sustainable financing of the protected area system in ... sustainable... · and southwest by south...

UNDP Project Document

Government of Mozambique

Implementing Agency: Ministry of Tourism

United Nations Development Programme

UNDP GEF PIMS 3938 UNDP Atlas 57986

GEF Project ID 3753

Sustainable Financing of the Protected Area System in Mozambique Brief description

The national system of protected areas of Mozambique covers a total area of some 13,941,800 ha (>17% of the national territory), of which 360,900 ha are marine and 13,580,900 ha terrestrial. Currently the funding baselines for protected areas, and the capacities to administer and improve protected area revenue streams, are well below the levels required to ensure that the protected area system properly serves its function as an important tool to protect biodiversity. The project will thus seek to achieve a catalytic investment in securing the long-term financial sustainability of Mozambique’s protected areas.

The project will support the Government of Mozambique in developing a financial plan to direct the long-term sustainable financing of the protected area system. It will then strengthen the institutional and individual capacities of the protected area institution/s to implement this financial plan by: (i) supporting the strategic and business planning processes in protected area institutions; and (ii) improving the financial management processes and systems in PA institutions. The project will then support the integration of the national and institutional financial sustainability plans into the business and management planning of individual protected areas. While the project will only support the development of business plans in two to three protected areas, it is envisaged that the development of a generic business plan template and preparation guidelines will enable the future replication of the business planning approach across the entire system of protected areas.

The project will then test and develop mechanisms for increasing income from conventional financial sources for protected areas (trust fund, user fees) and developing innovative alternatives means of revenue generation (carbon payments and biodiversity offsets). The lessons learnt from the implementation of pilot carbon and biodiversity offset initiatives will guide the future adoption and operationalisation of these revenue-generating mechanisms across the national system of protected areas.

Finally the project will identify opportunities for potential cost savings in protected area management by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different types of community-based partnership approaches in and around Gorongosa Mountain in the Gorongosa National Park. It is envisaged that the knowledge developed from the implementation of different community-based partnerships in this project will contribute to the global, regional and national evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of different types of community-based partnerships.

Sustainable financing of the protected area system of Mozambique

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 6 1.1. Context and global significance: environmental, policy and institutional .................................... 6

Environmental context ............................................................................................................................................6 Protected area system ..............................................................................................................................................9 Socio-economic context: ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Institutional context ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Policy and legal context ........................................................................................................................................ 14

1.2 Threats and root-causes .................................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Long-term vision and barriers to achieving it............................................................................... 19 1.4 Stakeholder analysis ........................................................................................................................ 23 1.5 Baseline analysis .............................................................................................................................. 24

PART II: STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................... 32 2.1 Project Rationale and Conformity to GEF Policies and Strategic Objectives ........................... 32 2.2 Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness ............................................ 33 2.3 Design principles and strategic considerations ............................................................................. 33 2.4 Project Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities ................................................................... 35 2.5 Financial modality ........................................................................................................................... 53 2.6 Indicators, Risks and Assumptions ................................................................................................ 53 2.7 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 54 2.8 Sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 56 2.9 Replicability ..................................................................................................................................... 57

PART III: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 59 PART IV: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ...................................................................................... 66 PART V: MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION ............................................................ 68 PART VI: LEGAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 72 PART VII: ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 73

Annex I: Risk Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 73 Annex II: Terms of Reference for Key Project Positions ......................................................................... 75

1. PROJECT MANAGER .................................................................................................................. 75 2. PROJECT ASSISTANT ................................................................................................................. 76 3. PROJECT TECHNICAL OFFICER ............................................................................................ 78 4. CHIEF TECHNICAL ADVISER .................................................................................................. 79

Annex III: Stakeholder Involvement Plan ................................................................................................ 82 Annex IV: NGO / CSO Capacity Assessments .......................................................................................... 86

Carr Foundation / Gorongosa Restoration Project .................................................................................... 86 WWF Mozambique ................................................................................................................................... 90

Annex V: METT, Capacity Development and Financial Scorecards ..................................................... 92 PA Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool – “METT” ....................................................................... 92

METT Section One: Project General Information ................................................................................................. 92 METT Section Two: PA data and Assessment ..................................................................................................... 95

UNDP Capacity Development Scorecard for PA Management .............................................................. 112 UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard – Part I - Overall Financial Status of the PA System ........... 117 UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard – Part II - Assessing Elements of the PA Financing System 122

Annex VI: Project Maps ........................................................................................................................... 136 Annex VII: Budgets of, and TORs of key project positions for, implementing partners ................... 140

For Carr Foundation / Gorongosa Restoration Project’s agreement with MITUR ................................. 140 For WWF’s and BIOFUND’s agreement with MITUR .......................................................................... 142

Annex VIII: Letters of Co-financing ........................................................................................................ 145

ACRONYMS AFD French Development Agency/Agence Française de Développement ABP Annual Budget Plan ANAC National Administration of Conservation Areas/ Agencia Nacional de Áreas de

Conservação APR Annual Project Report ARA Regional Water Administration/Adminstração Regional de Águas AWP Annual Work Plan BBOP Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme BIOFUND Foundation for the Conservation of Biodiversity/ Fundação para a Conservação da

Biodiversidade BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany)/

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit C2D Debt and Development Contract/ Contrat Désendettement et Développement CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management CCA Common Country Assessment CCB Climate, Community and Biodiversity standard CCF Country Cooperation Framework (UNDP) CDM Clean Development Mechanism CGAC Conservation Area Management Committee CI Conservation International CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CO Country Office CONDES National Council for Sustainable Development CPAP Country Programme Action Plan CPI Centre for Investment Promotion/ Consumer Price Index CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DNA National Directorate for Water/ Direcção Nacional de Águas DNAC National Directorate of Conservation Areas/ Direcção Nacional das Areas de Conservação DNGA National Directorate of Environmental Management DNTF National Directorate of Land and Forests/ Direcção Nacional de Terras e Florestas DUAT Land Use Title/ Direito de Aproveitamento e Uso de Terra EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FDI Foreign Direct Investment FFEM French Global Environment Fund FFP Fisheries Development Fund/ Fundo de Fomento Pesqueiro FP Financial Plan FUNAB Environment Fund/ Fundo do Ambiente GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GGE Great Gorongosa Ecosystem GISP Global Invasive Species Programme


GNP Gorongosa National Park GRP Gorongosa Restoration Project (Carr Foundation) GS Provincial Government of Sofala HIPC Heavily Indebted Poor Country IFC International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group) IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IMF International Monetary Fund INATUR National Tourism Institute/ Instituto Nacional do Turismo INP National Petroleum Institute/ Instituto Nacional de Petróleo IUCN The World Conservation Union JV Joint Venture KfW German Development Bank/ Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau LTA Long Term Agreement M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCE Maputaland Centre of Endemism MDN Ministry of National Defense/ Ministério da Defensa Nacional METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MICOA Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs/ Ministério para Coordenação da

Accão Ambiental MINAG Ministry of Agriculture/ Ministério da Agricultura MIREM Ministry of Mineral Resources/ Ministério dos Recursos Minerais MITUR Ministry of Tourism/ Ministério do Turismo MF Ministry of Finance MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPA Marine Protected Area MPD Ministry of Planning and Development MPescas Ministry of Fisheries MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework MTn Meticais NDLF National Directorate of Lands and Forests, MINAG NEMP National Environmental Management Plan NEX Nationally Executed (project) NFI National Fisheries Institute NGO Non-Governmental organization NP National Park NR National Reserve ODA Overseas Development Assistance PARPA II Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty II/ Plano de Acção para a Redução da

Pobreza Absoluta II PB Project Board PCU Project Coordinating Unit PDD Project Design Document PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PIN Project Idea Note PIR Project Implementation Report PM Project Manager


PoWPA CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas PPF Peace Parks Foundation PPG GEF Project Preparation Grant PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PTO Project Technical Officer PWS Payment for Watershed Services RCU (UNDP) Regional Coordination Unit REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RedLAC Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds R-PIN Readiness Preparation Idea Note (FCPF) R-PP Readiness Preparation Proposal (FCPF) RTA Regional Technical Advisor SADC Southern Africa Development Community SAVE Scientific, Academic, Volunteer, Educational Travel Alliance SBAA Standard Basic Assistance Agreement SDAE District Economic Activity Service SGDRN Society for the Management of Niassa Reserve/ Sociedade para Gestão e Desenvolvimento

da Reserva do Niassa SISTAFE Financial Administration System for the State/ Sistema de Administracao Financeira do

Estado SO Strategic Objective SP Strategic Programme TNC The Nature Conservancy TFCA Trans-Frontier Conservation Areas/ Áreas de Conservação Transfronteira TFCATDP Trans-frontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project TPR Tripartite Review (UNDP) UEM Eduardo Mondlane University UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard WB World Bank WTP Willingness To Pay WWF World Wide Fund for Nature


PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS 1.1. Context and global significance: environmental, policy and institutional Environmental context 1. Covering an area of about 784,000 km2, Mozambique is located on the southeastern coast of Africa. It is bounded by Tanzania to the north; by the Mozambique Channel (Indian Ocean) in the east; on the south and southwest by South Africa and Swaziland; and on the west by Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi (Figure 1). The country is generally low-lying, with only 13 percent of the country above 1,000 m. The land ascends in a westward direction from the coast through a coastal lowland that is narrow in the north but broad in the south (~44% of the total land area), through a sub-plateau zone to an extensive low-lying plateau of moderate height, and finally up to a narrow higher-lying area on the western border. The climate ranges from subtropical in the south to tropical in the center and north. Most of the country receives above 400 mm of rainfall per annum, with the rainy season extending from October to April. The coastal zone receives up to 900 mm of rain per year. The north region is more humid than the south, except in the Upper Zambezi region in Tete, where it is dry and hot. Figure 1: Map of Mozambique and surrounding countries

2. Thirty-nine major rivers drain into the Indian Ocean along Mozambiques 2,700 km coastline. In the north, the Rovuma River forms the border with Tanzania. It is the third largest river in Mozambique. Six other seasonal rivers discharge along the northern coast in Cabo Delgado and Nampula Provinces. These rivers have low sediment loads and consequently marine turbidity is low and extensive coral formations occur in the coastal waters. Most of Mozambique’s rivers have a torrential regime, with high flows during the rainy season and low flows the rest of the year. Of the 11 major river basins, seven are shared with other countries. The Zambezi River, the most important in the country, feeds into Cahora Bassa dam. The Zambezi Delta covers about 18,000 km2. The Pungue River rises in Zimbabwe and discharges into the Indian Ocean south of Beira, collecting numerous tributaries en route, and constitutes an important river system for conservation purposes of which the Urema River, which flows south through the Gorongosa National Park, services important freshwater ecosystems, birds, and large and small mammals. The Pungue River forms the southern boundary of Gorongosa Park, creating a natural barrier. The Limpopo River, in southern


Mozambique, is the country's second-largest river. Flows in the Limpopo River are variable and it is often dry in long sections during the winter. An important tributary is the Olifants River, which, together with Limpopo, constitutes an important contributor for the conservation of Kruger National Park in South Africa and the Limpopo National Park in Mozambique. 3. The main vegetation type in Mozambique is savanna woodland. It covers 70 percent of Mozambique’s land area and can broadly be divided into two types: miombo and mopane woodlands. Miombo is the most extensive and covers much of Niassa, Cabo Delgado, Nampula, Zambezia, Sofala, Manica, and Inhambane Provinces. Other important vegetation types include: Acacia woodland, found in the southern and central parts of the country); dune forest, which occurs on high dunes along the coast between the southern border and Bazaruto Island; a sub-littoral woodland, found inland from the dune forest in the sub-littoral zone between Ponto do Ouro and Macia; lowland palm savanna, in coastal areas in Nampula, Sofala, and Inhambane Province); vegetation on alluviums in the Zambezi Delta and the lower Limpopo and Inkomati Valleys; and mangroves, which are well-developed in the northern and central sectors of the coast and less so along the southern sector. More than 5500 species of plants (including 250 known endemic species and 46 threatened species), 222 mammal species (including several endemic sub-species), 740 species of birds (with many near endemic and restricted-range species); 167 species of reptiles1 (three of which are endemic and six of which are threatened); 79 reptile species (including 28 endemic species); and 3,074 species of insects (at least 1 of which is endemic) have been identified to date. The freshwater and marine wetlands of Mozambique are important sites for migratory and resident aquatic bird species. One of the most important wetland sites in Mozambique is the Zambezi delta, where more than 50 species of aquatic birds have been recorded. The delta supports numerous vulnerable and threatened bird species of global concern. Several large mammal species are thought to be extinct or on the verge of extinction in Mozambique. These include the black and white rhino, giraffe, roan antelope, tsessebe, the mountain reedbuck, and the African wild dog. Seven other species, including the African hunting dog, Selinda veld rat, woodland mouse, and chequered elephant shrew, are threatened. 4. The Mozanbican coast can be divided into three main natural regions: the coral coast ( the northernmost coast extending for 770 km); the swampy coast (about 978 km of length, between Angoche and Bazaruto Island; and the parabolic dune coast ( the southernmost coast, with 880 km of length between Bazaruto and Ponto do Ouro) - with one additional type of limited occurrence, namely the delta coast at mouth of the Save and Zambezi Rivers.The coastline is characterized by diverse habitats, including: estuarine systems; coastal wetlands; coastal dunes; sandy beaches; intertidal mud flats; mangrove forests2; seagrass beds; coral reefs and open water that are home to a rich and diverse assemblage of plant and animal species. This includes: 150 species of coral; more than 1734 fish species; at least 243 species of seaweed; 63 species of marine birds; the largest remaining populations of dugong in East Africa; and significant populations of marine turtles and other cetaceans. 5. Fourteen ecological regions are represented in Mozambique, of which seven are of global importance: Agulhas Current; East African Coast; Lakes of the Rift Valley; East African Mangroves; Forests of the South Rift Valley; East and Central Miombo; and Savannas of the Zambezi Floodplains. The country contains three areas designated by Conservation International as ‘Biodiversity Hotspots’ - Eastern Afromontane in various highland areas located in the centre and west of the country; Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa, stretching along the coastal belt; and the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot, located in the southern part of the country. Mozambique also possesses specific sites of high biodiversity importance, such as the Gorongosa Mountain, the Archipelago of Quirimbas, and the Chimanimani Massif. A number of terrestrial areas of outstanding ecosystem, biological and/or scenic value have been identified in Mozambique, and are considered to warrant special attention (Table 1).

1 Including five species of Sea Turtles 2 Mangroves cover about 400,000 ha, of which 215,000 ha are still relatively well preserved.


Table 1: Areas of outstanding ecosystem, biological and/or scenic value in Mozambique

AREA

BIODIVERSITY FEATURES

The Gorongosa Mountain - Rift Valley Complex

Once considered an important world spot with the largest concentration of biodiversity per unit area (Tinley, 1995). This area encompasses the isolated massif of Gorongosa Mountain and the southernmost section of the African Rift Valley. The mountain supports montane forests and heath grasslands on its summits. Several endemic and near-endemic plants and animals occur within the mountain's habitats. The Rift Valley in Mozambique is a floodplain ecosystem composed of variety of wetlands habitats. The diversity of habitats in the Rift Valley makes it one of the finest wildlife grazing ecosystems in Africa. The southern portion is protected within the Gorongosa National Park.

The Cheringoma Plateau

Comprises tropical forests containing a mixture of local endemics with equatorial and southern African flora. The forest on the plateau contains several commercially important hardwood species.

The Zambezi Delta Grasslands and Swamps

Covering an area of about 18,000 km2, the delta is of great socio-economic and cultural value. Marromeu Reserve is in the southern portion of the delta. The Zambezi Delta represents an important wetland for resident and migratory bird species. In 2004, the Marromeu Complex became the first Ramsar site in Mozambique. It includes more than 680,000 ha of dry forest and woodland savanna, floodplain grassland, deep-water swamp, coastal dunes, and mangrove forest. It supports a great diversity and abundance of wildlife, including Cape buffalo, waterbuck, sable antelope, Lichtenstein's hartebeest, Burchell's zebra, and African elephant.

The Great Inselberg Archipelago

This series of habitats occurs south of the Lurio River, occupying a rectangular area of 500 km by 160 km. This Inselberg Archipelago presents a remarkable landscape of tall granite core remnants in a savannah plain. Several of the montane areas have high biodiversity moist forests

The Chimanimani Massif

Although relatively small in area, is characterized by an exceptionally high diversity of habitats and species. The massif supports a rich endemic flora. Endemic fauna include two frogs and one reptile. Large mammals are well-represented in the area and include buffalo, eland, and sable. More than 160 bird species have been recorded in the Chimanimani Massif, some of which are endemic to the Afro-montane regions of eastern Africa. There are well preserved rock paintings throughout the area depicting all local and lowland big game of the region

The Maputaland Centre of Endemism (MCE)

The MCE (26,734 km2) is defined as that part of southern Mozambique and north-eastern Natal. It is bounded in the north by the Inkomati-Limpopo River, in the west by the western foothills of the Libombos, in the south by the St. Lucia estuary, and in the east by the Indian Ocean. It contains extensive wetland areas. The flora consists of 2,000-3,000 species, of which at least 168 species/infra-specific taxa are endemic/near-endemic. Of the more than 472 species of birds in the area, 47 subspecies are endemic/near-endemic.

Coastal Barrier Lakes

A characteristic feature of the Ponta do Ouro to Bazaruto coast is the extensive system of coastal lakes behind the dunes. The coastal lakes provide habitat for many bird species. Besides their importance biologically, these coastal systems have a high scenic value. A proposal has been developed to declare the Maputaland Wetlands (between Ponta do Ouro and Inhaca island) a Natural World Heritage Site.

Pebane Evergreen Coastal Forests

The Evergreen Coastal Forests in northern coastal Zambezia Province are of high biological importance. A new (and possibly endemic) tree species was discovered in these forests in 1998. A rich and diverse reptile fauna occurs in the coastal forests of Pebane. In 1998, two reptile species were discovered — a snake and a dwarf day gecko — both endemic to the area.

6. Along the Mozambican coastal area, nine biodiversity conservation priority areas covering 66,800 km² have been identified for their contribution to flora and fauna species diversity, as breeding grounds for migratory avifauna and several aquatic species, including humpback whales, dugongs, and sea turtles, and for their extensive coral reefs. These centers of biodiversity are the Mtwara-Quirimba, the Nacala-Mossiril, Ilhas Primeiras e Segundas, Zambezi River Delta System, Sofala Bay, Bazaruto Archipelago, Inhambane Bay, Inharrime Complex, and Maputo Bay-Machangulo Complex.


Protected area system 7. Mozambique has six categories of protected areas: National Parks; National Reserves; Biological Reserves; ‘Coutadas’; Forest Reserves and Zones of Cultural-Historical Value and Use.3 The present classification of the protected areas are primarily regulated by three legal instruments: the Land Law (19/1997) and Forests and Wildlife Law (10/1999) for terrestrial areas; and the General Regulation for Maritime Fishing for the marine areas (Decree 43/2003). The Forests and Wildlife Law defines the National Parks and National Reserves as being ‘total protection zones’, in line with the Land Law. National Parks offer total protection to all flora, fauna, landscapes, and geology within their boundaries. No hunting or livestock rearing, natural resource exploitation, land modification, or alien species are permitted in these areas. National Reserves and Biological Reserves provide total protection for specified plant and animal species and/or ecosystems, while other resources may be exploited within norms established by a management plan. The other categories of conservation areas (Coutadas, Forest Reserves and Community Reserves) offer varying levels of protection to fauna and flora within their boundaries, as prescribed by the Forestry and Wildlife Law. Multiple-use (or buffer) zones are typically established around protected areas. Resource use in these areas is permitted in accordance with an established management plan. 8. The current formal protected area (PA) estate includes (see also Table 2 below and Map 1 in Annexure VI): (i) six National Parks4, of which two are coastal/marine protected areas (MPAs) namely, Bazaruto National Park (1430km2 exclusively marine) and Quirimbas National Park (7500 km2, of which ~1500 km2 is marine) - and four of which are terrestrial national parks – Banhine (7000 km2), Gorongosa (10000 km2), Limpopo (10000 km2) and Zinave (3700 km2) (ii) six National Reserves – Gilé (2100 km2), Marromeu,(1500 km2) Niassa Game Reserve (42000 km2), Maputo Special Reserve (700 km2), Chimanimani National Reserve ( 7500 km2) and Pomene Game (200 km2); (iii) 1 marine Biological Reserve – Inhaca (100km2); (v) 13 Coutadas (42017 km2); (v) 1 partial Marine Reserve (67,800ha); and (vi) thirteen Forest Reserves (494,50km2).

9. Though not technically protected areas, there are also two Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) areas in the Tete (Tchuma Tchato) and Niassa (Chipange Chetu) provinces. The Tchuma Tchato CBNRM project encompasses, two districts (Magoe and Zumbo) six villages in the northwestern part of Tete province, and covers some 250,000 ha adjacent to the Zambezi river. The Chipange Chetu CBNRM project covers an area of 606,500 ha bound by the rivers Moola, Messing, Ruvuma and Lucheringo, Monte Sanga and the buffer zone of the Niassa National Reserve. It incorporates the villages of Maumbica, Lilumba, New Wood, II and Matchedje Congress.

10. The currently conservation estate covers 13,941,800 ha, of which 360,900 ha are marine and 13,580,900 ha are terrestrial (>17% of the national territory). Table 2: Summary of the distribution and extent of conservation areas in Mozambique

Designation Number Surface area (km2) Terrestrial Marine

National Parks4 6 33,755 2,930

National Reserves 6 47,900 0

3 The fisheries legislation also provides for Marine Reserves, Marine Parks, and Marine Protected Areas (MPA). The only MPA established under this legislation is the Ponto D’Ouro partial Marine Reserve. 4 The Reserva Marinha Parcial da Ponta do Ouro (67,800ha and 5km out to sea) was recently proclaimed (2009) as an MPA, bringing the total up to 7.


Designation Number Surface area (km2) Terrestrial Marine

Biological Reserves 1 0 1

(Coutadas) 12 40,644 0

Forest Reserves 13 4,945 0

Partial Marine Reserve 1 0 678

Community-based reserves 2 8,565 0

11. A number of Mozambique’s protected areas have been linked with protected and conservation areas in surrounding countries, as part of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Trans-frontier Conservation Area (TFCA) initiatives. The Great Limpopo TFCA, for example, brings together South Africa’s Kruger National Park; Zimbabwe’s Gonarezhou National Park, and Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park. The TFCA Treaty extends support to the Banhine and Zinave National Parks, and surrounding lands. The core area involved in the TFCA is 35,771 km2 with the broader matrix covering ~100,000 km2. The Lubombo TFCA - established in March 2000 by the governments of South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique - aims to consolidate the unique biodiversity of the Maputaland Centre of Endemism, and link the elephant populations of both countries. In support of this TFCA, Mozambique recently proclaimed a new Marine Protected Area - the Reserva Marinha Parcial da Ponta do Ouro (67,800ha and 5km out to sea)5 – as a link to South Africa's iSimangaliso Wetland Park6. Three more TFCAs are planned, or are under development, in Mozambique: the Niassa-Cabo Delgado TFCA (linking terrestrial and marine conservation areas with others in Tanzania and possibly Malawi); the Chimanimani TFCA (linking Chimanimani National Reserve with the adjacent Chimanimani National Park in Zimbabwe); and the ZIMOZA TFCA (linking a community natural resource management area in northwest Mozambique with similar areas in Zimbabwe and Zambia). 12. In 2004 the Marromeu Complex in the Zambezi River Delta, where the Marromeu Game Reserve and four hunting areas are located, was proclaimed a Ramsar Site under the Ramsar Convention (1971), and a Wetland of International Importance. Mozambique have also placed a number of protected areas (or sites within protected areas) – including Quirimbas Archipelago (mixed), Ponto do Ouro (natural) and Vumba (cultural) - on its tentative list as the first step toward formal application for listing as World Heritage Sites. A new Marine Reserve – the Lake Niassa Partial Marine Reserve – is likely to be proclaimed in 2010.

13. The new Conservation Policy and Implementation Strategy (Conservation Policy, 2009) recently approved by the Council of Ministers (Resolution 63/2009) proposes that protected areas are to be reclassified to better align with the IUCN classification scheme for PAs. The following 9 categories are proposed in the Conservation Policy: Total Reserve (IUCN I); National Park (IUCN II); Monument (IUCN III); Special Reserve (national or provincial) (IUCN IV); Protected Landscape (IUCN V); Biosphere and Transfrontier Conservation Area (IUCN VI); Private Reserve (IUCN II-V); Community Reserve (IUCN II-V); and Community Sanctuary (national, provincial or district). The Conservation Policy provides for the development of legislation and procedures to enable the iterative implementation of this classification revision process. Socio-economic context:

5 The MPA includes the Inhaca and Portugese islands, and the Maputo Special Reserve. 6 A larger area (~1,700,000 ha) has been proposed for future designation as the Primeiras e Segundas National Reserve, but has yet to be established


14. At the end of the armed conflict in 1992, Mozambique ranked among the poorest countries in the world. It still ranks among the least developed nations, with very low well-being indicators (Table 3). More than 70 percent of Mozambicans live in extreme poverty (<US$2/d). In 2007, 38 percent of the population was undernourished and only 42 percent had access to an improved water source. The country ranks 172 out of 177 in the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), the lowest in southern African. Table 3: Well-being indicators for Mozambique (2007/2008)

HDI rank (UNDP 2007/2008) of 177 countries 172 GINI Index 40 GNI per capita, PPP (US $) 739 Extreme Poverty (% of pop. living on <1.25 US% per day) 74 Poverty (% of pop. living on <2US$ per day) 90 Infant mortality rate (per 1000) 115 Adult illiteracy rate (% of population) 52.2 Employment to population ratio, 15+, total (%) 77 Life expectancy (years) 42.8 Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population) 38 Infant mortality (number of deaths/1000 live births) 100 Population without access to improved water source (%) 58

15. The population of ~21 million is growing at a rate of about 2.4 percent. Population density is low (~25/km2). The north-central provinces of Zambezia and Nampula are the most populous, with about 45% of the population. In the central zone, people are concentrated along the Beira Corridor, and in the south, around Maputo. More than 70 percent of the population live along the coastal area, and about 68 percent live in rural areas. Population dynamics and economic growth are both likely to be affected by HIV/AIDS, for which the adult prevalence rate is estimated at 12.2%. Catholics comprise 24 percent of the population, while Muslims comprise 18 percent. Mozambique's major ethnic groups encompass numerous sub-groups with diverse languages, dialects, cultures, and histories. Many are linked to similar ethnic groups living in neighboring countries. The estimated four million Makhuwa are the dominant group in the northern part of the country. The Sena and Ndau are prominent in the Zambezi valley, and the Tsonga and Shangaan dominate in southern Mozambique. 16. In 1987, the government embarked on a series of macro-economic reforms to stabilize the economy. These steps, combined with donor assistance and with political stability since multi-party elections in 1994, have led to improvements in the country's growth rate. Mozambique's once substantial foreign debt has been reduced through forgiveness and rescheduling under Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIDP) and Multilateral Debt Relief initiatives. As a result of the debt relief it has received, the Government of Mozambique’s outstanding debt stock has fallen from 25% of GDP in 2005 to under 12 % of GDP today, well below debt distress thresholds determined by the IMF. Fiscal reforms, including introduction of a value-added tax and reform of the Customs Service, have also improved the government's revenue collection abilities. In spite of these gains, Mozambique still remains dependent upon foreign assistance for much of its budget, and most of the population lives below the poverty line. Subsistence agriculture continues to employ the vast majority of the country's work force. 17. Mozambique’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was US$20.17 billion in 2009 (up from US$17.64 billion in 2008) and foreign direct investments (FDI) was US$1.8 billion. The 2010 forecast economic growth rate is estimated at 6.3%, some 2% higher than 2009. Agriculture accounted for 21% of the GDP in 2008. Agricultural exports included: cotton; cashew nuts; sugarcane; tea; cassava; corn; coconuts; sisal; citrus and tropical fruits; potatoes; sunflowers; beef and poultry. Domestically consumed food crops included corn; pigeon peas; cassava; rice; beef; pork; chicken; and goat. Although more than 80% of the


20,3 million people (2009 estimate) in Mozambique engages in small-scale agriculture, the sector still suffers from severely inadequate infrastructure, commercial networks, and investment7. Industry accounted for 31% of GDP in 2008, and included production of: food; beverages; chemicals (fertilizer, soap, paints); aluminum; petroleum products; textiles; cement; glass; asbestos; and tobacco. 2009 was a record year for industrial and agricultural development in Mozambique, with nearly US$6 billion approved across some 250 projects8. Services accounted for some 39.7% of GDP in 2008. Of these, tourism accounted for 5% of GDP. With little central planning, tourism income has grown to US$481m (~1.5 million visitors) in 2009, mainly through independent tourism initiatives. There are significant unexploited mineral resources in Mozambique, and prospecting is occurring for oil, gas, diamonds and uranium, with export revenue expected to reach US$500 million in 2010/11. 18. Land tenure and the control of natural resources has, throughout its history, been a complex issue in Mozambique (Clark & Vaz 2006). Before independence, small-scale farmers relied upon customary forms of land tenure. The practices and human densities were so low that the impacts were minimal. In contrast, commercial farmers (mostly Portuguese) had long leases that were almost equivalent to freehold ownership and significant transformation took place. After independence, all land became state-owned. Abandoned commercial farms were reorganized into large state farms, while small farmers were expected to join cooperatives or communal villages. During the civil war, many of the state farms reverted to subsistence level agriculture, and there was large-scale displacement of the population mainly to urban centers. After the end of the civil war, displaced families and others tried to return to their former lands which led to conflict with those who had taken over their land. In addition, local and expatriate investors were seeking to gain control over land that was claimed to be unoccupied or abandoned. Conflict escalated between subsistence farmers wishing to assert their traditional land use rights and those who had submitted legal claims or acquired leases over the same land. These conflicts were addressed through the introduction of land reforms in the 1997 Land Law (see below), followed by the secondary legislation passed in 2000. Under this law, land is still vested in the state, but it has become easier for private enterprises to obtain land rights for up to 50 years and which allows for sub-lease agreements as well (Eriksen & Silva 2009). While this system of land management has been successful in many respects (such as protecting traditional land use rights of subsistence farmers, because the tenure is relatively short) there is no long-term incentive for holders of land to protect or conserve the land. The result is that many problems are being experienced, including: land degradation; the pursuit of short-term profits over long-term investments; constraints on the expansion of commercial agriculture; land speculation (individuals acquire land not for the purpose of developing it but rather for profiting from the sale of the infrastructure on the land at a later stage); and opportunities for corrupt officials to enrich themselves through allocation of land. 19. The country’s economy will, in the medium- to long-term, continue to rely largely on its natural resource base. Even with rapid rates of urbanization, the subsistence and well-being of most Mozambicans depends largely on their access to land, water resources, forest products, fisheries, mines, and other natural resources. The government is trying to balance its immediate goal of reducing poverty through use of natural resources, with longer-term strategies requiring judicious management of these resources. Limited domestic funds are however leading to a heavy reliance on foreign capital to support these strategies 20. Mozambique’s agenda for further fiscal policy reform in the near future is ambitious. Included are steps to remove a number of obstacles to private-sector development, such as simplifying the complex regulations and procedures that increase the cost of doing business; relaxing the labor code that limits the formal sector’s competitiveness in export industries; modifying the regulatory environment to bring market forces into play in the allocation and trading of urban land and to allow land to be used as collateral; and improving the functioning and integrity of the judicial system The future expansion of the Mozambican

7 It is estimated that Mozambique has 36 million ha of cultivable land, but only one-tenth is suitable for crop production, of which only 12 percent is being used. 8 The bulk of these were accounted for by the agricultural and related industries.


economy will however still require continued economic reforms, major FDI, and the revitalization of the agriculture, transportation, and tourism sectors. Institutional context 21. The current institutional context is only briefly described here, as Mozambique is currently rationalising the institutional arrangements for its protected areas in line with the new Conservation Policy (2009). A key requirement of the Conservation Policy is the establishment of a new National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC) that will be responsible for the planning and management of the system of protected areas in Mozambique. This is described further in the baseline analysis. 22. The roles and responsibilities of the key institutions currently responsible for protected area planning and administration in Mozambique are briefly described below.

