DRAFT
AGULHAS AND SOMALI CURRENT LARGE MARINE
ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT
REPORT OF THE FIRST STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
AND INCEPTION WORKSHOP
Seaworld Education Centre, uShaka, Durban
22nd 23rd JANUARY 2008
Table of Contents
Summary of the First Steering Committee and Inception Workshop for the ASCLME Project ...................... 2
Proceedings of the ASCLME First Steering Committee Meeting - January 22nd 2008.................................. 11
Proceedings of the ASCLME Inception Workshop - January 23rd 2008........................................................ 38
Attached Annexes
Annex 1: Acronyms and Abbreviations
Annex 2: Attendance List and Contacts
Annex 3: Agendas for Meetings
Annex 4: Approved Work-Plans
Annex 5: Approved Budget
List of additional Annexes and Links
(click links below to download and view)
Annex 6: Inception Workshop Briefing Document
Annex 7: Inception Report to the Project Steering Committee
Annex 8: Summary of Implementation Progress
Annex 9: Review of Revised Outputs and Deliverables
Annex 10: Governance and Policy Needs
Annex 11: Management Structure for Project
Annex 12: Summary and Update of the ASCLME Programme and Project
Annex 13: Update on Implementation Progress
Annex 14: Review of TDA and SAP Delivery Requirements for the ASCLME Project/Programme
Annex 15: Offshore Data Capture within LME coastal zones
Annex 16: Priorities for Social and Economics assessments that are required to support TDA and SAP
process
Annex 17: Expected inputs from ASCLME Projects into TDA Process
Annex 18: Mechanisms for National and Regional Coordination for Data Capture and Management
Annex 19: Communications Strategy
Annex 20: Partnership, Coordination and Stakeholder Participation
Annex 21: The Sustainable Seas Trust
Annex 22: Next Steps
[All these files are available in a single zipped file from here (5.65MB)]
- 1 -
Summary of the First Steering Committee and Inception
Workshop for the ASCLME Project
OVERVIEW
This was the first meeting of the Steering Committee for the ASCLME Project and
constituted the first time since the preparatory phase that the representatives of the
countries had gathered to discuss project issues and implementation. As per UNDP
requirements this meeting of national representatives, agency partners and observers was
also used to inaugurate the Project through a formal Inception Workshop.
The first day of the meeting included the permanent members of the Steering Committee
which are the countries, the executing and implementing agencies and the direct
partners/co-funders as identified in the Project Document. The agenda focused more on
issues related to policy, protocol and management of the Project as well as internal Project
issues related to budget and delivery, monitoring and evaluation.
The second day of the meeting included important national, regional and international
observers and expanded the subject matter into technical and scientific issues as well as
those relating to the modular approach, and especially long-term governance
requirements.
Both meetings were extremely valuable and re-stated the intent for cooperation and
understanding between the countries, the PCU, the Sister Projects within the ASCLME
Programme, and other partners and observers that promises to evolve into a most
effective, supportive and successful partnership for guiding the Project, coordinating
outside of the project and delivering the overall objectives and outputs that will ultimately
be critical and essential to the sustainable management of these two important LMEs.
The following sections of the summary list some of the specific highlights of discussion
and some of the agreed actions to be taken (the latter in red). The full proceedings of each
day's meeting follow this summary.
SPECIFIC CONCERNS AND DISCUSSION POINTS
The Steering Committee discussed the need for long-term sustainability and ownership of
the Project and concluded that governance and policy issues and support would be
critically important to the long-term success of any LME Project and that these needed to
be factored in at the earliest stages in the ASCLME Project and Programme. There was
discussion regarding the expansion of the project from what was a more `blue-water'
oceanographic research effort to what is now more equally balanced with coastal issues.
This has been generally welcomed by the countries and it was noted that most of
politicians and decision-makers in the countries (esp. Continental Africa) are more
concerned with the near-shore issues than the offshore concerns so that these additions
- 2 -
will tend to encourage policy-level support for the Project. Artisanal fisheries are very
important in this respect and should be the subject of clear policy briefings. However,
policy briefings are not the only requirements to achieve stakeholder buy-in and, at the
other end of the spectrum, there is a clear need for community outreach and a need to
forge links between Policy and Community. In this context it was pointed out that the
former may expect/require the latter to forego fishing rights in the interest of overall LME
management
It was noted that the ASCLME Project was taking the correct approach in recognising that
the TDAs and SAPs may represent the end deliverables from this project but actually
represent the beginning of the overall LME management process and that this is an on-
going and long-term process that will need sustainability in terms of financing, long-term
capacity, on-going monitoring and data/information collection, and political support. It
was agreed that there was a need for a clear work programme for the SAP development at
national and regional level with defined focal points, working groups, tasks, deliveries,
etc. The Committee also noted that it was important that the SAP documents also
identified the national structures, mechanisms and long-term resources to implement the
SAPs.
The committee discussed and endorsed the importance of the socioeconomic and cost-
benefit analyses and how these would be vital to `selling' the project and capturing senior
level `buy-in' from policy makers, who are more likely to appreciate the importance of the
LME approach when supported by such information on benefits and advantages in terms
of long-term economic and social value. ASCLME should build on what WIO-LaB and
the Nairobi Convention are doing at the national level also. It was considered to be
important therefore to explore their activities and achievements. It was also noted that the
EU have undertaken a number of economic assessments and studies in the region and that
these would be valuable for ASCLME. Further information should also be available from
IOTC.
There was general support from the Steering Committee for an ASCLME Programme
Approach incorporating close coordination between the three sister projects (ASCLME,
SWIOFP and WIO-LaB) but this needs to be understood, accepted and `sold' by engaging
people and national institutions which are cross-cutting in the region, as well as regional
organisations.
The Committee reviewed the revised structure for project administration and management
as presented. This is as follows:
1. A Programme Policy Committee (PPC): This will be a higher level committee
advising all three ASCLME Programme projects (ASCLME, SWIOFP, WIO-LaB)
and providing guidance at the policy level towards the development of effective
TDAs and SAPs. The level of representation on this PCC should be at the DDG or
PS level or above.
- 3 -
2. A Programme Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC): This will be a technical
level group comprised of the 3 project managers and key experts from the region,
coordinating action across projects. Although not originally foreseen in the Project
Document the Steering Committee recommended inclusion of ReCoMaP on this
Committee as well as other relevant regional initiatives.
3. A Project Steering Committee (PSC): This would consist of
3.A. A core membership including one representative from each GEF eligible
Country, one representative from each of ACEP, UNDP, NEPAD, GEF, UNOPS
and the Nairobi Convention, and the Project Managers of the other regional Sister
projects under the ASCLME Programme (WIO-LaB, SWIOFP) as well as
ReCoMaP The Steering Committee also agreed that Somalia should have a special
status as a Country Observer.
3.B. A stakeholder membership of additional observer members as agreed by the
PSC Core Membership. This would include donor agencies providing co-finance
(e.g. France, Norway) as well as technical agencies (e.g. NOAA, FAO)), and
anyone else invited by the PSC to attend.
4. A Project Coordination Unit (PCU) Hosted by the South African Government
and based in Grahamstown.
5. A Cruise Coordination Group (CCG): This group would aim to ensure the most
efficient use of ship's time amongst the Projects. It would also coordinate the
inputs from the individual national cruise coordinators.
6. Inter-Ministerial Committees (building on existing IMCs in each country as per the
WIO-LaB project).
7. TDA/SAP Preparation Teams
A question was raised regarding recruitment procedures within the Project. It was
explained that all recruitment processes had to adhere to UNOPS procedures for fair
selection and that recruitment of staff would be done on the basis of merit ("the best
person for the job"). It was explained that recruitment would need to be primarily `local'
wherever possible to avoid the significant additional cost to the Project of relocation and
additional benefits for education, medical and pension support. However, the Project
would make every effort to balance this by recruiting consultants and experts within
individual countries for project activities in an attempt to ensure a more equitable
distribution of funding support and capacity building. It was also noted that if there is a
source of strong capacity within the region, then this should be exploited wherever
possible to provide training and capacity building for the less developed parts of the
region, rather than bringing in expertise from outside the region. Counter-parting skilled
staff from one country with less experienced trainees from other countries was in line with
the practice of using locals to train locals. The aim should always be to use expert capacity
- 4 -
from within the region to build capacity within participating countries wherever it is seen
to be weak so that, at the end of the Project, there is clear evidence of transfer of skills and
expertise and of increased capacity and more trained personnel where they did not
previously exist.
A revised budget and work-plan was presented to the Steering Committee based on a more
logical definition and sequence of Project Outcomes and Outputs (as revised from the
original Project Document). These were approved by the Committee.
DECISIONS AND ACTIONS
Policy and Governance Issues
The Steering Committee was in clear and strong agreement on how vital the issues of
policy and governance are to the success of the LME process. It was noted that this is one
of the five LME modules that usually gets the least attention from Projects and
Programmes. It was noted that that the TDA and SAP need to move forward in concert,
together with a simultaneous process of awareness-raising and sensitisation at the policy
level, so key decision-makers are aware of the TDA process and the significance of the
SAP when it arrives at their desks and does not represent a mysterious and unexpected
document. In this context, the Steering Committee discussed the need for a very specific
mechanism that would focus on briefing and informing the policy level stakeholders, and
it was agreed that there should be a dedicated section and activity within the project
coordination unit specifically focused to ensure this vital module receives appropriate
attention. Furthermore, the countries supported the need for a clear policy and governance
mechanism and structure, not only at regional/PCU level but also at national level PCU
agreed to develop ToR for a P&G Coordinator, circulate, and hire as a priority. This
person would then be responsible for developing guidelines and providing support to
implement appropriate national policy organs and focal points.
Meetings of the Programme Policy Committee and the engagement of the policy-makers
could best be achieved through a two tier approach i) though formal meetings of
nominated policy representatives from each country and ii) through opportunistic
meetings dove-tailed into appropriate regional gatherings of relevant Ministers such as
AU meetings. AMCEN or the Nairobi Convention CoPs. It was noted that an AMCEN
(African Ministerial Conference on the Environment) was scheduled for June 2008 and
this would be an opportunity to initiate this process. A. PCU to coordinate with Nairobi
Convention Secretariat and with countries to attempt to organise a brief side-meeting at
AMCEN and to get the ASCLME on the agenda as a brief presentation. B. PCU to
develop the necessary ToR and logistics for a Programme Policy Committee (making use
of the new Policy and Governance Coordinator)
Data, Information and TDA Development
The Steering Committee requested that ASCLME should take a central coordinating role
on coastal and marine data and information management in the region. The Committee
- 5 -
further requested that consideration should be given to the use of one single regional
system for all projects dealing with marine resource data and information management.
The ASCLME and other marine and coastal initiatives could then make their data
available to wherever this system is based within the region. It was important, in this
respect to ensure appropriate accessibility and storage as well as compatibility of formats.
PD said that the PCU would bear this in mind in structuring the entire data and
information management mechanism at the national and regional level.
The Committee also made note of the fact that it would be important for the project to
provide some degree of support to the appropriate and selected national institutions for
data collection and management as well as to assist and support the setting up of national
working groups for such data management and collection. The PCU respond by stating
that it would provide more detail to each country on what such support would represent
and what would be expected of such working groups.
The Steering Committee agreed that, in view of past sensitivities over data capture and
ownership, a MoU was needed between the countries and the ASCLME Project regarding
access to and storage of data and information used by the Project in defining the TDAs
and developing the SAPs. PCU to draft a MoU using other examples such as SWIOFP.
This to be circulated to the countries for review and discussion.
The ReCoMaP representative noted that there were a lot of areas of similarity reflected in
the activities of the ReCoMaP and ASCLME Projects. It was noted that ReCoMaP could
provide ASCLME with a lot of its data needs and that the training and capacity building
objectives would also have similarities. It was agreed that the two projects should
coordinate closely in these areas and that the Project Director and ReCoMaP
representative should develop this requirement.
The Steering Committee discussed the need to ensure that all data used to develop the
TDA should be quality assured. In this context it was agreed that, wherever possible, any
new studies or research carried out or supported by the ASCLME Project should be
properly peer-reviewed. In relation to the expected oceanographic research cruises, it was
considered to be imperative that any experts or specialists working on or with these
cruises should be required to produce peer-reviewed publications from their studies and
results.
Further discussion on the subject of quality control raised the issue for overall peer review
of data for the TDA. It was agreed that the PCU would develop a peer-review mechanism
for assessing and quality-assuring data for inclusion in the TDAs.
The Nairobi Convention Secretariat is working closely with IUCN on development and
implementation of MPAs and could thus contribute a lot of information to the TDA
development process on Output 1.2.B (Key knowledge gaps in near-shore
(artisanal/subsistence) fisheries updated, nursery areas and other rich biological habitat
mapped or otherwise identified using existing information) and Output 2.2 (A region wide
socio-economic valuation of near-shore marine goods and services is undertaken to gain
- 6 -
greater understanding of the social and economic importance of these areas). The
Secretariat representative will communicate with the PCU on possible areas for
collaboration and data sharing.
Following the presentation by ORI on the primary coastal zone issues relating to LME
Management, it was noted that there may be some gaps in both the coastal and offshore
issues for the LMES (including, but not limited to, mariculture, marine pollution and
invasive species) ORI would liaise with IUCN, ReCoMaP and the PCU to provide an
expanded list for the PCU to circulate to the countries. The countries would review these
and provide comments and agreement. The PCU would include the list of required
information to populate the TDA in this circulation.
It was noted that it was now vital that countries confirm their priorities on all LME related
issues. In this context, the meeting agreed that a ToR for coastal activities related to
ASCLME (along with a list of priorities for the countries to review and amend as
necessary) should be drafted and circulated around the SC for comment and to move
ahead with an action plan. This document should be drafted through a coordinated effort
between EnviroFish Africa, and ORI, CSIR.
It was considered to be equally as important to identify any gaps which were not
specifically addressed in any of the Projects through their signed documents (e.g. marine
pollution, invasive species, and socio-economic study of industrial fisheries. The PCU
would send out a formal request to the countries for feedback on this matter. This would
highlight the areas of delivery expected from each project into the TDA/SAP process so
the countries could better identify such gaps.
The meeting discussed in some detail the inherent problem of WIO-LaB completing its
TDA and SAP on Land-Based Sources (which was planned to be part of the overall LME
TDAs) well ahead of the finalisation of the overall TDAs which depend on input from
ASCLME and SWIOFP. The concern here is that the TDA and SAP for WIO-LaB will be
finalised some 2-3 years before it is possible to implement through the ASCLME SAP
structure, yet some of the issues are urgent and should be acted on as soon as possible. It
was considered that WIO-LaB should go ahead and implement its LBS SAP through the
Nairobi Convention and not wait for the full LME SAPs to be finalised. There will need to
be discussion about how this can later be embedded in the overall LME management and
Implementation process. In this respect, the meeting decided that the coordination and
implementation of the individual outputs form the three projects in terms of the final
ASCLME SAPs is an area that will require a specific Agenda Item at the next Steering
Committee Meeting.
Coordination and Cooperation
ASCLME needs to coordinate with WIO-LaB, SWIOFP and other organisations (e.g.
ReCoMaP) and initiatives regarding training needs and activities. WIO-LaB already has
some ongoing and planned activities in this area and has identified stakeholders and
institutions through an Education Needs Assessment. An early joint workshop would
- 7 -
probably be appropriate. The Capacity Building and Training Coordinator to liaise with
WIO-LaB and SWIOFP, and identify other groups for coordination.
WIO-LaB is also undertaking some similar activities to those listed in ASCLME Output
4.1 Effective and frequent communication and coordination established among the IAs,
the various projects under the programme and other related initiatives and institutions in
the region, including linkages with other GEF supported projects in Sub-Saharan Africa
and globally and these should also be closely coordinated between the two Projects PD,
Communications and IT Coordinator and Policy and Governance Coordinator to identify
specifics and liaise with WIO-LaB and SWIOFP Project Managers.
WIO-LaB specifically requested to work very closely with ASCLME in development of
their ToR for Coastal and Socioeconomic Studies in view of high potential for overlap but
also for valuable coordination PD to ensure that Warwick Sauer, ORI and IKM
coordinate closely with Peter Scheren on this.
ASCLME needs to coordinate with WIO-LaB over POPS POPs Coordinator (DAL) to
liaise with appropriate WIO-LaB people via Peter Scheren.
The Committee noted that there were overlaps between WIO-LaBs activities in relation to
IW Coordination and those of ASCLME. WIO-LaB and ASCLME to coordinate on
amalgamating the IW Coordination Meetings (WIO-LaB responsibility) and the Sub-
Saharan Africa LME Coordination Meetings (ASCLME responsibility).
Project Management and Steering Committee Functions
The Committee discussed in detail the role of Somalia in the Project. It was clarified by
UNDP that the Project could not send people to work in Somalia or schedule research
vessels into Somalian waters, but that it could support them financial through payments to
Somalian experts for provision of data and information (particularly existing data and the
development and capture of RS and modelling data), and for attendance at workshops and
at the Steering Committee meetings if the Committee so desired. The Committee agreed to
create a specific membership category for Somalia as Country Observers on the Steering
Committee and also agreed that the Project should fund the attendance of an appropriate
representative.
Countries requested some guidance on the practicalities of initiating and implementing the
project activities in each country PCU to provide the countries with a clear national
work-plan and resource requirements ASAP. This to include information on appropriate
level of Steering Committee representation and the requirement for a National
Coordinator, requirements for an Inter-Ministerial Committee (In coordination with WIO-
LaB), required working groups for TDA and SAP development, Cruise Coordination,
Capacity Building and Training, etc. This will also identify the sort of financial support
each country can expect.
- 8 -
The Steering Committee discussed the set up of ASCLME Project and Programme
websites and identified the possibility of keeping independent websites but sharing a
common portal at the Programme level. It was felt that a meeting of IT experts from the
countries/region would be appropriate to develop recommendations and mechanisms for
such website coordination between the ASCLME Sister Projects PCU to task the new
Communications and IT Coordinator with this coordination role and with setting up such a
meeting/workshop when that person comes on-board hopefully in April.
The Steering Committee felt that there was a requirement for a continuous process of
monitoring and evaluation of activities and deliverables to `progress-chase' the Project
Outputs which would be an on-going, project-driven process separate from the scheduled
Independent Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluations. The PCU agreed to develop a
mechanism to this effect with consideration given to identifying a specific activity.
The meeting considered the proposed new organisational structure related to the Outcomes
and Outputs as presented by the PCU and requested that a new organigram be developed
that would clarify this structure at the national, regional and PCU level, as well as defining
the linkages between the Sister Projects and the ASCLME Programme. The Project
Director agreed to circulate such an Organigram as soon as it was feasible to finalise this
structure, and before the next Steering Committee meeting.
The Committee discussed the format for future meetings. It was agreed that in future there
would be an overall ASCLME stakeholder meeting with all Steering Committee members
and Observers present plus any appropriate additional invitees. This would be followed by
a meeting of the Permanent Steering Committee members as required and consisting of
the countries, the ASCLME Sister projects, ACEP and UNOPS. This Permanent Steering
Committee Member's meeting would provide an opportunity to discuss more sensitive
and diplomatic issues affecting the countries or the agencies.
The meeting noted that there had been very little discussion of the role of the private
sector in the ASCLME Project and it was agreed that this should be a specific Agenda
Item for the next Steering Committee Meeting.
The Steering Committee discussed the timing of its next meeting. It was agreed that, if
feasible, the next meeting would be held consecutive to the next WIO-LaB Steering
Committee meeting, unless the latter was too early in which case a separate meeting
would be scheduled for later in the year.
Capacity Building and Training
In discussing the planned training and capacity building for oceanographic and ecosystem
monitoring skills, it was agreed that the `trained' personnel should be encouraged to
present peer-reviewed publications from their cruise work to WIOMSA.
It was recognised that wherever possible the project would use local and regional expertise
in accordance with the policy to train from within. However, it was agreed that if it where
- 9 -
necessary to use expertise from outside of the region, it would be a policy of the Project to
ensure that there was a contractual obligation on the part of such external expertise for
counter-parting and to undertake training of local capacity.
Sea-Going Research and Data Collection
The priorities for oceanographic and ecosystem assessment/monitoring cruises was
presented to the Steering Committee with the clarification that this annex from the project
Document was now several years old. It was agreed that A. the proposed cruise schedule
for use of available ships in 2008 (training in the first part of the year followed by an
ecosystem monitoring cruise off East Madagascar) would be adopted as the initial
schedule and B. the priorities list would be reviewed by regional oceanographic experts(s)
and circulated back to the countries and C. a regional cruise coordination workshop would
be arranged by the PCU to discuss this and adopt the schedule for the remainder of the
Project (with the proviso that this could be amended as necessary to fit in with vessel
availability).
In order to ensure effective use of vessels it was agreed that the countries would provide a
list of A. Oceanographic expertise available for the various cruises and B. a list of
appropriate trainee scientists based on criteria provided by the PCU and agreed by the
Steering Committee members.
The Committee also discussed the need for national level cruise coordination as well as
regional level. It was agreed that each country would nominate a focal institute and person
for cruise coordination within country to provide the information on expertise and
potential trainees available as well as to assist in securing permits for vessels and
personnel to enter and work in the countries.
