Document of The World Bank Report No: 63944 - MZ RESTRUCTURING PAPER ON A PROPOSED PROJECT RESTRUCTURING OF THE TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CREDIT AND GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND BOARD APPROVAL DECEMBER 1, 2005 TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE AUGUST 22, 2011 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AWF African Wildlife Foundation CEF Community Equity Facility DDP District Development Plan DINATUR Direcao Nacional de Turismo DNAC Direcao Nacional de Areas de Conservação DTMP District Tourism Master Plan EOP End of Project ECDA Elephant Coast Development Agency FUTUR Fundo National do Turismo GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objective GOM Government of Mozambique IDA International Development Association IDDP Integrated District Development Plan INATUR National Institute of Tourism (Instituto National do Turismo) KfW Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau MITUR Ministry of Tourism MTR Mid Term Review PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PHRD Japanese Grant for Capacity Building RAP Resettlement Action Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SDR Special Drawing Rights TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area TFCAU Transfrontier Conservation Area Unit TFCATDP Transfrontier Conservation Area and Tourism Development Project TP Tourism Plan Regional Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Laurence C. Clarke Sector Manager / Director: Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough Task Team Leader: Jean-Michel G. Pavy ii MOZAMBIQUE TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT P071465 CONTENTS Page A. SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 1 B. PROJECT STATUS.................................................................................................. 2 C. PROPOSED CHANGES .......................................................................................... 3 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY........................................................................................ 8 ANNEX 1 – RESULTS FRAMEWORK....................................................................... 10 ANNEX RISK ANALYSIS iii TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREAS AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT P071465 (IDA, PHRD) & P076809 (GEF) RESTRUCTURING PAPER SUMMARY 1. This paper is to request a Level 2 restructuring of the above referenced Project. In particular it is requested to amend the Project’s results indicators, reallocate grant proceeds, acknowledge the withdrawal of a Project partners as well as to adjust/cancel certain specific Project activities. 2. The proposed changes originate from the conclusion of the Mid Term Review (MTR) that took place in September 2009. They were verified and updated by a March 2011 implementation support mission. A formal request for restructuring was received from the Government of Mozambique (GoM) on February 18, 2011. 3. The Project design is generally solid with some indicators in the results framework that require adjustments so that the measured outputs are more clear and realistic. While initially Project implementation was relatively slow, it has improved steadily as procurement and financial management capacity was strengthened. The Project outcome is rated satisfactory and implementation moderately satisfactory at the moment. Although the situation has since improved, at the time of the MTR, there were implementation problems resulting from : (1) infrastructure construction which was under-budgeted and suffered delays due to problems tendering suitably qualified contractors/engineers capable and willing to operate in the remote Project areas, and (2) lack of community support for the Project, resulting from insufficient focus and lack of capacity by Project team, as well as the Project not being sufficiently linked with protected area management. 3. Following the MTR, it was agreed that going forward, the Project would gain from focusing more on product development through all facets of protected areas management and through joint community-private investment in tourism accommodations. It has therefore become necessary to make some adjustments to the results framework, the Project-financed activities, and the allocation of funding per disbursement category: (1) to concentrate financing for infrastructure developments in the protected areas most likely to deliver economic or conservation benefits, namely the Maputo Special Reserve, the Zinave National Park and the Chimanimani Reserve; (2) to cancel the design of a pilot Integrated District Development Plan in Vilanculos District; and (3) to strengthen the Project team capacity to support infrastructure development and community subprojects in and around protected areas. 1 4. At the MTR it was verified that the overall risk to the Project outcome had decreased. In spite of this, the Project has been considered a corporate risk since September 2009 due to a potential reputational risk. This risk is related to the plan of the Government of Mozambique to scale up the resettlement plan from the Limpopo National Park beyond the number that had been anticipated at appraisal. The Bank has sought assurances from GoM and KfW that they will: comply with Bank safeguards; mobilize sufficient funds and, prior to completing the design of any new resettlement plan, carry out an evaluation of past resettlement activities. Both GoM and KfW have provided assurances of this commitment. A final decision on the role of the Bank will be determined when the result of this evaluation is available. It is anticipated that the Project will not be considered a corporate risk by the end of 2011(see also the risk analysis page 7). PROJECT STATUS 5. The Project performance toward both the Project Development Objective (PDO) and the Global Environment Objectives (GEO) are rated Satisfactory as demonstrated by the monitored outcomes indicators. The PDO and the GEO are sound and do not require changes. Project implementation is rated Moderately Satisfactory largely because of a disbursement lag caused by initially slow procurement and difficulties in contract management. To date, the cumulative IDA, PHRD and GEF disbursements amount to US$13.9 million (70% overall disbursement), US$4.3 million (43% overall disbursement) and US$2.3 million (62% disbursement), respectively. The Project’s closing date is June 30, 2013. 