United Nations
Global Environment
Environment
Programme
Facility
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB PROJECT
ADDRESSING LAND BASED ACTIVITIES
IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN
Development of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Western Indian Ocean
Report of the First Regional Workshop
17 - 19 April 2007. Nairobi, Kenya,
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.
Nairobi Convention Secretariat
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
Fax: +254 020 7623203
Email: wiolab@unep.org
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.
For citation purposes this document may be cited as:
UNEP, 2007. Addressing Land-based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean. Report of the First TDA/SAP
Stakeholders Workshop. UNEP/GEF/WIO-LaB/TDA-SAP.2/2007.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. II
1
OPENING OF THE MEETING ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
WELCOME REMARKS BY NAIROBI CONVENTION SECRETARIAT .............................................................. 1
1.2
OFFICIAL OPENING BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNEP REGIONAL OFFICE FOR AFRICA ............................ 1
1.3
INTRODUCTION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WORKSHOP.................................................................................. 1
1.4
INTRODUCTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS..................................................................................................... 2
2
INTRODUCTION OF THE CONCEPTS, PROCESSES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE
WORKSHOP AND THE TDA/SAP...................................................................................................................... 2
2.1
TDA/SAP AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL: OVERVIEW OF THE TDA/SAP PROCESS........................................ 2
2.2
THE ROLE OF TDA/SAP IN THE GEF....................................................................................................... 2
2.3
THE ROLE OF TDA/SAP IN THE NAIROBI CONVENTION FRAMEWORK .................................................... 3
2.4
DISCUSSIONS ON INITIAL PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................... 4
2.5
INTRODUCTION TO THE WIO TDA PROCESS ........................................................................................... 5
2.6
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGENDA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE MEETING .................................................. 6
3
IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY LBA ISSUES....................................................................... 6
4
CAUSAL CHAIN ANALYSIS OF TRANSBOUNDARY LBA ISSUES .................................................... 7
5
ADDRESSING DATA GAPS AND IDENTIFYING SOURCES OF INFORMATION .............................. 7
6
DISCUSSIONS ON GOVERNANCE, SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES AND CRITERIA FOR
PRIORITISATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES........................................................................................ 8
7
PRELIMINARY PRIORITISATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES .................. 10
8
PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ACTIONS / SOLUTIONS AND ACTORS TO ADDRESS
TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES ............................................................................................................................ 11
9
CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSURE OF MEETING..................................................................................... 13
ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................... 14
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................. 16
ANNEX 3: GUIDELINES FOR TASKS ........................................................................................................... 23
ANNEX 4: CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS.......................... 26
ANNEX 5: THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE ROOT-CAUSE AND IMPACT ANALYSIS........ 27
ANNEX 6 : PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES............................. 34
ANNEX 7: PRELIMINARY LIST OF SOLUTIONS TO TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 35
ANNEX 8: WORKSHOP EVALUATION....................................................................................................... 45
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UNEP/Nairobi Convention Regional Stakeholders Workshop was held in Nairobi,
Kenya in the period 17th - 19th April 2007. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss issues
related to the development of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), with a focus
on land-based activities affecting the coastal and marine environment in the Western Indian
Ocean (WIO) Region. The Workshop was organized by the UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
entitled `Addressing land-based activities in the Western Indian Ocean'. The Workshop was
attended by 41 marine and coastal environment experts and conservationists drawn from
key institutions and organizations in all the countries that are Contracting Parties to the
Nairobi Convention and participating in the implementation of the UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB
Project.
The main objective of the workshop was to engage key stakeholders in the Nairobi
Convention Area, mainly the Western Indian Ocean, in the participatory process for the
development of the scientifically-based, non-negotiated TDA for the WIO Region and to
establish mechanisms for compiling and/or validating data and information that will feed
into the process. The WIO-LaB Project TDA will set the basis for the formulation of a
mutually negotiated and regionally agreed Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the
Western Indian Ocean region that would be implemented within the framework of the
Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Coastal and
Marine Environment in Eastern Africa.
This report of the first TDA Stakeholders workshop provides readers with a broad insight
on the processes and outcomes of the workshop. It is not intended to provide detailed
justifications and analysis of the transboundary issues and problems that were identified by
the experts. These details will be presented in the TDA Report that would be drafted by a
selected team of experts recruited by the WIO-LaB Project.
During the workshop, the experts were led through the entire process of the development of
TDA and exposed to various exercises intended to extract as much information as possible.
Tasks carried out during the workshop included; (a) identification of transboundary land-
based (LBA) issues, (b) determination of transboundary LBA issues and problems through
causal-chain and impact analysis, (c) determination of strategies to address gaps and
identify sources of data and information, (d) determination of key issues related to policies,
legislation, regulatory and institutional frameworks through governance analysis, (e)
preliminary determination of socio-economic values of coastal ecosystems, (f) formulation of
the criteria for the prioritization of transboundary issues and problems, (g) preliminary
prioritization of transboundary problems and issues, and (h) preliminary identification of
key actions/solutions and actors to address transboundary issues (the basis of SAP).
During the workshop, participants identified a number of priority transboundary issues
clustered around four themes: (i) alteration of freshwater flow, (ii) alteration of sediment
loads, (iii) degradation of water quality, and (iv) habitat degradation, with a fifth cross-
cutting theme of governance that underlies the other themes mentioned above. Habitat
degradation was broken down further into key coastal and marine ecosystems, namely; (a)
mangroves, (b) sea grass beds, (c) coral reef and (d) coastal vegetation/forests. The
preliminary root cause and impact analysis of the transboundary issues identified various
socio-economic and environmental/ecosystems impacts, that are mentioned in this report.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
ii
The main governance and legal issues were identified as; (i) limitations of existing
environmental legislations; (ii) failure to domesticate international conventions; (iii) weak
enforcement of laws and policies; (iv) sectoral fragmentation and duplication of laws and
policies; (v) lack of comprehensive legal provisions on key aspects; (vi) obsolete or outdated
laws; and (vii) inadequate coordination and consultation mechanisms with regard to laws
and policies. Other issues identified were; (a) absence or lack of legislation and laws specific
to Land-Based Sources and Activities (LBSA); (b) inappropriate legislations and policies
especially on quality standards and; (c) implementation inconsistencies caused by among
others, corruption and political interference. The main institutional issues were seen as; (1)
inadequate resources both technical and financial; (2) duplication and lack of clarity of
institutional mandates; (3) old or obsolete institutional arrangements and; (4) political
interference and corruption. With regard to regional governance, various regional
coordination mechanisms and agreements were examined and practical ways, in which
regional governance could be enhanced, were suggested, in particular: establishment of
common guidelines/standards for LBSA Management; sharing of information and
knowledge (a common data bank); monitoring and enforcement; and adopting international
best practices.
The socio-economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystems and their services identified
both direct and indirect values. The direct values included sources of food (fish, prawns),
provision of construction materials and sources of income (commercial value); ecological
value protection of the coast line (controlling erosion), sources of nutrients, wildlife
habitats; cultural values identity and spiritual connections; and indirect values such as
extraction of natural products for research purposes (bio-research) and recreation tourism
and aesthetic value.
For each of the key transboundary issues identified during the workshop, a number of
possible interventions were suggested, as well as the stakeholders (national, regional and
international) who could be involved in the implementation. This exercise provided useful
information that would be invaluable in the formulation of the SAP, as well as for the
formulation of the Work Programme of the UNEP/Nairobi Convention for the year 2008
and beyond.
A workshop evaluation was conducted at the end of the workshop. The larger part of the
participants appeared very satisfied with the conduct and contents of the workshop as well
as logistical and other facilities provided. A few useful suggestions were made for future
workshops of this kind.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
iii
RESUME ANALYTIQUE
L'Atelier de travail pour les acteurs régionaux de la Convention de Nairobi/PNUE s'est
tenu à Nairobi au Kenya du 17 au 19 avril 2007. Cet atelier avait pour objet de débattre des
questions liées au développement de l'Analyse diagnostique transfrontalière (ADT) en
accordant une attention particulière aux activités terrestres qui ont un impact néfaste sur
l'environnement marin et côtier dans la région de l'océan Indien occidental (OIO). Il était
organisé par le Project WIO-LaB PNUE-FEM intitulé « Atténuation de l'impact néfaste des
activités terrestres sur l'environnement marin et côtier de l'océan Indien occidental. Y ont
assisté 41 experts de l'environnement marin et côtier issus d'institutions et organisations clés
de tous les pays qui sont parties contractantes de la Convention de Nairobi et qui participent
à la mise en oeuvre du Projet WIO-LaB PNUE-FEM.
L'objectif majeur de l'atelier était d'engager les acteurs clés de la zone géographique
couverte par la Convention de Nairobi, à savoir principalement la région de l'océan Indien
occidental, dans le processus participatif pour le développement d'une ADT
scientifiquement fondée et non négociable pour la région de l'OIO, ainsi que d'établir des
mécanismes de compilation et/ou de validation des données et informations qui seront
exploitées au cours du processus. L'ADT du Projet WIO-LaB établira les bases de la
formulation d'un Plan d'action stratégique (PAS) mutuellement négocié et régionalement
approuvé pour la région de l'océan Indien occidental qui serait mis en oeuvre dans le cadre
de la Convention de Nairobi pour la protection, la gestion et le développement de
l'environnement marin et côtier de l'Afrique de l'Est.
Le présent rapport sur le premier Atelier de travail des acteurs de l'ADT donne un large
aperçu des processus et résultats de l'atelier aux lecteurs. Il n'a pas pour objet de fournir des
justificatifs et une analyse détaillés quant aux questions et problèmes transfrontaliers qui ont
été identifiés par les experts. Ces détails seront présentés dans le Rapport sur l'ADT qui sera
rédigé par un groupe d'experts sélectionnés et engagés par le Projet WIO-LaB.
Pendant l'atelier de travail, les experts ont été guidés à travers l'entièreté du processus de
développement de l'ADT et soumis à diverses activités visant à recueillir autant
d'informations que possible. Les tâches accomplies au cours de l'atelier comprenaient ; (a)
l'identification des questions relatives aux activités terrestres (LBA) à caractère
transfrontalier, (b) la détermination des questions et problèmes liés aux activités terrestres à
caractère transfrontalier à travers une analyse de la chaîne causale et de l'impact, (c) la
détermination des stratégies permettant de combler les lacunes et d'identifier les sources de
données et d'informations, (d) la détermination des questions clés en matière de politiques,
de législation, de cadre réglementaire et institutionnel à travers une analyse de la
gouvernance, (e) la détermination préalable des valeurs socioéconomiques des écosystèmes
côtiers, (f) la formulation des critères de priorité des questions et problèmes transfrontaliers,
(g) la priorité préalable des questions et problèmes transfrontaliers, et (h) l'identification
préalable des actions/solutions ainsi que des acteurs permettant de traiter les questions
transfrontalières (la base du PAS).
Au cours de l'atelier de travail, les participants ont identifié un certain nombre de questions
transfrontalières prioritaires regroupées autour de quatre thèmes : (i) l'altération du flux de
l'eau douce, (ii) l'altération des charges sédimentaires, (iii) la dégradation de la qualité de
l'eau, et (iv) la dégradation de l'habitat, avec un cinquième thème transversal de la
gouvernance qui sous-tend les autres thèmes susmentionnés. La dégradation de l'habitat a
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
iv
été subdivisée par type d'écosystème marin et côtier, à savoir (a) les mangroves, (b) les lits
d'herbes marines, (c) les récifs coralliens et (d) la végétation et les forêts côtières. L'analyse
préalable de la cause originelle et de l'impact des questions transfrontalières a identifié
divers impacts socioéconomiques, environnementaux et écosystémiques qui sont repris dans
ce rapport.
Les principales questions juridiques et de gouvernance ont été identifiées comme étant ; (i)
les limites des législations environnementales en place ; (ii) l'incapacité à transposer les
conventions internationales ; (iii) l'application insuffisante des lois et politiques ; (iv) la
fragmentation sectorielle et la duplication des lois et politiques ; (v) le manque de
dispositions juridiques complètes sur les aspects clés ; (vi) des lois obsolètes ou dépassées ;
et (vii) les mécanismes de coordination et de consultation inappropriés en ce qui concerne
les lois et les politiques. Les autres questions identifiées comprenaient ; (a) l'absence ou le
manque de législation et de lois spécifiques en matière d'activités et de sources de pollution
terrestres (LBSA) ; (b) les législations et lois inappropriées, surtout en ce qui concerne les
normes de qualité ; et (c) les incohérences de la mise en oeuvre causées par, entre autres, la
corruption et les interférences politiques. Les principales questions institutionnelles étaient
considérées comme étant ; (1) les ressources techniques et financières inadéquates ; (2) la
duplication et le manque de clarité des mandats institutionnels ; (3) les arrangements
institutionnels dépassés ou obsolètes ; et (4) les interférences politiques et la corruption. Pour
ce qui est de la gouvernance régionale, divers mécanismes et accords de coordination
régionale ont été examinés, et des moyens pratiques d'améliorer la gouvernance régionale
ont été proposés. Plus particulièrement, il a été suggéré d'établir des lignes
directrices/normes communes pour la gestion des LBSA ; de partager les informations et
connaissances (une banque de données commune) ; d'assurer le suivi et la mise en
application ; et d'adopter les meilleures pratiques internationales.
L'évaluation socioéconomique des écosystèmes marins et côtiers ainsi que leurs services a
permis d'identifier des valeurs directes et indirectes. D'un part, les valeurs directes
comprenaient les sources alimentaires (le poisson et les crevettes), la procuration de
matériaux de construction et de sources de revenus (valeur commerciale), la valeur
écologique la protection du littoral (le contrôle de l'érosion), les sources de nutriments, les
habitats de la faune et les valeurs culturelles, l'identité et les liens spirituels. D'autre part, les
valeurs indirectes comptaient l'extraction de produits naturels à des fins de recherche
(recherche biologique), et les loisirs le tourisme et la valeur esthétique.
Pour chacune des questions transfrontalières clés identifiées pendant l'atelier de travail, un
certain nombre d'interventions éventuelles ont été proposées ainsi que les acteurs
(nationaux, régionaux et internationaux) qui pourraient être impliqués dans la mise en
oeuvre. Cette activité a fourni des informations utiles qui seront très précieuses au moment
de formuler le PAS ainsi que le Plan de travail de la Convention de Nairobi/PNUE pour
l'année 2008 et au-delà.
