MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT BRIEF
THE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR IN TANZANIA
1 Project Name: The Development and 2. GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP
Management of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife
Corridor in Tanzania
3. Country in which the project is being 4. Country Eligibility: Tanzania ratified the Convention
implemented: Tanzania on Biological Diversity on 8th March 1996
5. GEF Focal Area(s): Biodiversity 6. Operational Program: Strategic Priority 1;
Catalysing sustainability of protected areas. Forest
7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs:
Tanzania regards its wildlife as both a unique natural heritage and a resource that is of great importance, both
nationally and globally. Its importance lies in the biological diversity of the species and habitats found in the
country. This project is firmly based on these national priorities. The National Environmental Action Plan
(1994), the National Conservation Strategy (1995), the Environment Policy (1997) and both the Wildlife and
Forest Policies (1998) stress the importance of a viable Protected Areas Network and the need to maintain
transboundary linkages. Tanzania has established a network of protected areas covering some 25% of the land
surface as a basis for conserving its country’s biological diversity. The new Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (WPT)
(1998) directs Government to focus on the following objectives:
Maintaining and developing the wildlife protected areas network by involving all stakeholders in the
conservation and management, especially local communities.
Facilitating the establishment of a new category of protected area, known as Wildlife Management Area
(WMA), where people have the mandate to manage and benefit from their conservation efforts thus taking
care of corridors, migration routes and buffer zones.
Cooperating with neighbouring countries in the conservation of migratory species and the transboundary
Community participation forms an integral focus of the WPT and hinges on wildlife protection and utilisation.
Four WPT objectives support community participation in the protection and utilisation of wildlife resources.
These are as follows:
To promote the conservation of wildlife and its habitats outside core protected areas by establishing
Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs).
To transfer the management of WMAs to local communities thus taking care of corridors, migration routes
and buffer zones as well as to ensure that local communities obtain substantial and tangible benefits from
To ensure that wildlife is appropriately valued in order to reduce illegal off-take and to encourage
sustainable use by rural communities.
To create an enabling environment, which will ensure that legal and sustainable wildlife schemes directly
benefit local communities.
In January 2003 the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism manifested the intention of the WPT regarding
community-based conservation with the endorsement of the Wildlife Management Area Regulations and the
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 1
Guidelines for the Designation and Management of WMAs.
The National Forest Policy of 1998 emphasises the role of forestry in rural development and conservation
through the sustainable supply of forest products, increased employment and income earnings and ecosystem
stability, forest biodiversity, water catchment and soil fertility. It also recognises the role of community
involvement in natural resources management and particularly addresses the issue of community forests. It
introduces the concept of Village Forest Reserves managed by village governments or other designated entities
by village governments based on sustainable management objectives.
Both Wildlife and Forest Policies provide for conservation and sustainable management of natural resources on
village land aiming to provide for a win-win situation between conservation and sustainable
development/livelihoods. This is in line with the countries development strategies in particular the second
phase of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) that includes sustainable resource use as a means to
alleviate and eliminate poverty as a major determinant.
The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (awaiting approval from cabinet), stresses the
importance of community involvement in natural resource management and conservation and transboundary
natural resource management.
8. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement:
Letter from OFP of 2000 is in Annex 1.
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
1. Project Rationale and Objectives: Impact indicators:
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. If the
predicted development pressures on this Corridor are
not addressed this corridor and associated conservation
benefits could lose its ecological integrity and so
conservation role in the next six - seven years.
Wide scale adoption of the Wildlife Management 50% of land currently within Game Controlled
Areas Initiative throughout the country increases area Area status is protected for conservation purposes
of land under biodiversity conservation. through the WMA initiative by 2010.
National population numbers of key species and
habitats found outside formal protected areas
maintained or enhanced by 2010.
Increased number of people involved in
biodiversity conservation activities through the
Purpose WMA initiative.
Biodiversity and habitat are conserved in the globally
significant Selous - Niassa miombo forest corridor of By the end of the project 15,000 ha of land within
Tanzania. the corridor is protected for conservation purposes
through the WMA initiative.
By the end of the project monitoring confirms no
further loss of land to agricultural or other
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 2
intensive land use purposes in the identified
By the end of the project poaching incidences
within the corridor are reduced by 60 % from the
baseline developed by SCP (year 1 of project)
Population numbers of key species maintained or
enhanced from the baseline developed by the SCP
(Year 1 of project)
1. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor is effectively By the end of the project a system of WMAs, cover
conserved, with the establishment of a network of 15,000ha is developed and functional within the
village wildlife management areas that are Niassa-Selous corridor
protected, managed and utilised sustainably by the By the end of the project 12 community leaders
local communities with the assistance of Local and authorities within the corridor are trained to
Government and Wildlife Division. manage natural resources issues
Local communities from 12 target villages are fully
involved in the WMA process by the end of the
project with recognition of the value of WMAs.
By the end of the project monitoring confirms that
agricultural activities and settlements do not
prevent wildlife movements
2. Benefits from wildlife management enhance the Independent monitoring confirms that, by the end
livelihood security of villages with WMAs, and of the project, 6 villages receive an increase in
promote the long-term conservation of the corridor. financial or other benefits from the WMAs.
Five years after the project ends WMAs are still
being actively managed and are conserving the
Project Outputs Performance Indicators:
1 Greater awareness and capacities for conservation Over 30% of households in the local community are
of biodiversity and natural resources within the targeted in awareness raising activities by end of year 3
corridor among local communities, local and Exchange visits are undertaken by at least ten
District Authorities. community members from each village to WMAs in
the northern sector of the corridor by end of year 3
GEF contribution: $184,450
Others contribution: $ 200,000 Annual exchange visits undertaken by local and district
Total: $384,450 authority personnel to WMAs in the northern corridor
by end of year 3.
Formal meeting undertaken each year between Wildlife
Authorities of Selous/Rovuma of Tanzania and Niassa
GR of Mozambique
2 Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic Completed GIS database for ecological and socio-
databases for the corridor to serve as decision- economic data for the corridor by the end of year 3
making tools for communities and local authorities
GEF contribution: $118,580 Database being actively used to inform management
Others contribution: $340,000 decisions by end of year 3.
3 A network of WMA associations effectively
established and managed throughout the corridor Ten members of the community from each of the 12
target villages trained to implement WMA after 1½
GEF contribution: $539,905
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 3
Others contribution: $370,000 years.
Total: $909,905 Mapping of boundaries of the WMAs completed with
the participation of 12 target villages by end of year 2.
WMA management plan developed and under
implementation with the participation of all 12 target
villages by end of year 2.
Official records and documents of the gazettement of
WMAs and AAs by end of year 2.
120 village scouts trained and equipped for anti-
poaching exercises by end of year 2.
At least 2 income generating projects in each village
based on sustainable utilisation of natural resources by
end of year 3.
Output 4. Protection of the Sasawara Forest Records and official Memorandum of Understanding
Reserve through community participation for joint management of Sasawara Forest Reserve by
end of year 2.
GEF contribution: $51,335
Others contribution: $50,000 (Govt) Joint Management Plan developed and being
Total: $101,335 implemented by end of year 2
Output 5: Dissemination of best practice for
community managed protected areas Existence of an active network of participants of WMA
initiatives by year 2.
GEF contribution $ 92,230 At least 2 newsletters produced and disseminated
Others contribution $100,000 (Govt) annually to encourage replication of best practices
Participation of project staff and community
representatives in 2 WMA fora annually
Completed case study of Selous-Niassa WMA
experience disseminated to policy leaders of WPT with
lessons on Protected Area System Planning, design and
At least 3 visits to project sites undertaken by policy
leaders by the end of the project.
At least 3 visits to project sites undertaken by targeted
government staff by the end of the project.
2. Estimated Budget (in US$)
GEF: 986,500 US$
Co-financing: GTZ/SCP 500,000
Govt Input 160,000
UNDP –SGP 60,000
Sub-total: 1,060,000 US $
TOTAL: 2,046,500 US$
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 4
INFORMATION ON INSTITUTION SUBMITTING PROJECT BRIEF
Information on project proposer : Selous Conservation Programme of Ministry of Natural Resources
Date of initial submission of project concept: First draft submitted in November 1999
B. INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
3. Project Identification Number: PIMS 1135
4. Implementing Agency contact person:
Dr. Alan Rodgers, Regional Coordinator for Biodiversity, GEF/UNDP; <email@example.com>
Sharon Laws, Technical Expert, Biodiversity, GEF/UNDP; firstname.lastname@example.org
Project linkage to Implementing Agency program:
UNDP Tanzania has a long history of support to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism through
both project support from TRAC and trust fund resources, and project activity with GEF (Cross Borders,
Mnazi Bay, Eastern Arc projects).
UNDP is a major partner with the Government of Tanzania in a programme that is mainstreaming natural
resource and environment issues into the second generation of Tanzania’s PRSP. This programme involves
considerable partnerships with all Divisions of the Natural Resource Ministry.
UNDP has a substantive focus on governance issues and poverty alleviation/livelihoods support.
Governance involves decentralisation and community empowerment; issues which underpin the philosophy
of this project through the WMA framework. A core element of this project is enhanced livelihoods; and
UNDP has direct experience of working with and empowering women’s groups in Songea districts for
livelihood enhancement. The Small Grants Programme of UNDP has linkages in Rovuma Region; and
UNDP TRAC resources for Small Grants are expected to co-finance livelihood support during the project
lifetime (confirmation before work programme approval).
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 5
THE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SELOUS-NIASSA WILDLIFE CORRIDOR IN
1. Tanzania ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 8th March 1996. Tanzania is
eligible for technical assistance from UNDP.
2. Tanzania has established a network of traditional protected areas covering some 25% of the
land surface as a basis for conserving its country’s biological diversity. Recognising the
limitations of the ‘fines and fences’ conservation approach, the Government of Tanzania is
now seeking to embrace local communities in conservation initiatives. Currently, under the
Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (WPT) 1998, efforts are underway to devolve some management
responsibilities to local communities by establishing a new category of protected area, known
as Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) thereby creating an opportunity for communities to
directly benefit from wildlife schemes. WMAs are provided for under the new Wildlife Bill
(2004) expected to be enacted by Parliament this year. The Ministry of Natural Resources
and Tourism endorsed regulations and guidelines for the design and management of WMA’s
in January 2003. The WMA initiative is in its infancy and is being piloted in sixteen areas in
Tanzania. The WMA’s will complement existing formal protected areas, improve
biodiversity conservation by increasing the area of land under protection whilst at the same
time contribute to the improvement of livelihoods of local communities. WMAs are legal
entities, established by formal gazettement process after approval at national and local level.
As with other PAs, they can be degazetted at the agreement of all parties. WMAs (and Village
Forest Reserves) remain as village land (i.e. they cannot be appropriated for private sector
development; but they are legally designated for the purpose of resource conservation. This
project, which aims to conserve the Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor through the formation of
WMAs, will build upon experiences in the buffer zone to the Selous Game Reserve, which
forms the northern part of the corridor under the Selous Conservation Programme (SCP). The
Selous – Niassa Corridor is of specific national importance as a key part of the “Rovuma or
Mtwara Corridor Development Zone” (see below) for which tourism opportunity is a major
component. This intervention will also be instrumental to informing the creation of other
WMAs throughout the country.
3. The SCP is an initiative of the Wildlife Division, supported by GTZ, one component of
which aims to reduce pressures on the Selous Game Reserve by working with local
communities in the surrounding buffer zones. Through the implementation of the WMA
process this programme will improve the livelihoods of local communities whilst at the same
time ensuring conservation objectives are met. Wildlife, if it is to be conserved, must be seen
to produce tangible benefits, which enhances the quality of the lives of rural communities.
There is presently still little competition between human and wildlife interests in extensive
areas of the Corridor. This provides an ideal situation in which to introduce wildlife utilisation
schemes from which rural communities fully benefit. The Wildlife Division wishes to extend
the SCP programme to cover the whole of the Selous-Niassa corridor. PDF A activities,
which formed the basis for this proposal, supported a number of planning workshops attended
by Regional, District and local authorities, village chairman and other associated
stakeholders. Support for the project was high.
4. Sasawara Forest Reserve is the only protected area in the wildlife corridor and so becomes
a key satellite site in the corridor area. The Forest Department has requested assistance in the
development of a collaborative forest management (CFM) process for Sasawara under this
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 6
proposed project. The concept of CFM through village governments based on sustainable
management objectives is highlighted in the National Forest Policy of 1998. This project aims
to build upon experiences elsewhere in the country to conserve the Sasawara Forest using a
community participatory approach.
5. The Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor project offers the opportunity to test conservation
through a community-based approach. The experiences will be used to inform and influence
the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, in particularly the WMA initiative. If successful, experiences
will be replicated throughout the country thereby contributing to the development of a
national network of community managed protected areas.
6. The implementation of the project will build on:
Sustainable natural resource management through the creation of a network of Wildlife
Management Areas in the Selous-Niassa wildlife corridor. This is guided by the Wildlife
Policy of Tanzania, and subsequent regulations and guidelines.
Community Based Forest Management guided by the Forestry Policy of Tanzania, and
A focus on transboundary conservation issues as highlighted in the NBSAP, WPT and the
Mtwara Corridor project concept.
Capacity building to transfer management responsibility and promote local initiatives in
the direct management of biodiversity, in compliance with the policy of decentralization
adopted by the Government.
7. The GEF Operational Focal Point has endorsed the project; see Annex 1.
PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
Program Designation & Conformity
8. The proposed community based project in the Selous-Niassa corridor is consistent with
Operational Program 3: Forest ecosystems. Furthermore, the project will directly address
GEF Strategic Priority I in the biodiversity focal area: Catalyzing Sustainability for Protected
Areas. In particular sub activity 1) improve opportunities for sustainable use, benefit sharing
and broad stakeholder participation among communities – indigenous groups and private
sector. The focus of the project is on building the capacities of local communities to manage
and benefit from the utilization of land for wildlife conservation. . In this way the project will
enable Tanzania to expand its area of land under protection using a new conservation
paradigm in a cost effective manner. Under the guidance of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania
this project will contribute to the development of a network of community managed protected
areas that in turn, as a linking corridor, will support the sustainability of the two formal Game
9. Most forest and biodiversity destruction is a result of social and economic factors. The
project will address these pressures through activities that devolve management
responsibilities to local communities creating an environment for communities to directly
benefit from wildlife as a form of land use. Project components are being developed and
tested as a replicable model for similar unprotected yet valuable eco-systems found in rural
areas. This will be achieved by building the capacities and awareness of the local
communities to translate the Wildlife Policy and Forest Policy of Tanzania, in particular the
formation of Wildlife Management Areas and Village Forest Reserves, into practice. By
ensuring the communities derive tangible benefits from the wildlife and natural resources on
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 7
their land, community participation in the sustainable use of wildlife populations and other
natural resources will be assured.
10. Twenty five percent of Tanzania’s surface is protected under the traditional conservation
paradigm. Whilst this approach is important for conserving biodiversity (see the National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan) the conservation community is increasingly
recognising the value of community based conservation approaches to complement these
formal protected areas. This is critical in a country where livelihoods are so dependent upon
natural resources. In the past the alienation of key stakeholders from management of
resources has been a considerable limitation to achieving biodiversity conservation goals.
The Government of Tanzania has recognised that an alternative management technique, that
embraces local communities, is necessary and, through the introduction of the Wildlife Policy
and specifically the WMA initiative, has created the environment in which this can be
achieved. Currently however limited knowledge and capacities are barriers preventing this
policy being translated into action. Whilst WMA’s have been trialed in some areas,
experience is limited, and unless special efforts are made there is a danger that the
opportunities presented by the WMA initiative may not be captured to their full extent. This
project aims to facilitate a progression towards a network of viable community managed
protected areas by removing key barriers that currently hinder the wide adoption of WMAs
throughout the country. By developing capacities and knowledge, and raising awareness of
this valuable tool at a number of levels in society, the project will increase the land under
biodiversity conservation and complement the formal protected area system in Tanzania
whilst at the same time improving livelihoods.
11. The Selous Game Reserve is Tanzania’s largest Protected Area, with globally significant
wildlife and habitat values. The Selous has become a model of conservation development,
with tourist hunting providing significant and sustainable financial returns. The Selous-Niassa
miombo woodland ecosystem of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique is one of the
largest and most significant trans-boundary natural ecosystems in Africa, covering over
154,000 km2. 110,685km2 of this ecosystem is conserved through various categories of
protection (Annex 3). Two Game Reserves are critical for the protection of this globally
important area; the Selous Game Reserve, covering 47,000km2 making it the largest protected
area in eastern and central Africa, and the Niassa Game Reserve of Mozambique - one of
Mozambique’s largest PA’s of 42.400 km2.
12. The Selous – Niassa wildlife corridor consists of natural miombo woodland covering
8000 km2 of sparsely settled area over a distance of 160 km, that provides a significant
biological link between the Selous Game Reserve to the Ruvuma River (a large wide
permanently flowing waterway), which forms the International Boundary between Tanzania
and Mozambique. The Niassa Game Reserve is on the southern bank of the Ruvuma River.
