United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)
GF/6010-00-16
Medium-sized project "Development and Protection
of the Coastal and Marine Environment in
Sub-Saharan Africa"
Final review and evaluation
Magnus Ngoile
December 2003
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
K0364001
220304
Contents
List of acronyms ......................................................................................................................................iv
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. 1
A.
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
B.
Review ....................................................................................................................................... 1
C.
Outputs ....................................................................................................................................... 1
D.
Assessment................................................................................................................................. 2
E.
Lessons and experiences ............................................................................................................ 3
F.
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 3
I.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
A.
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
B.
Terms of reference for the final evaluation ................................................................................ 2
C.
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 2
II.
Review ....................................................................................................................................... 3
A.
Project approach......................................................................................................................... 3
B.
Effectiveness and efficiency....................................................................................................... 7
C.
Project institutional capacity .................................................................................................... 10
III.
Findings and assessment .......................................................................................................... 11
A.
Findings.................................................................................................................................... 11
B.
Assessment............................................................................................................................... 16
IV.
Lessons and experiences .......................................................................................................... 21
A.
Good practices:......................................................................................................................... 21
B.
Lesson learned:......................................................................................................................... 22
V.
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 22
A.
Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 22
B.
Institutional .............................................................................................................................. 23
B.
Technical.................................................................................................................................. 25
C.
Financial................................................................................................................................... 25
D.
Sustainability............................................................................................................................ 26
Annexes
I.
Terms of reference for the final review and evaluation of the GEF medium-sized project for the
development and protection of the coastal and marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa
(GF/6010-00-16) ......................................................................................................................... 27
II.
Stakeholders interviewed ............................................................................................................ 34
III.
Questions guiding consultations with project stakeholders.........................................................39
IV.
Regional coordinators and associated experts for phase II of the project ................................... 41
V.
Evaluation of how and to what extent the project objectives (goal and purposes) have been met
utilizing the verifiable indicators set out in the logical framework/project matrix...................... 43
VI.
Extracts of commitments made during the Partnership Conference by
heads of State and others............................................................................................................. 46
VII.
Assessment of project outputs..................................................................................................... 48
VIII. Project activities implementation plan ........................................................................................ 49
IX.
Financial analysis of the utilization of project funds................................................................... 50
X.
Project revision authorization...................................................................................................... 51
XI.
Stakeholder participation in the African Process ........................................................................ 53
XII.
List of national coordinators for phase II of the project .............................................................. 56
ii
XIII. List of project proposals and their relevance to the Abidjan and
Nairobi Conventions and GPA.................................................................................................... 58
XIV. List of documents consulted during the final review and evaluation .......................................... 62
XV.
Time frame and budget for the proposed projects for the development and protection of the
coastal and marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa .............................................................. 64
XVI. Comparison between sites identified as hot spots/sensitive areas and sites identified for the
implementation of project proposals ...........................................................................................66
XVII. Consultancy fees paid, listed bycountry...................................................................................... 70
iii
List of acronyms
ACOPS
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea
AMCEN
African Ministerial Conference on the Environment
ECOWAS
Economic Community of West African States
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEF MSP
Global Environment Facility medium-sized project
GIWA
Global International Waters Assessment
GPA
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-Based Activities
GOOS
Global Ocean Observing System
IOC
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
IMO
International Maritime Organization
IOCEA
IOC Regional Committee for the Central Eastern Atlantic
IOCWINCIO
IOC Committee for Cooperative Investigation in the North and Central Western
Indian Ocean
IUCN
World Conservation Union
LOICZ
Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
MSP
Medium-sized project
NEPAD
The New Partnership for Africa's Development
NOAA
United States National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
OAU
Organization of African Unity
PC
Preparatory Committee for the Partnership Conference on the Development and
Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa
SEACAM
Secretariat for the Eastern Africa Coastal Area Management Programme
SG
Project Steering Group
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNIDO
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WGIPA
Working group on Integrated Problem Analysis
WGPI
Working Group on the Programme of Interventions
iv
Executive summary
A.
Background
1.
The project, Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in sub-Saharan
Africa, was formulated and received funding from UNEP-GEF and other donors to support an innovative
initiative by sub-Saharan coastal states on the sustainable development and conservation of coastal and
marine resources (the African Process). This initiative was conceptualized during the Pan-African
Conference on Sustainable Integrated Coastal Management (Maputo Conference) (Maputo July, 2008)
and the Conference on Cooperation for Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine
Environment in sub-Saharan Africa (Cape Town Conference) (Cape Town, November/December 1998).
It received endorsement by the Organization of African Unity at its summit in Algiers in July 1999. The
implementing and executing agencies of the project were the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) and the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea (ACOPS), respectively. The total cost
of the project was $2,014,000, of which $750,000 and $1,147,000 was co-financing. Initially, the project
duration was up to January 2002. However, in response to a request made by heads of State to hold the
Partnership Conference on the Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in
sub-Saharan Africa (the Partnership Conference) during the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(the Johannesburg Summit) in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002, and with concurrence
from the implementing agency, the project was extended to December 2002.
2.
After the closure of the project, UNEP, in accord with its normal practice, commissioned an in-
depth final review and evaluation of the project. The purpose of the final review and evaluation is to
establish the impact of the project in terms of the implementation of planned project activities, outputs
and outcomes and actual results. The evaluation was undertaken in accordance with UNEP guidelines1,
and was conducted during the period from 27 January to 24 March, 2003. Interviews with stakeholders
were conducted during the twenty-second session of the UNEP Governing Council/ Global ministerial
Forum (Nairobi 37 February, 2003) and a thematic workshop on the sustainable use of marine, coastal
and freshwater resources held in Abuja, Nigeria, on 24 and 25 February 2003 under the aegis of the New
Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
B.
Review
3.
The project was implemented using a modified Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)
methodology in the identification of hot spots and sensitive areas as well as in the application of a causal
chain analysis to establish the root causes for environmental degradation, depletion of resources and loss
of biodiversity. Experts from sub-Saharan Africa modified the GIWA methodology to fit the prevailing
conditions in the region. In addition, a certain level of expert judgment was exercised in the application
of the methodology to meet the specific context of individual countries, transboundary issues, and
availability of data and information. Specific guidelines and criteria were prepared to assist in the
formulation and selection of projects. (The modified methodology as utilized for the project is referred to
in this report as the "African Process methodology" to differentiate it from the GIWA methodology.)
4.
Implementation of the project was managed through a steering group (the Steering Group) and a
preparatory committee (the Preparatory Committee) established for the Partnership Conference on the
Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in sub-Saharan Africa (the
Partnership Conference)2, working groups (teams of African experts), workshops, meetings and
consultants. On the whole, the project was implemented as presented in the GEF project document. The
participating experts, executing agency and the implementing agency mutually agreed on any variation to
the approach presented in the project document.
C.
Outputs
5.
The project under review generated the following outputs:
1 Project Formulation, Approval, Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, revised edition, December 2000
2Both the Steering Group and the Preparatory Committtee were composed of members at the ministerial level.
1
(a)
Eleven national reports containing comprehensive assessments of (i) regionally or
nationally significant sites already affected by degradation (hot spots) or at risk of suffering degradation
(sensitive areas), (ii) priority issues requiring urgent intervention, (iii) severity of impact of identified
issues upon critical ecosystems and related human communities from an environmental, social and
economic perspective, and (iv) the main causes of environmental degradation through root cause
analysis;
(b)
A regional consolidated analysis report which presents common and transboundary issues
as well as a prioritization of interventions to reverse negative impacts;
(c)
Nineteen project proposals containing over 140 sub-projects in five thematic areas: coastal
erosion, management of key habitats, sustainable use of living resources, coastal tourism and pollution;
(d)
A programme of interventions;
(e)
Workshop proceedings and meeting reports;
(f)
Capacity-building. Over 87 experts from the eleven participating sub-Saharan coastal
States;
(g)
Awareness among stakeholders on the need to sustainably use marine and coastal
resources.
D.
Assessment
6.
The national reports are sound and they provide reference information for the development of
national projects. However, the thematic approach used in the development of proposals resulted in the
loss of details generated by the national reports and therefore the recommendations from national reports
were not fully considered, particularly regarding the non-inclusion of some of the suggested hot spots
and sensitive areas in the proposed project sites. In addition, the project proposals only provide concepts
and therefore need to be reformulated to cater for the needs of participating countries, individual donors
and development partners.
7.
The eleven participating countries endorsed the prioritized hot spots and sensitive areas, the
portfolio of project proposals and the programme of interventions during the Johannesburg Summit.
The programme of interventions has been embraced by NEPAD. This is highly commendable on the side
of African governments. However, although the partnership conference received commitment for
support to the programme of interventions, by the time the project ended in December 2002, those
commitments had not been translated into funding to implement the programme of interventions except
for Norwegian funding to UNEP. Efforts are continuing to solicit support for the implementation of the
African Process from the donor community.
8.
The project was successful in sourcing co-financing to the tune of $1,147,000 against $975,000
anticipated at the time of project formulation. UNEP provided $120,000 as co-financing to facilitate the
participation of the Gambia, Mauritius and Senegal, while the UNEP Global Programme of Action for
the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) provided $40,000 for the
participation of Tanzania. The number of participating countries thus increased from seven to eleven.
The number of workshops was increased in order to provide for participation, feedback, quality control
of outputs and capacity-building. The African Process has enhanced awareness, including that of African
leaders and the international community, on the need for sustainable development of coastal, marine and
freshwater resources in sub-Saharan Africa.
9.
The project has assisted in building capacity in the eleven participating countries as well as in
sub-Saharan Africa in general. The project engaged more than 87 African experts, 54 during phase I of
the project and 33 during phase II. These technical experts, along with the members of the Steering
Group and Preparatory Committee who oversaw the project, are now conversant in and supportive of the
African Process.
10.
The development of the project proposals drew from the experiences of, and made linkages to,
existing national and regional projects and programmes being implemented in sub-Saharan Africa. More
important, the project proposals address the new UNEP water policy and the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) operational programmes on biodiversity, water body-based, integrated land and water
2
multiple focal areas, contaminant-based and integrated ecosystem management. Implementation of the
portfolio of project proposals will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of these GEF
operational programmes
E.
Lessons and experiences
11.
The implementation of the African Process has provided positive lessons and experiences,
including optimization of time and resources, the building of multidisciplinary teams and teamwork and
participatory processes, and has earned political support at the level of heads of State. Particular
achievements include the following:
(a)
The use of African experts to address issues of coastal and marine environment and
resources has enhanced capacity, ownership and respect in sub-Saharan Africa;
(b)
The engagement of multidisciplinary teams of social and natural scientists working
together at the national level has ensured that the identification of hot spots, sensitive areas and root
causes has taken into consideration both natural and social dimensions;
(c)
The adaptation of the GIWA methodology during phase I of the project provided synergy
and efficiency in terms of optimization of time, use of expertise and avoiding duplication of efforts and
reinventing the wheel. However, while some of the national teams focused on sites throughout the
analysis, others teams worked with sites only for the prioritization exercise, and they analysed impacts
and causes with respect to issues as they affected the whole country. This allowed for inconsistencies in
the process;
(d)
The organization of workshops for presentation of the outputs has assisted in capacity-
building, awareness creation and consolidation of the 87 participating African experts and constituted a
feedback mechanism for quality control. The African Process has been participatory, engaging
stakeholders at all levels and especially at the highest political level - the heads of State, thus providing
an opportunity for political stakeholders to appreciate and support the sustainable use of coastal and
marine resources;
(e)
Linking the African Process to NEPAD, the African Union and the Johannesburg Summit
has promoted the importance of coastal and marine resources development issues and therefore support
by national Governments and the international community. This has also ensured sustainability of the
African Process;
(f)
The African Process has provided a platform for the forging of partnerships with
development partners committed to support the initiatives;
(g)
The agenda of the African Process did not include discussion and consensus building on
regional institutional arrangements for implementing the portfolio of projects and programme of
interventions. This has caused confusion and misunderstanding in follow-up activities as well as weak
leadership and direction.
F.
Recommendations
Recommendation one
12.
The implementation of the African Process should be guided by the policies of the Convention for
Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and
Central African Region (the Abidjan Convention), the Convention for the Protection, Management, and
Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region (the Nairobi
Convention), NEPAD and other relevant global agreements. UNEP, through its joint implementation unit
for the two conventions, should provide the institutional framework in collaboration with other
intergovernmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral organizations, private sector and non-
governmental organizations. The reporting mechanism should be through NEPAD and the UNEP
Governing Council. Development projects, i.e., those requiring heavy investment, such as the
construction of centralized wastewater treatment plants and beach abatement structures, should be steered
by NEPAD.
3
Recommendation two
13.
NEPAD, in implementing its work plan on the conservation of coastal, marine and freshwater
resources, should apply the African Process methodology. There is, however, a great need to enhance
the collection of socio-economic data and information in order to improve the quality and usefulness of
project proposals as well as their implementation. The UNEP joint implementation unit for the Nairobi
and Abidjan Conventions should promote the collection of this information and data through the work
programmes of these conventions.
Recommendation three
14.
A broad range of stakeholders and partners should be involved at the very beginning and
throughout the project cycle and sufficient time should be allocated for participatory processes.
Recommendation four
15.
Mechanisms should be developed to enhance and maintain the network of African experts who
were involved in the African Process. The joint implementation unit of the Nairobi and Abidjan
Conventions could facilitate the network through the conventions' work programmes.
Recommendation five
16.
A strategy should be developed by NEPAD and UNEP to assist sub-Saharan maritime States to
source funds to support the African Process. The strategy should include the reformulation and
packaging of projects to suit the specific desires of participating sub-Saharan African States and funding
agencies. UNEP, through the joint implementation unit for the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions, should
take the lead in assisting the Governments of sub-Saharan Africa in the repackaging of proposals relevant
to the objectives and work plans of the two conventions. NEPAD should take the lead in the repackaging
of development project proposals.
Recommendation six
17.
In the course of implementation of the projects, the participating countries should be encouraged
to provide their support (counterpart finances) in accordance with the commitments they made during the
African Process.
4
I.
Introduction
A.
Background
18.
The importance of marine and coastal resources to the economies and livelihoods of the
coastal states of sub-Saharan Africa has been discussed in many forums, including the Abidjan
and Nairobi Convention processes, the Maputo Conference, the summits of the Organization of
African Unity (Algiers, 12-14 July 1999 and Lusaka July 2001) and now the NEPAD processes
on the sub-theme "sustainable use of coastal, marine and freshwater resources".
19.
The driving forces for these concerted efforts have arisen from the recognition that on one
hand:
(a)
There is a great potential for economic development and support to livelihoods
being provided by coastal and marine resources such as living marine resources(e.g., fisheries,
mangroves), oil and gas and minerals such as diamonds, sand and limestone;
(b)
The majority of industries are sited in the coastal zone;
(c)
Most commodities are trafficked through ports sited in coastal areas;
(d)
Tourism makes an important contribution to the economies of the coastal states in
sub-Sahara Africa.
20.
And yet the coastal states of sub-Saharan Africa are facing a host of problems, such as:
(a)
Coastal areas that are the most densely populated and rural communities that are
very poor;
(b)
Over-exploitation of fisheries resources due to poor legislation, inappropriate
quotas, selective harvesting of species and the use of destructive fishing methods;
(c)
High rates of mineral exploitation, causing serious environmental degradation in
coastal zones;
(d)
Increased pollution in coastal waters caused by poorly planned coastal
development, which renders these areas unsuitable for tourism and mariculture development and
accelerates the loss of biodiversity and habitats.
21.
Despite a growing awareness among African coastal states of the need to develop an
integrated approach to the utilization and conservation of coastal and marine resources and the
environment, individual actions have not yielded visible impacts for a number of reasons. A key
reason is inadequate coordination and cooperation among existing programmes and projects,
resulting in duplication of efforts, inefficient utilization of human and financial resources and
failure to capture successful experiences.
22.
Improved performance in the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources in
sub-Saharan Africa was the theme of discussion during the Maputo and Cape Town Conferences,
where the need for a sub-Saharan-wide and integrative initiative was strongly expressed. The two
conferences recommended among other things establishment of the African Process, which was
conceived as a process that would lead to the mobilization of resources to support strategically
identified interventions to reverse the deterioration and deprivation of economic opportunities
presented by coastal and marine resources in sub-Saharan Africa.
23.
To effectively steer the African Process, the Preparatory Committee was established under
the chairmanship of South Africa and with facilitation by ACOPS. The purpose of the
Preparatory Committee was to organize the Partnership Conference, which was intended to bring
together sub-Saharan coastal states and development partners to discuss and support strategic
interventions under the philosophy of revitalization of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions.
1
24.
At the request of the Preparatory Committee and UNEP, ACOPS prepared a proposal and
submitted it to GEF in March 2000 to fund a medium-sized project (MSP) on the development
and protection of the coastal and marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa3. The overall goal of
the project is to assist sub-Saharan African coastal States in achieving sustainable management of
their coastal and marine environment and resources.
25.
The MSP project documentation was signed in August 2000 and the project was
implemented for 29 months, ending in December 2002. The participating countries were: Cote
d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal from West Africa and Kenya, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania from Eastern Africa. After the completion
of the project in December 2002, UNEP, through its Evaluation and Oversight Unit,
commissioned an in-depth final evaluation on the project in order to establish the project's impact
as well as review and evaluate planned project activities, outputs and outcomes against actual
results, as agreed in paragraph 4.2 of the project document.
B.
Terms of reference for the final evaluation
26.
The objective of the final review and evaluation is to establish the impact of the project by
reviewing and evaluating planned project activities, outputs and outcomes against the actual
results, i.e., evaluating the efficiency of project management, including delivery of outputs and
activities, in terms of quality, quantity and timeliness. The detailed terms of reference for the
evaluation are presented in annex I.
C.
Methodology
27.
This review was conducted in consultation with the experts who participated in the
implementation of the project and ACOPS staff. The review was conducted under the
supervision of the Chief of the UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit and was guided by the
Director of the UNEP Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF) in consultation with the project
coordinator, the DGEF international waters Programme Officer for the project, the DGEF
international waters Senior Programme Officer, the DGEF Programme Officer for medium-sized
projects, the UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions (DEC) Senior Programme Officer
and the DEC Programme Officer for regional seas conventions and GPA.
28.
The evaluator utilized the opportunity of the twenty-second session of the UNEP
Governing Council/Global Ministerial Forum and the February 2003 NEPAD thematic workshop
on the sustainable use of marine coastal and freshwater resources to meet with technical experts
and decision makers who participated in the implementation of the project (annex II). Key
players who were not present during the above meetings were contacted by e-mail for their inputs.
The questions set out in annex III guided the consultations in order to promote consistency in the
views expressed by the interviewees.
29.
During the session of the Council/Forum, consultations were conducted with
representatives of DGEF, GPA, DEC, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC) and the World
Conservation Union (IUCN). The UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit provided clarification on
the nature and conduct of the evaluation. Additional documentation was received during this
period. Other relevant documents were downloaded from the ACOPS web site, specifically the
documents related to the Partnership Conference. A list of the documents consulted in presented
in Annex XIV.
30.
