GC LME

TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS

TABLES OF PROPOSED STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

TABLES A: SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT AND UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES

TABLE A1: FACILITATION OF OPTIMAL HARVESTING OF LIVING RESOURCES

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
A1. Non optimal harvesting of living resources: Non optimal harvesting includes over harvesting, such as overfishing, as well as wastage through dumping of bycatch and the loss in yield by catching and dumping of under-size fish. It also includes not taking advantage of resources with the potential to offer sustainable development opportunities (e.g. seaweed, some invertebrates). This often results from a lack of technology or knowledge of the opportunities available. Variability in, e.g. small pelagic productivity and availability can cause socio-economic disruption Poaching by distant fleets.	· Fishing overcapacity · Inadequate tools · Inappropriate fishing methods (including use of explosives), undersized meshes in nets · Poaching · Non-sustainable utilization of resources · Lack of collaborative assessment and monitoring · Inadequate information · Inadequate management · Inadequate control · Lack of collaborative management of shared resources (including fisheries management body e.g. Compact or Commission) · Over-harvesting of turtles Lack of forecasting capability	· High by-catch & undersize catch · Fisheries impacting productivity cycle · Ecosystem change · Resource depletion · Human population movements (local & regional) · Large variation in landings · Variation in food supply for birds, turtles etc. · Conflict (e.g. artisanal vs. commercial vs. recreational; conflict with mining) · Declining turtle population · Competition for exploited resources	· Irreversible ecosystem change · Biodiversity Change · Habitat destruction · Collapse of commercially important stocks	· Variable and uncertain job market, unemployment · Loss of national revenue · Lack of food security: artisanal /industrial · Erosion of sustainable livelihoods · Missed opportunities (under-utilization & wastage) · Loss of competitive edge on global markets	· Most harvested resources are shared between countries or cross national borders. Over fishing in one country can cause depletion in neighbour country Lack of common regulations e.g. mesh size creates enforcement diffulties · Common problems · Shared solutions	· Provision of information: to facilitate regional assessments of shared resources and ecosystem impacts. · Joint surveys and assessments · Gathering and calibration of baseline information · Analysis of socioeconomic consequences for the whole ecosystem · Assessment of potential of new resources · Establish a regional forum for stock assessment, ecosystem assessment and annual advice including advice on harmonization of management actions and co-management	1 1 1 1 2 1	$ 1 000 000 $ 2 000 000 $ 400 000 $ 400 000 $ 1 000 000 $ 800 000	· Optimal sustainable resource utilization · Improved forecasting ·Establishment of a regional forum · Prevention of irresistable ecosystem change

A1 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: NON-OPTIMAL HARVESTING OF LIVING RESOURCES

Causes

· Fishing overcapacity – Too many fishers, too many boats, excess processing capacity.

· Inadequate tools for assessment – Currently available tools for assessment do not always produce effective results, data for assessment are not equally available and are not in a uniform format. Assessment tools that are available are not applied equally within the region, and fishing methods are not sufficiently selective.

· Non-sustainable utilization of resources due to overfishing, high bycatch, catches of small fish and non-targeted species. This is a tradition in worldwide fisheries management.

· Lack of collaborative assessment and monitoring – there is no effective and sustainable mechanism within the GCLME region to ensure that collaborative assessment takes place.

· Inadequate information – the biology of all harvested and potentially harvested species is not always well known. In the latter, some groups with economic potential, such as seaweeds and some invertebrates, are very poorly known within the region.

· Inadequate management – management due to insufficient information, insufficient harmonization across transboundaries, vulnerable to pressure from industry, over-riding socioeconomic and political pressures. Lack of informed advice sometimes results in ill-advised management decisions.

· Inadequate control – even when assessments and quotas are used to manage fisheries, the control and enforcement mechanisms are often lacking particularly where transboundary issues occur

· Lack of collaborative and harmonized management of shared resources.

· Turtle harvesting – Food preferences and econmic pressure on local communities and inproper fishing nets have contributed to the decrease in marine turtle populations, with implications for other components of the ecosystem.

Impacts

· Resource depletion – This is an obvious effect of over-harvesting, a depletion of the resource below optimal levels.

· High bycatch & undersize fish catch – This reduces the productivity of fisheries, and may lead to ecosystem change (uncertainty) and decreased yields.

· Fisheries impacting productivity cycle – The depletion of, for example, a grazer such as sardine from the system could cause the diversion of production into eutrophication and shift the system out of balance. Changes in the system could reduce yields in other ways too, e.g. changes that favour large gelatinous plankton. Recruitment fisheries result in productivity and yields that are less than what they could be under better management.

· Ecosystem change – Over-harvesting of ecologically important species may change the nature of the ecosystem, such as diverting productivity into decompositional pathways

· Human population migration (local & regional) – Declines in opportunities in resource harvesting at the coast leads to increased migration into cities, and the expansion of urban poverty, exacerbated by large slumps in catches. (GCLME Thematic Report on Socio-economics & Governance)

· Large variation in landings – results should be precautionary approach leading to reduced levels of over-harvesting. Regularity of employment, reliability of markets, etc. all suffer when variation is great.

· Variation of food supply for birds, turtles etc. Humans and other organisms compete for food. Over-harvesting of resources by humans may lead to a decrease in food supply available to seabirds, turtles, and other marine organisms that may themselves be important as tourism resources.

· Conflict (e.g. artisanal vs. commercial vs. recreational) – Artisanal, recreational and commercial fishers often compete for the same resources. Conflicts among these sectors may increase when resource become depleted.

· Declining turtle population.

· Competition for exploited resources – harvesting of pelagic resources can have an impact on food availability for other top predators.

Risks/uncertainty

· Irreversible ecosystem change – The degree to which changes that take place in the ecosystem (as a result of over-harvesting) are reversible, is not known.

· Biodiversity change – Changes in biodiversity (genetic, species, ecosystem) may occur as a result of the over-harvesting of resources, but the lack of good baseline data makes this difficult to assess. Hence we do not know the degree to which overfishing affects biodiversity.

· Habitat destruction – The degree to which over-harvesting affects habitat through impacts on dominant species, or directly through impacts of the harvesting technology (e.g. bottom trawls) is unknown.

· Actions in one country can cause collapse of a shared commercially important stock(eg. Collapse of Guinea Current fish stock as result of gross overfishing by foreign fleats)

Socioeconomic consequences

· Financial & job numbers – Over-harvesting of resources reduces the number of jobs and the financial gain accruing to coastal communities. Jobs lost in one country may result in an increase in emigration to another country due to changes in employment opportunities, fishers may move across boundaries due to decrease in local resources availability causing socio-economic and resource strifes in other countries.

· Loss of national revenue – If resources are over-harvested, or if opportunities to developing new resources on a sustainable basis are missed, then the contribution of those resources to the national revenue base is reduced.

· Lack of food security (artisanal/industrial) – artisanal fishers depend on fisheries resources directly for protein (large segments of the population depend on artisanal catches for protein); over-harvesting by both the artisanal and industrial sector may erode the food security of coastal artisanal fishers and their families. Loss of jobs in the industrial sector may also increase poverty, and decrease food security.

· Erosion of Sustainable livelihoods – livelihoods of coastal people may often depend on activities that are based on assets (e.g. fish resources) that are harvested by other sectors. Over-harvesting of those assets, either by coastal dwellers themselves or by industrial harvesting, may erode the livelihoods of coastal people, and bring about increased urban migration and increases in urban poverty and the spreading of poverty-related diseases.

· Missed opportunities (under-utilization & wastage) – There may be many opportunities for the novel utilization of marine resources. Examples include drugs from both inshore and deep-water invertebrates. A coordinated regional assessment of such resources and coordinated development could bring regional benefits in this area.

· Competitive edge on global markets – Lost markets are difficult to regain e.g. shrimps and lobsters of high value. Increases or reductions in yields in one area may impact upon another area (country), resulting in market competition among the GCLME countries. To retain a competitive edge in rapidly changing markets, stability of the throughput and quality enhancement that comes with that stability are essential.

Transboundary consequences

· Most of the regions important harvested resources are shared between countries(i.e. stradle national boundaries), or move across national boundaries at times. (See GLCME Thematic Report on Fisheries and Regional Synthesis Report). Over-harvesting of a species in one country can therefore lead to depletion of that species in another, and in changes to the ecosystem as a whole.

· Inappropriate management of regional resources endangers sustainability of resources and consistency of catches, and leads to sub-optimal use. Lower food production, loss of jobs & national revenue, and increase reliance on foreign aid. GCLME countries are currently major importers of fish products.

· Potential irreversible changes in nature of ecosystem due to depletion of widely distributed ecologically important species.

· Movement of vessels and humans across borders in response to depletion of resources. Increased local and regional conflicts.

· Depletion and/or large-scale distributional shifts in predator species in response to reduced prey abundance.

Activities/solutions

· Co-management with fishing communities and industry –Co-financing from the fishing industry and other donors is a priority for effective management.

· Provision of information to facilitate regional assessments of shared resources. A structure should be established to conduct regional stock assessments, ecosystem assessments, evaluate resource-environmental linkages, and facilitate post-harvest technology. Joint stock assessments with the BCLME and Canary Current LME should be explored and implemented.

