UNDP
Global Environment Facility
PROJECT DOCUMENT
Project Number:
RAF/00/G32/A/1G/31
Project Title:
Integrated Management of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem
(BCLME)
Countries:
Angola, Namibia, South Africa
UNDP & Co-financing:
Duration:
60 months
UNDP-GEF:
$15,114,000
Starting Date:
September 2001
Governments:
$15,969,761
(cash/in-kind)
Completion Date:
August 2006
Parallel Financing
ACC/UNDP Sector:
0410 - Water Resources
$ 7,589,989
Planning & Management
TOTAL:
$ $38,737,750
Executing Agency:
UNOPS
Summary
The long-term objective of the project is to undertake the array of priority measures identified in the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) and the Strategic Action Program (SAP), in conjunction with the ongoing activities of the participating
countries, donors, regional organizations, private industry, NGOs, and other affected interests. Major outputs will include
provision of effective inter and intra project coordination and support through establishment of a Program Coordination Unit
(PCU) and the identification and provision of resources for a Lead Agency in each of the participating countries. The project
makes provision for the transfer of increasing amounts of responsibility and ownership of project activities as implementation
proceeds. Other outputs include creating mechanisms for, and steps to be undertaken to effect the sustainable management and
use of the resources of the BCLME; assessment of environmental variability, ecosystem impacts, and improvement of
predictability, preliminary steps to maintain BCLME ecosystem health and effectively control pollution; and support to recruit
new, additional donors and increase the level of co-finance during the life of the project and increased funding for the post-
project programs and activities of the newly created Benguela Current Commission (BCC). The creation of the BCC, which
must be negotiated among the participating countries, and immediate creation of the Interim Benguela Current Commission
(IBCC), are highlights of the country-prepared and endorsed SAP. Seven Ministers have formally signed the SAP. At the
substantive level, special emphasis in this project is being given to effecting the sustainable management and use of the resources
of the BCLME and on assessment of environmental variability, ecosystem impacts, and improvement of predictability of system
dynamics. Outputs and activities related to pollution and the coastal zone, issues whose transboundary impacts are limited at this
point but likely to grow in future, are modest in nature but deemed critical to include as they sustain the broad level of
interministerial participation that has characterized country efforts to date. Including a limited number of pollution and coastal
zone activities is also necessary to the project objective of taking an integrated approach to the BCLME. There were two
substantive questions re. the Project Brief submitted by the Council Member from France, one asked that a concerted effort be
made to ensure that work of the project will be directly applicable to improved management of fish stocks, pollution prevention,
and environmental protection. This question is addressed in Section III, paragraphs 10., 11., and 12. of this document. The
second question, regarding the more exact nature and description of project co-finance, is addressed in Annex A1, an Annex that
was not part of the less detailed Project Brief and is responsive to the request from the Council Member from France.
On behalf of the
Signatures
Date
Name/Title
Government of Angola
Government of Namibia
Government of South Africa
UNOPS
UNDP
ACRONYMS
AOS
Administrative and Operational Services
APR
Annual Project Review
ADB
African Development Bank
BCC
Benguela Current Commission
BCLME
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem
BENEFIT
Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction and Training
BL
Budget Line
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
CTA
Chief Technical Advisor
DANCED
Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
ENVIFISH
Environmental Conditions and Fluctuations in Distribution of Small Pelagic
Fish Stocks (Programme)
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GLOBEC
Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics
GOOS
Global Ocean Observing System
GTZ
(Deutsche) Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
HAB
Harmful Algal Bloom
H2S
Hydrogen Sulfide
IBCC
Interim Benguela Current Commission
IC
Incremental Cost as defined by the GEF
ICSEAF
International Commission for the South East Atlantic Fisheries
IW
International Waters
LEARN
Learning Exchange and Resource Network
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
MARPOL
International Convention for the Control of Pollution by Ships
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NORAD
Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation
PDF-B
Project Development Facility of the GEF
OP
GEF Operational Program
PCU
Program Coordination Unit
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PIRATA
Pilot Research Moored Array in the Tropical Atlantic
PPER
Project Performance and Evaluation Review
PSC
Project Steering Committee
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SAP
GEF Strategic Action Program
SEAFO
Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization
SONANGOL
Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola
SPACC
Small Pelagic Fish and Climate Change
STAP
GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TPR
Tri-Partite Review
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WB
The World Bank
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Main Text
Acronyms
Page 1
Background and Context
PP. 4-6
Rationale and Objectives
PP. 6-7
Rationale for GEF Finance
Page 7
Project Outcomes/Components and Expected Results
PP. 7-18
Risks and Sustainability
PP. 18-19
Stakeholder Participation
PP. 19-20
Project Implementation/Institutional Framework/National and Regional Inst.
