First published in Kenya in 2007 By the United Nations Environment Programme.

Copyright © 2007, United Nations Environment Programme

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or
non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided
acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any
publication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose
without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Avenue, Gigiri,
P.O Box 47074, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 020 7621248/7621270
Email: wiolab@unep.org
Website: http://www.wiolab.org

DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the
GEF. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the UNEP, or of the GEF, or of any cooperating organization
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the
delineation of its territories or boundaries.

Cover illustration:

For citation purposes this document may be cited as:

UNEP, 2007. Addressing Land-based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean. Report of the Third
Meeting of the Steering Committee. UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/2007

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The third meeting of the UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project Steering Committee was held in
Mahe, Seychelles on 13th March 2006. The meeting was officially opened by the Principal
Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Dr. Rolph Payet. The
meeting was attended by Government officials from each of the participating countries (the
National Focal Points of the Project) as well the representatives of the Implementing Agency,
UNEP (i.e. Division of the Global Environment Facility-UNEP/GEF and the Global
Programme of Action for the protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment from Land-
based Activities-UNEP/GPA), the Executing agencies (Nairobi Convention Secretariat),
Non-Governmental Organizations, as well as representative of the UNDP/GEF Agulhas and
Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme (ASCLME). The representative of
Somalia attended the meeting as an observer.

The main objective of the 3rd meeting of the WIO-LaB Project Steering Committee was to
review the progress made in regard to the implementation of project activities in the year
2006 and to consider and approve the workplan and the budget for the implementation of
activities in the year 2007.

Although it was noted that progress in the implementation of project activities in
participating countries had been hampered by limited capacity in participating institutions,
the Steering Committee was generally satisfied with the progress made in the
implementation of project activities in the year 2006. However, it was noted that there was a
need to take remedial measures based on the recommendations of Steering Committee and
the Mid-Term Review in order to expedite implementation of the project workplan. In
particular, it was also noted that it would be important to come up with a deliberate strategy
of providing the support requested by the Focal Points in order to expedite the
implementation of project activities at the national level in participating countries.

Other issues that were discussed in the meeting focussed on the process for the preparation
of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Western Indian Ocean with special
focus on Land-based Activities that impact on the coastal and marine environment.

The decisions and recommendations of the third Regional Meeting of the WIO-LaB Project
Steering Committee are presented in the following pages.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
i

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

RESUME ANALYTIQUE

La Troisième réunion du Comité directeur du Projet WIO-LaB PNUE-FEM s'est tenue le 13
mars 2006 à Mahé aux Seychelles. Elle a été officiellement ouverte par le Dr. Rolph Payet,
Secrétaire principal du Ministère de l'Environnement et des Ressources naturelles. Y ont
assisté des responsables du gouvernement de chacun des pays participants (les points
focaux nationaux du Projet) ; des représentants de l'Agence de mise en oeuvre, le PNUE (à
savoir la Division du Fonds pour l'environnement mondial - PNUE/FEM et le Programme
d'action mondial pour la protection de l'environnement marin contre les activités terrestres
PNUE/PAM) ; les agences d'exécution (le Secrétariat de la Convention de Nairobi) ; des
organisations non gouvernementales, ainsi qu'un représentant du Programme pour les
grands écosystèmes marins d'Agulhas et de la Somalie (ASCLME). Des représentants de la
Somalie ont assisté à la réunion en tant qu'observateurs.

L'objectif majeur de la Troisième réunion du Comité directeur du Projet WIO-LaB était
d'évaluer les progrès réalisés au niveau de la mise en oeuvre des activités du projet en 2006
ainsi que d'examiner et approuver le plan de travail et le budget pour la mise en oeuvre des
activités pour l'année 2007.

Bien qu'il ait été noté que l'avancement de la mise en oeuvre des activités du projet dans les
pays participants a été entravé en raison des capacités limitées des institutions participantes,
le Comité directeur était généralement satisfait des progrès réalisés au niveau de la mise en
oeuvre des activités du projet en 2006. Cependant, il a aussi été noté qu'il faut prendre des
mesures de redressement basées sur les recommandations du Comité directeur et sur le
Bilan à moyen terme de manière à accélérer la mise en oeuvre des composantes du plan de
travail du Projet. Plus particulièrement, il a également été noté qu'il serait important
d'établir une stratégie relative au soutien requis par les points focaux en vue d'intensifier la
mise en oeuvre des activités du projet au niveau national dans les pays participants.

Les autres questions abordées lors de la réunions portaient sur le processus de préparation
de l'Analyse diagnostique transfrontalière (ADT) pour la région de l'océan Indien
occidental, en prêtant une attention particulière aux activités terrestres qui ont un impact
néfaste sur l'environnement marin et côtier.

Les décisions et les recommandations de la Troisième réunion du Comité directeur du Projet
WIO-LaB sont présentées ci-dessous.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
ii

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

THE DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THIRD REGIONAL
MEETING OF THE WIO-LAB PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE

The Third Regional meeting of the WIO-LaB Project Steering Committee, held in Mahe,
Seychelles on 13th March 2007, having taken into consideration the progress made in the
implementation of the UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project since 2005 and also taking into
consideration the findings and recommendations of the previous meetings of the Steering
Committee held in Tanzania (2005) and Kenya (2006), made the following decisions and
recommendations:

1. Noted with appreciation the Report on the Status of Implementation of the WIO-LaB
Project activities prepared by the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit and congratulated
the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit and Nairobi Convention Secretariat for the effort
put in coordinating the implementation of various project activities in the WIO Region.

2. Noted the difficulties experienced in the implementation of some of the Project activities
in participating countries as detailed in the presentations made by the National Focal
Points in their reports to the Steering Committee and urged all institutions involved in
the implementation of the WIO-LaB Project to expedite outstanding activities.

3. Reviewed the Report on the financial expenditure in the year 2006 presented by the WIO-
LaB Project Management Unit and noted the need for an improvement in the rate of
expenditure in the year 2007.

4. Noted with appreciation the Report on the partnerships established by the WIO-LaB
Project including the leveraged resources, and requested for furtherance of such
collaborations including that with the newly formed NGOs Consortium (WIO-C),
particularly with regard to the implementation of the outstanding activities.

5. Noted with appreciation the workplan and strategy for the preparation of a
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Programme (TDA and SAP) for
the Western Indian Ocean region as prepared by the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
and called for its expedited implementation, taking into consideration the need to
present the early outputs of this process to the 5th Conference of Contracting Parties
(COP-5) to Nairobi Convention (scheduled to be held in Cape Town, South Africa in
September 2007).

6. Considered and approved the WIO-LaB Project work plan for the year 2007, as prepared by
the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit and called for expedited implementation of the
approved Workplan taking due considerations of the recommendations for enhancement
as deliberated upon by the Steering Committee.

7. Considered and approved the WIO-LaB Project budget for the year 2007, including the
inclusion of the costs of Focal Point coordination support and called for expedited
implementation of project activities.
8. Agreed that the activities earmarked for the Incomati Integrated Coastal Area and River
Basin Management (ICARM) Demonstration project should be downscaled and be
focussed on the preparation of an environmental profile and management strategy and
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
iii

allocate the saved resources for development of demonstration projects in countries that
currently do not have any.

9. Agreed that additional support should be extended to the National Focal Points in order
to enable them build the required capacity for enhanced and efficient coordination of
implementation of the project activities in participating countries. Modalities of
provision of such support to be discussed further between the project management and
the Focal Points of respective countries.

10. Agreed that the interim Regional Coordinator of Nairobi Convention will communicate
with the National Focal Point Institutions/Ministries highlighting concerns of the
Nairobi Convention with regard to the difficulties in the implementation of some of the
activities in participating countries and indicate the need for enhanced implementation
of agreed activities at national level. Where appropriate the NEPAD framework led by
Kenya on coastal and marine programmes will be used.

11. Welcomed the participation of Somalia in the meeting as an observer and called for
concerted efforts to be made in order to assist Somalia participate more actively in the
Nairobi Convention activities for the protection, development and management of the
coastal and marine environment in Eastern Africa.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
iv

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

LES DECISIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS DE LA TROISIEME REUNION
REGIONALE DU COMITE DIRECTEUR DU PROJET WIO-LAB

Après avoir pris en considération les progrès réalisés au niveau de la mise en oeuvre du
Projet WIO-LaB PNUE-FEM depuis 2005 ainsi que les conclusions et recommandations des
réunions précédentes du Comité directeur tenues en Tanzanie (2005) et au Kenya (2006), la
Troisième réunion régionale du Comité directeur du Projet WIO-LaB, tenue le 13 mars
2007 aux Seychelles, a pris les décisions et émis les recommandations suivantes :

1. Noté avec appréciation le Rapport sur l'état d'avancement de la mise en oeuvre des
activités du Projet WIO-LaB préparé par son Unité de gestion et félicité cette Unité de
gestion du Projet WIO-LaB et le Secrétariat de la Convention de Nairobi pour les efforts
fournis dans le cadre de la coordination de la mise en oeuvre des diverses activités du
Projet dans le région de l'OIO.

2. Noté les difficultés rencontrées lors de mise en oeuvre de certaines des activités du
Projet dans les pays participants comme indiqué en détail par les points focaux
nationaux dans leurs rapports au Comité directeur et encouragé l'ensemble des
institutions impliquées dans la mise en oeuvre du Projet WIO-LaB à accélérer les
activités en souffrance.

3. Examiné le Rapport sur les dépenses financières en 2006 présenté par l'Unité de gestion
du Projet WIO-LaB et noté la nécessité d'une réduction du taux des dépenses pour
l'année 2007.

4. Noté avec appréciation le Rapport sur les partenariats établis par le Projet WIO-LaB et
cela comprend les ressources requises pour poursuivre ces collaborations, y compris
celle avec le Consortium d'ONG (WIO-C) nouvellement constitué, en particulier en ce
qui concerne la mise en oeuvre des activités en souffrance.

5. Noté avec appréciation le plan de travail et la stratégie de préparation d'une Analyse
diagnostique transfrontalière et d'un Programme d'action stratégique (ADT et PAS)
pour la région de l'océan Indien occidental qui ont été établis par l'Unité de gestion du
Projet WIO-LaB et demandé sa mise en oeuvre accélérée en prenant en considération la
nécessité de présenter les produits initiaux de ce processus à la 5ème Conférence des
parties contractantes (CdP-5) à la Convention de Nairobi (prévue en septembre 2007 au
Cap en Afrique du Sud.

6. Considéré et approuvé le plan de travail du Projet WIO-LaB pour l'année 2007 comme
préparé par l'Unité de gestion du Projet WIO-LaB et demandé la mise en oeuvre
accélérée du plan de travail approuvé en tenant compte des recommandations relatives
à son amélioration émises par le Comité directeur.

7. Considéré et approuvé le budget du Projet WIO-LaB pour l'année 2007, y compris
l'inclusion des coûts du soutien de la coordination des points focaux et demandé la mise
en oeuvre accélérée des activités du projet.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
v

8. Convenu que les activités prévues pour le Projet de démonstration sur la Gestion
intégrée des zones côtières et des bassins fluviaux (ICARM) de l'Incomati devraient être
réduites et concentrées sur la préparation d'un profil environnemental et d'une stratégie
de gestion. Il faudrait consacrer les ressources ainsi épargnées au développement des
projets de démonstration dans les pays où il n'y en a pas à l'heure actuelle.

9. Convenu qu'il faudrait apporter davantage d'appui aux points focaux nationaux afin de
leur permettre de renforcer les capacités requises en vue d'améliorer la coordination de
la mise en oeuvre des activités du projet dans les pays participants. Les modalités
d'apport de cet appui doivent être finalisées par l'Unité de gestion du Projet et les
points focaux de chaque pays.

10. Convenu que le Coordinateur régional intérimaire de la Convention de Nairobi
prendra contact avec les institutions/ministères points focaux nationaux en mettant
l'accent sur les inquiétudes de la Convention de Nairobi en ce qui concerne les
difficultés quant à la mise en oeuvre de certaines des activités dans les pays participants
et indiqué la nécessité d'améliorer la mise en oeuvre des activités convenues au niveau
national. Dès qu'il conviendra, ces dernières s'inscriront dans le cadre du NEPAD mené
par le Kenya pour les programmes portant sur l'environnement marin et côtier.

11. Accueilli la participation de la Somalie à la réunion en tant qu'observateur et fait appel
aux efforts concertés à fournir afin d'aider la Somalie à participer plus activement aux
activités de la Convention de Nairobi pour la protection, le développement et la gestion
de l'environnement marin et côtier en Afrique orientale.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
vi

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. I
THE DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE THIRD REGIONAL MEETING OF
THE WIO-LAB PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE.............................................................................. III
1. OPENING OF THE MEETING ................................................................................................................1
1.1
OPENING STATEMENTS:........................................................................................................................1
1.2
OFFICIAL ADDRESS BY THE SEYCHELLES MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES........................................................................................................................................................2
2. ORGANIZATION OF THE MEETING (ELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND
RAPPORTEUR)...................................................................................................................................................3
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA..............................................................................................................4
4. REPORT ON PROGRESS MADE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES IN 2006......4
4.1
OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................4
4.2
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND STATUS.............................................................................13
4.3
OVERVIEW OF 2006 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE................................................................................19
4.4
PARTNERS AND LEVERAGED RESOURCES..........................................................................................20
4.5
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENHANCEMENT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................20
5. WORK PLAN FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007.............................................................................23
5.1
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT WORK PLAN FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007.............................................23
5.2
WORKPLAN AND STRATEGY FOR TDA/SAP DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................25
5.3
FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007 .............................................................27
6. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................27
7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS............................................................................................................28
8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS ........................................................................................................................28
9. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ..............................................................................................................29

LIST OF ANNEXES

1. Agenda
2. List of Documents Distributed
3. List of Participants
4. Overview of financial performance in the year 2006
5. Work plan for the calendar year 2007
6. Proposed budgetary allocations for the calendar year 2007

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
vii

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

REPORT OF THE MEETING

1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.0.1 The meeting was called to order by Mr. Dixon Waruinge, the Programme Officer
responsible for the Nairobi Convention for the management, development and protection of
the coastal and marine environment in Eastern Africa.

1.1 Opening statements:
The representatives of UNEP/Nairobi Convention and WIO-LaB Project Management made
brief opening statements as presented in the following sections.

