chains, their tradition access and tenure rights, their traditional NR management systems/techniques, their organizational structures and their capacities.

ZAWA, KTL, PCV

Field staff Yr 1 & 2

80

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

of large herbivores in the CCA have increased by 50% since the beginning of the project. Baseline: Large parts of Kafinda GMA have good habitat but almost no large wildlife. There is little enforcement in the three GMA except around the ZAWA post at Chikuni. The wetlands fisheries are an open access resource that is heavily overfished. Most resources of commercial value are heavily exploited but not managed sustainably.MT: NR management techniques are being tested, monitored and adaptively modified. The plan for NRM-based revenue generation is being implemented.

Activity3.8.3. Develop management plans for testing a mix of traditional and modern techniques for adaptively managing wildlife, fisheries and other natural resources for priority products/uses identified in 3.2.1

ZAWA, KTL, WWF, PC

30-man day study completed Yr 1 & 2 (same group as previous)

Activity 3.8.4 Develop and implement a plan for the development of natural resource-based revenue generating activities (including opportunities for improved processing, storage, transport and marketing of products)

KTL, PC Plan completed Yr 2; Implementation Yr 2-6 200 man-days staff time & 90 man-days consultant time

Activity 3.8.5 Develop and implement community-managed natural resource management funds that are fed by revenues from trophy, hunting, tourism joint ventures, fishing, forest products etc.

KTL, PCV Funds established Yr 2 with staff assistance.

Activity 3.8.6 In collaboration with the national PIU, test and develop community-based monitoring systems for the monitoring of wildlife for science-based quota-setting, of partnerships/joint ventures by community managers and for the monitoring of governance practices of community managers by community members.

WWF, ZAWA, KTL, PCV

International consultant 3 wk each Yr 1 & 3, Local consultants 1 mo each yr Yr 1-6 Wildlife monitoring functional Yr 1. Governance Yr 2 Partnership monitoring Yr 3

Activity 3.8.7 Develop business plans for each community management structure for covering enforcement, monitoring and other NR management costs, generating profits and making investments in new ventures.

KTL (NRE) Local consultant 1.5 mos Yr 2 and 2 mos Yr 3

Activity 3.8.8 Each community structure holds annual adaptive management reviews with all partners/technical services to distill lessons learned and to modify management plans/interventions in each sector.

ZAWA, KTL, PCV

Estimated 3 CRB/CCA-level 3 day review meetings 15 people/yr Yr 1-6 and est. 15 village-level 2-day meetings per yr Yr 3-6.

Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Field Demonstration SiteOutput 3.9Awareness raising and two-way dialogue with stakeholders on the Chiawa/Lower Zambezi field demonstration site objectives and participatory approach

High level of awareness amongst community in project area and bordering areas of the projects objectives methods and goals. Active participation from all sectors with all parties sharing knowledge and lessons learned.

Activity 3.9.1 Identify and develop profiles of all stakeholders ZAWA, CLZ Stakeholder profiles established Yr 1 by project staff 2-day meetings with 1

Activity 3.9.2 Meet with traditional leaders, CRB and community representatives, government authorities, technical services, lodge owners, trophy hunting lease holder, NGOs, others to fully discuss project objectives, targets, outcomes and participatory approaches to be used.

ZAWA, CLZ Chieftainness and her headmen; 1 2-day 20 participants workshop Yr

81

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

Baseline: Traditional leaders, CRB, selected community representatives and local officials/technical services are informed and support the project objectives.MT: All sociological and geographic sectors of community are aware of the project and are represented by participants in the project activities.

Activity 3.9.3. Conduct awareness-raising and develop 2-way dialogue with all project area communities by project extension officers to build solid foundation of local, contextual knowledge.

CLZ, PCV 2 x 6 1-day workshops conducted by project staff at 6 strategic centers Yr 1. Written summaries prepared of each.

Output 3.10 Strategic infrastructure established

Essential infrastructure for functioning of the project is in place.Baseline: CLZ, the ZAWA Chirundu Post and many lodge owners have radio communications but not the CRB/communities. Little road maintenance in area for community access roads.MT: CRB/communities, PCV and UNV and strategic points equipped with radio communications.

Activity 3.10.1 Establish telecommunications network for CRB/communities, chieftainness and project staff for communications amongst themselves and with ZAWA and project staff.

ZAWA, CLZ Radio network in place Yr 1

Activity 3.10.2 Repair/open strategic access roads and landing strips

CLZ Roads improvements Yr 1 & 2

Activity 3.10.3 Build/rehabilitate and equip offices/facilities/lodging for project needs

ZAWA, CLZ Offices, facilities, lodging built/rehabilitated/equipped Yr 1 & 2

Output 3.11Background surveys completed for reclassification planning

Comprehensive biodiversity/ ecological and sociological database and maps exist for Project Area. Baseline: LZNP is moderately well surveyed

Activity 3.11.1 Compile existing data and conduct biological/ecological surveys/analyses to determine presence and ranges of rare, threatened, endangered species needed as inputs for identifying reclassification options including boundaries, zoning and corridors for the proposed CCA and for the creation of a SHA in LZNP.

WWF, ZAWA, CLZ

Compilation by 1 local consultant x 1.5 mos. completed Yr 1Biological ground surveys 3 local consultants x 1.5 mos. completed Yr 1 & 2

82

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

but other areas only very partially. There is no clear picture of the status or distribution of resources and their interaction with the community.MT: Surveys published of wildlife, fisheries and habitats. Comprehensive community survey report published. GIS map of project area developed showing habitats, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, settlement, agriculture and other socio-geographic features. Reclassification options identified

Activity 3.11.2 Acquire and analyze satellite imagery of field demo site to assess ecosystem/habitat/vegetation types, extent of agriculture, settlements, roads and other man-made disturbances/impacts, signs of habitat degradation, possibilities for establishing corridors, etc

WWF, ZAWA

Satellite imagery acquisition and interpretation by 1 local consultant 1.5 mos and staff completed Yr

Activity 3.11.3. Conduct aerial survey of project area to complement image analysis, assess wildlife populations, vegetation types and human activities.

WWF, ZAWA, CLZ

2 days aerial surveys Yr 1

Activity 3.11.4 Survey the field demonstration site to identify national heritage sites and develop recommendations for integrating them into PA management and CCA/tourism development activities

NHCC, UNV, PCV

Survey completed by NHCC Yr 2

Activity 3.11.5 Conduct community survey in and around Chiawa GMA using participatory techniques to evaluate economic activities and production systems, resource utilization and dependence, commercial and non-commercial biodiversity products, attitudes to resources and biodiversity, resource and land tenure systems, access to social services, social structures, concerns and aspirations, systems of governance.

CLZ, PCV Community surveys completed by staff plus 2 local consultants x 2 mos. Yr1

Activity 3.11.6 Synthesize and analyze all studies conducted to develop a preliminary set of reclassification and zoning options for Chiawa GMA and LZNP

ZAWA, WWF, CLZ CLZ, PCV

Analysis of data staff + local 2 local consultants x 2mos. Publication of biological surveys, publication of community survey, publication of GIS Maps Yr1 and Yr2Reclassification options identified Yr2

Output 3.12One (or more) new community-managed conservation areas (CCA) are established on the basis of public/

The CCA is legally gazetted. Its management structure is legally registered under the new CCA law. The boundaries of the CCA provide

Activity 3.12.1 Village-level workshops to present reclassification options and to facilitate analysis and debate of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each (creation of new CCA, zoning, roles and responsibilities, negotiation of new PA/zoning boundaries, alternative forms of community management structures).

CLZ, PCV 6 2-day local workshops run by project staff Yr 2

83

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

private partnerships, to provide effective conservation of ecosystems with species of global importance.

wildlife with access to the Zambezi River during the dry season. Baseline: Rapid development along the Zambezi risks to cut off all corridors to the river. Local populations have marginal incentives to conserve the area and its biodiversity.MT: The borders of the CCA(s) are defined. The management structure is functional (but not registered as a CCA). The managers are receiving 100% of trophy hunting revenues.

Activity 3.12.2 Higher level workshops involving representatives of all local stakeholder groups including communities, traditional leaders, government agencies, NGO’s, local investors to analyze/debate reclassification and land use options. (Liaison with Project activities under sections 1 and 2 of log frame to co-ordinate local findings with developments at national level on the creation of new PA types (CCA and SHA)

ZAWA, CLZ 1 3-day workshops for 25 people Yr 2

Activity 3.12.3 Facilitate the negotiation of CCA borders and zoning including possible inclusion of adjoining open areas, establishment of permanent wildlife corridors to access the Zambezi River and exclusion of areas zoned for agriculture.

ZAWA, CLZ, PCV

Staff organize 10 2-day village level meetings Yr 2; 8 meetings with contiguous open areas communities to explore their possible inclusion Yr 2

Activity 3.12.4 Review lessons learned in Zambia and the sub-region on appropriate forms of community management structures (with particular emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity) and create or modify the community management structure or structures for the new CCA.

WWF, CLZ Review by project staff Yr 2; 6 1-day workshops Yr 2 Structures functional Yr 2; CCA management structures registered Yr 4

Activity 3.12.5 Apply the legal procedures for gazetting of the new CCA and registration of the CCA management structure(s) as specified under the new legislation and policies on reclassification and new categories of PA

ZAWA, CLZ Gazetting process in Yr 4 & 5; Legal certificate obtained Yr 5

Activity 3.12.6 Organize formal inauguration ceremonies for the new/reclassified PA.

ZAWA, CLZ, WWF

Ceremony Yr 5

Activity 3.12.7 Assist/support the negotiation of formal partnerships in support of PA managers (CCA&CLZ&ZAWA?& trophy hunting company?)

ZAWA, CLZ MOU completed Yr 2

Output 3.13 Sustainable natural resource management systems are developed for the new CCA

Adaptive management systems are functional for the wildlife and other natural resources of the CCA(s). The CCA M&E systems shows that the populations of large herbivores in the CCA has

Activity 3.13.1 Evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and effectiveness of the present PA enforcement system using ZAWA WPO and CRB community scouts, review lessons learned from other PA managers in Zambia and develop a cost-effective, incentive-based enforcement plan for Chiawa GMA that is integrated with LZNP enforcement.

ZAWA, CLZ WWF

Evaluation completed by staff plus local consultant 1 mo. Yr 1 Qtr 2Enforcement Plan completed by staff Yr 1 Annual enforcement workshops Yrs1-6

84

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

increased by 40% since the beginning of the project. Baseline: Wildlife populations are excellent in the vicinity of the CLZ camp in eastern Chiawa. Although generally depleted in the rest of the GMA, but they do support trophy hunting. The CRB has recently participated in quota setting for the first time. Most resources of commercial value are heavily exploited but not sustainably managed.MT: NR management techniques are being tested, monitored and adaptively modified. The plan for NRM-based revenue generation is being implemented.

Activity 3.13.2 Recruit/redeploy and equip additional community and WPO scouts as needed (including transport, equipment and accommodation, management support and incentives.) and implement enforcement plan

ZAWA, CLZ ZAWA (4 scouts),CRB Community scouts (20) deployed & equipped

Activity 3.13.3 Provide training of community scouts and WPOs ZAWA 2 x 6-week local courses Community Scout Training for 15 scouts each Yr 1-Yr4; 4 community scouts attend 6 wk external training in Zambia Yr s3-43 ZAWA WPO specialized external training in Zambia Yrs 2-5Annual 1-week workshop for Community ZAWA managers of scouts for co-ordination and education on newly developing PAs and enforcement systems

Activity 3.13.4 Implement enforcement plan ZAWA, CLZ CCA assumes full responsibility for enforcement Yr 5Project subsidies for enforcement diminish progressively to 0 by Yr 6

Activity 3.13.5 Identify game management/investment options, conduct economic/financial analyses to determine the viability and profitability, and develop a wildlife management and investment plan for the new CCA including establishment of zones for photo safaris and trophy hunting.

WWF, ZAWA, CLZ

Project staff + 1 local consultants x 1 mos Yr 2

85

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

Activity 3.13.6 Identify, analyze and prioritize other biodiversity products and markets chains for the current and potential economic uses of the CCA.o Identify user groups, their organizational structures and their

capacities;o Analyze the traditional resource access rights;o Analyze the sustainability of current uses;o Identify value-added opportunities through better storage,

processing, transport, respect for market standards, etc.o Identify priority products and market chains for development

CLZ, PCV Project staff Yr 1&2

Activity 3.13.7 Develop adaptive management systems for testing and developing natural resource management techniques for the priority biodiversity products and for their integration with the wildlife management of the CCA. o Select traditional/modern NRM techniques for testing;o Apply the techniques, monitor periodically evaluate the results

and modify local code/rules/systems for NR management accordingly

ZAWA, CLZ, PCV

Study on traditional and modern techniques by project staff with 1 mos local consultant Yr 2; Study to develop of protocol/plans for adaptively testing management techniques staff plus local consultant 2 mos Yr 2 (same contract as above);Implementation Yr 2-5 staff time + 3 mos local consultant

Activity 3.13.8 Develop and implement a plan for the development of natural resource-based revenue generating activities (including opportunities for improved processing, storage, transport and marketing of products)

CLZ, PCV Plan completed Yr 2; Implementation Yr 2-5 Local consultants 50 days

Activity 3.13.9 Assist the CCA managers to negotiate the roles and responsibilities of other institutions (Chieftainness, District, DF, DoF and stakeholder institutions and to formalize the agreements as written MOU.

ZAWA, CLZ MOU signed Yr 2-3

Activity 3.13.10 Support/assist the negotiation/development of joint ventures between the CCA managers and private sector partners

CLZ Ongoing Yrs 3-6

86

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

Output 3.14 The needed capacities for sustainable management of the new CCA are developed

A portion of the revenues from all commercial NR-based products are reinvested in a natural resource management fund. The CCA managers have mastered basic bookkeeping and record keeping skills. Accounts and records are openly accessible to all CCA members. Trophy hunting quotas are based on the CCA’s wildlife monitoring system. The CCA is reinvesting some of their income in ways specified by their business plan.Baseline: The CRB has no M&E capacity and no business plan. It has no management fund. Basic administrative and financial management capacities of are very low.

Activity 3.14.1 Conduct village-level workshops on strategic capacities needed during reclassification planning, e.g. participatory planning processes, good governance principles of transparency, accountability, equity, involvement of women and minority groups, systems of checks and balances, etc.

WWF, CLZ, PCV

9 x 2-day village-level workshops run by project staff Yr 1

Activity 3.14.2. Develop administrative and financial management capacities of the CCA managers (including management structures at village and CCA levels)

Accounting & bookkeeping skillsRecord keepingGeneral management skills including adaptive managementBusiness management

CLZ, PCV Development of training modules by project staff Yr 1; 10 3-day workshops per yr Yr 2 to 6, 1 exchange visit in Zambia per yr for 5 participants each Yr 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 exchange visit subregion Yr 2 5 participants

Activity 3.14.3 Development of capacities for good governance (transparency, representation, inclusion of women and minority/disadvantaged groups, financial safeguards, etc.) for managers and community members

CLZ, PCV 28 1-day workshops /yr Yr 2-6

Activity 3.14.4 Develop self-financing mechanism(s) (management funds fed by a portion of revenues derived from NR use) for CCA/natural resource management

CLZ, PCV Procedures/guidelines for management fund Yrs 2 & 3; Fund operational Yr 2-3

Activity 3.14.5 Develop and implement a business plan for the management of the CCA and village including plans for joint ventures, reinvesting profits into profitable activities, etc.

WWF, CLZ Business plans prepared by staff and local consultant 1 mo. Yr 3; Implementation Yr 3-5

Activity 3.14.6 Develop community capacities for monitoring and evaluation of:

o biodiversity, fisheries, wildlifeo management structure(s)o partnerships and joint ventures

ZAWA, WWF, CLZ, PCV

Staff plus 4 man-months consultant time Yr. 2-6 (mostly Yr 2)

Activity 3.14.7 Develop an HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention program and understanding of links to environmental degradation for CCA managers, scouts and members

CLZ, PCV Awareness and prevention program implemented Yr 2-5

87

UNDP PRO DOC


Annual Targets

Output 3.15 Opportunity to create ZAWA-managed Safari Hunting Area out of the mountainous portion of LZN assessed.

Activity 3.15.1 Conduct a SHA options workshop including stakeholders from national level and Lower Zambezi area to provide stakeholder inputs on the options for creation of a SHA in LZNP.

ZAWA, CLZ, WWF, PCV

3-day workshop Yr 3

Activity 3.15.2 Undertake the formal gazetting/reclassification of LZNP/SHA in lines with the new legislation/policies on reclassification and creation of SHA

ZAWA SHA registered Yr 4

Activity 3.15.3 Develop and implement modified enforcement plan specific to the needs of the new SHA

ZAWA CLZ Plan developed yr 3;Implemented Yr 4-6

Activity 3.15.4 Establish wildlife monitoring system for science-based setting of hunting quotas.

ZAWA, CLZ System developed in collaboration with IO 2 at national level Yr 2-6

]

88

Annex 1: Profile of the Protected Area (PA) System in Zambia

Protected Area Profile

Zambia’s most important categories of protected area are national park (NP) and game management area (GMA). The 19 NPs in Zambia cover an area of 63,580 km2, and the 35 GMAs cover 167,557 km2 – 8.5% and 22.3% of the total land area respectively. Approximately 490 forest reserves (FR) also cover large areas (around 75,000 km2, about 10.2% of the country), but the precise number and area covered is difficult to establish due to frequent de-classification and new additions and the lack of an updated database in the Forest Department (FD). There are four other categories of public-managed PAs: wildlife sanctuaries (2 gazetted), bird sanctuaries (2 gazetted), protected fisheries, Ramsar sites (Wetlands of International Importance for Migratory Birds) (2 gazetted) and Heritage sites20[1]. Other PA categories include game ranches, botanical and zoological parks.

Table 1 - Categories of Protected Areas in Zambia and their stated objectives

Protected Area No. Purpose Act/Policy Authority

National Parks

19 For the conservation and enhancement of wildlife ecosystems, biodiversity and of objects of aesthetic, pre-historic, geological, archaeological and scientific interest for the present and future generations. For the promotion of opportunities for the equitable and sustainable use of special qualities.

Wildlife Act No.10 1998

ZAWA

Game Management Areas

35 To provide for the sustainable use of wildlife and effective management of the wildlife habitat in communally owned lands.. To enhance the benefits of GMAs to local communities and to wildlife. To serve as buffer areas for wildlife species that move outside the NPs. To provide for the development and implementation of management Plans and involvement of local communities.


ZAWA

National Forests

180 Exclusively for the conservation and development of forests for the purpose of securing supplies of timber and other forest produce. Protecting watersheds, providing protection against floods, erosion and desiccation. Maintaining the biodiversity, ecological balance and the flow of rivers as well as cultural values.

Forest Act No.39 1973 Proposed Forest Act 1999

Forestry Dept

Local Forests 310 For the conservation and development of forests for the purpose of securing supplies of timber. Affording protection to land and water supplies and maintaining the biodiversity and ecological balance of the local area.


Forestry Dept

Wildlife Sanctuaries

02

To ensure that natural conditions necessary to protect natural significant species, biotic communities or physical features of environment where these may require specific human manipulation for their perpetuation.

Policy for National Parks and Wildlife, 1998

ZAWA

20

UNDP PRO DOC

Protected Area No. Purpose Act/Policy Authority

Bird Sanctuaries

02

For the conservation, protection and enhancement of unique birdlife ecosystems and biodiversity significant to the nation.


ZAWA

Protected Fisheries

Promoting fish management, production and sustainable utilization of fisheries resources.

Fisheries Act 1974Draft Policy

Fisheries Dept

Private Game Ranches

26

To enhance ex-situ conservation of wildlife ecosystems and biodiversity. To promote wildlife conservation through the involvement of the private sector. Diversification of the wildlife gene pool To enhance wildlife production for economic and social purposes for the developer.

Wildlife Act No.10 1998 Policy 1998

Private Landowner

Community Game Ranches

01

To develop a viable economic development for the developer as well as for the rural community. Rural economic empowerment with the benefit on the environment.

Wildlife Act No.10 1998 Policy 1998

Local Community & Private Sector

National Monuments(Natural & Cultural Sites)

77 To ensure conservation of unique heritage in perpetuity as well as for public enjoyment and education.

National Heritage Conservation Act

NHCC

World Heritage Sites(Victoria Falls)

01 To ensure conservation of unique heritage in perpetuity as well as for public enjoyment and education.

National Heritage Conservation Act

NHCC

Ramsar Sites(5 other proposed sites)

02 For the conservation and enhancement of wetland ecosystems and biodiversity especially as waterfowl habitats of international significance. Sustainable management and utilization of wetland resources.

