REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL
PROJECT TYPE: Full-sized Project
THE GEF TRUST FUND
Submission Date: 31 March 2008
Re-submission Date: 4 December 2008
PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION
GEFSEC PROJECT ID:
3305
GEF
Expected Calendar
AGENCY PROJECT ID: 3849
C
Milestones Dates
OUNTRY(IES): Angola, Namibia, South Africa
P
Work Program (for FSP)
15 Nov 2007
ROJECT TITLE: Implementation of the Benguela Current LME
Strategic Action Program for Restoring Depleted Fisheries and
GEF Agency Approval
28 Feb 2009
Reducing Coastal Resources Degradation
Implementation Start
1 Mar 2009
GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP
Mid-term Review (if planned)
1 Feb 2011
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): UNOPS
Implementation Completion
28 Feb 2013
GEF FOCAL AREA(S): International Waters
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SP-1: Restoring and sustaining
coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity
NAME OF PARENT PROGRAM/UMBRELLA PROJECT:
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK (Expand table as necessary)
Project Goal: The overall reduction in degradation of the BCLME, with emphasis on the restoration of its depleted fisheries, through effective
implementation and long-term sustainability of the BCLME SAP. Project Objective: The implementation of the BCLME SAP through the adoption of
national policy reforms, the sustainable institutionalisation of a regional Commission, and the endorsement and ratification of a binding international
Treaty for the LME.
GEF Financing*
Co-financing*
Invest.,
Project
Expected
TA, or
Expected Outputs
Total ($)
Components
Outcomes
STA***
$ % $ %
1.
TA
1.1 Adoption of a
1.1.1 An established and permanent
1,195,623 5% 23,274,346 95% $24,469,969
A Benguela
Formal Regional
Commission with all requisite regional
Current
Structure for a
structures in place and responsibilities
Commission
Benguela Current
defined.
infrastructur
Commission based
e and
on Interim BCC
1.1.2 Regional strategies for national
associated
experiences.
policy and legislative realignment and
Treaty
harmonisation to reflect a
transboundary management approach
of the LME and its fisheries
1.1.3 Adoption of a standardised
regional monitoring and assessment
Program for the LME for distribution
to (and adoption by) the countries
1.1.4 Overall monitoring of Project
Performance (linked to the regional
and national monitoring and
assessment Programs) feeding into best
practices and lessons learned under 4.1
below.
1.1.5 Identification and work plan for
further studies related to understanding
of the LME, its fish populations, and
associated habitats and key species.
1
1.2 Negotiation
1.2.1 Review of BCC structure and
and Formal
function under Interim Agreement in
Signature of a
order to finalise formal commitments
Regional
within Treaty
Multilateral
Binding
1.2.2 Review and `Gaps-Analysis' of
Agreement
original SAP
1.2.3 Negotiation and Adoption of a
Regional Action Programme (evolved
from the SAP) for inclusion in a
binding regional LME Treaty
1.2.4 Signature and ratification of a
binding regional LME Treaty
1.2.5 Ratification of selected Protocols
relating to specific Codes of Conduct,
Guidelines and Agreements (see
above)
2.
TA
2.1 Establishment
2.1.1 A designated BCLME National
947,800 4% 21,431,914 96
$22,379,714
National
of National
Coordinating Ministry with an
%
Level Policy,
Structures in
appropriate NFI and requisite
Legislative
support of a
dedicated staff to support the BCLME
and
Benguela Current
SAP IMP Project and the BCC at the
Management
Commission.
national level.
Reforms
2.1.2 A National BCLME Stakeholder
Group with defined ToRs (following
guidelines from the Commission) and
with comprehensive and appropriate
participation
2.1.3 Annual Reports to the
Commission from each NFI describing
national activities related to effective
BCLME management (particularly
policy, legislative or management
process amendments)
2.2 Enactment of
2.2.1 NAPs for each country that
National Policy
specify requisite national policy and
and Legislative
legislative realignment and reforms,
Reforms
and define how and when these will be
delivered nationally (capturing
linkages to NEAPS, NBSAPS and
relevant MEAs).
2.2.2 Ratification of appropriate MEAs
related to the LME and to
transboundary fisheries management
2.2.3 Verified policy and management
realignment as per BCC directives
2.2.4 Adoption of BCC directives on
Standardised Ecosystem-Focused
Monitoring into a national monitoring
Program as part of the NAP
contribution to transboundary
LME/fisheries management
2
3.
TA
3.1
3.1.1 Hiring of a Regional Training
1,559,190 10
13,357,454
90
$14,916,644
Sustainable
Implementation of
Coordinator (funded by Iceland)
%
%
Capacity for
a Training and
LME
Capacity Building
3.1.2 Appointment of National (inter-
Management
Strategy.
ministerial) Training Coordinators (by
each country)
3.1.3 Finalisation and formal adoption
by BCC of 3-Year regional work plan
for BCLME TCB
3.1.4 National adoption of work plan
requirements into NAP as appropriate
3.1.5 Completion of National TCB
work plans
3.1.6 Review and assessment of TCB
work plans and development of next 3-
year phase
3.1.6 An Independent Professional
Skills audit leading to the development
of a Regional Human Resources
Strategy (funded by Iceland)
3.1.7 Creation of a Regional
Professional Association of Marine
Experts and Specialists
3.1.8 A mechanism for regional skills
sharing and deployment allied with
strategic institutional partnership
agreements and an international
`mentoring' Program
3.1.9 A Program delivering specialised
in-service short-course training
3.2 Generation of
3.2.1 A formally adopted 5-year
Financial
sustainable funding Program for the
Mechanisms at the
regional BCC structure in support of
National and
an EAF restoration and sustainability
Regional Level to
support the LME
3.2.2 A nationally-approved 5-year
Management
sustainable funding Program to support
Approach.
all requisite national structures and
NAP delivery
3.2.3 These agreements to be annexed
to the formally ratified Treaty and to
the nationally-approved NAPs
respectively as `committed'
agreements
3
3.3 Evolution of
3.3.1 A 5-year BCLME Regional
Partnership
Partnership Matrix with associated
Agreements for the ToRs defining roles and relationships
LME Management
Approach.
3.3.2 Bilateral/ multilateral MoUs/
LoAs annexed to this Partnership
Matrix and providing full endorsement
to appropriate partnerships, actions,
funding, etc.
3.3.3 National Partnership Agreements
defined within NAPs and with annexed
MoUs/ LoAs (as above)
3.3.4 Clear public involvement defined
within the Partnership Matrix and
National Agreements, particularly in
reference to Community contribution
and inputs
3.4 Coordination
3.4.1 Established procedures for email,
and Management
fax and mail communications with
of Stakeholder
stakeholders
Participation
3.4.2 Initial Symposium for new
stakeholders
3.4.3 Sectoral working groups and
`lessons-learned' meetings for major
resources users and managers
established and meeting regularly
3.4.4 Establishment of a Fund to
facilitate stakeholder participation
3.4.5 Partnerships established between
different stakeholders for TCB (linked
to the overall BCC TCB Strategy)
4
4.
TA
4.1 Establishment
4.1.1 Information critical to
946,007 20
3,819,621
80
$4,765,628
Capture and
of Procedures for
management and policy issues within
%
%
Networking
the Capture,
the BCC suitably packaged and
of
Transfer and
targeted at appropriate sectors and
Knowledge
Replication of
levels.
and Best
Knowledge,
Practices
Lessons and Best
4.1.2 Examples and case studies of
Practices.
best practices and lessons defined
annually by MACs and distributed as
appropriate
4.1.3 A web-based information sharing
tools and mechanisms established
4.1.4 Examples and case studies from
external LMEs and other sustainable
fisheries initiatives captured by the
BCC Secretariat and distributed as
appropriate, primarily as part of the
proposed Management Guidelines that
will be distributed to the national
institutes
4.1.5 Capture of these best practices
and lessons within TCB Review and
work plan
4.1.6 Assessment of use of best
practices and lessons by BCC
Secretariat for presentation to
Management Board (annually)
4.2 Development
4.2 1 A formal LME networking
of Networking
process developed and implemented
Partnerships with
between the African LMEs to include
other LMEs
at least biennial meetings for
information sharing and discussion
4.2.2 Global networking sites created
on-line and linked through IW:LEARN
4.2.3 Formal linkages and agreements
between BCLME (to include other
African LMEs where possible and
appropriate) and GOOS
Project Management
489,840 6% 7,063,000 94
$7,552,840
%
5,138,460 7%
68,946,335
93
$74,084,795
PROJECT TOTAL BUDGET
%
* List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component.
** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.
5
B. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
Project
Total at CEO
Project Agency
Fee
For the record: Total at PIF
Preparation*
Endorsement
GEF
310,450
5,138,460
544,891
5,993,801
5,993,801
Co-financing
122,800 68,946,335
68,946,335
69,069,135
Total
433,250 74,084,795
544,891
74,940,136
75,062,936
* Please include the previously approved PDFs and PPG, if any. Indicate the amount already approved as footnote here and if the GEF
funding is from GEF-3. Provide the status of implementation and use of fund for the project preparation grant in Annex D.
PPG has been approved (USD310,450) from GEF-4 and it is 100% committed by the time of the submission of the CEO
endorsement request. The details of the status and the use of PPG are shown in the Annex D.
C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING, including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG.
(expand the table line items as necessary)
Confirmed co-financing for the PPG
Name of co-financier (source)
Classification
Type
Amount ($)
%
Angola Nat'l
Gov't
Grant
$4,000
3%
Angola Nat'l
Gov't
In-kind
$11,000 9%
Namibia Nat'l
Gov't
Grant
$7,500 6%
Namibia Nat'l
Gov't
In-kind
$11,800 10%
South Africa
Nat'l Gov't
Grant
$2,000 2%
South Africa
Nat'l Gov't
In-kind
$8,500 7%
UNDP Impl.
Agency
Grant
$51,500 42%
UNDP Impl.
Agency
In-kind
$6,000 5%
IKM for DLIST
NGO
Grant
$6,000 5%
Fishing Industry
Public Sector
In-kind
$2,500 2%
NORAD Bilat.
Agency
In-kind
$4,000 3%
BENEFIT Multilat.
Agency
In-kind
$8,000 7%
Total Co-financing
122,800
100%
Confirmed co-financing for the Project
Name of co-financier
Classification Type Amount
%
Angola
Nat'l Govt
In-kind
$707,867
1.03%
Angola
Nat'l Govt
Grant
$8,307,740
12.05%
Namibia
Nat'l Govt
In-kind
$707,867
1.03%
Namibia
Nat'l Govt
Grant
$32,189,458
46.69%
South Africa
Nat'l Govt
In-kind
$707,867
1.03%
South Africa
Nat'l Govt
Grant
$16,674,185
24.18%
Bilateral funding - Norway and Iceland (cash)
Bilat Agency
Grant
$9,300,000
13.49%
IKM - includes DLIST, EcoAfrica, etc. (cash)
NGO Grant $351,352
0.51%
TOTAL Co-financing
$68,946,335 100.00%
* Percentage of each co-financier's contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.
