PROJECT DOCUMENT Republic of United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility

Strengthening the Protected Area Network in Southern Tanzania: Improving the Effectiveness of National Parks in Addressing Threats to Biodiversity.

GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3965; GEF AGENCY ID: PIMS 3253; AWARD ID: 00060996 Brief Description: Tanzania is a major repository of globally significant biodiversity, ranking amongst the top countries in tropical Africa in terms of the number of distinct eco-regions represented, and in species richness / species endemism. Tanzania lies at the meeting point of six major bio-geographic zones and has over thirty major vegetation communities, housing more than 11,000 plant species with >15% endemism. In terms of vertebrates, there are 300+ mammal species, over 1100 species of , with 56 species of global conservation concern, and over 350 species of herpetofauna, of which at least 100 species are endemic. The high turnover of biodiversity across the country presents a challenge to conservation managers, as it means large areas need to be managed so as to conserve the full range biodiversity. Protected Areas (PAs) provide the principal means for protecting the country’s biodiversity values. The Tanzania National Parks authority (TANAPA) is responsible for managing the network of National Parks, which have the highest conservation standing within the Tanzanian protected area estate. This proposal aims to increase the effectiveness of the National Parks in protecting biodiversity and provide for the long-term ecological, social and financial sustainability of that system. The focus will be on the new and developing Southern Circuit of Tanzania’s National Parks, reflecting the fact that with some exceptions, the management effectiveness of NPs in this region remains sub-optimal, relative to the Government’s desired levels and tourism numbers remain low. The long term solution underpinning the application is to build the management effectiveness of these PAs, to reduce anthropogenic pressures on the sites and secure biodiversity status within them. The project has been designed to address PA management barriers of (a) a lack of proper connectivity between isolated PAs, for larger mammal movements and to buffer against climate change impacts and (b) lack of management capacity and financial planning to bring people to the area and to prevent the various threats to the area through two complementary components. (1) Integrating Management of NPs and Broader Landscapes: This first component will entail the creation of active and functioning inter-sectoral District land management coordination mechanism between TANAPA, district authorities and the Wildlife Division (WD) and will also involve planning, implementation, and monitoring by key state and civil society partners on biodiversity management measures for the Greater Ruaha Landscape (37,000km2) and Greater Kitulo- Kipengere Landscape (2,150km2). This approach will secure PAs, wildlife corridors and dispersal areas. (2) Strengthening NP Operations: This second component will engineer the delivery of an integrated package of PA management functions., The project will initiate financial and business planning on both landscape and individual PAs and will provide funding for basic infrastructure and field equipment across the Southern Circuit Sites.

1

1.1 Table of Contents

1.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 2 1.2 TABLES ...... 4 1.3 FIGURES ...... 5 1.4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 5 PART IA: SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ...... 12

1.5 BIOPHYSICAL CONTEXT ...... 12 Contextual Introduction ...... 12 Geographical Context ...... 13 Climate and Water ...... 14 Climate Change in Tanzania ...... 15 Biodiversity of Tanzania ...... 16 Tanzania’s Protected Area Estate ...... 17 Southern Tanzania Regional Context ...... 18 Greater Ruaha Landscape Biophysical Context...... 18 Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape Biophysical Context ...... 22 Wildlife Corridors and Buffer Zones ...... 26 1.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...... 26 Tanzanian National Context ...... 26 Regional Context: South-West Tanzania ...... 27 Tourism Opportunities ...... 29 1.7 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 30 1.8 INSTITUTIONAL AND GOVERNANCE CONTEXT ...... 35 Governance of Natural Resources ...... 35 Local Government ...... 36 Civil Society and Development Partners...... 37 The Private Sector ...... 38 PART IB: BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION ...... 39

1.9 THREATS TO TANZANIA’S BIODIVERSITY ...... 39 National Level Threats ...... 39 Threats to Biodiversity in Greater Ruaha Landscape ...... 40 Threats to Biodiversity in Greater Kitulo – Kipengere Landscape ...... 42 1.10 LONG TERM SOLUTION ...... 43 Integrating Management of NPs and Broader Landscapes in Southern Tanzania ...... 43 Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania ...... 44 1.11 BARRIERS TO THE CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY ...... 44 Lack of Integration of PA and Landscape Level Management ...... 45 Protected Area Operations Lack Funding and Capacity ...... 46 PART II: PROJECT STRATEGY ...... 47

1.12 PROJECT RATIONALE AND POLICY CONFORMITY ...... 47 1.13 PROJECT GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OUTCOME, COMPONENTS AND OUTPUTS ...... 50 Component 1. Integrating Management of National Parks and Broader Landscapes in Southern Tanzania...... 52 Component 2: Operations Support for National Park Management in Southern Tanzania ...... 52 1.14 PROJECT RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 53 1.15 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES CONSIDERED ...... 54 1.16 COUNTRY OWNERSHIP AND ELIGIBILITY ...... 54 1.17 PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY...... 55 The Fit with GEF Focal Area Strategy ...... 55 Linkages to UNDP Country Programme ...... 56 Linkages with GEF Financed Projects ...... 57 1.18 SUSTAINABILITY ...... 59 2

Social sustainability ...... 59 Economic sustainability ...... 59 Ecological sustainability ...... 61 1.19 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ...... 61 1.20 REPLICATION STRATEGY ...... 62 PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ...... 63

1.21 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & IMPLEMENTATION ...... 63 Execution Modality...... 63 Implementation Modality...... 64 Project Board ...... 66 Project Steering Committee ...... 66 Project Coordination ...... 66 Landscape Level Project Implementation ...... 67 Assisting Landscape Level Coordination ...... 67 Project Components...... 67 Inception Session ...... 67 Technical Assistance ...... 68 Funds flow ...... 68 Public involvement Plan ...... 68 Reporting ...... 69 Legal Context ...... 69 Audit Requirement ...... 70 PART IV: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN ...... 70

1.22 PROJECT REPORTING...... 71 1.23 INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS ...... 73 PART V: INCREMENTAL LOGIC ...... 73

1.24 BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION...... 73 Summary of Baseline Situation ...... 73 Baseline Situation – landscape level management ...... 74 Baseline Situation – PA operations ...... 74 1.25 GEF ALTERNATIVE: EXPECTED GLOBAL AND NATIONAL BENEFITS ...... 74 Global Benefits ...... 75 National Benefits ...... 76 1.26 CO-FINANCING ...... 77 Total Government of Tanzania co-financing is USD 11,060,000 ...... 77 Total United Nations Development Programme co-financing is USD 1,000,000 ...... 77 1.27 COST EFFECTIVENESS ...... 78 PART VII: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK ...... 79 PART VIII: PROJECT TOTAL BUDGET ...... 91

1.28 CO-FINANCING SUMMARY ...... 94 1.29 BUDGET NOTES ...... 95 Component 1: Integrating management of NPs and broader landscapes in Southern Tanzania ...... 95 Component 2: Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania ...... 96 Project Management: Ensures effective project administration and coordination have enabled timely and efficient implementation of project activities...... 97 ANNEX I: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...... 99 ANNEX II: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ...... 100

1.30 STAKEHOLDER OVERVIEW ...... 100 1.31 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN ...... 100 Goal and Objectives for Stakeholder Involvement ...... 101 Principles of Stakeholder Participation ...... 101 3

1.32 LONG-TERM STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ...... 102 ANNEX III: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOLS ...... 104

1.33 METT FOR ...... 104 1.34 METT FOR ...... 115 1.35 METT FOR MPANGA KIPENGERE GAME RESERVE ...... 126 1.36 METT FOR MOUNT RUNGWE NATURE RESERVE ...... 136 ANNEX IV: FINANCIAL SCORE CARDS ...... 146

1.37 FINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR RUAHA NATIONAL PARK ...... 146 FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM ..... 146 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM ...... 151 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS ...... 159 1.38 FINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR KITULO NATIONAL PARK ...... 160 FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM ..... 160 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM ...... 166 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS ...... 174 1.39 FINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR MPANGA KIPENGERE GAME RESERVE ...... 175 FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM ..... 175 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM ...... 182 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS ...... 189 1.40 FINANCIAL SCORECARD FOR MOUNT RUNGWE NATURE RESERVE ...... 190 FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM ..... 190 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM ...... 196 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS ...... 203 SIGNATURE PAGE ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1.2 Tables

TABLE 1. NATIONAL PARKS IN TANZANIA ...... 17 TABLE 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%) OF INTERNATIONAL TOURIST ARRIVALS, 1995-2020 ...... 29 TABLE 3. TOURISM TREND IN TANZANIA 2001 - 2005 ...... 29 TABLE 4. PRIMARY NGOS/ DONORS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN SOUTHERN TANZANIA ...... 37 TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF TOURISTS FACILITIES IN AND OUTSIDE RUNAPA ...... 38 TABLE 6. PROJECT BENEFICIARY LANDSCAPES AND PAS; DIRECT AND INDIRECT ...... 48 TABLE 7. RISK ANALYSIS ...... 53 TABLE 8. PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO BD-1 INDICATORS ...... 56 TABLE 9. ASSOCIATED GEF FINANCED PROJECTS IN TANZANIA ...... 58 TABLE 10. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN...... 61 TABLE 11. REPLICATION STRATEGY BY COMPONENT ...... 63 TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF GLOBAL AND NATIONAL BENEFITS ...... 75 TABLE 13. COST EFFECTIVENESS STRATEGIES BY PROJECT OUTCOME ...... 78 TABLE 14. RESULTS FRAMEWORK FOR SOUTHERN TANZANIA PA PROJECT: OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS ...... 79 TABLE 15. PROJECT COMPONENTS, WITH OUTPUTS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ...... 85 TABLE 16. KEY PA MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDERS, ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 100 TABLE 17. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES ...... 101 TABLE 18. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAS ...... 102 TABLE 19. REPORTING PROGRESS IN TANZANIA’S PROTECTED AREAS: RUNAPA...... 104 TABLE 20. REPORTING PROGRESS IN TANZANIA’S PROTECTED AREAS: KINAPA ...... 115 TABLE 21. REPORTING PROGRESS IN TANZANIA’S PROTECTED AREAS: MKGR ...... 126 TABLE 22. REPORTING PROGRESS IN TANZANIA’S PROTECTED AREAS: MRNR ...... 136

4

1.3 Figures

FIGURE 1. THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE: PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES ...... 12 FIGURE 2. THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE: GREATER RUAHA LANDSCAPE ...... 19 FIGURE 3. THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE: GREATER KITULO-KIPENGERE LANDSCAPE...... 22 FIGURE 4. UMEMARUWA WMA: THE LINK BETWEEN GRL AND GKKL ...... 23 FIGURE 5. BURN FREQUENCIES IN GREATER RUAHA LANDSCAPE, 2000 - 2007 ...... 41 FIGURE 6. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ORGANISATION STRUCTURE ...... 65 1.4 Abbreviations and Acronyms

AECF African Eastern Coastal Forests AfDB African Development Bank AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome AIG Alternative income generating activity AMCOS Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society APR Annual Project Report ARI Agriculture Research Institute-Uyole ASCA Accumulated Savings and Credit Association AWF African Wildlife Foundation BMU Beach Management Unit CARE CARE International CBC Community Baased Conservation CBD Convention on Biodiversity CBFM Community Based Forest Management CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organisation CBT Community Based Tourism CCB(A) Climate, Community Biodiversity (Alliance) CCM Chama Cha Mapinduzi CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CERs Certified Emission Reductions CF Coastal Forests CFM Collaborative Forest Management CI Conservation International CIA Central Intelligence Agency CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research

5

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on Migratory Species CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents CoFMA Community Forest Management Agreements/ Areas COP Conference of the Parties CPB Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety CPI Corruptions Perceptions Index CRDB Cooperative and Rural Development Bank CSO Civil Society Organisations DANIDA Danish Agency for Development Assistance DCCFF Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry DD Deforestation and (forest) Degradation DED District Executive Directors DFID United Kingdom Department for International Development DFO District Forest Officer DICE Durrel Institute of Conservation Ecology DLUP District Land Use Plan DNRO District Natural Resource Officer DoE Department of Environment DoLR Department of Lands and Registration DPSC District Project Steering Committees EAC East African Community EACFE East African Coastal Forest Ecosystem EAMCEF Eastern Arc Mountains Conservation Endowment Fund EAME East Africa Marine Ecoregion EAP Executive Agencies Programme EARO Eastern Africa Regional Office (IUCN) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EISP EMA Implementation Support Programme EMA Environmental Management Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPA Emissions Reductions Purchase Agreement EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FBD Forest and Beekeeping Division (MNRT) FCFP Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (World Bank) FDI Foreign Direct Investment

6

FFI Fauna and Flora International FINNIDA Finnish International Development Agency FIP Forest Investment Programme (World Bank) FR Forest Reserve FRA Forest Resource Assessment FSP Full-Sized Proposal FT Frontier-Tanzania GCA Game Controlled Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GKKL Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape GMP General Management Plan GoT Government of Tanzania GRL Greater Ruaha Landscape GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit Ha hectares HDI Human Development Index HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Countries HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HTTI Hotel and Tourism Training Institute HWC Human Wildlife Conflict IA Implementing Agency IBA Important Area ICD Integrated Conservation and Development ICDP Integrated Conservation Development Programmes ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management IGA Income Generating Activity IIED International Institute for Environment and Development ILO International Labour Organisation (United Nations) IMF International Monetary Fund IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITCZ Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUCN-ESARO IUCN East and Southern Africa Regional Office HIMA Hifadhi ya Misitu ya Asili

7

JAS Joint Assistance Stategy JFM Joint Forest Management JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau KINAPA Kitulo National Park LAFR Local AuthorityForest Reserve LGA Local Government Authority LGAs Local Government Authorities LGRA Local Government Reform Agenda LMGCA Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area Logframe Logical Framework LULUCF Land Use Land-Use Change and Forestry M&E Monitoring and Evaluation m.a.s.l. Metres above sea level m3 Cubic Metre MACEMP Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project MAI Mean Annual Increment MALE Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment MANREC Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources, Environment and Co operatives MBOMIPA Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga MCDI Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative MDG Millennium Development Goals MEM Ministry of Energy and Minerals METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MFI Microfinance Institution MJUMITA Mitandao ya Jamii ya Usimamizi wa Misitu Tanzania (Community Network in Forest Conservation in Tanzania) MKGR Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve MKUKUTA Mkakati wa Kukuza an Kupunguza Umaskini Tanzania (National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty) MKUZA Makakati wa Kukuza Uchumi Zanzibar (Strategy for Growth and the Reduction of Poverty) MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism MoFEA Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs MoU Memorandum of Understanding MPRU Marine Park Regional Unit MRNR Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve MRV Monitoring Reporting and Verification

8

MSP Medium-Sized Proposal Mt Mega tonnes NCA National Conservation Unit NCCSC National Climate Change Steering Committee MWECL Ministry of Water, Construction and Lands MWLD Ministry of Water and Livestock Development NAFOBEDA National Forestry and Beekeeping Database NDC National Development Corporation NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NEMC National Environmental Management Council NEP National Environmental Policy NFP National Forest Programmes NGO Non Governmental Organisation NMB National Microfinance Bank NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NP National Park NPAB National Protected Areas Board NPAN National Protected Areas Network NRM Natural Resource Management NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products ODI Overseas Development Institute PA Protected Area PAN Protected Area Network PAS Protected Areas System PC Participants Committee PES Payment for Ecological Services PFM Participatory Forest Management PIF Project Identification Form PPG Project Preparation Grant PPP Public Private Partnership PPP Purchasing Power Parity PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSRC Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission REWMP Ruaha Ecosystem Wildlife Management Project RGoZ Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar RIPS Rural Integrated Project Support

9

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RUNAPA Ruaha National Park SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperative Society SADC Southern Africa Development Community SCBD Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity SE Southeast SEE Society for Environmental Exploration (Frontier) SIDO Small Industries Development Organisation SME Small to Medium Enterprises SMOLE Sustainable Management of Land and Environment Spp. Species SSA Sub-Saharan Africa SSIs Semi-Structured Interviews SSR Self-Sufficiency Ratio SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro TA Technical Assistance TAFIRI Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute TAFORI Tanzania Forestry Research Institute TANAPA Tanzania National Parks TANESCO Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited TATO Tanzania Association of Tour Operator TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute TAZARA Tanzania and Zambia Railways Authority TDRG Tanzania Development Research Group TFCG Tanzania Forest Conservation Group TFCMP Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Programme TFS Tanzania Forest Service TIC Tanzania Investment Centre TNC The Nature Conservancy TNRF Tanzania Natural Resource Forum TOL Tanzania Oxygen Limited ToR Terms of Reference TPR Tripartite Review TTB Tanzania Tourist Board TZS Tanzanian Shillings TWCM Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Monitoring

10

TWPF Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund UDSM University of Dar es Salaam UN United Nations UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNEP WCMC United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change URT United Republic of Tanzania USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard VEC Village Environment Committee VEMP Village Environmental Management Plan VER Voluntary Emission Reductions VFR Village Forest Reserve VLFR Village Land Forest Reserves VNRC Village Natural Resource Committee VPO DoE Vice Presidents Office, Department of Environment WB World Bank WCST Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania WMA Wildlife Management Area WRI World Resources Institute WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

11

PART IA: SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

1.5 Biophysical Context

Contextual Introduction 1. In 1961 the first President of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, highlighted the importance of biodiversity conservation in the Arusha Declaration in the early days of Tanzania’s nationhood. Attention to biodiversity conservation throughout Tanzania is, arguably, even more important now with increasing pressures. However, the southern circuit of protected areas in the south of Tanzania receives less attention than the northern circuit (of Serengeti and Kilimanjaro) and efforts to conserve them are less well funded. Southern circuit protected areas contain components of Tanzania’s endemic biodiversity, contain large populations of key wildlife species, and crucial habitats for a wide range of savanna woodland, grassland and forest species. These areas need considerable investment and support to be safeguarded in the future and to develop their potential as sustainable funding parks and reserves with increased visitor numbers.

Figure 1. The Project Landscape: Physical Boundaries1

1 Courtesy of Guy Picton Phillipps / WCS, 2010 12

2. The project focuses on southern Tanzania in two specific ‘southern circuit’ landscapes termed here the ‘Greater Ruaha Landscape’ (GRL) and the ‘Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape’ (GKKL). In terms of state protected areas (PAs) the GRL encompasses Ruaha National Park (RUNAPA), Rungwa, Kizigo and Muhesi Game Reserves as well as a number of Game Controlled Areas (GCAs), Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) and open areas whilst the GKKL encompasses Kitulo National Park (KINAPA), Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve (MRNR) and Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve (MKGR).

Geographical Context 3. The United Republic of Tanzania consists of the mainland and the islands of Zanzibar. The mainland (Tanganyika) and Zanzibar were separate states prior to 1964 and retain largely separate administrative and legal frameworks. Tanzania’s administration is organized into 26 Regions, each made up of several Districts. Tanzania borders Kenya and Uganda to the north, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo to the west and Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique to the south. Tanzania covers an area of 945,087 km2, of which 886,037 km2 is surface land. It has 800 km of Indian Ocean coastline with a continental shelf in the region of 30,000 km2. Inland water bodies cover 52,000 km2 mainly comprising of territorial waters. About 75% of Tanzania’s land surface is either not habitable or difficult to manage productively. Forests and woodland occupy more than 40% of the mainland. Protected Areas occupy approximately 25% of the whole country2 3. 4. Tanzania has three unique physiographic regions: the coastal plains to the east (including the Zanzibar and Mafia islands on the Indian Ocean); the inland saucer-shaped plateau (containing most agricultural and pastoral lands); and the highlands. The highlands are made up of three distinct groups: single standing volcanic massifs to the north (such as Kilimanjaro, Meru, and Ol Doinyo Lengai); the Eastern Arc Mountains that run south-west through the country (13 mountain blocks encompassing an area of some 23,000 km2 which together form a broad arc shape of some 600 km in length, including the Pare, Usambara, Uluguru and Udzungwa ranges); and the Southern Highlands (including the Rungwe, Kipengere, Livingstone, Fipa and Matogoro ranges). 5. The Great Rift Valley runs from north east of Africa through central and southern Tanzania and adds to the distinctive landscape. At Lake Nyasa it splits, with one branch proceeding south beyond the Lake to Mozambique and another branch to the north-west alongside Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and western Uganda. The rift valley is dotted with lakes, including Lakes Rukwa, Tanganyika, Nyasa, Kitangiri, Eyasi and Manyara, as well as the scenic Ngorongoro Crater. From the highlands and the central plateau flow drainage systems connected to the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. 6. Tanzania has a wide variety of physical features, from a narrow coastal belt with sandy beaches to an extensive plateau covered by savanna and bush vegetation with altitude ranging from 1000 to 2000m. The plateau is fringed by narrow belts of forest highland Tanzania shares several major fresh water bodies including Lake Victoria (the largest in Africa), Lake Tanganyika (the longest and deepest in Africa) and Lake Nyasa. The mainland includes a large central plateau of ancient and heavily eroded landforms which support various woodland habitats. A series of mountain ranges rise out of this plateau, each with different histories but all supporting natural forest, grassland and ‘heath’ vegetation types. In the far west of the country the Mahale Mountains and associated smaller ranges occupy the margins of the Albertine Rift, a system that has resulted in the deep depressions of Lake Tanganyika. In the north a series of large volcanoes arise from the plains, including Kilimanjaro (Africa’s highest mountain at 5,895

2 The Economic Survey, 2009. Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs 3 http://www.tanzania.go.tz : Country Profile 13

m.a.s.l) and Mount Meru. Further east, in a broad Arc from Kilimanjaro to south-western Tanzania a series of uplifted blocks of ancient rock form the Eastern Arc and associated Southern Highlands. 7. Along the eastern seaboard of the country is a lower lying coastal plain comprised of more recent marine and fluviatile sediments that have been submerged and uplifted over the past 30 million years due to tectonic events associated with the rift further west. The coastal margin supports a mosaic of different habitats, ranging from lowland forest to woodland. In marine areas, mangrove forests are found, particularly in the Rufiji delta. Zanzibar consists of the island of Unguja, an uplifted area of coral reef and marine sediments of low overall relief, and Pemba, a block of ancient metamorphic rock with overlain uplifted coral and marine sediments also with low overall relief. Both islands formerly supported tropical forest habitats but have been heavily deforested over millennia. 8. The country has vast mineral resources including gold, diamonds, coal, iron ore, uranium, nickel, chrome, tin, platinum, coltan, niobium and other minerals. It is the third-largest producer of gold in Africa, after South Africa and Ghana, and is a unique source of Tanzanite gemstones. Tanzania also has considerable reserves of natural gas.

Climate and Water 9. Tanzania is endowed with a tropical climate in which coastal areas and the islands are hot and humid, higher inland areas are semi temperate, mountain massifs are temperate, and the highest parts of Kilimanjaro are Afro alpine. 10. In coastal areas and the off-shore islands, temperatures average 27-29 ºC. In the central, northern and western Tanzania temperatures average 20-30ºC. Temperatures are highest between the months of December and March and coolest during the months of June and July, with drops in temperature to 15ºC at night in the southern highlands and mountainous areas of the north and northeast. Across mainland Tanzania, average rainfall varies from 200-2,000mm per annum. Most of the country receives less than 1,000mm except the highlands and parts of the extreme south and west where 1,400-2,000mm can be expected. Zanzibar has a tropical moist climate with rainfall on Pemba being over 2,000 mm per annum4. 11. The north and south annual movements of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), a narrow belt of very low pressure and heavy precipitation that forms near the equator, strongly influences the seasonality of Tanzania’s climate, although to varying degrees each year. The annual movement of the ITCZ across Tanzania is bimodal and causes two distinct wet periods in the north and east of the country, the short vuli rains in October to December and the long masika rains in March to May. The southern, western and central parts of the country experience one wet season that begins in October and continues, in varying degrees, through to April or May. In mountain areas and along the coast, rain can fall in all seasons with some areas being regarded as ‘perhumid’ or permanently wet. 12. The amount of rainfall falling in these seasons is usually 50-200mm per month but varies greatly between regions, and can be as much as 300mm per month in the wettest regions and seasons. The movements of the ITCZ are sensitive to variations in Indian Ocean sea-surface temperatures and vary from year to year; hence the onset, duration and intensity of these rainfalls vary considerably inter-annually. One of the most well documented ocean influences on rainfall in this region is the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).5

4 http:www.tanzania.go.tz : Country Profile 5 McSweeney, C., New. M. & Lizcano, G., (2009) UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles: Tanzania. School of Geography and Environment, University of Oxford. Research http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk. 14

Climate Change in Tanzania 13. Both quantitative scientific data and qualitative observations from individual rural Tanzanians6 point to increasing variability of climate in Tanzania and consequently increased challenges to communities abilities to plan effectively for crop planting and livestock breeding seasons. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that Africa is highly vulnerable to the impact of climate change “because of factors such as widespread poverty, recurrent droughts, inequitable land distribution, and over-dependence on rain-fed agriculture”7. 14. The IPCC has confirmed, with high confidence, that warming of the earth’s climate system is unequivocal and attributable to human activities 8. While difficult to accurately predict consequences of climate change, the report details the kind of risks posed, particularly for Africa. Likely serious impacts include melting of glaciers, severe floods, frequent and prolonged droughts, desertification, decline in crop yields, increased vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, rising sea level, displacement of people, and disruption of both terrestrial and marine ecosystems and important natural habitats. Food security and water supplies will be threatened. Already climate change has altered hydrological cycles and weather patterns, raised sea levels and increased the intensity and frequency of extreme weather conditions9. 15. Indeed, impacts of global warming are already evident in almost all sectors of the economy and throughout the country. About eighty percent of the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro have been lost since 1912. The IPCC predicts a sea level rise of 8-96 cm by 2100. 16% of Tanzania’s population lives on the coast, and the cost of the damage caused is estimated at being between USD 48-82 million10. The intrusion of seawater into fresh water wells along the coast of Bagamoyo and the submerging Maziwe Island in Pangani and Fungu la Nyani in Rufiji are both linked to sea level rise impacts. 16. Severe and recurrent droughts in recent years triggered a power crisis in 2006 when all major dams (the main source of electrical power), experienced their lowest water levels during that period and were temporarily shut down resulting in long power cuts. Consequently, additional resources committed for other development programmes were reallocated for thermal electricity generation. Soon after the prolonged drought, in 2009 floods devastated infrastructure across Tanzania, curtailing many economic activities. About 60 billion Tanzanian shillings were distributed to address the problem. Impacts of climate change threaten to undermine national efforts to attain the Millennium Development Goals. Other likely effects of sea-level rise include land area loss of 247-494 km2, loss of coastal and marine ecosystems and salinisation of freshwater. Coral bleaching and loss of mangroves and seagrass beds have potentially large negative impacts on fishing. Rising temperatures will be accompanied by drought and increasing soil temperature, which will impairs crop growth and development, and thus affects crop yields. Increases in atmospheric and soil temperatures may lead to increased incidence of pests. This, in turn, will negatively affect agricultural production with negative consequences for food security and health. Agriculture dominates the Tanzanian economy and provides livelihood, income and

6 Harrison, P.J., (2006) Socio-economic Study of Forest-Adjacent Communities from Nyanganje to Udzungwa Scarp: A Potential Wildlife Corridor. Tanzania, WWF 7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) (2001). Third Assessment Report. 8 IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. 9 Ehrhart, C & M Twena, (2006). Climate Change and Poverty in Tanzania; realities and response options for CARE. Background report, CARE International Poverty-Climate change Initiative. 10 Ehrhart, C & M Twena, (2006). Climate change and Poverty in Tanzania; realities and response options for CARE. Background report, CARE International Poverty-Climate change Initiative. 15

employment to over 80% of the population.

Biodiversity of Tanzania 17. Tanzania is a major repository of globally significant biodiversity, ranking amongst the top countries in tropical Africa in terms of the distinct eco-regions represented, and in species richness/species endemism. Tanzania lies at the meeting point of six major bio-geographic zones (the dry Somali-Maasai, savannas, the acacia-commiphora woodlands, the Guinea-Congolian forest, the coastal forest mosaic and the scattered afro-montane/afro-alpine areas). Over thirty major vegetation communities are recognized, housing more than 11,000 plant species with >15% endemism. The species inventory includes 300+ mammal species, over 1100 species of birds, one of the largest avi-faunas in Africa, with 56 species of global conservation concern, and over 360 species of herpetofauna, of which 99 species are endemic. According to the IUCN Red List11 Tanzania ranks 15th in the world in terms of mammal diversity (with 359 species), and 20th for amphibian diversity (178 species). There are 7 Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, 3 natural World Heritage Sites and 4 Ramsar sites. 18. Tanzania contains two areas designated by Conservation International as Global Biodiversity Hotspots, being the Eastern Afro-montane forests and the Coastal Forests, and the southern reaches of the Albertine Rift Forests to the far west, part of the Eastern AfroMontane12. It also has eight WWF13 designated Critical Eco-Regions, the Albertine Rift Montane Forest; Kenya- Tanzania Montane Forest; Eastern Arc Forest; Southern Rift Forest / Grassland mosaic; Coastal Forest Mosaic; Guinea-Congolian Forest Mosaic; Acacia Savanna and Miombo Woodland. 19. The Miombo woodlands and Acacia Savanna of Tanzania constitute huge wilderness areas that support some of the largest assemblages of large mammals in the World, including large herbivores (e.g. elephant, rhinoceros, hippo, , buffalo); migratory plains game (e.g. zebra, wildebeest, eland and gazelle); and large predators (, lions, leopards, cheetahs, crocodiles and two species of hyena). The country is also a major staging post and destination for avifauna migrating south during the boreal winter. Well known avifauna include vultures, raptors, ostrich, bustards, cranes and storks. The high turnover of biodiversity across the landscape presents a challenge to conservation managers, as large areas need to be managed to conserve a bio-geographically representative sample of biodiversity. 20. Tanzania has a total of 33.5 million hectares of forest and woodlands14. Of this, over 17 million hectares are on public land without proper management, under pressure from expansion of agriculture and particularly vulnerable to deforestation and degradation. About 13 million hectares of the total forest area have been gazetted as Forest Reserves. Over 80,000ha of the gazetted areas are under plantation and 1.6 million hectares are under water catchment management15. WRI reported 4,800 hectares of peatland in Tanzania of which 3,000 hectares are forested. These peatlands contain 1Mt of carbon that has the potential to emit 2Mt CO2. 21. Wetlands constitute about 10% of Tanzania’s land area and have diverse values and functions including water supply for domestic, industrial use and agricultural use, livestock grazing (especially in drier parts of the country), conservation of ecosystem biodiversity and tourism, power production and fishing. They constitute a wide range of inland, coastal and marine

11 www.iucnredlist.org 12 Mittermeier, R.A., Robles-Gil, P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J.D., Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J.L. & Fonseca, G. (2004). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Ecoregions. Second Edition. Cemex, Mexico. 13 www.worldwildlife.org 14 United Republic of Tanzania (1998) National Forest Policy. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers, Dar es Salaam 15 United Republic of Tanzania (1998) National Forest Policy. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. United Republic of Tanzania. Government Printers, Dar es Salaam 16

habitats with some common features. Four wetlands with a total surface area of about 4,868,424 hectares have been designated as Ramsar sites: the Kilombero valley floodplain, Lake Natron Basin, Malagarasi-Muyowosi wetlands and Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Marine Ramsar site.

Tanzania’s Protected Area Estate 22. Protected Areas (PAs) provide the principal means for protecting Tanzania’s biodiversity values. The PA network is amongst the largest in Africa, covering 27% of the land area (almost 250,000 km2), and consists of 651 sites. The national PA system currently includes 15 National Parks (plus 1 proposed), 34 Game Reserves, one Conservation Area (Ngorongoro), one Biosphere Reserve, over 600 Forest Reserves and 43 Game Controlled Areas, which together cover 1,744,900 hectares or more than 18% of the country. In addition, numerous Wildlife Management Areas and Village Land Forest Reserves, most of which are on village land, serve to regulate sustainable natural resource use but also can act as corridors and dispersal areas for wildlife. 23. Different categories of PAs exist in Tanzania and have different legal requirements, ownership and tenure. Tanzania's PAs are grouped into six categories according to the degree of protection offered to the land and wildlife. These are, in order of greatest to least protection, National Parks, Game Reserves, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), Game Controlled Areas, Partial Game Reserves (PGR), and Forest Reserves (FR). 24. Tanzania’s PA’s are categorized in economic utilisation terms into the Northern Circuit (including Arusha; Kilimanjaro; Lake Manyara; Nkomazi; Serengeti and Tarangire National Parks and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area) and the lesser known Southern Circuit (including, Mikumi; Ruaha; and Udzungwa National Parks and the ). On the coast, the northern circuit includes the islands of Zanzibar whilst the Southern Circuit includes Mafia Island and Kilwa. The Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Selous Game Reserve are both designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Three of these areas have been designated Biosphere Reserves and six are World Heritage Sites, indicating that these sites have unique ecosystems important not only to Tanzania, but to the world. 25. Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) is responsible for managing the network of National Parks, which hold the highest conservation standing of all Protected Area categories16. Currently NPs cover 32% of the PA estate or 57,086 km2. However, they provide an important safety net key to biodiversity. 26. The table below provides an overview of the national parks (NP), sub divided into the Northern Circuit and the Southern Circuit (32,121 km2). The Southern Circuit consists of seven sites, several of which have only been established within the last decade, and is important in terms of its biogeographic representation. Table 1. National Parks in Tanzania NP Established Area Ecoregion17 Northern Circuit Arusha 1960 552 sq km East African montane moorlands Kilimanjaro 1973 1668 sq km East African montane moorlands Lake Manyara 1960 330 sq km Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets Mkomazi 2008 3,245 sq km Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets Saadani 2005 1,100 sq km Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane coastal forest mosaic Rubondo Island 1977 457 sq km Victoria Basin forest-savanna mosaic 14,763 sq Serengeti 1951 Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets km Saanane Proposed 500m2 Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets

16 Registered on the WDPA as IUCN Category II PAs 17 http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_at.html 17

NP Established Area Ecoregion17 Tarangire 1970 2850 sq km Acacia Commiphora Woodlands Southern Circuit Gombe 1968 52 sq km Albertine Rift Forests and Grasslands Katavi 1974 4,471 sq km Central Zambezian Miombo Woodland Kitulo 2005 465 sq km Southern Rift montane forest-grassland mosaic Mahale 1980 1,613 sq km Albertine Rift Forests and Grasslands Mountains Mikumi 1964 3,230 sq km 20,300 sq Central Zambezian Miombo Woodland / Southern Acacia- Ruaha 1964 km Commiphora bushlands and thickets Udzungwa 1992 1,990 sq km Eastern Arc Forests

Southern Tanzania Regional Context 27. Topographically, the and the of southern Tanzania are dominated at the southern end by the Southern Highlands, part of the Southern Rift montane forest-grassland mosaic. The northern parts of the Iringa region are relatively flat with high plains cut by the eastern arm of the Great Rift Valley in which the Great Ruaha River (GRR) runs. The region is further characterized by the presence of a lower portion which forms the common landform of the region, a point where two ecoregions merge (Central Zambezian Miombo Woodland / Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets). Iringa region forms part of the Indian Ocean drainage zone. The southern highlands are a crucial water tower, feeding the GRR. 28. From tributaries in the southern highlands, the Great and Little Ruaha rivers join the Rufiji River to form part of the Rufiji River Basin. The Ruaha river flow is seasonal with higher water flow volumes during the rainy season, when the water becomes heavily loaded with sediments. Water in the Mtera Dam, a hydroelectric facility, comes from the GRR. The central plateau of the Iringa region divides the catchments into northern drainage and southern drainage. The rivers draining north all merge into the GRR and those draining south join the Rufiji and the Kilombero rivers. Most of the southern part of the region drains into Lake Nyasa and which via the Shire and Zambezi rivers also drain into the Indian Ocean. Water is a crucial factor and aspect of this wider landscape. 29. The two landscapes that will be the subject of intervention under the project are both important storehouses of biodiversity. The Greater Ruaha Landscape (GRL) harbours huge wildlife assemblages, in particular of African elephant (the area supports East Africa’s largest elephant population), has a high diversity of antelopes, reflecting its location in an ecotone between the Acacia Savannas and Miombo Woodland, large numbers of predators, including Lion, Leopard and Wild Dog and some 450 species of birds (the site is also an Important Bird Area). 30. The Greater Kitulo-Kipengere (GKKL) landscape comprises Tanzania’s largest area of montane grassland habitat. This area has high floristic diversity, with exceptional diversity found in the ground orchids (over 40 species of which three are endemic), but it also harbours red-hot poker, aloes, proteas, geraniums, giant lobelias, lilies and aster daisies. Some 30 plant species are endemic to the area. The site is an Important Bird Area, harbouring populations of endangered blue swallow (Hirundo atrocaerulea), Tanzania’s only population of Denham’s bustard (Neotis denhami), and range-restricted species such as mountain marsh widow, and Kipengere seedeater. Many species are threatened or endangered and listed in the IUCN Red List.

Greater Ruaha Landscape Biophysical Context 31. The Greater Ruaha landscape (GRL) spans three of Tanzania’s administrative regions: Singida, Iringa and Mbeya. In addition to Ruaha National Park (RUNAPA) itself within Iringa Region and its newer extension to the south within Mbeya Region (the former Usangu Game Reserve), the GRL encompasses Muhezi, Kizigo and Rungwa Game Reserves, Lunda-Mkwabi Game Controlled Area, North, Lunda-Mkwabi Game Controlled Area South (now MBOMIPA Wildlife Management Area), UMEWARUA Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and Chunya 18

Open Area. All these different forms of interlinked protected areas are found in Iringa and Mbeya regions and link to the Southern Highlands to the south and east. 32. In 2008 Usangu Game Reserve and other important wetlands in Usangu basin were annexed into RUNAPA, making Ruaha, with the extension, the largest park in Tanzania and East Africa with an area of 20,226km2. The vast area of the park varies between mountains and escarpments, grassland plains, rocky kopjes, riverine areas and now wetlands.

Figure 2. The Project Landscape: Greater Ruaha Landscape18

33. Ruaha National Park is located in central Tanzania between latitudes 6˚ 54’ – 8˚ 00’ South and longitudes 33˚ 50’ - 35˚ 25’ East. The Usangu wetlands are on the lower elevation. It has overtaken the Serengeti NP as the largest national park in Tanzania and is now the second

18 Courtesy of Guy Picton Phillipps / WCS, 2010 19

largest wildlife protection area in Africa after Kafue National Park of Zambia. The park is also buffered by what was previously the Lunda-Mkwambi Game Controlled Area (LMGCA) extending from the north-eastern corner of the park to the south-western corner. LMGCA is now a WMA comprising of 21 Villages called Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga19 (MBOMIPA ). To the north, RUNAPA benefits from three game reserves, Rungwa, Kisogo and Muhesi which act as dispersal areas. 34. The Greater Ruaha Landscape experiences a typical East African semi-arid climate with a pronounced dry season of seven months. Annual rainfall averages 500 mm per annum and increases with increasing altitude towards the west of the park. Precipitation occurs from late November till late March or early April. The mean maximum and minimum temperatures at RUNAPA’s Msembe headquarters, where reliable meteorological records exist, lie between 20˚ C and 40˚ C and 16˚ C and 30˚ C respectively. The coolest months are from June to August (mean temperature 21.7˚ C) and the hottest months are October to December (mean temperature 25.3˚ C). 35. Ecologically the GRL is unique because it covers a transition zone where eastern and southern African species of flora and fauna meet. The GRL represents the southernmost point for some of the typical East African semi arid savannah vegetation types (acacia woodland) and most northerly distribution of the Brachystegia zone of the Zambezian miombo woodland of southern Africa. RUNAPA itself presents a wide range of physiognomic features which range from treeless grasslands, swamps, bush covered grassland, deciduous wooded grassland, miombo woodlands to riverine woodlands and submontane forests. Over 1600 plant species have been identified in the park, the majority of which are flowering plants. RUNAPA vegetation zones are classified as follows:  Acacia woodland: found in the north-eastern part of the park and dominated by A. tortilis, A. tanganyicensis, A. meliffera, A. nigrescens, A. kirkii, A. drepanolobium and A. senegal.  Combretum mixed and Comberetum/Acacia: bushland to shrubland extending southwards along the rift valley from the north-eastern part of the park. Dominated by Combretum apiculatum, C. molle, c. fragrans, C. jparvifolium, intermixed with Boscia, Adansonia digitata, Entandrophragma bussei and Sclerocarya birre.  Commiphora: different species of Commiphora including Commiphora ugogensis, C. African, C. mollis and C. stolonifera are dominant. However other common vegetation types are found in this zone, mostly various species of Combretum and Grewia.  Palm savanna: covering a very small portion of the far north-eastern corner of the park mainly in flood plain with valley deposists soils. The dominant vegetation is Hyphaene ventricosa and other riparian vegetation present include Acacia albida, Tamarindus indica, and Newtonia hilderbrandtii along river banks.  Miombo transition: occupies a large area of the park and is an interface between the east African Acacia-Commiphora and the southern African Miombo. The vegetation is heterogeneous in composition including species of miombo, Combretum and Acacia intermixed.  Miombo woodland: woodland dominated by Brachystegia and Julbernadia plants.  Drypetes: a relatively small submontane forest in the far south-western part of the park predominated by Drypetes geradii.

