ANNEXES

Index to annexes

1. Incremental Cost Analysis matrix
2. Project Logical Framework
3. Public Involvement Plan
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements
5. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
6. Preliminary TDA (abridged version)
7. Past, existing & emerging initiatives
8. Demonstration project summaries
9. STAP Review and agency responses
10. Maps of the Project Area
11. Co-financing commitments letters
12. National endorsement letters

1

Annex 1 - Incremental Cost Analysis matrix
Component
Sub-sub-onent
Cost
Cost (US$)
National Environmental Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
(output)
Category
1. TDA/SAP Process - Multi-country process and frameworks for understanding and addressing priority trans-boundary concerns
1a) Multi-country
Multi-country
Baseline
22,540,192
None. Limited new information on marine
Limited. While some initiatives will help add
understanding and
TDA
living resources & critical habitats at
to information and understanding on some
agreement on
national level may improve sector-level
transboundary resources, absence of
transboundary issues
awareness of local problems but will not
ecosystem approach and formal TDA/SAP
(TDA)
extend across sectors or necessarily improve
process will hinder an integrated ecosystem

fundamental understanding and could result
and multi-country cooperation over data or
in wasting resources on ineffective actions.
links to the management level.
Alternative
24,130,192
Under the alternative scenario domestic
The TDA process will lead to identification
benefits will accrue from improved
and improved understanding of
understanding of ecosystem problems across
transboundary problems between countries,
sectors, improved scientific capacity and
sectors and stakeholders and provide the
improved allocation of resources to issues
necessary orientation for multi-country
that can be addressed at national level.
agreement to address priority concerns

Increment
Total Increment: $1,590,000
GEF: $700,000
Countries: $200,000
Other co-financing: $690,000 (MAVA $100,000; FAO/Nansen/EAF $390,000; AFD $100,000; FAO
$25,000; UNEP $25,000; NOAA $50,000)

Interactive website
Baseline
22,540,192
Limited. Other information initiatives will
None. Internationally funded research and
and databases for

remain sector based or national in focus and
limited national data collection continue but
the CCLME
will lack the transboundary ecosystem
no mechanism exists to integrate and render
dimension. International and regional
accessible the information in a form useful
contributions will be hindered and national
for addressing trans-boundary issues. Any
data will be subject to dissipation or loss and
information system developed through SRFC
duplication of effort, thus weakening
will be limited to fisheries data rather than an
national capacity to address national or
ecosystem-wide perspective and will have
regional environmental problems.
limited information to feed it. The PRCM

information system will not be fully
integrated or valorized. Regional information
will be subject to risk of dissipation and
research efforts may be duplicated.
Alternative
23,015,192
Under the alternative scenario countries will
Under the alternative scenario, there will be
benefit from improved access to information
information flow and understanding
concerning the wider ecosystem and
transboundary issues. Countries will benefit

2

improved horizontal and vertical movement
collectively from improved service of SRFC
of information helping them to address
and enhanced access to regional and global
national environmental problems more
information systems.
effectively and efficiently. Countries will
benefit from improved service from SRFC to
help them address local problems.

Increment
Total Increment: $475,000
GEF: $100,000
Countries: $150,000
Other co-financing: $225,000 (MAVA $100,000; AFD $100,000; FAO $25,000)
1b) Sustainable
Regional
Baseline
22,540,192
None. Under baseline conditions countries
None. Under baseline conditions, there will
legal/institutional
legal/institutional

will be forced to address the symptoms of
be no multi-country agreement or action to
frameworks and plans
framework for
trans-boundary environmental problems
address priority transboundary problems.
for regional
CCLME
alone, possibly wasting resources on
cooperation on the
stewardship
inappropriate or ineffective actions.
CCLME
developed
Alternative
23,015,192
Under the alternative scenario, countries will Under the alternative scenario, the

benefit domestically from an improved
development of a permanent legal /
service from SRFC and other transboundary
institutional framework for CCLME
insaitutions, improved capacity for
stewardship linking a range of concerned
addressing national problems in an
institutions will provide a sustainable
integrated manner and more efficient
foundation for addressing transboundary
allocation of resources between national and
problems in a more efficient, integrated,
regional efforts.
science-based manner.

Increment
Total Increment: $475,000
GEF: $250,000
Countries: $175,000
Other co-financing: $50,000 (FAO/Nansen/EAF $50,000)

Multi-country
Baseline
11,270,096
None. Without the assistance of multi-
None. Without multi-country agreement, the
endorsed SAP

country agreement defining priorities and
major transboundary issues will not attract
policies, countries will remain obliged to
the necessary political support and will not be
address trans-boundary problems from a
effectively addressed, leading to continued
national perspective, leading to inappropriate declines in resources, habitats and water
or unsustainable solutions.
quality.

Alternative
12,945,096
Under the alternative scenario, countries will Under the alternative scenario, countries will

benefit from a regional reference framework
have clearer vision, targets, knowledge,
for addressing environmental problems, as
capacity, political commitment, resources
well as greater political will, capacity and
(human, technical, financial) and
knowledge for resolving domestic
international partners to address
environmental problems.
transboundary problems. They will be better

3

placed to achieve WSSD and MDG targets
and their efforts will enjoy greater visibility
and recognition within & outside the region.

Increment
Total Increment: $1,675,000
GEF: $300,000
Countries: $750,000
Other co-financing: $625,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $50,000; FAO $25,000; UNEP $25,000; NOAA
$25,000)

Sustainable
Baseline
11,270,096
None. In the absence of regional financing
None. Under baseline conditions there will be
financing and

options countries will only be able to address no options for financing SAP implementation
investment /
issues of national concern.
or LME resources monitoring or support
partnership plan
from the private sector.
for SAP
Alternative
11,770,096
Under the alternative scenario, identification
Under the alternative scenario, identification
implementation
of sustainable coordination and financing
of sustainable financing and investments for
mechanisms and an investment plan for the
SAP implementation and the gaining of
SAP will reinforce and sustain the national
political support of key finance & foreign
benefits of having a SAP, and the private
affairs ministries and the private sector will
sector will become more involved (see
enable countries to implement and sustain the
above).
SAP and long-term LME monitoring.

Increment
Total Increment: $500,000
GEF: $150,000
Countries: $175,000
Other co-financing: $175,000 (MAVA $100,000; AFD $75,000)
1c) Stakeholder
Regional &
Baseline
15,778,134
None. Without GEF, many key national
None. Without GEF, key regional institutions
involvement in
national

institutions will not be involved in priority
will not be involved in priority setting and
transboundary priority
institutional
setting and planning.
planning.
setting and strategic
stakeholder
Alternative
17,028,134
Under the alternative scenario, the National
Under the alternative scenario, the project
planning
participation

Interministry Committees will help promote
will help establish the needed regional and

mechanisms
a integrated, ecosystem-based approach and
national mechanisms including the National
established &
training of potential national environmental
Interministry Committees (NICs) and
operational
benefits in additional to the transboundary
capacity (TDA/SAP training) to fully involve
benefits intended.
regional and national institutional
stakeholders in identifying and addressing
transboundary concerns. Enhancement of the
West African Marine & Coastal Forum to
address transboundary concerns will further
improve institutional stakeholder
involvement.

Increment
Total Increment: $1,250,000

4

GEF: $300,000
Countries: $150,000
Other co-financing: $800,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $225,000; FAO $25,000; UNEP $50,000

Local and private
Baseline
5,259,378
Limited. Without GEF support, local and
Limited. Without GEF support, local and
stakeholder

private sector stakeholders, especially
private sector stakeholders will have limited
participation
marginal groups, will have limited influence
influence over transboundary issues.
mechanisms
over national processes.
established and
Alternative
6,028,628
Under the alternative scenario, the
Under the alternative scenario, the systematic
operational

systematic involvement of local and private
involvement of local and private sector
sector stakeholders including marginal
stakeholders, including marginal groups, will
groups at supra-national level will also
assure a balanced participation in the
enhance their participation at national level.
TDA/SAP process and should ultimately help
establish the necessary political will for SAP
endorsement. By targeting stakeholder
groups needing special encouragement, the
project will further assist in assuring
equitable participation and reinforce the
activities in which they are involved.
Supporting their participation as the West
African Marine & Coastal Forum will further
reinforce these benefits.

Increment
Total Increment: $769,250
GEF: $300,000
Countries: $130,000
Other co-financing: $339,250 (MAVA $200,000; AFD $125,000; UNEP $14,250)
1d) Effective project
Project
Baseline
30,053,589
None. Without effective project
None. Without effective project management,
management
management
management, no national benefits could
none of the global benefits could be

structures &
accrue.
delivered.
mechanisms in
Alternative
31,733,589
Through national participation in effective
Only with support to effective management,
place and
project management, countries will become
the project will be able to deliver the
operational
better placed to address purely national
expected global benefits.
issues as well.

Increment
Total Increment: $1,680,000
GEF: $810,000
Countries: $200,000
Other co-financing: $670,000 (MAVA $335,000; AFD $225,000; FAO $60,000; UNEP $25,000; NOAA
$25,000)
1e) Effective project
Project monitoring
Baseline
9,016,077
None.
None.
monitoring &
and evaluation

5

evaluation
processes
Alternative
9,396,077
Under the alternative scenario, participation
Under the alternative scenario, regular
implemented

in project M&E (reporting, evaluation,
progress reporting will reinforce
reviews) will sharpen understanding of
understanding of the project process, overall
national issues and reinforce capacity to
coordination and the fostering of political
address them.
will.

Increment
Total Increment: $380,000
GEF: $220,000
Countries: $100,000
Other co-financing: $60,000 (MAVA $15,000; AFD $10,000; UNEP $25,000; FAO $10,000)
2. Marine Living Resources - Strengthened policies and management, based on improved knowledge and demonstration actions, to address priority transboundary
concerns on declining marine living resources of the CCLME
2a) Improved
Transboundary
Baseline
22,365,462
None. Without the proposed GEF
None. Without assessment of priority
knowledge & capacity
assessment of
interventions at the ecosystem level, national concerns on marine living resources at a
for management to
priority concerns
assessment of resources will remain weak.
regional scale, concerns about transboundary
address concerns on
on marine living
resources could never be adequately
marine living resources
resources for the
addressed.

CCLME
Alternative
25,515,462
Limited. Improved knowledge of
Very substantial. Under the alternative
tranboundary resources will help countries to scenario, the proposed combination of
address problems relating to certain
activities (planning forum, training, surveys,
resources of primarily national interest.
assessments and modeling) will massively
improve understanding of priority
transboundary concerns in relation to marine
living resources.

Increment
Total Increment: $3,150,000
GEF: $1,400,000
Countries: $300,000
Other co-financing: $1,450,000 (MAVA $100,000; AFD $100,000; FAO/Nansen/EAF $1,250,000)

Improved capacity
Baseline
1,667,410
None.
None. Without improved capacity there could
for transboundary
be no adequate assessment of transboundary
assessment of
marine living resources.
marine living
Alternative
2,132,410
Limited. With improved capacity for
Substantial. With training in surveys,
resources
assessment of transboundary resources,
assessment and modeling, countries will be
countries will have improved capacity for
enabled to transform data on resources to a
assessing certain resources of national
much improved understanding of
concern.
transboundary concerns.

Increment
Total Increment: $455,000
GEF: $250,000
Countries: $20,000

6

Other co-financing: $185,000 (MAVA $50,000; AFD $35,000; FAO/Nansen/EAF $50,000; FAO $25,000;
UNEP $25,000)
2b) Strengthened
Strengthened
Baseline
30,053,589
None.
Under baseline conditions, planning, policy
regional policies,
policies to address

and capacity building would be sector-based
instruments & capacity
priority
and weakly linked both horizontally and
for management to
transboundary
vertically, limiting political commitment and
address priority
concerns on
not resulting in multi-country cooperation.
concerns on marine
marine living
Alternative
31,253,589
Limited. Under the alternative scenario, new
Under the alternative scenario, common
living resources
resources

regional policies would also help countries
policies on access, spawning areas and trade

to address certain purely national concerns.
will complete the foundation for necessary

reforms and investments to address
transboundary concerns.

Increment
Total Increment: $1,225,000
GEF: $200,000
Countries: $250,000
Other co-financing: $775,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $150,000; Nansen/EAF $100,000; FAO $25,000)
2c) Demonstration
Multi-country
Baseline
36,064,307
None.
None. Without the project there will be no
management actions
demonstration of:

demonstration actions.
address priority

Alternative
39,532,307
Under the alternative scenario, countries
Under the alternative scenario, conduct of the
transboundary
-small pelagic
participating in demo projects will gain
demonstration projects will 1) test model
concerns on marine
shared stock
some knowledge and capacity useful for
approaches; 2) feed into the LME assessment
living resources
management
addressing national fisheries management
and TDA/SAP process; 3) make concrete

- selective trawling
issues.
progress towards stress reduction on the
gears & methods
ecosystem and 4) provide part of the basis for
- management of
replication within and beyond the CCLME,
migratory coastal
thereby helping countries to better understand
pelagics of
and cooperate to address transboundary issues.
importance to
artisanal fisheries
All demos

Increment
Total Increment: $3,468,000 (all demos)
GEF: $1,110,000
Countries: $550,000
Other co-financing: $2,410,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $1,250,000; International Cooperation with
Nansen: $60,000; Holland $500,000; FAO $100,000)

Demo project 1 -
Baseline
10,819,292
None. Countries will remain essentially
None. Countries will remain unable to
Policies and plans

unable to address small pelagic
cooperate to address the management of
for sustainable
management.
shared small pelagic stocks.
trans-boundary
Alternative
12,283,292
Under the alternative scenario, countries
In the alternative scenario, information gaps
ecosystem-based

may gain some indirect benefits in
on small pelagics will be filled informing the

7

management of
information and capacity useful for
TDA/SAP process, LME assessment and
shared small
addressing national concerns other than
enabling formulation of policies and shared-
pelagic stocks in
small pelagics (which are a transboundary
stock management plans.
North West Africa
resource).

Increment
Total Increment: $1,464,000
GEF: $460,000
Countries: $144,000
Other co-financing: $860,000 (AFD $250,000; Int. Cooperation with Nansen $60,000; Holland $500,000
FAO $50,000)

Demo project 2 -
Baseline
10,819,292
None.
None. There will be no project to reduce by-
Reduction of the

catch or trawl impact.
impact of shrimp
Alternative
11,703,292
Under the alternative scenario, improved
Under the alternative scenario, data will be
trawling through
understanding of by-catch and trawl impacts
collected on by-catch, discards and impacts
by-catch reduction
may encourage greater regulation of national
of by-catch and demonstration trawling trials
and management
fleets with some local environmental
will identify selective gears and low-impact
changes
benefits.
trawling methods. Socio-economic evaluation
of the different options will assess the costs
& benefits of selective and non-destructive
methods and of the cooperative approach.

Increment
Total Increment: $884,000
GEF: $400,000
Countries: $184,000
Other co-financing: $300,000 (AFD � $250,000; FAO $50,000)

Demo project 3 -
Baseline
7,212,861
Minor. Under baseline conditions
Minor. Under baseline conditions, coastal
Trans-boundary co-

management of coastal pelagics would
pelagics management would remain
management of
remain national and limited to Mauritania.
essentially national with only minor global
migratory coastal
While some capacity benefits would accrue,
benefit even if Mauritania acts to regulate
pelagics of
these would not be effective to fully address
national effort.
importance to
the problems of these migratory stocks.
artisanal fisheries
Alternative
8,332,861
Under the alternative scenario, countries will Under the alternative scenario, improved
(mullets, bluefish

gain certain indirect benefits in information
knowledge of resources, harmonization of
and meagre).
and capacity although these would not
legislation, regional policy & cooperation
improve management of these transboundary framework and a management plan will result
resources.
in reduced stress on target resources. An
evaluation of costs and benefits will help
demonstrate advantages of the cooperative
approach.

Increment
Total Increment: $1,120,000
GEF: $250,000

8

Countries: $120,000
Other co-financing: $750,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $250,000)
3) Strengthened knowledge, capacity and policy base for trans-boundary assessment & management of habitat & biodiversity and water quality critical to fisheries
3a) Knowledge gaps
Transboundary
Baseline
21,037,512
Minor. In the baseline scenario limited
Without GEF support, some knowledge gaps
filled in relation to
assessment of

regional work on habitat & species issues
will be filled by other initiatives, but in the
critical habitat,
concerns relating
may assist with some domestic problems.
absence of the broader ecosystem context
biodiversity and water
to biodiversity
countries will still lack basis for setting
quality for the purpose
and water quality
priorities.
of the TDA and SAP
for the CCLME
Alternative
24,557,512
With GEF support, incentives will increase
Under the alternative scenario, countries will

to generate information about habitats and
possess the complete knowledge base
biodiversity and exchange information from
required to identify priorities and design
other countries will help local conservation.
reforms to address and monitor concerns on
critical habitat, biodiversity and water quality
including the design of an LME-wide
resilient network of MPAs.

Increment
Total Increment: 2,880,000
GEF: 1,000,000
Countries: $280,000
Other co-financing: $2,240,000 (MAVA $1,500,000; FAO/Nansen/EAF $390,000; AFD $300,000; FAO
$10,000; UNEP $40,000)
3b) Capacity building,
Agreed regional
Baseline
24,042,871
In the absence of GEF intervention,
Without GEF investment, the necessary
policy making and
action plans for

countries will be unable to place their
information base of critical habitat and MPAs
planning for the SAP
habitat,
conservation programs or MPAs within a
will not be sufficient to quantify their

biodiversity and
broader ecosystem framework or MPA
economic value on which to base policy
water quality
network
decisions.
included in the
Alternative
26,997,871
With GEF intervention, countries will be
With GEF assistance, guidelines and
SAP including a
able to enhance their own planning for
processes will be developed for critical
plan for a
habitat management and biodiversity
habitat management & monitoring. A plan
resilient network
conservation and benefit from the existence
for resilient MPA network will further assist.
of MPAs
of a regional MPA network.
The first regional plans for water flow
regimes will be developed, as well as a
specific plan for reducing land-based
pollution sources within the framework of the
GPA. A contingency plan for preventing oil
pollution from the offshore petroleum
industry will secure fisheries, tourism and
coastal habitations (especially on islands). An
ecosystem wide plan for water quality will
further consolidate these benefits and a

9

regional needs assessment for water quality
monitoring will help identify the capacity
needed to operate it.

Increment
Total Increment: $2,955,000
GEF: $400,000
Countries: $320,000
Other co-financing: $2,235,000 (MAVA $2,000,000; AFD $150,000; FAO $10,000; UNEP $25,000;
NOAA $50,000)
3c) Demonstrating
Multi-country
Baseline
15,026,795
None.
None. Without GEF there will be no
stress reduction
demonstration of:
demonstration projects.
measures

Alternative
17,188,795
Under the alternative scenario, countries
Under the alternative scenario, conduct of the

- MPAs as co-
participating in demo projects will gain
demonstration projects will 1) test model

management
some knowledge and capacity useful for
approaches; 2) feed into the LME assessment

tools for demersal
addressing national fisheries management
and TDA/SAP process; 3) make concrete
artisanal fisheries
and mangrove conservation issues.
progress towards stress reduction on the

ecosystem and 4) provide part of the basis for
- Regional
replication within and beyond the CCLME,
mangrove
thereby helping countries to better understand
conservation plan
and cooperate to address transboundary
(including
concerns relating to declining biodiversity I
restoration
particular.
actions at 2 to 4
pilot sites)

Increment
Total Increment: $2,162,000
(all demos)
GEF: $600,000
Countries: $302,000
Other co-financing: $1,260,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $725,000; FAO $10,000; UNEP $25,000)

Demo project 4 -
Baseline
6,261,164
Minor. National MPAs may contribute to
Minor. Experience of MPAs at national level
Demonstration of
delivering multiple benefits but benefits will
may be disseminated to the regional level but
MPAs as tools for
be unquantified and management non-
the assessment of benefits will be national in
delivering
optimal.
focus.
multiple
Alternative
7,113,164
Under the alternative scenario, countries will Under the alternative scenario, MPAs will be
ecosystem

gain knowledge and capacity useful for
developed and tested as tools for multiple
benefits in West
MPA management which will bring some
benefits including fisheries. If positive,
Africa
local environmental benefits.
CCLME countries will adopt MPAs as tools
for multiple ecosystem benefits as part of the
SAP. Guidelines will facilitate replication
within and beyond the CCLME.

Increment
Total Increment: $852,000

10

GEF: $250,000
Countries: $102,000
Other co-financing: $500,000 (AFD $500,000)

Demo project 5 -
Baseline
8,765,630
Without GEF intervention, countries will
Without GEF investment, knowledge of
Development of a
lack full information about their own
regional mangroves will remain incomplete
regional mangrove
mangroves or their relative importance for
and the basis will be lacking to secure the
conservation plan
fisheries & other purposes.
political will required for a regional
commitment to mangrove conservation.
Alternative
10,075,630
With GEF investment at the regional level,
In the GEF alternative scenario, essential
countries will be better informed about their
information on West African mangroves will
own mangroves and empowered to address
be compiled, demonstrations conducted and
national mangroves issues.
awareness raising undertaken to inform a
participatory, policy and planning process
leading to a regional mangrove accord and
plan ready for adoption as part of the
Strategic Action Program for the CCLME.

