Process Framework

RP1056 v1Malawi Zambia

Sustainable Management of Nyika Transfrontier Conservation Area Project

Date: January 14, 2011

Republic of Malawi and Republic of Zambia:Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Culture in Malawi (MTWC)

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources in Zambia (MTENR)

Responsible Agencies:Malawi Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW)

Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA)Zambian Forestry Department (ZFD)

Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................41. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................................7

1.1. Project location and physical characteristics.................................................................................71.2. Project Objective............................................................................................................................81.3. Project Beneficiaries......................................................................................................................81.4. Project components........................................................................................................................8

2. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................102.1. Purpose of the Process Framework..............................................................................................102.2. Application of the PF...................................................................................................................102.3. Community Engagement Tasks....................................................................................................112.4. Persistent Challenges in Community Engagement......................................................................11

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES.....................................................................................113.1. Being Aware of the Minds of Rural Villagers..............................................................................113.2. Identifying what the Villages need to be effective partners.........................................................123.3. Developing the Economic value of the Resource Base...............................................................123.4. Addressing Issues at the Individual Level...................................................................................123.5. Reaching and engaging the poorest households..........................................................................13

4. INTERVENTIONS TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION................................................134.1. Possible Approach in the Management of the proposed Chama Nature Park.............................134.2. The World Bank Social Safeguard Requirements........................................................................15

5. IDENTIFYING EXISTING CONDITIONS AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS....................................165.1. Current Agreements on Land and Resource Rights and Responsibilities....................................165.2 Existing Community Organizations and Administrative Structures..................................................175.3. People Affected by the Project (PAPs) and Criteria for Eligibility..............................................185.4. How Affected Communities Will Benefit from the Project.........................................................19

6. THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.................................................................................216.1. Process of Community Participation in Decisions and Activities Affecting Them.....................216.2. Grievance and Conflict Resolution Procedures...........................................................................236.3. Using the Current System of Conflict Resolution.......................................................................236.4. Community Participation in the Monitoring Process..................................................................24

ANNEX – PARTNERS PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................25

2 | P a g e

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PF - Process FrameworkCBNRM - Community-Based Natural Resources ManagementCAP - Community Action PlansNP - Nature ParkCRBs - Community Resource BoardsCOMACO - Community Markets for ConservationESMF - Environment and Social Management FrameworkFD - Forestry DepartmentGMA - Game Management AreaGMP - General Management PlanICDPs - Integrated Conservation–Development ProgramsLUPs - Land Use PlansNRM - Natural Resources ManagementNGO - Non-Governmental OrganizationPAPs - People Affected by the ProjectPG - Producer GroupsPA - Protection AgencyPF - Process FrameworkRPF - Resettlement Policy FrameworkTFCA - Trans-frontier Conservation AreaTOR - Terms of ReferenceTA - Traditional AuthorityWB - World BankZAWA - Zambia Wildlife Authority

3 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

This Process Framework (PF) is prepared for the five-year Sustainable Management of Nyika Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) Project (the Nyika Project or the Project) which the Government of the Republic of Malawi and the Government of the Republic of Zambia intend to implement within the Nyika TFCA (see p. 7 for map of Project area) with funding from the GEF, Norway Embassy in Malawi and Peace Park Foundation as well as the Government of Zambia (GoZ) and the Government of Malawi (GoM). All above financiers have agreed to comply with World Bank safeguard as operationalized in the Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF), the present Process Framework (PF and the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) which has been prepared and adopted by both GoZ and GoM..

The Project is a biodiversity conservation project which development objective is to establish more effective transfrontier management of biodiversity in the Nyika TFCA. Its focus is to strengthen the institutional, financial, legal and technical capacity in both countries to deliver on the Nyika TFCA objectives as defined in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the two Governments in 2004. The Project is comprised of the following four components: Component 1. Institutional and Planning Framework, Component 2. Sustainable Financing, and Component 3. Protected Areas Management.

Purpose of the Process Framework

The World Bank (WB) Social Safeguards (Operational Procedures 4.04 and 4.12) require that PAPs participate in the decisions regarding their benefits and measures for mitigating any negative social impacts, in deciding eligibility, and in monitoring the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A more extensive description of WB safeguards and their application to the Project, is proposed in the Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) under the Nyika Project.

Like the ESMF, the Process Framework (PF) is an instrument of the Nyika Project. The PF is a guide for engaging People Affected by the Project (PAPs). Its ultimate aim is to ensure that the PAPs are suitably redirected to alternative livelihoods.

This document is always referred to as PF.

Guided by this PF, the Project will follow a set of processes for identifying and mitigating possible loss of access by communities to the use of some of the natural resources in the TFCA, resolving potential conflicts arising among the various stakeholders and partners including for settling grievances raised by the PAPs. These processes and the principles and approach upon which they are based will be applied in the Project area on both sides of the Zambia and Malawi Nyika TFCA. The goal of the GoM and GoZ is that, as a result of the Project, the PAPs in the entire TFCA will at least maintain their before project standards of living, or improve.

Key Principles of Community Engagement

To have a chance of successfully engaging communities from the very beginning, and to improve its chance to achieve its objective, the Nyika Project will remain fully aware that a case of ‘rich landscapes – poor people” cannot persist for long. Also, people living in close proximity to wildlife will be considered equal, even critical, partners in changing their own poverty status along with increasing the richness of the landscapes. To aid the management of its supported projects in this direction, and to ensure that the

4 | P a g e

PAPs are not left worse off than before the Projects, the WB has provided a set of social safeguard policies and guidelines that the Project will comply with.

This PF establishes the before project status quo in terms of existing administrative and legal procedures and financial responsibilities among the various stake holders. It also identifies the criteria for the PAPs benefit eligibility and mechanisms for identifying how the affected communities will benefit from the Project along with the measures that will be implemented to assist them improve, or at least maintain, their standards of living. It also lays out, as required, the mechanisms for effective participation of the PAPs in the implementation of activities affecting them, and in monitoring the effectiveness of negative impact mitigation including mechanisms for settling their grievances.

To make their contribution in terms of compliance with conservation requirements, it is critical that PAP have at the very least, 1) livelihood and especially food security incentives that they perceive to be sufficient, 2), clearly defined rights and responsibilities, and 3), the capacity to undertake their assigned responsibilities.

The Project will contribute towards developing the economic potential of the TFCA resources by establishing more effective management of biodiversity. The Project core business is not to support to community livelihoods.

Community livelihood opportunities are promoted and supported outside the Project area by other ongoing projects such as Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) on the Zambian side and Kulera Biodiversity on the Malawi side. In Zambianthe COMACO which is implemented by Wildlife Conservation Society and funded by Norway proposes a business approach to increase community benefits as conservation incentives at the individual household level, and not just through the typical community development projects such as roads, schools or clinics. In Malawi, the KULERA biodiversity project which is implemented by Total Land Care and funded by USAID supports farmers with a full range of activities from conservation awareness, to alternative livelihoods, to conservation farming and SSME development. Both operate with communities who are leaving around, but outside, the Project area.

