MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT BRIEF - World Bank
29871
MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT BRIEF
Novel forms of livestock and wildlife integration adjacent to protected areas in Africa
PROJECT SUMMARY
|Project Identifiers |
|1. Project name: |2. GEF Implementing Agency: |
|Novel Forms of Livestock and Wildlife Integration Adjacent to |World Bank |
|Protected Areas in Africa: Tanzania | |
|3. Country in which the project is being implemented: |4. Country eligibility: The Convention on Biological Diversity was ratified|
|Tanzania |by Tanzania on March 8, 1996 |
|5. GEF focal area : Biodiversity |6. Operational program: |
|GEF strategic priority: Mainstreaming biodiversity in production |Arid and semi-arid ecosystems, OP1 |
|landscapes and sectors | |
|7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs: |
| |
|The project responds to Tanzania’s environmental priorities for the productive management of land resources, the conservation of |
|biodiversity, protection of wildlife resources, maintenance of ecological integrity and promotion of rural livelihoods. |
| |
|There is an important gap in knowledge of the trends, linkages and scope of changes in biodiversity, land degradation, land use and land |
|management. By integrating and modeling information on soils, vegetation, rainfall, wildlife population dynamics, livestock production and |
|socio economic aspects, this project can identify alternative management options and assess the potential repercussions for ecosystem health |
|and human food security. The project will provide information on these trends linked to practical implementation of improvements, while also |
|providing tools for additional and continued monitoring of changes. |
| |
|Tanzania’s Parliament ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on March 8, 1996. In accordance with the Convention, the Tanzanian |
|Government has placed new emphasis on biodiversity conservation both within and outside protected areas. In a follow-up activity, the |
|government has developed the National Conservation Strategy, now under review. |
| |
|Of particular importance to this project are the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (1998) and the National Agricultural and Livestock Policy of |
|Tanzania (1997). The Wildlife Policy aims to empower local communities to manage, and obtain benefits from wildlife conservation outside |
|protected areas, through the establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs)[1]. The National Agricultural and Livestock Policy aims to |
|improve livestock production and marketing in order to increase food security (especially for pastoralists) through better income generation |
|from animal products. The project benefits from a conducive policy environment. Other supportive aspects of the policy framework include |
|the: |
| |
|National Environment Policy, cutting across all sectors in order to safeguard the state of the environment, including a focus on conservation|
|of biodiversity and pollution control; |
|National Poverty Eradication Strategy (1997), that proposes means to improve livelihoods through better food security, income, health, |
|education and water supply; |
|National Forest Policy (1998), which aims to empower local communities to manage forest resources for income generation and better product |
|utilization; |
|National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) -2000, which provides clear direction on activities to be undertaken towards improved |
|biodiversity conservation (including linkages to the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification); and |
|Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) policy that stipulates the provision of benefits to local communities in areas adjacent to national parks. |
| |
|Tanzania is a signatory to various international agreements, including the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands (2000) and the UN Convention to |
|Combat Desertification. In the Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(e) encourages the promotion of sustainable development in areas|
|adjacent to protected areas and 8(f) promotes the rehabilitation of degraded eco-systems. Article 8(j) underscores the importance of |
|benefiting from, but also encouraging indigenous knowledge and traditional lifestyles related to the conservation and sustainable use of |
|biodiversity. The project is contributing in general to East African governments’ implementation of the UN Convention to Combat |
|Desertification and Drought, particularly through the gathering of information and the development of the guide to identify trends and |
|trajectories of land use change in semi-arid lands. This will promote the priority areas identified in the IGAD Sub-Regional Action Program |
|process of research and development, information collection and exchange, and capacity building. |
|8. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement: |
|Vice President’s Office – Department of the Environment. Endorsement dated 14th November 2002. |
|Project Objectives and Activities |
|9. Goal: |Indicators: |
| | |
|1. The conservation of globally significant biodiversity, with improved |1.1 Populations of target species stabilized or increased |
|ecological integrity, conflict resolution, food security and poverty |through reduction of loss from anthropogenic factors. |
|alleviation. |1.2 Increased benefits to local communities through improved |
| |sustainable management of natural resources. |
|10. Objective: |Indicators: |
| | |
|1. A significant reduction in conflict over access to resources through the |1.1 Novel institutional arrangements are developed and put |
|integration of pastoralism, cropping and wildlife conservation through |into place at local and national level. |
|effective policy and institutional change. | |
|11. Project Outcomes: |Indicators: |
| | |
|1. Community based natural resource management developed and implemented |A significant reduction in conflict over access to resources |
|effectively. |through the integration of pastoralism, cropping and wildlife |
| |conservation through effective policy and institutional |
| |change. |
| |1.2 Communities and district teams using tools to develop |
| |participatory land use plans |
| |Plans in use by communities resulting in improved resource |
| |allocation |
| |Community actively and effectively involved in Wildlife |
| |Management Areas |
| | |
| |2.1 Improved management of wildlife and natural resources, |
| |contributing to the increased protection of biodiversity |
|2. Pastoral livelihoods are improved, resulting in an increased tolerance for |assets. |
|wildlife. |2.2 Income-generating and sustainable uses of biodiversity |
| |undertaken by pastoral communities. |
| | |
| | |
| |3.1 Policy and decision-making support tools and mechanisms |
| |designed and in use |
| |3.2 Sectorial policies and programs at national and regional |
|3. Decision support tools are adopted by policy makers, local administrations |level take into account the wildlife-livestock interactions. |
|and project implementers, contributing to improved use of natural resources and| |
|participatory conservation of biodiversity. Awareness raised on a national (and| |
|regional) scale contributing to improved knowledge and practices in natural | |
|resource use and conservation of biodiversity. | |
|12. Project activities to achieve |Indicators |
|outcomes: | |
| | |
| |Six villages in which participatory land use planning will be implemented are selected. The six|
|1. Participatory land use plans and Wildlife|villages and the reason why they have been selected are described in a report. |
|Management Areas developed, adopted and |Land use changes and land use potential are analysed on the basis of existing information |
|implemented. (Outcome 1) |(through participatory assessment of local knowledge and existing reports) as well as |
| |additional data if required (e.g. statistical data, aerial photographs, and satellite imagery).|
| |A specific report is prepared and disseminated. |
| |Institutional analysis of existing rules and organisations at the local level to review formal |
| |and informal governance structures. A specific report is produced and disseminated. |
| |Local level Land Use Planning Groups established and supported to enable them to represent |
| |pastoralist’s needs. Six groups are created and meet on a regular basis. |
| |Six Village Councils are trained in participatory land use planning. Eighteen training sessions|
| |are organised (twenty to twenty-five participants each). |
| |Key representatives from two Districts (Simanjiro and Monduli) trained in participatory land |
| |use planning (the six villages involved in participatory land use planning are part of these |
| |districts). Six training sessions are organised (twenty to twenty-five participants each).. |
| |Land Use Planning Fora established at District level which are representative of stakeholder |
| |interests (e.g. livestock keepers, agriculturalists, tour operators, hunting companies, local |
| |government, & NGO’s) and will manage land use planning and implementation of plans in six |
| |villages. Two for a are created and meet on a regular basis. |
| |Strategy for improved wildlife and livestock animal health and their consequences with regard |
| |to land use planning developed. Two workshops are organised. |
| |Six village land use plans developed in the framework of the “Land Use Planning Fora”. Land use|
| |plans will improve sustainable allocation of resources among various stakeholders (e.g. |
| |croppers, pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, conservation, and tourism), taking into account the |
| |non-equilibrium environment concept and its consequences with regard to sustainable range |
| |management. In addition, the project will ensure that the land use plans do not undermine poor |
| |socio-economic strata’s access to resources, and especially to wild products. Ten participatory|
| |meetings are held to support the development of each plan. All plans are described in a report |
| |including results of consultation, maps, description of land use categories, implementation |
| |guidelines, and process for continuous updating. |
| |The six land use plans are co-funded by local communities and government and implemented |
| |Community members introduced to the WMA concept and regulation. They are trained for their |
| |active and efficient involvement in the process. Four training sessions are organised (twenty |
| |to twenty-five participants each). |
| |The establishment of two Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) is facilitated by the project. The |
| |involvement of local communities is supported. Two WMA established, 6 meetings organised. |
| | |
| | |
| |Participatory assessments are made (400 households) to assess livelihood strategies of |
| |pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in the project area at the beginning and the end of the |
| |project. Particular attention will be paid to current and potential income-generating |
| |activities for pastoralist communities from various land use types, as well as to the current |
| |and potential importance of wild products (including wildlife) in the livelihood strategies of |
| |different socio-economic categories. A specific report, including raw data and analysis, is |
| |prepared and disseminated. |
| |The benefit-sharing strategies identified in the framework of the Regional component are |
| |evaluated in the particular context of the Tanzanian site. The pro-poor benefit-sharing |
| |arrangements will be tested for social feasibility. Six workshops are organised and a specific |
| |report is prepared and disseminated. |
| |Community Groups supported to manage income-generating activities from wildlife. Six training |
| |sessions are organised (twenty to twenty-five participants each). |
| |Community members are trained to establish fair and lasting partnerships with private operators|
| |(Conservation Business Venture –CBV). Four training sessions are organised (twenty to |
| |twenty-five participants each). |
| |Three fair partnerships are established between communities and private operators (Conservation|
| |Business Venture –CBV). Three CBVs established. |
| | |
| | |
|2. Innovative mechanisms to harness wildlife|Participatory assessment of needs for and capacity to use decision-support tools by different |
|values designed. |stakeholders. Two workshops are organised to decide upon the content and the form of the |
|(Outcome 2) |decision support tools. Two workshops are organised and a specific report is prepared and |
| |disseminated. |
| |Existing models and monitoring systems (eg SAVANNA) adapted for the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem|
| |to explore alternative land-use management scenarios. In this respect, existing information |
| |will be synthesised into databases, knowledge gaps identified, new data on wildlife corridors, |
| |traditional grazing systems, wildlife and livestock distributions, and hotspots of interaction |
| |between livestock and wildlife collected. The adapted version of SAVANNA is available |
| |(including a user manual), and it is used to assess land use scenarios. |
| |Two graduate studentships established to support the decision support tools preparation and to |
| |build capacity of researchers at national insti tutions and NGO’s. |
| |Two Spatial analysis training workshops are held (twenty to twenty-five participants each). |
| |Local decision-makers and technicians attend. |
| |The decision support tools are prepared and distributed. At least five hundred copies (support |
| |to be defined) distributed to targeted users. |
| |Two workshops are organised to sensitise decision-makers at local and national levels to the |
| |wildlife – livestock interaction issues (early stage of the project). |
| |Decision-makers at local, regional and national levels are trained in the use of the decision |
| |support systems prepared by the project (last year of the project). Four training sessions are |
| |organised (twenty to twenty-five participants each). |
| |Guidelines are prepared on “Decision making processes for natural resource management and |
| |drought preparedness in dryland pastoral systems”. They build on experiences from this project |
| |and other initiatives. Three specific workshops are hold (South, East and West Africa), and a |
| |specific report is prepared. |
| |Guidelines are prepared on “bio-diversity value investigation in the drylands and mechanisms |
| |which will enable pastoral communities to benefit from these values” They build on experiences |
| |from Tanzanian and other countries. Three specific workshops are hold (South, East and West |
| |Africa), and a specific report is prepared. |
| |Publication and dissemination of guidelines and standards. A National Conference is organised, |
| |500 copies of each guidelines (support to be defined) are distributed to targeted users. |
|3. Decision support tools to strengthen | |
|rational resource-access and management | |
|developed. | |
|(Outcome 3) | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|13. Estimated budget of alternative(US$): |
| |
|Base line: $ 2,350,000 |
|Additional GEF: $ 880,000 |
|Co-financing: $ 130,000 (in cash) LEAD |
|610,000 (in cash) Fond Français pour l’Environnement Mondial, |
|110,000 (in kind) Wildlife Division |
|60,000 (in kind) Livestock Division |
|80,000 (in kind) Simanjiro and Monduli District Councils |
|150,000 (in kind) AWF |
|110,000 (in kind) IL RI |
|78,000 (in kind) MAA |
| |
|TOTAL Alternative: $ 4,558,000 |
|Information on institution submitting project brief |
|14. Information on project proposer: |
| |
|The project is jointly proposed by FAO and the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). |
| |
|Within FAO, the LEAD Initiative is an inter-institutional initiative supported by the World Bank (WB), the European Union (EU), the Ministère|
|de la Cooperation (France), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development via GTZ (Germany), the Department for |
|International Development (DFID-United Kingdom), the US Agency for International Development (USAID-USA), the Danish Agency for International|
|Development Agency (Danida-Denmark), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (Switzerland), the Centro Agronómico Tropical de |
|Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), The |
|International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and FAO. The work of the initiative targets the protection and enhancement of natural |
|resources as affected by livestock production and processing, while alleviating poverty. LEAD has identified, at a global scale, the |
|consequences of increased pressure on grazing and mixed farming systems and the shift to industrial modes of production as the main areas for|
|its support. It highlights the close interaction between government policies and technology adopted at farm level, and seeks to disseminate |
|available technologies to mitigate negative effects in different production modes, provided the appropriate policy framework is in place. |
|LEAD has particular strengths in decision support systems, technical expertise on livestock and environment interactions, spatial analysis, |
|and knowledge management. |
| |
| |
|The Maasai advanced Association (MAA - an emanation of interests of the Ol Maa speaking pastoral peoples across northern Tanzania[2]) is at |
|the origin of the project identification, and provided substantial input during the design phase, ensuring that pastoralists’ needs are |
|properly addressed. With a focus on appropriate (modern, but culturally sensitive) and sustainable socio-economic development, MAA is |
|strategically placed, and institutionally well established, to undertake activities that will have a direct impact on both livelihoods and |
|ecological health within the Tarangire-Manyara landscape. MAA argues that an equal and opposite emphasis on using rangelands for livestock |
|production, rather than encouraging land degradation through unsustainable cultivation, will benefit both the economy and ecology of the |
|country. MAA would contribute significant strengths in PRA approaches to the project area in the context of land use planning, community |
|sensitization and mobilization and the development of benefit sharing mechanisms. |
| |
| |
|The African Wildlife Foundation has over 40 years of conservation experience focused entirely on the continent of Africa. AWF is registered |
|as a 501(3)c PVO in the U.S., and is an international NGO with the Government of each African country where it has an active program. In |
|Tanzania, AWF has recently updated its Country Agreement with the Government of Tanzania (February, 1999) governing its scope and operations,|
|and program specific MOUs with relevant Tanzanian national institutions and District Councils. AWF primarily focuses on helping wildlife |
|thrive and people prosper, linking conservation in key African landscapes to improved livelihoods for communities living within those |
|landscapes. AWF achieves this by linking landscape conservation processes with community enterprise development. |
| |
|Executing Agency: |
|FAO, hosting the secretariat of LEAD will be the executing agency of the project, under a contractual arrangement with the World Bank. |
| |
|AWF will be delegated responsibilities for execution in Tanzania. |
| |
|Project Partners and Co-financiers are presented in Annex 1, |
|Organigram is presented in Annex 2. |
|15. Date of initial submission of project concept: |
| |
|The PDF-A Project Brief was submitted in February, 2000 and approved in October, 2000. |
|Information to be completed by Implementing Agency: |
|16. Project identification number: |
|P071100 |
|17. Implementing Agency contact person: |
|Dr. Christophe Crepin |
|Africa Region |
|The World Bank |
|1818 H Street, NW |
|J6-190 |
|Washington, DC 20044 |
|USA |
|Telephone: (202) 473-9727 |
|E-mail: ccrepin@ |
|18. Project linkage to Implementing Agency program(s): |
| |
|The Innovations in Livestock and Wildlife Integration Adjacent to protected Areas in Africa project addresses several World Bank priority |
|thematic areas in Sub-Saharan Africa. The project incorporates key elements of the majority of the World Bank’s investments in Africa |
|addressing infrastructure, agriculture, human development and public sector management. The project also supports the Bank in its key |
|mission of poverty reduction, as well as new areas of involvement, such as cultural preservation. The project will address the key thematic |
|areas of rural development and the environment through the strengthening of agricultural extension, rural financing, land policy, community |