Increment
Total Increment: $1,310,000
GEF: $350,000
Countries: $200,000
Other co-financing: $760,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $225,000; FAO $10,000; UNEP $25,000)
Total Baseline:

Baseline
300,535,893

Total Alternative:

Alternative
326,240,143

Total Incremental:

Increment
Total Increment: $25,704,250
GEF: $8,090,000
Countries: $4,052,000
Other co-financing: $13,664,250 made up of (MAVA $7,000,000; AFD $3,120,000; FAO/Nansen/EAF
$2,205,000; Int. Coop. Nansen $60,000; Holland $500,000; FAO $350,000; UNEP $279,250; NOAA
$150,000)

11

Annex 2 - Project Logical Framework

PART I � PROJECT OBJECTIVE & KEY OUTCOME INDICATORS:
Project Objective:
Verifiable Indicators
Means of Verification
Assumptions and risks
The Project long term goal is

to reverse the degradation of

the Canary Current Large

Marine Ecosystem caused by

over-fishing, habitat

modification and changes in

water quality by adoption of an
ecosystem-based management

approach

The Project objective is to
- Multi-country agreement on transboundary priority concerns, impacts
- TDA
- Political stability in the
enable the countries of the
and causes

CCLME countries.
Canary Current Large Marine
- Multi-country Agreement on governance reforms and investments to
- SAP
- Clear division of
Ecosystem to address priority
address priority transboundary concerns

responsibilities
transboundary concerns on
- Sustainable legal/institutional framework for the CCLME
- Legal framework
between national
declining fisheries, associated
- Strengthened existing transboundary waters institutions
documentation
institutions and
biodiversity and water quality
- Stakeholder involvement in transboundary waterbody priority setting

regional institutional
through governance reforms,
and strategic planning
- TDA/SAP process
set up.
investments and management
- 7 functioning National Interministry Committees
documentation
- Strong political
programs.
- 3 multi-country policy proposals (as annexes to the SAP)

commitment of
- 5 management instruments for maintaining fish stocks, associated
- Stakeholder / beneficiary
countries on identified
biodiversity and water quality (as annexes to the SAP)
evaluations
and prioritized policy
- 5 demonstrations implemented and costs/benefits evaluated:

and management

- NIC documentation
instruments.
Demo 1 - At least one shared small pelagic stock management plan

- Identified management
Demo 2 - Reduced trawling by-catch demonstrated at two CCLME sites
- Policy proposals
actions are considered
Demo 3 � Multi-country agreement on at least 2 coastal pelagic species

priorities for national
Demo 4 � MPAs evaluated as dmersal fisheries co-management tools
- Management instruments
budget allocation.
Demo 5 � Agreement reached on regional mangrove conservation plan

- Co-financing

- Reports / evaluations of
commitments honored.
demonstration projects

PART 2 - PROJECT COMPONENTS SUMMARY/OUTCOMES & OUTPUTS:

12

Project Summary/Ouctomes
Outputs
Verifiable Indicators
Means of Verification
Assumptions and risks
1. TDA/SAP Process - Multi-

Assumes countries'
country process and frameworks

TDA finalized, agreed and
-
TDA report
willingness of countries to
for understanding and addressing

adopted by project countries

share data on national
priority trans-boundary concerns

-
CCLME website
resources.

Multi-country TDA
Interactive CCLME website &

-
Multi-country understanding

databases
-
NIC documentation

and agreement on
Interactive information system

transboundary issues (TDA)
for the CCLME
Functional National
-
Coordination agreements,

Interministerial committees
MoUs etc.

Regional legal/institutional
(NICs)

-
Sustainable legal/institutional
framework for CCLME

-
SAP

frameworks and plans for
stewardship
SAP (including National Action

Assumes countries
regional cooperation on the

Plans) finalized and adopted by
-
Sustainable funding &
continue to view regional
CCLME
Multi-country endorsed SAP
project countries
investment plan
cooperation as beneficial

for management of shared

Sustainable financing and
Regional framework adopted
-
Annual reports & websites of
resources.

investment / partnership plan

national, regional & inter-

for SAP implementation
Investment/partnership Plan for
governmental institutions

SAP implementation finalized and

Regional & national
adopted.
-
Stakeholder participation
-
Stakeholder involvement in
institutional stakeholder

evaluation
transboundary priority
participation mechanisms
No of stakeholder groups

setting and strategic planning
established & operational
(including NGOs) participating in
-
West Africa Marine &

TDA/SAP process
Coastal Forum reports

Local and private stakeholder

participation mechanisms
No of stakeholder groups
-
Project reports

established and operational
represented on West African

Marine & Coastal Forum
-
Evaluations

Project management structures

-
Effective project management & mechanisms in place and
Favorable mid-term and final

operational
evaluations

Project monitoring and

-
Effective project monitoring
evaluation processes

& evaluation
implemented

2. Marine Living Resources -
Transboundary assessment of
Diagnostic survey/assessments
-
Survey reports

Strengthened policies and
priority concerns on
conducted on priority concerns

management, based on improved
productivity & fisheries for the
-
Working Group reports and
Assumes countries'

13

knowledge and demonstration
CCLME
5 thematic working group
thematic papers
political willingness to
actions, to address priority

established & sessions convened

adopt joint and harmonized
transboundary concerns on
Improved capacity for

-
Consultants reports
policy and management
declining marine living resources
transboundary assessment and
30 national scientists trained on

instruments.
of the CCLME
management of marine living
assessment (3 modules x 10
-
Training reports

resources
trainees per module)

-
Improved knowledge &

-
Policy papers
capacity for management to

30 national managers trained on

address concerns on marine

fisheries management (3 modules
-
Management guidelines
living resources

x 10 trainees per module)

- Fisheries management
-
Strengthened regional
Strengthened regional policies
Policy paper on trade policies and
agreements
policies, instruments &
on management to address
market mechanisms for

capacity for management to
priority concerns
sustainable fisheries
address priority concerns on

marine living resources

Policy papers on minimum

conditions for access and
-
Demonstration management

introduction of EAF
actions address priority

transboundary concerns on

Management guidelines developed
marine living resources
Multi-country demonstrations
on spawning areas & other critical

of:
fisheries habitat

Shared small pelagic stock

management
Multi-country agreements on:
Selective trawling gears &
Shared small pelagic stock
methods
management
Management of migratory
Use of selective trawling gears
coastal pelagics of
& methods
importance to artisanal
Management of migratory
fisheries
coastal pelagics of importance

to artisanal fisheries

3. Biodiversity & Water Quality �
Transboundary assessment of
Existing data identified and
-
UNEP Report, Symposium
Assumes willingness of
Strengthened knowledge, capacity
concerns relating to
compiled
report
actors to share habitat
and policy base for trans-
biodiversity and water quality

-
Working group reports and
information
boundary assessment &
for the CCLME
Thematic working group(s)
papers

management of habitat &

established & sessions convened
-
Survey reports
Assumes countries'
biodiversity and water quality

-
Published map and accessible
political willingness to
critical to fisheries

Geo-referenced regional database
database
adopt joint and harmonized

14

prepared and map of critical

policy and management

Assessments finalized for
habitats produced
-
Assessment reports
instruments.

critical habitat, biodiversity

Knowledge gaps filled in relation
and water quality and included
7 regional scientists trained in GIS
-
Regional plans
to critical habitat, biodiversity
in the TDA and SAP

and water quality for the purpose

Assessment of key biodiversity
-
Training modules and reports
of the TDA and SAP
Agreed regional action plans
including ecologically important

for habitat, biodiversity and
estuaries, seamounts, mangrove
-
Multi-country agreements

water quality included in the
stands, endangered species and

Capacity building, policy making
SAP
status of MPAs

and planning for the SAP

Assessment of the ecosystem

needs for key estuary waters and
Demonstration actions address

its quality including the impacts of
priority transboundary concerns
Multi-country demonstrations
dams; and
on declining biodiversity and
of:

water quality
MPAs as tools for co-
Inventory and ecosystem impact

management of demersal
assessment of land-based activities
artisanal fisheries
adversely affecting water and
Mangrove conservation
sediment quality in marine and
and restoration
coastal zones

Regional action plans for:
- critical habitat management &
monitoring
- management of water flow
regimes & water extraction
- monitoring and reduction of
land-based sources of pollution
- contingency plan to prevent &
mitigate offshore petroleum
pollution
Multi-country agreements on:
MPAs as multiple-benefit
management tools
mangrove conservation and
restoration

15

PART 3 � PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Component 1 (TDA/SAP process): Multi-country process and frameworks for understanding and addressing priority trans-boundary concerns

a) Multi-country understanding and agreement on transboundary issues (TDA)

Output : Multi-country TDA

Activities:
-
1st International CCLME symposium of information providers and users held to identify and confirm priority knowledge gaps for LME Assessment and the TDA.
-
Consolidated work plan to fill knowledge gaps developed (including defining linkages between TDA/SAP and demonstration projects).
-
Regional thematic assessment & survey working groups set up to guide the TDA process (an estimated 10 working groups)
-
Special group on climate change set up & undertakes a specific assessment of the impact of climate change on the CCLME
-
TDA workshop is held to present synthesis of knowledge gathered and prepare the TDA
-
Regional Steering Committee meeting with representation of all relevant sectors held to approve TDA.
-
TDA report is prepared, published and widely disseminated

Output : Interactive website and databases for the CCLME:

Activities:
-
Interactive CCLME information website consistent with IW-LEARN designed and established with linkages to SRFC, FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, GOOS-AFRICA &
NEPAD, other information systems and databases
-
Website maintained and information gathered by project and generated for TDA/SAP is uploaded into website
-
CCLME Website contributions to IW-Learn

b) Sustainable legal/institutional frameworks and plans for regional cooperation on the CCLME

Output : Regional legal/institutional framework for CCLME stewardship developed

Activities:
-
Promote linkages and dialogue between concerned regional and international institutions (SRFC, Abidjan Convention, ATLAFCO, OMVS, OMVG, CECAF,
ICCAT, AGC, NEPAD (Environment & Fisheries etc.) on the establishment of a legal/institutional framework for long term CCLME stewardship
-
Establish firm linkages and coordination mechanisms between CCLME program and other significant agency programs and initiatives to ensure synergies (e.g. GEF
ICZM, river basin and climate change adaptation projects, World Bank programs, International NGOs etc.)
-
Design, develop and promote adoption of an overall legal / institutional framework for long term CCLME stewardship
-
Foster and support direct transboundary coordination between corresponding national agencies on shared concerns.

Output : Multi-country endorsed SAP:

16

Activities:
-
Regional SAP working group nominated to ensure establishment of national SAP committees.
-
TDA-SAP training provided to appropriate regional, national & project personnel.
-
Technical assistance provided to regional team in SAP formulation.
-
Environmental Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) (encompassing EAF objectives) developed to guide SAP vision.
-
West African Marine & Coastal Forum supported and extended as a forum to debate & approve the SAP.
-
Participation of Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs in the forum is supported to consider results of ecosystem valuation (see Component 1).
-
Results and experiences from demonstration projects and replication strategy are integrated into the SAP process
-
Ministerial endorsement of SAP is facilitated in each CCLME country.

Output : Sustainable financing and investment / partnership plan for SAP implementation:

Activities:
-
Identify options for sustainable financing of management and monitoring of resources of the CCLME
-
Identify options and secure financing for SAP implementation (including private and public in sources)
-
Develop an integrated sustainable financing and investment / partnership plan for implementation as part of the SAP

c)
Stakeholder involvement in transboundary priority setting and strategic planning

Output: Regional & national institutional stakeholder participation mechanisms established & operational

Activities:
-
Steering Committee established (composition to be discussed and determined) and operational
-
National Focal Points and Technical Coordinators confirmed (or new appointments made)
-
National Interministry Committees are confirmed and extended with updated ToR
-
National Coordination Units are established and operational
-
TDA/SAP training provided to National Focal Points & National Technical Coordinators
-
Promote strengthened role of West African Marine Forum in regional and national institutional participation and support the participation of key regional and
national institutions at 2 forums
-
Support participation of key government representatives and CCLME project staff at 2 GEF IW Biennial Conferences and other key meetings as appropriate
(including preparation of project exhibit)

Output: Local and private stakeholder participation mechanisms established and operational

Activities:
-
Draft CCLME local and private stakeholder participation & communication strategy is finalized and adopted
-
Application of the strategy is promoted and stakeholder communication is assured throughout project duration
-
Participatory approaches are developed to involve marginal or key stakeholder groups in the development of resource-specific management plans.

17

-
Promote adaptation of West African Marine Forum as a platform for local & private stakeholder involvement and support the participation of key local stakeholders
at 2 forums.

d)
Effective project management

Output: Project management structures & mechanisms in place and operational

Activities:
-
Regional Coordination Unit is staffed (Regional Coordinator, Thematic Component managers, Project administrator, administrative assistant/s, driver)
-
Project technical staff contribute part of time to ensure effective project management (see finance section for percentages)
-
Short-term specialists/consultants supporting coordination & management functions recruited as required
-
Regional Coordination Unit provided with necessary equipment, 1 vehicle and an operating budget
-
Quarterly, semi-annual and annual project reporting, translation and financial auditing.

e)
Effective project monitoring & evaluation

Output: Project monitoring and evaluation processes implemented

Activities:
-
Inception workshop, establishing project work plans and M&E plan
-
Quarterly, semi-annual, annual review of project performance and outcome indicators
- Mid-term evaluation
- Final evaluation

Component 2 (Marine Living resources): Strengthened capacity (based on improved knowledge, policies & management instruments and demonstration actions) to
address priority transboundary concerns on marine living resources

a) Improved knowledge and capacity for management to address concerns on marine living resources

Output: Transboundary assessment of priority concerns on marine living resources for the CCLME

Activites:
-
Identify available information and main knowledge gaps in relation to concerns & marine living resources
-
Follow-on planning forum, together with the FAO/EAF-Nansen project, to develop detailed assessment, survey, training and analysis plans
-
Thematic assessment & survey working groups established and supported (an estimated five groups under this component) [Expected groups: survey data analysis &
planning, ecosystem interactions, demersal and pelagic resources and trade]
-
Regional resources and ecosystem assessments and surveys conducted with coverage of the entire CCLME (to be carried out through a combination of ship-based and
shore-based surveys and assessments).

18

-
Priority specialized studies and assessments conducted (e.g. effects and interaction of oil pollution and fish, identification of fish spawning areas, impacts of lost &
abandoned fishing gear).

Output: Improved capacity for transboundary assessment of marine living resources

Activities:
-
Training provided to national scientists and research organizations participating in regional productivity & fisheries surveys and assessments.
-
Training provided to national scientists and institutions in resource assessment & modeling

b) Strengthened policies, instruments and capacity for management to address priority transboundary concerns on marine living resources

Output: Strengthened policies to address priority transboundary concerns

Concerted sub-regional fisheries management policy on minimum conditions for access agreements, management of foreign fishing effort and introduction of EAF
Management guidelines developed for spawning areas and other critical fisheries habitats
Trade policies & market mechanisms identified and developed to support sustainable fisheries

NB: additional policies and instruments will come out of the demonstration projects (see below)

Activities:
-
Support to CCLME countries and SRFC provided for development of concerted sub-regional fisheries management policies through regional dialogue on minimum
conditions for access agreements, and introduction of EAF (Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries)
-
Training provided to national management institutions for addressing trans-boundary fisheries issues using an ecosystem approach (working with FAO/Nansen-EAF
porgram)
-
Management guidelines developed for spawning areas and other critical fisheries habitats as identified in regional fishery and ecosystem assessments (linked to critical
habitat assessment under Component 3)
-
Trade policies & market mechanisms identified and promoted to support sustainable fisheries management and encourage sustainable fishing practices.
-
Institutional and individual capacity & preparedness reinforced for active participation in ICCAT (for all CCLME countries with an interest in Atlantic tuna).

c) Demonstration actions to address priority transboundary concerns on marine living resources

Outputs:
Multi-country demonstration of small pelagic shared stock management
Multi-country demonstration of selective trawling gears & methods
Multi-country demonstration of management of migratory coastal pelagics of importance to artisanal fisheries

Activities:
-
Demo project 1 - Policies and plans for sustainable trans-boundary ecosystem-based management of shared small pelagic stocks in North West Africa
-
Demo project 2 - Reduction of the impact of shrimp trawling through by-catch reduction and management changes

19

-
Demo project 3 - Trans-boundary co-management of migratory coastal pelagics of importance to artisanal fisheries (mullets, bluefish and meagre)

Component 3 (Biodiversity & Water Quality): Strengthened knowledge, capacity and policy base for trans-boundary assessment & management of habitat &
biodiversity and water quality critical to fisheries

a) Knowledge gaps filled in relation to critical habitat, biodiversity and water quality for the purpose of the TDA and SAP

Output: Transboundary assessment of concerns relating to biodiversity and water quality for the CCLME

Activities:
-
Component 3 working group and thematic working groups established
-
Identification of data and information including policy and legislation gaps for the TDA and compilation of existing data in relation to pollution & ecosystem health

in the CCLME region and report prepared
-
Development of a geo-referenced database and regional map of critical habitats (in coordination with sub-components 1a & 2a) with associated training
-
FAO Nansen planning and surveys
-
Assessment of key biodiversity including existing MPAs
-
Assessment of the ecosystem needs for key estuary waters and its quality including the impacts of dams.
-
Inventory and ecosystem impact assessment (with modeling) of land-based activities adversely affecting water and sediment quality in marine and coastal zones

b) Capacity building, policy making and planning for the SAP

Output: Agreed regional action plans for habitat, biodiversity and water quality and for a resilient network of MPAs included in the SAP

Activities:
-
Formulate regional Plan for critical habitat management & monitoring , including regional plan for MPA's
-
Support to development of regional management plans for water flow regimes and water extraction standards (working with national water authorities and
OMVS/OMVG)
-
Regional Programme of Action on Land-based activities, (in conformity with the Abidjan Convention LBA protocol) focusing on the key isssues identified for the
CCMLE
-
Contingency plan to prevent & mitigate offshore petroleum pollution - contract with IMO

c) Demonstration actions to address priority trans-boundary concerns on declining biodiversity and water quality

Outputs:

Multi-country demonstration of MPAs as tools for co-management of demersal artisanal fisheries
Multi-country demonstration of mangrove conservation and restoration

Activity:

20

-
Demo project 4 - Demonstration of MPAs as tools for co-management of demersal artisanal fisheries
-
Demo project 5 - Development of a regional mangrove conservation plan (including restoration actions at 2 to 4 pilot sites)

21

Annex 3 � Public Involvement Plan

Identity of national level stakeholders

The main text of the brief has given generic summaries of the stakeholders identified at national and
regional level. The table appended at this end of Annex includes full lists of national stakeholders
identified for each CCLME country. All of these actors were consulted as part of the project
preparation process and contributed to the national consultations, and will continue to do so during full
project implementation. The tables may be used to permit specific identification of stakeholder
categories mentioned in the following text.

Public involvement within the CCLME project

Public involvement is intrinsic to the objectives of the CCLME project. The following table presents
in a non-exhaustive, cumulative, manner the stakeholder participation targets, approaches and
stakeholders most concerned in relation to each project level, from main project objective though
components to specific activities.

Level within project
Stakeholder participation
Approaches to
Stakeholders most
and related targets
stakeholder participation concerned (non-
(cumulative)
(cumulative)
exhaustive)
Project objective
Multi-country agreement on
Adoption of the TDA/SAP
ALL (government
(enable the countries of
transboundary priority
process (which specifically departments, focal
the Canary Current
concerns, impacts and
includes stakeholder
points & coordinators,
Large Marine
causes
participation and public
national institutes,
Ecosystem to address

involvement).
intergovernmental
priority transboundary
Multi-country Agreement

organizations, fisher
concerns on declining
on governance reforms and
Integrated approach
organizations, program
fisheries, associated
investments to address
involving stakeholders
partners etc.).
biodiversity and water
priority transboundary
across different sectors

quality through
concerns
(e.g. the NICs)
governance reforms,

investments and
Sustainable
management programs)
legal/institutional
framework for the CCLME

Strengthened existing
transboundary waters
institutions

Stakeholder involvement in
transboundary waterbody
priority setting and strategic
planning

7 functioning National
Interministry Committees

Component 1
Sustainable financing and
Strong involvement of
ALL (including all

investment / partnership
national stakeholder
national stakeholders
(Multi-country process
plan for SAP
structures including focal
who would participate in
and frameworks for
implementation
points & coordinators.
TDA/SAP - see table at
understanding and

end of this annex).
addressing priority
Regional & national
Establishment of
trans-boundary
institutional stakeholder
Interministerial
concerns)
participation mechanisms
Committees for an
established & operational
integrated approach.

22

Local and private
Stakeholder consultation
stakeholder participation
forums.
mechanisms established and
operational

Regional consultations on
inter-governmental
coordination held and
option adopted.
National stakeholder
consultations on TDA and
on SAP in 7 project
countries.
Two extended West African
Marine & Coastal Forums
are held to review TDA and
SAP.
Activities for
1st International CCLME
Holding of symposia &
ALL, with particular
Component 1
symposium of information
workshops.
reference to national
providers and users held to

institutes & agencies,
identify and confirm
Working groups.
national scientists &
priority knowledge gaps for

experts, resource users
LME Assessment and the
Support & extend the West (e.g. master fishers,
TDA.
African Marine & Coastal
industrial fishers etc.),

Forum.
international research
Regional thematic

institutions & scientists,
assessment & survey
Participation of Ministries
PRCM network
working groups set up to
of Finance and Foreign
members, program
guide the TDA process (an
Affairs in the forum is
partners etc.
estimated 10 working
supported to consider

groups)
results of ecosystem

valuation (see Component
Promote linkages and
1).
dialogue between concerned
regional and international
Involvement of resource
institutions (SRFC, Abidjan
users in identifying and
Convention, ATLAFCO,
filling knowledge gaps;
OMVS, OMVG, CECAF,
Making full use of
ICCAT, AGC, NEPAD
program partner
(Environment & Fisheries
constituencies (e.g.
etc.) on the establishment of
networks set up by
a legal/institutional
PRCM);
framework for long term

CCLME stewardship
Specific effort to be

focused on marginal
Interactive CCLME
groups through a coastal
information website
stakeholder participation
consistent with IW-LEARN
methodology (with
designed and established
assistance from IUCN)
with linkages to SRFC,

FAO, UNEP, UNESCO,

GOOS-AFRICA &
NEPAD, other information
systems and databases

Steering Committee.
National Coordination
Units.

