GEF Council Work Program Submission s1

SPAN Executive Summary

PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GEF COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM SUBMISSION

AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: 3121 FINANCING PLAN (US$) GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 2492 GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT COUNTRY: Republic of Namibia Project 8,200,000 PROJECT TITLE: Strengthening the Protected Area PDF A Network (SPAN) PDF B 350,000 GEF AGENCY: UNDP PDF C OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): Ministry of Sub-Total GEF 8,550,000 Environment and Tourism: Directorate of Parks and CO-FINANCING* Wildlife Management UNDP 300,000 DURATION: 6 YEARS Government 26,802,000 GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity Bilateral Donors 3,775,000 GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: 1: Arid and Semi Other 2,800,000 Arid Ecosystems Sub-Total Co-financing: 33,677,000 GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: BD-1 Catalyzing Total Project Financing: 42,227,000 Sustainability of Protected Areas FINANCING FOR ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES IF Pipeline Entry Date: April 2004 ANY: 50,400,000 ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: January 2006 LEVERAGED RESOURCES IF ANY: IA FEE: $769,500 PROJECT SUMMARY

CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN: Increase in area under effective conservation management: EOP Target: 56,000 km2

PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVE, OUTCOMES, AND OUTPUTS/ACTIVITIES.

RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S):

Teofilus Nghitila, Director: Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism Date: March 11, 2005 1. Namibia’s dryland ecosystems are a globally significant repository of biodiversity, acclaimed for their species richness, habitat diversity and biological distinctiveness. The country has established an impressive system of Approved on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion.

Project Contact Person Yannick Glemarec Deputy Executive Coordinator Nik Sekhran, Regional Coordinator UNDP/GEF Date: 21 April l2005 Pretoria, South Africa Tel: (27) 12 354 8131 [email protected] 1 SPAN Executive Summary

Protected Areas, managed by the state, and comprising 20 sites covering 13.8% of the terrestrial area (114,000 km 2). The system is the cornerstone of the country’s conservation program. PAs such as Etosha, Waterberg and Khaudum have been successful in dramatically increasing populations of a number of rare species like elephants, black rhino, disease-free buffalo, roan antelope, tsessebe and sable antelope. Other PAs such as Ai-Ais and Namib-Naukluft have proven critical for the conservation of endangered vascular plants. However, management effectiveness within most PAs remains sub optimal, and operations are not adequately geared to the abatement of direct and indirect threats to sites. This is compromising the ability of the PA System to service its mandated conservation functions. A number of barriers to enhancing the management effectiveness of the system are apparent. These include a fragmented policy framework, weak institutional capacities, weak human capacities for PA operations, incomplete bio-geographic coverage and the absence of tested public-private-community management partnerships. Intervention is needed to lift these barriers in order to improve the effectiveness of the PA system. The Project will address this need, focusing specifically on State PAs and on terrestrial biomes to complement initiatives in production landscapes and coastal and marine ecosystems. The Project has been designed in two phases. The first is the subject of this proposal. The second would build on the solid foundations ensured by Phase 1, to further consolidate and expand the PA network. Progression to Phase 2 is contingent upon external review and the securing significant further co-financing. Global Biodiversity Significance

2. Namibia lies at the heart of the species-rich Namib-Karoo-Kaokeveld Deserts Ecoregion (WWF Global 200 Ecoregions). The Namibian part of this eco-region includes the Sperrgebiet and Namib Escarpment, both identified, globally significant “biodiversity hotspots.” The north-eastern part of Namibia falls within the Zambezian Flooded Savannas Ecoregion, which connects eight southern African countries and enjoys a high concentration of large vertebrates. As a whole, Namibia has high species diversity and levels of endemism owing both to its central position in Africa’s arid southwest, and its history as an evolutionary hub for certain groups of organisms like melons, succulent plants, solifuges, geckos and tortoises. It houses some 4,350 species and subspecies of higher plants, of which 687 species (17%) are endemic. In addition, 1,541 insect species (24%), 71 species of reptiles (28%), 14 bird species (2%) and 18 species of arachnid (11%) are known endemics. PA System Overview

3. The legal framework for PAs is provided by the Nature Conservation Ordinance (No 4 of 1975). The Ordinance establishes two types of national PAs:1 game parks and nature reserves. Both are set aside “for the propagation, protection, study and preservation therein of wild animal life, wild plant life and objects of geological, ethnological, archaeological, historical and other scientific interest and for the benefit and enjoyment of the inhabitants of the Territories and other persons.” There is no differentiation between the management objectives. Namibia has established a strong community based natural resource programme with legislation granting rights to rural communities organised into conservancies, to utilise and manage natural resources. A registered communal Conservancy acquires new rights and responsibilities with regard to the consumptive and non-consumptive use and management of wildlife resources. In addition, 10-20% of Namibia’s private land (freehold land) is estimated as being dedicated to wildlife management: this includes 148 private reserves and commercial hunting farms. However, there are currently no regulations, nor contract with Government concerning land use to ensure the adherence of these reserves to sound conservation practices. 4. The three categories of conservation area represent very different conservation management approaches. State PAs are geared purposely to satisfying biodiversity conservation objectives. With the exception of recreational reserves, these areas provide the lynchpin of the conservation strategy for the following reasons: with some exceptions they protect larger blocks of habitat than is usually possible in a conservancy or private reserve; they enjoy higher long-term land tenure security; and they allow a more intensive management regimen to be employed than generally possible in production landscapes. In particular, they provide a refuge for dangerous animals such as Elephant, Lions and Buffalo, unable to survive in settled areas. Most conservancies and private reserves cater simultaneously to conservation and production uses of land, such as livestock husbandry and farming and on the whole, cannot offer the same level of protection to flora and fauna. However, these areas often act as buffers to the State PA system, providing a transition zone from more intensive to less intensive land uses across production landscapes. The combination of

1 There is also the category of tourist recreation areas, which are created to offer recreational opportunities for the public and are not primarily managed for biodiversity conservation purposes. 2 SPAN Executive Summary

State PAs, conservancies and private reserves offer some of the best prospects for protecting biodiversity in southern Africa. Unfortunately, these areas currently operate as a patchwork rather than an integrated system, undermining their conservation potential. Table 1: General Overview of the Namibia System of PAs (State Operated)2

Size Protected Area Category Protected Area Category Size (km2) (km2) Ai-Ais Hot Springs / Huns Game Park 3,461 Namib-Naukluft Park Game Park 49,768 Mountains Cape Cross Seal Reserve Game Park 60 National Diamond Coast RA Recreation Area 50 Caprivi Game Park Game Park 6,000 National West Coast RA Recreation Area 7,800 Daan Viljoen Game Park Game Park 40 Naute Recreation Resort Game Park 225 Etosha National Park Game Park 22,270 Popa Game Park Game Park 0.25 Gross Barmen Hot Springs Game Park 1 Skeleton Coast Park Game Park 16,390 Hardap Recreation Resort Game Park 252 South West Nature Park Game Park 0.04 Khaudum Game Park Game Park 3,842 Von Bach Recreation Resort Game Park 43 Mahango Game Park Game Park 225 Waterberg Plateau Park Game Park 405 Nature Mamili National Park 320 Mangetti Game Reserve N/A Reserve Nature Mudumu National Park 1,010 Sperrgebiet N/A Reserve 5. The Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) is the government agency charged with overall responsibility for the management of national PAs and wildlife both within and outside of the state PA estate. Two Directorates: the Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management (DPWM), and the Directorate of Scientific Services (DSS) share responsibilities for discharging conservation management functions in PAs. GEF Expected Achievements / Reasons for Involvement

6. While Namibia’s investment in its PA system is likely to remain stable, it is not sufficient to improve the level of management effectiveness and thus protection offered. Furthermore, the country lacks the essential institutional and human capacities to effectively mitigate the threats confronting PAs. Currently, a combination of pressures promises to undermine the natural integrity of PAs. The major threats are: 1) negative visitor impacts on fragile ecosystems (i.e. off road driving); 2) small size and isolation of some PAs – leading to the fragmentation of wildlife populations; 3) poaching of animals for food and animal parts; 4) alien species invasion; 5) uncontrolled bush fires in the dry season (fires are set by adjacent communities to release nutrients to the soil); 6) uncontrolled mining and prospecting activities; 7) illegal harvesting of plants (for subsistence, and for the export market); and 8) over-extraction of water – the availability of water tends to restrict animal distributions, concentrating populations of water dependent species in areas adjacent to waterholes. This can lead to land degradation. 7. The incidence and magnitude of these threats varies greatly from biome to biome and PA to PA.3In general the scale of threats within PAs is considerably lower than in surrounding production landscapes. Nonetheless, a number of barriers exist to addressing these threats. A rapid assessment of management effectiveness at 16 PAs, including the Sperrgebiet and Mangetti Game Camp,4 was conducted from September to November 2004 as part of preparatory activities. This assessment helped to establish the baseline situation, using the Namibia Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT).5 Only two PAs were judged to have high management effectiveness, while seven PAs had medium management effectiveness and six were found to have low effectiveness. The scores are presented in the Pro Doc.6 A number of barriers are presently handicapping efforts to improve PA management effectiveness.7 These barriers are briefly summarised below:

2 A map of the PA system is provided in Annex 1 of the Pro Doc. 3 A full assessment of threats, root causes and barriers to PA management effectiveness is provided in Annex 2. Threats ratings are provided by PA in Tables 2 and 3 of the Pro Doc (pages 14/15). 4 Four PAs were not assessed because they are small, recreational resorts and have minimal biodiversity significance. 5 The NAMETT is a modified version of the WB/WWF-developed Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). It is detailed in the baseline section of the Pro Doc, page 17. 6 See table 4 and Figure 2, page 16. The NAMETT data sheets are on file and available upon request. 7 These are further described in the Pro Doc pages 17 to 23, and Annexes 2 and 3. 3 SPAN Executive Summary