Proposed Wetlands Policy 2001 Wildlife Policy 1998

Now ZAWA (Before it was Environmental Council of Zambia)

Botanical reserves

59 For the preservation of important plant genetic resources.


Forestry Dept

Source: DSI, 2004

The distribution of NP and GMA by watershed is given in Table 2 below. Amongst the major categories of PA in Zambia, only managed NPs give a high level of protection. Only NPs offer legal protection from conversion and extractive activities, as they are designated as sites for biodiversity conservation and tourism. In GMAs, the Wildlife Act only protects classified game species, which are then hunted under license. Conversion to agriculture and other land uses are allowed under GMA legislation. FRs are classified as national forest or local forest. However, FRs are unmanaged and largely unprotected and do not represent at present an effective category of PA.

Table 2 - Extent of National Parks and Game Management Areas in Zambia by river basin

River basin National parks Game management areasName Area (ha) Number Area (ha) % basin Number21[2] Area (ha) % basinUpper Zambezi 26,286,040 4 1,068,600 4.1 7 5,516,000 21.0Middle Zambezi 1,482,800 1 409,200 27.6 1 234,400 15.8

21

90

UNDP PRO DOC

Luangwa 13,874,050 5 1,673,800 12.1 10 5,305,900 38.2Kafue 15,620,040 3 2,326,000 14.9 8 3,806,900 24.4Chambeshi-Luapula 16,176,030 5 674,400 4.7 8 1,892,500 11.7Tanganyika 1,821,030 1 206,300 11.3 0 0 0Total 75,259,990 19 6,358,300 8.4 34 16,755,700 22.3Source: Chi-Chi, 2004

The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) has management responsibility for NPs and GMAs. The 1998 Wildlife Act specifies that the management of GMAs is to be done in partnership with local communities, and provides for the establishment of Community Resources Boards (CRBs) that can be involved in revenue sharing and co-management of wildlife in GMAs. Currently there are 54 CRBs in the country. The same act also provides for the establishment of private game ranches. The Forest Department (FD) administers Forest reserves. The 1999 Forest Act provides for the establishment of Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) to be involved in the co-management of some FRs. However, no such committee has been established in the country.

Little is known and documented about the state of ecosystems in the PAs system 22[3]. Similarly, there is no systematically updated information on the state of wildlife populations in both NPs and GMAs. Most wildlife experts in Zambia believe that there has been a drastic decline in populations of large mammals in the country in the last 20 to 30 years. For example, the black rhino is believed to be extinct and the elephant population has declined to 22,000 from nearly 250,000 in the 1960s. Because of poor census data for wildlife species, it is difficult to determine the conservation status of wildlife populations. However, the IUCN Red Data List shows that at least 13 mammal and 9 bird species in Zambia are either endangered or vulnerable. Threats to biodiversity range from poaching to habitat loss arising from agricultural expansion, but the magnitude of these threats is poorly established. The significant threats and their root causes are presented in Table 3.

SUMMARY OF KEY FEATURES

Management objectives

Table 3 below presents the formal management objectives of the different categories of PA. As most of the gazetted areas in categories other than NP and GMA are unmanaged, these objectives are often not applied. Almost all of the PA management objectives listed, save for education, and are primary objectives for at least one PA category. Two management objectives – preservation, of species and genetic diversity and maintenance of environmental services, are primary in national parks, protected fisheries, botanical reserves, and national forest reserves. This is in line with the basic protection functions of Zambia’s PA institutions. Notably, national parks and national forest reserves combine protective measures (including natural/cultural features), scientific research, and education as secondary objectives. The national forest reserve category does allow sustainable use of resources only in the form of selective logging under license but the same management objective is a primary one under local forests reserves as these are a source of goods and services for the local people. Similarly, the sustainable use objective is important for GMAs.

Table 3 - Mix of Management Objectives for Zambian Protected Areas

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE NP

GM

A

PF BR

LFR

NFR HS

Scientific Research 2 3 2 1 3 2 3Wilderness protection 1 3 3 3 3 1 ~Preservation of species and genetic diversity 1 2 1 1 2 1 2Maintenance of environmental services 1 2 3 1 2 1 ~Protection of specific natural/cultural features 2 2 3 3 3 2 1Consumptive/Non-Consumptive Tourism and 1n 1c ~ 3 3 2n 1n

22

91

UNDP PRO DOC

recreation c c cEducation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Sustainable use of resources ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 2 3Maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1

Source: WWF, 2004

Key: 1-Primary Objective; 2-Secondary Objective; 3-Potentially applicable; ~ Not applicable; c/nc-Consumptive/Non-Consumptive; NP-National Park; GMA-Game Management Area; PF-Protected Fisheries; BR- Botanical Reserve; LFR-Local Forest Reserve; NFR-National Forest Reserve, HS-Heritage Site

National Parks

National Parks (NPs) are natural areas established for the purpose of protecting the integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations and the provision of a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities which are environmentally and culturally compatible with conservation objectives. These objectives are achieved through the exclusion of exploitation or occupation that is inimical to the purposes for which the national park was established. The major characteristics of Zambia’s NPs are listed in Table 4.

Table 4 - Major characteristics of National Parks in Zambia

Name Area (km2) Major ecosystem Major threatsBlue Lagoon 450 Floodplain grassland Invasive alien species

Livestock grazing Isangano 840 Swamp grassland Poaching

Agricultural clearingKafue 22,400 Woodland Poaching

Uncontrolled burningKasanka 390 Woodland & Dambo grassland Poaching

Uncontrolled burningLavushi Manda 1,500 Woodland Poaching

Uncontrolled burningLiuwa Plain 3,660 Floodplain grassland Poaching

Uncontrolled burningLochnivar 410 Floodplain grassland Livestock grazing

MiningLower Zambezi 4,140 Woodland & Floodplain Grassland Agricultural clearing

PoachingUncontrolled burning

Luambe 2,540 Woodland Uncontrolled burningLukusuzi 2,720 Woodland Poaching

Agricultural clearingMiningUncontrolled burning

Lusenga Plain 880 Woodland & Grassland PoachingUncontrolled burning

Mosi-oa-Tunya 66 Woodland Agricultural clearingInvasion by alien species

Mweru Wantipa 3,134 Woodland & thicket Agricultural clearingPoachingMining

North Luangwa 4,636 Woodland PoachingUncontrolled burning

Nsumbu 2,020 Aquatic & Woodland PoachingNyika 80 Montane Grassland Uncontrolled burning

PoachingSioma Ngwezi 5,276 Woodland PoachingSouth Luangwa 9,050 Woodland Uncontrolled burningWest Lunga 1,680 Forest Poaching

92

UNDP PRO DOC

Name Area (km2) Major ecosystem Major threatsUncontrolled burning

Source: Chi-Chi, 2004

The major threats to biodiversity in NPs are over-hunting/poaching, encroachment, uncontrolled bush burning and, for parks in wetlands, invasion by alien species and over fishing. The classification of the condition of national park by the ZAWA is based on the occurrence of activities or invasive alien species that are inimical to the purposes for which the national park was established. Using ZAWA’s system, national parks in which unauthorized settlements, mining and livestock grazing occur are considered encroached, while those with invasive alien species are considered degraded. Out of the 19 national parks, two are degraded (Lochnivar and Mosi-oa-Tunya) and six are encroached (Lukusuzi, Mweru-Wantipa, Nsumbu, Isangano, Sioma Ngwezi and Lower Zambezi). Lochnivar NP has been invaded by the prickly bush, Mimosa pigra, while Mosi-oa-Tunya NP has been invaded by Lantana camara and water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes. There are also boundary disputes in Kafue and Mosi-oa-Tunya NPs. Lochnivar NP is also affected by livestock grazing. In addition, several national parks have suffered greatly from excessive illegal hunting (poaching) which now threatens the viability of a number of larger mammals, especially those with a low intrinsic growth rate. Well stocked parks include South Luangwa, North Luangwa, Kasanka, Lochnivar, Blue Lagoon and Luambe.

NP Stakeholder analysisThe following stakeholder analysis in Table 5 looks primarily at authority (statutory, management, planning, and regulation), investment and benefits. It shows a fairly healthy picture with a single primary authority that is also the primary beneficiary. The main concern is that there is no effective formal monitoring or regulation of ZAWA itself.

NP SWOT analysisThe strengths, weakenesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis in Table 5 emphasizes that ZAWA is a new institution with many capacity constraints but is at least reasonably structured to successfully manage national parks. It can expect significant donor support provided it continues to perform and to develop reasonable policies. The greatest external threats are the high macro-economic costs (financial and bureaucratic) for the wildlife-tourism sector in Zambia. Internally, there is a danger that if ZAWA does not radically liberalize its policies towards the private and community sectors (e.g. reduce non value-adding bureaucracy and encourage revenue generation and full retention), then major opportunities will be lost. Short term financial survival also reduces ZAWA’s vision in terms of encouraging the sector.

Table 5 - SWOT Analysis for National Parks

Strengths• Single authority responsible• Large, potentially valuable, parks estate• ZAWA appears politically stable (after years of instability)

Opportunities• Governance and capacity of ZAWA reasonable and improving• Donors, particularly NORAD, willing to invest in ZAWA• At least seven parks can be viable within ten years (building on growth of tourism in the region)• ZAWA prepared to experiment with performance management, outsourcing, etc.• Buffer parks by modifying policy to encourage community and private wildlife management in buffer zones• To take seriously the emerging protected area paradigm of using parks as engines of economic growth

Weaknesses• ZAWA is both the regulatory and management authority• Goals, indicators and monitoring not in place• Many stakeholders have low capacity and ZAWA monopolizes sector• Wildlife depleted and infrastructure ramshackle• Unable to manage at least half of the parks (lacking capacity and resources)• Serious neglect of wildlife management capacity in Zambia for several decades

Threats• ZAWA focuses on institutional survival (financial) at the expense of national gain (economic)• Excessive expansion of ZAWA and imposition of overhead expenses• High cost structure of Zambia makes viability challenging• Poor relationship between ZAWA and private sector, including excessive short term fees limiting re-investment and growth• Continued depletion of wildlife and infrastructure• Excessive mandate, and inability to meet this

93

UNDP PRO DOC

• Mandates and policies for park management unclear, e.g. biodiversity goals not defined, nor trade off with social goalsSource: DSI, 2004

Game Management Areas

Most game management areas (GMA) were created as buffers around NPs refer to Tables 6 and7. The justification for the establishment of GMAs is that they provide viable alternatives to commercial agriculture in areas of low agricultural potential. Unlike national parks, progress in GMAs is made exceedingly difficult because of the plethora of sector authorities (many/most with little capacity), while the primary stakeholders (i.e. the villagers) have little authority and are largely excluded from benefit. ZAWA intends for communities to retain 45-50% of revenues, which is a considerable improvement from previously, but may not be sufficient incentive for successful CBNRM. License fees for fish and timber are extracted from communities, and consequently use is de facto open access. With the complexity of planning authorities, coordinating land use in GMAs is extremely difficult and the economically sub-optimal settlement in areas such as Chiawa and Lupande is a major concern for the growth of the wildlife-tourism sector. Of critical importance, GMA residents have no formal legal rights over the sale, management and benefit of any natural resources. While policy, rhetoric and even legislation suggest that the potential for CBNRM in Zambia is high, there is considerable slippage between stated intention and practice. The huge potential for profitable community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in communal areas in Zambia is undermined by the absence of strong rights to manage, benefit and sell these products. This problem is exacerbated by over-centralized institutional structures and elite capture where attempts have been made to do CBNRM, and by generally weak CBNRM support capacity. Should the will to make CBNRM work emerges, there are certainly the resources and techniques to do so with a high probability of success, and at least in the wildlife sector the legislation is already in place. Wildlife populations are at great risk in GMAs because there are no controls on land use. Given the high poverty levels and over-dependence on extensive low productivity agriculture in the rural areas of the country, agricultural expansion is continuously encroaching upon wildlife habitats in GMAs. Other threats to biodiversity in GMAs include unsustainable hunting of wildlife species, logging and uncontrolled bush burning. The impact and root causes of these threats are presented in Table 6

Table 6 - Attributes of Zambia’s GMAs

NameSize km2 Buffer for

Bangweulu (with Chikuni) 6,470 Lavushi MandaBilili Springs 3,080 KafueChambeshi 620 IsanganoChiawa 2,344 Lower ZambeziKalasa Mukoso 675 NoneChibwika-Ntambu 1,550 West LungaChisomo 3,390 South LuangwaChizela 2,280 West LungaKafinda 3,860 KasankaKafue Flats 5,175 Blue Lagoon and LochinvarKaputa 3,600 Lusenga Plain, Mweru WantipaKasonso-Busanga 7,780 KafueLuano 8,930 NoneLukwakwa 2,540 West LungaLumimba 4,500 Lukusuzi, Luambe, North and South LuangwaLunga-Luswishi 13,340 KafueLupande 4,840 South LuangwaLuwingu 1,090 IsanganoMachiya-Fungulwe ? None

94

UNDP PRO DOC

NameSize km2 Buffer for

Mansa 2,070 NoneMukungule ? North LuangwaMulobezi 3,420 KafueMumbwa 3,370 KafueMunyamadzi 3,300 North and South LuangwaMusalangu (Fulaza and Chikwa-Chifunda GMAs) 17,350 North LuangwaMusele Matebo 3,700 West LungaNamwala 3,600 KafueNkala 194 KafueRufunsa 3,179 Lower ZambeziSandwe 1,530 South LuangwaSichifulo 3,600 KafueTondwa 540 Lusenga Plain, Mweru WantipaWest Petauke 4,140 South LuangwaWest Zambezi 38,070 Liuwa Plain and Sioma NgweziSource: various, including Macmillan Map of Zambia and ZAWA Five Year Strategic Plan

GMA Stakeholder analysisThe stakeholder analysis for GMAs in Table 7 shows a much more fragmented arrangement than in the NPs, with many more authorities and potential beneficiaries. The breakdown between those with authority for management, and the other stakeholders is also spread more widely than for NPs.

GMA SWOT analysis

The following table is a SWOT analysis for GMAs. The focus is on the huge potential, which is limited by weak legislation and limited devolution.

Table 7 - SWOT Analysis for Game Management Areas

Strengths ZAWA Act provides a base for moving towards full devolution, and forestry and fisheries sectors are discussing CBNRM Strong evidence from region that principled CBNRM works Zambia has more inherent potential (land, wildlife, forests, etc.) than neighbouring countries

Opportunities Huge inherent potential provided by low population densities and large areas of land The knowledge to implement CBNRM with a high probability of success is available Substantial funding is available for performing programmes General attitude that CBNRM and community empowerment has potential Evidence that communities respond rapidly to rights/benefit based approaches

Weaknesses Legislation allows for conversion to agriculture and other land uses. Too many single sector authorities with little accountability or capacity for performance, yet landholder communities have little/no authority (no land rights or rights to NRs) Opportunities for devolution not taken and enabling policy/practice not in place Targeted at inappropriate level (i.e. at representational rather than participatory levels of governance) that is ineffective and allows elite capture

Threats Failure to convert lip service support into real devolution Lack of technical capacity Proliferation of parallel single sector NR institutions at community level Elite capture (by chiefs, CRBs) if devolution, policy and guidelines not got right from the start Embarking on “CBNRM” without following correct principles or monitoring and adaptively managing process

95

UNDP PRO DOC

Devolution of rights partial and weak. For wildlife, communities get 45% of benefits, but no rights to control management or sale, and other sectors worse, Act not converted into enabling SI legislation and policy Weak, non-cooperating, CBNRM support agencies Many stakeholders have low capacity and ZAWA monopolizes sector Wildlife depleted and infrastructure ramshackle Commercial performance of Zambian wildlife sector way below regional levels

High cost structure of Zambia makes viability challenging Continued depletion of wildlife and infrastructure Capture of funding by non-performing NGOs / agencies Weak private, NGO, civil and state sectors

Source: DSI, 2004

96

UNDP PRO DOC

THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY AND ROOT CAUSES ANALYSIS

The threats and root causes of the biodiversity loss in Protected Areas and alternative strategy for addressing them are presented in Table8.

Table 8 - Threats and root causes of biodiversity loss in Zambia PA

Relevant to Threat Biological Impacts Root Causes Alternative StrategyNP/GMA Unsustainable illegal

harvesting of wildlife for subsistence and commercial use

Reduction in wildlife numbers, especially of large mammals, sometimes to local extinction

Loss of biodiversity

Collapse of symbiotic systems

Poachers consider the benefits to be gained from poaching to be greater than the risks of being caught and prosecuted

Strengthen enforcement by increasing budget and staffing level in ZAWA

Incentive-based payments for game guards

Better training and equipment for game guards

Innovative partnerships between ZAWA and CRB for more cost-effective anti-poaching in NP

Barrier: Current legal and policy frameworks serve to constrain the empowerment and incentives for communities to manage wildlife and other natural resources.

Devolution of authority for wildlife management to communities

Creation of a new category of community managed PA

Transparent financial management procedures for the sharing of revenues between ZAWA and CRB and between CRB and VAG/communities

97

UNDP PRO DOC

GMA Trophy hunting at unsustainable levels

Loss of wildlife species, especially large mammals

Hunting licenses are awarded by ZAWA without sound, science-based monitoring of wildlife populations for quota-setting;

Monitoring of wildlife populations has not been instituted as a necessary cost of doing business for trophy hunting

Monitoring for science-based quota setting is required as a standard cost of doing business for sustainable hunting

Regional review of M&E systems to select and adapt the most cost-effective systems for Zambia.

Develop community-based monitoring systems that communities are obliged to implement for quota setting.

Oversight by MTENR and civil society to ensure that quotas are based on science based monitoring

Pressure to increase quotas to increase revenues for ZAWA, traditional chiefs, communities, etc.

ZAWA is faced with an internal conflict, mandated with biodiversity conservation while pushed by government to become financially self-sustaining

Civil society inputs/oversight of sector

Increase incentives for CRB and GMA communities through devolution of authority and increased revenues

Inadequate supervision of licensed hunters, including safari hunters

Barrier: Resource rights Wildlife belongs to the government and not to local communities.

I|nternal community-level controls through improved governance at CRB and village level

Empowerment of communities leads them to recognize that when hunters exceed their quotas, it is the communities revenues that decrease

Improvements in the supervision of legal hunters by WPO and village scouts to ensure compliance with hunting quotas

98

UNDP PRO DOC

GMA/FR Unsustainable commercial and non-commercial harvesting of wood products

Habitat degradation and loss of wildlife populations

Illegal timber cutters perceive that the benefits of illegal logging outweigh the risks of being caught.

Strengthen enforcement by increasing budget and staffing level in ZAWA (for NP) and FD (for GMA)

Incentive-based payments for guards

Better training and equipment for game guards

Barrier: Resource rights Forest resources belong to the State and access is controlled by the state

Communities have little incentive to protect/manage forest resources

Devolution of authority to legally constituted community management structures.

Integration of forest management with other forms of natural resource management under a common village-level management structure.

Barrier: Management model there are no tested/proven models of natural forest management

Development of pilot natural forest management models, especially for community-based management

NP/GMA Conversion of habitat to agriculture and settlement

Reduction and/or loss of wildlife habitats

Contraction and fragmentation of distribution ranges of wildlife species and loss of movement corridors

Changes to hydrological systems

Barrier: PA category Conversion to agriculture is legal and permitted within GMAs.

Land use plans in GMAs do not have the legal clout to prevent abuses

Creation of a new category of community-managed PA that disallows conversion of habitats.

Legislation reforms to make land use plans an effective legal instrument for conservation.

Farmers will clear land for agriculture in NPs if the risk of penalties is too low.

Strengthen enforcement by increasing budget and staffing level in ZAWA (for NP)

Limited political commitment to deal with encroachment in NPs

Economic analysis to convince decision-makers and authorities of the importance of stopping encroachment

NP/GMA Use of habitat for livestock grazing

Habitat degradation and introduction of livestock diseases to wildlife species

Herders will graze cattle in NP if benefits are greater than the risk of penalties.

More effective enforcement

99

UNDP PRO DOC

Conversion for mining Pollution Wildlife sector is given lower priority than agriculture and mining

Economic and financial analyses to show the importance of the wildlife sector.

Development of the wildlife sector so that it contributes significantly to local and national socio-economic development

NP/GMA Excessive fishing and destructive fishing methods:

Building of weirs to trap breeding fish

Use of fish poisons.

Use of undersize nets Fishing during the closed season (breeding season)

Reduction of fish in the food chain: impacts on higher trophic levels

Disturbance to fish breeding and other wildlife.

Disturbance to hydrology.

Toxic damage from poisons.

Barrier: Resource rights De facto open access resource

Increasing population.

Large, growing seasonal influx of non-traditional fishermen

Lack of alternative income and food sources.

