Agency’s Project ID:

GEFSEC Project ID: 2129

Country: Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles and Tanzania

Project Title: Demonstrating and capturing best practices and technologies for the reduction of land-sourced impacts resulting from coastal tourism

GEF Agency: UNEP

Other Executing Agency(ies): UNIDO

Duration: 5 years

GEF Focal Area: International Waters

GEF Operational Program: OP 10

GEF Strategic Priority: IW3 Innovative Demonstrations for Reducing Contaminants and Addressing Water Scarcity Issues.

Pipeline Entry Date: June 2003.

Estimated Starting Date: September 2006

IA Fee: US$541,314

Project Executive Summary

GEF Council Work Program Submission

Contribution to Key Indicators of the Business Plan: Use of targeted demonstrations testing local feasibility of innovative technology and barrier removal in nine countries. Development of national strategies linked to contaminant reduction, especially from land-based sources. Engagement of the private sector into partnerships with other sectors.

Financing Plan (US$)
GEF Project/Component
Project	5,388,200
PDF A
PDF B	626,400
PDF C
Sub-Total GEF	6,014,600
Co-financing*
UN Agencies	455,000
Government	20,781,816
Bilateral	15,000
NGOs	2,050,000
Others - Multilateral	20,000
Others – Private Sector	35,000
Sub-Total Co-financing:	23,356.816
Total Project Financing:	29,371,416
Financing for Associated Activities If Any:
Leveraged Resources If Any:

*Details provided under the Financial Modality and Cost Effectiveness section

Approved on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion

Olivier Deleuze

O-i-C, UNEP DGEF

Takehiro Nakamura

Project Contact Person

Date: 24 March 2006

Tel. and email: +254-20-7623886

Takehiro.nakamura@unep.org

Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government(s):

Cameroon Mr. Justin Ngoko Nantchou GEF Operational Focal Point Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection Yaounde, Cameroon	27 January 2006
Gambia Mr. Momodou Cham GEF National Focal Point and Executive Director National Environment Agency Banjul, The Gambia	13 May 2003
Ghana Mr. Edward O. Nsenkyire Chief Director and GEF Operational Focal Point Ministry of Environment and Science Accra, Ghana	02 March 2006
Kenya Dr Avignon Muusya Mwinzi Ag. Director General and GEF Operational Focal Point National Environment Management Authority Nairobi, Kenya	24 February 2006
Mozambique Mr. Policarpo Napica GEF National Focal Point Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Affairs, Maputo, Mozambique	14 March 2006
Nigeria Ms. Anne Ene-Ita GEF National Operational Focal Point Federal Ministry of Environment Abuja, Nigeria	21 March 2006
Senegal Ms. Fatima Dia Touré GEF Operational Focal Point Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection Dakar, Senegal	23 March 2006
Seychelles Ambassador Claude Morel Principal Secretary and GEF Operational Focal Point Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mahe, Seychelles	19 April 2006
Tanzania Mr. A.R.M.S. Rajabu Permanent Secretary and GEF Operational Focal Point Vice Presidents Office, DarEs Salaam, Tanzania	27 February 2006

1. Project Summary

(a) Project Rationale, Objectives, Outputs/Outcomes, and Activities.

Global Problem to be Addressed

1. The sub-Saharan African region encompasses 32 coastal states bordering the Atlantic and Indian Ocean that support globally significant coastal and marine ecosystems and an abundance of species within a complex of diverse productive habitats (coral reefs, seagrass meadows, mangrove forests, estuaries and floodplain swamps and several major coastal upwelling sub-ecosystems). Up to 38% of the marine and coastal resources along the 48,000 km of sub-Saharan African coastline, and 68% of marine protected areas, are under a high degree of threat from development-related activities (agriculture, fishing, urbanisation, tourism, industrialization, mining for sand, limestone and coral, and oil, gas and other mineral resources), and this pattern is set to continue, if not intensify, in future. The natural beauty of the African coastal landscapes, and the rich and diverse flora and fauna they support, in combination with the favourable climate conditions, has increased the prominence of coastal tourism in the region. Coastal tourism is often considered the ‘environmentally friendly’ alternative to more exploitative livelihood options, with the added potential to benefit environmental protection (by increasing the appreciation of the value of natural resources) and diversify livelihood options. Coastal tourism has developed at different rates in sub-Saharan African countries however development has typically progressed in an ad hoc, un-planned and uncontrolled manner. In the absence of proper controls and legally enforceable environmental standards and planning, tourism operators have tended to focus on short term profits, and this situation is resulting in environmental and socio-cultural impacts that are posing a serious threat to the coastal and marine ecosystems of transboundary significance, as well as the long term sustainability of the tourism sector which depends on a clean and attractive environment. Although tourism already contributes a significant portion of export services and GDP[1] in some countries, there is immense scope for further growth[2]. There is a need for sub-Saharan African countries to reduce the existing and future impacts of the tourism sector on marine and coastal ecosystems of transboundary significance through developing more sustainable coastal tourism where the level of tourism activity continues to produce positive long term benefits for the social, economic, natural and cultural environments[3]. There is also an opportunity to utilize the position and the incentive of the tourism sector to act as a catalyst to: (i) improve the planning and management of coastal tourism destinations, (ii) increase interest and awareness of key environmental assets and achieve broader goals in terms of their protection and, (iii) accrue sustainable social and economic benefits through providing alternative livelihood options, creating more jobs and supporting the development of small businesses.

Threats to Sustainable Tourism Development

2. Damage from Tourism Related Pollution and Contamination: Tourism developments increase the number of people visiting, living and working in the fragile coastal zone, as well as the level of land- and marine-based activities. The increasing in coastal population expands both the volume of wastes produced (airborne, liquid and solid) and, in the absence of proper controls (e.g. carrying capacity) and appropriate technologies for waste management, disposal and treatment, the volume of wastes released into the environment. Contaminants may be introduced from land-based sources (e.g. brown- and grey water point and non-point discharges, hydrocarbon emissions from recreational and commercial vehicles, solid wastes such as plastics and metals, sediment run off due to land clearance and construction), and marine-based sources (e.g. boat oil, ballast water or bilge discharges as well as rubbish dumped overboard). These degrade environmental quality (air, fresh and coastal water) and threaten biodiversity (including displacement and phase shifts in community structure) and have serious socio-economic implications for human health (e.g. availability of potable water, waterborne diseases), traditional livelihoods (e.g. income from fisheries) and future tourism potential. At present, treatment facilities are often not provided by the public or private sector, there is limited self regulation within the private sector and a lack of incentives provided by the government to adopt such measures. Furthermore governments tend not to have the capacity to allocate land suitable for development, and developers are not provided with formal guidance or incentives to mitigate impacts.

3. Direct Destruction and Degradation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystems: Tourism related activities in proximity to sensitive, critical or functional coastal and marine habitats are affecting species diversity, the integrity and ecosystem function of marine and coastal environments and the local community. Critical habitats are being lost (e.g. land clearance or land reclamation, removal of seagrass beds), fragmented (e.g. by road construction), damaged (e.g. dredging, snorkeller or diver impacts), or simply degraded (e.g. increase sediment run-off degrades water clarity and affects coral reefs) as a result of tourist development or recreational activities. The direct destruction of habitats also having socio-economic impacts (e.g. removal of mangroves increases shoreline vulnerability to floods and tsunamis). These threats are often due to inadequate protection of habitats and species, limited integrated planning and zoning, coupled with inadequate monitoring and enforcement, and inappropriate legislation and policy.

4. Unsustainable Use of Natural Resources by the Tourism Sector: Coastal tourism increases the demands for natural resources, for both consumption and trade, and in the absence of proper controls can encourage over-harvesting of natural resources (e.g. fish and invertebrates, water, electricity and gas), the use of inappropriate materials (e.g. mangrove wood for timber, fuel, or coral for construction) and, the use of inappropriate harvesting techniques (e.g. dynamite fishing, sand-mining). Over-exploitation of natural resources can result in the loss or degradation of critical habitats and loss of species, and disrupt trophic linkages and marine productivity, and hydrological and sand transport regimes. The unsustainable use of natural resources to meet current tourist demands reduces their availability to local communities and for future generations. This creates conflicts in land use (e.g. agricultural land, beach access, fish landing sites), threatens traditional livelihoods, (e.g. reduction in productivity and increased costs due to need to travel further to fish or collect water), decreases quality of life (e.g. loss of coastal land for other economic purposes or residential use or recreational use), and poses threats due to increased erosion and shoreline vulnerability. At present there is limited legislation and policy relating to exploitation of natural resources, a lack of sectoral zoning for land-use, limited protection of critical or sensitive areas, and inadequate monitoring and enforcement.

Overall Transboundary Concerns

5. These threats create the following transboundary-related threats and concerns: (a) Degradation and loss of marine and coastal habitats and overall decline of regional and global biodiversity; (b) Loss of integrity of marine and coastal ecosystems that support trophic levels in the food chain; (c) Habitat fragmentation / loss of connectivity due to loss of critical habitats (feeding and nursery grounds) for resident and migratory species; (d) Affects of pollution on human health; (e) Loss of recreational areas; (f) Loss of tourism income potential; (g) Increased poverty and loss of traditional livelihoods (distance travelled to fish, collect water) and (h) Sedimentation problems frequently cross both land and marine boundaries.

Barriers to Sustainable Tourism Development

6. Weak policy frameworks, inadequate legislation, regulation and enforcement were identified as key barriers to sustainable tourism. Countries need to develop policy frameworks to guide and regulate tourism development, which include coastal ecotourism and /or sustainable coastal tourism development. The countries also need to improve enforcement of existing legislation for environmental protection /resource use / land tenure and policy implementation between the ministries.

7. Institutional Frameworks currently do not support cross-sectoral integrated sustainable tourism / environmental protection and participation of private sector and civil society. Countries need to redefine the division of responsibility between the key agencies and remove areas of overlap so that agencies responsible for inspection and licensing process for quality also address environmental concerns. The institutional arrangements also need to allow community and private sector participation in tourism related planning and management issues, and full inter-sectoral and stakeholder collaboration.

8. Limited or Poor Spatial and Infrastructural Planning and ad hoc development of tourism, in sensitive areas with limited infrastructure, is preventing the development of sustainable tourism, and the cause of conflicts between civil society and the tourism sector (e.g. loss of access to beaches, traditional fish landing sites and resources), and with other private sectors (e.g. mining, petroleum, and agriculture). This highlights the need for better planning and integrated coastal management, as well as improved participation of local stakeholders in the planning and management process.

9. Limited Human Resources and Capacity in local authorities, enforcement bodies, tourism operators and civil society is a key constraint in terms of: (a) monitoring environmental and socio-economic concerns, (b) compliance to guidelines/ regulations/ enforcement, (c) promoting sustainable tourism, and helping develop more ecologically and culturally sensitive tourism, (d) improving understanding of key tools and techniques, (e) outreach and awareness raising (local community and tourists) on sustainable tourism, (f) tourism planning and management research and training, and a lack of appropriate models and techniques, (g) training/ educational institutions to build capacity in coastal tourism and coastal management (especially for local communities).

10. Understanding, Awareness and Outreach needs to be improved across all sectors to define the importance of limiting damage and maintaining ecosystem functions and services to support sustainable tourism and other livelihoods. There is a need to demonstrate the true economic value of sustainable tourism approaches in terms of the potentially substantial economic benefits accrued, the actual lost revenues, and the associated costs of lost ecosystem functions and landscape values and to aid decision makers.

11. Limited Data / Information on Tourism in an easily accessible format and the ability to share information at both the national and regional level was identified as a key constraint to decision making for sustainable tourism. Some countries have prepared coastal habitat and sensitivity maps, and regional mapping projects have collated datasets. There is a need to make this information accessible to tourism agencies and the private sector, and a need for an effective regional body to provide guidance and case studies on tourism related issues and best practices.

12. Insufficient effective participation by private sector in planning and management of tourism and key environmental assets. There is a need to provide incentives and establish institutional frameworks that encourage the private sector to regulate their activities (EMS and certification), public-private-partnerships, investment, diversification and alternative technologies.

13. Insufficient participation of local communities in the planning of tourism developments resulting in conflicts, loss of traditional livelihoods, and public recreational areas. Local communities need to improve business skills to allow them to participate and benefit from eco-tourism.

14. Basic Infrastructure and Appropriate Technology to cope with increased number of visitors i.e. in protected areas, transportation systems, roads, international airports, wastewater and solid waste management and disposal.

15. Fiscal Policies and Financial Instruments to support basic tourism infrastructure and appropriate technology, monitoring, project development, enforcement, capacity building, and for outreach activities to raise awareness amongst local communities and other agencies about tourism concerns, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas.

Project Rationale and Strategy

16. The Project will aim to reduce the impacts resulting from land- and marine-based pollutants and contaminants associated with coastal tourism on critical habitats of global significance and will leverage private sector support in resolving these transboundary concerns. The Project will demonstrate best practices/ strategies to illustrate how tourism can provide a sustainable solution with the capacity to act as a catalyst for development which conserves and protects environments and fosters benefits for host communities and lessons of best practices will be captured for dissemination within and beyond the region. Specifically the Project will demonstrate strategies to address the key issues and concerns identified in the four tourism project proposals included in the Portfolio of Project Proposals^{^[4]}, which arose from the GEF/UNEP MSP the “African Process” which were endorsed by the heads of state at the Africa Process Super Preparatory Committee meeting in Abuja, Nigeria in June 2002 and the Ministerial and Heads of State meeting in Johannesburg, held at the sidelines of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), and the NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development) Thematic Group on Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems meeting hosted by the Government of Nigeria in February 2003. The project will be implemented in nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, and Tanzania), eight of which participated in the “African Process” (with the exception of Cameroon). All of these countries identified tourism as an existing or potential threat to their coastal and marine environments through the GEF/UNEP MSP, PDF-B and through associated transboundary diagnostic analyses.

17. The proposed Project will aim to primarily to ameliorate coastal pollution and contaminants arising from the land-based and coastal activities associated with tourism facilities, and which impact on significant transboundary waters and associated ecosystems. Activities undertaken to achieve these aims will inevitably result in secondary benefits including the reduction of human-induced physical alteration of critical habitats (e.g. reduction of sediment contamination through reforms to coastal development approaches and policies, protection of critical coastal ecosystems such as mangroves which act as filters, designation of sensitive areas to ensure effective legislation and enforcement against land-based impacts and tourism-related contaminants). These activities will therefore provide further incidental global biodiversity benefits in conformity with the GPA/LBA and with NEPAD. An important element of this Project will be the active involvement of the private sector in resolving these transboundary concerns. Specifically the full Project will demonstrate best practices/ strategies for addressing the key issues and concerns identified in the four tourism project proposals included in the Portfolio of Project Proposals^{^[5]}, which arose from the “African Process”. These strategies will illustrate how tourism can provide a sustainable solution that has the capacity to act as a catalyst for development while adding to the conservation and protection of the coastal environment and fostering benefits for host communities.

18. The global environmental Goal of this Project is to support and enhance the conservation of globally significant coastal and marine ecosystems and associated biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa, through the reduction of the negative environmental impacts which they receive as a result of coastal tourism.

19. The Objective of the Project is to demonstrate best practice strategies for sustainable tourism to reduce the degradation of marine and coastal environments of transboundary significance. In this context, the major component of the Project deliverables (and a substantial focus of the funding) is toward on-the-ground delivery through demonstrations targeting selected Hotspots (see Table below and the Project Brief, Appendix A – The Demonstrations for details).

Project Outcomes and Outputs

Component 1. Capture of Best Available Practices and Technologies (GEF Financing: US$2,850,000, Co-Financing: US$11,232,470)

Outcome: Demonstrated Reductions in Sewage and Wastewater Discharges and Damage to Critical Habitats in the Coastal and Marine Environment from Tourism

· Global review and identification of the Best Available Practices (BAPs) and Best Available Technologies (BATs) applicable to sustainable tourism within the sub-Saharan African situation (Output 1.A). The review will include a Partnership Incentives and Benefits Analysis to identify the most appropriate partnership models and cross-sectoral benefits to ensure participation of tourism stakeholders, including private sector and local community, in sustainable tourism in sub-Saharan Africa.

· Implementation of National Demonstrations to elaborate Best Available Practices (BAPs) and Best Available Technologies (BATs) for Sustainable Tourism to minimize and mitigate the impacts of tourism development in coastal areas by resolving barriers to sustainable tourism, particularly in relation to land-based sources of impact and coastal contamination arising from tourism-related activities at specific hotspots / sensitive areas (Output 1.B). The demonstrations include national pilot projects:

1. Establishment and Implementation of Environmental Management Systems and voluntary Eco-certification and Labelling schemes,

2. Development of eco-tourism through sustainable alternative livelihoods and generation of revenues for protection of coastal ecosystems with associated benefits for the local community, and,

3. Sustainable reef recreation management for the protection of reef ecosystems from tourism-related impacts and contaminants.

· The demonstrations will deliver real, ‘on-the-ground’ benefits to the participating countries, which, while realizing the ‘global benefit’ requirements of GEF, also recognise the need to change the adverse conditions existing in the countries with respect to coastal tourism. The demonstrations are designed to engage the private sector and enhance appropriate tri-sector partnerships to enable formulation of appropriate national policies for sustainable tourism development in coastal and marine areas.

· On-going information on Project activities and achievements, especially relating to best lessons and practices from the Demonstrations, and overall BAPs and BATS arising from Component 1 will be shared with IW:LEARN and made available to other stakeholders and interested parties through a website that is consistent with IW:LEARN guidelines

Component 2. Development and Implementation of Mechanisms for Sustainable Tourism Governance and Management (GEF Financing: US$ 300,000, Co-Financing: US$ 3,376,409)

Outcome: Enhanced National Policies, Regulatory and Economic Incentives Supporting Sustainable Tourism Governance and Management

· This component aims to address the urgent need for each of the participating countries to develop an appropriate policy and strategy framework to guide the development of tourism in coastal areas and will assist countries to streamline their legislation, policy and regulatory framework alongside institutional needs in relation to coastal tourism and consistent with an integrated approach to coastal ecosystem management, through the following outputs:

· National reviews and assessments of policy, legislation, institutional arrangements and financial mechanisms to identify needs and requirements (Output 2.A) to identify constraints to sustainability within the tourism sector, and make recommendations on the improvements required such as revisions to the frameworks for integrated cross-sectoral management approaches (notably Integrated Coastal Management).

· Development of model guidelines (Output 2.B) based upon the review of BATs and BAPs (from Output 1.A) and refined using the demonstrations (from Output 1.B) to provide participating countries a guidance basis on which to develop National Sustainable Tourism Management Strategies and work-plans for delivery over the long-term.

· National Sustainable Tourism Strategies (Output 2.C), and associated policy and legislative reforms and institutional realignments (alongside training and capacity needs in Component 3) will be implemented with the assistance of the Project, governed by the approved work-plan and schedule.

Component 3. Assessment & Delivery of Training & Capacity Requirements Emphasizing an Integrated Approach to Sustainable Tourism (GEF Financing: US$ 150,000, Co-Financing: US$ 900,334)

Outcome : Enhanced Institutional Capacities Supporting Sustainable Coastal Tourism management

This Component will develop a regional programme to provide national cross-sectoral training to enhance the capacity of government agencies, tourism enterprises, the environmental service sector, and communities to be able to respond to the environmental challenges posed and faced by the tourism sector. Specific capacity building and training packages will be elaborated for individual stakeholder needs so as to differentiate between the requirements of the various sectors (including public and private)..