6. The September 2009 MTR concluded that the Project was having a genuine impact in the targeted areas but had difficulties in the areas of community participation in tourism, conservation, and infrastructure development. The MTR also concluded that implementation progress would benefit from modifications to some of the Project instruments, such as the Process Framework and the Community Equity Facility (CEF) Manual. A revised Process Framework, dated September 29, 2009, was approved by the Bank on October 9, 2009 and a revised CEF Manual, dated November 11, 2009, was approved by the Bank on November 13, 2009. The Project management team was reorganized to improve delivery and efficiency while adding new skills such as community extension and infrastructure. 7. Post-MTR missions in May 2010 and in March 2011 verified solid progress with community-based involvement in protected areas with two community subprojects completed, several sub-projects ongoing or approved and a few in the pipeline for a total GEF commitment of US$2.3 million leveraging private sector investment in excess of US$2.8 million. Infrastructure development remains problematic largely due to the lack of suitable contractors. The Bank’s infrastructure and procurement teams are helping the Project to organize smaller contracts which are deemed more appropriate for the envisaged work in the most remote areas such as the construction of staff housing, small bridges or fences for wildlife sanctuaries. 2 PROPOSED CHANGES Results/Indicators: 8. The suggested changes to the Results Framework are minor, even though this restructuring proposes many revisions to the indicators. The revisions are meant to improve the indicators’ scope, realism and measurability. A revised Results Framework is proposed in Annex 1. For ease of comparison, the Results Framework taken from the PAD’s Annex 3 (pp. 39-42) is also included in Annex1 of this Restructuring Paper. PDO Indicator • Indicator 1 (I1). Numbers of local residents employed in conservation and tourism in target districts. The End-of-Project (EOP) target was 3,500 which proved unrealistic – to be reduced to 2,000. • I2. Number of visitors and bed nights. The indicator wording proved confusing since “visitors� and “bed-nights� are different. It was agreed to delete “visitors� and retain “bed-nights� since it is considered the better indicator for tourism growth. It is further suggested to increase the initial EOP target of 100,000 bed-nights which underestimated achievements – to be increased to 200,000. • I5. Annual revenues of protected areas. The EOP target was US$800,000 for all five protected areas under the Project which proved unrealistic – to be reduced to US$440,000. GEO Indicators • I6. Surface area of new protected areas. In the Great Limpopo TFCA, it has shown that it is more important to improve management of existing protected areas than to increase their size or create corridors. It is therefore proposed that the 200 km2 target for Great Limpopo TFCA be dropped. • I7. Population increase of bioindicator species. The PAD Results Framework targeted a 10% increase in species populations. Since the baseline was measured, the actual animal population numbers are monitored. No species had been proposed for Zinave National Park, so this is remediated with two indicator species to be added. Intermediary Outcomes Indicators • Intermediary Outcome Indicator 3 (IO3). Number of international agreement or treaties: The EOP target was 4. However, there has been no progress in the ZIMOZA TFCA because neither Zimbabwe nor Zambia is fully committed to this agreement. The target is therefore to be reduced to 3. 3 • IO4. Number of District Development Plan. The EOP target was 2. However, one of the proposed districts (Vilanculos) withdrew from this pilot approach. The target is therefore revised to 1. • IO6. Number of District Tourism Master Plans. It was realized that planning at district level was not always the most practical approach. The wording of the indicator is therefore to be modified by replacing “District Tourism Master Plans� by “Tourism Plans (TP)�. The EOP target is increased from 4 to 5. • IO7. Number of tourism operations in compliance with new concession guidelines. This indicator is to be dropped since it cannot be met during the Project life. Even though the Project has prepared draft regulations for concession in protected areas, the Government has decided that these would be folded under the new Concession Law, for which the calendar of approval is not controlled by the Project and at this point is expected to take a long time. • IO11. Score of management effectiveness: In most protected areas, the EOP target is judged to be overoptimistic. It is therefore to be reduced for Banhine National Park (69 to 45), Chimanimani Reserve (71 to 60), Futi Corridor (53 to 30) and Maputo Reserve (78 to 60). However, it is increased for the Maputo Marine Reserve (renamed Punta d’Ouro Marine Reserve) (36 to 45) and Zinave National park (49 to 58) because they have progressed more than expected. The indicator is unchanged for the Limpopo National Park. • IO13. Percent of planned infrastructure completed. Measuring infrastructure developments in “percentage� terms proved inadequate. The indicator therefore is being revised to read Number of planned structures completed. The revised EOP target to be 45 (1 road, 3 fences, 3 crossings, 38 buildings). • IO15. Percent indicators updated. This indicator proved difficult to track objectively. Since the Project monitoring and evaluation system is performing well, it was agreed that there was no merit in maintaining this indicator – to be dropped. • IO16. Annual hits on website. The EOP target of 36,000 hits was overoptimistic – to be reduced to 20,000. Implementation Arrangements: 9. In one of the Project sites, the Banhine National Park, the Project was implemented through a public private partnership between the Ministry of Tourism (MITUR) and the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). AWF had committed US$1.0 million toward technical assistance. This partnership proved impractical with the partners unable to agree on their roles and areas of accountability. At the MTR, it was agreed that this agreement was not helping achieve the Project objectives in that national park and so, it was terminated. This change was going to be introduced immediately after the agreement termination through a restructuring of the Project. However, since the formal client’s request for restructuring took longer than expected, it is only now that the Bank legal department has been involved and was informed of this decision. 