In addition to the confirmed co-financing shown above, an associated financing will be available from UNDP to the project from the
Third Regional Program for Africa (2008-2011). The Third Regional Program for Africa (2008-2011) has a budget allocation of
USD 21million for its 4th Focal Area: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development. Under the Focal Area, "Regional
mechanisms for managing shared environmental resources" is listed as one of the three Program outputs. This project is listed as
one of the two interventions1 supported by the Third Regional Program for Africa that promote the effective regional water
governance for the maximization of the benefits of public regional goods through regional and sub-regional interventions in
1 The other intervention is the sustainable management of the Orange-Senqu River transboundary basin.
6
Southern Africa. The funding will be used to create knowledge networks and policy guidance at regional level in Africa for
transboundary water governance. This associated financing is expected to come on stream in 2009.
Furthermore, UNDP is currently engaging in discussions with the Government of Angola on the following potential areas of
interventions in the next Country Program cycle (2009-2012):
· Coastal zone management for the sustainable management of the natural resources both on shore and off shore, especially
where freshwater meets the ocean (Cuanza River, Kunene River).
· Sustainable coastal tourism development, leading to poverty alleviation and sustainable utilization of natural resources in
the coastal area.
· Sustainable management/operation of off shore operations (mainly oil production), including policy and institutional
support to establish and operationalize Strategic Environmental Assessment framework.
Once accepted by the Government of Angola, funds allocated from UNDP to support any of the intervention proposed above will be
considered as UNDP co-financing as such intervention(s) will contribute to the achievement of the objective of this project.
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES)
(in $)
GEF
Agency
Focal Area
Country Name/
Global
Project
Agency
Preparation
Project
Fee
Total
UNDP
International Waters
Regional (Angola,
310,450 5,138,460 544,891 5,993,801
Namibia, South Africa)
Total GEF Resources
310,450 5,138,460 544,891 5,993,801
* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project.
E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST
Total
Other
Estimated
Project total
Project Management
GEF ($)
sources
person
($)
($)
weeks
Personnel (in-kind)
2,000
0
2,800,000
2,800,000
National Consultants*
560
56,250
502,000
558,250
International Consultants*
278
52,800
780,000
832,800
Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and communication**
0
1,700,000
1,700,000
Travel**
0
537,000
537,000
Executing Agency Support Costs
380,790
0 380,790
UNDP F&A Fee (8% of co-financing administered by UNDP.
Not applicable to GEF funding)
0
744,000
744,000
Total 2,838
489,840
7,063,000
7,552,840
* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.
** Provide detailed information and justification for these line items.
F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:
Total
Estimated
Other
Project
Technical Assistance
GEF ($)
person
sources ($)
total ($)
weeks
National Consultants
3,500
1,168,400
3,002,100
4,170,500
International Consultants
510
658,800
863,000
1,521,800
Total 4,010
1,827,200
3,865,100
5,692,300
* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.
G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN:
Project Inception Phase
A Project Inception Meeting will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts and National Focal
Points, any co-financing partners, and representation from UNDP and GEF as appropriate.
7
A fundamental objective of this Inception Meeting will be to assist the Project team to understand and take ownership of the
Project's goals and objectives, as well as to provide guidance on the preparation and content of the Project's first Annual Work Plan2
(AWP) on the basis of the Project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (performance indicators, means of
verification, assumptions) and on the basis of this exercise finalize the AWP with precise and measurable performance indicators
and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the Project.
Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Meeting will be to: (i) introduce the various stakeholders to the Project
team which will support the project during its implementation and to the NFI's staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and
complementary responsibilities of UNDP and the PMU staff vis-à-vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of
UNDP/GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the annual Project
Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, Tripartite Review (TPR) Meetings, as well as mid-term and final
evaluations. Equally, the Inception Meeting will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project-related
budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget re-phasing.
The Inception Meeting will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within
the Project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The
Terms of Reference (ToR) for Project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for
all, each party's responsibilities during the project's implementation phase. Of particular importance will be the need to clarify the
relationship between the PMU (and its UNDP/ GEF-funded Project staff) and the BCC/ Secretariat.
Furthermore, the Inception Meeting will clarify the requirement for developing International Waters (IW) Environmental and Socio-
economic Status indicators as an early stakeholder activity to complement the existing Process indicators and Stress Reduction
indicators included in this M&E Framework (see Annex III). The stakeholders have specifically identified the need to undertake this
task with particular consideration being given to ensuring an adaptive management approach that focuses on indicators that are
flexible enough to take account of the high level of environmental variability within the BCLME. The stakeholders have also
identified the need to ensure that the indicators are selected with due consideration being given to the monitoring and data capture
capacity of the 3 countries.
Monitoring Responsibility and Events
The Inception Meeting will present a Schedule of M&E-related meetings and reports. This will have been developed by the Project
Manager/ Advisor in consultation with UNDP. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews,
Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related M&E activities. Day
to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Manager/ Advisor based on the Project's
AWP and its indicators. The Project team will inform UNDP of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the
appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.
The Project Manager/ Advisor will fine-tune the progress and performance/ impact indicators of the Project in consultation with the
full Project team at the Inception Meeting with support from UNDP. Specific targets for the first year's implementation
performance indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Meeting. These will be used to assess
whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the AWP. Targets and
indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by
the Project team, and agreed with the EA and IA.
Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by UNDP through the provision of quarterly reports from the
PMU. Furthermore, specific meetings can be scheduled between the Project team, the UNDP and other pertinent stakeholders as
deemed appropriate and relevant (e.g. Steering Committee members, Focal Points, Co-funding partners, etc). Such meetings will
allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the Project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth
implementation of project activities. A Report from any such meetings will be prepared by the Project team in coordination with
UNDP, and circulated (no later than 14 days after the meeting) to the appropriate recipients.
2 The AWP will be developed in accordance and close reference of the TBWP included in the Prodoc.
8
Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review3 (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly
involved in the implementation of a project. The Project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The
first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months following the Inception Meeting. The project proponent will prepare
an Annual Progress Report4 (APR), which includes the IW Results Template (see below), and submit it to UNDP at least two weeks
prior to the TPR for review and comments.
The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The Project Manager/ Advisor and team
will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The
Project Manager/ Advisor and team will also inform the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR
preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.
The IW Results Template should provide clear definition of which IW Indicator requirements have been met along with
verification.
Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)
The TTR is held in the last month of project operations. The Project Manager/ Advisor is responsible for preparing the Terminal
Report (see below) to be submitted to UNDP as per UN regulations. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of
the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The TTR considers the implementation of
the Project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the Project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the
broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of
Project results, and acts as a vehicle through which best practices and lessons learned can be captured to feed into other projects
under implementation or formulation. The TTR should refer to the independent Final Evaluation (FE) report, conclusions and
recommendations as appropriate.
Project Monitoring and Reporting
The Project Manager/ Advisor in conjunction with the Project extended team (PMU staff, UNDP Task Manager, National UNDP
representatives) will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring
process. Items (a) through (e) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while (f) and (g) have a broader function and the
frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.
(a) Inception
Report
(IR)
A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Meeting. It will include a detailed First Year Work
Plan divided in quarterly timeframes detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first
year of the Project. This Work Plan will include the proposed dates for any visits and/ or support missions from UNDP or
consultants, as well as timeframes for meetings of the Project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the
detailed Project Budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the first AWP, and including any M&E
requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame.
The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and
feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment
and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project implementation, including any
unforeseen or newly arisen constraints. When finalized, the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a
period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. UNDP will review the document prior to its wider
circulation to ensure it conforms to UN Rules and Regulations as per UNDP's responsibility to GEF.
(b) Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) and (c) Project Implementation Review (PIR)
The QPR is a self-assessment report by project management to the UNDP Office and provides them with input to the reporting
process as well as forming a key input to the TPR. The APR/PIR5 is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF, to be
3 One Steering Committee meeting per year will perform the function of TPR. The TPR will be conducted in line with the annual
joint UNDAF Review process of the lead UNDP CO, and in accordance with the UN harmonisation procedures.
4 An Annual Progress Report (APR), a key annual monitoring tool required by UNDP, and a Project Implementation Review (PIR),
a key annual monitoring tool required by GEF, have been merged into one reporting system (and format) for all UNDP/GEF
projects. The IW Results Template is an integral part of the PIR for all GEF IW projects.
5 As indicated in the footnote 20, the format and the reporting system of the APR (UNDP requirement) and PIR (GEF requirement)
have merged and streamlined into one process. Thus, this key annual reporting tool will be referred to an APR/PIR.
9
overseen by the UNDP Task Manager and to be undertaken by the PMU; it has become an essential monitoring tool for project
managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects.
An APR/PIR is prepared on an annual basis following the first 12 months of project implementation and prior to the TPR. The
purpose of the APR/PIR is to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's AWP and assess performance of the project in
contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work. The APR/PIR is discussed in the TPR so that the resultant
report represents a document that has been agreed upon by all of the primary stakeholders.
The items in the APR/PIR to be provided by UNDP/ GEF include the following:
· An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where possible,
information on the status of the outcome
· In particular, a completed IW Results Template defining project achievements or shortfalls in meeting IW indicator
targets
· The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these
· The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results
· AWP and related expenditure reports
· Updates of Co-financing figures realized
· Lessons learned
· Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress
UNDP analyzes the individual APR/PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The Reports are
also valuable for the Independent Evaluators who can utilise them to identify any changes in project structure, indicators, work p
lan,
etc. and view a past history of delivery and assessment.
(d) Periodic Thematic Reports
As and when called for by UNDP or other stakeholders, and when deemed appropriate, the project team will prepare Specific
Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project
team in written form, will be cleared through UNDP, and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These
reports can be used as a form of lessons learned exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as trouble-shooting exercises to evaluate
and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. Stakeholders are requested to minimize their requests for Thematic Reports,
and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.
(e) Project Terminal Report
During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report
will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learned, objectives met, or not achieved, structures
and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project's activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out
recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project's activities.
(f) Technical Reports
Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project.
As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to
be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will
be revised and updated, and included in subsequent reports. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and
should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites.
These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in
efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels.
(g) Project Publications
Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These
publications may be scientific, technical or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of
journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance,
scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The
project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also, in consultation with UNDP, the
governments and other relevant stakeholder groups, plan and produce these publications in a consistent and recognizable format.
Any publications need prior clearance from UNDP. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as
appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.
10
In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF should appear on all relevant GEF project
publications, including among others, project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications
regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF. The UNDP logo should be more prominent -
- and separated from the GEF logo if possible, as UN visibility is important for security purposes.
Independent Evaluation
The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:
(i)
Mid-term Evaluation (MTE)
An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The MTE will
determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will
focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and
actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this
review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project's term. The
organization, ToR and timing of the MTE will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The
ToR for this MTE will be prepared by UNDP.
(ii)
Final Evaluation
An Independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal TPR meeting, and will focus on the same
issues as the MTE. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to
capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide
recommendations for follow-up activities. The ToR for the Final Evaluation will be prepared by UNDP in line with the GEF
evaluation requirements.
