Get documents about "FINANCING PLAN (IN US$): - Download as DOC
Document Sample
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)
PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project
THE GEF TRUST FUND
Submission Date: January 22, 2008
Re-submission Date: February 19, 2008
PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
GEFSEC PROJECT ID1: 3618
INDICATIVE CALENDAR
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: P108879
Milestones Expected
COUNTRY(IES): Malawi, Zambia
Dates
PROJECT TITLE: Sustainable Management of Nyika Transfrontier
Work Program (for FSP) 4/30/2008
Conservation Area
CEO Endorsement/Approval 2/28/2009
GEF AGENCY(IES): World Bank
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): DNPW, ZAWA, WCS, PPF GEF Agency Approval 3/30/2009
GEF FOCAL AREA (S): Biodiversity Implementation Start 6/30/2009
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SP-3, SP-1 Mid-term Review (if planned) 6/30/2011
NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: N/A Implementation Completion 12/31/2014
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Project Objective: To establish effective transfrontier management of biodiversity and to improve local livelihoods in the
Nyika TFCA
Indicate Indicative GEF Indicative Co-
Project whether Expected Expected Outputs Financing* financing* Tota
Componen Investmen Outcomes l ($)
ts t, TA, or
STA** ($) % ($) %
1. TA Governance 1.1. Nyika TFCA 700,000 37 1,200,000 63 1,900,000
Institutional functions, designated bi-national
Framework planning and institution and
and TFCA management mechanisms for cross-
Planning mechanisms of border cooperation in
the Nyika TFCA law enforcement,
are established research and other
and effective. conservation
management related
areas established and
operational.
1.2. TFCA detailed
planning instruments
completed and under
implementation.
1.3. Legislative
amendment
requirements identified
and new draft
regulations for TFCA
management prepared
and submitted for
approval.
1
Project ID number will be assigned initially by GEFSEC .
1
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
1.4. New protected area
created on the Zambia
side of the TFCA
improves connectivity
within the TFCA and to
the Luangwa Valley.
1.5. A joint fire
management policy for
forest protection from
wildfires is drafted and
endorsed.
2. Protected Investment The formal 2.1. Law enforcement 1,117,000 40 1,700,000 60 2,817,000
Area and TA protected areas in personnel trained and
Manageme the TFCA are deployed in areas
nt managed more pertaining to Nyika
efficiently. TFCA.
2.2. Biodiversity
surveys carried out in
priority habitat and
species knowledge gap
areas to establish
appropriate database,
develop animal species
management plans and
PA specific monitoring
and evaluation systems.
2.3. Priority small
infrastructure such as
fences, trails, roads,
bridges, visitor
information centers,
offices, and laboratories
constructed and/or
rehabilitated in the
Nyika TFCA protected
areas.
2.4. For specific
protected areas, Public-
Private Partnership
established and
business plans
developed, concessions
granted, agreements
entered into, and
projects initiated.
2.5. A joint fire
management policy is
under implementation
in the Nyika TFCA.
2.6. The newly created
PA management system
2
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
is starting to show
results.
3. TA Livelihoods 3.1. Establish extension 500,000 13 3,400,000 87 3,900,000
Community support of “COMACO” Centers
Livelihoods mechanism from for “conservation
the TFCA leads farming” to improve
to better land and water use
stewardship of practices and to support
natural resources commercialization of
by local their “Its Wild” branded
communities. agriculture products
(rice, peanut butter,
honey).
3.2. Households
organized into producer
groups for land use
planning, agricultural
marketing and
conservation
compliance
3.3. Producer group
capacity built through
on-site training and
workshops for
commodity-processing,
value-added products,
marketing and
distribution to sustain
premium markets that
reduce illegal land use
pressures on TFCA
resources.
4. Capital Inv Revenues and 4.1. Commercial 2,500,000 56 2,000,000 44 4,500,000
Sustainable & TA funds support revenue schemes
Financing biodiversity established and
conservation and resulting in modest but
livelihood sustained flow of funds
measures in the for PA recurrent
TFCA. expenditures
4.2. Fundraising
strategy implemented
resulting in modest but
sustained flow of funds
for the TFCA
operations, capital
investments and
community support
after project end.
4.3. Financial
mechanisms (e.g.
sinking fund,
endowment fund, etc.)
3
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
established to channel
funds for the TFCA
operations, capital
investments and
community support
after project end.
4.4. Other existing
and/or proposed
benefit-sharing schemes
assessed, supported and
formalized.
Project Project management costs are embedded across the above 200,000 33 400,000 67 600,000***
managemen components and are not a separate component per se.
t
Total 4,817,000 37 8,300,000 63 13,117,000
project
costs
* List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount
for the component.
** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.
*** The costs estimated above for project management at this stage of PIF are provided here only for information and will be
finalized at preparation.
B. INDICATIVE FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
Project Preparation* Project Agency Fee Total
GEF 365,000 4,817,000 518,000 5,700,000
Co-financing** 1,300,000 8,300,000 9,600,000
Total 1,665,000 13,117,000 518,000 15,300,000
* Please include the previously approved PDFs and planned request for new PPG, if any. Indicate the amount
already approved as footnote here and if the GEF funding is from GEF-3.
** Project preparation: Norway US$ 500,000; WCS US$ 50,000; PPF US$ 300,000; WWF-Netherlands US$
250,000; Zambia/Malawi US$ 200,000.
C. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT (including project preparation amount) BY SOURCE and
BY NAME (in parenthesis) if available, ($)
Sources of Co- Type of Co-
Amount US$
financing financing
Project Government Staff salaries and
Contribution: annual budgets
DPNW Malawi 1,400,000 (1,160,000 DNPW; 240,000 ZAWA)
ZAWA Zambia [PPG: 160,000 DNPW; 40,000 ZAWA]
Bilateral Aid Grant 4,600,000 [PPG: 500,000]
Agency(ies): ($2.0m for COMACO, $1.6m* for Luangwa valley initiative, $1m for
Norway* Research Center Malawi Nyika NP Biodiversity Programme II)
NGO Grants
- PPF* 1,500,000 [PPG: 300,000]
- WWF NL* 1,550,000 [PPG: 250,000]
- WCS* 550,000 [PPG: 50,000]
Total co-financing 9,600,000*
4
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
* The amounts provided are a tentative estimate based on initial discussion. WWF-Netherlands has signaled that the nature
of its contribution to project implementation and amount can only be confirmed at the time of appraisal.
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY (IES) SHARE AND COUNTRY(IES)*
Country (in $)
GEF Name/
Agency Focal Area Project Agency
Global Preparation Project Fee Total
World Bank Biodiversity Malawi 200,000 2,282,000 218,000 2,700,000
World Bank Biodiversity Zambia 165,000 2,535,000 300,000 3,000,000
Total GEF Resources 365,000 4,817,000 518,000 5,700,000
* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single
GEF Agency project.
