Document o f The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 49953 - BW

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$5.5 MILLION

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA

FOR A NORTHERN BOTSWANA HUMAN WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE PROJECT

October 26,2009

Environment and Natural Resources Management Sustainable Development Department Africa Region

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance o f their official duties. I t s contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

AfESG BOCOBONET BOCONGO CBNRM CBD CBO CBT CKGR CARACAL CI CITES CE&O DEA DU DSS DWNP EMP ESMF EU FFEM FM GABS GEF GIS GOB GPO GR HEC HOORC HWC IBRD IDA IFR IPP IRN IUCN KAZA KCS

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective August 28,2009)

Currency Unit = Botswana Pula (BWP) 1 US$ = BWP6.95

100 Thebe = 1 BWP

FISCAL YEAR April 1 - March 3 1

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

The African Elephant Specialist Group Botswana Community Based Organizations Network Botswana Council o f Non-Governmental Organizations Community-Based Natural Resource Management Community-Based Development/ Community-Based Organizations Community Based Trusts Central Kalahari Game Reserve Center for Conservation of African Resources: Animals, Communities, and Land Use Conservation International Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species o f Wild Fauna and Flora Community Extension and Outreach offices Department o f Environmental Affairs Development Unit Decision Support Systems Departments o f Wildlife & National Parks Environmental Management Plan Environment and Social Management Framework European Union French Fond Mondial pour L’Environnement Financial Management Computerized Budget and Expenditure Management System Global Environnent Facility Geographic Information System Government o f Botswana . Global Project Objective Game Reserve Human-Elephant-Conflict Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre Human- Wildlife-Conflict International Bank for Reconstruction and Development International Development Association Interim Unaudited Financial Reports Indigenous Peoples Plan International Rivers Network International Union for Conservation of Nature Kavango-Zambesi Project Kalahari Conservation Society

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

MFDP MEWT MOMS MSP NPRS NCB NDP9/NDP 1 0 NGO NRM NP OP PA PIU PDO PEFA PPU PFM PPG RFP PPADB RADP SACU SIDA S I L ssc SWOT TFCA UN UNCCD UNDP UNEP USAID WKCC WMA WWF

Ministry of Finance and Development Planning Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism Management Oriented Monitoring System Medium-Sized Project National Poverty Reduction Strategy National Competitive Bidding 9th/10th

Non-Governmental Organization Natural Resource Management National Park Operational Program Protected Areas Project Implementation Unit Project Development Objective Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Programme and Projects Unit Public Financial Management Project Preparation Grant Request for Proposal Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board Remote Area Dweller Program Southern Africa Customs Union Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Specific Investment Loan Species Survival Commission Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis Transfrontier Conservation Area United Nations UN Convention to Combat Desertification United Nations Development Program United Nations Environment Program United States Agency for International Development Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor Wildlife Management area World Wildlife Fund

National Developmeht Plan

Vice President: Obiageli K. Ezekwesili

Sector Director: Inger Andersen Sector Manager: Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough

Country Director: Ruth Kagia

Task Team Leader: Juan Gaviria and Karsten Feuerriegel

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance o f their off icial duties. I t s contents may not be otherwise disclosed without Wor ld Bank authorization.

... 111

BOTSWANA

NORTHERN BOTSWANA HUMAN WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE PROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.

Page

STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE .................................................................. 1 Country and Sector Issues ................................................................................................... 1

I . A . B . C . D .

Proposed Intervention Strategy ........................................................................................... 7

Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes .................................................... 9 Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement .......................................................................... 8

I1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 9 A . B . C . D . E .

I11 . A . B . C . D . E . F .

I V . A . B . C . D . E . F . G .

Lending instrument .............................................................................................................. 9

Project development objective and key indicators ............................................................ 10

Project components., .......................................................................................................... 10

Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design .......................................................... 1 3 Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection.. ........................................................... 1 3

IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 14 Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................. 14

Institutional and implementation arrangements ............................................................... -15

Monitoring and evaluation of outcomeshesults ................................................................ 16

Sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 17

Grant conditions and covenants ......................................................................................... 20

APPRAISAL SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 21 Economic and financial analysis ....................................................................................... 21

Technical ........................................................................................................................... 21

Fiduciary., .......................................................................................................................... 21

Social ................................................................................................................................. 23

Environment ..................................................................................................................... -24

Policy Exceptions and Readiness ...................................................................................... 28

Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 18 . .

Safeguard Policies .............................................................................................................. 25

iv

ANNEXES Page

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background ................................................................. 29

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies .......................... 53

Annex 3 : Results Framework and Monitoring ............................................................................. -55 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description .......................................................................................... 63

Annex 5: Project Costs .................................................................................................................. 69

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ...................................................................................... 70

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ............................................. 73

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements .......................................................................................... 86

Annex 9: Brief Financial Analysis o f Human-Wildlife-Conflict .................................................. 94

Annex 1 0: Safeguard Policy Issues ................................................................................................ 95

Annex 1 1 : Project Preparation and Supervision .......................................................................... 105

@ex 12: Incremental Cost Analysis ......................................................................................... 106

Annex 13 : Documents in the Project File.. .................................................................................. 109

Annex 14: Statement o f Loans and Credits ................................................................................. 110

Annex 15: Country at a Glance ................................................................................................... 114

Annex 16: STAP Roster Technical Review and Responses ........................................................ 116

Annex 17: Stakeholder Participation and Draft Communication Plan ........................................ 119

Annex 18: Map ........................................................................................................................... 127

TABLE REFERENCE (Annex 1)

Table 1 . Most common HWC mitigation practices in Southern Africa ....................................... 32

Table 2 . Root Causes o f HWC and biodiversity loss in Northern Botswana ............................... 34

Table 3 . Number o f incidents by district for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ............................. 41

Table 4 . Compensation costs o f top problem animals for Northern Botswana. 1994-2006 ......... 42

Table 5 . Damage type by number o f incidents for Northern Botswana. 1994-2006 .................... 42

Table 6 . Stock damage by number o f incidents for Northern Botswana. 1994-2006 .................. 43

Table 7 . Crop damage by number o f incidents for northern Botswana. 1994-2006 .................... 44

Table 8 . Infrastructure damage by number o f incidents for Northem Botswana. 1994-2006 ...... 44

Table 9 . Preventative measures by number o f incidents for Northern Botswana. 1994-2006 ..... 45

V

Table 10. DWNP extension service for HWC in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 .................... ..46

Table 1 1. Total number o f conflict incidents in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ........................ 47

Table 12. Total compensation costs per problem species for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ... 47

Table 13. Compensation cost per incident for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ........ . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . .47

TABLE OF FIGURES (Annex 1)

Figure 1. Total number o f HWC incidents by year for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in

Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 .................................................................................................. 48

Figure 2. Total number o f HWC incidents by month for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts

in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ................................................................................................. 48

Figure 3. Total number o f HEC incidents (a) by year and (b) by month for Chobe, Central and

Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ............................................................ .... 48

Figure 4. Total number o f lion, leopard, hyaena conflict incidents (a) by year and (b) by month

for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ......... . . . . ..... . . . . . . . .49

Figure 5. Number o f lion, leopard, and hyaena conflict incidents (a) by year and (b) by month

for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .49

Figure 6. Total number o f HWC incidents for villages in the Okavango Delta in Northern

Botswana, 1994-2006. (a) Seronga, (b) Gonutsuga, (c) Beetsha, (d) Erestsha, (e) Gudingwa ..... 49

Figure 7. Total number o f HWC incidents for villages in the Makgadigadi Wetlands in Northern

Botswana, 1994-2006. (a) Kumaga, (b) Moreomaoto .................................................................. 50

Figure 8. Total number o f HWC incidents for villages in the Chobe-Linyanti Wetlands in

Northern Botswana, 1994-2006. (a) Mabele, (b) Kavimba, (c) Satau, (d) Parakurungu, (e)

Kachikau, ( f ) Lesoma .................................................................................................................... 5 1

Figure 9. Total reported lion (left) and elephant (right) mortalities caused by humans in Central

(a and b), Chobe (c and d) and Ngamiland (e and f ) districts in Botswana, 1993 - 2000 ............. 52

v i

BOTSWANA

Global Environment Facility (GEF) Total:

NORTHERN BOTSWANA HUMAN WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE PROJECT PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

3.63 1.87 5.50 16.60 3.87 20.47

AFRICA

AFTEN

Date: October 26,2009 Country Director: Ruth Kagia Sector Director: Inger Andersen Sector Manager: Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough Team Leaders: Juan Gaviria and Karsten Feuerriegel Environmental Screening Category: B Project ID: PO95617 GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity Lending Instrument: Specific Investment

Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector (1 00%) Themes: Biodiversity (P); Other environment and natural resources management (S); Rural non-farm income generation (S)

[ ]Loan [ 3 Credit [XI Grant [ 3 Guarantee [ 3 Other:

For GEF Grant: US$ 5.5 mil l ion Total Bank financing (US$m): 0.00 Proposed terms:

Recipient: The Republic o f Botswana

Responsible Agency: Department o f Wildlife and National Parks Private Bag BO13 1, Gaborone Botswana Tel: (267) 397 1405 Fax: (267) 391 2354 "Trevor Mmopelwa" <tmmopelwa@gov.bw>

v i i

Does the project depart from the CAS in content or other significant respects? Ref: PAD I.C. [ No

Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Ref: PAD IKG. Have these been approved by Bank management? I s approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? Does the project include any critical risks rated “substantial” or “high”? Ref: PAD IILE.

[ ]Yes [ ] N o [XIYes [ ] N o

[ ]Yes [XINO ]Yes [ IN0

[XIYes [ ] N o Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Ref: PAD IKG. Project development objective Ref: PAD ILC., Technical Annex 3 The Project’s Development Objective (PDO) i s (i) to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through proactive prevention interventions in selected rural communities in Northern Botswana and (ii) to offer local people in the project areas employment choices in wildlife-based tourism to benefit directly from the presence o f wildlife. Global Environment objective Ref: PAD II.C., Technical Annex 3 Same as PDO, which will contribute to a long term goal o f enhancing coexistence between rural communities and key wildlife species in Northern Botswana through proactive human-wildlife conflict (HWC) prevention and skills development for wildlife-based tourism. Project description Ref: PAD II.D., Technical Annex 4 The Project will comprise three components: Component 1 : Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife-Coexistence interventions (GEF: US$ l , 15; Government: US$5.80); Component 2: Strengthened Capacity o f rural target population to implement Human-Wildlife Coexistence strategies (GEF: US$3.81, Government: US$8.3 1); and Component 3: Project Management Support (GEF: US$0.54, Government: US$0.86) Which safeguard policies are triggered, if any? Re$ PAD I K F., Technical Annex 10 OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and OP 4.10 (Indigenous people) are triggered.

... V l l l

Significant, non-standard conditions, if any, for: Ref. PAD III. F. Board presentation: NIA

Loadcredit effectiveness:

Retroactive Financing: (i) Withdrawals up to an aggregate amount not to exceed US$215,000 equivalent may be

made for payments made prior to the date o f the Grant Agreement but on or after August 1 , 2009, for Eligible Expenditures.

Actions to be taken by Effectiveness:

(i) Appoint a Procurement Officer and a Project Accountant in accordance to the TOR agreed to with the Bank before effectiveness.

Covenants applicable to project implementation:

Maintain the financial management system including records, and accounts in accordance with the terms of the Grant Agreement; Prepare and furnish to the Bank interim unaudited financial reports for the Project covering the quarter, in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank within 45 days after the end o f each calendar semester; Audit the Project’s Financial Statements and submit to the Bank no later than six months after the end o f Government’s fiscal year, Le. by September 30 each year; Ensure that semi-annual internal audits o f the Project are carried out in the first three years o f the Project period and annually thereafter. The audits should include a review o f adherence to fiduciary procedures and regulations as well as verification o f expenditures including payments for contracts, submission o f reports o f the audit review, and follow- up action on the issues raised in the audit reports; Engage a Procurement Officer and Project Accountant, the latter with at least f i rst degree in accounting and no less than five years o f professional experience in accounting. This action, to be ensured by the Office o f the Accountant General, will be taken by effectiveness o f the grant agreement: Establish, through MEWT, by not later than 2 months after Effective Date, and thereafter maintain, throughout the Project implementation period, the Project Steering Committee, with mandate and composition satisfactory to the World Bank; and The Recipient shall allocate funds from i t s national budget to finance i t s contribution to the cost o f the Project.

i x

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

A. Country and Sector Issues

1. Botswana’s remarkable economic development, sustained by diamond production, has taken it from the ranks o f the world’s poorest nations in the 1960s to an upper middle income country today. With average annual GDP growth rates o f close to 9 percent for three decades (1975-2005), and per capita GDP growth o f over six percent per year, Botswana is one of only thirteen countries in the world that has managed to sustain such high economic growth for so long.’ Per capita GNI i s US$6,150 (2007), one o f the highest in Africa, and although it has declined from heyday levels o f the 1970s and 1 9 8 0 ~ ~ growth has remained solid, averaging about five percent over the past five years. Mineral wealth has been prudently managed, and invested in physical and human capital. Fiscal surpluses have often been accompanied by balance of payments surpluses, and public sector debt i s low. What i s not spent on sustaining economic expansion and social spending has been saved, and today Botswana enjoys substantial reserves that, with continued prudent management, should help it to face the challenges o f the global economic crisis. Botswana regularly ranks at the top o f the continent in terms o f governance, transparency and business environment and continues to implement regulatory reforms.

2. Botswana i s the world’s leading producer o f gem diamonds, and diamonds today account for a third o f Botswana’s GDP, over 60 percent o f annual exports and about 40 percent of government revenues. Yet current projections indicate that Botswana’s diamond revenues will continue at high levels only until about 2021, before declining rapidly and depleting by 2030. Although new mineral discoveries may be made, diversifying the economy into other sectors i s a looming necessity. Botswana is well aware o f this imperative, and has two decades o f experience with diversification efforts. In addition to diversifying away from diamonds, Botswana i s also concerned with shifting away from too heavy a reliance on imports, and with reducing the economy’s dependence on government expenditures. The government sector makes up 16 percent o f GDP, second only to mining, and i s a major employer in the country, providing 40 percent o f formal sector jobs.

3. While i t s growth model, centered on mining and government, has enabled Botswana to take advantage o f large and expanding mineral revenues, building infrastructure and providing social and economic services, medium term challenges and the depletion o f i t s diamond wealth suggest that Botswana now needs to shift to a new economic paradigm. Moreover, the current dependence on mining has resulted in high unemployment and thus, poverty, as the mining sector i s highly capital intensive, generating only 3 percent o f the country’s employment but over a third o f i t s output. The benefits o f economic growth s t i l l need to reach the entire population as evidenced by a Gini coefficient o f 0.605 fifth highest in the world.

4. Nature-based tourism, centered around Botswana’s unique wildlife and environment, provides a natural competitive advantage and can play an important role in the country’s diversification efforts. The sector has strong potential, and i s increasingly perceived as an engine for economic growth and diversification, as highlighted in the country’s latest National Development Plan (NDPlO). Botswana’s tourism industry already generates some US$1.6

’ Commission on Growth and Development. 2008. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development.

1

bil l ion in revenues annually2. According to estimates tourism directly contributes to 4 percent o f total employment (higher than the mining sector) and 4.3 percent o f total GDP; the direct and indirect impacts o f tourism combined represent 10.6 ercent o f total employment, 9.7 percent o f total GDP, and about 16 percent o f non-mining GDP. P 5. As Botswana tackles the longer term goal o f diversification away from i t s dependence on diamonds, it faces a more immediate challenge o f protecting the economy from the worst o f the global economic crisis. The effect o f the current crisis on GDP growth will be large, with a contraction, due to sharply reduced diamond production and exports, currently projected to be on the order o f 10 percent in 2009, sharply down from an estimated growth o f 2.9 percent in 2008. In terms o f exports, in the f i rs t quarter o f 2009, the value o f Botswana’s diamond exports dropped by 86 percent as compared to a year earlier. Diamond prices have also fallen as have copper and nickel export values, which represent about 15 percent o f total exports. As a result, current account balances will shrink, and are likely to turn to deficits for some years. The current account surplus i s estimated to have shrunk from 19 percent in 2007 to 7 percent o f GDP in 2008.

6. The decline in diamond export income has in turn induced a fal l in Government revenues o f close to 20 percent, and lower mineral revenues are likely to be compounded by slower growth in other revenue sources. With the large fall in revenues, significant fiscal deficits are forecast at least through 201 1 , averaging 10 percent o f GDP over the coming two fiscal years (2009AO and 2010/11) according to Government estimates. Looking forward, the prospects for diamonds depend on economic developments in the major rich-country markets that account for the bulk o f the diamond market. With most predictions being for a slow and weak general economic recovery in the US and other developed markets, it i s likely that Botswana’s diamond exports will remain depressed for some time to come. To date, mine closures have resulted in the loss o f an estimated 4,500 jobs. The secondary effects o f a decline in the sector will reach deeper into the economy.

7 . Despite the large negative impact o f the global crisis, Botswana i s in a stronger position than many other mineral producing economies in the continent, with foreign exchange reserves providing nearly two years’ import cover, and a year’s worth o f expenditures saved from previous years’ fiscal surpluses. Another point in Botswana’s favor i s the very l o w level o f public external debt, estimated at less than 3 percent o f GDP at the end o f 20OSy4 and a similarly low domestic public debt, at 2.6 percent o f GDP. These al l provide degrees o f freedom and will serve as a cushion that may enable a gradual, rather than abrupt, adjustment to adverse circumstances. Nevertheless, the economy’s high dependence on diamond and mineral revenues and on Government spending based on these revenues poses a significant danger that reserves can be very rapidly depleted and debt accumulated, at the expense o f long term sustainability. To manage‘ this, Government spending will need to be sharply focused on investments with significant contributions to maintaining Botswana’s long term growth.

* Tourism Satellite Account report produced by the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). World Travel and Tourism Council, 2007. At the time o f writing, the Government o f Botswana intends to contract external debt to cover i ts deficit financing

3

needs in 2009/10. This would amount to USS1.5 billion, projected to take external debt levels to 15.8 percent o f GDP in 2010.

2

1. Long Term Sector Strategy and Key Challenges

8. Botswana’s Vision 2016 underscores the notion that development will be sustainable and will take account o f the preservation o f the environment and renewable resources. I t also endorses that incomes for al l in Botswana will be raised closer to those in developed nations, and that al l Batswana, rural and urban, male and female, will have the opportunity o f paid employment, access to good quality housing, as well as increased resource ownership.

9. The long term principles included in Vision 2016 are incorporated into the National Development Plan 10 (NDP10) which proposes results and goals o f national importance spanning a seven year period until 2016. The strategic thrust o f NDP10 will be to accelerate competitiveness through knowledge and productive human resources, sustainable growth and environment, enhanced well-being and social protection, security, transparency and governance. Under the theme “Accelerating Achievement o f Vision 20 16 through N D P 1 O”, the plan differs from previous plans with a results-oriented formulation supported with better monitoring and evaluation systems (M&E). Moreover, in the case o f dispersed rural communities, the Government continues supporting the Remote Area Dwellers Program (RADP) which i s a special program that complements the Government’s rural development efforts and aims to address the extreme poverty situation in remote areas.

10. Botswana’s limited potential for agriculture has meant that rural development opportunities are scarce and the rural population has serious challenges identifying alternative sources o f income. As a result, the rural population i s more affected by poverty than the urban population. Conservation and nature-based tourism can help provide alternative means o f income generation to rural and remote populations.

11. In the above context, a key challenge for Botswana will be how to achieve economic diversification and reduction o f poverty in rural areas. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization o f wildlife resources are being seen by Government as key tools to advance rural development. Initiatives to develop sustainable utilization o f wildlife resources and tourism can go a long way towards complementing the Government’s National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS). The NPRS broadly focuses on reducing poverty through broad-based growth, enhancing human capital o f the poor, creating cost-effective pro-poor social safety nets, developing an effective response to HIV/AIDS , and strengthening institutions for the poor.

12. In the above context tourism and natural resource management are key sectors identified by Government to assist in achieving economic diversification, furthering rural development and alleviating poverty.

2. Tourism

13. Government i s conscious o f the major role tourism can play. In 2007, the Government updated travel and tourism policies and undertook a series o f actions to sub-lease community safari concession areas and auction annual wi ldl i fe hunting quotas, in an effort to open up development opportunities for the rural poor, while maintaining an ecological balance. Key stakeholders confirm that in order to increase the impact o f tourism there are various issues that

3

need to be addressed including: a) to establish large scale investments which could encourage the development o f higher end value markets and local supply chains; b) high input costs, poor service levels, and cumbersome immigration and customs procedures affecting tourists; and c) high prevalence o f HIVIAIDS among adults.

3. Natural Resource Management

14. Government policy recognizes the need to assist poor rural communities through enhanced natural resource management practices at the community level. This i s reflected in several policy documents including Vision 2016, the NDP10, and the Remote Area Dwellers Program (RADP). In the mid 1990’s, the country embarked on a specific approach towards supporting community-based natural resource management with international assistance. Community trusts were established earmarking revenues from hunting and tourism licenses, with profits expected to benefit local communities. Some trusts also established community-run lodges with support from external development partners with mixed results.

15. More recently, Government has introduced the Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy (CBNRM Policy, 2007) which supports the principle that local communities should benefit from wildlife, natural resources and tourism. This policy incorporates the experience to date with community trusts, including the positive and negative, and introduces a requirement for trusts to transfer 65 percent o f their revenues from the sublease o f natural resource concessions and o f hunting quotas into a National Environmental Fund administered by the Ministry o f Environment, Wildlife & Tourism (MEWT). After the reform was introduced, trusts are only allowed to retain 35 percent o f the proceeds o f concession sales and hunting quotas. With these changes there i s greater attention being placed on development o f strategies, identification o f practical solutions to develop management sk i l ls and enhancing ways in which the trust members can really benefit from the trusts.

4. Biodiversity and Wildlife Management .

16. Botswana i s party to a number o f multilateral and regional environmental agreements on biodiversity and wildlife management including the Convention on Wetlands o f International Importance (Ramsar Convention 197 l), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species o f Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES, 1973), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD, 1994), the Permanent Okavango River Basin Agreement (1994), and the SADC Protocol on Wildl i fe Conservation and Law Enforcement (1 999). These multilateral agreements support the Government’s commitment to preserving the environment and recognize the need to strike a balance between conservation and sustainable utilization o f wildlife resources, which also forms the basis for eligibility o f GEF co- financing. As a signatory to the CBD, the Government has committed itself that biodiversity resources will be maintained for generations to come and has consequently developed a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2007) which forms part o f the Government’s effort to achieve Vision 20 16.

17. Botswana is a country o f extremes with regards to biodiversity. While most o f Botswana’s land is arid (within the greater Kalahari drainage basin), its protected wetlands and related

4

savanna ecosystems occur primarily in the river systems o f the Okavango and the Chobe- Linyanti (in Northern Botswana). The wetland ecosystems are highly biologically productive, and consequently a large proportion o f Botswana’s extensive and globally significant biodiversity areas are concentrated here. The Okavango Delta i s particularly significant as one o f the largest remaining inland wetland ecosystem in the world. The delta i s a large alluvial fan created and maintained by the annual flooding o f the Okavango River. The dynamic shifts in flooding patterns create a unique and dynamic mosaic o f habitats, including river channels, permanent swamps, seasonally flooded swamps and islands. Another unique characteristic o f the system i s that i t s annual delta flooding i s out o f phase with the wet season, which ensures that water in the delta becomes a vital resource for wildlife during the long dry season - all o f this contributes to developing an exceptionally high degree o f biodiversity. As such, the delta i s included in the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) l i s t o f top 200 eco-regions o f global significance and i s the world’s largest Ramsar site.

18. Botswana’s commitment to sustainable development and conservation o f its unique biodiversity and ecosystems i s high. Currently, the country has 71 protected areas - catalogued under categories I to V I o f the International Union for Conservation o f Nature (IUCN) - covering more than 30 percent o f Botswana’s total land area. The responsibility for protected areas l ies mainly with the Department o f Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) as well as other government departments within the Ministry o f Environment, Wildlife and Tourism. The D W N P i s responsible for the management o f national parks and game reserves, problem animal control, regulation o f hunting, implementation o f environmental education programs, and scientific research and monitoring o f wildlife and habitats. DWNP’s current strategy emphasizes the conservation and sustainable utilization o f fish and wildlife resources through active participation o f the private sector and all citizens o f Botswana.

19. DWNP has total autonomy over decisions related to National Parks and Game Reserves. Outside these protected areas, however, land i s also affected by numerous authorities, with DWNP focusing mostly on wildlife on such land (including private land). For Wildlife Management Areas created on Tribal Land, the Department needs to work and consult with Land Boards and District Councils, which requires enhanced inter-institutional coordination but at times represents an important challenge. DWNP’s environment and conservation management capacities are limited but strong relative to other Sub-Saharan Africa countries. In the North o f the country, for instance, the Department has a very strong presence with a team o f about 552 staff5. DWNP’s planned development budget included in the NDP10 (2009 - 2016) amounts to about US$37million (P295 million) with an annual recurrent budget for 2009/2010 o f about US$19 mi l l ion (P 154 million).

5; Human-Wildlife-Conflict: a threat to conservation and rural development

20. Human and wildlife populations have increased in Northern Botswana and so has conflict between them. Wildlife resources spread throughout the wetland and savannah ecosystems that support them now have a large number o f dispersed points o f conflict with humans. The conflict

’ Staffing by District: Ngamiland District with 242 staff (Maun, Gumare, Seronga, Moremi and Makgadikgadi), Chobe District with 127 staff (Chobe National Park, Kasane and Pandamatenga) and Central District with 183 staff (Serowe, Machaneng, Bobonong, Francistown and Letlhakane).

5

is spreading as population pressure leads to land transformation - remote area dwellers (mostly subsistence farmers) expand their influence seeking land for livestock grazing, crop planting and settlements. In addition through Botswana’s efforts and high level commitment to conservation, the wildlife populations particularly o f elephants and predators, have made a remarkable recovery over the last two decades. These trends, transformation o f critical wildlife habitat and the rise o f wi ldl i fe populations, have lead to a growing number o f conflicts between local people and wild animals, also known as ‘Human-Wildlife-Conflict’. A few o f the determinant causes o f H W C are highlighted below and are developed in greater detail in Annex 1 :

0

0

0

Population Growth: competition between growing human and wildl i fe populations for limited living space and resources. Migration: people migrate for economic, safety or food security reasons into areas already occupied by wildlife. Adverse attitudes and perceptions: l ittle sympathy for wildlife from rural population other than for protein consumption purposes. Farmer behaviors: higher risk attached to activities such as crop protection, cattle herding, night walks, washing and bathing in water points, tourism as a result o f HWC. Habitat factors: loss o f habitat, decrease in natural food items available for wildlife, fewer wild species. Causes o f habitat losses: impact o f human presence and natural factors, e.g. droughts, floods, bush fires, climate change, seasons, and natural hazards. Animal behaviors: intrinsic features l ike food preferences, migrations, wariness or predation behavior such as physiological (rutting) or sanitary (injuries, diseases, parasitic infestations) affecting the normal animal behavior.

0

21. Unmanaged and growing H W C i s a serious concern to wildl i fe conservation and i s definitely one o f the main threats to the survival o f some wildlife species, including elephants and large predator species such as lion. Conservation o f wildlife i s challenging when the targeted species damage crops or livestock o f a subsistence fanner, and occasionally attack humans. As indicated above conflict i s becoming more prevalent as human population increases, settlements expands and other human and environmental factors put people and wildl i fe in direct competition for a shrinking resource base. Data collected in Botswana supports the fact that impacts on subsistence farming and livelihoods are significant; local people lose their crops, livestock, property, and sometimes their lives. As a result, wildlife species causing conflict are harmed or ki l led in retaliation or to prevent future conflicts. If a comprehensive solution to H W C is not found and supported by rural communities, local support for conservation also declines over time. Consequently, improving adequate responses to H W C requires greater consultation not only among wildlife professionals and between their organizations, but more importantly with economic and social development organizations, land use planners, agribusiness, and local communities shifting the emphasis from reactive alleviation o f conflict to proactive prevention strategies.

22. The Government already recognizes that living with wildlife can often result in H W C . In an effort to attenuate the conflict and to promote conservation, compensation programs for wi ldl i fe damage have been implemented. The national program provides country-wide direct compensation to farmers for crop and livestock loss caused by certain wildl i fe species. This is unique in Africa. While the program has helped affected farmers, i t has also created disincentives

6

to protect crops and manage livestock in a more sustainable manner. The total annual costs (compensation and recurrent) dedicated to address H W C in Botswana is currently estimated at US$6.8 mil l ion (P55 million), which i s substantial and constitutes an important additional subsidy to crop and livestock production. These and other complementary subsidies facilitate the expansion o f subsistence agriculture and habitat conversion, and result in practices that are unsustainable.