The evaluation was undertaken in accordance with UNEP guidelines4. The evaluation
consisted of the following:
(a)
A desk study to review the documentation generated during the implementation of
the project, including country reports, a regional consolidated analysis report5, project proposals,
the programme of interventions, workshop proceedings, meeting reports, financial reports and
other communications (annex XIV);
3 GEF MSP "Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa",
project #GF/6010-00-16.
4
Project Formulation, Approval, Monitoring and Evaluation Manual (Revised December 2000.
Programme Coordination and Management Unit, UNEP).
5
Regional Consolidated Analysis of the First Phase of the GEF MSP for Sub-Saharan Africa, June
2002.
2
(b)
Interviews with stakeholders who participated in the twenty-second session of the
UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum and the NEPAD thematic
workshop on the sustainable use of coastal, marine and freshwater resources;
(c)
A questionnaire administered through electronic communication (annex III).
31.
The consulted stakeholders were drawn from the groups which participated in the
implementation of the project at different levels, i.e.:
(a)
Eleven multidisciplinary national teams of experts led by 11 national team leaders
during phase I;
(b)
Five thematic/regional coordinators assisted by ten regional experts (two for each
of the five themes) during phase II;
(c)
Eleven national coordinators during phase II;
(d)
Members of the Preparatory Committee and Steering Group.
32.
This evaluation is an outcome of the in-depth review of the documentation produced by
the African Process made available to the reviewer and consultations with the experts who
participated in the implementation of the project. The reviewer made contacts with the consultants
who worked closely with ACOPS. The reviewer also sought to discuss the project with the
Directors of ACOPS, but was not very successful. The information received from ACOPS was
therefore not complete. The institutional memory of the African Process is no longer resident
within ACOPS. Therefore, the conclusions reflected in the review have been drawn from the
information contained in the documents and provided by the interviewees and through e-mail
exchanges.
33.
The assessment of project impacts has been limited to process impacts, since the African
Process has only reached the stage of generating project proposals. The suggested long-term
impacts are, therefore, based on the reviewer's judgment and on the technical adequacy of the
project proposals.
34.
An attempt has been made to assess the outcomes and sustainability of the African Process
on the assumption that the portfolio of project proposals is funded as well as other assumptions
proposed by the experts and other stakeholders during the implementation of the project.
II.
Review
A.
Project approach
1.
Project design, methodologies, policy and procedures
35.
The preparatory committee and representatives of civil society requested ACOPS to
prepare and submit to DGEF a proposal to fund a medium-sized project. The proposal was finally
submitted to GEF through UNEP in March 2000. The requested funding facilitated the
development of a portfolio of project proposals for the development and protection of the coastal
and marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Initially, seven countries subscribed to the
project proposal by providing endorsement letters in accordance with a GEF requirement that the
proposal be country driven. These countries were Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique,
Nigeria, Seychelles and South Africa. Subsequently, four countries were included in the process
with additional funding obtained from UNEP and GPA. Since the project had already started,
however, these additional four countries did not have to provide the same endorsement as the
other seven countries6.
36.
The purposes of phase I of the project were to identify hot spots and sensitive areas; assess
impacts and their root causes; and make recommendations for their mitigation. Phase I was
executed by 11 teams of national experts (natural and socio-economic scientists) from the
participating countries.
6 Personal communication with ACOPS.
3
37.
It was recommended at the start of the project that during phase I, the GIWA methodology
on integrated problem analysis be used to identify, characterize and select the causes of
degradation of environmental hot spots and threats to sensitive areas, resources and amenities.
The Steering Group endorsed this approach during a meeting held in The Hague on 26 November
2000.
38.
As noted above, the methodology was further developed and refined becoming the
African Process methodology taking into consideration feedback from the country teams of
experts. The refinement occurred during two meetings: one was held in Paris from 5 to 7
December 2000, and the second was held in Mombasa from 12 to 14 March 2001. The Mombasa
meeting also provided recommendations on the focus, format, process and outcome of the
portfolio of projects to be presented to the Partnership Conference. These were taken as input in
the development of phase II of the project.
39.
The purpose of phase II of the project was to prepare project proposals on the basis of the
outputs of the first phase and to integrate the proposals into a programme of interventions to be
presented to the Partnership Conference for its adoption during the Johannesburg Summit.
40.
The project proposals were developed under five themes agreed during the launching of
phase II at a joint meeting of the Steering Group and the Preparatory Committee held in Cape
Town in September 2001. The themes were:
(a)
Sustainable use of coastal and marine resources;
(b)
Coastal erosion;
(c)
Pollution;
(d)
Management of key habitats and ecosystems;
(e)
Coastal and marine tourism.
41.
Subsequently, one working group was constituted for the development of project proposals
under each of the five themes.
42.
Before commencement of the development of the proposals, the consultants in
collaboration with IOC were to carry out a donor study in order to identify key donors priorities,
budget cycles, and project preparation prerequisites. These would be taken into consideration
during the development of the portfolio of projects.
43.
The following elements were considered during the evaluation and selection of the concept
papers and project proposals for inclusion in the programme of interventions, and it was
considered that to be acceptable, a project should:
(a)
Reflect or address a regional priority problem and feature regional representation;
(b)
Be jointly supported by several countries;
(c)
Present a tractable option for remediation or prevention;
(d)
Be potentially replicable or have demonstration value;
(e)
Be the subject of interest by donors, investors and partner organizations;
(f)
Be likely to receive political endorsement by the relevant country, countries or
regional organizations;
(g)
Have a financial strategy;
(h)
Have demonstrable institutional capacity;
(i)
Have the support, interest and involvement of stakeholders and communities.
4
44.
The implementation of the project was guided by the following policies:
(a)
The to revitalize the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions, for which UNEP provides
the secretariat services;
(b)
Policies of the African Union and other relevant African regional agreements;
(c)
UNEPS' new water policy;
(d)
GEF operational programmes:
(i)
OP2 Biological Diversity;
(ii)
OP8 Waterbody-based;
(iii)
OP9 Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area;
(iv)
OP10 Contaminant-based;
(v)
OP12 Integrated Ecosystem Management;
(e)
National policies of participating countries.
45.
Procedures to be followed during the two phases of the project were prepared and agreed
with the experts and were therefore well understood. The experts had the opportunity to
contribute to the improvement of the procedures during periodic meetings. Intensive consultations
were employed during the development of the proposals in order to ensure transparency of the
selection of the projects to be developed.
2.
Project objectives (goal and purposes)
Goal
46.
The overall goal of the project was to assist sub-Saharan African countries in achieving
sustainable management of their coastal and marine environment and resources.
Objectives
47.
The objectives of the project were:
(a)
To identify areas, sites or living resources of regional or global significance that
were suffering measurable degradation (i.e., hot spots);
(b)
To determine the sources and causes of the degradation and associated scales of
impact (national, regional and global) to provide a basis for calculating incrementally on regional
and extra-regional scales;
(c)
To identify areas, sites and resources of regional significance that, although not
currently degraded, are threatened with future degradation either because of the sensitivity of the
receptor or the magnitude of the activity posing the threat;
(d)
To determine, through root cause analysis, the fundamental causes of the damage or
threat posed;
(e)
To design a programme of interventions, including demonstration projects and pre-
investment studies, addressing problems of regional priority that could be presented to the
Partnership Conference;
(f)
To present the programme of interventions to the Partnership Conference in order
to solicit support for the implementation of the programme.
48.
At the time of the formulation of the project, a logical framework matrix was developed in
order to assist in tracking progress and achievements (annex V). The project was expected to
generate four major outcomes: a list of hot spots and areas at risk: an assessment of root causes
and recommended measures and interventions; adoption of the list and interventions by
5
participating countries; and funding of the projects included in the programme of interventions.
As stated above, the countries endorsed the lists and programme of interventions at the highest
political level, i.e., heads of State (annex VI). During the Partnership Conference, several
development partners expressed interest in assisting in the implementation of the programme of
interventions. In particular:
(a)
The United States indicated that it was prepared to assist in the African Process
through the programmes currently being supported such as the large marine ecosystems,
geographic information for sustainable development and "My Community, Our Earth"
programmes;
(b)
UNEP indicated that it would continue to provide support to the Abidjan and
Nairobi Conventions;
(c)
GEF indicated that it would continue to address environmental concerns in its main
focal areas, including coastal and marine resources;
(d)
The World Bank is already providing support to coastal and marine initiatives in
several African countries;
(e)
IOC indicated that it would continue to provide its technical support during the
implementation phase of the African Process.
49.
The project document identified specific activities to achieve the outcomes. These
included effective project coordination, production and training on guidelines and criteria for the
characterization of hot spots, areas at risk and root causes, and development of a programme of
interventions. Regarding coordination, the project had three levels:
(a)
During phase one, IOC and ACOPS identified 11 national team coordinators. Each
team coordinator had several experts who identified hot spots, conducted the root-cause analysis
and provided recommendations on interventions. ACOPS and IOC administered the 11 national
teams of experts;
(b)
During phase II, five thematic regional coordinators assisted by two experts drawn
from the participating countries developed the portfolio of projects and the programme of
interventions. The international consultants assisted these five thematic teams. Some of the
experts who participated in phase I were retained during phase II. Phase II was mainly
administered by ACOPS.
(c)
The project was guided by the Preparatory Committee and a steering group
comprised of representatives of the participating countries together with representatives from
UNEP, IOC, the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) and ACOPS (the
Steering Group). Members of the Steering Group also served as members of the Preparatory
Committee; this provided continuity as well as optimization of capacity and increased efficiency.
50.
At the outset of phase II, guidelines were jointly developed with the experts before
adoption for use. This provided understanding on the scope of work and therefore uniformity and
transparency in the selection of the projects.
3.
Scope of project outputs
51.
The key outputs which have been generated by the project are:
(a)
Eleven national reports containing comprehensive assessments of (i) regionally or
nationally significant sites already affected by degradation (hot spots) or at risk of suffering
degradation (sensitive areas), (ii) priority issues that require urgent intervention, (iii) severity of
impacts of identified issues upon critical ecosystems and related human communities from an
environmental, social and economic perspective, and (iv) the main causes of environmental
degradation through root-cause analysis;
(b)
A regional consolidated analysis report which presents common and transboundary
issues as well as a prioritization of interventions to reverse negative impacts;
(c)
A programme of interventions;
(d)
Meeting reports as presented in annex XIV;
6
(e)
Nineteen project proposals over 140 sub-projects10 in the five thematic areas as
presented in the table below:
Number of projects proposals per theme
Theme
Number
Coastal erosion
3
Management of key habitats
5
Sustainable use of living resources
4
Tourism
4
Pollution
3
Total
19
4.
Modification to the original project design
52.
On the whole, there was no major modification of the original project design during
implementation apart from improvement of the GIWA methodology as indicated in section
II.A.1, above, and the addition of four countries to participate in the African Process. The
additional four countries followed the same procedure and methodology. As a result, they
generated the same outputs as the other participants at the national level, i.e., national reports
which feed into the synthesis of the regional report, development of project proposals and the
programme of interventions.
5.
Assumptions
53.
Successful implementation of the project was dependent on the realization of several
assumptions which were set at the time of the formulation of the project. Specifically, the project
document called for:
(a)
A high degree of political support and consensus;
(b)
Government endorsement of the identified hot spots and sensitive areas;
(c)
Government endorsement of the portfolio of projects and the programme of
intervention;
(d)
Government allocation or earmarking of national resources for the process;
(e)
A willingness by some African countries to regard the environment as an economic
resource so as to encourage and stimulate external partners to provide investment;
(f)
Provision of financial resources by development partners for the implementation of
the programme of interventions.
B.
Effectiveness and efficiency
1.
Schedule and implementation timetable
54.
The actual implementation of the project activities against the proposed schedule in the
project document is presented in annex VIII.
55.
The project was to be concluded by December 2001. However, the period was extended to
December 2002. The postponement was prompted by a decision (AHG/Dec.(XXXVII)11 of the
Organization of African Unity at a summit held in Lusaka in July 2001 "to hold the Partnership
Conference at the level of heads of State in conjunction with World Summit on Sustainable
Development". UNEP concurred with the postponement of the conclusion of the projects.
10
Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in sub-Saharan Africa: Portfolio of
Project Proposals, 19 August, 2002.
11
Assembly of Heads of State and Governments; Thirty-seventh Ordinary Session/Fifth Ordinary session of
the AEC, 9-11July 2001, Lusaka, Zambia.
7
56.
The schedules for the expert meetings were normally discussed and fixed in previous
meetings depending on workload and other considerations. This provided flexibility on
participation. For example, the third meeting of the Working Group on Integrated Problem
Analysis (WGIPA) was scheduled to take place at the end of April or the beginning of May 2001.
That meeting was postponed in order to allow four additional countries to complete the scoping
and scaling exercise and as well as the causal chain analysis. The workshop then took place on 10
and 11 September 2001.
57.
During the meeting held in Cape Town in September 2001, it was decided that the
Working Group on Programme of interventions (WGPI) would meet again in February 2002 in
Accra (WGPI II) and then in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire in May 2002 (WGPI III), in order to further
develop and integrate the portfolio of project proposals. In addition to this, regional coordinators
met in April 2002 in Cape Town. These workshops took place as scheduled. The technical
workshops culminated in the final meeting of the Preparatory Committee, held in Abuja in June
2002 the SuperPrepCom at which potential stakeholders and partners had an opportunity to
review the full portfolio of proposals and the programme of interventions.
58.
The Partnership Conference was postponed from December 2001 to September 2002 to
coincide with the Johannesburg Summit, as indicated above.
59.
There were three meetings proposed for the Steering Group7. The second and third
meetings were staggered by up to seven months, due to the postponement of the Partnership
Conference. These meetings were extremely important in providing policy guidance, oversight
and decisions with respect to the actions required to effectively implement the process.
60.
In the project document, only one technical meeting was planned for phase II. During
implementation, four meetings were conducted. The work of WGPI was extended from May 2001
to September 2001.8
61.
UNEP participated in all project workshops except for meetings in Paris (57 December
2000) and Cape Town (1213 September 2001) (annex XI). UNEP was tracking progress in
addition to the normal reporting in accordance with a project requirement by established by
ACOPS as the executing agency.
2.
Output compared with budget cost
62.
During the formulation of the project, it was underscored that the total in-kind contribution
by the participating sub-Saharan countries would be to the tune of $220,000 and that other
partners, excluding GEF and GPA, would contribute $755,000. GEF provided $750,000 to cover
the incremental costs pertaining to the "global benefits" that the project would yield.
63.
Contributions by the participating countries from sub-Saharan Africa were mostly in-kind
and are therefore difficult to assess. The budget spreadsheet provided for assessment did not
include finances obtained from the other partners and therefore showed only that of the project.
The finances provided for the inclusion of four additional countries are also not included in this
analysis. These were disbursed separately by GPA and DEC to ACOPS through memoranda of
understanding.
64.
The project finances supported the following activities:
(a)
Project coordination, which involved the organization and holding of three Steering
Group meetings (activity 1);
(b)
The development of the methodology, criteria and guidelines for the identification
and prioritization of hot spots and sensitive areas (activity 2);
7
The first meeting of the Steering Group was held in The Hague, 26 November, 2000. The second meeting of
the Steering Group and the fourth meeting of the Preparatory Committee were held jointly in Cape Town on 17
and 18 September 2001. The final Meeting of the Preparatory Committee (SuperPrepCom) was held in Abuja,
Nigeria from 17 to 19 June 2002.
8
Schedule of WGPI Meetings: Meeting of the Regional Coordinators, Cape Town, South Africa, 2-3 April
2001; First Meeting of the Working Group on Programme of Interventions (WGPI I), Cape Town, South
Africa, 12 13 September 2001; Second Meeting of the Working Group on Programme of Interventions
(WGPI- II), Accra, Ghana, 18-20 February, 2002; Third Meeting of the Working Group on Programme of
Interventions (WGPI- III) held in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire, 14-16 May 2002.
8
(c)
Root-cause analysis and recommendations for interventions to address hot spots
and sensitive areas (activity 3);
(d)
Identification of hot spots and sensitive areas, resources and amenities (activity 4);
(e)
Development of portfolio of projects and programme of interventions for the
Partnership Conference (activity 5);
(f)
Executing agency management and support costs (activity 6);
(g)
Other miscellaneous costs (others).
65.
GEF support was directed toward the following countries: Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya,
Mozambique, Nigeria, Seychelles and South Africa. The co-financing provided by UNEP and
GPA assisted Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal and Tanzania to implement activity 26
3.
Financial management
66.
Project documentation shows that quarterly financial statements were provided throughout
the period of implementation of the project. The disbursement of funds for the period August
2000 to December 2002 was audited and the audit opinion was that:
(a)
Proper books of accounts were maintained;
(b)
Project expenditures were supported by vouchers and adequate
documentation,;
(c)
Expenditures were incurred in accordance with the objectives outlined in
the project document.
67.
The audited accounts, however, only related to GEF trust funds in the amount of $750,000.
ACOPS provided separate accounting statements for the funds provided by UNEP through the
three memoranda of understanding and funds provided by other donors. Tanzania accounted for
the funds received from GPA.
4.
Co-financing
68.
The proposed level of co-financing, both in-kind and cash, for the project was $975,000,
as indicated in the table below:
Proposed
in
the
project
Source of co-financing
Actual
document
ACOPS
75,000
75,000
Cote d'Ivoire
15,000
15,000
Ghana
30,000
30,000
Kenya
30,000
30,000
Mozambique
15,000
15,000
The Netherlands
--
13,000
Nigeria
30,000
30,000
Norway
--
192,000
Portugal
100,000
--
Seychelles
30,000
30,000
South Africa
70,000
70,000
United Kingdom
160,000
145,000
United States of America
200,000
150,000
IOC
70,000
252,000
IUCN
50000
--
GPA
100,000
100,000
Total co-financing
975,000
1,147,000
9
69.
During the implementation of the project, the level of co-financing rose to $1,147,000, an
increase of 20 per cent. The increase in co-financing allowed for the participation of four
additional countries, i.e., the Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal and Tanzania, as well as increased
funding of project activities in general. Disbursement by UNEP was through two memoranda of
understanding, $50,000 in phase I and another 50,000 in phase II.
5.
Project budgets
70.
Annex IX presents the analysis of budgeted versus actual expenditure of project funds on
the core project activities.
71.
Through a communication dated 18 April 2002, ACOPS requested UNEP:
(a)
To utilize $50,000 from cost items 3309, 3311 and 3312 to cover new cost items
1228, 1602, 3313, 3314 and 3315;
(b)
To extend the duration of the project by 11 months from 29 January to December
2003.
72.
This request was accepted by UNEP (annex X).
C.
Project institutional capacity
1.
Project management and institutional framework
73.
The implementation of the project was coordinated by ACOPS as the executive agency.
National coordination was realized through teams of experts who were responsible for the
preparation of the national reports. The mode of operations was through the engagement of
committees, consultants, working groups, workshops and reporting. Contractual agreements were
entered into with the experts in order to provide clear assignments to the experts and consultants.
WGIPA
74.
The identification of hot spots and sensitive areas, causal chain analysis and national
recommendations on interventions was carried out by national teams of experts in each of the
eleven participating countries. The national teams of experts were multidisciplinary, comprising
socio-economists and natural scientists. There were more than 54 experts who participated in
phase I of the project.
