Project Proposals on Management of Key Habitats
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY THROUGH THE ENHANCEMENT AND OR ESTABLISHMENT OF MARINE
PROTECTED AREAS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
1. IDENTIFIERS
Project Number: HAB - 1
Project Title: Conservation of biodiversity through the enhancement and or establishment of Marine
Protected Areas in SSA
Requesting Country (ies):
Nigeria, Mozambique, Seychelles, Ghana, South Africa and Côte D'Ivoire.
Requesting Regional or
National Organization:
Ministry of Environmental Affairs of Mozambique
Ministry of Natural Resources, Nigeria
Ministry of Environment of Seychelles
Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (DEAT), South Africa
Ministry of Environment and Science of Ghana
Ministry of Environment of Côte d'Ivoire
Executing Agencies:
Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Department of Conservation Areas
Ministry of Tourism of Mozambique, GTA (Environment Working Group
Mozambique NGO), FNP (Forum Natureza em Perigo)
Environmental Protection Agency of Ghana
Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (DEAT), KwaZulu-Natal
Wildlife, South African National Parks, Eastern Cape Nature Conservation,
Western Cape Nature Conservation, Northern Cape Nature Conservation,
Academic and Research Institutions, South Africa
Conservation Section, Ministry of Environment of Seychelles
Required National
Partners:
Ministry of Tourism and Transport, Ministry of Environment, Island
Development Company
Marine Parks Authority, Islands Conservation Society of Seychelles
(Seychelles)
Departments of Conservation Areas, Ministry of Tourism , Ministry of
Environmental Affairs, Mozambique (MICOA)
Department of Wildlife, Department of Fisheries, Universities and Research
Institutions in Ghana
South African National Parks, KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, Eastern Cape,
Western Cape and Northern Cape Nature Conservation, South Africa
Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja, Federal Ministry of Agriculture,
Abuja, Nigeria
Priority Issue Addressed:
Loss and Modification of Habitats and Ecotones,, unsustainable exploitation
of fisheries and other living resources, climate change.
Biodiversity
(GEF)
Regional Scope: Eastern
and
Western
Africa.
Project Location:
Mozambique: Mozambique Island and surroundings, Primeiras and
Segundas, Inhaca Island , Ponta do Ouro
Seychelles: Cosmoledo, Mahe, Praslin, La Digue & Other Inner Islands
Nigeria: Lagos, Eket, Ogoni/Bonny, Dodo/Nun; South Africa: St. Lucia,
Kosi Bay
Ghana: Ada/Anganui Mangrove Complex, Elmina-Eture Lagoon, Princess
Town, Cape Three Points, Eastern Sandy Shore (Marine Turtle Nesting
Site)
Cote d'Ivoire: Fresco, Grand-Lahou, Assinie in Aby lagoon
South Africa: Groen-Spoeg River, Pondoland, St. Lucia and Kosi Bay,
Kunene River (initiative to include Namibia and Angola)
Project Duration:
5 years
Working Group
of the African Process
Management of key habitats
2. SUMMARY:
Both East and West African coasts are home to an incredible diversity of coastal environments. Geological
features, ocean currents and climate, geographical position, are the main features to make the different sites
of the coast to present such diverse systems like swamps, mangroves, coral reef, coastal lagoons, river deltas.
All theses diverse habitats are in different stages of use and quality. In the Eastern African coast, for
example, processes carried out by SEACAM, WIOMSA, WWF, IUCN, UNEP, GEMPA, Nairobi
Convention, Jakarta Mandate, etc, identified already a few areas where biodiversity is high and the potential
for conservation is at his best. It is however, recognised that there is a lack of a representative managed
system of protected area.
