wwf feasibility study for a bmz-bengo project proposal
TRANSCRIPT
1
WWF Feasibility Study for a BMZ-BENGO Project Proposal TERMS OF REFER-ENCE
Version of February 2nd, 2021
2
Content 1) Background ..................................................................................................................... 6
General information about the proposed global program ............................................... 6
1.Short description of the program, background, measures ........................................ 6
2.Previous experience of the German executing agency in the sector(s): ................... 7
Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 9
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 9
2) CONTEXT ANALYSIS, STAKEHOLDERS and SAFEGUARDS (ESSF) ................ 11
3) Due Diligence of Partner Organizations ................................................................. 13
4) ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNED PROGRAMME BASED ON OECD/DAC
CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 13
Criterion 1: Relevance ...................................................................................................... 13
Criterion 2: Effectiveness ................................................................................................. 13
Criterion 3: Efficiency ...................................................................................................... 14
Criterion 4: Impact ........................................................................................................... 14
Criterion 5: Sustainability ................................................................................................ 14
Criterion 6: Coherency, Complementarity ...................................................................... 14
5) EXPECTED DELIVERABLES; TIMELINE AND COSTS ...................................... 16
6) PROFILE OF CONSULTANT .................................................................................. 17
ANNEX A. Report format ................................................................................................... 20
Title Page .......................................................................................................................... 20
Executive Summary (between 2 to 3 pages in English) ................................................. 20
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 20
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 20
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................. 20
A. Introduction (max 3 pages) .................................................................................... 20
B. Project/Programme Overview ............................................................................... 20
(Summary plus max 3 pages per country, total max 15 pages) ..................................... 20
C. Key Findings, Conclusions and recommendations (max 10 pages) ..................... 20
Annexes ............................................................................................................................ 20
ANNEX B. Templates ........................................................................................................... 22
1. Context- / Problem- Analysis ....................................................................................... 22
2. Stakeholder Analysis .................................................................................................... 23
Annex C ................................................................................................................................. 24
Global Programme Handout................................................................................................ 24
3
▪ one sector, at least 3 countries, ............................................................................... 24
▪ one country, at least 3 sectors, ................................................................................ 24
▪ several sectors, several countries, ........................................................................... 24
▪ one country, one sector and at least 3 local institutions. ....................................... 24
Annex D ................................................................................................................................. 26
Project concept Note and (preliminary) Impact Matrix .................................................... 26
Contact Person WWF Germany ....................................................................................... 34
4
Terms of Reference for this Service Procurement
Applicable law: Public Procurement Law of Germany and BMZ’s Contract Award Pro-
cedure for Supplies and Services
Contracting agency: WWF Germany, Reinhardtstraße 18, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Type of contracting agency: Non-profit, non-governmental, charity organisation
Title: Procurement of Services: WWF Feasibility Study for a BMZ-BENGO Project Pro-
posal Food security and Habitat conservation in KAZA TFCA (namely Namibia, Zimba-
bwe and Zambia)
Type of Contract: Consulting Services
Consulting services will include the following Work Packages:
1. Identification of most suitable activities per output, target area, target groups and
baselines for the indicators per target area considering multi-level approach (micro,
meso, macro level)
2. Stakeholder analyses, database and development of a stakeholder engagement plan
3. Preliminary screening of the project, stakeholders, partners, activities and sites in re-
gard to the requirements for WWF’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework
(ESSF) (checklist, screening tool, risk analysis, etc)
4. Due diligence of Namibian partner regarding capacities for effective administration,
financial management of project funds and implementation as well as ESSF
5. Identification of suitable local implementing partners in Zambia and Zimbabwe
Composition of the Consulting Team (1 ESS Expert, 1 environmental/agri-
cultural expert per country):
Consultants must be resident in one of the target countries
Deliverables:
1) Feasibility study report including ESSF documents, risk analysis, stakeholder data-
base, engagement plan and others as agreed
2) specific sections of the full proposal
Award criteria: Price is not the only award criterion and all criteria are stated in the
procurement documents
Duration of the contract:
Estimated Start of the contract: start asap – 15th March 2021
The contract is subject to renewal: no
Information about funds:
The procurement is related to a project and/or programme financed by the German
Government, BMZ (grant) and Project Partners (own funds)
Additional information: Right of the granting governmental organization for audit
according to the project approval
Type of procedure: Negotiate procedure after invitation
Time limit for sending the proposals: February 12th 2021
Time limit for sending questions to this tender is: 2 days before the deadline
Opening of the tenders: 1 day after the deadline for sending, at WWF Berlin Office
Language in which tenders are requested: English
Address where the tenders shall be send, duly signed (scan send via email is sufficient),
within the time limit:
6
1) Background
General information about the proposed global program
1.Short description of the program, background, measures
The KAZA region in Southern Africa suffers from the intertwined issues of poverty (most
live below the poverty line), the increasing impacts of climate change (prolonged and
frequent droughts), natural habitat conversion and land degradation. The resilience of
ecosystems is negatively impacted as are the livelihoods and food security of rural com-
munities. Eighty percent of the people are heavily dependent upon natural resources and
live largely from subsistence agriculture (shifting cultivation). The ever-increasing en-
croachment onto conservation areas increases the risks of human wildlife interaction.
This leads to increased conflict and loss of life but also an increased likelihood of zoono-
tic diseases and impacts onto human health. Currently, the survival and income of rural
communities are largely based on maize, a staple food with a high-water dependency
and which suffers from droughts and excess water. Drought resistant crops and the ben-
efits of agroecological approaches to conserve soil fertility and increase harvests and
yields as well as the benefits of sustainable cattle production and local supply chains are
not widely known or supported politically.
The threats to ecosystems and livelihoods of local communities are driven by a lack of
sustainable and diversified income streams, shifting cultivation (inherently poor sandy,
or sodic or eroded soils, low harvest and yields), poor storage conditions and resulting in
post-harvest losses, unsustainable, low-quality cattle herding, limited or lack of local
market access, amongst others. The political framework in regard to agroecology and
sustainable use of resources is still weak and its effective implementation lacking. By
building the capacity of governments, CSOs and rural communities about climate resili-
ent agroecological methods (intercropping, minimal soil disturbance, diversification of
crops) and support its implementation in ecologically sensitive areas of KAZA, the har-
vest can improve fourfold, drought resistant crops provide food security even in years of
low rainfall and soil fertility is maintained, reducing the need for new fields and defor-
estation. . Awareness building and support for sustainable cattle herding following the
One Health approach will raise soil fertility, reduce habitat encroachment and produce
healthier, more valuable cattle. By supporting pilots of private sector – community part-
nerships (PPP) -, the access to markets and supply chains for agroecological (organic)
products (beef and vegetable) will be created and potential models for diversified income
streams established, increasing resilience in communities. To enable a supportive politi-
cal framework for sustainable agriculture, the project will strengthen national CSO plat-
forms and their advocacy work with the agricultural ministries to provide more financial
support for small holder agriculture, building on the success from Zambia. But, also
other relevant ministries and sectors should be engaged and lobbied to ensure sustaina-
ble supply chains can develop. for sustainable supply chains for agroecology products. A
regional platform for experience exchange and cooperation between the KAZA countries
will support the scaling up of the approaches across KAZA and provides the political
framework. The KAZA M&E system will be strengthened by fortifying and expanding the
farmer field based monitoring system (smart phone App) to all project sites to allow
7
farmers to monitor their agricultural activities and harvests and in this way learn and
improve their practices. This data will be linked to the KAZA M&E systems land use
change analysis and should allow decision makers, rural communities and CSOs to eval-
uate the impacts and implement adaptive management.
