GEF Agency project ID: - PDF document

GEF Agency project ID:GEF Agency: Worl
GEF Agency project ID:GEF Agency: World Bank Published by: Kasanka Trust Ltd. : January 2009 Public Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedE2493 v1Table of Contents: Table of Contents:..........................................................................................................2 List of Abbreviations.....................................................................................................3 1. Background to the ESIA............................................................................................4 2. Review of relevant legislation...................................................................................5 3. Project description.....................................................................................................6 4. Description of site......................................................................................................8 5. Impacts.......................................................................................................................9 5.1 Positive impacts...................................................................................................9 5.2 Negative impacts................................................................................................10 5.3 Assessment.........................................................................................................12 6. Environmental management plan and mitigation plan............................................13 7. References................................................................................................................178. Appendices...............................................................................................................19 List of Abbreviations ADC Area Development Committee BAMU Bangweulu Area Management Unit CFU Conservation Farming Unit CRB Community Resources Board CPP Chikuni Partnership Park DDCC District

Development Co-coordinating Committee DO
Development Co-coordinating Committee DOPE Development of EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment GBE Greater Bangweulu Ecosystem GEF Global Environment Fund GMA Game Management Area KT Kasanka Trust Limited KNP Kasanka National Park LMNP Lavushi Manda National Park MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries NP National Park PF Process Framework REMNPAS Reclassification and Effective Management of the National Protected SLNP South Luangwa National Park UNDP United Nations Development Program WB World Bank WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZAWA Zambian Wildlife Authority The World Bank/ GEF approved a Project Preparation Grant on 20/12/2007 for the stem to Lavushi Manda National Park. The project will develop and implement an effective Protected Area management system based on the existing and successful Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) model in Kasanka National Park (KNP). This project builds on the impressive progress made in KNP due to an efficient management scheme, introduced and administered ental Kasanka Trust Limited (KTL), under a special public-private partnership (PPP) agreement with the state Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). The project seeks to expand KT's management to include the restoration of the Lavushi Manda National Park (LMNP) (150,000ha). This will be done by (i) securing financial sustainability of Kasanka National Park; (ii) mobilizing Kasanka Trust experience to National Park; (iii) linking both parks to the greater Bangweulu ecosystem through protected wildlife corridors and coordinated management, monitoring and research activities; (iv) contributing to the development of Northern Zambian tourism routes (a priority of the Government of Zambia highlighted in Zambia’s fifth national development plan) by placing a new product on the market for the northern route; (v) ensuring cost-efficiency and leverage fund raising and (vi) enhancing synergies with ZAWA’s “Reclassification Project”at the broader systemic and institutional levels related to policies, legal framework and monitoring efforts of the PA system. A

Project Identification Form (PIF) and P
Project Identification Form (PIF) and Project Preparation Grant (PPG) was submitted to GEF and endorsed on March 31, 2008. A one-year Memorandum of Understanding between KTL and ZAWA on the cooperation in the restoration, development and management of Lavushi Manda National Park was signed on May A legal agreement for the PPG has been signed between Kasanka Trust Limited and the World Bank in July 2008. KTL is the designated executing agency for the PPG. To ensure good co-existence with the Lavushi Manda and Kasanka National Park local stakeholders including communities, community resource boards, traditional authorities, NGOs and other projects, KTL must design the project in such a way that it conforms to the social, economic and cultural context. To achieve this, the communities around the park must be informed and consulted and KTL must understand their socio-economic realities. It has been determined that this project will trigger three World Bank Safeguards Operational Policies (OPs): Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04), and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). In order to fulfil the requirements of implementing a World Bank - GEF project, Kasanka Trust Ltd (KTL) will require an Environmental and Social Specialist to prepare: ssessment (ESIA) which satisfies the requirements of World Bank Safeguard Policies OP 4.01 and OP 4.04, and (2) a Process Framework (PF) which satisfies the World Bank's OP 4.12 Safeguard Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). This is a conservation operation that seeks to improve the status of biodiversity and management practices in the Lavushi Manda and Kasanka National Parks. There will be investments such as small infrastructures within the LMNP (staff houses, base camp, gravel roads, conservation centre) and activities such as anti-poaching etc. that can affect the local environment as well as the lives of neighbouring communities. The impacts of specific investments may be difficult to identify during the preparation phase. Therefore, an environmental assessment is needed for both parks to ensure the identification of potential impacts an