A number of habitat types are poorly represented within Africa, and for the majority of countries in the
region, gaps in protected areas remain. For example, on the marine side, coastal wetlands, mangroves, turtle
and bird nesting areas, sand dunes and coral reefs have been identified as needing further protection
throughout the continent. This is becoming of paramount importance in the face of industrial and commercial
development, pollution and exploitation of marine resources. The efforts of Mauritania in establishing the
Banc D'Arguin National Park and of Kenya in some 114,000 ha in the form of marine national parks and
reserves, and in proposing that reefs such as Kanamai and Vipingo be included in a large fishing reserve
system, are exceptional, not representative of efforts throughout Africa (McNeely et al., 1994)1 The same
way, during the last 12 months, the Government of Mozambique decided to enlarge the area of Bazaruto
Archipelago National Park in more than 83,000 ha and to declare more than 150,000 ha of marine area in the
newly proclaimed Quirimbas National Park (Pers.com.).
Such areas should encompass to the best examples of all the habitats and systems existent in the continent,
being areas of immense biodiversity in one extreme, or areas, not being very diversity, are unique for its
endemism.
If it is true that there are areas which should be protected/better managed, there are at the same time areas
that were declared and lack any kind of management the so called "Paper Parks" (meaning those that are
legally declared but only implemented to a limited extent on the ground).
Protected areas also represent a management tool for natural resources, benefiting those ones making their
living directly from those resources, such as fishermen and collectors. Others beneficiaries are industries like
tourism, which depend directly from the quality of environment. More recent trends show an interest by local
communities and groups of fishermen for the setting aside of the so-called "nursery" areas, spawning areas
for the growth their fish. The same is true for the tourism industry, which is increasingly focused in coastal
areas as a good basis for eco-tourism.
1 McNeely, JA, J.Harrison, P.Dinguall. (1994). Protecting Nature: regional Reviews of Areas. IUCN
The more experience is gained in the establishment of better managed areas, the more its success is linked to
the involvement of local communities and other interest groups in the process. The exclusion of people from
protected areas, as it has happened in the 60 and 70's is becoming less popular. Protected areas should be
mainly regarded as contributors to a better managed environment which in turn would support poverty
reduction and improvement of local economies.
The general objective of this project is to promote the protection of key habitats with high ecological value
and biological diversity for the benefit of present and future generations of local communities, and the
economy of the country in general.
Specific objectives and activities would include:
1. Establishing four new MPA's to better protect and manage key habitats where there is a need;
2. Improve the management of four existing MPA's, and include the involvement of the local communities
in its management;
3. Establish a representative network of MPA's through the region and countries;
4. Assess the ecological, socio-economy and cultural value of MPA's at all levels of society.
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION US $)2
International & bilateral sources:
List
required
financing
by
potential
source
:
USD
4,000,000.00
Subtotal
international
financing
:
USD
4,000,000.00
Co-financing:
Governments in cash & kind
: USD 1,500,000.00
Subtotal
Co-financing
:
USD
1,500,000.00
Total
Project
Cost:
:
USD
5,500,000.00
4. GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT(S)
.
Hon. John Kachamila, Minister of Environmental Affairs of Mozambique
The Honorable Minister, Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja, Nigeria
Hon. Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism, South Africa
Mr. Maurice Lousteau-Lalane, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Seychelles
Hon. Minister of Environment and Science, Ghana
Hon. Minister of Environment of Cote D'Ivoire
5. GOVERNMENT FOCAL POINT(S)
Mozambique: Mr. Evaristo Baquete, Ministry of Environmental Affairs of Mozambique
Seychelles: Mr. John Nevill, Director , Ministry of Environment
South Africa: Director-General, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)
Cote D'Ivoire: Ministry of Environment and Way of Life Côte d'Ivoire
Ghana: Environment Protection Agency
Nigeria: The Honorable Minister, Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja
6. AFRICAN PROCESS WORKING GROUP FOCAL POINT(S)
Dr. António M. Hoguane, Regional Co-ordinator
Dr. A.K. Armah, Expert
Mrs. Helena Motta, Expert
2 This budget is preliminary and has not undergone a full consultation process with the respective countries.
Therefore, it does not indicate the actual financial commitment that would be provided by participating
countries once the project proposal and its components are finalised.