10. Since the agreement termination at the end of 2009, AWF is therefore no longer part of the Project implementation. A half million financial gap was created as a consequence of this termination but with no expected detrimental effect on the Project outcome. In fact, this change may have been beneficial to the Banhine National Park. 4 There, MITUR has now posted additional staff at its own cost, thereby compensating for the lack of technical assistance from AWF. The partnership between MITUR and AWF was sealed by a cofinancing agreement which is to be removed. Components: Component 1. Strengthening Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework (Part A1): 10. Unchanged. Component 2. Integrated District Development Planning (Part B): 11. Part B.3, B.4 and B.5. The development of two pilot District Development Plans (DDPs) was planned: one in Matutuine and one in Vilanculos. The DDP for Matutuine District is completed and approved. For Vilanculos District, the Government of Mozambique decided not to proceed with a pilot integrated development planning. This development of the Vilanculos DDP is therefore to be cancelled. Component 3 – Community-private sector led Tourism Development (Part C): 11. Part C.3 and C4: The institution FUTUR, which handled tourism promotion and management of state-owned hotels, has changed its name to INATUR. The institution ECDA, to which FUTUR had delegated responsibility of Project activities in the Matutuine District, has been closed. Its responsibilities are taken over by INATUR. The activities in support of FUTUR and ECDA are transferred to INATUR. 12. Part C.5: The design of four Tourism Plans was originally planned under the Project. Three plans have been completed and approved. However, the Gaza Province Tourism Master Plan has been judged a duplication of effort and is to be dropped, given that the General Management Plans of the three protected areas located in the Gaza District, prepared under Component 4 (part D), would serve the same purpose and are more likely to generate tourism investments. 13. Part C.6: The plan for tourism infrastructure in Vilanculos District is to be cancelled because of the decision to cancel the DDP in Vilanculos District. The development of tourism infrastructures in Matutuine District is not cancelled. However, most investment identified by the DDP and Tourism Master Plans concerns the Maputo Special Reserve or the new Punta d’Ouro Marine Reserve, both of which are covered in Component 4 (Part D). These funds are therefore to be reallocated to infrastructures in Component 4. 14. Part C.10, C.11 and C.12: The scope of support to communities is unchanged. But, it is improved through revision of the Process Framework and the Community Equity Facility Manual to facilitate the subproject selection and implementation and increase the scope/type of subprojects. It is also moved to Component 4 in order to ensure that communities are better integrated in protected area development. 1 Components are called “Parts� in the legal documents. 5 Component 4 – Protected area management (Part D): 15. The decision to move activities from Component 3 to component 4 implies that (1) Part C.6 (infrastructure) is folded in Part D. 6; (2) Part C.12 (Process Framework) is folded into Part D.3 (also Process Framework); and (3) Part C.10 and C.11 (Sub-projects) become new Part D.7 and D.8. Component 5 – Project management (Part E): 16. The organization of Project management has been reviewed to increase efficiency. The regional management office and positions have been cancelled while the TFCA team is enriched by a community development specialist and an infrastructure specialist. None of these changes to this component impact the legal agreements. Reallocations 17. A reallocation of the IDA credit and the GEF grant is necessary to allocate unallocated funds to categories where funds are needed to enable progress toward development and global environment objective. No reallocation is proposed for the PHRD grant. 18. The proposed reallocation has some differences with the reallocation attached in the GoM request. This difference originates from a careful recalculation of the Project budget and comparison with the undisbursed balance which was carried out during the March 2011 Project support mission. It is recorded in the mission aide memoire. 19. In particular, it is proposed: • Category Civil Works: A nearly flat budget is proposed in the Category Civil Work. However, this is achieved through the creation of a Civil Works Category provisioned with US$1,960,000 under the GEF Grant and a reduction of SDR1,020,000 under the IDA Credit. This enables the completion of staff housing in three priority protected areas. • Category Goods: An overall increase of SDR1,420,000 for the Category Goods under the IDA credit mainly because the value of contract has generally been well above planned budgets and to ensure that part of the protected area equipment procured in year 1 and 2 is replaced before Project closing. • Category Consultant Services: An increase of SDR670,000 under the IDA credit and a reduction of US$115,000 under the GEF grant are proposed. This will enable the Project to meet its commitment toward Project staff contracts and toward contracts whose costs were unexpected high such as the five architecture and engineering design/supervision contracts and the community broker technical assistance contracts in Chimanimani and Maputo Special Reserve. • Category Training: A reduction of SDR130,000 under the IDA Credit and an increase of USD115,000 under the GEF Grant are proposed. 6 • Category Operating costs: An overall increase of SDR472,000 is proposed under the IDA credit as normal reallocation of a proportion of unallocated funds. • Category Subproject: A reduction of US$1,260,000 under the GEF Grant is proposed. The amount remaining after this reduction can realistically be disbursed before Project end given the current pipeline of subprojects. • Refund of Project Preparation Facility: An reduction of SDR12,000 is proposed under the IDA credit to match the actual SDR disbursement now that all transactions under that category have been completed. 