75.
The work of the national teams of experts was guided by the African Process methodology
as well as criteria and guidelines set by WGIPA. WGIPA met several times before the finalization
of the national reports.
WGPI
76.
WGPI was composed of members from five thematic working groups. A regional
coordinator, assisted by two multidisciplinary experts drawn from the eleven participating
countries a natural scientist and a socio-economic scientist coordinated each of the thematic
working groups (annex IV).
77.
The selection of the team of experts in each working group considered multi-disciplinarity
as well as regional balance between West and East Africa. The team of experts in each working
group was required to conduct a thorough review of national reports, cluster ideas along identified
themes and generate project proposals within the thematic areas of coastal erosion, management
of key ecosystems and habitats, pollution, sustainable use of living resources and tourism. The
working groups were to seek and draw the interest of relevant donors and partners when
developing the proposals and were to take into account and look for linkages and cooperation
with ongoing or planned projects and programmes. The working groups were to endeavour to
ensure compatibility with national priorities and seek synergy with ongoing initiatives, in
particular other relevant GEF projects and programmes of GPA, UNEP and IOC, as provided in
the national reports. The working groups were to seek additional information from the national
coordinators.
10
78.
Four international experts from the implementing, executing and partner organizations
backstopped the working groups. The role of the international experts was to assist with
organizational affairs, technical issues and project preparation. In addition, and as appropriate,
associate experts were invited to participate and/or contribute to the work of the working groups.
Overall, a total of 33 experts were involved during the implementation of phase II of the project.
National coordinators
79.
During Phase II of the project, the development of the portfolio of projects was facilitated
at national level by eleven national coordinators, one from each of the participating countries.
The roles of the country coordinators were to:
(a)
Gather inputs and information at the national level and provide these to the regional
and thematic coordinators;
(b)
Ensure that information and developments within the working groups were
presented to relevant authorities and partners at the national level in a timely fashion and that
project proposals were eventually endorsed at the national level and mainstreamed into relevant
tools and frameworks;
(c)
Mobilize partners in terms of financial support for project implementation and
particularly with regard to co-financing requirements;.
Preparatory Committee / Steering Group
80.
The Partnership Conference was conceived during the Maputo Conference held in July
1998. It was resolved during the Cape Town Conference in December 1998 to establish the
Preparatory Committee for the organization of the Partnership Conference. The Preparatory
Committee was facilitated by ACOPS and was reported to the Organization of African Unity.
The Steering Group guided the implementation of project activities. As noted above, the Steering
Group comprised representatives of the participating countries together with representatives from
UNEP, IOC, AMCEN and ACOPS, and members of the Steering Group also served as members
of the Preparatory Committee in order to provide continuity, optimize capacity and increase
efficiency.
81.
A sub-committee of the Steering Group was established to assist in the screening, selection
and harmonization of project proposals for the programme of interventions. The members of the
sub-committee were:
(a)
South Africa, as Chair of the Preparatory Committee;
(b)
Mozambique, as Vice-Chair of the Preparatory Committee;
(c)
Nigeria as President of AMCEN.
III. Findings and assessment
A.
Findings
1.
Appropriateness of project approach
82.
The process of designing the project was participatory, as evidenced by its endorsement by
the GEF focal points of the initial seven participating sub-Saharan African countries. This
complied with the GEF requirement that project development and implementation be country
driven. It also forged synergy and complementarily amongst the GEF projects and avoided
duplication and therefore promoted the effective use of resources. The ownership of the project
was ensured through specific feedback mechanisms such as:
(a)
Joint meetings among the national teams and among the five working groups;
(b)
National workshops and consultative meetings with relevant Government officials
and other partners;
(c)
Linking of the proposed projects with Government programmes and their priorities;
11
(d)
Linking with existing donor supported projects;
(e)
Guidance and oversight provided by the Preparatory Committee and Steering
Group.
83.
The approach to implementing the project was through the engagement of consultants.
Overall more than 87 African experts were involved 54 during phase I and 33 during phase II.
The Preparatory Committee and Steering Group (drawing participants at ministerial level)
oversaw implementation.
84.
The adoption and modification of the GIWA methodology further enhanced the building
and utilization of human capacity. Some of the experts who participated in the African Process
were the same as those who participated in the GIWA programme. The methodology as adapted
aimed at assessing the ecological status of natural ecosystems (resources) and their associated
causes of environmental problems. The assessments were based on "basic ecological data; data
about human impacts on the environment; environmental assessments, including trends; basic
social and economic data and data on the social root causes of environmental problems".
85.
As stated in section I, above, past efforts aimed at sustaining the coastal and marine
resources of sub-Saharan Africa have not produced positive results. This has been attributed to
the sectoral and unintegrated approaches employed in addressing the issues of coastal and marine
environment. The application of the GIWA methodology was appropriate in that it provided an
opportunity for the tracking of the root causes of the continued environmental degradation of
coastal and marine ecosystems. The integrative mitigation interventions addressing root causes
have a high possibility of reversing environmental decline and improving environmental
conditions.
86.
However, the power and effectiveness of the GIWA methodology depends on the
availability of data and information both on natural ecosystems and social-economic-cultural
phenomena (the human dimension). Recognizing the paucity of data and information, the experts
modified the methodology to produce the African Process methodology. The specific
modifications included:
(a)
The modification of criteria 7 and 8 of the GIWA methodology in order to take into
account the broader reality of the types of environmental degradation present in coastal and
marine areas in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, atmospheric pollution and contamination from
water pollution are not the only forms of environmental degradation observed in these areas;
(b)
Changing the range of the population rating from 1 10 to 1 5 in order to better
fit the populations of the maritime countries in sub-Saharan Africa;
(c)
Recognizing and taking into account the fact that the distinction between "hot spot"
and "sensitive area" is not clear-cut. Hot spots can be found within sensitive areas and vice versa;
also the classification of a site in one of the two categories is not easy, as the degree of
degradation is often variable over time and geographical areas. The choice between the two
designations was therefore left for the judgment of the experts;
(d)
The addition of five new issues, including coastal erosion as a stand-alone issue.
87.
Although the African Process methodology was supposed to be consistently used in the 11
countries involved in the project, during implementation it was adjusted to fit national situations.
The adjustment in each country was based on expert judgment, taking into account the particular
context of the country and the availability of data and information. Therefore, some of the teams
focused on sites throughout the analysis, while others worked with sites only for the prioritization
exercise and analysed the impacts and causal chain with reference to issues as they affected the
whole country.
88.
Leaving room for expert opinion in areas where there was less clarity on instruction or
lack of information may have caused disparities, especially in terms of details and geographic
scope of the issues identified, hot spots, root causes and recommended remedial measures.7
7
WGIP III, "Regional consolidated analysis of the 1st phase of the GEF MSP sub-Saharan project",
June, 2002.
12
89.
Throughout the course of the implementation of the project, experts were repeatedly
reminded of the objectives of the project, especially the revitalization of the Abidjan and Nairobi
Conventions. However, it is surprising that relevance of the project to the work programmes of
the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions and GPA, which was the primary focus of the project, was
not included as one of the criteria for the selection of project proposals (section II.A.1).
90.
In the cause of implementation, clear terms of reference, including deadlines for delivery
of outputs, were prepared and entered into with the consultants. Guidelines and criteria were
developed in a participatory manner to guide the process objectively. Going through the national
reports, meeting proceedings and the portfolio of projects, the experts adhered to the agreed
methodology, guidelines and criteria. Any variations were proposed, discussed, agreed upon and
applied by all participating experts. However, the use of expert judgment was necessitated by the
inadequate data available to undertake the different types of analysis required by the
methodology.
91.
The implementation of phase I went largely according to schedule as provided in the work
plan developed during formulation of the project. However, phase II was extended for 12
months. This was in part due to the need to have the Partnership Conference back-to-back with
the Johannesburg Summit and also to accommodate the four additional countries that participated
in the project.
92.
Most of the project objectives were met, as verified by the indicators. The national reports
are sound and provide reference information for national project development. Unfortunately,
there is no direct link between the portfolio of project proposals and the recommended
interventions at the national level for hot spots and sensitive areas. With regard to thematic
groupings, the experts expressed concern that some issues would be lost under these groupings,
specifically modification of stream flows. In fact, this was the case. It is not easy to relate directly
the project proposals to the nationally identified sites (annex XVI). In addition, the project
proposals provide only frameworks that will need to be adapted to cater for individual countries
and regions as well as donor and development partner needs; the portfolio of project proposals
thus contains project concepts rather than full project proposals.
93.
Phase I of the project not only generated the list of hot spots and sensitive areas, sites and
resources at risk, but also provided an opportunity for capacity-building and unveiled significant
information existing in both published and grey literature. The hot spots, risk sites and
programme of interventions were discussed and endorsed by the participating countries through
national meetings and letters of endorsement, and therefore further enhanced capacity-building
and awareness.
94.
The project resulted in the identification of sites suffering measurable degradation (hot
spots) and resources in danger of being depleted (sensitive areas and resources). Most of them
have root causes that are common to subsets of the eleven countries and therefore do have a high
level of regional significance. This calls for a common approach to finding solutions. For sub-
Saharan Africa, having projects that demonstrate successful solutions and the building of capacity
in these strategic fields is as important as identifying transboundary issues. Africa needs
successful examples which will encourage decision makers to take concrete actions to address
these problems. Addressing these problems in an integrated manner will lead to sustainable
management of coastal and marine resources the goal of the project.
95.
The assessment of the scope, quality and usefulness of the project outputs is presented in
annex VII.
96.
The national reports produced during phase I of the project contain a wealth of information
which is unprecedented in sub-Saharan Africa. The content and depth of the information was
fairly similar in all countries except in a few areas. For example, the proposed methodology for
scoring socio-economic impacts was applied in detail only in three countries Mauritius, Nigeria
and Senegal. This raises a concern about the lack of socio-economic data and the impact it had on
the quality of the proposed projects. The documentation as well as discussions with participating
experts indicated that the limitation of three hot spots and three sensitive areas as priority for
consideration during the development of phase II restricted the scope and geographic coverage of
issues.
97.
The project proposals tabled during the Partnership Conference were drawn from three
sources:
13
(a)
Technical recommendations emanating from national reports developed
during phase one;
(b)
Additional and/or revised concepts from phase one;
(c)
Another set of proposals originating outside of the project but tentatively
following the same guidelines and format.
98.
Consequently, the resulting project proposals factored in interests additional to those of the
participating countries presented in their national reports.
99.
The eleven participating countries endorsed the prioritized hot spots and sensitive areas,
the portfolio of project proposals and the programme of interventions up to the level of heads of
State during the Johannesburg Summit. The Partnership Conference received commitment for
support to the programme of intervention. However, by the project concluded in December 2002,
those commitments had not been translated into funding. Nevertheless, the fundraising process is
continuing and promising. UNEP and GPA are negotiating with the Government of Norway for
support for the Nairobi Convention. Some donors are consolidating their existing projects in
order to address the problems identified by the African Process8. However, the inadequate
commitment by development partners during the Partnership Conference has marred the
enthusiasm and the support provided by African countries during the development of the
programme of interventions9
100.
The African Process has enhanced awareness among African leaders and the international
community of the need for sustainable development for coastal marine and freshwater resources.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the programme of intervention has been embraced by
NEPAD.
101.
Most of the assumptions set in the project document were met to a certain extent, as
reflected in the table below:
Assumption
Status
A high degree of political support and
Endorsement by heads of State during OAU
consensus
meeting in Algiers (12-14 July 1999) (Lusaka
(July 2001) and during Johannesburg Summit
(September 2002)
Endorsement by AMCEN during the Kampala
Meeting
Decision to include the African process in NEPAD
Government endorsement of the identified
Hot spots and sensitive areas prioritized by eleven
hot spots and sensitive areas
participating countries and submitted to the
implementing agency through the national reports
Government endorsement of the portfolio
Ministers from the participating countries endorsed the
of projects and the programme of
portfolio of projects and programme of interventions
interventions
through:
Letters of endorsement by participating countries;
SuperPrepcom in Abuja, Nigeria June 2002;
Ministerial segment of the Partnership Conference
during the Johannesburg Summit.
Governments allocate or earmark national
Participating countries allocated resources in kind
resources in order to ensure that the
and in cash.
process works.
The willingness of some African countries
Development
partners
provided
co-financing
(see
to regard the environment as an economic
II.B.3)
resource so as to encourage and stimulate
external partners to provide investment.
Development partners provide financial
In progress and promising
resources for the implementation of the
programme of interventions.
8
Examples: Statement by the representative of the United States Government during the Partnership
Conference (annex x); Consultation with the World Bank.
9
Expressed by the interviewed stakeholders.
14
2.
Effectiveness and efficiency
102.
The activities in phase I of the project were implemented within the time frame set out in
the project document. However, the time frame for phase II was extended for 12 months to
respond to the call by African heads of State to hold the Partnership Conference back-to-back
with the Johannesburg Summit. The extension of the project for 12 months provided an
opportunity for the production of project outputs under more relaxed time constraints. It also
provided time for the four countries (Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal and Tanzania) which joined at a
later time to catch up in the process.
103.
The national reports were to be concluded by May 2001, but were finalized by September
2001 after a delay of three months. Since there was agreement to extend the duration of the
project by 12 months, this delay did not have an impact on the overall implementation of the
project. Although this was a positive postponement, putting the African Process together with the
larger agenda of the Johannesburg Summit might have undermined its course. The issues
discussed during the Johannesburg Summit were very diverse and required significant
negotiation, and the African Process was not a priority during the Summit proceedings. It would
have been much more advisable to have the Partnership Conference as a stand-alone meeting.
This would have provided a better opportunity to gauge the commitment of the partners.
104.
It was not anticipated during the formulation of the project that it would proceed in phases.
In the event, however, the phases provided logic, clarity and efficiency in the implementation of
the project. The working group meetings served as training sessions for the participating experts.
The interactive development of the methodology, criteria and guidelines can be construed as
training and capacity-building activities. The participating experts confirmed that they benefited
from the process.
105.
A comparison of budgeted versus actual expenditure for project activities is presented in
annex IX. The project was successful in raising co-financing over and above the level set at the
time of formulation. Co-financing was required in order to increase the number of participating
countries as well as to increase the number of meetings of the working groups in order to ensure
effective participation by stakeholders. The additional co-financing supported four additional
countries and therefore increased the rate of participation by coastal states in sub-Saharan Africa
to at least one-third.
106.
The core activities of the project were the processes and outputs leading to the
development of bankable project proposals. These included the successful implementation of
activities 3, 4 and 5. These three activities used more than 60 per cent of the budget, with the
largest investment going into the development of national reports. The information contained in
the national reports is useful not only for the development of the project proposals and the
programme of interventions, but also for the development of additional programmes as deemed
necessary by the participating countries either singly or collectively. The development of the
African Process methodology has assisted in the building of capacity in the area of project
formulation.
107.
Overall, the funds were used in accordance with planned activities except for minor
modifications, which received approval from UNEP as the implementing agency. These
variations included:
(a)
An over-expenditure on activities 2, 3 and 4, the main product of which was the
national reports which containing lists of hot spots and sensitive areas and analysis of the root
causes impacting or with potential to impact hot spots and sensitive areas. This set of activities
was supposed to culminate in a single expert meeting to discuss the national reports. The
duration for the implementation of the activities was extended, however, and three expert
meetings were held;
(b)
An under-expenditure on activity 5, the products of which were the portfolio of
projects and the programme of interventions. The duration of this activity was extended to May
2002. Under-expenditure was also realized with respect to activities 1 and 6.
108.
Unplanned but necessary activities cost approximately $71,000 (10 per cent). Also, the
number of workshops was increased in order to enhance participation, feedback, quality control of
outputs and capacity-building. The number of participating countries increased from 7 to 11.
109.
Discussions with participating experts showed that there were no delays in the
disbursement of funds. However, the experts expressed the view that the level of funding was
15
rather low for the assigned tasks. The actual disbursement of consultancy fees to the experts is
presented, by country, in annex XVII and ranged between $14,000 and $28,750.
110.
The overall expenditure on administrative and overhead charges totalled $60,000, which is
about 10 per cent of the total budget. This low administrative and overhead cost is due to the
employment of consultants to assist in the implementation of the project, because consultancy
fees are not considered administrative costs.
3.
Project institutional capacity
111.
The project was implemented by DGEF and executed by ACOPS. The mode of
implementation by ACOPS was through the engagement of committees, consultants and working
groups. This in many ways ensured the use of existing capacity in sub-Saharan Africa as by itself,
ACOPS would not have been able to unilaterally implement the project, which in any case was
not desirable.
112.
The Steering Group and Preparatory Committee provided guidance and oversight.
WGIPA, which consisted of national consultants and associated national experts, generated
eleven country reports containing country-specific background information, prioritized hot spots
and sensitive coastal and marine areas, causal chain analysis and national recommendations on
intervention measures. WGPI and associated regional consultants developed a portfolio of
framework project proposals and the programme of interventions based on the national reports.
113.
Collaboration between the various stakeholders and agencies took place through
participatory meetings. The meetings provided a platform for capacity-building, planning,
presentation of outputs and quality control. The level of participation by the different
stakeholders is presented in annex XI.
114.
There were sufficient consultations with stakeholders, especially at the national level and
during WGPI III and SuperPrepCom. Six of the participating countries held national workshops,
while five countries had extensive briefings with various stakeholders.
115.
The engagement of the Preparatory Committee, the Steering Group and working groups
provided a strong linkage which ensured the timely and effective implementation of project
activities. In order to facilitate the national linkage, the national coordinators during phase II
were mainly drawn from relevant Government ministries (annex XII). The workshops provided a
means for feedback as well as monitoring the delivery of outputs as specified in the project
document. The workshops also allowed the effective participation of partners and mobilization of
endorsement at the highest political level possible. However, discussion with the participating
experts revealed that not all the national coordinators played their roles to the fullest extent. In the
case of Tanzania and South Africa, the national coordinators had to be changed. Also, in some
cases members of the working groups were ineffective and had to be replaced.
116.
The African Process did not address regional institutional arrangements for furthering the
implementation of the programme of interventions. As a result, the roles of the Abidjan and
Nairobi Convention as well as that of GPA were not clearly defined. The revitalization of the
Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions and the implementation of the GPA work programme were the
focus of the project.
B.
Assessment
4.
Financial sustainability
117.
The Partnership Conference was the key fund raising strategy in support of the
implementation of the programme of interventions. Before the Partnership Conference, however,
potential partners were asked for their support. The national coordinators at the national level
consulted with bilateral development partners. The need for financial support to the African
Process was also raised during the various workshops. UNEP and ACOPS consulted with
multilateral financial institutions as well as other donors to solicit financial support for the
African Process. All these consultations were geared towards the Partnership Conference.
Certainly, they raised awareness of the need to support the implementation of the African Process
in order to ensure sustainable use of coastal and marine resources in sub-Saharan Africa.
118.
UNEP, GPA and IOC have expressed a strong commitment to work with the countries in
sub-Saharan Africa to implement the African Process. Already, DEC and GPA are soliciting
16
funding from GEF and the Government of Norway to support activities in the western Indian
Ocean region. Other partners such as the World Bank have indicated that they will factor some of
the proposed actions into their ongoing activities.