Inadequate There is a strong policy commitment on the part of the Government of Namibia to the Enabling management of PAs. However the policy framework is not fully comprehensive, and does not Policy/ provide: 1) a sufficient basis for the classification of parks, by management objective; 2) norms Planning and standards for planning, operations and monitoring functions; 3) a framework for contracting Framework: certain PA services (i.e. tourism) to private operators through a system of concessions; and 4) mechanisms for assuring cooperative and harmonized management with adjacent land units. Weak Human A rapid capacity assessment commissioned as part of preparatory activities revealed that although and there are individuals with good motivation and capacity at PA level, the human resource base is Institutional generally weak. This problem is compounded by the high mortality and morbidity rates of PA Capacity: staff from suspected HIV/AIDS. A number of institutional rigidities were also identified affecting financial management, general operations and personnel management. In addition, most of the infrastructure in national parks was developed in the 1970s and 80s and much of it is rapidly deteriorating. The lack of basic infrastructure such as housing, is reducing staff morale considerably. Weak State PAs have historically tended to be managed by the State with limited public involvement. Integration of The Government has signalled its intention to adopt more collaborative management approaches. PA and Through this approach neighbouring communities represented by conservancies or traditional Landscape authorities, local governments and the private sector will be involved in certain PA management Management: activities. However, there remains a need to establish the institutional apparatus and management know-how to facilitate collaborative processes. A number of PAs straddle the international boundary with neighbouring countries; the conservation status of these areas is closely tied to land uses and the effectiveness of conservation management across the border. Namibia is participating in the SADC Trans Frontier Conservation Area programme, whereby PA authorities from neighbouring countries formally agree to manage transfrontier PAs as an integrated unit. However, the capacity to plan and operationalise such areas is currently weak, hampering progress. Incomplete PA The current PA system in Namibia provides adequate coverage to only two out of the six major Network land biomes and sub-biomes—the desert biome and lakes and salt pans. Four biomes—Nama Coverage: Karoo, Succulent Karoo, acacia tree and shrub savannah, and broadleaved tree and wood savannah—are not properly covered; nor are 16 out of 29 terrestrial vegetation types. A needs assessment undertaken during project preparation has generated new area targets needed to protect each vegetation type; this is presented in Annex 3 to the Project Document. Namibia is presently striving to increase PA coverage so as to ensure better bio-geographic representation. Undervaluation Despite enjoying high-level political support over a long period, Namibia’s PAs are not receiving of PAs and sufficient investment from government to ensure their long-term sustainability. This is closely Insufficient PA linked to the prioritisation of other issues such as health, education and poverty alleviation, which System required increased attention in the post-Apartheid era. The budget is determined independently of Financing: actual management requirements and there currently is no ear-marked fee system for PAs.

Main Incremental Actions / Innovations Project Strategy and Approach 8. GEF funding through this project would support capacity building to enhance operational performance and to create the enabling environment for new PA management approaches needed to effectively remediate threats. Interventions have been designed to remove barriers. The project is divided into two phases, with durations of 6 and 5 years respectively.8 The first phase, which is the subject of this proposal, will focus on three broad areas of intervention: 1) strengthening systemic capacity, namely the enabling legal/policy environment and financial mechanisms for PA management; 2) strengthening the institutional capacity for PA management; and 3) demonstrating new ways and means of PA management, including partnerships with other government agencies, local communities and the private sector.9 Building on the foundation achieved during Phase 1, and subject to satisfaction of agreed

8 The project is designed so that Phase 1 will generate sustainable global benefits, irrespective of Phase 2. 9 Three existing PA sites have been chosen as field demonstration sites where management approaches will be tested and refined. These sites are the Ai-Ais Hot Spring Game Park, Bwabwata-Mudumu-Mamili (BMM) Complex, and the Etosha-Skeleton Coast 4 SPAN Executive Summary performance criteria, Phase 2 will focus on the further consolidation and expansion of the PA network. This will include the operationalisation of new PA categories applicable communal and private lands10 (e.g. through management agreements, or lease back arrangements), as well as strengthening regulatory oversight over, and management within Private Reserves. The Government recognizes that it lacks the absorptive capacity, management tools and institutional framework to tackle this imperative immediately—hence its committal to a phased approach to rationalization of the PA system.

Project Goal, Objectives, Outcomes, and Outputs/Activities Goal: Sustainable management of natural resources to protect biodiversity and contribute to equitable economic and social development. Project Objective: Increased management effectiveness of the national PA network for biodiversity conservation. Outcome 1: Improved systemic capacity provides the enabling framework for enhancing PA management effectiveness These interventions include strengthening the policy environment, PA system financing mechanisms and a knowledge management system: (a) Targeted support for developing new regulations under the Parks and Wildlife Management Bill. Park management plans for each of the 4 demonstration sites will be drafted through participatory methods. GEF funding will be used to develop an umbrella management and business plan for the Etosha-Skeleton Coast link. The final part of the policy framework will be a strategic PA network plan to map and prioritise PAs and to analyse specific socio-economic situations. This will be co-financed by GEF and GRN/MET and will be inclusive of communal conservancies, concession areas and private reserves. (b) Support will be given to increase the proportion of park usage fees retained by MET from the current situation of zero- retention. Also, steps will be taken to increase the budget appropriation from central government, on the basis of economic analyses of the potential returns from increased investment. Finally, GEF funding will assist the MET to establish new financial mechanisms for PA management. (c) GEF funding will be used to invest in a permanent knowledge management system within the MET. It will be innovative and proactive in order to go beyond traditional written lessons and document dissemination. It will include active networking between PAs, particularly through the 4 field demonstration sites, in order to exchange personal experiences and best practices from the project. GEF and GRN funding will also be used to develop a systematic biodiversity monitoring system for PAs. Outcome 2: Institutional capacities for PA management are strengthened, resulting in more effective use of financial and human resources The focus is on improving the abilities and effectiveness of MET to manage the state PAs. While focusing on PA staff and the institutional organisation of parks management within the MET, the project will also render capacity support to other key role players such as regional and local governments and communities.11 (a) GEF will fund development of an overarching strategic reorganisation plan for MET to improve operational and administrative efficiencies and to maximise cohesion among the MET divisions, particularly at the PA site level. An internal devolution plan for decision-making and financial management will be developed, in order to operationalise the restructuring that will be tested at 3 demonstration sites. A comprehensive staff monitoring and evaluation system will be institutionalised, covering PA level and individual performance. GRN will provide funding to execute the plan. (b) An in-service training scheme will be developed with a mentorship system to help retain institutional memory. This will include supervisor training to encourage and motivate staff and to improve staff performance. GEF will also finance short-term training courses for PA staff at existing regional institutions. A system of incentive mechanisms will be developed to improve morale, incorporating both monetary and non-monetary approaches. The project will also assist MET in outlining PA staff rules and procedures in order to revive necessary standards of discipline. (c) GEF support will be directed to strengthen the capacity of the MET in three key areas: 1) to forge effective and mutually beneficial partnerships; 2) to better quantify the value of the PA network in the field of recording and modelling of PA tourism statistics and pricing policy; and 3) to negotiate and manage concessions within the PAs. (d) UNDP will finance a study on the current impact of HIV/AIDS on PA management and will fund the development of an HIV/AIDS succession plan for MET supported by a field-level staff sensitisation programme. Outcome 3: PA management know-how is expanded and reinforced through innovative field management demonstrations

Link. The project will also support the establishment of the Sperrgebiet National Park (26,000 km2) during this phase, to address the conservation needs of the Succulent Karoo biome. 10 The prohibitive cost of land purchase and conflicting land demands makes it unlikely that further expansion of the Protected Area estate can be accommodated through the state PA system, beyond areas that will be incorporated during the first phase. 11 Capacity development for communal conservancies and regional councils in the coastal areas will be supported by the WB/GEF supported ICEMA and NACOMA projects respectively, and not with SPAN funds. 5 SPAN Executive Summary

At 4 strategically selected field sites, new management approaches will be piloted and adapted. (a) Ai-Ais Hotsprings Park – effective functioning of a transfrontier park. Though formally adopted, the Ai-Ais/Richtersveld Transfrontier Park (ARTP) is not currently operating effectively. The joint mechanisms are still in their infancy and MET lacks capacity to fully engage in transfrontier management. Project support will enable Namibia to play its mandated role in the functioning of the ARTP, focusing on strengthening the institutional framework for transfrontier park management, building capacity for devolution of decision-making and financial management, training for joint monitoring and law-enforcement activity, and limited infrastructure development. Costs will be shared between GEF and GRN. (b) Bwabwata-Mamili-Mudumu (BMM) Complex – development of collaborative management and benefit sharing. The BMM complex is critically important for biodiversity (it links five countries, including Namibia) and human reasons (highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in Namibia and a large PA-resident population). The project will support MET in its efforts to address the Cabinet Vision for Caprivi, which views wildlife utilisation and tourism as the basis for sustainable development, and which calls for the proclamation of Bwabwata National Park (to include multiple-use areas). KfW co- financing will provide for infrastructure, equipment and planning. GEF funds will be targeted towards the creation of a local-level forum for integrated PA-conservancy management, establishment of collaborative management systems and benefit sharing mechanisms, and the testing of shared responsibilities for management. Co-financing for community mobilisation will be provided by WWF. (c) Etosha – Skeleton Coast Link – partial realignment of PAs to restore traditional migration routes. The GRN is working on creating a corridor linking Etosha (the most heavily tourist-visited PA) with Skeleton Coast Park (an iconic tourism destination) in order to restore migration routes for fauna. The Cabinet recently approved the proclamation of three government concession areas within the link area; the challenge is now to integrate the planning and management systems. GEF funding will be used to develop business plans, to develop human wildlife conflict management measures (with USAID co-financing), to build MET staff capacity for collaborative management with conservancies, to provide critical equipment and to limit infrastructure development. The GRN will finance tourism marketing of the link area as well as operations costs. (d) Sperrgebiet – effective multi-sectoral management of a PA. Cabinet approved the proclamation of the Sperrgebiet as a National Park in 2003. The process of park designation will soon be finalised. The area covers 90% of Succulent Karoo within Namibia. It is one of Namibia’s prime biodiversity hotspots and supports nearly a quarter of Namibia’s plant diversity on a small fraction of the country’s land surface. In this corner of Namibia the level of floral endemism is unrivalled in arid areas around the globe, and the large tracts of virtually untouched landscapes retain their wilderness character. Some parts of the area have been and are being mined, and prospecting activities continue to take place in many areas. Restoration efforts have so far been limited and the integration of mining and prospecting activities in the future national park poses a great challenge. GEF will fund the establishment of a multi-sectoral management body for the PA, staff training, development of participatory management skills, and equipment including vehicles and radios. Co-financing is being allocated by CI , the GRN and NAMDEB.12

KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RISKS 9. The following performance indicators have been identified. The Log Frame and the Result Measurement Table in Part 3 of the ProDoc provide the full list of indicators, baselines and targets, sampling information and a detailed justification for their selection. o Improvement in management effectiveness for 50% of PA land using NAMETT measure o Increase in the percentage representation of each of the six biomes in the PA system o Enactment of the Parks and Wildlife Management Bill o Increase in the budget amount appropriated for PA management by 70% o Institutionalisation of a functioning knowledge management system