d mitigation options and will be include
d mitigation options and will be included in the ESIA including reviewing the capacity of the biodiversity and the protected areas to take the volumes and numbers of small infrastructure investments to ensure that the area will not be saturated (including using the mandatory Management Effectiveness Tool). The assessment will involve local communities in a highly participatory manner in preparation and implementation. Their responsibilities will be developed and clarified to ensure more positive impacts to the local population. The two parks are essentially natural habitats which are expected to gain enhanced protection status through the proposed projects but there is a small possibility that new tracks and access to the LMNP locally increases the ecosystem disturbance. Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). The improved resource protection and law enforcement measures will restrict access to natural resources for a few people who were (illegally) using it before. There is no involuntary displacement of habitation expected even though there are permanent settlements within the park. The matter will be dealt with by publishing a baseline of individuals settled in the park after which no more expansion will be tolerated. The baseline individuals will then be encouraged in a participatory process to move out on a voluntary basis. Alternatively it has been proposed to change the park boundary in order to allow one or two settlement clusters to remain where they are – then outside the park – and to compensate the loss of protected area by including another uninhabited area of equivalent ecological value. The ESIA was conducted by Ms. C. van der Feen de Lille, a biologist with elaborate experience in community conservation, participatory management and sustainable development in Zambia. Data were gathered in the field and from relevant stakeholders during the community consultation tour in September – October 2008. Additional data were provided by the ‘Vegetation map and ecological description of Lavushi Manda National Park’ published by Kasanka Trust. Concerning the protection of the environment in Za

mbia there are various relevant The Env
mbia there are various relevant The Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act (EPPCA) No. 12 of EIA regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 1997 The Zambian Wildlife Act of 1998 Public Health Act of 1994 The EPPCA is the supreme environmental functions and the powers of the Environmental Council of Zambia as a regulatory body. The EIA regulations prescribe two different categories. The first schedule low negative impacts on the environment. These projects require an Environmental Project Brief. The second schedule category refers to projects which are likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment. These projects require an Environmental Impact Statement. The project under discussion in this document is expected to have a very low negative impact on the environment. Under the EIA regulations, the law states that the developer shall not implement a project for which a project brief is required, unless the project brief has been concluded in accordance with the said regulations and ECZ has issued a decision letter. A decision letter is issued within 40 days of receiving the Environmental Project Brief from the developer. ZAWA basically follows the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act where it comes to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). However the EIA regulations are meant for individual projects (e.g. the construction of a lodge or a mine) and not for comprehensive projects directed at entire protected areas. This is problematic as there are no guidelines at the level of protected areas. In practice ZAWA requires a baseline study for a national park, which includes data collection for an EIA. The baseline will be used for a park management plan including rules, regulations and mitigation measures to prevent negative environmental impacts. The Wildlife Act of 1998 also requires a Wildlife Impact Assessment. ZAWA is now working on guidelines for an EIA in protected areas. The Public Health Act provides regulations on sanitation. 3. Project description The main objective of the project under discussion is to develop and implement an effective Pr

otected Area Management SyNational Park
otected Area Management SyNational Park based on the existing and successful Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) model in Kasanka National Park (KNP). The main activities in the preparation phase will include: Limited support of ZAWA scout patrols in LMNP Feasibility study - community consultancy and ESIA Baseline study - environmental data of LMNP Financial management consultancy Organisational management consultancy The main activities in the implementation phase will include amongst others: Construction of tourism/management roads in Lavushi Manda NP Construction of scout accommodation in LMNP Construction of an airstrip and facilities Support of law enforcement by ZAWA scouts inside and outside LMNP Construction of an operation base (including limited staff accommodation) in Construction of a tourist lodge / camping sites (including limited staff accommodation) in LMNP Construction of a community relations operations base outside LMNP Community relations activities outside LMNP such as conservation education in schools, drama tours, support of commodity groups, capacity building in Demarcation of park boundaries Develop and publish a baseline of existing illegal settlements and fields after which no more expansion will be tolerated Initiate a process of discussions – under the leadership of ZAWA/KTL and in close cooperation with the traditional leaders - with the encroaching farmers to gradually move out of the park on a voluntary basis. Alternatively initiate a discussion with relevant stakeholders on the possibility of degazetting certain encroached park areas and gazet areas outside the park with equivalent ecological value and size. Raw materials The lodge building, offices and staff houses will be built as much as possible from natural, locally available materials. All buildings will be built in such a way that they naturally blend into the environment. Negative effects on the environment will be minimized as much as possible. Building materials will be taken from outside the park where possible. If not possible these materials will be taken from the park, in a manner whi