23. Within the H W C a major concern i s the Human-Elephant-Conflict (HEC). Botswana’s elephant population in 2006 was estimated at 133,829 which represents a sixteen-fold increase over f i f ty years. I t i s important to note, that the Chobe elephants in Northern Botswana comprise part o f what i s probably the largest surviving continuous elephant population in Sub-Saharan Africa. The population has increased at a rate o f 6.6 percent from a population o f about 8,000 animals in 1960. Only 20 to 30 percent o f Botswana’s elephants occur in the protected area network, with the remainder outside o f protected areas. As a result H E C outside formally protected areas i s increasing and constraining the ability o f elephants to migrate and disperse through natural corridors.

24. It i s possible that, the elephant population in Northern Botswana i s developing towards a situation resembling that before the reduction o f large herbivores in the 1930s and 1950s. While there are no documented ecological reasons to artificially change elephant numbers6, there are, however, economic and social reasons that could support controlling the elephant range in Northern Botswana. The Project will thus assist DWNP to strike a balance between unrestricted elephant range and controlled areas, taking into account that the increase in wildlife and in elephant numbers in particular i s a concern to al l stakeholders in Northern Botswana.

B. Proposed Intervention Strategy

25. The Project will support a focused area intervention in 13 selected villages with an approximate population o f about 12,000 people (projections based on 2001 census o f population for localities o f over 500 people). These villages are located along three primary wetlands in Northern Botswana7. In the Okavango Delta Panhandle these include the villages o f Seronga, Beetsha, Eretsha, Gudigwa, and Gunitsoga. In the Chobe-Linyanti wetlands these include the villages o f Mabele, Kavimba, Satau, Parakarungu, Kachikau, and Lesoma. In the Makgadikgadi wetlands, these include the villages o f Kumaga and Moreomaoto (Map included in Annex 18). The Project areas are located in the vicinity o f the following protected areas: (i) Moremi Game Reserve and Kwando Wildl i fe Management Area; (ii) Chobe National Park and Chobe Forest Reserve; and (iii) Makgadikgadi Pans National Park and Nxai Pan National Park. More precisely, the Project areas are situated in Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), established to

The impact o f elephant on savannah vegetation and consequently biodiversity i s a controversial subject. Some ecologists reject the concept o f carrying capacity in general and in relation to elephants in particular. Based on a more long term evolutionary perspective, they argue that elephants and their impact on woodland vegetation must be regarded as a natural factor in a dynamic ecosystem and that research results were often site-specific. A contrasting view offered by other wildlife managers stresses that elephants have a negative impact on woody vegetation in particular at high population densities. ’ Due to the fact that the Project area i s to the north o f Botswana, it fully excludes the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR). Consequently, there i s no link between the Project and the existing controversy regarding the relocation o f the San in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

7

serve as migratory corridors for wildlife between the network o f parks and reserves. Consequently, the three Project areas represent a refuge for biodiversity increasingly under threat and consequently have been chosen in l ine with the Goverment’s national strategy and other planned interventions such as the multi-donor funded Biokawango Project (Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Sustainable Use o f Biodiversity in the Okavango Delta) and the transboundary Kavango-Zambesi Project (KAZA).

26. The Project areas represent some o f Botswana’s richest and most vulnerable biodiversity resources. Communities living adjacent to these protected areas, experience very high levels o f H W C and are demanding support for more proactive prevention strategies. Project activities will therefore operate in vulnerable biodiversity-rich areas and encompass critical components o f the national and regional protected area network. While the Government is aware o f the underlying causes o f the H W C problem, relocation o f remote area dwellers i s not desirable or politically feasible. More broadly, the Project’s strategy towards community-based natural resource management i s to enable individual community members to take responsibility and expand their livelihood choices. Addressing H W C in a sustainable manner, the intention i s to provide incentives for local populations to see wildlife as an asset rather than as an enemy.

27. The Project strategy i s based on the concept o f coexistence and aims to remove barriers to conservation through adaptive management, learning and information sharing, strengthening the institutional core and improving the quality o f l i fe o f local communities. In particular the focus on Human- Wildl i fe Coexistence through proactive conflict prevention and on skills development for nature-based tourism may be summarized as moving from a situation o f management o f conflict for or on behalf o f communities, to one o f management o f coexistence with communities, one that ultimately leads to a situation o f actual management by communities. A separate result may be a gradual reduced dependency on the compensation scheme and an increase in conditional access to foster more sustainable livestock management and to ensure awareness o f conflict mitigation measures to determine eligibility for compensation (see Annex 1 for most common interventions to mitigate HWC).

C. Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement

28. There are two main justifications for Bank support for the Project. First, the Bank has become a key player in biodiversity conservation in Southern Afr ica and has extensive global knowledge and experience in innovative and more participatory conservation approaches. This Project presents an important opportunity for the Bank to build on i t s experience and to support the Government shifting the emphasis from reactive compensation for H W C impacts towards coexistence between humans and wildlife based on greater reliance on proactive H W C prevention strategies and ski l ls development for nature-based tourism. The Project provides a platform for replication o f successful management actions for H W C mitigation in the Southern African region and for mobilization o f additional technical and financial resources.

29. Second, over the last decade the Bank and the GEF have developed and supported C B N R M approaches in the sub-region building a localized knowledge base, including support for the C B N R M reform process in Namibia and Zambia through analytical work, policy dialogue and various other Projects. In Mozambique, Zambia and South Afr ica the Bank has had the

8

opportunity to support nature-based tourism initiatives, which support economic and employment development while meeting longer term ecosystem conservation objectives.

30. The Project wil l support Botswana’s NBSAP. The scope o f the Project i s focused on selected areas and as such i s expected to have a geographically defined impact and will not address al l systemic and symptomatic issues related to H W C country-wide. The Project i s strategically designed to improve DWNP’s overall operational capacity in the Project areas (Le., thirteen villages) to assist community members to mitigate wildlife conflict and impact positively on biodiversity conservation and ecosystem function. The expected outcomes will provide the basis for broader replication.

3 1. This Project has been prepared under the GEF-3 biodiversity focal area and addresses the objectives o f the GEF Operational Program 1 : Arid and Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems. The Global Project Objective (GPO) and the Project Development Objective (PDO) are consistent with the objectives o f this Operational Program by supporting threat remediation activities at selected sites of high global significance, and promoting broad-based participation o f local communities in activities undertaken around selected protected areas.

32. The Project wil l play an important catalytic role assisting to strengthen synergies and . consistency between H W C initiatives and CBNRM. Activities will focus on the conservation o f

key wildl i fe species threatened by increased pressure from other forms o f land use, including grazing, human settlements, and arable agriculture. Mega-herbivores, such as elephants, and large predator species, such as l ion and leopard are key to these conflicts. Therefore, by addressing H W C at the institutional and community livelihood levels within and beyond protected areas, the Project i s in line and fits with the revised GEF-4 strategic objectives for biodiversity. In addition, the Project i s also aligned with GEF Biodiversity Strategic Objective 2 and contributes to Strategic Program 4.

D. Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes

33. The Project’s higher level objectives are to reduce human-wildlife conflicts that pose a threat to conservation and rural development. The GEF operation responds to the Government’s request for assistance and i s fully consistent with Botswana’s key elements for poverty reduction, the Bank’s Environment Strategy and regional development priorities in Southern Africa, as well as the priorities o f the Bank’s Country Partnership Strategy.

11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Lending instrument

34. The five-year Project will be financed through a US$5.5 mi l l ion GEF grant to the Republic o f Botswana in the form o f a SIL (Specific Investment Loan). The grant will be managed by DWNP on behalf o f the Government whose own contribution to the Project i s estimated at US$ 14.97 million. The GEF contributions include physical and price contingencies estimated at 7.7 percent. The total Project cost is estimated at US$ 20.47 million.

9

B. Project development objective and key indicators

3 5. The Project’s Development Objective (PDO) is: (i) to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through proactive prevention interventions in selected rural communities in Northern Botswana, and; (ii) to offer local people in the project areas employment choices in wildlife-based tourism to benefit directly from the presence o f wildlife.

36. Progress toward achieving these results will be measured through the following key Project Outcome Indicators:

0 Numbers o f annual wi ldl i fe conflict incidents caused by key species such as elephants and lions reduced by 33 percent in project villages’; and

0 Numbers o f community members employed in local wildlife-based tourism ventures increased by 75 individuals.

C. Project components

37. The Project will comprise three components designed to enhance DWNP’s overall operational capacity and assist subsistence farmers in Northern Botswana mitigate wildl i fe conflict through proactive interventions and offer local people employment choices and increasing opportunities to benefit from the presence o f wildlife.

1. Coexistence interventions (GEF: US$1.15 million, Government: US$5.8 million).

Component 1: Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife

3 8. This component would strengthen DWNP’s extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife Coexistence strategies such as proactive wildlife conflict interventions. It will address administrative and operational capacity requirements o f DWNP at district level for planning, decision making, implementation and monitoring o f H W C management in the three Project areas. The targeted district offices are expected to be fully staffed, the staff trained and the office systems up and running by year 3 . The activities under this component support the creation o f an enabling environment to implement the evolving H W C policy o f DWNP, moving from an exclusive reliance on compensation for H W C towards engaging communities in proactive conflict prevention strategies.

39. Activities that will be financed under Component 1 include:

(i) (ii)

Training for national and district based staff in strategic and operations management; Implementation support, community mobilization and training in proactive H W C interventions for DWNP staff;

Based on an analysis covering 13 years o f data (Annex l), elephant and l ion were the most common problem animals in al l Project areas, with l i on causing the greatest total financial losses. The number o f incidents refer t o HWC incidents against which a compensation claim was made. The l ion conflict indicator wi l l be calculated as annual l ion cattle confl ict incidence divided by the total population o f cattle in the respective villages to account for the relative risk o f loss over time. The correction factor for elephant conflict i s explained in more detail in the Technical Addendum 2 to Annex 1.

8

10

(iii) Implementation support for environmental and social safeguard policies; (iv) Support for development and provision o f training in Management Oriented

Monitoring Systems (MOMS) and Decision Support Systems (DSS); (v) Provision o f Geo-Information-System equipment (GIs), GPS receivers and related

training; (vi) Provision o f IT and office equipment as well as vehicles for H W C related extension

activities; (vii) Support to develop a White Paper on Human- Wildlife-Coexistence strategies; and (viii) Provision o f adequate resources to cover the recurrent costs associated with the

above-mentioned activities (financed by Government).

40. Outcome Indicators:

(i) Number o f DWNP extension staff trained and executing proactive H W C prevention strategies increased by 60 persons;

(ii) Three D W N P district offices fully staffed with a trained workforce (60) and equipped with vehicles (6) and IT/GIS gear (5); and

(iii) White Paper on Human- Wildlife-Coexistence strategies available by year 3.

2. Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies (GEF: US$3.81 million, Government: US$8.31 million).

Component 2: Strengthened capacity o f rural target population to implement

41. The component seeks to strengthen the capacity o f the rural target populations in undertaking proactive prevention measures to mitigate H W C impacts and to improve sk i l ls o f selected local community members to become more competitive for Botswana’s tourism industry. Component 2, consequently, addresses simultaneously reducing vulnerability and increasing rural livelihood and income opportunities. H W C interventions will focus on tested conflict mitigation based on elephant deterrents which can easily be demonstrated and supported, while piloting additional approaches to mitigate livestock-predator conflict. Concerning H E C , the aim i s to actively encourage 1,500 households to successfully adopt elephant restraining techniques by the end o f the Project period. Sk i l ls training will focus on tourism-related competences for various aspects o f hospitality management. About 100 candidates will be selected according to transparent, merit-based criteria.

42. Activities that will be financed include:

(0

(ii)

(iii)

Training for local community members in Operations Management (i.e. for Community Trust Members), M O M S (Management Oriented Monitoring Systems) and DSS (Decision Support Systems); The provision o f sub-grants (cash transfers) directly into Community Trusts to help finance H W C activities at the community level based on community needs and priorities, or help communities expandhale up activities financed by the project (financed by Government); Support for proactive HEC prevention with demonstration plots and scaling up support for chili-pepper deterrent techniques, including technical assistance and

11

provision o f training by experienced service providers, distribution o f elephant restraining kits, support for initial chili-pepper cultivation, extension and monitoring; Support for the piloting and eventually rol l ing out o f conventional prevention strategies like early maturing seeds (sorghum, maize, millet and cowpeas) as a mechanism to support HEC mitigation; Support for improved kraaling and herding to mitigate livestock-predator conflict particularly caused by lions and the use o f herding dogs as additional preventive instruments for mid-size predators; The construction o f solar-powered elephant restraining fence lines (including solar un i ts ) to affect elephant spatial use and reduce conflict as well as piloting the use o f bees as a means to deter elephants and support for an alternate food/income source; and Skills development for tourism-related employment, including wildl i fe guides, chefs, waiterdwaitresses, restaurant and/or lodge managers, receptionists and accountanthook-keepers.

43. Outcome Indicators:

(9 (ii)

(iii)

Number o f households successfully using proactive H W C prevention strategies increased by 1,500 households units; Number o f community members trained in MOMS and DSS and applying these tools increased by 26 individuals; and Community members trained for tourism-related employment increased by 100 individuals.

Component 3: Project management support (GEF: US0.54 million, Government: USS0.86 million).

44. This component seeks to strengthen DWNP’s capacity to efficiently administer Project funds, as well as coordinate and implement Project activities. It also aims to improve the Project’s external communications, including the establishment o f a permanent information dissemination forum to involve al l relevant stakeholders and development partners.

45. Activities that will be financed under Component 3 include:

Support for Project administration, including procurement and financial management and related training for D W N P staff; Logistical support, IT and office equipment for Project coordination; Development o f a communication strategy including the establishment o f a permanent dissemination forum, a Project launch workshop, and bi-annually discussions thereafter; Coordination with ongoing environmental development activities including for example the Biokavango Project and the Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor Project (financed by Government); and Provision o f adequate resources to cover the recurrent costs associated with the above-mentioned activities (financed by Government).

12

46. Outcome Indicators:

(i) Satisfactory rating o f Project implementation; (ii) One unqualified financial audit per year; (iii) Two training events per year for P I U and other relevant personnel in the f i rst three

years of project implementation; (iv) Three communication events per year; and (v) Two forum meetings per year.

D. Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design

47. The following lessons from GEF supported operations elsewhere have guided Project design:

(i) Avoid over-ambitious Project design and objectives, and develop well-targeted, easily measurable Project activities and result indicators;

(ii) Project activities need to be incorporated into longer term programs, if interventions are to be sustainable;

(iii) A proactive communication strategy i s needed so that Project activities and objectives are well understood by concerned stakeholders;

(iv) Involve local community actively in conservation and proactive HWC mitigation measures ensuring they have an opportunity and choice to maintain traditional livelihoods; offer village youth the opportunity to develop alternative livelihood options;

(v) Support proven and proactive prevention strategies if activities are to be sustainable; (vi) Effective presence on the ground o f national conservation agencies and individuals

responsible for program implementation; (vii) promote a transparent and effective results monitoring systems; and (viii) Adopt a flexible Project design, allowing lessons learned from implementation to

adapt the Project design as circumstances change.

E. Alternatives considered and reasons f o r rejection

48. Several alternatives were analyzed including:

(i) A sector wide approach operation which incorporates all areas o f community-based natural resource management and related programs in the country including improved land-use planning. However, the option o f relocation o f rural dwellings and acquiring strategically-located agricultural lands for conversion to wildlife habitats would not be politically and financially feasible. I t would also have added to complexity o f Project design, increasing implementation risks. Furthermore, , various sector initiatives are at different stages o f preparation and implementation (see below). Therefore, a decision was made with Government to focus on one area o f the Government’s program, namely, to mitigate wildl i fehuman conflict in selected areas in Northern Botswana coordinating with other initiatives on the ground. A focused project on HWC implemented outside o f DWNP was also considered. This option was considered early on whereby NGOs could lead project implementation building on the experience gained during project identification and

(ii)

13

preparation. Nevertheless, and without prejudice, during appraisal Government had an opportunity to better assess i t s own capacity and decided to implement the Project with i t s own resources. It was agreed that the NGOs will have an opportunity to implement specific project activities in selected project areas where they could have comparative advantage, but that the leadership and key implementation will be D W N P through i t s own field capacity. Therefore the agreed focus i s to enhance DWNP's ability to assist communities with H W C with two NGOs assisting with key selected activities during implementation. The' decision considered community feedback regarding the advantages, presence and local management experience o f the two NGOs. DWNP's field organization at the local level will enhance effective community l i n k s through the decentralized extension staff network. Extending the Project area beyond the current, more restricted areas, was also considered as an alternative. However, the limited resources and the emphasis on measuring and monitoring the intervention impacts, suggested it was best to focus on the selected Project areas. Other technical interventions for reducing H W C (beyond those selected) were considered. Priority was given to interventions with a proven track record elsewhere. This will also allow dissemination o f technologies that are easily available and relatively cost-effective. A no project scenario was also considered. Generally the current situation is perceived as unsustainable. The current compensation scheme i s regarded by both the rural poor as wel l as the conservation agencies as an inadequate solution to the H W C problem. The scheme i s a reactive rather than a preventive measure since it only deals with the aftermath o f H W C and thus does not tackle the root causes o f HWC. Also, the amounts spent in compensation for loss o f crop and livestockg are likely to be reduced in the current budget situation (a trend that i s l ikely to continue through 2010/11). With a shrinking compensation budget, affected populations may pay less attention to conservation and resort more to retaliation against elephants and large predators, undermining conservation efforts. Furthermore, population growth and subsequent settlement expansion could further increase H W C incidents, further highlighting the need for an intervention that will explore sustainable and practical approaches to a Human- Wildlife-Coexistence strategy.

.

111. IMPLEMENTATION

A. Partnership arrangements

49. At present there are various donor and NGO-supported conservation projects under implementation or expected to commence during the l i fe o f the Project. The complementarities and synergies among these initiatives are being explored, and it has been agreed with the GEF focal point for Botswana to set up a permanent coordination and information dissemination forum. The forum would convene at Project launch and bi-annually thereafter and coincide with Project supervision, involving the following development partners: UNDP, UNEP, EU, FFEM, CI, IRNKJSAID and local NGOs such as KCS (Kalahari Conservation Society).

Total annual costs dedicated to address HWC in Botswana (compensation and recurrent) i s estimated at US$6.8 9

million (P55 million)

14

50. In addition, the Project will coordinate with ongoing development activities including the following three donor supported projects: (i) Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Sustainable Use o f Biodiversity in the Okavango Delta Project (Biokavango Project, UNDP GEF FSP and HOORC/MEWT, 2006-201 1); (ii) Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor Project (FFEM/CI and DWNP, appraised 2007); and (iii) Strategic Partnerships to Improve the Financial and Operational Sustainability o f Protected Areas (UNDP, GEF MSP appraised 2008).

5 1. Complementarities between the Project and the ongoing UNDP/GEF Biokavango Project are described in Annex 2. Two coordination mechanisms are envisioned. First, the same D W N P representatives si t in each other’s Steering Committees and will receive full information regarding implementation progress. Second, both projects wil l have representatives at the proposed new information dissemination forum, which implies an open discussion with all stakeholders. The appraised GEF-MSP “Financial and Operational Sustainability o f Protected Areas” project will probably focus on the Makgadikgadi Pans National Park, which includes two villages targeted by this Project.

B. Institutional and implementation arrangements

52. The Project will be implemented by DWNP, a department within the MEWT. The current departmental operational structure includes a Development Unit (DU) which coordinates development projects. The new departmental structure has established a Programmes and Projects Unit (PPU, see organigram Annex 6) which will house al l donor funded projects including the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) for the Project. The head o f the PIU, the Project Coordinator (PC) will be responsible to the Director, D W N P through the Head o f the PPU. The P IU will be based in Gaborone and wil l comprise the Project Coordinator, a Procurement Officer and a Project Accountant.

53. Project activities at local level will be undertaken by existing extension staff within DWNP. Implementation support for different Project activities wil l be assured by various technical service providers and training institutes. A part-time expert, either D W N P staff or external, will also be appointed to coordinate the implementation o f the Project’s safeguard instruments. Two local NGOs, name1 C A R A C A L and BOCOBONET, have been providing support during Project preparation“ and could have a supporting role during Project implementation if required by DWNP. Project arrangements remain flexible enough to allow N G O involvement in cases where they can enhance field presence or offer other comparative advantage.

54. Coordination with other Government organizations will be ensured as follows. In the three districts in Northern Botswana, DWNP will organize three separate monthly meetings with relevant departments and other donor funded projects (meetings lead by Project Coordinator). The traditional village leadership structure will be respected and in the same manner that local communities were involved and consulted during preparation, the Project will contact the Tribal

lo The initial understanding between MEWT and the two NGOs was based on a joint implementation arrangement for the purpose o f Project preparation. The different parties recognized the respective advantages of working together as partners to further the preparation o f the Project.

15

Secretary who represents the Chiefs or Dikgosi at the district level to j o in the village level Project supervision efforts. In Gaborone, it i s expected that DWNP (lead by the Director DWNP) will organize quarterly meetings with relevant government departments on specific topics affecting the Project. The main government departments include the Veterinary Department, Department o f Agriculture, Department o f Tourism, the Land Board and the Department o f Local Government. Members o f community-based trusts are also expected to participate in

I monitoring Project impact, with consultations at village level expected to take place through the established consultation mechanisms (Kgotla meetings). More detailed institutional and implementation arrangements are described in Annex 6.

C. Monitoring and evaluation o f outcomes/results

55. The Project will introduce monitoring and evaluation (M&E) commensurate with the field capacity. The focus will be on monitoring the evaluation o f indicators and target values (see Annex 3) as well as other related parameters over time on a bi-annual basis. In addition, an external evaluation o f the indicators presented in Annex 3 i s planned during the mid-term review. The M&E function will take place at two levels: communal, and institutional. An objective o f the Project will be to involve local communities in M&E through the establishment o f a community-based monitoring system. The Project will therefore introduce Management Oriented Monitoring Systems (MOMS). A similar system i s in place and has worked well in communal areas o f Namibia and (to a l imited extent) in three communities in Ngamiland district in Botswana. The monitoring would involve D W N P field staff and community members who will undertake data collection, recording and analysis with minimal external support.

56. Initially, the Project will focus the use o f M O M S primarily for those M&E issues where the engagement o f communities can be utilized, and will start focusing on problem animal incidents and will then be extended to also monitor animal numbers and distributions, illegal activities and mortality rates. M O M S will be based mostly on recording events through the above mentioned monitoring activities. Community members will require training in order to record a standardized set o f data into a so-called “Event Book”. For each topic to be monitored a monitoring system will entail data collection, monthly reporting and long term reporting. Every year, an annual “audit” o f the system will be conducted whereby the annual data set i s collated and compiled into an annual report, useful for analysis as wel l as sharing with key stakeholders.

57. The proposed M&E i s simple and cost effective and provides sufficient data to guide management decisions. It is ideally suited to measure progress in meeting key results mainly o f component 2. It i s also expected that MOMS will be enhanced, to address more specifically Human-Elephant Conflict, with a Decision Support System (DSS) to manage H E C situations in the Project areas. The DSS was developed by “The African Elephant Specialist Group” (AfESG), Species Survival Commission (SSC) and I U C N and will be adopted to suit the specific characteristics o f the Project areas. The DSS will assist local communities and D W N P .in developing a more systematic understanding o f the problem and develop specific responses to mitigate wildl i fe conflict. This approach will enable a more rational response to information gathered by the M O M S as well as to form a basis for replication o f successful actions.

16

58. Project implementation and results monitoring activities will be fed into a Geographic Information System (GIs), parts o f which are already operating at DWNP. The GIS wil l be consolidated and strengthened to include basic natural resource and socio-economic layer data, as well as inventory data for the Project areas including H W C impact on biodiversity and wildlife corridors. Support for the GIS will require technical expertise. Nevertheless, the GIS system i s also expected to have a community component to make it useful for community planning and monitoring, H W C pattern identification, and mapping key community resources.

59. Finally, the P I U has prepared a detailed Project Implementation Manual which will be used as a main tool for implementation. The Manual includes basic financial and procurement procedures, responsibilities and accountabilities, a process framework for community and subcomponent activities, and an overall timeframe for Project implementation.

D. Sustainability

60. their outcomes, namely:

A number o f factors will help ensure the sustainability o f the GEF Project activities and

(9

(ii)

(iii)

Botswana’s policies for wildlife conservation, tourism and rural development provide a strong foundation for the Project and i t s sustainability. The Government’s commitment to the implementation o f these policies i s expected to increase during implementation as practical solutions are identified to address HWC. The revised Wildlife Policy and i t s implementation strategy, combined with DWNP’s strengthened capacity, will enhance the likelihood o f maintaining Project benefits beyond the Project l ife. Better understanding o f the H W C problem at the community level, strengthened local participation and capacity at the local level to use the monitoring framework and implement proactive wildlife conflict prevention strategies are expected to enhance the sustainability o f the project. Local communities are expected to be more cognizant o f the actual benefits o f reduced H W C from improved wildl i fe conservation and wildlife utilization. Project implementation will be carried out by existing institutions to ensure sustainability o f the approach beyond Project l i fe. The financial management o f the Project will be implemented in a manner consistent with current local budgetary processes. Furthermore, the Project activities are fully country-driven, and directly respond to Botswana’s priorities enunciated in N D P 10.

61. As indicated above, the Project will be implemented in limited areas o f Northern Botswana. The Project results in the three Project areas wil l provide the basis for future expansion and replication in other parts o f the country. Given that H W C i s not unique to Botswana, the Project also envisages sharing the experience both at the local and regional levels. The Project approach can be extended thematically to address development challenges where community and government partnerships are required. The Project i s expected to identify threats, affect change and provide sustainable implementation o f identified actions to improve rural livelihoods, reduce poverty and promote sustainable use o f biodiversity resources in support o f the Convention o n Biological Diversity.

17

E. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects

Description of Risks

62. The following risks and mitigation measures have been identified and will be addressed during the course o f the Project implementation. The overall risk rating o f the GEF intervention i s estimated to be moderate after mitigation.

Risk Mitigation Measures Rating

Insufficient coordination between Project activities and other NRM programs in the Project areas.

Government authorities do not support participatory approaches.

Insufficient participation in consultations, training and adoption of proactive conflict mitigation options by local communities, in particular by San and other vulnerable Remote Area Dweller groups which may lead to marginalization, conflict with the Project objectives, and consequently limit sustainability o f intervention.

Related to Components Compensation schemes for wildlife damage and subsidies from other government programs for agriculture and livestock production continue to encourage “culture of dependency” among local communities, and impede take-up o f proactive prevention strategies. Risk that numbers o f incidents increase (rather than decrease as stated in indicators) due to better reporting and monitoring Department of Wildlife and Nature conservation staff and local communities may not have sufficient experience in

S

M

S

S

S

M

Coordination mechanism adopted. Monthly coordination meetings to be carried out lead by DWNP in the district capitals. Periodic Project progress reports to be discussed during supervision. A policy development process has been built into Project design to assist Government to implement their CBNRM uroeram. Strong emphasis on consultation with local communities has been built into Project design and implementation. Interventions are entirely voluntary. Community based management and monitoring systems are an integral part o f Project design. Efforts embedded to build community knowledge o f the impact of proactive prevention strategies.

Implementation design places great emphasis on communications and outreach, demonstration plots, community impact monitoring and participation.

Baseline data and definition o f incidents reporting will be made as specific as data allows.

Substantial training during preparation and implementation and provision of experienced technical service providers i s built

Residual risk rating

M

M

M

M

M

L

18

implementing a GEF funded Project .

Potential risk that local village and district elites capture the decision making process and direct benefits from the Project preventing more vulnerable community members from appropriate participation.

Lack o f procurement and financial management capacity in DWNP may result in delays in financial management reporting and procurement decisions.

Non or late provision o f Government’s counterpart funds may impact successful implementation o f the project. (Government i s contributing about 73 percent of the total cost o f the project). Release of counterpart fund contribution for the PPG was delayed due to the non inclusion o f the project in Government’s development budget.

Usage o f Government’s outdated Financial Instructions and Procedures (FIP) and the Finance and Audit Act. etc).

M

S

S

M

into implementation design.

Project design, in particular Component 2, has carefully considered relationships within community capacity for collective action, elite control over project decisions and elite capture o f Project benefits by focusing most o f i ts interventions and resource allocations on individual community members. Vulnerability o f the Project to elite capture i s therefore limited and the approach does increase the community and/or individual household’s control over the development process. I t i s anticipated that both, non-elites and elites will participate in Project activities. Further, the Project’s safeguard frameworks will permit DWNP to demonstrate its ability to minimize and redress elite capture when it occurs. While Project direction and coordination i s mainstreamed into DWNP, a Procurement Officer will be recruited for the first three years, and an accountant for the l i f e of the Project to expedite implementation and train staff on Bank procedures in Maun and Kasane. Government’s contribution for

the 2009120 10 budget year was provided through the MEWT’s recurrent budget. Government will provide for the grant in i t s 20 10120 1 1 budget when the grant i s expected to have been approved and related agreement signed.