36. The interface of two ecotones makes Ruaha a unique park containing a variety and combination of the important fauna and flora from two communities. Some of the most important of these combinations in wildlife terms are the presence of the Sable and Roan antelope; the Lesser and There is a significant African elephant population in the GRL, where recent counts have put the number between 12,900 and 15,600 with approximately between 6,000 and

19 Better Management of Living Resources of Idodi and Pawaga 20

8,000 being found inside RUNAPA20. The presence of rare, threatened and endangered species contributes to a wide-ranging species of flora and fauna some of which appear in the IUCN red list of Threatened and Endangered Species. The wildlife species present in RUNAPA that fall under this category include:  African Hunting Dog (Lycaon pictus) classified as endangered;  Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) classified vulnerable;  The Gerenuk (which was last seen in Lunda area in 2003)

37. There are in the region of 450 bird species recorded within the park, ranging from terrestrial to aquatic avifauna including the rare migrant Eleonora’s falcon (Falco eleonorae). The inclusion of Usangu wetlands into RUNAPA has increased the number of water birds and the wetlands form an Important Bird Area (IBA)21. These include the following species, for example22:  Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis  Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo  Goliath Heron Ardea goliath  Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis  White Stork Ciconia cinconia  Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopica  Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus  African Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer  African Jacana Actophilornis africanus  Long-toed Plover Vanellus crassirostris  Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis

38. The Great Ruaha and Mzombe Rivers represent two major rivers, which forms the south and south-eastern boundary of the park, and the northern boundary with Rungwa Game reserve respectively. These two rivers are fed from several tributaries that criss-cross the park and form some of the most important permanent source of drinking water for both wildlife and people in the entire ecosystem throughout the year. The GRR is an important resource and attraction in itself due to its numerous aquatic fauna including fish, hippos, crocodiles, and water birds. 39. The GRR begins in the Usangu flats in Mbeya Region and winds through and forms part of the RUNAPA’s southern boundary from the north-western edge to the south-eastern portion of the park. The Mzombe River forms the park’s northern boundary with Rungwa Game Reserve. It joins the Kizigo River just after leaving the park’s northern tip and thereafter is called Kizigo River. The Great Ruaha and Kizigo Rivers enter the Mtera dam where they account for the great majority of water inflow. The main rivers which supply the GRR include: Jamono, Njombe and Muhesi Rivers, which all flow into Kisigo River, which flows into the Mtera Dam. Others are Rivers Kimbi, Mkoji, Gwiri, Umrobo, Mswisi, LIosi, Itamba, Chimala, and Kimani. Also the GRR receives waters from the rivers Mlomboji, Mbarali, Kiloga, Hukuni, Ndembera and Little Ruaha River. Apart from Rivers Kiloga, Kimbi, Ndembera, Little Ruaha and Kisigo, most of the remaining rivers first flow into the Western wetland in the Usangu Plains and into the GRR from Nyaluhanga. The Usangu Plains drains a catchment of about 21,000 Km2.The rivers Kimbi, Kiloga and Ndembera feed the Eastern wetland and all these flow into the GRR. These Rivers have now become seasonal and are completely dry for most of the time. The Ndembera River has remained the only perennial river in this area. 40. The presence of riparian woodland and other riverine vegetation, is also significant in that the

20 Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Monitoring (TWCM) 1994 21 TANAPA. 2010. Draft Ruaha National Park General Management Plan 2008-2017 22 Courtesy of data provided by TANAPA and Rob Glen to PPG Process 21

GRL is situated in central Tanzania where the climate is semi-arid, characterized by low rainfall, harsh sunlight, dry, desiccating and sometimes strong winds and the landscape is dominated by deciduous vegetation. Along the perennial rivers are found broad-leafed trees, which form an important wildlife habitat. They provide shade and cover and act as a food reservoir for the majority of the wildlife in the park during the dry season when all the surrounding vegetation in the savannah and miombo woodland have shed their leaves. 41. The vast wilderness and undisturbed nature of much of GRL attributes to its remoteness, and to its topographical features. The undulating terrain crisscrossed by deep ravines because of the rift wall and escarpment, plus the prevalence of tsetse fly to the west has made it quite inaccessible for a greater part of the year. These natural barriers have favoured RUNAPA and the surrounding game reserve dispersal areas as a wilderness area. The landscape of rolling hills, inselbergs, mbugas and sand rivers contributes in creating the unique environment of the GRL.

Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape Biophysical Context 42. The Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape (GKKL) describes the highlands to the south of the GRL, from Mount Rungwe and the Livingstone Mountains, to the Kitulo plateau, along the Kipengere range to the elevated plains of Mpanga Kipengere.

Figure 3. The Project Landscape: Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape23

43. The GKKL is linked to the GRL in two crucial aspects, through the drainage of water (from the Livingstone and Kipengere ranges south via the Usangu wetlands into the Great Ruaha River, which literally feeds the GRL) and through the increasingly threatened Igando –Igawa wildlife

23 Courtesy of Guy Picton Phillipps / WCS, 2010 22

corridor24, the southernmost part of the GRK and an area of at least 1,000 ha which formerly linked these highland areas to the north and has considerable potential to be conserved. WCS are working with the government of Tanzania and local communities to develop a new WMA, called UMEMARUWA (Ühifadhi na Matumizi Endelevu ya Maliasili Rujewa na Wangingómbe25) which in part addresses this corridor. The figure below shows, in a square, the area in which the WMA is being developed and thus the corridor itself.

Figure 4. Umemaruwa WMA: The Link Between GRL and GKKL 26

24 Caro, T.M, Jones,T, & Davenport, T.R.B. 2009. Realities of documenting wildlife corridors in tropical countries. Biological Conservation 142: 2807-2811. 25 Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation Rujewa and Wangingómbe 26 Courtesy of Guy Picton Phillipps / WCS, 2010 23

44. To the west of this highland landscape is Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve (MRNR), which was gazetted as a forest reserve in 1949 and was upgraded to a nature reserve in 2009 following the development of supportive legislations and the realisation of its importance to water resources and biodiversity. MRNR is located between 90 03’ - 90 12’S and 330 35’ - 330 45’E, covering most of Mount Rungwe. The reserve is situated 25 km Southeast of Mbeya. Mount Rungwe stands at the junction of the eastern and western arms of the Great Rift Valley, and is the northern extent of the Southern Rift dominating the mountainous country at the northwest of the trough that contains Lake Nyasa. The mountain provides waters all year round to the entire Kyela Valley and its multi-million dollar rice, cocoa, banana, coffee and tea industries. MRNR covers an area of 13,652.1 ha with a boundary length of 63.9 km. To the east, MRNR is bordered via the Bujingijila Forest Corridor by Kitulo National Park which cloaks the steep escarpment of the Lake Nyasa trough. 45. The management of MRNR at the national level falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD). At regional level, the Regional Catchment Office is taking care of the MRNR on behalf of the Director of FBD. Villages surrounding the reserve have established Village Environment Committees under the guidance and support of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), an environmental NGO, a Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme is underway to support co management in the area. 46. The MRNR is linked ecologically, although with limited protection, through the Bujingijila corridor27 to the Kitulo National Park (KINAPA) to the east. 47. KINAPA was established on 16th September, 200528 mainly to safeguard its floristic importance (particularly orchids) and its biophysical role as a key water catchment area for GRR and Lake Nyasa. KINAPA is situated in Southern Highlands of Tanzania, Mbeya region. 48. KINAPA has a temperate climate due to the influence of the area’s high altitude. Day temperatures range between 14 and 18 degrees Celsius and around 7 degrees Celsius during the night from May to August. During the cool season nightly temperatures can be as low as 0.5 C; at this time frost also occurs on a regular basis. The park generally lies at an altitude of 2,500 – 3,000 m.a.s.l. The park comprises a montane grassland plateau and the two montane forest ranges of Numbe and Livingstone. The Plateau is arguably the most important Afromontane and Afroalpine grassland community in the country and it is an important area for biodiversity and regional endemism29. 49. The Kitulo plateau sits on the watershed of the Uporoto, Kipengere and Ukinga Mountains. As such, its habitats feed important river catchments that flow both to the north and to the south. Kitulo’s plateau grasslands contain montane marshes, which are one of the original sources of the Great Ruaha River via the Numbe valley and the Kimani River. As a consequence, KINAPA is vital for all the water resources that nourish the rice schemes to the north, Usangu floodplains of the GRL, RUNAPA in general and ultimately the Mtera Dam, responsible for the majority of the nation’s electricity. The montane forest of the Livingstone range, in part recently annexed to KINAPA is also a source of many rivers including the Lufilyo, Ndala and Rumakali that nourish the Kyela Valley and drain into Lake Nyasa. The natural forests within the GKKL also serve as important carbon sinks. 50. The montane/dense bamboo (Synarundinaria alpina) forests whilst differing greatly from the adjacent grasslands, the montane and bamboo forest of the former Livingstone Forest Reserve and the montane and East African Cedar (Juniperus procera) forests of the former Numbe

27 Caro, T.M, Jones,T, & Davenport, T.R.B. 2009. Realities of documenting wildlife corridors in tropical countries. Biological Conservation 142: 2807-2811. 28 Government Notice 279 29Davenport, T.R.B. 2002. Garden Of The Gods: Kitulo Plateau, A New National Park for Tanzania. Wildlife Conservation. June Edition, P15.

24

Forest Reserve (now both part of KINAPA) are important components of the local and national landscape. These are some of the most substantial ‘alpine’ bamboo forests in Tanzania, and the montane and upper montane forest, now increasingly rare across the nation, is of considerable bio-geographical, biodiversity, cultural and ecosystem service significance. On the other hand, with regard to the rare, endemic and threatened flora and fauna until recently, the biodiversity of the whole Southern Highland area was poorly known and assumed to be of limited importance. But since 2000, research work, especially by WCS has demonstrated that the area is not only biologically diverse but of great international conservation significance in terms of its rare flora and fauna. 51. Species lists of the plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, butterflies, moths, and dragonflies are continuously being developed as new species are discovered. The newly described Kipunji (Rungwecebus kipunji), discovered by WCS in Mount Rungwe and KINAPA is the first new of monkey to be discovered in Africa for 83 years, and the first new species for 25 years. A recent census has shown that it is probably the rarest monkey in Africa, and one of the world’s 25 rarest primates. It will soon be categorized by the IUCN Red List as ‘Critically Endangered’. Similarly, the Rungwe Galago (Galagoides spp.) a bush baby recently discovered by WCS is also listed as one of the world’s 25 rarest primates. 52. Abbott’s Duiker (Cephalopus spadix) is Africa’s largest and rarest forest antelope, and is a Tanzanian endemic, known from just five sites in the country. Across the vertebrates, from mammals to birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish, there are rare and threatened species, including many that are endemic to Tanzania or the Southern Highlands. For instance, the GKKL is home to seven species of chameleon30, four of which are endemic to Tanzania, and a further two endemic to southern Tanzania and northern Malawi. Even the invertebrates show rare and endemic species. One species of butterfly (Neocoenyra petersi), found only on a small part of KINAPA is considered to be one of the rarest in the world. 53. Kitulo is one the first National Parks in tropical Africa to be gazetted primarily because of its floristic importance. There are about 350 species of higher plants some of which are of restricted range such as the ground orchids, of which there are three species which are endemic to Kitulo and surrounding areas. The massive bloom of these orchids and other angiosperms makes a floral spectacle for which Kitulo is becoming famous for in Tanzania and beyond. All orchid species are protected under CITES as endangered species and cross border trade or transfer requires certification. The plateau is thus of huge international importance for flora and is home to a range of restricted-range species of mountain flower, including four species found only on Kitulo Plateau and many more found only in the Southern Highlands. 54. KINAPA has been formerly recognized as one of Tanzania’s IBAs. This is due to the presence of a range of rare and restricted-range species that include, Uhehe Fiscal, Kipengere Seedeater ( melanochrous), Njombe Cisticola (Cisticola Njombe), Blue Swallow, Mountain Marsh Widowbird, Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni) and Denham’s Bustard. This IBA lies within a larger “Endemic Bird Area” that covers both the Eastern Arc and Southern Highlands of Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi with cross-over of species in between these ranges. 55. The scenic landscape (waterfalls, crater lakes, floral gardens) that encompasses KINAPA exhibits considerable beauty and diversity. The unique plateau grassland rolls across dozens of km2and reaches as high as 2960 meters. In the wet season, it is responsible for one the world’s great floral spectacles when every few weeks a new suite of mountain flowers blooms across the landscape. It has been variously called the Serengeti of Flowers and Bustani ya Mungu (God’s Garden). Being a montane landscape, and amidst Tanzania’s wettest region, water is a near- constant, from clear rivers to crater lakes and waterfalls. 56. KINAPA is linked to the east to the Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve through the weakly protected Numbe valley, an area in the region of 30km2 which has considerable potential as a

30 One was discovered by WCS in 2007 25

renewed wildlife corridor, as well as to the north via the Matamba ridge descending into the Kimani valley. The Numbe forest reserve immediately west of that corridor that area was absorbed into KINAPA whilst the Kipengere Forest Reserve to the south-east now forms part of Mpanga Kipengere Gamer Reserve, leaving only a small portion linking the two PAs. 57. Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve (MKGR) lies in Tanzania’s Southern Highlands. The MKGR covers an area of 1,574 km2 and is situated within the Districts of Njombe and Makete, in the Region of Iringa. MKGR starts in the highlands of the Kipengere range and descends northwards down towards the open plains that drain into the Usangu area in the GRL. Five major rivers drain from the highland areas of the MKGR, joining to form the GRR. This river feeds wetland eco-systems of the Usangu plains and the RUNAPA, irrigates agricultural areas, serves the Mtera reservoir and supplies countless human populations with water on its path to the Rufiji River and delta. 58. Although the importance of the Kipengere highlands as a water catchment area prompted initial concerns regarding its conservation as early as 1975, budget restrictions meant that it was not proposed as a Game Reserve to the Prime Minister’s Office until 1999. The area received official recognition and government protection only on 21st August 2002, however MKGR is still highly underfunded with a resultant lack of management capacity, achieving a METT score of only 21 in the 2010 project preparation phase.

Wildlife Corridors and Buffer Zones 59. Wildlife corridors and buffer zones in Tanzania are important for ensuring the long term health of the protected ecosystem. The viability of the southern Tanzania’s PAs depends on the ability of wildlife to disperse and return to the area on an annual basis and a flow of on other protected areas. However, like many other corridors the Southern Tanzanian’s corridors are threaten by growing human settlement, land use changes towards agriculture and other developments. In responding to those threats the new Tanzania Wildlife Policy (2007) and the draft National Parks Bill promote and recognize the need to finding solutions that will conserve Tanzania's wildlife and resolve competition for land use through corridor or "buffer zones". 60. The Wildlife Policy calls for the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in areas around the protected areas and corridors to act as buffer zones. In addition, the National Policies for National Parks, issued by the Tanzania National Parks Board of Trustees, emphasizes the need for wildlife conservation and cooperation from local communities. The new Land Policy also recognizes the importance of wildlife, in particular wildlife habitat, by calling for the revocation of land titles in all wildlife migration corridors and buffer zones. These and other statements are examples of Government recognition of importance of wildlife in Tanzania and problems associated with their management. 1.6 Socio-Economic Context

Tanzanian National Context 61. Tanzania is currently home to over 40.2 million people.31 Population growth stands at 2.88% annually. Over 80% of the population lives in rural areas, in more than 8,000 villages. Population density is 48 people per km2. According to 2009 African Development Bank statistics32, the Tanzanian population was estimated at 43.7M in 2009, out of which the female proportion is 50.14% and with overall 25.92% estimated to live in urban centres, that leaves the bulk of the population at 74.08% living in the rural Tanzania. The Crude Birth Rate (per 100) was estimated at 41.28%.

31 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html 32 http://www.afdb.org 26

62. Over the past twenty years, Tanzania has transitioned from a single-party, socialist state to a reforming, emerging democracy. Following reintroduction of political pluralism, four multi- party elections have been held, most recently in October 2010. Jakaya Kikwete won the presidential elections in December 2005, having vowed to continue economic reforms set in motion by the outgoing president, to create jobs and tackle poverty. He won a second term in October 2010 though with a considerably lower majority and a higher number of opposition MP’s winning seats in parliament, an indication that multi-party democracy is becoming systemically routed. 63. Tanzania’s economy has grown steadily since the major economic reforms initiated during the 1980s. In March 2009 the IMF listed Tanzania among eight countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with impressive economic growth, with the private sector playing a key role. The crucial changes that preceded rapid economic growth in Asian emerging markets in the 1980s are being seen in Sub-Saharan Africa today. The private sector is the key driver of that growth and financial markets are opening up. 64. Agriculture remains central to the Tanzanian economy, accounting for 46% of GDP with a 4.7% average growth for the period of 2000-2006. It makes up 50% of foreign exchange earnings, provides 85% of exports and employs 90% of the workforce33. It is important in terms of food production, employment generation, production of raw material for industries, generation of foreign exchange earnings and raising rural income levels to alleviate poverty. 65. An increase in the service industry growth rate in recent years is a result of increase in services provision in the following sub activities in the economy, namely trade and repairs; transport; communication; hotels and restaurants; public administration; education; and health. However, the growth rate in the financial intermediation; real estate and business services; as well as other social and personal services declined. The share of services activities to GDP remained 43.3% in 2007 as it was in 2006. The trade and repairs sub activity; growth grew by 9.8% in 2007, compared to 9.5% in 2006. The growth was mainly attributed to continue implementation of export oriented strategies; improvements in regional trade arrangements such as East African Community (EAC); and strengthened business environment in the country. The contribution of the trade and repairs sub activity to GDP was 11.5% in 2007, compared to 11.4 percent in 2006. The hotel and restaurants sub activity, grew by 4.4% in 2007, compared to 4.3% in 2006. The growth was mainly attributed to the promotion of Tanzania as a good tourist destination in foreign countries and centres around the world including in the CNN advertisements. The contribution of the hotel and restaurants sub activity to GDP was 2.7% in 2007, compared to 2.6% in 2006. 66. About 80% of the population in Tanzania live in rural areas where their livelihoods depends on agriculture (i.e. crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry) which accounts for around 50% of the GDP. The livestock sector contributed about 4.7 percent of the GDP in 2007. Out of the sector’s contribution to GDP, about 40 percent originates from beef production, 30 percent from milk production and another 30 percent from poultry and small stock production.34 67. Forests and woodlands are crucial resources for hundreds of thousands of households across Tanzania. Officially, they provide employment for one million mainly rural people and un- officially provide part time occupations for 5 to 10 times more. This increase in population has thus long been associated with rapid degradation of the environment, particularly deforestation, game poaching, water usage, pollution and soil erosion.

Regional Context: South-West Tanzania 68. Agriculture is the main economic activity in Iringa and Mbeya regions and employs about 90%

33 United Republic of Tanzania. 2008. State of the Environment Report 2008 Vice President’s Office Department of Environment. Dar es Salaam Tanzania 34 Africa development Bank (2009) 27

of the population. The main crops grown in the area are rice, maize, vegetables, millet, Irish potatoes, groundnuts, tea, pyrethrum, coffee, tobacco and onions. Three large scale paddy irrigation farms (Mbarali state farm, Kapunga Farm and Madibira Small Holder Scheme) are found in the area and over 60 traditional canals in Mbarali districts. Tea, coffee and tree plantations are found in the upland areas. Tea and coffee plantation are also found in Mufindi and Njombe while tobacco is cultivated around Iringa. The increase of various agriculture activities around the Greater Ruaha ecosystem threaten the existence of RUNAPA, disturbs the natural distribution and behaviour of wildlife between food and water and in some cases escalate human wildlife conflicts. About 200,000ha of forest disappeared due to expansion for agriculture alone35. Harvesting of forests products for firewood, charcoal and building materials are other important direct causes of deforestation in the GRR Catchment Area. 69. Water is the key issue in the GRL and GKKL landscapes and occasionally leads to conflict. On 2nd May, 2006 the Government of Tanzania through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism gave an order that all livestock in Usangu Wetlands and Kilombero Valley should leave those areas by 30th June, 2006. This was a major breakthrough in finding solutions to water flow problems to GRR. At the same time Usangu Game Reserve together with part of the Usangu wetland which was outside the Game Reserve together with some villages were added to RUNAPA. This safeguarded the entire wetlands which were crucial to water supply to GRR. However capacity to manage Usangu, whether by TANAPA internally or by communities on the buffer areas is weak. New efforts are required in a two pronged approach to safeguard the wetlands through a landscape management approach and to ensure the internal operational capacity of the PAs is increased to manage the recent annexation of Usangu, an area of over 10,000 km2. 70. Timber and logging contribute significantly to the economy of southern Tanzania. Numerous plantations and several individual plots of trees are the main sources of timber and logs. Most of the timber found in the area is soft wood with eucalyptus obtained from highland areas. Several plantations exist in Southern Tanzania, north and east of the project landscapes. Some plantations are owned by the state or district councils and some by donors, religious organizations and individuals. 71. The Iringa and Mbeya regional and district governments and partners have planned to concentrate on the following activities: first, further the development of agriculture, livestock farming, forestry, fisheries and beekeeping sub-sectors for large volume and high quality production to meet domestic and export markets. Secondly, expansion of important road networks to key economic areas including industrial zones in urban areas. Thirdly, taking measures aimed at expanding and developing the tourist sector. The fourth step is to gradually transform and update utilities infrastructure including electricity, water supply and sewerage systems. Apart from the Mbeya residents’ own efforts, the region wishes to attract investments from domestic and foreign investors as well as economic organizations for the purpose of exploiting the regions opportunities on the basis of mutual benefits in various areas. The sector has to date ensured food security and has managed to produce surpluses of maize which is the major food crop grown in the region. Iringa region is one of the major maize producing regions in Tanzania popularly known as the “Big Four”, the other regions being Mbeya, Rukwa and Ruvuma. 72. One of the key development initiatives in the Southern Tanzania is the plan to build an international airport in Mbeya region. This key development element will certainly open up the Southern part more to the world and most important tourist. The airport would boost the economy of this region and increase pressure to the natural resources available. It is imperative to strengthening the management of the existing protected areas. In addition to profiling the Regions and Districts, the Government recognizes the role of private sector in bringing about socio-economic development through investments. Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

35 Great Ruaha River Basin Management Report March, GoT, 1999 28

frameworks provide important instruments for attracting investments.

Tourism Opportunities 73. Until late 2008, TANAPA had seen more than 10 years growth in revenues, of which 98% came from tourism activities. The 2006/2007 annual financial report showed an income of 69 billion TZS, (57.5million $ at 2008 rates). This was 69% over 2005/6 figures, and three times that of 2002/03. However, there are huge revenue earning differentials between parks. From the 14 parks documented in the 2006/7annual financial statement, two parks (Kilimanjaro 42 % and Serengeti 33 %) raised over 75% of all revenue. The seven southern parks collectively raised <1.5 % of all revenue. Whilst southern park revenues increased from 2006 to 2007, this was minor, and in ratios was less than the pattern of increase in the north. Currently, TANAPA covers its costs through the cross subsidization of operations in PAs with limited income from PAs such as the Serengeti and Kilimanjaro NP, which run at a surplus. However, the income received covers direct costs estimated at 50 billion shillings and is not sufficient to fully cover the costs of managing the Southern Circuit. There is a need to increase the income earning potential of the Southern Circuit, through promotion of tourism or other means, while also ensuring that operations are moulded to ensure cost effectiveness and maximise threat abatement per dollar invested. This will improve the efficacy of the existing budgetary cross subsidisation scheme between the Northern and Southern NPs. 74. In 2000, the National Bureau of Statistics and the Tourism Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism put tourist expenditure at about US$740 million. A 1995-2020 projection analysis carried out by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has shown that Tanzania’s tourism growth rate is determined at 10% of the world growth rate, which is 4% higher than the Africa average growth, as well as higher than all the other regions, and with the overall Tanzania international tourists visits growing progressively (UNWTO, 2008). The world projected tourism annual growth rate is represented in the following table: Table 2. Average Annual Growth Rate (%) of International Tourist Arrivals, 1995-202036 REGION 1995-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020 F Africa 6.0 5.6 5.1 Americas 3.9 3.8 3.8 East Asia / Pacific 7.7 7.2 6.6 Europe 3.1 3.1 3.1 Middle East 6.9 6.7 6.5 South Asia 6.4 6.2 5.8 World 4.2 4.2 4.4 Tanzania 10 9.3 N/A Difference Between Tanzania and Africa 4.0 3.7 N/A

There is a general growth rate decline for all the regions including Tanzania, most likely as a result of the world economic recession in the late 2009/early 2010. But still Tanzania’s growth is higher not only than that of Africa, but than that of all the other regions. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism’s five year analysis (2002-2005), which showed international tourist statistics increasing from 525,000 in 2001 to 612, 754 in 2005, an increase of almost 17%. Table 3. Tourism Trend in Tanzania 2001 - 200537 YEAR Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 International Tourists 525,000 575,235 576,198 582,807 612,754 Tourists in Hotels 501,081 535,146 552,000 562,332 568,798

36 World Tourism Organization (UNWTO): Tourism 2020 Vision 37 Ministry of Natural Resource & Tourism Budget Speech 2006/07 29

YEAR Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Revenue (USD million) 725 730 731 746.14 822 Average Tourist’s 1591 1531 1881 1561 Consumption Per Day 173s 822 822 1192 1252 (USD) Number of Tourist Hotels 329 465 469 469 476 Occupancy rate per annum 59 59 47 53 43 Key:

1. Package tourists

2. Non-package tourists 1.7 Policy and Legislative Context

75. The Energy Policy of 2003. This policy calls for efforts to switch from petroleum to alternative environmentally-friendly fuels, including the exploration and use of natural gas in the Mtwara Development Corridor, specifically at Mnazi Bay in Mtwara region, and the Mchuchuma coal mine near the northern tip of Lake Nyasa. Exploitation at Mnazi Bay began in 2005 and attempts are being made to invigorate coal extraction. The resources at Mchuchuma were estimated at 536 million tonnes in 2005. Although the policy document does not mention other alternative sources of energy such as biofuels, the Ministry of Energy and Minerals (MEM) recognizes ongoing efforts at biofuels development and is heading the inter-ministerial National Biofuels Task Force. This task force is working to finalise guidelines for the production of biofuels in Tanzania, and is taking into account concerns raised by local communities, NGOs such as WWF, and local government authorities regarding the impact of biofuels development on food security, biodiversity conservation, and rural land tenure and resource access. 76. National Land Policy (1995). The overall aim of the Land Policy is to promote and ensure a secure land tenure system, encourage the optimal use of land resources, and facilitate broad- based socio-economic development without endangering the ecological balance of the environment. The relevant objectives and goals of the National Land Policy are: village Councils shall administer Village Lands in consultation with Village Assemblies; to protect village land rights and promote better and sustainable use of natural resources within the villages, the government will assist villages in demarcating their boundaries and implementing their management authority over these lands; village Land Use Planning will be simplified for speedy execution; government will ensure that permits and licenses for natural resources exploitation will be made with regard to land use polices and environmental and conservation policies. 77. Land and the Village Land Act (1999). These laws empower village governments with devolution management rights over land. It enables villages to draft and enforce bylaws (but not to collect fines). It allows for the creation of Certificates of Village Land and the Right of Occupancy to Forest Land for both communities and individuals. Finally it established management institutions for CBNRM and Community-Based Forestry at village level, like Village Assembly, Village Council, Village Environment Committee (VEC) or Village Natural Resource Management Committee (VNRC) and Village scouts or guards. The act makes legal provision for common property and ability to be registered as statutory entitlements in Customary Lands including registration of all commons. 78. The Land Use Planning Act (2007). This Act recognizes village land use plans. Under this Act, once a village government has adopted a land use plan and has had it vetted by the village assembly, the village can then begin to implement the plan without further approvals or delays. Village governments have similar general power over their lands under use plans and by laws. It therefore recommended that Land use plans should be supported in the villages which do not have Land use plans to ensure that they secure their land and natural resources occurs in their 30

village land 79. Land Act (1999). It creates the possibility of Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) through the recognition of village land as one of three legal categories of land, the other two being general land and conservation land. It allows for both community ownership of land as well as private ownership of land. The more important contribution of this act is that it permits distribution of state-owned land, not only agricultural land, but also all kinds of forests, to communities and groups of people as well as to private individuals. Moreover, this act makes legal provision for common property rights to be registered as Granted Rights of Occupancy and recognizes Customary Tenure Systems. It also provides for a strong role of villages in the management and conservation of natural resources. Lastly, it has allowed some villages to gain substantial financial benefits from tourism activities occurring on village lands. 80. National Environmental Policy, 1997 (NEP). The NEP articulates the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation, and identifies six major environmental problems for urgent attention. These are land degradation; lack of accessible good quality water for both rural and urban inhabitants; environmental pollution; loss of wildlife habitats and biodiversity; deterioration of aquatic systems; and deforestation. NEP recognises other sectoral policies and their respective Acts regarding environmental management such as agriculture, livestock, water and sanitation, health, transport, energy, mining, human settlement, industry, tourism, wildlife, forestry and fisheries. The NEP promotes the need for conserving wildlife in for future generation. It states that: “Wildlife resources shall be protected and utilized in a sustainable manner on the basis of a careful assessment of natural heritage in flora and fauna fragile ecosystems, sites under pressure and endangered species, with participation of, and benefits to, the local communities. Environmentally adverse impacts of development projects (e.g., tourist hotels, railway construction) in wildlife conservation areas will be minimized by EIA studies. Game ranching and captivity breeding for certain species will be encouraged”38. 81. The Environmental Management Act, 2004 (EMA). The EMA represents a comprehensive framework law on environmental protection. EMA requires an analysis of the environmental impacts of activities undertaken or permitted by the Government of Tanzania. These environmental impact assessments (EIA) are detailed analysis of the environmental effects of a proposed action. Under the act, activities in forest and land areas require EIAs. EMA is a comprehensive framework law on environmental protection. It provides for legal and institutional framework for sustainable management of environment and natural resources in the country. The Act confers the task of overall coordination of environmental management in the country to the ministry responsible for environment and the role of environmental management in specific sector such as agriculture, fisheries, wildlife, mining and water is conferred to relevant sector ministries and Local Government Authorities (LGA) 82. The National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP). The NSGRP mainstreams various national objectives for environmental management under three clusters for development: growth and reduction of income poverty; improvement of quality of life and social well-being; governance and accountability. Fourteen percent of NSGRP’s targets are directly related to the environment and one of its specific goals is environmental sustainability. 83. The National Agriculture and Livestock Policy recognizes that pressure for agriculture land is increasing, and recommends that land tenure laws are reformed, and soil conservation measures are put into effect. Key elements relevant to wildlife conservation and the use of natural resources are land tenure and land use planning issues. The policy advocates the allocation of land for agricultural development should be on long-term basis, with a minimum tenure of 33 years. Village title deeds should in practice be permanent, and title deeds should be provided to land users. The policy states that: villages should be given adequate land for their economic use;

38 VPO, 1997, p. 19. sec. 58 31

government should endeavour to demarcate the whole country to appropriate forms of land use i.e. agriculture, livestock, forestry, mining, etc.; people are assisted to more form overpopulated areas to agriculturally suitable low-density area; modern husbandry methods should be introduced in rural areas in order to minimize the impact of overgrazing and to improve livestock productivity. 84. Agricultural and Livestock policy (1997). The objectives of policy are to assure food security for the nation, including improvement of national standards of nutrition; promote access of women and youth to land, credit, education and information; increase foreign exchange earnings; develop and introduce new technologies for land and labour productivity; promote integrated and sustainable use and management of natural resources (environmental sustainability); develop human resources; provide support services; produce and supply raw materials and expand the role of the sector as a market for industrial outputs. 85. The Tanzania Investment Act (1990). This creates key legislation provides an enabling environment for growth of the private sector. The Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC), which replaced the Investment Promotion Centre, facilitates and promotes investment activities in the country. 86. The Public Corporation Act (1992). This Act provides the legal framework for divestiture of public organizations and the creation of the Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC) to implement the program. 87. The Wildlife Conservation Act, No 5, 2009 (Parts IV – XII). This Act defines the wildlife protected areas, their establishment, management and imposed restrictions. It focuses on Game Reserves, Wetland areas, Wetland reserves and Game Controlled Areas but also deals with protection of wildlife corridors, dispersal areas, buffer zones and migratory routes. It elaborates on species management areas, declaration of national game, closed season, restrictions of hunting in a national park and Ngorongoro Conservation Area. It details the establishment and management of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) and benefit sharing, the declaration of the WMA and the establishment of the District Natural Resources Advisory Body. 88. The Act further directs general management measures on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Wildlife Impact Assessment and Environmental Audit and Monitoring. The Act also defines consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife. Human-Wildlife Conflict is covered including the establishment of wildlife ranching, farming, breeding and sanctuaries which were not in the old Act. Research on wildlife is given emphasis. National Parks are not included in the Wildlife Act as these are established under the National Parks Act (previously the National Parks Ordinance of 1959). The National Policies for National Parks in Tanzania, 1994 provide guidelines for the management of national park. All 15 national parks are managed by TANAPA. TANAPA has the Board of Trustees that oversees its operations on behalf of the Government. Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund (TWPF) was established in 1978 by the addition of new section 69A to the Wildlife Conservation Act. The fund receives 25% of all game revenues and 100% of all revenues from observer, conservation, permit and trophy handling fees. It supports state agencies involved in wildlife conservation. Towards the achievement of the benefit sharing objective a revolving fund is set up partly to benefit adjacent communities. TANAPA’s board is obligated to give a portion of the revenue to the local authorities. 89. The Wildlife Policy (2007). This policy agrees with the Act and stipulates the roles of various institutions. The government has undertaken reforms aimed at ensuring proper and efficient discharge of services to the public by both the central and local governments. The Wildlife Policy of 2007 put protected area management under two types of administration: local government through the Vice President’s Office and central government through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). The policy states that: “Wildlife is a natural resource of great biological, economical, environmental cleaning, climate ameliorating, water and soil

32

conservation, and nutritional values that must be conserved. It can be used indefinitely if properly managed”39 90. National Forestry Policy (1998). Several major policies to support Forest Management in Tanzania have been put in place in the past decade. Foremost is the Forestry Policy (1998), which was operationalised through the Forest Act No. 14 (2002) and the National Forest Programme (2001). These policy and legal documents have been accompanied by regulations and guidelines, including a major effort to involve communities in forest management through the promotion of Participatory Forest Management across both Forest Reserves and forest on village lands. The operational forest policy places the responsibility of managing forest resources sustainably under the forest sector, in collaboration with key stakeholders40. The policy places emphasis on participatory gender-balanced management and decentralisation, radical changes from the earlier policy and legislation that focused on preservation and control under centralized forest management. 91. A National Policy for Tourism (1991). Under this policy, the government fully realizes the problems facing her protected areas that include poaching, human pressures due to uncontrolled population increase and wild fires and deforestation which destroy water catchment and suitable habitats for animals to survive, and the government uses anti-poaching units. In this policy, the Government acknowledges that, campaigns to educate local communities on conservation of wildlife and environment at large are essential and necessary. Through its objectives the tourism policy identifies: the need to involve local people in wildlife conservation through improving local tourism; need to improve protection of tourist attraction; need improve safari (tourist) hunting; and the need to improve publicity. 92. The National Park Policy was adopted by the board of trustees of TANAPA in 1994. One of the most innovative concepts introduced by the policy document is the integration of the communities surrounding wildlife in the planning and benefit sharing of wildlife resources. 93. Local Government Act (1892). A reform of the Local Government Act was adopted by the Parliament in 1999, following the 1997 Local Government Reform Agenda (LGRA) and the 1998 Policy Paper on Local Government Reform. This leads to the establishment of the Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government (MRALG) in 1998. The LGRA argues for devolution of power from central to local government through the creation of largely autonomous institutions at the local level, which are strong and effective. This movement has links with the National Framework on Governance initiated in 1997, which aims at restricting central government to regulatory functions (political and legal framework, monitoring, audit, and law enforcement, while communities and the private sector shall be given more security and autonomy to drive development. The LGRA thus empowers strongly the districts in the process. 94. Community Based Forestry Management Guidelines (2001). This allows communities to own and manage forest resources on their land. This policy defines CBFM as any forest management regime in which local people play a major role. This may be developed in respect of still unreserved forests in village or general land, or in respect of government forest reserve. Moreover, it makes the distinction between Joint Forest Management (JFM) defined as involvement of local communities or NGO in the management and conservation of forests and forest land with appropriate user rights as incentives, and Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) which implies ownership of the communities. Thus generally JFM concerns state owned reserve and forest adjacent communities and CBFM concerns forest on village or general land. Main tool of JFM is JFM Agreement, while the main tool for CBFM is the Village Forest Reserve (VFR). 95. National Fisheries Policy. The National Fisheries Policy (NFP) covers both marine and fresh water habitats. The overall goal of the NFP is to promote conservation, development and

39 MNRT, 1998:8, revised 2007 40 MNRT, 2001 33

sustainable management and use of the fishery resources for the benefit of present and future generations. Its objectives focus on increasing fish production and improving availability in order to contribute to the growth of the national economy. Emphasis is also given to enhancing knowledge of the fish resource base through research, education and training programmes. 96. The policy also seeks to promote improved fishing techniques and marketability of fish products as well as promoting small-scale aquaculture systems. The role played by fisher communities (artisan fishing, deep-sea fishing, coastal water fishing) in the planning, development and management of fishery resources is recognized. The fisheries policy calls for strengthened collaboration on cross-sectoral issues between the fisheries sector and other sectors, as well as closer co-operation between the government and the people. It also recognizes the benefits of strengthened regional and international collaboration in sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of resources in shared water bodies. 97. Beekeeping Policy (1998). This policy has similar objectives than NFP (1998) regarding communities, similar tools and mechanisms (Village Bee Reserve instead of Village Forest Reserve). So the main tools are VBR (equivalent of VFR) and JFM in government forest, with the possibility of zoning a beekeeping zone in a national forest reserve. VBR have already been established recently in 5 districts and others are under planning. The only weakness is the recurrence of conflicts between village-based beekeeping and trophy hunting activities. 98. Wildlife Management Area Regulations (2002). This allows the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism to declare land set aside by a village government as a WMA, which gives people some control over the wildlife resources on their land. It calls for the creation of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) defined as “an area declared by the Minister to do so and set aside by village governments for the purpose of biological natural resources conservation.”41 The main tool of the new policy is thus the WMA, which, through the transfer of management gives local communities some control over wildlife resource on their land and enables them to benefit directly from these resources. It gives to communities’ wildlife user rights and management opportunities and responsibilities. Participation to management is realised through Community Based Organisation (CBO) and/or village governments. To be granted the rights of management, a CBO must be first recognised as an Authorized Association by the Director of Wildlife. Beside the WMA, the Wildlife Policy, 1998 indicates that it will “facilitate the establishment of Community Based Conservation (CBC) Programmes in WMAs by helping the rural communities to have secure ownership/long term use rights of their lands and enabling them to use the wildlife and natural resources on that land”. The Wildlife Policy, 1998 defines CBC as conservation of wildlife resources based on the participation of the local communities. 99. Other key policies which are relevant to protected in the region are Wildlife Policy (1998), National Investment Promotion Policy (1996), The sustainable industrial Development Policy (1996), National Water Policy (2002) and National Gender Policy (1999), Forest Policy of 1998,, The National Park Ordinance of 1959, Fisheries Act of 1970, National Beekeeping Policy (1998), Mineral Policy of Tanzania (1997), Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance. 100. Tanzania has also ratified important conventions related to conservation and management of wildlife and wetlands resources. It became a member of the CITES in 1981, CMS in 1999, AEWA in 1999, Ramsar in 2000 and signed Lusaka agreement in 1996. Tanzania also ratified the SADC protocol in Wildlife Conservation and Law enforcement in 2002. All these initiatives are aimed at better protection of Tanzania’s natural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefits there from. Tanzania is also a member of the Convention of Biological Diversity-CBD, United Nations Convention to combat Desertification-UNCCD and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-UNFCCC.