|empowerment and the development of communal infrastructure. The project’s underpinning is integrating environmental management with poverty |
|alleviation and economic development efforts which comprise part of the Bank’s Africa Region Environment Strategy. The project overlaps with|
|priorities of the World Bank at National level in Tanzania by addressing habitat and species conservation and management, institutional |
|strengthening and reversal of land degradation. In addition, the World Bank is a primary institutional supporter and donor of the LEAD |
|coalition, along with other bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors. The World Bank also continues to host the chairpersonship of LEAD, while |
|the secretariat of LEAD remains based at FAO in Rome, thereby maintaining a strong role in the leadership and vision of LEAD as a development|
|mechanism. |
| |
|Wildlife-livestock activities are part of the LEAD program on Dryland Management (DLM). This program, funded by the LEAD trust fund, focuses |
|on the following objectives : |
|- “Environmental impacts from livestock activities are decreased or maintained at their current level”, with two sub-objectives : (i) |
|bio-diversity as threatened by livestock production is preserved, and (ii) ecosystem resilience is preserved through maintaining potential |
|for recolonisation. |
|“The population of livestock keepers’ is maintained and livestock keepers’ livelihoods are sustained”, with again two sub-objectives (in |
|order of priority): (i) pastoralists benefit from the environmental services they may provide (e.g. wildlife conservation, fire control), and|
|(ii) pastoralists livelihoods improved (e.g. food security, access to education, access to services) through improved livestock production |
|(e.g. access to resources, access to markets, animal health). |
| |
|It is highlighted that no resource from GEF will be mobilised to fund core activities of this LEAD program. |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11
1.1 Rationale and objectives 11
1.2 Current Situation 13
1.2.1 General observations 13
1.2.2 Wildlife as a “Public Good” 16
1.2.3 The project site 16
1.2.4 Natural Resource Management in Tanzania 17
1.2.5 Livestock sector in Tanzania 19
1.2.6 Tanzania population policy 20
1.3 Project’s goal 22
1.4 Project’s Objective 22
1.5 Project’s Outcomes 22
1.6 Project’s Activities . 22
1.7 Beneficiary assessment 26
1.8 Sustainability analysis 27
1.9 Risk analysis 28
1.10 Conformity to GEF Eligibility Criteria 29
2 INCREMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT 31
2.1 Overview 31
2.2 Baseline Situation 31
2.3 The GEF alternative 32
2.4 Incremental Cost Budget (US$) 36
2.5 Budget summary 36
3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 36
4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 38
4.1 Introduction 38
4.2 Consultation and Design 38
4.3 Stakeholder participation 38
4.4 Information dissemination 40
4.5 Project Advisory Committees 41
5 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 41
REFERENCES 43
REFERENCES 43
Annex 1 : Project Partners and Co-financiers 45
Annex 2 : Organisation chart 48
Annex 3: Biodiversity distribution in Africa and the Tarangire-Manyara Ecosystem 49
Annex 4: Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) 51
Annex 5: Complementary activities in chad 53
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE DOCUMENT
Acronym Complete Name
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
AWF-CSC African Wildlife Foundation-Conservation Service Center
CBO Community Based Organization(s)
CBV Conservation Business Venture
DC District Council
DEW Disease Early Warning (system)
DVO District Veterinary Officer
DLO District Livestock Officer
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GEF Global Environment Facility
GMP General Management Plan
GOT Government of Tanzania
HCP Heartland Conservation Planning
HEAL Health Extension and Assistance to Livestock (center)
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
IRA Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
LEAD Livestock, Environment, and Development Initiative
LUCID Land Use Change Analysis as an Approach for Investigating Biodiversity Conservation
and Land Degradation
MAA Maasai Advancement Association
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MLHS Ministry of Lands and Human Settlement
MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MWLD Ministry of Water and Livestock Development
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan
NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NGO Non Governmental Organization(s)
NRMA Natural Resource Management Area
PLEC People, Land Management and Environmental Change Project
PORI Partnership Options for Resource-Use Innovations
PRA Participatory Rural Approach
PVO Private Volunteer Organization(s)
SCP Site Conservation Planning
TANAPA Tanzania National Parks Authority
TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute
TLCT Tanzania Land Conservation Trust
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TVS Tanzania Veterinary Service
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VETAID Not-for-profit, international development organisation working for reduction in poverty and increase in food security of people dependent on livestock
VIC Veterinary Investigation Center
VPO Vice Presidents Office, Government of Tanzania
WD Wildlife Division
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WPT Wildlife Policy of Tanzania
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 Rationale and objectives
Areas protected for conservation purposes, such as national parks, require surrounding wildlife dispersal areas to allow animals to migrate in and out. These dispersal areas are usually inhabited by local communities and the use of the same natural resources by multiple actors raises issues of resource allocation and can lead to competition and conflict. Livestock are often considered a threat to natural resources in the African pastoral areas, and especially to ungulates and other large mammals which share the same habitats with livestock species. However, there is growing recognition that, if carefully managed, there can be a “grazing complementarity” between wildlife and livestock, and harmonious co-existence is possible, given supportive institutional arrangements. Used in balance with environmental resources, livestock have been shown to enhance habitats for wildlife and improve its productivity.
In East Africa, the land use described above is under further pressure as human populations increase. Fast growing pastoralist populations are not able to maintain their livelihoods from livestock production alone and are forced to adopt livelihood strategies which are incompatible with wildlife, such as cropping. In addition, pastoral land and wildlife dispersal areas are under threat from external actors who are allocated larger tracts of land for commercial cropping.
One way of balancing the cost-benefit ratio of wildlife-incompatible crop cultivation and wildlife-compatible pastoralism is to improve the returns from wildlife to pastoral households. In most cases, pastoralists unfortunately bear most of the costs of wildlife but do not gain many of the potential substantial benefits. These benefits are global in nature, but the costs are paid for locally by communities (Norton-Griffiths and Southey 1995). As a way to solve this problem, wildlife (and natural resource) enterprises can be developed to improve returns from wildlife (Aveling et al. 1997). However, it is also claimed that increasing production from livestock will give pastoralists incentives to avoid wildlife-incompatible land uses (Reid and Olson 2001). The missing piece is the integration of these two approaches on pastoral lands: increasing the profitability of wildlife management, and at the same time encouraging wildlife-compatible land use. This integration is a cornerstone to this GEF proposal.
The project will help conserve wildlife in the Maasai Steppe of Northern Tanzania, a semi-arid area which is one of the world’s richest remaining refuges for wildlife, through integration of traditional pastoralism with improved livelihoods and livestock health. The main resource anchors in this landscape are Tarangire and Manyara National Parks, adjacent forest reserves and pastoral areas which extend to the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) (see Figure 2, Appendix 3).
Pastoralism is the dominant land use and livelihood strategy in this landscape (UNFPA, 1998). If properly managed, nomadic pastoral livestock production is potentially the most environmentally- compatible agricultural activity in this ecosystem. Pastoralism in this area has supported one of the highest densities of wildlife in Africa (see Appendix 3) and it permits the mobility of wildlife in landscapes with variable spatial and seasonal resources. However, there is increasing evidence of points of conflict between wildlife, livestock and cropping. As a result, for the past two decades, globally significant wildlife have been deteriorating quantitatively in this ecosystem. The majority of these conflicts result from poorly managed access to and scarcity of resources and poor livestock and human health. Conflicts are increasingly important as habitat fragmentation, land use and tenure change, population growth, and economic stagnation.
One of the main threats to biodiversity in pastoral ecosystems is the breakdown of traditional adaptive and flexible management strategies developed by pastoral communities to optimize the use of temporally and spatially variable natural resources. The project recognizes the historical role of Maasai pastoral communities in wildlife conservation. The interactions between the livestock practices of pastoralists and the environment has important biodiversity values in itself in terms of habitat modification which suit different grazers. However, like many pastoral systems across the globe, these systems are under unprecedented pressure to make way for more intensive agricultural activities. Local economic pressures favour a shift from grazing to crops, cultivators are migrating from crowded areas with higher potential, local human populations are growing and land tenure regimes are causing conflicts with biodiversity conservation.
The spontaneous spread of agriculture throughout this semi-arid ecosystem, by both pastoralists and external agents, has resulted in habitat change and truncation of important ecosystems. It also threatens the region’s biodiversity, environmental stability and food security. Biannual aerial surveys conducted by national institutions indicate a serious decline in biodiversity in the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem. The project seeks to address these current trends and declines. Increased agricultural activities have undermined the ability of predominately Maasai pastoralists to pursue viable livelihoods in land that is adjacent to protected areas as significant portions of the high potential areas normally used for grazing are rapidly being sub-divided for agriculture. This has weakened the ability of pastoralism to effectively sustain the livelihoods of local communities in wildlife dispersal areas through traditional mobile livestock keeping.
The objective of the project is therefore to significantly reduce the conflict over access to resources through the integration of pastoralism, cropping and wildlife conservation through effective policy and institutional change
The project site in Tanzania has been chosen according to its social, ecological, and institutional framework as well as for its high potential for wildlife based benefits generation. Complementary work will be on-going in Chad and the proposed project will link up with this on several levels. Information on the Chad site can be found in Annex 6.
It is proposed that the conflict can only be reduced if there is dialogue and agreement between stakeholders on the use of the natural resources available. The project objective is therefore to implement, in collaboration with on-going community based conservation programmes, improved strategies for the sustainable utilisation of landscapes. It is also proposed that the pastoralists who traditionally inhabit the land adjacent to protected conservation areas and rely on this land for their livelihoods, need to be a major player in conservation activities. If such activities are sustainable, they can contribute towards improving the livelihoods of subsistence livestock producers (especially through harnessing value from wildlife ) and therefore increase the tolerance of communities to wildlife. They will also provide all stakeholders with better tools to manage their natural resources in a dynamic and increasingly stressed environment.
The synthesis, collection and application of new information and tools in the Tarangire-Manyara Ecosystem will help decision makers in communities, NGO’s and government to formulate improved policies to enhance peoples’ livelihoods and promote ecological integrity. There is a great deal of existing information about this system, but it is fragmented and unavailable to decision makers (PDF-A workshop report 2001). Small amounts of new information need to be collected about the existing potential conflicts between people, livestock, cultivation and wildlife across the ecosystem. Old and new data need to be assembled and brought into usable formats, analyzed to assess potentials and conflicts with stakeholders and then disseminated to stakeholders.
The project will explore and understand the dynamics of land use in the selected site and use this knowledge to improve the returns to stakeholders from both wildlife and livestock simultaneously. This will be achieved by developing and implementing land use plans and establishing benefit-sharing mechanisms from wildlife such as community-managed business ventures . Since the Village Land Act (1999) and Land Act (1999) came into force, Village Councils have been instructed to categorise their land according to pre-existing or new land use plans to be approved by the Village Assembly and subject to advice of the District Council. The project will support this process and will strengthen the representativeness of the Village Councils and assist communities to participate fully in planning, by providing awareness, training and relevant tools.
2 Current Situation
1 General observations
East African savannas support the richest biodiversity of large mammals on earth (see Figure 1, Annex 3). An estimated 70% of this wildlife is dispersed outside protected areas on land which overlaps with pastoralism (Western 1989). In these pastoral lands, people, wildlife and livestock have intermingled in East African savannas for millennia (Pilgram et al. 1990). Since the 1950s, this intermingling has declined as conservation policy excluded people and livestock from newly created parks and growing human populations and expanding agriculture excluded wildlife use (Serneels et al. 2001, Homewood et al. 2001). As a result, wildlife populations in the region have declined by nearly half, livestock populations have remained stagnant and millions of pastoralists have become less food secure. National parks are now left without the beneficial effects of pastoral grazing and bush-burning practices (Western and Gichohi 1993). The remaining pastoral lands are becoming fragmented, with grazing and water resources crucial to pastoral livestock and wildlife alike being diverted to agricultural use, increasing exclusion of pastoralists and wildlife from the highest potential land, and rising land-use conflicts (Campbell et al 1999).
These pastoral lands are now at a critical point. Conventional wisdom maintains that pastoral land-use causes degradation of rangelands. However, recent work suggests that landscapes under traditional pastoral land use are sometimes more biologically productive and more species-rich than nearby landscapes in parks without pastoral land use (Western 1989, Soderstrom and Reid submitted, Reid et al. sub). For example, by their traditional range management practices, Maasai herders may promote diversity in savannah landscapes, thus providing richer habitats for wildlife than would exist without pastoral use (Stelfox 1986; Muchiru 1992; Reid and Ellis 1995; Young 1995). However, there is also evidence that high rates of indigenous land use can cause long-term ecological degradation, as these enriching forces break down (Bassett & Bi Zuéli 2000).
During the past 30 years, resource use has intensified due to population growth which has led to widespread conversion of land use and unprecedented pressure on African rangelands (Campbell and Migot-Adholla 1981). The conversion has been driven by new land use and tenure policies, by an evolution of the rural economy favouring farming over herding or wildlife, and by human population growth including in-migration from highland areas (Kimani and Pickard 1998). Other factors have also caused this land-use change:
– Intensification of agriculture leading to a shift from pastoralism to cultivation.
– Globalization and connections to international markets (making activities like horticulture more profitable) coupled with lack of pastoral access to reliable markets and supportive livestock market policies.
– Poor animal health services accessible to pastoralists.
– Poverty (Tanzania is one of the ten poorest countries in the world according to World Bank rankings).
– Diminishing livestock holdings among pastoralists leading to increasing cultivation of crops.
– Pastoralist illiteracy/lack of access to information.
– Improved technologies and infrastructure that allow people to use land more intensively.
– Changes in climate: more variation and risk.
These land-use changes have reduced the viability of landscapes to support either pastoralism or wildlife. Cultivation of key resource areas (swamps and wetlands) and high rainfall dispersal areas has dramatically reduced pastoral access to these resources and in many cases caused rapid declines in biodiversity. For example, by 1994, 45,000 hectares had been acquired for large scale commercial farms in Simanjiro District. Migration corridors have disappeared and traditional pastoral grazing lands are being pushed onto more and more marginal lands.
In the face of these unprecedented changes, what can be done to improve the lives of pastoral people and conserve wildlife? Several examples of the sustainable maintenance of wildlife populations with livestock are found on large-scale private and communal ranches in Kenya, especially when they have the support of strong markets for livestock or wildlife products. These markets are one mechanism that give private ranchers and communal group ranches the incentive to maintain livestock populations at levels sustainable with wildlife. For example, private and communal ranches of the Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) in Kenya have successfully profited from the integration of livestock and wildlife on the same piece of land through a combination of livestock production, eco-tourism and wildlife cropping.
Eco-tourism enterprises established on pastoral group ranches in northern Kenya are approaching the five year mark of sustained profitability, ecological impact and socio-economic empowerment. In effect, community based conservation business ventures such as Il Ngwesi in Laikipia and Namunyak in Samburu District are being hailed as ‘third generation’ developments in community based conservation[3]. This project would seek to build on the learning in this context of community based wildlife and livestock integration in East Africa and seek innovation while incorporating southern African experiences (particularly the experiences of communal conservancies in Northern Namibia and the Chobe Enclave Project in Botswana)[4]. In addition to benefit sharing mechanisms, applied research projects exist such as the Laikipia collaborative project (funded by National Geographic Society, Smithsonian Institute, Citibank and Fordham University) which is examining the interactions among wildlife, livestock and vegetation in this landscape. Private and communal ranches in Laikipia District have combined to form a district wildlife forum, and have successfully demonstrated that institutional change can be encouraged through economic incentives provided through integrated livestock – wildlife systems. A number of other districts in Kenya with integrated wildlife and livestock systems (such as Samburu, Kajiado, Lamu, Taita-Taveta, Nakuru and Machakos) are following suite and forming community based wildlife fora with the aim of emulating Laikipia’s example of enhanced benefit sharing through community based livestock and wildlife integration systems.