Une évaluation de l'atelier de travail a été effectuée à la fin de ce dernier. La majorité des
participants semblaient très satisfaits de la manière dont l'atelier s'est déroulé et des thèmes
abordés, ainsi que des installations et de la logistique mises en place. Quelques suggestions
utiles ont été faites pour l'organisation future d'autres ateliers du même genre.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
v
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
1
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1 Welcome remarks by Nairobi Convention Secretariat
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Dixon Waruinge, the Programme Officer responsible
for the UNEP/Nairobi Convention. Following several brief remarks, Mr. Waruinge invited
Dr. Sekou Toure, the Director of the UNEP Regional Office for Africa based at UNEP
Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya to address the gathering and officially open the UNEP/GEF
WIO-LaB Project Workshop for the development of TDA for the Western Indian Ocean
region.
1.2 Official opening by the Director of the UNEP Regional Office for Africa
1.2.1 Dr. Toure, Regional Director for Africa (UNEP/ROA) highlighted the importance of
the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) marine and coastal environment for the livelihoods and
well-being of the population of the region. He also noted that the integrity of this vulnerable
ecosystem is under the increasing threat from human activities, such as pollution and the
degradation of habitats.
1.2.2 Dr. Touré highlighted UNEP's long-standing support to the protection of the WIO
marine and coastal environment, among others through the UNEP/Regional Seas
Programme. In particular, UNEP has hosted and supported the Nairobi Convention
Secretariat since its inception and has supported various programmes implemented through
the framework of this Convention. He also explained that UNEP has supported the
development of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) Action Plan for the
environment, which considers the coastal and marine environment to be one of the main
priorities. He noted that among others, ROA provides the Secretariat support for African
Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN) that also supports NEPAD's
Environment initiative programmes.
1.2.3 Dr. Touré further highlighted the important role of the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Programme (SAP) as a key tool for sustainable
management of the WIO ecosystems. He noted in this regard, that this first TDA Workshop
would provide clear directions for the updating of the preliminary TDA and SAP prepared
in 2002 as the pre-condition for the WIO-LaB Project.
1.2.4 Following the above remarks, Mr. Sekou Toure wished the delegates good
deliberations and declared the meeting officially open.
1.3 Introduction of the Chair of the Workshop
1.3.1 Following the official opening, Mr. Dixon Waruinge introduced to the delegates, the
designated Chair of the first session of the Regional TDA Workshop, Prof. Rudy Van der
Elst, who is also the Director of the Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) based in
Durban, South Africa.
1.3.2 In his opening remarks, Prof. Van Der Elst, while referring to the preliminary TDA
prepared during the preparatory phase of the WIO-LaB project as a precondition for GEF
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
1
funding, noted that there were a number of existing TDAs that the project could borrow
ideas from. Dr. Van der Elst in particular urged the delegates to be realistic and to prioritize
key issues and problems that would be identified during the workshop.
1.4 Introduction of the participants
1.4.1 Following the introductory remarks by the Chair, the delegates were requested to
introduce each other stating in particular, their areas of specialization, institutional
affiliation as well as other pertinent information. A detailed list of participants is presented
in this report as Annex 2.
2
INTRODUCTION OF THE CONCEPTS, PROCESSES AND EXPECTED
OUTCOMES OF THE WORKSHOP AND THE TDA/SAP
2.0.1 The Chair, Prof. Rudy van der Elst introduced the above mentioned agenda item and
requested Dr. Peter Scheren, the UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project to take the floor and present
the first agenda item listed below.
2.1 TDA/SAP as a management tool: overview of the TDA/SAP Process
2.1.1 Dr. Peter Scheren made a presentation on the TDA/SAP as a management tool briefing
participants in particular on the process followed in the formulation/development of TDA
and SAP. He briefed the participants on the key definitions of TDA and SAP, including their
underlying principles. He further briefed the meeting on the regional context within which
the WIO-LaB Project was being implemented including previously identified key
areas/priorities as detailed in the preliminary TDA prepared during the preparatory phase
of the WIO-LaB Project.
2.1.2 Dr. Scheren also explained the relationship between the WIO-LaB Project and the
Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project (ASCLME) and the South
Western Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) with regard to the preparation of a
comprehensive TDA and SAP for the WIO region. He also highlighted the efforts being
made to link up with other non-GEF Projects such as the Coastal and Marine Management
Project (ReCoMaP) funded by the European Union and the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)
based in Mauritius.
2.2 The role of TDA/SAP in the GEF
2.2.1 Mr. Takehiro Nakamura, Senior Programme Officer in-charge of the International
Waters portfolio in the UNEP Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF) made a detailed
presentation on the role of TDA and SAP within the context of the Global Environmental
Facility (GEF) international waters areas. Mr. Takehiro Nakamura started his presentation
by noting that TDA is an instrument developed by GEF in order to provide a sound
scientific basis for action. He noted that TDA targets `transboundary water systems' with a
broader objective of generating global environmental benefits by making countries address
transboundary issues and problems. He also noted that TDA is important in the
development of regional mechanisms for cooperation in addressing identified
transboundary concerns.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
2
2.2.2 Mr. Nakamura noted that diagnosis/assessment as part of the TDA process is mainly
aimed at (i) identification of water-related environmental issues and problems; (ii)
quantification of identified issues and problems; and (iii) prioritization of the environmental
concerns by the concerned countries. He briefed participants on the role of causal chain
analysis noting that it helped in the identification of proximate and ultimate causes of water-
related environmental issues and problems as well as the quantification of causes of
identified issues and problems.
2.2.3 Mr. Nakamura also briefed the participants on the process for conducting a TDA
noting that it may be done by either the international consultants, government designated
experts or national teams. He noted that conducting a TDA is the first step in building
stakeholder ownership at the national level.
2.2.4 Mr. Nakamura informed the meeting that inter-ministerial committees, stakeholder
planning/management committees and public meetings and technical working groups
could also be used as mechanisms for resolving conflicts and ensuring consensus building.
In this regard, he emphasized the need for the TDA formulation structure to provide a link
between the national scientific and technical expertise and the policy/decision makers. Mr.
Nakamura also observed the need for reconciling national, regional and global
environmental goals, in particular with regard to establishing commonalities between
national and regional objectives.
2.2.5 Mr. Nakamura finally briefed the meeting on the process of developing the Strategic
Action Programme (SAP) emphasizing the need to secure regional agreement on goals and
priorities. He noted that SAP needed to identify short-term objectives, immediate actions
and medium term actions. He also noted that it was important to evaluate alternative actions
in terms of cost effectiveness, practicality and possibility of achieving results. Another
challenge was that of converting regional environmental goals into concrete targets e.g.
agreed percentage of remaining habitat to be placed under sustainable management regime
by date; area of mangrove to be replanted by date; etc. He noted that a good SAP should
normally contain concrete actions which were comprehensive, costed and targeted. He
finally informed the meeting that SAP must be acceptable at both the national and regional
levels and should essentially be subjected to periodic review based on monitoring and
evaluation.
2.3 The role of TDA/SAP in the Nairobi Convention Framework
2.3.1 Mr. Dixon Waruinge made a presentation highlighting the context under which the
TDA and SAP developed by the WIO-LaB Project would be implemented using the
frameworks established by the Nairobi Convention. He briefed the delegates on the Nairobi
Convention and highlighted the context under which the present workshop was being held.
2.3.2 Mr. Waruinge observed that governments of the Western Indian Ocean region agreed
in June 1980 to jointly address common regional issues related to the management of the
Western Indian Ocean. This led to the birth of the Nairobi Convention for the management,
protection and development of the coastal and marine environment in Eastern Africa as well
as the Eastern Africa Action Plan for the management, protection and development of the
coastal and marine environment, under the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. Mr. Waruinge
took the delegates through the initial Eastern Africa Action Plan for the management,
protection and development of the coastal and marine environment and noted that even at
present the WIO region was still grappling with issues that were identified in 1980.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
3
2.3.3 Mr. Waruinge noted that due to non-implementation of activities on the ground,
countries in the WIO region would eventually loose faith in inter-governmental processes.
He noted that this challenge became even more imperative given that some countries have
their own strategic action plans that may be more current than the Eastern Africa Action
Plan. In this regard, he noted WIO-LaB Project needed to assist the WIO Region to come up
with a TDA and SAP that reflected on the priorities of the participating countries. He noted
that this would enable the participating countries to jointly implement the SAP. He also
noted that the present meeting has an onerous task of identifying the perceived problems
within the context which the policy makers in participating countries could understand and
associate with.
2.3.4 Mr. Waruinge further noted the Nairobi Convention acted as a platform to assist
countries identify and fix the gaps related to the management, protection and development
of the coastal and marine environment. He noted that this was presently being done under
the umbrella of African Ministerial Conference on Environment (AMCEN) and the New
Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
2.3.5 Mr. Waruinge also noted that the SAP developed under the auspices of the WIO-LaB
Project would become the Work Programme of the Nairobi Convention for 2008 and
beyond. In view of the fact that SWIOFP and ASCLME will also develop SAPs focussed on
specific areas, he observed the need to establish a mechanism of linking the Nairobi
Convention with the SAPs that will be developed by the other GEF funded projects.
2.4 Discussions on initial presentations
Following the above presentations, the Chair opened the floor for deliberations.
2.4.1 Dr. Nirmal Shah of Nature Seychelles sought clarification on the source of funds for the
implementation of SAP developed under the auspices of WIO-LaB Project. Mr. Takehiro
Nakamura, in response, noted that GEF usually supported the implementation of
transboundary issues and in this regard it would be important to differentiate between
national issues that will be implemented using national resources and regional
transboundary issues that GEF will provide funds for baseline action. He also noted that due
to limited funds available, GEF resources alone will not be adequate to address all the
priority problems and interventions identified in the SAP. Therefore, it would be important
to mobilize other financiers/donors (Regional Development Banks, European Union, etc) to
support the implementation of SAP. He noted that if WIO countries show strong
commitment and willingness to develop and implement National Action Programmes
(NAP), it would send a strong signal to such donors to provide funds for actions on the
ground.
2.4.2 Prof. Jan Glazewski of the University of Cape Town, South Africa sought clarification
from Nairobi Convention Secretariat on whether there was urgency with regard to the
submission of the TDA to the fifth Conference of Contracting Parties (COP-5) scheduled to
be held in South Africa in September 2007. He similarly requested for clarification as to
whether there was also urgency to submit the Land-based Sources and Activities (LBSA)
Protocol of Nairobi Convention to the same COP. Mr. Dixon Waruinge, responding, noted
that there was indeed an urgency in the finalization of both the LBSA Protocol and the SAP.
He noted that it was expected that by the time of COP in September 2007, the WIO-LaB
Project should have finalized the process for the development of TDA and SAP. He
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
4
acknowledged that while the SAP may not be finalized by that time, the draft should contain
at least the key elements that would form the basis for the formulation of the Programme of
Work of the Convention for the year 2008 and beyond. He further observed that COP-5 must
also be in a position to agree on the LBSA Protocol so that ratification process could be
initiated.
2.4.3 Dr. Steven Weerts of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of South
Africa sought clarification on the extent to which the implementation of SAP developed
under the auspices of the WIO-LaB Project could be affected by political changes in
participating countries. Responding to this intervention, Mr. Dixon Waruinge observed that
the priorities of the participating countries should remain the same regardless of which
government was in power. He noted that as long as SAP contains most of the key elements
that governments are interested in dealing with, the Nairobi Convention would be focusing
in the right direction and it would be easier to sell the SAP to the participating governments.
2.5 Introduction to the WIO TDA Process
2.5.1 Dr. Peter Scheren, the WIO-LaB Project Manager made a presentation on the workplan
and strategy adopted by the WIO-LaB Project with regard to the preparation of the TDA and
SAP for the Western Indian Ocean region. He noted that the WIO-LaB Project TDA would
essentially focus on land-based issues. He also informed the meeting about the International
Waters Programmes Coordination Committee that was established in order to facilitate
coordination and linkages between WIO-LaB project, ASCLME programme and SWIOF
Project.
2.5.2 Dr. Scheren also briefed the meeting on the geographical scope of the WIO-LaB Project
led TDA noting that it would essentially focus on the land-based issues and problems in the
WIO Region, including the watersheds that drain into the Indian Ocean. He gave examples
of land-based activities to include coastal mining and aquaculture.
2.5.3 Finally, Dr. Scheren briefed the participants on the process and results of the selection
of members of the core TDA Drafting team. The present TDA Drafting Team is constituted
as follows:
(a) Pollution:
Dr. Susan Taljaard (CSIR, South Africa)
Dr. Sixtus Kayombo (UDSM, Tanzania)
(b) PADH:
Dr. Salomao Bandeira (UEM, Mozambique)
Dr. James Kairo (KMFRI, Kenya)
(c) Legal and Institutional:
Mr. Akunga Momanyi (Nairobi University, Kenya) Regional Legal Expert
Prof. Jan Glazewski (UCT, South Africa) - Legal Task Force member
(d) Socio-economics:
Dr. Jacob Ochiewo (KMFRI, Kenya)
2.5.4 During following discussions, a question on the extent to which issues related to
fisheries would be covered in the TDA that would be developed under the auspices of the
WIO-LaB Project was raised. Dr. Scheren responding noted that one cannot discuss land-
based issues without dealing with the fisheries because of the linkages between the two.
However, he noted that the WIO-LaB Project was not an ideal project for dealing with
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
5
fisheries related issues which would be dealt with more appropriately by the SWIOFP and
ASCLMEs Projects. However, Mr. Waruinge suggested that fisheries related issues should
be flagged as one of the priority areas for the Western Indian Ocean Region. He noted that
mechanisms needed to be established in order for the Nairobi Convention to work with
SWIOFP and ASCLME projects with regard to issues related to fisheries. Dr. James
Anderson of the Regional Programme for Coastal Zone Management of the Indian Ocean
Countries (ReCoMaP IO) noted that the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) based in
Mauritius could be a useful source of data and information on the fisheries in the WIO
Region.
2.5.5 The issue of integration of land-locked countries whose river basins have an impact on
the coastal and marine environment of the Western Indian Ocean into the process of
development and the implementation of the SAP was raised. Dr. Scheren noted that issues
related to river basins were important to the focus of the project which was land-based.
However, he noted that WIO-LaB Project was not designed to target river basins as such.