· Joint surveys & assessments – Carried out cooperatively will help produce enhanced management and optimal utilization. These joint surveys will be offered as a 5-year demonstration of the benefits to the individual nations of joint transboundary assessments.

· Gathering and calibration of baseline information - This should be done on resources, potential resources before harvest, as well as ecosystems.

· Cooperative analysis of socioeconomic consequences - Analyses of the socioeconomic consequences of non-optimal and improved use of resources should be done with a view to appropriate intervention within the framework of improving sustainable livelihoods.

· Cooperative training - Cooperative training will be essential to generate regional capacity needed to address the transboundary issues, and to promote sustainable intergrated management. Cooperative training targeted at communities will so be necessary. Training – in management, enforcement, and the creation of new opportunities.

· Cooperative assessment of potential new transboundary resources. Potential new resources in both offshore and inshore areas in the GCLME, and should have assessments conducted cooperatively.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activites which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Optimal resource utilization – This is the most obvious output from the suggested solutions; there will be a reduction in the exploitation level of resources that are deemed to be over-harvested so that stocks can be rebuilt to optimum levels, and an increase in the benefit to coastal communities from the improved utilisation of resources.

· Appropriate legal regimes for fisheries compliance and enforcement

· Improved forecasting – Joint assessment will enable improve predictions of sustainable resource-harvest levels.

· Establish regional structure – This regional structure will be responsible for producing annual stock assessment reports, annual ecosystem reports, and provide advice or suggestions of resource harvesting levels, and other matters related to resource use, particularly fisheries.

· Training packages on management, enforcement, and opportunity creation – all at the regional level to advance the concept of susatinable intergrated management of the GLCME.

· Improved governance, including use of co-management and appropriate stakeholder involvement

TABLE A2: ASSESSMENT OF MINING AND DRILLING IMPACTS AND POLICY HARMONIZATION.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
A2. Mining and drilling impacts: Exploration for oil and gas is expanding throughout the Guinea Current with new offshore oil fields being developed in Nigeria, Cameroon, Sao Tome & Principe, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Angola. This involves drilling, dredging and seismic exploration. There is substantial oil exploration going on in the above countries while the development of oil/gas fields (with pipelines) are planned for the ECOWAS countries-the West African Gas Pipeline Project). Capped wellheads hamper fishing while drill cuttings and hydrocarbon spills impact on the environment. Extensive Ecosystem effects of these activities are not fully known. The extent of coastal pollution deriving from Gold miningis not well documented but could be significant in Ghana and Cote d’ Ivoire transboundary area.	· Pipelines · Drilling & dredging · Seismic exploration	· Habitat destruction · Seabed modification · Coastal soil, beach, intertidal and subtidal profile destruction · Conflicts (with fishers and fishing communities) · Behaviour of resources · Mortality of larvae	· Cumulative impacts · Effects on benthos · Change of bio-diversity · Cost/ benefit	· Financial & employment benefits · Eexclusion of areas from fishng creates negative immediate impacts but may have longterm benefits as reserves · Reduced artisanalindustrial fisheries · Coastal tourism impacted · Onshore development effects on coastal communities, from-mining	· Most of the countries share common problems related to crude oil drill cuttings and wastes · Cumulative impacts are unknown but may be substantial including disruption of benthic habitat · Shared solutions · Spills cross boundaries	· Policy harmonization · Enhanced consultation sectoral and regional · Cumulative impact assessment for GCLME	1 2 1	$ 100 000 $ 100 000] $ 500 000 [$ 500 000] industry	· Environmental management plan · Integrated management · Solution to capacity problem · Strengthened common regional Policy and Regulation

A2 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: MINING AND DRILLING IMPACTS

Causes

· Pipelines

· Drilling & dredging

· Seismic exploration

Impacts

· Habitat destruction – Habitat destruction from onshore crude oil drilling may be localized, but offshore crudeoil exploration and exploitation disrupts large areas of seabed, disturbs the sediments and changes the particle size distribution. The impact of this on benthos and other resources, particularly fisheries resources, needs to be assessed and mitigated if necessary.

· Seabed modification – Seabed modification, related to habitat destruction, may impact on the exploitation of other resources; for example, pipelines and wellheads and their potential impact on availability of bottom areas to trawl fishing.

· Coastal soil, beach, intertidal and subtidal profile destruction. Coastal mining moves the coastal soils, alters the beach profile and destroys coastal vegetation, and intertidal and subtidal habitats important as nursery areas, increased beach erosion.

· Conflicts (fish, oil & gas). Conflicts may arise between different sectors. Appropriate strategies are needed to decrease the potential for conflict, and to resolve conflicts that arise (e.g. fishing / oil).

· Behaviour (e.g. scaring of mammals and fish during seismic surveys) & mortality (e.g. mortality of larvae) of resources – Fish migrating away from, and fish larvae being killed by activities.

Risks/uncertainty

· Cumulative impacts – The cumulative impacts of lots of smaller impacts from crude oil and gas drilling, as well as the cumulative effects over time, are unknown, but may be significant within the context of the ecosystem.

· Effects on benthos – The effects of mining on benthic communities are uncertain.

· Change of biodiversity – It is not known whether mining impacts lead to a reduction in biodiversity in the mined areas

· Cost/benefit – Costs and benefits to the environment from mining and drilling in this perspective are unknown.

Socioeconomic consequences

· Negative: Exclusion zones around crude oil and mining operations, offshore wellhead
Positive: Reserves – A negative effect of crude oil drillingis the closure of large areas of coastline, restricting access to living resources by coastal dwellers or potential dwellers. A positive effect is that exclusion zones could act as biotic reserves.

· Reduced artisanal fisheries - This is a negative effect of the exclusion, as well as the impact of mining-related coastal activities.

· Coastal tourism – The closure of large areas of coast reduces the potential for tourism development in affected areas.

· Onshore development – Onshore development increases opportunities for jobs, but also modifies habitats through construction and pollution. Coastal migration, urbanization and poverty may be an impact where towns are adjacent to oil drilling areas, disparities in economic opportunities can cause conflicts.

Transboundary consequences

· Crude Oil and Gas exploration activities occur in some of the countries (GCLME Thematic Reports). Most of the impacts are localized but uncertainty exists regarding cumulative impacts of oil/gas and Gold mining which added to impacts of fishing and pollution could be significant. As such as assessment of the cumulative impacts of mining/drilling is a prerequisite for sustainable intergrated management of the GCLME.

· The oil & gas industries in the region undertake EIA’s for all projects and are working together to consolidate baseline information. This results in an apreciable potential for increasing of co-financing.

· Most of the countries share common problems relating to oil & gas operations. For example, conflicts between resource users and extraction industries opportunities.

· Regulation of oil & gas exploration and exploitation and mining activities needs to be standardized and harmonized within the region.

Activities/solutions

· Policy harmonization - Cooperative harmonization of oil & gas policies, particularly related to shared resources and cumulative impacts and their mitigation, will be needed.

· Cumulative impact assessment for GCLME (industry co-funding) - An overall impact assessment of the oil & gas industry is needed.

· Enhanced consultation (sectoral & regional) is needed to reduce impacts of oil & gas and ensure benefits accrue and conflicts are reduced.

· Cooperative training will be needed for the effective management of impacts, as well as maintaining living marine resources which continue beyond mining.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Environmental management plan – An overall environmental management plan for the whole GCLME will be produced, including management plans for mitigating oil & gas drilling and other impacts.

· Integrated management – will be the output of the above plan.

· Solution to capacity problem – This will be the result of training to improve assessment and management capacity with respect to the transboundary isues.

· Regional training packages on managing crude oil, gas impacts, community development following oil well and mine closure

· Rediced socio-economic conflicts

TABLE A3. RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF MARICULTURE

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
A3. Mariculture is under-developed but this is rapidly changing: Mariculture has the potential throughout the Guinea Current region to provide labour-intensive employment, protein and foreign currency from export of high value products. The responsible development of a mariculture industry is hampered by lack of information and capacity and lack of harmonised/regional policy. Ecosystem effects of mariculture developments are uncertain; for example introduction of exotic species and transboundary consequences thereof.	· Inadequate policy · Differential regional policy - policies differ in the three countries · Space · Lack of information	· Threat to biodiversity · Diseases · Conflict over space/markets · Eutrophication	· Environmental variability · Market uncertainty · Feasibility	· Employment & sustainable livelihoods · Revenue · Potential growth industry	· Biological invasion to adjacent country by alien species · Threat to biodiversity · Common problems, shared solutions · Introduction of disease organisms to impacting wild resources	· Undertake socioeconomic and feasibility assessment as basis for and harmonisation of national policy and develop regional policy to mitigate against potential problems and promote responsible development of moriculture in GCLME	1	$ 300 000	· Report on socioeconomic assessment · Feasibility report · Harmonised policy and regional policy · Training package

A3 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: MARICULTURE REQUIRES RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT

Causes

· Introduction of exotics – Mariculture may use exotic species, which can create threats to biodiversity & ecosystem function. Both directly through escapees and indirecty through disease organisms.

· Inadequate policy – While some countries have policies in place, others do not. Policy may not be enacted even where it exists.