In supporting the PAPs, in order not to introduce confusion with community members or duplication, the Project has opted to adopt the technical and social approach of the above two projects. .The community support already delivered by these two projects will be supplemented by Nyika Project-specific compensation measures to the PAPs that will be identified by applying this PF.

Project Institutional Support toward the Community Engagement Process:

Currently the Vwaza Marsh Reserve and the Nyika National Park (Malawi) is managed by Malawi’s Department of National Park and Wildlife (DNPW) while the Nyika National Park (Zambia) and GMAs are under the oversight of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). GMA are jointly managed including revenue sharing between ZAWA and the local communities organized in Community Resources Board (CRBs). The Forest Reserves (FR) are managed by the Zambia Forestry Department (ZFD). The proposed Chama Nature Park which is located in the Lundazi National Forest will remain under the responsibility of the ZFD. FD will delegate the management of the area proposed for the partnership park to a consortium constituted of itself, ZAWA, an NGO and a Chama District stakeholder’s association that is being constituted.

It is envisaged that the Project will also rely on existing community engagement structures which are based on a wide network of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in both Malawi and Zambia.

5 | P a g e

In Malawi the Government has decentralized environmental management to local structures which consists of Village Development Committees (VDCs), Area Development Committees (ADCs) and then District Assemblies. Direct participation by local communities in protected area management is through natural resources committees (NRCs). An umbrella organization known as the Nyikawaza Association for Natural Resource Management and Rural Development oversees the work of the NRCs and forms a unified link with DNPW.

The Malawi DNPW and ZAWA will each deploy one extension officer to work with community structures to assess the effect that project implementation and restrictions will have on resource use in protected areas and to determine how this will impact on the livelihoods of PAPs. The extension officers will coordinate with community development partners with regard to mitigation measures and their financing.

6 | P a g e

1. Project Description and Background

1.1. Project location and physical characteristics

On 13 August 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Governments of Malawi and Zambia to commence with the establishment of the Malawi-Zambia Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA). This agreement identifies more than 28,000 km2 for inclusion under the TFCA initiative, incorporating Malawi’s Nyika National Park, Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve, Kasungu National Park and Zambia’s Nyika National Park, Lundazi- Mitengi- and Mikuti Forest Reserves and Musalangu Game Management Area for development as a TFCA.

The Nyika TFCA spans over a total area of 19,280 km2 and consists of different types of interconnected protected areas under various management and conservation regimes (see Map 2). Within the Nyika TFCA and as shown in the map 2 below, three ecosystem-management blocks have been identified for the Project: (i) Nyika block comprising of Malawi Nyika National Park, Zambia Nyika National Park and Zambia Mitenge Forest Reserve (over 4,500 km2), (ii) Vwaza block comprising of Malawi Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve and transboundary Bambanda-Zaro Sanctuary (part of the Lundazi Forest Reserve (over 1,500 km2), and (iii) the proposed Zambia Chama Nature Park (part of the current Lundazi Forest Reserve) (about 1,000 km2).

Map 1 – Map of the Project Area Map 2 – Map of the Malawi-Zambia TFCA(areas within the yellow-red-orange border (Area bordered in purple is Nyika TFCA)

are in the Project)

7 | P a g e

1.2. Project Objective

The combined Project’s Development Objective (PDO) and Global Environmental Objective (GEO) of the Project is to establish more effective transfrontier management of biodiversity in the Nyika Transfrontier Conservation Area.

This Project supports transboundary biodiversity conservation through planning, institution building, fundraising and capacity building for protected area management. It will assist the Malawian and Zambian governments and stakeholders in operationalizing part of the Nyika TFCA which links border protected areas, permanent forests and rural development areas. The Project will build national and transfrontier capacity to control and manage resources and resource uses, to monitor trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functions for adequate management decisions and to develop and maintain public-private partnerships for enhanced efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Project will particularly focus on supporting an institutional and financial sustainable basis for the Nyika TFCA through a feasibility study to explore alternatives to set-up of a new bi-national management structure.

The Project is implemented through two national governmental management teams in Malawi and Zambia across the following 4 components:

Component 1: Institutional and Planning FrameworkComponent 2: Sustainable FinancingComponent 3: Protected Areas Management

Noteworthy, the PF does apply only to the Norway-GEF-PPF funded Project. However, close coordination and communication with the above listed parallel projects on all implementation aspects is embedded in the implementation arrangements.

1.3. Project Beneficiaries

The Nyika Project benefits several groups of beneficiaries: (1) some of the rural people in the protected areas fringe communities whose livelihoods depend on the natural resources within or around the Nyika TFCA and who will ultimately benefit through alternative employment in tourism and conservation management and , (2) Malawian and Zambian people and the world at large for the maintenance of a biodiversity asset of national and global value, and (3) private tourism investors who will benefit from being able to offer a better nature tourism product and thereby increase tourism related revenues.

1.4. Project components

Component 1: Institutional and Planning Framework The objective of this component is to establish and operationalises the governance and planning functions for the Nyika TFCA by financing the design of TFCA-wide planning instruments and assisting with the establishment and capacity building of the implementation agencies.

The intermediate outcome of this component is measured by one indicator: Number of transfrontier planning instruments adopted by the Ministerial Committee.

8 | P a g e

The activities proposed under component 1 include: (1) The salary of procurement & financial management technical assistants as well as short TA on planning, monitoring and evaluation to support teams of the implementation agencies, (2) the vehicles, office and field equipment of the implementation teams in both countries, (3) the capacity building for the implementation teams in both countries through hiring of trainers, training courses, planning and consultation workshops, (4) the transboundary integrated district planning for the Chama District in Zambia and the Rumphi District in Malawi, (5) the review and up-date of the Nyika TFCA Management and Tourism Plans, (6) the diagnostic of national legal barriers for TFCA operationalization, and (7) the annual external audits of all funds.

Component 2: Sustainable FinancingThe objective of this component is to develop mechanisms for financial sustainability of TFCA management through the institutions responsible for the long term management and financing of the Nyika TFCA.

The intermediate outcome of this component is measured by two indicators: (1) Funds raised and revenues collected by both countries in addition to the GEF/Norway grants reach more than $2 million for raised funds and more than US$0.2 million annually for commercial revenues; and (2) Financial Sustainability Score Card for TFCA (mandatory as per GEF but baseline to be established by MTR)

The activities under component 2 include: (1) business plan for the Nyika TFCA, (2) a feasibility study for the NIA including a fund raising strategy, and an investment strategy, (3) a broker tasked with advertising concessions to attract private investors for tourism, logging or hunting concessions, and (4) promotion material for fund raising, investment promotion, partnership seeking as well as events, trips, workshops, etc.

Component 3: Protected Areas ManagementThe objective is to improve management effectiveness of the agglomerated three Nyika TFCA management “blocks”: the Nyika, the Vwaza and the Chama blocks.1 The management of the Nyika and Vwaza blocks will be done jointly by ZAWA and/or DNPW. The management of the third block, the proposed Chama Nature Park in Zambia, will be supported by a joint venture ZFD/NGO Partner/Community association. It includes capacity building for community members to participate directly in park management and tourism investments as business owners and operators.

