The BCLME Programme mid-term evaluation

Recommendations

The GEF Independent Mid Term Evaluation of the BCLME Programme was conducted between August and October 2005 by Drs David Voudsen and Magnus Ngoile.

The evaluators made the following recommendations:

1. The Benguela Current Commission (BCC)

1.1 In view of the political will and commitment that has been demonstrated by the three countries, an Interim BCC should be established as soon as possible. The IBCC will be charged with developing and adopting a formal multilateral agreement between the three countries; and evolving into a full BCC before the end of the current BCLME Project.

1.2 The GEF Project will also need to revise the responsibilities and Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Programme Steering Committee (PSC) so that the latter continues to steer the Project within the policy context laid down by the IBCC/BCC.

1.3 Both the initial ToR for the IBCC and negotiations regarding the multilateral agreement, will need to be discussed and endorsed at the national level prior to being agreed regionally.

1.4 The ToR and mandate for the IBCC should be linked wherever feasible to national and regional targets relating to social needs, economic development, poverty alleviation, etc, with particular reference to the Millennium Development Goals.

2. Ecosystem-based management approaches and needs

2.1 The results and conclusions from the various studies undertaken by the sub-projects need to be coordinated with existing data to develop applicable management strategies for the marine resources within the LME.

2.2 Information from the sub-projects should be refined and distilled into suitable presentations for resource managers, permanent secretaries and ministers. The presentations need to make a concise point regarding the value and necessity of integrated ecosystem-based management.

2.3 National Environmental Action Plans and National Biodiversity Strategic Action Programmes need to be linked into the regional ecosystem-based approach.

2.4 The BCLME Programme needs to re-think the regional approach to fisheries in light of the existing (and weak) national approaches, and to develop a road-map for the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Specifically, there is a critical need to improve capacity building and training.

3. Further monitoring and surveillance

    1. There is a need to develop effective long-term monitoring programmes focusing on a regional ecosystem-based approach but recognising the need for national activities and data collection.

    2. As part of a regional monitoring strategy, countries need to develop an Early Warning System and contingency plans for hazardous events such as Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs), low oxygen water events (LOWs) and toxic spills.

    3. Data needs to be accessible and centralised if at all possible.

4. Capacity Building and Training

    1. The BCLME Programme needs to develop a clear and strategic ‘road-map’ for capacity building and training (CB&T). This should define the national needs, which institutes and positions need to be strengthened, what CB&T is required, how the CB&T will be achieved and by whom. The road-map should also include a workplan.

    2. The Programme needs to identify mechanisms for securing any CB&T in the long-term. Trained personnel need to be contractually obligated to remain in their positions for a set period of time after training. A strategy should be adopted whereby newly trained people are assigned a trainee themselves. This would help to replicate skills cost-effectively.

    3. The BCLME Programme should explore the need for basic training as well as more specialised capacity building.

    4. The BCLME Programme also needs to recognise that higher level education is essential to create resource managers and potential policy makers. In this context the Programme needs to promote higher education to at least MSc level.

    5. Angola represents a special situation and needs specific and urgent attention. The two main barriers to Angola’s effective involvement in cooperative management of the LME are language barriers and serious human resource constraints. MSc students should be encouraged to take English language courses in parallel with the MSc course in Marine Science that is to be offered by the University of Agustinho Neto.

    6. The sub-projects have created a number of new specialists with innovative and cutting edge skills. The Project needs to look at mechanisms for retaining these people in the region.

    7. The BCLME Programme should attempt to identify funds to engage a CB&T Coordinator for the second half of the Project.

5. Further GEF assistance – the next phase

    1. The BCLME Programme needs to develop a concept paper for a phase two funding request from GEF right now.

    2. A clear priority for completion within the current Project (and upon which any additonal GEF funding would be conditional) would be the creation of an Interim BCC with significant progress having been made towards the adoption of a multilateral agreement.

    3. Another priority is the demonstration of how captured information can be operationally applied as working management strategies related to the LME.

    4. GEF is unlikely to approve an implementation phase unless it can see successful and outstanding delivery from the current phase. In this context, the Project should review all of the indicators for each Output (as per the revised Logical Framework) and develop a strategy to ensure that these indicators of success can be verified at the Terminal Evaluation. In particular, attention needs to be given to Output 5 where delivery has been delayed beyond the original workplan. If the level of delivery anticipated within the original Project Document cannot be demonstrated within the next 12 months, then this needs to be revised and new sets of indicators established. Otherwise, there is a real risk that this Output will have been deemed to have failed by the Terminal Evaluation.

6. Other project requirements

6.1 One shortfall in the Programme is the lack of support for the identification and adoption of marine protected areas and reserves. The Project needs to address the need for coastal zoning for resource management and protection, as well as identifying critical areas of biodiversity concern that need more stringent conservation measures (e.g. MPAs).

6.2 The Implementing Agency, Executing Agency and GEF need to discuss the unusual and unique situation whereby the fall in the value of the US dollar against the local currencies has left the Project with a little more than half of the expected financial support. A decision has to be made either to ‘top-up’ the budget to meet the shortfall, or to reduce the expected outputs and deliveries in relation to the available funds. However, there is an equal concern that much of the co-funding has not been realised and the Evaluators would urge the Project to consider that this may be a stronger financial constraint on Project delivery and should also be resolved before a Terminal Evaluation takes place.

6.3 The PSC needs to review the need for strengthened technical support for the PCU and for the Activity Centres, especially as the number of sub-projects escalates and their technical reports start to flow.

The Activity Centres need to compare the existing sub-projects against priority issues to identify where the urgent information gaps still exist and to take action to fill these gaps. Furthermore, the need to capture all this information and to review it for content and applicability will place considerable strain on both administrative structures without such technical support.

Attention is drawn to the following list of needs and requirements, which should be given early consideration:

5