These interventions will contribute to the sustainable development goals 1, 2 and 15. Re-
duction of land degradation and deforestation results in a contribution to SDG 13.
2.Previous experience of the German executing agency in the sector(s):
Most relevant experiences include: WWF offices in KAZA with Germany support are
successfully implementing sustainable agriculture projects with rural communities in
KAZA since 2012, and since 2015 with major support of BMZ/Bengo in Zambia and EU
funding in Zimbabwe & Zambia. More than 4.000 small farmers in Zambia have thus
benefitted from the newly introduced agroecological methods, improving their harvests
and household income, and reducing deforestation at the same time. Additionally, in
Zambia, WWF and the CSO Platform for Climate Resilient Agriculture and other part-
ners have successfully lobbied the Ministry of Agriculture to strengthen their support for
sustainable agriculture. The state budget was increased, and the minister is asking for a
national action plan. In Zimbabwe, WWF NL funded the establishment of a national
Multi Stakeholder Platform (MSP) on agroecology (AE) to champion and advocate for
the practice. The Platform consists of 20 individuals with knowledge, experience and in-
terest in AE from government, NGOs, private sector, academia, development partners
and private citizens. A second phase is focusing on a KAZA AE programme with a view
to create conditions supportive of the adoption of AE for enhanced household food secu-
rity and ecosystem resilience of smallholder farming. The experiences and knowledge
generated by this project should be consulted and considered by the feasibility study and
the new project as should the African Food Futures Initiative (AFFI) scoping study.
WWF has been working on nature conservation and sustainable use issues in the KAZA
region for more than 20 years and was instrumental in the establishment of the KAZA
TFCA. There are good relations with the KAZA secretariat. WWF sits on several working
groups including the KAZA Impact Monitoring Group, which is leading on the KAZA
M&E system. WWF supports the species, socio economic and habitat data collection and
analysis for the system and collaborates with partners in the field as well as the univer-
sity of Bonn/Cologne and others in this respect. WWF is also engaged in the One Health
debate on national and international level. In KAZA, WWF is supporting aspects of
healthy cattle management such as community-based predator protection systems, sus-
tainable pasture management and HWC mitigation since 2016.
3.Previous experience of the partners and their previous cooperation with
the executing agency
There are WWF offices in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Namibia which have been active in the
region for decades. Since 2012, WWF Germany (and other WWF national offices) is suc-
cessfully working with WWF Zambia on sustainable agriculture and human wildlife con-
flict mitigation and since 2015 with WWF Zimbabwe on community based natural re-
source management & sustainable agriculture. The WWF offices work with a wide range
of stakeholders. This includes community organizations, such as the community re-
source boards (CRBs) well as a local NGO, Green Living Movement in Zambia and the
8
Campfire Association in Zimbabwe. These are community representative organizations
which also cooperate with the ministries of agriculture at the national, provincial and
field level for policy change, political support and introduction of agroecological meth-
ods. Agritex, the district agricultural agency in Zimbabwe has implemented a three-year
sustainable agriculture project recently with WWF Zimbabwe. WWF Zambia success-
fully works with the Zambian CSO Platform for Climate Smart Agriculture und it is
planned to establish similar platforms in Namibia and Zimbabwe. The Namibian Na-
ture Foundation (NNF), a national NGO in Namibia is the known expert for sustaina-
ble agriculture with communities in Namibia. NNF and WWF Namibia have a long
standing and successful work relationship focusing supporting community-based re-
source use projects.
4. Added value of a global program approach
This will be a BMZ Bengo Global program, as such funding must address one sector in
three countries in a multi-level approach from local to national level including one re-
gional component (donor regulations). This project will address these requirements by
strengthening and scaling up sustainable agriculture in KAZA.
Ecosystems and communities don`t know borders. Hence, impacts of climate
change, food insecurity, hunger and habitat loss must be addressed at a landscape level
engaging all relevant actors at micro, meso and macro level. This approach ensures that
the CSOs, governments and rural communities in all three countries acquire the capacity
and support to scale up the successful climate resilient agroecological concepts across
KAZA and politically support it as a regional approach for ecosystem conservation and
community resilience. By building the capacity and strengthening networks and cooper-
ation between the CSOs in KAZA, the CSOs will exchange regionally on best practice for
a successful advocacy and systemic changes in their ministries. A regional agroecology
platform will assist this and aims to support agroecology in KAZA also after the project’s
end. WWF’s current CSO advocacy work in Zambia for more political support for sus-
tainable agriculture will be exchanged with Zimbabwe and Namibia, while the progres-
sive sustainable cattle herding approaches from Namibia will be expanded into KAZA.
Equally, structures at the field and meso levels will be established to support market ac-
cess and supply chains for communities also though synergies with the private sector´s
pilots on wildlife friendly beef production for local markets.
key project data:
Title: Food security and habitat conservation in the KAZA
TFCA
Outcome: The program contributes to an increased resilience of
communities and ecosystems through enhanced food se-
curity, diversification of income and habitat conserva-
tion in Southern Africa within the concept of One
Health.
9
Countries: Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe
German Executing
Agency:
(Local) executing agen-
cies:
WWF Germany
WWF Zambia (ZCO), WWF Zimbabwe (WWF Zim-CO),
NNF in Namibia
(Further implementing partners to be identified in Zam-
bia and Zimbabwe)
Duration: 3,5 years, starting 01.07.2021 – 30.06.2024
Budget: 3,66 Mio € including 917K€ cofinancing
More details on goals, outputs, indicators are in the impact matrix attached as annex 1.
Purpose
The feasibility study and its deliverables should provide sufficient detail to allow the de-
velopment of the project proposal including screening and other requirements related to
the WWF’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework (ESSF). The project pro-
posal must be handed in by 30th March 2021. Therefore, the time frame for the feasibil-
ity study is end of February 2021. A first preliminary report should be produced by 23rd
February 2021. The feasibility consultant is expected to provide input into the write shop
and the proposal development.
Please refer to annex for a project concept including impact matrix.
Methodology
The feasibility study is to be designed and conducted in Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia
(see target areas per country under annex 1) and at regional level. It will include desktop
studies, interviews with all relevant stakeholders and implementing partners as well as
field visits to selected key sites in the four countries (as needed and COVID19 re-
strictions allow, preferably by resident/ national consultants/team members). The re-
port will include country specific sections covering the ESSF requirements including
project screening, risk analysis, stakeholder analysis, stakeholder database and engage-
ment plans. The consultants will implement a feasibility study inception workshop and
preliminary results discussion workshops as well as a final feasibility study presentation
workshop.
