Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
PROJECT DOCUMENT Republic of Tanzania
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 birds, 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.
2
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
3
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
4
1.32 LONG-TERM STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................. 102
ANNEX III: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOLS ...................................................................... 104
1.33 METT FOR RUAHA NATIONAL PARK .......................................................................................................... 104 1.34 METT FOR KITULO NATIONAL PARK .......................................................................................................... 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
5
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 Mbeya
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
6
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
7
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 Bird 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
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
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, giraffe, buffalo); migratory plains game (e.g. zebra,
wildebeest, eland and gazelle); and large predators (African wild dog, 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
17
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 Selous Game Reserve). 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
Serengeti 1951 14,763 sq
km Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets
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
18
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
Mountains 1980 1,613 sq km Albertine Rift Forests and Grasslands
Mikumi 1964 3,230 sq km Eastern Miombo Woodlands
Ruaha 1964 20,300 sq
km
Central Zambezian Miombo Woodland / Southern Acacia-
Commiphora bushlands and thickets
Udzungwa 1992 1,990 sq km Eastern Arc Forests
Southern Tanzania Regional Context
27. Topographically, the Iringa region and the Mbeya region 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
19
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
20
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
Greater Kudu 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
21
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
22
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
23
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
24
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.
25
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 genus 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
(Serinus 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
26
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 animals 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
27
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)
28
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
29
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
Item YEAR
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
30
Item YEAR
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Revenue (USD million) 725 730 731 746.14 822
Average Tourist’s
Consumption Per Day
(USD)
173s 1591
822
1531
822
1881
1192
1561
1252
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
31
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
32
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 animal 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
33
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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
NGO / Donor Roles and
Responsibilities Main Activities
Wildlife
Conservation
Society
Promote best practices
to conserve wildlife and
environment and
advocate for rational
policies in NR
management
Research and monitoring systems
Protected area design and management,
community conservation
World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF)
To ensure that
biodiversity and
biological processes are
conserved in harmony
with the needs of the
people
Develop integrated water management approaches
Sustainable use of natural resources
Environmental awareness creation
Capacity building for biodiversity conservation
Policy development, implementation and harmonization
Water Aid
To improve poor
people’s access to safe
water, hygiene and
sanitation
Pumps installation
Water functionality and distribution of water points
Education and awareness on sanitation issues
DFID Support various
developments projects
To promote sustainable management of Usangu Wetlands
Catchment
Support livelihoods programmes and WMAs
WCST
Promote sustainable
management of natural
resources
USAID
Promote sustainable
NRM and policy
implementation
Support other NGO like WCS to implement some of its
objectives
Support capacity building programmes to the WMAs
38
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
Tents
Capacity/number
of beds
Ownership
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.
39
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
40
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.
41
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
42
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
43
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
44
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
45
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
46
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
47
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)
48
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
Area / PA Name
Project
Focus Area Description
Area
(km2)
Area
(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
Area / PA Name
Project
Focus Area Description
Area
(km2)
Area
(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.
49
Area / PA Name
Project
Focus Area Description
Area
(km2)
Area
(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.
50
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:
51
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.
52
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.
53
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
Landscape planning and
subsequent implementation
of plans will be affected by
institutional intransigence,
reducing collaborative
efforts between NPs, District
Councils and Villages.
Med
TANAPA has selected to work in landscapes where this risk will be
muted, and builds on strong Government will to strengthen
management of the NP Southern Circuit. The project will invest in
building conflict avoidance and resolution skills, and build on
existing institutional mechanisms such as district environmental
committees, and seek to cost economic tradeoffs between wildlife,
tourism, agriculture and other land uses and to reduce opportunity
costs thus reducing the prospects that institutions will not find
common ground. Institutional buy-in between government
departments and ministries is secured and will be ongoing.
The tourism down-turn
continues for longer and at
deeper levels than expected,
thus even further reducing
financial viability of the
Southern Circuit.
Low
The NP system is heavily dependent on the tourism industry. The
project strategy aims at building Tanzania’s capability to weather
the economic crisis, including by improving the cost effectiveness
of operations, expanding the tourism product in the Southern
Circuit, supporting TANAPA to enhance the tourism products
available such as through walking safaris and tapping into the
under-serviced domestic tourism market and assisting TANAPA to
build its Operating Reserve during high tourism years.
Land pressure from local
communities and short term
gain seekers reduce attempts
for rational landscape level
conservation.
Med
Feasibility studies will be undertaken as part of the Systematic
Conservation Plans that will be prepared under component 1. These
plans will be mandated at national and local government level. The
project will seek to manage trade-offs between real development
needs and conservation actions within the PA system. Improved
enforcement will serve as a deterrent against rent seeking; the
project will therefore strengthen the enforcement capabilities of
Government.
Climate change could lead to
changed distributions of BD Low
A focus on landscapes (as opposed to small patches), with sufficient
buffer zone protection militates against short-term change. The
54
Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measure
components, and changes in
community and private
sector demands on wildlife
and forest resources.
maintenance of forest cover is a good adaptation policy in the face
of uncertainty (because rainfall in this region is expected to
increase; the maintenance of watershed integrity is critical to avoid
major floods). *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
55
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.
56
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
SO-1:
To catalyze
sustainability of
protected area
systems
• Extent of habitat cover (hectares) by biome
type maintained, as measured by cover and
fragmentation in protected area systems
• Extent and percentage increase of new
habitat protected (hectares) by biome type in
protected area systems that enhances
ecosystem representation
• Protected area management effectiveness as
measured by protected area scorecards that
assess site management, financial
sustainability, and capacity
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
buffer zones are supporting landscape
integrity and species movements.
An existing network of two national
parks (RUNAPA & KINAPA) and one
game reserve (MKGR) provided the
operational capacity to be financially
sustainable. One nature reserve
(MRNR) benefits through enhanced
connectivity. Dispersal areas in nearby
GRL game reserves (Rungwa block).
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
57
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.
58
The GEF has made a sizable investment in biodiversity conservation in Tanzania.
Table 9. Associated GEF Financed Projects in Tanzania
GEF
ID Project Name Focal Area
GEF
Agency
Project
Type Status Linkages
1170.00 Conservation and Management of
the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests Biodiversity
IBRD
and
UNDP
Full
Size
Project
Complete
Geographical
linkages, lessons
learned
1734.00
The Development and
Management of the Selous-Niassa
Wildlife Corridor
Biodiversity UNDP
Medium
Size
Project
Complete
Geographical
linkages, lessons
learned
3000.00
SFM Sustainable Woodland
Management in the Miombo
Areas of Western Tanzania
Multi Focal
Area UNDP
Full
Size
Project
In Process
Geographical
linkages, lessons
sharing
3428.00 SFM Extending the Coastal
Forests Protected Area Subsystem Biodiversity UNDP
Full
Size
Project
In Process
Thematic
linkages, lessons
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
59
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.
60
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
61
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.
Needs / Issue Adaptation Measures Scope &
Management Responsible
Policy
Limitations
Apart from protecting productive resources of the rural
population, policy should target the diversification of the
rural economic environment and strengthen water and land
management practices. A landscape vision is part of this
approach. In addition, Tanzania’s capacity to benefit from
the Clean Development Mechanism and sustainable
financing needs to be developed as a means to enhance
adaptation options.
More focus is required on payments for ecosystem services,
paid for through enhancing the capacity of local people to
make the link between nature-based livelihoods and
ecosystem payment models, developed through business
As part of the
overall landscape
approach
TANAPA will
work with other
PA managers and
community
partners to build a
shared
understanding of
financing
options.
Landscape level
partners, led by
TANAPA.
Lessons learnt
collated for and
by TANAPA, key
issues taken
forward on a
policy level
where supported
by data and
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.
62
Needs / Issue Adaptation Measures Scope &
Management Responsible
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.
Capacity
Building
The capacity to undertake spatial planning should be
strengthened to include ecosystem requirements. TANAPA
capacity should be strengthened to facilitate climate change
feedback loops between science institutions, policy makers,
and land users, landscape by landscape. Capacity should be
in place to manage protected areas and buffer zones to
supply vital ecosystem services, in particular terrestrial
goods and water supply and quality regulation, through the
curtailment of habitat loss and management of fire risks.
Capacity should be also be built to apply and interpret
climate models and impact models in sectors that are
considered critical for the development of Tanzania, with
the aim to build a broader understanding of the vulnerability
of various sectors to climate variability and change.
Spatial planning
to be incorporated
into the landscape
coordination
planning process
on as GRL and
GKKL level,
lessons learnt
provided at a
national level.
Landscape level
management and
M&E approaches
applied
GRL and GKKL
landscape level
partners, national
feedback, lessons
learnt on capacity
collated for and
by TANAPA.
Data
Management
Data availability issues are crucial due to a lack of
temporally and spatially consistent data collection nationally
and in the GRL and GKKL landscapes of southern
Tanzania. Climate, and in particular precipitation is very
location-specific in areas of considerable topographical
variety such as southern Tanzania.
Analysis of local
data on a PA and
a landscape level
through
coordination
mechanisms.
Landscape
partners,
TANAPA led;
data collated in
each PA and
shared in
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
63
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
COMPONENT 1. Integrating management of
NPs and broader
landscapes in Southern
Tanzania
Gains from taking collaborative
approaches to landscape level
conservation can be replicated for
other GEF biodiversity projects
globally where the contexts are
similar.
This component will support the
development of two landscape
management mechanisms, based on
lessons learned and best practices for
the establishment of the GRL and
GKKL landscapes, which will
enable the replication of
collaborative management
arrangements elsewhere.
Lessons from existing landscape
management arrangements will be
distilled and documented, captured, and
used to provide lessons for TANAPA
and partners elsewhere. These lessons
will also be shared at relevant
international meetings and technical
biodiversity conservation/ protected
area events. These lessons will be
disseminated to all biodiversity
conservation, tourism and CBNRM
stakeholders in Tanzania. With project
support “codes of practice” will be
drawn from the lessons learned to guide
landscape conservation, wildlife and
tourism development activities.
COMPONENT 2. Operations Support for NP
Management in Southern
Tanzania
This component will boost
operational capacity in the Southern
Circuit parks and support the
development of new revenue
streams and diversification of
existing ones from the wildlife and
tourism sector. Analysis, strategic
and business planning approaches
will be applicable to other parts of
Tanzania and elsewhere.
Lessons learned from strategic and
business planning approaches and from
and devising incentives will be captured
and shared with all the biodiversity
conservation, tourism and CBNRM
stakeholders. The lessons from new
training initiatives, such as in walking
guides and documentary productions
will be disseminated nationally and
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.
64
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.
65
Project Coordination Unit
(HQ in Arusha, field stations in RUNAPA and
KINAPA)
Project Board
Senior Beneficiary
PS of MNRT
Executive
Director General - TANAPA
Senior Supplier UNDP
Project Assurance
UNDP Tanzania Head of Environment Unit
Project Organisation Structure
PROJECT TEAM
Project Coordinator (1)
Landscape Technical Specialists (2)
Researchers (volunteers)
Admin Manager
Financial expert (part-time)
Technical Advisory Support
UNDP Africa Regional Biodiversity team - Technical
Support
Project Steering Committee
TANAPA, MNRT, VPO, PMORALG
COORDINATION COMMITTEE GREATER
RUAHA
COMPONENT 1
COORDINATION COMMITTEE GREATER
KITULO
COMPONENT 1
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER TEAM GREATER RUAHA
COMPONENT 2
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER TEAM GREATER KITULO
COMPONENT 2
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
66
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
67
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
68
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.
69
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
70
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
71
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
72
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
73
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.
74
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
75
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
Global benefits
Landscape level approaches
will not be taken up to the
extent that the opportunity
allows; risks from climate
change will impact the
buffer zones but also PAs
themselves, with net loss to
biodiversity and to incomes
PA system and its outlying
dispersal areas is likely only
to reach sustainability if
sufficient tangible financial
benefits can be realised to
compensate for PA
management costs
Agreed PA management
strategy linked to landscape
coordination mechanisms
that provides a framework
for conservation action by
all players
Collaborative approaches on
a landscape level resulting
in increased role of local
communities in managing
natural resource use and
access as well as state and
private sector actors.
Operational support allows
PAs to become self-
sustaining and functionally
managed.
Improved PA network
governance and status focuses
efforts by many stakeholders
to solve conservation
problems in southern
Tanzania’s fragile landscapes
Landscape approach to-
management results in
improved operational capacity
and monitoring of biodiversity
and natural resources as well
as stronger social and
ecological ties.
Ecological stability of two
interlinked landscapes is
increased, biodiversity is less
threatened, and water sources
are secured; investment
opportunities as a result.
National and local
benefits
Uncontrolled bush fires in
the dry season.
Uncontrolled use of water
resources leading to the
drying out of the Great
Ruaha River and others and
subsequent impacts on
wildlife and on tourism;
Illegal harvesting of
highland plants (for the
export market); and
Non-protected patches are
converted over time and
biological connectivity
between landscapes and
PAs is lost.
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.
Enhanced market led
approaches through
financial planning feeds
directly into operational
capacity gains for PAs
Habitat integrity is retained,
globally significant
biodiversity is protected and
ecosystem services are
maintained
Increased income for Southern
Circuit PAs through enhanced
PA operational capacity,
trained workforces and entry
into niche tourism markets
with additional links to other
permissible means of
sustainable financing.
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
76
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
77
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
78
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
COMPONENT 1. Integrating
management of NPs and broader
landscapes in Southern Tanzania
•A working model for integrating
management of NPs and wider
productive landscapes is piloted
•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
•PAs expanded to encompass two
ecologically sensitive wildlife corridor
areas
A landscape level approach to addressing biodiversity
management issues will ensure that PA managers can avoid
externalities through integrated management tools that allow
PAs and buffer zones to be managed to the greatest good for all
parties, leading to cost savings and to gains through joint
initiatives.