41 United Republic of Tanzania. 1998. The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania

34

1.8 Institutional and Governance Context

Governance of Natural Resources 101. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) has the mandate to the conservation of natural and cultural resources as well as development of tourism, safeguarding the biological value of the flora and fauna species, the habitats and cultural sites. MNRT is one of the economic ministries responsible for conservation of natural and cultural resources as well as development of tourism. MNRT is responsible for overall organization, rules coordination and establishment of coherent general context for PA management. 102. The Wildlife Division (WD) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism manages wildlife in Tanzania. The Division is headed by the Director of Wildlife who is appointed by the President. Because wildlife legislation is characterized by various institutions with overlapping functions, the Wildlife Division collaborates with most of these institutions. The various institutions include Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Fisheries Division, Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and other wildlife conservation authorities. The Wildlife Division has the authority to govern the utilization of wildlife through hunting concessions in GCAs and in GRs. The wildlife Division is responsible for managing the GR, GCA and offer technical and policy directives to the Wildlife Management Areas (although WMAs are community managed). The main sources of revenue to WD are the hunting concession were hunters are allocated with hunting block and quotas. It took over this administration of hunting concession from TAWICO in 1988 and offered them to private companies. From there the hunting industry has grown rapidly, both in earnings-total revenues were estimated to be $ 27 million in 2001- and in the number of private operators involved, which now stands at about 14042. Hunting concessions are done inside the GRs where no human settlement occurs and in Game Controlled Areas or Open Areas were local communities live according to the customary rights of occupancy. Commercial hunting is thus the Wildlife Division’s main form of revenue and its primary management mandate. 103. The Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) is mandated with managing and regulating the use of areas designated as National Parks to enhance preservation of the national heritage, including natural and cultural resources of both tangible and intangible resource values. Included in this definition are fauna and flora, wildlife habitat, natural processes, wilderness quality and scenery therein, as well as providing for human benefit and enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave the natural and cultural resources unimpaired for future generations. This is emphasized in the TANAPA purpose, which among other things involve preservation of all areas of exceptional value or quality; ensuring National Parks retain high degree of integrity and that optimum levels of revenue and benefits accrue to the national economy, the parks and communities without impairing park resources. TANAPA is under the same Ministry as the Wildlife Division but the two do not have overlapping mandates or jurisdictions. Resources inside national parks are managed by TANAPA, while all wildlife outside the parks, which include wildlife in Game Reserves, GCAs, WMAs as well as on unprotected community or private land, is under the Wildlife Division’s jurisdiction. 104. The Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, is responsible for managing for conservation 4 Forest Nature Reserves and 250 ‘Catchment’ Forest Reserves, which cover about 1.6 million ha of mainly mountain forest. An increasing proportion of these reserves are managed in collaboration with surrounding communities. A further 90,000 ha of land in 10 Forest Reserves are managed by FBD as industrial plantations of exotic tree species. The Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism manages 32 Game Reserves that cover 11.5 million ha of Tanzania. Most of these support miombo or acacia woodland habitats. TANAPA manages forest and

42 Baldus and Cauldwell, 2004 35

woodland within its 14 National Parks that cover 1.8 million ha of land. The Director of FBD is responsible for state owned Plantations, Forest Reserves/Catchment Forest and Nature Reserves. 105. TAWIRI is a public institution established under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in 1980 with the mandate to carry out and co-ordinate wildlife research in Tanzania. TAWIRI is the CITES Scientific Authority in Tanzania and is responsible for supervising all wildlife research related activities in Tanzania. Its mission is to carry out research on various aspects of wildlife and biodiversity in general, co-ordinate and supervise all wildlife research in the country, advise the Government and wildlife management authorities on sustainable conservation of wildlife resources, and facilitate the involvement of Tanzanians in wildlife research including training. 106. The Tanzania Tourist Board is a government organization legally established by the Tanzania Tourist Board act, CAP 364 of 1962 and amended by Act No. 18 of 1992 (replacing the Tanzania Tourist Corporation). The Board is mandated with promotion and development of all the aspects of tourism industry in Tanzania. The main functions of the Tanzania Tourist Board are: to adopt all such measures as it may consider necessary advertise and publicise Tanzania as a popular tourist destination; to encourage by such measures as it may deem fit for the development of such amenities in Tanzania as may enhance the attractiveness of Tanzania to tourists; to undertake research, experiments and operations as may appear to be necessary to improve the basis of the tourist industry; to foster an understanding within Tanzania of the importance and economic benefits of the tourist industry; and to make all such inquiries and collect all such information as it may deem necessary for the purpose of carrying out its functions43. 107. The Tanzania Association of Tour Operators was established in 1983, with the responsibility for providing a common and comprehensive position of the tourism industry in its relations with both the government and its institutions in matters pertaining to the formulation of tourism policy, plans and programmes. TATO also has a mandate of establishing and maintaining high quality amongst its members and other tourism intermediaries such as hotels, reserved areas, airlines and marine transport. It also represents its members in all spheres which entail collective representation. Industry stakeholders have asked to what extent is TATO fulfilling its objectives and whether the association is operating effectively. It is necessary to ensure that TATO’s objectives are explicitly defined and realistic strategies designed through which, the objectives can be reached44.

Local Government 108. The role of Local Government Authorities (including District Councils, Wards and Village Councils) is to implement policy by formulating and enforcing by laws, providing technical support and conservation education to villages and preparing physical and development plans that protect wetlands and wildlife. The Regional and Local governments of Tanzania fall under the Prime Minister’s Office for Regional and Local Government, which is entirely separate to the government structure for managing central government reserves. Beyond the appointed figurehead of the District Commissioner, district government is managed by the District Executive Director (DED), part of the Executive branch of government that stretches down to village level. Under the DED are specific departments under which the business of district government is divided. Each department is manned by officials who specialise in the field of operation. Each of the departments has their work and targets scrutinised by the District Council which comprises of individual councillors, each of whom is voted in by the electorate to manage individual wards. Each ward governs typically two to four villages. 109. The districts also manage a network of Forest Reserves. In 1977, former central government

43 www.tanzaniatouristboard.com 44 http://www.arushatimes.co.tz/2007/14/local_news_4.htm 36

Forest Reserves that were considered to have no significant national catchment or timber values were passed to district administrations to manage as part of Tanzania’s decentralization process. Other Forest Reserves gazetted as Local Authority Forest Reserves have always been intended for district management. In total these district-managed Forest Reserves cover around 11 million ha of land in about 400 Forest Reserves. District authorities also issue timber harvesting licenses for non-reserved forests and woodlands within their district, potentially across a total of around 20 million ha of forest lands. There is also an increasing number of Village Forest Reserves, with 2006 data indicating that these management approaches cover 3.6 million ha of forest land distributed across 1788 villages nationally. Village based Wildlife Management Areas are also expanding and cover extensive areas of forest land. Village governments increasingly take control over the management of the forest resources within their boundaries, displacing the control of the Regional and Local authorities, as a further element in the Tanzanian decentralization process.

Civil Society and Development Partners 110. Various local (national) CBOs and NGOs are operating within the Southern PAs assisting in awareness raising and extension services, financing of PAs and environment activities. Civil Society operating in the two regions of Mbeya and Iringa include: Friends of the Earth, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania (WCST). Development partners and NGOs operating in the area include WWF, DFID, GTZ, USAID, UNDP, DANIDA, JICA and many others. There are also community based conservation focused WMAs such as Mbomipa and Umemarua, and a new addition, Waga). Civil society groups are involved in environmental education, governance, sustainable water management, conservation activities, research advocacy and awareness forest rehabilitation and afforestation, promotion of commercial tree planting Table 4. Primary NGOs/ Donors in Biodiversity Conservation in Southern Tanzania Roles and NGO / Donor Main Activities Responsibilities Promote best practices Wildlife to conserve wildlife and Research and monitoring systems Conservation environment and Protected area design and management, Society advocate for rational community conservation policies in NR management To ensure that Develop integrated water management approaches biodiversity and Sustainable use of natural resources World Wide Fund biological processes are Environmental awareness creation for Nature (WWF) conserved in harmony Capacity building for biodiversity conservation with the needs of the Policy development, implementation and harmonization people To improve poor Pumps installation people’s access to safe Water Aid Water functionality and distribution of water points water, hygiene and Education and awareness on sanitation issues sanitation To promote sustainable management of Usangu Wetlands Support various DFID Catchment developments projects Support livelihoods programmes and WMAs Promote sustainable WCST management of natural resources Support other NGO like WCS to implement some of its Promote sustainable objectives USAID NRM and policy Support capacity building programmes to the WMAs implementation

37

111. Other institutions responsible for forests in Tanzania include specialized forestry training institutions such as Sokoine University (SUA), Forestry Training Institute in Arusha, or Forestry Industries Training Institute in Moshi. Other academic institutions like University of Dar Es Salaam, Mweka College of African Wildlife, or Tabora Beekeeping Training Institute also offer training in forestry especially forest ecology in natural forest ecosystems. Tanzania Forestry Research Institution (TAFORI) is responsible for forestry research in Tanzania and works with other institutions like Sokoine University and University of Dar es Salaam. Other public organizations involved in forestry in Tanzania include Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (soil conservation programmes), the Ministry of Water (Conservation of water catchment areas) and ministry of energy (bio-energy programmes).

The Private Sector 112. The private sector consists of individual, companies or groups with high investment capital or business skills. There are three large-scale paddy irrigation farms: Mbarali state farm, Kapunga state farm and Madibira small holder schemes, and over 60 traditional canals in Mbarali districts. Others are tea and coffee production enterprises in Mufindi and Njombe and Paddy in the Usangu plains and tourist lodges within and around the protected areas. The private sector often supports the government in the conservation, development and sustainable utilization of wildlife and wetlands resources through investing in the wildlife sector. 113. Private sector tourist industry players have a key role in revenue generation for PAs. In RUNAPA for example, there are about nine accommodation facilities inside the park including lodges, campsite and bandas and about five other accommodation facilities outside the Park (see the table below), most of which are managed by private sector interests. Table 5. Summary of Tourists facilities in and outside RUNAPA45 Name of a Facility Number of Capacity/number Ownership Tents of beds Inside RUNAPA Jongomero 8 16 Private Sector Old Mdonya River 10 20 Private Sector Mwagusi 12 24 Private Sector Kigelia 8 16 Private Sector Kwihala 6 12 Private Sector Ruaha River lodge 70 140 Private Sector Msembe Old Bandas 10 20 Government Msembe New Bandas 20 40 Government Outside RUNAPA (borders) Tandala 10 20 Private Sector Hiltop 10 20 Private Sector Sunset 5 10 Private Sector Chigela campsites - - Private Sector Flycatcher 4 8 Private Sector

45 As collated during the PPG phase by Paul Harrison et al. 38

PART IB: BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION

1.9 Threats to Tanzania’s Biodiversity

National Level Threats 114. Sound natural resource management, including biodiversity conservation, is emphasised as a key cross-cutting issue in mainstream development planning in Tanzania. However, a number of threats to biodiversity still exist, all with different magnitudes and determinants and in different parts of the country. 115. The predominant threats to biodiversity in Tanzania are related to the alteration of habitat and unsustainable wild harvesting of natural resources. Specifically, five major threats to Tanzania’s terrestrial landscapes can be defined as: 116. Declining Wildlife Connectivity. Large ungulate species such as buffalo, eland, giraffe, and zebra are increasingly absent altogether from known wildlife corridors, or occur only in very isolated pockets of habitat. This pattern probably results from a combination of factors such as recent changes in human activity as well as long-term elements such as habitat variation or biogeographic barriers such as the Rubeho Mountains in the south of Tanzania. The hypothesized reduction in connectivity for large-bodied species (other than elephants) appears likely given the strong relationship between gap distance and body mass for species, although this trend will be at least partially offset by greater dispersal ability of the larger species. Giraffe and zebra, according to local people, used to be common along the Ruaha River corridor in the area around Mtera before heavy poaching associated with the construction of Mtera Dam resulted in their elimination. 117. Deforestation. A considerable rate of forest loss was reported in Tanzania’s FCFP R-PIN; 91,200 hectares per annum. This discrepancy is noted by the GoT and efforts are underway to establish a more accurate rate of deforestation. Most deforestation in Tanzania takes place in the forests and woodlands on general lands without forest protection. The Eastern Arc Mountains and the coastal forests declined between 1-2% of area between 1990 and 2000 (some estimates are up to 7%), but the most rapid losses were experienced in Miombo woodlands (estimated as high as 13% loss each year). These areas are cleared for agricultural development including for tobacco crops and biofuels such as Jatropha curcas. Deforestation is driven by shifting cultivation, forest fires, unsustainable wood fuel and timber harvesting, and overgrazing. In coastal areas, growing demand for biofuels has accelerated forest clearance. Clearing by refugees contributes to deforestation in the west. In the Eastern Arc Mountains fire is a main driver of deforestation. 118. Forest Degradation. Degradation is estimated at 500,000 hectares of forest annually by the National Forest Programme of 2001. Donor funded efforts are underway to develop models for degradation in eastern Tanzania. The amount of plantation forest in Tanzania remained consistent in the period 1990 to 2005 with 150,000 hectares of plantation forest reported in the FAO FRA representing 0.4% of Tanzania’s forest area. Afforestation and reforestation potential is thought to be 1,290,400 hectares across the country. This estimate uses a 10% crown cover threshold to define a forest and excluded land over 3500 m.a.s.l., too dry, urban areas, water bodies, tundra, under intensive agricultural production, and recently deforested land which is likely to be ineligible so as to avoid perverse incentives to clear forest. Degradation of forests is predominantly a result of livestock grazing and has affected Miombo and Savannah most severely. Charcoal production is also to blame and is exacerbated by the use of low efficiency production methods (earth-kilns). Underlying factors causing deforestation in Tanzania are market failures, policy weaknesses, rapid population growth, an insecure land tenure system and rural poverty. It strongly correlates to distance from urban areas. 119. Siltation and Sedimentation. Challenges to freshwater environments include excessive loads 39

of sediments and nutrients caused by erosion in the watershed; deforestation in lake basins; industrial and urban pollution; and intensive fishing using inappropriate methods that pose threat to the freshwater environment and its biodiversity. 120. Pollution in Wetlands. Pollution, siltation, improper fishing practices, introduction of alien species and development activities such as establishment of human settlements, mining and quarrying are jeopardizing the ecological integrity of wetland systems.

Threats to Biodiversity in Greater Ruaha Landscape 121. The predominant threats to biodiversity in the GRL are defined in six key aspects below: 122. Water Flow and Illegal Irrigation. The reduced flow of water to the Great Ruaha River (GRR) has resulted in formation of pools of discontinuous water and these water holes are the only water available for fish in the park in the dry season46. Water dependent species been impacted, particularly fish and hippos. Due to intense heat the fish are stressed and it has been observed that nearly 3,000 fish of different species have died during seasonal dry periods including Sulusulu (Marcusenius macrolepidotus), Gala dagaa (Brycinus affinus), Tiger fish (Hydrocynus sp.), Mbalame (Barbus macrolepis), Red eyed mudsucker (Labeo cylindricus), Rufiji tilapia (Oreochromis urolepis) and Katoga (Bagrus orientalis). Annual crocodile and hippo counts show that hippo numbers were declining before the annexation of Usangu Game Reserve to RUNAPA and crocodile numbers were increasing. The reason for the hippo numbers declining was the stressful environment of the few remaining water pools, including aggression and fighting among male hippos. The crocodile get enough food from fish in the pools and animals which drink at the few remaining water pools. The situation started to improve for hippos after the annexation of Usangu wetland and improved river flows. The restoration of water flow to the GRR in the park is crucial for the survival and viability of the water biodiversity. Inappropriate irrigation practices upstream of the Usangu wetland currently is a major threat to the GRR year around water flow. Many rice paddy farms south of Usangu have poor irrigation infrastructures that do not allow water to return to the main river after being used in the rice field. The extraction of this water is often illegal and certainly not planned for. 123. Disease. Diseases are a major challenge. Historically, diseases like Anthrax and Rabies killed many animals. These diseases are endemic in Tanzania and the threat remains. Rabies is still a problem in villages around RUNAPA. Research is needed in order to understand the ecological effects and impacts of these diseases to wildlife populations. RUNAPA collaborates with District Veterinary offices to support the anti-rabies dog vaccination campaign in villages. This effort helped to control rabies cases in the wild. These efforts should be maintained. A skin infection in wild dogs and jackals has been observed by RUNAPA as has a skin disease is affecting giraffes which may be caused by an identified Fungus or a suspected Nematode worm. 124. Wildfires. Wildfires threaten vegetation particularly prone to fires. RUNAPA experience wildfires every year that destroy vegetation such as Combretum spp, Riverine vegetation and Drypetes. There are reports that the Drypetes forest in higher elevation areas of Isukaviola Plateau in Magangwe area is shrinking because of wildfires. Besides vegetation being affected, small mammals, reptiles and insects suffer from wildfires. RUNAPA park management strives to combat the wildfires whenever they occur and there is an early burning program whereby ‘cool’ fires are set as soon as grasses are dry to reduce the effects of late, hot wildfires but in practice this is not always the case and fire management needs better training and controls. Wildfires also destroy archaeological and cultural sites and heritage resources.

46 Mtahiko et al, 2006, Epaphras et al, 2007, Epaphras et al, 2008 and others have studied the drying of the GRR and associated impacts. 40

Figure 5. Burn Frequencies in Greater Ruaha Landscape, 2000 - 200747

125. Illegal Off take of Wildlife. RUNAPA contains a wide range of species both fauna and flora, many of which appear in the IUCN Red List of Threatened and Endangered Species, including:  African Hunting dog (Lycaon pictus) Endangered  Elephant (Loxodonta africana) Vulnerable  Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) Endangered  Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Vulnerable

126. The wildlife population in this landscape has declined due to increased human activities such as farming, poaching, human settlement and livestock keeping. In addition, illegal bird trapping contributes to the decline of birds and some species that fetch high prices in the market. Exotic species challenged especially in the Usangu area, mainly in areas that were formerly inhabited by people. The most common species include Senna spp, Mango trees, Banana, and Cassava. Pistia spp are found in wetland areas and are under threat in the Usangu wetland. Animals, plants and fish are taken illegally from the protected areas. Illegal hunting of animals for meat and commercial purposes (especially elephant tusks), illegal tree cutting (illegal harvesting of forest products) and illegal fish harvesting result from high demand for these natural resources. Human Wildlife Conflict is a considerable threat to the landscape, particular from elephants which invade farms but also from baboons, vervet monkeys and warthogs. 127. Erosion. Erosion along the GRR and other rivers results from high concentration of animals along and around the major water sources resulting in overgrazing and weakening of the river

47 Courtesy of David Erickson / WCS 41

banks and some natural springs. This problem is more pronounced during the dry seasons. It results to river bank erosion leading to channelization of rivers from deposition of sand along the main river channel. Also this leads to siltation of small and large water bodies including swamps, water dams (natural and man-made) and wetlands. RUNAPA management has been digging a water dam along the river to reduce pressure to vegetation and stress to animals from long distance movement in search of drinking water but the park requires greater support. 128. Mining. Due to the geology of the area, there has been a problem finding quality gravel for road construction and annual improvements works within Makete and Mbeya Rural District. As a result there has been pressure to mine road construction material within the GRL including RUNAPA. This will not only deface the landscape but will result into other problems such as soil erosion, landslides, siltation of rivers, encouraging alien invasive species proliferation and lower visitor experiences and satisfaction.

Threats to Biodiversity in Greater Kitulo – Kipengere Landscape 129. KINAPA and its surrounding PAs and corridors are faced with a variety of threats to its biodiversity. The predominant threats to biodiversity in the GKKL are defined in four key aspects below: 130. Threats to Orchids and Endemic Species. All orchid species worldwide are afforded a CITES II classification. But this work indicated that over 90% of orchids currently being harvested in Tanzania are destined for Zambia. Furthermore, there has been a vast increase in harvesting over the last five years due to the flourishing Zambian market. Indeed, domestic Tanzanian consumption may be declining. Some 85 species of terrestrial orchid may be at risk from the trade and many are national and regional endemics. Kitulo Plateau is under particular pressure. The volumes collected across the Southern Highlands indicate that harvesting is unsustainable. All edible varieties are targeted, and the entire plant extracted. It is conservatively estimated that some 2,220,000 plants are lost due to the existing orchid trade to Zambia each year, amounting to about 40 metric tons. The monetary value of the trade is significant, although it does not compare with the potential (and more sustainable) revenue from tourism. Unless appropriately and promptly managed, the trade in orchid tubers could have serious consequences both for biodiversity and plans to develop tourism in the south. Alien invasive species mainly Pinus, Eucalyptus and Acacia mearnsii are also posing a major threat to the Park biodiversity and its touristic values as they are rapidly transforming the montane grasslands and the natural forests into unwelcome jungle of invasives 131. Land Use Conflict. Small holder farming and animal keeping is practiced by adjacent communities. There is a dairy farm that is engulfed by the Park that is farming agricultural products despite an MoU with TANAPA which calls for the area to be for rangelands uses only. There is a government-owned Pine Plantation Forest at Kiwira to the west of the Park in Rungwe District. There are parts of the Livingstone Forest that are under Mbeya Rural District authorities. Leniency in law enforcement in the forest areas under local government authorities has meant that access has been easier and hence more damage. Collaboration with TANAPA which is better equipped in terms of skills and equipment can be one way of ensuring enhanced protection of the whole forest particularly because the ecosystem services provided by the forest are not limited to area under TANAPA. Farming on water sources, habitat destruction, forest fragmentation, hunting, undesignated trails and local extinction stem from this threat. 132. Human Wildlife Conflict. Although KINAPA is not known to have large populations of large animals that are often closely associated to HWC, there are some cases around the Protected Areas. Human population density is high within the communities surrounding the Park and this can indicate human-wildlife conflict. This problem will be compounded with the rising trends of people settling and farming on the Park periphery. Primates such as Kipunji, yellow baboons and blue monkeys are likely to be key targeted species. These species especially baboons are notorious for crop raiding. 133. Poor Infrastructure Planning. There are a number of public roads traversing the Park and as it 42

has been observed in many other places, they come with their share of problems such as pollution, soil erosion, opening the area to poachers, arson fires, and wildlife poaching, and spoiling the relative serenity that KINAPA requires for its tourism potential. This in turn affects not only the biodiversity of the area but also its appeal to tourists who potentially contribute to biodiversity conservation through fees and associated charges.

1.10 Long Term Solution

134. The long-term solution to the conservation predicament facing Tanzania’s unique southern landscapes will be a strengthened PA network through creating a coordinated landscape management approach in the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes to serve as a shield against human-induced pressures on southern Tanzania’s threatened biodiversity, and through providing planned, targeted and effective support to the operational capacity of core protected areas within those landscapes. These two landscapes will be managed for the full suite of biodiversity and landscape values, including aligned revenue generation opportunities and enhanced economic performance, for ecosystem services (which are better managed at landscape level), for ecosystem functioning, and for sustainable PA management. The following measures need to be undertaken to achieve this.

Integrating Management of NPs and Broader Landscapes in Southern Tanzania 135. With the exception of the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, National Parks are currently managed in isolation to the wider landscapes in which they exist. There is a need to nest NP management in broader landscape level planning and management, encompassing “buffer zone” Game/Forest Reserves and Wildlife Management Areas, as well as production areas used for agriculture or forestry. The management system needs to maintain vital corridors and wildlife dispersal areas. 136. On a government level, the solution lies in an inter-sectoral land management coordination mechanism between TANAPA, district authorities and Wildlife Division in both the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes of Southern Tanzania, with lessons sharing and management practice links between the two will ensure that biodiversity management in National Parks, Game Reserves, wildlife migration corridors and dispersal areas in these two landscapes is factored into decision-making governing land use management. In line with this, TANAPA, and their landscape management partners in the Wildlife and Forest and Beekeeping Divisions need to work with local government and communities, supported by key civil society players to plan, implement, and monitor biodiversity management measures for these landscapes through the creation of a conservation planning mechanism which both prescribes management objectives as well as manages crucial ongoing ecological monitoring processes such as the movement of wildlife between and within the two landscapes and the flow and management of water. 137. Through the development of three dedicated landscape level coordination units (land use planning, ecological monitoring and community economic development units), supervised through the coordination mechanism, TANAPA and its national and local government partners will be able to carry out jointly mandated tasks with communities and other stakeholder partners to address issues such as coordinated land use management, the assessment of hydrological dynamics, predicting climate change trends and gauging long term impacts on biodiversity conservation and effective engagement between communities and park authorities on dispute resolution and economic opportunities. 138. Alongside this, the project solution also lies in the proper demarcation of PA boundaries, especially in areas that have recently been gazetted and require enhanced PA-community relations such as the former Usangu Game Reserve and the Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve and for the management plans in these areas to be linked to the landscape level. The solution for a landscape level approach also lies in enhancing the status of wildlife corridors and buffer zones through gazettement of corridors that link these landscapes and supporting investment

43

into community-driven efforts to develop Wildlife Management Areas in crucial corridors and buffer zones. In PAs which suffer chronic underfunding, outside of National Parks, such as Mpanga Kipengere, consideration should be given to upgrading them to national park status to afford those areas greater protection on a PA level but also to crucially support their existence as buffer zones, water catchment areas and potential areas of wildlife connectivity for the broader landscapes.

Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania 139. There is a need to expand operations to cover new areas that the GoT plans to incorporate into the NP estate, or has recently incorporated, and to provide for boundary notification, patrol equipment and other essential functions needed for effective policing and enforcement. Although all National Parks have management plans, there is a need to complement these with specialist business plans, which define the cost coefficients for different PA functions, define revenue options, and ensure that scarce funds are utilized optimally and are integrated into TANAPA’s overall business model. There is a need to establish partnerships and better lines of communication with tourism operators and other private sector actors, to support certain aspects of PA management and to ensure the tourism product is up to date and tenable. 140. Therefore the project solution is to provide direct support for enhanced operations in core PAs in both the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscapes. Systematic staff training programmes covering all aspects of PA operations will provide support for this currently underfunded part of Tanzania’s PA estate, its Southern Circuit. Training is not only a solution for enhancing existing PA operations, it is also crucially required for new niches that the Southern Circuit parks can lead on in the future, such as walking safaris using dedicated and highly trained guides that can allow Tanzania’s southern parks to compete with southern Africa and the development of internally managed documentary creation units which will allow TANAPA to produce independent marketing of the Southern Circuit from an otherwise strong reliance on foreign investments whose message is hard to control and subject matter limited to external drivers. 141. To manage and understand investments into operations effectively, the project solution also lies in the creation of a complete and objective sustainable finance plan for the PA system in both landscapes. This will not only allow TANAPA and its landscape level partner institutions to define management costs and provide accurate revenue forecasts, it will also pave the way for business planning on a PA level so that the parks can seize the advantages available to them that are appropriate to their particular location, geographies and product offers. Alongside improving existing revenue generating opportunities in tourism offers, financial and business planning will allow a full understanding of new and niche opportunities in tourism. On a landscape level, financial planning will also allow for a full understanding of the potential benefits of permissible uses of public and private sector investments and to match revenue opportunities to priority management needs. Planning of this kind will support both the wise investment of much needed donor funds into operational equipment in the short term but will also allow new initiatives to be put in place on a PA and landscape level that have been well planned, are relevant, sustainable and fully in line with the strategic approach taken by PA managers in association with stakeholder groups. 1.11 Barriers to the Conservation of Biodiversity

142. Despite many successes, the National Park estate still suffers from some shortcomings. NPs are not wholly representative of the characteristically complex biodiversity patterns in Tanzania. The GoT is seeking both to expand NPs into newly gazetted areas and upgrade other PA categories to NPs in order to improve bio-geographic coverage (gaps include swamp systems, montane grasslands, lakes, and some forest types) and conservation impact. Some Parks are long established (Serengeti NP is over 50 years old) but many are new and lack effective management, particularly in the Southern Circuit. Recent assessments show that the pressures 44

facing NPs can be countered through effective management. There is almost total dependence on external tourist arrivals for NP financing; and dependence on two older, well established NPs on the Northern Circuit for some 75% of all revenues. Newer, emerging parks have very limited tourist inputs, and their revenues do not cover costs.

Lack of Integration of PA and Landscape Level Management 143. Lack of mainstreaming environmental concerns into economic policies and landscape level planning is one of the major root causes that have prevented rational use of natural resources in Tanzania. Economic policies have aimed at achieving economic growth albeit without paying sufficient attention to their implication on the environment. Often, this has resulted in over- exploitation of natural resources and the loss or changes in the status of biodiversity. Various shortcomings and gaps exist in the planning, policy and/or legal frameworks. Ironically, in some instance, there are some clashes of policies and priorities at the government level. Government department lack the coordination mechanisms to manage ecological landscapes effectively. Poor implementation of different policies at local, regional, and national levels is an instance of policies clash. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture promotes irrigation farming in the Usangu basin without considering availability of water for other uses, especially environmental conservation. Thus, water use policy and planning around the Greater Ruaha Catchment and its environs has not been very effective in ensuring development and conservation needs co-exist. Therefore measures need to be put in place for the PAs to be effective. 144. The annexation of Usangu into RUNAPA and the establishment KINAPA both aimed to improve the water flows into the GRR and the preservation of the catchment area. However, Government is also promoting economic growth initiatives like Kilimo Kwanza that will require water for irrigation and might cause some environmental issues and thus the PAs are competing for the same water resources and escalate resources-use conflicts. There is a need therefore for ministries responsible to join forces and coordinate their activities to achieve the best output. The Rufiji Catchment Area is a clear example of a multiple land uses scenario and therefore care needs to be taken to ensure a proper strategy. The new land policy has raised a particular point regarding multiple land use and if well implemented might go a long way in enhancing sustainable use of biodiversity. Various initiatives and donor-funded programmes in Southern Tanzania are limited to specific spatial areas and issues. It is important therefore for the government to take a leading role in ensuring that a multiple land use strategy is put in place, with an involvement of all stakeholders, resource users and owners. 145. Although National Parks are relatively more effective than other PA categories at buffering biodiversity from threats, they are not immune from threats such as poaching. Tanzanian national parks are not fenced (unlike parks in Southern Africa), which helps them support large wildlife numbers as animals are able to disperse during the wet season. However, migration corridors and dispersal areas are increasingly being settled and farmed which leads to increased human-wildlife conflict. Unplanned conversion of forest, woodland and wetland to both shifting cultivation and permanent agriculture is a major problem in some areas as this cuts movement corridors, reduces dispersal areas, annexes dry-season water points, and reduces viable animal population sizes. With annual rural population growth of 2.5%, and substantial rural poverty, these pressures are likely to intensify. Climate change and economic depression will exacerbate such pressures. Moreover, new economic opportunities, such as the development of a biofuels industry could lead to massive future land use conversion of natural habitat in certain sensitive landscapes to tree plantations, particularly in wetter parts of Southern Tanzania. 146. While the GoT recognizes the need for a landscape level approach, with coordination in policy and practice between government departments and agencies, action has been hampered by Tanzania’s complex administrative system. The central GoT is responsible for establishing policy and ensuring its effective implementation whilst responsibilities for land use planning and management lie with District Administrations. However, these authorities have limited capacities to integrate biodiversity management into their work, and lack both scientific and socio-economic data needed to establish tradeoffs between conservation and economic 45

imperatives. Thus contra-conservation investments in agriculture or other land uses are often sanctioned, even where wildlife has significant economic potential. Moreover, the capacity of Districts to regulate unplanned land conversion is weak. This problem is compounded by inefficient integration of policing activities undertaken by different enforcement units, for example TANAPA and the Police. A capacity deficit for integrated landscape management is also evident within TANAPA itself. The complex institutional base, with several different agencies involved, requires careful definition of roles and mandates within functional partnerships. Effective landscape planning will require negotiation and conflict resolution, along with solid data-sets to support decision making and further development of institutional competencies. 147. Many National Parks have adjacent Protected Areas, such as forest reserves, or wildlife management areas, which are not managed by TANAPA. Nature Reserves and critical National Forest Reserves are managed by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Many other Forest Reserves fall under District Administrations. In practice, coordination of management between these entities tends to be weak at the site level. Such coordination will be critical to ensure the long term sustainability of National Parks, as uncoordinated management in these areas undermines biodiversity status within the National parks, particularly in some of the smaller sites. One option is to reconfigure NP boundaries, in order to encompass ecologically sensitive areas. However, there has been no comprehensive overview of PA representation gaps within the past two decades. Savanna and woodland ecosystems are relatively well represented in the PA network, in part because they house large wildlife assemblages that support the economically important tourism industry. The northern mountains and mountain forests are included in the NP network, but the forests, grasslands and wetlands of southern Tanzania have a less complete coverage. Although many Forest Reserves were established in the southern areas, most were created to provide forest products and, unlike National Parks, do not serve an overarching biodiversity conservation purpose.

Protected Area Operations Lack Funding and Capacity 148. Natural resources management is labour intensive activity that requires data to compare changes over time as well as monitoring and enforcement of rules, both of which require funds, equipment and personnel. The MNRT is struggling to manage resources effectively partly because of a lack of personnel. The result is continuing encroachment and illegal logging into the Nature Reserve. Several institutions have been working in Southern Tanzania in the natural resources sector but they have not been effective simply because of a lack of effective co- ordination of the various institutions involved in the management of the natural resources. For example there are livestock keepers, fisheries, forestry resources, farming and wildlife management in the GRR Sub Catchment Area in which several institutions (from local and central government) and NGOs are involved. The interplay of activities influenced by policies and regulations from these institutions, if not well co-ordinated, may conflict with each other due to different immediate objectives. Therefore coordination of actors and policies is crucial to achieve the wider objective of sustainability. 149. Extensive grazing is not perceived as a land use to which user can claim and acquire ownership rights due to the communal nature of land ownership in many parts of the country. The land for grazing is therefore treated as unoccupied land that can be claimed and used for other purposes. This has been the main factor hindering the investment or improvement of grazing lands. In Southern Tanzania landscape is threaten by the huge number of livestock especially around the GRL and GKKL landscapes. Conflicts have often arisen between the park authorities and cow herders. For the project success it should into enforcing grazing land demarcation into the district land use plans. Open areas around Ihefu and Usangu and areas around the dairy farm bordeing KINAPA are characterised by rapid growing livestock populations and reduced land for grazing arising from expansion of agriculture and shifting cultivation. These scenarios have reduced the grazing area in the agro-pastoral systems forcing livestock herders to migrate to 46

other areas in search for pasture and water. The unauthorized livestock movements have resulted in a number of environmental and social problems including:  Land use conflicts between livestock keepers, farmers and other land users. Such conflicts have been reported in Mbeya (Mbarali district) and other parts of the country.  Reduced hydro-electric power generation arising from invasion of livestock in water catchments. Some of the important water catchments such as the Ihefu wetland, which is an important source of water for the hydro-electricity production in Mtera dam was invaded by 344,511 cattle, 134,317 goats and 102,023 sheep, resulting in serious decrease in hydroelectric power generation and eventually, power rationing.  Loss of biodiversity arising from invasion of livestock in the water catchments areas and invasion of livestock from neighbouring countries into the protected forests.

150. At the root of uncontrolled grazing in both landscapes is the inability for TANAPA, in partnership with other government agencies and communities to manage operations in newly annexed areas such as the Usangu wetlands. 151. TANAPA maintains a staff presence in all its National Parks, with a total staff complement of about 1700. Although staff members are trained, there are a limited number of specialists. The Northern Circuit has seen significant investment in PA infrastructure and equipment, with funds ploughed back from tourism receipts. However, with the exception of Katavi NP, which has received funding from the Government of Germany, Mahale Mountains, which has received funding from the EU and several NGOs (such as the Frankfurt Zoological Society), the Southern circuit has received limited funding and operational support. 152. Community interests are still not adequately catered for in NP management, although TANAPA’s experience with community conservation and the new land-use categories of wildlife management areas and village forest reserves provide modalities for community inputs to conservation. Where communities have been excluded from PA management and where their livelihood needs have been ignored, majority perceptions remain that PAs generate few benefits but impose high costs. While policies to work with communities are codified in national legislation, improved mechanisms to operationalize and test these policies are still needed. At the national level there is still a lack of commitment to conservation approaches involving local communities. Existing legislation is not sufficiently understood by government officials on the ground or by local communities, leading to inconsistent implementation. Trust between communities, powerful local resource users and government-authorities is often limited and needs to be improved.

PART II: PROJECT STRATEGY

1.12 Project Rationale and Policy Conformity

153. This proposed project in two linked landscapes of protected areas in southern Tanzania satisfies the requirements for GEF financing under Strategic Programme three (SP3) in the Biodiversity Focal Area – “Strengthened National Terrestrial Protected Area Networks”. 154. The rationale behind this project which focuses on two interlinked geographies straddling seven districts, Greater Ruaha Landscape (37,000km2) and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape (2,150km2), is to adopt a landscape level conservation approach that goes beyond PA boundaries in their different forms or communal lands by viewing landscapes as ecological blocks that provide shared resources, especially water in this case. By adopting this approach, this project and the systems and activities it creates thereafter will likely improve the returns per-unit-of-investment in PAs by spreading conservation management, and benefits, across a wider scale. These landscapes have been selected based on the following criteria: (1)

47

Biodiversity Significance; (2) Management Need; (3) Management Opportunity; and (4) Government Priority—both areas form part of the economically important Rufiji Catchment. 155. The project will directly bring 24,159 km2 of land under strengthened PA management arrangements designed to conserve biodiversity, involving four different forms of PA Status48 (national parks, game reserves, nature reserves and wildlife management areas) as well as public lands, with a wider positive influence on an additional 15,000 km2 of dispersal areas49. In total the project will thus bring enhanced biodiversity protection to over 39,000 km2 of target PAs and linked dispersal areas. 156. The project will also add in the order of 3,500 ha of land to PA status through defining, formalising and protecting two wildlife corridors in the highlands (Bujingijila and Numbe) to create a ecologically linked Greater Kitulo-Kipengere protected landscape and will also support the protection of a third corridor (Igando-Igawa) of at least 100,000 ha linking the Greater Ruaha landscape to the highlands through the consolidation of the Umemarua WMA. Table 6. Project Beneficiary Landscapes and PAs; Direct and Indirect Project Area Area Area / PA Name Focus Area Description (km2) (ha) Ruaha National Park Direct Central to GRL 20,226 2,022,600 Mbomipa WMA Direct Dispersal area 777 77,665 Umemarua WMA50 Direct Wildlife corridor 1,000 100,000 Rungwa Game Reserve51 Indirect Dispersal area 9,000 900,000 Muhesi Game Reserve Indirect Dispersal area 2,000 200,000 Kizigo Game Reserve Indirect Dispersal area 4,000 400,000 Greater Ruaha Landscape 37,003 3,700,265

Project Area Area Area / PA Name Focus Area Description (km2) (ha) Kitulo National Park Direct Central to GKKL 413 41,290 Bujingijila52 Direct Wildlife Corridor 5 500 Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve Direct Central to GKKL 137 13,652 Numbe Valley Direct Wildlife Corridor 30 3,000 Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve Direct Central to GKKL 1,572 157,200 Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape 2,156 215,600

Total Area under Direct Project Focus 24,159 2,415,907

48 Being Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks, Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve, Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve, Mbomipa and Umemarua Wildlife Management Areas. 49 Dispersal areas that will gain indirectly will be the Rungwe, Kizigo and Muhesi game reserves, north-west of RUNAPA. 50 Umemarua WMA is at least 1,000 km2, likely to be considerably more; the WMA establishment process is under development and will be finalised during the project using co-financing and GEF support. The area provides a vital link between the GRL and GKKL. The project will engage with and support existing efforts by the Wildlife Division and WCS on developing Umemarua. The project will incorporate Umemarua management into the landscape coordination process. 51 Area sizes for Rungwa, Muhesi and Kizigo game reserves are an estimate, provided courtesy of TAWIRI: a full assessment of the area is pending. For the sake of remaining focused, this project will only support this block indirectly as a crucial dispersal area to the north of the GRL. 52 The Bujingijila corridor is at least 5km2 and may be larger, likewise with the Numbe valley corridor; the project will determine the exact dynamics as part of the preparation process of creating the corridors.