23. The Council of Ministers may establish, modify or deproclaim protected areas on the recommendation of the responsible Ministry, Provincial Governor and District Administrator in consultation with affected communities.

24. The National Council for Sustainable Development (CONDES) provides for the coordination of various sectoral interests relating to the conservation and use of natural resources.

25. The Conservation Working Group provides a mechanism for cooperation and collaboration between the different donor agencies in supporting the Government’s mandate for conservation and protected area management.

26. Although not directly in charge of protected areas, the national Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) has overall responsibilty for coordinating all environmentally related issues in Mozambique and reports on the national implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The National Directorate for Environmental Management (DNGA) within MICOA is responsible for coordinating the conservation planning, management and monitoring of biodiversity throughout the country. 27. The National Directorate for Conservation Areas (DNAC) in the Ministry of Tourism (MITUR) is directly responsible for the establishment and management of National Parks, National Reserves and Coutadas. The primary mandate of DNAC for these categories of protected areas is focused on conservation and nature-based tourism promotion and development, through involvement of private sector . DNAC is structured into three departments: Department of National Parks and Reserves; Wildlife Development and Community Participation; and the Department of Scientific Research and Law Enforcement with. It has a total staff complement of 878.

28. MITUR has entered into co-management agreements with a number of foundations and the private sector to take direct responsibility for the planning, development and/or operational management of a number of National Parks (e.g. Banhine and Zinave) and National Reserves (e.g. Maputo and Gilé). By example: (i) In 1998 the Sociedade para Gestão e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do Niassa (Society for the Management of Niassa reserve, SGDRN) was created and formally approved by the Council of Ministers, as a partnership between the State (with a 51% share) and Investimentos Niassa Ltd with (with a 49% share) with a mandate to manage the Niassa Reserve; (ii) In October 2004 a Management Agreement between African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and MITUR to restore and manage Banhine National Park was signed; (iii) In June, 2007 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MITUR and the Fondation IGF to


develop and administer Gilé National Reserve was signed9; (iv) In January 2008, a 20-year contract (Long-Term Agreement, LTA) between the Carr Foundation and MITUR to protect and restore the ecosystem of Gorongosa National Park and develop its eco-tourism industry was signed; and (v) MITUR entered into a Mangement Agreement with Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) to manage and develop Maputo National Reserve. 29. The Eduardo Mondlane University is the designated management authority for the Inhaca Biological Reserve. On behalf of MITUR it facilitates linkages with other international research and educational institutions that need to conduct scientific research activities in Conservation Areas.

30. Forest Reserves, Game Farms and the wildlife located outside conservation areas, are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG). While the National Directorate of Lands and Forests (NDLF) is responsible for their management, most forest reserves however have no management structures in place and are effectively ‘paper parks’10.While there are proposals to hand Forest Reserves over to community management, or transform them into tourist destinations, this has yet to be realised.

31. The Ministry of Fisheries (MPescas) is responsible for the management of fisheries resources and marine protection areas. The mandate of this ministry is primarily productive fisheries resource management, including both commercial and artisanal fishing. The MF may designate marine reserves under the General Regulation of Maritime Fishing (Decree 43/2003). The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) within the MPescas may undertake feasibility assessments to support the establishment of new marine protected areas and implement marine survey, research and monitoring activities. 32. The Coutadas are contractually leased (typically on a five to ten year basis, up to a maximum of 15 years), on a public tender basis (as defined in Article 29 of the the Regulation of Coutadas, 1965) to private hunting operators. These concessionaires are, in terms of the contractual agreement with MITUR (DNAC), also responsible for their conservation management and infrastructure development and maintenance (although this is not typically monitored or enforced)11. Policy and legal context 33. The legislative and regulatory framework for protected areas in Mozambique is relatively well developed. It adequately provides for inter alia: the total or partial protection of significant areas under some form of conservation land use; the institutional roles and responsibilities for different PA categories; the rights of communities living and around these conservation and protected areas; the development of a range of partnerships between the state and the private sector, communities, NGOs and other institutions; a range of different financing mechanisms for protected areas; and the distribution of financial benefits from the use of protected areas to affected local communities. 34. The Constitution of Mozambique (1990, amended 2004) entrenches the notion that the state is the owner of all natural resources occurring within its national territory. The Constitution requires that the state develop and determine the conditions under which citizens and others may access natural resources for their use and enjoyment. Rights of use may be granted to individuals and collective persons by the government - based on its purpose - with priority given to direct users and local producers. Land ownership, for example, is vested in the state and no land may be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered or alienated in Mozambique.

9 This MOU was recently renewed to cover the period 2009-2013 10 In some instances parts of Forest Reserves are being transformed into more productive land use (e.g. in Moribana Forest Reserve agricultural activities are being promoted with no regard to the boundaries of the forest reserve) 11 While Article 87 of the Regulation of the Law of Forestry and Wildlife provides for the drafting of internal regulations relating to the official Coutadas, these have never been prepared.


35. The Territorial Ordinance Law (19/2007) provides the legal framework for regional planning. It delegates specific competencies for regional planning to the State and municipalities. The Regulation of the Territorial Ordinance Law (Decree 23/2008) enacts the provisions of the law and establishes guidelines for the different categories of regional land uses. 36. The Law of the State Local Bodies (2003) sets out the functions, responsibilities and organization of government structure at different spheres of governance (provincial, district, administrative, and local). The law enables the involvement of all spheres of government in key decision-making (e.g. district administrators approve land use and territorial plans, and identify protected areas).

37. There is a wide range of environmental legislation in Mozambique including inter alia: Land Law; Environment Law; Fisheries Law; Forest and Wildlife Law; and the Tourism Law (and associated regulations such as the Regulation for Environmental Impact Assessments, Forestry and Wildlife Regulations and General Regulation of Maritime Fishing).

38. The Land Law (19/97) and the Land Law Regulation (68/98) affirms that land is the property of the State and can not be sold or otherwise alienated, mortgaged or encumbered. The Law establishes the terms under which the creation, exercise, modification, transfer and termination of the rights of land use and benefits operate. The right of land use and benefit for purposes of economic activities is subject to a maximum term of 50 years (which may be renewable for an equal period on application). In respect of ‘areas that are intended for nature conservation or ... protected areas’ (‘total or partial protection zones’) the Law states that these areas are part of the public domain and no rights of land use and benefit can be acquired, although licenses may be issued for specific activities. The law and its regulation lays the foundation for the definition of clear roles for local communities in the management of natural resources and co-management and development activities in the buffer zones of protected areas.

39. The Environmental Framework Law (20/97) defines the legal basis for the sustainable use and management of the environment. The law is applicable to all public and private activities which can have direct or indirect impacts on the environment. The environmental law requires that the Government prepare a National Environmental Management Program, and establishes a consultative National Council for Sustainable Development (CONDES). The law requires that in order to protect and preserve the natural environment and maintain/improve the ecosystems that have a recognized ecological and socio-economic value, the government shall establish environmental protection zones (‘total or partial protection zones’). It provides for the participation of local communities and other stakeholders in the development of policy and laws for the management, and the enforcement of regulations in, these protected areas. A number of provisions in the law reinforce the view that communities in protected areas retain their use rights, and can use them to negotiate returns on income generated from that land. The framework law provides for the adoption of a number of acts and regulations to enable its implementation, including acts and regulations on environmental impact assessment, environmental auditing, environmental quality standards and hazardous wastes.

40. The Forests and Wildlife Law (10/99) establishes the norms and standards for the protection, conservation and sustainable use of forestry and wildlife resources. Chapter II of the Law deals with the protection of forestry and wildlife resources, and provides for three categories of ‘protection zones’12: national parks, national reserves and areas of cultural or historical values protection zones. The law establishes the competencies of the bodies that regulate and manage these protection zones (i.e. the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Tourism and the Provincial Governor) and refers to the roles of local

12 ‘Protection zones’ are defined in the Forest and Wildlife Law as ‘territorial areas representing national natural heritage for conservation of biodiversity fragile ecosystems or animal/plant species’.


communities, the National Land Record Office and local Resources Management Councils. Article 33 of the Law enables the State to delegate powers to local communities, associations or to the private sector in the management of forest and fauna . It stipulates that 20% of any revenue collected from the use of forestry products and wildlife in protected areas must be distributed the local communities in the area where the resources were extracted. The Forestry and Wildlife Regulations (12/02) enact specific provisions of the law and regulates hunting fees (the fee schedule is updated in terms of Decree 96/2003). 41. The Fisheries Law (3/1990) defines the general administrative environment for management and regulation of fisheries in Mozambique. The fisheries sector (in relation to marine fisheries) is defined by subsistence, artisanal, semi-industrial, industrial, scientific research and recreational/sport fishing. The law also focuses on aquaculture, industrial processing, and public administration. It lacks however a recognition of community rights to fishing resources, or participation on management decisions regarding the resource. Various regulatory provisions enacting this legislation have been developed - thus far, these only deal with marine fisheries. The General Regulation of Maritime Fishing (Decree 43/2003) defines the competency of the Ministry of Fisheries to proclaim ‘preservation areas’, within the maritime limits, of National Parks and Reserves.

42. The Principles for the Administration of Protected Areas in Mozambique (Resolution of the Council of Ministers, 2006) details the options for the management and development of protected areas. It specifically provides for co-management partnerships between the state and the private sector, local communities, NGOs and other institutions.

43. Article 7 of the Tourism Law (4/2004) requires that development of tourism activities has to observe principles of sustainable use and development. Article 9 goes on to define the type of activities that may be undertaken in protected areas. It attempts to clarify the relationship between tourism and the conservation management of protected areas.

44. The fee structures for National Parks and Reserves are governed by Decree 27/2003. The decree provides for the following types of fees: entrance fees; adventure fees; spatial concessions; camping fees and other fees. Decree 27/2003 was recently complemented by Decree 15/2009 , which states that of the fees collected, 20% should go to the general state budget, 16% to the community fund, and 64% to the parks and Reserves. The accompanying Ministerial Diploma specifies that the entire 64% will be returned to the conservation area that generates the revenue.

45. The Law (09/2002) on Financial Administration System for the State (Sistema de Administracao Financeira do Estado, SISTAFE) establishes the rules and procedures for the programming, management, execution, control and assessment of public funds. It defines the accounting systems and procedures required to control, report on and audit the public budget and assets. The Regulation on the Contracting of Enterprises for Public Works, Supply of Goods and Provision of Services to the State (Decree 54/2005) prescribes the process for procuring works, services and goods by state agencies. 46. Since adopting the Constitution, the government has also produced and adopted a wide range of policy instruments that provide for the protection of natural resources. These are the: (i) Agrarian Policy that focuses on developing agrarian activities to achieve food security for the country, based on sustainable use of natural resources; (ii) Land Policy that seeks to entrench the rights of the population over the land and other natural resources, while promoting investment and sustainable and equitable use of these resources; and (iii) Environmental Policy that seeks to ensure that environment and natural resources maintain their functional and productive capacity for current and future generations.

47. The government has adopted, or is in the process of developing, a number of policies, strategies and plans to meet its biodiversity conservation obligations in terms of the CBD. The National Environmental


Management Programme (NEMP) is the master plan for environment management in Mozambique. It contains a national environment policy, environment umbrella legislation (see above), and an environmental strategy. The NEMP is also a program of sectoral plans, containing projections for the medium- and long-term aiming to lead the country to sustainable socio-economic development. Within the framework of the NEMP, a number of biodiversity conservation strategies and plans have also been prepared. These include inter alia: the National Biodiversity and Action Plan (2003) covering the period 2003-2010; the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Program; and the Human Wildlife Mitigation Strategy (2009). Of particular relevance for protected areas is the new Conservation Policy and Implementation Strategy (2009) covering the period 2009-2019. The Conservation Policy aims to: (i) harmonize laws and sectoral policies among the ministries (MITUR, MINAG, MICOA, and the Ministry of Public Works and Housing); and (ii) establish systems for inter-institutional coordination, mechanisms for the involvement of civil society, strategies for management of parks and reserves, and criteria for new areas of conservation and reclassification of areas of conservation. It also makes recommendations for decentralizing management of conservation areas, and identifies mechanisms for the integration of communities as beneficiaries of conservation areas. In addition, it makes recommendations for clarification of areas of responsibility and coordination between MITUR and the Ministry of Fisheries in marine conservation areas. 1.2 Threats and root-causes 48. The key threats to biodiversity in Mozambique include: (i) habitat fragmentation and removal of natural vegetation; (ii) food insecurity and subsistence agricultural practices; (iv) soil depletion and erosion; (v) mining and industrial development; and (vi) overexploitation of coastal and marine resources. 49. Habitat Fragmentation and Removal of Natural Vegetation - Habitat fragmentation and removal of natural vegetation are resulting from: conversion of native habitats to cropland; over-exploitation of forests; illegal wood procurement for export; slash-and-burn practices; water pollution and sedimentation; uncontrolled removal of vegetation; use of firewood as a source of energy; charcoal production; and uncontrolled bush fires. It is estimated that Mozambique has an annual deforestation rate of 0.58% and loses some 219,000 ha of forest per annum as a result of conversion to mostly subsistence agriculture13. The rate of deforestation varies among the provinces, but Nampula Province in the northern region has the highest rate of loss per year.

50. Food Insecurity and Subsistence Agricultural Practices - High levels of food insecurity are prevalent in certain parts of the country. Food insecurity is leading people to hunt illegally and use unsustainable agricultural practices, which in turn contribute to the decline of many species and their habitats. In spite of an abundance of arable land in Mozambique (the FAO estimates 36 million ha) only 4.9 million is cultivated, 75 percent of which is estimated to be used for unsustainable ‘slash-and-burn’ subsistence agriculture. These production systems are highly consumptive, soil depleting, and contribute to increased erosion. While extensive livestock grazing is also common among subsistence farmers, it is also considered relatively unproductive. 51. Soil Depletion and Erosion - Considerable erosion is occuring due to extreme weather events like droughts or heavy rains on severely degraded soils. Poor land-use practices - which include deforestation of coastal and inland areas - are the main contributors to sedimentation of the coastal and marine environments of Mozambique. As a downstream riparian country with a significant number of major rivers with high variability of water flows and limited infrastructure for water management, Mozambique is vulnerable to events outside its control. This is well illustrated by the floods in 2000, because in most international rivers,

13 Not enough information currently exists on deforestation rates, but according to the little information that exists these rates are accelerating.


flows are generated outside the national territory. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the difficulty of building water infrastructure, and the low efficiency and poor state of maintenance of existing infrastructure.

52. Mining and industrial development - The Law on Mining (14/2002) currently states that mining operations shall have priority over other land uses (including ‘protected zones’) when economic and social benefits related to these operations are higher. Prospecting for uranium, oil, diamonds and gas is beginning to occur in prime tourist areas and areas of high conservation value (e.g. Quirimbas Archipelago, Pemba) in Mozambique. Extensive erosion and silting of rivers by small-scale mining in a number of conservation-worthy areas is already occuring (e.g. gold panning in the Chimanimani TFCA). Along the Mozambican coastline, industrial activities are mainly concentrated in the Maputo/Matola and Beira areas. Few industries are currently treating their effluents, which are discharged directly into canals, rivers, and coastal waters. Many of these contain toxic chemical and heavy metals. Analysis of water quality samples from rivers entering Maputo Bay have tested positive for heavy metals - particularly lead - in a number of localities. These include the Port of Maputo, the mouths of Matola and Maputo Rivers, and Nacala Bay.

53. Over-exploitation of Coastal and Marine Resources - The principal threats to the future sustainability of fisheries in Mozambique are reported to include: unlicensed fishing, in particular by foreign tuna and shark and high sea vessels; encroachment on fishing grounds/zones reserved for semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries by industrial fishing vessels; encroachment into shallow water shrimp fishing grounds/zones by unlicensed or unauthorized vessels; deficiencies in recording and reporting of catches in the official logbooks; difficulties in controlling artisanal fisheries distributed along the entire coastal line and in fresh water lakes and rivers; unsustainable exploitation of mangrove forests for charcoal and firewood; and difficulties in controlling recreational and sport fisheries and protecting endangered species, like shark and dugong. Other major threats to coastal ecosystems include; expansion of aquaculture infra-structure in mangrove forests and mud flats; oil, gas, and mineral prospecting; damming of major water courses; pollution from agriculture practices upstream; and poorly planned coastal tourism facilities. 54. The estimated costs of environmental degradation, amounting to nearly US$370 million in 2009 (MICOA, 2009), represents more than 6% of Mozambican GDP (see figure 2) and 20% of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). Of this, some US$50m per annum comprises depletion of the natural resource base (figure 3). Figure 2: Costs (US$) of environmental degradation in Mozambique (2009)


1.3 Long-term vision and barriers to achieving it 55. The establishment and management of a representative system of protected areas is an integral part of the country’s overall strategy to address the threats and root causes of biodiversity loss. The long-term solution sought by the Government of Mozambique is the establishment of a sustainably funded representative system of protected areas, under an effective and adaptive management regime (Conservation Policy, 2009). This solution however requires that the responsible protected area agencies have adequate capacities to identify and resource cost-effective management efforts across the protected area system. Under this ideal scenario, protected area institutions will need to have the ability to: (i) secure sufficient, stable and long-term financial resources for protected areas; (ii) allocate these resources in a timely manner and appropriate form to cover the full costs of protected areas; and (iii) ensure that the protected areas are managed effectively and efficiently with respect to conservation and other complementary objectives. To enhance this ability, protected area agencies will also need to: (a) seek closer alignment of their protected area management objectives with local, regional and national poverty reduction strategies; and (ii) improve co-operation and collaboration with local communities and partner institutions to address the increasingly complex conservation and developmental challenges facing protected areas such as human-wildlife conflicts. A number of initiatives are currently underway, including a diverse suite of complementary donor-funded projects, that will contribute towards achieving this long term solution. These include programs to: reform the institutional framework for protected areas; improve income streams to protected areas from tourism and hunting; develop and implement public-private-community-NGO partnerships in the management of, and commercial enterprises in and around, protected areas; upgrade the infrastructure in select protected areas; improve PA staff skills and capacities; restock key protected areas with large game; address human-wildlife conflicts in communities surrounding protected areas; and support community development initiatives in PA’s and their buffer areas. 56. Currently the funding baselines for the PA system, and the capacities to administer and improve PA revenue streams, are however well below the levels required (see baseline analysis below) to ensure that the protected area system properly serves its function as an important tool to protect biodiversity. 57. There are three barriers to improving the financial sustainability of protected areas in Mozambique: Barrier 1: Weak business planning skills and financial management capacities in PA institutions 58. At the level of the protected area system, Mozambique does not have a financial plan for its system of protected areas, or a business plan for each of the institutions responsible for the administration of protected areas. There is currently no standardized approach to facilitate system-level reporting of financial performance, or to compare income and expenditure across the different categories of protected areas. The determination of annual appropriations from the state treasury for the PA system is currently not based on any objective criteria, and there are no mechanisms to enable cross-subsidization across different categories of protected areas. There is no business case to motivate an increase in government funding of the protected area estate, notably through investments in infrastructure and facilities that could contribute to improving the long-term financial sustainability of the PA system. Information about the value of the goods and services provided by protected areas is still weak and government grant allocations are not premised on a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of the governments investment in the PA estate.While there is a system of collection and channelling of revenue between the protected areas and funds managed by the National Tourism Institute (INATUR) and the provincial and national state budget, the auditing and distribution of this revenue is not always transparent.


59. At the level of the protected area institutions there is a very limited use of strategic planning and business-oriented financial planning tools and approaches to ensure optimal use of available financial resources, and to source additional funds to fill financing gaps. Most protected area institutions have little or no direct control over their budgeting and financial management, with the administration of budgets and funding typically implemented at the level of the parent Ministry and provincial government. The financial management systems of the parent Ministry and provincial governments often tends towards compliance and adherence to procedure rather than cost and implementation efficiency, and rarely cultivates the requisite business management skills within the implementing PA Departments. The financial planning capacities/ skills and financial systems and technologies are largely absent from PA institutions as this capacity is tied up in the finance department of the respective parent Ministry and/or provincial governments. While the development of a harmonized and unified format for financial planning and reporting by protected area institutions has been suggested, this has not occurred. PA institutions still do not fully or accurately report revenues and expenditures to stakeholders. Even within institutions, the flow of reliable and up-to-date financial information is very weak. 60. Although the government has a standardized cost accounting system (in terms of the legal requirements of SISTAFE), its usage is not consistently applied at the individual protected areas level. In some cases, protected areas with access to external funds outside of state accounts (i.e. those whose implementing agencies are not state bodies such as Quirimbas, Niassa, and Gorongosa) have not even used the state financial reporting framework to account for these external funds. Most of Mozambique’s protected areas do not have up to date business plans. Protected areas typically plan to an available allocated budget, a significant portion of which is linked to donor funding support that is planned on different time horizons to annual budgets. While financial planning (or business planning) has been done in a number of protected areas, this has typically been a donor requirement for financing and is not integrated with the day-today operational management planning of the protected area. The purposes of financial planning in protected areas have also been varied, with some protected areas using them solely as fund-raising instruments (i.e. downplaying the costs of management and providing highly exaggerated revenue figures that convey financial sustainability within an overly optimistic timeframe). The links between management plans and budget allocations also remains somewhat tenuous, with the suite of activities undertaken in each protected area largely determined by the allocation constraints and not by any strategic prioritization process. Many protected areas are run by Administrators who have limited or no training in budgeting, strategic planning, financial management systems or cost-effective approaches to PA operations. Barrier 2: Limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness of community-based partnership approaches in the establishment and management of PAs 61. Protected areas in Mozambique are currently home to more than 190,000 people. The existence of communities living in and around protected areas is reportedly exacerbating conflicts between the conservation objectives of protected areas and the subsistence needs of people living in these communities. In the absence of perimeter fencing, large wildlife is damaging homes, threatening lives and destroying crops. With inadequate enforcement of protected areas, communities are poaching wildlife for food, clearing land for subsistence agriculture and burning land for grazing of stock or agricultural use. In response to these challenges, the government - with significant financial and implementation support of donor agencies and NGOs - have promoted inter alia: (i) the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of protected areas to local communities14 (currently 16% of income generated from the direct payments for use of protected areas); (ii) the implementation of a variety of governance arrangements for government protected areas and conservation areas that seek to ‘mainstream’ local community development and poverty alleviation priorities into their management (state-managed areas; delegated management authority to an NGO, Foundation or

14 The affected community is typically represented by legally constituted trusts, community associations or community representative councils.


private sector; and community-conserved areas in partnership with the private sector); (iii) direct capacity building (training, micro-loans, bursaries, etc.) of local communities to enable them to participate in joint commercial ventures (e.g. tourism enterprises in protected areas) or secure employment in protected areas; (iv) community awareness and outreach programmes that provide resources and support to local communities in improving livelihood opportunities (skills development, access to finance institutions, business development, etc.) and social living conditions (e.g. education and health services, etc.) and reducing their concurrent impacts on the protected areas (environmental education, sustainable agriculture training, etc.); (v) the revision and rationalization of protected area boundaries to exclude permanent settlements (e.g. proposed amendments to the Gorongosa and Zinave NPs); and (vi) the incentivized resettlement of communities living in total protection zones (e.g. Limpopo NP). 62. There is some evidence to suggest that these community-based partnership approaches may be more effective in addressing the environmental pressures on, and impacts of, communities living in and adjacent to protected areas when compared to the more conventional state-managed PA management (e.g. fencing, regulating sustainable use) and enforcement (e.g. prosecution of illegal activities) approaches. Similarly, it is suggested that community-based partnership approaches yield more tangible benefits to communities who participate in partnership agreements with protected areas, when compared to the benefits accrued from normal community and economic development approaches in these rural communities. These assumptions are however not based on clear, unequivocal and objective data to justify the large investments that are currently being made in developing and maintaining community partnerships. For example, the phased resettlement of some 1,244 households being piloted in the Limpopo NP as part of the World Bank ‘Trans-frontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project’ (TFCATDP) has shown that resettlement (even at a small scale) is a complex, expensive and drawn out process that may not be affordable (within the current financial constraints) or even practicable across the protected area system. The maintenance of community partnerships currently under development will require complex processes and institutional mechanisms, substantial funding and a well trained corps of protected area staff. In the absence of ongoing donor support, these capacities and resources do not yet exist in the public PA institutions. 63. The Conservation Policy also advocates that another form of governance – co-management, through ‘Conservation Areas Management Committees’ (CGAC) – be developed to enable the sharing of management authority and responsibility for individual protected areas. The envisaged institutional structure, roles and responsibilities of these CGACs are however still vague and unclear. Their functional relationship with ANAC, and critically their financial autonomy, has not been properly addressed yet. There are also no functioning examples of effective co-management governance structures for any protected areas in Mozambique to test and evaluate the efficacy of this community-based cooperative governance approach.

64. Protected areas in Mozambique will need to improve the cost-effectiveness of their operations to ensure optimal return on investment. There is a need to more objectively measure and assess the cost-effectiveness - in terms of the financial, conservation and social returns on investment – of different management approaches toward community-based partnerships in order to guide future decision-making around how to spend sparse funding and deploy inadequate resources. Currently there is no standardized cost-benefit data being collated from the different community development initiatives undertaken in and around protected areas to enable a meaningful comparison of the financial, conservation and social benefits from these investments. Barrier 3: Insufficient revenue streams to address the PA funding ‘gap’


65. Most protected areas still do not receive enough funding to be financially self-sufficient, and all are struggling to maintain even the most basic functions15 (see baseline analysis below). There is a critical need to increase, diversify and stabilize the financial flows to all categories of protected areas, through the implementation of a more diverse portfolio of financing mechanisms. Indications are that the national and provincial government budget allocations for protected areas are, in the light of other more pressing demands on the national budget, not likely to increase significantly from their current base level of less than US$ 1 million per annum to fill this financing gap. The responsible Ministries have made little (MITUR) or no (MICOA, MITUR and MPescas) provision for PA planning and management costs in the national and provincial governments’ medium-term expenditure framework. Without ongoing donor support, most protected areas will not even have adequate financial resources to cover their recurring management costs (e.g. staff salaries, running costs or infrastructure and equipment maintenance) let alone be able to invest in their capital development. While the country has been very innovative in facilitating the development of working partnerships with donor agencies, foundations and NGOs, the long-term sustainability of the short to medium-term investments made by the partners has not been adequately addressed. Donor projects have been largely opportunistic and ad hoc, and there is limited capacity in MITUR or MICOA to secure funding from multilateral development agencies, international conservation organizations and private donors for the protected area system in a strategic, coordinated and structured way. The government has made no, or little, provision for the long-term cost and resourcing implications of donor-funded projects. For example, an increasing number of protected area staff are being trained and employed directly by the partner institutions for the duration of their projects, but the government has in turn not committed resources in the medium to long-term to transfer these staff onto state payrolls in order to retain this expertise. Similarly, partner institutions are investing heavily in capital infrastructure and equipment in protected areas without the concomitant resource allocation by government to maintain and upgrade these capital investments. 66. The fee schedules for the use of protected areas is regulated for National Parks and National Reserves (Decree 27/2003) and the Coutadas and Hunting Reserves (Law 10/99 and Decree 12/2002, with the fee schedule updated by Diploma Ministerial 96/2003). When Decree 27/2003 came into effect, it was not however fully implemented for several years in the protected areas. Fees for the use of National Parks and National Reserves do not reflect the real or market values of the services offered, and are not differentiated according to the destination values of different protected areas. For example, the rate of concession fees is still determined on a per-hectare basis, regardless of whether the concession site is on a prime beachfront or deep in the miombo forest. Under the terms of the present fee schedule, fees are also charged at the same level across National Parks and Reserves, regardless of whether the conservation area is providing these services themselves (and thus incurring costs that should be covered by these fees) or if the private sector is providing the service. One of the consequences of this is that certain protected areas are charging fees at a rate considerably below the cost of providing that service. For example, Limpopo NP is required to charge no more than 100Mt/day for camping sites, well below the cost of maintaining, and managing them. There are no national statistics on the distribution of income by type of fee, as no protected area is systematically collecting and recording this information. 67. Where partner institutions are supporting the development of nature-based tourism enterprises as a means of generating more sustainable income streams for protected areas, the competencies in government institutions to facilitate the tourism concessioning processes are weak and, in some instances, overly pedantic and bureaucratic, resulting in long delays and loss of opportunities. The capacity of public institutions to administer concessions over the term of the agreement is also still weak. The economic feasibility of these tourism concessions is often premised on the assumption of the presence of basic public infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, waste treatment, fencing, etc.) which often does not exist, further compromising the profitability of tourism products.

15 Except possibly for the Gorongosa NP, whose management costs are financed largely by the Carr Foundation, with the support of other donors.


68. While Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) payments offer the potential to provide an economic incentive to conserve the approximately13 million hectares of Mozambique’s forests found in protected areas, a lot of work still needs to be done to capitalize on this opportunity. The national framework to regulate REDD, including the financial management of REDD proceeds, is however not yet in place. Forest carbon projects in or near protected areas in Mozambique are still at an early stage of development, with projects developed by Envirotrade, and initial scoping work done or underway for pilot identification (e.g., Fauna and Flora International for Niassa Reserve, WWF for “blue” mangrove carbon, Peace Parks Foundation for TFCAs, Manda Wilderness). More extensive work will be required to assess whether projects are feasible and financially sustainable, but there is a lack of technical capacity and skills to undertake this assessment.

69. Although a legal and institutional framework exists to manage environmental impacts, there is no established mechanism in place in Mozambique to address residual adverse impacts resulting from project development. With the growth of mega-projects in agriculture, forestry, hydroelectric, infrastructure, mining, petroleum and tourism sectors, there is potential to implement compensation and biodiversity offset mechanisms that finance conservation areas in order to achieve “no net loss” of biodiversity from investments. This potential however still remains under-developed due to the severe capacity constraints of the PA and environmental management institutions. 1.4 Stakeholder analysis 70. During the project preparation stage, a stakeholder analysis was undertaken in order to identify key stakeholders and assess their roles and responsibilities in the context of the proposed project. The table below describes the major categories of stakeholders identified, the individual stakeholder institutions/organisations within each of these categories, and a brief summary of their specific roles and responsibilities in supporting or facilitating the implementation of project activities.

Stakeholder Role and responsibility Ministry of Tourism (MITUR), National Directorate for Conservation Areas (DNAC)

MITUR (through DNAC) will have overall responsibility for the implementation of the project. MITUR will be responsible for the direct implementation of a number of activities under Component 1 and 3 of the project. It will ensure that the policy, institutional and legislation reforms are in place to enable implementation of project activities. MITUR will chair the Project Board (PB) with MICOA.

Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA)

MICOA is the GEF Operational Focal Point and the Technical Secretariat of CONDES. MICOA will be responsible for the strategic oversight of a number of activities under Component 3. MICOA will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG)

MINAG support to the project will include: advice on issues related to Forests Reserves, and wildlife outside conservation areas; allocation of unused state land; technical support for the land demarcation process; and providing access to key datasets. MINAG may be sub-contracted to provide specialist and technical inputs into agricultural development activities under Component 2. As a member of CONDES, MINAG will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Planning and Development (MPD)

This MPD is responsible for the preparation and monitoring of all development plans of Mozambique, including budgeting. It is expected that MPD will assure the incorporation of all the identified activities related to PAs in the provincial and annual plans. As member of CONDES, MPD will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Finance (MF) MF will be responsible for ensuring the ongoing allocation of funds in the state budget for PAs. It is expected that MF will support concomitant increases to fund protected areas from the state budget allocations. The MF will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Fisheries (MPescas)

The MPescas will support the financial and business planning processes in the project and the piloting of carbon offsets in mangroves. The MPescas will be represented on the PB.


Ministry of Mineral Resources (MIREM)

The MIREM will provide support to the project in the piloting of biodiversity offsets in the mining industry. The MIREM will be represented on the PB.

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

WWF will be responsible for facilitating the administration of the Foundation for the Conservation of Biodiversity (Fundação para a Conservação da Biodiversidade, BIOFUND) until it becomes operational. It may provide technical support in the implementation of sustainable financing pilots (specifically carbon and biodiversity offsets) and the determination of more equitable fee schedules for protected areas. WWF will be represented on the PB.

Carr Foundation/ Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP)

The GRP will be responsible for the implementation of Component 2 of the project. It will work closely with Gorongosa Administrative Authorities and local communities. The GRP will be represented on the PB.