119.
This multi-pronged approach in seeking partnerships using the three platforms countries,
regional conventions (Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions) and NEPAD has great potential for
success in generating the funding needed to implement the proposals generated by the African
Process. However, the various actions and initiatives need to be effectively coordinated through a
solid intergovernmental institutional arrangement.
5.
Enabling environment
Stimulation of capacities and replication
120.
The African Process, through the engagement of working group teams, coordinators,
working group meetings and Government endorsement processes, provided a conducive
environment for the wider understanding and adoption of an integrated approach in the
conservation of coastal and marine resources in sub-Saharan Africa. These mechanisms forged
the coordination of the three pillars of integrated coastal management scientists, stakeholders
and decision makers.
121.
Integrated coastal management has been embraced globally as an approach which ensures
the sustainability of the use of coastal and marine resources and the environment. In the light of
this, the African Process methodology has the potential to be used in other regions, especially in
developing countries where there are inadequate capacities and financial resources.
122.
The project's support to the African Process has assisted in the building of capacity in
several ways:
(a)
At the national level, the multidisciplinary team of experts was engaged in a highly
technical process of identifying hot spots and sensitive coastal areas as well as the casual chain
analysis using an agreed methodology, a set of guidelines and criteria. The national experts are
now conversant with the process and will be able to use their skills in the analysis of marine and
coastal issues in the formulation of projects in the future;
(b)
At the regional level, more than 33 experts worked together in the development of
framework proposals. This capacity is available and can be mobilized in the development of
future proposals for other sub-Saharan coastal states which have not participated in the first round
of the African Process. Interaction between these regional experts and national teams will further
enhance capacity-building in sub-Saharan Africa;
(c)
The African process has contributed significantly to the NEPAD planning process;
(d)
During the African Process, many non-participating countries that were invited to
participate in the workshops expressed interest in joining the process. These countries include
Benin, Equatorial Guinea and Morocco.
123.
The level of participation by the different stakeholders is presented in annex XI. The
African Process involved the scientific community, Governments, the private sector and civil
society. Participating scientists met more than seven times during the working group meetings,
which began in late 2000. As a result, they have forged a network which otherwise would have
been difficult to establish. This network should be maintained.
124.
The secretariat of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions as well as UNEP/GEF, GPA and
IOC attended all the working group sessions, the Steering Group meeting and the SuperPrepCom.
Non-governmental organizations and the private sector participated mainly at the national level
and also during WGPI II and WGPI III. The multilateral and bilateral agencies participated
mainly in the SuperPrepCom and the Partnership Conference.
125.
During WGIPA I, the need to involve civil society and the private sector in all phases of
programme development was expressed. During WGIPA II, the experts expressed "the need to
ensure that the whole project starting from the problem analysis to the development of the
proposals for interventions should be integrated and continuous, and that the national experts
17
should be involved at the different steps of the project"9. However, during the second phase of the
project, only some of the experts used during the first phase were engaged.
126.
The organization of the Steering Group meetings back-to-back with the working group
meetings provided an opportunity for interaction between scientists, decision makers, non-
governmental organizations and the private sector and therefore forged greater linkage and
understanding. This enhanced the ownership of the African Process.
127.
The involvement of high-ranking political stakeholders during the African Process as well
as presentation of information on the process at external events held by the African Union,
NEPAD, AMCEN and others had a tremendous impact on raising awareness among policy
makers. This was demonstrated by the political endorsement of the portfolio of projects and
programme of interventions by the heads of State of the participating countries and development
partners during the Johannesburg Summit (annex VI).
128.
The stakeholders who were involved in the African Process were scientists and
Government representatives, relevant United Nations agencies, multilateral agencies, non-
governmental organizations and the private sector. The African Process was interactive with
regard to these stakeholders and they are therefore very much aware of the process and its
outputs. Experts developed the country reports, project proposals and the programme of
interventions through desk work and based on existing information. These were presented to
Governments for endorsement through ministries responsible for the environment. The level of
sectoral involvement in the endorsement varied from country to country. For example, whereas
Nigeria held national workshops up to the ministerial level for the endorsement of the national
report as well as the portfolio of projects, Seychelles on the other hand held small consultative
meetings with relevant groups. The project proposals are multisectoral, requiring the involvement
of more than one sector and country for their implementation. The relevant sectors will therefore
need to be appraised during implementation in order to enhance integration.
129.
Donors and partners were not engaged sufficiently in the formulation of project proposals.
Project proposals should therefore be considered as concepts, pending further development to suit
the requirements of specific countries, regions and donors.
130.
The key tangible products of the project are the 11 national reports, the regional
consolidated analysis, the portfolio of projects, the programme of interventions and the African
Process methodology (the modified GIWA process). All these documents have been posted on the
ACOPS web site and are available there without restriction. The products have also been
archived on CD ROMs, which were distributed during the Partnership Conference to participating
countries and to the Johannesburg Summit participants at large. The products of the African
Process have therefore been widely distributed.
Contribution to national Governments and institutions
131.
The African Process has generated a network of experts at the national and regional levels.
These experts will assist in the development of projects for other African coastal states, in the
course of which they will interact and therefore increase capacity. The African Process
methodology, which has now been tested, will continue to be applied. Lessons learned will
improve the application of the process, including through the involvement of all stakeholders as
well as donors and partners throughout the process.
132.
The African Process culminated in the Partnership Conference, where the expectation was
that donors and partners would invest in the portfolio of projects and forge partnerships with the
participating countries. Unfortunately, this has not happened as yet, and the participating
countries are in a dilemma. A strategy needs to be developed that will assist Governments to
obtain funds to support this well-intended initiative. The strategy will include the reformulation
and packaging of the project to suit the desires of the recipient countries and the funding agencies.
It is recommended that UNEP take the lead in assisting the Governments of sub-Saharan African
in this noble duty of repackaging the proposals within the frameworks of the Nairobi and Abidjan
Conventions. NEPAD, on the other hand, should spearhead the repackaging of those project
proposals which are developmental, i.e., those requiring large investments such as the
construction of centralized wastewater treatment plants and beach abatement structures
(annex XV).
9 Report of the second meeting of the Working Group on Integrated Problem Analysis, held in Mombasa,
Kenya, 12-14 March 2001.
18
133.
For their part, sub-Saharan coastal states will use the products of the African Process in the
following ways:
(a)
To negotiate with development partners for support for the implementation of the
portfolio of projects at the national level;
(b)
To develop further national programmes based on the information contained in the
national reports;
(c)
To forge regional partnerships through joint implementation of those projects that
address transboundary issues.
Contribution to regional and global programmes and processes
134.
The project engaged experts from the region who have benefited from capacity-building
programmes implemented by different agencies such as UNEP, GPA, IOC, FAO and other
bilateral and multilateral actors. This ensured that the experiences and information gained
through these programmes were considered during the identification of hot spots and sensitive
areas as well as in the analysis of root causes and development of the portfolio of projects.
135.
The African Process methodology that was adapted for the project from the GIWA
methodology was developed through the use of GEF funds. The methodology has proven to be a
useful tool for critically analysing the root causes of impacts on coastal and marine resources.
Analysis of the socio-economic dimensions of the root causes has unveiled a paucity of existing
information in sub-Saharan Africa. There is a need to strengthen the collection of socio-economic
information in coastal areas so as to improve management interventions for sustainable coastal
and marine development.
136.
Throughout the development of the project proposals, it was understood that the major
purpose for developing the portfolio of projects was to seek support for the revitalization of the
Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions as well as the GPA work programme. The relevance of the
project proposals to the Abidjan and Nairobi Convention as well as GPA is presented in tabular
format in annex XIII. Seven of the 19 projects identified in the African Process are of direct
relevance to the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions. These cover the areas of mitigation of
impacts on coral reefs through the application of best practices in tourism development,
implementation of integrated coastal management and marine protected areas as well as
mitigation of coastal erosion. Six projects address issues relevant to the GPA work programme,
including projects relating to solid waste and wastewater management, establishment of Ramsar
sites under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (Ramsar Convention), development of sound land use practices to reduce sediment
loading, sustainable tourism and mariculture. The implementation of these projects will revitalize
the two conventions and enhance the implementation of the GPA work programme.
137.
Since there is a need to anchor the implementation of the project proposals in national
policies, there is need for a critical assessment of such policies. South Africa and Tanzania
already have an integrated coastal management policy and strategy respectively and therefore the
implementation of the project proposals can be anchored in these national policies. Experiences
from these countries will assist other African coastal states on how best to develop supporting
policies and legal frameworks in order to optimize the national benefits from the African Process.
Linkages to existing programmes and/projects
138.
During the formulation of the project, it was recognized that it would be necessary to link
the project with existing projects and programmes in order to form synergies and
complementarities. The non-GEF regional programmes and projects at the time of
implementation of the project and the level of collaboration are presented in the table below:
Programme
Mechanism for collaboration
Status
IOCEA and
Memorandum of understanding
Most of the activities in phase I of the African
IOCINCWIO
(MOU) on the African Process
Process were implemented by IOC under the
between ACOPS and IOC
MOU with ACOPS.
Sida/SAREC
ACOPS has cooperated with
SEACAM participated in some of the meetings
supported Has
SEACAM since the Cape Town
of the African Process.
committed to
Conference.
continuing
19
Programme
Mechanism for collaboration
Status
support
IUCN
Arrangement between IUCN
No clear linkage;
Director General and ACOPS
Participated in the working group meetings
International
Invited to participate in meetings
Will collaborate in the implementation of the
Maritime
of the African Process
project pol 3 in the portfolio of projects.
Organization
Indian Ocean
East Africa desk based in
No clear linkage
Tuna
Seychelles
Commission
Indian Ocean
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
No clear linkage
Commission
Seychelles
World Bank
Invited to participate in the
Will integrate the proposed actions on the
African Process. World Bank has
existing national programmes.
more than 12 coastal and marine
projects in sub-Saharan Africa
Canadian
Not stated
No clear linkage
International
Development
Agency
139.
Although the information in the above table implies weak coordination, these were forged
at the national level, especially during phase I of the project.
140.
NEPAD has embraced the African Process as a major contributor to the NEPAD
Environment Initiative subprogramme on coastal oceans and freshwater resources. The portfolio
of project proposals has been integrated into the plan of action for this subprogramme. The
overall objective of the programme area is the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and
marine resources within the framework of the action plan for the Environment Initiative of
NEPAD is "to support the implementation of the objectives of the Abidjan and Nairobi
Conventions and contribute to the implementation of the decisions of the Super PrepCom or the
African Process held in Abuja Nigeria in June 2002". All the 19 framework projects have been
adopted for implementation by NEPAD.
Linkage to GEF programmes and the new UNEP water policy
141.
The operational programmes (OPs) in the GEF operational strategy that are relevant to the
coastal and marine environment are:
(a)
OP2 Biological Diversity;
(b)
OP8 Waterbody-based;
(c)
OP9 Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area;
(d)
OP10 Contaminant-based;
(e)
OP12 Integrated Ecosystem Management.
142.
The objective of OP2 is the conservation and sustainable use of coastal, marine and
freshwater biological resources. For coastal and marine resources, the programme is being
implemented through the large marine ecosystem approach, based on biogeographic provinces
and other relevant scales. The programme seeks to satisfy a combination of biodiversity
conservation, production and socioeconomic goals.
143.
The GEF international waters portfolio covers operational programmes OP8, OP9 and
OP10. The goal of OP8 is to assist countries in modifying sectoral activities such that a particular
water body and its international drainage system can sustainably support those that depend on it.
OP9 is much wider in scope, integrating land and water activities. The implementation of OP9
requires cross-sectoral coordination as well as multi-stakeholder participation. This is best
achieved by applying the integrated coastal management approach. OP10 addresses the issues of
aquatic contamination and toxicants. The programme promotes the application of best practices
that limit, through the engagement of the private sector and modern technology, the release of
pollutants into the aquatic ecosystem. OP12 seeks to promote synergy between land degradation
and the three GEF focal areas of biodiversity, climate change and international waters.
20
144.
The new UNEP water policy has three main components: assessment, management and
coordination of activities. Among the goals of the new water policy is to identify and promote
tools that will address critical water issues. For coastal and marine, UNEP is "involved in
promoting integrated coastal management through a broader variety of initiatives as a way of
resolving current and future problems at local and ecosystem based levels through different
assessment activities". UNEP focuses on highlighting key areas to promote policy
recommendations.
145.
The overall purpose of GEF international waters projects and the UNEP water policy is to
"help groups of countries utilize the full range of technical, economic, financial, regulatory, and
institutional measures needed to implement sustainable development strategies for international
waters and their drainage basins." It is believed that projects addressing the protection of
biodiversity and linkages among the coastal zones, oceans, climate change and international
waters provide multiple focal area benefits. The African Process was cognizant of these GEF and
UNEP policy directions.
146.
Coastal and marine-related GEF programmes and projects in sub-Saharan Africa include:
(a)
Water pollution control and biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea large
marine ecosystem;
(b)
The Benguela Current large marine ecosystem project;
(c)
Transboundary diagnostic analysis for the protection of the Canary Current large
marine ecosystem;
(d)
Transboundary diagnostic analysis and a strategic action programme for the marine
and coastal environment of the western Indian Ocean;
(e)
The GEF-supported World Bank project on oil spill contingency planning in
eastern African island states.
147.
In line with GEF operational programmes and the UNEP water policy, the project assisted
eleven African coastal states to develop proposals for projects to address transboundary as well as
common issues using technical capacities available in sub-Saharan Africa. The development of
the project has taken on board the socio-economic dimension of development, despite the weak
information base in this area.
148.
The African Process has contributed to the objectives of GEF and UNEP through:
(a)
The development of 19 regional projects for sub-Saharan Africa as a focal region;
(b)
The participation of Mauritius and Seychelles as small island developing States;
(c)
Facilitating collaboration among implementing agencies, countries and donors;
(d)
Drawing in the participation of stakeholders, and especially decision makers, in the
development of the project as demonstrated by the participation of ministers in the Steering
Group and SuperPrepCom and the participation of both ministers and heads of State in the
Partnership Conference.
149.
The projects are addressing issues of biodiversity conservation and climate change.
IV. Lessons and experiences
150.
The project is unprecedented in that it was implemented in the sub-Saharan Africa region
and covered 11 countries representing a diversity of situations in coastal regions. As a result, the
process has provided a wealth of lessons and experiences. The key lessons and experiences are:
(a)
Good practices:
(i)
The use of African experts to address issues of coastal and marine
environment and resources enhanced capacity and respect in the region;
21
(ii)
The engagement of multidisciplinary teams of social and natural scientists
working together at the national level helped to ensure that identification of
hot spots and sensitive areas as well as the root causes of environmental
degradation took into consideration both natural and social dimensions;
(iii)
The adaptation of the GIWA methodology during phase I provided synergy
and efficiency in terms of optimization of time, use of expertise and
avoiding duplication of efforts;
(iv)
The use of feedback mechanisms through the organization of workshops for
presentation of the outputs assisted in capacity-building and consolidation
of participating African experts;
(v)
The use of regional workshops has assisted in the comprehensive
understanding of transboundary and common issues;
(vi)
The African Process has been participatory, engaging stakeholders at all
levels and especially at the high political level of heads of State, and has
thus provided an opportunity for political stakeholders to appreciate and
support the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources;
(b)
Lesson learned:
(i)
Linking the African Process to NEPAD, the African Union and the
Johannesburg Summit promoted awareness of coastal and marine resources
development issues and therefore support by national Governments and the
international community. This ensured sustainability of the process;
(ii)
The African Process provided a platform for the forging of partnerships;
(iii)
The methodology was supposed to be consistently used in the 11
participating countries. However, the individual national teams, "based on
expert judgments, the particular context of the country, and the availability
of data and information" adjusted the methodology. Also, while some of
the teams focused on sites throughout the analysis, others teams worked
with sites only for the prioritization exercise, and they analysed impacts and
causal chains with reference to issues as they affect the whole country. This
gave room for inconsistencies in the process;
(iv)
Only a few experts who participated in phase I of the project participated in
phase II, which resulted in weak continuity;
(v)
Not enough time was provided to undertake the scaling and scoping
exercises;
(vi)
The agenda of the African Process did not include discussion and building
of consensus on regional institutional arrangements for implementing the
portfolio of projects and programme of interventions. This has caused
confusion and misunderstanding in follow-up activities as well as weak
leadership and direction.
V.
Recommendations
A.
Policy
151.
The focus of the project was the revitalization of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions.
These two conventions encompass the coastal states of sub-Saharan Africa.
152.
African States, through the African Union, have adopted an innovative development
strategy NEPAD in which they have pledged "based on a common vision and a firm and
shared conviction, that they have a pressing duty to eradicate poverty and place their countries,
both individually and collectively, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable
growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and
body politic." African States have recognized the important contribution that coastal and marine
resources make to the sustainable development of coastal states and therefore have included a
22
specific programme area, "conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine resources",
within the action plan for the NEPAD Environment Initiative. The nineteen projects developed
during the African Process are part and parcel of the NEPAD action plan for the Environment
Initiative.
153.
The NEPAD coastal and marine programme also aims "at assisting African coastal states
to implement the relevant provisions of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land-based activities and support the activities contained in the
Montreal Work Programme for the period 2002 2006." The objectives of NEPAD are
consistent with the objectives of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions as well as those of GPA.
Recommendation
154.
In order to ensure sustainability, it is recommended that the African Process be
implemented within the framework of the policies of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions, GPA
and NEPAD as well as other relevant global conventions. This is consistent with the objectives of
the project.
B.
Institutional
155.
The approach to the implementation of the African Process was through the engagement
of committees, consultants, working groups, meetings and workshops. ACOPS facilitated the
process. This arrangement was suitable for the development of the portfolio of projects and the
programme of interventions but not for their implementation.
156.
Successful implementation of the programme of interventions requires a clear
intergovernmental institutional structure linking participating national Governments with clear
roles and responsibilities. The eleven participating countries subscribe to the Abidjan and Nairobi
Conventions as well as NEPAD and other relevant international conventions. UNEP is the
secretariat for both the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions. In its efforts to revitalize the two
conventions, UNEP, with the approval of the contracting parties, has established an interim joint
implementation unit to oversee the revitalization of the two conventions. The African Process was
developed with the central objective of revitalizing the two conventions. The NEPAD
Environment Initiative has embraced the GPA work plan.
Recommendation
157.
UNEP, through its joint implementation unit, The Contracting Parties to the Nairobi and
Abidjan conventions, and provides the institutional mechanism for the implementation of the
African Process. The reporting mechanism should be through NEPAD and the UNEP Governing
Council. The suggested institutional structure is presented below. Partnerships should be forged
with other United Nations agencies, the private sector and non-governmental organizations.
