financing plan (in us$): · web viewtourism and hospitality act of 1979: the act is currently seen...

Submission Date: February 25, 2008

Re-submission Date:

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION GEFSEC PROJECT ID: GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: P097136COUNTRY(IES): PROJECT TITLE: GEF AGENCY(IES): World BankOTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Medium-sized ProjectBiodiversityGEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT:

A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK (SEE ALSO ANNEX A)Project Objectives: the OANSTC corridor entered the economic mainstream by leveraging their tourism opportunities. GEO: Biodiversity is mainstreamed into tourism by communities along the OANSTC routes.

Project Components

Indicate whether Investment, TA, or STA**

Expected Outcomes

Expected Outputs

GEF Financing* Co-financing* Total ($)($) % ($) %

1. TA in support of Investment

the route flagship species identified.

332,000 73 123,000 27 455,000


139,000 64 79,000 36 218,000


. 47,000 42 65,000 58 112,000

4. Project management: Overall coordination and implementation support through the Open Africa Organization.

22,000 5.7 365,000 94.3 387,000

Total Project Costs 540,000 46 632,000 54 1,172,000 * List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component. ** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.

1

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVALPROJECT TYPE: MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT THE GEF TRUST FUND

Expected CalendarMilestones Dates

Work Program (for FSP) N/AGEF Agency Approval May 2008Implementation Start June 2008Mid-term Review (if planned) N/AImplementation Completion May 2011

B. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)

Project Preparation* Project Agency Fee Total at CEO

Endorsement

For the record:Total at PIF

GEF ** 540,000 59,000 599,000 599,995Co-financing 632,000 632,000 752,662Total 1,172,000 59,000 1,231,000 1,352,657 * Please include the previously approved PDFs and PPG, if any. Indicate the amount already approved as footnote here and if the GEF funding is from GEF-3. Provide the status of implementation and use of fund for the project preparation grant in Annex D.

**PDF-A grant was provided from GEF-3 resources and is therefore not included in the total financing at CEO endorsement

C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING , including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG. (EXPAND THE TABLE LINE ITEMS AS NECESSARY)

Name of co-financier (source) Classification Type Amount ($) %*

Exec. Agency Grant 632,000 100Total Co-financing 632,000 100

* Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing. Please note that GEF 3 PDF cofinancing is not included in this table.

* The private sector co-financing for now is corporate financing that has been fund-raised by Open Africa. An additional amount of US$ 0.5 million is expected to be leveraged from the private sector and others OA supporters including the Peace Park Foundation following project effectiveness. Associated co-financing in the amount of US$ 3,038,346 for the proposed 3-year period is shown in table 7, p. 77 and includes WWW, ICF/EWT Partnership, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Peace Parks Foundation, Every River Project Namibia, Business Trust, Ashoka, National Lottery Fund, Nedbank Foundation and Ford Foundation.

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES)

GEF Agency Focal Area

Country Name/Global

(in $)Project

Preparation Project Agency

Fee TotalWorld Bank Biodiversity 90,000 10,000 World Bank Biodiversity 450,000 50,000 500,000Total GEF Resources 50,000** 540,000 60,000 600,000

** The preparation money could not be split and thus only totals per country are reflected.GEF PDF-A were provided with GEF-3 resources and are therefore not part of the GEF-4 project funds.

E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST

2

http://gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_C21/C.20.6.Rev.1.pdf

Cost ItemsTotal

Estimated person weeks

GEF($)

Other sources ($)

Project total ($)

Local consultants* 0 0 0 0International consultants* 0 0 0 0Staff*** 0 229,000 229,000Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communications**

22,000 136,000 158,000

Travel*** 0 0 0Total 0 22,000 365,000 387,000

* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.- The Project will not make use of any consultants (neither for project management nor for

technical assistance components). All services will be provided by OA staff.- OA staff time dedicated to the OANSTCP project management activities concerns the

operations manager, the route networker, the accountant, the administrator, the manager and the website/database manager (see PIP Annex I).

** Includes two computer and peripherals, two vehicles, utilities, printing and stationery, communication, equipment maintenance, reference material, insurances, auditing fees, office rental, vehicles operating and maintenance.***Travel costs to route locations for meetings and consultations are budgeted for under each relevant component and thus are not included under project management.

F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:

Component Estimated person weeks GEF($)

Other sources ($)

Project total ($)

Local consultants* 0 0 0 0International consultants* 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0

* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.

G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN (SEE ANNEX A):

The M&E plan of the OANSTCP is based on the results framework and the agreed indicators. The preparation phase identified the process, format and content of data collection at local and central level. Semi-annual evaluation of the on-going monitoring efforts will result in bi-annually progress reporting by OA on implementation progress, performance and impact as well as on compliance with the fiduciary requirements to the WB. A detailed baseline assessment of each route will be carried out during the first year of project implementation. In addition, an up-date of the SP-2 tracking tool will be provided by MTR reporting and EOP. The World Bank will carry out one annual supervision mission per year. The estimated total budget related to project m&e is US$ 145,327.

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

A. describe the project rationale and the expected measurable global environmental benefits:

The OANSTC project goal is to contribute to mainstreaming biodiversity into pro-poor tourism by communities along the OANSTC routes through barrier removal. The expected slowly progressing tourism market change will be shaped by the project's incentive-based and unique "partnership tourism route" approach, enhanced awareness, training and capacity-building for current and future local business operators. The project will focus particularly on bridging the gap between local communities and business operators in the tourism market. This will be done through supporting the institutionalization of local route development and the implementation of local biodiversity centered

3

tourism strategies in symbiosis with conservation plans, together with monitoring and evaluation actions based on route specific identified flagship species. See PIF pages 3, 4 and Annexes D and E for more details on global significance and rationale.

Specific context to Tourism and BiodiversityBecause of the importance of environmental quality and biodiversity for eco-tourism in particular, the tourism industry potentially has a long-term interest in environmental protection and conservation. Identified win-win options for tourism and the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity include: Promotion of the economic value of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through the stimulation of tourism – particularly where it creates local employment and uses local products and services – may help to reduce unsustainable exploitation of natural resources; Promotion of biodiversity conservation by raising awareness amongst visitors, and by raising the profile of biodiversity conservation at national and local levels; and. Generation of additional funds for conservation at national, regional and local level (public and private) through tourism revenues.

However, the high rates of growth of tourism over the past two decades have seen expansion of tourism into new destinations and regions in ways that have taken little account of environmental protection, social impacts, or biodiversity conservation. The forecasted continued expansion of tourism for at least two more decades means that it is vital that future tourism developments and activities do not repeat the mistakes of the past, which themselves need to be corrected. Unmanaged sector growth can damage or destroy biological diversity and ecosystem processes, as well as extant and living cultural heritage. The services and supplies required to meet the operational requirements of the tourism sector can place major pressures on often highly vulnerable local environments, infrastructure, and communities, resulting in consequent damage or distortion to social cohesion and the economy of an affected area. 1

The key drivers for changing the tourism market in favor of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use include (i) The need to maintain and preserve natural habitats, species and landscape features upon which many parts of the tourism industry is built (eco-tourism), (ii) Increasing consumer interest in sustainable travel choices (client choice and product value), (iii) Opportunities to attract concessional financing (to government and to communities), (iv) Opportunities to directly benefit biodiversity by financing conservation activities and providing economic alternatives for exploitation of biological resources (through NGOs, communities, governments and clients), (v) Opportunities for cost savings through more efficient use and management of natural resources (impacting supply chain), (vi) And compliance with the expanding number of tourism related ecological and social certification schemes.

The Project addresses lessons learned from the dynamics of tourism in Africa and elsewhere indicating that nature-based tourism has significant potential to impact ecosystems and biodiversity and local and national economies. However, substantial efforts are needed to positively deliver tangible and intangible community revenues and benefits in conjunction with biodiversity conservation. In particular, Africa as a growing tourism destination is vulnerable to tourism exposure due to the sensitivity of its ecosystem-resource based economy. Moreover local communities that are the informal custodians of these natural resources are commercially inexperienced and furthermore

1 Potentially negative tourism impacts threatening biodiversity conservation include: Siting and construction of facilities and related infrastructure reducing or destroying habitats and species and modifying landscapes and services; Increased water and electricity production and consumption; and Generation of waste, which often is not processed adequately and dumped directly in the nearest open area.

4

generally lack resources, including know-how and resources for marketing to maintain and improve their livelihoods. Many community-based tourism2 initiatives have failed in the past as they were mainly donor-driven, not involving a range of stakeholders including business operators and not providing sufficient knowledge and access resources to marketing. In addition, biodiversity conservation activities have been often planned and implemented without direct linkages to market initiatives.

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) therefore promotes “sustainable tourism” as tourism “envisaged as leading to profitable management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled whilst maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems.” Sustainable tourism should: (i) contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and cultural diversity; (ii) contribute to the well being of local communities and indigenous people; (iii) include an interpretation/learning experience; (iv) involve responsible action on the part of tourists and the tourism industry; (v) be appropriate in scale; (vi) require the lowest possible consumption of non-renewable resources; (vii) respect physical and social carrying capacities; (viii) involve minimal repatriation of earned revenue; and (ix) be locally owned and operated (through local participation, ownership and business opportunities, particularly for rural people).3

For these reasons the OANSTC Project envisages establishing routes in areas where biodiversity plays a more important role at a local and global level, thereby also serving as the forerunner to a much greater focus within Open Africa’s network on conservation in future.

The global environmental benefits of the proposed Project are multifold but are related to the proposed introduction of the new methodology, the selection of a route specific "flagship species". The concept of flagship species is based on people's perception of the importance of that species as an emblem around which a community can rally. The important dimension of a flagship species is that, because it rallies people around a concept that is tangible and attractive, it facilitates awareness- raising and commitment. It also enables leveraging of the human qualities that are required to properly manage the environment and the social fabric of communities. To be called flagship, a species does not necessarily have to be threatened, endemic, indicator or keystone. However, it will often happen that species chosen will meet one or more of these criterions. For instance, the Kafue NP community when questioned immediately mentioned the hunting dog (lycaon pictus) as a potential flagship; this is a highly threatened species. Some Caprivi route members mentioned the red lechwe, neither threatened nor endemic but a good indicator of healthy wetland habitat. Flagship species can be extremely common species such guinea-fowl. Guinea-fowl actually do not qualify for any of the four characteristics; however, guinea-fowl conservation requires behavior changes in a community, children must stop harvesting wild eggs, fire must be suppressed from certain areas, and the practice of hunting/snaring should be restrained. The consequences of this for many other species and natural habitat is far reaching.

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS: ambiaOANSTC Related institutional frameworkThe key actors are the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources and the Zambian Tourism Board.4. The tourism industry in the country is well represented through the Tourism Council of Zambia (TCZ). The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) is a key statutory body established under 2 CBT refers to a particular type of small tourism enterprise. Its particular characteristics are that (i) it is owned and often run collectively by a group of residents and (ii) it aims to make a profit but also has explicit social development objectives.3 Draft user’s manual on CBD guidelines for biodiversity and development (2006)4 Noteworthy, the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources said “We prefer quality tourism over mass tourism, as Zambia's first concern is to protect our natural resources, wildlife and cultureQuoted at the official launch of the visit Zambia 2005 campaign.

5

the Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998. Among the functions of the Authority are “…to control, manage, conserve, protect and administer national parks, bird sanctuaries, wild-life sanctuaries and game management areas and co-ordinate activities in such areas in partnership with local communities; to sensitize and educate the general public on the necessity of wildlife conservation and the importance of wildlife to foster appreciation of the economic and aesthetic value of wildlife as natural assets; to undertake measures that will ensure the proper balance between the sustainable use of wildlife and the management of eco-systems in national parks; to enhance the economic and social well-being of local communities in management areas; to prepare and implement management plans for natural parks in consultation with local communities; and to issue licenses and permits.”5

OANSTC Related Policies and strategies National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources pointing at tourism as being a key economic activity that has a low level of biodiversity impact. 6

Zambian PRSP being “to promote growth and diversification in production and exports7,” tourism has been identified as a viable industry for diversification, and the government's long-term vision for the tourism sector is “to ensure that Zambia becomes a major tourist destination of choice with unique features, which contributes to sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction8.” National Development Plan (NDP 5): Tourism is expected to play a significant role in the economic growth of the country with and estimated average growth rate of 8.5% between 2005 and 2011 (reaching over 1 million visitor annually by 2008) Tourism Policy for Zambia of the Ministry of Tourism (1999) Tourism Development Framework by the Tourism Development Programme (1999). Draft (May 2005) National Policy on Environment. Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) initiative such as the proposed Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area involving Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia (3 OANSTCP routes would fall in this new area: Caprivi Wetlands Paradise, Barotse Trails and North Barotse Trails).

OANSTC Related Legislation Environmental Act, the provisions of which are given effect by the Environmental Council of Zambia, a statutory body established for this purpose in 1990, where tourism features here and elsewhere as being interlinked with conservation. Zambia Wildlife Act establishes ZAWA (1998). Tourism and Hospitality Act of 1979: The act is currently seen as an inhibiting factor for developing tourism due to high costs involved in registering a tourism business (entry barrier for new product owners). The Zambian Government is in the process of reviewing this Act.

The Project’s preparatory stakeholder meetings in Zambia took place at Mbala, Mpika, Kasanka and Lusaka.

NamibiaNamibia is dedicated to conservation and economic development and the two concepts have been inextricably linked to one another. Tourism development has been identified as the fastest growing and greatest potential industry to concentrate on, as a means to reach the country’s environmental and development goals.9 Namibia has been a pioneer in the development of CBT enterprises. They include campsites, lodge partnerships between conservancies and the private sector, tour operators, crafts

5 And in partnership with local communities, to share the responsibilities of management in game management areas; to adopt methods to ensure the sustainability, conservation and preservation in the natural state of eco-systems and biodiversity in the national parks, game management areas, bird sanctuaries and wildlife sanctuaries; to encourage the general development of national parks, including the development of facilities and amenities within these areas in accordance with management plans of the national parks.6 Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Zambia National Biodiversity Strategy, pg 27 Zambia PRSP, p. ii8 Zambia PRSP, p. 66

6

manufacturers, guided tours etc. The number of tourists visiting community-based tourism enterprises has increased from 30,000 in 1999 to over 90,000 in 200410.

Related OANSTC institutional framework The Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (MET) is engaged in many conservation programmes11 amongst which OANSTC has close synergies with those regarding Community–Based Natural Resource Management, Park and Wildlife Management, Environmental Education and Resource Monitoring Services. The close cooperation of the governmental Namibian Tourism Board (NTB) (established in 2001) and the private sector organization the ‘Namibian Tourism Associations (FENATA)’ is a positive foundation.

OANSTC Related Policies and strategies National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2001 – 2010) 12

During the past decade the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) initiative in Namibia has made considerable progress, for which it is earning international recognition in the conservation and rural development fraternity. The highlight of this progress was the passing of conservancy legislation in 1997 that gives communities custodianship over their wildlife resources and certain rights to utilise and benefit from them (based on wildlife and tourism schemes). Accordingly, a strong ethic of wildlife conservation is prevalent amongst the members of registered and emerging conservancies in Namibia and wildlife populations have grown substantially on communal land. Vision 2030, NDP II and the forthcoming NDP III (expected by mid-2008) and Regional Development Plans are all highlighting tourism as a priority sector by the government and a key factor in ‘Broad-based Black Economy Empowerment (BBEE).’ Tourism Satellite Account (2006): The first Namibian Tourism Satellite Account produced in 2006 by the WTTC has been commissioned by the Namibian Tourism Board (NTB). It provides a significant tool for planning and policy development and recommends an array of actions such as (i) MET drafting a National Tourism Policy for Namibia based on elements for a pro-poor tourism strategy13, (ii) MET elaborating a detailed tourism Master Plan/Tourism Growth Strategy which should be adopted as a Cabinet directive to ensure its long-term implementation, (iii) establishing a Tourism Advisory Council to counsel MET and NTB in tourism-related matters, (iv) establishing a organization providing development assistance to CBT initiatives, (v) mainstreaming tourism in policies for employment, education, environment, trade, investment and development planning, and (vi) setting-up local NTB representation in regions. Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) initiatives such as the proposed Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area involving Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia (three OANSTCP routes would fall in this new area: Caprivi Wetlands Paradise, Barotse Trails and North Barotse Trails) and the Ais-Ais/Richtersveld TFCA that links South African and Namibia.

9 Namibia received over 1m tourists in 2006, an increase of 8% over the previous year. According to the Hon. Minister Willem Konjore, “Tourism is furthermore a way for us to make the transition from a natural resource exporter to a service economy, and this transition is a key requirement for us to reach the vision for Namibia articulated in Vision 2030. We may have had a situation in the past where tourism only benefited a few. This situation is changing rapidly, with both entrepreneurs from all sectors of our society and our rural communities becoming involved as investors, operators, shareholders and partners. Our tourism industry has adopted a transformation charter?, the first industry to do so, and we have several innovative programmes to facilitate access to the industry and spread its benefits to all Namibians.” 10 According to NACOBTA, a non-profit membership organisation that supports communities in developing tourism enterprises in Namibia by networking between members, government ministries, aid organisations and the private sector. It aims at utilising tourism to help previously disadvantaged Namibians gain access to a better future. NACOBTA established a joint venture unit with support from USAID and WWF funded LIFE program to facilitate a process of building capacity and realize sustainable tourism products and to ensure benefits to rural communities in Namibia.11 http://www.met.gov.na/programmes.htm12 Ministry of Environment and Tourism, http://www.met.gov.na/programmes/biodiversity/strategy.htm13 Other recommendations include the following: resolving insecurity of land tenure on communal lands; incorporating community-based products into mainstream promotions; providing funding for tourism education and training in communal areas; and encouraging SMME development.

7

White Paper on Tourism approved by the Cabinet in 1994.

OANSTC Related Legislation/Policies Namibia’s constitution enshrining environmental conservation. MET’s Nature Conservation Ordinance (1997) MET’s Parks and Wildlife Management Bill MET’s Environmental Management Act (2007) MET’s Concession Policy (2007) MET’s Parks and Neighbors Policy (draft) MET’s CBNRM Policy Framework (draft)

The project’s preparatory stakeholder meetings in Namibia took place at Katima Mulilo, Rundu, Windhoek and Rosh Pinah. In addition, the newly developed OANSTC methodology has been introduced and tested at Rosh Pinah.

The two countries are members of RETOSA (http://www.retosa.org), the Regional Tourism Organization of Southern Africa. RETOSA is a legal entity within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Its specific objectives are to a) encourage and facilitate the movement and flow of tourists into the Region, applying the necessary regional or national policies and mechanisms that facilitate the liberalization of exchange control regulations; b) facilitate a community and rural-based tourism industry and culture throughout the Region; c) develop, coordinate and facilitate tourism marketing and related promotional opportunities into the Region by whatever means, including internal and external collaboration, mutual marketing programmes, and utilisation of legitimate methods focusing on the Region's quality as a desirable and safe tourist destination and investment target; d) encourage and facilitate international and Regional transport, tourism training and accommodation classification; e) encourage and promote consistency in the quality and maintenance of tourism standards within the Region; and f) act as a communication channel between Member States and organisations to enhance the Region's tourism and tourist confluence. Open Africa is collaborating with RETOSA in a UNWTO/RETOSA/SNV project in the compilation of a community-based tourism database and marketing initiative for Southern Africa that will include all such participants in the OANSTC corridor.

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS: S

D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES: E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT: important catalytic role by strengthening synergies and consistency between initiatives within the region, and private & community actions with regard to (i) development of eight new biodiversity-focused routes and up-grade of three existing routes in a biodiversity-rich corridor, (ii) development and implementation of 11 route specific flagship species conservation and monitoring plans; (iii) promotion of biodiversity conservation through building of expanded and strategic public-private partnerships at local, regional, national and international levels, and the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the enhanced Open Africa marketing and communication model for biodiversity-based tourism within globally significant ecosystems as part of OA's systemized tourism development approach; (iv) targeted support enhancing mainstreaming of biodiversity through new local level management functions at route level in the form of community biodiversity mentors and monitors; and (v) development of a systematized replication model and knowledge tool. It should be noted that lessons learned to date show that global benefits are sustainable if linked to and supported by benefits

8

http://gefweb.org/uploadedFiles/Documents/Council_Documents__(PDF_DOC)/GEF_31/C.31.12%20Operational%20Guidelines%20for%20Incremental%20Costs.pdf

http://gefweb.org/uploadedFiles/Projects/Templates_and_Guidelines/C31-10%20Revised%20Focal%20Area%20Strategies-07-23-07_Final.pdf

for local communities, including tourism operators. The project' s design takes fully into account these local-global linkages.

E. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES: The project risks at local, biodiversity and OA organizational level have been assessed and counter measures included in the project design. The table 1 below provides an overview:

Major project risksRisk Risk

RatingRisk Mitigation Measure

Local commitment: A risk mentioned during the preparatory stakeholder meetings is a tendency for commitment to wane and some local initiatives to even collapse once the support organization withdraws its direct involvement.

M This is a common problem not unfamiliar to Open Africa, which is dealt with through a speedier than usual delivery of results; by constantly staying in touch thereafter through the Route Networker, now in addition also a Biodiversity Networker; and the enhanced incentives that the network provides under the project.

Lack of road signage and communication:Other problems identified by stakeholder consultation are a lack of road signage and a dependency of participants on access to communications (Internet).

N The OANSTCP will provide support to internet access and route signage. Additionally, using GIS technology the system is geared for inclusion in in-car navigation mechanisms as the use of these become more popular.

Lack of funds to maintain routes active (support for fora, biodiversity mentors and monitors) and to provide needed capacity building for business planning, marketing and communication.

M The project will provide hands-on basic fundraising tools to route fora and through the network leverage partnership potential. To gain support for tourism development however, benefits need to flow to host communities and hence also the reason why monitoring and evaluation is so critical.

Route Fora do not effectively participate in the local level monitoring process for the new biodiversity-focused routes.

M During the preparation process this risk was discussed at multiple stakeholder meetings, which allowed opportunities to verify and adjust the proposed procedures, in addition to which and in anticipation of inherent difficulties that are always attached to reporting compliance, the biodiversity mentors, monitors, and networker together with the Open Africa Charter are all instruments for ensuring success in this area. Further, the proposed event-book system has been proved successful in CBNRM related initiatives in the region.

Open Africa’s internal operational system is inadequate to implement the OANSTC project according to the three-year work plan.

N Open Africa has been developing an average of 10 routes per annum since 1999 and the project design has been tailored to ensure delivery of results within the limited timeframe and resource environment.

Given that at least 50% of the OANSTC project will only be completed during the second 18 months of its duration, there is too little time in which to see material results in respect of the biodiversity objectives of the project.

M Although expected biodiversity results may not materialize within the time of project duration, indications of the results should already be visible at the time of project completion. The OANSTC corridor routes will continue the monitoring and other activities after project completion and the objectives of the project will therefore be achieved.

Overall Risk Rating MRisk Rating – H (High), S (Substantial), M (Modest), N (Negligible or Low)

Impacts from climate change might result in changes in both countries’ frequency, magnitude and variability of rainfall and associated land use suitabilities. The better protection of natural habitats and more sustainable land management will provide resilience to climate change impacts.

9

G. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN: The selected project design follows the principle of a qualitatively cost-effective use of the GEF funding for achieving the described global environmental benefits. This assessment is based in particular on a recent independent review assigned by the South African DEAT of Open Africa’s innovative, effective and less cost-intensive approach towards poverty reduction and community-involvement through bottom-up tourism branded routes. The OA approach has been shown to be the most feasible, pragmatic and results-driven in comparison to other related means. Previously, the only considered alternative option to mainstream biodiversity into the tourism sector in a limited way, was to work with one government on enhancing the policy and legal framework for the private tourism sector through private concessions. It was rejected because of the lack of time required to prepare and implement such concessions with only limited biodiversity benefits.

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS (SEE ANNEX I PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN): The Non-Governmental Organization Open Africa will receive the GEF grant and implement the project. Its role will be to ensure that all components are implemented in a timely, coordinated and coherent manner, in order to meet the project stated objectives, outcomes and outputs efficiently and effectively. Thus, OA would: (i) implement the project activities according the project implementation plan, (ii) prepare annual work plan and budget, (iii) implement the monitoring and evaluation plan and use evaluation findings to adopt corrective measures if necessary, (iv) report back to WB, (v) liaise with relevant governmental, non-governmental and private sector stakeholders and (vi) contract technical assistance service providers as needed.

OANSTC Review CommitteeAs is customary for each of its donor projects, Open Africa will appoint a review committee from within its own ranks (Route and Biodiversity Networker, Marketing Manager, Finance and Administration Manager) under the auspices of its Chief Executive that will meet monthly to review progress against the implementation plan and assess the veracity of all reports submitted. In addition, non-permanent invitees will be called upon being representatives from government and/or other initiatives and donors when meaningful. Minutes will be distributed to all these parties via a Wiki (website) especially established for that purpose.

Financial Management and Procurement: A WB-led capacity assessment was carried out in January 2007, and the capacity of the OA organization was judged as adequate. Financial management and procurement procedures have been defined in an implementation manual confirmed as acceptable to the WB. It was agreed that (i) the Open Africa Board of Directors needs to set up accountability committees such as the Finance and Audit Committee and (ii) Open Africa will recruit an Accounts Assistant before the effectiveness of the project. Open Africa has been outsourcing the accountancy function to a professional firm of accountants and it is essential that this role be formalized by having a contract with the accountancy firm.

OANSTCP related information sharing: Maintaining a high level of communication is a built-in feature of Open Africa’s philosophy. The organization believes the future is mirrored in the way the Worldwide Web works, with networking as the enabler to achieving greater reach and more impact through collectivism and hence the inclusion of the word ‘open’ in its name, implying interaction, candour, transparency, freedom, flexibility, expansiveness, engagement and access. Through the use of interactive Wiki’s and regular reports all stakeholders will have constant access to information on the project’s status.

The WB will undertake one annual implementation support mission.