Almost total lack of control by responsible government agencies.

Poor understanding of ecology.

Assessment of fishery resources status and identification of traditional and modern management techniques for testing

Empowerment of local populations for community-based fisheries management.

Testing and development of sustainable fisheries techniques plan with stakeholders.

Enforcement of agreed rules/code by community and government.

Enhanced revenues from improved processing and marketing of fish (in conjunction with a fisheries management system)

Community NR management fund fed by % of revenues

NP/GMA Invasion of wetlands by alien species

Habitat degradation and loss of indigenous species

No effective controls on the introduction of invasive alien species

Development of a national policy on invasive alien species

Inadequate knowledge on alien species and lack of appropriate control measures

Research on alien species and development and implementation of appropriate control measures

NP/GMA Uncontrolled bush burning

Degradation of wildlife habitats and destruction of wildlife food resources

Breakdown in the authority of traditional leaders (GMA)

Inadequate research and knowledge on the impacts of fire on wildlife and habitat

Development of fire control programs as part of NP/GMA management plans

Involvement of traditional authorities and local people in fire control activities

100

Annex 2: Terms of Reference for Project Personnel and for Project Management Structures and Implementing Agencies

A. Terms of Reference for Key Personnel

A. 1. Project Technical CoordinatorThe Project Technical Coordinator shall be the Head of the Project Implementation Unit. He/She shall report directly to the Director of Environment and Natural Resource Management Department (ENRMD), which will be the focal point of the Executing Agency and will be responsible to UNDP for the proper application of all UNDP administrative and financial regulations and procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds.

A.1.1 the functions of the Project Technical Coordinator a. To serve as Team Leader at the Project Secretariat and as Technical Coordinator of the whole Project.

b. Mobilise all project inputs implementation of the project and smooth for functioning of the project Secretariat

c. Ensure that project activities provided for in the consolidated action plans and budgets are effectively implemented by Implementing Agencies and Project Staff and that they contribute to the meeting of immediate objectives of the project.

d. Ensure that financial resources are allocated and utilized in accordance with the Project Financial Management Plan.

e. Initiate draft contracts for consultants for approval by the Project Working Group and the Project Steering Committee.

f. Ensure that consultants produce reports timely in accordance with the terms of each contract.g. Prepare Quarterly and Annual financial and technical reports for submission to the MTENR, the

Project Working Group, and the Project Steering Committee and to UNDP/GEF.h. Organise meetings of the Project Steering Committee and those of the Working Group as well as

those provided for in the Project Workplan and to act as secretary to the same.i. Ensure active participation by all stakeholders in all facets of the project.j. Monitor project to evaluate progress being made k. Prepare Annual Project Review Report and organise the meeting for the stakeholders to appraise the

report. l. Review technical reports for completeness before submitting to stakeholders

A.1.2 Key Qualifications of the Project Technical Coordinator

The Project Manager will be a Senior Expert with considerable experience of at least 12 years in project management. He/She will hold a higher degree in biological sciences, ecology or in any field related to biodiversity conservation. He/She will have extensive experience of not less than 10 years natural resources management and a good track record for having contacts with professionals, government institutions and the donor community based in Zambia. Other key attributes required would be managerial and leadership skills, and experience in guiding sectoral legal and policy reviews, strategic planning, and results oriented management and financial management. Experience in the organization of community-level and national workshops/meetings as well as in regional and inter-agency coordination and knowledge of government and donor procurement procedures, will be of distinct advantage. The candidate will also have strong team building, interpersonal skills and strategic thinking/planning.

A.2 Demonstration Site ManagerThe Demonstration Site Manager at each site shall be the lead project technical coordinator at that level. He/She shall report directly to the Head of the designated Demonstration Site Implementing Agency on all administrative matters but shall work very closely with the Technical Advisor (WWF) on matters related to

the technical aspects of the project. The DSM shall also to liaise closely with the Project Technical Coordinator, particularly on reporting requirements and monitoring of project activities.

A.2.1 Functions of the Demonstration Site Managera. To serve as technical team leader at the Project Demonstration Site.b. Ensure that project activities provided for in the site-level action plans and budgets are effectively

implemented to meet the relevant immediate objective(s).c. Ensure that project staff, including UNVs prepare Quarterly and Annual reports on their activities

and in accordance with their job descriptions.d. Prepare site-level consolidated Quarterly and Annual reports for submission to the Demonstration

Site Working Group, the Head of Implementing Agency and to the Project Manager.e. Coordinate the work of consultants at site level.f. Organize meetings of the Demonstration Site Working Group and to act as its secretary.g. To ensure the active participation by all key stakeholders in all facets of the project.h. To act as the principal technical link between the community and the Implementing Agencies in the

testing and operationalisation of management options.

A.2.2 Key Qualifications of the Demonstration Site ManagerThe Demonstration Site Manager will be an experienced professional with at least 10 years experience in Project Management work. He/She will hold a minimum qualification of MA/MSc. in either the social sciences or in biodiversity conservation related sciences. Extensive Experience in the implementation of rural development projects will be highly desirable, including the ability to work with multidisciplinary teams of different socio-cultural background as well as with local communities using PRA techniques. Experience in organizing community level workshops and the development of training materials will be essential. The ideal candidate will also have strong oral and communication skills as well as good managerial and leadership skills. Knowledge of financial management and any experience gained in the management of protected areas will be of an added advantage.

A.3. Protected Areas Systems Specialist (Consultant)

The PASS shall act as an advisor to Director of Environment and Natural Resources/ Project Technical Coordinator. The specific areas of advisory focus shall be in the following areas:

a. Provide technical advise on bring about reforms for effective management of the Protected Areas System

b. Improvement of MTENR role in oversight and monitoring of the implementation of Protected Area Sector laws and policies;

c. Sectoral policies and legal reforms;d. Development of the Protected Areas Reclassification Plan;e. Testing of new options for Protected Areas Management through public/private/community

partnerships.

A.3.2 Qualifications of the Protected Areas Systems Specialist

The Protected Areas Systems Specialist shall be a highly qualified international consultant with a minimum qualification of a MSc. Degree in natural resource management, ecology or biological sciences. He/She shall have extensive experience of not less than 10 years in Protected Area Management, particularly in regard to the key result areas of the project, namely, sectoral legal and policy reforms, strengthening protected area management institutions, and reclassification of protected areas, and community based natural resources management. Working experience in the Southern Africa region and understanding of the issues related to the management of regional protected area systems will be essential as well as the ability to work in a multi-cultural .The Protected Areas Systems Specialist shall be an Advisor employed on full time basis for the first two years of the project and on a visiting basis, through annual support missions, for the rest of the project.

A.102

He/She shall be based at the Project Secretariat and shall report to the Project Technical Coordinator in the course of implementing his/her assignment.

A.4. Project Accountant

A.4.1 Functions of the Project Accountant

The Project Accountant will report to the Project Technical Coordinator and will be based at the Project Secretariat.

The job purpose is to provide requisite financial accounting services to ensure that all relevant reports, proposals and other related financial transactions are written, documented, and presented in an acceptable manner and in accordance with accounting standards approved by UNDP/GEF and the Government of the Republic of Zambia.

A.4.2 Duties and ResponsibilitiesThe successful candidates will be responsible for all the financial management activities of the Project. Key skills required will include financial planning, budgeting, statutory legislation, payroll and benefits administration. Specific duties will include the following:a. Ensuring Quarterly and Annual accounts are prepared in accordance with generally acceptable

accounting principles to reflect a true and fair view of the project’s financial performance and financial position.

b. Facilitate audits by providing information and any relevant data to external auditors etc to ensure that audit is concluded within the stipulated time.

c. To coordinate reports and audits of accounts at the Project Demonstration Sites.d. To prepare and furnish the Project Technical Coordinator or Head of Implementing Agency with data

required preparing periodic and final accounts.e. To analyse accounts against the approved budget to determine variances and reasons for deviations.f. Ensure that payments are accompanied by authorized supporting documents and that they are duly

approved and in line with payment vouchers.g. To prepare Quarterly and Annual income and expenditure statements, variance analysis and balance

sheets which reflect an up-to-date picture of the current financial position of the project.

A.4.3 Qualifications of the Project AccountantThe post demands for self-discipline, high integrity, trustworthiness and honesty. Applicants will posses a degree in accountancy and ACCA/CIMA plus a minimum of 5 years post qualifying experience. Hands-on experience of QuickBooks and/or ACCPAC will be an added advantage. Applicants will also be a member of ZICA. Experience in GRZ/donor-funded multi-sectoral development programmes in a financial management or accounting capacity will be a distinct advantage.

A.5 Project Technical Officer (Secretariat)

The Technical Officer at the Project Secretariat will be the main technical assistant to the Project Technical Coordinator on the technical coordination of project activities.

A.5.1 Functions of the Project Technical Officer

a. Setting up meetings for the Project Steering Committee and the Project Working Group.b. Timely production of minutes for the meetings of the Project Steering Committee and the Project

Working Group.c. Assist the Project Manager in the preparation of Inception, Quarterly and Annual reports and other

essential reports. d. Assist the Project Technical Coordinator in monitoring the progress of project activities.e. Undertake logistical activities for the recruitment of project consultants.

A.103

f. Assist the Project Technical Coordinator in the coordination of the work of consultants.g. Participate in the preparation of background materials for use in discussions and briefing sessions.h. Carry out any other specific activities deemed necessary in the furtherance of the project objectives,

including the collection, registration and maintenance of information on project activities by reviewing reports and through first hand sources.

A.5.2 Qualifications of the Project Technical OfficerTechnical Officers shall have at least a Master’s degree in environment, and/or natural resources management or any other related field. They will be highly motivated personalities with strong management, communication, networking, coordinating and inter-personal skills, and a willingness to undertake extensive travel within the country. Fluency in spoken and written English will be essential. A working knowledge of any of the main languages in the project sites will be an advantage. Knowledge of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and a high level of computer literacy will be essential.

A.6 Project Technical Officer (Demonstration Sites)

A.6.1 Functions of the Project Technical Officer (Demonstration Site)a. Assist the Demonstration Site Manager with the preparation of training materials and the

organization of community training workshops including the provision of training.b. Organize meetings of the Demonstration Site Working Group, and ensure timely production

of minutes.c. Assist the DSM in coordinating the work of staff at the Demonstration Sites, including the

inputs of technical departments such as ZAWA, Forestry and Fisheries Departments and the National Heritage Conservation Commission.

d. Undertake any other duties deemed necessary for meeting project objectives as may be assigned by the Demonstration Site Manager.

A.6.2.Qualifications of the Project Technical Officer (Demonstration Site)

Technical Officers shall have at least a BA/BSc. Qualification in the Social Sciences or in environment, and/or natural resources management or any other related field. They will be highly motivated personalities with strong management, communication, networking, coordinating and inter-personal skills, and a willingness to undertake extensive travel within the project area

Fluency in spoken and written English will be essential. A working knowledge of any of the main languages in the project sites will be an advantage.Knowledge of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and computer literacy will be essential.

A.7 Natural Resources Economist (Consultant)

A.7.1 Functions of the Natural Resources EconomistThe Natural Resources Economist shall be a consultant engaged to manage and provide inputs in the assessment of the economics of the protected area management, and to advise on the socio-economic aspects and management of Community Conservation Areas. The Natural Resources Economist (NRE) will provide services through annual support missions beginning in the second year of the project up to the end of the project.

A.7.2 Qualifications of the Natural Resources EconomistThe Natural Resources Economist shall be a highly qualified international consultant with a minimum qualification of a Master’s degree in Natural Resource Economics. He/She shall have extensive experience of not less than 15 years in natural resource management. Experience with community-based natural resource management will be essential, as well as the experience of working in the Southern African region and understanding of issues related to protected areas management. Ability to work in a multi-cultural setting would be essential.

A.104

A. 8. International United Nations Volunteers

A.8.1 Functions of the UNV (International)The UNV (International) shall be part of the project implementation team at the Project Demonstration Site and shall be a well-qualified technical person with relevant experience. He/she shall report directly to the Demonstration Site Manager, and shall be based in the project demonstration site area.

The specific functions of the UNV (International) shall be as follows:a. To prepare materials (such as brochures, leaflets, etc) for awareness raising among community

members.b. To assist the Demonstration Site Manager and the site level project consultants in preparing

training materials for communities and in organizing village-level workshops.c. To assist the Demonstration Site Manager and site level project consultants in undertaking bio-

physical and socio-economic studies of the project area and in the development of the area reclassification and management plans as well as the creation and operationisation of the community conservation areas.

d. To participate in research targeted to meet protected area and natural resource management needs.e. To assist the Demonstration Site Manager in the establishment, maintenance and use of strategic

project infrastructure.f. To assist the Demonstration Site Manager in the development and application of monitoring and

evaluation systems at demonstration site level.g. Other duties as may be assigned by the Project Demonstration Site Manager.

A.8.2. QualificationsThe International UNV shall possess a minimum qualification of a Master’s degree in Natural Resources Management or in a field related to rural development. He/she shall have experience in working with rural communities of not less than five years. Experience/working in Southern African region and understanding of issues related to protected areas management will be a distinct advantage. Ability to work in a multi-cultural setting would be essential. Good communication skills and excellent inter-personal skills will be essential.

A. 9. United Nations Volunteers (National) A.9.1. Functions of the UNV (National)The UNV (Local) shall be part of the project technical team at the demonstration site level. The UNV (Local) shall be a Zambian citizen with extensive knowledge of the socio-economic and political-cultural setting of the project area. The UNV (Local) shall report directly to the Demonstration Site Manager and shall be based in the project demonstration site area.

The specific functions of the UNV (Local) shall be as follows:a. Local communities mobilisationb. Conducting PRAs in the communities c. Training communities

A.9.2. QualificationsThe UNV (Local) shall have a B.A degree in Sociology or development studies. Understanding of local customs, traditions, and the socio-economic setting of the area will be essential. The UNV (National) shall have excellent communication and inter-personal skills. Knowledge of the local language will be essential. A working experience of at least three years in rural development initiatives would be an advantage.

B. Terms of Reference for Project Support Staff

B.1. Assistant Accountant (Project Demonstration Site)

B.1.1. The Job Purpose

A.105

The job purpose is to provide all the necessary financial accounting services to ensure that all relevant reports, proposals and other financial transactions are written, documented, and presented in an acceptable manner and in accordance with accounting standards approved by UNDP/GEF and the Government of the Republic of Zambia.

B.1.2 Duties and Responsibilities

The successful candidate will be responsible for all the financial management activities of the Project. Key skills required will include financial planning, budgeting and monitoring the financial expenditure in line with the workplan . Specific duties will include the following:

. Ensuring Quarterly and Annual accounts are prepared in accordance with generally acceptable accounting principles to reflect a true and fair view of the project’s financial performance and financial position.

Facilitate audits by providing information and any relevant data to external auditors To coordinate reports and audits of accounts at the Project Demonstration Sites. To prepare and furnish the Project Technical Coordinator or Head of Implementing Agency with data

required preparing periodic and final accounts. To analyse accounts against the approved budget to determine variances and reasons for deviations. Ensure that payments are accompanied by authorized supporting documents and that they are duly

approved and in line with payment vouchers. To prepare Quarterly and Annual income and expenditure statements, variance analysis and balance

sheets which reflect an up-to-date picture of the current financial position of the project.

B.1.3. Qualifications of the Assistant Accountant Grade 12 School Certificate with at least a credit in English and Mathematics. Minimum Qualification of AAT/NATECH or equivalent. Computer literacy, and knowledge of accounting software an advantage. At least three years practical experience. Experience with Donor funded programmes an advantage. High degree of integrity.

B.2. Administrative Assistant

B.2.1 Duties and Responsibilities Responsible for Reception and Secretarial duties of the National Coordination Office (Secretariat) Provides Secretarial Support to Project Coordinator and other Project Staff Ensures smooth flow of correspondence and communication Types documents, correspondence, administrative forms and any other material as required. Carries out tasks for the production and distribution of reports, including photocopying, collating, etc. Acts as receptionist and referring visitors or callers to the appropriate office and responding to

telephone inquiries. Operates electronic and fax systems, maintaining a log of incoming communications and assisting in

calculating related operating costs. Maintaining updated directories, telephone lists, addresses and other relevant guides or references,

including correspondence logs and manuals, files and office records. Maintains stock of administrative stationery, and ensuring that new supplies are obtained as and when

necessary.

B.2.2 QualificationsThe required qualifications will be as follows:

a. Diploma in Social Sciences or Administration as minimum.b. High computer literacy that includes MS Word, Spreadsheet, PowerPoint Presentation, and PC-

based electronic communication systems.c. Good command of spoken and written Englishd. Excellent interpersonal skills with a professional and efficient approach.e. At least 3 years of experience in a similar position.

A.106

f. Secretarial training in typing, shorthand and office management an advantage.

B.3 Project Driver/Cleaner

B.3.1 Duties and Responsibilities Transport authorized personnel to designated locations in project areas throughout the country. Perform administrative errands and tasks not limited to the use of vehicle. Regular assessment of all project vehicles to ensure that they are properly cared for and maintained. Handle all processing of paperwork related to the registration of all project vehicles. Serve as focal point for the maintenance and service contractors to ensure that quality of service is

given in the maintenance of all project vehicles. Cleaning offices Photocopies and binds documents Reports all faults within offices to the management Collects/delivers mail and other office requirements Ensures that offices are secured at all times Any other duties as may be assigned by the senior project management

B.3.2 Qualifications Full Form V (Grade 12) certificate with a good pass in English. Clean Driver’s License. Sober character. Minimum 5 years relevant experience. Previous experience with Projects/NGOs and/or International Organisations highly desirable. Ability to work independently and extensively.

C. Terms of Reference for Project Management structures and Implementing Agencies.

C.1 Project Steering Committee. The Project Steering Committee will be established at the National Level to facilitate project Coordination .The Committee, whose membership will not exceed twelve (12) would include the following:

C.1.1 Composition of the Committee.

Permanent Secretary - MTENR (Chair) Permanent Secretary – Ministry of Finance (Budget) Permanent Secretary – Agriculture and Cooperatives. Director – Environment and Natural Resources Management Department. Director – General- ZAWA. Director – Forestry Commission. Director –Fisheries Department. Executive Director – National Heritage Commission. Project Manager – (Ex – officio) - Secretary. UNDP / GEF Representative.

C.1.2 Functions of the CommitteeThe Project Steering Committee shall have the following specific functions:

a. To provide high-level Conceptual and Policy guidance to the Project.b. To Review reports from the project Secretariat and project partners and to oversee the project

progress and performance including the resolution of implementation problems.c. To Approve Annual Work plans and Budgets on behalf of the government,d. To Report on the Progress of the Project to Sponsors on a Quarterly and Annual basis e. To sanction appointment of major contractors on the project.

A.107

f. Raise the level of awareness of the importance of the project within high-level bodies of the government.

The Steering Committee will meet twice a year at the beginning and middle of the year.

C.2 The Project Working Group The project working group (PWG) will be the de facto planning authority of the project and one which will oversee the day- to-day implementation of the project. The group will prepare Annual Budget work plans and will meet quarterly to receive and review project progress Reports.

C.2.1 Composition of the Project Working Groupa. Project implementing Agenciesb. Line Ministries Representatives c. Demonstration Site Managersd. Donor Organizations (UNDP,DANIDA) e. Project Accountantf. Project Manager g. Director of the ENRM Department (Chair)

C.2.2 Functions of the Project Working Group The functions of the project-working group will be as follows: a. To review and adopt the Project Implementation Plan.

b. To Approve Annual Budgets and Work plans.c. To Monitor Project Performance through Quarterly progress review meetings.d. To review regularly progress reports, workshop reports and consultant reports. e. To provide any technical assistance as deemed necessary to facilitate the effective Implementation of the Project and to select and recommend the Appointment of Consultants.

C.3 Demonstration Site Working Group (DSWG)

C.3.1 Composition of the Demonstration Site Working The following will be the members of the DSWG:

a. Primary Implementing Agencies ( e.g. WWF, Kasanka Trust Ltd)b. Demonstration Site Managerc. CRB Chairpersonsd. Area Councilor(s)e. Representative Village Headmenf. Local officials of technical departments (ZAWA, Forestry, Fisheries, NHC, Water Affairs, Lands).g. UNV/ Peace Corps Volunteer(s).h. His/Her Royal Highness of the area or appointed Representative.

C.3.2 Functions of the DSWG As the main Site level Planning Authority, the DSWG will have the following functions:

a. To approve annual work plans and budgets for the Demonstration Site project activities.b. To monitor the progress of the project through Quarterly and Annual review meetings.c. To approve all nominees from the community for specialized skill training and to approve

appointments of local project staff.d. To oversee the negotiation of boundaries for project activities.e. To recommend any actions deemed necessary for meeting the project objectives at site level.