The Finance and Audit Act i s under review by Government. I t i s expected that the Bill will be tabled in Parliament in November 2009. Government uses the

L

M

M

L

19

The risk of non adherence to internal controls set out in the FM procedures manual, e.g. the work o f the Project Accountant may not be subject to other accounting officers review.

M

GABS, a module o f the IFMIS, for budgeting, expenditure management, accounting and reporting. GABS manual is available and users of the system are adequately trained, including the staff in the Administration Unit of the DWNP. The accountant will work in the Administration Unit under the Head o f the Unit. Payment vouchers prepared by the

Chief Administration Officer, and further subjected to checking and approval of the Controller of Accounts in MEWT.

accountant will be verified by the L

Overall risk before mitigation

F. Grant conditions and covenants

S I Overall risk after mitigation M

63. Actions to be taken by Effectiveness: (i) Appoint a Procurement Officer and a Project Accountant in accordance to the TOR

agreed to with the Bank before effectiveness.

64. Retroactive Financing: (i) Withdrawals up to an aggregate amount not to exceed US$215,000 equivalent may be

made for payments made prior to the date o f the Grant Agreement but on or after August 1 , 2009, for Eligible Expenditures.

65. Covenants applicable to project implementation: Maintain the financial management system including records, and accounts in accordance with the terms o f the Grant Agreement; Prepare and furnish to the Bank interim unaudited financial reports for the Project covering the quarter, in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank within 45 days after the end o f each calendar quarter; Audit the Project’s Financial Statements and submit to the Bank no later than six months after the end o f Government’s fiscal year, i.e. by September 30 each year; Ensure that semi-annual internal audits o f the Project are carried out in the first three years o f the Project period and annually thereafter. The audits should include a review o f adherence to fiduciary procedures and regulations as well as verification o f expenditures including payments for contracts, submission o f reports o f the audit review, and follow-up action on the issues raised in the audit reports; Engage a Procurement Officer and Project Accountant, the latter with at least f i rst degree in accounting and no less than five years o f professional experience in accounting. This action, to be ensured by the Office o f the Accountant General, will be taken by effectiveness o f the grant agreement;

20

(vi) Establish, through MEWT, by not later than 2 months after Effective Date, and thereafter maintain, throughout the Project implementation period, the Project Steering Committee, with mandate and composition satisfactory to the World Bank; and

(vii) The Recipient shall allocate funds from i t s national budget to finance i t s contribution to the cost o f the Project.

IV. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

A. Economic and financial analysis

66. Since the Project aims to achieve global biodiversity conservation objectives it is not subject to standard economic analysis. For the interventions selected the focus has been to select cost-effective solutions. The proposed proactive prevention techniques such as chili-pepper deterrents, early maturing maize, restraining fence lines, and improved livestock kraaling are more cost-effective than large scale wildlife-proof fencing and do not impact negatively on wildlife movement patterns. For training, the focus will be to partner with local training institutions which may encourage ski l ls development adapted to the local market. More broadly, the Project intends to develop solutions to mitigate wildlife damage ex-ante rather than claiming compensation for wildlife damage ex-post, while providing an enabling environment for phasing out the use o f compensation mechanisms which are unsustainable in the long run (considering perverse incentives and the fact that these consume a third o f DWNP’s annual budget). The Project interventions, if successful, could gradually introduce fiscal savings in the long run.

B. Technical

67. The Project i s focused on developing and implementing interventions which have been tested and proven successful elsewhere in the sub-region including Botswana, such as the use o f chi l i as a deterrent for elephants and M O M S as a suitable monitoring system. Appropriate solutions for which there i s less experience e.g., encouragement o f early maturing maize, solar- powered elephant restraining fence lines, beekeeping and use o f guard dogs wil l also be piloted. Given the difficulties over the last ten years with community managed business ventures in nature-based tourism, the Project has focused, rather, on ski l ls training in areas for which there is a clear market demand.

C. Fiduciary

1. Procurement Aspects

68. Botswana has a Procurement Act and Regulations (2006), which are generally in l ine with international practices. The Botswana Public Procurement and Asset Disposal board (PPDAB) i s a statutory body with functions defined in the Act. This body combines both regulatory function and operational functions (the latter by reviewing al l procurement above a set threshold). Standard bidding documents were prepared and distributed electronically to user agencies in July 2007.

21

69. Procurement under the Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004, revised October 2006; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers' dated May 2004 revised October 2006, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. Bank standard bidding documents shall be used for procurement o f goods under International Competitive Bidding and Bank standard Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be used for selection o f large value consultants involving international consultants. For National Competitive Bidding (NCB), Government o f Botswana standard bidding documents may be used subject to Bank's prior review and No Objection. The particular provisions that would require review and No objection for procurement under the Project include: (i) Foreign bidders shall be allowed to participate in National Competitive Bidding; (ii) Registration / classification o f bidders may be used for establishing bidder qualification or preparing a l i s t for use under price comparison procedure but not as criteria for bidding; (iii) Use o f preference based on citizen degree o f ownership shall not be used; (iv) Use o f point system and bracketing in the evaluation o f bids for goods or works shall not be used; (v) Price negotiations shall not be held with successhl bidder for procurement o f goods or works; and (vi) selection o f consultants wi l l be preceded by shortlist process in response to an expression o f interest. Alternatively, the Bank's standard bidding documents may be used and adapted for National Competitive Bidding.

70. The Project wi l l be implemented by DWNP. Procurement capacity assessment for the Project was undertaken by the Bank in November 2008 and updated in February 2009. The assessed capacity o f the Department to undertake procurement i s average and the risk i s also moderate. The main constraints to efficient procurement cycle management were: (i) Low thresholds for shopping under the PPADB Act; (ii) Many layers o f approval and i t s attendant delays; (iii) Delays in preparation o f bidding documents by sector specialists/Supplies Unit; (iv) Department does not prepare a procurement plan for procurement activities; and (v) staff do not have experience in international procurement and World Bank procedures in particular. As a consequence, the following measures have been taken to mitigate the observed risks: (i) the preparation o f a procurement plan for the f i rs t 18 months o f the Project; and (ii) securing a waiver from PPADB for the Project not to apply non competitive provisions o f National Laws and Regulations. Furthermore, the engagement o f a full time Procurement Officer within the PIU by effectiveness has been set as a covenant applicable to project implementation.

2. Financial Management

71. The project wi l l be implemented by DWNP, a department within the MEWT. The current departmental operational structure includes a Development Unit (DU) which coordinates development projects. The new departmental structure has established a Programmes and Projects Unit (PPU, see organigram Annex 6) which wi l l house all donor funded projects including the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) for the Project. The head o f the PIU, a Project Coordinator (PC) wi l l be responsible to the Director, DWNP through the Head o f the PPU. The Project will use the GABS for budgeting, expenditure management, accounting, and reporting. These functions, excluding budgeting were performed manually by a Wildlife Officer during Project preparation i.e. implementation o f the GEF Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation for Improved Rural Livelihood in Botswana Project (the Project Preparation Grant - PPG), which closed in June 2009. The Finance and Accounts section in the

22

Departmental Management Division within DWNP will be responsible for the processing o f payments up to the preparation o f payment vouchers. An accountant with a minimum o f a degree in accounting and five years post graduation experience will be engaged and responsible for the financial management aspect o f the project. He/she will be responsible functionally to the Assistant Director, Departmental Management Division and administratively to the PC. A full organizational structure describing the unit and key staff duties within that structure has been detailed in the project implementation manual.

72. payments made prior to the signing o f the Grant Agreement but on or after August 1,2009.

A retroactive financing arrangement o f US$215,000 equivalent i s provided to cover

73. Proceeds o f the Grant will be disbursed by the Bank to Government through MFDP on the basis o f IFR documentation, submitted to the World Bank within forty five (45) days after the end o f each calendar semester, covering the semester. The disbursements will be into a Designated Account to be opened and maintained at the Bank o f Botswana and managed by the MFDP, using the country financial management system. MFDP i s familiar with the disbursement procedures o f donor fimded projects. The ministry i s however, not familiar with the Bank’s financial management and disbursement procedures. The Bank wil l conduct training in these procedures immediately after the effectiveness o f the Grant and periodically afterwards for staff in the ministry, MEWT, and DWNP.

74. The project overall financial management residual risk i s assessed “Low”. The overall conclusion is that the financial management arrangements proposed for the implementation o f the project meet the Bank’s OP/BP 10.02 minimum requirements.

D. Social

75. Human-wildlife conflict i s essentially a socioeconomic development issue which affects disproportionately the poorest and more vulnerable segments o f rural communities in more remote parts o f Botswana with the highest densities o f wildlife. Female headed households seem to suffer the greatest damage from wildl i fe conflict as they rely more on crop production activities than male headed households who normally own more livestock (wealth) and engage less i s subsistence agriculture (food security).

76. The direct cost o f wi ldl i fe damages to local communities could include damages from the destruction o f crops, livestock, and property. The indirect costs o f wildlife damages could include for example changes to agricultural production systems due to human-wildlife conflicts, such as sub-optimal crop mixes, competition for water for domestic stock, destruction o f infrastructure such as boreholes and fences which could resulting in livestock losses, etc. Finally, there i s a cost o f deterrent strategies which impose additional burdens to already limited household resources, such as household labor to guard fields or livestock.

77. The ethnic composition o f the Project villages i s mixed and communities include representatives from Tswana and non-Tswana speaking tribes such as Hambukushu, Wayeyi and San all o f whom are engaged in mixed subsistence economies based on production of: (i) maize, millet and sorghum agriculture; (ii) livestock farming; (iii) fishing; and (iv) collection o f wild

23

plants and herbs. All ethnic groups in the Project areas have adopted sedentary lifestyles but l ive under subsistence farming conditions with vulnerable production systems. Nonetheless, new schools, clinics and potable water points have been erected in most villages. The Project areas have reportedly an average o f 500 incidents o f elephant damage annually, affecting al l local inhabitants who perceive wildlife as a severe threat to their livelihoods. Some expressed the desire to have access to fire-arms to cul l wildlife. Many regard the compensation received for elephant and l ion damage as insufficient and would like compensation to be extended to other animals such as hyenas. Some would l ike extensive protection with wildlife-proof electric wiring. However, there is recognition that high electric-fences (similar to those that protect parks and game reserves) are unaffordable for farmers (i.e., capital cost and maintenance implications), and there i s keen interest in applying new proactive prevention strategies. There i s also recognition both o f the employment opportunities and financial benefits that nature-based tourism could bring, and o f the need for skills training to diversify livelihoods with tourism- related earnings.

78. Even though rural dwellers have better but limited access to social services, their weak participation in decision-making processes has been a factor determining their marginalization. The Project will therefore support participatory processes and household-based development initiatives, and other measures proposed in the ESMF. To the extent possible these measures were built into the design o f component 2 and consequently, form an integral part o f the Project. The Project will: (i) help to identify and implement a series o f economic and social actions to enhance their participation in the management o f HWC; and (ii) help to secure access to agricultural land and to social and economic opportunities in a culturally appropriate way. Efforts will be made to incorporate social and cultural dimensions in the Project, supporting al l the ethnic groups in the Project area. Moreover, in the areas where the San are present, an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) will be prepared in a participatory fashion, following the guidelines o f the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (see Annex 10).

E. Environment

79. Due to i t s severe socio-economic implication, H W C is regarded as a critical impediment for conservation. Project activities will increase the operational capacity both o f D W N P and individual members o f the targeted communities to put proactive H W C prevention strategies into operation. The proposed interventions are designed to reduce in particular the total number o f Human-Elephant-Conflicts (HEC) on farming households and to a lesser extent to mitigate predator incidents. Consequently, the various interventions will help to create an enabling environment for long-term conservation o f key wildlife species and the Project will therefore have overall positive impacts on the natural environment.

80. As an outcome o f Project activities, direct negative impacts are likely to be minimal and it i s not expected that any o f the proposed interventions, such as chili-pepper deterrents (Capsicum oleoresin), elephant restraining fence line, boreholes for wildlife and improved livestock kraaling will result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment (see Annex 10). Subcomponent design will involve procedures for preparation, screening, and implementation, and M&E.

24

8 1. Nonetheless, the Project has limitations. Wildl i fe populations, particularly elephants have expanded rapidly over the last 20 years and management o f their ecological impacts is beyond the scope o f this Project but l ies in expanding regional corridors and habitats in neighboring countries. Broader assessment o f the impacts o f nature-based tourism i s a concern o f the Department o f Environmental Affairs and i s also managed through other measures (number control, waste management etc). The capacity o f D W N P to implement the ESMF will be evaluated during appraisal.

Safeguard Policy

F. Safeguard Policies

OP/BP/GP Relevance I Mitigation measures

82. Two safeguard policies are triggered by the Project (OP 4.01 and OP 4.10). Given the demand-driven nature o f the Project and the fact that subcomponent activities will be more specifically designed and implemented only after Project effectiveness, an Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) have been prepared with relevance to OP 4.01 and OP 4.10. The ESMF and the IPPF are disclosed in-country and internationally and implementation o f these mitigation instruments will be supported by the Project (see Annex 10).

Environmental Assessment I OP/BP/GP 4.01

83. The Project will not finance any activity involving involuntary land acquisition, leading to physical relocation or compensation. Rather, i t i s designed to prevent such occurrences. Therefore, strict screening mechanisms are included in the Project’s ESMF.

Yes Yes

Safeguard policies triggered by the Project

Natural Habitats Pest Management Cultural Property Involuntary Resettlement Indigenous Peoples

OP/BP 4.04 N o N o OP 4.09 No N o OP4.11 No N o OP/BP 4.12 N o No OP 4.10 Yes Yes

Forests Safety o f Dams Projects in Disputed Areas Project on International Waterwavs

OP/BP 4.36 No N o OP/BP 4.37 No N o OP/BP/GP 7.60 No N o OP/BP/GP 7.50 No N o

1. Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01)

84. In line with OP 4.01, a socio-environmental impact assessment was prepared which led to the preparation o f an ESMF for the Project and integrated into the Project design. In order to screen Project activities and ensure adequate implementation o f the ESMF, D W N P will deploy some 80 staff in the Project, all o f which wil l need training in environmental and social safeguards as well as implementing the ESMF. There are also budgetary provisions made for the financing o f external technical assistance to help with ESMF implementation.

85. Overall, no significant adverse impacts on the environment were identified for the type o f Project activities being considered. Rather, anticipated impact wil l be positive. However, Project

25

activities would involve very small-scale c iv i l works such as chili-pepper deterrents, wooden livestock kraals, solar-powered electric wiring and additional boreholes. The impact assessment and mitigation measures section o f the ESMF outlines potential adverse and positive environmental and social impacts o f these proposed activities, which could be eligible for financing under the Project, and outlines actions to be taken to mitigate any adverse effects.

86. Early in subcomponent planning, environmental and social assessments will be carried out along with complementary analyses e.g. technical, financial and economic, and Project extension teams will screen proposed interventions according to the guidance provided by the ESMF and i t s annexed resources (see ESMF Annex 1: Environmental and Social Checklist, Annex 2: Implementation guidelines for an EMP, Annex 7 : Criteria for requiring a field appraisal, and Annex 8: Guidelines for annual reviews). A resource sheet will provide information on the environmental concerns associated with each intervention; identify possible measures to deal with those concerns, and provide guidance regarding how to determine if the concerns are being addressed. The completed resource sheets will indicate the questions D W N P and communities will make to conduct planning and design o f the intervention.

87. The ESMF provides the outline to carry out environmental analysis o f Project activities including:

(i) Identification and involvement o f community members with an interest in the intervention;

(ii) Identification o f key environmental concerns with the intervention, ensuring the analysis focuses on them;

(iii) Analysis o f possible adverse environmental effects and benefits; (iv) Basic information required for the analyses, collection and methodology; (v) Identification o f mitigation measures to address possible adverse effects, and ways to

capture benefits, which in turn could lead to revising the concept, plan or design o f the intervention; and

(vi) If required, development o f an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to manage the environmental aspects o f interventions during construction and operation.

88. The environmental framework and analyses provide the framework for Project activity screening and planning, including mitigation measures as indicated in the ESMF Checklists. Avoidance o f any adverse effects will be the first priority, followed by mitigation if avoidance is not possible. When Project intervention planning is complete, it i s possible that no adverse environmental issues have been identified, in which case it should be noted in the final plan. If there are distinct mitigation measures, they will be highlighted and specified in the EMP.

2. Indigenous Peoples (OP4.10)

89. While most o f the Projects impacts are expected to be positive for the targeted communities, potential adverse effects resulting from the proposed activities could relate to the relative disenfranchisement o f local communities, particularly the San. Traditionally, the San were semi-nomadic but their current lifestyle in the Project areas i s sedentary. For the five villages at the panhandle o f the Okavango Delta, where the San are present or constitute a majority as it i s the case in the Gudigwa village, most San seem to be reasonably well integrated

26

with other ethnic groups, some o f whom have come from other areas. However, as the 2003 review o f the Remote Area Dwellers Program states that equality o f opportunities i s good but that “...there are ethnic groups in remote areas, notably the San, who are historically disadvantaged, and who cannot easily take advantage o f their entitlements under the constitution and legal framework without special assistance.” To ensure that Project activities are socio- culturally appropriate and to avoid or minimize further marginalization o f the San through, for example Project resources control by representatives o f ethnic groups that traditionally are more advanced or simply more dominant an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (see Annex 10) has been prepared to assist Project implementation. The f ield staff deployed by DWNP will require to be fully trained to implement the IPPF and develop any IPP during Project implementation as detailed below.

90. Although the Government maintains that al l citizens o f the country are indigenous, historically it has recognized the uniqueness o f some ethnic groups, particularly their relative exclusion and marginalization from mainstream society. As a result, the Government has developed special programs to support them, notably the former Bushmen and BaSanva Development Programs and more recently the Remote Areas Dwellers Program (RADP) which complements the Government’s rural development efforts and aims to address the extreme poverty situation in remote areas. Even though these special programs have moved from ethnic targeting to geographic targeting, it i s obvious that they have been focused mainly on the San. Regardless o f the above, there are other groups in Botswana regarded both at the national and international level as indigenous peoples. These groups include the San, the Balala and the Nama.

91. Due to the likelihood that indigenous peoples will be present in, or have collective attachment to, Project areas, the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework has guidelines for addressing the concerns o f Indigenous Peoples. Early during Project implementation, once there i s confirmation o f the specific sites and more specific information on Project intervention design, the Project will start the preparation o f an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) for the five villages in the panhandle o f the Okavango Delta, where the San are present or constitute a majority, e.g., Gudigwa village. In addition, it i s expected that Project intervention in the other areas will be prepared in a participatory fashion and respond to the demands o f local people, following the principles o f the C B N R M approach.

3. Consultations

92. Community consultations have been important in the preparation o f this Project. Project preparation has involved a series o f village level meetings following the traditional “kgotla” format to discuss local level priorities, experiences and concerns regarding the Project design, as well as financing and implementation mechanisms. These meetings, carried out several times in the 13 selected villages, involved a call by the Village Chief to all members o f the community when authorities, the Project team or specialist consultants visited the Project area. Care was taken to avoid community fatigue especially since the preparation took longer than anticipated. The PC has taken a lead role during the consultations including the preparation o f the Social and Environment Assessment, Institutional Assessment, Feasibility Study o f Community Investments as well as general consultation required for Project design. The consultants contracted for the Social and Environmental Assessment carried out consultations which are documented in detail in their report (see Annex 10). In addition to the village level “kgotla” meetings, there were

27

District level Workshops which always included village and District level stakeholders. Based on the village and District level consultation, a National Workshop has been carried out with local representation to discuss the PAD. The National Workshop allowed the Project team to present the final P A D for comments in order to secure a feedback mechanism to participants regarding the process, which will continue during Project Implementation.

G. Policy Exceptions and Readiness

93. meets the regional criteria for readiness for implementation.

The proposed GEF operation does not require any exception from Bank policies and it

28

Annex 1: Country and Sector o r Program Background

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

1. Botswana’s Vision 2016 underscores the notion that development will be sustainable and will take account o f the preservation o f the environment and renewable resources. I t also endorses that incomes for al l in Botswana will be raised closer to those in developed nations, and that al l Batswana, rural and urban, male and female, will have the opportunity o f paid employment, access to good quality housing, as well as increased resource ownership.

2. The long term principles included in Vision 2016 are incorporated into the National Development Plan 10 (NDP10) which proposes results and goals o f national importance spanning a seven year period until 2016. The strategic thrust o f NDP10 will be to accelerate competitiveness through knowledge and productive human resources, sustainable growth and environment, enhanced well-being and social protection, security, transparency and governance. Under the theme “Accelerating Achievement o f Vision 2016 through NDPlO”, the plan differs from previous plans with a results-oriented formulation supported with better monitoring and evaluation systems. Moreover, in the case o f dispersed rural communities, the Government continues supporting the Remote Area Dwellers Program (RADP) which is a special program that complements the Government’s rural development efforts and aims to address the extreme poverty situation in remote areas.

3. Botswana’s limited potential for agriculture has meant that rural development opportunities are scarce and the rural population has serious challenges identifying alternative sources o f income. As a result, the rural population i s more affected by poverty than the urban population. Conservation and nature-based tourism can help provide alternative means o f income generation to rural and remote populations.

4. In the above context, a few o f the key challenges will be how to achieve economic diversification and reduction o f poverty in rural areas. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization o f wildlife resources are being seen by Government as key tools to advance rural development. Initiatives to develop sustainable utilization o f wildlife resources and tourism can go a long way complementing the Government’s National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS). The NPRS broadly focuses on reducing poverty through broad-based growth, enhancing human capital o f the poor, creating cost-effective pro-poor social safety nets, developing an effective

’ response to HIV/AIDS, and strengthening institutions for the poor.

5. In the above context tourism and natural resource management are key sectors identified by Government to assist in achieving economic diversification, furthering rural development and alleviating poverty.

6. Government i s conscious about the major role tourism can play. In 2007 the Government updated travel and tourism policies and undertook a series o f actions to sub-lease community safari concession areas and auction annual wildlife hunting quotas, in an effort to open up development opportunities for the rural poor, while maintaining an ecological balance. Key stakeholders confirm that in order to increase the impact o f tourism there are various issues that need to be addressed including: a) to date there are few large scale investments which could

29

encourage the development o f higher end value markets and local supply chains; b) high input costs, poor service levels, and cumbersome immigration and customs procedures affecting tourists; and c) high prevalence o f HIV/AIDS among adults, which has had a debilitating effect on the workforce, and could potentially jeopardize the future development o f the travel and tourism industry.

7. Government policy recognizes the need to assist poor rural communities through enhanced natural resource management practices at the community level. This i s reflected in several policy documents including Vision 2016, the NDP10, and the Remote Area Dwellers Program. In the mid 1 9 9 0 ’ ~ ~ the country embarked on a specific approach towards supporting community-based natural resource management with international assistance. Community trusts were established earmarking revenues from hunting and tourism licenses, with profits expected to benefit local communities. Some trusts also established community-run lodges with support from external development partners with mixed results.

8. More recently, Government has introduced the Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy (2007) which supports the principle that local communities should benefit from wildlife, natural resources and tourism. This policy incorporates the experience to date with community trusts, including the positive and negative, and introduces a requirement for trusts to transfer 65 percent o f their revenues from the sublease o f natural resource concessions o f hunting quotas into a National Environmental Fund administered by MEWT. After the reform was introduced trust are only allowed to retain 35 percent o f the proceeds o f concession sales and hunting quotas. With these changes there i s greater attention being placed on development o f strategies, identification o f practical solutions to,develop management skills and enhancing ways in which the trust members can really benefit from the trusts.

9. Botswana is party to a number o f multilateral and regional environmental agreements on biodiversity and wildl i fe management including the Convention on Wetlands o f International Importance (Ramsar Convention 1971), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species o f Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES, 1973), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD, 1994), the Permanent Okavango River Basin Agreement (1994), and the SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and L a w Enforcement (1 999). These multilateral agreements support the Government’s commitment to preserving the environment and recognize the need to strike a balance between conservation and sustainable utilization o f wildlife resources, which also forms the basis for eligibility o f GEF co- financing. As a signatory to the CBD, the Government has committed itself that biodiversity resources will be maintained for generations to come and has consequently developed a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2007) which forms part o f the Government’s effort to achieve Vision 2016.

10. W h i l e the overall policy and institutional framework for biodiversity conservation was being strengthened, significant progress has been made in the last decade to ensure that management o f wi ldl i fe resources is in line with internationally accepted standards and norms. About 42 percent o f the country’s land area i s considered under some form o f conservation, with some 7.7 percent in national parks (NP), 10.3 percent in game reserves (GR), 13 percent in gazetted wildlife management areas (WMA), and another 11 percent proposed for management

30

as wildlife areas. Despite a sharp decline in the population o f certain wildlife species since the 70s, Botswana continues to have one of the most significant wildlife resources in Africa and globally. The number o f mammalian taxa that occur in Botswana stands at 162, including 39 taxa o f hoofed mammals (Perisodactyla and Artiodactyla), 38 taxa o f carnivores and 7 taxa o f primates. Most large mammals are found in the western part o f the country with a greater diversity occurring in the northwest. Mammalian numbers in the eastern part o f the country have declined as a result o f displacement by human settlement and i t s associated activities. There are 26 species o f mammals that are protected under the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act o f 1992. Five o f these species o f mammals are considered globally threatened. They are: (i) Wild Dog, Lycaon pictus; (ii) Black Rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis; (iii) White Rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum; (iv) Brown Hyaena, Hyaena brunnea; and (v) Cheetah, Acinonyix jubatus.

11. Human-Wildlife-Conflict in biodiversity r ich areas i s increasingly identified as one o f the more important factors affecting the success and outcomes o f conservation approaches and sustainable use programs which are designed to address human development needs and those o f biodiversity conservation. The failure to address this conflict will influence our ability to conserve biodiversity in many regions o f the world where people live in poverty and natural resource use presents the primary livelihood strategy for the rural poor. In Botswana, H W C has increased ten-fold in the recent years and severely impacting rural livelihood strategies and threatening biodiversity resources in critical ecosystems (Addendum 1 to Annex 1). The main causes as identified in Project preparatory work are presented in Addendum 1 and 2 to this Annex further below.

31

Technica l Addendum 1 t o Annex 1: M o s t common d i rect a n d ind i rec t in tervent ion techniques t o mi t iga ted Human-Wi ld l i fe-

Conf l i c t in Southern A f r i c a

Table 1. Most common HWC mitigation practices in Southern Afr ica

Mitigation Practice

Community awareness

Monitoring and decision support systems

Compensation

Insurance schemes (farmers pay a premium for cover against a defined risk e.g. predation o f livestock) Relocation o f local communities (voluntary or involuntary) to areas offering better access to natural resources and socio- economic opportunities

I Traditional Fencing

Deterrent methods e.g. chili- pepper fences

Pro

Essential. Education and training ictivities can disseminate innovative techniques, build local :apacity in conflict prevention and resolution and increase public understanding o f HWC.

Simple and reliable monitoring procedures are essential in order to decide who and where to mitigate, to continue or modify the mitigation.

The application o f pro-active conflict mitigation measures could be used to determine eligibility for compensation (conditional access for compensation) and could foster more sustainable livestock and crop farming systems.

Rather innovative and promising compensation approach.

None. N o resettlement wi l l take place under any Project supported activity.

If properly designed, constructed and maintained, fences are a good way to manage some conflicts. Aiming at repelling wildlife. Affect several senses o f the animal: hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch. Some techniques, such as chili-pepper vs. elephants, have been proven to be quite successful in combination with other deterrents.

Con

qone

:BO, individual community member and the conservation 3gency need to cooperate :ffectively .

Compensation (in cash or kind) i s very demanding for various administrative, economic and technical reasons. Can even have adverse effects due to i t s unintentional function as a subsidy to crop and livestock production.

Requires very functional CBOs, appropriate legislation and functional rural economies.

Outdated. Usually no longer desirable or politically feasible. Very expensive.

Widely used for various purposes but in most cases with very limited success.

Habituation o f the targeted wildlife species.

32

Wildlife-proof electric fencing ( O S m in the ground, 2.4 m high o f f the ground, strong steel cables etc.)

Elephant restraining fence line (solar-powered, 2 m and 2.4 m high)

Effective against most wildlife species, except some predators.

Controls elephant spatial use effectively with affordable capital and maintenance cost.

Herd management

Guarding animals

Beekeeping

Translocation of wildlife

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

HWC can be reduced by altering the production. Crop management

HWC can be reduced by altering livestock herdinghanching schemes e.g. propagation of night-kraaling and/or cow-calf kraaling. Dogs can be effective in protecting smaller livestock from attack by certain medium-sized predators. As an additional elephant restraining devise limited success but can easily been linked with the economic potential of honey and wax production. Practical and politically correct approach in some cases where there i s the availability of a suitable habitat with territorial vacancies.