23
Proposed institutional arrangement for implementation of the
African Process
REPORTING AND POLICY
GUIDANCE
SUMMIT OF THE AFRICAN
UNION
REPORTING AND
AMCEN
OVERSIGHT
UNEP GOVERNING COUNCIL
NEPAD
IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION
CONTRACTING PARTIES
CONTRACTING PARTIES
TO THE ABIDJAN
TO THE NAIROBI
CONVENTION
CONVENTION
(PARTICIPATING
COORDINATION
(PARTICIPATING
COUNTRIES:
JOINT IMPLEMENTATION
COUNTRIES
-COTE D'IVOIRE
-KENYA
UNIT
-THE GAMBIA
-MAURITIUS
NAIROBI AND ABIDJAN
-GHANA
-MOZAMBIQUE
-NIGERIA
AND
-
CONVENTIONS
-SOUTH AFRICA
SENEGAL)
-TANZANIA)
24
B.
Technical
158.
There is a great opportunity for improving the African Process methodology to deal with
coastal and marine issues in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in the use of existing information
(socio-economic and natural sciences) in project formulation. One of the major weaknesses in the
application of the methodology for the identification of hot spots and sensitive areas as well as the
causal chain analysis was the paucity of socio-economic information.
159.
The African Process has generated a network of African experts. These experts are
conversant with the methodologies used in the identification of hot spots and sensitive areas,
causal chain analysis and the formulation of projects.
160.
During the implementation of the African Process, it was recognized that the participation
of stakeholders was not all encompassing. This was particularly so during the second phase.
Time was the most constraining factor.
Recommendations
161.
In implementing its work plan on the conservation of coastal marine and freshwater
resources, the NEPAD secretariat should endeavour to employ the African Process methodology,
i.e., the adapted and tested GIWA methodology.
162.
There is a great need for enhancing the collection of socio-economic data and information
in order to improve the quality and usefulness of project proposals as well as their
implementation.
163.
Mechanisms should be found to enhance and maintain the network of African experts who
were involved in the African Process.
164.
Stakeholder involvement should be engaged at the very beginning of the process and at all
levels; sufficient time should be allocated for this.
C.
Financial
165.
In addition to GEF trust funds ($750,000), ACOPS was able to source co-financing both
in-kind and cash. UNEP and GPA provided the co-financing that facilitated the participation of
four additional countries. However, the audited accounts only relate to the GEF trust funds. The
expense account for the co-financing from UNEP and GPA was provided directly to these
agencies.
166.
The importance of raising funds to implement the portfolio of projects was echoed during
the implementation of the project. However, no specific strategy was developed over and above
the Partnership Conference. Therefore, although several pledges were made by donors and
partners in support of the implementation of the programme of interventions, a mechanism for
follow-up was not established.
167.
Because of the diversity of donor interests and formats for project development, the
project proposals developed during the African process employed a general framework format
which could be adjusted to suit many situations.
Recommendations
168.
A strategy should be developed that will assist national Governments to source funds to
support the African Process. The strategy should include the reformulation and repackaging of
the projects to suit the desires of recipient countries and funding agencies.
169.
UNEP should take the lead in assisting the Governments of sub-Saharan Africa in the
noble duty of repackaging the proposals within the framework of the Abidjan and Nairobi
Conventions, GPA and NEPAD.
25
D.
Sustainability
170.
The eleven participating countries endorsed the portfolio of projects as well as the
programme of interventions. These endorsements included the announcement of the level of
national contributions during the implementation of the projects. This is an indication that in the
long term, the activities of the projects will be subsumed into Government plans and activities.
171.
NEPAD has included in its Environment Initiative the portfolio of project proposals
developed through the African Process. The NEPAD plan of action for the Environment Initiative
provides an appropriate framework for the establishment of a long-term partnership for the
protection of the environment between sub-Saharan coastal states and development partners based
on the commitments contained in the United Nations Millennium Declaration.
172.
The participating countries are parties to the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions. These are
legal covenants aimed at ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of coastal and marine
resources.
Recommendation
173.
In the course of repackaging and implementing the projects, it is recommended that the
commitments made by national Governments be realized and sustained.
174.
The implementation of the projects and programmes at the national level must aim at
assisting in the achievement of national policies. This will ensure that the activities are
undertaken as Government business and therefore ensure sustainability.
1.
Overall rating on the success of implementation
The success of project implementation rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest rating
and 5 being the lowest, is shown in the following table:
Item
Rating
%
Comments
Timeliness
1
90%
Most of the activities were concluded on the agreed time schedule.
Any variation was agreed upon with UNEP. There were slight
delays the in submission of reports by some experts.
Attainment of outputs
3
70%
The country reports were good.
Project proposals were not adequately formulated. Will need
reformulation, especially in terms of budgets and timeframe.
Completion of
1
90%
Most of the planned activities were completed.
activities
Project executed
1
90%
The project was executed within the agreed budget. Any variation
within budget
was agreed upon between the implementing and executing agencies.
Impact created by the
2
80%
Most of the impact was at the political level.
project
Sustainability
3
70%
The whole process was very much geared towards donor support.
Overall
2
81.7
26
Annex I
Terms of reference for the final review and evaluation of the GEF medium-
sized project for the development and protection of the coastal and marine
environment in sub-Saharan Africa (GF/6010-00-16)
1.
INTRODUCTION
Under the overall supervision of the Chief, Evaluation and Oversight, and the overall
guidance of the Director of the UNEP/Division of GEF Co-ordination in consultation with the
Project Co-ordinator, relevant staff of executing and co-executing agencies (UNESCO, IUCN),
the UNEP/DGEF IW PO/Task Manager for this Project, UNEP/DGEF IW SPO, the UNEP/DGEF
PO for Medium Sized Projects, the UNEP/DEC Regional Seas Conventions SPO and PO and
relevant staff members of UNEP/GPA and UNEP/GIWA, the evaluator shall undertake a detailed
review and final evaluation of the project "Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine
Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa" GF/6010-00-16 during the period between 27th January
2003 to 24th
March 2003 (3 weeks spread over 8 weeks).
2.
BACKGROUND
The UNEP-GEF Project "Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine
Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa" has contributed to establish a pioneering initiative called
African Process.
The African Process was launched in December 1998 by the ministerial segment of the
Cape Town Conference on the Development and Protection of the Marine and Coastal
Environment in sub-Saharan Africa. It was endorsed by the 35th Summit of the OAU held in
Algiers.
Originally seven countries participated in this project: Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya,
Mozambique, Nigeria, Seychelles, South Africa. This MSP is now being carried out in eleven
sub-Saharan countries (Cote d'Ivoire, the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Nigeria, Seychelles, Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania). Specific arrangements (MOUs) were
made by UNEP to enable other four countries (the Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal and Tanzania) to
participate in the project.
The overall goal of this Project has been to assist sub-Saharan African countries in achieving
sustainable management of their coastal and marine environment and resources.
The Project has consisted of two thematic phases that progressively identify the most feasible and
tractable options for addressing key environmental issues, on the basis of a comprehensive
analysis that uses existing information and data.
In phase one the MSP undertook a thorough analysis of the relevant issues affecting the coastal
and marine environment of sub-Saharan African countries, their impacts and causes, carried out
by national teams of African experts in each of the eleven participating countries. The phase 2
focused on the preparation of targeted and fundable project proposals.
The project activities contained following clusters:
Project Co-ordination including Steering Group
1)
Criteria and guidelines for the identification and characterisation of environmental hot-
transboundary sources and causes of degradation of marine and coastal areas;
2)
Root-cause analysis of existing impacts and threats to the marine and coastal environment.
3)
Identification and characterization of environmental hot spots and threatened sensitive
areas, resources and amenities warranting special protection.
4)
Programme of interventions for presentation to the Partnership Conference.
Several workshops and consultations were held to implement activities.
The results of the project was to contribute to the development of a common coastal policy in a
way that would ensure conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine resources and
demonstrate a coastal development as a way to ensure equitable, sustainable and optimised use
of valuable coastal resources.
27
In April 2001 at the request of the Algerian Government, UNEP prepared, a Medium-Sized
Project (MSP) financed by the GEF on the development and implementation of the environmental
component of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
The NEPAD MSP was adopted by the GEF on 26 July 2001, was presented at the meeting of the
bureau of AMCEN held in Algiers on 8 September 2001, and was launched at the inaugural
meeting of the Implementation Committee of Heads of State and Government held in Abuja,
Nigeria, on 23 October 2001, with a special focus on sustainable development.
During the Algiers meeting in March 2002 was agreed that the implementation of the MSP on
NEPAD will take into account on issues related to marine and coastal ecosystems the results of
this GEF- MSP "Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment particularly
in Sub-Saharan Africa (African Process)".
Project duration was initially 18 months (from August 2000 to January 2002), which was
extended for completion in December 2002.
The total cost of the project was originally US$ 1,725,000, to which GEF contributes US$
750,000. Original co-financing was US$ 975,000. In addition, during the implementation phase
MOUs were signed to co-finance by US$ 120,000 additional countries and relevant activities.
Thus the final total cost of the project is US$ 1,845,000.
2.1 Legislative Mandate
This project meets the objectives of the GEF Operational Program # 9 Integrated Land and Water
Multiple Focal Area.
There were significant opportunities for the GEF to augment the baseline activities and ensure an
improvement in the co-ordination among existing measures to protect the marine and coastal
environment of the region and others based on new partnerships between foreign donors/partners
and countries in the region.
The Project is relevant to "Environmental Conventions: Policy and Programme Linkages" sub-
programme of UNEP.
The project complements moves within UNEP to strengthen and support the further development
of the Abidjan and Nairobi Convention Secretariats and the corresponding Action Plans. UNEP
provides the Secretariat for the Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development
of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region (Abidjan
Convention: adopted 1981, entered into force 1984) and its associated Action Plan (adopted in
1981), restructured in 1993 by the Third Meeting of Contracting Parties). UNEP also provides
the Secretariat for the Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the
Marine and Coastal Environment of the East African Region and its associated action plan which
calls for shared management between the countries on the management of the coastal and marine
environments in the western, central and eastern African sub-regions. The project worked closely
with the Secretariats for these two Conventions which were intimately involved in all aspects of
the project.
The proposed actions are also consistent with UNEP's role under the GPA.
2.2 Objectives
The objective of the final review and evaluation is to establish project impact, and review and
evaluate the implementation of planned project activities, outputs and outcomes against actual
results i.e. the efficiency of project management including delivery of outputs and activities in
terms of quality, quantity and timeliness.
The findings of the final review and evaluation will be based on:
(a)
Desk review of the project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as the
quarterly/biannual and substantive reports to UNEP and the GEF annual Project Implementation
Review reports), and relevant correspondence;
28
(b)
Specific products including datasets; surveys; guidelines; documents presented at
the Steering Group meetings; diagnostic analysis reports and other technical information;
publications and materials; reports of training courses and workshops highlighting presentations;
strategies and recommendations for action on topics selected for discussions; elaborated portfolio
of project proposals included in the Programme of Interventions;
(c)
Interviews with the Project Co-ordinator and other relevant staff/representatives
from Executing and Co-executing Agencies including leaders of working groups; the
UNEP/DGEF IW PO /Task Manger for this Project, UNEP/DGEF IW SPO, the UNEP/DGEF PO
for Medium Sized Projects, the UNEP/DEC Regional Seas Conventions SPO and PO and relevant
staff members of UNEP/GPA and UNEP/GIWA.
(d)
Interviews with stakeholders from all participating project countries at
governmental and non-governmental levels, which were involved with this project. Some of
those interviews (c&d) will be done during the NEPAD Thematic Workshop on Coastal, Marine
and Freshwater Environment where most of interviewees will participate.
Note:
Two missions are expected for this consultancy work (one to Nairobi and one to Nigeria). The
evaluator will travel to Abuja, Nigeria for the Thematic Workshop on Coastal, Marine and
Freshwater Environment in February 2003 to meet other key persons and experts participating in
the project. He will have teleconferences with the Project Co-ordinator and relevant staff in
London. The evaluator will also meet the representatives of UNEP/DGEF, UNEP/GPA,
UNEP/DEC.
2.3. Scope of the final review and evaluation
The review and evaluation shall be conducted as an in-depth evaluation.
The performance indicators provided in the LogFrame/project matrix (see table below) should be
used together with the evaluation parameters of appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency,
impact and sustainability. Guidelines on performance indicators are provided in the UNEP project
manual pp. 13/89-13/99 and also available on http://www.unep.org/Project_Manual/.
The scope of the final review evaluation will cover the following broad concerns:
1.
Appropriateness of Project Approaches: Assessment of approaches adopted by the
project in realizing its objectives [including a relevance to UNEP's mandates (Regional
Seas Conventions, Global Programme of Actions) and to GEF Strategy and Operational
Programme #9], and assessment of assumptions made during the project design stage,
taking into account the project outputs produced so far in relation to the stated project
objectives and expected results.
2.
Effectiveness and Efficiency: Assessment of the extent to which expected outputs and
results have been achieved, as per planned budget and timeframe; and if these were
achieved in a cost-effective way.
3.
Project Institutional Capacity: Evaluation of the efficiency of the project management
and institutional arrangements;
4.
Financial Sustainability: Determination of whether or not the project has secured
sufficient and reliable funding for the successful delivery of project outputs;
5.
Project sustainability/Enabling Environment: Evaluation of the extent to which the
project has involved various stakeholders in the project, how effective the resulting
networking and collaborations have been utilized by both parties; and level of
collaboration with project partners and other stakeholders
6.
Lessons Learned: Identify good practices and lessons learned so far in the conduct of this
GEF MSP project.
The evaluator should develop a participatory evaluation methodology to carry out this exercise.
29
Table I: Logical Framework/Project Matrix
PROJECT STRATEGY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
Objectives:
The overall goal of this Project is to assist sub-
Identified sites or living resources of regional and
Saharan African countries in achieving sustainable
global significance that are suffering measurable
management of their coastal and marine
degradation and actions agreed by participating
environment and resources.
countries and other partners for remedial and
mitigatory actions to solve priority environmental
problems in the marine and coastal environment of
sub-Saharan Africa.
The specific objectives of this Project are to:
a) Identify areas, sites or living resources of
a)
Establishment of a list of regional priority hot-
regional and global significance that are
spots of environmental degradation;
suffering measurable degradation (i.e., hot-
spots);
b)
Determination of regional and extra-regional
incremental costs of the elimination, or
b) Determine the sources/causes of this degradation
reduction in severity of environmental hot-spots
and the associated scales of impact (national,
in marine and coastal areas;
regional and global) to provide a basis for
calculating incrementally at regional and extra-
c)
Establish and adopt the list of areas, sites and
regional scales;
resources which are threatened with future
degradation and proposals for their protection;
c) Identify areas, sites and resources of regional
significance that, although not currently
d)
use of the results of the root-cause analysis for
degraded, are threatened with future degradation
the design of projects; and
either because of the sensitivity of the receptor
e)
development and adoption by participating
or the magnitude of the activity posing the
countries a programme of interventions for
threat;
problems of regional priority.
d) Determine, through root-cause analysis, the
fundamental causes of the damage or threat
posed; and
e) Design a programme of interventions addressing
problems of regional priority that may be
presented to the Partnership Conference.
Outcomes:
a)
recommendations to national authorities and
the international community on measures and
a)
National authorities endorsing proposals for
interventions for the development and protection
interventions; adoption of the Programme of
of the marine and coastal environment in sub-
Interventions by the Partnership Conference;
Saharan Africa, in order to deal with the:
and
control or elimination of environmental hot-
b)
Commitment by partners (countries, private
spots in coastal and marine region of sub-
sector, international organisations) to the
Saharan Africa;
executing Programme of interventions.
protection of threatened sensitive areas,
resources and amenities warranting special
protection;
concrete programme of interventions serving
as the basis for bilateral or multilateral
agreements to be implemented in partnership
between African and non-African countries
and institutions;
b)
assessment of the root-causes of the
environmental problems in the marine and
coastal region of sub-Saharan Africa;
c)
adoption of the list of hot-spots and sensitive
areas in the marine and coastal region of sub-
Saharan Africa; and
d)
adoption of the priority listing and securing
funding for agreed actions as per the findings of
the project.
30
PROJECT STRATEGY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
Project activities to achieve outcomes:
a)
Project Coordination
a)
Completion of the project according to agreed
workplan and timetable and within budget;
b)
Guidelines prepared and used by participating
b)
Criteria and guidelines for the characterization
countries and experts;
of environmental hot-spots
c)
Root-cause analysis of existing impacts and
c)
Results of root-cause analysis and condition of
threats to the marine and coastal environment
environmental resources used in the preparation
of project proposals;
d)
List of Hot-Spots of regional priority and
d)
Identification and characterization of
sensitive areas and resources requiring special
environmental hot-spots and threatened
protection adopted by the Steering Group;
sensitive areas, resources and amenities
warranting special protection
e)
Adopted Programme of interventions at the
Partnership Conference
e)
Programme of interventions for presentation to
the Partnership Conference
3. TERMS OF REFERENCE
In particular but not restricted to, the evaluator shall:
(I)
Appropriateness of Project Approach
1.
Assess the overall appropriateness of the project design, methodologies, policy and
procedures in achieving the stated project objectives and programme objectives of
UNEP including issues related to the strengthening of Abidjan and Nairobi
Conventions as well as GEF programming context;
2.
Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project objectives (goal and purposes)
have been met so far; taking into account the "objectively verifiable indicators" as
elaborated in the Logical Framework Matrix of the Project Brief, as shown in Table
I of this paper;
3.
Assess the scope, quality and usefulness of the project outputs produced (i.e.
guidelines, recommendations, publications, outlines, data, tools, indicators,
proposed interventions) in relation to their expected results. In case the project
outputs have been modified, asses appropriateness of such modifications;
4.
Identify changes made in the original project design (i.e. any changes made in
objectives, procedures, target stakeholder groups etc.) and evaluate if these changes
were appropriate.
5.
Assess if the assumptions made during the project design stage were realistic.
(II)
Effectiveness and Efficiency
1.
Assess how the project met the schedule and implementation timetable cited in the
project document and later revisions thereof. If not, identify causes for the delays;
2.
Examine if the project delivered the outputs at the budget cost and if this were done
cost-effectively. In case where variances were made, identify the causes of such
variances (i.e. new activities added, activities cancelled, overestimation or
underestimation of the original budget, failure to meet financial obligation by co-
financiers, etc.) and, assess adequacy of financial management;
3.
Evaluate the financial management of the project, including efficiency of
disbursements, expenditures on administrative and overhead charges as
distinguished from that on substantive outputs;
4.
Summarize the level of co-financing realized so far, both cash and in-kind, evaluate
the actual co-financing level against the originally envisaged level, evaluate the
31
need to acquire more co-financing funds, and review an efficiency of
disbursement of co-financing means;
5.
Identify changes in project budgets, assess the rational of such changes, and
evaluate the procedures for such changes.
(III)
Project Institutional Capacity
1.
Evaluate project management and institutional framework with a view to deriving
lessons learned during project implementation and for the benefit of future GEF
projects. The evaluation should make specific reference to:
The effectiveness of organizational/institutional arrangements for
collaboration between the various agencies and institutions (i.e., UNEP incl.