Development and

23

application of a stakeholder
participation strategy.
Communication strategy
(working with PRCM).
Draft CCLME local and
private stakeholder
participation &
communication strategy is
finalized and adopted

Application of the strategy
is promoted and stakeholder
communication is assured
throughout project duration

Component 2
Follow-on planning forum,
Involvement of countries
National fisheries

together with the
in multi-country plans.
authorities & managers,
(Strengthened policies
FAO/EAF-Nansen project,

intergovernmental
and management, based
to develop detailed
Involving fishers in co-
fishery organizations
on improved
assessment, survey, training
trans-boundary
(SRFC, ICCAT,
knowledge and
and analysis plans
management
ATLAFCO), national
demonstration actions,

arrangements.
fisheries scientists,
to address priority
Training provided to

industrial fishing
transboundary concerns
national scientists and
Involving fishers in
companies, artisanal
on declining marine
research organizations
regional fisheries
fishers & fish workers,
living resources of the

information & forecasting
government personnel,
CCLME)

system.
international scientific
Concerted sub-regional

institutions & scientists.
fisheries management
Reinforcing countries'
policy on minimum
capacity for ICCAT
conditions for access
participation.
agreements etc.

Sub-regional fisheries
management policies &
plans for shared small
pelagics, coastal pelagics,
by-catch reduction & MPAs
for fisheries management

Activities for
Surveys of fisheries
Involve national scientists
National fisheries
Component 2
resources (various)
fully in surveys.
scientists, international
Specialized surveys &

experts, international &
training (productivity, oil
Maximize knowledge
regional scientists &
pollution, spawning areas,
transfer.
institutions, oil
lost fishing gear)

companies, national

Co-management approach
fisheries managers;
Demonstration project 1
to fisheries.
private sector fishers &
(trans-boundary

industrial fishing
management plans for
Involve private sector pl
companies; artisanal
shared small pelagic stocks)
industry in surveys.
fisher associations; local
Demonstration project 2

fishers; local NGOS,
(by-catch reduction and
Involve local NGOs in lost
MCS authorities.
management changes for
fishing gear survey.
industrial shrimp trawling)

Demonstration project 3
Encouraging integration of
(trans-boundary co-
scientists and managers in
management of coastal
the fisheries sphere.
pelagic fisheries of

importance to artisanal
Involving private sector

24

fisheries
fishers and fishing.

Companies in assessment
and management
activities.

Multi-country
demonstration projects
specifically involving
stakeholders in
demonstration projects.

Making full use of fishers'
ecological knowledge.

Component 3
MPA network with
Developing a network of
Environmental
(Strengthened
development plan.
MPAs for the CCLME.
authorities & managers,
knowledge, capacity
Critical habitat plan.

MPA authorities &
and policy base for

Multi-country plans for
managers, sector
trans-boundary
Mangrove plan.
habitats, mangroves,
managers (forests,
assessment &

threatened species etc.
waters etc.),
management of habitat
Threatened species plans.

conservation NGOs
& biodiversity and

Working with river basin
(notably PRCM
water quality critical to
Water flow regimes & water authorities.
partners), UNEP/GEF,
fisheries).
extraction standards

UNEP/GPA, Abidjan
defined;
Working with offshore
Convention Secretariat,

petroleum industry.
CMS, IMO (PSSAs),
Reduction of land-based
OMVS, OMVG,
sources of pollution;
municipalities,

petroleum companies.
Control of pollution from

offshore petroleum
exploitation.
Activities for Outcome Habitat & biodiversity
Integrate & build on
National environmental
3
surveys (various)
existing conservation
agencies & scientists,

constituency (PRCM and
tourism authorities &
Land based activities
its networks).
operators, fishers,
assessments (various)

petroleum industry,

Involve countries in a
AGC (Agence de
Strategic regional
strategic impact
Coop�ration entre
assessment of offshore oil
assessment of offshore oil
S�n�gal & Guin�e
industry impacts
industry.
Bissau), coastal

communities etc.
Specialized assessments
Involve coastal
(marine litter, ballast water,
communities in mangrove
invasive species)
management.

Guidelines for critical
habitats (various)

Habitat management plans
(various)

MPAs network plan

Training in management
(MPAs, EIA)

Water quality plans (river
flow regimes, LBA, oil spill

25

prevention & response)
Capacity needs assessment
for water quality
management

Demonstration project 4 �
MPAs as tools for multiple
resource management
benefits

Demo project 5 � regional
mangrove plan

Preliminary coastal stakeholder participation methodology (IUCN)

[Note: these initial elements of a coastal stakeholder participation methodology should be considered
as preliminary in nature, to be further developed when project implementation begins. They serve,
however, to illustrate the approach and principles to be applied in a comprehensive stakeholder
strategy].

LME programs face the twin challenges of building the necessary national political will and community-
level participation to drive important societal choices about how to address trans-boundary
environmental concerns. The experience of LME projects is that the technical/scientific and middle-
management levels are relatively easy to mobilize, while reaching decision makers and resource users is
more problematic. Often, national politicians do not readily perceive the interest of investing in regional
initiatives while local stakeholders most dependent on trans-boundary natural resources may see the
interest but have no influence on the process. Building grass-roots participation can help to increase
political awareness as well as harness potential for constructive contributions to understanding and
addressing trans-boundary environmental concerns.

The participation of stakeholders is a key component of the CCLME project, as empirical evidence
shows that stakeholder participation not only improves the likelihood of success for marine and coastal
projects, in West Africa and elsewhere, but also more often than not is a sine qua non condition to
their successful implementation. This is due to the fact that projects that place an emphasis on the
sustainable development of marine and coastal resources � as do all Large Marine Ecosystem (or
LME) projects � call for stakeholders to change their approach to resources use, from short-term to a
longer-term approach. As such, the success of such projects depends on the understanding by the
stakeholders that it is in their own interests to manage the resources differently and most levels of
government are, in essence, at the mercy of the cooperation of the stakeholders. In the marine and
coastal context, resources are widespread and the areas to monitor considerable, where success edges
on compliance, rather than enforcement, or, in other words, where the only possible enforcement is
self-enforcement.

The need for stakeholder participation is well understood in many marine and coastal projects, though
implemented with various degrees of success. Within the framework of LME projects, however,
strategies to enhance the participation of stakeholders have so far been assumed rather than clearly
spelled out. In this respect, the CCLME project is taking a new approach by developing such an
explicit strategy, drawing from best practices in the region and in different circumstances. Experience
gained within CCLME should be adaptable to other projects.

Beneficiary and Stakeholder Profiles

In the course of their national outreach efforts, the governments of all the countries represented in the
project have identified and engaged the stakeholders that will likely be impacted by the project. They
consist of the following social and socio-professional categories:

26

-
Artisanal fishers: they are found throughout the region and along the coast and some estuaries
and are often completely dependent on healthy marine ecosystems and the sustainable
exploitation of the stocks on which they depend. Some of the fishers also have other activities,
including subsistence agriculture, but many are overwhelmingly dependent on the fisheries for
their protein intake and livelihood;

-
Industrial or semi-industrial fishers: other fishers exclusively partake in fishing, with part of
their catch sold either to local markets or outside processors. Their dependence on healthy fish
stocks is complete. The gears they use vary greatly in cost and/or sophistication and some are
funded by outside processors and traders;

-
Fish processors and traders: they range from local merchants who sell the catch on markets
near the landing zones, to more commercial processors who collect the catch and process it for
export (in the case of higher value species such as cephalopods for instance). Women are often
involved in local market activities and are directly dependent on healthy fisheries;

-
Mangrove users (direct and indirect): mangroves are exploited for a variety of purposes
throughout the region and many local coastal populations depend on the sustainable
management of these resources.

-
Farmers bordering the major rivers: agriculture can have an impact on water quality in rivers,
estuaries and related marine ecosystems. Though their link to the marine ecosystems may be
more difficult to discern, their activities can be detrimental and their participation therefore
needs to be secured.

Participation and Consultation

Participation and consultation have already been initiated in the context of the preparatory national
consultations. The actors identified as stakeholders may differ from country to country, but they can
be identified as belonging to the following different categories:

-
The local communities, whether or not they are organized in political structures, traditional or
otherwise. In cases where the communities are not organized politically, structures can be set
up for the incorporation of their concerns, for joint decision-making, and for dissemination of
results and decisions taken by the government;

-
NGOs and other representatives of civil society. The fact that a NGO may not have been pre-
established by the impacted stakeholders should not be interpreted as an indication that these
communities do not have valuable input to provide, but rather that a new vehicle must be
established to that end (whatever form such vehicle may take); and

-
Representatives of the private sector often play key roles in determining how resources are
used, whether they are established locally or come in from the outside to collect and market
such resources. They will also likely have opportunities to influence the outcome of the
project and should thus be brought on board in all stages of the process.

At the start of project implementation, the project will develop a Stakeholder Participation
Methodology, based on input drawn from national experiences, where member states of the CCLME
project will present their approach to stakeholder participation, essentially spelling out how their local
actors had been involved in the project, from the local, to the regional and national levels. This
methodology will draw from existing regional approaches in West Africa, including but not always
limited to marine and coastal projects.

Participatory management of trans-border delta areas

27

[Note: The following is a summary of a paper on trans-border participation of populations within the
CCLME by a doctorate research student, Mamadou Lamine Sy, University of Saint-Louis, Senegal.
The findings and recommendations, like those of IUCN above, should be considered as preliminary in
nature, to illustrate the process of reflection that has been initiated during project preparation and
which will continue into the full project.]

Introduction

Recent years have seen an evolution in the way rural inhabitants and decision-makers perceive the
environment, particularly in a context of growing demographic pressures. Interventionist and directive
policies have not helped solve many local resource management issues and new paradigms of
participatory management are required. One such is co-management, based on a collaboration between
communities and state authorities. In Senegal, co-management is emerging as services become
increasingly decentralized. Areas suitable for local management include the relatively inaccessible
mangrove and estuarine areas which form an important component of the CCLME ecosystem. Several
such areas cross national borders, yet encompass a continuum of culture and resource that offer the
potential for harmonized management of trans-border ecosystems. Thus the idea arose for trans-border
community management areas that would contribute to overall stewardship of the CCLME. The
purpose of the study was to consider the feasibility of such areas for the CCLME, with particular
reference to the Casamance River (Senegal-Guinea Bissau).

Categories of stakeholders

Within the identified trans-border deltaic and mangrove areas one finds a range of stakeholders
including:

Fishing communities
Mangrove exploiters (mainly wood cutters, but also gatherers of oysters etc.)
NGOs (local development partners)
Decentralized state structures (e.g. regional directions, departments of fisheries, waters & forests)
Local government (communes)
Research-development organizations

Trans-boundary participation of populations

The necessary conditions for participatory management include an appropriate institutional and
consultative framework enabling harmonized management approaches within a trans-boundary system
to be developed (in the present case the Casamance delta). For this, the community participation
strategy will be critical. The approach would be to capitalize on the strong cultural affinities of the
adjacent populations.

Suggested approaches to trans-border management

The national CCLME project coordination structures in Senegal and Guinea Bissau would need to
closely coordinate their operations to assist the local communities to develop the appropriate
management structures, using local conventions supported by a communications and awareness raising
program. The CCLME project regional coordination unit would ensure harmonized approaches across
borders. The approach would prioritize:

Accountability of populations in relation to their own activities
Commitment of communities and their development partners to a common plan
Respect for the customs and traditions of the populations with regard to use of resources

28

The decentralized national government agencies would provide technical support to the populations
while the population would remain essentially responsible for their own aspirations and development.
This `empowerment' approach would be based on:

Communities to take responsibility for the management of their own enterprises
Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the results
Training / awareness raising provided to actors as required:
-
Villager training - on themes such as re-valorization of traditional knowledge, conflict resolution
-
Government agent training � on issues such as knowledge of the area, livelihood strategies of
populations, conflict resolution, partnership approach etc.

Different phases in trans-boundary participation process

The trans-boundary participation process would proceed in the following phases:

Identification and knowledge of the ecosystems � using methods such as Rapid Rural Appraisal, based
on suitable community management units e.g. village or group of associated villages

Awareness raising for communities on environmental issues
Identification of problems and solutions
Developing plans of action

Awareness raising would use modern methods of rural communication, such as village visual
presentations, community radio networks etc. The communities would be encouraged ot understand
how their conservation of estuarine ecosystems will benefit the region as a whole. Identification of
problems and solutions would make use of the MARP process, and feed into the national and LME-
wide TDA/SAP process. The planning process would make use of the governance structures
established for the purposes of the trans-boundary management area.

Implementation of management system

The implementation of the management system for the trans-border area would include the following
steps:

Thematic training
Self-evaluation of implementation by communities
Monitoring & Evaluation of the program
Capacity building for self-development
Development of specific livelihood generation activities

Key recommendations

Taking account of customary usage practices will be a vital aspect for ensuring community ownership
of the management system for the zone. Thus, dialogue is the key to a successful process. It will be
especially important to clarify the role of local government (communes) and to define shared
mechanisms for control, monitoring and coordination at the local, national and LME-wide levels.

29

National stakeholder tables

Country
Cape Verde
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Mauritania
Morocco
Senegal
Category
Users &
Association des P�cheurs
NAAFO (National
Fishers & communities
Association National
F�d�ration Nationale
Fishers and their

beneficiaries of
Association des
Association of
Fishery product
des Entrepreneurs de
de P�cheurs
communities.

CCLME
Armateurs de P�ches
Artisanal Fishers'
transformers
la P�che (ANEP)
IMRAGUEN (NGO)
Goods &
Association Nationale
Organizations)
Middlemen
Association des

Fish processors.
Services
des Armateurs de la
Association of
Fishery product
Industriels de l'

Marine Marchande
Gambia Fishing
exporters
h�teli�re
Union Nationale des
Companies
Industrial fishing
Repr�sentant des
Middlemen and
Operateurs Touristiques
Gambia Tourism
operators
Op�rateurs
exporters.
Agency
Marine transporters
Touristiques des
GAMFIDA (Gambia
Salt makers
Zones C�ti�res
Industrial fishing
Artisanal Fisheries
Mangrove wood cutters

operators.
development
Union Nationale des
Agency)
P�cheurs Artisans de
Maritime

Guin�e
transporters.

Union Nationale des
Mareyeurs
Association Guin�enne
Coastal populations
des Exportateurs de
and consumers.
Produits Halieutiques
Conf�d�ration
Nationale des P�cheurs
de Guin�e
Resource
Capitainerie des Ports de
Fisheries
Direction Nationale de
Minist�re de la
MPEM
Direction des P�ches

managers
Barlavento et Sotavento
Department
la P�che Maritime
P�che et Economie
DSPCM
maritimes et de

Institut Maritime et
National
(Minist�re de la P�che
Maritime
MRTM/DARH
l'aquaculture
Portuaire
Environment
et de l'Aquaculture)
Minist�re des
MPEM/DPAC
Direction de la
Direction G�n�rale de
Agency (NEA)
Centre National de
Ressources Naturels
FST
formation maritime
l�Environnement
Dept. of State for
Surveillance et de
Minist�re de l'
MDRE
et de la promotion
Direction G�n�rale de
Forests &
Protection des P�ches
Agriculture
MIPT
socioprofessionnelle,
l�Am�nagement du
Environment
(MPA).
National coastal
MEP
Direction de la
Territoire
Dept. Agricultural
Centre National de
zone planning unit
Parc National du
coop�ration et des
Direction G�n�rale des
Services
Gestion des Aires
(GPC).
Banc d'Arguin
affaires juridiques
P�ches
APMU
Prot�g�es
National institute for
(PNBA)
Direction des
Direction G�n�rale du
Dept. Water
Centre de Protection
biodiversity
Parc National de
industries de la
d�veloppement du
Resources
Environnementale du
management (IBAP)
Diawling (PND)
p�che
Tourisme,
Forestry Dept
Milieu Marin et des

APPZC
Direction des
Garde C�ti�re
Dept of State for
Zones C�ti�res

DMM
ressources hum

Trade, Industry &
(Minist�re de

aines et des
Employment
l'Environnement).
affaires g�n�rales

30

Dept. Parks &
Direction Nationale de
F�d�ration des
Wildlife
la Protection de la
chambres des p�ches
Management
Nature (M de l'E)
maritimes

L'Observatoire de la
Haut Commissariat
Guin�e Maritime
des eaux et forets et
Direction Nationale des
de la lutte contre la
Eaux et For�ts
d�sertification
(Minist�re de
Minist�re de
l'Agriculture, de
l'am�nagement du
l'Elevage et des Eaux
territoire, de l'eau et
et For�ts).
de l'environnement

(MATEE)
Resource
Institut National de

Centre National des
CIPA (Centro
IMROP
Institut National de

assessors
D�veloppement des
Sciences Halieutiques
d'Investigado des
Recherche
P�ches
de Boussoura
Pescas)
Halieutique (INRH)
Institut National de
(CNSHB) (Minist�re de

Recherche et
la P�che et de
D�veloppement Agraire
l'Aquaculture)
Institut National de
Centre de Recherche
M�t�orologie et
Scientifique
de
G�ophysique
Conakry-

Rogban� (CERESCOR)
Le Centre d'Etude et de
Recherche en
Environnement
Other actors
Cap Vert Nature 2000
Community leaders
Observatoire National
Minist�re des
Mer et
Gendarmerie Royale,
Association National des
(Brufut, Tanji,
des P�ches ;
Finances
D�veloppement
Marine royale,
Municipalit�s du Cap
Gunjur)
Direction G�n�rale de
Minist�re de l'
(NGO)
Marine Marchande
Vert
ICAM Project
l'Assurance Qualit�
Economie
Mer Propre (NGO)
Minist�re de
Direction G�n�rale du
Gambia Navy
Sanitaire des Produits
Minist�re du
APREMA (NGO)
l'int�rieur, IDEA
Plan, Budget et Gestion
Central Statistics
Halieutiques
Tourisme et
IUCN
Minist�re des
du MAP
Department
Direction Nationale du
Am�nagement du
PAN-PA
affaires �trang�res et
Minist�re de l�Education
CREST CONSULT
Plan
Territoire
de la coop�ration
et Enseignement
Gambia Radio &
Direction Nationale du
Minist�re de l'
Minist�re de la sant�
Sup�rieur
Television Services
Tourisme
Administration
publique
Enapor � SA

Direction Nationale de
Territoriale
Minist�re de
Plateforme des ONG�s

la Marine Marchande ;
Minist�re des
l'agriculture du
FAO

Agence de Navigation
Transports
d�veloppement
Institut Sup�rieur des

Maritime ;

rurale et des p�ches
Sciences Maritimes
Direction Nationale de
NGOs :
maritimes (SG du
Association des amis de
la M�t�orologie
AD ; Nantinian ;
minist�re)
la Nature,
Direction Nationale des
Tiniguena ;
Office National des
Association Gar�a
Mines et de la G�ologie
SWISSAID ;
P�ches

31

Vermelha
ONG ADEPEG ;
Billiget, IUCN
Direction de la
Minist�re des
ONG UDESKA

M�t�orologie
Infrastructures,

Laboratoire National
Nationale
Transports et Mer/

de la Sant� Puiblic
Direction des
Direction G�n�rale des

Institut National de
statistiques
Infrastructures

Recherche et
Direction des
Shell

Technologie
douanes
Enacol
Appliqu�e;
Direction de la
ONG Atelier Mar
Institut National de
recherche et de la
Institut sup�rieur de
Recherche Agricole
planification des
l�enseignement Isidoro
eaux
Gra�a
L`INRA
Institut Sup�rieur de
L'Universit�
l�Enseignement
Mohamed V
Municipalit� de Sao
Association
Vicente
marocaine des
Chambre de Commerce
sciences de la mer
de Barlavento et
(ONG association -
Sotavento
ACERMOD Oued
Institut Jean Piaget
Dahab)
Conseil Sup�rieur des
Chambres de Commerce

32

Annex 4 - Institutional and implementation arrangements

67.
The project will be jointly implemented by FAO and UNEP which will together assure overall
integrity of the project. FAO will be specifically responsible for project components 1 and 2 as well as
demonstration projects no. 1, 2, 3 under Component 2 and demonstration no. 4 (Demonstration of
MPAs as tools for multiple resource management benefits) under component 3. UNEP will be
responsible for component 3, and demonstration number 5. As the lead GEF agency, FAO, in close
consultation with UNEP, will be responsible for overall project implementation to ensure consistency
with GEF policies and procedures. The project will be implemented as a comprehensive program and
not as two separate projects. The Sub-regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) in Dakar, Senegal will
continue to serve as the main counterpart organization for the overall project and will host the
Regional Coordination Unit.
68.
FAO will be responsible for the overall global administration and co-ordination of the project,
in close consultation with UNEP and specifically responsible for the execution of project components
1, 2 and demonstration project no. 4 (Demonstration of MPAs as tools for multiple resource
management benefits ), given its primary focus on fisheries management. This demonstration project
will be carried out in close collaboration with the Agence Fran�aise de D�veloppement (AFD) in
accordance with a pre-existing agreement between FAO and AFD and in close consultation with
UNEP. As the executing agencies of these components, FAO will be responsible for, inter alia, the
overall financial management of the project, ensuring that the necessary human resources and inputs
are provided in a timely manner to ensure smooth implementation of the project and delivery of
project outcomes, and the submission of project progress and financial reports to GEF. FAO will
facilitate and ensure the sharing and flow of information and linkages among project partners as well
as with other major on-going initiatives in the region. FAO will provide technical support to the
project in a very broad sense, tapping into the expertise from its programs on fisheries, forestry, land
and water, sustainable development, legal, biodiversity, among others. UNEP will be primarily
responsible for Component 3 (habitats, biodiversity & water quality), and will collaborate actively in
the other components of the project. The Secretariat for the Abidjan Convention for Co-operation in
the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environmental will execute component 3
of the project on behalf of UNEP.