The intermediate outcome of this component is measured by three indicators: (1) Employment in tourism and conservation funded by TFCA revenues or commercial operations; (2) % area covered by patrols: 45 to 70 for Nyika block, 70 to 95 for Vwaza block, 0 to 100 for Chama block, and (3) Trend in number of signs of illegal activities per patrol-day decreases in all 3 blocks.The activities proposed in each block include: (1) Capacity building for planning, management and reporting, (2) infrastructure development and maintenance such as staff houses, offices, workshops, airstrips, water crossing structures, tracks, fences and firebreaks, (3) Habitat management and resource protection and monitoring including patrol operations, (4) research and monitoring such as data 1 Although the initial project concept envisaged covering the entire TFCA which includes Musalangu GMA (over 17,000 km2), the Musalangu GMA is not included in the final project design since (i) GEF funds are insufficient to cover more than the three blocks mentioned,. Notably, the proposed “Chama nature park” is carved out of the Lundazi Forest which will contribute to mainstreaming biodiversity into production systems while also contributing to the livelihoods of communities.

9 | P a g e

collection, aerial surveys and research programs, and (5) implementation of mitigation measures such as community livelihoods support as part of the Process Framework.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Purpose of the Process Framework

The Project Process Framework (PF) provides an overall process including a strategic approach and operational guidelines for engaging communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of project activities affecting them. It covers both Malawi and Zambia. This will help enhance rural livelihoods while achieving the resources management and conservation goals of the TFCA. The planned project activities will benefit involved communities directly and indirectly and have the stream of such benefits increasing over time. At the same time, several planned project activities include changes in resources protection and law enforcement that will impose some restrictions on resources now accessible to various community members including some very poor households.

The PF provides approaches for working with communities to achieve project goals with minimum conflict. As a requirement of the WB Social Safeguard Policies, the Project will ensure that there is a system for PAPs to represent their interests, monitor the social impact of all project activities as well as the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and have clear mechanisms for settling any of their related grievances. This guidance is based on certain key principles for effective rural community engagement in conservation initiatives based on extensive experience in this region, and on the experience and lessons from the COMACO incentive-based approach currently being applied with promising results on the Zambia side of the TFCA.

References are made to COMACO and Kulera as these institutions have an established process by which to engage communities. Due to the success, and community's familiarity with the process, project implementers will mimic COMACO and Kulera techniques. Project implementers will collaborate with COMACO and Kulera in identifying target areas for project activities in order to ensure project activities do not duplicate activities already in place by either projects.

2.2. Application of the PF

The community engagement principles and processes in this PF are for the most part applicable in both Malawi and Zambia to the extent both countries have more or less similar or comparable circumstances in terms of overall set up for grassroots organizations and their higher level support structures. Both countries nationally recognize the need to involve communities in conservation initiatives and have made some progress in this direction. They also have comparable traditional systems for conflict resolution, and national policies and laws governing resources use.

When the Project begins, already two initiatives are assisting communities with their livelihood. In Zambia the institutional structures especially the Local Government and community level natural resources committees are better established, communities are already involved in the incentive-based approach under the COMACO project, and national laws are more developed. In Malawi, the KULERA biodiversity project already support farmers with a full range of activities from conservation awareness, to alternative livelihoods, to conservation farming and SSME development.

Using this PF an action plan will be designed and implemented on a case by case basis to ensure that the Project provides alternative livelihoods to community members who, as a result of the Project, may loose access to wild resources such as poachers and other illegal resource users. It is expected that there may

10 | P a g e

be fewer and less drastic changes in access restrictions in Malawi than Zambia especially given the significance of the proposed Chama Nature Park.

2.3. Community Engagement Tasks

Of the Project areas of influence, the two areas in which it will benefit most from the guidance in this PF are:

Promotion of alliances in the management of biological and cultural resources and encouragement of the social, economic and other partnerships among Governments and Stakeholders.

Development of frameworks and strategies whereby neighboring communities can participate in and tangibly benefit from the management and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources that occur within the proposed TFCA.

In this process the Project will recognize and learn from the strengths and challenges of the institutional structures and programs already engaging communities in the TFCA. It will supportively engage them as partners, be fully aware of the common community engagement challenges that have derailed or stifled similar projects in this region and take account of these from the outset.

2.4. Persistent Challenges in Community Engagement

The involvement of communities in resources management projects has been applied successfully in SADC countries such as Namibia and Zimbabwe. What has remained a persistent challenge is the methodological principles and institutional set up - the “how” to effectively make this change without compromising conservation and resources management goals.

In this regard Malawi, led by the Environmental Council, though with limited land, forests and wildlife has made relatively good progress in defining its community policies and the CBNRM national strategy. Zambia on the other hand has somewhat lagged behind and ZAWA still needs to define better the role of communities in its Forest and Wildlife Policies. Already, the draft Forest Policy defines better to the potential involvement of communities in protected areas management such as the proposed Chama Nature Park (NP) which will be piloted in advance of the legislation.

A challenge that is not always clear but could stifle the Nyika TFCA effort towards effective community engagement is the limited capacity of the Protection Agencies to involve local communities. In this case they need both institutional capacity and budgetary support to be effective partners in the TFCA initiative

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

This section proposes some principles for engaging communities in the enhancement of both conservation and potentially rural livelihoods.

3.1. Being Aware of the Minds of Rural Villagers

One bold principle for engaging communities successfully is the fact that poor people do not think in terms of conservation per se. They think in terms of their livelihoods – but their livelihood decisions are not necessarily opposed to conservation. To such poor people conservation and resources management activities need to make livelihood sense to them now, and not just in the future. This thinking is what shapes their day-to-day decisions. In turn, it is the day-to-day decisions and livelihood choices of the thousands of rural poor on the ground that critically determine the integrity of the resource base in their

11 | P a g e

vicinity, and to an extent also the size of the required Government protection budget. This reality will not change with the incoming of the Project. Understanding this will help the Project think in terms of, and predict, the likely responses of involved communities to any of new decisions, actions and policies.

3.2. Identifying what the Villages need to be effective partners

To engage community members effectively and have them make their contribution towards conservation the Project recognizes that they need:

Sufficient rights and responsibilities in resource access and management and conservation - clearly understood by them;

Sufficient economic, livelihood and food security incentives in the short and long term – incentives seen to be sufficient, not by project planners, but by themselves;

Sufficient capacity to participate and to undertake the responsibilities and activities allocated to them.

3.3. Developing the Economic value of the Resource Base

The sustainable use of natural resources within national parks and forest reserves is legally limited. This use—e.g. pharmacopeia, mushroom collection, thatch for roofing, etc.--which is authorized from time to time by the park authorities is a goodwill gesture from park management. In reality, in the Nyika area they appear not to contribute significantly towards the livelihood of communities living in the proximity of protected areas. The development of the tourism opportunities through private sector investments hold more direct benefit to communities in the form of job creation and small business enterprises.