None

Land Use Planning

Areas important for livestock or crops and not for wildlife could be devoted to agriculture and/or settlements, while areas o f particular wildlife importance such as strongholds, corridors, and economically viable wildlife use areas, could be dedicated to wildlife conservation and tourism.

Cost-benefit usually questionable due to very high capital and maintenance costs.

Projects need to consider the different local environmental conditions and site-specific objectives prior to deciding where to locate fences to draw limits to the permissible elephant range. Al l other wildlife species are not controllable. Requires institutional maintenance. Costly. May require use o f herbicides and/or pesticides Livestock farmers are usually conservative and maintain their traditional livestock “managementyy pattern.

Some guarding dogs pose serious danger to humans.

None

Very expensive. Associated with a number o f technical, ecological and economic problems.

Very expensive. Fertility control o f wild animals i s theoretically possible but i s still largely at an experimental stage. Cannot be considered as an available option to manage HWC.

Require functional and institutions and cross-sectoral planning. Has a number o f sociological, and political disadvantages. In addition, it i s a long process due to limited legal and institutional development capacities.

33

d- m

c

f

I

r- M

W m

Technical Addendum 2 to Annex 1.

Human-Wildlife-Conflict Survey conducted by CARACAL in 2009, Kasana, Botswana

1. In an effort to assist Botswana’s economic development through strengthening conservation, and through the sustainable use and mainstreaming o f wildlife and biodiversity resources, the Government o f Botswana obtained GEF funds from the World Bank for the Improved Rural Livelihood Project. The Government used these funds in part to address wildl i fe conflict management and Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) issues in the northern wetlands and related savannah ecosystems o f Botswana. In this report, we detail the results o f 12 years o f wildlife conflict management by the Botswana Department o f Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) through their policy o f compensating wildlife-related stock, crop and infrastructure loss, in the three northern districts, Central, Chobe, and Ngamiland.

2. Methods. Since 1994, DWNP has compensated owners for loss o f stock, crops, and infrastructure when damaged by wildlife. In order for compensation to be paid, owners have to submit a report to DWNP, which i s followed by a D W N P site visit to assess the nature and extent o f the damage. During this site visit, a compensation form i s completed which details information about the owner, the type o f damage, and the problem animal (wildlife) responsible. We collated these data between 1994 and 2006 and we present here the summary analysis for wildlife conflict in Central, Chobe, and Ngamiland districts, with special focus on critical communities in the northern wetlands. In the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site these are the villages o f Seronga, Beetsha, Eretsha, Gudigwa, and Gunitsoga. In the Chobe-Linyanti Wetlands these villages are Mabele, Kavimba, Satau, Parakarungu, Kachikau, and Lesoma. In the Makgadikgadi Wetlands, these villages are Kumaga and Moreomaoto. All data are summarized by either frequency (number o f conflict incidents) or extent (amount o f compensation paid in Botswana Pula - BWP).

Results

3. Category o f loss and amount of loss. Elephant and l ion were the most common problem animals in al l three districts (Table l), with l ion causing the greatest total financial loss in al l districts (Table 2). In Central and Ngamiland districts, wildlife predominantly caused damage to livestock, while in Chobe District crop and livestock damage occurred at similar levels (Table 3). In al l districts, o f the livestock, cattle were the type most frequently damaged, and o f this group, it was predominantly cows or calves (Table 4). In all districts, maize was the crop most frequently compensated (Table 5) and fences were the infrastructural unit most frequently damaged (Table 6).

4. Preventative measures by owners. Reporting o f preventative measures taken by owners was extremely l o w with most compensation forms indicating “nothing stated” or “none” for this category (Table 7). In al l districts, the common preventative measures that were implemented were the use o f a boma, the use o f a fence or guarding, patrolling and herding (Table 7).

5. Extension services by DWNP. In al l districts, D W N P commonly advised guarding, patrolling and herding as a preventative measure (Table S), however, in Central District in

39

particular, DWNP advised most often that owners kraal their animals o n time (Table 8). Over the entire region, the problem animal that most frequently caused damage was lion, followed by elephant and then leopard (Table 9), which was the same order o f importance relative to the total cost o f compensation caused (Table 10). However, per incident, buffalo, lion, raptor, and wild dog damage was relatively costly to compensate, while hippo, elephant and leopard were relatively l ow in this ranking (Table 11).

6. Temporal trends. Wildl i fe conflict increased dramatically over the entire region, nearly doubling in number o f incidents between 2004 and 2006 as compared to between 1995 and 2003 (Figure 1). Over the entire study period and study region, there was a peak in wildlife conflict in the wet season, in the months o f February, March, April and May (Figure 2). Elephants show a sharp increase in number o f conflict incidents in 2004 and show a dramatic peak in the wet season (Figures 3 a and 3 b respectively), while large predator conflict (lion, leopard and hyaena has remained relatively stable longitudinally (Figure 4a) and temporally within a given year (Figure 4b). Hyaena conflict appears to decrease dramatically (Figure 5), however, damage by this species ceased to be compensated for and reporting and inspection o f conflict thus declined precipitously (indicating an inherent f law in this system o f data collection).

7. Pilot village data. Among the villages o f the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site there was large variation in the level o f conflict (with Seronga reporting considerably more conflict than any other village) and large variation in the longitudinal nature o f conflict (with very little congruence in the yearly trends for the villages) (Figure 6). The same was true for the Makgadikgadi Wetlands (Figure 7 ) and for the Chobe-Linyanti Wetlands (Figure 8). The latter showed some o f the greatest year-to-year variation in number o f conflict incidents within a village (Figure 8).

8. Human-caused elephant and lion mortality at the district level. Human-caused l ion and elephant mortalities showed considerable variability both in location (district) and longitudinally (Figure 9). Total l ion mortalities varied greatly among the districts, with Chobe having few and sporadic l ion mortalities, and Ngamiland having significantly more mortalities than Central (Figure 9). However, within a district, the longitudinal data followed a similar pattern for Central and Ngamiland: there was a marked decrease in mortalities in 1996 and 1997 and a clear increase again starting in 1998 (Figure 9). Similarly, Ngamiland experienced far more elephant mortalities than either Central or Chobe, but the trends within Ngamiland and Chobe both showed increases in 1998 through 2000 (Figure 9).

9. Protocol for identification o f the baseline indicator for elephant conflict. Together with colleagues’ from Kings College’s, we used multivariate logistic regression and hierarchical partitioning to build models o f elephant distributions based on environmental variables derived from remote sensing and other data sources. We evaluated the relative importance o f these biophysical and human factors and identified predictive variables o f elephant distribution. We then conducted an analysis o f these relationships with annual conflict incidence (Gibbons et a1 2008, under revision). Our results suggest that elephant range i s largely controlled by biophysical landscape variables and the presence o f agriculture. We found no relationship between the size o f the elephant population and the size o f their range. However, there is a relationship between range size, net primary productivity (NPP) and rainfall. Thus, inter-annual variations in climate

40

appear to control NPP and this, in turn, controls the size o f the area over which the elephants move and conflict incidence.

10. The GEF/World Bank Project requires indicators that will allow Project impact to be measured. Elephants conflict has been selected as such an area where reduction in incidence will identify measurable Project impact. Using our previous research in the area, we will need to deal with the variability posed by environmental conditions alone in order to develop a value that can be compared between years. Based on the outcomes o f our previous modeling work, we will need to divide the elephant range area for the respective year by the total number o f elephant conflicts. Elephant range will be identified from aerial surveys and these surveys will need to identify clearly the limits o f elephant range with survey transects that bound this transition. This 'conflict index' value normalizes for the annual elephant range variations identified in relation to environmental variability such as NPP and rainfall. Based on our previous work, this value is between 1 1.9 and 13.0 (1 997-2002) and would decrease if there was less conflict per unit area o f elephant range. Thus if we propose for example a 15 percent reduction in elephant conflict over the l i f e o f the Project, we will identify the conflict index for year one and reduce this value by 15 percent for the final year. We should calculate this index annually to evaluate our progress. Total annual elephant conflict incidence/elephant range (km2) = conflict index.

References

Gibbons, C.J., and N.A. Drake, G.L.W. Perry, M. Vandewalle and K.A Alexander. 2008. Spatial modeling o f the controls on Elephant distribution in northern Botswana and implications for conservation. Submitted to Diversity and Distributions.

Table 3. Number o f incidents by district for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

District Species Number of incidents

Central Elephant 3 384 Lion 3 162 Leopard 2 834

Jackal 250 Hyaena 959

Chobe Elephant Lion Hyaena Leopard Buffalo

Ngamiland Lion Elephant Leopard Crocodile Hyaena

954 696 351 109 79

3 434 2 166 1169

38 1 308

41

Table 4. Compensation costs o f top problem animals for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

District Species Total cost (BWP)

Central Lion Elephant Leopard Hyaena Wild dog

Chobe Lion Elephant Hyaena Buffalo Leopard

Ngamiland Lion Elephant Leopard Crocodile Wild dog

2 417 810.00

1 073 142.50 435 040.00 364 160.00

1 414 579.58

451 605.10 405 418.95 117 165.00 72 515.64 26 759.50

2 789 882.00 649 263.08 391 685.01 259 974.50

92 640.00

Table 5. Damage type by number of incidents for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

District Type of damage Number of incidents

Central Livestock Infrastructure Crop Human threat

Chobe Crop Livestock Infrastructure Human threat

8 254 2 552 1712

13

1212 1013

98 0

Ngamiland Livestock 5 666

60 1 4

Crop 1919 Infrastructure Human threat

(some incidents may be a combination o f types)

42

Table 6. Stock damage by number o f incidents for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006 District Type of stock damage

Main Category Sub-category Number of incidents

Central Cattle

Goats

Don keys

Horses

Sheep

Chobe Cattle

Goats

Donkeys Other Horses

Ngamiland Cattle

Horses

Goats

Donkeys

Sheep

Calf cow Heifer Oxen Tolly

Goat Kid

Donkey Foal

Horse Foal

Sheep Lamb

Calf cow Heifer Oxen Tolly

Goat

Foal

Calf cow Heifer Oxen Tolly

Horse Foal

Goat Kid

Donkey Foal

Sheep Lamb

5 739 2 645 2 009

392 298 395

1 585 1520

65 582 556 26

543 37 1 172 21 8 21 0

8

91 0 149 708

31 20

2 152 152 36

3 1 1

3 043 773

1656 114 392 108 939 883 106 912 888

24 785 780

5 57 55

2

.

43

Table 7. Crop damage by number of incidents for northern Botswana, 1994-2006 ~~

District Crop type Number of incidents

Central Other Maize Sorghum Watermelon Melon

Chobe Maize Melon Sorghum Sweet reed Pumpkin

Ngamiland Maize Not specified Sorghum Melon Other

343 260 214 162 160

598 122 97 83 69

556 548 370 228 212

Table 8. Infrastructure damage by number of incidents for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

District Type of infrastructure Number of Incidents

Central Fence Other Pipes Well Dwellinglbuilding

Chobe Fence Dwelling/building Other

Ngamiland Fence Dwelling/building Well

2 006 126 36 25 15

62 10 9

310 36 22

44

Table 9. Preventative measures by number of incidents for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

District Preventative measure taken by owner Number of Main Category Su b-Category incidents

Central Nothing stated None Boma Fence Guard/patrol/herd Kraal on time

Chobe Nothing stated None Barrier Guard/patrol/herd

Ngamiland Nothing stated Boma

Pool boma Thorn borna

Fence GuardlpatroVherd None

3 858 1619 1 486

1348 427

I 478

470 344 21 1 124

5 629 394 219

91 390 93 80

45

Table 10. DWNP extension service for HWC in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

District Extension offered by DWNP Number of Main Category Su bGateg ory incidents

Central None 2 385 Kraal on time 2 274 Guardlpatrollherd 1382 Deterrent (total) 1113

Fire 378 Gunshots 163 Noise 366 Non-specific 566 Trad i tiona I met hods 4

Control problem animal (total) 788 Destroy 31 3 Non-specific 75 Shoot 39 Trap 17

Strengthen Barrier 486 Boma 465

Chobe Guard/pa t rol/ herd None Deterrent Fence Strengthen barrier Kraal on time

Ngamiland Guard/patrol/herd None Other Nothing stated Kraal on time Deterrent (total)

272 260 119 103 74 50

2 099 1645

713 522 516 514

Fire 103 Gunshots 26 Noise 41 Non-specific 34 1 Traditional methods 1

46

Table 11. Total number of conflict incidents in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

Species Number of incidents

Lion Elephant Leopard Hyaena Wild Dog Crocodile

7 292 6 504 4 112 1 269

691 412

Table 12. Total compensation costs per problem species for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

Species Cost (BWP)

Lion Elephant Leopard Hyaena Wild dog Crocodile Hippo Buffalo Jackal Cheetah

5 659 297.00 2 469 262.00 1491 587.00

585 835.00 466 400.00 270 465.00

95 251.10 73 452.60 44 547.00 15 91 0.00

Table 13. Compensation cost per incident for Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

Species Cost (BWP)

Buffalo Lion Raptor Wild dog Crocodile Hippo Elephant Leopard Hyaena

895.76 776.10 766.96 674.96 656.47 414.14 379.65 362.74 358.31

47

Figure 1. Total number o f HWC incidents by year for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

3500 1 2 3000 5 2500 = 2000

1500 n E 1000 5 500

0

C

0

0 c

Year

Figure 2. Total number o f HWC incidents by month for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

3500 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 Month

Figure 3. Total number o f HEC incidents (a) by year and (b) by month for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

a) 2500

f 2000 B - 2 1500 c

$ 1000 9

,$ 500

0

1400

v) 1200

g 1000 .- 2 800 u-

600 n 5 400

200 z

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 Month

48

Figure 4. Total number of lion, leopard, hyaena conflict incidents (a) by year and (b) by month for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

a> 1400 i

1600 f 1400 E 1200 5 1000 O BOO c

3 600 5 400 200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

Year Month

Figure 5. Number o f lion, leopard, and hyaena conflict incidents (a) by year and (b) by month for Chobe, Central and Ngamiland districts in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006

1200 1000 800 600 400 200

0

Year

b) 800 700

5 600 500

5 400 300

c

-

s 200 z 100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

Month

Figure 6. Total number of HWC incidents for villages in the Okavango Delta in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006. (a) Seronga, (b) Gonutsuga, (c) Beetsha, (d) Erestsha, (e) Gudingwa

g 100 25 W

C C 5 80 8 20 - - L 60 5 15

E E

2 L

d 40 d 10

2 20 2 5

0 0

49

4 20 1

18 : 25 W f 16 E 20 3 14

E 12 5 10 g 15

$ 8 4 10 E 6 2 4 1 5

0 2 0

c

n E

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Year

Figure 7. Total number of HWC incidents for villages in the Makgadigadi Wetlands in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006. (a) Kumaga, (b) Moreomaoto

a> 180 1

2 50

120 40

'6 30

E

3 160 5 140 0

- 2 = 100 : 80 L

2 60 2 20

z 10 = 20

L

5 40

0 0

50

Figure 8. Total number o f HWC incidents for villages in the Chobe-Linyanti Wetlands in Northern Botswana, 1994-2006. (a) Mabele, (b) Kavimba, (c) Satau, (d) Parakurungu, (e) Kachikau, ( f ) Lesoma

BO 30

f 25 9 70 5 60 al

50 8 40 E 15

10 8 30 n

0 20 U .- - -

5 20 = 10 1 5

0 0

VI 70 5 60

50 5 40 L 5 40

b 30 30 n n

g 60 - U 50 .-

f 20 f 20 10 10 0 0

VI 35 5 30

50 25

b 15 n

.A v) 70 5 60 o_

- U

40 zj 20

f 20 5 10 8 30 n

10 = 5 0 0

51

Figure 9. Total reported lion (left) and elephant (right) mortalities caused by humans in Central (a and b), Chobe (c and d) and Ngamiland (e and f ) districts in Botswana, 1993 - 2000

a) Lion b) Elephant

35 1 35 1

30 30

25 25

$ 15 2

10 10

5 5

0 0

d 20 - d 20

9 15 I

4 30 -

25 -

2 20 -

= 1 0 -

.- I .- g 1 5 -

5 -

1995 1996 ' 1997 1998 1999 2000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Year

4 50 i 45 40

d 30 $ 25

15 10

5 0 0

v1 35

8 20

1993 1995 1996 1999 2000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Year

0 1 160 1

140 70 120 60

.- 50 $ 80 $ 40

60 8 30 40 20 20 10

0 0

e h 100 e

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Year

52

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

1. The World Bank i s presently developing an active project portfolio in Botswana. In addition, there are currently a number o f initiatives and projects by other donors either under implementation or being prepared for implementation during the same time period as the present GEF/World Bank project.

2. Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Okavango Delta Implementing Agencies- UNDP/GEF, HOORCMWET (2006-2011). The project will focus on three production sectors that dominate resource uses within the Okavango Delta: water management, tourism and artisanal and recreational fisheries. Project actions apply the precautionary principle, and are designed to address future threats to biodiversity emanating from production activities, instituting management measures before threats become severe. Project outcomes: Enabling environment strengthened at both systemic and institutional levels; biodiversity management objectives integrated into the water sector; the tourism sector i s directly contributing to biodiversity conservation in the Delta; biodiversity friendly management methods are inducted into fisheries production systems

3. Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor (WKCC): Wildlife Conservation, rural community and tourism development in the Kalahari-FFEM and C I (under preparation). The project aims to maintain and restore wildl i fe access to resources in the Western Kalahari Conservation Corridor (WKCC) ecological corridors which link the K T P and CKGR, and to promote community development and tourism based on sustainable use o f natural resources amongst people forming part o f the WKCC system. Specific objectives include: obtaining the biological, socio-economic and land-use data needed to develop different options o f land use planning, reduce negative interactions between humans and wildlife; contribute to the economic development of the communities in the WKCC; contribute to the sustainability o f the W K C C through promotion o f increased environmental awareness and communication to stakeholders.

4. Wildlife Conservation Management Programme - Government (DWNP) and European Union (2004-2010). The project-funded through the EU’s EDF program, aims to address inefficient operational management systems and manpower, including policy planning within the Headquarters o f the Department o f Wildl i fe and National Parks (DWNP) within the Ministry o f Environment, Wildl i fe and Tourism (MEWT) and its (decentralized) district offices, raise awareness o f the economic and financial benefits o f sustainable wildlife management, adaptive management systems within protected areas and neighboring communities, and address the inadequate capacity o f local communities to benefit from sustainable natural resources use and wildlife management.

5. Every River has i ts People-SIDA, IUCN, IRN, Namibia Nature Foundation, KCS and others (to be completed in 2007). This project aims to increase the capacity o f communities and other local stakeholders to participate effectively in decision making about the natural resources o f the Okavango River Basin, particularly those related to water resources, at local, national and regional (basin-wide) levels, and to develop mechanisms to promote and facilitate

53

this participation. A co-learning aspect, as at the same time that the capacity o f communities is increased and participation mechanisms are created, the project and relevant decision-makers and policy implementers acquire a better grasp o f community perspectives and the issues surrounding Okavango River Basin resources. Phase 1 : extensive socio-ecological surveys carried out in Basin Phase 2: Analysis o f info., development o f educational materials and approach Phase 3: Capacity buildingltraining and participation mechanism initiation

6. Okavango Delta Management Plan (under preparation). This project i s at early stages o f preparation and aims to develop institutional arrangement and a management plan for the Okavango Delta.

7. Enhancing local capacities for sustainable biodiversity action in Africa: UNDP, Birdlife Botswana. This six country (Rwanda, Nigeria, Malawi, Liberia, Burundi and Botswana) project will address this need to strengthen capacities within civ i l society groups and PA authorities to engage in constructive partnerships to improve management effectiveness in Protected Areas, with a concentration on small sites. The immediate objective i s to improve the capacity o f c iv i l society and government to work in partnership to manage Protected Areas, particularly small sites currently receiving sub-optimal conservation management attention. In Botswana, the project area includes Nata Sanctuary in the Makgadikgadi Wetlands, where the main objective i s to demonstrate that sustainable use o f birds, in particular through bird tourism, in diversifying income opportunities in rural but “bird-rich’’ areas”.

8. KAZA - Peace Parks Foundation. The governments o f Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe are pursuing the establishment o f a Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) known as the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA under the coordination o f the Peace Parks Foundation. The project i s currently engaged in a pre-feasibility study. The project area would include the Okavango and Zambezi river basin regions of, Botswana, Angola Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

54

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Results Framework

Long term goal

Project Development Objective (PDO)

PDO Outcomes

1. Human-wildlife conflict reduced in selected communities.

2. Local people benefit directly from the presence o f wildlife through employment in wildlife-based tourism ventures.

Intermediate Results

Component 1

Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife Coexistence interventions.

Component 2

Strengthened capacity of targeted communities to implement Human-Wildlife- Coexistence strategies.

Enhancing coexistence between rural communities and key wildlife species through proactive HWC prevention and sk i l ls development for nature-based tourism. (i) to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through proactive prevention interventions in selected rural communities in Northern Botswana and (ii) to offer local people in the project areas employment choices in wildlife-based tourism to benefit directly from the presence of wil

Outcome Indicators

o Numbers o f annual wildlife conflict incidents caused by key species such as elephants and lions reduced by 33 percent in project villages as a result o f Project supported intervention. o Number o f community member employed in local wildlife-based tourism ventures increased by 75 individuals.

Results Indicators

o Number o f DWNP extension staff trained and executing proactive HWC prevention strategies increased by 60. o Number o f DWNP district offices fully staffed with a trained workforce and equipped -with vehicles and IT/GIS gear. o White Paper Human-Wildlife- Coexistence strategies available by year 3.

o Number o f households successfully using proactive HWC prevention strategies increased by 1.500 households units.

Use o f Outcome Information

3 interventions aiming to enhance coexistence between rural communities and key wildlife species.

To assess success o f different

U s e of Results Monitoring

3 To assess DWNP's capacities to implement Human-Wildlife- Coexistence strategies for rural communities.

o To assess effectiveness of HWC mitigation options.

55

L Component 3

Project management support.

o Number o f community member trained in MOMS and DSS and applying this tools increased by 26 individuals.

o Number of community member trained for tourism- related employment increased by 100 individuals.

o Satisfactory rating of Project implementation. o One unqualified fmancial audits per year. o Two training events per year for PIU and other relevant personnel in the first three years o f project implementation. o Three communication events per year. o Two forum meetings per year.

3 To assess relevance of MOMS and DSS as a rational response to information gathered and as a basis for replication of successful actions.

3 skills development program.

To assess relevance of the

0 Highlights possible delays in Project implementation.

56

UF Y

0 g g 2 2 m 0 W

0 g s , 2 2 m 0 W

0 0 0 w W m 2 c'1 0 W

0 0 0 0 0 0

3 c m

$

0 \ o m m m

0 \ o m m m 0

0 0 0 0

n

.m Y Q

el el

a

8 .I c,

W

ba a L 0 .I

c, .I

8 m c, I

& 0 b

m c,

9 & E el

4 2 4

.. CC)

0 Y

B a a a 2

0 0

0 0 2 d d 0

0 0 d N

0 0 0 d d

8 c(

0 0 0 'd N

0 0 N 0 0 0 vl m m m 2

0 \o 0 0 0 0 N (u N N . ( u

W N 0 0 0 0

0 W hl hl

0 W c.l c.l

0 W hl hl

0 W hl hl

0 0 0 0 0

n El 0

a el c 0 0

M el b 0

el

.I c

a

n .I

W

.I

CI .I

2 m c I

2

e 2 I.

m c,

i 8l n E 2

!4 4

.. M

0 c

B a

: a

a 2

W

x

(u d W d

0 0 0 0 0

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

1. The Project's Development Objective i s (i) to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through proactive prevention interventions in selected rural communities in Northern Botswana and (ii) to offer local people employment choices in these same areas in wildlife-based tourism to benefit directly from the presence o f wildlife.

2. Key Performance Indicators include:

(i) Numbers o f annual wildlife conflict incidents caused by key species such as elephants and lions reduced by 33 percent in project villages"; and (ii) Numbers o f community members employed in local wildlife-based tourism ventures increased by 75 individuals.

3. Project components. The Project will be comprised o f three components designed to enhance DWNP's overall operational capacity and assist subsistence farmers in Northern Botswana mitigate wildlife conflict through proactive interventions and offer local people employment choices and increasing opportunities to benefit from the presence o f wildlife.

4. Component 1: Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife- Coexistence interventions (GEF: US$1.15 million, Government: US$5.8 million). The component seeks to strengthen DWNP's extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife Coexistence strategies such as proactive H W C interventions. It will address the administrative and operational capacity o f DWNP at district level for planning, decision making, implementation and monitoring o f H W C management in the three Project areas. The targeted district offices are expected to be fully staffed, trained and computerized by year 3. The activities o f this component support the creation o f an enabling environment for implementation o f the evolving H W C policy o f DWNP, which i s to move from relying exclusively on compensation for H W C towards engaging communities in proactive conflict prevention strategies.

5. Activities that will be financed under Component 1 include: (i) Training for national and district based staff in strategic and operations management; (ii) Implementation support, community mobilization and training in proactive H W C

interventions for DWNP staff; (iii) Implementation support for environmental and social safeguard policies; (iv) Support for development and provision o f training in Management Oriented

Monitoring Systems (MOMS) and Decision Support Systems (DDS);

Based on an analysis covering 13 years o f data (Annex l), elephant and lion were the most common problem animals in all Project areas, with lion causing the greatest total financial losses. The number o f incidents refer to HWC incidents against which a compensation claim was made. The lion conflict indicator w i l l be calculated as annual lion cattle conflict incidence divided by the total population o f cattle in the respective villages to account for the relative risk o f loss over time. The correction factor for elephant conflict i s explained in more detail in the Technical Addendum 2 to Annex 1.

63

(v) Provision o f Geo-Information-System eguipment (GIs), GPS receivers and related training;

(vi) Provision o f IT and office equipment as well as vehicles for H W C related extension activities;

(vii) Support to develop a White Paper on Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies; and (viii) Provision o f adequate resources to cover the recurrent costs associated with the

above-mentioned activities (financed by Government).

6. It i s envisaged that senior DWNP staff will receive training in strategic and operations management to guide D W N P staff in their planning and decision making related to Human- Wildlife Coexistence management. In addition 40 extension staff members will be trained in the analysis o f HWC-related data and how to use this information to guide future intervention planning and execution, as wel l as monitoring ongoing activities such as manipulating elephant spatial use through chili-pepper and solar-powered fence lines.

7. DWNP will also receive support and training to resolve al l significant environmental and social issues for planning o f specific Project interventions according to the procedures' for preparing, screening, approving and implementing interventions outlined in the ESMF. Activities triggering an EMP are listed in the checklist in ESMF Annex 1; Annex 2 presents GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING AN EMP and Annex 3 an example o f an EMP for a Project intervention. To ensure that Project activities are socio-culturally appropriate and to avoid or minimize further marginalization o f IP, an IPP will be prepared in a pragmatic manner depending on the specific project and the nature o f effects to be addressed. It i s envisaged that DWNP will contract a local N G O to assist with the screening o f the proposed activities for each year in order to build capacity as well as ensure that proper safeguards measures are being taken.

8. It i s anticipated that, implementation o f M O M S will start in some DWNP district offices by Project effectiveness. The Project will ensure the training o f al l extension officers at stations within the three Project areas in conjunction with the government's in-house program based on a needs assessment to improve o n existing training as well as identify new training. Training will include M O M S (how to collect & record monitoring data, what data to collect, computer data entry and analysis) and a DSS. While the M O M S design shall be guided by the Namibian event- book, the DSS shall be guided and adopted by the DSS developed by The African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG), Species Survival Commission (SSC) and I U C N to suit the situation in the Project areas. The DSS shall assist the targeted communities and the conservation agency to develop a systematic understanding o f H W C and develop specific responses to mitigate conflicts (training for communities i s programmed under Component 2). This will enable a more rational response to information gathered in M O M S as well as form the basis for replication o f successful actions.

9. Furthermore, to facilitate wildl i fe mapping and movements, DWNP district offices will receive GIS and GPS equipment and associated training as well as necessary IT equipment and vehicles, which will also help with wildlife conflict data collection. I t i s essential that the Community Extension and Outreach (CE&O) offices have IT-equipment dedicated to entry, maintenance and analysis o f wi ldl i fe conflict reports, monitoring and related data. Due to the severe lack o f appropriate transport for extension and outreach the Project will supply four 4x4

64

vehicles. Support will also be provided for the development for Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies and H W C policy, including Whi te Paper development. The White Paper, should be an official document released by the Government. The White Paper preparation should include a process o f consultation on all relevant topics and shall be an official proposal that i s used as a vehicle for the development o f a Human- Wildlife-Coexistence policy. The development of a White Paper i s therefore a critical step in the policy process. The Human- Wildlife-Coexistence policy will guide the management o f H W C in the short-medium and long-term. The intention is to bring lasting benefits to the people and for biodiversity conservation. This can only happen when human interaction with the environment i s wel l managed, and resources are not exhausted.