The lessons to learn from these experiences that apply to communally-managed pastoral areas are three: 1) integrated livestock – wildlife systems can be more synergistic than competitive with wildlife conservation with careful, thoughtful management, 2) market incentives are critical to improve the profitability of livestock and wildlife, and 3) only with increased profitability from activities other than livestock (or crops) do pastoral people have the incentives to avoid crop cultivation, which threatens wildlife habitats, especially on more productive lands where cultivation is possible.
Outside these private large-scale ranches, substantial efforts have been made in southern Africa to improve the returns from wildlife to farming households in communal farmlands. The internationally recognized Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe and the ADMADE programme in Zambia have tested mechanisms for farmers to benefit from commercial hunting and tourism on their lands. These efforts have learned important lessons: 1) the success of a project depends very simply on the level of return to individual households from wildlife; when returns are high, there are high incentives for conservation and low returns mean low incentives, 2) one way to ensure high returns is to make sure the size of the wildlife populations and area of habitat that each community benefits from is large, and 3) the most successful programmes are those with a significant and profitable wildlife enterprise within the community (Cumming and Bond, WWF-Zimbabwe reports).
The GEF (UNDP) project, ‘Reducing Biodiversity Loss at Selected Cross-Border Sites in East Africa’ is examining the impact of policy on biodiversity conservation at forest edges. This project will provide a model for community use of methodologies developed by PLEC and UNDP/GEF Cross-Border Biodiversity project. The Land Use Change Analysis as an Approach for Investigating Biodiversity Conservation and Land Degradation (LUCID) project is developing generic monitoring systems for systems undergoing land-use change; and this project will take advantage of the methods developed by the LUCID project through the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)[5]. This project will also liaise with and monitor the findings of the Community Management of Protected Areas Conservation Project (COMPACT) which is being implemented by UNDP with funding from the United Nations Foundation. COMPACT is intended to involve the communities who live and derive their livelihood from around Mt. Kilimanjaro (Tanzania) in efforts to conserve the mountain habitat. COMPACT will primarily focus on intensive land use subsistence farming areas on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro rather than pastoral communities in semi-arid areas but may offer interesting learning examples of community development.
East Africa differs from southern Africa because of the presence of pastoral people in widespread rangelands. The Pastoralism has been highly compatible with maintenance of highly diverse wildlife populations over the last 3000 years (Pilgram et al. 1990), thus the hope of integrating (rather than separating as in southern Africa) traditional land-use with wildlife land-use is a unique aspect of the East African region. In addition, a key policy difference exists, whereby wildlife in East Africa is state-owned, compared with several southern African countries which permit the ownership of wildlife by individuals and companies. This creates the need for adaptive and innovative value harnessing mechanisms for wildlife which are related to use, but not ownership.
One of the first attempts to improve the profitably of both livestock and wildlife through improved land use is the innovative land-holding efforts developed by the Tanzanian Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) which is facilitated by AWF and which seeks to address the optimal production of semi-arid rangelands for biodiversity conservation in northern Tanzania. The TLCT has recently obtained title to the 17,800 hectare Manyara Ranch which occupies a critical position between the Kwa Kuchinja wildlife migration corridor linking Tarangire and Lake Manyara National Parks. Based on a request from local communities and a Task Force facilitated by AWF through the area Member of Parliament, Hon. Lowassa, the Minister of Water and Livestock Development, the President of the United Republic of Tanzania, H.E. Mkapa, directed that the ranch be managed to benefit local communities and conservation demonstrating the level of political will in support of conservation and poverty alleviation efforts (further details regarding the TLCT are included in Appendix IV).
2 Wildlife as a “Public Good”
As well as being a potential livelihood asset for pastoral communities, wildlife is also an international public good. Wildlife is both a regional (cross-border) public good (e.g. wildlife migration, cross border synergies of developing wildlife tourism industry), and a global public good because of the option values preserved in bio-diversity and the existence values attached to species. Consequently, policy failures may result from the fact that countries’ policies are only concerned by local and national values only. This indicates a need for action at regional or international levels to ensure that the collaborative action needed for wildlife management is promoted and funded, and that support to governance is provided at supranational level.
The concept of Global Public Goods infers three distinct elements (DFID, 2002) that are (i) the concept of publicness of consumption, (ii) the optimal distribution of benefits, in terms of the utility gained from the Global Public Goods, and (iii) public choice in selecting the mechanisms for provision of the Global Public Goods.
The project, and especially its regional component, is an attempt to correct current policy failures associated with wildlife as a “Global Public Good”.
3 The project site
The geographic scope of the site occurs within an ecosystem of approximately 35,000 km². The area includes two national parks (Tarangire and Lake Manyara), the Marang and Esimingor National Forest Reserves and the watershed of the Northern Highland Forest in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Figure 2, Annex 3). Lake Manyara is recognized internationally as a Biosphere Reserve. Tarangire and Manyara National Parks are acknowledged as keystone components of Tanzania’s tourism industry[6]. Tarangire and Manyara are two of the highest grossing of Tanzania’s 12 national parks in terms of revenue generated and visitor numbers (the other two being Kilimanjaro and Serengeti NP’s).
To the east of Tarangire and Manyara national parks lie the Simanjiro plains which are utilized by zebra (Equus burchelli) and wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) to migrate between wet and dry season pastures (Kahurananga 1981). The Simanjiro plains are heavily utilized by wildlife and shared by pastoralists (Kahurananga 1997). Endangered species in the area include wild dog and Greater Kudu. Tarangire and Lake Manyara National Parks constitute the core resource anchors in the ecosystem and are surrounded by vast grazing lands inhabited by mainly Maasai pastoralists. The Maasai Steppe also contains a mosaic of different land uses, including rain-fed agriculture, forest reserves and wetlands. The future of the two parks is threatened by encroachment of unplanned agriculture and settlements in vital wildlife corridors and dispersal areas. The human population growth in the area is of 7.9% per annum, which includes significant immigration from other areas. Increasing agriculture also contributes to increased natural resource pressure. In effect, the two core parks in the eco-system are rapidly becoming “islands of biodiversity”. These increasing human and livestock dynamics reduce available habitat for wildlife and block access to critical seasonal and temporal resources.
A population of approximately 350,000 pastoralists inhabit the Maasai Steppe ecosystem. They own a livestock population of approximately one million indigenous zebu cattle. The Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem provides habitat for over 3,000 elephants - the largest population in northern Tanzania. Four key elephant corridors have been identified linking two key types of land holdings in the landscape (community areas inhabited by mainly Maasai pastoralists and Institutional holdings, such as Manyara Ranch). The villages along these corridors are an integral part of the Tanzanian site target group. There are currently and historically a great number of livestock diseases present in the area[7] (cf. section below). Concurrently, almost all grazing groups in the area own livestock which are affected by infectious and parasitic diseases (Owens and Stem 1999).
A major threat to the Maasai Steppe landscape is habitat fragmentation that leads to a reduction of wildlife corridors and dispersal areas. For example, the Kwakuchinja corridor links Tarangire to Manyara National Parks. The core corridor is about 6 kilometres wide. A recent study indicates that wildlife biodiversity in the corridor decreased by 72 percent between 1989 and 1998 whereas agriculture increased by 130 percent. Additionally, two of five historical migratory routes have been obliterated and the remaining ones severely threatened.
In recognition of this area’s biodiversity value, the Government of Tanzania has invested heavily in Tarangire and Manyara National Parks. Outside the parks, the Government has invested in anti-poaching, crop protection, and hunting supervision. The District and Village Councils have mainly invested in social services. Various international organizations have supported national institutions in the conservation of this ecosystem such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Instituto OIKOS, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), The University of Milan, Princeton University through the Tarangire Elephant Project, and African Wildlife Foundation.
This project aims to promote and expand collaboration across the spectrum of institutions working in this multi-donor, multi-partner priority landscape. AWF has concentrated its activities in Northern Tanzania on the Maasai Steppe for the past 10 years. AWF has supported landscape level conservation efforts, the development of conservation business ventures as well as the design and implementation of innovative conservation tools for land holdings such as the Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT). AWF is, with the support of partners, working through an ecosystem level planning process which has identified conservation targets, critical threats to the ecosystem, and selected strategies to address survival threats[8].
It is also foreseen that this project would establish strong interactions with the “Lolkisale biodiversity conservation support project” proposed for GEF funding through the World Bank/IFC, and which would take place on the North-eastern limit of the Tarangire National Park. It would especially be opportune to develop collaborations and synergies with regard to the CBNRM approaches and the implementation of benefit sharing mechanisms as the Lolkisale Project aims to strengthen and expand the community and private sector efforts to counter threats to biodiversity by establishing an integrated conservation management framework within which the planned eco-tourism facility can provide biodiversity and economic benefits. The project also aims to create a transparent land tenure and land use policy environment for the Lolkisale Conservation Area and Lolkisale Livestock Wildlife Zone and to encourage more active community involvement in the conservation and eco-tourism management activities. Finally, the Lolkisale project aims to facilitate the preparation and implementation of a sustainable community development plan in order to ensure appropriate and transparent sharing of the economic benefits.
4 Natural Resource Management in Tanzania
The Wildlife Conservation Act covers protection, conservation, development, regulation and control of fauna and flora. Grazing livestock in game reserves is prohibited under the Act.
The aim of the policy and regulatory framework is to involve civil society in wildlife conservation, particularly rural communities and the private sector. The objectives are:
– To maintain the great biological diversity endowment which constitutes an important economic base to the nation;
– To broaden the scope of local players in the interpretation and implementation of the policy;
– To increase the contribution of the NR sector to the Gross Domestic Product from 2% to 5%;
– To enhance wildlife protection, utilization, management and development of protected areas and international cooperation; and
– To stimulate and guide local communities and the private sector by administering, regulating and managing wildlife resources.
The main action taken is to prevent illegal use of wildlife throughout the country; to create an enabling environment which ensures sustainable wildlife schemes directly benefit local communities, through retaining sufficient revenues from wildlife utilisation in protected areas for management and development purposes, and to co-operate with neighbouring countries in the conservation of trans-boundary ecosystems.
The new Wildlife Policy calls for the creation of wildlife management areas (WMAs) which give local communities some control over wildlife resources on their lands and enable them to benefit directly from these resources. Rural communities are allowed to establish WMAs, defined in the policy as "an area declared by the Minister to be so and set aside by village governments for the purpose of biological natural resource conservation" (MNRT, 1998:34). In turn, communities may lease trophy hunting or game viewing concessions to tourist outfitters or themselves engage in hunting for food. The steps for Establishing a Wildlife Management Area are (Shauri, 1999):
1. Village assemblies meet and make a resolution to form a WMA;
2. The resolution is sent to the District Council for ratification;
3. Surveys of the WMA area are carried out;
4. A village land use plan is prepared and approved by the District Council;
5. The District Council forwards the surveys and land use plans to regional authorities;
6. The regional authorities review the plans;
7. The regional authorities send the plans to the minister responsible for natural resources. Upon review and full approval, the minister finally makes a declaration establishing the WMA; and,
8. To be valid, the declaration must be published in the government gazette to establish the village WMA.
The National Land Policy and Land Act (1999) and Village Land Act (1999) promote village land use plans to ensure the appropriate administration of communal land. The Land Policy stipulates that NGO’s and other segments of civil society can be involved in the implementation of Tanzanian land policy to ensure appropriate land use. Section 12 of the Village Land Act (1999) requires that village land set aside for communal use shall be subdivided according to land use plans approved by the village assembly. In addition, according to the Local Government District Authorities Act (1982), village councils have legislative powers to make bye-laws to carry out functions conferred to them by the Act. These functions include activities that are necessary for the economic and social development of the village. Therefore, land use planning and the implementation of WMA’s form core parts of Tanzanian Government Policy.
The proposed time frame of the novel forms of livestock and wildlife integration adjacent to protected areas in Africa is critical in the evolution of community based natural resource management in Tanzania. This project will facilitate and enhance the policy implementation of the WD in the establishment of WMA’s which were approved at Ministerial level (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism) on the 13 December, 2002.
The project will therefore build upon and contribute to ongoing Tanzanian national priorities and will deliver impact through existing administrative frameworks such as District Councils and National Institutions.
5 Livestock sector in Tanzania
Livestock production is one of the major agricultural activities in Tanzania. The sub sector contributes to national food supply, converts rangeland resources into products suitable for human consumption and provides way of accumulating savings. It provides about 30 per cent of the agricultural GDP. Out of the sub-sector contribution to GDP, about 40 percent originates from beef production, 30 percent from Milk production and another 30 percent from poultry and small stock production. For pastoralists, livestock are the biggest asset of livelihood strategies.
Livestock numbers have been increasing steadily (ranking third in Africa) in recent decades at roughly the same rate as the human population growth.
Agro-pastoralism, comprising a range of combination of crop cultivation with livestock keeping is thriving, as livestock numbers have continued to increase at a rate of more than 2 per cent per annum. The government is adopting a strategy for range development by formal recognition of associations and organizations of livestock keepers through active collaboration between the government and the pastoral organizations. Action is being taken to ensure that livestock keepers obtain formal legal recognition of traditional grazing rights, as envisaged in the new Land Act.
National Agricultural and Livestock policy:
The ultimate goal of the Tanzanian agricultural and livestock policy as defined in 1997 is the improvement of the well being of the people whose principal occupation and way of life is based on agriculture. The objectives of the policy include:
a) To improve standards of in the rural areas through increased income generation from agricultural and livestock production, processing and marketing:
b) To promote integrated and sustainable use and management of natural resources such as land, soil, water and vegetation in order to conserve the environment; and
c) To provide support services to the agricultural sector which cannot be provided efficiently by the private sector.
Animal Health
Livestock disease has been described as a serious constraint to both pastoral livelihoods and national economic growth. In 1991, it was estimated that US$ 4 billion of livestock disease losses in Africa could be prevented per year, which amounts to approximately 25 percent of the total annual livestock production. The deterioration of veterinary delivery systems over the past 2 decades has been especially acute in arid and semi-arid lands where vast distances and poor transport and infrastructure compound the problem. Sixty percent of Africa’s livestock population and approximately one third of the human population reside in these drylands, so the socio-economic implications of livestock health are significant. The main problems include access to inputs such as high quality drugs and services by a small but mobile population.
Recent analysis of livestock management strategies in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) have illustrated the changing nature of pastoralism in East Africa. Field (1997) shows that :
• The incidence of disease had increased and ‘new’ diseases had entered the area, some with devastating consequences;
• Wildlife in general, particularly wildebeest had increased, and pastoralists blamed this for the increase in wildlife disease;
• Livestock health services had deteriorated, dips had broken down and the access to veterinary services had declined; and
• Herd size per capita had decreased because of disease.
The fact that livestock populations in the Maasai Steppe and NCA have not increased indicates the scale of livestock disease mortality. Combined with demographic growth, disease is a major contributor to increasing levels of pastoral poverty. Poverty, combined with negative perceptions about wildlife and disease risk, and the potential of mobile disease vectors could seriously undermine the potential compatibility of livestock and wildlife in these areas of rich biodiversity.
In the project area, preliminary assessments have shown that East Coast Fever and Trypanosomiasis are the most frequent disease transmitted from wildlife to livestock. Even if Tanzania is currently free of Rinderpest, surveillance is still required to prevent any reintroduction from the Somalia ecosystem.