Despite this fact, if river basins emerge to be a priority for the WIO region, then river basin
issues would be considered and the project management would establish modalities of
filling gaps in data and information as far as possible. Mr. Nakamura informed the meeting
that several projects in the WIO Region have in the past focused on the river basins (e.g. the
LOICZ/IGBP AfriBasins Project, etc) and identified some of the key issues such as damming
and water abstraction. He suggested that these reports should be consulted in order to
establish the main river basin related issues in the WIO Region.
2.6 Introduction of the agenda and organization of the meeting
2.6.1 The Chair, Prof. Rudy Van Der Elst introduced the above mentioned agenda item and
invited Ms. Vered Ehsani, Consultant with the Nairobi Convention Secretariat, to brief the
meeting on the agenda and the organization of the meeting. Ms. Ehsani took the participants
through the various agenda items highlighted in the draft provisional agenda as presented
in Annex 1.
3
IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY LBA ISSUES
3.1 Ms. Ulrika Gunnartz, Junior Programme Officer in the Nairobi Convention Secretariat
explained the first individual task of identifying three priority issues. In Task 1, each
participant was required to identify three priority transboundary issues relating to land-
based activities affecting the coastal and marine environment in the WIO. Once completed,
the participants were then requested to handover their priorities stated on three cardboard
cards to the TDA Drafting Team. The Draft Team subsequently clustered the cards against
four thematic areas, namely (i) river basins; (ii) destruction of habitats; (iii)
industrial/domestic pollution; and (iv) governance.
3.2 During plenary session, Dr. James Kairo, member of the TDA Drafting Team, took the
delegates through the above mentioned clusters. The participants were then given the
opportunity of discussing the clusters. The participants were then later requested to
formulate key problems and/or issues in each of the four identified clusters. The key
problems or issues that were formulated were as follows:
1. Alteration of freshwater flow;
2. Alteration of sediment loads;
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
6
3. Degradation of water quality and;
4. Habitat degradation.
3.3 Governance issues were deemed to be cross-cutting to all the above mentioned problems.
With regard to habitat degradation, it was decided to split it further in order to focus on
problems in each of the key coastal and marine ecosystems, namely;
(a) mangroves degradation;
(b) seagrass degradation;
(c) coral reef degradation; and,
(d) degradation of coastal vegetation/forests.
4
CAUSAL CHAIN ANALYSIS OF TRANSBOUNDARY LBA ISSUES
4.1 The participants were introduced to Task 2a (See Annex 3) where the participants were
divided into small groups and asked to construct problem trees for each of the previously
identified transboundary issues.
4.2 Following focussed group discussions, representatives of each of the groups presented
the results of problem analysis. The representatives were as follows: (a) Mr. Steven Weerts
(CSIR, South Africa) alterations of freshwater flow; (b) Prof. Jan Glazewski (UCT, South
Africa) - alteration of the sediment load; (c) Dr. Sixtus Kayombo (UDSM, Tanzania) -
degradation of water quality; (d) Dr. James Kairo (KMFRI, Kenya) - mangroves degradation;
(e) Dr. Christopher Muhando (IMS, Tanzania) - Coral Reef degradation; (f) Dr. Salomao
Bandeira (UEM, Mozambique) - Seagrass degradation and (g) Mr. Jilani Chigulu (KMF-
Kenya) - Coastal vegetation/forests degradation. In their presentations, the representatives
briefed the meeting on the modalities of their discussions and provided justification for the
results. The problem trees prepared by each of the groups are presented as Annex 5 to this
report1.
5
ADDRESSING DATA GAPS AND IDENTIFYING SOURCES OF
INFORMATION
5.1 As part of Task 2b, the same groups were asked to identify data/information required
for validation of the root cause and impact analysis, including the possible sources of data
and information. The identified data sources included specific scientific and technical
publications and reports as well as references to individual scientists, research projects,
institutional data bases, etc.
5.2 During plenary presentations highlighted above, the representatives of the target groups
highlighted the main sources of data and information that could be used to validate the
findings of the root cause and impact analysis. They also provided leads to help the TDA
Drafting Team access the required information.
1 It should be noted that this preliminary root-cause analysis would be further elaborated upon by the TDA
Drafting Team.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
7
6
DISCUSSIONS ON GOVERNANCE, SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES AND
CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES
6.1 The Chair of the session, Dr. Nirmal Shah, who is also the Chief Executive of the Center
for Environment and Education based in the Seychelles, introduced the above mentioned
agenda item. Thereafter, the facilitator Ms. Vered Ehsani introduced Task 3.
6.2 For the purpose of accomplishing Task 3, the participants were divided into the
following four groups, each led by a dedicated facilitator:
· Group 1: Regional governance issues - Prof. Jan Glazewski (UCT, South Africa);
· Group 2: National governance issues - Mr. Akunga Momanyi (UoN, Kenya);
· Group 3: Socio-economic value of ecosystem services - Mr. Jacob Ochiewo (KMFRI,
Kenya).
· Group 4: Criteria for prioritization of key transboundary problems in the Western
Indian Ocean region - Dr. Peter Scheren (WIO-LaB PMU).
The outcome of the various group discussions is summarized below.
6.3 Group 1 Regional Governance Issues: The following list was prepared, suggesting the
main institutions and policies/laws/agreements that are relevant for the Western Indian
Ocean region.
Institutions
Treaties/agreement
(1) UNEP
Nairobi Convention
(2) SADC (Freshwater Unit)
Revised Water protocol
(3) COMESA
(4) IOC (Indian Ocean commission)
Inter-governmental Agreement
(5) FAO
(Fisheries)
Tuna
Commission
(6) European
Union
ReCoMaP
(7) SEACAM
(8) ACOPS (Pollution)
6.4 The point of departure of the group discussions was that regional governance in the WIO
was weak in comparison to other regional arrangements in the world, for example the
Caribbean. The group then decided that the primary focus should be on the Indian Ocean
Commission (IOC) as an example of an existing institution which could be built on to
strengthen governance in the WIO region. However, the major limitation was found to be
the fact that IOC only focuses on the island states (Seychelles, Mauritius, Comoros and
Madagascar), and the four mainland states (South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania and
Kenya) are not party to this inter-governmental agreement.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
8
6.5 Finally the group discussed practical ways that regional governance could be enhanced.
It was decided that the following have potential:
· Development of common guidelines and/or standards for LBSA;
· Sharing of information and knowledge (establish a common regional data bank);
· Develop and implement monitoring and enforcement programmes, and;
· Generally, adopt international best practices.
6.6 Group 2 National Governance Issues: The main national legal issues identified were;
(i) limitations of existing environmental legislations; (ii) failure to domesticate international
conventions and policies; (iii) weak enforcement of laws and policies; (iv) sectoral
fragmentation and duplication of laws and policies; (v) lack of comprehensive legal
provisions on key aspects; (vi) obsolete or outdated laws; and (vii) inadequate coordination
and consultation mechanisms in the laws and policies. Other issues identified were; (a)
absence or lack of LBSA specific legislation and laws; (b) inappropriate legislations and
policies especially on quality standards; and (c) implementation inconsistencies caused by,
among others, corruption and political interference. The main national institutional issues
identified were: inadequate resources both technical and financial; duplication and lack of
clarity of institutional mandates; old or obsolete institutional arrangements; and political
interference and corruption.
6.7 The following was suggested in terms of possible solutions for these apparent
weaknesses: enactment of consolidated and comprehensive laws and policies as well as
institutional arrangements; empowerment of stakeholders, communities and decision
makers; better coordination and consultation in law and policy making and decision
making; enhanced public awareness and education; more domestication of international
conventions and policies; and better allocation of resources.
6.8 Others recommendations included: sharing of best practices among the countries and
regular or periodic review of institutional mandates. On data and information sources, the
group identified existing national laws, policies and institutions; national and regional
reports, including WIO-LaB project outputs, UNEP/GPA PADH Reports, etc.
6.9 Group 3 Socio-Economic Value of Ecosystem Services: This group looked at the
social, cultural and economic value of ecosystems services and identified both direct and
indirect values: direct values included sources of food (fish, prawns), provision of
construction materials and sources of income (commercial value); ecological value
protection of the coastal line (controlling erosion), sources of nutrients, wildlife habitats;
cultural values identity, and spiritual connections; indirect values are the extraction of
natural products for research purposes bio-research, recreation tourism, and aesthetic
value.
6.10 The group also identified data sources, noting that several studies had been conducted
in the WIO region, although data was not comprehensive, since it was based on specific case
studies and was institutionally oriented. Other potential sources of data were cited to
include National institutions, Hoteliers, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Tourism
authorities, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), etc. It was also noted that `regional level' socio-
economic data could be obtained from the Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean
Eastern Africa Project (CORDIO-EA), the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN)
among other organizations. However, the group noted that it was difficult to delineate social
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
9
and economic value of a particular ecosystem because they were interrelated - e.g. fish
catches from corals, sea grasses, and mangroves. It was also difficult to delineate the value
from tourism related to the coastal ecosystems because tourist hot spots were interrelated.
They recommended that common variables need to be identified in order to inform the
valuation process across the WIO region.
6.11 Group 4 Criteria for prioritization: This group created a set of criteria that could then
be used for the next task. The Group presented their recommendations to the participants,
incorporating further inputs from other participants along the way. The results of these
deliberations are presented in Annex 4.
7
PRELIMINARY PRIORITISATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS
AND ISSUES
7.1 The Chair of the session, Dr. Nirmal Shah introduced the above mentioned agenda item
and Ms. Ulrika Gunnartz subsequently briefed the participants on the process for the
prioritization of key transboundary problems and issues that were identified during the
earlier exercises (Tasks 2 to 3). Task 4 required participants to prioritise the previously
identified transboundary issues. For this purpose, participants were provided with copies of
the criteria for the prioritization of transboundary problems and issues that were developed
as part of Task 3 (see Annex 4).
7.2 Equal-sized groups were constituted. Firstly, members of each of the groups provided
their own independent ranking based on their expert judgement. Thereafter, the groups
discussed the individual outcomes and came up with a mutually agreed group ranking. The
results of the ranking exercise are presented in this report as Annex 6 (It should however be
noted that this was considered to be a preliminary ranking, intended only to assist the TDA
Drafting Team in the final ranking/prioritization exercise).
7.3 During the plenary session, representatives of the different groups presented the
outcomes of their group ranking. There were some further discussions on the criteria used to
rank different transboundary problems and issues. It was suggested that the criteria needed
to be carefully applied and it would be important to provide justification for the kind of
ranking that was arrived at in each of the cases. There was also a suggestion that the exercise
should not be considered binding, but just a heuristic one intended to provide indications on
the perception of stakeholders represented in the meeting.
7.4 It was suggested that there was need to further prioritize the criteria to be used, so that
those aspects of the criteria that are focused on socio-economic issues are given more weight.
It was suggested that the number of items presented in the criteria should be reduced so as
to enable the TDA Drafting Team to identify in on the most important issues, particularly
those issues that can easily capture the attention of decision/policy makers in participating
countries.
7.5 There were also some discussions on the suitability of using numbered total scores as a
way of determining the significance of the ranked problems and issues. It was noted that
this could be misleading, unless explanations accompanies the final ranking. In this regard,
it was concluded that for example a colour-coding system would be more appropriate.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
10
7.6 It also clearly emerged that key priority transboundary problems and issues in the
mainland states were different from those in the island states. It was suggested that
differences between the two need to be distinguished. Following this suggestion, the
participants from the mainland states and those from island states were requested to list
three main problems or issues that they consider to be the main priorities. The results were
as follows;
Mainland States priority issues:
1. Destruction of coastal and marine habitats (mangroves, sea grasses, coral reef,
coastal vegetation/forests, etc);
2. Alteration in freshwater flows;
3. Waste management.
Island States priority issues:
1. Governance;
2. Inadequate public participation;
3. Lack of regional integration;
4. Dependency of highly vulnerable resources.
7.7 The above issues were listed according to the order of priority by the experts
representing both mainland and island states. In the case of the mainland states,
furthermore, a number of cross-cutting issues were identified, namely (1) education and
awareness; (2) inadequate financial resources allocation; and (3) lack of effective governance
structures.
8
PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF KEY ACTIONS / SOLUTIONS AND
ACTORS TO ADDRESS TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES
8.1 Ms. Vered Ehsani briefed the participants on Task 5, whose aim was to generate a
preliminary list of interventions to address the identified problems. The participants were
divided into the Task 2 groups and asked to identify solutions/actions to address the main
transboundary issues by turning the problem trees into solution trees (based on
interventions analysis). The participants were also requested to indicate which of the actions
identified as solutions to the main transboundary issues are already being undertaken or are
in the pipeline.
8.2 Pre-prepared tables were given to each group in order to enable them record their
findings. They were also required to pay special attention to three criteria: the feasibility of
solutions; funding availability; and stakeholders involved in addressing the interventions.
The participants were also required to indicate whether the interventions could be
accomplished within the short, medium or long term.
8.3 During plenary sessions, the representatives of the various groups presented the
outcomes of their group discussions, paying special attention on the possible actions or
interventions for the identified issues including the possible sources of funding and
stakeholders to be involved. The presentations were made as follows:
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
11
(1) Alteration of freshwater flow - Dr. Steven Weerts (CSIR, South Africa);
(2) Alteration of sediment loads - Ms. G. Manna (A. General Chambers, Mauritius);
(3) Degradation of water quality - Ms. Sue Lane (Lwandle Tech. Pty, South Africa);
(4) Mangroves degradation - Dr. James Kairo (KMFRI, Kenya);
(5) Seagrass degradation - Mr. Innocent Wanyonyi (CORDIO-EA, Kenya);
(6) Coral reef degradation Mr. Remi (WWF, Madagascar);
(7) Coastal vegetation/forests degradation - Mr. Said Mbwana (KMF, Kenya).
8.4 The outcomes of the above mentioned discussions are presented in Annex 7 and will be
further detailed in the TDA Report after the TDA Drafting Team has carried out analysis of
interventions. It is also expected that further work in this respect will be carried out during
the process for the formulation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Western
Indian Ocean region that will immediately follow the process for the development of TDA.
8.5 During subsequent plenary discussions, there was a general appeal for action. It was
noted that the exercise should lead to implementation of interventions on the ground. In this
regard, it was noted that there is a need for a catalyst that would champion the processes for
implementation. It was also noted that for the solutions proposed in the present meeting,
there should be an indication of the level at which the solutions would need to be addressed
(local, national, regional) and whether the proposed interventions required high level
political interventions.
