Namibia - Integrated Community-Based Ecosystem Management Project : environmental assessment (Vol. 1 of 2) : Environmental and social assessment

Version 2004-01-14 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT (VOLUME 1) of the World Bank/Global Environment Facility Project entitled INTEGRATED COMMUNITY-BASED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT (ICEMA) NAMIBIA Final Report January 14 TH, 2003 Volume 1: Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) Volume 2: Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) Volume 3: Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF)  ESA Volume I Main Report Appendices .............................................................. iv Acknowledgments ...............................................................v Abbreviations ............................................................... vi Summnary ......................................................................... vii Introduction .............................................................. vii Approach and methodology ............................................................... viii Overview of the WB/GEF Project and alternatives ......................... ...................... viii Key issues identified in the audit of the current CBNRM situation in Namibia .... ix Operational policies ............................................................... ix Assessment and mitigation of the identified negative impacts of the proposed WB/GEF Project and identified key issues ..............................................................x Structure of the report and principles for project implementation .......................... x Conclusion ............................................................... xii I Introduction ..1 2. Approach and metliodology ..............................................................S5 3. Constraints and changes made to the Tender Document ........................................ . 6 4. Key issues identified in the audit of the current CBNRM situation in Namibia ...... 7 4.1. Policy development .8 4.2. Institutional relationships (national, regional and local) .9 4.3. Governance within conservancies .9 4.4. Community empowerment .10 4.5. Natural resource management .10 4.6. Biodiversity conservation .10 4.7. Rangeland management .11 4.8. Poverty alleviation .11 4.9. Gender issues .12 4.10. Distribution and reinvestment of income .12 5. Operational policies ............................ 13 5.1. Natural habitat (OP 4.04) .......................... 13 Definition of Natural Habitat .......................... 13 Conservancy Areas .......................... 14 Discussion .......................... 1 5 Conclusion .......................... 15 ii  ESA Volume 1 Main Report 5.2. Cultural property (OPN 11.03) ............................................. 16 Definition of and Legislation regarding Cultural Property . ...................................... 16 National laws .............................................. 1 7 International laws ............................................. 17 Current Situation in Conservancies ............................................. 17 Discussion ............................................. . 20 Mitigation measures ............................................. 21 Conclusion ............................................. . 22 6. Overview of the WB/GEF Project and alternatives . ........................................... 22 6.1. The WB/GEF Project ............................................. 22 6.2. Project components ............................................. 23 6.3. Project alternatives ............................................. 27 7. Assessment and mitigation of the identified negative impacts of tre proposed WBIGEF Project and identified key issues . . .27 7.1. Discussion and mitigation of identified risks .27 Impacts ..27 Risks . .29 7.2. Assessment and mitigation measures of identified negative impacts of the WB/GEF Project .31 Introduction .31 Assessment of impacts per component .32 8. Environmental and social managementframework . . .36 8.1. The implementation plan .36 8.2. Project Risks .37 8.3. Decision making processes .38 Planning at the conservancy level .39 Namibia's Environmental Assessment Process .43 8.4. Capacity building requirements .51 9. Conclusion .52 10. Bibliography .55 iii  ESA Volume I Main Report APPENDICES Appendix 1: Namibia Overview: Biophysical, political, and socio-economic environment Appendix 2: Conservancy Tables Appendix 3: Interview Appendix 4: Workshop Minutes Appendix 5: Terms of Reference Appendix 6: Audit of the current CBNRM situation in Namibia Appendix 7: Operational Policies Appendix 8: Overview of the World Bank/Global Environment Facility Project Appendix 9: North-west Tourism Master Plan Appendix 10: Namibia's Environmental Assessment Policy for Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation Appendix 11: Generic Terms of Reference for Tourism lodges iv  ESA Voiume I Main Report ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) acknowledges the work of Ms Alexander Speiser, Ms Helen Suich and Mr Brian Jones, who were the consultants that compiled this report. The consultants in turn, would like to thank all people, institutions and organizations for their support and contribution to this report, especially Patricia Skyer and Nathaneal Araseb of NACSO for their support and organizational input and to Dr Chris Brown and the NNF staff who provided valuable background information and helped to set up the field visit. All people who took the time for interviews with the consultants, during which valuable information and an insight into the CBNRM programme and projects in Namibia were gathered. The Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment is acknowledged for providing external review and revision as well as for assisting with the development of the Indigenous Peoples' Development Plan and the Resettlement Policy