ch minimizes impact. Natural raw materia
ch minimizes impact. Natural raw materials needed from the park are amongst others: Thatching grass Construction poles Firewood Natural dyes Fibre Stones/gravel/sand Natural raw materials needed from outside the park are amongst others: Dry timber/planks Burnt bricks Non-natural raw materials needed are amongst others: Cement Paint Roofing sheets Solar panels Electrical equipment Materials from outside the park will be only be transported over the main road (as defined in the park management plan) in order to avoid damage from heavy vehicles Collection of the above mentioned raw materials from the park will not have a major impact on the environment as long as collection sites are kept small and spread out over a large area. If feasible from a financial point of view, raw materials should be collected from outside the park. However with the importation of raw materials into tation of alien species or products thereof. This may happen with e.g. fresh firewood/ timber/ planks as these may carry seeds/ spores of alien species. Also, minimization of transport distances to minimize disturbance, damage to roads and pollution will make it desirable to collect certain materials within the park. The Lavushi Manda National Park is an area of approximately 150.000 ha (1500km2) in Mpika District. It is situated around a range of hills of which the Lavushi Manda Hill is the highest. The park has a variety of habitats such as rocks, rivers, waterfalls, plains, forests and woodlands. The park has been depleted due to poaching but it has been reported that a range of large mammal species is still surviving in small numbers, which include with certainty: kinda baboon, vervet monkey, warthog, bush pig, reedbuck, bushbuck, common duiker, klipspringer, roan, sable, hartebeest buffalo, black lechwe, waterbuck, porcupine, side-striped jackal, caracal, hippopotamus and elephant. The park feeds two major rivers: the Lukulu and the Lulimala (both flowing into the Bangweulu Wetlands) and a number of smaller rivers. Miombo Woodland is the major vegetation type. The major reason for establishing the park was to

protect a large watershed area of region
protect a large watershed area of regional importance, to provide a corridor in between SLNP, NLNP and Bangweulu and possibly to protect the rhino. Ecosystem” (GBE), a complex of national parks, GMA’s and Local and National Forests which protects the southern part of the Bangweulu basin, with a total surface of sosituated in the southeastern part of the complex. To the southwest, a strip of unprotected area of 10-15km in width separates the park from Kafinda GMA. To the northwest, the park is bordered by Bangweulu GMA. To the northeast, Luitikila National Forest borders the park. The conservation efforts in LMNP will be linked not only to activities in Kasanka NP and Kafinda GMA but also to the newly established “Bangweulu Wetlands Park”, which includes Bangweulu GMA and Chikuni Partnership Park. There is one unsurfaced public road through LMNP which divides the park into a northern and a southern part. The road connects Chiundaponde to the Great North Road. Until recently there were no management roads in the park but in 2003 a provisional road was made by Kasanka Trust from the southern boundary on the Waka waka – Nsalu cave road to the north, connecting to the public road. There are many illegal bicycle tracks and footpaths through the park indicating a high poaching Law enforcement is mainly organised through a ZAWA scout base at the public road at the western entrance point into the park and through the ZAWA base at Chiundaponde (approx 25 km’s by road from the park). There is a checkpoint both at the eastern and western end of the public dirt road. More details on the ecology, geology, soils, topography, water quality and climate will be provided by the baseline study which will be prepared through another consultancy by KTL. 5. Impacts The project will provide a positive impact on the community through job creation and through capacity building. The employment and training opportunities will contribute towards poverty reduction and business development Kasanka Trust at the moment employs around 80 people (including Kasanka scouts) and it is anticipated that the LMNP project will engage a s