Once the approach has been piloted in two landscapes (GRL
and GKKL) and has been proved to work it can be replicated at
reduced cost in other landscapes throughout Tanzania and other
nations with similar land and PA management issues.
The approach of investing in a landscape management approach
whilst specifically investing in core PAs within will safeguard
wildlife numbers and movements as well as habitats by
ensuring buffer zone and corridor management without the
costs and political implications of new PAs.
PA expansions will be targeted at specific corridors which is a
cost effective means of bringing about ecosystem integrity.
COMPONENT 2. Operations
Support for NP Management in
Southern Tanzania
•Core NP operations strengthened in
Southern Tanzania covering over
22,000 km2
•Management Effectiveness Score for
NPs in Southern Tanzania increased
over the baseline score by at least 40%.
The approach offered by the project solution is to provide very
targeted investments in NP operational capacity for Ruaha and
Kitulo NPs directly, with indirect support to surrounding PAs
and WMAs. The focus on strengthening the core PAs, taking
into account the coordination mechanisms in component 1 will
allow for the minimum level of investment to bring about
economic sustainability for the NPs amid ecologically
sustainable landscape management systems, providing for
sustained improvements in management effectiveness.
79
PART VII: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
Table 14. Results Framework for Southern Tanzania PA Project: Outcomes and Indicators
Project Goal: 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.
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions
Objective: The biodiversity of
Southern Tanzania is better
represented and buffered from threat
within National Parks.
(GEF 5.3 mill USD)
Two landscape level
coordination
mechanisms are
formalised to improve
biodiversity
conservation in GRL
and GKKL; two wildlife
corridors are created in
GKKL (Bujingijila and
Numbe); two WMAs are
consolidated in GRL.
Within the GRL,
TANAPA have
management plans for
RUNAPA; WCS and
local government
supporting development
of Mbomipa and
Umemaruwa WMAs. In
GKKL, KINAPA,
MKGR and MRNR
have management plans.
A working model for
integrating management
of NPs and wider
productive landscapes is
piloted and adapted;
secures wildlife
corridors and dispersal
areas covering over
39,000 km2 in the GRL
and GKKL ecological
landscapes.
Partnership agreements
and constitutions of
coordination
mechanisms, monitoring
and evaluation of related
activities; creation of
two wildlife corridors in
the GKKL landscape
and documented support
to WMA establishment
in the GRL.
All stakeholders remain
interested in the concept
of landscape level
conservation during the
lifespan of the project
and support the
formalisation of
coordination initiatives
and the promotion of
wildlife corridors to
enhance ecological
sustainability.
80
Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions
Two national parks
(RUNAPA and
KINAPA)and one game
reserve (MKGR) have
increased operational
capacity to manage
themselves sustainably.
RUNAPA and KINAPA
lack operational capacity
to manage park
operations and poaching
is common; MKGR is in
a vulnerable state of
management and all
three PAs open to risks
of fire and poaching;
tourism is nascent and
complaints about service
levels are common.
Core NP operations
strengthened in Southern
Tanzania covering over
22,000 km2 leading to
the effective detection
and deterrence of
poaching and fire risks.
Documented reduction
in poaching activity,
retaliatory wildfires set
by poachers, and grazing
of cattle where
proscribed, good reports
from tourist industry and
tourists on customer
care; tourism options
enhanced through the
addition of walking
safaris; films promote
the southern circuit.
TANAPA management
and staff will be open
minded to developing
their capacity in new
and ongoing areas;
relationships can be
built successfully to
allow greater TANAPA
- WD operational
coordination.
Landscapes maintain
global biodiversity
values; METT scores
are improved in the 4
target PAs, especially
RUNAPA, KINAPA
and MKGR.
Landscape level
management remains
uncoordinated and
biodiversity is lost over
time within PAs and
buffer areas. Current
METT scores as
follows: RUNAPA
(53), KINAPA (52),
MKGR (21), MRNR
(40) : average: 42
An increase in METT
scores in four PAs
across the two
landscapes by 40% on
average; monitoring
indicates species
diversity either
unaffected or increased;
Integrated landscape
management approach is
replicated by TANAPA
elsewhere in southern
Tanzania.
Fauna and Flora
Monitoring procedures,
Biodiversity resources
assessments, Ministry
and landscape level
Reports, and Project
Docs, PA and
Landscape plans, maps
and GIS files, MTE and
Terminal Evaluation
(TE)
Government and their
community, civil society
and private sector
partners in GRL and
GKKL are effectively
supported in training
and management to
ensure ongoing support
and engagement in the
process
81
Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions
Component 1: Integrating
management of NPs and broader
landscapes in Southern Tanzania
(GEF 0.77 million USD)
Biodiversity
management in NPs,
GRs, NRs, wildlife
migration corridors and
dispersal areas is
factored into decision-
making governing land
use management.
Management activities
are carried out on
WMA, district, regional
government and
TANAPA level but with
a lack of a landscape
level coordination
mechanism
Inter-sectoral District
land management
coordination mechanism
is emplaced in the GRL
and GKKL in Southern
Tanzania.
Existence of landscape
level management plans
and institutional
mechanisms, minutes of
meetings and subsequent
actions. Ministerial
consent and ratification
of plans at MNRT and
PMORALG
TANAPA, PMORALG,
WD, FBD and other
related government
institutions support a
landscape approach to
biodiversity
management, ratified at
national and local
government level.
Development impacts in
sensitive areas have
been mitigated,
monitoring and
reporting systems are in
place, and enforcement
measures are operational
in GRL and GKKL
landscapes.
Monitoring of species
and habitats is managed
on an individual PA
level; understanding of
wildlife corridor
functions, species
movements and
dispersal areas limited.
TANAPA, WD, 7 pilot
District Authorities and
civil society partners
plan, implement, and
monitor biodiversity
management measures
for these landscapes
A systematic
conservation plan for
both landscapes that
defines wildlife
corridors and dispersal
areas, with EIA and
M&E systems has been
ratified and is in use by
GRL and GKKL.
TANAPA and MNRT
are willing to engage a
specialist assessment of
ecological situation for
both GRL and GKKL
PAs, buffer areas and
their connectivity.
Two specialist units are
developed by TANAPA
with partners; a land use
planning unit and an
ecological monitoring
unit
TANAPA has
community conservation
service and ecology
departments in
RUNAPA and
KINAPA; however
lacking adequate
coordination functions
with external parties.
TANAPA has the
competence and staff
skills to lead land use
planning, management
and monitoring in
landscapes
Land Use Planning and
Ecological Monitoring
Units set up on a
landscape level;
decisions and actions
documented
TANAPA, PMORALG,
WD, FBD and
communities work
together in these units.
82
Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions
Relations with
neighbouring
communities to PAs
considerably improved:
lower instances of
human wildlife conflict,
fires and poaching
TANAPA has
community conservation
service departments in
RUNAPA and
KINAPA; however
park-community
relations remain strained
in some crucial border
areas.
TANAPA has a staffed
community extension
services to ensure
effective engagement
between communities
and park authorities and
dispute resolution.
Community
Conservation Unit set up
and running, decisions
and actions documented.
TANAPA, PMORALG,
WD, FBD and
communities work
together in these units.
Public consultations are
completed in an open
and fair manner;
beacons mark PA
boundaries clearly
Recent developments in
PA status, especially in
western Kitulo area,
Mpanga Kipengere and
Usangu mean
boundaries are not clear;
conflicts are a result.
Agreed boundary
beacons are in place
around three PAs:
RUNAPA, KINAPA
and MKGR, including
newly gazetted areas
such as Usangu.
Equitable public
consultations are
completed and
management plans are
completed, taking into
account the outcomes
for both.
Consultation process is
managed with due care
and process; community
and intra-ministry
cooperation is secured.
Mpanga Kipengere GR
is upgraded to NP
through consultative
process, tourism
improves as do wildlife
numbers as a result
Mpanga Kipengere GR
is managed on a meagre
budget, fires and
poaching are rife;
tourism is minimal
Mpanga Kipengere
Game Reserve is raised
to higher protected area
status as a national park
Gazettement notice of
MKGR as a NP; rise in
wildlife numbers, rise in
tourism revenues
WD and TANAPA, with
MNRT, communities
and other stakeholders
agree that upgrading
MKGR the right step
Bujingijila and Numbe
valley corridors
gazetted, the Kitulo-
Kipengere NP is agreed
and gazetted as a NP.
Wildlife are not able to
move from GRL to
GKKL , linkages are
weak within GKKL PAs
Mpanga Kipengere
linked through Numbe
valley corridor to Kitulo
NP to enable merging
the two parks.
Bujingijila also allows
linkages to Mount
Rungwe Nature Reserve
Gazettement notice of
MKGR as a NP;
agreement to merge
KINAPA and MGR;
gazettement notice of
merged parks, if agreed.
WD and TANAPA, with
MNRT, communities
and agreement on a
merger of MKGR with
KINAPA.
83
Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions
Component 2: Operations
Support for National Park
Management in Southern
Tanzania (GEF 4 million USD)
Ranger and staff training
in g programme in
existence in RUNAPA
and KINAPA; MKGR
has joint TANPA-WD
programme; guide
training and
documentary
programmes in
existence.
Rangers have
insufficient capacity in
RUNAPA, KINAPA
and MKGR to gather
intelligence on poaching
and fires; relations with
tour operators and
tourists often strained
because of lack of
customer care capacity;
lack of value-add
services.
Systematic staff training
programme covering all
aspects of PA operations
ensures 300 rangers,
guides and other field
staff meet necessary
competencies.
Staff training
programmes are in place
across spectrum of
operations in RUNAPA,
KINAPA and MKGR,
covering necessary
competencies for
planning,
administration,
marketing, customer
care, conflict resolution,
policing and
enforcement.
TANAPA , WD and
partners are willing to
take lessons learned
from other countries and
from NGOs, tour
operators and other
private sector partners
on best practices for PA
staff in core and new
competencies.
Finance and business
planning has established
management costs for
different PAs and
WMAs, and provides
accurate revenue
forecasts for each PA
and the wider landscape
(GRL/GKKL) and
matches revenue to
priority management
needs.
Business planning in
southern Tanzania's PAs
lacks local context and
full understanding of the
international dimension
of financial and business
planning requirements;
business planning is
limited a s result.
A sustainable finance
plan is developed
approved and
implemented for the PA
system in both GRL
and GKKL landscapes.
Business Planning is
mandated for four PAs
as well as for two
adjacent WMAs, along
approved best practice
guidelines.
Business and financial
plans for each
landscape, with a focus
on each PA; a full and
comprehensive
understanding of the
revenue generating
options for each PA and
WMA in the context of
each landscape.
TANAPA, WD, FBD
and other government
and community partners
willing to support the
development of an
objective planning
process for the
sustainable financing of
PAs in GRL and GKKL
and support
implementation.
84
Project Components Indicator Baseline Target by EOP Sources of verification Assumptions
The input of increased
HR capacity and funds
for equipment following
a business planning
approach has lead to
greater efficiency and
effectiveness of park
operations in RUNAPA
and KINAPA.
RUNAPA and KINAPA
lack operational capacity
to manage park
operations in a
sustainable manner ,
gaps exist in HR across
park operations, lack of
equipment means
difficulty to manage
fires, poaching and
monitoring the
ecosystem.
Funds, human resources
and equipment are
provided and deployed
to address threats to
RUNAPA and KINAPA
in a cost effective
manner, utilising
business planning.
Business plans exist for
both parks in operational
management. New staff
recruited. Surveillance
equipment – radios,
repeaters, GPS, cameras,
night vision and fire
fighting equipment
purchased, trained on,
logged and in use.
Business plans set cost
co-efficients for all
prescribed PA functions
and rolling operations
plans define site
management priorities.
Stakeholder groups in
both GRL and GKKL
landscapes are engaging
positively and
constructively on
biodiversity, land use
and management and
social and economic
growth issues, such as
tourism planning.
There is a marked lack
of communication
largely due to
insufficient funding
between different PA
authorities, local
government,
communities, civil
society and the private
sector, causing
inefficiencies,
misunderstanding and
occasional conflict.
A joint (TANAPA-
Community-District-
Private Sector)
stakeholder group
formed to address
overall management
issues in both RUNAPA
and KINAPA, MKGR,
MRNR, wildlife
corridors and adjacent
WMAs is established for
each landscape.
Stakeholder committee
formed, joint
management plan
developed, and joint
enforcement systems
emplaced using the
Management Orientated
Management System
(MOMS) in and around
Ruaha and Kitulo NPs
(covering a total area of
at least 23,000 km2).
TANAPA and partners
are willing to work
together, both between
different PA authorities,
but also between civil
society actors,
communities and the
private sector (especially
tourism).
85
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
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.
1.1.1 Review of
governance
systems of existing
landscape
management
approaches
1.1.2 Review of
operational
practices in
existing
institutions in GRL
and GKKL
landscapes
1.1.3 Consultative
process to agree
on, and document
coordination
mechanism
formalisation
framework
1.1.4 Draft and
final framework
mechanism,
accepted by
stakeholder, in
place for
formalisation,
disseminate and
finalise with
stakeholders
1.1.5 Initiate
activities and
action plans for the
newly established
coordination
mechanism
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).
1.2.1.
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.
1.2.2.