1.1.1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background & Justification
Impacts on the coastal and marine environment originate broadly from development activities carried out by
various agencies and entities. This includes governments, regional authorities, private enterprises, informal
sector units, households, groups of individuals and individuals for various purposes, including production,
consumption, recreation, travel or livelihood within diverse institutional contexts. It is certainly inappropriate
to discuss coastal, marine and water-related resource changes and degradation problems independently of the
broader pressures brought to bear on the environment by the underlying socio-economic processes involved
in production and consumption activities.
Environmental impacts are not an inevitable consequence of development activities but often an outcome of
inadequate development policies, policy implementation failures and market failures, culminating in poor or
lack of environmental management capacities and the emergence of coastal and marine related
environmental impacts. Lack of environmental management capacities is commonly associated with the
predominance of development practices which, following market-driven motivations, capitalise on a free use
of coastal, marine and water "facilities" disregarding the non-use value of scarce and inter-dependent
environmental resources and the options of future generations.
The sub-Saharan region shares large marine ecosystems including migratory species, valuable habitats and
fisheries of international economic significance. Changes introduced to the regional marine environment by
marine transport activities, oil pollution and an accumulation of urban and industrial discharges affect living
marine species common to the regional ecological endowment. Over-exploitation of marine resources in all
the countries generate gradual modifications to marine communities which need protection if biodiversity is
to retain its regional integrity. Degradation of seagrass beds, coral reefs and mangrove forests, equally
pronounced in various parts of the marine environment, puts at risk the regional productive capacity of
fisheries, the survival of endangered migratory species, notably the migratory green turtles and the dugong,
and a variety of seabirds, and ultimately, the comparative advantage of regional tourism (WWF, 2002)3
The prevailing degradation of coastal zone resources appear to display common patterns and may be traced
to common impact sources associated with inadequate, sometimes partial or slow implementation of
integrated coastal zone management, commonly manifested in land and sea use conflicts, declining tourism
potential and biodiversity losses. In other words, there is general consensus that there is a need for better
management and conservation a number of sensitive areas.
African nations have created more than 2 million sq. Km of protected areas. However, very little of this is
marine (IUCN/EC, 1999)4. Even for the existing ones, there is still a long way to go in terms of management.
As an example, Mozambique has 2,700 Km of coast, from typical fringing coral coast, to parabolic dunes,
swamps and rocky shores. However, so far, only 2% of its marine and coastal environment is under any kind
of protection. Seychelles, on the other side, has a large area of its waters under protection, needing extra
support for its management.
According to the IUCN definition of MPAs, they "are areas of land/or sea especially dedicated to the
protection of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through
legal or other effective means" (Kelleher, 1999)5.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) started a process a few years ago, the Eastern African Marine
Ecoregion (EAME), to implement ecoregion conservation. The biological priorities within the EAME have
been established through a process of gathering the best available knowledge on the distribution of a number
of different aspects of biodiversity. The aspects of biodiversity selected to represent the overall values of the
region were coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves, wetlands, fish, species of special concern.
3 WWF (2002). Draft Eco-Region Action Programme. Report prepared by WWF on behalf of the Stakeholders of the
Eastern African Marine Eco-Region Conservation process 1999-2001.Tanzania.49pp.
4 IUCN/EC (1999). Parks for Biodiversity. Policy Guidance on Experience in ACP countries. Gland. 118 pp.
5 Kelleher, G. (1999). Guidelines for marine Protected Areas. IUCN. Gland. UK.107 pp.
The final map of biodiversity priorities in the EAME was created by overlaying the geographical distribution
of the important areas identified for the six different habitat and species groups outlined above. Through this
amalgamation process a total of twenty-one important marine biodiversity areas were identified along the
coast of eastern Africa. Once these amalgamated areas had been identified, they were then ranked in terms
of their overall importance for biodiversity conservation. Three levels of importance were recognized,
global, ecoregional and subregional. The criteria used to assign areas to these different levels of importance
were based on species richness, species of special concern, unique/endemic species
/assemblages/associations, intact biotas (including abundant top predators), areas large enough to
withstanding natural disturbance, ecological processes, unique physical habitats or habitat features, complete
or unique habitat complexes, important sites for feeding, resting, breeding, areas of seasonal migrations and
representation (WWF 2002).