69.
Regional and national coordination arrangements for this project are presented in Figure 1.
The organizational arrangements include a Project Steering Committee, the Regional Coordinating
Unit, National Interministerial Committees, National Coordination Units, the stakeholders, and other
parties in the project. The project will be driven by a Project Steering Committee composed of
representatives from the seven project countries and one representative each from UNEP, FAO, SRFC,
the Abidjan Convention Secretariat. Other collaborating institutions, such as COMHAFAT, IUCN,
NOAA, NEPAD, CECAF, PRCM, IMR and the World Bank, will be invited as observers on an ad
hoc basis.

70.
The Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) will be based at SRFC, Dakar, Senegal. The role of
the RCU is to ensure the coordination and execution of the project and implementation of the work
plan, both at the regional and national levels. The RCU will consist of a Regional Project Coordinator
(RPC1), component leaders for Component 2 (fisheries) and Component 3 (biodiversity & water
quality), an Administrative Assistant, and other personnel as required on a part time basis. Outside
consultants may be recruited to support the team on specific matters.

71.
Each country will designate a National Project Focal Point (NPFP) and National Technical
Coordinator (NTC) who will serve as the main liaison persons between the project and the national

1 To be selected jointly by FAO and UNEP

33

technical experts and the broad range of stakeholders. NPFPs will normally be from the environment
ministries and NTCs from the fisheries ministries. National Coordination Units (NCUs) will be
established in each country, housed in a suitable government building, where the NPFP and/or NTC
will be located. The NCUs will coordinate activities at the national level including acting as secretariat
to the National Interministerial Committees (NICs) and for organizing stakeholder consultations.
NCUs may also contribute to coordinating demonstration projects at the national level.

Figure 1 � Project implementation arrangements

CCLME COUNTRIES
GEF AGENCIES
FAO
UNEP
M
a
r
AB
A ID
I J
D AN
A
N CO
C NVE
V N
E T
N IO
I N
SUB-REGIONAL FISHERIES
N
SE
S C
E R
C E
R T
E AR
A IA
I T
A
i
COMMISSION (SRFC)
n
e
Project
Regional
&
Coordinating Unit (RCU)
Steering
based at SRFC
Regional
Committee
Project Staff
Activities
C
o
a
s
National Coordination
t
Units (NCUs)
National Inter-ministerial
�Focal Point
Committees (NICs)
a
�Technical Coordinator
l
F
o
National Stakeholder
National Activities
r
Consultations
u
m

34

Annex 5 - Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to assist all project participants in assessing project
performance and impact, with a view to maximizing both. Monitoring is the continuous or periodic
review and surveillance by management of the implementation of an activity to ensure that all required
actions are proceeding according to plan. Evaluation is a process for determining systematically and
objectively the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the activities in light of their
objectives. The project will be evaluated on the basis of execution performance, monitoring of
milestones, output delivery, and project impact. The general and specific objectives of the project, its
outcomes and outputs and key indicators, as expressed in the Project Logical Framework (Annex 2)
and annual Work Plans, form the basis of this M&E plan.

The project will be evaluated on the basis of execution performance, monitoring of milestones, output
delivery, and project impact. The general and specific objectives of the project, its outcomes and
outputs and key indicators, as expressed in the Project Logical Framework (Annex ...) and annual
Work Plans, form the basis of this M&E plan.

The project's M&E program will be guided by indicators that represent a summary description of the
expected results and impacts. The indicators, as presented in the Project Logframe, should be
understood as being adaptable in the sense that they could be subject to revision during the course of
project implementation. Reasons for revision could include changing circumstances, a demonstrated
inability (either physical or practical) to collect reliable baseline data on an indicator such that change
cannot be reliably measured, interim monitoring that indicates that targets are either too high or too
low, or more appropriate indicators have been identified.

The project will be monitored and evaluated on the basis of:

�
Project execution. Monitoring will assess whether the management and supervision of project
activities is efficient and seek to improve the efficiencies, when needed, so as to improve the overall
effectiveness of project implementation. It is a continuous process, during which information about the
execution of activities programmed in the annual work plans will be collected, including the delivery
of quality outputs in a timely manner. Such information will facilitate the comparison of accomplished
against programmed tasks (according to the annual work plan), with a view to identifying any
corrective measures that may be necessary to improve performance. This activity will be the direct
responsibility of the Regional Project Coordinator, with guidance from the Project Steering
Committee, FAO and UNEP-GEF. See Table 1 for the execution performance indicators.

�
Project performance, milestones and delivered outputs. The project will be monitored
closely by the Project Steering Committee, FAO and UNEP-GEF through semi-annual reports and
quarterly implementation reviews. The project will be evaluated at mid-term (after two years of
project execution) and final (at the end of project execution) by external consultants.

�
Project impact (outcomes). Evaluation of the project's success in achieving its outcomes will
be monitored continuously throughout the project through semi-annual project progress reports, annual
summary progress reports, and a midterm and final evaluation. The key outcome indicators identified
in the project logframe will guide the evaluation of project impact. The outcome indicators will be
tested and refined, if necessary, and interim indicators and numerical targets with timeframes will be
agreed during the inception workshop. The UNEP-GEF task manager and FAO will work closely
together with the project coordinator to complete this task.

35

MONITORING OF PROJECT EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE

Day-to-day monitoring of progress and performance and reporting will be the responsibility of the
Regional Project Coordinator (RPC) in close consultation with National Technical Coordinators
(NTCs) of each participating countries. The RPC will report regularly to FAO and inform CSRP,
highlighting important issues and constraints for advice and guidance. The RPC will advise the FAO
budget holder, the lead technical unit (Fisheries Management and Conservation Service � FIMF), the
FAO Technical Cooperation Department and the UNEP-GEF task manager of any delays or
difficulties faced during implementation so that timely support/corrective measures can be provided.
FAO would consult with UNEP-GEF task manager and provide information on agreed remedial
actions taken. The FAO, in consultation with UNEP, will organize an independent mid-term review
and final project evaluation with a team of external consultants to assess the relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, progress and impacts of the project. Table 1 below contains a description of the
indicators that will be used to measure project performance.

Table 1: Indicators for Evaluating whether project management unit is operational

Indicator
Means of Verification
Regional coordination mechanisms and national project management
Project Inception Report and
structures established and functioning
Semi-annual Project Progress
Reports
Semi-annual and annual activity and progress reports are prepared in a
Arrival of reports to GEF and
timely and satisfactory manner
UNEP
Quarterly expenditure reports are prepared in a timely and satisfactory
Arrival of reports to GEF and
manner
UNEP
Performance targets, outputs, and outcomes are achieved as specified in the
Semi-annual and Annual
annual work plans.
progress reports
Deviations from the annual work plans are corrected promptly and
Work plans, timely
appropriately. Requests for deviations from approved budgets (budget
submission to, and approval
revisions) are submitted to and approved by GEF in a timely fashion.
by, GEF of revised budgets
Disbursements are made on a timely basis, and procurement is achieved
Financial reports of FAO
according to the procurement plan.
Report on the procurement of non-expendable equipment against the project
Inventory of Non-Expendable
budget filed in a timely manner
Equipment
Project Steering Committee (PSC) is providing guidance on project
Minutes of PSC meetings
implementation, monitoring project progress and project impact, and
fulfilling its Terms of Reference (TORs)
PSC is providing policy guidance, especially on achievement of project
Minutes of PSC meetings
impact.

PROJECT IMPACT

Evaluation of the project's success in achieving its outcomes will be monitored continuously
throughout the project by the Regional Project Coordinator, FAO and UNEP. An independent mid-
term review will be carried out at the end of Project Year 2 or beginning of Project Year 3 and an
independent final evaluation will be carried out just prior to project completion which would provide
elements of consideration to orient SAP implementation. The key performance indicators identified in
the project logframe will guide the evaluation of project impact. Methods of data collection must strive
to ensure that reliable baseline data has been collected/is collected and that impact data are collected
regularly throughout project implementation. The performance indicators will be tested and refined as
necessary and interim indicators and numerical targets with timeframes will be agreed during the
inception workshop. The UNEP-GEF task manager and FAO will work closely together with the
Regional Project Coordinator to complete this task.

CCLME Project objectives and outcomes: The objectives of the 5 year project and the project
outcomes (components) and planned outputs (expected results) provide the basis for this M&E plan.

36

The project objective is to strengthen the information base, human capacity and regional institutional
framework to enable countries of the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem to jointly identify
shared trans-boundary concerns and to demonstrate joint commitment to address these concerns.

Impact assessment will be confined to the Demonstration projects as appropriate. Each demo has its
own M&E plan linked to the present plan (see Annex 8).

The long term environmental objective is to reverse the depletion of fisheries and nursery and
reproductive habitat of the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem caused by over-fishing, habitat
changes, and changes in water quality by adoption of an ecosystem-based management approach.

In accordance with GEF IW guidelines for `Type 1' (Foundational) GEF IW, the CCLME project will
report on and rate the following core Process (P) and Stress Reduction (SR) Outcomes and Indicators
(Table 2):

Table 2 � Process & Stress Reduction Outcomes & Indicators for CCLME project
#
Outcome
Indicator(s)
1 Multi-country agreement on transboundary priority concerns, TDA finalized, agreed and adopted by
impacts and causes
project countries

2 Multi-country Agreement on governance reforms and
SAP (including National Action Plans)
investments to address priority transboundary concerns
finalized and adopted by project

countries

3 Sustainable legal/institutional framework for the CCLME
Regional framework adopted

4 Strengthened existing transboundary waters institutions
Stakeholder / beneficiary evaluations

confirm strengthening

5 Stakeholder involvement in transboundary waterbody
No of stakeholder groups (including
priority setting and strategic planning
NGOs) participating in TDA/SAP

process
6 7 functioning National Interministry Committees
Functional National Interministerial

committees (NICs)

7 3 multi-country policy proposals (as annexes to the SAP)
Policy paper on trade policies and

market mechanisms for sustainable
fisheries

Policy papers on minimum conditions
for access and introduction of EAF

Management guidelines developed on
spawning areas & other critical fisheries
habitat

8 5 management instruments for maintaining fish stocks,
Multi-country agreements on:
associated biodiversity and water quality (as annexes to the
Shared small pelagic stock
SAP)
management

Use of selective trawling gears &
methods
Management of migratory coastal
pelagics of importance to artisanal
fisheries

9 5 demonstrations implemented and costs/benefits evaluated:
Demonstration projects completed &

results evaluated

37

Additional project level outcomes to be reported will include:

Development of capacity and policy base for:

-
trans-boundary management of marine living resources
-
trans-boundary habitat management and biodiversity conservation
-
trans-boundary water quality management and pollution control

Impacts of the demonstration projects � while demonstration projects were selected, among other
criteria, for their potential to offer earlier effective stress reduction impacts than future activities of the
SAP, most of the demonstrations are orientated towards barrier removal and the demonstration of
good practices and will thus have process outcomes rather than environmental impacts during the 1st
phase of the CCLME program.

PROJECT MONITORING REPORTS

The Regional Project Coordinator, in close consultation with the National Focal Points and in
collaboration with the FAO Lead Technical Unit (FIMF), budget holder and TCAP (GEF Focal Point)
will be responsible for the preparation of the following mandatory reports that form part of the
monitoring process. The TCAP unit will formally submit the reports to UNEP and GEF.

The timely preparation and submission of the following mandatory reports form an integral part of the
monitoring process.

All technically cleared reports should be copied to TC-FPMIS-DataQuality@fao.org so that they
can be uploaded and maintained in the corporate project database under the FAO Field Program
Management Information System (FPMIS).

Monitoring, reporting and evaluation responsibilities are set out in Table 4 and timing and content of
the various reports in Table 5.

Project Inception Report

Each staff member of the project, including the National Focal Points and Demonstration Project
Coordinators, shall prepare for the Regional Project Coordinator an Inception Report including an
individual work plan for the first year. The Regional Project Coordinator shall prepare the Project
Inception Report in close collaboration with the National Focal Points, FAO, and UNEP. It will
include a detailed First Year Annual Work Plan divided into monthly timeframes detailing the
activities and progress indicators that would guide implementation during the first year of the project.
The Work Plan should include, inter alia, dates of specific field visits, national and regional meetings,
Regional Project Steering Committee and other key decision-making meetings, technical support and
review missions, workshops/training sessions to be organized outputs to be produced. The Report will
also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, including any
monitoring and evaluation requirements to measure project performance during the year.

The Inception Report will include a detailed narrative on the institutional roles and responsibilities and
coordinating action of project partners, progress to date on project establishment and start-up
activities, and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project implementation.

The draft report will be circulated to project partners for review and comments. The final version will
be submitted to the FAO (LTU) and by FAO (TCAP) to UNEP and GEF. The FAO budget holder will
ensure that the report is posted on the FAO Field Program Management Information System (FPMIS).

38

Quarterly Project Implementation Reports (QPIR)

Quarterly Project Implementation Reports are an internal FAO monitoring tool. QPIRs are prepared by
the FAO budget holder (BH) and require the BH to review the project regularly, to compare approved
work plans with actual performance, and to take corrective action as required. The QPIR is used to
identify constraints, problems or bottlenecks that impede timely implementation and take appropriate
remedial action.

Semi-Annual Project Progress Reports

The Regional Project Coordinator, in close consultation with the National Focal Points, will prepare
every six months a Project Progress Report in English, using the standard GEF format. The Project
Progress report should contain, inter alia:

a) an account of actual implementation of project activities compared to those scheduled in the
Annual Work Plans, and the achievement of outputs and progress towards achieving the
project objectives, based on the project progress and impact indicators as contained in the
Project Logical Framework in Annex 2, the Project Inception Report and as further defined in
Project Year 1;
b) an identification of any problems and constraints (technical, human, financial, etc.)
encountered in project implementation and the reasons for these constraints;
c) clear recommendations for corrective actions in addressing key problems resulting in lack of
progress in achieving results;
d) lessons learned; and
e) a detailed work plan for the next reporting period.

Project Implementation Review (PIR)

The Project Implementation Review is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. Starting
2006, the GEF Secretariat provides the scope and contents of the PIR. The PIR is an essential
management and monitoring tool and will be an important median for extracting lessons learned from
ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a PIR must be completed
by UNEP and FAO (both Implementing Agencies) for the year beginning 1 July and ending on 30
June. The PIR should be discussed with the Regional Project Steering Committee, FAO and UNEP-
GEF task manager. FAO (TCAP) and UNEP-GEF task manager would submit inputs to the PIR.

The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analyzed by FAO and UNEP-GEF task-manager by
focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The focal area PIRs are then
discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task Forces around November each year and
consolidated reports by focal area are collated by the GEF Independent Evaluation Office based on
Task Force findings.

Technical Reports

The Regional Project Coordinator will commission technical reports in accordance with the annual
Work Plan approved by the PSC. The drafts of any such technical reports must be submitted by the
Regional Project Coordinator to the FAO lead technical unit and UNEP-GEF task manager for review
and clearance, prior to finalization and publication. Copies of the technical reports will be distributed
to the participating countries and partners, UNEP, Abidjan Convention Secretariat, the GEF
Secretariat (as appropriate), FAO Representatives and FAO technical officers and librarians concerned
in the FAO National Offices and in FAO headquarters, and posted on the FAO Field Programme
Management Information System (FPMIS).

39

Field Documents on various technical matters may be prepared and issued in any appropriate
language, under the authority of the Regional Project Coordinator, with copies provided directly to the
FAO Lead Technical Unit, to the UNEP-GEF Task manager and the Abidjan Convention Secretariat,
to the officers concerned in the Recipient Governments, to the FAO Representatives and FAO
Technical Officers and Librarians concerned in the FAO Regional/Sub-regional offices.

Project Terminal Report

In the concluding months of the project and not later than three months before the end of the project,
the Regional Project Coordinator, in close consultation with the National Focal Points, will prepare a
draft Terminal Report. The draft Terminal Report will be made available by the FAO for consideration
at the final Coordination Committee meeting. The draft report should also be made available to the
final project evaluation mission. The Terminal Report will assess in a concise manner, the extent to
which the project's scheduled activities have been carried out, its outputs produced, progress made
towards the achievement of the Project's objective and long term environmental objective based on
objectively verifiable project progress and impact indicators, institutional structures and coordination
arrangements implemented, and lessons learned. It will also present recommendations for future
follow-up action arising out of the project. Upon conclusion of the project, the report will be finalized
by FAO and submitted to the participating countries (National Interministerial Committees), Project
Steering Committee, GEFSEC and UNEP, and posted on the FAO-FPMIS.

INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

Independent mid-term review and final evaluations will be organized by FAO in collaboration with
UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit. Given the tripartite nature of the project, they will be conducted
in close consultation with the partners (beneficiary countries) so as to facilitate the ownership of the
findings and recommendations. In this respect, FAO will consult the partners on the timing of the mid-
term review and final evaluation, terms of reference and evaluation team composition for appropriate
competencies and independence.

Mid-term Review

An independent Mid-term Review will be undertaken at the end of Project Year 2 or the beginning of
Project Year 3. The Mid-term Review will determine progress being made towards achievement of
outcomes and will identify corrective actions if necessary. It will, inter alia:

a) review the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation;
b) analyze effectiveness of implementation and partnership arrangements;
c) identify issues requiring decisions and remedial actions;
d) propose any mid-course corrections and/or adjustments to the Work Plan as necessary.

Terminal Evaluation

An independent final evaluation will take place three months prior to the final Project Steering
Committee meeting of the participating countries and will review project outcomes, impact, analyze
sustainability of results and whether the project has achieved the immediate objectives, global
environmental objectives; and contributed towards the development objectives. It will furthermore
provide recommendations for follow-up actions and address the following specific matters:

a) identify lessons learned about project design, implementation and management;
b) highlight technical achievements and lessons learned;
c) analyze whether the project has achieved any of the benchmarks for moving towards SAP
implementation;

Table 3: Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Responsibilities

40

This table summarizes the responsibilities and timing for the preparation of the monitoring evaluation
reports.

UNEP
FAO
Regional Steering
National Focal
Committee
Points
Monitor the agreed M&E plan in
Establish reporting
Provide overall guidance for
Prepare national level
accordance with the terms of
guidelines for country
the project implementation
annual work plans
agreement with GEFSEC
leaders, and ensure that they

meet reporting dates and
Reviewing and approving the
Prepare national
Receive consolidated half-yearly
provide reports of suitable
inception report and annual
inputs for
and annual activity, progress and
quality
project work plans
incorporation into the
financial reports and copies of all

semi-annual Project
substantive reports, from FAO
Review and comment on
Receive consolidated half-
Progress Reports and

half-yearly and annual
yearly activity and annual
annual PIR
Task manager or deputy to attend
activity and progress reports,
progress reports, and all

and participate fully in Regional
Regional Coordinator's
substantive reports, and
Supply continuing M
Project Steering Committee and to
reports, Technical
provide policy guidance to the
& E data in a timely
the extent possible in general
Committee's reports, and all
project on any matters arising
manner for the
project meetings, including
substantive reports submitted
from a reading of these
incorporation into the
meetings of the Technical
by countries
reports
M&E reports and as
Committee

requested by Project

Prepare consolidated half-
Monitor inputs of
Management
Engage and prepare terms of
yearly progress reports and
international and national

reference for independent M&E
annual summaries for UNEP,
partners, ensuring that project
Assist FAO in
consultants to conduct the mid-
and forward substantive and
obligations are fulfilled in a
carrying out special
term reviews and final evaluation
financial reports, with
timely and coordinated
reviews

comment as appropriate, in a
fashion

Facilitate the selective review of
timely manner to UNEP

Agree impact
the project by STAP and/or

Assist in developing linkages
indicators at national
GEFSEC
Carry out a program of
with other projects, thus
level and ensure

regular visits to countries to
ensuring the wider impact of
national M&E system
Carry out such other monitoring as
supervise activities, and pay
project work
provides appropriate
is determined in collaboration with
special attention to those

information in a
FAO (Task Force and Management
countries with serious

timely manner to the
Team)
implementation problems
regional system

Establish terms of reference

for any scientific advisers (or

internal STAT teams) to be
engaged as consultants to

advise on particular areas of

expertise, and/or provide

specialized training for
participants. Receive and
evaluate the reports of these
advisers, and act on any
problems noted within them

Table 4: Monitoring and evaluation reports

This refers to the six-monthly administrative and financial reporting, with a fixed format to be
respected by coordinators at the national and global levels, i.e. from country to FAO, from the Abidjan
Convention Secretariat to FAO and from FAO to GEFSEC. FAO financial rules and procedures will
be applied to all reports required under contracts stipulated with entities in the countries.