The consultant is expected to use the following approaches in a good mix:
a) Desk review of at least the following but not limited to it: project concept and re-
lated documents such as reports of the ongoing and previous projects, current
project proposals in the same thematic area in KAZA, reports and documents
from other organisations active in the same field in KAZA, BMZ Bengo require-
ments and guidelines, WWF ESSF guidelines and documents, administrative
documents/handbooks of partner organizations describing administrative and
10
financial management procedures, their social and environmental safeguards
systems in comparison with the WWF ESSF
b) Desk review of agriculture related laws, policies, strategies etc for the three
countries and the region (SADC) and description of their possible influence/im-
pact onto the project and vice versa in the light of furthering agroecology and
sustainable agriculture as a rural development strategy
c) Interviews with all relevant focal points at WWF NL, WWF Germany, WWF Na-
mibia, WWF Zimbabwe and WWF Zambia to assess the need for and feasibility
of the project and its activities and goals, assess the current status of ESSF im-
plementation and compare to the requirements, get input into the proposal, etc
d) Interviews and assessment of documents from/with national implementing
partners: NNF in Namibia, Campfire Association, ORAP; Agritex in Zimbabwe,
Living Green Movement, CFU CRB´s and relevant others in Zambia to get their
input into the content of the proposal and opinion on its feasibility. Also, to as-
sess their capability to implement the activities, their financial and administra-
tive management capacity to satisfy BMZ Bengo rules and requirements,
e) Interviews with all relevant government agencies in the three countries and at
regional level (KAZA secretariat, SADC) to get their input into the content of the
proposal and opinion on its feasibility as well as the projects contribution to im-
plementing national and regional strategies
f) Interviews with community-based organisations such as CRB´s, RDC´s and oth-
ers as relevant in all three countries
g) Interviews with other NGO´s / research institutes (for Zimbabwe eg: German
Hunger aid, ICRISAT, etc, For Zambia: Climate smart agriculture platform,
Green Living Movement, PELUM, and COMACO etc) but also IFOAM (esp. the
Participatory Guarantee System – PGS) related to the subject of the proposal to
get their input and opinion of the feasibility of the project as well as cooperation
opportunities
h) if possible: visits (maximum 5 travel days per country) to selected target areas to
consult partners and target groups, complement missing baseline data, ensure
participation of target groups into the study, (starting a free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC) process with target communities on all planned activities and in-
vestments) and to conduct a comprehensive ESSF screening and mitigation
planning
With respect to a) the following documents should also be consulted:
▪ BMZ / BENGO documents relevant for the project: handout and guidance on
Impact matrix for global programmes, BMZ Human Rights Strategy and related
BMZ and international guiding principles on environmental and social safe-
guards (such as IFC Performance Standards, UNDP Framework on Social and
Environmental Standards etc.); Translation of ANBest-P Guidelines
▪ Documents generated by WWF Germany, WWF Netherlands: proposals (Dutch
lottery fund proposal to ensure alignment), WWF Switzerland (SDC proposal)
and others as appropriate and relevant. Technical reports, reviews etc.
▪ WWF Environmental and Social Safeguard Framework and related guidelines
▪ African Food Futures (AFFI)
11
With respect to c) the following staff members should be consulted:
▪ WWF Germany: Brit Reichelt-Zolho, Senior Program Manager S&E Africa,
WWF Ger, Ulrich Hermanski, Project Finance & Administration Manager, Dr.
May Hokan, Program officer S&E Africa, WWF Ger
▪ Rolf Sommer Director Agriculture and Land use change, Kerstin Weber
▪ WWF Netherlands: Sarah Doornbos, Sr Advisor Food & Agriculture; Christiaan
van der Hoeven, Sr Advisor Wildlife
▪ WWF Intl.: Martina Fleckenstein, Policy Director, Food practice, Alissa
Wachter, Food Practice Fundraising officer
▪ WWF Zimbabwe: Enos Shumba (Country director) Lynette Tshabangu (Food
practice), Itai Chibaya (Project executant) at WWF Zimbabwe
▪ WWF Namibia/KAZA: Mike Knight (WWF KAZA Coordinator), Russell Tay-
lor (WWF KAZA Conservation advisor)
▪ WWF Zambia: Nachilala Nkombo (Country director), Moses Nyrienda (Wild-
life Program Director), Norman Rigava (Conservation Director), Conrad
Muyaule (Sustainable Agriculture Lead), Maxard Katubulushi (Fundraising
Manager) , Isabel Mukelebai ( Government partnerships) With respect to c) to
g) relevant contacts will be provided in time. For some that cannot be provided,
the consultant is expected to use its own network and contacts for accessing
these people.
Relevant preparatory documents will be provided by WWF Germany.
2) CONTEXT ANALYSIS, STAKEHOLD-
ERS and SAFEGUARDS (ESSF)
The consultant is responsible to carry out and write up the Context Analysis, the Stake-
holder analysis (including database and engagement plan), identify target groups and
related questions and answer the following ESSF questions.
The consultant will follow the needs for details as outlined in the WWF ESSF
guidelines (WWF Checklist for Environmental & Social Safeguards in NEW
PROJECTS ) but it will include description of project implementing organisations, the
direct & indirect target groups and other stakeholders, stakeholder relations, current
conflicts and conflict potentials, risk analysis and mitigating measures (according to
WWF ESSF guidelines).
2.1. Context analysis: per target area as according to the WWF Checklist for Environ-
mental & Social Safeguards in NEW PROJECTS
2.2. Stakeholder analysis: Per target area identify:
Follow the WWF Checklist for Environmental & Social Safeguards in NEW PROJECTS
and identify also (if not already in the guidelines):
▪ Who are the relevant stakeholders and partners for the proposed programme and
why? (local, provincial, national and regional level, public, NGO and other) in rela-
tion to the planned outcomes and outputs
12
▪ What is the role / responsibility of each relevant stakeholder and partner and how
important are they in relation to the planned outcomes and outputs?
▪ Are there overlaps or conflicts of interest between key stakeholders/ partners? What
level of coordination and interaction between the programmes stakeholders is rec-
ommended in order to achieve the projects results (recommendations for project
management set up)?
▪ Where are risks of overlaps/ chances of synergies/ with existing projects/ programs,
how can the proposed project successfully be embedded in the respective national
context? How can the proposed programme be coordinated within existing struc-
tures, the political and technical precincts?
▪ Do the potential partners have the capacities to implement the planned programme?
If not what support would they need to build this up within the project time period?
(capacity building of local partners is a priority and should be investigated by the
feasibility study)
▪ Which civil society actors/ NGOs/ CSOs /CBOs are interested in the programme and
could become partners (and which role could they take on)?
▪ Which private sector actors are interested in the programme and could become part-
ners (and what role could they take on)?
▪ How can learning, cooperation, knowledge management, communication and net-
working approaches between implementing partners and beyond be included in the
programme concept? Which approaches are recommended?
▪ Stakeholder analysis, Stakeholder database and stakeholder engage-
ment plan are tangible outputs and separate, standalone documents to be deliv-
ered by this consultancy
Target groups:
Per output, identify:
▪ direct and indirect target groups per target project area in each country and all levels
(micro, provincial, national, regional) including gender, socio economic structure,
ethnic groups etc as per WWF ESSF context analysis (WWF Checklist for Environ-
mental & Social Safeguards in NEW PROJECTS ) and Bengo proposal needs
▪ Collect the needed baseline information for the indicators as per impact matrix (see
annex) and per target site
ESSF, per Target area and implementing partner:
▪ What are the potential environmental risks and negative impacts associated with
planned activities and investments such as impacts on wildlife populations, habitats,
forest and water resources, farms, rangelands and livestock and others
▪ Potential social risks and negative impacts associated with planned activities and in-
vestments such as violations of human and indigenous rights, discrimination of
women, indigenous people, minorities and handicapped people, unfair benefit dis-
tribution and others
▪ Free, prior and informed consent of target groups to ensure broad consensus of
community members and other stakeholders in all planned activities and invest-
ments
▪ Engagement plan to ensure the adequate participation of community members and
other stakeholders in decision-making and implementation of all planned activities
and investment.
▪ Mitigation plan to mitigate potential negative environmental and social impacts
▪ Check each implementing partners ESSF status against the required WWF ESSF
guidelines, outline the gaps and make recommendations
(For further details refer to ESSF Check list and Project Screening Tool)
13
3) Due Diligence of Partner Organizations1
For the national implementing partner already identified or identified during the feasi-
bility study, ensure the WWF due diligence forms are filled in and all necessary infor-
mation is checked and collected. Submit the due diligence forms to WWF Germany
4) Activities Identify and make recommendations as to which activities are most suitable per target
site and for the outputs listed in the attached impact matrix to fulfil the indicators and
target values.