8.6 Furthermore, it was suggested that the experts in the region should strive to
communicate success stories or alternative solutions to governments, rather than focus on
the negative aspects all the time. The Nairobi Convention could also come up with a
mechanism to capture the success stories and communicate them to the key stakeholders (a
structured communication to the government's decision and policy makers as well as
donors).
8.7 There were also some discussions on how environmental governance could be improved
in the WIO Region. While Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was recognised to be a
tool that could be used for this purpose, it was noted that in many occasions it was not
objective and was used as a form of whitewash. It was also noted that although
governments in the WIO Region were willing to protect the coastal and marine
environment, the major limitation was lack of resources to implement programmes. It was
noted that the WIO-LaB project strategy of encouraging implementation of demonstration
projects was good since the outcomes would trickle down to the communities and would
lead to change in behaviour.
8.8 There was also some concern on the duplication of efforts and wastage of resources
through parallel inter-governmental processes in the WIO Region (e.g. Indian Ocean
Commission (IOC) and Nairobi Convention) that discuss similar issues related to coastal
and marine environment. It was noted that these inter-governmental processes were not
linked and therefore a lot of resources available in the WIO Region were not properly
coordinated. In this regard, better coordination between IOC and Nairobi Convention as
well as between various Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) was necessary.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
12
9
CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSURE OF MEETING
9.1 A workshop evaluation was conducted at the end of the workshop, the results of which
are presented in Annex 8. The larger part of the participants stated that they were very
satisfied with the conduct and contents of the workshop as well as logistical and other
facilities provided. A few useful suggestions were made for future workshops of this kind.
9.2 The Chair for the closing session, Prof. Rudy Van der Elst, thanked the UNEP-WIO-LaB
Project management for the workshop arrangements and in particular for providing the
opportunity to the experts in the WIO Region to participate in the process for the
development of TDA for the WIO Region.
9.3 Dr. Peter Scheren thanked the participants for availing themselves to discuss the process
for the development of TDA for the Western Indian Ocean region and for their strong
engagement in the workshop, which provided clear directions for the TDA to be developed.
9.4 Mr. Dixon Waruinge thanked all the experts for their active participation in the
workshop. He noted that the outcomes would feed into the process for formulation of the
Nairobi Convention's Work Programme. The current TDA process would create a network
that would lead to a shift in the way the Nairobi Convention has been working. He urged
that the network be maintained.
9.5 There being no other business, the Chair declared the meeting closed at 12.54 pm on
Thursday 17th April 2007.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
13
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Annex 1: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
Time
Activity
Facilitators/Speaker
TUESDAY 17TH APRIL 2007
08.30 Registration
Ms. Anne Maina, Ms. Esther
Maina
1. Opening of the meeting and welcome remarks
09.00 Welcome address by the Nairobi Convention Secretariat hosted by UNEP.
Mr. Dixon Waruinge, Nairobi
Convention Secretariat
09.15 Official Opening by the Director of the UNEP Regional Office for Africa.
Mr. Sekou Toure, UNEP
SESSION 1 (Chair: Dr. Rudy van der Elst, ORI)
2. Introduction of the concepts, processes and expected outcomes of the workshop and the TDA/SAP
09.30 Introduction
of
participants
Ms. Ulrika Gunnartz, UNEP
10.00
TEA BREAK
10.30 TDA/SAP as a management tool: overview of the TDA/SAP Process
Mr. Peter Scheren, WIO-LaB
10.50 The role of TDA/SAP in the GEF
Mr. Takehiro Nakamura
11.10 The role of TDA/SAP in the Nairobi Convention framework
Mr. Dixon Waruinge
11.30 Introduction of the WIO TDA process
Mr. Peter Scheren, WIO-LaB
11.50 Introduction to the agenda and organisation of the workshop
Ms. Vered Ehsani, UNEP
SESSION 2 (Chair: Rudy van der Elst, ORI)
3. Identification of transboundary LBA issues
12.00 Task 1: By using cardboard cards each participant identifies three priority
Ms. Ulrika Gunnartz, UNEP
transboundary issues relating to land-based activities affecting the coastal and
Dr. James Kairo, KMFRI
marine environment in the WIO
Dr. Salomao Bandeira, UEM
Dr. Steven Weerts, CSIR
12.30
LUNCH
13.30 The transboundary issues are presented in clusters posted on the wall
As above
4. Causal chain analysis of transboundary LBA issues
14.00 Task 2a: Participants are divided into groups and asked to construct problem trees Ms. Ulrika Gunnartz, UNEP
out of the clustered previously identified transboundary issues, thus examining
Dr. James Kairo, KMFRI
root causes and impacts (socio-economic and ecosystem)
Dr. Salomao Bandeira, UEM
Dr. Steven Weerts, CSIR
Dr. Sixtus Kayombo, UDSM
Mr. Akunga Momanyi, UN
Prof. Jan Glazewski, UCT
Mr. Jacob Ochiewo, KMFRI
15.30
TEA BREAK
15.45 Continuation of Task 2a and consolidation of results to prepare for presentation
Group facilitators
5. Addressing data gaps and identifying sources of information
16.30 Task 2b: In the same groups, participants are asked to identify data/information
Group facilitators
needed for validation of the TDA and possible sources for this data/information,
and then to consolidate results of Task 2a and 2b to prepare for presentation
17.50 Summary remarks and brief instructions for the following day
Chair and main facilitator(s)
18.00
END OF DAY 1
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
14
WEDNESDAY 18TH APRIL 2007
08.30 Continuation of Task 2: Group presentations of cluster problem trees (10
Group rapporteurs guided by
min./group) and brief discussions
main facilitator(s)
SESSION 3 (Chair: Mr. Nirmal Shah, Nature Seychelles)
6. In-depth discussions on governance, socio-economic values and criteria to prioritise transboundary issues
09.30 Task 3: Participants are divided into four groups to discuss on the following topics
Ms. Vered Ehsani,
based on the problem trees constructed the previous day, and to identify data gaps
Prof. Jan Glazewski
and information sources:
Mr. Akunga Momany
(i) Regional governance issues
Mr. Jacob Ochiewo
(ii) National governance issues
Dr. Peter Scheren
(iii) Socio-economic value of ecosystem services
(iv) Criteria for prioritisation of transboundary issues
10.00
TEA BREAK
10.30 Continuation of Task 3
Group facilitators
11.30 Group presentations (10 min./group) and plenary validation discussions on the
Group rapporteurs guided by
results of Task 3
main facilitator(s)
12.30
LUNCH
7. Preliminary prioritization of trans-boundary problems and issues
13.30 Task 4: Participants are asked to prioritise the trans-boundary issues in accordance
Ms. Ulrika Gunnartz, UNEP
with the previously identified criteria using the Delphi technique
and group facilitators
15.30
TEA BREAK
SESSION 4 (Chair: Dr. Rudi van der Elst, ORI)
8. Preliminary identification of key actions/solutions and actors to address trans-boundary issues
15.45 Task 5: Participants are divided into the Task 2 groups and asked to identify
Ms. Vered Ehsani, UNEP
solutions/actions to address the main transboundary issues by turning the problem
Dr. James Kairo, KMFRI
trees into solution trees; they will also indicate which of the actions identified as
Dr. Salomao Bandeira, UEM
solutions to the main trans-boundary issues they are already undertaking or that they Dr. Steven Weerts, CSIR
are planning to undertake
Dr. Sixtus Kayombo, UDSM
Mr. Akunga Momanyi, UN
Prof. Jan Glazewski, UCT
Mr. Jacob Ochiewo, KMFRI
17.50 Summary remarks and brief instructions for the following day
Chair and main facilitator(s)
18.00
END OF DAY 2
THURSDAY 18TH APRIL 2007
08.30 Continuation of Task 5 and preparation for presentations
Group facilitators
10.00
TEA BREAK
10.30 Group presentations (10 min./group) and plenary validation discussions on the
Group rapporteurs guided by
results of Task 5
main facilitator(s)
9. Conclusions and closure
12.00 Synthesis presentation on the results of the workshop
Chair and facilitators
12.30 Administrative matters and AOB
Dr. Peter Scheren, WIO-LaB
12.45 Closing remarks
Mr. Dixon Waruinge, Nairobi
Convention Secretariat
13.00
MEETING CLOSED
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
15
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Annex 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Country Participants
details
COMOROS
Mr. Said AHAMADA
B.P. 1545 Moroni, Comoros
Tel: (00269) 334349
Email: ahamadas@yahoo.com
KENYA
Dr. Daniel MUNGA
Senior Research Officer
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI)
P.O. Box 81651
Mombasa, Kenya
Fax No. 254-041-475157
Tel No: 254-041-475152/3/4
Email: dmunga@kmfri.co.ke
Dr. James KAIRO
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI)
P.O. Box 81651
Mombasa, Kenya
Fax No. 254-041-475157
Tel No: 254-041-475152/3/4
Email: jkairo@kmfri.co.ke
Mr. Akunga MOMANYI
c/o P.O Box 30197
School of Law, Commercial Law Dept
University of Nairobi
P.O Box 10324- 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 4447181, 4453641
Fax: +254 20 445364
Email: amomanyi@uonbi.ac.ke
Mr. Jacob OCHIEWO
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI)
P.O. Box 81651
Mombasa, Kenya
Fax No. 254-041-475157
Tel No: 254-041-475152/3/4
Email: jochiewo@kmfri.co.ke
Mr. Jilani Chigulu CHIRO
Kenya Marine Forum
P.O Box 5861
Malindi, Kenya
Tel: (254 042) 30123
Email: chigulu2000@yahoo.com
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
16
Country Participants
details
Ms. Salome MACHUA
National Environment Management Authority
P. O. Box 67839, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 20) 605331 / 605022
Fax: (254 20) 608997
Email: smachua@nema.go.ke, salmach2002@yahoo.ca
MADAGASCAR
Mr. Yves Jean Michel MONG
Chercheur au Centre National de Recherches sur
l'Environnement (CNRE)
B.P. 1739 - 101
Antananarivo, Madagascar
Mobile: (261) 33 14 87 888
Email: mong@simicro.mg
MAURITIUS
Mr. Alexis RADHAY
Wastewater Management Authority
4th Floor, The Celicourt
Celicourt Anthelme Street
Port Louis, Mauritius
Tel: (230) 206 3000
Direct Line: (230) 206 3023
Mobile: (230) 259 1051
Fax: (230) 211 7007
Email: wmalex05@yahoo.com
Mr. Devindranath DINDYAL
Scientific Officer
National Environmental Laboratory
Ministry of Environment
Ken Lee Tower, Barracks Street
Port Louis, Mauritius
Tel: (230) 212 4385
Fax: (230) 212 9407
Email: ddindyal@mail.gov.mu
Ms. Gaitree MANNA
Principal State Counsel
Attorney General's Office and Ministry of Justice &
Human Rights
Level 2 Renganaden Seeneevassen Bldg
Port Louis, Mauritius
Tel: (+230) 212 0544
Fax: (+230) 212 6742 / 208 2910
Email: gmanna@mail.gov.mu
Dr. Eric BLAIS
Director
Shoals Rodrigues
Pointe Monier
Rodrigues, Mauritius
Tel: (230) 831 1225
Fax: (230) 831 0287
Email: director@shoals-rodrigues.org,
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
17
Country Participants
details
director@shoals.intnet.mu
Dr. Keswar Beeharry PANRAY
Environmental Protection and Conservation
Organization
75, Chevreau Lane
Coastal Road, Calodyne
Grand Gaube, Mauritius
Tel: +230 282 0423, 7633195; +230 5450316 (office)
Email: kheswar@intnet.mu
MOZAMBIQUE
Dr. Salomao BANDEIRA
Department of Biological Sciences,
University Eduardo Mondlane
Maputo, Mozambique
Tel: 258 21491223
Fax: 258 21492176
Email: sband@zebra.uem.mz
Ms.Veronica Fernando DOVE
Grupo de Trabalho Ambiental (GTA)
P.O Box 2775
Maputo, Mozambique
Tel: +258- 21-48 77 21, +258- 84 - 235 2950
E-mail: dfnica@gmail.com
SEYCHELLES
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
Dr. Nirmal SHAH
Chief Executive
The Center for Environment and Education,
P.O.Box 1310,
Roche Caiman, Mahe, Seychelles
Tel : + 248 601100 / 601101
Fax : + 248 601102
Email: nirmalshah@natureseychelles.org
SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Anton EARLE
Director
African Centre for Water Research
Third Floor, 47 On Strand, Cape Town, 8001, South
Africa
Suite 17, Private Bag X1,Vlaeberg, 8018, Cape Town
South Africa
Tel: +27 (0)21 424 4821 (W), +27 (0)83 379 2997 (Cell)
Fax: +27 (0)866 725962, +27 (0)21 422 3810
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
18
Country Participants
details
Email: antonearle@acwr.co.za
www.acwr.co.za
Dr. Steven WEERTS
Research Group Leader- Coastal and Marine Pollution
Natural Resources and Environment
Council For Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
Natural Resources and the Environment
P. O. Box 17001, Congella 4013
South Africa
Tel: (27) 31 242 2356
Cell: (27) 82 870 4310
Email: sweerts@csir.co.za
Ms. Sue LANE
Consultant
Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd
Coastal and Marine Services
5 Muswell Hill Road
Mowbray 7700, Cape Town
South Africa
Tel: 27 21 686 8194
Email: sue@suelane.co.za
Prof. Rudy van Der ELST
Director
Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI)
P O Box 10712, Marine Parade
Durban, 4056
South Africa
Tel: +27-31-328 8177
Fax: +27-31-328 8199
E-mail : rudy@ori.org.za
Prof. Jan GLAZEWSKI
Institute of Marine and Environmental Law
University of Cape Town
Private Bag Rondebosch 7701,
South Africa
Tel: 27 21 650 3075/5642
Cell: 082 774 6039
Fax: 27 21 650 5660
Email: Jan.Glazewski@uct.ac.za
TANZANIA
Dr. Christopher A MUHANDO
Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS)
University of Dar es Salaam
P. O. Box 668
Zanzibar, Tanzania
Tel: (255) 24-223 2128/223 0741
Fax: (255) 24 223 3050
Email: muhando@ims.udsm.ac.tz
Dr. Rose MWAIPOPO
University of Dar es Salaam
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
19
Country Participants
details
P.O Box 35064
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Dr. Sixtus KAYOMBO
Ministry of Water - Water Resources Institute
P.O. Box 35059
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: +255 754 480597
Email: sixtus.kayombo@gmail.com,
kayombo_tz@yahoo.com, kayombo@udsm.ac.tz
Dr. Yohanna SHAGHUDE
Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS)
University of Dar es Salaam
P. O. Box 668
Zanzibar, Tanzania
Tel: (255) 24-223 2128/223 0741
Fax: (255) 24 223 3050
Email: shaghude@ims.udsm.ac.tz
Mr. Jeremiah M. DAFFA
Tanzania Coastal Management Programme (TCMP)
P. O. Box 71686
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: (255) 22-2780520
Fax: (255) 22-2780501
Email: jdaffa@tcmptz.org
Mr. Mohammed SALIM
Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS)
University of Dar es Salaam
P. O. Box 668
Zanzibar, Tanzania
Tel: (255) 24-223 2128/223 0741
Fax: (255) 24 223 3050
Email: salim@ims.udsm.ac.tz
Mr. Said MBWANA
Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania
Tel: 0754 809547
Email: wcst@africaonline.co.tz
CORDIO
Mr. Innocent WANYONYI
CORDIO East Africa
8/9 Kibaki Flats, Kenyatta Public Beach
P.O. Box 10135 Mombasa 80101, Kenya
Tel/fax: +254-41-548 6473; mobile 0733-851656
Email: iwanyonyi@cordioea.org
socmon@cordioea.org
East African Wildlife Society
Mr. Hadley BECHA
East African Wildlife Society
P.O Box 20110 - 00200
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254) 20 387-4145
Email: becha@eawildlife.org
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
20
Country Participants
details
World Conservation Union
Ms. Maureen BABU
(IUCN)
Programme Officer
IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office
PO Box 68200,
Nairobi 00200, Kenya
Email: maureen.babu@iucn.org
Wildlife Conservation Society
Dr. Nyawira MUTHIGA
(WCS)
Conservation Scientist
Wildlife Conservation Society
P. O. Box 99470
Mombasa 80107, Kenya
Tel +254-726-529001, +254-733-621375, +254-415486549
Fax:+254-41-5486810
Email: nmuthiga@wcs.org, nmuthiga@mac.com
ReCoMaP
Mr. James ANDERSON