UNDP Mozambique UNDP Mozambique will be responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of the project. The UNDP will be a member of the PB.

Provincial Government of Sofala (GS)

The GS will, through the provincial directorates of tourism, environment and agriculture will be an important project implementing partner in Component 2. It will actively participate in and support the implementation of all the project activities in Gorongosa NP, and link them to the provincial development strategies.

District Administration of Gorongosa

The role of the District Administration will be to facilitate all activities related to the project at the level of Gorongosa NP. It will support negotiations with affected communities and promote and facilitate community members’ participation in project activities.

Centre for Investment Promotion (CPI)

CPI will be an important project partner and will provide technical assistance in the tourism and agricultural development activities.

Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM)

The UEM may be sub-contracted to provide specialist and technical inputs into reforestation project activities.

Donor agencies and Foundations

The donor agencies and institutions are important project partners. They will share, coordinate and collaborate with the project as and where relevant. Key donor agencies may be represented on the PB (e.g. AFD, KfW).

1.5 Baseline analysis Institutional capacities; 71. There is a significant gap between the systemic framework for protected areas and the actual institutional and individual capacities to implement the country’s evolving laws, regulations, policies and plans. The responsibilities for the establishment, planning and administration of protected areas are still distributed across a number of Ministry’s and Departments (MICOA-DNGA, MITUR-DNAC, MINAG-NDLF and MPescas) and at different spheres of government (national, provincial and district), with little to no coordination of their respective functions and activities. While MICOA has the mandate to fulfill a coordinating role between these institutions it has no real executive powers and too few properly qualified and technically skilled staff to implement this function. DNAC - the primary agency within MITUR responsible for the operational planning and management of National Parks and National Reserves – currently suffers from low levels of human resources, equipment and financing. This severely constrains their capacity to: develop, implement and audit strategic business and management plans; perform basic protected area management functions; enforce conservation legislation; and gather basic management and financial information to guide decision-making in these protected areas. While DNAC also has overall responsibility for the Coutadas, there is no in situ staffing capacity to monitor and enforce the terms of concession leases with private hunting operators, notably in respect of the conservation management of these areas. NDLF – the primary agency with MINAG responsible for the planning and management of Forest Reserves and Game Farms – have no dedicated resources (funding, infrastructure, equipment or staffing) for their administration. Protected area financing


72. Protected areas in Mozambique are financed from three primary sources: (i) annual central government allocation (~1% of income in 2008/9)16; (ii) other government allocation, including payment of staff salaries and special grants (~2.5% of income in 2008/9); internal revenue (self-financing) generated from activities undertaken in protected areas (~8% of income in 2008/9, of which 16-20% is distributed to designated local communities and 20% back to the state budget); and (iii) donor funding provided by development partners (~89% of income in 2008/9). Figure 3: Distribution of revenue sources for funding Mozambiques conservation areas (2008/2009)

73. Government revenue allocations consist of direct government budget support, public taxes, fees and fines17, revenue sharing with communities and debt relief. The government contributes general budget support for operational expenses in conservation areas through the provincial directorates of MITUR and the Provincial Governments. Salaries of staff working in conservation areas are paid by provincial government offices. 74. The main income sources from the use of protected areas and their natural resources include: user fees (such as entry fees, accomodation, fishing fees, guided tours and diving fees); fees from licenses for use of natural resources (timber concessions, live game sales and hunting concessions); income from fines and auction sales of confiscated goods (predominantly timber); and income from nature-based tourism concessions. Except in the case of Limpopo NP (where a special agreement enables the park to keep the revenues generated within its borders to be used to offset operating and investment costs), the income from protected areas is submitted to the relevant provincial Financial Administration Office where a portion is allocated to the state budget (20%), a portion to the affected local community (16%) and the remainder (64%) returned (on application) to the relevant protected area for disbursement18. Table 4 summarises the income generated from the protected areas for the period 2005-2009. 75. Other government ministries may also provide direct financing or in-kind support for conservation areas. For example, under a Memorandum of Understanding signed in December 2004 between MITUR and

16 There are no central statistics on public expenditures for conservation areas since the government accounts only provide information by ministry. Based on data collected during the preparatory phase, general budget support for operational expenses (excluding central management) totalled US$153,094 in 2008/9. 17 Taxes, fees and fines are related to natural resource exploitation or use that are charged in sectors such as petroleum and natural gas, mining, fisheries, forestry, land, water and tourism. A percentage of these fees, taxes and fines for tourism and environmental licensing and EIA fees are used for environmental purposes. 18 In terms of Decree 15/2009


the Ministry of National Defence (MDN) the MDN has provided weapons and ammunition to three different National Parks. In addition to material support, the MDN has placed military personnel inside six National Parks and Reserves, paying their salaries and other benefits, and contributing to their food needs as well. Table 4. Income (in US$) generated directly from the protected areas in Mozambique for 2005-2009

Conservation area 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Coutadas 185 793 315 371 190 747 272 929 4 161 344 Chipange Chetu19 0 0 0 10 181 19 809 Tchuma Tchato20 98 361 68 370 150 936 130 962 181 863 Parque Nacional da Gorongosa 3 529 24 494 52 132 21 863 16 721 Parque Nacional do Arquipelago do Bazaruto 75 174 88 220 35 481 94 235 43 707 Parque Nacional de Limpopo 0 42 425 79 302 143 338 234 216 Parque Nacional das Quirimbas 4 912 9 119 17 524 55 821 42 500 Reserva Nacional de Chimanimani 0 0 0 1 255 757 Reserva Especial de Maputo 22 832 32 255 54 204 42 786 53 570 Parque Nacional de Banhine 0 0 0 0 94 Parque Nacional de Zinave 0 0 0 0 410 Total (MT) 390 601 580 254 580 326 773 370 4 754 990

76. Bilateral and multilateral donor projects, supported by donors such as France (AFD, FFEM), Germany (KFW), US (USAID), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank, provide the largest share of funding for Mozambique’s conservation areas. Protected areas are still heavily dependent on donor funding to sustain even the most basic operational functions. Donors currently provide about US$16-22 million annually in financing for Mozambique’s conservation areas (see also Table 5)21. The Biodiversity and Environmental Working Groups provide forums for government and donor coordination, with participation from other stakeholders. Table 5. Summary of the primary funding support from donor partners for protected areas in Mozambique (as at April, 2010)

Project Donors € Amount

US$ Amount

Period Years US$/year (2008)

US$/year (2010)

Development of Limpopo NP 32,060,000 2008-2012 4 8,014,999 8,014,999 AFD 11,000,000 15,400,000

KFW/BMZ 11,900,000 16,660,000 TFCAs: Banhine, Chimanimani, Limpopo, Maputo, Zinave

35,920,000 2006-2013 7 5,131,428 5,131,428

World Bank 20,000,000

19 Lipilichi Wilderness Investment Ltd. have been contracted by the government to manage a hunting and ecotourism concession in the area (on a 3-year contract until 2010). A community fund has been established, and 20 percent of annual revenue from the commercial operations are paid into this fund. 20 Revenue from both game hunting and the chalet operation in the community reserve is split three ways: 35% to central government, 32.5 % to local district government and 32.5% to the communities represented in the Tchuma Tchato project. 21 It is estimated that some US$22m of donor funding would be made available in 2010 for protected areas, and their buffer zones (~1.6% of Mozambique’s foreign aid).


Project Donors € Amount

US$ Amount

Period Years US$/year (2008)

US$/year (2010)

GEF 10,000,000 Japan 3,720,000

PPF/AWF 2,200,000 Quirimbas NP Development Project 8,608,600 2004-2009 5 2,152,150

AFD 3,500,000 4,900,000 FFEM 700,000 980,000 WWF 1,949,000 2,728,600

Consolidation of Quirimbas NP Development 8,706,250 2010-2015 5 1,741,250 AFD/France

C2D 4,000,000 5,600,000

FFEM 1,000,000 1,400,000 WWF 1,706,250

Bazaruto Conservation Support Program Sasol 1,500,000 2010-1015 5 300

Co-Management Gilé National Reserve 5,151,440 2009-2012 4 1,287,860 FFEM 1,000,000 1,400,000

Italian Cooperation

1,200,000 1,680,000

IGF Foundation 687,400 962,360 Private Partners 568,700 796,180

MITUR 203,500 284,900 FAO 20,000 28,000

Gorongosa Restoration Project 28,849,972 Carr Foundation 24,000,000 2008-2028 20 1,200,000 1,200,000

USAID 4,500,000 2008-2012 4 1,125,000 1,125,000 Portugal 249,980 349,972 2007-2008 2 174,986

Creation of Lake Niassa Reserve 1,700,000 USAID 1,100,000 2006-2012 6 183,333 183,333

Coca Cola 600,000 2008-2010 3 200,000 200,000 Protection and sustainable management wild fauna

AFD 800,000 1,120,000 2009-2011 3 373,333 BIOFUND Mozambique 6,120,000

AFD/C2D 4,000,000 5,600,000 2010-2012 3 1,866,666 AFD 184,000 2009-2010 2 92,000 KfW 252,000 2009-2010 2 126,000 WWF 84,000 2008-2010 3 28,000

Development and Management of Niassa NR FFI 600,000 2008-2009 2 200,000 400,000

TOTALS 18,381,896 22,051,669 Sources: AFD, FFEM, Gorongosa Restoration Project, MITUR, Niassa Reserve Company, Peace Parks Foundation, Sasol, World Bank, WWF, ODAmoz. Sasol: under negotiation; WWF Quirimbas funding includes Johnson and Johnson, Sall Family Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dutch Postcode Lottery Exchange rate: €1= US$1.4

77. Mozambique’s Environment Fund (FUNAB) was established as a public fund under the auspices of MICOA in 2000 (Decree 39/2000). Its mission is to generate and mobilize resources to fund environmental initiatives in the following areas: promotion of clean technology; environmental management; and response to environmental disasters. FUNAB’s revenue sources include: 60% of environmental fees and fines


collected (under Decree no. 45/2004); compensation funds related to environmental accidents; revenues from sale of environmental stamps or certificates; inheritances, legacies and donations; revenue from sales of publications; and state budget subsidies. Since its inception, FUNAB has financed projects supporting environmental awareness and education, erosion and fire control, sanitation and reforestation. While FUNAB’s mission includes contributing towards the managemen of protected areas, so far it has not disbursed any funds to PAs. 78. Through the Tourism Anchor Investment Program, MITUR’s National Tourism Institute (INATUR) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) aim to attract sustainable private investment to Mozambique by facilitating the investment process for tourism development ‘anchor sites’. Two of the anchor sites – Gilé Reserve and Maputo NR – focus on low impact ecotourism in conservation areas. Three concessions in the Maputo National Reserve are the first to be marketed to potential investors through a public offer, including the development of a model community-public-private partnership concession at Ponta Chucamane. The Northern Mozambique Tourism project, supported by USAID, aims to increase tourism in the provinces of Cabo Delgado, Nampula, and Niassa. Preservation of the environment and cultural/historical resources along with developing niche tourism markets have been targeted for support. MITUR recently signed an MOU with the SAVE (Scientific, Academic, Volunteer and Educational) Travel Alliance. Tourism operators have shown high levels of interest in bidding on investment opportunities in conservation areas, such as Maputo NR and Gorongosa NP. 79. Based on a preliminary calculation undertaken during the project preparation phase for the National Parks, National Reserves and Forest Reserves)22, the costs (funding necessary to cover core staff costs, basic conservation activities and basic investments) for protected areas are conservatively estimated at US$19,837,459 per year. With current revenues of US$14,897,402 (including donor funds) or US$1,239,855(excluding donor funds), this equates to a funding gap of US$ 4,940,058 (with donor funds) or US$ 18,597,605 (without donor funds) per annum (see Financial Sustainability Scorecard in Annexure V).

80. The estimated annual costs for all categories of conservation areas has also been estimated during the PPG phase and is summarised in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Estimated Annual Costs (2010 US dollars) for Mozambique’s Conservation Areas:

Conservation Areas Cost Cost per km2 Cost Cost per km2 Basic management scenario23 Optimal management scenario24

National Parks $ 7,143,098 $ 207/km2 $ 12,354,710 $ 358/km2 National Reserves $ 4,243,882 $ 84/km2 $ 6,771,492 $ 133/km2 Forest Reserves25 $ 535,225 $ 101/km2 $ 711,257 $ 134/km2 Coutadas $ 5,677,413 $ 101/km2 $ 7,544,688 $ 134/km2 Community Reserves $ 467,131 $ 55/km2 $ 700,696 $ 82/km2 1-yr TOTAL $ 18,066,749 $ 116/km2 $ 28,082,844 $ 181/km2 10-year TOTAL26 $ 216,911,327 $ 337,165,637 1-yr TOTAL (incl. central level mgmt & monitoring)

$ 20,776,762 $ 134/km2 $ 32,295,271 $ 208/km2

10-year TOTAL (incl. central level mgmt & monitoring)

$ 249,448,026 $ 387,740,483

22 Coutada Hunting Reserves and Community Reserves were not included because revenue information for them was not readily available. 23 Minimum necessary to undertake core conservation activities 24 Amount conservation areas would have the capacity to spend effectively on enhanced/expanded conservation activities 25 Costs for Forest Reserves and Coutada Hunting Grounds were estimated using a simple proxy average of costs per km2 for Banhine and Zinave National Parks 26 Based on average annual inflation of 4%


81. Under the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario, a range of activities relating to improving the governance framework, institutional and individual capacities, operational management and financial sustainability of protected areas would be undertaken during the next 5 years, regardless of the interventions planned under the project. These activities are briefly described in the text below: 82. Legislative and regulatory reform 83. With the recent adoption of the new Conservation Policy the country is seeking to update and reform its enabling conservation legislation to: improve the harmonization of the conservation laws and regulations with other sectoral policies and laws; establish a new institutional framework for protected areas; introduce a new classification system for protected areas, including their management objectives; strengthen the mechanisms for cooperative governance of individual protected areas, notably in respect of local communities pariticpation and functionalisty of districts; and provide for a wider range of financing mechanisms, including the establishment and administration of a national trust fund. A working group - comprising technical staff from MITUR, MICOA, MPescas and MINAG – has been established to prepare this conservation legislation. 84. Governance and institutional reform 85. The recently adopted Conservation Policy (2009) makes provision for the establishment of a new institutional framework for conservation areas. This framework is summarised in Table 7 below. Table 7. Proposed institutional framework for conservation areas in Mozambique (Conservation Policy, 2009) Institutional structure Functional responsibilities National Council for Sustainable Development (CONDES)

The CONDES will evaluate, on a three-year cycle of reporting by the Ministry in charge of conservation areas, progress in the implementation of the Conservation Strategy.

Ministry in charge of conservation areas27

The Ministry will be responsible for the overall implementation of the Conservation Policy. It will supervise the activities of the National Authority of Conservation Areas.

National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC) 28

The National Administration of Conservation Areas is the technical body responsible for the planning and management of the system of conservation areas. It will have financial, technical, administrative and management autonomy and will mobilize its own funds for the management of conservation areas. It will monitor, and report on, the performance of conservation areas to the Ministry in charge of conservation areas. It will also establish, guide, support and oversee the management councils (CGAC) of each conservation areas.

Management Committee for each conservation area (CGAC)

Management Committees will be established for each conservation area in order to ensure the participation of all stakeholders in their management. The representation and functioning of these Management Committees will vary, depending on the specific requirements of each conservation area. The Management Committee will be responsible for the overall planning, administration and management of the conservation area under its jurisdiction. They will integrate conservation areas with community development initiatives in surrounding buffer areas, and facilitate the implementation of public-private-community partnerships in and around the conservation areas.

27 It has been proposed that MITUR could be designated as the ‘Ministry in charge of conservation areas’ 28 This may require an amalgam of staff, functions and assets from DNAC, NDLF, NFI and DNGA


86. The Conservation Policy working group will guide and direct the establishment processes for the new conservation agency (i.e. National Administration of Conservation Areas, ANAC) which is expected to be created in 2010/11. With the technical support of the Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project (TFCATDP), MITUR has contracted a consulting firm to: undertake a preliminary financial analysis of the current status quo for conservation areas; design a business framework/ preliminary business plan for the new agency; propose an organisational structure for the new agency; support the (Conservation Policy) working group in establishing a human resources management strategy for the agency; and develop procurement, financial and environmental manuals for the new agency. Sustainable financing mechanisms 87. Mozambique has made considerable progress in creating a new trust fund, Fundação para a Conservação e Biodiversidade (‘BIOFUND, Mozambique’) as a complementary financing mechanism for the protected area system. BIOFUND will be legally incorporated as an independent private foundation under Mozambique’s Civil Code, and will be legally recognized as a public benefit foundation. A trust fund will also be legally established in a country that provides security for investment of the BIOFUND’s capital and offers tax advantages for both capital investment and donations to the BIOFUND. The Founders Committee for BIOFUND has been successful in securing donor expressions of interest and commitments (e.g. AFD, KfW, Conservation International Global Conservation Fund, UNDP-GEF, WWF), but significant effort will still be required to secure these funds. The recent debt swap agreed between the governments of France and Mozambique will enable the allotment of €4 million to BIOFUND, effectively providing BIOFUND’s initial capital (a requirement to legally register BIOFUND as a foundation under Mozambique law). For the first five years’ however, BIOFUND is not likely to be able to cover its operating costs through investment income from the fund. Protected area management 88. The government of Mozambique will administer the protected area system at the current rate of resource (human resource, equipment and financial) allocations. Income streams from the use of protected areas will remain sub-optimal, in the absence of significant capital investments, further diversification of revenue streams, increase in revenues from existing usage and an improvement in cost-effectiveness of management. 89. A range of donor-funded activities across the protected area system will continue to contribute to improving the management effectiveness baseline of individual protected areas (but with limited investment in systemic and institutional capacity). The suite of activities under the Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project (TFCATDP) will be sustained - with funding support from a range of donor agencies - during the second phase (2006-2012) of the proposed 15 year program, focusing on providing support to the Limpopo NP, Maputo NR, Banhine NP, Chimanimani NR and Zinave NP . The Carr Foundation, through the Gorongosa Restoration Project, will continue to take direct responsibility for the financing, operational management and development of Gorongosa NP, and buffer areas. They will facilitate the establishment and operations of five tourism concessions within the park to improve revenue streams to finance its long-term recurrent management costs. The IGF Foundation will - with funding support from a range of donor agencies - rehabilitate and improve the management effectiveness of Gilé NR. Donor support for MPAs will be focused on the Bazaruto seascape, Primeras and Segundas Islands and Quirimbas NP areas. 90. The IGF Foundation will, with the support of a number of donor agencies, support MITUR in improving the administration and regulation of the hunting industry in Mozambique. It will specifically


assess ways of improving income from hunting fees, notably in the Coutadas, hunting blocks around Niassa and the Game Farms.


PART II: STRATEGY 2.1 Project Rationale and Conformity to GEF Policies and Strategic Objectives 91. The project is aligned with GEF’s Strategic Objective (SO) 1 of the Biodiversity focal area, ‘Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas Systems’. The project is consistent with Strategic Programme’s (SP) 1 of SO 1; ‘Sustainable financing of PA systems at the national level’. 92. The project will contribute to the expected outcomes of SP 1 by investing GEF resources in the implementation of a suite of activities that could collectively catalyse a significant improvement in the ability of protected areas in Mozambique to secure sufficient and more predictable revenue - including external funding - to support their management costs. The project will support the development of a business-oriented financial plan for the protected area system. The system-level financial plan will provide a strategic framework for a range of project interventions at the institutional and site (PA) level. The project will strengthen the business planning and financial management capacities of the institutions responsible for managing protected areas, and facilitate the roll-out of business planning processes, and development of financial management skills, at the local protected area level. It will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness (in terms of financial, social and conservation returns on investment) of a range of different community-based partnership approaches at the individual site level (Gorongosa NP). Finally, it will facilitate the further development and testing of a range of financing mechanisms (conservation trust fund, fee structures for services and facilities, joint venure concessions, forest carbon offset and voluntary biodiversity offsets) for the protected area system. 93. The project will contribute to the achievement of GEF’s expected outcomes and main indicators under this priority programming area as follows:

GEF-4 BD Strategic

objective and programmes

Expected outcomes

GEF-4 BD Indicators Project contribution to indicators

SO-1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Biodiversity conserved and sustainably used in protected area system

Extent of habitat cover (hectares) by biome type maintained as measured by cover and fragmentation in protected area system Protected area management effectiveness as measured by protected area scorecards that assess site management, financial sustainability and capacity

At least 360,900 ha of marine and 13,580,900 ha of terrestrial habitats maintained in the protected area system Capacity development scorecard increasing from 46%, 46% and 35% (systemic, institutional and individual capacity) to >60%, 55% and 50% respectively Management effectiveness tracking tool (METT) score for Gorongosa NP improves from a baseline of 65% to 72% by end of project

SP-1 Sustainable financing of protected area (PA) systems at the national level

PA systems secure increased revenue and diversification of revenue streams to meet total expenditures required to meet management objectives Reduction in

Total revenue and diversification in revenue streams

Financial sustainability scorecard improves to a score of >21% from the current level of 45% Current financing for protected areas


GEF-4 BD Strategic

objective and programmes

Expected outcomes

GEF-4 BD Indicators Project contribution to indicators

financing gap to meet PA management objectives

increased from a baseline of US$14,897,402 to >US$18,849,44829 (~80% reduction in financing gap)

2.2 Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness 94. The Government of Mozambique signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 12 June, 1992 and ratified it on the 25th of August, 1995. 95. The project will contribute to meeting the poverty alleviation, sustainable development and good governance objectives of the governments’ new Five-Year Government Program (2010-2014). The project activities and budgets are closely aligned with the medium-term expenditure frameworks, and annual plans and budgets, of the affected PA institutions that have been developed in accordance with this Five-Year Government Programme. 96. The recently adopted Conservation Policy and Implementation Plan 2009-2019 (‘Conservation Policy) specifically focuses on Mozambique’s conservation areas (including the buffer areas). It subsumes, updates and integrates all the existing national and sectoral policies and strategies that relate to the planning and management of conservation areas. This project has been specifically developed to complement, and support the implementation of, the priority actions identified by the Conservation Policy. It focuses its interventions in support of three (of the six) key implementation mechanisms in the Conservation Policy, Institutional Reform, Partnerships and Financial Resources. 97. The project will support the government in implementing the following strategic actions of the Conservation Policy: 1.4.1 Carry out the preparatory work for the creation of the new institutional framework, specifically in respect of business planning and financial skills development of the responsible PA institutions; 1.5 Establishment of an independent trust fund to support the conservation areas and 3.2.1 Prepare the establishment of sustainable funding mechanisms; 3.1.1 - ... increasing the transparency of (the) mobilisation and distribution of funds, particularly in terms of strengthening financial management systems and procedures; 3.1.2 – Create models and mechanisms for the establishment of public, private and community partnerships, focused on testing the cost-effectiveness of these in Gorongosa NP; and 3.4.2 Identify viable income generation options ..., specifically in respect of evaluating the feasibility of implementing a range of innovative funding mechanisms for the PA system. 2.3 Design principles and strategic considerations

Alternative scenario 98. Under the alternative scenario promoted by the project, Mozambique will have by 2016: (i) a rationalised governance structure in place to effectively adminster the different categories of protected areas; (ii) a government-adopted strategic planning framework for the sustainable financing of the protected area system; (iii) a legal and regulatory framework that enables the implementation of a range of PA financing mechanisms; (iv) approved business-oriented financial management plans for each of the PA institutions, that guides the implementation of a diverse portfolio of financing mechanisms and cost-effective management approaches in individual protected areas; (v) significantly improved financial and business

29 This assumes no annual adjustment for CPI.


management capacities, systems and technologies in PA institutions, and the individual PAs; (vi) an increase in funding for the PA system from government grant allocations; (vii) an increase in revenue from a range of direct user pay mechanisms implemented in protected areas; (viii) an increase in income from other diverse funding sources (donor funding, payment for ecological service, carbon trading, biodiversity offsets, lease fees, loans, etc) for the PAS; (ix) an improvement in the cost-effectiveness of investments in community-based partnerships; and (x) institutional mechanisms in place that facilitate the cross-subsidsation of protected area management costs. Global environmental benefits 99. The increment of the project in terms of global environmental benefits is represented by; (i) increasing management effectiveness at the PA level (from a METT baseline for Gorongosa NP of 65% to a METT target of >72%); (ii) improving the overall PA institutional capacity (from a baseline of 44% in the Capacity Assessment Scorecard to >55%); (iii) increasing the financial sustainability of the PA system (from a financial sustainability baseline score of 21% to >45%); and (iv) reducing the PA financing gap by 80%. In the medium-term (by 2016 and beyond) the capacity (due to an improvement of financial resources and cost-effective management approaches) to contain threats to the integrity of protected areas, such as: illegal hunting and poaching; unsustainable levels of fishing; deforestation; soil erosion; illegal mining; spread of subsistence agriculture; and uncontrolled wildfires will be improved at the level of the entire expanded terrestrial and marine PA sytem of the country, an area covering >13,212,700 ha. 100. The project is assisting the country in the implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA). Project activities will support the country’s efforts in contributing to achieving the global targets for the following goals: Goal 2.1 (mechanisms for the equitable sharing of both costs and benefits arising from the establishment and management of protected areas); Goal 2.2 (Full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities); Goal 3.2 (capacity-building programmes and initiatives); Goal 3.3 (development, validation, and transfer of appropriate technologies and innovative approaches for effective management of protected areas); Goal 3.4 (sufficient financial, technical and other resources to meet the costs to effectively implement and manage national and regional systems of protected areas); and Goal 4.1 (standards, criteria, and best practices for planning, selecting, establishing, managing and governance of national systems of protected areas).

101. The GEF financing for the project totals US$ 4,850,000. Total co-financing for the project total US$ US$13,868,190 broken down into: a) US$ 2,321,933 for Component 1; b) US$ 6,840,000 for Component 2; c) US$ 3,318,190 for Component 3; and d) US$ 1,388,067 for project management. Co-financing is provided by the Carr Foundation (US$6,840,000), WWF-US (US$245,680), WWF-Mozambique (US$272,510), UNDP (US$200,000), KfW (US$150,000), AFD (US$4,920,000) and the Government of Mozambique (US$500,000). Coordination with other initiatives

102. The project will work closely with the Conservation Policy Working Group and the project coordinator of the World Bank Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project (TFCATDP) to ensure complementarity of the activities in support of the governance, institutional and legislative reform processes currently underway in Mozambique, specifically the establishment and administration of the new National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC).

103. The project will collaborate with a number of bilateral and multilateral funded donor agencies active in a number of protected areas in order to avoid duplication of effort, identify opportunities for collaboration, and share resources and knowledge. The protected areas, and associated donor agencies and NGOs, will include inter alia the: Limpopo NP (AFD/KFW); Gile NR (FFEM/IGF/COSV); the TFCAs, covering


Banhine NP, Chimanimani NR, Limpopo NP, Maputo NR and Zinave NP (WB/GEF/Japan/PPF/KfW/AWF/IFC/GTZ); Bazaruto (Sasol); Qutrimbas (AFD, WWF); and Niassa NR (FFI/IGF). The project will be represented on the Biodiversity Working Group by the UNDP CO to ensure alignment of project activities with other donor-funded initiatives in the conservation sector, and to optimise new opportunities for donor support.

104. The project will maintain a strong working relationship with the IGF Foundation and AFD who are currently providing financial and technical assistance to DNAC/MITUR in the rationalisation and regulation of the hunting industry in Mozambique. The proposed activities required to improve the financial sustainability of the Coutadas (and other categories of conservation areas that may be designated for hunting purposes) will be integrated into Outputs 1.1 and 1.2, while the financial management requirements for their administration will be supported in Output 1.3.

105. The project will liaise closely with the different line Ministry’s and the SADC regional office to ensure the ongoing alignment of activities with the governments implementation of the National Rural Development Strategy, the Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty (PARPA II) and the National REDD Strategy.

106. The project will, through the Carr Foundation and Gorongosa Restoration Project, work closely with USAID to combine resources in supporting community livelihood developments in and around Gorongosa Mountain. This will include establishing functional links with USAID funded initiatives and technical support from the US National Parks Service in staff and training development programmes, solid waste management, educational and awareness programmes, land use planning, fire management, health extension services and rehabilitation and restoration programmes. Lessons learnt from the agro-business initiatives in the Beira corridor will be integrated into the implementation of Output 2.3.

107. The project will collaborate with regional trust fund initiatives, such as the Conservation Finance Alliance’s African Funds committee and the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds (RedLAC)30. It will also target a ‘twinning’ partnership with an equivalent national trust fund such as the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (Funbio) to enable the sharing of information, knowledge and experience. 2.4 Project Objective, Outcomes and Outputs/Activities

108. The project is focused on creating the enabling conditions for, and strengthening capacities to: (i) prepare and implement business-oriented financial plans; (ii) maintain effective and efficient financial management systems; (iii) improve the cost-effectiveness of community-based partnership approaches; and (iv) diversify and increase revenues, for protected areas. 109. The project will focus the outputs and activities at two levels of intervention: (i) the national PA system level, through working with the different public PA institutions and the BIOFUND Founders Committee, in order to develop and strengthen their capacity to more effectively plan, secure and administer funds for the protected area system; and (ii) the level of an individual protected area (Gorongosa NP), through working with the delegated management agency (Gorongosa Restroration Project and MITUR) to assess the cost-effectiveness (i.e. the social, financial and environmental returns on investment) of different types of community-based partnerships (agricultural support, direct employment and communications/awareness formal co-management) in securing the long-term conservation status of Gorongosa Mountain.