10. In order to successfully implement the above-mentioned activities, the project design foresees the provision o f staff time, office space and any associated expenses (Le. rent, electricity, equipment and vehicle repair, office supplies, fue l etc.).

1 1. Component 2: Strengthened capacity of rural target population to implement Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies (GEF: US$3.81 million, Government: US$8.31 million). This component seeks to strengthen the capacity o f the Project’s rural target populations in undertaking proactive prevention strategies to mitigate H W C impacts and to improve skil ls o f selected local community members to become more competitive for Botswana’s tourism industry. Component 2, consequently, i s addresses simultaneously reducing vulnerability and increasing rural livelihood and income opportunities. H W C interventions will focus on tested methodology which can easily be demonstrated and supported, while piloting additional approaches. Concerning HEC, the aim is to actively encourage 1,500 households to successfully adopt elephant restraining techniques by the end o f the Project period. Skills training will focus on tourism-related competences for various aspects o f hospitality management. About 100 candidates will be selected according to transparent, merit-based criteria.

12. Activities that will be financed include: Training for local community members in Operations Management (Le. for Community Trust Members), M O M S and DSS; The provision o f sub-grants (cash transfers) directly into Community Trusts to help finance H W C activities at the community level based on community needs and priorities, or help communities expandscale up activities financed by the project (financed by Government); Support for proactive HEC prevention with demonstration plots and scaling up support for chili-pepper deterrent techniques, including technical assistance and provision o f training by experienced service providers, distribution o f elephant restraining kits, support for initial chili-pepper cultivation, extension and monitoring; Support for the piloting and eventually rolling out less conventional prevention strategies l ike early maturing seeds (sorghum, maize, millet and cowpeas) as a mechanism to support HEC mitigation; Support for improved kraaling and herding to mitigate livestock-predator conflict particularly caused by lions and the use o f herding dogs as additional preventive devices for mid-size predators;

65

(vi) The construction o f solar-powered elephant restraining fence lines (including solar units) to manipulate elephant spatial use and reduce conflict as well as piloting the use of bees as a means to deter elephants and support for an alternate food/income source; and

(vii) Skills development for tourism-related employment, including wildlife guides, chefs, waiterdwaitresses, restaurant and/or lodge managers, receptionists and accountant/book-keepers .

13. In order to strengthen local capacity to carry out different project-related activities, a series o f skills improvement trainings will be offered. For instance, to ensure better and more efficient management o f resources at the local level, it i s anticipated that 20 community trust representatives will be trained in operations management. These trainings will allow Community Trust Members better manage and utilize the additional funds that they will receive as part o f the government’s attempt to incentivize communities to use alternative means o f managing/mitigating HWC. Furthermore, community members will be trained in DSS and M O M S development to track and analyze HWC-related data. The simple and cost effective paper based M O M S i s an M&E system that provides sufficient information to guide management decisions and i s ideally suited to measure progress in meeting the most results indicators. M O M S will be enhanced, particularly in respect to HEC, by a Decision Support System (DSS) for managing H W C in the Project areas. It i s expected that 26 community members from al l three Project areas will be trained in DSS and MOMS.

14. In terms o f deterrence techniques, the project will finance chili-pepper fence demonstrations and applications. I t i s expected that in total approximately 1,500 households will benefit from this elephant deterrence technique. Support for proactive H E C prevention by demonstrating and scaling up support for chili-pepper deterrence techniques, including technical assistance and training by experienced service provider, elephant restraining kits, support for initial cultivation, extension and monitoring. The Project shall consider that a large population o f elephants range outside PAS and a combination o f physical barriers joint ly implemented’ with options for proactive HEC prevention such as chili-pepper repellents and solar-powered elephant restraining fence lines may be more successful in managing HEC, rather than single interventions. HEC mitigation can also be achieved in cooperation with the Department o f Crop Production by the use o f early maturing seeds, which can be harvested out o f season and thus might reduce HEC.

15. Furthermore, the project will also support the propagation o f kraaling for livestocklpredator management and help improve kraaling and herding techniques to mitigate livestock-predator conflicts, particularly caused by lions, with an initial focus on three project villages. In addition to subsistence cultivation o f crops, domestic livestock such as cattle, sheep and goats present one other cornerstone o f Northern Botswana’s rural economy. Production i s however in these remote areas, very l o w due to limited control o f infectious diseases (e.g. FMD and BLD), restricted breeding schemes and uncontrolled herding. Pasture management does virtually not take place and cattle, in particular, are basically roaming free without any rotation or kraaling limiting their range. Taking this somehow rigid livestock “management” pattern into consideration, the Project will align i t s strategy o f proactive anti-predator prevention with the propagation o f night-kraaling and/or cow-calf kraaling similar and in cooperation with the Department o f Veterinary Services

66

and Animal Production. Similar to the HEC DSS a Predator DSS system needs to be established to assist in managing the conflict with lions, leopards and cheetah to enhance up-scaling and access to lessons and successes for replication, especially since the implementation capacity in these remote areas i s weak. Furthermore, the use o f herding dogs as an effective.livestock- predator management tool will also be explored and i s expected to build on past success stories from Namibia, South Africa and other parts o f Botswana.

16. In addition to the above-mentioned measures, the project will also support pi lot beekeeping solar-powered elephant restraining fences and construction o f additional boreholes. Piloting beekeeping, for instance, will serve a dual-purpose: (i) as an additional elephant restraining devise and (ii) a supplement income and/or food source. All over Sub-Saharan Africa local people are well aware o f elephants' aversion to bees. However, the use o f the African honeybee (&is melliferea scutellata) as a possible means to deter elephants from raiding crop fields has probably only limited use albeit using hive barriers for H E C mitigation has been proven with some success in Mole National Park, Ghana, in the Cabinda Enclave, Angola and in Zimbabwe. In combination with other methods this "low tech" method can easily been linked with the economic potential o f honey and wax production.

17. In terms o f elephant restraining fences, the project shall consider first the different local environmental conditions and site-specific objectives before deciding where to locate fences and draw limits to the permissible elephant range. Mean density o f elephants along the Chobe riverfront for example, i s in the dry season about 4 animals per km2, dropping to ca. 0.5 per km2 during the wet season, when elephants disperse southwards drinking from temporary pans. It i s therefore advisable that, any solar powered restraining fences for manipulating elephant spatial use should be located along the seasonal migration routes and other ecological. boundaries and/or around valuable resources (irrigated fields, a water point or food storage facility). Such an approach has the best chance o f success both in terms o f reduced elephant damage and overall cost effectiveness.

18. Lastly, the project will support skil ls development for 100 community member for tourism- related employment. Hospitality training shall be carried out in local training institutions which develop ski l ls adapted to the local market. Candidates will be selected according to transparent, merit-based criteria.

19. Component 3: Project management support (GEF: US$0.54 million, Government: US$0.86 million). The component seeks to strengthen DWNP's capacity to efficiently administer o f Project funds, as well as coordination and implementation o f project activities. It also aims to improve the Project's external communications, including the establishment o f a permanent information dissemination forum to involve al l relevant stakeholders and development partners.

20. Activities that will be financed under Component 1 include: (i) Support for Project administration, including procurement and financial management

and related training for DWNP staff (ii) Logistical support, IT and office equipment for Project coordination;

67

(iii) Development o f a communication strategy including the establishment o f a permanent dissemination forum, a Project launch workshop, and bi-annually discussions thereafter;

(iv) Coordination with ongoing environmental development activities including for example the Biokavango Project and the Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor Project (financed by Government); and Provision o f adequate resources to cover the recurrent costs associated with the above-mentioned activities (financed by Government).

(v)

21. The PSC will provide policy guidance, monitoring and Project oversight during implementation. The PSC will review and approve work programs and budgets, as well as technical and progress reports. The PIU, in particular the Project coordinator, will have overall responsibility and accountability for project implementation. Further full time support staff will include a Project Accountant and a Procurement Officer. Both will support the coordinator for procurement and financial management aspects o f project implementation and related training for DWNP staff. Other technical staff e.g., a social development specialist may jo in the P I U in due course o f the Project.

.

22. The Project will support the P I U with office and IT-equipment dedicated to entry, maintenance and analysis o f reports, monitoring and related data. Furthermore, and due to the severe lack o f appropriate transport to the Project areas the Project will supply two sedan vehicles for the PIU.

23. With regards to the implementation support for communication strategy, the project will support the establishment o f a permanent information dissemination forum to involve relevant stakeholders and development partners. Provision for a communication strategy including the establishment o f a permanent information dissemination forum at Project launch, and bi-annually thereafter, to involve relevant stakeholders and development partners. For co-management o f H W C and monitoring to be effective, the co-management partners, DWNP, implementation partners and the communities, need to work transparent and share information and outputs regularly. The community Kgotla process i s wel l instituted as a means o f discussion, negotiation and information dissemination and will continue to be used for this purpose during the Project. The DWNP outputs from the Project (maps, incident reports, outcome indicator achievements and success o f mitigation strategies implemented) will be presented and discussed at regular kgotla meetings. Hard copies o f key results, especially Project progress and maps o f incident reports in the villages, will be displayed at the village kgotlas. Key results from the MOMS will also be discussed and displayed at the village kgotlas.

24. The expenditures associated with the smooth implementation o f the above-mentioned activities have been estimated and included in the overall project design and costing. They include the provision o f permanent staff to work with the consultants hired by the project, office space and supplieshepairs, printing and dissemination costs (including the establishment and running o f a permanent information dissemination forum), coordination efforts as wel l as any expenditures associated with field visits (Le. attending kgotlas).

68

Annex 5: Project Costs

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Local Foreign Total US $million US $million US $million Project Cost By Component and/or Activity

Component 1 : Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies 4.46 2.38 6.84 Component 2: Strengthened capacity o f rural target population to implement Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies 10.51 1.08 11.59 Component 3: Project Management Support 1.03 0.27 1.30

Total Baseline Cost 16.00 3.73 19.72 Physical Contingencies 0.15 0.10 0.26 Price Contingencies 0.44 0.04 0.49

Total Project Costsa 16.60 3.87 20.47 Interest during construction

Front-end Fee Total Financing Required 16.60 3.87 20.47

Project Cost by Component and Financier GEF Borrower Total

Component 1 : Strengthen extension service delivery for HWC 1.15 5.80 6.95 Strategy

Activities (i) - (vi): 1.15 Activity (vii): 5.80

Component 2: Strengthened capacity o f rural target 3.81 8.3 1 12.12 population to implement HWC Strategy

Activities (i), (iii) - (vii) Activity (ii) 8.3 1

Activities (i) - (iii) 0.54

3.81

Component 3: Project Management 0.54 0.86 1.40

9 0.86

Total Financing Requirement 5.50 14.97 20.47

69

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Management and Oversight

1. The Project will be implemented through the following arrangements: DWNP within the Ministry o f Environment, Wildlife and Tourism will be responsible for the oversight and effective implementation o f the Project to ensure that it meets i t s strategic objectives. The current departmental operational structure includes a Development Unit (DU) which coordinates development projects. The new departmental structure has established a Programmes and Projects Unit (PPU, (see organigram below) which will amongst others house all donor funded projects including the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) for the Project.

Project Steering Committee

2. The Project will operate under the supervision o f the Project Steering Committee, which will provide policy guidance, monitoring and Project oversight during implementation. The PSC will further review and approve Project work programmes and cost estimates, as well as technical and progress reports. In this regard the Project Steering Committee will meet quarterly or more frequently if necessary.

3. The PSC will be chaired by the Permanent Secretary o f the Ministry o f Environment, Wildlife and Tourism or his representative, and include representation from the Director o f Wildlife and National Parks, Department o f Environmental Affairs, Ministry o f Finance and Development Planning, Ministry o f Agriculture, affected District Council Secretary, Land Board Secretary, and others as may be identified. The participation o f the Council and Land Board Secretaries in the Project Steering Committee i s meant to streamline and institutionalise the Project from the National to the District level in Project areas. The Land Boards and District Councils have a critical role to play on the outcome o f the Project at a local level. The Land Board i s responsible for management o f communal land where most humadwildlife conflict occurs. The Council on the other hand i s responsible for governance and provision o f facilities at District and local level.

The Project Implementation Unit (PIU)

4. The head o f the PIU, the Project Coordinator (PC) will be responsible to the Director, D W N P through the Head o f the PPU. The P I U will be based in Gaborone and will comprise the PC, a Procurement Officer and a.Project Accountant. Project activities at local level will be undertaken by existing extension staff within DWNP. Implementation support for different Project activities will be assured by various technical service providers and training institutes. A part-time expert, either DWNP staff or external, will also be appointed to coordinate the implementation o f the Project’s safeguard instruments. Two local NGOs, namely C A R A C A L and BOCOBONET, have been providing support during preparation and could have a limited supporting role during Project implementation if required by DWNP. Project arrangements

70

remain flexible enough to allow N G O involvement in cases where they can enhance field presence or offer another comparative advantage.

5. The Project coordinator will be charged with day to day running o f the Project and together with P IU support staff will be responsible for overall monitoring and evaluation o f the Project, financial management, and implementation o f al l components, drawing annual work programmes and establish cost estimates, to perform selected tasks related to be for the approval o f the PSC. The Project Coordinator will function as Secretary to the Steering Committee, and provide overall strategic leadership to the Project. With assistance from support staff, he/she will carry out administrative duties such as general correspondence, preparation o f minutes, drafting of contracts, maintenance o f the Project monitoring and evaluation database and coordinate implementation o f technical aspects o f the Project, including Project monitoring and the preparation o f inputs necessary for executive decision making.

6. A Procurement Officer and a Project Accountant shall be based administratively in the P I U in Gaborone. Implementation support for different Project activities will be assured by various technical service providers and training institutes. If necessary, an expert, either DWNP staff or external, will also be appointed to coordinate the implementation o f the Project’s safeguard instruments.

7. In the three districts in Northern Botswana, D W N P will organize three-monthly meetings with relevant departments and other donor funded projects (meetings lead by Project Coordinator). The traditional village leadership structure will be respected and in the same manner that local communities were involved and consulted during preparation, the Project will contact the Tribal Secretary who represents the Chiefs or Dikgosi at the district level to j o in the village level Project supervision efforts. In Gaborone, it i s expected that D W N P (lead by department’s director) will organize quarterly meetings with relevant government departments on specific topics affecting the Project. The main government departments include the Veterinary Department, Department o f Agriculture, Department o f Tourism, the Land Board and the Department o f Local Government. Members o f community-based trusts are also expected to participate in monitoring Project impact, with consultations at village level expected to take place through the established consultation mechanisms (Kgotla meetings).

71

: ..... i ...........

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Executive Summary

1. The Bank conducted a financial management (FM) assessment o f the DWNP, the implementing agency for the Project. The assessment was conducted in accordance with the Financial Management Practices Manual issued by the FM Sector Board and dated November 3, 2005, and in compliance with the Bank’s OP/BP 10.02. The main objective o f the assessment was to determine whether the FM arrangements to be used for the implementation o f the proposed project will ensure:

usage o f funds for the intended purposes, in an efficient and economical way; correct recording o f al l the transactions and balances to support preparation o f reliable financial statements and regular financial reports that will be subject to auditing arrangements, acceptable to the Bank, and safeguarding o f the assets o f the project implementing entity, and the sub-implementing districts.

2. DWNP i s a department in the MEWT and headed by a director. The department i s currently implementing some projects through its Development Unit. These projects include: (i) the EU funded Makgadikgali-Morain Infrastructure project in about 7 sites for construction o f entrance gates and staff houses; (ii) Kanje office and storage; (iii) Botswana Wildlife Training Institute; (iv) Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Entrance Gate; and (v) the Khutse Fencing projects. The Development Unit i s responsible for the implementation and coordination o f projects within the DWNP.

3. In addition, D W N P implemented the US$320,000 GEF financed Project Preparation Grant (PPG) which closed in June 2009 with an undisbursed balance o f US$40,892, about 12.78 percent o f the approved grant. The PPG was managed by a Project Coordination Unit which comprised the project coordinator (an Extension Officer) and his assistant, a wildl i fe officer. The wildlife officer was responsible for the financial management o f the project by keeping the books o f accounts, reconciling the bank account (Special Account), processing payments and preparing the project financial statements for audit, using spreadsheets. The auditor’s management letter on the 2007 audit reported, among the other issues that the project did not maintain a cash book from i t s effectiveness in September 2006, and did not reflect payments debited to the bank statement in the “Expenditure Report”.

-

4. Government will provide budgetary allocations for the project in i t s 2010/2011 budget when the Grant agreement i s expected to have been signed. MEWT has however provided for the current fiscal year’s estimated expenditure under i t s 2009/20 10 recurrent budget. The proposed project will focus on selected areas, which will include 13 villages. A Project Accountant will be engaged to strengthen the financial management o f the project and build capacity in the Administration Unit.

73

5. The assessment identified the risks that DWNP management may face in the implementation o f the project. Table 1 below describes the risks and the proposed mitigating measures. The overall FM residual risk i s rated “Low” based on the proposed usage o f the Government FM system. Earlier FM assessment o f MFDP, MWT and some government departments12 rated the FM risk at the government level as “Moderate” The government FM system i s capable o f recording transactions correctly, produce reliable periodic financial reports, and the project financial statements for annual audit.

Country Issues

6. The FM assessment conclusion did not reflect the impact o f a country analytic work because the Bank has not carried out a country analytic work in the recent past. A Public Expenditure Review i s planned to be conducted in the current fiscal year (FY 10). The proposed project i s the fourth project being processed for the Bank support after about two decades o f no lending activities with the Bank. The three earlier FM assessments were for the implementation o f the Botswana National HIV/AIDS Prevention Support Project, the Integrated Transport Project and the Morupule B Generation and Transmission Project. However, the European Commission initiated and sponsored a Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) assessment o f Government in 2008. The “Draft Final” report o f the assessment, which covered three fiscal years, FY06-08, was issued in October 2008. Also, based on the Report on Observance o f Standards and Codes- Accounting and Auditing (A & A ROSC) assessment conducted by the Bank in 2006, an Institutional Development Fund grant was provided to Government to strengthen i t s Institute o f Accountants (BIA).

7. The PEFA “draft final” report highlighted the existence o f a measure o f fiscal discipline, achieved through effective top-down discipline to budget process, as well as the effective cash and debt management and fair budget certainty. The report further noted the important reforms undertaken recently, which included the implementation o f the GABS, improvements in the revenue administration, and strengthening o f external audit. The Bank i s also conducting a public expenditure review, which is expected to be completed in October 2009.

Overview of the Project and Implementation Arrangements

8. The project’s development objective i s (i) to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through proactive prevention interventions in selected rural. communities in Northern Botswana and (ii) to offer local people employment choices in the project areas in wildlife-based tourism to benefit directly from the presence o f wildlife. , The project consists o f three components:

(i) (ii)

(iii) Pr,oject Management support.

Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife-Coexistence strategies; Strengthened capacity o f rural target population to implement Human- Wildlife- Coexistence strategies; and

Detailed description o f the project and i t s components i s provided in Annex 4.

l2 Earlier FM assessment refers to the assessment o f the FM arrangements agreed for the Botswana HIV/AIDS prevention Support and the Integrated Transport Projects. Both The projects are using the country systems.

74

9. The project will be implemented by DWNP, a department within the MEWT. The current departmental operational structure includes a Development Unit (DU) which coordinates development projects. The new departmental structure has established a Programmes and Projects Unit (PPU, see organigram in Annex 6) which will ainongst others house al l donor funded projects including the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) for the Project. The head o f the PIU, a Project Coordinator (PC) will be responsible to the Director, DWNP through the Head o f the PPU. A Project Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the Permanent Secretary, MEWT or his representative will provide policy guidance and monitoring oversight. Membership o f the committee will include representatives o f the Directors o f the DWNP and the Department o f Environmental Affairs (DEA), MFDP, Ministry o f Agriculture, Land Board Secretary, Council Secretaries o f the participating districts, and others as may be identified during the project implementation. The Government representatives will be senior officers. The PC will serve as the secretary to the PSC.

Risk

10. The PC will be assigned to the project and wil l be responsible for the day-to-day administration o f the project. The PC will be further responsible for the preparation o f the project annual work plan; monitoring and evaluation o f the project; financial management; preparation o f necessary inputs into project documents for executive decision making etc. To ensure adequate and effective coordination, the PC will organize quarterly project meetings with related departments and projects.

Rating Risk mitigation measures Residual Condition o f risk Effectiveness

11. A Project Accountant i s to be engaged on contractual terms following the Bank’s guidelines for the selection o f consultants issued in October 2006. The Project Accountant will be responsible for the financial management o f the project for the project l ife. He/she will be a first degree holder in accounting with at least five years post graduation experience in accounting and will provide the accounting services to the project on an agreed TORS. The appointment i s renewable annually based on satisfactory performance. The project wil l finance the cost o f the services o f the accountant.

M

Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures

(Y/N)

A legal firm was contracted for the review L N o f the Act in 2008. The “draft Final” o f the revised Act was being reviewed by Government, The final Bill i s expected to be tabled in parliament in November 2009

Government uses the GABS, a module of

12. Table 1 below gives details o f the financial management risks which D W N P may face in the implementation o f the project and the proposed measures to mitigate the risks.

Table 1: Financial Management Risk Assessment

Inherent Risk: Country Level

Usage o f Government’s outdated Financial Instructions and Procedures (FIP) and the Finance and Audit Act.

Entity Level

The stafresponsible for the FM of the project may not have adequate accounting background and not familiar with the Bank FM and Disbursement policies and procedures. ..

I

Project Level Non or late provision o f Government’s counterpart finds may impact successful implementation o f the project. (Government i s contributing about 73% of the total cost o f the project). Release of counterpart f ind contribution for the PPG was delayed due the non inclusion of the project in Government’s development budget.

Control Risk:

Budgeting

DWNP may not prepare clearly defined budget and closely monitor variances.

M

S

M

the IFMIS, for budgeting, expenditure management, accounting and reporting. GABS manual i s available and users o f the system are adequately trained, including the staff in the Administration Unit of the DWNP.

A Project Accountant will be engaged to be responsible for the FM o f the project. The engagement o f the accountant i s an effectiveness condition

The FM of the PPG project was outside the GABS. The officer responsible for the function lacked basic accounting knowledge.

The Bank will provide training to the accountant and other staff in the Administration Unit of the DWNP immediately after the effectiveness of the grant agreement. The Bank will also encourage participation in training programs organized by Bank recognized training institutions.

Government’s contribution for the 2009/20 10 budget year was provided through the MEWT’s recurrent budget. Government will however provide for the grant in its 201 0/20 1 1 budget when the grant i s expected to have been approved and related agreement signed.

The project Coordinator and the accountant will be responsible for the preparation of the project annual work program and cost estimates, subject to review and approval of the PSC.

Use o f Unaudited Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) for both reporting and disbursement purposes will ensure description and submission of variance reports to the PSC for monitoring purposes. The Bank will also monitor the variances during the periodic review o f

76

L

M

L

y, by :ffectiveness

Immediately after effectiveness

N

N

Accounting

There are no identified risks with respect to accounting. The DWNP will use Government’s accounting system (GABS) in the implementation of the project- for budgeting, accounting, production o f periodic financial reports (e.g. IFR) and annual financial statements and reports.

Internal Control

The MEWT Internal Audit Unit may not include the project in its annual work program.

The risk o f non adherence to internal controls set out in the FM procedures manual, e.g. the work of the staff responsible for the FM of the PPG Project Accountant may not be subject to other accounting officers review.

Funds Flow

Delay in the preparation and submission o f Withdrawal Applications and IFRs to the World Bank for release of finds due to limited experience in Bank disbursement procedures.

Financial Reporting

Delay in the preparation of the project annual financial

M

M

M

the (IFRs).

Use of Government’s system and inclusion of the project in i ts FY 10 budget will ensure coverage of the project in the internal audit annual work program.

The internal audit unit will be required in the Grant Agreement to conduct semi- annual review o f the project financial activities for the first three years o f the project and annually, thereafter.

The accountant will work in the Administration Unit under the Head o f the Unit. Payment vouchers prepared by the accountant will be verified by the Chief Administration Officer, and firther subjected to checking and approval o f the Controller o f Accounts in MEWT.

MFDP i s experienced in some other Donors’ project FM and disbursement arrangement requirements, including reporting. The ministry will be responsible for the review of IFRs submitted by the DWNP through the MEWT and preparation of Withdrawal Applications for request for funds. The Bank will conduct workshops on financial management and disbursement policies and procedures, as explained above.

The Accountant General will extract and submit the project fmancial statements to the Auditor General by July 3 1 each year to meet the Bank’s Financial

L N

77

statements (FS).

The Finance and Audit Act allows preparation o f FS within 8 months o f Government’s fiscal year, which may not meet the submission deadline by the Bank.

Auditing Annual audit report may not be issued timely. The Finance and Audit Act allows submission o f annual audit report within 12 months o f Government’s fiscal year.

Overall FM Risk Rating

I- High, S- Substantial, M.

Major Strengths

M

M

Covenant in the Grant Agreement

Government prepares monthly financial statements.

Based on the confirmation given by the Accountant General and the Auditor General, the audit report together with the Auditor General’s management letter and management response will be submitted to the Bank within 6 months after the end o f Government’s fiscal year, that is, September 30, each year

L

I L I The overall residual FM risk rating i s 6cLow”

N o

[oderate, L L o w

13. The D W N P currently uses the Government financial management system, which incorporates adequate internal control system, including suitable authorization procedures, segregation o f duties and responsibilities, and reliable budgeting system. The Department through the MEWT is able to meet the ten working-day service standard for payments to suppliers and contractors, as stipulated in Government’s Customer Service Standards Document issued by the Public Service Management. The Internal Audit Unit is based in the MEWT, and evidences showed that the Unit visits the DWNP annually. The Accounts Unit in D W N P is responsible for the fol low up of the Internal Audit queries and ensures that prompt actions are taken by the responsible officers.

Weakness and Action Plan

14. The staff in the Administration Unit i s not versed in accounting. They are however able to perform the routine accounting work o f voucher verification, posting o f transactions into the accounting system, and extraction o f reports. The FM o f the PPG that closed on June 30, 2009 was managed by a wildlife liaison officer outside the Unit, with no accounting background. The audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2008 were not satisfactory to the Bank. Satisfactory revised statements were submitted before concluding negotiations.

78

15. The FM assessment identified the need for the engagement o f an accountant for the financial management o f the project and TORS for the recruitment o f the accountant were prepared by Government in consultation with the Bank.

1

2

16. following actions were taken before negotiations:

To strengthen the financial management arrangements for the proposed project, the

Action Responsible Entity Due Date Engage an accountant with a f irst degree in accounting and with five years’ post graduation experience in accounting. Conduct training on Bank FM and IBRD Immediately after Disbursement policies and procedures effectiveness.

MEWT By effectiveness

Submission o f satisfactory PPG’s audit reports for the years 2007 and 2008; Preparation o f the project Accountant’s Terms o f Reference; Preparation o f the Project Implementation Manual; Agreement o f the project audit Terms o f Reference; and Agreement o f the IFR format.

Table 2 below shows the actions to be taken by and immediately after effectiveness.

Table 2: Financial Management Action Plan

Budgeting

17. The project i s provided for in MEWT’s 2009/2010 recurrent budget. Government wil l however provide for the Grant in i t s 2010/2011 budget provided the grant agreement i s signed by October 2009, when the budget will be prepared. It was not provided for in the current’ year’s budget because the grant had not been approved and the agreement signed. As with al l the projects that are being implemented by the ministries and departments, MEWT will submit and defend the annual draft budget for the project before the Budget Review Committee, chaired by the Secretary, Development and Budget, MFDP. The committee will submit the draft budget as discussed to the Estimate Committee, chaired by the PS, Finance. After due discussion and necessary changes to the draft budget, it will be submitted to the Cabinet. The Finance and Estimates Committee (a committee o f Parliamentarians) will review and submit the budget to Parliament in February each year. The annual approved budget, including the expected Bank financing will be provided for in the Government development budget under the MEWT.

Accounting

18. MEWT will account for the sources and uses o f the project funds through the GABS and in accordance with the terms o f the related GEF Grant Agreement. The Government’s accounting procedures are well documented in the GABS procedures manual and the DWNP administration and accounting staff are trained in the use o f the system. Government uses the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) accounting standards in the preparation o f i t s financial

79

statements on the modified cash accounting basis. The Development and Budget Unit will assign a specific expenditure account to the project as per Government’s Chart o f Accounts.