10

Open Africa is a non-profit tax-exempt Pan-African organization, launched in South Africa in 1995 under the patronage of then-president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, with the aim of optimizing the synergies between tourism, job creation and conservation. How the organization and system structures for OANSTCP are synchronized is reflected in the following chart.

Figure 1. Overview of Open Africa’s set-up including linkages to routes

Figure 2. Open Africa’s internal organizational set-up (in red, OANSTCP additional functions)

Open Africa Operations ManagerThe Operations Manager is the chief project coordinator responsible for ensuring the successful implementation and completion of the project. The three positions described below are answerable directly to this person.

Open Africa Route DeveloperThe Route Developer is the initial and prime contact between the potential route participants and Open Africa during the development stage. He/she directs the entire route development process through to the launch of the route. Thereafter the Route Developer hands over the process to the Open Africa Route Networker, but will remain involved in an advisory capacity. The Route Developers and all staff are kept up to date with route activities when every route is reviewed weekly.

Open Africa Route NetworkerThe Route Networker is the key communication and aftercare link between Open Africa and its routes, once the launch has taken place. The Route Networker keeps regular contact with individual routes by means of e-mail, telephone and personal visits to monitor progress and assist where

11

necessary. The Route Networker is responsible for monitoring the status of the Route Forums (eg, by means of quarterly reports and by monitoring route participant motivation). He/she liaises closely with the Route Developer in this regard.

Open Africa Biodiversity NetworkerAn additional new concept involves the appointment of a Biodiversity Networker, employed by Open Africa to assist the routes with implementing the new biodiversity approach within the OANSTC, in particular through launching the flagship species monitoring and evaluation programme. He/she will make visits to the various routes on a regular basis, train route Biodiversity Monitors, support biodiversity conservation actions, be responsible for collating and accommodating monitoring data relevant to the project as supplied by the Route Forums, and for arranging annual regional, national and corridor Route Forum seminars in conjunction with the Route Networker. The Biodiversity Networker will liaise closely with both the Route Developer and Route Networker regarding common issues and in effect, they will form a team for each route.

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:

The project is consistent with the approved PIF. There have been no changes to the content, design, scope or amounts of the project* as approved in the PIF on January 10, 2008. *As explained in Part I tables B and D, PDF-A resources were allocated under GEF-3 but included as GEF-4 resources in the PIF which has been corrected hereby. Thus, the project amount has been adjusted.

PART V: AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATIONThis request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement.

Steve GormanExecutive CoordinatorThe World Bank

Christophe CrepinRegional GEF CoordinatorAfrica Region

Date: February 25 ,2008 Tel. and Email: x39727, [email protected]

12

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX A PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION

P. 15

ANNEX B RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS P. 27ANNEX C STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT

PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS

P. 28

ANNEX D DESCRIPTION OF COMPONENTS P. 29ANNEX E BIODIVERSITY IN THE SELECTED

CORRIDORP. 37

ANNEX F WORLD BANK PORTFOLIO IN ZAMBIA AND NAMIBIA

P. 62

ANNEX G DETAILED INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS P. 63ANNEX H STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PLAN P. 71ANNEX I PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN P. 79ADDITIONAL ANNEX J SUSTAINABILTIY AND REPLICATION P. 87ADDITIONAL ANNEX K OPEN AFRICA ORGANIZATION, TOOLS AND

GOOD PRACTICESP. 89

ADDITIONAL ANNEX L TOURISM SECTOR CONTEXT P. 93ADDITIONAL ANNEX M GLOSSARY OF TERMS P. 95

13

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

PDO Outcome Indicators Use of Outcome Information

Community members living within the OANSTC corridor entered the economic mainstream by leveraging their tourism opportunities.

1. The # of additional part-time/full-time direct jobs within the route participant communities by the end of the project is 253.

2. 60 additional local business operators in newly established/up-graded tourism routes have been established and 30 of those have been operational for more than a year.

3. The average # of local business operators issued from the local community is 50%.

Feed-back into OA replication, knowledge management and communication strategy and tools.

National and local/regional tourism related statistics, reporting and evaluation.

Promotion of approach as successful model for poverty reduction.

GDO Outcome Indicators Use of Outcome Information

Biodiversity is mainstreamed into tourism by communities along OANSTC routes.

4. # of routes in the corridor that have identified and are monitoring a flagship species is 80% by the end of the project.

5. On 40% of the routes the flagship species is benefiting from conservation activities from the community that has an impact on that species by the end of the project.

Feed-back to national biodiversity structure responsible for NBSAP implementation.

Information of local development committees for improved planning and management.

Feed-back used to improve project and design OA replication and knowledge management and communication strategy and tools.

Promotion of approach as succesful model for community & private sector based biodiversity conservation

Intermediate ResultsOne per Component

Results Indicators for Each Component Use of Results Monitoring

Component One:8 new and 3 up-graded biodiversity rich tourism routes locally designed and established.

Component One:1.1. 11 certificates for the 8 new and 3 up-graded routes by year 3.

1.2. A participatory conservation plan for all 11 route flagship species identified developed by year 3.

Component One:Feed back into project implementation design and quality control

Improvement of development and implementation method for route up-grading and establishment.

Component Two :Effective marketing and communication tools for 8 new and 3 up-graded biodiversity-rich tourism routes developed and applied.

Component Two:2.1. 2.1. The percentage of annual increase in the number of hits per launched route on the Open Africa website.

2.2. Average number of Open Africa supported marketing initiatives per route is two.

2.3. Average number of articles in tourism, trade & mainstream media per route is three.

Component Two:Feed back into project implementation design and quality control

Assessment of effectiveness and cost-efficiency of each tool.

Component Three:Local level M& E system based on concept of flagship species designed and implemented.

Component Three:3.1. Flagship species monitoring reports from launched target routes received and disseminated.

3.2. The average # of lessons identified that are disseminated as best practice briefs to route participants and other

Component Three:Feed back into project implementation design and quality control

Verification of results with environmental specialists from governmental and non-governmental agencies.

14

stakeholders is four.

3.3. Replication and Knowledge Management Plan developed by OA and disseminated by Y3.

Assessment of robustness and sustainability of MOM method for monitoring single flagship species and stimulating local enthusiasm for conservation

Component Four:The project is implemented according to project documents.

Component Four:4.1. Annual work program objectives are implemented to a level of at least 90% every year.

4.2. Annual external audits are positive.

Component Four:Substential level of actiovities, procurement and financing stimulates improvement of OA internal management systems

EOP evaluation.

15

Arrangements for results monitoring

Target Values Data Collection and ReportingOutcome Indicators Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 Frequency

and Reports

Data Collection Instruments

Responsibility for Data

Collection1. The # of additional part-time/full-time direct jobs within the route participant communities by the end of the project is 253.

TBD 50 120 253 Annual Route diagnosis matrix

OA Route Networker

2. 60 additional local business operators in newly established/up-graded tourism routes have been established and 30 of those have been operational for more than a year..

TBD on a rolling basis per each route.

15 30 60 Annual Targets revised per each route accordingly.Route diagnosis matrix.

OA Route Networker

3. The average # of local business operators issued from the local community is 50%.

TBD 10 %

30 %

50 % Annual Route diagnosis matrix

OA Route Networker

4. # of routes in the corridor that have identified and are monitoring a flagship species is 80% by the end of the project.

0 2 5 9 routes

Semi-annual Route diagnosis matrix

OA Biodiversity Networker, Route Biodiversity Monitor and Mentor

5. On 40% of the routes the flagship species is benefiting from conservation activities from the community that has an impact on that species by the end of the project.

0 0 2 4 routes

Semi-annual Route diagnosis matrix


Results Indicators for Each Component

Component One :1.1. 11 certificates for the 8 new and 3 up-graded routes by year 3.

0 2 5 11 Annual DMS route statistics

OA Route Networker

1.2. A participatory conservation conservation plan for all 11 route flagship species identified developed by year 3.

0 2 5 11 Annual Route diagnosis matrix


Component Two :2.1. The percentage of annual increase in the number of hits per launched route on the Open Africa website.

0 10 %

30 %

40 % Quarterly Web statistics OA Administration and Database Manager

2.2. Average number of Open Africa supported marketing initiatives per route is two.

0 2 8 22 Semi-annaul Route diagnosis matrix

OA Marketing Manager

2.3. Average number of articles in tourism, trade & mainstream media per route is three.

0 8 18 33 Quarterly Press clippings and google alerts

OA Marketing Manager

Component Three:3.1. Flagship species monitoring reports from launched target routes received and disseminated.

0 2 4 9 routes

Semi-annual Document records

OA Biodiversity Networker

CEO Endorsement Template-Aug 29, 2007.doc

16

3.2. The average # of lessons identified that are disseminated as best practice briefs to route participants and other stakeholders is four.

0 4 4 4 Quarterly Best practice Wiki + newsletter

OA Route Networker

3.3. Replication and Knowledge Management Plan developed by OA and disseminated by year 3.

0 - - Yes Annual Plans. OA Operations Manager

Component Four:4.1. Annual work program objectives are implemented to a level of at least 90% every year.

0 90 90 90 Semi-annual Comparison with schedule (PIP and manual).

OA Operations Manager

4.2. Annual external audits are positive.

0 Yes Yes Yes Annual Audited accounts.

BDO Spencer Stewrad

2. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The principle of monitoring a flagship speciesA simple way to make route participants act on biodiversity and measure results is the use of a flagship species. A flagship species is a charismatic species of (sometimes global) conservation significance that has a high profile and attracts people to become involved in its conservation. A spin-off of this process is that habitats and other components of the environment as a whole also benefit from this increase in conservation awareness and actions. An example would the Blue Crane in the Western Cape. Monitoring and mitigating actions to ensure its conservation have led to positive spin-offs to the environment as a whole by promoting awareness and a conservation ethic. As the Blue Crane is a charismatic bird species it is attractive to birding tourists and, through responsible tourism practices, adds an economic value to the area. It is an ideal vehicle for conservation fund raising and awareness. The flagship species concept is both innovative and easily replicable. Note that a flagship species is not necessarily a keystone species – the latter being an important component of the ecology of many other species within a system eg, a camelthorn or milkwood tree.

Monitoring and evaluation will have two focal points or levels ie, at local level: (1) the progress of the routes and therefore of successful implementation of the OANSTC project; and (2) at OA network/project level, where the data is obtained by means of the monitoring system for biodiversity, economic and social indicators.

Local level monitoring procedures – an overviewFor each key monitoring indicator (biodiversity, economic or social) there is a complete system that begins with (1) data collection, (2) goes through to monthly reporting and (3) ends with long-term reporting. 14Each category of monitoring is colour coded to avoid confusion between these data-flow

14 The monitoring methodology is based on the ‘‘Event Book System,’’ a management oriented monitoring system (MOMS) for communal conservancies in Namibia. The system is designed to meet local management information needs and is being used with success, but has also already provided information that has been used by national (Namibia) and on one occasion international (eg, CITES) decision makers.Data collection, analysis and reporting are done locally. It is considered essential that the people collecting the data should also analyze and interpret it, even if the analysis is initially sub-optimal. This principle has emerged from failures with the conventional system (where data sheets are filled in and then handed over to an external technical expert to capture, analyze and report back). Over time, as needs, skills and confidence increase, more and more key indicators for monitoring can be added, with the end result that the route may eventually be covering a wide spectrum of topics. The role of OA and local experts in this process is to provide advice on how to gather, process and report the information for each monitoring topic that the route selects, how to interpret the results over time and when to take remedial action if necessary. It is essential that, in principle, each route should identify the indicators that it considers relevant to its own situation. This should include a minimum of at least one each of


17

levels; with (1) yellow for data collection, (2) blue for reporting within one year (ie, monthly/quarterly reporting) and (3) red for tracking annual/long-term trends. Each route will decide on what they want to monitor; however each route’s Biodiversity Mentor should also verify the selections scientifically. The Route Forum will submit a quarterly report to Open Africa and also give feedback to the local governmental nature conservation agencies. Open Africa will fund the design and supply of the cards for the three-year implementation process, as an incremental cost. Thereafter it will be expected of the individual routes to make their own arrangements.

At time of baseline meetings for each selected route the following potential threats will be addressed: Are there any land issues that could threaten/retard tourism development? Are there any threats or potential threats in the area that could become problematic to the success of a route? Are there any biodiversity aspects that could be threatened by tourism? Are there any social / cultural aspects which could be threatened by tourism?

The Route Biodiversity Networker will identify existing monitoring initiatives and promote co-operative linkages where relevant and feasible, e.g. in Namibia the GEF ICEMA project is currently working with conservancies on ecosystem monitoring based on the event book system.

Local level indicators:The route Biodiversity Mentor assists with identification and verifying the key biodiversity indicators/flagship species. Where necessary the assistance of national/government conservation personnel may be co-opted to align with both national and global targets.

(i) A biodiversity conservation indicator for the OANSTCP relates to a route-specific flagship species (e.g. the Shoebill in Zambia. With its integral linkages to its wetland habitats, its presence or absence is an indicator of environmental health.) Some indicator species may be of public interest but not necessarily of global biodiversity significance. Further biodiversity indicators, from a more social point of view, would include the change in behaviour of people on the route towards biodiversity conservation. For example, what is a person, his/her family and friends now doing or not doing that is different to their behaviour in the past?

The baseline meetings will address the following aspects: Which animals and plants (including potential flagship species) occur in the area? Mention whether any of these are also keystone species. Local biodiversity awareness, knowledge and conservation ethic? Are there any existing conservation plans for the area? What is the status of the route environment, habitat, species? Are there any existing or planned Community Conserved Areas (CCAs)? What indigenous (local/traditional) knowledge that could be drawn upon for monitoring purposes is available in the area? What other related conservation initiatives occur in the area? Mention how these are funded?

(ii) An economic indicator would be the number of people visiting a key site on a route. This would be easy to monitor if an entrance fee is payable eg, for access to a Quiver Tree Forest. Another example would be the number of people starting SMMEs as a result of the development of the route, such as tour guiding by people with local/indigenous knowledge.Which economic aspects could be monitored? Number of permanent and part-time direct jobs

biodiversity, economic and social indicators.


18

Tourist arrivals by month (and distribution throughout the year) by signing visitor’s books; counts at ticket sales offices Number of products within the region sourced locally for tourist consumption Volume of marketing products divided by type:*Brochures, *Advertisements, *Posters and *Websites Level of representation/contact (number of fairs, exhibits, journalists trips, familiarization trips for tour operators and open days) Number of participants on the route (subdivided by type, e.g. accommodation and catering, tour guiding, transportation, tour operation) Number of participants making use of incentives or programmes for SMMEs: Number of participants involved in capacity building on the route (established with emerging)

The baseline meetings will address the following aspects: What are the features that attract tourists already / potentially / what do they do? Are there any existing tourism plans for the area? Is there any form of tourism management in the area? Are there any aspects that fall under a completed EIA requirement? Is there any large corporate with an interest in the area that may be interested in sponsoring/supporting a route?

(iii) Social indicators could include a wide range of positive and negative issues including donations by tourists to local community institutions such as schools and clinics, preservation of traditional values and knowledge etc.

By developing and mapping tourist routes, Open Africa creates social capital in communities. It increases their interpersonal skills, both within and across cultural and socio-economic borders. It increases their capacity to cope by illustrating their ability to individually and collectively influence their reality in a proactive way. This gives them an enhanced sense of personal empowerment that collectively improves the community’s capacity to cope. Participants in Open Africa’s activities can thus be viewed as both beneficiaries and agents of development.

Which social aspects could be monitored? Local satisfaction with the level of tourism and the flow of benefits to the local community Existence of a community/multi-stakeholder tourism plan Frequency of Route Forum meetings and attendance rates Comparative evidence of infrastructural developments since the establishment of a route Percentage of goods and services acquired for tourism operation of the site from: - Participants on the route- The broader community Employment of local residents in tourism operations (numbers, income levels) Analysis of visitor book tick boxes Percentage of participants with policies/programmes aimed at community development Number of social services available to the community (% attributed/connected to tourism) Access by locals to key sites (% of sites freely accessible to public or with local rates) Number (%) of employees/participant qualified/certified Negative aspects to monitor include behaviour eg, of children chasing tourism cars and begging for sweets Frequency of training programmes and level of participationThe baseline meetings will address the following aspects: Would any community “safeguards” be triggered by tourism? Describe how the area is governed.


19

What are any other community aspects to be considered and addressed?

Monitoring and evaluation Budget: the table below summarizes the budeget breakdown.

Project Related Monitoring and Evaluation Budget

Component Cost (US$)

1. M&E Related Costs

A. Install and maintain MIS 5,768

B. Participant certification 3,723

C. Development of monitoring tools 4,773

D. Monitoring of Route Forums 10,023

E. Route Forum knowledge sharing seminars 36,990

F. Replication Strategy 999

2. Management Costs

A. Website optimization* 11,455

B. Operations Manager* 11,933

C. Route Networker* 11,933

D. Biodiversity Networker* 47,730

TOTAL 145,327

*Covers the proportion of staff time related to M&E, local level M&E support, MIS/webpage and progress reporting.

OANSTCP support functions related to Monitoring and EvaluationBiodiversity NetworkerThe Biodiversity Networker will play a particular role related to local level monitoring and evaluation. Its main three functions are described below:

A. Development and implementation of the new local level biodiversity monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system Attend all baseline meetings and workshops (1, 2 and 3) for each route during the route development process Provide the Route Forums with the required relevant biodiversity monitoring information and materials (monitoring cards, etc.) Train the Route Forums and Biodiversity Monitors in M&E using the Route Management handbook and/or any other relevant sources Implement the monitoring process in the field with regular follow-up visits Assist the Route Forums with selecting a flagship species and/or other indicators Assist the Route Forums with data analysis and specific biodiversity related report writing Assist the Route Forums with compiling and implementing a local community flagship species conservation action plan Mainstream biodiversity conservation management into existing bio-routes

B. Biodiversity monitoring data management


20

Collate, analyze and store biodiversity data extracted from Route Forum quarterly reports and any other relevant sources Evaluate the results of the analysis and implement mitigation measures where necessary Communicate the results of the evaluation to Open Africa, Route Forums and local (and potential national) governmental conservation agencies by means of feedback reports Up-date tracking tool by mid-term and EOP

C.Knowledge Management Seminars Plan and arrange national and corridor seminars (One national seminar in each country and one corridor seminar in the third year) in conjunction with the Route Networker Compile and distribute feedback reports for each Implement any biodiversity related actions identified from any of the seminars Input in progress reporting. Input in replication plan

Route Biodiversity MonitorThe route Biodiversity Monitor is an innovative concept. A route resource biodiversity monitor(s) is a member of the local community elected by the Route Forum to organize the collection and collation of biodiversity monitoring data, with the assistance of the OANSTC Biodiversity Networker. Where necessary, capacity will be built. The route Biodiversity Monitor will also assist the forum with the biodiversity data evaluation process. The Biodiversity Monitor(s) will be responsible for completing the yellow data collection card and will report to the Route Forum chairperson. They will be assisted by the OANSTC Biodiversity Networker. If necessary, the help of other monitors will be obtained eg, field rangers/game guards who are already doing monitoring as part of their normal duties; craft-makers who are collecting natural resources; and people selling tickets at a gate. Monitoring information will also be collected from other sources, including visitors’ books.

Training of biodiversity monitorsThe biodiversity monitor will be sent on a six week field guide training course that will include a specific module on monitoring of the flagship species. In addition the Biodiversity Mentor will spend the last week of the aforementioned course with the monitor to place the focus more specifically on their area of origin. This also means that the monitor will be able to become a participant on the route as a field guide should he/she wish to do so.

Route Biodiversity MentorThe route Biodiversity Mentor is also an OANSTCP related innovative concept. Such a person is a member of the local community elected by the Route Forum who has resource-based experience, interest and knowledge to offer advice on biodiversity related issues. The mentor is also responsible for assisting with identification and verification of flagship species/biodiversity indicators and supports the Biodiveristy Monitors.

The monitoring card system

1. The data collection card (yellow)Each route resource monitor will maintain a personal copy of the Event Book. Each book contains a set of yellow data cards, one card for each economic, social or biodiversity indicator. As events occur the monitor selects the appropriate card and records the event. An “event” can range from the number of sightings of a specific flagship species recorded to the number of jobs created or new SMMEs registered. At the end of the month, a line is left open and the same card is used for subsequent events in the ensuing months. At the end of the year, all of the old cards removed, archived and a fresh set of cards inserted into


21

the book. The yellow card will accommodate any number of columns required for data to be collected, as seen in the example below.

Figure 3 Model of route data collection card (here for flagship species)

2. The Monthly reporting ChartOn a monthly basis, the Route Forum chairperson gathers all the route resource monitors together and they collectively complete the monthly reporting charts (blue). These charts are pre-prepared A3 templates (up to 4 topic charts per template) that are housed in a large format display ‘flip-file’ (or on a wall-mounted notice board).


22

Figure 4 Model for the long term reporting card (red)

At the end of each year, the totals for the year are transferred onto the long-term trend reporting charts (red). The method of recording long term data is similar to that of the monthly/quarterly reporting. The essential difference is that the months (horizontal axis) are replaced by years. The duration of the programme must be stipulated in the Route Forum Plan, but adapted as necessary.

Data analysisThe Route Forum chairperson and route Biodiversity Monitor(s) will analyse the data, assisted by an OANSTC Biodiversity Networker. The Route Forum may also wish to be part of the process, while the Biodiversity Mentor will advise (if appointed).

Lessons have been learned from the implementation of the Event Book System in NamibiaLessons that have emerged during this process in Namibia15) have led to the following suggestions for technical support providers. These apply equally to the development of community monitoring systems as to those for protected areas:

1. Clearly separate research from monitoring. Remove research from the terms of reference of scientists responsible for facilitating the development of a management-orientated monitoring system (MOMS).2. Make a conscious effort to understand the working environment of a resource manager in order to assess realistically the level of commitment that management can devote to monitoring. Managers have to deal with many divergent issues eg, meetings, budgets, audits, conflict management, public relations, human resources, stock control, litigation, political issues etc. Many decisions need to be made urgently and the average manager has little time to devote to the accumulation of information for the decision.3. Focus on those topics that are dear to management. As trust develops, the scope can gradually be expanded to include other issues eg, those that help managers to identify effective and ineffective actions and/or longer-term trends in biodiversity.4. Develop a service ethic where the managers are the primary ‘clients’ – ie, do what they want, not what ‘you’ want. This includes listening carefully to what is required/ wanted, following up on commitments, sometimes doing things simply to build relationships, learning to lose small battles in order to ‘win the war’.

15 Stuart-Hill et al. 2005


23

2019181716151413121110987654321

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2019181716151413121110987654321


2019181716151413121110987654321


2019181716151413121110987654321


5. Purge all documents of scientific jargon.6. Build on small successes rather than be too ambitious and end up with a large failure.7. Be patient and pay attention to building sustainable monitoring systems rather than obtaining data at all costs.

The OANSTCP’s M&E approach has been developed on the basis of lessons learned (see above) and will refine constantly its approach (doing by learning).Other forms of local level monitoring

The visitors’ book systemThe visitors’ book system (using key locations such as accommodation, tourist booking offices) is one that has been in use by many establishments over many years. It generally consists of comments written by visitors to the establishment and about the establishment. To take it a step forward by using it as a monitoring tool would be very effective in that it is an established system, which can easily be continued and adapted to meet monitoring needs eg, by recording the number of people visiting an area, and their experiences - negative or positive. It can also be used as a platform for visitors to make constructive recommendations on possibly improving the quality of visitor products for an area. Travellers who make regular visits to an area are in a position to pick on trends in change more easily eg, numbers of sightings or signs of habitat degradation. The information gathered from these books on a regular basis can be recorded and processed on the monitoring and evaluation card system previously described (and also used as a means of promoting repeat and referral business).

QuestionnairesWhere numerical data measurements (eg, number of elephants) are not possible, a questionnaire/checklist of 10 qualitative questions may be used eg, the recording of a subjective assessment of the quality of accommodation or services. For this purpose a pass rate of 7/10 is considered satisfactory. The results may then be presented in the same graphic format as the event book.

OA internal Monitoring and EvaluationOpen Africa will install and maintain a Management Information System (MIS) to aid decision-making both at the local level (routes) and at a project level. The MIS comprises three main components: Performance - Database of local social, economic and environmental indicators (including flagship species and linkage to tracking tool) assessing route performance; Product Inventory - Database of tourism facilities and their contact details - accommodation, arts and crafts, parks and reserves, tour guides etc.; Project - Database of project related indicators (here related to OANSTCP logframe indicators).

Data collected in the field by means of the survey questionnaire and data collection cards will be entered into the system for analysis and report production. Feedback will be presented to Route Forums through annual reports to aid their decision-making at the local level. Data on project related indicators would also be entered into the system for analysis and feedback to Route Forums and the World Bank.

The database will be spatially orientated by linking it to a Geographic Information System (GIS). This will enable analysis according to the specific geographic area of the route and will also enable visual representation of data where feasible.


24

Figure 5 The Open Africa Management Information System


25

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)

No comments have been received from the Council or the STAP at the PIF stage.Responses to the comments from GEFSEC in the final Review sheet of Jan 10, 2008 is provided below:

Comment 1: Confirm Cofinancing. Response: Letter of cofinancing commitment is included in the package.

Comment 2: Confirm component budgets. Response: Budget breakdown by component has been finalized and has not changed since approval of PIF.

Comment 3:.Propose a M&E programResponse: Detailed M& E plan has been developed. See Annex A .

Comment 4:. Letter of Endorsement from Namibia. Response: Revised endorsemet letter from the FP in Namibia (dated November 9, 2007) was provided prior to approval of the PIF and is on record.


26

ANNEX C: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS

A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN. The Project Preparation Funding (PDF-A) was used, and the activities financed (see submitted PDF-A completion report dated 29 May 2007) to feed into the preparation of a MSP document. The preparation funds were used for: (i) Project Brief for MSP, (ii) testing proposed approach in pilot sites, (iii) designing new methodology for integrating conservation aspects in route development approach, (iv) developing implementation and administration manual.