Priority areas cover a diverse range of coastal and shallow water marine systems and physical features but,
with the exception of Latham Island, do not extend into oceanic waters. Reasons for the assignation of global
importance were:
· high levels of diversity giving a high degree of representation of the ecoregion's species richness
(e.g. Rufiji-Mafia complex; Mtwara-Quirimbas; Zambezi)
· high levels of endemism (e.g. Lamu Archipelago, Maputo Bay-Michangelo Complex);
· both high diversity and endemism (e.g. Bazaruto Archipelago, Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park);
· importance for critical stages in the life cycle of threatened species (e.g. Zambezi Delta for breeding
Humpback Whales and Lamu Archipelago, Maputo Bay-Machangelo Complex and Bazaruto for
turtles;
· importance for maintaining ecosystem function (e.g. Mtwara-Quirimbas as a source area as it
straddles the divergence of the South Equatorial Current and Zambezi and Rufiji Deltas as nursery
grounds and nutrient input).
As a ongoing effort by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), there is a global call for action to have a
network of protected areas in every country that is `representative' of the key habitats for that country. The
call for action also highlights the need to move from "paper parks" (meaning those that are legally declared
but only implemented to a limited extent on the ground) to fully effective parks. This has been especially
important to address the lack of effective coastal-marine areas. In 1994 the IUCN, in partnership with the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the World Bank, published a recording of all the known
existing and proposed coastal-marine protected areas around the world, as a `platform' to foster further
effectiveness of `paper parks' and establishment of new areas.
The goal of MPAs, as seen by IUCN is to conserve the biological diversity and productivity (including
ecological life support systems) of the oceans (Kelleher, G.,1999). There are two principal reasons for
MPAs: to protect habitat and biodiversity, and to maintain viable fisheries. By protecting habitats, MPAs
safeguard the vital life-support processes of the sea. The protection of marine habitats in their natural state
provides an essential foundation for sustainable, nature based tourism, which is becoming a world industry
and provides major benefits to local communities.
MPAs, if partially or entirely closed to fishing, have proved very effective in association with conventional
fisheries management in rebuilding damaged fish stocks and in giving all stocks some stability. In several
regions, fish stocks have increased rapidly establishment of MPAs (Robers and Hawkins, 2000)6.
6 Roberts, CM and J.P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully-protected marine reserves: a Guide. WWF Endangered Seas Campaign.
UK. 131 pp.
2.
Objective & Expected Results:
This project will address the need of the establishment of new protected areas and the support of existing
ones. In doing so, the project will support the creation of a representative system of MPAs, both regional and
national, and will promote the involvement of local communities in its management. Ultimately, the project
will address the needs of local communities and will contribute for their well being
The immediate objective of this project is to promote the protection of key habitats with high ecological
value and biological diversity such as nursery and breading grounds, areas of high endemism and of
uniqueness nature through the establishment or enhancement of MPA.
The following are the expected outcomes of this project:
1. The establishment of four new MPA's to protect key habitats where there is a need selected on the basis
of importance on a representative system of marine protected areas;
2. The improvement of management of four existing MPA's, in the region, selected according to their
importance in a network of representative systems of MPAs;
3. Involvement of local communities in all stages, guaranteeing their participation at all levels of decision
and also making sure there are beneficiaries;
4. The establish of a representative network of MPA's both at regional and national level;
5. Assess the ecological, socio-economy and cultural importance and value of MPA's
Immediate objective No.1: Establish four new MPA's to protect key habitats, where there is a need and
according to the value of its representativeness in a network of MPAs
The activities proposed to address this issue consists of:
1. Identification of marine and coastal areas that require protection and determination of priorities for the
implementation of appropriate protection measures. The following criteria could be considered: being
natural, biogeographical, ecological, economic, social, scientific, international and national importance,
practicality, feasibility of establishing as an MPA;
2. Decide on the establishment of MPA trough a consultation process, specially to those communities
affected and all the stakeholders possibly involved, such as the private sector;
3. Carry out a capacity needs assessment for each of the proposed MPAs and then support the provision of
training on management and operations and procurement of equipment for new MPA;
4. Develop and implement actions plans for the new MPA. Action plans would need to consider the
following issues:
a) The rationale for site selection
b) The location and description
c) The present and potential uses
d) The action directions
e) The indicative zoning
f) The indicative regulatory needs
g) The indicative MPA operation requirements
h) The financial considerations
Expected outputs:
a) Mapping of sensitive areas to be protected , going through a participatory process and after gathering the
existing base-line information and using the necessary tools such as GIS and other methods, and propose
the areas for Government approval ;
b) MPAs established and gazetted by Governments;
c) MPAs established under the support of this project up running, including the establishment of a
monitoring system, law enforcement, participatory management, sustainable financing, etc;
d) Capacity to sustain the MPAs at a longer run in place, including the trained staff (park warden,
gamescouts, community officers, social and biological monitors, etc), the proper institutions and the
needed financial mechanisms for their sustainability, at least partial;
e) Establish mechanisms for the integration of MPA into the integrated coastal management and planning
(for surrounding land impacts upon the integrity and functioning of the MPAs).