Regional Programme for Coastal Zone Management of
the Indian Ocean Countries (ReCoMaP IO)
Regional Coordination Unit
112 Farquhar Ave,
Mauritius
Tel : +230 427 2583/ (230) 427 2808
Fax : +230 427 2808
Email: james.anderson@coi-ioc.org
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Mr. Sam WERU
Project Coordinator
WWF-Kiunga MNRC&D Project
P.O. Box 99,
Lamu 80500, Kenya
Tel/Fax +254 42 633456
Cell: +254 722 207 705 or 735 333 409
Email: werus@eikmail.com
Mr. Ratsimbazafy REMI
WWF MWIOP
Lot II M 85 Ter, Antsakaviro
101 Antananarivo, Madagascar
Tel : 261 20 22 348 85
Fax :l 261 20 22 348 88
Email : rratsimbazafy@wwf.mg
UNEP NAIROBI
Mr. Dixon WARUINGE
CONVENTION/WIO-LaB
Programme Officer
PROJECT
Regional Seas (Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions)
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7621247
Fax: +254 20 7623130
Email: dixon.waruinge@unep.org
Dr. Peter SCHEREN
Project Manager
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
21
Country Participants
details
WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7621270
Fax: +254 20 7623928
Email: Peter.scheren@unep.org
Dr. Johnson U. KITHEKA
Project Officer/Environmental Scientist
WIO-LaB Project Management Unit
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 76724612
Fax: +254 20 7623928
Email: johnson.kitheka@unep.org
Ms. Ulrika GUNNARTZ
Junior Programme Officer
Regional Seas (Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions)
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7621247
Fax: +254 20 7623130
Email: Ulrika.gunnartz@unep.org
Ms. Vered EHSANI
Consultant
Regional Seas (Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions)
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7621247
Fax: +254 20 7623130
Email: vered.ehsani@unep.org
Ms. Esther MAINA
UN Volunteer
Regional Seas (Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions)
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
P.O Box 47074
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7621247
Fax: +254 20 7623130
Email: esther.mainai@unep.org
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
22
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Annex 3: GUIDELINES FOR TASKS
First Regional Workshop: Development of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Western Indian Ocean
Nairobi, Kenya, 17th - 19th April 2007
GUIDELINES FOR TASKS
Task 1: Identifying transboundary issues
The facilitator will clearly explain the meaning of land-based activities and transboundary activities,
giving clear examples of issues that do not fit into this category. Participants will then be given three
cardboard cards each, and asked to write down three transboundary issues relating to land -based
activities affecting the coastal and marine environment that they think are of great importance.
The participants will hand in the cards to the facilitators who will post the cards on a wall in clusters
according to how the issues relate to each other. The facilitators will then present the clusters to the
participants and there will be an open plenary discussion and revision of the clustering to get the
agreement of the group. Certain cards may need to be duplicated in order to reflect the proper
position of issues belonging in two different clusters.
Task 2a: Causal chain analysis of transboundary LBA issues
The participants will be divided into thematic groups based on their expertise. The number of groups
will depend on the number of clusters of transboundary issues, but should be at least four. Each group
will have its own facilitator (one of the TDA drafting team members or one of the main facilitators)
and they will all appoint a rapporteur who will present the group work to a plenary session (10
minutes/group), clearly outlining both the process and the results of the task.
Using the transboundary issue cards belonging to their cluster, the group will be facilitated to
construct a problem tree. A problem tree is a method of analysing the causes and effects of a problem
or an issue. One first card is posted on the wall and then the other cards are posted according to
whether they are a cause to that issue (posted below the first card) or an effect/impact (posted above
the first card). The flow between the different causes and effects/impacts should be clearly reflected
going upwards. Once the first cards have been placed, the group will be asked to think of further
underlying causes and secondary effects of the issue, considering both ecosystems and socio-economic
factors and issues. The figure below shows an example of a problem tree with "declining coral reef
health" as the key issue.
Increased Poverty and livelihood insecurity
Less beach tourism
Less foreign investment
More unemployment
Decline in fish stocks
Disappearing beaches
Declining snorkeling/diving tourism
Loss of fish habitat
Coastal erosion
Declining coral reef health
Eutrophication and heavy
Coral bleaching
Coral Mining
Blast fishing
sediment load
Lacking enforcement
Deforestation
Climate effects
Lacking regulations
of regulations
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
23
Task 2b: Addressing data gaps and identifying sources of information
Participants will remain in their thematic groups according to their expertise. The groups will each be
assisted by ambulating facilitators and a TDA drafting team member, as well as a rapporteur for the
theme. The participants will be asked to identify data/information needed for validation of the TDA
and possible sources for this data/information that are specific to the theme of the group. The groups
shall use the problem trees as guidance in their discussions.
Once Tasks 2a and 2b are completed, the participants will be encouraged to circulate freely between
the thematic groups, in order to contribute on different themes. There will then be a plenary session to
present the results of Task 2 and allow for contributions from the other participants.
Task 3: In-depth discussions on governance, socioeconomic value & prioritisation criteria
Participants are divided arbitrarily, by the counting technique, into four groups with appointed
experts as facilitators, to discuss the following topics:
(i) Regional governance issues: discussing and summarising the causes and impacts relating to
deficiencies in regional governance frameworks to properly address transboundary issues relating
to land based activities.
(ii) National governance issues: discussing and summarising the causes and impacts relating to
deficiencies in national governance frameworks (institutional, legal regulatory, etc) to properly
address transboundary issues relating to land based activities.
(iii) Socio-economic value of ecosystem services: discussing and summarising the socio-economic
value of the coastal ecosystems of the WIO and specifically looking at values gained and lost in
different scenarios of addressing land based activities.
(iv) Criteria for prioritisation of transboundary issues: defining the criteria for prioritising the
transboundary issues.
Each group will be assisted by a facilitator and they will also appoint a rapporteur who will present
the results of the group work. Each group will be expected to use the problem trees as a base for their
discussions, to refer to the problem trees in their presentations, and to make suggestions for
additions/changes in the problem trees based on their topic of discussion. The groups will also
identify data gaps and information sources for topics i, ii and iii. The presentations back to the plenary
session should not last more than ten minutes and should give a brief overview of the conclusions of
the discussions, which will be further discussed in plenary.
Task 4: Preliminary prioritisation of transboundary issues
The participants will be asked to individually rank the transboundary issues in a decision-making
matrix according to the criteria previously defined. The facilitators will explain the value system for
the ranking which will correspond to different meanings depending on the criteria (e.g. the
transboundary issue has: severe impact = 4, significant impact = 3, certain impact = 2, minor impact =
1, no impact = 0 on the criteria). The participants will then be divided into groups of five (through
counting), bringing with them their individual decision-making matrices. The groups will be assisted
by ambulating facilitators. The groups will discuss their individual results and from these try to reach
consensus for one common ranking for the group which should be drawn on a flip chart.
Each group will post their results next to each other and a plenary discussion will be held to look at
potential differences in the groups' ranking. Each group will get the possibility to put forward
arguments for their ranking. The participants will then go back in their groups to revise their ranking
in accordance to the arguments put forward in plenary. This process will carry on until a common
ranking for the whole meeting has been reached. It will be important that the main rapporteur(s) for
the meeting closely follow and note the arguments backing the different rankings.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
24
Task 5: Preliminary identification of key actions & actors to address transboundary issues
Participants are divided back into their Task 2, expertise-based groups (one group per problem tree)
and asked to identify solutions/actions to address the main transboundary issues by turning the
problem trees into solution trees. Some experts may be appointed as cross-cutting advisors (e.g. on
governance and socio-economics) The groups will identify where action is required and what the
action would entail. Using colour coded stickers placed on the problem trees' lines, the groups will
indicate which actions: are currently being done (green stickers); can be done practically in the near
future (yellow stickers); require long term planning and investment (red stickers). The details of each
action will be described on a flip chart, with reference numbers linking each action to a sticker on the
tree. These details should also include the key organisations who are already undertaking, planning to
undertake, or could undertake the actions identified as solutions to the main transboundary issues. A
potential timeframe should be indicated, and whether the action has funding. Each group will be
assisted by a group facilitator and a rapporteur will be appointed to explain the process and results of
the task back to plenary. The results will then be reported back to the plenary session for further
suggestions and validation.
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
25
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Annex 4: CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS
Criteria Weighting
1. Transboundary nature
0: No pass
a. Transboundary causes
1: Specific to 2-3 countries
b. Transboundary effects
2: Specific to 4-5 countries
c. Commonality of problems
3: Specific to >6 countries or truly
transboundary causes and/or effects, or
effects all mainland or all island states
2. Feasibility of solutions
0: Not feasible
a. Recognized issue (political)
1:
b. Technical feasibility (reversibility)
2:
c. Financial/economic feasibility
3: Fully feasible on the short-term
d. Timeframe
3. Scale of benefits of resolving problem
0: No multiplicity
a. Multiplicity of benefits
1:
2:
3: High multiplicity truly cross-sectoral
4. Environmental impact
0: Low impact
a. Effects on ecosystem functioning
1:
b. Effects on biodiversity and critical
2:
species/habitats
3: High impact
c. Seascape/landscape
5. Socio-economic impacts
0: Low impact
a. Livelihoods and subsistence
1:
b. Local economics
2:
c. Cultural values
3: High impact
6. Effects on macro-economics
0: Low impact
a. Loss of commercial value
1:
b. Effect in GDP
2:
3: High impact
Ranking method
Once criteria defined, ranking would occur using multi-criteria analysis, as follows:
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6 Total
score
Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem 3
Problem 5
Problem 6
Problem 7
Problem 8
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
26
27
u
el
Lack of
energy
alternative
prices
t
y
Increased f
coastal
otection
Over-
Lack of
and
oper
pr
exploitation
pr
Loss of life
YSIS
r
y
ces
a
nd in
Increased
fishe
dem
r
e
sour
ANAL
ces
ent
tage of
m
Shor
fish stock
PACT
Reduction
in fishery
r
e
sour
Aquaculture
develop
prices
IM
Increase in
a
nd of
e
ign
Increased
for
dem
exchange
trade
SE AND
in
U
International
Loss of
cover
r
e
venues
vegetation
Decrease
m
ste
ROOT-CA
entation
oductivity
o
n
Low sy
pr
o
ve
ati
ate
plem
ngr
ad
m
im
water
or
Ma
Cli
change
ce
quality
S OF THE
degr
Poor
T
tion/po
L
conflict
U
Increased
r
e
sour
e
gisla
land
RES
e
station
Hinter
RY
defor
s
ity
A
N
in
Siltation/erosion
Reduction
ack of planning/l
biodiver
t
y
L
in
Increased
pover
eased food
a
nd
Reduction
f
r
eshwater
flow
E PRELIMI
I
n
cr
dem
5: TH
m
e
ur
r
Agricult
develop
Annex
Reduction
in touris
activities
value
a
te
Loss in
aesthetic
s
ion of
e
ntation
Increased
coastal
osion/sedi
m
e
s
h w
er
Diver
fr
a
B Project
a
nd
O-L
m
rial
e
station
Pollution
-GEF WI
Loss of
Increased
terrest
ent
foreign exchange
livelihood
defor
m
Increased de
of
UNEP
tage of
Increased
coastal
oducts
develop
wood
pr
n
Shor
ce
Increased
r
e
sour
conflicts
Increased
populatio
28
a
B Project
O-L
-GEF WI
UNEP
29
a
B Project
O-L
-GEF WI
UNEP
30
a
B Project
O-L
-GEF WI
UNEP
31
a
B Project
O-L
-GEF WI
UNEP
IMPACTS
Increased
poverty
Loss of
government
revenue
Loss of
Health
Decrease
coastal
problems
in tourism
livelihoods
Loss of
coastal
Decline in
infrastructure
Decrease
Loss of
coastal
and
in water
biodiversity
Loss of
fisheries
settlements
quality
aesthetic
features
Coral
Degradation
Loss of
degradation
of coastal
Sedimentation
Coastal
natural
due to over
marine habitat
deposition
erosion
filters
sedimentation
(plant life)
Alteration in
Sediment load
Soil
Dam
Increase in
Wetland
erosion
Building
disasters
Severe
Increase water
degradation
(floods/cyclones)
drought
abstraction
Unregul
Industriali
Increase
Intensive
Increased
Deforest
Overgra
ated
sation &
Too
coastal
agriculture
population
ation
zing
land use
energy
intensive
settlement
coastal
needs
tourism
National
Climate
economic
Poverty
Change
planning
CAUSES
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
32
33
a
B Project
O-L
-GEF WI
UNEP
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Annex 6 : PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
Group 1
Problem
Crt 1
Crt 2
Crt 3
Crt 4
Crt 5
Crt 6
Tot
1. Flow
3 2 2-3 2 2 3
14.5
2. Sediment
3 2 2-3 3 3 3
16.5
3. Pollution
3 2 2-3 2 2 3
14.5
4. Wet habitat
3 3 2 3 3 1 15
5. Dry habitat
3 3 3 2 2 2 15
Group 2
Problem
Crt 1
Crt 2
Crt 3
Crt 4
Crt 5
Crt 6
Tot
1. Flow
3 1 3 3 3 2 15
2. Sediment
2 2 3 3 3 3 16
3. Pollution
3 2 3 3 2 2 15
4. Wet habitat
3 2 3 3 3 2 16
5. Dry habitat
3 2 3 3 3 2 16
Group 3
Problem
Crt 1
Crt 2
Crt 3
Crt 4
Crt 5
Crt 6
Tot
1. Flow
3 1 3 2 3 3 15
2. Sediment
3 2 3 3 3 2 16
3. Pollution
3 2 3 2 3 3 16
4. Wet habitat
3 2 3 3 2 3 16
5. Dry habitat
3 2 3 2 2 2 14
Group 4
Problem
Crt 1
Crt 2
Crt 3
Crt 4
Crt 5
Crt 6
Tot
1. Flow
2 2 2 3 3 2 14
2. Sediment
2 1 3 2 3 2 13
3. Pollution
2 1 2 2 2 2 11
4. Wet habitat
2 2 2 2 2 1 11
5. Dry habitat
1 2 1 2 2 3 11
Overall ranking
Problem
Tot
Rank
1. Flow
14.6
2
2. Sediment
15.4
1
3. Pollution
14.1
4
4. Wet habitat
14.5
3
5. Dry habitat
14.0
5
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
34
35
Term
Term
Term
Term
Term
Term
Term
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
e
di
e
di
e
di
e
di
e
di
e
di
e
di
e
di
e
di
TIME FRAME
M
Medium
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
r
s
S
F
CEPF
and
s
s
s
s
s
s and
s
Y
a
l
a
l
SUE
o
n
o
rs
(
S
)
O
i
on
i
ons
IT
e
nt
e
nt
e
nt
e
nt
e
n
t
s
,
s, Dono
e
nt
e
nt
e
nt
V
, WWF,
ation
sat
ation
sat
e
agencies
N
rnm
rnm
rnm
ni
rnm
rnm
n
a
l
rnm
n
a
l
rnm
ni
rnm
ve
ve
ve
ga
ve
o
ve
ve
ve
tern
ga
o
ve
AND IS
AGENT
ACTI
Som
IUC
No
Go
Go
Bilateral d
Go
I
n
tern
Or
Go
G
I
n
v
e
stor
Natio
Go
Natio
Go
In
Or
G
MS
E
ean
e
G
BLE?