The Committee discussed the subject of sea-going allowances. It was considered by some
to be an unnecessary expense as A. all expenses on the vessel were already covered by the
Project and B. most oceanographers would consider it a professional privilege and an
excellent opportunity to be able to get research time on good research vessels. Others
noted that a precedent had been set through the BCLME project and that some
government departments in the participating countries also paid sea-going allowances. No
conclusion was reached on this and a decision will need to be made by the Steering
Committee before the Nansen cruises start later this year. The PCU will lobby members
for their input and opinion.
The Committee noted that The R.V Nansen had undertaken a number of cruises through
the region in the 1970's. It was felt that this data would be of significant value to the
preparation of the TDA and particularly as a comparative data set for assessing ecosystem
level changes. The Committee therefore requested that the ASCLME PCU should clarify
the available data from these cruises and take whatever measures necessary to repatriate
this data into the region for use by the Project and the countries.
- 10 -
Proceedings of the ASCLME First Steering Committee
Meeting - January 22nd 2008
See Annex 2 (attached below) for Attendance List
8:35 Start of Meeting
Dr. David Vousden, ASCLME Project Director (PD), welcomed the attendees, and
thanked David LaRoche in particular for all his work during the Implementation Phase of
the Project.
The Project Director explained that the reasoning behind the two-day format (which had
been adopted on the basis of comments and requests from several countries) was so that
core Project Steering Committee (PSC) consisting of the countries and close partners
(ACEP, SWIOFP, WIO-LaB) could first discuss issues of policy and procedure in private,
whilst the second day allowed inputs from a broader stakeholder community, particularly
those of a technical nature. He reminded those present that the purpose of the PSC is to
provide long-term oversight and guidance of the Project from the countries themselves.
He then gave a brief overview of the purpose of the two day Inception meeting, namely to:
ˇ Review the overall Objective and Outcomes of the project and introduce its main
decision-making participants (i.e. the Steering Committee),
ˇ To present a revised work-plan for approval which more appropriately reflects the
increased demands that had been added immediately prior to submission in terms
of Outcomes and Outputs (noting that this was done using the same overall level
of funding).
ˇ To define how the TDA and SAP development process would work
ˇ To review the Project management structure and requirements
ˇ To confirm how coordination would be achieved at the programme level (between
the Sister Projects)
ˇ To open the floor to any further discussions on policy or technical issues that the
participants felt should be addressed at this stage
The Project Director (PD) stressed that the Steering Committee is a forum where the
Project countries take ownership and give the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) input,
convey their thoughts and highlight priorities. Ultimately, the Project belongs to the
countries and their feedback is vital. The PCU exists to work for the countries within the
mandate of the Project Document. To this effect, several presentations would be provided
to the participants on the current state and plans of the Project, primarily to give the
countries opportunity to give their input on the future of the Project, and also to report
back on work done to date.
It was clarified that the PCU is hosted by the South African Institute for Aquatic
Biodiversity in Grahamstown, South Africa and the UNDP lead country office is in
Mauritius.
- 11 -
Mr. Claudio Caldarone, the UNDP Resident Representative for Mauritius/Seychelles
delivered formal opening remarks. He stated that he was pleased to be at the meeting and
very excited for the future of the Project. He noted that it is a complex and ambitious
project with many stakeholders and challenges, representing two large LMEs spanning the
territorial waters of nine countries as well as high seas areas. He reminded all present that
the project can not be effective unless it is anchored in the eight participating countries.
Furthermore, there are Policy implications for participating countries, particularly through
the SAP process. Mechanisms of Governance and Policy-level ownership will need to be
created early on in close consultation with participating countries to ensure successful
implementation of the SAP. UNDP Mauritius/Seychelles Country Office are committed to
their role in supporting the ASCLME project, the TDA and SAP process, the Project
Director and staff of the PCU, the Steering Committee and all Project stakeholders.
Dr. Johann Augustyn, Chief Director, MCM/DEAT, representing South Africa as the host
country, then welcomed all partner countries to South Africa, and expressed pride at
hosting the first ASCLME workshop. He hoped that South Africa would be playing a
prominent role in implementation of the Project, along with the other country partners and
broader stakeholder community. He remarked that in the development of this project,
other regional projects, such as BCLME, were used as examples of how to implement an
ultimately successful project. Indeed BCLME has been successful already. However,
ASCLME presents a far greater challenge than the BCLME did. He went on to state that if
the participating countries and stakeholders work together, he is convinced that this
project will also work very well. Dr. Augustyn echoed Mr. Caldarone's feelings of
excitement at the launch of this Project. Scientists in the region were particularly excited
by the BCLME project, and expected that this would be repeated in the ASCLME. The
management of fisheries and the ecosystem requires a strong scientific basis that would
provide information to the SAP. He noted that in the BCLME project, the SAP was done
prior to project implementation, but that the method being followed by the ASCLME of
data collection informing the SAP was more exciting still. He remarked that, for the
benefit of the participants, Durban is an important tourism destination within South
Africa, and that the hosting organisation, uShaka, was a fantastic facility and that DEAT
were very grateful to them for offering this facility and support to the First PSC and
Inception Workshop.
Akiko Yamamoto, UNDP Pretoria, Regional Portfolio Manager then spoke on behalf of
GEF International Waters, Eastern and Southern Africa. She has recently taken over from
Nik Sekhran on the 1st of January 2008. She was very pleased to be at this meeting, and
expressed a hope that the impacts of the ASCLME would last far longer than the
Implementation Phase. She noted that this is an International Waters project involving
environmental issues. UNDP would like to mainstream shared transboundary water
resource management by the implementation of appropriate policies in the participating
countries. The project will be cross-cutting across sectors, and effects could be felt in
poverty reduction, in helping countries to meet Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
particularly in the management of coastal fisheries and the socio-economic impacts these
have on communities. Impacts would be identified with a view to identifying solutions by
following GEF's TDA/SAP approach. The SAP directly assists countries in reaching this
- 12 -
vision, whilst the TDA provides the baseline information that guides the management and
policy detailed in the SAP. The UNDP is committed to the successful development of 2
TDAs and 2 SAPs, for the Agulhas and Somali Current LMEs. UNDP will also ensure
effective coordination between ASCLME, WIO-LaB, SWIOFP and ACEP. The
coordination between these related projects is very important and ASCLME has been
assigned this role. The Steering Committee will play a vital role in this process both
regionally and nationally. Furthermore, effective coordination between all IW projects and
other projects, particularly environmental GEF projects is essential. As the GEF
implementation agency, UNDP aims to maximise synergies and minimize or eliminate
duplication between projects. BCLME is a success story from which we can take useful
lessons. UNDP would like to ensure that this sister project and the successful
implementation in the countries shown by BCLME will be reflected in ASCLME. Ms.
Yamamoto then conveyed greetings to the Steering Committee from her predecessor Nik
Sekhran, who had anxiously awaited this day to come, that this was an exciting but
challenging project; we are fortunate in that we are working with dedicated and committed
people from the countries, and that he was almost sad to be handing this project over.
Finally, Ms. Yamamoto said she looked forward to working with the various project
partners in the future.
Next, the election of a Chair for the meeting was held; David Vousden suggested that it
might be appropriate if one of the Country representatives were nominated and invited
proposals. The floor proposed Johann Augustyn (South Africa) to take the chair and this
received general support, so Johann Augustyn (the Chair) was elected to Chair the rest of
the Steering Committee meeting.
The Chair again welcomed delegates to the meeting, and stated that if his first impressions
were anything to go by, Akiko Yamamoto was at least as enthusiastic as Nik Sekhran and
is looking forward to similar inputs from Akiko in future as those that Nik had given in
the past.
Next, the attendees briefly introduced themselves to the other delegates.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair asked if there were additions to or suggested changes in the proposed agenda.
As none were received the proposed Agenda was formally adopted.
Summary of Implementation Progress
The PD reviewed actions taken since preparation of the project had been completed. These
included:
Steps that had already been taken to establish the PCU in Grahamstown, including
an outline of the process to establish the PCU,
- 13 -
A review of procurement, progress with staff recruitment, and project activities to
date. He explained to the PSC that data are absolutely vital to the Project, so a
fairly heavy investment in suitable IT infrastructure had been made.
The PD expressed thanks to UNOPS for their help with procurement of this infrastructure
and other invaluable assistance during the establishment of the PCU. He also briefly
outlined the planned staff complement for the PCU, pointing out that most of the posts
were under recruitment through approved and transparent UNOPS procedures. He noted
that Claire Atwood had been contracted as a Media Outreach consultant, with strong
recommendation by UNDP partly on the strength of her previous work on BCLME. He
briefly mentioned a new post for consideration by the Steering Committee that he would
ne presenting for discussion during the meeting, namely that of a Policy and Governance
Coordinator. Dr. Vousden drew attention to the fact that, given the additional tasks
assigned to the ASCLME, a detailed review of Project Outputs, Activities and
Deliverables was undertaken to ensure that all the required outcomes could be met on the
original budget. Several opportunities for representation and awareness-raising about the
project had been taken in various international meetings, including a launch of the Project
at the Joint Abidjan and Nairobi Convention CoP in Johannesburg in late 2007. Finally it
was noted that, in view of the urgency for booking ship's time, several meetings on vessel
logistics and deployment have already taken place specifically with the agencies
responsible for scheduling the vessels, particularly the FAO/Nansen and the MCM/ACEP
partnerships. IRD has also expressed an interest in possibly providing ships. Details of his
presentation are available as Annex 8.
The Chair remarked that is was clear the Project Director had made significant and
positive progress since his appointment in September. He mentioned that ASCLME
should look at establishing partnerships and linkages with other organisations collecting
data, for example SAEON, which plays a pivotal role in South Africa in long-term
environmental data storage, and have expressed interest in collecting data more broadly
than just within South Africa. He suggested making Project data available through
websites and so on, and that it would be important to gain access to existing databases in
the region held by other organisations, such as the CSIR. He also stressed that the Project
should slot in with existing data initiatives in the region rather than duplicating them.
With further regard to project data and creation of synergies with other partners it
was noted that:
In the Report to the First Project Steering Committee and Inception Workshop
(Annex 7) supplied to delegates, there was an item concerning samples for KMFRI
for an ACEP cruise, which he was not aware of having been sent to KMFRI.
Caution should be exercised in making strong linkages with other organisations
where not all countries are involved, such as ACEP; such relationships should be
examined by the Steering Committee. The PD noted the sensitivities around data,
and said that in later presentations, data handling would be discussed, and the
- 14 -
Steering Committee would ensure that appropriate policies and procedures would
be created to ensure data security and safeguard ownership.
That there were many avenues for synergies and collaboration between ASCLME
and WIO-LaB. WIO-LaB has been waiting for ASCLME to begin for quite some
time; synergies will be particularly strong in the data and information fields. He
suggested that one single regional system should be used for data and information
management. The Nairobi Convention Clearinghouse Mechanism already exists,
with designation national focal institutions in each of the countries, aside from
South Africa, which is the only country not yet fully involved. The PD responded
that he would be examining these and other potential avenues for collaboration and
regional data-sharing and management.
It was stressed that within the region there are a number of projects already
collecting extensive amounts of data, and that the ASCLME documentation called
for further data-gathering. In order to avoid duplication of research effort, the
question was whether there would be collaboration between these projects,
mentioning the Nairobi Convention Clearinghouse Mechanism and ReCoMaP
specifically. The PD replied that this was indeed an important issue. He agreed that
there were a number of initiatives, not all of whom are working closely together.
He felt it that it is essential that all the projects working in the region should aim to
cooperate in order to maximise synergies and eliminate duplication of effort. He
added that he would like to offer the ASCLME as a major regional project that
could act as a catalyst to facilitate this process of greater inter-project
collaboration. He did not, however, necessarily see ASCLME as the ultimate data
repository and would welcome opportunities to collaborate with any regional
initiatives on this. This point was noted by the Committee and it was agreed that
ASCLME should play a catalytic role in coordinating appropriate data collection
and management initiatives in the region where feasible, and where related to the
LME management concept.
It was stressed that it would be important to examine issues around how access
should be granted and what data formats information should be stored in to ensure
compatibility between the various projects.
Dr. Angus Paterson, the Executive Director of SAEON, outlined SAEON's involvement
in Long Term Ecological Research. In the last 18 months, the organisation has tried to
coordinate all relevant data within South Africa across all data stakeholders. Within the
marine context, SAEON is broken into two nodes, an inshore, coastal node, called
Elwandle, based in Grahamstown, and an offshore node based at MCM in Cape Town.
SAEON has already opened a dialogue with ASCLME through both nodes. Issues of data
ownership have been carefully considered, with clearinghouse mechanisms established,
ensuring that data ownership is maintained, but that up-to-date information is available to
suitable partners such as management agencies.
- 15 -
Dr. Paul Skelton of SAIAB noted that SAEON is an incipient National Facility of the
NRF, a central government institution of the South African Government. Its function was
to generate and store long term environmental monitoring data, with regional and global
relevance and linkages. In the past, ACEP has been working in the data and information
fields much more broadly that just the areas in which is has been directly researching,
particularly though involvement in major regional initiatives such as the African Marine
Atlas.
Review of Revised Outputs, Activities and Deliverables
The PD presented a review of the revised Project Outputs and Deliverables. He reminded
the Meeting that the Project Documentation was signed over two years ago. As this is a
dynamic region, it was appropriate to revisit the Project Outputs to ensure that they were
still relevant. Project Documentation is sometimes delivered very quickly without as much
stakeholder involvement as might be wished for and, in this context, the GEF and Steering
Committee added additional requirements to the Project Document almost at the last
minute before the document was signed. Whilst the documentation was suitable to pass
through the GEF process, it is not necessarily an appropriate framework to work from. Dr.
Vousden explained that, working closely with Manager from the project preparation phase
(David Laroche), he had now reviewed the logic of the process the Project expected to
follow in the coming years. Whilst the process has been revised, the overall Objectives
and associated Outcomes from the original Project Document have not changed but have
simply been refined to be more streamlined and logical to follow and, in line with this, had
devised a more efficient work plan for Steering Committee approval.
He stated that it was very important to ensure steps were taken towards quality assurance
and one of the most appropriate mechanisms would be to ensure a flow of peer-reviewed
publications arising from cruises.
Given the urgent need to claim ship time, the PCU had reserved time on the Nansen, with
training early in 2008 in the Cape Town region, and a survey of the East Coast of
Madagascar later in the year. Some ships time would likely be available through ACEP,
but this was not yet finalised and would depend on the imminent review of proposals to
ACEP; MCM's generosity in providing ship's time to ACEP was mentioned, as was the
developing partnership between ASCLME and ACEP which would allow a significant
amount of this time to focus on ASCLME related activities which are, in any case, closely
aligned with ACEP's plans and objectives. In this context it was noted that a high
proportion of ACEP ship-time was most likely to be concentrated in South African and
adjacent waters, although it may be feasible to venture further afield in pursuit of some
research activities. With this in mind ASCLME was planning to try and coordinate a
balance of ship scheduling whereby the Nansen could be focused more on work further up
the east coast of the continent and out over the Mascarene Plateau. While the MCM
vessel(s) could be scheduled for work closer to South African waters so as to effect
necessary economies in fuel and steaming time.
- 16 -
Under Output 2.1, he suggested that the LME Indicator Specialist would identify key
ecosystem-level indicators for ecological processes, governance issues, ecosystem stress
reduction, and environmental status indicators such as water quality parameters, etc.
He stressed the need to ensure that appropriate information and knowledge collected
through the ASCLME Project needed to be processed and packaged in such a manner that
it could be directed to Policy-makers in the participating country. This would help to build
ownership as well as to provide the necessary briefings and lead-in sensitisation prior to
drafting of the SAPs. He reminded the participants that the TDAs would be factual
documents that would reflect the real-time situation within the LMEs whereas the SAPs
would be negotiated policy and governance responses to the TDAs to resolve issues and
impacts and to implement an effect long-term management programme. The SAPs would
need to be signed by Ministers hence the need for packaging of appropriate information
into policy-level briefing documents during the TDA process and building up to the SAP
development phase.
Finally, Dr, Vousden and noted that this was the largest GEF LME project in terms of it
actually covering two LMEs (Agulhas and Somali) as well as the Southern Equatorial
current and the Mascarene Plateau (as per the Objective wording of the project
Document). This, in effect, meant that the overall focus was the western Indian Ocean.
The full presentation is available as Annex 4 below, and Annex 9.
Following a refreshment break, there was a discussion of matters arising from the previous
presentation. The following points and observations were made:
Re. existing studies such as Nansen cruises in the regions from the 1970s, the Project
should obtain the resulting data to be used as a baseline; perhaps the data might also make
a comparative dataset for assessing ecosystem level change. In the context of the need to
brief policy-makers on the aims, objectives and achievements of the ASCLME Project, he
noted that with the BCLME project, reporting on the measurable socio-economic benefits
of transboundary, ecosystem-level management was vital in selling the project to
politicians, thereby lead to the establishment of the Benguela Current Commission.
The offshore component of BCLME was strong, but that the near-shore or onshore
components were less obvious; political support, especially in the context of East Africa
and the western Indian Ocean, requires a near-shore component. Short policy statements
should be extended into more detailed documents that would help to ensure that the policy
makers understand the issues, not just at a senior governance level but right down to the
local level. MPAs, local community impacts of fishery closures and restrictions would be
key issues in which to sensitise policy makers. It was further noted that national
institutions for data collection and management have often been established, but we need
to make sure they still retain such a capacity to manage data, and give them support where
capacity, either infrastructural or human, has been eroded. This could be a very valuable
contribution from the ASCLME Project.
- 17 -
That there should be formation of a working group on information management. It was
noted that Mr. Harrison Ong'anda of Kenya is also Chairman of information management
for SWIOFP, and that SWIOFP and ASCLME could work together in this areas. He It
was mentioned that an arrangement between ASCLME Project and ACEP whereby ACEP
would extend the activities of their new Coordinator to work closely with ASCLME for
Cruise Coordination and ship scheduling. It was further noted that a Cruise Coordinator
was supposed to be based in SWIOFP, but that ASCLME takes up this role as it is already
up and running unlike SWIOFP, and that in this context SWIOFP would wish to be
included in this new arrangement. On the issue of Data sharing and ownership, countries
have signed a specific MoU within SWIOFP around these issues. He promised to give a
copy of this document to the PD. As a point of information it was noted that SWIOFP was
intended to start in 2007, but this has not been possible as all country signatures have not
been forthcoming.
A representative of the ASCLME Project noted that the intention of the agreement for
shared cruise coordination mentioned in the preceding presentation was for
ASCLME/ACEP cruises, not to assume responsibility for all regional cruises including
SWIOFP. This arrangement had been made in an attempt to overcome the shortfall left by
the absence of the shared Cruise Coordinator (between SWIOFP and ASCLME) which
was supposed to be funded by SWIOFP. THE ASCLME project could not afford to
postpone arrangements for cruise and ships scheduling any longer and had thus reached
this useful agreement with ACEP. However, financially, it would not be viable for
ASCLME/ACEP to assume such an overall coordination role at the ASCLME Programme
level for all 3 Sister Projects. Nevertheless, SWIOFP's processes and needs would be
taken into account where appropriate within ASCLME/ACEP planning processes.
It was observed that there was a need to think of priorities and cost effectiveness,
including cruises which would lead to development of TDA and SAP. The Project is
ultimately assessed on these; $12.2m is a small amount given the geographical scope and
5 years of the project. Information for TDA and SAP development must be the priority.
Due to the risks associated with operating in Somalia, it is not really possible at this stage
for UN staff or consultants to actively operate within this country's waters or on the
ground but that the Project will do what ever it can to include pertinent knowledge within
the relevant TDA using existing data sources, remote sensing and modelling.
It was confirmed that the Project will focus on use of specialists from the region wherever
possible, but will bring in outside experts if this is considered to be necessary and
appropriate. However, such personnel will come in not only as experts but also to build
regional capacity.
It was discussed and noted that a TDA is not a negotiable document inasmuch as it
represents factual statements regarding the LME and its well-being. However, these facts
should be verifiable and this verification agreed. The SAP, on the other hand, is a
negotiated document as it represents an agreement between the countries regarding policy
and action to address the concerns identified within the TDA. The SAP must be signed at
senior policy level. In this context there is a clear need for sensitisation and awareness-
- 18 -
raising at the policy level during the TDA development, and direct involvement from
policy-makers and their representatives during the evolution of the SAP in order to build
understanding and ownership of this document
An observation was made that the Committee members now had a better overview of what
is expected. However, he noted that the Somali LME would need further work, possibly
beyond the lifecycle of the current project, and that Project should be careful about not
giving the impression that it had fully addressed the Somali LME by way of detailed input
to the TDA during this first Project. It was also felt that more effort was now needed to
promote the overall ASCLME Programme. It may be the perception within UN/GEF that
there is a programme, but this is not necessarily the case within the countries. One way to
redress this situation might be to more closely engage institutions in the countries
themselves as part of the Project/Programme so that they can sell the programme approach
to the countries. These institutions would become Project "salesmen". It would be
dangerous, even if we had the best SAP in the world, if we do not have policy-level `buy-
in' and therefore it is vital to `kick-start' the actual implementation of the SAP at the
policy level as early as possible during the TDA phase.