1.1.1 Remarks by the Nairobi Convention Secretariat
1.1.1.1 Mr. Dixon Waruinge, the Programme Officer in charge of the Nairobi Convention
brought to the attention of the delegates the precedent that had been set in other previous
meetings of the Steering Committee where the host country chairs the meeting. He
suggested that the third meeting of the WIO-LaB Project Steering Committee be chaired by
Seychelles which is also the seat of the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) of the
UNEP/Nairobi Convention for the management, development and protection of the coastal
and marine environment in Eastern Africa.

1.1.1.2 The Committee members did not raise any objection to this suggestion and Dr. Rolph
Payet, who is also the Principal Secretary in the Seychelles Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources, accepted the responsibility of chairing the meeting.

1.1.2 Remarks by the WIO-LaB Project Manager
1.1.2.1 The WIO-LaB Project Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren, in his remarks welcomed all the
delegates to the third meeting of the Steering Committee of the WIO-LaB Project. He noted
that the main purpose of the meeting was to review progress and achievements made in the
implementation of the project since its inception in 2005. He also noted that the meeting
would provide direction on how participating countries could capitalize on some of the
preliminary outputs of the project and find out how tools, assessment reports,
demonstration projects, stakeholders participation plans could be used in the countries to
further enhance the management of the coastal and marine environment.

1.1.2.2 Dr. Scheren also expressed his appreciation to Seychelles for hosting the present
meeting of the Project Steering Committee, noting that it was the first time that the WIO-LaB
Project was holding one of its meetings in Seychelles. He in particular thanked Dr. Rolph
Payet, the Interim Regional Coordinator of Nairobi Convention for the support his office
had continued to offer to the project.

1.1.2.3 Dr. Scheren also thanked all members of the Steering Committee for accepting the
invitation to the present meeting, noting that it was a demonstration of their commitment to
the achievement of project's goals and aspirations.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
1

1.2 Official address by the Seychelles Minister of Environment and Natural Resources
1.2.1 Mr. Dixon Waruinge invited Dr. Rolph Payet, the Principal Secretary in the Ministry
of Environment and Natural Resources and the interim Coordinator of the Nairobi
Convention to address the members of the Steering Committee and officially open the
meeting.

1.2.2 Dr. Rolph Payet in his official speech noted that the 3rd Meeting of the WIO-LaB
Project Steering Committee was an important event as the members would have an
opportunity to discuss implementation issues as the project's mid-term review process was
ongoing. The process would prove to be instrumental in determining the final lap of the
project in the WIO region. He noted that when the project was conceived, it was regarded as
an important project emanating from the African Process and it aimed at putting the Nairobi
Convention in its proper place in the region. However, there were a number of important
and critical issues to be tackled by the Committee in order to ensure that there were value-
added benefits to participating countries that are party to the Nairobi Convention. Such
value addition would ensure that the coastal and marine environment would be in a better
state than it was two years ago, and that a sense of ownership and political commitment for
taking action for the protection and management of the coastal and marine environment at
both national and regional levels would be achieved.

1.2.3 Dr. Payet recalled the decision made by the Steering Committee during its first
meeting held in April 2005 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that required `participating countries
to explore suitable mechanisms for efficient inter-ministerial coordination in accordance with the
tasks. Where such mechanism does not exist, Inter-Ministerial Committees should be set up'. He
wondered whether countries have implemented that decision.

1.2.4 Dr. Payet also recalled that the Steering Committee had directed that `countries should
ensure a small secretariat that will coordinate the work of the inter-Ministerial Committees through
the national Focal Point. The National Focal Points as the members of the PSC are to oversee and
coordinate on a national level the implementation of activities defined in the WIO-LaB Project
document'. He noted that the above were important decisions, and challenged the
representatives of participating countries to evaluate how effectively those decisions had
been implemented in their countries. He further noted that the focal points need to be totally
engaged in this process and urged them to contribute extensively in the present meeting.

1.2.5 Dr. Payet also re-iterated that it was the focal points that provide strategic direction
to the WIO-LaB Project at the level of the Steering Committee. As the WIO-LaB Project
approaches its conclusion, he called upon the Focal Points to make a serious commitment to
get the demonstration projects off the ground and fully engage stakeholders in the
implementation of the project. He further noted that it was through these simple steps that
the focal points would pave the way for further growth of the Nairobi Convention. He noted
that it was the national focal points that would make it work at the national level, and
without their input and support, the project would generate very little benefit to the target
countries.

1.2.6 Dr. Payet further observed that the WIO-LaB project should not be a means to an
end, but rather part of a long strategy to implement the goals and targets of the Nairobi
Convention programme of work. He recognised this to a vital link as the priorities are set by
the Conference of the Parties, and whilst implementation is often constrained by lack of
adequate finances, such cannot be said of the WIO-LaB Project.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
2

1.2.7 Dr. Payet further noted that limited impact of the WIO-LaB project at this juncture,
was reminiscent of l'etat d'affaires in many of the countries in the region. Whilst there were
resources in the project, Focal Points have not adequately mobilised national entities and
bodies to ensure proper action on the ground.

1.2.8 Dr. Payet noted that there was widespread consensus that governments and civil
society in general were becoming intolerant to large reports, but would in fact prefer action
on the ground. The WIO-LaB project has offered two distinct possibilities for action to occur
on the ground; (a) the Demonstration projects and (b) the Small Grants Programme (SGP).
He noted that funds were available and requested countries to find out how do translate
these opportunities into action on the ground. He further noted that whilst organisations
such as the GEF were demanding for greater transparency and accountability, countries
must be able to implement activities on the ground in the most responsible manner. He
urged countries to show that the Nairobi Convention countries can do this effectively.

1.2.9 Dr. Payet noted further that many regional and global organisations were presently
watching the Western Indian Ocean. So far the region has almost 40 million dollars of
approved funding primarily from the GEF and the European Union. He noted that the way
this money was spent would depend a lot on national priorities and implementation
arrangements. He emphasised the importance of pro-active inter-ministerial and multi-
stakeholder mechanisms at the national level.

1.2.10 Dr. Payet encouraged members of the Steering Committee to make the 3rd meeting
of the Steering Committee an active one, so that the WIO-LaB Project and Nairobi
Convention can return to the office with clear guidance and a renewed commitment for a
fruitful legacy of the WIO-LaB project in the region.

2.
ORGANIZATION OF THE MEETING (ELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF
CHAIR AND RAPPORTEUR)
2.1
Following suggestions made earlier by the Programme Officer responsible for the
Nairobi Convention, the meeting decided to use the existing structures established by the
Nairobi Convention where the chair would be provided by Seychelles represented by Dr.
Rolph Payet, interim Coordinator of the Nairobi Convention and the Principal Secretary in
the Seychelles Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. The Chair of the 3rd meeting
of the WIO-LaB Project would be supported by the Chair and Rapporteur of the Bureau of
Nairobi Convention provided by Madagascar and Mozambique, respectively.

2.2
Subsequently, the elected Chair introduced the local Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) that were represented at the meeting. Thereafter, he invited the
delegates to introduce themselves. The list of delegates is shown in Annex 3 (background
document UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/INF.2)

2.3
The delegates introduced themselves stating their names, designations and
institutions/organizations they represented. Following the introduction of the Project
Steering Committee members and other invited guests, the WIO-LaB Project Manager took
the floor for presentation of the next agenda item.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
3

3.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
3.1
The Chair, Dr. Rolph Payet, introduced the provisional agenda and with the
assistance of the WIO-LaB Project Manager brought to the attention of the Committee all
background documents listed in document UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/INF.1 that had been
prepared by the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit in order to facilitate deliberations on
various issues listed in the Provisional Agenda.

3.2
Following deliberations on the provisional agenda that was presented, the
Committee adopted the agenda without amendments. The adopted agenda is presented in
the Report as Annex 1 (UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/1).

4.
REPORT ON PROGRESS MADE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES
IN 2006.
4.0.1 The Chair introduced the above mentioned agenda item and invited the Project
Manager of the WIO-LaB Project, Dr. Peter Scheren to provide a short presentation on the
WIO-LaB Project for the benefit of new members of the Steering Committee and Seychelles
delegation of NGOs. Dr. Peter Scheren briefed the meeting on the three Global Environment
Facility (GEF) funded projects namely UNEP Coordinated addressing land-based activities
project (WIO-LaB), the UNDP coordinated Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine
Ecosystems Project (ASCLME) and the World Bank coordinated Southwest Indian Ocean
Fisheries Project (SWIOFP). He also briefed the meeting on other regional projects
implemented in the WIO Region such as ReCoMaP and ACEP noting that these projects
were tackling the same group of LME Problems in the WIO Region.

4.0.2 Dr. Scheren also briefed the delegates on the geographical jurisdiction of the project
including the mainland and island States that are participating in the implementation of the
WIO-LaB Project. He also highlighted the goals and objectives of the project, and provided
details on the key characteristics of the project including the funding provided by the GEF,
Government of Norway, UNEP and participating countries.

4.1 Overview of national project implementation
4.1.1 The Chair introduced the above mentioned sub-agenda item and invited the WIO-
LaB Project Manager to provide the Committee with short guidelines for the presentations to
be made by the National Focal Points. Each of the National Focal Points was requested to
brief the Committee on the progress made with regard to the implementation of the WIO-
LaB Project in their respective countries. The presentations by Focal Points were to cover the
following issues:

§ The establishment and functioning of national coordination mechanisms (National
(Inter-ministerial) Coordination Committee, Task Forces and Working Groups).

§ Key activities and outputs (such as preparation of the National Pollution Status
Reports, National Monitoring Programmes, Legal Review Reports, Marine Litter
Assessment Reports and MWW Status Reports).

§ The development and implementation of demonstration projects.

§ National review of the new Land-based Sources and Activities (LBSA) Protocol to the
Nairobi Convention.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
4

§ Development of National Programmes of Action (NPA) in particular in the case of
Kenya and Tanzania.

4.1.2 Following the above introduction, the Focal Points were invited to present their
reports to the Committee. The following section presents the details on the Reports
presented by the Focal Points of Comoros, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa,
Tanzania, Seychelles and Madagascar.

4.1.1 Comoros
4.1.1.1 Ms. Fatouma Ali Abdallah, the Deputy Director in the Direction National de
l'Environnement (INRAPE) of the Union of Comoros presented the Report on the progress
on the implementation of the project activities in Comoros. Ms. Abdallah reported that a
National Meeting that brought together various National Task Forces and Working Groups
involved in various WIO-LaB Project related activities was recently held in Comoros. She
also reported that the DirectorGeneral of INRAPE had approved the formation of these
technical groups. She noted that arrangements are being made to establish a National
Secretariat for the coordination of various project activities in the Comoros.

4.1.1.2 Ms. Abdallah also reported that all the National Reports that were prepared under
the auspices of the WIO-LaB Project have been finalized and forwarded to the WIO-LaB
Project Management Unit for further action.

4.1.1.3 With regard to the preparation of demonstration projects, she reported that the final
demonstration project document for Moheli had already been completed and circulated to
all key stakeholders for their comments. The final document had already been forwarded to
the WIO-LaB PMU for presentation to the Steering Committee for approval so that
implementation of full scale activities could commence.

4.1.1.4 With regard to the Land-based Sources and Activities (LBSA) Protocol, she reported
that the National Legal Task Force discussed the same in its last meeting, and comments
were provided to the WIO-LaB PMU.

4.1.1.5 With regard to Small Grants Programme (SGP), she reported that contact had
already being established with the UNDP SGP Coordinator in the Comoros and modalities
for the implementation of the programme in the Comoros had been established.

4.1.1.6 With regard to the National Programme of Action (NPA), she reported that the
National Development Plan developed by the Comoros Ministry of Environment stated
certain priorities related to coastal and marine environment that are also given prominence
in the Comoros Poverty Reduction Strategy.

4.1.2 Kenya
4.1.2.1 Mr. Ali Mohamed representing the Director-General of the National Environment
Management Authority (NEMA) of Kenya reported to the Committee the progress in the
implementation of the WIO-LaB Project activities in Kenya.

4.1.2.2 Mr. Mohamed reported that Kenya had established an inter-Ministerial Committee
for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and policy development. The same
committee was also responsible for the coordination of activities of the WIO-LaB Project.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
5

4.1.2.3 Mr. Mohamed also reported that four National Task Forces on Municipal
Wastewater Management (MWW), Physical Alteration and Destruction of Habitats (PADH),
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Legal Review have been formed in Kenya and
the four Task Forces had come up with specific outputs such as Reports on legal review, as
well as a framework National Plan of Action on Land-based Activities (LBA). He noted that
the Key National Reports prepared by National experts had also been deliberated on by the
National Task Forces and stakeholders before being submitted to the WIO-LaB Project
Management Unit (PMU). He noted that the National Reports offered a true representation
of the national view and key issues with regard to the coastal and marine environment in
Kenya.

4.1.2.4 With regard to the demonstration projects, Mr. Mohamed reported that the Shimo la
Tewa wastewater management demonstration project in Mombasa was considered a very
important project for Kenya since there were a number of facilities located along the Kenya
Coast that lacked wastewater management systems and that would benefit from lessons and
experiences gained at Shimo la Tewa. He noted that the demonstration project would have
impacts beyond the place where it is being implemented. He further reported that the WIO-
LaB Project Management had been liaising closely with the Coast Development Authority
(CDA), the proponent of the project with regard to the implementation of the project.

4.1.2.5 With regard to LBSA Protocol, Mr. Mohamed reported that the protocol is yet to be
discussed by the National Legal Task Force. However, plans to discuss/review the protocol
during the next meeting of the National legal Task Force were at an advanced stage.

4.1.2.6 With regard to the Small Grants Programme, Mr. Mohamed reported that he had not
been briefed by the National SGP Coordinator on the progress that had so far been made
with regard to launching of the programme in Kenya.

4.1.2.7 With regard to National Programme of Action (NPA,) Mr. Mohamed acknowledged
the support provided to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in
order to develop the NPA for the protection of the coastal and marine environment from
LBA.

4.1.2.8 With regard to the challenges faced by the Focal Point in the coordination of
implementation of various project activities, he noted that the major challenge had been the
coordination of many institutions involved in the implementation of various project
activities at national level. He also noted that the location of the Focal Point institution away
from the coast made linkages and coordination with institutions based at the coast difficult.
He also noted that the level of support from Focal Point institutions had been limited. In this
regard, he suggested that there was a need to strengthen the Focal Point office in order to
effectively discharge its responsibilities and achieve the set objectives of the project.