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO ADDRESS IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED
TFCA development: A TFCA is a politically grounded instrument to foster biodiversity conservation, livelihood
improvements and cross-border coordination. The development of the Malawi-Zambia TFCA commenced
formally in August 2004 with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two
governments, facilitated by Peace Parks Foundation. This agreement identified more than 28,000 km2 for
inclusion under the Nyika TFCA initiative, incorporating Malawi’s Nyika National Park, Vwaza Marsh Wildlife
Reserve, Kasungu National Park and Zambia’s Nyika National Park, Lundazi-, Mitenge- and Mikuti Forest
Reserves, and the Musalangu Game Management Area for development as a TFCA (see map in Annex 1 and
details on biodiversity value in Annex 2). Because of the extent of the total TFCA project, the Nyika TFCA
component of the Malawi-Zambia TFCA has been prioritized as an initial area of focus. The Nyika TFCA, with
a total area of 19,2802, consists of Nyika National Park and Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve in Malawi and
Nyika National Park, Lundazi, Mitengi, Mikuti Forest Reserves and Musalangu Game Management Area
in Zambia2. The five protected areas under consideration, which exclude Musalangu GMA, cover about 5,701
km2. The Nyika TFCA concept is of particular interest to the conservation authorities of the two countries. There
are two adjacent national parks on the Nyika Plateau on either side of the international border. Both these
protected areas are known by the same name – Nyika National Park. The concept of closer collaboration between
the two countries in managing these parks has been under consideration for some time. The Joint Permanent
Commission of Cooperation (JPCC) between Malawi and Zambia has endorsed the concept. The two
management authorities responsible for the parks, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife of Malawi
(DNPW) and the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) have been duly mandated by the JPCC to develop and
manage the Nyika and other cross-border protected areas. Since 2004 a Bilateral Technical Committee (BTC),
assisted by a jointly appointed Coordinator, has been working towards setting up the necessary structures to
implement the TFCA in phases, with the Nyika TFCA being the first priority. The BTC and its working groups,
with the facilitation of the Peace Parks Foundation, have developed a Joint Management Plan and with the
2
Nyika National Park (Malawi) - 3,200 km2
Nyika National Park (Zambia) 106 km2
Lundazi FR (Zambia) 839 km2
Mitengi FR (Zambia) 186 km2
Mikuti FR (Zambia) 388 km2
Vwaza Marsh WR (Malawi) 982 km2
Musalangu GMA (Zambia) 13,579 km2
5
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
facilitation of WWF an Integrated Tourism Development Plan. An International Treaty is planned to be signed in
2008.
Objectives/goals: This project will assist the two governments and their stakeholders in implementing the existing
joint management plan that links border protected areas, permanent forest and rural development areas by
building the capacity to control resource uses and to monitor trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functions
through an effective joint law enforcement system and a public-private partnership for park management as well
as an implementation of a cost-effective monitoring system. The project design envisages that sustainable
binational management structure (the proposed Nyika Foundation) and financial mechanisms will be in place
before and during project implementation phase to sustain project achievements in the long term. The long-term
objectives as per the MoU are to (i) foster trans-national collaboration and co-operation between Malawi and
Zambia in implementing ecosystem and cultural resource management through the establishment and
development of the proposed TFCA; (ii) promote alliances in the management of biological and cultural resources
and encourage social, economic and other partnerships among Governments and Stakeholders; (iii) enhance
ecosystem integrity and natural ecological processes by harmonizing wildlife management procedures across the
international boundary and strive to remove artificial barriers or circumstances that inhibit natural movements of
wildlife; (iv) develop frameworks and strategies whereby neighbouring communities can participate in, and
tangibly benefit from, the management and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources that occur within the
proposed TFCA; and (v) promote cross-border tourism as a means of fostering regional socio-economic
development.
Global biodiversity value and threats: Spanning Zambia and Malawi, the Nyika plateau is of high global
biodiversity significance (see also Annex 2). The Nyika plateau is classified as one of Africa’s Centers of Plant
Diversity (WWF, IUCN 1994), the area is one of the Global 200 WWF priority regions for conservation (Rift
Valley Lakes, Zambezi-Miombo) and contains about 3000 plant species, 102 mammals, 462 birds, 47 reptiles, 34
amphibians, 31 fish species and unknown number of invertebrates (287 species of butterflies). Large mammals
outside of protected areas in Malawi no longer exist in any significant numbers. An underlying objective of the
management of the areas is, therefore, to rebuild wildlife populations to former levels. Even so, the wildlife stocks
of the area are still significant by comparison with adjoining areas, which are now extensively settled and
developed for agriculture. Nucleus populations of all the large mammals that formerly occurred in the area, with a
few exceptions, still exist in the Nyika TFCA which actually currently supports a larger range of species of free-
ranging large “game” animals than any other area in Malawi or even perhaps Zambia with 21 species in this
category, as compared for example with 15 in Liwonde National Park. Thus, if poaching in the Nyika TFCA can
be largely eliminated, the area can become one of the most important areas in Malawi and Zambia for the
conservation of large mammals of global biodiversity significance. The TFCA action plan makes provision for the
strengthening of some populations like sable that are at a low ebb, and the introduction of species that have been
eliminated such as waterbuck, black rhinoceros and possibly even Cookson’s wildebeest as well as the large
predators. The Nyika supports what is reputed to be the highest density of leopards in the region. The potential of
this area, if protection is assured, to support viable populations of lions and cheetahs, and possibly even African
wild dog is of enormous importance to the conservation of these carnivore species in the region as well as to the
tourism industry.
TFCA design and project approach: Significantly, the bulk of biodiversity is found on the Malawian side and the
project will contribute to conserve such significant biodiversity value by increasing management effectiveness of
the Malawian protected areas and by enhancing community participation in their management. On the Zambian
side, the project will focus on mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into dominant land uses (agriculture) by
working with communities through scaling up the COMACO approach and by establishing a protected area
whereby natural habitat areas are legally secured.
TFCA Sustainable Institutional Framework for TFCA Planning and Management: The design phase will be
handled by the much experienced Peace Park Foundation in coordination to each country wildlife management
6
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
institution and key partners (WWF-Netherlands, Norway, WCS and WB). Both countries have agreed that
neither of their current park institutions (DNPW Malawi, ZAWA Zambia) were appropriate to efficiently
orchestrate transfrontier planning and management of the Nyika TFCA. Both countries have decided that a
lean and autonomous institution guided by the operating principles of the private sector was preferable. The Nyika
TFCA Foundation (the Nyika Foundation or NF) will be established in the next two years. Its exact status will be
defined shortly after a legal review. It is expected that the Foundation’s board of directors would be equally
formed of members from Zambia and Malawi with balanced representation from Government, Communities,
NGOs and reputable personalities. The detailed staff composition of the Nyika Foundation’s Management Unit
will be decided during the preparation phase. The Nyika Foundation will manage and thus be responsible for
implementation of the project. The rationale for one transboundary foundation is based on lessons elsewhere (e.g.
in Africa the Maloti-Drakensberg, Kalahari and Limpopo TFCAs) and relates to (i) simplicity of management, (ii)
capacity to plan and execute holistically including making joint decisions about expenditures, (iii) maintaining
accountability for results at ecosystem level, and (iv) maintaining sense of unity within the foundation and
independence from potential influence from individual countries. As the principle of a TFCA goes beyond
technical management of a network of protected areas, it needs high political visibility such as through signing of
an international treaty with a corresponding institutional reality. Nonetheless, on an operational basis, it is
possible that a protected area within the Nyika TFCA (e.g. Vwaza Marsh) could be managed by the adequate
national institution or team. Conversely, there might be joint (binational) teams to take advantage of each others’
comparative advantage (as it is the case now in the small transfrontier sanctuary in the Nyika TFCA).