The Chair strongly supported this last point and stated that political buy-in was absolutely
crucial. The existing process identifies national initiatives which are bought into at the
national level. Some issues may change with changes in government etc, but in general,
the engagement of the policy level is essential for the long-term success of the SAPs.
These SAPS do not stand alone but have to be implemented through national institutions
and entities and these bodies must be on-board and supportive.
The PD agreed and noted that an integral part of the SAP would be to identify the national
structures, mechanisms and long term resources to implement the SAPs. He added that the
SAP negotiation stage would hopefully allow countries to negotiate at the policy level to
ensure an effective route for implementation is actually identified, agreed and captured as
part of the final documents.
Timeframe concerns were expressed. If the Project is starting off with identifying data
gaps, cruise plans, etc. have the priority (research/data) areas been identified to any degree
that allows one to discuss cruise scheduling and priority areas for targeting oceanographic
and coastal studies? The TDA process can only follow when any gaps have been
identified and actions agreed to address these gaps.
The PD responded that in the proposed time schedule, cruise/oceanographic work is
limited to 3 years, mainly due to funding constraints. Also, by end of the 4th year, the
TDAs should have been developed so that negotiations are underway for the SAPs. The
TDAs may not be all-encompassing or perfect, but will represent the best job that can be
done with the available resources. It must be remembered that the LME management
approach is a dynamic process; it does not stand still but is constantly being fine-tuned to
take into account changes in knowledge of the region. Although we are starting the
process now, it should be seen as a long-term commitment. So, as it will almost certainly
not be possible to capture all the requisite data for the TDA within this period (in view of
- 19 -
all the gaps), the countries therefore need to agree on priorities for this first stage and
understand that the TDAs and SAPs will need updating as more information becomes
available.
It was further noted that the BCLME Project started is implementation phase with a TDA
and SAP already approved. This is the first time the GEF has supported a project where
TDA/SAP is being developed during implementation and this is therefore and
experimental pilot project in many ways. We have identified as best we can the priorities
that must be taken into account within the SAP. Need to build in provisions to take into
account research priorities of the countries. Note that we are not just talking about
ASCLME; need to include WIO-LaB and SWIOFP into an over-arching TDA/SAP as
final product. Given the uncertainties he felt that it was difficult to say to what degree the
Project Document had included a definitive list of issues that the countries need to address
at regional level, and that these should be reviewed and updated.
Dr. Skelton explained a little about ACEP's anticipated research programme. He noted
that the programme is funded for 5 years, and that the first financial year is nearly over.
ACEP is currently planning and developing its research programme for the next 4 years
through a research proposal process. In terms of dove-tailing ACEP with ASCLME, it was
important to have a very clear idea of the priorities for ASCLME. He felt that the research
processes being proposed and decided in the next 2 months by ACEP would be highly
relevant to ASCLME.
It was noted that Professor Johann Lutjeharms has already done some work on elaborating
possible joint cruises with SWIOFP. However, he accepted that these were not definitive
as the Steering Committee and the countries would need to agree that these suggested
cruises are their priorities.
The PD informed the meeting that the following day there would be more time for open
discussion around some of these issues. He noted that the Committee and the Project
needed to come forward with a process to agree what these priorities would be.
The WIO-LaB project director stated that there was a lot of scope for synergy between the
projects related to the Programme. In fact, he noted that there were a lot of synergies
already in the activities and structure, and that there existed 3 years of WIO-LaB
implementation that could be used to support this. He noted that considerable work has
been done on Data management, Capacity Building and a Training Needs Assessment
while similar assessments have also been undertaken by ReCoMaP. The results of further
work on stakeholder involvement and education also exists. During its early stages, WIO-
LaB created a stakeholder list, which they would be willing to share with ASCLME. As
well as WIO-LaB, he noted that both FARI and WIOSEA operate at the regional level and
that the methods used by all of these entities could provide useful lessons and practices
that ASCLME might be able to employ. At the national level, he noted the importance for
WIO-LaB of the inter-ministerial committees and how it may be appropriate for ASCLME
to use the same structures here as developed by WIO-LaB. He also noted that a number of
educational needs assessments had been done and that it would make sense to align these
- 20 -
between the Projects. Under Output 4.1 dealing with IW Coordination he was pleased to
note the intent to coordinate between the projects at the technical level which he felt was
an important requirement. He noted that the LMEs Coordination Meeting set up by
Nairobi Convention secretariat had proved to be a useful method of cooperation. So,
clearly structures have been evolving in the region and it would make sense to build on
these. He felt that it might be worth considering combining the socio-economic
assessment and the fisheries research. He further offered his assistance in working with
the ASCLME Project to develop the associated ToRs. In terms of WIO-LaB, he noted that
they had identified more gaps than existing data so far. He also felt that WIO-LaB was
clearly more involved in near-shore work whereas ASCLME was generally focusing on
offshore and that a linkage needed to be developed.
The PD agreed that such a linkage between near-shore and offshore data within the TDAs
was important. Although ASCLME has been tasked with overall coordination he wanted
to make it clear that ASCLME was not the lead project but that all 3 Sister Projects were
equal partners. He agreed that a lot of things were already running which the ASCLME
project could build on. Many partnerships are already underway. ASCLME, SWIOFP and
WIO-LaB need to discuss what has already been done, not only by the three Projects, but
by other programmes and organisations in the region.
A question was asked of what would now be the practical steps to kick off the project in
the respective countries. There are a number of committees referred to in the Project
Document. It was noted that Inter-ministerial Committees for the ASCLMEs Programme
were to be created. What the terms of reference were for these and other committees.
Further the question was asked whether government employees would be eligible when
sourcing regional and national experts. The representative of Kenya noted that in Kenya
there was a concern that they were not sure of the demands of the project which they
considered to be worrying in view of it having gone through its Inception Phase. This also
related to human resources and to how they would address any inadequacies in personnel
in terms of meeting their national commitments to the Project. He also felt that the needed
a clearer understanding of the role of the focal institutions. He referred specifically to the
outcome dealing with the training of oceanographers and wondered (as an issue of
capacity building) at what level they would be trained? He also felt that it was becoming
increasingly clear that the Project and its aims would need a policy organ of some kind,
similar to a Commission. He noted that the arrangements for dealing with the countries are
very different as far as SWIOFP and ASCLME are concerned and that the way funding is
allocated is also different. If money will be going to countries then what accounting
processes will UNDP/GEF require? He was also concerned that if the project were to rely
too much on consultants to steer activities then this might compromise capacity building.
The PD responded to the various concerns raised by Kenyan member. He noted that a lot
of practical steps would need to be taken next in order to move ahead with the various
activities. Over the next 6-8 weeks he intended to prepare a draft national work plan for
the countries so that they could see what would be expected of them at the national level.
This would not initially be a detailed plan, but it would define what needs to happen
sequentially, and would lead to the identification of national focal agencies. With regard to
- 21 -
the inter-ministerial committees, he was aware that such committees may already exist
through other projects or national requirements. Now they would need to find if these
might be appropriate for ASCLME? Would they need to add some different representation
from other Ministries? Clearly some priority national activities would be to identify what
national data already exists. The countries need to identify where they feel there are gaps
in the available data. Data and information working groups will work to identify these.
Cruise coordination groups will decide on what the priority oceanographic information is.
Further questions would include `What capacity do the countries have for oceanography
and what do they need to build'? How are students for training selected for the research
cruises and how will we ensure they get the right training? If there are students, how do
we get them on the ships with the right training to be productive on board? The PCU will
have to coordinate closely with each of the countries to address this. Continuous
communication will be essential and there will need to be dialogue between meetings. He
noted that another speaker would be providing details on the various committees
mentioned in the Project Document in a later presentation. The overall structure of these
committees and working groups is in review, but he wants to be sure that they will
respond to country needs by identifying what level of person would be needed on these
committees and groups. In response to the question on the use of consultants, he
mentioned that the project would be focusing on using local and national consultants
whenever possible. However, for specialist skills that might be needed occasionally on
research cruises, etc. then it may be appropriate to seek outside expertise. Whenever this
was the case, this would be done in concert with regional people to ensure training and
skills transfer. Any use of external consultants would be undertaken on a capacity-
building basis.
The PD continued to explain that in terms of capacity for supporting the Project, each of
the countries have different levels of preparedness. It will be important to set up national
working groups to identify capacity building needs, so these can be adopted and acted on
fairly fast. In terms of which focal institutions would be appropriate for the project, it
would be valuable to find out from WIO-LaB which institutions they use but they may not
always be appropriate to a Project that extends into deeper waters. To some extent, the SC
members represent some of the institutes already. Even thought there may be sensitivities,
he noted that it would be valuable to review what institutions should be represented on the
Steering Committee and in other committees and working groups. He further noted the
support of the Steering Committee for a project policy organ. He pointed out that it would
not, at this stage, be realistic to attempt to identify how much money will be going to
which country. It may have been that the SWIOFP project was developed in such a
manner that each country was given a specific grant of money, but the ASCLME project
does not work in the same way. As a regional project, the idea is to build capacity so that
there is an equal level built across all the countries. This may mean that some countries
require more assistance than others.
The UNOPS SC member responded to the Kenyan member's question on necessary in-
country arrangements for accounting for any funds provided by the Project. He confirmed
that government officials could be engaged provided that they obtain written authority
from their government in the form of a release letter from government service for the
- 22 -
period. In line with what the PD had said, UNOPS did not envisage per country
disbursements as such. Funds will be channelled through individual travel allowances and
individual consultancies with the appropriate regional people. There will be different
forms of contracting on a case-by-case basis, so he did not foresee a need for any special
financial or auditing arrangements.
The SC representative of the Nairobi Convention Clarified for clarification of section
1.2.B of the work-plan (Key knowledge gaps in near-shore (artisanal/subsistence)
fisheries updated, nursery areas and other rich biological habitat mapped or otherwise
identified using existing information), that the Nairobi Convention could contribute as
they had been involved with IUCN MPAs and could therefore provide a link to this on-
going processes. He agreed to stay in touch with the PCU on this issue. Furthermore, on
2.2, (A region wide socio-economic valuation of near-shore marine goods and services is
undertaken to gain greater understanding of the social and economic importance of these
areas) he would also like to add his own offer to assist with drafting the ToR alongside
that of the WIO-LaB project director. He also noted that some of the time schedules were
a little optimistic in the work-plan in that the identification of a person, getting them on-
board and then getting the activity started appears to require only one month.
The PD responded by noting the need to get some of the more urgent activities fully up
and running in months. He pointed out that one of the reasons for selecting UNOPS as the
Executing Agency is that they are very skilled at fast-tracking contracting and recruitment
and generally have very effective and rapid procedures that still meet all the required rules
and regulations for the Implementing Agency (UNDP). He pointed out that he would
rather set a tight deadline and try to stick to it (and maybe slip a little) than to allow things
to become too relaxed and find that the project has fallen too far behind.
There followed some general discussions about the need to align the timing of certain
meetings between various projects and even combine some, particularly those looking at
best lessons and practices which might possibly be expanded into a combined forum for
regional IW coordination. There was also discussion regarding the design of the website
and whether this would be a Programme website for all the projects. It was agreed that
each of the projects would need to have independent websites but that a common portal at
the programme level would be the most appropriate way to go. This would allow all of the
Projects to see what was happening across the Programme in terms of meetings and
activities. This should lead to better coordination of meetings to save people time and to
cut down on costs. One suggestion was to link this to a common portal through the
Nairobi Convention.
This then led to a discussion about the sort of information that might be on the website
and general views on information dissemination. One question raised was whether there
would be a specific workshop to discuss data and how countries would cooperate on
information sharing. It was agreed that there would be workshops of this nature and one
avenue that should be explored would be the use of the Nairobi Convention Clearing
House rather than creating a new system of information handling and distribution.
- 23 -
It was observed that both discussions on website design and information handling would
need input from technical people. In the case of the website(s), experts on information
technology would need to hold discussions on the best solution, given the objectives of
each project.
It was pointed out pointed out that SWIOFP's data coordinator is Harrison and that the
ASCLME Project could deal directly with him on matters relating to data handling within
SWIOFP.
Review of Budget and Approval of Work Programme
The PD presented a review and update of the Project Budget [Annex 5, below]. He
pointed out that the budget in the Project Document was presented as a UN ATLAS
spreadsheet which can be rather confusing for those not used to it. He therefore presented
a more straightforward version based on actual expenditure levels. This demonstrated
clearly that a high percentage of the GEF funds would be delivered at the national level or
to recruit expertise locally and regionally. The overall budget was still US$12.2m but the
distribution had been improved so that over 60% of the funding would be going to
countries. Only about 1% would be allocated to international experts and specialists as the
emphasis was intentionally on using people from the region.
The PD presented a table showing the Project expenditure to date but clarified that this
was not 100% accurate and could need fine-tuning by around 5% as the PCU does not
have access to the ATLAS budget at present and will not have until the new
Administration and Financer Officer comes on-board in February. However, discussions
with UNOPS show that the figures are very close.
An enquiry was made under Work Programme point 1.4, ECOMAR, as to why ECOMAR
had been specifically chosen and questioned the budget associated with that item. The
question was whether there would be a ship-time allowance for technicians and scientists,
similar to a DSA? The PD said it was not unusual for GEF to identify pre-selected groups
within a Project Document where there were outstanding reasons or criteria for their
selection. These reasons and criteria should be elaborated within the document and
accepted by the countries by virtue of their formal signature to the document. However, he
referred this question to the Project Preparation Consultant for further clarification. It was
further noted that ECOMAR represents a co-financing agreement with a French research
group concerning heavy metals in seabirds/shorebirds; ASCLME can use data and
assistance from this as co-financing; and can build on their work simply by putting in
some money into POP research, so it represents a valuable opportunity to piggy-back on
an existing research project to accommodate the POPs activity in ASCLME. He then
mentioned that the Stockholm Convention financial organ is the GEF, and that GEF want
to satisfy more than one of their portfolio interests, in this case POPs in addition to
International Waters.
- 24 -
There was an enquiry as to ship board allowances as some governments give such
allowances to nationals joining research vessels; if it is not clear whether or not such
allowances are payable by Projects, then governments will not provide it.
The PD responded that the Project had budgeted a figure of US$25 per day as a "per
diem" on board the research vessels; but that he was not entirely happy with that. He
elaborated on this point, as he did not see why ship-board participants should be paid to
get trained, or for scientists to gather career-enhancing data; furthermore, all out-of-pocket
expenses are covered aboard the ship. He mentioned that it had been explained to him that
precedents had been set by other projects; ASCLME has tried to keep the level down, but
would prefer to eliminate such allowances entirely. The PCU would like to ensure people
join vessels for research interests and training, rather than as a mercenary interest in
making money on the vessel, which is a problem some projects who give ship-board
allowances have experienced. The estimated expenditure of US$25 per day over the five
years is around US$45,000. He then suggested that if the Steering Committee wishes to
revise this allowance, then it is within their power to do so.
It was pointed out that BCLME and BENEFIT had set precedents for this on the West
Coast. MCM/DEAT pay a sea-going allowance to their scientists and technicians as part
of their salary package, and that experienced people expect to be paid for their time.
It was also noted that although not directly about shipboard allowances in terms of
attending meetings, different agencies have different regulations. UNDP does not pay a
sitting allowance to participants at meetings. There was an enquiry as to whether a manual
or guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable could be provided so all can understand.
The UNOPS representative replied that guidelines already exist. The UN financial rules
and regulations are quite complex, however, UNOPS will always guide the participating
countries. No seating allowances are provided although DSAs can be provided. He stated
that the procedure can be elaborated in writing if countries insist or this is unclear.
Essentially, DSAs are paid for every night spent outside the participant's home location; if
food and accommodation are provided by the organisers, then this amount is subtracted
from the DSA, with the balance going to the meeting participant. DSA amounts vary
depending on the destination, even within countries, to take into account the actual costs
associated with spending time there.
Clarification was requested of how DSAs differ from a sea-going allowance? The PD
responded that the sea-going allowance is an extra budget item requested by the Steering
Committee during the project planning phase at one of the SC meetings.
APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET
The PD noted that the agenda required approval from the Steering Committee on the
work-plan and budget, at which point the Chair asked if there were any clarifications,
objections or suggestions for amendment to the Budget, of which there were none.
The Budget was therefore approved.
- 25 -
Presentation on Governance and Policy Needs for the ASCLME
Project/Programme
The PD noted that ideally that the SC member from Tanzania, Dr. Magnus Ngoile, would
have been at the meeting to give this presentation, but that he unfortunately didn't manage
to get out of Tanzania due to difficulties with his travel arrangements, for which he sent
apologies. He was expected to arrive that evening. Fortunately the PD and Dr. Ngoile had
discussed this issue in some detail and therefore the PD (having consulted with Dr. Ngoile
that morning) was in a position to provide the Steering Committee with a brief overview
outlining some of the issues (Annex 10) in Dr. Ngoile's absence, as it was felt that there
were important points for the Steering Committee to consider and decide upon. The
presentation concluded that there was a strong need for a full time governance and policy
person to work with the Project and, indeed to coordinate and liaise across the entire
ASCLME Programme.
In the presentation, the PD also noted that within the early stages of the LME approach,
scientists and technicians are generally well engaged. Now, within the ASCLME Project,
steps are increasingly being taken to involve senior decision-makers at the "Policy level",
but sometimes the Directors [of Institutes and other bodies] and Private Sector decision-
makers can be unintentionally excluded or ignored, which can be dangerous to the long
term sustainability of the process; it was felt to be essential that one does not miss the
"Directive level".
In terms of engaging the policy-makers at an early stage to encourage ownership and
political support, he emphasised that there may be existing Policy level meeting(s) upon
which this process can dovetail; such meetings should be identified and the appropriate
connections in order to engage all those involved in Policy-level decision-making and
acting upon Policy.
The Chair enquired whether "Policy level" referred to Permanent Secretary/ or Director-
General level involvement? He noted that it would be important to engage at the higher
Ministerial level at least once or twice in the duration of the Programme. He stated that
SADC ministers get together once a year, and that as most project signatory countries are
SADC members, perhaps those meetings represent a potential avenue of opportunity for
the Project?
The PD responded that from his experience, it is essential to engage at Minister or Deputy
Minister level in order to ensure that the LME process is truly effective. He suggested that
a body like the African Union could be a possible avenue through which this might be
achieved as well as through SADC as suggested. He noted that one potential problem is
that there are so many Ministers, not only from all the countries, but also different
Ministries within the countries whose jurisdictions may overlap on the LME SAP
implementation; getting all these Ministers together at once seems very unlikely.
- 26 -
The Chair remarked that this issue should be addressed early on and enquired as to what
level did the Steering Committee think it appropriate to engage?
It was suggested that the Nairobi Convention is a biannual event which could be used; it
brings together Ministers of the Environment from all the Project countries. It was noted,
however, that in terms of the overall ASCLME Programme objectives, that meeting is not
attended by Fisheries Ministers.
The PD noted that if the Steering Committee approved the hire of a Policy Coordinator, he
envisaged that one of that person's primary functions would be to identify where this
policy level group would sit, across ministries, if necessary through multiple avenues.
It was noted that the Programme must engage with the Policy level early on. What details
should be given to Ministers, and at what time? A suggestion was made that a two-tier
approach was taken with regards to engaging the Policy Level. Firstly, the Programme
should engage with the Permanent Secretary/Director-General (PS/DG) level right
throughout the Programme's life. At some time during the lifespan of the Programme, the
Ministers must also be engaged. He noted that getting all nine country Ministers in one
gathering, let alone across all the relevant ministries would be virtually impossible. It was
observed that if communication is maintained with PS/DGs throughout the Programme,
then there is a good chance the document [SAP] will be accepted. Another tier of
engagement was suggested, at the ministerial level, which would be more `opportunistic'.
Two existing forums were suggested: Firstly, Ministers of the Environment could be
engaged during a Bureau of the Nairobi Convention, particularly if one or two ministers
are available for a focussed meeting. Alternatively, the African Ministerial Conference on
the Environment (AMSEN) could be used to brief environment ministers on the process of
the ASCLME Programme, and this would keep all the ministers involved. A caveat was
that it would be very hard to get all Ministers in one go, so several approaches would
likely be needed. Two examples of important policy level meetings, where the policy
director of ASCLMEs should engage, were given:
African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (ASMEN)
It was noted that the AMSEN meeting was coming up in June. It was suggested that there
might be options for making use of that meeting. Both the Nairobi and Abidjan
Conventions would also be present and reporting to it. He felt that this could present the
Project with opportunities.
The PD asked who should be approached to organise ASCLME Programme
representation of some kind at AMSEN and either the Nairobi Convention (Dixon
Waruinge) or the WIO-LaB (Peter Scheren) were proposed as possible contacts by the
Committee.
Meeting of the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission
It was noted that another important ministerial forum would be the South Western Indian
Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC). The next meeting would be in Madagascar
- 27 -
sometime in October or November, but not yet finalised and would offer good opportunity
to raise awareness in the countries, particularly in the fisheries sector.
The PD noted he had been unable to attend the previous SWIOFC meeting due to other
commitments and a lack of support staff which he noted would shortly be resolved.
