The BCLME Programme mid-term evaluation

A summary of findings

The Global Environment Fund (GEF) Independent Mid Term Evaluation serves as a stocktaking exercise through which the progress and direction of a Project¹ may be compared with its original objectives. Evaluators are then able to provide recommendations for the realignment or revision of the Project and advise Project managers on areas that have fallen behind schedule. The Mid Term Evaluation also provides GEF with a valuable opportunity to capture lessons and best practices from the earlier stages of the Project.

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

During the evaluation, many stakeholders, both within the participating countries and the international arena, were consulted and interviewed. The distribution of those interviewed was approximately: government 50%; academic representatives 15%; Project and UN staff 15%; private sector 10%; and NGO 10%. Consultants working on specific focus areas within the Project were also consulted.

This is a summary of the original, 102-page Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) report.

Conclusions of the evaluation

The evaluators concluded that significant progress has been achieved at the mid-term point by the BCLME Programme and associated GEF Project. The progress has primarily focused on filling critical data gaps and capturing knowledge and information vital to the development of an integrated, ecosystem-based, cooperative management approach for the BCLME. However, the Project has also made noteworthy advances in capacity building and training and the development of cooperation and trust between the various national scientific stakeholders.

The Project has captured the interest of the international scientific community and is regarded as a “model” demonstration of LME Project development and implementation, both within sub-Saharan Africa and the GEF International Waters portfolio.

There is now an urgent need to move on from what has essentially been a scientific and technical process of completing studies and improving knowledge, to a process of applying such knowledge into management approaches and mechanisms, focusing on transboundary resource management across the LME. Resource managers within both the public and private sectors need to be engaged in this process of applied and cooperative management. Policy makers also need to be appraised of the need for an ecosystem-based approach to resource management and the long-term economic gains that can arise from such an approach.

There is a wealth of information that has been captured through the BCLME sub-projects, as well as existing data at the national and regional level. This needs to be coordinated and reviewed at the thematic level while maintaining an integrated and cross-sectoral vision. This should now be the objective set for the Activity Centres and for the Advisory Groups. These bodies of experts need to review and discuss the application of the data and how it can be operationalised into management strategies.

The Advisory Groups also need to consider the requirements for long-term monitoring in order to keep the information up-to-date, to identify any variability and changes in critical parameters, and to respond to the needs of management and policy-makers. In other words, on-going monitoring and data collection has to be able to accommodate additional information requirements from resource managers and from policy-makers.

It is clear that the BCLME stakeholders and partners are hoping for a second phase to this Project. It seems equally clear that a second phase, aimed at operationalising the ecosystem-based approach and adopting related policies and legislative instruments, was always intended as a funding consideration by the GEF. A second phase would build on the work undertaken at the scientific and technical level and will move the three countries towards the implementation of a truly regional ecosystem-based management. A lot of effort has already gone into capacity building and training and there is still much that could be done for the remaining period of this Project. Stakeholders feel that it would be an enormous waste of effort by the three countries, and also a wasted investment by GEF, if these successes were not capitalised on through the development and implementation of a Commission.

It is clear that there is a sense of urgency within the PSC and a strong political will to move forward with an Interim Benguela Current Commission (BCC). Furthermore, at their latest meeting in Lesotho, the Integrated Committee of Ministers formally endorsed the establishment of a BCC to ensure an ecosystem approach to management and sustainable use of the BCLME. The way forward is now clear for the adoption of an Interim BCC and, at a later stage, a full BCC supported by a regional legal instrument.

The BCLME Programme therefore needs a two-tier approach to developing sustainable management of the LME and its resources.

1. An operational level component focusing on the technical and managerial relationship and developing cross-sectoral management approaches with an emphasis on integrated operations and strategies.

2. A high policy level component driving the adoption of an Interim BCC and the endorsement of a tripartite agreement, and identifying the long-term strategies and structures for supporting a full BCC (including sourcing sustainable funds).

The BCLME Programme needs to place more emphasis on delivering the message to policy makers of “economically sound and cost-effective” cooperative, integrated management of the LME and its associated resources. The cost-benefits of the ecosystem-based approach have been identified but this needs to be distilled into concentrated and easily digested “politician-friendly” presentations to get the point across to the national and regional decision-makers.

It is now vitally important to engage industry and government in a language that they understand and to present justifications based on values and losses. This should also be presented against the backdrop of environmental variability and the need for cooperative forecasting and prediction.

There is a need for a more focused approach to capacity building and training (CB&T) and at this point it would be advisable for the Project to consider developing a clear road-map for institutional and individual CB&T targets.

The evaluators noted the cooperative arrangements between at least one University and one government department, and the excellent benefits and advantages of such a partnership (e.g. The University of Agustinho Neto and the Institute of Marine Research in Angola). Such partnerships need to be explored and encouraged at both national and regional level.