48

Project Area Area Area / PA Name Focus Area Description (km2) (ha) Additional Landscape Dispersal Areas 15,000 1,500,000 Total Area to Benefit from Project 39,159 3,915,907

157. The systemic interventions planned will indirectly improve the status of biodiversity for a significant portion of southern Tanzania, an area that has received less attention than the north. This will be achieved by improving the capacity for decision making amongst landscape level stakeholders, operational support, monitoring and adaptive management. The project takes a comprehensive approach towards strengthening the management effectiveness and financial sustainability of PAs in different forms in conserving biodiversity within southern Tanzania. 158. The proposed project will create the coordination mechanisms for integration of management of NPs and broader landscapes in Southern Tanzania in both the Greater Ruaha and the Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes through ensuring both that biodiversity management in National Parks, and wildlife migration corridors and dispersal areas is factored into decision-making governing land use management and that operational capacity is sufficiently enhanced to manage PAs effectively. This project aims to demonstrate that all sectors can work together through an integrated approach and that the development of land management coordination mechanisms that involve the state, communities, civil society and the private sector in decision making can lead to better conservation and sustainable livelihoods. A model will be produced for conserving biodiversity through coordination mechanisms and landscape level management planning. The project also aims to directly support three ecologically linked PAs that form much of the area of these landscapes; Ruaha National Park, Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve and Kitulo National Park by strengthening core operational capacity in each53. 159. By design, the project will develop an inter-sectoral land management coordination mechanism between TANAPA, regional and district authorities and the Wildlife Division in these landscapes. It will also allow these stakeholders, with the likely support of civil society partners to implement biodiversity management measures for these landscapes. The project will also improve the relations and engagement between PA authorities and local communities in these landscapes through collaborative management planning. The importance of enhanced PA operational capacity to the design of this project will be emphasised through staff training in new and old aspects of PA management, through the provision of crucial equipment and in finding improved revenue generating opportunities through business planning. 160. The engagement of stakeholders is of crucial importance to the project design and as well as coordination mechanisms will also include the creation of stakeholder groups in each national park to encourage shared planning exercises and lessons learning. The project will therefore promote broad stakeholder participation among the public, private sector and wildlife management areas focusing on conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits accrued in line with the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The project will provide for systematic and institutional strengthening through building capacity in PAs in both landscapes to ensure models for long-term sustainability are in place and provide a strategy and plan for the replication of best practices and lessons that can be used to create similar situations of protected area management across the country and internationally. 161. The activities planned as part of the project will last five years. During this time, under the overall coordination of TANAPA, a collaboration of state PA authorities, regional and district government, private sector interests and communal land owners and custodians will work together to manage their natural resources in a sustainable manner through improved coordination and enhanced operational capacities. This project is formulated so as to build on

53 Focus on operations capacity within PAs in component 2 will be on 22,200 km2 of PA estate (Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks, Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve), 92% of the 24,159km2 under strengthened management in component 1. 49

the lessons learnt from previous projects in Tanzania and elsewhere. 1.13 Project Goal, Objective, Outcome, Components and Outputs

162. The Goal of this Strengthened National Terrestrial Protected Area Networks Programme is: Southern Tanzania’s biodiversity and ecosystem values are conserved and provide sustainable benefit flows at local, national and global levels through the establishment of landscape planning mechanisms and enhanced operational capacity. 163. The project will be responsible for achieving the following project objective: The biodiversity of Southern Tanzania is better represented and buffered from threat within National Parks. 164. The proposed project is designed to lift the barriers to establishment of a landscape approach to the management of biodiversity. The project will comprise two complementary components which will be cost shared by the GEF and co-financing. Each addresses a different barrier and has discrete outcomes. COMPONENT 1. INTEGRATING MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND BROADER LANDSCAPES IN SOUTHERN TANZANIA COMPONENT 2. OPERATIONS SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN TANZANIA

165. The two components, and their related outcomes are described in further detail as follows: 166. Component 1: Integrating Management of National Parks and Broader Landscapes in Southern Tanzania. This first component will entail the creations of an inter-sectoral District land management coordination mechanism between TANAPA, district authorities and the Wildlife Division (WD) and will also involve planning, implement, and monitoring by key state and civil society partners on biodiversity management measures for the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo Kipengere landscapes. The project will set up inter-sectoral district land administration mechanisms and develop land use plans; to ensure that land in ecologically sensitive areas is allocated to conservation compatible land uses through an integrated landscape management planning process. Development impact assessments will be undertaken, to define acceptable land uses and management practices. Support will be rendered to strengthen the enforcement framework, to ensure compliance and guard against chaotic; unplanned economic development, which is leading to habitat degradation and loss elsewhere in Tanzania. 167. The first component will also ensure that TANAPA has the competence and staff skills to lead land use planning, management and monitoring in landscapes and have improved, staffed community extension services to ensure effective engagement between communities and park authorities. Crucially, for both Ruaha and Kitulo national parks, boundaries for recent PA extensions (over 10,000km2 has recently been added to these landscapes with extensions in both Ruaha in Usangu and Kitulo in the Livingstone Mountains and these ecologically sensitive areas are in dire need of protection) will be demarcated with public consultations and management plans completed. Wildlife corridors (Bujingijila and Numbe) will be researched, publically agreed and gazetted whilst support will be provided to finalising the Umemarua WMA and linking its management systems to the landscape level. Assuming it is a feasible direction to take, according to consultations, by the end of this component the Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve will be raised to higher protected area status as a national park. This park will then be linked through a Numbe valley corridor extension to Kitulo NP to ultimately enable merging the two parks under one management. 168. Specific outcomes of the first component are expected to be:

50

 A working model for integrating management of NPs and wider productive landscapes is piloted and adapted in 7 Districts in Southern Tanzania and secures wildlife corridors and dispersal areas covering over 39,000 km2 in the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere ecological landscapes  Integrated landscape management approach is replicated by TANAPA in at least one additional ecological landscape in southern Tanzania.  No net loss of natural habitat in major habitat blocks identified as critical for wildlife dispersal and at least 40% reduction in hunting pressures in these blocks.  PAs expanded to encompass two ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor areas linking Kitulo NP to Mt Rungwe and to Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve), creating a linked ‘Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscape’ totalling over 2,000 km2. 169. Component 2: Operations Support for National Park Management in Southern Tanzania. This second component will address threats within the NP boundaries by engineering the delivery of an integrated package of PA management functions. Based on a needs assessment commissioned at the start of the project, funding will be provided for basic infrastructure and field equipment across the Southern Circuit Sites. An emphasis will be placed on building operations capacity at PA sites that have not previously benefitted from such investment (i.e. Ruaha expansion and Kitulo NPs). This support will be accompanied by the development of business plans for the sites, to define the optimum operations support needed to address threats in a cost effective and sustainable manner. 170. Component two will also entail the development of a systematic staff training programme covering all aspects of PA operations as well as ensuring funds, human resources and equipment are provided and deployed to address threats to Ruaha and Kitulo national parks in a cost effective manner. It will include a guide training programme to install walking safaris to international standards and the set up and installation of an in-house documentary film unit for external marketing of the Southern Circuit. As well as enhanced operations capacity in Ruaha and Kitulo NPs, a joint TANAPA-WD field operations unit will be created to bring up capacity in Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve and facilitate a likely longer term shift to TANAPA management. Enhancing stakeholder involvement is also a key tenet of this component and a joint inter sectoral stakeholder group will be formed to address overall management issues in both Ruaha and Kitulo NPs as well as in adjacent Wildlife Management Areas. 171. Linked to this, a sustainable finance plan will be developed approved and implemented for the PA system in both the Greater Ruaha and the Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes. This will provide guidelines and norms for site based business planning, provide accurate revenue forecasts, expand income opportunities (by developing new tourism products in NPs, particularly in the Southern Circuit, letting tourism concessions in the Southern Circuit, promoting domestic tourism, and seeking investment funds from energy utilities that benefit from PA management as well as from other permissible sources of sustainable financing54), with a view to tapping the potential financial returns from the Southern Circuit. Business Planning will be mandated for both NPs as well as for adjacent WMAs, along approved best practice guidelines and together these will define management costs for both NPs and WMAs, providing accurate revenue forecasts and income generating opportunities going forward. 172. Specific outcomes of the second component are expected to be:  Core NP operations strengthened in Southern Tanzania covering over 22,000 km2 leading to the effective detection and deterrence of poaching and fire risks. This

54 Southern Tanzania is the country’s major watershed; the Rufiji River has its headwaters in the Livingstone Mountains, and passes through Ruaha NP; both the Livingstone and Ruaha Landscapes provide important hydrological services, managing water quality and quantity into downstream hydroelectric plants. There is an incentive for this industry to maintain these services. 51

is evidenced in a reduction in poaching activity, retaliatory wildfires set by poachers, and grazing of cattle where proscribed.  Management Effectiveness Score for NPs in Southern Tanzania increased over the baseline score by at least 40%.

173. Specifically, the project will deliver 12 Outputs, organized within the two components and summarised here (see Project Logical Framework for detailed outputs under each component). Each output carries direct activities, detailed in the Logical Framework with indicators.

Component 1. Integrating Management of National Parks and Broader Landscapes in Southern Tanzania. 174. Output 1.1. Inter-sectoral District land management coordination mechanism between Tanzania National Parks authority (TANAPA), district authorities and Wildlife Division (WD) is instituted, emplaced and enacted in the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes of Southern Tanzania, to ensure that biodiversity management in National Parks, Game Reserves, wildlife migration corridors and dispersal areas is factored into decision- making governing land use management and coordinated action plans are followed. 175. Output 1.2. TANAPA, WD, 7 pilot District Authorities and civil society partners plan, implement, and monitor biodiversity management measures for these landscapes (systematic conservation plan is in place which (1) defines Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes wildlife corridors and dispersal areas, (2) EIA and impact management stipulations in place to avoid and/ or mitigate development impacts in sensitive areas, (3) monitoring and reporting systems are in place, and (4) as a result, enforcement measures are operational). 176. Output 1.3. TANAPA has the competence and staff skills to lead land use planning, management and monitoring in landscapes; working with partners to assess hydrological dynamics, make predictions of climate change trends and gauge long term impacts on biodiversity conservation. Two specialist units are developed by TANAPA with partners; a land use planning unit and an ecological monitoring unit, and are in place. 177. Output 1.4. TANAPA has a staffed community extension services to ensure effective engagement between communities and park authorities and dispute resolution. A specialist community conservation unit is developed by TANAPA with partners; a land use planning unit and an ecological monitoring unit, and are in place and park-community relations improved. 178. Output 1.5. For Ruaha and Kitulo NPs, boundaries for recent /planned PA extensions (being Usangu Game Reserve and Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve respectively) are demarcated, associated public consultations are completed and respective management plans are completed, taking into account the outcomes for both. 179. Output 1.6. Following a government-driven feasibility assessment, with transparent community consultations, Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve is raised to higher protected area status as a national park. 180. Output 1.7. Three PAs; Mount Rungwe, Kitulo and Mpanga Kipengere are linked ecologically through the development and demarcation of (1) Bujingijila and (2) Numbe valley wildlife corridor extensions. Further public and government consultations lead to the merging of Kitulo National Park and the Mpanga Kipengere National Park under one management.

Component 2: Operations Support for National Park Management in Southern Tanzania 181. Output 2.1. Systematic staff training programme covering all aspects of PA operations ensures 300 rangers, guides and other field staff meet necessary competencies for planning, administration, marketing, customer care, conflict resolution, policing and enforcement in Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks and Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve.

52

182. Output 2.2. A sustainable finance plan is developed approved and implemented for the PA system in both landscapes. Together, these define management costs, provide accurate revenue forecasts (from gate fees, concessions, film rights, improvements in tourism offers and other permissible uses to public and private sector investments), and match revenue opportunities to priority management needs. Results are incorporated into landscape planning mechanisms and acted upon by TANAPA and partners. 183. Output 2.3. Business Planning is mandated for Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks and Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve along approved best practice guidelines and utilising the sustainable financing plan. Business plans set cost co-efficients for all prescribed PA functions and rolling operations plans define site management priorities. 184. Output 2.4. Based on business planning, funds, human resources and equipment (surveillance equipment – radios, repeaters, GPS, cameras, night vision and fire fighting equipment) are provided and deployed to address threats to NPs in a cost effective manner. 185. Output 2.5. A joint (TANAPA-Community-District-Private Sector) stakeholder group formed to address overall management issues in both Ruaha and Kitulo NPs and adjacent Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) is established (committee formed, joint management plan developed, and joint enforcement systems emplaced using the Management Orientated Management System (MOMS) in Ruaha and Kitulo NPs (covering a total area of at least 23,000 km2). The group utilises in practice the government landscape plans initiated in component 1. 1.14 Project Risks and Assumptions

186. The identification of risks was initiated at a very early stage of project development. The main risks, risk rankings and mitigation measures are presented below. Table 7. Risk Analysis Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measure TANAPA has selected to work in landscapes where this risk will be muted, and builds on strong Government will to strengthen Landscape planning and management of the NP Southern Circuit. The project will invest in subsequent implementation building conflict avoidance and resolution skills, and build on of plans will be affected by existing institutional mechanisms such as district environmental institutional intransigence, Med committees, and seek to cost economic tradeoffs between wildlife, reducing collaborative tourism, agriculture and other land uses and to reduce opportunity efforts between NPs, District costs thus reducing the prospects that institutions will not find Councils and Villages. common ground. Institutional buy-in between government departments and ministries is secured and will be ongoing. The NP system is heavily dependent on the tourism industry. The The tourism down-turn project strategy aims at building Tanzania’s capability to weather continues for longer and at the economic crisis, including by improving the cost effectiveness deeper levels than expected, of operations, expanding the tourism product in the Southern Low thus even further reducing Circuit, supporting TANAPA to enhance the tourism products financial viability of the available such as through walking safaris and tapping into the Southern Circuit. under-serviced domestic tourism market and assisting TANAPA to build its Operating Reserve during high tourism years. Feasibility studies will be undertaken as part of the Systematic Conservation Plans that will be prepared under component 1. These Land pressure from local plans will be mandated at national and local government level. The communities and short term project will seek to manage trade-offs between real development gain seekers reduce attempts Med needs and conservation actions within the PA system. Improved for rational landscape level enforcement will serve as a deterrent against rent seeking; the conservation. project will therefore strengthen the enforcement capabilities of Government. Climate change could lead to A focus on landscapes (as opposed to small patches), with sufficient Low changed distributions of BD buffer zone protection militates against short-term change. The

53

Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measure components, and changes in maintenance of forest cover is a good adaptation policy in the face community and private of uncertainty (because rainfall in this region is expected to sector demands on wildlife increase; the maintenance of watershed integrity is critical to avoid and forest resources. major floods). *Risk rating – High (High Risk), Med (Modest Risk), and Low (Low Risk). Risks refer to the possibility that assumptions, defined in the logical framework, may not hold. 1.15 Alternative Strategies Considered

187. GEF support will be provided entirely as grants for technical assistance and investment in management demonstrations. The project is designed to lift barriers that are currently preventing the effective and sustainable management of Tanzania National Parks—in particular those Parks that do not currently generate major economic returns. This will allow TANAPA to underwrite future NP management costs from its own financial resources. However, the option of investing project resources in other conservation strategies was considered during the development of this project. Two alternatives are described in as follows 188. Option 1 – Integrated Conservation and Development Project. In the past GEF investment has been used to fund Integrated Conservation and Development Projects managed by project implementation units, often through NGOs. The broad lessons learned about these kinds of projects is that they fail to deliver long term solutions as they are not sufficiently embedded in the local systems of governance, and also do not focus on delivery of outcomes that will outlast the project interventions. In this project the emphasis is on the government agencies managing the national parks, game reserves, forest reserves and nature reserves as well as engaging community involvement and collaborative management. Emphasis is also placed enhancing the protected area network on a landscape level in an operational sense. These will deliver tangible outcomes that will be recognised in law, and will therefore survive potentially for the next century, or more. 189. Option 2 – Trust Fund. There is an existing Trust Fund for the Eastern Arc Mountains following a previous GEF project there. The option of using the GEF funding for strengthening the protected areas and their broader landscapes in Tanzania by establishing a parallel structure for the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes was considered. The contribution of funds to small projects and research in the Eastern Arc Mountains by the fund makes it a useful institution. Whilst attractive, the level of funding available and the need for rapid results on the ground to improve the protected area network and mitigate critical threats overruled that as a useful option for this particular GEF project. Further, the policy and institutional framework of the Government of Tanzania should be sufficiently robust to manage the process without recourse to a trust fund. Further still, experiences from the Eastern Arcs has shown that trust funds relay heavily on the whims of the markets, which saw in this case the trust fund lose a sizeable amount of its working capital following the 2007 financial crisis. 190. The only viable option and alternative is to engage state PA authorities, with the collaboration of civil society, private sector and local communities to protect, conserve and benefit from biodiversity in these landscapes. Fortunately, this option is viable in all areas defined in the project, with potential for replication in the PA system nationally and provides an opportunity not only to protect biodiversity per se but also to contribute to sustainable human development.

1.16 Country Ownership and Eligibility

191. The priority accorded by the Government of Tanzania to biodiversity conservation, and broader natural resource management is underscribed through the National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (NBSAP, 2003), National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP, or MKUKUTA in Swahili) as well as Vision 2025 and other relevant national development plans. Tanzania ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1996. In addition, Tanzania has 54

ratified a number of other environmental conventions such as the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Ramsar Convention, the World Heritage Convention and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Tanzania ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 8th March 1996. Tanzania is eligible for technical assistance from UNDP. 192. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers protected areas as cornerstones for biodiversity conservation and as critical tools for reducing the current rate of loss of species and habitats in all types of ecosystems (2010 biodiversity target, decision VI/26). There is a strong policy framework for environmental management and for biodiversity conservation in Tanzania and the country has taken a number of key steps for environmental management that resonate positively for biodiversity conservation. 193. Tanzania has taken a number of significant steps toward realizing its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, including strengthening the institutional framework for conservation and passing necessary enabling legislation. The proposed project will fulfil a number of the objectives of the Convention, including the in situ conservation of biodiversity and the enhancement of national capacities to manage natural ecosystems. More precisely, 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: 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 and monitor PA status and trends. Furthermore, the project is fully in line with national policies and strategies to protect biodiversity, including those recently articulated within the NBSAP. The project is strongly supported by the Tanzanian authorities and has been endorsed by the GEF Operational Focal Point (see attached letter of support). 194. This project addresses multiple priorities for the development of the Tanzanian national Protected Area System as contained in the Tanzania Country Study on Biodiversity (1997) as well as various acts and regulations. The project is consistent with the policies and strategies articulated in Vision 2025 and responds to the Tanzanian National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP) that states that a comprehensive, representative network of ecologically viable protected areas is critical to the conservation of Tanzania’s biodiversity. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan stress the importance of Southern Tanzania’s National Parks and highlight the fact that they have received relatively less management attention than the Northern Circuit. Further, Tanzania’s Tourism Development Policy and Master Plan stresses the importance of wildlife management as buttress for the tourism sector. 195. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the main funding mechanism for providing assistance to developing countries to facilitate them to achieve the targets set out within the CBD – to which they are signatories. This project will address the 2010 target related to protected areas and the conservation of the world’s biodiversity. It will also seek to ensure that the protected areas in these areas are effectively managed. 1.17 Program Designation and Conformity

The Fit with GEF Focal Area Strategy 196. This project is primarily focused on strengthening the PA network in southern Tanzania through creating landscape level management networks and enhancing the operational capacity of national parks. It will also include the extension of the PA system, to strengthen the ecological viability of the network through corridors and is expected to result in the upgrading of one PA to a higher protected status.

55

197. The project pays particular attention to strengthening capacity at the systemic and institutional levels, and improving conditions and capacities needed to forge durable landscape and PA management arrangements between TANAPA, the Wildlife Division, the Forest and Beekeeping Division, regional and district government, communities, civil society and the private sector. Such arrangements are needed as part of efforts to strengthen capacity in biodiversity management and monitoring on a landscape level. 198. This proposed project in Tanzania is consistent with GEF Strategic Program 3: Strengthened Terrestrial Protected Area Networks. The project will directly address GEF Strategic Priority 1 on Biodiversity: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems. The Project contributes to the following Indicators of BD-Strategic Objective 1: Table 8. Project Contribution to BD-1 Indicators Strategic Objective Indicators Project’s contribution At least 23,000km2 of pristine habitat in two key linked ecological landscapes in Tanzania (GRL & GKKL) are under improved landscape management arrangements, with greater financial and ecological sustainability. Corridors and • Extent of habitat cover (hectares) by biome buffer zones are supporting landscape type maintained, as measured by cover and integrity and species movements. fragmentation in protected area systems

SO-1: An existing network of two national • Extent and percentage increase of new To catalyze parks (RUNAPA & KINAPA) and one habitat protected (hectares) by biome type in sustainability of game reserve (MKGR) provided the protected area systems that enhances protected area operational capacity to be financially ecosystem representation systems sustainable. One nature reserve

(MRNR) benefits through enhanced • Protected area management effectiveness as connectivity. Dispersal areas in nearby measured by protected area scorecards that GRL game reserves (Rungwa block). assess site management, financial

sustainability, and capacity An increase in METT scores from the current average of 42 across four PAs and enhanced financial status, indicated through financial scorecards. Ecological monitoring indicates species diversity either unaffected or increased

Linkages to UNDP Country Programme 199. UNDP has been selected as the GEF IA by the Government of Tanzania to implement this project. UNDP is one of the lead GEF agencies working on PA management in Africa; the UNDP-GEF PA portfolio is contributing to strengthening management of 208 existing PAs with a total area of 47,161,194 hectares, and has helped to expand the PA estate in Africa by gazetting 65 new PAs in the past four years, with a combined total area of 1,185,845 hectares. 35 PAs are in the process of being gazetted. UNDP has particular strengths, aligned to this initiative, in creating effective PA governance systems and opening new financing options, so as to improve PA management effectiveness. Component 1 of this project is aligned with UNDP’s work on mainstreaming biodiversity management into economic sector activities on production lands, including by strengthening institutional arrangements for land use planning and management. 200. The existing UNDP Country Programme seeks to support the attainment of the MDGs through four programme components: (a) Democratic Governance, (b) Pro-poor Policy Development and Wealth Creation, (c), Environment & Energy, and (d) HIV/AIDS & Gender. UNDP has considerable experience in the arena of protected area management in Tanzania, as is the case across East and Southern Africa, working with a broad range of partner institutions. Past and

56

ongoing conservation initiatives implemented through UNDP in Tanzania and in regional associations include the development of Mnazi Bay Marine Park, conservation and management of the Eastern Arc mountains, extending the Coastal Forests Protected Area Subsystem, partnership Interventions for the Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for Lake Tanganyika and the programme for the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems: Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project (ASCLMEs). UNDP is thus in a good position to ensure inter-project learning within Tanzania, and with similar initiatives in neighbouring countries. 201. The new UN programme UNDAP 2011 – 2015 for Tanzania focuses on strengthening the country’s enabling environment, building national capacity to deliver basic services and effective delivery of pro-poor growth, and humanitarian assistance. Agency key actions under UNDAP will focus almost exclusively in building national implementing partners’ functional capacities and specialised technical skills in key areas. UNDAP supports and contributes to three clusters of the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP, or MKUKUTAII), the Zanzibar Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUZAII) this project falls in Cluster 1 where UNDAP support focus on capacity development aimed at strengthening the key drivers of inclusive pro-poor economic growth and pro-poor economic governance, including pro-poor sector policies, small-business and agro-productivity enhancement, and environmental and climate change mitigation strategies. 202. The project will contribute to meeting the objectives as set out in the Common Country Programme Document and is consistent with the agreed terms in the UNDP key actions. The strategies to be adopted under the project are consistent with UNDP’s mandates in the development arena, and will complement UNDP’s work on strengthening governance, in particular improving institutional effectiveness in public institutions. 203. The project is also in line with other international activities and regional programmes. It is in line with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by Tanzania, especially MDG-7 on “Environmental Sustainability”, the indicators for which include the coverage of PAs. Tanzania’s 2008 MDG Evaluation Report identified the PA network as one of its priorities for development assistance. 204. The programme will be guided by the five inter-related principles of the UN Development Group (UNDG):  Human-rights-based approach to programming, with particular reference to the UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues,  Gender equality;  Environmental sustainability;  Results-based management;  Capacity development. 205. In addition, the project will:  Facilitate partnerships, drawing on expertise from a range of national and international organizations acting as executing agencies to ensure well coordinated and timely action;  Actively contribute to coordination and mainstreaming in-country, while avoiding duplication of effort with other initiatives.

Linkages with GEF Financed Projects 206. This initiative forms part of a suite of GEF supported initiatives that aim at strengthening Tanzania’s complex PA system (across different PA categories). The project will collaborate closely with other related initiatives in Tanzania supported by both GEF and other co-financiers. 57

The GEF has made a sizable investment in biodiversity conservation in Tanzania. Table 9. Associated GEF Financed Projects in Tanzania GEF GEF Project Project Name Focal Area Status Linkages ID Agency Type IBRD Full Geographical Conservation and Management of 1170.00 Biodiversity and Size Complete linkages, lessons the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests UNDP Project learned The Development and Medium Geographical 1734.00 Management of the Selous-Niassa Biodiversity UNDP Size Complete linkages, lessons Wildlife Corridor Project learned SFM Sustainable Woodland Full Geographical Multi Focal 3000.00 Management in the Miombo UNDP Size In Process linkages, lessons Area Areas of Western Tanzania Project sharing Full Thematic SFM Extending the Coastal 3428.00 Biodiversity UNDP Size In Process linkages, lessons Forests Protected Area Subsystem Project sharing

207. The World Bank/UNDP/GEF financed the Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests Project of which the primary objective was to bring about the long-term sustainable implementation and financing of forest biodiversity conservation and community- based conservation and sustainable development activities in Tanzania’s Eastern Arc Mountain forests, which are a global biodiversity hot spot. The lessons learned from that project, now closed, and from the development of activities in protecting that region, to the east of the Greater Ruaha landscape and linked in terms of species diversity to the Greater Kitulo – Kipengere landscape are important to maintain. Individuals involved in that project have been consulted for the development of this project. 208. UNDP/GEF financed the Development and Management of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, working with a range of co-financiers including the German government who continue to develop work in that corridor. The Selous – Niassa Wildlife corridor is classified as a threatened miombo woodland ecosystem linking the Selous and Niassa Game Reserves, two of the largest protected areas in Tanzania and Mozambique. The project focused on wide scale adoption of the Wildlife Management Areas Initiative throughout the country with increases area of land under biodiversity conservation. The Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor project provided the opportunity to test conservation through a community-based approach and as such has important lessons to learn for this project, particularly on the linkages between state PAs and community driven WMAs, but also in terms of securing both miombo habitat and wildlife corridors, including the movement of elephants and other browsing and grazing ungulates. 209. UNDP/GEF is financing the Sustainable Management of the Miombo Woodland Resources of Western Tanzania project. This has two components; enabling policy for SFM and up scaling and strengthening skills and capacities for knowledge based integrated resource planning as well as adaptive management (implementation, monitoring and learning). This project will develop linkages where relevant to this initiative, especially on lessons learned in successful and financially sustainable miombo management, of particular relevance to the Greater Ruaha landscape. 210. UNDP/GEF is financing the Extending the Coastal Forest Protected Area Subsystem in Tanzania project. This has three core components; strengthened enabling environment is functioning for conservation of Coastal Forests in mainland Tanzania, leading to increased funding, staffing and oversight; the PA System for Zanzibar is strengthened in terms of both representativeness, connectivity, financing and managerial capacity and effective PA Management Systems are in place at four project priority landscapes, with co-management between central, local and village government partners, leading to improved conservation of

58

biodiversity values. Although this project is focused on different habitats, thematically there will lessons to be learned as the projects develop, particularly on issues of institutional management, landscape approaches and sustainable forest management issues. 211. This project on strengthening the PA system in southern Tanzania will build on achievements and developments from past and ongoing projects, and improve their impacts by addressing an outstanding gap--- namely the need to improve the capacity of PAs in southern Tanzania, particularly the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere geographies, to take a landscape level approach to their management and to provide specific and often innovative operational capacity inputs in a part of Tanzania that has received relatively little attention compared to the northern circuit and the coast. The project will also be linked into a community of practice between UNDP-GEF supported PA initiatives in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Zambia, Namibia and elsewhere, allowing for the cross fertilization of lessons. 1.18 Sustainability

212. Sustainability has been a major consideration throughout the development of this project. There are three key interlinked challenges to assuring sustainability, social, economical and ecological.

Social sustainability 213. The social sustainability of activities and outputs is addressed through the execution of a stakeholder capacity analysis and the elaboration of a detailed collaborative management involvement strategy and plan which identifies stakeholders’ interests, desired levels of involvement, capacities for participation (at different levels) and potential conflicts and, responsive mitigation measures (see stakeholder analysis and involvement plan below). 214. Taking the landscape level approach outlined in component one and developing stakeholder groups as a result through component two of this project is a crucial step in ensuring social sustainability and targets two key barriers; that communities often have an antipathy towards wildlife because they are not involved in management issues and that communities living adjacent to protected areas within ecological landscapes have not been sufficiently incorporated in the economic gains that wildlife, forest and water management can bring. 215. Without an integrated planning approach to landscape level management there is a limit to what PA authorities can expect to gain in terms of support from communities and as a result unsustainable land use practices are likely to continue, including the off take of water resources in an unmonitored manner from key wetland areas such as Usangu and water towers such as the Livingstone and Kipengere ranges. Communities, both within Wildlife Management Areas such as Mbomipa and Umemarua, rice farmers and livestock herders will be consulted during this process on the economic alternatives available to them where current land use practices will cause a decline in wildlife numbers and connectivity, reduce habitat integrity and threaten water resources flowing from the GKKL highland areas to the GRL though the Great Ruaha River and tributaries. 216. Social sustainability also links to the PA management institutions themselves through the development of human resource capacity, pride in roles and responsibilities and ongoing institutional memory. Training will provide a solid foundation for enhanced PA management and operational capacity, opening up new revenue generating opportunities for PA staff and managers alike for the PAs in which they work and providing new skills to address PA and landscape management challenges ahead.

Economic sustainability 217. The establishment of a landscape approach promotes not only the importance of interlinked protected areas for biodiversity conservation, but also the restoration and enhancement of the productivity of land so that animal and plant wildlife can flourish in their natural settings.

59

Developing buffer zones and enhanced connectivity through wildlife corridors is expected to expand the coverage of protected biodiversity, offering greater opportunity through extended ranges to smaller (antelope species) and larger game (elephants) thus increasing chances of population success and increase in numbers and a wider sustainably exploitable asset base from which to derive economic benefits. This in itself secures the economic sustainability of the GRL and GKKL landscapes through tourism in particular. 218. In terms of financial resources needed to operationalize both a landscape approach as well as strengthened PA management these are significant. The amount needed to develop the landscape component in this project will provide a foundation that TANAPA and other government funds are not able to resource initially but will subsequently be able to build upon through taking advantage of a holistic approach to the wider ecological management needs and as a result developing different revenue generating activities in different parts of the two landscapes whilst having a focused strategy on how these are interconnected as product offerings within the Southern Circuit. 219. In 2005 the average cost per km² to manage PAs in Africa ranged from USD$ 20 to USD$ 20055. With the onset of climate change, increasing anthropogenic pressures and pressures on developing nations like Tanzania to justify their PA estate economically; these costs are likely to increase. The realistic course of action is to take a diversified approach utilising financial and business planning that accepts a multiple stream of investment activities within one landscape whilst to the best means possible, making sure they coordinated to ensure the most productive ends. The economic sustainability of this project rests on a number of unique opportunities that have been highlighted in this document, a balance of new and old tourism approaches through a willingness to improve the products on offer and taking full advantage of other forms of sustainable financing. 220. With regards to the development of tourism in particular, the approaches that will taken during the financial and business planning in this project are expected to enhance the variety of tourism products as well as the spend per head by providing a focus on high-end wilderness experiences like walking safaris. In addition the enhanced cooperation and shared planning mechanisms between landscape level partners is expected to alter the distribution of where tourism spending occurs, such that if tourists spend more time in a particular rather than moving onto another PA in another part of the country, more revenue will be retained in that area. Therefore, unless the existence of the GRL and GKKL landscapes leads to the increase of the number of days that people spend in Tanzania (which is possible), there could be issues of competition that arise with PAs in Tanzania. 221. However, these are likely to be offset by the greater capacity of the Southern Circuit to offer a more diverse product than the Northern Circuit, which will continue to be more mass tourism focused. Thus whilst the number of days visitors spend in Tanzania are, in many cases, likely to be determined exogenously by factors such as length of school holidays or time off from work, and so may not have much elasticity, the overall numbers of visitors would be able to rise. This project is thus expected to make a contribution to the Tanzanian economy by enhancing the product portfolio, such that tourists spend more time in an area. This is likely if accommodation and activities offered in the different PAs and buffer zone areas complement those of other PAs within these two landscapes. The business models that will be developed in the GRL and GKKL will thus aim to also keep benefits above cost and this will in many ways be area dependent. 222. It is likely to be some years before both landscapes are financially self-sufficient. However, their conservation benefits at a national, or global level, may outweigh the perceived local costs, which have not been factored into the economic sustainability question alone that is presented here. Therefore it will be important for PA financing to include a component of donor and state

55 Inamdar et al. 1999, Struhsaker et al. 2005 60

financing in the foreseeable future in order to subsidize what will essentially be a new conservation paradigm in landscape management; this project caters for this initial limitation.

Ecological sustainability 223. The issue of ecological sustainability to the two core components of enhanced landscape level connectivity and strengthened PA operations in the core zones runs throughout the project strategy and logic, therefore is only briefly summarised here. The importance of a landscape approach through component one to ecological sustainability lies in the ability of protected forms of land management outside core PAs to act as dispersal areas and to support ongoing ecosystem functions which support habitat and species integrity across the ecosystems which this landscape level approach seeks to preserve. Wildlife corridors are also a crucial aspect of ecological sustainability, allowing populations to grow and ensure ongoing genetic diversity. The focus of this project on collaboration increases the likelihood that both water resources and wildlife populations will be better managed both by an enhanced capacity within PA managers but also through vested interests in communities and other stakeholders through increased returns gained through the economic sustainability that the project will address. 1.19 Climate Change Adaptation

224. Changes to Tanzania’s climate may not be the most extreme in Africa, but poverty levels make its people particularly vulnerable to the effects of extreme environmental events such as droughts or floods. According to the UNDP’s assessment of climate change in Tanzania, mean annual temperature has increased by 1.0°C since 1960, an average rate of 0.23°C per decade. Daily temperature observations show only small increasing trends in the frequency of hot days but much larger increasing trends in the frequency of hot nights. Observations of precipitation over the country show significant decreasing trends in annual rainfall, which has decreased at an average rate of 2.8mm per month (3.3% per decade). The greatest annual decreases have occurred in southern Tanzania56. 225. Adaptation is the process to improve society’s ability to cope with changes in climatic conditions across time- and policy scales. It will be increasingly important to enhance the efficiency of water use and to manage the supply and demand of water by means of the conjunctive use of water resources, including landscape level approaches to water management. Spatial planning that takes ecosystem requirements with a landscape scope into consideration will be increasingly crucial. Three key issues surround planning for climate change adaptation approaches; policy limitations, capacity building and the management of data, as follows. Table 10. Climate change adaptation implementation action plan. Scope & Needs / Issue Adaptation Measures Responsible Management Apart from protecting productive resources of the rural As part of the Landscape level population, policy should target the diversification of the overall landscape partners, led by rural economic environment and strengthen water and land approach TANAPA. management practices. A landscape vision is part of this TANAPA will Lessons learnt approach. In addition, Tanzania’s capacity to benefit from work with other collated for and Policy the Clean Development Mechanism and sustainable PA managers and by TANAPA, key Limitations financing needs to be developed as a means to enhance community issues taken adaptation options. partners to build a forward on a More focus is required on payments for ecosystem services, shared policy level paid for through enhancing the capacity of local people to understanding of where supported make the link between nature-based livelihoods and financing by data and ecosystem payment models, developed through business options. consensus.

56 McSweeney, C., New. M. & Lizcano, G., (2009) UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles: Tanzania. School of Geography and Environment, University of Oxford. Research http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk. 61

Scope & Needs / Issue Adaptation Measures Responsible Management plans. Pricing mechanisms in the water, land and electricity sectors should reflect the real scarcity of the goods. Incentives and disincentives should be devised which prompt resource stewards to be prudent in resource use and landscape-level management approaches enhance the need for different land owners to work together. Spatial planning The capacity to undertake spatial planning should be to be incorporated strengthened to include ecosystem requirements. TANAPA into the landscape capacity should be strengthened to facilitate climate change coordination feedback loops between science institutions, policy makers, planning process GRL and GKKL and land users, landscape by landscape. Capacity should be on as GRL and landscape level in place to manage protected areas and buffer zones to GKKL level, partners, national Capacity supply vital ecosystem services, in particular terrestrial lessons learnt feedback, lessons Building goods and water supply and quality regulation, through the provided at a learnt on capacity curtailment of habitat loss and management of fire risks. national level. collated for and Capacity should be also be built to apply and interpret by TANAPA. climate models and impact models in sectors that are Landscape level considered critical for the development of Tanzania, with management and the aim to build a broader understanding of the vulnerability M&E approaches of various sectors to climate variability and change. applied Landscape Data availability issues are crucial due to a lack of Analysis of local partners, temporally and spatially consistent data collection nationally data on a PA and TANAPA led; Data and in the GRL and GKKL landscapes of southern a landscape level data collated in Management Tanzania. Climate, and in particular precipitation is very through each PA and location-specific in areas of considerable topographical coordination shared in variety such as southern Tanzania. mechanisms. landscapes.

1.20 Replication Strategy

226. A replication strategy has been developed, to codify good practices and ensure they are systematically replicated across the PA system, while also documented for application in other countries (in Eastern Africa and elsewhere). Furthermore, the project will institutionalise the use of the TANAPA and their partners WD and FBD to track management effectiveness, taking steps to tie operational activities to improving management effectiveness. These steps are expected to make a major contribution to improving the overall sustainability of the PA system. 227. The Project incorporates the documentation of lessons learned and best practices related to management coordination mechanisms and biodiversity conservation (monitoring, assessment and management). The participation of different stakeholders at different levels will enhance their capacities and will facilitate the dissemination and sharing of lessons which will greatly increase replication success. Lessons from existing landscape coordination arrangements in the region and Africa in general are critical to ensure the success of replication, granted local level environmental, social and economic characteristics are taken into account. Work will be carried out at the landscape and individual land unit level (e.g. NP, GR and WMA) to have in place synergised development plans and management plans It will be necessary to demonstrate benefits that stakeholders have gained through coordinated management structures as it will encourage replication in other areas. The project aims as a core outcome to ensure that the landscape approach will be successfully taken on board, at least initially as a result of efforts in this project, with sound examples set. The support the project will give to operational capacity will be documented, and lessons learned will be shared with regards to the financial planning and inputs from shareholder groups. 228. The project will support training which will filter through the wider TANAPA and national PA 62

management systems. If the landscape approach can prove to influence enhanced biodiversity management and conservation prospects, with increased cooperation of landholders amid increased or at least stable biodiversity indicators, the approach can be taken to other parts of Tanzania where there are interlinked land users and usages co-supporting crucial ecosystems. 229. The following table details a replication strategy by component for this project. Table 11. Replication Strategy by Component Component Needs/ Opportunities for Replication Project Strategy for Replication Gains from taking collaborative Lessons from existing landscape approaches to landscape level management arrangements will be conservation can be replicated for distilled and documented, captured, and other GEF biodiversity projects used to provide lessons for TANAPA globally where the contexts are and partners elsewhere. These lessons similar. will also be shared at relevant COMPONENT 1. international meetings and technical Integrating management of This component will support the biodiversity conservation/ protected NPs and broader development of two landscape area events. These lessons will be landscapes in Southern management mechanisms, based on disseminated to all biodiversity Tanzania lessons learned and best practices for conservation, tourism and CBNRM the establishment of the GRL and stakeholders in Tanzania. With project GKKL landscapes, which will support “codes of practice” will be enable the replication of drawn from the lessons learned to guide collaborative management landscape conservation, wildlife and arrangements elsewhere. tourism development activities. This component will boost Lessons learned from strategic and operational capacity in the Southern business planning approaches and from Circuit parks and support the and devising incentives will be captured COMPONENT 2. development of new revenue and shared with all the biodiversity Operations Support for NP streams and diversification of conservation, tourism and CBNRM Management in Southern existing ones from the wildlife and stakeholders. The lessons from new Tanzania tourism sector. Analysis, strategic training initiatives, such as in walking and business planning approaches guides and documentary productions will be applicable to other parts of will be disseminated nationally and Tanzania and elsewhere. internationally.

PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

1.21 Project Management & Implementation

230. The project will be implemented over a period of five years beginning in 2011. The project implementation plan is presented below. An inception period will be used to refine the project design and bring on board fully the relevant stakeholders for implementation.

Execution Modality. 231. The project will be executed under National Execution (NEX) modalities where UNDP will act as the provider of the services and facilities that come about through a successful proposal. The project will be funded by GEF through UNDP, which is accountable to GEF for project delivery. UNDP thus has overall responsibility for supervision, project development, guiding project activities through technical backstopping and logistical support.

63

232. Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) shall retain overall responsibility for UNDP support and shall be the National Implementing Partner. TANAPA will work in close cooperation with the Vice President’s Office, as GEF Focal Point, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). MNRT collaboration will be particularly strong with two of the ministry’s divisions, the Wildlife Division (WD) and the Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD). TANAPA will also coordinate activities on a local landscape level with the Office of the Prime Minister, Regional and Local Government (PMORALG) through direct engagement with district and regional government offices. 233. The project will thus be executed by TANAPA but in close collaboration on an implementation level with other government divisions as well as with community managed Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), civil society and private sector stakeholders and with financial and technical support from UNDP. 234. The Ministry (MNRT) is ultimately responsible for policy mainstreaming whereas TANAPA is ultimately responsible for site activity execution, however site execution by TANAPA will be managed in close collaboration with responsible parties, the stakeholder implementation partners (government, communities, civil society and private sector). Within the government, the Permanent Secretary of the office of the Vice President (VPO) will be the GEF Focal point for this project and have a close association to MNRT and TANAPA senior officials in ensuring top level project oversight.

Implementation Modality. 235. Coordination among the three Government ministries (MNRT, VPO and PMORALG) and the TANAPA parastatal will be achieved through creation of a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) which will encompass a Project Board, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) and allowing for project assurance and technical advisory support from UNDP, will oversee the PCU. The PSC will allow not only high level coordination between government agencies, but will also provide a mechanism for open and effective project management.

64

Project Organisation Structure

Project Board Senior Beneficiary Executive Senior Supplier PS of MNRT Director General - TANAPA UNDP

Project Assurance UNDP Tanzania Head of Project Steering Environment Unit Committee Project Coordination TANAPA, MNRT, VPO, Unit PMORALG (HQ in Arusha, field Technical Advisory Support stations in RUNAPA and UNDP Africa Regional KINAPA) Biodiversity team - Technical Support PROJECT TEAM Project Coordinator (1) Landscape Technical Specialists (2) Researchers (volunteers) Admin Manager Financial expert (part-time)

COORDINATION COMMITTEE GREATER MULTI-STAKEHOLDER RUAHA TEAM GREATER RUAHA COMPONENT 1 COMPONENT 2

COORDINATION MULTI-STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE GREATER TEAM GREATER KITULO KITULO COMPONENT 2 COMPONENT 1

Figure 6. Overview of Project Organisation Structure

236. Project activities will be implemented at the overall management and the two landscape levels. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be responsible for overall coordination of project activities, but in particular, it will coordinate national and intra-landscape level activities that are largely linked to policy and systematic and institutional capacities for managing protected areas landscapes. 237. The PCU will also be responsible for coordination and mainstreaming of lessons and experiences into government operations, lessons learnt from activities in other related GEF funded projects and linking with additional ongoing related projects. The PCU will be headed by a Project Coordinator (PC) who shall be a salaried fulltime resource acquired competitively. Funds will flow from UNDP to a dedicated project account, managed by TANAPA. At the landscape level, in the Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes, the PC will be supported by two Landscape Technical Specialists (LTS), dedicated to implementing the work of the project via the PCU on the landscape level. The PCU will also include admin and finance staff and will engage the support of volunteer researchers if necessary. 238. The PCU is expected to adapt during the project lifespan into an ongoing landscapes coordination unit to ensure sustainability. The broader aim of the PCU is to become an umbrella association for TANAPA, WD and FBD state PAs, private landholdings and communal 65

conserved land (such as WMAs) that promotes, supports and facilitates national conservation and socio-economic development goals where a similar landscape level approach is taken.