Assumptions / Risks

Risk Risk Risk Mitigation Measure Rating* o External pressure on L PA management plans will be integrated into regional development plans. Improved PAs increases inter-agency coordination at the national and regional level will ensure better significantly alignment of development activities to reduce this risk. The strengthened M&E system

12 In accordance with GEF policy, GEF funding will not be used for land rehabilitation. 6 SPAN Executive Summary

Risk Risk Risk Mitigation Measure Rating* will provide an early warning of increasing pressure.

o The process of enacting M Continuous policy dialogue between UNDP CO and the MET to ensure that progress the Parks and Wildlife in finalising the draft is sustained. MET cannot enact the bill itself, and so is reliant on Management Bill other arms of government. This risk will be mitigated through the PAC, which becomes delayed. involves other government agencies, as well as the strategic use of lobbying and communications. o Lung-disease/anthrax M In addition to MAWRD’s existing inoculation programme for livestock, the MET will spreads at a devastating improve preparedness for an epidemic through compilation of disease profiles for PAs rate and training in response measures. An early warning system with neighbouring countries will also be instituted. o Qualified and dedicated M Institutionalisation of training and incentive mechanisms coupled with a stringent people are not available performance evaluation system will capacitate existing staff members. PA branding within the MET or for and reclassification of certain posts will also attract qualified and experienced people outside recruitment to work for the PAs. o Mortality and morbidity S Development of institutional HIV/AIDS policy, education and well-being programme rates from HIV/AIDS will improve the welfare of infected staff and decrease infection rates over the long related illnesses term. HIV/AIDS succession planning based on the thorough investigation on current increases among staff situation will minimise the impact on PA management of staff mortality and morbidity.

Overall Risk Rating M

*Risk rating – H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), and L (Low Risk). Risks refer to the possibility that assumptions, defined in the logical framework in Part 3, may not hold.

COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY 10. Namibia ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1997 and has since taken a number of significant steps toward realising its commitments. The proposed project will fulfil a number of the objectives of the Convention, addressing elements 3 and 4 of the CBD COP VII decision on Protected Areas and the accompanying work programme (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/L.32). Specifically, the project will: 1) provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for PAs; 2) build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs; 3) ensure financial sustainability of PAs and national and regional systems of PAs; 4) evaluate and improve the effectiveness of PA management; 5) assess PA status and trends.

COUNTRY DRIVENNESS

11. The priority attributed by the Government of Namibia to biodiversity conservation is underscribed through its Constitution and National Development Plans. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) places a high priority on strengthening the PA network. This project is fully aligned with the six existing programmes of the MET; including the Protected Area Management Programme, the Protection and Management of Key Species and Natural Resources Programme and the Improving the Economic Value of Natural Resources and Protected Areas in the MET Jurisdiction Programme. The MET is committing US$ 26,042,000 in co-financing to the project. Further, MET is internalising Project functions into its existing structure, ensuring full involvement of key personnel in relevant directorates as well as amending terms of reference for staff members engaged in core project activities to manage and sustain interventions. 7 SPAN Executive Summary

PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

FIT TO GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM AND STRATEGIC PRIORITY

12. This project falls under the GEF Operational Programme 1: arid and semi-arid ecosystems, and responds to GEF Strategic Priority 1 in the Biodiversity Focal Area: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas. The Project will comprehensively address the following four types of operational activities suggested under this priority: 1) Demonstration and implementation of innovative financial mechanisms; 2) Capacity building for long-term sustainability; 3) Catalyzing community-public-private partnerships; and 4) Removing barriers to facilitate public- private partnerships.. The project addresses capacity gaps and management shortcomings affecting the PA system as a whole with the aim of improving management effectiveness. Accordingly, the project pays particular attention to strengthening capacity at the systemic and institutional levels and to improving conditions and capacities needed to forge durable management partnerships with local government, communities and the private sector. A replication strategy has been developed, to codify good practices and to ensure that they are systematically replicated across the PA system while also documented for application elsewhere (mainly in the southern African sub-continent).

SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)

13. The project has been designed to ensure the financial, institutional and social sustainability of its conservation outcomes. The long-term economic fundamentals for the PA system are good (in terms of the expected growth in PA visitation), but are conditional on improvements in PA management and tourism services. Financial sustainability will be improved through the development of new financial mechanisms, revision of fee schedules, and through realisation of operational efficiencies that will improve the cost effectiveness of PA operations (and consequently returns on investments). The Government of Namibia will continue to shoulder the recurrent costs of managing the PA system. However, the project will take measures to offset these costs. The economic study undertaken during project preparation confirmed that the MET generated approximately N$21 million in 2003 in direct fees from parks, which is less than half of the current budgetary appropriation to PAs (excluding tourism related expenditures). The study projected that with greater control over park pricing (including introduction of a tiered pricing system), and improvements in tourism and hunting concessions, the direct revenue generated could rise to as much as N$ 63 million per annum. This would make a major contribution towards offsetting the desired recurrent costs of managing the expanded PA system of about N$ 105 million per year. Third, the project will also expand linkages between management authorities, the private sector, conservation agencies and donor bodies. This will help to generate new investments and income. 14. Institutional sustainability will be addressed directly through Outcome 2, which will seek to rationalise institutional arrangements, including administrative and operational management systems within the MET. This is expected to improve the effectiveness of DPWM and DSS in executing their functions. Training offered through the project will enhance the skills base of these Departments. Other reforms, including the introduction of a performance based evaluation system for staff, PA branding and reclassification of certain posts are expected to improve the attractiveness of a career in the PA service. More broadly, support for policy and regulatory reform will create a better enabling environment for encouraging private and community participation in PA management. The anticipated civil society based Friends of Namibia PAs association, in particular, is expected to play a major role in championing the cause of PAs, and in providing direct and indirect support to the parks services. This is expected to make a major contribution to operational performance in the medium-longer term. Social sustainability is addressed through the execution of a comprehensive Stakeholder Participation Plan, which identifies stakeholder interests, possible conflicts and responsive mitigation measures, to assure strong stakeholder participation. The new partnerships and collaborative management arrangements being fostered will improve the stake of communities and the private sector in PA management.

REPLICABILITY

15. Project design has been carefully informed by lessons learned from PA management systems across southern Africa (see Annex 7 for a summary of lessons learned and design responses). Accordingly, the project utilizes good practices that have been tried and tested, while testing a number of management innovations building on these 8 SPAN Executive Summary practices. A key thrust of the project is to ensure that good practices are replicated across the Namibian PA system, while also informing PA management systems elsewhere in Africa. Interventions will support capacity building at the systemic and institutional levels, amongst others, by strengthening policies, increasing staff skills in MET and improving operational efficiency. This will enhance the potential for replicating good management practices systems- wide. The interventions in the 4 demonstration sites are key. Key foci for the demonstrations include: collaborative management between MET, local government and local communities, public-private partnerships for conservation, establishment of corridors between PAs, and transboundary cooperation for PA management. Each of these approaches constitute important additions to the management toolbox for PAs across Namibia. In effect, the demonstration sites will provide laboratories for testing new approaches, with the intention that practices can then be replicated elsewhere. A replication strategy is presented on pages 39 to 41 of the ProDoc.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

16. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to: key government agencies (to provide support within the ambit of their administrative functions) like the MET, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry of Agriculture, regional government and traditional authorities; the NWR; PA residents and neighbours including conservancies and private investors adjacent to PAs. And although they may not have a large influence on the project, the Namibia Tourism Board, private sector tourism operators, NGOs, the National Monuments Council, the Federation of Namibian Tourism Association, and the Namibia Professional Hunters Association have a high stake in the success of the PAs. Each of these stakeholders has been involved in various ways, in defining the scope of project interventions. A list of stakeholders and a participation plan is provided in the ProDoc (Annex 5) detailing their roles, interest in and influence on the project. Significant investment will be made in a Knowledge Management system, and to ensure the absolute best use is made of this, the project will create appropriate and sustainable lines of communication between communities, MET and other stakeholders.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

17. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the PMU and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The logical framework matrix in Section II provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation and lists their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the Project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built. A modified version of the METT was applied to all PAs to assess baseline management effectiveness. This will be repeated at mid-term and EOP in order to track progress against the stated targets per PA. Following UNDP procedures, quarterly progress and financial reports will be prepared by the PMU and presented to the PMG which meets at least every other month. Annual Project Reviews (APR) will be completed yearly and jointly by the PMU/MET and UNDP-CO. These will then be followed by annual Tripartite Reviews (TPR). In addition, an independent evaluation will be undertaken at the mid-term and towards the end of the project to identify strengths and weaknesses and chronicle lessons, as well as to reinforce what works well and to make necessary corrections. Responsibilities for monitoring the specific indicators in the logical framework will be divided between the PMU and MET.

FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

18. Total project financing amounts to US$ 41,877,000, excluding preparatory costs. Of this, the GEF will finance US$ 8.2 million. Total co-financing amounts to US$ 33,677,000, broken down as follows.

9 SPAN Executive Summary

Table 2 Outcome Budget (6 years) Outcome GEF GRN UNDP KfW/GTZ USAID Inter- Private Total national Sector NGOs 1. Improved systemic capacity 900,000 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,900,000 for enhanced PA management effectiveness 2. Strengthened institutional 2,970,000 3,400,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 6.670,000 capacity for PA management

3. Expansion of PA 4,330,000 18,402,000 0 3,600,000 175,000 2,400,000 400,000 29,307,000 management know-how through field management demonstrations Total 8,200,000 26,802,000 300,000 3,600,000 175,000 2,400,000 400,000 41,877,000

Table 3– Detailed description of estimated co-financing sources (6 years) Co-financing Sources Name of Co-financier Classification Type Amount(US$) Status (source) GRN Government Government funds 26,802,000* Confirmed UNDP Implementing Agency Grant 300,000 Confirmed KfW/GTZ Bilateral donor Grant 3,600,000 Confirmed USAID Bilateral donor Grant 175,000 Confirmed International NGOs International NGOs NGO funds 2,400,000 Pledged Private Sector Private Sector Private sector funds 400,000 Pledged Sub-Total Co-Financing 33,677,000 *US$ 2,300,000 of the GRN co-financing is estimated to be in in-kind.