20. Proceeds for Mozambique, Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project, Credit No 4130, P071465 will be reallocated as follow: Category of Expenditure Allocation (SDR) % of Financing Current Revised Current Revised Current Revised Works for Parts C Works for Part 5,820,000 4,800,000 100% Same and D of the D of the Project Project Goods for Parts B, Same 1,160,000 2,580,000 100% Same C, D and E of the Project Consultants’ Same 1,490,000 2,160,000 100% Same Services for Part C.3, C.8, E.1, E.2, E.4, and E.5of the Project including Audits Training for Part A, Same 630,000 500,000 100% Same B, C and E of the Project Operating Costs Same 2,970,000 3,442,000 100% Same Refunding of Same 430,000 418,000 Amount due Same Project Preparation pursuant to Advances Section 2.02 (b) of the Development Credit Agreement Unallocated Same 1,400,000 0 TOTAL 13,900,000 13,900,000 21. Proceeds for Mozambique, Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Tourism Development Project, Grant No TF56038, P076809 will be reallocated as follow: Category of Expenditure Allocation (US$) % of Financing Current Revised Current Revised Current Revised (1) Consultants’ Same 4,635,000 4,520,000 100% Same Services for Part A and D of the Project 7 including Audits (2) Training under Same 705,000 800,000 100% Same Part D of the Project (3) Works, Goods 3) Works, Goods 3,960,000 2,700,000 100% Same and Services and Services financed through financed through Community Community Subprojects for Part Subprojects for C of the Project Part D of the Project - (4) Works for 0 1,960,000 NA 100% Part D of the Project (4) Unallocated (5) Unallocated 700,000 0,000 TOTAL 10,000,000 10,000,000 APPRAISAL SUMMARY Risk analysis 22. This Project is a Pre-ORAF Project. At the September 2009 Mid Term Review (MTR), the risk analysis was updated using the 2005-PAD-format risk matrix (see Annex 3 of MTR Aide Memoire). It indicates a decrease in the Project average risk. The residual risk to the Project Outcome is considered Moderate. However, the intention of GoM to scale up resettlement from the Limpopo National Park (see below) has raised concerns for a reputational risk and the Project is considered a corporate risk. Below is a summary of the risk analysis. 23. One of the risks is increasing: • The financial sustainability. The Government commitment to funding the sector has not materialized so far and progress towards attracting private investors has stalled given the complexity of the legislation applicable to tourism concessions. 24. Several risks linked to implementation capacity, which were rated Substantial, have proven of a lesser gravity and were downgraded to Moderate or Negligible: • Tourism concessions are awarded without transparency and for purpose others than that of the tourism plans. Even though tourism concessions are complicated to obtain, the Bank has seen no evidence of non transparent concession so far. • Complexity of a multi-sector approach may cause delays in implementation and Complexity of projects, with four components trusted to separate lead agencies may slow down implementation: The broad Project scope and multiple agencies initially slowed implementation. But, the completion of Component 2, the merging of two institutions supported by the Project, the post-MTR refocus on protected areas as 8 tourism products and the Project team reorganization have simplified the Project and decreased this risk. • Weakness in public sector accounting profession and Weakness in the budgetary process: The Project financial management team is very competent. The Project has not been affected by delays in budgetary process. 25. One risk is no longer valid: • Insufficient capacity to carry out IDDP and other innovative activities. The IDDP for one district is successfully completed and the other is cancelled. Component 2 is completed. 26. Three risks have been added to the matrix. They are described below. • Dobela Harbor: The main threat is the proposal of a new harbor and an industrial/trade zone whose land allocation apparently overlaps the Maputo Special Reserve and the Ponta d’Ouro Marine Reserve. If the construction of the harbor is to materialize, it could reverse some of the Project outcome in the two above-mentioned reserves. However, because the probability of this materializing is considered low and if, it would materialize only after Project closure, the risk is considered negligible. • Resettlement in Limpopo National Park – The KfW is funding the resettlement of about 200 families from the Limpopo National Park through two Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs). Because of geographical overlap the Bank Project is considered “associated�. As a consequence, the Bank had triggered Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and approved the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) that guided the design of the two RAPs. Implementing the first two RAPs proved a more difficult task than anticipated. At this moment, the first RAP for 16 families is completed. The second RAP is partially implemented. In the future, the Government of Mozambique (GoM), with own budget and KfW funds, intends to scale-up resettlement to about 1,000 additional families. The Bank has received assurances from the GoM and KfW that they are committed to comply with OP 4.12. However, in the Bank’s opinion, this scaling up has been decided in the absence of detailed steps and organizational arrangement and a full review of the cost implications. Given that (1) the Bank has not yet received convincing evidence on the funding, organization and capacity of the GoM to administer this additional resettlement process and (2) the ongoing resettlement process has not yet been assessed to judge its completeness and conformity with the RAP, this constitutes a high reputational risk. The Project is therefore now considered a corporate risk, and the Bank has initiated a dialog with KfW and GoM to assure that all efforts are deployed toward full and effective compliance with OP 4.12. • Gold panning in Chimanimani Reserve: The highland section of the Chimanimani Reserve has recently become the object of increasing artisanal gold mining efforts. Undoubtedly, this mining affects the reserves biodiversity and landscape and degrades areas of potentially high tourism value. The Management Plan proposes 9 various strategies to address the issue including organizing miners. However, the issue is complex and unlikely to be fully resolved during the Project life. The risk to the highland portion of the Chimanimani biodiversity is substantial but the risk to the Project outcome is moderate. 