Keep in mind the climate change and it impact. The agroecological practices here should
allow a climate resilient agriculture.
5) ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNED PRO-
GRAMME BASED ON OECD/DAC
CRITERIA
Criterion 1: Relevance
▪ Does the planned project approach address a major development problem or a cru-
cial development bottleneck of the partner country or region?
▪ To what extent are the objectives valid and relevant for the beneficiaries?
▪ Are the outputs on country level consistent with the outputs and outcome on pro-
gramme level?
▪ Are the outputs and outcome of the programme consistent with the intended im-
pacts and effects?
▪ What are necessary external factors / conditions to achieve the projects results (as-
sumptions)?
▪ What change is expected to have occurred as a result of the project at the end of the
project period?
Criterion 2: Effectiveness
▪ Are the measures (at micro, meso, macro level) and the chosen methodological ap-
proach suitable to achieve the project objectives? If not, what other measures does
the team recommend to achieve the goal?
▪ Which activities at micro, meso and/or macro level (multi-level approach) can in-
crease sustainability?
▪ What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the
objectives (for each country / on programme level)?
▪ Are synergy effects with measures of other donors or programmes used?
1 Refer to “Formblatt New Partner Projects..”, WWF Germany
14
Criterion 3: Efficiency
▪ Can the objectives be achieved within the given time frame?
▪ Is the programme designed in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
▪ What would the general outline of an appropriate management structure for an effi-
cient project set up look like in the respective country and for overall programme
steering?
▪ What financial, structural and human resources are needed?
Criterion 4: Impact
▪ How does the project contribute to the implementation of relevant regional and na-
tional strategies? Does the planned project contribute to the achievement of over-
arching developmental impacts?
▪ What difference will the programme make – for civil society and economic actors /
communities / political stakeholders in the programme countries?
▪ Who is affected / benefitting directly / indirectly by the programme?
▪ Does a multi-level approach (micro, meso, macro level) contribute to increasing sig-
nificance and effectiveness?
▪ To what extent does the project's objective take into account gender-sensitive, inclu-
sive, culture- and conflict-sensitive as well as human rights-based aspects?
Criterion 5: Sustainability
▪ How can the sustainability of the results and impacts be guaranteed and strength-
ened (structurally, economically, politically, socially, ecologically)?
▪ What are major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of sustain-
ability of the programme?
▪ To what extent can local potentials, structures and procedures be built upon?
▪ Which measures and instruments are best suited to utilise and strengthen local initi-
ative, participation and capacities?
▪ What are the socio-cultural obstacles to the approach and how can these be over-
come?
▪ What negative consequences and effects could project measures or sub-objectives
have? To what extent can this be taken into account in the project (concept) (e.g. do-
no-harm approach, conflict-sensitive impact monitoring, etc.)?
▪ What risks (personnel risks for the implementers, institutional and reputational
risks, context risks) exist in project implementation and how can they be mini-
mised?
Criterion 6: Coherency, Complementarity
▪ Coherency and complementarity to BMZ priorities for the region: Does the project
make a clearly aligned and meaningful contribution to BMZ goals and local priori-
ties as described in their call for proposals, Bengo guidelines and strategy docu-
ments?
▪ Is this approach complementary to relevant BMZ supported projects/programs in
the region? How does it relate to other internationally supported projects in the re-
spective areas and national programms?
7. recommendations:
▪ What specific suggestions can be made on the basis of the key findings on above
mentioned and the evaluation according to the DAC criteria for the concept of the
project in the specific context?
15
▪ Which components, if any, are missing in the project concept to sustainably achieve
the planned objectives?
▪ Which planned components are rather unsuitable and for which reasons?
▪ Do the assumptions on impacts and sustainability on which the project concept is
based seem plausible and viable for the project concept? Do they need to be adjusted
and if so, how do they need to be adjusted?
▪ Which fields of observation are suitable for the development of qualitative and
quantitative indicators that reflect the changes for the target group (SMART)?
▪ Which findings and baseline data of the study are recommended as a basis to be in-
cluded in the project logic (impact matrix)?
16
6) EXPECTED DELIVERABLES;
TIMELINE AND COSTS
Major Evaluation Task/Deliverable Dates / Deadline
Preparation (Getting documents, Desk review and arrange-
ment of interviews)
Starting asap
Feasibility inception meeting with proposal writing core group
and KAZA thematic sust agic group
Soon after
Study ongoing: Interviews, stakeholder & target group meet-
ings, documents review, asses ESSF, filling in and writing of
documents, writing preliminary reports
15/2-15/3
Preliminary report submitted (max 40 pages without annexes,
ESSF documents and filled in templates), circulated for com-
ments until the 9th
08/03/21 (22nd day)
Debriefing meeting on preliminary report with core group and
WWF KAZA sust. agric. thematic group and collection of com-
ments
09/03/21
Final Report (max 40 pages) finalized by consultant and ap-
proved by person/organisation who commissioned the study
15/3/21 (30th day)
Participation in write workshop 3 days in the week of
the 15th-19thth March
Support proposal writing 3 days
Total number of days 30 days
Deliverables:
Feasibility report covering all the above-mentioned points and including per target site
and at regional level according to the WWF checklist and/or Bengo proposal require-
ments:
• Stakeholder analysis
• Stakeholder data base
• Stakeholder engagement plan
• Direct and indirect target groups
• Context analysis
• Risk analysis and mitigation plan
• Recommended activities
• Baseline information
17
7) PROFILE OF CONSULTANT The consultancy will be conducted by a consultant / consultancy firm with representa-
tion/partners in all three countries and with access to the regional level (SADC, KAZA
Sec). The consultants will be responsible for the overall implementation of the respec-
tive country missions and the report writing.
Selection Criteria and Technical and professional ability
Required Expertise regarding the team de-
livering the services Proof to verify the compliance
The person/company shall not be in any of
the situation that would exclude the applicant
from this tender procedure
Signed declaration of honour (non-
exclusion criteria form)
The absence of any professional or personal
conflict of interest
Signed declaration of honour (non-
exclusion criteria form)
Required Expertise regarding the person
or team delivering the services Proof to verify the compliance
At least 5 years of expertise to carry out quan-
titative and qualitative analysis (including fea-
sibility studies), ESSF screening and mitiga-
tion planning related to the topic of this pro-
curement,
The tenderer must provide refer-
ences for at least 3 projects that alto-
gether demonstrate the requested
capacity and were delivered in the
last 3 years.
The project references should in-
clude at least title, duration, geo-
graphical scope, public entity´s
name and the type of the procure-
ment procedure
Sound knowledge of sustainable agriculture,
nature conservation and CBNRM in the KAZA
region.
Sound knowledge of the national contexts in
Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia – at least 3
years of professional experience or at least the
demonstration of the participation in 3 pro-
jects.
The tenderer must provide refer-
ences for at least 2 projects that alto-
gether demonstrate the requested
capacity and were delivered in the
last 3 years.
The project references should in-
clude at least title, duration, geo-
graphical scope, public entity´s
name and the type of the procure-
ment procedure
Technical competency on the issue to be eval-
uated: conservation, bufferzone management,
community development, rural development,
sustainable agriculture, agroecology
Proof of education (university degree
in a relevant subject)
18
Fluent in English language (C1 according to
the European common reference system) CV + project references
In-country experience in Africa at least 5
years, or at least 3 projects/consultancies car-
ried out in the last 10 years.