30 Capacity building project under development with the French Global Environment Fund (FFEM), the Moore Foundation and USAID


110. The project’s development goal is to ‘Contribute to improving the financial sustainability of Mozambique’s protected area system’. The project has the objective to ‘Strengthen the overall effectiveness and sustainability of Mozambique’s Protected Area System, including financial sustainability, through working partnerships between public, private, NGO and community stakeholders’. The project has three components – along with their associated outcomes, outputs and activities - which will contribute towards achieving the project objective. These are: Component 1 Sustainability of the protected area system institutionalised; Component 2 Co-management models in demonstration sites; and Component 3 Business planning and revenue generation. Component 1: Sustainability of the protected area system institutionalised Output 1.1: A Financial Plan (FP) for Mozambique’s system of conservation areas is adopted Based on the preliminary work undertaken during the preparatory phase31, work under this output will focus on preparing a Financial Plan for the system of conservation areas in Mozambique. This business-oriented Financial Plan will be organized around three key aspects of the financial planning process: a) a detailed financial analysis that identifies realistic funding needs and gaps32; b) a pre-selection and analysis of viable financial mechanisms, and an understanding of the legislative and regulatory framework for their implementation33; and c) a formulation of the Financial Plan to guide the implementation of a sustainable financing strategy. The specific activities to be undertaken in this output will include: (i) Accurately updating the current financial baseline prepared for the conservation areas during the PPG,

including analyzing the protected area costs, reviewing different income sources and identifying specific cost-reduction opportunities;

(ii) Using financial planning tools (e.g. scenario logic) to more accurately: a) qualify and quantify the projected financial needs for the system of conservation areas under different management scenarios; and b) determine the ‘financial gap’ between the current financial scenario and the optimal (or desired) scenario;

(iii) Assessing the functionality of the financial management system of the protected area institutions, including accounting (income and expenditure), salaries and benefits, classification of expenses (standardization), cash flow, transparency (availability of and access to information), and auditing (internal and external);

(iv) Selecting the most appropriate financial mechanisms to ensure the diversification of financing sources for the conservation areas. The focus of this activity is on ensuring the maintenance, and increase in income, from conventional financial sources (governments, donors, and trust funds), as well as developing innovative alternatives (e.g. PES, market mechanisms, etc.) to supplement the current income streams;

(v) Defining the legal and institutional framework that is required to mobilize financial resources, adopt business management principles, establish innovative financial mechanisms, and ensure the autonomy of financial management based on principles of modern governance;

(vi) Identifying opportunities for cost-saving to achieve economies of scale, eliminate duplication and improve service delivery;

(vii) Using a ‘market-based approach’, preparing a medium-term (three to five years) ‘Financial Plan’ (FP) that establishes lines of strategic action to mobilize financial resources and build financial capacity to

31 The information produced by the ‘Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study, Legal and Management Structure and Start up of the National Agency for the Management of Conservation Areas in Mozambique’, will also be integrated into the preparation of the FP 32 This will be based on the preliminary work completed during the PPG phase, Assessment of Data on Both Sides of the Financing Equation for Mozambique’s Conservation Areas (report available upon request) 33 This will be based on the preliminary work completed during the PPG phase, Feasibility Study for Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in Mozambique


support a system of conservation areas in Mozambique. The financial plan would include: a) a summary of financial needs and gaps (identified in point (ii) above); b) the investment priorities; c) a market analysis; d) financial mechanisms; e) economic impacts; f) a detailed implementation programme (detailed activities, staffing requirements and budget); and g) the means of measuring progress; and

(viii) Documenting lessons learnt in the design and development of the FP. The lessons learnt in the implementation of Outputs 3.1 – 3.4 will also be integrated into the Financial Plan, wherever practicable. The outcomes of the financial plan will support and focus the implementation of Outputs 1.2 and 1.3. A financial advisory group representing all the public agencies and institutions responsible for the planning, administration and monitoring of the conservation areas will be constituted to oversee the design and development of the Financial Plan. This advisory group may be supplemented by the requisite expertise from the Ministry of Finance and key NGOs, Foundations and funding agencies. The advisory group will, based on regional and global best practice, define the format and content of the Financial Plan. The technical work in developing the Financial Plan will be undertaken by a contracted financial planning service provider. They will be required to work with, train, and mentor pre-selected counterparts from each of the protected area institutions34. They will work in close collaboration with the relevant departments and institutions of the affected Ministries and Provincial Governments during the preparation of the FP. The FP will be submitted to the Minister in charge of conservation areas for its adoption. It is envisaged that the FP will be added as a technical annexure to the Conservation Policy and Implementation Plan. The financial advisory group will provide ongoing technical inputs into the drafting of any new conservation legislation, and the associated regulations, to ensure that it provides an enabling legal framework for the implementation of the FP. Output 1.2: A strategic plan for the National Administration of Conservation Areas directs the piloting of business planning processes in conservation areas Work under this output will focus on supporting strategic and business planning processes in a National Administration of Conservation Areas (the PA agency), whose establishment is anticipated in conformance with the Conservation Policy35. Activities will be concentrated in two focal areas. The first is in assisting the PA agency to prepare a medium-term Strategic Plan that effectively integrates strategic planning with medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) budgeting and spending plans. The agency will be supported in moving from input-based budgeting to an output-based, results-oriented system where the use of resources (inputs) is specifically linked to objectives (outputs and outcomes) and performance. The second is supporting the preparation of standardized Business Plans that operationalises the Financial Plan and Strategic Plan at the level of the individual conservation areas. These business plans will describe the financial opportunities offered by each respective conservation area, provide recommendations on those opportunities that are most cost-effective and viable, and outline a strategy for pursuing them. The business plans will be aligned with, and integrated into, the overall Management Plan of each conservation area. It is anticipated that activities under this output would be guided (in part) by the Financial Plan for the system of conservation areas (see Output 1.1). Activities under the first focal area of this output (i.e. PA agency Strategic Plan) include, inter alia: (i) Identifying the various driving forces, or major influences, that might affect the agency; (ii) Establishing goals that build on strengths to take advantage of opportunities, while building up

weaknesses and warding off threats;

34 Each PA institution will be required to identify the staff to be trained and mentored by the financial planning service provider. 35 If the National Administration of Conservation Areas is not established within the first 2 years of project implementation, GEF resources will be used to support the administration responsible for conservation areas (currently DNAC).


(iii) Depending on affordability, practicality and efficiency, establishing strategies to reach these goals and measurable strategic objectives;

(iv) Developing a programmatic approach to achieving strategic goals and objectives; (v) Within the framework of the programmatic approach, establishing credible outcomes and the related

outputs, performance measures or indicators that demonstrate progress toward the strategic objectives and goals;

(vi) Determining Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget allocations for the programmes and sub-programmes;

(vii) Assigning responsibilities and indicative timelines for achieving various outcomes and outputs; (viii) Consolidating the above information into a Strategic Plan for the agency that is linked to the MTEF

cycle; and (ix) Supporting the preparation of the first Annual Performance Plan for the agency that details the

performance targets (by quarter) for each of the programme outcomes and outputs, and the associated high level budget allocations.

The Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan will then guide the activities of the second focal area under this output (i.e. the development of conservation area Business Plans). These activities will include, inter alia: (i) Developing a generic template and describing a set of standard business planning guidelines for

conservation area Business Plans; (ii) Identifying 2-3 demonstration conservation areas to test the efficacy of the Business Plan template; (iii) For each pilot conservation area, review the financial baseline and the financial needs under different

operational management scenarios. (iv) For each pilot conservation area, present an overview of the “goods and services” that it provides and

the markets and competition that may exist for those goods and services now and in the future; (v) For each pilot conservation area, undertake a detailed assessment of the costs of pursuing the most

viable sources of revenue; (vi) For each pilot conservation area, conduct a detailed assessment of the assumed benefits and income

from those revenue streams, along with an assessment of risk; (vii) For each pilot conservation area, assess the legal and socio-political framework as it relates to pursing

those revenue streams (e.g. the type and proportion of income that must be returned to the provincial fiscus and to local communities);

(viii) For each pilot conservation area, develop a medium-term projection of the anticipated annual national/local government grant allocation;

(ix) For each pilot conservation area, assess the potential income from donor funding and other financing mechanisms (e.g. BIOFUND, INATUR, etc.) and a medium-term projection of income from these sources, along with an assessment of long-term cost implications;

(x) For each pilot conservation area, assess opportunities to reduce planning, administration and management costs (e.g. outsourcing of functions; concessioning visitor facilities and services; improving fee collection mechanisms; deployment of staff and equipment; leasing of large infrastructure and equipment; introducing more efficient financial systems, etc.);

(xi) For each pilot conservation area, develop detailed strategies, next steps, activities and investments required to capitalize on the most viable opportunities. This may also include a short-term fundraising strategy to raise the needed capital to pursue a particular strategy; and

(xii) For each pilot conservation area, document the lessons learnt to enable the iterative development of the final business plan template and business planning guidelines.

(xiii) Reviewing the efficacy of the Business Plan template and preparation guidelines (based on an assessment of lessons learnt in the demonstration sites) and adopting a final generic template (or templates, each specific to a category of conservation area) and guidelines for all conservation areas under the management of the PA agency


The PCU will provide support to the PA agency in meeting its commitments under this Output (and Output 1.3 below) by contracting a Projects Officer to act as the institutional focal point for activities under this output. The PA agency, with the support of the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), will contract a specialist consultant in institutional strategic planning and performance-based budgeting to support it in the preparation of the strategic plan and annual performance plan and build capacity so that conservation area staff are able to update the business plan on an on-going basis. The consultant will account directly to the Director (or equivalent) of the agency and the PMU, and report on progress to the Board of Directors of the institution. The Director will guide the consultant in ensuring that the strategic plan conforms to any legislative (e.g. SISTAFE regulations), planning and/or reporting requirements. The consultant will, with the support of the PA agency, develop and implement an internal and external consultation process to guide the formulation of the strategic plan. The PA agency will pre-select the conservation areas for piloting the business plan template (and associated business planning guidelines). It will also approve the template, and associated business planning guidelines, prior to in situ testing in the demonstration sites. The PA agency, with the support of the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), will contract a financial planning service provider36 to prepare business plans for the selected conservation areas. The consultant will account directly to the Administrator of each of the affected conservation areas, and report on overall business planning progress to the agency. The consultant will, with the support of the administrator of the conservation area, develop and implement an internal and external consultation process to guide the formulation of the strategic business plan. The PA agency will pre-select the conservation areas for piloting the business plan template (and associated business planning guidelines). The PA agency will also approve the template, and associated business planning guidelines, prior to in situ testing in the demonstration sites. Output 1.3: Financial management processes and systems in ANAC are strengthened Work under this output will involve the provision of technical and professional support to a newly constituted National Administration of Conservation Areas (the PA agency) - as envisaged by the Conservation Policy37 - in order to improve the efficiencies of their financial, business and operational functions. It is envisaged that the specific activities under this output will be directed by the recommendations contained in the ‘Consultancy Services for Feasibility Study, Legal and Management Structure and Start up of the National Agency for the Management of Conservation Areas in Mozambique’ currently in preparation, and the Financial Plan (Output 1.1). Based on the preliminary needs assessment undertaken during the preparatory phase, it is envisaged that the technical and professional support to PA agency would include: (i) Supporting the organisational restructuring processes to improve efficiencies; (ii) Facilitating the implementation of the human resources management strategy (including technical

support in preparing job descriptions, staff recruitment, secondments of staff from other public institutions and development of salary and incentives packages for staff);

(iii) Introducing the management effectiveness tracking tool (METT) as a means of monitoring the effectiveness of protected areas under the administration of ANAC;

(iv) Supporting the refinement and implementation of financial, procurement and operational guidelines and procedures to ensure legal compliance with financial management, accounting and auditing requirements;

36 The service provider appointed for work under Output 1.1 may also be contracted to undertake this work, if considered appropriate. 37 If ANAC is not established within the first 2-3 years of project implementation, GEF resources will be used to support the current administration of conservation areas in MITUR - DNAC. The proposed suite of activities will then be adjusted accordingly.


(v) Professional financial training and skills development of responsible staff; (vi) Strengthening internal financial controls; (vii) Procuring and installing key equipment and communications infrastructure to improve financial

management capabilities (computers, printers, routers, data communication lines); (viii) Procuring and installing financial management software; (ix) Training financial management staff in use and application of equipment and software; (x) Improving financial information flows between the national and provincial offices and individual

conservation areas; (xi) Developing more efficient user fee collection mechanisms; (xii) Implementing mechanisms for equitable cross-subsidisation across different conservation areas; (xiii) Assisting outsourcing, concessioning, leasing and co-management processes to improve cost-

effectiveness of conservation area operations; (xiv) Advocating an incremental increase of national budget allocations for conservation areas; (xv) Improving the capacity to mobilise funding from different sources (government funding, grants from

NGOs and development agencies, trust funds, etc.); (xvi) Supporting donor management processes, including: targeting potential funders for projects, preparing

detailed project proposals, liaising with different with different funders, and building working partnerships with funding agencies/ institutions.

The PCU may provide support to the PA agency in meeting its commitments under this Output (and Output 1.2 above) by contracting a Projects Officer to act as the institutional focal point for activities under this output. The PA agency, with the support of the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), will contract a chartered accounting firm (who has a national and regional presence) to provide ongoing professional and technical ‘backstopping’ to the agency. The chartered accounting firm may be required to physically locate key staff members within the agency to assist and support counterpart agency staff during the inception phase of the agency’s establishment. The chartered accounting firm will account directly to the Director (or equivalent) of the PA agency, and report on progress to the Board of Directors of the institution. The PCU will also facilitate the development and maintenance of technical partnerships between the new agency and other well developed and effective conservation institutions in the region (e.g. Zambia, Botswana, South Africa and Namibia). Partnership agreements may include: secondment of financial staff from these institutions to the agency; resource-sharing arrangements; information exchange mechanisms; and staff exchange programs. Component 2: Co-management models in demonstration sites This component is premised on the assumption that the sharing of responsibilities, rights, costs and benefits between protected areas and adjacent local communities can strengthen the overall effectiveness and long-term sustainability of protected areas. There is however still little empirical evidence that the resources committed to developing community-based partnerships yield significant biodiversity, financial and social returns on investment. The outputs under this component are thus designed to contribute to the global evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of different types of community-based partnership approaches in and around protected areas. Outputs and activities under this component will be broadly focused on the Great Gorongosa Ecosystem (GGE) in the Sofala Province of central Mozambique. The GGE represents a large ecosystem complex that includes the Gorongosa National Park (GNP), the Gorongosa Mountain, the former Coutadas 1 and 3, the Dingue Dingue flood plain and all the surrounding areas. At present a large part of the GGE is not formally protected, and is heavily impacted by human activities, especially the area on and around Gorongosa Mountain. Proposals for the expansion of the GNP (see Map 2 in Annexure VI) - to include the Gorongosa Mountain and the former Coutadas 1 and 3 (in light green) as core protected areas and a buffer area


(horizontal blue lines) – are well advanced, with the proposed expansion bringing the total area under some form of protection from 3,660 km2 to approximately 6,600 km2. 111. During the consultation processes underpinning the proposals for expansion, affected local communities have demonstrated a willingness to support the Park’s expansion with the proviso that: (i) they could share in the revenue generated from Park activities; and (ii) that alternative livelihood opportunities would be created in lieu of the loss of (or restrictions on) access to natural resource use. Component activities have been directed to respond to these needs. Project activities will be specifically targeted in three local communities - Canda, Sandjungira and Tambara - surrounding the Gorongosa Mountain (see Map 3 in Annexure VI). Gorongosa Mountain is a large cretaceous granitic intrusive complex, almost 700 km2 in extent, which rises with a vertical relief of 900 to 1400 metres over the Gorongosa Plateau. Gorongosa Mountain harbours one of the last patches of evergreen forests in Mozambique38. The Gorongosa Mountain massif is also the main water sources of Lake Urema in GNP, which is part of the larger Pungue River catchment. Local farmers are currently clearing small patches (½ to 1 hectare) of forests on the upper slopes of Gorongosa Mountain (above 700m) for planting potatoes (the soils apparently produce a higher yield than the low-lying areas). After 2 years, these farmed areas are abandoned and new forest areas cleared for planting. Theses slash and burn practices have severely impacted on the ecological integrity of the native forests, increased the threat of wildfire, increased the risk of erosion, and significantly reduced the quality of water in the catchment area. Work under this component will seek to: (i) contain, and reverse, the current levels of forest clearing on Gorongosa Mountain for subsistence agriculture and cash crops; (ii) rehabilitate and restore the cleared forest areas on Gorongosa Mountain; (iii) support alternative livelihood opportunities in the buffer areas of Gorongosa Mountain as an incentive to stop unsustainable slash-and-burn farming in the upper forested areas; and (iv) mitigate against the downstream effects of the forest clearing on communities in the buffer area and the GNP. The component will test the cost-effectiveness of a range of complementary park-community partnership approaches in addressing the threat of unsustainable slash-and-burn agricultural practices on Gorongosa Mountain. The community-based partnership approaches to be evaluated under this component include: supporting alternative livelihood opportunities (sustainable agricultural practices and nature-based tourism enterprise development); creating employment opportunities (reforestation, community guards, nature-based tourism guides); and mitigating threats to both the communities and the protected area (fire protection). The Carr Foundation will have responsibility for the implementation, supervision and monitoring of the outputs under this component. The direct implementation of the component activities will be undertaken by the Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP) and will be overseen by the Oversight Committee, constituted in terms of the Long Term Agreement for the co-management of the GNP. Output 2.1: The extent of deforestation on Gorongosa Mountain is contained, and reforestation and rehabilitation activities are expanded Work under this output will support the implementation of: a) a community-based reforestation and rehabilitation programme in the high biodiversity priority areas of Gorongosa Mountain; and b) the concurrent employment of community rangers to improve awareness and education, and ensure compliance with conservation legislation, in and around Gorongosa Mountain. Community-based reforestation activities under this output will include inter alia:

38 The others are in the Chimanimani massif in Manica Province and on the Namuli and Mabu Mountains in Zambézia Province


(i) Using updated satellite imagery and ground-truthing to identify priority areas for reforestation and rehabilitation;

(ii) Working with the Tambara, Canda and Sandjungira communities to maintain existing, and construct new (only as required), seedling nurseries;

(iii) Equipping and administering the seedling nurseries; (iv) Collecting seeds of native tree species for reforestation (e.g. Panga panga (Millettia stuhlmannii), Red

mahogany (Khaya anthotheca), Forest newtonia (Newtonia buchananii), Matumi (Breonadia salicina), Dwarf coral tree (Erythrina humeana), Flat-crown (Albizia adianthifolia), Weeping boer-bean (Schotia brachypetala) and Tree entada (Entada abyssinica)) for growing in the nursery;

(v) In collaboration with the communities’ Management Committees39, identifying, selecting and contracting local workers for: (i) the planting of tree saplings in the priority areas for reforestation and (ii) the stabilisation of degraded slopes and river courses;

(vi) Assessing opportunities to link the reforestation programme to local and regional carbon credit markets as a mechanism to cross-subsidise the ongoing costs of the programme;

(vii) Assist communities (training, skills development, entrepreneurial knowledge, procurement of key materials & equipment, etc.) to develop some of the seedling nurseries into more viable commercial entities (e.g. growing fruit trees) in order to build their sustainability beyond the term of the reforestation programme;

(viii) Monitor and evaluate the overall socio-economic and environmental impacts/benefits of the reforestation activities.

Community-based awareness, conservation management and compliance activities under this output will include inter alia: (i) In collaboration with the communities’ Management Committees, identifying and training of at least

10 community rangers for patrolling the Gorongosa Mountain and surrounding areas. Training will include: conservation biology; conservation legislation; wildfires management; HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention; law enforcement approaches; CBNRM; and human-wildlife conflict management;

(ii) Procuring clothing and equipment for the community rangers (e.g. uniforms, safety equipment, radio or cell phone communications, camping equipment, bicycles, fire fighting equipment, etc.);

(iii) Designing and producing educational media and materials for community rangers to distribute/deliver (e.g. newsletters, brochures, fact sheets, booklets, presentations, etc.) to local residents;

(iv) Implementing outreach programmes (talks, presentations, exhibits, clean-up programs, guided day walks, radio shows, etc.) in local communities and primary and secondary schools;

(v) Monitoring and evaluating the overall socio-economic and environmental impacts/benefits of the employment of community rangers.

The implementation of activities under this output will be coordinated by the Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP). This output will form an integral part of the broader Gorongosa Mountain Rehabilitation Project, currently under implementation by the Community Relations Department of the GRP (with technical support from the Conservation Department). The GRP will facilitate the development, and maintenance, of the community partnership agreements with the Management Committees of the Tambara, Canda and Sandjungira communities to guide the operationalization of all community-based activities. A national forest rehabilitation and management expert will be contracted by GRP to: provide technical and management support in the establishment and functioning of the community-based seedling nurseries; identify the intervention areas for reforestation; select the native species for reforestation; draft procedures and guidelines for seedling nursery management and in situ plantings; and deliver specialized nursery management and forest restoration training. An international carbon credit broker will be contracted to assess the carbon credit potential of the reforestation programme (including proposals for its implementation). The Management Committees will, with the support of the GRP, identify and appoint the

39 The three communities have already established Management Committees, as prescribed by the Land Law.


community rangers. The community rangers will report to, and be managed by, the GRP (Conservation Department) in consultation with the Management Committees40. The community ranger training courses will be delivered through the Community Education Centre in Gorongosa NP, and will closely follow the national ranger training course programmes41. The GRP will also maintain a close liaison with the Gorongosa District Economic Activity Service (SDAE) in the implementation of activities and capacity building of the local communities’ Management Committees. Output 2.2: A joint venture tourism enterprise on the lower slopes of Gorongosa Mountain provides an alternative source of income for local communities Work under this output aims to support the design, development, construction and operation of a Joint Venture tourism enterprise (comprising 12 self catering units and a campsite) between the Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP) and the Tambara/ Canda/ Sandjungira communities on the lower slopes of Gorongosa Mountain42. The governance and management arrangements for the design, construction and operational stages of the tourism enterprise may be summarised as follows:

a) Negotiation of a Joint Venture (JV) between the GRP and the affected communities – the JV enables GEF (and other) funding to be channelled through a reliable institutional partner to the JV (i.e. the GRP) and a legal vehicle for ownership of the tourism venture

b) Establishment of a co-management committee (in terms of the JV) to coordinate the design and construction phase

c) Land use title (DUAT) issued to community, and tourism license issued to JV d) GRP acts as an agent for JV to implement design and construction phase (co-management

committee approves final decisions) – funded by GEF and other donors/financiers e) Established of co-management committee (in terms of JV) to coordinate the concessioning and

operational phase f) GRP acts as an agent for JV to implement concessioning process and selection of private operator

(co-management committee approves final decisions) – again, funded by GEF and other donors/financiers

g) Private operator runs tourism enterprise under management/concession agreement (which may include requirement to employ a % of staff from local communities and sourcing % of services from local area).

h) Income generated in form of concession or lease fees. Any losses covered by private operator. i) Co-management committee decides on use of income from lease/concession fees. j) Income invested in local public facilities/services (water supply, power supply, clinics, schools,

maintenance of public services, etc.). k) GRP is retained on a service contract agreement to support ongoing functioning of JV and co-

management committee - funded from income from concession/lease fees The activities under this output include inter alia: (i) Initiate communications with, and awareness-raising of, the targeted communities (Tambara/ Canda/

Sandjungira communities) in respect of the intent to develop a tourism enterprise; (ii) Facilitate the establishment of a community structure to effectively represent the interests of the local

communities in the negotiation of a Joint Venture (JV);

40 Note: the modalities of governance will be defined in the community partnership agreement 41 The national ranger training centre was, until recently based in Gorongosa NP (it is now in Niassa NR). 42 GEF resources will only finance up to a maximum of 60% of the design, development, construction and operation costs during the start-up phase. The GRP will, in collaboration with the local communities, source the remaining 40% from other sources. Once the private sector operator is appointed and operational, no GEF resources will be allocated to support the administration and maintenance of the tourism enterprise.


(iii) Facilitate the capacity building (legal knowledge, negotiating skills, communication approaches, etc) of the constituted community structure (at the outset this may require the contracting of an NGO, legal adviser or public institution to support community members) to ensure that they are an equal partner in the JV negotiations;

(iv) Prepare a concept plan for the siting, design, layout and operations of the tourism enterprise; (v) Consult widely with the affected communities about the concept plan; (vi) Negotiate and conclude a joint venture agreement, register the JV as a legal entity and develop a co-

management governance structure to oversee the design and development phase of the tourism enterprise;

(vii) Prepare detailed architectural plans, designs and full costing of the tourism enterprise and its facilities and services;

(viii) Develop a business plan for the operational phase of the tourism enterprise; (ix) Obtain the land use title (DUAT) for the area covered by the tourism enterprise; (x) Implement the legal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements, and prepare a

construction Environmental Management Plan (EMP); (xi) Develop and implement a complementary fund-raising programme to secure additional donor or loan

support for the start-up design and construction phase; (xii) Appoint a contractor to implement the construction and installation of the infrastructure, equipment,

and fittings (e.g. mountain activity centre, 12 x self-catering units, campsite ablutions, kitchen, laundry, power supplies, water services, roads, wastewater treatment, campsite layout, etc.) for the tourism enterprise;

(xiii) Develop and maintain a co-management governance structure for the concessioning and operational phase of the tourism enterprise;

(xiv) Administer a concessioning process to select a private sector operator for the tourism enterprise, and associated recreational services (e.g. walking trails, horse trails, etc.);

(xv) Negotiate and conclude a management agreement with the preferred private sector operator; (xvi) Identify and promote opportunities for the development of complementary community-based

businesses linked to the tourism enterprise (e.g. supply of food, sale of curios, etc.); (xvii) Support the marketing of the tourism venture; (xviii) Identify capacity gaps and training needs of selected individuals to be employed and mentored by the

private sector operator; (xix) Provide relevant training for the selected community members; (xx) Monitor and evaluate the overall socio-economic and environmental impacts/benefits of the tourism

enterprise during both the design and construction phase and the operational phase. The implementation of activities under this output will be coordinated by the Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP). The GRP, with the support of an independent Legal Adviser (to be contracted by the Project Management unit), will: i) communicate and consult with the affected local communities; ii) support the capacity building of local communities in the establishment of a representative community structure; iii) negotiate the formalisation of a JV; iv) facilitate all the training and capacity building of pre-selected community members; and v) monitor and evaluate the overall impacts and benefits of the tourism development. The GRP may contract short-term specialist consultants (e.g. EIA consultant, hydraulic engineer) to implement different activities under this output, as and where required. The JV, with the technical support of GRP, will: i) establish and maintain the co-management arrangements for the construction and operational phases; ii) appoint an architectural firm to prepare the overall design and costing of the tourism infrastructure, equipment, and fittings; iii) appoint a Construction Project Manager to oversee the construction phase; iv) contract a construction firm to implement all building and fitting activities; v) administer the concessioning process to select and appoint a private operator; and vi) administer the income from the concession/lease agreement with the private operator.


Output 2.3: Improved productivity and sustainability of cultivated areas in the lowlands incentivizes local farmers to abandon slash-and-burn farming practices on Gorongosa Mountain Work under this output is directed at providing more sustainable agricultural alternatives in the buffer areas of Gorongosa Mountain as an incentive to local farmers to abandon the unsustainable slash and burn practices on the upper forested slopes of the mountain. The primary focus of activities is to demonstrate to local communities that sustainable farming practices in the lowland areas can generate a higher agricultural yield at lower cost and effort when compared to slash and burn subsistence agriculture. Demonstration agricultural projects will be supported to supply fresh produce to the joint venture tourism enterprise established under output 2.2. The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approach will be adopted to facilitate the involvement of the target communities in the agricultural planning and development activities under this output. Output activities are focused on: (vi) Defining, and profiling, the buffer areas of Gorongosa Mountain to be targeted for agricultural

planning, development and extension services under this output; (vii) Mapping the areas of agricultural potential and existing agricultural land use (i.e. the Relatively

Homogenous Farming Areas, RHFA) within the targeted area; (viii) Selecting, and mapping the optimal spatial distribution of, the most significant agricultural enterprises

within the targeted area, in terms of both the existing agricultural production and the agricultural potential;

(ix) For each agricultural enterprise, identifying the limits to production; (x) For each agricultural enterprise, defining the needs and requirements for optimising production and

reducing the capital and operational costs; (xi) For each agricultural enterprise, defining inter alia the smallholder irrigation, technical,

infrastructural, land tenure, marketing, distribution and capacity building requirements; (xii) Assisting local communities in the target area to enter into agricultural development and marketing

partnerships with prospective private, NGO and public sector partners; (xiii) Supporting local communities in the target area to broker business agreements with outgrower

schemes, agricultural institutions (for technical assistance), specialised services suppliers, inputs suppliers and distribution companies;

(xiv) Building the capacity of the Gorongosa District Service for Economic Activities (SDAE) to provide effective agricultural extension support services to the communities in the target area;

(xv) Providing assistance to Management Committees in the target area to obtain any necessary land use titles (DUAT) for the selected agricultural enterprises;

(xvi) Sourcing and implementing relevant agricultural training programmes for local communities (and Gorongosa SDAE personnel);

(xvii) Selecting and developing detailed plans for a suite of small agricultural demonstration projects in the target area that directly focuses on the subsistence and cash crop farmers that are currently employing slash and burn farming practices on Gorongosa Mountain;

(xviii) Providing direct support to the pre-selected farmers in the implementation of demonstration projects (e.g. procuring equipment, materials, technical expertise, etc.) to supply fresh produce to the joint venture tourism enterprise (see Output 2.2);

(xix) Providing ongoing technical support to the agricultural demonstration projects; (xx) Monitoring and evaluating the performance of agricultural activities in both the target area and in the

local agricultural demonstration projects, and their socio-economic and environmental impacts. The implementation of activities under this output will be coordinated by the Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP). This output will form an integral part of the broader Gorongosa Mountain Rehabilitation Project, currently under implementation by the Community Relations Department of the GRP (with technical support


from the Conservation Department). The Community Relations Department of the GRP will guide the implementation of the PRA approach. The GRP will contract an Agricultural Planner/Economist to undertake all the agricultural planning under this output. The GRP will also contract 2-3 agricultural extension officers to oversee the direct implementation of all in situ agricultural development activities under this output. The agricultural training courses will be delivered through the Community Education Centre in Gorongosa NP. The GRP and the Agricultural Extension Officers will collaborate closely with the Gorongosa SDAE to ensure alignment of work under this output with similar initiative and programmes in the wider Gorongosa District. The Agricultural Planner/Economist will liaise with MINAG to ensure the ongoing alignment of output activities with the National Rural Development strategy. Component 3: Business planning and revenue generation During project preparation a range of different financing mechanisms were analyzed, focusing primarily on the feasibility of their implementation and on their potential impact (more information on this can be obtained in the PPG technical report ‘Feasibility Study on Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in Mozambique’, available upon request). Table 8 summarizes the results of this analysis, and the identification of the prospective financing mechanisms to be piloted under this component (highlighted in yellow in the table below). Table 8: Overview of potential sustainable financing mechanisms for Mozambique (financing mechanisms to be piloted under this component are highlighted in yellow)

FINANCING MECHANISM

SOURCE OF REVENUE

POTENTIAL FOR SUSTAINABLE

FINANCING (Feasibility - Impact)

ACTION RECOMMENDED OR

OBSERVATIONS

Government Revenue Allocations Direct allocations from government budgets

Government budget revenues

Existing - high Greater integration of conservation areas in PARPA

Government taxes, fees and fines earmarked for conservation

Government fiscal revenues paid by companies and individuals

Existing - Medium Advocate for allocation to conservation areas

Government taxes, fees and fines raised by conservation areas


Existing - High Develop pilot program - Revision of user fees for conservation areas

Government taxes, fees and fines – revenue sharing with communities


Existing - High Improve management of community revenue sharing mechanisms, based on existing legal framework (e.g., tourism, forestry); Expand community revenue sharing frameworks to other sectors (eg,. Mining)

Debt relief (debt-for-nature swaps, PARPA)

Creditors, Government

Yes - High Negotiate terms of allocation to BIOFUND Review potential for other debt relief mechanisms

Grants and Donations Bilateral donors Donors Existing - High Develop strategy for increased funding

from existing donors (AFD, KfW, USAID) and attracting new bilateral donors (e.g., NORAD)

Multilateral agencies Donors Existing - High Develop strategy for increased funding from existing donors (GEF, UNDP, World Bank ) and attracting new multilateral donors; develop Africa regional GEF project

Private Charitable Foundations Individuals, Existing - High Develop strategy for attracting new


FINANCING MECHANISM

SOURCE OF REVENUE




OBSERVATIONS

Corporations foundation donors Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

Individual members and donors

Existing - High Develop strategy for increased funding from new NGO donors; explore new partnerships

Cause-related marketing – wildlife friendly Adopt-a-park or species

Individual donations Yes - Medium Link to new ANAC brand, introduce through PA business planning

Corporate funding (donations, foundations, sponsorship, partnerships)

Companies – Mozambique and international

Existing – High Develop strategy for increased funding from existing donors (Sasol – Bazaruto, Coca Cola – Lake Niassa) and attracting new corporate donors from South Africa, Europe and the U.S.A.