On the other side of the equation, and as demonstrated by the results of extensive research based on empirical household models in similar situations (for example by G. Simons, 2002), rural communities’ poverty-related dependency on the direct extraction of the natural resource base for survival can be most significantly reduced by increasing farm incomes, and investing in formal education especially of women. Around the Project area, the COMACO program is already promoting these dependency reducing goals by encouraging safe family health and family planning, by increasing and diversifying household incomes through sustainable resources use and farming practices, and by supporting thousands of households towards commodity marketing and commercialization. As a result of this project’s success, communities in Chama are initiating an expansion of its conservation area. The Project leaders will attempt to learn from this experience in order to use these techniques during project implementation.

3.4. Addressing Issues at the Individual Level

The Project will take account of the fact that while the community development projects approach has some level of communal benefits, it tends to result in limited conservation impact because it can hardly provide sufficient incentives for individual households to choose conservation as a matter of their own livelihood interest. It is not that community projects are not needed, but just an understandable situation given how villagers think and act. For example, a father of 5 waking up in the morning and contemplating cutting a tree for charcoal in some forbidden watershed will not be persuaded against this by the fact that there is a community school or clinic or new road in his area. That is even if he has school age children or uses the clinic. He simply cannot lose these benefits because of his individual actions. As a matter of his livelihood, he is better off cutting some trees. Many households argue they hardly use ill equipped rural clinics or do not have school age children.

In other areas such as politics, rural people generally express this preference for benefits at the individual rather than community level to politicians, preferring those who promise, and better still deliver,

12 | P a g e

individual household level benefits. Supply of public water points seems to be an exception to this rule, presumably because all households need clean water, easier access reduces women’s and children’s labor burden, and water availability is closely linked to household food security and hygiene. If the water sources are problematic all household members are affected on a daily basis. In this case, compared to other types of community projects, functional community water points might be more easily linked to conservation agreements and produce results. In any case, if an individual’s decision to degrade resources needing protection means individually loosing conservation related benefits that may be worth more than the value gained by breaking an enforceable conservation agreement, they will decide against it. They do simple math.

3.5. Reaching and engaging the poorest households

In most African rural communities the poorest 20% at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder are typically the most dependent on the direct use of naturally occurring resources for survival, and therefore the worst victims of not just resources degradation, but also policies limiting access. This group tends to house proportionately more of the sick and the lame, female headed households, single mothers, very small households, aged grandparents (often caring for AIDS orphans), village alcoholics, HIV affected people and families taking care of chronically ill members. Often such people sell livestock and small household assets as a last resort or even resort to crime or prostitution.

This group of PAPs is at the greatest risk of being left out of project benefits because of their limited capacity to participate and to defend their own rights. They therefore need more careful and often more costly targeting efforts. The majority that are better able to rise to opportunities do not need as much targeting and initial support and typically, projects with limited budgets engage only this more able group. Where projects have good intention but, as is often the case, lack the know-how and the budget to reach and engage the poorest households, they resort to targeting them through short-term humanitarian aid alone.

4. INTERVENTIONS TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The most practical approach to community engagement in the Project area will be for the Project to build on the programs and institutional structures and linkages that already exist there. It is particularly advantageous, as already recognized on the Zambia side of the TFCA; to adopt and build on the COMACO program and its principles as in itself this already constitutes a most effective measure for negative social impact mitigation, and for minimizing conflicts among those involved. On the Malawi side the KULERA Biodiversity project will support farmers with a full range of activities as a way of promoting biodiversity in protected areas.

4.1. Possible Approach in the Management of the proposed Chama Nature Park

The creation of the proposed Chama Nature Park (CNP) in Zambia is one of the major new activities under the Project.

In case of involuntary resettlement the guidelines and laws to govern the process including identifying PAPs eligibility and compensation levels are comprehensively covered in the national laws and in the World Bank Operational Policy 4.12. In case this will be necessary for the households now inside the proposed NP area, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) paper has been prepared to accompany the ESMF and this PF.

However, for the majority of the households surrounding the nature park the situation may pose extra challenges in the community engagement process because being a park it may involve resources access

13 | P a g e

restriction. At the same time, the Nature Park is created at the request if the Chama community and will be a joint venture between the ZFD, ZAWA, and NGO and a Chama Stakeholder Association. The roles of all partners should be clarified during the first year of the Project.

Chama Nature Park Management OptionsAs part of the Project preparation phase a separate paper has a TOR to identify and “propose a realistic management plan to be implemented as part of the TFCA project.” That TOR points out the need to explore several “governance” options including management through a partnership between a community organization, the Forestry Department, and a concession to an NGO or Private Sector.

What the Affected Communities Need to KnowRegardless of the ultimate management approach, before initiation of any activities in the NP FD, ZAWA together with the key stakeholders will discuss and reach agreement with involved communities on what resources they can use for consumptive and non consumptive purposes and how access restrictions will be enforced. In this process they will identify how villagers’ incentives will be affected. At the same time, this being a new “protection” category community roles and activities in terms of resource use and protection responsibilities will be carefully thought out.

What Affected Communities Need to Participate EffectivelyFor the communities to perceive the new protected area as a “community” park the affected households will need to have sufficient rights that they clearly understand. Once communities see the additional value to their livelihoods and clear processes for getting benefits and undertaking their responsibilities, they will be prepared to contribute quite significantly towards the NP management and protection law enforcement. Given their numbers on the ground, intimate knowledge of the landscapes and of their neighbors, communities are well positioned for such roles and responsibilities. Their capacity and willingness to protect wildlife will grow along with increasing opportunities and livelihood benefits from increased wildlife numbers.

Possible Community Contribution to Resource ProtectionInvolved community members will be encouraged and guided to contribute to CNP resources protection by on-going resource surveillance and patrolling against illegal activities of outsiders or a few greedy or non-complying members of their own community. The current practice led by CRBs in using village scouts will be expanded into more comprehensive community organization specifically for the CNP management. However, the biggest resources protection impact will come from the community members at large perceiving resources needing protection as for their own individual benefit in the short and the long run. Typically in most rural African communities, when a crime such as poaching of large game or cutting a huge old indigenous tree happens, most households know or have a good guess who might be the culprit. The majority will know the thief came from this or that family or is the son of so and so - and have systems of identifying such people and reprimanding them. However, if because of governing policies and procedures the community members perceive the CNP resources as “belonging” to “others” not them, they will look at outsiders’ or their neighbors’ illegal activities passively while contemplating how they too could benefit in one way or another.

Possible Approach to Managing the Community Nature Park as a Pilot ActivityGiven the communities’ disposition and interest to manage the CNP resources, the ground presence of the CRBs, Local Government, and the Project’s readiness to strengthen community participation through incentive-based approaches, the initiative will proceed on a pilot basis with minimal protection input from the FD and ZAWA. Increased protection beyond project involvement will best and most safely happen through joint partnership between local communities as the primary partners and an NGO. As it is already happening, this partnership will work closely with the Local Chiefs and District Authority. It will use the formal PA’s (the FD and ZAWA) services on a strategic basis. In turn and under some agreement the proceeds from the CNP will contribute towards the PA’s related protection costs. As the potential for this

14 | P a g e

approach becomes recognized, encouraged and further developed under the Project, the need for the FD and ZAWA involvement and their CNP protection budget should diminish.