13. The northern part of the corridor, of some 3,000 sq km and 60 km in length, runs from the
Selous GR southwards to the Songea-Tunduru main road. This is protected through the
“North East Undendeule Forest Reserve” and the new village based provisional Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs) being formed as part of the Selous Game Reserve’s buffer-zone
project. The Wildlife Department and Selous Conservation Programme (SCP) implement this
project on the basis of Tanzania's Community Based Conservation concept. The SCP is a
joint programme of the Wildlife Division and the German Agency for Technical Cooperation
(GTZ). The southern part of the corridor of some 4-5,000 sq km falls within Namtumbo and
Tunduru Districts of Ruvuma Region and runs southwards for about 100 km from the
Songea-Tunduru Road to the Ruvuma River. It has not received any conservation attention in
the past but its protection is critical to the continuity of the corridor. A set of maps is
provided in Annex 2.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 8
14. Further to the east another but more precarious wildlife corridor between the Selous and
Niassa Game Reserves may still exist. This corridor includes the Lukwika/Lumesule Game
Reserve in Masasi District and areas of Tunduru, Nachingwea and Liwale Districts. The
dense settlements to the east of Tunduru, along the roads and along the eastern reaches of the
Rovuma in Tunduru District have almost closed the linkage. WWF has financed aerial
surveys of this area (May and October 2000). A nucleus of Community Based Conservation is
already initiated around Lukwika/Lumesule Game Reserve with the active involvement of the
Game Warden, private sector hunting company and the District Council. WWF has shown
interest in the eastern corridor under their regional miombo woodland programme. The
project is under preparation, with funding from WWF Europe, and forms additional potential
co-finance to this GEF MSP.
15. Formalising and conserving this currently unprotected southern part of the still viable
western wildlife corridor will allow permanent biological linkage between the two protected
area systems in Tanzania and Mozambique. This is a priority issue for a number of reasons;
(1) the importance of the corridor per se for biodiversity; (2) its importance in linking two
major protected areas facilitating both animal movements and gene flow between species of
global importance; (3) the potential to benefit the livelihoods of the local communities by
demonstrating wildlife as a viable form of land use; and (4) the contribution it will make to
developing a national network of community managed WMAs. See Annex 4 for details on
the benefits provided by wildlife corridors.
Biodiversity of Global Significance
16. The miombo woodland communities of south-east Tanzania and northern Mozambique
form an ecotone between the coastal forest and thicket communities and the larger miombo
tracts towards the west1. The site of intervention is rich in tree species of conservation
significance including African Blackwood (Dalbergia melanoxylon), Mvule (Milicia excelsa),
Mninga (Pterocarpus angolensis). Thickets, wetlands and several streams intersect the
woodland, with riverine forests draining towards the Ruvuma River. The thickets and riverine
forests are exceptionally rich in species, and south-east Tanzania has been described as a
minor centre of plant diversity and endemism2
17. The Selous Game Reserve is an acknowledged World Heritage Site and houses Africa’s
largest elephant, buffalo, sable and other wildlife populations. The Niassa Game Reserve of
Mozambique is well renowned for its large elephant population. Niassa has been supported by
the private sector for the past 10 years, and peripheral hunting areas attract trophy-hunting
tourists. Niassa Game Reserve is briefly described in Annex 3. The Selous – Niassa Wildlife
corridor provides a significant biological link between these two reserves. In addition to its
role in enhancing connectivity and gene flow at a broad landscape scale, it has a great value in
its own right as a habitat for plant and animal communities. The corridor area supports large
numbers of globally significant, threatened and CITES listed large mammal species, including
the elephant (Loxodonta africana), Roosevelt’s sable antelope (Hippotragus niger
rooseveltii), wild dog (Lyacon pictus) and the endemic Niassa wildebeest (Connochaetes
taurinus cooksoni) and Peter's Oribi (Ourebia ourebi petersi). The corridor is acknowledged
as a main movement route for elephants between Tanzania and Mozambique (see Annexes 4
18. Sasawara Forest Reserve in Tunduru District forms part of the project area protecting
large patches of riverine forest, thicket and miombo woodland. This would create a satellite
The miombo values are well captured in WWF’s ecoregion accounts. The south-east Tanzanian
miombo are acknowledged as a priority for conservation.
Eg Dr K Vollesen of Kew Gardens in litt., and see Burgess & Clarke. 2001 Coastal Forests of East
Africa book, IUCN.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 9
core area within the centre of the corridor area. The Ruvuma River, to the south of the
corridor, has been described as Africa’s least known and least polluted major river system3. It
is an Important Bird Area and has a distinctive wetland community.
Linkages to Past and Ongoing GEF Support
19. Tanzania has benefited from a large GEF portfolio; especially in the biodiversity focal
area; dating back to 1992 and the regional project Institutional Support for the Protection of
East African Biodiversity. :Whilst many of these projects have addressed Protected Areas;
none have been directly involved in the wildlife sector. There are GEF projects in many other
Marine Mnazi Bay
Lakes Lakes Tanganyika, Victoria and Rift Valley
Forests Jozani, Eastern Arc, Coastal Forests
Agrobiodiversity PLEC, LUCID Research.
Recently GEF has developed support looking at the livestock – wildlife compatibility issues
in northern Tanzania.
20. This GEF portfolio has however developed useful lessons on project management, on
stakeholder involvement and participatory processes, and on benefit flows to local
communities. This latter is demonstrated by the ongoing GEF Sec Study on “Local Benefits”
in the UNDP/GEF Jozani Project on Zanzibar. This Selous Niassa Project will link into this
Socio-economic Context: Social Issues
21. The land within the corridor area is contained within the titled boundaries of some 12
large rural villages, and administered under the provisions of the Village Land Act of 1995.
Villages are administered by Village Governments – which are responsible through the sub-
district administrative levels of ward and division to the District Councils in Namtumbo and
Tunduru Districts. Wildlife resources belong to the state and their utilisation is subject to rules
and regulations of the Wildlife Sector, and the exploitation of certain forest products is
subject to forestry legislation.
22. People are of mixed origins, some coming from Mozambique during the liberation wars
in the 1960’s, with agriculture (maize and beans, with cashew nuts as a cash crop), hunting
and forestry pursuits (timber and honey) providing the basis for most livelihoods. Annual
rainfalls (800mm plus in a single rainy season) allow good crops, but whilst Rovuma region is
a grain surplus area, transport difficulties to distant markets means much grain is wasted.
Livelihood issues are based around serious income deficits. Whilst food security is adequate,
there are few sources of cash income. Existing possibilities are non-regulated and probably
non-sustainable resource use – legal and illegal wildlife harvesting, fishing, charcoal
preparation, honey collection and timber felling.
23. From 1970 to 1986 or so people were largely contained within collective ujamaa or
socialist villages, with communal large block farmland. Since 1986 a more capitalist ideology
has allowed a movement back to old ancestral lands with a more scattered habitation pattern.
Village land-use policies suggest that villages allocate land for varied uses – settlement,
different cultivation needs (e.g. rice in low lying – wetlands), and wild or natural areas be left
for forestry and wildlife purposes. Village areas are large (several hundred square kilometres),
of which perhaps ten percent is cultivated or recent fallow. Recent Wildlife Policy and
Al Duda of GEF Secretariat to IUCN – Geoffrey Howard (pers com)
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 10
Programmes present opportunities for wildlife areas to be communally managed as Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs) for both livelihood and conservation benefits. This programme
is in its infancy but has been successfully piloted in the northern section of the corridor.
WMAs allow hunting, cattle-grazing, tree harvesting, honey-harvesting, fishing etc but not
settlement or cultivation.
24. The Selous Conservation Programme, through the PDF A process, has identified
increasingly severe threats to the continuity of Selous-Niassa corridor, which if left
unattended, will block the link between these two major protected areas.
Uncontrolled and unplanned conversion of land for agricultural and ribbon strip
25. The high human population growth rate4 (>2.5% pa) in the corridor area is predicted to
lead to agricultural expansion for both cash and food crops. This development could convert
much of the still biologically intact corridor to cultivation, especially along the major roads
and rivers (as is seen in the heavily impacted eastern corridor). Unless efforts are made to
ensure the integrity of the corridor the natural habitat will be fragmented and destroyed as
damaging land-uses increase, as experiences from other parts of the country have shown. The
obstruction of the movements of large herbivores such as elephant will result in increased
human – wildlife conflicts. As elephants and other “conflict” mammals will not be tolerated
in agricultural areas, this process will eventually lead to the loss of this valuable tract of land
and its wildlife resources.
26. The major road (the Songea - Tunduru - Mtwara on the sea-coast highway) and village
roads (mainly Amani - Magazini - Ligusenguse) provide an attraction for settlement and
cultivation. Whilst there are still gaps between villages, these are closing as a ribbon of strip
development continues along the road. The Songea – Tunduru highway is to be upgraded with
the economic development of the “Mtwara Corridor”, an initiative by Malawi, Mozambique
and Tanzania to develop the area between Mtwara and Lake Malawi. The road and the
Ruvuma River will become magnets for development. The upgrading of the road itself is not
seen as a serious threat to corridor linkages, as other examples in Tanzania demonstrate (the
tarmac Morogoro – Iringa highway crossing Mikumi National Park for instance, does not
block animal movements). However unless the corridor is recognised as being of critical
importance and steps are made to restrict ribbon development in the area, a barrier will be
formed between the two world’s largest protected miombo ecosystems and elephant habitats.
Unsustainable and illegal resource utilisation
27. The de facto open access to the resources of the corridor creates poaching opportunities
for meat for the local market and poaching for ivory. This provides for an increase in
household incomes, either through money earned on the open market or through economizing
on food resources normally purchased. The common histories of people on both sides of the
boundary and the ease of crossing the Ruvuma River means that poaching, especially the
‘high value’ poaching of ivory has a transboundary component.
28. Within this proposed GEF SCP corridor there are no permanent settlements and
agriculture on the Ruvuma River itself, but there are seasonally concentrated fishing activities
and snare-lines from poachers along the river and some of its tributaries. These activities
disturb and prevent mammals from crossing, drinking and feeding in the riverine forests
especially in the dry season, when fishing activities are at their peak and animals are
Tanzania’s overdue national census took place in August 2002. Initial analysis suggests a rate of 2.8%
in these two districts.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 11
dependent on the river for water and food. Further, uncontrolled fishing and fishing methods
(use of fish poison) deplete the fish stocks of the river and disturb the aquatic fauna.
29. Uncontrolled commercial logging for valuable and marketable timber species also takes
place, and will increase with the growth of the major towns and the improvement of the road
system. If not controlled or prevented it will ultimately lead to a genetic depletion of some
valuable species (the same phenomenon was observed in other areas round Selous Game
Reserve; in Kilwa and Rufiji District). The Sasawara Forest Reserve (385 km2), located
almost in the centre of the corridor (see map in Annex 2), is a core area for the protection of
biodiversity and landscape linkages. Satellite images and reports indicate that heavy
encroachment and destruction from human activities like farming and settlement take place in
the eastern part of the reserve.
30. Furthermore habitat degradation often results from uncontrolled wildfires, caused by the
local population seeking easier honey and forest resource harvesting.
Root causes of biodiversity threats
31. The root causes of these threats are inter-related, each compounding the other. Main
causes are: the lack of enforcement of regulations; insufficient information is known about the
area to demonstrate its value and so lobby for its protection, the awareness of the potential
benefits of wildlife as a form of land use is low, the knowledge and skills to capitalize on
wildlife as a form of land use is not yet apparent. These issues are discussed below. For a
more detailed threat analysis, see Annex 6.
Lack of enforcement of regulations
32. The corridor falls outside the protection of the Game Reserves, and so the de facto open
access of the area results in little incentive to protect the natural resources. Communities seek
short-term benefits and, with no long-term stake in the resources, the rate of depletion of
resources and land will accelerate as the population grows. Enforcement of regulations
relating to wildlife hunting is restricted to the Game Reserves and, whilst poaching of wildlife
in all areas is illegal, the government has inadequate manpower and resources to control
hunting elsewhere. Poaching is a transboundary problem; the still limited coordination
between the Tanzanian and Niassa Reserve authorities results in opportunities for illegal
hunting being pursued. The capacity of the forestry department to adequately enforce
regulations in the Sasawara forest area is limited, and communities, who derive no benefits
from the reserve, will benefit more from land conversion or logging.
No adequate institutional system in place to manage the land
33. The natural resources in the corridor fall under the jurisdiction of the Local and District
authorities. However insufficient human and financial resources exist for adequate protection
or enforcement of regulations. The communities have no management authority over the
resources on the land and this exclusion leaves them with little incentive to manage these
resources sustainably in the long term.
Knowledge and skills to translate the Wildlife Management Area and Community Managed
Forest Reserve components of the Wildlife Policy and Forest Policy into practice are limited
34. The overall national development policy framework is for greater levels of real
decentralisation and empowerment of local community groups. This is promoted through the
concept of Wildlife Management Areas with village control and ownership as key principles.
Transfer of such authority necessitates high levels of capacity to allow successful
management and utilisation of the WMAs and an equitable distribution of benefits for that
utilisation. Until recently there has been no effort or structure capable of managing natural
resources within the community, the WMAs offer this opportunity but currently the capacity
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 12
to implement the WMA policy within the local communities is low, and limited knowledge
and skills will compromise the success of the WMA initiative.
Lack of economic alternatives and awareness of the potential benefits of wildlife as a form of
land use is low.
35. Integrally linked to limited knowledge and skills, is low levels of awareness of wildlife as
a recognised form of land use. Wildlife found in agricultural areas frequently cause crop
damage which threatens livelihoods; consequently the perception among local communities is
negative. Unless these perceptions can be changed, the opportunities provided by wildlife in
the generation of economic benefits will not be realized. Wildlife can be a more
economically viable form of land use in areas where keeping livestock yields low returns due
to limited grazing opportunities and high numbers of tsetse fly. These conditions are
characteristic of the Selous-Niassa corridor.
Awareness of the global value of the corridor is low among land planners and developers.
36. Initial studies have highlighted the importance of the Selous-Niassa corridor (see Annex
4 & 5 ) in maintaining a corridor between two of the largest game reserves in East Africa for
both animal movement and for genetic flow and as an important biodiversity repository in its
own right. However awareness of this value and potential economic benefit among land
planners and developers is low. With the conservation value of this area unrecognised, short
term benefits from rapid development will undermine the integrity of the area in the next 6-7
years and form a barrier between the two game reserves.
The corridor has no protection status.
37. Until recently little was known about the importance of the corridor in linking up the
Selous and Niassa Game Reserves and the levels of biodiversity within the area. Under PDF
A activities and the SCP initial research has demonstrated the value of the area (Annex 5).
However the area currently has no existing level of protection. Limited information and
dissemination of information to local authorities compromises efforts to conserve the area.
Baseline Course of Action
38. At the national level the government, through the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania, has begun
to introduce community empowerment and conservation in the concept of Wildlife
Management Areas, which are areas of village land set aside for wildlife conservation and
use. Village control and ownership within national guidelines are key principles. This
initiative is in its infancy with regulations and guidelines only released in January 2003. The
Wildlife Policy defines WMA as “an area declared by the Minister to be so and set aside by
the Village Government for the purpose of biological natural resources conservation”. The
WPT devolves management responsibility to local communities and creates an environment
for communities to directly benefit from the wildlife schemes and management of natural
resources. The procedures to be followed for the establishment of WMAs and the specific
role of the institutions involved such as villages and their CBOs, the District Council and the
District Natural Resources Advisory Body, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Wildlife Division and the NGOs are laid down in detail in the Regulations for the
Establishment of WMAs and its Guidelines (Annex 10).
39. The demarcation of WMAs requires considerable initial investment into land-use
planning – as wildlife and cultivation (the other major form of land use) are not compatible.
Following the delimitation of WMAs, considerable capacity building is necessary to allow
successful management and utilisation of the WMAs, and an equitable distribution of benefits
from that utilisation. The WMA concept is being piloted in a select group of villages and
village clusters across Tanzania. The villages of the northern part of the corridor were
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 13
included and project development processes have led to the inclusion of the southern villages
as part of this project support.
Existing conservation efforts in the region
Formal conservation efforts
40. The protected areas in the proposed corridor are managed by the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism. The Selous Game Reserve is managed by the Wildlife Division at a
relatively high level. This is facilitated by considerable funding from a sustainable tourist
hunting industry and infrastructure support from SCP and the ADB. Efforts under the SCP,
focusing on villages in the buffer zones surrounding the reserve, have helped to reduce
poaching incidences within the Selous. The Niassa Game Reserve in north Mozambique is
adequately managed, with considerable national commitment and growing external support.
Mozambique Wildlife and Forestry Department have developed a major World Bank Project
Document, seeking some 40 million US$ for Trans-Boundary Conservation Initiatives, The
Niassa (to Selous) area is a priority for support (pers.com. TFCA Project Mozambique).
41. Transboundary ‘poaching’ has been reported on a number of occasions and recent
dialogue between Niassa GR authorities and Rovuma Wildlife authorities (facilitated by the
PDF A activity of this project) has led to an informal agreement in collaboration in the
prevention of such incidences. A formal agreement with regular transfer of information and
follow-up on reported incidences will be necessary.