· Differential regional policy – Policies differ among the GCLME countries. It will be necessary to harmonize policies to minimize transboundary effects of mariculture.

· Space – The coastline of the region experiences mostly a high energy wave climate. This means that sheltered water space needed for mariculture is limited, and other sectors also make use of sheltered water, including ports, fisheries and tourism. This results in conflict with other sectors.

· Lack of information. One of the reasons mariculture is poorly developed in the region is lack of information and lack of capacity. This is particularly true when it comes to the use of mariculture to develop and broaden the livelihoods of coastal communities.

Impacts

· Threat to biodiversity – The introduction of exotic species for mariculture purposes may threaten indigenous biodiversity by displacing indigenous species.

· Diseases – Introduction of species for mariculture may spread disease, and cause other unwanted side effects.

· Conflict over space/markets – Conflicts among sectors for limited sheltered water space are common. Transboundary conflicts over markets may occur, and countries without clear policies may be denied certain markets.

· Eutrophication is a consequence of uncontrolled development of feed-based mariculture systems. Such development must occur only within the confines of strictly enforced guidelines.

Risks/uncertainty

· Environmental variability – This creates uncertainty about the suitability of the limited sheltered water space for mariculture.

· Market uncertainty – Means that the development of mariculture carries high risk for potential entrepreneurs

· Feasibility – The feasibility of mariculture is not known for many potential species.

· Threat to biodiversity, introduction and spread of diseases.

Socioeconomic consequences

· Employment & sustainable livelihoods – Mariculture has the potential to allow the broadening of the livelihoods of coastal communities if developed with a sustainable community development policy. However, harvesters often have difficulty adjusting to mariculture employment.

· Revenue – Revenue may accrue not only to entrepreneurs but also to local communities and to the national revenue base. However, the latter will be small due to the limited water space available.

· Potential growth industry – Mariculture is one of the few industries based on living resources that has growth potential. There is very limited capacity for the expansion of harvesting from the wild. Clear sight must be kept of the limited space availability though.

Transboundary consequences

· Mariculture is underdeveloped in all countries and is being activity promoted throughout the region in view of its economic and employment potential. Co-operative transboundary activities that promote the responsible development of mariculture will minimise negative enviromental consequences and also help reduce pressure on traditionally (over) harvested resources.

· Differences in policy among countries in the GCLME could lead to conflicts (e.g. as a result spread of disease from one country to another, alien species invasion of the ecosystem from a country point source, market conflicts etc), and differential development of the mariculture industry. Harmonization of policy will reduce the potential harmful effects of differential development.

· The introduction of exotic species into the region for mariculture, by any one country, has the potential to lead to transboundary biological invasions of the target organism or other species accidentally introduced with it. Such invasions have the potential to be a threat to the biodiversity of the GCLME as a whole.

Activities/solutions

· Socioeconomic assessment of potential – A full socioeconomic assessment needs to be conducted into the ability of mariculture to contribute to regional economy and the improvement in the living conditions of coastal communities.

· Feasibility assessment – The feasibility of mariculture for particular species in certain areas of the region needs to be assessed, and the best species for development need to be chosen on the basis of this assessment.

· Formulate harmonized policy for the region – Crucial if the negative effects of one country’s policy on the economic potential of another are to be precluded.

· Training – Training will be needed, particularly in terms of promoting community-based mariculture, as well as the overall management of mariculture in the region.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Report on socioeconomic assessment – will include advice for action, particularly targeted at communities

· Feasibility report - will include advice on recommended species and areas for regional initiatives

· Policy statement - should look at overall and community potential

· Training package aimed at managers, communities and potential entrepreneurs.

TABLE A4. PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE SPECIES AND HABITATS

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
A4. Threats to vulnerable species: Human impact on the ecosystem by way of fishing, increasing pressure on the coastal zone, pollution etc. can impact negatively on components of the system, in particular top predators such as coastal birds Vulnerability of habitats: Several habitats, in particular coastal habitats including nursery habitats have been perturbed or lost as a consequence of development and other human impacts, e.g. loss of wetlands, destruction of mangroves, lagoons, etc. These have transboundary consequences and may be significant globally.	· Salt production · Population migration to coast · Pollution · Reduction of prey through fishing · Historical harvesting · Competition for space & prey ( birds, humans) · Over-utilization of mangroves for food etc · Shore development exarcebates coastal erosion	· Threat to global biodiversity of coastal birds/ sea turtles · Ecosystem change · Loss of wetlands · Population reduction · Competition for exploited resources · Loss of shoreline	· Lack of assessment of ecological impacts Lack of low cost effective shoreline erosion control Lack of awareness of impacts by local communities	· Tourism Loss of jobs from loss of resource production through reduction of nursery areas Migration to urgban areas Loss of areas to launch fishing canoes	· Most vulnerable species occur throughout the region, many migrate between countries. National activitiies have transboundary consequences. · Common Problems, shared solutions.	· Assessment of status of vulnerable species and habitats - both those which are shared between countries and those which play a key role in whole ecosystem. · Improved implementation of ICAM to control habitat destruction · Habitat restoration programmes (e.g. Mangrove restoration)	1	$ 2,000 000	· Ecosystem status assessment and report · Losses mitigated

A4 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: THREATS TO VULNERABLE SPECIES AND VULNERABILITY OF HABITATS

Causes

· Salt production – Changes to wetlands and lagoons

· Population migration to coast – especially mangroves. This is a worldwide trend. Logical consequence is a threat to habitats and resources that are attractive to tourists.

· Pollution – Impacts on threatened populations and resources.

· Reduction of prey through fishing – Humans catch fish that are the food of marine mammals and seabirds, reducing food available for them.

· Historical harvesting of marine mammals

· Competition for space & prey (birds, humans) –competion among the marine organisms for food and breeding space. They are also in competition for food and space with human populations

· Canals to facilitate oil driling can lead to large scale loss of habitat through erosion

· Disruption of natural shoreline movement and sea level rise can exarcebate beach erosion

Impacts

· Threat to global biodiversity of coastal birds and marine mammals.

· Ecosystem change.

· Loss of wetlands.

· Fish resource reduction – This has happened in several lagoons.

· Competition for exploited resources – Harvesting of pelagic resources has had a huge impact on food availability for other top predators.

· Loss due to shoreline erosion.

Risks/uncertainty

· Lack of assessments and lack of preventive/ corrective measures can exarcebate impacts.

Transboundary consequences

· Most vulnerable species, including several endemics, occur throughout the region and in some cases internationally. Some vulnerable habitats occur regionally (e.g. wetlands and lagoons and mangroves), and many are of importance to migratory species. Therefore the consequences of any actions, whether national, regional or international, will have direct transboundary consequences and may be of significance globally.

· National policies to enable protection of vulnerable species and habitats need standardization/ harmonization throughout the region.

Socioeconomic consequences

· Tourism –Vulnerable habitats (e.g. wetlands)/ beaches contribute extensively to tourism.

· Migration due to loss of canoe launching areas, loss of fuel, loss of resource productivity can cause conflicts with other fishing communities or in urban areas.

Activities/solutions

· Assessment of status of vulnerable species and habitats –Work has started in some countries, but a holistic regional study is needed.

· Appropriate mitigation solutions need development and implementation for combatting beach erosion and reducing unnecessary loss and restoring lagoon productivity

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those transboundary activities whihc address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed

Anticipated outputs

· Ecosystem report – A report on the status of the ecosystem, and the impacts of human activities on the relationships among non-consumptive resources, together with management advice. Application of solutions will mitigate habitat losses

TABLE A5. ASSESSMENT OF NON-HARVESTED SPECIES AND THEIR ROLE IN THE ECOSYSTEM.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	COST (5y	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
A5. Role of non-harvested species in the ecosystem is unknown. Assessments of non-harvested species are not conducted. Some of these species probably have high biomass and may have potential for harvesting (and with it job and wealth creation), yet the consequences of harvesting on the food webs and presently harvested species are uncertain. There is a general lack of knowledge on the subject needed for ecosystem management.	· Lack of information	· All impacts are unknown	· Unable to predict impacts of changes in abundance of unharvested species upon harvested species · Predator/prey relationships · Large unknown biomass · Market potential · Economic viability · Unknown impact of harvest · Ecosystem impact of pollution / habitat destruction	· Food security potential · Jobs · Revenue	· Many non-targeted species have transboundary distributions. Some have potential for harvesting, but role in ecosystem is uncertain. Action by one country could disturb ecosystem in absense of info. · Common problem, Shared solutions	· Dedicated joint surveys and assessments of non-harvested transboundary species to provide baseline for integrated ecosystem management.	1	$ 1 000 000	· Information on non-harvested species, assessment of ecosystem role. · Ecosystem model for management.

A5 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: UNKNOWN ROLE OF NON-HARVESTED SPECIES IN THE ECOSYSTEM

Transboundary consequences

· Many unused or underused taxa in the GCLME have transboundary distributions, and therefore any exploitation or shared knowledge gained in one country would have an effect in all countries. Such ecosystem effects ought to be addressed in a dedicated manner by gaining basic knowledge of what is in the system, its biology, and what role it plays, and how it can be impacted by anthropogenic activity.