10 ANNEX 1: Revised Results Framework and Monitoring Mozambique: Transfrontier Conservation Area and Tourism Development Project Project Development Objective (PDO): Increase community benefits from growth in environmentally sustainable tourism in TFCAs. Global Environment Objective (GEO): Increase the area, connectivity, & effectiveness of biodiversity conservation in TFCAs. Revised PDO: No change Revised GEO: No change D=Dropped Core Target Values** PDO Level Results C=Continue Unit of Data Source/ Responsibility for Baseline Frequency Indicators* N= New Measure 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 2 Methodology Data Collection R=Revised Indicator 1: Local residents employed, formally and Operators R Number 640 890 1,011 1,213 1,300 1,500 1,800 2,000 Yearly DINATUR informally, in conservation & records tourism in target districts Indicator 2: Bed-nights in Operators tourism facilities in the target R Number 666 117 168 193 164 200 220 - Yearly DINATUR districts records Indicator 3: Tourism ventures (in target Project sites that have Operators adopted a Tourism Plan) that C % - - - - - 50 70 80 Yearly DINATUR are in conformity with such records plan Indicator 4: New private tourism or conservation-related Amount, Project M&E investment leveraged as joint- C in US$ - - - 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.2 2.0 Yearly TFCAU venture with communities in millions records target districts Indicator 5: Total annual Amount, DNAC revenue revenues generated by targeted R in US$ 187 230 260 302 326 360 440 - Yearly collection DNAC formal protected areas thousand records 2 Project closes on June 30, 2013. So, the EOP target is year 12 for all indicator that represent an “annual� value such as Number of bed-nights D=Dropped Cumulative Target Values** Core GEO Level Results C=Continue Unit of Data Source/ Responsibility for Baseline Frequency Indicators* N= New Measure 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Methodology Data Collection R=Revised Indicator 6: New priority areas formally designated & managed for biodiversity conservation Decree establishing Futi Corridor C Km2 0 0 0 0 0 700 700 700 Yearly DNAC new protected areas Maputo Marine C Km2 0 0 0 700 700 700 700 700 Limpopo D Km2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indicator 7: increase in bioindicator species (2 species/area) in formal Protected areas Limpopo Elephant C Number 630 - - 693 - 710 - - Protected area Zebra C Number 325 - - 357 - 375 - manager report Banhine Oribi R Number 51 221 - 402 - 220 - - from aerial survey except Ostrish R Number 210 213 - 361 - 220 - - Every two Chimanimani DNAC years where counts Zinave Impala N Number - - - 150 - 160 - - are based on Nyala N Number - - - 143 - 150 - - pellet survey and reported as Maputo Elephant R Number 329 - - 348 - 350 - - index Reedbuck R Number 797 - - 824 - 850 - - Chimanimani Duiker spp. R Index 3.00 - - 4.55 - 3.20 3.30 - Sable R Index 0.97 0 - 0.54 - 1.00 1.00 - Indicator 8: Area with Protected area agriculture habitation of Three times manager report incompatible land use in areas C % - - <10 - <10 - <10 - over the based on DNAC zoned for biodiversity Project life mapping of conservation land use by 12 PPF INTERMEDIATE RESULTS Intermediate Result (Component One): An enabling environment for effective/sustainable management of biodiversity is established Revised Intermediate Result (Component One): No change Intermediate Result indicator 1:: # of framework instrument developed and approved (e.g. 1. national policy and. strategy, 2. updated law for Conservation & Wildlife, 3. C Numbers 0 0 1 1 3 3 5 5 Yearly Project M&E TFCAU new regulation for conservation & wildlife, 4. new tourism regulations, 5 new institution for the management of conservation areas) Intermediate Result indicator 2: Degree of establishment of the new conservation Status & management institution or C Points 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 20 Yearly TFCAU Project M&E PPPs as defined in the policy & law as measured by point system3 Intermediate Result indicator 3: International Signed agreements/treaties & R Number 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 Yearly agreements/ TFCAU additional technical protocols Protocols for TFCA management signed 3 Decree creates the institution (5pts), institutions’ board adopts bylaws and procedures (5pts), institutions possess a suitable fiduciary management system (5pts), key management staff is recruited (5pts), field and support staff is recruited (5pts), staff has received job adaptation training (5pts): Total 30 pts. 13 Intermediate Result (Component Two): IDP legally established & in use as the basis for development in 5 TFCAs. Revised Intermediate Result (Component Two): IDP piloted as the basis for development planning in one district. Intermediate Result indicator 4: DDP prepared with IDDP Plans and R Numbers 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yearly TFCAU process that are endorsed at district records district and province levels Intermediate Result indicator 5: In Matutuine district, new development activities (other Official than tourism-related), which, as register of C % 0 0 - 20 - 50 - 80 Every 2 years TFCAU per national environmental MICOA and legislation require an EIA, District Office comply with such legislation & with the DDP 14 Intermediate Result (Component Three): The investment climate for environmentally and socially appropriate tourism in TFCAs has improved Revised Intermediate Result (Component Three): No change Intermediate Result indicator 6: Tourism Plans (TP) prepared in conformity regional R Numbers 0 0 1 1 3 3 5 5 Yearly Project M&E TFCAU tourism and conservation overlays Intermediate Result indicator 7: New tourism concessions in Status & targeted