Framework. The Safeguards and Africa Departments of the World Bank are thanked for providing overall direction and for commenting on earlier drafts of this report. v  ESA Volume I Main Report ABBREVIATIONS BP before the present CBNRM community-based natural resource management CBO community-based organization CBT community-based tourism EIA environmental impact assessment ESA environmental and social assessment GEF Global Environment Facility IEM integrated ecosystem management IRDNC Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation JV joint venture LIFE Living in a Finite Environment (USAID-funded programme administered by the WWF in Namibia) M&E monitoring and evaluation MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism MIS Management Information System NACOBTA Namibian Community-based Tourism Association NACSO Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations NGO non-governmental organization NNDFN Nyae Nyae Development Foundation of Namibia NNF Namibia Nature Foundation PTO Permission to Occupy SAIEA Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment TOR Terms of Reference WB World Bank WWF World Wide Fund for Nature vi  ESA Volume I Main Report SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) provides an independent assessment of the project entitled "Integrated community-based ecosystem management (ICEMA)", funded by the World Bank/Global Environment Facility (hereinafter WB/GEF Project). This project is being administered by the World Bank and implemented under the leadership of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism with partial outsourcing of sub- components and activities. The design of the project is such that it consists of a number of sub-projects (support to various conservancies throughout the country). Even though the ICEMA is regarded as a project, it is in fact more a programme in that it will consist of a number of activities that themselves can be regarded as projects. Since the specific activities have not yet been defined, it is difficult to isolate impacts and mitigation measures at this stage of the planning process. For this reason, this ESA is somewhat different from a conventional EIA report. Because many of the on-the-ground implementation activities have not yet been identified, the most sensible approach to be taken in this ESA report is to make rather generic recommendations and to provide a framework from which more detailed management plans (and mitigation actions) can be developed. It remains the responsibility of the project management authority (the Ministry of Environment and Tourism) to see to it that these plans are developed, and the project implementers to ensure that they are adhered to. The ESA was requested by the World Bank to ensure that the proposed project is carried out in line with Namibia's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) policy, the emerging Enviromnental Management Bill, and the applicable World Bank Safeguard Policies. An initial internal review by the World Bank classified the project as a category B project according to the World Bank standards. Impacts of category B projects are likely to be site-specific, relatively easy to mitigate and reversible within reason. When evaluating any new development programme or project, it is necessary to consider the country's development demands, national aspirations and options, socio-economic characteristics and environmental constraints. Annex 1 to this report thus provides a brief "national overview", mostly for the benefit of readers with no prior-knowledge of the country. vii  ESA Volume I Main Report APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Due to the limited time period of two months, the ESA was carried out as a high level desk top study including interviews, limited field visits and a half-day workshop with relevant NACSO partner organizations. The ESA was divided into four phases: Phase 1: Audit of the current community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) situation in Namibia Phase 2: Environmental and Social Assessment of the proposed World Bank Project Phase 3: Workshop Phase 4: Compilation of final document OVERVIEW OF THE WB/GEF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES The project development objective is to promote community based integrated ecosystem management through targeted activities that improve rural livelihoods and empower local communities on communal lands. The project global objective is to restore, secure and enhance key ecosystem processes to conserve biodiversity, alleviate land degradation and promote sustainable use on communal lands. The 4 components are: * Component 1: Economic Benefits and Barrier Removal for Ecosystem Related Benefits Conservancies are meant to benefit all community members through enabling managed access to the resource base, access to micro-enterprise development, training in local development and natural resource management and access to employment. This component is concerned with barrier removal to sustainable use of biodiversity through provision of funds to communities for small-scale economic activities and related capacity building. It builds on the encouraging but limited achievements of the first phase of the National CBNRM Program related to community-based tourism and wildlife management activities but focus on a broader range of livelihood options. Its overall objective is to contribute to increased economic benefits to community members. * Component 2: Sustainable Ecosystem Management This component is concerned with restoring, securing and enhancing the biodiversity and ecosystem processes that support sustainable benefits to local communities on communal lands. Implementation will take place in conservancies and eventually in community-forests in or adjacent to communal conservancies. viii  ESA Volume I Main Report * Component 3: Targeted Central Institutional Support The component aims to improve the strategic planning, implementation and monitoring capacity as well as institutional set-up of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism as the responsible lead agency for the National CBNRM Program. * Component 4: Project Management Support The component overall goals is to strengthening the capacity of MET to manage and supervise CBNRM activities. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE AUDIT OF THE CURRENT CBNRM SITUATION IN NAMIBIA In the first phase, an audit of the current situation of CBNRM' was conducted and key issues identified. Key issues which are not addressed by any of the sub-components of the proposed WB/GEF Project are discussed in the assessment (Volume 2, Section 7). Some of the key issue are identified as threats and risks to the proposed project and discussed in Volume 2, Section 7. Some of these threats will be addressed prior to the implementation of the WB/GEF Project to ensure that a conducive environment to implement the proposed project exist. However, others can only be addressed in the longer term. OPERATIONAL POLICIES The World Bank has developed a number of Safeguard Operational Policies to ensure that all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigation measures are spelled out prior to the implementation of any proposed project. These policies ensure that the quality of operations is uniform across different settings worldwide. If the decision is taken that a Safeguard Policy should be applied, mitigation measures and plans need to be developed and in place before the implementation of a proposed project. Special attention was given to the Indigenous People's Safeguard Policy (OD 4.20) as this policy has been applied by the World Bank, and is thus a major issue which has to be addressed by the proposed project.2 Further, the audit focused on compliance with the triggered Bank's Safeguard Policies Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01), Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)3, Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) and Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04). ' See Annex 6. 2An Indigenous People Development Plan (IPDP) has been developed (see separate volume 2). 3A Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) has been developed (see separate volume 3). ix  ESA Volume I Main Report The five safeguard operational policies under review are discussed in regard to the current situation within the conservancy approach. Even though Namibia's CBNRM Program has a number of built in mechanisms to avoid and/or mitigate undesirable impacts, it is still necessary to apply the World Bank Safeguard Policies. This will ensure that, in the implementation of this project, the necessary safeguards are in fact applied and that potentially negative impacts are kept within acceptable levels, and positive impacts maximized. ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF THE IDENTIFIED NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED WB/GEF PROJECT AND IDENTIFIED KEY ISSUES In this section the results of the assessment of the potential negative impacts of each component of the project is provided. Each identified negative impact was rated regarding the significance of the impact and mitigation measures are identified. In many cases the mitigation measures identified are already part of the way in which CBNRM activities are being carried out in Namibia or there are existing mechanisms that can be used to ensure that mitigation can be implemented. In addition, a number of issues have been identified that did not emerge from the analysis of impacts of project components which have been included in this section. The following rating criteria have been used to evaluate degree of impact. HIGH: Negative impact cannot be mitigated within the current WB/GEF Project design MEDIUM: Negative impact can be mitigated within the current WB/GEF Project design LOW: Negative impact is not significant This section also discusses risks/threats to achieving objectives that are largely outside the control of the project. The main risks/threats are: * The lack of secure group land tenure * The need for diversification of income generation, and * The need to change the current legal status regarding tenure over land and veld products to ensure biodiversity conservation/rangeland management. Activities to be implemented under the project, such as strengthening the role of MET for intersectoral coordination, may help to reduce the overall risk of negative impacts due to insecure land tenure. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT AND PRINCIPLES FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of this project will be built as much as possible on existing policy, legal and institutional foundations. Namibia has achieved considerable success in the implementation of Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). This is x  ESA Volume I Main Report largely due to the conducive policy framework and the network of government, NGO, CBO and private sector partners. This ESA report recognizes that a number of strategic level documents have provided the overall contextual setting for this project. These include Namibia's Constitution, various policies and laws relating to natural resource management and EIA, and the World Bank Safeguards policies. Drawing from these, two specific framework plans have been developed as part of this ESA, namely the Indigenous People's Plan and the Resettlement Policy Framework (figure 1). Figure 1: Illustration of the overarching framework policies and laws, and the various levels of planning that are required for the successful implementation of the project Naure Resettlement AmendZment Policy Plc Ac t -_ Narnibian A \/ World BankA z Inagenous Peoples Plan Resenlement Polcy FrarreorK Conservancyosrac Management onservancy Management la anacgement Pla eonatioy g ;;> A~~us ness r a) (Mdevelopment )n/g\ment Busines strate e~~~~s trutuenPa \~~~~~~~~Pa