CV with reference to the projects
carried out in any African country
Award criteria
The contract will be awarded based on the most economically advantageous tender, ac-
cording to the 'best price-quality ratio' award method. The quality of the tender will be
evaluated based on the following criteria. The maximum total quality score is 100
points. Tenders that receive less than 70% of the maximum possible mark for the whole
quality evaluation or less than 60% for one of the quality criteria will be eliminated and
their final score will not be calculated. Tenders that do not reach the minimum quality
levels will be rejected and will not be ranked.
Quality Criteria Points
Proposed project methodology
We ask the tenderer to give a significant offer on this matter
This criterion aims to assess the understanding of WWF needs
and the proposed solution. Previous experience on tendering on
behalf of third sector organisations (such as NGOs) is highly de-
sirable.
30 point – mini-
mum threshold
60% (18 points)
Evaluation capacity
The tenderer should demonstrate his/her background on project
planning/ evaluation and his/her feasibility to carry out ex-
post/ex-ante evaluation/ and or project planning.
30 points - mini-
mum threshold
60% (18 points)
Project management and quality control
This criterion will assess the quality control system applied to the
service foreseen in this tender specification concerning the qual-
ity of the deliverables, the language quality check, and continuity
of the service in case of absence of the member of the team. The
quality system should be detailed in the tender and specific to the
tasks at hand.
20 points – mini-
mum threshold
60% (12 points)
Understanding/ Knowledge of the project landscape/ country
specifics/Work Packages
Knowledge of BMZ’ and WWF’s vision on the role of civil society
in community-based natural resource management, the way BMZ
and WWF work and their programming cycle is desirable but not
mandatory. Knowledge of community based Resource manage-
ment and protected areas desireable, knowledge of geographic
context, biodiversity and climate change impact desireable
20 points – mini-
mum threshold
60% (12 points)
19
Total number of points 100 points mini-
mum threshold to
reach is 60% (60
points)
Ranking of the offers/tenders
The contract will be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender, i.e. the
tender offering the best price-quality ratio in accordance with the formula below.
A weighting of 80 - 20 is given to price and quality.
After evaluation of the quality of the tenders, the evaluation committee will proceed with
the financial comparison of the tenders retained for further consideration according to
the following formula:
score for tender X = [(Lowest price / Price of tender X) x 80 ]+ [(Total quality score for
all award criteria of tender X / 100) x 20]
Other Stipulations
Supplier compliance, code of conduct, conflict of interest
All bidders taking part in the tender have equal opportunities and the contracting authority
ensures that the contract will be awarded to the bidder that offer provides the best price-
quality ratio.
Bidders are requested to comply with the exclusion criteria requirements that are stated
in the declaration of honour. Bidders are requested to declare any conflict of interest on
the same form.
Before signing the contract with WWF Germany, the successful bidders will be requested
to take on a note on the supplier code of codex on social requirements. This supplier code
of codex will be integral part of the contract that WWF Germany signs with the successful
bidder.
20
ANNEX A. Report format
This format can be adapted to suit the above points and ensure all is included. It but
should maximally cover 30 pages excluding annexes and executive summary.
Title Page
Report title, project or programme title, and contract number (if appropriate), Date of
re-port, Authors and their affiliation, Map (if appropriate)
Executive Summary (between 2 to 3 pages in English)
Principal findings and recommendations, organized by the six assessment criteria
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
A. Introduction (max 3 pages)
Purpose, objectives, and intended utilization of the feasibility study (reference
and attach the ToR as an annex)
Methodology and rationale for approach (reference and attach as annexes the
itinerary; names of key informants; a list of consulted documents; and any ta-
bles containing project/programme information utilized in the exercise)
B. Project/Programme Overview
(Summary plus max 5 pages per country, total max 15 pages)
Concise presentation of the programme characteristics
Concise summary of the purpose, rationale & programme design (ToC)
Characteristics per country:
▪ Context analysis,
▪ Stakeholders & beneficiaries per target area
▪ ESSF and baseline information
▪ Target groups
▪ Implementing partners, ESSF and due diligence
▪ Objectives, strategies, activities to achieve the programme goals
C. Key Findings, Conclusions and recommendations (max 10 pages)
Findings organized by each of the six core evaluation criteria for the programme
level and each countries specific context (attach as annexes tables, graphics, and
other figures to help convey key findings)
Conclusion and recommendation organized each of the six core evaluation crite
ria for the programme level and each countries
Annexes
Stand alone documents (deliverables)
Terms of Reference
21
Itinerary with key informants
Documents consulted
ANNEX B. Templates
1. Context- / Problem- Analysis Use PPMS Conceptual Model, problem tree or the following table:
Ursachen/ Contributing Fac-
tors
Kernproblem,
Herausforderung / Threats
Auswirkungen / Impact on
Targets
What are the causes (ecological /
economic / social / political) of the
core problem?
What is the core problem / chal-
lenge to which the project wants to
react?
What effects does the core problem
have on protected objects (ecosys-
tems/species/etc.) and target
groups?
23
2. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder
Power / influence on the pro-
ject
Interest in the
project
Role / point of connection
to the project
- What is the power / influ-ence of the stakeholder? (high / medium / low?)
- How can the stakeholder influence the project re-sults? (Positive & nega-tive)
- Is it influenced by project results? (Positive, negative)
- What is the stakeholder's interest? Why?
- What expecta-tions do they have?
- In what way are these stakeholders connected with the project
- What role does the stakeholder play in the project?
- How should the stakeholder be in-volved?
24
Annex C
Global Programme Handout Global programmes should achieve higher impacts through the networking of individual projects. Higher
structural impacts are achieved through cross-country and cross-thematic synergy effects and a focus on
capacity development and advocacy. In terms of content, global programmes are dedicated to global chal-
lenges and supra regional crises (such as flight, climate change, pandemics, famine, etc.).
The volume of global programmes usually exceeds EUR 1.0 million. The duration is initially limited to 4
years, with the possibility of a subsequent phase. A global programme may take place in:
▪ one sector, at least 3 countries,
▪ one country, at least 3 sectors,
▪ several sectors, several countries,
▪ one country, one sector and at least 3 local institutions.
Synergy effects and strategic approaches must be demonstrated in order to achieve a common overall ob-
jective. In addition, global programmes should have effects not only at micro level, but in particular at meso
and macro level (national and/or regional) and aim at systemic changes. After approval by BMZ, global
programmes can also be used for particularly innovative approaches, e.g. for joint applications from several
German NGOs.
Differentiation: In addition to global programmes, there are also transnational projects and projects im-
plemented with several executing agencies or in different sectors. In contrast to global programmes, cross-
country/sector/executing agency projects have their effects primarily at the micro and meso levels and their
funding volume generally amounts to a maximum of EUR 1.0 million. Accordingly, the requirements of the
Global Programme do not apply to transnational projects.
Requirement for the promotion of global programmes is the qualification of the private project-executing
agency through:
▪ many years of experience with BMZ-funded projects (usually min. 10 years)
▪ the ability to implement multi-level approaches
▪ a high level of development and sectoral expertise
▪ broad access to different local partners (proof of cooperation experience with independent local
partners in usually at least 5 countries)
▪ high financial mobilisation capacity (at least EUR 5 million annual turnover, exceptions are possi-
ble in justified individual cases after consultation with the BMZ)
▪ Completion of further training on administrative and technical issues relating to global pro-
grammes at bengo.