Academic and Research Institutions Zoos, Aquariums, Universities, research centers

Yes - Medium Identify potential zoo and aquarium “twinning” arrangements, link to SAVE tourism

Environmental Funds Conservation Trust Funds Multi-source Yes - High Register BIOFUND and raise funds Biodiversity enterprise and sustainable investment funds

Private equity and lending, investment promotion

Yes - High Existing: Verde Ventures, IFC Tourism Anchor Investment, Northern Arc; Review potential for sustainable investing in other sectors than tourism

Carbon Markets Forest carbon offset (REDD+, mangrove)

Public donors, private buyers (voluntary and future compliance market)

Yes - High Establish national policy framework and develop pilot projects for CDM and voluntary markets

Alternative energy carbon offsets (energy efficient stoves, biochar, solar)

Public donors, private buyers (voluntary and future compliance market)

Yes - High Establish national policy framework and develop pilot projects

Tourism-based Revenues Protected area entry fees Tourists Existing - High Develop pilot program Recreational fees: diving, boating, hunting

Tourists Existing - High Develop pilot program

Recreational fees: sport hunting Hunters Existing –High Review hunting policy to reflect best practice

Concessions Tourism operators Existing - High Review concession policy Product marketing Tourists Existing - Low PA business planning to improve Airport passenger fee, Visa fee Tourists Yes - Medium Advocate for conservation area link to

existing fees, Hotel taxes Hotel clients No - Low Hotel tax eliminated with introduction

of VAT Donations by Tourists and Tourism Operators

Tourism operators, Tourists

Existing - Medium Sensitize tourism operators about best ways to implement (e.g., “opt-out) and contact airlines about on-board donations or carbon offsets allocated to conservation areas

Other Mechanisms Payment for watershed services Government utilities,

Water Consumers, Companies

No - Low Not much evidence of willingness to pay; consider review of legal basis for water and advocate for public payments

Bio-prospecting and natural products Medical, Pharmaceutical, Cosmetics

Yes - Medium No evidence of interest, although legal basis exists

Compensation and Biodiversity offsets Project developers Yes - High National-level program and pilots Fishing Industry Revenues Fisheries licensing and access Governments, Yes - Medium Consider potential allocation to


FINANCING MECHANISM

SOURCE OF REVENUE




OBSERVATIONS

payments, fines Fishermen conservation areas from EU agreement Recreational fishing license fees and taxes

Recreational fishers Yes - Low Review - sport fishing regulation

While there are many new sustainable financing mechanisms that could be introduced in Mozambique, not all of them are feasible, or would produce much impact in terms of sustainable financing. A small set of pilot projects were identified during the preparatory phase43. These pilot projects are considered to have the potential to catalyze new approaches to sustainable financing, and to reflect a new way of doing business. The pilots seek to place a value on protected area “goods and services”, and then adopt a business approach in order to sell them. Four pilot projects were recommended during the preparatory phase – conservation trust fund start up and operations; improving user-based income; mangrove carbon development; and biodiversity offsets. These pilots are described in more detail in outputs 3.1 – 3.4 below. Output 3.1: A Conservation Trust Fund is established, effectively administered and capitalized Mozambique has made considerable progress - since the launch of the initiative in 2007 - to establish a trust fund to finance conservation areas in Mozambique (refer to Baseline Analysis). This initiative is now in the second phase of development, the ‘start-up phase’, 2010 – 2012)44. The objective of the start-up phase is to establish a functioning foundation, ‘BIOFUND Mozambique’. A detailed work plan and budget has been prepared for this phase (the PPG Study ‘Road Map for Establishment and Operation of a Mozambique Conservation Trust Fund’ and can be availed upon request) and defines the activities required to ensure the: • registration of BIOFUND; • establishment and initial capitalisation of BIOFUND, and creation of a foreign fund for investment

purposes; • development of operational and strategic plans, policies and procedures; • election of the Board, and the constitution of other governing bodies; and • recruitment and equipping of Foundation staff. Work under this output will co-finance the implementation of the start up phase activities, including: (i) Drafting the strategic (strategic plan, fund-raising strategy) and operational instruments (operational

manual, investment policy and grant-making policy) for BIOFUND (ii) Legal registration of BIOFUND and foreign investment fund; (iii) Election of BIOFUND’s Board of Directors and Oversight Committee; (iv) Recruitment of a small executive team to administer the day-to-day management of BIOFUND; (v) Establishment and equipping of office facilities for this executive team (office space, office

equipment, communications equipment, transport, etc.); (vi) Implementation of administrative (e.g. filing system) and financial processes (e.g. set up bank

account) to manage the day-to-day activities of BIOFUND.

43 The criteria for selection of pilot projects included: (i) Feasibility (political, legal and technical conditions, implementing partner capacity, return on investment, and availability of co-financing) (ii) Impact (Significant additional financing, matches financing need, stimulates new opportunities for partnerships, and creates positive environmental impacts and incentives); (iii) Geographical coverage (all or most of conservation areas covered by at least one of the pilot mechanisms; different scales – national-level and conservation area); and (iv) Demonstration value (innovation i.e. new or improved conservation financing mechanism and can be replicated in other conservation areas). 44 The first phase – the ‘establishment phase’ – included the establishment of the Founders Committee, an analysis of the options for fund establishment, a legal review of the modalities for the preferred option and the drafting of a fund ‘profile’.


The suite of activities under this start-up phase (2010-2012) will be implemented by WWF through a management agreement with MITUR (see Part IV Management Arrangements). WWF will designate a staff member to coordinate its implementation. The BIOFUND Founders Committee - comprising three institutional representatives from MITUR, MICOA, and WWF, and eight individuals from various sectors of society45 - will facilitate and guide the activities of WWF during the start-up phase. Experience with other conservation trust funds (e.g. Mgahindi Bwindi Conservation Trust) has shown that financial support for the operating costs in the first few years of a trust fund enables the fund to focus its activities on the core activities (fund-raising and investment management) that could secure its long-term financial sustainability. Once BIOFUND is established and the executive team is in place, the following operational activities of BIOFUND will be co-financed, for the period 2012-2015, under this output: (i) Recurrent costs of BIOFUND executive team; (ii) Training and capacity building of the executive team staff and the Board of Directors; (iii) Implementation of the fund-raising strategy to finance BIOFUND’s operational costs, and build its

capital in support of conservation areas; (iv) Implementation of an investment strategy for BIOFUND; (v) Implementation of the communications strategy for BIOFUND; (vi) Piloting the implementation of the grant-making procedures and protocols46. Once BIOFUND is registered and the Board of Directors and executive team are established in 2011, the executive team will take over responsibility for the day-to-day development and management of BIOFUND from WWF (a formal transition process has been provided for in phase 2), under the guidance and supervision of the Board of Directors. The executive team will then contract in technical assistance and expertise as and when it may require. Output 3.2: The income from user fees in national parks, national reserves and marine reserves is improved During the preparatory phase it was established that there is significant potential for additional revenue to be generated from user fees for the different categories of conservation areas47. While the enabling legal and institutional framework is already in place, and political support for the user-pays approach is high, the current fee structures and collection mechanisms for national parks, national reserves and marine reserves are still sub-optimal. Work under this output will then focus on systematically supporting the PA agency in regularly reviewing the fees charged for facilities and services administered by the parks/reserves, and the development of a more market-based user fee structure. This would include: determining the willingness to pay; evaluating existing pricing structures; assessing expected revenue generation from increases in fees; developing fee collection methods; developing compliance systems; and monitoring the income from (and costs of) providing and maintaining the adventure tourism product. Activities in this output are directed at: (i) Updating the overarching user fees policy for the parks and reserves;

45 UNDP have observer status on the Founders Committee, and represents the interests of donor institutions. 46 This may include the testing of small grant allocations to local communities living in PA buffer areas for conservation-friendly activities 47 During the preparatory phase, it was established that: (i) a process to review, rationalise and update the pricing structures of concessions in Coutadas is already being prepared by the IGF Foundation for MITUR; and (ii) the TFCATDP is currently reviewing the concessioning policy to ensure optimal returns from nature-based tourism concessions. The project will thus support MITUR/DNAC in its annual cycle of reviewing the user fees for the National Parks and National Reserves.


(ii) Estimating the supply costs for each of the facilities and services (i.e. capital costs, maintenance and replacement costs, operational and administrative costs) that are directly managed by the parks/reserves in order to define the minimum fee levels required to enable full cost-recovery;

(iii) Establishing the ‘market rate’ for each of the facilities and services, at different levels of demand (e.g. tented camp along the coast in Quirimbas NP vs. tented camp in miombo of Niassa NR):

(iv) Implementing ‘willingness to pay’ surveys for selected facilities and services in ‘destination’ parks and reserves;

(v) Evaluating the experiential quality of the current facilities and services, and prioritising the actions (including cost estimates) required to improve these, and their management;

(vi) Determining the acceptable levels of equitable cross-subsidisation between different user groups (i.e. differential fees for locals-nationals-SADC-international);

(vii) Evaluating the cost effectiveness of the current collection arrangements of different user fees, identifying viable alternatives (e.g. internet bookings, outsourced collection, pre-paid user card systems, etc);

(viii) Defining discounting options for different user groups, use types and times of year; (ix) Determining an indicative price for each of the facilities and services provided by the parks and

reserves based on the following factors (see above): cost recovery; economic efficiency through identification of a ‘market rate’; maximising consumers ‘willingness to pay’; costs for improvement of facilities and their management; differential fee structures (e.g. foreign/national); and transaction costs;

(x) Consulting with organisations representing different user groups to review and comment on the proposed new fee structures;

(xi) Advertising the intent to update the user fees for parks and reserves and making the user fees policy, user fee objectives and new fee structures widely available for review and comments;

(xii) Updating the proposed pricing of fees for parks and reserves, based on comments and inputs received from different interest groups;

(xiii) Following the legal procedures required to revise Decree 27/2003; (xiv) Standardising data collection procedures on users numbers and profiles; (xv) Implementing accounting procedures to enable ongoing estimation of cost-effectiveness or

profitability of user-pays enterprises in parks and reserves; (xvi) Updating all conditions of permits, leases and other user agreements to ensure their enforceability; (xvii) Developing capacities in parks and reserves to enforce compliance with user fees. The National Administration of Conservation Areas - once established – will, with the support of the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), contract a tourism specialist to undertake all the technical work under this output. The tourism specialist will be required to work in close collaboration with MITUR and the relevant departments and institutions of the affected Ministries and Provincial Governments. They will also be required to directly involve selected staff from the PA agency in the technical preparatory work, and train and mentor those staff to ensure the ongoing implementation of the user fee policy and annual revision of the fee structures. The tourism specialist may seek to establish a user working group as a reference group to guide the preparation of the user fees policy, and the proposed revision of the pricing for use of the reserves and parks facilities and services. The PA agency will, through MITUR, follow the legal procedures for revision of Decree 27/2003. The contracted tourism specialist will make explicit recommendations to PA agency and the chartered accounting firm contracted under Output 1.3 on the accounting procedures that would be required to evaluate the profitability of the new user fees. The PA agency will, in consultation with individual parks and reserves, determine the capacity requirements for enforcement of user compliance. Output 3.3: The development of a pilot carbon sequestration project in the mangrove forests of a coastal conservation area is catalysed


Mangroves offer a special opportunity to sequester carbon in Mozambique. Mozambique’s estimated 390,000 hectares of mangroves extend over one of the largest areas in Africa. Mangroves are however threatened by conversion to agriculture and aquaculture, cutting for housing, firewood and charcoal, pollution, the impact of dams and oil and gas development. Large stands of mangroves are protected by Mozambique’s conservation areas, including those in Bazaruto Archipelago NP, Ilhas da Inhaca, Maputo NR, Marromeu NR, Pomene GR and Quirimbas NP. With the emergence of so-called “blue” and “wet” carbon, carbon markets may offer a new way to protect and restore mangroves. Although the total carbon stored by above ground mangrove biomass in Mozambique is estimated at 11.8 million tons, there are no estimates of below-ground carbon, which provide much greater carbon sinks. More extensive feasibility work will be required to assess whether carbon projects in conservation areas are technically feasible and financially sustainable, and technical assistance is needed to develop project concepts and design documents, and to bring forest carbon credits to market. Work in this pilot will thus seek to catalyze the development of mangrove forest pilot projects in coastal conservation areas, by focusing on: identifying a portfolio of mangrove forest pilot projects in conservation areas; supporting development of a demonstration pilot project; and, developing a mangrove carbon methodology that can be applied in different project sites. It aims to generate carbon standards such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity standard (CCB). To implement this pilot program, specific recommended activities are targeted at: (i) Conducting pre-feasibility scoping for potential mangrove carbon projects in conservation areas,

including identification of project sites and project proponents; (ii) Preparing Project Idea Note (PIN) or concept for a pilot site to be selected, including defining

project scope, identifying project area, identifying potential partners, analyzing legal feasibility, initiating stakeholder engagement, and assessing project feasibility;

(iii) Consulting with other project proponents developing mangrove projects; (iv) Designing project through in-depth feasibility analysis resulting in preparation of Project Design

Document (PDD), including work to: establish carbon baseline, social and economic assessment of the drivers of deforestation; define project activities; analyze financial costs and legal issues; stakeholder consultations; and identification and/or development of project methodology;

(v) Identification of co-benefits provided by mangroves; (vi) Validation of project by third party auditor and registration of project to comply with standards; (vii) Beginning implementation of community-based mangrove restoration and protection activities,

such as training communities in sustainable harvesting of mangroves, the introduction of energy efficient stoves to reduce deforestation and re-planting mangroves;

(viii) Fundraising, including project marketing and communications with donors, to raise sufficient funds for project implementation.

The activities under this output will be developed to closely align with Mozambique’s National REDD Strategy, currently under preparation. MICOA will, in close collaboration with MITUR, oversee the implementation of the output. WWF will be directly responsible for the implementation of activities and will designate a staff member (i.e. a WWF REDD Project Manager) to affect this responsibility. WWF will contract a REDD specialist to undertake the pre-feasibility scoping for potential mangrove carbon projects in conservation areas, including the identification of project sites and project proponents. MICOA and MITUR will then select the preferred pilot project site and project proponent. The REDD specialist will assist the project proponent in preparing the project idea note (PIN) for the pilot site, including defining project scope, identifying project area, identifying potential partners, analyzing legal feasibility, initiating stakeholder engagement, and assessing project feasibility. Following this phase and its approval by MICOA, the REDD specialist would then assist in the development and implementation of the project design document (PDD), including the identification


or development of a validated methodology for mangrove carbon calculations. The REDD specialist will also facilitate contacts with relevant carbon markets. Output 3.4: The potential for funding conservation areas from the implementation of biodiversity offset and compensation mechanisms is assessed During the preparatory phase, compensation and biodiversity offset mechanisms were identified as a potential source of income for conservation areas48. Since the notion of compensation and biodiversity offsets is new to Mozambique, activities under this output will contribute to: building institutional and individual capacities; piloting a compensation and biodiversity offset project; preparing a national compensation and offset policy framework49; and revising the legislative and regulatory framework. Activities in this output are directed at: (i) Assessing the legal and regulatory context, and market conditions, for introducing compensation and

biodiversity offset mechanisms, evaluating the best options, and recommending an action plan for designing and implementing an offset policy;

(ii) Building institutional and organisational capacities. This would include: a) hosting an introductory national workshop; b) facilitating thematic workshops on topics related to compensation and offset design and implementation; c) enabling participation in Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) meetings; and c) supporting exchange programmes with counterparts in countries actively working on biodiversity offsets (both public and private sector), such as Brazil and South Africa;

(iii) Identifying major developments in and around conservation areas that have potential for the piloting voluntary biodiversity offset mechanisms;

(iv) Engaging with private sector companies in order to identify and select potential investors/projects that would be interested in voluntarily implementing an offset mechanism on a pilot basis;

(v) Designing at least one pilot voluntary offset. The design phase will include: a) reviewing scope and activities; b) reviewing the legal framework and policy context; c) initiating a stakeholder participation process; d) determining the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects; e) choosing methods to calculate ‘loss/gain’ and quantify residual losses; and, f) reviewing and selecting offset locations and activities and calculating offset gains;

(vi) Implementing the pilot offset. The implementation phase will include: a) defining how the offset will be operated and managed; b) clarifying how the offset will be financed over the long-term (e.g., through PES and/or BIOFUND); c) establishing how the offset will be monitored and evaluated; d) launching the offset by signing an agreement among offset partners (e.g., developer, DNAC/ANAC, local authorities or implementing organizations); and e) monitoring the operationalization of the offset, income streams and the ongoing administration requirements (depending on the nature of the offset);

(vii) Reviewing lessons learned from design and implementation of the pilot offset(s) in order to assess the requirements of an offset policy and related legal framework;

(viii) Developing an offset policy and revising the legal framework (if required), taking into account the need to integrate compensation/offset approaches into the EIA process, investment and spatial planning processes and the Conservation Policy.

MICOA will, in close collaboration with MITUR, oversee the implementation of the output. WWF will be directly responsible for implementation of activities and will designate a staff member to affect this responsibility. WWF will contract a multi-disciplinary consulting team comprising national and international expertise in the legal, financial and scientific aspects of biodiversity offset policy, design and

48 By example, oil and gas exploration in the Marromeu Complex - Mozambique’s only Ramsar site - recently triggered a Ramsar Advisory Mission that recommended compensation in the event of future oil and gas exploration or exploitation. 49 The policy may include ‘social offsets’.


implementation. MICOA and MITUR will play an important role in the identification of offset locations in and around conservation areas, and defining possible implementation arrangements. 2.5 Financial modality 112. The project activities are focused on financial planning, institutional capacity building, the in situ testing of community-based partnership approaches, and the piloting of different financing mechanisms. The project objective will thus be achieved primarily through the provision of technical assistance. No loan or revolving fund mechanisms are considered appropriate, and therefore grant-type funding is considered adequate to enable successful delivery of project outcomes. 2.6 Indicators, Risks and Assumptions 113. The project indicators are detailed in the Strategic Results Framework which is attached in Section II of this Project Document. Project risks and risk mitigation measures are described in Table 9 below. Table 9: Risks facing the project and the risk mitigation strategy

Risk Rating Mitigation Measures

Political and institutional conflicts delay the establishment of the new National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC)

High The project will actively participate in, and support the work of, the inter-institutional Conservation Policy Working Group mandated to guide the institutional and legislative reform processes for conservation areas. It will also work closely with the World Bank Trans-frontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project (TFCATDP) to focus resources and capacities in support of the Conservation Policy Working Group. The capacity constraints of DNAC/MITUR are similar to those that will be encountered by the new PA agency (as it will comprise staff and resources transferred from existing PA institutions). So, project outputs under Component 1 have been designed to support the financial planning and management capacities of DNAC (and MITUR) at the national and provincial levels, should a new PA agency not be established in the short to medium-term.

The legal processes for the expansion of Gorongosa NP are not concluded timeously, resulting in delays to the implementation of activities in and around Gorongosa Mountain.

Moderate The proposal for the extension of the GNP is programmed for discussion and approval by the Council of Ministers in 2010. If the proposal is however not approved by the Council of Ministers, the project will support the GRP in reformulating the proposal to respond to any technical issues or concerns raised, facilitate the consultation processes with the affected local communities and the district and provincial authorities, and prepare an amended proposal for discussion and approval.

BIOFUND fails to secure capital investments

Moderate The recent debt swap agreed between the governments of France and Mozambique has already enabled the allocation of €4 million to BIOFUND, effectively providing for BIOFUND’s initial capital. During project preparation, a plan for the further capitalisation of BIOFUND has also been prepared. The project will finance the costs of a small BIOFUND executive team to implement this plan, and further develop new opportunities to capitalise the fund. The project, in facilitating the development of the financial plan for Mozambique’s system of protected areas, will identify additional mechanisms for capitalising the fund. Activities under outputs 3.3 and 3.4 will assess the feasibility of using income from biodiversity compensation, biodiversity offsets and carbon markets to be used to capitalise e BIOFUND.


Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Local communities living in the buffer areas around Gorongosa Mountain are unable to conclude and maintain co-management, partnership or Joint Venture agreements with the GRP

Low Consultative approaches, such as the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approach will be adopted to facilitate the involvement of the targeted communities in the project. The implementation of project activities will be directed through the legally constituted (in terms of the Land Law, 19/97), and representative, community Management Committees. The project will develop the capacities of the Management Committee to actively participate in project activities as equal partners. The project-appointed Community rangers will be trained, and resourced, to implement an ongoing communications and awareness programme in local communities that emphasises the benefits of community-based partnerships with the GNP management. Finally, the project focus is directed towards creating positive incentives to local communities for sustaining their interest and involvement in project activities – this includes improving agricultural livelihoods, creating employment opportunities, creating entrepreneurial opportunities linked to tourism and recreation, generating revenue streams from a tourism Joint Venture enterprise, and mitigating the impacts of the park on the safety and security of households living in the buffer areas.

The current legislation does not adequately provide for the implementation of a number of financing mechanisms envisaged in the Financial Plan for Mozambique’s’ system of protected areas

Low The financial advisory group constituted under Output 1.1 of the project will provide ongoing technical inputs (with support from the contracted financial planning service provider ) into the drafting of any new conservation legislation (and associated regulations) to ensure that it provides an enabling legal framework for the implementation of the FP. The project manager will also actively collaborate with inter-institutional Conservation Policy Working Group to ensure that the legislative reform processes for conservation areas are harmonized with the financing mechanisms proposed for implementation in the protected area system. Activities under outputs 3.3 and 3.4 will also provide technical guidance in the future development of carbon trading and biodiversity offset legislation/regulations.

Resistance to increasing (or introducing new) entrance fees, user fees and other surcharges in national parks and national reserves. These conflicts cannot be timeously addressed and resolved.

Low The project will: 1. Strengthen the capacity of the PA agency to: identify the equitable ‘market rate’ for PA products and services; evaluate consumer ‘willingness to pay’ (WTP); and measure the elasticity in demand 2. Facilitate the establishment of cooperative forums with different user groups to (amongst others): discuss any new fees and surcharges proposed; and comment on recommendations for increases to existing fees and surcharges. 3. Identify the need to improve and diversify the facilities and services offered by the affected PAs in order to justify any increase in existing fees, or introduction of new fees 4. Strengthen the capacity of the PA agency, and individual PA’s, to improve the effectiveness of their fee collection methods 5. Identify mechanisms for the introduction of discounted rates for selected user groups (e.g. school groups, local communities, volunteers) to facilitate access to PA products and services

2.7 Cost Effectiveness

114. The project will seek to achieve a catalytic investment in securing the long-term financial sustainability of the national system of protected areas. Costs incurred in project implementation will focus only on those additional actions required to provide key incremental assistance to the government in undertaking strategically critical reforms to improving the financial viability of the protected area system


(e.g. building financial capacities of the new PA agency, ANAC). To accomplish this, the project will seek to complement and build upon the extensive baseline activities already underway in the sector (e.g. revision of the hunting fees for the Coutadas), and the existing capacities of government institutions, funding agencies/institutions and NGOs. Wherever possible, the project will use the competencies and logistical skills within the mandated government institutions (MITUR, MICOA, MINAG, MF) private foundations (Carr Foundation, GRP) and NGOs (WWF) to implement project activities. Where applicable, project resources will also be deployed to strengthen and expand existing PA funding initiatives and programmes (e.g. expanding the reforestation programme on Gorongosa Mountain) to avoid duplication of effort. Increased co-financing commitments will continue to be targeted by the project during the implementation phase (e.g. funding for construction of JV tourism enterprise in GNP). 115. The project is considered cost-effective for the following primary reasons:

(i) A modest expenditure in financial planning and development of institutional capacities for financial management will contribute significantly to increasing, diversifying and stabilizing the financial flows to protected areas in Mozambique. As a result of project investments, it is anticipated that by the end of project the protected area financing gap (currently projected at US$4,940,058 per annum, including donor funding) will be reduced by at least 80% to ~US$1m/annum. Over the long-term (>20 years), it is envisaged that the protected area system will increasingly reduce its dependence on external donor funding support to <50% of its operating costs (currently nearly 90%);

(ii) Project support to the introduction of business planning approaches and tools at the institutional and local PA level is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of PA institutions by: (a) strengthening internal financial controls and financial systems; (b) ensuring more efficient flows of financial information; (c) improving individual skills of financial management staff; (d) developing better user fee collection mechanisms; and (e) advocating increased investment in protected areas by donors and government.

(iii) Project investments in the restoration of the forests of Gorongosa Mountain, and the employment of community rangers to prevent further encroachment of subsistence agriculture is expected to reduce the enforcement and compliance costs of the newly proclaimed mountain area from US$185/km2/annum to <US$100/km2/annum. With the reforestation of Gorongosa Mountain and deployment of trained and equipped community rangers, it is also expected that the number of wildfires per annum, and their concomitant costs (both damage and management costs), are reduced from the current level of 63 per annum to <20.

(iv) Project funding for the design, development, construction and operation of a joint venture (community—GRP) tourism enterprise in the buffer area of Gorongosa Mountain would result in a sustainable source of revenue and employment for the local community. It is projected that the tourism venture (12 self-catering units and campsite), and associated tourism (e.g. sales outlets) and recreational services (e.g. walking trails), would collectively generate at least US$20,000-30,000 per annum from lease/concession/user fees.

(v) Project investments in outputs and activities under component 2 are expected to yield substantial socio-economic benefits to the targeted communities living in the buffer areas of Gorongosa Mountain. The average household monthly income will, as a result of project support, increase from a range of US$16-75 to a range of US$75-US$150. Individuals employed as a result of project-related activities will increase from a baseline of 59 at project inception to 220 by end of project.

(vi) Project support for the start-up and operating costs of BIOFUND are expected to yield a capitalization of the trust fund in excess of >US$40m by end of project. The value of grants to protected areas from the BIOFUND is expected to exceed US$500,000 per annum by end of project.

(vii) Project support to introducing a more market-based user fee structure for protected areas will ensure that institutions can better justify the pricing of protected area goods and services, and that fees are more closely linked to the real costs of providing those goods and services.

(viii) Project investments in the piloting of a carbon scheme for mangroves in coastal protected areas and in a voluntary pilot biodiversity offset and could, if successfully implemented and legislated, be


replicated across the country over the medium term. While the initial financial returns from the pilots would be modest (likely to at least cover the ongoing management and administration costs) the scaling up of these opportunities could generate significant revenues in the long-term, a proportion of which could be ring-fenced’ for protected area operational costs or capital investment costs.

116. The project’s cost effectiveness is based on improving revenue from a range of exisiting and new financial mechanisms, improving the cost-effectiveness of operational management costs through community-based partnership appoaches and developing the financial planning and management capacity of protected area institutions. 117. Alternative approaches could include financing large-scale investment in PA infrastructure and equipment, through loans from multilateral development agencies such as the African Development Bank or World Bank. That scenario would presumably also achieve a similarly lasting effect in terms of PA financial health, but with much larger initial investment required and with the additional burden on the Government to repay loans during the uneasy times of the global financial crisis. The per-dollar value of achievements of the loan-based scenarios would therefore considerably exceed those of the proposed project. 2.8 Sustainability 118. The project has been carefully designed to optimize prospects for improving the sustainability of the the system of protected areas in the following areas: 119. Financial and institutional sustainability is an integral part of project design. The project will develop the systemic capacity of protected area institutions to more effectively secure and administer funds for protected area management. It will do this by developing a national strategic planning framework to direct the long-term sustainable financing of the protected area system (Output 1.1). The project will also develop the institutional and individual capacities of a new National Administration of Conservation Areas (to be established in line with the Conservation Policy, 2009). The sustainability of this new institution will, in part, be founded on its ability to become financially viable over the short to medium-term. The project will thus provide support to the new PA agency by: (i) supporting its strategic and business planning processes (Output 1.2); and (ii) improving the efficiencies of its financial, business and operational functioning (Output 1.3). The project will facilitate the implementation of the new PA agency’s strategic plan at the local level by piloting business planning processes in a number of individual protected areas (Output 1.2). The project will contribute to implementing (Output 3.1 and Output 3.2) or piloting (Output 3.3 and Output 3.4) different approaches to diversifying and improving the long-term revenue streams for protected area management. Support to the establishment and operations of BIOFUND (Output 3.1) will, through the investment of its capital, generate more stable and predictable income flows for protected areas over the longer term. Finally, project activities will contribute to the global evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of different community-based partnership approaches in and around protected areas. It will do this by recording the returns on investment from a range of complementary community-based partnership approaches adopted to address the threats to, and impacts of, unsustainable slash-and-burn farming on Gorongosa Mountain. Information generated from this cost-benefit analysis will be used to refine and update community-based partnership approaches in other PAs across the country to ensure optimal returns for conservation funds invested. 120. Environmental sustainability will be directly enhanced by the project through the project activities undertaken in Component 2. Under this component, project investments will contribute, in the medium to long-term, to restoring the native forests, containing the spread of wildfires, reducing the impacts of erosion and preventing further removal of native forests for subsistence agriculture on the upper slopes of Gorongosa Mountain (Outputs 2.1 – 2.3). This will secure the future ecological integrity of the area proposed for inclusion into the expanded extent of the Gorongosa NP. Environmental sustainability will be indirectly


promoted by the project through increasing the financial resources available for the management of protected areas. Improved revenue streams will enable the implementation of more effective mitigation measures to reduce the threats to native biodiversity contained in PAs and their buffer areas. 121. Social sustainability will be enhanced by the project through: (i) the creation of permanent and part-time employment opportunities (Output 2.1 and 2.2) in targeted communities; (ii) the creation of sustainable livelihood opportunities in nursery management (Output 2.1), nature-based tourism and recreation (Output 2.2) and agriculture (Output 2.3) in targeted communities; (iii) the allocation of small grants to local communities in PA buffer areas (Output 3.1); (iv) reducing the risk of damage from wildfires to communities abutting Gorongosa Mountain (Output 2.1); (v) increasing income from nature-based tourism and recreational activities in the buffer area of Gorongosa Mountain (Output 2.2); and (vi) increasing income from user fees to designated beneficiary communities in all protected areas (Output 3.2. Robust stakeholder engagement plans for the respective project activities will be prepared to ensure direct stakeholder involvement in all aspects of business and financial planning, and in the implementation of revenue generation mechanisms, at both the national, provincial and individual PA levels. These stakeholder engagement plans will also make strong provision for conflict management with different categories of user groups. The project will identify approaches to, and mechanisms for, the direct involvement of the private sector, local communities and NGOs in revenue generation, notably though partnerships, co-management and co-operative governance arrangements. 2.9 Replicability 122. Replication will be achieved in the project through the direct replication of selected project elements and practices and methods, as well as the scaling up of knowledge and experiences. 123. The project will support the Government in developing a long-term sustainable financing plan for Mozambique’s system of protected areas. This financial plan will provide a coherent framework for the replication, and scaling up, of lessons learnt. The project will also strengthen the institutional and individual capacities of the protected area institution/s by: (i) developing the strategic and business planning processes in protected area institutions; and (ii) improving the efficiencies of PA institutions financial management processes and systems. This will ensure that there is better institutional capacity to both replicate and scale up lesson learnt from the implementation of the GEF-funded pilot and demonstration activities in components 2 and 3. The project will further support the integration of the national and institutional financial sustainability plans into the business and management planning of individual protected areas. While the project will only support the development of business plans in two to three protected areas, it is envisaged that the development of a generic business plan template and preparation guidelines will enable the future replication of the business planning approach across the entire system of protected areas.

124. The project will seek to test and develop mechanisms for increasing income from conventional financial sources for protected areas (BIOFUND, user fees) and developing innovative alternatives means of revenue generation (carbon payments and biodiversity offsets). The lessons learnt from the implementation of pilot carbon and biodiversity offset initiatives will guide the future adoption and operationalisation of these revenue-generating mechanisms across the system of protected areas. If practicable, the income from these sources could be invested in BIOFUND to subsidise the ongoing recurrent costs of administering protected areas. The lessons learnt from the iterative refinement of user fee structures and the improvement of collection arrangements of different user fees will ensure optimal returns from user fees in national parks, national reserves and marine reserves.

125. Finally the project will identify opportunities for potential cost savings in protected area management by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different types of community-based partnership approaches in and around Gorongosa NP (Gorongosa Mountain). It is envisaged that the knowledge


developed from the suite of activities under component 2 will contribute to the global, regional and national evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of different types of community-based partnerships. Knowledge gained from the suite of partnerships tested under this component will support and guide future invesment directions for protected area donors agencies in Mozambique.

126. Each project output will include the documentation of lessons learnt from implementation of activities under the output, and a collation of the tools and templates (and any other materials) developed during implementation. The Project Manager will ensure the collation of all the project experiences and information. This knowledge database will then be made accessible to different PA stakeholder groups in order to support better decision-making processes. Information contained in the knowledge management system will also be used for the iterative refinement and updating of the ‘Conservation Policy’.

Sustainable financing of the protected area system of Mozambique PART III: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

This project will contribute to achieving the following Country Programme Outcome as defined in the CPD: (t.b.d) Country Programme Outcome Indicators: (t.b.d) Primary applicable Key Environment and Sustainable Development Key Result Area: (t.b.d) Applicable GEF Strategic Objective and Program: SO 1 - Catalyzing the sustainability of protected areas; SP 1 Sustainable financing of protected area (PA) systems at the national level Applicable GEF Expected Outcomes: SP 1 - PA systems secure increased revenue and diversification of revenue streams to meet total expenditures required to meet management objectives; Reduction in financing gap to meet PA management objectives Applicable GEF Outcome Indicators: SP 1 - Total revenue and diversification in revenue streams

Indicator Baseline Target/s

(End of Project) Source of verification Risks and Assumptions

Project Objective Strengthen the overall effectiveness and sustainability of Mozambique’s Protected Area System, including financial sustainability, through working partnerships between public, private, NGO and community stakeholders

Financial sustainability scorecard for national system of protected areas

21% >45% Review of Financial Sustainability Scorecard

Assumptions: − Government maintains its current

financial allocations to PA institutions − Donor agencies sustain current levels of

funding support to PAs − Current levels of revenues generated

from use of protected areas is maintained

− Models of PA co-management with private foundations and donor agencies are continued

Risks: − BIOFUND fails to attract capital

investment − Political and institutional conflicts delay

the establishment of the new National Administration of Conservation Areas

− The legislation does not adequately provide for the implementation of a number of potential PA financing mechanisms

Capacity development indicator score for protected area system

Systemic: 46% Institutional: 46% Individual: 35%

Systemic: 60% Institutional: 55% Individual: 50%

Review of Capacity Development Indicator Scorecard

Total budget (including operational, HR and capital budget) (US$ per annum) for protected area management

US$14.9 million (as at 2008/9) US$18.9 million50

Annual financial reports of MITUR, MINAG, MPescas and Protected Areas under co-management agreement. Audited reports of donor-funded projects.