· A needs and resource assessment of national baselines and requirements (Output 3.A) will identify the existing capacity within different stakeholder groups, institutions and agencies, their specific training and capacity requirements including those pertaining to the demonstration pilot projects.

· Development of specific sectoral model packages and guidelines for national dissemination for sustainable tourism training, based on current best practice within and beyond the region (Output 3.B). These training materials and curriculum (‘packages’) will be specifically tailored to meet the differentiated needs of various stakeholder groups and will support the model guidelines from Output 2.B. above. A regional training of trainers programme on the key subjects above which will expand the pool of qualified personnel able to assist countries in implementing national programmes and the courses will be embedded in appropriate local institutions.

· Adoption and implementation of national programmes for T&CB (with agreed work-plans) targeting relevant sectors (Output 3.C), with due consideration to the specific country needs, and specialized training and targeted capacity building requirements relating to the implementation of National Sustainable Tourism Management Strategies (from Output 2.B), particularly those that may require capital support.

Through this Component tourism enterprises will improve their capacity to identify, evaluate, prioritise and establish responsible environmental management activities. Local government will improve their capacity to plan and manage tourism developments and improve their understanding of what tourism enterprises can realistically achieve and what should be the responsibility of national governments (i.e. in terms of municipal services and infrastructure). Local communities will improve their capacity to develop eco-tourism projects and derive sustainable benefits. These activities will also increase the pool of trained professionals capable of advising on sustainable tourism strategies in the region.

Component 4. Information Capture, Management & Dissemination (GEF Financing: US$ 500,000, Co-Financing: US$ 4,624,648)

outcome : Widespread Public Knowledge and Information Availability about Tourism Impacts on the Coastal and Marine Ecosystems

· Through this component a Regional Information Coordination House (RICH) will be established which will house a regional GIS-based coastal Environmental Information Management and Advisory System (EIMAS) to coordinate the capture, storage, management and dissemination of information from existing sustainable tourism and related initiatives within and beyond the region, and from the demonstration activities in this Project (Output 4.A). The regional EIMAS will be linked to National EIMAS nodes which will be established within each participating country (see Outputs 4.B to 4D). This component will also resolve the problem of insufficient baseline data upon which to base M&E indicators to measure and verify reductions in impacts. Collection of this baseline data will take place during the first 6 months of the project (focusing on the demonstration sites but also developing overall national monitoring programmes) in order to provide a benchmark against which to compare future parameters relating to land-based sources of pollution and contaminants.

· The National data capture and management needs (including GIS, mapping, zoning, monitoring, presentation) (Output 4.B), will be identified through the projects, and appropriate regionally coordinated EIMAS training materials will be developed through Component 3 (in coordination with the RICH) for different stakeholder groups and a programme and work-plan will be developed and implemented through Output 3.C.

· National Environmental Information Management and Advisory Systems (EIMAS) models (Output 4.C.) will be developed to provide a two-way information flow so that (a) data captured at the ‘field’ level is packaged effectively and delivered to the relevant policy- and decision-makers, and (b) these same policy- and decision-makers can request specific information and supportive data on pertinent and topical issues or concerns requiring their urgent (or long-term) attention

· National work-plans for EIMAS adoption and institutionalization (Output 4.D) will be implemented at nationally selected nodes in each country, following training and capacity building (from Component 3) alongside the implementation of National Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy.

· Targeted awareness packages and policy level sensitization will be developed and national delivery programmes will be implemented (Output 4.E), in a coordinated manner via national EIMAS nodes, for community organizations, the private sector and senior management and policy–makers. These outreach activities will involve local or regional NGOs as appropriate.

Component 5. Project Management Coordination, Monitoring & Evaluation (GEF Financing: US$ 1,588,200, Co-Financing: US$ 3,222,955)

outcome: Established Project Management Capacity and Institutional Mechanisms

· A Project Coordination Unit (Output 5.A) will be established to coordinate and integrate the needs and deliveries with overall responsibility and accountability to the Regional Steering Committee (which includes the EA and IA) and to GEF

· A Regional Coordination Mechanism will be established that includes a Regional Project Steering Committee (RPSC) to provide regional project ownership and oversight, and a Regional Technical Advisory Group (RTAG) consisting of suitably qualified regional or international specialists to provide specific technical advice to the Regional Project Steering Committee (Output 5.B)

· National Coordination Mechanisms (Output 5.C) will be established in each participating country that includes a National Stakeholder Committees (NSC), to oversee national implementation and project activities, and a National Technical Advisory Group (NTAG), with inter-sectoral stakeholder membership to advise the NSCs on technical issues related to the project, including national demonstration activities. To ensure the successful establishment of partnership arrangements, and active participation of the private sector in the project multi-stakeholder National Partnership Meetings will be held immediately following inception (2-3 meetings in the first 6 months).

· Appropriate indicators and necessary M&E procedures will be adopted and implemented (including assessment and evaluation of post-project sustainability) as per Implementing and Executing Agency and GEF requirements (Output 5.D)

20. The following Table summarises the Demonstrations that are explained and discussed in greater detail in Appendix A to the Project Brief

OUTPUT	PRIORITY	COUNTRY	TITLE OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	OP 10 Issues Covered
1B.1	Establishment and Implementation of Environmental Management Systems and Voluntary Eco-certification and Labelling Schemes	Ghana 1	Environmental Management Systems for the Budget Hotel Sector	Solid wastes, Sewage and wastewater discharges, water use efficiency
		Nigeria 1	Coastal Use Zonation and Integrated Coastal Management in the Niger Delta Coastal Area of Nigeria	Solid, waste, Sewage and wastewater discharges, water use efficiency, critical habitat destruction
		Senegal 1	Environmental Management Systems for Petite Cote	Solid waste, Sewage and wastewater discharges, water use efficiency
1B.2	Development of eco-tourism to alleviate poverty through sustainable alternative livelihoods and generate revenues for conservation of biodiversity and the benefit of the local community.	Ghana 2	Integrated Eco-tourism Destination Planning and Management: Elmina-Cape Coast, Ada Estuary, Volta Estuary, Western Stilt Villages	Habitat destruction, solid waste and sewage
		Nigeria 2	Tourism Master Planning in an Ecologically Fragile Environment	Habitat destruction, solid waste and sewage
		Cameroon	Ecotourism development on Cote Sur (Kribi to Campo)	Habitat destruction, solid waste and sewage
		Gambia	Strengthening community-based ecotourism and joint-venture partnerships	Habitat destruction, solid waste and sewage
1B.3	Promote best practices in mitigating environmental impacts of tourism and conserve globally significant biodiversity through improved reef recreation management	Mozambique	Community-based ecotourism, reef management and environmental management systems, Inhambane district coastline	Habitat destruction, solid waste, wastewater and sewage, water use efficiency
	Integrated Sustainable Tourism Destination Planning	Kenya	Integrated Planning and Management of Sustainable Tourism at the Mombassa Coastal Area	Habitat destruction, solid waste, waste water and sewage
		Senegal 2	Petite Cote Integrated Ecotourism Tourism Planning	Habitat destruction, solid waste and sewage
		Tanzania	Integrated Planning and Management of Sustainable Tourism in Tanzania	Habitat destruction, solid waste, wastewater and sewage, water use efficiency

1B.1. Establishment and Implementation of Environmental Management Systems and voluntary Eco-certification and Labelling schemes.

21. The specific objective of this demonstration project is to promote public-private partnerships through the voluntary introduction of environmental management systems (EMS) by coastal hotels in each participating country, with the aim of reducing and minimising negative environmental impacts of tourism development in coastal areas and enhancing sustainable planning and management of the sector. The project will result in a significant reduction of the negative impacts of coastal tourism by building national institutional capacities in all the countries and creating an enabling environment for the coastal tourism industry to plan and implement effective EMS in their operations. Hotels will be encouraged in their efforts at introducing improved environmental management practices. In addition to reducing the pressures upon the sensitive environments upon which they rely, hotel establishments will benefit economically and technically from improved management in the form of energy savings, better resource use and less wastage. Local communities will benefit from increased purchases of local commodities by hotels and also by lower demands by the tourism industry on scarce shared resources such as water and energy. The local tourism industry supply sectors, including planners, designers and engineers will have enhanced environmental awareness and technical capabilities for integrating environmental considerations in designing and building tourism facilities. The project will integrate coastal tourism specific requirements into local environmental impact assessment and environmental auditing frameworks; stronger links with existing coastal planning processes will be built; and specific guidelines, standards and codes of conduct will be developed. Regulatory authorities, local authorities and environmental professionals will be strengthened in their capabilities to manage, guide and review coastal tourism specific EIAs and audits. Capacities will be built in appropriate and sustained ways of monitoring environmental quality parameters. The use of economic instruments and public-private partnerships shall be explored in order to assist local authorities and the tourism industry to pay for or to leverage additional financing for environmental improvements and environmental infrastructure. The possibility of establishing a regional eco-certification scheme will be explored.

IB.2. Development of eco-tourism to alleviate poverty through sustainable alternative livelihoods and generate revenues for conservation of biodiversity and the benefit of the local community.

22. The specific objective of this demonstration is to (a) alleviate poverty and provide alternative livelihoods for local communities through the development of eco-tourism and coastal use zonation schemes which will result in reductions in land-based impacts and mitigation of the threat from contaminants; (b) generate revenues for environmental conservation and contaminant monitoring and control through eco-tourism; and (c) promote best practices in mitigating environmental impacts of tourism while conserving globally significant biodiversity through such actions as improved mangrove conservation management (which will help to reduce the widespread effects of land-based sources of sedimentation whilst also maintaining an important ecosystem function i.e. the filtration properties of wetlands and mangroves). The demonstration will promote ecotourism development that minimises and prevents negative impacts on the natural and socio-cultural environment and contributes to the conservation of coastal biological diversity by jointly mitigating impacts from discharges and contaminants while generating benefits for host communities, organisations and authorities managing natural areas for conservation purposes providing sustainable alternative livelihood and income opportunities for local communities; and increasing awareness of natural and cultural assets among local people and tourists. The main problems to be directly addressed by the project are: (a) uncontrolled and unregulated development of “ecotourism”, particularly in sensitive areas and areas of environmental significance; (b) negative environmental impacts as a result of the above; and (c) negative environmental impacts as a result of poverty and the lack of alternative livelihoods other than those that exploit environmental resources in an unsustainable manner. The demonstration pilot projects (Table 3) have been identified in part for their potential financial viability as sustainable ecotourism ventures, the Project will ensure that local decision-makers and communities are involved in project design, business planning and implementation. Detailed business plans will be formulated to ensure community ownership and benefits adequate capacity building and skills development.

IB.3. Sustainable reef recreation management for the conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity.

23. The specific objective of this demonstration is to implement projects for sustainable reef recreation management, focusing on the relationship between recreation development in sensitive or affected coral areas and the associated impacts of increases sedimentation and pollution from discharges, etc related to tourist activities. The main tourism activity that will be addressed in this project is the diving, snorkelling, boating and fishing industry, which will require the active involvement of and partnership with private sector companies, tour operators and boat operators. The implementation will also require cooperation and coordination with non-tourism reef users, such as local fishermen and residents. The specific objective of this component is the conservation of coral reefs, through the coordination and regulation of reef use, and in appropriate locations the installation of mooring buoys. Mooring buoys can help to protect coral reefs against the direct impacts of anchor damage by diving and other recreational and industrial activities, and can also provide a level of protection against increased sedimentation associated with anchoring and help to focus diver activities which can help to provide protection to more sensitive areas of the reef. Participatory management and co-management plans will be developed and will include zonation, buoy installation (i.e. location, density and usage guidelines) and scheduling of reef use by boat operators. Building on the opportunity for a regional dimension, these activities will demonstrate and share best practices in mitigation measures to protect globally significant coral reefs, breeding grounds for transboundary migratory species, endangered species, and will have a clear demonstrative value. For sustainability purposes, the collection of fees and or donations for reef use will be included in the management plan as a way of raising funds to ensure maintenance and meeting recurrent costs in the long term. Monitoring of the implementation of reef-use guidelines and regulations would preferably be undertaken by local stakeholders in conjunction with conservation authorities. This encourages local ownership, buy-in and application of guidelines. An adequate proportion of revenues will be used for the local installation and maintenance of mooring buoys, and for management and monitoring costs of the reefs in general. This will ensure for the sustainability of the project in terms of its financial requirements.

End-of Project Landscape

24. By the end this 5-year project it is expected that each country will have adopted and be implementing a Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy. This will have captured their needs and requirements in respect of specific land-based and contaminant related threats and impacts and the ability to address these with Best Available Practices and Best Available Techniques. The Strategies will have been specifically customised to the needs of the country in this respect using best lessons and practices both from within the system boundary and external to it. Every country will also have received targeted training and capacity building to suit their personal requirements. Each country will have an active EIMAS that is linked directly to the regional EIMAS at the Regional Information Coordination House. The RICH will act as a clearing house for sustainable tourism information and latest technologies, innovative practices and lessons. It will also provide the countries with up-to-date awareness and political sensitisation packages delivered specifically to the targets for which they are designed. National and regional awareness and sensitivity will have been significantly raised and decision makers at the senior management and policy level will be fully familiarised with the cost benefits of sustainable tourism, the long-term need to manage and maintain coastal ecosystem functions and services, and the social and economic benefits of such actions, This awareness will also have grown within the private sector which will have received specific training and capacity building in more sustainable techniques for tourism including EMS , EMA and other techniques. Communities and individuals that are dependent on the cost for their livelihoods will have been empowered through participatory management processes and their quality of life and welfare improved through the adoption of alternative livelihoods which are not only more sustainable and supportive of ecosystem functionality but are also more economically viable and rewarding. Globally their will be noticeable benefits by way of securing the long-term survival and protection of coastal habitats and species of transboundary significance, reduction in LBS pollution and contamination within the sensitive coastal zone and marine waters of the participating countries and their neighbours, and the provision of highly replicable and active demonstrations of Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy implementation within each country. The major delivery form the Project at the national level will be guidelines and real mechanisms/strategies for policy and legislative reforms that will reduce land-based and contaminant related impacts from tourism.

25. The Demonstration Projects will aim to strengthen existing environmental policy, legislation and institutional arrangements (as appropriate) in order to promote and successfully deliver reductions in pollutants and general mitigation of coastal degradation arising from tourism-related contaminant impacts. The Demonstration Projects will further aim to identify and test Best Available Practices and Best Available Technologies for improving the control and mitigation of the effects of contaminants and pollutants. The lessons and best practices arising from the Demonstration Projects (as per Output 1.2) will be integrated with identified lessons and best practices from other areas and initiatives around the world (as per Outcome 1.1) to provide lessons and guidelines for the development of national legislative and policy models and strategies focussing on the reduction of pollutants and contaminants arising from the tourism sector (as per Output 2.B and as implemented through Output 2.C.

26. In particular, the 11 national and local level demonstrations will provide lessons and best practices for the overall strengthening and improvement of policy and regulatory frameworks by testing and proving the following actions and strategies:

· National Tourism Policies revised and expanded to cover requirement for mitigation and reduction of tourism-related pollutant and contaminant impacts

· Development and implementation of Responsible Tourism Guidelines)

· Evolution of appropriate institutional mechanisms for stakeholder implementation and enforcement of tourism plans and particularly ecotourism policies (including involvement and meaningful participation of coastal communities)

· Development of model policies for controlling development and potential contaminants in ecologically sensitive areas (particularly through the use of zoning and land-use policies, and designation and establishment of protected areas with stricter controls and regulations on impacts)

· Development of policies that support community based management of coastal resources addressing such issues as poorly sited facilities, illegal settlements, land ownership security, and encouragements of alternative/improved livelihoods directly linked to reduction of contaminants and mitigating degradation of coastal resources.

· Resolve policy and legislative issues related to overlapping responsibilities and mandates of authorities

· Development of clearer understanding and sensitisation at the policy level and at the management/director level within agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcement of legislation.

· Identify and test mechanisms for effective enforcement of agree national policies and legislation such as those that relate to water conservation, cumulative impacts from contaminants, maintaining ecosystem services that prevent sedimentation and erosion, etc.

· Identify and test mechanisms for enforcement of regulations regarding tourism development and natural resource use and extraction within protected and sensitive areas

· Build capacities and expertise at all levels, and within all sectors to understand and support legislation and regulations relevant to natural resource use, land designation and establishing ecotourism businesses

· Engage with Government, parliamentarians and other policy makers to incorporate changes into existing policy and legal frameworks and to adopt appropriate economic incentives for environmental management

· Develop more appropriate pricing policies for user fees for entry to MPAs and sensitive areas as a means of collecting revenues to monitor the effects of contaminants and pollutants

· Inclusion of considerations relating to land-based sources of pollutants and other coastal contaminants into national Disaster Management Strategies and Action Plans

· Adoption of environmental monitoring requirements and feedback mechanisms into national policies and legislation

· Adoption of environmental management systems and environmental management accounting, sustainable enterprise strategies and cleaner production processes into national policies for the tourism sector and into the National Tourism Strategies and Action Plans as an incentive mechanism for controlling and reducing pollutants and contaminants

(b) Key indicators, assumptions and risks

27. The Project Indicators, Risks and Assumptions are listed in the Logical Framework (Annex B). For the overall Project, there are three main Indicators. The first indicator would be the adoption by the participating countries of sustainable tourism management and development policies and strategies that clearly reflect the objectives of GEF and the aims of Operational Programme 10, with particular focus on Land-based Sources of Pollution (LBS) and embracing the concepts of the Global Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). These strategies require formal participation by private sector stakeholders in the coastal tourism hotspots. There are two assumptions here that the participating countries have the political will to adopt Sustainable Tourism Strategies, and that mechanisms can be evolved for private sector involvement that are acceptable within traditional governance processes, and that willing cooperation and partnership can be fostered between the public and private sector. Tri-sector partnerships would need to be encouraged in order to strengthen this stakeholder participation and integration into the management process. The second indicator would be the noticeable reduction in the degradation and overall loss of coastal and offshore environments as a result of unsustainable tourism, which will be confirmed through measurable targets. This assumes that there will be sufficient human resources available and willing to be trained in the tools and techniques needed to help mitigate / reduce the impacts of sustainable tourism. It also assumes that the private sector is willing to participate in the training and adopt the measures required (e.g. voluntary self-regulation). The third indicator will be the improvement of benefits from tourism to host communities (e.g. through enhanced alternative livelihoods, secured access and landing rights, etc). The assumptions here are that alternative’ livelihoods are attractive to individuals and are sustainable, that there are sufficient opportunities for alternative livelihoods, and that government legislation protects community rights (access to beaches and landing sites). Specific indicators, in particular impact indicators, will correspond to specific targets within the biodiversity and land degradation focal areas as required by an OP10 project.