In addition, the preparation phase led to a WB appraisal of Open Africa’s financial and administrative capacity in November 2006. B. DESCRIBE IF ANY FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.

See PIF section H, page 7.

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE 1 BELOW:

Project Preparation Activities Approved

Implementation Status

GEF Amount ($)Co-

financing

($)

Amount Approve

d

Amount Spent To-date

Amount Committe

d

Uncommitted Amount*

MSP Preparation Completed 20,000 20,000 20,000 N/A 15,000Pilot Site Projects Completed N/A N/A N/A N/A 60,000Nature Conservation Methodology

Completed 22,000 22,000 22,000 N/A N/A

Implementation and Administrative Manual

Completed 8,000 8,000 8,000 N/A N/A

Database & Web Enhancement

Yet to complete N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (25,000 planned but not

initiated)Total 50,000 50,000 50,000 N/A 75,000


27

ANNEX D: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

Project design overview and conceptional approach

The Open Africa method of tourism development is based on the creation of tourism ‘routes’. A route is all of a collective, a cluster, a brand and a focal point, the latter both for the participants and for prospective visitors wishing to determine where to find what interests their individual tastes. At the end of the development process, the route is brought into a larger network comprising other routes throughout southern Africa, and eventually the entirety of Africa, on the Open Africa website <www.openafrica.org>. Routes are launched at an open community celebration that often includes local and national representatives and press. The launch sets in motion a publicity drive and helps to generate community pride, ownership, and momentum to begin a participative development process. Through this network, individual routes are able to gain lessons learned and best practices from other routes and are able to develop the collaboration and cooperation needed to become successful.

Since the launch of its first route in 1999, Open Africa has developed through its incentive-based approach, awareness, training and capacity-building an average of 10 routes annually, primarily in South Africa. This accomplished Phase I, in which the objective was to test the institutionalization of local fora (“route forum”) system, establish credibility, and develop a critical mass. The Phase II (to be launched by the OANSTC project) focus is to build on past achievements by establishing biodiversity-oriented routes; and to manage the development and implementation support of local tourism strategies including biodiversity conservation plans and strengthened marketing and dissemination of the vast hands-on knowledge being built up within the network more effectively by installing a sophisticated monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system.

The OANSTC project addresses reducing the effects of poverty on environmental/biodiversity degradation and ameliorating the positive impacts of tourism whilst mitigating its potential negative impacts. Capacity building to ensure sustainability is an important part of the process. According to the draft user’s manual on CBD guidelines for biodiversity and development (2006b), key questions that need to be addressed in this respect include: What capacity building and support will different stakeholder groups (especially indigenous and local communities) need in order that they can participate effectively in integrated management of tourism and biodiversity? What education and awareness-raising is needed to explain the impacts of tourism on biological diversity, and good practices in this area, and the link between cultural diversity and biological diversity? What resources will be needed for capacity building, education and awareness-raising? How can different stakeholders contribute to capacity building, education and awareness-raising (including the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and civil society organizations)?

Each of these questions is dealt with (under the project’s given time and resource framework) in the OANSTC process under component 1, 2 and 3.In sum, the project design is based on an enhanced version of the Open Africa route development approach outlined in the figure 6 and 7 below (shaded areas indicating additional/strengthened elements).


28

http://www.africandream.org/

Figure 6. Broad overview of current and enhanced (shaded) route development approach

Figure 7. Features of route development approach


29

The project has 4 components as below:

Component 1: Biodiversity-focused Routes – US$ 455,000 (GEF US$ 332,000)

Introduction: The new OANSTC approach to mainstream biodiversity conservation in the route development and implementation process was presented, introduced, and tested during the project preparation at an Open Africa route development workshop at Rosh Pinah16 in Namibia on 25 September 2006. The enhanced approach will be used to develop 8 new and 3 to be up-graded routes in the project corridor. The “new” route development and follow-up approaches focus on mainstreaming biodiversity into route planning, management, marketing and monitoring and evaluation. A presentation on local biodiversity and its significance will be essential at all workshops.The approach builds on the knowledge of the country and local agencies and stakeholders parties - government, NGO and private sector - concerned with biodiversity conservation in each of the eco-regions identified. The route launch presents a further platform for a more comprehensive presentation on the local biodiversity and its significance to the wider audience present, including locals, tour operators, government representatives and the media.

A core aspect of the new methodology is the selection of a route specific "flagship species". The concept of flagship species is based purely on people's perception of the importance of that species as an emblem around which a community can rally. The important dimension of a flagship species is that, because it rallies people around a concept that is tangible and attractive, it facilitates awareness- raising and commitment. It also enables leveraging of the human qualities that are required to properly manage the environment and the social fabric of communities. To be called flagship, a species does not have to be threatened, endemic, indicator or keystone. 17

Activities : GEF resources will be used to in each of the selected routes for the following: Route development(1) detailed feasibility and baseline study18; (2) stakeholder meetings and workshops; (3) biodiversity data collection; (4) participant certification; (5) installation of PC/internet connection; (6) production of route brochures and plaques; (7) establishment and insertion of route website and (8) route launching event.

Follow-up route support(1) workshop for conservation and tourism planning leading to of flagship species conservation plan and a tourism route strategy

16 Rosh Pinah route has been renamed into Nama Padloper.17 However, it will often happen that species chosen will meet one or more of these criterions. For instance the Kafue NP community when questioned immediately mentioned the hunting dog (lycaon pictus) as a potential flagship; this is a highly threatened species. Some Caprivi route members mentioned the red lechwe; neither threatened nor endemic but a good indicator of healthy wetland habitat. Flagship species can be extremely common species such guinea-fowl. Guinea-fowl actually do not qualify for any of the four characteristics; however, guinea-fowl conservation requires behavior changes in a community, children must stop harvesting wild eggs, fire must be suppressed from certain areas, and the practice of hunting/snaring should be restrained. The consequences of this for many other species and natural habitat is far reaching.18Route diagnosis including resource assessment, identification of market segments suited to the area, assessment of flagship features, undertaking and environmental threat and opportunity analysis, assessment of social threats and opportunities, identification of related tourism initiatives, identification of technical and maintenance requirements, institutional analysis, and stakeholder analysis including support systems


30

(2) capacity-building to strengthen and institutionalize route forums, to set-up SMMEs as needed and to biodiversity monitors and mentors(3) flagship species information plaques as appropriate(4) development of tourism route strategy(5) development of conservation plan for flagship species

Figure 8 gives a breakdown of the activities to be undertaken as part of the expanded methodology.

Route launch

Install PC/Internet connection

Introductory workshop

Stakeholder meeting

Community & Biodiversity WS & data gathering

Participant certification

Brochures & Plaques

Route website goes live

Route development

The route is made up of the Route forum and the Route participants, and their information is showcased on the website

Introduction to Open Africa and the route development process. By the end of this workshop participants are clear on what to expect; they have a preliminary list of features and characteristics that are or could become tourism attractors and they will have appointed an interim Route Forum and chairperson, who acts as the coordinator thereafter.

All existing and potential stakeholders and interested parties are invited to this meeting. Open Africa explains the route concept and its objectives. This meeting sets the tone for full community participation in and ownership of the project, and achieves co-ordination around a common vision.

Brochures developed and printed for the launch function; plaques are made for each participant

Installing PC/Internet communication and monthly connectivity for Route Forum

This is a celebration, the website goes live and it is an opportunity to gain media exposure

Finalise election of Route forum, biodiversity monitor & mentor. Identify flagship species.Site visits to all participants to collect GPS coordinates, take photographs, assemble commentary and compiles baseline data as a benchmark for monitoring and evaluation. This information once edited and collated is what eventually appears on the network’s website

Roll out of certification system. All Open Africa route participants are expected to sign the Open Africa Charter, subscribing to the Charter and its values and standards. Signatories receive a certificate and membership number, corresponding with their number in the Open Africa database. This enables them to log onto the website for the purpose of personally updating their entries.

Workshop Three

The ‘where to from here’ scenarios and strategies are discussed. Information is disseminated on tips and tools, advice on setting goals, the conduct of meetings, fundraising, public relations, marketing, investing in local linkages, building partnerships, and a host of other relevant issues.

Classic methodologyNew OANSTC methodology

Key

Figure 8 : Overview of current and enhanced route development process


31

Route signage

Technical advice

Training biodiversity monitor & mentor

Conservation & tourism planning workshop

Route support & capacity building

Route forum seminars

Post-launch Route Support

Enhanced marketing

Monitoring and EvaluationInstall and maintain MISDevelopment of monitoringtoolsMonitoring of route forums

Route forum knowledgesharing seminars:- National seminars- Corridor seminar- Seminar feedback

& compilation of replication plan

• Regional marketing trips• Supporting network with

marketing & promotion• Exhibiting at local travel

shows• Exhibiting at international

travel shows• Website upgrades• Optimizing & promoting

website

Ongoing support to strengthen and institutionalize Route Forums

Field guide training for the biodiversity monitors & monitoring training to both biodiversity monitors & mentors

Tourism route strategy andconservation planfor the flagshipspecies

Outsourced commercial tutoring and capacity building to SMME’s

Plaques, posters & signage

New OANSTC methodology Classic methodology

Key

Figure 9: Overview of current and enhanced route follow-up support

Component 2: Targeted Marketing and Communication for Biodiversity-Focused Routes - US$ 218,000 (GEF US$ 139,000)

Introduction: A high level of marketing and promotion as well as communication and coordination with other stakeholders is a vital part of (eco-) and biodiversity-friendly tourism, yet very difficult to achieve for many new business entrepreneurs. Common constraints for new market entrants identified over the past 10 years by the Open Africa organization relate to a lack of marketing and communication skills, inadequate communication infrastructure, insufficient funds and mentoring. Open Africa aims to facilitate access to markets for the routes, and increase the exposure of biodiversity through the various new activities for the OA network.19 Marketing efforts supported by the OANSTC project will focus on getting as much exposure for the routes and individual participants as possible, with a strong emphasis on leveraging exposure for biodiversity in the area. At the same time, the principle of low-volume, high-value tourism will be encouraged, together with careful monitoring of tourism-related resources, to ensure that biodiversity does not become a victim of tourism development. In addition, Route Forums must necessarily develop their own marketing skills over time in the interests of sustainability, and therefore the OANSTC project envisages providing certain levels of assistance (mentor concept) to enable the 19 The support through the OA network to access and benefit from joint marketing and communication is one of Open Africa’s core conceptional features and represents a key value to the route participants. Some older routes succeed in raising funding for the production of their own brochures and for participating in industry expositions, in which connection Open Africa provides some help both in encouraging uniformity and by collectively representing network participants at local travel shows.


32

biodiversity-focused routes within the corridor to fast track linking to demand markets. The target groups include tour operators, the media, tourism offices, local governments, the general public (domestic and international), Team Africa members and all participants in the network of routes.

Activities: GEF resources will be used for the following:

(1) Production, printing and distribution of brochures, newsletter and other communication documents20 (2) Annual route promotion marketing tours by OA team to Windhoek and Lusaka21

(3) Advertisement in targeted specialized conservation and travel-oriented journals and inclusion of OANSTCP routes in international and national conservation- and community-based tourism oriented marketing campaigns(4) Database development of a/ tour operators22 and b/ conservation oriented media(5) Promotional route visits for journalist and other media(6) Representation by OA and biodiversity-focused route members at travel shows (annual Indaba and Getaway in South Africa and in year 3 WTM, London and ITB, Berlin)(7) Development of marketing and communication handbook for route forums including web-based marketing23

(8) Production of (branded) series of interpretation boards to promote awareness of biodiversity and flagship species(9) Website Optimization and Upgrade through outsourced expertise in order to do website promotion to drive hits to the website and up-grade the Open Africa website to improve comprehensive (including biodiversity) data carrying and analysis capacity.

Component 3: Enhanced Monitoring and Evaluation - US$ 112,000 (GEF US$ 47,000)

Introduction:Existing OA network M&E efforts are rudimentary and focus on centralized data collection, storage, dissemination via the OA website and monitoring of the activeness of route forums. At local level, monitoring and evaluation is almost nonexistent. It should be noted that route participants are sometimes reluctant to provide and share business related data (mandatory step within the route development process). The component will address monitoring and evaluation at two levels: (i) OA network

20 Production and distribution of communication and marketing print tools for new biodiversity-focused routes: (i) Initiate the production and distribution of a series of uniform, branded brochures at the route launch as part of the enhanced route development process, (ii) “Newsletter” showcasing the routes and participants: sent to all Team Africa members, all route participants, all other members in the database, tour operators and tourism offices. Biodiversity will feature prominently. Aim: to market the biodiversity-focused routes. Sent out twice a year, (iii) Monthly release: sent to all route participants. Aim: to share success stories and generic lessons between routes and route participants. Sent out monthly, (iv) “Footnotes”: sent to all biodiversity-focused routes and route participants, Team Africa members and funders. Aim: to update everyone on Open Africa (includes information on routes and core functioning). Released twice a year.21 Marketing activities and promotion partnerships for new biodiversity-focused routesCarry out annual marketing trips to Windhoek and Lusaka to promote the biodiversity-focused routes. These are the gateways to the corridor and the purpose of such trips will be to introduce tour operators, travel agents and car rental companies to the corridor’s features and attractions.22 for the purpose of informing them regularly about what is available on the biodiversity-rich routes for possible inclusion in their packages (and websites) and liaise with Route Forums in this respect.23 Capacity building for biodiversity-focused route forums: (i) Develop a marketing and communications handbook for route forums in order to assist with capacity building and encourage the sustainability of marketing initiatives. Included will be information on branding, specifically on how to use the Open Africa brand and the flagship species branding and how to benefit from biodiversity conservation in the marketing instruments, (ii) Develop a best practice method for route participants to gather information on tourists, in order to stay in contact with them personally and promote word-of-mouth marketing eg, visitors books, (iii) Devise strategies to assist routes in web-based target marketing eg, developing an ”open” manual on target marketing; and, for example, by connecting routes with a rich diversity of plants to horticultural clubs.


33

monitoring and evaluation and (ii) route specific (local) monitoring and evaluation. A simple and standardized method for monitoring tourism-based resources at a local level has been developed during the OANSTC preparation stage, replicating a successful model from Namibia.24 It is based on a participatory identification of effective route specific indicators including bio-indicators both to focus attention on these resources and to monitor tourism impacts. The local level system should address three key pillars of pro-poor tourism, economic, social and environmental aspects to demonstrate its positive impacts and improve route performance. The identification of a flagship species will be done by the local communities, using their indigenous knowledge in consideration of the fact that they might not be ‘science literate,’ and then match this with scientific assessments of their biodiversity value in each instance, eg, through national or regional conservation entities. Thus the communities themselves will establish the baseline data, desired outcomes and periods of measurement at set intervals, the outcomes of which will be displayed visibly in a graphic tracking system. The biodiversity baseline assessment of the new biodiversity-focused routes will require special attention and support through the Biodiversity Networker, the local biodiversity mentor and monitors, as well as local and national government wherever needed. Biodiversity conservation indicators and the conservation plans will need to be aligned to national and global obligations in terms of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, policies and legislation. At the time of route development, Open Africa collects general biodiversity, social and economic data which is refined prior project launch. A participant tracking system is being installed through the Open Africa Charter that will identify individual participants according to a unique numbering system and enable Open Africa to monitor their adherence to reporting requirements. This will facilitate the gathering of data for comparative purposes annually. Once regular reporting on the flagship species is established and Route Forums have become accustomed to the monitoring and evaluation processes, they will be gradually expanded to include the same principles regarding social and economic indicators.

Activities: GEF ressources will be used for the following (see Annex A):

(1) Development of a MIS for OA network25

(2) Detailed baseline studies for selected OANSTCP routes26

(3) Development of biodiversity monitoring tools (MOMS) in particular for flagship species at local level(4) Training for Biodiversity Monitor and Biodiversity Mentor at local level(5) Registration of route members via the OA participant tracking system

24 The proposed OANSTCP local monitoring system has been inspired by the “Event Book” system, a community-based natural resource management methodology developed in Namibia as part of its national Community Based Natural Resource Management Programme. The system has been gradually improved to include other aspects such as business development, institutional aspects etc and has been adopted with good results by more than 50 communal conservancies in the country. Further, in the form of the “Incident Book” system, it is now being piloted in some of its national parks and is also being used in a private protected area. Similar systems, known as Management Orientated Monitoring Systems (MOMS) are being used in the Sub-region, e.g. in Mozambique; Zambia (four community areas); Botswana and South Africa. The OANSTCP monitoring component will seek to link in with existing initiatives eg, in Zambia with monitoring carried out by Community Resource Boards and the Zambian Wildlife Authority; to determine “Limits of Acceptable Change” for tourism. In Namibia it will work closely with the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, conservancy game guards and resource monitors; which is expanding the scope of monitoring through the event book system to include economic and institutional indicators; and other stakeholders, who are already monitoring craft-related resources in this way.25 The project will support the development of an OA management information system linking OA inputs to OA outputs with specific data accessible via the improved OA webpage. As the volume of data increases, the use of either an outsourced or part-time monitoring and evaluation specialist will be employed to optimize the value of this resource.26 The results will in turn provide a powerful tool for marketing and communication activities, access funding sources for specific conservation and local development actions and enhance generally the institutional, environmental and economic sustainability of routes.


34

(6) Biodiversity Networker staff time(7) Development and dissemination of replication and knowledge management plan(8) Organization of route forum knowledge sharing seminars(9) Up-date of SP-2 Tracking Tool in year 3 and EOP

Component 4: Project Management - US$ 387,000 (GEF US$ 22,000)

Introduction: Open Africa, the project executing agency, has been in existence as a registered institution since 1995 and has been developing routes since 1999, in the process of which considerable experience has been gained in the nature of its tasks and their accomplishment. The management of the organization is stable under its founder, Noel de Villiers, and its staff constitutes a well settled team of competent and experienced people. Entirely dependant on donor funding, the organization is accustomed to rigorous reporting and the maintenance of good governance (see Part III and additional Annex K).

Activities: GEF ressources will be used for the following:

(1) Goods and equipment for OA (computers, vehicles)(2) Staffing time of website manager, manager, administrator, accountant and operations manager(3) Operational costs (office rental, utilities, consumables, communication, insurances)(4) Audit fees(5) Production of monthly and annual financial statements and progress reports as required by the

WB


35

ANNEX E: BIODIVERSITY IN THE SELECTED CORRIDOR

Context

The selected corridor includes 6 ecoregions (namely #1 Central Zambezian Miombo woodlands, #2 Zambezian flooded grasslands, #3 Zambezian and Mopane woodlands, #4 Western Zambezian grasslands, #5 Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands and #7 Nama Karoo) - see map 1 and description below.

Within these ecoregions, 11 routes have been identified based on a set of criteria which include their proximity and linkage to GMAs and PAs – see pages 55ff.

The OANSTCP Ecoregions

Map 1. Eco-region map of OANSTCP

Description of each of the OANSTCP eco-regions

1. CENTRAL ZAMBEZIAN MIOMBO WOODLANDS


36

The Central Zambezian Miombo Woodland is one of the largest ecoregions in Africa, ranging from Angola up to the shores of Lake Victoria in Tanzania. The entire typical miombo flora is represented here, but this region has a higher degree of floral richness, with far more evergreen trees than elsewhere in the miombo biome. The region covers about 70 percent of central and northern Zambia. Consisting mainly of broadleaf, deciduous savannas and woodlands, it is characteristically interspersed with edaphic grassland and semi-aquatic vegetation, as well as areas of evergreen groundwater forest.

1.1. Biodiversity Rates of faunal endemism vary greatly between taxonomic groups. Mammal endemism is restricted to four species of rodents, namely Monard’s dormouse (Graphiurus monardi), Rosevear's striped grass mouse (Lemniscomys roseveari), and two white-toothed shrews, Crocidura ansellorum (CR) and C. zimmeri (VU), with the last two being strict endemics. D'Anchieta's fruit bat (Plerotes anchietae, DD); a range-restricted species of conservation concern is also found in the area. As with the other miombo regions, Central Miombo does not support large animals in high densities, although due to the vast size of the region its overall importance for such species is very high. The low large-mammal density is attributed mostly to the harsh dry season, long droughts and the poor soils, which generally support only vegetation of low nutritional value. These conditions tend to favor low numbers of large-bodied animals, such as the endangered elephant (Loxodonta africana) and critically endangered black rhino (Diceros bicornis), as well as African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), which are able to survive on poor-quality forage by consuming large quantities of plant material. Specialized grazers are also common. They selectively feed on grazing high-quality grass shoots, often making use of a range of non-miombo habitats throughout the year. Such specialists include sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), roan antelope (H. equinus), Lichtenstein’s hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus lichtensteini), and southern reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), all species largely restricted to the miombo belt, as well as eland (Taurotragus oryx), and greater kudu (T. strepsiceros). Many species make use of the wooded margins or open areas of the numerous grassy floodplains and swamps scattered through the region. Lechwes (Kobus leche), puku (K. vardoni), tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus), oribi (Ourebia ourebi), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou) and sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii), are antelope that prefer open grasslands, seasonally flooded or marshy habitat. Waterbuck (K. ellipsiprymnus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), and blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola) are mostly found in more wooded areas close to permanent water. Other large ungulates include zebra (Equus burchelli) and giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) are relatively common to the region. Large carnivores characteristic to the region include lion (Panthera leo), leopard (P. pardus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), the endangered African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and side-striped jackal (Canis adustus). Smaller predators include caracal (Caracal caracal), miombo genet (Genetta angolensis), as well as African golden cat (Profelis aurata), which periodically wanders into the region from its preferred moist forest habitat in the DRC.

The bird life in the region is particularly rich in species. However, rates of endemism are low with the only strict endemics being Ruwet’s masked weaver (Ploceus ruweti, DD) and black-faced waxbill (Estrilda nigriloris, DD). Although Lilian’s lovebird (Agapornis lilianae) tends to avoid miombo, several isolated populations are enclosed within moister miombo woodland. The slender-tailed cisticola (Cisticola melanurus) is confined to grassy places in well-developed miombo. Several globally threatened water-associated birds have also been recorded in the region. These include: wattled crane (Grus carunculatus, VU), slaty egret (Egretta vinaceigula, VU) and corncrake (Crex crex, VU)27. Reptile and amphibian endemism is fairly high. Nineteen reptiles and thirteen amphibians are considered strictly endemic to the region. However, these high levels of local endemism may be a result of insufficient sampling rather than a true representation of an elevated biodiversity importance of this area. Distribution

27 Collar, N.J., and S.N. Stuart. 1985. Threatened birds of Africa and related Islands. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book, Part 1. 3rd Edition. Cambridge, UK.


37

ranges for some of these apparently narrowly endemic animals may therefore be much greater than presently assumed. The Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) and the African sharp-nosed crocodile (C. cataphractus) are also found in the region.

1.2. Biodiversity threatsIn Zambia, "citimene," a traditional form of ash-fertilizing agriculture is practiced. Trees more than 200mm in diameter are pollarded and the branches dragged into an area about 100m across. Once dry, this fuel is burned and crops are planted on the ash bed. This form of agriculture is unsustainable, as woody biomass is used at a greater rate than it can re-grow. In addition, these ash gardens are abandoned after a few years, which mean that in combination with population growth, this form of agriculture is resulting in escalated forest clearance.

The high incidence of fires in the area poses further threats to the region. Although fire is an integral part of miombo ecology, human setting of fires is believed to have increased the frequency of fire far above the natural level. Most of the deliberate burning and the uncontrolled fires occur at the end of the dry season, just before the onset of the summer rains. The fires burn with greater intensity as quantities of dry fuel accumulate. These hotter fires are destructive even to fire tolerant species and removes species that are less fire-tolerant from the miombo, thereby reducing species diversity.

Although large-scale cultivation is relatively uncommon, subsistence agriculture is practiced by as much as 75 percent of the population. Growing staple and cash crops such as maize, cassava, sorghum, millet, and tobacco, pose significant threats to the region as new land is cleared to avoid the risk of root-knot nematodes. The curing of tobacco is presently carried out using charcoal, compounding environmental problems. Livestock pressures are also high, with overgrazing being a common feature in the more heavily populated areas.

Of the industrial activities occurring in the region, mining in Zambia poses one of the greater threats. Land degradation and water pollution are just two of the problems caused by mineral prospecting, extraction, and processing. After the mining is complete, large tracts of land covered with mine dumps and slag lie barren. This toxicity has serious consequences for conservation of the area, as high levels of copper are lethal to animals.

Poaching and illegal hunting for bushmeat have a significant impact on the wildlife throughout the region. Elephant and rhino poaching have been extremely severe throughout the region. Most of the areas outside parks and reserves have relatively little wildlife left.

1.3. OANSTCP impacts to mitigate threats and root causes(Note: Where impacts are universal in that they apply to most areas, they are marked with an asterisk* and not repeated in each instance). Tourism could encourage people to diversify their activities and to not solely rely on agriculture as a means of income, while simultaneously focusing the attention of the local populace on the role that the forests play in attracting tourism and therefore providing an incentive to protect them. The intention here would be to retard the reliance on "citimene” as the sole source of income e.g., through both attracting tourists and selling artifacts to them that are locally made.* Whereas presently the mining industry has little regard for how its activities may be impacting on discouraging tourism, by encouraging them to join in the vision for a local route, the intention would be to inspire better practices in mitigating negative consequences for which they are responsible e.g., The Palabora Mining Company in South Africa, has become involved in local tourism initiatives by conducting tours to old metalworking sites on their property and in doing so rehabilitated a section of a previous mining area.* Throughout this application poaching emerges as a major threat and it occurs primarily for two


38

reasons: (i) As a method of attaining food; or (ii) for the purposes of trading illegally in animal products. Revenue derived from tourism will reduce the need to hunt as a food source – it will focus the attention of communities on wildlife as a tourism attraction and therefore encourage conservation, while communities themselves will take ownership of the need to police against poaching.* The community benefits from the establishment of a route will be that they become focused around a vision of common purpose, which results in the formation of a structure (Route Forum) that is provided with a framework within which to brand their product, strategize their approach, coordinate their activities, measure and manage their progress, and leverage their strengths as a collective. Furthermore it places their product in the global marketplace via the Worldwide Web and links them to a network that enables them to share in the vast hands-on solutions that other communities facing similar challenges to their own have worked out.*

1.3. Suggested OANSTCP routes28 Mpika and surrounds - Zambia North Luangwa - Zambia Kasanka Ecotourism Circuit - Zambia Southern Kafue Flats - Zambia Eastern Kafue - Zambia North Barotse Trails 1 - Zambia North Barotse Trails 2 - Zambia

2. ZAMBEZIAN FLOODED GRASSLANDS

Embedded predominantly within miombo and mopane woodlands, the Zambezian Flooded Grasslands form a discontinuous region distributed between northern Botswana in the south, to northern Tanzania. The part of this ecoregion that OANSTC is concerned with at this stage are the Barotse Floodplain, the Kafue Flats, Busanga and Lukanga Swamps, Lake Mweru, Mweru Marsh and Bangwuelu/Luapala/Chambezi system in Zambia.