Immediate objective No.2: improve the management of four existing MPA's, including the involvement of
the local communities in its management
The activities proposed to address this issue consists of:
a) Trough a consultation process decide on four MPAs already existing where management, monitoring
and operations need to be supported; the criteria for their selection should be mainly based on their
biological and social importance;
b) Support selected activities in this four MPAs, including improvement of law enforcement and
improvement of monitoring activities;
c) Establish the mechanisms for the full involvement of local communities/private sector in the
management of MPAs;
d) Other activities towards sustainability should be the same as in objective 1 (training of Park staff,
establishing mechanisms of financial sustainability, among others)
Expected outputs:
a) Four existing MPAs in the region with a better management in place and showing better quality of its
environment through proper assessment;
b) Systems for monitoring, assessment, law enforcement, consultation and decision making are in place in
these MPAs and functioning;
c) Local communities, including the private sector, involved in the management of these four selected
MPAs.
Immediate objective No.3: Establish a representative network of MPA's both with regional and national
importance.
The activities proposed to address this issue consists of:
a) Identify more sensitive and biologically important areas in regions were this process did not take place yet
(note: in Eastern Africa, information is already available from the Eastern African Marine Eco-region
process);
b) Establish network trough the exchange of information, experts and visits by local communities
representatives;
Expected outputs:
a) A network of representative MPAs;
b) Map with the distributions of all coastal species, including appropriate measures of abundance where
possible;
c) Map with existing protected areas and other relevant property-rights.
Immediate objective No.4: Assess the ecological, socio-economy and cultural value of MPA's.
The activities proposed to address this issue consists of:
a) Identification of key indicators of effective environmental conservation management within the Marine
National Parks system and generation and introduction of standard operational procedures for
monitoring and audit".
b) Key Indicators of effective environmental conservation management identified; Standard Operational
Procedures generated; Standard Operational Procedures for management, monitoring and audit
introduced
c) To review and recommend international standards for reporting on the state of the environment in small
island state coastal and marine protected areas with respect to the ICRI Renewed 1998 Call for Action,
and the Biodiversity Convention. Biological monitoring (e.g. coral lifeforms, turtle nesting) water
quality (e.g. microbiological, chemical), infrastructure (e.g. state of moorings), and use (e.g. ticket sales,
violations)
d) Generate electronic driven Standard Operational Procedures for monitoring and reporting
e) Training in use of Standard Operational
Expected outputs:
a) Historical and contemporary information on the physical, chemical, biological and other characteristics of
identified sites. Conservation logistics including human resources (managerial) requirements
b) Identified hotspots in terms of biodiversity attributes, and the areas needed to represent 100% of
subtropical Africa's coastal biodiversity in protected areas.
3.
Project Components/Activities -
The main activities of this project are already described in the previous chapter and are summaries in the table
below. This project will last for five years. The first year of the project will consist of establishing the facilities
for the implementation of the project. This would include the setting of project co-ordination and implementation
structures at local and regional level; logistic arrangements and selection of the pilot project sites. In the second
year, research and studies for helping to shape the future activities of the project will be conducted.
