Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, administered by UNEP, advises the Global Environment Facility
(Version 5)
STAP Scientific and Technical screening of the Project Identification Form (PIF)
Date of screening: 3 March 2008

Screener: Guadalupe Duron

Panel member validation by: Meryl Williams
I. PIF Information

GEFSEC PROJECT ID:
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: P106063
COUNTRY(IES): MAURITANIA, SENEGAL, THE GAMBIA, CAPE VERDE, GUINEA BISSAU, GUINEA, SIERRA
LEONE, LIBERIA AND GHANA
PROJECT TITLE: Sustainable Fisheries Development Projects in 9 West African Countries
GEF AGENCY(IES): World Bank
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): Commission Sous-Régionale des Pêches (CSRP), Ministry of Fisheries and
Maritime Economy (Mauritania); Ministry of Maritime Economy ( Senegal); Department of Fisheries (The
Gambia); Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Economy (Guinea-Bissau); Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture
(Guinea); Ministry of Marine Resources (Sierra Leone); Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture (Cape
Verde); Bureau of national Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture (Liberia); and Ministry of Fisheries (Ghana).
GEF FOCAL AREA (S): International Waters
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SP1
NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT: Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment
Fund in the Large Marine Ecosystems of Sub-Saharan Africa
Full size project
GEF Trust Fund

II. STAP Advisory Response (see table below for explanation)

1. Based on this PIF screening, STAP's advisory response to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Agency(ies):
Minor revision required


III. Further guidance from STAP

2. STAP welcomes this proposal on "Sustainable Fisheries Development in Nine West African Countries.
The focus on national level investment supporting the critical transboundary regional investment of other
projects is noted and strongly supported.
3. Questions whether the the short term objective (iii) increasing the value and profitability of fisheries, is a
GEF objective, but notes that this will be an important requirement for gaining incentives for sustainably
management
4. STAP notes that global environment benefits will be measured using a set of indicators. A detailed
reference to this aspect is raised in the Partnership Investment Fund for which GEF support was
approved in November 2005, and reference to these indicators and any revisions (especially to results-
based indicators of ecosystem status) that have been proposed could strengthen the scientific validity of
the stated global benefits. In particular, the projects would need to ensure that baselines for the
indicators were available in order to track progress due to the projects (including the CCLME and
GCLME projects which are related), noting that all the countries have weak fisheries management
regimes and rapid improvement in this challenging area and region is not expected.
5. In addition, STAP notes that detailed outputs will be defined during project preparation and submitted at
CEO endorsement. STAP could provide, therefore, more targeted advice on indicators when the
proposal is developed further. To initiate the process, STAP encourages the World Bank to contact
STAP as each country sustainable fishery strategy is developed.
6. With respect to risk mitigation, suggestions for managing illegal fishing corruption are weak. More
proactive measures should be contempleted, including action involving the countries of the main
offenders where possible. Illegal fishing is rightly noted as a major problem in the region - of the order of
20% of the value of the catch (MRAG 2005. Review of impacts of illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing on developing countries, Final Report for DFID, UK.)


STAP advisory
Brief explanation of advisory response and action proposed

1

---

response
1.
Consent
STAP acknowledges that on scientific/technical grounds the concept has merit. However, STAP may state its views on the
concept emphasising any issues that could be improved and the proponent is invited to approach STAP for advice at any time
during the development of the project brief prior to submission for CEO endorsement.
2.
Minor revision
STAP has identified specific scientific/technical suggestions or opportunities that should be discussed with the proponent as
required.
early as possible during development of the project brief. One or more options that remain open to STAP include:
(i)
Opening a dialogue between STAP and the proponent to clarify issues
(i ) Setting a review point during early stage project development and agreeing terms of reference for an independent
expert to be appointed to conduct this review
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.
3.
Major revision
STAP proposes significant improvements or has concerns on the grounds of specified major scientific/technical omissions in
required
the concept. If STAP provides this advisory response, a ful explanation would also be provided. Normal y, a STAP approved
review wil be mandatory prior to submission of the project brief for CEO endorsement.
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.

2

---