Report
Format and Content
Timing
Responsibility
Activity and Progress
(Reports will use a standard format

Reports
to be developed following the UNEP
Progress Report model)

Document the completion of
Person reporting and Date
Half-yearly
Country coordinators to
planned activities, and

FAO (Regional Project

41

describe progress in relation
Activity name and accomplishments

Coordinator) for use as
to the annual operating plan
within each activity this half-year

described in Table 3.4

(above)
Review any problems or
Targets for the next half-year

decisions with an impact on

performance
Comment on performance on

progress toward project goals, and

Provide adequate
problems/constraints

substantive data on methods

and outcomes for inclusion
Report on any unanticipated results

in consolidated project half-
and opportunities, and on any checks

yearly and annual progress
to project progress

reports

The Project Implementation
Any highlights
Yearly
FAO and
Review (PIR) reports

UNEP Task Manager /
DGEF to GEF Secretariat
Consolidated Half-yearly
Reports will use a standard format to

Progress Reports
be prepared following the GEFSEC
Progress Report model
Provide a summary of half-
Summary of Country Coordinators'
Half-yearly, within
UNEP-GEF task manager to
yearly reports of progress to
reports and participating
30 days of end of
provide progress report to
GEFSEC
institutions
each reporting
FAO for forwarding to

period, but not
GEFSEC.
Report on progress in each project
required where a

activity, within each Country and in
Consolidated
FAO (Regional Project
the project as a whole
Annual Summary
Coordinator) with input from

Report is due
National/ regional
Activities of scientific advisers and
Coordinators for forwarding
specialized training programs
by FAO/TCAP to GEFSEC

Summary of problems and proposed
Regional Project
actions
Coordinator will submit

reports to the Regional
Highlights
Project Steering Committee
Consolidated Annual
(Reports will use a standard format

Summary Progress reports
to be developed following the UNEP
Progress Report model)

Present a consolidated
A consolidated summary of the half-
Yearly, within 45
UNEP-GEF task manager to
summary review of progress
yearly reports, with evaluation
days of end of the
provide report to FAO for
in the project as a whole, in

reporting period
forwarding to GEFSEC.
each of its activities and in
Summary of progress and of all

each output
project activities
FAO (Regional Project

Coordinator) in collaboration
Provides summary review
Description of progress under each
with National Focal Points;
and assessment of progress
activity and in each output
FAO/TCAP will forward
under each activity set out in

report to GEFSEC.
the annual workplan,
Review of delays and problems, and

highlighting significant
of action proposed to deal with these
Regional Project
results and progress toward

Coordinator will submit
achievement of the overall
Review of plans for the following
reports to the Project
work program
period, with report on progress under
Steering Committee

each heading
Provides a general source of

information, used in all
general project reporting
Financial reports

Details project expenses and
Disbursements and expenses
Half-yearly
All contracted institutions, to
disbursements
statements
FAO (Regional Project
Coordinator)
Summary financial reports
(Standardized format, see Annex 4A,

4B, 5A and 5B)

Consolidates information on
Disbursements and expenses by
Half-yearly, within
FAO Budget Holder ;
project expenses and
category. Requirement for coming
30 days of end of
cleared and forwarded to

42

disbursements
period [Annex 5A]
period
GEFSEC by FAO Finance
Division

Table 5: CCLME Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

Type of M&E activity
Responsible Parties
Time-frame
Budget
US$ *1
Regional Project Coordinator (RPC)
Within first two months of project

Regional Inception Workshop Component Managers (PMs)
start up
50,000
FAO, CSRP, UNEP-GEF
Project Inception Report
RPC NFPs & NTC
Immediately after workshop
10,000

FAO, UNEP-GEF
Project Implementation
Project Team
Annual
-
Review (PIR)
FAO, CSRP, UNEP-GEF
RPC +NPFPs
Immediately after Inception
75,000
Regional Project Steering
Participating countries
workshop and subsequently at
Committee Meetings
FAO and UNEP-GEF
least once a year
Main partners/donors
Quarterly Project
RPC
Quarterly (compare delivery with
30,000
Implementation Reports QPIR

approved work plans, to take

� internal FAO monitoring
remedial action as required.
tool
Six monthly Project Progress
RPC & NPFCs / NTCs
June and December of each year
-
Reports
FAO, UNEP-GEF
Project team, FAO
To be determined by RPC, PSC,
50,000
Technical reports
Consultants as required
FAO, UNEP-GEF
UNEP-GEF
UNEP-GEF in consultation with:
At mid-point of project

Independent Tripartite Mid-
Project team, Participating countries
implementation
70 000
term Review
FAO
UNEP-GEF in consultation with:
At the end of project
75 000
Independent Tripartite Final
External Consultants (evaluation team)
implementation
Evaluation
Project team and Participating countries,
FAO
RPC with support of NPFPs and rest of
At least one month before the end
20,000
Terminal Report
Project team
of the project
FAO and UNEP-GEF
TOTAL Indicative Cost in $US (excludes project team and staff time and UNEP staff time, travel expenses
380,000
and estimated contributions of main project partners (PRCM, AFD, FAO/Nansen EAF) etc.

43

Annex 6 � Preliminary TDA (abridged version)

Preliminary TDA for the CANARY CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM (adopted
unanimously by the CCLME countries on 4 September 2006) � Abridged version.

Executive summary

A Preliminary Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) to identify and analyze trans-boundary
issues affecting the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME) project was completed at a
workshop held at Hotel Ocean, Yoff, Dakar, Senegal, from 18 to 20 July 2006. The participants
comprised regional and international experts including national project focal points, national project
technical coordinators, technical representatives of supporting international organizations and various
other experts. In addition to their collective knowledge and expertise, participants had the benefit of
access to results of national consultations held in 6 of the 7 countries, trans-boundary scientific
assessments and presentations, a preliminary regional data inventory, results of a trial TDA exercise
conducted at the project's first regional workshop (October 10-12 2005) and various other information
sources.

The participants confirmed the existence of three main domains of trans-boundary issues affecting the
CCLME � declining fisheries, habitat modification and changes in water quality. Two further issue
categories � ecosystem variability and loss of biodiversity � which had been raised as important issues
in some of the national consultations and in the first regional consultation, were included in the
analyses for the other three categories. After splitting into three multidisciplinary working groups,
participants proceeded to identify and analyze specific trans-boundary issues in each category. The
specific issues identified were as follows:

- Declining fisheries and changes in ecosystem - declining or vulnerable small pelagic resources,
declining demersal finfish fisheries, decline and vulnerability of elasmobranchs (sharks & rays),
decline of marine turtles, decline of cetaceans and uncertain status of tuna resources;

- Habitat modification - disappearance and destruction of mangroves, degradation and modification
of seabed habitat and seamounts, degradation and modification of wetlands (sensu Ramsar: coastal
zones, coral reefs, estuaries);

- Declining water quality � changing salinity upstream of river mouths, hydrocarbon pollution
(actual or threatened), eutrophication of coastal waters, alien invasive species, sediment
mobilization in water column and toxicity from pesticides.

Following detailed analysis of each specific issue, including consideration of cross-cutting economic
and governance factors, the results of each group were written up as a series of tables and then
synthesized to identify the principal generic causes of the problems and the optimal domains of
intervention to address the generic causes. The principal generic causes of the problems driving
fisheries declines, habitat modification and changes in water quality were identified as (from most
direct to least direct):

- Human driven resource exploitation (fisheries and other resources)
- Dams, irrigation and other water-related infrastructures
- Pollution from agriculture, municipal waste, ballast water and industry2
- Impacts of land use including tourism development and urbanization
- Climate change and drought
- Population pressure, economic development and lack of alternatives
- Weakness of management systems and lack of regulations and enforcement

2 The risk of oil spills from petroleum extraction and transport was also identified as an important concern;
pollution from mariculture and coastal aquaculture were also identified as possible future concerns.

44

- Lack of awareness and human capacity and limited stakeholder participation
- Lack of data, monitoring and modeling of complex ecosystems
- Lack of coordination between sectors

The optimal domains of intervention to address the generic causes were identified as:

- Assessment & monitoring of resources & ecosystems, and information management
- Development of sustainable management and exploitation systems
- Implementation of regional and international agreements and action plans
- Human and institutional capacity building
- Public awareness raising and stakeholder participation

While preliminary in nature, the Preliminary TDA can be considered as robust given the substantial
expertise and knowledge base of the workshop participants, strong supporting information (especially
the national consultations) and the high degree of consistency with the other regional workshops and
the national consultations.

To conclude, the Preliminary TDA is recommended as a reliable basis for the formulation of a
Preliminary SAP and CCLME project, including demonstration actions.

A fully detailed TDA will be conducted as part of the main project.

Introduction

The GEF through its International Waters portfolio (GEF IW) seeks to help groups of countries to
better understand and collectively address environmental problems relating to shared trans-boundary
water bodies, such as international lakes, river systems or Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs).

In order to ensure effectiveness and consistency between projects, GEF IW has promoted the process
known as `TDA-SAP' or Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis, leading into a Strategic Action
Program, for each water body.

The TDA is an objective method based on the best available technical information and expertise to
identify, analyze and prioritize trans-boundary environmental problems or concerns relating to the
water body and to recommend solutions to address the problems. It is intended as a communication
between the technical and decision making levels.

The SAP is a strategic action plan supported by governments to address the trans-boundary problems,
based on the recommendations of the TDA but which also takes full account of societal priorities. The
SAP normally includes a vision statement and a series of ecosystem quality objectives (`EcoQOs') or
targets that are understood by society but also technically meaningful.

The TDA-SAP is not a `once only' process, but a cycle that may be repeated as new information
becomes available and as new priorities emerge. The full process may thus be repeated every 5 or 10
years, depending on the perceived need and resources available.

Early GEF IW projects attempted to conduct a first TDA-SAP cycle during the project preparation
phase, but experience has shown that available information, time and resources during the preparation
phase are generally insufficient to conduct a full TDA-SAP.3 Instead, it has become the practice to
conduct the full TDA-SAP during the first part of the project implementation phase, while a

3 A notable exception was the Benguela Current LME project (BCLME), which benefited from extensive
groundwork done by earlier projects, with the result that all the necessary information and expertise were
available to conduct the TDA and develop the SAP.

45

`Preliminary TDA' may be conducted during the preparation phase to guide project design and the
SAP process initiated through a Pre-SAP and a series of demonstration actions.

In the case of the CCLME project, for which a considerable amount of technical groundwork has been
achieved by earlier projects and where certain regional frameworks already exist (SRFC, ATLAFCO,
Abidjan Convention, PRCM MPAs strategy), it was decided to conduct a Preliminary TDA and to
prepare a Preliminary SAP (`Pre-SAP').

Method

The method adopted for the CCLME Preliminary TDA is derived from a refined TDA-SAP
methodology developed in 2004 by the University of Plymouth in the UK. The method is based on a
recent review of GEF IW experience globally, including LME projects (see references). The TDA
method used comprises the following main steps:

- Fact finding � undertaken by national, regional and international technical specialists
- Scoping of trans-boundary issues � identify main issue categories and specific issues within each
category
- Causal chain analysis � analysis of the causes (immediate, underlying and root causes) of each
issue
- Economic & governance analysis � analysis of economic and governance factors to compliment the
causal chain analysis
- Prioritizing the issues � evaluation and ranking the issues according to environmental impact,
socio-economic consequences, future severity, risks and uncertainties
- Identifying and prioritizing solutions � identify and prioritize actions to address the priority issues
according the effectiveness and feasibility

The method used for the CCLME Preliminary TDA is based on the above with the following
adjustments:

- Fact finding was based on expert presentations to project workshops, a preliminary regional data
inventory, national assessments and consultations and expert regional trans-boundary issue
assessments � a full TDA would be based on an expansion of similar elements;
- Scoping of trans-boundary issues was based on expert judgment and comparison with other LMEs
- a full TDA would normally include a more detailed process;
- Causal chain analysis focused on immediate and underlying causes, since root causes (such as
population growth) are generally outside the scope of GEF environmental projects � a full TDA
would include a more detailed analysis of the root causes;
- Economic and governance aspects were covered by expert opinion - a full TDA would normally
include detailed economic and governance analyses of each issue4 ;
- Prioritization of issues and solutions was partially achieved based on expert judgment - a full TDA
would normally include full cost effectiveness and feasibility assessments.

Results

Fact finding

Facts assembled for the Preliminary TDA included 1) expert presentations to project workshops; 2) a
regional data inventory; 3) a series of national assessments and consultations; 4) expert reports and
presentations on the CCLME ecosystem and trans-boundary issues affecting fisheries, habitat
modification and water quality. All these information sources are provided on the accompanying CD.

4 However, the fisheries issue benefited from an earlier regional analysis of factors of non-sustainability
affecting fisheries in West Africa & the Mediterranean conducted by FAO as part of a global series of
workshops (Gr�boval et al, 2006).

46

Expert presentations to the 1st regional workshop included presentations on the policy and governance
framework relevant to the CCLME and scientific information on the CCLME itself. Scientific
information of particular relevance included presentations on 1) the existence of three principal zones
of the CCLME (northern upwelling zone, southern mangrove/estuary dominated zone and oceanic
zone); 2) variability of the upwelling system and trans-boundary movement of pelagic stocks; 3) the
critical contribution of estuaries to the CCLME in terms of critical habitat, productivity and
biodiversity. A complementary presentation to the TDA workshop examined the dynamic interface
between the tropical circulation, Canary Current and the upwelling in the northern part of the CCLME
and related this to the dynamics of stocks of small pelagic fish (sardines etc.).

The regional data inventory sought to identify important information sources on the CCLME in three
main areas � ecosystem productivity, fish & fisheries and pollution & ecosystem health � and also
conducted a bibliographic review in the field of oceanography, demonstrating that knowledge of the
physical oceanography of the CCLME on the macro scale is relatively advanced, while oceanographic
processes on a smaller scale, and links between oceanographic processes and fisheries productivity,
are less well known.

The national assessments and consultations in 6 of the 7 countries (Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Cape
Verde, Guinea Bissau and Guinea) each included a TDA exercise based on the perception from the
national level. The national assessments provided important information illustrating the differences
between different zones and countries of the CCLME as well as a foundation for the causal chain
analysis of the Preliminary TDA.

The expert reports on the CCLME included 1) a profile of the CCLME, based on a book to be
published by NOAA on the LMEs of the world; 2) an assessment by FAO and consultants on fishery
resources of the CCLME and an analysis of the trans-boundary issues affecting the main resources; 3)
presentations by UNEP and consultants on trans-boundary issues of habitat degradation and water
quality in the CCLME.

Scoping of trans-boundary issues

A first identification of the trans-boundary issues affecting the CCLME was made at the 1st regional
CCLME workshop held at Saly, Senegal in October 2005. The results of that workshop are presented
in detail in the relevant workshop report. Subsequently, the national consultations each reviewed the
results of the Saly meeting and undertook their own scoping of issues, the results appearing in the
national reports. The final steps were 1) to review the earlier scoping exercises and to confirm the
main categories of trans-boundary issue concerning the CCLME and 2) identify specific issues within
each category. Based on information available to the workshop, including a new presentation on
sources of ecosystem variability within the CCLME and a review of the issues presented by UNEP,
the workshop adopted a simplified classification based on three issue areas: 1) declining fisheries
resources; 2) habitat degradation and 3) declining water quality. Ecosystem variability and
biodiversity loss (including threatened species) were treated as an integral part of declining marine
living resources. The different working groups then identified specific issues within each category.
The specific issues identified by the working groups are as set out in Table 1.

Table 1 � Specific issues identified by multi-disciplinary working groups

Declining marine living resources Habitat degradation
Declining water quality
& ecosystem change

Decline and/or vulnerability of
Disappearance and destruction of
Salinity changes in estuarine and
small pelagic resources
mangroves
terrestrial coastal environment

Decline of demersal resources
Degradation and modification of
Hydrocarbon pollution

47

(finfish, cephalopods, crustaceans)
seabed and seamounts

Eutrophication of coastal waters due
Decline, threat and vulnerability of
Degradation and modification of
to nutrient inputs
elasmobranch resources
wetlands (sensu Ramsar : coastal

zones, coral reefs, estuaries)
Alien invasive species
Decline of marine turtles

Sediment mobilisation in water
Decline of marine mammals
column

Vulnerable / uncertain status of tuna
Toxicity from pesticides used in
resources
agriculture

Causal chain analysis

A first trial causal chain analysis was carried out at the 1st regional workshop in Saly, the results of
which are presented in the relevant workshop report, which identified seven generic causes of the
trans-boundary environmental problems identified. Subsequently, each country undertook its own
causal chain analysis, resulting in the identification of a diversity of underlying causes, presented in
detail in the various national reports.

As a final stage, the Preliminary TDA workshop identified approximately 54 underlying causes or
contributory factors (see Annex 1). Of these, some (approximately 10) were common to all three
domains and there was also some redundancy (repetition) among the causes for a given domain, such
that the total number of distinct underlying causes was closer to 40.

The 40 or so distinct underlying causes were further reclassified into 10 generic causes which can be
arranged beginning with the `more direct', predominantly `physical', causes and ending with the `less
direct', predominantly `non-physical', causes as presented in Table 2.

Table 2 � Generic causes of trans-boundary environmental problems (Preliminary TDA workshop)

More direct
Human induced
Dams, irrigation Pollution from
Land use
Climate change
resource
and other water-
agriculture,
including
and drought
exploitation
related
mariculture,
tourism

(fisheries and
infrastructures
municipal,
development and
other resources)

ballast and
urbanisation
industrial*

sectors
Less direct
Population
Weakness of
Lack of
Lack of data,
Lack of
pressure, need
management
awareness,
monitoring and
coordination
for economic
systems and lack human capacity
modelling of
among sectors
development and of regulations
and limited
complex
limited
and their
stakeholders
ecosystems
alternatives
enforcement
participation

*including the risk of petroleum pollution from extraction or maritime transport

Economic and governance cross-cutting analysis

The 1st regional workshop, operating to a slightly different methodology, charged both the
identification and the causal chain analysis of trans-boundary problems to specialised groups on
fisheries, marine & coastal environment and governance. The method adopted did not include specific
steps of economic and governance analysis, although did involve specialists in these areas; a number
of contributory economic and governance underlying causes and factors were identified (see 1st
workshop report).

48

Subsequently to the 1st regional workshop, as part of an entirely separate process, FAO organised a
regional workshop in Dakar on the theme `Factors of Non-Sustainability and of over-exploitation of
marine fisheries' (in West Africa and the Mediterranean) (Greboval et al, 2006). The general findings
of that workshop are included in this report for easy reference (Annex 3). Because of time and
methodological constraints, it was not possible to include consideration of the results of the non-
sustainability workshop during the Preliminary TDA workshop. Nevertheless, the results may be
considered as a valuable complementary analysis, specific to fisheries.

In the Preliminary TDA workshop, each working group included individuals designated on the basis
of their expertise and professional interest to ensure the consideration of economic and governance
factors in the causal chain analysis (Annex 2).

Table 3 � Economic & governance factors highlighted in Preliminary TDA workshop

Issue category
Fisheries
Habitat
Water quality

Economic factors
Market demands
Urbanisation
Externalisation of
Poverty
Poverty
environmental costs

Governance
Insufficient regulation of
Unregulated tourism
River basin management
factors
access in artisanal fisheries
activities
that does not incorporate
Weakness of management
Lack of wetlands
coastal issues
systems
management policies
Lack of ICZM, land use
Insufficient management at
Absence of conservation
and economic
regional level
policy
development planning
Low regard for technical
Lack of or inappropriate
Lack of compliance with
advice
MCS
regional & international
Poorly negotiated access
Inadequate regulations
conventions/protocols
agreements
Inequitable fisheries
Lack of national
Lack of coordination
agreements
regulations on pollution
between different sectors
and EIA
Insufficient application of
existing regulations
Weak participation of
stakeholders

It may be observed that a larger number of governance factors were cited as underlying causes than
economic factors. In the case of fisheries, this is consistent with the earlier analysis conducted by the
`Delphi exercise' on factors of non-sustainability in fisheries, in which governance factors were
identified as the prime factors of non-sustainability for marine fisheries in West Africa. As regards all
issue categories, the Preliminary TDA workshop was consistent with the 1st CCLME workshop which
also identified governance factors more frequently than economic factors as underlying causes. The
difference may also reflect the smaller number of economic factors involved (while not necessarily
implying they are less important) and the shortage of economics specialists involved. This somewhat
inconclusive analysis highlights the need for full economic and governance analyses in the full TDA
to be undertaken within the main CCLME project.

Domains of intervention for the future SAP

In a final step of the analysis, working groups identified solutions or actions to address the causes of
specific trans-boundary problems. An approximate total of 87 actions was identified, spread between
fisheries (43 actions), habitat degradation (24 actions) and water quality (21 actions). Following
further analysis, these actions were grouped into five domains of intervention, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 � Indicated domains of intervention for the future Strategic Action Program

49

A. Monitoring,
B. Sustainable
C. Implementation of
D. Human and
E. Public awareness
assessment and data management and
regional and international institutional capacity and stakeholder
management
use
agreements and action
building
participation raising

plans

Discussion & conclusions

A consistent pattern of similarity emerges between 1st regional consultation, the national consultations,
the fisheries `Delphi exercise' and the final Preliminary TDA workshop results. This suggests that the
result of the Preliminary TDA may be considered robust, despite its preliminary nature, and thus a
reliable basis for formulating the Preliminary SAP (`pre-SAP') and for designing the CCLME project.

The reduction to just three principal domains of environmental problems � declining fisheries,
degradation of habitat and declining water quality � reflects a mature analysis. The question of
whether `ecosystem variability' constituted a problem was extensively debated at all stages and
eventually recognised as a causal factor rather than as a problem in itself. `Loss of biodiversity' was
also not considered as a problem per se, but rather as one of the environmental impacts of declining
marine living resources, habitat degradation and changing water quality. However, declines of certain
threatened species (turtles, marine mammals) were highlighted as specific trans-boundary concerns. In
the case of tuna fisheries, the perceived uncertainty of the status of the resource and the impacts of the
fishery was the major concern, to be addressed by fuller participation in ICCAT.