Main activities and time frame.
Activities
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Establishment of the project management structures
Selection of the implementation sites
Conduction of studies
Establishment of new MPAs
Improve/support Management of Existing ones
Establish network
Formulation/Implementation of management
estructures involving local communities/private
Evaluationa nd monitoring of MPAS
Seminars and meetings
This project is transboundary in its nature as marine protected areas, which are supposed to represent a
network of representative ecosystems, are linked throughout the different regions. The currents transport
larvae of corals, plants, fish from different areas in the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic. One of the most
important currents the South Equatorial Current reaches the African continent after passing trough areas
such as the Chagos Archipelago, Seychelles and Comoros. In the Western Africa, the Benguela Current and
the South Atlantic Circulation play also a role in species larvae transport and productivity. The conservation
of areas that are believed to the first deposits of these larvae are very important from the point of view of
management and conservation.
4.
Linkages to Other National or Regional Activities / Transboundary Aspects-
Initiatives outside the programme of intervention that are linked to the present project include:
- WWF-EAME: In partnership with countries, institutions, NGOs and other stakeholders, implementation of
an action plan to reverse the degradation of biodiversity in Eastern African. The process is called Eastern
African marine Eco-regions and in its vision, the peoples of the region want a "healthy marine and coastal
environment that provides sustainable benefits for present and future generations of both local and
international communities who also understand and actively care and maintain its biodiversity and
ecological integrity". The establishment of protected areas in the region is an important part of the action
plan. Areas already receiving support from WWF include Kiunga Reserve, Quirimbas Archipelago and
Bazaruto Archipelago National Park.
- LME Gulf of Guinea.
- GEF Projects that support the establishment of Protected areas: UNDP linked include Guinea Current
LME, Seychelles Environment Programme, Agulhas Current Initiative. WB links includes the Coastal
and Marine Biodiversity Project in Mozambique.
5. Demonstrative
Value
&
Replicability:
Most of the activities in this project are pilot and demonstrative. They are intended to be shown as best
practices and also to be implemented in a manner that is easily replicable such as projects that use locally
available expertise, materials and simple methods.
Other activities are supposed to be "starters" such as the design of legislation and management plans. As
soon as they are done, it is the responsibility of Governments to enforce legislation and implement plans.
There will be already enough awareness from the civil society to make also Governments accountable for the
activities that they are supposed to implement.
6.
Risks and Sustainability:
The present proposal is designed on the basis that financial and necessary logistics will be available. In the
absence of these, the implementation of the project might be difficult.
Extreme weather/climate events such as storms, drought and floods could hamper the smooth
implementation of the project, since access to the sites can be difficult, people might be displaced from their
traditional places, infrastructure may be destroyed. Very little can be done to mitigate these risks.
Political instability might hamper the implementation of project. This issue should be taken into
consideration particularly in this case where the project is to be implemented in several Sub-Saharan Africa,
involving different governments and states with different political orientation.
Bureaucracy could slowdown the implementation of the project. The project officials should have an easy
access to the project implementation sites, the transfer of funds and purchase (import) of equipment have to
be facilitated. This is important considering the fact that the project lifetime is only five years. Loss of time
in bureaucracy should be reduced to a minimum. One possible way of reducing the waste time in
bureaucracy is to involve as much as possible the UN offices and personnel to facilitate the logistics and co-
ordination.
Communication and travelling facilities. Travelling within Africa still is a major problem. In most of the
countries travelling within country, particularly to access the sites targeted in the project (often are remote)
requires major venture. A project of this magnitude that involves several institutions in different countries
requires an effective co-ordination mechanism. Hence, effort needs to be made to improve the
communication (preferable internet) of the implementation institutions.
Sustainability of the project will be assured by the involvement of local community, local expertise and local
institutions in the implementation of the project. The identification of the problems and the designing of the
projects to address these problems were driven locally. Local decision-makers, governments and local
experts where involved as much as possible. This assured ownership and is a step forward towards
sustainability. The implementation of the project should be steered and carried by locals as much as possible.