An enquiry was made as to the availability of funding for the policy level position and the
PD responded by assuring that such provision had been made through staff priority
shuffling, noting that despite this re-organisation since the original Project Document
suggestions, the new suggested staff complement would now better enable the
Programme/Project to fulfil outcomes.
The Chair called for objections; none were received; the creation of the post and
circulation of a draft ToR were AGREED with the following additional observations:
It would be vital that someone who has a very good knowledge of the region
would be able to contribute to the Programme in this capacity.
It would be useful if the SC member from the Nairobi Convention were to be
prepared to assist in the preparations of a ToR for this position. The SC member
from the Nairobi Convention agreed.
It was also suggested that the TOR be circulated to all of the SC for approval
and/or amendment. He suggested the title of the position would be Policy and
Governance Coordinator (P&G C).
It was further suggested that a more diffuse network of national people based in
the countries might be warranted. Whilst the ToR would be developed for a
regional position, there should be local equivalent to translate the information and
approach to the local conditions existing in the countries. The Coordinator could
also visit the countries and direct efforts on the ground. Potentially, this approach
could be complimented by having a team at national level within each country. A
particular person or an institution as some kind of focal point for this in-country
activity might be required. The PD noted this was an excellent suggestion and
would only serve to improve country `buy-in'. He requested that this Policy and
Governance should have a focal point in each country to for the Coordinator to
`coordinate' with, whether this was an individual, committee or institution.
Administration and Management Procedures
Dr. David LaRoche, who had been the Project Manager during preparation of the
ASCLMEs project, noted that some areas of his requested presentation (Annex 11) had
already been covered by the PD and that the Steering Committee had already raised and
considered many of the points he was going to discuss. He summarised what the PD had
suggested as the ASCLME Project structure as being:
- 28 -
8. A Programme Policy Committee (PPC): This will be a higher level committee
advising all three ASCLME Programme projects (ASCLME, SWIOFP, WIO-LaB)
and providing guidance at the policy level towards the development of effective
TDAs and SAPs.
9. A Programme Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC): This will be a technical
level group comprised of the 3 project managers and key invited experts,
coordinating action across projects. Although not originally foreseen in the Project
Document the Steering Committee recommended inclusion of ReCoMaP on this
Committee as well as other relevant regional initiatives.
10. A Project Steering Committee (PSC): This would consist of
3.A. A core membership including one representative from each GEF eligible
Country, one representative from each of ACEP, UNDP, NEPAD, GEF, UNOPS
and the Nairobi Convention, and the Project Managers of the other regional Sister
Projects under the ASCLME Programme (WIO-LaB, SWIOFP) as well as
ReCoMaP The Steering Committee also agreed that Somalia should have a special
status as a Country Observer.
3.B. A stakeholder membership of additional observer members as agreed by the
PSC Core Membership. This would include donor agencies providing co-finance
(e.g. France, Norway) as well as technical agencies (e.g. NOAA, FAO)), and
anyone else invited by the PSC to attend.
11. Project Coordination Unit (PCU) based in Grahamstown.
12. Cruise Coordination Group (CCG) (Subset of PCC): This group would aim to
ensure the most efficient use of ship's time amongst the Projects. It would also
coordinate the inputs from the individual national cruise coordinators.
13. Inter-Ministerial Committees (building on existing IMCs in each country as per the
WIO-LaB project).
14. TDA/SAP Preparation Teams
He noted that the Project needs a policy coordinator, who would be able to naturally
communicate at the right time with the right people to turn good science into good policy.
The Project Steering Committee's composition was decided upon by the Project Steering
Committee in the preparation phase of the Project. The PSC can control membership of
SC as required. Some members invited as observer status; Donor and technical agencies,
private sector, NGOs etc. are to be invited as necessary.
ASCLME PSC meetings should be aligned with other project SC meetings at the same
time, so that they can best use Steering Committee members time, and to serve as a
- 29 -
stimulus to attend, so that members don't have to spend so much time in meetings or
travelling to them. ASCLME will need to work very closely with SWIOFP, WIO-LaB,
maybe RECOMAP and others.
Dr. LaRoche recommended the adoption of the two day meeting format which this
meeting followed, with the first day as a SC meeting, with a second day, encompassing
the broader stakeholder community. Countries will need to drive the project, and gain a
real sense of ownership. If no country ownership is evident, the Programme is not going to
work. The suggestion was to make day one a narrow version comprising the SC with just
a few observers or sister projects and others as warranted, whilst the second day would be
at a more technical level based on previous days discussions, and be more inclusive of the
stakeholder community.
The PD remarked that he was very interested to hear the Steering Committee's opinions
on this matter, as the reason this format was adopted was because the countries
specifically requested that they would prefer a meeting first without observers to discuss
procedural issues, country ownership and so on, in the comfort of a small group without
so many outside observers. The Project Director received a formal communication from
Kenya on this, requesting a meeting as the countries and Permanent Steering Committee
members only. This meeting represented the countries and the Programmes; all attendees
were either country representatives or part of the ASCLME Programme or its management
structures. Dr Vousden expressed his comfort in being able to speak candidly with the
countries in this format; whilst some outside people might have useful inputs, they aren't
in a position to make decisions on the same basis as the countries, and potential for
agenda-pushing by outside agencies should be eliminated. He noted a concern that it
would be difficult to decide this in the following day's meeting when observers would be
present.
Discussion of this suggestion followed, and the following points or suggestions were
made.
It was suggested that it would be prudent to go through the two days and see if the PSC
liked this format; and, if successful, this decision could be made following the close of the
meeting and while there was some support for the two day meeting to begin with the
smaller SC meeting without observers, it was generally agreed that the two day format
would suitable for reasons outlined by the PD, who summarized that the dedicated SC
meeting on the second day would ensure that issues raised in larger format could be
discussed by the SC.
The Status of Somalia within the Project
The PD asked the steering committee what their stance on the status of Somalia should be.
Somalia was to be represented at this meeting as an Observer, but the Steering Committee
must decide if they wish to include Somalia as full members of the Steering Committee. If
the steering committee did not feel it would be appropriate to have Somalia as a full
member of the core Steering Committee, then perhaps another status could be created. He
- 30 -
said this was just a suggestion, not a proposal, and would like to hear the Steering
Committee's opinions and decision on this matter.
It was recalled similar discussions took place in SWIOFP during the preparation phase.
Most of the time they relied on the World Bank position on Somalia. The World Bank
advised that they couldn't recognise Somalia as part of projects. If that was still the case,
then he stated his objection to them being full members of the Steering Committee.
After considerable discussion it was concluded that Somalia could have "Observer
Country" status, a role in which it had been invited to the present SC meeting. Some
additional points that were made on this question included:
That the position taken by the CoP [Nairobi Convention] requested UNEP to
support Somalia in its efforts to improve environmental management. This point
was made very forcefully by the Minister from Somalia at a meeting.
That the logistical problems surrounding Somalia's involvement were fairly
simple. Firstly, UNDP cannot engage in work within Somalia; and cannot put
funding or risk the welfare of its people in Somalia; he thought the Somalis
understood this position and the reasons for it, but that he agreed that all wished to
assist the country however possible.
That it is very clear that UNDP cannot send people into Somalia.
That funding can be provided for a delegate from Somalia to attend SC meetings
as observers.
That ASCLMEs projects could spend money in Somalia in a way that would
enable a Somalian organisation to then collect data with local employees on behalf
of the Project(s), as long as it could be demonstrated that the funds were being
used correctly.
That rendering Somalia Observer Status would greatly benefit to development of a
TDA/SAP that was more representative of the Somali Current, rather than just the
East African sub-LME.
The presentation of Dr. LaRoche was continued. He noted that SWIOFP still needs a few
last signatures before that project can be launched, but then the 3 projects can blend the
creation of these inter-ministerial committees and meld with work done by WIO-LaB to
implement overall Programme-level Policy and Coordination frameworks.
As a next part of the presentation/discussion it was noted that there have been complaints
from some countries about research ships coming into their territorial waters, and not
sharing data; this was considered to be a serious problem. The Cruise Coordination Group
- 31 -
should try to minimize and if possible eliminate this, and ensure countries get data
and/or participate in cruises, and that country data needs will be met by cruises coming
into the region wherever feasible.
A question was asked about the composition of the cruise committee, enquiring as to why
the Sustainable Seas Trust (SST) was not represented. It was his understanding that SST
was a likely vehicle for long term sustainability in the region, and asked why they were
also not a member of the Steering Committee. It was noted that SST is not currently
represented on the CCG, however, but the CCG will liaise with all other relevant parties
and coordinate with anyone, including SST. It was further noted that SST is intended to
represent more than just cruises, but that a formal presentation by the SST would be given
later in the meeting.
Mr. Laroche noted that following an initial request from Mauritius, it had been suggested
that ASCLME needs an MoU on data secrecy to safeguard "proprietary", or otherwise
sensitive data obtained within the respective EEZs; countries should have right to hide
sensitive data. If the SC is happy with this, then a document should be drafted for
circulation and agreement. Comment from several SC members reinforced that a request
such as that from Mauritius has clear basis in existing international law.
Additional discussion on the issue of the CCG included:
That there should be more representation within the CCG on behalf of each
participating country. If a MoU were to be signed, it would only be fair that each
country be a member of the group.
That the intention is to hold a small cruise workshop in each country, with
scientific and technical inputs (and representation of a nominated representative
from that in-country cruise group on the Project/Programme CCG).
That any cruise emerging from the CCG should be sent to PSC for approval and
input on expected datasets and cruise/station plans. Cruise planning and
coordination represents a significant and complex process. This should involve
country representatives.
Special note was taken of the key word process, mentioned by Prof. Skelton; a process for
cruise planning and coordination must be created. It may not be the appropriate time to
resolve this now. But the country contact point works with cruise planners and helps to
govern how data will be used. This can be worked out, there needs to be a process that
goes from macro to micro. In-country cruise working groups should also assist the CCG
with appropriate and timely granting of research cruise permits across all relevant
government departments. Previous projects have sometimes had difficulties in this regard,
notably ACEP. Such permitting procedures represent a vital step in the overall cruise
planning process which is often neglected until quite late in the process. Perhaps such in-
country working groups should ensure appropriate representation by research permit-
granting bodies within their membership.
- 32 -
The SC Observer representing SWIOFP remarked that he recently gave the PD a copy of
the MoU developed by SWIOFP to cover data sharing and access. ASCLME may be able
to learn from the SWIOFP experience; he suggested that ASCLME can now go through it,
and borrow what the Project Director thinks is suitable. It took a long time for the
countries to agree on the SWIOFP MoU on this topic.
Other observations and comments regarding Mr. Laroche's presentation included:
A notation that WIO-LaB only has two remaining active years, so it would be
important to coordinate very closely in terms of TDA/SAP preparation as soon as
possible.
A request was made to see an organigram for the Project, which was then
displayed. It was noted that the organigram he represented is old. A feature worth
noting was the science review process. During implementation, people involved in
science need to review the science, both for political "saleability" and
implementation, it should be peer-reviewed and published. The ASCLME
timeframe was increased from 4 to 5 years to assure that all of the work that comes
out of the cruises and workshops will have to go through peer review and allow
time for publication of work.
There were questions about the Project SC (PSC) versus a Programme Advisory
Committee (PAC). In the medium or long term, would there be a move from PSC to just
PAC meetings? Right now, what was suggested is to have a Programme Coordination
layer, which just adds complexity and more meetings. It would be worthwhile to
economise time, as the various Project Steering Committees and their members need to
meet so many times already. Effectively, the PAC and PSC are very similar, so could they
not be combined/merged? Was it considered important by the SC to keep the PSC as it is,
with an additional PAC?
The Chair shared his experience, that through the various projects and programmes he had
been involved in, it would be worthwhile collapsing management structures as far as
possible. If major policy issues are being dealt with a dedicated policy meeting can be
called, but in the past, there was usually very little need for that.
The PD recommended that holding meetings back to back to save money and time makes
a great deal of sense as many of the delegates attend more than one of the Project
meetings. If, for example, a WIO-LaB, meeting is held, a day before or after a meeting for
ASCLME would be held and before or after that, one for SWIOFP and so on. The PCU
are always looking to make things logistically simpler and cheaper. He noted that a final
decision could not be made at the present time as only one Project SC was fully
represented. However, if many of the same people are represented in all 3 PSC meetings,
then it would be worth amalgamating the steering committees. He suspected, however,
that there will be differences between what would have to be discussed by the different
PSC meetings i.e. Land Based issues and Oceanography are quite different; fisheries
- 33 -
management issues at the commercial level, are very different issues from those at the
artisanal level, let alone relative to oceanography or land based sources of pollution.
Although in some of the IW programmes it may work, his recommendation was to go with
"plan A", namely holding meetings on back-to-back basis, so that the projects can save
money and share interests.
The WIO-LaB project manager noted that about 2 WIO-LaB SC meetings remained in the
anticipated lifespan of his project. There would be some sense in overlapping the
meetings, particularly in observers, and some of the NGOs; their next meeting was
scheduled sometime in May, in that regard he didn't see any point in discussing this with
only one full SC. He noted that the function of policy level coordination is rather different
than working with the Programme at the technical level, where they have been working up
until now; these have very different needs. A distinction should be made between
technical and policy levels. On the subject of science validation, he felt that one of the
functions of the SC was usually validation of the TDA and SAP; he felt it necessary to
discuss this further after tea, as this group (Steering Committee) might not be the most
appropriate one for validation.
Dr. LaRoche noted that validation was not a good choice of word in this context. But yes,
the TDA and SAP need to be approved.
After a refreshment break, the meeting resumed discussion of the previous presentation. It
was noted that in the presentation of Mr. LaRoche, the CCG will submit cruise plans to
the SC. Now this SC meeting is nearly finished, and the next one would only be in
June/July, would there have to have meetings between then and now, or would business be
carried out through e-mail?
The Chair recommended that as there will be times when matters arise in between
meetings, there should be regular emails between SC members and other relevant parties.
The PD strongly agreed and went on to say that he would have communication with all SC
members between meetings. He noted that matters inevitably arise in between formal
meetings which should undergo Steering Committee review, agreement and comment.
Bigger and particularly complex policy decisions may have to wait, but day-to-day
management decisions, at his discretion, must go to the SC regularly in order to give the
SC opportunity to comment and be involved.
Review of Agenda for Tomorrow's Workshop
After brief discussion the Chair called for any objections by members of the Steering
Committee to the Agenda that had been covered so far, and for the upcoming agenda for
the second day of meetings? None were received and the agenda for the second day was
approved.
The PD stated that a date for the next Steering Committee Meeting needed to be decided.
- 34 -
A question was raised as to whether there would be a closed core SC meeting at the end of
the ongoing meeting. The PD replied that this should be decided later; he did not think it
was needed at the moment, but if the members of the core Steering Committee felt that
they wanted such a meeting, they should pass that request to the Chair before close of
business. He then called for a date for the next meeting.
TDA Outputs
The WIO-LaB project manager wanted to raise one more point before scheduling the next
meeting - validation of scientific outputs including the TDA, where or when was that
being discussed, and the PM stated that it should be discussed immediately.
The Chair noted that there had been review processes on other programmes; this
programme can learn from those. He did not consider these reviews as true scientific
reviews, but there were scientists involved. The UNDP/GEF review process does not seem
to be primarily a science review, but as this first phase will be very scientific, he thought
that a specific scientific review process was warranted. He enquired whether this needed
to be combined with or separate from a conventional UNDP/GEF Project review, and
directed his reply to
The PD sought clarification on whether the Chair was proposing a review of the SAP at
the same time as the Project Evaluation? He noted that there would be both the midterm
and final review, as standard for projects like this. He could foresee perhaps holding a
scientific symposium that brings the stakeholder community up to speed with the
Project/Programme findings. As far as SAP review, this requires a specific review
process.
The following additional comments were noted:
That a specific scientific peer review process was a novel approach in addition to Project
Evaluation, a standard UNDP requirement.
That the Technical Advisory Committee [PCC] should look at outputs and do peer review
on a scientific basis. For the TDA, WIO-LaB has convened a Scientific and Technical
Committee. The review would take place not only by them but also by scientists from
their institutions not represented on the Committee.
That the panel approach had merit in that pieces of the TDA would have already have
been peer reviewed; the socio-economic study, for example, would have been peer-
reviewed before acceptance. The idea of a panel to review the whole TDA makes sense.
The PM noted that almost every piece of data would go through a quality review process.
Clarification was sought as to who would carry out this quality review process. The PM
replied that the Steering Committee would select appropriate people. For the
oceanography component(s), for example, the SC would select the right people, regionally
and/or internationally. He recommended that the PCU of ASCLME talk to WIO-LaB
- 35 -
about a suitable Peer Reviewer selection process and present a proposal for Steering
Committee consideration.
The Chair noted that one could either appoint a panel from eminent scientists, or you
appoint a BENEFIT-style panel. He stressed the need to be aware of regional concerns
like transformation and this should be kept in mind when considering a proposal for the
Steering Committee.
It was further suggested that the SC should reflect on why this process was undertaken,
namely to enable governments to implement the SAP. As was discussed early on,
governments must have the feeling that that is indeed what the projects are doing, so the
people doing the review must be people that the governments feel will supply appropriate
science from people they trust. He considered that scientifically correct documents would
no doubt come out of the process, but are they politically correct? He noted that FARI
represented a forum of eminent Directors of Institutions who are scientifically and
politically sensitive in the regional context.
The PM concluded the discussion by observing that the TDA needs to be agreed as fact,
and could not really be swayed by political concerns; such concerns were perhaps better
addressed in the SAP process.
The Chair called for Any Other Business.
Next Steering Committee Meeting
It was noted that during May in Mauritius, WIO-LaB was to hold a meeting. The
possibility of holding the next Steering Committee meeting at that time was discussed but
the SC felt that might be too early. The possibility to have WIO-LaB postpone their
meeting to a slightly later date was discussed.
It was noted that in terms of May/June, the dates were provisionally set. Dates had been
sent to the government of Mauritius, but no feedback had yet been received. The UNDP
Resident Representative for Mauritius and the Mauritius SC member thought that a
May/June timeframe for a joint SC meeting was a good suggestion.
After considerable further discussion it was decided that if it were feasible to have the next
Steering Committee as early as June then the PCU should aim to have the next meeting
just before the AMSEN meeting in June, and inform the Steering Committee in due
course. It was further agreed that the projects within the ASCLMEs Programme would
consult on this, and that perhaps a slot at the MSEN meeting should be sought to give
Ministers an overview of the Programme. Last, it was agreed that in a two day SC meeting
the first day would be committed to stakeholder participation and comment and the second
day to a PSC meeting of SC members.
- 36 -
With that, the Chair called on the Mauritius Resident Representative (RR) to close the
meeting.
The RR thanked the Chair, and David for his presentations. He wished to underline two
points of reflection he had during the meeting, but before doing that thanked the
participants who had contributed, not only on how to pronounce some difficult acronyms,
but for their other invaluable input as well. He saw two major nexuses, one being the
region/country nexus. He noted that one tends to emphasise projects as being anchored to
a country, making them more effective. But beyond that, without the countries acting
together, it makes no sense. Regional issues need regional input; it is vital to ensure
regional issues are reflected at country level. He saw the second nexus as being the
science/policy one. He stressed that science without policy will not go far; but noted that
policy also required science to make informed decisions. He considered that a dichotomy
between these two spheres was not needed. These projects should try to be on the
forefront of influencing policy through sound information, and see how it is feasible to do
so. He noted that there had been many propositions for collaboration between
organisations; he considered the Steering Committee as a group should feel comfortable
with the results of this day. He finally thanked all for their inputs, and looked forward to
the next day's meeting.
- 37 -
Proceedings of the ASCLME Inception Workshop -
January 23rd 2008
See Annex 2 (below) for Attendance List
The Project Director (PD) opened the proceedings with a brief welcome and introduced
Mr. Claudio Caldarone, the Resident Representative of the UNDP for Mauritius and
Seychelles, who welcomed the delegates and thanked the host country, South Africa.
The Steering Committee (SC) representative from South Africa, Dr. Johann Augustyn,
then welcomed the delegates on behalf of South Africa. He noted that the BCLME Project
enjoyed political success early on, and that the ASCLME should seek this support early in
its life. He stated that collaboration between countries would lead to better and more
effective management of regional and transboundary concerns.
Ms. Akiko Yamamoto, Regional Portfolio Manager, IW Projects, Eastern and Southern
Africa (UNDP) welcomed delegates on behalf of the UNDP-GEF. She the stated that
UNDP are accountable to GEF to ensure that the funding received from GEF will show
results and ensure that effects will last beyond the implementation phase, by
"mainstreaming" the SAP into country policy across the region. There exists an
established TDA/SAP process. 2 TDAs and 2 SAPs for this Programme will be created
across the three sister projects. She stressed that it would be important to avoid duplication
and maximise synergies between all regional GEF projects that affect MPAs, CZM and
LME management. UNDP would like to ensure the success of BCLME is duplicated, and
that prior lessons learnt would be reflected in this workshop.
She described two objectives for this part of the ASCLME project meeting: first, in terms
of the overall Objective, there is a need to review outcomes and outputs with expertise in
the region; second, there is a need to review the total work-plan and budget, taking into
consideration that the Project Document was finalised some time ago and may therefore
need changes in order to make delivery more rational. Much of this review has already
been accomplished on the first day of the meetings by the core Steering Committee
members.