Activities/solutions

· Joint dedicated surveys & assessment – Such surveys need to be dedicated to the non-harvested species because of the special technology needed.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Information on non-harvested species and assessment of their role in the ecosystem.

· Ecosystem model as a tool for sustainable integrated management of the GCLME

TABLES B: ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABILITY, ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREDICTABILITY.

TABLE B1. REDUCING UNCERTAINTY AND IMPROVING PREDICTABILITY AND FORECASTING.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
B1. The GCLME is a complex and highly variable system for which there is evidence of system change and fragmentary but important evidence of increasing instability/variability. Scales of variability include: A.. large scale sustained events; B: decadal changes; and C: high frequency short-lived events and/or episodic events. Human impacts on the GCLME (e.g. by fishing) is superimposed on the inherent natural variability, and the combined effect of anthropogenic disturbance and this variability have been implicated in ecosystem change and the collapse of harvested resources. There is also considerable uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields. Lack of information about and understanding of environmental variability and system-wide impacts hampers sustainable management of GCLME resources and results in the non-optimal utilization of these resources. Coastal erosion is also contributing to the degradation of coastlines, and increased siltation/sedimentation of habitats.	· Complexity of processes · Poor understanding of processes and cause and effect relationships · Poor understanding of global driving forces (linkages) · Lack of data/ information · Inadequate mathematical models · Lack of capacity	· Change to coastal ecosystems from altered wind field/rainfall · Changes in coastline morphology · Damage to coastal infrastructure · Unpredictable variations in zooplankton and fish egg/larval survival · Unpredictable changes in fish growth, mortality and recruitment · Unpredictable changes in species’ abundance, composition, distribution and availability · Regime shifts · Cross boundary movements of fish, seabirds and seal · Difficulties in managing resources sustainably · Operational difficulties with resource utilization · Assessment of anthropogenic impacts difficult	· Long-term net change or natural cycles? · Time periods sufficient long to detect changes?	· Uncertain employment (job losses and gains) · Variation in revenue · Over- and under- utilization of resources. · Lack of food security · Human population migration · High production costs ·National/regional conflicts · Reduced capacity to support artisanal fisheries · Changes in government revenue, private income and exports.	Climate change · Evaluate impacts of climate change on the GCLME Ecosystem · Shifts in distribution of biota · Loss of species/ biodiversity · Altered food webs · Disruption of faunal migrations Fisheries · Unsustainable management of shared and straddling stocks · Altered fish spawning patterns and population shifts · Unpredictable fluctuations and availability of fish stocks · Unpredictable and variable distribution of fishery benefits · Regional economic instability and unemployment · Regional conflicts with other users Coastal infrastructure · Costly maintenance of coastal infrastructure	· Develop regional early warning system for env. change · Targeted feasibility assessment of PIRATA /GOOS-Africa linkup/application to GCLME · Targeted transboundary assessment of potential hypoxia/ impacts · Conduct plankton trawl surveys and Analyze plankton data archives for measurement of decadal change · Develop transboundary state of the enviroment analysis/reporting system. · Develop links with CLIVAR · Adapt/develop predictive models · Establish regional advisory groups · Data gathering community projects · Transboundary env variability networking(incl. internet) · Establish links with the Benguela and Canary Current LMEs · Improved governance	1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1	$ 1 600 000 $ 400 000 $ 250 000 [$ 1 000 000] $ 100 000 $ 250 000 [$ 50 000] $ 300 000 $ 50 000 $ 100 000 $ 400 000 $ 50 000	· Regional early warning systems for major env. events/change. · Quantification of utility/ application of PIRATA for Guinea Current region Information needed to design monitoring/ predictive systems · Record of decadal ecosystem changes · Regional environmental analysis/reporting system/ network · Knowledge and expertise on global climate links · Predictions and models · Regional advisory groups · Availability of important/ useful data · Regional env. variability network. · Links with Benguela and Canary Current LMEs

B1 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: HIGHLY VARIABLE SYSTEM, UNCERTAINTY REGARDING ECOSYSTEM STATUS AND YIELDS

Causes

The Guinea Current upwelling area is a highly variable with open and variable boundaries. It is unique in that it is bounded at both ends by cold water systems respectvely viz. Canary and Benguela Current. It is sensitive to environmental events (variability and change) in the Atlantic.. Unlike some other Current systems (e.g. Humboldt Current in South America) there are few long-term data series to form a baseline against which changes can be predicted or assessed. There is an uneven spread of data between disciplines and between the participating countries. Difficulties in predicting changes in the system is a consequence of:

· Complexity of physical, chemical and biological interactions and processes, and the difficulties in predicting environmental variability

· Our limited understanding of cause and effect relationships, compounded by the problems of predicting not only the environmental variability but also ecosystem impacts

· Our limited understanding of driving forces (global linkages). There is also fragmentary evidence linking variability in the Pacific El Niño/La Niña (ENSO) to upwelling regimes in the GCLME. Thus, although there are pointers to the importance of remote physical (global climate) forcing of the Guinea Current, the linkages and mechanisms are not understood.

· Lack of data/information: Long-term data series are few and, the ecological processes are poorly understood.

Inadequate mathematical models applicable to the region: Very little mathematical modeling of the Guinea Current has been done internationally, and there is a general lack, in the region, of the capacity (skills and technology) to adapt available models from elsewhere, to run these or to develop new models. This applies to physical, chemical and biological (ecosystem) modeling. This is a serious drawback to developing predictive capacity .The (number of qualified personnel, equipment, vessels are limited. Moreover, emigration has resulted in further shrinkage of the skill pool. Thus is particularly true when the press of n

Impacts

Processes that give rise to variability in the Guinea Current occur on three temporal and spatial scales (A: large scale sustained events; B: decadal changes; and C: high frequency short-lived events and/or episodic events). There is evidence that environmental change/variability does impact on the GCLME in a number of ways. However, in order that these changes can be predicted sufficiently well to be useful for ecosystem management, the cause and effect must be properly quantified. The impact of environmental variability/change includes inter alia the following:

· Change to coastal ecosystems from altered wind field (strength and direction) and/or rainfall (quantity and distribution)(AB). Changes in wind frequency direction and strength impact on the supply of nutrients (for productivity), currents and stratification. In addition there is evidence that SST is related to rainfall in the region ).

· Changes in coastline morphology as a result of climatic regime changes and short term events (storms) exacerbated by coastal zone management decisions, e.g. porrly placed jettys, hotels on beaches etc, (BC)

· Short term events (storms) leading to damage to coastal infrastructure (C)

· Variations in zooplankton and fish egg/larval survival and higher level impacts (A, B and C) through changes in primary production and stratification/turbulence caused by changes in wind frequency, direction and strength.

· Changes in species’ abundance, composition, distribution and availability (A, B and C) i.e. ecosystem response to environmental change.

· Changes in fish growth, mortality and recruitment (A, B and C) - these have major implications for resource management.

Cross boundary movements of fish, seabirds turtles and marine mammals (A, B and C). The majority of harvested species of fish either straddle country EEZ boundaries or otherwise move across these boundaries from time to time. These movements/shifts are associated with the life histories of the species and also changes in the environment. The implications if this for sustainable management are obvious, regime shifts i.e. increased variability or a net change towards altered state (B). For example switching between species such as the dominance of Balistes in the 1970s and 80s There is evidence linkuibg this to temperature and salinity shifts.. These regime shifts can occur naturally – however the impact of fishing can exacerbate the problem. e.

Risks/uncertainty

Limited understanding of this highly variable system means that it is uncertain whether the observed variability reflects sustained long-term net change or natural cycles, and whether the available data series are sufficiently long to enable us to determine this.

Socioeconomic consequences

The quality of advice given to resource managers is reduced by the ability to predict, with confidence, short-, medium- and long-term changes in the Guinea Current system. A consequence of this is that responsible resource management must err on what is percieved to be (but which may not be) the conservative side. This leads to:

· Uncertain employment (job losses and gains)

· Variations in revenue

· Sub-optimal utilization of resources (particularly by artisanal fisheries)

· Lack of food security

· Human population movements in response to variable resource availability

· High production costs e.g. in fish processing

· National/regional conflicts

· Changes in government revenue, private income and exports

Transboundary consequences

Sustained major environmental events, decadal change and major short-term perturbations (e.g. 10- or 50-year storm events) do not respect country EEZ boundaries, but rather impact on the GCLME as a whole. In other words the types of environmental variability/change which are the focus of the GCLME programme are system-wide and in essence transboundary. . Many of the transboundary consequences listed below would occur regardless of the high variability of the system. Nevertheless our ability to manage them effectively is limited by our predictive capability. Some of the consequences of increased variability or sustained change include:

Ecosystem

· Shifts in distribution of biota –for example Balistes

· Loss of species/biodiversity - Alien species have also displaced indigenous species such as Nypa palm relacing mangroves in parts of the Niger Delta.

· Altered food webs

· Disruption of fish, bird, turtle and mammal migrations -

Fisheries

· Unsustainable management of shared and straddling stocks

· Altered fish spawning patterns and population shifts

· Unpredictable fluctuations and availability of fish stocks e.g. reduction in the sardine stock in the 1970s

· Unpredictable and variable distribution of fishery benefits

· Regional economic instability and unemployment

· Regional conflicts over declining resources/stocks

Coastal infrastructure

· Costly maintenance of coastal infrastructure as a result of degradation by coastal erosion

Climate Change

· Changes in the status and/or functioning of the GCLME may affect its contribution to global climate change through its role as a source/sink of CO₂ and source of methane. Moreover the geographic location of the .