Strategic Input by Protection AgenciesIn the meantime, the FD and ZAWA will keep their eyes open and be ready to move in with support on as- is- needed basis - while being mindful not to cripple the long term strategy based on community interest and capacity to protect and manage the NP. Not to undermine the communities’ own perception of ownership and capacity to manage, input from the FD and ZAWA needs to be sensitive, complementary not controversial, and have a strategy and process for exit when it is time. However, given the newness of the NP protection category, its goals and the lack of success cases to learn from, as implementation proceeds each situation that arises will be addressed with the open mindedness required to effectively pilot the NP as a new concept of resources protection.

4.2. The World Bank Social Safeguard Requirements

The WB Social Safeguard RequirementsThe PF provide guidelines for the engagement of communities in ways that amount to true participation by the PAPs while recognizing and protecting their interests and ensuring that they do not become worse off than before the Project. It is in this case required that a project with new activities especially restricting community access to resources starts by establishing the status quo and the expected direction and magnitude of change by:

Assessing and describing the administrative and legal procedures including i), previous agreements between communities and government relating to access to natural resources, and ii) the administrative and financial responsibilities for the key stakeholders.

Establishing the criteria for eligibility by which People Affected by the Project (PAPs) will be determined and measures to ensure that they are not left worse off than before the Project.

Identifying how the affected communities will benefit from the Project and the measures that will be implemented to assist them improve or at least maintain their standards of living.

The Project is then required to establish the mechanisms for effective participation of the PAPs in the implementation of activities and in monitoring the effectiveness of negative impact mitigation including mechanisms for settling their grievances. This includes identifying and establishing:

A communication strategy by which PAPs can be informed and consulted about the Project activities.

A process by which the affected communities participate in design, implementation and monitoring activities relevant to them.

A set of rules on how affected communities will be involved in identifying adverse impacts, assess magnitude of impact and help establish criteria by which mitigation measures will assist an impacted community (or person).

A set of procedures for grievance and conflict resolution by which disputes relating to restriction to resources use will be resolved.

A monitoring and evaluation system which is participatory and monitors effectiveness of measures taken to improve (or maintain) PAP’s standards of living.

5. IDENTIFYING EXISTING CONDITIONS AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS

To comply with the first part of WB community engagement requirements this section provides further guidance on identifying:

15 | P a g e

Current agreements between communities and the Government in relation to natural resources access, and their administrative and financial responsibilities.

Existing Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and the administrative structures in the Nyika TFCA.

Which people are affected by the Project (PAPs) and criteria for benefit eligibility. How affected communities will benefit from the Project.

5.1. Current Agreements on Land and Resource Rights and Responsibilities

The Nyika TFCA has a total of 19,280 sq kilometers. This consists of the Nyika National Park, the largest part of which is in Malawi, and the Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve, of which all is in Malawi. The Zambia side of the Nyika TFCA has a small part of the Nyika National Park, the Lundazi-Mitengi-and Mikuti Forest Reserves and Musalangu Game Management Areas (GMA).

Protected LandsIn Zambia the 1998 Wildlife Act established the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) to specifically be responsible for the establishment and management of National parks, the establishment and management of the GMAs, and the regulation of hunting and fishing. In both Malawi and Zambia the Nyika National Park protection is the sole jurisdiction of PAs - ZAWA in Zambia and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife in Malawi. The Forest Reserves are managed and protected by the Forestry Department (FD). In the protected land category the communities have limited resource use and access rights. In Malawi the communities neighboring protected areas have use and access rights to selected wildlife resources and revenues based on agreements with the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW).

Game Management Areas (GMAs) and CRBs in ZambiaIn the GMAs the communities are charged with the responsibility for protection, management and wise use of the resources. This was the purpose for which the 1998 Wildlife Act further made provision and guidelines for the creation of the Community Resource Boards (CRBs) to act on behalf of the communities at large. The Act specifies that CRBs may be established by communities that traditionally owned the lands surrounding a national park. CRBs in consultation with ZAWA manage these lands as productive buffer zones through management plans that reconcile the various uses of land in their jurisdiction. The land use plans establish distinct land use zones including hunting Zones, residential zones, agricultural zones, wildlife zones and any other use.

Community Representation and Revenues from GMAsEach Chiefdom in Zambia has a CRB and in Malawi Natural Resources Management (NRM) Committees. According to the provision made in the 1998 wildlife Act, each CRB has three committees – the Resources Management Committee, Community Development Committee and Financial Management Committee. ZAWA provides communities clear guidelines including formal democratic approach and monitored procedures for electing members of the CRB and their committees through the secret ballot and regular elections. CRBs generate incomes from economic activities, mainly trophy hunting in the GMAs. ZAWA provides guidelines for the management and use of these revenues according to the agreed allocations and process. All GMA revenues are first remitted to ZAWA headquarters from which ZAWA gives back 50% to the CRBs. Of the CRBs share, 45% goes to its management costs, 5% as incentives for local Chiefs in hunting areas, 10% as payment for village scouts and 40% to community development projects. This amounts to only 16% of the money from GMA income generating activities available for livelihood support in the form of community development projects.

16 | P a g e

Chama Nature ParkThe Chama community and local leadership have identified 50,000 hectares of National Forest land in the Lundazi Forest to become a protected area under the category “Nature Park” This has recently been agreed in a consultative process involving the Forestry Department and Chama District Authorities, Local Chiefs, CRBs and community members. The definition of community rights and management responsibilities has yet to be finalized and a General Management Plan (GMP).

5.2 Existing Community Organizations and Administrative Structures

Currently the TFCA area has several organizations and administrative structures and linkages focusing on maintaining good governance and social order including improving community welfare, resources conservation and many of the goals and objectives of the Project. The Project will work with these institutions and their administrative structures, fostering their coordination and integration as best suits the Project. The following two tables (table 1 and 2) on Zambia and Malawi respectively summarize the existing natural resources management (NRM) related Community Based Organizations (CBOs), their mandate and support staff, and linkage to higher levels.

Table 1: ZAMBIA CBOs, Mandate and Support StaffKey Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)

Mandate and Responsibility

Current Status and Activities Support Staff on the Ground

Main channel for Higher Level Support

1. Chiefs and Traditional Authority (TA)

Overall local governance, Represent the District Commissioner and office of the President on the ground.

Well established and active. Attending matters of land and natural resources and resolving social conflicts

Headmen, local steering committees, village courts

District Local Government,

District Steering Committee

2.Community Resource Boards (CRBs)

Community management, , zoning and use of the GMAs

Well established throughout the GMAs and provided for in the 1998 Wildlife Act. Overseeing GMA land use plans, generating and administering the GMA revenues

NRM, Community Devt. and Financial Management Committees, Village Area Groups (VAGs), Village scouts

ZAWA, Local Government

3.Producer Group (PG) Cooperatives

Owned by the members, the main role is managing affairs and financial interests of PG members

Some formed, others in process of formation, more planned. Main activities are buying, bulking, storing, processing and marketing the produce while advising PG members.