42. Outside the Reserve the districts have limited capacities to manage wildlife. There is a
District Game Officer and a small number of scouts, who do their best to cope with the
difficult tasks of anti-poaching, administering hunting and problem animal control, but their
ability is limited. The Wildlife Division maintains a zonal anti-poaching unit in Songea,
which is in charge of anti-poaching activities in the southern regions. The proposed corridor
falls into its area of responsibility. The anti-poaching unit concentrates on commercial level
elephant poaching around the Selous Game Reserve and along the border with Mozambique.
43. The Sasawara Forest Reserve, under the Forest Division, is virtually unmanaged and
suffers from illegal utilisation and encroachment.
44. Community based Conservation has become a cornerstone of Tanzania’s strategy to
manage biodiversity outside its core protected areas. The involvement of communities in
conservation processes was a key principle promoted by GTZ in the buffer zone around the
Selous Game Reserve in the mid 1990’s. The success of this programme facilitated the
development of the WMA policy. This is being piloted, cofinanced by GTZ, under Selous
Conservation Programme (SCP) in the northern part of the Selous-Niassa corridor. Since
1993/1994 thirteen villages have developed land use plans with the assistance of the
respective Land Offices. The land use survey includes the provision of land certificates to the
villages. Amongst other forms of land use, Village WMAs have been demarcated as areas for
sustainable wildlife utilisation.
45. The village scouts and village officials have been trained in the Government training
centre at Likuyu (Community Based Conservation Training Centre, CBCTC). Training in
basic management tools like bookkeeping, planning, budgeting is also carried out by the
District Community Development Officers. The SNV (Netherlands Volunteer Assistance)
provides support to such capacity building. The District Game Officers (DGOs) of Tunduru
and Namtumbo Districts have been trained and put in charge of the supervision of the
programme in their Districts. The villages derive revenue from the sale of meat from their
quota. The meat is sold in the villages and the proceeds are used for managing the wildlife
area and for small village development programmes. The potential is modest, but the meat
augments the protein supply in the village and helps undercutting the market for poached
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 14
meat. They also carry out crop protection themselves. The Programme has raised awareness
of local communities and authorities for conservation efforts.
46. Nationally there is currently a growth in the demand for quality tourist hunting areas;
blocks are being divided and quotas increased. Considerable revenues from tourist trophy
hunting are already being generated in the two hunting blocks in the north of the corridor,
however presently benefits go mainly to central government, and only 11 % to districts.
Under the new WMA regulations, the villages throughout the corridor will receive revenue
from resident game fees, tourist hunting game fees, tourist hunting block fees, concession
fees, bed night fees and WMA entry fees. Whereas the potential for photographic tourism in
the corridor is presently still small, safari hunting has considerable potential, particularly high
quality sable hunting and other species. The CAMPFIRE models in Zimbabwe, as well as the
WMAs facilitated by SCP in the northern buffer zones of the SGR, show the potential for
success in such ventures and it is expected that given adequate awareness and capacity, the
WMAs will attract significant tourist investment from the private sector.
47. The SCP is part of a much wider effort to promote the WMA approach. GTZ, DANIDA,
USAID, and various NGOs (African Wildlife Foundation, Frankfurt Zoological Society)
provide support to communities in different locations (Katavi-Rukwa, Saadani, Ugalla,
Serengeti, Massailand, Wami-Mbiki) to implement the Regulations for Wildlife Management
Areas. The approach is uniform as prescribed by the Regulations and includes: sensitisation
and training, land use planning including delineation of WMAs, formation of community
based organisations, formation of District advisory committees, development of a
Management Zoning Plan, application for Authorised Association-status, develop and
implement business plans.
48. Furthermore, central government efforts to revise the legislation and to strengthen
capacities at a ministry level are being supported jointly by USAID and GTZ. The purpose of
the GTZ Community Wildlife Management Project is to ensure the Wildlife Division is in a
position to introduce CBC countrywide. Under the project a Government Advisor is attached
to the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in Dar es Salaam.
The project operates countrywide and concentrates on areas where wildlife and people
The outputs associated with this project are:
CBC-section in Wildlife Division is established and operational
A countrywide strategy for implementation of the concept exists
Financial mechanisms for CBC are worked out
The legal framework is developed
A CBC training approach fro communities, wildlife staff and institutions is developed.
49. USAID is carrying out a "Capacity Building for Environmental and Wildlife Policy
Implementation" programme through WWF USA. The programme addresses the second
USAID strategic objective (SO2): Improved Conservation of natural resources.
It focuses on 3 intermediate results:
Key natural resources policies applied
Increased effectiveness of institutions that support natural resource conservation
Community based conservation regimes functioning in target areas.
50. CBC has been integrated into the curricula of the wildlife training institutions of
Tanzania (Mweka Wildlife College, Pasiansi Wildlife Training Institute) with the aim of
building a cadre of personnel with the ability to implement the WMA approach. In addition
the Community Based Conservation Training Centre, located in the corridor in Likuyu, trains
village scouts and functionaries, and has focussed on CBC since its inception.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 15
51. The Selous Conservation Programme and other WMA initiatives have demonstrated that
1) there is a demand amongst local communities for managing wildlife resources and this can
be readily translated into revenue benefiting livelihoods; 2) building capacity amongst local
communities to manage wildlife does lead to improved conservation; 3) poaching in the
village areas supported by the SCP and neighbouring Selous Game Reserve has decreased
significantly and wildlife is returning to areas where it had been absent for many years. This
is mainly due to the change of attitude towards wildlife. Wildlife is now a legal source of
income and therefore worthy of protection. This has led to improved anti-poaching by the
52. The SCP is supporting a special programme to investigate the status and migration routes
of the populations of key mammal species in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, (Annex 5).
This has demonstrated that the corridor is a migratory route for elephants between Tanzania
and Mozambique. Furthermore the corridor provides a genetic link (e.g. sable and wild dog)
between two of eastern Africa’s larger wildlife protected areas, ensuring long term viability.
This research will continue to monitor wildlife movements in the corridor in the future. The
Wildlife Division is monitoring the WMA process, including baseline survey. The maps in
Annex 2, 5 are data from the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, who are mandated to
monitor wildlife resources.
53. The Ministry of Agriculture, via its Regional and District Agricultural officers, support
agricultural extension activities including agricultural land use planning at village level. No
direct donor support exists in the target districts but local authorities do implement some
national programmes on enhancing agricultural production and improved cashew farming. At
present there is little direct linkage between such land planning initiatives from agriculture
and those from wildlife/forestry at village or district level. A failure to coordinate activities
can lead to conflicting policies, and conflict on the ground at village level.
54. Whilst the northern area of the corridor is being conserved for wildlife under community
protection through the WMA system, the southern area has no form of protection status.
Under the existing baseline scenario the conservation value of the corridor at this site specific
level is likely to be lost within the next 6-7 years. The ribbon development and upgrading of
the Songea – Tunduru road is expected to provide a magnet for settlement and cultivation and
unless efforts are made to maintain the integrity of the corridor by ensuring its conservation in
future development plans the value of this area and link between Niassa and Selous Game
Reserves is likely to be lost.
55. The Wildlife Policy provides an exciting tool, in the form of Wildlife Management
Areas, to address issues threatening biodiversity loss in a cost effective and sustainable
manner. WMAs have been successfully tested in the northern part of the corridor and have
demonstrated both benefits to livelihoods and conservation objectives. This is an encouraging
situation, however, a number of barriers exist that, without external intervention, will prevent
the adoption of WMA’s. The capacities of communities and local and regional authorities to
translate the policy into action are limited and the awareness of wildlife as a viable form of
land use is low. These barriers exist both at this site specific level but also throughout the
country. Unless these barriers can be overcome the opportunities presented by the WMA
initiative at a national level will be compromised and land valuable for conservation purposes,
such as the Selous Niassa corridor will be irreplaceably converted for agriculture or other
intensive land use purpose.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 16
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
56. This project aims to formalise and conserve the currently unprotected corridor of natural
woodland that links the Selous to the Niassa Reserve. This will be achieved by promoting the
concept of Wildlife Management Areas successfully piloted in the northern area of the
corridor. By demonstrating the value of the WMA initiative to achieving conservation goals
the project will help create the enabling environment necessary for the national adoption of
the WMA initiative and the formation of a national network of community managed protected
areas. Such a network will complement the existing formal protected areas system and
increase the area of land conserved for biodiversity.
57. The overall purpose of the proposed project is the long-term conservation of community,
species and genetic biological diversity of the miombo forest ecosystem within the protected
areas of northern Mozambique and southern Tanzania by developing an effective wildlife
corridor. This will be achieved by the formation of village WMAs connecting the Selous and
Niassa Game Reserves, managed by the communities and forming a continuous system of
protected areas from Tanzania to Mozambique.
58. The project will address emerging GEF priorities of: Catalyzing sustainability of
Protected Areas (PAs) in particular improving opportunities for sustainable use, benefit
sharing and broad stakeholder participation among communities. Project components have
been designed to support the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania directly by contributing to the
establishment of a network of protected area systems that are managed by local communities.
59. The project will specifically promote and establish a network of community-based
managed Wildlife Management Areas and empower the local community as managers in
order to enable conservation and sustainable use of the wildlife corridor. This will be based
on the successful model being piloted in the Selous Buffer Zone; which is in northern area of
the corridor. Through an active replication component the project will facilitate the
development of a national system of community managed protected areas contributing to
strengthening the overall protected area system. Without the GEF Alternative, the baseline
situation will continue such that there will be continuing and rapid conversion of land for
agricultural purposes and unsustainable use of natural resources within the southern sector of
the corridor. This will result in the loss of the integrity of the corridor and formation of a
barrier between the two reserves. At a national level the opportunities presented by the WMA
initiative may fail to be captured compromising the future for biodiversity conservation.
60. The GEF increment will focus on providing technical assistance and capacity building for
community based conservation management. Agreed co-financing will cover both
incremental and non-incremental issues (total 1,060,000 US $).
PROPOSED PROJECT STRATEGY
61 To achieve conservation and development in the southern sector of the Selous-Niassa
corridor the project is taking a community based conservation approach based upon
experiences in the northern area of the corridor. This aims to empower communities to
manage the land for wildlife conservation purposes with the subsequent benefits of improving
livelihoods, conserving biodiversity and maintaining the integrity of the wildlife corridor.
62. Specifically the project will develop local competencies in sustainable resources
management within the corridor and promote conservation and biodiversity management by
improving the human capacity to manage wildlife resources. In compliance with the WPT
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 17
policy of Tanzania, these actions aim at empowering populations at local level and involving
them in all aspects of conservation programmes.
63. The project, building on experiences from the northern area of the corridor, will provide
further lessons in the challenges and opportunities in implementing the WMA initiative of the
WPT policy. Lessons learnt will be widely disseminated to facilitate the replication of similar
community based conservation initiatives throughout the country; thereby contributing to a
national system of community managed protected areas.
64. The Immediate Objectives are:
The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor is effectively conserved, with the establishment of a
network of village wildlife management areas that are protected, managed and utilised
sustainably by the local communities with the assistance of Local Government and
Benefits from wildlife management enhance the livelihood security of villages with
WMAs, and promote the long-term conservation of the corridor.
65. The activities planned as part of the project will last four years. During this time local
communities and decentralized authorities will learn how to manage their wildlife resources
in a sustainable manner. This project will be formulated so as to build on the lessons learnt
from the programme in the northern area of the corridor. These experiences will facilitate this
process and for this reason 4 years is felt to be an adequate time frame. At the end of the
project, the principal outputs will be the following:
Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural
resources within the corridor among communities, local and district authorities
Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to
serve as decision-making tools for communities and local authorities.
A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor
Protection of the Sasawara Forest Reserve through community participation
Dissemination of best practice for community managed protected areas
EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES
66. The following outputs and activities do not take place sequentially. They are inter-related
and take place concurrently. The success of the project will depend upon the interaction
between these varying components.
Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural
resources within the corridor among communities, local and district authorities
(GEF $ 184,450 and GTZ-GoT $200,000)
67 A key barrier to the conservation of the corridor is the lack of awareness among the
community and local planning authorities of the importance of the corridor for biodiversity
and, in particular, the opportunities to capitalise on wildlife as a viable form of land use. This
component targets these key stakeholders with specific activities to address this barrier. In
particular it will identify and work with other agencies, such as agriculture, to ensure a
coordinated approach to land management is taken in the area. This will avoid a situation of
conflicting policies, providing disincentives for conservation in the corridor. Furthermore the
component provides support for TBNRM linkage between Tanzania and Mozambique, and so
addresses issues relating to transboundary coordination for conservation aiming to raise
awareness and facilitate coordination efforts to reduce poaching incidences including
reduction of cross border illegal trade in wildlife.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 18
Activity 1.1: Carry out a stakeholder analysis and develop a public participation plan that
targets all land users to ensure they are informed and can participate in project activities.
Activity 1.2: Design and implement an effective education campaign to inform communities
about natural resources conservation and sustainable utilization and the Government policies
and regulation regarding the role of communities in NRM, particularly in implementing
WMAs. Specific activities will be developed for target user groups such as fishermen on the
Activity 1.3: Facilitate exchange of experience and site visits by local communities to villages
in the northern part of the corridor of the Selous Buffer zone.
Activity 1.4: Facilitate exchange of experiences and site visits by local authorities to villages
in the northern part of the corridor of the Selous Buffer zone.
Activity 1.5: Facilitate the involvement of agricultural agencies at village and district level
and others identified in Activity 1.1 in the project activities to ensure that sectoral policies do
not conflict the projects activities.
Activity 1.6: Facilitate meetings between the Government/Wildlife Division of Tanzania and
the Government/DNFFB and SGDRN of Mozambique in order to develop trans-boundary
anti-poaching agreements and cooperation.
Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor
to serve as decision-making tools for communities and local authorities.
(GEF $ 118,580 and IZW $340,000)
68. Reliable biological and socio-economic databases will be created for the Corridor. This
work has been initiated under the SCP providing initial evidence of the conservation
importance of the area and will be further progressed under this component. An integrated
team of scientists, relevant government agencies, partner organizations and the local
communities will complete the surveys. The databases will be created in the first two years of
the project completed in a number of stages; (1) Collect and evaluate all current biological
and socio-economic data. (2) Based on results from the original data, identify and conduct
further biological and socio-economic studies (3) The socio-economic studies will be
completed during year one while (4) Biological studies will be completed during years one
and two. Socio-economic studies will identify primary economic practices and natural
resources needs of the communities. Biological studies will include further refinement of the
species inventories in the corridor, identification of threatened species, and needs assessments
for the endemic species including, species endemic to the corridor, their specific range and
habitat needs. (5) Data collected will be verified geographically with GPS and topographic
maps which will contribute to the completion of an appropriate zoning of natural resource
usage. A specific activity focusing on fishing activities at Ruvuma River will be carried out
resulting in the development and implementation of proposals for special protection of
crossing points for wildlife.
69. The databases will serve as both a decision-making tool for future management and in the
provision of critical information to justify the importance of conserving the corridor. The
implantation of activities under Output 3 below will be based on information and analysis
developed in the Corridor database. Furthermore, the database will allow participatory
monitoring and evaluation of the project’s impacts. Local knowledge about biodiversity will
form an integral part of this output and be captured as part of the WMA process.
Activity 2.1: Carry out regular participatory wildlife/land-use surveys of the project area in
order to monitor the animal distribution and human activities within the boundaries of the
corridor and WMAs and to feed into conservation planning exercises.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 19
Activity 2.2: Carry out a study on fishing activities at Ruvuma River and is tributaries;
develop and implement proposals for appropriate sustainable management regarding special
protection of crossing points for wildlife.
Activity 2.3: Carry out regular socioeconomic surveys to be repeated at regular intervals to
monitor the impact of WMA activities on the livelihoods of local communities.
Activity 2.4: Integrate results from the continuing cofinanced Selous Niassa Corridor
Research Project into project activities.
Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the
corridor. (GEF $ 539,905 and GTZ-GoT $370,000).
70. This component aims to develop a network of WMAs in the southern corridor by building
upon experiences and lessons learnt under the SCP in the northern sector. This component
will be guided by the National Wildlife Policy and the regulations and guidelines for the
establishment of WMAs. Activities have been designed with this purpose in mind. The
ultimate aim of this component is to develop a situation whereby local communities have the
capacity to manage the land in the corridor for wildlife purposes. This will result in benefits
to both livelihoods and conservation objectives. The integration of WMA’s into local
development plans will ensure that wildlife is seen as a viable land use option and
subsequently land is recognised for this purpose. This will ensure future developments, for
example around the Mtwara-Songea road will not compromise conservation objectives. The
envisaged reduction in poaching, unsustainable resource use and retention of the land for
conservation purposes will ensure that the value of the area, as a corridor linking the Selous
and Niassa Game Reserves, is maintained and maximised. It is critical that communities gain
tangible benefits from the WMA that translates into improved livelihoods. If not, there will
be no incentive to manage the land for wildlife purposes and conversion for agricultural
activities and unsustainable natural resource use will continue. In addition to focusing on
wildlife utilisation this component will explore opportunities for sustainably harvesting other
natural resources such as fish, honey, timber, medicinal plants, fibres etc. with coordination of
other agencies such as the Forest Department, Fisheries Department etc. These offer an
opportunity for income generation and resource substitution providing direct benefits to local
households. Critical to the success of this output is that activities targeting transboundary
poaching will build upon efforts in Output 1 to facilitate local communities to combat this
problem. Initial start up costs will be funded but taken over by the functioning WMAs by the
end of the projects lifespan.