4.1.3 Mauritius
4.1.3.1 Mr. Jogeeswar Seewoobaduth, the Acting Divisional Environment Officer who
represented the Acting Director of Environment, Ministry of Environment and National
Development Unit, Mauritius, presented the Report on the progress in the implementation
of the project activities in Mauritius.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
6

4.1.3.2 With regard to national coordination, he reported that Mauritius had decided not to
establish many Task Forces for various WIO-LaB Project activities but preferred to use the
Nairobi Convention Committee coordination mechanism that was already fully functional.
He noted that the selected members of the committee had participated in various Task Force
activities.

4.1.3.3 Mr. Seewoobaduth informed the meeting that the draft National Pollution Status
Report for Mauritius had been prepared and submitted to the WIO-LaB PMU. He also
reported that the National Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring Programme had been
finalized and the contract documents were awaiting the signature of the Ministry. He also
reported that the two legal review national reports had been prepared and submitted to the
PMU for necessary action. Furthermore, he reported that the Marine Litter Assessment
Report had been submitted to WIOMSA and the regional consultant. Mr. Seewoobaduth
also informed the Committee that the Municipal Wastewater Management Report was in the
process of preparation by the National Expert who was at that moment also discussing it
with the stakeholders.

4.1.3.4 With regard to the demonstration project, Mr. Seewoobaduth reported that it had
unfortunately taken long for the project proponents to update and prepare the project
documents as per the recommendations put forward by the PMU. He however, noted that
some of the bottlenecks that led to the delays in the preparation of the proposals have been
removed. He highlighted to the committee the main focus of two demonstration projects
noting also that the projects documents had been re-orientated and re-submitted to the
Ministry of Environment. Arrangements would be made to submit the updated project
documents to the PMU.

4.1.3.5 Mr. Seewoobaduth reported that the National Parks demonstration project had been
re-orientated in order to present the land-ocean linkages more prominently. Also, new
stakeholders have been brought onboard. He noted that the project preparation had taken
too long because they were waiting for commitment from the key stakeholders. This
commitment had finally been secured and they were ready to proceed with the
implementation of the project.

4.1.3.6 With regard to the challenges faced by the Focal Point in the coordination of project
activities in Mauritius, Mr. Seewoobaduth reported that shortage of staff had been a major
bottleneck in the Focal Point Institutions, i.e. the Ministry of Environment. He noted that it
would be important to provide some additional support to the Focal Point Office in
Mauritius.

4.1.3.7 With regard to the national level review of LBSA Protocol, Mr. Seewoobaduth noted
that the document had been circulated to stakeholders in Mauritius and the comments that
were received were forwarded to the WIO-LaB PMU. With regard to the Small Grants
Programme (SGP), he noted that it would be cost effective if funds would be channelled
directly to the countries. He observed the cost of advertising the call of proposals made the
entire programme less cost-effective.

4.1.4 Mozambique
4.1.4.1 Mr. Polycarpo Napica, the National Director of Environment in the Ministry for
Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA), Mozambique presented the Report on the
progress on the implementation of the project activities in Mozambique. With regard to the
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
7

establishment of an Inter-Institutional Coordination Committee for the coordination of
project activities, he reported the National Sustainable Development Group had been acting
as such. He also reported that three Task Forces and Working Groups focussing on the (1)
legal review issues, (2) Incomati ICARM Demonstration project and (3) water and sediment
quality issues, had been formed and were already undertaking various activities.

4.1.4.2 Mr. Napica informed the Committee that the draft version of the National Pollution
Status Report and the draft versions of the Legal Review National Reports had been
prepared and submitted to the WIO-LaB PMU. He reported that the Department of Food
and Water Safety (LNHAA) in the Ministry of Health was discussing with the PMU on
issues related to the preparation of the Mozambique National Water and Sediment Quality
Monitoring Programme. However, the national reports on the Marine Litter Assessment and
the Municipal Wastewater Management were still pending since no national experts had
been identified to carry out the assignment in Mozambique. However, an expert to work on
the Municipal Wastewater Management Report had subsequently been identified.

4.1.4.3 With regard to the demonstration projects, Mr. Polycarpo Napica reported to the
committee that there were two demonstration projects in Mozambique; (1) the Integrated
Coastal Area and River Basin Management (ICARM) Demonstration project which focussed
on the Incomati basin and (2) the mangrove reforestation demonstration project focussed at
Lumbo in northern Mozambique. In the case of the Incomati ICARM Project, he reported
that a small National Working Group consisting of a hydrologist, a GIS Expert, an Ecologist
and two other specialists had been formed. The Group was preparing an environmental
profile for the Incomati basin and associated coastal zone in Mozambique including a
management strategy. He also reported that the mangrove demonstration project had
entered the full implementation stage under the coordination of the Grupo de Trabalho
Ambiental (GTA) in collaboration with Eduardo Mondlane University and some results of
the project were already evident in the field (he had taken several photographs of
established nurseries, planted areas, oyster farms, etc).

4.1.4.4 With regard to LBSA Protocol, Mr. Napica reported that a small National Working
Group had been established to deal with legal issues. However, the delays experienced were
occasioned by the need to translate the LBSA Protocol into Portuguese since most of the
members were not conversant with English. Translation of the Protocol had been done and
the national level review would commence soon.

4.1.4.5 With regard to the SGP, Mr. Napica reported that members of the National SGP
Committee had already discussed and agreed with the National Coordinator on how to
integrate the WIO-LaB SGP with the UNDP SGP so that the two programmes operated
under the same arrangements. In this regard, there was an agreement for the preparation of
a joint work programme.

4.1.4.6 Mr. Napica reported that special funds to facilitate the work of the Focal Point had
been received. He also reported that Mozambique has received support from the WIO-LaB
Project for coordination of project activities.

4.1.5 South Africa
4.1.5.1 Dr. Naomi Mdzeke, the Chief Director for Integrated Coastal Management, Marine
and Coastal Management in the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT),
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
8

South Africa presented the Report on the progress in the implementation of the project
activities in South Africa.

4.1.5.2 Dr. Mdzeke informed the meeting that South Africa had a Ministerial led Group
chaired by the Minister of Environment and that it also made use of existing
Working/Technical Groups such as the EIA Working Group, Environment Working Group
and the Provincial Committees to coordinate the work of the WIO-LaB Project in South
Africa.

4.1.5.3 Dr. Mdzeke informed the Committee that the National Reports on the Legal Review
as well as the Pollution Status Reports (prepared by CSIR) had already been reviewed at
national level. However, she was not able to report on the progress made with regard to the
preparation of the Marine Litter Assessment report since she had no details.

4.1.5.4 With regard to the demonstration projects, Dr. Mdzeke reported that although the
algal ponding systems demonstration project had been approved, the project ran into
trouble with the local communities and municipality due to disagreement between the
stakeholders. However, efforts to restart the project were being made and the next
stakeholders meeting to discuss the way forward would be held in March 2007. She noted
however, that it may be decided that the algal ponding system demonstration project would
not be acceptable to the community because it is on private land. In this regard DEAT would
review the situation and decide whether to proceed with the project or recommend initiation
of another demonstration project that is acceptable to the community.

4.1.5.5 With regard to SGP, Dr. Mdzeke reported that documentation had already been
received from the WIO-LaB PMU and the same had been circulated to possible participants.
She looked forward to receiving some feedback from the stakeholders sometime in April
2007.

4.1.5.6 Dr. Mdzeke further reported that a National Advisory Forum to drive the process for
the preparation of the National Programme of Action (NPA) for the protection of the coastal
and marine environment had been established. A National workshop to discuss the
roadmap was planned to be held by the end of March 2007.

4.1.5.7 With regard to the challenges faced in the coordination of project activities, Dr.
Mdzeke noted that weaknesses in sharing of information between the Focal Point and the
national experts undertaking various project assignments had been a matter of concern. In
this regard, she noted that there were major gaps in sharing of information at national level
occasioned by the fact that national experts were contacting the WIO-LaB PMU directly
leaving the Focal Point out of the loop. This was however noted to be due to non
responsiveness of the Focal Point.

4.1.5.8 Dr. Mdzeke also informed the Committee that there were budgetary limitations since
funding arrangements were such that the marine and coastal management activities were
funded from levies collected from the fishing companies. With the expansion of the mandate
of DEAT into marine coastal environment management, there were questions from the key
stakeholders on whether the fisheries sector should continue paying for the work on coastal
and marine management and particularly on issues not relevant to fisheries. She reported
that in view of stakeholders concerns, DEAT was re-examining this funding arrangement
since it could not be sustained by the marine living resources fund alone. She hoped that in
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
9

the 2007/2008 financial year, there would be some improvement in terms of funding of
DEAT's progammes.

4.1.6 Tanzania
4.1.6.1 Mrs. Melania Sangeu, Senior Environment Officer representing the Director-General
of the National Environment Management Council (NEMC) of Tanzania presented the
Report on the progress in the implementation of the project activities in Tanzania.

4.1.6.2 Mrs. Sangeu reported that the National Coordination Committee had been
established under the National Standards and Environment Committee in the Vice-
President's Office. This Committee comprised membership of several key sectoral Ministries
in Tanzania. She noted that this arrangement provided an avenue for the integration of the
WIO-LaB Project activities within the existing national framework. She reported that an
MOU had been signed with the WIO-LaB Project in order to facilitate the work of the Task
Force established within the framework of the National Committee.

4.1.6.3 With regard to demonstration projects, Mrs. Sangeu reported on the two fast track
demonstration projects selected for Tanzania; one for the mainland Tanzania and the other
for the Zanzibar. She reported that the Msimbazi vetiver grass demonstration project had
already entered full implementation stage in October 2006 and various activities were
ongoing in the field. However, the preparation of the Pemba wastewater management
demonstration project is yet to be finalized.

4.1.6.4 With regard to the LBSA Protocol, Mrs. Sangeu reported that NEMC had signed an
MOU with the WIO-LaB Project to facilitate the national review process. With regard to the
implementation of the SGP in Tanzania, Mrs. Sangeu noted that she was yet to contact the
National UNDP SGP Coordinator in Tanzania.

4.1.6.5 With regard to preparation of the National Programme of Action (NPA) for the
protection and management of the coastal and marine environment in Tanzania, she
reported that the NPA document was in the final stages of preparation and it was hoped
that it would be finalized by end of April 2007.

4.1.6.6 With regard to the challenges faced in the coordination of project activities, Mrs.
Sangeu noted that changes in staffing at NEMC had led to new responsibilities and there
were problems of properly matching the activities with the existing personnel. Also, in view
of the fact that some of the activities were undertaken by other national institutions, it had
been difficult for the Focal Point to know what was going on. Also, due to shortage of staff,
the Focal Point was dealing with many activities and it was therefore difficult to submit
outputs according to the set schedules. She noted that in order to secure more commitment,
there is a need to establish WIO-LaB Project Desk or an Office for the Nairobi Convention
activities in Tanzania.

4.1.6.7 With regard to the Legal Review National Reports, Mrs. Sangeu reported that a
National Consultant was already working on the two review reports and NEMC had
already held discussions with the consultant regarding the finalization of the two reports.

4.1.7 Seychelles
4.1.7.1 Mr. Jason Jacqueline, the Seychelles Focal Point based at the Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources presented a report on the progress made in the implementation of
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
10

the project activities in Seychelles. He reported that Seychelles decided not to form many
Task Forces and Working Groups for coordination of the project activities but had
established a single National Inter-Ministerial Committee that brought together various
institutions involved in the implementation of the project.

4.1.7.2 Mr. Jacqueline reported that although the National Pollution Status Report was yet to
be submitted to the PMU, a small Working Group had prepared a draft version of the
pollution status report and had circulated the same for commenting by the stakeholders. He
also reported that Seychelles Bureau of Standards had prepared the National Water and
Sediment Quality Monitoring Programme and the monitoring activities were set to begin in
the course of March 2007.

4.1.7.3 Mr. Jacqueline informed the Committee that the legal review national reports had
been reviewed at national level and comments sent to the PMU. With regard to the MWW
Reports, a consultant was already working on the report which would be submitted by the
end of April 2007.

4.1.7.4 With regard to LBSA Protocol, Mr. Jacqueline reported that the 2nd draft LBSA
Protocol had already been reviewed and comments sent to the PMU. With regard to the
SGP, he reported that they were in the initial stages of establishing the mechanisms of
implementing the programme in Seychelles. The SGP National Coordination Committee had
been formed and information advertised in the newspapers in order to attract interested
NGOs and CBOs.

4.1.7.5 Mr. Jacqueline informed the committee that NPA activities had not started and they
were planning to discuss the same in the coming meeting of the National Inter-Ministerial
Coordination Committee.

4.1.7.6 With regard to the implementation of project activities, he noted that main
challenges included lack of research equipment and laboratory facilities that were very
expensive and had to be imported.

4.1.8 Madagascar
4.1.8.1 Ms. Chantal Andrianarivo, the Chef de Cellule Recherché et Biodiversite Association
Nationale pour la Gestion Des Aires Proteges (ANGAP) and the National Focal Point for
Madagascar presented the Report on the progress in the implementation of the project
activities in Madagascar.

4.1.8.2 Ms. Andrianarivo informed the meeting that the work of Nairobi Convention and
the WIO-LaB Project was coordinated by an Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee
under the Ministry of Environment. The main stakeholders included Ministries of Fisheries,
Tourism and Education, etc. There were also several national Technical Task Forces that had
been established for Municipal Wastewater Management, PADH and Legal review. These
Task Forces reported to the Minister of Environment through the National Focal Point.

4.1.8.3 With regard to the National reports, Ms. Andrianarivo reported that the draft
versions of the National Legal Review reports as well as the National Pollution Status
Reports had been prepared and submitted to the PMU. She also reported that the National
Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring Programme was coordinated by Centre National
de Recherches sur l'Environnement (CNRE) in collaboration with the Institut Halieutique et
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
11

des Sciences Marines (IHSM). She also reported that the National Report on Marine Litter
Assessment had been completed and sent to the Regional Consultant through WIOMSA.
However, the Report on the Municipal wastewater management was still under preparation.

4.1.8.4 With regard to the demonstration project for Madagascar, Ms. Andrianarivo
reported that a demonstration project document had already been sent to the PMU and the
Minister of Environment was looking forward to signing an MOU for the full scale
implementation of the project. The second demonstration project, although endorsed by the
Project Steering Committee, had been put on hold due to scarcity of funding.

4.1.8.5 With regard to the LBSA Protocol, Ms. Andrianarivo reported that the same had
been reviewed by the National Legal Task Force and comments sent to the WIO-LaB PMU.
However, the Protocol was yet to be discussed further and hoped that this would be done in
May 2007.