The Ministry of Water and Livestock Development and non-profit organisations such as VETAID are currently addressing animal health issues in the project area. The project will include animal health concerns in the land use plans, as disease control is important to pastoralists. In practical terms, timing and zoning for range sharing between wildlife and livestock will be specified. Through the participatory approach, other animal health needs may be identified (e.g. service delivery), and the project will assist pastoralists to seek support from other donors.
6 Tanzania population policy
The country's population growth rate of 2.8 percent per annum has had an adverse effect on development. Though not the only obstacle to development, it aggravates the situation and renders remedial measures more difficult. Rapid population growth has tended to increase outlays on consumption, drawing resources away from savings for productive investments and therefore retarding growth in national output through slow capital formation. In particular, rapid population growth has aggravated the problems of poverty, environmental degradation and poor social services. Furthermore, the problems of diseases such as HIV/AIDS and those debilitating specific segments of the population like children, youths, the elderly and persons with disabilities have become widespread.
In the project area, the population density is 20 to 25 habitants per square kilometer, with a projected growth of 30% over the next decade (including HIV/AIDS incidence).
The national population policy has the goal of influencing other policies, strategies and programs that ensure sustainable development of the population and promoting gender equality and empowerment of women. It is implemented through a multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional integrated approach. In this regard the government collaborates with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the private sector, communities and other agencies within and outside Tanzania in implementing the policy. Indeed, individuals, political parties and other organized groups in the civil society are expected to play an active role to ensure attainment of policy goals and objectives.
The principal objective of the country's development vision is to move Tanzanians away from poverty and uplift their standard of living. The population policy therefore, gives guidelines for addressing population issues in an integrated manner. It thus recognizes the linkages between population dynamics and quality of life on one hand, and environmental protection and sustainable development on the other. Its implementation gives a new dimension to development programs by ensuring that population issues are appropriately addressed.
A number of local and international organisations implement population programs. Among them, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) conducts activities in 36 Tanzanian districts, with the aim to improve quality of reproductive health, increase political commitment and support for population and related programs, and enhance capacity at national and district levels for planning, coordination, monitoring and evaluation as regards population and development programs.
Demographic growth in the project area (from birth surplus and immigration) is a threat to biodiversity and livelihoods. Immigration by agriculturalists to the Maasai Steppe (Tarangire-Manyara area) may be driven by land shortages in higher agricultural potential areas surrounding Mt. Meru and Mt. Kilimanjaro. Land alienation in Hanang District by donor funded commercial wheat farms may be a factor encouraging members of the Barbaig tribe to immigrate to the Tarangire-Manyara area. At the same time, population growth in Tanzania nationally is quite high (2.8% per annum), and not exclusive to the project area. The project does not directly aim at controlling population growth, however it includes several activities which reduce demographic growth and its consequences and slow the pace of socio-economic transition in the selected area:
i. One of the reasons that in-migration of agriculturalists is high in the Maasai Steppe is a lack of land use planning, enforcement of regulations and information by local residents on land tenure and related legislation. Land use planning as a process will sensitize communities to various land acts and legislation that entitle communities to actively manage their land. It will inform and empower pastoralists to counter inappropriate immigration and agricultural development of communal lands. Immigration is an issue that will therefore be addressed at village governance and district levels.
ii. Socio-economic transition is occurring in the project area. While livestock populations have remained relatively constant, human populations have increased, resulting in lower per capita livestock holdings. This, amongst other factors, has resulted in pastoralists diversifying their economies with activities that are non-wildlife compatible (such as cropping and land privatization). A key thrust of this project is the development of biodiversity based enterprises which in principle have two goals: (1) to increase economic returns from sustainable biodiversity conservation to local communities, and (2) to leverage additional land under improved conservation management for wildlife. Wildlife or biodiversity enterprises have been demonstrated in other areas where AWF works, to be effective in contributing to conservation compatible livelihood diversification.
iii. The WMA policy was ratified by the Tanzanian Government in December, 2002. Three pilot WMA’s have been named by the Tanzanian Wildlife Division in the Maasai Steppe. The WMA policy is a framework which aims to provide communities with a greater role in management of natural resources, and a greater corresponding share of revenues from wildlife utilization on communal land. It is postulated that WMA’s will empower communities, and further reduce in-migration. There are also examples in Kenya of how revenues from communal conservancies actually fuel social mobility by providing funds for scholarships and land purchases in more fertile areas. This project is timely in that it would directly engage with the development of the novel policy framework which has been designed with poverty alleviation in mind.
3 Project’s goal
The conservation of globally significant biodiversity, with improved ecological integrity, conflict resolution, food security and poverty alleviation.
4 Project’s Objective
A significant reduction in conflict over access to resources through the integration of pastoralism, cropping and wildlife conservation through effective policy and institutional change.
5 Project’s Outcomes
The following project outcomes are expected:
0. Participatory land use plans and Wildlife Management Areas developed, adopted and implemented.
1. Innovative mechanisms to harness wildlife values designed.
2. Decision support tools to strengthen rational resource-access and management developed.
6 Project’s Activities .
Proposed activities are divided into sections dealing with implementation of participatory land use planning, the design and implementation of benefit sharing mechanisms, increasing the returns from integrated wildlife and livestock production systems, and the development of decision support tools. Land and resource tenure rights, as well as cooperative land uses are essential to both pastoral and wildlife management regimes. The integration of conservation and livestock production requires monitoring systems that are designed to track conservation, production, economic and social indicators. These activity groups build on the outputs of the projects PDF-A Stakeholder Consultation Workshop: Livestock and Wildlife Integration Adjacent to Protected Areas in Africa: the Tanzania Site, January 3-4, 2001 in Arusha, Tanzania.
Component 1. Land use plans and Wildlife Management Areas developed, adopted and implemented effectively.
• Select six villages in which participatory land use planning will be implemented. The criteria for the selection of villages will be drawn up by communities, the district administration and the project steering committee.
• An Institutional analysis will be carried out to understand the existing governance structures at the community level, both official and traditional. The analysis will help to identify appropriate groups (existing or new) who are representative of the community and who have authority in the community to be responsible for land use planning (and benefit sharing activities) and who will contribute to the District Land Use Planning Fora. The team will make sure that the people who have, or are most likely to have conflict with wildlife are represented in these groups. The development of community-based natural resource governance mechanisms is integral to the sustainability of the project objectives by devolving management responsibilities and empowering local level environmental managers.
• Local level Land Use Planning Groups will be established and supported to enable them to carry out their responsibilities effectively
• Land Use Planning Fora will be established at the District level to co-ordinate planning among stakeholders. The Fora will include pastoralists, livestock keepers, croppers, District administration, tour operators, hunting companies and NGOs. The Land Use Planning Fora will be assisted to evaluate current land use changes and trends and to evaluate land use potential and constraints on the basis of local knowledge and technical information (statistical data, aerial photographs, satellite imagery, etc.).
• Train Village Councils in participatory land use planning (e.g. objectives, issues and challenges, community resources mapping, institutional framework).
• Train key representatives from two Districts (Simanjiro and Monduli) in participatory land use planning (e.g. objectives, issues and challenges, community involvement, regulatory framework). The six villages involved in participatory land use planning are part of these districts. Building institutional readiness at district level including training for District Game Officers conducted .
• Strategy for improved wildlife and livestock animal health will be developed, with special attention to their implication on land use planning.
• Using this information, the Fora will develop land use plans to improve sustainable allocation of resources among various stakeholders and will therefore improve community based natural resource management and to empower communities to better manage their resources. The land use plans will be designed in the theoretical framework of non-equilibrium environment concept, which implies spatially and temporally opportunistic use of resources. Therefore, the plans will be designed to be flexible and adaptive, through periodic re-negotiation of designated uses. In addition, the project will ensure that the land use plans do not undermine poor socio-economic strata’s access to resources, and especially to wild products. The main issues the plan will address are: wildlife/livestock range co-management, wildlife/croppers conflicts (prevent the ad hoc expansion of crops into critical wildlife areas - e.g. corridors, calving areas for wildebeest), conservation/pastoralists conflicts, crop/pastoral land-use conflicts, access to wild products.
• Land use plans will be co-funded, with contributions from the community and other stakeholders. The project will fund activities related to land degradation and conservation.
• Consolidate advisory mechanism, linked to the landscape planning process with the Vice President’s Office as the lead agency for this activity. The Tanzanian site co-ordination group will provide overall policy guidance and supervise overall performance. AWF will facilitate with the lead agencies being the Vice President’s Office (VPO), and the ministries of Natural Resources and Tourism, Water and Livestock Development, the Wildlife Division and Local Government. These institutions would form the core of the Co-ordination Committee.
• The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania allocates a central role to local communities in the course of the establishment of WMA’s. It provides the framework for empowering local communities with management actions related to the environment. In fact, the upshot of this legislation is that communities with high wildlife population densities can apply to their district government for status as a WMA. If this status is granted, then this community will have the right to manage wildlife within its boundaries in ways that will generate revenues for community development projects. The Project will facilitate the enforcement of this regulation in the project area. It will also sustain the actual community active and efficient involvement in the establishment of two WMAs.
• Six training workshops held at village level (3 per WMA) to facilitate and develop community capacity to sustain enterprises, and wildlife as a livestock compatible land use through business management, legal, marketing and financial training and continued support
Component 2. Design and develop benefit sharing mechanisms through capturing direct and indirect wildlife values.
• Participatory assessments will be made (400 households) to assess livelihood strategies of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in the project area at the beginning and the end of the project. Particular attention will be paid to current and potential income-generating activities for pastoralist communities from various land use types, as well as to the current and potential importance of wild products (including wildlife) in the livelihood strategies of different socio-economic categories.
• The benefit-sharing strategies identified in the framework of the Regional component will be evaluated in the particular context of the Tanzanian site, taking into account potential benefits for poor pastoralists who are more dependent for their livelihoods on crop growing than the non-poor. The pro-poor benefit-sharing arrangements will be tested for social feasibility. A market survey will be carried out to assess the potential for wildlife-based returns to pastoralists at District level.
• Community Groups will be supported to manage income-generating activities from wildlife. The Groups will be selected according to the outcome of the Institutional Analysis (Component 1). The manner in which the Groups will be established will depend on the results of the institutional analysis (Component 1). They may be the same Groups as for Land Use Planning.
• Community members are trained to establish fair and lasting partnerships with private operators
• Three community based conservation business ventures (CBVs) are operating as a form of benefit sharing mechanism. CBVs are community and biodiversity based enterprises that have been tested by AWF as an effective method of harnessing resource values, and increasing economic incentives to conserve wildlife while empowering communities with advocacy and management capacities. The CBVs will be established following the formulation of comprehensive strategic business plans. This would include sourcing and negotiating with private sector partners, preparing contracts and formal applications on behalf of community to government for access rights and changes in the allocation of benefits generated from wildlife. As an anchor for livestock and conservation developments, Manyara Ranch will function as a ‘hub’ for the development of one communally owned CBV based on the Ranch’s wildlife resources.
Component 3. Development of Decision Support Tools to Strengthen Rational Resource-Access and Management.
• A participatory assessment will identify information and analysis needs by decision makers at local, national and regional levels. The capacity of the users to take-up decision-support tools will also be identified. Decision support systems will be designed in a consultative and participatory way to facilitate their uptake and effectiveness as management tools which responds to local and national priorities .
• Develop databases for existing information, and identifying knowledge-gaps on wildlife corridors, traditional grazing systems, wildlife-livestock hotspots (appropriate technologies include fine resolution monitoring of livestock, wildlife, land use and human welfare). Assess the impact of land use options on wildlife, natural habitats and human welfare. This synthesis will provide a baseline for this activity as well as a ‘stock-check’ of available data sources and priority gaps. Data will be collected depending on gaps in information of wildlife corridors, traditional grazing systems, wildlife and livestock distributions, traditional knowledge of ethnobotany and biodiversity, and hotspots of interaction between livestock and wildlife such as inter-species disease transmission and the facilitation of disease control strategies . Apply GIS analysis and adapt the SAVANNA-PHEWS model to produce and make available ecological information, monitoring systems and an integrated assessment model for the Tarangire-Manyara landscape to aid natural resource zoning and planning and design of seasonal mechanisms for grazing utilisation. Model effects of perturbations (drought, vaccination of livestock for east coast fever) and develop alternative land-use management scenarios. In fact, the activities in Tanzania represent a unique opportunity to use and apply the SAVANNA-PHEWS pastoral-ecosystem model (Boone et al. 2001, Thornton et al. in press), that allows stakeholders to pose different management and policy scenarios and understand the trade-offs for people (pastoral households) and wildlife resulting from different land and resource-use decisions (wildlife conservation, livestock grazing and production, cultivation of crops) across the landscape. This is the only decision-making tool of its kind that can estimate the effects of different management actions in each of the communities on the ecosystem as a whole (wildlife, soils, vegetation, human incomes and nutrition, livestock), over any period of time (1 week to 200 years). Capacity of stakeholders will be strengthened to use this information and tools (GIS and SAVANNA-PHEWS training in particular). SAVANNA-PHEWS will be complemented with other tools, databases and methods to develop a comprehensive decision support system. This decision support system will contribute to activities that assist decision makers at local, regional and national level to fulfil their commitment to their National Environmental Action Plans through policies that reduce environmental degradation, foster biodiversity conservation, and promote rural development and natural resources management.
• Build capacity of researchers at national institutions and at NGOs, and establish two graduate students for thesis research under the aegis of the project (one local and one international). Capacity will be built in the area of decision support tools: from modelling (SAVANNA-PHEWS, GIS) to information management technologies (web programming, preparation of documents for divulgation).
• Two Spatial analysis training workshops are held. Local decision-makers and technicians attend.
• Decision support systems prepared and disseminated. Dissemination will be targeted through a wide network of international partners and internet based portals.
• Two workshops are organised to sensitise decision-makers at local and national levels to the wildlife – livestock interaction issues (early stage of the project).
• Decision makers at local, regional and national systems will be sensitised to the wildlife-livestock-crops integration issues and options, and will be trained in the use of decision support tools in four training workshops. Assistance will be accorded to village natural resource committees in information analysis and the creation of joint programmes between communities and state structures for monitoring resources.
• Prepare guidelines on the value of biodiversity in drylands and mechanisms which will enable pastoral communities to benefit from these values. This activity would have a double outcome: first it will allow the project to benefit from relevant experiences in the region; second, the guidelines will allow for national (and regional) dissemination. The following steps will be implemented:
– Review of existing policies and policy options (redistribution mechanisms, norms, regulations) to ensure that pastoral societies benefit from these values. The objective of the review is (i) at project level to support decision makers in selecting best policy options and (ii) to support the preparation of guidelines for the development of benefit sharing mechanisms.
– Identification and evaluation of direct and indirect values (use and non-use) of wildlife bio-diversity in dryland pastoral systems. Assessment of the way in which these values currently benefit or not pastoral communities,
– Analysis of issues critical to the access of pastoralists to wildlife. Among others :
← ownership of land and bio-diversity and it’s perception by the various stakeholders,
← conservation and hunting (traditional as well as trophy) regulations,
← benefit sharing mechanisms : at local level and between national and local levels,
– Identification of the various options for pastoralists to benefit from wildlife resources (e.g. Community based management, traditional hunting, equitable forms of revenue sharing from tourism, employment, private sector partnerships)
• Prepare guidelines on decision making processes for natural resources management and drought preparedness in drylands pastoral systems. The study will provide recommendations on the design of specific decision support tools for key stakeholders in pastoral systems, for drought management and natural resources management. This will include the targeting of the key decision-makers, the type of information they require, the identification of the channels and supports most appropriated to reach the decision makers, as well as aspects of maintenance and financing. This activity would have a double outcome: first it will allow the project to benefit from relevant experiences in the region; second, the guidelines will allow for national (and regional) dissemination. The following steps will be implemented:
– an analysis of the various levels of decision makers, the decisions they make in relation to NRM and drought preparedness and the factors they do consider when making decisions,
– an understanding of how decision makers communicate and interact : decision-making process, differences between formal and informal systems
– an analysis on the availability and use of information on natural resources at various levels (from the herder to the national level officer), and how it flows across the levels,
– how and by whom these decisions are implemented.