Consultations to
design
conservation
management plan
work plans with
framework and
strategic goals;
plan defines
habitat zones
species
movements,
wildlife corridors
and dispersal areas
1.2.3. Management
plans ratified, roles
and responsibilities
agreed and actions
determined and
resultant measures
are introduced
1.2.4. Feasibility
and impact study
carried out for the
exact location,
appropriate PA
legal format and
management of
Bujingijila and
Numbe wildlife
corridors
86
Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)
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.
1.3.1. Selected
TANAPA staff
provided with
comprehensive
training on
national land use
planning acts and
policies and in
GRL/GKKL
contexts: LUP unit
created
1.3.2. Selected
TANAPA staff
provided with
comprehensive
training on
management and
monitoring in
landscapes;
ecological and
water monitoring
unit created under
the Ecology
Department
1.3.3. Land Use
Planning Unit sets
up, under
landscape planning
mechanisms, a
land use
coordination
committee with
WMA leaders,
district
representatives
(PMORALG, WD,
FBD) and civil
society observer-
advisors.
1.3.4 Ecological
Monitoring Unit,
sets up, under
landscape planning
mechanisms, an
ecological
monitoring
committee with
WMA leaders,
district
representatives
(PMORALG, WD,
FBD) and civil
society observer-
advisors.
1.3.5 LUP and
Ecological
Monitoring Units
coordinate
respective activates
and report back to
TANAPA and the
landscape
management
coordination
committees.
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.
1.4.1. Current
TANAPA
Community
Conservation
extension staff
numbers are at
least doubled in
both Ruaha and
Kitulo NPs and
provided training o
best practices in
CBNRM and the
local context
1.4.2. CCS staff in
both GRL and
GKKL landscapes
set up a
community
consultation
coordination unit
with district and
communities to
link TANAPA
activities with
developments in
WMA areas and
PFM (CBFM and
JFM)
1.4.3. Community
Consultation Units
coordinate
respective activates
and report back to
TANAPA and the
landscape
management
coordination
committees.
87
Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)
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.
1.5.1. Community
consultation
process on
boundaries with
District LUP teams
defines boundaries
1.5.2 Management
plans updated if
necessary to reflect
any changes
1.5.3
Demarcation of
boundaries around
Ruaha and Kitulo
NP and Mpanga
Kipengere GR
with beacons
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.
1.6.1 Costs benefit
analysis and
feasibility study
commissioned to
weigh up whether
Mpanga Kipengere
should be raised to
NP status
1.6.2. Consultative
process carried out
with communities
on the proposed
upgrade is carried
out, costs and
benefits discussed
1.6.3 If agreed,
Mpanga Kipengere
GR elevated to NP
status through
government
gazettement notice
and due process
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.
1.7.1 Costs benefit
analysis and
feasibility study
commissioned to
weigh up MRNR,
KINAPA and
MKGR can be
ecologically linked
1.7.2 Following
due consultation
and process,
wildlife corridors
legally gazetted
and established in
Bujingijila and
Numbe corridors
1.7.3 Through the
Numbe valley
corridor, if
feasible, Kitulo
and Mpanga
Kipengere PAs
merged under
TANAPA
management
Component 2: Operations Support for NP Management in Southern Tanzania
88
Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)
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.
2.1.1. Following
feasibility
assessment of
numbers required,
new rangers
recruited in
RUNAPA and
KINAPA; ranger
training provided
in both parks and
to visiting rangers
from MKGR.
Special focus
given on
intelligence and
enforcement
aspects of
operations
2.1.2. Dedicated
guide training
centre set up in
RUNAPA as a
national level pilot.
>100 TANAPA
and WD rangers
trained as guides to
internationally
recognised criteria
for trails guiding
including problem
animal
management,
ballistics, ecology
and customer care.
2.1.3. Dedicated
nature
documentary film
until set up and
installed in
RUNAPA to
produce in-house
documentaries for
sale and for
promotional
purposes, aimed at
the southern circuit
in particular.
2.1.4 Specialist
training provided
to selected admin,
ranger and guiding
staff in RUNAPA
and KINAPA on
customer care,
conflict resolution
and other aspects
of tourism
management, with
guests from
MKGR.
2.1.5 Specialist
training provided
to selected admin,
management and
planning staff in
RUNAPA and
KINAPA on
integrating all
aspects of
operations through
an integrated
planning
mechanism, with
observers from
MKGR.
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.
2.2.1. Finance
plan is
commissioned by
TANAPA/UNDP
to external
specialists and
developed for
RUNAPA and
KINAPA
2.2.2. In
collaboration with
WD, WMAs and
other partners,
GRL landscape
level financial plan
is commissioned
and developed
2.2.3. In
collaboration with
WD, FBD and
other partners,
GKKL landscape
level financial plan
is commissioned
and developed
2.2.4. PA and
landscape level
financial plans are
discussed and
agreed in plenary.
89
Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)
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.
2.3.1
Comprehensive
business planning
process is
undertaken to
provide cost-
benefit analysis
and prioritise HR
and equipment
needs according to
operational
requirements.
2.3.2 Business
plans for
individual PAs and
GRL and GKKL
landscapes are
produced, agreed
and implemented.
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.
2.4.2. In
RUNAPA, >10
new staff recruited
according to
business planning
requirements;
equipment bought,
installed, trained
on and in
operation.
2.4.3. In KINAPA
>10 new staff
recruited according
to business
planning
requirements;
equipment bought,
installed, trained
on and in
operation.
90
Output Indicative Activities (carried out on a national and/or landscape level as appropriate)
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.
2.5.1. A GRL
Stakeholder group
set up involving
TANAPA, WD,
PMORALG,
WMA
management, tour
operators and
active NGOs
formed to address
biodiversity, land
and economic
management issues
including tourism.
2.5.2. A GKKL
Stakeholder group
set up involving
TANAPA, WD,
FBD, PMORALG,
community, tour
operators and
active NGOs
formed to address
biodiversity, land
and economic
management issues
including tourism.
2.5.3. GRL
stakeholder group
is operationalized
and works with
landscape
coordination
mechanisms and
business planning
processes to advise
on landscape
management
issues.
2.5.4. GKKL
stakeholder group
is operationalized
and works with
landscape
coordination
mechanisms and
business planning
processes to advise
on landscape
management
issues.
2.5.5 A lessons
learning
coordination body
allows bi-annual
meetings between
GRL and GKKL
stakeholder groups
Project Management: Ensures effective project administration, M&E, and coordination have enabled timely and efficient implementation of project
activities.
Effective project administration, M&E, and
coordination have enabled timely and efficient
implementation of project activities.
5.1.1 Ensure all
requisite facilities
and
communication
channels for
effective project
management are in
place.
5.1.2 Produce
annual work plans
for the timely
achievement of
project objectives.
5.1.3 Develop and
implement a
detailed project
Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E)
Plan, based on the
shortened version
articulated in this
Project Document.
5.1.4 Produce
quarterly and
annual technical
and financial
reports for GEF
and GRL/GKKL
landscape
stakeholders.
5.1.5 Liaise with
UNDP CO, and
UNDP - GEF to
organize mid and
end-of project
reviews and
evaluations
91
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
Project Title: Strengthening the Protected Area Network in Southern Tanzania: Improving the Effectiveness of National Parks in Addressing Threats to
Biodiversity
IMPLEMENTING
PARTNER: TANZANIA NATIONAL PARKS (TANAPA), MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM, TANZANIA
GEF
Component/Atlas
Activity
ResParty
(IA) SoF
Atlas
Budget
Account
Code
Input/ Descriptions
Amount
(USD)
Year 1
(2011-
12)
Amount
(USD)
Year 2
(2012 -
13)
Amount
(USD)
Year 3
(2013-14)
Amount
(USD)
Year 4
(2014-
15)
Amount
(USD)
Year 5
(2015-
16)
Total
(USD)
Budget
Notes
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
TANAPA GEF 72100 Contractual Services -
Companies 200,000 90,000 50,000 340,000 2
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
92
GEF
Component/Atlas
Activity
ResParty
(IA) SoF
Atlas
Budget
Account
Code
Input/ Descriptions
Amount
(USD)
Year 1
(2011-
12)
Amount
(USD)
Year 2
(2012 -
13)
Amount
(USD)
Year 3
(2013-14)
Amount
(USD)
Year 4
(2014-
15)
Amount
(USD)
Year 5
(2015-
16)
Total
(USD)
Budget
Notes
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
TANAPA GEF 72100 Contractual Services -
Companies 920,000 920,000 11
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
Project
Management
GEF 71200 International Consultants 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 390,000 17
GEF 71400
Service Contracts –
Individuals 30,000 30,000 60,000 18
GEF 71300 Local Consultants 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 52,500 19
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
(GEF) 95,500 93,500 123,500 93,500 123,500 529,500
93
GEF
Component/Atlas
Activity
ResParty
(IA) SoF
Atlas
Budget
Account
Code
Input/ Descriptions
Amount
(USD)
Year 1
(2011-
12)
Amount
(USD)
Year 2
(2012 -
13)
Amount
(USD)
Year 3
(2013-14)
Amount
(USD)
Year 4
(2014-
15)
Amount
(USD)
Year 5
(2015-
16)
Total
(USD)
Budget
Notes
PROJECT TOTAL 915,500 1,908,500 1,198,500 688,500 593,500 5,304,500
94
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 (PMORALG)
Government In Kind
210,000 2
UNDP Imp.Agency Cash 1,000,000 8
Total Co-financing
12,060,000 100
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:
96
$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
97
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
98
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.
99
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.
100
ANNEX II: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
1.30 Stakeholder Overview
Table 16. Key PA Management Stakeholders, Role and Responsibilities
Stakeholder Role and Responsibilities
Individual Households
Day to day monitoring of WMAs, maintaining support to Village Environmental
Committees, benefitting from tourism, taking personal responsibilities for
natural resources.
Local Communities Maintaining support to NR committees, benefitting from community outreach
programmes, taking personal responsibilities for PAs.
Village Councils Overall management and accountability of community managed areas to wider
rural communities, coordination with District Authorities and outsiders.
District Councils PAs policy implementation and support of communities sustainable
conservation programmes
Government Departments Manage the processes of PAs management on a national level, implementing
relevant policies, linkages with other government departments
Central Government Developing directives, policy, guidelines and monitoring progress as well as
coordinating sectors involved
Private Sector
Support development of markets and economic growth. Provide financial
incentives for best management of PAs, work with government and villages to
support good practice in NRs management.
CBOs Develop civil society capacity on a local level to support social development,
economic growth and sustainable water and natural resources management
National NGOs Develop civil society capacity on a national level to support social development,
economic growth and sustainable water and NRs management.
International NGOs
Develop civil society capacity on a regional level to support, social
development, economic growth, sustainable water and PAs management,
support international advocacy and environmental education.
Government Ministries Support PAs management and economic growth through sound policy guidance
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.
101
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
Access be accessible and promote access to the process
Transparency be based on transparency and fair access to information; main provisions of the
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
102
Principle Stakeholder participation will:
Rational and
Coordinated be rationally planned and coordinated, and not be ad hoc
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
Wildlife Division
Regulation and
Planning/Planning
and Management of
Game Reserves
Organized structure with strong
government support.
Availability of communication
networks.
Strong management.
Government bureaucracy.
Limited resources (financial
and personnel).
Tanzania Wildlife
Research Institute
(TAWIRI)
Wildlife research
and Animal
Censuses
Have good technical knowhow.
International connections.
Good working relationship with
key stakeholders.
Inadequate funding.
Inadequate manpower.
Inadequate facilities.
Mweka Wildlife Training of Park
Wardens for PAs
Good training capabilities.
College with long training
experience and high reputation in
Central and Southern Africa.
Inadequate funding.
Inadequate facilities
Inadequate human resources
both academic and
administrative
Pasiansi Training
Institute
Training of Rangers
for PAs
The only training institute for
Rangers.
Inadequate funding.
Inadequate facilities.
Sokoine University
of Agriculture
Training of
Ecologists/Natural
Resources
Management
Well established institution in the
training if high calibre wildlife
mgt personnel.
Under-funding.
Inadequate teaching
facilities.
Inadequate human resources
both academic and
103
Institutions Responsibility Strengths Weaknesses
administrative
University of Dar-
es-Salaam
Ecologist/Natural
Resources
Management
Well established institution in the
training if high calibre wildlife
mgt personnel.
Under-funding.
Inadequate teaching
facilities.
Inadequate human resources
both academic and
administrative
Wildlife Fund for
Nature (WWF)
Frankfurt
Zoological Society
(FZS)
African Wildlife
Fund (AWF)
Wildlife
Conservation
Society (WCS)
Technical and
financial support
Good linkages and partnerships
local and international.
Good technical capacity.
Adequate funding.
Local teams in place on the
ground.
Different programs addressing
biodiversity conservation.
Education programs at community
levels and schools.
Lack of programs linkages
among the NGOs.
Tanzania National
Park (TANAPA)
Planning and
Management of
national parks
Existence of well established and
developed tourism mgt in the
NPs.
Existence of strong, well defined
governance and mgt structure.
Existence of strong financial base
backed up by Conservation NGOs
and development partners.
Well developed management
systems (Financial and
operational systems).
Well developed ICT
infrastructure.
Existence of skilled and
professional staff at all levels.
Insufficient human and
financial resources to carry
out its mandates.
Excessive dependency on
donors.
Vulnerable to political
instability.
Vulnerable to disease
outbreaks.
Difficult relationship with
the local communities due
to human-wildlife
conflicts/benefit sharing.
Inadequate equipment
infrastructure for law
enforcement.
National
Environmental
Management
Council
Regulation through
National
Environmental
Management Act,
2005.
Strong legislative powers.
Strong mandate to coordinate all
matters related to environment.
Shortage of skilled
manpower.
Inadequate financial
resources.