4.1.8.6 With regard to the SGP, Ms. Andrianarivo reported that she had been requested by
the Ministry of Environment to establish a National SGP Sub-Committee for the WIO-LaB
Project and she was currently waiting for the nomination of the members of the sub-
committee. She hoped that this would be done by June 2007.

4.1.8.7 With regard to the preparation of the National Programme of Action (NPA) for the
protection of the coastal and marine environment, Ms. Andrianarivo noted that Madagascar
National Development Plan offered the basis with regard to the marine and coastal
environmental management issues. She noted that Nairobi Convention was one of the active
conventions that received support of the government. She promised to elaborate a proposal
highlighting activities to be submitted to the Minister.

4.1.9 General discussions
4.1.9.1 There was concern over the inadequate involvement of the National Focal Points in
signing of MOUs with national institutions undertaking various project activities. It was
noted however, that it was only in a few cases that the Focal Points were not effective in
responding to messages sent by the PMU. It was suggested that where the PMU had signed
MOUs with national institutions, copies of the same should be sent to the Focal Point so that
he/she could be aware of what had been agreed upon.

4.1.9.2 Mr. Ali Mohamed representing the NEPAD COSMAR Programme as well Kenya
Focal Point noted that WIO-LaB Project was an important project for the WIO Region and
that it set the foundation for the SAP that would guide Nairobi Convention and WIO Region
in the next several years. He added that it was heartening to note the level of success that
had so far been achieved despite the many challenges faced. He suggested that the PMU
provide a brief on the challenges faced in the coordination of the project and also provide
guidance on what could be done so that the project succeeds. In response, the Project
Manager proposed to delay further discussion on this issue to agenda item 4.4.

4.1.9.3 Mr. Dixon Waruinge, the Programme Officer responsible for Nairobi Convention
observed that the presentations made by the Focal Points touched on national dialogue on
LBSA Protocol. However, this was not happening at the appropriate level and there was a
need to lift the notch higher in order to involve all the stakeholders. On the leadership, he
noted that some of the Focal Points feel that they do not have a firm grip on the processes in
the country. With regard to NPA, he noted that there were a number of activities that had
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
12

been undertaken at national level that could feed into the NPA Process. This included the
process for the preparation of the various national reports (marine litter, pollution,
municipal wastewater management, legal review, ratification of conventions, environmental
impact assessment, etc).

4.1.9.4 Following the presentation of the country reports by the National Focal Points and
above interventions, the Committee noted with appreciation satisfactory progress that has
so far been achieved and requested participating countries, in close liaison with the WIO-
LaB Project Management Unit, to expedite the implementation of outstanding activities.

4.2 Overview of project activities and status

4.2.1 Following the individual country presentations, the Chair introduced the agenda
item and requested the Project Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren, to present to the Committee the
reports on the progress made in the implementation of various project activities as partly
detailed in the project's Annual Report for the calendar year 2006 (presented as document
UNEP-GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/4). Details on the presentations made are given in the following
sections.

4.2.2 Dr. Peter Scheren provided a brief report on the status with regard to the
achievement of the objectives defined for the key components of the WIO-LaB Project,
focussing on the (1) water and sediment quality, (2) municipal wastewater management and
physical alteration and destruction of habitats (MWW/PADH), (3) legal and technical
review, (4) environmental impact assessment, (5) National Programme of Action (NPA), (6)
Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management (ICARM), (7) Regional Coordination,
(7) Capacity building (training and educational programmes), (8) Stakeholders involvement
and (9) Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Programme (TDA/SAP).

4.2.3 Dr. Scheren observed that with regard to the national coordination framework, some
countries felt that the structure defined in the WIO-LaB Project document was too complex
and instead of creating too many national coordination structures, it would make sense to
place all activities under a single national coordination framework. In view of this change,
he hoped that the Steering Committee would take note of this fact and provide appropriate
directions.

4.2.4 Dr. Scheren also reported to the Committee that the project had realised many useful
outputs such as those related to demonstration projects, water and sediment quality
monitoring programme, national legal review, etc. He also noted that considering the
workplan, the project was performing quite well and the delays that had been experienced
in the initiation of certain activities were not serious.

4.2.5 During the discussions that followed the above presentation, Mr. Jason Jacqueline
who is the Focal Point of Seychelles requested for information on whether the project could
consider a demonstration project in Seychelles. The WIO-LaB Project Manager, Dr. Peter
Scheren noted that time should not impose limitation in this regard and that the Steering
Committee should provide appropriate direction on the request made by Seychelles. He
however, noted that the request may be limited due to budgetary considerations since funds
for the demonstration projects had already been allocated to other projects in participating
countries.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
13

4.2.6 Mr. Ali Mohamed recalled that during the second Steering Committee meeting, it
was recommended that there should be equity in the distribution of demonstration projects.
He suggested that the Committee should recommend that where resources were available,
special consideration should be given to Seychelles since it had no demonstration project at
the moment.

4.3 Discussion concerning Small Grants Programme (SGP)

4.3.1 With regard to the SGP, the Chair, Dr. Rolph Payet had a strong argument that the
WIO-LaB Project SGP should not be linked to the Global SGP Programme coordinated by
UNDP. He noted that in some of the participating countries such as Seychelles, there was no
SGP Framework and linking with UNDP SGP would unnecessarily complicate matters. The
Project Manager however noted that during the second Steering Committee meeting, it was
decided that the facilities offered by the Global SGP could be used were possible, but not
exclusively. He noted that the Global SGP Coordinators would facilitate the process and the
Focal Points would be in charge of the selection of projects to be implemented. This
arrangement would minimize costs. He further noted that the SGP allocation of US$ 30,000
per country was too little to have any major impact. He suggested that where a Global SGP
Coordinator was available, countries should make use of the existing arrangement.
However, where such arrangements do not exist, countries were encouraged to establish an
appropriate alternative mechanism.

4.3.2 Mr. Takehiro Nakamura, the Senior Programme Office in charge of International
Waters Portfolio in the UNEP Division of GEF Coordination briefed the meeting on the
discussions between the implementing agencies and UNDP where it was decided that the
SGP should not be a UNDP Programme, but should be a GEF component programme for all
the three implementing agencies. He further noted that SGP projects were normally
approved on the understanding that local NGOs/CBOs may not identify with global
environmental benefits. Therefore, the programme aimed at establishing partnerships
between the existing international waters projects and local CBOs and NGOs that may not
identify the IW priority areas or issues.

4.3.3 Mr. Nakamura further observed that within the auspices of the WIO-LaB Project,
WIO region would have a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) that defines the priorities and
actions that countries would implement through their own National Action Programmes
(NAP). In this regard, there was a good justification for the use of the National SGP Process
established under the auspices of UNDP. By partnering with Global SGP, the WIO-LaB
Project would accelerate the identification of proposals that touch on priority issues and/or
problems at national level.

4.3.4 Mr. Waruinge observed that the first step would be to agree that there was a need for
partnership with the Global SGP and then agree on how to proceed with the implementation
of the partnership. He recalled the deliberations during the previous Steering Committee
meeting where it was indicated that by partnering with Global SGP, it would be possible to
secure additional funding or resources to supplement those available under the WIO-LaB
Project. He noted the need to establish priorities and areas where implementation can
proceed immediately. He gave an example of ICRAN Project where the SGP National
Committee for Kenya proposed projects to be funded. The projects that were eventually
selected were those that could add value to the work programme of ICRAN. He suggested
that the committee recommend or identify the most appropriate model be used in case of the
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
14

WIO-LaB Project SGP and emphasis should be put on projects that add value to other
activities such as demonstration projects.

4.3.5 Dr. Payet noting that GEF was undergoing review and that he was aware of different
SGP models applied in different countries maintained his concern on the delivery of outputs
noting the need for flexibility in the implemented of the WIO-LaB SGP. He noted that it
would not be advisable to lock the WIO-LaB Project SGP into the Global SGP, unless there
was a guarantee that will add value and guarantee delivery of outputs.

4.3.6 Mr. Ali Mohamed acknowledged that the project could leverage future gains
through partnering with Global SGP. He however observed that involvement of another
player at national level had the potential of complicating the process in participating
countries. He further suggested that if the process was country driven, it would have more
vivid impacts, particularly if coordinated within the current framework of the national focal
points.

4.3.7 Dr. Payet observed that the Global SGP had come up with a graduation policy for
countries like Mauritius where after a period of 10 years, the country looses the facility. He
noted that GEF was looking at sustainable funding for SGP support so that programmes are
ran by the countries themselves and the private sector and other institutions are involved.

4.3.8 Ms. Fatouma Ali Abdallah who is the National Focal Point for the Comoros observed
that countries would accrue greater benefits if they partnered with the Global SGP.

4.3.9 Dr. Scheren noted that if countries wanted to stimulate more projects in the WIO
region, it would be advisable to collaborate with the Global SGP. He however noted that
partnering with Global SGP did not mean that the Focal Points would forfeit their mandate
to determine the projects that are selected for funding. He emphasised the need to tap on the
Global SGP funds since the amount of money allocated for the WIO-LaB SGP was small and
should only be regarded as catalytic.

4.3.10 Mr. Waruinge in summary suggested that the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
should review the different perspectives/ models and options in all the participating
countries and adapt the programme as the implementation proceeds, taking into
consideration the creativity of each of the participating countries as well the local
arrangements.

4.4 Discussion concerning challenges to national project implementation
4.4.1 Dr. Scheren provided a summary of key issues regarding to the challenges faced in
the implementation of the project, noting in particular the following; (1) National
dialogue/coordination, (2) leadership, (3) demand on the part of the Focal Points, (4)
coordination between institutions at national level and (5) budget constraints.

4.4.2 Dr. Scheren informed the Committee that the ongoing Mid-Term Review of the WIO-
LaB Project had revealed that there were delays in the implementation of certain activities
and there were doubts whether some activities defined in the project document would be
completed in time due to limited capacity to implement them at national level. He suggested
that the National Focal Points and their representatives present at the meeting provide some
briefing on the above listed challenges.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
15

4.4.3 Following the above introduction, the Chair invited the Focal Points to air their
views with regard to the national dialogue and national coordination constraints.

4.4.4 Mr. Ali Mohamed noted that the above were not major challenges since there were
mechanisms at national level that could facilitate improved coordination and
implementation of the WIO-LaB Project. However, the question was how the Focal Points
could be facilitated in order to initiate national dialogue. He noted that most countries had
national structures in place. However, because Focal points had numerous activities and the
budget was limited and motivation was lacking, there was no commitment in pushing the
agenda of the project forward. He suggested that the committee should also tackle the issues
related to leadership of the National Focal Point Institutions so that delivery in national
structures can be achieved.

4.4.5 Ms. Chantal Andrianarivo who is the Focal Point for Madagascar noted that
although her institution had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
WIO-LaB Project for the coordination of project activities at national level in Madagascar,
the work involved was demanding, at times requiring full time attention. She suggested that
it would be important if the Focal Point was provided with resources to recruit a Focal Point
Assistant who would assist in the coordination of the project in Madagascar. She noted that
national dialogue would be possible only if adequate resources were provided to the focal
points. She also observed that the support received from the government institutions was
very limited and in most cases she operated as an individual.

4.4.6 Mr. Jogeeswar Seewoobaduth, the Acting Divisional Environment Officer who
represented the Acting Director of Environment, Ministry of Environment and National
Development Unit, Mauritius noted that considering all the projects components and
activities and meetings, the Focal Point could not effectively deliver and there was need for
one or two additional persons to assist in the coordination of project activities in Mauritius.
He noted that Mauritius Public Service could not be expected to employ additional staff
members to undertake this responsibility. Hence it would be important if the project could
provide some support to the Ministry of Environment in order to strengthen the focal point
office. He further observed that the focal point as a public servant had many other
responsibilities apart from coordinating the implementation of WIO-LaB Project activities in
Mauritius.

4.4.7 Ms. Fatouma Abdallah expressed similar sentiments and added that the Focal Point
of the Union of the Comoros would need at least one additional person to assist in the
coordination of the project activities in the Comoros.

4.4.8 Following the above presentations by the Focal Points, the chair suggested that a
small sub-Committee consisting of Focal Points led by Kenya and Mauritius should meet
with a view to coming up with a concrete proposal aimed at strengthening the offices of the
national focal points in order to improve coordination of project activities in participating
countries. He noted that it was the responsibility of the Steering Committee to offer a
solution to this critical limitation experienced by the participating countries.

4.4.9 The WIO-LaB Project Manager Dr. Peter Scheren noted that it would be important
for the sub-committee to be practical in its recommendation since UN restrictions would
need to be observed. Mr. Nakamura echoed on the Project Manager's observations noting
that there were restrictions in the UN system with regard to the kind of support that could
be provided to the National Focal Point Institutions that are also funded by their
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
16

Governments. He suggested that in order to avoid disappointments, it would be important
if the representatives of UNEP could first review the proposals to be put forward by the sub-
Committee before the same are adopted by the Steering Committee.

4.4.10 Dr. Payet expressed his concerns that under the current GEF Project arrangements,
that it was easy to recruit a Regional Project Manager and not the National Project
Managers. He further expressed concern that all coordination resources were concentrated
at regional level as opposed to national level where they were needed most. As the Interim
Coordinator of the Nairobi Convention, he offered to take up the matter with GEF
Secretariat noting that GEF needed to be realistic and to provide more resources for national
level coordination since it did not make sense if there were weak structures at national level.

4.4.11 During the afternoon session, the representative of the sub-Committee presented the
outcomes of the sub-Committee's deliberation on the nature of support required by the
Focal Point Institutions. Mr. Jogeeswar Seewoobaduth reported that the sub-Committee had
two options; (a) first option was to put pressure on the National Focal Point institutions in
order to recruit additional staff members who would assist with the coordination of the
project activities at national level, (b) the second option was for the WIO-LaB Project to set
aside a small budget so that National Focal Points could take the responsibility of recruiting
additional staff members to assist the focal points in the coordination of activities and make
sure there was adequate linkage with the national processes. The first option was however
found not to be feasible since there was little possibility that the Governments would
provide resources for recruitment of additional staff members. The second option was more
practical and a global figure of US$ 2,000 per month (totalling to US$ 384,000 for the
remaining two years of the WIO-LaB Project) was suggested. It was noted that this option
would guarantee better coordination at national level.

4.4.12 Dr. Scheren noted that the project Steering Committee should consider whether the
second option was feasible. He however noted that re-allocation of resources for national
level coordination would mean that less resources would be available for actual project
activities. He also noted the need to seek the advice of UNEP before taking the proposal
onboard.