COST EFFECTIVENESS

19. The economic analysis undertaken during project preparation reviewed a number to PA cost scenarios. The study showed that under improved management, the annual recurrent expenditure needed to manage the expanded PA system is N$106 million (for an area of 138,000 km2), equating to US$128 per km2.mailbox:///C%7C/Documents and Settings/Nikhil/My Documents/e-mail/NAM PAs?number=71341621 - _ftn2 This figure is modest compared with the cost co-efficient for PA management in other countries in the region. However, this cost co- efficient will only be realised with an improvement in institutional performance and operational efficiency. Project activities are geared expressly towards enhancing management effectiveness and thus catalysing operational and cost- efficiencies. Also, the strong focus on management partnerships will help to spread the cost of interventions. Partnerships can also be expected to ensure lower management costs in the future once the one-time costs of institution building, investments and learning are covered.

INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES

20. The UNDP Third Country Programme Document (CPD) has been developed within the UNDAF framework for 2006-2010 (coinciding with the first phase of this project). The objective of the Programme is the attainment of Vision 2030 by providing upstream policy advice, providing technical assistance, building strategic partnerships and strengthening individual, institutional and systemic capacities at a national level. This project is an integral part of the Country Programme, supporting the achievement of MDG 7 (the indicators for which include the coverage of PAs). Namibia’s 2004 MDG Report identified the PA network as one of its priorities for development assistance and UNDP is supporting MDG reporting efforts in Namibia. 21. The major policy tool guiding national development in all sectors is the Second National Development Plan (NDP II), which covers the period from 2001/2002 to 2005/2006. NDP II fully incorporates environment and 10 SPAN Executive Summary sustainable development issues as both sectoral and cross-cutting themes and sets clear goals in terms of biodiversity conservation. In addition, the GRN finalised a 30-year planning framework known as Vision 2030, which provides a long-term perspective within which future 5-year rolling NDPs can be designed, implemented and monitored. Namibia completed its Biodiversity Country Study in 1998 and finalised its NBSAP in 2002. The NBSAP contains a number of strategies of critical importance to the planned project interventions. These include: 1) to identify and fill gaps in PA network; 2) to strengthen conservation measures in PAs, including strengthening in-situ biodiversity protection; 3) to address the conservation needs of endemic and threatened species; 4) to review and strengthen policy and legal frameworks for conservation; (v) strengthen government’s decentralisation process; and 5) to foster collaborative management partnerships between government bodies, NGOs, the private sector and private citizens.

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN IAS, AND IAS AND EXAS

22. UNDP/GEF is financing preparation of the Country Pilot Partnerships for Sustainable Land Management (CPP- SLM). The program seeks to address the systemic, institutional and individual capacity constraints in devising and implementing an integrated ecosystem based approach to combating land degradation in production landscapes. The programme will be operative outside PAs, focusing on communal lands. There is thus no direct geographic overlap between the initiatives. GEF support is intended to strengthen capacities at the national and local government levels for SLM, and strengthen SLM know-how through field demonstrations. 23. The WB/GEF Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project (NACOMA), aims to mainstream biodiversity conservation objectives into economic development in the coastal zone. Interventions have been scheduled to complement and add value to those spearheaded under SPAN. NACOMA will provide support for the establishment and management of Marine Protected Areas, including in the immediate coastal zone, which lie outside of the scope of SPAN. Data on MPAs collected through NACOMA, will be incorporated into the data management systems and Strategic PA Network Plan being established through SPAN. In addition, NACOMA will support the integration of PA Management Plans for the Namib-Naukluft National Park, Spergebbiet NP, and Skeleton Coast Park developed through SPAN into the ICZM framework (regional development and land use plans). This is essential for the achievement of bio-regional level conservation objectives and well complements the SPAN project’s support for park management planning in the latter two PAs. The NACOMA project will further support capacity building for both regional councils and key MET staff for ICZM. This support will complement the activities of SPAN in these areas, which will focus on building the capacity for PA specific management operations. 24. The Integrated Community Based Ecosystem Management Project (ICEMA), partially funded by WB-GEF, aims to strengthen community based natural resource management within communal conservancies. This includes support for the development of 15 integrated conservancy management plans. The project will also strengthen the planning and monitoring capacity of MET in order to promote, develop and implement the National CBNRM Programme. As this is expected to directly and indirectly improve management in the 17 conservancies adjacent to State PAs, the initiative is highly complementary to SPAN. The project includes a number of demonstration sites, two of which are relevant to SPAN demonstration sites. Close attention will be paid to synergising conservancy and PA management in these areas through the operationalisation of collaborative management agreements. Close coordination between these projects has already started, with regular meetings and frequent e-mail/telephone exchanges between the various coordinators and GEF Implementing Agencies. MET has assumed responsibility for ensuring the activities of the above initiatives are coordinated.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT 25. Project activities will be executed by the MET with the support and oversight of UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency. The MET will be responsible for project coordination, management and monitoring. The Director of Parks and Wildlife and the Director of Scientific Services will serve as the National Project Director and his/her alternate. Coordination among various Directorates, Government agencies and relevant stakeholders will be achieved through creation of a Project Management Group (PMG) and Project Advisory Committee (PAC). The bi- monthly PMG meetings will include the directors of the five directorates of the MET, UNDP, a donor representative and two NGO representatives. The PAC will be the principal consultative body and will include representatives from relevant line ministries, NGOs, parastatals and the two WB/GEF projects. The Project Management Unit (PMU), located within the DPWM (MET), will be responsible for day-to-day project implementation. 11 ANNEX 1 –ICA SPAN Executive Summary ANNEX 1 - INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 26. Namibia has framed a 30-year Development Vision and constructed a National Development Plan (NDP II) to guide and ensure the coherence of development strategies across different sectors. Key development objectives stipulated in NDP II include ensuring sustainable economic development and food security, assuring good governance and controlling HIV/AIDS. The principle of sustainable development is underscored as an imperative in development strategies. This reflects the heavy dependency of the Namibian economy on natural resources. In this context, the country’s System of National Protected Areas is seen as an important asset, as it provides a foundation for the tourism sector and a base for rural livelihoods. The Government places a high priority on strengthening the national system of PAs. However, while the Government will continue to appropriate sizable budgetary resources towards management of the PA estate, it lacks the financial wherewithal to fully cover the one-time costs of capacity building to manage the PA System effectively and to assure its long- term sustainability. The support of the global community will be critical to secure these outcomes.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES 27. Namibia’s drylands are a rich and globally significant storehouse of biodiversity with high species richness, biological distinctiveness and habitat diversity. However, these drylands are extremely fragile. A number of human induced threats are evident across the landscape; if left unchecked, these pressures are likely to lead to the progressive loss of conservation values. While a number of strategies are being employed to address this situation, it is essential that a strong network of PAs is established and maintained to provide refugia for flora and fauna and to safeguard a representative sample of habitats from land conversion. Namibia has established an impressive network of PAs covering 13.8% of the total land area. However, this network is not currently representative of habitats, nor are some PAs correctly sited or large enough to maintain essential ecological processes. The effectiveness of management input into PAs also needs to be improved to ensure that the PA System serves as an effective bulwark against threats. This need provides the entry point for this project.

SYSTEM BOUNDARY 28. The system boundary of this project, which constitutes the planning framework, consists of the network of state PAs, including existing sites and planned additions. Costs are estimated over the time frame of seven years including the one year preparatory phase (2004-2005) and intended six year time span of the full project (2006- 2011). Incremental/baseline costs are estimated for each of the three anticipated project outcomes. In addition, baseline costs have been assessed for associated tourism developments that contribute to and benefit from conservation efforts in PAs.13 While the Project has been designed as a two-phase initiative, GEF funding for Phase 2 would be contingent upon the success of Phase 1. A separate application for Phase 2 funding would be prepared following independent verification of outcomes. This proposal will include a dedicated incremental cost analysis. Costs for this analysis are estimated, in 2004 prices, at an N$/US$ exchange rate of 6.2/1.

BASELINE 29. The principal threats facing Namibia’s network of State PAs are: 1) negative visitor impacts; 2) small size and isolation of some PAs; 3) poaching of animals; 4) alien species invasion; 5) uncontrolled bush fires; 6) uncontrolled mining and prospecting activities; 7) illegal harvesting of plants; and 8) over-extraction of water.. 30. A description of these threats and their determinants is provided in Annex 2 to this project document. In the baseline scenario, Namibia would finance a number of important interventions to address these threats. However, this would be initiated in a situation characterized by sub-optimal capacity and weak overall management effectiveness. 31. National Level PA Policy, Planning and Monitoring Functions: The total baseline appropriation for PA

13 Baseline cost associated with other GEF biodiversity projects in Namibia have been excluded from this analysis.

12 ANNEX 1 –ICA SPAN Executive Summary planning functions is projected US$ 7,790,000. The MET is investing US$ 1,150,000 at the HQ level for routine annual planning functions and policy level planning for PAs. The MET is committing and additional US$ 1,280,000 for monitoring activities for protected areas at the national level. In addition, the MET is investing US$ 1,000,000 for regional and national consultations concerning policy frameworks and research and drafting of policy and legal instruments. This includes the finalisation of the Environment Management and Assessment Bill, which reinforces the Environmental Impact Assessment Policy and planning for decentralisation. Furthermore, the MET will spend US$ 2,300,000 for national tourism planning including research and drafting of tourism related policy and legal instruments. The Ministry of Regional Local Government and Housing (MRLGH) is investing US$ 1,500,000 for coordination of the overall management of the decentralisation process. This will have a major bearing on environmental management at local level. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is supporting the National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) of Namibia, with the funding of US$ 560,000 as part of the Millennium Seed Bank Project and to survey economic plants for arid and semi-arid lands. 32. Institutional Running Costs: The Government will spend US$ 12,750,000 for running PA management and its istrative support divisions of the MET, mainly at the HQ level. This includes staff costs, utilities and office accommodation at HQ and in the field. It also includes equipment and vehicle procurement and maintenance for HQ. 33. Site Based Investment Activities: The total cost of the baseline for site based investment is US$ 60,589,000. The MET will spend US$ 17,500,000 to cover personnel costs in PAs for routine management work. US$ 6,300,000 will be also invested in maintaining scientific services and PA staff for protection and management of key species and natural resources. US$ 19,670,000 is expected to be spent on the development and maintenance of infrastructure and procurement of equipment and materials. US$ 1,080,000 is earmarked for the purpose of law enforcement in the PAs (legal services and associated activities needed to prosecute malfeasance). US$ 2,779,000 will be budgeted for reintroduction of high value species into PAs, and other wildlife translocation. The Ministry of Mines and Energy will spend US$ 5,000,000 on minimizing the negative impacts of mineral/energy resource exploitation on the environment. SIDA, DANIDA and Commercial Bank of Namibia operate small environmental grants schemes for civil society groups through the Namibia Nature Foundation. The baseline cost attributable to this project is estimated at US$ 730,000; this will help to finance conservation-compatible rural livelihoods in conservancies adjacent to State PAs. A number of external researchers will be conducting biological and related researches in PAs, and their investment is estimated at approximately US$1,500,000. GTZ is providing US$900,000 as a part of recurrent and development costs of the Gobabeb Research and Training Centre, a joint venture of the MET and the Desert Research Foundation of Namibia (DRFN) located inside the Namib-Nukluft Park. The EU is providing US$ 130,000 to the NBRI for a succulent cultivation project, as part of its National Agricultural Support project. The Namibia Tourism Board is expected to spend US$ 5,000,000 on tourism promotion focused on Namibia’s protected areas and their environs. The parastatal company: Namibia Wildlife Resorts will spend some US$50,400,000 as associated costs (not included in the total) over the accounting period to operate tourist facilities inside the PAs.