A.108

C.4 Project Secretariat

C.4.1 Composition of the Secretariat. The project Secretariat shall consist of the following Personnel: Project Manager Accountant Technical officer Office Administrative Assistant Driver/Office orderly Cleaner

C.4.2 Functions of the SecretariatThe Project Secretariat shall be the nerve centre for the overall coordination of all project activities. The responsibilities of the Secretariat shall be:

a. To coordinate the preparation of annual work plans and budgets for demonstration sites, MTENR activities as well as for other Primary Implementing Agencies.

b. To coordinate the acquisition and delivery of project inputs.c. To coordinate the appointment of project staff and consultants.d. To promote effective communication between project partners.e. To act as Secretariat to the project steering committee.f. To monitor the performance of the project and to report on constraints affecting effective

implementation of the project g. To prepare consolidated quarterly and annual reports for submission to the Project Steering

Committee, UNDP/GEF and to the Government.

C.5 Functions of Field Implementing Agencies

Implementing Agencies shall function as sub-contractors for implementing specific components of the project. These shall be selected on the basis of their comparative strengths, acceptability by local communities and other technical considerations. The functions of the implementing agency shall be specified in the contract of engagement between the Implementing Agency and the Executing Agency, but shall include the following:

1. To implement project activities as specified in the contract;2. To participate in the meetings of the Project Working Group and those of the Demonstration Site

Working Group, including annual work planning and budgeting.3. To submit financial and technical Quarterly and Annual reports on the project components being

implemented to MTENR and UNDP/GEF through the Demonstration Site Manager on all matters related to the implementation of sub-contracted project components.

4. To partner with local communities in the testing of new options for protected areas management through public/private/community partnerships.

C.5.1 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) shall play a duo role under Outcome 3 of the project i.e. expansion of the options for protected area management through development and field-testing of innovative private/civil society/public/community partnerships. Firstly, WWF shall act as the Field Facilitation Agency (FFA) for the forging and testing of links and partnerships between the private sector partners and communities as options for natural resource management. This process will include identifying, together with the local communities, private sector partners with which to test the partnerships with local communities. Secondly, WWF will provide technical support to both sites in the areas of biodiversity surveys, image interpretation, reclassification planning, the development-based M&E systems and other specialized technical inputs needed at the two sites.

C.5.2 Private Sector Partners

A.109

Apart from undertaking the above functions specified for project field implementing agencies, the private sector partners will be the long-term partners for local communities in testing and institutionalizing preferred options for protected area management, such as Community Conservation Areas (CCA).

C.6. Functions of Line Departments in Project Implementation

The Zambia Wildlife Authority, Forestry and Fisheries Departments and the National Heritage Commission, will be responsible for implementing parts of immediate objective Nº2 related to their own capacity building as PA institutions (Table 1). Additionally, the testing and institutionalisation of the resource management options will require the continued presence and commitment of these technical line departments to provide extension services to local Communities. These services will be required throughout the six-year duration of the project. The delivery of their services will be affected through the Site Manager and later through the management structures on the ground. In order to enable these institutions play an effective role in legal and policy reforms as well as in the operationisation of the preferred management options, these institutions will also need to have their capacity strengthened under immediate objective Nº2. They will, thus, undertake to implement those activities aimed at strengthening themselves.

A.110

ANNEX 3: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PLAN

SUMMARY

In preparation for the Project Document on the reclassification and sustainable management of Zambia’s Protected Area Management, the key stakeholders in protected area buffer zones and the larger protected area support zones were identified and an analysis of their capabilities and potential role in project implementation undertaken. The following table categorises stakeholders in terms of both their influence (power over outcomes), and their importance (how affected they are by the project outcomes).Table 5 – Categorisation of influence on, and impact of project outcomes on different stakeholder

Low influence High influence

High im

portance

Communities (inc. tradit. Chiefs) living close to NPs

Forest Department Fisheries Department

Communities (inc. tradit. Chiefs) and CRBs in, or close to GMAs,

ZAWA MTENR

Low

importance

IUCN WWF WCS AWF Min. of Local Government and Housing ECZ NHCC District Councils Department of Water Affairs

Min. of Lands Min. of Agriculture and Cooperatives Donors NRCF

Socio-economic and socio-cultural life in Zambia

EconomyZambia is a landlocked country in Southern Africa, with a total land area of 752,000 km². It has abundant natural resources and fine wildlife affording the country with significant tourism potential for creating employment and earning foreign exchange earning. It is also endowed with various minerals and precious stones such as copper, emeralds, zinc, lead and cobalt, and was once a single commodity economy dependent on copper. Agricultural potential is high, but the commercial sector and upstream and downstream linkages remain weak. Administratively, the country is divided into 9 provinces, which are further subdivided into 72 districts.The economy, however, is small, with excessive non-value-adding regulation. Costs are extremely high compared to neighbours. Tax rates are high, as are import tariffs, but perhaps one of the major intangible contributing factors is the high level of transaction costs. This includes a plethora of regulations and permissions, slow legal systems and weak property rights.

A.111

PopulationThe population of Zambia has continued to grow. The 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses estimated the population for Zambia to be at 5.7 million, 7.8 million and 9.9 million respectively. However, annual population growth rate show a decline from 3.1% between 1969 to 1980 to 2.7% between 1980 and 1990, and most recently 2.4% between 1990 and 2000. Zambia is one of the most urbanized countries in sub-Saharan Africa with about 35% of its population in urban areas. Despite some 72-language groups in Zambia, ethnic conflict is low.

PovertyPoverty is a serious problem in Zambia. A series of national surveys summarized by Central Statistics Office (CSO) for 1991, 1993, 1996 and 1998 show that poverty remains severe throughout the country, but especially in rural areas (see Table 6).

Table 6 - Overall and Extreme Poverty in Zambia by ResidenceZambia Rural Area Urban Area

Year Overall Poverty

Extreme Poverty

Overall Poverty

Extreme Poverty

Overall Poverty

Extreme Poverty

1991199319961998

70%74%69%73%

58%61%53%58%

88%92%83%83%

81%84%68%71%

49%45%46%56%

32%24%27%36%

Source: CSO-2000 Census of population and housing

Zambia’s economy has since independence in 1964 been dependant on copper mining, and until 1991 was centrally planned. Currently the country is implementing the economic recovery programme, intended to promote economic growth, stabilize the economy, promote the private sector, privatize state owned activities and improve infrastructure and social services delivery systems. Whilst there has been progress since the beginning of the programme, it has been slow. GDP growth has fluctuated from 2.2 % in 1999 to 3.6% in 2000, 4.9% in 2001 and 3.0% in 2002.

Land TenureWeak tenure is a serious constraint on economic development in Zambia. It certainly constrains the growth of a commercial wildlife sector. Confusion over land and resource rights also results in open access use regimes, with little internalization of costs and benefits, and therefore low levels of responsibility and re-investment in the resource base. Weak tenure is perhaps the major reason that Zambia remains a land of potential, rather than actualization of this potential.

Political StabilityIn Zambia’s favour, the country has been stable politically and despite internal conflicts in many neighbouring countries has remained peaceful. Democratic elections are held regularly, and an attempt by the previous President to extend his term of office to a third term was foiled.

A.112

Key Stakeholders and a Review of their Capability, Roles and Potential Conflicts in Zambia’s Protected Area ManagementThe key stakeholders relevant to the management of Protected Areas include government, private sector and civil society.Table 7 – Key stakeholders, their capabilities and interests, and potential sources of conflict

Key Stakeholder Capabilities/Current Role in Protected Area Management Interests in Reclassification Project Potential Conflicts and Mitigation Strategies

Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)

Statutory Authority with responsibility for management of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries,

Oversight / management of GMAs (including allocation of concessions and retention/ distribution of revenues)

Enforce rules and regulations; formulate and interpret policies including communities and private sector

To regulate the management and utilization of the protected areas natural resource

Provision of services (guides/guards) to tourism,

Monitoring of wildlife

Clarification of role/s and PA policy

Assistance with managing some Pas

Assistance with developing private and community models

Potential recipients of PA funding

ZAWA is both the regulatory and management Authority

ZAWA opposes full fiscal devolution to communities because of impact on ZAWA income

Income generating focus may conflict with conservation objectives

MITIGATION: Quality facilitation of role negotiation process Source funding for 10-15 years until ZAWA

is independently sustainable Exposure / training / upgrading of leadership

to emphasize broader national economic and biodiversity role

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR)

Initiate policy and legal reforms for PA sector Overall coordination of National

Environmental Action Plans

Potential source and recipient of project funding

Undertake protected areas legal and policy reforms and establishment of guidelines

Lack of capacity to effectively regulate ZAWA, ZAFCOM etc.

MITIGATION: Quality facilitation in define realistic

mandateEnvironmental Council of Zambia(ECZ)

Statutory Authority with mandate (but limited capacity) to regulate and monitor the management and utilization of natural resources in the PAs.

Possible recipient of project funding

Lack of capacity to regulate ZAWA, ZAFCOM etc and to enforce the EPPCA

Conflicts with ZAWA, MTENR over regulation responsibility

MITIGATION: Quality facilitation in define realistic

mandate Traditional Chiefs Allocation of land to the locals and investors

for settlements, agriculture and other developments Control of many community activities

Powerful in local context, so play an important role in communities and GMAs

Empowerment of communities may threaten chief’s monopoly on power

MITIGATION: Clear institutional policies and guidelines

(which must be democratic, accountable, transparent and equitable if they are to work)

A.113


Community Resource Boards (CRBs)

Supposed to lead the management of wildlife sector in GMAs (but lack capacity and institutional definition)

Legal power to prepare and enforce rules and regulations for effective management of NR

Strong tendency towards lack of transparency in management of community affairs

Interested in funding and technical support.

Could be considerably empowered by proposed role changes, leading to significant subsequent sustainable, community-initiated development

CRB at field sites interested in becoming CCA managers

Elite capture, lack of transparency is a serious threat

Lack of resources and skills reduce effective participation

Community goals and objectives may not be compatible with conservation needs

MITIGATION: Clear policy and guidelines Active monitoring of conformance with

CBNRM principles Effective CBNRM support agencies Effective use of producer forums Effective dissemination of information, such

as revenue earned, disbursed, etc.

Ordinary community members

De facto these are the prime users of natural resources (albeit in a highly disempowered, disorganised and open access framework)

Generally capable when empowered

Strong interest in empowerment for psychological as well as economic reasons

Can be highly effective managers of natural resources

At the bottom of the pile, so any empowerment brings conflict with ‘higher’ authorities

MITIGATION: Clearly defined devolutionary policy

supported by guidelines, information, monitoring and access to legal restitution

Private SectorLandholders

Potentially effective natural resource managers with the capacity to produce both biodiversity and economic benefits

Tend to be disempowered by present regulations, or at least confused by them

Hence sector is much smaller than it should be, but is nevertheless experimenting – the primary crucible of innovation

Employment opportunities to the local communities

Contributing to revenue generation of the PAs through payment of concession fees

Clarification and liberalization of regulatory environment could release considerable potential

Income generating focus of business may conflict with conservation goals

Lack of trust between government officials and private sector

District Councils Formulation and enforcement of bye-laws Preparation of land use plans (legal rights but

limited capacity and some role confusions) Coordinating and preparation of district

development plans and projects

Securing benefits for members

May be threatened by empowerment of communities

A.114


Forest Department Statutory mandate to establish, protect and manage national forests, ecosystems and biodiversity

Undertaking inventories and monitoring of forest resources

Responsible for all forest reserves in the country

Legal mandate to regulate management and use of forest resources

Extract revenues from legal use of timber (but currently only collect 3% of fees)

May bring the weakness of this agency into sharper perspective

Compete with communities over forest-related income

May oppose transparency and role clarification

MITIGATION: Clear roles for FD and communities

regarding timber and NTFPs

Fisheries Department

Development of commercial fishing and enforcement of fishing regulations and laws (i.e. fish ban)

Regulate use and management of fisheries in the country as well as registration of fishermen and their boats

Much potential to initiate effective community based fisheries

Potential role in supporting field demonstration sites

Few conflicts, and may welcome community initiatives and possible support of policy formulation needs

NHCC Statutory agencies that regulates use and management of all national heritage sites

Protect and conserve all heritage sites Promotion and interpreting of cultural and

heritage site

Minor player, although reclassification will affect NHCC

Identification of new heritage sites at field demonstration sites

Potential for major conflict over use of revenues from Victoria Falls

MITIGATION Clear ruling by MTENR on use of Vic Falls

revenuesDepartment of Water Affairs

Provide guidelines for protection of watersheds and catchment areas

Minor players Minor

Department of Lands

Regulate management and use of land Could be critical if Project gets to the point of discussing land tenure

Unclear. A role in resolving the many conflicts over land

Donors Funding programs and projects for effective management of the resources such as preparation of general management plans, capacity building, Biodiversity inventories and monitoring.

Framework for investment in sector

Integration with on-going (and much larger) protected area initiatives

Co-financing of project activities

Lack of coordination between overlapping project agreement

Project agreements poorly interpreted and applied

MITIGATION Informal coordination through Forum

CBNRM Support Agencies and International NGOs

Initiating some CBNRM programmes, mainly in wildlife or livelihood (i.e. agricultural sector)

Carry out some conservation programmes in biodiversity conservation (mediocre track record)

Interest in taking on project management roles, including CBNRM support

More financial support and institutional growth

Conflict over roles and access to GEF money

MITIGATION: Impose tight field impact performance

controls measures and peer review Consider demand driving support, e.g.

communities get vouchers to purchase support of their choice

A.115


Local NR NGOs Tend to be weak Potential to strengthen local NGOs

Conflict over roles and access to GEF money

Tendency to become pseudo consultancies rather than genuine grass-roots advocacy groups

MITIGATIONLink grants strongly to performance and long

term mandateCBOs Tend to be weak or non-existent Much potential to strengthen

these as part of civic strengthening Tend to be subservient to government and

national organizationsMITIGATION Grant clear rights, and make available legal

recourseNatural Resources Consultative Forum

Envisaged role as formal meeting place for government agencies, NGOs, donors and the private sector

Envisaged role is development of technical assessments and Advisory Notes to Ministers

Much potential as a vehicle for policy discussions, and for peer-based monitoring systems

Battles over control of NRCF slowing implementation

MITIGATION Focus on substantive issues

A.116

Participation PlanThe following pages outline the stakeholder participation plan for the project.

Legal and policy reformsStakeholders from all nine provinces are invited to three regional stakeholder workshops, to gather their input on five legal and policy reform processes: policies for reclassification, new PA categories, PA management partnerships, community management structures and the role of traditional leaders. Civil society will debate policy reforms through the project-funded Natural Resources Consultative Forum. A national stakeholder workshop then follows, which focuses on validating and amending the draft policies and guidelines.

Improved governance frameworksNRCFThe Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF) will be a national forum which will be established to facilitate civil society input into environmental and PA sector issues. Participants will include representatives of community PA managers, private and civil society PA management partners, private sector tourism operators, environmental NGOs, government and donors. NRCF itself will be a key mechanism for stakeholder participation on legal and policy reforms supported by the project.Financial managementLocal community management institutions (CRB and VAG) and selected community members in all 34 GMA across the country will receive training in sound financial governance, to enhance accountability and transparency at local levels. This will empower community managers to know and better defend their rights concerning benefit sharing from ZAWA and will enable VAG and community members to know and defend their rights concerning benefit sharing from the CRBs.

ReclassificationThe initial process of refining reclassification criteria will be done in conjunction with stakeholder input ranging from local to national levels, supplemented with a literature review of experience outside Zambia. The reclassification plan will be part of the Conservaion Plan for the National System of PA. Its formulation will involve regional and national workshops for stakeholder inputs and validation.

M&E systemsImproved systems for monitoring and evaluating wildlife populations and ecosystem health will be developed. Initial research and design will be done by experts, but the core of the task will be undertaken through extensive field testing and adaptation. A small number of PAs and their local communities will be selected, where the evolving systems will be deployed, using local community members (trained ZAWA and village scouts, as well as other local community members). The results, feedback and experience from the testing will be used to enhance and refine the systems for implementation across the country.

Conservation PlanPreparation of the overall Conservation Plan will necessitate four workshops: three regional and a national-level, designed to draw upon different sources of knowledge and expertise, and to ensure that the plan reflects a multi-stakeholder consensus For each potential priority site for reclassification, field visits will investigate the degree of support for individual site reclassification, at the local level.

Field Demonstration SitesOverviewIO3 is concerned with demonstrating the potential of the laws, policies and tools developed in IO1 and IO2, at the two field demonstration sites (FDS) in Bangweulu and Chiawa/Lower Zambezi. The intention at both is to combine a highly participatory reclassification exercise with implementation of new community management structures. To this end they follow similar sets of processes, which will run in parallel at the two sites, though the balance is very different between the two: at Bangweulu, the emphasis is on the reclassification planning of this complex site, while at Chiawa / Lower Zambezi, the emphasis is on the creation and development of a new community-managed conservation area under the new legislation to be

developed. The creation of the CCA will involve the nearly full devolution of authority to communities and will enable communities to retain the full benefits from the commercial use of the CCA resources. As part of the project proposal preparation, local stakeholder groups and community members were invited to workshops at both field sites. The outline of project objectives and proposed mechanisms for participation were presented, and discussed. The intention at these workshops was, as with every activity and process listed below, to gather as much input and feedback as possible, from stakeholders at every level. This input will be incorporated into the project design in a dynamic, adaptive fashion. Once project implementation begins, the first steps build intensively on the preliminary site workshops: further discussions with traditional leaders, CRB and community representatives, government authorities and NGOs to refine the project objectives. This will be in conjunction with a broad-based awareness-raising process carried out at the community level. Both will operate in two directions: project staff will have an opportunity to present the project framework, while community members will have the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and experience, influencing the outcomes.These first tentative steps are critical for securing broad support from the community for the project. At this point, the project must neither demand nor promise too much, as both can erode support and develop into cynicism as the project proceeds.

Reclassification at the FDSThroughout the preparation of reclassification options, there is funding for a small number of community representatives to meet regularly with the consultants undertaking the technical analyses. This is to further the value of exchanges between consultants and local stakeholders: the consultants will be able to benefit from the local knowledge and field expertise of FDS inhabitants, while the stakeholders will benefit from an increased understanding of the techniques employed, resulting in increased understanding and support for technical approaches to conservation and protected area design.Project staff will influence the reclassification process only as far as ensuring that the reclassification analysis is completed, and a list of options presented, and facilitating discussions of those options. The decision to create, or not create a new PA at Bangweulu will be made by representatives from local communities and national bodies. The final decision will be taken through an extensive series of workshops held at a range of levels, reflecting the importance of securing input and support from all levels of community.

Fisheries Management in the Bangweulu WetlandsParticipatory approaches will be used to investigate the complex issues concerning fishery resources in the Bangweulu area. In combination with technical analyses, input from local people will be used to develop management recommendations for fisheries. After a preliminary list of possible options has been identified, the principle of subsidiarity of decision-making, should ensure that decisions are made at the lowest possible level of authority.

CCA managementThe creation of community-managed PA at Chiawa, and probably at Bangwaelu, will be the most advanced form of participation. As with reclassification, the framework will be set up by the project, while the decision-making will only operate in consultation with local stakeholders. Communities will be given nearly full powers to control access and to manage the lands and resources within the boundaries of the new CCA and to collect and manage the revenues from the use of these resources. Representative community management structures will be based on good governance principles of transparency, equity and accountability.

Capacity building A major portion of project resources at the field sites will be invested in the development of capacities at the level of communities and the community managers. This will address, where necessary, issues of effective participation, planning, management, recordkeeping, bookkeeping, business management accountability, transparency, involvement of women and minority groups – all of which are important outside of the project in the wider context of democratisation and strengthening of civil society. Further capacity building will take place with the current and potential community wildlife and NR managers, to address the skills needed to manage wildlife effectively: adaptive management, democratic processes, and so on. A key to sustainability will be the development of local CCA/NR management funds to be fed out of a portion of the revenues derived from NR use.

A.118

Exchange visits will be organised, to projects and programmes within Zambia and in the wider southern Africa sub-region. The aim is to make best use of the wide range of experiences from other sites, to learn and incorporate those lessons into project implementation.

Enterprise development The project will support community and user group participation in the development of small to medium income-generating businesses based on NR products, ranging from ecotourism to the sustainable use of NR, and will be addressed under IO3, at the field sites. There is much experience with community-based enterprise development in the wildlife sector in southern Africa, including joint ventures between communities and private sector partners for game viewing/ecotourism and for safari hunting. Other NR-based income generating activities may include such diverse products/activities as mushrooms, beekeeping, fuelwood production from managed forests, etc.