4.4.13 Mr. Waruinge noted that the proposed budget was high and would probably be
beyond the scope of the WIO-LaB Project. The Steering Committee should not put a ceiling
on the amount that can be allocated for the national level coordination. He suggested that
the actual amounts required should be determined through discussions with each of the
participating countries' focal points.

4.4.14 Mr. Nakamura noted that there was need for the sub-Committee to provide further
details on how the amount of US $ 2,000 was programmed since UNEP would not issue a
blank cheque. Any such support should be clearly linked to the implementation of specific
activities. He was also uncertain if the requested funds could be obtained from the Project's
present budget. He suggested that the total amount required be contributed by different
sources including the country co-financing.

4.4.15 Mr. Datta supporting Mr. Nakamura's views suggested that recommendation put
forward by the sub-Committee needed to be less limiting and had to be consistent with the
rules and regulations of the implementing agency UNEP. He also wondered where the
funds would come from since there was no such allocation in the WIO-LaB Project's present
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
17

budget. He suggested that the sub-Committee revisit its recommendation otherwise it
would be difficult to implement it.

4.4.16 Mr. Waruinge noted that the sub-Committee should also state the activities to be
implemented. In other words, there has to be a good justification for the option put forward.

4.4.17 Notwithstanding the above interventions, it was finally agreed that additional
support should be extended to the National Focal Points in order to enable them build the
required capacity for enhanced and efficient coordination and implementation of the project
activities in participating countries. However, the modalities of provision of such support
would be discussed further between the WIO-LaB Project management and the Focal Points
of the respective participating countries.

4.4.18 Following this decision, the WIO-LaB Project Manager, Project Officer and the
Programme Officer responsible for Nairobi Convention held separate discussions with each
of the Focal Points and agreed on the principles of how the WIO-LaB Project and Nairobi
Convention could provide support required by the Focal Points in order to expedite the
coordination of activities at national level.

4.5 Discussion concerning the LBSA Protocol

4.5.1 Mr. Waruinge while introducing discussions on LBSA Protocol, noted that with
regard to the ability of the Focal Points to organize national dialogue, he was not certain that
if the protocol was taken to the meeting of plenipotentiaries, new issues would not arise due
non-involvement of all stakeholders in the review process. He noted that the LBSA protocol
would set the basis for the amendment of legislations at national level and emphasised the
need to have dialogue by engaging all the key stakeholders at national level. In this regard,
the Focal Points would have to organize meetings to discuss the proposed LBSA Protocol
and establish its usefulness in their countries.

4.5.2 Dr. Scheren wondered whether the Focal Points were reaching the right people at
national level noting that the focus seemed to have been on reaching the technical level
experts. He also wondered whether the focal points had the right setting to take the LBSA
Protocol to the higher policy making level in their countries.

4.5.3 Dr. Payet observed that situations differ from country to country and the Focal
Points would need to review the existing legal, policy and institutional frameworks and
clearly establish the gaps at national level. He wondered whether this assignment had been
undertaken. Dr. Scheren responded that the WIO-LaB Project had already facilitated
countries to review the existing gaps in their policies, legal, regulatory and institutional
frameworks (most the countries had submitted their draft reports).

4.5.4 Mr. Waruinge noted that there were two processes for LBSA Protocol and what was
not clear was the process of taking technical comments arising from national dialogue to
inform the LBSA Protocol. Mr. Waruinge further noted that the Steering Committee has
been presented with an update on the extent of dialogue at national level that was led by the
Focal Points. However, what was required at national level was dialogue with persons who
drafted legislation in participating countries. There was a need to broaden the national
discussions so that officials responsible for drafting legislation were also brought on board.
He suggested that before the LBSA Protocol was presented to the meeting of
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
18

Plenipotentiaries, there was a need for each country to organize at least one workshop
where the LBSA Protocol would be discussed with all the stakeholders.

4.5.6 Mr. Nakamura observed that there had to be some obligations on the part of the
participating governments to implement the provisions of the LBSA Protocol once it entered
into force. This obligation should be factored into the National Action Programme (NAP) for
the protection of the coastal and marine environment from land-based activities that each of
the participating countries would be expected to develop. He noted that without putting
such a requirement on the part of the governments, there was a high possibility that the
LBSA Protocol would be shelved.

4.5.7 Ms. Andrianarivo asked whether it was possible to re-allocate funds earmarked for
other Task Forces in order to facilitate an additional meeting/national dialogue noting that
one meeting would not be enough.

4.5.8 Mr. Seewoobaduth was concerned about the view of Nairobi Convention that Focal
Points were not reaching the high policy and decision making levels. He clarified that it was
not the case for Mauritius. The LBSA protocol had been circulated to all stakeholders for
comments and then sent to the Minister before the comments were sent to the WIO-LaB
Project Management Unit. He clarified that stakeholders were being consulted since it was
not the Ministry of Environment alone that would implement the provisions of the LBSA
Protocol. He wondered what other additional consultations were required in Mauritius.

4.5.9 Dr. Naomi Mdzeke, the Focal Point for South Africa informed the meeting that South
Africa had to follow the established process in the review of the LBSA Protocol. The Protocol
would be sent to the existing structures established by the Minister of Environment
including DG Forum and Environment Cluster. She however pointed that there were several
steps that the Protocol needed to go through in order to facilitate extensive consultations.

4.5.10 Mr. Waruinge acknowledged the confidence that Mauritius had with regard to the
national dialogue on the LBSA Protocol and wondered whether he same is true for other
participating countries. He emphasised that before the Nairobi Convention Secretariat takes
the LBSA Protocol to the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, it had to be sure that the process
was well understood at national level and all stakeholders had been involved. He suggested
that each of the participating countries should clearly establish the kind of support required
from the WIO-LaB Project and Nairobi Convention in order to facilitate the national
dialogue.

4.5.11 Mr. Datta expressed his concerns on the sentiments expressed by Dr. Mdzeke with
regard to national dialogue in South Africa and noted that actions at national level should be
taken in such away that they do not undermine the authority and legitimacy of the Focal
Points. However, the WIO-LaB Project manager clarified the matter noting that in case of
South Africa, it was not true that the Focal Point was unaware of what was going on, but
rather changes in the holder of the position of Focal Point in South Africa left some gaps in
the communication. He clarified that the project maintained the principle that it was the
Focal points that decided who was to be recruited as a national consultant and what
activities were to be undertaken at national level.

4.6 Overview of 2006 financial performance
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
19

4.6.1 The Chair, Dr. Rolph Payet introduced the above mentioned agenda item and
requested the WIO-LaB Project Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren to present to the Committee an
overview of the financial performance of the WIO-LaB Project in 2006, as presented in
document UNEP-GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/5.

4.6.2 Dr. Scheren presented the above mentioned overview and noted that the
performance of the project in terms of financial expenditure has been rather modest due in
part to the non-finalization of the demonstration project documents and the national
monitoring programmes. It was expected that the demonstration projects would have taken
a huge chunk of the finances allocated for the year 2006. The project expenditure to date is
44.7%

4.6.3 Dr. Scheren noted that the situation would improve in the year 2007 given that most
of the demonstration projects were expected to enter into implementation phase by the end
of year 2007.

4.6.4 Following the presentation of the financial expenditure report, the Chair opened the
floor for deliberations. The Committee took note of the Report on the financial expenditure
in the year 2006 and called for an improvement in the expenditure in the year 2007.

4.7 Partners and leveraged resources
4.7.1 The Chair introduced the above agenda item and invited the WIO-LaB Project Project
Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren to present to the Committee an overview of the collaboration
with other project partners, both international and national.

4.7.2 Dr. Scheren reported on the partnerships established by the WIO-LaB Project
including also the leveraged resources in terms of co-financing contributions from the key
project partners, including the participating project countries. These details are also
presented as Annex 9 of the WIO-LaB Annual Report (UNEP-GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/4).

4.7.3 Dr. Scheren reported that the total co-financing as off yet (US $1.2 million) is
comparable to the committed amount of US$ 1.8 million. However, with regard to
distribution between government contributions and contributions made by project partners,
he noted that countries are underperforming (US$ 479,000 against partner's contribution of
US$ 749,960).

4.7.4 Following the presentation on the partnerships established by the project including
the leveraged resources, the Chair opened the floor for deliberations. The Committee took
note of the report on the partnerships established by the project including the leveraged
resources, and called for continuation and furtherance of such collaborations in the
remaining period of the project, particularly for the outstanding activities.

4.8 Opportunities for enhancement of project implementation

4.8.1 Discussions under this agenda item followed up on some of the discussions earlier
held under items 4.1 to 4.4.

4.8.2 The Chair while opening discussions on the above mentioned sub-agenda item,
sought some clarifications from the Project Management and UNEP on how the issues
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
20

discussed at the present meeting of the Steering Committee would feed into the process of
the Mid-Term Review of the WIO-LaB Project.

4.8.3 Mr. Nakamura responding to this query noted that the Mid-Term Review of the
WIO-LaB Project was being carried out by the Oversight and Evaluation Unit, an
independent unit of UNEP and the consultant who was conducting the review was expected
to produce her draft report by 17th March 2007. Although UNEP was be ready to send the
Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Steering Committee to the consultant, he wondered whether
there would be sufficient time for the consultant to consider the outputs of the meeting.

4.8.4 Mr. Ali Mohamed sought some clarification on the reasons for underperformance of
the project in the implementation of some of the activities. The chair however noted that the
issue of lack of capacity as detailed in the presentations made by the Focal Points was the
underlying cause of underperformance. This could be attributed to the fact that the focal
points are too busy and they cannot deliver without additional support.

4.8.5 Mr. Datta noted that it would be helpful to the Focal Points if they will provide more
details as to why there were underperforming in their responsibilities for the project. He also
informed the meeting that were it not for the stringent conditions that were put forward in
case of demonstration projects, the number of projects expenditure would have gone up. He
also requested for a differentiated analysis of the project performance without considering
the demonstration projects. He also requested the committee to state whether the WIO-LaB
Project was too ambitious and also explore other possibilities of rectifying the current
situation.

4.8.6 The WIO-LaB Project Manager Dr. Peter Scheren presented a detailed report on the
financial expenditure in the year 2006 and compared the same with the planned
expenditures for the same year. He highlighted areas with significant shortcomings in
expenditure noting in particular non-implementation of the demonstration projects that
were planned to take a share of the 2006 budget. He noted that most of the shortcomings can
be attributed to non- finalization of the demonstration projects by the participating countries
and also to a small extent on the non-finalization of the national monitoring programmes by
the participating institutions.

4.8.7 Mr. Ali Mohamed wondered why the finalization of demonstration projects
documents had not yet been completed in some of the countries and suggested that the
Steering Committee should establish the difficulties that are experienced by the countries
and find out how the countries can be assisted by the project management in order to
finalize their projects.

4.8.8 Mr. Datta recalled that the first and the second meeting of the Steering Committee
had set clear deadlines for finalization of demonstration project proposals and the Project
Management Unit was given the mandate to provide to the project proponents 5% of the
total budget of demonstration projects in order to facilitate the finalization of the projects
within a period of three months failure to which funds would be allocated to other
demonstration projects. He however noted that this carrot and stick approach did not work
and hence there was a need for the Steering Committee to provide concrete directions on
this matter.

4.8.9 Mr. Datta noted that UNEP Global Programme for the protection of the coastal and
marine environment (GPA) did secure counter-part funding from the Government of
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
21

Norway for the WIO-LaB Project and would like to report back on the progress in the
implementation of activities. However, he noted that it would be inappropriate to paint a
picture of project underperformance to the Government of Norway. He expressed the
concerns of GPA on the underperformance of the project attributed to lack of adequate
capacity to implement project activities in participating countries.

4.8.10 Dr. Payet noted that carrot and stick approach is already being applied by GEF
Secretariat as evidenced by cancellation of US$ 300 million projects. He noted that the
participating countries have to take remedial measures otherwise the stick would be applied
at a different level and the WIO Region would loose out. He informed the meeting that
major donors and some NGOs are no longer interested in providing support to some
African countries due to disappointments in the implementation of projects.

4.8.11 Mr. Waruinge said that addressing the problems faced in the implementation of
project activities, should first start with an admission by the participating countries that
there were problems. He noted that the structures established by the Nairobi Convention
have not been adequately used to address these problems. He gave an example of
Madagascar noting that if there was a problem in Madagascar, the UNEP/Nairobi
Convention Secretariat would usually write a letter to the Minister in charge of the
Environment through the Focal Point. He suggested that if things did not move at the Focal
Point level, matters have to be taken higher up to the minister's level. He noted that in case
of the WIO-LaB Project, the Nairobi Convention had not yet used this approach.

4.8.12 Mr. Datta noted that UNEP and the Project Management should not be the one to
complain to the Ministers on issues related to the underperformance at country level. He
emphasised that it was the Focal Points that were supposed to deliver the project at country
level and they should be reporting to the Permanent Secretaries and their Ministers if things
were not moving as expected at national level.

4.8.13 Mr. Waruinge expressed a different view point noting that Nairobi Convention is
executing the WIO-LaB Project and given the fact that the National Focal Points were part of
the Nairobi Convention Secretariat, the Convention Secretariat had every right to approach
the participating countries if things are not working properly. He reiterated that the Nairobi
Convention Secretariat had this mandate.

4.8.14 Dr. Payet suggested that the Nairobi Convention should provide feedback to the
countries in the form of a letter addressed to the Minister in charge of the Environment
stating specific deadlines for achievement of specific pending outputs at national level. The
letter should indicate that if the countries did not meet the set deadlines for implementation
of pending activities, the project funds would be allocated to other deserving activities and
the countries would be at liberty to renegotiate. This would force the countries to make firm
commitments. He noted that if countries fail to implement project activities, it would be
difficult to convince the external partners on the reasons for non-delivery of project outputs.

4.8.15 Dr. Scheren suggested that the committee should re-examine the situation country by
country and not apply the stick across the board.

4.8.16 Mr. Ali Mohamed suggested that the NEPAD COSMAR framework could also be
considered while providing the feedback to the parting countries. Mr. Ali Mohamed also
noted that without involvement of the top level decision makers things would not move and
this was partly the reason why NEPAD was set up. Without involving the Ministers who
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
22

interact with the Heads of States nothing will happen at national level. He suggested that the
project should engage senior policy level people e.g. through NEPAD COSMAR. He
wondered at what level this should be done considering that the Steering Committee meets
once a year and it would be too late if it obtains a similar picture. He wondered whether this
discussion could further held electronically so that the committee revisits the matter in the
next six months.