2.1. Biodiversity In general, there are rather few endemic species in this region, but there are high levels of species richness. For example, there are no endemic mammals in the region. However, it supports high mammal species richness, including huge herds of large mammals that still undertake some seasonal migrations. The Kafue Flats support large numbers of grazing mammals, including zebra (Equus burchelli), sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) and buffalo (Bubalus sp), as well as predators such as cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and wild dog (Lycaon pictus) .The Kafue lechwe (Kobus leche kafuensis) is the region’s most famous animal and is endemic to the Flats; it is one of three different races of lechwe, or marsh antelope, adapted specifically to living in wetlands. Lechwe (Kobus leche) populations are known to exceed 20,000 in Moremi Game Reserve, while more than 35,000 individuals of the endemic subspecies, the Kafue lechwe (Kobus leche kafuensis) have been recorded in Lochinvar National Park. Many of the ungulates that inhabit this region move seasonally through the floodplain in response to the fluctuating water levels. Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus), which are mostly restricted to seasonally flooded grasslands, are known to follow the receding waters in the dry season and to retreat to higher ground when the waters rise. Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and oribi (Ourebia ourebi) also frequent extensive floodplains and grasslands, although the latter favor less waterlogged areas such as termitaries, where herbs and woody growth provide food and cover. Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), puku (Kobus vardoni), southern reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), and sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei) are also common inhabitants of the

28 Note: some routes may occur in more than one ecoregion and have been so listed.


39

floodplains, although these species tend to prefer the reed beds or more wooded vegetation on the margins of the floodplains.29 Greater kudu (T. strepsiceros), hartbeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), steenbok (Aepyceros melampus), sable (Hippotragus niger) and roan antelope (H. equinus) are found in fewer numbers, generally preferring the woodland margins of inundated grasslands. Other herbivores attracted to these verdant pastures include elephant (Loxidonta africana), Burchell's zebra (Equus burchelli) and eland (Taurotragus oryx). Hippo (Hippotragus amphibius) is found in almost all of the ecoregion’s prominent floodplains. Although many mammals are common to the entire region, the disjunct nature of the Zambezian flooded grasslands has resulted in fairly distinct species compositions. For example, black lechwe (Kobus leche smithermani), tsessebe, and sitatunga dominate the Bangweulu basin, while the Kafue lechwe and Burchell's zebra are amongst the most prominent herbivores in Kafue Flats.30 Similar patterns are evident with the top predators, where different species tend to predominate in different areas. These large carnivores include lion (Panthera leo), leopard (P. pardus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), spotted hyaena (Crocuta crocuta) and wild dog (Lycaon pictus). Smaller predators characteristic of this inundated ecoregion include the water mongoose (Atilax paludinosus), the Cape clawless otter (Aonyx capensis and the spotted-necked otter (Lutra maculicollis).

This region supports a high avifaunal diversity, and provides important habitat to a range of wetland birds. More than 450 bird species occur regularly in Kafue Flats, some throughout the year and others passing through on migration. Kafue is one of the most important sites in Africa for wattled crane (Grus carunculatus), ranked as Vulnerable by IUCN –The World Conservation Union. The region also provides habitat for endemic and near endemic bird species, as well as five others that are considered globally rare. Chaplin's barbet (Lybius chaplini) is endemic to south central Zambia, concentrated in the Kafue basin between Kafue National Park and Lusaka.31 Reliant on miombo woodland or open country bearing fruiting trees, this species is mostly found on the woody margins of flooded grassland areas. The Tanzania masked weaver (Ploceus reichardi) occurs only in a few swamps in western Tanzania, northern Zambia, and adjacent areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).32 Two further restricted range birds, the Katanga masked weaver (Ploceus katangae) and the grey-crested helmet-shrike (Prionops poliophus) occur in this region. In addition, this region falls within the center of distribution of the globally threatened slaty egret (Egretta vinaceigula, VU).33 Largely restricted to this region, this species is an uncommon resident of the marshes and floodplains of the Okavango, Chobe, and the Caprivi Strip as well as from the Zambezi Valley northwards to the Bangweulu swamps. Other globally threatened species recorded in this region include wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus,VU), which has its main breeding populations in the wetlands of Zambia, including the Kafue Flats and the Bangweulu and Busanga swamps34, corncrake (Crex crex, VU), lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni, VU), great snipe (Gallinago media) and shoebill stork (Balaeniceps rex). Other rare birds found in these wetlands include the long-toed flufftail (Sarothrura lugens) and the white-headed plover (Vanellus albiceps).

29 Kindgon, J. 1997. The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego.30 Chabwela, H.N. 1992. The ecology and resource use of the Bangweulu Basin and the Kafue Flats. Pages 11-25 in R. C. V. Jeffrey, H.N. Chabwela, G. Howard, and P.J. Dugan, editors. Managing the wetlands of Kafue Flats and Bangweulu Basin. Kafue National Park, Zambia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.31 Fry, C.H., S. Keith, and E.K. Urban. 1988. The Birds of Africa. Vol III. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. London.32 Clemments, J.F. 1991. Birds of the World. A Check List. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista, California.33 Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. The 2000 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.34 Stuart, S.N. and R.J. Adams. 1990. Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa and its islands: conservation, management and sustainable use. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 6. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.


40

Information on plant and invertebrate diversity of these wetlands is relatively sparse. However, it is known that 16 species of butterfly are found only in the Zambezi River Basin35.

2.2. Biodiversity threatsThe combination of historically low human population densities, largely due to water-borne diseases, and the presence of tsetse flies in and around the wetlands of this region, and the more recent establishment of parks and reserves centered on several of these floodplains, has ensured that many natural habitats remain. Even in areas that have been home to significant numbers of people, the disturbances and impacts of human activity needs to be seen in the context that wetlands and their surrounding landscapes are inherently unstable and are constantly evolving and changing.36 Wetland organisms and communities have evolved and adapted to thrive in an environment that is in constant flux.

However, with rapidly expanding populations and increasing use and manipulation of natural resources, this region is facing increasing threats from a variety of sources. These include: increased land clearance and deforestation of swamp forests and surrounding woodlands, poaching, pollution and eutrophication, and the modification of natural flow regimes.

While several of the wetlands such as the Barotse Floodplain and the Kafue flats have been occupied for centuries, large changes are becoming evident in many of the areas as human activities and land-use intensifies . These changes are largely a result of increased human populations, increased levels of technology available, increased government and donor inputs and better control of tsetse fly. Many of the seasonally flooded grasslands have historically been used for grazing during the dry season. However, several areas that only used to be seasonally grazed are now permanently occupied and cultivated.

Fire has always played a role in the ecology of grasslands and woodlands. However it has most probably never been as frequent as it is now, due to the increase of fire setting by humans. The increased incidence of repetitive fires may eliminate fire-sensitive species, thereby reducing species diversity, and can also result in over-utilization of recovering areas, such as on the Barotse Floodplain.While most of the region consists of open grasslands, deforestation of swamp forest patches and surrounding woodlands still has a considerable impact on the healthy function of this region. Opening up the tree canopy increases the risk of fires. In addition, it reduces the habitat for many mammals such as greater kudu, hartebeest, sable and roan antelope, as well as birds that rely on the woodland-grassland interface for food or shelter.

Poaching and illegal hunting for bushmeat are continuing and increasing in several areas of the region. Hunting of large animals and their gradual replacement by domestic cattle, goats and sheep threaten many mammal populations in the wetlands. This is a problem in all of the wetland areas, but especially in those with higher population densities where there is little effective protection. In the Kafue Flats in Zambia, for example, large mammals are now confined almost exclusively to two national parks (Blue Lagoon and Lochinvar National Parks, a combined area of only 860km2). In other areas, the local human populations have removed these species for food or to reduce crop-raiding problems. Furthermore, although many of these floodplains are officially protected, ineffective management and lack of funds has resulted in uncontrolled poaching of animals such as hippo, elephant and rhino.37 In addition, overfishing is also

35 Pennington, K.M. 1978. Pennington’s Butterflies of Southern Africa. Ad donker, Johannesburg, South Africa. 670 pp36 Timberlake, J. 1998. Biodiversity of the Zambezi Basin Wetlands. Phase 1: Review and Preliminary Assessment of Available Information. Volume 1: Main Report. Consultancy report for IUCN- Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.37 Stuart, S.N. and R.J. Adams. 1990. Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa and its islands: conservation, management and sustainable use. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 6. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.


41

becoming an issue of increasing concern. For example, over 50 percent of the fish production for Zambia comes from the Bangweulu basin and Kafue Flats.The biodiversity and integrity of many of the wetlands of the region are further threatened by pollution, especially close to urban centers, where industrial, domestic wastes and agricultural runoff flow unchecked into the water catchments. In some of these wetlands and floodplains, eutrophication of waters has led to serious infestations of aquatic weeds such as Salvinia molesta, Eichornia crassipes and Pistia stratiodes, which has resulted in decreased fish production, displacement in natural fauna and flora, and overall loss of biodiversity. Pollution from pesticides such as DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-tricholoroethane) and chemical sprays used in tsetse fly control may also be severely affecting the biota of the region. Floodplains occurring in the vicinity of mines face serious problems relating to water pollution both in terms of chemical wastes and accumulation of heavy metals. Reports from the Copperbelt have shown that the copper content in rivers found in affected areas was up to 80 times higher than the acceptable level.38 The Kafue River is known to be contaminated with heavy metals and agricultural run-off. There is therefore considerable concern regarding the effects that bioaccumulation of these contaminants may have on animals that depend on the Kafue Flats for their sustenance.39

Changes in the frequency, magnitude and variability of rainfall due to climate change as well as the anthropogenically induced modification of natural flow regimes through water abstraction and dam construction are of considerable threat to the region. Water diversion for irrigation and hydroelectric dams has already affected some floodplain systems. For example, the Itezhitezhi Dam on the Kafue River has changed the flood regime such that unseasonal flooding occurs on the flats, threatening the breeding sites of the wattled (Grus carunculatus) and grey crowned (Balearica regulorum) cranes. The area of land available for wildlife and for human uses such as fishing and recession farming has been further reduced by dam operations. Prior to the dam, about 6,000km2 of land flooded in wet years. Now the flooding generally covers 2,000km2 in normal years and 5,000km2 in wet years. Weeds have invaded grazing areas and cattle herders must travel much further to water their flocks because of the altered flood regime.

A similar fate could await the Okavango Delta. Botswana, Namibia, Angola and Zambia would like to extract large quantities of water from the Okavango and Kwando rivers and their tributaries for irrigation and urban water use. Namibia is currently negotiating drawing an estimated 20 million cubic meters of water annually from the Okavango River system via the Eastern National Water Carrier project. Excess abstraction from the Okavango River could have deleterious effects on functioning of the delta ecosystem, as well as other effects such as the transfer of fishes from the Okavango to more southerly drainage systems.

More recent damming of rivers, and conversion to agricultural systems is resulting in loss of habitat in parts of the ecoregion. In the Okavango Delta, concern was raised that the erection of a fence to control the movement of buffaloes, which carry disease, would fragment the migrations of large mammals in the area.

2.3. OANSTCP impacts on threats and root causes mitigation

Tourism activities put pressure on the authorities to practice conservation more effectively, e.g., a lodge or campsite is located on a lake that becomes weed infested and the operators of this facility put pressure on the authorities to solve this problem or else face deprivation of tourism revenues. If it was not for tourism they wouldn’t worry about the weeds.* Tourism increases awareness of the importance of wetlands and with that what the benefits are of 38 Moyo, S., P. O’Keefe and M. Sill. 1993. The Southern African Environment. The ETC Foundation Earthscan Publication Limited. London.39 Frazier, S., editor. 1999. A Directory of Wetlands of International Importance. Wetlands International and Ramsar Convention Bureau. Compact Disc. Metatec, Netherlands.


42

protecting them. Again, by way of example, the St. Lucia Wetlands fortnightly issue an electronic “newsflash” to stakeholders and interested parties commenting on both positive and negative happenings within the area. Simply by analyzing and comparing the contents of these newsflashes over a period of time, it is possible to discern trends that could or should be addressed. Whilst developing a route along the banks of the Zambezi river in Zambia, concern was expressed that the quality of fishing, which is one of the area’s main attractors, is diminishing due to unmanaged harvesting. This resulted in discussions that deduced the following decisions by the local community to the effect that (i) they can set up patrols to monitor the off take; and (ii) they could set up and monitor their own regulations with regard to the size of catches, both in terms of volume and weight. Basically this means checking that people do not use mosquito nets and that a catch and release system is practiced with juvenile fish. By placing people within the framework of a route, it gives them greater authority and clout in influencing management and planning decisions in and around protected areas as this impacts on the experience of their customers. For example, in the St. Lucia Wetland area in the KwaZulu Natal Province of South Africa, where Open Africa has established the Elephant Coast Route, historically the environment was under severe threat as the result of nearby titanium mining activities, where subsequently growing utilization of the tourism potential of the area has brought about far more effective implementation of regulatory procedures.* This has happened to such an extent, that the mining company concerned is now not only a partner in the process, but recently also won an award environmental responsibility. Because of the success of the South African Blue Crane Routes, Open Africa was recently approached by the Endangered Wildlife Trust to assist them in considering the feasibility of establishing a Crane Route in this ecoregion. The leverage that forming themselves into a route entity gives to communities, enables them to exercise influence over what government actions take place in their area, such as in the case of the building of dams. This in itself is not a complete deterrent to inappropriate constructions, but it does increase the weight of the voice of the people.*

2.4. Suggested OANSTCP routes Mpika and surrounds – Zambia Kasanka Ecotourism Circuit - Zambia Southern Kafue Flats - Zambia Eastern Kafue - Zambia North Barotse Trails 1 - Zambia North Barotse Trails 2 - Zambia

3. ZAMBEZIAN AND MOPANE WOODLANDS

Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands are dispersed throughout southern Africa, bounded by the Luangwa River in the north and the Pongola River in the south. Mopane tree (Colophospermum mopane) woodlands mix with Zambezian woodlands in lower-elevation areas, often along major river valleys. Although the ecoregion, particularly the mopane communities, is considered to be poor in endemics, it supports some of the largest and most significant wildlife populations in Africa, particularly those of the endangered elephant (Loxodonta africana) and critically endangered black rhino (Diceros bicornis). Important populations of predators are also found in the Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands. The abundance of wildlife can be largely attributed to the high level of protection in the ecoregion, in which more than 45 percent of the habitat is devoted to various forms of state and private conservation. Two cross-border conservation efforts are set to further increase the extent of protected lands in the near future.


43

3.1. Biodiversity The flora of the Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands ecoregion is not characterized by high species diversity throughout its range, although two Zambezian woodland types mapped within this ecoregion are considered floristically rich. While greater plant diversity may occur in the Zambezian woodland component of the ecoregion, the mopane tree characterizes the entire ecoregion, and in many places dominates to the exclusion of other species, particularly trees.40 Mopane trees are ecologically important as browse for numerous animals, notably elephants41, and economically the wood is prized for building and fuel.42 In addition, the tree is the major host for the seasonally abundant mopane worm (Gonimbrasia belina), the larval stage of a moth which is characteristic of the mopane woodlands. 43 The mopane worm is an important human food and economic resource.44 Other important taxa in the ecoregion are the families Combretaceae and Mimosaceae, which are represented by 34 and 56 tree and shrub species respectively.45 The extreme south of the ecoregion contains the critically endangered endemic cycads Encephalartos heenanii and E. paucidentatus, which are largely confined to Songimvelo Nature Reserve. The ecoregion is also home to several of the known remaining populations of the medicinally important and severely over harvested perennial herb, wild ginger (Siphonochilus aethiopicus) and the pepperbark tree (Warburgia salutaris).

The Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands are significant from an evolutionary perspective, because the Trans-Botswana transition belt – the changeover zone between the tropical and subtropical biomes – broadly corresponds to the mopane vegetation in the southern part of the ecoregion.46 This belt has played an important role in faunal evolution, as various taxa representative of one biome or the other have dispersed through this zone to speciate on the other side. This ecoregion is one of the most important areas for vertebrate diversity in southern Africa, particularly for mammals.47 The biota and associated natural processes remain largely intact as a result of the extensive and well-maintained system of national parks and reserves in the ecoregion.48 Vegetation here is more nutritive than surrounding ecoregions with higher rainfall, and as a result, the area is well known for supporting large concentrations of ungulates. 49

This includes some of the most significant remaining populations of the critically endangered black rhino, the endangered elephant (Hilton-Taylor 2000), as well as white rhino (Ceratotherium simum), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), kudu, and nyala (Tragelaphus angasii).50 The Zambezian and

40 Wild, H., and A. Fernandes, editors. 1967. Vegetation map of the Flora Zambesiaca area. Supplement: Flora Zambesiaca. Salisbury.41 Funston, M. 1993. Bushveld Trees. Fernwood Press, Vlaeberg.42 Grundy, I.M., B.M. Campbell, S. Baleberebo, R. Cunliffe, C. Tafanganyasha, R. Fergusson, D. Parry. 1993. Availability and use of trees in Mutanda Resettlement Area, Zimbabwe. Forest Ecology and Management 56: 243-266. B. Campbell, editor. 1996. The Miombo Woodlands in Transition: Woodlands and Welfare in Africa. CIFOR, Bogor.43 Pinhey, E. 1978. Lepidoptera. In M.J.A. Werger, editor. Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa.44 Cunningham, A.B. 1996. Box 5.1. Pages 107-108 in B. Campbell, editor. 1996. The Miombo Woodlands in Transition: Woodlands and Welfare in Africa. CIFOR, Bogor.45 Coates-Palgrave, K. 1983. Trees of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.46 Endrödy-Younga, S. 1978. Coleoptera. In M.J.A. Werger, editor. Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa. W. Junk, The Hague.47The Peace Parks Foundation, 2000b. Dongola/Limpopo Valley TFCA. Retrieved (2001) from: http://www.peaceparks.org/profiles/index.html 48 Huntley, B.J. 1978. Ecosystem conservation in southern Africa. M.J.A. Werger, editor. Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa. W. Junk, The Hague.49 Huntley, B.J. 1978. Ecosystem conservation in southern Africa. M.J.A. Werger, editor. Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa. W. Junk, The Hague. 50 Stuart, S., R. Adams, and M. Jenkins. 1990. Biodiversity in sub-saharan Africa and its islands: conservation, management and sustainable use. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. No. 6. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.


44

http://www.peaceparks.org/profiles/index.html

Mopane Woodlands can be clearly distinguished from moister savannas represented by miombo woodlands based on differences in their faunal assemblages: species such as side-striped jackal (Canis adustus), sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus), and Lichtenstein’s hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus licthensteini) are associated with the miombo, while the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), and impala (Aepyceros melampus) are identified with the Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands. Although large blocks of this habitat remain, in many areas natural migration routes have been restricted by manmade obstacles. These restrictions on migration have particularly affected the blue wildebeest. The majority of the southern African populations of Lichtenstein’s hartebeest are contained within the Luangwa Valley, Kruger National Park, and Gonarezhou National Park. Sharpe’s grysbok (Raphicerus sharpei), a little known, probably rare antelope, is well represented in this ecoregion, where it favors dense mopane vegetation. 51 Predators are also abundant, and the full assemblage of lion (Panthera leo), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), and leopard (Panthera pardus) is found in a number of the ecoregion’s large protected areas, mostly notably Kruger National Park and its adjoining private reserves. Other important protected areas include the national parks and game management areas of the Luangwa and Zambezi Valleys.52. The endangered wild dog (Lycaon pictus) is found in significant numbers within the protected areas of the ecoregion. Elephant browsing activity and fire are the two major natural factors shaping the vegetation and associated fauna within the Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands.53 Elephants crop the larger trees in savannas and woodlands, creating openings exploited by grasses, thus increasing fire frequency and intensity. This interplay between fire and elephants normally results in an open, two-tiered savanna, consisting of large trees interspersed with shrubs at varying stages of growth. 54 One mammal species, Juliana’s golden mole (Amblysomus julianae), is near-endemic. Two endemic ungulate subspecies, Cookson’s wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus cooksoni) and Thornicroft’s giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis thornicrofti), are confined to the Luangwa Valley.

The eastern population of the white stork (Ciconia ciconia) uses the Luangwa Valley as its wintering ground. Although the Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands are rich in vertebrate species, they tend to be poor in endemics.55 Only five birds can be considered near-endemics to the ecoregion: Lilian's lovebird (Agapornis lilianae), black-cheeked lovebird (Agapornis nigrigenis), pink-throated twinspot (Hypargos margaritatus), Chaplin's barbet (Lybius chaplini), boulder chat (Pinarornis plumosus), and lemon-breasted canary (Serinus citrinipectus). The ecoregion contains higher reptile endemism, with strict endemics including Lang’s worm lizard (Chirindia langi), collard flat lizard (Platysaurus torquatus), and Sabi quill-snouted snake (Xenocalamus sabiensis). 3.2. Biodiversity threatsThe most widespread threat to the ecoregion is poaching and exploitation of wildlife. Black rhino and wild dog are species of special concern. Black rhinos are still threatened by demands for rhino horn products and wild dogs are often destroyed by livestock farmers, who perceive them as pests. In many areas of the ecoregion, poaching is rife due to poor levels of protection provided by understaffed local authorities, particularly in Zambia and Mozambique.56 However, great efforts have been made in the past

51 Mills, G., and L. Hes. 1997. The Complete Book of Southern African Mammals. Struik, Cape Town. 52The Peace Parks Foundation, 2000a. Gaza/Kruger/Gonarezhou TFCA. Retrieved (2001) from: http://www.peaceparks.org/profiles/index.html 53 White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa, a descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO Vegetation Map of Africa (3 Plates, Northwestern Africa, Northeastern Africa, and Southern Africa, 1:5,000,000) . UNESCO, Paris. 54 Smith, P.P. 1998. A reconnaissance survey of the vegetation of the North Luangwa National Park, Zambia. Bothalia 28: 197-211. 55 Crowe, T.M. 1990. A quantitative analysis of patterns of distribution, species richness and endemism in southern African vertebrates. G. Peters and R. Hutterer, editors. Vertebrates in the tropics. Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn.


45

http://www.peaceparks.org/profiles/index.html

few years to rejuvenate and expand many of Mozambique’s protected areas, so an improvement in the quality of wildlife protection is likely.

Land transformation and degradation through agriculture, settlement and livestock grazing poses some threat to the ecoregion.

Illegal livestock grazing, settlement in protected areas, and uncontrolled bush fires are all threats to the ecoregion in Zambia, as well as the overuse of natural resources exacerbated by a declining economy.57

Another concern is the potential habitat destruction caused by uncontrolled elephant populations in some parts of the ecoregion, particularly in Zambia. Culling and translocations are used to regulate elephant populations within protected areas and research into immunocontraception has also been undertaken.

Invasive alien plants are posing an increasing threat to the ecoregion. Invasive plants are supplanting indigenous vegetation and destroying faunal habitats, as well as altering hydrological and nutrient cycles.58

3.3. Suggested OANSTCP routes North Luangwa - Zambia

4. WESTERN ZAMBIAN GRASSLANDS

This region is located in southwestern Zambia, in two main portions within White’s59 Zambesian Center of Endemism. It extends marginally into Angola, where the grasslands are soon replaced by the Angolan Miombo Woodland ecoregion. The northern and main portion of the region consists of edaphic grasslands surrounding the patchy Zambezian Cryptosepalum Dry Forest ecoregion. The main factor separating the two ecoregions is the seasonal waterlogging of the soils in the grasslands that prevents tree growth. The Barotse wetlands, which are part of the Zambezian Flooded Grasslands ecoregion, lie between the main north and south portions of the Western Zambezian Grasslands. The southern portion of the region is an area of Kalahari Sands grassland surrounded by Zambezian Baikiaea Woodland.

4.1. Biodiversity The mammalian fauna of the area is representative of that of the southern savannas, and some 140 species are known to occur in the region. Large numbers of ungulates graze on the extensive plains, and the Liuwa Plain is home to about 30,000 migratory blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), the largest herd in Zambia. The wildebeest herds start their northeastward migration into Angola in June. The migration takes five months and covers more than 200 km. The animals return to the southern part of Liuwa Plain in October. Approximately 3,000 red lechwe (Kobus leche), move eastwards from Liuwa Plain to the Zambezi floodplain in the dry season.60 Other ungulate species found in the area include tsessebe 56 IUCN 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of national systems. Volume 3: Afrotropical. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 57Network for Environmental and Sustainable Development in Africa (NESDA), 2000. Regional Environmental Action Plan: Zambia. Retrieved (2001) from: http://www.rri.org/envatlas/africa/zambia/zm-index.html 58 IUCN. 1997/1998. Invaders from Planet Earth. World Conservation 4/97 – 1/98 (double issue). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 59 White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa: a descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. UNESCO, Paris, France.60 Muleta, S., P. Simasiku, G. Kalyocha, C. Kasutu, M. Walusiku, and S. Mwiya. 1996. Proposed Terms of Reference for the preparation of the Management Plan for Liuwa Plains National Park. Report prepared for IUCN Upper Zambezi Wetlands and Natural Resources Management Project, Western Province, Zambia.