E)
I
N
A
o
m
PROBLE
D
ble
n
s
tries
N
RY
U
e
s
e
s
un
e
s
Indian Oc
F
AVAIL
(IF YES GIV
SOURC
Yes
No
Possi
Yes
Yes
Y
Y
Yes
No
Yes i
co
Y
N
ern
a
e
st
TIO
OUNDA
A
i
t
.
ed in
ans.
t.
SB
D
pl
a
ry
A
ag
en
h
e W
N
R
e
ur
ent
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
ard un
u
l
ations.
m
co
a
n
s/
u
dget
Gu
i
c
i
e
s
co
o
pm
TRA
DEG
u
el
f
e
en
pl
O
of
ity
vel
rce reg
ent
t
h
e b
d enforcem
o
ast
fo
i
t
i
es in t
ld b
ctiv
de
o
n
a
l
pol
REST
ative In
al C
en
gi
O
r
i
ces
opm
prove
ce an
p
i
on
F
)
h
y
s
i
cal
+ re
(
S
n
s
shou
ities.
duce
ral produ
l
ans
p
Devel
eillan
LUTIONS T
N
tatio
rv
f
a reg
u
n
ities to
I
O
r.
ing
h
o
u
l
d
i
m
i
onal
ASTAL
T
t
o
re
i
o
n
al
s
i
cal
t o
u
s
e p
s s
mm
F
SO
C
facilitate Altern
Activ
p
l
an
a
nne
en
a
nd Based Activ
CO
e
nt
nat
e
nt
A
wood fuel stoves
m
Phy
n
for su
m
se Nat
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
er co
E
u
ce/
ood
land
L
oni
e
rating
rnm
w
er
rnm
lish
ve
ned
el
p
r
o
v
e
agricultu
nsive farm
r
o
duce
i
onal
ve
catio
p
o
w
LIST O
I
B
trod
op
S
an
ans
S
In
Gen
Go
Fu
pl
Efficient
Im
Inte
Pr
Int
Nat
pl
Go
allo
Estab
Em
Harm
RY
O
A
P
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Addressing L
ELIMIN
R
a
l
co
7: P
c
h
ar
d
policy
Annex
an
od
ent
licies
e
n
t
i
ng
m
o
pm
g po
u
e
l
wo
E
rm
vel
U
o
r
f
ent legislation/
a
B Project
S
f
o
r
fa
r settle
o
r
de
e
m
f
lictin
/
I
S
fo
O-L
M
e
s
ting
g con
E
a
n
d
f
a
n
d
f
L
a
rv
g
land
B
h
ng l
ng l
of enforc
-GEF WI
O
licatin
R
v
er
l
eari
l
eari
P
O
C
Clearin
C
Lack
Dup
UNEP
36
um
um
e
di
e
di
+
um
um
M
M
e
di
e
di
Immediate
M
M
TIME FRAME
5 years
i
Os,
n
o
r
s
,
,
s
i
ons
d
GEF,
F
ent
s/
u
n
ities
/
I
n
t
ernat
re,
sat
rl
e
nt
a
l
Do
WWF,
nm
m
e
nt
e
nts/ NG
e
nt
ni
Y
DP,
e
nt
(
S
)
O
ro
rt
mm
,
Wo
IT
ricultu
vi
Os
i
v
ersities
r
s
rnm
rnm
rnm
r
ga
C
ation
V
O
C
, UN
rnm
F
Os
Forestry,
Ag
En
Water
Depa
NG
Un
ono
ve
ve
cal co
ve
N
ve
D
Go
Investors, NGOs
Go
Lo
Go
onal
UNFCCC
U
Bank
Go
I
n
tern
CRF, GEF,
NG
AGENT
ACTI
·
·
·
)
nd
s
,
E
e
n
ent
a
l
-
i
ons
n
)
n
Fu
i
onal
G
BLE?
E)
to
nm
sat
s
o
m
e
nt o
I
N
A
u
re"
b
al
er
ation
ni
nat
r the
UCN
ate change
D
"Mangroves
fo
fut
(I
Clin
Glo
Carbo
(UNFCCC)
ov
er
rum
tern
ga
N
nt
e
s
e
s
U
Yes
(G
In
Or
and Private
Sector)
Yes (to
extent)
Yes
(I
Inst
clim
Y
Y
F
AVAIL
(IF YES GIV
SOURC
·
·
.
ION
s
T
A
e
n
t
s e.g
AD
a
t
i
on
R
i
es
h
e
d
area
g
e
m
n
ergy
es
of e
i
c veget
e
r
s
S DEG
s
it arran
ans
id
e
wat
ed
VE
areas
i
on
m
t
h
e
r countr
dem
)
pl
n
gu
values
at
o
en
of
cr
RO
(
S
e
nt
ed
sl
o
m
e
nt
bon
NG
N
o
g
ram
m
ans
l
e
gi
t
fr
I
O
e
g
r
ad
f
d
une
car
ans
s
pl
t
o
r
i
ng
T
a
b
ilitatio
se
pl
MA
C
a
nagem
r
eness of
n
g
pr
a
nage
ncy
oni
A
learn
i
o
n
o
n of
sink
e PEM
t
o
ri
ot
tio
E
i
n
ge
t
e
rm
L
ot
o
p
m
e
l
o
p reh
a
b
ilitate d
ote alternative source
ew revi
oni
p
e
r
m
p
e
r
m
dop
bon
ont
ng
I
B
e
vi
M
Lesson
Prom
Pro
Enforce laws
A
car
C
Pro
Lo
S
S
Prom
Devel
Dev
Reh
Prom
Create awa
R
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
O
P
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
.
l
e
ies e.g
a
ter tab
it
d w
n
oun
o
u
se gases
gr
nh
a
t
u
ral calam
g
r
ee
n
il erosio
e
r
i
n
g
of
d so
w
i
on of
ility to
E
i
on
s
ity
U
a
B Project
an
t
rat
S
adat
g
)
gr
O-L
s
ion
i
v
e
rs/lo
d
i
ver
/
I
S
ttin
ques
v
u
l
nerab
i
o-
M
E
cu
o
f
r
se
i
b
L
ve de
er
B
ro
-GEF WI
astal ero
O
r
ying
creased
ss of
R
a
ng
. Ov
Co
D
Lack of
In
Tsunam
Lo
P
M
(
A
UNEP
37
TIME FRAME
TIME FRAME
5 years
3 years
F
s
F
e
nt
e
nt
Y
tion
Y
u
n
ity
(
S
)
O
rnm
LaB
rnm
IT
(
S
)
O
IT
Os
Os
V
stitu
V
ve
O-
ve
mm
CBOs
Research
In
Go
agencies
NG
WI
Go
NG
Co
AGENT
ACTI
·
·
AGENT
ACTI
·
·
·
·
·
·
E
/
W
e
nt
E
e
nt
e
nt
.
s)
S
A
G
BLE?
E)
e
.g
p sea)
S
A
rnm
F
G
BLE?
E)
Map
rnm
rnm
I
N
A
(
SMA
ve
DP
I
N
A
ve
OM
ve
D
D
N
CEPF
EU
pum
MA
IOM
JICA (for
PEM)
Go
s (ET
GEF
UN
N
ReCo
Go
agencies
WI
Go
U
U
F
AVAIL
(IF YES GIV
SOURC
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
F
AVAIL
(IF YES GIV
SOURC
·
·
·
·
N
O
ncy
e
nt
i
n
ge
DATI
nt
A
a
n
s
s
r
t
pl
GR
n
ce
ppo
t
ed catchm
practice for
zone
DE
tions
e
l
u
t
i
o
n
co
use
s
su
v
e
rna
A
go
pol
l
a
nd
E
and
no-cut
integra
S
ch
n
d
)
n
d best
a
c
u
ltur
ent
ent
SS BED
)
k
regula
(
S
(
S
N
em
em
RA
N
e
sear
ines a
-
aqu
pl
pl
r
i
ons a
I
O
m
m
enforce
n
troduce
I
O
e
n
ts
i
ons
at
T
ilvo
P
T
p
l
a
n
s
and
ing
C
d i
d i
n
d
gul
PP
SEAG
C
M
A
A
irem
ngo
endat
E
a
g
e S
E
CZ
o
m
e
s
re
L
ote guidel
u
l
t
u
re
ur
o
p
an
o
p
an
o
p and i
L
er
I
B
r
o
duce
I
B
llow
sheri
a
ll-scale aquaculture
S
n
co
ans
ans
S
r
op
S
Prom
aquac
E
Devel
pl
Devel
Int
Designate a
Devel
pl
S
Enforce beach set-bac
EIA requ
P
Fo
recom
Fi
Sm
O
O
P
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
P
·
·
·
·
·
·
velopment
g
,
b
each
t
h
p
lin
o
astal de
m
r
o
w
g
s
, c
u
d
i
n
g
tra
lation
fence
cl
pu
E
E
U
U
po
a
B Project
S
e
)
S
pollution
in
/
I
S
)
/
I
S
o
sea de
ities, in
r
ch
O-L
M
u
ltur
n
)
M
E
tion
E
L
uac
L
due t
o
ciated
activ
B
llu
B
-GEF WI
O
O
ing
es, sea u
R
R
P
(B. Aq
(C. Po
(D. Siltatio
P
Threats
and ass
Fish
sein
UNEP
38
TIME FRAME
5 years
10 years
es
s
o
-
F
odi
e
nt
for
(ec
s
ar
a
t
i
onal
the
mpany
Y
S
A
South
e N
n
(
S
)
O
rnm
i
o
n
b
cal
IT
for
at
V
ve
OM
teliers
e
l)
r
vat
ing
d
in
p
ensate
o
o
d
atio
Go
WI
Ho
Blue flag
lab
n
a
l Ram
r
ity
o
p
ri
O
ad
pr
t
h
orities
onse
o
rk
astal lo
tho
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
elih
AGENT
ACTI
·
·
·
·
C
Natio
committee
W
wetlan
Africa
NG
Co
au
Ap
Au
N
Electricity co
to com
liv
d
e
gr
E
e
nt
e
s
r
y
t
urc
o
r
G
BLE?
t
o
E)
rnm
Map
so
I
N
A
ve
S
cf
fee f
i
ndust
D
R
s
ar
N
Go
ReCo
a
ll Gran
N
i
onal
U
m
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
on
n
d
i
n
g up
l
e
vy
F
AVAIL
(IF YES GIV
SOURC
·
·
Ra
C
Sm
fu
3
0
,000
IUC
WWF
Nat
by
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
RIVE
M
n
O
i
on
ng
R
ce
d
F
n
d
reg
d
ilize
t
h
e
s
onitori
AD
i
on a
nee
p
o
r
tan
astal
rass be
at
in
sl
an
e im
e wetland
co
n
to stab
l
o
w
to account
s
n
d m
rs
d its preservatio
ted
in
NT LO
al
to local
f
th
an
r
ated
m
r
t
o
seag
ope
o
f
th
i
n
g
in
I
A a
E
n o
da
vel
M
n
teg
teractio
n
Dam
tio
o
p
l
emen
a
nne
a
t
e
d
o
E
DI
n
g
t
h
e
n
l
e
gi
a
tio
d
sites
the
a
rine ecosystem
)
e de
re
y
m
n of
(
S
v
at
SE
a
n
c
e in
n
i
cal in
dl
m
i
ssion
b
e
im
e
lease tak
N
i
on
N
d st
r
eserv
r
at
en
ng
and according
an
m
n to
atio
I
O
f
pri
st
N I
m
l
o
w
a
i
ni
T
u
l
a
t
i
ons rel
re
u
ltural practices upstream
O
o
cal popula
i
n
p
pl
a
l
fri
t f
C
i
o
n
an
of wetlan
n
corporate int
o
p
er
i
on o
fo
and enh
e
nt
Co
g
n
e
d
tech
d
a
tio
ent
en
u
st
A
sat
t
h
em
en
rld
en
E
c reg
de
e
ation
th
e
si
and
nm
o
r s
L
fi
t
i
zat
r
a
g
ric
oni
lv
mm
ro
s f
I
B
astal land
v
i
r
o
n
m
S
e
duce
a
nagem
e
sign
S
Speci
clearing; i
Sensi
R
Prope
ALTERATI
Harm
policies in wetl
Educate the l
o
f
wetland
Invo
d
e
sign
Streng
m
Well d
co
The Wo
reco
D
envi
en
need
O
P
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
e
ds
b
E
n
U
a
B Project
S
g
rass
atio
/
I
S
g
O-L
M
i
on
s
ion
in
E
o
f
sea
at
ild
L
d
degrad
B
ng
e
nt
Bu
-GEF WI
O
m
astal ero
R
l
eari
P
C
Sedi
Wetlan
Co
Dam
UNEP
39
ents.