Activity 3.1: Establish the institutional arrangements necessary for the WMAs
Activity 3.2: Undertake training of members of the various WMA institutions and village
Activity 3.3: Facilitate the communities to establish the required infrastructure and
associated equipment for the village institutions;
Activity 3.4: Integrate results of land surveys and land use planning activities, carried out in
Output 1 and 2, for the identification of WMAs and undertake mapping and border
demarcation of the WMAs;
Activity 3.5: Facilitate the development of management plans for the WMAs including
associated village bye-laws and advise the AA’s with the implementation of the management
plan and natural resource utilisation;
Activity 3.6: Facilitate the gazettement of the WMA, integration of WMA’s into local
development plans and declaration of the CBO as an Authorised Association (AA).
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 20
Activity 3.7: Support village, District and Central Government game scouts in anti-poaching
operations until communities earn sufficient income from their WMAs to take over
Activity 3.8: Facilitate legal advice for lease of contracts, concessional agreements and other
business activities when necessary.
Activity 3.9: Facilitate the involvement of District agricultural, forest and fisheries extension
officers (targeted in Output 1) to work with local communities in a resource use planning
exercise to identify and develop opportunities for income generation through products such
as fish, honey, timber, medicinal plants,
Activity 3.10: Carry out training for the development of business plans of the CBOs (AAs) and
advise on investments of benefits generated from the WMAs for village development
Output 4: Protection of the Sasawara Forest Reserve through community participation
(GEF $ 51,335 and Other $50,000)
71. This component aims to target specifically a core area in the corridor, the Sasawara Forest
Reserve, to address the immediate threats of encroachment and logging activities. Activities
will be in line with the National Forest Policy and aim to ensure a community participatory
approach is taken to management of the forest reserve. Ultimately this component aims to
improve the livelihoods of the local communities by ensuring benefits are derived from the
sustainable utilisation of forest resources, whilst at the same time achieving conservation
objectives. Unless sufficient benefits are generated from forest management, with a real
impact upon improving livelihoods, there will be no incentive to manage the forest resources
Activity 4.1: Work closely with the Forest Department, identify the reserve’s boundaries in
the field and evaluate the status of protection and encroachment.
Activity 4.2: Define and propose options for the improvement of its protection and joint
management between adjacent villages and the Forest Department regarding the wildlife
Activity 4.3: Facilitate a Memorandum of Understanding about the joint management and
protection between the villages and the Forest Department
Activity 4.4: Facilitate a process of developing and implementing a joint management plan on
Activity 4.5: Record experiences and lessons learnt for dissemination among key practitioners
to inform similar initiatives elsewhere in the country.
Output 5: Dissemination of best practice for community managed protected areas
(GEF $ 92,230 and GTZ $100,000)
72. This component aims to ensure that lessons learnt from community involvement in natural
resources; both in the WMAs and PFM reserves are captured and disseminated widely to
inform similar processes throughout Tanzania and that lessons are made available across the
border into Mozambique. As demonstrated in the baseline section this project is part of a
much wider effort to promote the WMA approach. Support from these similar initiatives and
the involvement of senior wildlife staff in the project will help to ensure that the WMA
approach is adopted and replicated throughout the country. Experiences will be drawn from
Cross Borders and Jozani Forest Project, amongst others, to identify the most effective
dissemination strategies. Mechanisms will be created to ensure the capacity built, lessons
learnt and experiences continue to be shared and replicated after the project has ended. In
addition the project will develop specific learning experience on Protected Area System
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 21
Planning (corridor, dispersal area approaches) and disseminate these experiences so as to
influence wildlife policy and practice.
Activity 5.1: Promote a network between the WMA initiatives nationally in order to share
challenges, successes and best practices and to identify how best to disseminate lessons
Activity 5.2: In collaboration with other members of the network, record experiences and
lessons learnt from the WMA process for dissemination e.g. newsletters, case studies, NGO
fora among key practitioners to inform similar initiatives elsewhere in the country and in
adjacent areas in Mozambique.
Activity 5.3: Target policy leaders of the WPT, for example through site visits, videos,
presentations and workshops, to ensure that lessons learnt from the Selous-Niassa project
and other similar initiatives influence policy decisions for the implementation of WMAs.
Activity 5.4: Key government staff from identified target sites elsewhere in the country, are
facilitated to allow exchange of experience and site visits to the project area to demonstrate
best practice and encourage replication of both WMA and Protected Area System Planning
FINANCING PLAN AND INCREMENTAL COSTS
73. The GEF alternative is US$ 986,500 (See Annex 7 for detailed incremental cost analysis)
plus a total baseline across the four years of US$ 2.4 million. Co-financing amounts to
$1,060,000. All co-financing is confirmed in writing in Annex 13.
Incremental cost assessment
74. Without the support of the GEF and leveraged cofinance the integrity of the Selous-Niassa
is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. Short term benefits of agricultural conversion
and limited awareness of the potential benefits of wildlife as a viable land use option will lead
to the area rapidly loosing its conservation potential.
The baseline scenario has a current yearly cost of US$ 600,000, which is cost incurred by:
Wildlife Division, 250,000$
Regional, District and Sub-District inputs including agriculture, 200,000$
plus inputs from communities, 50,000$
Donor support to agriculture, decentralisation and poverty alleviation 100,000$
75. The legislation is in place for the establishment of WMAs, however unless the capacity
and awareness of the local communities can be developed the opportunity to conserve
communal land of global biodiversity importance in the Selous-Niassa corridor will be lost.
GEF assistance is necessary to facilitate the translation of the policy into implementation and
will serve as a model for the further replication of such initiatives in other areas of the
country. In this way the project will directly contribute to ensuring the sustainability of a
national network of community managed protected areas.
Cofinancing is provided as follows:
76. IZW is carrying out research, in conjunction with SUA, TAWIRI and GTZ, in the course
of the identification and establishment of the corridor 340,000$.
77. GTZ continues to support the northern part of the corridor during this coming four-year
period, and is involved in support to the WMA at national level (GTZ provides the inputs of
expatriate Community Wildlife Advisor to the Wildlife Division, as well as broader training
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 22
opportunities in community issues). GTZ provide oversight to the overall corridor process.
This is estimated at 500,000$, 100,000$ per annum for the corridor inputs and 100,000$
overall for community – WMA processes across the project period.
78. Government of Tanzania will provide increased support into the corridor process,
making available time from regional and district wildlife staff, as well as district
administration inputs through villages and village extension processes. This additional time is
costed at 20,000$ pa per each of two districts four 4 years totalling 160,000$.
79. UNDP will provide support to community livelihood enhancement based on natural
resource use during the project period. UNDP TRAC resources will support at least one
community project per District at an estimated cost of 30,000$ per project. This is a total of
A detailed incremental cost analysis is provided in Annex 7.
MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 23
The GEF Budget by Input in US $ is as follows:
PDF A 13,500
MEDIUM SIZED PROJECT
Subcontracts * 268,000
Training * 111,000
Evaluation and back-stopping mission(s) 82,350
MS Project GEF Total in $US 1,000,000
* NOTE: These items are costed per activity in the log-frame in Annex 8.
Sustainability, Cost effectiveness, Replicability and Risk Assessment
80. The project design and existing baseline situation combine to ensure social, ecological and
financial sustainability in a number of ways; (1) existing legislation empowering local people
to manage wildlife resources through WPT (2) demonstration for WMAs and lessons learnt
from the process in the northern section of the corridor which will guide the project in the
southern corridor (3) the project aims to build human resource capacity sufficiently to assume
management of the WMAs by the end of the four year project; (4) the WMAs are designed to
improve the livelihoods of the communities involved and this has proved to have worked in
the northern corridor; (5) the project aims to ensure the collaboration of a number of
stakeholders; agriculture, land developers, conservation agencies and private sector to
promote a integrated approach to the management of this area. Recognition of the corridor as
an important tract of land for community conservation activities by other agencies such as
agriculture will help to ensure conflicting initiatives, that are incompatible with conservation
aims, are not promoted in the area; (6) the WMAs will generate sufficient revenue to be self
sustaining by the end of the project; (7) protection of the corridor ecosystem will ensure
ecological sustainability facilitating the flow of wildlife populations and contributing to
enhancing gene flow and ensuring the long term integrity of the ecosystem.
81. Under this project the local population will have the right to manage their land resource
issues by the establishment of WMAs through the adoption of national policies that provide
legal empowerment for wildlife management to the local community. This is necessary for
the long-term success of the project because it empowers and builds community governance
as well as confidence in their ability to manage resources.
82. Capacity development is targeted as one of the core outputs. The project seeks to provide
local people with needed expertise, as well as basic infrastructure and efficient organizations
and institutions. Furthermore, the project will be implemented in a way that will enhance both
local expertise and ownership for biodiversity conservation to encourage further activities
when the proposed project finishes. The end of the project should change local knowledge,
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 24
infrastructure and values in such a way that will preclude a return to the present unsustainable
83. The sustainability of the project depends on the economic viability of the network of
village wildlife management areas that make up the Corridor. The successful CBC scheme in
the North of the Corridor shows that the costs of the management by the villages (deploying
village scouts, carrying out anti-poaching, harvesting of animals and sale of meat, budget
planning and execution) can be recovered by the proceeds from the wildlife management. The
costs to be borne by GEF refer to the set up of the system and are not recurrent.
84. This project will be particularly cost-effective in view of the size and overall scope of the
system addressed. The WPT and WMA initiative are in place and provide the enabling
environment for promoting community based management approaches. WMAs have been
trialed in the northern sector of the corridor with success. This previous experience will
facilitate the implementation of this project. Formal protected area management is costly and
Tanzania has neither the resources nor land availability to designate a greater area for such
protection. This project will however build the capacities of local communities to translate
the WMA policy into practice and in this way will, not only benefit livelihoods, but reduce
the costs of conservation management and enhance prospects for successes by embracing
local stakeholders to manage and benefit from their wildlife resources.
85. This project will further test and implement the WMA initiative under the WPT. This is
only being piloted in a number of areas and this project offers an opportunity to build on
lessons from the northern corridor and to further replicate in the southern areas of the
corridor. The concerns in community conservation initiatives are consistent across the
country and, given similarities in culture and resource issues, strategies that are in place and
functional will be replicated in other regions of the country. The Central and regional
governments have already shown strong approval for the approach of the project (see
86. Output 5 focuses specifically on the dissemination of best practice for community
management of protected areas relating both to WMAs and PFM reserves. This output will
aim to ensure that lessons learnt from this project will feed into the implementation of WMAs
and PFM Reserves in other areas of the country thereby contributing to the development of a
national sustainable network of community managed protected areas.
87. The involvement of senior officials of the Wildlife Division and Planning Division of the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in the projects steering committee will help to
ensure that experiences from this project influence the WPT, guiding the establishment of
WMAs in the future.
88. Risks to the project and activities to counter risks include the following;
Identified Risk Mitigation approach
Ecologically destructive The project aims to ensure that the scale of benefits from
projects are implemented in sustainable natural resource use in the corridor provides
the corridor area sufficient incentive to prevent conversion to agriculture.
WMA management The project will develop capacity in fund management and
processes which are not the setting up of village institutions with democratic
based on democratic principles to overcome this potential risk.
principles, and revenues that
are inequitably distributed
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 25
Unrealistic expectations of The project will maintain good relationship with all
community and other stakeholders and through an environmental awareness
stakeholders process will ensure realistic achievements of the project are
Development along the Land use planning exercises will be carried out and results
Mtwara – Songea road integrated into local development plans to ensure that wild
prevents animal movements life is recognised as a viable land use option in the area.
Awareness will be raised among local authorities and
communities as to the benefits derived from using wildlife as
a land use option and of the importance of maintaining the
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
89. The PDF Block A grant was used (13,500$ GEF, 25,000$ via GTZ) to hold stakeholder
consultations and identified some key groups identified below.
90. The local communities will benefit from sustainable natural resource management,
improvements of social facilities and infrastructure and furthermore in empowerment and
capacity to manage resources. Income flows will markedly increase when the income from
safari hunting accruing to the villages will be available. The villages of the corridor area were
sensitized during separate village assembly meetings. All Village Governments were
enthusiastic and applied to join the project via their respective Districts. Initial social
assessments have been prepared under the programme development activity for all villages so
far known to have a stake in the corridor. During the actual planning process for the WMAs
these assessments will be intensified.
91. The Local Government at Regional and District level and the relevant Village
Governments are key stakeholders in the project and instrumental in the implementation of
WMAs. These institutions have been involved from the very beginning of the development
of the wildlife corridor project. Representatives of the Region and District administrations,
including agricultural, forestry, fisheries and land planning, have actively participated in
discussion meetings about the corridor and WMAs. District Game Officers work closely with
Selous Conservation Programme. Further discussions involved meetings with the District
Natural Resources Advisory Committees, whose members are the District Natural Resource
Technicians and the representatives of villages with Wildlife Management Areas. The
meetings were chaired by the District Commissioner or the District Executive Director.
Conservation Agencies and Wildlife Division
92. SCP/GTZ is assisting the Selous Game Reserve Authority and implements community
based conservation initiatives, including WMAs in the buffer zone of Selous Game Reserve
in Namtumbo and Tunduru District, in cooperation with the District Authorities. SCP is the
implementing agency for the proposed project.
Stakeholder consultations under the PDF A process
93. A “Conservation Expert Meeting”, of biologists, natural reserve planners and major
project stakeholders was convened in April 2001 to discuss the concept of a wildlife corridor.
Three main questions were asked:
1. How will a corridor enhance the biodiversity of the overall Selous Niassa ecosystem?
2. By what methods should the corridor be secured and managed?
3. What is the optimum design of a wildlife corridor in these circumstances?
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 26
The expert meeting was seen as essential part of project development and the results and
conclusions of the meeting have formed an integral part of this project brief (Annex 4 & 9).
94. This project is designed as a simple country project as all interventions and
implementation takes place in Tanzania. The geographic gap in corridor design is all in
Tanzania. However since initial concept design, the project has been cognizant of the need to
increase cooperation across the international border to the Niassa Game Reserve in
Mozambique. Niassa Game Reserve and Mozambique are potential beneficiaries of this
project, as the natural resources will be part of larger “landscape level” protected area system
with expected global benefits in ecological viability.
The project has developed linkages with Mozambique at several levels, and will continue
these linkages (see Activity 5.3) with more formal process. Linkages have been at:
a) PA Levels. Following the first formal exchange in Songea (see para 55 & foot note 5)
there have been three follow up meetings; two have been in Niassa Game Reserve.
There is now compatible radio contact.
b) National Levels. The last meeting was at World Parks Congress in Durban (in
September 2003); between Director Wildlife Mozambique; Dy Director (Wildlife
Conservation) Tanzania; Senior Field Staff and GTZ – Selous Conservation
c) Development Level. The Mtwara Corridor has the Selous Niassa Conservation
Corridor on its agenda in seeking cooperation and investment into the trans-boundary
d) Donor Levels. Project development agencies are in touch with co-finances on
Mozambique side – e.g. Fauna Flora International (FFI) who will be funding Niassa
Game Reserve, also using the title of Niassa – Selous Corridor.
95. In June 2001, a final stakeholder meeting took place in Songea, the relevant regional
capital to discuss the corridor with all relevant stakeholders. Representatives from Niassa
Game Reserve in Mozambique attended.5
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TIMELINE
96. The project will be executed by the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism and implemented by GTZ International Services under NGO
execution arrangements with UNDP. Note that GTZ-IS implements the present activity in the
northern part of the corridor. GTZ-IS will assure the effective implementation of field
activities and assume first line accountability for financial management.
97. At field level the District Natural Resources Officers and Wildlife Officers will assume
responsibility for support to villages until Village Associations are created and have capacity
for more autonomy. A District level “technical committee”, District Natural Resources
Advisory Body, will assure linkages between wildlife agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and land
sectors, under the chairmanship of the District Commissioner or representative.
98. A Project Technical Steering Committee will be established, under the chairmanship of
Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (or his
Such attendance underlined the level of cooperation across the border. Permissions were obtained for
Mozambique officials to cross the Ruvuma River on foot, where Tanzania officials collected them, and
their passports were stamped in Songea town.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 27
representative). Committee membership will include representatives of Wildlife Division,
Selous Game Reserve, Regional / District Authorities, Forestry. Agriculture and UNDP and
GTZ-IS. Further operational details will be developed during project document completion.