46

http://www.rri.org/envatlas/africa/zambia/zm-index.html

(Damaliscus lunatus), oribi (Ourebia ourebi), reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), zebra (Equus burchelli), roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus), sable antelope (H. niger), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), and Lichtenstein’s hartebeest (Signoceros lichtensteinii). Also present, but more rarely seen ungulates include the following: common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), steenbok (Raphicerus campestris), eland (Taurotragus oryx), and grysbok (Raphicerus sharpei). Large carnivores include lion (Panthera leo), leopard (P. pardis), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), though their numbers and conservation status are poorly known and thought to be low. Lions are reported to be largely extinct in Liuwa Plain. Hippopotamuses (Hippopotamus amphibius) are common in the rivers.

The ecoregion supports a variety of bird life including small seed-eating passerines, raptors, and many waterbirds. Bird life is particularly abundant in the flood season. The avifauna of the grasslands is partly associated with wetland bird fauna and partly with the avifauna of surrounding woodlands. Many species, including migrants, breed in the grass when floods are receding, starting about June. Two rare birds of special conservation concern occur in the region: wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus) and slaty egret (Egretta vinaceigula). Both are considered vulnerable because they are limited to floodplain habitats and are threatened by disturbance and habitat destruction.

4.2. Biodiversity threatsThe GMA and both national parks in the region experience considerable levels of poaching. This takes the form of subsistence hunting by the local residents and commercial poaching, mostly by outsiders. Migrating animals outside the parks are not protected at all, and pressure from poachers is intense around both national parks. Birds are hunted and trapped for food as well as for the caged bird trade, and eggs and nestlings are collected. The poaching problem has been worsened by the availability of firearms acquired from freedom fighters in the liberation struggle in Angola and Namibia, while those who cannot afford firearms use wire snares25. Residents of Liuwa Plain, the GMA, and those who live along rivers receive bags of maize and other forms of payment from poachers based in towns, in return for cooperation.

4.3. OANSTCP impacts on threats and root causes mitigation Where in an area like this, the prevention of poaching is the concern of only a small number of people/agencies, the many other interested bodies embraced by the route formation process, significantly increases anti-poaching sentiments and actions.* Open Africa has one example where the effect has been for poachers to be employed as guides in conservancies.

4.4. Suggested OANSTCP routes Barotse Trails - Zambia North Barotse Trails 1 - Zambia North Barotse Trails 2 - Zambia

5. ZAMBEZIAN BAIKIAEA WOODLANDS

This ecoregion is a mosaic of dry deciduous Baikiaea plurijuga-dominated forest, thicket and secondary grassland. The area falls within the Zambezian center of endemism and coincides largely with White’s 28

Zambezian dry deciduous forest and scrub forest. This ecoregion forms a belt on deep Kalahari sands along the Angola-Namibia border, extending in a straight line to southwestern Zimbabwe. A portion of this ecoregion extends northwards, along the Zambia-Angola boundary. It is defined and shaped by a number of factors. The limits of the Kalahari sand delineate the east and west extent of this belt, while the


47

southern boundary is limited by frost, and to the north, as rainfall increases the vegetation turns into evergreen Cryptosepalum forests and miombo woodland. Around the Barotse floodplain, seasonal waterlogging or flooding suppresses tree growth, and Baikiaea woodlands give way to grasslands. While the distribution of the forest, woodland, savanna and grassland elements is partly determined by edaphic and climatic factors, disturbance factors such as fire, logging, and agriculture play an increasing role in the spread of secondary savanna and grassland.

5.1. Biodiversity This ecoregion is an area of moderate species richness for most taxonomic groups. While floristically it falls within its own center of endemism, the fauna of the area has low levels of endemism as it largely represents a merging of elements from the southern savannas, the arid southwest and the miombo woodlands. More than 160 mammal species occur in the ecoregion. These include several large predator species such as lion (Panthera leo), leopard (P. pardus), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). Ungulates include zebra (Equus burchelli), roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus), sable antelope (H. niger), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), kudu (T. strepsiceros), sitatunga (T. spekei), reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), impala (Aepyceros melampus subsp. melampus), common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), oribi (Ourebia ourebi), steenbok (Raphicerus campestris), eland (Taurotragus oryx), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus), waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), puku (K. vardoni) and lechwe (K. lechwe). Other mammals of interest are elephant (Loxodonta africana), black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (both now rare in the ecoregion), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) and honey badger (Mellivora capensis).

With more than 400 recorded bird species, this ecoregion’s avifauna is characterized by moderately high species richness but low endemism. According to Winterbottom’s61 zoogeographical subdivision of southern Africa, the Baikiaea woodland mosaic makes up most of the southeastern parts of a transition zone from the Central Highlands District to the South West Arid Kalahari Woodlands District. The ecoregion’s avifauna is largely derived from the districts to the north and south of it. A variety of habitats exists in the ecoregion and directly adjacent to it, which boosts bird diversity. The many rivers, dambos and wetlands form an important network of aquatic habitats for resident and migrating birds.62

Baikiaea woodlands are the preferred habitat of Bradfield’s hornbill (Tockus bradfieldi), which is near-endemic to the ecoregion and fairly common. Southern ground hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) also occurs here. The ecoregion provides essential habitat for the rare and vulnerable black-cheeked lovebird (Agapornis nigrigenis), which is confined to medium-altitude mopane woodland in South Zambia and extreme northern Zimbabwe63. It occurs only where the mopane woodland is contiguous with Baikiaea dominated woodland. Birds spend the dry season in the mopane woodland (though not evergreen, Colophospermum mopane stays green far into the dry season) and feed on the young leaves of Pterocarpus antunesiana in the Baikiaea woodlands in the rains.64 It is extremely localized within available habitat. This species was massively exploited in the 1920s due to its popularity with the pet trade, and it seems that its populations have never fully recovered. Although it is officially protected, it is still subject to illegal trapping. The ecoregion has a rich variety of raptor species including secretarybird 61Winterbottom, J.M. 1978. Birds. In M.J.A. Werger, editor. Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa. W. Junk, The Hague. 62 Barnes, K. K.N., editor. 1998. The Important Bird Areas of Southern Africa. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg .63 Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. The 2000 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 64 Collar, N.J. and S.N. Stuart. 1985. Threatened Birds of Africa and related Islands. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book, Part 1. 3rd Edition. Cambridge, UK.


48

(Sagittarius serpentarius), white-backed vulture (Gyps africanus), lappetfaced vulture (Torgos tracheliotus), whiteheaded vulture (Trigonoceps occipitalis), hooded vulture (Necrosyrtes monachus), lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni), Dickinson’s kestrel (F. dickinsoni), African hobby falcon (F. cuvierii), bateleur (Terathopius ecaudatus), tawny eagle (Aquila rapax), martial eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus), and African hawk eagle (Hieraaetus spilogaster). Riparian vegetation supports Pel’s fishing owl (Scotopelia peli). In the wetlands and riverine areas within the ecoregion, a great variety of water birds is found. Two rare and threatened species are noteworthy: wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus) and slaty egret (Egretta vinaceigula, VU), which have a wide distribution but are confined to floodplains and are sensitive to disturbance.

The ecoregion is home to 87 recorded reptile species, including 7 species of amphisbaenids or worm-lizards of the genera Zygaspis, Monopeltis, and Dalophia, two of which are near-endemic. One amphibian is also near-endemic to the ecoregion, the Khwai River toad (Bufo kavangensis).

5.2. Biodiversity threatsPoaching is a serious and widespread problem in this ecoregion, even within protected areas. Resources for anti-poaching operations are often limited. In Angola and the Caprivi Strip, the long civil war and military operations along the Namibia-Angola border have significantly worsened the poaching situation. Military firearms from these operations are acquired in Zambia, where they present a real threat to poaching-control efforts. Commercial poaching by outsiders is a big problem in Sioma Ngwezi and the surrounding GMA, with very little game remaining in the latter. Cross-border smuggling of wildlife products in this remote area, where security levels are low, is also a major concern for wildlife management and protection.65

Annual migration routes of animals in protected areas are often blocked by park borders, international boundaries and human settlements (particularly along rivers). None of the parks in the ecoregion cover the entire migratory ranges of animals such as wildebeests and elephants, and protection in surrounding areas including Zambia’s West Zambezi Game Management Area is insufficient or non-existent. Several protected areas do not extend to rivers, where animals migrate in search of drinking water. Game from the Sioma Ngwezi National Park migrates eastward to the Zambezi, which does not fall within the national park, although the West Zambezi Game Management Area extends as far as the river. Similarly, game from the Caprivi and Hwange Parks migrate to the Cuando and Gwai Rivers respectively. Along these rivers are settlements where crop damage, livestock attacks by predators, and concern about game as hosts for tsetse fly cause conflict between conservation efforts and farmers in the area surrounding game reserves. Illegal hunting is difficult to control in these areas, and commercial poachers from other areas are thought to use settlements near rivers as a base for their operations in the dry season. Cattle fences can cause increased rates of mortality when animals are cut off from grazing and water resources.

Timber logging is a threat to the Baikiaea woodland and forest habitats, as well as to Baikiaea plurijuga as a species. Annual production of mukusi timber peaked at 100,000 cubic meters in the 1930s and again in 1964 with the construction of railway lines.66 Since the mid-1970s, logging has declined to around 20,000 cubic meters per year, largely due to a decline of harvestable timber (van Gils 1988). In Zambia, a recent inventory found no more exploitable reserves in the prime teak forest areas of Sesheke District (Bingham 1995). Such exploitation has destroyed large forest areas, with little hope of recovery because opening the forest results in the invasion of grasses and fires. However, pressure on timber resources in the ecoregion is increasing with rising South African and Namibian timber demands. Recently, the 65Simasiku, P., K. Chilufya, and S. Mwyia. 1996. Proposed terms of reference for the preparation of the management plan for Sioma Ngwezi National Park. Final Draft for IUCN Upper Zambezi Wetlands and Natural Resources Management project, Western Province. 66Bingham, M., J. Golding, B. Luwiika, C. Nguvulu, P. Smith, and G. Sichima. 2000. Red Data List: Spotlight on Zambia. SABONET News 5(2):93-95


49

conservation status of Baikiaea plurijuga in Zambia was revised and changed from category LR-nt (lower risk, near threatened) to VU (vulnerable, with population reductions of at least 20 percent over the last three generations) as a result of exploitation and habitat destruction. The status of Baikiaea in the other countries – especially in Angola and Namibia, where the most extensive stands occur – is not certain.

Clearing for agriculture also affects the Baikiaea woodlands and forests, though this is limited in large parts of the ecoregion by the low levels of rainfall. The nutrient-poor sandy soils necessitate shifting cultivation.

Uncontrolled bushfires are common and frequent in the ecoregion, and this makes the forests and woodlands particularly vulnerable to logging and clearing, as regeneration of forest vegetation, and B. plurijuga in particular, is hindered.

Presently, tourism development in some areas is unregulated, and much of it is in the form of fishing and safari hunting. In Zambia, both types of development have been observed without adherence to restrictions and licences. The Sioma Ngwezi National Park has no distinct boundary, no official entry point and no tourism infrastructure, and hence does not generate any revenue with which to support its conservation activities. There seems to be a general trend of selling licenses for tourism development and timber logging to people, including foreigners, living outside the region where conservation is taking place (Simasiku et al. 1996). Among local communities, this is causing resentment and a lack of cooperation, which is prerequisite for effective wildlife and natural resource management in areas outside reserves. There has been a trend toward community-based wildlife conservation and management programs in the Sub-region (Zimbabwe with CAMPFIRE – possibly collapsed), Zambia (ADMADE) and Namibia (CBNRM Programme).

Tsetse flies occur in the Baikiaea belt in Zambia and the Caprivi Strip. Spraying against them has been known to affect bird life and other fauna (van Gils 1988). Barnes (1998) noted that pesticides used annually in the spraying against mosquito and tsetse in the Caprivi Strip (DDT and dieldrin) were polluting the Kavango River, mainly due to the practice of rinsing equipment and disposing of leftover chemicals. However, according to Simasiku et al, tsetse control in the West Zambezi GMA has more recently been carried out using traps.

5.3. Suggested OANSTCP routes Kavango Route – Namibia Caprivi Wetlands Paradise - Namibia

7. NAMA KAROOThe Nama Karoo is a vast, open, arid region dominated by low-shrub vegetation, punctuated by rugged relief.67 Although not remarkably rich in species or endemism, the flora and fauna of the region are impressively adapted to its climatic extremes. Most of the Nama Karoo occurs on the central plateau of the Cape Province in South Africa, although it extends over the Orange River into Namibia in the northwest. The Great Escarpment, which runs parallel to the coast 100 km to 200 km inland, divides the ecoregion into two parts: one between 550 m to 900 m in elevation, the other between 900 and 1,300 m.68

Dwarf shrubs (chaemaphytes) and grasses (hemicryptophytes) dominate the current vegetation, their relative abundances being dictated mainly by rainfall and soil. As a rule, shrubs increase and grasses 67 Dean, W.R.J., and S.J. Milton. 1999a. The Karoo. Ecological patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 68 Palmer, A.R., and M.T. Hoffman. 1997. Nama Karoo. Pages 167-186 in R.M. Cowling. D.M. Richardson, and S.M. Pierce, editors. Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


50

decrease with increasing aridity. Heavy grazing by domestic livestock can obscure this pattern, however, by suppressing the grass component.69 Some of the more abundant shrubs include species of Drosanthemum, Eriocephalus, Galenia, Pentzia, Pteronia, and Ruschia, while the principal perennial grasses are Aristida, Digitaria, Enneapogon, and Stipagrostis spp. Trees and taller woody shrubs are mostly restricted to watercourses, and include Acacia karroo, Diospyros lycioides, Grewia robusta, Rhus lancea, and Tamarix usneoides.

7.1. BiodiversityThere is little published data regarding species richness or endemism for the Nama Karoo flora. Gibbs Russel70 calculated 2,147 species occurred in a central area of 198,000km2, of which 377 (16 percent) are endemic. Recently, however, an archipelago of mountains within a part of the ecoregion known as Bushmanland have been found to harbor both Nama Karoo and Succulent Karoo type vegetation, as well as a diverse assemblage of succulents endemic to the archipelago itself.71 A study of the invertebrate fauna of one of these mountains (the Gamsberg) also revealed a collection of Succulent Karoo species, well out of their known distribution range.51

The fauna of the Nama Karoo is relatively species-poor.72 There are few strict endemics, as most animals have extended their ranges into the Karoo from adjacent biomes. One species of small mammal is strictly endemic to the ecoregion, Visagie's golden mole (Chrysochloris visagiei, CR). Five other small mammals are near-endemic, Grant's rock mouse (Aethomys granti), Shortridge's rat (Thallomys shortridgei, LR), the riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis, EN), Gerbillurus vallinus and Petromyscus monticularis, LR.40

The most vulnerable of the Nama Karoo’s vertebrates is the riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis), classified as "Endangered" in the South African Red Data Book because of habitat destruction by agriculture (Smithers 1986). The quagga, (Equus quagga) a Nama Karoo near-endemic, was hunted to extinction in the 19th Century.73

Among birds, the ferruginous lark (Certhilauda burra, VU)74 and Sclater's lark (Spizocorys sclateri, LR) are strictly endemic to this ecoregion, while another five species are near-endemic: Karoo chat (Cercomela schlegelii), tractrac chat (Cercomela tractrac), red lark (Certhilauda burra), Karoo scrub robin (Cercotrichas coryphaeus), red-headed cisticola (Cisticola subruficapillus), and the Namaqua prinia (Phragmacia substriata). Other characteristic speces of the Nama Karoo which are regarded as "vulnerable" in South Africa, are tawny (Aquila rapax) and martial (Polemaetus bellicosus) eagles, African marsh harrier (Circus ranivorus), lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni), blue crane (Anthropoides paradiseus), kori (Ardeotis kori) and Ludwig’s (Neotis ludwigii) bustards, and the red lark. The reptile fauna contains at least 10 species that are regarded as near-endemic to the ecoregion, but only a few are potentially confined to the Nama Karoo, including Karoo dwarf chameleon (Bradypodion karrooicum) and Boulenger's Padloper (Homopus boulengeri). Many of the endemics, and some of the other species present, are relicts of past drier epochs when desert and savanna biomes expanded to link up

69Lovegrove, B. 1993. The living deserts of southern Africa. Fernwood Press, Cape Town. 70Gibbs Russel, G.E. 1987. Preliminary floristic analysis of the major biomes in southern Africa. Bothalia 17: 213-227. 71Desmet, P.G. 2000. The succulents of Northern Bushmanland: their distribution and implications for conservation. Aloe 37: 32-35. 72Vernon, C.J. 1999. Biogeography, endemism and diversity of animals in the Karoo. Pages 57-78 in W.R.J. Dean and S.J. Milton, editors. The Karoo. Ecological patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 73Skinner, J.D., and R.H.N. Smithers. 1990. The mammals of the southern African subregion. University of Pretoria, Pretoria. 74Dean, W.R.J., S.J. Milton, M.K. Watkeys, and P.A.R. Hockey. 1991. Distribution, habitat preference and conservation status of the Red Lark Certhilauda burra in Cape Province, South Africa. Biological Conservation 58: 257-274.


51

with similar biomes in northeast Africa.75 This arid corridor enabled flora and fauna to move between the two regions. Many discontinuous populations of the same species, genera and families with representatives in each region indicate that the corridor formed many times, most recently about 18,000 years ago.52 Among the fauna to exhibit this interrupted distribution are the bat-eared fox (Otocyon megalotis), olive toad (Bufo garmani), and fawn-colored and sabota larks (Mirafra africanoides, M. sabota).

7.2. Biodiversity threatsIn the mid- to late-1800s, European travelers and colonists witnessed game migrations numbering millions across the Nama Karoo. One account recalls a herd taking three days to pass through a small town. These migrations are believed to have taken place between the summer rainfall Nama Karoo and southern Kalahari, to the winter rainfall Succulent Karoo. Hunting and fences have now halted this phenomenon forever. Although other game (e.g. wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), blesbok (Damaliscus dorcas), quagga (Equus quagga), and eland (Taurotragus oryx)) were often involved in these migrations, springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) were by far the most numerous species. Farmers, who tended to regard them as vermin, competing with their sheep for food, space and water, shot as many springbok as they could, using the carcasses for dried spiced meat. This slaughter, along with habitat loss to fenced livestock farms and a rinderpest outbreak at the end of the 19th Century, reduced springbok numbers dramatically. Springbok are now, for the most part, a form of livestock living on fenced farmland. Luckily, fences do not limit birds, and many species, particularly granivores, still travel hundreds of kilometers to find rainfall (and hence, food) patches.76

The major large-scale disturbance to the Nama Karoo ecosystem has been grazing, previously by a variety of indigenous migratory ungulates and now by domestic sheep and goats confined within farm boundaries.77 Sedentary domestic livestock graze selectively compared to the catholic tastes of their native nomadic counterparts78. This change in the grazing regime is thought to be responsible for alterations in both plant species composition and cover, which ultimately influence ecosystem functioning. On a smaller scale, disturbances associated with heuweltjies (ancient termitaria)79 maintain habitat heterogeneity and patchiness within the landscape. Termite activity makes the soils of heuweltjies finer, moister and more alkaline than their surrounds.80 The plant communities that grow on these mounds are thus very different than the surrounding matrix. Many animal species may contribute further to the nutrient enrichment of heuweltjies. Aardvark (Orycteropus afer) and steenbok (Raphicerus campestris) often use them as dung middens; Brant’s whistling rats (Parotomys brantsii) frequently colonize them; and sheep prefer to graze (and therefore deposit dung) on the mounds.81

7.3. Suggested OANSTCP routes

75 Werger, M.J.A. 1978. Biogeographical divisions of southern Africa. Pages 231-99 in M.J.A. Werger and W. Junk, editors. Biogeography and ecology of southern Africa. The Hague. 76 Dean, W.R.J., and S.J. Milton. 1999b. Animal foraging and food. Pages 164-177 in W.R.J. Dean, and S.J. Milton, editors. The Karoo. Ecological patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 77 Skead, C.J. 1982. Historical mammal incidence in the Cape Province Vol 1: The western and northern Cape. Department Nature and Environmental Conservation, Cape Town. 78 Roux, P.W., and G.K. Theron. 1986. Vegetation change in the Karoo biome. In R. M. Cowling and P. W. Roux, editors. he Karoo biome: a preliminary synthesis. Part 2 - Vegetation and history. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 142. 79Moore, J.M., and M.D. Picker. 1991. Heuweltjies (earth mounds) in the Clanwilliam district, Cape Province, South Africa: 4000 year old termite nests. Oecologia 86: 424-32. 80Midgley, G.F., and C.F. Musil. 1990. Substrate effects of zoogenic soil mounds on vegetation composition in the Worcester-Robertson valley, Cape Province. South African Journal of Botany 56: 158-66. 81Milton, S.J., and W.R.J. Dean. 1990. Mima-like mounds in the southern and western Cape: are the origins so mysterious? South African Journal of Science 86: 207-8.


52

Nama Padloper

The Route Selection

The five criteria used to pre-identify biodiversity-focused routes are: 1. Biodiversity Value: Indicates the significance of flora and fauna species found in the proposed route area, the protection status of the area, and the potential to mainstream biodiversity in the production landscape (tourism).

2. Organizational anchors: Indicates the presence of a local business, individual or NGO with a community or conservation focus that can act as an anchor to the route development process.

3. Potential tourism market: Indicates the potential of the route product to appeal to the tourism market.4. Community Potential: Indicates the presence of local communities in the proposed route area and the potential and willingness of these communities to become involved in biodiversity-based tourism in a structured and organised manner.5. Supporting Initiatives: Indicates the presence of other initiatives in the area that aim to promote biodiversity conservation and community development in the proposed route area that could become partners in the project. During the preparatory stakeholder meetings, a “rapid assessment” was made of the biodiversity content and status in the proposed route areas, including threats and risks, together with present monitoring systems. Further field visits as part of component 1’s route-specific feasibility study will be undertaken to determine exactly where the routes will be developed, with the final assessment and selection based on the identified criteria.

Map 2 and 3 below. Overview of pre-identified new and to be up-graded biodiversity-focused routes in Zambia and Namibia(out of Google Earth: Zambia yellow = new routes, green = up-grade; Namibia yellow = up-grade, rouge = new route)


53


54

OANSTC Route Selection Matrix

Protected areas in the corridor

The corridor for the proposed 11 OANSTCP routes includes the following formal protected areas and registered conservancies:

Table 2. Protected areas in the OANSTCP corridorName of Protected Area

Is this a new protected area?

Area in Hectares

Global designation orpriority lists

Local Designation of Protected Area

IUCN Category for each Protected AreaI I

IIII

IV

V VI

Zambia1. Sioma Ngwezi

No 450, 365 WWF Global 200

National Park X

2. Victoria Falls

No 2,654 World Heritage Site

National Park X


55

3. West Zambezi

No 4, 863, 483

WWF Global 200

Game Management Area

X

4. Liuwa Plain No 318, 156 WWF Global 200

National Park X

5. Kafue No 2, 226, 443

WWF Global 200

National Park X

6. Kasanka No 43,601 WWF Global 200

National Park X

7. Lochinvar No 34,412 WWF Global 200;RAMSAR site

National Park X

8. Blue Lagoon

Yes 46,804 WWF Global 200; RAMSAR site

National Park X

Namibia10. Sperrgebiet No 2,

197,633WWF Global 200

National Park X

11. Namib-Naukluft

No 5,081,674

WWF Global 200

National Park X

12. Khaudum No 385,342 WWF Global 200

Game Park X

13. Caprivi Game Park

No 582,625 WWF Global 200

Game Park X

14. Kwandu Conservancy

Yes 18, 997.9 WWF Global 200

Registered conservancy on communal land

X

15. Mayuni Conservancy

Yes 15108 WWF Global 200


X

16. Salambala Yes 93,593 WWF Global 200


X

Route descriptions

The following table 3 contains route descriptions of the 11 selected routes in OANSTC. The table also de-scribes briefly biodiversity features, threats, the root causes of these threats and the tourism assets for each route.

Table .3 OANSTC route descriptionsRoute Description Ecoregion Biodiversity

FeaturesThreats Root Causes Tourism Assets

Zambia1. Mpika and Central An estimated Shooting of Birds Poverty Mpika District


56

Surrounds (New) – Located in the Northern Province, Mpika is a major crossroads for the Great North Road to Lake Tanganyika and the Tanzanian border. About 100 km’s north Mpika is the grand Shiwa Ngandu Estate and Kapisha Hot Springs as well as the Mutinondo Wilderness Camp.

Zambezian Miombo Woodlands Zambezian Flooded Grasslands

8,500 plant species, about half of which are endemic Elephants Eland Sable Roan antelope Black rhinos Lichtenstein's hartebeests

Overfishing Aquarium trade Chitemene shifting cultivation system Social impacts of tourists Alien vegetation

Lack of alternative incomes Lack of knowledge Lack of awareness amongst tourists

is endowed with some of the finest wildlife resources in Africa. The District Council believes that tourism, wildlife conservation and wildlife utilisation could be developed for the benefit of the local population There are two national parks in the vicinity (Lavushi Manda and North Luangwa)

2. North Luangwa (New) – Located in the Northern Province, North Luangwa is the northernmost of the three parks in the valley of the Luangwa River. Founded as a game reserve in 1938, it became a national park in 1972 and now covers 4,636km².Like the South Park, its eastern boundary is the Luangwa River, while it rises to cover a stretch of the Muchingo Escarpment to the west. The Mwalesh River flows east-west through the centre of the park, the area to its south being a strict wilderness zone.