Cross-sectoral issuesPartnerships Central to this Project is the development of innovative partnerships for PA management, between different combinations of public, private/civil society and community actors. MTENR will develop a new policy framework for PA management partnerships under IO 1. A formal monitoring system for these partnerships will be developed under IO 2 and the modified METT will be used for monitoring the effectiveness of these partnerships. New forms of partnerships, especially civil society/community partnerships, will be tested at developed at the two field sites.

HIV/AIDSSub-Saharan Africa is seriously affected by HIV/AIDS – it is home to 70% of people who have been infected, or have developed AIDS23. In Zambia, 17% of rural households have experienced an HIV/AIDS-related death24. The impacts of the epidemic permeate into all parts of society, including interactions with the environment. The effects are felt particularly strongly with the death and long-term illness of economically and physically active workers, which reduces agricultural labour supply and necessitates a switch to alternative sources of food and income – often harvesting of wild food sources and illegal hunting of wildlife. Livestock may also be sold, to pay for medicines and the care of patients, which reduces long term sustainability of food and income. HIV/AIDS limits development in all parts of society and leads to an overall increase in poverty – this is a self-reinforcing link as poverty can increase the prevalence of AIDS/HIV. Since the links between poverty and environmental degradation are also strong, the epidemic has a strong negative effect on the health of the environment.

GenderThe position of women in Zambian society is improving, but still leaves much room for improvement. All state institutions involved in environmental management and ZAWA in particular need considerable support to improve both their gender sensitivity and community participation approaches. Planning for PA management should always incorporate gender issues into the development agenda, in order to reduce the gender gap by a) targeting both men and women in its activities and providing sufficient investment funds to assist in improving the gender balance, and b) training community members, civil society in institution staff and government staff in gender sensitive approaches. Overall the project envisages improved gender equity development at community, institutional and civil society levels. There are differences in the way men and women participate in environmental issues. For example, men place a higher level of trust in scientific information, while women value open discussion. Women in rural areas, such as the demonstration sites, are often busier with domestic work than men, such that they have less time available for participation, so are likely to be underrepresented. These differences should be acknowledged and investigated further at the implementation sites, for better design and implementation of participatory processes.

23 SIDA (2003) The Environment, Natural Resources and HIV/AIDS24 Figure for 1998, in Zambia PRSP (2002)

A.119

Participatory MechanismsTable 8 – Participatory mechanisms, by immediate outcomeProject Element

Participatory mechanisms

IO1 a) Review of lessons learned from stakeholder experience of CBNRM in Zambia and across southern Africa

b) Regional workshops for stakeholder inputc) National workshops for stakeholder inputd) NRCF – a major platform for stakeholder input into legal and policy reforms and

other PA sector issues.e) Capacity building: in consultation with local people, knowledge and skills gaps will

be identified and addressed.IO2 f) Refine criteria for reclassification through stakeholder workshops and input.

g) Investigate and secure support for reclassification at field sites through visits.h) Direct participation of CRBs in development of M&E systems i) Regional and national workshops for stakeholder input and validation of Conservation

PlanIO3 j) PDF-Phase stakeholder meetings to confirm stakeholder approval of project

objectives.k) Awareness-raising and 2-way dialogue at project implementation to capitalise on

support.l) Village level capacity-building workshops to build core skills required in

reclassification exercise.m) Training for CCA managers, with consultation as above.n) Exchange visits within and outside Zambia – to share ideas and experience.o) Technical and participatory survey to identify best practice for fisheries.p) Extensive community surveys using participatory techniques.q) Multiple stakeholder-workshops to debate advantages and disadvantages of

reclassification options.r) Final, participatory workshop to decide on reclassification option (including no

change).s) Test/develop science-based monitoring tools.t) Annual adaptive management meetings to ensure CCA management is following a

sustainable path.

A.120

ANNEX 4: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

Content

This annex contains drafts plans for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems for project management. This is followed by Addendum 1, a review of the World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) and recommendation for its modification for use in Zambia.

1. Project Level

M&E is an essential tool for measuring project impact and for informing decision-making at the project level. The proposed scheme aims to provide accurate, timely and relevant information to aid implementation at the national level, as well as for the field demonstration sites. Through a process of scheduled and informal reviews, feedback will be drawn on to improve project delivery. These processes, augmented by financial auditing will ensure that project implementation exhibits the attributes of accountability and transparency. The M&E system is composed of three components: monitoring, reporting, and adapting. The project will be implemented through an adaptive framework which feeds the findings of monitoring into operational planning, enabling management strategies to be modified to reflect the evolving situation. The recommendations emerging from the reports should be evaluated and incorporated into management wherever required as part of an on-going adaptive process. The plan laid out below is split into reporting and monitoring– the systematic adoption of recommendations arising is assumed to take place at every stage.

a) Responsible agencies/offices

The following agencies and offices will be involved either in monitoring, evaluating or reporting on the project.

Steering committee (SC)Composed of the Permanent Secretaries from four Ministries and a representative of UNDP Zambia, the SC will have the highest policy-level responsibility for oversight, guidance and monitoring. The four ministries are: Tourism, Environment, Natural Resources; Agriculture and Cooperatives; Lands; and Finance and National Planning. The SC will meet twice a year during the period of intensive work or legal and policy reform during the first two years and will meet once per year after that. The SC will provide oversight and guidance for the project from a policy and programmatic perspective, will ensure the full integration and support of their ministries and will address problems and constraints, and propose solutions where appropriate.

Technical Advisory Group (TAG)The TAG will be a group of 10 individuals from government and civil society who will be selected based on their competence in their fields. It membership will include individuals from private sector safari hunting and tourism operators, as well as private and civil society sector operators involved in PA management (such as African Parks and Frankfurt Zoological Society). Bi-annually it will review and provide advice on all technical and organisational issues related to project management, especially related to the new tools, strategies and policies.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resource (MTENR)MTENR has responsibility for developing PA legislation and policies and oversight of ZAWA. As the executing agency for the project, they will carry out routine, weekly monitoring of the project. Through their Project Implementation Unit, they will have daily responsibilities for project inputs and monitoring. Monitoring by the MTENR of the field demonstration sites will be especially important, as these field level experiences will be used to enrich the policy and legal reform process. MTENR will also closely monitor the findings and recommendations of the results of the civil society inputs/debates through the NRCF. MTENR will integrate these inputs into project monitoring and into legal and policy reforms.

UNDP/GEF Regional Technical Coordinator (RTC)The RTC will monitor the project through the APR and through communications with the UNDP CO. The RTC act as the principle conduit between UNDP Lusaka, UNDP/GEF New York, and GEF.

Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)ZAWA will play the lead role in the monitoring and coordination of field sites and field implementation partners. ZAWA HQ and the PIU will conduct quarterly field site visits (sometimes accompanied by representatives of MTENR and/or UNDP) to monitor progress, identify problems and take measures to resolve them.

Project Implementation Unit (PIU)The PIU is charged with day-to-day of management of all local contracts and for coordinating the inputs of international consultants The PIU will have responsibility for the preparing/synthesizing quarterly and annual reports using the quarterly and annual reports of all the implementing agencies for the project. The PIU has specific responsibility for monitoring the indicators specified as their responsibility in Table 9 below and will monitor the timeliness of the execution of the project workplan.

Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF)NRCF will be a national forum established to facilitate civil society input into environmental and PA sector issues. Membership of the forum will include representatives of community PA managers, private and civil society PA management partners, private sector tourism operators, environmental NGOs, government and donors. Key legal and policy reforms supported by the project will be addressed by NRCF, as well as other PA sector issues identified by the project. Civil society will thus play an indirect role in project monitoring through the NRCF.

b) Periodic reporting mechanisms

Quarterly

Reporting on implementation progress will take place on a quarterly basis. Each implementing agency will prepare their own quarterly report in time for the PIU to use them to prepare an overall quarterly report for the project. Quarterly reports will allow for routine and frequent problem-identification and problem-solving, to ensure smooth implementation.

Annual Project Report – APR

The APR meets both UNDP and GEF annual reporting requirements. It is a self-assessment prepared by the PIU and completed by the UNDP CO. It will detail progress achieved in meeting project objectives, especially in relation to the work plan. It will also cover constraints to progress, measures already taken to overcome them, recommendations for tackling future constraints, and lessons learned by the PIU.

UNDP Country Office (UNDP CO) and UNDP/GEF Regional Technical Coordinator will, as appropriate, conduct yearly visits to the project field sites

c) Monitoring

Table 9 lists the principle impact indicators used, along with the justification for their choice and the institutional responsibility for monitoring the indicators.

A.122

Table 9 - Principle indicators, rationale and responsibility for monitoringLevel Indicator Rationale ResponsibilityProject Objective

The GRZ-approved Conservation Plan for the National System of PA is being implemented. Under the Plan, priority sites for reclassification have been identified as needed to achieve an average of 10% coverage of each ecosystem/vegetation type (Hearns) to ensure conservation of globally important ecosystem biodiversity. The most appropriate category of PA and the most appropriate forms of public/ private/ community management partnerships have been identified for each priority site.

Achievement of 10% coverage is a global target, which will be modified where appropriate. This indicator puts the emphasis on conservation of ecosystem-level biodiversity. An objective analysis of optimal categories and management system for each priority site is a key innovation of this project.

PIU & ZAWA & Final evaluation

Approved, published Conservation Plan for the National System of PA

The Conservation Plan is essential for defining priorities and measures to achieve optimal conservation with limited resources. Government approval for the Plan is critical.

MTENR & PIU & Final evaluation

At end-of-project (EOP), there will have been a net movement of 25% of NP and 20% of GMA to a higher category of management effectiveness using the following preliminary definition of METT categories (The METT score is an indicator of management effectiveness. 10 PA were ranked during project preparation. The METT baseline will be established for all NP and GMA during Yr. 1):

60-96 High 25-60 IntermediateLess than 25 Low

All newly created CCA and SHA will have at least an Intermediate ranking.

Improving management effectiveness is the greatest challenge to increasing protection of Zambia’s PAs.

Local contract managed by PIU to apply the modified METT in Yr 1, 3 and 6

A.123

Level Indicator Rationale ResponsibilityOutcome 1

At EOP, the following legislation, policies and policy guidelines have been adopted: New policies for reclassification of

PA A new law for the creation of 2 new

categories of PA (CCA and SHA) A new policy framework for

public/private/ community partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA & SHA



Each legal / policy reform is targeted to overcome policy barriers to improving PA management effectiveness and biodiversity conservation.

ZAWA & PIU & Final evaluation

At least 2 CCA are created and are supported by community-private partnerships.

Lessons learned from community-based wildlife management in southern Africa indicate that maximum devolution of authority and maximisation of revenues are the two most important factors for success. The CCA are based on these principles.

ZAWA & PIU & Final evaluation

All CRB receive financial statements giving basis of revenue sharing. All CRB/CCA boards and selected community representatves receive training in financial safeguards and accountability.

Lack of transparency in revenue-sharing is considered a key constraint to effective partnerships and reduces incentives for community management and conservation.

Done as part of PIU contract for applying modified METT at MT and EOP

Outcome 2


Use of business planning for PA management is one of the key innovations for managing PAs on a sustainable basis, and ensuring the efficient use of limited resources.

PIU and part of modified METT at MT and EOP

The Conservation Plan for the national system of PA is the basic document guiding the reclassification, management and development of priority PA in Zambia. The investment and marketing plans are used to mobilize and direct PA sector investments by private sector investors, donors and GRZ and to identify and mobilize partners for PA management.

The final evaluation will determine that these plans are not just sitting on a shelf, but that they are being used and applied as a key strategy document.

MTENR & PIU & Final evaluation

A.124

Level Indicator Rationale ResponsibilityOutcome 3

Management effectiveness index of all field demonstration site PA are increased as below with a minimum ranking of Intermediate for all sites. Chiawa GMA: 50 Bangweulu GMA: 45 Kafinda GMA:45 Kasanka NP: 75 Lavushi Manda NP: 35

Use of the modified METT will provide a measure of how effective the project has been at increasing management effectiveness in each of the target PAs.

PIU contract for applying modified METT at MT and EOP

All CCA created out of the Chiawa, Bangweulu/Chikuni and Kafinda GMA are legally gazetted and under community management structures certified under the new CCA law. They are supported by private (non-government) partners.

Legal gazetting of the new CCA and registration of community management structures are critical to the sustainability of the CCA beyond the end of the project.

PIU & Final evaluation

The CCA’s M&E systems shows that the populations of large herbivores in the CCA has increased by 50% since the beginning of the project.

Trophy hunting and game viewing will generally be principle economic activities in the CCA, and both are dependent on wildlife populations. An increase in population will demonstrate the capacity of CCA management in protecting wildlife/conserving biodiversity.

CCA M&E system as verified by ZAWA and aerial surveys by lead field partner at each site


The ability to cover management costs out of revenue is essential to the sustainability of the CCA.

Inspection of CCA account books by ZAWA and PIU

d) Independent evaluation

In addition to the reviews and reports compiled by project staff, the project will be subjected to two independent, external evaluations, at the mid-term, and towards completion. Both evaluations will be conducted by mixed teams of international and national consultants.

Mid-term review

This review will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of project design and the progress made towards the achievement of objectives. It will concentrate on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation, highlighting analysing key issues, and presenting initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Of principal importance are recommendations for building upon project strengths and for corrective measures to overcome project weaknesses.

Final evaluation

Three months prior to the end of the project, another independent external evaluation will take place, focussing on lessons learned, and evaluating the impacts and sustainability of results, including the contribution made to capacity development and to the achievement of global environmental goals.

A.125

e) Audit clause

Auditing is another form of project monitoring. The PIU will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, including an annual audit of financial statements relating to the status of UNDP/GEF funds, according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance Manuals. The audit will be conducted by a legally recognised auditor, engaged by the PIU and will cover all project components.

f) Knowledge Development and Management

The information produced, and knowledge gained from the reporting processes will be made available to as wide an audience as possible. The proposed system for sharing information is planned to operate both internally within the project and externally.

Internal

The outputs from the reporting processes detailed above should provide the input for ongoing adaptation of project implementation, at all levels. The full value of the various reports can only be realised if the information contained within is made available to the widest possible group of interested parties. This is particularly important for this project, as activities will take place at a number of different sites and policy levels: an efficient system for information dissemination is therefore vital to ensure coordination between the dispersed activity sites (both geographical and political) and to eliminate or reduce duplication of efforts.

The system should ensure delivery between the following: PIU and site implementation units; nationwide workshops; ZAWA; MTENR;

External UNDP/GEF; UNEP; Ministries, government agencies; Across sub-region (southern Africa, SSA); Global – relevant projects, programmes and initiatives outside of UNDP/GEF system; NGOs; Other UN projects (eg Policy project)

Media

Depending on the relevant target audience, any of the following media could be used (in most cases more than one should be used):

printed media – either photocopied or professionally printed; verbal communication – workshops and presentations; electronic distribution – floppy disk, CD-ROM or emailed soft-copies of documents; website – this should act as a central repository for all other types of media, as well as contact details; e-mail distribution lists – to regularly update all interested parties;

g) Adaptation

As recommendations from the above reports and reviews become available, the PIU in conjunction with implementing agencies should make arrangements to put them into practice.

A.126

ANNEX 5: REVIEW OF LESSONS LEARNED FROM CBNRM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Jones, B.T.B. (2003) Lessons learned from the philosophy and practice of CBRNM in Southern Africa. Paper for Southern African workshop in preparation for the WPC, 2003.

BackgroundCrucial elements for successful CBNRM implementation:

a) economic incentives: benefits must exceed costs to guarantee investment of time, effort and resources by the landholder

b) devolution of rights and tenure over land and resourcesc) collective proprietorshipd) appropriate scale (social and ecological)e) community empowerment

“if a resource is valuable and landholders have the rights to use, benefit from and manage the resource, then sustainable use is likely”

This rests on 3 assumptions:1) the resource is given a focused value that can be realised by the landholder2) authority is devolved form central to community bodies3) collective proprietorship functions

Specific Lessons:Economic

1. Economic incentives are difficult to apply where income has to be divided between large numbers of people and/or different institutions. However, where income is relatively high, where there are small numbers of people, and where income accrues directly to local residents, then economic incentives can have an impact. Evidence from CAMPFIRE25 demonstrates that economic instrumentalism can work where income from wildlife is high and the number of beneficiaries is low or especially poor: in this case the success was believed to be due to significant institutional change in those areas.

2. Economic incentives are not sufficient alone, particularly where income to households is relatively small. It is crucial to ensure that strong proprietorship is devolved to local jurisdictions. Local managers need to be able to determine the level of use and the methods of use without requiring quotas and permits from government. A 1999 study of ADMADE and LIRDP26 concluded that illegal off-take continued at pre-project intervention levels partly because the individual returns from hunting far outweighed a resident’s share of the benefits from the projects.

3. Where economic benefits are perceived by residents to be high/useful and devolution reaches the lowest appropriate levels, then CBNRM is at its most effective.

Political4. Problems with devolution of authority probably represent the biggest single obstacle to CBNRM in

Southern Africa. Constraints to devolution include:

a. Policy change is often limited and conditional compromises, based on existing legislation which is not necessarily ideal of adequate. CBNRM in Southern Africa typically bestows resource rights, but not land rights

b. In Zambia, communities tend to be passive recipients of income, without engaging in active management, partly because state retains high degree of control. For example, hunting ban in 2001 remove the main opportunity for communities to benefit from wildlife.

c. Attempts by government to regain control lost through decentralisation, for example, in Namibia through attempted re-interpretation of new legislation to require conservancies to

25 Reference on page 9: Bond, 200126 Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (reference on page 9: Gibson, 1999)

acquire permits and quotas: this was successfully resisted by communities and NGOs working with them, and this is a highly positive sign.

d. There is a need to address the in-built tendency of bureaucratic hierarchies to seek increased authority from above, while resisting its devolution to levels below.

5. There is a large gap between new policies, and the institutional ethos of most organisations responsible for its application. Many wildlife officials do not trust local communities, and fear there will be no role for themselves. CBRNM needs to be “mainstreamed” as an acceptable conservation tool.

a. The Tanzanian National Parks Authority (TANAPA) provides an example of where institutional reform was achieved, by: mainstreaming community conservation; selling the idea to officials as being beneficial to their work and not diminishing their authority; performance evaluated on basis of relationships with neighbours; community conservation applied alongside law enforcement and not as alternative.

6. New institutions for management face challenges in establishing themselves among other competing sources of authority, especially traditional leaders. They must also establish internal legitimacy: this is easier if social units are cohesive and collaboration is voluntary. This is also made easier if the new institutions can deliver benefits that are important to members: whether financial or intangible.

7. Accountability: community wildlife management committees tend to concentrate more on accountability upwards to donors and technical support organisations, rather than downwards to the organisation’s members.

8. Security of tenure over land is an important foundation for sustainable management of land and resources by local communities. Without such security of tenure, many attempts to manage individual resources sustainably are undermined.

Practical9. Putting “collective proprietorship” into practice has proved difficult: in Zimbabwe and Botswana,

pre-definition of communities using existing administrative units was simple and quick, but often brings together groups which would not cooperate. But in Namibia, self-definition led to the re-opening of long-standing land, ethnic and tribal disputes. Giving rights to communities represented by committees enables local elites to capture the decision-making process – there is a need to ensure that collective proprietorship is enjoyed by the majority of residents and resource users.

10. From Mozambique27: it appears that a combination of regulation and control by game scouts, coupled with wildlife income used for grinding mills, and improvements to schools, village shops etc, has provided incentives for changing behaviour.

11. The ADMADE and LIRDP projects did not adequately exclude those who continued to hunt illegally. This promoted free-riding: individuals benefiting without modifying their resource use activities. This can have an important impact on whether communities opt for public works or household dividend. For example, by building a classroom, a person obeying the rules might be excluded from benefiting because they have no children at school, while a poacher with children will benefit while continuing to hunt.

12. CBNRM programmes in Southern Africa have tended to focus on empowering committees that represent relatively large numbers of people. This creates the danger of a centralisation of decision-making removed from the lowest appropriate levels.

13. There is sufficient evidence from Southern Africa to suggest that conservation of wildlife and other natural resource need not be confined to formally proclaimed state-run areas28.

14. A number of examples are emerging29 where scaling up is beginning to take place with the lowest levels such as village bodies forming the foundations of accountable natural resource management governance systems.