Law enforcement as a priority for management effectiveness: As described, many of the protected areas in
Malawi and Zambia, including the components of the Nyika TFCA have been depleted of wildlife populations
through poaching over the past few decades. The law enforcement effort has not been sufficient to prevent or
deter these activities, usually by people from local communities. Consequently, wildlife numbers are low, and
many species have been reduced to remnant populations or have been eliminated from areas where they were
previously abundant. The depletion of wildlife has serious ecological, political and economic consequences for
the Nyika TFCA, and in particular for the objective of achieving sustainability through tourism and resource use.
An important support project is therefore, the restocking of the TFCA with nucleus populations of large mammals
from other protected areas in Malawi and Zambia. The Bilateral Technical Committee has approved such projects.
An important precondition for any restocking, that has been emphasized by the committee is the security of
reintroduced animals that can only be provided by adequate, sustained and successful law enforcement. The
proposed project will enhance and strengthen therefore existing but limited law enforcement measures based on
training of the trainer’s approach using existing training centers (e.g. Luangwa Valley) and the wildlife college in
the Sub-region.
Community benefits: All communities are engaged in small scale farming, with maize, ground nuts, tobacco and
cotton. In spite of this, food security remains an issue. There is a potential to assist communities achieving food
security through farmer’s organization in conservation farming of food and commercial crops and linkages to
better paying markets. The demand for honey in Malawi, Zambia and for export appears significant. In particular
the Malawian side of the Nyika TFCA is already an important area for honey production by local groups Other
natural resources that are currently used are caterpillars and mushrooms, sedges, thatch grass and other natural
products. Their harvesting practices are not always efficiently implemented or controlled. There is a need to re-
assess current local resource use and management practices to improve harvesting rates in defined areas and
therefore greater benefits. Tourism expansion and its backward linkages could also gradually generate additional
and substantial revenues. The preparation phase will build on experiences from other initiatives with a range of
incentives that can be addressed by the Nyika TFCA project.
Economic value of TFCA for tourism: The wildlife of the Nyika TFCA is not only a significant natural heritage of
both Malawi and Zambia, but also a resource upon which ecotourism partly depends, and a resource for
sustainable consumptive utilization. The Musalangu Game Management Area (GMA) is a well-established trophy
hunting area. The utilization of wildlife in Malawi for trophy hunting is however not yet established, but is
7
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
provided for in legislation and policy. Several attempts were made in the past to establish trophy hunting
operations in the Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve (WR), but none became permanent. The reasons for the
difficulties appear to have largely been related to logistics, policy, and the integrity and professionalism of the
operations. However, there is no reason why hunting revenue generation achieved in Zambia cannot also be
achieved in Malawi if the wildlife resource base is adequate.
Establishment of a sustainable financial mechanism: The Nyika Foundation is expected to manage various funds
such as revolving funds, sinking funds, and possibly in the future a binational endowment. In the long term, it is
expected that the revenues from tourism and interests from an endowment or other financial mechanisms will
cover potential shortfalls of the operational budget. Fund raising will be financed by the GEF grant. To facilitate
implementation, and build the Foundation staff’s capacity, it is expected that the GEF funds would be disbursed
through a sinking fund. All instruments required for GEF funds to be disbursed into a sinking fund will be
organized during the PPG implementation. A decision will be taken at appraisal in function of the Foundation’s
acquired capacity. Sources for the pilot binational endowment3 may begin with a very modest amount (to be
decided at time of mid-term) from the GEF grant as seed funding supplemented by fund raising and revenues
from commercial activities. The preparation phase will ensure integration of recommendations of the “Rapid
Review of Conservation Trust Funds”, expected to be finalized in March 2008 by the Conservation Finance
Alliance Working Group on Environmental Funds. Other revenue schemes and benefit-sharing arrangements for
the Nyika Foundation and neighboring communities such as park entry fees, concession fees etc. will be assessed
during preparation phase although it is unlikely that redistribution will happen during the first five years until
there is a major up-scale of tourism activities or successful fund-raising. In addition, other alternative community
revenue schemes (such as the supported COMACO approach under component 3) will be supported to create
incentives at the community level for conservation farming, sustainable use of natural resources and improved
food security.
B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS:
The proposed project clearly falls within priorities at the regional level as it builds on the Protocol on Wildlife
Conservation of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), of which both Malawi and Zambia are
signatories. All SADC Members States are signatories of the Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law
Enforcement. This protocol, signed on 18 August 1999 in Maputo, commits members, under Article 4(f) to
“promote the conservation of shared wildlife resources through the establishment of transfrontier conservation
areas.” The Nyika TFCA is the highest priority for development for the Governments of Malawi and
Zambia. The final International Treaty is planned to be signed in 2008.
Malawi. This project is linked to the Malawi Development Growth Strategy (MDGS). Theme 1 of the MDGS,
Sustainable Economic Growth, requires action on multiple fronts. Maximizing the contribution to economic
growth through the sources of growth is Sub-Theme 1 and tourism is one of the high growth sectors. This
includes fisheries, forestry, wildlife and the environment. Under the theme of Social Development, Nutrition is
one area of focus, as it would ensure productivity. One of the objectives of this project is infrastructural
development, which would enhance the management of the protected areas in question. The project is linked to
the Wildlife Policy (2000), the Strategic Plan for Wildlife Conservation (2006-2011), the Fisheries and
Aquaculture Policy (2001), the National Forestry Policy (1996), the National Environmental Action Plan, the
Environmental Management Act (1996), the Forestry Act (1997), the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1992) and
the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
3
The proposed piloting of a binational endowment for the Nyika TFCA will build on experiences from functional regional
endowments such as Caucasus Protected Areas Fund, Meso-American Reef Fund, Carpathian Foundation (initiated with GEF
funds) and the design of the recently established Sangha-Tri-National Foundation.
8
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
Zambia. Six strategic goals with objectives, strategies and actions have been derived based on the synthesis and
analysis of the results of the biodiversity assessment according to the National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan.
The goals are as follows: ensure the conservation of a full range of Zambia’s natural ecosystems through a
network of protected areas of viable size; conservation of the genetic diversity of Zambia’s crops and livestock;
improve the legal and institutional framework and human resources to implement the strategies for conservation
of biodiversity, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity; sustainable use and
management of biological resources; develop an appropriate legal and institutional framework; and ensure the
equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Zambia’s biological resources. The project is linked to National
Conservation Strategy (1985), the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control ACT (1990), the National
Environmental Action Plan (1994), the National Forestry policy, and the Zambia Wildlife Act (1998). This
project is also linked to the National Strategy on Sustainable Development (NSSD). The Scope of the NSSD is
hinged on three principal components environmental management, social and economic development and focuses
on nine thematic areas, which include poverty reduction, changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and
production, protecting and managing the natural resource base for economic and social development.
