Table 16: Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and Budget Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Excluding project team staff time Time frame Inception Workshop and Report PC UNDP CO, UNDP GEF Indicative cost: 6,000 Within first two months of project start up Measurement of Means of Verification of project results. UNDP GEF RTA/PC 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 PC 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 PC UNDP CO UNDP RTA UNDP EEG None Annually Periodic status/ progress reports PC None Quarterly Mid-term Evaluation PC UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost: 40,000 At the mid-point of project implementation. Final Evaluation PC UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost: 45,000 At least three months before the end of project implementation Project Terminal Report PC 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: 6,000 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 staff (PC and PAA) time and UNDP staff and travel expenses US$ 115,000 *Note: Costs included in this table are part and parcel of the UNDP Total Budget and Work Plan (TBW) in the PRODOC, and not additional to it.
Number of active Reserve Management Plans in the six targeted FNRs 0 (4 outdated) 6 Reserve Management Plans FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports Assumptions: The TFS will not have to villages and communities in the gazetting of the proposed FNRs The TFS appoints sufficient and suitable management staff to administer and manage the new FNRs Competent local civil engineering businesses are available to implement construction and renovation activities in far-flung FNRs Boundary demarcation and infrastructure works do not compromise the ecological integrity of the FNRs Local village government will act in the best interests of local communities i.r.o. benefits derived from FNRs and project activities Risks: Local communities living in and around the reserves conflict with TFS over restrictions on their access to, and use of, land and natural resources in FNRs. This conflict in turn leads to a significant increase in the illegal clearance of, and unsustainable levels of harvesting of natural resources from, FNRs by these Extent (km) of boundaries adequately demarcated and routinely maintained in the six targeted FNRs ~210km 661km FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports Number of the targeted FNRs with all entry points adequately signposted and secured 0 6 FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports Number of ranger staff in the six targeted FNRs who are adequately equipped 0 60 FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports Number of the targeted FNRs with functional basic transport and infrastructure (i.e. minimum of 2 operational vehicles, 4 operational motorbikes, one administrative office and 3 functional ranger outposts). 2 (but not fully functional) 6 FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports Extent (km) of footpaths and roads in the six targeted FNRs under routine maintenance Roads: ~17km Footpaths: ~34km Roads: 158km Footpaths: 230km FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports
Number of subsidiary FNR Tourism Development Plans 0 11 Tourism Development Plans FNR quarterly/annual reports Project reports Assumptions: Income from the development and use of FNRs is ‘ring-fenced’ for re-investment into their maintenance and management The tourism development opportunities identified in the tourism development plans will be financially viable for private sector investment The joint venture commercial farming activities are financially sustainable and will not compromise the biological integrity of the FNRs Local government will facilitate and support improvements to the reserve-access roads and signage Commercial operators, hotel chains and tour companies will participate in the marketing of FNRs Risks: Local communities living in and around the reserves conflict with TFS over restrictions on their access to, and use of, land and natural resources in FNRs. This conflict in turn leads to a significant increase in the illegal clearance of, and unsustainable levels of harvesting of natural resources from, FNRs by these communities Number of nature-based tourism and/or recreational concessions/leases awarded and under development in FNRs 0 2 Concession/ lease agreements TFS Annual Report Income/annum (US$) to FNRs from nature-based tourism concessions/leases US$0 >US$10,000 TFS Annual Report and Financial Audit Number of individuals from FNR-adjacent villages benefiting directly from tourism concessions/leases (construction and/or operational phases) 0 >100 Project Reports Concessionaire reports FNR quarterly/annual reports Number of visitors/annum to FNRs Day: <2000 Overnight: <300 Day: >5000 Overnight: >500 FNR quarterly/annual reports TFS Annual Report Number of, and income (US$/annum) from, joint venture bee and butterfly farms in FNRs Number: 0 Income (US$/annum): 0 Number: >4 Income (US$/annum): >US$50,000 Farm operator annual and financial reports FNR quarterly/annual reports TFS Annual Report and Financial Audit Project Reports
PART III: Stakeholder Involvement Plan and Coordination with other Related Initiatives 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 defines their roles and responsibilities in project implementation. The table below describes the major categories of stakeholders identified, and the level of involvement envisaged in the project. Table 17: Stakeholder Involvement Plan Organisation Mandate of the organisation (particularly in respect of FNRs) Anticipated roles and responsibilities in the project Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) Vice President’s Office (VPO) Division of Environment (DoE) The DoE is responsible for the coordination of all national and international matters related to environmental protection and management. It is also responsible for national reporting to the relevant international conventions. The DoE will ensure the alignment and integration of the project activities with national environmental strategies and plans. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) Forest and Beekeping Division (FBD) Tanzania Forest Service (TFS) Tanzania Tourist Board (TTB) The MNRT has responsiblity for overseeing the management of all natural, cultural and tourism resources in the country. The FBD is directly responsible for the development of forest policy, laws and regulations and supervising their implementation in the forestry sectors TFS is is an executive agency mandated with the management of national forest reserves (natural and plantations), bee reserves and forest and bee resources on general lands TTB is a government organisation responsible for the promotion and development of the tourism industry. The MNRT will, through the FBD, facilitate the formal proclamation of the targeted FNRs. It will also develop the enabling policies and regulations in support of the effective planning and management of FNRs. The TFS will have overall responsibility for implementation of the project. It will coordinate the implementation of all project activities, and may be responsible for the direct implementation of a number of these activities. It will take the lead role in ensuring ongoing communications with all government agencies and other partners in respect of project implementation. The TTB will assist the project in the marketing and promotion of the tourism products and services in FNRs.
PART VI: Technical Reports and Information PPG Technical Report ‘Enhancing the Forest Nature Reserves Network for Biodiversity Conservation in Tanzania: Baseline Analysis and Costing’ (2014) (Refer to separate file attached) Selected references: Anon. 2010. Eastern Arc Mountains Forests of Tanzania. Nomination of properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List (Serial Nomination): Anon. 2013. Executive Summary: Baseline survey report for the 8 Nature Reserves and 1 National Park in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. EAMCEF. Bayliss, J., et al., The current and future value of nature-based tourism in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Ecosystem Services (2014), Burgess, N.D. et al. 2007. The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biol. Conserv.134, 209–231. Fisher, B. et al. 2011. Measuring, modelling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35, 595–611. Green, J.M.H. et al. 2012. Estimating management costs of protected areas: a novel approach from the Eastern Arc Mountains.Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 150, 5–14. Green, J.M.H. et al. 2013. Deforestation in an African hotspot: extent, variation, and the effectiveness of protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 164, 62–72. Nelson, F. et al. 2009. Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for community-based conservation in Northern Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 24(1), 78–85. Swetnam, R.D. et al. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Br. Ecol. Soc. Bull. 41(1), 7–10.