imilar number of staff members. Kasanka
imilar number of staff members. Kasanka Trust has pledged to engage the majority of staff from the areas surrounding the park. Currently there are very few paid jobs in the four Chiefdoms surrounding the LMNP; therefore the impact on the local economy may be considerable. Provision of jobs will have an added-on effect as staff members are expected to spend a large part of their salary within the area. Thus shopkeepers and service providers can benefit as well. On-the-job training of staff members will provide an added advantage of knowledge and experience for future jobs. Local business people and community tourism initiatives such as the Nakapalayo Community Tourism Project wiil benefit from the increased flow of tourists to the LMNP. They can also link on to PR activities initiated by the project. It has been proposed to initiate a program of community development in the surrounding chiefdoms which will focus on community relations, conservation education, sustainable agriculture, sustainable management of natural resources, land-use planning and capacity building of Community Based Organisations (CBOs). Although the main impact of this program will only be seen in the medium or the long towards poverty reduction, improved livelihood security, gender and democracy issues. Partnership is being sought with NGOs like the Conservation Farming Unit (CFU) to promote sustainable farming as an alternative to poaching and other unsustainable use of natural resources. Environmental It is obvious that the LMNP will benefit from an increased protection of the park. Law enforcement will receive a tremendous boost and illegal activities will be discouraged. Wild animals can reproduce as a result of decreased poaching pressure. In Kasanka NP it has been found that mammal populations can recover ded continuing strict law enforcement. Improved law enforcement will also mean less cutting of trees for caterpillars, honey or poles collection, less environmentally damaging hot fires and less collection of chikanda. As a result there will be less habitat destruction and more carrying capacity for various mammals and

for water storage. Ecological values wil
for water storage. Ecological values will increase or at least be maintained at the present status. Also, protection of LMNP will improve it’s function as a source area for caterpillars, honey bees and other natural resources which will have a positive influence on the harvesting volumes in the areas surrounding the park and decrease the chance of overharvesting and population crashes. The wider area around LMNP will also benefit from better protection of the park. First of all the protection of a large watershed area will ensure provision of water for two major rivers – and thus the continued feeding of important fish areas in and around the Bangweulu Swamps. Perhaps most importantly, the Kasanka NP and the LMNP will be linked to the Greater Bangweulu Ecosystem through protected wildlife corridors and coordinated management, monitoring and research activities. The Bangweulu Wetlands have a Ramsar status, indicating a wetland area of international importance. The Chikuni Community Partnership Park may especially benefit from increased protection of the LMNP as many poachers pass through the park on their way to Chikuni. LMNP will also function as a source area for mammals, birds, fish, caterpillars etcetera and thus contribute to the long-term viability of flora and fauna populations in the surrounding Socio-economic Illegal hunters will be discouraged to enter the national park or to trade bush meat outside the park. The current number of active hunters/ bush meat traders is unknown. According to Chief Mpumba, many of his subjects (partially) depend on illegal hunting. It must be noted though that most of the Mpumba hunters focus on South Luangwa NP and less on LMNP or Chikuni. This is also because the current wildlife populations in LMNP are low and thus production as well. The sale of bush meat is a profitable business. The sale of one carcass may raise a profit of K 100.000 – 200.000 (40 – 75% of minimum monthly pay). Especially in Mpumba but also in other Chiefdoms some households may face a reduced income as a result of improved law-enforcement. During the community consultation tour, vario

us community members stated that they ar
us community members stated that they are willing to change provided they are assisted to develop an alternative livelihood, especially in the field of (conservation) farming. If the project does not do anything to address this issue than it will have a negative impact on the income of certain households. This ESIA recognises hunters should be specifically targeted. Most illegal hunters are not well educated and it may not be easy for them to switch to another type of livelihood. Ideally the illegal hunters should be offered a job in the new project. If this is not possible then they should be offered a chance to learn new income generating skills such as beekeeping or conservation farming. In the longer term, an increase in animal populations in areas surrounding the park is expected. This will improve conditions for legal (and illegal) hunting and thus an increase in income of hunters. Some community members will be stopped from collecting forest products from the park such as honey, chikanda and caterpillars. These products are mostly only seasonally available and should be considered as extra income. However, community members do not agree amongst themselves where these forest products are more abundant. Especially for caterpillars some think that more can be found outside the park: an area that will still be accessible after the initiation of the project. A series of aerial photographs made in July 2009 revealed that there are currently about 31 households illegally living inside the park, divided over 2 clusters. Additionally there are 2 clusters of chitemene fields in use inside the park, with no houses. The largest clusters are in the southern tip of the park (approximately 1100 ha, 16 households) and the northeastern tip near to the dirt road through the park (approximately 501 hectares, 13 households). The other clusters are much smaller in size. See appendix 8.1 for more details. Most people in question are aware that they are farming there illegally. At the moment there are not many human-wildlife conflicts in the area around the LMNP. Given the current low wildlife populations it is