Inadequate working gear.
104
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
possible map reference) Iringa Region
Date of establishment (distinguish between
agreed and gazetted*)
Agreed Gazetted: 1964 annexation
to UGR 2008
Ownership details (i.e. owner,
tenure rights etc) State
Management Authority TANAPA Size (ha) 20, 226 km2
Number of staff
Permanent
186
Temporary
8
Budget Combined with the former Usangu Game Reserve: TZS 2,299,396, 202
Designations (IUCN category,
World Heritage, Ramsar etc)
N/A
Reasons for designation N/A
Brief details of World Bank
funded project or projects in PA
N/A
Brief details of WWF funded
project or projects in PA
N/A
Brief details of other relevant
projects in PA N/A
List the two primary RUNAPA objectives
Objective 1 Protect and maintain the park integrity and its wilderness character as well as its full
range of landforms, habitats and biodiversity
Objective 2 Promote sustainable tourism
List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)
Threat 1 Dry out of GRR because of upper catchment abstraction of water and opening of paddy
cultivation
Threat 2 Poaching because of lack adequate patrol equipments
List top two critical management activities
Activity 1 Protection and law enforcement
Activity 2 Provision of water resources
105
Date assessed 14 August 2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka
Details of those assessed/
interviewed (incl. name,
position/post, phone,
email)
Acting Chief Park Warden , Godwell Elias Ole Mang’ataki, P.O.Box 369 Iringa
106
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
1. Legal status
Does the protected
area have legal
status?
Context
The protected area is not gazetted
0 Gazetted
The government has agreed that the protected area should be
gazetted but the process has not yet begun
1
The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the
process is still incomplete
2
The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case
of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)
3
2. Protected area
regulations
Are inappropriate
land uses and
activities (e.g.
poaching/hunting)
controlled?
Context
There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land
use and activities in the protected area
0 Proper regulations are in place
Wildlife Conservation Act 2009 (Number 5)
National Park Establishment Act Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist, but there are large gaps.
1
Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist.
2
Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively
implemented
3
3. Law
enforcement
Can staff enforce
protected area rules
well enough?
Context
The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
0 Lack of vehicles, ranger posts, equipments (radio, GPS repeater
stations.
Lack proper training and uniforms and fire controls There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to
enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack
of skills, no patrol budget)
1
The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations but some
deficiencies remain
2
The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
3
4. Protected area
objectives
Is PA managed with
the aim of meeting
the stated objectives?
Planning
No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area
0
The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed
according to these objectives
1
The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only
partially implemented
2
The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to
meet these objectives
3
107
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
5. Protected area
design
Does the protected
area need enlarging,
corridors etc to meet
its objectives?
Planning
Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas
major management objectives of the protected area is
impossible
0 Need extra routes needed to access the Usangu area and Ruaha NP
Resources improvements needed: personnel, financial and equipment
Landscape planning
Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major
objectives are constrained to some extent
1
Design is not significantly constraining achievement of
major objectives, but could be improved
2
Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement
of major objectives of the protected area
3
6. Protected area
boundary
demarcation
Is the boundary
known and
demarcated?
Context
The boundary of the protected area is not known by the
management authority or local residents/neighbouring land
users
0 On ground identification and demarcation needed especially usangu
area
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority but is not known by local
residents/neighbouring land users
1
The boundary of the protected area is known by both the
management authority and local residents but is not
appropriately demarcated
2
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority and local residents and is
appropriately demarcated
3
7. Management plan
Is there a
management plan
and is it being
implemented?
Planning
There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Not all activities are implemented as planned due to inadequate funds,
HR and equipments A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared
but is not being implemented
1
A management plan exists but it is only being partially
implemented because of funding constraints or other
problems
2
A management plan exists and is being implemented 3
Additional points
Planning
7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for
key stakeholders to influence the management plan
+1 In law enforcement, regular meeting and some collaboration with
district
Plan is 5-10yrs updated. Strategic plan on the departmental level also
exist
E.g. results of water levels, drought lead to annexation of Usangu to
Ruaha and Rabies in the village led to vaccination to prevent spread to
wild animals
7.2 There is an established schedule and process for periodic
review and updating of the management plan
+1
7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are
routinely incorporated into planning
+1
108
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
8. Regular work plan
Is there an annual
work plan?
Planning/Outputs
No regular work plan exists
0 Depends on the budget allocated from the TANAPA HQ
A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored
against the plan’s targets
1
A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against
the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed
2
A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the
plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are
completed
3
9. Resource
inventory
Do you have good
information which
you use to manage
the area?
Context
There is little or no information available on the critical
habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area
0 Little research done in Southern TZ Pas
Last inventory was in 1970
Information exist is either incomprehensive or not up-to-date
Need info for corridors/connectivity
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is not sufficient to support
planning and decision making
1
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of
planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is
not being maintained
2
Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and
cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support
planning and decision making and is being maintained
3
10. Protection
Systems
Are systems in place
to control access
resources use in the
protected area
Process/Outcome
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are
not effective in controlling access/resource use.
0 Poaching, illegal fishing and livestock entering the PA still exist
Sometimes off road driving exist.
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially
effective in controlling access/resource use.
1
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately
effective in controlling access/resource use.
2
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or
wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use.
3
11. Research
Is there a programme
of management-
orientated
monitoring and
research work?
There is no survey or research work taking place in the
protected area
0 Ecological monitoring and department responsible for disease need
strengthened in terms of resources and personnel.
There is some ad hoc survey and research work
1
There is considerable survey and research work but it is not
directed towards the needs of protected area management
2
109
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Inputs
There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey
and research work, which is relevant to management needs
3
12. Resource
management
Is the protected area
being managed
consistent to its
objectives (e.g. for
fire, invasive species,
poaching)?
Process
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values have not been assessed
0 Some interventions are underway to know the disease levels
Water initiatives to ensure flow during dry season are tried out
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are known but are not being
addressed
1
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are only being partially
addressed
2
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are being substantially or fully
addressed
3
13. Staff numbers
Are there enough
people employed to
manage the protected
area?
Inputs
There are no staff
0 After annexation of UGR staff level required to be considerably
increased but has not happened so far
Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management
activities
1
Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical
management activities
2
Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the
site
3
14. Staff training
Is there enough
training for staff?
Inputs/Process
Staff are untrained
0 Training needs assessment and training in specific areas is needed
Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the
protected area
1
Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further
improved to fully achieve the objectives of management
2
Staff training and skills are in tune with the management
needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future
needs
3
15. Current budget
Is the current budget
sufficient?
Inputs
There is no budget for the protected area
0
The available budget is inadequate for basic management
needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to
manage
1
The available budget is acceptable, but could be further
improved to fully achieve effective management
2
110
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
The available budget is sufficient and meets the full
management needs of the protected area
3
16. Security of
budget
Is the budget secure?
Inputs
There is no secure budget for the protected area and
management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year
funding
0 Ruaha budget is not enough to run itself , it depends from TANAPA
core collection. However, will well planned activities there are chances
to increase its revenue
Due to last year economic crisis revenue have plummeted necessitated
the allocation from HQ to be monthly basis instead of quarterly There is very little secure budget and the protected area
could not function adequately without outside funding
1
There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected
area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on
outside funding
2
There is a secure budget for the protected area and its
management needs on a multi-year cycle
3
17. Management of
budget
Is the budget
managed to meet
critical management
needs?
Process
Budget management is poor and significantly undermines
effectiveness
0 Well budget management
Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness
1
Budget management is adequate but could be improved
2
Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness
3
18. Equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
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
There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly
inadequate
1
There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps
that constrain management
2
There is adequate equipment and facilities
3
19. Maintenance of
equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities
0
There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and
facilities
1
There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there
are some important gaps in maintenance
2
Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3
111
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
20. Education and
awareness
programme
Is there a planned
education
programme?
Process
There is no education and awareness programme
0 PA adjacent Rauha/Buffer (MBOMIPA) lacks capacity to enforce laws
and proper management
The park has increase in size significantly and so is the area
surrounding it therefore staff and equipment needs to match that
Cannot continue to rely WCS and FORs for outreach
programme…RUNAPA needs to have its own
There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness
programme, but no overall planning for this
1
There is a planned education and awareness programme but
there are still serious gaps
2
There is a planned and effective education and awareness
programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the
protected area
3
21. State and
commercial
neighbours
Is there co-operation
with adjacent land
and water users?
Process
There is no contact between managers and neighbouring
official or corporate land users
0 Abstraction exist
Outside development initiatives e.g. cultivation in the corridor, paddy
rice cultivation does not cooperate with RUNAPA There is limited contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users
1
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only
limited co-operation
2
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial
co-operation on management
3
22. Planning for
water and land use
Does land and water
use planning
recognise the
protected area and
aid the achievement
of objectives
Planning
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account
the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are
detrimental to the survival of the area
0 Abstraction exist
Outside development initiatives e.g. cultivation in the corridor, paddy
rice cultivation does not cooperate with RUNAPA
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account
the needs of the protected area but activities/policies are not
detrimental to the survival of the area
1
Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
2
Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
3
23. Traditional
authorities
Do traditional
authorities near the
protected area have
input to management
decisions?
Process
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 They do not participate in park management.
But allowed to enter the park with special permission if is for rituals
etc. and RUNAPA provides security and permits. They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
112
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
24. Local
communities
Do near the protected
area have input to
management
decisions?
Process
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 PA is owned by the state with stakeholders input
MBOMIPA is involved as a stakeholder
They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
Additional points
Outputs
24a There is open communication and trust between local
stakeholders and protected area managers
+1 Yes Exist but with local frequency
24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while
conserving protected area resources, are being implemented
+1 Yes Through outreach programme…but conflicts still exist especially on
the eviction victim
24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the
protected area
+1 Yes To some extent…need to strengthen outreach programme.
25. Visitor facilities
Are visitor facilities
(for tourists, pilgrims
etc) good enough?
Outputs
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 Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current
levels of visitation or are under construction
1
Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels
of visitation but could be improved
2
Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels
of visitation
3
26. Commercial
tourism
Do commercial tour
operators contribute
to protected area
management?
Process
There is little or no contact between managers and tourism
operators using the protected area
0 Discussing investors needs (e.g. accessibility point and possibility of
walking in a NP)
There is contact between managers and tourism operators
but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory
matters
1
There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism
operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain
protected area values
2
There is excellent co-operation between managers and
tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect
values and resolve conflicts
3
27. Fees
If fees (tourism,
fines) are applied, do
they help protected
area management?
Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not
collected
0 Concession fees was proposed to be flat rate but investors refused.
No reliable data available for lodges rate
The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central
government and is not returned to the protected area or its
environs
1
113
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Outputs
The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority
rather than the protected area
2
There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to
support this and/or other protected areas
3
28. Condition
assessment
Is the protected area
being managed
‘well’?
Outcomes
Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
being severely degraded 0
Flow of water level dropped but the managers have kept the park intact
Biodiversity have not degraded that much…
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
severely degraded 1
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
partially degraded but the most important values have not
been significantly impacted
2
Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
predominantly intact
3
Additional points
Outputs
A6 There are active programmes for restoration of degraded
areas within the protected area and/or the protected area
buffer zone
+1
29. Economic benefit
assessment
Is the protected area
providing economic
benefits to local
communities?
Outcomes
The existence of the protected area has reduced the options
for economic development of the local communities
0 Some money contributed to developments activities to the adjacent
villages e.g schools and health centre
MBOMIPA has gained some revenue either from allocation from WD
or investors
The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor
benefited the local economy
1
There is some flow of economic benefits to local
communities from the existence of the protected area but
this is of minor significance to the regional economy
2
There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to
local communities from activities in and around the
protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated
commercial tours etc)
3
30. Monitoring and
evaluation
Planning/Process
There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area
0 They implement their work plan but no systematic monitoring against
performance
There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no
overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results
1
There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and
evaluation system but results are not systematically used for
management
2
A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well
implemented and used in adaptive management
3
114
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
TOTAL SCORE
47
+6
bonu
s =
53
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
possible map reference) Mbeya and Iringa Region
Date of establishment (distinguish between
agreed and gazetted*)
Agreed Gazetted: 16 Sept 2005
Ownership details (i.e. owner,
tenure rights etc) State
Management Authority TANAPA Size (ha) 412.9Km2
Number of staff
Permanent
27
Temporary
Budget TZS 326,103,675
Designations (IUCN category,
World Heritage, Ramsar etc)
N/A
Reasons for designation N/A
Brief details of World Bank
funded project or projects in PA
N/A
Brief details of WWF funded
project or projects in PA
N/A
Brief details of other relevant
projects in PA N/A
List the two primary objectives
Objective 1 Protect Watersheds/Water catchment
Objective 2 Protect endemic species of plants (mainly flowers) and animals
List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)
Threat 1 Invasive of species mainly Eucalyptus, Pines and Wattle
Threat 2 Logging and wood harvesting and gathering of biological resources mainly orchids to
sale in Zambia
List top two critical management activities
Activity 1 Protection of park resources
Activity 2 Enhance patrol activities
Date assessed 16 August 2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka (UNDP Consultant)
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
116
Details of those
assessed/ interviewed
(incl. name,
position/post, phone,
email)
Park Warden Protection, Richard Shilunga, Tel: +255(0)757 744531
Email: [email protected]
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
117
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
1. Legal status
Does the protected
area have legal
status?
Context
The protected area is not gazetted
0 Gazetted 16th
September 2005 and beacon exist
The government has agreed that the protected area should
be gazetted but the process has not yet begun
1
The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but
the process is still incomplete
2
The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case
of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)
3 x
2. Protected area
regulations
Are inappropriate
land uses and
activities (e.g.
poaching/hunting)
controlled?