19. The Administration Unit in the Human Resources (HR) Section, DWNP, i s responsible for processing payments, including preparation and approval o f payment vouchers (PV). The HR section consists o f three units: Administration, Personnel, and the Accounts section units. The staff in the Accounts section, transferred by the Office o f the Accountant General, are responsible for providing advise on expenditure control, and principally for following up on internal audit observations and queries. Approved payment vouchers are forwarded to the Accounts Section in the MEWT for verification o f the information on payees, P V information and supporting documentation, ledger balances and availability o f funds in the relevant expenditure code, signature o f the authorizing officers and other relevant information. PVs are thereafter submitted to the Office o f the Accountant General for issuance o f cheques, a process that takes two working days, as stipulated in the Government “Service Standards Document” User Departments, including the D O originate purchase requisitions, by obtaining three quotations , while the Supplies Division raises Government Purchase Orders (GPOs) The GPOs together with the Goods Received Notes (GRN) when the goods are received, invoices and other supporting documents are submitted to the Administration Unit for checking and recording in the system and preparation o f payment vouchers.

Internal Control and Internal Auditing

20. The Government’s internal control system proposed for the implementation o f the project will provide assurance on accountability, carrying out o f the project activities in an orderly and efficient manner, monitoring o f adherence to policies and procedures, and verification o f the reliability o f the accounting records and information.

2 1, The internal audit unit i s based in the MEWT and pays annual visits to the DWNP. It issues internal audit reports, and the issues identified by the reports are promptly discussed by management and followed up by the Accounts Section. However, MEWT will ensure semi- annual internal audits o f the project with reports submitted to the PSC for discussion and appropriate action. The audits shall include a review o f adherence to fiduciary procedures and regulations, verification o f contract payments and other expenditures.

Funds Flow and Disbursement Arrangements

22. Table 3 below shows the allocation o f the grant proceeds, which will be disbursed over a period o f 5 years. Funds will f low from the grant account opened in the books o f the Bank into a U S D Designated Account opened and maintained by Government at the Bank o f Botswana for the implementation o f the Bank financed parts o f the project components The project will use the advance disbursement method and the IFR documentation procedures for withdrawal o f funds from the grant account and payments o f Bank financed eligible expenditures. An advance will be made to the Designated Account at the start o f the project and will be calculated based on the Annual Work Plan, which i s included in the Project Implementation Manual. In addition, the direct payment method o f disbursement, involving direct payments to suppliers for works, goods and services may be used, upon Government’s request as wel l as the Special Commitment

80

method whereby the Bank will issue special commitments to suppliers o f goods imported for the implementation o f the Project. The reimbursement method may also be use to reimburse Government’s account for payments made from i t s coffers for eligible expenditures under the project. These disbursement methods and documentation requirements are described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook, copies o f which are available on the Bank’s website. The Bank’s disbursement letter, ’ which will form part o f the negotiation package, will provide additional instructions on the project’s disbursement arrangements. The following table summarizes the proceeds o f the grant by disbursement category.

Amount of the Grant Allocated

(expressed in US$)

5,500,000

5,500,000

23. MEWT will submit quarterly Project Memo to MFDP based on the project approved annual work plan and IFRs requesting for funds for the implementation o f the project in the ensuing six month period. The request will be for funds from the Designated Account. A similar request i s made for Government’s contributions from the government account (counterpart fund) respectively.

Table 3: Allocation of GEF grant proceeds

Percentage of Expenditures to be Financed by GEF

(inclusive o f Taxes)

100%

Category

(1) Goods, works, consultants’ services, and training for activities (i) - (vii) under Component 1; activities (i), (iii) - (vii) under Component 2 and activities (i) and (ii) under Component 3 o f the Project.

TOTAL AMOUNT

Financial Reporting

24. The NWNP will prepare the quarterly IFRs, reviewed by the PSC and submitted to MEWT within 30 days o f the end o f the reporting period, for onward submission to MFDP. MFDP will be responsible for submitting withdrawal applications to the Bank. The applications will be supported by the IFRs and submitted within 45 days o f the end o f the reporting period. Upon effectiveness o f the Grant Agreement, the MFDP will submit a withdrawal application with request for disbursement o f the estimated expenditure (based on the agreed annual work program) for the first 6 months o f the project life. Subsequent requests will be on a quarterly basis for two quarters estimated expenditure, taking into account the unutilized balance o f the advance in the previous quarter.

25. The IFRs will include:

(i) A narrative summary o f the project implementation highlights;

81

(ii) A statement o f sources and uses o f funds by disbursement categories for the reported quarter and cumulatively since the inception o f the project;

(iii) An analysis o f sources and uses o f funds by project activity/component; (iv) The Designated Account Activi ty statement, reconciling receipts and payments and

showing the cash forecast for the ensuing six month period; (v) Summary o f payments made for contracts subject to the Bank’s prior review; (vi) Summary o f payments made for contracts subject to the Bank’s prior review; and (vii) Standard Disbursement Expenditure Report.

26. The format and content o f the IFRs have been agreed at negotiation.

27. Remedies for non compliance. If payments for ineligible expenditures are found to have been made from the advances from the Grant account, Government will be requested to refund the amount o f such payments and failure to comply with the financial reporting and auditing arrangements, may result in delay in (i) refusal to extend closing date o f grant; (ii) delay in the negotiation o f any new loans benefiting the DWNP and/or withholding o f further advances o f amounts under the grant; (iii) discontinuance o f use o f the advance disbursement method and (iv) suspension o f disbursements. These remedies also apply when IFRs and acceptable audited financial statements are not submitted on due dates.

Flow of Funds Diagram

r-- (Finance Warrant)

World Bank (GEF Grant Account)

Contractors and suppliers o f goods and services

Retroactive Financing

28. A retroactive financing arrangement o f US$215,000 equivalent is provided to cover payments made prior to the signing o f the Grant Agreement but on or after August 1 2009.

82

Auditing Arrangement

Audit Report Project specific financial statements, including special audit opinions on the: (i) Quality of IFRs used for withdrawalfiom the Grant Account (ii) Provision and usage of counterpart funds-GOB ’s contribution (iii) Operation and usage of the Designated Account

29. By i t s constitution, Government’s financial statements are audited by the Auditor General who reports directly to the National Assembly. The audit i s conducted in accordance with the International Organization o f Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) auditing standards. As agreed with the Auditor General, the project’s annual audit wi l l be submitted to the Bank together with the auditor’s management letter and management’s response, within six months o f the end o f Government’s fiscal year, that is, by September 30 each year. The requirement i s shown in table 4 below.

Due Date Within six months after the end o f each fiscal year, i.e. September 30 each year.

Table 4: Audit Report

30. Government have agreed to the Audit Terms o f Reference (TORS) with the Bank during negotiation, to ensure adequacy o f the scope o f the audit, drawing attention to particular risks identified during the project preparation.

31. The audit o f the closed PPG recommended the use o f project coordinators with some accounting background. Observations in the 2007 audit report included:

0

0

0

Non maintenance o f a cash book for the project since the effectiveness o f the Grant Agreement in September 2006, as a result, bank reconciliations were not prepared. Non reflection o f payments debited to the bank statement for the period o f the audit and not reflected in the “Expenditure Report” Inclusion o f 2008 expenditures in the 2007 “Expenditure Report” , and Non reflection o f cheque numbers on payment vouchers and indiscriminate filing o f payment vouchers.

32. Examination o f the PPG’s accounting books and records during the pre-appraisal o f eth proposed project showed evidence that the auditor’s observations were addressed in the 2008 financial record.

33. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) - The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), appointed by the National Assembly, acts as an oversight body. I t meets regularly to review audit reports and ensures that prompt actions are taken on audit recommendations by the responsible Government officials. The Government’s annual audit reports are published online and also on sale by Government printers and available on request.

83

Conditionality

34. Actions to be taken by Effectiveness: (i) Engage the Project Accountant.

Financial covenants

Maintain the financial management system including records, and accounts in accordance with the terms o f the Grant Agreement; Prepare and furnish to the Bank, after the end o f each calendar semester unaudited interim financial reports for the Project covering the semester, in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank within 45 days after the end o f each quarter, Have the project’s financial statements audited and submitted to the Bank no later than six months after the end o f Government’s fiscal year, i.e. by September 30 each year. Ensure that semi-annual internal audits o f the project are carried out in the f i rst three years o f the project period and annually thereafter. The audits should include a review o f adherence to fiduciary procedures and regulations as well as verification o f expenditures including payments for contracts, submission o f reports o f the audit review, and follow-up action on the issues raised in the audit reports. Engage a Project Accountant with at least f i rs t degree in accounting and no less than five years post graduation experience in accounting. This action, to be ensured by the Office o f the Accountant General, will be taken by effectiveness o f the grant agreement.

Supervision Plan

35. The project overall FM residual risk rating is “Low”. However, during the f i rst year o f the project implementation, two on site supervision missions will be conducted to ensure that the project’s financial management arrangements are operating effectively given that this would be one o f the f i rs t four Bank financed projects to be prepared after two decades. ‘The first supervision mission after effectiveness will take the f o m o f an FM Specialist (FMS) visiting DWNP, MEWT and the MFDP to review financial management systems and procedures and ascertain that the systems’ efficiency, robustness and effectiveness have been maintained at the project implementation levels. In addition to the semester based desk review o f the IFRs and annual audit reports, the on-site supervision visits will be once a year or based o n the project’s updated risk rating after the first year o f implementation.

Governance and Accountability

36. The Government’s Directorate o f Corruption and Economic Crime is described as an effective body. Cases o f corruption or financial crime against the state are promptly investigated and concluded with appropriate action taken by Government. The FM assessment did not record any critical governance and malpractices and accountability issues.

84

Overall Conclusion

37. The overall conclusion o f the assessment i s that the FM arrangement proposed for the implementation o f the project meets the Bank’s minimum requirements under OP10.02. The overall financial management residual risk i s assessed as Low.

85

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

1. Procurement in Botswana i s governed by Government o f Botswana Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (Chapter 42:OS). The Act establishes the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board as a regulatory body for al l public procurement. The Board is operational and has prepared and disseminated Procurement Regulations, standard bidding documents and associated evaluation forms to procuring entities. The Act also establishes Ministerial Tender Committees as bodies responsible for award o f contracts within Ministries. The PPADB i s also responsible for setting o f procurement thresholds for each Ministry above which PPPADB prior review would be required

2. Procurement under the Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s 2006 Anti-Corruption Guidelines; “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated M a y 2004, revised October 2006 (referred to herein as the Procurement Guidelines) and “Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated May 2004 revised October 2006 (referred to herein as the Consultant Guidelines) and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents (SDB) shall be used for procurement o f goods under International Competitive Bidding and Bank’s Standard Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be used for selection o f consultants. For National Competitive Bidding (NCB), Government o f Botswana SDB which have been reviewed and generally found acceptable may be used.

3. The following provisions shall apply for use o f Government N C B bidding documents under this project: (i) foreign bidders shall be allowed to participate in NCB; (ii) registration / classification o f bidders shall not be used as a condition for bidding; (iii) use o f preference system based on citizen degree o f ownership shall not be used; (iv) use o f point system and bracketing in the evaluation o f bids for goods shall not be used; (v) negotiations shall not be held with successful bidder for procurement o f goods; (vi) publication o f invitation to bid in a national newspaper o f wide circulation; (vii) N C B bidding documents shall clearly specify bid evaluation and post qualification criteria. Alternatively Bank’s SDB may be used and adapted for NCB. For each contract to be financed by the Grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and timeframe would be agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan.

2. Procurement methods

4. Procurement o f Civil Works (Estimated total costs US$732,000 excluding contingencies). Works to be procured under the Project will include borehole drilling and fencing. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s SBD for al l I C B and National SBD satisfactory to the Bank for contracts to be procured under N C B procedures. Works estimated to cost US$3,000,000 equivalent or more per contract will be procured under I C B procurement method. Works estimated to cost less than US$3,000,000 wil l be procured on the basis o f National Competitive Bidding (NCB). Works that are estimated to cost less than US$50,000 equivalent per contract may be procured through shopping procedures in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bank Guidelines.

86

5. Procurement of Goods (Estimated total cost US$1,980,000 excluding contingencies). Goods to be procured under this Project will include motor vehicles, office equipment and agricultural tools (chilli-pepper kits). The procurement will be done using the Bank's SBD for al l I C B and National SBD satisfactory to the Bank for contracts to be procured under N C B procedures. Under the project, Goods estimated to cost US$500,000 equivalent or more per contract will be procured under I C B procurement method. Goods estimated to cost less than US$500,000 will be procured on the basis o f National Competitive Bidding (NCB). Where practical, the goods to be purchased will be grouped and be procured under I C B contracts. Goods that are estimated to cost less than US$50,000 equivalent per contract may be procured through shopping procedures in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bank Guidelines.

6. (single source) and may be an appropriate method under the following circumstances:

Direct contracting for goods: Direct contracting i s contracting without competition

An existing contract for goods or works, awarded in accordance with procedures acceptable to the Bank, may be extended for additional goods or works o f a similar nature. The Bank shall be satisfied in such cases that no advantage could be obtained by further competition and that the prices on the extended contract are reasonable. Provisions for such an extension, if considered likely in advance, shall be included in the original contract. Standardization o f equipment or spare parts, to be compatible with existing equipment, may justify additional purchases from the original Supplier. For such purchases to be justified, the original equipment shall be suitable, the number o f new items shall generally be less than the existing number, the price shall be reasonable, and the advantages o f another make or source o f equipment shall have been considered and rejected on grounds acceptable to the Bank. The required equipment i s proprietary and obtainable only from one source. The Contractor responsible for a process design requires the purchase o f critical items from a particular Supplier as a condition o f a performance guarantee. In exceptional cases, such as in response to natural disaster

7. Selection o f Consultants (Estimated total costs US%2,394,500 excluding contingencies). Consulting services under the project will include training experts, N G O services and technical assistants except as detailed below, consulting services will be selected through competition among qualified short-listed firms based on Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS). Consultants for financial audits and other repetitive services estimated to cost less than US$50,000 equivalent per contract may be selected through Least Cost Selection (LCS) method. Consulting services by f i rms estimated to cost less than US$200, 000 equivalents may be selected on the basis o f Selection Based on Consultant Selection (CQS). As appropriate, other selection methods such as fixed budget (FBS), Quality Based Selection (QBS) may be used for selection o f consulting f i rms. Individual consultants shall be selected on the basis o f Individual Consultant Selection method (IC) as per Section V o f the Consultant Guidelines.

87

8. Single Source o f consultants: Single-source selection may be appropriate only if it presents a clear advantage over competition: (a) for tasks that represent a natural continuation o f previous work carried out by the firm , (b) in emergency cases, such as in response to disasters and for consulting services required during the period o f time immediately following the emergency, (c) for very small assignments, or (d) when only one firm i s qualified or has experience o f exceptional worth for the assignment. 9. Training. Training may be procured on the basis o f Direct Contracting subject to review and approval by the Bank. The project will formulate an annual training plan and budget which will be submitted to the Bank for i t s prior review and approval. The annual training plan will, inter alia, identify: (i) the training envisaged; (ii) the justification for the training, how it will lead to effective performance and implementation o f the project and or sector (iii) the personnel to be trained; (iv) the selection methods o f institutions or individuals conducting such training; (v) the institutions which will conduct training, if already selected; (vi) the duration o f proposed training; and (vii) the cost estimate o f the training. Report' by the trainee upon completion o f training would be mandatory

10. Short lists of consultants. Short-list o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent per contract, may be comprised entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines.

11. Operating Costs. The Recipient shall allocate funds from its national budget to finance, inter alia, al l project operating costs. Operating costs will be procured using the Borrower's administrative procedures and or the administrative procedures o f implementing agency, which were reviewed and found acceptable to the Bank.

12. Prior review by the Bank. The Borrower shall seek World Bank prior review in accordance with Appendix 1 o f both Procurement and Consultant Guidelines for contracts above the thresholds as agreed in the procurement plan. For purposes of the initial procurement plan the Borrower shall seek Bank prior review for (i) First contract for works procured under N C B procedures and all works contracts estimated to cost US$3,000,000 equivalent or more (ii) First contract for goods procured under N C B procedures and al l goods contract estimated to cost US$500,000 equivalent or more (ii) First contract for competitive selection o f consultants and al l consultancy contracts with f i r m s estimated to cost US$200,000 equivalent or more and (iii) al l contracts with individual consultants estimated to cost US$lOO,OOO equivalent or more and (iv) al l direct contracting and single source selection estimated to cost US$l,OOO equivalent and above (v) annual training plan. These prior review thresholds will be reviewed annually and any revisions based on reassessment o f the implementing agencies capacity will be agreed with the Borrower in an updated Procurement Plan. All other contracts wil l be post reviewed during annual procurement post review missions and compliance verification monitoring.

3. Capacity Assessment of the Implementing agency 13. The Project will be implemented by Department o f Wildlife and National Parks. Procurement capacity assessment for the proposed project was undertaken by the Bank in November 2008 and updated in February 2009. The assessed capacity o f the Department to undertake procurement i s average and the risk is also moderate. The main constraints to efficient procurement cycle management were (i) Low procurement thresholds given to Ministry and

88

Departments under the PPADB Act: The thresholds for shopping at less than US$12,500 equivalent i s l ow for efficient implementation o f the project. Better packaging o f requirements may alleviate this weakness. (ii) Many layers of approval and its attendant delays: There are many layers o f approval for low value contracts and whilst in principle, most o f the committees involved are required to meet regularly on weekly basis, this appears not to be the case and hence considerable delays are experienced in the procurement process (iii) Timely preparation o f bidding documents by sector specialists/Supplies Unit i s a challenge: The preparation o f the tender documents by sector specialists including preparation o f specifications and Terms o f Reference i s not timely. Additionally, sector specialists do not have requisite knowledge o f preparation o f the tender documents and the Supplies Unit does not have the level o f skills and experience to prepare and check the documents. The assessment recommends that a full time Procurement Officer be engaged to enhance procurement capacity o f the Supplies Unit to prepare tender documents (iv) Department does not prepare a procurement plan: The Department prepares detailed cost estimates for i t s activities/contracts which are submitted to Ministry o f Finance and Development Planning. However no time schedule i s attached to the implementation o f the activity/contracts. As such there i s no systematic monitoring o f procurement activities and contracts are not awarded within the desired time. This could have significant impact on contracts that relate to seasonal needs such as farming and environmental projects (vi) The procurement function within the department i s scattered: Procurement function i s split among Supplies Unit, Departmental Tender Committee, IT and Fleet Management Section and as such there i s no central body to monitor the timeliness o f procurement though financial implementation i s closely monitored. The Departmental Tender committee appears to have no real mandate to award contracts. Going forward, it i s important that a singular body monitors al l the procurement though they may not be responsible for procurement o f certain aspects such as procurement o f vehicles or IT equipment. This may require strengthening o f the Supplies Unit as a central Unit for monitoring o f procurement activities.

I Observed Risk/Issue

Delays in procurement cycle management

Few qualified staff in Supplies Unit, staff do not have experience in Bank

14. PPADB the assessment recommends the following risk mitigation measures for the Project:

Risk Mitigation Measures: Based on the capacity assessment and discussions with

Action (s) Proposed Action By Corn pletion

Prepare a procurement plan for at Dept of Completed least 18 months so that lead times Wildlife and during may be defined and managed National Parks Appraisal

Package requirements in a way so as DWNP Completed to reduce number of contracts to be issued appraisal Provide sensitization training on DWNP Within three project procurement requirements to months after DTC and MTC effectiveness Employ a full time qualified DWNP By effectiveness Procurement Officer knowledgeable in Bank procurement who will also provide on job training to staff

Date

(DWNP)

during

procurement and delays in preparation o f tender documents National public procurement law, regulations and bidding documents has provisions that restrict open, fair and transparent comDetition

Provide short term training in procurement to key project staf f and

Procurement Within six Officer to be months after

Supplies Unit I hired I effectiveness Obtain waivers from PPADB for the I DWNP I Completed Project not to use non-competitive policies and procedures as outlined in the assessment. It i s recommended that the Project use Bank Standard documents for National Competitive Bidding

befoie negotiation

90

Addendum 1 o f Annex 8

Prior Review Threshold:

Procurement Implementation Plan

Procurement Method Prior Review Comments Threshold ($)

General

1 2

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Project information: Botswana: Wildl i fe Human Conflict Management Project

Project Implementing Agency: Department o f Wildl i fe and National Parks Bank’s approval Date o f the procurement Plan: Date o f General Procurement Notice: Period covered by this procurement plan: January 201 0 - June 201 1

Project ID:

ICB (Works) >=3,000,000 None envisaged NCB (Works) >=50,000 < 3,000,000 First contract only

Goods and Works and non-consulting services

3 4

ICB and LIB (Goods) >=500,000 All contracts NCB (Goods) >=50,000 <500,000 First contract only

I First contract only I <5090000 5 I Shopping (Goods o r Works)

5. I Direct contracting (goods) I >=1,000 I All contracts

Prequalification: N/A Proposed Procedures for CDD Components (as per paragraph. 3.17 o f the Guidelines: N/A

Reference to (if any) Project Operational/Procurement Manual: N/A

Goods

Contract Description

(4 No. 4x4 single cabs and I 2, 1 2No. Sedans)

Office Equipment for

PIU and I extension s ta f f

91

Field equipment and

associated sohare (30 No.GPS and

5No.GIS

62,000 NCB N/A N/A Prior Nov 2009

I l l Chili-pepper seeds for year

one

Agricultural Tools as part

o f Chilli pepper kit

Crop seeds

Materials for Kraal

construction

Herding Dogs

15,000 lnternatio N/A N/A Post May nal 2010

900,000 NCB N/A N/A Prior March 2010

shopping

70,000 NCB N/A N/A Post March 2010

165,000 Shopping N/A N/A Post March 2010

11,000 shopping N/A N/A Post Jan 2010

June 2010

April 2010

April 2010 April 2010

March

August 2010

July 2010

July 2010

July 2010 Various. Demand driven

June 2010

Jan 2010 I June 2010

and equipment Beekeeping Equipment

10,000 shopping N/A N/A Post June 2010

*I July 2010 August

Construction o f fence and

solar panels for elephants restraint

I I

Nov2OlO I March I 144,000 NCB N/A N/A Post Sept 2010

Works Ref No

1

Comments Contract Estimated ' Procure- Prequaliticatio Domestic Review Expected Expected Description Cost ($) ment n (yedno) .Ref. by Bank Bid-Opening completion

Method (Prior / Post) Date Date

Elephant 480,000 NCB NO NO Prior February October 2010

Fence Restraining 2010

Any Other Special Procurement Arrangements: N/A

Procurement Packages with Methods and Time Schedule

Selection o f Consultants

Prior Review Threshold: Selection decisions subject to Prior Review by Bank as stated in Appendix 1 to the Guidelines Selection and Employment o f Consultants:

1.

Selection Method Procurement method Prior Review Threshold Comments fhreshold (%) ($)

Competitive Methods (Firms) - None ~=200,000 All contracts

2,

92

QCBS Single Source (Firms & None >=1,000 All contracts individuals)

3

4

Short l i s t comprising entirely o f national consultants: Short list o f consultants for services, estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent per contract, may comprise entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines.

CQ,LCS,FBS <= 200,000 None First contract under CQ or

Individual consultant None >=100,000 All contracts. Contracts for L C S as case may be

Procurement Officer and Project Accountant to be prior review contracts

Any Other Special Selection Arrangements: Two contracts wil l be made with NGOs already working in the project areas on single source basis as implementing partners. The scope o f services has been discussed and agreed during negotiation.

Estimated Cost ($)

199,000

36,000

432,000

Consultancy Assignments with Selection Methods and Time Schedule

Selection Review Expected Expected Method by Bank Proposals assignment Comments

(Prior I Submission completion Post) Date date

Initial 2 year sss Yes August 2009 Oct 201 1 contract

sss Yes August 2009 Oct 201 1 Initial 2 year contract

ICISS Prior October 2009 Sept 2012 3 year contract

Ref. No.

Description of Assignment

4 I Procurement Officer 5 I Project Accountant

1

2

1

2

3

Contract for NGO services- Chobe area with Caracal

Contract for NGO services - Ngamiland- Bocobonet

Chili-pepper training experts

DWNP strategy on HWC-White paper Survey and mapping of elephants corridors

10 I Mapping elephant corridors

75,000 CQS Prior April2010 Dec 2010

I I I I I

75,000 I IC I Post I Jan 2010 I June 2010

6 7

8

9

ESMF implementation support Development and implementation support for MOMS and DDS

Development and implementation support for Communication strategy

IPPF implementation Support

Prior Sept 2009 Sept 201 1 3years Prior 5 years

75,000 Sept 2009 Sept 2013 22,500

54,000

25,000 75,000 CQS Post

93

Annex 9: Brief Financial Analysis of Human-Wildlife-Conflict

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

1, The Project aims to achieve global biodiversity conservation objectives and consequently, i t i s not subject to standard economic analysis. For the interventions selected the focus has been to select cost-effective solutions. The proposed proactive prevention techniques such as chili- pepper deterrents, early maturing maize, restraining fence lines, and improved livestock kraaling are more cost-effective than large scale wildlife-proof fencing and do not impact negatively on wildlife movement patterns. For training, the focus will be to partner with local training institutions which may encourage skills development adapted to the local market. More broadly, the Project intends to develop solutions to mitigate wildlife damage ex-ante rather than claiming compensation for wildlife damage ex-post, while providing an enabling environment for phasing out the use o f compensation mechanisms which are unsustainable in the long run (considering perverse incentives and the fact that these consume a third o f DWNP’s annual budget). The Project interventions, if successful, could gradually introduce fiscal savings in the long run.

94

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

A. Environmental and Social Management Framework

1. The Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), formulated on the basis o f an Environmental and Social Assessment o f the project, provides a framework, covering all World Bank policies relevant to the Human-Wildlife-Conflict Management in Northern Botswana Project (the Project), which must be used by government, community based organizations, NGOs and the private sector during Project planning and implementation.

2. The ESMF details agreed policies, guidelines, and procedures to be integrated into the implementation o f the Project. Implementation o f the ESMF will support achieving compliance with applicable laws and regulations in Botswana and with relevant World Bank environmental and social policies. The English versions o f the ESMF and IPPF have been disclosed to the Bank's infoshop on 03/3 1/2009 and 05/01/2009 respectively. Disclosure in Botswana's local language (Setswana) was on 09/01/2009 (ESMF executive summary) and on 09/17/2009 for the IPPF.

3. The Project will comprise three related components: Component 1 : Strengthened extension service delivery for Human- Wildlife-Coexistence strategies; Component 2: Strengthened capacity o f rural target population to implement Human-Wildlife-Coexistence interventions; and Component 3: Project management support. The impact assessment and mitigation measures section o f the ESMF outlines potential negative and positive environmental and social impacts o f proposed activities to be financed under the Project. It i s not expected that any o f the proposed interventions, such as chili-pepper deterrents, elephant restraining fence lines, and improved livestock kraaling etc, will result on significant adverse impacts on the environment nor w i l l these activities negatively affect anyone.

4. The ESMF sets out the kinds o f Project activities that will be financed, arrangements for project coordination and implementation, and environmental and social management requirements. These include environmental assessment requirements, provisions for the active participation o f indigenous peoples/vulnerable ethnic groups, and provisions that ensure that project implementation does not negatively affect anyone.

5. Procedures for preparing, screening, approving and implementing Project activities are outlined in the ESMF, together with their monitoring and evaluation. A framework o f typical human-wildlife conflicts i s included, together with potential mitigation measures. Provisions for capacity building, training and technical assistance are also included, together with a budget for implementing these provisions and guidelines for annual reviews o f the Project.

B. Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework

6. Background and Regional trends. There have been some important steps taken in Sub- Saharan Africa to promote Indigenous Peoples rights. The African Commission on Human and

95

Peoples’ Rights, a sub-body o f the African Union, took a historic step in 2000 to establish i ts Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa. In 2003, it adopted the report “Report o f the African Commission’s Working Group o f Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities”. This groundbreaking report i s the African Commission’s official conceptualization of, and framework for, the issue o f the human rights o f indigenous peoples, and as such it i s an important African instrument for recognizing indigenous peoples in Africa and improving their situation. In i t s report, the African Commission outlines key characteristics, which identify indigenous peoples and communities in Africa. The report emphasizes that the African peoples who are applying the term “indigenous” in their efforts to address their particular human rights situation embrace mainly hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. The African Commission report emphasizes that the overall characteristics o f groups identifying themselves as indigenous peoples are that:

Their cultures and ways o f l i fer differ considerably from the dominant society Their cultures are under threat, in some cases to the point o f extinction The survival o f their particular way o f l i f e depends on access and rights to their lands and the natural resources thereon They suffer from discrimination as they are regarded as less developed and less advanced than other more dominant sectors o f society They often live in inaccessible regions, often geographically isolated They suffer from various forms o f marginalization, both politically and socially.

7. The African Commission report concludes that this discrimination and marginalization threatens the continuation o f indigenous peoples’ cultures and ways o f l i fe and prevents them from being able to genuinely participate in decisions regarding their own future and forms o f development.

8. In line with the approach o f the United Nations, the African Commission emphasizes the principle o f self-identification, and stresses that the criteria for identifying indigenous peoples in Africa i s not mainly a question o f aboriginality but o f the above factors o f structural discrimination and marginalization. The African Commission in i t s report also addresses the misconceptions around the te rm indigenous peoples in Africa and states that the term and discourse o f indigenous peoples should be understood as an avenue for the most marginalized to advocate their cause and not an attempt to deny any African his/her rights to their African identity.’