The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) recognize
the potential contribution that the sustainable use of wildlife and other natural resources can make to poverty
alleviation, employment creation, general economic development and conservation. ZAWA and DNPW
acknowledge their shortcomings in terms of resources and expertise. The two agencies undertake to enter into
partnerships with competent and conscientious organizations wishing to support strategic objectives of the
wildlife sector. The various components of the Nyika TFCA might have their own wildlife management goals and
objectives, which are determined according to the overall objectives of the different categories of land be they
national park, wildlife reserve, game management area or forest reserve. By definition, these different categories
allow different uses of the wild animal and plant resources. The current knowledge of the biodiversity of the
Nyika TFCA is significant, but patchy in quality. Therefore, while the birds and small mammals are relatively
well known, this is not the case for reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. While the major plant
communities are known, there is still much to learn about the presence and distribution of many plant species.
Much research has been conducted on the Nyika Plateau, but little work has been done in Musalangu GMA and
the forest reserves.
An acknowledgement of Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs) is also among the common operating
principles of the TFCA. This should be seen as referring not only to commercial concessions in the tourism and
services sector, but also to contributions to supporting the strategic objectives of the wildlife sector. This includes
wildlife management responsibilities that have traditionally been regarded as the exclusive preserve of
government agencies. It is of course a necessary condition that the conservation objectives of the TFCA have to
be upheld and the standards of the service provided are at least equivalent to those of the government agencies, or
preferably better. In any such PPP, neither the DNPW nor ZAWA would be absolved of their statutory
obligations, and they would have to ensure adequate performance standards, checks and balances. Many of the
development and management objectives of protected areas can be cost-effectively outsourced to the private
sector, either independently or in joint ventures between park management and community based organizations,
or non- governmental organisations.
C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:
The project responds to GEF Biodiversity Strategic Objective (SO) #1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected
Areas as it contributes to the national priorities of the Government of Malawi and Zambia to create a new
transboundary PA system through expansion and consolidation of the current Nyika National Park and defined
protected areas. The proposed project supports interventions that address the three aspects of protected area
management in order to catalyze the long-term sustainability of the system including a) setting up a sustainable
cross-boundary financing mechanism to cover recurrent costs of the Nyika Foundation and the protected areas, b)
coverage of ecologically viable ecosystems and habitats, c) building institutional and systemic cross-boundary
capacity to manage the TFCA to achieve commonly set and agreed objectives. The establishment of the Nyika
9
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
TFCA (see Annex 1) is seen as a fully integrated protected area management scheme within the context of
broader and country-wise differing landscape, threats and biodiversity value of Malawi and Zambia. In addition,
the project specifically aims to scale up geographically successful community-based natural resource income
generation activities (COMACO). The project is further fully aligned with the Strategic Program (SP) # 3:
Strengthening Terrestrial Protected Area Networks as it includes in-situ conservation of sites containing globally
relevant biodiversity and training and capacity-building/strengthening of governmental and other stakeholders for
conservation of the TFCA system as well as the sustainable use of resources through the COMACO approach.
The project is also aligned with the Strategic Program (SP) # 1: Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems
at the National Level, as it includes the institutional and financial set-up of a sustainable financial mechanism. It
is designed to provide incentives to catalyze the engagement of identified private sector stakeholders to attain
improved financial sustainability of the TFCA. In addition to the mandatory SP 1 TTs which are already available
for the protected areas in Zambia and under review for those in Malawi, the proposed project is expected to make
use of the available UNDP issued Financial Sustainability Scorecard for National Systems of Protected Areas.
D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:
All on-going (and past) initiatives in the TFCA were identified and the current ones are under the umbrella of the
proposed Nyika TFCA project and support the proposed design, outputs and outcomes. The preparation phase will
confirm the preliminary stakeholder mapping that is aligned with project funding, outputs and outcomes.
The key geographically and/or thematically related initiatives and stakeholders in addition to the governmental
agencies of Malawi (DNPW) and Zambia (ZAWA) are listed below. It should be noted that only 6 are directly
related to the proposed Nyika TFCA (numbered).
1. International: Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) is an international non-profit organization operating within the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region that has taken on the role of facilitating the
development of TFCAs. PPF believes that TFCAs can be justified for biodiversity conservation reasons, as socio-
economic drivers of development, promoters of regional co-operation and peace building, and as a legitimate and
sometimes optimal form of land use in usually remote areas. The specific role taken on by PPF is to guide and
facilitate the process of identifying, planning, creating and developing TFCAs by promoting the necessary
political and consultative processes. The involvement of Peace Parks Foundation in the establishment of the
Malawi-Zambia TFCA started with the identification in 2003 of existing and potential TFCAs in the SADC
Region. Peace Parks Foundation has since facilitated and promoted the establishment of the Malawi-Zambia
TFCA, including the Nyika TFCA. Their strong previous experience with establishing and managing TFCA’s has
generated useful lessons which are central to the design of this project. In addition, the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) has assisted PPF with substantial funding over the past 4 years for law enforcement, restocking in the
Nyika National Park and the tourism development plan.
- PPF will be instrumental in establishing and operationalizing the binational Nyika Foundation
(component 1). Further, PPF will be responsible for implementing the PPG.
- WWF will provide support and advice to set up financial mechanisms to ensure long-term financial
sustainability of the TFCA. It will further support the establishment of the Nyika Foundation and in
particular related legal issues and could promote other interested non-governmental organizations as
partners. More, WWF could take directly or indirectly part in the implementation of certain components
which would imply related fundraising activities to bring in financial resources.
2. Zambia: Community Markets for Conservation - Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) implements with a wide
range of partners, the Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) program to mitigate key environmental
threats that degrade watersheds, wildlife habitat and wildlife populations in the Eastern Province of Zambia. The
focus of COMACO is currently in Chama and Lundazi Districts. Its approach is centred on regional trading
centres that target food impoverished and low-income families by offering them new skills, inputs and improved
markets to address critical livelihood needs, which often drive environmental degradation. By linking these
trading centres to a network of trading depots in rural areas where poverty and hunger are acute and access fair
10
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
trade opportunities are limited, COMACO is able to mobilize tens of thousands of households to adopt land use
practices for achieving increased natural resource conservation (see http://www.itswild.org).
- COMACO’s approach will be up-scaled on the Zambia side of the TFCA under component 3.
3. Zambia: UNDP “Reclassification Project” – Cofinanced by UNDP and GEF, this project is pioneering new
approaches to protected area design and management, with communities, outside the formal Zambia national parks.
It has helped with the creation of community national parks in two focal areas and is now expanding the design, and
assistance, to other areas. Stationed at ZAWA, the staff of this project is very active in ensuring that their lessons
are shared widely and have offered assistance in the conceptual design of the new protected area on the Zambia side
of the Nyika TFCA.
- The Reclassification Project will continue to provide general institutional strengthening and capacity-
building to ZAWA including providing planning, management and monitoring tools for protected areas and
the PA network.
4. Zambia: Luangwa Valley Initiative – The Luangwa Valley, to which the Zambia side of the TFCA
belongs, is a huge area where a vast array of partners is working often independently on conservation issues. Most
of these activities are coordinated with chiefs and district council but not at the landscape or watershed level.