28. Risks the project may confront were judiciously evaluated during project preparation, and risk mitigation measures were incorporated into project design. Other assumptions that informed project design are described in the Logical Framework, overall risks have be summarized as below:

29. The countries are eligible under para. 9 (b) of the GEF Instrument.

Risks and Assumptions		Risk Mitigation Measure
National governments willing to cooperate in providing information and are prepared to undertake reforms or realignment of policy and legislation, including institutional re-modelling and fiscal options as appropriate.	L	Eight of the participating countries have been involved in the development of this project for over 6 years, and they have remained committed to the central aims of the project throughout its development. The countries fully endorsed the proposed activities through various regional meetings and sideline meetings at the WSSD. Detailed national assessments of resource and capacity needs will identify the pertinent changes required to support sustainable tourism development. National Strategies and workplans for implementing these reforms will then be crafted based on these specific findings, and training will be instigated to ensure the successful transition to implementation. High level awareness raising activities will be implemented through the project to ensure government agencies are aware of the need and importance of the proposed reforms and to promote compliance where reforms are necessary. The project will also collaborate with other regional GEF project throughout the duration of the Project and will coordinate reform activities.
Mechanisms can be evolved to encourage private sector involvement and funding. Clear vision of advantages and incentives. Willingness on part of stakeholders to recognise the need for improvements and willing to adopt changes as appropriate.	L	Private sector and civil society organizations have been involved in the development of the projects and the proposed activities, including the demonstration projects, through their participation in national stakeholder workshops and consultations during the MSP and PDFB. There are some existing examples of private sector commitment to sustainable tourism and voluntary self-regulation within the region that will act as leverage to encourage further involvement. A Partnership Incentive and Benefits Analysis will be prepared to identify the best models for establishing partnerships and the cross-sector benefits. National Partnership Meetings held soon after inception will present these finding and this engender further support and encourage continued involvement and active participation of both private sector and civil society partners.
Relevant and applicable models guidelines and strategies can be developed that are acceptable to countries.	L	The project originally developed from the GEF/UNEP MSP in which the countries identified the need to address specific concerns. The global review of BATs and BAPs in Component 1 will ensure that the most up-to-date methods and technologies are used as a basis for the regional BATs and BAPs models and guidelines provided to the countries. These BATs and BAPs will be tested within the region through the national demonstrations and the findings used to update / modify the models and guidelines so that they are tailored specifically to the regional situation.
National Governments, agencies and other tourism stakeholders are prepared to allocate appropriate staff for training and capacity building.	L	Government agencies are keen for staff to receive training as long as this is done under conditions of a ‘Train-and-Retain’ program. Stakeholder groups will understand potential benefits of adopting sustainable practices through awareness raising strategies, and National Partnership Meetings.
National Governments are willing to share information necessary to make RICH and EIMAS an effective regional information source.	M	Eight of the participating countries have been involved in the development of this project for over 6 years, and they have remained committed to the central aims throughout this development. All countries identified the need for improved mechanisms for information capture and transfer. Data sharing agreements will be drawn up to deal with any particularly sensitive information or issue relating to copyright. These agreements will be coordinated through the RICH system and the regional coordination mechanism. The benefits of the system will become apparent through its application and during the project and this will encourage continued support.
Politicians willing to act on concise information and guidance to alter policies in favour of sustainable tourism even when it may conflict with their economic and development aims.	M	The countries endorsed the suite of tourism projects proposed during the GEF/UNEP MSP (TOU01 to TOU04) and fully recognized the need to develop sustainable tourism as an essential part of the national development strategies. The tourism sector is one of the fastest growing economic sectors and it has both the position and incentive to act as a strong catalyst for policy and economic reforms. A regional Partnership Incentives and Benefits Analysis will identify the benefits to all parties including the public sector. This will be backed up by national level cost benefit analyses of the total economic costs and benefits of sustainable tourism. High level awareness raising activities will specifically include Finance Ministries to ensure their understanding of the potentially large benefits sustainable tourism can accrue.
Models, lessons learned and achievements from the demonstration projects will not be adopted nation-wide or replicable elsewhere.	L	Demo projects, sited to address diverse ecosystem requirements and sectoral approaches, are specifically designed to generate models that will deliver lessons and best practices. If these are successful there would be little reason for the government to oppose their use. Stakeholder participation and awareness targeting will include all parties and not just government
Financial mechanisms for sustainable tourism to suit each country’s requirements are identified through the project.	M	The BATs/BAPs outputs and associated assessments, models, demonstrations and guidelines will provide examples. These will capture global and regional examples that will be modifiable to local scenarios.
Overall Rating	L

*Risk Rating: L – (Low Risk); M – (Medium Risk); H – (High Risk).

2. Country Ownership

(a) Country Eligibility

30. The countries are eligible under para. 9 (b) of the GEF Instrument.

(b) Country Drivenness

31. The countries have demonstrated their commitment to managing their natural resources through various regional conventions as listed in the main Project Brief under the Regional Context. The origins of the proposed Project relate back to the Cape Town Declaration which affirmed the commitments of African leaders to strengthen cooperation through the relevant existing global and regional agreements, programmes and institutional mechanisms, including the UNEP Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Activities (GPA), and through the coordinating framework of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions. This resulted in a GEF/UNEP Medium Sized Project entitled "Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa", referred to as the African Process, which aimed to develop a common coastal policy to ensure that coastal and marine resources are conserved and sustainably used, and that coastal development is equitable, sustainable and optimizes the use of valuable coastal resources.

32. During the GEF/UNEP -MSP eleven countries worked collaboratively to identify priority areas for intervention: (a) Sustainable use of living resources; (b) Coastal erosion; (c) Pollution; (d) Management of key habitats and ecosystems; and (e) Coastal and marine tourism. Working groups prepared project proposals to address each issue, and resulted in the development of a portfolio of nineteen Framework Proposals that address a broad range of priority issues for sub-Saharan Africa, including four inter-related proposals that addressed coastal tourism:

· TOU01 Development of Sustainable Coastal Tourism Policies & Strategies;

· TOU02 Promoting environmental sustainability within the tourism industry through implementation of an eco-certification and labelling pilot programme for hotels;

· TOU03 Preparation of National Ecotourism Policies / Strategies and Identification of Pilot Projects for Implementation;

· TOU04 Pilot Measures to demonstrate best practice in Mitigating Environmental Impacts of Tourism: -Reef Recreation Management.

33. These proposals, which formed the basis of the PDF-B phase of the present Project were endorsed at the African Process Super Preparatory Committee meeting in Abuja, Nigeria in June 2002 and the Ministerial and Heads of State meeting in Johannesburg, held at the sidelines of the WSSD, and by the NEPAD Thematic Group on Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems meeting hosted by the Government of Nigeria in February 2003 in Abuja. The high level political support strengthened the process, and demonstrated the strong regional commitment to addressing these concerns and generating enhanced opportunities for sustainable development in Africa.

34. The proposed Project fully complements the commitments and priorities identified within the integrated development plan or ‘vision’ and strategic action plan^{^[6]} for sustainable development in Africa of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), thus further strengthening the institutional capacities of existing regional structures. The policy includes initiatives to improve economic and corporate governance within Africa and highlights the need for sub-regional and regional approaches to development. The strategy identifies six sectoral priority areas (infrastructure, human resources, agriculture, the environment, culture, science and technology). The proposed Project will help meet the specific objectives of the NEPAD Environment Initiative and the objectives of the regional Nairobi and Abidjan Convention, as well as assisting the region in meeting their obligations to the various regional and global priorities identified under Agenda 21 (Chapter 17) and WSSD.

35. During the UNEP/GEF-MSP the sub-Saharan African countries collaborated with a wide range of regional and international partners and donors who worked jointly with local stakeholders to design projects that build upon research and are endowed with a high degree of national ownership. Each of these countries individually endorsed the African Process Portfolio of Project Proposals as national priorities in keeping with their respective national policies. During the GEF PDF-B process, each participating country held national stakeholder consultation processes and produced national reports providing situation analyses with respect to coastal tourism and environmental impacts. The findings of the national reports are summarised in Annex F[7].

36. Several of the countries have developed or are just formulating their draft National Programmes of Action (NPA) to address land-based sources of coastal and marine pollution with UNEP GPA. The NPA’s help create a national enabling environment for the GPA, through strengthening institutional capacities and identifying national priorities and key activities. National level inter-ministerial multi-stakeholder Committees guide the NPA development process. The proposed Project will, where possible, build further on this initiative. Most of the countries have either developed or are considering revising national policies and regulations and are developing National Environmental Action Plans (NEAP) along with regulatory regimes for fisheries and mangrove management. Some of the countries are in the process of developing integrated coastal management plans with the assistance of UNIDO (e.g. Cameroon, Ghana and Nigeria). The majority of the countries are in the process of developing national tourism development plans (e.g. Seychelles, Senegal, and Ghana).

37. Other national level initiatives that promote cooperation and integration in sustainable development, tourism and/or environment currently ongoing or planned, through NEPAD and National Agencies and International Organizations include: Gambia with African Development Bank for the implementation of Tourism Masterplan; Ghana, Mozambique, Tanzania and Nigeria with UNIDO for integrated waste management; Gambia’s Sustainable Development Project with UNDP with special attention to ecotourism; Nigeria’s national policy framework using World Bank indicators; RAMSAR in Gambia and Ghana for wetlands protection; World Tourism Organisation (WTO) is implementing Integrated Tourism Development Programme (ITDP) in Ghana and assisting Nigeria to refine tourism policy. In addition there is increasing recognition and support for ecotourism within the region (e.g. ecotourism development and support strategy is launched in Gambia; trials to implement community based ecotourism in Senegal; support to voluntary organizations for coastal areas beautification issues in Ghana).

3. Program and Policy Conformity

(a) Fit To GEF Operational Program and strategic priority

38. The Project is wholly consistent with the long term objective of GEF Operational Program 10 through its aim to demonstrate of ways of overcoming barriers to the use of best practices for limiting releases of contaminants (especially best practices in waste management and pollution prevention) which are causing priority concerns in the International Waters focal area, through a series of localised demonstrations addressing particular hotspot areas as defined by the countries themselves, and by involving the private sector in utilizing technological advances for resolving these transboundary priority concerns. To complement this, the demonstrations will also specifically explore innovative and appropriate technologies for treatment and contaminant reduction. Private sector involvement is a key objective through the strengthening of public-private partnerships toward minimizing negative impacts from tourism on sensitive and vulnerable marine and coastal areas. Furthermore, the private sector will be encouraged to adopt Environmental Management Systems and the Project will explore the introduction of investment incentives and awards schemes to raise awareness, and to encourage and promote environmentally responsible tourism operators. The Project will also aim to identify a number of novel economic instruments including tri-sector partnerships and joint ventures for enterprises directly benefiting the communities. These will focus on community equity, local employment/training/procurement, sensitive local environmental management, and the management of local reserves and protected areas. Barriers related to lack of information and of training will be addressed through specific Project components. These will undertake a region-wide assessment of needs, followed by regional guidelines and delivery of national packages for capacity building and information management. Training material will be developed using regional technical experts. A regional ‘training-of-trainers’ programme will be developed and implemented as will a series of national training programmes targeted at different stakeholder groups. The Project will deliver other OP10 related outputs such as remote sensing technology and information systems (see Component 4) and will develop models with the object of providing a decision-making support process for dealing with root causes of transboundary environmental degradation. Lessons and best practices will be captured and stored through a Regional Information Coordination and Clearing House mechanism and will be used for replication throughout the participating countries as well as being available for other countries beyond the system boundary.

(b) Sustainability (including financial sustainability)

The project addresses sustainability in the following ways:

39. Effective information handling and management: (along with a detailed cost benefit analysis which will clearly demonstrate the importance of sustainable tourism at the policy level). It is expected that this process will also help to convince governments of the need to make appropriate human resources available for training and institutions for capacity building. Long-term sustainability of objectives will be partially addressed through such training and capacity building

40. Targeted capacity building: The project design emphasizes human resource capacity building at two levels. First, the project will support specific, targeted training activities for leaders in local communities in the watersheds of the project sites, empowering local communities to participate in sustainable use of natural resources, and increasing stakeholder capacity to jointly plan, manage and monitor biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of the coastal zone. This training will provide much needed empowerment to these communities which tend to fall behind their more urban counterparts, in terms of capacity. Second, activities will be implemented to build local and national capacity for coastal zone planning, biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. Both of these levels of activities will contribute to the long-term sustainable management of natural resources, including coastal biodiversity of global significance. Embedding training modules into local tourism and environment training institutions have been in-built into the capacity building elements. In addition, training-of-trainers courses will be provided, to ensure that there is a supply of local trainers able to continue delivering training.

41. Awareness raising and outreach: The project will commence with an intensive awareness raising campaign and National Partnership Meetings. A significant proportion of the effort will be targeted at senior levels within the tourism industry which will create an enabling environment for the project. The awareness raising efforts combined with capacity building elements will also enable the tourism industry to better engage with policy makers on environmental issues. The project also lays the foundations for establishing a strong regional eco-certification scheme. The strategy developed for the certification scheme will be based upon the experiences of all the participating countries, so that it is appropriate to the needs of the African coastal tourism whilst at the same time achieving good brand recognition and credibility in the international market place in the long term.

42. Self regulation: By strengthening environmental regulation requirements as well as establishing buy-in for voluntary environmental regulation by the industry, the project will stimulate markets for demand and provision of environmental goods and services. In order to achieve financial sustainability, it is proposed that a fee system for advisory services on Environment Management Systems (EMS) is established. Initially, these will be nominal fees (for example just covering food and venue expenses in the training courses or receipt of environmental audit services at highly subsidized rates). The fee levels will increase during the course of the project as it demonstrates the value of the assistance it can provide.

43. Alternative livelihood options for communities: The project seeks to test and develop alternative livelihood strategies for local communities to help them establish and maintain a minimum basis from which to escape the poverty trap that is stifling local development.

44. Multi-sectoral institutional framework: A multi-disciplinary team will be established to bring together the scientific and technical community with public authorities to share knowledge and practices for coastal zone conservation and disseminate the results to the country and the world.

45. Participation: The project will adopt participatory planning mechanisms and strategic partnerships with stakeholders, as well as social assessments and monitoring of conditions, to ensure sustainability of the approach to biodiversity conservation. The project will ensure strong private sector participation with private sector associations that are representative of the tourism sector, and likely to become significant drivers of environmental initiative in the future.

46. Alternative financing: The project will fund studies to determine alternative approaches for funding coastal management, especially the establishment of protected areas, other than from the Government budget. The EMS demonstration projects will identify economic instruments to encourage investment in environmental management systems by hotels. By the end of Project, it is expected that viable mechanisms would have been put forward to governments for adoption. The ecotourism demonstrations once implemented, should be financially self-sustainable as a result of revenues derived from ecotourism. An effective monitoring process will need to be ensured, in order to identify any problems that may arise and to ensure that appropriate additional support / training can be provided as and when required.

47. Implementation of National Sustainable Tourism Management Strategies: The countries have recognised the need to follow this route and the entire and detailed stakeholder preparation from the early days of the Cape Town Declaration in 1998 (which led to the African Process for the Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment) and then through this current PDF Process have been clearly leading to the intention of making such reforms. The Project will begin the process of negotiation and high level political awareness-raising at an early stage will providing, in parallel, model regional guidelines for adoption on specific, high-priority issues.

(c) Replicability

48. The Project addresses its own replication of lessons and practices within the internal structure of the Components and Outputs. Component 1 captures Best Available Practices and Technologies from other projects, initiatives (including GEF and non-GEF), country experiences, etc from all over the world. It also undertakes the specific development of BAPs and BATs at selected tourism hotspots with identified threats and impacts, and captures the best lessons and practices from these demonstrations. These BAPs and BATs are captured and made available for replication through the Regional Information Clearing House. The Project then assesses these BAPs and BATs against identified national and local needs (from Output 2.A) and marries the appropriate lessons and best practices with these country and local requirements. These are then elaborated into specific National Sustainable Tourism Management Strategies with their own work-plan and monitoring procedures, and these are transferred to the individual countries for formal endorsement and implementation (Output 2.C). This fairly straightforward mechanism ensures that lessons best practices and best technologies are captured both from within and external to Project activities and are replicated within the system boundary in the most appropriate manner and in the most appropriate places.

49. The lessons and best practices form the overall Project experience will be captured through the Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluation for further use by GEF and other IAs and ExAs in similar circumstances. It is also intended that the countries will maintain the Regional Information Coordination House beyond the lifetime of the Project and that this will become a Clearing House of BAPs and BATs for the region and indeed for all countries globally. This information will be accessible also to regional and global organisation such as NEPAD, WTO, UNEP-GPA and all UN agencies for transfer and replication as appropriate. Lessons will also be made available and promoted beyond the regions of the project through the GEF IW:LEARN, the GPA Clearing House, WTO Information system as well as other GEF projects (e.g. for Western Indian Ocean and Guinea Current). In addition, project information will be disseminated at various international meeting and conferences related to International Waters and Tourism. The partnership with UN-WTO will enable this dissemination in global tourism fora.

(d) Stakeholder Involvement

50. Multi-stakeholder involvement will be a major component in this project at all levels. The development of integrated management plans for each transboundary project area will form the main framework by which stakeholders’ involvement will be strengthened. Institutional mechanisms for ensuring the involvement and genuine commitment of various stakeholders will be identified and the appropriate institutional structures identified. Following initial planning, the following institutional structures created during the PDF-B will be strengthened:

· A National Stakeholder Committee will ensure overall leadership and coordination, as well as policy, legislative, and financial support for the project. It will act as a liaison between the Project and other national and international programmes, organizations and donors at the country level. This committee will include senior government officials from relevant government ministries and regional authorities, as well as international agency representatives with an active role in the project.

· At the demonstration site level, a Multidisciplinary Site Committee (MSC) will be established consisting of representatives from all stakeholder groups and chaired by the Local Government Authority Focal Point. The MSC will be an effective advocate, through the individual authority of its members, to ensure that project implementation is open to stakeholder participation, and will allow interested parties to participate in overall management planning and decision-making at the project sites. The MSC will also ensure public participation, through NGOs and local authorities & associations, in the implementation of the demonstration projects. Local communities are expected to play an important role in conservation and protection activities within the demo sites and to participate in sustainable economic activities (ecotourism, etc).

51. For these institutions to develop into effective entities, their responsibilities will be gradually increased and broadened as the project progresses to ensure that they will continue to function and develop post-project. The project will therefore support training and capacity development for these new and adapted institutions. Most critically, it will also support a pilot period of management plan implementation at each site during which the effectiveness of institutions can be tested, real gaps in design or capacity identified, and remedial action undertaken. The table below elaborates the role and responsibilities to be undertaken by all the stakeholders to be involved in the project. The project will also liaise and establish links with the other existing and planned national and regional GEF projects in the regions.

Organization	Responsibility
Governments (Local, State, National): all relevant sectoral ministries and departments	Provide and enforce policy, oversight, guidance; ensure functional institutions; implementation of Agreements, Conventions and Protocols; participate in project planning, development and implementation; articulate project line with national policies and priorities; mobilize project funding and M & E.
Private sector	Compliance with regulations; co-financing and resource mobilization; capacity building; Research & Development, Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E); participate in project development and implementation; Use project outputs
Communities (fishermen, pastoralists, etc)	As primary natural resource managers, they will adopt environment-friendly and sustainable Natural Resources Management; participate in project preparation and development, and M & E and resource (human and financial) mobilization at local level
NGOs and Media organizations	Promote public awareness/sensitization, community and resource mobilization, capacity building and skill sharing; act as pressure group, research and advocacy; networking; M & E
Donor Agencies (bilateral and multilateral)	Complement national and sub-regional efforts; co-financing and resource mobilization; capacity building; participate in project development and implementation and M & E

(e) Monitoring and Evaluation

52. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNEP and GEF procedures. M&E will be provided by the project team and the responsible UNEP Task Manager in the UNEP Division of GEF Coordination, or by Independent Evaluators in the case of the Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluations. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex B provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The Project Workplan and Budget provide delivery and disbursement targets. These elements form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will function.

Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and corresponding Budget

Type of M&E activity	Responsible Parties	Budget US$ Excluding project team Staff time	Time frame
Inception Workshop	§ Project Coordinator § UNEP § UNIDO	$40,000	Within first two months of project start up
Inception Report	§ Project Team § UNEP § UNIDO	None	Immediately following IW
Measurement of Initial Baseline and Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators	§ Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members	To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Indicative cost $175,000	Start, mid and end of project
Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis)	§ Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Coordinator § Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs	To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Indicative cost $25,000	Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans
APR and PIR	§ Project Team § UNEP § UNIDO	None	Annually
TPR and TPR report	§ Government Counterparts § UNEP § UNIDO § Project Team	None	Every year, upon receipt of APR
Steering Committee Meetings	§ Project Coordinator § UNEP § UNIDO	None	Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year
Periodic status reports	§ Project team	5,000	To be determined by Project team, UNEP and UNIDO
Technical reports	§ Project team § Hired consultants as needed	15,000	To be determined by Project Team, UNEP and UNIDO
Mid-term External Evaluation	§ Project team § UNEP § UNIDO § External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)	30,000 (includes rates, DSA and flights)	At the mid-point of project implementation.
Final External Evaluation	§ Project team, § UNEP § UNIDO § External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)	40,000 (includes rates, DSA and flights)	At the end of project implementation
Terminal Report	§ Project team § UNEP § UNIDO § External Consultant	None	At least one month before the end of the project
Lessons learned	§ Project team § UNEP § UNIDO	15,000 (average 3,000 per year)	Yearly
Audit	§ UNEP § Project team	5,000 (average $1000 per year)	Yearly
Visits to field sites (UNEP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)	§ UNEP § UNIDO § Government representatives	15,000 (average one visit per year)	Yearly
TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time and UNEP staff and travel expenses		US$365,000

53. Standard Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNEP and GEF procedures. M&E will be provided by the project team and the responsible UNEP Task Manager of UNEP/DGEF, or by Independent Evaluators in the case of the Mid-Term and Terminal Evaluations. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex B provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. Further indicators specific to the demonstrations are provided in the Demonstration LogFrames in Appendix A. The M&E Plan is presented in Annex K. Specific IW Indicator tables have been appended to this M&E Plan address Process, Stress Reduction and Environmental Status measurable. The PCU will develop annual survey and 6-monthly sampling programmes for each country based on these IW Indicator tables and these will be reviewed and endorsed by the countries. In many cases national baseline data does not exist with which to compare any on-going monitoring and with which to verify improvements in critical parameters such as water quality and reduction in land-based pollutant discharges. These programmes and associated survey and sampling templates will be therefore be used to collect a first set of baseline data at selected national sites within the initial 6-month Inception Phase and thereafter will be used as the national M&E strategies in support of the Project. This data collection will concentrate on the selected demonstration sites (see Appendix A) but will also constitute part of each country’s national data sampling programmes to support the Project. The Project Workplan and Budget provide delivery and disbursement targets. The budget allocated to the M&E plan provides funding in support of baseline and on-going M&E data collection for each country. These elements form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will function.

5. Financial Modality and cost effectiveness

54. A full Incremental Cost Assessment text is provided in the Project Brief along with a detailed Output Budget (Table below). The Incremental Cost Matrix is appended to this Executive Summary (Annex A).

Co-financing Sources
Name of Co-financier (source)	Classification	Type	Amount (US$)	Status*
National Governments	Governmental	Cash & In-Kind	20,781,816	Confirmed (some letters attached)
UNIDO	Multilateral/Intergovernmental	Cash	200,000	Confirmed, and a letter is to be provided
UNEP/GPA	Multilateral/Intergovernmental	Cash	25,000	Confirmed in a letter.
WTO	Multilateral/Intergovernmental	Cash	230,000	Confirmed.
Research and Environmental Development Organisation (REDO)	NGO	In-Kind	100,000	Confirmed in a letter
Natural Conservation & Resources Centre	NGO	In-Kind	100,000	Confirmed in a letter
Ricerca	NGO	Cash & In-Kind	1,800,000	Confirmed in a letter
Ghana Wildlife	NGO	Cash & In-Kind	50,000	Confirmed in a letter
African Business Roundtable	Private Sector	Cash	10,000	Confirmed.
SPIHT	Private Sector	Cash	25,000	Confirmed.
AU-STRC	Multilateral/Intergovernmental	In-Kind	20,000	Confirmed
SNV (Netherlands Development Organisation)	Bilateral Donor	Cash	15,000	Confirmed in a letter

Sub-Total Co-financing			23,356,816

55. The total co-funding committed to the Project is therefore $23,356,816 while the total GEF funding is $5,388,200. This represents a balance of 4.4 parts co-funding : 1 part GEF assistance. Approximately 50% of the incremental cost of this Project is going toward the capture and replication of Best Available Practices and Best Available Technologies in Sustainable Tourism, primarily through on-the-ground delivery via demonstrations. The following Table (Table 6 from the Project Brief) provides a summary of the ICA totals by Component.

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ICA TOTALS BY COMPONENT

ICA RESULTS BY COMPONENT
ICA RESULTS BY COMPONENT
OUTCOME TITLE	BASELINE	GEF	CO-FUNDING	INCREMENT	ALTERNATIVE
OUTCOME TITLE	BASELINE	GEF	CO-FUNDING	INCREMENT	ALTERNATIVE
1. CAPTURE OF BEST AVAILABLE PRACTICES & TECHNOLOGIES	$43,671,470	$2,850,000	$11,232,470	$14,082,470	$57,753,940
2. DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION OF MECHANISMS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT	$13,619,920	$300,000	$3,376,409	$3,676,409	$17,296,329
3. ASSESSMENT & DELIVERY OF TRAINING & CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS EMPHASISING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE TOURISM	$1,028,870	$150,000	$900,334	$1,050,334	$2,079,204
4. INFORMATION CAPTURE, MANAGEMENT & DISSEMINATION	$8,469,010	$500,000	$4,624,648	$5,124,648	$13,593,658
5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COORDINATION, MONITORING & EVALUATION	$2,435,000	$1,588,200	$3,222,955	$4,811,155	$7,246,155
	$69,224,270	$5,388,200	$23,356,816	$28,745,016	$97,969,286

56. Due consideration to cost-effectiveness and alternative options has been given within the PDF and stakeholder consultation process, and it is considered that the proposed intervention is the only realistic approach for addressing sustainable tourism at a regional level. National interventions would not secure the economies of scale for GEF that a regional approach will in addressing common issues and sharing experiences. The demonstration approach focuses on the key issues at the key hotspots and sensitive areas. Best Available Practices and Best Available Technologies will be secured from each country demonstration and captured from other global case studies. These BAPs and BATS will be assessed and processed at the regional level and then transferred and replicated back to the national level through an initial set of guidelines and later through individual national strategies for sustainable tourism. The Project and its Demonstrations will be closely coordinated with other national and regional initiatives to ensure complementarity and to develop linkages with other coastal impact barrier removal exercises (such as those addressing watershed concerns, sedimentation, environmental flow and freshwater conservation/management).

6. Institutional Coordination and Support

(a) Core Commitments and Linkages

57. The countries have all demonstrated their commitment to managing their marine and coastal resources through various regional conventions starting with the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Algiers, 1968); the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region (Nairobi, 1985); the Abidjan Convention for Cooperation in the protection and development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and central African region (Abidjan, 1981), the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes Within Africa (Bamako 1991); the Arusha Resolution on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Eastern Africa including the Island States (April, 1993); the Seychelles Conference on ICZM (October, 1996); the Pan-African Conference on Sustainable Integrated Coastal Management (Mozambique, July 1998) and; the Cape Town Declaration on an African Process for the Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment (December 1998). The origins of the proposed Project relate back to the Cape Town Declaration which affirmed the commitments of African leaders to strengthen cooperation through the relevant existing global and regional agreements, programmes and institutional mechanisms, including the UNEP Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Activities (GPA), and through the coordinating framework of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions.

(b) Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between IAs, and IAs and ExAs, if appropriate.

58. The project will cooperate closely with several ongoing regional GEF projects that are directly relevant to expected project outcomes. There are several complementary regional projects including “Addressing Land-based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean” (WIO-LaB) in Eastern Africa, and “Combating Living Resources Depletion and Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea Current LME through Ecosystem-based Regional Actions” (GCLME) project in western Africa and the UNDP/GEF Seychelles biodiversity project on mainstreaming Biodiversity Management into Production Sector Activities. UNDP GEF is supporting an Agulhas & Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project which is part of a long-term multi-project, multi-agency initiative under the title Programme for the Agulhas and Somali Current LMEs. The initiative is closely linked to two parallel GEF projects under the Programme that address land based sources of pollution (WIO-Lab, implemented by UNEP), and build knowledge on offshore fisheries (Indian Ocean Fisheries – SIOFP), implemented by the World Bank.

59. “An Ecosystem Approach to the Sustainable Use of the Resources of the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems (ASCLME), the first is a WIO-LME project and the second is a coastal biodiversity project (see Annex G for other related GEF initiatives). Several of these projects arose from the African Process, linkages have been maintained during the PDF-B and these will be strengthened during full project implementation. The UN-WTO (World Tourism Organisation) has project on the Development of Tourism, in which a wide range of manuals, guidelines and good practice compilations have been published and a series of capacity building seminars and workshops have been conducted to promote a more sustainable tourism sector through the definition of adequate tourism policies and the application of tourism planning and management techniques. UN-WTO also has a Special Programme for Sub-Saharan Africa, in which poverty reduction through sustainable tourism is a top priority. Currently there is a growing portfolio of the Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP) projects where technical expertise and assistance is provided for selected destinations and communities in developing countries where tourism has been identified as a key opportunity for poverty reduction. Other ongoing, or planned, regional GEF interventions include

(c) Project Implementation Arrangement

60. The project will be implemented by UNEP, which has undertaken a number of sustainable tourism and eco-tourism development initiatives globally. UNEP has various branches and divisions that will provide value added contributions to the Project, such as the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP-DTIE) and Global Program for Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Activities (GPA).

61. UNIDO is the sole Executing Agency, but will develop an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) with the World Tourism Organization (UN-WTO), and the United Nations Specialized Agency in Tourism, for sub-contracting of some the project activities, where appropriate so as to strengthen existing partnership for the implementation of the Project. UNIDO in cooperation with the UN-WTO and other partners (NEPAD, African Union-Scientific, Technical and Research Committee (AU-STRC)) will seek to build capacity of countries to work jointly and in concert with the regions’ other GEF projects, as well as bilateral and multilateral donors to define and address transboundary priority environmental issues within the framework of their existing responsibilities under the Abidjan and Nairobi Convention and within the framework of the NEPAD Environmental Action Plan.

62. UNIDO through the Project Coordinating Unit and project partners will ensure the identification and briefing of suitable sustainable tourism and ecotourism experts with vast technical expertise in issues of coastal tourism environmental impact reduction to work in the project, supervise their work, and establish the necessary links with the tourism business sector in Africa and in tourist-generating markets.

63. UN-WTO will ensure the active participation in the project of the National Tourism Authorities of the participating countries and will ensure linkages with tourism-related programmes of other UN Agencies, through the UN Tourism Exchange Network, currently under development, and it will also ensure linkages with international initiatives in the field of sustainable tourism, such as the Blue Flag certification, the Tour Operators Initiative, or the ST-EP Initiative.

64. A consultative ad-hoc inter-agency management committee consisting of UNIDO, UNEP, WTO, NEPAD, AU-STRC, key donors and the Regional Coordinator would be constituted to ensure regular consultation, briefing and adequate feedback on project implementation and management. Most of the consultations of this committee will be done via teleconference/live internet chat using free software such as Yahoo Messenger or ICQ. It must be stressed that this is a management group and will not take decisions on the nature and content of the substantial outputs of the project. At the national level, Stakeholder Committees will be established and Technical Advisory Groups will be adopted at both the national and regional level. The composition and functioning of the regional and national Scientific/Technical Task teams is judged crucial to the success of the project, as they will be responsible for preparing detailed design and costed proposals for regional and national ecotourism demonstration projects, scheduled for implementation during the full project phase to rapidly address immediate transboundary priorities or threats to living resources and the globally significant biodiversity from tourism.

65. Implementation of the national demonstration projects will be undertaken by the countries under the active supervision of the UNIDO Country Offices/Desks in the countries for effective monitoring of project execution and reporting. Project funds for the execution of the national demonstrations will be decentralized to the countries Lead Agencies (Ministries of Environment) by UNIDO with the UNIDO Country Offices/Desks overseeing and monitoring the execution of the project activities for ease of reporting. Project partners including UN-WTO, AU-STRC, NEPAD, Private Sector, Bilateral donors and NGOs/CBOs will also provide support in the implementation of the demo projects.

66. Private Sector participation is crucial to the successful execution of this project. Representatives of National and Regional Tourism and Hotel Associations, the African Business Roundtable (ABR) and Chambers of Commerce and Industry will contribute to discussions on project design and implementation in the National Stakeholder (Inter-Ministerial) and/or Regional Steering Committees.

67. The Staff of the Project Coordination Unit will backstop the implementation of all activities and will be responsible for maintaining a “regional perspective” in all country level demonstration projects.