99. The project will begin with an inception workshop. The project manager will review the
project document prior to the workshop and recommend revisions in light of the present
situation. This may include updating the log frame and institutional arrangements. The
project manager will present the finalised work plan and first quarterly plan to the Project
Technical Steering Committee. 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.
100. GTZ has a long history of working with communities in the establishment of Selous
Buffer Zones and with WMAs in the northern corridor, and will be able to translate lessons
from this process. This experience will serve as the basis for implementation of WMAs in the
southern part of the corridor.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 28
Project Duration – Schematic Workplan
Project duration: 48 months (4 years)
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for
conservation of biodiversity and natural x x x x x x x x X
resources within the corridor among local
communities, Local and District authorities.
Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and
socio-economic databases for the corridor to x x x x x x x x X
serve as decision-making tools for communities
and local authorities
Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively x x x x x x x x x x x X
established and managed through out the
Output 4: Protection of the Sasawara Forest x x x X x x x x x
Reserve through community participation
Output 5: Dissemination of best practice and x x x x x x X
linkages to policy formation
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
101. The management of wildlife is currently not recognised as a viable land use option and
awareness raising and capacity development among the local communities will be key
activities in the process of this project. Involvement of the local population in the proposed
activities will closely depend on how the population is empowered to manage the resources in
their village territories. Local communities will play a major role in the project and more
precisely in the conduct of conservation activities and the management of the WMAs within
the corridor. Without their full commitment land in the corridor will be converted to
agriculture and the conservation integrity of the area will be lost. The projects success will
hinge on demonstrating wildlife as a viable land use option and furthermore that the benefits
provided outweigh those generated from agricultural conversion.
102. Each component will be highly participatory to ensure full stakeholder buy-in and multi-
stakeholder partnerships for cost-effective implementation of the activities and their
sustainability. It is critical that a holistic approach is taken to land management in the area to
avoid a conflict of policies. For this reason agricultural agencies and land use planning
commission must be integral players to the process. Opportunities will be sought to involve
private operators, particularly in the hunting areas where the promotion of economic activities
can be linked with environmental management.
103. The development of a detailed public involvement plan under Output 2 will ensure that
all stakeholders are targeted and involved in project activities and avoid situations of
conflicting policies in the project area.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
104. Monitoring and evaluation activities will measure project progress using quantifiable
indicators of project achievements. These indicators will also measure the level of
involvement of stakeholders and the performance of the actions undertaken to achieve the
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 29
105. The project will be monitored and evaluated in close collaboration with GTZ and the
Wildlife Division and will follow the guidelines established by UNDP-GEF.
To analyse project progress, impacts and achievements
To assess the relationship between activities planned in the project document and
those implemented in the field, using performance indicators
To re-orient the project as needed (adaptive management)
To draw recommendations for future natural resources management transfer of
activities to other areas
To allow inter-project evaluations and systematic exchange (with other GEF projects)
To develop long term M & E processes assessing the success and ecological and
socio-economic sustainability of the WMAs and the corridor after project closure.
106. The monitoring and evaluation plan includes monitoring of project progress, ecological
monitoring and socio-economic monitoring. The WWF/WB Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool will be used to analyse management effectiveness in the WMA’s (details are
provided in Annex 12). The details of the M&E plan are presented in Annex 11 and will be
finalised by the Project Manager at the start of his assignment.
107. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the
Standard Basic Assistance Agreement 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.
108. 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.
109. The UNDP Resident Representative in Tanzania is authorized to effect in writing the
following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he has verified the
agreement thereto 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
110. GTZ-IS will provide UNDP with certified periodic financial statements, and with an
annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of project funds according to the
established procedures set out in the UNDP Programming and Finance manuals.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 30
LIST OF ANNEXES
1. Endorsement Letter from OFP
2. Map of Project Site
3. Categories of Protected Areas in the Corridor Area
4. Justification of the Selous – Niassa Corridor, and Corridor Design Principles
5. Selous Conservation Project; initial research for the corridor.
6. Threats/root causes matrix
7. Incremental Cost Analysis
8. Logical Framework Analysis
9. Details of stakeholder meetings
10. Responsibilities for the administration of WMAs
11. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
12. World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
13. Co-financing Letters
14. Acronym list
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 31
ANNEX 1: ENDORSEMENT LETTER
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 32
ANNEX 2: Map of the Corridor Area
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 33
ANNEX 3: CATEGORIES OF PROTECTED AREAS IN THE CORRIDOR
The Selous – Niassa woodland ecosystem of southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique is
one of the largest and most significant trans-boundary natural ecosystems in Africa6, covering
over 154,000 km2 (see maps of the project area in Annex 2). In this ecosystem several
categories of protected areas have a combined protection status of 110,685 km2. In Tanzania
these are as follows:
The Selous Game Reserve 47,000 km2
Wildlife Management Areas as buffer zones of Selous Game Reserve 7,500 km2
Mikumi National Park 3,000 km2
Kilombero Game Controlled Area 6,500 km2
Muhuwesi Game Controlled Area / Forest Reserve 1,500 km2
Mwambesi Game Controlled Area / Forest Reserve 1,000 km2
Lukwika – Lumesule and Msanjesi Game Reserves 400 km2
Sasawara Forest Reserve 385 km2
Total 67,285 km2
In Mozambique the areas are:
Niassa Game Reserve 42,400 km2
The Selous-Niassa Trans-Boundary Area is highlighted in the Southern Africa Report on Trans-
Boundary Systems (Biodiversity Support Programme, Griffin 1998).
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 34
ANNEX 4: Justification of the Selous – Niassa Corridor, and Corridor Design Principles
A) Introduction – The Role of Wildlife Corridors in Conservation.
There is a considerable body of scientific literature on the role and significance of wildlife
corridors for conservation. The Expert Meeting in Dar es Salaam reviewed much of this
literature. Of particular importance was a review paper in the journal Conservation Biology:
“Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?”7 We quote from this paper:
Conservation biologists generally agree that landscape connectivity enhances population
viability for many species, and that until very recently most species lived in well-connected
landscapes. As human activities often sever natural connections between landscape elements,
many conservationists have advocated the retention of habitat corridors. However
conservation values accrue only IF the organisms in real landscapes do use the corridors to
bring about connectivity. This has not been proved. This paper (Beir and Noss1998) reviews
the literature to evaluate scientific evidence that corridors do serve as conduits for movement.
A corridor is described as “a linear habitat, embedded in a dissimilar matrix, that connects
two or more larger blocks of habitat, and that is proposed for conservation on the grounds
that it will enhance or maintain the viability of specified wildlife populations in the habitat
blocks”. In our case the linear habitat is protected miombo woodland in a matrix of shifting
cultivation and degraded woodland. The specified populations include elephant, sable, wild-
dog, oribi etc.
The authors conclude that “evidence from well designed studies generally supports the utility
of corridors as a conservation tool. No study has demonstrated negative effects of corridors
(e.g. transmission of disease pathogens). Corridor sceptics are concerned about the high cost
of establishing corridors – certainly each project should be considered carefully in terms of
cost and conservation benefit”.
Note that the cost of this corridor is not high compared to the size of the corridor itself, and
the value and size of the two larger habitat blocks.
The literature does stress the need for careful corridor design to suit the pattern of organism
movement. This was fully taken into account during the design of the Selous – Niassa
corridor. The expert meeting determined that the corridor had to allow for three patterns of
1. Large mammal movement back and forth along the corridor, as seasonal movements that
approach the regularity of a migration (elephant), and less regular (wild dog).
2. Connectivity through continuous interbreeding sub-populations, such as sable antelope.
Individual animals will not travel along the whole corridor, but their genes will.
3. Habitat connectivity in terms of habitat stepping-stones for movements of dispersing
organisms such as plants via their germinules, and birds and other mobile organisms.
Corridor design has to allow free movement, i.e. not be too narrow (e.g. tunnel or hedgerow
like), but to allow elephant movement without damage to adjacent crops, and be wide enough
to encompass e.g. sable, hartebeest home ranges with space for attendant carnivora. These
issues are discussed below:
a. Size of the protected area: The general conservation principle is that wildlife areas should
be as large as possible to maintain genetic diversity. However, the Selous and Niassa
Reserves already are amongst the biggest in Africa. Therefore the argument of PA size is
Beir, P. and Noss, R.F. 1998. Conservation.Biology. 12 (6) 1241 – 1252.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 35
not the most important one in the context of this project, although there many believe that
protected areas cannot be too big to preserve biodiversity.
b. Landscape connectivity: With its dimensions of 160 km in length and 30 km in width the
corridor is defined as a landscape linkage. It comprises broad tracts of natural habitat with no
or little human impact. The dimensions of the corridor will allow even the largest herbivore,
the African elephant, to migrate undisturbed between two of large elephant ranges of the
world, Selous and Niassa Game Reserves.
Research in the nineteen seventies about the impact of human settlements on wildlife in the
Miombo woodlands of Selous Game Reserve (Matzke, Rodgers 1978) pointed out that people
and larger wildlife could not coexist in close proximity because both need and use the same
habitat. Species vary in their tolerance to settlement. Duikers, bushpigs, leopards, jackals
survive in proximity. Sable buffalo, hartebeest and other gregarious ungulates, as well as wild
dog and cheetah, have very limited tolerance. Land required for human settlements and
farming should be separated from wildlife habitats. Thus the connectivity of the corridor can
only be ensured with an appropriate land-use plan within village lands, which will ensure the
effective protection of the habitat.
There are three major potential bottlenecks in the corridor, where settlements attracted by
roads and the river might threaten the corridor: the Tunduru-Songea Road, the village road
between Amani and Ligusenguse, and the Ruvuma River.
The Ruvuma River itself does not block gene flow per se, because larger mammals and birds
can easily cross. Flying insects cross the river using the many islands as stepping-stones.
Reptiles and amphibians use the tributaries of Ruvuma River and the wetlands, especially in
the rainy season, for dispersal. The problem is land-use on the Tanzanian or northern bank,
where in the dry season there are concentrated fish camps etc. Major wildlife crossing points
have to be identified within the wildlife corridor along the Ruvuma River. The exclusion of
any human activities near these crossing points must be taken in consideration while
preparing management plans. One km wide disturbance free crossing points are needed.
Fishing activities and methods will have to be regulated.
c. Will the Corridor Link Species Gene Pools? The question whether the corridor is linking
gene pools by natural habitat, can be answered as follows:
Natural habitat is found throughout the corridor. Human population density is still relatively
low and the still insular agricultural patterns allow for a connected area of relative wilderness
between the two reserves. There is no need to resettle people. The corridor exists and needs to
Is it wide enough? The existing human land use pattern allows for a corridor, which is at its
narrowest point (the Tunduru-Ruvuma Road) at least 20 km wide. This is considered wide
What are the social criteria of acceptance? The project aims for the protection of the wildlife
corridor through the creation of a network of village Wildlife Management Areas. This
requires that the local communities concerned will be included in the active planning,
protection and management of these areas and that they will derive substantial benefits from
wildlife management for their own development as stipulated in the Wildlife Policy of
Tanzania. Benefits could include legal supply of game meat, obtained through an annual
hunting quota for each village, and income in terms of cash from sustainable utilisation of
wildlife (photo or hunting tourism). Thus the area, which currently contributes little to the
cash economy of the country, will provide permanent income and will ensure the
sustainability of the corridor.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 36
Improved wildlife management will reduce destructive wildfires. The villages will also be
able to take into consideration the utilisation of other natural resources like forestry,
beekeeping and fisheries while preparing their management plans. The establishment of
Village Forest Reserves will lead to sustainable logging and harvesting of minor forest
products for the benefit of the villages. The enforcement of regulations will be the
responsibility of the village governments and their organs and the Local District Government.
Core Areas: Two major PA's (Selous and Niassa) anchor the corridor and act as reservoirs at
either end. The Sasawara Forest Reserve, located almost in the middle of the corridor, and
some adjacent areas to the north and west of it is a potential core area and has to be an
integral part of the conservation strategy. At present the reserve is under serious threat. It is
administered by the District Forest Officer on behalf of Central Government’s Forest and
Beekeeping Department. Serious deforestation in the eastern part of the Reserve indicates that
the forest sector has neglected this area in the past. Several options to improve the protection
of the reserve exist: A joint management agreement between the adjacent villages and the
Forest Department regarding resource utilisation could be negotiated, where the villages
commit themselves to respect the borders and protect the Reserve. In return they will benefit
from improved resource access.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 37
ANNEX 5: SELOUS RESEARCH PROJECT; INITIAL RESULTS OF WILDLIFE
MOVEMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR
In order to prepare the GEF corridor programme a research programme, financed by the
German Government under its Tropical Ecology Support Programme, has been initiated. The
Selous-Niassa Corridor Research Project is carried out in cooperation with various
institutions; the Wildlife Department, Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI),
Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Institute for Zoo Biology & Wildlife Research
Berlin (IZW) and Selous Conservation Programme/GTZ.
Currently, the status and migration routes of the populations of key mammal species in the
Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor are to a certain extent unknown, even though good educated
guesses as to the populations and movements of the key species exist. The research project
aims to identify the distribution patterns and the traditional migration routes of elephants and
those of other large mammals. This will help inform the WMA process and contribute to a
wider debate on the importance and conservation value of wildlife corridors for key species
such as elephants.
Concrete objectives are:
Definition of the area that requires protection as a wildlife corridor in particular with
respect to elephant movements, in order to assist the preservation of the genetic
viability and persistence of two of the largest elephant populations in Africa and the
implementation of attempts to minimize conflicts between wildlife and local
communities, particularly farmers.
Assessment of the population size, health status and reproductive potential of key
wildlife species, primarily elephants, that are valuable in terms of hunting licences
and non-consumptive photo-tourism to local communities and the Government, to
enable the setting of quotas for sustainable consumption.
From the first year of research the following preliminary results have emerged:
1. Elephants occur throughout the Corridor. Roosevelt Sable antelope, eland and greater
kudu are widespread (a map of sable distribution is provided as an example on page 35) .
Liechtenstein hartebeest has a locally restricted distribution, whereas there is currently no
evidence that Niassa wildebeest still exist in the Corridor. African wild dogs are strictly
seasonal, but when present are widespread throughout the southern section of the
Corridor. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor should be viewed as an internationally
important wildlife area.
2. The Corridor contains a number of well established, traditional movement routes for
wildlife, and numerous areas that are important as seasonal or year-round habitats for
elephants and other wildlife species.
3. Seasonal movements by elephants and other wildlife are linked to the monsoon rains
between November and April. Elephants move northwards between March and April and
southwards between June and December. Elephants from Mozambique cross into
Tanzania between June and December. Key factors influencing these movements are
availability of water, food and, in some places, increased human disturbance. Major
sources of water and forage for elephants during the dry season are riverine forests and
4. Satellite-based radio-tracking of individual corridor elephants showed that two
intensively tracked elephants (male and female) moved on average between 0.8 and 2.5
km/day during both dry and wet season within modest home ranges. One elephant moved
longer distances consistent with the idea of at least seasonal migrations. The elephant
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 38
population in the Corridor is likely to consist of resident herds, and probably migratory
groups as well. It is currently unclear whether Corridor elephants have always been
resident, whether migratory movements are limited to extreme conditions, or whether
anthropogenic changes already restrict wildlife movements.
5. Human derived changes, particularly in terms of cultivation for cash crops, have already
begun to affect wildlife. Intense and scattered cultivation is now widespread throughout
the southern section of the Corridor (see map overleaf). Extensive cultivation along the
Songea-Tunduru road and along the road from Ligusenguse to Lusewa in the southern
section now leaves few places safe to cross for wildlife. Several traditional key movement
routes for elephants and other wildlife already have to cross roads or cultivated areas, or
are on the periphery of such areas.
6. Illegal exploitation of wildlife resources is particularly prominent in the southern section
of the Corridor. Illegal fishing along the Ruvuma and its tributaries is widespread, and
trans-boundary poaching for wildlife meat and trophies (ivory) continues. The project
found an elephant carcass apparently shot for its tusks 5 km away from the Ruvuma River
in May 2001.
7. Several wildlife species damage crops, attack livestock and/or people. The frequency of
such attacks and the total acreage damaged are modest. In response, the appropriate
authorities undertake measures to protect crop and people against elephants, hippos,
buffaloes, lions and leopards. Conflicts with wildlife are currently not considered a key
factor preventing people developing their livelihoods within the Corridor.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 39
Maps illustrating sable distribution and human activity
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 40
ANNEX 6: THREATS, ROOT CAUSES AND IMPACTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
Current Situation Threats Root Causes Solutions
Increasing biodiversity Increase in Awareness of wildlife as a viable Awareness of wildlife as a viable form of land use is
loss in the Selous-Niassa conversion of form of land use is low raised through exchange visits to the northern sectors of
corridor natural land for Lack of economic alternative the corridor (Output 1).
agricultural Limited knowledge and skills of Formation of WMA and capacities of communities built
purposes communities to translate the WPT to manage wildlife resources results in greater returns
into practice from wildlife than from agricultural land use (Output 3).
Insufficient human, financial, Communities have legalized authority through the
materials and means for control formation of AAs to manage the village land within the
No institutional system exists to corridor (Output 3).
manage the land Opportunities for other economic activities - in addition
No protection status to wildlife hunting - such as sale of honey, medicinal
plants etc. are maximised. (Output 3).