9. Following the ,publication o f i t s report on indigenous populations, the African Commission has produced an Advisory Opinion on the UN Declaration on the Rights o f Indigenous Peoples which concludes that the UN Declaration i s in l ine with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and with the conceptualization and work o f the African Commission on indigenous peoples. The African Commission i s further engaged in a series o f country visits and seminars aimed at examining the situation o f indigenous peoples and establishing dialogue with African governments and other stakeholders.

‘ See ACHPR, Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities, Banjul & Copenhagen: ACHPR & IWGIA, 2005; and ACHPR, Indigenous Peoples in Africa: the Forgotten Peoples? The African Commission’s work on indigenous peoples in Africa, Banjul & Copenhagen: ACHPR & IWGIA, 2006.

’ 96

10. I t i s thus clear that the Afiican Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights-the major regional African human rights institution-recognizes the discourse o f indigenous peoples based on the fundamental UN principles and spearheads the discussion in an African context and the World Bank should therefore base i t s Africa work relating to indigenous peoples on this African platform.

11. In 2001, the World Conference against Racism, which was held in South Africa, emphasized the severe discrimination that indigenous peoples suffer from, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, also held in South Africa, reaffirmed the vital role o f Indigenous Peoples in sustainable development. Indigenous Peoples in Africa through their local and national organizations contribute significantly to raising awareness about the plight o f indigenous peoples and demanding respect for their fundamental rights. Increasingly, they have been speaking out and claiming their right to be legally recognized as such and to receive special consideration from governments o f the region. Umbrella organizations, such as the Indigenous Peoples o f Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) which work with alliances o f grassroots organizations, have contributed to these efforts.

12. National trends. Botswana i s a culturally diverse country. I t s Constitution initially recognized eight major tribes. However, several other ethnic groups have recently obtained such official recognition. Although most o f these groups claim to be aboriginal or indigenous to Botswana and many o f them live in marginal conditions and are considered vulnerable, there i s l i t t l e doubt that the SadBaSarwa have been historically excluded for their distinct cultural characteristics and that affirmative action i s necessary to ensure their survival. In fact, the San are the oldest aboriginal peoples o f Africa. Their traditional macro-territory i s located south of the Congo-Zambezi watershed. According to WIMSA:

13. “Unlike some other parts o f Africa, there i s a fairly clear distinction between the f i rs t peoples o f Southern Africa and Africans who migrated into the region in recent times. The cultural presence o f the San hunter-gatherers has been attested to in rock art and archaeology for over 20 000 years. Human occupation o f the region stretches back over 150 000 years.2yy

14. As stated above, the Botswana government maintains that all citizens o f the country are aboriginal or indigenous. However, some groups in Botswana define themselves as indigenous peoples. These groups include the San, the Balala and the Nama. The Balala number some 1,500, and live in Southern District (Ngwaketse Tribal Development Area) and Kgalagadi District. Most o f the Balala live and work on the Molopo Farms in Southern District as herders and domestic laborers. The Nama, who number some 2,000, are small scale agro-pastoralists and farm workers who live in south-western tip o f Botswana and around Tsabong village. The Nama speak a Khoekhoe language.

15. The San. The San3 number about 50,000 and belong to the Nharo, !Xo, G/wi, G//ana, Tyua, Deti, /Auni, Eam, //Xegwi, Kwe, Jd’hoansi and //Khau-/eisi, among other ethno- linguistic groups. The San are traditionally hunter-gatherers although they no longer depend on it

WIMSA. “Southern Africa: Background and ethnic context.” The San were formerly also known as Bushmen. They are also called BaSarwa in Botswana but this term i s perceived as

derogatory by many San themselves. The government also often refers to them as “Remote Area Dwellers”.

97

exclusively. Many San live in remote rural settlements where land tenure i s uncertain, where other ethnic groups dominate and where there are few livelihood options apart from selling handicrafts, meat and foraged products such as thatching grass or firewood, in the towns. Others work on cattle farms as laborers. An increasing number, however, has begun more recently to move into s lums in the outskirts o f the local district towns, looking for menial work. The San face considerable social and cultural discrimination. The employment relationship i s highly exploitative and they are paid very poorly. Whether cattle post laborers, settlement or slum dwellers, most o f the San live at or below the Poverty Datum Line (PDL). They also exhibit some o f the highest rates o f illiteracy, morbidity and mortality in the country. Although HIV/AIDS rates are not as high for San as for some other groups in Botswana, the HIV/AIDS rates are climbing. A particular concern i s access to anti-retroviral drugs, which in many cases are hard to come by in remote areas with relatively small medical facilities and a limited number o f medical practitioners. In many places, apathy, demoralization and alcoholism are widespread.

16. Traditionally, the San were semi-nomadic. Their association with the land was based on complex intra-cultural negotiated systems and, because they had no formally recognized land tenure system, they were often being seen as having no land o f their own (and therefore no rights to land). Territory available to the San has shrunk over the last century through successive in- migrations o f both colonial and other African tribal groups.

17. After independence, the land situation o f the San further deteriorated and the Tribal Grazing Lands Policy (TGLP) - a large-scale land reform and livestock development program adopted in 1975 - virtually le f t no land “in reserve” for the San. Despite some attempts by the Bushmen Development Program (1 974) and i t s successor, the Remote Area Development Program (1978) to retain a portion o f the land the San used to have, the land reform process entailed loss o f land tracts that had economic as well as cultural significance for the San. It also resulted in the removal o f an estimated 28,000-31,000 people from the TGLP ranch areasY4 and their subsequent relocation in government established settlements. These settlements were part o f the government’s efforts to integrate the San into wider society and enhance their development through the adoption o f agriculture and cattle-raising as livelihood options. However, while the settlements provide water, schools, and health posts, most government projects have not fully succeeded in providing sustainable livelihood.

18. The process o f relocation has nevertheless continued. An example i s the case o f the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) created in 1961 by the (British) government o f the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Aware o f the plight o f the San who were living under conditions o f serfdom, generally under the control o f Setswana ethno-linguistic groups, the government took the opportunity to give the San some preferential rights to access land and resources within the Reserve. These rights were subsequently confirmed in the Constitution o f Botswana (subsection 3 (c) o f Section 14). However, several attempts have been made to counter these rights, including amending the constitution. As early as 1986, the Government took the decision that people in the reserve would be encouraged to move out o f the reserve in order to enhance ‘development opportunities.’ In the mean time they were encouraged to concentrate in one settlement within the reserve-!Xade (now known as Old !Xade). In 1997, some 1,100 people, mainly G/ui and

Taylor, Michael, quoting a World Bank report in “The Past and Future o f San Land Rights in Botswana” in Indigenous Peoples ’ Rights in Southern Africa, Robert Hitchcock and Diana Vinding, eds. Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2004.

98

G//ana San and Bakgalagadi (a Tswana-speaking agro-pastoral group) were relocated to two large settlements outside the reserve, New !Xade (also known as Kgoesakeni) and Kauduane. Attempts by a group o f San organizations and support organizations to consult and negotiate with the government were o f no avail. In 2002, the government announced that all service deliveries including water would be terminated, and the approximately 700 people remaining in scattered communities within the CKGR were subsequently removed together with their possessions to New !Xade and Kauduane. A court case filed by CKGR residents in 2002 was concluded in December 2006 when the High Court ruled that the removals o f people and denial o f their land and subsistence rights in the Central Kalahari were unlawfbl but that the stopping o f services was lawful and the government was not required to restore services in the reserve. To date only few San families have been able to return. A constitutional amendment revoking the San’s preferential rights in the CKGR was tabled in 2004 (SiZZ No. 34 0 ~ 2 0 0 4 ) and passed in April 2005.

19. Another case o f relocation has recently taken place in the Western Sandfeld region o f Central District as the result o f the expansion and privatization o f cattle ranches. Some 5,000 San have been affected. San have also been removed in relation to nature conservation (Chobe National Park and Moremi Game Reserve).’

20. The Botswana government believes that marginalization o f the San i s not related to their ethnic status. But official policies promote sedentarization, acculturation and assimilation, discouraging traditional San lifestyle. Having lost their customary hunting land to expanding cattle farmers, San calls for land rights are dismissed as unwarranted, tribalist and even secessionist. Although more equitable opportunities are sought to be extended to the San through existing development schemes, denying them land rights and a voice i s likely to deepen their marginalization. The 2003 review o f the Remote Area Dwellers Program states that equality o f opportunities i s good but that ‘‘. , .there are ethnic groups in remote areas, notably the Basanva, who are historically disadvantaged, and who cannot easily take advantage o f their entitlements under the constitution and legal framework without special assistance.”

2 1. In the last few years, both social organization and networking have grown stronger among the San. There are now San NGOs and Community Based Organizations (CBOs). Civil society organizations working on indigenous peoples’ issues include, among others, DITSHWANELO (the Botswana Center for Human Rights), the Kuru Family o f Organizations, Botswana Council o f Churches (BCC). The San organizations include First Peoples o f the Kalahari (FPK), Working Group for Indigenous Minorities in Sduthern Africa (WIMSA). In addition, the University o f Botswana for several years now has had a special San/Basanva Research Program which i s trying to be institutionalized as a Center o f San Studies.

22. Based on the above, the SadBaSarwa are considered to be indigenous peoples and thus subject to the provisions o f OP 4.10.

Planning Framework

Based on the section on Botswana in various editions o f IWGIA’s annual publication The Indigenous World.

99

23. Project Components. The Project will comprise three components: Component 1 : Strengthened capacity for DWNP for H W C related service delivery; Component 2: Strengthened capacity o f targeted communities for proactive H W C mitigation strategies; and Component 3: Project Management.

24. Project Areas. The three Project sites comprise thirteen villages with a population o f just above 12.000 local people (Projections for 201 1 based on the 2001 census o f total population for localities o f over 500 people). In the Okavango Delta Panhandle these are the villages o f Seronga, Beetsha, Eretsha, Gudigwa, and Gunitsoga. In the Chobe-Linyanti wetlands these villages are Mabele, Kavimba, Satau, Parakarungu, Kachikau, and Lesoma. In the Makgadikgadi wetlands, these villages are Kumaga and Moreomaoto.

25. Nature of Project activities. Relevant Project activities will fal l under Component 2: Strengthened capacity o f targeted communities for proactive H W C mitigation strategies. At the time o f Project preparation, proactive prevention strategies to mitigate HWC have been demanded during an initial consultation process by the targeted communities. Though some proactive mitigation strategies have been identified as a result o f community consultation, specific location and intervention design are not entirely clear at project appraisal. Nevertheless, given the focus o f the project, Project activities will be oriented to improve the communities’ ability to deal with wildl i fe conflict, for instance, building different type o f fences and barriers to prevent wi ldl i fe damage to cultivated areas and livestock, building boreholes in strategic places so as to provide water for wildlife and reorient it to safer places. Further, project activities will strengthening the capacity o f local organizations and conservancies to carry out tourism compatible with biodiversity protection, helping the San secure land rights, and promoting cultural practices o f local communities, particularly Indigenous Peoples related to natural resources management (such as harvesting o f selective natural resources, handicrafts, dance and music) to complement natural attractions.

26. Potential positive and adverse effects. Most o f the impacts are expected to be positive. Nevertheless, potential adverse effects resulting f rom the proposed activities could relate to the relative disenfranchisement o f local communities, particularly the San. The project could strengthen the grip o f outside interest on the tourism industry and to decisions related to the allocation o f game rights if it fails to effectively empower local communities under its community-based approach. In addition, it could further marginalize the San if Project resources are controlled by representatives o f ethnic groups that traditionally have dominated them. The project could miss the historical opportunity to advance efforts towards the regularization o f land use rights or territory if it fails to include activities designed to raise awareness about their land use needs. Finally, the project could repeat the errors o f other official efforts (pointed out in the 2003 Review o f the Remote Area Dwellers Program) if it does not adopt affirmative action programs that promote cultural revitalization and the recoveryhse o f traditional knowledge and practices related to natural resources management. As the above review states “It would seem clear that there need to be programs to address the marginalization (of the San) through affirmative action targeted at disadvantaged remote area people, as wel l as public education programs to counter the prevalent attitudes towards them.”6

Report on the Review of the Remote Area Development Programme (RAPD). Prepared for the Ministry o f Local

100

Government by the Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis. 19 December 2003.

27. Early during project implementation, once there i s confirmation o f the specific sites and more exact information on the design o f specific Project interventions, the Project will start the preparation o f an Indigenous Peoples Plan IPP) for the five villages at the panhandle o f the Okavango Delta, where the San are present or even set the majority o f some villages such as Gudigwa. Further, the project will ensure that Project activities for the other areas are prepared in a participatory fashion and respond to the demands o f local people, following the principles o f a CBNRM approach.

28. The preparation o f the IPP requires the following: A plan to carry out social assessments; A framework to ensure free, prior and informed consultations with the affected indigenous peoples’ communities at each stage o f the preparation and implementation o f the project; Institutional arrangements (including capacity building where necessary) for screening project-supported activities, evaluating their effects on indigenous peoples, preparing IPPs, and addressing any grievances; Monitoring and reporting arrangements, including mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project;

0 Disclosure arrangements for IPPs to be prepared under the IPPF.

0

29. Plan for social assessment. The social assessment i s a variant o f what i s generally known as a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and will be done during IPP preparation. I t will gather relevant information on demographic data: social, cultural and economic situation; and social, cultural and economic impacts. This information will be gathered through separate group meetings within the indigenous community, including their leaders, NGOs, CBOs, and affected persons. Discussions will focus on potential positive and negative impacts o f the specific Project intervention; measures to enhancing positive impacts; and strategies/options to minimize and/or mitigate negative impacts.

30. The social assessment includes the following elements, as needed:

A review, on a scale appropriate to the project, o f the legal and institutional framework applicable to Indigenous Peoples. Gathering o f baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics o f the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, and the natural resources on which they depend. Taking the review and baseline information into account, the identification o f key stakeholders for the specific Project intervention and the elaboration o f a culturally appropriate process for consulting with the Indigenous Peoples at each stage o f preparation and implementation o f specific Project activities. An assessment, based on free, prior, and informed consultation, with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, o f the potential adverse and positive effects o f specific Project interventions. Critical to the determination o f potential adverse impacts i s an analysis o f the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the affected

101

Indigenous Peoples’ communities given their distinct circumstances and close ties to land and natural resources, as wel l as their lack o f access to opportunities relative to other social groups in the communities, regions, or national societies in which they live. The identification and evaluation, based on free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, o f measures necessary to avoid adverse effects, or if such measures are not feasible, the identification o f measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects, and to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive culturally appropriate benefits under the specific Project activities.

31. Institutional Arrangements. A Development Specialist will be placed in the P I U inter alia to facilitate the development and implementation o f IPPF activities, and eventually o f IPP. Staff o f DWNP dealing with social issues will receive capacity building where necessary for screening o f Proj ect-supported activities, evaluating their effects on Indigenous Peoples, preparing IPPs, and addressing any grievances. If need arises, a local N G O with expertise in San culture and issues o f wi ldl i fe conflict will be subcontracted for IPP implementation.

32. Both the social assessment and consultation process and the preparation o f the IPP should be done by one consulting firm or individual, according to terms o f reference approved by the World Bank. Given the complexity o f the task and the fact that the original IPPF prepared by the ESIA consultants did not fol low policy guidelines and had to be almost completely redone, it i s recommended that the preparation o f the IPP be done by a consultant or consulting firm with expertise on the San culture and on issues o f wi ldl i fe conflict and CBNRM.

33. Indigenous Peoples Plan. Based on the social assessment, the IPP will develop appropriate mitigation measures and livelihood enhancement activities for Indigenous Peoples. An IPP addresses the (i) aspirations, needs, and preferred options o f the affected indigenous peoples; (ii) local social organization, cultural beliefs, ancestral territory, and resource use patterns among the affected indigenous peoples; (iii) potential positive and negative impacts o n indigenous peoples; (iv) measures to avoid, mitigate, or compensate for the adverse project effects; (v) measures to ensure project benefits will accrue to indigenous peoples; (vi) measures to strengthen the capacity o f local authority and relevant government departments to address indigenous peoples issues; (vii) the possibility o f involving local organizations and non- governmental organizations with expertise in indigenous peoples issues; (viii) budget allocation; and (ix) monitoring. The P I U will submit the IPP to the Bank for review and approval prior to commencement o f c iv i l works. The Bank will review and send comments within three weeks.

34. The Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) i s prepared in a flexible and pragmatic manner, and i t s level o f detail varies depending on the specific project and the nature o f effects to be addressed. The IPP includes the following elements, as needed:

(a) (b)

A summary o f the social assessment. A summary o f results o f the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities that was carried out during the preparation for specific Project activities and that led to broad community support for the proposed intervention.

102

A framework for ensuring free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities during implementation o f the proposed intervention. An action plan o f measures to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity o f the implementing agencies. When potential adverse effects on Indigenous Peoples are identified, an appropriate action plan which includes measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse effects. The cost estimates and financing plan for the IPP. Accessible procedures appropriate address grievances by the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities arising from implementation o f Project activities. When designing the grievance procedures, the borrower takes into account the availability o f judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms among the Indigenous Peoples. Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation o f the IPP; The monitoring and evaluation ‘mechanisms should include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities.

35. Framework for free, prior, and informed cconsultation. The consultation and participation o f Indigenous Peoples will be ensured in formulation o f the IPP to ensure that i t adequately deal with their needs, priorities, and preference. Indigenous Peoples will be provided with relevant project information in language(s) and manner suitable to them. Separate focus group discussions will be carried out to assess the impacts and benefits o f specific Project activities to these groups. Accordingly, the IPP will be prepared in consultation with the beneficiaries. The outcome o f social assessment and IPP will be presented in community workshops/meetings.

36. The Project shall make available the following documents to the project-affected indigenous peoples and disclose to the public:

(i) A draft IPP, befQre appraisal o f specific Project intervention; (ii) A final IPP, after completion o f such an IPP; and (iii) The revised IPP, following the detailed technical design or change in scope in the

specific Project intervention.

37. Monitoring. The P I U will establish a semester based monitoring system to monitor the implementation o f IPP(s) against a set o f monitoring indicators determined during IPP preparation. A survey o f existing socio-economic status and cultural practices o f Indigenous Peoples, which will be carried out during feasibility study/design, will be the basis for establishing the baseline data to monitor the project impacts on Indigenous Peoples. The P I U will prepare semester based monitoring reports, post them on its website, and submit to the Bank for i t s review.

103

38. Disclosure arrangements for IPPs to be prepared under the IPPF. The final draft o f this IPPF will be submitted by the PIU to the World Bank for review and clearance. Once cleared, it wi l l be disclosed in-country, in the appropriate from, manner and language. Later, on, the information from the documents specified above (particularly the IPP) will be made available to affected persons as leaflets in appropriate local language. After submitting the IPP (s) to the Bank for review and clearance, the PIU shall also post the above documents on i t s website and on the Bank’s Infoshop. During implementation, the PIU wi l l prepare social monitoring reports, make them available to affected Indigenous Peoples, post them on i ts website, and submit these to the Bank for review

39. Budget. Implementation o f the IPPF does not require major costs, except for capacity building o f project staff dealing with social issues and the cost o f preparation o f an IPP. All costs required to implement the IPP will be incorporated in the relevant budget o f the specific Project activity, which should include detailed cost estimates and indicate source o f funds for the required activities (see Componerlt 1).

104

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Planned Actual PCN review 08/17/2005 08/17/2005 Initial PID to PIC Initial ISDS to PIC 04/08/2008 04/08/2008 Appraisal July 2009 July 2009 Negotiations August 2009 Board/RVP approval November 2009 Planned date o f effectiveness January 20 10 Planned date o f mid-term review May 20 12 Planned closing date January 201 5

Key institutions responsible for preparation o f the Project: DWNP

Bank staff and consultants who worked on the Project included:

Name Title Unit Modupe Adebowale Sr. Financial Mgmt. Specialist AFTFM Aziz Bouzaher Jean Christophe Carret Simon Chinva Karsten Feuerriegel Juan Gaviria Jemima Harlley Erika Odendaal Franco Russo Jorge Uquillas Gert van der Linde

Lead Environmental Specialist Sr. Environmental Economist

Sr. Procurement Specialist Sr. NRM Specialist (ETC) - Co-TTL

SD Sector Leader - Co-TTL Program Assistant Program Assistant

Sr. Program Assistant Sr. Social Dev. Specialist

Lead Financial Mgmt. 'Spec.

AFTEN AFTEN AFTPR AFTEN AFTSD AFCSl AFCSl AFTEN AFTSD OPCQC

Bank funds expended to date on Project preparation: 1. Bank resources: N /A 2. Trust funds: US$287,039.74 (GEF) 3. Total: US$287,039.74

Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1. Remaining costs to approval: US$50,000 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: US$ 100,000

105

Annex 12: Incremental Cost Analysis

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Broad Development Goals and the Baseline

1. Under the baseline scenario, it i s anticipated that Botswana will continue providing direct compensation to farmers for crop and livestock loss caused by certain wildl i fe species, which i s considered as a reactive mitigation. The approach executed under the baseline scenario can be regarded as a subsidy toward crop and livestock production and subsequently potentially adverse effects on wildlife that compensation intends to favor. Further, this approach will not result in any reduction o f H W C numbers in the Project’s targeted areas.

2. Thus, the baseline scenario would result in a potentially high risk o f humadwildl i fe due to the increasing number o f wildlife species (elephants and predators) and human settlements in the three hotspots targeted by the Project.

3. Total expenditures under the baseline scenario are estimated at approximately US$14.97 million, dominated by the NDP 10 budget support to community trusts (US$8.3 1 million), the operational and administrative costs related to H W C (US$ 5,78 million) and the direct compensation paid to the farmers for crop and livestock loss (US$O.88 million). The UNDP/GEF Biokavango Project does not address H W C but conflicts between biodiversity conservation in the Okavango Delta and other usages such as tourism, water abstraction, tourism and fisheries.

Global environment objective

4. The global environment objective o f the Project i s the same than the development objective: (i) to mitigate human-wildlife conflict through proactive prevention interventions in selected rural communities in Northern Botswana and (ii) to offer local people in the project areas employment choices in wildlife-based tourism to benefit directly from the presence o f wildlife.,

Alternative

5. Under the Project, 80 district level DWNP staffs will increase their capacity to plan, implement and monitor HWC, 1,500 households will adopt elephant restraining techniques and 108 persons will be trained on hospitality management.

6. Under this alternative, Botswana will be able to reach their global environment and development objectives while the DWNP will be able to reduce the part i t s budget devoted to mitigate crop and livestock loss. Further, local communities will be better informed and also more closely associated with biodiversity conservation through H W C prevention techniques and will be provided with job opportunities in the tourism industry.

106

Total expenditures under the Project scenario are estimated at US$20.47 million. O f this, about 27 percent i s requested from GEF. The remaining support, around 73 percent will come from the Government Botswana. The GEF cost in the matrix below includes physical and price contingencies estimated at 7.7 percent for each component.

Scope o f the analysis

7. The activities related to improving service delivery o f H W C intervention, strengthening the capacity o f target population in undertaking H W C prevention measures and improving their ski l ls to become more competitive for the tourism industry would not take place without the Project. Public outreach activities are largely baseline activities and GEF will allocate limited funding for these, focusing on the activities designed to build capacity o f DWNP at district level and at communities’ level.

8. The domestic benefits o f the proposed alternative and the baseline differ then; under the alternative, from the communities’ point o f view, loss will diminish and cash transfer will be replaced by higher return from arable agriculture and livestock husbandry, and job opportunities. From the DWNP point o f view, the cost o f administrating the compensation program will be replaced by the cost o f improving services delivery. Thus, local communities will benefit more from the Project-implementation scenario than from the baseline scenario, which might be neutral from the administration point o f view, for the first years o f implementation. However, the Project will not only provide an enabling environment for phasing out compensation but, could in the long run lead to fiscal savings due to capacitated individual community members how are experienced enough to mitigate H W C successfully and independently.

Incremental costs

9. The difference between the cost o f the baseline scenario (US$14.97 million) and the cost o f the Project (US$20.47 million) i s estimated at US$5.5 million. The GEF’s contribution o f US$5.5 mil l ion to the Project would therefore complement the baseline and represents the incremental cost for achieving the global environmental objective.

Incremental Cost Matrix for GEF Funding

Baseline 1. Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife Coexistence strategies

2. Strengthened Capacity o f Targeted Communities to implement Human- Wildlife-Coexistence Strategies.

3. Project management support

Sub-Total

Costs (US% million)

5.80

8.3 1

0.86

14.97

107

Domestic Benefits

Cash transfer to compensate for loss of livestock and crops

Global Benefits

Imperfect conservation and pro-poor development

Alternative 1. Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife Coexistence strategies

6.95

2. Strengthened Capacity of Targeted Communities to implement Human- Wildlife-Coexistence Strategies.

Reduced livestock and crop losses

3. Project management support

I

Sub-Total

Increment 1. Strengthened extension service delivery for Human-Wildlife Coexistence strategies.

2. Strengthened Capacity o f Targeted Communities to implement Human- Wildlife-Coexistence Strategies.

3. Project management support

Sub-Total

Completive skills for tourism-related employment

1.40

20.47

1.15

3.81

0.54

Improved biodiversity conservation

108

Annex 13: Documents in the Project File

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

(i) Environmental and Social Assessment and Preparation o f an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), EIA Projects (2009);

(ii) Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF), Jorge Uquillas (2009) (iii) Institutional Capacity Assessment and Strengthening Study, Natural Resources and People

- Sustainable Environmental Solutions (2008); (iv) Economic and Financial Analysis - Community Investments Study, Hamish G Bowwie

Alternative Development Services (009); (v) CARACAL Community Wildlife Conflict Program: Key informant Discussion, Kgotla

Meetings and questionnaire based interviews Chobe Enclave (2002-2005), Seronga, Makalamabedi and Gumare Villages (2005);

(vi) Alexander et a1 2005, Wildlife Conflict: Impact on Gender Specific Rural Livelihoods and linkages to Poverty, HIV/AIDS and Sustainable Use o f Biodiversity, Government o f Botswana, Internal Document, Report o f a Workshop to Develop a Problem Animal Management Strategy for DWNP;

Human Wildlife Conflict Study, Namibian Case Study, Brian T. B. Jones with economic analysis by Jonathan I. Barnes (2006)

(viii) Study o f the Viability and Long Term Development Strategy for the Livestock (Beef) Sub- Sector in Botswana, Integrated Policy Report Technical Working Group o f the Government o f Botswana and the World Bank (2006)

(ix) The Gudigwa Cultural Village An historical overview o f a community eco-cultural tourism initiative in northern Botswana, CI, (2008)

(x) Research Report on Human Elephant Conflict in the Okavango, Kopano Mokoro Community Trust villages (NG 32), Ngamiland, Living with Elephants Foundation (2004)

(xi) HumanOElephant Conflict Mitigation, A Training Course for Community-Based Approaches in Africa, IUCN, 2007

(xii) Living with elephants I1 - a manual. MZEP 37, Osborn, F.V. & Parker G.E. (2002) A decision support system for managing human elephant conflict situations in Africa, IUCN, 2001

Coexistence, M. Zoe Warner, 2008

Mulonga, Helen Suich and Carol Murphy (2003)

human wildlife conflict. WWF, 2008

Daniel Rondeau, Journal o f Wildlife Management 69 (2005)

Predators, Cheetah Conservation Botswana, Mokolodi Nature Reserve, 2007

(vii) Human-Wildlife-Conflict Survey conducted by CARACAL, Kasana, Botswana (2009)

(xiii) Examining Human-Elephant Conflict in Southern Africa: Causes and Options for

(xiv) The conflict continues: Human wildlife conflict and livelihoods in Caprivi, Samson

(xv) Common Ground - Solutions for reducing the human, economic and conservation costs o f

(xvi) Why Compensating Wildlife Damages May be Bad for Conservation, Erwin H. Bulte,

(xvii)Predator-Safe Livestock Guide: An Introduction to Protecting Livestock & Deterring

109

Annex 14: Statement o f Loans and Credits

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

COUNTRY: ProjectName

Difference between expected and actual

disbursements Original Amount in US$ Millions

ProjectID FY Purpose ~

IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Fm. Rev’d

P102368 09 BW-lntegrated Transport SIL (FY09) 186.0 186.0

Total: 186.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 186.00 0.00 0.00

P102299 09 BW-HIV/AIDS Project SIL (FY09) 50 50

Total: 236.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 236.00 0.00 0.00

COUNTRY STATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions o f U S Dollars

Committed Disbursed

I F C I F C

FY Approval Company Loan Equity **Quasi Partic. Loan Equity **Quasi Partic. Equity Equity

2001/08 AfrbnkCorp 0.00 7.07 13.55 0.00 0.00 7.07 0.00 0.00 2005/08 Letshego 14.59 3.97 0.00 0.00 14.59 3.97 0.00 0.00 0 Petra Diamonds 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00

Total portfolio: 14.59 11.58 13.55 0.00 . 14.59 11.58 0.00 0.00

* * Quasi Equity includes both loan and equity types.