INCREMENTAL ACTIVITIES TO GENERATE GLOBAL BENEFITS 34. The GEF, Government of Namibia, UNDP and various bilateral donors and NGOs will provide financing to cover the incremental costs of efforts to ensure effective management of the National PA system. The immediate objective of the proposed project is: “increased management effectiveness in the national PA network and improved partnerships between the PA authority and other stakeholders is better safeguarding biodiversity from human-induced threats.” This will be achieved in pursuit of a higher goal: “sustainable management of renewable natural resources protects biodiversity while contributing to equitable economic and social development.” GEF funds will partially finance the incremental costs of interventions in order to achieve three complementary outcomes. Activities have been designed to lift barriers to PA management effectiveness.

35. Improved Systemic Capacity for Enhancing PA Management Effectiveness: Total incremental funding for systemic capacity improvement is US$ 7,482,000. GEF would provide US$ 900,000 in support of the improved legal and policy framework, monitoring mechanisms and knowledge management. This would include support

13 ANNEX 1 –ICA SPAN Executive Summary for: 1) development of subsidiary regulations under the Parks and Wildlife Management Bill; 2) establishment of sustainable financing mechanisms to ensure sustainability of all the three outcomes; 3) compilation of a strategic PA network plan and PA reclassification exercise. The GEF will also finance the development of a framework and plans to ensure coordinated and targeted monitoring of biodiversity in PAs in order to enhance effectiveness of current monitoring activities. Lastly, a functioning knowledge management system will be established within the MET for project result sustainability and replication. MET will make available US$ 1,150,000 in personnel costs for enacting the Parks and Wildlife Management Bill and developing associated regulations. US$ 2,500,000 will be invested by the MET for improving the efficiency of two statutory funds (GPTF and EIF), and US$ 1,750,000 will be invested for expansion of monitoring systems for protection and management of key species. The MET will also make available US$ 772,000 for developing park management plans. The EU will spend US$ 100,000 for assisting the MET in developing park management and tourism development plans for Etosha, Namib-Naukluft and Ai-Ais PAs. The German Government is also contributing US$ 310,000 to Namibia for the Biodiversity Monitoring Transect Analysis (BIOTA) Project, aiming to establish a baseline and a systematic biodiversity monitoring system for flora and small fauna in Africa.

36. Institution Capacity for Improved PA Management : Total incremental funding for institutional capacity building is US$ 4,770,000. The GEF would provide funding of US$ 2,970,000 to support the restructuring of the MET needed to improve operational efficiencies. Devolution of decision making and financial management systems will be tested in the 4 field demonstration sites to devise the best system. Piloting new modalities will be accompanied by the institutionalization of individual and park-level performance monitoring and evaluation systems, as well as the institutionalization of training and incentive mechanisms. Development of the PA economic and business planning capacity and the partnership building capacity will also be supported by the GEF. The MET will invest US$ 1,150,000 to cover personnel and operational costs. In addition, UNDP co- financing of US$ 300,000 will support the HIV/AIDS succession planning component of the project. This will include both a quick study on the present situation regarding HIV/AIDS impact on PA management and the development of an HIV/AIDS succession plan including fielding of health workers, providing confidential counselling, testing, and health care programmes at the PA level. This programme will then be used as a model for the HIV/AIDS mainstreaming of a Government Agency. SIDA has allocated US$ 350,000 to strengthen the MET’s capacity in environmental economics.

37. Expansion of PA Management Know-Hows Through Field Management Demonstrations : Total incremental funding for site based investment activities is US$ 29,625,000. The GEF will provide US$ 4,330,000 of funding for activities at 4 field demonstration sites to cover the incremental cost of new management approaches needed to enhance management effectiveness. Interventions will include training activities, partnership building, the establishment of functional conservation links between PAs, PA tourism development, marketing and targeted infrastructure development. The MET will also spend US$18,720,000 for management activities at the demonstration sites, including upgrading PA infrastructure, and field operations. Conservation International (CI), through its Global Conservation Fund (GCF), will support infrastructure development at one of the demonstration sites, the Sperrgebiet National Park. It will also fund management planning, and establishment of biodiversity database at this site. Funding from the GCF is envisaged to be US$ 800,000. CI has also mobilised resources from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation in support of two transfronier conservation areas, to strengthen the capacity of PA authorities to jointly manage transfrontier conservation areas with neighbouring countries. The assistance will target the Okavango/Upper Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area that includes the BMM complex demonstration site and the Namib Desert Transfrontier Conservation Area, including Ai-Ais demonstration site. Approximately 30% of this funding, or US$ 400,000 is counted as co-financing. US$ 3,500,000 of KfW funding for infrastructure and management support for the Bwabwata-Mudumu-Mamili complex demonstration site in the north-east is included in the incremental cost. KfW/GTZ has committed around US$ 2,000,000 for Namibia’s biodiversity projects, US$ 100,000 is included in this analysis as the portion supports the proclamation of the Sperrgebiet 38. WWF-UK will support the IRDNC’s work in supporting PA buffer zone management activities in communal conservancies adjacent to the demonstration site PAs in the Caprivi and Kunene regions. US$ 1,200,000 is counted as co-financing to this project. NAMDEB will be providing US$ 400,000 as co-financing,

14 ANNEX 1 –ICA SPAN Executive Summary in support for PA infrastructure development in Sperrgebiet and Ai-Ais PAs. USAID has also confirmed a co- financing of US$ 175,000 for planning expenses for the Etosha–Skeleton Coast Link corridor including human wildlife conflict mitigations, joint venture and concession planning.

INCREMENTAL COST AND BENEFITS 39. The baseline, comprising activities that are undertaken primarily to produce domestic benefits including tourism development, is estimated at US$ 81,129,000. The incremental cost of activities that yield global biodiversity conservation benefits, is estimated at US$ 41,877,000. The total cost of the Alternative Strategy is estimated at US$ 123,006,000. GEF would fund incremental costs of US$ 8,200,000, amounting to a modest 6.7% of the total cost of the Alternative. The GEF funding has been committed for activities generating clear global benefits over the long term, associated with increasing PA management effectiveness and increasing conservation coverage.The incremental cost matrix provides a summary of the domestic and global benefits associated with each of the 3 project outcomes. As the incremental project interventions are expected to yield domestic indirect co-benefits over the long-term, significant co-financing has been leveraged, to complement GEF investments in capacity strengthening.

15 ANNEX 1 –ICA SPAN Executive Summary

Incremental Cost Matrix Outcome Cost Cost (US$) Domestic Benefit Global Benefit Outcome 1. Baseline MET 5,730,000 - Improved environmental governance, through progressive - Enhanced environmental awareness among policy makers creates Improved MRLGH 1,500,000 devolution of environmental functions to local Government. more conducive environment for spearheading biodiversity systemic RBG Kew 560,000 - Strengthened Environmental Impact Assessment conservation. capacity for Total 7,790,000 Framework, better assures the environmental sustainability of enhancing PA development management effectiveness Increment MET 6,172,000 - Improved legal, policy and governance framework - Strengthened legal and policy framework for PA management GEF 900,000 provides incentives and mechanisms for PA partners provides added legal protection for biodiversity within PAs, tying EU 100,000 (communities, conservancies, private sector) to invest management objectives and strategies to threat reduction imperatives German Gov. 310,000 in and benefit from PA management. and reducing the risk that flora and fauna will be extirpated. - New PA categories codified in a Strategic PA Network Plan and Total 7,482,000 - A sustainable financing mechanism provides management options, founded on public-private- community improved financial base for PA management. partnerships provide a basis for enhancing the bio-geographic coverage of the PA network - Sustainable financing mechanism will increase available financial resources for biodiversity conservation. - Improved knowledge management system contributes to the induction of good biodiversity management practices across PAs Alternative Total 15,272,000 Outcome 2. Baseline MET 12,750,000 - Existing institutional Framework for PA administration - Existence of PAs contributes to biodiversity conservation objectives. Strengthened Increment MET 1,150,000 -Improved and streamlined institutional setup and business - Improved institutional functioning enhances management institutional GEF 2,970,000 planning system ensures that budgetary appropriations are effectiveness per unit effort and leads to more optimal use of limited capacity for UNDP 300,000 used more effectively. financial and human resources for biodiversity conservation. This PA SIDA 350,000 - PA staff motivation improves due to devolution of certain improves the institutional and financial sustainability of conservation management Total 4,770,000 decision making, training opportunities and incentive outcomes mechanisms, coupled with institutionalized performance - Improved monitoring of wildlife and ecosystem health provides early M&E system. warning of threats and provides basis for adapting PA management - HIV/AIDS issues truly mainstreamed in PA management, - Business planning makes for more optimum use of scarce funding resulting in better staff welfare and increased awareness.