Number of protected areas in which the METT is adopted as a tool to monitor effectiveness of PA management

0 >10

Annual financial reports of MITUR, MINAG, MPescas and Protected Areas under co-management agreement

Outcome 1 Sustainability of the Protected Area System institutionalized

Outputs: 1.1 A Financial Plan for Mozambique’s system of conservation areas is adopted 1.2 A Strategic Plan for the National Administration of Conservation Areas directs the piloting of business planning processes in conservation areas 1.3 Financial management processes and systems in the National Administration of Conservation Areas are strengthened Financial plan for system of protected areas adopted by government No Yes

Recommendation of CONDES Annual Report of MITUR/MICOA

Assumptions: − Financial data for the different

categories of protected areas is made

50 No annual adjustment for CPI


Indicator Baseline Target/s (End of Project)

Source of verification Risks and Assumptions

Achievement (%) of performance targets detailed in the PA agency’s Annual Performance Plan

No plan 60%

Annual Report of PA agency

available − The PA agency regularly prepares

accurate annual reports and is independently audited.

Risks: − Political and institutional conflicts delay

the establishment of the new National Administration of Conservation Areas


Number of protected areas with business plans that enable the sourcing of adequate funds for the implementation of PA management plan

3 8


Ratio of human resource to operational costs in PA agency

PA agency still to be established

60:40 (human resource: operating costs)

Annual Report and audited Financial Report of PA agency

Number of protected area staff completing in-house specialized financial management training and skills development programmes

0 Specialized: 5 General: 40


Recruitment of staff to approved posts in the organogram of new PA agency (% of posts with staff appointed)

0 75%


% of audit queries adequately resolved by PA agency N/A >80% Audited Financial Report of

PA agency

Outcome 2 Co-management models in demonstration sites

Outputs: 2.1 The extent of deforestation on Gorongosa Mountain is contained, and reforestation and rehabilitation activities are expanded 2.2 A joint venture tourism enterprise on the lower slopes of Gorongosa Mountain provides an alternative source of income for local communities 2.3 Improved productivity and sustainability of cultivated areas in the lowlands incentivises local farmers to abandon slash-and-burn farming practices on

Gorongosa Mountain Number of native tree species planted on the Gorongosa Mountain slopes

15,00051 80,000 GNP Annual Report and audited Financial Report

Assumptions: − Carr Foundation, and other donors,

sustain current levels of funding and operational support to GNP

− The District Administration and local communities actively support project initiatives to protect evergreen forests on Gorongosa Mountain

Risks: − The legal processes for the expansion of

Total area ( as a % of the original extent) of evergreen forest on Gorongosa Mountain (above 700m) deforested

36%52 <36%

Aerial photography, satellite imagery and ground truthing

Number of agriculture clearings (<1ha in extent) in the Gorongosa Mountain (above 700m)

8504 <100

Aerial photography, satellite imagery and ground truthing

51 Data from 2009 and first trimester of 2010 52 Data from 2008




Cost of enforcement and compliance in the proposed GNP expansion area (USD/km2/year)

185 >100

GNP Annual Report and audited Financial Report

GNP are not concluded timeously, resulting in delays to the implementation of activities in and around Gorongosa Mountain

− Local communities living in the buffer areas around Gorongosa Mountain are unable to conclude and maintain co-management, partnership or Joint Venture agreements with the GRP

Number of community-based rangers employed by GNP 15 30 GNP Annual Report and

audited Financial Report Number of wildlfires (>1 km2) in the Gorongosa Mountain (above 700m)

63 20 Aerial photography and satellite imagery

Average monthly household income of the Canda, Sandjungira and Tambara communities (US$)

16-75 75-150

Data from National Institute of Statistics and Gorongosa SDAE

Number of employed community members in reforestation activities and tourism ventures

59 220

GNP Annual Report and audited Financial Report. Audited Financial Report of JV

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool scorecard: Gorongosa National Park

65% >72%53

Review of METT scorecard (every two years)

Outcome 3 Business planning and revenue generation

Outputs: 3.1 A conservation trust fund is established, effectively administered and capitalised 3.2 The income from user fees in national parks, national reserves and marine reserves is improved 3.3 The development of a pilot carbon sequestration project in the mangrove forests of a coastal conservation area is catalysed 3.4 The potential for funding conservation areas from the implementation of biodiversity offset and compensation mechanisms is assessed Capitalization of BIOFUND by donors/funders (US$ committed)

US$5.6m US$20m BIOFUND audited Annual Financial Report

Assumptions: − The National REDD strategy is

developed and adopted by government − A proportion of income from

biodiversity offsets and carbon sequestration can be ‘ring-fenced’ for reinvestment back into protected areas

Risks: − BIOFUND fails to attract capital

investment

Annual revenues generated from protected areas user fees (including concession income) (US$)

US$1,680,99254 >US$2.5m55

Annual Report and audited Financial Report of PA agency

Average annual revenue generated for protected areas from biodiversity offsets and carbon sequestration (US$)

US$0 >US$100,000

Project Implementation Reports

53 Includes the additional areas incorporated into the GNP 54 Of this amount, only 64% is however retained for re-investment in protected areas (20% is returned to the provincial state budget and 16% distributed to local communities) 55 No annual adjustment for CPI




Annual average value of grants from BIOFUND to protected areas for operational and capital development costs US$0 US$500,000

BIOFUND audited Annual Financial Report

− Political and institutional conflicts delay the establishment of the new National Administration of Conservation Areas


Sustainable financing of the protected area system of Mozambique TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN Award ID: 00057986 Project ID(s): TBD Award Title: PIMS 3938 Sustainable Financing of the Protected Area System in Mozambique Business Unit: Mozambique Project Title: PIMS 3938 Sustainable Financing of the Protected Area System in Mozambique PIMS no.: 3938 Implementing Partner (Executing Agency) Ministry of Tourism (National Directorate for Conservation Areas)

GEF Outcome/ Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/

Implementing Agent

Fund ID

Donor Name ATLAS Budget Code

Atlas Budget Description Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5 (USD) TOTAL Budget

ref.

Component 1 Sustainability

of the protected area system

institutionalised

NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71200 International Consultants 48,000 50,000 13,000 0 12,000 123,000 1 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71300 Local Consultants 0 0 8,000 7,000 15,000 2 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71600 Travel 2,000 0 3,000 0 3,000 8,000 3 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 72100 Contractual Services - Companies 96,000 82,000 68,000 65,000 45,000 356,000 4 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 72800 Information Technology Equip. 31,000 22,000 14,000 8,000 0 75,000 5 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 74100 Professional Services 3,000 4,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 16,000 6 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 74200 Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 7,000 7

Sub-Total - Component 1 (GEF) 182,000 160,000 112,000 76,000 70,000 600,000 NIM 04000 UNDP-TRAC-00012 71400 Contractual Services - Individuals 24,000 25,000 28,000 31,000 34,000 142,000 8 NIM 04000 UNDP-TRAC-00012 72200 Equipment and Furniture 35,000 2,000 0 0 0 37,000 9 NIM 04000 UNDP-TRAC-00012 72500 Supplies 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 1,000 12,000 10 NIM 04000 UNDP-TRAC-00012 72800 Information Technology Equip. 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 9,000 11

Sub-Total - Component 1 (UNDP-TRAC) 66,500 30,500 32,000 35,000 36,000 200,000 TOTAL Comp 1 248,500 190,500 144,000 111,000 106,000 800,000

Component 2 Co-

management models in

demonstration sites

NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71200 International Consultants 0 16,000 0 16,000 32,000 12 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71300 Local Consultants 0 0 8,000 0 8,000 16,000 13

Carr Found/GRP 62000 GEF-10003 72100 Contractual Services - Companies 210,000 280,000 511,000 540,000 240,000 1,781,000 14 DIM 62000 GEF-10003 74100 Professional Services 12,000 12,000 6,000 12,000 3,000 45,000 15

Sub-Total - Component 2 (GEF) 222,000 292,000 541,000 552,000 267,000 1,874,000 TOTAL Comp 2 222,000 292,000 541,000 552,000 267,000 1,874,000

Component 3 Business

planning and revenue

generation

NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71200 International Consultants 0 0 16,000 0 15,000 31,000 16 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71300 Local Consultants 60,000 23,000 14,000 9,000 14,000 120,000 17

WWF 62000 GEF-10003 72100 Contractual Services - Companies 465,000 251,200 310,000 405,000 300,000 1,731,200 18 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 74200 Audio Visual&Print Prod Costs 2,400 1,500 1,500 1,600 1,800 8,800 19

Sub-Total - Component 3 (GEF) 527,400 275,700 341,500 415,600 330,800 1,891,000 TOTAL Comp 3 527,400 275,700 341,500 415,600 330,800 1,891,000

Project Management

NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71200 International Consultants 0 0 3,000 0 3,000 6,000 20 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71300 Local Consultants 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 21 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 71400 Contractual Services - Individuals 100,000 96,000 66,000 52,100 72,000 386,100 22 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 72800 Information Technology Equipmt 14,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 17,900 23 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 73100 Rental & Maintenance - premises 3,000 3,300 3,800 4,200 4,700 19,000 24


GEF Outcome/ Atlas Activity

Responsible Party/

Implementing Agent

Fund ID

Donor Name ATLAS Budget Code

Atlas Budget Description Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5 (USD) TOTAL Budget

ref.

NIM 62000 GEF-10003 72200 Equipment and Furniture 36,000 0 0 0 0 36,000 25 NIM 62000 GEF-10003 72500 Supplies 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 26

Sub-Total - Project Management (GEF) 157,000 104,300 77,800 61,300 84,600 485,000 TOTAL Proj Mgt 157,000 104,300 77,800 61,300 84,600 485,000

TOTAL GEF 1,088,400 832,000 1,072,300 1,104,900 752,400 4,850,000 TOTAL UNDP-TRAC 66,500 30,500 32,000 35,000 36,000 200,000 GRAND TOTAL 1,154,900 862,500 1,104,300 1,139,900 788,400 5,050,000

Budget notes:

1 Institutional planning and development specialist (Output 1.2); Pro rata costs of contractual appointment of international monitoring and evaluation expert

2 Pro rata costs of contractual appointment of national monitoring and evaluation consultants and auditor

3 Ground transportation, airport transfers, air travel for all monitoring and evaluation and review consultants

4 Appointment of: Financial planning service provider (Output 1.1 and 1.2); Chartered accounting company (Output 1.3); Translation services (all outputs); Workshop administration support (all outputs); and In-service training service providers for ANAC/DNAC staff (Outputs 2.2 and 2.3)

5 Pro rata costs for procurement of computers, financial software licenses, printers and routers (Output 1.3)

6 Pro rata networking costs for financial systems (Output 1.3)

7 Printing costs of Financial (Output 1.1), Strategic (Output 1.2) and Business Plans (Output 1.2)

8 Project Technical Officer (PTO), full-time appointment, plus clerical assistance where needed.

9 2X4 vehicle for PTO, Office equipment (chairs, desks, tables, storage cupboards, etc.) for PTO

10 Fuel costs (local travel) for PTO (Outputs 1.1 - 1.3)

11 Laptop, software licenses, portable hard drive, printer and mobile phone contract for PTO

12 Pro rata costs of contractual appointment of international monitoring and evaluation expert

13 Pro rata costs of contractual appointment of national monitoring and evaluation consultants and auditor

14 Management agreement between MITUR and the Carr Foundation (Gorongosa Restoration Project) to implement a series of activities under this component linked to the demonstration of co-management models in Gorongosa (detailed budgets and TORs of key project positions shown in Annexure VII). More specifically, Carr Foundation (Gorongosa Restoration Project) is expected to deliver the following Outputs (refer to description of Outputs for more detail):

2.1 The extent of deforestation on Gorongosa Mountain is contained, and reforestation and rehabilitation activities are expanded 2.2 A joint venture tourism enterprise on the lower slopes of Gorongosa Mountain provides an alternative source of income for local communities 2.3 Improved productivity and sustainability of cultivated areas in the lowlands incentivises local farmers to abandon slash-and-burn farming practices on Gorongosa Mountain

15 Contractual appointment of independent legal advisor (Output 2.2). This particular contract will exceptionally be implemented directly by UNDP under the Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) in order to ensure full independence of legal service providers with respect to contractor’s relationship with communities, Carr Foundation/GRP and MITUR.



17 Tourism specialist; Pro rata costs of contractual appointment of national monitoring and evaluation consultants and auditor

18 (1) Management agreement between MITUR and WWF to implement a series of activities under this component linked to the start-up phase of the BIOFUND (detailed budgets and TORs of key project positions shown in Annexure VII). More specifically, WWF is expected to deliver the following Outputs (refer to description of Outputs for more detail):

3.1 A conservation trust fund is established, effectively administered and capitalised 3.3 The development of a pilot carbon sequestration project in the mangrove forests of a coastal conservation area is catalysed 3.4 The potential for funding conservation areas from the implementation of biodiversity offset and compensation mechanisms is assessed

(2) Management Agreement between MITUR and BIOFUND Board to implement the operational phase of Output 3.1 (detailed budget and ToRs of key project positions to be negotiated with the BIOFUND Board in 2011/2012). More specifically, the BIOFUND is expected to deliver the following Output (refer to description of Outputs for more detail):

3.2 The income from user fees in national parks, national reserves and marine reserves is improved 19 Annual printing and distribution of tourism fee structures


21 Pro rata costs of appointment of independent project auditor

22 Chief Technical Adviser, part time (approx. 7 months in year 1, 5 months in year 2 and 3 months in years 3, 4 and 5); Project Manager, full-time; and Project Administrative Assistant, full time.

23 Laptops, software licenses, portable hard drive, printers, data projector and mobile phone contracts

24 Rental costs (costs to be shared with MITUR) of office space

25 4x4 (or double cab with diff lock) vehicle shared between CTA and PM, Office equipment (chairs, desks, tables, storage cupboards, etc.)

26 Fuel costs (local travel)

Summary of Funds: 56 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 TOTAL GEF 1 088 400 832 000 1 072 300 1 103 800 753 500 4 850 000 UNDP-TRAC 66 500 30 500 32 000 35 000 36 000 200 000

TOTAL 1 154 900 862 500 1 104 300 1 138 800 789 500 5 050 000

56 Does not include the co-financing (cash and in-kind) that is not passing through UNDP.


PART IV: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 127. Project Implementation arrangement 128. The project will be implemented over a period of five years. UNDP will be responsible for the implementation of the project. The project will be nationally implemented (NIM) by the Ministry of Tourism (MITUR), in line with the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA, 1976) and the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP, 2009) signed between the UNDP and the Government of Mozambique. 129. The UNDP Country Office will monitor the project’s implementation and achievement of the project outputs, and ensure the proper use of UNDP/GEF funds. Working in close cooperation with MITUR, the UNDP Country Office (CO) will be responsible for: (i) providing financial and audit services to the project; (ii) recruitment and contracting of project staff; (iii) overseeing financial expenditures against project budgets approved by the Project Board (PB); (iv) appointment of independent financial auditors and evaluators; and (v) ensuring that all activities, including procurement and financial services, are carried out in strict compliance with UNDP/GEF procedures. 130. MITUR will have the overall responsibility for achieving the project goal and objectives. MITUR will designate the Director of DNAC to act as the National Project Director (NPD). The NPD will provide the strategic oversight and guidance to project implementation57.

131. The day-to-day administration of the project will be carried out by a Project Management Unit (PMU), comprising a Project Manager (PM), an Administrative Assistant (PAA) and a Project Technical Officer (PTO). The project staff will be recruited using standard UNDP recruitment procedures. The Project Manager has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of MITUR/DNAC, within the constraints laid down by the Project Board. The Project Manager’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document, to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost. The Project Manager will liaise and work closely with all partner institutions to link the project with complementary national programs and initiatives. The PM is accountable to the NPD for the quality, timeliness and effectiveness of the activities carried out, as well as for the use of funds. The AA and PTO will provide project administration, management and technical support to the Project Manager, as required. The PTO will, in close collaboration with MITUR, be responsible for co-ordinating the overall implementation and monitoring of outputs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. A Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) will be contracted on a part-time basis to provide professional and technical ‘backstopping’ to the PM and PTO. The terms of reference for the PM, PTO, PAA and CTA are detailed in Annexure II.

132. The PMU will be technically supported by contracted national and international service providers, by other public institutions, by contracted NGOs and by other linked donor funded project units. Recruitment of specialist support services, and procurement of any equipment and materials, for the project will be done by the PM, in consultation with the NPD and in accordance with national rules and regulations. The terms of reference of the key national and international service providers to be contracted by the project are detailed in Annexure II.

133. MITUR will enter into a Project Management Agreement with two Implementing Partners - the Carr Foundation and WWF - to implement a number of project activities that have been agreed to during the preparatory phase of this project. In terms of these Project Management Agreements, the Carr Foundation will implement all activities under Component 2 and WWF will implement the start-up phase activities under Output 3.1, and all the activities in Output 3.3 and Output 3.4. Once BIOFUND (Output 3.1) is operationalised, MITUR may enter into a Management Agreement with the Board of Directors of BIOFUND to implement the operational phase of Output 3.1. A capacity assessment of the Carr Foundation and WWF is appended in Annexure IV. The Project Manager

57 The NPD will not be paid from the project funds, but will represent a Government in-kind contribution to the Project.


will, in collaboration with the NPD, supervise the implementation of the respective management agreements with WWF and the Carr Foundation.

134. A Project Board (PB) will be constituted to serve as the project’s coordination and decision-making body. The Project Board will ensure that the project remains on course to deliver the desired outcomes of the required quality. The Board will be chaired by MITUR (the ‘executive’58). The PB will include representation from: (i) Carr Foundation, DNAC and WWF (‘senior supplier’59); (ii) MITUR, MICOA, MINAG, MF, MPescas and MIREM (‘senior beneficiary’60) and UNDP (‘project assurance’61). Prospective members of the Project Board will be reviewed and recommended for approval during the LPAC meeting. Representatives of other stakeholder groups may be included in the Board, as considered appropriate and necessary. The PB will meet at least twice per annum (more often if required). It may establish a formal reporting relationship with CONDES to ensure ongoing alignment of the project with national strategies, plans and programmes. 135. The PMU will produce Annual Work and Budget Plans (AWP&ABP) to be approved by the PB at the beginning of each year. These plans will provide the basis for allocating resources to planned activities. Once the PB approves the Annual Work Plan this will be sent to the UNDP Regional Technical Advisor for Biodiversity at the GEF Regional Coordinating Unit in Pretoria (South Africa) for clearance. Once the Annual Working Plan and Budget is cleared by the Regional Coordinating Unit it will be sent to the UNDP/GEF Unit in New York for final approval and release of the funding. The PMU will further produce quarterly operational reports and Annual Progress Reports (APR) for review by the PB, or any other reports at the request of the PB. These reports will summarize the progress made by the project versus the expected results, explain any significant variances, detail the necessary adjustments and be the main reporting mechanism for monitoring project activities. WWF and the Carr Foundation will be required to provide the PMU with the information required to prepare the annual and quarterly plans and progress reports. Financial and other procedures 136. The financial arrangements and procedures for the project are governed by the UNDP rules and regulations for National Implementation Modality (NIM) that allow for government rules and procedures to be used for implementation of project components and activities. Financial transactions will be conducted through direct payment requests made by MITUR to UNDP to transfer funds. All procurement and financial transactions will be governed by national rules and regulations.

Results of capacity assessment of implementing partner/s

137. The capacity assessment of the Carr Foundation and WWF are appended in Annexure IV.

Audit Clause 138. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government. Use of intellectual property rights

58 The role of the ‘executive’ is to ensure that the project is focused on achieving its outputs and that the project adopts a cost-conscious approach. 59 The ‘senior supplier’ is accountable for the quality of the outputs delivered by the supplier(s) 60 The ‘senior beneficiary’ commits user resources and monitors project outputs against agreed requirements 61 The ‘project assurance’ will independently verify the quality of the products’ or outputs’


139. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo should appear on all relevant GEF project publications, including among others, project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF.

PART V: MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION 140. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Project logframe (Project Results Framework) in Part III provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system will be built. The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities. 141. The project will be monitored through the following M& E activities. 1. Project start-up: A Project Inception Workshop will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders. The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. The Inception Workshop should address a number of key issues including:

Project Management Unit Project Manager

Project Technical Officer Admin Assistant

Project Board Senior Beneficiary:

MITUR, MICOA, MINAG, MF, MPescas and MIREM

Executive: MITUR

Senior Supplier: Carr Foundation, DNAC

and WWF

Project Assurance UNDP

Project support: UNDP

DNAC (NPD)

Project Organization Structure

Implementing partner Carr Foundation/

Gorongosa Restoration Project

Implementing partner WWF Mozambique


a) Assist all partners to fully understand and take ownership of the project. Detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team. Discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff will be discussed again as needed.

b) Based on the project results framework and the relevant GEF Tracking Tool if appropriate, finalize the first annual work plan. Review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks.

c) Provide a detailed overview of reporting, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements. The Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and budget should be agreed and scheduled.

d) Discuss financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for annual audit. e) Plan and schedule Project Board meetings. Roles and responsibilities of all project organization structures

should be clarified and meetings planned. The first Project Board meeting should be held within the first 12 months following the inception workshop.

An Inception Workshop report is a key reference document and must be prepared and shared with participants to formalize various agreements and plans decided during the meeting. 2. Quarterly: Progress made shall be monitored on a quarterly basis in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Based on the initial risk analysis submitted, the risk log shall be regularly updated in ATLAS. Risks become critical when the impact and probability are high. Based on the information recorded in Atlas, a Project Progress Reports (PPR) can be generated in the Executive Snapshot. Other ATLAS logs can be used to monitor issues, lessons learned etc. The use of these functions is a key indicator in the UNDP Executive Balanced Scorecard. 3. Annually: Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July). The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements. The APR/PIR includes, but is not limited to, reporting on the following:

• Progress made toward project objective and project outcomes - each with indicators, baseline data and end-of-project targets (cumulative)

• Project outputs delivered per project outcome (annual). • Lesson learned/good practice. • AWP and other expenditure reports • Risk and adaptive management • ATLAS QPR • Portfolio level indicators (i.e. GEF focal area tracking tools).

4. Periodic Monitoring through site visits: UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits. A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members. 5. Mid-term of project cycle: The project will undergo an independent Mid-Term Evaluation at the mid-point of project implementation (June 2103). The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project


implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. The management response and the evaluation will be uploaded to UNDP corporate systems, in particular the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC). The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the mid-term evaluation cycle. 6. End of Project: An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities and requires a management response which should be uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center. The relevant GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools will also be completed during the final evaluation. During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results. 7. Learning and knowledge sharing: Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus.

The M& E budget is summarised in table 10 below. Table 10: M&E Activities and Costs

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Excluding project team staff

time

Time frame

Inception Workshop and Report

Project Manager UNDP CO, UNDP GEF Indicative cost: 4,000 Within first two months

of project start up Measurement of Means of Verification of project results.

UNDP GEF RTA/Project Manager will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members.

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop.

Start, mid and end of project (during evaluation cycle) and annually when required.

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress on output and implementation

Oversight by Project Manager Project team

To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation.

Annually prior to ARR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

ARR/PIR Project manager and team UNDP CO UNDP RTA

None Annually

Periodic status/ progress Project manager and team None Quarterly


Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Excluding project team staff

time

Time frame

reports Mid-term Evaluation Project manager and team

UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)

Indicative cost: 65,000 At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final Evaluation Project manager and team, UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)

Indicative cost : 70,000

At least three months before the end of project implementation

Project Terminal Report Project manager and team UNDP CO Local consultant

0 At least three months before the end of the project

Audit UNDP CO Project manager and team

Indicative cost per year: 3,000 (5 years)

Yearly

Visits to field sites UNDP CO UNDP RCU (as appropriate) Government representatives

For GEF supported projects, paid from IA fees and operational budget

Yearly

TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses

US$ 154,000


PART VI: LEGAL CONTEXT 142. This document, together with the CPAP (1976) signed by the Government and UNDP, constitute together a ‘Project Document’, as referred to in the SBAA. All CPAP (2009) provisions will apply to this document. Consistent with the Article III of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, the responsibility for the safety and security of the implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the implementing partner’s custody, rests with the implementing partner. 143. The implementing partner shall:

a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried; and

b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan.

144. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement. The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm


PART VII: ANNEXES Annex I: Risk Analysis

Risk Rating Mitigation Measures Political and institutional conflicts delay the establishment of the new National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC)

High The project will actively participate in, and support the work of, the inter-institutional Conservation Policy Working Group mandated to guide the institutional and legislative reform processes for conservation areas. It will also work closely with the World Bank Trans-frontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project (TFCATDP) to focus resources and capacities in support of the Conservation Policy Working Group. The capacity constraints of DNAC/MITUR are similar to those that will be encountered by the new PA agency (as it will comprise staff and resources transferred from existing PA institutions). So, project outputs under Component 1 have been designed to support the financial planning and management capacities of DNAC (and MITUR) at the national and provincial levels, should a new PA agency not be established in the short to medium-term.

The legal processes for the expansion of Gorongosa NP are not concluded timeously, resulting in delays to the implementation of activities in and around Gorongosa Mountain.

Moderate The proposal for the extension of the GNP is programmed for discussion and approval by the Council of Ministers in 2010. If the proposal is however not approved by the Council of Ministers, the project will support the GRP in reformulating the proposal to respond to any technical issues or concerns raised, facilitate the consultation processes with the affected local communities and the district and provincial authorities, and prepare an amended proposal for discussion and approval.

BIOFUND fails to secure capital investments

Moderate The recent debt swap agreed between the governments of France and Mozambique has already enabled the allocation of €4 million to BIOFUND, effectively providing for BIOFUND’s initial capital. During project preparation, a plan for the further capitalisation of BIOFUND has also been prepared. The project will finance the costs of a small BIOFUND executive team to implement this plan, and further develop new opportunities to capitalise the fund. The project, in facilitating the development of the financial plan for Mozambique’s system of protected areas, will identify additional mechanisms for capitalising the fund. Activities under outputs 3.3 and 3.4 will assess the feasibility of using income from biodiversity compensation, biodiversity offsets and carbon markets to be used to capitalise BIOFUND.

Local communities living in the buffer areas around Gorongosa Mountain are unable to conclude and maintain co-management, partnership or Joint Venture agreements with the GRP

Low Consultative approaches, such as the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approach will be adopted to facilitate the involvement of the targeted communities in the project. The implementation of project activities will be directed through the legally constituted (in terms of the Land Law, 19/97), and representative, community Management Committees. The project will develop the capacities of the Management Committee to actively participate in project activities as equal partners. The project-appointed Community rangers will be trained, and resourced, to implement an ongoing communications and awareness programme in local communities that emphasises the benefits of community-based partnerships with the GNP management. Finally, the project focus is directed towards creating positive incentives to local communities for sustaining their interest and involvement in project activities – this includes improving agricultural livelihoods, creating employment opportunities, creating entrepreneurial opportunities linked to tourism and recreation, generating revenue streams from a tourism Joint Venture enterprise, and mitigating the impacts of the park on the safety and security of households living in the buffer areas.


Risk Rating Mitigation Measures The current legislation does not adequately provide for the implementation of a number of financing mechanisms envisaged in the Financial Plan for Mozambique’s’ system of protected areas

Low The financial advisory group constituted under Output 1.1 of the project will provide ongoing technical inputs (with support from the contracted financial planning service provider ) into the drafting of any new conservation legislation (and associated regulations) to ensure that it provides an enabling legal framework for the implementation of the FP. The project manager will also actively collaborate with inter-institutional Conservation Policy Working Group to ensure that the legislative reform processes for conservation areas are harmonized with the financing mechanisms proposed for implementation in the protected area system. Activities under outputs 3.3 and 3.4 will also provide technical guidance in the future development of carbon trading and biodiversity offset legislation/regulations.

Resistance to increasing (or introducing new) entrance fees, user fees and other surcharges in national parks and national reserves. These conflicts cannot be timeously addressed and resolved.

Low The project will: 1. Strengthen the capacity of the PA agency to: identify the equitable ‘market rate’ for PA products and services; evaluate consumer ‘willingness to pay’ (WTP); and measure the elasticity in demand 2. Facilitate the establishment of cooperative forums with different user groups to (amongst others): discuss any new fees and surcharges proposed; and comment on recommendations for increases to existing fees and surcharges. 3. Identify the need to improve and diversify the facilities and services offered by the affected PAs in order to justify any increase in existing fees, or introduction of new fees 4. Strengthen the capacity of the PA agency, and individual PA’s, to improve the effectiveness of their fee collection methods 5. Identify mechanisms for the introduction of discounted rates for selected user groups (e.g. school groups, local communities, volunteers) to facilitate access to PA products and services


Annex II: Terms of Reference for Key Project Positions 1. PROJECT MANAGER Background The Project Manager (PM), will be regionally recruited by the UNDP CO based on an open competitive process. He/She will be responsible for the overall management of the project, including the mobilization of all project inputs, supervision over project staff, consultants and sub-contractors. The PM will report to the NPD for all of the project’s substantive and administrative issues. From the strategic point of view of the project, the PM will report on a periodic basis to the Project Board (PB). Generally, the PM will be responsible for meeting government obligations under the project, under the national implementation modality (NIM). He/She will perform a liaison role with the Government, UNDP, implementing partners, NGOs and other stakeholders, and maintain close collaboration with any donor agencies providing co-financing. Duties and Responsibilities 1. Supervise and coordinate the production of project outputs, as per the project document;

2. Mobilize all project inputs in accordance with procedures for nationally implemented projects;

3. Supervise and coordinate the work of all project staff, consultants and sub-contractors;

4. Coordinate the recruitment and selection of project personnel;

5. Prepare and revise project work and financial plans;

6. Liaise with UNDP, relevant government agencies, and all project partners, including donor organizations and NGOs for effective coordination of all project activities;

7. Facilitate administrative backstopping to subcontractors and training activities supported by the Project;

8. Oversee and ensure timely submission of the Inception Report, Combined Project Implementation Review/Annual Project Report (PIR/APR), Technical reports, quarterly financial reports, and other reports as may be required by UNDP, GEF, DGA and other oversight agencies;

9. Disseminate project reports and respond to queries from concerned stakeholders;

10. Report progress of project to the PB, and ensure the fulfilment of PB directives.

11. Oversee the exchange and sharing of experiences and lessons learned with relevant community based integrated conservation and development projects nationally and internationally;

12. Ensure the timely and effective implementation of all components of the project;

13. Assist relevant government agencies and project partners - including donor organizations and NGOs - with development of essential skills through training workshops and on the job training thereby upgrading their institutional capabilities;


14. Coordinate and assists scientific institutions with the initiation and implementation of any field studies and monitoring components of the project

15. Assist and advises the teams responsible for documentaries, TV spots, guidebooks and awareness campaign, field studies, etc; and

16. Carry regular, announced and unannounced inspections of all sites and the activities of any project site management units.