ANNEX A: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS

Cost/Benefit	Baseline (B)	Alternative (A)	Increment (A-B)
COMPONENT 1: CAPTURE OF BEST AVAILABLE PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Domestic Benefits	Currently there is very limited capture of BAPs and BATs within any of the participating countries. Stakeholders may recognise the concept of ecotourism (and some business ventures may even be trying to capture this concept in their activities), generally seeking ecotourism enterprises need guidance and expertise if their activities are not to place further pressure and impact on the environment. There is a need to ensure that sustainable tourism projects are implemented. There is also a need to capture more experiences and examples of how tourism activities can be made more ecosystem-friendly with less pollution and impact, and how tourism can be better managed in this sense (particularly through Private-Public partnerships and through the demonstration of incentives. The current baseline will not guarantee this needed approach and, in the absence of GEF assistance the participating countries will continue their domestic development aims in the presence of increasing pollution and impacts leading to further degradation of the coastal resource, Understandable, the existing baseline for combined national efforts to make tourism sustainable is fairly substantial and demonstrates country commitment although this varies from country-to-country. The participating countries are attempting to gather best practices and best technologies and to demonstrate these but are severely constrained by a lack of regional coordination, mechanisms for sharing information, and insufficient funding or incentives to demonstrate such BAPs and BATS.	The Alternative scenario will deliver both regional and more specific national guidance on best practices and technologies along with demonstrations of these in action. This will provide essential guidance to Component 2 to assist the countries in adopting interim sustainable tourism measures as well as developing national strategies and work-plans for sustainable tourism in the long-term.	The incremental addition that GEF will add to the alternative scenario will focus on two areas. 1. Identifying best practices, techniques and technologies to support sustainable tourism (capturing lessons and practices from within and outside the countries and making them applicable to country needs), and 2. Actual on-the-ground demonstrations of sustainable tourism scenarios are tourism impact hotspots (e.g. environmental management systems, strategies and accounting; reef recreation strategies; Alleviation of poverty and generation of revenues for sustainability: integrated systems for sustainable tourism management). This information will feed into Component Two as guidance to the development of national strategies and work-plans for sustainable tourism’. Substantial national co-funding will support these activities through such developments as public-privates partnerships, hotel classification systems, national tourism policies, etc. This national co-funding will be particularly important at the demonstration level. UNIDO will be assisting as a co-funder in this vital component by helping countries and individual tourism bodies (especially at the demonstration level) to identify and employ environmentally sound technologies. Likewise, the WTO will be helping counties to find options for best practices in sustainable tourism.
Global Benefits	Globally, the productive capacity and ecological integrity of the marine environment (including estuaries and near-shore waters) are being degraded and habitats, species and ecosystem functions are being lost. The coastline of Africa supports high levels of transboundary productivity in terms of habitats, species and ecosystem functions but these are being lost as the coast if developing fast. More applicable and sustainable practices and technologies for tourism are urgently required if these globally important areas are to be maintained. But access to such information and specialisations is poor within the participating countries as, indeed, it is in many of the developing countries of the world.	The capture of lessons and best practices will provide a database of BAPs and BATs for other global LDCs, SIDS and developing countries to use in the context of sustainable tourism management, ecosystem maintenance, reduction of pollution, conservation of strategic transboundary biological habitats and species and the promotion of alternative livelihoods that benefit both the human and biodiversity needs.	At the global level GEF (as well as co-funding sources) will be investing in the development of better protective measures for coastal resources in areas of high productivity and in the reduction of pollutants, contaminants and other impacts on important transboundary resources and ecosystems.
Costs	Gov’ts: $43,671,470 TOTAL: $43,671,470	Baseline:43,671,470 Incremental: $14,082,470 TOTAL: $57,753,940	GEF = $2,850,000 CO-FUNDS = $11,232,470 Gov’ts: $10,982,470 Intergov/Multilaterals: $225,000 Bilateral Donors: $0 NGOs: $0 Private Sector: $25,000 TOTAL: $14,082,470
COMPONENT 2: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MECHANISMS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Domestic Benefits	National baselines for tourism governance and management are addressing tourism as an economic development requirement without making the link to the need for tourism to be sustainable in relation to the environment (upon which tourism depends) as well as the need to avoid its impacts on other socio-economic activities and community requirements. In the absence of the development of integrated tourism development policy frameworks and strategies, and the consequent absence of controlled development and good environmental management systems, it is most probable that the trends leading toward coastal environmental pollution and degradation with consequent transboundary impacts will continue. There is a clear absence of coordination between government agencies with responsibilities for tourism, development and the environment, as well as between the public and private sector, and communities feel disenfranchised from the entire management and decision-making process.	Some countries are already developing or have developed National Coastal Tourism Policies and Strategies, but these are not truly capturing the need to conserve and maintain ecosystem functions and services or to control the harmful impacts of tourism on coastal and offshore environments. The reforms proposed as part of the incremental addition (as an extension of the existing baseline aimed at developing tourism management) will create a more integrated approach. In the long-term this will aid in the reduction of pollution impacts within the immediate coastal areas of each country, as well as the protection of important ecosystem functions, livelihoods and productivity.	The Incremental contribution for GEF and other donors will aim specifically to review and reform national policy, legislation and institutional responsibilities related to tourism, development and the coastal environment. This will be achieved initially through interim guidelines developed using the outputs form component1, and then, with more knowledge and lessons, the development and adoption of national strategies. Co-funding will support the GEF contribution through internal national activities related to improvements in legislation and institutional arrangements to support said reforms. Both the GEF and national co-funding commitments will help to coordinate this process at the regional level so that countries can assist each other and learn from each other’s experiences. In relation to the co-funding partners, WTO will be providing co-funding support for the identification and development of appropriate model guidelines for sustainable tourism. Ricerca will be assisting with institutional strengthening and capacity building for eco-cultural tourism. REDO is an NGO with experience in direct involvement of communities in development and implementation of programmes aimed at sustainable exploitation and utilisation of coastal resources. They will facilitate workshops, and seminars, training, stakeholder conferences, etc.
Global Benefits	Although ecotourism has become a popular objective of governments and private enterprises around the world it is seldom truly sustainable and is often referred to as a ‘double-edged’ sword because of the additional impacts that it can create to the ecosystems upon which it depends and purports to support. There is a growing and urgent need for more appropriate national management approaches and policies for coastal tourism and its supportive activities (construction, infrastructure development, fishing, agriculture, etc.). Current national institutional and management structures are fragmented and there capacity to perform individual institutional mandates is highly constrained. Proven management techniques and more specific options for pollution reduction and sustainable tourism development are a regional and global requirement and not just vital to the needs of the participating countries	The partnerships with organisation such as WTO and other NGO groups will assist in the transfer and replication of reform practices and lessons. These practices and lessons will be highly replicable across the coastal nations of the world. The real benefits at the global level will also be apparent through a more effective and sustainable approach to management of coastal resources and ecosystems in line with sustainable development along a substantial stretch of African coastline, thus providing sustainable protection to important transboundary resources, habitats and species.	The global incremental benefits of both the GEF and co-funding contributions will be realised through the development of more applicable and appropriate options for tourism management manifested through actual working demonstrations and proof at national levels of effective reforms to policy, legislation and institutional structures and mandates. These will be available for other countries to use.
Costs	Gov’ts: $13,619,920 TOTAL: $13,619,920	Baseline: $13,619,920 Incremental: $3,676,409 TOTAL: $17,296,329	GEF = $300,000 CO-FUNDS = $3,376,409 Gov’ts $2,796,409 Intergov/Multilaterals: $130,000 Bilateral Donors: $0 NGOs: $450,000 Private Sector: $0 TOTAL: $3,676,409
COMPONENT 3: ASSESSMENT AND DELIVERY OF TRAINING AND CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS EMPHASISING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
Domestic Benefits	All of the participating countries are receiving assistance to a greater or lesser degree with training and capacity building for better governance across a variety of sectors and through a variety of levels. Once again, these tend to target economics development and social needs with very limited focus on environmental requirements and their integration into cross-sectoral consideration. If tourism is to become sustainable then requisite training and capacity building (along with local community involvement) is essential. This will require a consistency in understanding sustainable tourism aims such as the concept of what ecotourism is and should be, and what it should not be. The absence of any interventions to raise the baseline to an alternative level is most likely to foster a false sense of sustainable resource management in the face of actual long-term damage.	The alternative scenario will be an extended capacity for better sustainable tourism management within the participating countries and the opportunity to share these experiences country to country within the Project. Existing management and monitoring institutions will be provided with better tools and skills for ensuring more sustainable tourism is carried out while seeking to protect the interests of communities and those more dependent on ecosystem functions and services	The incremental interventions under this component will address this requirement for better training and capacity building firstly by identifying the actual needs at the individual agency and sectoral level and then develop appropriate packages and guidelines for training through regional coordination strategies which will include a programme of training-the trainers. Each country will be assisted in the adoption of a national plan for targeted T&CB with appropriate work-plans. Co-funding for these activities significantly exceeds GEF contributions and this reflects that fact that this is an area of activities that can be well supported by co-funding, especially through the NGO communities. Ghana Wildlife has experience in wetlands management production and the generation of biodiversity values. They also have the experience to advise and guide in the legal establishment of community reserves, maintenance of ecosystem integrity, coastal ecosystem management strategies, and principles of sustainable management. They are keen to assist in replication of lessons and best practices and in consolidating gains. The Natural Conservation Resources Centre will collaborate in integrated tourism destination planning (particularly in the area of tourism service training and awareness programmes, and advising on the facilitation and development of basic tourism infrastructure). SNV (The Netherlands Development Organisation) is dedicated to sustainable development through strengthening the capacity of local organisations. They will provide advice on the implication of climate change on coastal tourism, protection of coastal biodiversity, management of ecosystems and habitats for coastal tourism, coastal erosion land degradation issues and waste management, tourism development planning, community based natural resource management, policy development and poverty alleviation
Global Benefits	At the global level, existing training and capacity for tourism management within the system boundary of the Project is inadequate to provide the much-needed protection and maintenance of globally important ecosystems and their functions and services. This extends to the absence of adequate numbers of sufficiently trained technical staff for monitoring and compliance activities. Lack of understanding at the country level of how to deal with tourism and tourists in the best interests of the environment and of local community needs and livelihoods is a very real constraint.	The skills, training and institutional improvements will provide valuable lessons for transfer to other management scenarios outside of the system boundary. This will also create a body of trained personnel and institutes within the region which can provide the lessons and the extended training services to other countries and institutions. On a wider global level this will help to guarantee better economic development within African countries while protecting global interests in the environment and protection of transboundary ecosystems and associated species	The incremental interventions under this component will provide improvement to national capacities and the level of skills of individuals to manage tourism in the same landscape as important ecosystem functions and environmental needs, which will therefore afford them better longer term protection.
Costs	Gov’ts: $1,028,870 TOTAL: $1,028,870	Baseline: $1,028,870 Incremental: $1,050,334 TOTAL: $2,079,204	GEF = $150,000 CO-FUNDS = $900,334 Gov’ts: $455,334 Intergov/Multilaterals: $20,000 Bilateral Donors: $15,000 NGOs: $400,000 Private Sector: $10,000 TOTAL: $1,050,334
COMPONENT 4: INFORMATION CAPTURE, MANAGEMENT AND DISSEMINATION
Domestic Benefits	All of the various governments are engaged in the collection of baseline information related to tourism, ecotourism and (to some extent) sustainable tourism. However, there is a lack of information on the extent of sensitive coastal and marine habitats, or the existing information is not available to agencies dealing with tourism directly. This is frequently due to a lack of integration and collaboration between key agencies. If there is no improvement in the availability of such information then spatial planning cannot improve and conflicts of interest between different sector and the communities will arise and increase. Inadequate information capture and processing is constraining effective technical and policy decisions that are needed for integrated sustainable tourism planning and management		Incremental activities will support the development of a regional centre for information management and distribution that will also help in developing guidelines and other packages (awareness, training, capacity building) using lessons and best practices from component 1. This centre will also provide national guidance on developing information capture techniques and skills (e.g. field data collection, selection of indicators, etc) and process and delivery (appropriate packaging for all sectors and levels including senior policy makers. Awareness and sensitisation at all levels will be an objective. Substantial co-funding again reflects an area where donors can provide a lot of support. UNIDO will be assisting in the development of information storage and management mechanisms. Ricera will assist at the national institutional level and with databases related to community involvement and cultural issues within the tourism and environmental context. Governments themselves will provide significant co-funding through the allocation of resources, including national EIMAS centres, and through the development of more effective indicator monitoring systems.
Global Benefits	All over the world, lack of reliable and sufficient multi-sectoral information related to the coastal zone is leading to poorly planned and managed coastal tourism, coastal development, inappropriate tourism activities, increased pollution and other impacts. This is often a result of lack of awareness or sensitisation to sustainable tourism needs and issues at the senior management and policy level. This is a serious concern not just within the participating countries but throughout the world’s coastal nations	The new alternative scenario will make accessible important information to other countries developing their own information management approaches. Data on such critical global issues as climate change, sea level rise and associated trends in ecosystem variations (such as coral reef growth and mortality) will be of enormous value	Information made available from the participating countries will provide valuable insights into coastal trends around sub-Saharan Africa. It will also provide a valuable feedback system to demonstrate how specific sustainable tourism actions and strategies are having an effect on the maintenance and conservation of vital ecosystem functions and transboundary resources.
Costs	Gov’ts: $8,469,010 TOTAL: $8,469,010	Baseline: $8,469,010 Incremental: $5,124,648 TOTAL: $13,593,658	GEF = $500,000 CO-FUNDING = $4,624,648 Gov’ts: $3,324,648 Intergov/Multilaterals: $100,000 Bilateral Donors: $0 NGOs: $1,200,000 Private Sector: $0 TOTAL: $5,124,648

Cost/Benefit	Baseline (B)	Alternative (A)	Increment (A-B)
COMPONENT 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Domestic Benefits	At the national level many of the countries have poor internal cross-sectoral communications and relationships. This is highly restrictive to the development of any integrated approach to sustainable tourism. At the regional level there is also a need to develop closer alliances and understandings between countries with similar problems and needs and to share experiences. Under the baseline situation there is no weight of momentum for this.	The development of a more integrated approach to management is, in itself, a most valuable improvement to national governance within these countries. This will help to set a trend throughout government for better communication and coordination, not just in relation to tourism and environmental issues. It is intended that whatever management and coordination bodies are set up for the purposes of the Project will be maintained after the project as appropriate (or their functions will be assumed by other appropriate bodies). These may also develop an extended remit in support of better national governance through integration and coordination	The incremental approach will be to use the Project as a focus for developing stronger national and regional coordination through the adoption of appropriate bodies. National coordination mechanisms will include National Stakeholder Committees and Technical Advisory groups that will work in concord to address all of the Project needs and to deliver all of the Project outcomes at the national level. Likewise, similar regional bodies will coordinate regional needs and activities and ensure their linkages and deliveries to the national level. Appropriate monitoring of project delivery and evaluation of results is an inherent design within the project. Government co-funding contributions are necessarily large to accommodate the intensive role of national staff both at the national and regional level
Global Benefits	This poor national and regional integration and coordination on important topics related to sustainability and ecosystem/resource management is a feature of many regions of the world today.	The overall demonstration of adoption of improved governance techniques for tourism and improved governance itself throughout the participating countries will help to encourage such trends in other countries with similar concerns and socio-economic landscapes	Globally this Project will provide a very valuable set of lessons for GEF and other donor agencies as well as other countries and groups of countries. The indicators that are/will be developed for M&E will provide useful guidelines also. Senior representatives at the national and regional coordination level will be able to present Project lessons and successes to the global community.
Costs	Gov’ts: $2,435,000 TOTAL: $2,435,000	Baseline: 2,435,000 Incremental: $4,811,155 TOTAL: $7,246,155	GEF = 1,588,200 CO-FUNDS = $3,222,955 Gov’ts: $3,222,955 Intergov/Multilaterals: $0 Bilateral Donors: $0 NGOs: $0 Private Sector: $0 TOTAL: $4,811,155
TOTALS FOR ALL COMPONENTS
	Gov’ts: $69,224,270 TOTAL BASELINE $69,224,270	Baseline: $69,224,270 Incremental: 28,745,016 TOTAL ALTERNATIVE $97,969,286	GEF = $5,388,200 CO-FUNDS = $23,356,816 TOTAL INCREMENT $28,745,016

ANNEX B: PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

N.B. THIS CONSTITUTES THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE MAIN PROJECT COMPONENTS. SPECIFIC LOGFRAMES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND ARE INCLUDED WITHIN APPENDIX A – THE DEMONSTRATIONS

PROJECT STRATEGY	OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
GOAL	To support and enhance the conservation of globally significant coastal and marine ecosystems and associated biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa, through the reduction of the negative environmental impacts which they receive as a result of coastal tourism

	Indicator	Baseline	Target	Sources of verification	Risks and Assumptions
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT To demonstrate best practice strategies for sustainable tourism to reduce the degradation of marine and coastal environments of transboundary significance.	Sustainable tourism development policies and strategies adopted by participating countries that clearly reflect the objectives of GEF and the aims of Operational Programme 10, with particular focus on Land-based Sources of Pollution (LBS) and embracing the concepts of the Global Plan of Action for LBS	Little or no sustainable tourism policies in recipient countries	Effective and sustainable tourism policies drafted and under negotiation by at least 7 countries and full adopted and under implementation by 4 countries by end of project year 4	Sustainable Tourism Strategies and Work-plans available from countries and through Project for evaluation process	Countries prepared to adopt Sustainable Tourism Strategies. Mechanisms can be evolved to involve the private sector and establish public-private partnerships.
	Noticeable reduction in the degradation and overall loss of coastal and offshore environments as a result of unsustainable tourism	Coastal and marine environment currently being degraded and lost as a direct result of unsustainable tourism development and activities	National Indicators adopted by the Project (e.g. water quality, critical habitat distribution, critical species numbers, etc) demonstrate a minimum 20% reduction in negative impacts (see M&E Plan) per country	M & E reports; National agency reports; actual figures and physical, quantifiable proof shown to Mid-Term Evaluators and Terminal Evaluators	Effective training and human resources made available to confirm through measurable targets. Private sector willing to participate in training and adopt changes in current practice.
	Benefits from tourism to host communities improved (e.g. through enhanced alternative livelihoods, secured access and landing rights, etc)	Minimal equitable sharing or transfer of benefits from tourism sector to host communities. Limited livelihood opportunities associated with sustainable tourism. Limited or no access rights to beaches or traditional fish landing and preparation areas. Al of these factors contributing to poverty issues in local communities	Measurable improvements to livelihoods. An increase of at least 10% per capita ‘above-subsistence’ livelihoods within communities associated with newly-sustainable tourism operations and activities. Confirmation of traditional access rights at 50% of tourism locations	Government records. Interviews with local communities. MTE and TE process	‘Alternative’ livelihoods prove attractive to individuals, continue to generate returns and are sustainable. Sufficient opportunities for alternative livelihoods Government legislation allows for (or can be modified) the benefits to be transferred to local communities (e.g. rights of access to beaches and landing sites) OR privates sector operations prepared to step aside in recognition and respect such rights. Adverse or unavoidable climatic influences (e.g. drought or coral bleaching) or political influences or civil unrest do not degrade the tourism asset and/or result in the loss of tourism potential.
COMPONENT 1 CAPTURE & DEMONSTRATION OF BEST AVAILABLE PRACTICES & TECHNOLOGIES N.B. See Appendix A for Demonstration Logical Frameworks	Best Available Practices and Technologies from all available sources (regional and global) reviewed and assessed for their applicability to the national situations of the various participating countries	Limited access to, and understanding of, available practices and technologies which support sustainable tourism. No mechanism for identifying these BAT/BAPs or for developing model guidelines for the adoption and implementation	Mechanism and clearing centre established for reviewing BAT/BAPs within 6 months of inception. Physical evidence of review processes	Physical presence of staff and office undertaking review process within the Regional Information Coordination House (RICH). Review reports	Case studies and pilot demonstrations of BAT/BAPs are available and accessible, and are applicable
	Incentives and benefits of Partnerships for sustainable tourism identified for all stakeholders (civil, private and public sector)	No regionally applicable models for tourism partnerships, and no clear benefits and incentives available	Partnership Incentives and Benefits Analysis implemented within the first 3 months of Project. Findings presented at National Partnership Meetings within 6 months of Project inception.	Report on Partnership Incentives and Benefits Analysis available to Project. Records of attendance of National Partnership Meetings Stakeholder feedback expresses clear understanding of benefits from all parties	Examples of suitable Partnerships can be identified for use as case studies.
	National Demonstrations successfully implemented and completed at selected sites within the participating countries, and delivering valuable and replicable BAT/BAPs for regional synthesis and dissemination	Limited number of national models and demonstrations of sustainable tourism BATs/BAPs currently available within the participating countries. No facilities or plans for regional synthesis and dissemination	All national demonstrations completed before TE and end of Project. BAT/BAPs captured from every demonstration for regional synthesis	MTE and TE. Reports from Demonstration Project Coordinators verified by PCU	Demonstrations will deliver BATS/BAPs in every case
COMPONENT 2 DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION OF MECHANISMS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT	National requirements for realigning and reforming policy, legislation and institutional responsibilities to support sustainable tourism, along with options for sustainable financial mechanism (identified and approved by national SteerComs) have captured essential needs of the countries in relation to sustainable tourism	Poor institutional capacity for sustainable and cross-sectoral coastal tourism management. Overlapping, repetitive and ineffective regulatory or legislative instruments. Inappropriate policies. Absence of fiscal options to sustain reforms in favour of sustainable tourism approaches	National reports from each country identifying gaps, needs and options provided to PCU by end of 1^st year. Reports reviewed and approved by TAGS and SteerCom (national and regional).	Reports from National and Regional Steering Committees. Confirmation from PCU Confirmation at MTE	National governments willing to cooperate in providing information and agreeing on need for reforms or realignment of policy and legislation including institutional re-modelling and fiscal options as appropriate
	Model sustainable tourism strategies and models (applicable to each of the participating countries) developed based on all BATs and BAPS from participating countries, global case study reviews, and demonstration lessons	Insufficient guidance and best practices available to countries for sustainable coastal tourism. Various case studies and lessons exist but not yet examined for applicability to the needs of the participating countries	All options and scenarios (including feedback from demonstrations) examined and refined by month 30 of Project Sets of model strategies and advisory documents refined which are applicable to each country by month 30 of Project	Reports from National and Regional TAGs. Final reports and recommendations with the PCU. Confirmation by MTE	Appropriate models can be identified from global review to provide the baseline and possible to modify these to suit the regional situation.
	National Sustainable Tourism Strategies and Work-Plans adopted, implemented and functional within each country	Limited or absent management and governance within participating countries related to sustainable tourism needs	National Strategies and Work-plans that promote and support reforms to governance and management for sustainable tourism agreed and formally adopted by each country by beginning of 4^th year of Project All participating countries have adopted significant and appropriate reforms (judged by Independent Evaluation) by end of Project	Confirmation through both National and Regional Steering Committee minutes. TE Process provides detailed confirmation of each national status in relation to implementation of sustainable tourism management strategies.	Governments are prepared to undertake such reforms and government agencies are cooperative. Other stakeholders willing to adopt changes as appropriate
COMPONENT 3 ASSESSMENT & DELIVERY OF TRAINING AND CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS EMPHASISING AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE TOURISM	Effective assessments undertaken in each participating country identifying gaps and needs in training and capacity building for sustainable tourism with national reports provided to the PCU	Current training and capacity inadequate to support sustainable tourism or to successfully embrace proposed reforms and improvements	Each participating country has assessed its needs and gaps and provided a formal report of them same (approved by the National Steering Committee) within 9 months of Project Inception	Reports lodged with PCU. Minutes of National Steering Committees. Confirmation by the MTE	Relevant stakeholders are fully cooperative and recognise the need for improvements in training and capacity
	Training and capacity building packages developed and approved (to include work-plans and implementation schedules/guidelines) that are appropriate to national needs and scenarios	Limited training and capacity building assistance available to date that targets the needs of individual countries in relation to sustainable tourism	Sufficient packages developed that address the needs of all countries by the 18^th month Further updates provided as lessons on BAPs/BATs become available from Outcome 1 demonstrations (end of year 3)	Physical presence of T&CB packages at the PCU. Confirmed by MTE	Sufficient expertise available to develop appropriate and applicable packages
	National T&CB implemented successfully and demonstrating a more sustainable approach to tourism	Limited or no T&CB programmes operating within countries	T&CB Programmes for every country under implementation by mid-Project All T&CB Programmes demonstrating clear positive advantages to sustainable tourism by End of Project	Confirmation by National SteerComs and through MTE report Confirmation by National SteerComs and by TE report (with Evaluator confirming and listing positive advantages)	National Governments and other tourism stakeholders willing to allow staff to undergo training. All pertinent bodies, agencies and operations prepared to undertake capacity building reforms.
COMPONENT 4 INFORMATION CAPTURE, MANAGEMENT & DISSEMINATION	Establishment of Regional Information Coordination & Clearing House (RICH) improving the availability, access and sharing of lessons and BAPS/BATS pertinent to sustainable tourism for each participating country, and having established formal links with an information focal point/ node agency within each country	No specific coordination centre within the region dealing with sustainable tourism information at this level. Lack of access to such information and guidance is severely limiting the capacity or the participating countries to adopt sustainable tourism approaches and policies	RICH established and fully operational within first 6 months of Project, and reviewing and assessing information pertinent to guidelines and BAPS/BATs National information nodes/focal points established within each country within first 6 months of Project RICH disseminating initial guidelines and BAPS/BATs by 18^th month of Project. RICH has met requirements to provide all countries with necessary models, guidelines and BATs/BAPs (as per Components and Outputs above) by end of 3^rd year of Project Rich continues to update models, guidelines and BATS/BAPS based on feedbacks from demonstrations and country experiences in implementing models and guidelines up to and beyond the end of Project	PCU reports. National and Regional Steering Committee minutes. Feedback from MTEs and TEs Information within the RICH shows quantifiable improvements in sustainable tourism at national levels (to be confirmed independently by an Evaluator)	Countries are willing to access and share information necessary for RICH to be an effective body and to meet its commitments to the Project and to the countries. Other projects are willing to share data and information for the benefit of the region. Sustainable funding can be identified during the Project to support RICH indefinitely Suitable National focal nodes are identified within each country that can link to RICH
	Data capture and management needs and gaps for each country relating to sustainable tourism identified through a national report and a regional synthesis	Absence of such specific reports that address project requirements. Clear presence of needs and gaps identified within PDF National Reports	All National Reports formally approved by National Steering Committees and submitted to PCU within first 6 months, Synthesis of national reports submitted to Regional Steering Committee and approved by 9^th month	National Reports lodged with PCU Minutes of Regional SteerCom Presence of Regional Synthesis confirmed by MTE	Countries (government and other stakeholders) provide realistic and addressable needs and gaps requirements
	National Environmental Information Management and Advisory models created that clearly address the needs of sustainable tourism, along with individual national work-plans and strategies for their implementation	Limited or absent capacity currently within participating countries to address information capture, handling and management needs related to sustainable tourism	National EIMAS models and strategies presented to each country and approved in-country by 18^th month of Project	National Steering Committee minutes. Confirmation by PCU. Confirmation by MTE.	Relevant and applicable models and strategies are developed and acceptable to countries. Expertise available to Project undertake this development
	Presence of active and functional EIMAS in each country showing a positive improvement in the analysis and distribution of information relating to sustainable tourism and demonstrating effective impact on decision-making at the management and policy levels	Countries have identified absence of limitations of any such information management bodies or information handling and dissemination mechanisms	Functional EIMAS structure within every participating country by mid-term of Project (month 30). Confirmation from stakeholders, backed up by concrete evidence, (especially at political level) that information handling and delivery process is beneficial to sustainable tourism process	National and Regional Steering Committee reports. MTE confirmation through consultation and interview (at political level and through multi-sectoral exchanges)	Politicians willing to act on concise information and guidance to alter policies in favour of sustainable tourism even when it may conflict with their economic and development aims. Politicians and senior Line-Managers willing to request specific information to advise and guide management decisions Adequate capacity and training to provide required information
	Clear evidence of raised awareness of sustainable tourism issues (threats, impacts, mitigations, BATs/BAPS, etc) across all sectors. In particular, clear positive feedback at the policy level of sensitivity to the needs and requirement of sustainable tourism	Limited understanding of concept of sustainable tourism and need to protect and maintain ecosystem functions and services for the long-term benefit of all (including the tourism sector)	Representative cross-section of stakeholders sufficiently aware of issues related to sustainable tourism by mid Project Significant awareness confirmed at proximal political level (environment, tourism, development, planning, etc) and support shown for sustainable tourism strategies and approaches (including willingness to request specific information from line ministries and expectation that there is adequate capacity to provide such information	Formal Independent Evaluation process must interview adequate cross-section of stakeholders to confirm. Evidence of detailed awareness campaigns and evidence of positive feedback (in media etc.) Formal Independent Evaluation process must interview adequate cross-section of senior management and policy staff within all sectors (Public and Private)	Adequate resources (time and costs) for Evaluation will be made available through Project. This is a frequent constraint within GEF projects which can often prevent an effective evaluation and confirmation of quantifiable and/or verifiable indicators
COMPONENT 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, MONITORING & EVALAUATION	Effective PCU in place and improving national attitudes and capacities for addressing sustainable tourism needs	No PCU in absence of Project so not effective	PCU established at inception of Project and fully functional and effective throughout Project lifetime, delivering outputs as intended	PCU reports. National and Regional Steering Committee reports. APR/PIR reports. Confirmation by MTE and TE process	Countries develop a relationship of trust with the PCU and recognise its value
	Regional Coordination effective and improving regional capacity to assist in the development and adoption of sustainable tourism management practices	No specific regional coordination body appropriate to the project objectives and deliverables	Regional TAG and Steering Committee adopted within first month of Project. Feedback from members and other stakeholders confirms positive role of these two groups	Minutes of Regional Steering Committee and TAG. Confirmation by MTE and TE process Feedback from National TAGs and SteerComs and national stakeholders as well as other regional ‘stakeholder’ groups – confirmed through Evaluation process	Appropriate choice of members. Transparent selection process. Membership has time and commitment to meet regularly
	National Coordination effective and improving national capacity to assist in the development and adoption of sustainable tourism management practices.	Limited or absent national coordination mechanisms for sustainable tourism issue	National TAGs and SteerComs set up in every country within first month of Project and actively working to address sustainable tourism issues with the assistance of the Project	National TAG and SteerCom Minutes. Confirmation from PCU (with records) to MTE. Feedback from National stakeholders and members and Regional representatives.	Appropriate choice of members. Transparent selection process. Membership has time and commitment to meet regularly
	Successful partnerships established through project with active and willing involvement with Private Sector and Civil Society Organisations.	Limited participation of private sector partnerships, joint ventures etc.	National Partnership Meetings held within the first 6 months (2-3 meetings) to present information on Incentives and Benefits of Partnerships. Specific indicators for monitoring progress of Partnerships developed during these meetings.	Report on Partnership Meeting. MOU and LOU signed by private sector organisations. Review of by MTE of the success of Partnership Process.
	Appropriate IW indicators developed at regional level and adopted at national level to provide monitoring and evidence of improvements in Sustainable tourism practices	IW indicators not a requirement until Project under implementation	PCU develops IW indicators and circulates at national and regional level within first 2 months of Project IW indicators approved by National and Regional TAGs and adopted by Regional SteerCom as part of Project M&E process by month 6	PCU reports, Regional SteerCom. Review of indicators by MTE	National stakeholders prepared to accept IW indicators to indicate success of Project objective. Sufficient expertise available in development of indicators to ensure that they are truly indicative of the success of the IW process in relation to sustainable tourism
	Appropriate Project M&E processes are carried out during Project lifetime and beyond (where appropriate)	No Project M&E plan adopted until project adopted. No comparable M&E plan for sustainable tourism exists outside of Project	Project meets all schedules and requirements for M&E as specified in M&E plan on time. Countries and regional coordination mechanisms review sustainable tourism at national and regional level regularly post-project to ensure aims and objectives of project still being met or exceeded	APR/PIR. Evaluation process National and regional reporting process post-project	Funding available for Post-Project evaluation and monitoring outside of GEF process
	Sustainability of Project Objectives (and therefore sustainability of environment and ecosystems alongside economic development and maintenance of livelihoods) captured through Project outputs and deliverables	Limited or absent sustainable tourism	Each country adopts appropriate and effective political and financial mechanisms for sustainability based on the outputs from Components 1 and 2 (guidelines and models) that address such sustainability by the end of project	Confirmed through the TE process.	The BATs/BAPs outputs and associated assessments, models, demonstrations and guidelines can provide applicable financial mechanisms for sustainable tourism to suit each country’s requirements and wishes.