4.8.17 Dr. Payet suggested that the Nairobi Convention Secretariat together with the WIO-
LaB Project Management spends some time together in order to discuss the specific time-
table for each of the participating countries. The Focal Points were requested to go through
their projects and agree with the project management on the targets and deadlines for
realization or finalization of specific activities. This process was undertaken later in the
evening and morning of the second day of the meeting.

4.8.18 Mr. Datta suggested that since the Chair of the meeting was also the interim
Coordinator of the Nairobi Convention, he should write a letter to the participating
countries providing definite indications on what had been agreed upon at the present
meeting and what needed to be delivered with a set deadline. The Project Manager is to
compile information that would be used to provide feedback to the countries.

4.8.19 Mr. Nakamura noted that with regard to the country co-financing, the contributions
were yet to reach optimal level and the Steering Committee should confirm whether the
reported figures were fair representation of the in-kind co-finance contributions made by the
countries. He suggested that countries provide additional co-finance contributions that can
accelerate the implementation of activities.

4.8.20 Dr. Peter Scheren, the WIO-LaB Project Manager responding to the above sentiments
informed the meeting that the co-finance contributions were computed using criteria
approved by the Steering Committee and the computed figures were sent to the
participating countries' Focal Points for confirmation and/or validation. No objection was
received from the countries and therefore the quoted figures were considered to reflect the
actual situation on the ground. He further noted that comparison of the co-finance
commitments made during the project development phase and the actual contributions
made so far show that countries have indeed provided a significant portion of in-kind co-
financing they committed to provide.

5. WORK PLAN FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007

5.0.1 The Chair introduced the above mentioned agenda item and invited the WIO-LaB
Project Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren to present to the Steering Committee, the WIO-LaB
Project Work Plan for the year 2007, as detailed in the document UNEP/GEF/WIO-
LaB/PSC.3/6.

5.1 Overview of project work plan for the calendar year 2007
5.1.1 Dr. Scheren tabled to the Committee the Workplan for the year 2007 noting that the
workplan incorporated some of the recommendations that had so far come up during the
Mid-Term Review process. Dr. Scheren referred in particular to the recommendations on
downscaling activities related to the Incomati ICARM Demonstration project, including a
baseline review of other river basins, and providing more assistance to NPA development
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
23

for the countries. Furthermore, he took the Steering through work plan for implementation
of activities defined for each component of the project.

5.1.2 Mr. Datta suggested that with regard to the demonstration projects, the projects
should not revert back to the Focal Points, but instead the Project Management should be
mandated to look at the final project document and make its decision on technical grounds.

5.1.3 Dr. Scheren however noted that the project management unit is still operating on the
basis of the decision made by the Steering Committee during its second meeting where it
was agreed that once demonstration project proponents submit the final project documents
as output of phase 1, the proposals would be circulated electronically to the members of the
committee for approval, before the PMU proceeds with final funding arrangements. In this
light, he requested the opinion of the Steering Committee with regard to the Comoros
Moheli demonstration project that had been circulated to the members of the committee
electronically.

5.1.4 Dr. Payet, the Chair of the meeting requested members of the Steering Committee to
raise any matter related to the circulated Comoros demonstration project. In view of the fact
that no objection was received from the members of the Committee, the Chair declared that
Comoros demonstration project was approved by the Steering Committee and the Project
Management should proceed with the funding arrangements.

5.1.5 Mr. Ali Mohamed noted that Incomati ICARM demonstration project was regarded
as an important project for the WIO Region since it would provide lessons on how to deal
with or manage transboundary river basins and their associated coastal zones. He however
noted that it was possible to make use of the bad situation by extending the experience to
other river basins in mainland Africa. However, he indicated that he supported the
recommendation put forward by the project management to downscale the ICARM
Demonstration project in Mozambique.

5.1.6 Mr. Polycarpo Napica who is the National Focal Point for Mozambique as well as the
National Director for Environment in MICOA, noted that a lot of effort was spent in
initiating Incomati ICARM demonstration activities and initially there was a suggestion for
the involvement of the Netherlands. He indicated that Mozambique could not afford to
loose the project since they still needed to collect basic data and background information
that would feed into the management plan of the Incomati.

5.1.7 Mr. Datta noted that Incomati was a suitable area to draw lessons on how
transboundary river basins and associated coastal zones can be managed effectively.
However, it was also complex since in addition to Mozambique, it involved two other
southern African countries namely Swaziland and South Africa. He indicated that instead of
completely doing away with the demonstration project, the activities should be downscaled.
He provided a brief on how the project came into being through engagement between GPA
and the Dutch Government. He however indicated that despite downscaling of the project,
there were already lessons that could be learnt.

5.1.8 Mr. Datta also informed the meeting that through a survey that was carried out by
the GPA, it emerged that there were only very few (four) similar linked management
projects that have been implemented in the world and such projects offered a political
challenge that was difficult to overcome. He supported the recommendation of the project
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
24

management to downscale the project and allocate more resources for natural resources
process.

5.1.9 Mr. Nakamura informed the meeting about the mission made by UNEP to the
Incomati in Mozambique in 1998. He noted that the present proposal to focus on the
preparation of the environmental profile of the basin was feasible and consideration should
be made to expand activities if the situation allows. He wondered whether introducing
similar ICARM Projects in other river basins would add value since this has already been
done through LOICZ AfriBasins Project. It was also noted that GIWA had undertaken
similar activities in selected river basins in the region.

5.1.10 Mr. Waruinge noted that the ICARM project offer made by RIKZ of the Netherlands
made a lot of sense at the period when it was made. He suggested that the Committee put a
cap on the expenditure of the project and allowed only the preparation of an environmental
profile of the basin and the associated coastal zone that will also have information on the
activities taking place in South Africa and Swaziland. He suggested that the funds saved be
used for other activities in order to secure maximum benefits.

5.1.11 Dr. Payet inquired from Mr. Waruinge about the status with regard to the review of
the Nairobi Convention and how this was linked to the process for the preparation of the
LBSA Protocol. Mr. Waruinge informed the Committee that there were several clauses in the
Nairobi Convention that needed amendment in order to accommodate the LBSA Protocol.
Other changes in the Nairobi Convention would include expansion of the definition of the
Convention itself as well as expansion of the definition of land-based activities.

5.1.12 Following the above deliberations the Steering Committee agreed that the activities
earmarked for the Incomati ICARM Demonstration project should be downscaled and be
focussed on the preparation of an environmental profile and the project management should
re-allocate the saved resources for development of demonstration projects in countries that
do not have any, such as Seychelles, as well as if possible establish basic profiles of other
main river basins in the region.

5.1.13 Also, following deliberations on the above mentioned presentation, the Steering
Committee considered and approved the work plan for the year 2007 as prepared by the
WIO-LaB Project Management Unit. The Committee also called for enhanced and expedited
implementation of the Workplan.

5.2 Workplan and strategy for TDA/SAP development
5.2.1 The Chair introduced the above mentioned agenda item and invited the WIO-LaB
Project Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren to present to the Committee, the workplan and strategy
for the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action
Programme (TDA and SAP) for the Western Indian Ocean region, as detailed in the
background document UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/7.

5.2.2 Dr. Peter Scheren, while drawing attention of the Committee to the details contained
in background document UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/7, presented the approach to be
followed in the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action
Programme (TDA and SAP) for the Western Indian Ocean region. He also expounded on the
key principles of the TDA and SAP.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
25

5.2.3 Dr. Scheren also briefed the Committee on the context under which the TDA/SAP
would be developed, noting in particular the coordination structure discussed between the
three GEF projects within the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystem area
(WIO-LaB, ASCLME and SWIOFP). Dr. Scheren invited Dr. David La Roche of ASCLME to
provide the Committee with additional details on this matter.

5.2.4 Dr. La Roche informed the Committee meeting that ASCLME project document had
been signed by the GEF Chief Executive Officer, although recent changes in the GEF
Secretariat management slowed down activities. He also informed the meeting that the
World-Bank led Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) was yet to be signed by
the GEF Chief Executive Officer.

5.2.5 Dr. La Roche noted that these projects would have enormous implications in the
WIO Region countries since in addition to other projects, they would bring into the region
huge amounts of money (US$ 100 million). These projects would also provide a lot of
opportunities to the Focal Points.

5.2.6 Dr. La Roche noted that while WIO-LaB Project has been mandated with the
responsibility of delivering of a TDA/SAP focussed on land-based activities, the ASCLME
Project would deliver two TDAs and SAPs for the Agulhas and Somali Current LMEs,
respectively. He noted that the TDA that would be delivered by the WIO-LaB Project would
feed into these individual LME-based TDAs and SAPs.

5.2.7 Dr. Payet noted almost all GEF projects were engaged in TDAs/SAPs and wondered
how the projects could build on the ongoing activities. He noted that a lot of time was
wasted producing outputs that had been realised in earlier projects. He noted that most of
the issues had been identified in various reports and there was a need to move on to SAP
formulation. He noted that if the projects came up with many SAPs, the countries would be
confused as to which SAP should be implemented. He noted the need for three projects to
converge at some point in order to produce one SAP that would be implemented in the WIO
Region.

5.2.7 Dr. Payet further noted that Nairobi Convention offeres an ideal legal platform for
the countries in the WIO Region to implement SAP developed within the auspices of the
WIO-LaB Project and there is a good chance of obtaining government commitment to
implement it. He wondered how SAPs that would be produced by other GEF Projects would
be implemented. He noted that culmination of SAP would need to be thought at very
keenly.

5.2.8 Dr. La Roche noted that the intention of the ASCLME Programme was not to
reinvent the wheel but to use all the available data and information including the
preliminary TDA/SAP developed with support of UNEP. He noted that with regard to
ASCLME, there will be two SAPS and TDAs and attempt would be made to include new
information focussed on oceanographic processes, fisheries and economic valuation of
marine resources, etc. The latter would enable the governments to have greater appreciation
on the value of the coastal and marine resources.

5.2.9 Mr. Ali Mohamed noted that the WIO Region had no SAP although there were initial
attempts to come up with an acceptable and negotiated SAP. He noted that with regard to
the SAP to be produced under the auspices of ASCLME Programme, scientists in the WIO
Region had realized the peculiar differences of the two LMEs and recognised the need for
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
26

two separate SAPs. He noted that already the governments in the region have appended
their signatures to this arrangement. He further noted that ASCLME Programme was not
implemented within the framework of Nairobi Convention does not mean SAP that will be
produced could not be implemented within the Convention's framework.

5.2.10 Dr. Payet however noted that in terms of biogeographical and oceanographic scope,
the idea of having two separate TDAs and SAPs would make sense. However, WIO region
was considered to be a single entity and SAP was a political document. He wondered which
SAP Seychelles would be committed to in view of its location in relation to the two LMEs.

5.2.11 Mr. Waruinge noted that the elements of the TDA that will be delivered by the WIO-
LaB Project would be used to prepare the Work Programme of the Nairobi Convention and
this will be adopted by the governments of the participating countries during the 5th
Conference of Contracting Parties to the Nairobi Convention.

5.2.12 The Steering Committee took note of the workplan and strategy for the preparation
of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Programme (TDA and SAP)
for the Western Indian Ocean region as prepared by the WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
and called for its expedited implementation, taking into account the need to present the
outputs and/or outcomes of this process to the forthcoming 5th Conference of Contracting
Parties (COP-5) to Nairobi Convention to be held in South Africa in August 2007.

5.3 Financial allocations for the calendar year 2007
5.3.1 The Chair introduced the above mentioned agenda item and invited the WIO-LaB
Project Manager, Dr. Peter Scheren to present to the Committee, the budget of the WIO-LaB
project for the year 2007 as presented in document UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/8. Dr.
Scheren presented to the Committee the budget of the WIO-LaB project for the year 2007 as
presented in document UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/8.

5.3.2 Following the above mentioned presentation, the Chair opened the floor for
deliberations and/or suggestions from the members of the Steering Committee. Following
discussions it was decided that the budget need to be amended in order to take onboard the
need to provide additional support to the National Focal Points with a view to improving
the coordination of project activities in participating countries. It was suggested that the
Project Management prepares an amended expenditure plan and circulate the same to the
members of the Steering Committee for endorsement.

5.3.3 Following discussions that took place between the Focal Points and the WIO-LaB
Project Management including also the Nairobi Convention Secretariat, the Project Steering
Committee provisionally approved the WIO-LaB Project budget for the year 2007 and called
for expedited implementation of project activities. The approved budget is presented as
Annex 6 of this report.

6. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1
The Chair Dr. Rolph Payet introduced the above mentioned agenda item and invited
the Rapporteur Mr. Polycarpo Napica of Mozambique to present the draft decisions and
recommendations of the third Project Steering Committee meeting.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
27

6.2
Mr. Napica presented the draft decisions and recommendations of the meeting and
requested the Committee to consider the draft, suggest amendments and finally adopt the
draft decisions and recommendations of the meeting.

6.3
Following deliberations on the draft decisions and recommendations of the meeting,
the Committee adopted them with amendments and authorized their distribution to the
National Focal Points Institutions, UNEP-GEF, project partners including other appropriate
institutions and/or organizations.

6.4
The members of the Steering Committee as well as representatives of partner
institutions and/or organizations were provided with electronic versions of the decisions
and recommendations of the third meeting of the WIO-LaB Project Steering Committee. The
same are presented in this Report of the meeting.

7. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

7.1
The Chair Dr. Rolph Payet introduced the above mentioned agenda item and
suggested that in view of the fact that all focal points would in any case unite during the
forthcoming COP-5 of the Nairobi Convention in September 2007 an extra ordinary session
of the Steering Committee be held on the sidelines of this event. It was suggested that this
meeting be held a day before the COP-5 since the agenda of the latter would be very
crowded.

7.2
Mr. Waruinge briefed the meeting on the changes of the dates of the Joint COP of
Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions. He noted that consultations were ongoing with the host
country South Africa on the exact dates of the conference.

7.3
The delegate from Somalia Mr. Abdi who represented Somalia as an observer
expressed appreciation of his country for having been invited to participate in the meeting.
However, he regretted that no discussions were held on Somalia's participation in the
activities of Nairobi Convention. He expressed the commitment and readiness of Somalia to
play a more active role in the activities of Nairobi Convention. Mr. Abdi also requested for
support from Nairobi Convention so that Somalia could participate more actively in the
activities of the Convention. The Chair, also the interim Coordinator of the Nairobi
Convention promised to discuss with the Nairobi Convention Secretariat how the Nairobi
Convention can help Somalia.