The evaluators identified some perceived problems of cooperation and partnership between South Africa and the other two countries of the BCLME Programme. Stakeholders and partners from Namibia and Angola working on joint sub-projects with South African institutions feel that they have been discouraged from taking part fully in data analysis, the development of conclusions, and the preparation of reports. Furthermore, there is a strong perception that an unintentional bias for support for South Africa has evolved from the BCLME Programme.

As long as the perception exists there is a danger that it could damage long-term relationships and partnerships to the detriment of the BCLME Programme. However, this situation could be reformed into an opportunity rather than being seen to be a disadvantage; South African expertise could be actively exploited by the Programme to assist in training in the other countries.

On a more positive note, in many instances, sharing of experiences, transfer of skills and capacity building have happened almost coincidentally as a result of cooperative studies and research between institutes and individuals from the three countries. This regional and international cooperation and partnership has also helped to foster and develop standardised approaches, especially in relation to new and innovative techniques and skills such as those associated with forecasting and prediction of environmental variability. Again, this bodes well for the long-term sustainability of Programme objectives.

In the further context of achieving sustainability, there is a need to expand country ownership through the realignment of national budgets and revenue allocations to support implementation approaches for the BCLME Programme.

Although stakeholder involvement in this Project has been good, there is a general feeling that it has tended to focus on fisheries-related stakeholders and there is a need now to involve more specialists, managers and policy-makers from other sectors such as mining and petroleum, pollution control agencies (maritime and land-based) and other evolving sectors and industries such as mariculture and tourism.

In relation to fisheries within the BCLME, resource specialist have noted that there is as great a need to ensure effective national management of regional fish stocks as there is to expand this to transboundary management. There is a clear necessity for more emphasis on capacity building in this particular area. There is also an urgent need to address the current disconnect between transboundary fisheries research and management processes. The linkages between the scientific working groups on fisheries (at the national level) and the BCLME Programme (at the transboundary level) are currently poor. These groups should be playing a primary role in setting fisheries management research priorities for BCLME.

Generally, the vast majority of the stakeholders who expressed their opinions to the evaluators had a positive view of what the Project had achieved. They felt that the Programme has:

• initiated a much more holistic approach within the region, with more information on changing boundary processes that affect national priorities and concerns;

• encouraged better integration of a multidisciplinary approach to the ecosystem effects of fishing and the relationship between fisheries and the ecosystem itself;

• assisted in retaining much expertise within the region which has had a positive effect on capacity building and training; and

• promoted regional cooperation between institutes. Capacity building has proved to be so effective in some cases that a number of project-associated personnel have been promoted from technical levels up to senior management positions both nationally and within regional organisations.

Stakeholders also noted that the presence of the GEF Project has promoted and encouraged more studies into non-commercial species outside of the fisheries sector, as well as more data collection on the species that constitute the fishery by-catch, and how their removal may influence the ecosystem as a whole.

There was overall consensus that much of the work relating to cutting edge techniques such as predictive modelling and environmental variability studies would not have happened without the support and encouragement of the GEF Project. There is no perception at all that the Programme or the GEF activities have been forced on the stakeholders. This, therefore, represents a truly country-driven GEF support initiative with strong country ownership at the scientific level and, gradually, at the political level.

Certain constraints were highlighted which have affected the performance of the Project and its delivery. These include the problems experienced with the strengthening of the local currency against the US dollar almost immediately after project implementation. This has had a serious effect of what the Project can now realistically achieve.

It seems that the difficulties that the Project has experienced working in Angola were underestimated or even ignored in the original Project design. For example, Angola has some specific problems that need to addressed in relation to human resources and language constraints. There is a particularly urgent need in this country (although this is probably also true to a lesser extent of Namibia) to identify individuals for training at both the basic level and at the more advanced level.

In Angola’s particular case, there is also a need to address the language problem and individuals do need improved language skills before they can realistically attempt further training or higher education. The Project needs to work closely in this respect with academic institutes in all 3 countries, but especially with the University of Agustinho Neto.

Recommendations

The following recommendations address the BCLME Programme itself. Further recommendations, which address the development of other LME Projects and general GEF Project development and management, are made in the MTE report.

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:

• Improvements in commercial species monitoring, research and protection, especially in Namibia and Angola;

• A better understanding of priority transboundary shared stocks such as deep-water hake;

• Closer cooperation between the fisheries management agencies within the three countries so as to understand and manage shared stocks for everyone’s benefit (including MCS);

• Establishment of transboundary management areas/reserves/MPAs;

• Rapid development of a baseline for environmental variability (linked to climate change studies) followed by development of an environmental prediction and early warning system;

• Further and enhanced capacity building and training for stock assessment, ecosystem assessment, etc;

• Establishment of exchange mechanisms for information and lesson-sharing;

• More effective and widespread public awareness;

• Refined and effective age studies for principal commercial species;

• The need for management intervention in coastal resource and coastal livelihood development to minimise environmental impact and optimise socio-economic benefits (e.g. aquaculture); and

• Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the economic and socio-economic elements of ecosystem management.