ANNEX C: Response to Project Reviews

a) Convention Secretariat comments and IA/ExA response

b) STAP expert review and IA/ExA response

STAP ROSTER TECHNICAL REVIEW AND RESPONSE

Disclose the name and address of the reviewer. provide brief explanation how comments were incorporated into the project design. Include Annexes as required by STAP Roster guidelines such as information about potential conflicts of interest

REVIEWER’S COMMENTS	RESPONSE	AMENDMENT LOCATIONS
The Action Plans for Tanzania are vague and ill-defined and misses the Saadani National Park, yet it is the only national park in East Africa that has all the assets (white beaches, turtles, a perennial freshwater river, wildlife, mangroves and coral reefs, and surrounding communities that will degrade the environment – and already do as they do not feel that they are stakeholders) and has a tourism industry that will grow exponentially! That is clearly THE key site in Tanzania to involve in this project. The Tanzania component reads poorly and the action plan is unconvincing to me. Without clear information I get the feeling that the money for Tanzania will just be gobbled up by administration with not many outputs to show	It is unclear whether this comment applies to the overall Tanzania Demonstration Project or certain activities within the Project given that it references ‘Action Plans’ and not demonstrations. The actual Objectives and Activities are clearly stated, starting with the aims of the demonstration as: u Strengthening physical planning and institutional co-ordination mechanisms for coastal tourism u Catalysing community involvement and partnerships for ecotourism ventures and environmental management u Strengthening existing policy, legislation and institutional arrangements for better environmental regulation of the tourism industry u Catalysing voluntary environmental regulation by the tourism industry Following this the Project goes into some considerable details regarding the activities (two pages of descriptions) in respect to what the Demo will be delivering and even presents these under the following activity headings: · Policies, regulations and capacity building · Alternative livelihoods, poverty alleviation and revenue generation for conservation (ecotourism) · Mitigation of impacts on reef · EMS and eco-certification There is considerable detail provided under each of these headings on deliverables. However, this could have been given much clearer definition with a more precise and sequential tabular work-plan which presents what is being done when and by whom. We feel that this would adequately resolve this particular perception of vagueness and ill-definition. Each demonstration will now be required to present a specific work-plan of delivery at the Inception stage of the Project that will be reviewed and approved by both National and Regional level Steering Committees. This will also be consistent with the requirement of an overall work-plan for the entire project which would also be presented at the Inception stage and formal agreed. In response to the comments regarding the Saadani National Park, the sites adopted for the demonstration activities in Tanzania went through a detailed country-driven selection process which began some years ago with a national hotspot and sensitive area review for each country. This is a standard requirement now for any GEF demonstration selection activity and follows the detailed guidelines and criteria which have evolved through the GIWA (Global International Waters Assessment) process. The identified hot spots were: Dar Es Salaam city, Zanzibar municipality and Tanga municipality. The identified sensitive areas were: Bagamoyo, Tanga coastal area, Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa complex, Pemba, Unguja East Coast, Latham Island and Mtwara-Mnazi bay area. Based on the information on the Aggregated tables for hotpots and sensitive areas, a list of 3 top prioritised hot spots and 3 top prioritised sensitive areas was prepared. The exercise resulted in selecting Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa complex, Tanga Coastal Area and Bagamoyo District as the priority sensitive areas. Since only three hot spots were identified, i.e., Dar Es Salaam, Tanga Municipality and Zanzibar Municipality, all three were taken as priority hot spots. Out of this list of Hotspots and Sensitive areas, the country selection process (undertaken by national experts) chose the 3 highlighted areas for sustainable tourism demonstrations. As required by GEF, this was a participatory national stakeholder process that arrived at this selection. The Selection process for the proposed demonstration is explained in detail in the introductory section to Appendix 1. The Demonstration document does make reference to the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership for Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems (TCMP). This initiative is already addressing the Saadani National Park, which is one reason why the GEF efforts will concentrate on Bagamoya (these two areas are effectively adjacent). However, as is clearly defined in the Project Document. The demonstrations serve to capture BAPs and BATs for very specific processes related to sustainable tourism and these will then be replicated at appropriate sites, including the Saadani National Park so this sensitive area will benefit from the Project in very real terms. This linkage between the two efforts is now highlighted within the demonstration. The GEF and co-funding could not be ‘gobbled up by administration’ as A. the deliverables are clearly defined, B. a work-plan will be adopted at Inception with clear linkages to budget expenditure, and B. the detailed Project M&E process presented in the Project Document would prevent this from happening.	The following text has been added in the appropriate places to clarify the requirement for more detailed work-plans: Project Brief, P.41 –Each Demonstration clearly defines its objectives, activities and deliverables. However, in order to provide direct guidance and measurable benchmarks for progress, sequential work-plans for each of the proposed demonstrations will be presented to the Steering Committee at the Inception Phase for formal adoption. Project Brief, P. 80 - Individual work-plans will be prepared by the country for the demonstration projects as listed in Appendix A. The Inception Workshop will also review these individual work-plans which will be formally adopted by the Steering Committee. Appendix A , P.95 - It should be noted that Saadani National Park (close top Bagamoyo) has also been identified as a sensitive areas through the TCMP process and is the focus of a separate initiative by the Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island for sustainable tourism development and partnerships. The GEF demonstration will coordinate closely in the transfer of lessons and best practices between the two areas, and with other appropriate areas within the Project system boundary.
The Kenyan component ….can be made better…What is specifically missing is: 1. The need to use ecohydrology as a guiding principle. What is needed is a link to the GEF project “Addressing Land-based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO-LaB)”. This is not a simple academic criticism, it is serious and based on facts. For instance the coral reefs near Malindi help support Kenya tourism industries and, even if this proposal was financed in full, they will die by being smothered by mud from soil eroded from the Kenya highlands hundreds of km away. So local initiatives, such as this proposal, for coastal management will fail in the long-term if the issue of land-use in the river catchments are not addressed at the same time. Two useful references to convince the reader that this is true are: Wolanski E. (2001). Oceanographic Processes on Coral Reefs: Physical and Biological Links in the Great Barrier Reef. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 356 pp. Wolanski, E., L.A. Boorman, L. Chicharo, E. Langlois-Saliou, R. Lara, A.J. Plater, R.J. Uncles, M. Zalewski. (2004). Ecohydrology as a new tool for sustainable management of estuaries and coastal waters. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12, 235-276.	The linkages between watershed management (ecohydrology), environmental flow and the health and well-being of coastal ecosystems and their functions and services is well-documented and taken into consideration as a matter of standard process and requirement in the development of any project of this nature. However, it is out of context and missing the principles and objectives of this proposal to state that ‘local initiatives such as this proposal for coastal management will fail in the long-term if the issues of land use in the long-term are not addressed at the same time’. GEF and its various Implementing Agencies are focusing enormous resources now on land management issues, especially in relation to land-based sources of pollution and within the now-standard approaches that integrate coastal and watershed management. The important factors that need to be taken into considered in the context of the current submission are A. achievable objectives and B. inter-linkages and complementary action (while avoiding duplication). A. GEF is well-aware from more than a decade of experience that over-reaching objectives and unrealistic goals not only threaten the delivery and success of a Project but also severely threatens the overall investment by GEF. Too many Projects have started as a concept to address one specific issues (or set of issues) and have needed up stretching too far in attempting to resolve all the threats and barriers to environmental sustainability within a country or even a region in one shot. The emphasis in today’s GEF is to build a foundation or ‘platform’ which remains sustainable and allows for other related issues to be addressed once an ‘environment’ of trust and partnership has developed, and once new approaches to governance and greater capacity and training has been attained. The Project aims to address the Reduction of Environmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Introduction of Policy Changes and Strengthening Public-Private Partnerships. This in itself is a fairly optimistic aim and a very serious challenge for 9 countries within a 5 year GEF Project. In order to stand a reasonable chance of success and sustainability, the Project will need to keep that focus sharply on the direct impacts from coastal tourism and not drift into other albeit important issues which would need to be (and, indeed, are) the focus of a more specific initiative(s). Coastal impacts are synergistic and chronic in nature and cannot all be mitigated at the same time. If this Project can succeed in its aims then one set of serious impacts will have been significantly reduced thereby allowing the ecosystem to respond to other impacts more effectively. B. The Project Brief makes various note of the activities of UNEP within the region in relation to land-based sources of pollution (including sediments) which are the direct concern of UNEP GPA/LBA and which are being addressed through the WIO-Lab project and an number of other projects including the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership. The WIO-Lab project is a Sister-Project of the current SCTSSA and was evolved form the African Process to be a complementary and inter-linked effort to reduce the various priority threats and impacts on the coastal environment. The need to coordinate with WIO-Lab is mentioned under Component 4 which discusses the regional information management and coordination mechanisms which the Project will develop. In short, the issue of sedimentation and environmental flow is being covered through a closely coordinated UNEP Project (as well as other activities). Additional text has been added to the document to make this clearer. The reader should need no convincing if they are aware of the African Process (as now clarified in the document) and the issues and concerns being addressed and can view these within the regional context as explained above. However, We are more than willing to include the proposed references into the Project Document.	P.19 (Regional Context) - In particular, the WIO-Lab project will be addressing land-based sources of pollution. This is particularly important in the context of water and sediment quality flowing into the coastal areas from watershed and highlands. The potential impact of these freshwater inputs on coastal environments (both from the point-of-view of sediment load and maintaining environmental flow through wetlands and estuaries) is critical to maintaining marine ecosystems and their functions. The Broad Development Goal of WIO-Lab is to contribute to the environmentally-sustainable management and development of the West Indian Ocean region, by reducing land-based activities that harm rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters, as well as their biological resources. In particular WIO-Lab will be establishing common methods for assessing water and sediment quality, estimating the carrying capacity of the coastal waters, establishing regional Environmental Quality Objectives and Environmental Quality Standards (EQO/EQS) for water and sediment quality, and implementing demonstration projects for major land-based activities and pollutant sources (building on the African Process results which identified specific hot spots requiring intervention). The WIO-Lab Project evolved out of the same process as the current Project whereby a number of priority impacts were defined (The African Process) and in this respect, the proposed Sustainable Tourism project and the WIO-Lab project are (in a very real sense) complementary sister-projects addressing different but inter-linked priority areas. As such, close partnership and coordination will be developed both between the main regional Projects and between the various demonstration projects for each initiative. P. 24 (Threats and Root Causes) - Many of the other high-priority issues relating to coastal impacts (e.g. sediment levels from land-based source, and constraints to environmental flow) are being addressed by project like WIO-Lab that were developed in parallel with the current SCTSSA project. The importance of addressing such issues has been well-document (reference footnoted) P.31 (Baseline) - Closely related Projects such as WIO-Lab (that have arisen from the same African Process for the Development and Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa would continue to address issues such as sedimentation but without the critical linkages to this other priority issue (sustainable tourism).
FURTHER ON KENYAN COMPONENT… 2. The link to the management of Marine Protected Areas. The tourism industry is heavily dependent on these MPAs. The tourism industry is locally exerting much pressure on these MPAs. The proposal should include the management of these MPAs.	The overall aim of this Demonstration is to address sustainable tourism planning and management as an integrated approach which inherently includes any conflicts between tourism and MPAS which may constrain such sustainability. MPAs are just one area under conflict and community needs also often overlap and create friction within these areas. This also needs to be addressed. Also, not all MPAs should be immediately associated with tourism as some Reserves and MPA designations would need to be outside of this sector and serve a primary function for pure conservation rather than awareness. However, in order to address the concern raised and in recognition of the important role played by MPAs within tourism, especially in Kenya, amended text has been added to the Demonstration which should clarify this inter-linkages and the need to resolve conflicts and mitigate related impacts.	Appendix A, P.61 – various references to the role of MPAs in tourism and the need to address sustainable tourism in relation to MPAs now added, including ‘MPAs are vital to the tourism sector but also come under much pressure as a result of tourist interest and potential revenues’. AND as a primary End-of-Project Landscape Output - ‘National Tourism Policy specified and revised for sustainable coastal tourism and resolution of conflicts between tourism and MPAs.'
The Mozambique component is good, especially as the tourism industry is just really developing and it is possible to avoid massive ecological degradation. It is however missing the critical link to MPAs. The tourism industry in the long-term will depend on MPAs. I suspect that, like the Tanzanian component, action plans in specific areas also need attention to land-based issues from land-use in the river catchments.	Again, the linkages should be inherent as the entire concept of sustainable tourism within this Project relates to the integrated management of all areas and sectors. In the case of Mozambique the demonstration concept is evolving before the MPAs and so they will be captured through the overall focus on community-based ecotourism, reef management and environmental management systems. The overall OBJECTIVE of the Demonstration is defined as ‘to promote the improved conservation, management and monitoring of coastal biodiversity, and to enhance and diversify sustainable local livelihoods through ecotourism as a means of alleviating poverty.’ Furthermore, the demonstration clearly identified the Pomene Game Reserve in the coastal zone of Massinga District as an area where the demonstration would assist in the development of an MPA linked to ecotourism.. One of the identified activities is to ‘Initiate necessary participatory, mapping and regulatory processes with the aim of establishing a Marine Protected Area (which would generate income for conservation management)’. It should be noted however that while the proposed demonstration area may not include an existing MPA (as they do not exist yet in the areas selected), the development of MPAs for eco-tourism purposes through the project driven by the local community, are likely to have a greater chance of success in the long term than if the project were to be developed in an existing MPA that had been established with little community participation. Community involvement in the process of planning etc will develop a great sense of ownership, and the direct benefits achieved through co-management approaches will also be greater. However, amended text has been added that strengthens the references to MPAs in the context of tourism. The same comments relating to land-based issues as used in response to Tanzania apply equally to Mozambique	Amendments in Appendix A P.66 – ‘High priority will be given to identifying the integrated roles of sustainable tourism and the designation of and management of MPAs’. P.66 – ‘Strengthening of institutional capacities, in development of management zoning plans and regulations to control use and generate revenues for conservation management (with a clear focus on the development of MPAs linked to tourism)’. AND as a primary End-of-Project Landscape Output on P. 69 – ‘This will include the designation and management of MPAs in relation to tourism needs and community management strategies.’
The action plans for all the countries in this proposal fail to recognize the critical factor that may limit coastal tourism and exacerbate conflicts with local communities, namely the lack of freshwater in drought conditions. In East Africa droughts occur every 5-10 years – so they have to be factored in the proposal. In West Africa droughts also occur, with a different cycle and usually even more severe. At the same time, tourism and the hope of jobs accelerate in-country migration. In most of these countries in this proposal the coastal population grows at a rate of 4-5% per year! It doubles every 10-15 years. How to provide water to the people that are increasingly concentrated in a thin strip along the coast is a national problem – the tourism industry is part of it. This is not just the solution of building dams – it also requires addressing land-use issues in the rivers even far from the coast (i.e. using ecohydrology as the guiding principle: see http://www.unesco.org/water/ihp/). Thus the water supply companies (where water is privatized) and government agencies (where water is not privatized) and the land users from where water drains need to get involved in this proposal to address long-term sustainability of coastal development.	The Demonstrations (Action Plans?) as per the overall Project Brief address the freshwater issue as well as seeing it in the context of other initiatives. This Project is focussing specifically on the Reduction of Environmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Introduction of Policy Changes and Strengthening Public-Private Partnerships and not aiming to address specific limiting factors for the development of tourism (such as shortages of water) which is more strictly an economic development activity. The ‘sustainability’ in the context of the Project is related to tourism that can continue, thrive and develop while reducing impacts on the environment and on ecosystems of transboundary importance. However, the Project does note there are clear linkages between tourism impacts and freshwater concerns (overuse and poor management) and that these can have serious impacts on the environment. In this context the Project is addressing many of these issues through the Demonstrations and through the capture of BAP and BATs. Those Demonstrations that will be dealing with EMS are designed to encourage private sector tourism operators to take a more responsible attitude to their water resource management strategies and to develop better monitoring processes along with minimising wastes and identifying recycling processes. All of these BAT and BAPs (far too numerous to mention individually but the needs are clearly stated in the threats and root causes) will be captured under Component 1.Also, through Component 1, the Project will undertake a regional *Partnership Incentives and Benefits Analysis* that will identify the most appropriate models for such partnerships and demonstrate the value of developing partnerships for the different stakeholder groups (private sector, civil society and public sector) in the tourism sector in sub-Saharan Africa. This includes the identification of direct financial benefits, such as cost-savings associated with increased efficiency and reduced use of resources including water. What, in fact, this Project is doing is delivering ‘real’ examples through demonstrations of how such partnerships can be developed to address water resource management issues related to tourism. The Project also identifies of other initiatives that are aiming to deal with these issues as direct needs. At the regional level such Projects include WIO-Lab, the GEF Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS Integrated Water Resource and Wastewater Management Project, Ground Water and Drought Management in SADC, and a series of Projects that are addressing the Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends as well as River Basin Water and Environmental Management. These are listed under Annex G in the Project Brief. The Project will be ensuring close linkages to such initiatives through Components 4 and 5. Some text has been added to Component 1 to make the intention to address these issues even clearer and less ambiguous	Amendments to Project Brief P.38 - Such activities would include the development of more appropriate water resource management and conservation mechanisms and technologies, wastewater treatment and handling processes, construction standards and set-backs, etc. P. 38 – Project…focus on targeted demonstrations at the national level to show how the actual on-the-ground threats (such as water contamination and overuse, and wastewater discharges) might be addressed by different strategies and how the results of these demonstration activities could then be captured, transferred and replicated.
This study, if not integrated with land-use management issue (i.e. with the WIO-LaB project) may fail in its objectives of ecological sustainability of coastal management. The same story is repeated worldwide where integrated coastal zone management plans are drawn up (Haward, 1996; Billé et al., 2002; Tagliani et al., 2003; Pickaver et al., 2004; Lau, 2005) but, in the presence of significant river input, most are bound to fail because they commonly deal only with local, coastal issues, and do not consider the whole river catchment as the fundamental planning unit. It is as if the land, the river, the estuary, and the sea were not part of the same system. When dealing with estuaries and coastal waters, in most countries land-use managers, water-resources managers, and coastal and fisheries managers do not cooperate effectively due to administrative, economic and political constraints, and the absence of a forum where their ideas and approaches are shared and discussed (Wolanski et al., 2004). To help alleviate this problem, UNESCO-IHP has launched the ecohydrology program. In this program, the concept of ecohydrology is introduced as a holistic approach to the management of rivers, estuaries and coastal zones within entire river catchments, by adopting science-based solutions to management issues that restore or enhance natural processes as well as the use of technological solutions (Zalewski, 2002).	The project does in fact address the need for integrated planning and management of coastal zones, and it is using the development of tourism destinations as the catalyst to develop such approaches. Several of the demonstrations (including Kenya and Tanzania) specifically tackle the need for integration, while the other demonstrations are intended to demonstration and develop BATs and BAPs for other pertinent issues and concerns (e.g. EMS etc). This however is also why the study WILL be integrated with its sister-project, the WIO-Lab Project (as defined above) in the Indian Ocean and GCLME on the Atlantic coast, as well as other similar Project as defined in Annex G. GEF has had a standard practice for some years now of dealing with these issues at the watershed-to-coast level. This is another reason why such emphasis is being placed on participatory stakeholder involvement in Project implementation both at the regional level and even more so at the national (demonstration) level. One of the primary functions of a GEF Project is to overcome the very issues raised i.e. inadequate cooperation and or partnership) and this is an overarching function of this Project. This is why fora and workshops are built into the Project to address this (see Implementation and Management). However, the Project is happy to cooperate with UNESCO-IHP and will be looking to this initiative for very real partnership and co-funding. The explanation of the concept of UNESCO-IHP (and their ecohydrology program) is directly in line with the aims, objectives and deliverables of the current Project and of GEF as a whole both of which adopt an overall holistic approach. This is not a new concept and has been at the forefront of GEF and UN policy for some years now. This confirms why this Project places so much emphasis on the development of Best Available Practices and Best Available technologies through both the demonstration process and through the capture of case studies. Furthermore, many of these issues are being addressed through other initiatives such as WIO-Lab, AOC-Hycos (Système d'Observation du Cycle Hydrologique de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et Centrale), etc. (which collects all hydrological platforms data from West and Central Africa, and makes up a continuous updating hydrological database). As in the PDF stage, these linkages will be closely developed during the early stages through Component 4 as discussed in the Main Project Brief In summary, this Project has not been designed in isolation from other initiatives as has been made clear in the text and there are clearly defined linkages, partnerships and for a for cross-sharing of lessons and best practices as well as for cost- and effort-sharing to build on each others initiatives. Development of a single ‘ridge-to-reef ‘ style approach for watershed and coastal management in 9 countries is reminiscent of the old approach whereby Projects failed in the face of far too optimistic intentions. Such projects have given clear lessons that successful initiatives within today’s donor portfolios need to be highly focused but also closely interlinked to achieve an integrated approach at a localised level. The text of the Brief has been amended to clarify the need for close linkages and coordination through Component 4.	Amendments to Project Brief Component 4 - P.48 - Strengthening and/or Development of close linkages between national and regional Projects dealing with diverse issues related to watershed and coastal management that may affect sustainable tourism and its relation to ecosystem management and maintenance of ecosystem functions (including but not limited to those listed in Annex G).

REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

RESPONSE

AMENDMENT LOCATIONS

The Action Plans for Tanzania are vague and ill-defined and misses the Saadani National Park, yet it is the only national park in East Africa that has all the assets (white beaches, turtles, a perennial freshwater river, wildlife, mangroves and coral reefs, and surrounding communities that will degrade the environment – and already do as they do not feel that they are stakeholders) and has a tourism industry that will grow exponentially! That is clearly THE key site in Tanzania to involve in this project. The Tanzania component reads poorly and the action plan is unconvincing to me. Without clear information I get the feeling that the money for Tanzania will just be gobbled up by administration with not many outputs to show

It is unclear whether this comment applies to the overall Tanzania Demonstration Project or certain activities within the Project given that it references ‘Action Plans’ and not demonstrations. The actual Objectives and Activities are clearly stated, starting with the aims of the demonstration as:

u Strengthening physical planning and institutional co-ordination mechanisms for coastal tourism

u Catalysing community involvement and partnerships for ecotourism ventures and environmental management

u Strengthening existing policy, legislation and institutional arrangements for better environmental regulation of the tourism industry

u Catalysing voluntary environmental regulation by the tourism industry

Following this the Project goes into some considerable details regarding the activities (two pages of descriptions) in respect to what the Demo will be delivering and even presents these under the following activity headings:

· Policies, regulations and capacity building

· Alternative livelihoods, poverty alleviation and revenue generation for conservation (ecotourism)

· Mitigation of impacts on reef

· EMS and eco-certification

There is considerable detail provided under each of these headings on deliverables. However, this could have been given much clearer definition with a more precise and sequential tabular work-plan which presents what is being done when and by whom. We feel that this would adequately resolve this particular perception of vagueness and ill-definition. Each demonstration will now be required to present a specific work-plan of delivery at the Inception stage of the Project that will be reviewed and approved by both National and Regional level Steering Committees. This will also be consistent with the requirement of an overall work-plan for the entire project which would also be presented at the Inception stage and formal agreed.

In response to the comments regarding the Saadani National Park, the sites adopted for the demonstration activities in Tanzania went through a detailed country-driven selection process which began some years ago with a national hotspot and sensitive area review for each country. This is a standard requirement now for any GEF demonstration selection activity and follows the detailed guidelines and criteria which have evolved through the GIWA (Global International Waters Assessment) process. The identified hot spots were: Dar Es Salaam city, Zanzibar municipality and Tanga municipality. The identified sensitive areas were: Bagamoyo, Tanga coastal area, Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa complex, Pemba, Unguja East Coast, Latham Island and Mtwara-Mnazi bay area. Based on the information on the Aggregated tables for hotpots and sensitive areas, a list of 3 top prioritised hot spots and 3 top prioritised sensitive areas was prepared. The exercise resulted in selecting Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa complex, Tanga Coastal Area and Bagamoyo District as the priority sensitive areas. Since only three hot spots were identified, i.e., Dar Es Salaam, Tanga Municipality and Zanzibar Municipality, all three were taken as priority hot spots. Out of this list of Hotspots and Sensitive areas, the country selection process (undertaken by national experts) chose the 3 highlighted areas for sustainable tourism demonstrations. As required by GEF, this was a participatory national stakeholder process that arrived at this selection. The Selection process for the proposed demonstration is explained in detail in the introductory section to Appendix 1.

The Demonstration document does make reference to the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership for Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems (TCMP). This initiative is already addressing the Saadani National Park, which is one reason why the GEF efforts will concentrate on Bagamoya (these two areas are effectively adjacent). However, as is clearly defined in the Project Document. The demonstrations serve to capture BAPs and BATs for very specific processes related to sustainable tourism and these will then be replicated at appropriate sites, including the Saadani National Park so this sensitive area will benefit from the Project in very real terms. This linkage between the two efforts is now highlighted within the demonstration.

The GEF and co-funding could not be ‘gobbled up by administration’ as A. the deliverables are clearly defined, B. a work-plan will be adopted at Inception with clear linkages to budget expenditure, and B. the detailed Project M&E process presented in the Project Document would prevent this from happening.

The following text has been added in the appropriate places to clarify the requirement for more detailed work-plans:

Project Brief, P.41 –Each Demonstration clearly defines its objectives, activities and deliverables. However, in order to provide direct guidance and measurable benchmarks for progress, sequential work-plans for each of the proposed demonstrations will be presented to the Steering Committee at the Inception Phase for formal adoption.

Project Brief, P. 80 - Individual work-plans will be prepared by the country for the demonstration projects as listed in Appendix A. The Inception Workshop will also review these individual work-plans which will be formally adopted by the Steering Committee.

Appendix A , P.95 - It should be noted that Saadani National Park (close top Bagamoyo) has also been identified as a sensitive areas through the TCMP process and is the focus of a separate initiative by the Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island for sustainable tourism development and partnerships. The GEF demonstration will coordinate closely in the transfer of lessons and best practices between the two areas, and with other appropriate areas within the Project system boundary.

The Kenyan component ….can be made better…What is specifically missing is:

1. The need to use ecohydrology as a guiding principle. What is needed is a link to the GEF project “Addressing Land-based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO-LaB)”. This is not a simple academic criticism, it is serious and based on facts. For instance the coral reefs near Malindi help support Kenya tourism industries and, even if this proposal was financed in full, they will die by being smothered by mud from soil eroded from the Kenya highlands hundreds of km away. So local initiatives, such as this proposal, for coastal management will fail in the long-term if the issue of land-use in the river catchments are not addressed at the same time. Two useful references to convince the reader that this is true are:

Wolanski E. (2001). Oceanographic Processes on Coral Reefs: Physical and Biological Links in the Great Barrier Reef. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 356 pp.

Wolanski, E., L.A. Boorman, L. Chicharo, E. Langlois-Saliou, R. Lara, A.J. Plater, R.J. Uncles, M. Zalewski. (2004). Ecohydrology as a new tool for sustainable management of estuaries and coastal waters. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12, 235-276.

The linkages between watershed management (ecohydrology), environmental flow and the health and well-being of coastal ecosystems and their functions and services is well-documented and taken into consideration as a matter of standard process and requirement in the development of any project of this nature. However, it is out of context and missing the principles and objectives of this proposal to state that ‘local initiatives such as this proposal for coastal management will fail in the long-term if the issues of land use in the long-term are not addressed at the same time’. GEF and its various Implementing Agencies are focusing enormous resources now on land management issues, especially in relation to land-based sources of pollution and within the now-standard approaches that integrate coastal and watershed management. The important factors that need to be taken into considered in the context of the current submission are A. achievable objectives and B. inter-linkages and complementary action (while avoiding duplication).

A. GEF is well-aware from more than a decade of experience that over-reaching objectives and unrealistic goals not only threaten the delivery and success of a Project but also severely threatens the overall investment by GEF. Too many Projects have started as a concept to address one specific issues (or set of issues) and have needed up stretching too far in attempting to resolve all the threats and barriers to environmental sustainability within a country or even a region in one shot. The emphasis in today’s GEF is to build a foundation or ‘platform’ which remains sustainable and allows for other related issues to be addressed once an ‘environment’ of trust and partnership has developed, and once new approaches to governance and greater capacity and training has been attained. The Project aims to address the Reduction of Environmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Introduction of Policy Changes and Strengthening Public-Private Partnerships. This in itself is a fairly optimistic aim and a very serious challenge for 9 countries within a 5 year GEF Project. In order to stand a reasonable chance of success and sustainability, the Project will need to keep that focus sharply on the direct impacts from coastal tourism and not drift into other albeit important issues which would need to be (and, indeed, are) the focus of a more specific initiative(s). Coastal impacts are synergistic and chronic in nature and cannot all be mitigated at the same time. If this Project can succeed in its aims then one set of serious impacts will have been significantly reduced thereby allowing the ecosystem to respond to other impacts more effectively.

B. The Project Brief makes various note of the activities of UNEP within the region in relation to land-based sources of pollution (including sediments) which are the direct concern of UNEP GPA/LBA and which are being addressed through the WIO-Lab project and an number of other projects including the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership. The WIO-Lab project is a Sister-Project of the current SCTSSA and was evolved form the African Process to be a complementary and inter-linked effort to reduce the various priority threats and impacts on the coastal environment.

The need to coordinate with WIO-Lab is mentioned under Component 4 which discusses the regional information management and coordination mechanisms which the Project will develop.

In short, the issue of sedimentation and environmental flow is being covered through a closely coordinated UNEP Project (as well as other activities). Additional text has been added to the document to make this clearer. The reader should need no convincing if they are aware of the African Process (as now clarified in the document) and the issues and concerns being addressed and can view these within the regional context as explained above. However, We are more than willing to include the proposed references into the Project Document.

P.19 (Regional Context) - In particular, the WIO-Lab project will be addressing land-based sources of pollution. This is particularly important in the context of water and sediment quality flowing into the coastal areas from watershed and highlands. The potential impact of these freshwater inputs on coastal environments (both from the point-of-view of sediment load and maintaining environmental flow through wetlands and estuaries) is critical to maintaining marine ecosystems and their functions. The Broad Development Goal of WIO-Lab is to contribute to the environmentally-sustainable management and development of the West Indian Ocean region, by reducing land-based activities that harm rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters, as well as their biological resources. In particular WIO-Lab will be establishing common methods for assessing water and sediment quality, estimating the carrying capacity of the coastal waters, establishing regional Environmental Quality Objectives and Environmental Quality Standards (EQO/EQS) for water and sediment quality, and implementing demonstration projects for major land-based activities and pollutant sources (building on the African Process results which identified specific hot spots requiring intervention). The WIO-Lab Project evolved out of the same process as the current Project whereby a number of priority impacts were defined (The African Process) and in this respect, the proposed Sustainable Tourism project and the WIO-Lab project are (in a very real sense) complementary sister-projects addressing different but inter-linked priority areas. As such, close partnership and coordination will be developed both between the main regional Projects and between the various demonstration projects for each initiative.

P. 24 (Threats and Root Causes) - Many of the other high-priority issues relating to coastal impacts (e.g. sediment levels from land-based source, and constraints to environmental flow) are being addressed by project like WIO-Lab that were developed in parallel with the current SCTSSA project. The importance of addressing such issues has been well-document (reference footnoted)

P.31 (Baseline) - Closely related Projects such as WIO-Lab (that have arisen from the same African Process for the Development and Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa would continue to address issues such as sedimentation but without the critical linkages to this other priority issue (sustainable tourism).