Local Chiefs, COMACO Trade Area managers and Area Extension Staff

COMACO HQs,COMACO Advisory Board,Local Government,ZAWA

Various Income Generating Groups (IGAs)

Generating income from natural resources products and conservation activities.

Established and Active. Small scale and incomes small- For example bush camps with COMACO support

Local Chiefs, CRBs, COMACO

Community Development Office, Forestry Department,NGOs

Table2: Malawi CBOs, Mandate and Support StaffKey Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)

Mandate and Responsibility

Current Status and Activities

Support Staff on the Ground

Main Channel for Higher Level Support

1. Chiefs and Traditional Authority (TA)

Overall local governance. Represent the District Commissioner and office of the President

Well established and active. Attending matters of land and natural resources and resolving social conflicts

Headmen, local development committees, Village Courts

Local Government,

District Assemblies

17 | P a g e

on the ground2.Natural Resource Management (NRM) Committees

Community management and use of natural resources in communal areas

Well established and active. Controlling NR use, managing and monitoring Community NRM agreements, enforcing law

Village Heads, Group village heads and village members

Dept of Environmental Affairs,Forestry Department, Local Department

3.Natural Resource Committees (NRCs)

Resource use in national parks and contributing to their management

Well established and active.Controlling NR use in parks, managing and monitoring compliance with agreements, enforcing law.

Village Heads, Group Village Heads and village members

Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW)

4.Nyika-Vwaza AssociationFor Natural Resources Management and Rural Development

Represents the interests and rights of community members surrounding the parks working via the NRCs

Well established and active (Registered CBO)

Traditional Authority, NRC members, village heads

Department of National Parks and Wildlife(DNPW)

5.Various NRM Based Income Generating Activity (IGA) Groups

Generating income from several CBNRM activities including some formed Kulera project

Established and Active. Activities small scale and incomes small

Local Chiefs, Community NRM committees, NGOs

Community Development Office Forestry Department.

5.3. People Affected by the Project (PAPs) and Criteria for Eligibility

Eligibility CriteriaPAPs are those people who depend on a certain level of access and use of a given resource to maintain their standards of living. A general guideline is that PAPs include all families and their dependants living in or near the resource base covered by the TFCA project and dependent on it on a continual or seasonal basis. For example, this includes fishermen and all fisheries related people, agriculturists, pastoralists, hunters, artisanal and small scale miners, women collecting firewood, loggers, etc.

PAPs also include groups that practice seasonal occupation or second profession activities –they may depend on this second activity as alternative sources of livelihood income when their first choice fails due to one reason or another. Thus in the Project area:

The Project area follows the boundaries of the Nyika National Park, Mitengue National Forest and Chama Nature park (see Map 1 page 7). All households located within the boundary of the Project area are in one way or another eligible for benefits and being involved in the Project.

Restrictions to resources access and use by communities living outside the boundaries of the Project area will not be directly compensated by the Project as this is not considered involuntary action.

In Zambia all community members whose livelihood activities are connected to the proposed Nature Park (NP) will be eligible for benefits associated with its creation.

All poor households and people in the Project area who are in one way or another affected by restrictions will be allowed to attend communal meetings discussing changes and benefits affecting them.

Opportunities for membership and participation in activities such as the PG Cooperatives and the Nyika-Vwaza Association for Natural Resource Management and Rural Development in Malawi will be open to all PAPs.

Participatory MethodologyIn both Zambia and Malawi the initial identification of PAPs, eligibility and levels of mitigation required will happen through the normal rural investigation methodological tools.

18 | P a g e

This approach to identifying and engaging the PAPs is not new in the Chama district. COMACO has used many of its aspects first in the selection of farmers for initial PG membership, and then to target farmers to receive training, inputs and the necessary support to enter formal agricultural markets. Beyond its normal rural study methodological tools, it also has a system of regular open field days in all its operational areas through which it organizes and trains farmers on an on-going basis. The Malawi side of the TFCA has less of this type of experience but the KULERA biodiversity project follows the same mechanism in identifying PAP’s and focuses its support on poor household which are very dependent on natural resource use. Lessons learned from these projects will be incorporated into the project community engagement process.

People Moving Newly Into the TFCAAny person entering the TFCA after the PAPs identification and eligibility determination exercises are concluded will not be eligible for consideration as a PAP. However, it is recognized that extended family structures are a common feature of rural African households and that some TFCA families will have members especially grown children or husbands working or living with relatives outside the TFCA. These family members will from time to time or permanently return home. In these situations, and as they are easily identifiable by their community members, such returnees will be absorbed into the community-wide activities in which their families participate including activities such as the LUP.

5.4. How Affected Communities Will Benefit from the Project

The PF has identified various measures that will be implemented to assist the affected communities (or persons) in improving or at least maintaining their standards of living. The PAP’s benefits will include measures to mitigate negative livelihood impact as further described in this PF, or direct compensation in case of involuntary relocation and loss of land and assets as described in the RPF. Along these lines the PF contains summary tables of possible social impacts associated with various project activities and recommends mitigation measures primarily using the incentive-based principles applied under the COMACO and Kulera programs.

The Project will support the design and implementation of PAP Actions Plans for each protected area on a case by case basis. The activities will be produced using this PF and will provide alternative livelihoods to poachers and other illegal resource users. In addition, two tourism camps will be established in Chama Nature Park as well as training and mentoring of its employees recruited from the community including illegal resource users.

This section provides further guidance on the current community benefits in the different resource management and use systems.

The Musalengu GMAs in ZambiaRecent evaluations have shown that the current share of GMA revenues meant for community development projects is not having as much welfare impact as it could. This is not the case only in the Luangwa Valley - in general CRBs in Zambia so far have been evaluated as having no significant impact on community welfare at the communal and household level. This for example was the conclusion of a recent (June 2008) evaluation report entitled “The Impact of Wildlife Management Policies on Communities in GMAs in Zambia: Message to Policy Makers.” This is an evaluation based on sample surveys of wildlife and household socioeconomic status and comparison to other communities in Zambia with similar circumstances but not involved in the GMA initiative. The main challenge is that first the Zambia’s GMAs generate extremely small hunting revenues compared to similar ecologies in neighboring countries such as Zimbabwe and Botswana. Secondly half of this revenue goes to support ZAWA in its functions. The rest meant for the involved communities is poorly distributed primarily remaining in the hands of the more elite, most of them members of the CRBs.

19 | P a g e

The Nyika National ParkIn both Zambia and Malawi the Project will examine the current community benefits related to the Nyika Park – legal and illegal. In Malawi neighboring communities have a certain level of Nyika park resources access and use agreed with the DNPW. The Project will promote the development of the tourism concessions as per the approved tourism plan which will increase the benefits to communities in the form of job opportunities.