Alternative 17,520,000 . . Outcome 3. Baseline MET 47,329,000 - Basic PA Infrastructure maintained in 20 field PA estate provides the cornerstone of efforts to protect biodiversity, and Expansion of MME 5,000,000 demonstration sites. sustain global benefits (existence values and option values) PA External 1,500,000 - Promotion of nature tourism contributes to economic management Researchers development and poverty alleviation by diversifying rural know-how NTB 5,000,000 livelihoods, creating employment and enabling economic through field GTZ 900,000 development. management - Negative impact of mining and prospecting in PAs reduced. EU 130,000 demonstra- - Economic opportunities from sustainable harvest of tions SIDA 300,000 succulent plants increased, leading to diversification of DANIDA 230,000 livelihoods in some communities. Commercial 200,000 Bank Total 60,589,000 16 ANNEX 1 –ICA SPAN Executive Summary

Increment MET 18,720,000 - New management arrangements provide for greater - Innovative conservation methods are tried and adapted; they GEF 4,330,000 participation of PA stakeholders, in particular add to the bundle of available PA management options. CI 1,200,000 neighbouring communities in PA management. - Investments in PA management and infrastructure attract KfW 3,500,000 - Mechanisms are in place to ensure a more equitable more visitors and private investors. This contributes to PA sharing of benefits with neighbouring communities revenue generation and increases the financial base for WWF (UK) 1,200,000 - Income generation and business development biodiversity conservation. Private Sector 400,000 opportunities for resident and adjacent communities are - Restoration of wildlife migration routes and inclusion of USAID 175,000 increased. crucial biodiversity areas in the PA network will significantly GTZ 100,000 enhance biodiversity conservation. Total 29,625,000 - Targeted investment in biodiversity hot-spots (Succulent Karoo and Namib Escarpment) ensure conservation of numerous endemic species and habitats. - Pilot activities provide grounds for testing, improving and replicating partnerships and tools for effective biodiversity conservation

Alternative Total 90,214,000

TOTAL Baseline 81,129,000 Increment 41,877,000 GEF 8,200,000 Non-GEF 33,677,000 Total Cost 123,006,000 Associated Financing NWR* 50,400,000 * NWR is expected to spend US$ 50,400,000 to operate and maintain tourism facilities in PAs. However this amount is not directly for conservation, therefore the figure is described as the associated financing.

17 ANNEX 2 –Logframe SPAN Executive Summary

ANNEX 2 - LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS

Project Objectively verifiable indicators Strategy

Goal Sustainable management of renewable natural resources protects biodiversity while contributing to equitable economic and social development

Sources of Risks and Indicator Baseline Target (EOP) verification Assumptions Objective of 1. Net improvement in  Baseline NAMETT results Net improvement in  NAMETT at mid-  External pressure the project management are as follows management effectiveness term and EOP on national parks Increased effectiveness for PA for 50% of PA land. and protected management land. Total land areas does not Category effectiveness area All newly created PAs will significantly of the These PAs will move to a 14,675 km2 have at least an intermediate increase. High national PA higher category of (13%) ranking.  MET remains network for management 57,769 km2 committed to Medium biodiversity effectiveness using the (53%) Mid-term: 35% of land enactment of the conservation. following definition of 37,655 km2 managed as PA will have Parks and Low NAMETT (Namibia (34%) moved to a higher NAMETT Wildlife METT) categories: category. Management Bill  No widespread > 50...... High occurrence of 40 - 49...... Intermediate lung- Less than 40....Low disease/anthrax

Sources of Risks and Indicator Baseline Target (EOP) verification Assumptions 2. Percentage  See table below  Unit = % covered by PA  MET data  See above representation of the 6 system biomes in the PA system Biome Baseline Mid-Term EOP Namib Desert 69.43 75 76 Nama Karoo 5.03 7 10 Lakes and Salt pans 95.76 95.76 95.76 Acacia tree and shrub 4.5 5 10 Savanna Broadleaved tree and 7.79 18 20 wood Savanna Succulent Karoo 11.01 90 91 Outcome 1 1. Needs-weighted  Needs-weighted average  0.46  NBSAP progress  External pressure Improved average level of 0.28  Mid-term: 0.36 reports on national parks systemic vegetation type coverage.  NBRI reports and protected capacity areas does not provides the significantly enabling increase. framework 2. Enactment of the Parks  The Parks and Wildlife  The Bill is enacted, and  The Parks and  Timely approval/ for enhancing and Wildlife Management Bill is under subsidiary policies Wildlife enactment of PA Management Bill, and discussion. developed. Management Act legal and management development of  Mid-term: The Parks and  Subsidiary regulatory effectiveness. subsidiary policies. Wildlife Management Bill regulations framework is enacted.  Improvement recorded in monthly and annual park reports  NAMETT assessment

Sources of Risks and Indicator Baseline Target (EOP) verification Assumptions 3. Budget amount  The current available  Increased by 70% with  MET budget  Tourism appropriated for PA budget for PA management additional revenue secured documents numbers remain management. is about N$ 40 million per from park  MoF records and constant or year as opposed to usage/concession fees. reports increase projected N$106 million  Mid-Term: New Sufficient per year to realise adequate sustainable financing scientific/ management. mechanisms developed, contextual data is resulting in budget amount obtainable to increasing by 40%. develop viable management plans

4. Functioning  There is no knowledge  Functioning system  Existence of  MET responds knowledge management management system. institutionalised. knowledge well to system will have been  Mid-term: A framework for management innovative institutionalised and the knowledge system and management made accessible to a management system is institutional set- measures wide range of developed and an up to update and conservation partners awareness raising exercise utilise the system including MET staff, line undertaken to promote the ministries, communities, value of the system.  Number of users and local and international NGOs and individuals, to ensure sustainability and replicability of the achievements and lessons learned.

Sources of Risks and Indicator Baseline Target (EOP) verification Assumptions Outcome 2 1. Average length of  Average length of  Average length of the  Internal and  Institutional Institutional procurement process. procurement process is 62 procurement process 14 independent reorganisation is capacities for days. days. review at mid- supported by PA  Mid-term: Average length term and EOP MET staff at all management of procurement process 30  NAMETT levels are days. assessment at strengthened, mid-term and resulting in EOP more 2. Staff skill level.  Training and M&E system  Average staff skill level  A stratified  Staff turnover effective use do no exist. has risen to 60% of sample (across can be slowed of financial potential effectiveness. ranks) of down with the and human  Mid-term: Average staff supervisor-led introduction of resources skill level is 30% of skills rating. the M&E potential effectiveness.  Existence of system, an individual incentive performance mechanisms, and M&E system and institutionalisatio incentive n of in-service mechanism training system  Availability of  Qualified and training dedicated people opportunities and are available their quality within the system and for recruitment

Sources of Risks and Indicator Baseline Target (EOP) verification Assumptions 3. Use of business There is no business  Business planning will  Existence of park  Institutional methods at individual planning at individual PA have become an integral business plans. reorganisation is park level, and existence level and no institutionalised part of PA management,  Existence of an supported by of a PA performance PA performance monitoring supported by an M&E M&E system for MET staff at all monitoring system. system. system at the individual assessing parks. levels park level. Both adopted in 4 field demonstration sites.  Mid-term: PA performance monitoring system and business planning approach adopted in two parks. 4. Prevalence of career Formalised career planning  70% of staff have agreed  Annual MET  Adequate development planning does not take place. MET career development human resources number of staff for staff within MET plans, involving training reporting. are suitably opportunities and incentive interested and mechanisms. capable to  Mid-term: 30% of staff advance their have agreed MET career professional development plans. career in conservation.

Sources of Risks and Indicator Baseline Target (EOP) verification Assumptions Outcome 3 1. Management  See table below.  Management effectiveness  NAMETT  Good PA effectiveness of PAs. index of all field assessment cooperation with management demonstration site PAs will NAMDEB know-how is have increased as below continues expanded and with a minimum ranking of  Local level reinforced intermediate for all sites: political support through for conservation innovative can be field maintained Sites Baseline Mid-Term EOP management  Local level Ai-Ais 28 34 40 demonstratio stability, law and n Bwabwata (Caprivi, Mahango) 35 42 48 order are Etosha (average of E & W scores) 50 56 60 maintained Mamili 31 39 45  Elasticity of Mudmu 36 45 51 demand is such Skeleton Coast 44 50 55 that as prices Sperrgebiet 35 43 60 increase so does revenue  Park accommodation and services will be well maintained

23 ANNEX 3 – STAP Review SPAN Executive Summary

ANNEX 3 – STAP REVIEW AND RESPONSE

Reviewer : Philip Tortell Date : 25 February 2005

A OVERALL IMPRESSION

The overall impression from the ProDoc is that project designers have done a thorough job. With a few exceptions, the ProDoc is quite impressive and, with some revision and fine-tuning, it is expected to provide the necessary guidance to those entrusted with implementation. The project has a very good tie-in with the BSAP and it is well-founded in national priorities and policies including the BSAP, the Republican Constitution, National Development Plans, etc.

Proposals for project governance appear sound and the project should be successful in achieving its objectives. It will leave a legacy of a strong, effective and sustainable management system for PAs in Namibia based on a series of partnerships between the responsible government agencies and other stakeholders including the private sector and local communities. This can only be good for the globally significant biological diversity that Namibia is endowed with.

B KEY ISSUES

B1 Scientific and technical soundness of the project

The ProDoc describes well the ecological context within which the project is based. Ecological values have been clearly identified and there is sufficient ecological and technical information to provide the project with a sound scientific base. It also provides a good thorough review of the Namibian Protected Areas (PAs) system which was compiled through an extensive consultative process with a range of stakeholders from responsible government organizations down to grassroots levels.

The ProDoc has also addressed the socio-economic context of the project including land tenure systems, local technical knowledge and the major problem of HIV/AIDS. Interventions are proposed under the project or as parallel initiatives in recognition of the importance of these social issues to the objectives of the project.

A comprehensive threats analysis has been carried out on a PA by PA basis. A list of threats appears more than once in the text but the hierarchical order is not consistent leaving the reader wondering which, if any, are the priority threats.

In general, the root causes have also been identified as have the barriers to the application of solutions. In keeping with the latest guidance on BD-1, the project has identified the deficiencies in the Namibian PA system as well as a number of “barriers” that prevent the system from fulfilling its role of effective and efficient conservation of BD.

However, the ProDoc does not seem to make a distinction between root causes and barriers. Removing barriers does not always solve the problem – it often merely paves the way for a solution to be applied so as to address a root cause. The project needs to make a more explicit link between the activities proposed and the barriers and root causes which it is trying to address in order to remove/control threats.

The LogFrame Matrix provides clear, quantifiable and time-bound indicators to gauge performance towards achieving the project objectives. An extensive monitoring strategy is proposed, together with the financial means, based on the monitoring approach recommended by UNDP/GEF. One of the aims of the monitoring strategy is to ensure that triggers for Phase 2 of the project are satisfied. The project also proposes to take

24 ANNEX 3 – STAP Review SPAN Executive Summary monitoring and evaluation to the individual and park levels to enable the MET to track performance systematically.

However, there is no indication of the mechanisms that will be put in place to implement the results of monitoring.