Learning and Knowledge Sharing
Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing
information sharing networks and forums (with specific consideration being given to DLIST as a Project internal mechanism and
IW:LEARN as a more global mechanism). In addition:
The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/ GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel
working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/ GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as integrated
ecosystem management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.
The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/ or any other networks,
which may be of benefit to project implementation through lessons learned.
The project will identify, analyse, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial for project under implementation or in the
design and implementation of similar future projects. Identifying and analysing lessons learned is an on-going process, and the need
to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than
once every 12 months. UNDP/ GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on
lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.
Type of M&E activity
Responsible Parties
Budget (US$)
Time frame
Excluding project team Staff
time
Project Manager/
Within first two months
Advisor
of project start up
Inception Meeting
$50,000 (under Travel/ DSA)
UNDP CO
UNDP/ GEF
Project Team
Immediately following
Inception Report
None
UNDP CO
Inception Meeting
Measurement &Verification
Oversight by Project
$100,000 Included as part of
Start, mid and end of
11
for IW Indicators and Project
GEF Technical Advisor
Output 1.1 and 2.1 activity
project
Progress performance
and Project Manager/
funding (Under Sub-contracts
Indicators
Advisor
2.1)
Measurements by
regional field officers
and local IAs
PIR
Project Team
None
Annually
UNDP CO
UNDP/ GEF
TPR and TPR report
Government
None
Every year, upon receipt
Counterparts
of APR
UNDP CO
Project team
UNDP/ GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit
(RCU)
Steering Committee
Project Manager/
None
Following Inception and
Meetings
Advisor
subsequently at least
UNDP CO
once a year
Periodic status reports
Project team
$5,000 (under Miscellaneous To be determined by
Project team and UNDP
CO
Technical reports
Project team
$10,000 (under
To be determined by
Hired consultants as
Miscellaneous)
Project Team and UNDP
needed
CO
Mid-term (External)
Project team
$39,400 (under Personnel
At the mid-point of
Evaluation (MTE)
UNDP CO
and Travel/ DSA)
project implementation.
UNDP/ GEF RCU
External (i.e. evaluation
team)
Final External Evaluation
Project team,
$39,400 (under Personnel
At the end of project
UNDP CO
and Travel/ DSA)
implementation
UNDP/ GEF RCU
External (i.e. evaluation
team)
Terminal Report
Project team
At least one month
UNDP CO
None
before the end of the
External Consultant
project
Lessons learned
Project team
$100,000 (under Output 4.1)
Yearly
Consultancies
UNDP/ GEF RCU
(suggested formats for
documenting best
practices, etc)
BCC Management
Board and MACs
Audit
UNDP CO
4,000 - average $1000 per
Yearly
Project team
year. (under Travel/ DSA)
Visits to field sites (UNDP
UNDP Country Offices
Yearly (average one visit
staff travel costs to be
UNDP/ GEF RCU (as
15,000 - (excluding UNDP
per year.)
charged to IA fees)
appropriate)
staff travel costs, which will
Government
be charged to IA fees)
representatives
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST
Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and
travel expenses
US$ 362,800
12
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. DESCRIBE THE PROJECT RATIONALE AND THE EXPECTED MEASURABLE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS:
GEF 4's Strategic Program 1 identifies the now-serious problem of depletion of fish stocks through over-fishing and
non-selective and/or destructive fishing practices. Under the GEF 4 Interim Strategy and Priorities for International
Waters (IW), Strategic Objective (SO) 2 aims to play a catalytic role in addressing transboundary water concerns by
assisting countries to utilize the full range of technical assistance, economic, financial, regulatory and institutional
reforms that are needed, including active leveraging of co-financing.
This represents a serious transboundary problem for Angola, Namibia and South Africa, as well as a global concern
requiring multilateral action and assistance. GEF 4 has recognised that the global impact of the decline in fish stocks
and associated destructive fishing practices is having long-term and chronic implications in terms of depletion of
species and biodiversity alongside an overall loss of ecosystem integrity, stability and function. The BCLME
represents one of the most productive LMEs in the world, yet it is also one that is experiencing increasing pressure
on its fisheries and on the transboundary ecosystem as a whole.
However, the BCLME Program is approaching a critical juncture wherein the successful first stage of partnership
development and the advancements in knowledge and understanding of the LME and its components need to be
translated into both national and regional transboundary ecosystem management procedures and mechanisms. This
needs to be achieved essentially through implementation of the Strategic Action Program (SAP) (particularly in
term of policy, legislative and management reforms) as part of the adoption of the Interim BCLME Agreement, the
creation of the BCC, and evolution and development of a full multilateral Treaty. This strategy of using
foundational processes to support and stimulate political commitment and collective action which can then deliver
policy, legislative and institutional reforms is in line with the aims of the GEF 4 Strategic Programs (SPs). This next
stage is critical if the overall intent of adopting a sustainable and effective LME management strategy is to be
realised. There is a genuine risk that this momentum could be lost and that the existing partnerships could unravel if
the successes and achievements made so far are not consolidated and stabilised through permanent mechanisms,
structures and agreements. There is a strong political willingness and commitment to identify and adopt such a
permanent strategy with its associated infrastructure and formal agreements, but politicians and their advisors are
understandably cautious and need to feel assured that any such long-term commitments and binding arrangements
are workable and practicable. This is particularly important to the three participating countries in view of the fact
that such an innovative LME management approach has not been tried before and that the BCLME Program will be
very much a testing-ground for such a strategy. Consequently, there is a positive intent to move forward but there is
also a strong determination that this should be undertaken in a flexible and transparent manner that serves to build
the valuable and essential trust and partnerships that are the mark of success of the earlier stages of the BCLME
Program, and which will provide the strong foundation for a Commission and associated Treaty, while easing the
passage for requisite national reforms and national political understanding and support for the entire LME process.
In this context, the countries have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate growing commitment and
determination to adopt an LME management approach, yet there are still outstanding issues and concerns that need
the guidance and support of outside agencies such as GEF and other donors.
The BCLME SAP IMP Project will aim to restore depleted fisheries and reduce coastal resource degradation within
one of the world's most commercially important and strategic LMEs, demonstrating global benefits to conservancy
and resources management. The Project will be primarily addressing the LME module on Fish and Fisheries, as
living marine resources are the principle area of concern to the countries. However the sustainable management of
these living marine resources cannot be addressed in isolation from the importance of related productivity, the
effects of pollution, associated biological habitat, and the need to maintain the overall welfare and quality of the
ecosystem as a whole within a highly variable environment. Closely linked to these by way of cause and effect are
the socio-economic implications of coastal communities and industries. Therefore, all 5 LME modules are
essentially embraced within this project. Globally, the project will address over-exploitation of fish stocks (now
a serious issue at the international level) within a major international fishery.
13
B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/ PLANS:
The three countries are increasingly aware of the need to take urgent action to mitigate the effects of fish-stock
reductions that are occurring in the region. The precise and quantified reasons for these reductions may not be
conclusively identified as yet and could well be due to a combination of cyclical events, climate change related
variability and/or a range of unsustainable fishing and management practices. However, a number of clear threats
have been identified and it is this uncertain synergy of potential factors that represents a very serious and urgent
cause for concern.
The following specific threats to the BCLME have been identified and agreed by the countries through the original
and comprehensive Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA):
- A decline in commercial fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living resources:
- Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status/yield in a highly variable but commercial important environment
- Chronic and potentially catastrophic deterioration in water quality which is threatening the stability of the
ecosystem and its living resources
- Habitat destruction and alteration resulting in decline of commercial or food-chain species and reduction in
inshore nursery areas
- Loss of biotic integrity and threats to biodiversity (including endangered and vulnerable species) that constitute
vital components of the LME
- Inadequate human and infrastructure capacity to assess the health of the ecosystem and its components
- HABs and low-oxygen events that directly impact on the welfare of living marine resources.
Furthermore, the principal generic root causes of these threats have been identified and agreed by the countries as:
- The complexity of the ecosystem, the high degree of variability, and the need for greater understanding
- Inadequate capacity development and training
- Poor legal framework at both the regional and national levels
- Inadequate planning at all levels
- Insufficient public involvement
- Inadequate financial mechanisms and support
In recognition of the growing long-term threat to the Ecosystem and thus to the socio-economic and political well-
being of the three countries identified by the TDA, the governments agreed to work together to coordinate and
harmonise the surveying, assessment and management of shared stocks as well as to improve the predictability of
environmental events within the LME. In 2000, seven Ministers from the three participating countries signed a SAP
that committed their countries to the establishment of the BCLME Program and to a series of principles, policies
and actions thereby. These can be summarised as:
- the need to adopt a concept of sustainable development within the LME using appropriate economic and policy
instruments;
- the application of the precautionary principle to all matters appertaining to the LME;
- the adoption of anticipatory and cooperative actions and agreements (e.g. strategic environmental assessments,
EIAs, contingency planning, etc.);
- the use of clean technologies and phasing out of high waste-generating processes;
- the integration of ecosystem approaches and environmental/ human welfare into all relevant policy and sectoral
planning and implementation;
- transboundary cooperation between states and with the private sector;
- the encouragement of full participation and transparency with and between all LME stakeholders;
- compliance with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:
The SAP IMP Project is in directly consistent with GEF's Strategic Program (SP) 1 of GEF 4 which focuses on
14
restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity. The table below
demonstrates this consistency with GEF 4 Strategic Objectives (SOs) and with GEF's Strategic Program (SP) 1.
GEF 4 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
AREA OF PROJECT CONFORMITY
Use of foundational processes to stimulate political The GEF has already worked closely and very successfully with the
commitment to collective action and then scaling
three participating states to build strong partnerships, foster
up with innovative policy, legal and institutional
cooperation and construct foundational capacities for a more
reforms and demonstrations
comprehensive ecosystem-based approach to management of the
BCLME. The participating states have demonstrated the
commitment to translate this foundational work into political action
through their signature of the Interim Benguela Current Agreement
and their formal adoption of a BCC. The partnership is now ready,
through this proposed SAP IMP Project, to take the next critical step
in adopting regulatory and institutional reforms at the national level
that will reflect agreed regional policy, and to consolidate effective
ecosystem-based fisheries management practices through
identification and agreement of realistic economic and financial
measures. Technical support and input will continue as an essential
foundation to management and decision-making processes, with the
countries taking responsibility (assisted by donors) for these critical
areas of MCS in relation to both scientific and legislative
requirements.
Need to move from testing and demonstration
This BCLME SAP Implementation project is fully focused on
mode to the scaling up of full operations in support scaling up previous initiatives and activities that have tested and
of agreed incremental cost of reforms, investments demonstrated technical approaches to transboundary ecosystem
and management Programs needed to reduce stress management (including collaborative research, assessment and
on transboundary freshwater and marine systems
monitoring as well as enforcement and compliance) and built long-
term partnerships for cooperation at both the regional and national
levels. The SAP Implementation project aims to provide the
incremental costs to secure reforms at the management legislative
and policy level, and to finalise agreements on appropriate
investment partnerships (especially with the private sector) with the
long-term sustainable objectives of reducing stress on a
transboundary marine ecosystem that is of major importance to
national, regional and global fisheries and associated socio-economic
welfare.