FURTHER ON KENYAN COMPONENT…

2. The link to the management of Marine Protected Areas. The tourism industry is heavily dependent on these MPAs. The tourism industry is locally exerting much pressure on these MPAs. The proposal should include the management of these MPAs.

The overall aim of this Demonstration is to address sustainable tourism planning and management as an integrated approach which inherently includes any conflicts between tourism and MPAS which may constrain such sustainability. MPAs are just one area under conflict and community needs also often overlap and create friction within these areas. This also needs to be addressed. Also, not all MPAs should be immediately associated with tourism as some Reserves and MPA designations would need to be outside of this sector and serve a primary function for pure conservation rather than awareness. However, in order to address the concern raised and in recognition of the important role played by MPAs within tourism, especially in Kenya, amended text has been added to the Demonstration which should clarify this inter-linkages and the need to resolve conflicts and mitigate related impacts.

Appendix A, P.61 – various references to the role of MPAs in tourism and the need to address sustainable tourism in relation to MPAs now added, including ‘MPAs are vital to the tourism sector but also come under much pressure as a result of tourist interest and potential revenues’. AND as a primary End-of-Project Landscape Output - ‘National Tourism Policy specified and revised for sustainable coastal tourism and resolution of conflicts between tourism and MPAs.'

The Mozambique component is good, especially as the tourism industry is just really developing and it is possible to avoid massive ecological degradation. It is however missing the critical link to MPAs. The tourism industry in the long-term will depend on MPAs. I suspect that, like the Tanzanian component, action plans in specific areas also need attention to land-based issues from land-use in the river catchments.

Again, the linkages should be inherent as the entire concept of sustainable tourism within this Project relates to the integrated management of all areas and sectors. In the case of Mozambique the demonstration concept is evolving before the MPAs and so they will be captured through the overall focus on community-based ecotourism, reef management and environmental management systems.

The overall OBJECTIVE of the Demonstration is defined as ‘to promote the improved conservation, management and monitoring of coastal biodiversity, and to enhance and diversify sustainable local livelihoods through ecotourism as a means of alleviating poverty.’ Furthermore, the demonstration clearly identified the Pomene Game Reserve in the coastal zone of Massinga District as an area where the demonstration would assist in the development of an MPA linked to ecotourism.. One of the identified activities is to ‘Initiate necessary participatory, mapping and regulatory processes with the aim of establishing a Marine Protected Area (which would generate income for conservation management)’.

It should be noted however that while the proposed demonstration area may not include an existing MPA (as they do not exist yet in the areas selected), the development of MPAs for eco-tourism purposes through the project driven by the local community, are likely to have a greater chance of success in the long term than if the project were to be developed in an existing MPA that had been established with little community participation. Community involvement in the process of planning etc will develop a great sense of ownership, and the direct benefits achieved through co-management approaches will also be greater.

However, amended text has been added that strengthens the references to MPAs in the context of tourism.

The same comments relating to land-based issues as used in response to Tanzania apply equally to Mozambique

Amendments in Appendix A

P.66 – ‘High priority will be given to identifying the integrated roles of sustainable tourism and the designation of and management of MPAs’.

P.66 – ‘Strengthening of institutional capacities, in development of management zoning plans and regulations to control use and generate revenues for conservation management (with a clear focus on the development of MPAs linked to tourism)’.

AND as a primary End-of-Project Landscape Output on P. 69 – ‘This will include the designation and management of MPAs in relation to tourism needs and community management strategies.’

The action plans for all the countries in this proposal fail to recognize the critical factor that may limit coastal tourism and exacerbate conflicts with local communities, namely the lack of freshwater in drought conditions. In East Africa droughts occur every 5-10 years – so they have to be factored in the proposal. In West Africa droughts also occur, with a different cycle and usually even more severe. At the same time, tourism and the hope of jobs accelerate in-country migration. In most of these countries in this proposal the coastal population grows at a rate of 4-5% per year! It doubles every 10-15 years. How to provide water to the people that are increasingly concentrated in a thin strip along the coast is a national problem – the tourism industry is part of it. This is not just the solution of building dams – it also requires addressing land-use issues in the rivers even far from the coast (i.e. using ecohydrology as the guiding principle: see http://www.unesco.org/water/ihp/). Thus the water supply companies (where water is privatized) and government agencies (where water is not privatized) and the land users from where water drains need to get involved in this proposal to address long-term sustainability of coastal development.

The Demonstrations (Action Plans?) as per the overall Project Brief address the freshwater issue as well as seeing it in the context of other initiatives. This Project is focussing specifically on the Reduction of Environmental Impact from Coastal Tourism through Introduction of Policy Changes and Strengthening Public-Private Partnerships and not aiming to address specific limiting factors for the development of tourism (such as shortages of water) which is more strictly an economic development activity. The ‘sustainability’ in the context of the Project is related to tourism that can continue, thrive and develop while reducing impacts on the environment and on ecosystems of transboundary importance. However, the Project does note there are clear linkages between tourism impacts and freshwater concerns (overuse and poor management) and that these can have serious impacts on the environment. In this context the Project is addressing many of these issues through the Demonstrations and through the capture of BAP and BATs. Those Demonstrations that will be dealing with EMS are designed to encourage private sector tourism operators to take a more responsible attitude to their water resource management strategies and to develop better monitoring processes along with minimising wastes and identifying recycling processes. All of these BAT and BAPs (far too numerous to mention individually but the needs are clearly stated in the threats and root causes) will be captured under Component 1.Also, through Component 1, the Project will undertake a regional Partnership Incentives and Benefits Analysis that will identify the most appropriate models for such partnerships and demonstrate the value of developing partnerships for the different stakeholder groups (private sector, civil society and public sector) in the tourism sector in sub-Saharan Africa. This includes the identification of direct financial benefits, such as cost-savings associated with increased efficiency and reduced use of resources including water. What, in fact, this Project is doing is delivering ‘real’ examples through demonstrations of how such partnerships can be developed to address water resource management issues related to tourism.

The Project also identifies of other initiatives that are aiming to deal with these issues as direct needs. At the regional level such Projects include WIO-Lab, the GEF Atlantic and Indian Ocean SIDS Integrated Water Resource and Wastewater Management Project, Ground Water and Drought Management in SADC, and a series of Projects that are addressing the Reversal of Land and Water Degradation Trends as well as River Basin Water and Environmental Management. These are listed under Annex G in the Project Brief. The Project will be ensuring close linkages to such initiatives through Components 4 and 5.

Some text has been added to Component 1 to make the intention to address these issues even clearer and less ambiguous

Amendments to Project Brief

P.38 - Such activities would include the development of more appropriate water resource management and conservation mechanisms and technologies, wastewater treatment and handling processes, construction standards and set-backs, etc.

P. 38 – Project…focus on targeted demonstrations at the national level to show how the actual on-the-ground threats (such as water contamination and overuse, and wastewater discharges) might be addressed by different strategies and how the results of these demonstration activities could then be captured, transferred and replicated.

This study, if not integrated with land-use management issue (i.e. with the WIO-LaB project) may fail in its objectives of ecological sustainability of coastal management. The same story is repeated worldwide where integrated coastal zone management plans are drawn up (Haward, 1996; Billé et al., 2002; Tagliani et al., 2003; Pickaver et al., 2004; Lau, 2005) but, in the presence of significant river input, most are bound to fail because they commonly deal only with local, coastal issues, and do not consider the whole river catchment as the fundamental planning unit. It is as if the land, the river, the estuary, and the sea were not part of the same system. When dealing with estuaries and coastal waters, in most countries land-use managers, water-resources managers, and coastal and fisheries managers do not cooperate effectively due to administrative, economic and political constraints, and the absence of a forum where their ideas and approaches are shared and discussed (Wolanski et al., 2004). To help alleviate this problem, UNESCO-IHP has launched the ecohydrology program. In this program, the concept of ecohydrology is introduced as a holistic approach to the management of rivers, estuaries and coastal zones within entire river catchments, by adopting science-based solutions to management issues that restore or enhance natural processes as well as the use of technological solutions (Zalewski, 2002).

The project does in fact address the need for integrated planning and management of coastal zones, and it is using the development of tourism destinations as the catalyst to develop such approaches. Several of the demonstrations (including Kenya and Tanzania) specifically tackle the need for integration, while the other demonstrations are intended to demonstration and develop BATs and BAPs for other pertinent issues and concerns (e.g. EMS etc).

This however is also why the study WILL be integrated with its sister-project, the WIO-Lab Project (as defined above) in the Indian Ocean and GCLME on the Atlantic coast, as well as other similar Project as defined in Annex G. GEF has had a standard practice for some years now of dealing with these issues at the watershed-to-coast level. This is another reason why such emphasis is being placed on participatory stakeholder involvement in Project implementation both at the regional level and even more so at the national (demonstration) level. One of the primary functions of a GEF Project is to overcome the very issues raised i.e. inadequate cooperation and or partnership) and this is an overarching function of this Project. This is why fora and workshops are built into the Project to address this (see Implementation and Management). However, the Project is happy to cooperate with UNESCO-IHP and will be looking to this initiative for very real partnership and co-funding. The explanation of the concept of UNESCO-IHP (and their ecohydrology program) is directly in line with the aims, objectives and deliverables of the current Project and of GEF as a whole both of which adopt an overall holistic approach. This is not a new concept and has been at the forefront of GEF and UN policy for some years now. This confirms why this Project places so much emphasis on the development of Best Available Practices and Best Available technologies through both the demonstration process and through the capture of case studies.

Furthermore, many of these issues are being addressed through other initiatives such as WIO-Lab, AOC-Hycos (Système d'Observation du Cycle Hydrologique de l'Afrique de l'Ouest et Centrale), etc. (which collects all hydrological platforms data from West and Central Africa, and makes up a continuous updating hydrological database). As in the PDF stage, these linkages will be closely developed during the early stages through Component 4 as discussed in the Main Project Brief

In summary, this Project has not been designed in isolation from other initiatives as has been made clear in the text and there are clearly defined linkages, partnerships and for a for cross-sharing of lessons and best practices as well as for cost- and effort-sharing to build on each others initiatives. Development of a single ‘ridge-to-reef ‘ style approach for watershed and coastal management in 9 countries is reminiscent of the old approach whereby Projects failed in the face of far too optimistic intentions. Such projects have given clear lessons that successful initiatives within today’s donor portfolios need to be highly focused but also closely interlinked to achieve an integrated approach at a localised level.

The text of the Brief has been amended to clarify the need for close linkages and coordination through Component 4.

Amendments to Project Brief

Component 4 - P.48 - Strengthening and/or Development of close linkages between national and regional Projects dealing with diverse issues related to watershed and coastal management that may affect sustainable tourism and its relation to ecosystem management and maintenance of ecosystem functions (including but not limited to those listed in Annex G).

c) GEF Secretariat and other Agencies’ comments and IA/ExA response

REVIEW COMMENTS	RESPONSE	AMENDMENTS
ALL GEF SECRETARIAT REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES IN YELLOW SECTION
GEF IW M& E Indicators need to be incorporated to establish process and stress reduction Indicators so that annual PIR will report on progress toward those indicators. Existing Indicators are too general in relation to the current Objective.	A separate set of indicators has now been included within the M&E Plan that incorporates many of the Process indicators from the LogFrame as well as more specific Stress reduction and Environmental Status Indicators. The PCU will use these new Tables of Indicators to develop an IW Indicator monitoring and sampling programme. This will begin with collection of site baseline data in the first 6 months (Inception Phase) of the Project.		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 229 – M&E Plan AMENDMENTS TO EXEC. SUMM Para. 44 – Monitoring and Evaluation AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES Annex K – M&E Plan
More specific design seems warranted for the demo projects in order to understand how GEF funding would be spent. At Work Program inclusion the full project proposal will clearly indicate and describe in detail each demonstration project (what, where, how). On-the-ground demonstrations will be confirmed as the major project component.	Full demo details are now directly appended to the Project Brief as APPENDIX A - THE DEMONSTRATIONS which explains in detail for each demo what is being done, the location and how it will be done. This Appendix also provides a comprehensive pre-amble on the selection process for the demonstration sites in each location. The Appendix also provides details of the funds that would be allocated to activities within each Demo. Project Brief summary has been revised to reflect major emphasis on demonstrations and their on-the-ground delivery.		Addition of Appendix A AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Amended Project Brief Summary Para. 107 – Rational and Objective Para. 119 – Output 1.B Para. 184 – Risks –Component 1 Para. 201 – Sustainability Para. 214 – Replication Para. 228. Cost Effectiveness AMENDMENTS TO EXEC. SUMM Para. 18 – Project Rationale New Para 19 and Table – Outcomes Para. 45 – Cost Effectiveness
Specific legislation/policy reforms to be achieved, not just generic wording. Would be good to introduce some specifics before Work Program inclusion, at least to the types of legislative reforms and policy reforms in the demo projects.	There is more detail in the types of reforms aimed at within APPENDIX A – THE DEMONSTRATIONS. This has been captured and added to the Project Brief and to the Executive Summary as a description of the Reforms that can be expected to have been developed by the end of the Project		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 178 to 180 – End-of-Project Landscape AMENDMENTS TO EXEC. SUMM Para 20 to 22 – new section on end-of-Project landscape AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX A Page 1 (other details of reforms already exist within individual Demos and are highlighted now in the Brief as defined above)
Various comments on the need for specific monitoring of outcomes of reduced degradation as a result of the demos and overall project.	Addition of greater details on indicators and verifiable measurements now addressed as a set of IW Indicators in tables appended to Annex K – the M&E Plan (also now referred to in the Executive Summary. This summarises the indicators from the Logframes (Main Project LogFrame and Demo LogFrames) as well as adding some more specific measurable Environmental Status Indicators.		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 229 – M&E Plan AMENDMENTS TO EXEC. SUMM Para. 44 – Monitoring and Evaluation AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES Annex K – M&E Plan
Several comments referring to inconsistencies in OBJECTIVE and need to link this to appropriate nature of indicators to show ‘reduced degradation’ as per Project title	Project Title altered to Demonstrating and capturing best practices and technologies for the reduction of land-sourced impacts resulting from coastal tourism. This more clearly reflects the aims of the Project and the OP10 eligibility. The project Objective is now standardised throughout the Project as to demonstrate best practice strategies for sustainable tourism to reduce the degradation of marine and coastal environments of transboundary significance.		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Project Title AMENDMENTS TO EXEC SUMM Project Title Project Objective is now standardised throughout all documents
Various comments on the need to define status of baseline data (missing) and to address the need to capture baseline data through the M&E plan	Project Brief and Exec Summary now recognises fact that there is generally insufficient baseline data upon which to base any realistic M&E monitoring at the Environmental Status level. The Project will therefore have an elongated Inception Phase during which the necessary baseline data will be captured relating to the proposed indicators (see above). This baseline data will be reviewed between 3-6 months into the Project and harmonised with the adopted IW M&E indicators. M&E Plan now amended to include the need to capture baseline data		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 150 – Description of Component 4 Para. 229 – M&E AMENDMENTS TO EXEC SUMM Page 8 - Component 4. Information Capture, Management & Dissemination Page 20 - M&E Plan AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES M&E Plan – Added text P. 1 plus Increase in budget ($150,000) for M&E to cover need for baseline data capture. N.B. balanced across Project budget so no overall increase in GEF contribution
IW:LEARN is not involved. Brief should be revised to incorporate into Replicability section that the Project will hade a website consistent with IW:LEARN guidelines, will participate in IW:LEARN activities, and will contain funding for 2 country officials to travel to 2 GEF IW portfolio Conference to participate as well as having a Project exhibition booth	This was an unfortunate oversight on the part of the Project Developers and is now rectified as suggested by the GEFSec Reviewers.		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 128 – Component 1. Para. 216 – Replication AMENDMENTS TO EXEC SUMM Component 1 description
The partnerships, joint ventures, investment incentives and award schemes with the private sector need to have indicators established and monitored	Indicators included in specific LogFrames established and included as part of APPENDIX A = THE DEMONSTRATIONS. These specific LogFrames are now referred to at the beginning of the Main Project Logical Framework		AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES Heading to Annex B – ICA amended And reflected in Both Brief and Exec Summary to draw attention to specific LogFrames for Demos in APPENDIX A – THE DEMONSTRATIONS
UNDP AND WORLD BANK REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES IN BLUE SECTION
There is concern that the linkages to …. the GEF Seychelles Biodiversity Project ‘Mainstreaming Biodiversity Management into Production Sector Activities’ are not described (the comments provide further detail on agreements reached between the two Projects)	UNDP has requested that the arrangements as defined within the UNDP-GEF BD Project are now similar inscribed within this IW Project in the section on Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between IAs. However UNEP and UNDP Project Documents use different formats and UNEP does not have such a section therefore this has been addressed A. under Regional Context and B. in the Annex – List of SCTSSA-related, GEF supported of funded initiatives in Africa. These arrangements are also captured within APPENDIX A – THE DEMONSTRATIONS		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 58 – Regional Context AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES Annex G - List of SCTSSA-Related GEF Supported or Funded Initiatives in Africa. Page 6 - APPENDIX A - THE DEMONSTRATIONS
The scope of the Project extends outside the boundary of activities permissible under OP10. As currently presented this would seem to overlap with the Strategic Priorities for Biodiversity (particularly Priority 2 – Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Productive Sector and Landscapes). Clarification should be provided on these linkages and assurances given of full integration with activities pursued under the regional Project with national efforts spearheaded under the biodiversity focus area.	Annex J (which it now transpires was not available to the reviewers) provides a detailed discussion of how the Project fits OP10 more appropriately than any of the other OPs. The Project was specifically not co-joined with the Biodiversity portfolio as most of the countries are pursuing related Biodiversity initiatives. This specific IW initiative is, however, focusing on the demonstration of BATS and BAPs that would reduce the impacts of contaminants, and the adoption of practices such as environmental management systems and accounting, cleaner production, adoption of sustainable enterprise strategies, use of public-private partnerships to adopt standards and self-regulation, and the implementation of legislative and policy reforms based on successful demonstrations of these new approaches, technologies and practices. Elements of the demonstrations that may address tourist issues such as impacts of reef recreation focus on the development of more effective zoning and legislation to designate sensitive areas and MPAs that will act to reduce and control allowable discharges and pollutant levels in such areas and reduce impacts from contaminants such as sedimentation both from land-based origins and from on-reef activities. Therefore, although there may appear to be overlap into biodiversity issues the focus and objective of the Project is clearly within OP10 and attempts to partner this Project with the Biodiversity portfolio would expand its mandate and objectives beyond the feasible and sustainable delivery of a single Project. It is, however, recognised that this Project will need to coordinate and even integrate its actions closely with Biodiversity initiatives addressing CZM and watershed management and this has been further clarified within the text. It is noted that such cross-thematic integration of project efforts is now fully supported by GEF and was the subject of much discussion and demand at the Brazil IW Conference in June 2005. All of the main Project deliverables as well as those of the Demonstrations fit within the OP10 requirements as defined under Annex J – Project Conformity with OP10 Requirements. Further clarifications have been made in the text as noted.		AMENDMENTS TO BRIEF Para. 105 to 111 – Rationale and Objective Para. 123 & 124 – Output 1.B AMENDMENTS TO EXEC SUMM Para. 17 – project Rationale and Strategy Component 1 description

Sub-Total GEF

Co-financing*

Co-financing Sources

ANNEX B: PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

· EMS and eco-certification