Mozambique - Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 28382 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (TF-28483) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 5 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE FOR A TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS PILOT AND INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING PROJECT March 31, 2004 Environmental, Rural and Social Development Unit - Southern Africa (AFTS1) Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective on March 30th, 2004) Currency Unit = Meticais 1 MZM = US$ 0.000043 US$ 1 = 23,250 MZM FISCAL YEAR January 1 to December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management COUTADA Hunting Concession DINAGECA National Directorate for Geography and Cadastre (MADER) DNAC National Directorate of Conservation Areas (MITUR) DNFFB National Directorate for Forestry and Wildlife (MADER) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GEF Global Environment Facility GIS/EIS Geographical/Environmental Information System GLNP Great Limpopo National Park GOM Government of Mozambique ICB International Competitive Bidding ICR Implementation Completion Report IFC International Finance Corporation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JMC Joint Management Committee KfW German Development Bank KNP Kruger National Park LNP Limpopo National Park M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MER Maputo Elephant Reserve MICOA Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs MITUR Ministry of Tourism NCB National Competitive Bidding NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRM Natural Resource Management PA Protected Area PAD Project Appraisal Document PIP Project Implementation Plan PPF Project Preparation Facility PSR Project Supervision Report QAG Quality Assurance Group  SADC Southern Africa Development Committee SDC Swiss Development Corporation SDR Special Drawing Rights SPFFB Provincial Forestry and Wildlife Services (MADER) SC Steering Committee TC Technical Committee TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Areas TFCATDP Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project TTL Task Team Leader UEM University of Edward Mondlane USAID United States Agency for International Development WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature Vice President: Callisto E. Madavo Country Director: Darius Mans Sector Manager: Richard G. Scobey Task Team Leader: Agnes I. Kiss  MOZAMBIQUE Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project CONTENTS Page No. 1. Project Data 1 2. Principal Performance Ratings 1 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 2 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 5 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 10 6. Sustainability 12 7. Bank and Borrower Performance 13 8. Lessons Learned 15 9. Partner Comments 17 10. Additional Information 17 Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 18 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 25 Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 27 Annex 4. Bank Inputs 28 Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 30 Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 31 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 32 Annex 8. Borrower's Project Completion Report 33 Annex 9. GEF additional requirements 45  Project ID: P001759 Project Name: Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project Team Leader: Michael John Webster TL Unit: YPP ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: March 31, 2004 1. Project Data Name: Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and L/C/TF Number: TF-28483 Institutional Strengthening Project Country/Department: MOZAMBIQUE Region: Africa Regional Office Sector/subsector: Other social services (48%); Central government administration (21%); Sub-national government administration (19%); Forestry (12%) Theme: Biodiversity (P); Other environment and natural resources management (P); Participation and civic engagement (S) KEY DATES Original Revised/Actual PCD: 05/21/1996 Effective: 05/21/1997 05/21/1997 Appraisal: 06/28/1996 MTR: 10/01/1999 12/28/2000 Approval: 12/12/1996 Closing: 06/30/2002 09/30/2003 Borrower/Implementing Agency: GOVERNMENT/GOM Other Partners: STAFF Current At Appraisal Vice President: Callisto E. Madavo Callisto E. Madavo Country Director: Darius Mans Phyllis Pomerantz Sector Manager: Richard G. Scobey Cynthia C. Cook Team Leader at ICR: Agnes I. Kiss Robert A. Clement-Jones ICR Primary Author: Michael John Webster 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: S Sustainability: L Institutional Development Impact: SU Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance: S QAG (if available) ICR Quality at Entry: U Project at Risk at Any Time:  3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: The objective of the project was twofold: "(i) to create an enabling policy and institutional environment for the rehabilitation and conservation of the recipient's natural and biodiversity endowments; and (ii) to assist the recipient in the implementation of community-based natural resource management programs". The project coined the term "transfrontier conservation area" (TFCA) as the central concept around which the project was designed. The "transfrontier" aspect (crossing an international boundary) was important because of the following: (i) many major ecosystems, and wildlife migratory patterns, straddle international boundaries, (ii) collaboration between Mozambique and some of its stronger neighbors enables an element of regional capacity building, and (iii) tourism crosses international boundaries. In particular, Mozambique can benefit from the more developed South African tourism industry, and South Africa can benefit from Mozambique's eco-tourism potential. The term "conservation areas" was important because it denoted multiple use areas covering a range of activities including traditional national parks, community-based management areas, private reserves for tourism and hunting concessions. TFCAs are now widely accepted as important mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and regional integration and have potential economic benefits through eco-tourism and community development. The project was the first phase, a pilot, for a program envisioned over 10-15 years. The project objective was clear and important for both the Bank and the Government of Mozambique (GOM). The Bank's Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) assessed that conservation of the environment and natural resource base was critical to economic growth and long-term sustainable development, and as such, this project was part of a core objective of the Bank's assistance. The project was important for GOM, as articulated in the National Environment Action Plan; however, while the project objective was reflected in the national strategy document, the importance of the project was not fully appreciated by many officials within GOM. The reason for this lack of buy-in is assumed to be because the link to poverty reduction and economic growth was not obvious to many officials and these objectives were most pressing for a country regarded as the poorest in the world, and emerging from 16 years of civil war. The project was complex and "high risk / high reward". The risks were well identified in the project document and worth taking in order to exploit the window of opportunity in the countries history for protecting areas of global biodiversity significance. If the project had not been as ambitious as it was (in both scope, i.e., the number of activities; and physical area, i.e., over 22,000km2 of conservation areas), it is likely that these areas would be lost to conservation and the opportunity to protect them may not re-occur (as much of the land with high tourist potential is now privately owned). The project was complex, as determined by the broad range of reforms and activities planned at the national, provincial, local and community level; the number of institutions required to implement, and liaise with, the project; and the very limited capacity of government, and NGOs, that existed in the country at the time. 3.2 Revised Objective: The objective was not revised. 