Activities/Solutions

Without good baseline information and wider regional coordination and articulation, major problems and issues facing the three countries bordering the GCLME cannot be resolved. It is necessary to undertake targeted assessments of priority environment variability issues/problems and to develop appropriate systems, linkages and networking.

Development of a suitable needs-driven, cost-effective regional environmental early warning system for the GCLME by cross linking existing national system

· Feasibilty assessment of the use of information fromo the PIRATA moored buoy array in the tropical Atlantic to enhance understanding of links between weather, climate and fish. (PIRATA is an Atlantic equivalent but smaller version of an ocean buoy network in the Pacific, which is used to forecast EL Niños and La Niñas. The value of linking the GCLME with the PIRATA system would be in the forecasting of upwelling regimes and environmental variability and anomalous events originating in the tropical Atlantic.). If the feasibility assessment were to prove successful (and it looks like it will), then there is also an excellent chance of ongoing involvement between the region and PIRATA being funded from country sources and donors.

· Determination of role of upwelling systems as a CO₂ source/sink and methane source. The value of this to the international community has previously been commented on. Moreover it will provide an obvious link between the International Waters and Climate Change components of GEF. A modest demonstration project would be appropriate.

· Development of community projects for cost effective environmental information gathering and environmental education. Public awareness and involvement are seen as essential components for the successful implementation of the GCLME Programme – both for cost effective information gathering/monitoring and also to help reduce anthropogenic environmental impacts on the ecosystem.

· Analysis of plankton archives and other (oceanographic) data collections – baseline information for measurement of decadal change.

· Develop state of the environment analysis/reporting system for use on a regional basis in the GCLME

· Develop links with CLIVAR and CLIVAR Africa (CLIVAR = Climate Variability and Predictability Project of the World Climate Research Programme) and with GOOS and GOOS-Africa (GOOS = Global Ocean Observing System of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO)

· Adapt/develop predictive mathematical models applicable to the region – the utility of this has been referred to elsewhere.

· Establishment of regional advisory groups and networking centres. This is a low cost activity with potential large benefits.

· Develop transboundary environmental variability networking for region – this links in with the proposed early warning system(see above). It will make extensive use of the internet..

· Establish links with the Canary and Beguela Current LMEs – Clearly the GCLME does not function in isolation from the rest of the south Atlantic, so building bridges/networking with other LME projects could provide valuable spin-offs in both directions.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Proven/validated regional environmental early warning system appropriate for the GCLME in a form which could be used to leverage future country and donor co-financing for permanent implementation.

· Assessment of utility/application of a PIRATA-type buoy array for the GCLME

· Documented assessment of information needed to design monitoring/predictive systems

· Assessment of decadal ecosystem changes in the GCLME since the 1950s based on historical/archival data and collections

· An established regional environmental analysis/reporting system/network and activity centre

Assessment using the best available knowledge and expertise links between the GCLME and the global climate

· Useful predictions and models

· Identification of cost-effective early-warning indicators of environmental changes that impact on fish stocks in the GCLME

· Establishment of regional enviroment network and reporting system - making full use of remotely sensed products and the internet, in a form that it can be self-sustaining operationally.

TABLE B2. CAPACITY STRENGTHENING AND TRAINING.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	I	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS- BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
B2. There is a shortage in capacity, expertise and ability to monitor environmental variability, to assess the linkages and ecosystem impacts of this variability and to develop a predictive capability required for sustainable integrative GCLME management. There is also an unequal distribution of availability capacity (human and infrastructure) between participatory countries.	· Limited inter country exchange (training) Degrading and downsizing of research institutionsLimited training programs · Lack of running funds · Lack of skills to maintain equipment. · Lack of equipment and supplies · Lack of sufficient person power · Lack of economic opportunitys · Lack of concern from the policy makers on the ecosystem issues. · Brain drain	Difficulties in to participaione in regional decision making processes · Regional imbalances in: baseline information, predictive capacity, data collection ability etc. · Inadequate information for finding indicators of future change · Lack of sufficient support forinteraction between institutions · Information which is not comparable/ cannot be integrated across the region	· Commitment to supporting capacity development by governments of the GCLME region · Political and economic uncertainty	· Sub-optimal or over utilization of renewable resources due in part to lack of information, knowledge and understanding required for resource management · Unequal opportunities for resource access/ management · Absence of full stakeholder participation · Creation of conflict · Poorly informed/ advised governments at all levels · Low institutional sustainability	· Uncoordinated resource management, research and monitoring programmes · Management of overall system by individual countries is not harmonized. Capacity gaps leads to uneven research monitoring effort in the system as a whole with consequences for resource management · Difficulties with resource co-operation · Inability to monitor or manage the system as a whole	· Assess capacity needs to address transboundary issues. · Devise strategy * for developing job opportunities, salaries and infrastructure · Develop partnerships with private sector · Creation of regional multidisciplinary working groups · Devise, develop and implement appropriate training courses maximizing use of regional a · Interchange of personnel between countries to gain/ transfer expertise and knowledge · Improve networking via internet · Improve public information/environmental education · Increase stackholder involvment and co-management	1 N/A to GEF 1 1 1 2	$25 000 $250 000 $25 000	· Capacity development strategy for region · Strategy for job creation (and salaries) · Improved regional management of resources and establishment and supportof nstitutional networks · Shared expertise

B2 EXPLANATORY NOTES. Problem: Lack of capacity, expertise and ability to monitor environmental variability

Causes

All the countries bordering the GCLME are developing countries with requirement to meet the basic living needs of their peoples. These countries are attempting to develop their economies and social structures. Funding for marine monitoring and assessment activities are very limited and policy makers are not always fully aware of the importance of transboundary environmental variability/change in ocean management applications. Viewed collectively, the lack of capacity can be ascribed to the following:

· Lower priority placed on environmental issues by policy makers

· Limited inter country exchange of personnel for liaison, experience sharing and training

· Degrading and downsizing of research institutions

· Limited training/skill development programmes

· Limited funds to meet day to day running expenses, let alone to invest in hardware and capital items.

· Limited skills to maintain equipment.

· Limited availability of equipment and supplies –

· Severely limited numbers of trained personnel and an unequal distribution of skills between countries.

· Inadequate remuneration for regional researchers

· Brain drain; loss of personnel to the private sector and overseas

Impacts

The consequences of insufficient funding of research in the GCLME include:

· Regional imbalances in baseline information, predictive capacity, data collection ability etc.

· Limited ability to participate in regional decision-making processes, as too few people are available to do the tasks at hand.

· Inadequate information for identifying indicators of future change

· Limited interaction between institutions.

· Collection of information which is not comparable/cannot be integrated across the region

Risks/uncertainty

· Although the governments of the region are committed to capacity (skill/expertise development), this commitment is according to perceived national priorities. There is uncertainty with regard to the priority status of marine science, technology and management at the regional level.

· Political and economic uncertainty results in potential “recruits” choosing more lucrative careers – particularly those that favour mobility (emigration).

Socioeconomic consequences

The underestimation by policy makers of the importance of developing and maintaining sufficient research capacity to manage the resources of the GCLME has resulted in numerous socioeconomic problems including:

· Sub-optimal or over utilization of renewable resources

· Sub-optimal opportunities for resource access/management

· Absence of comprehensive stakeholder participation

· Creation of conflicts

· Poorly informed/advised governments at all levels

· Low institutional sustainability

All of the above are in turn direct consequences of inadequate/inappropriate communication.

Transboundary consequences

· Non cost-effective resource management, research and monitoring activities (fragmented, poorly planned and unlikely to achieve the objectives of ensuring sustainable management).

· Management of overall system by all 16 countries is not harmonized. Capacity gps leads to uneven research monitoring effort in the system as a whole with consequences for resource management e.g. possible bias in information and advice leading to inappropriate decision making.

· Difficulties with co-operation in respect of sustainable resource utilization. A holistic approach is needed to correct the damage done in the past from fragmentation..

· Inability to monitor or manage the ecosystem as a whole – The transboundary nature of the issues and problems in the GCLME necessitates a holistic approach

Activities/solutions

· The first action must be a comprehensive assessment of the real needs for human capacity and infrastructural development/maintenance relevant to the identified transbouondary issues in which clear priorities are listed. This must be executed in co-operation with all stakeholders to ensure a proper balance and minimum vested interest bias.

· , Poor economic opportunities and career prospects are limiting factors. If not addressed, recruitment and training initiatives will provide little or no long-term benefits.- .

· Develop partnerships with private sector. This will promote private sector “buy-in” and provide a point of departure for long-term co-financing with industry and business.

· Devise, develop and implement appropriate training courses appropriate for the needs of the region, maximizing the use of regional resources working groups. This will be a cost-effective suitable for implementation in developing countries.)

· Creation of regional multidiscipinary working grou0s as a mechanism for consultation, cooperation and skill development,.

· Interchange of personnel between countries to gain/ transfer expertise and knowledge.