Context
There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land
use and activities in the protected area
0 Proper regulations are in place
Wildlife Conservation Act 2009 (Number 5)
National Park Establishment Act
National Park Policy 1998 Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use
and activities in the protected area exist, but there are large
gaps.
1
Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use
and activities in the protected area exist.
2 x
Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist and are being
effectively implemented
33333
3. Law
enforcement
Can staff enforce
protected area rules
well enough?
Context
The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
0 Staff not enough so make law enforcement a challenge
Only 16 staff at the moment and few equipments (e.g. vehicles)
No ranger posts around the PA make patrol difficult …Guards have to
plan and travel to and from the HQ
Armour does not exist and all guns are kept at police station (time
delay between collecting the guns and travel to the park)
Proposed an establishment of 5 ranger post around the PA and one
extra zonal post at the Bujinginjira corridor to ensure proper
monitoring
There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to
enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack
of skills, no patrol budget)
1
The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations but some
deficiencies remain
2 x
The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
3
4. Protected area
objectives
Is PA managed with
the aim of meeting
the stated objectives?
Planning
No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area
0 Park is new so it lacks facilities
The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not
managed according to these objectives
1
The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only
partially implemented
2 x
The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to
meet these objectives
3
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
118
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
5. Protected area
design
Does the protected
area need enlarging,
corridors etc to meet
its objectives?
Planning
Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas
major management objectives of the protected area is
impossible
0
Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major
objectives are constrained to some extent
1 Need to establish a connection between Mt. Rungwe FR and Kitulo NP
through a Bujingira corridor.
Institutional Conflicts: Land Use change adjacent the park…e.g. the
Dairy Farm was supposed to be for keeping only cattle but there are
some cultivation going on at the moment (mainly Irish potatoes)
Design is not significantly constraining achievement of
major objectives, but could be improved
2 x
Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement
of major objectives of the protected area
3
6. Protected area
boundary
demarcation
Is the boundary
known and
demarcated?
Context
The boundary of the protected area is not known by the
management authority or local residents/neighbouring land
users
0 Demarcation exist around the park with beacon in place but the
neighbours adjacent other Land User claim not to know the boundary
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority but is not known by local
residents/neighbouring land users
1
The boundary of the protected area is known by both the
management authority and local residents but is not
appropriately demarcated
2
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority and local residents and is
appropriately demarcated
3
7. Management plan
Is there a
management plan
and is it being
implemented?
Planning
There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Not all activities are implemented as planned due to inadequate funds,
HR and equipments A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared
but is not being implemented
1
A management plan exists but it is only being partially
implemented because of funding constraints or other
problems
2 x
A management plan exists and is being implemented 3
Additional points
Planning
7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for
key stakeholders to influence the management plan
+1 x WCS/Local communities and District are involved
7.2 There is an established schedule and process for
periodic review and updating of the management plan
+1 x
7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are
routinely incorporated into planning
+1 x
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
119
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
8. Regular work plan
Is there an annual
work plan?
Planning/Outputs
No regular work plan exists
0 Is a new park and the budget allocation is small compare to the needs
A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored
against the plan’s targets
1 x
A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored
against the plan’s targets, but many activities are not
completed
2
A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against
the plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are
completed
3 x
9. Resource
inventory
Do you have good
information which
you use to manage
the area?
Context
There is little or no information available on the critical
habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area
0 Mostly relying on WCS to conduct research
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is not sufficient to support
planning and decision making
1 x
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of
planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is
not being maintained
2
Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and
cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support
planning and decision making and is being maintained
3
10. Protection
Systems
Are systems in place
to control access
resources use in the
protected area
Process/Outcome
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are
not effective in controlling access/resource use.
0 New park no entry gates so monitoring of access is difficult
Proposed 3 new entry gate( Isionje-Kikondo, Mwakipembo and Ujuni)
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially
effective in controlling access/resource use.
1 x
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately
effective in controlling access/resource use.
2
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or
wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use.
3
11. Research
Is there a programme
of management-
orientated
monitoring and
research work?
There is no survey or research work taking place in the
protected area
0 Few research taking place at the park,
There is some ad hoc survey and research work
1 x
There is considerable survey and research work but it is not
directed towards the needs of protected area management
2
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
120
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Inputs
There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey
and research work, which is relevant to management needs
3
12. Resource
management
Is the protected area
being managed
consistent to its
objectives (e.g. for
fire, invasive species,
poaching)?
Process
Requirements for active management of critical
ecosystems, species and cultural values have not been
assessed
0 Need to remove invasive species and continue improve the water flow)
Requirements for active management of critical
ecosystems, species and cultural values are known but are
not being addressed
1
Requirements for active management of critical
ecosystems, species and cultural values are only being
partially addressed
2 x
Requirements for active management of critical
ecosystems, species and cultural values are being
substantially or fully addressed
3
13. Staff numbers
Are there enough
people employed to
manage the protected
area?
Inputs
There are no staff
0 Need to build ranger posts, staff housing and entry gate
Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management
activities
1 x
Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical
management activities
2
Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of
the site
3
14. Staff training
Is there enough
training for staff?
Inputs/Process
Staff are untrained
0 In various tourism issues and park management
Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the
protected area
1 x
Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further
improved to fully achieve the objectives of management
2
Staff training and skills are in tune with the management
needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future
needs
3
15. Current budget
Is the current budget
sufficient?
Inputs
There is no budget for the protected area
0 Not sufficient to cover the park operations
The available budget is inadequate for basic management
needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to
manage
1 x
The available budget is acceptable, but could be further
improved to fully achieve effective management
2
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
121
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
The available budget is sufficient and meets the full
management needs of the protected area
3
16. Security of
budget
Is the budget secure?
Inputs
There is no secure budget for the protected area and
management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year
funding
0 New park and not so many visitors so get allocation from the core
TANAPA collections.
There is very little secure budget and the protected area
could not function adequately without outside funding
1
There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected
area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on
outside funding
2 x
There is a secure budget for the protected area and its
management needs on a multi-year cycle
3
17. Management of
budget
Is the budget
managed to meet
critical management
needs?
Process
Budget management is poor and significantly undermines
effectiveness
0 Well budget management
Some delays existing in releasing the funds and last year world
economic crisis pushed TANAPA to release funds monthly instead of
quarterly Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness
1
Budget management is adequate but could be improved
2 x
Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness
3
18. Equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
There is little or no equipment and facilities
0
There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly
inadequate
1
There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps
that constrain management
2 x
There is adequate equipment and facilities
3
19. Maintenance of
equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
There is little or no maintenance of equipment and
facilities
0 They outsource the maintenance service from Mbeya region which
turn out to be more expensive than owning a garage.
Also the terrain condition increases vehicles running cost
There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and
facilities
1
There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there
are some important gaps in maintenance
2 x
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
122
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3
20. Education and
awareness
programme
Is there a planned
education
programme?
Process
There is no education and awareness programme
0 Explain park objectives to the community through outreach
programme
There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness
programme, but no overall planning for this
1
There is a planned education and awareness programme
but there are still serious gaps
2
There is a planned and effective education and awareness
programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the
protected area
3
21. State and
commercial
neighbours
Is there co-operation
with adjacent land
and water users?
Process
There is no contact between managers and neighbouring
official or corporate land users
0
There is limited contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users
1 x
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only
limited co-operation
2
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, and
substantial co-operation on management
3
22. Planning for
water and land use
Does land and water
use planning
recognise the
protected area and
aid the achievement
of objectives
Planning
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take
account the needs of the protected area and
activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area
0 Large number of cultivation farms and livestock surrounding the park
Policies of allowing a dairy farm very close to the park and cultivation
of Irish potatoes is detrimental to the park
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take
account the needs of the protected area but
activities/policies are not detrimental to the survival of the
area
1
Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
2
Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
3
23. Traditional
authorities
Do traditional
authorities near the
protected area have
input to management
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 No indigenous people residing inside the park….However the
traditional community are allowed inside the park with permission to
conduct rituals activities They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1 x
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
123
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
decisions?
Process
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
24. Local
communities
Do near the protected
area have input to
management
decisions?
Process
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 PA is owned by the state with stakeholders input
They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1 x
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
Additional points
Outputs
24a There is open communication and trust between local
stakeholders and protected area managers
+1 x Yes there is open communication
24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare,
while conserving protected area resources, are being
implemented
+1 x Outreach programme support developments for local communities
24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the
protected area
-1 x Not all a lot of people who were evicted still pose a threat to the
exisiting of the park
25. Visitor facilities
Are visitor facilities
(for tourists, pilgrims
etc) good enough?
Outputs
There are no visitor facilities and services 0 x No entry gates or lodges/campsites inside the park
No walking trails or hiking facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current
levels of visitation or are under construction
1
Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current
levels of visitation but could be improved
2
Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current
levels of visitation
3
26. Commercial
tourism
Do commercial tour
operators contribute
to protected area
management?
Process
There is little or no contact between managers and tourism
operators using the protected area
0 Stakeholders are called to provide inputs to the park GMP
There is contact between managers and tourism operators
but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory
matters
1
There is limited co-operation between managers and
tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and
maintain protected area values
2 x
There is excellent co-operation between managers and
tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect
values and resolve conflicts
3
27. Fees
If fees (tourism,
Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not
collected
0 Volume of tourist are small…collections not enough to run the park
(e.g. in 2009 the park got an allocation of TZS 34 million but it needed
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
124
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
fines) are applied, do
they help protected
area management?
Outputs
The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central
government and is not returned to the protected area or its
environs
1 320million to operate efficiently)
The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority
rather than the protected area
2
There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to
support this and/or other protected areas
3 x
28. Condition
assessment
Is the protected area
being managed
‘well’?
Outcomes
Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
being severely degraded 0
Some part of the NP used to be settlements and cultivation land and
after eviction some remnants of exotic species (e.g. Pines still persist
in the park)
Park has improved water flow since its gazettement
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
severely degraded 1
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
partially degraded but the most important values have not
been significantly impacted
2 x
Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
predominantly intact
3
Additional points
Outputs
28a. There are active programmes for restoration of
degraded areas within the protected area and/or the
protected area buffer zone
+1
Park is looking to remove all the exotic species and burn collection of
building materials like stones and gravels.
29. Economic benefit
assessment
Is the protected area
providing economic
benefits to local
communities?
Outcomes
The existence of the protected area has reduced the options
for economic development of the local communities
0 TANAPA has a policy to help local communities in some
developments activities e.g. schools and heath centre
The existence of the protected area has neither damaged
nor benefited the local economy
1
There is some flow of economic benefits to local
communities from the existence of the protected area but
this is of minor significance to the regional economy
2 x
There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to
local communities from activities in and around the
protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated
commercial tours etc)
3
30. Monitoring and
evaluation
There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area
0
There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no
overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results
1 x
There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and
evaluation system but results are not systematically used
for management
2
Tanzania-Kitulo NP modified METT
125
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well
implemented and used in adaptive management
3
TOTAL SCORE
48+4
bonus
=52
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
Location of protected area (country and if
possible map reference)
Mbeya and Iringa, 8o 50’S and 9
o10’ S and 34
o00’E and
34 o30’E
Date of establishment (distinguish between
agreed and gazetted*)
Agreed Gazetted:
2002
Ownership details (i.e. owner,
tenure rights etc) State under the Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism
Management Authority Wildlife Division Size (ha) 1572 km2
Number of staff Permanent
21
Temporary
Budget TZS 32million (TWPF) and 8million (Retention)
Designations (IUCN category,
World Heritage, Ramsar etc)
N/A
Reasons for designation N/A
Brief details of World Bank
funded project or projects in PA
N/A
Brief details of WWF funded
project or projects in PA
N/A
Brief details of other relevant
projects in PA N/A
List the two primary objectives
Objective 1 Protect Biodiversity and reduce illegal use
Objective 2 Conserve the highland water catchment of riverine habitats
List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)
Threat 1 Poaching of wild animals
Threat 2 illegal harvesting of resources
List top two critical management activities
Activity 1 Anti-poaching
Activity 2 Promoting tourism
Date assessed 21/09/2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka, UNDP Consultant
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
127
Details of those
assessed/ interviewed
(incl. name,
position/post, phone,
email)
Antony Joseph Kika
P.O.box 66 Ilembula Iringa
Tel: 0717 391242
Email: [email protected]
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
128
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
1. Legal status
Does the protected
area have legal
status?
Context
The protected area is not gazetted
0 Fully gazetted
The government has agreed that the protected area should be
gazetted but the process has not yet begun
1
The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the
process is still incomplete
2
The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case
of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)
3 X
2. Protected area
regulations
Are inappropriate
land uses and
activities (e.g.
poaching/hunting)
controlled?
Context
There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land
use and activities in the protected area
0 Inadequate funds –anti-poaching operations management.
Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist, but there are large gaps.
1
Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist.
2 X
Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively
implemented
3
3. Law
enforcement
Can staff enforce
protected area rules
well enough?
Context
The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
0 Few equipment (vehicles, patrol equipments and few staffs-now 21 but
extra 15 personnel needed)
There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to
enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack
of skills, no patrol budget)
1
The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations but some
deficiencies remain
2 X
The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
3
4. Protected area
objectives
Is PA managed with
the aim of meeting
the stated objectives?
Planning
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
the current practice is now only 15 man-days
Current funds don’t give much room for increasing operations also
infrastructures and trails are not well maintained make it harder for the
operations
The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed
according to these objectives
1
The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only
partially implemented
2 X
The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to
meet these objectives
3
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
129
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
5. Protected area
design
Does the protected
area need enlarging,
corridors etc to meet
its objectives?