27 Referenced page 928 Refer page 1629 Refer pages 16 and 17

A.128

Strategies to improve performance of community-based approaches:a) Current policy and legislation should be revised on the basis

of the evidence linking sustainable management with strong proprietorship and strong economic incentives.

b) This implies the strengthening of the rights of local communities over their land and natural resources. Governments should give up their hold over crucial areas of decision-making and maintain an overall regulatory/supervisory function rather than a control function.

c) Devolution should be based on the lowest appropriate level of jurisdiction. From there, scaling up should take place, where necessary, through the delegation of authority upwards.

d) Institutional reform of wildlife agencies needs to be promoted and supported so that CBNRM can be “mainstreamed” and accepted by officials. The gap between the philosophy embodied in policy and the philosophy of the implementing institutions needs to be closed.

e) CBNRM practitioners should continue to lobby for secure group tenure over communal land. Group land rights that include rights of exclusion, should be promoted as a fundamental pre-requisite for sustainable management and the establishment of community conserved areas.

f) Models such as those used in South Africa for the restitution of land rights for communities who lost their land under apartheid should be developed for protected areas. This would restore proprietorship over the land to communities who were evicted from their land for the establishment of protected areas.

g) In order to increase the impact of economic benefits, income should reach household level. Support agencies need to give more attention to methods of income distribution that promote direct household benefit (e.g. the household distributions pioneered by CAMPFIRE where recipients then return any cash earmarked for community projects)

h) Decision-making about use of income should be taken at village level rather than at the supra committee level, ensuring greater participation by residents

i) Communities should be supported in maximising their income generation opportunities within acceptable environmental and social limits and taking into account tourist carrying capacities.

Martin, R. (2003) Condition for Effective, Stable and Equitable Conservation at the National Level in Southern Africa. Paper prepared for a Workshop prior to World Parks Congress 2003.

This paper was prepared for a workshop prior to the World Parks Congress, 2003. As such, it focuses on National Parks, but does make extensive reference to land outside tight state control. The key points are summarised below.

He summarises all the socio-economic research findings on communities and conservation in Southern Africa since 1980 very simply as:

1. Devolution of authority to communities or landholders is a ‘cardinal input’2. Promotion of economic value for wild resources provides a positive incentive to conserve, provided

it is coupled to the first.

National Parks are not held to be the pinnacle of conservation, given the many examples of failing state-protected areas, and the many successful conservation examples outside state-protected areas.

“The soundest strategy for a state wildlife agency is to seek financial self-sufficiency for each protected area under its control and to divest itself of areas which are economically unsustainable” (De La Harpe, 1998)

The current state of community involvement in management is limited: in no southern African country can it be claimed that the first necessary condition for successful conservation outside national parks, that of devolution of authority for natural resources to landholders, has been fully met.

A.129

The centrality of links between poverty and environmental degradation are mentioned in the context of Zimbabwe: “simple demography, political instability and economic depression are causing movements of destitute people and forcing them to turn to the environment for the means of survival”.

Exclusionary policies for PA management are failing, so the real issues for PA in the future are:a) how can the full potential of their forest and wildlife resources be harnessed in sustainable national

and local economic development ?b) how can they be integrated into larger landscapes with a wider stakeholder participation in their

management ?

The author goes on to suggest ‘real world’ financial partnerships as a solution, which would provide: genuine joint management of the park by government and local stakeholders; a channel for investment in the park by concerned supporters; a mechanism under which the park could receive its revenues directly, re-invest them in both

capital and recurrent costs, and achieve financial self-sufficiency.

“The devolution of legal authority to landholders to manage and benefit from wildlife on their land is without doubt the single most important factor in successful conservation outside state protected areas” (Martin, 1993)

The paper ends with comments about the black-hole which is corruption. Seeing the potential benefits from conservation, “many bureaucrats seek to position themselves as ‘gate-keeper’ for any activity which might involve the issue of a permit, license of concession. To achieve this it is often necessary to go against existing provisions of the law, or withdraw rights and powers which had legally been granted to members of the public.” The antidote, he concludes, “lies in the proper practice of democracy”.

Child, B. (2003?) Principles, Practice and Results of Community Wildlife Management in Southern Africa

1. Careful consideration of scale is vital: “meeting under a tree” defines a community at a scale that allows for high levels of transparency, involvement and participatory democracy30.

2. Innovative tools for spending money generated by wildlife is perhaps the most powerful tool yet available to CBNRM31.

3. Despite significant investment in diversification, wildlife has been the subject of entrepreneurial activity for four decades, so the product is well developed.

Critical elements for sustainable use of resource: (the Price – Proprietorship - Subsidiarity Hypothesis):

PRICE – resource must be valuablePROPRIETORSHIP – this value must be captured by landholders (not stakeholders)SUBSIDIARITY – decisions must be taken at the lowest possible level

30 Refer page 1131 Refer page 10

A.130

The Fast track – focus is on devolving property rights:

- requires political will,- proven to be extremely effective,- relatively cheap,- relies on adaptive management.

The Slow track – focuses on capacity-building and hopes communities will demand property rights:

- unproven,- a possible approach where there is

limited political will- expensive because of (1) conflicts,

(2) difficulty of building capacity where communities have few rights

Murphree, Marshall W. (2000). Boundaries and Borders. Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP),Bloomington, Indiana, USA 31 May-4 June 2000.

The key comments from this seminal article by Murphree (2000) are listed in bullet form:

Protected areas have generally been uncritically linked with state ownership and management; Other IUCN Commissions observe that protected areas address only a fraction of global biodiversity

concerns and point out the sense of alienation experienced by local peoples whose land and resources have been expropriated to create national parks;

These commissions advocate inclusive policies where local people, acting collectively, are provided with incentives to take responsibility for and benefit from the economic development which protected areas can provide;

Similar policy shifts are occurring in a number of international conservation and development agencies and the old notion of “fortress conservation” is being displaced by new ideas of development through community conservation and sustainable use;

Performance of projects based on these new approaches has generally been well below expectations. Amongst the proximate reasons for failure are the following –

o Cohesive communities have been hard to identify;o Incentives for cohesion are absent or do not cover the transaction costs involved in developing or

maintaining cohesion;o The process requires time frames well beyond the impatient log frames of conventional donor project

development; ando Conservationists have tended to ‘colonise’ and capture projects and local actors have diverted

projects away from their central objectives. The ultimate and most fundamental reason for failure has been that the critical ingredient for

project success, that of devolution of authority and responsibility, has been missing; Governments (and NGO implementing agencies) have continued to retain ultimate power to shape

objectives and control benefits;o see community involvement as the same thing as “compliance”;o see participation as the same thing as “co-opting” communities; ando are reluctant, as politicians and bureaucrats, to surrender the power and control of access to resources

which is essential for robust devolution.

Hence most of the projects involving communities in natural resource management have simply become an exercise in “aborted devolution”.

He further stresses the need for alignment of authority, responsibility and incentives: Authority without responsibility is meaningless or obstructive; Responsibility without authority cannot be effective; Without responsibility or authority, there are no incentives to invest, manage or control.

USAID (1998) Assessment of CBNRM in Southern Africa. Prepared by Agricultural Development Consultants, Inc.

1. The dependent users of natural resources on common lands respond positively and effectively to the needs to manage and conserve those resources when they acquire the authority and responsibility to act for enhancement of their benefits.

2. The intent of conservation law or policy is best achieved when the people are motivated to participate with officials to achieve the objectives of that law or policy.

3. CBNRM programs are process oriented and evolutionary in nature; they do not spring fully formed into existence, nor do they mature rapidly. Progress is incremental, building on a series of successive changes as the motivation of the participants’ increases.

A.131

4. The national policy environment within a country allows for replication of CBNRM activities within that country, but differences in the institutional environments among countries makes it impossible to replicate programs from one country to another. Instead, CBNRM principles and lessons are adapted to each country's unique environment.

IUCN (1997) Community Wildlife Management in Southern African – A Regional Review. Evaluating Eden Series, Working Paper 11

1. Differential inputs must result in differential benefits: those bearing a higher cost should receive higher benefits.

2. There must be incentive for good management: greater rewards from better management.

3. The unit of proprietorship must be the same as the unit of production, management and benefit.

4. The unit of proprietorship should be as small as possible.

A.132

ANNEX 6: REPLICATION STRATEGY

The Reclassification and Effective Management project was developed from a detailed identification and analysis of barriers to effective management of the PA estate in Zambia. Strategies for overcoming these barriers include the development of improved legal, policy and governance frameworks, new and more effective forms of PA management partnerships and other tools for effective PA management.

At present, the management of PA in Zambia runs the full gamut of a spectrum ranging from a high level of effective management to low levels of effectiveness. The overall approach of the project is to shift as many PA as possible from the lower positions on this spectrum towards the higher levels of effective management. Improving management effectiveness will involve the development of measures to overcome barriers, testing, adapting and proving this measures and then mobilizing stakeholders and resources for replicating them.

Several activities will be undertaken to ensure that lessons that emerge during and from the project are captured and shared with relevant stakeholders. Measures for identifying and replicating lessons include the following:

1. The very design of this project has been strongly influenced by a half dozen reviews of lessons learned and best practices of community-based wildlife management in southern African. Thus the very basis for the project design is the replication of some of the measures that have been shown to work best across the sub-region;

2. The improved governance framework in Outcome 1 will include a strong knowledge management component. There is no suitable forum at present for exchanges experiences and lessons learned in the PA sector. The creation of the Natural Resources Consultative Forum will fill this gap. Knowledge management will be one of the key functions of the NRCF. NRCF will conduct reviews, assessments, identification of best practices and issues papers and will provide a participatory forum for the presentation and debate of issues by key PA sector stakeholders;

3. The two field demonstration sites (FDS) are key elements of the strategy for replicability. FDS will have a strong focus on community-managed conservation areas (CCA). Nothing is more effective in the replication of CBNRM than having villager-to-villager exchanges. Representatives of all the CRB in the country will be brought to the two FDS in the last two years of the project for awareness raising and direct person-to-person contact with CCA managers and members;

4. Two mid-term reviews at the end of Yrs 2 and 4 and the final evaluation near the end of Yr 6 will play keys roles in identifying project elements that are ready for replication and in developing recommendations/strategies for their effective replications;

5. A key function of the project M&E system is for adaptive management. This includes the identification of what works – and is ready for replication – and the modification of what is not working in order to better achieve project objectives;

6. Other bodies that will play strategic roles in replication will include the Steering Committee, the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and the Project Coordination Group. The Project Coordination Group will be one of the most effective means of replication because it includes the major donors to the PA sectors and most of the key PA managers/management partners.

The detailed project replication strategy will be based on lessons that emerge from the first phase of the project.

A.133

Strategy Anticipated Results and impacts

Anticipated Replication strategy/ roll out.

1. Outcome 1: Appropriate policy, regulatory and governance frameworks are in place providing new tools for public/private/civil society/community PA management partnerships

1.a Improved policy and legal frameworks will include policies for reclassification of PAs and new legislation for two new proposed categories of PA that will provide effective biodiversity conservation. The first will be a community-managed PA where conversion to agriculture or other land uses is not allowed but where communities enjoy full control and benefits from the sustainable, commercial use of wildlife and other NR. A second category of ZAWA-managed safari hunting areas will be created out of sections of national parks that have low potential for photo safaris but where trophy hunting may be a much more financially attractive management option.

At End-of-Project (EOP), the following legislation, policies and policy guidelines have been adopted: New policies for

reclassification A new law for the creation

of 2 new categories of PA (CCA and SHA)

A new policy framework for public/private/ civil society/community partnerships for NP, CCA, GMA & SHA



The new policies for reclassification will be based on the on-the-ground, highly participatory approaches developed at the two field demonstration sites. This will make the policies, and their application, as practical, as adapted to Zambian conditions, and, therefore, as replicable as possible;

The finalization of the CCA policies will be delayed until Yr 4 in order to benefit from the FDS experience, making the new legislation based on real-life field experience.

Representatives of all the CRBs in Zambia will be brought to the new FDS CCAs for awareness raising and training in CCA benefits and management;

Funding for the creation of new CCA will be mobilized through the NRCF and the Project Coordination Group.

New partnerships will be tested at the FDS. The advantages and disadvantages of each form of partnership will be analyzed by all stakeholders through the NRCF, the TAG and the Project Coordination Group.

The CCA management structures will be empowered to manage all renewable natural resources. This will be replicated in other GMA through modifications of the existing CRB and through the transformation of GMA/CRB into CCA. The Steering Committee and the donors of the Project Coordination Group will ensure that this approach is integrated into the forest and fisheries sectors.



Participation in PA sector governance will be improved through the creation of a formal stakeholder platform (Natural Resources Consultative Forum) for civil society inputs into PA sector issues. Improved, transparent financial management systems will be developed for revenue sharing between ZAWA and CRB and between CRB and their community constituents.

PA communities, GMA/CCA managers, tourism investors, private/civil society PA managers, NGOs and other civil society actors participate in open debates on key PA sector issues. Lessons learned are documented and diffused.

The advantages and strengths of all these legal and policy reforms will be assessed, presented and debated through the knowledge management function of the NRCF. NRCF stakeholders and donors will invest in the replication of the best practices and successes. (NRCF is funded at $570,000)

All CRB and representatives of all GMA communities will receive training in transparent financial management and good governance procedures.

2 Outcome 2: Institutional capacities for PA system management are strengthened including enhanced capacities for PA representation, monitoring and evaluation, business and investment planning and PA system planning.

2a A key activity will be the identification of reclassification priorities for improved representativeness of the National PA System. An expanded conservation assessment will include a gap analysis of the coverage of ecosystems by existing PA, identification of candidate PA/sites for filling gaps, forest cover loss analysis of candidate sites followed by bio-physical surveys/status assessments on the ground leading to the final identification of reclassification priorities.

PA and open area sites that are in need of reclassification and/ or effective management to ensure representative coverage of Zambia’s ecosystems/ biodiversity are identified (and are integrated into the Conservation Plan) Reclassification of PA completed at two field demonstration sites.

Reclassification methodologies are tested/developed at the two FDS for replication elsewhere;

Reclassification priorities will be identified by Yr 3. NRCF and other stakeholders will have participated in their identification. NRCF will mobilize resources for reclassification and for the development of effective management partnerships for the priority sites.

New tools for assessing economic efficiency and for PA business planning. One will seek to define cost coefficients and the forms of different public/private/civil society/ community management partnerships that are the most effective and financially sustainable for the priority PA. Investment profiles will be

ZAWA uses business planning as a standard tool for PA management planning. The relative financial cost-effectiveness of the common forms of management partnerships has been quantified and is

Capacity/human resources for operational use of economic/financial planning tools will be built in ZAWA and PA management partners through short and long-term project-funded training.

A.135



developed for priority unmanaged PA used in system planning.

Improved capacities for monitoring and evaluation will be developed. Particular emphasis will be placed on the monitoring of PA management effectiveness by modifying the WWF/WB METT tracking tool for Zambian conditions. Other foci will be on systems for monitoring of ecosystem health and monitoring of PA management partnerships. Monitoring of wildlife populations for trophy hunting will emphasize local managers monitoring capacities complemented by central level capacities for oversight/spot checking. Testing of improved site level M&E will be done at the two demonstration sites.

The METT has been modified for Zambia and is used as a standard tool for all PA managed by, or in partnership with, ZAWA. Monitoring of wildlife for trophy hunting is increasingly accepted as a cost of doing business. Techniques for monitoring ecosystem health have been developed.

The two mid-term and the final evaluations ($162,000 total) all review the usefulness of the modified METT. These results are disseminated widely;

The usefulness of the modified METT is presented and disseminated to PA sector stakeholders through the NRCF and the Project Coordination Group;

MTENR is encouraged to mandate the use of the METT as a means of government monitoring and oversight of PA management effectiveness;

Donors are encouraged to fund the use of the METT through the NRCF and the Project Coordination Group;

GRZ makes it a policy that monitoring of wildlife populations will be required as a standard cost of doing business for CCA and for SHA.

All of this will be integrated under a PA System Reclassification and Conservation Plan that will include PA creation, reclassification & declassification, business and marketing planning and M&E. Realistic targets for the total land area of PA will be set. Business planning for the PA system will include the identification of effective management forms for specific PA, investment planning and sustainable financing. This will be complemented by a marketing plan to interest investment partners needed for priority PAs

The Reclassification and Conservation Plan for the national system of PA is the basic document guiding the reclassification, management and development of priority PA in Zambia. The investment and marketing plans are used to mobilize and direct PA sector investments by private sector investors, donors and GRZ and to identify and mobilize partners for PA management.

The Conservation Plan, investment plan and marketing plan will be used by GRZ/ZAWA for mobilizing donor funding for the sector and for prioritizing the use of tourism and trophy hunting levies.

These plans and the economic evaluations that support them will be used to convince GRZ of the economic justification for government investments in the PA sector.

A.136

UNDP PRO DOC

ANNEX 7: REFERENCES

Ansell, W.F.H. (1978) The Mammals of Zambia. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Chilanga.

Araki, S. (2003) Ten years change in population and chitemene shifting cultivation around Mpika area, Northern Zambia. In: Araki, S. (ed.), Agro-environmental study on the sustainability of indigenous agriculture in central and southern Africa (pp. 119-134). Kyoto University, Kyoto.

Bingham, M. (2000) Notes on Zambia’s threatened plants. SABONET Red Data List. SABONET, Pretoria.

Bolnick, D. (19995). A guide to the common wild flowers of Zambia and neighbouring regions. Wildlife Conservation Society of Zambia, Lusaka.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the approach to the context. IUCN Social Policy Group. Switzerland.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, ed. (1997) Beyond Fences: Seeking Sustainability in Conservation. IUCN/Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, Gland, Switzerland.

Broadley, D.G. (1971) The reptiles and amphibians of Zambia. The Puku 6: 1-143.

Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P., (eds.) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf

Burgman, M.A. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (1998) Conservation Biology for the Australian Environment. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Central Statistics Office (2002) Food security, health and nutrition information system. CSO, Lusaka.

Central Statistics Office (2003) Zambia 2000 census of population and housing. CSO, Lusaka.

Chabwela H.N. (1998) The Wildlife Sector: A situation Analysis. Environmental Support Programme for Zambia, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources/IUCN Zambia Country Office

Chabwela, H. and Gaile, B. (2004) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Protected Areas. Consultant report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems Project

Chi-Chi Consultants (2004) Conservation needs assessment for Protected Areas in Zambia. Consultant report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems Project

Chidumayo, E.N (1996) Handbook of Miombo Ecology and Management. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.

Chidumayo, E.N. (1997) Miombo ecology and management: an introduction. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Chidumayo, E.N. (1987) A shifting cultivation land use system under population pressure in Zambia. Agroforestry 5:15-25.

Chidumayo, E.N. and Aongola, L. (1998) Zambia biodiversity strategy and action plan: The country study report. IUCN, Lusaka.

Community Based Natural Resources Management and Sustainable Agriculture (CONASA) (2002) Policy and Legislation Review of the Fisheries, Forestry, Wildlife and Water Sectors vis-a-vis Community Based Natural Resources Management, HURID

Community Based Natural Resources Management and Sustainable Agriculture (CONASA) (2002)

137

UNDP PRO DOC Proceedings of Community Based Natural Resource Management Workshop, 25 th February –1March 2002 Fairmount Hotel, Livingstone

Cooperative League of the USA (2001) Chiulukire Local Forest: Joint Forest Management Plan. CLUSA, Lusaka.

Dahl, R., (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press

Dalal-Clayton, B. and Child, B. (2003) Lessons from Luangwa: The story of the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project. IIED/SLAMU

Davey, A.G. (1998) National System Planning for Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 1. World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) . IUCN-The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland

Development Services and Initiatives (2004) Conservation Planning for Protected Areas. Consultant report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems Project

Dobuzinskis, L., (1992) 'Modernist and Postmodernist Metaphors of the Policy Process: Control and Stability vs. Chaos and Reflexive Understanding’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 25: 355-80

Environment Council Zambia (2001) State of the Environment in Zambia 2000, ECZ, Lusaka-Zambia

Edmonds, A.C.R. (1976) Vegetation Map of Zambia, 1:500,000. Surveyor General, Lusaka.

Ellison, G. (1990) Common birds of Zambia. Zambia Ornithological Society, Lusaka.

Environmental Council of Zambia (undated) Census data files for selected wildlife species in Zambia. ECZ (Wildlife Monitoring Project), Lusaka.

Fanshawe, D.B. (1971) The vegetation of Zambia. Government Printer, Lusaka.

Fisher, F., (1995) Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago: Nelson Hall

Forest Department (2003a) Forest status: National Forests. Forest Department, Lusaka.

Forest Department (2003b) Forest resources data. Forest Department, Lusaka.

Foucault, M., (1991) Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf

Global Environmental Facility (2003) Proposal for PDF Block “B” Grant for “Reclassification and Sustainable Management of Zambia’s Protected Areas”.

Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., Synge, H., McNeely, J. A. and Gundling, L. (1994) A guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland. IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Environmental Policy and Law paper no. 30.