UNEP/DEC-Regional Seas Conventions; UNEP/GPA, UNEP/GIWA;
UNESCO-IOC; IUCN; Government and Non-Government institutions;
other GEF IAs); and the various bilateral and multilateral donors involved
in project arrangements and execution;
Evaluate the effectiveness of project management in terms of assignment
and execution of project activities by the staff paid through co-financing and
the GEF contribution looking at the effectiveness of the
management/execution arrangements at all levels: Project Coordination and
Management, Steering Group, GEF Coordination, Working Groups, day to
day project management. The evaluation will also review the entire project
staffing situation and will assess the efficiency of the project
support/backstopping mechanisms;
The effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms, monitoring tools (i.e.,
impact indicators) and management system employed throughout the
project's duration;
Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and
constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project;
(IV)
Financial Sustainability
1.
Determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the fund raising strategy and
campaign and the extent to which available funding both in-kind and in cash
sufficed to undertake the project.
2.
Determine the sustainability of project activities and securing of funding for
follow-up activities carried out by the project countries in order to sustain a
regional cooperation in shared marine, coastal and adjacent freshwater resources, a
management and protection of coastal and marine environment in sustainable
manner, and an implementation of actions that will contribute to environmentally-
sustainable economic development and poverty alleviation.
(V)
Enabling Environment
1.
Evaluate the extent to which capacity was stimulated and mechanisms were
developed for the more widespread adoption of the integrated approach for
management of coastal and marine environment in other regions .
2.
Assess the level, adequacy and success so far of the engagement and outreach
activities of the project. In particular:
Assess the extent to which the project has forged effective partnerships and
linkages with governments, the private sector, UN bodies and NGOs and
other stakeholders;
Assess the extent to which the project has taken needs of stakeholders into
consideration in all phases of the project implementation;
Assess the extent to which awareness and acceptance has been created about
the project among identified and targeted stakeholders;
Assess the level of stakeholder involvement in the implementation of the
various project activities, identify lessons learned and provide
recommendations on how such involvement could be improved in future
projects;
Assess the effectiveness of dissemination of this Project's products.
3.
Assess how this project has helped and will continue to help improve planning
within the region and the extent to which said improvements are sustainable;
4.
Delineate the project's actual and potential contributions to strengthening national
and regional policy frameworks and action plans;
5.
Assess how the governments are utilizing experience, information and outputs
gained through this project;
32
6.
Ascertain to what extent the project implementation benefited from relevant
ongoing and past research and operational activities of the region (countries), the
scientific community, the GEF, UNEP.
7.
Assess how the project has contributed to the implementation of GPA/LBA issues
in the region/countries, and to the strengthening of the Abidjan and Nairobi
Convention.
8.
Ascertain the extent of collaboration of the project with other relevant initiatives in
the region;
9.
Ascertain the usefulness of the project outputs for follow-up in terms of national
levels of action and determine the level of sustainability;
10.
Assess how this project has contributed to facilitate the NEPAD process.
11.
Ascertain the nature and significance of the contribution, both potential and actual,
of the project outcomes to the wider portfolio of GEF International Waters
Projects.
12.
Ascertain how the results of this project has contributed to UNEP's water policy
and strategy and all relevant issues related to UNEP's mandates.
(VI)
Lessons Learned
Identify good practices and lessons learned.
33
Annex II
Stakeholders interviewed
During the twenty-second session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Nairobi, 3
7 February 2003
Mr. Momodou Cham
Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and
Executive Director
Wildlife
National Environment Agency
P.O. Box 47146
5 Fitzgerald Street
Nairobi Kenya
P.M.B 48
Tel: (+254 2) 609027
Banjul
Gambia
Mr. Ali Mohamed
Tel: (+220) 224 178
Senior Environment Officer
Fax: (+220) 229 701
National Environment Management Authority
Email:nea@gamtel.gm
Ministry of Environment. Natural Resources and
Wildlife,
Mr. Michael Kijana Wamalwa
P.O. Box 47146
Vice-President
Nairobi Kenya
Office of the Vice-President
Tel: (+254 2)609 013
Nairobi
Fax: (+254 2) 608 997
Kenya
Tel: (+254 2)
Mde. Nassééré Kaba
Fax: (+254 2)
Chef du Service Autonome des Affaires
Internationals, Juridiques et du Suivi des Projects
Hon. Dr. Newton W. Kulundu
Ministère de l'Environment et du Cadre de Vie
Minister
BP 650
Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and
Còte d'Ivoire
Wildlife
Tel: (+225) 2021 1183
P. O. Box 30521
Fax: (+225) 2021 1183/2022 2050
Nairobi
Email: biodiv@afaricaonline.co.ci.or
Kenya
kabanassere@hotmail.com
Tel: (+254 2) 2716 103
H.E. Francisco Mabjaia
Hon. Prof. Wangari Mathaai
Vice-Minister for Coordination of Environmental
Assistant Minister
Affairs
Minister of Environment, Natural Resources and
Ministry of Environment
Wildlife,
Rua de Kasuende 167
P.O. Box 30521
P.O. Box 2020
Nairobi, Kenya
Maputo
Tel: (+254 2) 2716103
Mozambique
Tel: (+258 1) 496 108/495 409
Mrs. Racheal Arunga
Fax: (+258 1) 496 108
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and
Ms. Anne Marie Skjold
Wildlife
Adviser
P.O. Box 30521
Department for Development Cooperation Policy
Nairobi., Kenya
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tel: (+254 2) 2716103
Oslo
Norway
Mr. Bernard K'Omudho
Tel: (+47) 2224 3607
Director
Fax: (+47) 2224 9580
National Environment Management Authority
Email: ask@mfa.no
34
Hon. Mr. Ronny Jumeau
Minister
Ministry of the Environment
P.O. Box 1145,
Victoria. Mahe
Seychelles
Tel: (+248) 225 701
Fax: (+248) 322 113
Email: moe@seychelles.net
Hon. Mr. Arcado D. Ntagazwa
Minister of State (Environment)
Vice President's Office
P. O. Box 5380
Dar es Salaam
United Republic of Tanzania
Te: (+255 222) 128 771
Fax: (+255 222) 113 856
Dr. Patricio Bernal
Assistant Director-General and Executive Secretary
Integovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)
of UNESCO
75015 Paris
France
Tel: (+33 1) 4568 3984
Fax: (+33 1) 4568 5810
Email: p.bernal@unesco.org or
r.herve@unesco.org
Mr. Julian Barbiére
Programme Specialist
Integrated Coastal Area Management
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
(IOC) of UNESCO
75732 Cedex 15 Paris
France
Tel: (+33 1) 4568 4045
Fax (+33 1) 4568 5812
Email: j.barbiere@unesco.org
35
During the thematic technical workshop on sustainable use of coastal, marine and freshwater
resources under the Environment Initiative of NEPAD, Abuja, 24-25 February 2003
Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf
Hon Chief (Dr.) Imeh Okopido
UNEP/GEF Executive Coordinator
Minister of State for Environment and
UNEP/GEF Coordination Office
President of AMCEN
P O Box 30552
Federal Secretariat
Nairobi
Shehu Shagari Way
Kenya
P M B 468
Tel:
+254 2 624 166
Garki
Fax:
+254 2 624 041
Abuja
Email: ahmed.djoghlaf@unep.org
Federal Republic of Nigeria
Tel/Fax:
+234 9 523 4931
Dr Antonio Mubango Hoguane
Email: imet.okopido@hyperia.com
Eduardo Mondlane University
Faculty of Sciences
Department of Physics
Hon. Ms. Rejoice Mabudafhasi, MP
P.O. Box 257, Maputo, Mozambique
Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for
Tel.:
(258 1) 493377
the Partnership Conference
(258 1) 455625 (home)
Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Fax:
(258 1) 493377
Tourism
Email: hoguane@hotmail.com
Private Bag X447
Pretoria 0001
Dr Larry Awosika
Republic of South Africa
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography & Marine
Tel: +27-12-3219587/21-4621777
Research
Fax: +27-12-3235181/21-465-2664
Wilmot Point Road
Email: sisjoice@iafrica.com
Bar-Beach, Victoria Island
P.M.B. 12729
Lagos
Mr Terry Jones
Tel/Fax:
(234 1) 261 9517
Director-General (International Cooperation)
Email: niomr@linkserve.com.ng
Ministry of Tourism & Civil Aviation
Independence House
Dr A. K. Armah
P O Box 92
University of Ghana
Mahe
Department of Oceanography and Fisheries
Victoria
P.O. Box LG 99
Seychelles
Legon
Tel:
+248 225 348, +248 611 100
Ghana
Email: terryj@syechelles.net
Fax:
233 21500184
Email: akarmah@ug.edu.gh
akarmah@yahoo.com
36
Dr Emmanuel O. Oyewo
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine
Research P.M.B 12729
Victoria Island
Lagos
Nigeria
Fax:
234 1 2619517
Email:
niomr@linkserve.com.ng
Other stakeholders interviewed
Mr Dixon Waruinge
Mr Ellik Adler
UNEP
Regional Seas Programme Co-ordinator
Division of Environmental Conventions
Division of Environmental Conventions
P O Box 30552
UNEP
Nairobi
P O Box 30552
Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:
+254 2 62 2025
Tel: +254-2-624033/624544
Fax:
+254 2 62 2788
Fax: +254-2-624618
Email: dixon.waruinge@unep.org
Email: ellik.adler@unep.org
Dr Julius Francis
Dr Veerle Vandeweerd
Institute of Marine Sciences
Coordinator
P.O. Box 668
UNEP/GPA Coordination Office
Zanzibar
P O Box 16227
Tanzania
The Hague 2500 BE
Tel:
255 24 2232128/2230741
The Netherlands
Fax:
255 24 2233050
Tel:
+31-70-3114461
Email:
julius@zims.udsm.ac.tz
Fax:
+31-70-3456648
Email:
v.vandeweerd@unep.nl
Dr Gregory Wagner
Expert
Dr Alfonse M. Dubi
Department of Zoology and Marine Biology
Natural science expert for the working group on
University of Dar es Salaam
coastal erosion.
P O Box 35064
Institute of Marine Sciences
Dar es Salaam
University of Dar Es Salaam
United Republic of Tanzania
P.O. Box 668, Zanzibar, Tanzania
Tel: +255-22-2410193
Tel: +(255) 24 223 2128
Fax: +255-222410038
Fax: +(255) 25 223 3050
E-mail: gwagnertz@yahoo.ca
E-mail: dubi@ims.udsm.ac.tz
gwagner@udsm.ac.tz
Dr Sylvia Shayo Temu
Mr Justin Ahanhanzo
Socio-economic expert for the working group on
Coordinator GOOS-Africa
pollution.
1 rue Miollis
University of Dar es Salaam
75732 Paris Cedex
Faculty of Commerce & Management
France
P. O. Box 35046, Dar es Salaam
Tel:
+33145684641
Tanzania
Fax:
+33145685810/12/13
Tel. +(255) 22 241 0257
Email: j.ahanhanzo@unesco.org
Fax: +(255) 22 241 0510
E-mail shayo@fcm.udsm.ac.tz
Mr Vladimir Mamaev
Senior Programme Officer
Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
37
Tel:
+254 2 624607
Rm. J3-097
Fax:
+254 2 624041
World Bank
Email: vladimir.mamaev@unep.org
1818 H Street
Washington, D.C. 20433
Tel. No.: (202) 473 5559
Indu Hewawasam
E-mail: Ihewawasam@worldbank.org
38
Annex III
Questions guiding consultations with project stakeholders
1)
General to experts and coordinators
a)
What is your impression on the approach and process?
b)
Provide comments on the application of the GIWA methodology in the problem analysis
and identification of hot-spots and sensitive areas.
c)
Provide comments on the experience in the application of the methodology for the second
phase of the project.
d)
Given a second opportunity are there any processes/issues, which you would recommend
to be handled differently.
e)
What, in your view, was the extent of consultation/ participation at national/ regional
levels during the process?
f)
Was the ToR for your assignment clear?
g)
Were there any delays in the delivery of the work? And what were the reasons
h)
Are you satisfied that this was a truly African Led Process? If not what were the flows.
i)
In your opinion was the timeframe for the process sufficient.
j)
Do you have any comments on the portfolio of projects and the programme of
implementation?
k)
Did you receive the expected assistance from the coordinators?
2)
Specific to coordinators
a)
What was the level of cooperation you received from the experts in your team?
b)
What level of assistance did you receive from the consultants
c)
Were the outputs from the experts delivered on time?
d)
What was the quality of the outputs from the experts?
e)
Provide comments on the structure of implementation.
f)
What was the process that moved the identified/prioritized issues at national level to the
regional thematic areas.
g)
How sound and feasible are the project proposal and programme of interventions.
h)
How would you rate the following:
The appropriateness and applicability of the GIWA methodology and approach.
Quality of the proposals in terms of clarity, scope, relevance, implementability and
realistic budgets as well as timeframe
3)
Specific to national coordinators
a)
How many national consultative meetings did you hold, indicate the approximate number
of participants and the topics of discussion.
b)
Give examples of linkages to national priorities, synergy with ongoing activities as well as
interest of donors and partners
c)
How did you endorse the Portfolio of Projects (Letter of endorsement signed by Minister,
letter of endorsement signed by other, participation in a meeting etc)
4)
Consultations with ministers
a)
What was the level of your involvement in the African process.
b)
What kind of support did your country provide to the African Process.
c)
Do you have any suggestions on the institutional structure for the implementation of the
portfolio of projects and programme of interventions.
d)
Have any donors approached your government to express interest to support any of the
proposed projects.
5)
Consultation with ACOPS
a)
Did you receive letters of endorsement to the African process from Gambia, Mauritius,
Senegal and Tanzania the same way you did for the first seven countries.
b)
Were there any delays in the disbursement of funds?
c)
What was the process for the identification of the coordinators?
d)
If you were given a second opportunity. What would you do differently?
e)
How were the portfolio of projects and programme of interventions endorsed?
f)
Provide a summary or report on the Donor Study
39
g)
Provide a summary of the work/output of the Sub-Committee on Harmonization of Project
Proposals.
h)
How many donors/development partnership have expressed interest in funding the
portfolio of projects and programme of interventions.
i)
What are the lessons learned through the African Process.
j)
ACOPS's letter dated 18th April 2002 requested for variation in the budget lines. New
budget lines were 1228, 1602, 3313, 3314, and 3315. what were these?
6)
Specific questions to UNEP Finance
a)
For the 4 added countries through MOUs, what was the financial arrangement especially
the disbursements
b)
Date for the letter approving the request of ACOPS to make variation to the allocated
funds to new budgets lines funds and extension of the project period.
40
Annex IV
Regional coordinators and associated experts for phase II of the project
Regional coordinator/expert
Thematic group/Contact
Coastal Erosion
Reg Coord.
Dr Isabelle Niang-
Département de Géologie, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université
Diop
Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar Fann, Senegal
(Senegal)
Tel: +(221) 825 0736, Fax: +(221) 824 6318,
Email: isabelle@enda.sn
Expert
Dr Alfonse M. Dubi
Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Dar Es Salaam,
(Tanzania)
P.O. Box 668, Zanzibar, Tanzania
Tel: +(254) 2 891941
E-mail: dubi@ims.udsm.ac.tz
Expert
Dr Delphine Malleret- P.O. Box 15669, Mbagathi, Nairobi, Kenya
King (Kenya)
Tel: +(254) 127 2091,
E-mail: dolphant@malleretking.fsnet.co.uk
or dolphant@africaonline.co.ke
Management of Key Habitats
Reg Coord.
Dr Antonio Mubango
Eduardo Mondlane University, Faculty of Sciences
Hoguane
Department of Physics, P O Box 257, Maputo, Mozambique
Tel: +258-1-493377/1-493102
Fax: +258-1-493377/1-493049
E-mail: hoguane@hotmail.com or gtamb@zebra.uem.mz
Expert
Mr A.K. Armah
University of Ghana, Department of Oceanography and Fisheries,
(Ghana)
P.O. Box LG 99, Legon, Ghana
Fax: +(233) 215 00184
Email: akarmah@yahoo.com
Expert
Ms Helena Motta
Avenue Tomas Nduda 1288, P.O. Box 2775, Maputo, Mozambique
(Mozambique)
Fax: +(258) 1 493 049,
Email: coastal@tropical.co.mz or helenamotta@hotmail.com
Pollution
Reg Coord
Dr Charles Biney
Director, Water Research Institute, Council for Scientific and Industrial
(Ghana)
Research, P. O. Box AH 38, Achimota, Accra, Ghana
Tel.: (Office Direct) +(233) 21 776 044, (Office Main) +(233) 21 779 514 /
779 515, (Mobile) 024 37 4 556 (Evenings mainly), Fax : +(233) 21 777 170
Email: cbiney@idngh.com or charlesbiney@hotmail.com
Expert
Dr Emmanuel
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography & Marine Research,
Olusegun Oyewo
Wilmot Point Road, Bar Beach, Victoria Island P.M.B. 12729 , Lagos,
(Nigeria)
Nigeria,
Fax: +(234) 161 9517 / 618375
Tel : +(233) 1 261 7530,
E-Mail: niomr@linkserve.com.ng or nioms@hyperia.com
Expert
Dr Sylvia Shayo
University of Dar es Salaam, Faculty of Commerce & Management
Temu (Tanzania)
P. O. Box 35046, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel. +(255) 22 2410257
Email shayo@fcm.udsm.ac.tz
Sustainable use of living resources
Reg Coord
Dr Barry Clark (South Anchor Environmental Consultants, Zoology Department, University of Cape
Africa)
Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7700
Cell: 082 373 0521, Tel/Ans/Fax +(27) 21-685 3400,
Email: bclark@botzoo.uct.ac.za
Expert
Mr Jacob Ochiewo
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, P O Box 81651, Mombasa,
(Kenya)
Kenya, Tel: +(254) 11 475 154/2, Fax: +(254) 11 475 157,
E-mail: jochiewo@recoscix.org
Expert
Dr Kwame Koranteng
Marine Fisheries Research Division,
(Ghana)
Ministry of Food and Agriculture, P.O. Box BT 62, Tema, Ghana.
Tel: +(233) 22 402 665 or 208048, Fax: +(233) 22 203 066,
E-mail: kwamek@africaonline.com.gh
Tourism
41
Regional coordinator/expert
Thematic group/Contact
Reg Coord
Dr Terry Jones
P.O. Box 1011, Victoria, Tel: +(248) 225 348 (Office), +(248) 722 319,
(Seychelles)
(Mobile), +(248) 551 142 (Home)
Email: terryj@seychelles.net
Expert
Dr Mitrasen Bhijakee
Faculty of Science, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius; Tel: (230)
(Mauritius)
4541041 to 4541049, (230) 4649958 ext. 1409; Fax: (230) 4656928, (230)
4549642;
Email: mitra@uom.ac.mu
Expert
Mr Saeed Mutta
Coastal Development Authority, P.O. Box 86298, Mombasa, Kenya
Mwaguni (Kenya)
Tel: +(254) 11 311 119
Email cmscsec@africaonline.co.ke
42
Annex V
Evaluation of how and to what extent the project objectives (goal and purposes) have been met utilizing the verifiable
indicators set in the logical framework/project matrix
Project strategy
Objectively verifiable indicator
Accomplishment
Goal
The overall goal of this project is to assist sub-Saharan
Identified sites or living resources of regional
Priority hot-spots identified
African countries in achieving sustainable management of
and global significance that are suffering
their coastal and marine environment and resources.