Central Zambezian Miombo Woodlands Zambezian and Mopane Woodlands

Black rhino Cycads Medicinal plants such as wild ginger and pepperbark trees Juliana’s golden moles Elephants Blue wildebeest Cheetah Kudu

Overexploitation of natural resources Land clearance Construction of dams Invasive Alien Species Fire Mining

Lack of awareness & poverty Population growth Water demand is increasing

North Luangwa is primarily a woodland park and is well known for its huge herds of buffalo Other mammals seen in the park include leopard, wildcat, elephant, hyena, wildebeest. Also found are oribi, hartebeest, reedbuck and eland (the largest antelope) and not found in the South Park A network of three tourism bush camps on community land along the Luangwa River bordering South and North Luangwa National Parks

3. Kasanka Ecotourism Circuit (New) – Located in the Central Province, Kasanka issituated on the south western edge of the Lake Bangweulu basin and is one of Zambia’s smallest national parks. The

Central Zambezian Miombo Woodlands Zambezian Flooded Grasslands

Elephants Hippo Giraffe Buffalo (translocated) Only place in central Africa where 8m straw coloured fruit bats gather Sititunga

Poaching Chitemene shifting cultivation system Fire Land clearance

Poverty/Lack of alternative incomes Lack of awareness/ knowledge Population growth

Kasanka National Park David Livingstone Memorial Lake Waka Waka Nsalu Cave - Rock paintings Lake Lusiwasi Chitambo


57

route also includes community projects and other attractions in the area.

Puku Shoebill Black Lechwe Wattled Cranes Wetlands

Cultural Village (Campsite) Nkundalila Falls (Campsite) Mulaushi Centre - Kasanka Lake Mwangandu

4. Southern Kafue Flats (New) – Located in the Southern Province the Southern Kafue Flats is a RAMSAR site that is particularly noted for the extensive herds of endemic Kafue lechwe. The area boasts two national parks (Blue Lagoon and Lochinvar).


Kafue Lechwe Puku Wetlands More than 450 bird species (Slaty egret, Wattled cranes) Zebra Sititunga Wild dog Cheetah

Overexploitation of biodiversity Land clearance Construction of dams Invasive Alien Species Fire

Lack of awareness & poverty Population growth Water demand is increasing Lack of knowledge

Lochinvar National Park - renowned for the exceptional avian diversity and birding opportunities Blue Lagoon National Park –A newly developed park on the vast floodplain attracts thousands of Kafue lechwe, zebra, sitatunga, some buffalo and numerous waterbirds. The park is a birdwatchers dream.

5. Eastern Kafue (New) – Located in the Central and North Western Provinces. The route covers parts of the Kafue National Park and the surrounding attractions.


Kafue Lechwe Puku Wetlands More than 450 bird species (Slaty egret, Wattled cranes) Zebra Sititunga Wild dog Cheetah

Overexploitation of biodiversity Land clearance Construction of dams Invasive Alien Species Fire

Lack of awareness & poverty Population growth Water demand is increasing Lack of awareness/ knowledge

Kafue National Park - attracts hundreds of species of birds and offers good game fishing. The principal attraction is the prolific wildlife. Royal Community Initiative (R.C.I.) has a number of community-based tourism initiatives around the park with a special focus on eco-and cultural tourism.

6. North Barotse Trails 1 (New) – Located in the Western Province between Senanga and Mongu. Located on high ground overlooking the Zambezi River floodplain, Mongu is the bustling capital

Central Zambezian Miombo Woodlands Western Zambian Grasslands

Elephants Hippos Crocodile Zambezi bream Tiger fish River systems Wetlands Lechwe

Poaching Inappropriate burning practices (chitemene) Land clearance Overfishing

Poverty/Lack of alternative incomes Lack of knowledge Population growth

The Kuomboka ceremony, the Litunga's boat Journey from the wet palace to the dry palace in advance of the seasonal flood waters takes place here


58

of the western province. It is also the center of the Barotseland, the Kingdom of the famous Lozi people. Traditional culture is alive here and the Lozi King, the Litunga, has his winter palace (dry season) at Lealui, 15 km northwest of Mongu, and his summer palace (wet season) at Limulunga 15 km north of town.

annually The Mumwa Crafts Association gallery of traditional Lozi wood and leather crafts, baskets, ceramics and furniture Water sports, game viewing, bird watching and fishing on the Zambezi river

7. North Barotse Trails 2 (New) – Located in the Western Province between Ngonye and Senanga.

Central Zambezian Miombo Woodlands Western Zambian Grasslands


Poaching Inappropriate burning practices (chitemene) Land clearance Overfishing

Poverty/Lack of alternative incomes Lack of knowledge Population growth Poverty/Lack of alternative incomes

Water sports, game viewing, bird watching and fishing on the Zambezi river Senanga Safaris takes groups to the floodplains

8. Barotse Trails Route (Upgrade) - Located in the Southern and Western Provinces, the route roughly follows the Zambezi river from Livingstone, through Sesheke to the Ngonye Falls. This area will form part of the proposed KAZA TFCA.

Western Zambian Grasslands


Drought Land clearance Inappropriate burning practices (chitemene) Fire Overexploitation of biodiversity Timber concessions Traditional methods of collecting honey Off-road driving

Climate change Population growth Lack of knowledge Lack of awareness Poverty Lack of knowledge amongst tourists

Victoria Falls World Heritage Site Sioma Ngwezi National Park Makuni Traditional Village Ngonye Falls The Mwandi Khuta Traditional dance groups Village Tours

Namibia

9. Kavango Route (New) – Located in the Kavango Region in north eastern Namibia, the Kavango Route will roughly stretch from Mpungu in the west to Divundu in the east, and incorporate the Kaudom Game Park in the south. The town of Rundu will be the focal point of the route.

Zambezian Baikiaea Woodlands

Riparian woodland Over 450 bird species (including Wattled crane and Slaty egret) Over 160 mammal species (including Elephant, Zebra, Wild dog, Lion, Leopard)

Poaching Land clearance Water abstraction from the river Fire Drought Overgrazing Overfishing Off-road driving

Poverty/Lack of alternative incomes Population growth Water requirements Lack of awareness/knowledge Climate change/farming practices Lack of awareness amongst tourists

Rundu The Rundu Open Market The Annual River Carnival The Kavango Trade Fair Kavango river cruise Horse riding Traditional dancing The Mbangura Woodcarvers’ Coop Vungu Vungu Dairy Crockango Angling Club


59

Egunda women's groupDivundu to Popa Falls Popa Falls Resort Mahango Game Park Birding Craft Camp sites Khaudum Game Park Sikereti Camp Kaudom Camp Game drives Birding

10. Caprivi Wetlands Paradise (upgrade) – Located in the Carpivi Strip in north eastern Namibia, the route starts at Bagani and follows the Trans-Caprivi Highway to Katima Mulilo. This area will also form part of the proposed KAZA TFCA.

Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands

Over 430 bird species Palm trees (date palms - Hyphaene) Elephants Hippo Crocodile Puku Impala Kudu Bushbuck Reedbuck Giraffe White-backed and Lappet faced vulture

Poaching Fire Timber logging Clearing for agriculture Uncontrolled tourism development Pesticides

Poverty/Lack of alternative incomes/human wildlife conflict Lack of awareness/knowledge Economic need/lack of alternative incomes Agricultural need

Abundant game Carpivi Game Park Mamili National Park Mudumu National Park Communal conservancies with good quality community campsites A number of Craft Centres

11. Nama Padloper (Upgrade) – Located in the Karas Region in southern Namibia, the route is centred around the town of Rosh Pinah, but includes surrounding areas.

Nama Karoo Succulent Karoo

6356 succulent species of which 40% are unique136 endemic speciesNama padloper tortoiseVariety of aloe’sQuiver treesGrey rhebokDesert mountain adderSpringbokOryx

Mining Off-road driving Illegal plant collection

Economic need Lack of awareness amongst tourists Lack of resources

Orange River Huns Mountains Succulent Plants Spergebiet – Potential to bring people to the area Mining The landscape Proposed Ais-Ais/ Richtersveld Transfrontier Park


60

ANNEX F: WORLD BANK PORTFOLIO IN ZAMBIA AND NAMIBIA

The proposed project is aligned with the WB Country Assistance Strategies for Zambia and its environmental dialogue with Namibia and the Country Economic Report.

The Bank prepared two strategic documents of relevance: (i) for Namibia a “Rapid Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) through a Public Expenditure Review to assist the Ministry of Environment and Tourism with implementing its policy/legal, institutional and financial priorities” and for Zambia an ESW “Nature Based Tourism for Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction.” The OANSTC project’s implementation phase will contribute to implement the recommendations gained and ensure inclusion of the results to the extent possible.

Namibia: The OANSTCP design in particular related to the three routes (Caprivi, Kavango and Nama Padloper) supports and enhances further the Bank’s environmental dialogue with the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (mainly through two WB/GEF interventions, the ICEMA and the NACOMA projects, both under implementation), the international and national donor community (USAID/WWF, EU, SIDA, DFID and GTZ) and the national NGO network for CBNRM (NACSO). In particular, the CBNRM focused ICEMA project supporting local communities on communal lands provides funding under its first component (the Community-Funding Facility) for resource-based community-based enterprise development that could support and be linked to implementation of some initiatives proposed by biodiversity-focused routes of OANSTCP. The support is in particular aiming at supporting community-based tourism joint ventures (community, private sector and Government), enhanced through the recently approved concession policy. The NACOMA project is assisting local and regional authorities with development planning, management and monitoring in the context of integrated coastal zone management while focusing on the development of a National Coastal Zone White Paper. It provides further matching grants for resource-based interventions part of biodiversity hotspots management plans.

Zambia:The project is closely related to the ESW on Economic and Poverty impact of nature based tourism that aimed to measure the economic impact of nature-based tourism in national parks and poverty alleviation through CBNRM in buffer zones and the impact of the ZAWA’s strategic planning process.

The project supports in particular the following WB projects: The WB/GEF project SEED targets the Kafue National Park which is within proximity of two of the identified new biodiversity-focused routes in Zambia, the southern Kafue Flats and eastern Kafue. IDA funds target the national park and Game Management Area interventions and include road infrastructure for bridges and road up-grading, all of basic relevance to foster tourism development in the country.

In addition, the WB has been approached by the NGO Kasanka Trust with support of ZAWA to submit a GEF MSP under BD-SP 1 for the management of the Lavushi Manda National Park. Once approved, this initiative would mutually enhance the impact of the OANSTCP routes in Zambia.

The project document has been reviewed by the WB’s tourism specialist for the Africa Region to ensure its alignment with the emerging WB tourism sector strategy and related sector initiatives supported by other donors (e.g. DIFD, EU).


61

ANNEX G: DETAILED INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

Component 1: The baseline includes the 'classic' method used to date: development of non-biodiversity oriented OA routes based on a demand driven basis; coordination and limited marketing of the OA network; and aftercare support through a Route Networker, who also disseminates success stories (best practice) throughout the system. Expected benefits under the baseline scenario: The OA team will continue providing technical and logistical support to the route development and networking process, thereby expanding the route network, contributing to draw on the natural resource base as an attractor for eco-tourism. The classic route development without specific focus on biodiversity has the following local, regional and national benefits:(i) Job creation - The development of Open Africa routes is aimed specifically at focusing on smaller scale economic development in poor, rural communities, integrating them with the first economy for the purpose of creating jobs. This project utilises local/indigenous skills that already exist and relies on the culture and nature assets found within these communities as a resource. (ii) Empowerment – The development of Open Africa routes leads to local institutional building (route forum) with a wide range of stakeholders seeking a consensus on route specific development matters. (iii) Enhancement of business and market potential – The development of Open Africa routes usually increases tourism related income to route participants. (iv) Places new entrants and existing tourism operators in the global marketplace with no cost barriers to entry. The baseline related budget would include staff and communications costs of Open Africa Route Developers related to route development and aftercare.

The alternative covers the establishment of biodiversity-focused routes based on a new methodology developed during preparation. The GEF alternative scenario builds and substantially strengthens the OA conceptional design and experiences by mainstreaming biodiversity into the tourism product (routes as destination-level partnerships) and process. This will be done through the following main activities: (i) Develop eight new biodiversity focused routes and upgrade three existing routes. This will be in a corridor that clusters biodiversity features across borders according to their natural, rather than provincial or national/political boundaries.(ii) Elevating the significance of biodiversity features to a level where they will be monitored and mainstreamed. This will be done through the identification of a flagship species for each route; the installation of a purpose designed local monitoring and evaluation system for each flagship species; and the appointment of a Biodiversity Networker with the responsibility to collect data and disseminate conservation success stories throughout the system. (iii) Development of institutional capacity at local level (route forum and route participants) for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in routes in their planning and decision-making processes, through the addition to route forums of biodiversity mentors and monitors and the provision of training for these mentors and monitors; business mentorship; and the development of a conservation plan for each flagship species and a tourism strategy that includes the plan for such species. Importantly, local monitoring and evaluation will include social, economic and biodiversity aspects to understand linkages and use findings for local decision-making processes and the articulation of a replicable system.


62

GEF Alternative ScenarioSub-component Activities Global and local environmental benefits

1 / Biodiversity focused route establishment Regional Activities Roadshow Equipment Biodiversity Networker2 / Development of routes Stakeholder meetings Introductory workshop Community and biodiversity workshops and data gathering Install PC/Internet communication Route Launch3 / Upgrading of routes Biodiversity introduction workshop Install PC/Internet communication Route re-launch4 / Implementation support Route signage Technical advice Training biodiversity monitors and mentors Conservation and tourism planning workshops Route support and capacity building

Stakeholder consultation (baseline assessment) to finalize route selections. Vehicle, office and field equipment to fulfill the biodiversity networking function is secured. Recruitment of a Biodiversity Networker. Eight meetings to secure stakeholder buy-in and commitment. Eight initial (Workshop 1) workshops. Eight workshops (Workshop 2) and individual site visits to all route participants and selection of flagship species. Installing PC/Internet communication and monthly connectivity for 8 Route Forums. Launch functions to showcase routes to communities, media and other stakeholders Three workshops to introduce the new biodiversity focused methodology. Installing PC/Internet communication and monthly connectivity for 3 Route Forums. Launch functions. Plaques, posters and signposts for 11 routes are erected Provide outsourced commercial tutoring and capacity building to SMME’s. Provide field guide training to biodiversity monitors and monitoring training to both biodiversity monitors and mentors. Develop a tourism route strategy and conservation plan for the flagship species. Provide ongoing support to strengthen and institutionalize Route Forums for capacity building and familiarization/adherence to biodiversity M&E requirements.

A structure upon which to build biodiversity management capacity is in place among tourism operators at grass-roots level. Biodiversity mainstreaming into the local tourism process is initiated. Identification of flagship species to a) establish a monitoring ethic, b) change behavior related to biodiversity, and c) promote conservation. Local awareness of the route and its economic and biodiversity significance is communicated. The biodiversity focus is intensified in progressive steps (local monitoring, awareness raising, communication, marketing). The link between tourism and biodiversity management is strengthened through greater awareness of their co-dependency at local level. The objective is to secure the benefit of enthusing Route Forums about the gains available to them through monitoring efficiency. Community participation and ownership is assured in the interest of sustainability. Mechanisms to attract customers and improve socio economic conditions, providing alternative livelihoods to biodiversity resource consumption are installed. In-community capacity building along several fronts continues, in the interests of improving competitiveness and profitability – more jobs, less poverty.

The incremental costs include stakeholder consultation to finalize route selection; the development of 8 new routes and the upgrading of 3 routes; obtaining the equipment and staffing required for the biodiversity-focused element in these routes; installing of PC/Internet connectivity; additional workshops to appoint biodiversity mentors and monitors; provision of outsourced commercial tutoring; training for biodiversity monitors and mentors; and the development of individual route flagship species conservation strategies and plans.

Component 2: Under the baseline, each route is connected as a product to the global market through use of Geographic Information System (GIS) applications. This infrastructure, which is provided at no charge to route participants so as to avoid barriers to entry, can be used by route participants and Route Forums to nurture support for projects and by local business operators who seek to expand the tourism and other


63

potential in their area. Open Africa’s initiative is the first ever systematized method of developing tourism, allowing people from all socio-economic backgrounds to help themselves and their communities by collectively utilizing the potential of their area to promote local economic development. Expected benefits under the baseline scenario are limited to serve the marketing and communication gap: The baseline budget covers the updating and maintenance of the web-site, the supply of rudimentary brochures at the time of route launches; limited issuing of press releases; negotiation with marketing partners; and collective representation at some local trade shows.

The alternative includes the integration of mainstreaming biodiversity into the enhanced Open Africa marketing and communication model. Expected local and global benefits are enabled and strengthened connections to markets; improved capacity of route participants to maintain and build on these connections; improved exposure through editorial coverage and at local and international travel shows; and more accessible biodiversity tourism products through improved road signage and biodiversity plaques related to route-specific flagship species. With improved marketing, fundraising opportunities for route forum members will increase, as will the potential for strategic partnerships with the likes of government, donor agencies, NGO’s and the private sector. The GEF alternative will contribute to the achievement of local and global environmental benefits as summarized in the table 4 below.

Activities Direct impact Global and local environmental benefits

Marketing trips to the main gateways Proactive and regular contact with tour operators and car rental companies and faster access to markets.

Raising biodiversity awareness within the tourism industry and clients. More effective results, with the further effect of motivating route participants to expand their reach both generally and in terms of conservation.

Journalist visits Wider editorial exposure. This is a very effective way of stimulating traffic and therefore supporting route participants, again influencing their motivation, the higher the level of which, the better for conservation. Creating awareness among the general public of the biodiversity significance to tourism and the needs and efforts to conserve these resources, influencing behaviour change.

Supply of uniform brochures for biodiversity-rich routes

Strengthens the branding of biodiversity-routes

The greater the recognition of the branding, the better for the adoption of its value system in terms of biodiversity conservation.

Supporting the network with marketing and promotion

It is about finding more customers More focused attention to this need, which stakeholders identified as being a primary concern. Provision of toolkits aimed at building capacity of routes to market themselves.

Sustaining the product requires revenue from customers and presently what products exist are largely unknown to the market.

Exhibiting at local and international travel shows

More exposure coupled to the benefit of forming direct links to

Same as above.


64

market sources.Optimizing and promoting the website’s potential

Securing search engine prioritization related to eco-tourism and biodiversity conservation. The Internet provides opportunities to exploit target marketing for biodiversity-focused tourism products. Low cost global exposure. Website page impressions are a useful and effective measurement of the systems popularity.

High ranking on search engines is a sign of success that has the knock-on effect of stimulating enthusiastic adherence to the system. Special interest groups like botanists can for example be reached directly through garden clubs, birders through bird clubs and so on, which facilitates matching the right customers with the right products. Measuring hits is a tool that will be used for M&E purposes.

Route and participant plaques including flagship species information boards

This is intended to address the serious absence of direction indicators, biodiversity knowledge and a means to get visitors to stop along the way.

Rurally products tend to be hidden from sight, resulting in much potential business being lost due to a lack of awareness of their existence.

Component 3: The baseline scenario is the Open Africa M&E system. Presently Open Africa gathers accurate socio-economic data at the time when routes are launched and monitors it randomly as and when changes are made on routes. Since the information thus gathered is also spatially oriented, it constitutes more than the usual amount of data available in the tourism sector generally. However, it does not include biodiversity data and no routinized system exists to regularly update or evaluate this data, which is used primarily as a method of flagging where actions to fill gaps are necessary. Much scope exists to expand its range and use it as a knowledge source and management tool. Route M&E practices: Presently few Route Forums undertake any specific monitoring themselves and when they do, it is of a rudimentary nature and not systematically embedded in their decision-making and fundraising activities. Expected scenario under the baseline scenario: The M&E system under the baseline scenario would not incorporate indicators and monitoring tools to assess and measure the status of biodiversity flagship species. Nor would it include the appointment of biodiversity mentors (to sensitize the Route Forums and participants to the significance of their biodiversity resources), or the appointment of biodiversity monitors to monitor agreed biodiversity indicators, and the appointment of a Biodiversity Networker to collect, collate and disseminate best practice success stories. Consequently no specific tourism-initiated conservation plans would be developed and the links between biodiversity conservationists and local business operators would remain tenuous. The baseline budget would include funds for communication and administrative time.

The alternative includes: At Route M&E system (Local): Each OANSTC route will nominate a flagship species for monitoring as an introduction to more widespread monitoring over time; a biodiversity mentor will be appointed for each route to initially provide route participants with an overview of the significance of their biodiversity assets and to constantly update them on this subject thereafter; a biodiversity monitor will be appointed for each route, whose responsibility it will be to record predetermined indicators on a specially devised Management Orientated Monitoring System (MOMS) for each flagship species; the information thus collected will be transmitted to Open Africa where it will be collated and evaluated prior to being fed back to Route Forums in a graphically illustrated format by the Biodiversity Networker for comparison with their conservation plans. Additionally, at the time of being listed, every participant will be obliged to sign a charter that a) results in the allocation of a unique number to that participant for tracking purposes and b) spells out the reporting requirements of the system. Beyond monitoring of the flagship species, routes will be obliged to provide information on economic and social indicators. The new approach will focus on inclusive local level M&E (social, economic and biodiversity), thus linking it


65

to economic returns and social improvements. At Open Africa M&E system: The baseline social, economic and environmental data currently being collected at the time of route launches will under OANSTC be entered into a Management Information System (MIS) for regular updating for the purpose of evaluation and comparison. This information will be fed back to routes via their Route Forums and used for reports to the World Bank as a measure of the efficacy of the system. This information will also be used at national and corridor knowledge sharing seminars that will be arranged as part of the GEF alternative.

Expected local and global benefits under the GEF alternative: The GEF alternative will in accomplishing the above contribute to the achievement of local and global environmental benefits, as summarized in the table 5 below.

Activities Direct impact Global and local environmental benefitsDevelopment of biodiversity monitoring tools (MOMS)

Introduction of a monitoring system that is understandable even to those who are illiterate at local level (concept designed at PDF A stage).

The introduction to people at grassroots level of the value of monitoring and evaluation. A method of passing responsibility for the chosen flagship species to the community. A simplified base from which to gradually expand monitoring to include more than just one species plus ultimately social and economic indicators as well. Collection of accurate and spatially orientated data from remote areas where previously this has not been possible.

Appointing biodiversity mentors and monitors

Greater awareness of the significance of biodiversity coupled to a management structure through which to responsibly gather data. Links tourism operators to the conservation fraternity.

Sensitization to the value and benefits that can be derived from conservation. Despite their co-dependency the players from these two sectors seldom sit around the same table operationally and this link will forge a much closer relationship between them.

Appointing a Biodiversity Networker

Open Africa has enjoyed much success with the appointment of a Route Networker for the purpose of providing aftercare support regarding the tourism element of routes, and the extension of this to include a specific focus on biodiversity is expected to do the same.

Monitoring of biodiversity resources by tourism operators is a new concept and more critically so at grassroots level, suggesting that it makes sense to shepherd its functionality through an agent specifically tasked to monitor this aspect. The benefit if this success will represent a sea change in the behaviour of tourism operators regarding biodiversity conservation.

Install and maintain a MIS

The intelligent evaluation of empirical data.

Improved knowledge source and therefore capacity for better biodiversity and other management at local level and through the interpretation of information by government, aid agencies, and NGO's.

Participant certification

Ability to track each participant individually.

To ensure adherence to the system, for without this lever there would be no value exchange through which to bind the parties together.

Route forum knowledge sharing seminars

Sharing of knowledge gained from hands-on experience.

This is a better alternative than textbook learning, especially for rural communities, and hands-on experience according to local conditions is in any case the best teacher.

Compilation of a replication and knowledge management plan

Already easily replicable, this information will constantly refine the Open Africa system in terms of making its replicability more effective and in particular replicate the new biodiversity-oriented approach

Wider coverage in Africa and elsewhere.


66

Component 4: The baseline includes OA task of developing routes on demand, which entails taking communities through a systematized procedure that results in routes being listed on the www.openafrica.org website. The development of each route is treated as a project on its own and once launched, aftercare from the Open Africa point of view regarding its progression becomes the responsibility of the Route Networker. Open Africa's structure is geared to raising funds for route development; developing routes for which funding has been raised; acting as custodian of the aforementioned website and its management and updating; and collecting and disseminating success stories from within the network. It also tracks activities on routes primarily through Route Forums to ascertain when and where steps are necessary to maintain an ascending plane of progression. Expected benefit under the baseline scenario: Open Africa randomly develops 10 routes annually in a network that is steadily growing in influence and attractiveness, through a replicable system that is intended to expand through the continent of Africa as a product aimed primarily at job creation.

The baseline budget covers the costs for field and office equipment, staff that are currently employed by Open Africa and operational costs such as office rental, auditing fees, utilities, consumables, printing and stationary, communications, vehicles operation and maintenance, equipment maintenance, reference material and insurance.

Under the GEF alternative scenario, the management component will be significantly strengthened to a) enhance Open Africa’s core activities and internal processes; b) mainstream biodiversity and therefore conservation of the resource base into the Open Africa methodology, implementation skills and capacities as related to supporting the tourism products (routes); c) create cross-border links and improve regional cooperation and collaboration in biodiversity ecoregions; d) result in the monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity resources at the network level; e) fulfillment of World Bank audit and reporting requirements; and f) concentrate a specific focus on the relevance of biodiversity to the expansion and sustainability of tourism in Africa, which constitutes the sphere in which arguably this continent has the best potential for socio-economic upliftment. The incremental costs include only a small proportion of time in respect of existing staff, savings here being made possible through economies of scale and the existing functional organization in respect of staffing, equipment, and know-how. The expected local and global benefits under the GEF alternative: The GEF alternative will achieve the following:

Sub-components Results Global and local environmental benefits

Equipment(1) Computers and peripherals(2) Printers(3) Vehicles

All the tools required will be at hand to ensure adequate project implementation of the enhanced approach.

The material capacity to accomplish local and global environmental objectives.

Staffing All required Open Africa organizational manpower positions filled, consisting of biodiversity networker, website optimizer, marketing and communications manager, accountant, administrator and operations manager. Appointment of a project review committee.

The manpower capacity to accomplish local and global environmental objectives.

Operations Timely and efficient implementation of project implementation and annual work plan.