The sustainability of the project is not a foreseen problem as the project intends to support training, the
studies and monitoring activities only for a certain period. After this period, these activities do not need to be
continued. People will be trained to join Government and NGOs, with already good qualifications.
7.
Stakeholder Participation:
The main stakeholders are:
1. Government; In most of the countries, Governments are in charge of protected areas; they are one of the
most important stakeholder in this process;
2. Research Institutions and Universities: will be called for the research and consultation process
facilitation, support the process with the methodology, base line data and resource people
3. Local NGO's will play a pivotal role as they will serve as the link between Government and local
communities, or between Private and local communities;
4. Local communities., specially those ones involved with the protected areas
5. International organizations that may be involved in implementation and monitoring such as: ICRAN,
ICRI, CORDIO, IUCN, WWF-eco-region;
6. The Private Sector which depends on quality of Environment, specially Eco-Tourism
8.
Project Management & Implementation Arrangements:
This project should not duplicate institutions, both regional and national, where they already exist. In the first
place, at regional level, several institutions have the support of Governments and have a great deal of
experience in these areas. Examples are the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Jakarta Mandate,
which include the support to revision and assessment of MPAs.
Several other regional organizations have been supporting countries in their activities related to the
improvement/setting of MPA: WIOMSA, with training acativities, IUCN with financial support to MPAs
and assessments, WWF in its regional approach, to name a few. They can play an important role in
supporting this activity.
Finally, institutions at national level should be support to implement the project, thus contributing to its
overall capacity. In general, national institutions include the Marine Parks authorities, with different names
in different countries: National Directorate for Conservation Areas in Mozambique, Department of Wildlife
in Ghana, National Parks Board in South Africa, Marine Parks Authority in Seychelles, to name a few.
Universities in the region and specific countries are very fit to carry out the studies. Finally, diferent others
local departments can be on board for the consultation and assessment: departments of environment,
fisheries, etc.
There should be, however, the support for the creation of a steering committee, which will oversee the
activities of this Project. This Steering Committee will be made of Government's representatives, regional
bodies involved and local NGOs and communities, including the private sector
The community must be involved from the planning stage of the activities and in the implementation of the
project at the local level, particularly in the implementation of the management strategies at the local level.
During the research and studies, the community might provide valuable information, particularly regarding
the traditional knowledge, which could complement modern sciences. The involvement of local community
is an assurance of the ownership and of the sustainability of the results of the project.
9.
Project Financing & Duration:
The project is for five years and the total coast of the project amount to an estimated USD 5,500,000.00.
Government and local institutions are expected to contribute in kind. The major components of the project
are as follows:
1. Project management this might take about 10% of the budget. It refers to the cost of the management
of the project both at the regional and national levels. Includes salaries, overheads, rental of offices and
all costs referring to the day-to-day of the management of the project.
2. Research and studies estimated at about 10% of the total budget. Refers to both basic and applied
studies required to developing a system to evaluate effectiveness of MPA.
3. Establishing four (4) new MPAs and implement first activities About 30% of the budget. Refers to
the activities required to identifying and nomination of new protected areas, the whole process of
consultation, as well as to setting basic conditions for their management (i.e. management plans and
structures).
4. Improve the Management of Four (4) MPAs already existing About 40% of the budget. Refers to
the selection of the areas through a participatory process, implementation of activities in the MPA,
improvement of all aspects of management. It includes equipment and infrastructure, training,
installation of monitoring, etc. as well as setting management structures and supporting the
implementation of management of the habitats with the fully involvement of the local community.
5. Establishing networks about 10% of the total budget. Refers to the establishment and operation of a
network of marine protected areas for knowledge sharing.
Table 1.
Component & Activity Financing
External Source of Funds
National Government
Total
Source
1 Source
2 Source
3 Cash
In-kind
Component 1
1,500,000
500,000
2,000,000
Component 2
1,700,000
800,000
2,500,000
Component 3
400,000
100,000 500,000
Component 4
400,000
100,000 500,000
Total
4,000,000
1,500,000
5,500,000
Note: This budget is preliminary and has not undergone a full consultation process with the respective
countries. Therefore, does not indicate the actual financial commitment that would be provided by
participating countries once the project proposal and its components are finalised.