The Chama Nature Park (CNP)Design and rules will be defined in the course of the Project. Preliminary discussions and consultation indicates that community benefits associated with the CNP are likely to include:

Continuation of some controlled consumptive use, possibly safari hunts Non- consumptive uses including establishment of an “It’s Wild!” Bush camp Income generating community activities Possibility for larger scale commercial activities involving communities as partners.

Compensations for Wildlife DamageCompensation mechanisms should be explored by ZAWA and DNPW for households suffering loss and additional costs associated with new project activities and costs associated with damage from increasing wildlife numbers.

Training and EducationThe Project has made financial provisions for (1) training of M&E officer in safeguard and safeguard monitoring, (2) training the extension officers in partiocupatory approaches, design of actionplans, and (3) training of PAPs which would need first to be registered in the Action Plan. Most communities around the Project area receive regular government extension and training services in the various sectors through either government, NGOs or existing projects.

Involuntary resettlementWith the current proposed limits, it appears that two small communities may be inside the proposed Chama Nature Park. The definition of final boundaries will be completed in year 1 of the Project. If it is determined that they must moved involuntarily, they will receive compensation and benefits commensurate with their losses, as per the detailed guidelines in the RPF. Communities or households that move voluntarily without awaiting the design of a RAP will too receive assistance with moving costs such as transport, re-establishing new homes, opening new cultivation land etc. However, at the present time, no such resettlement is planned or budgeted.

In the unlikely event that a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) would become necessary, Norway or PPF have also formally agreed that they will prepare any RAP involving their project’s activities in the Project area Protected Areas according to Bank guidelines and following the GEF Project Bank-approved RPF as well as fully finance implementation of said RAP.

BudgetImplementation of the PF is funded by parallel by the Project through a provisional allocation for each of the Nyika management Block. The amount available to communities for training, alternative livelihoods and Action Plans issued from the engagement process are:

Provisional budget in US$ Malawi Zambia TotalGEF Zambia

- Around Chama Nature Park- Around Nyika NP & Mitengue

Forest80,00080,000 160,000

GEF Malawi 90,000 90,000

20 | P a g e

- Around Wvaza Marsh ReserveNorway Malawi

- Around Nyika NP 140,000 140,000Total 230,000 160,000 390,000

Additionally, the Project infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance component is largely going to be implemented through community-based civil work and force account. Both require major use of local labor. The PF will attempt to help communities create SMME to become protected area contractors for simple task such as firebreaks, clearing bush tracks, etc. It is conservatively estimated that more than $300,000 will be directed to small contracts implemented by communities.

Also additionally, part of the M&E Officers’ time and of the Extension Officers’ time, equipment and operations will contribute to PAPs identification, design action plans, dialog with partners for mitigation financing an d organization of Project financing when necessary. The estimated amount overall for this is estimated at more than $200,000 over the project duration.

For each PAP Action Plan, prior to releasing funding, the Project will verify that other projects are not already implementing that particular PAPs livelihood action plans.

6. THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

This section provides guidelines and direction to help the Project establish effective community engagement processes and channels by building on the existing projects. This will help the Project engage the communities in a way that achieves significant impact on project goals including community livelihoods enhancement on a TFCA-wide scale and at the same time comply with the PAPs participatory requirements of the World Bank.

At the very bottom the PAPs in both Zambia and Malawi are households living in communities and villages with some of them registered in associations open to public registration such as the PG Cooperatives and in Malawi the Nyika-Vwaza Association for Natural Resource Management and Rural Development Association. The rest of the households in the TFCA (and the majority) do not belong to members associations but may belong to various income generating activities or organized interest group.

6.1. Process of Community Participation in Decisions and Activities Affecting Them

The Project will involve communities in all decisions affecting them through on-going community participation using the existing community engagement structures. The PF starts with the premise that, even though the Project area only includes 3 blocks, the TFCA covers 2 districts, one in Zambia (Chama) and the other in Malawi (Rumphi).   The other premise is that the planning of land use & development in the 2 districts (i.e. in the TFCA) will take an Integrated Development Planning approach.

The Strategic Environment and Social Assessments No significant adverse impact on the environment was identified for the type of project activities being considered. Rather, anticipated impacts will be positive. Small infrastructure investments and activities such as anti-poaching can affect locally the environment as well as the local communities. The impacts of specific investments could not be identified during preparation but may materialize only during implementation. As a consequence, it was agreed to prepare an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to detect and mitigate environment and social impacts when small infrastructures are designed. Consequently, strategic environmental and social assessments will not be necessary.

21 | P a g e

Benefits, Eligibility and Mitigation Decisions What consumptive and non-consumptive uses and income generating activities are allowed in the

settled lands, GMAs, Communal lands, existing parks, and the proposed NP Whether in Malawi community access and use benefits from Nyika Park now agreed with the DNPW

will change under the Project, how and with what social impact Who is eligible to use any given resources, and in the interest of sustainability, what levels or

quantities and methods of harvesting are allowed in each resource system. The exact mitigation measures for specific negative impacts and how the benefits will flow in terms

of levels, sources, timing and whether to be received at the communal or household levels. What form of benefit and mitigation assurances for example in terms of signed agreements or

Memorandums of Understanding will be in place What channels and mechanisms for expressing and settling their grievances regarding eligibility and

mitigation when they occur.

Household Food Security DecisionsOn food security as a social mitigation measure in Zambia and Malawi the involved communities will discuss issues including:

Participation and registration in service providing programs such as the Producer Groups in Zambia and the Nyika-Vwaza Association for NRM and Rural Development in Malawi.

Commodity production (on farms and from the wild) and their marketing Crop diversification and storage as a food security strategy, Commodity prices and related conservation compliance Application of the premium price concept in different resources management and conservation

related community activities Seed provision and credit possibilities and conditions Training needs, identification process and schedules

Decisions on Levels and Use of Conservation Based RevenuesThis will include decisions regarding

Allocations of GMA revenues among the various partners and what proportion goes to the communities and whether this might change under the Project

Administrative arrangements on the NP in Zambia - whether the communities should share incomes from there with ZAWA and/or the FD and if so how and how much

Allocations of roles and responsibilities (between Community members and local NGOs) in conservation and income generating activities in the NP

NP revenue sharing between communities, with assistance from local NGOs, as the primary partners managing the NP

Agreement on priority uses for community conservation-based revenues for example managed by the CRBs in Zambia

How any public funds meant for community wide benefits should be distributed and/or invested on behalf of community members.

These issues and related questions will be discussed and agreed with PAPs at strategic points during project activity implementation. In addition, the Project and community leaders will discuss openly and take account of any other issues and questions raised by the communities regarding project activities and their related rights and benefits.

As indicated in section 5.1 the best forum for community participation in these decisions is the strategic community open meetings and regular field days. However, to be practical each of these forums must focus on just a few strategic and most appropriate issues and questions at a time. In some few

22 | P a g e

communities a formal process of LUPs has started in Zambia with the leadership of Local Chiefs (who sign the plans after completion) who are already helping out in drawing agreements, monitoring and paying out premium prices for compliance with conservation agreements.