· Improve networking via internet. It is envisioned that increased use of electronic commnication is the key to the success of the GCLME programme at all levels. It will be particularly beneficial for training and system monitoring.

· Improve public information/environmental education There is a relative lack of public awareness about the GCLME, human impacts on the ecosystem, problems to be addressed to ensure its sustainable utilization and conservation of biodiversity, opportunities for job creation and wealth generation etc. All stakeholders need to be involved in co-management systems.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Except for activity asterisked, only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Capacity development strategy for the region relevant to addressing transboundary concerns as per the Strategic Action Plan.

· Increase economic and career opportunities within the region.

· New institutional networks taking advantage of the internet and world wide web

· Improved regional management of resources

· Increased multilevel public awareness of the issues and problems and the need for sustainable integrated management of the GCLME. Increased stakeholder involvement and co-management

· Improved infrastructure and improved availability of persons with the necessary skills.

TABLE B3. MANAGEMENT OF EUTROPHICATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/ UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO- ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/ SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	OUTPUTS
Eutrophication caused by increased nutrient loadings from municipal (sewage) and agricultural sources is increasing in the region. Algal blooms are a conspicuous feature of upwelling systems. Harmful algal blooms haave been increasingly noted throughout the world. The frequency of occurrence, spatial extent and duration of harmful algal blooms needs to be documented for the GCLME. The effect of harmful algal blooms is manifested in two main ways: production of toxins which cause mortalities of shellfish, fish and human; and anoxia in inshore waters which also can lead to massive mortalities of marine organisms.	· Natural processes · Introduction of cysts in surface waters · Nutrient loading of coastal waters from anthropogenic activities · Changing state of the Guinea ecosystem · Introduction of exotic species	· Poisoning and mortality of human consumers of marine organisms · Mortality (mass) of marine organisms · Disruption of mariculture activities · Interference with recreational use of the sea · Anoxia which in turn may cause mortalities of marine organisms	· Increase or decrease in incidence and intensity of HABs · Role of HABs in the system as a whole · Contribution of anthropogenic nutrient loading to incidence of HABs	· Human mortality · Loss of tourism revenue · Increased cost of shellfish production (monitoring, testing, depuration) · Loss of fish/ shellfish/mariculture markets and jobs	· Occurrence of harmful algal blooms in the GCLME · Migrations of species across national boundaries (See Notes)	· Develop and implement Best Environmental Practices/Best Available Techniques for agriculture for reduction of nutrient loadings · Develop an Eutrophication and HAB assessment and reporting system for GCLME region as a whole · Regional HAB contingency plans · Community projects linked to ministries of agriculture and health · Mitigation of impacts of HABs · Improve national capacity to monitor eutrophication and toxins/species	2 1 2 2 2 2	$50,000 $350 000 $100 000 $50 000 [$50 000] (National)	· BEP/BAT for agriculture · HAB regional network · Regional contingency plan · Public education materials · Proactive management

B2 EXPLANATORY NOTES. Problem: EUTROPHICATION AND HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS (HABS)

Causes

· Natural processes – Algal blooms occur naturally in the GCLME. Some may be harmful. Human impact can cause HABs to spread, and introduce exotic HAB species into the GCLME.

· Introduction of cysts into surface waters – Human activities such as drilling, dredging and certain types of fishing disturb the sediments and can release cysts of HAB species into the water column, thereby triggering new blooms, and expanding the area impacted by HABs.

Nutrient loading of coastal waters from anthropogenic activities – Increased nutrient loading of coastal waters from e.g. sewage discharges, agriculture and industries increase the probability of occurrence of HAB outbreaks.f HABs may occur as the result of changes in the state of the Guinea Current ecosystem. (System-wide monitoring for HABs would be required to discern any definite trend.) There is little or no control over the discharge of ballast water from ships entering national waters in the three countries, and there is a suspicion that these discharges may spread of HABs in the GCLME.

Impacts

HABs affect a wide spectrum of activities in the marine environment. The impacts include:

· Poisoning and mortality of human consumers of marine organisms can occur from HABs.

· Mortality (mass) of marine organisms. The species at highest risk are the filter feeders (e.g. oysters) and organisms that consume these filter feeders. Mortality can be caused directly by toxins and clogging of gills, and indirectly by depletion of oxygen in the water column.

· Disruption of mariculture activities – Mariculture is dependent on good water quality. HABs result in disruption or closure of mariculture facilities necessitating expensive water treatment, isolation of facilities, etc. Depending on the nature of the mariculture venture and the HAB, the closure/disruption can be short-lived or permanent.

· Interference with recreational use of the sea – Apart from being toxic and unsightly, some HABs cause respiratory problems in swimmers and those living in close proximity to the sea.

· Anoxia which in turn may cause e mortalities of marine organisms

Uncertainties

· Unknown incidence of HABs as a consequence of insufficient monitoring.

· Role of algal blooms in the system as a whole

· Contribution of anthropogenic nutrient loading to incidence of HABs

Socioeconomic consequences of potential HABs occurrences.

· Human mortality. Deaths have occurred and numerous people have suffered respiratory difficulties and gastro-intestinal problems as a consequence.

· Loss of tourism revenue (see impacts)

· Increased cost of shellfish production (monitoring, testing, depuration)

· Loss of fish/shellfish/mariculture markets and jobs. Mariculture is a potentially valuable growth industry in the GCLME. It is constrained by a general lack of information and knowledge, including lack of information about the potential of the HAB problem in the GCLME.

Transboundary consequences

· Incidence and effects of HABs are commo n threats to all countries

· HAB outbreaks can be extensive and straddle national boundaries. In addition advective processes together with shipping operations, and bottom trawling, and dredging can redistribute cysts across national boundaries.

Activities/solutions

· Develop and implement Best Environment Practices/Best Available Techniques for agriculture to reduce discharge of nutrients

· Develop an HAB reporting system for GCLME region as a whole. This is seen as a high priority within the GCLME. It is also essential for the development of a sustainable mariculture industry.

· Community awareness projects linked to national ministries of health to alert the public to dangers associated withpotential HABs as needed.

· Develop national/regional HAB contingency plans which include early warning systems and guidelines for medical practitioners to deal with HAB associated problems

· Improve national capacity to analyze for toxins and identify harmful species by sharing expertise between countries

· Mitigation of impacts of HABs on mariculture operations (e.g. relocation of mussels rafts, treat blooms with “herbicides”)

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Except for activities asterisked, only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· BEP/BAT for agriculural practices

· Established HAB regional reporting network, with transboundary early warning system(to alert neighbouring state when required)

· Regional contingency plan for dealing with effects of HABs implemented in all countries as needed,

· Public education materials prepared and distributed regionally s needed

· Substantial contribution to the sustainable and responsible development of mariculture within the GCLME.

· Proactive integrated management in general.

TABLES C: MAINTENANCE OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTION

TABLE C1-3. IMPROVEMENT OF WATER QUALITY; REDUCTION OF LAND BASED SOURCES OF POLLUTION ; PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF OIL SPILLS; REDUCTION OF MARINE LITTER

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
C1. Deterioration in coastal water quality: Coastal developments and rapid expansion of coastal cities, much of which was unforeseen or unplanned, has created pollution “hotspots”. Aging water treatment infrastructure and inadequate policy/monitoring/ enforcement aggravates the problem.	· Unplanned coastal development · Chronic oil pollution · Industrial pollution · Sewage pollution · Air pollution · Mariculture · Lack of policy on waste & oil recycling · Growth in coastal informal settlements	· Public health · Reduced yields · Unsafe edible organisms · Changes in species dominance · Ecosystem health, productivity and resilience · Loss of jobs at regional level	· Few or no baseline data · Performance standards and thresholds · National commitment to capacity-building · Cause-effect relationships	· Loss of tourism · Higher health costs · Altered yields · Reduced resource quality · Aesthetic impacts · Lowered quality of life · Loss of employment	· Transboundary pollutant transport · Migration of marine organisms, e.g. seals · Negative impacts on straddling stocks · “Hotspots” common solutions	· Develop standard environmental quality indicators/ criteria · Establish regional working groups · Training in marine pollution control · Plan/adapt regional pollution monitoring framework · Establish effective enforcement agencies * · Demo projects on pollution control and prevention · Demo projects on ICAM · Joint surveillance	1 1 2 1 1 1 1	$100 000 $50 000 $100 000 $50 000 (National) $1 500 000 $2 000 000	· Shared solutions for water quality management · Regional protocols and agreements · Improved pollution control · Socioeconomic uplift
C2. Major oil spills: A substantial volume of oil is mined and transported through the GCLME region (from oil terminals in producing countries) and within it, and there is a significant risk of contamination of large areas of fragile coastal environments from major accidents, damage to straddling stocks and coastal infrastructure.	· Sea worthiness of vessels/ equipment · Military conflict · Sabotage · Human error	· Coastline degradation · Mortality of coastal fauna and flora	· Recovery period · Cost recovery mechanisms · Return to peace in Angola	· Opportunity costs (e.g. tourism, fisheries, salt production) · Altered yields · Reduced resource quality · Aesthetic impacts	· Resource sharing for containment, surveillance, rehabilitation, etc. · Ramsar site protection (border wetlands) · Transboundary pollutant transport	· Regional contingency plan development · Research/ modeling of recovery periods · Public awareness of notification procedures · Port state control	1 3 3 3	$500 000	Regional contingency plan., shared resources, rehabilitation plans, regional protocols and agreements
C3. Marine litter: There is a serious growing problem throughout the GCLME.	· Growth of coastal settlements · Poor waste management · Little public awareness and few incentives · Illegal disposal from vessels · Poverty of coastal communities · Ghost fishing · Fishing discards	· Faunal mortality · Negative aesthetic impacts · Damage to fishing equipment	· Accumulation zones · Illegal hazardous waste disposal	· Loss of fishing income · Public health · Cleanup costs · Loss of tourism · Job creation in informal sector	· Transboundary transport	· Litter recycling (Ghana demo project) · Harmonization of packaging legislation · Public awareness · Port reception facilities · Regulatory enforcement · Standardized policies · Seafarer education	1 3 1 1 2 2 1	1 000 000 $50 000 $100 000 $50 000	· Cleaner beaches · Education material/ documents available regionally · Standardized policies and legislation on packaging/ recycling incentives