• Publication and dissemination of guidelines and standards.
– On the basis of the two sites experience as well as the thematic studies presented above, guidelines for wildlife and livestock co-management in SSA pastoral systems will be prepared.
– They will be presented in a Specific Workshop, and disseminated to decision makers involved in the areas of livestock production, bio-diversity conservation, planning, and decentralisation.
7 Beneficiary assessment
The primary stakeholders in the project are pastoralists who are dependent on livestock and/or crops and wild products for their livelihoods. Pastoralists will directly and indirectly benefit from the project, in particular through:
- Land use plans will allow for conflict reduction and pastoralists’ improved access to resources (Outcome 1)
- Pastoralists’s livelihoods will be improved through the benefit-sharing mechanisms (Outcome 2)
- Pastoralists will be involved in natural resources management and conservation programs, and therefore will be able to better advocate for their needs and rights (Outcome 3).
A population of approximately 350,000 pastoralists and agro-pastoralists live in the Maasai Steppe ecosystem, which includes the project area. Communities directly involved in this project are the Maasai of Emboreet and Loiborsirret communities in Simanjiro District adjacent to Tarangire NP, as well as the Kwakuchinja, Esilalei, Oltukai, and Simangor communities bordering Manyara NP and Manyara Ranch in Monduli District. The entry point of the project will be at ‘village’ level. The term ‘village’ is an administrative term used to describe a land unit, and often includes a settlement and the grazing lands surrounding the area. The ‘village’ designation is similar to the Group Ranch structure in Kenya in terms of organisation and land size. In Tanzania, the project will focus on Maasai communities living in ‘villages’ designated as pilot WMA areas, or are located adjacent to wildlife corridors or protected areas.
Pastoral groups are commonly highly mobile to enable them to use the land optimally due to the low and erratic rainfall which causes spatial and temporal variations in grazing resources. Pastoralists are known to derive at least 50% of their food and income from their livestock and in the project area this figure is likely to be lower, given that the pressures on the availability and access to grazing are forcing many pastoralists, and particularly the poor, to grow crops. Pastoral communities are not homogenous in terms of their social and economic assets and their vulnerability.
As part of the participatory approach, the project will carry out a socio-economic analysis of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the project area to provide information on the differentiation within and between communities. The analysis will provide data on the very poor, the poor and the less poor and on the different age groups of women, men and youth. A participatory assessment will provide information on the livelihood strategies of the communities, including the current contribution of livestock and/or crops to household capital assets. An institutional analysis will provide information on the governance structures at level which impact on pastoralists’ livestock and crop-related livelihood activities from different levels: local, district and higher levels. These structures will include both formal government administration as well as traditional authorities and indigenous social support mechanisms.
In addition, the project will analyse the conflict between the users of the natural resources, including pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and wildlife. The aim will be to identify the groups which activities or changes in activities engender, or are most likely to engender conflicts with wildlife.
These analyses will enable the identification of direct project beneficiaries and the effective targeting of project benefits according to assessed needs. They will also provide accurate base-line data to assist in monitoring and evaluation of the project. This refined information is not required prior to project start because it exists at a less accurate but sufficient level to design both the project and its M&E plan. In addition, the process of gathering this information, through participatory assessment, is not separable\from the participatory approach which is the core of the project.
8 Sustainability analysis
Sustainability is a cross-cutting theme of the different components of the activities. For example:
1. Biodiversity losses are the consequence of a number of underlying causes (such as population growth, climate change) and inadequate policy design and implementation. The project does not claim to tackle climate change, nor to directly reduce population growth (although it will have impacts on immigration and social shifts – cf. 1.2.6.), it aims at improving institutional capacity, policy making at local and national level, and involvement of local communities in the management of resources, in order to facilitate the ability of pastoral (agro pastoral) systems to adapt to changes in their environment.
2. Capacity building: The project includes mentored scholarships for applied postgraduate work, centred within host country institutions, and central to their mandates. The project also targets the formation of governance mechanisms such as a WMA forum, and at village level, support for the formation, training, and maintenance of Village Natural Resource Management Committees and institutions. If effectively supported and developed, these local level governance structures have the potential to serve as future advocates and implementers of project outcomes. Risks to these institutions include a lack of capacity and transparency. Partners in this project will work with relevant national government institutions to ensure that CBO’s are formally registered, trained and facilitated. Capacity building of the Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) offers significant opportunities for continued sustainability of project outcomes through the TLCT’s long term mandate and ability to leverage development resources.
3. The Landscape Conservation Planning Process that AWF is adapting from that used by the International Programme of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) involves stakeholders in assessing threats to the landscape and designing strategies to mitigate them. This provides (a) a higher level of awareness and information exchange among landowners or users, (b) a degree of communal ownership of diverse stakeholder activities, (c) an ongoing process for focusing effort and resources on activities leading to improved ecological and economic health within the landscape and (d) a means of monitoring them, thus early warning of a lack of sustainability and the opportunity to redress this threat.
4. Long term investment of participating institutions: In addition to the implementing national institutions, the District Councils involved in this project are part of a select number of councils which are being mandated with increased local government responsibility from central Government levels. Therefore, in terms of institutional arrangements, local government and government institutions will be well placed to sustain the project at District level.
5. The NGO’s involved in the project are locally or regionally-based, with a long-term approach. ILRI is headquartered in Nairobi, and MAA which has arisen from the community, is guided by long-term land use ethics and is responsible to the communities using the land. AWF has supported conservation actions in northern Tanzania for 40 years, and has sited a regionally-focused office in Arusha. Naming the Maasai Steppe as a priority African landscape also guarantees at least a 10-15 year commitment from AWF to work for conservation impact in this area.
6. Conservation Business Ventures – guided by commercial realities – have inbuilt incentives for sustaining the resources on which they are based, and provide the financial means to enhance sustainability. This is further enhanced by ensuring the local availability of enterprise support services by project partners to sustain CBVs. Surprisingly, the economic downturn in Eastern Africa over the past five years has not constrained a remarkably vibrant tourism-based economic environment in northern Tanzania. However, wildlife-based tourism is a major sector of Tanzania’s economy, and tourism is acknowledged to be a volatile and sensitive market which can be impacted upon by local and international trends and events. A downturn following the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, has been noted which is affecting mass markets as a whole. A recovery in the tourism industry seems imminent with visitor levels returning to pre-September 11th numbers for 2002. Interestingly, eco-tourism niche markets have been observed to have experienced less serious declines. CBV’s based on wildlife tourism have the inherent risk that tourism trends may alter away from Tanzania thereby affecting enterprise sustainability. While international tourism trends are driven by macro level realities (such as infrastructure, regional security), Tanzanian Government and private sector efforts to market Tanzania have continued to grow in scale and budget (Tanzania Tourism Board).
7. The regulations for implementation of Wildlife Management Areas were signed by the Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism on the 13th of December, 2002. It is presumed that government will actively build upon this framework, promoting the evolution of productive community wildlife management. Conversely, there is an inbuilt assumption that communities will have the confidence to invest in this as a land use option, overcoming some uncertainties during a transition from state-controlled land uses, to an uptake of roles and responsibilities in environmental governance from more stakeholders.
9 Risk analysis
1. A delay in ratification of WMA regulations would affect the policy environment facilitating the establishment of benefit sharing mechanisms surrounding protected areas. In such case, the activities would initially focus on establishing communal Natural Resource Management Areas (NRMA’s) which would then be well placed to adopt WMA regulations when ratified. Tanzania has a strong track record in resource conservation, as evidenced by the extensive network of lands under protected area status, its community conservation policies and the recent government support for the establishment of the Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT). The national institutions involved are an integral part of the project, thus influencing the recommendations and outcomes, and providing a framework for them to guide policy and practice both within Tanzania and within the region. Various examples of benefit sharing mechanisms have been implemented in communal areas with wildlife resources on the site, for example, the GEF supported Boundary Hill Lodge and its partnership with Lolkisale Village. Therefore, a policy environment already exists for implementation of benefit sharing mechanisms in the absence of WMA regulations.
2. The livestock market in Tanzania may not provide adequate returns to livestock producers to reduce the incentives of converting to agriculture. The on-site executing agencies will collaborate closely with the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development in analysing markets and marketing strategies for livestock in an effort to catalyse opportunities for livestock producers benefiting from the project.
3. There is a risk that human-wildlife conflicts within the Tanzanian site could increase due to land use changes in areas bordering the area. For example, increased agricultural conversion or fencing could lead to wildlife compression within the project area and a higher resultant rate of conflict. The project will work with local government and national institutions to track land use changes which may adversely affect the project and advocate where appropriate for more comprehensive eco-system level planning at various levels. The HCP process is specifically designed to address eco-system level conservation planning and would be used as a strategy to minimise adverse land use change in areas impacting the project.
4. The project may indirectly favour the intensification of livestock production by improving animal health and pastoral investment capacity through livelihood benefits. This may result in environmental pressures due to an increase in livestock populations. However, the project focuses on preserving the mobility of livestock production systems as well as increasing the value of livestock and wildlife rather than increasing livestock populations per se. The project is however cognisant of this indirect impact and will therefore monitor livestock populations. In addition, participatory land-use planning will discuss issues of over-stocking, optimal stocking rates and strategies and focus on activities that improve livestock value. It is assumed that appropriate capacity is available to contribute to the activities, within the institutional partners and communities participating in this project. The different components of the project all provide integral measures of impact – at landscape level, within the livestock and wildlife health component, within enterprises, and as decision support through the database and modelling. Combined with the information generation and dissemination, these provide a compelling framework and powerful incentives for continued interest and investment from international stakeholders also
5. Lack of interest in, and uptake of, the informational products both nationally and internationally would reduce project impact. However, this is unlikely given (a) the relevance of the products to all the stakeholders in northern Tanzania and (b) the regional and international mandates of the participating organisations, and (c) the value added of the LEAD supported cross-site analysis.
6. Unexpected high demographic growth, or dramatic climate change would create such conditions that the project could not prevent biodiversity loss.
10 Conformity to GEF Eligibility Criteria
Operational Programme
The project conforms with the criteria for operational programme number one (OP1): Arid and semi-arid zone ecosystems. It follows the overall guidance statement, in that the project “promotes the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity ... in ... environmentally vulnerable areas such as arid and semi-arid lands”. It also follows “the ecosystem approach [that] should be the primary framework of action to be taken under the convention.” Finally, the project conforms with the recommendation made during the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biodiversity, especially with regard to the consistency with national priorities and objectives, the capacity building effort at community and institutional levels, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of genetic resources.
Moreover, the objectives of the project are strictly in line with the objectives of OP1 that are “the conservation and sustainable use of the biological resources in arid and semi-arid zone ecosystems,” as well as Pillar II of the Strategic Priorities for the Biodiversity Focal Area. The project will work towards in-situ conservation through protection of systems within conservation areas and will work to mainstream sustainable use activities and natural resource management into the production sector within Tanzania.
The project will support the development of institutional capacities for improved management procedures and cooperation among agencies dealing with biodiversity conservation. The project will also support the development of market incentive structures to improve the return to stakeholders for better livestock management and biodiversity protection.
The project is also expected to have major impacts on the ecosystem, which will be monitored for diversity and abundance of fauna and flora. In addition, the involvement of local communities, the fraction of their livelihoods related to bio-diversity, as well as their impact on the ecosystems, is central to the project and will therefore also be monitored.
Finally, the activities of the project are in line with those proposed in the OP1 guidelines. In fact, the project activities fall into the three categories described below:
• Sustainable use activities:
Project activities: integrating bio-diversity conservation and sustainable use objectives in land use and natural resource use management plans; piloting projects providing alternative livelihoods for local and indigenous communities residing in buffer zones of globally important biological areas; strengthening capacity building efforts that promote the preservation and maintenance of indigenous and local communities’ knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to the sustainable use of biological diversity; piloting selected activities that are country-driven national priorities and which develop and/or test methods and tools, such as rapid biological/ecological/social assessment, geographic information systems.
• Bio-diversity protection activities:
Project activities: integrated rural development on a sustainable basis, e.g. range management..., infrastructure, marketing, wildlife and tourism; natural resources management activities which emphasize integrated resources use with conservation and development; establishing long-term cost recovery mechanisms and financial incentives for sustainable use.
• Conservation activities:
Project activities: strengthening, expanding, and consolidating conservation areas; assessing the impact of natural disturbances and the compound effect of anthropogenic stress; demonstrating and applying techniques to conserve biodiversity important to agriculture; supporting capacity building efforts that promote the preservation and maintenance of indigenous and local communities’ knowledge, innovation and practices relevant to conservation of biological diversity with their prior informed consent and participation.
Alignment with GEF Strategic Priorities
The objective of the project matches the specific objective of Pillar 2 of the Biodiversity Strategic Priorities, which is “to integrate biodiversity conservation in agriculture, [...] and other production systems and sectors to secure national and global environmental benefits”. The project area is clearly characterised by high biodiversity with global significance.In addition, replicability will be ensured through the development of benefit sharing mechanisms and decision support tools that will be actively spread via the LEAD network. Finally, the projects will implement the three types of activities the GEF is aiming at in the framework of SP#2:
a) Facilitate the mainstreaming of biodiversity within production systems: Pastoral systems, which are characterised by high biodiversity (both in livestock and wildlife), will be maintained through improved institutional capacities, better land allocation, reduced conflicts and benefit sharing mechanisms.
b) Developing market incentive measures: fair partnerships between tourism professionals and local communities will be developed in order to better share economic benefits from biodiversity conservation out of protected areas.
c) Demonstration: Participatory land use plans will be prepared and implemented in 6 villages. Methodologies and outcomes will be used as basis for replication.
INCREMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT
1 Overview
The outputs of this project are designed to directly prevent biodiversity loss, improve integrated ecosystem management and improve community livelihoods. This has wider implications to the international scale as pastoral communities in many areas are increasingly turning to agriculture or agro-pastoralism to replace or supplement pastoralism. Historically, pastoralists did not practice agriculture and thus pastoralism is a land use which inherently created fewer conflicts with wildlife. Conflict primarily was viewed from the perspective of disease transmission, predation, and death from encounters with wildlife. The advent of agriculture has changed the nature of these conflicts. The decision of where to cultivate is often not informed by the knowledge of wildlife movements and their own range requirements. It is often decided by the proximity to infrastructure, rainfall and soil conditions. Wildlife cause damage to crops and previously tolerant pastoralists are becoming increasing hostile to wildlife as agriculture expands in wildlife dispersal areas. The continued slow decline of pastoralists and land use change could hasten a breakdown in a major land use system which is otherwise complementary to wildlife.
The “baseline situation” and the “alternative scenario” describe how the activities of the proposed project will provide additional global and local environmental benefits.
2 Baseline Situation
The Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem is one of the richest wildlife eco-systems in Africa (Appendix 1 illustrates the Species Density of African Mammals on a continental level). This ecosystem is recognized internationally as an arid zone with exceptionally high biodiversity. Core resource areas in the Maasai Steppe such as Manyara and Tarangire National Parks are administered by TANAPA, while matters pertaining to biodiversity conservation in areas bordering protected areas are administered by the Wildlife Division. District Councils are active in natural resource management and land use planning as well as community development and the provision of social services to communities in this area. National Institutions such as TAWIRI oversee wildlife research and resource surveys in the project area.