The PD then gave a brief overview of the core Steering Committee meeting on the
previous day, which had been called for by the countries themselves, primarily to discuss
procedural matters, which he said was successful, informative and useful. He remarked on
the good cooperation evident between countries and Programme sister agencies. The
Work Programme was reviewed and approved by the Steering Committee, the budget
discussed, and the meeting reached a successful conclusion. He noted that one point
emerged clearly as being of particular importance, namely how vital the issues of policy
and governance are to the success of the LME process; this one of the five LME modules
usually gets the least attention from Projects and Programmes. He remarked that the TDA
and SAP need to move forward in concert, together with a simultaneous process of
awareness-raising and sensitisation at the policy level, so key decision-makers are aware
- 38 -
of the TDA process and so that when the SAP arrives, it does not represent a mysterious
and unexpected document. He stated that a very specific mechanism that would focus on
briefing and informing the policy level stakeholders was discussed and provisionally
agreed upon, namely that there should be a dedicated section and activity within the
project coordination unit specifically to ensure this vital module receives appropriate
attention. He expressed his opinion that it would be appropriate for a member country to
take the chair for the day's proceedings, and proposed that the country participants should
select a chair for the meeting.
Election of Chair-Person
The SC member from Kenya, Mr. Harrison On'ganda welcomed the new participants, and
proposed that Magnus Ngoile from Tanzania should be elected as Chair. As there were no
objections to this proposal, Mr Ngoile assumed the Chair.
The PD offered apologies on behalf of Ali Mohammed from NEPAD, who had recently
sent notice that he would be unable to attend either day of the meetings.
The Chair apologized for having missed the first day of the meeting due to travel
difficulties, and hoped the Chair from the previous day, Johann Augustyn, would provide
input and guidance where necessary.
The delegates then briefly introduced themselves to the meeting.
The PD mentioned that Claire Attwood, who was tasked with developing media press
releases and so on, would be circulating around the delegates and may have discussions
with delegates, and requested their cooperation. He then stressed that there was a great
deal of ground to cover in this workshop. In this context pointed out that he had a number
of presentations which it was necessary for him to give in order to define the current status
of the project and its future needs and deliverables but that he wanted to emphasise that
his presentations were not to be taken as being proscriptive and were very much open to
discussion, debate and review within the overall context and objective of the Project
Document. If changes had to be made for the sake of achieving a more rational work-plan
and set of deliverables then now was the time to address this. He requested that delegates
particularly mention areas where they feel gaps may be present within the proposed plan,
and what actions might be needed to address these.
Summary and Update of the ASCLME Programme and Project
The PD began with a presentation summarising and updating the current status of the
ASCLME Programme and Project [Annex 12] One particular point that was stressed
during this presentation was the critical importance of capturing the support of policy-
makers at an early stage and how the development of clear socio-economic indicators will
be particularly important in engaging such policy-level support for the LME approach in
the region. Ho noted that the previous day's Steering Committee had discussed this and
agreed on some specific actions to support this requirement.
- 39 -
The SC member from the Comoros enquired why under the Data Management area, it had
been said that data will be stored by the Project until a repository was agreed. Why not in
country now? He also mentioned the existence of the clearing-house mechanism. He felt
that a true sense of ownership of the Project would only be felt if the countries had
ownership of the data. In the event of its being stored somewhere in South Africa, he
didn't feel a sense of ownership. He mentioned a perception that ACEP/SAIAB had done
cruises in Comoros and that the data were apparently not repatriated to the Comoros. He
felt it important to change the tendency of outside agencies to collect data and not
repatriate it; a true sense of ownership would only be instilled once countries have access
and house their own data.
The PD fully endorsed and sympathised with the concerns raised and sought to allay these
concerns by better clarification of the intent. He said that by "storing" data in the PCU, he
did not wish to imply that new project data would be exclusively housed within the PCU
and only be accessible through the PCU. All data would be shared with the appropriate
countries and would be accessible to the LME management process as a whole. He
clarified that the initial responsibility rests with the country to provide country-level data
to the Project for use in gaps analysis and in development of the TDA. He wanted to
emphasise that such data sent by the countries to the PCU will be safely and appropriately
stored by the project. However, the sovereign rights of the countries to proprietary or
sensitive data would be retained. Where applicable to the various countries, and under
appropriate agreements, it will be shared, but ultimately, the data will belong to the
countries and will be stored in the countries as well as in the PCU.
The Observer from the NOAA, which he noted had been involved in the LME process for
a long time, wanted to commend the PD on an outstanding presentation, and identifying
the key issues that make an LME project different from many other project types that have
a clearly defined start and an end. He particularly supported the concept as presented that
LME projects instead have a start (in terms of work) and a beginning (in terms of actual
implementation). The importance of governance is paramount from the earliest stages of
the project process; however, the end of the project phase that creates the TDAs and the
SAPs is not the end of the overall process, as the LME approach is intended to be a long-
term, country-based management approach to resource management. Policy-level
engagement and involvement in the Guinea Current LME has gone through two political
parties successfully (in Ghana). In this context he noted with some interest that the
opposition presidential candidate for Ghana will already know about GCLME if he comes
into power. This point was made to highlight the importance of policy level `buy-in' at an
early stage and the identification of governance processes as a high priority.
The Chair enquired as to whether all the deliverables were achievable given the resources
had remained the same but the scope of the project had increased. Discussion followed
and a number of observations and comments were made. It was noted that it was not
entirely accurate to state that the resources remained the same. They are, however,
insufficient for comprehensive data-gathering at the field level, particularly from coastal
areas. In this context it was seen as important to understand that the TDA and SAP
process was not a `one-off' approach but should be seen as a dynamic and continuous
- 40 -
process that would need to be improved and expanded as resources and time allowed. The
TDA and SAP process therefore transcend the life of the initial ASCLME Project and can
and should be added to and improved as part of the on-going LME management approach.
In order to respond to this need it was therefore important to design a sustainable LME
management approach that included appropriate mechanisms for reviewing gaps and
needs, and addressing those gaps and needs (i.e. though on-going monitoring and data
analyses)
It was also noted that the extra inclusions in the delivery from the project (e.g. coastal
artisanal fisheries, larval transport, socio-economics, etc) had addressed critical gaps
which would be vital to the development of effective TDAs and SAPs and thus critical to
the overall success of the Project. The inclusion of the inshore, coastal fisheries modules
also made the Project more appropriate to the needs of the coastal communities and thus
more relevant to the concerns of policy-makers and would result in stronger support than a
purely `blue-water' oceanography project might have received. Ultimately, they have
brought the project a human aspect, and far from being a strain on the budget, will be
integral to its success.
The PD recognised, however, that the budgetary concerns were very valid and had been an
issue since the Project started. In order to address this concern, the PD and the PCU had
undertaken a revision of the project, whilst still staying within the guidelines of the Project
Document. This had been presented to the Steering Committee and approved by them the
previous day. The changes are not huge, as the outcomes remain the same. However, a
more appropriate and logical set of activities and deliverables have been put forward
which now serve to address many of the concerns raised regarding the expanded
requirements for information capture for the TDA process.
There was some discussion of previous LME projects, particularly the BCLME. It was
noted that this project will be very different to BCLME, primarily due to the importance
and impacts of artisanal and subsistence fisheries on the east coast of Africa and within the
western Indian Ocean. The other GEF projects (WIO-LaB & SWIOFP) are missing this
component, despite its importance, and therefore the responsibility has fallen to the
ASCLME project to fill this gap. But in view of the limited resources given by GEF, it is
now vital to prioritise on information capture and much of the information used for
populating the TDAs will, as a matter of financial constraint, have to come from existing
data. The improvements and streamlining done to the project activities should help
considerably but we will still need to go back to the experts in the region and ask what the
priorities are and what is most vital to concentrate on, particularly in terms of A. coastal
subsistence and artisanal fisheries data and B. offshore within the limits of the 200 or so
days of ships time. Also we need to identify what valuable socio-economic information
can be gathered on a limited budget? The ultimate goal of the revision to the Project
activities was to fill the TDA and the 5 modules of the SAP with the most important
management information we can obtain over the lifespan and within the budget of the
Project.
- 41 -
The Observer from the RECOMAP commented that the above discussion highlighted the
need for regional inter-programme coordination. ReCoMaP, a 10m programme, have a
lot of resources to deliver at the coastal level. Activities between these two projects could
perhaps be coordinated by partitioning activities or geographical areas. Aside from these
two initiatives, there are other regional programmes run by Conservation International and
WWF particularly on MPA issues, and many other important sub-national projects doing
relevant work. At some stage it should be defined what projects work on what issues.
The Chair summarized the discussion and concluded that the various comments and
feedback indicated that people understood the issues at hand, and that additions and
amendments made since the original project document are extremely important. Funds
will be insufficient to do all the work that might be envisaged, so careful strategies will
have to be created to do the required work. It will be important to build and maintain the
correct perceptions of the Project and LME process in the region, as the wrong perceptions
can be very damaging. The Monitoring and Evaluation process needs to be strong.
Ultimately, a practical TDA and SAP are required. It should be a target to coordinate with
and make best use of existing funding in the region by communicating with the other
projects in the region, find synergies and avoid duplication.
The Chair called upon the PD to continue with the second part of his presentation.
(Update on Implementation Progress during Inception Phase (October December
2007)) [Annex 13]. The presentation covered the various activities undertaken related to
project Inception and Implementation (including office procurement, recruitment,
attendance at regional meetings, etc). On conclusion of the presentation, the PD echoed
Dr. Ngoile's sentiment that the lack of questions from the floor did not indicate a lack of
interest, but was more a reflection of the fact that the room was already well informed and
had already discussed many of the issues on the previous day.
The PD concluded his remarks related to the presentation by noting that the point raised
earlier by ReCoMaP regarding the need for close coordination between the various
national and regional initiatives related to the coastal and marine environment was
particularly important. He suggested that there is often a lot of talk about coordination, but
that it rarely happens effectively. If a way can be found to link project activities in the
region, this may be a way of addressing many shortcomings in the financial situations of
various initiatives. He stated that he would be in touch with ReCoMaP and other regional
projects in due course to examine potential partnerships.
The Chair commended the PD on project progress made to date,
A question was raised as to whether an attempt was being made to reflect the different
nations involved in the Project through the staffing of the project, particularly as it can
help in long-term sustainability of the LME process.
The PD responded that in any recruitment process, the best and most appropriate person
should be appointed to the job on the basis of merit. Efforts were being made to ensure the
recruitment and selection process is done throughout the region. The selection process is
- 42 -
done independently by more than one person based on responses to advertisement. So far,
there has been very close agreement on short-listings for suitable candidates. However, it
is not easy to find suitably qualified candidates within the region and this reflects the fact
that one of the aims of the project is to address the lack of regional capacity in these fields.
He noted that there were more trained, qualified and experiences people in South Africa
than in the other countries, and applicants from there usually have stronger backgrounds
and CVs. In this context he felt it was appropriate to use expert skills from the region to
build capacity rather than to bring such expertise in from outside the region, and that using
experts from one participating country to capacity build trainees from other participating
countries seemed both appropriate and desirable. The UNDP ensures that there is
transparency and correct procedures are followed in the recruitment process. Other criteria
could also be used to assess candidates. These included language capacity in the regional
languages. In terms of the Policy and Governance Coordinator's post, the relationship
with key policy makers in the region would also be a critical selection requirement.
The PD also pointed out that the limited project budget meant that generally local
recruitment could only be considered, which does not allow for relocations costs and other
international recruitment bonuses. This meant that there was an inevitability that a high
proportion of the recruitment resources would be going into South Africa, which was a
reflection of the fact that South Africa was making the largest contribution in terms of in-
kind funding, particularly in hosting the PCU and providing research vessels. In order to
balance this, it was suggested that more activities and resources should be mobilised at the
country level thus providing important capacity building funds to other participating
countries. This could include having designated support staff in various countries.
Steering Committee members are generally busy people and having some level of support
staff in-country, even temporary or short-term, would be valuable.
Following a short break, Dr. David Laroche, the Project Manager during the preparation
phase of the ASCLME project then gave a presentation on a Review of the TDA and SAP
Delivery Requirements for the ASCLME Project/Programme. [Annex 14]
He noted that the ASCLME Programme was originally going to be four projects; the
fourth was going to address issues in the coastal zone, but never materialised. Issues of
coastal fisheries, communities and socio-economics were not therefore really addressed in
the three projects. Realising this oversight, GEF and the participating countries added
these important issues to the ASCLME Project.
The Chair commented that the region has previously acted in concert through mechanisms
such as SWIOFC and the Nairobi Convention, spanning both LMEs. By doing 2
TDA/SAPs, would this not break continuity? It was pointed out that this was the approach
agreed by the countries with GEF. The SWIOFC and the Nairobi Convention were more
political in nature and spanned two LMEs not one so it was not a matter of continuity but
more one of the ecosystem approach being addressed within the wider political sphere.
The WIO-LaB Project Manager expressed concern about the Programme-level creation
and implementation of the TDA/SAP process, as WIO-LaB has already been going for
- 43 -
several years, whilst the other two projects are only starting now. It was noted that the
purpose of the three projects was to produce a combined TDA and SAP delivery and that
the delays in implementation between the three projects had not been expected. However
it was not the intention that the delay in delivery from ASCLME and SWIOFP should
hold back the countries from implementing the TDA/SAP findings and requirements
resulting from WIO-LaB and that the implementation of that specific Land-Based SAP
could feasibly go ahead prior to adoption and implementation of the overall LME SAP,
most probably through the Nairobi Convention.
Concern was also raised regarding the inclusion of another level of bureaucracy in the
Programme by way of a Programme level Steering Committee. It was clarified that this
Committee was not supposed to be a Steering Committee as such but was supposed to be a
Policy level guidance and advisory Committee made up of policy level country
representatives (e.g. Permanent Secretaries, Director-generals, etc). The intention was not
to create and additional level of bureaucracy, but to ensure that policy issues are dealt with
at the programmatic level (i.e. at the level of the full LME TDAs and SAPs)
The PD noted that this had been discussed at the previous day's Steering Committee
meeting, He clarified that the proposal was essentially two Programme level groups, a
Programme Technical Advisory Committee, which would deal with inter-Project
coordination, and a Policy Coordination Committee (although the names can be
amended as appropriate) and the latter was essentially targeted at Permanent Secretary
level and intended to engage the Policy-level in the TDA/SAP process. It would meet
perhaps once a year, if possible. He also mentioned that the Steering Committee had
proposed a two-tier approach for this Committee to try and target the ministerial level, as
well as through opportunistic meetings linked to ministerial meetings of the AU or to
AMCEN. This group was not intended as a Programme-level Steering Committee,
usurping the Project-level Steering Committee functions. It was further explained that this
needed to be viewed in the context of long-term sustainability. There probably would not
be any Project-level Committees still existing in 15 years time, but a Programme level
body should still be functional as part of the ongoing LME process.
It was suggested that it would be useful to see updated organigrams to examine linkages
between the various projects and the programme level as it would give better insight into
implementation. The PD agreed that these would be developed from the now-amended
originals following the changes made by this Steering Committee, and would be circulated
as soon as possible but certainly before the next Steering Committee meeting.
It was further noted that on the West Coast, the Benguela Current Commission (BCC)
deals with LME issues. He enquired what the vision was for the East Coast in terms of
long-term LME oversight. The South West Indian Ocean Commission exists to which
SWIOFP will report, but that only covers fisheries. Will something similar to the BCC be
implemented for the east coast LMEs? In response to this and other comments Dr.
Laroche replied that this issue had been raised repeatedly during the preparation phase.
Many people had questioned the need for a new body, when several, like IOC, IOTC,
Nairobi Convention, exist, and could perhaps be slightly modified to fulfil this need. Two
- 44 -
very different LMEs are being covered here, and the only body that encompasses all the
member countries is the Nairobi Convention, but this may not be an entirely suitable body,
as the member institutions don't have the mandate to address all the Programme-level
issues.
The PD added that the structure is being developed to negotiate at high level how the
implementation of the SAP will happen; whilst discussions could carry on for a long time,
ultimately, the decision-makers make the final choices. This is another strong justification
for strengthening the policy and governance activities of the ASCLME Project and for the
need for a coordinated Policy level Programme Committee.
Dr. Laroche returned to the issue of timetabling the TDA/SAP process mentioned by Peter
Scheren. He suggested that there may be problems, but the greatest problem might be
placing multiple TDA/SAPs in front of Ministers for their signatures. Explaining the
multiple-project approach to the Minister and making them understand the whole suite of
projects might be impossible in the short contact time usually granted by Ministers.
The floor noted that what Ministers really want is options for potential models from which
to work. These models can then be debated for their good and bad points and feasibility
when the PSs or Ministers get together. It was also noted that that there seemed to be some
confusion regarding the SAP. The SAP is not a proscriptive and fixed process but is
negotiable. Each country has an opportunity to adjust the SAP to their local conditions.
The SAP must take into consideration existing processes and strategies at both the
regional and national level. UNDP emphasises that implementation must mainstream the
SAP into national development policies and strategies, whilst remaining consistent with
national policy. If it does not do this, the TDA/SAP process will face challenges.
It was suggested that the structure and delivery of the TDAs and SAPs within the context
of the three Projects and the overall Programme could be made an agenda item for the
next Steering Committee Meeting as these issues clearly needed more time for debate and
so as to allow the current meeting to move ahead.
The SC member from the Nairobi Convention questioned why, if WIO-LaB products
could be ready in 2009, should they wait until 2013 for implementation?
The Chair stressed the importance of careful planning to incorporate what could have been
done in 6 TDA/SAPs into only two. Early engagement of the Policy level to foster
understanding will be critical, and it will be important to show delivery and positive
impacts within the countries if the SAP is to be signed. He suggested if WIO-LaB had
found urgent and pressing problems, a means to implement corrective measures before
2013 should be found. Creation of a long-term mechanism for SAP implementation and
monitoring is something that can be considered in the future. Steering Committee
members should foster understanding within their countries.
Offshore data capture for the LMEs - The Oceanographic Component of the
ASCLME Project
- 45 -
Johann Lutjeharms then gave a presentation entitled Offshore Data Capture for LMEs
Priority areas within the two LMEs requiring further knowledge on biological, chemical
and physical parameters using an ecosystem monitoring approach. [Annex 15]. This
constituted a brief overview of the oceanography of the region and the planned
oceanographic work during the ASCLME project based on the priorities defined in the
Project Document.
In summary, this region is one of the most poorly studied in the world; existing data sets
show large gaps. A full-scale understanding of what is happening will take at least 30
years, and a great deal of resources. A prioritisation exercise has been conducted to try and
decide what are the most critical areas for management-related understanding. One high
priority must be a full survey of the east coast of Madagascar, which has not been done in
the past; information will go right up to the coast and will be pertinent to inshore
management and is therefore not just `blue water' oceanography. Another priority is the
Agulhas Bank which needs a synoptic survey that includes oceanography. Whilst a lot of
fisheries work has been done on this Bank, the oceanography is relatively poorly studied.
Kenya and Tanzania also have priority survey stations to be addressed through the Project
and which also extend right up to the coast. It was noted, however, that the CSIR has been
undertaking studies and research in Durban related to the movement of effluent discharged
from pipelines (they wish to avoid pollution on the tourist beaches) showed that there was
no way to understand inshore currents without a comprehensive understanding of the
offshore currents and this needed to be taken into account when planning cruises. A study
of at least one island system within the region is also proposed. Mauritius had been
selected but the choice is flexible and it may be possible to include another island system,
but there is no way to do all the islands or even one island in each country. The intention
then would be to use this as a case study, and bring other island-based oceanographers
onto the expedition to take part therefore building capacity in most of the islands.
So the first research cruise proposed would be for east Madagascar. Here it is important to
do CTDs for the whole coastline in one cruise and this would represent the first time in the
history of oceanographic research that this area would be surveyed. This should provide a
whole new perspective on this ecosystem, defining what is there and allowing discussion
to begin on how best to manage it. The fact that the survey is designed so that a lot of the
stations go right to the coast is highly pertinent to the management of artisanal fisheries.
Professor Lutjeharms closed with the comment that this Project brings with it the promise
of tremendous regional capacity in oceanography and understanding of the region's
oceanography. He believes that when we look back in 10 years time, we will be able to
look back and say that the whole process of understanding has changed immeasurably due
to the ASCLME.
The Chair enquired if sufficient ship time was available for all of the proposed work, and
what was proposed for the Mascarene Plateau. Prof. Lutjeharms replied that he had
examined the available ship's time versus the survey needs and was confident that the
proposed cruises could be scheduled fit into the currently available ship time. He repeated
- 46 -
that there is no way the entire region can be covered, and surveys on the Mascarene
Plateau would constitute enormous distances for the ships to travel. He felt that proper
modelling linked in with remote sensing information will be the only way the entire region
can be covered at any level.
The SC member from South Africa enquired what ACEP's contributions had been and
what it would contribute. Prof. Lutjeharms said that it was his understanding that ACEP
was the mechanism by which South Africans would get involved in the ASCLME
research and represented the bulk of South Africa's co-financing for the ASCLME.