Priority sensitive areas identified
measurable degradation and actions agreed
by participating countries and other partners
Remedial measures proposed and
for remedial and mitigating actions to solve
agreed by the participating countries
priority environmental problems in the
and presented to the Partnership
marine and coastal environment of sub-
Conference
Saharan Africa
The specific objectives
a)
Identify areas, sites or living resources of regional and
a) Establishment of a list of regional
Over 30 priority hot spots identified
global significance that are suffering measurable
priority hot spots of environmental
degradation (i.e., hot spots).
degradation
b)
Determine the sources/causes of this degradation and
b) Determination of regional and extra-
Identified common problems.
the associated scales of impact (national, regional and
regional incremental costs of the
Regional or sub-regional is referenced
global) to provide a basis for calculating
elimination or reduction in severity
to migratory birds and fish, e.g., the
incrementality on regional and extra-regional scales.
of environmental hot spots in
birds found in the coast of Ghana as
marine and coastal areas
well as trans-border pollution.
c)
Identify areas, sites and resources of regional
c) Establish and adopt the list of areas,
Over 25 sensitive areas identified
significance that, although not currently degraded, are
sites and resources which are
threatened with future degradation either because of
threatened with future degradation
the sensitivity of the receptor or the magnitude of the
and proposals for their protection.
activity posing the threat.
d)
Determine, through root-cause analysis, the
d) Use of the results of the root-cause
19 project proposals prepared
fundamental causes of the damage or threat posed.
analysis for the design of projects
e)
Design a programme of interventions addressing
e) Development and adoption by
All the participating countries endorsed the
43
Project strategy
Objectively verifiable indicator
Accomplishment
problems of regional priority that may be presented to
participating countries of a
proposals by expressing interest in those
the Partnership Conference.
programme of interventions for
projects in which they wished to participate.
problems of regional priority
Outcomes
a)
Recommendations to national authorities and the
c)
National authorities endorsing proposals
Eight heads of State and ministers
international community on measures and
for interventions; adoption of the
from the participating countries
interventions for the development and protection of
programme of interventions by the
programme of interventions during the
the marine and coastal environment in sub-Saharan
Partnership Conference; and
Partnership Conference.
Africa, in order to deal with the:
Control or elimination of environmental hot
Several Partners expressed
spots in coastal and marine region of sub-
commitment to the execution of the
Saharan Africa;
programme of interventions.
Protection of threatened sensitive areas,
resources and amenities warranting special
protection;
Concrete programme of interventions serving
as the basis for bilateral or multilateral
agreements to be implemented in partnership
between African and non-African countries
and institutions.
b)
Assessment of the root causes of the environmental
problems in the marine and coastal region of sub-
Saharan Africa.
c)
Adoption of the list of hot spots and sensitive areas in
the marine and coastal region of sub-Saharan Africa.
d)
Adoption of the priority listing and securing of
d)
Commitment by partners (countries,
Several Partners expressed
funding for agreed actions as per the findings of the
private sector, international
commitment to the execution of the
project.
organizations) to executing the
programme of interventions.
programme of interventions.
Project activities to achieve outcomes
a)
Project coordination
f)
Completion of the project according to
The time for completion of the project
agreed work plan and timetable and
activities was extended by 12 months.
within budget
b)
Criteria and guidelines for the characterization of
g)
Guidelines prepared and used by
The criteria and guidelines for the
environmental hot spots
participating countries and experts
characterization were carefully developed
and discussed intensively with the African
experts through three iterations before
application (The Hague, Paris and Mombasa
44
Project strategy
Objectively verifiable indicator
Accomplishment
meetings).
c)
Root cause analysis of existing impacts and threats to
h)
Results of root cause analysis and
The route cause analysis and
the marine and coastal environment
condition of environmental resources
conditions of environmental resource
used in the preparation of project
analysis was used for the development of
proposals
the project proposals.
d)
Identification and characterization of environmental
i)
List of hot spots of regional priority and
A list of hot spots of regional priority and
hot spots and threatened sensitive areas, resources and
sensitive areas and resources requiring
sensitive areas and resources requiring
amenities warranting special protection
special protection adopted by the
special protection was adopted during the
Steering Group
joint meeting in Cape Town 17-18 September
2001.
e)
Programme of interventions for presentation to the
Adoption of the programme of interventions
The heads of State who attended the
Partnership Conference
at the Partnership Conference
Partnership Conference adopted the
programme of interventions by making
statements of support (annex VIII).
45
Annex VI
Extracts of commitments made during the Partnership Conference by heads of State and
others
Head of State or other
Endorsement statement
1.
H.E. Deputy President Jacob Zuma of
The African Union and NEPAD, AMCEN and the African
South Africa
Process itself provide the necessary platforms for political
endorsement at the highest level.
2.
H.E. President Joachim Chissano of the
Today the African Process has the strong political support of
Republic of Mozambique
African States because of the impacts of increasing
anthropogenic and natural threats to the resource base on which
the socio-economic stability of Africa's countries depend.
3.
H.E. President Olusegun Obasanjo of the
The African Process, implemented through a GEF project and
Federal Republic of Nigeria
structured around five priority thematic areas, is an example of a
creative modality for moving forward sustainable development
options. It strengthens the environment component within
NEPAD and was also presented to the African Union Summit
held in Durban in July 2002.
4.
H.E. President Maitre Abdoulaye Wade of
He recalled the adoption in Dakar in June 2002 of the action
the Republic of Senegal and Coordinator
plan for the Environment Initiative of NEPAD, which he had
of the Environment Initiative of NEPAD
presented during the AMCEN meeting held in Kampala in July
2002. The African Process is an integral part of the marine and
coastal component of this action plan.
5.
H.E. President Yahya Jammeh of the
He expressed satisfaction with his country's participation in the
Republic of Gambia
African Process, given that technical capacity had been
immensely strengthened through work on the development of
the project proposals. The Gambia attaches high priority to
conservation and protection of coastal and marine areas which
are central to economic opportunities and growth, and therefore
central to efforts in poverty alleviation, particularly as the
coastal population is largely composed of poor communities.
6.
Hon. Minister Domic Fobih presented a
Given the need to strengthen cooperation with other countries
statement on behalf of H.E. President John
that share common concerns, Ghana hosted one preparatory
Kufuor of the Republic of Ghana
workshop. At that meeting, Ghana pledged its support in order
to attain the objectives of the African Process.
7.
H.E. President Daniel Arap Moi of the
It is recognized that that Africa's rich resources play a
Republic of Kenya,
significant role in the economic, social and cultural well being
of our countries. Kenya has therefore always been keenly
interested in matters of ocean management and the sustainable
use of marine resources.
8.
Hon. Minister Ntangazwa, on behalf of
Tanzania fully endorses the African Process and the portfolio of
H.E. President Benjamin Mkapa of the
project proposals. On the basis of this country's experience,
United Republic of Tanzania
where 25% of the population lives in coastal areas, coastal and
marine issues must be priorities.
9.
H.E. President Pedro Pires of Cape Verde
He drew attention to the situation of insular countries where the
people are very dependent on the sea, observing that coastlines
and marine resources needed to be protected. In Cape Verde,
there is a need to protect the coastal and EEZ areas, including a
need to combat pollution from shipping and to promote the
sustainable development of fishing resources. Therefore, he
reaffirmed his Government's support for the objectives related
to coastal and marine areas.
46
10.
H.E. President Joaquim Chissano
He presented the portfolio of project proposals and noted that
many speakers had highlighted the significant demographic
concentrations along the coast. The methodology and process
followed would guarantee strong national ownership.
11.
Vice-Admiral Conrad C Lautenbacher, Jr.,
He concluded by stating that the large marine ecosystems,
U.S. Navy (ret.), Undersecretary of
geographic information for sustainable development and "My
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
Community, Our Earth" programmes demonstrated how the
and NOAA Administrator
United States was prepared to assist in meeting the objectives of
the African Process.
12.
Mr Halifah Drammeh, Deputy Director for
He noted that UNEP had played an active role in making the
Policy Implementation, on behalf of Dr
African Process a reality and recalled that one of its objectives
Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of
was the revitalization of the two regional seas conventions. It is
UNEP
UNEP's conviction that the next steps must accomplish two
objectives: Firstly, to ensure that the Nairobi and Abidjan
Conventions play a central and key role in the next phase.
Secondly, continued support by partners of the commendable
efforts of African Governments. For its part, UNEP, which is
hosted by Africa, would continue to provide support to these
two instruments as well as to the implementation of the
recommendations that emanate from the conference.
13.
Mr Mohamed El-Ashry, Chief Executive
GEF will continue to support country driven initiatives to
Officer, GEF
support the coastal and marine environment in Africa. The
recent replenishment of nearly $3 billion will enable GEF to
continue to address environmental concerns in its main focal
areas.
14.
Mr James Bond, Director of Environment
The World Bank Group fully supports this initiative because it
and Social Development for Africa, World
is at the heart of the recently launched strategy for management
Bank
of the costal and marine environment in Africa, which forms a
part of its poverty eradication mission. The World Bank looks
forward to learning of the institutional mechanism which
African leadership will put in place to move this process
forward for effective implementation of these priority
programmes and projects. The World Bank can especially play a
role in this regard. It is already involved in the support of coastal
and marine initiatives in several sub-Saharan African countries.
15.
Dr Patricio Bernal, Executive Secretary,
UNESCO, through IOC, is ready to continue its technical
IOC, conveyed a message of support from
support during the implementation phase.
Mr Koichiro Maatsura, Director-General
of UNESCO
16.
Seychelles
17.
Mauritius
18.
Cote d'Ivore
47
Annex VII
Assessment of project outputs
Project output
Assessment
Scope
Quality
Usefulness
1. National reports
Covered eleven coastal
Comprehensive
The reports are a useful
states
information on
reference material.
Identified hot spots and
biophysical aspects
sensitive areas
Weak information
Root cause analysis
on socio-economics
Recommendations on
intervention at national
level
2. A Regional
Covering eleven coastal
Reference materials
consolidated analysis
states
Highlights common and
from boundary issues
across the eleven coastal
states
3. Portfolio of projects
Nineteen framework
Project proposals based on
Unrealistically costed and
project proposals in five
sound scientific information
therefore cannot be used
thematic areas: coastal
directly. Must be
erosion; management of
reformulated.
key habitats; sustainable
use of living resources;
Tourism; and Pollution.
Proposed projects cover
more than one country
(140 national
components)
4. Programme of
Regional integration of the
Based on sound scientific
For referencing
interventions
portfolio of projects
information
5. The adopted GIWA
Region-wide can be applied
Fine tuned to fit the sub-
Reference material
methodology:
in the whole of sub-Saharan
Saharan region
guidelines for the
Africa
development of project
proposals
criteria for the
selection of projects
6. Meetings and
10 meetings and several
Meeting proceedings
Participatory
reports
national consultations
well documented.
process
10 meeting reports
Feedback
mechanism
Capacity-building.
48
Annex VIII
Project activities implementation plan
Proposed
Actual
Indicator activities
2000
2001
2002
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
SG/PC Meetings/
(Super preparatory
conference)
WGIPA Meetings
WGPI Meetings
Training courses
Evaluation missions
Partnership
Conference
Completion of
project proposals
and programme of
interventions
49
Annex IX
Financial analysis of the utilization of project funds
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
COST(US$)
300,000
200,000
100,000
BUDGETED
EXPENDITURE
0
Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Others Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Key
Activity 1 Project coordination
Activity 2 Development of methodology, criteria and guidelines
Activity 3 Causal chain analysis
Activity 4 - Identification of hot spots and sensitive areas
Activity 5 Development of portfolio of projects for the Partnership Conference
Activity 6 Overhead costs
Activity 7 - Other
50
Annex X
Project revision authorization
United Nations Environment Programme
Global Environment Facility
Project revision
1.1
Sub-Programme Title:
Environmental Conventions: Policy and Programme Linkages
1.2
Project Title:
Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in
Sub-Saharan Africa
1.3
Project Number:
GF/6010-00-16/ Rev. 2
IMIS Ref.: GF/4290
1.4
Geographical Scope:
Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Seychelles
and S. Africa
1.5
Implementation:
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS)
1.6
Duration of the Project:
29 months
Commencing: August 2000
Completion: December 2002 (formerly January 2002)
Reasons for Revision:
a)
To reflect the actual cost of project to the GEF Trust Fund in the year 2001 of US$ 412,490.
b)
To re-phase the year 2001 unspent balance of US$ 145,537 to the year 2002 thereby introducing the year
2002 budget for the same amount.
c)
The total cost of the project to the GEF Trust Fund remains unchanged.
d)
To introduce 5 new object of expenditure codes (1228, 1602 and from 3313 to 3315) per ACOPS's letter
dated 18th April 2002.
e)
To re-allocate a total of US$ 50,000 from object of expenditure codes 3309, 3311 and 3312 to cover the
costs of activities included under (d) above.
f)
To extend the duration of the project for 11 months, through December 2002, to enable completion of
project activities as per the revised workplan (see attached Annex 2) and ACOPS's letter dated 25th
January 2002.
g)
To amend sub-section 3.1 (Budget) and 3.3 (Workplan and Timetable).
1.7
Cost of the Project:
US $1,725,000
Cost to the GEF Trust Fund remains
US$
750,000
Co-financing remains
ACOPS
US$
75,000 in cash and kind
Cote d'Ivoire
US$
15,000 in kind
Ghana
US$
30,000 in kind
Kenya
US$
30,000 in kind
Mozambique
US$
15,000 in kind
Nigeria
US$
30,000 in kind
Portugal
US$
100,000 in cash
Seychelles
US$
30,000 in kind
South Africa
US$
70,000 in cash and kind
UK
US$
160,000 in cash
U.S.A.
US$
200,000 in cash
UNESCO
US$
70,000 in cash and kind
IUCN
US$
50,000 in kind
UNEP/GPA
US$
100,000 in cash & kind
Sub-total Co-financing
US$
975,000
Total Cost of Project remains
US$ 1,725,000
51
For the Environment Fund of UNEP,
---------------------------------
Mr. E.F. Ortega
Chief, Budget & Financial Management Service
UNON
Date: ____________________
References:
- IMIS report for 2001 year-end-expenditures
- ACOPS letter dated 18th April 2002
- ACOPS letter dated 25th January 2002
52
Annex XI
Stakeholder participation in the African Process
Stakeholder
SG - I
WGIPA I
WGIPA II
WGIPA III
4th PC/2nd SG
WGPI I
WGPI II
SUPER PREP
The Hague
Paris
Mombasa
Cape Town
Cape Town
Cape Town
Acra
COM
26 NOV 2000
5-7 DEC 2000
12-14 MAR
10-11 SEPT
17-18 SEPT
12-13 SEPT
18-20 FEB
Abuja
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002
16-17 June
2002
MI
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
N
Benin
1
Cote d'Ivore
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
2
Equatorial Guinea
4
Gambia
1
2
2
1
1
Ghana
1
2
2
1
1
2
8
1
Kenya
1
1
6
3
1
2
3
4
1
3
Mauritius
1
2
2
1
Mozambique
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
Nigeria
1
1
4
4
1
3
4
3
2
29
Senegal
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
Seychelles
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
South Africa
1
5
1
2
1
9
2
11
11
2
1
4
Tanzania
1
2
2
2
1
1
AMCEN
1
1
NEPAD
1
Canada
1
European Union
Finland
1
1
Greece
1
Japan
1
The Netherlands
1
53
Stakeholder
SG - I
WGIPA I
WGIPA II
WGIPA III
4th PC/2nd SG
WGPI I
WGPI II
SUPER PREP
The Hague
Paris
Mombasa
Cape Town
Cape Town
Cape Town
Acra
COM
26 NOV 2000
5-7 DEC 2000
12-14 MAR
10-11 SEPT
17-18 SEPT
12-13 SEPT
18-20 FEB
Abuja
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002
16-17 June
2002
MI
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
N
Norway
1
Spain
1
Sweden
2
United Kingdom
1
1
United States of
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
America
World Bank
2
African Dev Bank
1
ECOWAS
1
GEF
1
UNEP/GEF
1
1
1
DEC
1
1
1
1
GPA
1
1
2
GEO
1
FAO
2
UNIDO
3
UNDP
3
UNEP Gulf of
1
Guinea Project
IOC (UNESCO)
3
2
2
1
3
1
5
IMO
2
GIWA
1
1
1
1
LOICZ
1
ACOPS
3
1
1
5
5
4
6
IUCN
1
WWF
1
1
African Business
1
1
Round Table
54
Stakeholder
SG - I
WGIPA I
WGIPA II
WGIPA III
4th PC/2nd SG
WGPI I
WGPI II
SUPER PREP
The Hague
Paris
Mombasa
Cape Town
Cape Town
Cape Town
Acra
COM
26 NOV 2000
5-7 DEC 2000
12-14 MAR
10-11 SEPT
17-18 SEPT
12-13 SEPT
18-20 FEB
Abuja
2001
2001
2001
2001
2002
16-17 June
2002
MI
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
MIN
TECH
N
Shell - Nigeria
3
1
ACMAD
1
African Hope
Foundation
CLEAN
1
Edge Environment
1
55
Annex XII
List of national coordinators for phase ii of the project
Country
National
Address
E-mail address
coordinator
Senegal
Elimane Bâ
23, Rue Calmette Dakar,
denv@metissacana.sn
Senegal
envir@sentoo.sn
Tel: +(221) 8 226 211,
Fax: +(221) 8 226 212
[or] Chef de Division Lutte
contre la Pollution et les
Nuisances
et Etudes d'Impact sur
l'Environnement
Direction de
l'Environnement et des
Etablissements Classés
Seychelles
Terry Jones
Director-General
terryj@seychelles.net
(International Cooperation)
Ministry of Tourism &
Civil Aviation
Independence House
P O Box 92
Mahe
Victoria
Seychelles
Côte d'Ivoire
Jacques Abe
Centre de Recherches
abe@cro.ird.ci
Océanologiques
jabe1@hotmail.com
29, rue des Pêcheurs
BP V 18 ABIDJAN - Côte
d'Ivoire
Gambia
Momodou Cham
Executive Director
nea@gamtel.gm
National Environment
Agency
5 Fitzgerald Street
P.M.B 48
Banjul, Gambia
Ghana
AK Armah
University of Ghana
akarmah@yahoo.com
Department of
Oceanography and
Fisheries
P.O. Box LG 99
Legon
Ghana
Kenya
Ali Mohamed
Coordinator: Coastal &
biofish@africaonline.co.ke
Marine Programmes
National Environment
Secretariat
56
Country
National
Address
E-mail address
coordinator
Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 67839
Nairobi
Mauritius
Santaram Mooloo
santaramm@hotmail.com
Mozambique
Evaristo Baquete
ebaquete@tropical.co.mz
biocoast@tropical.co.mz
Nigeria
Larry Awosika
Nigerian Institute for
niomr@linkserve.com.ng
Oceanography & Marine
Larryawosika@yahoo.com
Research
Wilmot Point Road
Bar-Beach, Victoria Island
P.M.B. 12729
Lagos
South Africa
Andre Share
Assistant Director: Coastal
ashare@mcm.wcape.gov.za
Management and
Coordinator of the African
Process
Marine and Coastal
Management
Department of
Environmental Affairs and
Tourism
Private Bag X2
Rogge Bay 8012
Cape Town
Republic of South Africa
Tanzania
Alfonse Dubi
Institute of Marine
dubi@ims.udsm.ac.tz
Sciences
University of Dar Es
Salaam
P.O. Box 668, Zanzibar,
Tanzania
57
Annex XIII
List of project proposals and their relevance to the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions and GPA
Number
Title
Key issue
Relevance
(Final
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire,
(Acra Ghana Feb 2002)
Abidjan/Nairobi Conventions
GPA
May 2002)
Mitigation of coastal
1. Identification of affected and
Error! No table of
erosion control and
vulnerable areas to erosion
contents entries
restoration of degraded
X
found.
areas in sub-Saharan Africa
COS 2
Supporting the
2. Causes of erosion
implementation of
integrated marine and
X
coastal area management
(ICAM) in sub-Saharan
Africa
COS 3
Assessment of the
3. Identification of mitigation
vulnerability of sub-
options
Saharan coastal zones to the
different impacts of climate
change
4. Implementation of mitigation
options
5. Follow up and monitoring
Capacity Building
(transversal)
58
Number
Title
Key issue
Relevance
(Final
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire,
(Acra Ghana Feb 2002)
Abidjan/Nairobi Conventions
GPA
May 2002)
HAB 1
Conservation of
Mangroves
biodiversity through the
enhancement and/or
X
establishment of marine
protected areas in sub-
Saharan Africa
HAB 2
Promoting the
Coral reefs
establishment of RAMSAR
sites and developing
X
X
participatory and integrated
approaches for effective
integrated river basin
management in sub-Saharan
Africa
HAB 3
Mangrove management in
Lagoons
sub-Saharan Africa
HAB 4
Improving the protection
DEGRADATION
and stability of coral reefs
and associated communities
X
HAB 5
Error! No table of
Conservation
contents entries found.