districts that conform D % 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 20 Yearly INATUR Project M&E with new guidelines for tending concession Intermediate Result indicator Operators 8: Beds of new tourism Cum. operations in targeted districts C number - - - - 40 300 400 500 Yearly records & INATUR that are in conformity with TPs District files Intermediate Result indicator 9: New community organizations in targeted districts that are engaged in C Number - - - 5 10 15 20 20 Yearly Project M&E DNAC conservation or tourism activity in conformity with TPs Three times Intermediate Result indicator % C - - 30 - - 50 - during the Project M&E INATUR 10: Investor satisfaction increase Project period 15 Intermediate Result (Component 4): The management of existing & new areas zoned in TFCAs for biodiversity conservation has significantly improved. Revised Intermediate Result (Component 4): No change Intermediate Result indicator 11: Management effectiveness of Protected areas Limpopo National Park C Score 43 45 50 55 60 65 69 72 Zinave National Park R Score 36 47 53 52 56 56 58 58 Project M&E Banhine National Park R Score 27 33 34 35 41 42 45 45 Yearly and protected TFCAU and DNAC area managers Maputo Reserve R Score 47 50 48 52 57 58 60 60 Futi Corridor R Score 7 24 20 24 25 27 30 30 Punta d’Ouro Marine Reserve R Score 1 3 13 34 43 45 45 45 Chimanimani Reserve R Score 42 55 54 55 57 59 60 60 Intermediate Result indicator 12: Existing protected areas that have developed, adopted Protected area and are applying a C Number 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 Yearly managers DNAC performance-based report management system and prepared a business plan Intermediate Result indicator Protected area 13: Structures completed in R Number - 0 0 1 4 14 37 45 Yearly managers DNAC targeted formal Protected Areas report 16 Intermediate Result (Component 5): Project implementation is efficient & well coordinated, with good internal & external information flow.. Revised Intermediate Result (Component 5): No change Intermediate Result indicator 14: Activities in annual work C % 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Yearly Project M&E TFCAU plans completed each year Intermediate Result indicator 15: Project outcomes/outputs indicators updated accordingly D % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Yearly Project M&E TFCAU to schedule + incorporated in management decision Number Intermediate Result indicator R in - - - - 3 16 20 - Yearly Project M&E TFCAU 16: Annual hits on website thousand 17 PAD Results Framework and Monitoring (for comparison) Target Values Data Collection and Reporting Outcome Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 Frequency and Data Collection Responsibility Indicators Reports Instruments for Data Collection PDO 1 Numbers of local residents employed, formally 75 100 300 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,800 3,500 Yearly Operators and informally, in conservation & tourism in records target districts 2 Number of visitors and bed-nights in tourism 15.000 15.000 20.000 30.000 45.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 Operators facilities in the target districts records 3 % tourism ventures (in target districts that have - - - - - 50 70 80 Operators DINATUR adopted a District Tourism Master Plan-DTMP) records that are in conformity with DTMP 4 Amount, in US$ millions, of new private tourism - - - 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.2 2.0 Yearly Project specific or conservation-related investment leveraged as data collection joint-venture with communities in target districts 5 Amount, in thousand US$, of total annual 75 130 155 240 380 500 650 850 Yearly Protected area revenues generated by targeted formal PAs (MSR manager report DNAC 180, BNP 40, LNP 500, ZNP 10, CSR 20, Z 100) GEO 6 Km2 of new Futi Corridor 0 0 800 800 800 800 800 800 Yearly Protected area DNAC priority areas manager report formally Maputo Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 610 610 designated & managed for biodiversity Other area Limpopo TFCA 0 0 0 30 90 120 150 200 conservation 18 7 % increase in Great Limpopo 0 0 - - 10 - - 20 Protected area bioindicator Banhine 0 0 - - 5 - - 10 manager report species (2 from wildlife and Maputo w/ Futi Cr. 0 0 - - 5 - - 10 species/area) in Every three other population 4 formal Pas Chimanimani 0 0 - - 5 - - 10 years survey 8 % of area with agriculture habitation of - - 30 - 20 - - <10 Satellite images incompatible land use in areas zoned for biodiversity conservation Intermediate results / per component R1 1 # of framework instrument developed and 0 0 1 1 3 3 5 5 Yearly Project M&E approved (1. national policy, 2. strategy, 3. updated law for Conservation & Wildlife, 4. new regulation for conservation & wildlife, 5. new tourism regulations) 2 Degree of establishment of the new conservation 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 25 Status & Project TFCAU management institution or PPPs as defined in the M&E policy & law as measured by point system 3 # international agreements/treaties & additional 0 0 1 2 3 4 4 4 Signed technical protocols for TFCA management signed agreements/ Protocols R2 4 # of DDP prepared with IDDP process that are 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 Yearly until Plans endorsed at district and province levels completion 5 In Matutuine district, % of new development 0 0 - 20 - 50 - 80 Official register activities (other than tourism-related), which, as Every other DNPO per national environmental legislation require an year EIA, comply with such legislation & with the TMP R3 4 Percentage to be replaced by actual population of the two indicator species as soon as baseline data is compiled (LNP, BNP) or collected/compiled (MSR, CSR) 19 6 # of DTMP prepared in conformity regional 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 DTP & DDP tourism and conservation overlays 7 % of new tourism concessions in targeted districts - - - 50 60 80 80 80 Yearly Concession that conform with new guidelines for tending register, FUTUR concession & Operators records & Project 8 aggregate # bed of new tourism operations in - - - 450 700 950 1200 1480 M&E DINATUR targeted districts that are in conformity with DTMPs 9 # of new community organization in targeted - - - 5 10 15 20 20 Project M&E districts that