,
ce
ing
ing
D
ngo
ngo
trodu
provem
O
TIME
FRAME/s
O
AN
immediately
in
im
&
s
).
i
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
o
cal
o
n
al
e
nt
r
aining
al
etc.
th
thority
u
n
ities.
Y
gi
r
n
m
t
or
ps w
a
l
ent
au
IT
,
re
mm
hi
n
s
.
.
cal au
CBOs
r
ity
V
ove
s
sec
rs
tio
ation
opm
i
onal
g
ne
stry.
Os,
ners
o
u
r
ism
d lo
tho
cal co
du
stitu
tern
T
an
Ministry and l
au
AGENT/S OF
ACTI
Nat
l
o
cal
(
cros
Lo
Part
in
Research and t
in
NG
In
devel
part
h
e
s
.
,
n
a
l
nu
G
BLE?
gh
a
l
e
nt
ent
N
A
ve
.
.
atio
o
r
i
n
g
ou
re
F
ation
p
anies suc
rnm
opm
ners
W
ltin
ons
t en
ve
om
tern
W
Mu
com
as Shell, Caltex
Sp
FUNDI
AVAIL
No
fr
Go
t
a
xes /
Business
In
devel
part
)
m
i
o
n
r
(e.g.
urce
LaB
n
g
)
t
r
uct
e
m
l
ecting
so
e
r for
O-
ci
t
h
ei
ns
e
r
toral
d
e
DEGRADATION
rine
col
v
ity flow,
at
of
wat
ovi
pact touris
WI
o
ppi
-sec
ma
s
for
gra
ge syst
pr
(c
ITY
use
n
g
,
co
n
d
d
.
reuse
ent
tion
/
re
ni
wa
.g
s
o
rts by
e
nt
an
t
cross
t op
ene a
eter pipes
m
gi
m
e
r (e
of treated wat
as low im
res
prev
ou
r
ces
s
p
osal
i
n
pl
u
s
h
'
, an
(to
di
hy
p
o
r
tan
p
lified se
wat
use
flag
a
nagem
r-fl
all dia
e
nt place. Use
of
y
sou
m
TER QUAL
b
out
im
i
n zones
A
u
n
ity ab
and
`poo
sm
erg
i
o
n
rta
g
r
een
r
eness
o
r
e
st
mm
ent
ow
is is an
e en
e f
NE W
tm
n
v
o
l
v
e
t
h
em
y
one a
ervat
ment and re
bl
:
r
. Use
e co
r
nance
ntral treatm
n
d i
r
i
ng.
v
er
n
;
th
r
e
a
s:
ote eco-tourism
ativ
na
t
r
ea
o
ilets, or
a
te
o
ns
ai
e e
d a
water fl
MARI
on)
i
on,
ge a
a
tio
.
areas
w
o
n
ito
ty
#Gove
re c
standard collection syste
Declaring ce
Prom
Certification,
Regional awa
Altern
Sust
n
s
u
lt th
ucat
gh
a
nne
d
u
ce
ntral treat
l
ect
vi
d m
n
su
ed
nserv
pl
·
·
·
·
·
·
POSSIBLE ACTION/S
polluti
In all areas:
a) co
col
sewera
an
b)
co
acti
c) see
In slum
Install an appropriate sim
waterless t
enou
waste to a ce
etc.).
In
a) e
to re
b) use
c) ce
r
as
a
ste-
or
h
e
n
g
fy
be
-
,
odi
d
o
er, etc.).
.
un
i
n
g
m
bb
o
ritised o
a
n
g
r
o
v
e
s
r
u
ses
on
sea.
rect
nger to t
t
a
t
s
an
ru
ti
d m
i
ng
t
can
bi
t pri
ea.
s
,
vi
rect
o
the
n
s
di
e sea or eati
no
feca
e
s an
h
e s
ent
e
water als
g
l
ass,
ri
ne ha
de
d
e
:
s di
r
e
a
s, i
r
ism
g
in th
a
ri
rder
nut
an
clu
each
em
n
to t
(wast
e
tal,
st
e
r drai
ss
m
(o
in
g b
wat
l
u
t
e
d a
a
r
ising from domestic w
hum
lem
s
in
ge sy
astal tou
n
o
r
m
exce
a
l
and
l
astic, m
a
B Project
co
ISSUE
d
wastewater int
ude
o
lids.
le swimmin
i
n
pol
e
ht
o
ast
O-L
llutio
o
f
f
and
e prob
n
d st
s
iv
i
on
u
n
ities u
sewera
inated runoff i
n
d s
e
op
ug
at
)
f
th
al
r-treate
s
i
n
cl
a
ge c
b
its of p
ten
st
inated sea water can be a da
mm
ilets.
o
f
p
in
i
vers a
o
d
ca
-GEF WI
o
re
rine po
t
e
r
,
run
s
es o
Co
to
Form
unde
R
contam
l
u
t
a
nt
dam
n
t
ains
Too
Def
PROBLEM /
grouped
Ma
wa
Cau
·
·
·
Pol
bacteria, a
Contam
h
ealth
seafo
and
aesthetically displeasing
co
UNEP
40
TIME
FRAME/s
d
itto
d
itto
Y
IT
V
AGENT/S OF
ACTI
d
itto
d
itto
G
BLE?
N
A
FUNDI
AVAIL
d
itto
d
itto
d
b
l
e
of
a
in
c. =
ng
t
s
an
(as
i
on
e et
sible;
,
c.
rine
bi
e
nt
s
p
osa
ur
m
i
n
at
pos
sal by r
ma
am
er
t
o
d
r
i
n
ki
n
d
di
i
o
n ha
r
e
s
posal
ent
a
nufact
fy
o
nt
d
i
sp
di
recycle, et
ri
r
yone;
n
d
t
r
eat
n
g a
c
r
yone;
o
r
parat
s m
al
prev
pu
n
g whe
n eve
e f
se
l
e
or
i
on a
e
s of waste);
k
agi
es to
r
e
v
ent
bl
n eve
(to
c, or
e
op
tiv
a
t
e
ri
i
ng/
onomic resource
ecycli
p
et
t typ
o
n
si
n
d trai
rt
o
l
l
ect
t
o
p
en
o
f
pac
to
cen
n
d trai
i
n
m
t
u
re
n
d r
resp
t
e
so
a
r
c
i
o
n
(
osal
a
r
m
ic in
cul
gul
sp
uct
use a
ua
di
y
cling = ec
a
r
eness a
n
-
si
re
e
o
r
h
u
cers
n
o
m
a
r
eness a
o
urce
o
r
reuse
w
r
od
urce;
re
at
od
w
rec
f
.
uce o
a
k
e
p
on)
for
i
o
n, aq
rd
o
p
ri
water
nd into the sea;
ce eco
dert
dues
duce
nd
a
ke pr
gat
s
) at so
n
t
r
o
duce
p
pr
anda
i
n
t
r
od
un
re
m
m
trodu
resi
POSSIBLE ACTION/S
polluti
i
rri
st
a) Create a
b)
facilities;
c)
appropriate for differ
d)
ite
e) i
f) a
g
r
ou
and wi
g)
in
a) Create a
b) collect at s
c) treat
d)
r
e
d
g
e
,
r
t
p
o
rt
r/
e sea
n
s
posal
n
th
rainfall
th
i
cs,
e
r
a
ge
n
d
i
l
(pa
a
ste
di
ou
to
e
slu
ast
d
e o
by
wat
dam
o
ritised o
h
a
rb
ag
l
,
pl
y
i
o
n
,
a
lid w
an
d
a
rb
ns.
p
oi
c.
orm
gat
t pri
e
nt
an
swept
ai
a
l
s b
i
rectly in
n
t
a
kes,
no
m
s
,
et
im
.
ams)
d
e
:
e
r dr
bri
o
c
k st
e
r i
r
eat
p
i
n
g
g
it is
d
e
:
a
lities
r
e
d
ge s
t
re
de
bl
rder
clu
u
m
-
wat
p
i
n
g
d
d
wat
r
d
t
o
navi
clu
ital wastes, sewag
k
ill an
t
e s
(o
in
i
on, t
d
u
m
rs,
i
o
n
i
o
n,
in
u
n
i
cip
orm
sp
ne
sea
haza
a
r
ising from so
lem
a
l d
ai
r
uct
al
p
ecies, etc
a
r
ising from spilled o
lem
n
e
o
p
l
e,
o
l
l
ect
n
gest
y
m
g
and
p
ri
n
a
B Project
ISSUE
ont
be a
e
c
i
ve s
e b
n
places where
u
d
e
ho
r
e aesthetically displeasing, ca
s
o
lid was
s
a
n
d
st
onst
cl
or i
O-L
llutio
e prob
d illeg
a
rm
e prob
ag
litterin
ed c
e
nt
nes,
llutio
)
f
th
r
ities.
ver
rs.
t
s in
ass, c
and
f
th
d
e
quat
lic
a
l an
ve
i
n
at
n
d
i
n
d
u
st
n
gi
tho
ri
tan
wastes a
-GEF WI
rine po
s
es o
Ina
o
f
g
a
rb
au
Pub
beach or i
i
n
t
o
ri
Leg
or
am
p
ort invas
llu
ns a
rine po
s
es o
e
t
a
l
,
gl
a
n
g
l
e
m
p
's e
PROBLEM /
grouped
Ma
streams.
Cau
·
·
·
Po
cont
m
Solid
p
h
y
sically h
ent
drai
shi
trans
Ma
of liquid
Cau
UNEP
41
TIME
FRAME/s
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
Y
IT
V
AGENT/S OF
ACTI
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
G
BLE?
N
A
FUNDI
AVAIL
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
e
nt
of
osal
r
s
o
r
age
e
d
sp
o
use
di
ill
ing
eam
,
st
rat
a
nagem
rine
e
h
e
ne
e
r
st
sp
rm
d
es.
e st
y
pes
ma
il
st
ge
e m
c fa
oci
e t
es
quire t
clean
ent
i
d
wa
at
r
yone;
ni
e
bi
d
wa
r
yone;
r
yone;
ing
sol
i
o
n
a
l o
r
ga
wast
i
qui
o
p
ri
o
l
i
d
wast
ir
c.
prev
1)
h
at re
reg
d
abl
n eve
pr
n eve
of
n eve
e
s
et
(to
i
n
g
o
gra
n
d l
a
ss-
ap
ot
r
e
qu
de
re.
reuse
e
nt
(cl
q
uat
n
a
l and
n
d trai
om
o
n
d trai
n
d trai
bi
n
t
o
a
n
d
d law
p
i
l
e
s
pr
i
on
d
e i
a
i
f
i
e
d
a
tio
at
sl
u
n
ade
e
rt
t
o
n
ans.
g
e by
c an
s
pos
policy and laws t
licy an
n
s
i
t
e
t
r
eatm
n
c
in
pl
a
r
eness a
stock
di
l
e
gi
a
r
eness a
a
r
eness a
n
d
r
o
e
w
d
w
w
ncy
e
nt
usa
t
o
xi
e
c
h
n
o
l
ogy
on)
i
c resource
o
p a
ose i
b
in
e
ss
an
p
osal methods, etc.
s
i
o
n,
sp
m
i
n
ge
o
c
u
m
d
u
ce
vel
m
di
co
d
n
g l
t
r
eat
n
t
r
o
duce
eaner t
de
d
e
v
e
l
o
p po
o
duct
POSSIBLE ACTION/S
polluti
econom
e)
site.
f)
cont
a) Create a
b)
c) re
usi
d)
e) i
and dis
a) Create a
b) introduce
cl
a) Create a
b)
syste
c)
pr
e
r
e
th
to
a
ste
d
e
ectly
of
o
m
t
o
th
e
r
n
to
an
a
st
e sea.
fr
in
leak
w
o
ritised o
ers
trial
wat
ed
ges,
o
lid w
ich
i
d
of
to th
ons
ment)
i
ssi
t pri
d
waste)
gara
e
n
t
farm
sol
n
g
which indir
no
e
s,
d and s
by
em
om indus
g
e
t
wash
o
ily materials in
s
p
osi
ori
a
nage
d
e
:
o
r
h
eat in
h
ing areas get i
d
and
ude
rder
osal
di
ich
clu
lity: PH, turbidity,
ks to management
t
reams)
sp
es
o
llution
(o
(see #soli
fact
of liqui
in
facilitates wh
i
qui
ri
icals
i
n
cl
o
il and
m
#waste-water)
t
e
qua
t
e s
cle was
/
di
lem
arising fr
of l
il
ls wh
ee
ar
hment m
ses.
air p
s
ed
f
r
om
hi
a
r
ising from pesticides /
n
o
r
ag
t
ter
a
B Project
ISSUE
ar
s
-(p
a
tc
p
i
ng
n
es
p
to
o
f
u
wa
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
O-L
d
u
es
i
s
i
n
d
u
st
llutio
cal
e prob
o
lid was
u
a
te st
)
e
n
t
al sp
s
al
waste strea
d
u
m
o
llution
tions
mi
and c
f
th
d s
t
h
e
eq
icals into the environm
p
a
t
e
r
(
es sea
of
l
y
resi
inated by chem
ad
w
o
b
l
e
m
l
e
gal
a
t
e
d busi
-GEF WI
Accid
sea
Dispo
solid
Oi
industries, ve
water runoff (s
rine po
oche
s
es o
In
chem
Il
rel
e-
pr
st
r
a
d
a
uses
PROBLEM /
grouped
·
·
·
Ma
agr
streams,
Cau
·
·
Marine
wa
streams)
The
contam
Contribu
deg
climate change (also lin
liquid an
C
UNEP
42
TIME
FRAME/s
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
Y
IT
V
AGENT/S OF
ACTI
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
G
BLE?