unlikely that human-wildlife conflicts w
unlikely that human-wildlife conflicts will arise in the short term..In the medium term the project intends to avoid an increase of conflicts by starting a community based land-use planning process. The idea is to promote wildlife corridors between the protected areas in Bangweulu and at the same time put measures in place to prevent crop raiding (e.g. chili fencing) in settlement areas. It will also be possible to reduce crop raiding animals in human settlement areas if necessary. The Community Relations Base / Education Centre will be built in Mpumba on a piece of land that is not currently used and is given to KTL by Chief Mpumba. There is a chance that the new project will influence the local social and traditional organisation on the long term. This has been the case in large tourism areas (e.g. Livingstone) where the local population has expanded explosively, with people customs. In Livingstone for example prices have been increased, youth changed their social behaviour, there is more beer drinking and more prostitution. However these negative impacts totally depend on the scale of the project. The project under discussion is small scale and is not expected to attract large numbers of tourists. Therefore no major impacts are expected on the local social and traditional organisation. Environmental There is a small chance that improved access to the park as a result of better roads will lead to an increase in poaching. However results from other national parks in Zambia have shown that the positive impact of improved access for law-enforcement personnel far outweighs the negative impact of improved access for illegal hunters; with an overall result of better park protection. Another negative impact could be on the natural habitat. Vulnerable habitats can be damaged as a result of uncontrolled large scale collection of raw building materials in the park. The same goes for the constructon of a safari lodge, an administrative/management centre and the construction of campsites. Careful consideration must be taken when choosing sites for the collection of raw materials, building sites and roads.

A thorough ecological baseline survey is
A thorough ecological baseline survey is essential before any collection or building can take place. Vulnerable habitats should be identified and protected from any development. Buildings and especially toilets should be constructed well away from any well used for drinking water purposes in order to avoid contamination. Roads through wetland areas should be closed during the rainy season in order to prevent long lasting damage as a result of vehicles stuck in the mud. Even incidental use of heavy vehicles will lead to long lasting compacting of soils. Throughout the year heavy vehicles should be allowed only on main roads – to The baseline survey must also reveal whether late, early or no burning has been the practice over the past years. The introduction of an early burning regime could have a negative impact on the environment if there was no burning before. An assessment of vegetation damage due to burning must provide advice for a future burning The regular collection of firewood, poles and fibre over a long period – whether inside or outside the park - could potentially lead to a reduction of certain tree species. Care must therefore be taken that these forest products are collected from different areas each year. Firewood should only be taken from dead trees. A collection policy and administration would contribute to long-termshould be used as much as possible, e.g. : solar panels, wind mills, energy efficient The construction of the Community Relations Base / Education Centre will be done outside the park in an area already affected by cultivation. Possible reduction in park size due to altering the park boundaries – in order to legalize current illegal settlements - shall be compensated by gazetting areas outside the park of similar size and ecological value. This report should be considered as a preliminary assessment. Additional data are needed from the ecological baseline study for LMNP to determine the presence and the necessary protection measures for vulnerable habitats and vulnerable individual species within the park. These data should be collected in close collaboration with ZAW