The relatively small number of specific concerns under each category (fisheries � 6 concerns; habitat
degradation � 3 concerns; water quality � 6 concerns) also reflects a relatively mature analysis while
the especially small number of issues under habitat degradation (just three issues - mangroves, benthic
habitats, wetlands) reflects the universal nature of the habitat issue and the need for maintenance of all
critical habitat. The identification of sea mounts as an important habitat to conserve is novel for the
region and noteworthy. Water quality problems constitute the most diverse array, reflecting the
various land-based and sea-based origins of water quality problems.

In contrast to the small number of specific issues, the identified underlying causes (54 in total, 40 after
elimination of common issues and redundancy) were much more numerous, confirming the
complexity of the trans-boundary issues. The identification of just 10 generic underlying causes,
however, confirms the dominant influence of a smaller number of factors.

The high number of actions (87) recommended to address the underlying issues illustrates the diversity
of options and also the need for multi-faceted approaches. However, following synthesis, the actions
were classified into just five domains of intervention, confirming that complex trans-boundary issues
can ultimately be addressed through a simply structured programme.

To conclude, the results of the Preliminary TDA provide the basis for the formulation of a Preliminary
SAP and, thereafter, the formulation of a project to support continuation of the TDA-SAP process and
the undertaking of a limited number of demonstration and other actions to address the identified
problems.

References

BCLME Programme, 1999. Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis. Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem
Programme. Namibia, November 1999.

CCLME Project, 2006. Report of the 1st Sub-Regional Workshop held at Hotel Savana Saly, M-bour,
10-12 October 2005.

50

CCLME Project, 2006. National Consultations reports (Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau,
Senegal, Mauritania, Morocco).

Gr�boval, D.; Cunningham, S,; Bodiguel, C.; Maguire, J-J. (�ds). Rapport et documents de l'Atelier
regional sur les facteurs de non-durabilite de de sur-exploitation des p�ches maritimes. Dakar,
S�n�gal, 28 novembre � 1er d�cembre 2005. FAO Rapport sur les p�ches. No. 795. Rome, FAO, 2006.
74 p.

Heileman, S., 2006. Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Extract from a book to be published on
the LMEs of the world. NOAA, 2006.

Mee, L., M. Bloxham et al. TDA/SAP Training Course. TRAINSEACOAST TDA/SAP Programme,
University of Plymouth. October, 2004.

Sow, B., 2006. Inventaire R�gional des Donn�es Environnementaltes et Bibliographie
Oc�anographique Pr�liminaires. Dakar, May 2006.

Tandstad, M., B. Samb, A. Mendy, A-M Caramelo, M. Diop & A. Cooke, 2006. Resources, fisheries
and trans-boundary problems in the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME). Dakar, July,
2006.

51

Annex 1 � Table of underlying causes

Bold = common cause between domains
Italic = redundancy within a domain

Declining fisheries
Habitat degradation
Changing water quality
1.Overcapacity
1. Construction of dams
Dam operation and freshwater
1.1 Market demands
2. Unregulated tourism activities
extraction
1.2 Excessive fishing effort
3. Urbanisation
Agricultural practices that overuse
1.3 Transfer of capacity
4. Poverty
fertilisers and pesticides
1.4 Insufficient regulation of access 5. Lack of wetlands management
Aquaculture development that relies
in artisanal fisheries
policies (including legislation)
on excessive feed inputs
1.5 Fishers' migration
6. Climate change
Ballast water discharge
2. Complexity of ecosystem
7. Deforestation
Inadequate tourism development
2.1 Lack of information and
8. Mariculture
planning
understanding
9. Insufficient training and
Drought and land degradation,
2.2 Insufficient monitoring and
awareness
desertification, climate change and
assessment
10. Lack of alternatives (energy,
variability
2.3 Slow population recovery
construction)
River basin management that
(sharks)
11. Demographic pressure
does not incorporate the coastal
2.4 Insufficient knowledge of bio-
12. Erosion
issues, lack of integrated coastal
ecology of resources
13. Hydro-agricultural schemes
zone management, land use and
3. Weakness of management
14. Absence of conservation policy
economic development planning
systems
15. Lack of alternatives (energy,
(agricultural, aquaculture, etc.)
3.1 Insufficient management at
construction)
Lack of analysis of available
regional level
16. Lack of or inappropriate MCS alternatives to dams and other
3.2 Low regard for technical advice 17. Inadequate regulations
infrastructure related to energy and
3.3 Poorly negotiated access
18. Waste collection and treatment
irrigation development
agreements
systems (urban, maritime)
Insufficient management of oil
3. 4 Lack of coordination between
inappropriate or absent
extraction and transport municipal
different sectors (tourism and
19. Increasing fishing effort
and industrial wastewater coupled
coastal zone management and oil
(including inequitable fisheries
with lack of pollution treatment
and offshore mining)
agreements)
facilities and equipment for
4. Insufficient application of

monitoring and combating
existing regulations
accidental pollution
4.1 Weak monitoring, control and
Lack of compliance with regional
surveillance
and international
4. 2 Illegal, unregulated and
conventions/protocols as well as
unreported fishing
lack of national capacity to address
4.3 bad fishing practice and use of
the issues included in these
non efficient gear
agreements
5. Insufficient human and
Lack of national regulations on
institutional capacity development
pollution and EIA and weak
6. etc...Weak participation of
enforcement/monitoring capacity
stakeholders
Externalisation of environmental

costs
7. Variability of ecosystem
Lack of information/data on water
7.1 Environmental fluctuations
quality (including airborne input) as
7.2 impacts of climate change
well as modelling and monitoring

capacity
8. Habitat loss
Lack of public awareness of water

quality issues, notification
9. Poverty
procedures and other possible local

actions
Total 22
Total 18
Total 14

52

Annex 2 � Working Groups of the Preliminary TDA workshop
Group
Decline of marine resources
Degradation of habitat
Changing water
quality
Bilingual animator
[Group self animated]
Dr. Charlotte Karibuhoye,
Takehiro Nakamura,
FIBA, Bissau
UNEP
Consultant authors of Dr. Birane Samb, CRODT
Ousman Drammeh, NEA,
M Nam, Senegal, NEA
reports
Senegal. Asberr Mendy,
Gambia
Fisheries, Gambia

Expertise in
Dr. Marek Ostrowski, IMR
-
-
ecosystem
productivity
Expertise in fisheries Dr. Mahfoudh O T O Sidi,
Mamadou Lamine Sy,
Djibril Balde, Guinea
IMROP, Mauritania
UCAD, Senegal
Bissau, AGC
Dr. Sory Traore, CNSHB,
Matthieu Bernardon, IUCN,
Guinea
Mauritania
Dr. Chbani Idrissi, INRH,

Morocco
Dr. Tore Stromme, IMR,
NOrway
Dr. Mbareck Souelin, Fisheries,
Mauritania
Dr. Virigina Perez Correia,
Fisheries (CIPA), Bissau
Expertise in
Nina Doetinchem, CCLME
Th�ophile Richard,
Dr. Momodou Sarr,
ecosystem health
Nuno Ribeiro, Environment,
Environment, Guinea
NEA Gambia
Cape Verde
Kama Khamath, SINEPAD,
Dr. Ahmed Senhoury,
Senegal
PRCM, Mauritania
Bora Masumbuko, ISTAM,
Omar Bald�, SINEPAD,
Senegal
Senegal
Chedly Rais, CCLME

Seco Cassama, Environment,
Bissau
Socioeconomic

Bart�l�mi Batieno, PRCM

expertise
Expertise in
Moh'd El Aroussi, Fisheries,
Maria I Lopes, Environment, Nass�re Kaba (Abidjan
governance
Morocco
CapeVerde
Convention)
Alassane Dieng, GIRMaC,
Babacar Diouf,
Senegal
Environment, Senegal
Expertise in
Dr. Demba Kane
Matar Diouf, IUCN, Senegal Gilles Hosch, IUCN
stakeholder
CCLME/ADEPA
Saihou Njai, NEA, Gambia
participation

Rapporteur
Dr. Merete Tandstad, Fisheries, Dr. Luis Tito de Morais IRD Andrew Cooke
FAO
FAO/CCLME

T. Nakamura UNEP
National
Dr. Moussa Diop (Fisheries, Senegal)
Socio-economiist
Dr. Pierre Failler, CEMARE, UK
Information sources
Dr. Michael Vakily, CSRP/GTZ/GOPA
Stakeholder part.
Dr. Charlotte Defountaubert IUCN
LMEs
Dr. Brad Brown NOAA, USA
Total
15 +
14 +
10 +
Countries
Morocco 2
Morocco 0
Morocco 0
representation by
Mauritania 2
Mauritania 0
Mauritania 1
nationals
Senegal 2
Senegal 3
Senegal 3
Gambia 1
Gambia 3
Gambia 2
Cape Verde 1
Cape Verde 1
Cape Verde 0
Guinea Bissau 1
Guinea Bissau 2
Guinea Bissau 1
Guinea 1
Guinea 1
Guinea 0

53

Annex 3- General conclusions of the regional workshop on non-sustainability factors of
over-exploitation of marine capture fisheries (Dakar, 28 November to 1 December
2005):

Countries of the West African region are in a situation of disjuncture between a
development/conservation fisheries model and a management/conservation fisheries model with the
result that they do not yet possess the new modes of governance, approaches, means and techniques to
establish an effective management/conservation system. Current policies, institutions and legal
instruments need to be analysed and adapted to the new requirements.

Well balanced attention must be paid to the four dimensions of non-sustainability (bio-ecological,
economic, social and institutional). This should permit the correction of a series of numerous
erroneous perceptions of the fisheries sector held by actors (e.g. concerning revenues, capital, the
notion of `fishing communities' and of the `opinions' of fishers)

The lack of good governance, the pressures due to an imbalance between supply and demand (very
strong demand and numerous resources already over-exploited and ecosystems modified or degraded),
the complexity and lack of information as well as inadequate incentives were identified as the four
major types of factors of non-sustainability.

54

Annex 4 � TDA Synthesis & tables

CCLME PRELIMINARY TDA � Global synthesis

Generic underlying causes
(Direct

>

Indirect)

Human induced
Dams, irrigation Pollution from
Land use
Climate change Population
Weakness of
Lack of
Lack of data,
Lack of
resource
and other water-
agriculture,
including
and drought
pressure, need for management
awareness,
monitoring and
coordination
exploitation
related
mariculture,
tourism

economic
systems and lack human capacity modelling of
among sectors
(fisheries and
infrastructures
municipal, ballast development

development and of regulations and and limited
complex
other resources)

and industrial
and

limited alternatives their enforcement stakeholders
ecosystems

sectors
urbanisation

participation

Domains of major trans-boundary problems

Fisheries
Habitat degradation
Water quality

Principal domains of intervention

A. Monitoring, assessment and B. Sustainable
C. Implementation of regional and D. Human and institutional
E. Public awareness and
data management
management and use
international agreements and action capacity building
stakeholder participation raising

plans

55

CCLME Preliminary TDA � Synthesis Matrix � Fisheries

Specific trans-boundary
Major underlying causes (1, 2, Domains of intervention (A, B,
environmental problem or 3, 4...)
C, D...)
concern

1, 2.2, 2.4, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6, 7
A1, A2, A3, A4, B, C, D3, D7,
Decline and/or vulnerability
D8, D9, D10, E1, E2, E4, F
of small pelagic resources

1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
A1, A2, A3, A4, B, C, D1, D2,
Decline of demersal
D3, D5, D6, D7, E4, F, G
resources (finfish,
cephalopods, crustaceans)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
A1, A2, A5, D3, D4, D6, F
Decline, threat and
vulnerability of
elasmobranch resources

2.1, 4, 5, 8, 9
D1, D6, D9, D11, D12, E2
Decline of marine turtles

2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 4
A2, F
Decline of marine
mammals

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 4, 6
E2, E3, F , G
Status of Tuna resources

56

CCLME Preliminary TDA � Fisheries - Major underlying causes and domains of intervention
Major underlying causes (1, 2, 3...)
Proposed domains of action (A, B, C...)

1.Overcapacity
A. Assessment and monitoring of fisheries and
1.1 Market demands
resources
1.2 Excessive fishing effort
A1. Regional assessment and monitoring of shared resources
1.3 Transfer of capacity
through regional surveys
1.4 Insufficient regulation of access in artisanal
A2. Improved biological and ecological data collection
fisheries
system
A3. Improved monitoring to identify spawning areas ;
1.5 Fishers' migration
A4 Studies on identities of shared stocks

A5. Put in place specific monitoring and assessment plans
2. Complexity of ecosystem
(sharks)
2.1 Lack of information and understanding

2.2 Insufficient monitoring and assessment
B. Common strategy for data management (survey data
2.3 Slow population recovery (sharks)
and fisheries statistics)
2.4 Insufficient knowledge of bio-ecology of resources

C. Environmental variability
3. Weakness of management systems
C1. Up-welling/river discharge forecast
3.1 Insufficient management at regional level
C2. Improved understanding of fish�climate interactions
3.2 Low regard for technical advice
through joint resource environmental surveys, use of remote
3.3 Poorly negotiated access agreements
sensing, modelling, and information sharing
3. 4 Lack of coordination between different sectors

(tourism and coastal zone management and oil and
D. Sustainable management and use
offshore mining)
D1 Promotion of more selective/less destructive gear
(incentives)

D2 Harmonised by-back schemes (objectives and
4. Insufficient application of existing regulations
approaches)
4.1 Weak monitoring, control and surveillance
D3 Harmonised sub-regional policies (objectives and
4. 2 Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing
approaches)
4.3 bad fishing practice and use of non efficient gear
D4 Regulate access to resource through development of

specific policies (sharks)
5. Insufficient human and institutional capacity
D5 Pilot activity on Regional networks of MPAs for fisheries
development
management
D6 development of alternative livelihoods

D7 Strengthening of forums between scientists and fisheries
6. etc...Weak participation of stakeholders
managers,

D8 Specific effort regulations in spawning areas throughout
7. Variability of ecosystem
the region for the species
7.1 Environmental fluctuations
D9 Put in place a concerted management structure
7.2 impacts of climate change
D10 Put in place mechanisms catch quota system in the sub-

region
8. Habitat loss
D11. Promote alternative activities

(e.g. ecotourism)
D12. better zoning for coastal management
9. Poverty

E. Strengthening of capacities (human and
institutional)
E1. Improve monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)
mechanisms )also regional)
E2 strengthening participation in international and regional
processes
E3 Self enforcement approach
E4 Strengthening of negotiation capacity for access
agreements
E5 Fishers training

F. Stakeholder consultation
F.1 Develop an awareness programme for all stakeholders
G. Take Advantage of markets for sustainable use of
resource. D. etc...

57

CCLME Preliminary TDA � Synthesis Matrix � Habitat Modification

Specific trans-boundary
Major underlying causes (1, 2, 3,
Domains of intervention (A, B, C,
environmental problem or
4...)
D...)
concern

Disappearance and
1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15
A, B, C, D, E, F, G
destruction of mangroves

Degradation and modification of 7, 16, 17, 18, 19
H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O
seabed and seamounts

Degradation and modification of 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18
H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P
wetlands (sensu Ramsar :
coastal zones, coral reefs,
estuaries)

58

CCLME Preliminary TDA � Habitat degradation - Major underlying causes & domains of
intervention

Major underlying causes (1, 2, 3...)
Proposed domains of action (A, B, C...)

1. Construction of dams
A. Restoration / reforestation

2. Unregulated tourism activities
B. Inform and raise awareness of populations and

decision makers
3. Urbanisation

C. Valorisation of mangrove resources (projects to
4. Poverty
generate revenues : honey, oysters, ecotourism, eco-

labelling)
5. Lack of wetlands management policies (including

legislation)
D. Capacity reinforcement (training of users and

institutions, capacity for monitoring and surveillance)
6. Climate change

E. Promotion of alternative sources of energy and types
7. Deforestation
of construction

8. Mariculture
F. Harmonisation of management policies � mangrove

charter
9. Insufficient training and awareness

G. Trans-boundary protected areas
10. Lack of alternatives (energy, construction)

H. Reduction of fishing effort
11. Demographic pressure

I. Reinforcement of national and regional MCS
12. Erosion
mechanisms

13. Hydro-agricultural schemes
J. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)

14. Absence of conservation policy
K. Establish a regional MPA network

15. Lack of alternatives (energy, construction)
L. Implement action plans for conservation of threatened

species
16. Lack of or inappropriate MCS

M. Promotion of less destructive fishing gears and
17. Inadequate regulations
techniques

18. Waste collection and treatment systems (urban,
N. Reinforcement and harmonisation of legislation
maritime) inappropriate or absent
(including Basel and Bamako conventions)

19. Increasing fishing effort (including inequitable
O. Regional protocol for the conservation of biodiversity
fisheries agreements)

P. Implementation of conventions relating to wetlands

(Ramsar, Abidjan, etc)

59

CCLME PRELIMINARY TDA � Water quality changes � Synthesis Matrix

Specific trans-boundary
Major underlying causes (1, 2, Domains of intervention (A, B,
environmental problem or 3, 4...)
C, D...)
concern

Salinity changes in
1, 6, 7, 8, 11
A, B, C
estuarine [and terrestrial
coastal] environment

Hydrocarbon pollution
9, 10, 11, 12
D, F, G, H, I, L

Eutrophication of coastal
2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12
C, D, E, G
waters due to nutrient
inputs

Alien invasive species
4, 9, 10, 13
D, G, J, L

Sediment mobilisation in
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8
A, B, C, E, G, H
water column

Toxicity from pesticides
2, 7, 11
C, G, K
used in agriculture

60

Annex 7 � Past, existing and emerging initiatives

Part A � Past, existing and emerging regional projects relevant to CCLME components

Component
1. TDA/SAP and LME Assessment
2. Marine living resources
3. Declining biodiversity & water quality
Project type
Prior

International Conservation and Management of Fisheries Integrated Catchment and Coastal Areas Management
execution by
Resources: ("FIGIS" component - Fisheries
Planning and Development in Countries of the WACAF
FAO for
Geographical Information Systems, GCP/INT/715/JPN)
Region" (WACAF/11) (WA-1106-96-15) FAO
UNEP

implementation 1995-97 {FAO Symbol EP/INT/068/UEP}

Institutional Support for Coastal and Marine Environment
Resources Database Development (Ghana, Gambia, Guinea)
(FP/1400-96-37) FAO implementation 1996-97 {FAO
symbol EP/RAF/009/UEP}

Integrated Coastal Area Management: Training and
Development of National Capabilities for Planning and
Management of Coastal Areas of Countries of the West and
Central African Region (WACAF/11) (FP/WA-0401-95-04)
Component implemented by FAO 1995-95 phase I {FAO
symbol EP/INT/066/UEP}

Monitoring and Control of Land-based Sources of Pollution
Affecting the Marine and Coastal Environment" (WACAF/2,
Phases 1 and 2) implemented by FAO in collaboration with
IOC of UNESCO, WHO and IAEA (1989-95)

Assessment and Control of Pollution in the Coastal and
Marine Environment of the West and Central African Region
(WACAF/2 phase II) (FP/WA-5101-89-01) FAO
implementation 1989- same as above {FAO symbol
EP/INT/053/UEP}

Prior
Fisheries Information & Analysis System Project
Assistance to Developing Countries for the

execution by
(FIASP) for the member countries of the SRFC
Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible
FAO (other
(GCP/RAF/363/EC)
Fisheries: "FISHCODE" components - Monitoring,
than for

Control and Surveillance, & Scientific Advice for
Fisheries Management, GCP/INT/648/NOR).
UNEP)

Monitoring,, Control and Surveillance of industrial
fisheries in the member states of the SRFC

61

(GCP/RAF/722/LUX)

Fisheries Development project (GCP/CVI/033/NET)

Modernisation and Development of the Marine Fisheries
Sector (UTF/MOR/017/MOR) (Morocco).

Ongoing
International Cooperation with the Nansen
Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (SFLP)

execution by
Programme: Fisheries Management and Marine
for West Africa (FAO/DfID) (GCP/INT/735/UK) and
FAO
Environment ("Nansen" GCP/INT/730/NOR)
national pilot projects thereof (see below under national
(various)

projects);
CECAF (= COPACE) - Assistance in the management
and development of the fisheries of the Eastern
Reduction of the Impact of Shrimp Fisheries (PDF
Central Atlantic 2004-2008. (GCP/RAF/397/SWE)
phase) GF/FP/1100-98-15 {FAO symbol

EP/INT/724/GEF};
Government of Netherlands support to FIMF for

Working Groups on Pelagics and Demersals in the
UNTS/RAF/011/GEF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
CECAF area
management (Demonstration project within the Benguela

Current LME project)
Factors of Non-sustainability in Fisheries. FAO

project supported by Japan.
Strengthening the Knowledge Base for and

Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Marine

Fisheries in Developing Countries - GCP/INT/003/NOR
(Norway)

INFOFISH & GLOBEFISH - these programs assist with
trade information and issues (Infofish has sub-regional
offices in Namibia and C�te d'Ivoire).

FAO Support to SRFC Strategic Action Plan
Implementation of the SRFC (FAO/SRFC)

Assistance to Developing Countries for the
Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries: "FISHCODE" components - Monitoring,
Control and Surveillance, & Scientific Advice for
Fisheries Management, GCP/INT/648/NOR) (Norway).

Assistance in the Management and Development of the
Fisheries of the Eastern Central Atlantic Area, CECAF �
FAO GCP/RAF/397/SWE (Sweden)

Safety-at-Sea for Small-Scale Fisheries in Developing
Countries - GCP/GLO/158/SWE (Sweden)

62

Capacity Building for an Ecosystem Approach to
Fisheries - GCP/INT/620/JPN (Japan)

Interactions between Sea Turtles and Fisheries within an
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management �
GCP/INT/619/JPN (Japan)
Important

Identification, Establishment and Management of Specially
prior UNEP
Protected Areas in the WACAF Region (WACAF/8):
projects (not
national and regional conservation priorities in terms of
FAO)
coastal and marine biodiversity (executed for UNEP by
IUCN).