GEF 4 to stress the GEF Council-approved
The BCLME Program is in the vanguard of the various LME
mandate of utilising integrated, ecosystem-based
initiatives as far as translating knowledge and understanding of the
approaches to management of transboundary water ecosystem and its functions into transboundary policies and
systems, placing human activities at the centre of
management approaches. In concentrating specifically on living
transboundary systems and basing interventions on marine resources and the need to restore and sustain fish stocks, this
modifying those human activities to sustain
project is directly focusing its interventions on the modification of
multiple benefits
human activities at the transboundary level for the benefit of all
stakeholders to the BCLME. Output 3.4 will ensure the appropriate
engagement of stakeholders.
Collaborative partnerships contributing to
The initial BCLME foundation project has already seen the
increased development effectiveness and synergies development of strong partnerships at the technical and managerial
essential to the mobilisation of funding necessary
level, and these have further begun to manifest themselves at the
to scale-up GEF work
policy level. In this context GEF 4 clearly recognises and endorses
the value that GEF projects can provide in building trust and
confidence for sovereign states working together on shared water-
related concerns in order to pursue joint benefits and build
sustainable regional institutions for collective action. The BCLME
Program is a model of such collaborative development for long-term
regional management coupled with national institutional capacity
building and reforms as is evidenced by adoption of the Commission
and its Interim Agreement and the intention, through this SAP
15
Implementation Project, to endorse a binding international Treaty in
support of managing the BCLME as well as delivering an
operational regional and national transboundary management
mechanism. Output 3.3 will focus on the negotiation and adoption
of partnership agreements and linkages for improved management of
the BCLME. Output 3.4 will aim to coordinate and orchestrate
stakeholder participation at all levels and across all intended
Outcomes.
Targeted learning projects will be undertaken for
Outcome 4 of the Project focuses on the capture of knowledge
the IW portfolio to enhance South-to-South
products, best practices and information networking. The entire
experience sharing and learning, knowledge
BCLME Program is, however, effectively a case study in best
management, and capacity building to replicate
practices for LME project activities from the development of a TDA,
good practices
through the negotiation process required to arrive at a formally
adopted SAP and then to the design and implementation of
appropriate regional and national mechanisms and institutional
measures to deliver effective transboundary management of living
marine resources in accordance with the need to restore depleted
fisheries and protect and conserve associated biodiversity. The
BCLME SAP Implementation project will ensure that best practices
and appropriate lessons are shared and replicated throughout each of
the participating countries (Output 4.1 - Capture of Lessons and
Best Practices for Transfer and Replication within the BCLME)
also develop the appropriate mechanisms for sharing and replicating
these best practices throughout similar ecosystems through Output
4.2 - Development of Networking Partnerships with other LMEs
STRATEGIC PROGRAM 1
AREA OF PROJECT CONFORMITY
Ministerial agreed collective Programs of action
The project takes into account the need to support the restoration of
that should benefit from the use of Marine
fish stocks through the promotion of appropriate managed areas and
Protected Areas (MPAs)
no-take zones. Support will be given to the designation and capacity
strengthening of appropriate trans-frontier MPAs (such as the Iona-
Skeleton Coast Transboundary Park initiative) where they enhance
the ecosystem approach to fisheries management through the
provision of additional levels of protection and conservation of fish
stocks, associated prey species, or important nursery and/or breeding
areas, etc. Output 1.1 supports the Management Advisory
Committees one of which will focus on Biodiversity Conservation
and Management and will be charged with the identification of
priority Marine Protected Areas (especially any appropriate
transboundary MPAs) along with the development and
implementation of a `roadmap' for designation and management of
these MPAs
GEF Projects encouraged to utilise the
The BCLME project will capture the requirements of the Code of
International Code of Conduct for Responsible
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries through the Harmonised
Fisheries (as adopted by the FAO Conference in
Management of Harvested Living Marine Resources through
1995) in their work toward the Johannesburg Plan
Outcome 1 addressing Regional Level Implementation of the
of Implementation (JPOI)
SAP. This is one of the responsibilities defined for the appropriate
Management Advisory Committee under Output 1.1 Adoption of
a Formal Regional Structure for a BCC, as well as an intended
protocol or section to the International Treaty as defined under
Output 1.2 Negotiation and Formal Signature of a Regional
BCLME Treaty.
Policy, Legal and institutional reforms and multi-
Regional Level: The Project will consolidate the agreement on a
agency partnerships that contribute to World
regional Commission through the adoption of an effective regional
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
structure (Output 1.1) and would finalise negotiations on a formal
Targets for Sustaining Fish Stocks, including
intergovernmental Treaty (Output 1.2) which will contain
regional and national level reforms in governance,
guidelines and codes of practices that address many if not all of the
access rights, and enforcement, mostly in LMEs in WSSD requirements for sustainable fisheries. The Commission will 16
order to utilise ecosystem-based approaches to
include various policy and management level decision-making and
assessment and management of fish stocks
advisory bodies which will guide and direct these reforms at the
national level.
National Level: The Project would identify the requisite national
structures (institutional and individual) to support the Commission
and Treaty (Output 2.2) as well as appropriate national operational
and management strategies associated with these structures
(including MCS procedures, and collection and interpretation of IW
indicators, further baseline studies). National level reforms will also
be supported by appropriate TCB (Output 3.1), adoption of
financial mechanisms (Output 3.2) and negotiation of formal
partnerships to support the LME approach (Output 3.2) in
conjunction with appropriate stakeholder participatory mechanisms
(Output 3.4)
Investments in sustainable alternative livelihoods
As an LME Project, this will address the Ecosystem Approach not
(such as aquaculture), habitat restoration, fish
only through EAF but also through the restoration and maintenance
refugia and `limited use' designations (including
of all ecosystem related habitats (both Protected and Non-Protected).
MPAs) technical assistance, less destructive
At the level of the Commission, the Management Advisory
fishing gear to reduce stress on wild stocks and
Committee (MAC) on Biodiversity and Conservation (Output 1.1)
biological diversity
will aim to define guidelines and codes of conduct directly related to
habitat conservation and restoration for implementation through
management and operational practices at the national level. In
particular, the MACs would look at the sectoral linkages and need
for integrating management and operational policies and practices,
and would coordinate closely with other MACs dealing with related
issues such as Environmental Variability and Climate Change
Prediction and the Maintenance of Environmental Quality and
Pollution Control. Each MAC would be supported by its EWG. This
work would be translated at the national level through the
appropriately identified national structures (Output 2.1) and adopted
national policies reflecting regional agreements by the Commission
(Output 2.2).
The Project will actively identify and pursue partnerships for
investments in these issues through Output 3.2 Assessment,
Identification and Adoption of Fiscal and Financial Mechanism
at the National and Regional Level to support the LME
Management Approach
Solutions to concerns on the high seas will be
It is intended that the business communities will be engaged and
pursued as will be engagement of the business
actively involved in identifying and assisting with solutions to non-
community and fishing industry to develop and
sustainable ecosystem management in the BCLME. This would be
implement solutions working with GEF IW
pursued through the negotiation and adoption of formal partnership
Projects.
agreements with these stakeholders (Output 3.3) and orchestrated
through the stakeholder coordination process (Output 3.4). Such
partnerships would extend to joint management arrangements as well
as mutual cooperation in TCB, and sharing the financial burden of
the ecosystem management approach at both the regional and
national level. Negotiation and adoption of partnership agreements
will include initial negotiations with major global commercial
organisations that have linkages to DWF and an interest in their
catches. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing which will be
incorporated into the BCC Treaty (Output 1.2) will assist in
capturing this process within the three countries which have already
shown a strong political will toward controlling and managing these
DWF.
Sustainability of livelihoods, food security and
One major issue associated with the BCLME that has been identified 17
coastal habitats as a contribution to marine-related
during the foundation process of TDA and SAP development has
JPOI targets (that) can assist communities and
been that of Environmental Variability. This can be both natural and
states to adapt to fluctuating fish stocks and coastal anthropogenic in nature. Either way Environmental Variability has a
climatic regimes.
major effect on the sustainability of living marine resources within
the LME. The BCLME SAP IMP Project recognises the importance
of such effects on the LME through Output 1.1 Adoption of a
Formal Regional Structure for a BCC, where a specific MAC will
be allocated and supported under the Commission to address
environmental Variability and Climate Change Prediction, and the
EAC will further support a specific Working Group on this topic.
Furthermore, Output 1.2 Negotiation and Formal Signature of a
Regional BCLME Treaty, recognises the need for a specific section
and/or protocol attached to the main Treaty that calls for Adoption of
an Early Warning System for Prediction and Response to
Environmental Variations.
D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES:
The SAP IMP Project will build on established structures and mechanisms from the BCLME Program. Such
structures will include the transformation of the BENEFIT Program into the Ecosystem Advisor Committee (EAC)
which will be the Benguela Current Commission's (BCC) technical and scientific advisory organ. The EAC will
coordinate the regional Ecosystem Working Groups (EWGs) in providing the analyses of data and information for
the Commission for use at the management level as well as advising the national level technical focal points on
national scientific requirements. Furthermore the Project Manager/ Advisor will interact directly with the BCC to
provide technical and management advice in the establishment of the BCC Structures and its operationalisation. The
Project will provide direct financial, technical and coordination assistance to the BCC for its establishment through
a legally binding Treaty and implementation and coordination of activities at national level.
The Project will continue to network at regional and international level for the capture and sharing of knoweldge
and best practices with other LMEs and related organisations for the further testing and mainstreaming of successful
transboundary LME management approaches. The Project will suport DLIST as a stakeholder engagement and
information sharing platform in the region to ensure meaningful participation of stakeholders, especially industries
relevant to the BCLME.
The development and adoption/ ratification of Codes of Concduct, guidelines and agreements will carried out
through close collaboration with FAO and related organisations (MARPOL 73/78) to ensure consistency with
international obligations and best practices and, to draw on lessons learned. International industry umbrella
organisations dealing with marine and coastal mining, offshore oil and gas exploration and production and, tourism
and mariculture development will be liaised with in relation to the above. The need for the three countries to ratify
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and Treaties which are in accordance with the BCLME aims for
overall ecosystem sustainability and fisheries restoration will be addressed directly with the appropriate
organisations.
Interaction with WIOMSA will be strengthened through the exploration of the feasiblity to establish a regional
association of professionals as a long-term sustainable and cost effective means for ongoing human resources
development. Strategic relationships with academic and research institutions and government departments will be
explored for the development and execution of join research Programs and capacity building. The formation of
partnerships with other LMEs and related initiatives cuts across all areas of a LME management approach and these
will be solidified through the establishment of a 5-year regional partnership matrix with associated terms of
references defining roles and responsibilities including details of proposed joint actions, funding mechanisms,
timetables, management/ steering and review process.
The Project would specifically aim to deliver pertinent Knowledge Products to the IW:LEARN website as guidance
to other evolving LME and fisheries-related projects.
The Project will also continue to cooperate closely with other Pan-African LMEs in their partnership with Global
Ocean Observing System (GOOS) to develop a viable and affordable ocean observing system to service the needs
of African countries. The LME network as possible vehicle for implementation of GOOS in Africa will be explored
18
and supported.