The implementation of a global programme does not increase the total amount of funding granted to a
project-executing agency, but brings together several individual projects of the project-executing agency
with the aim of achieving greater broad impact. Global programmes should be discussed in advance with
the BMZ in sufficient time before the annual planning enquiry.
25
Procedural simplifications:
1. Reduced administrative effort: Only one application, only one planning phase (financing of a
feasibility study incl. cross-country or cross-sector planning workshop) and only one technical and
financial report for the entire global programme.
2. Greater flexibility in implementation: Up to 30% of the individual estimates of the overall
financing plan can be rededicated without amendment.
3. Possibility of a follow-up phase: In order to scale the results of the first phase, it is possible to
approve a follow-up phase, but this cannot be promised at the beginning of the first phase. Thus, a
first project phase must also contain a demonstrably achievable and sustainably realizable goal and
have an effect independent of a subsequent phase.
4. Financing network activities and programme coordinator: A programme coordinator can
be financed in Germany or one of the partner countries. In addition to programme coordination,
the programme coordinator is responsible for setting up network structures (financing of regional
or sector workshops is possible). The coordinator should prepare and implement the transfer of
coordination tasks to the local partners as part of an exit strategy and ensure that the networks are
maintained beyond the end of the programme. Accordingly, personnel costs should be reduced
wherever possible. However, the costs of the position, including the network activities, must not
exceed a maximum of 10% of the total project expenditure.
5. Reduced level of detail in the planning of activities: The individual measures to achieve
the outputs can be described by way of example with an "activity pool", the necessity of which must
be derived from the impact matrix. The planned expenditures can be summarised in upper cate-
gories. The project-executing agency confirms in the application that only eligible expenditure is
actually implemented and accounted for in accordance with the funding guidelines.
6. Own resources: In non-crisis countries, a 25% own contribution must be paid for global pro-
grammes. The own contribution for an overall programme is 10% if at least 50% of the measures
are implemented in one or more crisis countries or if the global programme explicitly addresses a
regional crisis context (civil war, revolts, flight, disasters) and is implemented in at least one crisis
country.
Conception of the application: The guidelines for the funding of private German institutions dated
01.01.2016 also apply to the Global Programme. A feasibility study (max. 30 pages) must be carried out
before the start of the programme.
▪ In the application, a separate program module with its own impact matrix (see figure) is to be pro-
vided for each local partner, which is combined in the higher-level matrix.
▪ The overall impact matrix for the global programme summarises the objectives, impacts and
measures of the individual modules. It thus reflects the aggregated benefits of the programme,
which should be scaled in perspective with the aim of achieving greater broad impact.
▪ A separate module is to represent common goals and interactions between the partners and, if nec-
essary, other actors.
Program
(superordinate)
Programme module 1:
Objectives and activi-
ties of the local partner
1
Programme module 2:
Objectives and activi-
ties of the local partner
2
Programme module 3:
Overarching goals of
partners 1 and 2, e.g.
networking, coordina-
tion, dialogue struc-
tures
26
▪ For each programme module, a separate financing plan shall be drawn up in the application, as
well as in the interim and final report, which shall be aggregated in an overall financing plan.
▪ The overall impact matrix and the overall financing plan are binding.
Reporting: For global programs, interim & final reports consist of:
▪ Financial reporting (one per programme module and one aggregated report)
▪ A technical report with reference to the separate impact matrices for each program module.
Annex D
Project concept Note and (preliminary) Impact Matrix Framework information
Name of the private German executing
agency
WWF Deutschland
Experience with BMZ-funded projects since
(year)
1993
Annual turnover of the private German exe-
cuting agency approx.
92,1 Million EUR (FJ 2018/19)
Number of projects with more than 500
thousand euros in BMZ co-financing funded
from the title of projects for private German
executing agencies to date
30
Cooperation experience with independent
local NGOs in different countries or conti-
nents (at least 5 countries)
AMA: Mozambique
IRNDC: Namibia
Forest Action Network (FAN): Kenia
Campfire Association: Zimbabwe
IPACC: South Africa
Expertise and experience in multi-level ap-
proaches in the following sectors
Agriculture, adaptation to climate change impacts,
sustainable fisheries, rural development and food se-
curity, natural resource management, Organisational
Development, Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR),
Attended global program info seminar
(yes/no)
Yes
Title of the planned global Programme Food security and habitat conservation in the Ka-
vango Zambesi transboundary conservation area
network (KAZA TFCA) (Lebensraumschutz und
Ernährungssicherung im grenzübergreifenden Ka-
vango-Zambesi Schutzgebietsnetzwerk (KAZA))
Duration from - to 2022-2026 (SEWOH) or 2021-2024 (PT)
Total volume and BMZ funding 5 Mio. EUR (total) / 4 Mio. EUR (BMZ)
Sector(s) Agriculture
27
Country/Countries Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Target groups Macro: Agriculture and environmental ministries,
Departments of Wildlife and National Parks, Veteri-
nary departments, KAZA Secretariat and its working
groups, Provincial and district agencies
Meso: CSO-platforms and alliances
Micro: local communities, subsistence farmer fami-
lies in four project areas
Planned number of independent local part-
ner organizations
3-4
Names of partners per target country Regional: KAZA Secretariat, SADC,
Namibia: Namibian Nature Foundation (NNF)
Zimbabwe: WWF Zimbabwe
Zambia: WWF Zambia
Own local representation of the private Ger-
man executing agency (e.g. in the form of
country offices) involved in the programme?
(yes/no)
WWF Zambia, WWF Zimbabwe (these WWF offices
within the OD program and with the aim to become
national organizations (NO´s), they are no WWF Ger
offices, but local representatives of WWF CH).
Yes, they will be involved
28
General information about the proposed global program
1.Short description of the program, background, measures
The KAZA region in Southern Africa suffers from the intertwined issues of poverty (most live be-
low the poverty line), the increasing impacts of climate change (prolonged and frequent
droughts), natural habitat conversion and land degradation. The resilience of ecosystems is neg-
atively impacted as are the livelihoods and food security of rural communities. Eighty percent of
the people are heavily dependent upon natural resources and live largely from subsistence agri-
culture (shifting cultivation). The ever-increasing encroachment onto conservation areas in-
creases the risks of human wildlife interaction. This leads to increased conflict and loss of life
but also an increased likelihood of zoonotic diseases and impacts onto human health. Currently,
the survival and income of rural communities are largely based on maize, a staple food with a
high-water dependency and which suffers from droughts. Drought resistant crops and the bene-
fits of agroecological approaches to conserve soil fertility and increase harvests as well as the
benefits of sustainable cattle production and local supply chains are not widely known or sup-
ported politically.
The threats to ecosystems and livelihoods of local communities are driven by a lack of
sustainable and diversified income streams, shifting cultivation (impoverished, eroded soils, low
harvest), unsustainable, low-quality cattle herding, lack of local market access and supportive
political climate. By building the capacity of governments, CSOs and rural communities about
climate resilient agroecological methods (intercropping, minimal soil disturbance, diversifica-
tion of crops) and support its implementation in ecologically sensitive areas of KAZA, the har-
vest can improve fourfold, drought resistant crops provide food security even in years of low
rainfall and soil fertility is maintained, reducing the need for new fields and deforestation.