GRZ (1986) Republic of Zambia Map (1:1,500,000). Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Lusaka

GRZ (1988) Forest Estate 1988 Map (1:1,500,000). Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, Lusaka

GRZ (1997) Zambia Forestry Action Plan, Volume II Challenges and Opportunities, Lusaka, Zambia

GRZ (1998) The Zambia Wildlife Act, 1998. Government Printer, Lusaka

GRZ (1999) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka, Zambia

GRZ (1999) National Biodiversity strategy and Action Plan. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka

GRZ (2002) Draft Strategic Plan for the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka, Zambia

138

UNDP PRO DOC GRZ (2002) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Lusaka

GRZ (2002) Transitional National Development Plan 2002-2005, Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Lusaka, Zambia

GRZ (2002) Zambia Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Ministry of Finance and National Planning

GRZ (undated). National Parks and Game Management Areas (Atlas sheet No. 28) . Surveyor General, Lusaka.

Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity

Hill, M. (1997) The Policy Process in the Modern State, London: Prentice Hall

Hirji, R., Mackay, H. and Maro, P. (2002) Defining and mainstreaming environmental sustainability in water resources management in southern Africa – A summary. SADC, IUCN, SARDC and World Bank, Washington, DC.

Hogwood, B. and Gunn, L. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hood, R.J. (1967) A guide to the grasses of Zambia. Ministry of Agriculture, Lusaka.

IUCN (1992) Approaches to Environmental Policy Analysis, Southern Africa IUCN-ROSA Handbook

IUCN (1994) Guidelines for Protected area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (1998) Economic Values of the Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Areas Managers (IUCN Gland) Switzerland and Cambridge

Jachman, H. (2000) Zambia’s Wildlife Resources – A Brief Ecology, Wildlife Monitoring Unit Environmental Council of Zambia Lusaka

Jachmann, H. (2002) Comparison of aerial counts with ground counts for large African herbivores . Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 841-852.

James, A.N. (1999) Institutional constraints to protected area funding. Parks. Vol.9 No.2: 15-26

Kalyocha, G (2000) Sustainability of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Programmes: Lessons from the Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project LIRDP, presented at the IUCN Workshop on Development of Criteria for Assessing Sustainability of CBNRM Programmes in Southern Africa.

Kasama District Development Committee (2002) Kasama district situation analysis. Kasama District Development Committee, Kasama.

Kasimona, V.N. and Makwaya, J.J. (1995) Present planning in Zambia for the future use of Zambezi river waters. In: Matiza, T., Crafter, S. & Dale, P. (eds.), Water resource use in the Zambezi basin. IUCN Wetlands Programme, Gland.

Kornas, J. (1979) Distribution and Ecology of the pteridophytes in Zambia. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, Krakow (Poland).

Lebec, G. and Goodland, R. (1988) Wildlands: their protection and management in economic development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Lindblom, C. (1959) The Science of ’Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review, Vol. 2: 79-88

Long, N. (1992) From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained?: The Case for an Actor-Oriented Sociology of Development. In N. Long and A. Long (eds.) Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of theory and Practice in Social Research and Development, London: Routledge

Lungu F.B. (1990) Administrative Design for Game Management Areas (ADMADE) and Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project (LIRDP) in Kiss A. (ed); Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resources Management with Local Participation in Africa, World Bank, Washington

139

UNDP PRO DOC McNeely, J. (ed.) (1993) Parks for life: report of the IVth World Congress on national parks and

protected areas. IUCN, Gland.

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1994) National Environmental Action Plan. Lusaka

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1997) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Government of Zambia, Lusaka.

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) Forestry Department Annual Report

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) Legal, Policy and Institutional Issues of Biodiversity – Report of the Country Study. Lusaka

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Government of Zambia, Lusaka.

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1999) Forestry Department Annual Report

Metcalfe, S. (1994) The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). Pages 270-279 in McNeely J, ed. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press.

Ministry of Education (2003) Annual report for 2003. Mongu Provincial Education Office, Mongu.

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1998) Zambia forestry action plan (Vol. II). MENR, Lusaka.

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1999) National biodiversity and action plan. MENR, Lusaka.

Miombo Working Group (2003) A Preliminary Assessment of Protected Areas in Zambia, for the Miombo Ecoregion Programme. WWF Zambia Coordination Office, Lusaka.

Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N. and Mittermeier, C.G. (1999) Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX/Conservation International, Washington, D.C.

Mumeka, A. (1986) Effect of deforestation and subsistence agriculture on runoff of the Kafue river headwaters, Zambia. Hydrological Sciences Journal 31: 543-554.

Musonda, C.H. (2002) Annual Report for 2002. Mpika District Forestry Department, Mpika.

Muzama Crafts Ltd (2000) Forestry inventory Report, April 2000. Muzama Crafts Ltd, Manyinga.

Mwima (2001) A Brief History of the Kafue National Park. Keodoe 44/1

Nally, R.C., Bennett, A.F., Brown, G.W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., Lillywhite, P. and Ward, D. (2002) How well do ecosystem-based planning units represent different components of biodiversity. Ecological Applications 12:900-912.

National Heritage Conservation Commission (undated) National heritage sites register. NHCC, Livingstone.

National Parks and Wildlife Service and Japan International Cooperation Agency (1998) Kafue National Park interim management plan. NPWS/JICA, Chilanga.

Pitman, C.R.S (1934) Report of the faunal survey of Northern Rhodesia. Government Printer, Lusaka.

Queiroz, J.S. de, (1997) Environmental threats Assessment: Zambia. Strategic Background Document: USAID/REDSO/ESA

Schultz, J. (1974) Explanatory study to the land use map of Zambia. Ministry of Rural Development, Lusaka.

Siampale, A. (2004) Personal Communication.

Sprague, D.S. & Oyama, S. (1999) Density and distribution of chitemene fields in a miombo woodland environment in Zambia. Environmental Management 24:273-280.

140

UNDP PRO DOC Storrs, A.E.G. (1979) Know your trees. Forest Department, Ndola.

Storrs, A.E.G. (1982) More about trees. Forest Department, Ndola.

Stromgaard, P. (1989) Adaptive strategies in the breakdown of shifting cultivation: the case of Mambwe, Lamba and Lala of northern Zambia. Human Ecology 17:427-444.

Stromgaard, P. (1985) A subsistence society under pressure: the Bemba of northern Zambia . Africa 55:40-59.

Sugiyama, Y. (2003) The agricultural policy change and the indigenous agricultural system: The experience and revaluation of shifting cultivation system in the Northern Province, Zambia. In: Araki, S. (ed.), Agro-environmental study on the sustainability of indigenous agriculture in central and southern Africa (pp. 135-158). Kyoto University, Kyoto.

Surveyor General (1988) Forest Estate 1988 Map (1:1,500,000). Surveyor General, Lusaka.

Trapnell, C.G. and Clothier, J.N. (1996) The soils, vegetation and traditional agriculture of Zambia. Redclifee Press Ltd, Bristol.

UNEP/WWF (2001) Map of Zambezian Miombo/Mopane Woodlands: “Miombo Ecoregion”.

United Nations Environment Program (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, June 1992. UNEP, Nairobi.

University of Zambia (1987) Middle Zambezi Research Project: Interim report, October 1987. UNZA (River Basin Research Committee), Lusaka.

Van Gils, H. (1988) Environmental profiles: Western Province, Zambia. ITC, Enschede.

Verboom, R. (1983) Field guide to important arable weeds of Zambia. Department of Agriculture, Mount Makulu.

Verboom, W.C. (1970-1972) Grasslands of the Southern and Central Provinces of Zambia. Ministry of Rural Development, Lusaka.

White, F. (1962) Forest flora of Northern Rhodesia. Oxford University Press, London.

World Bank (2003) SEED project appraisal document. World Bank – Private Sector Unit

World Wide Fund for Nature – Zambia (2004) Institutional and Policy Analysis for Protected Areas. Consultant report submitted to MTENR under the Reclassification of Zambia’s Protected Areas Systems Project

World Wide Fund for Nature (2001). Conserving the miombo ecoregion: reconnaissance summary. WWF-SARPO, Harare.

World Wide Fund for Nature (undated). The birds of Lochinvar National Park. WWF Wetlands Project, Lusaka.

Yachiyo Engineering (1995) The Water Master Plan for Zambia. Lusaka

Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) (2002) Five-Year Strategic Plan 2003-2007, Volume One, Main Report. ZAWA, Lusaka

Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) (2002) The Zambia Wildlife Authority Guide to Professional Hunting in Zambia. ZAWA, Lusaka

141

UNDP PRO DOC

ANNEX 8: MATRIX OF RESPONSES TO GEF COUNCIL COMMENTS

UNDP: PIMS 1937Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected Areas System

GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation Response to CommentComments from Germany1. Regarding the reclassification of the National System of Protected Areas, the developments on the international stage with view to the harmonization of the set of categories should be taken into account during further planning steps and project implementation, in order to avoid duplication of work and to make the available information comparable to other regions.

The creation of new categories of PA, and the reclassification of PA in Zambia, will take into account developments on the international stage with view to the harmonization of the set of PA categories. This is clarified in Paragraph 110.

Comments from Switzerland:2. Although the proposal states that the infrastructure of Zambia’s protected areas is dilapidated and does not meet international standards it fails to provide solutions to the problem. The proposed activities concentrate on (a) generating the policy, regulatory and governance framework, (b) strengthening the institutional capacity (ZAWA) and (c) testing innovative private-public-community partnerships via two case studies. If protected areas are recognized key tourist destinations. Logically, the basic infrastructure to facilitate tourism development has to be in place first. The proposal does not specify infrastructure needs, associated costs, and how the enhancement of tourism infrastructure will be accomplished prior to marketing tourism. The product has to be in place first before revenue can be generated.

The proposal should also address the problem of how to meet the expressed need for infrastructure development for PAs designated as prime tourist destinations

Infrastructure by itself is not adequate for tourism development. Investments in effective management are also necessary in order to restore depleted wildlife populations. This is explained in Para 32.

The explicit strategy for investments in infrastructure is presented in the new Paragraph 67. The overall conservation/reclassification plan will identify spatial and temporal priorities for conservation. The overriding current need in Zambia is to strengthen capacities at the systemic and institutional level, to enhance PA management effectiveness. First order economic studies undertaken during the preparatory phase show that PAs may provide a significant driver for tourism development, if effectively managed. The GEF / UNDP project will develop a range of tools and capacities to ensure effective PA management. While GEF funds will not be allocated PA infrastructure, partnerships have been established with the donor community, to ensure infrastructure costs are met. The aim is to progressively scale up investments in infrastructure, as foundational PA management capacity is built.

3. The proposed time-frame of six years for the project is too short to produce meaningful results. It is not possible to wisely spend 6 million USD in GEF funds plus additional 22 million USD in co-funding within the six year project cycle.

…The project is of priority concern and should be endorsed in principle once the concerns raised have been satisfactorily addressed. This applies in particular to project duration which should be extended to at least 10 years while keeping the same budget

The project focuses at building capacity at the systemic, institutional and individual levels for PA management. It contributes to a process, which is expected to continue beyond the project life, with funding from Government and the donor community. Accordingly, a major focus is placed on integrating the wildlife sector into the PRS, and other budgetary allocation devices, as needed to assure continuity of funding over the long term for effective replication of project outcomes. A six-year time horizon is considered sufficient to deliver the intended outcomes. (see Para 178). The changing socio-economic landscape within Zambia demands that strategies are revised, over time.

4. There also is concern regarding the proposed re-classification of the PA System, in particular regarding the expected down-grading of National Parks in favour of safari hunting. Just because a protected area has low tourist potential does not justify downgrading a National Park into a hunting concession. National Parks are set aside for sustainable biodiversity conservation first.

Paragraphs 70, 71 and 97, Bullet 3 lays out the logic for this proposal. Biodiversity is presently being lost in Zambia because the PA network suffers from overall weak management effectiveness. Effective management of the PA network will demand in turn, the generation of new revenue streams. Portions of national parks that lack the necessary infrastructure for tourism development are cost centers – investments are made in protecting

142

UNDP PRO DOC GEF Council Member Comment/Recommendation Response to Comment

wildlife, but little or no revenues are generated.

Paragraph 109 has been modified to clarify the logic.

Rezoning inaccessible portions of national parks for trophy hunting could change these cost centers into profit centers – at no danger to the wildlife or other biodiversity of the parks if the trophy hunting is effectively managed. Such a strategy will allow scarce resources to be used more effectively to bring a larger portion of the overall PA estate under effective management – and effective biodiversity conservation. Rezoning for trophy hunting is proposed as a strategy for improving the overall effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in Zambia.

In ecological terms, managing a PA for trophy hunting does not necessarily involve downgrading. The opening and maintenance of the roads, lodges, sewer systems, etc necessary for tourism development of national parks have significant, unavoidable impacts. The environmental and biodiversity impacts of hunting are not necessarily larger than the impacts of roads and tourism development.

5. Although the importance of nature- based tourism in national parks as a critical revenue generator is fully acknowledged, tourism interests should not compromise the ecological integrity of protected areas. In this context it is outright dangerous to cite South Africa’s parks such as Pilanesburg or Phinda as models for Zambia to follow (Figure 1, page 12). Both areas mentioned are small-sized, encircled by a game-proof fence, “ecological” islands, totally artificial and comparable to zoological gardens, They cannot serve as model for global biodiversity conservation.

Paragraph 29 has been added to make it very clear that these two parks are not being presented as “models”.

6. Although Zambia has an excellent potential for the creation of trans-boundary conservation areas that would strengthen the country’s PA System and dramatically enhance the tourism industry within a regional context, this has not been addressed at all by the proposal.

It is strongly recommended that the proposal explore opportunities for the creation of trans-frontier conservation areas and the potential for regional tourism including Zambia's neighbouring countries. This would imply the generation of an over-arching regional tourism development plan.

Paragraph 91 has been modified to include the need and opportunities for transboundary conservation areas in the overall conservation plan for the PA system

7. Paragraph 70: Trophy Hunting in National Parks is highly conflictive. To avoid potential problems, especially with donors who don’t endorse trophy hunting in National Parks, it is suggested to use “zoning” as a management tool that would enable this activity.

Bullet 3 of Paragraph 97 makes it clear that zoning is the preferred option.

8. Paragraph 29: Figure 1 is misleading and raises false expectations. The parks cited from South Africa should not serve as models for National Parks to be replicated in Zambia by downgrading its national parks.

See the response to Comment number 5 above.

9. Paragraph 108: To create Safari Hunting Areas inside National Parks just because the parks have low tourist potential is not justified. Sustainable biodiversity conservation should come first.

This is covered by the response to Comment number 4 above.

143


10. Paragraph 126: Business plans and investment/marketing plans for protected areas are excellent ideas and follow current international trends.

No response needed

11. Paragraph 166: The proposal provides insufficient evidence for “country-drivenness” of the project.

Paragraph 169 has been added. Project development was lead by a project development secretariat in MTENR. A Zambian NGO, a Zambian consulting firm and Zambian consultants under contract with MTENR conducted five background studies. There was a continuous dialogue between the project development secretariat and MTENR officials as the project design evolved through its various phases. MTENR successfully lead the search for amicable solutions to disagreements over the choice between strategic project options. MTENR successfully organized stakeholder workshops at the two pilot sites.

12. Paragraph 167: There is some concern regarding the high number of actors involved in the project. That makes it difficult to coordinate the different project components.

The diversity of partners is in line with one of the recurring themes of the project design – the development of partnerships for effective PA management. The necessary coordination mechanisms are already in place, and will be further strengthened under the project.

13. Paragraph 201: The risk rating appears too optimistic reflecting the very high expectations that cannot be met by the project as presented.

The project has been designed based on a thorough review of the country situation and appropriate safeguards have been put in place to deal with the risks. This includes mainstreaming biodiversity into the Poverty Reduction Strategy and the development of partnership strategies.

14. Paragraph 202: The project appears to develop only the frameworks for investment, but fails to show where the funds for much needed infrastructure developments should originate.

Paragraph 206 has been modified. Investments in infrastructure for PA access will come primarily from donors. Investments in effective PA management will come from ZAWA, GRZ, donors and the full range of PA management partners. The recent history of donor support would indicate that these are realistic expectations. Investments in tourism infrastructure will come from private sector investors.

See also the response to Comment Number 2.

Comments from Canada:16. The Zambian Government has taken decisive steps since the early 1990s to liberalize the privatize the economy including the lease of tourist sites to private investors in Wildlife Protected Areas previously under state control. This state of affairs does not come out clearly in the project document.

Paragraph 55 presents Zambia as a leader in the development of innovative partnerships for PA management with a variety of groups like Kasanka Trust, Frankfurt Zoological Society and African Parks. However, these lease agreements have been done on an ad hoc basis without any formal policy or legal basis. This barrier is clearly identified in Paragraph 75.

15. Co-management of wildlife resources in GAME Management Areas between ZAWA and local communities is a positive step towards poverty reduction and empowerment of communities. However, food security and benefits sharing incentives should be clearly stated. On the other hand, the local communities should not only be beneficiaries, but co-managers of the project. In addition, other potential economic and income-generating opportunities should be encouraged to avoid over dependency and depletion of wildlife resources.

This is analyzed in Paragraphs 79 to 83 Key points: ZAWA now shares 45% of revenues with CRB, but revenue sharing is very different from co-management. Revenue sharing does not empower communities. And each CRB covers so many communities that governance problems of revenue sharing become a major impediment.

Paragraph 80 states that present Wildlife Act allows for only partial devolution of authority to GMA communities.

Paragraph 83 has been added to clarify legal restraints on sectoral empowerment of communities for NR resource management. Paragraph 112 states that the project will

144


undertake legal reform to empower communities to manage all of their renewable natural resources.

16. Community participation and ownership of the project for its long-term sustainability should be clearly defined to include devolution of decision-making rights, responsibilities and benefits to local stakeholders, accomplishment of local participation and ownership of projects required for sustainable environmental conservation and natural resource management.

The project will undertake legal reforms that will empower communities to control all the resources on their traditional lands and to make decisions about how the resources will be used and how the costs and benefits of resource use will be shared. The project will develop the legal and institutional framework and the capacities needed to sustain environmental conservation and natural resource management.

17. In the past, lack of effective institutional coordination and information flows at both national and program/project level has been a major constraint in the environment sector in Zambia. The GEF Project should therefore identify institutional structures needed to define roles, responsibilities and resolve conflict of interests between stakeholders (traditional leaderships, NGOs, CBOs the private sector and local communities). The GEF project should also clearly define the institutional capacity to assist stakeholders to get fully involved in project activities.

Paragraph 114 – The Natural Resources Consultative Forum will play a key role in coordination and information exchange between government and non-government stakeholders.

Paragraph 111 The project will develop a clear policy framework for partnerships for PA management.

Paragraph 112 The project will develop policy guidelines to clarify the roles of traditional chiefs in NR management.

Outcome 3.2.3. Paragraphs 116-128 are all about building capacity of stakeholders.

18. The GEF project should include poverty and HIV/AIDS among the key barriers, which may impact on the sustainability of the project.

The project design recognizes poverty and HIV/AIDS as root causes of the identified barriers rather than barriers in their own right.

The project design addresses both of these problems. Wildlife and natural resource management in the CCAs will be developed as a profit making economic activity for communities. And Activities 3.4.2. and 3.14.7 of the logframe provide AIDS awareness and prevention training at the two field sites.

19. In addressing Zambia’s environmental issues, external funded projects should balance global concerns with national concerns including social/economic opportunities in the environment sector. Finally, the GEF project should harmonize the existing Community Based Natural Resource Management systems and come up with a national system of CBNRM

The project design has sought to achieve an appropriate balance between global and national benefits. The main focus of the project is to overcome barriers to effective PA management by putting PA management on a sustainable footing, generating economic and financial benefits for PA stakeholders.

This project is within the GEF strategic priority on protected areas and focuses on improving the effectiveness of PA management. It is not directly focused on CBNRM (See Paragraph 143 under Alternatives Considered). As that is not the focus of the project, harmonizing CBNRM systems is beyond the scope of this project. However, the benefit sharing schemes and co-management approaches for PAs to be piloted under the project deal aim explicitly national and local concerns.

Comments from USA:20. U.S position: Support. Please include the increase in area under effective conservation management on the cover page (5.7 million hectare) into the logical framework and indicate whether this is solely in the protected areas. Also, please describe how the management effective index is being adjusted for this project and how the index would be scored.

This has been added as an impact indicator to the Project Objective in the logframe.

Adopting the METT will be an activity of the project. The modifications to the METT will be based on the METT shortcomings identified, and the recommended changes made, in the report “USE OF THE WB/ WWF MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOL (METT) FOR ZAMBIA’S NATIONAL PARKS

145


AND GMAs” that was done in support of project development. This report has not been included as an annex to the Prodoc, but is available through UNDP/GEF.