10. Monitoring,
Evaluation
&Dissemination:
The project will have the following process of Monitoring and Evaluations:
A: Quarterly Progress Reports by the Project Executant/Coordinator, which will be identified as being one
national organization and/or a regional body;
B. Twice a year, there is a Steering Committee meeting to evaluate progress. The SC will be composed by
Government representatives, NGO and local communities' representatives, and private sector. The SC may
be established at regional or sub-regional level;
C: By the second year of implementation, evaluation missions nominated by the donor or donors will visit
project sites implementation; the evaluation is repeated every two years of project implementation;
D. The indicators are formulated according to the expected out-puts;
11. Work Plan and Timetable :
Table 2 :
Outline Work Plan and Timetable
1.2
Year7
1 2 3 4 5
1.3
Quarter
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
Establish project
management structure
Component 1
Establish four new MPAs
Activity
1.1
Activity
1.2
Activity
1.3
Component 2
Improve management of 4
MPA with comm.
Involvement.
Activity
2.1
Activity
2.2
Activity
2.3
Component 3
Establish Network
Activity 2.1
Activity 2.2
Component 4
Conduct Studies to
evaluate MPA
Activity
2.1
Activity
2.2
7 Use as many columns as required to cover the entire period of project activities.
ANNEX
Logframe Matrix (4 pages max.)
2 Summary Objectively
verifiable
Means of Verification Critical Assumptions and
indicators
(Monitoring Focus)
Risks
Overall goal of the
intervention
The main objective of this Selected areas have their System for effectiveness of Financial capacity is in
project is to promote the status of management and MPA in place and showing place. Governments
protection of key habitats conservatin increased
improved results. Quality declare new MPAs and
with high ecological value
of biodiversity in selected agree to improve existing
and biological diversity
areas improved.
ones. Stakeholders
such as nursery and
involvement
breading grounds, areas of
high endemism and of
uniqueness nature.
Objectives of the relevant
National Programs and the
country, regional strategy.
1. Existing system of
MPAs in the country
2. Governments have the Yearly monitoring results Monitoring data on quality Government willingness
necessary monitoring show effectiveness of of environment under Economic stability;
& assessment plan in MPAs
protection; species and available funding
place
functional systems in the
improve.
Outcomes that lead to the
achievement of the
outlined regional and
national objectives.
Changes due to
intervention (project
impact)
1. New MPAs declared;
MPAS gazetted
Biological and socio- Government willingness;
economic data
Funds available.
2. MPAs that were
Government willingness,
"Paper Parks" with Results of monitoring and Effectiveness monitored; funding available
improved management. studies show positive biodiversity index
results.
Results to be delivered by
One of risk is the lack of
project which will enable
well trained personnel and
necessary changes (project
effective management
outputs)
1. Studies that show
biodiversity value and Integrated research
Technical reports produced
quality of areas to conducted
Resources and funds
be/already protected.
available to carry research
and studies
2. A system to assess
effectiveness of
Reports
conservation of
Monitoring results are in
existing/new MPAs.
place. Research and
Resources and funds
studies conducted
3
available to carry research
and studies
Components/Activities to
be implemented in order to
obtain planned results
(Project components)
1. Establishing four new
MPA's to protect key Research conducted
Technical reports produced Resources and funds
habitats, where there
available to carry research
is a need and do not
and studies
exist;
2. improve the
management of four
Reports
existing MPA's,
4 Pilot and
Resources and funds
including the
Conservation/demonst
available to carry research
involvement of the
ration projects
and studies
local communities in
Reports
its management;
Research and evaluation as
Resources and funds
3. establish a network of well as monitoring
available to establish and
MPA's;
programme in place and
run the programmes
4. conduct studies to being implemented
assess the ecological,
Reports
socio-economy and Programmes on TV radio,
Resources and funds
cultural value of newspaper, campaigns,
available
MPA's
etc.