The PD stated that this really stressed the importance of cruise coordination. Some ship's
time from ACEP has been proposed, and it was understood that MCM will be allocating a
number of days per annum for research in South African waters. The PCU is working hard
to build relationships with ACEP and MCM so that we can more effectively access this
time, particularly that which is directly relevant to the ASCLME priorities. It would seem
sensible to deploy South African vessel(s) close to home, and the RV Fridtjof Nansen
further afield, perhaps operating out of other ports along the eastern seaboard such as
Maputo, Dar es Salaam and Mombasa. He addressed the issue of the Mascarene Plateau,
noting that whilst cruises there would be ideal, in reality there are significant limitations
by way of funds for purchasing ship's time that effectively means that a lot of the `survey'
effort for this are will have to be dealt with using Remote Sensing and Modelling, but he
did emphasise that an greater understanding of this area will be vital in view of its forcing
function for the ecosystems to the West. The addition of the Mascarene Plateau has been
ratified by the countries and included by GEF, so it has to be addressed somehow. There is
a table in the Project with a prioritised `wish-list' of oceanographic research. Realistically
it would not be possible to complete all of this research through the ASCLME Project
Therefore there needs to be further prioritisation in order to ensure capture of the key and
critical information for development of the TDA. It was necessary to make a commitment
to the East Madagascar cruise in order to ensure that ASCLME did not lose ships' time
with the Nansen for 2008 (as this vessel is in great demand). The PCU will circulate a list
of the proposed priorities for surveys to the countries for their consideration and approval.
It was suggested that another regional project to work with could be AMESD, which
provides satellite imagery to African countries with EU funding. They could use cruise
data to ground-truth their RS data.
A question was asked on how often CTD lines would be done; a true understanding of
processes would realistically require repeat visits or other long-term data. Prof.
Lutjeharms replied that this was a good solid scientific question; within the funding and
availability of ship's time, repeat visits within the lifetime of the Project were not
foreseen; Information gathered through RS data has not shown particularly large
seasonality in many areas. Where there are known differences in seasons, more than one
cruise is planned. In terms of deploying long-term instrumentation, this would be
appropriate and desirable, but we would need a way of retrieving the instrumentation and
data. Whether this is feasible or not would be easier to decide once there is a fuller cruise
schedule.
- 47 -
The need for careful coordination of cruises between SWIOFP and ASCLME was stressed
with a note that it is not always easy to share a ship for different functions. Prof.
Lutjeharms replied that this had already been examined and SWIOFP intends to mainly
use rented trawlers and was not planning to use the Algoa or the Nansen. However, where
possible, sequential cruises should be to similar geographical areas in order to collect
ecosystem level data that is directly compatible.
It was observed that the animation of the model shown by Prof. Lutjeharms showed the
influence of eddies in the region and was it therefore planned to examine these features?
Prof. Lutjeharms replied that they were blue-water oceanography, and not a priority within
the bigger picture, at least for now. However, there is a cruise planned along the coastal
areas of Mozambique which would cover some of eddies and their inshore effects. Again,
modelling could be a very cost-effective way to gain a better understanding of these
features and functions.
The Observer from THETIS added that their group (IRD/THETIS) planned to do
observations concerning eddy productivity in the Mozambique Channel. Perhaps there can
be some cooperation on cruise planning and data sharing.
The PD responded that he had developed a revised set of priorities based on time and
available funds but that he was conscious of the fact that he had not yet had a chance to
share with the countries, but have been discussing with the Platform (vessel) owners, as
this requires early coordination. The next important step will be a cruise coordination
workshop which would include SWIOFP. He noted that he had already spoken initially
with Jean-Francois about THETIS and IRD, would certainly like data from the project, but
if they have ship's time available, that would be even better. This also led him to note that
there was originally a Cruise Coordinator in the agreement between ASCLME and
SWIOFP, but this seems to have lapsed. ACEP may be able to assist ASCLME with their
cruise coordination to some degree, but this would probably only be a temporary measure.
The Chair mentioned that in the past, data ownership had been a highly contentious issue,
with most international cruises not repatriating data from the territorial waters in question.
Countries have not felt ownership of cruises or data. It will be important to change the
mindset from informing the countries that a ship will be there to having the countries
inviting and welcoming the ships into their waters. He recommended the creation of a
mechanism to quickly inform countries of the results of cruises. He said that there was
sometimes too much of an emphasis on "capacity building" which ended up with qualified
professors on board ships; instead have them aboard as true participants. "Working
Groups" have often actually ended up as "Talking Groups". He felt it was time to change
this approach and to try to ensure that participants have their names on the resulting
documents and a sense of ownership. He stressed the need to make use of potential inter-
project links like AMESD and THETIS.
The Observer from the Sustainable Seas Trust added that the technical expertise of the
countries is often not represented on the Steering Committee. Yet such people should be
- 48 -
involved in the planning, not just receiving the documentation. But in this context there is
still a clear need to develop capacity.
The PD replied that the Cruise Coordination Groups will be selected by the countries at
the national level and will agree on their representation at the regional level. At the
regional level it will include both oceanographers and the owners of the platforms. The
intention is to ensure proper process and ownership in each country.
There was a brief session later in the day in which research cruise priorities were shown to
the meeting. It was mentioned that ACEP could nearly double the available ships time, so
this help would be gratefully received; ASCLME will be closely involved in the ACEP
project selection. SWIOFP expressed concern about not being able to attend planning
meetings as they were not yet up and running. The PD noted this and welcomed SWIOFP
involvement at any stage.
Following the Lunch Break, Dr. Rudy van der Elst of the Durban-based Oceans Research
Institute (ORI) gave a presentation entitled Priorities for Data Capture within the LME
Coastal Zones.
He stressed that South Africa in particular had invested in much research in the Atlantic,
due to the greater economic importance of this area to the nation. There is, however, huge
under-reporting of artisanal catches in the ASCLME region; estimates suggest that 91% of
the total catch in Mozambique is artisanal, and there is much greater economic
dependence on this than on large industrialised fisheries such as the West Coast. There has
been considerable work in developing small scale fisheries research in Mozambique. A
related development is the WIOFISH project, http://www.wiofish.org. The socio-
economic aspects of these fisheries are poorly understood. Quite a lot of non-peer-
reviewed data is available. There is knowledge of what gaps there are, but this is not
formally documented. In terms of improving livelihoods, an important aspect is improving
delivery of catches to markets in good condition. Fishing is sometimes poor; fishing
tourism may be a viable alternative. Until you can put a value on the economic activity, it
is difficult to market to the policy level. In terms of governance, some good work is being
done on existing legislative frameworks in the region, for instance TRANSMAP,
http://www.transmap.fc.ul.pt/. Much of the information is available (as metadata) from
http://www.transmap-metadata.org.za/. The relationship between different sectors is
poorly understood; inshore fisheries may harvest juvenile prawns, affecting the industrial
fishery, but local communities sometimes utilise trawler by-catch. Dynamite fishing is one
destructive method that is often targeted, but there are others that would benefit from
better management. HIV/AIDS is having a negative impact on labour-intensive fisheries.
Impacts of natural disasters and coastal erosion are poorly understood. He noted that data
and information capture for the TDA development process would focus on the standard
LME five cross-cutting modules, namely: Productivity, Fish and Fisheries, Pollution and
Ecosystem Health, Socio-economics and Governance. It is important that countries give
input in these areas so that any gaps can be identified.
- 49 -
Following there presentation, there were a number of comments and responses. It was
noted that there were many issues involved in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries
management. The proposed approach was seen to represent an opportunity to examine
ecosystem processes and how they operate, which will require input from oceanographers.
Also, it was noted that other projects working in LMEs may have useful information such
as the Norwegian funded artisanal fishing programme in Angola and that it is vital that
other work, such as things being done by e.g. ReCoMaP, is not duplicated but is
recognised and captured within the ASCLME process.
Another comment focused on the importance of feeding information back to communities.
SWIOFC had a task force to look into artisanal fishery data collection. Most countries
now have some mechanism in place for doing this.
The PD welcomed this input and invited any guidance to the PCU on how to proceed. He
suggested the preparation of a work plan or ToR on Coastal Zone issues to be circulated to
the SC (to include a list of priorities for review and amendment) for comment and
agreement. If necessary, this could lead to a separate workshop. He noted that it was now
vital that countries confirm their priorities on all LME related issues and not just fisheries.
He further pointed out that, in various discussions, there was some confusion over what
"Transboundary" meant. Within the GEF LME context, it is the transboundary effects that
are important and not necessarily specific transnational issues. For example, in the
BCLME region, mangroves are only found in Angola, but the fisheries effects of their
management affects all three countries, therefore they should be understood and
addressed through the TDA, and there welfare should be considered in the SAP. Particular
point sources in one country can have far reaching effects, yet the actual management
intervention may be required in and by only one country. They still need to be addressed
and managed as the issue/effect can be transboundary. With further discussion from the
floor, he suggested that the WIOFISH project might be expanded and used as a starting
point for the Programme data needs in this area.
Dr. Warwick Sauer then gave a presentation on Priorities for Social and Economics
Assessments that are required to support TDA and advise the SAP process. [Annex 16].
He started by noting that Rudy van der Elst seemed to have summed up the artisanal
fisheries well. In the context of the BCLME, it was only later on that the importance of
understanding the economics of the system was realised. ASCLME should address this
issue at an earlier stage to ensure policy-level `buy-in'. During the talk, a pause was taken
to discuss the relevance and importance of offshore fisheries. SWIOFP has the obvious
mandate for this sector in terms of the TDAs and SAPS, whilst ASCLME has a more
inshore focus. Discussions covered the interactions between small-scale and industrial
activities, and between different small-scale activities, relationships between foreign and
local fishing rights, and the revenues and economic benefits associated with that. It was
stated that these issues are poorly understood, but will be important for creating policy-
level interest and understanding and for development of effective management
mechanisms. The concept of resource rent was identified as particularly interesting to
policy-level decision-makers, and just how important the fisheries and other ecosystem
- 50 -
services were to the economies of the countries. Both governance and socio-economics
were identified as factors which have been neglected in other LME projects. In addition to
the more obvious consumptive use of marine resources, an understanding of the tourism
industry would also be important. Healthy coastal habitats should also be assessed for
economic value, such as mangroves and coral reefs. Showing the economic effects of
particular management interventions will be helpful in selling SAP to policy-makers, and
in the mainstreaming of the SAP into long-term national policy. It may be worth studying
the implementation of alternative livelihoods not dependent on fisheries.
The PD proposed that a document should again be created and circulated around the SC
for comment and to kick-start an action plan. The Chair proposed that Warwick Sauer
(EnviroFish Africa and Rhodes University), Rudy van der Elst (ORI) and Neville Sweijd
(CSIR) should coordinate with each other to develop such a ToR for coastal activities
related to ASCLME along with a list of priorities for the countries to review and amend as
necessary.
Gap Identification
The PD then called for gaps to be identified which were not specifically addressed in any
of the Projects. It is be important to finalise this now and to ensure that nobody points out
a glaring omission in three years. Several topics he put forward for consideration which
were not in the original Project Documents of any of the ASCLME Programme Projects
included:
ˇ Marine Pollution
ˇ Invasive Species
ˇ Socio-economic study of industrial fisheries.
He stated that ASCLME only has $12.2m, but these critical issues must be addressed in
order to develop a comprehensive SAP, and mechanisms to enable this to happen must be
sought. He called for additional input on gaps between the coverage by the various
projects in the Programme. The PD noted that he would send out a formal request to each
country to review the intended data collection focus and to ask for feed-back on any gaps
in the overall TDA information collection process.
Many of the activities are worded specifically "using existing information", which does
not imply collection of novel data/fieldwork, but rather, analysis of existing data sources
to provide at least some management information. Some gaps may have no available data,
in which case some mechanism, perhaps a RAP, must be envisaged. This is an unfortunate
reflection of the limited funds available for the Project. The scale of the problem is
somewhat daunting a very broad range of stakeholders, including local communities and
the private sector, as well as governments and research organisations, and a massive
geographical area. With the additional requirement by GEF (endorsed by the countries) to
understand the forcing functions of the current across the Mascarene Plateau, the
ASCLME Project is now essentially dealing with most of the western Indian Ocean.
- 51 -
Some critical gaps may require outside expertise to be brought in to assist with studies.
However, this should always be done in a manner whereby we can ensure capacity is built
within the region and this must be a routine part of any contracts with outside agencies or
individuals. Wherever possible local and regional expertise will be used.
Input from the floor stressed the need to ensure that appropriate capacity is built, and then
retained. "Capacity building" has supposedly been happening in the region for a long
time, but still there seems to be a need to build it.
The issue of timely delivery and action on the SAP and other outputs from WIO-LaB was
raised once again. The Project Manager for the preparation phase of the project (David
Laroche) responded that there were two main mechanisms that could be used to expedite
implementation; one is to create a separate SAP early on if there is something constructive
and actionable, and get it to Government. The second way is to ensure that country
members are fully involved in the process. If country-based personnel are truly involved
in the TDA/SAP development process, it is likely that what is stated in the SAP will
already be actioned on the ground long before the SAP is formally signed and ratified at
the country level. As long as there is sufficient involvement of the correct people from the
various countries, 2013 will not be the start of the delivery and action from the
Programme as it will be implemented sooner.
One the topic of marine pollution and its absence from the mandate of any of the three
ASCLME Sister Project, the Project Manager for the WIO-LaB shared his opinion that
80% of pollution in the sea comes from land based sources and therefore any aspect
dealing with marine sources of pollution could probably be quite minor. However, the
development of indicators to assess coastal resources would be important. He saw
identification of spawning and nursery areas as key gaps in knowledge, and linking land-
based activities to fisheries.
The PD for ASCLME responded that significant marine traffic travels through the area.
Marine pollution may be considered less significant in terms of constant and chronic
effect but one-off incidents (such as tankers running aground, etc) can have massive
impacts that can last for a long time. It can be possible to mitigate many of the harmful
effects and impacts if proper management and contingency plans have already been put in
place. To reach this situation it is therefore necessary to include marine pollution in the
TDA and SAP process.
Another point raised from the floor was that the inter-linkages between components did
not always seem to be fully explored, for instance, how oceanography might tie in with
spawning grounds and influence larval transport.
The Chairman decided that the meeting now needed to move on, and additional points
should be brought to the PCU's attention in correspondence.
- 52 -
Following a short break, Rudy van der Elst informed the meeting that a tour of the uShaka
aquarium facilities had been arrange for 9.00 am on the next day for any delegates that
wished to attend.
Returning to gaps, it was noted that in relation to marine pollution, Madagascar is
currently prospecting for oil and this could present a significant threat. Additional
information for use in the TDA may be available from the EIA. Development of marine
highways may also present potential problems. The marine highways project does not
include a long-term monitoring programme.
Community/Stakeholder Participation
The UNDP-GEF representative stated that in terms of community/stakeholder
participation, ASCLME was partnering with EcoAfrica. The DLIST programme will
function as a channel to bring community opinions to the development of the TDA. This
was one of the key aspects when the Project was approved by GEF.
Data and Information
Ms. Lucy Scott then gave a presentation on Mechanisms for National and Regional
Coordination for Data Capture and Management. [Annex 18]
Ms. Scott returned to an earlier concern that was raised over data repatriation in the
Comoros. ACEP did not have coelacanth data from Comoros, but they were conscious of
other foreign teams who took all data back to their country of origin without leaving any
copies behind. This same team also worked in South Africa and did not leave copies of all
data behind when they worked there, despite being mandated to do so by contract.
Concerns were raised that it appeared that the PCU was planning to create entirely new
data warehousing mechanisms, for instance, bypassing the work done on the Clearing-
House Mechanism. Linkages between different organisations were considered important,
particularly in the sense of sharing data.
Ms. Scott replied to these concerns saying that it was not the intention of the PCU to
create entirely new mechanisms, but instead to leverage and enhance existing platforms.
She also stressed the need to be aware of those parties that did not have good access to the
internet and come up with alternative data dissemination methods. The PCU would of
course have in-house data management systems. It will be vital to ensure whatever
mechanisms are used, that data custodianship is taken seriously and is sustainable in the
long-term.
A need for a MoU on data access and confidentiality was also expressed. The PD replied
that it was indeed the intention to have a MoU on appropriate data sharing and safeguards;
a copy of the existing SWIOFP one has been obtained and will be used as a model to
develop an appropriate document which the countries can ratify.
- 53 -
Media and Communications
Claire Attwood, consultant to the project for communications and media interaction, then
gave a brief presentation on her role in Media communication for the Project [Annex 19].
During the short period of discussion afterwards, the idea of an ASCLME film, similar to
the BCLME's Current of Plenty was discussed. It was agreed that this could be very
informative, and particularly persuasive to decision-makers if aired on national TV. It was
proposed that there could be an instructive video developed in the early stages of the
Project to advise and to encourage ownership from senior stakeholders. This could be
followed up with another such video toward the end of the Project showing what had been
achieved and demonstrating the way forward for long-term LME management. Claire
stressed the need for dedicated policy briefs in addition to this.
Ms. Attwood continued her presentation stating the need to make public documentation
have strong human interest and to directly involve the policy level. It was agreed that steps
should be taken to ensure this. It was also asked if there would be local communications
activities in each of the countries, which Claire Attwood replied would be the case to
some extent. Care would be taken to ensure material production in not only English but
also French and Portuguese. Akiko Yamamoto, UNDP, suggested a focus on how the
Project is assisting with MDG achievement in the countries; the UNDP country offices
would then be excellent channels to distribute information.
It was also mentioned that an entire TV series covering appropriate issues could also be
successful. This was done in Zanzibar and has worked well. Malagasy soundtrack films
are also desperately needed. It costs relatively little to redo the audio tracks once one
considers the initial costs of getting the footage and editing the film. The use of local
experts, who are attuned to the political and social sensitivities in each country and who
could examine the films, should be taken into careful consideration.
A workshop on a Programme-level web portal was also discussed as per similar
discussion under the Steering Committee meeting the previous day and was given support
by the meeting.
The observer from the SWIOFP inquired as to the availability of using the
communications expert as was agreed in the Project Document. It was explained that
Claire Attwood was not the Communications expert but was an Outreach and Media
Consultant. It was also explained that this availability was contingent on SWIOFP
provision of a full-time cruise coordinator for both projects. The original agreement had
been that SWIOFP would provide and fund a joint Cruise Coordinator for the two projects
and ASCLME would provide and fund a joint Communications expert.
ACEP and its Relationship to the ASCLME Project
Dr. Paul Skelton then briefly talked about the new phase of ACEP, saying that the
coelacanth was an iconic animal for the region, being symbolic of the intense scientific
interest in the region. In much the way that the extent of the coelacanth population was
- 54 -
unrealised until recently, the dynamics of its environment are still poorly understood, and
have lead to surprising discoveries in recent years.
Phase one of ACEP ended in March 2007; technically phase 2 started in April 2007,
however that year was basically held under the auspices of the first phase. There has been
a major downsizing in the employment of the project secretariat. Prof. Skelton stressed
that ACEP is now considered to be a South African programme, funded by DST, who has
put in the money. There is also a strong partnership with DEAT, through MCM, who have
brought ships and technical expertise, representing a significant additional source of in-
kind funding. When trying to understand the coelacanths and their environment, it was
quickly realised that the issues were transboundary, and something of an LME approach
was considered appropriate, which is why the programme has visited many of the
countries represented here. The South African Government, through DST, have
committed R25m over 5 years, considerable funding for an African country, and there is
also the indirect contribution from MCM/DEAT. The split of the grant has already been
decided, with a minor part for management at SAIAB, which is earmarked to employ a
manager, coordinator and PA. A second is a commitment to support the platform, (FRS
Algoa), R1.8m pa, allowing ship-based research to take place, and the remainder goes into
an open call for research projects managed by the NRF. The call closed at the end of
January, and selections will be made in March. ASCLME will be involved in project
selection, and data from the Programme will be shared with ASCLME. Prof. Skelton
stated that whilst the coordinator will come on board in February, and may be able to
assist with cruise coordination in a limited capacity, they would have to limit this to
working with just their immediate partner (the ASCLME project) and could not assume
responsibility for coordinating all the various programme's cruises without additional
discussions.
DLIST and the ASCLME Project
Dr. Francois Odendaal then gave a brief introduction to the NGO, International
Knowledge Management (IKM), of which he is part. He stated that in his experience,
projects are only successful when they are supported both at the grassroots level and at the
policy level, rather than being only `top down' or `bottom up'. Therefore they have for
some time focused on what could be best described as `bottom up, top down' approaches
with considerable success, the Distance Learning and Information Sharing Tool (DLIST)
being one example. He recently visited Madagascar to assess conditions on the east coast.
In the three national coastal and marine parks, established around 15 years ago by
EcoAfrica, a company he works for. He found that the local people were respecting the
parks, but that poverty was increasing whilst stocks were decreasing. The dream of
ecotourism in Masoala has by and large failed the local people; much like in Unguja,
Zanzibar, where he also works, hotels are not owned by locals, and there has been
considerable cultural erosion.