Risks are identified in both the ProDoc and in the Executive Summary but Table 6, Risk Analysis, in the ProDoc, is different from the table Assumptions/Risks, on p6 of the Executive Summary – this discrepancy needs to be resolved. Furthermore, two of the risks identified raise some doubts about the ownership and buy- in of MET. If the enactment of the Parks and Wildlife Management Bill and the internal restructuring of the MET have been identified by the MET itself as necessary initiatives, the suggested risk should not occur. If on the other hand these two activities were identified by outside consultants and proposed to MET, there is certainly a risk involved. However, since the MET does not “enact” the Bill but Parliament does and since the restructuring of a Government ministry is not a purely internally initiated and managed affair, the mitigation measures need to be targeted differently. It would seem that if these two risks do exist, they are bigger than the MET and need to be addressed accordingly.

B2 Identification of the global environmental benefits

There is no doubt that the ecological resources which will be protected through this project are of global importance. Not only is the project addressing the only biodiversity hotspot in arid regions, but the ecosystems and species that will benefit from the project are in the main endemic to Namibia and unique on a global scale. The ProDoc makes a strong case for the global significance of the ecological environment to be addressed by the project. However, it is not very explicit in its scant discussion of the expected global benefits of the project in the text. Neither are the global benefits of the project clearly identified and distinguished from purely national benefits in the Incremental Cost Matrix. A more explicit identification and discussion of the global benefits of the project, maybe with reference to the CBD, will enhance the ProDoc.

B3 GEF context

B3.1 GEF Goals, Strategies, Priorities

This project falls under the GEF Operational Programme #1 : Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems and responds to GEF Strategic Priority 1 in the Biodiversity Focal Area : Catalyzing the Sustainability of Protected Areas. The Project will address the following types of operational activities suggested under this priority: 1) Demonstration and implementation of innovative financial mechanisms; b) Capacity building for long-term sustainability; c) Catalyzing community-public-private partnerships.

The project aims to address capacity gaps and management shortcomings affecting the Namibian PA system as a whole, with the aim of improving its management effectiveness. Accordingly, the project pays particular attention to strengthening capacity at the systemic and institutional levels and improving conditions and capacities needed to forge durable management partnerships with local government, communities and the private sector. Such partnerships are needed as part of the project’s efforts to strengthen capacity, noting that top down administration of PAs is unlikely to be sustainable. The project places great emphasis on the sustainability of results and the potential for replication, and a replication strategy has been developed. This will codify good practices and ensure that they are systematically replicated across the PA system in Namibia and also documented and disseminated for application in other countries (in the Southern African sub- continent and elsewhere).

The project will implement an innovative approach to knowledge management through which successful tools, lessons learned and best practices can be disseminated among a broad audience.

The project will fulfil a number of the objectives of the Biodiversity Convention, including the in situ conservation of biodiversity and the enhancement of national capacities to manage natural ecosystems. According to the ProDoc, the project addresses elements 3 and 4 of the CBD COP VII decision on Protected Areas and the accompanying work programme (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/L.32). Specifically, the project will : • Provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for PAs; • Build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs; • Ensure financial sustainability of PAs and national and regional systems of PAs; • Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of PA management; • Assess and monitor PA status and trends.

The project applies a strategic approach which will create an enabling environment to address biodiversity conservation in Namibia over the long term. It aims to introduce biodiversity within other sectors through mainstreaming it in the wider sustainable development context and it is committed to an engagement with the private sector where appropriate. Project activities are complemented by other UNDP interventions in the development agenda in Namibia addressing poverty and HIV/AIDS in particular.

B3.2 Catalytic Role of GEF

The project supports the catalytic role of the GEF by : • Promoting environmental, institutional, social and financial sustainability through cost-effective and innovative interventions; • Strengthening Namibia’s natural resource policy frameworks, management programmes and financing strategies; • Building on new and existing partnerships with local and indigenous communities, government agencies, Implementing and Executing Agencies, NGOs and the private sector.

B3.3 Strategic Priorities

The project addresses three of the four themes identified by GEF for significant attention, namely : • Capacity building; • Participation of government agencies beyond “green” agencies in biodiversity projects to foster greater political and institutional participation; • Enhancing and sustaining the participation of local and indigenous communities and the private sector in GEF projects.

The project does not provide explicit and direct linkages with other focal areas of the GEF but it does apply the more comprehensive approach based on support for achieving sustainability of PA systems which is favoured by GEF.

B3.4 GEF Objectives

The project reflects the key GEF objective of conserving biodiversity through the - • Expansion, consolidation, and rationalization of the national Namibian PA system; • A flexible operational focus based on a thorough understanding of key strengths and weaknesses at the system and national institutional levels; • Contributing towards long-term sustainability within the entire Namibian PA system context.

B3.5 Operational activities

The project will implement, inter alia, the following types of operational activities from those identified by the GEF for this strategic priority : • Demonstration and implementation of innovative financial mechanisms • Capacity building for long-term sustainability :

Systemic capacity building through legislation, policy and enabling activities; Institutional capacity building to improve all aspects of management; Individual capacity building through targeted training to maximize skills for sustainability. • Promote the participation of local community and indigenous groups in the design, implementation, management and monitoring of projects to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use

B4 Regional context

The geographic scope of the project is entirely within Namibia’s borders. However, there is recognition in the project that some of Namibia’s PAs are along its borders with its neighbours and that the ecosystems in question span the border. The project will address these transboundary aspects and intends to establish management and operational links.

B5 Replicability

According to the ProDoc, “a key thrust of the project is to ensure that good practices are replicated across the Namibian PA system, while also informing PA management systems elsewhere in Africa”. Replication Strategy Activities for the project are given in Table 7 while Annex 8, Table 21, provides more detail in the Replication Strategy Matrix which is based on the results expected under each of the three project Outcomes. It would be more helpful for the reader if these two tables were to be consolidated and presented as one single table placed near the relevant discussion in the text.

Many of the interventions planned under the project, if successful, can be replicated elsewhere in Namibia and most likely also in neighbouring countries in Southern Africa with similar ecological and socio-economic situations. By combining a thorough monitoring and evaluation system with an excellent knowledge management system, the project is expected to establish an effective mechanism for replication. However, it is felt that the project can be more proactive to capture more of the replication potential of its interventions, particularly the demonstration ones.

B6 Sustainability

The GEF recognizes that sustainability has several dimensions: ecological, institutional, social, economical, political and financial and that under BD-1 projects must aim for sustainability in the context of national-level PA systems not just in individual PAs.

The ProDoc notes that the project “has been designed to ensure the financial, institutional and social sustainability of its conservation outcomes”.

The long-term economic fundamentals for the Namibian PA system are considered to be good by the ProDoc, but this is conditional on improvements in PA management and tourism services. Financial sustainability will be improved through the development, by the project, of new financial mechanisms, revision of fee schedules, and through realisation of operational efficiencies that will improve the cost effectiveness of PA operations nationwide.

The project will address institutional sustainability directly through Outcome 2, which will seek to rationalise institutional arrangements at the national and local levels, including administrative and operational management systems within the MET. Training offered through the project, the introduction of a performance-based evaluation system for staff, PA branding and the reclassification of certain posts, are all expected to improve the attractiveness of careers in the PA service and sustain the capacity that will be achieved. Support for policy and regulatory reform will create an improved enabling environment for encouraging private and community participation in PA management, further enhancing sustainability.

Social sustainability is addressed through the execution of a comprehensive Stakeholder Involvement Plan, which identifies stakeholder interests and possible conflicts and proposes mitigation measures to assure strong and effective stakeholder participation. The new partnerships and collaborative management arrangements being fostered will improve the stake of communities and the private sector in PA management, building a sense of ownership which is a very strong precursor to sustainability, albeit at the specific PA level.

C SECONDARY ISSUES

C1 Linkage to other focal areas

The ProDoc appears silent about any direct or indirect linkages of the project with other GEF focal areas. This is very much a Biodiversity focussed project. While the project is most unlikely to have any negative impacts in GEF focal areas outside its Biodiversity focus, no global environmental benefits in other focal areas are expected to accrue.

However, if further consideration of global benefits (as against global importance/significance) is given in the ProDoc as suggested elsewhere in this review, the writers may wish to explore any possible linkages that could be identified with the Sustainable Land Management and the International Waters focal areas, even if only indirectly.

C2 Linkage to other programmes and action plans at the regional or subregional level

According to the ProDoc, the project “is an integral part of the UNDP Country Programme”. It is also seen as linked to a number of past and ongoing GEF-assisted initiatives such as the NCSA, Biodiversity Enabling Activities (which led to the BSAP), the NACOMA project and the ICEMA project, the latter two with the World Bank as the IA for GEF.

The project has been informed by past initiatives and will be coordinated with ongoing and prospective initiatives of UNDP/GEF and other Implementing Agencies.

C3 Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects

The PAs of Namibia, with their unique endemic species and their globally significant ecosystems form the mainstay of the country’s tourism industry. Effective management of the PAs will lead to benefits to the tourism sector. Further benefits will accrue also to the strong CBNRM areas as well as the 10-20% of private freehold land outside the State PA system.

C4 Degree of involvement of stakeholders

Following a comprehensive stakeholder analysis, key stakeholders were identified and their respective roles vis-a-vis the project have been recorded in Table 16, Annex 5. There has been a good participatory and ownership approach in the preparatory phase of the project. Likewise, active participation of relevant stakeholders in the various activities of implementation and monitoring of the project are envisaged in the implementation phase.

Annex 5 outlines the Participation Plan for the project against the Outcomes and subcomponents. Participation activities range from the formal meetings of the Project Advisory Committee made up of representatives of the key stakeholders, to a number of less formal consultative workshops planned for various activities. However, even more significant is the effort to institutionalize the participatory and inclusive approach to PA management through mechanisms such as devolution, performance monitoring, advisory bodies, compliance monitoring, partnership arrangements, etc.

Opportunities for local participation in PA management have been built into project design. However, participation is only effective if the participants are fully informed and, through its Knowledge Management System, the project will make sure that appropriate lines of communication will be established to facilitate the flow and exchange of technical information between communities and stakeholders.

Finally, it is very interesting to note the internalisation of the project implementation process into the MET, the chief stakeholder. This is seen as a very effective way of ensuring ownership by this stakeholder and also an effective mechanism for directly building capacity and expertise.

C5 Capacity building aspects

This is a capacity building project. Two out of the three Outcomes of the project focus specifically and directly on capacity building, one on systemic capacity, the other on institutional capacity. The third Outcome also targets capacity building but not as directly.