Under the leadership of the Norwegian Embassy, some of these have started to realize that better coordination and
better planning was necessary. Norway has been funding the development of the South Luangwa National Park
and adjacent GMAs for 20 years as well as more recently WCS’s implementation of COMACO. Frankfurt
Zoological Society, using funds raised from various donors, has been in PPP with ZAWA for almost 15 years with
very good conservation results including successful reintroduction of the black Rhino in Zambia. WCS, with funds
raised from various sources, has been present in the “Valley” for almost as long, with their COMACO approach
that started in the southern part and is expanding northward. Other important partners are the Liuwata
Conservation Trust, which manages the Muyamadzi GMA with its Community Resource Board as well as funds
various projects in the valley. The Valley has an international airport in Mfuwe and has attracted tourism investors
mostly around South Luangwa and more recently, under a PPP, for the management of the Luambe National Park.
- Initiators of the “young” Luangwa Valley Initiative will continue to coordinate efforts with the Nyika
TFCA project. In fact, Norway and WCS see their involvement with COMACO in the TFCA also as a
contribution to the Langwa Initiative and better enchoring of natural resources management, land
conservation into decentralization and local development starting with integrated development planning.
5. Malawi: Biodiversity Support Programme - This on-going Malawi based five-year programme has been funded
by the Norwegian Government to build capacity for implementation of biodiversity projects (will end in June
2008). Its three components have been (i) the revision and implementation of the NBSAP, (ii) the study of the
biodiversity of the Nyika National Park (Malawi) and (iii) human and infrastructure development. The Nyika study
has enhanced community participation in the management of Nyika through support to associations dealing with
sustainable use of natural resources (bee keeping) and allowed the collection of baseline data on ecology and
vegetation. A programme review has been carried out recently and is expected to propose future biodiversity
support under the Norwegian Environmental Plan of Action in Malawi.
- It seems to be likely that the future five years will focus on establishing a field station for broader
biodiversity studies in the Nyika NP and thus will complement the monitoring and evaluation efforts of the
component 2.
6. Malawi: COMPASS II - The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds the
Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management Project (COMPASS II) which works with
Government Departments, NGOs and the private sector to create an enabling environment for communities to
manage sustainable harvesting of natural resources, thereby increasing rural incomes, reducing environmental
degradation and maintaining biological diversity. In Nyika National Park, the focus of COMPASS II is to increase
honey production capacity. COMPASS II has designed and distributed training guides, including a DVD
demonstrating best practices, which can be used throughout Malawi. Working closely with COMPASS II is the
11
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
Mzuzu Coffee Authority, which provides loans to beekeeping clubs in the form of beehives. A total of 900 hives
have been distributed to three beekeeping clubs so far.
- COMPASS II will complement the project support under component 3 on the Malawi side of the TFCA.
Lessons learned:
Nyika Vwaza Trust – This NGO was established under the leadership of a committed private operator (in the
Malawi Nyika NP) and other interested parties. Through funds raised in the UK and with the sensitized clients, as
well as with the help of volunteers, they were able to very cost efficiently manage fire, open tracks and firebreaks,
as well as assist DNPW in its antipoaching efforts and to support local community initiatives.
- With the departure of the private operator, whose concession expired, the future of the Nyika Vwaza Trust
is uncertain. However, the proposed project is expected to tap into lessons learned of its institutional design
and implementation achievements.
German Government’s intervention in Nyika (1996 – 2003 through the KfW Nyika Vwaza Conservation and
GTZ Border Zone Development Project - 6,3 million Euros) failed mainly due to (a) limited funds much of which
financed external technical assistance, (b) lack of appropriate institutional framework in Malawi at the time and,
(c) the absence of a mechanism to deal with cross-border issues and threats and because approaches on
both sides of the boarder were not harmonized.
- The gaps and remaining needs identified from the project were considered during the conceptualization of
the proposed project.
More indirectly related:
Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification Project – Implemented in Zambia with a GEF grant of
$4million and an IDA credit of $24 million ($8m of which goes to national parks), SEED supports the development
of tourism in the greater Livingstone area. Cofinanced by Norway ($12m) and Nordic Fund ($8m), SEED launched
a major redevelopment of the Kafue National park to help make one of the key flagship park, and tourism
destination, in southern Africa. SEED builds on the substantial tourism growth that steadily reached 10% per year
in Zambia.
- Initial lessons are to show the importance of zoning in the adjacent Game Management Area if they should
play their role as buffer, importance of business planning, infrastructure development and diversification of
management systems in large protected areas.
Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust - This is a successful endowment in Malawi. The endowment has been
capitalized by GEF for $5.4m. The project is closing in June 2008 with a capital greater than $6.5m and has
secured Norway funding as a substitute to the endowment for the next 5 years. The MMCT will be used to draw
lessons for the Nyika TFCA project. The 2007 mid-term review revealed institutional weaknesses and non-delivery
of results by the public agency partner leading to unsatisfactory working relationships with the Trust (MMCT),
responsible for fiduciary requirements and day-to-day management. Therefore, the institutional arrangements and
operational modalities for the proposed Nyika TFCA, in particular the set-up for the executive team, will be
carefully designed to avoid similar situation. As positive lesson, the review showed that MMCT was able to
rapidly capitalize the endowment because all conditions were established by time of project effectiveness. Finally,
the financial set up should be so that the use of the interest from the endowment is balanced in such a way that it
also funds biodiversity conservation activities.
- The preparation phase will therefore focus on setting up the Nyika Foundation and adequate sustainable
financial mechanisms.
12
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
E. DISCUSS THE VALUE-ADDED OF GEF INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT DEMONSTRATED THROUGH
INCREMENTAL REASONING :
In the baseline scenario, the current but mostly disconnected efforts to establish and manage better biodiversity in
the TFCA are likely to continue, though on a limited scale. Both countries have shown commitment and PPF has
shown good leadership in maintaining this initiative alive and raising funds. Already, the TFCA has become a
certain reality in the past few years with the resource protection program and with the recent creation of a
restocking sanctuary whereto both countries have donated animals. On the Zambian side of the TFCA, WCS is
likely to slowly expand its footprint to the communities but will be limited to the southern part of the TFCA near
the small town of Chama. Tourism is likely to either remain at its level, but most likely to expand, with the
tourism strategy ready and new investors interested; already the “old” camp on the Zambian side of the Nyika NP
is concessioned to a reputable consortium. Without GEF, it is unlikely that a sustainable institution and financial
mechanisms for the Nyika TFCA planning and management will be established. Moreover, unchecked tobacco
farming would expand without planning and continue the pattern of clearing which will slowly encroach on
potential wildlife corridors and remove options for connectivity between the Nyika and the Luangwa Valley
through the proposed new protected area on the Zambian side of the TFCA and thus irreversibly reduce
biodiversity of global significance through destruction of habitats and species.
Therefore, the GEF will add value through (i) initiating the TFCA-level planning and ensuring financial
sustainability through creation of the Nyika Foundation with related legal requirements, establishment of financial
revenue schemes (from tourism concessions, park fees) and implementation of fund-raising activities,
development and implementation of planning, management and monitoring instruments, (ii) creating a new
suitable protected area in the Zambian side of the TFCA to improve connectivity within the TFCA and to the
Luangwa Valley, (iii) supporting targeted biodiversity surveys in priority habitat and species knowledge gap areas
in the protected areas, (iv) drafting, endorsing and operationalising a joint fire management policy for forest
protection from wildfires, and (v) supporting the communities along the Nyika Park boundary with options for
livelihood enhancement that help transform them into supporter of conservation. All of these will directly
contribute to secure and maintain global biodiversity benefits. The GEF support is expected to bring credibility to
the process by making the TFCA initiative a truly integrated approach, both between the two countries and within.