Planning
Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas
major management objectives of the protected area is
impossible
0 Situated in a difficult terrain where cars do not easily reach.
Thus also impair/limit photographic tourism
Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major
objectives are constrained to some extent
1
Design is not significantly constraining achievement of
major objectives, but could be improved
2 X
Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement
of major objectives of the protected area
3
6. Protected area
boundary
demarcation
Is the boundary
known and
demarcated?
Context
The boundary of the protected area is not known by the
management authority or local residents/neighbouring land
users
0 GR has been upgraded directly from an open area that had people
farming and living for many years.
Boundary conflicts exist has some villagers still reside inside the park
and some need relocated after compensated. The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority but is not known by local
residents/neighbouring land users
1 X
The boundary of the protected area is known by both the
management authority and local residents but is not
appropriately demarcated
2
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority and local residents and is
appropriately demarcated
3
7. Management plan
Is there a
management plan
and is it being
implemented?
Planning
There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Difficult to implement the GMP full because of funding constraints
and also remnants of people living in the park makes it difficult for
efficient patrolling and in reducing illegal poaching A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared
but is not being implemented
1
A management plan exists but it is only being partially
implemented because of funding constraints or other
problems
2 X
A management plan exists and is being implemented 3
Additional points
Planning
7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for
key stakeholders to influence the management plan
+1 No Stakeholders don’t influence
No recent monitoring or research work
7.2 There is an established schedule and process for periodic
review and updating of the management plan
+1 Yes
7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are
routinely incorporated into planning
+1 No
8. Regular work plan
No regular work plan exists
0 Because funds are not enough
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
130
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Is there an annual
work plan?
Planning/Outputs
A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored
against the plan’s targets
1
A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against
the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed
2 X
A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the
plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are
completed
3
9. Resource
inventory
Do you have good
information which
you use to manage
the area?
Context
There is little or no information available on the critical
habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area
0 Rarely use anti-poaching unit information to make decisions
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is not sufficient to support
planning and decision making
1 X
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of
planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is
not being maintained
2
Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and
cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support
planning and decision making and is being maintained
3
10. Protection
Systems
Are systems in place
to control access
resources use in the
protected area
Process/Outcome
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are
not effective in controlling access/resource use.
0 Inadequate funds and equipment as mentioned above
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially
effective in controlling access/resource use.
1 X
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately
effective in controlling access/resource use.
2
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or
wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use.
3
11. Research
Is there a programme
of management-
orientated
monitoring and
research work?
Inputs
There is no survey or research work taking place in the
protected area
0 X No research or monitoring programmes
There is some ad hoc survey and research work
1
There is considerable survey and research work but it is not
directed towards the needs of protected area management
2
There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey
and research work, which is relevant to management needs
3
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
131
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
12. Resource
management
Is the protected area
being managed
consistent to its
objectives (e.g. for
fire, invasive species,
poaching)?
Process
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values have not been assessed
0 X Very scant information is available to make any decision
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are known but are not being
addressed
1
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are only being partially
addressed
2
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are being substantially or fully
addressed
3
13. Staff numbers
Are there enough
people employed to
manage the protected
area?
Inputs
There are no staff
0 Staff are not enough …now 21 available but extra 15 needed
Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management
activities
1
Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical
management activities
2 X
Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the
site
3
14. Staff training
Is there enough
training for staff?
Inputs/Process
Staff are untrained
0 Need to train in new anti-poaching techniques and Intelligence to
combat poachers properly
Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the
protected area
1
Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further
improved to fully achieve the objectives of management
2 X
Staff training and skills are in tune with the management
needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future
needs
3
15. Current budget
Is the current budget
sufficient?
Inputs
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
of equipment The available budget is inadequate for basic management
needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to
manage
1 X
The available budget is acceptable, but could be further
improved to fully achieve effective management
2
The available budget is sufficient and meets the full
management needs of the protected area
3
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
132
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
16. Security of
budget
Is the budget secure?
Inputs
There is no secure budget for the protected area and
management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year
funding
0 GR send budget to TWPF and TWPF allocate based on what it can
afford and not what is needed…security is there but insufficient to
cover operations.
There is very little secure budget and the protected area
could not function adequately without outside funding
1 X
There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected
area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on
outside funding
2
There is a secure budget for the protected area and its
management needs on a multi-year cycle
3
17. Management of
budget
Is the budget
managed to meet
critical management
needs?
Process
Budget management is poor and significantly undermines
effectiveness
0
Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness
1
Budget management is adequate but could be improved
2
Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness
3 X
18. Equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
There is little or no equipment and facilities
0 Equipments are maintained from the core budget which is already
insufficient…so no proper maintenance
There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly
inadequate
1 X
There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps
that constrain management
2
There is adequate equipment and facilities
3
19. Maintenance of
equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities
0 Most equipments are old
There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and
facilities
1
There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there
are some important gaps in maintenance
2
Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3
20. Education and
awareness
There is no education and awareness programme
0 X Education and awareness programme exist on papers only.
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
133
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
programme
Is there a planned
education
programme?
Process
There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness
programme, but no overall planning for this
1
There is a planned education and awareness programme but
there are still serious gaps
2
There is a planned and effective education and awareness
programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the
protected area
3
21. State and
commercial
neighbours
Is there co-operation
with adjacent land
and water users?
Process
There is no contact between managers and neighbouring
official or corporate land users
0 Boundary conflicts exist between adjacent communities and GRs
There is limited contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users
1 X
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only
limited co-operation
2
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial
co-operation on management
3
22. Planning for
water and land use
Does land and water
use planning
recognise the
protected area and
aid the achievement
of objectives
Planning
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account
the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are
detrimental to the survival of the area
0 Abstraction still exist especially in the Igawa Area
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account
the needs of the protected area but activities/policies are not
detrimental to the survival of the area
1
Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
2 X
Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
3
23. Traditional
authorities
Do traditional
authorities near the
protected area have
input to management
decisions?
Process
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 Traditional communities are not involved to make decision related to
park management
They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2 X
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
24. Local
communities
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 X No inputs
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
134
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Do near the protected
area have input to
management
decisions?
Process
They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
Additional points
Outputs
24a There is open communication and trust between local
stakeholders and protected area managers
+1 no
24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while
conserving protected area resources, are being implemented
+1 no
24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the
protected area
-1 No
25. Visitor facilities
Are visitor facilities
(for tourists, pilgrims
etc) good enough?
Outputs
There are no visitor facilities and services 0 X NO facilities
Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current
levels of visitation or are under construction
1
Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels
of visitation but could be improved
2
Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels
of visitation
3
26. Commercial
tourism
Do commercial tour
operators contribute
to protected area
management?
Process
There is little or no contact between managers and tourism
operators using the protected area
0 X No tour operators
There is contact between managers and tourism operators
but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory
matters
1
There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism
operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain
protected area values
2
There is excellent co-operation between managers and
tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect
values and resolve conflicts
3
27. Fees
If fees (tourism,
fines) are applied, do
they help protected
area management?
Outputs
Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not
collected
0 X Not yet started to receive tourist
The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central
government and is not returned to the protected area or its
environs
1
The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority
rather than the protected area
2
Tanzania-MKGR modified METT
135
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to
support this and/or other protected areas
3
28. Condition
assessment
Is the protected area
being managed
‘well’?
Outcomes
Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
being severely degraded 0
Is above minimal level
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
severely degraded 1
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
partially degraded but the most important values have not
been significantly impacted
2 X
Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
predominantly intact 3
Additional points
Outputs
28a. There are active programmes for restoration of
degraded areas within the protected area and/or the
protected area buffer zone
+1
No programmes
29. Economic benefit
assessment
Is the protected area
providing economic
benefits to local
communities?
Outcomes
The existence of the protected area has reduced the options
for economic development of the local communities
0 Two secondary classrooms were built in Njombe
The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor
benefited the local economy
1
There is some flow of economic benefits to local
communities from the existence of the protected area but
this is of minor significance to the regional economy
2 X
There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to
local communities from activities in and around the
protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated
commercial tours etc)
3
30. Monitoring and
evaluation
Planning/Process
There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area
0 X No M&E exist
There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no
overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results
1
There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and
evaluation system but results are not systematically used for
management
2
A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well
implemented and used in adaptive management
3
TOTAL SCORE
21
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
possible map reference) Mbeya Region
Date of establishment (distinguish between
agreed and gazetted*)
Up dated to Nature
Reserve : 21 Dec 2009
Gazetted: i 1953
Ownership details (i.e. owner,
tenure rights etc) Central Government
Management Authority FBD Size (ha) 13,652.1 ha
Number of staff
Permanent
4
Temporary: NIL
Budget TZS 7,000,000
Reasons for designation Improved status from FR to NR due its biodiversity importance as a
result of increased illegal logging and encroachment
Brief details of other relevant
projects in PA
Government of Germany through UNDP is giving funds to support
NR activities (40million disbursed this year )
List the two primary objectives
Objective 1 Conservation of biodiversity and Kipunje monkey species
Objective 2 Water catchment (environmental services)
List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)
Threat 1 Illegal logging
Threat 2 Encroachment (cultivation)
List top two critical management activities
Activity 1 Resurvey of reserve boundaries due to encroachment and screening of firelines
Activity 2 Establishment of ecotourism infrastructure and facilities
Date assessed 17 August 2010 Assessor(s) Demetrius Kweka (UNDP Consultant)
Details of those
assessed/ interviewed
(incl. name,
position/post, phone,
email)
Fabian Mkome: Mt.Rungwe NR Conservator
Tel. Cell: (+255) 755 570723 or 656 583094
Email: [email protected]
137
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
1. Legal status
Does the protected
area have legal
status?
Context
The protected area is not gazetted
0 Gazetted: 1953
Upgraded to Nature Reserve: 1st Dec 2009, GN # 386
The government has agreed that the protected area should be
gazetted but the process has not yet begun
1
The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the
process is still incomplete
2
The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case
of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)
3
2. Protected area
regulations
Are inappropriate
land uses and
activities (e.g.
poaching/hunting)
controlled?
Context
There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land
use and activities in the protected area
0 Forest Act 2002
NR establishment regulations
Forest Policy 1998 Some mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist, but there are large gaps.
1
Mechanisms for controlling most inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist.
2
Mechanisms for controlling all inappropriate land use and
activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively
implemented
3
3. Law
enforcement
Can staff enforce
protected area rules
well enough?
Context
The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
0 Only four staff, No entry gates, one vehicle, No adequate budget and
patrol is hampered by unavailability of ranger posts.
There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to
enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack
of skills, no patrol budget)
1
The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations but some
deficiencies remain
2
The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce
protected area legislation and regulations
3
4. Protected area
objectives
Is PA managed with
the aim of meeting
the stated objectives?
Planning
No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area
0 Little funds, which give priority to sensitive activities within the Mgt
Plan
The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed
according to these objectives
1
The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only
partially implemented
2
The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to
meet these objectives
3
138
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
5. Protected area
design
Does the protected
area need enlarging,
corridors etc to meet
its objectives?
Planning
Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas
major management objectives of the protected area is
impossible
0
Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major
objectives are constrained to some extent
1 WCS is helping with the mgt plan and fees establishment/Eco tourism
Terrain is difficult to navigate hence increased cost and require more
labour
Office supervising is located in Mbeya make it hard to perform
effective patrol and law enforcement
Design is not significantly constraining achievement of
major objectives, but could be improved
2
Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement
of major objectives of the protected area
3
6. Protected area
boundary
demarcation
Is the boundary
known and
demarcated?
Context
The boundary of the protected area is not known by the
management authority or local residents/neighbouring land
users
0 .
Needs frequent clearing due to encroachment by farmers
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority but is not known by local
residents/neighbouring land users
1
The boundary of the protected area is known by both the
management authority and local residents but is not
appropriately demarcated
2
The boundary of the protected area is known by the
management authority and local residents and is
appropriately demarcated
3
7. Management plan
Is there a
management plan
and is it being
implemented?
Planning
There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Prepared and awaiting approval from FBD ; however implementation
continues using Action plan as per final draft management plan
A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared
but is not being implemented
1
A management plan exists but it is only being partially
implemented because of funding constraints or other
problems
2
A management plan exists and is being implemented 3
Additional points
Planning
7.1 The planning process allows adequate opportunity for
key stakeholders to influence the management plan
+1 Stakeholders are involved in various other activities but not in planning
No periodic reviews
Few research and monitoring at the moment
7.2 There is an established schedule and process for periodic
review and updating of the management plan
+1
7.3 The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are
routinely incorporated into planning
+1
139
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
8. Regular work plan
Is there an annual
work plan?
Planning/Outputs
No regular work plan exists
0 Action plan with timeframe
A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored
against the plan’s targets
1
A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against
the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed
2
A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the
plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are
completed
3
9. Resource
inventory
Do you have good
information which
you use to manage
the area?
Context
There is little or no information available on the critical
habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area
0 Mostly relying on WCS to conduct research and few resources
inventory data exist so far
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is not sufficient to support
planning and decision making
1
Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural
values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of
planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is
not being maintained
2
Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and
cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support
planning and decision making and is being maintained
3
10. Protection
Systems
Are systems in place
to control access
resources use in the
protected area
Process/Outcome
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) do not exist or are
not effective in controlling access/resource use.
0 No gates, Supervision is low and some enter without paying
Illegal logging still exist to a large extent
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are only partially
effective in controlling access/resource use.
1
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are moderately
effective in controlling access/resource use.
2
Protections systems (patrol, permits etc.) are largely or
wholly not effective in controlling access/resource use.
3
11. Research
Is there a programme
of management-
orientated
monitoring and
research work?