Southern sector of the corridor has recognised
protection status under the WMA scheme (Output 3).
Blocking of wildlife Ribbon strip Planning is not aware of the Awareness of wildlife as a viable form of land use is
movements in the development importance of the corridor or of raised through exchange visits to the northern sectors of
corridor along roads and the potential income derived from the corridor (Output 1).
rivers wildlife as a form of land use Databases demonstrate the biodiversity value of the
No protection status of the corridor justifying its protection (Output 2).
corridor Southern sector of the corridor has recognised
protection status under the WMA scheme (Output 3).
Land planning exercises within the WMA process
ensure that development activities will not effect the
integrity of the conservation area (Output 3).
Increasing depletion of Unsustainable Insufficient enforcement of Transferring management rights and responsibilities
natural resources resource regulations will reduce the illicit poaching and fishing activities and
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 41
Current Situation Threats Root Causes Solutions
utilisation Resource harvesting is carried out incidences of wildfires in the corridor. Local
for short term benefits populations are extremely effective in guarding their
- Poaching including Lack of economic alternatives resources when management rights are transferred
cross border poaching Lack of motivation to (Output 3).
conserve/manage in a sustainable Land planning exercises within the WMA process will
- Uncontrolled fishing manner take a long term approach to the management of
and fishing methods No incentives to protect and resources (Output 3).
sustainably use resources Tourism revenues and other identified income
- Intentional or Populations have no management generating activities will provide an alternative to
uncontrolled fires responsibility of the natural unsustainable resource use (Output 3 and 4).
resources or Sasawara forest Transferring management rights and responsibilities
- Uncontrolled logging Knowledge and skills to will reduce the illicit logging and encroachment in the
implement WMAs and Sasawara forest. Local populations are extremely
- Forest encroachment community based forest effective in guarding their resources when management
management is limited rights are transferred (Output 4).
Transboundary coordination is Capacities are built to empower communities to make
limited opening up opportunities decisions regarding the management and sustainable
for poaching utilisation of natural resources within the WMA and
Sasawara forest reserve and furthermore to ensure that
benefits derived are directly accrued to these
communities (Output 3 and 4).
Improved transboundary coordination and collaboration
results in a decrease in poaching incidences (Outputs 1
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 42
ANNEX 7: INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX
(Note that GEF alternative/increment figures per output are based on the activity costs per output as in the
logframe below, plus pro-rata costs across the personnel, equipment travel lines etc in the budget table on pg23).
Baseline GEF Alternative Increment
Domestic Benefits Communities in the Selous-Niassa Communities assume Formation of WMA
corridor convert natural land for responsibility of managing results in opportunities
agriculture and use resources land in the corridor through for alternate income
unsustainably as not aware of any WMA scheme. activities resulting in
economic alternatives. improved livelihoods of
Little is known about the value of Enhanced/alternative
the corridor making it difficult to livelihood opportunities
justify its conservation. and more efficient land use
practices increase incomes
Communities lack the knowledge and reduce pressure on the
and skills required to translate the wildlife corridor.
WMA initiative of the WPT and
CFM initiative of the Forestry
Policy into practice.
Global Benefits Continuing land conversion and Formation of WMA and Globally significant
unsustainable resource use results CFM agreements and biodiversity conserved.
in barrier formation between the empowering communities
Selous-Niassa Game Reserves and as managers, enables both
depletion of globally significant conservation and
biodiversity. sustainable use of globally
Output 1: Greater Limited awareness of wildlife as Greater awareness of Awareness raised of
awareness and an economically viable land use opportunities of using WPT and opportunities it
capacities for and of opportunities in the WMA wildlife land use and of presents among both
conservation of initiative results in land being used WPT among communities communities and
biodiversity and for agriculture and other resource and local authorities. local/district authorities.
natural resources use, degrading biodiversity. Other
within the corridor land-usage impacts on biodiversity Sectoral policies in the Sectoral policies
among local corridor recognize need to conform to utilization of
communities, local Limited awareness of wildlife as conserve the area and use corridor for wildlife.
and district an economically viable form of land for wildlife purposes.
authorities land use among local and district Improved ability to
authorities results in sectoral Linkages between Niassa tackle transboundary
policies being pursued with little GR and Tanzania Wildlife poaching incidences
concern for the protection of offices in Rovuma Region through improved
wildlife resources. reduce transboundary collaboration between
poaching incidences Tanzania Wildlife and
No transboundary collaboration Niassa Game Reserve.
allows cross border poaching to GEF: $ 184,450
continue Other: $ 200,000 GEF: $ 184,450
Baseline: $ 540,000 GTZ GoT: $ 200,000
Total Baseline: $540,000 Total: $ 924,450 TOTAL: $384,000
Output 2: Creation Limited ecological and socio- Databases of key species, Databases created and
of reliable economic data exists leading to habitats and socio- regularly updated and
ecological and inadequate management. economic information will used to inform
socio-economic enable informed land management decisions.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 43
Baseline GEF Alternative Increment
databases for the Initial studies show the area is planning decisions to be
corridor to serve as important for global biodiversity, made on WMA planning
decision making but more detailed information is and management
tools for necessary to justify improved
communities and conservation of the area. GEF: $ 118,580 GEF: $ 118,580
local authorities Other: $ 340,000 IZW: $ 340,000
Baseline: $100,000 Total: $ 458,580
Total Baseline: $100,000
Total: $ 558,580
Output 3: A network Lack of capacity (institutions, 12 villages involved in Capacity built, land
of WMAs skills, resources, authority) to establishment of WMA in planning undertaken,
effectively implement the WMA initiative of southern sector of the WMA gazetted and
established and WPT. Village governments Selous-Niassa corridor. managed. Livelihoods
managed throughout develop resources in ways Villages assisted in income supported. Biodiversity
the corridor impacting on biodiversity support sustainably conserved.
Total Baseline: $ 1,700,000 GEF: $ 539,905 GEF: $ 539,905
Other: $ 370,000 GTZ/GoT/UNDP:
Baseline: $1,700,000 $ 370,000
Total: $2,609,905 Total: $ 909,905
Output 4: Protection Lack of capacity of community Capacity built and Forest MOU completed and
of the Sarawasa and local Forest Department staff Reserve operating under a abided to for sustainable
Forest Reserve (institutions, skills, resources, co-management system conservation of
through community authority) necessary to establish between communities and Sasawara Forest Reserve
participation PFM Reserve the local forest department.
GEF: $ 51,335 GEF: $51,335
Total Baseline: $ 80,000 Other: $ 50,000 Other: $ 50,000
Baseline: $80,000 Total: $ 101,335
Total: $ 181,335
Output 5: WMA and PFM are at their Lessons learnt and Best practice and lessons
Dissemination of infancy in Tanzania resulting in experiences are captured learnt disseminated,
best practice limited opportunities for new and disseminated nationally facilitating replication
community initiatives to be guided from and internationally contributing to a national
managed protected experiences elsewhere. facilitating replication and network of community
areas Subsequently these are learning benefiting similar processes managed protected areas
processes that will involve in the future.
considerable time and investment. GEF: $ 92,230
GEF: $ 92,230 GTZ: $100,000
Total Baseline: $ 80,000 Other: $100,000 Total: $192,230
Baseline: $ 80,000
Total $ 2,400,000 $ 4,546,500 $ 2,046,500
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL 44
ANNEX 8 : LOG FRAME MATRIX
Project title: Estimated project period: 4 years
The Development and Management of the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor in Tanzania
Country: Tanzania Prepared in August 2003
Project strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification Assumptions
Wide scale adoption of the 50% of land currently within Game Official records indicating area of Political stability, law and order are
Wildlife Management Areas Controlled Area status is protected for land under WMA protection maintained.
Initiative throughout the conservation purposes through the WMA National State of Environment
country increases area of initiative by 2010. Report or similar Government continues to support WMA
WWF/WB Management initiative.
land under biodiversity National population numbers of key Effectiveness Tracking Tool
conservation. species and habitats found outside formal Database records No natural event, such as flooding,
protected areas maintained or enhanced WMA reports occurs detrimentally affecting
by 2010. ecosystems.
Increased number of people involved in
biodiversity conservation activities
through the WMA initiative.
Purpose By the end of the project 15,000 ha of Official records indicating area of Political stability, law and order are
Biodiversity and habitat are land within the corridor is protected for land under WMA protection maintained.
conserved in the globally conservation purposes through the WMA WWF/WB Management
significant Selous - Niassa initiative. Effectiveness Tracking Tool No natural event, such as flooding,
miombo forest corridor of Data base records with details of occurs detrimentally affecting the
By the end of the project monitoring animal movements and socio- ecosystem.
Tanzania. confirms no further loss of land to economic activities
agricultural or other intensive land use Records of poaching incidences by
purposes in the identified corridor area village game scouts
By the end of the project poaching Data base records with details
incidences within the corridor are reduced population numbers of key species
by 60 % from the baseline developed by
SCP (in year 1)
Population numbers of key species
maintained or enhanced from the baseline
developed by the SCP (in year 1)
1. The Selous-Niassa Wildlife By the end of the project a system of Official government documentation Community willingness to implement
Corridor is effectively WMAs, cover 15,000 ha is developed and declaring WMAs and associated conservation strategies.
conserved, with the functional within the Niassa-Selous AAs
establishment of a network of
corridor Official reporting on training. Local and District government
By the end of the project 12 community Signed documentation by authorities willingness to share authority for
village wildlife management leaders and authorities within the corridor and community members involved conservation initiatives.
areas that are protected, are trained to manage natural resources in WMA
managed and utilised issues Formal reporting on development of
sustainably by the local Local communities from 12 target villages WMA
communities with the are fully involved in the WMA process by Database records with socio-
assistance of Local the end of the project. economic details
Government and Wildlife By the end of the project monitoring Database records with ecological
Division. confirms that agricultural activities and and socio-economic details
settlements do not prevent wildlife
2. Benefits from wildlife Independent monitoring confirms that, by Household surveys Community willingness to implement
management enhance the the end of the project, 6 villages receive Focus groups conservation strategies.
livelihood security of villages an increase in financial or other benefits Socio-economic and ecological data
with WMAs, and promote the from the WMA’s and that these benefits base No unforeseen investment, such as a
long-term conservation of the
continue in the five years after the project Official Government reports mine or a dam, is implemented in the
Five years after the project ends WMA’s area that displaces communities from the
are still being actively managed and are
conserving the wildlife corridor
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Project strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification Assumptions
1. Greater awareness and Over 30% of households in the local Official project reporting Staff from Mozambique continue to be
community are targeted in awareness raising
capacities for conservation
activities by end of year 3 Report of exchange visits willing to cooperate in cross border
of biodiversity and natural Minutes of cross border meetings cooperation
resources within the Exchange visits are undertaken by at least ten
corridor among community members from each village to
communities, local and WMAs in the northern sector of the corridor by
district authorities end of year 3
Annual exchange visits undertaken by local
and district authority personnel to WMAs in
the northern corridor by end of year 3.
Formal meeting undertaken each year between
Wildlife Authorities of Selous/Rovuma of
Tanzania and Niassa GR of Mozambique
2. Creation of reliable Completed GIS database for ecological and Biodiversity, socio-economic and The communities, and researchers work
ecological and socio- socio-economic data for the corridor by the end GIS documents completed and together to compile information for the
economic databases for of year 3 available to partners and database.
the corridor to serve as communities
decision-making tools for Database being actively used to inform Completed computer database
communities and local management decisions by end of year 3. available to partners and decision
authorities makers Completed map of proposed
Project strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification Assumptions
3. A network of WMAs Ten members of the community from each of Official project reporting Communities are willing to follow
the 12 target villages trained to implement
effectively established and
WMA after 1½ year. Completed map illustrating decisions made by community elected
managed through out the boundaries available committees.
corridor Mapping of boundaries of the WMAs Completed Management Plan
completed with the participation of 12 target
villages by end of year 2.
Signed documentation by the
WMA management plan developed and under national government creating and
implementation with the participation of all 12 legalizing the WMA.
target villages by end of year 2.
The number of patrol documented
Official records and documents of the and impact are monitored through
gazettement of WMAs and AA’s by end of the reduction in poaching incidences
Official project reporting for IGP’s
120 village scouts trained and equipped for Legal documentation establishing
anti-poaching exercises by end of year 2.
the three tiers.
At least 2 income generating projects in each Completed Document available.
village based on sustainable utilisation of
natural resources by end of year 3.
4. Protection of the Sasawara Records and official Memorandum of Official document of Memorandum Forestry staff have indicated support for
Forest Reserve through Understanding for joint management of of Understanding available the project and it is assumed that they are
Sasawara Forest Reserve by end of year 2.
community participation Management Plan document therefore willing to share authority for
available and official project the management of the forest reserve
Joint Management Plan developed and being
implemented by end of year 2 reporting
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Project strategy Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification Assumptions
5. Dissemination of best Existence of an active network of participants Email exchange and minutes of Policy advisors are receptive to
practice for community of WMA initiatives by year 2. meetings recommendations resulting from the
managed protected areas At least 2 newsletters produced and Availability of newsletters experiences of WMAs in the Selous-
disseminated annually to encourage replication Minutes of for a meetings Niassa corridor
of best practices
Official case study document
Participation of project staff and community Government staff our willing to visit the
Official project reporting
representatives in 2 WMA fora annually field.
Completed case study of Selous-Niassa WMA
experience disseminated to policy leaders of
WPT addressing both WMA and system
At least 5 visits to project sites undertaken by
policy leaders by the end of the project.
At least 5 visits to project sites undertaken by
targeted government staff by the end of the
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Details of activities for each output Cost US$ (specified for the cost of activity only
– excludes staff costs, equipment, M&E, etc.
covered in the input budget page 23)
Output 1: Greater awareness and capacities for conservation of biodiversity and natural resources within the 70,000
corridor among communities, local and district authorities
Activity 1.1: Carry out a stakeholder analysis and develop a public participation plan that targets all land users to ensure they are well 17,000
informed and can participate in the projects activities.
Activity 1.2: Design and implement an effective education campaign to inform communities about natural resources conservation and 13,000
sustainable utilization and the Government policies and regulation regarding the role of communities in NRM, particularly in
implementing WMAs. Specific activities will be developed for target groups such as fishermen on the Ruvuma River.
Activity 1.3: Facilitate exchange of experience and site visits by local communities to villages in the northern part of the corridor of the 5,000
Selous Buffer zone.
Activity 1.4: Facilitate exchange of experiences and site visits by local authorities to villages in the northern part of the corridor of the 10,000
Selous Buffer zone.
Activity 1.5: Facilitate the involvement of agricultural agencies at village and district level and others identified in Activity 1.1 in the 5,000
project activities to ensure that sectoral policies do not conflict the projects activities.
Activity 1.6: Facilitate meetings between the Government/Wildlife Division of Tanzania and the Niassa Game Reserve staff
Mozambique in order to develop trans-boundary anti-poaching agreements 20.000
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Output 2: Creation of reliable ecological and socio-economic databases for the corridor to serve as decision-making 45,000
tools for communities and local authorities
Activity 2.1: Carry out regular participatory wildlife/land-use surveys in order to monitor animal distribution and human 20,000
activities within the corridor and WMAs and to feed results in the conservation planning exercises.
Activity 2.2: Carry out a study on fishing activities at Ruvuma River and is tributaries; develop and implement proposals 10,000
for appropriate sustainable management regarding special protection of crossing points for wildlife.
Activity 2.3: Carry out regular socioeconomic surveys to be repeated at regular intervals to monitor the impact of WMA 10,000
activities on the livelihoods of local communities.
Activity 2.4: Integrate results from the Selous Niassa Corridor Research Project into project activities. 5,000
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Output 3: A network of WMAs effectively established and managed through out the corridor 200,000
Activity 3.1: Establish the institutional arrangements necessary for the WMAs 5,000
Activity 3.2: Undertake training of members of the various WMA institutions and village scouts 45,000
Activity 3.3: Facilitate the communities to establish the required infrastructure and associated equipment for the village 30,000
Activity 3.4: Integrate results of land surveys and land use planning activities, carried out in Output 1, for the 20,000
identification of WMAs and undertake mapping and border demarcation of the WMAs
Activity 3.5: Facilitate the development of management plans for the WMAs including associated village bye-laws and 10,000
advise the AA’s with the implementation of the management plan and natural resource utilisation
Activity 3.6: Facilitate the gazettement of WMA, integration of WMA’s into local development plans and declaration of the 5,000
CBO as an Authorised Association (AA).
Activity 3.7: Support village, District and Central Government regional game scouts in anti-poaching operations until 30,000
communities earn sufficient income from their WMAs to take over
Activity 3.8: Facilitate legal advice for lease of contracts, concessional agreements and other business activities when 5,000
Activity 3.9: Facilitate the involvement of District agricultural and natural ressources extension officers (targeted in 20,000
Output 1) to work with local communities in a resource use planning exercise to identify and develop opportunities for
income generation through products such as honey, timber, medicinal plants,
Activity 3.10: Carry out training for the development of business plans of the CBOs 30,000
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Output 4: Protection of the Sasawara Forest Reserve through community participation 19,500
Activity 4.1: Working closely with the Forest Department, identify the reserve’s boundaries in the field and evaluate the 4,000
status of protection and encroachment.