Successful implementation of project implementation and annual work plan. (see component indicators).

Auditing Compliance with WB fiduciary requirements. Adequate use of GEF funds to achieve local and global objectives.

Progress reporting Compliance with WB fiduciary requirements including EOP report.

Successful implementation of project to achieve localand global objectives (see indicators).


67

http://www.openafrica.org/

All of the project activities are capacity building type activities, involving local and national institutional development at individual and systemic level, community empowerment through consultations, information, and training, and monitoring tools and technology. Therefore, the incremental cost analysis adopted favors a more qualitative approach.

Component Category FundingSource

Estimated Expenditures

(US $)

Local Benefit Global Benefit

1. Biodiversity-focused routes

Baseline Open Africa

123,000 Communities are linked to formal tourism markets by means of tourism routes. Capacity of route forum members is enhanced without focus on biodiversity.

Possible, minor global environmental benefits may occur due to the indirect relationship between tourism and conservation.

With GEF Alternative

GEF; Open Africa

455,000 Community members living within the OANSTC corridor entered the economic mainstream by leveraging their tourism opportunities. Biodiversity has been mainstreamed into tourism by communities along OANSTC routes. New and existing community-owned tourism routes in biodiversity rich areas are stimulating better biodiversity management.

A replicable model is established to develop biodiversity-focused tourism routes in other countries. Communities are empowered to take ownership of their tourism related biodiversity resources and manage them effectively. A simple biodiversity monitoring system is established that communities can use elsewhere. Biodiversity conservation is embedded Incremental 332,000

2. Targeted Marketing and Communication


79,000 Products are linked to the global marketplace through the Internet.

Some global environmental benefits may occur through the indirect relationship between tourism and conservation.


GEF; Open Africa;

218,000 Route participants will see the benefits of increased exposure which ultimately leads to increased visitor numbers. Participants are encouraged to stay in the system and monitor and conserve their resource base.

Increased awareness of eco-tourism amongst the general public. The number of environmentally responsible tourism operators increases over time.

Incremental 139,000


68

3. Enhanced Monitoring and Evaluation System

Baseline Open Africa 65,000 M&E system to monitor baseline indicators is running but not regularly updated and excludes anything on biodiversity.

Limited knowledge of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.


GEF; Open Africa

112,000 Increased awareness of impacts of tourism on the environment.

Flagship species centered conservation planning and management. Local level monitoring of flagship species. Reduction of habitat destruction. Increased capacity to

Incremental 47,0004. Project Management


365,000 Open Africa continues to develop routes on a demand driven basis. Routes are managed on an individual basis


GEF; Open Africa

387,000 The project is managed effectively and information is fed back to routes that enables them to manage and conserve their resource base.

Biodiversity conservation in OA routes is enhanced. Biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed into local tourism businesses on OA routes. OA new methodology Incremental 22,000

TOTAL Baseline Open 632,000With GEF Alternative

Open Africa, GEF

1,172,000


69

ANNEX H: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION PLAN

1. Stakeholder involvement during preparation

The preparation of this MSP included several rounds of stakeholder consultations at the national, regional and local level across the initially designated four countries: Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zambia82. A series of field visits and workshops/meetings was held in each of the ecoregions in the four countries from June to July 2006 in the corridor. They aimed to identify a broad range of stakeholders, inform stakeholders about the OANSTCP and led to a pre-identification of routes prospects, including their biodiversity and tourism value.

Some 400 stakeholders consulted included local representatives of GEF projects and transfrontier initiatives; tourism development agencies; training agencies; universities and technikons; financing institutions; tourism associations or boards; tour operators/private sector; conservation agencies, government or parastatal; NGO’s; community development organizations; municipalities and regional councils; media; mining operations; conservancies; and existing and emergent Open Africa route participants. Extensive additional inputs were obtained by email/telephone both before and after the workshops, and stakeholder consultation has been an integral and ongoing part of the project development. The meetings entailed explaining the objectives of the project, after which participatory discussions were held and from which comments and issues were noted on a flipchart for analysis and further discussion. The Open Africa team consisted of the Operations Manager; consultants; and an independent observer. In total more than 120 individuals participated in the workshops, in addition to which written correspondence has been exchanged with a number of people who could not attend the meetings.

The preparation phase has kept a range of involved stakeholders informed including UNDP representatives83. The consultative process with UNDP as GEF IA and other donors will continue throughout project implementation, mainly through the OA operations manager follow-up at national level.

Contribution to Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA): The OANSTCP will become part of Africa largest transfrontier conservation area, the emerging Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) initiative. As of now, OA has already established two routes in the KAZA area, signed a Strategic Alliance with the Peace Park Foundation and has strong ties with CI, both key players of the KAZA initiative. The project is expected to contribute strongly to the success of the KAZA TFCA through (i) improving management of resource base by mainstreaming biodiversity into tourism including using a flagship species approach, (ii) facilitating collaborative management and planning by establishing route forums, (iii) supporting sustainable tourism by ensuring adherence to OA charter principles, and (iv) contributing to a framework for partnerships between investors, government and other institutions to interact with communities. Three of the proposed 11 routes will be realized within the designated KAZA TFCA.

82 These four countries swana and South Africa were initially part of the OANSTCP but due to resource constraints under GEF-4 RAF conditions, only Namibia and Zambia were able to continue.83 A representative of the UNDP/GEF Strengthening the Protected Areas Network (SPAN) project in Namibia attended an OANSTC stakeholder meeting at Windhoek. Additional information exchanges with UNDP Namibia on an emerging GEF full-size project idea to address biodiversity conservation and tourism have been launched. It is understood that this larger project aims to tackle Namibia’s national enabling framework to support sustainable tourism and conservation goals. A similar national UNDP/GEF project in Zambia aims to address a restructuring of protected areas, including the establishment and sustainable management of national park networks, which will enhance further the tourism market potential and the related OANSTCP route success.


70

The OA organization continues to inform and up-date all related stakeholders about the progress with the OANSTC project. The OANSTCP review committee may invite on an ad-hoc basis members from other organizations and donor agencies for specific consultation and coordination purposes.

2. Participatory principle of routes

OA core principle is full ownership and participation by route participantsThe OA Route Developers guide the installation of the enabling framework that is at the core of Open Africa’s intervention, within which all decisions are made by the participants themselves, with nothing imposed from the outside to ensure local ownership. At an early stage in the implementation phase participants, elect an interim Route Forum, in effect a committee with the responsibility to drive the process whilst liaising with participants on one hand and Open Africa on the other. It is explained from the outset that this is a self-help scheme wherein participation costs nothing monetarily but is hugely expensive in terms of passion and commitment ie, sweat equity. It is better if those who are put off by this maxim withdraw voluntarily.

3. Stakeholder roles within the OANSTCP design

The table 6 belows presents the expected roles and functions of the various project stakeholders.

Stakeholders Interests and RolesOpen Africa Supports route development, implementation.

Provides access to world-wide marketing. Aftercare and networking. Monitoring and Eveluation.

Sub-regional organization (RETOSA)

Facilitates sub-regional coordination and communication. Supports OA network.

National and Provincial Government Sectoral Ministries/ Departments with Provincial/District Offices Environment Tourism Forestry Rural Development Agriculture Water Mining Fishery Education Finance Land Decentralization Regional councils

Enabling environment (policies, legislation). Enforcement of compliance with legal framework. Cross-sectoral coordination. Implement sectoral policies, programmes and plans. Responsible for national biodiversity objectives, targets and projects. Infrastructure. Pro-poor support. Tourism promotion. Local (municipal) economic development programmes.

Local Tourism and Conservation Authorities

Responsible for local planning (infrastructure, environmental assessment) and management. Coordination of local development programmes. PA management. Promote routes.

Local / national / international NGOs

Facilitate organization of and strengthen route fora. Implement projects addressing community issues. Provide specific advice in given area of expertise. Facilitate with fundraising strategies.

Local Communities Depend on local development strategies for employment, livelihoods, cultural values. Participate in routes.

Private Sector Access to tourism market.


71

Stakeholders Interests and RolesLocal business operators Provides economic benefits to communities (business links).

Depends on destination quality and other tourism service providers.Religious leaders Guide local community behaviour.Route Forum Key to the communities buying into the collective process is the election of the route

forum and a route forum leader (chairperson), which is done by the route participants, who elect their own leader. The route forum is a key success factor as it facilitates collaboration and communication amongst a variety of stakeholders. The number of route forum participants varies from route to route.

Biodiversity mentor and monitors

Local level biodiversity resource persons introducing and overseeing identification of flagship species, monitoring and evaluation and development and implementation of conservation plans.

Route Participants The Route participants consist of both established and emerging local business operators; the stakeholders who are both the members and the drivers of the route. Route participants differ from the route community in that they are the actual operators of tourism attractions on the route, whereas the route community is made up of all stakeholders interested in promoting tourism.

4. List of currently identified stakeholder (preparation phase)

ZambiaDonors Contact Interest Role

Danida (Danish Embassy) Aaskov Hans Active in Zambia and attended an OANSTC workshop

Collaboration

Kasanka Trust Ltd Chanda Dolly/Edmund Farmer/Chola mabo

Community-based conservation & tourism

Route champion - Kasanka Ecotourism Circuit

Peace Parks Foundation Chidziya Edson– Zimbabwe TFCA Programme Manager

Community upliftment Possible co-funder

Standard Chartered Bank, Lusaka Sonny Zulu Sponsored Barotse Trails Route

Potential co-funder

Frankfurt Zoological Society Frank Hajek Conservation and community-based tourism

Route champion - Mpika & surrounds

EWT/African Wattled Crane Partnership

Ben Kamweneshe/Kerryn Morrison

Conservation Potential co-funder

Wildlife Conservation Society (US) Dave Lewis Conservation Potential co-funderNorwegian Embassy Imakando Moosho Community upliftment Potential co-funderWWF James Phiri Conservation Potential co-funderUSAID Scot Simmons General CoordinationSNV Netherlands Development Organization

Dominique Verdugo Community upliftment Potential co-funder

Programs and Projects IUCN Achikela Excellent Conservation Technical adviceElephant Pepper Development Trust Gibson Nina Community development CollaborationCommunity Based Conservation Network

Mike Jones Community-based conservation

Coordination

Nakapalay Tourism Project Edrick Kaluba Community-based tourism CollaborationChipundu CBT Project Timothy Kapilo Community-based tourism CollaborationNakapalayo Tourism Project Jackson Kasama Community-based tourism CollaborationMiseshi CBT Kunda Chesa Community-based tourism CollaborationPROFIT Programme Rob Munro Attended OANSTC workshop CoordinationLMNP Edmund Farmer Community-based tourism Collaboration


72

Reclassification Project (ZAWA/UNDP/GEF)

Johan Robinson Protected Area Management Collaboration

Barotse Development Trust Neil Rix Tourism Collaboration

Private Sector Wilderness Safaris DaveBennett Tourism Route ParticipantFlatdogs Camp; Luangwa Safari Association

Adrian Coley Tourism Route Participant

BLV Business Centre Ltd, Mbala Lawrence Bwali Tourism Route ParticipantShiwa House Harvey Charlie & Jo Tourism Route ParticipantShiwa Safaris Mark Harvey Tourism Route ParticipantKaingu Lodge, Kafue NP Heinecken Tom &

VivianeTourism Route Participant

Royal Barotse Safaris Gavin Johnson Tourism Route ParticipantTAAZ (Travel Agents’ Association Zambia); Jul’s Limited (guesthouse and tourism services, Lusaka)

Trevor Limpic Tourism Collaboration

Mutinindo Wilderness Camp Merret Mike & Lari Tourism Route ParticipantThorn Tree Safaris, Kasama Powell Claire & Sean Tourism Route ParticipantThorn Tree Guesthouse, Kasama Powell, Hazel & Ewart Tourism Route ParticipantForest Inn, Mkushi Barry Shenton Tourism Route ParticipantFringilla Farm Lodge George Woodley Tourism Route ParticipantSenuko Lodge, Save Valley Conservancy (Chiredzi)

Rob Waters Tourism Route Participant

Mapontela Investment & Guesthouse, Serenje

Priscilla Luker (and parents Anna & Steve)

Tourism Route Participant

Tour Operators Association of Zambia (TOAZ); Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF)

Rolf Shenton Tourism Collaboration

NGO's African Wildlife Foundation Agatha Mufwinda Conservation CollaborationAfrican Wilderness Foundation (AWF: Zambia)

Henry Mwima Conservation Collaboration

Wildlife & Environmental Conservation Society of Zambia (WECZA - President); Whydah Consulting Ltd

Adam Pope Conservation Collaboration

Liuwata Foundation Jeremy Pope Tourism/Conservation CollaborationMbala Christian Leadership Centre Sakwila K Community upliftemtn CollaborationBio-Network (World Challenge) Linda Shenton Conservation Collaboration

Government Agencies Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) Ghershom Chilukusha Conservation CollaborationLonde Village V/Headman Bwelele C Community upliftment AdvocacyMoto Moto Museum, Mbala Emmanuel Chipela Tourism Route ParticipantZambia National Heritage Commission

Edwin Mbulo Heritage Conservation Collaboration

Kafue National Park Wilfred Moonga Conservation Route ParticipantZambia National Tourist Board Jocelyn Mutinta Tourism MarketingZANIS Thomas Nranga Media Publicity ExposureMinistry of Tourism, Environment & Natural Resources

Sarah Nyondo Tourism/Conservation Collaboration

Forestry Dept, Mbala Lloyd Siambeta Conservation CollaborationImmigration Dept, Mbala Simwawa Mr Tourist flows Collaboration


73

Namibia

Ddonors Contact Interest RoleRössing Foundation Anderson Frances &

Reiner Schrenwert Corporate Social Investment Potential co-funder

Skorpion Zinc Gerald Boting Corporate Social Investment Already funded a routeNamibia Nature Foundation Dr Chris Brown Conservation Potential co-funderLIFE Plus Programme Andee Davidson Conservation CollaborationEngen Namibia Daline Eliott Corporate Social Investment Already funded a routeAllgemeine Zeitung Dirk Heinrich Corporate Social Investment Potential co-funderRosh Pinah Zinc Corp Theo Ickna Corporate Social Investment Potential co-funderRoshkor Callie Van Heerden Corporate Social Investment Potential co-funderNamzinc Mouton D Corporate Social Investment Potential co-funder

Programs and Projects SPAN Midorix Paxton, Baker

LindaConservation Collaboration

Wetlands Working Group Shirley Bethune Conservation CollaborationNACOMA Rod Braby, Timo Mufeti Conservation CollaborationICEMA Jo Tagg Conservation CollaborationConservancies Association of Namibia (CANAM)

Conservation Collaboration

Desert Research Foundation (DRFN) Dall Moizelle Conservation Research CollaborationIRDNC Richard Diggle Community-based

conservation & tourismRoute champion – Caprivi

Integrated Resource Development & Nature Conservation (IRDNC) – Kunene Region

Anton Esterhuizen Community-based conservation & tourism

Coordination

!Nara Training Centre Honeb Hosabe Community-based tourism CollaborationNNF Every River Project, Rundu GibsonKamuaruuma Community-based

conservation & tourismRoute champion - Kavango

NACOBTA Olga Katjiuongua Community-based tourism Support & trainingEarthlife Namibia Bertchen Kohrs Conservation CollaborationNamibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO)

Louis Maxi Conservation Collaboration

US Peace Corps Jeff Millington Volunteers CoordinationRaptors Namibia, Namibia Bird Club

Linda Millington Conservation Collaboration

University of Namibia (MRCC): Community-based Natural Resource Management Research Programme

Mosimane A Conservation Research Collaboration

Conservation International; Caprivi Wetlands Paradise Route; Kasika & Impalila Conservancies

Carol Murphy Community-based tourism Route participant

Namibia Development Trust (NDT) Community development CollaborationNamibia NGO Forum (NANGOF) NGO support CollaborationNamibia Rural Development Project (NRDP)

Community development Collaboration

Desert Research Foundation Namibia (DRFN)

John Pallett Conservation Collaboration

TUCSIN (The University Centre for Studies in Namibia)

Henriette Rispel Skills development Training & Support

TUCSIN Dr Beatrice Sandelowsky Skills development Training & SupportSKEP Namibia Kauna Schroder Conservation Colaboration


74

Coastal Environmental Trust of Namibia (CETN)

Keith Wearne Conservation Colaboration

Living in a Finite Environment Programme (LIFE)

Chris Weaver Conservation Colaboration

Private Sector Namibia Wildlife Resorts Topi Aupindi Tourism Route participantNamibRand Family Hideout; Four Deserts Route Namibia

Brückner Mandy & Andreas

Tourism Route participant

Wolwedans Stephan Brückner Tourism Route participantWilderness Safaris Namibia Lloyd Camp Tourism Route participantTutwa Tourism & Travel, Caprivi Coertzen Strijs & Elaine Tourism Route participantFour Seasons Lodge, Rosh Pinah Commerford N Tourism Route participantKalahari Wild Silk Company Ian & Jenny Cumming Tourism Route participantSossusvlei Lodge (Marketing) Ute De Jager Tourism Route participantAuob Country Lodge Willem De Wet Tourism Route participantCharly’s Desert Tours Andrea Dreyer Tourism Route participantEningu Clayhouse Lodge Kate Dunstan Tourism Route participantFarm Duwisib; Four Deserts Route Namibia

Frank-Schultz Lilly & Jochen

Tourism Route participant

Namibia Nature Investments Manni Goldbeck Tourism Route participantLa Vallée Tranquille Anne Gyselink Tourism Route participantTorgos Safaris Kotze Dirk & Janine Tourism Route participantNamib Naukluft Lodge Beatrix Marggroff Tourism Route participantOa Hera Craft & Tradition Centre Tourism Route participant

NGO's Wildlife Society of Namibia Helge Denker Conservation CollaborationRare & Endangered Species Trust (REST)

Maria Diekmann Conservation Collaboration

Ibenstein Weavers Ramdohr Wolfgang & Anne

Tourism Route Participant

FENATA CEO (Federation of Namibian Tourism Associations)

Jackie Sheeke Tourism Collaboration

Government Agencies MET (Permanent Secretary) Malan Lindeque Governance Enabling framework for

tourism and environment

Ministry of Wildlife & Tourism: Parks & Wildlife Tsumkwe

Dries Alberts Conservation/Tourism Collaboration

MET (Director Parks & Wildlife) Ben Beytell Conservation/Tourism Collaboration (flagship species)

MET (Keetmanshoop / Rosh Pinah) Wayne Handley Conservation Flagship specie monitorMET Directorate of Environment Affairs (DEA, Director)

Teo Nghitila Conservation/Tourism GEF Focal Point

MET Directorate Tourism, Director Mieze A Tourism Collaboration, concession policy, community-based tourism

MET CBNRM Sub-Division Tsukhoe Garoes Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Collaboration with CBNRM Program activities, local level monitoring (event book)

MAWF Directorate of Forestry Hailwa J Conservation CoordinationMinistry of Trade, Rundu Kabuku Astro Development Collaboration


75

Ministry of Local Government and Housing (North Central)

Kandombo J + Cllr Hon. Lotto Kuushomwa

Development Collaboration

Kavango Regional Council Hamutenya David Hipulua

Community development Advocacy

Walvis Bay Municipality Nolito Marques Development Route ExtentionCommunity Forestry, Kavango Region

Wycliffe Nabaasa Commnity Development/Conservation

Collaboration

Namibia Tourism Board Shareen Thude Tourism MarketingMinistry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development

Ndina Nashipili Development Collaboration

Namdeb: environmental section Fiona Olivier Conservation Collaboration

5. Associated financing

The OANSTC project adds and complements a number of initiatives within the two participating countries. The preparation phase identified the following associated financing sources (total of US$ 3,038,346) for the proposed 3-year period.

TABLE 7. ASSOCIATED FINANCING SOURCESName of Co-financier (source)

Classification Purpose Linkage Amount (US$) Status*

WWF LIFE Plus project, Namibia

NGO Route DevelopmentCaprivi

Community-based natural resource management in conservancies around the selected routes in Namibia.

13,333 Committed.

ICF/EWT Partnership

NGO Conservation Community-based conservation 150,000 Committed.

Endangered Wildlife Trust

NGO Conservation Sustainable development and wildlife / biodiversity conservation measures in associated geographic areas.

700 000 Committed.

Peace Parks Foundation

NGO Route development KAZA

Transfrontier Conservation Areas (KAZA)

933,333 Committed.

Every River Project, Namibia

NGO Route development

Community-based conservation efforts in proximity

480,000 Committed.

Business Trust (in partnership with DEAT)

Corporate Social Investment

Route development & support

Job creation & poverty relief through support to OA.

284,090 In progress to completion.

Ashoka Global support for change makers

Financial assistance to OA organization

Support to OA organization. 156,000 Being paid monthly over three years

National Lottery Fund

Benevolent agency

Route development and support

Poverty alleviation 88,920 Contract signed

Nedbank Foundation

Corporate Social Investment

Route development

Poverty alleviation and conservation

32,670 Contract signed

Ford Foundation Benevolent agency

Core funding of Open Africa

NGO sustainability 200,000 Monthly over 24 months

Sub-Total Associated financing 3,038,346

Individual route development will be preceded by a review and up-date of associated initiatives to consolidate activities and available funding.


76

ANNEX I: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANOpen Africa North-South Tourism Corridor Project Time Frame

Project Plan of Operation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Components Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4I. BIODIVERSITY FOCUSED ROUTE ESTABLISHMENT

REGIONAL A. Road show

B. Equipment GPS and other field equipment Lap top computer 4x4 Vehicles

C. Biodiversity networker Recruitment Salary D. Route Signage ROUTE UPGRADES NAMIBIA A. Nama Padloper 1. Biodiversity Introduction Workshop 2. Install PC & Internet Communication 3. Route Re-launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice

10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor 11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance B. Caprivi Wetlands Paradise

1. Biodiversity Introduction Workshop

2. Install PC & Internet Communication 3. Route Re-launch 8. Participant Signage

9. Volunteer Expert Advice 10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor

11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance ZAMBIA C. Barotse Trails Routes 1. Biodiversity Introduction Workshop 2. Install PC & Internet Communication 3. Route Re-launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice 10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor 11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance


77

ROUTE DEVELOPMENT ZAMBIA A. Route 1 – Mpika and Surrounds

1. Stakeholder meetings 2. Community Workshops 1 3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering 4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage


11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance B. Route 2 – North Luangwa

1. Stakeholder meetings 2. Community Workshops 1

3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering

4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage

9. Volunteer Expert Advice

10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor

11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance C. Route 3 – Kasanka Ecotourism Circuit 1. Stakeholder meetings 2. Community Workshops 1

3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering 4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice

10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor 11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance D. Route 4 – Southern Kafue Flats 1. Stakeholder meetings 2. Community Workshops 1 3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering

4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage


11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance E. Route 5 – Eastern Kafue 1. Stakeholder meetings


78

2. Community Workshops 1 3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering

4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice 10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor 11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance F. Route 6 – North Barotse Trails 1 1. Stakeholder meetings 2. Community Workshops 1 3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering 4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice 10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor 11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance

F. Route 7 – North Barotse Trails 2

1. Stakeholder meetings

2. Community Workshops 1 3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering

4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice 10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor 11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance ROUTE DEVELOPMENT NAMIBIA A. Route 1 – Kavango Route 1. Stakeholder meetings 2. Community Workshops 1 3. Community Workshops 2 & data gathering 4. Install PC & Internet Communication 5. Route Launch 8. Participant Signage 9. Volunteer Expert Advice 10. Training Biodiversity Monitor & Mentor

11. Conservation Planning Workshop 12. Route Maintenance II. TARGETED MARKETING & COMMUNICATION

A. Corridor and route marketing 1. Tour operator focused marketing trips 2. Journalist Visits 3. Launch Brochure Supply

B. Open Africa Marketing


79

1. Supporting network with marketing & communication 2. Exhibiting at local travel shows 3. Exhibiting at international travel shows 4. Website upgrades 5. Optimizing and promoting website 6. Media Clipping Service III. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 1. Install and maintain MIS 2. Participant certification 3. Development of monitoring tools 4. Monitoring of route forums 5. Route forum knowledge sharing seminars a) National seminars b) Corridor seminar 1. Seminar feedback and compilation of replication plan 7. Biodiversity Networking

IV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. Equipment 1. Computer & peripherals 2. Printer 3. Vehicles sedan B. Staffing Website optimizer Manager Administrator Accountant Operations manager C. Operations Auditing fees Office rental Utilities Consumables Printing and stationary Communication Vehicles O&M Equipment maintenance Reference material Various insurance Cleaning services


80

The following table 8 outlines the responsibilities to implement the proposed project:

Table 8. OA implementation responsibilities:

Open Africa Route MembersActivity Route developer Biodiversity networker Route networker Forum Biodiversity

mentorBiodiversity monitor

Baseline meeting Facilitates the meeting. Makes an Open Africa presentation outlining the OANSTC project. Discusses existing routes in the area. Sets a date for Workshop 1.

Attends meeting as an introduction to the programme.

Biodiversity (general) awareness presentation.

Workshop 1 Introduces the Biodiversity Networker. Gives a short presentation about Open Africa and its vision. Shows the website. Presents and explains the Open Africa Charter. Conducts the “Big Five” exercise Facilitates the election of the Route Forum

Gives an overview of the OANSTC project, highlighting the importance of biodiversity. Discusses monitoring and evaluation, flagship species/biodiversity indicators, route biodiversity mentors and monitors. Introduces the Route Management Handbook. Arranges a time to train the Route Forum regarding biodiversity aspects.

Biodiversity (detailed) awareness presentation.

Workshop 2 Gives the whole presentation or a portion thereof again, to revitalize and focus attention on the objectives. Debates the parameters of the route and its components/partici-pants, after which the meeting decides on the route’s name. Lists the websites to which links should be made. Identifies SMME opportunities and skills/training gaps for passing on to

Discusses the new monitoring and evaluation system and Route Implementation Handbook in more detail and the monitoring & evaluation process. Presents a hard copy of the Route Implementation Handbook to the Route Forum and a CD with a brief explanation of each section.