Existing or
POORFISH - Probabilistic Assessment, management
PROFISH - Global partnership of coastal countries and
Global medium sized project on marine litter (GEF-UNEP)
emerging
and advice model for fishery management in the case
development partners led by World Bank, FAO,
(emerging)
global
of poor data availability (EU/Institutes led by
WorldFish Centre, IUCN and other partners with a focus
initiatives
CEMARE) (case studies in Senegal & Gambia
on policy reform, illegal fishing and subsidies (existing). Global Invasive Species program (GISP) (GEF-UNDP)
(shrimps) and Mauritania (cephalopods) (existing)

(existing)

ECOST - Ecosystems, Societies, Consilience,
Global Ballast Water Project (UNDP/IMO) (emerging)
Precautionary Principle - evaluation of Social and
Economic Costs of Fisheries (EU/Institutes led by
CEMARE) (existing)

Important
Combating coastal area degradation and living
Combating coastal area degradation and living resources Combating coastal area degradation and living resources
existing
resources depletion in the Guinea Current LME
depletion in the Guinea Current LME through regional
depletion in the Guinea Current LME through regional
regional
through regional actions
actions (UNIDO/UNDP/UNEP/NOAA/IOC/UNESCO
actions (UNIDO/UNDP/UNEP/NOAA/IOC/UNESCO)
projects (not
(UNIDO/UNDP/UNEP/NOAA/IOC/UNESCO
(cooperation established, synergies to be confirmed)
(cooperation established, synergies to be confirmed)
(cooperation established, synergies to be confirmed)

FAO)

Fisheries, Commerce & Environment in West Africa
PRCM Phase 1 (Habitats & Species Component &
Global Oceans Operating System (GOOS) Africa
(`PCEAO') (WWF/Enda/CSRP) (phase 2 concept under
hydrocarbons & water quality component) (synergies & co-
Program � IOC-UNESCO (proposed synergies with all
development)
finance agreed)
African LME projects)

ISTAM (Improved Scientific and Technical Advice for
UNDP � Senegal-Maurtiania Biodiversity Project (have
EUR-OCEANS Networks of Excellence (Upwelling
Fisheries Management) � coordinated by IRD with
expressed interest in migratory coastal pelagics)
Systems Group) (EU/IRD & partners) (synergies & co-
Agrocampus, IFREMER, IEO, INRH, IMROP, CNHSB,
finance agreed in principle)
CEMARE, CSRP, ULPGC, IUPA, IPIMAR) (EU
BIODIVALLOC � IRD � Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia and

funded) (synergies & co-finance agreed in principle)
Guinea (Biodiversity and instruments for valorisation of local
NATFISH (fisheries research project, coordinated from
production) � eco-labelling of products from West African
Mauritania)
PRCM Phase 1 � coordinated from Nouakchott (fisheries fisheries & mangroves etc.

component) (synergies & co-finance agreed)

PRCM (Programme R�gional de Conservation

Combating coastal area degradation and living resources
Marine) of IUCN, FIBA, WWF & WI Phase 1 (2002-

depletion in the Guinea Current LME through regional
2007) � coordinated from Nouakchott (research
actions (UNIDO/UNDP/UNEP/NOAA/IOC/UNESCO
component) (synergies & co-finance agreed)

63

Significant
AMPHORE (IRD) � Indicators for marine ecosystems MCS for Industrial Fisheries (EU/CSRP); Support to
Wetlands International (mangrove charter) (to be funded by
emerging
& impacts of MPAs - SRFC countries (initial
Regional MCS (KFW/GTZ/CSRP) (synergies & co-
MAVA funded, new) (synergies & co-finance agreed)
regional
application for funding refused � further applications
finance under discussion)

projects
pending) (agreement for synergy with CCLME

AFD � MPAs and fisheries co-management. SRFC (Agence
established in principle)
Support to Management of Fisheries in Western Africa
Fran�aise de D�veloppement - AFD) (synergies & co-finance

(`AGPAO') (EU/FAO/CSRP) (synergies & co-finance
agreed)
RED-AFRIMAR (including BAGIS project for a GIS
with CCLME under discussion)

fisheries data base) � Spanish led regional research

SINEPAD � CMS/PNUE � agreement on the protection of
network to be all or part-funded by AECI Madrid
Towards development of policies and plans for the shared
marine turtles.
aiming to improve understanding and resolve marine
management of small pelagic fisheries in West Africa

eco-regional problems (agreement for synergy with
(IAC Wageningen, The Netherlands and SRFC)
WWF � MPAs in Sub-Saharan Africa (project under
CCLME in principle)
(synergies agreed and co-finance confirmed)
development)

PRCM (Programme R�gional de Conservation
Programa NAUTA (Cooperation program for the
GEF/UNDP / IOC-UNESCO Adaptation to Climate Change
Marine) of IUCN, FIBA, WWF & WI Phase 2 (2008-
sustainable development of the fisheries sector in Africa)
and its human dimensions in Western Africa through ICAM
2012) � coordinated from Nouakchott (research
(Ministry for Foreign Aid, Spain) (agreement for synergy (Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Senegal, Mauritania).
component) (synergies agreed and co-finance
with CCLME in principle, same as for REDAFRIMAR)
Implementation 2007. (synergies with CCLME agrred in
confirmed)

principle � co-finance not applicable as a GEF project)

PRCM Phase 2 � coordinated from Nouakchott (fisheries
component) (synergies agreed and co-finance confirmed) UNESCO/MAB - project to support development of a network

of trans-boundary coastal biosphere reserves in West Africa

(lacks funding, synergies agreed in principle)

Senegal River Basin Project, GEF/UNDP/WB (synergy
agreed in principle, co-finance not applicable as a GEF
project).

PRCM Phase 2 � coordinated from Nouakchott (species &
habitats component & hydrocarbons & water quality
component) (synergies agreed and co-finance confirmed)

SEBFS � Conservation of the Ecosystems of the Senegal
River Basin (OMVS-AfDB) (project concept still under
development)

NEPAD � Management of solid wastes with CRDI � effects
on human health.

Part B � Existing or emerging national initiatives (projects or programs) of relevance to CCLMEcomponents

Component
1. TDA/SAP & LME Assessment
2. Fisheries
3. Habitat, biodiversity & water quality
Country

64

Cape Verde
Network of Research Centres for GIS (metadata on
Evaluation of socio�economic contribution of fisheries to Coastal Zone Management Project (PRCM/WAMER/WWF)
marine ecosystems)
GDP and to rural development rural (Cape Verde & Sao

Taome) (SFLP/FAO/DFID) (completed 2006)
Logistic centre for oceanographic research (with

University of Kiel, Germany)
Gambia
National Programme of Action (NAPA) on climate
Improved livelihoods in post-harvest fisheries sector
Coastal resources and biodiversity project (ICAM)
change & water resources (no funding)
(SFLP/FAO/DFID) (ends 2007)
(GEF/World Bank/WWF)

Artisanal Fisheries Development Project (AfDB) (ends
2007)
Guinea

Participatory Management of Coastal Zone Fisheries
Coastal Zone Management Project (World Bank / GEF)
(SFLP/FAO/DFID) (ends 2007)
(PGIRN)

Fisheries Sector Support Project (PASP) (AfDB)
Guinea
Bijagos Ecosystem Observatory (IBAP Switzerland)
PRODEPA (AfDB) (Artisanal fisheries development
Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project (CBMP) -
Bissau

project) (ends 2006 or 2007)
(GEF/World Bank) (Acronym = PBGZCGB)
Mauritania
Study of the Mauritanian coastal zone (Japan) � 22 to Artisanal fisheries monitoring system (Spanish
Management Plan for the Mauritanian Littoral Zone (PDALM)
1000 meters depth (evaluation of stocks and
Cooperation)
(IUCN/PRCM/MPEM)
selectivity of fishing gears)

Fisheries community development projects at Tanit &
Project `Aftout' (back-dunes program)
Petroleum companies (meteorological and
Tiguent (mainly Spanish financed)

oceanographic data collection)

PNBA/IMROP (PACOBA) - Science & conservation project

Participatory Management of Coastal Zone Fisheries
(France).

(SFLP/FAO/DFID) (national pilot project of SFLP) (ends

2007)
Project to remove shipwrecks

Fisheries resources & gear selectivity project (Japan)

Fisheries Surveillance Project
(GTZ/GOPA/KFW/MPEM/DSPCM) (existing phase
ends 2006, now scoping for regional approach)

Tiguent Project (fisheries development & monitoring)

RARES (PNBA) � regulation of fishing access in the
PNBA (IMROP/IRD)

PDPAS (artisanal fisheries development project) (AfDB)

Small pelagics project (IMROP/RIVO-DLO)

Demersal fisheries project (IMROP /Holland)

Morocco
MOLINA (Initiative for the Modelling of the Littoral Fisher village project (JICA)
Management of MPAs and Wetlands (GEF / World Bank)

65

Zone of N W Africa (INRH) (no funding at present)

(mostly Mediterranean coast)

Fish landing sites (JICA)

Management of climate change impacts (UNEP)
Octopus management project

Transport of toxic chemical products (UNDP/GEF)
Fishing vessel destruction scheme (EU)

Valorisation and training (Morocco, Senegal 3rd
countries (Japan)

Senegal
Fisheries Capture Statistics Project (ending 2006 or
PNI - Projet d'Immatriculation Physique & Informatique
GIRMAC � Integrated Management of Marine and Coastal
2007)
du Parc Piroguier au S�n�gal (Coop�ration Suisse)
Resources (Senegal) � GEF/World Bank / DPN - TURFS

(ending 2007)
initiative (fisheries component of GIRMAC)

INCOFISH (knowledge for sustainable management with Mangrove regeneration project (JICA)
stakeholder participation)

Conservation of filao trees of the St Louis coast (AGDI)
SINAPS � Syst�me d'Information National des P�ches
(mentioned by NEPAD)
(CRODT/ Spanish Cooperation)

Local Fisheries Councils project (Spanish support
Clean up of Hann Bay project (Direction of Environment,
completed during 2006, no other funding at present)
Senegal) (ends 2007)

Improved livelihoods in post-harvest fisheries sector

(SFLP/FAO/DFID (ending 2007)

EDF projects (within STABEX - governance etc.) (in
suspension at time of writing)

Restructuring of Industrial Fisheries

PAPCM Fisheries Capacity Adjustment Project (AfDB)

Artificial reefs (JICA supported)

Aquaculture program (substantial funds, source not
known)

66

Annex 8 � Demonstration project summaries

Project Title
Page

1. Policies and plans for sustainable trans-boundary ecosystem-based

management of shared small pelagic stocks in North West Africa

2. Reduction of the impact of shrimp trawling through by-catch reduction and

management changes

3. Trans-boundary co-management of migratory coastal pelagics of

importance to artisanal fisheries (mullets, bluefish and meagre).

4. Demonstration of MPAs as tools for sustainable demersal artisanal fisheries

co-management in West Africa

5. Development of a regional mangrove conservation plan with pilot

mangrove restoration actions

67

CCLME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 1

Policies and plans for sustainable trans-boundary ecosystem-based management of shared small
pelagic stocks in North West Africa

PROJECT DURATION: 3 years
PROJECT COST: $1,464,000
GEF CONTRIBUTION:
$460,000
CO-FINANCING: $1,104,000 ($250,000 (AFD); $144,000 (countries in kind); $60,000 International
Cooperation with the Nansen Programme (FAO/Norway); $500,000 (Holland); $50,000 (FAO).
PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal and The Gambia.

Brief description

The project will promote multi-country agreement on sub-regional policies and plans for the sustainable
management of trans-boundary shared stocks of small pelagic fish species which are distributed in the
upwelling zone between Morocco and southern Senegal (including waters of The Gambia). The project
will demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of cooperative trans-boundary management of shared fish
stocks according to an ecosystem approach. Project outcomes will include (i) improved knowledge of
small pelagic resources, their ecosystem and interactions with climate (ii) formulation and agreement on
regional policies for sustainable management of small pelagics in North West Africa; (iii) elaboration and
agreement on at least one management arrangement for one or more shared small pelagic stocks and (iv)
evaluation of the potential costs and benefits of cooperative trans-boundary management of small pelagic
stocks to inform decisions on extension to other stocks. The estimated total cost of the project is
$1,464,000 including a GEF contribution of $460,000 and co-finance of $1,104,000 including $144,000
in-kind contribution from project countries. The project will be coordinated by FAO from the CCLME
RCU at SRFC with technical back-up from the Fisheries Management & Conservation Service (FIMF) at
FAO in Rome and in close coordination with SRFC and the main co-finance partner, the IAC Wageningen
project on small pelagics. The expected long term impact of the project is restoration and sustainable
harvesting of the small pelagic stocks of the CCLME.

Key outcome indicators
�
Multi-country agreement on cooperative management of shared stocks of one ore more small
pelagic fish species;
�
Potential socio-economic and environmental benefits of cooperative management are
evaluated.

Project activities
Outcome / activity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
1. Improved collective knowledge of small pelagic resources, their ecosystems and

interactions with climate
1.1.Compilation and analysis of existing knowledge on small pelagics

1.2 Working Group to identify and prepare plans for filling of knowledge gaps

1.3 Support filling of key gaps and scientific participation in cooperative field surveys

1.4 Working Group to synthesise information

2. Formulation and agreement on regional policies

2.1 Preparatory policy studies on small pelagics

2.2 Organization of a multidisciplinary policy workshop on small pelagics

2.3 Elaboration of sub-regional policy proposal

2.4 Organization of regional meeting to present small pelagics policy

3. Elaboration and agreement on at least one management arrangement for one or

more shared small pelagic stock
3.1 Elaboration and discussion of draft plans

3.2 Convene regional managers' meeting

3.3 Implement capacity reinforcement program based on identified needs

4. Evaluation of costs & benefits of the cooperative approach

4.1 Baseline evaluation of costs & benefits of existing management

4.2 Analysis of the potential costs & benefits of cooperative management

68

CCLME DEMONSTRATIN PROJECT 2

Reduction of the impact of shrimp trawling through by-catch reduction and management
changes.

PROJECT DURATION: 4 years
PROJECT COST: $884,000 GEF CONTRIBUTION: $400,000
CO-FINANCING: $484,000 (AFD $250,000; FAO $50,000; Countries $184,000)
PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: Mauritania & Guinea Bissau (focal countries); Morocco, Senegal,
Gambia & Guinea (associated countries)

Brief description

Industrial shrimp trawling is an important source of revenue to most CCLME countries but is responsible
for substantial but poorly known by-catch, discards and ecosystem impacts. The project will assess
trawling impacts and undertake field trials of selective, low-impact gears in order to demonstrate the
feasibility and environmental benefits of selective, low-impact fishing methods. Project outcomes will
include: (i) by-catch, discards and ecosystem impacts of shrimp trawling are assessed and the data and its
analysis made available to stakeholders including trawler operators and management authorities; (ii) field-
based demonstrations are designed and undertaken to test more selective and less destructive fishing gears
and methods and the results analyzed and made available to operators and managers; (iii) technical
guidelines on shrimp trawling gears and practices are formulated for adoption by CCLME countries and
integration into the SAP and (iv) The costs and benefits of existing and proposed improved trawling
practices are evaluated. The estimated cost of the project is $984,000 including a GEF contribution of
$500,000 and co-finance of $484,000 including $184,000 in-kind contribution of trawl operators and
national management authorities. The project will be coordinated by FAO from the CCLME RCU at
SRFC in close consultation with the national research institutes and other partners involved. Technical
advice will be provided by the sampling experts and experts of the FAO/UNEP shrimp trawl mitigation
project, thus capitalizing on an earlier GEF investment. The expected long term impact of the project is
reduced by-catch and discards in shrimp fisheries of the CCLME, thus reducing stresses on the affected
marine ecosystems.

Key outcome indicators
By-catch, discards & biodiversity effects of shrimp fisheries in selected countries known
Socio-economic & environmental benefits of selective low-impact gears demonstrated
Policy recommendations for selective & low impact methods adopted as part of the SAP

Project Activities
Outcome/activity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
1. By-catch, discards and ecosystem impacts assessed

1.1. Review of available information

1.2. Elaborate common standard methodology

1.3. Identify trawlers, train observers and collect data

1.4. Analyze the field data and prepare final assessment

2. Field-trials of selective gears & less destructive methods

2.1. Design field trials of selective gears and methods.

2.2. Conduct field trials using prior-tested methodology

2.3. Prepare and disseminate report on trials

3. Guidelines on shrimp trawling gears and practices

3.1. Guidelines to improve selectivity & reduce impact

3.2. Regional workshop on findings and draft guidelines

3.3. Finalization and issue of guidelines

4. Cost/benefit evaluation of existing & improved trawling

4.1. Baseline evaluation of existing trawling

4.2 Evaluation of new techniques

69

CCLME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 3

Trans-boundary co-management of migratory coastal pelagics of importance to artisanal
fisheries (mullets, bluefish and meagre).

PROJECT DURATION: 4 years
PROJECT COST: $ 1,120,000
GEF CONTRIBUTION:
$250,000
CO-FINANCING : $870,000 (MAVA $500,000; AFD $250,000; Countries $120,000)
PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal and The Gambia.

Brief description

The project will promote multi-country cooperation and co-management of shared stocks of four
associated migratory coastal pelagic species of importance to artisanal fisheries (flathead mullet Mugil
cephalus, narrowhead grey mullet Mugil capurri, meagre Argyrosomus regius and bluefish Pomatomus
saltatrix). The project will demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of cooperative co-management of
shared fish stocks through the establishment and evaluation of a sub-regional cooperation mechanism.
Project outcomes will include (i) filling key knowledge gaps relating to migratory coastal pelagics in the
project area; (ii) consolidation and harmonization of existing national co-management of coastal pelagic
resources (iii) establishment of a regional cooperation mechanism and management plan for trans-
boundary co-management of migratory coastal pelagics and (iv) evaluation of the potential costs &
benefits of cooperative co-management of coastal pelagics. The estimated cost of the project is $1,120,000
including a GEF contribution of $250,000 and co-finance of $870,000 including $120,000 in-kind from
project countries. The project will be coordinated from the CCLME RCU at SRFC with delegation to IUN
for execution of activites working with the national research institutes and other partners involved.
Technical oversight will be provided by the Fisheries Management & Conservation Service (FIMF) at
FAO in Rome. The expected long term impact of the project is reduced and redistributed fishing effort on
the four target species and improved benefits capture resulting in sustainable yields and livelihoods.

Key outcome indicators:
Multi-country agreement on cooperative management of shared coastal pelagics;
Potential socio-economic and environmental benefits of cooperative management are
evaluated.

Project activities
Outcome/activity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
1. Improved knowledge of coastal pelagic resources

1.1 Regional workshop to review existing data

1.2 Cooperative field surveys for stock assessment

1.3 Analysis of results of field surveys

2. Harmonisation of national policies and legislation

2.1 Review of the national policy and legislation

2.2 Elaboration of common policy guidelines

2.3 Regional workshop to present and agree policy guidelines

2.4 Amendment of national polices and legislation

3. Establish a regional cooperation framework

3.1 Country consultation missions and workshops

3.2 Prepare draft regional cooperation framework

3.3 Regional meeting to adopt cooperation framework

3.4 Regional meetings to elaborate draft management plan

3.5 Regional managers' meeting to consider 1st management plan

4. Promote improved benefits capture from the fishery

4.1 Evaluate benefits capture and distribution

4.2 Sub-regional workshop on benefits capture

4.3 Implement benefits capture package

5. Evaluate costs & benefits of cooperative management

5.1 Baseline evaluation of costs & benefits

5.2 Final evaluation of costs & benefits

70

CCLME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 4

Demonstration of MPAs as tools for multiple-resource management benefits

PROJECT DURATION: 3 years
PROJECT COST: $852,000
GEF CONTRIBUTION: $250,000
CO-FINANCING: $500,000 (AFD); $102,000 countries in kind
PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: Cape Verde, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea Bissau and Guinea
.
Brief description

The project will develop and test the use of MPAs as tools for sustainable demersal artisanal fisheries
co-management and habitat / biodiversity conservation at different locations in the CCLME. The
project will support the participatory development of fisheries co-management regimes around the
target MPAs and the participatory evaluation of demersal resources and impact of MPAs on demersal
resources and other ecosystem parameters. Project outcomes will include: 1) participatory baseline
assessments of demersal resources at selected MPA sites; 2) demersal fisheries co-management
systems are developed and implemented around target MPAs; 3) participatory assessments of
demersal resources are conducted following a trial period of implementation of co-management
systems; 4) costs and benefits of the MPAs are evaluated at each site and guidelines for replication at
other sites are prepared and disseminated. The estimated total cost of the project is $852,000 including
a GEF contribution of $250,000 and co-finance of $602,000 including $102,000 in-kind co-finance
from participating countries. The project will be coordinated by the AFD/SRFC project coordination
unit at SRFC under LoA to FAO in close consultation with the CCLME project Regional Coordination
Unit. The expected long term environmental impact of the project is the improved status of demersal
resources within and around MPAs at pilot sites, thus providing local reductions of stress to the
ecosystem and demonstrating the potential for replicating the approach to other parts of the CCLME
and beyond.

Key outcome indicators

�
MPAs as tools for multiple resource management benefits are tested;
�
The environmental & socio-economic impacts of MPAs are evaluated.