Activity 4.2: Define and propose options for the improvement of its protection and joint management between adjacent 3,500
villages and the Forest Department regarding forest utilisation
Activity 4.3: Facilitate a Memorandum of Understanding about the joint management and protection between the villages 5,000
and the Forest Department
Activity 4.4: Facilitate a process of developing and implementing a joint management plan on Saswara Forest 7,000
Output 5: Dissemination of best practice for community managed protected areas 35,000
Activity 5.1: Promote a network between the WMA initiatives nationally in order to share challenges, successes and best 1,000
practices and to identify how best to disseminate lessons learnt.
Activity 5.2: In collaboration with other members of the network, record experiences and lessons learnt from the WMA 9,000
process for dissemination e.g. newsletters, case studies, NGO fora among key practitioners to inform similar initiatives
elsewhere in the country and in adjacent areas in Mozambique.
Activity 5.3: Target policy leaders of the WPT, for example through site visits, videos, presentations and workshops, to 15,000
ensure that lessons learnt from the Selous-Niassa project and other similar initiatives influence policy decisions for the
implementation of WMAs.
Activity 5.4: Target government staff from identified target sites elsewhere in the country and facilitate exchange of 10,000
experience and site visits to the project area to demonstrate best practice and encourage replication
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
ANNEX 9: DETAILS OF STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
1. Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor; Expert meeting 20th April 2001
This meeting was convened to discuss:
i) Why would securing the corridor enhance the biodiversity of the ecosystem?
ii) By what methods should the corridor be secured and managed.
The meeting was attended by a number of scientists, government wildlife experts, district
conservation staff, UNDP-GEF, GTZ and staff from the Selous Game Reserve. The results
and conclusions of the meeting formed an integral part of this project brief (see Annex 4) and
will be taken into consideration for the implementation of the project. The opportunities to
cooperate with Niassa Game Reserve and other projects in the Ruvuma Region were also
2. Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor; The Songea Stakeholder Meeting 28th-29th June 2001.
This was the culmination of a series of village level awareness meetings and initiatives, in all
twelve potential village WMA sites. Village leaders from the southern area met village
leaders from the pilot sites in the northern Buffer Zone sites. All district staff were briefed
using the District Natural Resource Officers (DNRO) as the focal points, DNROs coordinate
District Wildlife, District Forest and District Fisheries and Environment issues.
This meeting took place in Songea, the relevant regional capital to discuss the Corridor with
all relevant stakeholders (totalling 56 in number) present. Stakeholders included:
The Local Government at Regional and District level (including District Natural Resource
Advisory Committees) and the relevant Village Governments, SCP-GTZ, representatives
from Selous GR, representatives from Niassa GR in Mozambique and UNDP-GEF.
A number of issues were discussed as follows:
Awareness raising to the communities on policy, legal framework and regulations
governing the wildlife policy
Awareness creation on the existing biodiversity within the Selous-Niassa Corridor
Division and management of the area for community conservation as per regulations
Preventive measures against poaching on reserved areas
Proper recording and evaluation on availability and utilization of existing resources
Constraints: It was agreed that despite the recent developments, the project had encountered
the following constraints:
Delayed Gazzetement of the Wildlife Management Authorities
Delayed approval of the regulations governing such authority
The absence of a pronouncement of the rights of the user rights
Change of the wildlife policy and the laws governing Land
Delay in announcing such changes
Ineffectiveness of cases against poachers
Delays in concluding cases of poachers
In many occasions poachers are left scot free
3) Other Meetings.
Project proponents held meetings with central and district government offices in the
Agriculture field, and with SNV who had been working with agricultural planning capacities
at village level. We learned that there is little ongoing donor or mainstream government
project support in these areas. (Note that stakeholder meeting outputs are in the national
language – Swahili. Copies can be made available if needed).
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
ANNEX 10: RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF WMAS
(These notes are taken from Government Regulations and Guidance on Use of Regulations)
ROLE OF VILLAGES
All conservation activities in Wildlife Management Areas shall be under the control and
management of villages that may, where necessary, co-operate with the Director, the
Tanzania National Parks Authority and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF VILLAGE GOVERNMENT
The Village Government shall be responsible in the management of Wildlife Management
Areas for the following:
(a) Coordination of natural resources management activities at village level;
(b) Preparation of Land Use Plans;
(c) Formulating natural resources management by-laws;
(d) Monitoring the activities of Authorized Associations and report to the Village
Assembly and District Council;
(e) Providing land for the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas;
(f) Ensuring that there exists a secure and favorable business environment in
Wildlife Management Areas;
(g) Ensuring that Authorized Associations implement sectoral policies; and
(h) Entering into Agreements with Authorized Associations on the management
of Wildlife Management Areas.
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND
Establishment of a Community Based Organisation
Every village intending to acquire a Wildlife Management Area shall form a Community
Based Organization in accordance with the Societies Ordinance, Cap. 337 of the Laws of
(2) The Community Based Organization established for the purpose of managing a Wildlife
Management Area shall have a Constitution whose provisions shall include information on
(a) The description of the Wildlife Management Area stating the following:
(b) Name of participating District(s) and village(s)
(c) Qualification of membership
(d) Office bearers, their qualification and tenure
(e) Description of the organizational structure providing for those accountable to the
villagers, Village Government and those linked to the District Council
(f) Roles and responsibilities of the different organs
(g) Relationship with the Village Government
(h) Financial management
(i) Methods of resolving conflicts
(j) Code of conduct and disciplinary measures
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
Applications for Authorised Association status
(1) All applications for Authorized Association status shall be lodged with the Director.
(2) Applications for Authorized Association status shall only be made by duly
registered Community Based Organizations that have fulfilled all the requirements
provided for in these regulations.
(3) The Director shall make known to the Community Based Organization aspiring
to become an Authorized Association the general conditions for managing a
Wildlife Management Area.
FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORIZED ASSOCIATIONS
Authorized Associations may perform the following functions in the management of Wildlife
(a) Acquire Wildlife Management Area status of village land set aside for wildlife
conservation and management;
(b) Manage Wildlife Management Areas in accordance with existing General
Management Plan and laws;
(c) Review General Management Plans for the Wildlife Management Areas and Strategic
Plans for the Authorized Associations;
(d) Recruit Village Game Scouts from within the villages forming the Wildlife
Management Areas and coordinate activities of Village Game Scouts;
(e) Participate in developing by-laws;
(f) Negotiate and enter into contractual agreements regarding the utilisation of resources
in Wildlife Management Areas;
(g) Promote transparency and accountability;
(h) Ensure equitable sharing of benefits;
(i) Manage conflict/arbitration on matters pertaining to Wildlife Management Areas;
(j) Be accountable to the Village Assembly;
(k) Report and seek authorisation of investment from Village Assemblies;
(l) Co-opt technical experts as required;
(m) Protect resources and ensure conservation of biodiversity in Wildlife Management
(n) Carry out activities related to problem animal control;
(o) Ensure efficient financial management;
(p) Ensure and maintain proper records and provide quarterly, semi–annual and annual
reports to village assemblies meetings;
(q) Oversee the collection and payment of required fees and taxes;
(r) Identify personnel and organize their training;
(s) Undertake investments and developments;
(t) Liaise with other institutions for information and technological exchange;
(u) Apprehend illegal users and hand them over to relevant authorities;
(v) Acquire and dispose of the Association’s property;
(w) Undertake resource monitoring;
(x) Acquire arms and ammunition and shall maintain a register of the arms and
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
EMPLOYMENT OF VILLAGE GAME SCOUTS
Village Game Scouts shall be employed by Authorized Associations and shall be charged
with the following functions:
(a) to protect natural resources within the boundaries of the village(s);
(b) to protect the lives and properties of villagers from problem animals;
(c) to ensure sustainable utilisation of the resources;
(d) to collect and store basic information and data for the purpose of wildlife monitoring;
(e) to collect trophies;
(f) to guide visitors in Wildlife Management Areas;
(g) to maintain a register of daily activities and report regularly to the Authorized
(h) to guard the borders of the Wildlife Management Areas against encroachment;
(i) to take part in fire control and management; and
(j) to take part in anti-poaching activities.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF DISTRICT COUNCIL
The responsibilities of the District Council shall be:
(a) to facilitate applications by a Community-Based Organization to become an
Authorized Association and to establish Wildlife Management Areas;
(b) to ensure that the District Advisory Body is functional;
(c) to form a linkage between the Authorized Association and the Wildlife Division;
(d) to approve natural resource by-laws;
(e) to approve Land Use Plans;
(f) to implement and monitor adherence to the wildlife laws in and outside Wildlife
Management Areas; and to endorse investments in Wildlife Management Areas.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BODY
The District Council shall establish a District Natural Resources Advisory Body for matters
relating to the co-ordination and administration of Wildlife Management Areas
Composition of District Natural Resources Advisory Body
The members of the District Natural Resources Advisory Body who shall comprise of the
(a) District Commissioner who shall be the Chairperson;
(b) District Executive Director;
(c) District Game Officer who shall be the Secretary;
(d) District Land Officer;
(e) District Forestry Officer;
(f) District Bee-Keeping Officer;
(g) District Community Development Officer;
(h) District Fisheries Officer;
(i) A Representative or representatives of Authorized Associations;
(j) A Representative from the Game Division;
(k) A Representative from Tanzania National Parks Authority where applicable;
(l) A Representative from the Ngorongoro Area Conservation Authority where
(m) The composition of the District Natural Resource Advisory Body shall
observe gender representation and mainstreaming.
(n) The Advisory Body may co-opt experts as resource person to provide
technical advice but these shall have no voting power.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
FUNCTIONS OF DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BODY
The functions of the District Natural Resources Advisory Body shall be:
(a) to act as a forum of arbitration and resolution of conflicts;
(b) to resolve major land and natural resource conflicts in Wildlife Management Areas;
(c) to reconcile interests of major stakeholders in Wildlife Management Areas;
(d) to provide and co-ordinate technical advice to Authorized Associations;
(e) to provide legal advice in contractual undertakings by Authorized Associations;
(f) to facilitate setting of wildlife quotas by Authorized Associations in collaboration
with the District Game Officers or a designated wildlife authority;
(g) to furnish the appropriate District Council Standing Committee with the deliberations
of the Technical Advisory Body; and
(h) to advise the District Council on investments in Wildlife Management Areas;
(i) All cross-sectoral issues in the management of Wildlife Management Areas shall be
overseen and administered by the District Advisory Body.
Draft MSP brief 13th November 2003 SNL
ANNEX 11: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
Ongoing project monitoring of the national components will be provided in accordance with
established UNDP procedures and will be provided by the UNDP County Office with support from
The Project support Unit will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following
(a) Inception Report (IR)
The inception report is to be prepared by the Project Manager with the assistance of III as
relevant. The IR will be prepared no later than three months after project start-up and will
include a detailed Work plan and Budget for the duration of the project, progress to date on
project establishment and start-up activities and any proposed amendments to project activities
or approaches. The report will be circulated to all the parties who will be given a period of one
calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. The report will also be
reviewed by UNDP Country Office and UNDP/GEF to ensure consistency with the objectives
and activities indicated in the Project Document.
(b) Annual Project Report (APR) and PIR
The Annual Project Report (APR) is designed to obtain the independent views of the main
stakeholders of a project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. The
APR aims to: a) provide a rating and textual assessment of the progress of a project in
achieving its objectives; b) present stakeholders' insights into issues affecting the
implementation of a project and their proposals for addressing those issues; and c) serve as a
source of inputs to the Tripartite Review (TPR). The main project stakeholders participate in
the preparation of the APR.
The APRs will be prepared every six months during the first year of the project, and then
annually. The APRs will detail activities undertaken since the last APR, milestones reached,
key results and achievements, problems encountered and any other issues that need to be
The APR will use the format of the Streamlined APR/PIR provided by UNDP-GEF.
Information from this document will be used by the Regional Coordinator to compile the PIR
(c) Periodic Status Reports
As and when called for by the Project Director, III, the government or UNDP, the Project
Manager will prepare Status Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity as
stipulated by the querant. The request for a Status Report will be in written form, and will
clearly state the issue or activities which need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a
form of specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and
overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. The parties are requested to minimise their
requests for Status Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for
the preparation of these Reports.
(d) Technical Reports
Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific
specialisations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report the Project Manager
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. One obligatory technical reporting tool will be the use of the WWF/WB Management
Reporting progress at protected area sites 59
Effectiveness Tracking Tool, which will be completed by project staff and those managing the
WMA’s. This simple site-level tracking tool enables management practices to be assessed
using a framework with specific criteria. This is attached as Annex 12.Technical Reports may
also be prepared by external consultants as Final Reports for their technical inputs, and should
be comprehensive, specialised analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the
framework of the project and its sites.
(e) Project Publications
Project Publications will form a key method of crystallising and disseminating the results and
achievements of the Project. These publications will be scientific or informational texts on the
activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of books, journal articles or multimedia
publications. 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 Director will determine if specific
Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with the government
and other parties and with the help of external specialists and staff where necessary) plan and
produce these Publications in a consistent and recognisable format and identity. These
Publications will form the most visible public output of the Project, and as such should be
prepared and presented to the highest scientific and technical standards.
(f) Project Terminal Report
During the last three months of the project the Project Manager will prepare the Project
Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarise all activities, achievements and
outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met and missed, structures and systems
implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities over the five-
year duration. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be
taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.
(g) Other Publications and Publicity Activities
In order to ensure international dissemination of project results, a high-quality publication of
results will be prepared, based upon the Project Terminal Report and previous Project
Publications. All publications and publicity will clearly carry the GEF logo, as well as the
Government and UNDP logos.
2. Monitoring & Evaluation
Tripartite Review (TPR)
The tripartite review (TPR) is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the
implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every
twelve months by representatives of the Government, the executing agency and UNDP, and the first
such meeting to be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The Project
Manager shall prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and to submit to UNDP. The APR must be
ready two weeks prior to the TPR.
The APR/PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The
Project Director presents the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the
decision of the TPR participants. The Project Director also informs the participants of any agreement
reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Six-monthly
APR’s will be provided during the first two years of the project to ensure that design and inception
activities are closely monitored, and subsequently the APR will be done on an annual basis. Separate
reviews of each state component may also be conducted if necessary. Monitoring and Evaluation
Indicators will be built into the project in consultation with UNDP.
Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)
The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The Project Manager is
responsible for preparing the Terminal Report, and submitting to UNDP. It shall be prepared in draft
sufficiently in advance to allow review and technical clearance by the executing agency at least two
Reporting progress at protected area sites 60
months prior to the terminal tripartite review. The Terminal Report will serve as the basis for
discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a
whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its immediate objectives and
contributed to the broader environmental objective, and decides whether any actions are still necessary.
Project Implementation Review (PIR)
A major tool for monitoring the GEF portfolio and extracting lessons is the annual GEF Project
Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR has become an essential management and monitoring tool for
project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects.
The PIR is mandatory for all GEF projects that have been under implementation for at least one year at
the time that the exercise is conducted. A project becomes legal and implementation activities can
begin when all parties have signed the project document. The PIR questionnaire is sent to the UNDP
country office, usually around the beginning of June. It is the responsibility of the Project Director to
complete the PIR questionnaire, with the oversight of the UNDP Country Office.
An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year. The Mid-Term
Evaluation 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
organisation, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after
consultation between the parties to the project document.
An independent Final 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 early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to
capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should
also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The organisation, terms of reference and timing
of the final evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.
3. Regular Monitoring and Evaluation
The project will also be closely monitored by the UNDP Country Office through quarterly meetings or
more frequently as deemed necessary with the Project Director. This will allow to take stock and to
trouble shoot of any problems pertaining to the project quickly to ensure smooth implementation of
4. Learning and Knowledge Sharing
To identify and participate in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of
benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.
To identify, analyze, share and communicate lessons learned that may be beneficial in the design
and implementation of similar future projects. The need to identify and analyse lessons learned is
an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons is on an as-needed basis, but not
less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format for categorising and
reporting lessons learned.
To ensure that the Term of Reference for consultants recruited by the project incorporate
mechanisms that capture and share lessons learned through their inputs to the project, and to
ensure that the results are reflected in the reporting format described above.
INDICATIVE WORKPLAN FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Type of M&E activity Lead responsible party in bold Time frame
Reporting progress at protected area sites 61
At the beginning of project
Inception Report Project Manager
APR/PIR The Government, UNDP Country Every year, at latest by June of that
Office, Executing Agency, Project year
Team, UNDP/GEF Task Manager8,
and Target Groups
TPR and TPR report The Government, UNDP Country Every year, upon receipt of APR
Office, Executing Agency, Project
Team, UNDP/GEF Task Manager, and
Progress reports Project Manager To be determined by Executing
Mid-term External Project team, UNDP/GEF At the mid-point of project
Evaluation headquarters, UNDP/GEF Task implementation.