7.4
The Committee welcomed the participation of Somalia in the meeting and called for
concerted efforts to be made in order to assist Somalia participate more actively in the
Nairobi Convention activities.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1
The Chair, Dr. Rolph Payet introduced the above mentioned agenda item and
requested members of the Steering Committee/representatives to raise any other matter that
they would like to discuss in the meeting.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
28

8.2
Mrs. Fatouma Ali Abdallah, the National Focal Point for the Union of the Comoros
announced that she would be joining the UNDP National Office in the Comoros as a SGP
National Coordinator. In close collaboration with the new Focal Point to be appointed by the
Government of the Union of Comoros, she promised to continue to following-up matters
related to the Nairobi Convention and the WIO-LaB Project in the Comoros.

8.3
The Steering Committee congratulated Ms. Fatouma Ali Abdallah on her new
appointment and noted the good work she had done for her country, Comoros, as well as
for the Convention.

9. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

9.1
The Chair, Dr. Rolph Payet introduced the above mentioned agenda item and
announced the closure of the third meeting of the WIO-LaB Project Steering Committee. The
Chair expressed his appreciation to the members of the Steering Committee for finding time
to attend the meeting. He hoped that their stay in Seychelles had been enjoyable

9.2
Dr. Rolph Payet also reminded the Focal Points that a lot of work was to be done and
urged them to come up with realistic time tables and to get the project at its present
difficulties.

9.3
There being no any other business, the Chair declared the meeting officially closed at
6.50 pm on Tuesday 13th March 2007.

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
29

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/1

Annex 1

AGENDA

1. Opening of the meeting
1.1 Introduction of the Steering Committee members
1.2 Opening statements:
o WIO-LaB Project Manager
o Nairobi Convention Secretariat
o UNEP
1.3 Welcome addresses by the Guest of Honour
2. Organization of the meeting (election and designation of Chairman and Rapporteur)
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Report on progress made in the implementation of activities in the calendar year 2006
4.1 Overview of national project implementation (short presentations by NFPs)
4.2 Overview of project activities and status
4.3 Financial report
4.4 Partners and leveraged resources
4.5 Discussions on the opportunities for enhancement of project implementation
5. Work plan for the calendar year 2007
5.1 Overview of project workplan for the calendar year 2007
5.2 Workplan and strategy for TDA/SAP development
5.3 Financial allocations for the calendar year 2007
6. Adoption of the draft decisions and recommendations
7. Administrative matters
8. Any other business
9. Closure of the meeting
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
30

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/INF.1
Annex 2

LIST OF DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/1 Provisional Agenda

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/2 Annotated Provisional Agenda

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/3 Decisions of the Second Project Steering Committee meeting.

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/4 UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project Annual Report for 2006

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/5 UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Overview of Performance in 2006

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/6 Work plan for the calendar year 2007

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/7 Concept note on the development of TDA/SAP

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/8 Proposed budgetary allocations for the calendar year 2007

Information Documents

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.2/INF.1 Provisional List of Documents (this document).

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.2/INF.2 Provisional List of Participants.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
31

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LAB/PSC.3/INF.2
Annex 3

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

COMOROS:
Ms. Fatouma ALI ABDALLAH
Deputy Director
Direction National l'Environnement
Point Focal de la Convention de Nairobi
BP 860, Moroni,
The COMOROS
Tel: (+269) 756029
Fax: (+269) 736388
Email: alfa@comorestelecom.km
KENYA:
Mr. Ali MOHAMED
Representing the Director-General
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
P. O. Box 67839-00200
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (+254) 20 605522/3/6/7
Fax: (+254) 20 608997
E-mail: amwinzi@nema.go.ke or ammwinzi@yahoo.com
MADAGASCAR:
Ms. Chantal ANDRIANARIVO
Chef de Cellule Recherche et Biodiversite
Association Nationale pour la Gestion
Des Aires Proteges
B.P. 1424 Antananarivo 101
Republique de Madagascar
Tel: (+261) 20 22415
Fax: (+261) 20 22439
E-mail: val@angap.mg
MAURITIUS:
Mr. Jogeeswar SEEWOOBADUTH
Ag. Divisional Environment Officer
Ministry of Environment
Ken Lee Tower, Barracks Street
Port Louis, Mauritius
Tel: (+230) 212 4385/3363
Fax: (+230) 212 6671
E-mail: jseewoobaduth@mail.gov.mu
MOZAMBIQUE:
Mr. Polycarpo NAPICA
National Director of Environments
Ministry of the Coordination of Environmental Affairs
(MICOA)
Rue de Kassuende, 167
Maputo, Mozambique
Tel: (+258) 1 466407
Fax: (+258) 1 465849
E-mail: p.napica@micoa.gov.mz
SEYCHELLES:
Dr. Rolph PAYET
Principal Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources
P. O. Box 445
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
32

Victoria, Seychelles
Tel: (+248) 670500
Fax: (+248) 610648
Email: ps@env.gov.sc
Mr. Jason JACQUELINE
Policy, Planning and Services Division
Ministry of Environment
P.O. Box 1145, Promenade House
Mahe, Seychelles
Tel: (+248) 670421/670400
Fax: (+248) 384078/670647
Email: j.jac@pps.gov.sc

Other participants from Seychelles:

Mr. Flavien JOUBERT
Acting Director for Pollution Prevention and Control
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
Botanic Gardens,
Mont Fleuri, Mahe,
Republic of Seychelles
Tel: (248) 670500, (248) 722 890 (cell)
Fax: (248) 610 648
Email: f.joubert@env.gov.sc

Mr. Jude BIJOUX:
Manager - Seychelles Centre for Marine Research and
Technology (SCMRT)
Seychelles Centre for Marine Research and Technology
Marine Parks Authority (SCMRT-MPA)
P.O. Box 1240
Victoria, Mahe
Republic of Seychelles
Tel: +(248) 225114
Fax: +(248) 722435
Email : j.bijoux@scmrt-mpa.sc

Mr. Alain DE-COMMARMOND
Department of Environment
E-mail a.deco@env.gov.sc
Tel: (+248) 670400

Ms. Joanna ADELINE
Environmental Impact Assessment Section
Pollution Control and Environmental Impacts Division
Department of Environment
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 445
Botanical Gardens
Mahe, SEYCHELLES
Tel: +248 67 05 00
Fax: +248 61 06 48
Email: j.adeline@env.gov.sc

Mr. Justin PROSPER
Department of Environment
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
33

Ms. Nanette PORT-LOUIS
Coastal Zone Management Coordinator
Environmental Engineering Section
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
Department of Environment
P.O Box 445 Victoria, Mahe
Republic of Seychelles
Tel: (248) 670443 or (248) 722896
Fax: (248) 610637
Email: n.port-louis@env.gov.sc

Mr. Vivian RADEGONDE
Seychelles Bureau of Standard
P.O. Box 953 Victoria Mahe
Tel: 248 380400
Fax: 248 373820

Ms.Norlis NAYA
Public Utilities Corporation
nnaya@puc,sc
P.O Box 34, Victoria mahe
Tel: (+248) 678000

Mr. Ian CHARLETTE
Public Utilities Corporation
iancharlette@rocketmail.com
P.O Box 34 Victoria Mahe
Tel: (+248) 678000

Mr. Rodney QUATRE
SCMRT-MPA
r.quatre@scmrt-mpa.sc
P.O Box 124 Victoria Mahe

Mr. Jerry LABLACHE
Island Development Corporation
idcjerry@seychelles.sc
Tel: (+248) 224640
Fax: (+248) 224667,
SOUTH AFRICA:
Dr. Naomi MDZEKE
Chief Director - Integrated Coastal Management
Marine and Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism
Private Bag X2
Roggebaai 8012
Cape Town, South Africa
Tel: (+27) 21 402 3331
Fax: (+27) 021 421 3670
E-mail: nmdzeke@deat.gov.za
TANZANIA:
Mrs. Melania SANGEU
Senior Environment Management Officer
National Environment Management Council (NEMC)
P.O. Box 63154
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
34

Tel: (+255) 22 3124603
Mob: (+255) 744753179
E-mail: melania_sangeu@yahoo.com
NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR
Mr. Ali MOHAMED
AFRICA'S DEVELOPMENT
Coordinator, Coastal and Marine Programme
(NEPAD):
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
P. O. Box 67839
Nairobi, KENYA
Tel: (+254) 20 609079/609694
Fax: (+254) 20 608997
E-mail: biofish@africaonline.co.ke
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND (WWF)
Dr. Amani NGUSARU
EARPO:
Eco-Regions Programme
WWF-Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office
(EARPO)
P. O. Box 63117
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: (+255) 22 2775346
Fax: (+255) 22 2775535
E-mail: angusaru@wwftz.org
WORLD CONSERVATION UNION Dr. Jerker TAMELANDER
(IUCN):
Marine Technical Project Officer
Eastern Africa Regional Programme
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
P. O. Box 13513
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: (+255) 22 2669 084/5
Fax: (+255) 22 2669 089
E-mail: jaker.tamelander@iucn.org
AGULHAS AND SOMALI
Dr. David LAROCHE
CURRENT LARGE MARINE
Project Manager
ECOSYSTEMS (ASLME)
UNDP/GEF ASLME Project
PROJECT:
New York, USA
E-mail: dal1727@starband.net
UNEP/GPA:
Dr. Anjan DATTA
UNEP-GPA Coordination Office
P.O Box 16227
The Haque, The Netherlands
Tel: (+31) 70 3114468
Fax: (+31) 70 311-4485
E-mail: a.datta@unep.nl
UNEP/GEF:
Mr. Takehiro NAKAMURA
Senior Programme Officer
Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF)
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (+254) 20 7624607
Fax: (+254) 20 7624041
Email: takehiro.nakamura@unep.org
UNEP/NAIROBI CONVENTION
Mr. Dixon WARUINGE
SECRETARIAT:
Programme Officer
Regional Seas (Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions)
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
35

Tel: (+254) 20 7623130
Fax: (+254) 20 7623130
Email: dixon.waruinge@unep.org
UNEP-GEF WIOLAB PROJECT
Dr. Peter SCHEREN
MANAGEMENT UNIT:
Project Manager
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (+254) 20 7624612
Fax: (+254) 20 7623928
Email: peter.scheren@unep.org
Dr. Johnson U. KITHEKA
Project Officer/Environmental Scientist
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (+254) 20 7624612
Mobile: (+254) 733777293
Fax: (+254) 20 7623928
Email: johnson.kitheka@unep.org
Ms. Angelina MUSERA
Project Assistant
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (+254) 20 7621206
Fax: (+254) 20 7623928
Email: Angelina.musera@unep.org
Observers:
SOMALIA:
Mr. Abdi Salad DAHIR
TFG-Liaison Officer for FAO
Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic
Embassy of the Somali Republic
P.O. Box 623 - 00606
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (+254) 20 2736618
Fax: (+254) 20 2736619
E-mail: adahir@yahoo.com
LOCAL NGOs -SEYCHELLES
Dr. Nirmal Jivan SHAH
Nature Seychelles,
P.O Box 1301 Victoria Mahe
Rep of Seychelles
www.natureseychelles.org
E-mail: nirmalshah@natureseychelles.org
Tel: 248 601100/248 / 601101
Fax: 248 601102
Mr. John NEVILL
Green Island Foundation,
P.O Box 246 Victoria Mahe
Rep of Seychelles
E-mail: jnevill@seychelles.net
Tel: (+248) 717301
Mr. Herve BAROIS
Island Conservation Society
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
36

P.O. Box 775 Victoria Mahe,
Fax: 248324157
Rep of Seychelles
E-mail: Icsoordi@seychelles.sc
Tel: (+248) 714488
Mr.David ROWAT
Marine Conservation Society
P.O Box 1299 Victoria Mahe
Rep of Seychelles
www.mscc.sc
Tel: (+248) 345445
Fax: (+248) 344223
Mr. Lindsay Chong SENG
Seychelles Island Foundation
P.O Box 853 Victoria Mahe,
Rep of Seychelles,
E-mail: I.chengseng@.sc
Tel: (+248) 321735
Fax: (+248) 324884

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
37

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LAB/PSC.3/5
Annex 4
OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE IN THE YEAR 2006

Planned expenditures
Status 31 December 2006
Balance for 2006

GEF
NOR
Total
GEF
NOR
Total
GEF
NOR
Total
10
PERSONNEL COMPONENT

1100
Project Personnel

194,000
90,000
284,000
188,114
54,888
243,003
5,886
35,112
40,997

1200
Consultants

74,395
88,000
162,395
42,203
60,000
102,203
32,192
28,000
60,192

1600
Travel on official business
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1999
COMPONENT TOTAL

294,895
208,000
502,895
237,150
123,555
360,705
57,745
84,445
142,190
20
SUBCONTRACT COMPONENT

2100
Sub-contract (for cooperating agencies)
77,500
0
77,500
40,040
0
40,040
37,460
0
37,460

2200
Sub-contracts (for supporting organizations)
592,000
1,031,000
1,623,000
101,666
516,427
618,093
490,334
514,573 1,004,907

2300
Sub-contracts (for Commercial purposes)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2999
COMPONENT TOTAL

669,500
1,031,000
1,700,500
141,706
516,427
658,133
527,794
514,573 1,042,367
30
TRAINING COMPONENT

3200
Group training

150,000
0
150,000
138,073
0
138,073
11,927
0
11,927

3300
Meetings/conferences
152,300
40,000
192,300
140,687
34,729
175,415
11,613
5,271
16,885
3999
COMPONENT TOTAL

302,300
40,000
342,300
278,760
34,729
313,488
23,540
5,271
28,812
40
EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT

4100
Expendable equipment (items under $1500 each)
11,000
0
11,000
5,183
0
5,183
5,817
0
5,817

4200
Non-expendable equipment
100,700
0
100,700
22,460
0
22,460
78,240
0
78,240

4300
Premises (rent)

12,000
0
12,000
0
0
0
12,000
0
12,000
4999
COMPONENT TOTAL

123,700
0
123,700
27,643
0
27,643
96,057
0
96,057
50
MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT

5100
Operation and maintenance of equipment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5200
Reporting cost

12,500
122,000
134,500
4,805
0
4,805
7,695
122,000
129,695

5300
Sundry

10,500
0
10,500
712
0
712
9,788
0
9,788

5400
Hospitality and entertainment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5500
Evaluation

7,500
0
7,500
0
0
0
7,500
0
7,500
5999
COMPONENT TOTAL

30,500
122,000
152,500
5,517
0
5,517
24,983
122,000
146,983
99
PROJECT GRAND TOTAL

1,420,895
1,401,000
2,821,895
690,775
674,710 1,365,486
730,120
726,290 1,456,409