Inom \ { / Distribution) ~~~~~~~~~~e on Resource ) ni genous Investment The ESA places considerable importance on the development of well considered conservancy-specific management plans (CMPs). These CMPs must take cognisance of the guidance provided by the Indigenous People's Development Plan (IPDP) and the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF), both of which were compiled as a result of the triggering of the relevant operational policies of the World Bank. The CMPs must also incorporate the necessary components of Namibia's Resettlement Policy, the EA policy and the Nature Conservation Amendment Act. It goes without saying that all aspects of the CMPs must be in line with Namibia's Constitution. Because the ICEMA project has not yet identified specific activities and exact areas where its various components will be implemented at the time of writing, the ESA can only provide broad statements on impacts and mitigation. However, the ESA concludes that most of the potentially negative biophysical and social impacts that will require xi  ESA Volume 1 Main Report mitigation will occur "on the ground" within the conservancies. It follows that the CMPs must be detailed and that for each conservancy, a strategic level assessment must be made of the likely impacts of its envisaged activities. One of the most important components of the CMP is the zonation of land use, since this determines whether people will be resettled or whether their livelihoods will be detrimentally affected by loss of access to resources or social services. The IPDP and RPF stress the need to fully involve all stakeholders, especially vulnerable groups, in the development of the CMP. By building consensus early and displaying good governance at this strategic level, there should be fewer conflicts within the community and less need for time-consuming and costly arbitration measures. Similarly, potentially negative biophysical impacts related to natural resource use or tourism activities should be addressed at the CMP level. Ideally, the broader area should have a tourism masterplan (this already exists for Kunene Region) where the parameters for tourism and infrastructure development have already been set. This makes the elaboration of the CMP considerably easier. Where an intended project (e.g. a large lodge) is likely to result in significant environmental impacts, an EIA will be necessary. The ESA includes guidelines and generic Terms of Reference for such EIAs (see appendix 11) while Namibia's EA policy provides clear direction on the process that must be followed in conducting the EIA and the standards required by the government in this regard (see appendix 10). Notwithstanding the obvious need for conducting EIAs for major projects, the ESA recommends a pragmatic approach towards EIAs, so that small projects that are unlikely to result in significant negative impacts, not be required to do EIAs. In such cases, government can set conditions of approval based on expert opinion. The same principle should apply to activities such as water provision, game translocation and other minor infrastructure development. CONCLUSION The overall conclusion of this ESA is that the WB/GEF Project "Integrated community- based ecosystem management (ICEMA)" is unlikely to have major negative biophysical and social environmental impacts. Mitigation measures can be put in place relatively easily to manage potential negative impacts. In many cases the mitigation measures identified are already in place and/or can be built into the way in which implementing agencies carry out their work with local communities. However, the ESA also concludes that some areas of intervention do require stronger attention in terms of mitigating potential negative impacts. The main aspects which need further attention are: equity issues to involve women, the "poor" and indigenous people minorities; and xii  ESA Volume 1 Main Report The risk identified which might jeopardize the success of the project needs to be sufficiently addressed. Even though some of these are beyond the overall control of the project, the project should try to influence these risks. The main risk is: the lack of secure land tenure for communities on communal land. xiii  ESA Volume I Main Report 1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) provides an independent assessment of the project entitled "Integrated community-based ecosystem management (ICEMA)", funded by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (hereinafter WB/GEF Project). This project is being administered by the World Bank and implemented by the MET as was agreed in March 2003. A consultative meeting between the MET and NACSO (comprises of NGOs involved in CBNRM activities and implementation thereof in Namibia) was held in March 2003 and the two parties agreed that the MET will take the lead through consultation in the implementation of the project and amongst others, a new project outline was adopted (e.g. the title was changed to "Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management, ICEMA" from the initial NACSO-led "Integrated Ecosystem Management through the Conservancy Network"). The ICEMA project will lead to increased social and economic well-being of rural areas, especially those living in communal lands by broadening the resource base and promoting ecological sound management of natural resources through sustainable and economically viable CBNRM activities in the identified areas. The project will support the instutionalization of the approaches and practical service delivery to the local community in the areas identified and into the overall national CBNRM initiatives. Central to ICEMA will be the generation of tangible benefits linked to the sustainable management of resources, including the development of income resource use schemes, e.g. through community lodges, and other tourism related activities as well as various natural resource-based enterprises. This is