The Ministry of Water and Livestock Development funds the Tanzania Livestock Marketing Project (TLMP), which aims to establish stock routes in certain districts included in the project area. In Simanjiro District, TLMP has built a dip tank and attendant's house at Loiborsirret as well as a holding ground and house for a livestock field officer in Terat. The presidency has recently issued a circular stating that the livestock Development Fund (LDF) should be implemented in all districts. This is where 15% of all livestock related taxes within a district are put directly back into livestock within that district.
AWF carries out an ecosystem level conservation program in Tarangire-Manyara, funded by The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Partnership Options for Resource Use Innovation (PORI) project- a landscape conservation program implemented between 1998-2003. PORI has 4 components:
PORI 1: Community natural resources management catalyzed and supported in targeted pastoral areas;
PORI 2: Innovative methodologies in operational planning, visitor services and park outreach being effectively implemented;
PORI 3: Support to implementing partners; and
PORI 4: Improved facilities and infrastructure for park visitors and staff.
PORI has primarily supported the resource ‘anchors’ in the ecosystem of Tarangire (2,600 km²) and Manyara (330 km²) National Parks. The program is primarily community based conservation and infrastructural in scope with Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), Local Councils and local communities as the main implementing partners. PORI has substantially developed AWF’s PRA capacities, natural resources planning and community mobilization related to benefit sharing structures such as CBV’s. Formal partnerships and agreements are already in place with the Wildlife Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, District Councils in the project area (Monduli, Babati, Kiteto, Simanjiro, Karatu and Mbulu), NGO’s such as WWF, OIKOS, and local NGO’s such as MAA and Mazingira Bora Karatu. The project will be able to benefit from these established existing linkages.
Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) is a collaborating institution with AWF in the PORI project. WWF provides the ecological research backup for PORI in Tarangire National Park. The Italian NGO, Instituto OIKOS- a collaborative research program between the Universities of Milan and Insubria, provides wildlife surveys and radio telemetry data. The Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) supervises wildlife censuses and monitoring which build upon decades of regular wildlife and resource surveys. The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) builds upon a baseline of international livestock, rangeland, and ecological research throughout Africa. Thematically related to the project, ILRI is a major collaborating partner in the LUCID project in the Kilimanjaro area investigating the impacts of land use change on biodiversity[9]. VETAID is active in the Emboreet/ Simanjiro area adjacent to Tarangire National Park and provides livestock disease control support. These projects specifically address village development (traditional and legal land use planning), Disease surveillance (funded by OAU/IBAR), and East Coast Fever (ECF) immunization in Simanjiro, Monduli and Hanang Districts.
VETAID has three projects running in Simanjiro District:
– Community based disease epidemiology, using community animal health workers to report the occurrence of diseases to the government. The objective is to initiate an epidemiology system, which will be taken on by the government epidemiology unit once the project has finished. It will provide the Ministry with a better understanding of where diseases are in the country, how they are moving and should lead to faster response in terms of controlling outbreaks of notifiable diseases.
– Participatory village planning. This aims to make village development plans representative of all sections of the village.
– Methods of establishing a sustainable supply of ECF vaccine in pastoral areas. As a result of the project a ECF vaccine delivery centre is set up in Terat.
3 The GEF alternative
This program will improve on this baseline situation with incremental activities which address conservation on an ecosystem level in a globally significant species-rich area. In Tanzania, GEF financing will enable the project to build on a strong research and partnership foundation to expand conservation benefits ecosystem wide in non-protected areas critical for wildlife dispersal. The project will combine decision support tools for the integration of wildlife and livestock with significant replication potential throughout sub-Saharan Africa. At a national level, this project will enable District and National planners to adapt, design and implement decision support systems appropriate for conditions in Tanzania which incorporate innovative syntheses of spatial analysis, modelling and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) components. The development of decision support systems will build the capacity of staff at national institutions and District Councils through training and the collaborative development of management tools. The dissemination of standards and guidelines at national and regional level will allow the project to have global environment benefits not only in the two sites but in other areas where current wildlife – livestock conflicts currently represent a threat to bio-diversity conservation.
The global environmental benefits include:
1. Better conservation of biodiversity in one of the richest wildlife ecosystems in the world (Appendix 1) including wildlife dispersal areas which support a Biosphere reserve (Lake Manyara) by increasing the areas available for wildlife habitat and developing strategies for reducing human-wildlife conflict.
2. Better understanding of the various level of decision makers and the decision they make in relation to livestock – wildlife integration and drought preparedness. Implementation of specific decision support tools appropriate for each user in Tanzania and design of guidelines for replication.
3. Development of adaptive land use planning and decision support tools useful to local communities and land managers with global replication potential.
4. Improved understanding of the links between land-use change and biodiversity loss.
5. Innovative examples of the combination of indigenous knowledge and monitoring/modeling systems to improve local to national management of a wildlife ecosystem
6. Development of innovative benefit sharing mechanisms tested in Tanzania.
Incremental Cost matrix
| |Baseline |Alternative |Increment |
| | | |(Alternative-Baseline) |
|Global |Conservation of wildlife biodiversity |Conservation of wildlife outside protected |Land use plans for bio-diverse areas at |
|Environ-mental |within protected areas |areas by preserving and developing |landscape level, with inbuilt assessment |
|Benefits | |wildlife-livestock co-management. |of status |
| | | | |
| | |Conflicts are reduced through better land | |
| |Conflicts between wildlife and |management, less crop encroachment, and |Development of participatory land use |
| |agro-pastoral societies resulting in |higher tolerance of pastoralists towards |plans and novel benefit sharing mecanisms |
| |loss of wildlife (poaching, |damages from wildlife. | |
| |disturbances) | | |
| | |Identify threats to globally significant | |
| | |biodiversity by providing information on | |
| | |their trends at a scale useful for |Development of new fine-resolution |
| |Coarse information on wildlife trends |communities and other land managers |livestock-wildlife monitoring systems |
| |useful only at a national scale of | | |
| |resolution |Provide scientific understanding of the | |
| | |linkages between land use change and | |
| | |biodiversity loss | |
| | | |Analysis of links between land-use change |
| |Inadequate understanding of the links |Innovative example of the combination of |and biodiversity loss |
| |between land-use change and |indigenous knowledge and land use planning | |
| |biodiversity loss |to improve management and decision making | |
| | |of a globally important wildlife ecosystem |Development and implementation of |
| |Few examples of the participatory | |effective decision support systems |
| |integration of indigenous knowledge and|Sectorial policies and programs at national| |
| |systems monitoring and modeling |and regional level take into account the | |
| | |needs of pastoral societies and the | |
| | |wildlife-livestock interactions | |
| | | | |
| |Livestock and land use policies do not | |Awareness building and development and |
| |make adequate allowance for issues | |implementation of effective decision |
| |related to pastoralists and wildlife | |support systems |
| |conservation | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Domestic Benefits|New policy on land-use planning exists,|Development and implementation of improved |Participatory landscape conservation |
| |but needs translating into practice |land use options in the two sites |planning process designed and threat |
| | | |mitigation strategies underway, guided by |
| | | |project steering stakeholders. |
| | | | |
| | |Enhanced opportunities for pastoral |Improved institutional and enterprise |
| |New policy intergrating biodiversity |communities to obtain benefits directly |development that directly link pastoral |
| |conservation and community development |from wildlife utilisation. |livelihood improvement to the development |
| |to be ratified. Needs translating into| |of benefit sharing mechanisms. |
| |practice | | |
| | | |Strategy for improved wildlife and |
| |Existing but insufficient animal health|Improved knowledge with regard to |livestock animal health, implications with|
| |interventions reducing options for |wildlife/livestock common diseases |regard to land use planning. |
| |livestock production in key areas |incidence. | |
| | | | |
| |Good but fragmented information about | |Capacity of researchers at national |
| |the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem | |institutions and at NGOs improved through |
| | |Effective, synthesised information |research/analysis support (technical and |
| | |available for decision makers |financial) |
| |Benefits from wildlife flowing to a few| | |
| |communities | |Conservation Business Ventures (CBVs) |
| | | |operating in key areas, consolidated as |
| | |Knowledge on alternative benefit sharing |livelihood benefits and wildlife/livestock|
| | |mechanisms from wildlife conservation to |chosen as a viable land use option |
| | |local communities, as well as an enabling | |
| | |policy environment and examples of good | |
| | |private sector partnerships available | |
| |Dispersed databases and | |New data collection, application of GIS |
| |inconsistent data on a spatial and |Systems and data integration and increased |analysis; ecological information and |
| |temporal scale |collaboration between research and |monitoring system and integrated |
| | |implementing institutions |assessment model available for the |
| | | |Tarangire landscape. |
|Costs |2,350,000 |4,558,000 |2,208,000 |
|(US$) | | | |
| |Government of Tanzania in cash: 300,000| | |
| |Government of Tanzania in kind: 590,000| | |
| |USAID in cash: 1.1 millions | | |
| |ILRI in cash 150,000, | | |
| |VETAID in cash: 210,000 | | |
4 Incremental Cost Budget (US$)
5 Budget summary
Note :
- In cash co-funding of “Thematic studies” (US$ 130,000) is provided by LEAD. All other in cash co-funding is provided by the “Fonds Français pour l’environnement Mondial”.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The project will be achieved over a period of three years. It will be executed by FAO which will be responsible for:
– technical support. FAO, utilising expertise from the LEAD Initiative, will provide technical input to each component, as specified below.
– administrative and operational support
– assistance to monitoring and evaluation.
FAO will subcontract AWF and ILRI for the local execution of the project.
AWF will be responsible for the local co-ordination and execution of the project, under the supervision of FAO and the national Steering Committee. In particular, AWF will:
– co-ordinate and facilitate ongoing activities at the local level,
– provide staff time and expertise as defined below,
– arrange local sub-contracts with consultants and organisations, especially where specific expertise is required,
– procure equipment,
– provide progress reports to FAO.
Under the supervision of FAO and the national Steering Committee, ILRI will be provide scientific support to the design of methodologies for various activities, and will contribute to the preparation of decision support tools, as specified below.
The inter-institutional co-operation and organisation for the project as indicated in Annexe 2. For each activity group, there will be specific agencies responsible for results guided by a national institution and facilitated by AWF and/or ILRI under supervision of FAO and the National Steering Committee.
These arrangements per component are as follows (detailed presentation of organisations can be found in Annex1):
Component 1. Land use plans and Wildlife Management Areas developed, adopted and implemented effectively.
Organisations involved will include: Tanzania Wildlife Division, Division of Livestock, Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), District Councils Land Use Planning Commission, the Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA), Maasai Advancement Association (MAA), Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), ILRI, CIRAD, facilitated by AWF. FAO will provide technical support to the analysis of current and past land use changes, the design of methodology for the design and implementation of participatory land use planning.
Component 2. Design and develop benefit sharing mechanisms through capturing direct and indirect wildlife values
Organisations involved will include: IRA, District Councils, MAA, TAWIRI, TANAPA, Tanzania Wildlife Division, CIRAD, facilitated by AWF and ILRI. FAO will provide technical support to the identification, testing and implementation of opportune benefit sharing mechanisms, and the design of the household survey.
Component 3. Development of Decision Support Tools to Strengthen Rational Resource-Access and Management
Organisations involved will include: Government of Tanzania, Districts, TAWIRI, Wildlife Division, TANAPA, District Councils, MAA, IRA, CIRAD, facilitated by AWF and ILRI. FAO will provide technical support to the design of decision support tools for local communities and for policy making at the district level and national level administrations, based on LEAD experience from similar approaches conducted in other projects. FAO-LEAD will co-ordinate the preparation of guidelines. In addition, the LEAD Virtual Centre will be used as an important communication and dissemination resource:
← The “research network area” (password protected area) will be used as a core tool for exchanging documents and idea among the various individuals involved in the project (e.g. field team, scientific backstopping institutes, LEAD, the World Bank, GEF).
← The “public” area will support the dissemination of the project’s outcomes and results.
The implementation plan is illustrated in the following table:
|Duration of Project (in months): 36 |Project Month |
|Activity |
|Land use analysis |x |x | | | | |
|Participatory land use planning |x |x |x |x |x | |
|Training and workshop |x | |x | |x | |
|WMA facilitation | |x |x |x |x |x |
|Infrastructure developments | | | | |x |x |
|Component 2. Benefit Sharing Mechanisms |
|Household survey |x |x | | | | |
|Training and workshop |x |x |x |x |x |x |
|Community based organizations for the harnessing of wildlife |x |x |x |x |x |x |
|values | | | | | | |
|Component 3. Decision Support Systems |
|Participatory design of DSS |x |x |x | | | |
|Adaptation of existing models | | |x |x |x | |
|Preparation and dissemination of DSS at local and national | | | | |x |x |
|level | | | | | | |
|Capacity building of national and local institutions |x |x |x |x |x |x |
|Thematic studies |x |x |x |x |x |x |
|Regional meetings |x | |x | |x | |
|Guidelines publication and dissemination | | | | |x |x |
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
1 Introduction
Public involvement through the project is ensured by stakeholder consultation and participation, information dissemination and through the project advisory committees.
2 Consultation and Design
The project design was developed through a consultative process. This involved consulting local communities, national and international NGO’s, World Bank, UNDP and FAO as well as national and district level governmental officials. The activities in Tanzania will build upon those initial consultations at every stage, to ensure not only public involvement but also full use of the project’s findings and outputs.
The activities are rooted in previous partner collaboration in Northern Tanzania. These partnership arrangements were catalysed through the PDF-A process, with the project design based on the Stakeholder Consultation Workshop: Livestock and Wildlife Integration Adjacent to Protected Areas in Africa: The Tanzania Site[10], as well as subsequent stakeholder consultations. For example:
• January 2001, consultation meetings prepared by AWF and field mission of FAO-LEAD staff members
• May-June 2002, consultation meetings prepared by AWF and field mission of FAO-LEAD staff members
• June 3rd 2002, representatives of AWF, MAA, ILRI and LEAD met with the Monduli District Council in Monduli, Tanzania to discuss land use planning, the design of the project log-frame, and decision support systems. This was followed with consultative meetings in Arusha with OIKOS, VetAid and TAWIRI.
• June 5th 2002, members of LEAD met with Tanzania’s GEF Focal Point in the Vice President’s Office to discuss the project’s endorsement by the Government of Tanzania.
• June 2002, a workshop was organised in Dar es Salaam with representatives of the Wildlife Division, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development and AWF to finalise the project design and management mechanisms.
3 Stakeholder participation
The primary goal of this project, to conserve wildlife by improving livelihoods and reducing human-wildlife conflict, requires a cross-sector approach. This will be achieved by building upon existing stakeholder collaboration gained during a long history of working with local community groups. National institutions and District Councils have been closely linked to communities in the project area to whom they are mandated to deliver services and the support of national institutions provides a strong foundation for national impact.
AWF has over 40 years of practical wildlife conservation experience in Africa, while ILRI provides a strong ecological monitoring, data collection and assessment facility. ILRI will partner locally with TAWIRI (Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute) sharing the baseline of ecological monitoring, data collection and assessment with the aim of developing TAWIRI capacity in these fields. As an indigenous organisation representing pastoralists in Monduli and Simanjiro Districts, MAA has developed expertise as a primary intermediary between pastoral communities and development agencies. MAA represents the interests of MAA speaking pastoralists of Northern Tanzania and the project will build the capacity of MAA to effectively provide the interface with target pastoral communities. AWF and MAA have made long-term commitments to work in the Maasai Steppe which ensures a measure of consistency and sustainability beyond the life of the project, as well as additional leveraged funding and a continued commitment to communities impacted by the project.
The consultations and participation of these community groups in the Maasai Steppe have provided opportunities to discuss local initiatives, opinions, and experiences, and have stimulated community action to address local issues. The on-going participation of local communities in the project area has been facilitated by AWF. Experience has demonstrated that vulnerable groups (landless, squatters, women and the young) are often absent from activities such as community workshops. The planning of activities will aim to include vulnerable groups in the meetings, and in discussions outside of these formal settings. In areas of reduced livelihood options, social change, and land use conversion, there is often conflict between different groups of land managers.