A and ECZ. The full set of data should s
A and ECZ. The full set of data should serve as a basis to formulate an Environmental Project Brief and a general park management plan. This assessment is based on the data collected and field observations made during the Community Consultation Tour in the period September – November 2008 (Community Stakeholders Report and Community Stakeholders Profile, January 2009). Additionally the assessment is based on interviews with experienced protected area managers within Zambia, on personal experience and on the basis of a recently obtained series of aerial park photographs. When looking at the socio-economic impacts a positive overall balance can be expected from the proposed project, provided the community support component is implemented including a livelihood component to assist those affected households who now depend on income from the park. It has been confirmed at various public meetings, community group meetings and individual interviews with stakeholders in the area around LMNP that the project is expected to have a positive influence on the surrounding communities. The project is expected to enhance some employment and business opportunities which in turn contribute to poverty reduction and livelihood security. Livelihood at a longer distance from the park will also be secured by improved protection of LMNP as improved protection of this large watershed area contibutes to a continued feeding of the Bangweulu Swamps, an important fishing ecological impacts from the proposed project are also expected to result into a positive overall balance, provided no major issues arise from the ecological baseline study. Again in interviews with conservation experts in Zambia it was confirmed that a positive balance can be expected. Not only LMNP will benefit from improved law-enforcement but also the Greater Bangweulu Ecosystem through protected wildlife corridors and coordinated management, monitoring and research activities in a large conservation area of international importance. As for the World Banks Operational Procedures no major issues are expected to Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) looks at the impact

on natural habitats. It is expected tha
on natural habitats. It is expected that both parks Kasanka National Park and Lavushi Manda National Park atus. Issues like improved access for poachers or increased ecological pressure as a result from visitor numbers are expected to have a much lower impact A possible decrease in protected area size needs to be mitigated. Involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12): the improved resource protection and law enforcement measures will restrict access to natural resources for people who were using it before. Involuntary displacement is not expected. The presence and recent expansion of illegal fields and settlements inside the park is a point of concern Although the actual number of households within the park is relatively low; the hectarage of land they are occupying is worrisome. An encroachment area of over 1800 hectares is unacceptable. The exact locations of fields and households inside the park should be verified on the ground as soon as possible. A baseline of names and locations should then be published and notified to those inside the park and their leaders after which absolutely no more expansion (clearing of land) will be tolerated. Meanwhile, a process of discussions can be started with the encroaching farmers and their leaders to gradually and voluntarily resolve the issues. This should be done as soon as possible under the leadership of ZAWA and KTL and in close cooperation with the Honorouble Chiefs. A solution must be agreed upon within an agreed time period, preferably a year from the release of the baseline survey. Given the mobility of the current cultivation system and the availability of sufficient land outside the park we think it should be possible to progressively redirect the farming activities outside the park. Alternatively KT will engage in a discussion with the relevant Chiefs on the possibility of degazetting certain encroached park areas and gazet areas outside the park with equivalent ecological value and size. A possible way forward is outlined in 6. Environmental management plan and mitigation Based on the preliminary assessment of environmental and socio-economic aspec

ts that are likely to be affected by tou
ts that are likely to be affected by tourism development and park management during the preparation, construction and operational phases of the proposed project we recommend the following mitigation measures. It is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure that the proposed measures are implemented during any of these phases in the proposed project area. It must be noted that about 90% of the LMNP consists of miombo woodland and about 10% consists of riverine forest, dambo’s etc. The latter habitats are more vulnerable to erosion, soil compacting etc. In general, siting of roads and buildings will be less crititical in miombo woodland. Thus it may be preferential to cut a few smaller trees in miombo woodland to clear a construction site over selecting a more For each construction project KT will prepare and file short Environmental Project Briefs (EPB) and upon completion a short report on implementation of such works. 6.1 Mitigation measures and construction of a management/ adlodge and a campsite a. All construction works should be done during the normal working hours of the day to avoid or to keep noise pollution to a minimum level that may disturb the animals, birds, insects, etc in the locality of the project site. Breaking of stones and mixing of cement should also be done on the project site. b. Site clearing should be based on the site plans to be approved by ZAWA in order to avoid unnecessary cutting of trees. Clearing should be strictly limited to the actual areas of development and access to these sites should be restricted along the cleared parts of the site in order to avoid damage to the surrounding areas of the site. c. Site selection should be done carefully in order to minimize both short and long term negative impacts to the ecosystem, cultural, historical, archeaeological and surrounding environment of the proposed site. d. The total area to be allowed for a safari lodge and/or an administrative/management base should not exceed 4 ha inclusive of the staff e. Extreme care should be observed in the movement of materials, light and heavy machinery and vehicles around