By helping with the creation of an accountable binational TFCA institution and associated planning and financing
framework, it will pave the path to further fund raising and long-term sustainability.
F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S)
FROM BEING ACHIEVED, AND IF POSSIBLE INCLUDING RISK MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN:
(i) Although both ZAWA and DNPW have some experience with the public-private partnership approach
involving entire protected areas, this approach scaled up to a TFCA level is still new. All of the challenges
involved in implementing this approach, particularly in a complex TFCA situation are likely to be difficult to
anticipate. An adaptive management approach where refinements to the PPP model are made in light of
experience and information will be considered as part of the project design. In addition, this risk is mitigated by
the strong associations with solid and experienced organizations such as World Wildlife Fund and the Peace Park
Foundation. Both have experience in transfrontier planning and management as well as establishment of
sustainable financial mechanisms.
(ii) A concern is about potential incompatibility between national instruments in Zambia and Malawi particularly
when it comes to cross frontier joint management and tourism. In this regard, several instruments will be applied
such as a review of the policies and acts for wildlife; forestry; immigration; revenues; veterinary; decentralization
and resettlement.
(iii) Further, it is always possible that economic or political turmoil in one of the two countries affects their
willingness or capacity for joint management or creates a climate not attractive to investors or to tourists.
However, these two countries have proven extremely politically stable and both benefit from improved economies
and see political advantages in working together in the TFCA.
13
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
(iv) As usual when a project attempts to convince communities to modify natural resources use practices, there is
a risk that the project approach is not the most appropriate, that its scale is not sufficient, that it is undermined by
other factors such as the international commodity market or simply the capacity of communities to integrate the
opportunity in their production system. In particular, the project will address unsustainable tobacco farming
through up-scaling of the successful incentive-based COMACO approach that offers alternatives to farmers to
return to food security and reduce dependency on tobacco and cotton input. The project will closely monitor this
aspect and establish partnership within the “greater” TFCA to ensure that all are working toward a common goal.
G. DESCRIBE, IF POSSIBLE, THE EXPECTED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT:
As in many similar projects dealing with establishing a protected area network, the proposed project cannot
deliver a sound cost-effective comprehensive analysis at this stage, mainly due to the uniqueness of the proposed
intervention to generate global biodiversity benefits (focusing on the establishment of a sustainable institutional
framework and related financial mechanisms). The expected cost-effectiveness of the proposed project emerges
from the established binational Nyika Foundation which will lead to economies of scale and win-win solutions
for both countries and the Nyika TFCA related to joint law enforcement, research, fundraising and support to
cover NF and protected area recurrent costs, monitoring and management measures including formalized sharing
of experiences and inter-institutional dialogue.
The proposed project ensures further cost-effectiveness by building strong synergies with existing initiatives
(COMACO in Zambia, Luangwa Valley Initiative, Biodiversity Support Program Phase II) to deliver proposed
activities and results across all its components. Noteworthy, the proposed project design builds on existing efforts
for institutional capacity-building (DANIDA for DNPW, UNDP and USAID for ZAWA and lessons from other
TFCA and endowment trust funds (see “Rapid Review of Conservation Trust Funds”). In addition, lessons from
other local experiences show that funds raised by NGOs not subjective to cumbersome procurement procedures
have better flexibility and tend to deliver more locally adapted results for resource protection and infrastructure
maintenance at a cheaper cost Maintaining protected areas in the TFCA in a low-input mode is important over
short-term as self-sufficiency will take time. The design team will keep this in mind by attempting to allocate
GEF funds to items where WB-procurement procedures are advantageous (e.g. larger infrastructure, staff costs
and operations) as well as design a Nyika Foundation administration manual that tightly and unequivocally sets
the rules for efficient use of endowment funds or proceeds.
H. JUSTIFY THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF GEF AGENCY:
The project falls within the World Bank’s comparative advantage for a number of reasons: (i) The World Bank’s
Africa Region already manages more than 30 other biodiversity operations, some of which are in Malawi and
Zambia and, within these it has good experience with establishing Foundations and Trusts. In the context of
Malawi lessons have been incorporated into the design of the project from the Mulanje Mountain Conservation
Trust and the Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification project. Lessons from other WB supported
trust funds projects include Uganda Bwindi Trust, Tanzania Eastern Arc, Mozambique TFCA, and the Maloti-
Drakensberg TFCA. (ii) The Bank intends to anchor this operation in each country policy dialog and portfolio
where support to tourism is more and more a PSD agenda which is leveraging funds for infrastructure (access
roads) and various other supports such as HIV/AID and malaria prevention, agriculture development, land
management, etc. Tourism as a key driver in both countries is addressed by the Bank through support to other
protected areas in Zambia with the Support for Economic Expansion and Diversification project, the Lavushi
Manda National Park project (pipeline), the Open Africa North-South Tourism Corridor project (pipeline) and in
Malawi with the Mulanje Mountain Project (ongoing) and the Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve (pipeline). This is
complemented in Zambia by an ESW on the economic impact on nature-based tourism. (iii) The Bank also has
qualified professional staff posted in Zambia and Malawi and this can provide just-on-time assistance. In Zambia,
the Bank possesses a biodiversity specialist (TTL), a tourism specialist, a PSD specialist. In Malawi, the team
includes a Natural Resource economist as well as a public sector specialist who has experience in establishing
14
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
PPS and decentralization of public finance. In both countries procurement and financial management staff
support our teams. (iv) The Malawi 2007-2010 CAS focuses on the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
priorities of sustainable agriculture productivity and food security, infrastructure development, governance and
public sector management. The Zambia 2008-2011 CAS theme is “Accelerating and Sharing Growth through
improved Competitiveness”. The proposed project is registered under the one of the four pillars “Governance,
Mining, Natural Resources, and Private Sector Development”. (v) The proposed project is linked to the following
Bank activities in Zambia: ESW Agricultural Public Expenditure Tracking system; Road Rehabilitation and
Maintenance II Project (pipeline); Commercial Agricultural Project (pipeline) and the PRSC I. In Malawi, the
Nyika TFCA project will link to the Infrastructure Services Project; the National Water Development Project; the
Investment Lending Transport Sector Support Project (pipeline); PRSC II; the GEF Agriculture Development
Program Support Project which includes SLM (pipeline) and sector investments in Irrigation, Rural Development
and Agricultural Development and Community-Based Rural Land Development Project and the Country
Economic Memorandum (pipeline).
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT(S) AND GEF
AGENCY(IES)
A. RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT (S) ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT(S): (Please attach the country endorsement letter(s) or regional endorsement letter(s) with this
template).
Dr. K Nkowani, Director Date: January 21, 2008
Ministry of Tourism, Environment and
Natural Resources, Zambia
Raphael Kabwaza, Date: January 22, 2008
Director of Environmental Affairs
Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources,
Malawi
B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF
criteria for project identification and preparation.
Christophe Crepin,
Steve Gorman
Regional GEF Coordinator
GEF Executive Coordinator
Africa Region
The World Bank
Date: January 22, 2008 Tel. and Email: 202.473.9727 /
ccrepin@worldbank.org
15
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
Addendum 1 to PIF: Response to GEFSEC comments
(Review Sheet of 02/07/08)
Comment 1 (#2 review sheet). Endorsement letter for Malawi
Response: An endorsement letter from the GEF FP Malawi, signed January 22, 2008 was submitted to GEFSEC
via tracking system with the earlier submission. It is attached again for reference.