There is no survey or research work taking place in the
protected area
0 Supportive research done by WCS
There is some ad hoc survey and research work
1
There is considerable survey and research work but it is not
directed towards the needs of protected area management
2
140
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Inputs
There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey
and research work, which is relevant to management needs
3
12. Resource
management
Is the protected area
being managed
consistent to its
objectives (e.g. for
fire, invasive species,
poaching)?
Process
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values have not been assessed
0 Some discrepancies because of lack of funds and effective protection
systems
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are known but are not being
addressed
1
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are only being partially
addressed
2
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems,
species and cultural values are being substantially or fully
addressed
3
13. Staff numbers
Are there enough
people employed to
manage the protected
area?
Inputs
There are no staff
0 Only 4 with one vehicle no other equipments for enforcing the law
Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management
activities
1
Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical
management activities
2
Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the
site
3
14. Staff training
Is there enough
training for staff?
Inputs/Process
Staff are untrained
0 All staffs under the current conservator are fresh graduates so they
need extra on job training
Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the
protected area
1
Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further
improved to fully achieve the objectives of management
2
Staff training and skills are in tune with the management
needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future
needs
3
15. Current budget
Is the current budget
sufficient?
Inputs
There is no budget for the protected area
0 TZS 7million per quarter is not enough 20million per quarter is needed
The available budget is inadequate for basic management
needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to
manage
1
The available budget is acceptable, but could be further
improved to fully achieve effective management
2
141
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
The available budget is sufficient and meets the full
management needs of the protected area
3
16. Security of
budget
Is the budget secure?
Inputs
There is no secure budget for the protected area and
management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year
funding
0 FBD collects revenue generated and send to the treasury and present a
budget to cover its operation national-wide. Most of the time the funds
allocated are not matching the operations needed.
There is very little secure budget and the protected area
could not function adequately without outside funding
1
There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected
area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on
outside funding
2
There is a secure budget for the protected area and its
management needs on a multi-year cycle
3
17. Management of
budget
Is the budget
managed to meet
critical management
needs?
Process
Budget management is poor and significantly undermines
effectiveness
0
Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness
1
Budget management is adequate but could be improved
2
Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness
3
18. Equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
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
devices, uniforms and proper office do not exist There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly
inadequate
1
There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps
that constrain management
2
There is adequate equipment and facilities
3
19. Maintenance of
equipment
Is equipment
adequately
maintained?
Process
There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities
0 N/A
There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and
facilities
1
There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there
are some important gaps in maintenance
2
Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3
142
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
20. Education and
awareness
programme
Is there a planned
education
programme?
Process
There is no education and awareness programme
0 Donor fund contributed (40million) through coordination office in
Morogoro is being used for awareness , fire campaigning, education
and patrolling, There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness
programme, but no overall planning for this
1
There is a planned education and awareness programme but
there are still serious gaps
2
There is a planned and effective education and awareness
programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the
protected area
3
21. State and
commercial
neighbours
Is there co-operation
with adjacent land
and water users?
Process
There is no contact between managers and neighbouring
official or corporate land users
0 Village Environmental Committees are involved especially in law
enforcement and also help to rangers
Kiwira National Plantation Project contributed to patrols and land for
building the entrance gate
Tea company which uses eucalyptus to dry tea are not cooperating
with the NR authorities
There is limited contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users
1
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only
limited co-operation
2
There is regular contact between managers and
neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial
co-operation on management
3
22. Planning for
water and land use
Does land and water
use planning
recognise the
protected area and
aid the achievement
of objectives
Planning
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account
the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are
detrimental to the survival of the area
0 Land and water users don’t see the importance of the national park
around their area
Adjacent land and water use planning does not take account
the needs of the protected area but activities/policies are not
detrimental to the survival of the area
1
Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
2
Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into
account the long term of needs of the protected area
3
23. Traditional
authorities
Do traditional
authorities near the
protected area have
input to management
decisions?
Process
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 Communities are involved through their Village Natural Resource
Committees (VNRCs) which assist in NR management especially
protection and law enforcement They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
143
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
24. Local
communities
Do near the protected
area have input to
management
decisions?
Process
They have no input into decisions relating to the
management of the protected area
0 Communities are involved through their VNRCs
They have some input into discussions relating to
management but no direct involvement in the resulting
decisions
1
They directly contribute to some decisions relating to
management
2
They directly participate in making decisions relating to
management
3
Additional points
Outputs
24a There is open communication and trust between local
stakeholders and protected area managers
+1 Yes Awareness need to be strengthened and NR authority needs to support
local communities in development initiatives
24b Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while
conserving protected area resources, are being implemented
-1 No Various initiatives are included in the management plan but
implementation of such programmes has not started due to fund
constraints
24c. Local and/or indigenous people actively support the
protected area
-1 No Partially though some encroachment and illegal logging persists
25. Visitor facilities
Are visitor facilities
(for tourists, pilgrims
etc) good enough?
Outputs
There are no visitor facilities and services 0 No entry gates or lodges/campsites inside the park
No walking trails or hiking facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current
levels of visitation or are under construction
1
Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels
of visitation but could be improved
2
Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels
of visitation
3
26. Commercial
tourism
Do commercial tour
operators contribute
to protected area
management?
Process
There is little or no contact between managers and tourism
operators using the protected area
0 No commercial tourism operator in the area
There is contact between managers and tourism operators
but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory
matters
1
There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism
operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain
protected area values
2
There is excellent co-operation between managers and
tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect
values and resolve conflicts
3
27. Fees
If fees (tourism,
Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not
collected
0 Volume of tourist are small/No gates…until recent there is no fees
charged/collected
144
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
fines) are applied, do
they help protected
area management?
Outputs
The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central
government and is not returned to the protected area or its
environs
1
Fines imposed to any one conduct illegal activities in the NR
The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority
rather than the protected area
2
There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to
support this and/or other protected areas
3
28. Condition
assessment
Is the protected area
being managed
‘well’?
Outcomes
Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
being severely degraded 0
Used to be FR and now a NR , condition supposed to change due to
this change in management regime but facilities and capacity to
introduce patrols, fees and fines need to be in place Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
severely degraded 1
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being
partially degraded but the most important values have not
been significantly impacted
2
Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are
predominantly intact
3
Additional points
Outputs
28a. There are active programmes for restoration of
degraded areas within the protected area and/or the
protected area buffer zone
-1
No any programme
29. Economic benefit
assessment
Is the protected area
providing economic
benefits to local
communities?
Outcomes
The existence of the protected area has reduced the options
for economic development of the local communities
0 Currently none as NR reserve itself does not generate any revenue so
far.
The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor
benefited the local economy
1
There is some flow of economic benefits to local
communities from the existence of the protected area but
this is of minor significance to the regional economy
2
There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to
local communities from activities in and around the
protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated
commercial tours etc)
3
30. Monitoring and
evaluation
There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area
0 Once the management plan is fully operated M &E will be carried out
as planned However, Conservator is supposed to report progress to
FBD and to donor (UNDP) funding activities in the NR There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no
overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results
1
There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and
evaluation system but results are not systematically used for
management
2
145
Issue Criteria 2010 Note
Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well
implemented and used in adaptive management
3
TOTAL SCORE
40
146
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
(Ruaha)
22,226km2 State owned, managed by TANAPA
Sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas
147
Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System
Baseline year57
(US$)58
2010
Year X59
(US$)60
2010
Comments61
Available Finances62
(1) Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management
(excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system)
- national protected areas NA NA NA
(2) Total annual government budget provided for PA management
(including PA dedicated taxes63, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans,
donations, debt-for nature swaps and other financial mechanisms)
Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each
NA
- national protected areas NA NA NA
(3) Total annual site based revenue generation across all PAs broken down
by source64
Indicate total economic value of PAs (if
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
148
Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System
Baseline year57
(US$)58
2010
Year X59
(US$)60
2010
Comments61
- 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
149
Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System
Baseline year57
(US$)58
2010
Year X59
(US$)60
2010
Comments61
(7) Total annual expenditure for PAs (all PA operating and investment costs
and system level expenses)68
State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a
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
investments) to be covered
5,582,254,870
- national protected areas
B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs (operational
and investments) to be covered71
Nil
- 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
150
Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System
Baseline year57
(US$)58
2010
Year X59
(US$)60
2010
Comments61
- 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
151
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
generation by PAs
None (0)
A Few (1)
Several (2)
Fully (3)
(i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms
3
Specify the revenue generation
mechanisms that are not permitted
under the current legal framework
-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
and sharing within the PA system
No
(0)
Under development
(1)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, satisfactory
(3)
(i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA
system (central and site levels)
3 The collected revenue are 100%
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
level
0
There is no retention to each park
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
local stakeholders
3
The benefit sharing policy for
TANAPA is 7.5% of the parks
revenue
Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds
(endowment, sinking or revolving)77
No
(0)
Established
(1)
Established with
limited capital
(2)
Established with
adequate capital
(3)
(i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system
0
None
(0)
A few
(1)
Several
(2)
Sufficient
(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
152
(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
institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to
government
None
(0)
Under development
(1)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, Satisfactory
(3)
(i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA
services
3 This is for permanent facilities in
TANAPA
(ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs
2
By participating the community to
protect the buffer zones and
dispersal areas
(iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government
management of PAs
2
Mandate of TANAPA is to conserve
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
(0)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, satisfactory
(3)
Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both
input and activity based accounting)
2
- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs
3
- international:
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
plans, performance etc)
3 Allocation of the budget in the PA
system depend on:
Size
Threats
Plans
- Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect
conservation objectives of PAs
3
The Limit of Acceptable Use (LAU)
limits the tourism activities carried
in different zones of the park as well
as number of development and
tourist in the park
153
- PA management plans to include financial data or associated business plans
1
(ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national
financing strategy78
Not begun (0)
In progress (1)
Completed (3) Under implementation
(5)
5
Based on policy and regulatory
frame work
Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc)
None (0)
Partial (1)
Satisfactory (2) Full (3)
(i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local
and national development are available
2
Provide summary data from studies
(ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within Ministry of Environment)
(eg within other sectoral Ministries)
2
(eg within Ministry of
Finance)
Economic and financial valuation
Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No
(0)
Partially
(2)
Yes
(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
zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)79
3
This is done through the Support on
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,
reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates
3
TANAPA being a parastatal organization
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
management of PAs
None (0)
Partial (1)
Improving (2)
Full (3)
(i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed
3
Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Almost there (2) Full
(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
154
at site and system level (i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists
and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels)
and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system
3 Explain their roles:
(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
(eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts)
3
(iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of
sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective
management
3
(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
management
Comment
Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun (0)
Early stages (1)
Near complete (2)
Completed (3)
(i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs
and costs based on cost-effective analysis
3 The rating should be based on
quality of management plans
(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system
3 Specify the percentage of PAs that
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.
155
(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
auditing systems
None (0)
Partial (1) Near complete (2)
Fully completed (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
management performance None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Near completed (2)
Complete and operational
(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
establishment of a visitor centre)
3
(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
achieve management objectives
3
Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No
(0)
Yes
(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
operate more cost-effectively
Absent
(0)
Partially done
(1)
Almost done (2) Fully
(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
with each other on their costs, practices and impacts
3
All park managers meet annually at
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,
available and being used to track PA manager performance
3 All park managers meet annually at
TANAPA Headquarters during the
156
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
feed into system management policy and planning
2
Performance review according to the
TANAPA corporate strategic plan
(v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective
management
2
This is done through the TANAPA
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
system
None (0)
Partially (1)
A fair amount (2)
Optimal (3)
(i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and
available including feasibility studies;
2
Source of the study
(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
investment cost)
2
(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
system
No
(0)
Partially
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Fully
(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
on investment 83
2
82 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.
157
(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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Completed
(2)
Operational
(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
manner
2
The current fee collection system of
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
services provided
2
Not Applicable The surveys are conducted by the
departments of Tourism and
Planning
Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue
generation mechanisms
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Fully
(3)
(i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees,
conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level
2
In allocation with TTB {External
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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
158
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
mechanisms
None
(0)
Limited
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Extensive
(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 %:
159
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 %
Percentage scored in previous year86
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.