Qualifications 1. A post-graduate university degree in Business or Environmental Management;

2. At least 10 years of experience in business and/or natural resource planning and management (preferably in the context of protected area financial planning and management);

3. At least 5 years of project management experience;

4. Working experience with the project national stakeholder institutions and agencies is desired;

5. Ability to effectively coordinate a large, multi-stakeholder project;

6. Ability to administer budgets, train and work effectively with counterpart staff at all levels and with all groups involved in the project;

7. Strong drafting, presentation and reporting skills;

8. Strong computer skills;

9. Excellent written communication skills; and

10. A good working knowledge of English and Portuguese is a requirement.

1. PROJECT ASSISTANT

Background The Project Assistant will be locally recruited based on an open competitive process. He/She will be responsible for the overall administration of the project. The Project Assistant will report to the Project Manager. Generally, the Project Assistant will be responsible for supporting the Project Manager and Project Technical Officer in meeting government obligations under the project, under the national implementation modality (NIM). Duties and Responsibilities 1. Collect, register and maintain all information on project activities;


2. Contribute to the preparation and implementation of progress reports;

3. Monitor project activities, budgets and financial expenditures;

4. Advise all project counterparts on applicable administrative procedures and ensures their proper implementation;

5. Maintain project correspondence and communication;

6. Support the preparations of project work-plans and operational and financial planning processes;

7. Assist in procurement and recruitment processes;

8. Assist in the preparation of payments requests for operational expenses, salaries, insurance, etc. against project budgets and work plans;

9. Follow-up on timely disbursements by UNDP CO;

10. Receive, screen and distribute correspondence and attach necessary background information;

11. Prepare routine correspondence and memoranda for Project Managers signature;

12. Assist in logistical organization of meetings, training and workshops;

13. Prepare agendas and arrange field visits, appointments and meetings both internal and external related to the project activities and write minutes from the meetings;

14. Maintain project filing system;

15. Maintain records over project equipment inventory; and

16. Perform other duties as required.

Qualifications 1. A post-school qualification (diploma, or equivalent);

2. At least 5 years of administrative and/or financial management experience;

3. Demonstrable ability to administer project budgets, and track financial expenditure;

4. Demonstrable ability to maintain effective communications with different stakeholders, and arrange stakeholder meetings and/or workshops;

5. Excellent computer skills, in particular mastery of all applications of the MS Office package;

6. Excellent written communication skills; and



8. PROJECT TECHNICAL OFFICER

Background The Project Technical Officer will be locally recruited based on an open competitive process. The Project Technical Officer will report to the Project Manager. He/She will be responsible for providing project administration, management and technical support to the Project Manager, as required. The Project Technical Officer will also be responsible for coordinating the overall implementation and monitoring of outputs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. Duties and Responsibilities 9. Prepare project work-plans for Component 1;

10. Liaise with relevant government agencies, and all project partners, including donor organizations and NGOs for effective coordination of project activities in Component 1;

11. Assist in procurement and recruitment processes for Component 1;

12. Supervise and coordinate the work of all consultants and sub-contractors for Component 1;

13. Provide technical backstopping to subcontractors and training activities supported by Component 1;

14. Prepare agendas and arrange field visits, appointments and meetings both internal and external related to the Component 1;

15. Assist relevant protected area agencies with development of essential skills through training workshops and on the job training, thereby upgrading their institutional capabilities;

16. Advise government counterparts on applicable administrative procedures and ensure their proper implementation;

17. Prepare progress reports for Component 1.

Qualifications 18. A relevant undergraduate degree;

19. At least 7 years of conservation or protected area experience, preferably in the context of financial planning and management;

20. At least 3 years of project management experience;

21. Working experience with the project national stakeholder institutions and agencies;


22. Ability to administer budgets, train and work effectively with counterpart staff at all levels and with all groups involved in the project;

23. Demonstrable ability to maintain effective communications with different stakeholders, and arrange stakeholder meetings and/or workshops;

24. Strong written and presentation skills;

25. Strong computer skills;


27. CHIEF TECHNICAL ADVISER

Background The Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) will be responsible for providing overall technical backstopping to the Project. He/She will render technical support to the National Project Director, Project Manager, Project Technical Officer, PA agency staff and other government counterparts. The CTA will support the provision of the required technical inputs, reviewing and preparing Terms of Reference and reviewing the outputs of project partners, consultants and other sub-contractors. He/She will report directly to the National Project Director. Duties and Responsibilities 1. Provide technical support to the National Project Director, Project Manager, Project Technical

Officer and other implementing partners in the areas of project management and planning, management of site activities, monitoring, and impact assessment;

2. Support the Project Manager and project partners in preparing Terms of Reference for consultants and sub-contractors, and assist in the selection and recruitment process;

3. Support the Project Manager in coordinating the work of all consultants and sub-contractors, ensuring the timely delivery of expected outputs, and ensuring an effective synergy among the various sub-contracted activities;

4. Assist the National Project Director and Project Manager in the preparation of the Combined Project Implementation Review/Annual Project Report (PIR/APR), inception report, technical reports, quarterly financial reports for submission to UNDP, the GEF, other donors and Government Departments, as required;

5. Assist the National Project Director and Project Manager in mobilizing staff and consultants in the conduct of a mid-term project evaluation, and in undertaking revisions in the implementation program and strategy based on evaluation results;


6. Assist the National Project Director, Project Manager and Project Technical Officer in liaison work with project partners, donor organizations, NGOs and other groups to ensure effective coordination of project activities;

7. Support the Project Manager in documenting lessons from project implementation and make recommendations to the Steering Committee for more effective implementation and coordination of project activities; and

8. Perform other tasks as may be requested by the National Project Director and Project Manager.

Qualifications 9. University education (MSc or PhD), with specific expertise in the area of financial planning and

management of protected areas;

10. At least 15 years of professional experience in protected area financial planning and management;

11. Demonstrable experience in implementing equivalent GEF or other multilateral donor-funded projects;

12. Be an effective negotiator with excellent oral and presentation skills;

13. A good working knowledge of international best practice in protected area planning and management is desirable;

14. Excellent writing skills; and

15. Fluency in English, and a working knowledge of Portuguese, is required.

Table 11. Overview of Project Consultants

Position Titles $/person

week Estimated erson week

Tasks to be performed

For Project Management

Local

Project Manager 800 223 See above.

Project Assistant 500 220 See above.

Project Technical Officer

600 180 See above. (financed by UNDP)

International

Chief Technical 1400 70 See above.


Position Titles $/person

week Estimated erson week


Adviser

For Technical Assistance

Local

Tourism Specialist 1000 84 Output 3.2 – Update the user fees policy for parks and reserves; Update the pricing structure for each of the facilities and services provided by the parks and reserves based on cost recovery requirements/ market rate/ willingness to pay/ maintenance costs/ differential rates/ transaction costs; and Identify the most cost-effective means of user fee collection mechanisms.

Monitoring and evaluation review consultant

1000 30 Participate in drafting mid-term and final evaluation report/s; Local liaison with project team, government and UNDP during project evaluation; Liaison with the counterpart international monitoring and evaluation expert; Participate in discussions to realign the project time-table/log frame at the mid-term stage.

Evaluation expert 1000 27 The standard UNDP/GEF project evaluation TOR will be used. This will include: participating, alongside the international consultants, in the mid-term and final evaluation of the project, in order to assess the project progress, achievement of results and impacts; developing draft evaluation report and discuss it with the project team, government and UNDP; and as necessary, participating in discussions to realign the project time-table/logframe at the mid-term stage.

Auditor 1000 15 Med-term and final independent audit of project expenditure as per UNDP/GEF standard ToR.

International

Institutional planning and development specialist

3000 46 Output 1.2 – Prepare an institutional SWOT analysis; Develop institutional goals/objectives, programmes and activities; Identify deliverables and performance indicators; Prepare a MTEF budget for programmes; Define roles and responsibilities; Draft an institutional Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan .

Evaluation experts for mid-term and final evaluation

3000 18 The standard UNDP/GEF project evaluation TOR will be used. This will include: leading the mid-term and the final evaluations; working with the local evaluation consultant in order to assess the project progress, achievement of results and impacts; developing draft evaluation report and discuss it with the project team, government and UNDP; and as necessary, participating in discussions to extract lessons for UNDP and GEF.

Justification for Travel, if any:


Annex III: Stakeholder Involvement Plan 1. Stakeholder identification During the project preparation stage, a stakeholder analysis was undertaken in order to identify key stakeholders, assess their interests in the project and define their roles and responsibilities in project implementation. Table I describes the major categories of stakeholders identified, and the level of involvement envisaged in the project. Table I: Key stakeholders and roles and responsibilities Stakeholder Role and responsibility

Ministry of Tourism (MITUR), National Directorate for Conservation Areas (DNAC)

MITUR (through DNAC) will have overall responsibility for the implementation of the project. MITUR will be responsible for the direct implementation of a number of activities under Component 1 and 3 of the project. It will ensure that the policy, institutional and legislation reforms are in place to enable implementation of project activities. MITUR will chair the Project Board (PB) with MICOA.

Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA)

MICOA is the GEF Operational Focal Point and the Technical Secretariat of CONDES. MICOA will be responsible for the strategic oversight of a number of activities under Component 2. MICOA will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG)

MINAG support to the project will include: advice on issues related to forests and wildlife outside conservation areas; allocation of unused state land; technical support for the land demarcation process; and providing access to key datasets. MINAG may be sub-contracted to provide specialist and technical inputs into agricultural development activities under Component 2. As a member of CONDES, MINAG will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Planning and Development (MPD)

This MPD is responsible for the preparation and monitoring of all development plans of Mozambique, including budgeting. It is expected that MPD will assure the incorporation of all the identified activities related to PAs in the provincial and annual plans. As member of CONDES, MPD will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Finance (MF) MF will be responsible for ensuring the ongoing allocation of funds in the state budget for PAs. It is expected that MF will support concomitant increases to fund protected areas from the state budget allocations. The MF will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Fisheries (MPescas)

The MPescas will support the financial and business planning processes in the project and the piloting of carbon offsets in mangroves. The MPescas will be represented on the PB.

Ministry of Mineral Resources (MIREM)

The MIREM will provide support to the project in the piloting of biodiversity offsets in the mining industry. The MIREM will be represented on the PB.

National Council for Sustainable Development (CONDES)

CONDES is chaired by the Prime-Minister and has the responsibility to ensure that development activities are implemented in a sustainable way by all sectors. CONDES will oversee the functioning of the PB.

World Wide Fund for Nature WWF will be responsible for facilitating the administration of BIOFUND until it becomes operational. It may provide technical support in the implementation of sustainable financing pilots


(WWF) (specifically carbon and biodiversity offsets) and the determination of more equitable fee schedules for protected areas. WWF will be represented on the PB.

Carr Foundation/ Gorongosa Restoration Project (GRP)

The GRP will be responsible for the implementation of Component 2 of the project. It will work closely with Gorongosa Administrative Authorities and local communities. The GRP will be represented on the PB.

UNDP Mozambique UNDP Mozambique will be responsible for the overall coordination and supervision of the project. The UNDP will be a member of the Steering Committee.

Provincial Government of Sofala (GS)

The GS will, through the provincial directorates of tourism, environment and agriculture will be an important project implementing partner in Component 2. It will actively participate in and support the implementation of all the project activities in Gorongosa NP, and link them to the provincial development strategies.

District Administration of Gorongosa

The role of the District Administration will be to facilitate all activities related to the project at the level of Gorongosa NP. It will support negotiations with affected communities and promote and facilitate community members’ participation in project activities.

Centre for Investment Promotion (CPI)

CPI will be an important project partner and will provide technical assistance in the tourism and agricultural development activities.

Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM)

The UEM may be sub-contracted to provide specialist and technical inputs into reforestation project activities.

Donor agencies and Foundations

The donor agencies and institutions are important project partners. They will share, coordinate and collaborate with the project as and where relevant. Key donor agencies may be represented on the PB (e.g. AFD, IGF Foundation).

MITUR, WWF and the Carr Foundation will be the main institutions responsible for different aspects of project implementation. They will work in close cooperation with other affected public institutions. 2. Information dissemination, consultation, and similar activities that took place during the PPG Throughout the project’s development, very close contact was maintained with stakeholders at the national, provincial and local levels. All affected national and local government institutions were directly involved in project development, as were key donor agencies and NGOs. Numerous consultations occurred with all of the above stakeholders to discuss different aspects of project design. These consultations included: bilateral discussions; site visits to pilot sites; consolidated workshops and electronic communications. The preliminary project activities were presented to a range of stakeholders for initial review and discussions, and based on comments received, a final draft of the full project brief was presented to a consolidated stakeholder workshop for in principle approval and endorsement. 3. Approach to stakeholder participation The projects approach to stakeholder involvement and participation is premised on the principles outlined in Table 2 below. Table II: Stakeholder participation principles


Principle Stakeholder participation will:

Value Adding be an essential means of adding value to the project

Inclusivity include all relevant stakeholders

Accessibility and Access be accessible and promote access to the process

Transparency be based on transparency and fair access to information; main provisions of the project’s plans and results will be published in local mass-media

Fairness ensure that all stakeholders are treated in a fair and unbiased way

Accountability be based on a commitment to accountability by all stakeholders

Constructive Seek to manage conflict and promote the public interest

Redressing Seek to redress inequity and injustice

Capacitating Seek to develop the capacity of all stakeholders

Needs Based be based on the needs of all stakeholders

Flexible be flexibly designed and implemented

Rational and Coordinated be rationally planned and coordinated, and not be ad hoc

Excellence be subject to ongoing reflection and improvement

4. Stakeholder involvement plan The project’s design incorporates several features to ensure ongoing and effective stakeholder participation in the project’s implementation. The mechanisms to facilitate involvement and active participation of different stakeholder in project implementation will comprise a number of different components: 1. Project inception workshop The project will be launched by a multi-stakeholder workshop. This workshop will provide an opportunity to provide all stakeholders with the most updated information on the project, the work plan, and will establish a basis for further consultation as the project’s implementation commences. 2. Constitution of Project Board A Project Board’s constituency will be constituted to ensure broad representation of all key interests throughout the project’s implementation. The representation, and broad terms of reference, of the PB are further described in Part IV (Management Arrangements) of the Project Document. 3. Establishment of the Project Management Unit The Project Management Unit will take direct operational responsibility for facilitating stakeholder involvement and ensuring increased local ownership of the project and its results. The PMU will be


located close to, or in, the MITUR and MICOA offices in Maputo to ensure coordination among key stakeholder organizations at the national level during the project period. The terms of reference of the staff in the PMU is further described in Annex II of the Project Document. 4. Establishment of local working groups or community-partnership mechanisms At the activity level, working groups or informal community partnership structures - Financial Advisory Group (Output 1.1), Forestry Restoration Partnerships (Output 2.1), and User Fee Working Group (Output 3.2) - will be established, as required, to facilitate the active participation of affected institutions, organisations and individuals in the implementation of the respective project activities. Different stakeholder groups may take the lead in each of the working groups, depending on their respective mandates. 5. Project communications The project will develop, implement and maintain a communications strategy to ensure that all stakeholders are informed on an ongoing basis about: the project’s objectives; the projects activities; overall project progress; and the opportunities for involvement in various aspects of the project’s implementation. 6. Involvement of local stakeholders in project implementation The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approach will be adopted to facilitate the involvement of local communities in the agricultural planning and development activities in Output 2.1. A number of other project activities have specifically been designed to directly involve local stakeholders in the implementation of these activities. These include: the establishment and management of seedling nurseries (Output 2.1); the planting of tree saplings in the priority areas for reforestation (Output 2.1); the involvement of community rangers in conservation management, communication, enforcement and compliance activities on Gorongosa Mountain (Output 2.1); the design, development and operations of a joint tourism venture on Gorongosa Mountain (Output 2.2); expansion of agricultural activities in the buffer area of GNP (Output 2.3); implementation of small agricultural demonstration projects (Output 2.4); receipt of small grant funding from the BIOFUND (Output 3.1); and community-based mangrove conservation and restoration activities (Output 3.3). 7. Formalising cooperative governance structures The project will actively seek to formalise cooperative governance structures at the level of the project activities to ensure the ongoing participation of local and institutional stakeholders - BIOFUND Board (Output 3.1) Tourism Joint Venture (Output 2.2). 8. Capacity building All project activities are strategically focused on building the capacity – at systemic, institutional and individual level – of the institutional and community stakeholder groups to ensure sustainability of initial project investments. Significant GEF resources are directed at building the institutional capacities of the proposed ANAC. In component 2, the project will invest in building the capacities of the three local community structures to participate in project interventions. The project will also seek to build the capacity of local public institutions (e.g. Gorongosa SDAE) operating at the community level to enable them to actively participate in project activities.


Annex IV: NGO / CSO Capacity Assessments Carr Foundation / Gorongosa Restoration Project


WWF Mozambique


Annex V: METT, Capacity Development and Financial Scorecards PA Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool – “METT”

Government of Mozambique Implementing Agency: Ministry of Tourism

United Nations Development Programme

UNDP GEF PIMS 3938

UNDP Atlas 57986 GEF Project ID 3753

METT Section One: Project General Information 1. Project Name: Sustainable Financing of the Protected Area System

in Mozambique

2. Project Type (MSP or FSP): FPS

3. Project ID (GEF): 3753

4. Project ID (IA): 3938

5. Implementing Agency: UNDP

6. Country(ies): UNDP

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates

Name Title Agency

CEO Endorsement (Jun 2010)*

1) Alessandro Fusari 2) Carlos Lopes Pereira

1) Independent Consultant 2) Head of the Conservation Service

1) Under contract with Carr Foundation / Gorongosa Restoration Project 2) Gorongosa National Park

Project Mid-term - - -

Final Evaluation/project completion

- - -

*The PIF for the project was included in the Nov 2008 Work Programme. However, the first application of the tool is being carried out shortly before CEO Endorsement.


7. Project duration: Planned 5 years Actual n/a years 8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Ministry of Tourism 9. GEF Strategic Program: [X] Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level (SP 1) [ ] Increasing Representation of Effectively Managed Marine PAs in PA Systems (SP 2) [ ] Strengthening Terrestrial PA Networks (SP 3)

Project coverage in hectares Targets and Timeframe Foreseen at project

start (ha) Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of Project (ha)

Achievement at Final Evaluation of Project (ha)

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type*

Great Gorongosa Ecosystem (GGE) within the The Gorongosa Mountain - Rift Valley Complex

375,000 hectares - -

Total

* The GGE represents a large ecosystem complex that includes the Gorongosa National Park (GNP), the Gorongosa Mountain, the former Coutadas 1 and 3, the Dingue Dingue flood plain and all the surrounding areas. At present a large part of the GGE is not formally protected, and is heavily impacted by human activities, especially the area on and around Gorongosa Mountain. Proposals for the expansion of the GNP (see Map 2 in PRODOC Annexure VI) - to include the Gorongosa Mountain and the former Coutadas 1 and 3 (in light green) as core protected areas and a buffer area (horizontal blue lines) – are well advanced, with the proposed expansion bringing the total area under some form of protection from 3,750 km2 to approximately 6,600 km2. The Gorongosa Mountain / Rift Valley Complex: Once considered an important world spot with the largest concentration of biodiversity per unit area (Tinley, 1995). This area encompasses the isolated massif of Gorongosa Mountain and the southernmost section of the African Rift Valley. The mountain supports montane forests and heath grasslands on its summits. Several endemic and near-endemic plants and animals occur within the mountain's habitats. The Rift Valley in Mozambique is a floodplain ecosystem composed of variety of wetlands habitats. The diversity of habitats in the Rift Valley makes it one of the finest wildlife grazing ecosystems in Africa. The southern portion is protected within the Gorongosa National Park. Name of Protected Area Gorongosa National Park


Is this a new protected area? (Y / N) No

Area (ha) 375,000

Biome type Great Gorongosa Ecosystem

Global designation or priority lists [1] Eastern Miombo Ecoregion, East Africa Afro Mountain Eco Region

Local Designation of Protected Area National Park

IUCN Category for each Protected Area II


METT Section Two: PA data and Assessment PA Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool – “METT” – Sheet 1

Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: Data Sheet for Gorongosa National Park

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT (email etc.)

Alessandro Fusari, Independent Consultant, ([email protected])

Carlos Lopes Pereira, Head of the Conservation Service, PNG ([email protected])

Date assessment carried out 13th of April 2010

Name of protected area Gorongosa National Park WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)

Designations National Park IUCN Category II

International n/a

Country Mozambique

Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference)

Sofala Province, Mozambique. Eastern Miombo Ecoregion, East Africa Afro Mountain Eco Region

Date of establishment Gazetted 23rd of July 1960

Ownership details (please tick)

State Public land. Co-managed by the Ministry of Tourism of

Mozambique and the Gregory Carr Foundation (a no-profit US based foundation)

Private Community Other

Management Authority MITUR/Carr Foundation through a Long Term Agreement with timeframe of 20 years. Signed in December 2008.

Size of protected area (ha) 3,660 km2

Number of staff Permanent

457 Temporary

Annual budget (US$) – excluding staff salary costs

Recurrent (operational) funds

~ $3,480 million

Project or other supplementary funds The Gregory Carr Foundation signed a Long Term Agreement with the Ministry

of Tourism for the 20 years co-management of the Park. This intervention is focusing on patrolling the Park, re-introducing wildlife, working with local

communities and developing an environmental sound tourism.


What are the main values for which the area is designated

Was the area with the higher wildlife density in all Mozambique

List the two primary protected area management objectives

Management objective 1 Conservation of the large wildlife existing in the area.

Management objective 2 Development of Tourism No. of people involved in completing assessment 2

Including: (tick boxes)

PA manager PA staff Other PA agency staff NGO

Local community Donors External experts Other

Please note if assessment was carried out in association with a particular project, on behalf of an organisation or donor.

This assessment was carried out in connection with the PPG for the UNDP/GEF project “Sustainable Financing of the Protected Area System in Mozambique”.


PA Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool – “METT” – Sheet 2

Threats (column below) / METT Target Sites Gorongosa NP

Notes

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area

Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint

1.1 Housing and settlement M

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas L

1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure N/A

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area

Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation N/A

2.1a Drug cultivation N/A

2.2 Wood and pulp plantations N/A

2.3 Livestock farming and grazing N/A

2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture N/A

3. Energy production and mining within a protected area

Threats from production of non-biological resources



Notes

3.1 Oil and gas drilling L

3.2 Mining and quarrying L

3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams L There are rumors of a possible Dam construction on Pungue River at Bue Maria Locality.

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area

Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality

4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) H

4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) M

4.3 Shipping lanes and canals L

4.4 Flight paths N/A

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area

Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals)

5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) H

5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) M

5.3 Logging and wood harvesting L



Notes

5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources N/A

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area

Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources

6.1 Recreational activities and tourism N/A

6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises N/A

6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas L

6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) M

6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors M

7. Natural system modifications

Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions

7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) H

7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use N/A There are rumors of a possible Dam construction on Pungue River at Bue Maria Locality.

7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area L

7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) M



Notes

7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values L

7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) M

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes

Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase

8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) M

8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals L

8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) L

8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) N/A

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area

Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources

9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water L

9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) L

9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) L



Notes

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) L

9.4 Garbage and solid waste N/A

9.5 Air-borne pollutants N/A

9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) N/A

10. Geological events

Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited.

10.1 Volcanoes N/A

10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis M

10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides N/A

10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) L

11. Climate change and severe weather

Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration M



Notes

11.2 Droughts M

11.3 Temperature extremes M

11.4 Storms and flooding M

12. Specific cultural and social threats

12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices L

12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values L

12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc L

PA Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool – “METT” – Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score YR 0 (2010)

1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0

3

Does the protected area have legal status? The government has agreed that the protected area should be gazetted but the process has not yet begun 1

The protected area is in the process of being gazetted but the process is still incomplete 2

Context The protected area has been legally gazetted (or in the case of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar)

3

2. Protected area regulations There are no mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area 0

2 Are inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching) controlled?

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively

1



Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them

2

Context Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented

3

3. Law enforcement The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations 0

2

Can staff enforce protected area rules well enough? There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget)

1

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

2

Context The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations 3

4. Protected area objectives No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0

2 Have objectives been agreed? The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to these objectives 1

The protected area has agreed objectives, but these are only partially implemented 2

Planning The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these objectives 3

5. Protected area design Inadequacies in design mean achieving the protected areas major management objectives of the protected area is impossible

0

2 Does the protected area need enlarging, corridors etc to meet its objectives?

Inadequacies in design mean that achievement of major objectives are constrained to some extent 1

Design is not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives, but could be improved 2

Planning Reserve design features are particularly aiding achievement of major objectives of the protected area 3

6. Protected area boundary demarcation The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users

0 2



Is the boundary known and demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users

1

The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management authority and local residents but is not appropriately demarcated

2

Context The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated

3

7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0

2 Is there a management plan and is it being implemented?

A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented 1

An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented 2

Planning An approved management plan exists and is being implemented 3

Additional points The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan

1 0

There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan 1 0

Planning The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated into planning 1 0

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0

2

Is there an annual work plan? A regular work plan exists but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets 1

A regular work plan exists and actions are monitored against the plan’s targets, but many activities are not completed

2

Planning/Outputs A regular work plan exists, actions are monitored against the plan’s targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

3

9. Resource inventory There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area

0 2



Do you have enough information to manage the area? Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision making

1

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained

2

Context Information concerning on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained

3

10. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0

2

Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

There is some ad hoc survey and research work 1

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management

2

Inputs There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs

3

11. Resource management Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values have not been assessed

0

2

Is the protected area adequately managed (e.g. for fire, invasive species, poaching)?

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are known but are not being addressed

1

Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are only being partially addressed

2

Process Requirements for active management of critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are being substantially or fully addressed

3

12. Staff numbers There are no staff 0

1 Are there enough people employed to manage the protected area?

Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1

Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2



Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the site 3

13. Personnel management Problems with personnel management constrain the achievement of major management objectives 0

2

Are the staff managed well enough? Problems with personnel management partially constrain the achievement of major management objectives

1

Personnel management is adequate to the achievement of major management objectives but could be improved

2

Process Personnel management is excellent and aids the achievement major management objectives 3

14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0

2

Is there enough training for staff? Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

2

Inputs /Process Staff training and skills are in tune with the management needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs

3

15. Current budget There is no budget for the protected area 0

2

Is the current budget sufficient? The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage

1

The available budget is acceptable, but could be further improved to fully achieve effective management 2

Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the protected area 3

16. Security of future years' budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year funding

0

3 Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function adequately without outside

funding 1



There is a reasonably secure core budget for the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding

2

Inputs There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs on a multi-year cycle 3

17. Management of budget Budget management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 0

1 Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs?

Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1

Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2

Processus Budget management is excellent and aids effectiveness 3

18. Equipment There is little or no equipment and facilities 0

2 Are there adequate equipment and facilities? There is some equipment and facilities but these are wholly inadequate 1

There is equipment and facilities, but still some major gaps that constrain management 2

Processus There is adequate equipment and facilities 3

19. Maintenance of equipment There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 0

2 Is equipment adequately maintained? There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities 1

There is maintenance of equipment and facilities, but there are some important gaps in maintenance 2

Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3

20. Education and awareness programme There is no education and awareness programme 0

2

Is there a planned education programme? There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this 1

There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps 2

Process There is a planned and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area

3



21. State and commercial neighbours There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users 0

1

Is there co-operation with adjacent land users? There is limited contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users 1

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only limited co-operation

2

Process There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management

3

22. Indigenous people Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area

0

NA Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the PA have input to management decisions?

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

1

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some decisions relating to management 2

Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in making decisions relating to management 3

23. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area 0

1

Do local communities resident or near the protected area have input to management decisions?

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

1

Local communities directly contribute to some decisions relating to management 2

Process Local communities directly participate in making decisions relating to management 3

Additional points There is open communication and trust between local stakeholders and protected area managers 1 1

Ouputs Programmes to enhance local community welfare, while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented

1 1

24. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 2



Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) good enough?

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation or are under construction 1

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved 2

Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation 3

25. Commercial tourism There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area 0

1

Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

1

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values

2

Process There is excellent co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts

3

26. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0

1

If fees (tourism, fines) are applied, do they help protected area management?

The fee is collected, but it goes straight to central government and is not returned to the protected area or its environs

1

The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the local authority rather than the protected area 2

Outputs There is a fee for visiting the protected area that helps to support this and/or other protected areas 3

27. Condition assessment Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded 0

2

Is the protected area being managed consistent to its objectives?

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being severely degraded 1

Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded but the most important values have not been significantly impacted

2

Outcomes Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3



Additional points Outputs There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within the protected area and/or the protected area buffer zone

1 1

28. Access assessment Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

0

2

Is access/resource use sufficently controlled? Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

1

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

2

Outcomes Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives

3

29. Economic benefit assessment The existence of the protected area has reduced the options for economic development of the local communities

0

2

Is the protected area providing economic benefits to local communities?

The existence of the protected area has neither damaged nor benefited the local economy 1

There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities from the existence of the protected area but this is of minor significance to the regional economy

2

Oucomes There is a significant or major flow of economic benefits to local communities from activities in and around the protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc)

3

30. Monitoring and evaluation There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0

2

Are management activities monitored against pergformance?