Awareness building and support for sustainable cattle herding following the One Health ap-
proach will raise soil fertility, reduce habitat encroachment and produce healthier, more valua-
ble cattle. By supporting pilots of private sector – community partnerships (PPP) -, the access to
markets and supply chains for agroecological (organic) products (beef and vegetable) will be cre-
ated and potential models for diversified income streams established, increasing resilience in
communities. To enable a supportive political framework for sustainable agriculture, the project
will strengthen national CSO platforms and their advocacy work with the agricultural ministries
to provide more financial support for sust. and small holder agriculture, building on the success
from Zambia. A regional platform for experience exchange and cooperation between the KAZA
countries will support the scaling up of the approaches across KAZA and provides the political
framework. The KAZA M&E system will be strengthened by teaching farmers to monitor their
agricultural activities and harvests, linking this data to the systems land use change analysis will
allow decision makers, rural communities and CSOs to evaluate the impacts and implement
adaptive management.
These interventions will contribute to the sustainable development goals 1, 2 and 15. Reduc-
tion of land degradation and deforestation results in a contribution to SDG 13. The One Health
approach in its very nature includes animal and human health adding to SDG 3.
2.Previous experience of the private German executing agency in the sector(s):
WWF Germany is successfully implementing sustainable agriculture projects with rural communities in
KAZA since 2012, and since 2015 with major support of BMZ/Bengo in Zambia and EU funding in Zimba-
bwe & Zambia. More than 4.000 small farmers have thus benefitted from the introduced agroecological
methods, improving their harvests and household income, and reducing deforestation at the same time.
Additionally, in Zambia, WWF and the CSO Platform for Climate Smart Agriculture and other partners
29
have successfully lobbied the Ministry of Agriculture to strengthen their support for sustainable agricul-
ture. The state budget was increased, and the minister is asking for a national action plan. In Zimbabwe, a
new initiative for national advocacy work is identifying opportunities for national dialogue and engage-
ment. WWF has been working on nature conservation and sustainable use issues in the KAZA region for
more than 20 years and was instrumental in the establishment of the KAZA TFCA. There are good rela-
tions with the KAZA secretariat. WWF sits on several working groups including the KAZA Impact Moni-
toring Group, which is leading on the KAZA M&E system. WWF supports the socio economic and habitat
data analysis for the system and collaborates with partners in the field as well as the university of
Bonn/Cologne in this respect. WWF is also engaged in the One Health debate on national and interna-
tional level. In KAZA, WWF is supporting aspects of healthy cattle management such as community-based
predator protection systems, sustainable pasture management and HWC mitigation since 2016.
3.Previous experience of the partners and their previous cooperation with the executing
agency
There are WWF offices in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Namibia which have been active in the region for dec-
ades. Since 2012, WWF Germany is successfully working with WWF Zambia on sustainable agriculture
and human wildlife conflict mitigation and since 2015 with WWF Zimbabwe on community based natural
resource management & sustainable agriculture. The WWF offices work with a wide range of stakehold-
ers. This includes community organizations, such as the community resource boards (CRBs) in Zambia
and the Campfire association in Zimbabwe. Both are community representative organizations which also
engage with the ministries of agriculture at the national, provincial and field level for policy change, polit-
ical support and introduction of agroecological methods. Agritex, the district agricultural agency in Zim-
babwe has implemented a three-year sustainable agriculture project recently with WWF Zimbabwe. WWF
Zambia successfully collaborates with the Zambian CSO Platform for Climate Smart Agriculture, Conser-
vation Framing Unit and Green Living Movement. The project plans to establish similar platforms in Na-
mibia and Zimbabwe. The Namibian Nature Foundation (NNF), a national NGO in Namibia is the known
expert for sustainable agriculture with communities in Namibia. NNF and WWF Namibia have a long
standing and successful work relationship focusing supporting community-based resource use projects.
4. Added value of a global program approach
Ecosystems and communities do not know borders. Hence, impacts of climate change, food insecurity,
hunger and habitat loss must be addressed at a landscape level engaging all relevant actors at micro, meso
and macro level. This approach ensures that the CSOs, governments and rural communities in all three
countries have the capacity and support to scale up the successful climate resilient sustainable agriculture
concepts across KAZA and politically support it as a regional approach for ecosystem conservation and
community resilience. By building the capacity and strengthening networks and cooperation between the
CSOs in KAZA, the CSOs will exchange regionally on best practice for a successful advocacy and systemic
changes in their ministries. A regional agroecology platform will assist this and aims to support agroecol-
ogy in KAZA also after the project’s end. WWF’s current CSO advocacy work in Zambia for more political
support for sustainable agriculture will be exchanged with Zimbabwe and Namibia, while the progressive
sustainable cattle herding approaches from Namibia will be expanded into KAZA. Equally, structures at
the field and meso levels will be established to support market access and supply chains for communities
also though synergies with the private sector´s pilots on wildlife friendly beef production for local mar-
kets.
30
Impact matrix
Impact (overall objective):
The program contributes to an increased resilience of communities and ecosystems through enhanced
food security, diversification of income and habitat conservation in Southern Africa within the concept
of One Health.
Project objective (project
outcome)
By the end of 2026, at least
2000 subsistence farming
households in four target areas
in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Na-
mibia benefit from enhanced
food security and income di-
versification while improving
community and ecosystem re-
silience.
At the regional level and in the
three countries, a political
framework and budgetary sup-
port for sustainable agriculture
is strengthened by the active
political participation of civil
society actors, effective moni-
toring of impacts and a plat-
form for best practice ex-
changes.
Indicator(s)
Starting situation:
80% of the 2.4 Mio. People living
in KAZA are practicing subsist-
ence agriculture through shifting
cultivation. However, the tradi-
tional agric. Methods do not pro-
tect soil fertility or water reten-
tion capacity and allow only a
low income for the families. Ad-
ditionally, it destroys thousands
of hectares of habitat each year.
Local pilot projects in Zambia
and Zimbabwe have shown that
sustainable agriculture can en-
hance food security and income
diversification of small holders
while reducing shifting cultiva-
tion and protect biodiversity in
bufferzones of conservation ar-
eas (approx. 4.000 farmers en-
gaged).
While political frameworks for
sustainable agriculture are weak
across KAZA, initial political lob-
bying work in Zambia led to in-
creased budgetary and political
support by the government. Fi-
nancial support for further
joined CSO action to develop a
national action plan for sustain-
able agriculture is lacking.
Livestock farmers bear the bur-
den of living close to wildlife.
They suffer from loss of livestock
to predation. With climate
change, risks associated with
livestock production and disease
Target value (target)
By 2026, the resilience of at least
2.000 subsistence farming house-
hold (food security, Income) and
ecosystems (reduced land conver-
sion) in the four target areas (Se-
bungwe, Hwange-Kazuma, Zam-
bezi- Chobe - Kafue and Kwando)
is enhanced by:
- establishing at least two new
sustainable agriculture initiatives
one in the Kafue Ecosystem
(Zambia) and one in the Zambezi
Region (Namibia).
- strengthening two existing sus-
tainable agriculture initiatives in
Zimbabwe (buffer zones of
Hwange NP, Chizarira NP)
- integrating sustainable and
healthy cattle herding in the sus-
tainable agriculture initiatives un-
der the One Health approach
- a supporting political frame-
work/climate for sustainable agri-
culture at the national and re-
gional level
31
control, land degradation and
disease outbreaks are on the rise
and lead to more human wildlife
conflict and livelihood vulnera-
bility. Pilots successfully imple-
menting sustainable cattle herd-
ing for holistic range manage-
ment are bringing some benefits
to communities but are yet iso-
lated initiatives and there is little
integration with the arable agri-
culture initiatives, leaving out
the benefits healthy cattle pro-
duction can bring to income of
communities and ecosystem re-
silience.