Comment 2 (#8). Component 1: Clarification if each country will establish a separate endowment or binational.
If binational provide examples of functional endowments. Clarify whether it would be possible to open an account
within MMCT and if GEF resources will be used to capitalize the endowment.
Response: Please note that the component order and content has been adjusted in the hereby resubmitted PIF.
Previous component 1 is now component 4 and the focus regarding outputs has been revised following
discussions between the keys stakeholders on February 12-13, 2008 in Lusaka with the participation of an
environment fund expert, M. Alain Lambert. It was agreed that the “Nyika Foundation” as designed was more an
“implementation organization” than a “fund”. Even though it will generate revenues, raise funds and possibly
invest them in various financial windows, that is not its core business..
Thus comments received apply to a much lesser degree but responses are provided hereby: The intention of new
Component 1 is to focus on all mechanism for financial sustainability starting with a business plan. This will
include the design and establishment of various windows including a sinking fund. A proportion to be decided at
appraisal of the GEF will be channeled through a sinking fund, and not an endowment. Through this approach the
foundation will gain lessons on investment planning, financial management and budget monitoring (see revised
project framework page 1). The PIF has been revised to indicate that a small binational endowment will also be
established with capitalization attempted via fund raising.
There are examples of functional binational/regional endowments and these include: A most recent one in Africa
is the March 2007 established Sangha Tri-National Foundation (Cameroon, Central African Republic and
Republic of Congo) and elsewhere: Caucasus Protected Areas Fund (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia), Meso-
American Reef Fund (Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Belize, see www. marfund.org) and the Carpathian
Foundation (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine, see www.carpathianfoundation.org). The latter
was initiated with GEF funds (WB/GEF project). The preparation phase will be used to assess more in detail the
lessons and experiences from the above as well as to integrate the findings and recommendations of the “Rapid
Review of Conservation Trust Funds” which is expected to be finalized in March by the Conservation Finance
Alliance Working Group on Environmental Funds, financially supported by AFD/FFEM, KfW, WWF and CI in
the project design. MMCT has an exclusive status for the Malawian Mount Mulanje and thus cannot be used for
the Nyika TFCA.
Comment 3 (#8) . Component 2: Clarification what are the issues to be addressed by transboundary institution.
List successful TFCA schemes in Africa or elsewhere. Readdress the issue of re-investment of park fees into parks.
Response: The rationale for a transboundary foundation is based upon lessons and experiences elsewhere which
include: (1) simplicity of management, (2) capacity to make holistic decisions about expenditures, (3)
maintaining a sense of unity within the foundation and independence from potential influence from individual
countries, (4) maintain accountability for results at the ecosystem level. It is true that some activities/issues (i.e.
those mentioned in particular) could be managed by each country at the national level. But then, there would be a
"classic" national project. The approach here is that the TFCA principle goes beyond technical management of
protected areas, and even beyond ecosystems needs, and are raised high in the political spectrum by being given
political visibility. As a result once these issues are bundled under the umbrella of the TFCA with an international
treaty, each country will start paying more attention to it. Based on experiences in both Malawi and Zambia, the
16
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
only way to catalyze that political commitment and engagement from both countries over a long period is to
transform it into institutional reality. And this is precisely why the foundation is necessary to orchestrate the
development of the whole TFCA and be accountable for delivering the results with significant impacts. However,
on a daily basis, it is possible that each protected area within the TFCA (e.g. the Vwaza Marsh) could be managed
by a national institution, or a national team. Conversely, they may decide to have joint teams to take advantage of
each others' comparative advantages (as it is the case now in the small transfrontier sanctuary). These issues will
be analysed during preparation and form part of the implementation arrangements.
Examples of functional TFCA schemes in Africa include: Maloti-Drakensberg (Lesotho-South Africa), Kalahari
(South Africa-Botswana), Limpopo (Mozambique-South Africa). Additionally there are others which are not
called TFCAs though they are similar in functioning, such as the National Park W (Benin-Burkina Faso-Niger),
Niokolo-Badiar (Senegal-Guinea), and a transfrontier community reserve (Cote d’Ivoire-Burkina). These non-
TFCA schemes are focusing on coordinating planning and only occasionally on joint management. In the case of
Nyika, both countries have decided from the onset to proceed with joint management.
The PIF has been revised to highlight the potential NF revenue schemes which will include park entry fees,
concession fees, etc. Realistically, redistribution is unlikely to happen during the first five years until there is a
major up-scale of tourism activities or fund-raising. During the course of the project, alternative revenue schemes
(see COMACO approach under component 3) will be supported to create incentives at the community level for
conservation farming, sustainable use of natural (wild) resources and improved food security.
Comment 4 (#8). Component 3: Sustainability of capacity-building efforts questioned
Response The training of trainer approach is already established in the area and will continue. Some PA
managers will be sent to the Wildlife College in South Africa and Tanzania. However, capacity-building is a time-
intensive process. It also needs to be understood that there is not enough permanent protected area staff in both
countries to justify the establishment of a national/regional school. Therefore, training centers are the better and
more cost effective option in this case. In Zambia, there is one in Luangwa Valley which will be used. However,
it should be clear that the project cannot deliver on its own on the many national human resources and
institutional challenges of law enforcement and broader protected area management (such as staff retention,
salaries and other incentives, alternatives for community livelihoods, etc.). The sustainability of training as of any
other project activity is valid and thus requires sustainable planning basis (through an established foundation and
financial mechanisms) with business plan and successful fund-raising (under component 4).
Comment 5 (#10): In a nut shell, please highlight the uniqueness of the actual outputs, that lead to outcomes
and impact: 1) Endowment Fund + Fund Raising Strategy, 2) the Nyika TFCA Foundation roles &
responsibilities, 3) Investments to improve PA Management effectiveness.
Response: All six (not 10) related initiatives/stakeholders in the TFCA area have been identified and are under
the umbrella of this TFCA project. The design of this project is based on a highly consultative process to avoid
any duplication in efforts. The preparation phase will confirm a stakeholder mapping aligned with proposed
project funding, outputs and outcomes. Please see responses to comments 2 and 3.
Comment 6 (#11): Cost-effectiveness of proposed proposal (financial, institutional, technical design) not clear
Response: It may be understood that during conceptualization of the project it was clear and agreed that any ad-
hoc system for dealing with institutional capacity building, PA management, ensuring sustainability of financing
mechanism is most likely to disappear when a project ends since such an approach lacks long-term basis for
planning and management. The key element in the context of cost effectiveness is that the creation of a
foundation translates political will into an institutional reality, which will have actual impacts on the ground. Both
countries did not consider any other institutional alternative as feasible, realistic and efficient to tackle with the
transboundary issues of the Nyika TFCA. The financial design features are based on world-wide and local
experiences with TFCAs and environmental trust funds. Limited GEF resources will be used to fund the
17
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
implementation of fundraising strategy, commercial and community-based revenue and benefit-distribution
schemes and importantly the establishment of financial mechanisms to channel funds.