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

1

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

2

Planning/Process A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management 3



TOTAL SCORE 58


UNDP Capacity Development Scorecard for PA Management

Strategic Areas of Support

Systemic Institutional Individual Average

% Project Scores

Total possible

score %

Project Scores

Total possible

score %

Project Scores

Total possible

score %

(1) Capacity to conceptualize and develop sectoral and cross-sectoral policy and regulatory frameworks

4 6 67% 2 3 67% N/A NA NA 67%

(2) Capacity to formulate, operationalise and implement sectoral and cross-sectoral programmes and projects

4 9 44% 12 27 44% 5 12 42% 44%

(3) Capacity to mobilize and manage partnerships, including with the civil society and the private sector

3 6 50% 3 6 50% 1 3 33% 47%

(4) Technical skills related specifically to the requirements of the SPs and associated Conventions

1 3 33% 1 3 33% 1 3 33% 33%

(5) Capacity to monitor, evaluate and report at the sector and project levels 2 6 33% 2 6 33% 1 3 33% 33%

TOTAL Score and average for %'s 14 30 46% 20 45 46% 8 21 35% 44%

Capacity Level Outcome Numeric Indicator

Score Outcome Indicator

Systemic The protected area agenda is being effectively championed / driven forward

2 There are a number of protected area champions that drive the protected area agenda, but more is needed




There is a strong and clear legal mandate for the establishment and management of protected areas

2 There is a reasonable legal framework for protected areas but it has a few weaknesses and gaps

Institutional There is an institution responsible for protected areas able to strategize and plan

2 Protected area institutions have some sort of mechanism to update their strategies and plans, but this is irregular or is done in a largely top-down fashion without proper consultation

Systemic There are adequate skills for protected area planning and management

1 Some skills exist but in largely insufficient quantities to guarantee effective planning and management

There are protected area systems 1 Protected area system is patchy both in number and geographical coverage and has many gaps in terms of representativeness

There is a fully transparent oversight authority for the protected areas institutions

2 There is a reasonable oversight mechanism in place providing for regular review but lacks in transparency (e.g. is not independent, or is internalized)

Institutional Protected area institutions are effectively led 1 Protected area institutions exist but leadership is weak and provides little guidance

Protected areas have regularly updated, participatorially prepared, comprehensive management plans

2 Most Protected Areas have management plans though some are old, not participatorially prepared or are less than comprehensive

Human resources are well qualified and motivated 1 Human resources qualification is spotty, with some well qualified, but many only poorly and in general unmotivated

Management plans are implemented in a timely manner effectively achieving their objectives

1 Management plans are poorly implemented and their objectives are rarely met

Protected area institutions are able to adequately mobilize sufficient quantity of funding, human and material resources to effectively implement their mandate

1 Protected area institutions have some funding and are able to mobilize some human and material resources but not enough to effectively implement their mandate




Potected area institutions are effectively managed, efficiently deploying their human, financial and other resources to the best effect

1 Institutional management is largely ineffective and does not deploy efficiently the resources at its disposal

Protected area institutions are highly transparent, fully audited, and publicly accountable

2 Protected area institutions are regularly audited and there is a fair degree of public accountability but the system is not fully transparent

There are legally designated protected area insititutions with the authority to carry out their mandate

2 There are one or more institutions or agencies dealing with protected areas, the responsibilities of each are fairly clearly defined, but there are still some gaps and overlaps

Protected areas are effectively protected 1 Some enforcement of regulations but largely ineffective and external threats remain active

Individual Individuals are able to advance and develop professionally

1 Career tracks are weak and training possibilities are few and not managed transparently

Individuals are appropriately skilled for their jobs 2 Individuals are reasonably skilled but could further improve for optimum match with job requirement

Individuals are highly motivated 1 Motivation uneven, some are but most are not

There are appropriate systems of training, mentoring, and learning in place to maintain a continuous flow of new staff

1 Some mechanisms exist but unable to develop enough and unable to provide the full range of skills needed

Systemic Protected areas have the political commitment they require

2 Reasonable political will exists, but is not always strong enough to fully support protected areas

Protected areas have the public support they require 1 There is limited support for protected areas

Institutional Protected area institutions are mission oriented 1 Institutional mission poorly defined and generally not known and internalized at all




levels

Protected area institutions can establish the partnerships needed to achieve their objectives

2 Many partnerships in place with a wide range of agencies, NGOs etc, but there are some gaps, partnerships are not always effective and do not always enable efficient achievement of objectives

Individual Individuals carry appropriate values, integrity and attitudes

1 Some individuals have notion of appropriate attitudes and display integrity, but most don't

Systemic Protected area institutions have the information they need to develop and monitor strategies and action plans for the management of the protected area system

1 Some information exists, but is of poor quality, is of limited usefulness, or is very difficult to access

Institutional Protected area institutions have the information needed to do their work

1 Some information exists, but is of poor quality and of limited usefulness and difficult to access

Individual Individuals working with protected areas work effectively together as a team

1 Individuals interact in limited way and sometimes in teams but this is rarely effective and functional

Systemic Protected area policy is continually reviewed and updated

1 Policy is only reviewed at irregular intervals

Society monitors the state of protected areas 1 There is some dialogue going on, but not in the wider public and restricted to specialized circles

Institutional Institutions are highly adaptive, responding effectively and immediately to change

1 Institutions do change but only very slowly

Institutions have effective internal mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning

1 There are some mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning but they are limited and weak




Individual Individuals are adaptive and continue to learn 1 Performance is irregularly and poorly measured and there is little use of feedback


UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard – Part I - Overall Financial Status of the PA System

FINANCIAL SCORECARD - PART I – OVERALL FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM

Basic Protected Area System Information

Describe the PA system and what it includes:

Mozambique has six categories of protected areas: National Parks; National Reserves; Biological Reserves; ‘Coutadas’; Forest Reserves and Zones of Cultural-Historical Value and Use.62 The present classification of the protected areas are primarily regulated by three legal instruments: the Land Law (19/1997) and Forests and Wildlife Law (10/1999) for terrestrial areas; and the General Regulation for Maritime Fishing for the marine areas (Decree 43/2003). The Forests and Wildlife Law defines the National Parks and National Reserves as being ‘total protection zones’, in line with the Land Law. National Parks offer total protection to all flora, fauna, landscapes, and geology within their boundaries. No hunting or livestock rearing, natural resource exploitation, land modification, or alien species are permitted in these areas. National Reserves and Biological Reserves provide total protection for specified plant and animal species and/or ecosystems, while other resources may be exploited within norms established by a management plan. The other categories of conservation areas (Coutadas, Forest Reserves and Community Reserves) offer varying levels of protection to fauna and flora within their boundaries, as prescribed by the Forestry and Wildlife Law. Multiple-use (or buffer) zones are typically established around protected areas. Resource use in these areas is permitted in accordance with an established management plan. The current formal protected area (PA) estate includes (see also Table 2 below and Map 1 in Annexure VI): (i) six National Parks63, of which two are coastal/marine protected areas (MPAs) namely, Bazaruto National Park (1430km2 exclusively marine) and Quirimbas National Park (7500 km2, of which ~1500 km2 is marine) - and four of which are terrestrial national parks – Banhine (7000 km2), Gorongosa (10000 km2), Limpopo (10000 km2) and Zinave (3700 km2) (ii) six National Reserves – Gilé (2100 km2), Marromeu,(1500 km2) Niassa Game Reserve (42000 km2), Maputo Special Reserve (700 km2), Chimanimani National Reserve ( 7500 km2) and Pomene Game (200 km2); (iii) 1 marine Biological Reserve – Inhaca (100km2); (v) 13 Coutadas (42017 km2); (v) 1 partial Marine Reserve (67,800ha); and (vi) thirteen Forest Reserves (494,50km2).

62 The fisheries legislation also provides for Marine Reserves, Marine Parks, and Marine Protected Areas (MPA). The only MPA established under this legislation is the Ponto D’Ouro partial Marine Reserve. 63 The Reserva Marinha Parcial da Ponta do Ouro (67,800ha and 5km out to sea) was recently proclaimed (2009) as an MPA, bringing the total up to 7.


Protected Areas System or sub-system No of PAs Total Hectares Comments

Total 42 15,524,835

National Parks 6 3,447,639

National Reserves (including Biological Reserve, Marine Reserves, and Lake Niassa, proposed Partial Marine Reserve)

9 5,081,389

Hunting Grounds 12 5,610,400

Forest Reserves 13 528,907

Community Reserves 2 856,500

Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline Year1

(US$)2 Year X3 (US$)4 Comments (5)

Available Finances6

1. Total annual central government budget allocated to PA management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system)

2008

Central Government Allocation 153,094

Note that the costs of DNAC itself are not included here

2. Total annual government budget provided for PA management (including PA dedicated taxes7 - Such as a conservation departure tax or water fees re-invested in PAs - Trust Funds, donor funds, loans, donations, debt-for nature swaps and other financial me

14,046,039 Specify sources of funds and US$ amounts for each

Central Government Allocation 153,094

Other Government Income 235,398


Financial Analysis of the National Protected Area System Baseline Year1 (US$)2

Year X3 (US$)4 Comments (5)

Donor Revenue 13,657,547

3. Total annual site based revenue generation across all PAs broken down by source8

Indicate total economic value of PAs (if studies available)

A. Tourism entrance and activity fees (NB this includes Concession fees as well as the data have not been desaggregated)

1,284,062 Specify the number of visitors to the protected areas in year X - international: - national: Specify fee levels:

NB Data not available at national level. NB fee levels are included in the touirsm pilot doc (copy of decree 27/2003)

B. Concessions

C. Payments for ecosystem services (PES)

D. Other (specify each type of revenue generation mechanism10)

396,929.52 NB Please note that these are all from Gorongosa, which under it's LTA has more freedom to generate revenues

Lodging $204,492.75 204,492.75

Restaurant Tourists $91,995.03 91,995.03

Restaurant Staff $8,889.13 8,889.13

Game Drive $37,804.84 37,804.84

Mountain Trips $589.29 589.29




Transfers $17,533.90 17,533.90

Campers Camping Fee $7,048.34 7,048.34

Conservation Fee $8,238.48 8,238.48

Merchandize $12,441.85 12,441.85

Other Sales $7,895.91 7,895.91

4. Total annual revenues generated by PAs (total of line item 3)

1,680,992

5. Percentage of PA generated revenues retained in the PA system for re-investment11

Amount Percent

Should be 64%, but less is actually given back to the PAs 1,218,729 64%

However, of Other income, all is retained

6. Total finances available to the PA system [line item 2 ]+ [line item 4 * line item 5]

15,264,768

Costs and Financing Needs

7. Total annual expenditure for PAs (all PA operating and investment costs and system level expenses)12

18,269,246 State any extraordinary levels of capital investment in a given year

State rate of disbursement – total annual




expenditures as % of available finances (line item 6.)

If this % is low, state reasons[3]:

All PA operating and investment costs 15,886,301

Rate of disbursement:

104%

System level expenses 2,382,945

NB this is greater than 100% due to minor donor under-reporting

8. Estimation of financing needs14

A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs (operational and investments) to be covered

20,776,762 Includes 15% system level expenses.

B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs (operational and investments) to be covered15

32,295,271 Includes 15% system level expenses.

9. Annual financing gap (financial needs – available finances)16

A. Net actual annual surplus/deficit17 3,004,478

B. Annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenarios 5,511,993

C. Annual financing gap for optimal expenditure scenarios 17,030,503

D. Projected annual financing gap for basic expenditure scenario in year X+518, 19

6,448,253 2008's gap with 4% inflation for 5 years (representing gap in 2014)

10. Financial data collection needs Specify main data gaps identified from this analysis:




Specify actions to be taken to fill data gaps[4]:

All donor revenue data for all conservation areas

Cost data for some National Parks and National Reserves, and all Hunting Grounds, Forest Reserves and Community Reserves

System level expenses

Detailed revenue statistics

All donor revenue data for all conservation areas Cost data for some National Parks and National Reserves, and all Hunting Grounds, Forest Reserves and Community Reserves System level expenses Detailed revenue statistics UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard – Part II - Assessing Elements of the PA Financing System

Components and Elements FINANCIAL SCORECARD – PART II - ASSESSING ELEMENTS OF THE PA FINANCING SYSTEM Comments

Component 1 – Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks

Element 1 – Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue generation by PAs

None (0) A Few (1) Several (2) Fully (3)

(i) Laws or policies are in place that facilitate PA revenue mechanisms 2

Laws in place: New Conservation Policy (August 2009), Table of fees for Parks and Reserves (27/2003), Coutada fees, Decree 15/2009 (return of fees to conservation areas). A wide range of environmental legislation in Mozambique including inter alia: Land Law; Environment Law; Fisheries Law; Forest and Wildlife Law;



and the Tourism Law (and associated regulations). Note More detail available in ProDoc Part I.

(ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or tax breaks exist to promote PA financing 0

There is currently no hotel or visa tax that supports PA financing.

Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue retention and sharing within the PA system

No (0) Under

Development (1)

Yes, but needs improvement

(2)

Yes, Satisfactory (3)

(i) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained by the PA system (central and site levels)

2 Decree 15/2009 and accompanying diploma are in place.

(ii) Laws or policies are in place for PA revenues to be retained at the PA site level 2

Decree 15/2009 and accompanying diploma are in place.

(iii) Laws or policies are in place for revenue sharing at the PA site level with local stakeholders 2

Revenue sharing with local communities (16% of total generated by PAs).

Element 3 - Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing Funds (endowment, sinking or revolving)21

No (0) Established (1) Established with limited capital (2)

Established with adequate capital

(3)

(i) A Fund has been established and capitalized to finance the PA system 0 The process of establishing a fund is underway.

None (0) Some (1) Several (2) Sufficient (3)

(ii) Funds have been created to finance specific PAs 0 The process of establishing a fund is underway.

No (0) Partially (1) Quite well (2) Fully (3)



(iii) Fund expenditures are integrated with national PA financial planning and accounting 0 The process of establishing a fund is underway.

Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative institutional arrangements for PA management to reduce cost burden to government

No (0) Under

Development (1)


(2)

Yes, Satisfactory (3)

(i) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate concessions for PA services 1

Coutadas are concessioned, but parks and reserves are not. Forest Reserves could potentially be concessioned.

(ii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate co-management of PAs 1

Gorongosa and Niassa are examples of co-management. Sacred forests, Tchuma Tchato, and land law that communities own traditional lands are examples of community (co-)management of PAs, where the legal and policy elements are a little bit more advanced.

(iii) There are laws or policies which allow and regulate local government management of PAs 0 No such laws in place.

(v) There are laws which allow, promote and regulate private reserves 2 Fazendas do Bravio are examples.

Element 5 - National PA financing policies and strategies

No (0)


(2)

Yes, Satisfactory

(3)

(i) There are key PA financing policies for:

- Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting systems (both input and activity based

2 Cost accounting systems are standardized, but their usage is not comprehensive across



accounting) conservation areas.

- Revenue generation and fee levels across PAs 2

There exists a standard Table of Tariffs for activity fee levels across conservation areas, but revenues are generally not yet returned to specific areas.

- Allocation of PA budgets to PA sites (criteria based on size, threats, business plans, performance etc)

0 No elaborated financial policy here; need standardized, clear criteria.

- Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely affect conservation objectives of PAs 2

Principal tool is the management plan, but not all PAs have management plans.

- PA management plans to include financial data or associated business plans 0

Most management plans do not contain financial data, and business plans are not usually part of the management plan. There is no standard template for business plans.

Not Begun (0)

In progress (1) Complete

(3)

Under implementation

(5)

(ii) Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a national financing strategy22 1

Trust fund was a recommendation from 2007 conference, but a full national financing strategy has yet to be developed.

Element 6 - Economic valuation of protected area systemsn (ecosystem services, tourism based employment etc)

No (0) Partial (1) Satisfactory (2) Complete (3) Provide summary data from studies

(i) Economic valuation studies on the contribution of protected areas to local and national development

1 French study and background studies for 2007 conference were done; also Zambezi delta



are available freshwater study done. Quality varies.

(eg within

Ministry of Environment)

(eg within other sectoral

Ministries)

(eg within Ministry of

Finance)

(ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers 0

Need communications recommendations here. This will be a key element in the 5-year project. Zambia and Madagascar examples were quite well received and used.

Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems

No (0) Partially (2) Yes (3)

(i) Government policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management plans

2 Yes, the government does so partially based on need, but management plans are few and differ in quality.

(ii) PA budgets includes funds to finance threat reduction strategies in buffer zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)23

3 Definitely with communities, but need more consistent implementation of this mandate.

(iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent, reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates

0

Need more training to develop skills so staff can follow procedures properly. Procurement procedures should be streamlined; they are currently inefficient.

(iv) Government plans to increase budget, over the long term, to reduce the PA financing gap 0

There are currently no plans for this, despite the need.

Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial management of PAs

None (0) Partial (1) Improving (2) Complete (3)

(i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA 0 Need to specify mandates and rectify parts of



finances are clear and agreed law.

Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level

None (0) Partial (1) Almost

Complete (2) Complete (3)

(i) There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of economists and financial planners in the PA authorities (central, regional and site levels) and sufficient authority to properly manage the finances of the PA system

0

Need to have park managers with proper authority to proactively manage park finances. Currently the park administrators do not have that mandate, and do not always have the skills to be park managers.

(ii) PA site manager responsibilities include, financial management, cost-effectiveness and revenue generation24

0

Need to delegate financial management responsibilities to parks. Setting of fees, approval of licenses, and distribution of fees are done at the national level.

(iii) Budgetary incentives motivate PA managers to promote site level financial sustainability (eg sites generating revenues do not experience budget cuts)

0

There is a new decree that says revenues should come back, but the decree is not yet being implemented Need better procedures to encourage for revenue generation and cost-cutting.

(iv) Performance assessment of PA site managers includes assessment of sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee collection and cost-effective management

0

There is some performance assessment on revenue generation & fee management, but none on costs, as there is no capacity to assess costs this way at the national level yet. In some cases, donors currently assess costs and sound financial management. It i

(v) There is auditing capacity for PA finances 1 Audits mostly done on revenue collection. Need to expand scope to include costs and hire more technical staff.



(vi) PA managers budget and plan for the long-term (eg over 5 years) 1

Conservation areas plan to the budget available, most often using the timeframe of the potential donor. Very few budgets are longer than 5 years.

Total Score for Component 1 0 15 13 0

Actual Score 28

Total Possible Score 95

%: 29.47%

Component 2 – Business planning and tools for cost-effective management

Element 1 – PA site-level business planning Does not exist

(0) Poor (1) Decent (2) High Quality (3)

(i) Quality of PA management plans used, (based on conservation objectives, management needs and costs based on cost-effective analysis)

1 Few management plans are based on cost-effective analysis.

Not begun (0)

Early stages - Below 25% of sites within the

system (1)

Near complete- Above 70% of

sites (2)

Completed 100% coverage (3)

(ii) PA management plans are used at PA sites across the PA system 1

3 or 4 national parks and reserves, a few coutadas, and no forest reserves have current management plans.

(iii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system25

0

There is no standard format for business plans, they are often not linked to management plans, and only a few exist. A standard template for coutada management plans is currently being developed. Need institutional capacity to make



progress on this.

(iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives)

0 Need institutional capacity for this.

(v) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting 0 Need institutional capacity for this.

(vi) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting


Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems

None (0) Partial (1) Near Complete

(2) Fully Complete

(3)

(i) There is a transparent and coordinated cost (operational and investment) accounting system functioning for the PA system

0 Cost accounting system stops at one level the Provincial Directorate of Tourism, one level above the Conservation Area manager.

(ii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational 1

Some revenue tracking systems exist at the provincial level.

(iii) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to system level planning and budgeting 0

Accounting data does not contribute significantly to system level planning and budgeting.

Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance

None (0) Partial (1) Almost

Complete (2) Complete and

Operational (3)

(i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and accurately reported by PA authorities to stakeholders




(ii) Financial returns on tourism related investments are measured and reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after establishment of a visitor centre)


(iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority

0

Amounts that are allocated are tracked. Need better communication of reasons why funds are allocated across conservation areas the way they are.

(iv) A reporting and evaluation system is in place to show how effectively PAs use their available finances (ie disbursement rate and cost-effectiveness) to achieve management objectives

1 SISTAFE, the spending-tracking system, needs to be expanded beyond reporting only salaries and revenues.

Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites

No (0) Yes (2)

(i) National PA budget is allocated to sites based on agreed and appropriate criteria (eg size, threats, needs, performance)


(ii) Funds raised by co-managed PAs do not reduce government budget allocations where funding gaps still exist

2

Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively

Absent (0) Partially

realized (1) Almost

Complete (2) Complete (3)

(i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA managers 0 Need to develop this guidance.



(ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information with each other on their costs, practices and impacts

1 Need to increase opportunities for this.

(iii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, available and being used to track PA manager performance

0 Need to do this; not currently done.

(iv) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-effectiveness are in place and feed into system management policy and planning

0 Not currently done.

(v) PA site managers are trained in financial management and cost-effective management 0 Need to do this.

Not currently done.

(vi) PA financing system facilitates PAs to share costs of common practices with each other and with PA headquarters26

0 Not currently done.


Actual Score 7


%: 11.48%

Component 3 – Tools for revenue generation by PAs

Element 1 - Number and variety of revenue sources used across the PA system

No (0) Partially (1) A Fair

Amount(2) Optimal (3)

(i) An up-to-date analysis of revenue options for the country complete and available including feasibility studies;

0



(ii) There is a diverse set of sources and mechanisms, generating funds for the PA system 1

(iii) PAs are operating revenue mechanisms that generate positive net revenues (greater than annual operating costs and over long-term payback initial investment cost)

0

(iv) PAs enable local communities to generate revenues, resulting in reduced threats to the PAs 1

Element 2 - Setting and establishment of user fees across the PA system

No (0) Partially (1) Satisfactory (2) Complete (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for user fees is complete and adopted by government 1

If PA sites have tariffs but there is no system strategy score as partial

(ii) The national tourism industry and Ministry are supportive and are partners in the PA user fee system and programmes

1

(iii) Tourism related infrastructure investment is proposed and developed for PA sites across the network based on analysis of revenue potential and return on investment27

1

(iv) Where tourism is promoted PA managers can demonstrate maximum revenue whilst not threatening PA conservation objectives

0

(v) Non tourism user fees are applied and generate additional revenue 0

Element 3 - Effective fee collection systems None (0) Partially (1) Complete (2) Operational (3)



(i) System wide guidelines for fee collection are complete and approved by PA authorities 1

(ii) Fee collection systems are being implemented at PA sites in a cost-effective manner 1

(iii) Fee collection systems are monitored, evaluated and acted upon 1

(iv) PA visitors are satisfied with the professionalism of fee collection and the services provided

1 This can be done through visitor surveys

Element 4 - Marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms

None (0) Partially (1) Satisfactory (2) Complete (3)

(i) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about tourism fees, conservation taxes etc are widespread and high profile at national level

0

(ii) Communication campaigns and marketing for the public about PA fees are in place at PA site level 1

Element 5 - Operational PES schemes for PAs28 None (0) Partially (1) Progressing (2) Complete (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and action plan for PES is complete and adopted by government 0

(ii) Pilot PES schemes at select PA sites developed 0

(iii) Operational performance of pilots is monitored, evaluated and reported 0

(iv) Scale up of PES across the PA system is 0



underway

Element 6 - Concessions operating within PAs29 None (0) Partially (1) Progressing (2) Complete (3)

(i) A system wide strategy and implementation action plan is complete and adopted by government for concessions

0

(ii) Concession opportunities are operational at pilot PA sites 1

(iii) Operational performance (environmental and financial) of pilots is monitored, evaluated, reported and acted upon

1

(iv) Scale up of concessions across the PA system is underway 0

Element 7 - PA training programmes on revenue generation mechanisms

None (0) Limited (1) Satisfactory (2) Extensive (3)

(i) Training courses run by the government and other competent organizations for PA managers on revenue mechanisms and financial administration

0


Actual Score 12


%: 16.90%

SUMMARY SCORES


Total Score for PA System (2010 / baseline) 47


Actual score as a percentage of the total possible score 20.70%

Percentage scored in previous year -


Annex VI: Project Maps Map 1: Distribution and extent of conservation areas in Mozambique


Map 2: Map of the proposed core and buffer areas for expansion of the Gorongosa National Park (the current extent of GNP is in bright green and the total area of expansion, including buffer areas, outlined in blue)


Map 3: Location of the three target communities around Gorongosa Mountain (Canda, Sandjungira and Tambara)

Sustainable financing of the protected area system of Mozambique Annex VII: Budgets of, and TORs of key project positions for, implementing partners For Carr Foundation / Gorongosa Restoration Project’s agreement with MITUR Key deliverables / Outputs: 2.1 The extent of deforestation on Gorongosa Mountain is contained, and reforestation and rehabilitation activities are expanded 2.2 A joint venture tourism enterprise on the lower slopes of Gorongosa Mountain provides an alternative source of income for local

communities 2.3 Improved productivity and sustainability of cultivated areas in the lowlands incentivises local farmers to abandon slash-and-burn

farming practices on Gorongosa Mountain

Indicative Budget Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5 (USD)

TOTAL Notes

International Consultants 0 7 184 0 0 0 7 184 Carbon credit advisor

Local Consultants 41 930 41 054 15 608 10 466 4 449 113 507 Architect (lump-sum) (to advise on the construction of eco-tourism facility), Agricultural Planner/Economist (advise on activities under Output 1.1).

Contractual Services - Individuals 83 860 143 688 156 078 136 056 111 236 630 918

Forest rehabilitation and management expert, Construction Project Manager, Agricultural extension officers, Community Rangers

Travel 15 095 14 779 10 613 9 419 6 674 56 581

Ground transportation, airport transfers, regional air travel. Pro rata in-country travel costs associated with mid-term and end of project evaluation. In-country travel costs estimated at US$0.35/km.

Contractual Services - Companies 12 055 13 342 8 324 8 373 7 230 49 324

Community training services (Community representatives, community rangers, agricultural extension officers, community nursery staff), travel support services, translation services, community consultation services

Equipment and Furniture 73 377 29 764 10 405 6 280 5 562 125 388

Equipping (including safety clothing) of community rangers and agricultural extension officers, and procurement of bicycles and motorbikes for community rangers and agricultural extension officers

Materials & Goods 15 724 15 395 15 608 15 699 11 124 73 549 Satellite imagery, materials for seedling nurseries


Supplies 12 579 12 316 10 405 10 466 2 225 47 991 Fuel costs

Professional Services 71 281 296 613 147 754 140 242 0 655 890 EIA Consultant (tourism enterprise), Legal fees (DUAT, JV agreement and lease contract), Building Contractor (including materials)

Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs 0 10 263 10 405 0 0 20 669 Communication materials for community rangers

TOTAL 325 900 584 400 385 200 337 000 148 500 1 781 000

Services / Consultants to be engaged


Forest rehabilitation and management expert

Output 2.1 - Collect, register and maintain all information on forestry activities, land clearing and land degradation in the target area; Identify the priority areas for reforestation; Support the GNP/Restoration Project staff in the management and development of the communities’ seedling nurseries; Assist the Natural Resources Management Committees in the selection of local workers for the reforestation activities; Assist the Natural Resources Management Committees in the selection of the communities’ rangers; Assist local communities in seedling planting and forestry conservation methods; Ensure communication flows between stakeholders on the forest restoration and rehabilitation programme; Identify other possible areas within the buffer zone for replicating the reforestation programme; and Monitor the performance of the forest restoration activities.

Architect Output 2.2 – Undertake pre-feasibility study for tourism venture; Complete site analysis; Develop site concept; Prepare site master plan; Prepare design and building plans; Draft technical specifications; Prepare costing for construction phase; Identify infrastructure requirements; Monitor site construction; and Prepare operational business plan for tourism venture

Construction Project Manager

Output 2.2 - Interpret site and building plans and estimate costs and quantities of materials needed; Plan construction methods and procedures; Coordinate the supply of labor and materials; Supervise construction sites and direct site managers and subcontractors to make sure standards of building performance, quality, cost schedules and safety are maintained; Control preparation of cost estimates and the documentation for contract bids; Control payment to subcontractors by valuation of completed works; Make sure that building regulations, standards and by-laws are enforced in building operations; and Consult with architects, engineers and other technical workers to make sure that design intentions are met.

Agricultural planner/ economist

Output 2.3 – Selecting and profiling areas to be targeted for agricultural planning, development and extension support services; Mapping areas of agricultural potential in target areas; Selecting and mapping most significant agricultural enterprises in target areas; Defining the needs and requirements for each of the identified agricultural enterprise; Supporting the brokering of linkages and agreements between




communities and agricultural support and business services; Building the agricultural extension capacities; Identifying agricultural training programmes for local communities; Selecting and developing detailed plans for 2-3 small demonstration projects in support of tourism venture; and Monitoring and evaluating the performance of agricultural development in target areas and local demonstration projects.

Agricultural extension officers (3)

Output 2.3 – Provide agricultural information (e.g. productive use of farmland, use and storage of water, combating of animal disease, saving on the cost of farming equipment and procedures) to farmers in target areas; Facilitate access to farmers in target area to agricultural supplies and support services; Encourage farmers in target areas to adopt new/ improved methods of farming; Facilitate access to agricultural training for farmers in target area; Provide training for local communities responsible for demonstration project implementation; and provide direct technical support to local communities responsible for implementation of demonstration projects.

For WWF’s and BIOFUND’s agreement with MITUR Key deliverables / Outputs: 3.1 A conservation trust fund is established, effectively administered and capitalised 3.2 The income from user fees in national parks, national reserves and marine reserves is improved 3.3 The development of a pilot carbon sequestration project in the mangrove forests of a coastal conservation area is catalysed 3.4 The potential for funding conservation areas from the implementation of biodiversity offset and compensation mechanisms is assessed

Indicative Budget Amount

Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5 (USD)

TOTAL Notes

International Consultants 46 691 61 816 62 015 28 017 24 950 223 489 REDD specialist, Biodiversity offset specialist.

Local Consultants 21 616 52 371 15 668 5 188 4 158 99 002 Biodiversity Offset advisor.

Contractual Services - Individuals 134 311 150 757 168 551 177 677 146 360 777 656

Pro rata % of salaries of BIOFUND staff (Executive Director, Investment Manager, Administration/Finance Manager, Secretary, accounting staff, program staff); WWF GEF Project Coordinator; WWF REDD Project Manager

Travel 12 970 23 181 5 168 5 188 5 198 51 705 Ground transportation, airport transfers, air travel. In-country travel costs


estimated at US$0.35/km.

Contractual Services - Companies 37 353 41 110 42 271 38 334 39 545 198 612

Communications service for BIOFUND, training of MICOA, MITUR and BIOFUND staff, workshops and meetings support services, administering exchange , programmes, advertising services, translation services, travel services

Supplies 8 241 8 558 8 981 8 740 9 194 43 715 Fuel and running costs

Information Technology Equipment 2 075 3 812 1 240 0 0 7 127 Computer and peripherals for WWF Facilitator and BIOFUND staff

Rental and Maintenance - premises 8 236 8 265 9 044 9 535 10 030 45 110 Office space for BIOFUND executive staff

Professional Services 54 060 52 732 50 299 51 678 45 834 254 604 Technical support services to BIOFUND, Mangrove carbon and biodiversity offset

Audio Visual & Print Prod Costs 5 866 5 910 6 019 6 137 6 248 30 179 Communications materials for BIOFUND

TOTAL 331 420 408 512 369 255 330 496 291 517 1 731 200

Services / Consultants

to be engaged Tasks to be performed

BIOFUND Executive staff (Executive Director; Investment Manager)

To be determined by the BIOFUND Board

BIOFUND Operations staff (Administrative Manager; Accountant; Programme Officer)

WWF REDD Project Manager

Output 3.3 - Facilitate the implementation of community-based mangrove restoration and protection activities (e.g. training communities in sustainable harvesting of mangroves, the introduction of energy efficient stoves to reduce deforestation and re-planting of mangroves) and carry out fundraising to raise additional funds for project implementation.




Biodiversity offset broker

Output 3.4 – in collaboration with the international biodiversity offset specialist: Identify international and regional best practices; Review legal, institutional and stakeholder framework for biodiversity offset mechanisms in Mozambique; Build institutional and individual capacities for biodiversity offsets; Engage with private sector companies to identify potential investors/projects for voluntary offsets; Identify and design a pilot voluntary offset project; Facilitate the implementation of the pilot voluntary offset project; Monitor the performance of the pilot voluntary offset project; and Provide recommendations in the development of national enabling policy and legislation to support offsets and compensation mechanisms.

Int. Carbon credit broker

Output 2.1 - Assess opportunities to issue carbon credits for the reforestation programmes in and around Gorongosa NP; quantify the extent and quality of carbon sequestration (and potential value of carbon credits) from reforestation activities; and if feasible, identify the strategic approaches to, and institutional mechanisms for, trading in carbon credits.

Int. REDD Specialist Output 3.3 - Undertake the pre-feasibility scoping study for potential mangrove carbon projects in conservation areas; Prepare a Project Idea Note (PIN) for the selected pilot site; Design the pilot project through an in-depth feasibility analysis; Prepare a Project Design Document (PDD); and Ensure validation of project by third party auditor and registration of project to comply with standards (e.g., CDM, VCS, CCB).

Int. Biodiversity offset specialist

Output 3.4 – in collaboration with the national biodiversity offset broker: Identify international and regional best practices; Review legal, institutional and stakeholder framework for biodiversity offset mechanisms in Mozambique; Build institutional and individual capacities for biodiversity offsets; Engage with private sector companies to identify potential investors/projects for voluntary offsets; Identify and design a pilot voluntary offset project; Facilitate the implementation of the pilot voluntary offset project; Monitor the performance of the pilot voluntary offset project; and Provide recommendations in the development of national enabling policy and legislation to support offsets and compensation mechanisms.

Sustainable financing of the protected area system of Mozambique Annex VIII: Letters of Co-financing [Refer to separate file for letters]

Name of Co-financier Date Page in separate

file

Amounts mentioned in letters *

Amounts considered as project co-

financing (in USD)

KfW - German Development Bank 06-Jul-10 2 150,000 EUR $210,000

AFD - French Development Agency 15-Apr-10 3 4,000,000 EUR $5,600,000

WWF Mozambique 15-Jun-10 4 272,510 USD $272,510

WWF US 21-Jun-01 5 245,680 USD $245,680

Carr Foundation / Gorongosa Restoration Project 24-Jun-10 6 6,840,000 USD

$6,840,000

MITUR 28-Jun-10 7 500,000 USD $500,000

UNDP Mozambique 01-Jun-10 8 200,000 USD $200,000

Total $13,868,190

Notes: * Amounts converted to USD based on market rate on the date of project submission * This is an in-cash direct contribution, be managed by UNDP in connection with the project under the same budgetary award. Refer to Total Budget and Workplan for more details.

Programme Period: 2011-2015 Atlas Award ID: ______________ Project ID: ______________ PIMS # ______________ Start date: ______________ End Date

SIGNATURE PAGE Country: Mozambique

(to be completed after GEF CEO Endorsement)

UNDAF Outcome (s)/Indicator (s): CPAP Outcome (s)/Indicator (s): CPAP Output (s)/Indicator (s): Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: Ministry of Tourism (MITUR) Implementing entity/Responsible Partner: National Directorate of Conservation Areas (DNAC), WWF, Carr Foundation, BIOFUND

Agreed by (Government):

NAME SIGNATURE Date/Month/Year

Agreed by (Executing Entity/Implementing Partner): NAME SIGNATURE Date/Month/Year Agreed by (UNDP): NAME SIGNATURE Date/Month/Year

Total resources required ________________ Total allocated resources: ________________

Regular ________________

Other:

1. GEF ________________

2. Government ________________

3 In-kind

146

sustainable financing of the protected area system in ... sustainable... · and southwest by south...

Documents