Manager, UNDP Country Office,
Final External Project team, UNDP/GEF At the end of project
Evaluation headquarters, UNDP/GEF Task implementation,
Manager, UNDP Country Office, Ex-post: about two years following
Executing Agency project completion
Terminal Report UNDP Country Office, UNDP/GEF At least one month before the end
Task Manager, Project Team of the project
Audit Executing Agency, UNDP Country Yearly
Office, Project Team
Visits to field sites UNDP Country Office, Executing Yearly
Lessons learnt UNDP-GEF, GEFSEC, Project Team, Yearly
UNDP/GEF Task Managers is a broad term that includes regional advisors, sub-regional coordinators,
and GEF project specialists based in the region or in HQ.
Reporting progress at protected area sites 62
ANNEX 12: WWF/WB MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOL
There is a growing concern amongst protected area professionals that many protected areas
around the world are not achieving the objectives for which they were established. One
response to this concern has been an emphasis on the need to increase the effectiveness of
protected area management, and to help this process a number of assessment tools have been
developed to assess management practices. It is clear that the existence of a wide range of
situations and needs require different methods of assessment. The World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) has therefore developed a ‘framework’ for assessment9. The WCPA
framework aims both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment
systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting.
The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a
process that has six distinct stages, or elements:
it begins with understanding the context of existing values and threats,
progresses through planning, and
allocation of resources (inputs), and
as a result of management actions (processes),
eventually produces products and services (outputs),
that result in impacts or outcomes.
The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use (‘the Alliance’)
was formed in April 1998, in response to the continued depletion of the world’s forest
biodiversity and of forest-based goods and services essential for sustainable development. As
part of its programme of work the Alliance has set a target relating to management
effectiveness of protected areas: 50 million hectares of existing but highly threatened forest
protected areas to be secured under effective management by the year 200510.To evaluate
progress towards this target the Alliance has developed a simple site-level tracking tool to
facilitate reporting on management effectiveness of protected areas within WWF and World
Bank projects. The tracking tool has been built around the application of the WCPA
Framework and Appendix II of the Framework document has provided its basic structure.
The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool forms part of a series of
management effectiveness assessment tools, which range from the WWF Rapid Assessment
and Prioritisation Methodology used to identify key protected areas at threat within a
protected area system to detailed monitoring systems such as those being developed by the
Enhancing Our Heritage project for UNESCO natural World Heritage sites. The Alliance has
also supported the development of both the WCPA framework and the development of the
WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation Methodology.
Hockings, Marc with Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley (2000); Assessing Effectiveness – A Framework for
Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas; University of Cardiff and IUCN, Switzerland
Dudley, Nigel and Sue Stolton (1999); Threats to Forest Protected Areas: Summary of a survey of 10 countries;
project carried out for the WWF/World Bank Alliance in association with the IUCN World Commission on
Protected Areas, IUCN, Switzerland
Reporting progress at protected area sites 63
The WCPA Framework
To maximise the potential of protected areas, and to improve management processes, we need
to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their management and the threats that they
face. In the last few years, various methodologies for assessing management effectiveness of
protected areas have been developed and tested around the world. The World Commission on
Protected Areas provides an overarching framework for assessing management effectiveness
of both protected areas and protected area systems, to give guidance to managers and others
and to help harmonise assessment around the world.
Table 1 contains a very brief summary of the elements of the WCPA Framework and the
criteria that can be assessed11. The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking
Tool has been designed to fulfil the elements of evaluation included in the Framework.
Table 1: Summary of the WCPA Framework
Elements of Focus of
Explanation Criteria that are assessed
Where are we now? - Significance
Assessment of importance, - Threats
Context threats and policy - Vulnerability Status
environment - National context
- Protected area
legislation and policy
Where do we want to be?
- Protected area system
Planning Assessment of protected Appropriateness
area design and planning
- Reserve design
- Management planning
What do we need?
Assessment of resources - Resourcing of agency
needed to carry out - Resourcing of site
How do we go about it?
Assessment of the way in - Suitability of Efficiency and
which management is management processes appropriateness
What were the results?
Assessment of the
- Results of
Outputs management actions Effectiveness
- Services and products
and actions; delivery of
products and services
What did we achieve?
Assessment of the - Impacts: effects of
Outcomes outcomes and the extent to management in
which they achieved relation to objectives
Questions in the following tracking tool have been ordered to make completion as easy as
possible; the element(s) that each refers to are indicated in the left hand column.
For a copy of the WWF/WB Framework or a more detailed summary please visit the WCPA web-site at:
www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa or contact WCPA at email@example.com
Reporting progress at protected area sites 64
Purpose of the World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool has been developed to help
track and monitor progress in the achievement of the World Bank/WWF Alliance worldwide
protected area management effectiveness target. It is also hoped that the tracking tool will be
used more generally where it can help monitor progress towards improving management
effectiveness; for example it is being used by the Global Environment Facility.
The Alliance has identified that the tracking tool needs to be:
Capable of providing a harmonised reporting system for protected area assessment within
both the World Bank and WWF;
Suitable for replication;
Able to supply consistent data to allow tracking of progress over time;
Relatively quick and easy to complete by protected area staff, so as not to be reliant on
high levels of funding or other resources;
Capable of providing a “score” if required;
Based around a system that provides four alternative text answers to each question,
strengthening the scoring system;
Easily understood by non-specialists; and
Nested within existing reporting systems to avoid duplication of effort.
The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool is aimed to help reporting
progress on management effectiveness and should not replace more thorough methods of
assessment for the purposes of adaptive management. The tracking tool has been developed to
provide a quick overview of progress in improving the effectiveness of management in
individual protected areas, to be filled in by the protected area manager or other relevant site
staff. As such it is clear that there are strict limitations on what it can achieve: it should not for
example be regarded as an independent assessment, or as the sole basis for adaptive
Because of the great differences between expectations, resources and needs around the world,
the tracking tool also has strict limitations in terms of allowing comparison between sites: the
scoring system, if applied at all, will be most useful for tracking progress over time in one site
or a closely related group of sites.
Lastly, the tracking tool is too limited to allow a detailed evaluation of outcomes and is really
aimed at providing a quick overview of the management steps identified in the WCPA
Framework up to and including outputs. Although we include some questions relating to
outcomes, the limitations of these should be noted. Clearly, however good management is, if
biodiversity continues to decline, the protected area objectives are not being met. Therefore
the question on condition assessment has disproportionate importance in the overall tracking
Guidance notes for using the Tracking Tool
The World Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool can be completed by
protected area staff or project staff, with input from other protected area staff. The tracking
tool has been designed to be easily answered by those managing the protected area without
any additional research.
All sections of the tracking tool should be completed. There are two sections:
Reporting progress at protected area sites 65
1. Datasheet: which details key information on the site, its characteristics and management
objectives and includes an overview of WWF/World Bank involvement.
2. Assessment Form: the assessment form includes three distinct sections, all of which
should be completed.
Questions and scores: the main part of the assessment form is a series of 30 questions
that can be answered by assigning a simple score ranging between 0 (poor) to 3
(excellent). A series of four alternative answers are provided against each question to
help assessors to make judgements as to the level of score given. Questions that are
not relevant to a particular protected area should be omitted, with a reason given in
the comments section (for example questions about use and visitors will not be
relevant to a protected area managed according to the IUCN protected area
management Category Ia). In addition, there are six supplementary questions which
elaborate on key themes in the previous questions and provide additional information
and points. This is, inevitably, an approximate process and there will be situations in
which none of the four alternative answers appear to fit conditions in the protected
area very precisely. We suggest that you choose the answer that is nearest and use the
comments section to elaborate.
Comments: a box next to each question allows for qualitative judgements to be
justified by explaining why they were made (this could range from personal opinion,
a reference document, monitoring results or external studies and assessments – the
point being to give anyone reading the report an idea of why the assessment was
made). In this section we also suggest that respondents comment on the role/influence
of WWF or World Bank projects if appropriate. On some occasions suggestions are
made about what might be covered in the comments column.
Next Steps: for each question respondents are asked to identify a long-term
management need to further adaptive management at the site, if this is relevant.
3. Final Score: a final total of the score from completing the assessment form can be
calculated as a percentage of scores from those questions that were relevant to a
particular protected area. (So for example if 5 questions are believed to be irrelevant
(and this is justified in the comments column) then the final score would be multiplied by
29/24 to offset the fact that some questions were not applied.) If the additional questions
are relevant to the protected area, add the additional score to the total if they are relevant
and omit them if they are not.
Disclaimer: The whole concept of “scoring” progress is fraught with difficulties and
possibilities for distortion. The current system assumes, for example, that all the questions
cover issues of equal weight, whereas this is not necessarily the case. Accuracy might be
improved by weighting the various scores although this would provide additional challenges
in deciding differing weightings. In the current version a simple scoring system is maintained,
but the limitations of this approach should be recognised.
Reporting progress at protected area sites 66
Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet
Name of protected area
Location of protected area (country and if
possible map reference)
Date of establishment (distinguish between
agreed and gazetted*)
Ownership details (i.e. owner,
tenure rights etc)
Size of protected area (ha)
Number of staff
Designations (IUCN category, World
Heritage, Ramsar etc)
Reasons for designation
Brief details of World Bank funded
project or projects in PA
Brief details of WWF funded project
or projects in PA
Brief details of other relevant
projects in PA
List the two primary protected area objectives
List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)
List top two critical management activities
Date assessment carried out: _________________________________________________________
Name/s of assessor: _________________________________________________________________
* Or formally established in the case of private protected areas
Reporting progress at protected area sites 67
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0 Note: see fourth option for private
Does the protected The government has agreed that the protected area should be gazetted but the 1
area have legal process has not yet begun
status? The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the process is still 2
The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case of private reserves 3
Context is owned by a trust or similar)
2. Protected area There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities 0
regulations in the protected area
Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the
Are inappropriate protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them 1
land uses and effectively
activities (e.g. Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 2
poaching) controlled? protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing
Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3
Context protected area exist and are being effectively implemented
3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 0 Possible issue for comment: What
enforcement legislation and regulations happens if people are arrested?
There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 1
Can staff enforce area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget)
protected area rules The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2
well enough? legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain
The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3
legislation and regulations
4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0
The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to 1
Have objectives been these objectives
agreed? The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only partially 2
Planning The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 3
5. Protected area design Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas major management 0 Possible issue for comment: does the
objectives of the protected area is impossible protected area contain different
Reporting progress at protected area sites 68
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major objectives are 1 management zones and are these well
Does the protected area constrained to some extent maintained?
need enlarging, Design is not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives, but 2
corridors etc to meet its could be improved
Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement of major 3
objectives of the protected area
6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 0 Possible issue for comment: are there
boundary or local residents/neighbouring land users tenure disagreements affecting the
demarcation The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 1 protected area?
is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users
Is the boundary known The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2
and demarcated? authority and local residents but is not appropriately demarcated
Context The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and 3
local residents and is appropriately demarcated
7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0
Is there a management A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1
plan and is it being implemented
implemented? An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially 2
implemented because of funding constraints or other problems
Planning An approved management plan exists and is being implemented 3
Additional points The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders +1
to influence the management plan
There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and +1
updating of the management plan
The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely +1
Planning incorporated into planning
8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0
Is there an annual work A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored against the plan’s 1
Reporting progress at protected area sites 69
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against the plan’s 2
targets, but many activities are not completed
A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the plan’s 3
Planning/Outputs targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed
9. Resource inventory There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and 0
cultural values of the protected area
Do you have enough Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the 1
information to manage protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision making
the area? Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the 2
protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the
necessary survey work is not being maintained
Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of 3
Context the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is
10. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0
Is there a programme of There is some ad hoc survey and research work 1
survey and research There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards 2
work? the needs of protected area management
There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and 3
research work, which is relevant to management needs
11. Resource Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and 0
management cultural values have not been assessed
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and 1
Is the protected area cultural values are known but are not being addressed
adequately managed Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and 2
(e.g. for fire, invasive cultural values are only being partially addressed
Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and 3
cultural values are being substantially or fully addressed
12. Staff numbers There are no staff 0
Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1
people employed to
manage the protected
Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2
Reporting progress at protected area sites 70
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
area? Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the site 3
13. Personnel Problems with personnel management constrain the achievement of major 0
management management objectives
Problems with personnel management partially constrain the achievement of 1
Are the staff managed major management objectives
well enough? Personnel management is adequate to the achievement of major management 2
objectives but could be improved
Process Personnel management is excellent and aids the achievement major 3
14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0
Is there enough training Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1
for staff? Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully 2
achieve the objectives of management
Staff training and skills are in tune with the management needs of the 3
protected area, and with anticipated future needs
15. Current budget There is no budget for the protected area 0
Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a 1
sufficient? serious constraint to the capacity to manage
The available budget is acceptable, but could be further improved to fully 2
achieve effective management
Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 3
16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 0
reliant on outside or year by year funding
Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function 1
adequately without outside funding
There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected area but many 2
innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding
Reporting progress at protected area sites 71
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
Inputs There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs on a 3
17. Management of Budget management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 0
budget Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1
Is the budget managed Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2
to meet critical
Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness 3
18. Equipment There is little or no equipment and facilities 0
Is equipment There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly inadequate 1
There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps that constrain 2
There is adequate equipment and facilities 3
19. Maintenance of 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 2
gaps in maintenance
Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3
20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0
Is there a planned There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no 1
education programme? overall planning for this
There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still 2
Process serious gaps
There is a planned and effective education and awareness programme fully 3
linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area
21. State and There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate 0
commercial land users
Reporting progress at protected area sites 72
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
neighbours There is limited contact between managers and neighbouring official or 1
Is there co-operation corporate land users
with adjacent land There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or 2
users? corporate land users, but only limited co-operation
There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or 3
Process corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management
22. Indigenous people Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the 0
management of the protected area
Do indigenous and Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to 1
traditional peoples management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions
resident or regularly Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some decisions 2
using the PA have input relating to management
decisions? Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in making decisions 3
relating to management
23. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 0
the protected area
Do local communities Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 1
resident or near the but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions
protected area have Local communities directly contribute to some decisions relating to 2
input to management management
Local communities directly participate in making decisions relating to 3
Additional points There is open communication and trust between local stakeholders and +1
protected area managers
Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while conserving protected +1
Outputs area resources, are being implemented
24. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 Possible issue for comment: Do visitors
damage the protected area?
Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1
(for tourists, pilgrims or are under construction
etc) good enough? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but 2
could be improved
Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation 3
25. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the 0 Possible issue for comment: examples of
tourism protected area contributions
Reporting progress at protected area sites 73
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely 1
Do commercial tour confined to administrative or regulatory matters
operators contribute to There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 2
protected area enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values
There is excellent co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 3
enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts
26. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0
If fees (tourism, fines) The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central government and is not 1
are applied, do they returned to the protected area or its environs
help protected area The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority rather than the 2
management? protected area
There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to support this and/or 3
Outputs other protected areas
27. Condition Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely Possible issue for comment: It is
assessment degraded important to provide details of the
Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded 1 biodiversity, ecological or cultural values
Is the protected area Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded being affected
being managed but the most important values have not been significantly impacted
consistent to its Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact
Additional points There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within the
protected area and/or the protected area buffer zone +1
28. Access Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access 0
assessment or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives
Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access or use of 1
Are the available the reserve in accordance with designated objectives
management Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access or use of the 2
mechanisms working reserve in accordance with designated objectives
to control access or
use? Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access or use 3
of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives
29. Economic benefit The existence of the protected area has reduced the options for economic 0 Possible issue for comment: how does
assessment development of the local communities national or regional development impact
Reporting progress at protected area sites 74
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor benefited 1 on the protected area?
Is the protected area the local economy
providing economic There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities from the 2
benefits to local existence of the protected area but this is of minor significance to the
communities? regional economy
There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to local 3
communities from activities in and around the protected area (e.g.
Outcomes employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc)
30. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0
There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1
and/or no regular collection of results
There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but 2
results are not systematically used for management
A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented 3
Planning/Process and used in adaptive management
Reporting progress at protected area sites 75
ANNEX 13: CO-FINANCING LETTERS
Reporting progress at protected area sites 76
Reporting progress at protected area sites 77
ANNEX 14 ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST
AA Authorised Association (for WMA management)
CBC Community Based Conservation (a process)
CBO Community Based Organisation (an institution)
CIMU Conservation Information Monitoring Unit
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
DNRAB District Natural Resources Advisory Body
GEF Global Environmental Facility
GIS Geographical Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
GR Game Reserve
GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
IZW Institute for Zoo Biology & Wildlife Research Berlin
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NCS National Conservation Strategy
PA Protected Area
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
SCP Selous (Game Reserve) Conservation Programme
SGR Selous Game Reserve
SODA Songea Development Action (Programme)
SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania
TAWIRI Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute
TRAFFIC Trade Records of Fauna and Flora in Commerce
TWCM Tanzanian Wildlife Conservation Monitoring (Programme)
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
URT United Republic of Tanzania
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund
Reporting progress at protected area sites 78