Close coordination with the Norwegian and Icelandic Governments will be maintained as essential to ensure that
donor requirements are met and to seek advice in a timely manner to derive the best value for money from funds
available for technical and scientific work (Norway) and training and capacity building (Iceland). As the two areas
of cooperation are interlinked it will be essential to ensure that capacity gaps are addressed in a timely manner,
however inline with the BCC Science Plan and Strategy for TCB for Ecosystem Management.
E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT:
Initiating and strengthening the institutional capacity and effectiveness of a regional BCC and negotiating an
agreed international Treaty in support of this Commission. The countries have already discussed and agreed on an
initial structure along with the requisite management and technical support bodies. Furthermore, they have signed
an Interim Agreement setting up the Commission and defining its mandate and working practices. The GEF-funded
BCLME SAP IMP Project will provide the funding to implement the Commission in its early stages with initial
support to staff levels on the formal understanding that the countries have committed to taking over this
responsibility during the life of the Project (as is reflected in their endorsements of their cash and in-kind co-funding
contributions). The Project will also help to facilitate the formal and detailed negotiation process to arrive at a
binding regional multilateral Treaty that defines urgent policy actions and agreements on such critically important
sustainability issues as the adoption of a BCLME Code of Conduct for the Responsible Management and
Harvesting of Living Marine Resources and similar Codes and Agreements relating to Mineral Exploitation; the
Maintenance of LME Environmental Quality; Pollution Contingency Planning and Response; Adoption of an Early
Warning Systems for Environmental Variability; and formal Guidelines for Biodiversity Conservation and
Management Planning for Living Marine Resources. The incremental cost for achieving this aim has been
calculated at $28,469,969 of which GEF would provide $1,195,623 (4 %).
Ensuring national level implementation of the SAP through appropriate policy, legislative and management
reforms which also capture cross-sectoral and community level integration into the management process. The
GEF-funded BCLME SAP IMP Project will assist the countries in translating the policy, legislative and
management requirements from the BCC into national activities and reforms. This will include support to the initial
establishment of national BCC coordination facilities within appropriate national institutions which the countries
will then take responsibility for through negotiated sustainability mechanisms. The Project will also assist in
establishing national stakeholder groups which will be integrated into the overall management process. The
incremental cost for achieving this aim has been calculated at $24,791,714 of which GEF would provide $947,800
(4 %).
Securing long-term sustainable financial, human resource and partnership capacity for maintenance of the
LME management components. GEF will provide funding to support a more effective TCB structure within the
three countries that more directly addresses management approaches at the LME level and creates a constituency of
cooperative assistance and training within the participating countries and between their BCLME stakeholders.
Substantial co-funding will support TCB staffing and expertise as well as training and skills development
mechanisms, distance-learning courses and workshops. The Project will provide further support to the development
of a sustainable funding Program for the BCC structure at the regional and national levels which would become part
of the formal Treaty agreement to help to ensure the sustainability of the EAF. The Project will also support the
development and encouragement of more effective partnership agreements for the LME management approach,
creating linkages between private and public sector and also extending these into the communities. Furthermore, the
Project will promote more effective stakeholder participation across all sectors not only at policy, management and
technical level but also at the community level. The project development stage has elaborated a detailed SPP (see
Annex VIII) and this will be driven by the project through GEF funding but also with substantial in-kind support
from the NGO community. The incremental cost for achieving this aim has been calculated at $14,916,644 of which
GEF would provide $1,559,190 (10%).
The overall capture and transfer of knowledge products and best practices along with an effective information
networking mechanism. The GEF-funded BCLME SAP IMP Project will support the establishment of procedures
and mechanism for capturing, and replicating best practices and lessons learned as well as knowledge vital to the
EAF. In particularly GEF funding will be used to process and package best practices, lessons and knowledge into 19
policy level briefings that will directly drive policy decisions within the BCC and at the national level. The capture
and sharing of best lessons and practices will not be limited to the BCLME region however, and networking
mechanisms will be developed with other African LMEs and extended out to all global LMEs. The incremental cost
for achieving this aim has been calculated at $4,765,628 of which GEF would provide $946,007 (20%).
F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S)
FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES:
The identification of risks was carried out during the Project Identification Facility (PIF) stage that was approved by
the GEF Council during last quarter of 2007 (Reference to GEF C.31/8). Results from the BCLME Program and the
esablishment of an interim agreement for the BCC played key roles for identifying and clarifying these risks.
Risk
Risk rating
Risk mitigation strategy
1. Potential conflicts between participating
Low
Considered low in light of the excellent cooperation
countries over shared resources and their
between the three countries to date within the BCLME
exploitation/management could feasible cause
Program despite fairly recent historical political
sufficient friction to derail the Treaty
differences. One of the primary functions of the newly
negotiation process.
created Commission would be to defuse any such
conflicts at the higher policy level and to instruct and
guide management and operational level personnel in
finding mechanisms for resolution and cooperation.
2. Disagreement over the actual functioning of
Medium (in
Inevitably there will need to be much negotiation of the
the Commission and the content of the Treaty.
medium term)
final legally binding Treaty and there may also need to
be some discussion on the actual mechanisms for
Low (in long
running the Commission. However, most of the
term)
foundation for this has already been formally adopted
by signature through the SAP as well as through the
Interim Agreement so the negotiations would be over
the details rather than the principles
3. Changes in political regime within any one
Low
The advantages of transboundary cooperation are
country may result in withdrawal from
becoming evident and one function of the SAP
Commission and Treaty
Implementation phase will be to ensure that all
stakeholders are sensitised to this regional management
need. Furthermore, the Treaty will be drafted in such a
manner as to make withdrawal politically undesirable
and the Commission will have sufficient stakeholder
input and participation to also ensure full engagement
from all three countries in the long-term, regardless of
political changes
4. Environmental variability (both natural and
Low
Some level of variability is inevitable. It is unlikely that
anthropogenic in nature) may be sufficient to
it would collapse the ecosystem to the point of non-
cause a collapse in the LME making a regional
functionality, although it may cause significant changes.
management mechanism redundant
This is more of a justification for the Project inasmuch
as being able to respond/adapt to variability in order to
continue to manage the ecosystem is one of the main
focuses of the Commission and the evolving
transboundary management mechanisms
The BCLME plays a significant role in global climate generation and regulation, although the exact functions and
manifestations are still only partially understood. The BCLME Program, through the SAP IMP Project and support
to the BCC, will continue to focus on greater understanding, knowledge capture and associated adaptive ecosystem
management in relation to climate change-induced variability within the LME. The ecosystem approach to
management will aim to maintain and conserve the various ecosystem functions at the local and regional level
thereby providing some level of stability in relation to regional and global climate cycles and seasonality. This
overall ecosystem stability will in turn provide feedback to the maintenance and conservation of renewable living
marine resources within the LME. Hence, although not identified as a risk during the PIF, climate change is
20
recognised by the BCLME Program, the BCC and the SAP IMP Project. The SAP IMP Project will support the
BCC to strengthen and improve existing national and regional monitoring frameworks to provide reliable data for
prediction and early warning so that adaptive management serves as a responsive mechanism to improve the
resilience of the system through the control and mitigation of human-induced impacts that can exacerbate climate
change affects. During year 1 of the project International Waters indicators will be developed which will be
reflective of climate change considerations in the region.
G. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN:
The proposed Incremental interventions by GEF are specifically designed to build on existing baseline activities
related to fisheries and marine resource exploitation and to convert and reform them into a transboundary EAF. This
represents a substituting alternative which is altering existing baseline approaches as well as building on them to
improve policy, governance and management practices.
The total Alternative cost attributable to the Project proposal is $350.4 million of which 79% represent the existing
baseline and 21% represents the joint GEF/ Co-funded Increment.
This incremental 21% reflects the cost of realigning existing practices away from national management and
governance to an ecosystem approach that will aim to reduce the degradation of this ecosystem and to restore and
maintain its depleted fisheries.
In the longer term a detailed economic study undertaken by the BCLME Program has assessed the cost-
effectiveness of this project. This has identified that there are two potential benefits for regional cooperation of an
EAF. First, the minimisation of the wasteful use of shared stocks (mitigating the economic risk on non-cooperation).
Second, the increase of opportunity by managing the harvesting by all countries so that shared stocks are allowed to
grow to their fullest economic potential. This Project will minimise the economic risks of non-cooperation by
establishing a framework within which the countries can effectively manage these resources. The maximum value
of this risk of non-cooperation is the current economic rent derived by all the countries from shared stocks which
equates to approximately US$110 million per annum. The long-term costs for the protection of this resource are
calculated to be in the order of $8 million per annum. The study identifies that an estimated potential increase in
economic rent derived from cooperative management could be a further $150 million (studies have shown that the
effective cooperative ecosystem-approach to management of the hake stocks alone could increase available income
by 40%). The implementation costs for this further layer of management have been calculated to be a further $16
million per annum. Therefore, a 7% increase in investment will provide insurance against loss of $110 million in
economic rent and a further investment of $8 million could release benefits of another $150 million (nearly a
twenty-fold return on investment). The initial capital outlay by GEF to establish this structure would be $1.3 million
per annum over 4 years with a further input from the countries of $14.8 million per annum The actual global
benefits to sustaining fisheries and maintaining ecosystem diversity would be the subject of work undertaken by the
Commission as part of the proposed monitoring of indicators that is built into the project.
PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT:
Implementation
UNDP will act as the Implementing Agency (IA) for this Project with the UNDP Namibia CO acting as the lead IA.
UNDP has considerable experience in the implementation and management of LME projects globally and has been
working with the BCLME Program for some 10 years to date. Each of the three countries has an active UNDP Country
Office, which can (and have) provided considerable in-kind support to project development and implementation, and all
of these Offices are familiar with the BCLME Program and the GEF assistance process.
Execution
Execution of the BCLME SAP IMP Project will take place through the United Nations Office for Project Services
(UNOPS), as the Executing Agency (EA), through its Global and Inter-Regional Division in accordance with standa 21
rd
operational, financial guidelines and procedures. UNOPS has been managing the BCLME Project since it first started in
2002 and therefore has a detailed corporate memory of events and historic processes. UNOPS will remain accountable to
UNDP for the delivery of agreed outputs as per agreed project work plans, and for financial management and reporting as
well as ensuring cost-effectiveness.
For the execution of activities under Outcome 4: Capture and Networking of Knowledge and Best Practices, DLIST has
been pre-selected as the implementation partner at the External Project Appraisal Committee held in November 2007 (see
attached minutes). Accordingly, a subcontract will be issued to IKM, an NGO managing the DLIST initiative.