N
A
FUNDI
AVAIL
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
d
itto
.
t;
i
ons,
e
nt
;
rine
a
w
e
nt
e
n
t
is
d l
o
d
o
i
t
.
o
t
i
v
at
ma
e
;
forcemen
i
n
es;
uade
rs
d t
;
a
nagem
en
s
;
del
ent
eryon
r
yone;
easures
r
yone;
, an
a
nagem
d
s
d m
i
c
y
an
t
o
pe
a
n
a
g
e
m
ev
m
l
e
gui
e
nt
prev
n
n eve
n
e
tho
pol
e m
s
n eve
stracted
e
r
s
he
m
,
b
a
l
a
nces, m
(to
i
cab
h
o
w
trai
nk
n
g
;
wast
-
basi
wat
e
n
a
lties and
pl
n
d trai
i
ng m
n
d trai
ni
cate politician
prove
h
ecks
ver
n
d
l
o
cal
rm
an
r
k
out
ver ba
o
p
er
a
es, p
l
y
ap
u
a
te
ess and
ri
tiv
eq
i
c im
a
r
c
t
e
r fa
q
u
a
n
tities ab
t
h
pr
i
onal
o
o
d
pl
onal
l
y
, wo
ad
gul
a
r
eness a
a
t
ed ri
a
r
eness a
gi
at
n
o
m
re
w
h
e
e bet
i
ng on
ent soil conservation m
w
nat
t
i
cal
a
k
e g
a
n
a
gers, edu
s
th
uce
on)
ot
m
o
p
re
d
i
n
t
e
gr
b
i
n
e wi
ove
m
cri
om
ple
u
l
ate t
pr
p
r
o
v
e
i
n
cen
dert
o
m
o
st
a
l
t
o
eco
n
t
r
od
nee
pr
n
o
farm
devel
I
POSSIBLE ACTION/S
polluti
a) Create awaren
a) Create a
b)
c)
d)
e) im
a) Create a
b
)
reg
c) c
a) Im
b
)
im
c) un
d
)
train
e)
f) m
p
o
litician
cruci
g)
etc.
r
t
f
ste
g
e
s
,
in
waste
sal
issues)
y
o
f
t
h
e
m
n
d
uses
t
h
e
no
l
.
wast
lid wa
o
lid
s
o
d a
o
o
ritised o
al
n
at
r al
ri
n
g t
n
d so
ment)
ment)
o
n
t pri
t
s
fo
d
u
strial, farm
h
a
b
itats.
l
itician
eadi
no
which ca
i
n
d
u
st
o
n
a
l
gai
, etc.
s l
a
nage
uid and s
a
nage
t
racti
d
e
:
r
e
spect of all
d
e
:
a
tional eco
e
nt and soli
;
astal
e n
e
nt
e
nt
e
rs
benefi
rder
abs
clu
coast
(in
clu
of liq
e
stic, in
n
b
y
po
th
o
r
p
(o
i
c
and
h
-fires
in
m
co
rnm
to
in
f
t
e
rm
est
r
t of liquid a
ve
hment m
art
hment m
lem
r do
lem
e
r catchm
a
nagem
(pa
near the
r
eciatio
m
u
nds
a
B Project
ISSUE
a
tc
a
tc
p
acts on
n
go
f
f
dom
and bus
g
e
(p
e
oundwater
n fo
wat
e prob
e prob
of
f
l
o
n
g
er
O-L
u
pply
governance
n
trusion in
e im
o
n
o
)
i
o
n o
un-off
and c
and c
gr
f
th
ractio
f
th
quate
d wast
nse
st
uate
rsi
q
o
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n i
ve
-GEF WI
nerat
vehicles
s
es o
Ab
water s
water i
s
es o
A lack of app
n
e
g
a
tiv
inade
l
i
qui
C
di
expe
PROBLEM /
grouped
i
n
ci
from
Surface r
streams,
River dischar
streams,
Excessive
Cau
·
Inade
Cau
·
·
UNEP
of
43
ot
o
a
stal
p
sh
n (C
e)
m
u
s
sna
atio
at
ram
st
g situ
u
r
r
ent
istin
Needs
C
ex
Atlas Prog
s
n
g
o
n
g
- Lo
l
um
r
t term
e
fits in
um
e
di
ort
e
di
ng
Time frame
Short
M
Sh
Sho
Ben
m
term
Lo
s
to
e
nt
o
p
m
y
e
n
t
s
ns
m
vit
i
o
n
a
l
e
part
tio
o
devel
vern
d
s
f
acti
s t
e
nt
n
stitu
e
nt
o
ted reg
ent
ts
in
t
a
nt
n
a
l go
n
a
l i
n
rnm
rnm
s
ul
em
pl
ve
Os
ve
a
uses
Age
Appo
con
strategy
Natio
im
Go
NG
Natio
Go
RIVER FLOW
ess c
will
r
o
m
ent
nd
is
s
a
t
on
e f
fu
ed
t
o
a
ddr
/
& th
t (An
l
a
bl
f
o
r
in
a
ble
e
s
s
e
r
v
e a
i
on
enforcem
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
po
avai
at
r TFSSD
all scale projects
d
s
e
asures
r
oach
ng
r
i
n
t
e
grat
u
d
g
e
t
s
M
o
urc
o
ci
g
avail
F
have
b
l
e
to
n elaborate)
u
ndi
b
a
ila
starting
f
Ass
tial dono
ALTERATIONS IN
/ GE
i
ng
n
l
a
rge
DEC
i
o
n
a
l app
i
onal
SA
gar
a
ten
Fundin
Possible s
UN
SA
reg
b
e
av
g
ood
Earle ca
In
Su
assistance with
train
Scattered sm
but
approach nee
Po
Nat
y
s.
r
n
es
y
rateg
d
ode
t
e
gi
o
t
ocol
citating
n of
t
h
en
ra
a
l
best
an
Pr
t
o
pa
soph
ol
ilo
rural
St
urce St
o
p
v
e
s
t
i
n
g
ent
se
oc
vel
s
streng
ot
exi
restoratio
r
n
ance
e ph
y
i
n
t
h
e m
g
n
a
tion
oni
e
ser
pl
a
t
i
onal
o
pm
z
one
se
e
ove
rm
e
th
e
r R
ed pr
oni
g
n and
f
N
vel
on
istin
an
g
th
n
d
ap
d growth in
o
de
Water Reso
ha
cat
ri
in
g
t
h
s
& de
Wat
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
on
pa
ent
harm
ent Officers
l
a
nd
ts.
odern technical
es &
d
ren
C
i
ons
ce to tak
u
ral
t
h
i
s
a
tralisatio
e
n
t
an
r
ated
an
opm
i
ew all ex
e
gi
a dedi
at
stream
d
e m
r
obi
ore ri
ew /
sl
t
i
onal
nd
teg
M
d
righ
rld
u
n
d
r
rat
D
e
st
e
vi
v
e
stm
Possible acti
In
Rev
st
Take st
practise.
R
Have
Nai
R
R
l
e
gi
Assist governments by ca
Enforcem
Main
t
r
adi
lan
Provi
assistan
behi
wo
De-cen
in
areas.
Devel
aro
use
e
nt
ff
a
B Project
ue
m
n
d
ading
O-L
s
di
s
s
u
es.
p
re
i
o
n
&
/ Iss
lems:
n of
n
r
uno
r i
lem
ob
i
on a
ve se
he
o
s
but
ctio
d
s
e
s i
sat
ri
y
pr
s
ni
ot
ks t
st
o
urces
-GEF WI
ad
e
stru
ang
ba
a
ny
res
Problem
All prob
Man
Excessi
lo
D
wetlan
Ch
etc.
Ur
m
Spea
t
h
e di
of
UNEP
44
er
rm
fo
o
a
stal Atlas
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
&
f
e
d
s (C
amme)
o
ogr
GIS
wetlan
Pr
Needs
s
ears
um
y
10
e
di
5
Time frame
Short
n
s
tio
i
o
n
s
y
r
vat
stitu
cie
vit
(
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
d
r
i
v
e)
o
nse
en
R
c
e
n
t
a
l
t
r
u
s
ts
f
acti
e
n
t
s in
A
o
S
nces
n
a
l ag
ts
M
i
onal
n
Os
A
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
a
tio
o
v
e
r
n
m
M
R
Nat
b
o
d
i
e
s
E
N
Age
G
NG
e
of conseque
e
n
a
l
m
g
.
m
u
a
lity
o
n
nt
(e.
s
t
q
atio
/
by
tal
es
itigation
e
nt
tern
r
o
g
ram
i
men
sed
t
l
a
nds
In
a
t
a
(A
)
a
ble
h
Cost
h
water
d
itiativ
we
in m
r
c
e
s
sed
s
o
r
k
p
r
o
g
ram
o
v
e
r
n
m
d
dres
cal
R
e
t
l
a
n
d
P
v
i
ronmen
n
SA
e
w
P
A
g
A
ess in
ude
g
avail
ic Energy Agency
A i
l
e
s
o
u
-
G
SCO
ogi
S
W
S
P
DEC Hig
onal fres
e
local e.g. Mfolozi
N
e
en
d
r
ol
M
/
i
n
cl
f
r
a
m
E
i
onal
a
r
l
e
c
a
n elaborate)
A
C
m
Measures
o
s
s
i
b
U
N
Water and
already a
WIOLaB and
Atom
UNE
SA
Programme collects & stores
regi
hy
E
R
Som
s
u
g
a
r
f
a
r
m
I
U
So
awaren
aim
WES
Fundin
P
E
U
Nat
n
g
t
s
for
ri
y-ou
mmes
n
e
ed
ng
o
n
ito
bu
at
m
s
i
t
e
R
i
ng
es
progra
t
o
ri
e
t
hods,
p
r
o
g
rammes
A
m
S
oni
m
ring
c
lud
g
term
M
A
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
entify wh
o
g
ram
n
d
m
i
o
n of
o
nito
n
(in
on
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
ts
ogy available (dry
ents and indicators
m
es
A
& id
n
g a
m
o
r
e
R
E
r
d
i
s
at
n
of lon
s
)
ness pr
S
P
i
ew
term
a
b
ilitatio
re
easuri
anda
ng
itiatio
o
g
ram
M
r
e
a
t
e
m
U
a
t
e
r
t
r
e
a
t
m
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
w
Rev
m
St
measurem
lo
In
pr
C
Reh
o
f
f
a
r
m
Awa
Possible acti
P
W
C
New technol
l
o
o
s
)
Education / advocacy
a
B Project
ue
O-L
h
n of
/ Iss
es
ctio
d
s
a
n healt
-GEF WI
e
stru
All issu
D
wetlan
Problem
Hum
UNEP
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean
Annex 8: WORKSHOP EVALUATION
1-
What is your overall opinion of the workshop?
Excellent 7
Good 19
Satisfactory 3
Mediocre 1
Bad 0
Total 30
Comments:
Useful as a donor requirement but ultimate value may be limited
I think more could have been made of it if we'd skipped the root cause
analysis
2-
Did the workshop give you a good understanding of the TDA/SAP process
and its purposes?
Yes 24
To some extent
5
Not sure
No 1
Total 30
Comments:
I already knew it well
In the end
The objective was clear but the path the process is going to take is not
clear
3-
Do you feel that your contribution in the workshop was meaningful to the
TDA process?
Yes 18
To some extent
10
Not sure
2
No 0
Total 30
Comments:
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
45
Could have been improved if we had more time (as it happens!)
It was too technical oriented (natural sc) while I felt that the crux of the
matter lies in social process - institutions
4-
Did you think the number of participants in the workshop was:
Just right
30
Too few
0
Too many
0
Total 30
5-
How do you rate the balance of presentations, group discussion, and group
exercises?
Too many lectures
0
Too many discussions
1
Too many group exercises
1
Well balanced
27
Total 29
Comments:
Worked well
We needed more challenging open sessions
Need more participation from Mozambique
6-
How useful were the group exercises?
Very helpful
18
Helpful 12
Not helpful
0
Total 30
Comments:
With more of a focus on agreed goals/objectives of the whole exercise
(i.e. to communicate what exactly politicians would like to hear) it would
have been better
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
46
7-
How did you feel about the pacing of the workshop?
Too fast
2
Just right
28
Too slow
0
Total 30
Comments:
Slightly slow
8-
How do you rate the workshop length?
Just right
25
Too short
5
Too long
0
Total 30
Comments:
Fine
Because TB focus came too late in TB process
9-
How well was the workshop content logically sequenced?
Very well sequenced 9
Suitable 20
Poorly sequenced
1
Total 30
Comments:
10- How do you rate the hotel and conference facilities?
Excellent 9
Good 17
Satisfactory 4
Mediocre 0
Bad 0
Total 30
Comments:
Accommodation a bit too shoddy
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
47
11- Did you like the seating arrangements of the conference room?
Yes 27
Uncertain 1
No 0
Total 28
Comments:
Lack of electrical facilities for computer
Excellent
Nice and informal, moved around a lot
12- How do you rate the service (breaks, lunch, etc.)?
Excellent 13
Good 16
Satisfactory 0
Mediocre 0
Bad 0
Total 29
Comments:
Workshop venue is too far from city centre
Transfer services to my hotel were very delayed
Please provide any general comments and/or recommendations on the workshop:
Quite happy, thanks
Thanks very much for inviting me, I enjoyed meeting everyone very much
Enjoyed the photo, thanks
Next time the theme-discussions be organized according to professional
inclination e.g. institutions, waterflow, habitats, island/mainland
A well coordinated and focused workshop
Airport to hotel arrangement should be improved a bit
Great opportunity for the region
None
Stricter housekeeping with respect to starting times
It may have been useful to provide an overview of the initial TDA- we
could then have built on this. Also examples of TDA from other parts of
the world (already completed successfully) would have been useful
UNEP-GEF WIO-LaB Project
48
Document Outline