3.3 Original Components: The project consisted of four components: Component 1. Institutional and policy development ($3.4 million, 49% of project costs): - 2 -  l Capacity building of national, provincial and local government. Build the capacity (through training of staff, provision of technical advisory services and logistical support, including vehicles, equipment, office supplies and refurbishing and study tours and twinning arrangements) of national government (within the Ministry of Agriculture and later in the newly created Ministry of Tourism) to fulfill its mandate of policy formulation, planning and technical guidance, and provide support to provincial and local government (through training, technical assistance and logistical support) in the three TFCAs; l GIS/EIS system. Support for the establishment and maintenance of a GIS/EIS system for resource inventory and forestry and wildlife management at national and provincial level; l Development and field-testing natural resource policies. Develop a national policy framework defining the roles of the public and private sectors, NGOs and communities in sustainable development, including policy formulation, legislative review and national policy workshops; l Action plan to enhance private sector role in sustainable NRM. Support the implementation of the national government's action plan through: policy and legislative reform, tendering and project approval mechanisms, review of tax regime, fees, licenses and revenue retention, regulation monitoring, law enforcement and facilitation of community relations; and l International Collaboration. Strengthen the capacity of the Government to enhance international collaboration through provision of logistical support, workshops, training and staff and community exchange programs. Component 2. Habitat and wildlife management ($1.7 million, 24%): l Identification, zoning and demarcation of existing or proposed protected areas, including the areas of Chimanimani, Banhine, Zinave, Maputo Game Reserve, Futi Corridor and Coutada 16; l Development of long-term management plans for proposed and existing protected areas, including surveys, ecological and social studies, monitoring and appraisals; and l Rehabilitation of roads and tracks and water supply points, fencing in existing and proposed protected areas, including provision of camp facilities or staff housing facilities. Component 3. Community mobilization and pilot programs ($1.6 million, 23%): l Carrying out of a program of community involvement, mobilization and participation in natural resources management including promotion, identification, appraisal, designing and supervision of small-scale pilot activities and provision of sub-grants for the financing thereof. Component 4. Monitoring and evaluation ($0.3 million, 4%): l Designing and thereafter carrying out of a monitoring and evaluation programto assess the impact of the Project. The M&E system should monitor: institutional strengthening/policy changes; biological status; socioeconomic and community behavior; and project implementation. Assessment of components Overall, the design of the components was closely related to achieving the project objective; however, it did not adequately take into account the capacity of the implementing agency, particularly as this was a complex and ambitious project. Relevant lessons from other projects were incorporated into the design. l Component 1 was well designed and was entirely necessary to achieve the objective of an enabling policy and institutional environment for conservation. The sub-component on private sector - 3 -  involvement over-estimated the potential for investment at this time; however, the approach of first focusing on establishing the enabling environment for private investment was the correct approach; l Component 2 was well designed and will be strengthened in the follow-on project. Many of the physical works needed to implement this component e.g. the rehabilitation of a large number of roads and infrastructure in vast areas, require far greater resources and capacity than could be handled under this project; l Component 3 had weaknesses in the design. It did not adequately take account of the existing situation in the three TFCAs, for example, the very poor infrastructure which makes marketing of any goods very difficult and the lack of experience of GOM and local NGOs in implementing community-based natural resource management programs; and l Component 4 was adequately designed. However, as discussed in 4.2, this component was not seen as a priority and was poorly implemented. Lessons from other countries, particularly in CBNRM, were taken into account, for example, many lessons from the CAMPFIRE project in Zimbabwe influenced the design of component 3. However, the challenge of post-conflict reconstruction in Mozambique (which was under-estimated in the design) created quite different challenges for CBNRM which meant that other countries experiences were less relevant. 3.4 Revised Components: The project components were not formally revised; however, the budget allocations for the four components changed shortly after the grant became effective as the SDC co-financing (grant of $2.6 million) never materialized. In response, component 1 was revised (much of the work planned in the Lubombo TFCA was dropped) and component 3 was revised to reflect the new budget. The budget revision did not require Executive Director approval and was approved at the Director level. Component 3 was substantially changed after the mid-term review (although no formal revision was done) to focus on activities relating to land demarcation of communities. This is discussed in detail in 4.2. The project closing date was extended twice. The original closing date (June 30, 2002) was extended for a year to June 30, 2003, and later to September 30, 2003 as progress had been slower than expected. 3.5 Quality at Entry: Unsatisfactory. While the project concept articulates a bold and innovative vision for sustainable conservation, tourism and community development and was a priority for the Bank and GOM; the design contained some significant weaknesses. In particular, the project lacked sufficient ownership from GOM at entry, some components were unrealistic, and the potential problem of communities living within the protected areas was not adequately anticipated. The project developed and refined the concept of transfrontier conservation i.e. multiple land-use zones which cross international boundaries in promoting sustainable conservation and development. This concept, through the implementation of the project, has provided a platform for numerous follow-on activities by GOM and donors in the area of conservation and tourism. Shortly after the concept was developed, it was enthusiastically adopted by many other donors after a conference in Cape Town in 1996, and is now recognized by NEPAD and SADC as an important mechanism for development. The project also exploited a unique window of opportunity for securing vast areas of significant biodiversity for conservation. The objective was consistent with the CAS and with the stated policy of GOM; however, there was little - 4 -  ownership of the project by GOM during project preparation. This may have been because the full potential benefits of the project