Project Coordination and Administration
As the objective of this Project is to develop and build capacity for a Commission and its regional and national structures
it is considered to be inappropriate to duplicate BCLME administrative mechanisms through a physically independent
PCU as was the approach during the initial BCLME Program. The intention now is to funnel and focus resources through
the Commission. However, it is still necessary to have a small and independent PMU for the BCLME SAP IMP Project
in order to administer funding and resources, coordinate project implementation and to provide technical advice to the
Secretariat of the Commission. In this context, the day-to-day management and administration of the Project will be
carried out by a PMU which would be based within the BCC or its hosting organisation, to be based in Namibia. The staff
for this PMU would consist of a Project Manager/Advisor, an Administrative Officer, and a Secretary. These people
would sit within the BCC or an appropriate hosting organisation and their primary function would be the day-to-day
management and administration of the UNDP/ GEF-funded BCLME SAP IMP Project, including supervision of activities
and deliverables, hiring and contracting of GEF-funded staff, procurement and disbursement, budget management,
reporting, evaluation and monitoring. In addition to these functions, the Project Manager/ Advisor would also act as a
technical advisor to the Commission's Secretariat and, as such, would work closely alongside the Executive Secretary,
particularly in matters where the BCLME SAP IMP Project is directly supporting the Commission at the regional and/or
national level.
Other GEF-funded or part-funded staff would sit within the Commission Secretariat Offices or within the National Focal
Institutes (NFIs) so as to more effectively provide capacity to the Commission at either the regional or national level.
The Project would have a Steering Committee consisting of A. the representatives from the three countries that sit on the
Commission's Management Board (see below) plus representation from the IA (UNDP) and the EA (UNOPS) as well as
B. any other appropriate representatives and observers (e.g. other co-funders directly supporting the Project) whose status
on the Steering Committee would be agreed by the core membership as defined above.
The actual management process will require a careful integration between what will be the management process for the
UNDP GEF assisted project (i.e. the PMU) and the regional structure for the Commission. The following sections and
Part IV (below) defines the Commission structure and the linkages to the PMU. The actual Commission organs and their
relationship to the UNDP/ GEF-funded BCLME SAP IMP Project are as follows:
Ministerial Conference: This represents the most senior policy level within the Commission and would consist of
pertinent Ministers from the three countries that are signatory to the Interim Agreement (and later the formal Treaty) or
their delegated representatives. The Ministerial Conference would set formal policy for the Commission in relation to
transboundary ecosystem fisheries issue and any other issues relating to the BCLME, and would thereby advise and direct
the rest of the Commission in its actions.
BCC Management Board:
Effectively having evolved from the existing BCLME Program Steering Committee (PSC),
this would be the senior management body consisting of representatives from Government at the Senior Civil Servant
level (e.g. Permanent Secretaries and/ or Directors-General) as well as appropriate representatives from the private sector
and other donor/ funding agencies. In this context the Management Board would be at the equivalent level to the earlier
BCLME PSC and would, in fact, fulfil this function also for the BCLME SAP IMP Project. However, these would
effectively be two discrete functions although logistical arrangements would be adopted to allow the members to carry
out these separate functions in a more cost-effective manner. Therefore, meetings of the BCC Management Board and of
the BCLME SAP IMP Steering Committee would be dove-tailed so that other Steering Committee partners not on the
Management Board (e.g. UNDP, UNOPS, GEF) could attend the latter immediately after the former meeting was
completed. For the purposes of communication and information the Project Manager/ Advisor for the BCLME SAP IMP
22
Project would sit as a non-voting member on the BCC Management Board. The functions of the Management Board are
defined in greater detail within the Interim Agreement
Management Advisory Committees (MACs): These would be the primary advisory bodies that would address the specific
areas of concern highlighted in the SAP and the Interim Agreement in order to provide advice at the regional level and to
define guidelines and directives for national level reform and harmonisation that would be endorsed by the Management
Board and adopted into policy by the Ministerial Conference. These Committees are primarily bodies of the Commission.
BCC Secretariat: This is the functional day-to-day management office of the Commission and its various regional/
national organs and will have evolved from many of the existing BCLME management and administrative functions and
roles currently carried out by the PCU. This would be overseen by an Executive Secretary who would be the senior
officer within the Commission answerable to the Ministerial Conference through the Management Board. The Executive
Secretary would sit on the Management Board as a non-voting member. In essence the Secretariat takes over the
functions of the PCU that was created under the BCLME Program and the Executive Secretary therefore takes over what
were the functions of the Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) for the BCLME PCU. The BCLME SAP IMP PMU is thus
down-graded to a simple Management Unit within the BCC and its Manager/ Advisor works alongside the Executive
Secretary to ensure harmony between the GEF-funded activities and the overall work of the Commission. This is in
accordance with the aims of both the original BCLME Program and this new BCLME SAP IMP Project i.e. capacity
building of the Commission to take over the role of the BCLME Program PCU. The functions of the Secretariat and its
Executive Secretary are defined in greater detail within the Interim Agreement.
Ecosystem Advisory Committee (EAC): This will be the technical and scientific advisory organ to the Commission and
to this extent inherits what were the previous functions of BENEFIT. The EAC will ensure a strong foundation of
scientific advice and guidance for the Commission to allow appropriate, timely and up-to-date policy and management
decisions to be taken. In this context the EAC (along with its Ecosystem Working Groups (EWGs) which have evolved
from the current BCLME/BENEFIT Technical Advisory Groups of specialists and technical experts) fulfils the aims of
the GEF assistance to the BCLME in that it provides an independently-funded platform of scientific and technical support
which is essential to the overall BCLME transboundary EAF management. The roles of the EAC are defined in greater
detail within the Interim Agreement.
PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF:
There have been no major changes to the project design as compared to the Project Identification Form (PIF) that was
approved by the GEF Council, as per letter of GEF CEO of 15/11/07
PART V: AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF
criteria for CEO Endorsement.
Project Contact Person:
Akiko Yamamoto, Regional Portfolio Manager for IW
UNDP/GEF Eastern and Southern Africa
Yannick Glemarec
UNDP-GEF Executive Coordinator
Date: 4 December 2008
Tel. and Email:+27 12 354 8125
akiko.yamamoto@undp.org
23
ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
GOAL: To halt the marked depletion of fisheries within one of the most productive yet highly environmentally variable oceanic areas in the world. This will be achieved
through adoption of a more appropriate ecosystem approach to fisheries management that includes transboundary cooperation in order to mitigate the overall degradation of
the LME and its living marine resources and to build in adaptive buffers to variability (both natural and anthropogenic in nature)
Objective of the Project: the
An effective regional and national
Risk that senior national political figures
implementation of a Strategic Action
capacity established and sustainable that
may not grasp the long-term importance
Programme that builds on a foundation
will manage the LME in a cooperative,
of the need to manage and conserve
of scientific and technical studies and
transboundary manner
fisheries and other associated living
evolving partnerships, and uses these to
marine resources within the LME.
inform policy, legislative and
management decisions at the regional
Especially in relation to other competing
and national level.
social and economic issues.
Assumes that political support fostered
under the original BCLME Program will
continue and expand under BCLME
SAP Implementation Project
Overall assumption that the regional and
national structures can be made
politically and economically sustainable.
Outcome 1: A Benguela Current
Commission Infrastructure and
Associated Treaty
Outputs
1.1 Commission formally adopted, to
BCC operational base and staff in place
No Commission established as yet
Risk that countries may not initially
include all its requisite regional
although Interim Agreement in place
agree on the structure and
structures and responsibilities
mandate/responsibilities of the BCC.
1.2 Signature and ratification of a
BCC Treaty in place
SAP and Interim Agreement in place but Assumption that countries willing to
binding international LME Treaty to
currently non-binding and in need of
negotiate and adopt a binding Treaty
formally support the Commission
further negotiation
which commits them beyond the existing
non-binding Agreement.
1.3 Regional guidelines for national
Agreed guidelines, approved by the
TDA & SAP completed. SAP formally
Assumption that countries will adopt and
policy and legislative reforms agreed
BCC, in place
adopted. These identify needed reforms. implement these guidelines and reforms
and circulated
(see below under Outcome 2).
24
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
1.4 Standardized regional monitoring
Monitoring and assessment program
Some shared assessments and surveys
Assumption that countries are prepared
and assessment program adopted for
under implementation at national level
but no real standardization of monitoring to cooperate on Monitoring and
national distribution
and assessment methods
Assessment and to share skills,
expertise, facilities, resources and
information.
Risk that there is inadequate funding to
cover effective transboundary
monitoring and assessment exercises.
1.5 Regional work plan adopted for
Science and technical studies work plan
Considerable work already undertaken
Assumes that there is sufficient funding
further science and technical studies
in place
that has raised knowledge and awareness to support necessary scientific and
necessary for LME
of the status of the BCLME. This is an
technical studies nationally and
on-going and vital requirement in order
regionally.
to effectively advise and inform policy
and management decisions
Outcome 2: National Level Policy and
Management Reforms
Outputs
2.1 National coordinating ministries and
National Coordinators appointed and
Focal Ministries for BCLME Program
Assumes countries will nominate
coordinating institutes adopted and
operating from national institutions
already established.
appropriate Ministry and Institute that
functioning
Activity Centres established in each
can most effectively deliver BCC
country. These currently fulfill a partial
requirements at the national level and
function as national coordination
can also facilitate cross-sectoral
mechanisms
cooperation.
2.2 National Action Plans (NAPs)
National Action Plans in place
No existing NAPS appropriate to
Assumes that all appropriate government
adopted capturing regional guidelines
BCLME
and sectoral bodies willing to cooperate
and requirements
on developing and implementing NAPs.
Risk that there is insufficient financing
or political support to ensure that NAPs
are effectively implemented.
2.3 Regional guidelines for policy,
Guidelines implemented in all three
SAP identifies necessary reforms. Some
Assumes continued political
legislative and management reforms
countries (80% of objectives achieved
existing guidelines have been established commitment to undertake reforms and
adopted and implemented at national
by year 5)
realignments as defined in the original
level
SAP and re-confirmed through interim
agreement and final Treaty.
Risk that political commitment may
change as a result of changes in political
balance of power both nationally and
regionally.
25
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
2.4 National Monitoring Programs
1. IW indicators under implementation
Current national monitoring activities do Assumes willingness between countries
established and implemented and
through National Monitoring Programs.
not address IW indicators per se. Nor do
to adopt similar standards in order to
incorporating appropriate IW indicators
2. IW indicator data incorporated into
they aim to address LME issues
effectively monitor at the LME level
BCC State of the Ecosystem Information
rather than just the national level.
System (SEIS)
Assumes willingness for countries to
share their data at the regional level in
order to support the LME approach.
Assumes a certain baseline of capacity
and available resources/ equipment.
Risk that nationally responsible bodies
will not have access to sufficient funding
to be able to contribute effectively and
equally.
2.5 National Stakeholder Groups (NSGs) National Stakeholder Groups in place
Current national stakeholder groups
Assumes that various stakeholders at all
established
and participating in the SAP IMP Project limited to technical and scientific level,
sectoral levels have the time, interest and
not management, policy, cross-sectoral
resources to engage effectively in the
or incorporating private sector and
BCLME process.
community interests
Assumes that BCC is prepared to accept
stakeholder input to the overall regional
policy and management process.
Risk that relations between government,
NGO, private sector, community grass-
root organisations, etc. may not always
be conducive to effective cooperation.