X
Marine parks
59
Number
Title
Key issue
Relevance
(Final
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire,
(Acra Ghana Feb 2002)
Abidjan/Nairobi Conventions
GPA
May 2002)
TOU 1
Error! No table of
Guidelines & standards
contents entries
establishment of guidelines
found.
to control tourism development
X
in coastal areas
TOU 2
Promoting environmental
Promoting ecotourism and
sustainability within the
community benefits that
tourism industry through
contribute to management and
implementation of an eco-
protection of m/c areas,
certification and labelling
including cultural heritage sites
pilot programme for hotels
TOU 3
Preparation of national
Promoting sustainability in
ecotourism strategies and
tourism development
implementation of pilot
X
projects
TOU 4
Error! No table of
Introduction of mitigating
contents entries
measures / investment proposals
found.
X
X
RES 1
Assessment and mitigation
Management of mangroves in
of the ecological and socio-
east and west Africa
economic impacts of
X
destructive fishing practices
in sub-Saharan Africa
RES 2
Mariculture development in
Assessments of the ecological
sub-Saharan Africa
and economic impacts of
destructive fishing practices in
X
sub-Saharan Africa
60
Number
Title
Key issue
Relevance
(Final
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire,
(Acra Ghana Feb 2002)
Abidjan/Nairobi Conventions
GPA
May 2002)
RES 3
Impact of global climate
Mariculture development in sub-
change on key marine and
Saharan Africa
costal ecosystems in sub-
Saharan Africa
RES 4
Error! No table of
Impact of "natural" (global
contents entries
climate change) and
found.
anthropogenic influences on
stream flow and estuaries in The
Gambia, Mozambique, Senegal
and South Africa
POL 1
Solid waste management
1.
Pollution control and waste
and pollution control
management
X
POL 2
Error! No table of
2. Technologies for sewage
contents entries
treatment
found.
X
POL 3
Strengthening of oil spill
3. Strengthening of oil spill
management and
management and contingency
contingency capabilities in
capabilities
sub-Saharan Africa
4. Suspended solids
A.P. 1
Associated project, GOOS
Africa
61
Annex XIV
List of documents consulted during the final review and evaluation
1.
The report of the first meeting of the Steering Group, held in the Hague, 26
November 2000
2.
Report of the first meeting of the working group on integrated problem analysis
(WGIPA-I), held in Paris, France, 5-7 December 2000
3.
Report of the second meeting of the working group on integrated problem
analysis (WGIPA-II), held in Mombasa, Kenya, 12-14 March 2001
4.
Report of the third meeting of the working group on integrated problem analysis
(WGIPA-III), held in Cape Town, South Africa, 10-11 September 2003
5.
Introduction to GEF medium-sized project "Development and Protection of the
Coastal and Marine Environment in sub-Saharan Africa", phase II, "Development
of a Portfolio of Project Proposals"
6.
Development and protection of the coastal and marine environment in sub-
Saharan Africa: portfolio of project proposals", 19 August 2002
7.
Development and protection of the coastal and marine environment in sub-
Saharan Africa: summary of project proposals, 19 August, 2002
8.
Programme of interventions of the African Process for the development and
protection of the coastal and marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa
9.
Report of the joint meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the Partnership
Conference and the project Steering Group held in Cape Town, South Africa, 17-
18 September 2001
10.
Strategy for stakeholder involvement and mobilization
11.
The revitalization of the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions
12.
Timetable for the second phase
13.
Report of the second meeting of the working group on the programme of
interventions (WGPI II), held in Cape Town, South Africa, 12-13 September
2001
a.
Annex II: Methodology for the second phase - development of project
proposals for the programme of intervention for the Partnership
Conference
b.
Annex III : Partnership Conference process
c.
Annex IV : Guidelines for the preparation and selection of project
proposals
d.
Annex V : Summary list of concept papers and presentation of overview
e.
Annex VI : Reports of the working groups
62
14.
Report of the second meeting of the working group on the programme of
interventions (WGPI II), held in Accra, Ghana, 18-20 February 2002
15.
Report of the third meeting of the working group on the programme of
interventions (WGPI III) held in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire 14-16 May 2002
16.
Regional consolidated analysis of the first phase of the GEF MSP sub-Saharan
Africa, June 2002
17.
Assembly of Heads of State and Governments: thirty- seventh ordinary
session/fifth ordinary session of the AEC, held in Lusaka, Zambia ,11 July 2001.
18.
GEF-MSP final statement of accounts 021220p
19.
Project Formulation, Approval, Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, revised
December 2000. UNEP Programme Coordination and Management Unit (PCMU)
20.
GEF MSP development and protection of the coastal and marine environment in
sub-Saharan Africa GF/6010-00-16.
21.
Terminal report on the GEF MSP "Development and Protection of the Coastal
and Marine Environment in sub-Saharan Africa" GF/6010-00-16
22.
Memorandum of understanding between UNEP and ACOPS signed on 10 April
2001
23.
Memorandum of understanding between UNEP and ACOPS signed on 3 October
2001
63
Annex XV
Time frame and budget for the proposed projects for the development and
protection of the coastal and marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa
Project
Project title
Time
Cost (million
Comments
number
frame
US$)
(Yrs)
COS 1
Mitigation of coastal erosion and
3-5
29.960
Development (NEPAD)
restoration of degraded areas in sub-
Saharan Africa
COS 2
Supporting the implementation of
5
11.896
UNEP joint implementation
integrated marine and coastal area
secretariat for the Abidjan &
management (ICAM) in sub-Saharan
Nairobi Conventions
Africa
COS 3
Assessment of the vulnerability of sub-
5
8.00
UNEP joint implementation
Saharan coastal zones to the different
secretariat for the Abidjan &
impacts of climate change
Nairobi Conventions
Subtotal for coastal erosion projects
49.896
HAB 1
Conservation of biodiversity through the
5
5.500
UNEP joint implementation
enhancement and/or establishment of
secretariat for the Abidjan &
marine protected areas in sub- Saharan
Nairobi Conventions
Africa
HAB 2
Promoting the establishment of Ramsar
5
5.000
Ramsar Convention
sites and developing participatory and
secretariat
integrated approaches for integrated river
basin management in sub-Saharan Africa
HAB 3
Mangrove management in sub-Saharan
5
12.000
UNEP joint implementation
Africa
secretariat for the Abidjan &
Nairobi Conventions
HAB 4
Improving the protection and stability of
5
3.050
UNEP joint secretariat
coral reefs and associated communities
UNEP joint implementation
secretariat for the Abidjan &
Nairobi Conventions
HAB 5
Development of sound land-use practices
5
3.000
GPA
and reduction of suspended solids in
estuaries and lagoons in sub-Saharan
Africa
Subtotal for management of key
28.55
habitats projects
TOU 1
Development of sustainable coastal
5
2.980
UNEP joint implementation
tourism development policies and
secretariat for the Abidjan &
strategies
Nairobi Conventions
TOU 2
Promoting environmental sustainability
3
2.045
UNEP joint
within the tourism industry through
implementation
implementation of an eco-certification and
secretariat for the Abidjan
labelling pilot programme for hotels
& Nairobi Conventions
TOU 3
Preparation of national eco-tourism
5
4.400
UNEP joint
strategies and implementation of pilot
implementation
project
secretariat for the Abidjan
& Nairobi Conventions
TOU 4
Pilot measures to demonstrate the best
2
1.445
UNEP joint
practices in mitigating environmental
implementation
impact of tourism: reef recreation
secretariat for the Abidjan
management
& Nairobi Conventions
64
Project
Project title
Time
Cost (million
Comments
number
frame
US$)
(Yrs)
Subtotal for coastal tourism projects
10.87
RES 1
Assessment and mitigation of the
6
16.400
FAO
ecological and socio-economic impacts of
destructive fishing practices in sub-
Saharan Africa
RES 2
Mariculture development in sub-Saharan
4
14.665
Development (NEPAD)
Africa
RES 3
Impact of global climate change on key
3
2.537
UNEP joint
marine and coastal ecosystems in sub-
implementation
Saharan Africa
secretariat for the Abidjan
& Nairobi Conventions
RES 4
Strengthening management, monitoring,
4
26.578
Development (NEPAD)
control and surveillance capacity in
fisheries management organizations in
sub-Saharan Africa
Subtotal for sustainable use of living
60.18
resources projects
POL 1
Solid waste management and pollution
4
22.640
Development (NEPAD)
control
POL 2
Development and application of
5
89.120
Development (NEPAD)
technologies for sewage treatment in cities
and towns
POL 3
Strengthening of oil spill management and
5
30.850
IMO
contingency capabilities in sub-Saharan
Africa
Subtotal for marine pollution
142.61
A.P.1
Associated project, GOOS Africa
5
15.000
IOC (UNESCO)
Grand total
307.066
65
Annex XVI
Comparison between sites identified as hot spots/sensitive areas and sites
identified for the implementation of project proposals
Country
Hot spots and sensitive areas
Sites included in the project proposals
Cote d'Ivoire
Hot spots
Grand-Lahou Lagoon (COS-1)
The Ebrie Lagoon
Grand Bassm (COS-2)
The Eastern part of the littoral from
All coastline (COS-3)
Abidjan to Assinie
Ebrie Lagoon (HAB 3)
Sensitive areas
Le Grand-Lahou, Vridi and
Aby Lagoon
Assinie inlets (RES-2)
Grand-Lahou Lagoon
City of Abidjan including port
The maritime zone under national
complex (POL-1), (POL-3)
jurisdiction
Gambia
Hot spots/sensitive areas
All coastline (COS-1)
Bintang Bolong
Allahein River to Cope Point,
The Tambi Wetland Complex
Banul Islan (COS-3)
Tanji River Bird Reserve and
Western Gambia (Baobolong
Bijol Island
Wetland Reserve), Delta du
Nuimi National Park
Saloum in Senegal (HAB-2), (hab-
Western Part of the River Gambia
3), hab-5
Basin
KMC,BCC and Brikama Area
Alahein River to Cope Point
Council (POL-1)
Banjul Island
Greater Banjul Area (GBA)
(POL-2)
Ghana
Hot spots
The Ada/Volta Estuary/Anyanui
Sakumo I wetlands
Mangrove Complex (AVEAMC)
Korle lagoon
(COS-1), (COS-2), (HAB-1),
Sensitive Area
(HAB-3), (RES-1), (RES-2)
The Ada/Volta Estuary/Anyanui
All coastline (COS-3)
Mangrove Complex (AVEAMC)
Elmina-Eture Lagoon, princess
Town, Cape Three Points, Eastern
Sandy Shore (Marine Turtle
Nesting Site); (HAB-1)(HAB-3)
Volta, Densus Basin (HAB-2)
Korle Lagoon (HAB-5)
Keta Lagoon Complex (RES-1)
Volta Estuary, River Pra Estuary
(RES-1)
City of Accra (POL-1),(POL-2),
(POL-3)
Nsawam, in the River Densu
Basin (POL-2)
Tema Port, Takoradi Port (POL-3)
Kenya
Hot spots
Malindi Bay (COS-1)
Mombasa inshore waters
Ngomeni(COS-3)
Lamu inshore waters
Gazi Village (COS-3)
Ungwana Bay
Tana Delta (HAB-2)
Diani reefs
Ngomeni Mangrove Swamps;
Sensitive areas
Mida creek; Gazi Bay (HAB-3)
Vanga Creek
Mida-Watamu Greek in Malindi,
Wasin channel
Diani Reef Wasini Channel (TOU-
Ngomeni Mangrove
4),(HAB-4)
Swamps
Malindi Bay, Ungwana Bay, Gazi
Malindi/Watamu Marine National
Bay, Diani Reef, Wasini Channel
66
Country
Hot spots and sensitive areas
Sites included in the project proposals
Park and Reserves
and Vanga Creek (RES-1)
Mida Creek, Kipini, Wasimi
Island (RES-2)
Mombasa City and Port
(POL-1),(POL-2), (POL-3)
Mauritius
Hot spots/sensitive areas
File en Flac, Grand Baie and
Grand Baie
Riambel (COS-1)
Flic en Flac
All Coastline Including
Pointe aux Sables,
Rodridge(COS-2),(COS-3),(HAB-
Pomponette/Riambel,
4)
Palmar/Belle Mare
15 important popular diving sites,
Rodrigues
including Trou Aux Biches,
Gunners Quoin, Flic en Flac, Le
Morne and Pointe d' Esny (TOU-
4)
Mozambique
Hot spots
Maputo Bay (COS-1)
Maputo Bay
Limpopo, Incomat, Zambezi and
Sofala Bank
Pungo Ruiver Basins (COS-3),
Nacola Bay
(HAB-2)
Mozambique Island
Mozambique Island and
surroundings primeiras and
Sensitive Areas
Segunda, Inhaca Idlsna Ponta do
Bazaruto Archipelago,
Ouro (HAB-1)
Quirimbas Archipelago
Incomati, Zambezi River & delta
Inhaca and Matutuine Area
(HAB-2)(HAB-5)
Marromeau and Zambezi Delta
Quirimbas Archipelago;
Mozambique Island; Beira City,
Sofala Bay; Nacala Bay; (HAB-
3,(HAB 4)
Quirimbas Archipelag, Bazaruto
Archipelago, Mozambique Island
and suorroungs nacala Bay and
Inhaca Island in Maputo Bay,
Ponta do Ouro (HAB4)
Quirambas archipelago InhancA
Reserve, Bazaruto (TOU-4)
Coastal settlements, especially
Quirimbas Sofala Bank and
Maputo bay Zambezi Delta, Sofala
bay(RES1)
Maputo, Beira and Necole
(POL-1)
Necole Xai-Xai, inhambane
(POL-2)
Nigeria
Hot spots
All coastline (CAO-1), (COS=3)
Ojo Area
Lagos Island (COS-2)
Lagos Island Area
Lagos, Eket, Ogoni/Bonny,
Victoria Island Area
Bodo/Numb (HAB-1)
Awoye/Molume Area
Niger Delta, Lagos, Eket,
Warri/Sapele Area
Niger/Benue Catchment (HAB-
Yenagoa Area
2,(HAB-3),(HAB-5)
Oguni Land
Niger Delta Lagos
Eket Area
Lagos, Eket, Bony /Ogoni, Dodo
(RES-2)
Lagos, Port Hartcourt, Warri and
67
Country
Hot spots and sensitive areas
Sites included in the project proposals
Sensitive Areas
Calabar (POL-2)
Festac Town/Amuwo
Nigeria Delta, Lagos Port, Port
Ibeju-Lekki West
Harcourt Port, Calabar Export
Ibeju-Lekki East
Process Zone (POL-3)
Ilaje Area
Benin/Aagbor
Barrier Island Between
Dodo and Nun Rivers
Akassa/Brass/Calabar River
Opobo Area
Stubs Creek Area
Senegal
Hot spots
Cap-Vert Peninsular Little Coast
The Djoudj bird National Park
areas (COS-1)
The Hann Bay
Djiffere (COS-2)
Dakar
All coastline (COS-3)
Djiffere
Delta of the Senegal River (HAB-
2), (HAB-5)
Sensitive Areas
Saloum estuary; Casamance
The Senegal Delta
estuary (HAB-3)
The Saloum estuary
Bay of Hann (POL-1), (POL-2)
The Casamance estuary
Seychelles
Hot spots
East coast of Mahe, Anse Volbert
Coastal Plateau of La Digue;
(COS-1),(COS-2)
East Coast of Mahe;
All coastline
Anse Volbert, Praslin
Cosmoledo, Mahe, Praslin, La
Digue, Aldabra & other Inner
Sensitive areas:
Islands (HAB-1), (HAB-4,
Port Launay
(RES-2)
Baie Ternay Marine Parks and
Cosmoledo, Aldabra, Mahe,
adjacent areas
Praslin, La Digue and other inner
Cosmoledo Atoll
Islands (TOU-4)
Mahe Wetlands
South Africa
Hot spots
Lengebaan (COS-1)
Richards Bay
Groen-Spoeg River, Pondoland, St. Lucia
Knysna
and Kosi Bay, Kunene River
False Bay
(initiative to include Namibia and
Angola) (HAB-1)
Sensitive areas
St. Lucia, orange river mouth,
Maputoland
Langebaan lagoon (HAB-2)
Pondoland
Northern KwaZulu Natal
Saldanha-Langebaan
(HAB-4)
Krynsa Estuary (HAB-5)
All coastal providence's (Northern
Cape, Western Cape, Eastern Cape
KwaZulu- Natal) RES- @)
Selected hot spots and sensitive
areas in coastal cities (POL-1)
All coastal Provinces (POL-3)
Tanzania
Hot spots
Dar Es salaam, Jambiani in
Dar Es salaam city
Zanzibar COS-1), (COS-3),
Zanzibar municipality
HAB-4)
Tanga municipality
Rufiji River Basin (HAB-2),
Sensitive areas
HAB-5)
Rufiji Mafia Kilwa Complex
Chwaka Bay; Bumbwini;
Matumbini; Kisiwa Kikuu
68
Country
Hot spots and sensitive areas
Sites included in the project proposals
Tanga Coastal Area
(HAB-3)
Bagamoyo District
Dar Es salaam City and Towns of
Dar Es salaam and Zanzibar
Tanga, Zanzibar (POL-1)
Selected low-income areas in Dar
Es salaam, Zanzibar and Tanga
Municipalities (POL-2)
69
Annex XVII
Consultancy fees paid, listed bycountry
_____________
70
Document Outline
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