IKM in conjunction with EcoAfrica has developed a tool-set called DLIST, consisting of
two parts, the first being a distance learning course on coastal management, for which
there is more demand than can be met. Whilst in Madagascar, he discussed a partnership
- 55 -
with Toamasina University, in addition to the State University of Zanzibar, about offering
courses there. People from East Africa have attended the DLIST associated courses
intended for the BCLME, so there is clearly demand for courses relevant to the ASCLME
region. This system helps to strengthen community level actions and activities because
even just one or two members with knowledge can stop bad development, strengthen the
fight against corruption and so on, provided they know mechanisms like EIAs exist and
what the role of communities in such processes ought to be, and how to use them.
Distance learning leases to more empowered communities.
The second part, DLIST, is the information sharing component, which is done in various
ways over the internet as well as by using other awareness and information sharing
mechanisms. Sharing information with even the remotest communities should not be
considered impractical; a plethora of avenues have been explored with success in using
radio, which has worked very well in Namibia, where it will shortly be done in 4 or 5
languages. They are also looking at using WorldSpace satellite to distribute courses. In
Angola, where there is very poor internet connectivity, video blogging is being
investigated. He emphasised that DLIST is much more than a website, but represents a
community of practice, a group of people who transcend horizontal and vertical
boundaries; many of them hailing from local communities, other stakeholder groups and
even Government. IKM is currently working on trying to get Ambodiletra School in
Madagascar to have internet; this is likely to happen before many of the larger NGOs in
the area have it, by using new technology. DLIST has often been only the minor funder in
projects, with others joining in. The system seems to be growing and proliferating. He also
noted that an environmental film festival was also very successful.
The system promises to deliver meaningful community engagement and discussion,
involving not only the Project but also the policy level. This involvement means that one
doesn't have to wait for the SAPs; similarly, at the end of the Project, the systems put in
place will continue working through people's involvement and increased knowledge. He
stressed that in some ways, the term "capacity" has often been misused and fractured this
approach; in many ways, artisanal fishers have a lot of knowledge and capacity, just of a
different nature to scientists. DLIST's RAP approach involves one DLIST member of
staff working with a local team. Such involvement means that the information continues to
flow both ways.
The Sustainable Seas Trust and the ASCLME Project
Dr. Tony Ribbink then gave an extremely brief overview of the Sustainable Seas Trust
(SST) in view of the time constraints of the meeting. [Annex 21] He stated that he had
always been very excited about ASCLME and long-term sustainability. He noted that
many people in the room had been in some way involved in the development of SST. The
development of a functional SST has fallen somewhat behind schedule; he is now working
on this full-time since his retirement from ACEP. He stated that he would send a
document outlining the Trust in more detail as time was so short.
Next Steps
- 56 -
The PD then ran briefly through the next steps to be taken [Annex 22]. He emphasised
that the next Steering Committee and Stakeholder meeting venue should, if possible,
dovetail with the WIO-LaB SC meeting if that is feasible within the time-constraints of
each Project. If SWIOFP is officially started by then it should also be involved and
planning for Steering Committee meeting should also be consecutive with that Project
wherever possible. Currently the next WIO-LaB meeting is planned for May. If this could
be rolled over into June then it might be feasible to have a joint meeting although that is
still quite early for ASCLME. The PD said he would stay in communications with WIO-
LaB and SWIOFP over this and would keep the Steering Committee updated as he
received further information.
He noted the core Steering Committee (countries and immediate partners in co-funding)
has requested the opportunity to convene separately without the observers as a matter of
discretion to allow them to discuss internal policy issues. This has been done during this
meeting but it was felt that the arrangements were back to front and that in future meetings
there should be a full session first followed by the smaller core group so that there is no
need to repeat presentations and so that the second session can be of a short duration. This
was generally agreed.
Closure of Workshop
The PD closed his presentation with a slide depicting children from the region as a
reminder as to why this whole process was undertaken, stating that, in many ways, their
future was now in the hand of these projects, and those at these meetings. He
acknowledged gratefully having borrowed the slide from Dr. Ribbink.
The Chair stated that issues relating to the private sector had not been discussed in this
meeting and that this should be a point for further discussion at the next meeting. He then
asked the Resident Representative of the UNDP, representing the implementing agency
and the SC member from South Africa, representing the host country, to close the
meeting.
The RR made some closing comments on behalf of the GEF implementing agency,
UNDP. He said the meeting was originally scheduled to be held in Mauritius but the
timing and logistics proved very difficult as it clashed with the December holiday period,
but thanked the host country, South Africa, for hosting it. He looked forward to hosting
the next one in Mauritius. He thanked the Project Director, the participating countries, the
other two Projects, stakeholders and other UN agencies for attending the meeting, and for
their input. He stated that he felt the two days had gone well, and what was previously
terra incognita was now more familiar. The objectives of the Project seem sound and well
supported. Whilst not all the issues were solved, they were identified, and procedures to
rectify them were proposed and accepted.
The SC member from South Africa, on behalf of the host country, said they were
honoured to have held this meeting in South Africa, and thanked Rudy van der Elst for
hosting the meetings at ORI at no charge to the Projects. He also congratulated David
- 57 -
Vousden on an excellent start, and stated that if there was any doubt about the suitability
of his appointment these were now laid to rest. He noted that the PD's attention to detail
was excellent, and many people had commented positively on his leadership so far. He
went on to thank stakeholders for their valued contributions, and commented on the spirit
of cooperation that was evident. He felt sure that if this level of commitment and
collaboration continued, the Project should enjoy every success. He gave final thanks to
everyone and hoped they would enjoy the closing function.
Finally, the Chair thanked delegates and the meeting was officially closed.
- 58 -
Annex 1: Acronyms & Abbreviations
ACEP African Coelacanth Ecosystem Programme
ASCLME Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project
ASCLMEs Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme
AMSEN African Ministerial Conference on the Environment
BCLME Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem
CCG Cruise Coordination Group
CoP Conference of Parties
DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa
DLIST Distance Learning and Information Sharing Tool
FARI Forum for Academic and Research Institutions
GEF Global Environment Facility
IKM International Knowledge Management
IMS Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar
IW International Waters
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
MCM Marine and Coastal Management, DEAT
MDG(s) Millennium Development Goal(s)
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
PAC Programme Advisory Committee
PD Project Director
P&G C Policy and Governance Coordinator
PCC Programme Coordination Committee
PCU Project Coordination Unit
POP Persistent Organic Pollutant(s)
PSC Project Steering Committee
ReCoMaP Regional Coastal Management Programme
SAIAB South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity
SAP Strategic Action Programme
SC Steering Committee
SWIOFC South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission
SWIOFP South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project
TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
WIO-LaB Western Indian Ocean Land-based Project
- 59 -
ASCLME STEERING COMMITTEE INVITEES - FIRST STEERCOM - DURBAN, 22-23 January 2008
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND PROGRAMME PARTNERS
REPRESENTING
NAME
TITLE/POSITION
ORGANISATION
BASED
EMAIL ADDRESS
TELEPHONE/FAX
FULL ADDRESS
COMOROS
Mr. Farid Anasse
Chef de Departement
SIG Ministčre chargé de
COMOROS
farid_anasse@yahoo.fr
Tel: +269 762428 Fax:
Chef de Département SIG & Point Focal Natioinal de la Convention de
l'Environnement
+269 762428
Nairobi, BP 289 Moroni. Ministčre chargé de la Pęche et de
l'Environnement, Union des Comores
KENYA
Mr Harrison Ong'anda
Programme Coordinator
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research KENYA
honganda@kmfri.co.ke
Tel: +254 41 47 51 57
Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute, P.O. Box 81651 - 80100,
Institute
Mombasa, Kenya
MADAGASCAR
Mrs Hajanirina Razafindrainibe
NRM Expert
SAGE
MADAGASCAR
Hajanirina.sage@blueline.mg
Tel: +261 320 78 22 21
Service d'Appui ŕ la Gestion de l'Environnement (SAGE), Lot VI 21 D
Bis, Villa RANOROSOA II, Ambatoroka, P.O. Box 6080, Antananarivo
101, MADAGASCAR
MAURITIUS
Mr Mitrasen Bhikajee
Director
MOI
MAURITIUS
bhikajee@moi.intnet.mu
Tel: +230 427 44 32/33
4th Floor, France Centre Building, Victoria Avenue, Quatre Bornes,
Mauritius
MOZAMBIQUE
M. Policarpo Napica
National Director of Environment
MICOA
MOZAMBIQUE
p.napica@micoa.gov.mz
Tel: (+258 1) 466407
Sede do Ministério, Rua Kassuende, 167, Maputo, Mozambique. P.O.Box
Fax: (+258 1) 465849
2020 Policarpo Napica, National Diorectorate of Environmental
Management, Av.Acordos de Lusaka 2115, Maputo-Mozambique, P.Box
2020
SEYCHELLES
Mr Ronny Renaud
Managing Directory
SCMRT-MPA
SEYCHELLES
r.renaud@scmrt-mpa.sc
Tel: +248 225114 Fax: Seychelles Centre for Marine Research & Technology Marine Park
+248 224388
Authority, P O Box 1240, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles
SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Johann Augustyn
Chief Director
MCM/DEAT
SOUTH AFRICA
augustyn@deat.gov.za
Tel : +27 21 402-3103
Marine and Coastal Management, Private Bag X2, Rogge Bay, 8012,
Fax : +27 21 425-6977
South Africa
TANZANIA
Mr. Magnus Ngoile
TANZANIA
mngoile@simbanet.net
Tel +255 748 490049
National Environment Management Council P.O. Box 63154/63207
Fax +255 22 2668611
Dar es Salaam TANZANIA
Dar es Salaam
P.O. Box 63154/63207
SAIAB
Mr. Paul H Skelton
Director
SAIAB
SOUTH AFRICA
P.Skelton@ru.ac.za
Tel: +27 (046) 603 5816
SAIAB, Private Bag 1015, Somerset Street, Grahamstown, 6140, South
Fax +27 (0)46 622 2403
Africa
ACEP
Angus Paterson
Director
ACEP/SAEON
SOUTH AFRICA
angus@saeon.ac.za
Cell +27 83 275 4407
SAEON House, 18 Somerset Street, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown,
6140, South Africa
NAIROBI
Mr Dixon Waruinge
Programme Officer
Representative of the NAIROBI
KENYA
dixon.waruinge@unep.org
Tel: +254 20 62 20 25
United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Environmental
CONVENTION
CONVENTION UNEP
Policy Implementation (DEPI), Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions
Secretariat, P.O Box 30552 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya
UNDP LEAD CO
Mr. Claudio Caldarone
RR UNDP
UNDP LEAD CO
MAURITIUS
claudio.caldarone@undp.org
Tel: (230) 212 3726 / 7
United Nations Development Programme, 6th Floor, Anglo Mauritius
Fax: (230) 208 4871
House, Intendance Street, Port Louis, Mauritius
UNDP LEAD CO
Ms. Elena Garí
Environment Programme Officer
UNDP LEAD CO
MAURITIUS
elena.gari@undp.org
Tel: (230) 212 3726 / 7
United Nations Development Programme, 6th Floor, Anglo Mauritius
Fax: (230) 208 4871
House, Intendance Street, Port Louis, Mauritius
UNDP LEAD CO
Mr. Satyajeet Ramchurn
Environment Programme Officer
UNDP LEAD CO
MAURITIUS
satyajeet@hotmail.com
UNOPS
Mr Mahir Aliyev
Portfolio Manager
UNOPS
DENMARK
mahira@unops.org
Tel: +41 22 917 85 57 Fax: United Nations Office for Project Services, Midtermolen 3, P.O. Box
+45 3546 7501 Tel: +45
2695, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
WIO-LaB
Mr Peter Scheren
Project Manager
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB
KENYA
peter.scheren@unep.org
Tel: +254 62 12 70 / +254 Peter Scheren, Project Manager UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project, c/o UNEP,
62 32 03
Block A, Rm. 130, P.O. Box 47074 Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya
SWIOFP
Kaitira Katonda
Project Manager
SWIOPF
KENYA
kikatonda@yahoo.co.uk
ASCLME PCU
Mr. David Vousden
Project Director
UNDP-GEF ASCLME
SOUTH AFRICA
david.vousden@undp.org
Cell: +27 (0)79 038 6802
ASCLME House, 18 Somerset Street, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown,
Fax: +27 46 622 6621
6140, South Africa
ASCLME PCU
David Laroche
Project Preparation
UNDP-GEF ASCLME
USA
dal1727@myvermont.com
Tel: +1 802 370 9932
UNDP
Akiko Yamamoto
Regional Portfolio Manager for
UNDP
SOUTH AFRICA
akiko.yamamoto@undp.org
Tel: +27 12 354 8125 Cell: Regional Portfolio Manager for International Waters, Environment
International Waters, Eastern and
+27 82 850 9824 Fax: +27 Finance Group, UNDP Eastern/Southern Africa, 351 Schoeman Street, PO
Southern Africa
12 354 8111 Skype:
Box 13196, The Tramshed, Pretoria, 0126, South Africa
akiko.yamamoto120
OBSERVERS AND PRESENTERS
REPRESENTING
NAME
TITLE/POSITION
ORGANISATION
BASED
EMAIL
TELEPHONE/FAX
FULL ADDRESS
O.R.I
Rudi van der Elst
Ocean. Res. Inst. Durban
SOUTH AFRICA
rudy@ori.org.za
Tel: 031-3288222
P.O. Box 10712, Marine Parade, 4056, South Africa
Fax: 031-3288188
NOAA
Mr. Bradford Brown
NOAA LME Program Contractor
NOAA
USA
JabariBrad@aol.com
ReCoMaP
Mr. James Anderson
Fisheries Specialist
RECOMAP Project
Mauritius
james.anderson@coi-ioc.org
Phone: (230) 427 2583
ReCoMaP
Fax: (230) 427 2808
112, Farquhar Avenue
Quatre Bornes
Mauritius
SUST. SEAS TRUST
Tony Ribbink
Director
SST
SOUTH AFRICA
a.ribbink@ru.ac.za
Cell: +27 83 640 1588 Tel: Warden Flat, Jameson House, Private Bag 1031, Grahamstown, 6140
+27 46 603 8045
ASCLME PCU
Johann Lutjeharms
Professor of Oceanography UCT
University of Cape Town
PCU SOUTH AFRICA
jre@mweb.co.za,
ASCLME PCU
James Stapley
IT and Comms Consultant
ASCLME
PCU SOUTH AFRICA
james@jamesstapley.com
Cell: +27 82 531 4099 Fax: ASCLME House, 18 Somerset Street, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown,
ASCLME PCU
Lucy Scott
Information Specialist
ASCLME
PCU SOUTH AFRICA
L.scott@ru.ac.za
Cell: +27 82 879 5006 Fax: ASCLME House, 18 Somerset Street, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown,
+27 46 622 6621
6140, South Africa
ASCLME PCU
Claire Attwood
Media Outreach Consultant
SOUTH AFRICA
cattwood@mweb.co.za
Cell: +27 83 290 7996
DLIST/EcoAfrica
Mr. Francois Odendaal
Director
EcoAfrica
SOUTH AFRICA
francois@ecoafrica.co.za
Tel: +27 21 448 3778
3 Bishop road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa
Fax: +27 21 447 2614
DLIST/EcoAfrica
Rean van der Merwe
Director
EcoAfrica
SOUTH AFRICA
rean@ecoafrica.co.za
Tel: +27 21 448 3778
3 Bishop road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa
Fax: +27 21 447 2614
MCM-DEAT
Ashley Naidoo
Director, Research Support, MCM-
MCM-DEAT
SOUTH AFRICA
anaidoo@deat.gov.za
Tel : +27 21 402-3569
Marine and Coastal Management, Private Bag X2, Rogge Bay, 8012,
DEAT
Fax : +27 21 402-3639
South Africa
IRD
Jean-Francois Ternon
Scientist
IRD
France/Reunion
jean-francois.ternon@ird.fr
CSIR
Neville Sweijd
SOUTH AFRICA
nsweijd@csir.co.za
Tel: +27(021)8882555
RGL Coastal Processes
Fax: +27(021)8882648
Natural Resources & the Environment
Cell: +27(082)9689660
Council for Scientific & Industrial Research
Stellenbosch, South Africa
Rhodes University/EFA
Warwick Sauer
Professor of Ichthyology and
Rhodes University/EnviroFish Africa
SOUTH AFRICA
w.sauer@ru.ac.za
Cell: +27 82 774 1337 Fax: DIFS, PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa
Fisheries Science
+27 46 622 4827
FIRST STEERING COMMITTEE AND INCEPTION MEETING
DURBAN - SOUTH AFRICA
22ND-23RD JANUARY 2008
Hosted by the Oceanographic Research Institute supported by the UNDP Country Office Mauritius
AGENDA FOR ASCLME FIRST STEERING COMMITTEE
Durban, South Africa. 22nd January 2008
START 0830 (Hotel pick-up 0800)
1. Opening Welcome and Remarks
Claudio Caldarone Resident Representative for the UNDP Lead Country Office
Mauritius.
Representative of RSA
UNDP GEF - Akiko Yamamoto
2. Election of Chair and Adoption of Agenda
3. Summary of Implementation Progress. David Vousden - Project Director
4. Review of Revised Outputs, Activities and Deliverables. David Vousden - Project
Director
5. Review of Budget and Approval of Work Programme. David Vousden - Project
Director
6. Presentation on Governance and Policy Needs for the ASCLME Project/Programme.
Magnus Ngoile - Governance and Policy Needs Review Consultant
7. Administration and Management Procedures (including Steering Committee
procedures). Presented by David Laroche - Project Development Consultant
To Include:
ˇ Management structure and strategy for the Project
ˇ Research Cruise Coordination and Selection Process
1
ˇ Procedures for Steering Committee oversight of the Project
ˇ Coordination at the Programme level (ASCLME, SWIOFP and WIO-LaB)
ˇ Sovereign Rights of Countries over Data Collection within Territorial Waters
and EEZ ( Including review of wording for an appropriate MoU)
8. Review of Agenda for tomorrow's Inception Workshop. Chair
9. Any Other Business
10. Closing Remarks
Claudio Calderone Resident Representative for the UNDP Lead Country Office
Mauritius.
Steering Committee Dinner to be held at the `Cargo Hold' restaurant at 7.30 pm (Bus to pick
up from hotel at 7.00 pm)
N.B. Refreshment and lunch breaks will be proposed by/to the Chair and agreed by the
meeting as appropriate to the timing of discussions but approximately at the times listed
below. Lunch and Dinner will be provided by the Project
MORNING BREAK (10.30)
LUNCH BREAK (12.30- 1.30)
AFTERNOON BREAK (3.30)
2
FIRST STEERING COMMITTEE AND INCEPTION MEETING
DURBAN - SOUTH AFRICA
22ND-23RD JANUARY 2008
Hosted by the Oceanographic Research Institute supported by the UNDP Country Office Mauritius
AGENDA FOR ASCLME INCEPTION WORKSHOP
Durban, South Africa. 23rd January 2008
START 0830 (Hotel pick-up 0800)
Opening of Meeting - Welcome and Procedure
1. Welcome Address from Claudio Caldarone Resident Representative for the
UNDP Lead Country Office Mauritius.
2. Host Comments from Representative of RSA
3. Agency Comments and Purpose of Inception Workshop from UNDP GEF - Akiko
Yamamoto
4. Election of Chairperson and Adoption of Agenda for Inception Workshop
Facilitated by David Vousden Project Director
Update and Status of ASCLME Project
Project Director to present a revision of project Outputs and Activities, an update
on where the project currently stands on implementation, and a reminder of what is
needed to deliver the TDAs and SAPs. This will help to guide the following session
on Priority Areas
5. Summary and Update of the ASCLME Programme and Project. David Vousden -
Project Director
6. Presentation on Governance and Policy Needs for the ASCLME
Project/Programme. Magnus Ngoile - Governance and Policy Needs Review
Consultant
1
7. Update on Implementation Progress during Inception Phase (October - December
2007). David Vousden - Project Director
8. Review of TDA and SAP Delivery Requirements for the ASCLME
Project/Programme. David Laroche GEF Project Development Consultant
Stakeholder Review and Guidance on Priority Areas for the TDA/SAP Process
The meeting will briefly review what the original Project Document had identified
as priorities. The floor will then be opened for guidance and recommendation from
the countries to update these priorities and to advise the Project Coordination Unit
on the most current national and regional needs and existing initiatives. The LME
priorities are broken down into the following areas:
9. Offshore Data Capture for the LMEs Priority areas within the two LMEs
requiring further knowledge on biological, chemical and physical parameters using
an ecosystem monitoring approach. Introduced by Prof. Johann Lutjeharms
10. Priorities for Data Capture within the LME Coastal Zones. Dr. Rudy van der Elst
11. Priorities for Social and Economics Assessments that are required to support TDA
and advise the SAP process. Introduced by Prof. Warwick Sauer
12. Expected Inputs from ASCLME Programme Sister Projects to the TDA/SAP
process. David Vousden - Project Director
13. Identification of Gaps in Programme relating to the TDA (e.g. Marine pollution,
invasive species. Socioeconomics relating to commercial fisheries, etc). David
Laroche GEF Project Development Consultant
Project Staff to highlight important specific requirements to achieve the end
objectives and deliverables
14. Mechanisms for National and Regional Coordination for Data Capture and
Management. Lucy Scott Inception Phase Data Consultant to ASCLME
15. Presentation of the Communications and Stakeholder Outreach Plan. Claire
Attwood- Outreach Consultant to ASCLME
16. Partnership, Coordination and Stakeholder Participation requirements for the TDA
and SAP development process. Introduced by David Vousden - Project Director,
with inputs from ACEP, SST and EcoAfrica
Wrap-up and Closure of Meeting
17. Any Further Comments from the Floor on TDA and SAP Process and Project
Arrangements. Facilitated by Chair
2
18. Next Steps. Project Director to Summarise
19. Closing Remarks from UNDP
20. Closing Remarks from Host Country
Inception Workshop Dinner at Havana Grill 1930 hours
N.B. Refreshment and lunch breaks will be proposed by/to the Chair and agreed by the
meeting as appropriate to the timing of discussions but approximately as follows:
Morning Break:
1030 pm
Lunch:
1230-1.30 pm
Afternoon Break:
3.30 pm
3
ASCLME PROJECT - OUTPUT DELIVERY WORKPLAN
OUTPUT DELIVERABLES
2008
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
OUTPUT 1.1: Review existing data in region pertinent to ASCLME TDA and SAP development (including the collection, repatriation, synthesis
and storage of country and regional data, and the repatriation of extra-regional data and information)
A. Information and Capacity Building Specialist identified
X
X
and contracted
B. Formally-adopted D&I Working Group Report
X
C. Agreed priorities for data collection and `gap-filling'
X
X
D. Work programme and Budget for data collection and `gap-
filling'
X
X
OUTPUT 1.2.A: Identify and prioritize ecosystem assessment and ecosystemic process information gaps in key oceanographic areas of the
ASCLMEs along with work-plans, cruise schedules, budgets and responsibilities
A. Oceanographic experts identified and contracted
X
B. Revised and adopted list of Priorities for ASCLME
X
Ecosystem Monitoring and Mapping
C. Project Cruise Plan and Schedule including training
exercises both onshore and offshore (with timetable and
X
X
X
X
X
budget). This Cruise Plan to be closely coordinated with
SWIOFP and ACEP, as well as WIO-Lab where appropriate.