C1 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: DETERIORATION IN WATER QUALITY

Causes

· Activities are mainly focused around urban centers, increasing urbanization and associated knock-on effects. Worst effected areas are are the coastal cities where majority of the population reside and the industries are sited

· Various sectors contributing to pollution, with varied degrees of cross sector co-operative management

· Knock-on effect of introduced mariculture species and associated water quality pollution effects in protected embayments

· Variable consistency in application of policy, both nationally and regionally

· Informal and formal settlements vary in their control of pollution discharges. Pollution is increasing due to urbanization.

· Shipping activities and hydrocarbon exploration and production are major sources of chronic oil pollution.

Impact

· Avariety of factors are responsible for deterioration of human health and ecosystem health/resiliance (GCLME Thematic Report on Pollution)

· Species invasion (poorly planned mariculture enterprises), changes in species dominance, reduced yields from ecosystem.

· Loss of jobs at regional level, reduction of regional tourism potential

Risks/uncertainty

· Limited data available from which to evaluate existing water quality, so it is difficult to establish a regional baseline.

· Validity of existing standards and thresholds within the regional context is uncertain.

· Tracing of impacts back to initial causes is difficult and causation is often unknown.

· Reduction of pollution in worst affected areas may not be practicable on short/medium term.

Socioeconomic consequences

· Input of nutrients and associated pollution may cause a short-term increase in production, combined with longer-term stock failure.

· These consequences are interrelated: pollution decreases tourism, which reduces jobs, which increases poverty, which in turn increases pollution.

Transboundary consequences

· Deterioration of water quality may cause species migration (temporary/permanent). Pollutants from industries/activities near to country borders can be transported across boundaries by prevailing currents.

· Impacts are (variably) common to each of the participating countries – a “generic” project with flexibility to meet nations’ needs should be established. Establishment of common policy is necessary to minimise transboundary impacts.

· Most water quality issues are common to at least two of the countries and require common strategy and collective action to address.

Activities/solutions

· An overall regional working group should be established to effectively co-ordinate integrated solutions to:

Ø Environmental quality indicators

Ø Marine pollution control and surveillance

Ø Regional monitoring/inspection of coastal zone

Ø Regional enforcement of standards

Ø Prevention of “polluters” escaping controls by locating in adjacent countries.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Except where asterisked, only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Integrated local, national, or regional system implementation with decrease in pollution and associated long-term savings in clean-up and education costs. It is anticipated that the benefits which will be demonstrated by the proposed actions will be such that leverage of national or donor funding for continued implementation following the conclusion of the GCLME will be possible in view of the benefits which will acrue from a modest investment.

C2 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: MAJOR OIL SPILLS

Causes

· Variability of seaworthiness of vessels operational from the region, as well as transport through the region.

Impacts

· General coastal degradation (temporary habitat loss), with varied recovery rate, depending on species vulnerability and spill intensity. (Associated monitoring of fauna/flora recovery is essential.)

Risks/Uncertainty

· Recovery period in system is sensitivity-dependent

· Regional and national peace and political stability are most conducive to programme success.

· General environmental deterioration leads to aesthetic deterioration and then tourism loss.

Socioeconomic impacts

· Revenue loss is a function of spill intensity and environmental sensitivity, and duration of spill.

Transboundary consequences

· Regional co-operation needed in use of equipment/manpower.

· Riparian/estuarine boundaries are particularly vulnerable.

· Co-operative management of spills moving across borders. (Management/clean-up of a major spill near country boundary can only be effective if comensurate actions are taken by the neighbouring state)

Activities/solutions

· Regional co-operation paramount in standards development: policy, equipment, and techniques.

· Dmonstration projects on pollution reduction and control and ICAM

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Regional policy and optimal utilization of resources.

C2 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: MARINE LITTER

Causes

· Rapid urbanization and unplanned settlement, with variable and limited/no control by authorities.

· Existing formal infrastructure unable to cope with expanding informal developments.

· Public apathy/indifference.

· “Lost” fishing equipment and associated “wastes.”

· Non-returnable/disposabale nature of containers of packaging used in the region. (Absense of regulations and incentatives for return of containers and use of biodegradable materials)

Impacts

· Aesthetic and multiple impacts are associated with economic loss, although there may be job creation in the informal sector (waste management).

· Plastics and ropes (including fishing lines) present a significance amd growing hazard to marine mammals and seabirds (entanglement, ingestion)

Risks/uncertainty

· Volume of hazardous substances dumping unknown.

· Need to identify areas of waste accumulation through natural processes.

· Positive impacts (job creation in informal sector) are balanced by lack of incentives not to litter.

· Potential degree of transboundary movement.

· Issues common to all countries – create a “blueprint” and apply flexibly to all countries.

Activities/solutions

· Public awareness is key to successful implementation and a sustained clean environment– primary focus is seafarers

· Common policy/practice and implementation – i.e. “return” (bottles) product incentives – common policy re boundary transfer and legislation (packaging) review.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Clean coastal zone

· Educated and up lifted public

· Improved legislation and standards implementated from local/national/ regional levels ~ coordinated

· Reduction in negative impacts on marine mammals and seabirds(particularly relevant to threatened/endagered species)

GUINEA CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM

PROGRAMME

TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS TABLES

TABLE A 1-5 Sustainable Management and Utilization of Resources

A1 Facilitation of Optimal Harvesting of Living Resources

A2 Assessment of Mining and Drilling Impacts and Policy Harmonization

A3 Responsible Development of Mariculture

A4 Protection of Vulnerable Species and Habitats

A5 Assessment of Non-Harvested Species and their Role in the Ecosystem

A6 Facilitation of a functional governanace/ institutional arrangements and

networking

TABLE B 1-3 Assessment of Environmental Variability, Ecosystem Impacts and

Improvement of Predictability

B1 Reducing Uncertainty and Improving Predictability and

Forecasting

B2 Capacity Strengthening and Training

B3 Management of Eutrophication and Consequences of Harmful Algal

Blooms

B4 Control of Coastal Erosion

TABLE C1-5 Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Management of Pollution

C1 Improvement of Water Quality

C2 Prevention and Management of Oil Spills

C3 Reduction of Marine Litter

C4 Retardation/Reversal of Habitat Destruction/Alteration

C5 Conservation of Biodiversity

TABLE C4. RETARDATION/ REVERSAL OF HABITAT DESTRUCTION/ALTERATION.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y)	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
C4. Habitat alteration/ destruction (see also A4). Several habitats have been altered or lost as a consequence of development and other human impacts. Impacts can be categorized into three areas, viz.: 1. Coastal – progradation/ redistribution; 2. Nearshore (< 30m) 3. Shelf/slope (200 m)	· Demersal trawling · Variable river sediment input and changing land use · Oil/gas exploration/ production and spills · Mariculture · Natural sediment transport (altered erosion) · Built coastal structures · Human settlement and resource use · Mangroves/coastal deforestation ·	· Increased turbidity (sediment plumes, etc) · Benthic community destruction · Mobilization of heavy metals · Faunal impacts e.g. reproductive failure · Potential Increased frequency of HABs · Coastal erosion · Organic loading/anoxic conditions	· Near-complete lack of data · No framework for impact monitoring · Cumulative local vessel impacts · Climate change · Distinguishing impacts from natural spatial and temporal variation	· Costly infrastructure, rehabilitation & maintenance · Loss in mariculture production · Decreasing human health via heavy metal contamination · Loss of fisheries productivity/ revenue, · Opportunity costs	· Sediment transport · Common problems, e.g. erosion · Redistribution of marine fauna as a consequences of habitat alteration	· Document fully presented status · Adapt & apply regional marine and coastal early warning system and action plan · Assess causality of habitat alteration. · Adapt & apply standard environmental quality criteria · Adapt & apply regional structure to address problems · Adapt & apply expertise in coastal processes	1 1 2 1 1 1/2	$ 50 000 $150 000 $100 000 $50 000 $100 000 [$50 000]	· Comprehensive status report · Regional early warning system ad action plan · Transboundary causality established · Regional structures and agreements · Improved coastal planning (Integrated Coastal Areas Management)

C4 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: ECOSYSTEM HEALTH DECLINING

Causes

· Coastal progradation ~ sand mining activities, subsequent longshore redistribution of sands – sedimentation of mangroves and other natural processes.