160
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
(Kitulo)
412.9 State owned, managed by TANAPA
Sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas
161
Financial Analysis of the National
Protected Area System
Baseline
year88 (US$)89 2010
Year
X90 (US
$)91 201
0
Comments92
Available Finances93
(1) Total annual central government
budget allocated to PA management
(excluding donor funds and revenues
generated for the PA system)
- national protected areas NA NA NA
(2) Total annual government budget
provided for PA management
(including PA dedicated taxes94
,
Trust Funds, donor funds, loans,
donations, debt-for nature swaps and
other financial mechanisms)
Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each
NA
- 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
162
(3) Total annual site based revenue
generation across all PAs broken
down by source95
Indicate total economic value of PAs (if
studies available)96
A. Tourism entrance fees
- national protected areas 37,03
8,100
- international: Adult -USD 20
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
163
(5) Percentage of PA generated
revenues retained in the PA system
for re-investment98
%
- national protected areas NA N
A
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 37,03
8,100
Costs and Financing Needs
(7) Total annual expenditure for PAs
(all PA operating and investment
costs and system level expenses)99
State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given year
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
39,70
7
Rate of disbursement is 30%. This is because the revenues generated by the park are
minimal while operational expenses are greater
(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
164
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
optimal management costs
(operational and investments) to be
covered102
Nil
- 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
165
- 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
166
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
generation by PAs
None
(0)
A Few
(1)
Several
(2)
Fully
(3)
(i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms
3
Specify the revenue generation
mechanisms that are not permitted
under the current legal framework
-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
and sharing within the PA system
No (0)
Under development (1)
Yes, but needs improvement
(2)
Yes, satisfactory (3)
(i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA
system (central and site levels)
3
The collected revenue are 100%
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
level
0
There is no retention to each park
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
local stakeholders
3 The benefit sharing policy for
TANAPA is 7.5% of the parks
revenue
Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds
(endowment, sinking or revolving)108
No (0)
Established (1)
Established with limited capital
(2)
Established with adequate capital
(3)
(i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system
0
None
(0)
A few
(1)
Several
(2)
Sufficient
(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
167
No (0)
Partially (1)
Quite well (2)
Fully (3)
(iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and
accounting
0
Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative
institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to
government
None
(0)
Under development
(1)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, Satisfactory
(3)
(i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA
services
3 This is for permanent facilities in
TANAPA
(ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs
2
By participating the community to
protect the buffer zones and
dispersal areas
(iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government
management of PAs
2
Mandate of TANAPA is to conserve
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
(0)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, satisfactory
(3)
Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both
input and activity based accounting)
2
- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs
3
- international:
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
plans, performance etc)
3 Allocation of the budget in the PA
system depend on:
Size
Threats
Plans
- Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect
conservation objectives of PAs
3
The Limit of Acceptable Use (LAU)
limits the tourism activities carried
in different zones of the park as well
168
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
financing strategy109
Not begun
(0)
In progress
(1)
Completed (3) Under
implementation
(5)
5
Based on policy and regulatory
frame work
Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc)
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Satisfactory (2) Full
(3)
(i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local
and national development are available
2
Provide summary data from studies
(ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within Ministry
of Environment)
(eg within other
sectoral Ministries)
2
(eg within
Ministry of
Finance)
Economic and financial valuation
Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No (0)
Partially (2)
Yes (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
zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)110
3
This is done through the Support on
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,
reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates
3
TANAPA being a parastatal organization 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
management of PAs
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Improving
(2)
Full
(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
169
Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives
at site and system level
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Almost there (2) Full
(3)
(i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists
and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels)
and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system
3 Explain their roles:
(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
(eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts)
3
(iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of
sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective
management
3
(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
management
Comment
Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun (0)
Early stages (1)
Near complete (2)
Completed (3)
(i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs
and costs based on cost-effective analysis
3 The rating should be based on
quality of management plans
(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system
3 Specify the percentage of PAs that
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.
170
(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
auditing systems
None
(0)
Partial (1) Near complete
(2)
Fully completed
(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
management performance None (0)
Partial (1)
Near completed
(2)
Complete and
operational (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
establishment of a visitor centre)
3
(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
achieve management objectives
3
Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No
(0)
Yes
(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
operate more cost-effectively
Absent
(0)
Partially done
(1)
Almost done (2) Fully
(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
with each other on their costs, practices and impacts
3
All park managers meet annually at
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
171
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
feed into system management policy and planning
2
Performance review according to the
TANAPA corporate strategic plan
(v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective
management
2
This is done through the TANAPA
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
system
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
A fair amount
(2)
Optimal
(3)
(i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and
available including feasibility studies;
2
Source of the study
(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
investment cost)
2
(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
system
No (0)
Partially (1)
Satisfactory (2)
Fully (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
on investment 114
2
113 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.
172
(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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Completed
(2)
Operational
(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
manner
2
The current fee collection system of
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
services provided
2
Not Applicable The surveys are conducted by the
departments of Tourism and
Planning
Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue
generation mechanisms
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Fully
(3)
(i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees,
conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level
2
In allocation with TTB {External
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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
173
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
mechanisms
None
(0)
Limited
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Extensive
(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 %:
174
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 %
Percentage scored in previous year117
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.
175
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
Game reserve
1574.25kmsq Owned by government, wildlife
division
176
Financial Analysis of the National
Protected Area System
Baseline
year119 (US$
)120
Year
X121 (US$)122
Comments123
Available Finances124
(1) Total annual central government
budget allocated to PA management
(excluding donor funds and
revenues generated for the PA
system)
- national protected areas 136
,53
7,3
00
13
6,5
37,
30
0
-
(2) Total annual government budget
provided for PA management
(including PA dedicated taxes125
,
Trust Funds, donor funds, loans,
Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each
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
177
donations, debt-for nature swaps and
other financial mechanisms)
- national protected areas 136
,53
7,3
00
13
6,5
37,
30
0
Donated by central government
(3) Total annual site based revenue
generation across all PAs broken
down by source126
Indicate total economic value of PAs (if studies available)127
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
(PES)
NA
- 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
178
D. Other (specify each type of
revenue generation mechanism128
)
NA
- 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
179
Costs and Financing Needs
(7) Total annual expenditure for PAs
(all PA operating and investment
costs and system level expenses)130
State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given year
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
180
(operational and investments) to be
covered133
- national protected areas Nil
(9) Annual financing gap (financial
needs – available finances)134
A. Net actual annual
surplus/deficit135
Nil
- 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
181
- 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
182
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
generation by PAs
None (0)
A Few (1)
Several (2)
Fully (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
promote PA financing
0
Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention
and sharing within the PA system
No (0)
Under development (1)
Yes, but needs improvement
(2)
Yes, satisfactory (3)
(i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA
system (central and site levels)
1
(ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site
level
1 :
(iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with
local stakeholders
0
Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds
(endowment, sinking or revolving)139
No
(0)
Established
(1)
Established with
limited capital
(2)
Established with
adequate capital
(3)
(i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system
0
None
(0)
A few
(1)
Several
(2)
Sufficient
(3)
(ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs
0
No
(0)
Partially
(1)
Quite well
(2)
Fully
(3)
(iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and
accounting
0
139 This element can be omitted in countries where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government
183
Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative
institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to
government
None
(0)
Under development
(1)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, Satisfactory
(3)
(i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA
services
0
(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
(0)
Yes, but needs
improvement
(2)
Yes, satisfactory
(3)
Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both
input and activity based accounting)
2
- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs
- Allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (criteria based on size, threats, business
plans, performance etc)
1 Size, and threats
- 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
financing strategy140
Not begun
(0)
In progress
(1)
Completed (3) Under
implementation
(5)
0
Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc)
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Satisfactory (2) Full
(3)
(i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local
and national development are available
2 Provide summary data from studies
(ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers (eg within Ministry
of Environment)
2 (eg within
Ministry of
Finance)
Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No
(0)
Partially
(2)
Yes
(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
zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)141
3 It is through ant poaching activities
140 A national PA Financing Strategy will include targets, policies, tools and approaches
184
(iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent,
reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates
3 Because it is the government system
(iv) Ministry of Finance plans to increased budget, over the long term, to
reduce the PA financing gap
0
Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial
management of PAs
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Improving
(2)
Full
(3)
(i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed
0
Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives
at site and system level
None (0)
Partial (1)
Almost there (2) Full (3)
(i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists
and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels)
and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system
2 Prepare the budget
(ii) PA site manager responsibilities include, financial management, cost-
effectiveness and revenue generation 142
3
(iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA managers to promote site level financial
sustainability
(eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts)
0
(iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of
sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective
management
0
(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
management
Comment
Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun
(0)
Early stages
(1)
Near complete
(2)
Completed
(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
185
(i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs
and costs based on cost-effective analysis
The rating should be based on
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
plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system143
0
(iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system
(degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives)
0
(iv) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting 0
(v) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and
contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting
0
Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and
auditing systems
None
(0)
Partial (1) Near complete
(2)
Fully completed
(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
management performance None (0)
Partial (1)
Near completed
(2)
Complete and
operational (3)
(i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by PA
authorities to stakeholders
0
(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)
3
(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
achieve management objectives
3
Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites No
(0)
Yes
(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
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.
186
operate more cost-effectively (0) (1) (3)
(i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA
managers
3 All PA Managers meet annually to
discuss their performance and
prepare the coming budget.
(ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information
with eachother on their costs, practices and impacts
2 It is discussed during the preparation
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
feed into system management policy and planning
2
(v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective
management
0
(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
system
None (0)
Partially (1)
A fair amount (2)
Optimal (3)
(i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and
available including feasibility studies;
0
(ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms, generating funds for the
PA system
1
(iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues
(greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial
investment cost)
1
(iv) PAs enable local communities to generate revenues, resulting in reduced
threats to the PAs
0
Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA
system
No
(0)
Partially
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Fully
(3)
(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and
adopted by government
3 If PA sites have tariffs but there is
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
3
144 This might include aerial surveys, marine pollution monitoring, economic valuations etc.
187
(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 145
0
(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 (0)
Partially (1)
Completed (2)
Operational (3)
System wide guidelines for fee collection are complete and approved by PA
authorities
0
Fee collection systems are being implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective
manner
0
Fee collection systems are monitored, evaluated and acted upon 0
PA visitors are satisfied with the professionalism of fee collection and the
services provided
0 Not Applicable This can be done through visitor
surveys
Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue
generation mechanisms
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Fully
(3)
(i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees,
conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level
1
(i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about PA fees are
in place at PA site level
0
Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs146
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(3)
(i) A system wide strategy and implementation action plan is complete and
adopted by government for concessions
0
(ii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot PA sites 0
(iii) Operational performance (environmental and financial) of pilots is
monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon
0
(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
188
Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation
mechanisms
None
(0)
Limited
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Extensive
(3)
(i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations
for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration
1
Total Score for Component 3
Actual score:
Total possible score: 71
%:
189
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
Percentage scored in previous year148
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.
190
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)
191
Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System
Baseline
year150
(US$)151
Year X152
(US$)153
Comments154
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$
>10,000
2010/11
- sub-national (state/regional/municipal) protected areas
- co-managed protected areas
- others
(2) Total annual government budget provided for PA management (including PA
dedicated taxes156
, Trust Funds, donor funds, loans, donations, debt-for nature swaps
and other financial mechanisms)
2010/11 Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each
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
source157
Indicate total economic value of PAs (if studies
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
192
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
193
- 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
system level expenses)161
State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given
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.
194
- national protected areas Tshs. 50
Million
Costs for routine activities (patrol, awareness creation,
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
Million
Costs for Office building, staff houses + Costs for routine
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
195
- 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
196
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
generation by PAs
None
(0)
A Few
(1)
Several
(2)
Fully
(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
promote PA financing
√ Entrance & Tourism Fees are due to
start
Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention
and sharing within the PA system
No (0)
Under development
(1)
Yes, but needs improvement
(2)
Yes, satisfactory (3)
(i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA
system (central and site levels)
√ Specify % to be retained:
(ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site
level
√ Specify % to be retained:
(iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with
local stakeholders
√ Specify % to be shared:
Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds
(endowment, sinking or revolving)170
No
(0)
Established
(1)
Established with
limited capital
(2)
Established with
adequate capital
(3)
(i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system
√
None
(0)
A few
(1)
Several
(2)
Sufficient
(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
197
(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
institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to
government
None
(0)
Under
development (1)
Yes, but needs
improvement (2)
Yes, Satisfactory
(3)
(i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concession for PA
services
√ Not in critical biodiversity PAs
(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 (0)
Yes, but needs improvement
(2)
Yes, satisfactory (3)
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
plans, performance etc)
√ PAs rich in biodiversity with
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
financing strategy171
Not begun
(0)
In progress
(1)
Completed (3) Under
implementation (5)
√ (TFS?)
Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systems (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc)
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Satisfactory (2) Full
(3)
(i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local
and national development are available
√ Pas in Eastern Arc Mts provide over
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
Ministry of Environment)
(eg within other
sectoral Ministries)
(eg within
Ministry of Finance)
Cuts across various ministries
171 A national PA Financing Strategy will include targets, policies, tools and approaches
198
√
Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems No (0)
Partially (2)
Yes (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
management of PAs
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Improving
(2)
Full
(3)
(i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed
√
Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives
at site and system level
None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Almost there (2) Full
(3)
(i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists
and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels)
and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system
√ No complete set of experts required
in each PA
(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
199
66.3%
Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective
management
Comment
Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Not begun
(0)
Early stages
(1)
Near complete
(2)
Completed
(3)
(i) PA management plans includes conservation objectives, management needs
and costs based on cost-effective analysis
√ The rating should be based on
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
auditing systems
None
(0)
Partial (1) Near complete
(2)
Fully completed
(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
management performance None
(0)
Partial
(1)
Near completed (2)
Complete and operational
(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.
200
(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
(0)
Yes
(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
allocations where funding gaps still exist
NA
Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to
operate more cost-effectively
Absent
(0)
Partially done
(1)
Almost done (2) Fully
(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
system
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
A fair amount
(2)
Optimal
(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.
201
(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
system
No (0)
Partially (1)
Satisfactory (2)
Fully (3)
(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and
adopted by government
√ If PA sites have tariffs but there is
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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Completed
(2)
Operational
(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
services provided
NA to this particular PA but had
worked in other service providing
PAs
Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue
generation mechanisms
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Fully
(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
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
202
(iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is underway
Element 6 - Concessions operating within PAs178
None
(0)
Partially
(1)
Progressing
(2)
Fully
(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
mechanisms
None
(0)
Limited
(1)
Satisfactory
(2)
Extensive
(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
203
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%
Percentage scored in previous year179
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.
204
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 program me 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.
205
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.
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
Total resources required US$ 17, 364,500
Total allocated resources:
Regular (UNDP) 1,000,000
Other:
o GEF 5,304,500
o Government 11,060,000
Project Period: 2011 - 2016 years
Atlas Award ID: 00060996
Project ID: 00077042
PIMS No. 3253
Estimated Start date: July 2011
Estimated end Date: December 2016
Management Arrangements NIM
PAC Meeting Date 13th January 2011