D. List of expected products from each cruise as an Annex to
the Cruise Plan and Schedule
X
X
X
X
X
OUTPUT 1.2.B: Key knowledge gaps in near-shore (artisanal/subsistence) fisheries updated, nursery areas and other rich biological habitat
mapped or otherwise identified using existing information
A. ToRs developed, sub-contractors identified and sub-
X
X
X
X
contracts signed
B. Peer-reviewed Report on nearshore fisheries, and critical
habitats
C. Recommendations for priority studies and data collection
D. Recommendations for management of critical areas (e.g.
management zoning MPAs and replenishment areas)
OUTPUT 1.2.C: Management and Policy gaps/needs identified as part of root cause requirements for TDAs development (national and regional)
A.
Create
ToR
and
contract
short-term
regional
X
X
governance/policy expert
B. Develop a Project Workplan for Governance and Policy
X
X
Coordination
C. Contract long-term Governance and Policy Specialist
X
X
D. Report on governance and policy issues and shortfalls
within region relating to LME management (to include in the
TDA)
E. Recommendations for immediate and longer term solutions
and improvements (to guide the SAP)
OUTPUT 1.3: Active offshore and coastal oceanographic data collection to fill gaps in ecosystem assessment and status as necessary for
A. Identify cruise coordination mechanism for ASCLME
X
X
X
Project
B. Identify and contract person responsible for cruise
X
X
coordination
C. Cruise coordination agreement (including details of
equipment requirements and sources as well as formal
X
X
X
agreement on ownership/sharing of data)
D. Sub-Contract with FAO for 2008
X
E. Sub-contract with FAO for remainder of project
F. MoU/Agreement between ASCLME and ACEP on use and
X
X
X
deployment of SA research vessels
G. Coordinated Cruise Logistics Plan and Work-programme
X
X
X
for each year of project
H. Individual Cruise Reports based on adopted reporting
X
X
protocol
I. Distribution list for cruise reports
X
OUTPUT 1.4: Baseline information obtained on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) within the LMEs through use of key indicator species
A. Identify and recruit POPs Expert
X
X
B. Workplan, budget and timeline
X
X
C. Final report on POPs and associated indicator species for
use in TDA and SAP
ASCLME PROJECT - OUTPUT DELIVERY WORKPLAN
OUTPUT DELIVERABLES
2008
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
OUTPUT 2.1: LME based indicators linked to national and regional M&E mechanisms are developed and captured within institutional work
A. LME Indicator Specialist recruited and contracted
X
B. ToRs for development of M&E Programmes and Indicators
X
at national and regional level
C. Report from national Workshops including information
cited above
D. Report from Regional Workshop with requirements for
LME Monitoring
E. Nationally Adopted Work Programmes and Annual Reports
OUTPUT 2.2: A region wide socio-economic valuation of near-shore marine goods and services is undertaken to gain greater understanding of
the social and economic importance of these areas
A. ToR developed for Socio-economic Survey sub-contract
X
X
B. Sub-contractors identified
X
X
C. Adopted Study Plan for Socio-Economic Survey
X
X
D. Final Report of Survey
E. Policy Level Briefing Document focusing on both National
And Regional advantages of the LME approach as defined
through the Socio-Economic Evaluation Survey
F. Distribution list and follow-up strategy for assessing
effectiveness of Briefing Document
OUTPUT 2.3: National and regional data handling, storage and synthesis focal centres are established
A. Formal list of National Data Management Focal Institutes
X
X
X
X
X
X
B. Report from the Regional Workshop on Data Management
C. Report from National Workshops on Data Management and
X
X
X
Handling
D. Formally adopted Regional and National Data Management
Plans including work programmes and budgets for capacity
X
X
X
X
building
E. National Data Management Centres and Regional Data
Management Node Annual Reports to ASCLME Programme
OUTPUT 2.4: Use of GIS and predictive models expanded to increase systems knowledge
A. Identification of Programme level Work-Group and
X
X
planning/convening of workshop
B. Report from Programme level Working Group on GIS and
Remote Sensing data handling and management needs, along
with a work programme and budget that also addresses
X
X
X
training and capacity building at the national and regional
level.
C. Reports from training workshops
D. Annual GIS/RS data management reports
X
X
ASCLME PROJECT - OUTPUT DELIVERY WORKPLAN
OUTPUT DELIVERABLES
2008
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
OUTPUT 3.1: TDAs are negotiated and approved by technical stakeholders
A. TDA Development Coordinator identified and recruited
X
X
B. Overall Project TDA Formulation Work-Plan and Budget
X
X
C. National Lead Agencies identified/established
X
X
X
D. TDA stakeholder consultation plans adopted
X
X
E. National TDA Work-Plans and Budgets
X
X
X
F. Report from Regional TDA Stakeholder Workshop
X
X
X
G. Two TDAs adopted by Steering Committee
OUTPUT 3.2: SAPs are negotiated and adopted by Governments
A. Interministerial Committees adopted and active
X
X
B. Policy Level Programme Steering Committee established
X
X
X
and active
C. Reports from National Interministerial Committees
X
X
D. Reports from ASCLME Programme Policy Committee
X
E. Legal Review Document of draft SAPS
F. Formal adopted and Signed SAPs (for Agulhas LME and
Eastern Africa sub-LME)
OUTPUT 3.3: Financial resources are brokered to ensure financial sustainability of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to support
A. Fiscal and Governance Sustainability Advisor recruited
X
X
B. National Specialists identified
X
X
X
C. Donor Consultation and Communication Plan
X
X
X
D. Donor Information Update Reports
X
X
D. Donor Conference
E. National Guideline documents on Fiscal and Governance
Sustainability
OUTPUT 3.4: Institutional, programme and human capacity building requirements are identified and addressed through training initiatives
A. National CB&T Specialists identified
X
X
X
X
B. Specialist Training Advisors for Oceanography and Coastal
X
X
X
Survey/Assessment identified
C. Programme level CB&T Working Group established
X
X
X
D. Preliminary Training and Capacity Building Analysis
Report (National and Regional Level) coordinated at
X
X
Programme level (i.e. with SWIOPF, WIO-LaB and other
initiatives)
E. Report from Regional Workshop on current and planned
X
T&CB initiatives and needs
F. Regional Work Programme (as defined above) for T&CB
X
X
G. National level Work programmes in similar vein
X
X
H. Annual T&CB Implementation Reports
X
ASCLME PROJECT - OUTPUT DELIVERY WORKPLAN
OUTPUT DELIVERABLES
2008
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
OUTPUT 4.1: Effective and frequent communication and coordination established among the IAs, the various projects under the programme and
other related initiatives and institutions in the region, including linkages with other GEF supported projects in Sub
A. Formal coordination mechanism (technical and policy
X
X
X
level) established and adopted
B. Annual Reports from ASCLME Programme Policy and
X
Technical Coordination Committees
C. Reports from Sub-saharan Africa LME Stakeholders
X
X
X
meetings on "Best Lessons and Practices'
D. Annual Report to Steering Committee from Policy and
Governance Coordinator
X
OUTPUT 4.2: Key policy stakeholders sensitized and engaged in LME process through appropriate packaging and presentation of LME
X
X
A. Key Policy Level Stakeholder's list established and adopted
B. Annual updates of Key Policy Level Stakeholder's list
C. Report of targeted Cost-Benefit Analysis
D. Annual Policy Stakeholder Briefing Work Programme and
Budget
E. Annual report to Steering Committee on effectiveness of
Policy Briefing Programme
OUTPUT 4.3: Stakeholder engagement, public involvement, participation, and environmental education initiatives are developed and
A. ASCLME Programme website active with individual
X
X
project pages
B. Annual Reports from DLIST programme
C. Annual Work Programme and Budget for Distance
X
Learning
D. Annual Reports from Distance Learning courses
E. Annual Report on Coastal Community Empowerment
Programme
F. Work Programme for use of Resource Materials and Media
X
Outreach
G. Report from Programme Partnership Symposium with clear
definition of Next Steps
ASCLME PROJECT - OUTPUT DELIVERY WORKPLAN
YEAR 4
OUTPUT DELIVERABLES
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 5
S-N
D-F
M-M
J-A
S-N
D-F
M-M
J-A
S-N
D-F
M-M
J-A
S-N
D-F
M-M
J-A
S-N
D-F
M-M
J-A
OUTPUT 1.1: Review existing data in region pertinent to ASCLME TDA and SAP development (including the collection, repatriation, synthesis and storage of country and regional data, and the
repatriation of extra-regional data and information)
A. Information and Capacity Building Specialist identified and
X
X
contracted
B. Formally-adopted D&I Working Group Report
X
C. Agreed priorities for data collection and `gap-filling'
X
D. Work programme and Budget for data collection and `gap-
filling'
X
OUTPUT 1.2.A: Identify and prioritize ecosystem assessment and ecosystemic process information gaps in key oceanographic areas of the ASCLMEs along with work-plans, cruise schedules, budgets and
responsibilities
A. ROE Identified and contracted
X
B. Revised and adopted list of Priorities for ASCLME
X
Ecosystem Monitoring and Mapping
C. Project Cruise Plan and Schedule including training
exercises both onshore and offshore (with timetable and
X
budget). This Cruise Plan to be closely coordinated with
SWIOFP and ACEP, as well as WIO-Lab where appropriate.
D. List of expected products from each cruise as an Annex to
the Cruise Plan and Schedule
X
OUTPUT 1.2.B: Key knowledge gaps in near-shore (artisanal/subsistence) fisheries updated, nursery areas and other rich biological habitat mapped or otherwise identified using existing information
A. ToRs developed, sub-contractors identified and sub-
X
X
contracts signed
B. Peer-reviewed Report on nearshore fisheries, and critical
X
X
X
X
habitats
C. Recommendations for priority studies and data collection
X
X
D. Recommendations for management of critical areas (e.g.
management zoning MPAs and replenishment areas)
X
X
X
OUTPUT 1.2.C: Management and Policy gaps/needs identified as part of root cause requirements for TDAs development (national and regional)
A.
Create
ToR
and
contract
short-term
regional
X
governance/policy expert
B. Develop a Project Workplan for Governance and Policy
X
Coordination
C. Contract long-term Governance and Policy Specialist
X
D. Report on governance and policy issues and shortfalls
within region relating to LME management (to include in the
TDA)
X
X
E. Recommendations for immediate and longer term solutions
and improvements (to guide the SAP)
X
X
OUTPUT 1.3: Active offshore and coastal oceanographic data collection to fill gaps in ecosystem assessment and status as necessary for development of TDAs and SAPs
A. Identify cruise coordination mechanism for ASCLME
X
X
Project
B. Identify and contract person responsible for cruise
X
coordination
C. Cruise coordination agreement (including details of
equipment requirements and sources as well as formal
X
agreement on ownership/sharing of data)
D. Sub-Contract with FAO for 2008
X
X
E. Sub-contract with FAO for remainder of project
X
X
X
F. MoU/Agreement between ASCLME and ACEP on use and
X
X
deployment of SA research vessels
G. Coordinated Cruise Logistics Plan and Work-programme
X
X
for each year of project
X
X
H. Individual Cruise Reports based on adopted reporting
X
X
protocol
X
X
I. Distribution list for cruise reports
X
X
OUTPUT 1.4: Baseline information obtained on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) within the LMEs through use of key indicator species
A. Identify and recruit POPs Expert
X
B. Workplan, budget and timeline
X
C. Final report on POPs and associated indicator species for
use in TDA and SAP
X
OUTPUT 2.1: LME based indicators linked to national and regional M&E mechanisms are developed and captured within institutional work programmes and budgets
A. LME Indicator Specialist recruited and contracted
X
B. ToRs for development of M&E Programmes and Indicators
X
at national and regional level
C. Report from national Workshops including information
X
cited above
D. Report from Regional Workshop with requirements for
X
LME Monitoring
E. Nationally Adopted Work Programmes and Annual Reports
X
OUTPUT 2.2: A region wide socio-economic valuation of near-shore marine goods and services is undertaken to gain greater understanding of the social and economic importance of these areas
A. ToR developed for sub-contract
X
B. Sub-contractors identified
X
X
C. Adopted Study Plan for Socio-Economic Survey
X
D. Final Report of Survey
X
E. Policy Level Briefing Document focusing on both National
And Regional advantages of the LME approach as defined
through the Socio-Economic Evaluation Survey
X
F. Distribution list and follow-up strategy for assessing
effectiveness of Briefing Document
X
X
OUTPUT 2.3: National and regional data handling, storage and synthesis focal centres are established
A. Formal list of National Data Management Focal Institutes
X
X
B. Report from the Regional Workshop on Data Management
C. Report from National Workshops on Data Management and
X
Handling
D. Formally adopted Regional and National Data Management
Plans including work programmes and budgets for capacity
X
building
E. National Data Management Centres and Regional Data
X
X
X
X
Management Node Annual Reports to ASCLME Programme
ASCLME PROJECT - OUTPUT DELIVERY WORKPLAN
OUTPUT 2.4: Use of GIS and predictive models expanded to increase systems knowledge
A. Identification of Programme level Work-Group and
X
planning/convening of workshop
B. Report from Programme level Working Group on GIS and
Remote Sensing data handling and management needs, along
X
with a work programme and budget that also addresses training
and capacity building at the national and regional level.
C. Reports from training workshops
X
X
X
X
D. Annual GIS/RS data management reports
X
X
X
X
OUTPUT 3.1: TDAs are negotiated and approved by technical stakeholders
A. Science Coordinator identified and recruited
X
B. Overall Project TDA Formulation Work-Plan and Budget
X
C. National Lead Agencies identified/established
X
D. TDA stakeholder consultation plans adopted
X
E. National TDA Work-Plans and Budgets
X
F. Report from Regional TDA Stakeholder Workshops
X
X
G. Two TDAs adopted by Steering Committee
X
X
X
OUTPUT 3.2: SAPs are negotiated and adopted by Governments
A. Interministerial Committees established and active
X
B. Policy Level Programme Steering Committee established
X
and active
C. Reports from National Interministerial Committees
X
X
D. Reports from ASCLME Programme Policy Committee
X
X
E. Legal Review Document of draft SAPS
X
F. Formal adopted and Signed SAPs (for Agulhas LME and
Eastern Africa sub-LME)
X
X
OUTPUT 3.3: Financial resources are brokered to ensure financial sustainability of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to support the LME approach
A. Fiscal and Governance Sustainability Advisor recruited
X
B. National Specialists identified
X
C. Donor Consultation and Communication Plan
X
D. Donor Information Update Reports
X
X
X
X
D. Donor Conferences
X
X
E. National Guideline documents on Fiscal and Governance
Sustainability
X
OUTPUT 3.4: Institutional, programme and human capacity building requirements are identified and addressed through training initiatives
A. National CB&T Specialists identified
X
B. Specialist Training Advisors for Oceanography and Coastal
X
Survey/Assessment identified
C. Programme level CB&T Working Group established
X
D. Preliminary Training and Capacity Building Analysis
Report (National and Regional Level) coordinated at
X
Programme level (i.e. with SWIOPF, WIO-LaB and other
initiatives)
E. Report from Regional Workshop on current and planned
X
T&CB initiatives and needs
F. Regional Work Programme (as defined above) for T&CB
X
G. National level Work programmes in similar vein
X
H. Annual T&CB Implementation Reports
X
X
X
X
OUTPUT 4.1: Effective and frequent communication and coordination established among the IAs, the various projects under the programme and other related initiatives and institutions in the region,
including linkages with other GEF supported projects in Sub-Saharan Africa and globally
A. Formal coordination mechanism (technical and policy level)
X
established and adopted
B. Annual Reports from ASCLME Programme Policy and
X
X
X
X
Technical Coordination Committees
C. Reports from SSA LME Stakeholders meetings on "Best
X
X
X
X
Lessons and Practices'
D. Annual Report to Steering Committee from Policy and
Governance Coordinator
X
X
X
X
OUTPUT 4.2: Key policy stakeholders sensitized and engaged in LME process through appropriate packaging and presentation of LME information and concepts
X
A. Key Policy Level Stakeholder's list established and adopted
B. Annual updates of Key Policy Level Stakeholder's list
X
X
X
X
C. Report of targeted Cost-Benefit Analysis
X
D. Annual Policy Stakeholder Briefing Work Programme and
X
X
X
Budget
E. Annual report to Steering Committee on effectiveness of
Policy Briefing Programme
X
X
X
X
OUTPUT 4.3: Stakeholder engagement, public involvement, participation, and environmental education initiatives are developed and implemented in the region
A. ASCLME Programme website active with individual project
X
pages
B. Annual Reports from DLIST programme
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C. Annual Work Programme and Budget for Distance Learning
D. Annual Reports from Distance Learning courses
X
X
X
X
X
E. Annual Report on Coastal Community Empowerment
X
X
Programme
X
X
X
F. Work Programme for use of Resource Materials and Media
X
Outreach
G. Report from Programme Partnership Symposium with clear
definition of Next Steps
X
X
OVERVIEW OF WORK PROGRAMME AND
BUDGET
ASCLME WORKPLAN FOR 2008
2008 OUTCOME SPREADSHEETS
THE AGULHAS AND SOMALI CURRENT LARGE MARINE
ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT
EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION
US$
%GE
National Training Exercises and Data Coordination Workshops (including
Capture of Best Lessons and Practices in LME Management
$2,610,000
21.4
Contracts for Local Experts/Specialists
$2,586,900
21.2
Data Collection and management for TDA/SAP and long-term sustainable
monitoring programmes
$2,422,150
19.9
Regional Admin, Management and Support Costs
$2,277,000
18.7
Implementing and Executing Costs (UN Agency)
$903,700
7.4
Equipment and Support to Countries
$675,000
5.5
Travel and Support Costs for SteerCom and Technical/Scientific
Management Coordination Meetings
$607,500
5.0
Contracts for International Experts/Specialists
$117,750
1.0
Project Total
$12,200,000
100.0
ASCLME BUDGET 2007- 2008
ASCLME PROJECT EXPENDITURE TO END 2007
Cost (US$)
Physical Purchases: Office Equipment, furniture, etc
$41,847
Services: Telephone, electricity, municipal costs,
insurance
$1,027
Travel and Accommodation: Flights,
accommodation, DSA for all staff and consultants
$31,350
Contracts: Staff salaries and benefits; consultancy
contracts
$141,900
TOTAL $216,125
ASCLME BUDGET ESTIMATES 2008
ASCLME PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE - 2008
Cost (US$)
Physical Purchases: Office Equipment, Scientific
Equipment, furniture, etc
$400,000
Services: Telephone, electricity, municipal costs,
insurance, vehicles, etc
$40,000
Travel and Accommodation: Flights,
accommodation, DSA for all staff and consultants
$750,000
Contracts: Staff salaries and benefits; consultancy
contracts, research contracts
$975,000
Administrative Overheads (8%):
$173,200
TOTAL $2,338,200
Document Outline
- ASCLME 1st Steer Com and Inception Workshop Report 080331.doc
- Annex_2_Participants list for First SteerCom and Inception Workshop Durban.pdf
- Annex_3_Meeting Agendas.pdf
- Agenda for SteerCom 080121.doc
- Agenda for Inception Workshop 080122.doc
- Annex_4_2008 Outcome Workplans.pdf
- 2008 Outcome Workplans.pdf
- 2008 Outcome Workplans2.pdf
- Annex_5_Overview of Work Programme and Budget.pdf