Project Board 239. The PCU will be under the direct authority of the Project Board, the highest decision making organ of the project, which will be chaired by the TANAPA Director General or an appointed representative. Funds flow will be based on based on an approved workplan and via a disbursement scheduled agreed on during the project preparation and included in the project document detailing the resources and movement schedules. The Project Board shall report to UNDP who in turn report to GEF. The Board and PCU will meet at TANAPA offices once a quarter. 240. The role of the PSC will be to:  Supervise and approve the appointment of project staff  Supervise project activities through monitoring progress  Review and approve work plans, financial plans and reports

Project Steering Committee 241. The PCU will be guided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC will be chaired by an agreed MNRT representative, likely the Permanent Secretary of MNRT or his/her representative and shall be responsible for supervising project development, guiding project activities through technical backstopping and for contracting staff where necessary. In total one representative of each government agency shall be members (TANAPA, MNRT, VPO, PMORALG). UNDP will have one representative present who will advise the PSC in its deliberations and may vote in cases where a majority has not been met. Other members will include two representatives from freehold private reserves and two from communal conservancies who shall have been elected during the Inception meeting. The PSC shall report to the Project Board who in turn report to UNDP and GEF. 242. The PSC members shall meet at least quarterly in a year prior to PCU/Board meetings. The PC will be a member of the PSC as an ex-officio observer responsible for taking and distributing minutes. Landscape Technical Specialists (LTS) working under the PC shall attend meetings of the PSC by invitation and only on a need to basis. 243. The role of the PSC will be to:  Provide strategic advice to the PCU for the implementation of project activities to ensure the integration of project activities with poverty alleviation and sustainable development objectives  Ensure coordination between the project and other ongoing activities in the country  Ensure interagency coordination  Ensure full participation of stakeholders in project activities  Provide technical backstopping to the project  Assist with organisation of project reviews and contracting consultancies under technical assistance  Provide guidance to the PCU

Project Coordination 244. The PCU project management team will be responsible for day-to-day oversight and

66

coordination on implementation of project activities including supervision of activities contracted to consultants by Government. The PC heading the PCU will report to the Project Board, copied to the PSC, on a quarterly basis and maintain a direct liaison with UNDP through the Energy and Environment unit. The PC shall be assisted by an Administrator/ Accountant and will be based at TANAPA headquarters in Arusha. The PC will receive reports and feedback from the Landscape level, fed through two dedicated Landscape Technical Specialists (LTS). 245. Each LTS shall act as a lynch pin to coordinate activities on a landscape level between the partners. There shall be two Landscape Technical Specialists; the first (Greater Ruaha) will be based at RUNAPA headquarters and coordinate GRL aspects of the project. The second (Greater Kitulo-Kipengere) shall be based at KINAPA headquarters and coordinate GKKL activities. 246. The PC will link with other GEF project coordinators sharing lessons learnt relevant to the protected area estate and also to other government led initiatives such as institutional strengthening activities, policy and preparation of management plans. The PC will report directly to the PSC on the basis of approved workplan participate directly at the PSC with the agencies reports and workplan approved at the same meeting, and shall work under the guidance of outputs from PAC meetings.

Landscape Level Project Implementation 247. The project will focus on strengthening PAs in two interlinked landscapes of the Southern Circuit as stated in the Project Strategy: Overall management of activities in these two landscapes will be coordinated by the PCU through the PC and Landscape Technical Specialists under the guidance of the PSC. 248. In order to gain maximum efficiency in project implementation, under the guidance ands assistance of the PC in Arusha (with regular site visits required), each LTS will be responsible for the implementation of landscape related activities. Where there are lessons learnt, intra- landscape cross-over issues, or higher level engagement e required, responsibility will be decreed to the PC.

Assisting Landscape Level Coordination 249. During Component 1, there shall be two landscape coordination mechanisms developed to coordinate activities at the landscape level, supported by the LTS. The GRL and GKKL coordination committees will be responsible for forging linkage between the different government PA agencies and communities. The Committees shall be composed of representatives that have in common an interest in promoting the vision, purpose and objectives of the committee. 250. During Component 2, there shall be two stakeholder teams developed to create stronger ties between TANAPA, government, communities, civil society and the private sector, supported by the LTS. The GRL and GKKL coordination committees will be responsible for forging linkage between the different government PA agencies and communities. The Committees shall be composed of representatives that have in common an interest in promoting the vision, purpose and objectives of the committee.

Project Components. 251. The project will comprise two complementary components. Each addresses a different barrier and has distinct outcomes. Overall management of these shall be coordinated by the PCU under the leadership of the Project Board and advice of the PSC.

Inception Session 252. The project will begin with an inception session. The Project Board, with the support of the PC and Landscape Technical Specialists will review the project document prior to the meeting and 67

recommend revisions in light of the prevailing situation. This may include updating the log frame and institutional arrangements. The PC will present the finalised work plan and first quarterly plan to the Board, copied to the PSC. All key stakeholders will participate and the workshop will offer an opportunity to ensure coordination between all the players and establish a common ground of understanding necessary to ensure the smooth running of project implementation. 253. A fundamental objective of the Inception Session (IS) will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual workplan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. 254. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the IS will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Reviews, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IS will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget re-phasings. 255. The IS will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, and broadened, as needed, in order to clarify each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.

Technical Assistance 256. Short-term national as well as international technical assistance (TA) will be provided by the Project, on a consultancy basis, in order to overcome barriers and achieve the project outputs/outcomes .TA will be directly contracted by the PSC, through a transparent procurement process (i.e. the development of Terms of References and recruitment) following UNDP regulations and will directly assist the implementing entities and report to the Project Board. Many of the project components are innovative and need some level of consultancy input. These include issues such as: Landscape planning, Protected Area Economics, Business Plans, Institutional Capacity Building, Protected Area gap analysis and climate change adaptation strategies, etc. Where needed these local consultancy inputs have been identified and budgeted.

Funds flow 257. Project funds will pass from GEF to UNDP and thereafter to TANAPA, which in turn may commission funds to consultant bodies, civil society specialists or other government agencies, according to the specific tasks agreed upon and based upon standard UNDP bidding, recruitment, transparency and auditing requirements and regulations, against specific outputs.

Public involvement Plan 258. At the national level the project will engage with governments, the private sector, communities, donors, NGOs and experts over meeting the project objective according to its strategy. The project will also seek to inform all stakeholders of the values of landscape level activities, the problems that they are facing, why they need to support protected area management, wildlife corridors and dispersal areas and how this should go about in an equitable and efficient manner.

68

Reporting 259. As head of the PCU, under the Board, the PC will be responsible for the preparation of reports for the Board, PSC and UNDP on a regular basis, including the following: (i) Inception Report; (ii) Annual Project Report; (iii) Project Implementation Report; (iv) Quarterly Progress Reports; and (v) Project Terminal Report. The Quarterly progress reports will provide a basis for managing project disbursements. These reports will include a brief summary of the status of activities, explaining variances from the work plan, and presenting work-plans for each successive quarter for review and endorsement. The Annual Project Report will be prepared annually, and will entail a more detailed assessment of progress in implementation, using the set indicators. It will further evaluate the causes of successes and failures, and present a clear action plan for addressing problem areas for immediate implementation. 260. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). The TPR will be composed of Government representatives, UNDP and the Project. This will serve as the highest policy- level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of the project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of implementation. The Annual Project Report (APR) will be prepared and submitted to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF Regional Office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations:  Mid-term Evaluation - will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed;  Final Technical Evaluation - will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. 261. The PCU will, utilising input from the PC, provide the country UNDP Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged openly by the PCU. 262. TANAPA will provide the country UNDP Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance Manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

Legal Context 263. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) between the Government of Tanzania and the United Nations Development Programme. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement. 264. UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and all rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be extended mutatis mutandis to GEF. 265. The UNDP Resident Representative in Tanzania is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that s/he has verified the agreement thereto 69

by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes: a) Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document; b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outcomes or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation; c) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and d) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project Document.

Audit Requirement 266. The Project Board will provide UNDP with certified periodic financial statements, having first passed them through the PSC for comment, with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of project funds according to the established procedures set out in the UNDP Programming and Finance manuals.

PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

267. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goal and objective, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise, finalizing the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project. 268. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Review Report (ARR), as well as mid- term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines. 269. A detailed schedule of project review meetings will be developed by project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Project Board Meetings (PBM) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities. Day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator (PC) based on the project's Annual Work Plan and agreed indicators. The PC will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. The PC will also fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO 70

and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team. 270. Measurement of impact indicators related to global biodiversity benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop, using METT scores, assessments of forest cover, wildlife movements and other means. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the Implementing Partner, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Project Board Meetings (PBM). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to PBMs four times a year. The first such meeting will be held within the first six months of the start of full implementation. 271. A terminal PBM will be held in the last month of project operations. The PC is responsible for

preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and UNDP-GEF RCU after close consultation with the PBM. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the terminal PBM in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the PBM and will be passed prior to complete to the PSC for comment. The terminal meeting considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objectives. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation. 272. UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCU as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to project sites based on an agreed upon schedule to be detailed in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the Country Office and UNDP-GEF RCU and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all PSC members, and UNDP-GEF. 1.22 Project Reporting

273. The core project management team (PC, Landscape Technical Specialists, Accountant/ Administrator), in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team, will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. The first six reports are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while the last two have a broader function and their focus will be defined during implementation. 274. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan will include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame. 275. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project 71

implementation. When finalized, the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document. 276. The Annual Project Report/ Project Implementation Review (PIR) must be completed once a year. The APR/ PIR is an essential management and monitoring tool for UNDP, the Executing Agency and Project Coordinators and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects at the portfolio level. 277. Quarterly progress reports: Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF RCU by the project team, headed by the Policy Specialist using UNDP formats. 278. UNDP ATLAS Monitoring Reports: A Combined Delivery Report (CDR) summarizing all project expenditures, is mandatory and should be issued quarterly. The PC will send it to the PSC for review and the Executing Partner will certify it. The following logs should be prepared: (i) The Issues Log is used to capture and track the status of all project issues throughout the implementation of the project. It will be the responsibility of the PC to track, capture and assign issues, and to ensure that all project issues are appropriately addressed; (ii) the Risk Log is maintained throughout the project to capture potential risks to the project and associated measures to manage risks. It will be the responsibility of the PC to maintain and update the Risk Log, using Atlas; and (iii) the Lessons Learned Log is maintained throughout the project to capture insights and lessons based on the positive and negative outcomes of the project. It is the responsibility of the PC to maintain and update the Lessons Learned Log. 279. Project Terminal Report: During the last three months of the project the project team under the PC will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure the long term sustainability and the wide replicability of the Project’s outcomes. 280. Periodic Thematic Reports: As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. 281. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels. 282. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The project team, under the PC, will determine if

72

any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget. 1.23 Independent Evaluations

283. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows: An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at exactly the mid-point of the project lifetime. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid- term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. 284. An independent Final Technical Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Project Board meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Technical Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

PART V: INCREMENTAL LOGIC

1.24 Baseline Course of Action

Summary of Baseline Situation 285. The Baseline is the “business-as-usual” scenario that would take place during the next five years in the absence of the interventions planned under the project. A number of conservation interventions have already been undertaken in these forests, as detailed below. Without the proposed outcome of this project these interventions will remain the baseline situation. 286. Without this GEF intervention, there will be a continuing loss of globally significant biodiversity values in the southern area of Tanzania, despite considerable intervention by the Government. This will happen in three ways: 1. Areas of biodiversity significance will remain excluded from the NP system. 2. There will be increased isolation within core PAs, unless landscape planning provides for effective conservation management of dispersal areas and corridors. 3. There will be increased pressures on core NPs, from resource dependent communities, and reduced capacities and/or finance to provide adequate protection.

287. Project interventions under the GEF Alternative will add to, and support, government’s commitment to addressing these complex pressures and problems. Two important ecological landscapes will be brought under higher management control. In the last two years, two globally important NPs, Ruaha and Kitulo, have been expanded by over 10,000 Km2 (doubling the previous baseline area) to encompass them under protected but important ecosystems. However, these areas need immediate and considerable support to be able to be managed effectively. 73

288. The integrity of these NPs will be secured by integrating their management with that of surrounding landscapes and corridors on production lands, so safeguarding them from external pressures. This will address a major threat to biodiversity in Tanzanian National Parks; there is considerable demand to develop a working model for such integrated management. Moreover, the project will strengthen the management effectiveness of NPs over 22,000 km2 within a wider dispersal area of over 39,000 Km2, by strengthening institutional capacities within TANAPA and staff competencies and skills for PA management. This will address a past deficit in investment for PA operations in the Southern Circuit. 289. In the two landscapes that will be the focus of in this project there is a real opportunity to enhance the protected area networks through the development of collaborative management arrangements at the landscape level Without the GEF Alternative, the baseline situation will continue such that there will be continuing and rapid conversion of areas of high biodiversity outside of PAs for grazing and agricultural purposes and unsustainable use of natural resources, including water. This will result in the loss of connectivity between PAs and these landscapes and also the gradual reduction of biodiversity values.

Baseline Situation – landscape level management 290. In both the Greater Ruaha Landscape and the Greater Kitulo-Kipengere Landscape, demands on land and water resources will continue in the business as usual scenario. In the GRL, increasing pressures by rice cultivators to the south of RUNAPA’s Usangu wetlands will see an increase in mismanagement of water resources, with the Great Ruaha River drying out completely for much of every year. The impact on wildlife populations will be considerable as will the impact on tourism revenues as the river no longer houses its current populations of predators, ungulates and birdlife. Uncoordinated land use planning will see the disintegration of wildlife corridors between the lower reaches of the GRL area and the highlands of Kitulo and Mpanga Kipengere. In the GKKL itself, fragmentation of the ecological linkages between Mount Rungwe, Kitulo and Mpanga Kipengere will continue unabated and PAs in those highlands will be increasingly isolated, along with the endemic species they house, creating greater risks to long term ecological sustainability.

Baseline Situation – PA operations 291. In the business as usual scenario, the PA system in the Southern Circuit will remain weaker and less able to capitalise on revenue generation opportunities than the Northern Circuit system. Chronic underfunding and a lack of training and coordinated financial planning will mean the southern PAs are managed below optimal capacity and new market niche opportunities are missed due to lack of investment funds, limited staffing and a lack of a sufficiently innovative approach to revenue generation. Park operations in the newly annexed Usangu area of RUNAPA and the Livingstone Mountains of KINAPA will remain paper extensions without the operational means to ensure they are developed economically and incorporated into wider PA management systems. Mpanga Kipengere will continue to be underutilised with wildlife numbers likely to decrease due to lack of management capacity. The scope to bring that reserve into improved management systems and thus both conserve its importance as a water tower as well as a wildlife dispersal area is likely to be missed if investments are not made. In Kitulo and Ruaha NPs, a lack of training in new niche areas such as trained walking safaris (current walking rangers lack training and accidents occur) and adventure based tourism will see the vast economic potential of those southern PAs underutilised with them remaining unable to be financially self sustaining, away from the current economic reliance on subsidies from the Northern Circuit PAs. 1.25 GEF Alternative: Expected Global and National Benefits

292. Global benefits through the GEF alternative will be through greater protection afforded to two fragile interlinked landscapes rich in biodiversity and access to the ecosystem services that these 74

landscapes will be able to offer. Crucially, the project is also expected to bring a range of national benefits through interlinked approaches by building capacity for PA management amongst PA managers and other landholders and stakeholder partners, thus helping to support PAs and the communities who live in buffer zones, dispersal areas and wildlife corridors that support the core PAs to manage those landscapes effectively and without further loss to biodiversity. Table 12. Summary of Global and National Benefits Benefits Baseline Alternative Increment

Agreed PA management Improved PA network strategy linked to landscape governance and status focuses Landscape level approaches coordination mechanisms efforts by many stakeholders will not be taken up to the that provides a framework to solve conservation extent that the opportunity for conservation action by problems in southern allows; risks from climate all players Tanzania’s fragile landscapes change will impact the Collaborative approaches on Landscape approach to- buffer zones but also PAs a landscape level resulting management results in themselves, with net loss to in increased role of local improved operational capacity biodiversity and to incomes Global benefits communities in managing and monitoring of biodiversity PA system and its outlying natural resource use and and natural resources as well dispersal areas is likely only access as well as state and as stronger social and to reach sustainability if private sector actors. ecological ties. sufficient tangible financial Operational support allows Ecological stability of two benefits can be realised to PAs to become self- interlinked landscapes is compensate for PA sustaining and functionally increased, biodiversity is less management costs managed. threatened, and water sources are secured; investment opportunities as a result. Uncontrolled bush fires in Positive transformation of the dry season. natural resource dependent Habitat integrity is retained, Uncontrolled use of water stakeholder interests globally significant resources leading to the through effective biodiversity is protected and drying out of the Great participation in a landscape ecosystem services are Ruaha River and others and approach and through spin- maintained subsequent impacts on off gains from enhanced National and local wildlife and on tourism; operational capacity of Increased income for Southern southern PAs including Circuit PAs through enhanced benefits Illegal harvesting of newly gazetted extensions. PA operational capacity, highland plants (for the trained workforces and entry export market); and into niche tourism markets Enhanced market led Non-protected patches are with additional links to other approaches through converted over time and permissible means of financial planning feeds biological connectivity sustainable financing. directly into operational between landscapes and capacity gains for PAs PAs is lost.

Global Benefits 293. The project works on the premise that, in the absence of sustained global financial transfer schemes to compensate for global benefits that do not accrue to the country, the PA system is likely only to reach sustainability if sufficient tangible benefits can be realised to compensate for PA management costs. The project is designed to generate global benefits through protecting globally important ecosystems. This will protect the existence values, option values and future use values enjoyed by the global community that might otherwise be forfeited, should the PA

75

estate fail to provide an effective buffer against anthropogenic threats prevalent at the landscape level. 294. The project is expected to bring global benefits in two core areas. Firstly, by creating an agreed PA management strategy linked to landscape coordination mechanisms in two interlinked landscapes (GRL and GKKL) that provide a framework for conservation action by all players. Net global benefits from this approach will be to both safeguard two crucial and otherwise underfunded ecological landscapes and to prove to the international community that such approaches can work and can be replicated. The result will be that ecological stability of two interlinked landscapes is increased, biodiversity is less threatened, and water sources are secured. Secondly by illustrating that through targeted investments, guided by detailed and landscape specific financial planning, that operations support and training can reverse declines in PAs from being dependent on subsidy to being profitable, self sustaining and able to support the ecosystems they exist to preserve. Specific global gains from such an investment are expected to be the maintenance of visually, ecologically and financially attractive landscapes which encourage tourism investments, international tourists and investors into sustainable financing initiatives. 295. The comprehensive and systemic approach to improving management effectiveness of the southern Tanzanian PA network and the management innovations that will be tested and adapted through the project life, at both landscape and individual PA levels, have application to other PA management systems in Africa and elsewhere. The knowledge management component will ensure that lessons and good practices are disseminated, to generate global benefits beyond Tanzania. Further, exploration of landscape level management arrangement involving a variety of stakeholders, and active integration efforts between PAs and adjacent land units such as WMAs should serve to dramatically increase the coverage of the PA estate, enabling it to better fulfil its mission to protect a representative repository of biodiversity. These benefits are clearly correlated with the provisions of Article 8 of the CBD. 296. GEF interventions, in this case through the two landscapes in focus, address operational capacity in sites that currently do not receive significant numbers of visitors and which accordingly generate mainly intangible benefits. This type of benefit is most likely to be experienced at global and regional, rather than national, levels. 297. The project is also expected to have certain global benefits pertaining to the land degradation and international water focal areas of the GEF by safe guarding water towers and addressing uncoordinated land uses. The integrated approach of the project promotes harmonised land use between PAs and adjacent land units, thereby promoting integrated and sustainable land management. This in turn mitigates the causes and negative impacts of land degradation on the structure and functional integrity of ecosystems and contributes to improving people’s livelihoods.

National Benefits 298. At the national level, the principle beneficiary of the project will be TANAPA, the Wildlife Division, the Forest and Beekeeping Division, Wildlife Management Area managers and private land holders adjacent to the PAs highlighted within the project strategy. The Project will improve the long term security provided by the Protected Area system to wildlife and flora. This is expected to reduce pressures on biodiversity arising from incompatible land uses in areas adjacent to protected areas that are undermining biodiversity status. By creating linkages with protected areas to a landscape level, the project is expected to improve the status of water dependent ungulates, and by opening access to dispersal areas. 299. While the country boasts an impressive PA estate, important wildlife migration routes remain outside the PA system, and incompatible land use on lands abutting PAs are imposing negative externalities on the PA estate. The PA system is not adequately designed to address short and medium-term environmental variability, let alone cope with the expected long-term impacts of climate change. The Project Alternative will address these short comings by ensuring that state 76

and communal lands in landscapes surrounding vulnerable PAs are involved in landscape level planning and able to find collaborative solutions for ongoing biodiversity conservation whilst enhancing the economic possibilities of the two landscapes. 300. Indirect use values are generated by outputs from the PA system that form inputs into production by other sectors of the economy, or that contribute to net economic outputs elsewhere by saving on costs. These outputs are derived from ecosystem functioning. Ecosystems potentially provide a wide range of such services. For example southern Tanzania’s PAs contribute to some extent to carbon sequestration, and very significantly to water supply and regulation, providing refugia and cultural values. However, these values have not sufficiently been quantified in physical or monetary terms. 301. Non-use values include option and existence value. Option value is the value of retaining the option to use resources in future, and is often associated with genetic diversity of PAs, the future potential value of which is unknown. Existence value is the value that society derives from knowing that the biodiversity in PAs is protected. These values are measurable to an extent and are often shown to be much larger than direct use values. Financial planning is expected to indicate the willingness that investors and visitors will have to pay option values through additions to tourism fees or through payments for ecosystem services and carbon credits. 302. Tourism will be a key aspect in bring global, national and local benefits, even though it is accepted it is not a panacea. Indeed, tourism serves as the backbone of PA economic strategies. Increased income for Southern Circuit PAs through enhanced PA operational capacity, trained workforces and entry into niche tourism markets is expected to be a tangible national benefit, with employment and investment opportunities expected as a result. The positive transformation of natural resource dependent stakeholder interests through effective participation in a landscape approach and through spin-off gains from enhanced operational capacity of southern PAs including newly gazetted extensions is thus an expected national benefit. Enhanced market led approaches through financial planning will directly into operational capacity gains for PAs, with the result that habitat integrity is retained, globally significant biodiversity is protected and ecosystem services are maintained 1.26 Co-Financing

303. While the Government of Tanzania has consistently increased financial resources for PA management year on year, resources remain meagre for the conservation of biodiversity in the southern circuit, where tourism revenues have not as yet brought sufficient returns to make the southern PAs profitable. Current investment is thus not sufficient to adequately protect all biodiversity resources which are globally important. Without GEF resources and the leveraged co-financing, in cash and in-kind, biodiversity in- and outside PAs will remain without the conservation and management they require. 304. Government co-financing for this project, through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), the office of the Prime Minister and Regional and Local Government (PMORALG) and TANAPA, a parastatal, is estimated to be from three sources. The first co- finance is from the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA, Implementing Partner). The second co- financier, and from MNRT, is the Wildlife Division (WD). The third is from PMORALG through the involvement of local government initiatives in supporting this project.

Total Government of Tanzania co-financing is USD 11,060,000 305. GoT, through two ministries, is committed to co-financing of the amount of USD 11,000,000 (of which USD 10,700,000 is in cash and 360,000 is in kind).

Total United Nations Development Programme co-financing is USD 1,000,000 306. UNDP Tanzania supports this project. Their contribution is estimated as USD 1,000,000 in cash

77

over the lifespan of this project. 1.27 Cost Effectiveness

307. The project might have focused solely on strengthening management of NPs without addressing landscape level management in parallel. Instead, it seeks to avoid externalities from development outside PAs that might foreclose future opportunities for wildlife to access corridors between PAs and wet season refugia outside them. This is already happening in Tanzania, where some landscapes have already been so altered that wildlife numbers have fallen drastically (the problem being that the core NPs are not large enough to sustain large wildlife populations). The project will provide an opportunity for managing NPs as part of a matrix of conservation compatible land uses, through careful zoning of development and consideration of conservation-development tradeoffs in vetting applications for development licenses. 308. The important economic contribution made by wildlife tourism to the Tanzanian economy makes this a workable strategy, as the tradeoffs may be substantial and provide an incentive for damage avoidance. Another alternative would be to begin fencing PAs, as in Southern Africa, but this would stymie vital ecosystem processes such as migrations, and as in Southern Africa, lead to a reduction in wildlife numbers. 309. Active management of meta-populations of threatened species would be needed, which is a costly undertaking. The proposed approach is considered to be more cost effective in comparison, but is time sensitive in that a delay in the intervention will reduce the opportunity to take preventive action, and would result in future costs being incurred in ecosystem restoration, managing wildlife-human conflict, or more active management of wildlife meta populations. Table 13. Cost effectiveness strategies by project outcome Project Component and Outcome Cost effectiveness strategy A landscape level approach to addressing biodiversity COMPONENT 1. Integrating management issues will ensure that PA managers can avoid management of NPs and broader externalities through integrated management tools that allow landscapes in Southern Tanzania PAs and buffer zones to be managed to the greatest good for all •A working model for integrating parties, leading to cost savings and to gains through joint management of NPs and wider initiatives. productive landscapes is piloted Once the approach has been piloted in two landscapes (GRL •Integrated landscape management and GKKL) and has been proved to work it can be replicated at approach is replicated by TANAPA in reduced cost in other landscapes throughout Tanzania and other at least one additional ecological nations with similar land and PA management issues. landscape in southern Tanzania. The approach of investing in a landscape management approach •No net loss of natural habitat in major whilst specifically investing in core PAs within will safeguard habitat blocks identified as critical for wildlife numbers and movements as well as habitats by wildlife dispersal ensuring buffer zone and corridor management without the •PAs expanded to encompass two costs and political implications of new PAs. ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor PA expansions will be targeted at specific corridors which is a areas cost effective means of bringing about ecosystem integrity. COMPONENT 2. Operations The approach offered by the project solution is to provide very Support for NP Management in targeted investments in NP operational capacity for Ruaha and Southern Tanzania Kitulo NPs directly, with indirect support to surrounding PAs •Core NP operations strengthened in and WMAs. The focus on strengthening the core PAs, taking Southern Tanzania covering over into account the coordination mechanisms in component 1 will 22,000 km2 allow for the minimum level of investment to bring about •Management Effectiveness Score for economic sustainability for the NPs amid ecologically NPs in Southern Tanzania increased sustainable landscape management systems, providing for over the baseline score by at least 40%. sustained improvements in management effectiveness.

78

PART VII: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Table 14. Results Framework for Southern Tanzania PA Project: Outcomes and Indicators

Southern Tanzania’s biodiversity and ecosystem values are conserved and provide sustainable benefit flows at local, national and Project Goal: global levels through the establishment of landscape planning mechanisms and enhanced operational capacity.

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions

All stakeholders remain Two landscape level Within the GRL, A working model for Partnership agreements interested in the concept coordination TANAPA have integrating management and constitutions of of landscape level mechanisms are management plans for of NPs and wider coordination conservation during the Objective: The biodiversity of formalised to improve RUNAPA; WCS and productive landscapes is mechanisms, monitoring lifespan of the project Southern Tanzania is better biodiversity local government piloted and adapted; and evaluation of related and support the represented and buffered from threat conservation in GRL supporting development secures wildlife activities; creation of formalisation of within National Parks. and GKKL; two wildlife of Mbomipa and corridors and dispersal two wildlife corridors in coordination initiatives (GEF 5.3 mill USD) corridors are created in Umemaruwa WMAs. In areas covering over the GKKL landscape and the promotion of GKKL (Bujingijila and GKKL, KINAPA, 39,000 km2 in the GRL and documented support wildlife corridors to Numbe); two WMAs are MKGR and MRNR and GKKL ecological to WMA establishment enhance ecological consolidated in GRL. have management plans. landscapes. in the GRL. sustainability.

79

Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions

Documented reduction RUNAPA and KINAPA in poaching activity, lack operational capacity TANAPA management retaliatory wildfires set to manage park and staff will be open Two national parks Core NP operations by poachers, and grazing operations and poaching minded to developing (RUNAPA and strengthened in Southern of cattle where is common; MKGR is in their capacity in new KINAPA)and one game Tanzania covering over proscribed, good reports a vulnerable state of and ongoing areas; reserve (MKGR) have 22,000 km2 leading to from tourist industry and management and all relationships can be increased operational the effective detection tourists on customer three PAs open to risks built successfully to capacity to manage and deterrence of care; tourism options of fire and poaching; allow greater TANAPA themselves sustainably. poaching and fire risks. enhanced through the tourism is nascent and - WD operational addition of walking complaints about service coordination. safaris; films promote levels are common. the southern circuit. An increase in METT Landscape level scores in four PAs Fauna and Flora Government and their management remains across the two Monitoring procedures, community, civil society Landscapes maintain uncoordinated and landscapes by 40% on Biodiversity resources and private sector global biodiversity biodiversity is lost over average; monitoring assessments, Ministry partners in GRL and values; METT scores time within PAs and indicates species and landscape level GKKL are effectively are improved in the 4 buffer areas. Current diversity either Reports, and Project supported in training target PAs, especially METT scores as unaffected or increased; Docs, PA and and management to RUNAPA, KINAPA follows: RUNAPA Integrated landscape Landscape plans, maps ensure ongoing support and MKGR. (53), KINAPA (52), management approach is and GIS files, MTE and and engagement in the MKGR (21), MRNR replicated by TANAPA Terminal Evaluation process (40) : average: 42 elsewhere in southern (TE) Tanzania.

80

Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions

Existence of landscape TANAPA, PMORALG, Biodiversity Management activities level management plans WD, FBD and other management in NPs, are carried out on Inter-sectoral District and institutional related government GRs, NRs, wildlife WMA, district, regional land management mechanisms, minutes of institutions support a migration corridors and government and coordination mechanism meetings and subsequent landscape approach to dispersal areas is TANAPA level but with is emplaced in the GRL actions. Ministerial biodiversity factored into decision- a lack of a landscape and GKKL in Southern consent and ratification management, ratified at making governing land level coordination Tanzania. of plans at MNRT and national and local use management. mechanism PMORALG government level.

Development impacts in A systematic Monitoring of species sensitive areas have TANAPA, WD, 7 pilot conservation plan for TANAPA and MNRT and habitats is managed Component 1: Integrating been mitigated, District Authorities and both landscapes that are willing to engage a on an individual PA management of NPs and broader monitoring and civil society partners defines wildlife specialist assessment of level; understanding of landscapes in Southern Tanzania reporting systems are in plan, implement, and corridors and dispersal ecological situation for wildlife corridor (GEF 0.77 million USD) place, and enforcement monitor biodiversity areas, with EIA and both GRL and GKKL functions, species measures are operational management measures M&E systems has been PAs, buffer areas and movements and in GRL and GKKL for these landscapes ratified and is in use by their connectivity. dispersal areas limited. landscapes. GRL and GKKL. TANAPA has community conservation Two specialist units are TANAPA has the Land Use Planning and service and ecology developed by TANAPA competence and staff Ecological Monitoring TANAPA, PMORALG, departments in with partners; a land use skills to lead land use Units set up on a WD, FBD and RUNAPA and planning unit and an planning, management landscape level; communities work KINAPA; however ecological monitoring and monitoring in decisions and actions together in these units. lacking adequate unit landscapes documented coordination functions with external parties.

81

Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions

TANAPA has Relations with community conservation TANAPA has a staffed neighbouring service departments in community extension Community TANAPA, PMORALG, communities to PAs RUNAPA and services to ensure Conservation Unit set up WD, FBD and considerably improved: KINAPA; however effective engagement and running, decisions communities work lower instances of park-community between communities and actions documented. together in these units. human wildlife conflict, relations remain strained and park authorities and fires and poaching in some crucial border dispute resolution. areas. Recent developments in Agreed boundary Equitable public Public consultations are PA status, especially in beacons are in place consultations are Consultation process is completed in an open western Kitulo area, around three PAs: completed and managed with due care and fair manner; Mpanga Kipengere and RUNAPA, KINAPA management plans are and process; community beacons mark PA Usangu mean and MKGR, including completed, taking into and intra-ministry boundaries clearly boundaries are not clear; newly gazetted areas account the outcomes cooperation is secured. conflicts are a result. such as Usangu. for both.

Mpanga Kipengere GR Mpanga Kipengere GR WD and TANAPA, with is upgraded to NP Mpanga Kipengere Gazettement notice of is managed on a meagre MNRT, communities through consultative Game Reserve is raised MKGR as a NP; rise in budget, fires and and other stakeholders process, tourism to higher protected area wildlife numbers, rise in poaching are rife; agree that upgrading improves as do wildlife status as a national park tourism revenues tourism is minimal MKGR the right step numbers as a result

Mpanga Kipengere linked through Numbe Gazettement notice of Bujingijila and Numbe WD and TANAPA, with Wildlife are not able to valley corridor to Kitulo MKGR as a NP; valley corridors MNRT, communities move from GRL to NP to enable merging agreement to merge gazetted, the Kitulo- and agreement on a GKKL , linkages are the two parks. KINAPA and MGR; Kipengere NP is agreed merger of MKGR with weak within GKKL PAs Bujingijila also allows gazettement notice of and gazetted as a NP. KINAPA. linkages to Mount merged parks, if agreed. Rungwe Nature Reserve

82

Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions

Staff training Rangers have programmes are in place Ranger and staff training insufficient capacity in TANAPA , WD and across spectrum of in g programme in RUNAPA, KINAPA partners are willing to Systematic staff training operations in RUNAPA, existence in RUNAPA and MKGR to gather take lessons learned programme covering all KINAPA and MKGR, and KINAPA; MKGR intelligence on poaching from other countries and aspects of PA operations covering necessary has joint TANPA-WD and fires; relations with from NGOs, tour ensures 300 rangers, competencies for programme; guide tour operators and operators and other guides and other field planning, training and tourists often strained private sector partners staff meet necessary administration, documentary because of lack of on best practices for PA competencies. marketing, customer programmes in customer care capacity; staff in core and new care, conflict resolution, existence. lack of value-add competencies. policing and services. Component 2: Operations enforcement. Support for National Park Management in Southern Finance and business A sustainable finance Tanzania (GEF 4 million USD) TANAPA, WD, FBD planning has established plan is developed Business and financial Business planning in and other government management costs for approved and plans for each southern Tanzania's PAs and community partners different PAs and implemented for the PA landscape, with a focus lacks local context and willing to support the WMAs, and provides system in both GRL on each PA; a full and full understanding of the development of an accurate revenue and GKKL landscapes. comprehensive international dimension objective planning forecasts for each PA Business Planning is understanding of the of financial and business process for the and the wider landscape mandated for four PAs revenue generating planning requirements; sustainable financing of (GRL/GKKL) and as well as for two options for each PA and business planning is PAs in GRL and GKKL matches revenue to adjacent WMAs, along WMA in the context of limited a s result. and support priority management approved best practice each landscape. implementation. needs. guidelines.

83

Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions

RUNAPA and KINAPA lack operational capacity Business plans exist for The input of increased to manage park Funds, human resources both parks in operational HR capacity and funds operations in a and equipment are management. New staff Business plans set cost for equipment following sustainable manner , provided and deployed recruited. Surveillance co-efficients for all a business planning gaps exist in HR across to address threats to equipment – radios, prescribed PA functions approach has lead to park operations, lack of RUNAPA and KINAPA repeaters, GPS, cameras, and rolling operations greater efficiency and equipment means in a cost effective night vision and fire plans define site effectiveness of park difficulty to manage manner, utilising fighting equipment management priorities. operations in RUNAPA fires, poaching and business planning. purchased, trained on, and KINAPA. monitoring the logged and in use. ecosystem.

There is a marked lack A joint (TANAPA- Stakeholder committee of communication Stakeholder groups in Community-District- formed, joint largely due to TANAPA and partners both GRL and GKKL Private Sector) management plan insufficient funding are willing to work landscapes are engaging stakeholder group developed, and joint between different PA together, both between positively and formed to address enforcement systems authorities, local different PA authorities, constructively on overall management emplaced using the government, but also between civil biodiversity, land use issues in both RUNAPA Management Orientated communities, civil society actors, and management and and KINAPA, MKGR, Management System society and the private communities and the social and economic MRNR, wildlife (MOMS) in and around sector, causing private sector (especially growth issues, such as corridors and adjacent Ruaha and Kitulo NPs inefficiencies, tourism). tourism planning. WMAs is established for (covering a total area of misunderstanding and each landscape. at least 23,000 km2). occasional conflict.

84

OUTPUT – ACTIVITY DETAIL TO ACHIEVE OUTCOMES

Table 15. Project Components, with Outputs and Related Activities

Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate) Component 1: Integrating management of NPs and broader landscapes in Southern Tanzania

Output 1.1. Inter-sectoral District land management coordination mechanism between 1.1.4 Draft and Tanzania National Parks authority (TANAPA), final framework 1.1.2 Review of 1.1.3 Consultative district authorities and Wildlife Division (WD) is 1.1.1 Review of mechanism, 1.1.5 Initiate operational process to agree instituted, emplaced and enacted in the Greater governance accepted by activities and practices in on, and document Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere landscapes systems of existing stakeholder, in action plans for the existing coordination of Southern Tanzania, to ensure that biodiversity landscape place for newly established institutions in GRL mechanism management in National Parks, Game Reserves, management formalisation, coordination and GKKL formalisation wildlife migration corridors and dispersal areas is approaches disseminate and mechanism landscapes framework factored into decision-making governing land use finalise with management and coordinated action plans are stakeholders followed.

1.2.2. 1.2.1. Output 1.2. TANAPA, WD, 7 pilot District Consultations to Comprehensive Authorities and civil society partners plan, design 1.2.4. Feasibility oversight study implement, and monitor biodiversity management conservation and impact study carried out on 1.2.3. Management measures for these landscapes (systematic management plan carried out for the ecological context plans ratified, roles conservation plan is in place which (1) defines work plans with exact location, of both GRL and and responsibilities Greater Ruaha and Greater Kitulo-Kipengere framework and appropriate PA GKKL landscapes agreed and actions landscapes wildlife corridors and dispersal areas, strategic goals; legal format and and linkages, with determined and (2) EIA and impact management stipulations in plan defines management of particular focus on resultant measures place to avoid and/ or mitigate development habitat zones Bujingijila and species abundance are introduced impacts in sensitive areas, (3) monitoring and species Numbe wildlife and documenting reporting systems are in place, and (4) as a result, movements, corridors wildlife enforcement measures are operational). wildlife corridors movements. and dispersal areas

85

Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)

1.3.3. Land Use 1.3.4 Ecological 1.3.2. Selected Planning Unit sets Monitoring Unit, 1.3.1. Selected TANAPA staff up, under sets up, under 1.3.5 LUP and Output 1.3. TANAPA has the competence and TANAPA staff provided with landscape planning landscape planning Ecological staff skills to lead land use planning, management provided with comprehensive mechanisms, a mechanisms, an Monitoring Units and monitoring in landscapes; working with comprehensive training on land use ecological coordinate partners to assess hydrological dynamics, make training on management and coordination monitoring respective activates predictions of climate change trends and gauge national land use monitoring in committee with committee with and report back to long term impacts on biodiversity conservation. planning acts and landscapes; WMA leaders, WMA leaders, TANAPA and the Two specialist units are developed by TANAPA policies and in ecological and district district landscape with partners; a land use planning unit and an GRL/GKKL water monitoring representatives representatives management ecological monitoring unit, and are in place. contexts: LUP unit unit created under (PMORALG, WD, (PMORALG, WD, coordination created the Ecology FBD) and civil FBD) and civil committees. Department society observer- society observer- advisors. advisors.