These successful initiatives have
received recognition at the local
and at most at the national level,
but their scaling up is wanting
and there is very little regional
exchange for decisions makers
across KAZA countries to further
these. There is no regional plat-
form or monitoring system to
showcase these successful initia-
tives and share experiences.
Outputs/Subobjectives
Indicators (possibly plus quantity structure)
Starting situation Target value (target)
1. By 2026 an additional 2.000
smallholders in the four wild-
life corridors (Kwando,
Hwange-Kazuma, Sebungwe,
Mulobezi & Sichifulo GMAs
and Njoko areas of the Chobe-
Zambezi-KafueWDA ) are ca-
pable to implement agroeco-
logical cultivation methods, in-
cluding the reduction of post-
harvest losses and derive
higher incomes.
Few communities in KAZA have
sufficient capacities to imple-
ment climate adapted sustaina-
ble agriculture and hence the
benefits of improved income di-
versification and livelihoods are
available to only a limited num-
ber of communities (approxm.
4.000 farmer HH´s).
The region is suffering from se-
vere recurrent droughts and fail-
Capacity of local communities
(2.000 Households) and stake-
holders is built in three wildlife
corridors to implement climate
change adapted sustainable agri-
culture (for food security, income
diversification and to reduce de-
forestation.)
Food security in the three corri-
dor areas is improved by 20% as
compared to a baseline in 2022.
32
ure of harvests leading to inse-
cure food situation of local com-
munities and hunger
Biodiversity and ecosystem con-
servation are still insufficient in
the four corridors and especially
in the target communities.
Shifting cultivation in the three
corridors is reduced by 20% as
compared to the baseline in 2022.
At least one local supply chain per
area based on sust. Agric produc-
tion is established
2. By 2026 Partners and local
communities in the four pro-
ject sites are aware of and
starting to adopt aspects of
ecosystem friendly and healthy
cattle herding approaches in-
cluding pilot local conserva-
tion compliant beef supply
chains.
Criteria such as land use plan-
ning, observation of corridors
and habitats, health of herds,
etc. are not sufficiently known
and therefore not being observed
by the communities in KAZA.
This results in ecosystem degra-
dation, low cattle quality and
production and lack of income
and benefits to communities.
There is little knowledge of the
substantial economic and eco-
logical benefits conservation
compliant cattle production can
generate.
There is also very little entrepre-
neurial capacity within the com-
munities for sustainable herding
and local supply chains
Little training on financial
mgmt. and business running of
sustainable cattle production is
happening (environmental econ-
omist)
There are some isolated pilots
and concepts for conservation
compliant beef production (ele-
phant friendly beef) that can be
learned from and scaled up
within KAZA
Outreach programs for healthy
cattle herding are mobilizing and
raising awareness in communities
and partners (radio programs, lo-
cal TED expert talks, community
exchange trips to CLAWS, get buy
in from TA and influential people)
Local cattle farmers are empowered
to restore their degraded grazing
lands and improve their livestock
production and health through
planned grazing
Private sector and communities
develop pilot local supply chains
based on a certified premium
priced ecosystem-friendly &
healthy herding concept – at
least one in two project sites.
Following the One Health Ap-
proach, minimization of wildlife -
livestock interface for less patho-
gen exchange through livestock
protection measures. Addition-
ally, HWC is reduced.
3. By 2026, the CSO platforms
in all three countries are
strengthened and cooperate to
actively lobby for enhanced
political & institutional as well
as budgetary support for sus-
tainable agriculture
Only Zambia had a political lob-
bying initiative, which ended in
2019. The initiative was success-
ful in convincing the government
to increase budgetary support to
sustanable Agric and requested
the development of a national
A regional CSO platform is estab-
lished and allows national CSOs
to learn from the other countries
& apply best practices.
In Zambia a national action plan
to roll out sust. Agric. is agreed
betw. the govnmt and the CSO
33
action plan. However, activities
had to be reduced to the lack fi-
nancial means. A climate smart
CSO platform is functioning at a
basic level.
In Zimbabwe a very young
multi-stakeholder platform
(MSP) on Agroecology was con-
stituted only in 2020. Currently,
its focus is on identifying the
gaps and areas of action. for
transitioning to agroecology.
There is no national lobbying ac-
tion ongoing. No CSOs are en-
gaged.
In Namibia a 5-year strategy
plan for sust. agric. expired in
2019 and did not include CSOs.
There is no learning ongoing be-
tween the KAZA countries about
the ongoing sustainable agricul-
ture initiatives in KAZA at field
level but also at national level
and between stakeholders.
National lobbying activities are
still weak.
platform and there is coordina-
tion of its implementation. Budg-
etary support is increased.
In Zimbabwe the multi stake-
holder platform includes CSOs. It
is strengthened to develop a na-
tional action plan for agroecology
and lobby for more budgetary
support.
In Namibia, a new national action
plan is developed & includes
CSOs.
All three countries have active
CSO platforms (forums that in-
clude CSOs) which work towards
improved institutional frame
works and budgetary support.
4. By 2026, improved experi-
ence and best practice ex-
change between program part-
ners and KAZA countries ena-
bles the scaling up and trans-
fer of sustainable agriculture
across KAZA as a viable rural
development concept.
There is no KAZA wide regional
exchange of experiences or a
platform for best practices in
sustainable agriculture and
healthy cattle herding. Many
KAZA countries and stakehold-
ers are not aware of the success-
ful pilots and the benefits they
can bring to the communities
and ecosystems.
A platform for regional govern-
mental exchange is discussed and
established with support by KAZA
secretariat and SADC
Annual meetings (Symposium)
take place between governments
exchanging experiences and show
casing best practices.
Exchanges with the Zambian gov-
ernment on stronger political and
budgetary support for climate re-
silient sustainable agriculture is
happening.
Exchanges with Botswanan and
Namibian partners and govern-
ment on healthy cattle ranching
for coexistence and conservation
is enhanced.
34
5.By 2026, KAZA govern-
ments, CSOs and communities
as well as other development
partners in KAZA (NGO´s, Aid
agencies) can assess the im-
pact of sustainable agriculture
onto the socio- economic con-
dition of communities and
ecosystems and can make
adaptive mgmt. decisions for
sustainable rural development
based on a state-of-the-art
KAZA wide monitoring system
The recently established KAZA
M&E system collects data on
Land use and land cover change
across KAZA and can provide in-
formation on land conversion
per project site.
However, there is very little sus-
tainable agriculture and socio-
economic data being collected
systematically across KAZA to
allow impact assessment on hab-
itats and the socio-economic
conditions of communities.
There is only one field-based
data collection system for sus-
tainable agric. existing in KAZA
(the Zambian farmer field moni-
toring app), which needs scaling
up.
Hence there is currently no pos-
sibility to monitor and assess the
impact of sustainable agriculture
onto the socio-economic condi-
tions of the communities and
habitats in KAZA and no adap-
tive mgmt. tool
By 2026, all project sites have
state of the art field-based moni-
toring systems feeding data on
sustainable agriculture and socio-
economic conditions of the com-
munities into the KAZA M&E sys-
tem.
The KAZA M&E system provides
data analysis and visualization
enabling impact assessment and
adaptive mgmt. for sustainable
agriculture in KAZA.
Annual monitoring results are be-
ing divulged to all governments
and partners.
Contact Persons at WWF Germany
Brit Reichelt-Zolho
Program Officer Southern & Eastern Africa
WWF Deutschland
Reinhardtstr. 18, 10117 Berlin
And
Dr. May Hokan
Programm officer Southern & Eastern Africa
WWF Deutschland
Reinhardtstr. 18, 10117 Berlin