2.6 LME related Multilateral
LME-related MEAs in place
Some MEAs signed and/or ratified to
Assumes commitments involved in
Environmental Agreement (MEAs)
date
ratifying certain MEAs are acceptable to
ratified by each country
specific governments.
Outcome 3: Sustainable Capacity for
LME Management
Outputs
26
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
3.1 Regional Training and Capacity
BCC Regional TCB Strategy in place
No existing regional T&CB strategy
Assumes that BCC can agree on
Building (TCB) Strategy and work plan
addressing main issues relating to
priorities and funding at the regional
adopted by the BCC
BCLME
level.
Risk of conflict between countries
within BCC relating to major gaps in
capacity levels and training needs
between countries.
3.2 TCB adopted and implemented
TCB under implementation at national
No current National Action Plans or
Assumes availability of appropriate
through NAPs
level (80% of TCB activities
other strategies dealing with National
individuals to train and appropriate
satisfactorily completed by year 5)
T&CB needs
institutions for building of capacity.
Risk of disagreements and contention
between institutions on national priority
needs for TCB
Risk that institutes may not nominate
suitable candidates for training.
Significant risk of loss of trained
capacity due to more attractive
opportunities in other sectors.
3.3 Thee-yearly review and update of
Regional TCB Strategy updated (end of
No current T&CB for review
Assumes sufficient funding available to
TCB at regional and national level
2011)
support a further 3-year cycle of training
and capacity building at both the
regional and national level
3.4 Effective implementation of the
80% of objectives in the SPP achieved
Stakeholder Participation limited to
Assumes sufficient interest from
Stakeholder Participation Plan (SPP)
by end of Project
scientific and technical level. No
necessary stakeholders (particularly in
effective involvement at managerial or
the private sector).
policy level
Also assumes that BCC will allow
effective and truly participatory
involvement of all stakeholders at all
appropriate levels of the BCC (regional
and national).
Always a risk of conflict between
stakeholders that may frequently have
opposing views that could threaten the
stakeholder participation process.
27
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
3.5 Regional sustainable funding
1. BCC Sustainability Strategy in place.
Inadequate funding arrangements
Assumes that stakeholders are willing to
program adopted and implemented
2. Initial Government commitments
defined at present to support BCC or
confirm sufficient funding for long-term
(US$ vs. number of years) to finance the overall BCLME approach
support of the BCC at the regional level.
BCC in place
Risk that BCC evolves into too large and
expensive a body that cannot be
supported by regional funding
commitments.
Risk of overall loss of interest by
funding sources after initial 5-10 years
leaving the BCC and the overall
BCLME process unsustainable.
3.6 National sustainable funding
National Sustainability Strategies in
No effective national funding
Assumes that national stakeholders
programs annexed as part of the BCLME place (outlining financial commitments
arrangements in place to support
(particularly government) are willing to
NAPs
to the BCC)
national commitments to BCC or
confirm sufficient funding for long-term
BCLME
support of the BCC at the national level.
Risk that national commitments to BCC
are seen to be too large and expensive
cannot be supported by national funding
commitments.
Risk of overall loss of interest by
national funding sources after initial 5-
10 years leaving the national BCC
coordinating and stakeholder agencies
unsustainable.
3.7 Regional partnership agreements and 1. Number of regional partnerships (with Limited regional partnership
Assumes an interest in the BCLME from
work plans formally adopted and
associated outputs, outcomes and
arrangements in place to support BCC
potential regional partners at the level of
implemented
impacts).
and BCLME
the private sector, NGOS or
2. 80% of annual partnership activities
communities.
satisfactorily completed.
Risk that regional partners may lose
interest after initial agreement period if
they cannot see any personal benefits.
28
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
3.8 National partnership agreements
National Partnership Agreements in
Limited national partnerships
Assumes an interest in the BCLME from
annexed as part of the BCLME NAPs
place
arrangements in place to support BCC
potential national partners at the level of
and BCLME
the private sector, NGOS or
communities.
Assumes the possibility for a
comfortable relationship between
potential national partners and
government agencies directly
responsible for the implementation of
the overall LME approach.
Risk that national partners may lose
interest after initial agreement period if
they cannot see any personal benefits.
Outcome 4: Capture and Networking
of Knowledge and Best Practices
Outputs
4.1 Information critical to policy and
Number of information packages
Limited awareness and sensitivity to
Assumes that senior management and
management decisions identified,
developed and distributed annually
LME and BCC-related issues at senior
policy-makers will read and act on these
packaged and distributed to appropriate
(information on topics, distribution list,
management and policy levels
briefing documents.
targets
etc. captured as part of monitoring)
Risk that information delivered may not
be specific or sufficiently compressed to
be absorbed by busy politicians and
senior managers.
4.2 Lessons and best practices reviewed, Number of lessons and best practice
No effective long-term mechanism
Assumes that lessons and best practices
documented and distributed for transfer
documents produced and distributed
within the BCLME Program for capture
are transferable and can be realistically
and replication
annually (information on themes/ topics
of Lessons and Best Practices. 1
replicated.
covered, distribution list, replication, etc. Symposium held in 2005 very popular
captured as part of monitoring)
and successful
Risk that countries may not be willing to
fully share their experiences with other
countries.
29
RESULTS INDICATOR BASELINE
RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS
4.3 African LME networking process
1. Concept Paper (outlining objectives,
No current mechanism exists for
Assumes sufficient commitment within
and mechanism defined and
approach, participation, etc.) on African
networking and sharing of African LME
the African continent and associated
implemented
LME Network in place.
experiences
regional bodies to support a long-term
2. Agreed work plan and budget for
African LME network both politically
African LME Network establishment.
and financially.
3. First African LME Network approved
work plan and budget in place.
Risk that lessons and best practices
4. 60% of year 1 work plan activities
could be transferred and replication
satisfactorily completed.
attempted without taking into account
local, national or regional differences
and requirements that might entirely
alter their effectiveness and appropriate
nature.
4.4 Global networking mechanism
Number of international networking and
No effective mechanism exists for
Assumes sufficient global commitment
established including linkages with other partnership agreements (with detailed
networking and sharing of LME
within the appropriate bodies to support
regional initiatives such as GOOS and
terms of references for partnerships) in
experiences at global level
a long-term global LME network both
NEPAD
place.
politically and financially.
Risk of discord between global agencies
over responsibilities for such a global
LME networking facility and its funding.
Risk that lessons and best practices
could be transferred and replication
attempted without taking into account
local, national or regional differences
and requirements that might entirely
alter their effectiveness and appropriate
nature.
Project Management
Total financing from UNDP/ GEF ($)
5,138,460
30
ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to
Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)
COUNCIL (Reference to GEF C.31/8)
Comment French Council
Response
member
The Project aims at
The signing of the Interim Agreement for the establishment of the Benguela Current
preserving the fisheries of the Commission (BCC) demonstrates commitment at higher policy and decision making level for
Benguela Current in a
coordinated EAF and transboundary management of the LME. The project will, under Outcome
coordinated way between
1, directly support the BCC Secretariat with the drafting of a legally binding Treaty, its
South Africa, Namibia and
adoption and ratification by all three member states. In addition, the development, adoption and
Angola.
ratification of MEAs, codes of conduct and guidelines further demonstrates commitment by
Angola, Namibia and South Africa to manage the ecosystem holistically, i.e. EAF, by
considering the impacts of other coastal and marine based industries such as oil and gas
exploration and production, mining and tourism.
As indicated in the PIF, it is
A partnership and cooperation will be established with ORASECOM, although not a LME,
crucial for this project to link
during the first year of the project as part of the overall establishment of partnerships and
with the project in
networks under Outcome 3 (See Annex C below). Cooperation will look at sharing monitoring
preparation with the Orange
information and data that can be use in assessing the state of fish stocks in this transboundary
River Commission
region between Namibia and South Africa and the incorporation of relevant data into the State
(ORASECOM) to articulate
of the Ecosystem Information System (SEIS) established under the BCLME Program. The
the works of the two projects
BCLME Program also assessed the affects of onshore and near-shore diamond mining on the
around the management of
BCLME near the Orange River mouth which compared the effects of mining-induced plumes
the Orange River mouth
and sedimentation to that of river runoff. As a multilateral Commission, the BCC can also draw
which is a strategic point
on best practices and lessons learned of ORASECOM with its own institutional and
along the coast in terms of
organisational setup.
fish stocks preservation.
Comment American
Response
Council member
This project appears well
The signing of the Interim Agreement for the establishment of the Benguela Current
placed to build on the
Commission (BCC) demonstrates commitment at higher policy and decision making level for
previous Benguela project to
improved regional governance of the LME.
improve governance over
transboundary resources, and
this is to be applauded.
The project, however does
The BCLME Program undertook a study which assessed the cost effectiveness of the SAP
not seem to have a
Implementation project as an intervention to maximise economic gains from the joint
mechanism to monitor and
management and sustainable harvesting. This Project will minimise the economic risks of non-
report on benefits that should
cooperation by establishing a framework within which the countries can effectively manage
flow from improved
these resources. The maximum value of this risk of non-cooperation is the current economic
governance, including with
rent derived by all the countries from shared stocks which equates to approximately US$110
regard to fish stocks and
million per annum. The long-term costs for the protection of this resource are calculated to be in
reduced degradation of
the order of US$8 million per annum. The study identifies that an estimated potential increase
coastal resources. How will
in economic rent derived from cooperative management could be a further US$150 million
benefits be measured and
(studies have shown that the effective cooperative ecosystem-approach to management of the
reported on.
hake stocks alone could increase available income by 40%). The implementation costs for this
further layer of management have been calculated to be a further US$16 million per annum.
Therefore, a 7% increase in investment will provide insurance against loss of US$110 million in
economic rent and a further investment of US$8 million could release benefits of another
US$150 million (nearly a twenty-fold return on investment). The initial capital outlay by GEF
to establish this structure would be US$1.3 million per annum over 4 years with a further input
from the countries of US$14.8 million per annum. The project should replicate the study
undertaken by the BCLME Program in year 4 to provide a comparison for the `baseline'
presented above, although it might be soon to measure real economic gains.
Comments from GEF Secretariat (received on 23 May 2008) are addressed in the separate file.
31
ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT WITH GEF FUNDING
Estimate
$/ person
Position Titles
d person
Tasks to be performed
week
weeks
For Project Management
Local
Administrative Assistant
625
90
Administrative and logistical assistance to the Project
Manager/ Advisor and the BCC Secretariat to meet
project objectives
International
Project Manager/ Advisor (12% effort)
2,400
22
Daily management and coordination of project
implementation and activities. Ensuring that procedures
are followed for procurement, accounting, etc.
For Technical Assistance
Local
Technical Assistance and Facilitation
1,800
12
TA and facilitation support to the BCC for the
Consultant: Establishment of
establishment of Management Advisory Committees.
Management Advisory Committees
Drafting of ToRs, solicitation of nominations, etc.
(MACs)
[Output 1.1]
IW Indicator Development Consultant
1,800
15
Developing process, stress reduction, and environmental
status IW indicators inline with GEF's M&E framework
and policy. Establish baselines, data sources, frequency
and cost of data collection and method of reporting for
each indicator. Ensure linkages to the Science Plan,
RAP and local NAPs [Output 1.1]
Monitoring and Evaluation technical
1,800
15
TA to the BCC and each National Focal Point during
assistance to the BCC and its National
year 1 with the implementation and reporting of the IW
Focal Points
and SAP IMP indicators (ProDoc logframe).