1.4.2. CCS staff in 1.4.1. Current both GRL and TANAPA GKKL landscapes 1.4.3. Community Community set up a Output 1.4. TANAPA has a staffed community Consultation Units Conservation community extension services to ensure effective engagement coordinate extension staff consultation between communities and park authorities and respective activates numbers are at coordination unit dispute resolution. A specialist community and report back to least doubled in with district and conservation unit is developed by TANAPA with TANAPA and the both Ruaha and communities to partners; a land use planning unit and an landscape Kitulo NPs and link TANAPA ecological monitoring unit, and are in place and management provided training o activities with park-community relations improved. coordination best practices in developments in committees. CBNRM and the WMA areas and local context PFM (CBFM and JFM)

86

Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate) Output 1.5. For Ruaha and Kitulo NPs, boundaries 1.5.3 1.5.1. Community for recent /planned PA extensions (being Usangu Demarcation of consultation 1.5.2 Management Game Reserve and Mpanga Kipengere Game boundaries around process on plans updated if Reserve respectively) are demarcated, associated Ruaha and Kitulo boundaries with necessary to reflect public consultations are completed and respective NP and Mpanga District LUP teams any changes management plans are completed, taking into Kipengere GR defines boundaries account the outcomes for both. with beacons

1.6.1 Costs benefit 1.6.2. Consultative 1.6.3 If agreed, analysis and Output 1.6. Following a government-driven process carried out Mpanga Kipengere feasibility study feasibility assessment, with transparent with communities GR elevated to NP commissioned to community consultations, Mpanga Kipengere on the proposed status through weigh up whether Game Reserve is raised to higher protected area upgrade is carried government Mpanga Kipengere status as a national park. out, costs and gazettement notice should be raised to benefits discussed and due process NP status 1.7.3 Through the Output 1.7. Three PAs; Mount Rungwe, Kitulo 1.7.1 Costs benefit 1.7.2 Following Numbe valley and Mpanga Kipengere are linked ecologically analysis and due consultation corridor, if through the development and demarcation of (1) feasibility study and process, feasible, Kitulo Bujingijila and (2) Numbe valley wildlife corridor commissioned to wildlife corridors and Mpanga extensions. Further public and government weigh up MRNR, legally gazetted Kipengere PAs consultations lead to the merging of Kitulo KINAPA and and established in merged under National Park and the Mpanga Kipengere National MKGR can be Bujingijila and TANAPA Park under one management. ecologically linked Numbe corridors management Component 2: Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania

87

Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate) 2.1.1. Following feasibility 2.1.2. Dedicated 2.1.5 Specialist assessment of guide training 2.1.3. Dedicated 2.1.4 Specialist training provided numbers required, centre set up in nature training provided to selected admin, new rangers RUNAPA as a documentary film to selected admin, management and Output 2.1. Systematic staff training programme recruited in national level pilot. until set up and ranger and guiding planning staff in covering all aspects of PA operations ensures 300 RUNAPA and >100 TANAPA installed in staff in RUNAPA RUNAPA and rangers, guides and other field staff meet KINAPA; ranger and WD rangers RUNAPA to and KINAPA on KINAPA on necessary competencies for planning, training provided trained as guides to produce in-house customer care, integrating all administration, marketing, customer care, conflict in both parks and internationally documentaries for conflict resolution aspects of resolution, policing and enforcement in Ruaha and to visiting rangers recognised criteria sale and for and other aspects operations through Kitulo National Parks and Mpanga Kipengere from MKGR. for trails guiding promotional of tourism an integrated Game Reserve. Special focus including problem purposes, aimed at management, with planning given on animal the southern circuit guests from mechanism, with intelligence and management, in particular. MKGR. observers from enforcement ballistics, ecology MKGR. aspects of and customer care. operations

Output 2.2. A sustainable finance plan is developed approved and implemented for the PA 2.2.1. Finance 2.2.2. In 2.2.3. In system in both landscapes. Together, these define plan is collaboration with collaboration with management costs, provide accurate revenue commissioned by 2.2.4. PA and WD, WMAs and WD, FBD and forecasts (from gate fees, concessions, film rights, TANAPA/UNDP landscape level other partners, other partners, improvements in tourism offers and other to external financial plans are GRL landscape GKKL landscape permissible uses to public and private sector specialists and discussed and level financial plan level financial plan investments), and match revenue opportunities to developed for agreed in plenary. is commissioned is commissioned priority management needs. Results are RUNAPA and and developed and developed incorporated into landscape planning mechanisms KINAPA and acted upon by TANAPA and partners.

88

Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)

2.3.1 Comprehensive Output 2.3. Business Planning is mandated for business planning 2.3.2 Business Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks and Mpanga process is plans for Kipengere Game Reserve along approved best undertaken to individual PAs and practice guidelines and utilising the sustainable provide cost- GRL and GKKL financing plan. Business plans set cost co- benefit analysis landscapes are efficients for all prescribed PA functions and and prioritise HR produced, agreed rolling operations plans define site management and equipment and implemented. priorities. needs according to operational requirements.

2.4.2. In 2.4.3. In KINAPA RUNAPA, >10 >10 new staff Output 2.4. Based on business planning, funds, new staff recruited recruited according human resources and equipment (surveillance according to to business equipment – radios, repeaters, GPS, cameras, business planning planning night vision and fire fighting equipment) are requirements; requirements; provided and deployed to address threats to NPs in equipment bought, equipment bought, a cost effective manner. installed, trained installed, trained on and in on and in operation. operation.

89

Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate) 2.5.1. A GRL Output 2.5. A joint (TANAPA-Community- 2.5.2. A GKKL Stakeholder group 2.5.3. GRL 2.5.4. GKKL District-Private Sector) stakeholder group formed Stakeholder group set up involving stakeholder group stakeholder group to address overall management issues in both set up involving TANAPA, WD, is operationalized is operationalized Ruaha and Kitulo NPs and adjacent Wildlife TANAPA, WD, 2.5.5 A lessons PMORALG, and works with and works with Management Areas (WMAs) is established FBD, PMORALG, learning WMA landscape landscape (committee formed, joint management plan community, tour coordination body management, tour coordination coordination developed, and joint enforcement systems operators and allows bi-annual operators and mechanisms and mechanisms and emplaced using the Management Orientated active NGOs meetings between active NGOs business planning business planning Management System (MOMS) in Ruaha and formed to address GRL and GKKL formed to address processes to advise processes to advise Kitulo NPs (covering a total area of at least 23,000 biodiversity, land stakeholder groups biodiversity, land on landscape on landscape km2). The group utilises in practice the and economic and economic management management government landscape plans initiated in management issues management issues issues. issues. component 1. including tourism. including tourism. Project Management: Ensures effective project administration, M&E, and coordination have enabled timely and efficient implementation of project activities. 5.1.3 Develop and 5.1.1 Ensure all 5.1.4 Produce implement a 5.1.5 Liaise with requisite facilities quarterly and 5.1.2 Produce detailed project UNDP CO, and and annual technical Effective project administration, M&E, and annual work plans Monitoring and UNDP - GEF to communication and financial coordination have enabled timely and efficient for the timely Evaluation (M&E) organize mid and channels for reports for GEF implementation of project activities. achievement of Plan, based on the end-of project effective project and GRL/GKKL project objectives. shortened version reviews and management are in landscape articulated in this evaluations place. stakeholders. Project Document.

90

PART VIII: PROJECT TOTAL BUDGET

310. Total project financing amounts to USD 17,364,500, excluding preparatory costs. Of this, the GEF is expected to finance USD 5,304,500. See details on Total Budget and Work plan below. Total Budget and Work plan Award ID: 00060996 Award Title: Strengthened National Terrestrial Protected Area Networks, Tanzania PIMS 3253 Project ID: 00077042 Strengthening the Protected Area Network in Southern Tanzania: Improving the Effectiveness of National Parks in Addressing Threats to Project Title: Biodiversity IMPLEMENTING TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS (TANAPA), MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM, TANZANIA PARTNER:

Amount Amount Amount Amount Atlas Amount GEF (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) ResParty Budget (USD) Total Budget Component/Atlas SoF Input/ Descriptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 5 (IA) Account Year 3 (USD) Notes Activity (2011- (2012 - (2014- (2015- Code (2013-14) 12) 13) 15) 16)

COMPONENT 1. Integrating management of NPs and broader landscapes in Southern Tanzania TANAPA GEF 71200 International Consultants 60,000 12,000 45,000 45,000 162,000 1 Contractual Services - TANAPA GEF 72100 200,000 90,000 50,000 340,000 2 Companies TANAPA GEF 75700 Training 100,000 15,000 50,000 40,000 40000 245,000 3

TANAPA GEF 74100 Professional Services 20,000 20,000 4 TANAPA GEF 72210 Machinery and Equipment 20,000 40,000 60,000 5 TANAPA GEF 74210 Printing and Publications 20,000 20,000 6 TANAPA GEF 71600 Travel 40,000 20,000 18,000 10,000 5000 93,000 7

91

Amount Amount Amount Amount Atlas Amount GEF (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) ResParty Budget (USD) Total Budget Component/Atlas SoF Input/ Descriptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 5 (IA) Account Year 3 (USD) Notes Activity (2011- (2012 - (2014- (2015- Code (2013-14) 12) 13) 15) 16) Total Component 1 (GEF) 440,000 145,000 170,000 95,000 90,000 940,000 0 COMPONENT 2. Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania TANAPA GEF 71200 International Consultants 180,000 180,000 8 TANAPA GEF 71300 Local Consultants 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 700,000 9 TANAPA GEF 71100 Employee Costs 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 1,200,000 10 Contractual Services - TANAPA GEF 72100 920,000 920,000 11 Companies TANAPA GEF 72210 Machinery and Equipment 405,000 405,000 12 TANAPA GEF 75700 Training 90,000 35,000 60,000 185,000 13 TANAPA GEF 74100 Professional Services 50,000 20,000 10,000 80,000 14 TANAPA GEF 74210 Printing and Publications 20,000 10,000 30,000 15 TANAPA GEF 71600 Travel 30,000 65,000 40,000 135,000 16 Total Component 2 (GEF) 380,000 1,670,000 905,000 500,000 380,000 3,835,000

GEF 71200 International Consultants 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 390,000 17 Service Contracts – GEF 30,000 30,000 60,000 18 71400 Individuals Project GEF 71300 Local Consultants 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 52,500 19 Management GEF 71600 Travel 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 20 GEF 72210 Machinery and Equipment 2,000 2,000 21 Total Project Management 95,500 93,500 123,500 93,500 123,500 529,500 (GEF)

92

Amount Amount Amount Amount Atlas Amount GEF (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) ResParty Budget (USD) Total Budget Component/Atlas SoF Input/ Descriptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 5 (IA) Account Year 3 (USD) Notes Activity (2011- (2012 - (2014- (2015- Code (2013-14) 12) 13) 15) 16) PROJECT TOTAL 915,500 1,908,500 1,198,500 688,500 593,500 5,304,500

93

1.28 Co-Financing summary

Name of Co-financier (source) Classification Type Project (USD) % TANAPA Government Cash 10,700,000 89

Wildlife Division Government In Kind 150,000 1 Prime Minister’s Office Regional Administration and Local Government In Kind Government (PMORALG) 210,000 2 UNDP Imp.Agency Cash 1,000,000 8 Total Co-financing 12,060,000 100

94

1.29 Budget Notes

General Cost Factors: Local consultants (LC) are budgeted at USD $1,750 per week. International consultants (IC) are budgeted at USD $3,000 per week. This is based on UNDP Tanzania standard rates.

Component 1: Integrating management of NPs and broader landscapes in Southern Tanzania 1. International Consultants (IC). IC will be hired to review governance systems of existing landscape management approaches (10 weeks) then to review operational practices in existing institutions in GRL and GKKL landscapes (8 weeks) then present and share then finalise these recommendations with the landscape managers (2 weeks). IC will also be hired to carry out a full assessment of current and alternative income generation activities amongst buffer zone communities and suggest interventions (4 weeks). IC will be hired to carry out an extensive feasibility analysis with stakeholders on the potential of Mpanga Kipengere GR to be raised to National Park status (15 weeks.) IC will be hired to carry out costs benefit analysis and feasibility study commissioned to weigh up if MRNR, KINAPA and MKGR can be ecologically linked (15 weeks). (54 weeks total) Sub Total: $162,000. 2. Contractual Services – Companies (CS). CS will be recruited in open processes and utilised to carry out the following activities: a comprehensive oversight study carried out on ecological context of both GRL and GKKL landscapes and linkages, with particular focus on species abundance and documenting wildlife movements and including GIS and ground truthing mapping exercises ($200,000); TANAPA staff provided with comprehensive training on national land use planning acts and policies and in GRL/GKKL contexts: LUP unit created ($30,000); TANAPA staff provided with comprehensive training on management and monitoring in landscapes; ecological and water monitoring unit created ($30,000); TANAPA staff provided with training on community conservation in landscapes, community conservation unit enhanced ($30,000); water management training provided to water users in both landscapes ($30,000); land use planning and boundary demarcation process, including mapping and beacon emplacement; general management planning completed ($20,000). (6 distinct contracts). Sub Total: $340,000. 3. Training. Trainings will be utilised to ensure preparation and awareness activities are carried out to achieve the following project outputs: Inter-sectoral District land management coordination mechanism created through consultative process; systematic conservation plan is created; a land use planning unit and an ecological monitoring unit are created through consultations; specialist community conservation unit is developed; boundaries for recent /planned PA extensions are demarcated, associated public consultations are completed; following a government-driven feasibility assessment, with transparent community consultations, Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve is raised to higher protected area status as a national park; three PAs are linked ecologically through the development and demarcation of two wildlife corridor extensions. Further public and government consultations lead to the merging of Kitulo National Park and Mpanga Kipengere under one management. (Seven stages of stakeholder / public consultations in GRL and GKKL landscapes, multiple locations, over five years) Sub Total: $ 245,000. 4. Professional Services. Legal Specialists will be recruited for ratification of memoranda of understanding and related articles in formulation of the various landscape coordination mechanisms in order to ensure the agreements reside in law. Sub Total:

$20,000. 5. Machinery and Equipment. The following equipment will be purchased as investments to assist the outcomes of component 1: laptops, GIS software and GPS for the use of the dedicated landscape ecological monitoring units, for two landscape units (GRL and GKKL) ($20,000); specialised map making equipment, paper and printers to ensure stakeholders have access to landscape maps ($5,000); the provision of beacons and related equipment for demarcation of protected area boundaries ($35,000). Sub Total: $60,000. 6. Printing and Publications. Funds will be required to ensure adequate stakeholder awareness of landscape coordination, conservation and management plans therefore once complete these will be printed and disseminated to all key stakeholders in both GRL and GKKL landscapes. Sub Total: $20,000. 7. Travel. Funds will be required for travel for consultants, contractors and project staff to reach landscape sites whether for research, project management or stakeholder meetings as well as to national level meetings. Stakeholders will be required to attend national and / or landscape level meetings and seminars as appropriate to the particular output and activity. Sub Total $93,000 Total Component 1 (GEF): USD $940,000

Component 2: Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania 8. International Consultants (IC). IC will be hired to: create a sustainable finance plan that is developed approved and implemented for the PA system in both landscapes (40 weeks). IC will also be utilised to carry out a comprehensive business planning process in the PAs within the landscapes to provide cost-benefit analysis and prioritise HR and equipment needs according to operational requirements (20 weeks). (60 weeks total) Sub Total: $180,000. 9. Local Consultants (LC). LC will be hired to provide specific technical support to landscape and PA operations capacity development activities, both to project managers, stakeholders, contractors and International Consultants in both GRL and GKKL landscapes, termed Landscape Technical Specialists. LTS will be utilised to ensure the landscape linkages and mechanism promoted throughout the project are supported and understood by all stakeholders in the process. Specifically, LC will be utilised to facilitate the process of creating and supporting a joint stakeholder group in order to address overall management issues in both landscapes including committee formation, joint management plans, and joint enforcement systems using the Management Orientated Management System (MOMS). (400 weeks). Sub Total: $700,000. 10. Employee Costs. Project funds will be used as an investment into human resources for the five years of this project to recruit and pay for at least 10 TANAPA staff according to business planning requirements in both Ruaha and Kitulo NPs, at least 20 in all, at gross costs of $12,000 per year per person for five years. Sub Total: $1,200,000 11. Contractual Services – Companies (CS). CS will be recruited in open processes and utilised to fulfil training programme recruitment, as a key part of providing training and capacity building to TANAPA and Wildlife Division staff, being training contracts for: paramilitary and anti-poaching ($75,000); specialist guided walking safaris course and unit creation ($350,000); tourism customer care course ($65,000); film and documentary unit creation and training ($300,000); Intelligence and counter-intelligence ($65,000) and administration, PA management and planning course ($65,000). (6 distinct contracts). Sub Total: $920,000. 12. Machinery and Equipment. The following equipment will be purchased as

96 investments to assist the outcomes of component 2, notably in supporting the operational capacity of PAs, in both landscapes, in particular: surveillance equipment, including binoculars and night vision ($50,000); laptops and GIS software for field patrols, anti-poaching an, intelligence and ecological monitoring ($20,000); cameras ($6,000); video cameras (6,000); fire fighting equipment (150,000); Radio handhelds, base stations and repeaters ($150,000); water bottles ($2,500); bush knives and pocket knives ($7,500) and first aid equipment ($8,000). (Sub Total: $405,000 13. Training. Trainings will be utilised to ensure preparation and awareness activities are carried out to achieve the following project outputs: A sustainable finance plan is developed approved and implemented for the PA system in both landscapes. Results are incorporated into landscape planning mechanisms and acted upon by TANAPA and partners; business Planning is mandated for Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks and Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve along approved best practice guidelines and utilising the sustainable financing plan; based on business planning, trainings are provided and deployed to address threats to NPs in a cost effective manner; A joint stakeholder group formed to address overall management issues in both Ruaha and Kitulo NPs and adjacent Wildlife Management Areas is established. (Five stages of stakeholder / public consultations in GRL and GKKL landscapes, over five years) Sub Total: $185,000. 14. Professional Services. Legal and/or accountancy specialists will be recruited for specific tasks in order to ensure agreements reside in law or have robust financial systems: interactive landscapes level financial planning system created based on consultant findings ($30,000); PA level interactive business plans created (based on consultant findings ($20,000); equipment management and monitoring system created for all PAs in the two landscapes, with training component ($15,000); legal agreements over outcomes of stakeholder group initiations and developments ($15,000) Sub Total: $80,000. 15. Printing and Publications. Funds will be required to ensure adequate stakeholder awareness of the various planning and stakeholder processes as well as training processes for strengthened operational capacity: financial plans publication and distribution ($10,000); business plans publication and distribution ($10,000); stakeholder group documentation and distribution ($10,000). Sub Total: $30,000. 16. Travel. Funds will be required for travel for consultants, contractors and project staff to reach landscape sites whether for research, project management or stakeholder meetings as well as to national level meetings. Trainings will also need significant travel costs. Stakeholders will be required to attend national and / or landscape level meetings and seminars as appropriate to the particular output and activity. Sub Total $135,000 Total Component 2 (GEF): USD $3,830,000

Project Management: Ensures effective project administration and coordination have enabled timely and efficient implementation of project activities. 17. International Consultants: $390,000 has been allocated to support the Project Coordination Unit, where related to project management (130 weeks). Sub Total: $390,000 18. Service Contracts – Individuals. External contractors will be hired for midterm ($30,000) and final evaluations ($30,000). Sub Total: $60,000 19. Local Consultants: $52,500 has been allocated to support the work of the Project Coordination Unit to be backed up by a part time administrator/accountant, and where management related, with support from two landscape technical specialists, on local consultant terms (30 weeks). Sub Total: $52,500

97 20. Travel: A total of $25,000 has been budgeted for non project specific activities travel by staff of the PCU to allow for effective project coordination between the PCU and the two different landscapes and numerable field sites within them. Sub Total: $25,000. 21. Machinery and Equipment: $2,000 has been budgeted for computer upgrades and services. Sub Total: $2,000 Total Project Management (GEF): USD $529,500

WORKPLAN. This budget will used as the basis for the preparation of Annual Work Plans by the Project Coordination Unit.

98 ANNEX I: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PART I: Other agreements The Letters of Co-financing are attached as separate files.

PART II: Terms of References for key project staff and main sub- contracts The ToRs and related budgets for key project staff and principal consultants are presented in Annex C, D and E of the CEO Endorsement Document.

PART III: Tracking Tools These are presented in Annex III (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tools) and Annex IV (Financial Scorecards) below and in Annex F and Annex G respectively of the CEO Endorsement Document.

99 ANNEX II: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

1.30 Stakeholder Overview

Table 16. Key PA Management Stakeholders, Role and Responsibilities Stakeholder Role and Responsibilities Day to day monitoring of WMAs, maintaining support to Village Environmental Individual Households Committees, benefitting from tourism, taking personal responsibilities for natural resources. Maintaining support to NR committees, benefitting from community outreach Local Communities programmes, taking personal responsibilities for PAs. Overall management and accountability of community managed areas to wider Village Councils rural communities, coordination with District Authorities and outsiders. PAs policy implementation and support of communities sustainable District Councils conservation programmes Manage the processes of PAs management on a national level, implementing Government Departments relevant policies, linkages with other government departments Developing directives, policy, guidelines and monitoring progress as well as Central Government coordinating sectors involved Support development of markets and economic growth. Provide financial Private Sector incentives for best management of PAs, work with government and villages to support good practice in NRs management. Develop civil society capacity on a local level to support social development, CBOs economic growth and sustainable water and natural resources management

Develop civil society capacity on a national level to support social development, National NGOs economic growth and sustainable water and NRs management. Develop civil society capacity on a regional level to support, social International NGOs development, economic growth, sustainable water and PAs management, support international advocacy and environmental education. Support PAs management and economic growth through sound policy guidance Government Ministries and implementation, linkages and overlap with other ministries.

1.31 Stakeholder Involvement Plan

22. The project will provide the following opportunities for long-term participation of all stakeholders, with a special emphasis on the active participation of local communities: 23. Decision-making – through the landscape mechanisms and stakeholder groups. The establishment of these structures will follow a participatory and transparent process involving the confirmation of all stakeholders; conducting one-to-one consultations with all stakeholders; development of Terms of Reference and ground-rules; inception meeting to agree on the constitution, ToR and ground-rules for the mechanism and its active land use planning, ecological monitoring and community development units. 24. Capacity building – at systemic, institutional and individual level – is one of the key strategic interventions of the project and will target all stakeholders that have the potential to be involved in brokering, implementing and/or monitoring management agreements related to activities in and around the reserves. The project will target especially organizations operating at the community level to enable them to actively participate in developing and implementing management agreements.

100 25. Communication - will include the participatory development of an integrated communication strategy. 26. The communication strategy will be based on the following key principles:  providing information to all stakeholders;  promoting dialogue between all stakeholders;  promoting access to information. 27. The project will be launched by a well-publicized multi-stakeholder inception workshop. This workshop will provide an opportunity to provide all stakeholders with updated information on the project as well as a basis for further consultation during the project’s implementation, and will refine and confirm the work plan. 28. Based on the extensive list of stakeholders (mostly consulted) a more specific stakeholder involvement strategy and plan can be developed at that inception stage.

Goal and Objectives for Stakeholder Involvement 29. The social sustainability of activities and outputs is addressed through the execution of a stakeholder capacity analysis and the elaboration of a detailed collaborative management involvement strategy and plan which identifies stakeholders’ interests, desired levels of involvement, capacities for participation (at different levels) and potential conflicts and, responsive mitigation measures.

Principles of Stakeholder Participation 30. Based on the stakeholder analysis carried out during the PPG phase it is clear that different levels of capacity development activities will be required at the landscape level on the level of the individual PAs. The two landscapes with which the project will work are quite different in nature, composition of members and technical needs on the ground. It is therefore recommended at the generic proposal for capacity development activities will be refined and regularly updated at the level of each landscape. 31. Capacity needs fall overall into four main categories:  Awareness raising and knowledge development about a landscape approach:  Knowledge and skills for coordinating PAs within landscapes  Technical knowledge and skills  Financial support and investments

The stakeholder participation plan that is further developed at inception will also be based on the principles outlined below. Table 17. Stakeholder participation principles Principle Stakeholder participation will: Value Adding be an essential means of adding value to the project Inclusivity include all relevant stakeholders Accessibility and be accessible and promote access to the process Access be based on transparency and fair access to information; main provisions of the Transparency project’s plans and results will be published in local mass-media Fairness ensure that all stakeholders are treated in a fair and unbiased way Accountability be based on a commitment to accountability by all stakeholders Constructive seek to manage conflict and promote the public interest Redressing seek to redress inequity and injustice Capacitating seek to develop the capacity of all stakeholders Needs Based be based on the needs of all stakeholders Flexible be flexibly designed and implemented

101 Principle Stakeholder participation will: Rational and be rationally planned and coordinated, and not be ad hoc Coordinated Excellence be subject to ongoing reflection and improvement

1.32 Long-term Stakeholder Participation

32. A comprehensive stakeholder analysis was undertaken during the preparation phase. Site visits were carried out through both landscapes. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to key government agencies like TANAPA, regional government and local authorities (to provide support through their administrative functions), the private sector, civil society and local communities. 33. Project design reflects strong and effective two-way dialogue between relevant stakeholders at all stages. The full project will continue in this vein, and includes significant investment in a Knowledge Management system, for coordinating the collection, storage, analysis and dissemination of a wide range of information related to TANAPA’s conservation mandate, and particularly focused on the management of protected areas. In order to ensure the absolute best use is made of this resource, the project will endeavour to ensure that appropriate and sustainable lines of communication are established between communities, TANAPA and other stakeholders. 34. The current institutions responsible for PAs regulations, planning and management in Tanzania and their corresponding strengths and weaknesses are shown below: Table 18. Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis of Institutions responsible for PAs Institutions Responsibility Strengths Weaknesses Organized structure with strong Government bureaucracy. government support. Regulation and

Planning/Planning Limited resources (financial Wildlife Division Availability of communication and Management of and personnel). networks. Game Reserves

Strong management. Have good technical knowhow. Inadequate funding.

Tanzania Wildlife Wildlife research International connections. Research Institute and Animal Inadequate manpower.

(TAWIRI) Censuses Good working relationship with Inadequate facilities. key stakeholders. Inadequate funding. Good training capabilities. Inadequate facilities Training of Park Mweka Wildlife College with long training Wardens for PAs experience and high reputation in Inadequate human resources Central and Southern Africa. both academic and administrative Inadequate funding. Pasiansi Training Training of Rangers The only training institute for

Institute for PAs Rangers. Inadequate facilities. Under-funding.

Training of Well established institution in the Inadequate teaching Sokoine University Ecologists/Natural training if high calibre wildlife facilities. of Agriculture Resources mgt personnel. Management Inadequate human resources both academic and

102 Institutions Responsibility Strengths Weaknesses administrative

Under-funding.

Inadequate teaching Ecologist/Natural Well established institution in the facilities. University of Dar- Resources training if high calibre wildlife es-Salaam Management mgt personnel. Inadequate human resources both academic and administrative

Good linkages and partnerships Wildlife Fund for local and international. Nature (WWF) Good technical capacity. Frankfurt Zoological Society Adequate funding. Lack of programs linkages (FZS) among the NGOs. Technical and Local teams in place on the financial support African Wildlife ground. Fund (AWF) Different programs addressing Wildlife biodiversity conservation. Conservation Society (WCS) Education programs at community levels and schools. Existence of well established and Insufficient human and developed tourism mgt in the financial resources to carry NPs. out its mandates.

Existence of strong, well defined Excessive dependency on governance and mgt structure. donors.

Existence of strong financial base Vulnerable to political backed up by Conservation NGOs instability. Planning and and development partners. Tanzania National Management of Park (TANAPA) Vulnerable to disease national parks Well developed management outbreaks. systems (Financial and Difficult relationship with operational systems). the local communities due

to human-wildlife Well developed ICT conflicts/benefit sharing. infrastructure.

Inadequate equipment Existence of skilled and infrastructure for law professional staff at all levels. enforcement.

Shortage of skilled manpower. Regulation through Strong legislative powers. National National Environmental Inadequate financial Environmental Strong mandate to coordinate all Management resources. Management Act, matters related to environment. Council 2005. Inadequate working gear.

103 ANNEX III: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOLS

1.33 METT for Ruaha National Park

Table 19. Reporting Progress in Tanzania’s Protected Areas: RUNAPA

Name of protected area Ruaha National Park

Location of protected area (country and if Iringa Region possible map reference) Agreed Gazetted: 1964 annexation Date of establishment (distinguish between to UGR 2008 agreed and gazetted*)

Ownership details (i.e. owner, State tenure rights etc)

Management Authority TANAPA Size (ha) 20, 226 km2

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 186 8

Budget Combined with the former Usangu Game Reserve: TZS 2,299,396, 202 Designations (IUCN category, N/A World Heritage, Ramsar etc) N/A Reasons for designation Brief details of World Bank N/A funded project or projects in PA Brief details of WWF funded N/A project or projects in PA Brief details of other relevant N/A projects in PA List the two primary RUNAPA objectives Protect and maintain the park integrity and its wilderness character as well as its full Objective 1 range of landforms, habitats and biodiversity Promote sustainable tourism Objective 2

List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen) Dry out of GRR because of upper catchment abstraction of water and opening of paddy Threat 1 cultivation Poaching because of lack adequate patrol equipments Threat 2

List top two critical management activities Protection and law enforcement Activity 1

Provision of water resources Activity 2

104 Date assessed 14 August 2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka

Details of those assessed/ Acting Chief Park Warden , Godwell Elias Ole Mang’ataki, P.O.Box 369 Iringa interviewed (incl. name, position/post, phone, email)

105 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0 Gazetted

Does the protected The government has agreed that the protected area should be 1 area have legal gazetted but the process has not yet begun status? The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the 2 process is still incomplete The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case 3 Context of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar) 2. Protected area There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land 0 Proper regulations are in place regulations use and activities in the protected area Wildlife Conservation Act 2009 (Number 5) Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and National Park Establishment Act Are inappropriate activities in the protected area exist, but there are large gaps. 1 land uses and Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use and 2 activities (e.g. activities in the protected area exist. poaching/hunting) Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and 3 controlled? activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented Context 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce 0 Lack of vehicles, ranger posts, equipments (radio, GPS repeater enforcement protected area legislation and regulations stations. There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to 1 Lack proper training and uniforms and fire controls Can staff enforce enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack protected area rules of skills, no patrol budget) well enough? The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce 2 protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain Context The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce 3 protected area legislation and regulations 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed 1 Is PA managed with according to these objectives the aim of meeting The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only 2 the stated objectives? partially implemented The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to 3 Planning meet these objectives

106 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 5. Protected area Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas 0 Need extra routes needed to access the Usangu area and Ruaha NP design major management objectives of the protected area is Resources improvements needed: personnel, financial and equipment impossible Landscape planning Does the protected Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major 1 area need enlarging, objectives are constrained to some extent corridors etc to meet Design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 its objectives? major objectives, but could be improved Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement 3 Planning of major objectives of the protected area 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the 0 On ground identification and demarcation needed especially usangu boundary management authority or local residents/neighbouring land area demarcation users The boundary of the protected area is known by the 1 Is the boundary management authority but is not known by local known and residents/neighbouring land users demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the 2 management authority and local residents but is not Context appropriately demarcated The boundary of the protected area is known by the 3 management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Not all activities are implemented as planned due to inadequate funds, A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared 1 HR and equipments Is there a but is not being implemented management plan A management plan exists but it is only being partially 2 and is it being implemented because of funding constraints or other implemented? problems A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points 7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for +1 In law enforcement, regular meeting and some collaboration with key stakeholders to influence the management plan district Plan is 5-10yrs updated. Strategic plan on the departmental level also 7.2 There is an established schedule and process for periodic +1 exist review and updating of the management plan E.g. results of water levels, drought lead to annexation of Usangu to 7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are +1 Ruaha and Rabies in the village led to vaccination to prevent spread to Planning routinely incorporated into planning wild animals

107 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 Depends on the budget allocated from the TANAPA HQ

Is there an annual A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored 1 work plan? against the plan’s targets A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against 2 the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the 3 Planning/Outputs plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical 0 Little research done in Southern TZ Pas inventory habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area Last inventory was in 1970 Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 1 Information exist is either incomprehensive or not up-to-date Do you have good values of the protected area is not sufficient to support Need info for corridors/connectivity information which planning and decision making you use to manage Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 2 the area? values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and 3 Context cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained 10. Protection Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are 0 Poaching, illegal fishing and livestock entering the PA still exist Systems not effective in controlling access/resource use. Sometimes off road driving exist. Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially 1 Are systems in place effective in controlling access/resource use. to control access Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately 2 resources use in the effective in controlling access/resource use. protected area Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or 3 wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use. Process/Outcome

11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the 0 Ecological monitoring and department responsible for disease need protected area strengthened in terms of resources and personnel. Is there a programme of management- There is some ad hoc survey and research work 1 orientated monitoring and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not 2 research work? directed towards the needs of protected area management

108 Issue Criteria 2010 Note There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey 3 Inputs and research work, which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 0 Some interventions are underway to know the disease levels management species and cultural values have not been assessed Water initiatives to ensure flow during dry season are tried out Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 1 Is the protected area species and cultural values are known but are not being being managed addressed consistent to its Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 2 objectives (e.g. for species and cultural values are only being partially fire, invasive species, addressed poaching)? Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 3 species and cultural values are being substantially or fully Process addressed 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 After annexation of UGR staff level required to be considerably increased but has not happened so far Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management 1 people employed to activities manage the protected area? Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical 2 management activities Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the 3 site 14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0 Training needs assessment and training in specific areas is needed

Is there enough Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the 1 training for staff? protected area Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further 2 improved to fully achieve the objectives of management Staff training and skills are in tune with the management 3 Inputs/Process needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs 15. Current budget There is no budget for the protected area 0

Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management 1 sufficient? needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable, but could be further 2 Inputs improved to fully achieve effective management

109 Issue Criteria 2010 Note The available budget is sufficient and meets the full 3 management needs of the protected area 16. Security of There is no secure budget for the protected area and 0 Ruaha budget is not enough to run itself , it depends from TANAPA budget management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year core collection. However, will well planned activities there are chances funding to increase its revenue Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area 1 Due to last year economic crisis revenue have plummeted necessitated could not function adequately without outside funding the allocation from HQ to be monthly basis instead of quarterly There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected 2 area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on Inputs outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its 3 management needs on a multi-year cycle 17. Management of Budget management is poor and significantly undermines 0 Well budget management budget effectiveness Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 critical management needs? Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness 3

Process 18. Equipment There is little or no equipment and facilities 0 Need to improve equipments to strengthening patrols and law enforcements especially after annexation of Usangu to Ruaha NP Is equipment There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly 1 adequately inadequate maintained? There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps 2 that constrain management Process There is adequate equipment and facilities 3

19. Maintenance of There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 0 equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and 1 Is equipment facilities adequately maintained? There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there 2 are some important gaps in maintenance Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3

110 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 PA adjacent Rauha/Buffer (MBOMIPA) lacks capacity to enforce laws awareness and proper management programme There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness 1 The park has increase in size significantly and so is the area Is there a planned programme, but no overall planning for this surrounding it therefore staff and equipment needs to match that education There is a planned education and awareness programme but 2 programme? there are still serious gaps Cannot continue to rely WCS and FORs for outreach There is a planned and effective education and awareness 3 programme…RUNAPA needs to have its own Process programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area 21. State and There is no contact between managers and neighbouring 0 Abstraction exist commercial official or corporate land users Outside development initiatives e.g. cultivation in the corridor, paddy neighbours There is limited contact between managers and 1 rice cultivation does not cooperate with RUNAPA neighbouring official or corporate land users Is there co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 2 with adjacent land neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only and water users? limited co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 3 Process neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management 22. Planning for Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account 0 Abstraction exist water and land use the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are Outside development initiatives e.g. cultivation in the corridor, paddy detrimental to the survival of the area rice cultivation does not cooperate with RUNAPA Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account 1 use planning the needs of the protected area but activities/policies are not recognise the detrimental to the survival of the area protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into 2 aid the achievement account the long term of needs of the protected area of objectives Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into 3 Planning account the long term of needs of the protected area 23. Traditional They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 They do not participate in park management. authorities management of the protected area But allowed to enter the park with special permission if is for rituals They have some input into discussions relating to 1 etc. and RUNAPA provides security and permits. Do traditional management but no direct involvement in the resulting authorities near the decisions protected area have They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 input to management management decisions? They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 Process management

111 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 24. Local They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 PA is owned by the state with stakeholders input communities management of the protected area MBOMIPA is involved as a stakeholder They have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do near the protected management but no direct involvement in the resulting area have input to decisions management They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 decisions? management Process They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 management Additional points 24a There is open communication and trust between local +1 Yes Exist but with local frequency stakeholders and protected area managers 24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while +1 Yes Through outreach programme…but conflicts still exist especially on Outputs conserving protected area resources, are being implemented the eviction victim 24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the +1 Yes To some extent…need to strengthen outreach programme. protected area 25. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 The park has not managed to attract as much tourist as possible….due to accessibility or infrastructure….Lodges concentrated in one place Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current 1 (for tourists, pilgrims levels of visitation or are under construction etc) good enough? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels 2 of visitation but could be improved Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels 3 of visitation 26. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism 0 Discussing investors needs (e.g. accessibility point and possibility of tourism operators using the protected area walking in a NP) There is contact between managers and tourism operators 1 Do commercial tour but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory operators contribute matters to protected area There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism 2 management? operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values Process There is excellent co-operation between managers and 3 tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts 27. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not 0 Concession fees was proposed to be flat rate but investors refused. If fees (tourism, collected No reliable data available for lodges rate fines) are applied, do The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central 1 they help protected government and is not returned to the protected area or its area management? environs

112 Issue Criteria 2010 Note The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority 2 Outputs rather than the protected area There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to 3 support this and/or other protected areas 28. Condition Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are Flow of water level dropped but the managers have kept the park intact 0 assessment being severely degraded Biodiversity have not degraded that much… Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being 1 Is the protected area severely degraded being managed Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being ‘well’? partially degraded but the most important values have not 2 been significantly impacted Outcomes Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3

Additional points A6 There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within the protected area and/or the protected area +1 Outputs buffer zone

29. Economic benefit The existence of the protected area has reduced the options 0 Some money contributed to developments activities to the adjacent assessment for economic development of the local communities villages e.g schools and health centre The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor 1 Is the protected area benefited the local economy MBOMIPA has gained some revenue either from allocation from WD providing economic There is some flow of economic benefits to local 2 or investors benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but communities? this is of minor significance to the regional economy There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to 3 local communities from activities in and around the Outcomes protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc) 30. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 They implement their work plan but no systematic monitoring against evaluation performance There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no 1 overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and 2 evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well 3 implemented and used in adaptive management

113 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 47 +6 TOTAL SCORE bonu s = 53

114 1.34 METT for Kitulo National Park

Table 20. Reporting Progress in Tanzania’s Protected Areas: KINAPA

Name of protected area Kitulo National Park

Location of protected area (country and if Mbeya and Iringa Region possible map reference) Date of establishment (distinguish between Agreed Gazetted: 16 Sept 2005 agreed and gazetted*) Ownership details (i.e. owner, State tenure rights etc)

Management Authority TANAPA Size (ha) 412.9Km2

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 27

Budget TZS 326,103,675 Designations (IUCN category, N/A World Heritage, Ramsar etc) N/A Reasons for designation Brief details of World Bank N/A funded project or projects in PA Brief details of WWF funded N/A project or projects in PA Brief details of other relevant N/A projects in PA List the two primary objectives Protect Watersheds/Water catchment Objective 1 Protect endemic species of plants (mainly flowers) and animals Objective 2

List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen) Invasive of species mainly Eucalyptus, Pines and Wattle Threat 1

Logging and wood harvesting and gathering of biological resources mainly orchids to Threat 2 sale in Zambia List top two critical management activities Protection of park resources Activity 1

Enhance patrol activities Activity 2

Date assessed 16 August 2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka (UNDP Consultant)

Details of those assessed/ interviewed Park Warden Protection, Richard Shilunga, Tel: +255(0)757 744531 (incl. name, Email: [email protected] position/post, phone, email)

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

116 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0 Gazetted 16th September 2005 and beacon exist

Does the protected The government has agreed that the protected area should 1 area have legal be gazetted but the process has not yet begun status? The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but 2 the process is still incomplete The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case 3 x Context of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar) 2. Protected area There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land 0 Proper regulations are in place regulations use and activities in the protected area Wildlife Conservation Act 2009 (Number 5) Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use National Park Establishment Act Are inappropriate and activities in the protected area exist, but there are large 1 National Park Policy 1998 land uses and gaps. activities (e.g. Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use 2 x poaching/hunting) and activities in the protected area exist. controlled? Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and 33333 activities in the protected area exist and are being Context effectively implemented 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce 0 Staff not enough so make law enforcement a challenge enforcement protected area legislation and regulations Only 16 staff at the moment and few equipments (e.g. vehicles) There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to 1 No ranger posts around the PA make patrol difficult …Guards have to Can staff enforce enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack plan and travel to and from the HQ protected area rules of skills, no patrol budget) Armour does not exist and all guns are kept at police station (time well enough? The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce 2 x delay between collecting the guns and travel to the park) protected area legislation and regulations but some Proposed an establishment of 5 ranger post around the PA and one deficiencies remain extra zonal post at the Bujinginjira corridor to ensure proper Context The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce 3 monitoring protected area legislation and regulations 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 Park is new so it lacks facilities objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not 1 Is PA managed with managed according to these objectives the aim of meeting The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only 2 x the stated objectives? partially implemented The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to 3 Planning meet these objectives

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

117 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 5. Protected area Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas 0 design major management objectives of the protected area is impossible Does the protected Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major 1 Need to establish a connection between Mt. Rungwe FR and Kitulo NP area need enlarging, objectives are constrained to some extent through a Bujingira corridor. corridors etc to meet Design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 x Institutional Conflicts: Land Use change adjacent the park…e.g. the its objectives? major objectives, but could be improved Dairy Farm was supposed to be for keeping only cattle but there are Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement 3 some cultivation going on at the moment (mainly Irish potatoes) Planning of major objectives of the protected area 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the 0 Demarcation exist around the park with beacon in place but the boundary management authority or local residents/neighbouring land neighbours adjacent other Land User claim not to know the boundary demarcation users The boundary of the protected area is known by the 1 Is the boundary management authority but is not known by local known and residents/neighbouring land users demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the 2 management authority and local residents but is not Context appropriately demarcated The boundary of the protected area is known by the 3 management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Not all activities are implemented as planned due to inadequate funds, A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared 1 HR and equipments Is there a but is not being implemented management plan A management plan exists but it is only being partially 2 x and is it being implemented because of funding constraints or other implemented? problems A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points 7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for +1 x WCS/Local communities and District are involved key stakeholders to influence the management plan