are engaged in conservation or tourism activity in conformity with DTMPs 10 % increase in investor satisfaction - tbm5 - 30 - - 50 - Year 1, 3, 6 Perception survey R4 11 Change in score Great Limpopo 43 45 50 55 60 65 69 72 Yearly Protected area management Zinave 24 26 28 32 36 40 45 49 manager report effectiveness of Banhine 31 33 50 55 60 62 65 69 Pas Maputo SR 33 35 40 60 65 70 75 78 Futi Corridor 7 9 14 20 25 30 40 53 Maputo Marine 1 1 3 12 20 27 30 36 DNAC Chimanimani 36 38 43 55 60 65 69 71 12 # of existing protected areas that have developed, 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 adopted and are applying a performance-based management system and prepared a business plan 13 % planned and budgeted infrastructure completed - 0 0 5 50 60 70 80 in targeted formal Protected Areas R5 5 tbm to be measured 20 14 % of activities in annual work plans completed na 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Yearly Project M&E TFCAU each year 15 % of Project outcomes/outputs indicators updated na 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 accordingly to schedule + incorporated in management decision 16 # of hits on website na na 10,000 12,500 16,000 20,000 26,000 35,000 [1] Env and social standards = location/type according to SDPs, formal community and private sector partnership, meeting international ecotourism society standards. 21 ANNEX 2: Risk Analysis Matrix from Mid Term Review Aide Memoire Mozambique: Transfrontier Conservation Area and Tourism Development Project Risks Risk Mitigation Measures Risk Rating Assessment 2005- Risk Mitigation Measures Risk Rating with 2009 with Mitigation Mitigation From Project Appraisal Report in 2005 After Sept. 2009 MTR To project To project development development objective objective Tourism The project includes measures to prevent M The risk is the same. The project includes measures to prevent M development displacement and impoverishment of local Involving local displacement and impoverishment of local might displace people, including: (i) triggering of the communities in people, including: (i) triggering of the local people rather Bank’s OP/BP 4.12 related to Involuntary tourism proved Bank’s OP/BP 4.12 related to Involuntary than involving and Displacement; (ii) the use of IDDP to difficult because of Resettlement which is implemented only in benefiting them identify and support local priorities; (iii) lack of initial capacity Limpopo NP with KfW funding; (ii) the the demarcation and registration of and lack of clear use of an improved Process Framework to community land as a prerequisite to strategy. The identify and support local priorities within bringing in external investment; and (iv) Limpopo community the context of Protected Area planning; support and incentives for equitable is being resettled and (iii) the demarcation and registration of community/private sector partnerships. may benefit more from community land; and (iv) support and Resettlement costs are budgeted for 300 agriculture incentives for equitable community/private families if they choose to move out of opportunities. sector partnerships and other livelihood protected areas. subprojects. Tourism The IDDP is based on strategic M The risk is less than The DDP and Tourism Plans were based N development, if environmental assessments; also, the expected. At this early on solid environmental information; the not well planned project will strengthen planning and stage of tourism, its project will strengthen planning and and regulated can regulatory capacity at national and potential impact on the regulatory capacity of Elephant Coast cause decentralized levels. Investors will have to environment is of little Development Agency. Investors and environmental prepare investment and management plans concern except in NGOs will have to prepare investment and damage in which environmental protection Maputo SR. EA are management plans in which environmental measures are identified and spelt out. followed in protection measures are identified and developments spelt out. supported by the project. Improvements Basic restructuring of DNAC to support M The risk has Basic restructuring of DNAC to support S achieved under the institutional and policy reforms; direct increased. In the institutional and policy reforms; direct project in formal support and incentives to encourage past 3 years, there support and incentives to encourage protected areas are partnerships; measures to increase revenue was a modest partnerships; measures to increase not sustained due generation within and around PAs. increase in GoM revenue generation within and around to financial and budget allocation and Pas as well as creation of a National other constraints little tourism Foundation supported by joint CP investments to efforts.. generate income. New Risk: Dobela The TFCAU, District and ECDA to M Harbor and the leverage other resource so a proper SEA is industrial/trade zone’s developed and adopted at the highest level. land allocation The WB & IFC have written a letter to the apparently overlaps Government expressing concerns of the Maputo SR and the opposing objective between the project and Ponta d’Ouro Marine the harbor and requesting more Reserve buffer. information. New risk: The new The resettlement of 18 families proved S resettlement process more difficult than anticipated and not in Limpopo of >1,000 yet completed to satisfaction. While, families is a KfW is committed to seamless RAPs, the formidable tasks mere scale of it will increase the which detailed steps attention on TFCATDP: It is likely that and organization the TFCATDP will be enter the list of may not have yet WB “Corporate risk� projects. The been fully thought MTR recommended that a specialized out. entity be tasked with the next phase. New risk: The upper The DNAC team and Agriconsult N part of the (working on the Management Plans) are Chimanimani R is exploring the design of various strategies subject to artisanal to address the issue. Once a strategy is gold mining. This approved, the TFCAU is invited to review affects the reserve’s the TFCA budget as well as mobilize biodiversity, landscape additional Government funds to implement and areas of high such strategy. tourism value. To component To component results 23 results Insufficient The project supports tourism development, N The risk has