· Coastal destabilization due to anthropocentric activities.

· Natural sediment movement (natural rehabilitation of mined areas ~ masking actual impacts, which may possibly occur later and be more severe.

· Various fishing activities

Impacts

· Oil exploration-generated drilling and plumes ~ potential re mobilization of heavy metals (food chain impacts) from dredging and water quality deterioration.

· Mariculture can cause local organic loading and anoxic conditions.

· Habitat modifications impact on HABs.

Risks/uncertainty

· Incomplete/lack of data ~ severely limiting ~ but increasingly available due to mining companies’ existing programmes.

· Should standardize framework for evaluation of impacts.

· Impacts from multiple vessels in close proximity unknown ~ carrying capacity to be determined.

· Necessary to distinguish anthropogenic impacts from natural variability.

· Altered sediment structure and particle size composition with consequence for benthos and remobilization of certian minerals(metals).

Socioeconomic consequences

· Unknown costs of rehabilitation and subsequent evaluation of rehabilitation success.

· Human health affected through knock on effect in food chains.

· Loss of revenue from renewable resources.

Transboundary consequences

· Marine fauna migrating due to habitat loss.

· Sediment remobilization.

Activities/solutions

· The present status requires proper documentation, and establishment of baseline at regional level.

· Establish/identify regional parameters for approach to early warning systems and associated quality performance standards.

· Develop mechanisms of co-operation between industries, ministries and other stakeholders, and strengthen capacity

· Needs-assessment to improve coastal management expertise.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only those activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

TABLE C5. CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
C5.Loss of biotic integrity: This refers to ecosystem impacts including changes in community composition, species diversity, and introduction of alien species – a set of measures of ecosystem health.	· Introduction of alien species · Selective fishing mortality (targeted fishing) · Incident mortality bycatch/ discharges · Pollution impact · Over-harvesting · Habitat alteration (e.g. destruction of mangrove areas), beach erosion · Lack of implementation of international laws	· Local extinction especially of benthic species · Introduction of pathogens · Genetic impoverishment (loss of resilience)	· Source of alien commensals? · Invasive ability? · Beneficial or harmful? · No baseline data	· Loss in community income from fishing and mariculture · Potential public health impacts · Opportunity costs, e.g. tourism · Political pressure to over-harvest · Lost income – prolonged recovery time · Uncertainty of sustainable livelihoods · Modification of food source of consumers	· Transfer of alien species via shipping/ mariculture · Natural processes · Fisher migration · Shared stocks	· Harmonize regional policies · Link with GEF ballast water project · Regional fishing policies co-management · Identification of MPAs (incl. Transboundary areas)- Benin demo proposal · Identify genetic populations structures · Develop forum for stakeholder participation and negotiation of biodiversity code of conduct	1 2 1 1 2 1	$50 000 $30 000 $1 500 000 $20 000 $50 000	· Harmonized regional policy · Co-Financing · Regional protocols · Establishment of negotiated marine protected areas · Biodiversity conservation baseline · Reduction/ control of alien introductions, policy decisions, forum established

C5 EXPLANATORY NOTES. PROBLEM: LOSS OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY

Causes

· Introduction of alien species

· Changes in community composition, population distribution and abundance due to overfishing, selective fishing (targeted at a particular species), and incidental (bycatch) mortality.

· Other identified causes included pollution impacts, habitat alteration (including mangrove destruction), and lack of implementation of international conventions (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity and marine treaties).

· Lack of holistic approach to ecosystem management i.e. only management of individual species/components in isolation.

Impacts

· Introduction of pathogens and other commensal species: Alien species (intentionally or inadvertently imported) may arrive with unseen viruses, ectoparasites, and other commensals.

· Genetic impoverishment refers to the loss of genetic variability as a result of population ‘bottlenecks’ (severe crash in population numbers) which will normally reduce population resilience and fitness (ability to cope with future environmental change).

Risks/uncertainty

· Invasive ability: the ability of introduced species to survive, reproduce and replace indigenous species.

· Beneficial or harmful? The “beneficial” assessment is perceived as a socioeconomic one (e.g. shrimps are more easily marketed in select sizes from mariculture than in wild harvest ), but the “harmful” assessment is primarily an ecological one. (On the longer term, what may at present be perceived as beneficial may not be sustainable. This has serious implications for sustainable integrated management of the ecosystem.

Socioeconomic consequences

Alien species:

· Potential public health impacts refer primarily to pathogens imported with ballast water aliens.

· Opportunity costs: for example, alien infestations can cause a loss of diving tourism revenue.

Fishing impacts:

· Political pressure to over-harvest: In a population recovery period, low quotas often cannot be implemented due to political pressure (leading to a very much longer recovery period).

· Loss of income: Prolonged recovery periods strain the industry through loss of revenue. Uncertainty of sustainable livelihoods: Government policy incentives are needed to encourage alternative job creation to sustain fishers during low yield periods, or a temporary industry shutdown.

· Modification of food source of consumers: in much of West Africa large segments of the populations depends on fish for their main protein source particularly dried small pelagics. A shift to other marine fish would be difficult due to lack of refrigeration or the processing capabilities.

· Migration of fishers -- when over-harvesting causes depletion of fish stocks, fishers may be forced to move.

Activities and solutions

· Cognisance is taken of the existing GEF international ballast water management project, which may include some countries in the GCLME region in its suceeding phases.

· **NB: The oil producing countries in the GCLME are very concerned about uncontrolled dumping / flushing from ships generally (including bilge waters – not just marine litter and ballast water).

· Regional (GCLME region) policy on aquaculture / mariculture should be developed and then harmonized with those of neighbouring countries, including Canary and Benguela LME regions. (Refer to B-3)

· Regional (& national) management plan for biodiversity conservation must include a framework for assessment and prediction of environmental change impacts.

· Identification of marine protected areas: Attention can also be given to possible marine protected areas that have transboundary implications.

· Identify genetic structure of populations: an essential component of a regional biodiversity conservation management plan. It has important implications for fisheries management (do countries manage the same or different stocks of individual species?).

Activities/solutions

· Harmonisation of national policies and the development of a regional policy.

· Establish/identify regional parameters for approach to early warning systems and associated quality performance standards.

· Develop mechanisms of co-operation between industries, ministries and other stakeholders, and add capacity

· Needs-assessment to improve coastal management expertise.

Priority

· Proposed activities are ranked on a scale of 1-3 in terms of their perceived priority. Only activities which address transboundary problems requiring incremental funding are listed.

Anticipated outputs

· Regional quality indicators: Adapt and apply existing environmental quality indicators to the GCLME for specified variables.

· Harmonised regional policy and emergence of regional protocols

·The establishment of a forum for stakeholder participation in negotiating a biodiversity code of conduct is seen as an important outcome.

TABLE C6. Inadequate/Inappropriate data and information management

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
C6.Inadequate/Inappropriate data and information management	· Poor data generation · Poor capacity and infrastructure for data support and networking · Extensive disaggregated data across countries · Lack of awareness of data systems · Use of wrong IT approaches · lack of critical equipment for comprehensive monitoring, data analysis, processing and storage of information	· Extensive gaps in data series · data exchange/ communication barriers · Inadequate regional integration of scientific efforts and monitoring programmes · poor data-based decision-making · poor environmental data availability, and dissemination methods.	· Political and economic uncertainty · Political will ·	· Poor data-based planning · Poorly informed stakeholders at all levels	· Difficult inter country data standardisation and calibration · Lack of inter country data comparability · Poor ata and information dissemination across the countries	· Establish a regional cooperation for data standards, dissemination and a GIS · Set up a network between centres of excellence, for training, exchange and support · Collaborate with appropriate international Agencies in the use of IT to develop the regional potential in the management of data and information; · Set up and develop a Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem regional data base and website ; · Provide equipment support to the national data and information management centres

TABLE C6. Governance and Institutional Framework.

PROBLEMS	CAUSES	IMPACT	RISKS/UNCERTAINTIES	SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES	TRANS-BOUNDARY CONSEQUENCES	ACTIVITIES/SOLUTIONS	PRIORITY	INCRE-MENTAL COST (5y	ANTICIPATED OUTPUTS
C7.Inadequate/Inappropriate Governance Regime	· Decision Making Process most times atop-bottom Approach · Poor interlinkages across sovereign, political and language boundaries · Lack of coordination of environmental Arrangement · Poor environmental awareness and rights · Inadequate region wide institutional framework · Inadequate region wide legal and regulatory framework	· Alienation of stakeholders in environmental arrangement · Non-coordination and standardisation of environmental arrangement · Inability to enforce region wide environmental arrangement laws/practice	· Political and economic uncertainty · Political will ·	· Absence of full stakeholders’ participation · Poorly informed government at all levels		· ICAM · Facilitate functional region wide governance / institutional framework and linkages · Centres of Excellence designation · Environmental awareness · Facilitation of effective enforcement · Development of regional · Development of regional environmental laws / regulations · Regional court (environmental)

Converted with Word to HTML.