7.2 There is an established schedule and process for +1 x periodic review and updating of the management plan

7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are +1 x Planning routinely incorporated into planning

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

118 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 Is a new park and the budget allocation is small compare to the needs

Is there an annual A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored 1 x work plan? against the plan’s targets A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored 2 against the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed Planning/Outputs A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against 3 x the plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical 0 Mostly relying on WCS to conduct research inventory habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 1 x Do you have good values of the protected area is not sufficient to support information which planning and decision making you use to manage Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 2 the area? values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and 3 Context cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained 10. Protection Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are 0 New park no entry gates so monitoring of access is difficult Systems not effective in controlling access/resource use. Proposed 3 new entry gate( Isionje-Kikondo, Mwakipembo and Ujuni) Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially 1 x Are systems in place effective in controlling access/resource use. to control access Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately 2 resources use in the effective in controlling access/resource use. protected area Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or 3 wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use. Process/Outcome

11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the 0 Few research taking place at the park, protected area Is there a programme of management- There is some ad hoc survey and research work 1 x orientated monitoring and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not 2 research work? directed towards the needs of protected area management

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

119 Issue Criteria 2010 Note There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey 3 Inputs and research work, which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Requirements for active management of critical 0 Need to remove invasive species and continue improve the water flow) management ecosystems, species and cultural values have not been assessed Is the protected area Requirements for active management of critical 1 being managed ecosystems, species and cultural values are known but are consistent to its not being addressed objectives (e.g. for Requirements for active management of critical 2 x fire, invasive species, ecosystems, species and cultural values are only being poaching)? partially addressed Requirements for active management of critical 3 Process ecosystems, species and cultural values are being substantially or fully addressed 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 Need to build ranger posts, staff housing and entry gate

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management 1 x people employed to activities manage the protected area? Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical 2 management activities Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of 3 the site 14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0 In various tourism issues and park management

Is there enough Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the 1 x training for staff? protected area Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further 2 improved to fully achieve the objectives of management Staff training and skills are in tune with the management 3 Inputs/Process needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs 15. Current budget There is no budget for the protected area 0 Not sufficient to cover the park operations

Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management 1 x sufficient? needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable, but could be further 2 Inputs improved to fully achieve effective management

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

120 Issue Criteria 2010 Note The available budget is sufficient and meets the full 3 management needs of the protected area 16. Security of There is no secure budget for the protected area and 0 New park and not so many visitors so get allocation from the core budget management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year TANAPA collections. funding Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area 1 could not function adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected 2 x area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on Inputs outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its 3 management needs on a multi-year cycle 17. Management of Budget management is poor and significantly undermines 0 Well budget management budget effectiveness Some delays existing in releasing the funds and last year world Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 economic crisis pushed TANAPA to release funds monthly instead of Is the budget quarterly managed to meet Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 x critical management needs? Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness 3

Process 18. Equipment There is little or no equipment and facilities 0

Is equipment There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly 1 adequately inadequate maintained? There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps 2 x that constrain management Process There is adequate equipment and facilities 3

19. Maintenance of There is little or no maintenance of equipment and 0 They outsource the maintenance service from Mbeya region which equipment facilities turn out to be more expensive than owning a garage. Also the terrain condition increases vehicles running cost Is equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and 1 adequately facilities maintained? There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there 2 x Process are some important gaps in maintenance

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

121 Issue Criteria 2010 Note Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 Explain park objectives to the community through outreach awareness programme programme There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness 1 Is there a planned programme, but no overall planning for this education There is a planned education and awareness programme 2 programme? but there are still serious gaps There is a planned and effective education and awareness 3 Process programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area 21. State and There is no contact between managers and neighbouring 0 commercial official or corporate land users neighbours There is limited contact between managers and 1 x neighbouring official or corporate land users Is there co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 2 with adjacent land neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only and water users? limited co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 3 Process neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management 22. Planning for Adjacent land and water use planning does not take 0 Large number of cultivation farms and livestock surrounding the park water and land use account the needs of the protected area and Policies of allowing a dairy farm very close to the park and cultivation activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area of Irish potatoes is detrimental to the park Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not take 1 use planning account the needs of the protected area but recognise the activities/policies are not detrimental to the survival of the protected area and area aid the achievement Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into 2 of objectives account the long term of needs of the protected area Planning Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into 3 account the long term of needs of the protected area 23. Traditional They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 No indigenous people residing inside the park….However the authorities management of the protected area traditional community are allowed inside the park with permission to They have some input into discussions relating to 1 x conduct rituals activities Do traditional management but no direct involvement in the resulting authorities near the decisions protected area have They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 input to management management

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

122 Issue Criteria 2010 Note decisions? They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 Process management 24. Local They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 PA is owned by the state with stakeholders input communities management of the protected area They have some input into discussions relating to 1 x Do near the protected management but no direct involvement in the resulting area have input to decisions management They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 decisions? management Process They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 management Additional points 24a There is open communication and trust between local +1 x Yes there is open communication stakeholders and protected area managers 24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, +1 x Outreach programme support developments for local communities Outputs while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented 24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the -1 x Not all a lot of people who were evicted still pose a threat to the protected area exisiting of the park 25. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 x No entry gates or lodges/campsites inside the park No walking trails or hiking facilities Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current 1 (for tourists, pilgrims levels of visitation or are under construction etc) good enough? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current 2 levels of visitation but could be improved Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current 3 levels of visitation 26. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism 0 Stakeholders are called to provide inputs to the park GMP tourism operators using the protected area There is contact between managers and tourism operators 1 Do commercial tour but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory operators contribute matters to protected area There is limited co-operation between managers and 2 x management? tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values Process There is excellent co-operation between managers and 3 tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts 27. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not 0 Volume of tourist are small…collections not enough to run the park If fees (tourism, collected (e.g. in 2009 the park got an allocation of TZS 34 million but it needed

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

123 Issue Criteria 2010 Note fines) are applied, do The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central 1 320million to operate efficiently) they help protected government and is not returned to the protected area or its area management? environs The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority 2 Outputs rather than the protected area There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to 3 x support this and/or other protected areas 28. Condition Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are Some part of the NP used to be settlements and cultivation land and 0 assessment being severely degraded after eviction some remnants of exotic species (e.g. Pines still persist Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being in the park) 1 Is the protected area severely degraded being managed Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being Park has improved water flow since its gazettement ‘well’? partially degraded but the most important values have not 2 x been significantly impacted Outcomes Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3

Additional points 28a. There are active programmes for restoration of Park is looking to remove all the exotic species and burn collection of degraded areas within the protected area and/or the building materials like stones and gravels. +1 Outputs protected area buffer zone

29. Economic benefit The existence of the protected area has reduced the options 0 TANAPA has a policy to help local communities in some assessment for economic development of the local communities developments activities e.g. schools and heath centre The existence of the protected area has neither damaged 1 Is the protected area nor benefited the local economy providing economic There is some flow of economic benefits to local 2 x benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but communities? this is of minor significance to the regional economy There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to 3 local communities from activities in and around the Outcomes protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc) 30. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no 1 x overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and 2 evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

124 Issue Criteria 2010 Note Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well 3 implemented and used in adaptive management 48+4 TOTAL SCORE bonus =52

Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT

125 1.35 METT for Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve

Table 21. Reporting Progress in Tanzania’s Protected Areas: MKGR

Name of protected area Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve

Mbeya and Iringa, 8o 50’S and 9 o10’ S and 34 o00’E and Location of protected area (country and if 34 o30’E possible map reference)

Date of establishment (distinguish between Agreed Gazetted: 2002 agreed and gazetted*) Ownership details (i.e. owner, State under the Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism tenure rights etc)

Management Authority Wildlife Division Size (ha) 1572 km2

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 21 Budget TZS 32million (TWPF) and 8million (Retention) Designations (IUCN category, N/A World Heritage, Ramsar etc) N/A Reasons for designation Brief details of World Bank N/A funded project or projects in PA Brief details of WWF funded N/A project or projects in PA Brief details of other relevant N/A projects in PA List the two primary objectives Protect Biodiversity and reduce illegal use Objective 1 Conserve the highland water catchment of riverine habitats Objective 2

List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen) Poaching of wild animals Threat 1

illegal harvesting of resources Threat 2

List top two critical management activities Anti-poaching Activity 1

Promoting tourism Activity 2

Date assessed 21/09/2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka, UNDP Consultant

Details of those Antony Joseph Kika assessed/ interviewed P.O.box 66 Ilembula Iringa (incl. name, Tel: 0717 391242 position/post, phone, Email: [email protected] email)

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

127 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0 Fully gazetted

Does the protected The government has agreed that the protected area should be 1 area have legal gazetted but the process has not yet begun status? The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the 2 process is still incomplete The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case 3 X Context of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar) 2. Protected area There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land 0 Inadequate funds –anti-poaching operations management. regulations use and activities in the protected area Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and Are inappropriate activities in the protected area exist, but there are large gaps. 1 land uses and Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use and 2 X activities (e.g. activities in the protected area exist. poaching/hunting) Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and 3 controlled? activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented Context 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce 0 Few equipment (vehicles, patrol equipments and few staffs-now 21 but enforcement protected area legislation and regulations extra 15 personnel needed) There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to 1 Can staff enforce enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack protected area rules of skills, no patrol budget) well enough? The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce 2 X protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain Context The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce 3 protected area legislation and regulations 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 Man-days of anti-poaching supposed to be 25 per months but in reality objectives the current practice is now only 15 man-days The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed 1 Current funds don’t give much room for increasing operations also Is PA managed with according to these objectives infrastructures and trails are not well maintained make it harder for the the aim of meeting The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only 2 X operations the stated objectives? partially implemented The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to 3 Planning meet these objectives

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

128 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 5. Protected area Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas 0 Situated in a difficult terrain where cars do not easily reach. design major management objectives of the protected area is Thus also impair/limit photographic tourism impossible Does the protected Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major 1 area need enlarging, objectives are constrained to some extent corridors etc to meet Design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 X its objectives? major objectives, but could be improved Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement 3 Planning of major objectives of the protected area 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the 0 GR has been upgraded directly from an open area that had people boundary management authority or local residents/neighbouring land farming and living for many years. demarcation users Boundary conflicts exist has some villagers still reside inside the park The boundary of the protected area is known by the 1 X and some need relocated after compensated. Is the boundary management authority but is not known by local known and residents/neighbouring land users demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the 2 management authority and local residents but is not Context appropriately demarcated The boundary of the protected area is known by the 3 management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Difficult to implement the GMP full because of funding constraints A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared 1 and also remnants of people living in the park makes it difficult for Is there a but is not being implemented efficient patrolling and in reducing illegal poaching management plan A management plan exists but it is only being partially 2 X and is it being implemented because of funding constraints or other implemented? problems A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points 7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for +1 No Stakeholders don’t influence key stakeholders to influence the management plan

7.2 There is an established schedule and process for periodic +1 Yes review and updating of the management plan

Planning 7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are +1 No No recent monitoring or research work routinely incorporated into planning 8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 Because funds are not enough

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

129 Issue Criteria 2010 Note Is there an annual A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored 1 work plan? against the plan’s targets A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against 2 X the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the 3 Planning/Outputs plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical 0 Rarely use anti-poaching unit information to make decisions inventory habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 1 X Do you have good values of the protected area is not sufficient to support information which planning and decision making you use to manage Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 2 the area? values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and 3 Context cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained 10. Protection Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are 0 Inadequate funds and equipment as mentioned above Systems not effective in controlling access/resource use. Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially 1 X Are systems in place effective in controlling access/resource use. to control access Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately 2 resources use in the effective in controlling access/resource use. protected area Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or 3 wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use. Process/Outcome

11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the 0 X No research or monitoring programmes protected area Is there a programme of management- There is some ad hoc survey and research work 1 orientated monitoring and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not 2 research work? directed towards the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey 3 Inputs and research work, which is relevant to management needs

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

130 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 12. Resource Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 0 X Very scant information is available to make any decision management species and cultural values have not been assessed Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 1 Is the protected area species and cultural values are known but are not being being managed addressed consistent to its Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 2 objectives (e.g. for species and cultural values are only being partially fire, invasive species, addressed poaching)? Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 3 species and cultural values are being substantially or fully Process addressed 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 Staff are not enough …now 21 available but extra 15 needed

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management 1 people employed to activities manage the protected area? Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical 2 X management activities Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the 3 site 14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0 Need to train in new anti-poaching techniques and Intelligence to combat poachers properly Is there enough Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the 1 training for staff? protected area Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further 2 X improved to fully achieve the objectives of management Staff training and skills are in tune with the management 3 Inputs/Process needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs 15. Current budget There is no budget for the protected area 0 GR Manager: The TZS 30 million should used to run operations per month not quarterly. This figure does not include cost of maintenance Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management 1 X of equipment sufficient? needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable, but could be further 2 Inputs improved to fully achieve effective management The available budget is sufficient and meets the full 3 management needs of the protected area

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

131 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 16. Security of There is no secure budget for the protected area and 0 GR send budget to TWPF and TWPF allocate based on what it can budget management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year afford and not what is needed…security is there but insufficient to funding cover operations. Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area 1 X could not function adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected 2 area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on Inputs outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its 3 management needs on a multi-year cycle 17. Management of Budget management is poor and significantly undermines 0 budget effectiveness Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 critical management needs? Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness 3 X

Process 18. Equipment There is little or no equipment and facilities 0 Equipments are maintained from the core budget which is already insufficient…so no proper maintenance Is equipment There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly 1 X adequately inadequate maintained? There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps 2 that constrain management Process There is adequate equipment and facilities 3

19. Maintenance of There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 0 Most equipments are old equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and 1 Is equipment facilities adequately maintained? There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there 2 are some important gaps in maintenance Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 X Education and awareness programme exist on papers only. awareness

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

132 Issue Criteria 2010 Note programme There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness 1 Is there a planned programme, but no overall planning for this education There is a planned education and awareness programme but 2 programme? there are still serious gaps There is a planned and effective education and awareness 3 Process programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area 21. State and There is no contact between managers and neighbouring 0 Boundary conflicts exist between adjacent communities and GRs commercial official or corporate land users neighbours There is limited contact between managers and 1 X neighbouring official or corporate land users Is there co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 2 with adjacent land neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only and water users? limited co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 3 Process neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management 22. Planning for Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account 0 Abstraction still exist especially in the Igawa Area water and land use the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account 1 use planning the needs of the protected area but activities/policies are not recognise the detrimental to the survival of the area protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into 2 X aid the achievement account the long term of needs of the protected area of objectives Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into 3 Planning account the long term of needs of the protected area 23. Traditional They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 Traditional communities are not involved to make decision related to authorities management of the protected area park management They have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do traditional management but no direct involvement in the resulting authorities near the decisions protected area have They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 X input to management management decisions? They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 Process management 24. Local They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 X No inputs communities management of the protected area

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

133 Issue Criteria 2010 Note They have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do near the protected management but no direct involvement in the resulting area have input to decisions management They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 decisions? management Process They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 management Additional points 24a There is open communication and trust between local +1 no stakeholders and protected area managers 24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while +1 no Outputs conserving protected area resources, are being implemented 24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the -1 No protected area 25. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 X NO facilities

Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current 1 (for tourists, pilgrims levels of visitation or are under construction etc) good enough? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels 2 of visitation but could be improved Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels 3 of visitation 26. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism 0 X No tour operators tourism operators using the protected area There is contact between managers and tourism operators 1 Do commercial tour but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory operators contribute matters to protected area There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism 2 management? operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values Process There is excellent co-operation between managers and 3 tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts 27. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not 0 X Not yet started to receive tourist If fees (tourism, collected fines) are applied, do The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central 1 they help protected government and is not returned to the protected area or its area management? environs The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority 2 Outputs rather than the protected area

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

134 Issue Criteria 2010 Note There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to 3 support this and/or other protected areas 28. Condition Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are Is above minimal level 0 assessment being severely degraded Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being 1 Is the protected area severely degraded being managed Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being ‘well’? partially degraded but the most important values have not 2 X been significantly impacted Outcomes Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are 3 predominantly intact Additional points 28a. There are active programmes for restoration of No programmes degraded areas within the protected area and/or the +1 Outputs protected area buffer zone 29. Economic benefit The existence of the protected area has reduced the options 0 Two secondary classrooms were built in Njombe assessment for economic development of the local communities The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor 1 Is the protected area benefited the local economy providing economic There is some flow of economic benefits to local 2 X benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but communities? this is of minor significance to the regional economy There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to 3 local communities from activities in and around the Outcomes protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc) 30. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 X No M&E exist evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no 1 overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and 2 evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well 3 implemented and used in adaptive management TOTAL SCORE 21

Tanzania-MKGR modified METT

135 1.36 METT for Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve

Table 22. Reporting Progress in Tanzania’s Protected Areas: MRNR

Name of protected area Mt Rungwe NR

Location of protected area (country and if Mbeya Region possible map reference) Date of establishment (distinguish between Up dated to Nature Gazetted: i 1953 agreed and gazetted*) Reserve : 21 Dec 2009 Ownership details (i.e. owner, Central Government tenure rights etc)

Management Authority FBD Size (ha) 13,652.1 ha

Permanent Temporary: NIL Number of staff 4

Budget TZS 7,000,000 Improved status from FR to NR due its biodiversity importance as a Reasons for designation result of increased illegal logging and encroachment Brief details of other relevant Government of Germany through UNDP is giving funds to support projects in PA NR activities (40million disbursed this year ) List the two primary objectives Conservation of biodiversity and Kipunje monkey species Objective 1 Water catchment (environmental services) Objective 2

List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen) Illegal logging Threat 1

Encroachment (cultivation) Threat 2

List top two critical management activities Resurvey of reserve boundaries due to encroachment and screening of firelines Activity 1

Establishment of ecotourism infrastructure and facilities Activity 2

Date assessed 17 August 2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka (UNDP Consultant)

Details of those Fabian Mkome: Mt.Rungwe NR Conservator assessed/ interviewed Tel. Cell: (+255) 755 570723 or 656 583094 (incl. name, Email: [email protected] position/post, phone, email)

Issue Criteria 2010 Note 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0 Gazetted: 1953 Upgraded to Nature Reserve: 1st Dec 2009, GN # 386 Does the protected The government has agreed that the protected area should be 1 area have legal gazetted but the process has not yet begun status? The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the 2 process is still incomplete The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case 3 Context of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar) 2. Protected area There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land 0 Forest Act 2002 regulations use and activities in the protected area NR establishment regulations Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and Forest Policy 1998 Are inappropriate activities in the protected area exist, but there are large gaps. 1 land uses and Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use and 2 activities (e.g. activities in the protected area exist. poaching/hunting) Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and 3 controlled? activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented Context 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce 0 Only four staff, No entry gates, one vehicle, No adequate budget and enforcement protected area legislation and regulations patrol is hampered by unavailability of ranger posts. There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to 1 Can staff enforce enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack protected area rules of skills, no patrol budget) well enough? The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce 2 protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain Context The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce 3 protected area legislation and regulations 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 Little funds, which give priority to sensitive activities within the Mgt objectives Plan The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed 1 Is PA managed with according to these objectives the aim of meeting The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only 2 the stated objectives? partially implemented The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to 3 Planning meet these objectives

137 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 5. Protected area Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas 0 design major management objectives of the protected area is impossible Does the protected Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major 1 WCS is helping with the mgt plan and fees establishment/Eco tourism area need enlarging, objectives are constrained to some extent Terrain is difficult to navigate hence increased cost and require more corridors etc to meet Design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 labour its objectives? major objectives, but could be improved Office supervising is located in Mbeya make it hard to perform Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement 3 effective patrol and law enforcement Planning of major objectives of the protected area 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the 0 . boundary management authority or local residents/neighbouring land Needs frequent clearing due to encroachment by farmers demarcation users The boundary of the protected area is known by the 1 Is the boundary management authority but is not known by local known and residents/neighbouring land users demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the 2 management authority and local residents but is not Context appropriately demarcated The boundary of the protected area is known by the 3 management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Prepared and awaiting approval from FBD ; however implementation A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared 1 continues using Action plan as per final draft management plan Is there a but is not being implemented management plan A management plan exists but it is only being partially 2 and is it being implemented because of funding constraints or other implemented? problems A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points 7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for +1 Stakeholders are involved in various other activities but not in planning key stakeholders to influence the management plan No periodic reviews 7.2 There is an established schedule and process for periodic +1 review and updating of the management plan Few research and monitoring at the moment 7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are +1 Planning routinely incorporated into planning

138 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 Action plan with timeframe

Is there an annual A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored 1 work plan? against the plan’s targets A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against 2 the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the 3 Planning/Outputs plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical 0 Mostly relying on WCS to conduct research and few resources inventory habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area inventory data exist so far Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 1 Do you have good values of the protected area is not sufficient to support information which planning and decision making you use to manage Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural 2 the area? values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and 3 Context cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained 10. Protection Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are 0 No gates, Supervision is low and some enter without paying Systems not effective in controlling access/resource use. Illegal logging still exist to a large extent Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially 1 Are systems in place effective in controlling access/resource use. to control access Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately 2 resources use in the effective in controlling access/resource use. protected area Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or 3 wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use. Process/Outcome

11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the 0 Supportive research done by WCS protected area Is there a programme of management- There is some ad hoc survey and research work 1 orientated monitoring and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not 2 research work? directed towards the needs of protected area management

139 Issue Criteria 2010 Note There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey 3 Inputs and research work, which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 0 Some discrepancies because of lack of funds and effective protection management species and cultural values have not been assessed systems Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 1 Is the protected area species and cultural values are known but are not being being managed addressed consistent to its Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 2 objectives (e.g. for species and cultural values are only being partially fire, invasive species, addressed poaching)? Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, 3 species and cultural values are being substantially or fully Process addressed 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 Only 4 with one vehicle no other equipments for enforcing the law

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management 1 people employed to activities manage the protected area? Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical 2 management activities Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the 3 site 14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0 All staffs under the current conservator are fresh graduates so they need extra on job training Is there enough Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the 1 training for staff? protected area Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further 2 improved to fully achieve the objectives of management Staff training and skills are in tune with the management 3 Inputs/Process needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs 15. Current budget There is no budget for the protected area 0 TZS 7million per quarter is not enough 20million per quarter is needed

Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management 1 sufficient? needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable, but could be further 2 Inputs improved to fully achieve effective management

140 Issue Criteria 2010 Note The available budget is sufficient and meets the full 3 management needs of the protected area 16. Security of There is no secure budget for the protected area and 0 FBD collects revenue generated and send to the treasury and present a budget management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year budget to cover its operation national-wide. Most of the time the funds funding allocated are not matching the operations needed. Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area 1 could not function adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected 2 area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on Inputs outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its 3 management needs on a multi-year cycle 17. Management of Budget management is poor and significantly undermines 0 budget effectiveness Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 critical management needs? Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness 3

Process 18. Equipment There is little or no equipment and facilities 0 The NR reserve operates with no vehicles and had to borrow one from the Forest surveillance Unit for its operations. Radars, communication Is equipment There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly 1 devices, uniforms and proper office do not exist adequately inadequate maintained? There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps 2 that constrain management Process There is adequate equipment and facilities 3

19. Maintenance of There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 0 N/A equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and 1 Is equipment facilities adequately maintained? There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there 2 are some important gaps in maintenance Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3

141 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 Donor fund contributed (40million) through coordination office in awareness Morogoro is being used for awareness , fire campaigning, education programme There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness 1 and patrolling, Is there a planned programme, but no overall planning for this education There is a planned education and awareness programme but 2 programme? there are still serious gaps There is a planned and effective education and awareness 3 Process programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area 21. State and There is no contact between managers and neighbouring 0 Village Environmental Committees are involved especially in law commercial official or corporate land users enforcement and also help to rangers neighbours There is limited contact between managers and 1 Kiwira National Plantation Project contributed to patrols and land for neighbouring official or corporate land users building the entrance gate Is there co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 2 Tea company which uses eucalyptus to dry tea are not cooperating with adjacent land neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only with the NR authorities and water users? limited co-operation There is regular contact between managers and 3 Process neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management 22. Planning for Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account 0 Land and water users don’t see the importance of the national park water and land use the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are around their area detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account 1 use planning the needs of the protected area but activities/policies are not recognise the detrimental to the survival of the area protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into 2 aid the achievement account the long term of needs of the protected area of objectives Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into 3 Planning account the long term of needs of the protected area 23. Traditional They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 Communities are involved through their Village Natural Resource authorities management of the protected area Committees (VNRCs) which assist in NR management especially They have some input into discussions relating to 1 protection and law enforcement Do traditional management but no direct involvement in the resulting authorities near the decisions protected area have They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 input to management management decisions? They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 Process management

142 Issue Criteria 2010 Note 24. Local They have no input into decisions relating to the 0 Communities are involved through their VNRCs communities management of the protected area They have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do near the protected management but no direct involvement in the resulting area have input to decisions management They directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2 decisions? management Process They directly participate in making decisions relating to 3 management Additional points 24a There is open communication and trust between local +1 Yes Awareness need to be strengthened and NR authority needs to support stakeholders and protected area managers local communities in development initiatives 24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while -1 No Various initiatives are included in the management plan but Outputs conserving protected area resources, are being implemented implementation of such programmes has not started due to fund constraints 24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the -1 No Partially though some encroachment and illegal logging persists protected area 25. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 No entry gates or lodges/campsites inside the park No walking trails or hiking facilities Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current 1 (for tourists, pilgrims levels of visitation or are under construction etc) good enough? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels 2 of visitation but could be improved Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels 3 of visitation 26. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism 0 No commercial tourism operator in the area tourism operators using the protected area There is contact between managers and tourism operators 1 Do commercial tour but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory operators contribute matters to protected area There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism 2 management? operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values Process There is excellent co-operation between managers and 3 tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts 27. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not 0 Volume of tourist are small/No gates…until recent there is no fees If fees (tourism, collected charged/collected

143 Issue Criteria 2010 Note fines) are applied, do The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central 1 they help protected government and is not returned to the protected area or its Fines imposed to any one conduct illegal activities in the NR area management? environs The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority 2 Outputs rather than the protected area There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to 3 support this and/or other protected areas 28. Condition Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are Used to be FR and now a NR , condition supposed to change due to 0 assessment being severely degraded this change in management regime but facilities and capacity to Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being introduce patrols, fees and fines need to be in place 1 Is the protected area severely degraded being managed Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being ‘well’? partially degraded but the most important values have not 2 been significantly impacted Outcomes Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3

Additional points 28a. There are active programmes for restoration of No any programme degraded areas within the protected area and/or the -1 Outputs protected area buffer zone

29. Economic benefit The existence of the protected area has reduced the options 0 Currently none as NR reserve itself does not generate any revenue so assessment for economic development of the local communities far. The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor 1 Is the protected area benefited the local economy providing economic There is some flow of economic benefits to local 2 benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but communities? this is of minor significance to the regional economy There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to 3 local communities from activities in and around the Outcomes protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc) 30. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 Once the management plan is fully operated M &E will be carried out evaluation as planned However, Conservator is supposed to report progress to There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no 1 FBD and to donor (UNDP) funding activities in the NR overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and 2 evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

144 Issue Criteria 2010 Note Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well 3 implemented and used in adaptive management TOTAL SCORE 40

145 ANNEX IV: FINANCIAL SCORE CARDS

1.37 Financial Scorecard for Ruaha National Park

FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM Basic Protected Area System Information

Describe the PA system and what it includes:

This could be defined by IUCN Categories I-VI. However, if a country defines its PA system differently or has multiple PA systems then insert a definition that best describes the system about which the Scorecard is presenting data. For example some PA systems have a mixture of public, private and mixed ownership protected areas. What is important is for each country to explain and state which types of protected areas are included in the defined system and financial analysis. Some countries have private reserves separate from the national PA system. In these cases it is optional to report these here in an additional category in the tables (under other) as they do not fall under the responsibility of the government.

Also include any additional specific characteristics of the national PA system that might affect its financing.

Protected Areas System or sub-system Number of sites Total hectares Comments National protected areas 1 National Park 22,226km2 State owned, managed by TANAPA (Ruaha) Sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas

146 Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline year57 Year X59 Comments61 (US$)58 (US$)60 2010 2010 Available Finances62 (1) Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system) - national protected areas NA NA NA

(2) Total annual government budget provided for PA management Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each (including PA dedicated taxes63, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans, NA donations, debt-for nature swaps and other financial mechanisms)

- national protected areas NA NA NA

(3) Total annual site based revenue generation across all PAs broken down Indicate total economic value of PAs (if by source64 studies available)65

A. Tourism entrance fees - national protected areas 990,226,010 - international: Adult -USD 20 Children -USD 5

57 The baseline year refers to the year the Scorecard was completed for the first time and remains fixed. Insert year eg 2007. 58 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate (eg US$1=1000 colones, August 2007) 59 X refers to the year the Scorecard is completed and should be inserted (eg 2008). For the first time the Scorecard is completed X will be the same as the baseline year. For subsequent years insert an additional column to present the data for each year the Scorecard is completed. 60 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate 61 Comment should be made on robustness of the financial data presented (low, medium, high) 62 This section unravels sources of funds available to PAs, categorized by (i) government core budget (line item 1), (ii) additional government funds (line item 2), and (iii) PA generated revenues (line item 3). 63 Such as a conservation departure tax or water fees re-invested in PAs 64 This data should be the total for all the PA systems to indicate total revenues. If data is only available for a specific PA system specify which system 65 Note this will include non monetary values and hence will differ (be greater) than revenues

147 Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline year57 Year X59 Comments61 (US$)58 (US$)60 2010 2010 - national: Adult -Tshs.1,000 -Tshs. 500

B. Concessions - national protected areas 33,007,330 This is from the payment from permanent accommodation facilities in the park

C. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) - national protected areas NA The Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) has not yet been introduced in Tanzania

D. Other (specify each type of revenue generation mechanism66) - national protected areas 77,175,780 Fees from the non-entrance including Walking safaris Camping

(4) Total annual revenues generated by PAs (total of (3)) - national protected areas 1,100,251,120

(5) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re- investment67 % - national protected areas NA NA The revenues generated from Kitulo National Park are sent to TANAPA Headquarters and then returned back to Kitulo.

(6) Total finances available to the PA system [line item 2 ]+ [line item 4 * line item 5] - national protected areas 1,100,251,122

Costs and Financing Needs

66 This could include fees for licenses, research etc 67 This includes funds to be shared by PAs with local stakeholders

148 Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline year57 Year X59 Comments61 (US$)58 (US$)60 2010 2010 (7) Total annual expenditure for PAs (all PA operating and investment costs State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a and system level expenses)68 given year

State rate of disbursement – total annual expenditures as % of available finances (line item 6.)

If this % is low, state reasons69:

- national protected areas 3,963,400,958 Rate of disbursement is 71%.

(8) Estimation of financing needs70 A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs (operational and 5,582,254,870 investments) to be covered - national protected areas

B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs (operational Nil and investments) to be covered71 - national protected areas

(9) Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)72 A. Net actual annual surplus/deficit73 - national protected areas 0

B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios

68 In some countries actual expenditure differs from planned expenditure due to disbursement difficulties. In this case actual expenditure should be presented and a note on disbursement rates and planned expenditures can be made in the Comments column. 69 Low to be defined by country expectations and needs 70 Complete this per PA system and add rows as necessary for each PA system for which needs are estimated 71 Optimal scenarios should include costs of expanding the PA systems to be fully ecologically representative 72 Financing needs as calculated in (8) minus available financing total in (6) 73 This will likely be zero but some PAs may have undisbursed funds and some with autonomous budgets may have deficits

149 Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline year57 Year X59 Comments61 (US$)58 (US$)60 2010 2010 - national protected areas 1,618,853,912

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios - national protected areas Nil

D. Projected annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenario in year X+574,75 - national protected areas

(10) Financial data collection needs Specify main data gaps identified from this analysis:

Specify actions to be taken to fill data gaps76:

74 This data is useful to show the direction and pace of the PA system towards closing the finance gap. This line can only be completed if a long term financial analysis of the PA system has been undertaken for the country 75 As future costs are projected, initial consideration should be given to upcoming needs of PA systems to adapt to climate change which may include incorporating new areas into the PA system to facilitate habitat changes and migration 76 Actions may include (i) cost data based on site based management plans and extrapolation of site costs across a PA system and (ii) revenue and budget accounts and projections

150 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks COMMENT

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue None A Few Several Fully generation by PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms Specify the revenue generation mechanisms that are not permitted under the current legal framework 3

-Hunting concession (ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax breaks exist to promote PA financing 0

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention No Under development Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory and sharing within the PA system (0) (1) improvement (3) (2) (i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA The collected revenue are 100% system (central and site levels) 3 retained at the central PA system which is TANAPA and sent back to Kitulo National Park (ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site There is no retention to each park level 0 but the revenue are centrally collected and then distributed back to parks (iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with The benefit sharing policy for local stakeholders 3 TANAPA is 7.5% of the parks revenue Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds (endowment, sinking or revolving)77 No Established Established with Established with (0) (1) limited capital adequate capital (2) (3) (i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system 0 None A few Several Sufficient (0) (1) (2) (3) (ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs 0

No Partially Quite well Fully

77 This element can be omitted in countries where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government

151 (0) (1) (2) (3) (iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and accounting 0

Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative None Under development Yes, but needs Yes, Satisfactory institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to (0) (1) improvement (3) (2) government (i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA 3 This is for permanent facilities in services TANAPA (ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs By participating the community to 2 protect the buffer zones and dispersal areas (iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government Mandate of TANAPA is to conserve management of PAs 2 and protect wild animals while in the national parks and the District Game Officers while such animals are outside the park (iv) There are laws which allow, promote and regulate private reserves 0

Element 5 - National PA financing policies and strategies (i) There are key PA financing policies for: No Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory (0) improvement (3) (2) Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both input and activity based accounting) 2 - Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs - international: 3 Adult -USD 20 Children -USD 5

- national: Adult -Tshs.1,000 -Tshs. 500

- Allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (criteria based on size, threats, business Allocation of the budget in the PA plans, performance etc) 3 system depend on: Size Threats Plans - Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect The Limit of Acceptable Use (LAU) conservation objectives of PAs 3 limits the tourism activities carried in different zones of the park as well as number of development and tourist in the park

152 - PA management plans to include financial data or associated business plans 1 (ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national Not begun In progress Completed (3) Under financing strategy78 (0) (1) implementation (5) Based on policy and regulatory frame work

5

Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems None Partial Satisfactory (2) Full (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc) (0) (1) (3) (i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local Provide summary data from studies and national development are available 2 (ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within Ministry (eg within other (eg within Economic and financial valuation of Environment) sectoral Ministries) Ministry of Finance)

2 Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No Partially Yes (0) (2) (3) (i) Government policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management plans 3 (ii) PA budgets includes funds to finance threat reduction strategies in buffer This is done through the Support on zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)79 3 Community Initiated Projects and Income Generating Projects. Also build capacity of the Village Natural Resources Committees and Village Game Scouts to preserve buffer zones (iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent, TANAPA being a parastatal organization reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates 3 fall under the procurement procedures under the Public (iv) Ministry of Finance plans to increased budget, over the long term, to reduce the PA financing gap 0 NA

Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial None Partial Improving Full management of PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed 3 Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives None Partial Almost there (2) Full (0) (1) (3)

78 A national PA Financing Strategy will include targets, policies, tools and approaches 79 This could include budgets for development agencies and local governments for local livelihoods

153 at site and system level (i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists Explain their roles: and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels) 3 and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system (ii) PA site manager responsibilities include, financial management, cost- effectiveness and revenue generation 80 3 (iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA managers to promote site level financial sustainability 3 (eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts) (iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective 3 management (v) There is auditing capacity for PA finances 3 (vi) PA managers have the possibility to budget and plan for the long-term (eg over 5 years) 3 Total Score for Component 1 Actual score:67

Total possible score: 95

70.5 %:

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective Comment management

Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun Early stages Near complete Completed (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs The rating should be based on and costs based on cost-effective analysis 3 quality of management plans

(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system Specify the percentage of PAs that 3 have management plans (iii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system81 1 (iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system

80 These responsibilities should be found in the Terms of Reference for the posts 81 A PA Business Plan is a plan that analyzes and identifies the financial gap in a PA’s operations, and presents opportunities to mitigate that gap through operational cost efficiencies or revenue generation schemes. It does not refer to business plans for specific concession services within a PA. Each country may have its own definition and methodology for business plans or may only carry out financial analysis and hence may need to adapt the questions accordingly.

154 (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives) 1 (v) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting 1 (vi) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting 1 Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and None Partial (1) Near complete Fully completed auditing systems (0) (2) (3) (i) There is a transparent and coordinated cost (operational and investment) accounting system functioning for the PA system 3

(ii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational 3 (iii) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to system level planning and budgeting 3 Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial Near completed Complete and management performance None Partial (2) operational (0) (1) (3) (i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by PA authorities to stakeholders 3 (ii) Financial returns on tourism related investments are measured and reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after 3 establishment of a visitor centre) (iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority 3 (iv) A reporting and evaluation system is in place to show how effectively PAs use their available finances (ie disbursement rate and cost-effectiveness) to 3 achieve management objectives Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No Yes (0) (2) (i) National PA budget is allocated to sites based on agreed and appropriate criteria (eg size, threats, needs, performance) 2 (ii) Funds raised by co-managed PAs do not reduce government budget allocations where funding gaps still exist 2 Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to Absent Partially done Almost done (2) Fully operate more cost-effectively (0) (1) (3) (i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA managers 3 (ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information All park managers meet annually at with each other on their costs, practices and impacts 3 TANAPA Headquarters during the Master Workers Council meeting to evaluate their performance as well as to finalize the budget estimates of each park (iii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, All park managers meet annually at available and being used to track PA manager performance 3 TANAPA Headquarters during the

155 Master Workers Council meeting to evaluate their performance as well as to finalize the budget estimates of each park (iv) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and Performance review according to the feed into system management policy and planning 2 TANAPA corporate strategic plan

(v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective This is done through the TANAPA management 2 Training programme (vi) PA financing system facilitates PAs to share costs of common practices with each other and with PA headquarters82 3 Total Score for Component 2 Actual score: 51

Total possible score: 61

83.6 %:

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation by PAs Comment Element 1 - Number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA None Partially A fair amount Optimal system (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and Source of the study available including feasibility studies; 2 (ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms, generating funds for the PA system 2 (iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial 2 investment cost) (iv) PAs enable local communities to generate revenues, resulting in reduced threats to the PAs 3 Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA No Partially Satisfactory Fully system (0) (1) (2) (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and adopted by government 3 (ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry are supportive and are partners in the PA user fee system and programmes 3 (iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed and developed for PA sites across the network based on analysis of revenue potential and return 2 on investment 83

82 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.

156 (iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate maximum revenue whilst not threatening PA conservation objectives 3 (v) Non tourism user fees are applied and generate additional revenue 3 Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems None Partially Completed Operational (0) (1) (2) (3) System wide guidelines for fee collection are complete and approved by PA authorities 2 Fee collection systems are being implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective The current fee collection system of manner 2 Point of Sales (POS) using swapping cards of CRDB and Exim Banks Fee collection systems are monitored, evaluated and acted upon 3 The department of Finance conduct a periodic surveys on such systems PA visitors are satisfied with the professionalism of fee collection and the Not Applicable The surveys are conducted by the services provided 2 departments of Tourism and Planning Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue None Partially Satisfactory Fully generation mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees, In allocation with TTB {External conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level 2 and Internal} (ii) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about PA fees are in place at PA site level 2 Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs84 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and action plan for PES is complete and adopted by government 0 (ii) Pilot PES schemes at select PA sites developed 0 (iii) Operational performance of pilots is monitored, evaluated and reported 0 (iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway 0 Element 6 - Concessions operating within PAs85 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and implementation action plan is complete and adopted by government for concessions 3 (ii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot PA sites

83 As tourism infrastructure increases within PAs and in turn increases visitor numbers and PA revenues the score for this item should be increased in proportion to its importance to funding the PA system. 84 Where PES is not appropriate or feasible for a PA system take 12 points off total possible score for the PA system 85 Concessions will be mainly for tourism related services such as visitor centres, giftshops, restaurants, transportation etc

157 2 (iii) Operational performance (environmental and financial) of pilots is monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon 3 (iv) Scale up of concessions across the PA system is underway 2 Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation None Limited Satisfactory Extensive mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration 2 Total Score for Component 3 Actual score:48

Total possible score: 71

67.6 %:

158 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS Total Score for PA System 166

Total Possible Score 227 Actual score as a percentage of the total possible score 73 %

86 Percentage scored in previous year

Signature87: ______

Director of Protected Areas System

Date: ______

86 Insert NA if this is first year of completing scorecard. 87 In case a country does not have an official national Protected Areas system, the head of the authority with most responsibility for protected areas or the sub-system detailed in the Scorecard, should sign.

159 1.38 Financial Scorecard for Kitulo National Park

FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM Basic Protected Area System Information

Describe the PA system and what it includes:

This could be defined by IUCN Categories I-VI. However, if a country defines its PA system differently or has multiple PA systems then insert a definition that best describes the system about which the Scorecard is presenting data. For example some PA systems have a mixture of public, private and mixed ownership protected areas. What is important is for each country to explain and state which types of protected areas are included in the defined system and financial analysis. Some countries have private reserves separate from the national PA system. In these cases it is optional to report these here in an additional category in the tables (under other) as they do not fall under the responsibility of the government.