the site in order to minimize the impac
the site in order to minimize the impact of damaging soil and vegetation. Heavy vehicles (3 ton or more) should be f. The siting of the buildings depend on the soil conditions of the proposed location. At locations with a high chance of water front erosion or flooding, the location should be at least 50 m away from the water front. Where there is little chance of erosion, the location should be at least 3-5 m away from the g. The ablution rooms/ toilets should be located at least 15 m away from any well used for drinking purposes. There should be 1 meter of pervious soil h. All buildings should as much as possible blend in with the environment. This e natural materials such as thatch, i. Designated foot-paths should be established with a minimum clearance of vegetation and these should not exceed 1m wide. Only under growth branches should be cleared out. j. Baboon-proof dust bins with heavy lids should be mounted at various places within the building site. Ideally a recycling separation system should be set up to cater for bottled and container waste, tins waste and biodegradable and burnable waste. Mechanisms and modalities of disposing off the above mentioned waste is the responsibility of ZAWA and the project manager. k. A site should be identified close to the building site (not in the prevailing wind direction) where degradable material wastes can be burnt. l. Site design should be such that designated roads are kept to a minimum. m. Leaflets guiding the tourists on how to sustainably stay at the safari lodge/ campsite should be produced and given to every client that comes to the site. E.g. fire is not allowed except at designated localities, picking of firewood and flowers round the camp is not allowed, the introduction of exotic species is also not allowed, etc. n. The project should as much as possible engage labour from the local communities surrounding the park. o. No exotic species or domesticated animals should be introduced into the park including the premises of the safari lodge or the management base. An exception for a small vegetable garden could be negotiated with ZAWA. p.

Fishing should be restricted to angling
Fishing should be restricted to angling on a catch and release basis within the q. Touristic game viewing should be restricted to general management roads; no 6.2 Mitigation measures and construction and maintenance of roads inside the park a. All construction road works should be done during the normal working hours of the day to avoid or to keep noise pollution to a minimum level that may disturb the animals, birds, insects, etc in the locality of the project site. b. The width of all park management roads / game viewing loops being opened, constructed, graded, rehabilitated and maintained should not exceed 6m. c. Site selection for new roads should be done carefully in order to minimze cutting of trees by choosing pockets of sites that are between trees. Vulnerable sites (e.g. dambo’s) which could lead to short and long term damage to the ecosystem, cultural, historical, archeaeological sites should be d. Oil and diesel spills should be avoided when opening/ grading roads as this may contaminate the soils and the river systems of the park. Oils should also be properly stored and disposed off away from the park . e. Roads/ loops should be graded just after the rains when the soils still have some moisture in order to avoid loose soils accumulating along the roads causing a lot of dust when vehicles pass. f. Side drains should be constructed along the management road sides in order to drain the water during the rainy seasons and to avoid roads flooding or g. The driving speed inside the h. The weight of trucks and other vehicles allowed in the park should not exceed 6.3 Mitigation measures and construction of an airstrip inside the park a. All construction works should be done during the normal working hours of the day to avoid or to keep noise pollution to a minimum level that may disturb the animals, birds, insects, etc in the locality of the airstrip construction. b. The width and lenghth of the airstrip(s) within the park should be in accordance with the Civil Aviation Standards causing minimal impacts to the surrounding environment. c. Site selection for the airstrip(s) should be done care