increased. The project supports tourism development, M Government which GOM has identified as a primary GoM has shown which GOM has identified as a primary ownership or sector for economic growth; project has commitment by sector for economic growth; project has political support been explicitly designed to support GOM’s adopting the been explicitly designed to support GOM’s for reform agenda. own tourism policy, strategy and action conservation policy & own tourism policy, strategy and action plan; also support decentralization policy marine PA. But plan; also support decentralization policy which has strong political commitment commitment to private which has strong political commitment. sector-led tourism is Work on the concessions of tourism not unequivocal yet. facilities inside parks is underway and may Issues such as Dobela facilitate the development of private Harbor undermine investments inside protected areas. perception of commitment. Tourism sites in Major tourism development is expected M Risk is the same. The Major tourism development is expected M TFCA may not be only in three sites where bush-beach result of the only in three sites where bush-beach attractive or linkages are identified: Matutuine District concessioning in linkages are identified: Matutuine District developed enough in Lubombo TFCA, Limpopo National Maputo SR will in Lubombo TFCA, Limpopo National to attract investors Park in Great Limpopo TFCA and indicate whether the Park in Great Limpopo TFCA and Vilankulo District linked to Limpopo current level of Vilankulo District linked to Limpopo TFCA. These are branded as the “Great development is TFCA. These are branded as the “Great Africa Routes� and, in addition to this attractive to investors. Africa Routes� and, in addition to this project’s support will receive support project’s support will receive support through IFC-supported SEATIP. through IFC-supported SEATIP. Insufficient Project will draw upon pilots already S capacity to carry underway (WB coastal zone and district Risk no out IDDP and planning projects), and will provide longer other innovative substantial up-front training and capacity relevant. activities. building prior to launching IDDP process on the ground, as well as short and long term TA. Tourism In the Letter of Sector Policy, the S Risk has decreased. Minor change. In the Letter of Sector N concessions are Government commits to increased There is no experience Policy, the Government commits to awarded without transparency in dealing with tourism of non transparent increased transparency in dealing with transparency and concessions and regularly publishes the list concession so far and tourism concessions and regularly for purpose others of concessions and new concessions. The no sign of any. publishes the list of concessions and new than that of the Bank will monitor these publications. concessions. IFC is acting as transaction 24 tourism plans. advisor to Government & new concession regulations are being worked out. Private sector Close consultation with the private sector M Risk is the same No change. Close consultation with the M response to policy during project preparation and private sector during project preparation reforms & implementation, to identify the main and implementation, to identify the main incentives obstacles from their perspective (e.g. basic obstacles from their perspective (e.g. basic provided through infrastructure, lack of transparency in infrastructure, lack of transparency in the project is less concessioning, capacity constraints to concessioning, capacity constraints to than expected, partnership with communities, etc.); partnership with communities, etc.); resulting in low Community Enterprise Fund will enhance Community Enterprise Fund will enhance levels of communities’ attractiveness as investment communities’ attractiveness as investment investment and/or partners. partners. lack of private sector/ community partnerships Complexity of The existing TFCA unit has project M Risk has decreased. Major change. The existing TFCA unit N multi-sector implementation experience and established The broad project has project implementation experience and approach may mechanisms for inter-sector coordination; scope & multiple established mechanisms for inter-sector cause delays in emphasis on implementation at agencies slowed coordination; however, they will now more implementation decentralized/local levels where there is implementation. The closely coordinate implementation of typically better cross-sector coordination; MTR refocus on PAs activities even though each is undertaken Disbursement schedule set to realistic rate. and TFCAU with the leadership of various directorate; reorganization has Disbursement schedule set to more decreased this risk. realistic rate. Complexity of The project will strengthen the capacity of S Risk has decreased. Major change. See above. M projects, with four the various implementing agencies and See above components partners to perform within their existing trusted to separate mandates and spheres of responsibility: lead agencies DNPO for the IDDP; MITUR for slows down facilitating tourism investment and implementation. development, DNAC for PA management; and DNFFB for natural resource management outside PAs. Weakness in A qualified Accountant with experience in S Risk has decreased. No change. A qualified Accountant with N public sector public sector financial management will be The project financial experience in public sector financial accounting appointed for this project management team is management will be appointed for this profession very competent. project 25 Weakness in the This project will be inscribed in the S Risk has decreased. No change. This project will be inscribed N budgetary process government’s budget and its execution will The project has not in the government’s budget and its follow government procedures. It is also been affected by execution will follow government financed 100% TTC and therefore requires delays in budgetary procedures. It is also financed 100% TTC no counterpart funding. process. and therefore requires no counterpart funding. OVERALL 2.3 / 36 1.7 / 3 RISK (> M) (< M) 6 In an attempt to objectively calculate the evolution of risk over time, a score of 1 is given to Negligible (N), 2 to Moderate (M) and 3 to Substential (S). 26