Also include any additional specific characteristics of the national PA system that might affect its financing.

Protected Areas System or sub-system Number of sites Total hectares Comments National protected areas 1 National Park 412.9 State owned, managed by TANAPA (Kitulo) Sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas

160

Financial Analysis of the National Baselin Yea Comments92 Protected Area System e r year88 X90 (US$) (US 89 $)91 2010 201 0 Available Finances93 (1) Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system) - national protected areas NA NA NA

(2) Total annual government budget Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each provided for PA management NA (including PA dedicated taxes94, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans, donations, debt-for nature swaps and other financial mechanisms)

- national protected areas NA NA NA

88 The baseline year refers to the year the Scorecard was completed for the first time and remains fixed. Insert year eg 2007. 89 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate (eg US$1=1000 colones, August 2007) 90 X refers to the year the Scorecard is completed and should be inserted (eg 2008). For the first time the Scorecard is completed X will be the same as the baseline year. For subsequent years insert an additional column to present the data for each year the Scorecard is completed. 91 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate 92 Comment should be made on robustness of the financial data presented (low, medium, high) 93 This section unravels sources of funds available to PAs, categorized by (i) government core budget (line item 1), (ii) additional government funds (line item 2), and (iii) PA generated revenues (line item 3). 94 Such as a conservation departure tax or water fees re-invested in PAs

161 (3) Total annual site based revenue Indicate total economic value of PAs (if generation across all PAs broken studies available)96 down by source95

A. Tourism entrance fees - national protected areas 37,03 - international: Adult -USD 20 8,100 Children -USD 5 - national: Adult -Tshs.1,000 -Tshs. 500

B. Concessions - national protected areas NA No permanent facility so far like lodges

C. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) - national protected areas NA Provide examples: Water service collection e.g. Ruaha for maintaining National Park Ecosystem

D. Other (specify each type of revenue generation mechanism97) - national protected areas NA

(4) Total annual revenues generated by PAs (total of (3)) - national protected areas 37,03 8,100

95 This data should be the total for all the PA systems to indicate total revenues. If data is only available for a specific PA system specify which system 96 Note this will include non monetary values and hence will differ (be greater) than revenues 97 This could include fees for licenses, research etc

162 (5) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re-investment98 % - national protected areas NA N The revenues generated from Kitulo National Park are sent to TANAPA Headquarters and A then returned back to Kitulo.

(6) Total finances available to the PA system [line item 2 ]+ [line item 4 * line item 5] - national protected areas 37,03 8,100

Costs and Financing Needs (7) Total annual expenditure for PAs State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given year (all PA operating and investment costs and system level expenses)99 State rate of disbursement – total annual expenditures as % of available finances (line item 6.)

If this % is low, state reasons100:

- national protected areas 990,4 Rate of disbursement is 30%. This is because the revenues generated by the park are 39,70 minimal while operational expenses are greater 7

(8) Estimation of financing needs101

98 This includes funds to be shared by PAs with local stakeholders 99 In some countries actual expenditure differs from planned expenditure due to disbursement difficulties. In this case actual expenditure should be presented and a note on disbursement rates and planned expenditures can be made in the Comments column. 100 Low to be defined by country expectations and needs 101 Complete this per PA system and add rows as necessary for each PA system for which needs are estimated

163 A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs (operational and investments) to be covered - national protected areas 3,301, 465,5 90

B. Estimated financing needs for Nil optimal management costs (operational and investments) to be covered102 - national protected areas

(9) Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)103 A. Net actual annual surplus/deficit104 - national protected areas 0

B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios - national protected areas 2,311, 025,8 83

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios - national protected areas Nil

D. Projected annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenario in year X+5105,106

102 Optimal scenarios should include costs of expanding the PA systems to be fully ecologically representative 103 Financing needs as calculated in (8) minus available financing total in (6) 104 This will likely be zero but some PAs may have undisbursed funds and some with autonomous budgets may have deficits

164 - national protected areas

(10) Financial data collection needs Specify main data gaps identified from this analysis:

Specify actions to be taken to fill data gaps107:

105 This data is useful to show the direction and pace of the PA system towards closing the finance gap. This line can only be completed if a long term financial analysis of the PA system has been undertaken for the country 106 As future costs are projected, initial consideration should be given to upcoming needs of PA systems to adapt to climate change which may include incorporating new areas into the PA system to facilitate habitat changes and migration 107 Actions may include (i) cost data based on site based management plans and extrapolation of site costs across a PA system and (ii) revenue and budget accounts and projections

165 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM

Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks COMMENT

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue None A Few Several Fully generation by PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms Specify the revenue generation mechanisms that are not permitted under the current legal framework 3

-Hunting concession (ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax breaks exist to promote PA financing 0

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention No Under development Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory and sharing within the PA system (0) (1) improvement (3) (2) (i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA The collected revenue are 100% system (central and site levels) 3 retained at the central PA system which is TANAPA and sent back to Kitulo National Park (ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site There is no retention to each park level 0 but the revenue are centrally collected and then distributed back to parks (iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with The benefit sharing policy for local stakeholders 3 TANAPA is 7.5% of the parks revenue Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds (endowment, sinking or revolving)108 No Established Established with Established with (0) (1) limited capital adequate capital (2) (3) (i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system 0 None A few Several Sufficient (0) (1) (2) (3) (ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs 0

108 This element can be omitted in countries where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government

166

No Partially Quite well Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and accounting 0

Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative None Under development Yes, but needs Yes, Satisfactory institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to (0) (1) improvement (3) (2) government (i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA 3 This is for permanent facilities in services TANAPA (ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs By participating the community to 2 protect the buffer zones and dispersal areas (iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government Mandate of TANAPA is to conserve management of PAs 2 and protect wild animals while in the national parks and the District Game Officers while such animals are outside the park (iv) There are laws which allow, promote and regulate private reserves 0

Element 5 - National PA financing policies and strategies (i) There are key PA financing policies for: No Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory (0) improvement (3) (2) Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both input and activity based accounting) 2 - Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs - international: 3 Adult -USD 20 Children -USD 5

- national: Adult -Tshs.1,000 -Tshs. 500

- Allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (criteria based on size, threats, business Allocation of the budget in the PA plans, performance etc) 3 system depend on: Size Threats Plans - Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect The Limit of Acceptable Use (LAU) conservation objectives of PAs 3 limits the tourism activities carried in different zones of the park as well

167 as number of development and tourist in the park - PA management plans to include financial data or associated business plans 1 (ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national Not begun In progress Completed (3) Under financing strategy109 (0) (1) implementation (5) Based on policy and regulatory frame work

5

Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems None Partial Satisfactory (2) Full (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc) (0) (1) (3) (i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local Provide summary data from studies and national development are available 2 (ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within Ministry (eg within other (eg within Economic and financial valuation of Environment) sectoral Ministries) Ministry of Finance)

2 Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No Partially Yes (0) (2) (3) (i) Government policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management plans 3 (ii) PA budgets includes funds to finance threat reduction strategies in buffer This is done through the Support on zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)110 3 Community Initiated Projects and Income Generating Projects. Also build capacity of the Village Natural Resources Committees and Village Game Scouts to preserve buffer zones (iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent, TANAPA being a parastatal organization reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates 3 fall under the procurement procedures under the Public (iv) Ministry of Finance plans to increased budget, over the long term, to reduce the PA financing gap 0 NA

Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial None Partial Improving Full management of PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed 3

109 A national PA Financing Strategy will include targets, policies, tools and approaches 110 This could include budgets for development agencies and local governments for local livelihoods

168 Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives None Partial Almost there (2) Full at site and system level (0) (1) (3) (i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists Explain their roles: and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels) 3 and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system (ii) PA site manager responsibilities include, financial management, cost- effectiveness and revenue generation 111 3 (iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA managers to promote site level financial sustainability 3 (eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts) (iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective 3 management (v) There is auditing capacity for PA finances 3 (vi) PA managers have the possibility to budget and plan for the long-term (eg over 5 years) 3 Total Score for Component 1 Actual score: 67

Total possible score: 95

70.5 %:

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective Comment management

Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun Early stages Near complete Completed (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs The rating should be based on and costs based on cost-effective analysis 3 quality of management plans

(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system Specify the percentage of PAs that 3 have management plans (iii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system112 1

111 These responsibilities should be found in the Terms of Reference for the posts 112 A PA Business Plan is a plan that analyzes and identifies the financial gap in a PA’s operations, and presents opportunities to mitigate that gap through operational cost efficiencies or revenue generation schemes. It does not refer to business plans for specific concession services within a PA. Each country may have its own definition and methodology for business plans or may only carry out financial analysis and hence may need to adapt the questions accordingly.

169 (iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives) 1 (v) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting 1 (vi) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting 1 Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and None Partial (1) Near complete Fully completed auditing systems (0) (2) (3) (i) There is a transparent and coordinated cost (operational and investment) accounting system functioning for the PA system 3

(ii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational 3 (iii) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to system level planning and budgeting 3 Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial Near completed Complete and management performance None Partial (2) operational (0) (1) (3) (i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by PA authorities to stakeholders 3 (ii) Financial returns on tourism related investments are measured and reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after 3 establishment of a visitor centre) (iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority 3 (iv) A reporting and evaluation system is in place to show how effectively PAs use their available finances (ie disbursement rate and cost-effectiveness) to 3 achieve management objectives Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No Yes (0) (2) (i) National PA budget is allocated to sites based on agreed and appropriate criteria (eg size, threats, needs, performance) 2 (ii) Funds raised by co-managed PAs do not reduce government budget allocations where funding gaps still exist 2 Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to Absent Partially done Almost done (2) Fully operate more cost-effectively (0) (1) (3) (i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA managers 3 (ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information All park managers meet annually at with each other on their costs, practices and impacts 3 TANAPA Headquarters during the Master Workers Council meeting to evaluate their performance as well as to finalize the budget estimates of each park (iii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, All park managers meet annually at

170 available and being used to track PA manager performance 3 TANAPA Headquarters during the Master Workers Council meeting to evaluate their performance as well as to finalize the budget estimates of each park (iv) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and Performance review according to the feed into system management policy and planning 2 TANAPA corporate strategic plan

(v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective This is done through the TANAPA management 2 Training programme (vi) PA financing system facilitates PAs to share costs of common practices with each other and with PA headquarters113 3 Total Score for Component 2 Actual score: 51

Total possible score: 61

83.6 %:

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation by PAs Comment Element 1 - Number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA None Partially A fair amount Optimal system (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and Source of the study available including feasibility studies; 2 (ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms, generating funds for the PA system 2 (iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial 2 investment cost) (iv) PAs enable local communities to generate revenues, resulting in reduced threats to the PAs 3 Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA No Partially Satisfactory Fully system (0) (1) (2) (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and adopted by government 3 (ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry are supportive and are partners in the PA user fee system and programmes 3 (iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed and developed for PA sites across the network based on analysis of revenue potential and return 2 on investment 114

113 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.

171 (iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate maximum revenue whilst not threatening PA conservation objectives 3 (v) Non tourism user fees are applied and generate additional revenue 3 Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems None Partially Completed Operational (0) (1) (2) (3) System wide guidelines for fee collection are complete and approved by PA authorities 2 Fee collection systems are being implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective The current fee collection system of manner 2 Point of Sales (POS) using swapping cards of CRDB and Exim Banks Fee collection systems are monitored, evaluated and acted upon 3 The department of Finance conduct a periodic surveys on such systems PA visitors are satisfied with the professionalism of fee collection and the Not Applicable The surveys are conducted by the services provided 2 departments of Tourism and Planning Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue None Partially Satisfactory Fully generation mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees, In allocation with TTB {External conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level 2 and Internal} (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about PA fees are in place at PA site level 2 Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs115 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and action plan for PES is complete and adopted by government 0 (ii) Pilot PES schemes at select PA sites developed 0 (iii) Operational performance of pilots is monitored, evaluated and reported 0 (iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway 0 Element 6 - Concessions operating within PAs116 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and implementation action plan is complete and adopted by government for concessions 3 (ii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot PA sites

114 As tourism infrastructure increases within PAs and in turn increases visitor numbers and PA revenues the score for this item should be increased in proportion to its importance to funding the PA system. 115 Where PES is not appropriate or feasible for a PA system take 12 points off total possible score for the PA system 116 Concessions will be mainly for tourism related services such as visitor centres, giftshops, restaurants, transportation etc

172 2 (iii) Operational performance (environmental and financial) of pilots is monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon 3 (iv) Scale up of concessions across the PA system is underway 2 Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation None Limited Satisfactory Extensive mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration 2 Total Score for Component 3 Actual score: 48

Total possible score: 71

67.6 %:

173 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS Total Score for PA System 166

Total Possible Score 227 Actual score as a percentage of the total possible score 73 %

117 Percentage scored in previous year

Signature118: ______

Director of Protected Areas System

Date: ______

117 Insert NA if this is first year of completing scorecard. 118 In case a country does not have an official national Protected Areas system, the head of the authority with most responsibility for protected areas or the sub-system detailed in the Scorecard, should sign.

174 1.39 Financial Scorecard for Mpanga Kipengere Game Reserve

FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM

Basic Protected Area System Information

Describe the PA system and what it includes:

This could be defined by IUCN Categories I-VI. However, if a country defines its PA system differently or has multiple PA systems then insert a definition that best describes the system about which the Scorecard is presenting data. For example some PA systems have a mixture of public, private and mixed ownership protected areas. What is important is for each country to explain and state which types of protected areas are included in the defined system and financial analysis. Some countries have private reserves separate from the national PA system. In these cases it is optional to report these here in an additional category in the tables (under other) as they do not fall under the responsibility of the government.

Also include any additional specific characteristics of the national PA system that might affect its financing.

Protected Areas System or sub-system Number of sites Total hectares Comments National protected areas Mpanga Kipengere 1574.25kmsq Owned by government, wildlife Game reserve division

175

Financial Analysis of the National Base Yea Comments123 Protected Area System line r year X 119 121 (US$ (US )120 $) 122 Available Finances124 (1) Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system) - national protected areas 136 13 ,53 6,5 7,3 37, 00 30 0

-

(2) Total annual government budget Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each provided for PA management (including PA dedicated taxes125, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans,

119 The baseline year refers to the year the Scorecard was completed for the first time and remains fixed. Insert year eg 2007. 120 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate (eg US$1=1000 colones, August 2007) 121 X refers to the year the Scorecard is completed and should be inserted (eg 2008). For the first time the Scorecard is completed X will be the same as the baseline year. For subsequent years insert an additional column to present the data for each year the Scorecard is completed. 122 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate 123 Comment should be made on robustness of the financial data presented (low, medium, high) 124 This section unravels sources of funds available to PAs, categorized by (i) government core budget (line item 1), (ii) additional government funds (line item 2), and (iii) PA generated revenues (line item 3). 125 Such as a conservation departure tax or water fees re-invested in PAs

176 donations, debt-for nature swaps and other financial mechanisms)

- national protected areas 136 13 Donated by central government ,53 6,5 7,3 37, 00 30 0

(3) Total annual site based revenue Indicate total economic value of PAs (if studies available)127 generation across all PAs broken down by source126

A. Tourism entrance fees NA No any tourism activities practised in Mpanga Kipengere game reserve

- national protected areas

B. Concessions NA - national protected areas

C. Payments for ecosystem services NA (PES) - national protected areas

126 This data should be the total for all the PA systems to indicate total revenues. If data is only available for a specific PA system specify which system 127 Note this will include non monetary values and hence will differ (be greater) than revenues

177

D. Other (specify each type of NA revenue generation mechanism128) - national protected areas

(4) Total annual revenues generated by PAs (total of (3)) - national protected areas NA

(5) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re-investment129 NA Not retained in PA - national protected areas

(6) Total finances available to the PA system [line item 2 ]+ [line item 4 * line item 5] - national protected areas 136 ,53 7,3 00

128 This could include fees for licenses, research etc 129 This includes funds to be shared by PAs with local stakeholders

178

Costs and Financing Needs (7) Total annual expenditure for PAs State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given year (all PA operating and investment costs and system level expenses)130 State rate of disbursement – total annual expenditures as % of available finances (line item 6.)

If this % is low, state reasons131:

- national protected areas

(8) Estimation of financing needs132 A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs (operational and investments) to be covered - national protected areas NA

B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs

130 In some countries actual expenditure differs from planned expenditure due to disbursement difficulties. In this case actual expenditure should be presented and a note on disbursement rates and planned expenditures can be made in the Comments column. 131 Low to be defined by country expectations and needs 132 Complete this per PA system and add rows as necessary for each PA system for which needs are estimated

179 (operational and investments) to be covered133 - national protected areas Nil

(9) Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)134 A. Net actual annual Nil surplus/deficit135 - national protected areas

B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios - national protected areas Nil

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios - national protected areas

D. Projected annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenario in year X+5136,137

133 Optimal scenarios should include costs of expanding the PA systems to be fully ecologically representative 134 Financing needs as calculated in (8) minus available financing total in (6) 135 This will likely be zero but some PAs may have undisbursed funds and some with autonomous budgets may have deficits

180 - national protected areas - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(10) Financial data collection needs Specify main data gaps identified from this analysis:

Specify actions to be taken to fill data gaps138:

136 This data is useful to show the direction and pace of the PA system towards closing the finance gap. This line can only be completed if a long term financial analysis of the PA system has been undertaken for the country 137 As future costs are projected, initial consideration should be given to upcoming needs of PA systems to adapt to climate change which may include incorporating new areas into the PA system to facilitate habitat changes and migration 138 Actions may include (i) cost data based on site based management plans and extrapolation of site costs across a PA system and (ii) revenue and budget accounts and projections

181 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks COMMENT

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue None A Few Several Fully generation by PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms 2 Hunting policy, tourism policy

(ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax breaks exist to 0 promote PA financing

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention No Under development Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory and sharing within the PA system (0) (1) improvement (3) (2) (i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA 1 system (central and site levels)

(ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site 1 : level

(iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with 0 local stakeholders

Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds (endowment, sinking or revolving)139 No Established Established with Established with (0) (1) limited capital adequate capital (2) (3) (i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system 0

None A few Several Sufficient (0) (1) (2) (3) (ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs 0

No Partially Quite well Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and 0 accounting

139 This element can be omitted in countries where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government

182 Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative None Under development Yes, but needs Yes, Satisfactory institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to (0) (1) improvement (3) (2) government (i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA 0 services (ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs (iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government management of PAs (iv) There are laws which allow, promote and regulate private reserves Element 5 - National PA financing policies and strategies (i) There are key PA financing policies for: No Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory (0) improvement (3) (2) Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both 2 input and activity based accounting)

- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs

- Allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (criteria based on size, threats, business 1 Size, and threats plans, performance etc) - Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect conservation objectives of PAs - PA management plans to include financial data or associated business plans (ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national Not begun In progress Completed (3) Under financing strategy140 (0) (1) implementation (5) 0 Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems None Partial Satisfactory (2) Full (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc) (0) (1) (3) (i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local 2 Provide summary data from studies and national development are available (ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within Ministry 2 (eg within of Environment) Ministry of Finance)

Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No Partially Yes (0) (2) (3) (i) Government policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as 3 determined by PA management plans (ii) PA budgets includes funds to finance threat reduction strategies in buffer 3 It is through ant poaching activities zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)141

140 A national PA Financing Strategy will include targets, policies, tools and approaches

183 (iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent, 3 Because it is the government system reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates (iv) Ministry of Finance plans to increased budget, over the long term, to 0 reduce the PA financing gap

Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial None Partial Improving Full management of PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed 0

Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives None Partial Almost there (2) Full at site and system level (0) (1) (3) (i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists 2 Prepare the budget and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels) and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system (ii) PA site manager responsibilities include, financial management, cost- 3 effectiveness and revenue generation 142 (iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA managers to promote site level financial 0 sustainability (eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts) (iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of 0 sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective management (v) There is auditing capacity for PA finances 3

(vi) PA managers have the possibility to budget and plan for the long-term (eg over 5 years) Total Score for Component 1 Actual score: 28

Total possible score: 95

29.5 %:

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective Comment management

Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun Early stages Near complete Completed (0) (1) (2) (3)

141 This could include budgets for development agencies and local governments for local livelihoods 142 These responsibilities should be found in the Terms of Reference for the posts

184 (i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs The rating should be based on and costs based on cost-effective analysis quality of management plans

(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system Specify the percentage of PAs that have management plans (iii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management 0 plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system143 (iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system 0 (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives) (iv) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting 0 (v) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and 0 contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and None Partial (1) Near complete Fully completed auditing systems (0) (2) (3) (i) There is a transparent and coordinated cost (operational and investment) 3 accounting system functioning for the PA system (ii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational 3 (iii) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to system level 3 planning and budgeting Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial Near completed Complete and management performance None Partial (2) operational (0) (1) (3) (i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by PA 0 authorities to stakeholders (ii) Financial returns on tourism related investments are measured and 3 reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after establishment of a visitor centre) (iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds 3 are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority (iv) A reporting and evaluation system is in place to show how effectively PAs 3 use their available finances (ie disbursement rate and cost-effectiveness) to achieve management objectives Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No Yes (0) (2) (i) National PA budget is allocated to sites based on agreed and appropriate 2 criteria (eg size, threats, needs, performance) (ii) Funds raised by co-managed PAs do not reduce government budget allocations where funding gaps still exist Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to Absent Partially done Almost done (2) Fully

143 A PA Business Plan is a plan that analyzes and identifies the financial gap in a PA’s operations, and presents opportunities to mitigate that gap through operational cost efficiencies or revenue generation schemes. It does not refer to business plans for specific concession services within a PA. Each country may have its own definition and methodology for business plans or may only carry out financial analysis and hence may need to adapt the questions accordingly.

185 operate more cost-effectively (0) (1) (3) (i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA 3 All PA Managers meet annually to managers discuss their performance and prepare the coming budget. (ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information 2 It is discussed during the preparation with eachother on their costs, practices and impacts of budget (iii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, available and being used to track PA manager performance (iv) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and 2 feed into system management policy and planning (v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective 0 management (vi) PA financing system facilitates PAs to share costs of common practices with each other and with PA headquarters144 Total Score for Component 2 Actual score:

Total possible score: 61

%:

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation by PAs Comment Element 1 - Number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA None Partially A fair amount Optimal system (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and 0 available including feasibility studies; (ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms, generating funds for the 1 PA system (iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues 1 (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial investment cost) (iv) PAs enable local communities to generate revenues, resulting in reduced 0 threats to the PAs Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA No Partially Satisfactory Fully system (0) (1) (2) (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and 3 If PA sites have tariffs but there is adopted by government no system strategy score as partial

(ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry are supportive and are partners 3 in the PA user fee system and programmes

144 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.

186 (iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed and developed for 0 PA sites across the network based on analysis of revenue potential and return on investment 145 (iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate maximum revenue whilst not threatening PA conservation objectives (v) Non tourism user fees are applied and generate additional revenue Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems None Partially Completed Operational (0) (1) (2) (3) System wide guidelines for fee collection are complete and approved by PA 0 authorities Fee collection systems are being implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective 0 manner Fee collection systems are monitored, evaluated and acted upon 0 PA visitors are satisfied with the professionalism of fee collection and the 0 Not Applicable This can be done through visitor services provided surveys Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue None Partially Satisfactory Fully generation mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees, 1 conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about PA fees are 0 in place at PA site level Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs146 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and action plan for PES is complete and adopted by government (ii) Pilot PES schemes at select PA sites developed (iii) Operational performance of pilots is monitored, evaluated and reported (iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway Element 6 - Concessions operating within PAs147 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and implementation action plan is complete and 0 adopted by government for concessions (ii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot PA sites 0 (iii) Operational performance (environmental and financial) of pilots is 0 monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon (iv) Scale up of concessions across the PA system is underway

145 As tourism infrastructure increases within PAs and in turn increases visitor numbers and PA revenues the score for this item should be increased in proportion to its importance to funding the PA system. 146 Where PES is not appropriate or feasible for a PA system take 12 points off total possible score for the PA system 147 Concessions will be mainly for tourism related services such as visitor centres, giftshops, restaurants, transportation etc

187 Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation None Limited Satisfactory Extensive mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations 1 for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration Total Score for Component 3 Actual score:

Total possible score: 71

%:

188 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS

Total Score for PA System

Total Possible Score 227 Actual score as a percentage of the total possible score

148 Percentage scored in previous year

Signature149: ______

Director of Protected Areas System Date: ______

148 Insert NA if this is first year of completing scorecard. 149 In case a country does not have an official national Protected Areas system, the head of the authority with most responsibility for protected areas or the sub-system detailed in the Scorecard, should sign.

189 1.40 Financial Scorecard for Mount Rungwe Nature Reserve

FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM Basic Protected Area System Information

Describe the PA system and what it includes: This could be defined by IUCN Categories I-VI. However, if a country defines its PA system differently or has multiple PA systems then insert a definition that best describes the system about which the Scorecard is presenting data. For example some PA systems have a mixture of public, private and mixed ownership protected areas. What is important is for each country to explain and state which types of protected areas are included in the defined system and financial analysis. Some countries have private reserves separate from the national PA system. In these cases it is optional to report these here in an additional category in the tables (under other) as they do not fall under the responsibility of the government. Also include any additional specific characteristics of the national PA system that might affect its financing.

Protected Areas System or sub-system Number of sites Total hectares Comments National protected areas 1 13,652.1 State owned PA under IV IUCN category Sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas Co-managed protected areas Others (define)

190

Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline Year X152 Comments154 150 153 year (US$) (US$)151 Available Finances155 (1) Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system) - national protected areas US$ 2010/11 >10,000 - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(2) Total annual government budget provided for PA management (including PA 2010/11 Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each dedicated taxes156, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans, donations, debt-for nature swaps and other financial mechanisms) Low

- national protected areas US$ >50,000 - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(3) Total annual site based revenue generation across all PAs broken down by Indicate total economic value of PAs (if studies source157 available)158

150 The baseline year refers to the year the Scorecard was completed for the first time and remains fixed. October, 2010 151 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate (eg US$1=1500 Tshs October, 2010 152 X refers to the year the Scorecard is completed and should be inserted (eg 2010). For the first time the Scorecard is completed X will be the same as the baseline year. For subsequent years insert an additional column to present the data for each year the Scorecard is completed. 153 Insert in footnote the local currency and exchange rate to US$ and date of rate 154 Comment should be made on robustness of the financial data presented (low, medium, high) 155 This section unravels sources of funds available to PAs, categorized by (i) government core budget (line item 1), (ii) additional government funds (line item 2), and (iii) PA generated revenues (line item 3). 156 Such as a conservation departure tax or water fees re-invested in PAs

191

A. Tourism entrance fees Specify the number of visitors to the protected areas in year X - international:NIL - national:NIL

Specify fee levels: - international: US $ 30 - national:NIL US $ 3

- national protected areas NIL - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

B. Concessions - national protected areas NA - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

C. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) Provide examples: - national protected areas NIL - - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

D. Other (specify each type of revenue generation mechanism159) Research Fees - national protected areas NIL - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas

157 This data should be the total for all the PA systems to indicate total revenues. If data is only available for a specific PA system specify which system 158 Note this will include non monetary values and hence will differ (be greater) than revenues 159 This could include fees for licenses, research etc

192 - co-managed protected areas - others

(4) Total annual revenues generated by PAs (total of (3)) - national protected areas NIL Eco-tourism revenue collection has not started - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(5) Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re- investment160 % PA generated revenues are sent to government (treasury) and no specific system of ploughing back to PA system - national protected areas NIL - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(6) Total finances available to the PA system ? [line item 2 ]+ [line item 4 * line item 5] - national protected areas NA - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

Costs and Financing Needs (7) Total annual expenditure for PAs (all PA operating and investment costs and State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given system level expenses)161 year

State rate of disbursement – total annual expenditures as % of available finances (line item 6.)

If this % is low, state reasons162:

160 This includes funds to be shared by PAs with local stakeholders 161 In some countries actual expenditure differs from planned expenditure due to disbursement difficulties. In this case actual expenditure should be presented and a note on disbursement rates and planned expenditures can be made in the Comments column.

193

- national protected areas Tshs. 50 Costs for routine activities (patrol, awareness creation, Million etc) - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(8) Estimation of financing needs163 A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs (operational and investments) to be covered - national protected areas Tshs 100 Costs for Office building, staff houses + Costs for routine Million activities (patrol, awareness creation, etc) - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs (operational and investments) to be covered164 - national protected areas - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

(9) Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)165 Million = TZS 50 Million A. Net actual annual surplus/deficit166 - national protected areas - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas

162 Low to be defined by country expectations and needs 163 Complete this per PA system and add rows as necessary for each PA system for which needs are estimated 164 Optimal scenarios should include costs of expanding the PA systems to be fully ecologically representative 165 Financing needs as calculated in (8) minus available financing total in (6) 166 This will likely be zero but some PAs may have undisbursed funds and some with autonomous budgets may have deficits

194 - others

B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios - national protected areas - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios - national protected areas - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas - co-managed protected areas - others

D. Projected annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenario in year X+5167,168 - national protected areas - sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas

- co-managed protected areas - others

(10) Financial data collection needs Investment costs for Office and 2 staff construction Houses, 3 Ranger posts and construction of 3 gatesa nd Annual Operational costs:

Specify actions to be taken to fill data gaps: Project write up, develop ecotourism facilities and run the business 169

167 This data is useful to show the direction and pace of the PA system towards closing the finance gap. This line can only be completed if a long term financial analysis of the PA system has been undertaken for the country 168 As future costs are projected, initial consideration should be given to upcoming needs of PA systems to adapt to climate change which may include incorporating new areas into the PA system to facilitate habitat changes and migration 169 Actions may include (i) cost data based on site based management plans and extrapolation of site costs across a PA system and (ii) revenue and budget accounts and projections

195

FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II – ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE FINANCING SYSTEM Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks COMMENT

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue None A Few Several Fully generation by PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms √ -Logging -Mining -Petty trade -Charcoal making

(ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax breaks exist to √ Entrance & Tourism Fees are due to promote PA financing start

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention No Under Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory and sharing within the PA system (0) development improvement (3) (1) (2) (i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA √ Specify % to be retained: system (central and site levels)

(ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site √ Specify % to be retained: level

(iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with √ Specify % to be shared: local stakeholders

Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds (endowment, sinking or revolving)170 No Established Established with Established with (0) (1) limited capital adequate capital (2) (3) (i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system √

None A few Several Sufficient (0) (1) (2) (3) (ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs √

No Partially Quite well Fully

170 This element can be omitted in countries where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government

196 (0) (1) (2) (3) (iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and √ accounting

Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative None Under Yes, but needs Yes, Satisfactory institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to (0) development improvement (3) (1) (2) government (i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concession for PA √ Not in critical biodiversity PAs services (ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs √ (iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government √ management of PAs (iv) There are laws which allow, promote and regulate private reserves √ Element 5 - National PA financing policies and strategies (i) There are key PA financing policies for: No Yes, but needs Yes, satisfactory (0) improvement (3) (2) Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both √ input and activity based accounting)

- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs √ Not started to accrue revenue

- Allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (criteria based on size, threats, business √ PAs rich in biodiversity with plans, performance etc) Endemic and threatened species - Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect √ conservation objectives of PAs - PA management plans to include financial data or associated business plans √ (ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national Not begun In progress Completed (3) Under financing strategy171 (0) (1) implementation (5) √ (TFS?) Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems None Partial Satisfactory (2) Full (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc) (0) (1) (3) (i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local √ Pas in Eastern Arc Mts provide over and national development are available 17 mil US$ from water and over 7 mil US$ from electricity. No specific data for Mt. Rungwe NR (ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within (eg within other (eg within Cuts across various ministries Ministry of sectoral Ministries) Ministry of Environment) Finance)

171 A national PA Financing Strategy will include targets, policies, tools and approaches

197 √

Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No Partially Yes (0) (2) (3) (i) Government policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as √ determined by PA management plans (ii) PA budgets includes funds to finance threat reduction strategies in buffer √ zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)172 (iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent, √ reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates (iv) Ministry of Finance plans to increased budget, over the long term, to √ reduce the PA financing gap

Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial None Partial Improving Full management of PAs (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed √

Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives None Partial Almost there (2) Full at site and system level (0) (1) (3)

(i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists √ No complete set of experts required and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels) in each PA and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system (ii) PA site manager responsibilities include, financial management, cost- √ effectiveness and revenue generation 173 (iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA managers to promote site level financial √ sustainability (eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts) (iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of √ sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective management (v) There is auditing capacity for PA finances √

(vi) PA managers have the possibility to budget and plan for the long-term (eg √ over 5 years) Total Score for Component 1 Actual score: 63 Total possible score: 95

172 This could include budgets for development agencies and local governments for local livelihoods 173 These responsibilities should be found in the Terms of Reference for the posts

198

66.3%

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective Comment management

Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun Early stages Near complete Completed (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs √ The rating should be based on and costs based on cost-effective analysis quality of management plans

(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system √ 75% of critical biodiversity Pas and <10% of other Pas s (iii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management √ plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system174 (iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system √ (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives) (iv) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting √ (v) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and √ contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and None Partial (1) Near complete Fully completed auditing systems (0) (2) (3) (i) There is a transparent and coordinated cost (operational and investment) √ accounting system functioning for the PA system (ii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational √ (iii) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to system level √ planning and budgeting Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial Near completed Complete and management performance None Partial (2) operational (0) (1) (3) (i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by PA √ authorities to stakeholders (ii) Financial returns on tourism related investments are measured and √ reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after establishment of a visitor centre) (iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds √ are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority

174 A PA Business Plan is a plan that analyzes and identifies the financial gap in a PA’s operations, and presents opportunities to mitigate that gap through operational cost efficiencies or revenue generation schemes. It does not refer to business plans for specific concession services within a PA. Each country may have its own definition and methodology for business plans or may only carry out financial analysis and hence may need to adapt the questions accordingly.

199 (iv) A reporting and evaluation system is in place to show how effectively PAs √ use their available finances (ie disbursement rate and cost-effectiveness) to achieve management objectives Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No Yes (0) (2) (i) National PA budget is allocated to sites based on agreed and appropriate √ criteria (eg size, threats, needs, performance) (ii) Funds raised by co-managed PAs do not reduce government budget NA allocations where funding gaps still exist Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to Absent Partially done Almost done (2) Fully operate more cost-effectively (0) (1) (3) (i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA √ managers (ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information √ with each other on their costs, practices and impacts (iii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, √ available and being used to track PA manager performance (iv) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and √ feed into system management policy and planning (v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective √ management (vi) PA financing system facilitates PAs to share costs of common practices √ with each other and with PA headquarters175 Total Score for Component 2 Actual score: 44 Total possible score: 61

72%:

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation by PAs Comment Element 1 - Number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA None Partially A fair amount Optimal system (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and √ available including feasibility studies; (ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms, generating funds for the √ PA system (iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues √ (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial investment cost)

175 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.

200 (iv) PAs enable local communities to generate revenues, resulting in reduced √ threats to the PAs Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA No Partially Satisfactory Fully system (0) (1) (2) (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and √ If PA sites have tariffs but there is adopted by government no system strategy score as partial

(ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry are supportive and are partners √ in the PA user fee system and programmes (iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed and developed for √ PA sites across the network based on analysis of revenue potential and return on investment 176 (iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate maximum √ revenue whilst not threatening PA conservation objectives (v) Non tourism user fees are applied and generate additional revenue √ Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems None Partially Completed Operational (0) (1) (2) (3) System wide guidelines for fee collection are complete and approved by PA √ authorities Fee collection systems are being implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective √ manner Fee collection systems are monitored, evaluated and acted upon √ PA visitors are satisfied with the professionalism of fee collection and the NA to this particular PA but had services provided worked in other service providing PAs Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue None Partially Satisfactory Fully generation mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees, √ conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level (i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about PA fees are √ in place at PA site level Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs177 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and action plan for PES is complete and adopted by √ government (ii) Pilot PES schemes at select PA sites developed √ (iii) Operational performance of pilots is monitored, evaluated and reported √

176 As tourism infrastructure increases within PAs and in turn increases visitor numbers and PA revenues the score for this item should be increased in proportion to its importance to funding the PA system. 177 Where PES is not appropriate or feasible for a PA system take 12 points off total possible score for the PA system

201 (iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway Element 6 - Concessions operating within PAs178 None Partially Progressing Fully (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) A system wide strategy and implementation action plan is complete and √ adopted by government for concessions (ii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot PA sites √ (iii) Operational performance (environmental and financial) of pilots is √ monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon (iv) Scale up of concessions across the PA system is underway √ Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation None Limited Satisfactory Extensive mechanisms (0) (1) (2) (3) (i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations √ for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration Total Score for Component 3 Actual score: 29 Total possible score: 71

40.8%:

178 Concessions will be mainly for tourism related services such as visitor centres, giftshops, restaurants, transportation etc

202 FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART III – SCORING AND MEASURING PROGRESS Total Score for PA System 136

Total Possible Score 227 Actual score as a percentage of the total possible score 59.9%

179 Percentage scored in previous year NA

Signature180: ______

Director of Protected Areas System

Date: ______

179 Insert NA if this is first year of completing scorecard. 180 In case a country does not have an official national Protected Areas system, the head of the authority with most responsibility for protected areas or the sub-system detailed in the Scorecard, should sign.

203

PROJECT DOCUMENT Republic of Tanzania United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility

Project Title: Strengthening the Protected Area Network in Southern Tanzania: Improving the Effectiveness of National Parks in addressing threats to Biodiversity UNDAP Outcome(s): 1) Key MDAs and LGAs integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation in their strategies and plans 2) Relevant MDAs, LGAs and Non-State Actors improve enforcement of environment laws and regulations for the protection of ecosystems, biodiversity and the sustainable management of natural resources UNDP Strategic Plan; Environment and Sustainable Development Primary outcome: Local Capacity for mainstreaming Environment and energy provision into national development policies plans and programmes. Expected CCPD Outcome(s): ) Key MDAs and LGAs integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation in their strategies and plans 2) Relevant MDAs, LGAs and Non-State Actors improve enforcement of environment laws and regulations for the protection of ecosystems, biodiversity and the sustainable management of natural resources. Expected CCPD Output Improved capacity for sustainable management of protected areas, coastal forests and marine ecosystems including policy and regulatory frameworks Project Objective: The biodiversity of Southern Tanzania is better represented and buffered from threats within National Parks Expected Components: 1) Integrating management of National Parks and boarder landscapes in southern Tanzania; 2) Operations support for national Parks management in Southern Tanzania

Expected Outputs: Inter-sectoral district land management coordination mechanism between Tanzania national Parks Authority (TANAPA), district Authorities and Wildlife Division (WD) is in place in the Greater Ruaha and Kitulo-Kipengelre Landscapes of Southern Tanzania. TANAPA, WD, 7 pilot district Authorities and Civil Society partners plan, implement and monitor biodiversity management measures for these landscapes. TANAPA has the competence and staff skills to lead Land use planning, management and monitoring in lands capes; TANAPA has a staffed community extension services and ensure effective engagement between communities, Park Authorities and dispute resolution. For Ruaha and Kitulo National Parks, boundaries for the recent/planned PA extension are demarcated, public consultations are completed and management plans are completed. Mpanga – Kipengere Game Reserve is raised to higher protected area status as a National Park, linked through the Kipengere corridor extension to Kitulo NP. Systematic staff training programme covering all aspects of PA operations ensure 300 rangers, guides and other field staff meet necessary competencies. Funds, Human resources and equipment are provided and deployed to address threats to NPs in a cost effective manner. A joint (TANAPA – Community – District- Private sector) stakeholder group formed to address overall management issues in both Ruaha and Kitulo NPs and adjacent Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) is established. A sustainable finance plan is developed and approved and implemented for the PA system in both landscapes. Business planning is mandated for all NPs as well as for adjacent WMAs.

204 Implementing Entity/Responsible Partners: Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA); Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) Brief Description This proposal aims to increase the effectiveness of the National Parks in protecting biodiversity and provide for the long-term ecological, social and financial sustainability of that system. The focus will be on the new and developing Southern Circuit of Tanzania’s National Parks, reflecting the fact that with some exceptions, the management effectiveness of NPs in this region remains sub-optimal, relative to the Government’s desired levels and tourism numbers remain low. The long term solution underpinning the application is to build the management effectiveness of these PAs, to reduce anthropogenic pressures on the sites and secure biodiversity status within them. The project has been designed to address PA management barriers of (a) a lack of proper connectivity between isolated PAs, for larger mammal movements and to buffer against climate change impacts and (b) lack of management capacity and financial planning to bring people to the area and to prevent the various threats to the area through two complementary components.

Project Period: 2011 - 2016 years Total resources required US$ 17, 364,500 Atlas Award ID: 00060996 Total allocated resources:

Project ID: 00077042  Regular (UNDP) 1,000,000

PIMS No. 3253  Other: o GEF 5,304,500 Estimated Start date: July 2011 o Government 11,060,000 Estimated end Date: December 2016 Management Arrangements NIM th PAC Meeting Date 13 January 2011 On behalf of: Signature Date/Month/Year Title Government of Tanzania: Ministry of Finance and External Affairs Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA)

UNDP Resident Representative

205