targeted to enhance the environment sector to play a meaningful role in the reduction of rural poverty and employment creation as set out in the national development objective. MET fully acknowledges the outstanding contributions made by NGOs and other agencies in the CBNRM field, within the overall policy framework for CBNRM as established by Government. The ICEMA project will be managed by MET, but non-core functions concerning CBNRM will be obtained from the NGO community as well as the private sector or other institutions as appropriate. Additionally, assistance from GEF through the World Bank will help to consolidate progress made thus far in CBNRM in Namibia, and bring longer-term stability in the programme by enhancing MET's abilities in the fields identified, and complementing support available from other sources and programmes. The GEF support fills a serious  ESA Volume I Main Report gap in the current funding framework for CBNRM by providing the requested support to MET that no other donor is currently providing. So far, there exists a range of donor funded initiatives in conservancy development, community based tourism development and related fields, either directly through MET or NGOs. The principal support has thus far come through the USAID LIFE project and the EU-funded tourism development programme. Further assistance will be vigorously sought to ensure co-financing from various sources. There is increasing interest from the donor community to support various CBNRM activities in Namibia. These include, among others, Denmark, Finland, France (through its intended co-financing of ICEMA), Germany, and the United States of America. The Conservancies that will benefit from ICEMA are primarily located in three regions of Namibia i.e. the north-west (arid savannah and desert, including the escarpment zone); north-east (broadleaf woodlands and savanna in the Okavango and Zambezi River catchment areas), and southern Namibia (desert and arid steppe grasslands and low scrublands). The lead agency of ICEMA, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, is committed to a consultative and participatory process with all registered and emerging conservancies in Namibia in order to adequately meet the needs of the different conservancies through ICEMA. As mentioned above, the primary locations are identified, however, the MET wants to extend ICEMA support to as many conservancies as possible through a phased approach i.e. to focus on a limited number of conservancies at a time, focussing on the 29 conservancies registered before 2004. The ESA was requested by the World Bank to ensure that the proposed project is carried out in line with Namibia's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Policy, the emerging Environmental Management Bill, and the applicable World Bank Safeguard Policies. An initial internal review by the World Bank classified the project as a category B project according to the World Bank standards. Impacts of category B projects are likely to be site specific, relatively easy to mitigate and reversible within reason. The first phase of the ESA provided an audit of the current situation of conservancies in Namibia4. Figure la and b shows the existing and emerging conservancies within Namibia. In the second phase, the potential environmental and social risks and impacts on its area of influence were established, with particular regard to issues such as indigenous peoples' rights, gender impacts, potential impacts on poor and marginalized people, and on social and institutional relationships at community level. Incorporated into the assessment of the proposed project objectives are the key issues which were identified during the audit and have not been addressed (sufficiently or at all) in the proposed project. This ESA follows World Bank/GEF standards and incorporates the World Bank Safeguard Policies where applicable. The proposed project anticipates that future activities under the project will strengthen and operationalize conservancies as well as incorporate related community-driven 4See Appendix 6. 2  ESA Volume I Main Report sustainable integrated ecosystem management activities. The following specific issues are assessed and evaluated: the financial, legal, organisational and policy framework; * the capacity of support organisations to deliver services to conservancies; * the management institutions within conservancies; * the resource base, biodiversity conservation and land management; and * the socio-economic benefits for conservancy members and other stakeholders. * A summary of the project components is provided in Section 6. When evaluating any new development programme or project, it is necessary to consider the country's development demands, national aspirations and options, socio-economic characteristics and environmental constraints. Annex 1 to this report thus provides a brief "national overview", mostly for the benefit of readers with no prior-knowledge of the country. Registered Communal Conservancies \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. f; LO~.. \, },'-&', * s ~~~~~~~~~~Registered Communal Conservancies LJISalambala 2 Wupato 3 Kwarndu 4 Mayui i _ - 6 Uukvakltidhi 7 Marienfluss iSA8 Orupembe 008.81S _ . to COB^ 9 Sanitatas 1ra -. I~ Communal WA 11 Sesfonlein \, I_ RE;pUOIH iS611 12OkangtunduTba 3 Ozon du ndu 1 4 Ehmrrvopuka I 15Omatendeka 6 Anabeb 7 #Khoadi Hras 191hu ,Haa t 20 Uibasen Tvwyfelfontein 21 Doro'nawas I ,a 22SorIdsSonis 23 Otjrmboyo f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~24 Tsisb 25 N#a-Jaqna 26 Nyae Nyae 27 Oskop 28!Khob! Naub nanav0 .1 29/PGamaseb State Protected Areas A lo-.o tep 3  ESA Volume I Main Report Registered and Emerging Communal Conservancies K(AThIA IAJL,LO 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 41_ 4 ;r, 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 7 ~ ~ -r . 10 >TSLMEB N ; r yl^S4 OTAVI -- Communal Conservancies s, RV ~~ hGa, j|5 J Registered i , ,"