Verification of baselines (data and sources), compilation
of data for Y1 reporting. Annual limited TA for each
NFP for M&E and reporting. [Output 1.1]
Techincal Assistance and facilitation
1,800
12
TA to each NFP with incorporation of Science Plan
support to NFPs to incorporate Science
activities into the NAPs for the initial 3-year period. TA
Plan activities into NAPs
in Y4 for incorporation of Science Plan activities into
next 3-year NAPs. [Output 1.1]
TA for identification and establishment
1,800
24
Technical assistance, facilitation and coordination
of transboundary MPAs/ Management
support to the BCC for the identification and
Zones
establishment of transboundary MPAs/ Management
Zone for the rebuilding of fish stocks and protection of
habitats. [Output 1.2]
Technical Assistance for the ratification
1,800
6
TA to Namibia and Angola with the preparation of
and implementation of the Abidjan
necessary documents and consultations with
Convention
stakeholders to ratify the Abidjan Convention. This is
inline with the BCCs commitment to international
obligations through its member states in the context of
transboundary LME management and EAF. Limited TA
to South Africa for the implementation of the
Convention. [Output 1.2]
Local consultant for the development of
1,800
20
Local consultant working with an international
Multilateral Management Instruments
consultant for the development of thematic codes of
(protocols, guidelines, codes of conduct)
conduct, guidelines and/ or protocols for improved
management of the BCLME. Following the adoption of
instruments, the local consultant will provide initial
capacity building and implementation support to NFPs
and implementing authorities. [Output 1.2]
32
Local consultant: Facilitation and
1,800
10
Support from a local consultant to collate information,
coordination support for the development
liaise with stakeholders, arrange consultations and
of the Regional Action Programme
provide support to the international consultant on the
(RAP)
ground for the review of the SAP and development of a
RAP. [Output 1.2]
NAP and RAP implementation support
1,800
24
Guidance and technical assistance support to the BCC,
consultant
PMU and the three NFPs with the implementation of the
NAPs and the RAP. This will entail consultations to
ensure synchrony between NAPs and the RAP,
developing implementation guidelines and a related
work Program. Review of implementation success after
1 year and technical backstopping. [Output 1.2]
Early Warning System review consultant
1,800
10
Inline with the development of the multilateral
management instruments and harmonisation of the
policy/ legal frameworks for EAF and transboundary
LME management, a local consultant will be contracted
to review the EWS in the context of the above and in
relation to the SEIS. Recommendations will be made for
policy and technical improvements of the EWS.
[Output 1.2]
Fisheries Fees and Levies Consultant
1,800
10
Consultations with stakeholders for the development
and approval of a fee and levy structure for shared
stocks. The fee and levy structure will make
recommendations for the use of such revenue for
transboundary LME management. Support to each
country for the adoption and address in the
harmonisation of relevant policies/ laws. [Output 1.2]
Artisanal Fisheries Legal Consultant
1,800
8
TA to the BCC for the development of a Regional
Regulatory Framework for Artisanal Fisheries. Develop
implementation guidelines for the framework. [Output
1.2]
Artisanal Fisheries Monitoring
1,800
8
Develop monitoring Programs at national level for
Consultant
artisanal fisheries as part of the BCC's LME
management strategy. Ensure the capture of data in
SEIS. [Output 1.2]
SEAFO-BCC Alignment technical
1,800
6
Based on the roles and mandates of each organisation,
assistance
develop a cost-effective strategy for closer alignment of
the two organisation. The strategy should address EAF
and broader LME management with emphasis on data
sharing, monitoring, etc. [Output 1.2]
Technical Assistance and Facilitation
1,800
25
TA and facilitation support to the BCC and the project
Consultant: Formation of National
for the formation of National Stakeholder Groups to
Stakeholder Groups
support the BCC and project activities. Support for
operationalisation of each stakeholder group. [Output
2.1]
TA for development and implementation
1,800
16
Review of current monitoring, control and surveillance
of regional MCS procedures
(MCS) in each country and developing procedures for
regional MCS. Providing limited implementation
support to each country and the BCC. [Output 2.1]
National Action Plan (NAP)
1,800
18
TA support to each country for the development of
Development Consultant
NAPs for EAF and transboundary management of the
LME. [Output 2.2]
Legal and Policy TA consultant:
1,800
18
TA at national level for the implementation of policy
Implementation of guidelines
and legislative reform guidelines. [Output 2.2]
National Focal Point (1 in each country.
865
560
National level implementation and coordination of BCC
Figures indicative of one NFP)
and related activities supported by the project. Support
for the development of National Action Plans,
guidelines for policy/ legal reforms, implementation and
monitoring of IW indicators. [Outcomes 1-4]
33
Institutional Development Consultant
1,800
11
TA to the BCC to explore the creation of a Regional
Professional Association of Marine Experts/ Specialists.
[Output 3.1]
Mentoring and Partnership Consultant
1,800
12
TA to the BCC for the development of international
(for training and capacity building)
mentoring Programs and the establishment of strategic
institutional partnerships for long-term sustainable skill
transfer and capacity building. [Output 3.1]
Human Resource Consultant
1,800
16
Conduct an Independent Professional Skills Audit for
EAF and transboundary LME management and develop
a Regional Human Resource Development Strategy for
the BCC related to the TCB Strategy for Ecosystem
Management (prepared during project development).
[Output 3.1]
Financial Sustainability Planning
1,800
16
TA to the BCC for the development of 5-year regional
Consultant
and national sustainable funding Programs for the BCC.
[Output 3.2]
International LME Partnership
1,800
12
Development of partnerships with other LMEs (building
Development Consultant
on the Pan-African LME Network) guided by detailed
ToRs for roles/ responsibilities, joint Programs, funding
and timelines to mainstream and strengthen the LME
management approach. [Output 3.3]
Local Partnership Development
1,800
16
Development of national level partnerships (through
Consultant
LoAs, MoUs) with line ministries, NGOs and the
private sector for improved national effort for EAF and
transboundary LME management. Consolidating a
partnership portfolio for the BCC based on international
LME and national partnerships. Develop partnership
implementation guidelines for the BCC. [Output 3.3]
Stakeholder Participation Strategy
1,800
16
Building on the Stakeholder Participation Plan (SPP)
Consultant
developed during project preparation, develop a strategy
for long-term cost effective, yet meaningful stakeholder
participation in the BCC. This should also entail the
development of a stakeholder participation fund.
[Output 3.4]
Consultant for the Assessment of the use
1,800
24
Annually assess the use by the BCC of best practice and
of Case Studies by the BCC for
lessons learned case studies. Developing
improved management
recommendations to improve the case studies, based on
BCC feedback, for use in decision making and
management. [Output 4.1]
International
Project Manager/ Advisor (88% effort)
2,400
167
Ensuring that all outcomes are achieved through
technical input and advice to project stakeholders and
the BCC. Lead and technically oversee work
programming, activity implementation, management
and coordination of consultancies and subcontracts,
quality assurance of outputs, monitoring and evaluation,
reporting and, timely disbursement of funds. [Outcomes
1-4]
Legal and Policy Advisor: Guidelines for
3,000
6
Development of national and regional guidelines for
policy and legislative reforms
policy and legal reforms necessary to operationalise the
BCC. [Output 1.1]
EAF Work Programming Consultant
3,000
4
Development of regional EAF work Programs with
specific associated technical studies related to
transboundary management approach. [Output 1.1]
Treaty Development Consultant
3,000
6
Drafting of a legally binding Treaty for adoption and
endorsement by the BCC Ministerial Conference.
[Output 1.2]
34
Regional Action Programme (RAP)
3,000
8
Review of the Strategic Action Program (SAP) and
Development Consultant
development of a RAP. The project will support the
BCC with RAP implementation for the 4-year period.
[Output 1.2]
Consultant for the development of
3,000
14
Development of thematic codes of conduct, guidelines
Multilateral Management Instruments
and/ or protocols for improved management of the
(protocols, guidelines, codes of conduct)
BCLME. [Output 1.2]
Monitoring Development Consultant
3,000
6
TA to the BCC for the development of directives on
Standard Ecosystem-Focused Monitoring for integration
into NAPs to support transboundary LME/ fisheries
management. [Output 1.2]
MEA Development Consultant
3,000
12
Development MEAs related to the LME and to
transboundary management and support for their
ratification. [Output 2.2]
Case Study Development Consultant
3,000
8
Developing a format for presenting best practices and
lessons learned as case studies; TA support to the
MACs for identification of themes and, developing a
work plan with costs and timelines for case study
development. Case studies will be shared with other
LMEs, especially within the Pan-African LME Network
and globally via IW:LEARN. [Output 4.1]
Science Communication Consultant
3,000
16
Developing a format for presenting critical policy and
management information to the BCC. This will include
four weeks per year for TA to the BCC for the
extraction of scientific and technical information and
data and the translation thereof into policy and
management recommendations for decision making.
[Output 4.1]
LME Network Development Consultant
3,000
6
TA to the BCC for the development of formal LME
networking LME process with African LMEs to include
at least biennial meetings for information sharing and
discussion. [Output 4.2]
35
ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS
EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN.
The main Objective of the PDF-B was: "To prepare a Project Proposal and full Project Document for funding by GEF,
the governments of Angola, Namibia and South Africa and, other cooperating partners to implement the Benguela
Current LME Strategic Action Program for the restoration of depleted fisheries and the reduction of coastal resources
degradation".
The following Stages for PDF-B implementation were identified:
Stage 1 "Technical Feasibility and Needs Assessment"
Stage 2 "Project Scoping and Definition"
Stage 3: "Stakeholder Engagement and Ownership/Endorsement"
Stage 4: "PPG Management"
All stages have been completed and the Objective has been achieved. Following the submission and approval of PIF by
the GEF Council as part of the GEF Work Program in November 2007, the Project Document on "Implementation of
the Benguela Current LME Strategic Action Program for Restoring Depleted Fisheries and Reducing Coastal
Resources Degradation" has been prepared for submission to GEF Secretariat to request CEO endorsement.
A. DESCRIBE, IF ANY, FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.
No further findings that may affect Project Design or concerns on project implementation.
B. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMTATION STATUS IN
THE TABLE BELOW:
GEF Amount ($)
Project Preparation
Implementation
Amount
Amount
Amount
Uncommitted
Co-
Activities Approved
Status
Approved
Spent To-
Committed
Amount*
financing
date
($)
Technical Feasibility and
Completed 125,900
126,000
0
0
28,600
Needs Assessment
Project Scoping and Definition
Completed 124,450
117,000
0
0
27,200
Stakeholder Engagement and
Completed
29,500 36,450
0
0 38,000
Ownership/ Endorsemnet
PPG Management
Completed
30,600 31,000
0
0 29,000
Total
310,450
310,450
0 0
122,800
* Uncommitted amount should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. Please indicate expected date of refund transaction to Trustee.
36