Comment 7 (#14): Risk related to tobacco farming not addressed
Response: As a background in the country context it needs to be clarified that there exists a discrepancy between
official governmental understanding of the necessity for conservation farming and the country realities whereby
food production, input subsidies and large commercial operations still prevail. There are other initiatives in the
country toward more sustainable farming, e.g. the GEF supported Miombo MSP”, however, they have not
reached the mainstream. Therefore, the project actions in the TFCA cannot, and should not, be seen “to confront
the threat on its own” but addressing the incentive system locally by providing alternatives that work to
unsustainable cotton and tobacco. The COMACO approach appears to be a success in that regard, experimenting
with technical advice to farmers to return to food security and moving away from input dependent tobacco and
cotton farming while at the same time providing premium prices for their products by getting them involved in
marketing and transport. Therefore though the issue was analyzed in the context of the project, within the limited
scope of the project the activities were not designed specifically to mitigate the threat.
Comment 8 (#15): Value-added of GEF involvement not clear
Response: The GEF will add value through (i) initiating the TFCA-level planning and ensuring financial
sustainability through creating the Nyika Foundation, (ii) creating a suitable protected area in the Zambian side of
the TFCA, and (iii) supporting the communities with options for livelihood enhancement that help transform them
into supporter of conservation. All of these will directly contribute to secure and maintain global biodiversity
benefits. Significantly the GEF support is expected to also bring credibility to the process by making the TFCA
initiative a truly integrated approach, both between the two countries and within which is not likely to happen
otherwise. By helping with the creation of an accountable institution and by establishing financial mechanisms, it
will pave the path to further fund raising which will lead to long-term sustainability.
Comment 9 (#17): Project Management costs need to be stated
Response: It may be clarified that though the project design does not include a separate component on project
management, the management costs were identified and are clearly listed in Table A (Project Framework, pg 3).
No separate component is necessary as the management of the GEF funds will be mainstreamed into the
management of the Nyika Foundation and carried out by its administrative team.
Comment 10 (#19): Investment per unit area is very small.
Response: There is indeed a low investment per unit area, and actually also low operating cost. However, we are
of the opinion that it is not always true that substantial budgets deliver substantial results. In fact, it is often the
case that well endowed protected areas managed by public entities, particularly in a low-capacity context, can be
extremely inefficient. Lessons from other PAs, in the developing world context, have shown that it may be a
good strategy to maintain the PAs in a low-input mode as it is unlikely over medium-term they will find
themselves in financial comfortable situations.. In fact, experiences in the Nyika TFCA by PPF and existing local
NGOs, show that with little resources and adequate use thereof, training, resource protection, fire management
and infrastructure maintenance can be very effective.
18
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
Annex 1: Map of TFCA
19
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
Annex 2: Detailed information on biodiversity value of proposed TFCA
Flora: There are at least 16-20 plant species that are considered to be endemic to the Nyika Plateau (about
1% of the flora). There are at least 27 species of orchids on the Nyika that are found nowhere else in
Malawi or Zambia. Among the species that reach their southern limits on the Nyika are the important
Afromontane endemic trees Juniperus procera and Hagenia abyssinica. The plant species Acokanthera
laevigata , Brachiaria xantholeuca, Dicanthium aristatum and Sporobolus nitensis are known in Malawi
only on the Nyika. The shrub Protea mafingensis is endemic to the Nyika and the Mafinga Mountains,
including the Zambian Mafingas. Other endemics are Biophytum nyikense, Osteospermum nyikense,
Oxalis chapmani, Vernonia kawoziensis, Crotolaris pilosiflora and C. phyllostachys. The total count of
endemics once the flora is thoroughly known could well be in the region of 40-50 species.
Fauna: The Nyika is the only known Malawi locality for the greater dwarf shrew Suncus lixus and the
lesser dwarf shrew S.varilla; a very rare bat Plerotes anchietae and two species of vlei rats that are
endemic to montane areas from the Nyika to Ethiopia. They are the Tanganyika vlei rat Otomys typus and
Kemp’s vlei rat O.denti. The black-and-red squirrel Paraxerus lucifer is an endemic species to montane
forests in the Malawi/Zambia border area and the Poroto Mountains about 50 km north of the Malawi/
Tanzania border. The Nyika is also the only Zambian locality for this beautiful squirrel, as well as for the
shrew Suncus varilla, and the rodents Rhabdomys pumilio (four-striped mouse), Beamys hindei (lesser
pouched- rat) and the two vlei rats Otomys typus and O.denti. Three of the rare mammals of the Nyika
are found at only one other locality in Malawi. These are the four-striped mouse that is also found on
Mount Mulanje, a species of African dormouse Graphiurus murinus that is also found on the Misukus,
and Hildegarde’s mouse Zelotomys hildegardeae that is shared with the nearby Viphya Plateau. The two-
spotted palm civet Nandinia binotata has been found in Zambia only on the Nyika and then in the
extreme western part of Mwinilungu District near the Angola border. The red duiker Cephalophis
natalensis is well known on the Malawi side of the Nyika, but has been only rarely reported, and never
collected, on the Zambian Nyika. It is worth noting that the Nyika Plateau is the type locality of the
shrew Suncus lixus, the Nyika veldt rat Aethomys nyikae, and of the Nyika climbing mouse Dendromus
nyikae. Both the Nyika parks as well as Vwaza are listed as Important Bird Areas by Fishpool and Evans
(2001). The core TFCA area is the most important area for both Malawi and Zambia for the conservation
of montane and forest bird species. Three species of global conservation concern breed on the Nyika
Plateau. They are the Blue swallow, Churring cisticola and Wattled crane. All three species are birds of
montane grasslands. The Nyika supports 10% of the total breeding population of blue swallow. It also
forms a significant part of the range of the localized Churring cisticola which occurs only on the Nyika
and in nearby Tanzania. The cisticola occupies similar high altitude grasslands and bracken fringes of
forest patches at the northern end of Lake Malawi centred on the Kipengere Mountains. In the case of
both these species the maintenance of healthy montane grasslands is critical for their survival. For the
Wattled crane population, with no more than 12 pairs, the grasslands of Western Zambia with its large
populations are far more important than the Nyika. There are numerous restricted range bird species of
the Tanzania-Malawi Mountains and the Afrotropical Highlands biome that have their only occurrence
in Zambia and Malawi on the Nyika Plateau. This TFCA thus ranks high in the areas of major importance
for bird conservation. The exotic Black rat Rattus rattus is commensal with man throughout Malawi and
Zambia. Specimens are known from the Zambian Nyika and it is likely to be present elsewhere in the
TFCA wherever people live, or close to human habitation. It has even been found in the Misuku
Mountains well away from any human settlement. The House sparrow Passer domesticus has spread
rapidly in both Malawi and Zambia since the 1960s. In the immediate vicinity of the TFCA it has been
recorded since the 1980s at Katumbi, Bolero, Rumphi and Nthalire and so probably also occurs in nearby
Zambian towns and villages like Chama, Muyombe and Kanyelele. In the early 1950s two species of
exotic fish were introduced to the streams of the Malawi Nyika and three dams on the Chelinda River.
The fish were Rainbow trout Salmo gairdnerii and Brown trout S. trutta. Only the Rainbow tout survived
and form the base for recreational angling activities in the Malawi Nyika.
20
PIF Template, August 30, 2007