Project activities

Outcome/activity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
1. Participatory baseline evaluations

1.1 Technical working group on MPAs

1.2 Design and adopt a methodology

1.3 Participatory baseline evaluations

1.4 Convene the working group to consider results

2. Fisheries co-management plans developed & implemented

2.1 Working group develops guidelines for co-management

2.2 Develop site-specific co-management regimes

2.3 Implement and monitor the co-management regimes

2.4 Convene workshop to review experience at pilot sites

3. Participatory evaluations of resources at pilot sites

3.1 participatory resource evaluations at pilot sites

3.2 Convene working group to review the results of the evaluations

3.3. Report analyzing the results of the evaluations

4. Evaluation of costs & benefits of MPAs & co-management systems

4.1 Baseline evaluation of costs and benefits of existing management

4.2 Estimate the costs & benefits of co-management regimes in place

4.3 Draw up guidelines for replication of co-management systems

71

CCLME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 5

Development of a regional mangrove conservation plan with pilot mangrove restoration actions

PROJECT DURATION: 4 years
PROJECT COST: $1,410,000
GEF CONTRIBUTION: $450,000
COFINANCING: $960,000 (COUNTRIES: $200,000; MAVA $500,000; AFD $225,000; FAO $10,000; UNEP
$25,000)
PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: The Gambia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and Guinea.

Brief description

The project will promote multi-country agreement on sub-regional policies and plans for the
sustainable management of mangroves forests which are distributed from southern Senegal (including
waters of The Gambia) as far south as Guinea and into Sierra Leone. The project will demonstrate the
feasibility and benefits of cooperative trans-boundary management of mangroves. Project outcomes
will include (i) improved knowledge of the mangroves of the CCLME and understanding of their role
in the larger ecosystem; (ii) formulation and adoption of innovative regional policies for sustainable
conservation and management of mangroves; (iii) elaboration, adoption and integration into the SAP
of a regional instrument and management plan for the conservation of mangroves and (iv) evaluation
and/or projection of the costs and benefits of cooperative trans-boundary conservation and
management of mangroves. The estimated total cost of the project is $1,410,000 including a GEF
contribution of $450,000 and co-finance of $960,000 including $200,000 in-kind co-finance from
participating countries. The project will be coordinated by UNEP/FAO from the CCLME project
Regional Coordination Unit in close cooperation with FAO, PRCM, IUCN and Wetlands International
who will intervene with parallel financing. The expected long term environmental impact of the
project is the improved conservation of mangroves throughout the CCLME resulting in secondary
ecological benefits such as improved regeneration of marine living resources such as fish, shrimps and
others.

Key outcome indicators

�
Updated assessment of West African mangroves and established monitoring system
�
Benefits of mangrove conservation & restoration are demonstrated at pilot sites
�
A regional mangrove conservation plan is formulated and adopted as part of the SAP
�
Costs and benefits of baseline and improved management are evaluated

Project activities

Outcome / activity
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
1. Updated assessment of W. African mangroves

1.1. Compile available data and develop a GIS

1.2. Rapid assessment of selected sites

1.3. Initiate mangrove monitoring system

2. Conservation & restoration of mangroves at pilot sites

2.1. Training & planning for the conservation & restoration

2.2. Undertake & monitor conservation & restoration actions

2.3. Evaluate results and provide report to inform policy & planning

3. Formulation of regional mangrove conservation plan

3.1. Identify, mobilize and inform mangrove stake-holders

3.2. Undertake supporting studies for policy formulation

3.3. Formulate mangrove conservation plan and integrate into SAP

4. Evaluation and/or projection of the costs and benefits

4.1 Baseline evaluation of costs & benefits of existing management

4.2 Projection of costs & benefits of cooperative management

72

ANNEXE 9 STAP & GEFSEC REVIEW & RESPONSES

STAP review comment
Response
The Project Document is long and detailed (219 pages Document length and detail have been reduced.
in total).
The long term environmental objective of the CCLME Project goal has been generalized to `To reverse the
program is (quoted from the Project Document) to degradation of the Canary Current Large Marine
"reverse the depletion of fisheries and degradation of Ecosystem
caused
by
over-fishing,
habitat
nursery and reproductive habitat of the Canary modification and changes in water quality by adoption
Current Large Marine Ecosystem caused by over-
of an ecosystem-based management approach.' The
fishing, habitat changes and pollution, by adoption of project objective has been revised to: To strengthen
an ecosystem-based integrated approach to assessment the knowledge base, human capacity and regional
and management of this important LME".
institutional framework to enable countries of the
Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem to identify,
analyze impacts & causes of, and address trans-
boundary concerns of depleted fisheries and
degradation of habitat, biodiversity and water quality
critical to fisheries through governance reforms,
investments and management programs. These are
still both consistent with IW Strategic Program 1 for
GEF 4.
The Project Document is well written throughout, Document length has been reduced and an executive
though somewhat lengthy.
summary prepared.
One very minor criticism is in the (inevitable) Care has been taken to ensure that all acronyms are
widespread use of acronyms; these should always be expounded in full on first appearance and translated in
expounded in full on first usage to assist the the list of abbreviations.
uninformed reader. A few acronyms used in the text
do not appear in the list at the beginning of the
document.
Information gaps and requirements have been initially Note has been taken of the reviewer's concern about
identified through a series of workshops and meetings quality of information from commercial sources. All
across the region between national and international data will be carefully assessed for quality and
experts. The actual, on-the-ground mechanics of much operators encouraged to improve their data collection
of the data gathering are not yet clear and will be where possible.
developed early in the project. With particular regard to
offshore pelagic fish stocks, information is notoriously
difficult to gather. The approach here is to use a highly
regarded and modern research vessel as the main tool
for data collection, with smaller, national research
vessels assisting where possible. The commercial
fishing industry will also be involved (though the
quality of information received from this source is
sometimes dubious if commercial considerations are at
stake).
The geographical scope of the project is more or less At the request of the Steering Committee, Spain has
commensurate with the oceanographic definition of been formally invited to join the project but an official
the LME (see project text) though other countries response has not yet been received. In any event, the
(Canary Islands, Madeira, Sierra Leone) can be project will benefit form the participation of expert
considered to be within the "zone of influence" of the Spanish institutions. The SC has decided that Portugal
LME but are not included in the project.
should be approached if it appears appropriate as the

project develops. Careful consideration was given to
Sierra Leone's request for participation but declined by
the SC on ecosystem grounds (Sierra Leone lies in the
GCLME).
There is a low use of technology in this project (see The Norwegian research vessel used in the overall
point 1.9 above) and most of that proposed is fairly survey programme will be equipped with a modern
standard and cannot be considered particularly multibeam echosounder which can be used for
innovative.
amongst others habitat mapping
4.1
Is the choice of demonstration sites The demonstration projects are primarily multi-

73

representative and appropriate?
country transboundary projects without specific site

focus. Exceptions include demo project 2 (improved
Not all demonstration sites have been chosen; this will selectivity of shrimp trawling), demo project 4
take place early on in the life of project when suitable (developing MPAs as tools for artisanal fisheries
sites can be identified. Of those already suggested, the management) and project 5 (which includes sites for
appropriateness is unknown to the reviewer.
mangrove restoration).

4.2
Have any problems been overlooked?
The CCLME project is taking place at a time when
In general the project has been well designed and several parallel initiatives will be addressing MCS at
potential risks to its successful outcome have been a regional scale � notably a project of the SRFC
comprehensively considered. The wide ranging scope supported by the EU which aims to support
of the project (both geographical and in terms of development of regional cooperation on MCS and a
activities) creates a robust shield against problems in new initiative of the World Bank linked to the
any one country or activity. A few minor issues are Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries
noted here:
Fund for Sub-Saharan Africa which is expected to
�
The extent to which changes in the fisheries include substantial support for MCS. These initiatives
regime can be implemented without a robust have been taken into account in project design. For
regional MCS system in place should be example, the regional information system for the
considered...
CCLME would be linked to MCS information sources.

�
Lack of alternative livelihoods for those The CCLME project is occurring when at least one
persons who may be displaced from their substantial alternative livelihoods project is proposed
employment by, for instance, the creation of a for the country likely to be most affected by forced
network of MPAs should be considered;
reductions in effort or establishment of MPAs, namely

Senegal (to be funded by the African Development
Bank). The CCLME project preparation phase indeed
identified alternative livelihoods development as an
essential component of the future SAP and will
continue to promote awareness of the issue
during the full TDA/SAP process.
�
Role of national or regional NGOs in the National NGOs working in the sphere of the project
project (if they exist or are effective) is unclear were systematically involved in the national
at first reading...
consultations during the PDF-B phase, and details of

their names appear in Annex 3 of the project document.
There are relatively few regional NGOs in the region
working in the sphere of the project, but contacts were
made during the PDF-B phase with known NGOs,
notably with ENDA (a regional NGO working with
WWF on fisheries economics), Oceanium (a marine
conservation NGO based in Dakar with some regional
outreach) and ADEPA (a regional association for
artisanal fishers). While no specific collaborations have
yet been negotiated, it is envisaged that all of these and
any others encountered would participate in the
TDA/SAP process. ADEPA is expected to play a link
role to artisanal fishers' associations as part of the
stakeholder participation strategy and Oceanium is
likely to play a role in demonstration project no. 4 (on
development of MPAs for fisheries).
The time frame of the pilot projects might be too long This remark has been taken into account and time
to allow effective feedback into main project activities;
frames adjusted as far as possible so that the key

activities are completed within 3 to 3.5 years.
The pilot project on turtle conservation does not After much consideration, the sea turtle demonstration
immediately appear to fit into the suite of project has been deleted but sea turtles will be included
demonstration projects and it is difficult for the in a suite of endangered species to be assessed for their
uninformed reader to see how these animals can be current status and main sources of mortality under
used as a widespread indicator of ecosystem health.
Component 3 of the project.

4.4
Have issues of conflict been addressed?
The project designers are aware of the potential for

74

local conflict, although it should be noted that codes of
The issue of political conflict is addressed in point 140 conduct for MPA creation, recently proposed at the
in the Project Document; the project is structured so West African Marine & Coastal Forum, include
that conflict between any two countries will not detailed consultation procedures designed to avoid
necessarily jeopardise the success of the whole conflict and that these would be applied in the present
project. Additionally the project is located within an project.
intergovernmental organisation (the Sub-Regional
Fisheries Commission) which should continue to
function under most circumstances.

Potential conflict between national bodies or between
regional organisations should be minimised by the
high degree of cross-institution and cross-country co-
operation and linkage at all levels of the project and
through the perceived regional benefits (both
environmental and economic) resulting from a
successful project conclusion.

Conflicts at a local level, particularly between the
project activities and resource users, (e.g. because of
loss of fishing grounds through the introduction of
MPAs) has been addressed through the widespread
adoption of co-management practises and through the
expected economic benefits accruing from project
activities. There will however very likely be some
local conflicts that will require either diplomacy or
policing to resolve.

Demonstration activities will have a direct positive Sea turtle demo project has been deleted, as noted
impact on the CCLME through by-catch reduction in above but sea turtle issues will be adreessed under
trawl fisheries, reduced stress on habitats through the component 3 and in demonstration project 2
introduction of MPAs, reduced threats to mangrove (reduction of by-catch from shrimp trawlers)_
habitat and increased protection of sea turtles.

13.3
Are all countries which have a stake in the It was not feasible during the PDF-B phase to engage
IW body subject of intervention by the project extensively with foreign fleet operators but every effort
involved in it?
will be made to include them in the full TDA-SAP

process. Spanish institutions have already been
Some countries which can be said to have a peripheral extensively consulted.
stake in the LME, such as Canary Islands, Madeira
and Sierra Leone have not been included in the
project. Additionally, while Dutch fishing vessel
companies, who have a strong presence in the area,
have been consulted, other distant-water fleets whose
vessels fish within the CCLME (e.g. Spain) appear not
to have been included in discussions.
17.6
While the project formulation and activities FAO
has
extensive
experience,
through
the
are sound, much of the success of the initial phase will International Cooperation project with the Nansen
depend on the quality of existing data and the scope Programme in securing data of high quality for small
and quality of the data sought to fill the gaps in pelagic stock assessments through acoustic surveys.
existing data. A very positive note is in the use of the The project designers are thus confident that adequate
Norwegian research vessel which is a highly respected data will be obtained to enable project objectives to be
research tool in the region and will give opportunities achieved.
for training of regional personnel in the art of pelagic
stock assessment.
17.7
Overall success of the project, i.e. a regime As noted earlier, the region currently benefits from
for sustainable management of shared small pelagic several MCS initiatives, notably an existing program in
stocks, will be highly dependent on an efficient MCS Mauritania (one of the project countries), effective
system in place for the region. Consideration should existing MCS in Morocco, and limited existing MCS in
be given to seeking funding to establish a regional Senegal and The Gambia. A new EU-funded project on

75

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) based on existing MCS with a similar time frame is expected to improve
satellite tracking systems.
MCS during the time frame of the project, while an

even larger initiative supported by the World Bank (see
above) is likely to come on stream during the project,
further supporting regional MCS capacity. The EU and
World Bank projects both envisage installation of VMS
systems.
18.5
One drawback to the adoption of new types FAO is fully aware of this issue. Care will be taken to
of fishing gear by the shrimp trawling industry is the select operators who are not dependent on the by-catch.
cost of gear replacement; clear economic benefits will
have to be demonstrated to induce these changes.
Additionally, by-catch in some shrimp fisheries is an
important component of overall earnings and a
substantial reduction in this catch may have
unacceptable economic consequences for some boat
operators.

19.4
However, implementation of any guidelines The project designers and program partners are aware
or legislation produced will have only a limited effect of the need for strong community backing, the
in the absence of strong community backing along the challenges of ecocertification and the need for
whole migratory route of these species and without a developing added value of the catches. Local
strong enforcement regime. Eco-certification of the processors in Mauritania and European mullet roe
fisheries is a complex and expensive process and importers have been contacted are willing to
requires compliance with criteria that it may not be participate in the project.
possible to meet at this level of fishing. However, it
should be further investigated as a means of increasing
the value and marketability of catches. In parallel with
this, the potential for local processing, transport and
export markets might be investigated.

20.4
Evaluation of baseline resources and any A degree of knowledge already exists for potential
change following the introduction of MPAs will be project sites regarding seasonal and annual variations
difficult to assess accurately and must take into in abundance and diversity. Availability of such
account seasonal and annual variations in the information will be one of the criteria for final site
abundance and diversity of species and any MPA-
selection. Further the project is designed to ensure
induced changes in fishing effort or practices in the that local communities will be closely associated
local area.
throughout the processes.

20.5
The issue of displaced fishing activity into The potential for conflict is well understood. As noted
other areas or of loss of livelihood for some fishers above, the project will follow guidelines recommended
affected by the MPA should be considered as a by the West African Marine & Coastal Forum on user
potential negative outcome of the intervention. consultation when establishing MPAs.
However, the inclusion of local communities in the
establishment of the MPAs should go some way to
mitigating this problem. Also to be considered is the
potential for conflict if migratory fishers from outside
of the area try to fish inside the MPA.

21.3
Project design is sound and should be Recognizing its arduous nature, ground truthing will
achievable. However, the ground-truthing exercise be limited to selected sites and used to calibrate
will be arduous due to often impenetrable nature of satellite image analysis for the rest of the region.
mangrove areas and the often limited nature of GPS Cooperation of local stakeholders at all project stages
reception. As with some of the other demonstration will be promoted through national project execution
projects, full co-operation of local stakeholders will be units and their networks of local partners, and
essential, and this aspect seems to have been through project partner organisations. The local
adequately covered. The development of alternative restoration and conservation actions aim specifically
livelihoods for those currently dependent on mangrove to demonstrate economic benefits.
utilization must form an integral part of any
management plan and improved economic benefits
clearly demonstrated. Policing of any mangrove

76

related regulations will prove difficult and will require
full co-operation of local communities.

22.5
The project design is sound and should be Based on comments received and after careful
mostly achievable. The reviewer, from a non-expert consideration also with respect to the low level of co-
stance, is dubious about the use of turtles as indicators finance, and other reasons, it has been decided to
of overall ecosystem health; it seems that they are withdraw the turtle demonstration project while
relatively minor players in the system and it would be retaining turtles within a broad suite of threatened
possible to have an otherwise healthy and functioning species for status assessment as part of component 3.
ecosystem in the complete absence of turtles.
However, if expert opinion is that their use as
indicators is possible then this aspect should be further
investigated.

GEFSEC REVIEW COMMENTS & RESPONSES

GEF Secretariat requirement for work Response
plan inclusion
Expected outputs (page 2 of 12)
NB - the review sheet (at page 2 of 12) refers to an earlier
version of the project concept when it was still in the form of a
land-based pollution project. The expected outputs listed in the
GEFSEC review sheet are different from those in the approved
PDF-B and this full-size project proposal. Reference should be
made to the latest version of the project logframe.
Project design � Include a linkage component These requirements have been met � see paras 59 and 60 of the
with $ in the logframe and outputs of reports executive summary. An MoU already exists with the World
to GEF annually documenting coordination Bank coastal management project in Senegal (known as
link with the GCLME project, Senegal basin GIRMaC) and contacts were established during the PDF-B
project and the WB Senegal coastal with the Senegal river basin project.
biodiversity Project
2007.07.12 (pkb) � the linkages to other Linkages to other relevant projects, in particular those of the
relevant projects in the region needs to be World Bank on coastal zone management and management of
clarified in the Project document.
the Senegal river basin, have been more strongly emphasized
in the document.
National
forums
functioning
as While the National Interministerial Committees were already
interministerial
committees
should
be included in the project document, they have been highlighted
included in project outcomes...
and proposed as a key indicator.
Sustainability - The analysis of the project's A strengthened analysis has been prepared, including
sustainability (Project document p50) seems institutional and financial sustainability.
incomplete. The present analysis lists a
number of factors related to sustainability
(political will, availability of resources) and
seems to suggest that project success per se
will ensure sustainability.
Replicability � Project learning to include Specific reference has been added in the logframe and
funding for a website consistent with activities description for a website consistent with IW:LEARN
IW:LEARN activities, travel funding for one activities, travel funding for 2 country officials to GEF IW
country official to 2 GEF International conferences. Funding has been included for producing a
Waters portfolio conferences, and funding to modest exhibit at each GEF IW conference. See paras. 45 and
produce a modest exhibit for the portfolio 46 of the Executive summary.
conference.

The commitment to contribute to IW:LEARN has been made
2002.02.12 (pub) The commitment to clear in the logframe and activities description.
contribute to IW:LEARN could be further
clarified in the project.
Stakeholder involvement � Stakeholder A more detailed stakeholder involvement plan is under
involvement plan available at the end of preparation and will be provided with the request for CEO

77

Block B prep.
endorsement. A final version will be adopted in the early stages
of project implementation. In the meantime, stakeholder
involvement has been raised to the level of a key outcome and
Component 1c focuses on two main classes of stakeholder � 1)
regional and national institutional stakeholders and 2) local
and private sector stakeholders, both the subject of substantial
effort in the project.
Financing � co-financing, including from Co-financing letters have been secured from all major co-
FAO, to be firmed up by work program financers and are annexed to the project document. A recent
inclusion.
new request has been made to SIDA, and FFEM (French GEF)

has indicated that it is considering parallel funding of French

institutions in the CCLME program. No commitment has been

forthcoming from the EU funded project (AGPAO) although

the CCLME project was consulted and provided detailed

recommendations on AGPAO project formulation.

FAO and UNEP have undertaken a thorough review of project
Financing and co-financing specified in the activities and costs in the light of GEFSEC comments in order
Project Document and Project Executive to achieve the balance requested by GEF and in light of GEF's
Summary (balance between Components 2 earlier suggestion on the UNEP allocation. This has led to a
and 3 needs to be revised as discussed at rebalancing of the project components such that the total
bilateral review meeting 2007.07.12). Some increment of all three components is similar (between $8 and 9
co-financing remains to be confirmed.
million) and a substantial relative increase of GEF support for

Component 3 from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000.

The demo projects have been balanced by shifting Demo
(NB � note also earlier note in PDF-B phase project 4 (MPAs) to Component 3 and reducing the GEF
as follows: `There is merit for a modest contribution to Demos 1, 2 and 3 under component 2. Demo 4
UNEP
allocation
to
address
national (MPAs) has been renamed `MPAs as tools for delivering
environmental management policies/laws multiple benefits' and its focus is broadened to include benefits
related especially to habitat conservation at other than fisheries. The GEF contribution to Demo 5
[the] coast and MPAs and to build capacity (mangroves) has been slightly reduced in order to free up more
of [the] Abidjan Convention'.)
funds for activities proposed by UNEP and in the light of

substantial cofinancing confirmed for mangroves by MAVA,
rendering a full contribution of $500,000 by GEF unnecessary.

Split of agency fees between FAO and UNEP FAO and UNEP have undertaken a thorough review of their
- remains to be determined and related to a respective roles and have agreed upon a division of labor in
clear division of labor between the two which UNEP essentially takes responsibility for Component 3
agencies.
(excluding Demo 4 (MPAs for fisheries) which remains the
responsibility of FAO). The FAO share of the full-size project
is US$6,590,000 and the UNEP share US$1,500,000. Each
agency will receive a 10% fee on their share, US$659,000 and
US$150,000, respectively. In addition, UNEP and FAO have
agreed to share the PDF-B fee, with UNEP receiving
US$55,000 and FAO US$15,000.

78

Annex 10 - Maps of the Project Area

Map 1 � Limits of the CCLME
Source: NOAA

Map 2 � Base map of CCLME showing FAO fisheries statistics zones
Source: FAO

79

Annex 11 - Co-financing commitments letters

80

Annex 12 - National endorsement letters

81