The participation strategy includes using participatory rural appraisal methods, as well as methods developed through community institution building and empowerment through community based natural resource management (CBNRM). Workshops and meetings will be held at different stages of the project, at communal level, with local government, national institutions and NGOs. At early stages of the project, these workshops will be oriented to increase community sensitization and involvement with the aim of increasing community participation. Communities will be mobilized through PRA techniques and consulted via Ward Representatives to District Councils, Village Councils, and village natural resource management committees. During implementation, implementing national institutions in collaboration with NGO partners will hold regular meetings to evaluate the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the project. A series of training courses in the implementation of WMA areas will be carried out locally to introduce pastoralists to new policy developments which promote communal participation in natural resource management.
The Wildlife Policy of Tanzania allocates a central role to local communities in the course of the establishment of WMAs. They provide the mechanism for empowering local communities with management actions related to the environment. This Project will facilitate community based conservation activities including the establishment of Village Natural Resource Management Committees, land use planning, demarcation, mapping, bye-law formulation, and CBVs in WMA Pilot areas. As a further empowerment mechanism, community approval is a pre-requisite for major land use developments.
The project integrates community involvement in several activities. These include:
• Participation in data collection activities through focus group interviews (stratified by appropriate group and gender), participatory techniques such as village resource mapping, wealth ranking, problem diagnosis and priority ranking.
• Partnership Options for Resource Use Innovations (PORI) partner meetings extended through the USAID Strategic Objective team which includes District administrations, and the Heartland Conservation Planning (HCP) process involving landscape stakeholders,
• Formalized partnerships with District administrations,
• Workshops conducted by facilitators in the language and accepted format of local communities for problem definition and characterization, and for verification and expansion of the project’s interpretation of ecological and socio-economic data,
• Livestock improvement in predominately pastoral societies as well as mobilization for enterprise development,
• Access to management and development findings which inform land management.
• Establishment of project facilitated agreements between communities and private sector partners for community business ventures.
• Development of monitoring and evaluation tools with communities,
Decision-makers are explicitly included in the project in assessing the role of policy in affecting community development in pastoral areas, land use change and wildlife conservation. Decision makers include governmental authorities, civil society and other leaders and would serve as evaluators of findings and their interpretation. Project members will also present research findings to decision makers at the national level during meetings and seminars, including reports and electronic information media such as the CD-ROM. Scientists and development specialists focused on pastoralism and livestock health will be involved in peer assessment of project working papers and scientific papers. Professional meetings, policy seminars, and editorial reviews of papers will provide opportunities for external specialist involvement with the project.
4 Information dissemination
The team will prepare different informational products on the site findings as well as on the regional issues. Information format and content will be tailored according to targeted recipients. It will be widely available for dissemination:
1. The results will be published in a series of publications including: Guidelines and standards for the integration of wildlife and pastoral production, project working paper series and extension materials for different end users, and especially policy makers.
2. A CD-ROM which includes the project database and analytical results. This will be designed for use by East African decision makers, NGO’s and others. It will be widely disseminated, and staff of key agencies will be trained in its use.
3. A detailed project website updated with project findings in the LEAD's Virtual Research and Development Centre. This will enable a global audience interested in livestock, environment and wildlife interactions, rural development, and micro-enterprise development to access the information and project results.
4. LEAD will also include the results of this project within its “Livestock-Environment in the Policy Dialogue” programme which contributes information to a core group of specialists in mainstream livestock and environmental policies, the organisation of training/workshops for policy makers and the participation in policy formulation missions in developing countries. LEAD's Francophone and Anglophone platforms will facilitate information sharing through its network of institutions in the region. Together with the Virtual Research and Development Centre, LEAD would provide the means for conventional and electronic publications and would incorporate the results of the project within the Livestock and Environment Toolbox (an electronic decision support tool for policy makers).
5. Articles in peer reviewed scientific journals. These will bring the project results to an international audience and help to promote use of the project scientific findings and adoption of the “generic” products of the project. These articles will be distributed to stakeholders in the region and others concerned with land degradation issues in UN agencies, government ministries etc.
The findings of the project will be presented in a variety of fora including seminars at national-level governmental agencies in the region and national and international meetings organised by agencies such as the World Bank, UNEP, UNDP, and FAO and at academic conferences. The project will also present and discuss the findings with other GEF-sponsored projects in the region.
Scientists and research institutions, both locally and internationally, will benefit from evaluation of the management outputs of this targeted research. The breadth of interest and importance accorded to the project is reflected in the variety of institutions represented by the project team: national and international universities, regional environmental NGOs, and national governmental agencies, and their ties with the international development community.
5 Project Advisory Committees
In the two project sites, the activities will be guided by a National Steering Committee gathering the executing agencies and representatives of the relevant Ministries from central and decentralised level.
In Tanzania, there will be two committees established to assist the project with implementation and to provide guidance on specific issues (see Annex 2):
1. The Project Steering Committee will comprise representatives of the executing agencies and key stakeholders, including: the GEF focal point and the representative of the Wildlife Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development, Monduli and Simanjiro District Councils and possibly representatives of UNDP and UNEP. The Steering Committee will supervise the overall project and serve as policy advisor to the project. It will assist in the uptake of the results of the project into the member institutions.
The local to national level governmental authorities responsible for devising and implementing policies and programmes related to biodiversity conservation.
2. The Project Co-ordination Committee will be involved in the preparation of project activities, approving work-plans and budgets, approving contracts, monitoring and providing technical guidance. The Committee members will included the District Councils, TANAPA, Wildlife Division, ILRI, AWF and LEAD-FAO
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
FAO, with support from the Steering Committee of the LEAD Initiative and in collaboration with the national partners, will conduct the monitoring and evaluation of the project . Three activities will be implemented:
1. A bi-annual project supervision and preparation of an annual project status report.
2. A mid-term review to assess the progress toward meeting development objectives.
3. A project completion report to access the performance of the project.
FAO will (a) clear the draft TOR for the monitoring and evaluation plan, including the evaluation team members, and (b) review and comment on the evaluation reports (the draft reports will be submitted to the Bank and FAO and GEF simultaneously).
These monitoring and evaluation activities will be carried out in close collaboration with the World Bank and GEF. In particular, the evaluation and monitoring log-frame has been developed in alignment with the GEF and World Bank Methodology and with the Regional Management group requirements.
The plan focuses on the following aspects:
1. Monitoring/supervision/evaluation of the implementation of policies. Process indicators will be monitored to follow the “response” to the environmental issue;
• Development and implementation of land-use plans and amount of land under improved conservation management (hectares),
• Breadth of participation by communities, NGOs, government agencies and others in the analyses and policy discussions or other responses, as determined by meeting outputs, and the number and type of participants (institutional assessments),
• Level of interest in and acceptance of the support tools - including guidelines - as indicated by requests for information, invitations to present findings at various fora, presentation of results in conferences, and acceptance of articles in scientific journals (user surveys, number of reports disseminated, number of requests for project information, number of workshops and people trained).
2. Monitoring of impacts on the ecosystems through stress reduction indicators such as:
• Pace of land use changes (e.g. hectares of new cropped areas),
• Wildlife migration corridors re-opened (numbers and width of corridors),
• Availability of ranges for livestock and wildlife (hectares),
• Number of reported conflicts between livestock and wildlife, and for access to resources.
3. Monitoring of environmental status indicators to evaluate bio-diversity levels;
• Populations of key wildlife species (spatial distribution of populations in wet and dry seasons),
• Areas under representative landscapes / ecosystems (hectares)
4. Monitoring and evaluation of social impacts related to the establishment of land-use plans and benefit sharing mechanisms.
• Pastoralists’ assets and share of households assets related to wildlife and bio-diversity,
• New formal or informal platforms for local negotiation for resources allocation
REFERENCES
Aveling, R., E. Barrow, P. Bergin, P. & M. Infield. 1997. Livestock and Wildlife in the Environment: Diversity in Pastoral Eco-systems of East Africa. In: Nell, A.J. (ed.) 1998: Proceedings of the International Conference on Livestock and the Environment. Wageningen, 16-20th June 1997: The World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the International Agricultural Centre, pp. 104-113.
Bassett, T.J. and Bi Zuéli, K. 2000. Environmental discourses and the Ivorian Savanna. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 90 (1): 67-95
Boone, R.B., M.B. Coughenour, K.A. Galvin, and J.E. Ellis. 2002. Addressing management questions for Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania, using the SAVANNA modeling system. African Journal of Ecology. 40: 138-150.
Campbell, David J., and S. E. Migot-Adholla. 1981. The Development of Kenya's Semi Arid Lands. Nairobi: Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi.
Campbell, David J. 1999. Response to Drought among Farmers and Herders in Southern Kajiado District, Kenya: A Comparison of 1972-1976 and 1994-1996. Human Ecology 27 (3):377-416.
Crepin, C. 2002. Sustainable Finance for Conservation in Africa: The Role of the Global Environment Facility in Funding Conservation Trust Funds and Perspectives for the Future. Submitted to the Sustainable Finance for Conservation in Africa Conference, Lake Manyara, Tanzania: April, 2002.
De Haan, C & S. Bekure. 1991. Animal Health Services in SubSaharan Africa: Initial Experiences with New Approaches. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Homewood K., E.F. Lambin, E. Coast, A. Kariuki, I. Kikula, J. Kivelia, M. Said, S. Serneels, M. Thompson.
2001. Long term changes in Serengeti-Mara wildebeest and land cover: pastoralism, population or policies? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 98 (22): 12544-12549
Kahurananga, J. 1981. Population Estimates, densities and biomass of large herbivores in Simanjiro Plains, Northern Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology, Vol. 19: pp. 225-238.
Kahurananga, J. 1997. The migration of zebra and wildebeest between Tarangire National Park and Simanjiro Plains, northern Tanzania, in 1972 and recent Trends. Afr. J. Ecol. Vol. 35: pp. 179-185
Kimani, K., and J. Pickard. 1998. Recent Trends and Implications of Group Ranch Subdivision and Fragmentation in Kajiado District, Kenya. Geographical Journal 164 (July):202-213.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) 1998. Policy for Wildlife Conservation. Dar es Salaam; Government Printer
Muchiru, A.N. 1992. The Ecological Impact of Abandoned Maasai Settlements on Savanna Vegetation and its Herbivores in the Amboseli Ecosystem. MSc. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Owens, S. & C. Stem. 1999. Community Based Animal Health Management: A Case for the Livestock and Wildlife of Western Simanjiro District, Tanzania. Tufts University, USA.
Norton-Griffiths, M., and C. Southey. 1995. The Opportunity Costs of Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya. Ecological Economics 12:125-139.
Pilgram, T., Siiriäinen, A. & Marshall, F. 1990. Archaeological suervye and prehistoric settlemtn
patterns. In Early Pastoralists of South-western Kenya, Memoir 11, ed. Robertshaw, P.) British Institute in Eastern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 36-51.
Reid, R.S., and J.E. Ellis. 1995. Livestock-Mediated Tree Regeneration: Impacts of Pastoralists on Dry Tropical Woodlands. Ecological Applications 5 (4):978-992.
Reid, R.S., Rainy, M.E, Wilson, C.J., Harris, E., Kruska, R.L., Waweru, M.N., Macmillan, S.A. and Worden, J.S. Wildlife cluster around pastoral settlements in Africa, Submitted to Science in April 2002.
Reid, R.S. and Olson, J.S. 2001. Science plan for the people, livestock and environment research
around the globe. ILRI PLE Science Series: 1, 249 pp.
Serneels, S., Said, M.Y. and Lambin, E.F. 2001. Land cover changes around a -major East-African wildlife reserve: the Mara Ecosystem (Kenya). Int. Journal of Remote Sensing, 22 (17): 3397-3420
Shauri, V., 1999. THE NEW WILDLIFE POLICY IN TANZANIA - Old Wine in a New Bottle?. LEAT website :
Söderström, B. & R. S. Reid. Land-use and diversity of butterflies and birds across the border of Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Submitted to African Journal of Ecology.
Stelfox, B.J. 1986. Effects of Livestock Enclosures (Bomas) on the Vegetation of the Athi Plains, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 24:41-45.
Thornton, P.K., Galvin, K.A., Boone, R.B., 2002b. An agro-pastoral household model for the rangelands of East Africa. Agricultural Systems (in press).
United Nations Population Fund. 1998. Arusha Region- Socio-Economic Profile. Dar es Salaam.
Western, D. and Pearl, M.C. (eds.). 1989. Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. New York : Oxford.
Western, D., and H. Gichohi. 1993. Segregation effects and the impoverishment of savannah parks: The
case for ecosystem viability analysis. African Journal of Ecology 31:268-271.
Young, T.P. 1995. Long-Term Glades in Acacia Bushland and their Edge Effects in Laikipia, Kenya. Ecological Applications 5:97-108.
Annex 1 : Project Partners and Co-financiers
The Wildlife Division (WD) in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) is responsible for all matters related to wildlife management and utilization outside national parks. The Division is responsible for implementation of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (WPT) and establishment of WMA’s throughout Tanzania. The establishment of WMA’s will be governed by regulations which are in the final stages of ratification. The WD is also in the process of amending the Wildlife Act of 1974, in order to make provision for the WPT. The WD will be responsible for the implementation of WMA’s, and contribute to the land use planning and the design of decision support tools. The Wildlife Division will also contribute to the design of benefit sharing mechanisms in Village areas. It should be noted that, as the government agency responsible for national parks, the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) is also an important participant and guiding force, particularly in relation to planning for the ecological integrity of protected areas across the landscape. In addition to being responsible for the national park network in Tanzania, TANAPA is a key player in wildlife management in areas surrounding national parks. TANAPA will contribute to land use planning, the design of decision support tools, and the incorporation of community benefit sharing mechanisms in protected areas management plans, where appropriate.
Monduli and Simanjiro District Councils: District Councils are located in the Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government and are a primary implementation mechanism for local governance in Tanzania. District Councils also provide the interface between village councils and the central government and thus play an integral role in linking local and national development priorities. There are on-going reforms at national level in which 39 District Councils, including Monduli and Simanjiro are being given more responsibility in improving community services through increasing community participation. They have also prepared poverty alleviation strategies which include alternative income generating activities. Revenues from hunting and wildlife based tourism constitute important sources of income for the districts. The Monduli and Simanjiro District Councils administer the project area and are key implementers in land use planning, livestock production, benefit sharing mechanisms, and the development of decision support systems at district level.
The Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) has the government mandate to provide the wildlife sector, e.g. TANAPA, with research that is needed and pertinent for the maintenance of ecosystem integrity and optimum natural resource management. The chairman of the board of TAWIRI is also on the faculty of IRA and is principal of UCLAS (University College for Land and Architectural Studies) at the University of Dar es Salaam. TAWIRI will contribute to a baseline analysis of land use changes with regards to participatory land use planning, as well as socio-economic analyses in the project area. In addition, TAWIRI will play a major role in the design and implementation of decision support systems including the synthesis of existing data, training, ecological modeling, project graduate student supervision and the compilation of project information.
Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MWLD): The MWLD is primarily mandated with the development of livestock production and water resources across Tanzania. The MWLD functions as a primary intermediary in the improvement of pastoral livelihoods in Tanzania. The Livestock Division is in the MWLD and is responsible for livestock production, including pastoral production issues in Tanzania. The Livestock Division would be a primary link to the Veterinary Investigation Center (VIC) who are mandated with improving veterinary health issues in Tanzania. The National Agricultural and Livestock Policy of Tanzania (1997) spells out the goals for improving this sector and especially pastoral production. The Livestock Division will play a key role in the implementation of mechanisms to increase wildlife compatible livestock production. Specifically, the Livestock Division will lead on the development of improved diagnostic frameworks for veterinary service, community livestock health extension, livestock marketing, a disease early warning (DEW) system and breed improvement in pastoral areas.
The Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development (MLHSD) is responsible for all matters related to land ownership and tenure. The MLHSD provides guidance under the Land Policy of Tanzania. The MLHSD also oversees the Village Land Act of 2000. The Land Use Planning Commission is responsible for guidance on land use planning. The MLHSD will be a primary actor in the land use planning process by linking the project to the Land Use Planning Commission.
The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is a non-profit, international research organization headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. The goal of the institute is to alleviate poverty and improve food security while conserving natural resources. ILRI has conducted long-term research in rangelands across Africa and is currently interested in how to balance wildlife conservation with pastoral welfare in these systems. ILRI scientists have also focused on land degradation issues, particularly the role of livestock in desertification, and soil productivity and biodiversity loss. Over the past 10 years, ILRI scientists have studied the driving forces of land use change and the impacts of those changes on biodiversity, soils and vegetation across Africa. Currently, ILRI and partners have developed fine-resolution ecosystem monitoring techniques working with local communities, NGO’s and national decision makers. ILRI scientists also work with partners to develop pastoral welfare-ecosystem models to help decision makers better understand how different policy and management actions will affect people, wildlife and their ecosystems. ILRI has unique capacity in assessing the impact of diseases and their control at local, national and regional levels. Most of ILRI's experience and expertise in this area has been focused on endemic infectious haemoparasitic diseases. Methods developed by ILRI include geo-referenced livestock population database development, and use of geographic information systems (GIS) in epidemiological disease and economic impact assessment models. ILRI has developed diagnostic tools for identifying and characterizing economically important vector-borne diseases and has experience in providing general diagnostic support to National Agricultural Research Systems in the control of economically important diseases, to determine the effectiveness of current and future disease control strategies. ILRI brings particular strengths to the project in spatial analysis, GIS, and ecological modeling. ILRI will contribute to land-use planning, and analyses of land use change and socio-economic structures. In partnership with TAWIRI, ILRI will contribute to the design and implementation of decision support systems including training, data synthesis, ecological modeling (SAVANNA), graduate student supervision, a disease early warning (DEW) system, cross-site analysis design, and information dissemination.
CIRAD is a French scientific organization specializing in agricultural research for the tropics and subtropics of the world. Its mission is to contribute to rural development in the countries of these regions through research, experiments, training, and dissemination of scientific and technical information. Its work covers agricultural, veterinary, forestry, and food sciences. CIRAD's international cooperation activities cover more than 90 countries in Africa, Asia, the Pacific region, Latin America, and Europe. CIRAD's researchers are posted in 50 countries; they work with national research organizations or provide technical support in development projects.
CIRAD has a mandate to "contribute to rural development in tropical and subtropical countries through research, experimentation, training operations in France and overseas, and scientific and technical information, primarily in the fields of agriculture, forestry and agrifoods".
University of Dar es Salaam: The Geography Department of the University of Dar es Salaam is among the oldest departments in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Since its establishment in 1964, it has done a wide range of research on the environment, biodiversity, land degradation and natural resources management. Currently it has about 18 academic staff members covering the areas of biodiversity, urbanization, demography, geomorphology, agricultural economics, ecology and transport geography. Linked with the Geography Department, The Institute of Resource Assessment was established in 1973 with the main task of researching natural resources and the environment, and in this endeavor has worked previously with both AWF and ILRI. Scientists in IRA have expertise including natural resource field studies, remote sensing and GIS. In partnership with TAWIRI and ILRI, IRA will be involved in baseline analyses and decision support development and implementation.
Annex 2 : Organisation chart
|GEF- GoT FOCAL POINT: Vice President’s Office |
|PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: The World Bank |
|EXECUTING AGENCY : FAO |
|PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE |
|Provide policy guidance |
|Supervise overall project performance |
| |
|Members: representatives of the executing agencies and key stakeholders, including: the GEF focal point and the representative of the|
|Wildlife Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, The Ministry of |
|Lands and Human Settlements Development, Monduli and Simanjiro District Councils, representatives of UNDP and UNEP, AWF, ILRI, |
|LEAD-FAO, any other relevant organizations to be decided. |
| |
| |
|Meeting: Annual |
|PROJECT COORDINATION COMMITTEE |
|Provide technical guidance at site level |
|Monitor project implementation |
|Approve workplan and budgets |
|Recommend project plans to the Steering Committee |
|Propose project contracts and project personnel at site level to the Steering Committee |
|Approve budget contracts and key personnel, |
|Any other relevant organizations to be decided. |
| |
|Members: Chair- RAS (Arusha), DED (Monduli), DED (Simanjiro), TANAPA, Wildlife Division, ILRI, AWF, LEAD – FAO |
| |
|Meetings: Bi-annual |
|LOCAL EXECUTION: African Wildlife Foundation |
|LOCAL PARTNERS INVOLVED |
|District Councils |
|TAWIRI |
|TANAPA |
|IRA |
|Division of Livestock and Veterinary Investigation Center |
|Wildlife Division |
|Pastoral communities and village councils |
|AWF |
|ILRI |
|MAA |
|Any other relevant organizations to be decided. |
Annex 3: Biodiversity distribution in Africa and the Tarangire-Manyara Ecosystem
[pic]
Figure 1. Maps showing high concentration of large mammal biodiversity in East Africa and especially in the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem. Tarangire and Lake Manyara National Parks are shown in green in lefthand polygon (see also figure 2 below); the Simanjiro Plains are immediately to the east of Tarangire National Park. Note that the highest concentration of large mammal diversity is outside the park in the area where pastoralists graze their livestock to the east of the park.
[pic]
Figure 2. Map of the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem in northern Tanzania, showing Monduli and Simanjiro Districts and other parks in Tanzania.
Annex 4: Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT)
The Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) is non-government non-profit organization incorporated in the United Republic of Tanzania whose main goal is to acquire critical wildlife area threatened by private acquisition hostile to conservation. The objective is to manage such areas so as to protect the needs and requirements of the pastoral communities and the integrity of these areas as important wildlife dispersal areas or wildlife movement corridors.
The first such land being acquired jointly with Esilalei village under the new TLCT is Manyara ranch in the Kwa Kuchinja wildlife corridor. The achievement of the long-term conservation goals for the Tarangire and Lake Manyara national parks depends upon linking these core protected areas with corridors of undeveloped land across which wildlife can move. Manyara ranch occupies a critical central location in the Kwa Kuchinja wildlife corridor and this planning effort is necessary to be able to direct the new management towards achieving those goals. This plan will be a tool for public accountability of management with respect to their management decisions and actions.
Manyara Ranch is directly adjacent to the main northern circuit tourist route which approximately 100,000 tourists per year pass en route to Ngorongoro Crater and Serengeti National Park. This ranch will attempt to secure the wildlife dispersal land units linking these globally significant protected areas, and integrate improved livestock production with wildlife based enterprises. Manyara Ranch has significant potential to improve the livelihoods of pastoralists by developing model land use strategies of benefit to local communities. The TLCT represents one of the unique conservation aspects of this proposed project. The World Bank/GEF have been the major sources of financial support and technical assistance for environment trust funds which are designed to provide long-term financing for biodiversity conservation and other environmental activities (Crepin, 2001).
AWF facilitated the acquisition of Manyara Ranch by the TLCT. A 99 year title deed was issued on April 19, 2001. The TLCT Board was elected and the first Board meeting held in May 12, 2001. A Management Zone Concept Plan for the ranch was facilitated by AWF and a consultant produced a professional document comprehensively addressing key planning requirements. The plan is a positive first step in guiding future potential developments on the ranch. The Ranch has a staff presence of previous National Ranching Company (NARCO) employees who are familiar with the property. The TLCT is currently in the phase of recruiting high capacity professional staff to guide the strategic development of the ranch.
The TLCT is being used as a model to establish a similar mechanism in Kenya to secure land indefinitely for conservation and community development. In addition to its ecological importance as a corridor, Manyara Ranch is an exciting conservation mechanism by potentially showcasing how communities can benefit from wildlife conservation outside of protected areas. Manyara Ranch offers the potential to explore niche markets, and to act as a test bed for diverse conservation financing mechanism. The aim would be to learn lessons for successful replication in communal areas in order to maximize returns from conservation. Manyara Ranch represents a mechanism that combines community with private initiatives. Income generating activities will be identified, planned and managed efficiently as a sustainable mechanism for conservation and benefit sharing with local communities in line with the WMA guidelines.
National parks are a conventional and tested method of conserving core bio-diversity and will always accompany successful community conservation. The TLCT adds a new and innovative institutional and conservation financing mechanism to achieve the effective management of large and contiguous ecosystems for biodiversity conservation. The vision of the TLCT is to grow into a strong, autonomous body capable of functioning as a strong partner in landscape conservation efforts. The reasons for establishing the TLCT mirrored the criteria according to the GEF to establish environment trust funds (Crepin 2002):
• Threats to biodiversity to be targeted are likely to remain or increase over time in the Tarangire-Manyara eco-system.
• The response to biodiversity conservation in this ecosystem requires long-term funding, yet scale of funding for risk mitigation is modest.
• Capacity to implement activities on the ground is present in community organizations and national organizations and agencies.
KEY MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED
• TLCT Board elected and secretariat being set up
• Board Members have Kick started fund raising and got some donations
• Survey and mapping of Manyara ranch and new beacons erected to mark the boundary.
• Valuation of property, assets and liabilities done.
• Development of a logo, headed papers etc done
• General Management Plan (GMP) Concept done to form a basis for improved management of the ranch.
• A business option plan, as the management zone plan is the first step in preparing business option plan.
• Local steering committee functional composed traditional leaders, villagers, and ward authorities.
Annex 5: Complementary activities in chad
On-going work in Chad is allowing for the collection of missing baseline information, as well as designing and testing community based organisations for natural resource management.
Background
Chad’s Government ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 7 June 1994. Subsequently, a National strategy paper was prepared and an action plan enforced. As Tanzania, Chad is signatory of the RAMSAR Convention (memorandum of cooperation between the bureau of the convention on wetlands –RAMSAR- and the lake Chad basin commission -LCBC). Chad also ratified the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification on the 27 September 1996, with entry in force on the 26 December 1996.
Project site
The project site in Chad is located in the south of the country, in the periphery of two National Parks: Zakouma and Manda. The project in Chad is coherent with the natural resources conservation and decentralisation options retained by the Chadian Government. The South East of Chad, and especially the area surrounding Zakouma and Manda National Parks, represents a rich and well preserved ecosystem of “sahelosoudanians” and “soudanians” savannas. Numerous protected areas have allowed large mammals stocks to be maintained in the area. If this general situation is well known (especially from the surveys conducted within the protected areas), there is very little information on bio-diversity (and especially wildlife ecology), land-uses, and local communities use of natural resources out of the protected areas. In order to overcome this situation, the collection of baseline information represent a core activity of the project in Chad.
Traditionally, sedentary users of the area are both croppers and herders which mobility is restricted. In addition, during the dry season, transhumant pastoralists move into the area, coming from the North of the country. These various uses of the natural resource can be complementary, but often lead to conflicts. In the recent years, conflicts have raised, as the population density has grown, and as agricultural settlements tended to progress in the landscape.
Project Description
In Chad, the project goal is to improve the current knowledge about the wildlife-livestock-crop interactions in the project area and explore ways for their better integration through better governance, in particular with regard to natural resources management, land use planning, and community based wildlife conservation initiatives.
The project expected outputs are:
- A baseline is developed, in terms of natural resources, agricultural occupation of soil and livestock, which is an indispensable prerequisite to the implementation of the project.
- Alternative benefit sharing mechanisms to game hunting and tourism are defined and tested. Game hunting and tourism having low potentials, in terms of economic slumps for local populations, in the context of Chad.
- Local structures to support participatory management of natural resources are designed and established,
- Pastoral communities are strongly associated with the baseline information gathering and natural resources management efforts.
To achieve these objectives, the following methods are proposed:
- the baseline development will be grounded on a strong collaboration with the local population on the whole, and more specifically with the pastoral communities; pastoralists have a substantial empirical knowledge about natural resources (type of pasture, water resources, wildlife) and are dispersed among the entire zone of the project during most of the year (8 months out of 12). They therefore represent a network of potential observers already in place,
- identify main stakeholders and critical areas with whom and where to test participatory management of natural resources.
The selected participatory approach is expected to have the followings positive aspects:
- It would first constitute a way to establish contacts with local pastoral communities, that have been seldom involved in development projects in the past. Furthermore, this will initiate environmental and conservation education among local communities,
- the involvement of animal keepers in the data collection effort will allow not only for the gathering of bio-diversity, but also socio-cultural information,
- the process will allow for the identification and training of a qualified team to monitor wildlife in view of the establishment of a regularly updated atlas,
- finally the approach would allow for the testing of the feasibility of establishing local organization for community based natural resources management and conflicts resolution.
-----------------------
[1] See list of acronyms , page 3 of this proposal.
[2] Ol Maa is the language spoken by predominately Maasai pastoralists in East Africa, but is also a language shared with the Samburu of Northern Kenya, Il Chamus (Njemps) peoples of Lake Baringo, Kenya and the Waarusha from Arusha Region, of whom a significant proportion are agriculturalists around Mt. Meru, Tanzania. The Majority of the pastoral population in the project area are Maasai pastoralists with a lesser number of Waarusha agro-pastoralists.
[3] ‘First generation’ is referred to as initial community extension work and some redistribution of park revenues to surrounding communities, ‘second generation’ refers to national level community based conservation programs such as CAMPFIRE (Zimbabwe). ‘Third generation’ refers to Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in which communities own and manage biodiversity based projects with increased resource tenure rights, empowerment, widespread poverty alleviation and democratization.
[4] AWF is developing significant learning in Northern Namibia and Botswana through its 4 year USAID RCSA (Regional Center for Southern Africa) funded ‘4-Corners’ Project developing trans-boundary conservation and CBNRM mechanisms in the region shared by Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia.
[5] The LUCID GEF MSP is a targeted research proposal with the aim of better understanding the linkages between areas of interest to GEF: land use, land degradation, and biodiversity. The project aims to make this information available to policy makers in the region. It focuses on three highland to rangeland gradients on Kilimanjaro, Mt. Kenya and in southwestern Uganda. The ‘Innovations in Wildlife and Livestock Interaction Adjacent to Protected Areas in Tanzania’ project complements LUCID through action oriented interventions, compared with research. LUCID has no geographic overlap with this project, limited subject matter overlap and is focused on a different set of stakeholders.
[6] Tarangire National Park is visited by approximately 50,000 tourists and generates revenues of $1.4 million annually while Lake Manyara National Park receives 70,000 visitors generating $1.2 million annually.
[7] The resurgence of rinderpest in East Africa is a major concern for livestock producers and wildlife conservationists. Control of this disease is targeted through the African Union (AU) through OAU-IBAR PARC project. In addition, East Coast Fever (ECF), trypanosomiasis, Contagious Bovine Plural Pneumonia (CBPP), and anthrax are endemic to these areas.
[8] AWF refers to this process institutionally as the Heartland Conservation Planning (HCP) Process.
[9] While LUCID primarily is synthesizing information of the links between land use change, biodiversity and land degradation, this project is developing direct interventions which would complement the findings of LUCID.
[10] January 3rd-4th, 2001 in Arusha, Tanzania.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world bank unesco education
- medium sized business revenue
- world bank financial inclusion
- world bank poverty line 2019
- world bank financial inclusion 2020
- world bank business environment index
- world bank doing business 2020
- world bank ease of doing business 2019
- brief world history timeline
- world bank doing business rankings
- world bank retiree portal
- world bank pension log in