Through this enhanced capacity, the project will empower Namibia to become self-sufficient eventually in caring for its PAs; and this capacity is being built at various strata of society from Government down.

C6 Innovativeness of the project

Three aspects of the project are considered interesting, even if not entirely new.

The first of these is the Knowledge Management System which will be innovative and proactive in order to go beyond traditional written lessons and document dissemination. It will include active networking between PAs, particularly through the 4 field demonstration sites, in order to exchange personal experiences and best practices from the project and PA management work beyond the project. The knowledge management system will also include the use of e-mail communication and an entertaining and motivating PA newsletter. The project will catalyse active web-based and physical exchanges of experiences and lessons learnt between Namibia and other countries, as well as between regions within Namibia, through the establishment of international forums for knowledge management and through a warden-exchange scheme. Through this project, the MET will reinstate its annual research meeting, where progress, monitoring and research will be presented to all relevant stakeholders with carefully designed interactive sessions to optimise debate and discussion. Knowledge management activities will be instituted in close collaboration with the Environmental Information Unit of the Directorate of Environmental Affairs, which will partly cover the recurrent costs of sustaining the system, as well as with CBNRM projects that have already developed a high quality knowledge management database.

Another aspect of the project which is not so common is the internalisation of implementation into the MET. The Project Management Unit (PMU), which will be headed by the Project Coordinator assisted by a Deputy Project Coordinator and a Project Assistant, will be located within the DPWM of the MET. It will be responsible for day-to-day implementation of all project activities, including direct supervision of those activities contracted to consultants. In executing project activities, the MET will have the support and oversight of UNDP, as the GEF Implementing Agency and it will be responsible for project coordination, management and monitoring. The Director of Parks and Wildlife and the Director of Scientific Services will serve as the National Project Director and his/her alternate.

Finally, a third aspect of the project which is considered innovative is the comprehensive and systemic approach to improving management effectiveness of the Namibian PA network. This will be done through capacity building at the systemic, institutional and individual levels and by testing various management and conservation approaches in four field pilot sites. The capacity building will include implementation of a new legal and policy framework, restructuring of the PA management arms of the MET, exploration and development of collaborative PA management systems with local stakeholders, a PA category reclassification

29 ANNEX 3 – STAP Review SPAN Executive Summary exercise, establishment of sustainable financial mechanisms and capacity building for senior managers and PA field staff.

D SOME SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Two documents were supplied for review - the full Project Document and the Project Executive Summary. They are not entirely consistent and they must be.

2. The ProDoc does not have a signature page.

3. There is no Outputs Budget (a requirement of GEF). In fact, the Budget aspect of the ProDoc is the weakest aspect. There is a need for an Outcome and Outputs budget or at least cost estimates. The ProDoc needs a table showing how the Outputs-based budget will be met – from GEF, Government, UNDP, other donors.

4. Part V of the ProDoc is very confusing. It is identical to the entire section Incremental Cost Analysis in the Executive Summary. It does not have a clear distinction between baseline/alternative/increment and who will fund what. The Incremental Cost Matrix does not provide an indication of the cost of Domestic Benefits and Global Benefits.

5. The wording used for the three Outcomes on pages 43 and 44 of the ProDoc is not the same as in the LogFrame and in one case this difference is significant. Likewise, the wording for the three Outcomes used in the Executive Summary is different from that used in the LogFrame. In this case the differences are not significant, but there should be no differences.

6. Para 104 refers to “four types” of operational activities and then lists three. And the numbering in the list is inconsistent.

7. The map in Annex 1 should show all 22 PAs mentioned in the ProDoc.

8. Annex 5, p78 – the “Interest in the Project” column for Private Sector investors is blank and no mitigation measures are provided.

9. Annex 6 – para 16 refers to a number of reports specifically as “items (a) through (f) …. While (g) through (h) …..” Without stating clearly what it is referring to. If the reader had to guess that the reference is to the various reports mentioned in the following paragraphs he/she would not find one to coincide with the letter (h).

10. Executive Summary, para 14, last line – the reference should be to pages 38 and 39.

11. Executive Summary para 17 – the figures relating to project financing do not feature in the ProDoc except for the GEF component.

12. Executive Summary – para 18, on Cost Effectiveness, is not in the ProDoc.

Response to STAP Review

Summary of STAP Response Location where Comment document was revised 1. Hierarchical order of threats The list of threats was ordered, according to ProDoc: para 32; para is inconsistent. significance assessed by MET staff at 34 (incl. table2); table 3 inception workshop. References to list of (beneath para 36); para threats throughout ProDoc and ExSumm 142; Annex 2 (re- harmonized. ordered list of tables) Exsumm: para 6; para 29 2. The project needs to make a Clarification added, stressing difference between ProDoc: para 33 more explicit link root causes and barriers, and the logic Annex 2 defines the between the activities behind project interventions. root causes and, and proposed and the barriers barriers barrier removal and root causes which it activities planned under is trying to address in the project and order to remove/control complementary threats. activities, external to the project that collectively are expected to address the root causes. 3. Indication of the Text is added emphasising the importance of ProDoc: para 136 mechanisms that will be adaptive management to ensure Annex 6: para 2 put in place to implement implementation of project’s M&E results the results of monitoring on the ground, as well as emphasising is lacking. harmonization of project’s M&E and routine M&E activities of MET where possible. 4. Risks analysis in the The two sections have been harmonized. ProDoc: table 6 ProDoc and ExSumm are (beneath para 102) inconsistent. ExSumm: table on p. 6 (before Country Ownership section) 5. Two risks (enactment of the The comment is acknowledged and text altered ProDoc: table 6 Parks and Wildlife to reflect the fact that enactment of the bill (beneath para 102) Management Bill and the relies on factors external to MET, e.g. ExSumm: table on p. 6 internal restructuring of Cabinet approval of the final draft. (before Country the MET) raise some Risk: MET loses commitment to restructuring Ownership doubts about the has been removed as it is no longer section) ownership and buy-in of considered significant. The MET has MET. consistently reaffirmed its commitment to the process, in line with the government’s decentralisation policy. 6. Discussion of global The expected global, national, local benefits ProDoc: para 103-104 benefits in the text is section has been reinforced, and Incremental Cost insufficient, and global descriptions on global benefits pertaining to Matrix, p49-50 benefits of the project are the IW and land degradation focal areas of ExSumm: Incremental not clearly identified and the GEF have been added. In the IC Cost Matrix, p15-16 distinguished from matrix, clear descriptions for national and

Summary of STAP Response Location where Comment document was revised national benefits in the IC global benefits have been added. matrix. Aggregated figures for both baseline and incremental costs are provided in the 2nd column of the IC matrix. 7. It would be helpful to The table in original annex 8 has been moved to ProDoc: Para 124-127, consolidate two the text under replicability and some and Replication replication strategy description added before the table. Strategy Matrix, activities tables and to P39-41 place it near the relevant discussion in the text. 8. Project can be more The replication strategy section is reinforced to ProDoc: Para 124-126, proactive to capture more address this comment. and Replication of the replication Strategy Matrix, potential of its P39-41 interventions, particularly the demonstration ones. 9. Possible linkages could be The possible linkages have been included in the ProDoc: para 97, 103- identified with the SLM global benefit section, and anticipation of 104 and IW focal areas in the climate change in strategic PA network discussion on global plan is added. benefits. 10. Stakeholder participation Paragraph added to ProDoc and ExSumm, ProDoc: para 63 is only effective if the clarifying the mechanisms for ensuring ExSumm: end of para participants are fully stakeholders remain informed, such that 16 informed and, through its their input can be of most value. KM system, the project will make sure that appropriate lines of communication will be established. 11. Certain inconsistency Executive summary is a short summary of Throughout the between ProDoc and Exe. ProDoc and limited to 10 pages. documents. Sum. Information has been abbreviated to meet the space constraints. Careful proof reading and editing have been done to minimise the discrepancies. 12. No signature page Signature page will be added after the Project N/A Document is approved by the GEF Council and is ready for signature. 13. No outcome/output budget The budget has been inserted. ProDoc: Table 8&9 on page 43-44 ExSumm: Table 2&3 on page 9 14. Wording used for the three IC analysis now uses an abbreviated version of ProDoc: para 148-150 outcomes are the three outcome statements. ExSumm: Annex 1 inconsistent. para 10-12 15. Para 104 – 4 types of The fourth operational activity has been added. ProDoc: para 110 operational activities listed but only 3 are

Summary of STAP Response Location where Comment document was revised mentioned. 16. Map in Annex 1 should Map revised to show all 22 PAs mentioned. ProDoc: Map 1, Annex show all 22 PAs 1, p.55 mentioned in the ProDoc. 17. Annex 5, p78 – the interest Descriptions added. ProDoc: Anenx 5 - in the project column for Key Stakeholder private sector investors is Matrix on P82 blank and no mitigation measures are provided. 18. Annex 6, para 16 – various Numbering of paragraphs revised to repair ProDoc: Annex 6, para reports mentioned here references to reports. 16 down to 29 are not clear. 19. ExSumm, para 14 – Fixed. Now the reference is page 39-41. ExeSumm: para 15 reference should be to pages 38&39 20. ExSumm, para 17 – the Co-financing table has been placed in ProDoc. ProDoc: Table 8 on co-financing table does page 43 not feature in ProDoc 21. ExSumm, para 18 - Cost A paragraph has been inserted to describe cost ProDoc: para 139 effectiveness description effectiveness. only appears in Exe. Sum and not in the ProDoc.

33 ANNEX 4 SPAN Executive Summary

ANNEX 4: Response to GEFSEC Concept Paper comments

The majority of GEFSEC comments of May 5th 2004 on the concept paper had been addressed and responded to before GEF Pipeline Entry. Responses to the two comments which were to be addressed at WP inclusion are detailed below:

Location where document was Comment Response revised 1. More extensive description of The two sections added detail the ProDoc: 110-113 UNDP portfolio at WP inclusion. cohesion between the project design and UNDP country strategy, as outlined in the UNDAF and CPD. Links to MDG achievement are also clarified. 2. Other donor’s financing in The completed IC Analysis gives a ProDoc: IC Analysis p45-50. Namibia and lessons learned comprehensive overview of other Annex 7 through efforts both nationally and donor activity in Namibia. ExSumm: Annex 1 regionally to be completed at WP The review in Annex 7 of the inclusion. ProDoc examines other donor projects in Namibia, detailing the lessons learned, and how they have been incorporated into the design of the SPAN project.

wb155260 D:\Docs\2018-04-16\03e77d271ee3c7e11378a37484a73e50.doc