Appoints the biodiversity mentor.Appoints the biodiversity monitor(s).Briefs the biodiversity monitor(s) of their responsibilities. Identifies the primary contact person.Meets after the

Biodiversity (detailed) awareness presentation.Assists with selecting and finalizing the potential flagship species.Assists with the verification of the biodiversity indicators.



development agencies and other agencies. Proceeds to visit and map each of the participants and ensure there is a data form for each, now including a GPS reading, and signed Open Africa Charter. Sets a tentative date for the next workshop or launch. After the workshop he/she will assist the participants to complete their forms, take photographs and GPS co-ordinates where necessary. He/she will send launch guidelines to the Route Forum.

Finalizes the route-specific flagship species using indigenous (local) knowledge. Identifies one or more initial route-specific biodiversity indicators. Discusses the local community flagship species conservation plan. After the workshop he/she will do additional research to verify flagship species.

workshop, to guide and initiate the planning of the launch function.

Workshop 3 Responsible for the process. Sets a provisional date to assist with the implementation of the Monitoring and Evaluation System in accordance with the Route Implementation Handbook procedures.

Introduces himself/herself and explains his/her participation further.

Processing of route data

Assists where required. Responsible for biodiversity related data.

Listing a route Facilitates the workshop. Gives a short Open Africa presentation for newcomers. The Open Africa Charter is introduced and explained.

Handing over route to Administration Manager

Responsible for the process.

Launch function Assists with the arrangements.

Biodiversity (detailed/holistic) awareness presentation.

82



Follow-up support for routes

Assists with monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity, economic and social effects, the development of conservation action plans for flagship species, including training requirements

Monitors Route Forum activities, networks success stories and best practice examples, assists with website updates, further development of routes, synergies and capacity building.

Mainstreaming biodiversity into existing Open Africa routes within the OANSTC: Workshop 1

Gives an overview of the OANSTC project highlighting the importance of biodiversity conservation. Introduces the Route Management Handbook. Leads a discussion and debate on the implementation of the biodiversity monitoring system. Identifies any existing local monitoring initiatives that can be aligned to the new OANSTC approach. Sets a preliminary date and venue for Workshop 2 to implement the new monitoring system.


Mainstreaming biodiversity into existing Open Africa routes within the OANSTC: Workshop 2

Facilitates the workshop He/she will then explain Section 3 and Section 5 of the Route Management Handbook. in finer detail. Lead the workshop on the application of the Event Book card monitoring system,

The flagship species is/are confirmed. The Biodiversity mentor(s) and Route Biodiversity Monitor(s) are appointed and introduced.


83



including the design and content of the monitoring cards. Will task the group to apply the system to their areas using the draft card design and indigenous (local) knowledge as a pilot exercise. Will set a provisional date to meet the team in the field to assess their progress and offer assistance where or if necessary.

Training at Route Forum level

Trains the Route Forum, Biodiversity Mentor(s) and Route Biodiversity Monitor(s) in the application of the monitoring and evaluation process.

Supplies further assistance with the progress of the route utilizing the Route Management Handbook.

Marketing Handled by the Marketing and Communications manager in consultation with all.Monitoring and evaluation

Responsible for the process at Open Africa level.

Responsible for assisting the Biodiversity Networker at Open Africa level.

Responsible for co-ordinating the process at route level.

Responsible for assisting the process at route level.

Responsible for implementing the process at route level.

84

ADDITIONAL ANNEX J: SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICATION

Sustainability:

Sustainability in the OANSTCP context divides into the four categories of a/ institutional sustainability; b/ social sustainability; c/ environmental sustainability; and d/ financial sustainability

a/ Institutional sustainability This refers in the first instance to the continued and dynamic functioning of (i) each route’s Route Forum and, (ii) secondly to the continued existence of the Open Africa organization.

At route level:Once established, routes constitute manageable entities where there were none before; this from within by their elected Route Forums and participants, and externally through the support systems they have garnered, peer pressure from within the network, and the remedial action Open Africa is able to take when red flags are raised through its monitoring system. As a body speaking with one voice on behalf of a collective, Route Forums have leverage in attracting infrastructure, investments, publicity and support from outside sources like other players in the social sector. Via contact with other routes in the network they see what their peers are doing and learn from their experiences, whilst through its route networking function Open Africa constantly reviews the activity level on all routes, indicators of which are derived from its role as custodian of the network’s Internet portal. As with development generally, experience proves that progression never takes place in a straight line of ascendancy. For any number of reasons, generally all upward trends are followed by sideway movements that if unchecked lapse into a downward spiral and as new reasons for this phenomenon arise, Open Africa devises strategies to deal with them. This constant learning process results in best practice examples that get banked for future reference and dissemination where and when appropriate.

Key to the rate of progression of routes is the dynamism of their Route Forums, whose members generally consist of the doers and shakers among the route participants. These social entrepreneurs, who seem to exist in every community and who more often than not are female, are however voluntary workers and as such need to be enthused and encouraged in order to remain motivated. Their functioning can also and is sometimes disrupted through for example the chairperson resigning, or someone becoming too dictatorial, these and other reasons being part of what Open Africa encounters in the network and for which it devises strategies to deal with them. Essentially this is a process with no magic wand involved and one that is heavily influenced by local circumstances but, as a process that is measurable it is also manageable.

The newly introduced OA charter (November 2006) is further enhancing route forums as institutions. The Charter represents an exchange of value by stipulating adherence to defined principles. Further, OA encourages Route Forums to register as institutions in order to increase their credibility, legal participation in planning, and decision-making processes. Other implementation support activities involve the creation of a route-owned webpage and hands-on tools for fundraising and marketing.

At OA organizational level:The cessation of Open Africa’s activities is a threat in that if it folds the system would collapse. This is unlikely since the organization has steadily increased its staffing and organizational set up over the past 10 years.

85

b/ Social sustainability Since there is no monetary cost involved in participating in OA and route development/upgrading, this specifically to avoid barriers to entry for disadvantaged and commercially inexperienced communities, maintaining good stakeholder participation is part of the incentive-based OA system (see section “stakeholder involvement”). It is nevertheless important for participants to constantly be aware of benefits for the purpose of motivating them to reach for greater heights, which means that the greater the level of communication Open Africa is able to sustain the better. Institutional and social sustainability at route level are very closely interrelated and thus mutually reinforcing.

c/ Environmental sustainabilityThis concerns the contribution the OANSTC project is making to the sustainability of biodiversity conservation. The environmental sustainability of the project is ensured and enhanced through (i) careful selection of OANSTC routes based on defined criteria; (ii) involvement of local communities and stakeholders at planning, management and monitoring level; (iii) efforts to demonstrate linkages to economic benefits for communities based on improved biodiversity conservation; (iv) local level capacity-building and knowledge management activities; (v) linkages to other conservation-related initiatives and lastly (vi) the development of a conservation plan for defined flagship species as part of a local tourism strategy and a local level monitoring system.

d/ Financial sustainabilityThis concerns the financial status of (i) route participants and (ii) the OA organization. (i) More often than not Open Africa routes are established as a contribution to improving financial sustainability precisely for the reason that it does not exist in the first place. By virtue of the quality of their attractions or where they are located relative to transport access points, some routes have better prospects than others, but all routes are financially more sustainable and better off for being part of the Open Africa network.

(ii) The OA organization managed to survive financially through the most difficult first 10 formative years of its life, starting from a point where it consisted of no more than a vision with no routes (product) listed. Now its fundraising prospects are improving with the continual strengthening of its track record and increased results and success stories. Moreover, whereas the costs of developing routes constitute Open Africa’s main expenses, those associated with maintaining the system are comparatively minor.

Replicability:

Open Africa’s approach is all about steady improvement of the model and tools used for route development and up-grading, marketing/communication and monitoring. As a systematized methodology the Open Africa route development process itself is readily replicable and the routine dissemination of success stories is catered for within the existing route networking function. However in the case of the new improved methodology to be applied first amongst OANSTC routes, because of their biodiversity focus, more intense procedures will apply to the dissemination of hands-on knowledge built up within the corridor. This will be done through the appointment of a Biodiversity Networker, whose responsibility it will be to track and oversee the biodiversity monitoring system, visit each route at least once annually, distribute an OANSTC newsletter, and arrange and organize two OANSTC country workshops. The Project will support the development and dissemination of a replication and knowledge management plan.

86

ADDITIONAL ANNEX K: OPEN AFRICA ORGANIZATION, TOOLS AND GOOD PRACTICES

Overview of the Organization

OPEN AFRICAOpen Africa is a pan-African tax-exempt registered not for gain Public Benefit Institution (NGO) that has devised a way of linking tourism, job creation and conservation in a mutually sustainable way. It was founded in 1995 under the patronage of Nelson Mandela and has its administrative office in Cape Town.

VISIONOpen Africa’s vision is to link the splendours of Africa in a network of tourism routes from the Cape to Cairo. Its mission is to exploit tourism as a job creator for the continent’s people in a manner that conserves and nourishes its resource base, which in the African context means the magnificence of this continent’s cultural and natural assets.

OPEN AFRICA’S SCOPE AND FOCUS ‘Cape to Cairo’ means across the entire continent, in that the accomplishment of this vision is something in which everyone can believe, and from which everyone can benefit. This is at least a 50-year programme, recognizing that results will start small and accelerate over time. There is conflict in some African countries, wars among others and endemic corruption renders some ungovernable, but Open Africa does not regard these as permanent constraints. Overcoming the poverty that more often than not causes these problems is precisely why Open Africa exists. The Phase One focus between 2000 and 2005 was to test the system and establish a critical mass of routes sufficient to command credibility. This has been accomplished. The Phase Two focus is to establish more and biodiversity-focused routes, faster, and in more countries, including the establishment of satellite offices in East, West and North Africa. Operationally Open Africa’s focus is primarily on establishing routes. Other agencies, institutions and NGO’s with far greater competencies exist to deal with subjects such as marketing, training and infrastructure, all of which are allies in this mission.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES BY WHICH OPEN AFRICA OPERATES Open Africa is an initiative that functions at the grass-roots level, from the bottom up. Open Africa does not decide for others what they need or want, but listens to what they perceive their needs and wants to be. Open Africa believes in people, in their capacity for self-actualisation, and accordingly never imposes anything from the outside. Open Africa acts purely as a functionary, installing a framework in which people can exercise and leverage their own talents. It makes no promises and creates no expectations beyond what individuals themselves decide is possible. Routes belong to their participants, who make all the decisions as to how they are managed. So as to give new entrants barrier free access and enable all products that add value to be included, no charges are levied for participation in the Open Africa network. Free in terms of cash cost, participation in Open Africa is nevertheless hugely expensive in passion and commitment.

FEATURES OF THE OPEN AFRICA PROGRAMME Everything is systemised. Denial of the concept of failure. Some routes may struggle, even collapse, but once established and for as long as some participants remain active, a route remains an entity that can be managed and will never be abandoned.

87

Open Africa recognises the need to monitor progress and impacts and constantly refines the methods employed to do this. The experience gained by route participants represents an invaluable source of hands-on knowledge, the management and dissemination of which throughout the network is an Open Africa priority. Open Africa is a pull rather than a push initiative and goes only where it is asked to go, ensuring that a high level of local enthusiasm will drive the process. As a functionary, Open Africa’s role is to add value without treading on the toes of existing agencies or violating the sovereignty of local authorities. The launch of an Open Africa route is only the end of the beginning. It is from that point onwards that the real work starts, by the participants and their Route Forum. Open Africa’s after-launch role is that of a network manager, disseminating information, promoting the cross-fertilization of success stories and ideas, making connections between parties with common interests, and serving as custodian of the network’s website.

COMMUNITYOpen Africa’s definition of this description embraces all those at local level who want to be involved in the project. A wise Route Forum will include as many people in this as supporters as possible.

THE THREE MAIN PILLARS OF OPEN AFRICA’S INTERVENTION1. Route development and up-grading To respond to community requests regarding the establishment of routes by facilitating the route development process; To assist in raising the funds necessary to cover the cost of establishing and maintaining/upgrading routes;

2. Marketing and communication To develop and act as custodian of the website on which the routes are loaded; To market the Open Africa brand for the network of routes; To facilitate the management and dissemination of the hands-on knowledge that builds up within the network

3. Networking To act as a support base for the established routes and deliver proof to them of the value of being part of the network. To monitor effectiveness of route forums and other criteria.

CHARTERThe Open Africa Charter sets out the value exchange commitment of individual route participants in return for what they get from Open Africa. Being part of the system carries certain obligations as described in the Charter, which includes Open Africa’s vision, mission and values, scope of operation and focus, fundamental principles, features, definition of community, challenges, and the sharing of best practice methods of utilizing Africa’s nature and cultural resources as wealth creators in a responsible and sustainable way. All Open Africa route participants are expected to sign the Open Africa Charter during the route development process, by means of which they subscribe to the Charter and its values and standards. Signatories receive a certificate and membership number, corresponding with their number in the Open Africa database. This enables them to log onto the website for the purpose of personally updating their entries.

TEAM AFRICATeam Africa is an alliance of all those who subscribe to Open Africa’s vision, comprising a growing number of more than 4000 members in the following categories:

88

Supporters – individuals who keep in touch with Open Africa’s activities and offer support in any way they can. Partners – organizations involved in the tourism industry and in biodiversity conservation that participate in the Open Africa network, including governmental agencies. Corporate members – organizations that support Open Africa with a substantial annual donation. Strategic allies – institutions and non-commercial organizations with similar goals/aims to Open Africa. Professionals – experts such as conservationists, resource consultants, teachers, journalists, architects, engineers and other consultants who provide intellectual support for Open Africa.

SNAPSHOT OF OPEN AFRICA GOOD PRACTICES

1 / Open Africa generalIn its efforts to increase the coverage of the Open Africa network of routes in the media, Open Africa has formed a partnership with Country Life Magazine for the inclusion as of January 2007 of a monthly four-page editorial featuring individual Open Africa routes and their diverse participants.

A number of the Open Africa routes have been listed on the newly established website, www.autoetravel.co.za that includes flexible travel packages and whose development was driven by Hertz. Hertz also produce a Route Guide featuring Open Africa routes and that is given to visiting overseas renters on arrival.

2 / Route level

a Institutional (route forums & general funding)The Mothers of Creation Route registered as a Voluntary Association and developed its own constitution. The route is now a legal entity, an often necessary requirement when dealing with local government and business corporations with regard to accessing funds. The route has also been successful in raising R300 000 in funding from the National Lottery.

The Maloti Route has developed a constitution for the Route Forum, as also Cape Care, and now this practice is being disseminated as one for other routes to follow.

b MarketingThe Cape Care Route has developed its own marketing strategy and business plan and had a vibrant stand at the 2006 Cape Tourism Showcase held in Cape Town International Convention Centre in September.

Twenty five Participants from the Inyathi Buffalo Route showcased their products during the BEE Expo held in East London in July 2006. The route shared six exhibition stands under several categories including accommodation, arts and crafts and tours.

The Rixile Route has received vast media exposure since the route development began – their route launch was featured on SABC’s Morning Live and various radio stations, they have produced their own brochure, and Phalaborwa recently won the cleanest town in South Africa award.

The Horizon Route gained considerable print advertorial in the October 2006 Sawubona Magazine, the SAA in-flight magazine. The forum has also printed a leaflet showcasing the route and distributed it at various Engen filling stations in surrounding towns and had a six-page feature in the September issue of

89

http://www.autoetravel.co.za/

Country Life magazine. The filling station idea is what they attribute growth of more than 100% in visitor numbers to in 2005.

The Kamoka Route is developing a business plan for marketing the route, after a successful attendance of the Johannesburg Getaway Show in September 2006. The route secured a R30 000 subsidy from the Mpumalanga Economic Development department to print a 24-page brochure on condition that they raise a similar amount, which it did through selling advertising space on the brochure. Nine-thousand copies have been printed and tourism information offices right across Mpumalanga Province and the country have agreed to display and distribute the brochure. The local municipality has committed funding for further media exposure.

c Biodiversity The Blue Crane Routes in the Overberg have a Blue Crane Conservation Project that has been extremely active this year with its drive to increase the awareness of blue cranes. The group co -coordinator exhibited at the Whale Festival in Hermanus in September, attended the Blue Crane Rally held by Somerset West Motor Club and raised funds for the project there as well as at the Arabella Home Owners dinner. In order to reach out even further the co-coordinator teamed up with the SPCA and spent three days visiting various schools in the area to promote crane conservation. Ongoing communication and support for the farmers takes place in order to promote the conservation and correct treatment of the blue cranes.

d Tourism enhancementThe Amajuba Route has nearly completed the planning for installation of generic road signage in specific locations on the route.

In order to increase the knowledge of route participants enabling them to actively promote all participants on the route, the Baviaanskloof Route forum members arrange overnight visits every two months to the various sub-routes of the Baviaanskloof. The visits focus on showcasing each area, interacting, and getting to know each other better.

Ten route participants from Vuyani Kaya Route were granted funding by Engen to attend a Tourism Management course. Closer relations are being explored with other private sector companies to solicit funding for other route requirements e.g. office equipment and administration capacity building.

The Cape Care Route has secured fair trade in tourism training for all its participants through Fair Trade Tourism South Africa (FTTSA), with financial support from Cape Town Tourism. All the Cape Care participants have signed a commitment pledge, with a major focus on community and the environment. Cape Town Tourism has also funded the development of signage for the route.

90

ADDITIONAL ANNEX L: TOURISM SECTOR CONTEXT

The Open Africa network and the hereby proposed Open Africa North South Tourism Corridor Project aims to support local communities to gain benefits from biodiversity-based tourism markets in two Southern African countries (Zambia, Namibia). The project’s approach builds on highly encouraging implementation experiences and results of an innovative and demand-driven model linking a range of private and public stakeholders, existing and potential tourism products – all based on a given resource base - with the overall tourism market and poverty reduction goals (pro-poor tourism84).

Tourism sector perspective and trends

Tourism is a highly varied economic sector that includes on the supply side a range of products such as tour operator services, accommodation, transportation facilities, catering, leisure activities and entertainment. Following the latest figures from the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), travel and tourism in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2006 is expected to generate USD75.3 billion of economic activity (total demand). The Sub-Saharan Africa travel and tourism economy (direct and indirect impact) in 2006 is expected to account for 2.8% of total GDP and for 10,586,000 jobs (6.6% of total employment). And the sector is expected to grow further by about 6.9 % in 2006 and by 4.7 % per annum, in real terms, between 2007 and 2016.

It is evident that tourism has become an economic driving force for these countries. However, tourism satellite accounts and other related data do not yet account for environmental aspects such as provision of ecosystem services to the sector or any environmental degradation as one of the sector’s potential negative impacts.

ZambiaZambia's travel and tourism expected to generate ZMK 3,650.3 billion (US$ 765.4 million) of economic activity (Total Demand) in 2006, growing (nominal terms) to ZMK 9,717.4 billion (US$ 1,408.6 million) by 2016. Total Demand is expected to grow by 3.2% in 2006 and by 3.9% per annum, in real terms, between 2007 and 2016. Zambia's travel and tourism industry is expected to contribute 1.3% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2006 (ZMK 492.5 billion or US$103.3 million), rising in nominal terms to ZMK 1,075.9 billion or US$ 156.0 million (1.1% of total) by 2016. Employment is estimated at 51,000 jobs in 2006, 3.4% of total employment, or one in every 29.2 jobs. By 2016, this should total 56,000 jobs, 3.1% of total employment or one in every 32.0 jobs. The 16,000 industry jobs account for 1.1% of total employment in 2006 and are forecast to total 17,000 jobs or 0.9% of the total by 2016.

NamibiaIn 2006, Namibia's travel and tourism is expected to generate N$ 9,118.9 million (US$ 1,477.5 million) of economic activity (Total Demand). The industry's direct impact includes: a) 18,840 jobs representing 4.7% of total employment; andb) N$1584.2 million (US$256.7 million) of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) equivalent to 3.7% of the countries total GDP.

In 2006 travel and tourism in Namibia forecasted to see real growth of 8.2% in total demand to N$9,118.9 million (US$1,477.5 million) and 10.4% in travel and tourism industry GDP as well as 2.7% in industry employment to 18,840 jobs, and 1.9% to 71,777 jobs in the travel & tourism economy overall (direct and indirect). Over the next ten years, Namibia's travel and tourism is expected to achieve annualized real 84 Pro-Poor tourism is about increasing the positive impacts of tourism on poor people. PPT is an approach that seeks to increase participation of poor people at many points in the sector, and that aims to increase their economic and social benefits from tourism while reducing the negative impacts on the poor (see ‘www.propoortourism.org.uk’).

91

growth of 6.9% in total travel and tourism demand and 8.6% in travel and tourism GDP, and 4.4% in travel and tourism employment.

Local barriers to sustainable ecologically sound tourismCommon local issues identified during stakeholder meetings as part of the project preparation in both countries related to tourism or biodiversity conservation include:

(i) Lack of knowledge and awareness of stakeholders in the tourism industry regarding the value of biodiversity resources within their area. There is also a lack of awareness amongst tourists regarding biodiversity conservation and their own impact on the environment while traveling. In addition, there is a lack of basic knowledge in entrepreneurial skills. Many small entrepreneurs need training in general and specific business management skills such as how to do a business plan, how to manage pricing, how to keep records and get feed-back from tourists and how to include biodiversity aspects in their entrepreneurial activities.(ii) Lack of collaboration and coordination amongst different tourism products and product owners (e.g. tour operators and SMMEs), which could help to solve common problems (e.g. marketing) or advocate common interests.(iii) Insufficient or non-existent skills and access to tailored marketing , and especially for community-based and local products, as they often do not have the means to market themselves. There is a low understanding of tourism and its requirements.(iv) Lack of data to demonstrate product value, impact and areas of improvement mainly due to insufficient or nonexistent monitoring and evaluation at local and national level (economic, social and environmental aspects of tourism). There is a need to bring (and track) tourism related benefits to communities.(v) Lack of land-use planning tools amongst local communities, especially regarding aspects such as sustainable use of resources (e.g. harvesting of craft resources).(vi) Lack of access to communication by communities and the resulting difficulty for tourists in contacting these products for more information or about bookings.

The project design supports the process of reducing and removing these constraints to the extent possible within given resources and the time-frame.

92

ADDITIONAL ANNEX M: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

AfrikatourismA brand of tourism based on the attractions, strengths and experiences that are unique to Africa , understanding that tourism in Africa is inherently related to environmental and cultural contexts.

Biodiversity MentorA member of the local community elected by the Route Forum who has resource-based experience, interest and knowledge to offer advice to the Biodiversity Monitors, Route Forum participants and other stakeholders on biodiversity related issues, and is also responsible for verifying flagship species/biodiversity indicators.

Biodiversity MonitorA member of the local community elected by the Route Forum to organize the collection and collation of monitoring data, with the assistance of the OA Biodiversity Networker and the Biodiversity Mentor.

Bio-indicator(s)A biological indicator of the well-being or abundance of an organism (the flagship species in this project), which is then used to describe the quality of the habitat and ecosystem.

Community-based tourismCBT refers to a particular type of small tourism enterprise. Its particular characteristics are that (i) it is owned and often run collectively by a group of residents and (ii) it aims to make a profit but also has explicit social development objectives.

Event Book systemA community-based natural resource management and monitoring and evaluation methodology developed in Namibia as part of its national Community Based Natural Resource Management Programme.

Flagship species A charismatic species of (sometimes global) conservation significance that has a high profile and attracts people to become involved in its conservation. By focusing on, and achieving conservation of that species, the status of many other species that share its habitat – or are vulnerable to the same threats - may also be improved.

Mainstreaming biodiversityBiodiversity is mainstreamed into the tourism sector via the Open Africa tourism routes, where communities extract the benefits of sustainably utilising biodiversity resource bases. This focuses attention on its value and provides reasons at grass-roots level to conserve it and to link it to direct and indirect economic benefits.

Open Africa CharterThe Open Africa Charter, introduced in November 2006, sets out the value exchange commitment of individual route participants in return for what they get from Open Africa. All Open Africa route participants are expected to sign the Open Africa Charter; it is the basis upon which participants in the Open Africa network individually commit to a partnership with Open Africa in utilising Africa’s nature and cultural resources as wealth creators in a responsible and sustainable way.

93

Pro-Poor TourismPro-Poor tourism is about increasing the positive impacts of tourism on poor people. PPT is an approach that seeks to increase participation of poor people at many points in the sector, and that aims to increase their economic and social benefits from tourism while reducing the negative impacts on the poor.

RouteA route is a destination-level partnership clustering tourism attractions (accommodation suppliers, international and domestic tour operators, transport operators, local artisans, guides, food suppliers, other tourism entrepreneurs and local government). It provides a platform from which all levels of the community can work together to promote tourism to their area. A route can be any length, covering varied attractions and can be traversed by any means. A route serves as a branding for the tourist products of an area, the benefit of which is crucial to competitive marketing.

Route CommunityThe Route Community consists of both established and emerging local business operators (the route participants), local government/authorities, NGOs and other local community representatives; all stakeholders who are committed to tourism and the upliftment of the local community as a whole.

Route ForumIs a committee elected by the route participants to represent them and to drive the development and promotion of the route. The forums comprise the doers and shakers in the community, including tourism authorities, small emerging and larger tourism enterprises and other stakeholders with interests in the area.

Route ParticipantsThe Route participants consist of both established and emerging local business operators; the stakeholders who are both the members and the drivers of the route. Route participants differ from the route community in that they are the actual operators of tourism attractions on the route, whereas the route community is made up of all stakeholders interested in promoting tourism.

Team Africa Team Africa is a loose and voluntary alliance of all those who subscribe to the Open Africa vision. The Team encompasses a pan-continental alliance of governments, corporations, institutions, professionals, and individuals; it embraces the twin objectives of making the project sustainable whilst drawing the strengths of the continent together.

wb19849/tt/file_convert/5aec67817f8b9ac361906bf3/document.doc

94