The METT questions are currently grouped into six elements: context, inputs, planning, processes, outputs and outcomes. It is proposed that the modified METT will deconstruct the overall score into three groups: inputs (comprising context and inputs), process (comprising planning and processes), and outputs (comprising outputs and outcomes). An overall score similar to that done for the present METT will be calculated. In addition, sub-scores grouped by Context, Planning, Inputs, Processes, Outputs and Outcomes will be calculated and monitored over time.

146

UNDP PRO DOC

Total Budget and Work plan

United Nations Development Programme Zambia

Year : AllProjet Number : Projet Title : Reclassification and Effective Management of Zambia's Protected Areas

Proj. ID

Expected Outputs Key Activities

Respons Planned BudgetParty Fund DonnorBudget Descrip. Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1.1 Legal/policy/1.1.1 PA and Reclassification NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local consultant

3,000

3,000

guidelines draft policies lit. review NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services 12,500

12,500

1.1.2 Community management strategy

literature review & draft NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local consultant

12,500

12,500

1.1.3Analysis of role of

traditional leaders NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultant

12,500

12,500

1.1.4 Public/private

comm. (ppc) partnerships

147

UNDP PRO DOC

literature review & draft NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local consultant

12,500

12,500

1.2 Stakeholder 1.2.1 Three regional NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 8,640

4,320

4,320

participation to workshops NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 10,500

5,250

5,250

amend drafts NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services 15,000

7,500

7,500

NEX 62000 10003 72300Materials & goods

3,000

1,500

1,500

NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultant

1,800

900

900

1.2.2 National stake- NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 2,880

2,880

holder worshop NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,500

3,500

NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services 5,000

5,000

NEX 62000 10003 72300Materials & goods

1,000

1,000

NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultant

600 600

1.3 Adoption of1.3.1 Finalize legal text NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

5,000

1,667

1,667

1,667

new policies/legis 1.3.2 Finalize policy

framework text for PPC

partnerships NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1.3.3 Finalize policy text for single comm managt structure and

guide to adoption NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1.3.4 Finalize guidelines

148

UNDP PRO DOC

on role of traditional

leaders & comm NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1.5 Development of

1.5.1 Review of procedures NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

3,000

3,000

good governance & lessons learned in NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,000

3,000

& accountability Zambia & the region NEX 62000 10003 72300Materials & good

1,000

1,000

NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultants

40,000

40,000

1.5.3 Training in NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultants

40,000

13,333

13,333

13,333

procedures NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,465

1,155

1,155

1,155

NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 63,000

21,000

21,000

21,000


21,000

21,000

21,000

NEX 62000 10003 72300Materials & good

21,000

7,000

7,000

7,000

1.5.4 Improve MTENR 72200

Equip& furniture

40,000

40,000

oversight & monitoring 73400

Rent&maint(VEH)

36,833

36,833

of implementation of 72800Info TechEquip

1,500

1,500

PA sector laws/policies NEX 62000 10003 72800

Info TechEquip

1,500

1,500

72500Suplies 12,000

12,000

71600Travel 1,000

1,000

IO 1 Subtotal 449,218

275,792

98,938

66,488

4,667 1,667

1,667

149

UNDP PRO DOC

Immediate objective 2

2.1 Identification of 2.1.1 Compilation of NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

3,000

3,000

priority sites for existing data, refine NEX 62000 10003 72100Cont servi comp 50,000

25,000

25,000

reclassification methodology & set criteria & targets,

including s/holder wshop

2.1.2 Identify candidate NEX 62000 10003 72100Cont servi comp

140,000

70,000

70,000

sites for reclassificati

2.13 Validation/verific NEX 62000 10003 72100Cont servi comp

150,000

150,000

ation of candidate site

2.1.4 Final synthesis NEX 62000 10003 72100Cont servi comp 30,000

30,000

to produce priority

listing for PA reclassif

2.2 Development of 2.2.1 Apply economic

UNOPS 6200 10003 71200Int consultant

37,908

37,908

economics & busin

analysis to better defin NEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consultant

20,000

20,000

planning tools PA managt priorities

2.2.2 Determine costUNOPS 62000 10003 71200Int consultant

24,000

12,000

12,000

coefficients of public/ NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultant 14,605

7,303

7,303

private/comm partners

2.2.3 Strengthen local NEX 62000 10003 72100Contr svc-Comp 10,000

5,000

5,000

150

UNDP PRO DOC

instit capacities thru NEX 62000 10003 72100Contr svc-Comp 20,000

10,000

10,000

the use of business NEX 62000 10003 72100Contr svc-Comp 45,000

15,000

15,000

15,000

planning for PA manag NEX 62000 10003 74500MiscExpenses

60,000

40,000

10,000

10,000

2.2.4 Develop investm

UNOPS 62000 10003 71200Intl Consultant

50,544

16,848

16,848

16,848

profiles for priority unmanaged Pas

2.2.5 Define PPC UNOPS 62000 10003 71200Intl Consultant

35,097

6,666

9,477

9,477

9,477

partnerships best suit for unmanaged Pas

2.3 Development 2.3.1 Modify METT NEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consults 63,000

63,000

of effective monitfor Zambian context & NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

3,000

3,000

& evaluation systm apply to priority Pas

2.4.1 Integration of NEX 6200 10003 71600Travel 8,640

8,640

Reclassification priorities, NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

10,500

10,500

business planning tools NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

20,000

20,000

improved M&E and other NEX 62000 10003 72300Materials&goods

5,000

5,000

management tools into over NEX 62000 10003 71400Cont svc-Individ

2,400

2,400

conservation plan NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 2,880

2,880

NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 6,500

6,500


3,000

151

UNDP PRO DOC

NEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consult 10,000

5,000

5,000

UNOPS 62000 10003 71200Intl Consult

37,908

18,954

18,954


5,000

5,000


5,000

5,000


20,000

2.4.4 Develop invest NEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consult 20,000

10,000

10,000

plan for national syst of PAs

2.4.5 Develop marktinNEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consult 20,000

10,000

10,000

plan to attract invest partners

IO 2 Subtotal 942,982

241,211

325,969

60,000

154,199 115,279

46,325

Proj. ID

Expected Outputs Key Activities

Responsible Planned Budget

Party FundDonnor Budget

Description Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Bangweulu Field Demonstration site

3.1 Awareness3.1.1 Identify & develop NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

7,000

7,000

raising & two way

profiles of all s/holders

dialogue with3.1.2 Meet with traditional NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

2,000

2,000

s/holders on the leaders, CRB & community NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

2,000

2,000

Bangweulu field representatives, govt

152

UNDP PRO DOC

authorities

Demo site objective

3.1.3 Conduct awareness NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

5,000

5,000

and participatoryRaising &develop 2way

approach dialogue with all

project area communities

3.2 Strategic3.2.1 Establish telecom

infrastructure established network NEX 62000 10003 72400

Comm&AudioEq

70,000

70,000

3.2.2 Repair/open NEX 62000 10003 72100Contr svc-comp

120,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

strategic access roads NEX 62000 10003 61100NP salary costs

240,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

&landing strips NEX 62000 10003 61100NP salary costs

150,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

NEX 62000 10003 61100NP salary costs

150,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

NEX 62000 10003 61200GS salary costs

93,600

15,600

15,600

15,600

15,600

15,600

15,600


93,600

15,600

15,600

15,600

15,600

15,600

15,600


57,600

9,600

9,600

9,600

9,600

9,600

9,600


5,400

900

900

900

900

900

900


28,800

4,800

4,800

4,800

4,800

4,800

4,800


14,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

36,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

NEX 62000 10003 74500MiscellExpens

26,100

4,350

4,350

4,350

4,350

4,350

4,350

3.2.3 Build, NEX 62000 10003 73100Rental&

153

UNDP PRO DOC

rehabilitate mainte 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

&equip offices/facilitate NEX 62000 10003 72200

Equip & furniture

5,000

5,000

lodging for project NEX 62000 10003 72200Equip & furniture

20,000

20,000

3.3 Cost effective 3.3.1 Evaluate current NEX 62000 10003 71300Local consultants

5,000

5,000

protection/enforceEnforcement & develop

established for wildlife & an integrated, cost

other NR in project

effective incentive based

area based on cons enforcement plan

with communities

3.3.2 Recruit/redeployNEX 62000 10003 72000General OpExp

5,000

5,000

& equip community scouts NEX 62000 10003 72000

General OpExp

105,000

20,000

17,000

17,000

17,000

17,000

17,000

WPO & implement enforcement

plan

3.3.3 Provide training NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

18,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

of community scouts/WPO

& implement enforcement plan

3.3.4 Provide enforce NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

15,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

training to PA managers

3.4 Increased 3.4.1 Conduct village NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

45,000

45,000

capacity for level workshops on

154

UNDP PRO DOC

community

managers for planning strategic capacities

, governance,needed during reclassification

record keeping, fin planning

management, gender 3.4.2 Conduct trainingNEX 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

30,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

Empowerment &HIV w/shops for CRB/

AIDS awareness & CCA managers

prevention 3.4.3 Exchange visits NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 16,000

5,000

4,000

4,000

3,000

with other community PA

management/CBNRM pilot

projects in Zambia & Sub region

3.4.4 Develop & implement NEX 62000 10003 74200

Audio Visual

14,000

4,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

conservation awareness

education program

3.5 Reclassification

3.5.1 Compile / analyse NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

1,000

1,000

options identifiedexisting spatial inform

based on biophysical

3.5.2 Acquire / analyse NEX 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

25,000

25,000

&socioeconomic satellite imagery of studies completed field demo site

3.5.3 Conduct aerial NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

25,000

25,000

155

UNDP PRO DOC

survey of project area to complement image analysis

3.5.5 Conduct technical & NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

25,000

25,000

participatory surveys for fishery resources

3.5.6 Field survey to NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 5,000

5,000

identify national heritage

sites

3.5.7 Conduct community NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

1,000

1,000

survey using participatory

techniques

3.5.8 Synthesize and NEX 62000 10003 72000

General operating exp.

7,500

5,000

2,500

analyse all studies

conducted to develop

a preliminary set of

Reclassification &zoning options

3.6 Plan for reclassification 3.6.1 Village level NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

5,000

5,000

of PA and for land w/shops to present

use zoning withinreclassification options

PA & open areas to facilitate debate &

156

UNDP PRO DOC

is developed withnegotiation for new PA

strong a/holder 3.6.2 Higher level NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 10,000

10,000

participation w/shops to debate

reclassification options

3.6.3 Conduct financial NEX 62000 10003 74500

Misc. expenses

2,000

2,000

feasibility analyses of

reclassification options

3.6.4 Central workshop NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

2,000

2,000

to agree on PA reclassification

options

3.6.5 Prepare & distribute NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

3,500

3,500

draft reclassification/land use NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

1,500

1,500

zoning plan

3.6.6 Final central NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 1,500

1,500

w/shop to make final amendments to plan

3.7 Creation/ reclassification

3.7.1 Apply legal prece NEX 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

5,000

5,000

of PA completed3.7.2 Modify & register NEX 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

3,000

3,000

Community management structures

3.7.3 Organise formal NEX 62000 10003 74500MiscellExp

157

UNDP PRO DOC

ens 5,000 5,000

Inauguration ceremony

for new reclassification options

3.8 Sustainable NR 3.8.3 Develop mgt NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

10,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

management systems plans for testing mgt

developed for of wildlife, fisheries &

community managed PA other NR

3.8.4 Develop NR based NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

10,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

revenue generating activities

3.8.6 Develop community NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local consultant

25,000

25,000

based M&E systems

3.8.7 Develop business NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local consultant

3,000

3,000

plans for each community

mgt structure

3.8.8 Each community NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

2,000

2,000

holds annual adaptive mgt reviews

Subtotal Bangweulu 1,617,500

496,250

245,250

233,250

216,250 213,250

213,250

Chiawa/Lower Zambezi Demonstration Site

158

UNDP PRO DOC

3.9 Awareness3.9.1 Identify & develop NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

1,000

1,000

Raising &two way

profiles of all s/holders

dialogue with 3.9.2 High level meet NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 2,000

2,000

s/holders on theto discuss project objectives

Chiawa /LZ field targets, outcomes and

demo site objectivparticipatory approach

&participatory app

3.9.3 Awareness raising NEX 62000 10003 74200

AudioVisual

2,000

2,000

& two way dialogue

with all project area com

3.10 Strategic 3.10.1 Est & maintain NEX 62000 10003 73300Rnt&maint (IT)

19,667

4,667

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

infrastructure established

telecommunication network

3.10.2 Repair/open NEX 62000 10003 71400Contr Svc Indiv

40,000

7,000

6,334

6,666

6,667

6,667

6,667

strategic access road and landing strips

3.10.3 Build / rehabilitate NEX 62000 10003 72100

Contr Svc Com

30,000

30,000

and equip offices/ facilities/ NEX 62000 10003 72100

Contr Svc Com

20,000

20,000

lodging for project NEX 62000 10003 72200Equip& furniture

145,000

145,000

NEX 62000 10003 72500Supplies 12,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

NEX 62000 10003 72000Gen Operat Exp

50,000

8,333

8,333

8,333

8,333

8,333

8,333

NEX 62000 10003 72000Gen Operat Exp

40,000

6,667

6,667

6,667

6,667

6,667

6,667

NEX 62000 10003 72000Gen Opera

159

UNDP PRO DOC

tExp 58,000 8,000 10,500 10,500 8,000 10,500 10,500

NEX 62000 10003 73400Rnt &maint VEH

24,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof Svc 34,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

4,000

6,000

6,000

3.11 Background3.11.1 Compile existing NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local Consult

15,000

15,000

surveys completed

data & conduct biological

for reclassification & planning ecological survey/anal

3.11.2 Acquire &analyse NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local Consult

1,000 1000

satellite imagery

3.11.3 Conduct aerial NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 6,000

6,000

survey of project area to

complement image analysis

3.11.4 Field survey to NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 2,000

2,000

identify national heritage

sites

3.11.5 Conduct community NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

6,000

6,000

Survey in & around Chiawa

3.11.6 Synthesize and NEX 62000 10003 74100Cont svc Indiv

5,000

5,000

analyse all studies to NEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

3,000

3,000

develop a preliminary reclass & zoning

160

UNDP PRO DOC

3.12 One or more 3.12.1 Village level NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 3,000

3,000

new communities merged w/shops to debate

CCA are established on the reclass options

basis of public/ 3.12.2 High level NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 4,000

4,000

Private partnership w/shops to debate

to provide effective reclass options

conservation of 3.12.3 facilitate the NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 2,000

2,000

ecosystems with negotiation of CCA species of global boarders & zoning

of global importance

3.12.4 Develop appropriate NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

1,200

600

600

Community management structures

-

3.12.5 Apply the legalNEX 62000 10003 74100Prof services

5,000

5,000

procedures for gazette of the new CCA

3.12.6 Organise formal NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

3,000

3,000

inauguration ceremony

for new/ reclassified PA

3.13 Sustainable3.13.1 Evaluatepresent NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local Consult

5,000

5,000

NR mgt systemsPA enforcement system

are developed for & develop a cost

161

UNDP PRO DOC

effective the new CCA incentive based enforcement

3.13.2 Recruit/ redeploy NEX 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

10,000

10,000

& equip additional NEX 62000 10003 72200Furn& Equipt

26,665

4,445

4,444

4,444

4,444

4,444

4,444

community &WPO scouts

3.13.3 Provide training NEX 62000 10003 72500Supplies

15,333

2,833

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

of community scouts& WPO

3.13.4 Implement NEX 62000 10003 72000Gen Operat Exp

28,333

3,333

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

enforcement plan

3.13.5 Develop a wlife NEX 62000 10003 71300

Local Consult

5,282

5,000

282

mgt & investment plan

for the new CCA

3.13.6 Identify, analyse NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

3,000

1,000

2,000

& prioritise biodiverst products& mkt chains

3.13.7 Develop NR NEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consult

8,500

8,500

mgt techniques for priority biodiversity products

3.13.8 Develop NR NEX 62000 10003 71300Local Consult

20,000

20,000

revenue generating activities

3.14 The needed 3.14.1 Conduct tring NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 35,000

5,833

5,833

5,833

5,833

5,833

5,833

162

UNDP PRO DOC

capacities forw/shops for CRB/CCA NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

8,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

sustainable mgt ofmanagers NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 10,000

5,000

5,000

the new CCA are NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 8,000

4,000

4,000

developed NEX 62000 10003 61100NP salary costs

977,610

162,935

162,935

162,935

162,935

162,935

162,935


121,410

20,235

20,235

20,235

20,235

20,235

20,235

NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 185,600

30,000

35,600

30,000

30,000

30,000

30,000

NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 52,450

9,333

5,783

9,333

9,333

9,333

9,333

NEX 62000 10003 72200Furn& Equipt

112,000

112,000

NEX 62000 10003 72200Furn&Equipt

15,000

15,000

NEX 62000 10003 72000GenOperatExp

140,000

15,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

25,000

NEX 62000 10003 73400Rnt&maintVEH

36,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000


42,000

7,000

7,000

7,000

7,000

7,000

7,000

NEX 62000 10003 73100Rnt&maint 110,000

10,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

NEX 62000 10003 72200Furn&Equipt

30,000

30,000

NEX 62000 10003 72500Supplies 60,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

NEX 62000 10003 72000GenOperatExp

1,000

100

180

180

180

180

180

NEX 62000 10003 73300

Rent & maintenance (IT)

23,600

3,600

3,600

5,600

3,600

3,600

3,600


105,000

10,000

20,000

20,000

15,000

20,000

20,000

163

UNDP PRO DOC

UNOPS 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

48,000

18,000

12,000

18,000

UNOPS 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

20,000

20,000

UNOPS 62000 10003 74100

Prof services

54,000

54,000

NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel 36,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

NEX 62000 10003 72200

Furniture &Equipment

5,000

5,000

NEX 62000 10003 72200

Furniture &Equipment

1,500

1,500

NEX 62000 10003 72500Supplies 24,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

4,000

NEX 62000 10003 73300Rnt&maint(IT)

15,000

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500

2,500


33,150

5,525

5,525

5,525

5,525

5,525

5,525

3.14.3 Development of NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

7,000

2,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

capacities for good governance

3.14.7 Develop HIVAID NEX 62000 10003 72000

GenOperatExp

10,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

awareness program, understanding of links to environtal degradat

3.15 ZAWA managed

3.15.1 Conduct ZAWA NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

3,000

3,000

hunting area created mged SHA options

out of the mountain w/shop

portion of LZNP 3.15.2 Undertake the NEX 62000 10003 71600Travel

164

UNDP PRO DOC

5,000 2,500 2,500

formal gazetting/ reclassification

of LZNP/ZMHA

Chiawa/LZ Subtotal 2,990,300

800,840

467,851

424,352

424,752 400,252

472,252

Grand Total 6,000,000

1,814,092

1,138,008

784,090 799,868 730,448

733,494

165

UNDP PRO DOC

United Nations Development Programme

Global Environment Facility

SIGNATURE PAGE

Country: ZambiaUNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s): National Strategies for sustainable development for

integrating of economic, social and environmental issues

Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s): Goal: Ensuring Environmental sustainability

Service line 3.2 Frameworks and strategies for sustainable development

Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s): 1. Draft Policy & legal Framework for PA Management

2. Plan for Reclassification of PA System3. Sustainable natural resources management systems developed

5. Cost-effective biodiversity conservation method involving communities and Private sector established and adopted 6. Capacity for PA management enhanced

7. PA Monitoring and Evaluation Plan developed & implemented

Implementing partner: Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, MTENR

Other Partners: UNDP CO, ZAW, Department of. Forestry and Fisheries, Kasanka Trust& CLZ

Agreed by:On behalf of: Signature Date Name/Title

Government of Zambia: Mrs. P. Mwanagala Permanent Secretary, MFNP, (B&EA)

Implementing Partner /Executing Agency:

Mr. R. Mulele Permanent Secretary, MTENR

UNDP: Mr. A.C. Chuma UNDP Zambia Resident Representative

GEF PDF B 334,000GEF FULL PROJECT 6,000,000Total GEF Budget 6,334,000Allocated Resources:Co-financing (parallel funding/other resources)UNDP 2,000,000National Contribution 12,310,000Others 20,781,000Sub-Total Co-financing 35,091,000TOTAL Budget 41,425,000

Programme Period:2005-2011Programme Component: Energy and environment for

sustainable development Project Title: Reclassification and Effective Management of National Protected Areas System Project ID: ZMB 10 0043458Project Duration: 6 YearsManagement Arrangement: NEX

167

Documents

thegef.org · Web viewSECTION 1 : BRIEF NARRATIVE 4 ... of Zambia GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia GTZ German Technical Aid Agency HDI Human Development Index HDR Human