fully in order to avoid short and long t
fully in order to avoid short and long term damage to the ecosystem. Vulnerable ecological (e.g. dambos), cultural, historical, archeaeological sites should be avoided. d. The width and length of the airstrip(s) should be strictly limited to the areas without specifically high ecological values and construction works should be restricted along the exact identified location of the airport in order to avoid heavy machinery having negative impacts on the surrounding areas. e. Oil and diesel spills should be avthis may contaminate the soils and the river systems of the park. Oils should also be properly stored and disposed off away from the park or should be used as by-products for treating construction poles, chilli-fences etc. f. It is recommended that airstrip(s) are opened up and graded just after the rains when the soils still have some moisture in order to avoid erosion and loose soils accumulating along the runway causing dust when landing and g. The siting of ablution rooms/ toilets depend on de soil conditions at the proposed site. Sandy loams, loams and silt loam soils are suitable for disposal systems. Sands, clay loams and clays are unsuitable. In general, ablution rooms/ toilets should be located at least 15 m away from any well used for drinking purposes. There should be 1 meter of pervious soil bewlow 6.4 Mitigation measures impacts in communities surrounding the park Mitigation measures and recommendations for the community support program are detailed in a separate report (Process Framework 2009). The following is a summary of the recommendations in this report. a. A community support program should be initiated in the four Chiefdoms surrounding the LMNP. KT shall establish collaborating agreements with new or existing NGO’s and projects currently working – or interested in working - with communities outside the park. b. The community support program in Chitambo Chiefdom should be continued. c. KT’s activities in the short term should focus on awareness building, information sharing, partnership with others and directly targeting illegal hunters for employment and livelihood program

s d. In the long term both programs shou
s d. In the long term both programs should focus on community relations, conservation education, sustainable agriculture, sustainable & participatory management of natural resources, land-use planning and capacity building of Community Based Organisations (CBOs). e. Reformed poachers should be offered a job where possible or should be assisted to adopt a new livelihood. f. Income generation from sustainable use of natural resources use should be promoted such as beekeeping, conservation farming and agroforestry. g. Necessaties such as building materials, catering ingredients, scout rations and souvenirs should be bought as much as possible from the local communities during preparation, construction and operational phases of the h. Labour should be recruited as much as possible from the local communities during preparation, construction and operational phases of the project. i. Project planning and evaluation should be done in a participatory manner e.g. through an advisory committee with representatives from the community. j. Any construction of project buildings (office, staff houses, etc) should be done on donated community or state-owned land which is vacant and not currently in by any person for any purpose. k. A process of discussing the possible alteration of park boundaries can be initiated by organising meetings with the local Chief and his advisors, the wider community, ZAWA local and ZAWA HQ, the local MP, the local Council and the Ministry of Lands respectively. Appendix 2 outlines the suggested ares for degazetting and gazetting. Once there is an agreed plan, surveyors from the Ministry of Lands and ZAWA should be invited to survey the area in order to collect GPS data and to produce a map of the new boundaries. Other stakeholders should be invited as guests during the field process in order to make it transparent and to achieve public acceptance. The next step is to present a detailed plan for alteration of park boundaries to Parliament for approval. Once approved, the surveyors will be invited to finalize the field process by marking the new boundaries – in the presence of various s

takeholders. Community Consultation Re
takeholders. Community Consultation Report and Community Stakeholders Profile. A contribution to the Project Preparation for: Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. January 2009. Community Sanitation Improvement and Latrine Construction Program. A training guide. Water and Sanitation for Health Project (WASH). Technical Ground water, latrines and health. Task No: 163. Ben Cave and Pete Kolksky. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK. 1993 North Luangwa National Park General Management Plan, ZAWA 2004 Process Framework. A contribution to the Project Preparation for: Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. February Project Identification Form: Extension of Kasanka Management System to (Re)Submission date: 03/04/2008. Request for Project Preparation Grant (PPG): Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda ID:P108882. (Re)Submission date: 12/20/2007. Vegetation map and ecological description of Lavushi Manda National Park. A contribution to the Project Preparation for: Extension of Kasanka Management System to Lavushi Manda National Park. Kasanka Trust, September 2009 Zambia Wildlife Act No. 12 of 1998 8. Appendices Appendix 8.1 Map and description of Encroached Areas in Lavushi Manda National Park Encroachment has been identified using aerial survey pictures made in November 2007 and July and August 2009. Cluster numbering determined on base of pictures taken in 2009. Households living within encroachment: none Field type: fields. Probably one old ficroachment: 16 (approximately) Field type: mixture of permanent fields (casave and other crops) and chitemene. Remark: Well established. Has expanded considerably since 2007. Northernmost chitemene field established in 2008. Households living within encroachmenpermanently inhabited). Field type: permanent fields. Remarks: very recent intrcroachment: 15 (approximately) Field type: mixture of permanent fields and chitemene. Remarks: has expanded in recent years. Appendix 8.2 Possible boundary adjustment of LMNP to address ss of ecological value ESIA LMNP