6.2. Grievance and Conflict Resolution Procedures

The Project will also rely on existing mechanisms within the District Governments through which groups or individuals can bring up a grievance against any one person or organization. Encouragingly the incentive-based approach as applied under existing project in the last years indicates minimal conflicts regarding community resources management agreements. To start with the successful application of the processes of community engagement through accepted existing structures will minimize potential conflicts among and within different communities, and between each community, its leaders and the Project.

A certain degree of conflict could arise especially in the beginning as more partners and communities work more closely and on more subjects. The subject of community resources access restrictions is an especially sensitive issue.

6.3. Using the Current System of Conflict Resolution

Whenever necessary the Project will as much as possible use the established traditional channels for conflict resolution. Currently in Zambia and Malawi the Chief and his system of Village Courts provide the main grassroots mechanism for village level social order and conflict resolution. The Village Courts or tribunals meet on a regular basis to discuss and resolve cases. For example in Zambia the village courts convene once a week on a given day. Each village court has a leader and members appointed by the chief and approved by the District Local Authority. In Zambia the village courts also have a secretary who records proceedings. The following week the court proceedings and/or unresolved cases are taken to the Local Chief. Cases unresolved at this level are taken up the Local Government ladder and to the District Commissioner. In case any PAP is dissatisfied with the decisions of the Local Chief and the chain of local Government as it happens sometimes, they use the alternative channel through their elected area and ward councilors.

The local court system in Malawi is not very different from that in Zambia. Depending upon the subject and gravity of the conflict the matter is accordingly addressed and most times resolved either by the village headmen or group village headmen. Cases of a higher profile or not solved at these lower levels are taken up to the senior Village Headmen or the Traditional Authorities (TAs). The TAs is assisted by their advisors (indunas) who are common in most Malawi villages. The few issues that cannot be resolved at these levels are taken up to the office of Paramount Chief where these exist. The typically highest profile conflicts and disputes for example involving land allocation or an individual’s ascendance to Chieftaincy may reach the office of the District Commissioner. An increasing number of cases are now being taken to formal courts. However, Malawi unlike Zambia is currently lacking elected councilors to provide an alternative conflict resolution channel independent of Chiefs where this may be sought. The Malawi Government has now set April 2010 for electing local leaders.

6.4. Community Participation in the Monitoring Process

In each country the Project M&E Officer will be the focal point for all safeguards. The social safeguards require that the Project identifies a monitoring and evaluation process which is participatory and that monitors effectiveness of measures taken to improve (or maintain) PAPs’ standards of living. In this case the Project will support affected communities so that they can themselves monitor at least:

23 | P a g e

The effectiveness of the communication process, including the representation of their interests by their local leaders and feedback to the communities.

Social negative impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The implementation of agreed activities and the extent to which implementing partners including

themselves have carried out their responsibilities and tasks. The impact of the various project activities on their livelihoods including food security and on

their natural resource base. Community compliance with resource management and conservation agreements and results of

the local community LUPs. Effectiveness of the conflict resolution and grievance settlement mechanisms.

Community Level Monitoring by Independent PeopleA regular community-independent monitoring and evaluation effort focusing on both project impact on the communities as well as on conservation and resources management is recognized. Such an independent evaluation team will include people from the District level and the Project. They will independently evaluate performance by communities delivering on their responsibilities and impact of the Project in delivering benefits and mitigation measures. This will happen as a biannual or annual event where the people from outside the communities come to local areas, and using rapid appraisal techniques survey specific landscapes in the presence of the Local Chiefs and perhaps other leaders, and then hold discussions with community members.

On the whole, the monitoring and evaluation process is crucial in regard to the Nature Park (NP). It will be particularly important in helping decide the validity of the assumptions upon which this concept is based, its readiness for graduation from a pilot activity, and possible replication of the incentive-based approach in other NPs of Zambia and beyond.

24 | P a g e

REFERENCES

IRG, IUCN South Africa Country Office and FRAME. Case Studies on Successful Southern Africa NRM initiatives and the Impacts on Poverty and Governance. Country Study: Malawi Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management (COMPASS) in Malawi. USAID.

Malawi Department of National Parks and Wildlife and Zambia Wildlife Authority (2009). Profile of the Nyika Foundation.

Phyllis Simasiku, Hopeson I. Simwanza, Gelson Tembo, Sushenjit Bandyopadhyay and Jean-Michel Pavy, (2008). The Impact of Wildlife Management Policies on Communities and Conservation in Game Management Areas in Zambia: Message to Policy Makers. Natural Resources Consultative Forum.

Republic of Malawi (2005). A strategy for Capacity Development for Decentralization in Malawi: Report on Phase 1 – Capacity Assessment. Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development in Association with Malawi German Program for Democracy and Decentralization (MGPDD) and the Royal Norwegian Embassy.

Republic of Liberia (2004). Biodiversity Conservation at SAPO National Park: Environment and Social Management Framework.

Republic of Liberia (2004). Biodiversity Conservation at SAPO National Park: Process Framework

Republic of Zambia (2003). Support to Economic Expansion and Diversification (SEED) Project Resettlement Policy and Process Framework. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development with Ministry of tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), Livingstone City Council, Ministry of Mines and Mineral Development, Ministries of Agriculture and Cooperatives and Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Republic of Zambia (1998). The Wildlife Act.

Simons Gacheke. (1997). Report on Evaluation of Community Based "Sustainable Management of Indigenous Forests" Program in the SADC countries. GTZ/SADC..

Simons, Gacheke (2002). Integrating Forest Conservation and Rural Development: A Kenyan Case Study. A Doctoral Dissertation at the Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.

Wells, Michael, Gadgil and Brandon K. with Hannah, Lee (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank GEF (2008). Nyika Project identification Form (PIF), The GEF Trust Fund.

World Bank GEF (2008). Aide-Memoire, Preparation Mission P0108879: Sustainable Management of the Nyika Transfrontier Conservation Area Project.

World Bank (2001). Operational Policies (OP 4.12), Involuntary Resettlement. The World Bank Operational Manual.

25 | P a g e

Wildlife Conservation Society (2007). Proceeding of the Chipata Roundtable Discussion: A Discussion to Safeguard Luangwa Valley’s Land, Natural Resources, and Rural Livelihoods. Convened at Namarula Lodge, Chipata, Hosted by Wildlife Conservation Society, Supported by the Royal Norwegian Embassy.

Wildlife Conservation Society (2008). Chipata Second Roundtable Meeting Proceedings Convened at Namarula Lodge, Chipata.

Wildlife Conservation Society. Commodity Markets for Conservation (COMACO) Framework Paper: Uplifting Rural Livelihoods around Markets that Conserve. Prepared by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

Wildlife Conservation Society (2009). COMACO Progress Report: Short Term Results, Longer Term Impact.. Prepared for ZAWA by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

Wildlife Conservation Society (2009). COMACO Phase Two: Scaling up across Luangwa Valley. Submitted to the Norwegian Embassy by Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

Zambia Wildlife Authority (2009). National Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy for Game Management Areas and Open Areas (Draft).

26 | P a g e