Approvals Pending Commitment

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

110

Botswana Summary of Non-lending Services

As of October 12,2009

Product Completion FY Cost (US$OOO) Audience" Objectiveb Recent Completions ROSC Accounting and Auditing Livestock Sector Development Strategy Poverty and Social Impact Analysis Investment Climate Assessment Financial System Stability Assessment AML/CFT Assessment FBSA Water Sector Reform (Phase 1) Underway Public Expenditure Review FBSA Water Sector Reform (Phase 2) Investment Climate Follow-up

M&E Capacity Building Vision 2016 Council/Strengthening Accountancy (IDFs) Planned

Strategic Issues in Competitiveness Study SD Policy Notes Macro-Modeling Public Financial Management Reform Capacity Building in NBFI

Post ICA Follow-UplFSSA

Development Policy Review (DPR)

FY06 FY06 FY06 FY07 FY07 FY07 FY09

FY 10 FYlO FYlO

FY 09lFY 10

FYlO FYlO FYlO FY 10 FYlO FYlO

F Y l l

80 25 50 33 25 108 230

300 750 40

90

50 50 150 50 20 20

150

KG, PD KG, PS

KG KG, PD KG, PD KG, PS

KG,

KG, KG,

KG, PD

KG, PS

KG, PS KG, PS KG, PS KG, PS KG, PS

KG

KG, PS

a. Government, donor, Bank, public dissemination. b. Knowledge generation, public debate, problem-solving.

111

0

0 (v

0

0

0

0 0 r

0 z

0 0

0 z

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

c o b 2:

: O b

7

0 0

0 0

v)o 2 7

5 5

O E

0

0

0

v) F 7

0

0

0

0

v) b 7

0

Annex 15: Country at a Glance

823 41,497

0.6 75

5,750

11.868 6,987

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

Botswana at a dance 4/6/08

15-78

5 0 4

45.4s

30-Y

1C19

01

K e y Deve lopment I n d i c a t o r s

(2008)

Population, mid-year (millions) Surface area (thousand sq. km) Population growth (%) Urban population (% of total population)

GNi (Atlas method, US$ billions) GNI per capita (Atlas method. US$) GNI par capita (PPP. international $)

GDP growth (U) GDP per capita growth (%)

(mw: recent oetlmah, 2002-2008)

Poverty headwunt ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, %) Poverty headwunt ratio at $2.00 a day (PPP. %) Life expectancy at birth (years) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)

Adult literacy. male (% of ages 15 and older) Adult literacy, female (% of ages 15 and older) Gross primary enrollment, male (% of age group) Gross primary enrollment, female (% of age group)

Accass to an improved water s o u m (% of population) Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population)

70 22

64 92

112 109

65

Botswana

1 .9 582 1.3 60

11.5 6,100

12,420

4.0 2.7

50 90

80 82

109 107

65 42

200 1110 160 140 120 100 110 60 40 20

0

Sub- Saharan

Africa

800 24,242

2.4 36

762 952

1.870

8.2 3.7

50 72 50 64 27

69 50 99 88

58 31

Upper middle income Age dlstrlbutlon, 2007

Male Femalw

15 10 5 0 5 10 15 Pwrtenl

" I Under-6 mortality rate (per 1,000)

1880 1895 2WO 2006

83 I Net A id F l o w s

(US$ millions) Net ODA and official aid Top 3 donors (in 2006):

European Commission United States Germany

Aid (%of GNI) Aid per capita (US$)

Long-Term Economic Trends

Consumer prices (annual 96 change) GDP implicit deflator (annual % change)

Exchange rate (annual average, local per US$) Terms of trade index (2000 = 100)

Population, mid-year (millions) GDP (US$ millions)

Agriculture Industry

Services

Household final consumption expenditure General gov't final consumption expenditure Gross capital formation

Exports of goods and services Imports of goods and services Gross savings

Manufacturing

1880

105

6 12 15

10.4 106

12.5 10.2

0.8

1 .o 1,061

14.7 50.7 5.1

34.6

52.0 21.3 40.1

53.1 66.4 27.4

1890 2000

145 31

8 4 15 1 19 7

3.9 0.5 106 18

11.4 8.5 6.3 12.0

1 .6 5.1 116 100

1.4 1.7 3,792 6,177

(% of GDP) 4.9 2.4

61 .O 58.9 5.1 4.4

34.1 38.6

33.2 23.2 24.1 22.9 37.4 35.0

55.1 52.6 49.8 33.7 41.6 51.7

2008 '

65

28 25 3

0.6 37

12.7 4.3

6.8 52

1.9 12,126

1.8 50.2 3.4

48.0

34.5 19.6 32.1

46.6 47.0 34.0

~

Growth of GDP and GDP per oaplta (Oh) I

1980-90 1980-2000 200048 (average annualgmwih %)

3.2 2.3 1.2 11.0 5.8 5.0

2.5 -1.2 -0.8 11.3 5.8 4.5 11.4 3.8 4.5 15.2 7.5 5.3

6.3 6.4 2.0 14.9 6.0 4.7 7.6 5.2 3.6

12.5 4.3 5.0 9.2 4.4 4.3

Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specifled. 2008 data are preliminary. .. indicates data are not avallable. a. Aid data are for 2006.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

114

Botswana

Balance of Payments and Trade

(US$ millions) Total merchandise exports (fob) Total merchandise imports (cif) Net trade in goods and services

Current account balance as a % of GDP

Workers' remittances and compensation of employees (receipts)

Reserves, including gold

Central Government Finance

(% of GDP) Current revenue (including grants)

Current expenditure

Overall surplus/defidt

Highest marginal tax rate ( O h )

Tax revenue

Individual Corporate

External Debt and Resource Flows

(US$ millions) Total debt outstanding and disbursed Total debt service Debt relief (HIPC, MDRI)

Total debt ( O h of GDP) Total debt service (% of exports)

Foreign direct investment (net inflows) Portfolio equity (net Inflows)

2000

2,682 2,005

681

547 8.9

26

6,300

42.8 36.6 25.5

7.1

25 15

453 69 - 7.3 2.0

57 -6

2008

4,714 5,868 -557

-283 -2.3

117

9,100

35.5 21.9 25.6

-1.5

25 15

382 53 -

3.1 0.8

279 62

Composition of totrl oxternal debt, 2008

IMF.0 IBRD 0

811.1ar.1. ton

US$ rnillionr

Private Sector Development

Time required to start a business (days) Cost to start a business (% of GNI per capita) Time required to register property (days)

Ranked as a major constraint to business ( O h of managers surveyed who agreed)

Access to/cost of financing Antiwmpetitiva or informal practices

Stock market capitalization (% of GDP) Bank capital to asset ratio (Oh)

2000

15.8 10.3

2008

78 2.3 11

2007

24.3 11.6

47.7 9.7

I Governance Indicators, 2000 and 2007

Voice and awntability

Political atability

Regulatory quality

Rule of law

Control of conuption

0 25 50 75 100

=ZOO7 Country's percantile rank (0-100) 02040 higher vdmI Imply benw r*tinnps

Sourn Kaufmann-hay-MaalmUI, World Bank

Technology and Infrastructure 2000 2007

Paved roads (Oh of total) Fixed line and mobile phone

High technology exports subscribers (per 100 people)

( O h of manufactured exports)

56.0 33.2

21 83

0.5 0.4

Environment

Agricultural land ( O h of land area) 46 46

Nationally protected areas ( O h of land area) .. 30.9

Freshwater resources per capita (cu. meters) .. 1,307 Freshwater withdrawal ( O h of internal resources)

Forest area (% of land area) 22.1 21.1

8.1

C02 emissions per capita (mt) 2.5 2.4

GDP per unit of energy use (2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) 9.2 11.7

Energy usa per capita (kg of oil equivalent) 1,065 1,032

World Bank Group portfollo

(US$ millions)

IBRD Total debt outstanding and disbursed Disbursements Principal repayments Interest payments

IDA Total debt outstanding and disbursed Disbursements Total debt service

16 0 0 0 7 1 1 0

9 6 0 0 1 0

IFC (tiscar year) Total disbursed and outstanding portfolio 2 6

of which IFC own account 2 6 Disbursements for IFC own a m u n t 1 0 Portfolio sales, prepayments and

repayments for IFC own account 0 1

MiGA Gross exposure New guarantees - -

Note: Figures In italics ara for years other than those specified. 2008 data are preliminary .. Indicates data ara not available. -indicates observation is not applicable.

Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG).

4/6/09

115

Annex 16: STAP Roster Technical Review and Responses

I

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

I

Project Design Threats and root causes o f biodiversity loss

I

The role o f tourism in relation with wildlife conservation i s not clear. .

Two diametrically opposed trends, transformation o f critical wi ldl i fe habitat sutside protected areas and the rise o f wildlife populations have lead to a growing number o f :onfrontations between local people and wild mimals which is denominated ‘Human- Wildlife-Conflict’ (HWC). H W C presents world-wide a serious obstacle to conservation with far reaching environmental and social impacts and must be regarded as one o f the main threats to the survival o f several wildlife species. In Sub-Saharan Africa, H W C i s often focused on elephants and large predator species such as lions. The conflict is becoming more prevalent as human populations increase, settlements expands and other human and environmental factors put people and wildl i fe in greater direct competition for a shrinking resource base. The data supports the fact that impacts on subsistence farming and livelihoods are significant; local people lose their crops, livestock, property, and sometimes their lives. As a result, wildlife species causing conflict are harmed or killed in retaliation or to prevent future conflicts. If solutions to H W C are not adequate, local support for conservation also declines. Consequently, conservation increasingly acknowledges that, improving adequate responses to H W C requires greater consultation local communities to shift the emphasis from reactive alleviation o f conflict to proactive prevention strategies.

Tourism can be a threat (control o f tourist numbers, waste management etc.) and a broader assessment o f the impacts o f nature- based tourism i s a concern o f the Department o f Environmental Affairs. On the other hand Botswana’s policies for wi ldl i fe conservation, tourism and rural development are a strong

116

Any potential link between Project proposal (and i t s activities in the project sites) to the existing conflict concerning the reallocation o f the Basarwa people in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

A map o f the project sites would be a good complement o f the information Drovided in the DroDosal. Stakeholder Involvement Please describe how stakeholders have been involved in designing and developing this project.

foundation for the sustainability o f the proposed Project. There i s clear recognition that nature-based tourism offers both o f employment opportunities and financial benefits for rural dwellers, and for wi ldl i fe conservation. Two safeguard policies are triggered by the proposed Project. An Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) have been prepared with relevance to OP 4.01 and OP 4.10. The Project wil l support the implementation o f these mitigation instruments. In addition, the project will not finance any activity involving involuntary land acquisition, leading to physical relocation or compensation. Rather, it i s designed to prevent any o f these effects. Therefore, strict screening mechanisms are included to that effect in the project’s ESMF and, as a result, no mitigation measure was identified. There i s no link between the proposed Project and the existing controversy regarding the relocation o f the SdBasarwa people in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

Provided in Annex 18.

Various community consultation took place through the established a consultation mechanisms (Kgotla meetings). There are further various mechanism to ensure participation o f different stakeholders, particularly the local communities: (i) The Project has been modified in that it targets under component 2 individual community member and addresses simultaneously reducing vulnerability and increasing livelihood and income opportunities. (ii) Members o f community based trusts will play a key role in monitoring Project impact. Similar to Project preparation consultations at village level will take dace throunh the

117

Mon i to r i ng and Evaluation Please review the indicators to include measurable impact indicators.

established consultation mechanisms (Kgotla meetings) and on-site as most interventions are implemented by community individuals.

This has been done and measurable result- oriented indicators are included in the results monitoring matrix.

More funds to be allocated to the development and implementation o f practical solutions to HWC.

Please identify the amount for M&E and the cost o f Project Management.

Component 2 (Strengthened capacity o f rural target population to implement Human- Wildlife-Coexistence strategies based o n proactive H W C prevention and to benefit from employment in the tourism sector) focuses on the development and implementation o f practical solutions to HWC. The total amount spend on this component i s US$ 12.3 M i l l i o n with a GEF allocation o f US$ 3.71 M i l l i o n (3 1 percent).

The estimated budget for the M&E activities are under Component 1 , subcomponent 1.1 (Extension staff trained in and apply M O M S and DSS) and Component 2, subcomponent 2.1 (Community trust representatives are capacitated to participate and contribute to the M&E function). The total amount i s US$ 227.500.

'

118

Interventions need to ensure tangible benefits to the target group at household level.

During the course o f preparation the Project has been modified ensure tangible benefits to the target group at household level. Whi le most

Annex 17: Stakeholder Participation and Draft Communication Plan

BOTSWANA: Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project

1. This draft communication plan provides the objectives and details on planned communications activities o f the Project. The plan is primarily intended for use by Government staff, especially the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) and the Project Steering Committee (PSC), and other internal stakeholders as guidance on the implementation and review o f the project.

Objectives

2. The Project communication plan i s designed to engage al l project stakeholders, including project area communities, in the design, implementation and monitoring the project, as well as in promoting co-management o f wildlife conflict between communities and the Government.

3. Many factors currently limit opportunities for stakeholders, particularly at local level, to actively participate in the project. These include lack o f awareness o f the project, unclear f low o f information and weak coordination structures and consultation frameworks especially at district level. The purpose o f this communication plan is to streamline communication, establish effective communication structures as a measure to strengthen the participation o f project area communities and other stakeholders in the project.

4. The project communication plan will build awareness o f project values and functions and show how proactive wildlife conflict mitigations strategies and interventions in the project areas. This will help bring ownership o f the project among the project area communities and the relevant stakeholders. The communication plan will therefore enable communities, the private sector and other stakeholders the opportunity to express their views and aspirations o f the project, strengthen a sense o f ownership and commitment that will lead to effective implementation o f the project.

5. The communication plan will also promote communication between sectoral, institutional stakeholders and project area communities. DWNP, as the implementing agency, provides concrete actions to clarify and harmonize institutional roles, mandates and involvement in the project as a measure to help accelerate the implementation o f the project.

6. By building partnerships with the relevant stakeholders and project area communities on the project through the use o f participatory techniques, the project communication plan will have replicable benefits for the future development o f wildlife conflict strategies in Botswana.

7 . The Project communication plan will also ensure that the stakeholder and project area community’s needs and aspirations are taken on board during the project design, implementation and reviews/appraisals.

8. stakeholders on progress in implementing the project.

The plan will help provide timely feedback to project area communities and other

119

Target audience

9. The Project communication plan is addressed to project area communities, relevant institutions, individuals, key sectoral research organizations and other stakeholders involved in or affected by the Project. Better communication and linkages with these varied groups will lay the foundation for effective implementation and ownership o f the project achievements.

10. The project communication plan will ensure targeted outreach where necessary to involve project area communities including indigenous peoples in the Okavango project area. This i s in line with the World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP. 4.10) and the Environmental and Social Framework o f the project developed as part o f the project Environmental and Social Assessment.

Scope

11. The Project communication plan covers the whole project area. It will adapt communication and participation tools appropriate and relevant to the needs o f the project area communities and stakeholders in urban and rural areas. The plan related activities will reach the whole project area communities and relevant stakeholders to be involved in the project to facilitate consultations with communities and other stakeholders, who are located in the project area and whose social and economic status and livelihoods are affected by the project activities. The Northern Botswana Human Wildl i fe Coexistence Project’s external stakeholders and partners include al l parties or individuals with an interest in the project and/or outcomes but whose livelihoods are not directly affected by the project activities.

Tools and methods for communication

12. The project communication plan provides a structured framework for information dissemination, locally-based consultation and coordinated input from key sectoral/institutional stakeholders and project area communities. The techniques used to engage and involve target audiences will vary according to the project components, the nature and needs o f different stakeholder groups, communities and the project area. Please refer to tables 1 and 2 for the project communication tools and communication arrangements.

Awareness-raising and sharing o f sharing information

13. The starting point i s to raise awareness o f the project, its objectives, components, activities, scope and implementation arrangements, amongst al l stakeholders and project area communities. This process began during the project preparation phase. Once the project i s appraised sometime in 2009, the project communication plan wil l ensure transparency in the implementation, reporting, monitoring and review o f the project activities by sharing and updating information on a regular basis during the project’s five year lifetime.

14. project and how they can participate in i t s activities.

A combination o f outreach techniques will be used to inform target groups about the

120

Materials will be produced in a format accessible to communities and other stakeholders and made available for displays at public information points in the project areas and villages, as wel l as other appropriate locations in each project area. These will complement mass communication tools (use o f local radio stations and television broadcasting in local languages, publications in local newspapers, press releases, websites etc. During the project updates will be placed in the local magazines to ensure continued involvement and awareness, including simplified versions into the national language (Setswana).

15. More innovative approaches to boost community and stakeholder involvement will also be considered. These include, among other things, study tours and exchange visits to help project area communities, DWNP staff and other stakeholders learn from experience the extent and impact o f wildlife conflict issues in the project area.

16. Awareness-raising and regular information f low is critical for institutional stakeholders, particularly those who have not been closely involved in the project. Tools to keep them ‘in the loop’ and facilitate exchange o f views will include the use o f e-mail to disseminate semester based progress updates and invite constructive feedback and ideas from project area communities and stakeholders.

National consultations and overall implementation

17. From the start o f the project, a national forum called the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will be established to provide guidance, support and supervision for project implementation at national level.

18. conflict issues in Botswana (see also Annex 6).

The PSC will be formed out representatives from institutions directly involved in wildl i fe

19. The PSC will be chaired by the Permanent Secretary (MEWT) or his representative and will meet quarterly to assess progress in project implementation.

Local consultation and participation

20. From the start o f the project, a local forum will be put in place in each project district through which consultations on the project activities, implementation and practical activities can be channeled.

21. Each project area district wi l l establish a suitable forum under the guidance and direction o f the District Commissioner’s and DWNP offices. The forum will be formed by representatives from the project area communities and the relevant institutions directly involved in wildlife conflict issues (Also refer to P A D under implementation arrangements).

121

22. Based on the high illiteracy rate in the project area villages which are mostly in the remote areas, community consultations will be done in Setswana. These will ensure the participation o f communities in the project and subsequently bring about ownership o f the project results by communities.

23. The project communication plan will combine “open house” information sessions with more targeted in-depth consultations. These would include informal interactive workshops to generate concrete ideas and other information-gathering tools. Advance meetings could be held with community leaders from the project area villages (chiefs, councilors, churches, local businesses, educational institutions etc), to ensure that the highest number o f people is aware o f what is going on and feel comfortable about attending the project meetings.

24. appropriate means and held at convenient times to maximize attendance.

Meetings will be announced in advance through local media, posters and/or other

25. The overall aim will be to identify and explore wildl i fe conflict issues and alternatives with stakeholders, discuss possible outcomes and foster a sense o f collective engagement. As the project evolves, reasoned feedback will be given to explain which options have been retained and why.

Representation of key stakeholder groups throughout project implementation

26. through the following implementation arrangements.

MEWT will promote coordinated dialogue and participation o f key stakeholder groups

27. The project will operate under the supervision o f the Project Steering Committee (PSC), which will provide policy guidance, monitoring and project oversight during implementation. The PSC wil l be a high-level executive body with representatives from institutions directly involved in wildlife conflict issues in Botswana and representatives f rom the District Commissioner and Land Board offices in the project area districts. The committee will be chaired by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry o f Environment Wildl i fe and Tourism and will meet quarterly to assess progress in the implementation o f the project and provide guidance and advice to speed up implementation.

28. District Project Committees (DPC) - This will be a team responsible for project implementation at district level. The committee will be formed out o f institutions directly involved in wildl i fe conflict issues in the district. I t will be chaired by the District Commissioner with DWNP as the secretary. The committee will report progress to the PSC during quarterly PSC meetings.

29. Project Scientific Team (PST) - An independent body established to provide high quality scientific and other data to create a common platform for decision-making and minimize differences o f opinion amongst stakeholders with regards to wildl i fe conflict issues. The team meetings wil l be convened as and when there i s an issue that requires their expert advice or opinion.

122

30. Project Implementation Unit (PIU) - The P I U will be charged with day to day management and implementation o f the project and will report directly to the Director o f DWNP. The P I U will be responsible for overall monitoring and evaluation o f the project, financial management, and implementation at national level. The P I U will compile semester based progress report for the project to be circulated to the PSC, D W N P and the World Bank.

Required technical assistance

3 1. The Project communication plan implementation will require technical assistance for the following activities:

(i) Consultancy support for scoping o f local consultative for a; desigdcontent o f information materials; selection o f participatory techniques taking account o f different characteristics and priority issues for each project area; and possible mediation with local communities and other stakeholders on more controversial issues.

(ii) Production and dissemination o f materials on the project (iii) Organization and conduct o f stakeholder meetings and interactive workshops, both in

the project areas and at national level

32. The Project Communication Plan will be implemented in l ine with MEWT Communication Strategy, DWNP consultative structures and other Government communication strategies, and take cognizance o f the traditional consultative structures in implementing the PCP.

Monitoring and evaluation, including indicators and frequency of M&E

33. The PCP will set out indicators on dissemination, consultation and participation, linked to the different project components, timeline and responsibilities. These will be integrated into the project arrangements for results monitoring. The PCP will be reviewed at mid-term to determine i t s effectiveness and identify scope for adjustment or improvement.

Responsibility for oversight of PCP

34. This will be the responsibility of the Project Implementation Unit and assessed on a regular basis during the PSC meetings and the Bank’s supervisory missions. The oversight will include documentation o f lessons learned and ensure their integration into the replication strategy as wel l as adequate consultation process.

Communications tools

35. For communication purposes, the project stakeholders, partners and communities may be considered “internal” that i s those with an operational involvement with the program or “external” that i s those with an interest in the project.

123

Project internal stakeholders, communities and partners, and communication tools

No. Communication tool

(i) Project Steering Committee (PSC) reached through quarterly PSC meetings and publications

(ii) Project area communities reached through kgotla meetings, workshops, exchange visits, radio etc.

(iii) District Project Committees (DPCs) reached through quarterly DPC meetings and publications on the project.

(iv) D W N P staff in the project areas reached through staff meetings, workshops, exchange visits, departmental newsletter and bulletins, etc.

(v) D W N P management reached through quarterly management meetings, departmental newsletter and bulletins, e-mail and quarterly project progress reports.

Description/purpose Target audience

T h e project external stakeholders and partners and communication tools

I *To communicate the project I objectives, progress and recommendations to internal and external stakeholders. *To create awareness among

36. The project “external” stakeholders and partners include al l parties and individuals with an interest in wildl i fe conflict management activities and or outcomes but directly involved in wildl i fe conflict issues. They include:

(i) External stakeholders especially institutions will be reached through the use o f media especially radio, television and print.

(ii) The external stakeholders will also be reached through e-mail and websites (iii) Stakeholder workshops will also be organized to update them on the project

achievement in addressing wildlife conflict issues in the project areas.

1

2

Web site www.envirobotswana.bw

*To provide easy access to project information and results. *All non-confidential project documents including consultancy reports etc. *Project information and documents on the web site w i l l be updated on a regular basis.

Internal and external stakeholders

Presentations during workshops and meetings on

the project.

Internal and external stakeholders

124

I I *To consult project area I

- - *To update internal and external stakeholders on progress in

*To guide decision making on project h t u r e plans and direction. To update internal and external stakeholders on progress in implementing the project.

conferences *To create awareness among the project area communities on the project. To update staff on progress in implementing the project.

6 DWNP AGM *To create awareness among the project area communities on the project.

Production o f publications on *To create awareness among

4 Project progress reports implementing the project. '

National and regional 5

7 the project (brochures, car stakeholders stickers, reports etc)

*To create awareness among stakeholders and project area communities on the project. *To promote first-hand learning on wildlife conflict management issues in Botswana. *To update stakeholders on progress

Exchange visits and mobile workshops

8

9 bh~ le t te rs and magazines in implementing the project,

Meetings (PSC, PIT, DPC, *To create awareness on the project. 10 DWNP Management, DWNP *To provide update on progress in

AGM etc) implementing the project.

Kgotla meetings

Internal and external stakeholders. .

Internal and external stakeholders

Internal stakeholders

Internal and external stakeholders

Internal and external stakeholders

Internal and external stakeholders

Internal stakeholders

communities on the project objectives. *To create awareness among the project area communities on the project.

Internal and external stakeholders

125

Table 2. L i s t of stakeholders Stakeholder Internallexternal

Ministry of Environment Wildlife and Tourism (MEWT) Director of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP)

Internal

Internal

CARACAL

Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) Department of Environmental Affairs @EA) Department of Forestry and Range Resources (DFRR) Ministry o f Agriculture (Department o f Veterinary Services DVS) Ministry of Agriculture (Department o f Crop Production) Department o f Tourism (DOT)

Internal

Internal

Internal

Internal

Internal

Internal

In t e rn a 1

BOCOBONET

District Administration (Boteti, Ngamiland and Chobe) Department of Lands (Boteti, Ngamiland and Chobe) University of Botswana

Role in wildlife conflict management

Lead agency for wildlife conflict management and the wildlife conflict management project

Internal

Internal

Internal .

External

*Lead agency for implementing the Wildlife Conflict Management Project. *Chair PIT meetings

Responsible for the Botswana Government financial obligation to the project.

Coordinating agency for all environmental issues and Botswana Government GEF focal point.

Member of PSC based on expertise in DFRR related wildlife conflict issues.

Member of PSC based on expertise in livestock related wildlife conflict issues.

Responsible for crops related wildlife conflict issues.

Responsible for tourism development and benefits to communities.

Member o f PSC and PIT based on expertise in wildlife conflict in Chobe district.

Member o f PSC and PIT based on expertise in promoting capacity building for CBOs in Botswana.

Members o f PSC ad DPC based on expertise in administration.

Members o f PSC ad DPC based on expertise in land issues

Responsible for undertaking research including wildlife conflict management

126

MAP SECTION

NokenengNokeneng

TTsausau

SehithwaSehithwa

RakopsRakops

NataNata

OrapaOrapa

LetlhakaneLetlhakane

SeruliSeruli

MahalapyeMahalapye

SefopheSefophe

PalapyePalapye

JwanengJwaneng

KangKang

TTshaneshane

WWerdaerda

MamunoMamuno

KhakheaKhakhea

BokspitsBokspits

MaunMaun

KasaneKasane

FrancistownFrancistown

SeroweSerowe

GhanziGhanzi

MolepololeMolepolole

KanyeKanye

TTshabongshabong

MochudiMochudi

LobatseLobatse

Selebi-PhikweSelebi-Phikwe

GABORONEGABORONE

K a l a h a r iK a l a h a r i

D e s e rD e s e r tt

MakgadikgadiMakgadikgadiSalt PansSalt Pans

G H A N Z IG H A N Z I

K G A L A G A D IK G A L A G A D I

K W E N E N GK W E N E N G

SOUTHERNSOUTHERN

KGAKGATLENGTLENG

NORNORTH-TH-EASTEAST

SOUTH-SOUTH-EASTEAST

N G A M I L A N DN G A M I L A N D

C E N T R A LC E N T R A L

C H O B EC H O B E

G H A N Z I

K G A L A G A D I

K W E N E N G

SOUTHERN

KGATLENG

NORTH-EAST

SOUTH-EAST

N G A M I L A N D

C E N T R A L

C H O B E

Nokeneng

Tsau

Sehithwa

Rakops

Nata

Orapa

Letlhakane

Seruli

Mahalapye

Sefophe

Palapye

Jwaneng

Kang

Tshane

Werda

Mamuno

Khakhea

Bokspits

Maun

Kasane

Francistown

Serowe

Ghanzi

Molepolole

Kanye

Tshabong

Mochudi

Lobatse

Selebi-Phikwe

GABORONE

K a l a h a r i

D e s e r t

A N G O L A

N A M I B I A

Z A M B I A

Z I M B A B W E

S O U T H A F R I C A

LakeNgami

LakeXau

OkavangoSwamps

MakgadikgadiSalt Pans

Okavango

Ngamaseri

Xaudum

Eiseb

Linya

nti

Okwa

Mol

op

o

Molo po

Mose lebe

Motlouts e

Shashe

Lotsane

Limpo po

Boteti

To Menongue

To Kimberley

To Pretoria

To Gweru

To Messina

To Lusaka

20°E

20°S

25°S

20°S

25°S

25°E

20°E 25°E

BOTSWANA

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other informationshown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World BankGroup, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

0 50 100

0 25 50 75 100 Miles

150 Kilometers

IBRD 33376

SEPTEMBER 2004

BOTSWANADISTRICT CAPITALS*

NATIONAL CAPITAL

RIVERS

MAIN ROADS

RAILROADS

DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

* The town councils of Francistown,Gaborone, Lobatse, and Selebi-Pikwehave status equal to Districts.