5304
NB: (*) Pproject management fee)
99,463
182,130
281,593
48,354
87,712
136,067
51,108
94,418
145,526

GRAND TOTAL

1,520,358
1,583,130
3,103,488
739,129
762,423 1,501,552
781,228
820,707 1,601,936
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
38

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/PSC.3/6

Annex 5

WORK PLAN FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
39

United Nations
Global Environment
Environment Programme
Facility

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB PROJECT

ADDRESSING LAND BASED ACTIVITIES
IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN

ANNUAL WORKPLAN
2007

UNEP-GEF WIO-LAB Project Management Unit
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P.O Box 30552
Gigiri, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-7621206/1270
Fax: +254-020-7623203
E-mail: wiolab@unep.org
http:/www.wiolab.org
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
40

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

Table of Contents

Summary
1. Introduction
2. Assessing water and sediment quality
3. Managing Municipal Wastewater (MWW)

4. Managing Physical Alteration and Destruction of Habitats (PADH)
5. Strengthening of the legal framwork

6. Environmental Impact Assessment
7. National Programmes of Action
8. Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management
9. Regional coordination
10. Training and education
11. Stakeholder participation
12. TDA/SAP

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
41

Acronyms

CHM
Clearinghouse Mechanism
COP
Conference of Parties
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EQO
Environmental Quality Objective
EQS
Environmental Quality Standard
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GPA
UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities
ICARM
Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management
IW
International Waters
LBA
Land-based Activity
LBSA
Land-based Sources and Activities
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MWW
Municipal Wastewater
NFP
National Focal Point
NFPI
National Focal Point Institution
NPA
National Programme of Action
PADH
Physical Alteration and Destruction of Habitats
PMU
WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
PSC
Project Steering Committee
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
SGP
Small Grants Programme
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
WIO
Western Indian Ocean
WIOMSA
Western Indian Ocean Marine Sciences Association

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
42

1. Introduction

By December 2006, the WIO-LaB Project had completed its second year of implementation, and has
therefore reached its halfway mark. As will be noted in this report, the implementation of the Project
is still on course, despite delays in the initiation of certain activities. The main bottleneck in the
implementation of the project activities has been the limited capacity (both in terms of human and
financial resources) of the National Focal Point Institutions (NFPIs). This problem has now been
partly resolved through the provision of financial support to those institutions. Nevertheless, much
effort is required in order to ensure that project activities that initially had a relatively slow start are
timely completed within the context of the overall project workplan.

The project workplan presented in the following sections has undergone a number of revisions in
order to address changes required in order to keep it abreast with ongoing processes. A schematic
representation of the detailed overall workplan is presented in Annex 1.

2. Assessing water and sediment quality

The 2007 workplan for this project component concentrates on a number of ongoing and new
activities. It is anticipated that this component of the project will be largely completed by the end of
2007, in order to ensure timely inputs of findings into the development of the updated Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis for the WIO region (component 11). The ouputs of the monitoring programme
will also be applied to develop a long-term Monitoring Protocol as well as tangible Environmental
Quality Objectives and Standards (EQO/EQS). Key activities and events as part of this project
component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Implementation of the regional monitoring programme
1 Jan 31 Oct 2007
Assessment of ecotone carrying capacity
1 Jan 31 Oct 2007
Assessment of hot spots (largely on the basis of the results of monitoring
1 Jan 31 Oct 2007
programme)
Establishment of EQOs and EQSs
1 Jan 30 Nov 2007
The development of a long-term Monitoring Protocol
1 June 30 Nov 2007

Events

Regional workshop on ecotones and hot spots assessment
June 2007
Regional workshop on Environmental Quality Objectives and Standards
Dec 2007

Furthermore, in conjunction with project component 8, activities towards the establishment of a
regional information management system under the auspices of the Nairobi Convention will be
continued during the year.

3. Managing Municipal Wastewater (MWW)

The 2007 workplan for this project component focuses to a large extend on the implementation and
the extraction of lessons learnt from the demonstration projects. Apart from this, the ongoing regional
assessment of the status of municipal wastewater management and the review of the applicability of
the global GPA guidelines will be finalized and training and education activities will be developed
and undertaken. Key activities and events as part of this project component are listed below:

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
43

Activity
Timelines
Implementation of demonstration projects
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Tracking of lessons learnt from demonstration projects
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Preparation of bankable project documents
1 Jan 30 Apr 2007
Fundraising for bankable project proposals
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Development and implementation of MWW training programmes (in
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
cooperation with GPA)
Development and implementation of educational /awareness raising
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
programmes (partly in conjunction with the demonstration projects)
Review of the status of MWW management in the WIO region
1 Jan 31 May 2007
Development of a regional annex to the GPA guidelines
1 Jan 31 May 2007
Support to TDA/SAP development (component 11)
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007

Events

Third meeting of the Regional MWW Task Force
April 2007

4. Managing Physical Alteration and Destruction of Habitats (PADH)

The 2007 workplan for this project component focuses to a large extend on the implementation of,
and the extraction of lessons learnt from the demonstration projects. Key activities and events as part
of this project component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Implementation of demonstration projects
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Tracking of lessons learnt from demonstration projects
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Preparation of bankable project documents
1 Jan 30 Apr 2007
Fundraising for bankable project proposals
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Development and implementation of PADH training programmes
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Development and implementation of educational /awareness raising
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
programmes (partly in conjunction with the demonstration projects)
Support to TDA/SAP development (component 11)
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007

Events

Third meeting of the Regional PADH Task Force
April 2007

5. Strengthening of the legal framwork

The 2007 workplan for this project component focuses first of all on the completion of ongoing
national policy, legal and institutional review processes as well as the finalization of the LBA/S
Protocol. Furthermore, the focus of this component will be on the development of national
implementation strategies with regard to the recommendations from the review processes including
the new Protocol. On the basis of these implementation strategies, selected priority activities will be
defined in order to assist countries in strengthening their policy, legal and institutional frameworks to
deal with LBA/S. Key activities and events as part of this project component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Finalization of national review reports and regional synthesis reports
1 Jan 31 May 2007
Preparation of national implementation plans
1 Jan 31 March
2007
Support to the implementation of national priority activities to strengthen
31 March 31 Dec
national policy, legal and institutional frameworks
2007
National consultations on second draft LBA Protocol
1 Jan 28 Feb 2007
Finalization of third draft LBA Protocol
28 Feb - 15 March
2007
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
44

Activity
Timelines
National consultations and awareness raising on (third) draft LBA Protocol
15 March 15 Aug
2007
Preparation of final draft LBA Protocol
15 March - 15 May
2007

Events

Third meeting of the Regional Legal and Technical Review Task Force
31 Jan 2 Feb 2007
Submission of draft Protocol to NC/COP
31 May 2007

6. Environmental Impact Assessment

The 2007 workplan for this project component focuses on the completion of the current draft outputs,
which are the Regional Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment and the regional overview
of existing EIA frameworks. Key activities and events as part of this project component are listed
below:

Activity
Timelines
Preparation of draft Regional EIA Guidelines
1-28 Jan 2007
Preparation of draft NC Clauses on EIA
1-28 Jan 2007
Finalisation of draft EIA guidelines
1-28 Feb 2007
National-level review of draft EIA Guidelines
1 March 30 June
2007
Finalisation of Regional Report on EIA
1 March 30 June
2007
Finalisation of Regional EIA Guidelines
1 March 30 June
2007
Finalisation of NC Clauses on EIA
1 March 30 June
2007

Events

Regional workshop on EIA processes
29-30 Jan 2007
Workshop to endorse regional EIA guidelines and NC Clauses on EIA
July 2007

7. National Programmes of Action

So far only Kenya and Tanznaia have embarked on the preparation of a National Programme of
Action. In 2007, further emphasis shall be give to this activity, in order to ensure that countries will
establish appropriate national action plans for addressing the impacts of LBA/S. The effort will linked
as much as possible to strengthening existing national policy frameworks, such as existing ICZM
Plans, National Environment Management Plans, Poverty Reduction Strategies and the like, rather
than producing stand-alone strategies and policies, in order to ensure sustainability. Key activities as
part of this project component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Awareness raising on the benefits of NPAs
1 Jan 30 June 2007
Development of a capacity building plan for NPA development
1 Jan 30 June 2007
Assist countries in the development of NPAs
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007

8. Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management

The implementation of an Integrated Coastal Area and River Basin Management (ICARM)
demonstration project on the Incomati River Basin in Mozambique is ongoing, following the signing
of an MOU with the Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA) in Mozambique.
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
45

The first phase of this demonstration project involves the preparation of a comprehensive
environmental profile of the Incomati basin. In 2007, this activity shall be continued. Key activities as
part of this project component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Development of an environmental and socio-economic profile of the
1 Jan 30 June 2007
Incomati River basin
Development of an ICARM strategy for the Incomati River Basin
1 June 31 Dec 2007

Events

Regional workshop on ICARM to present interim results and to exchange
June 2007
lessons learnt

The above represents the baseline scenario. However, in view of the major contribution of river basins
in terms of LBA/S impacts on the coastal environment, it is felt that there is a need for a basic
assessment of other main river basins. This assessment would focus on the inventory of LBA/S such
as land-use changes, changes in demographic patterns (e.g. urbanization), damming of rivers, etc. in
such river basins, as well as the collection of available data on water quality from those river basins. It
is noted that such inventory was originally not foreseen, but it now proposed to be included in the
revised project workplan.

9. Regional coordination

The project will continue to support the Nairobi Convention secretariat in ensuring regional
coordination in the management of the coastal and marine waters of the WIO region. A key activity in
this regard is the development of a regional Clearinghouse Mechanism. Also, several regional
stakeholder forums will be taking place in the year 2007, most important of which the COP of the
Nairobi Convention. Key activities and events as part of this project component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Regional Project Coordination (continuous)
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Development and operation of a Regional Clearinghouse Mechanism
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Monitoring and evaluation of project activities and achievements
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
(continuous)

Events

Fifth Conference of Parties of the Nairobi Convention
Aug 2007
Second Informal International Waters Forum
Oct 2007

10. Training and education

The regional assessment of training and educational needs (by WIOMSA) has nearly been completed.
Several training activities have already been taken place. The focus of the project in 2007 will be on
implementing the identified training and educational activities. Key activities as part of this project
component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Development of training programmes
1 Jan 31 Aug 2007
Develop educational material for schools and institutes
1 Apr 31 Aug 2007
Implementation of the training programme
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Implement educational and awareness activities
1 Sept 31 Dec 2007

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
46

11. Stakeholder participation

The stakeholder participation plan will focus on the engagement of national stakeholders in project
activities, such as the demonstration projects, through the mechanism of national Task Forces,
Working Groups and Committees established by the project and through the implementation of the
small-grants programme. Other specific stakeholder awareness activities (e.g. news broadcasts,
townhall meetings, newsletters, etc.) have been integrated into the demonstration projects, as well as
as part of MOUs established with the National Focal Point Institutions. Some awareness material has
already been prepared by the project. However, more targeted awareness material will be prepared in
conjunction with the education programme (component 9). Key activities as part of this project
component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Stakeholder (including private sector) engagement in demonstration projects
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
National stakeholder involvement meetings (Task Forces, Committees,
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Working Groups) related to project activities
Implementation of the small grants programme
1 Jan 31 Dec 2007
Development of targeted awareness raising material
1 Apr 31 Aug 2007
Targeted stakeholder awareness raising activities
1 Sept 31 Dec 2007

12. TDA/SAP

The recruitment process for the TDA Drafting Team is currently ongoing and a preliminary workplan
for the TDA and SAP development has been developed. Key activities and events as part of this
project component are listed below:

Activity
Timelines
Establishment of TDA Drafting Team
1 Jan 28 Feb 2007
Fact finding and initial review of transboundary problems
1 March 31 Apr
2007
Causal Chain and governance analysis
1 May 30 June 2007
Submission of draft TDA by Drafting Team
30 June 2007
Review and validation of the TDA
1 July 30 Sept 2007
Finalisation of the TDA
1 Oct 31 Dec 2007

Events

First regional TDA/SAP workshop
April 2007

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
47

UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean

UNEP/GEF/WIO-LAB/PSC.3/8
Annex 6
PROPOSED BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007

2007 original planned

2007 new proposal

GEF
NOR
Total
GEF
NOR
Total
10
PERSONNEL

COMPONENT

1100
Project Personnel Grade
199,820
350,000
549,820
199,820
0
199,820

1200
Consultants (Description of activity/service) w/m
87,000
135,000
222,000
114,000
201,750
315,750

1600
Travel on official business
26,500
30,899
57,399
20,000
20,000
40,000
1999
COMPONENT TOTAL

313,320
515,899
829,219
333,820
221,750
555,570
20
SUBCONTRACT COMPONENT

2100
Sub-contract (MOUs/Las for cooperating agencies)
37,500
0
37,500
53,100
0
53,100

2200
Sub-contracts (MOUs/Las for supporting organizations)
468,000
895,000
1,363,000
555,500
1,502,275
2,057,775

2300
Sub-contracts (for Commercial purposes)
20,000
0
20,000
0
0
0
2999
COMPONENT TOTAL

525,500
895,000
1,420,500
608,600
1,502,275
2,110,875
30
TRAINING COMPONENT

3200
Group training (Title)
151,200
0
151,200
150,000
35,000
185,000

3300
Meetings/conferences
174,500
133,307
307,807
284,000
101,250
385,250
3999
COMPONENT TOTAL

325,700
133,307
459,007
434,000
136,250
570,250
40
EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT

4100
Expendable equipment (items under $1500 each)
6,000
0
6,000
6,000
0
6,000

4200
Non-expendable equipment (see items listed on budget worksheet)
3,000
0
3,000
20,000
0
20,000

4300
Premises (rent)

12,000
0
12,000
0
0
0
4999
COMPONENT TOTAL

21,000
0
21,000
26,000
0
26,000
50
MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT

5200
Reporting cost

24,000
85,000
109,000
30,000
0
30,000

5300
Sundry

10,500
0
10,500
10,000
0
10,000

5500
Evaluation

15,000
0
15,000
0
0
0
5999
COMPONENT TOTAL

49,500
85,000
134,500
40,000
0
40,000
99
PROJECT GRAND TOTAL

1,235,020
1,629,206
2,864,226
1,442,420
1,860,275
3,302,695

5304
Other (UNOPS/UNON project management fee)
86,451
211,797
298,248
100,969
241,836
342,805

GRAND TOTAL

1,321,471
1,841,003
3,162,474
1,543,389
2,102,111
3,645,500

UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
48