PP. 20-22
Incremental Costs Summary
PP. 22-24
Monitoring and Evaluation
PP. 25-26
List of Mandatory and Optional Annexes/List of Attachments
PP. 26-27
Annexes and Attachments
Annex A Incremental Cost Narrative
PP. 28-33
Annex A1 Co-Finance Narrative
PP. 34-37
Annex B Incremental Costs/Complete Matrix
PP. 38-45
Annex C Logical Framework Analysis
PP. 46-52
Annex D STAP Review
PP. 53-55
Annex E Comment on STAP Review
P. 56
Annex F1 Country Actions
PP. 57-64
Annex F2 Description of Baseline/ Acronyms Used
PP. 65-72
Annex F3 List of Relevant Baseline Programmes/Projects
PP. 73-78
Attachment 1 Detailed Project Budget
PP. 79-87
Attachment 2 Detailed Project Timeline/Project Narrative
PP. 88-94
Attachment 3 Standard M&E Activities/Timeframes and Responsibilities
PP. 95-96
Attachment 4 Monitoring and Evaluation Results to Date
PP. 97-104
Attachment 5 Reporting Requirements and Legal Context
PP. 105-108
Attachment 6 Institutional Arrangements
PP. 109-111
Attachment 7 Terms of Reference/BCLME Programme
PP. 112-125
3
I. Background and Context (Baseline Course of Action)
Introduction
1. The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) is situated along the coast of south western
Africa, stretching from east of the Cape of Good Hope in the south, equatorwards to the Angola Front
which is situated near the northern geopolitical boundary of Angola. It is one of the four major coastal
upwelling ecosystems of the world, which lie at the eastern boundaries of the oceans. Like the Humboldt,
California and Canary systems, the Benguela is an important center of marine biodiversity and marine
food production. The BCLME's distinctive bathymetry, hydrography, chemistry and trophodynamics
combine to make it one of the most productive ocean areas in the world, with a mean annual primary
productivity of 1.25 grams of carbon per square metre per year - about six times higher than the North Sea
ecosystem. This high level of primary productivity of the BCLME supports an important global reservoir
of biodiversity and biomass of zooplankton, fish, sea birds and marine mammals, while near-shore and
off-shore sediments hold rich deposits of precious minerals (particularly diamonds), as well as oil and gas
reserves. The natural beauty of the coastal regions, many of which are still pristine by global standards,
have also enabled the development of significant tourism in some areas. Pollution from industries and
poorly planned and managed coastal developments and near-shore activities is, however, resulting in a
rapid degradation of vulnerable coastal habitats.
2. The Namib Desert, which forms the landward boundary of the greater part of the BCLME, is one of
the oldest deserts in the world, predating the commencement of persistent upwelling in the Benguela (12
million years before present) by at least 40 million years. The upwelling system in the form in which we
know it today is about 2 million years old. The principal upwelling centre in the Benguela, which is
situated near Lüderitz in southern Namibia, is the most concentrated and intense found in any upwelling
regime. What also makes the Benguela upwelling system so unique in the global context is that it is
bounded at both northern and southern ends by warm water systems, viz the tropical/equatorial eastern
Atlantic and the Indian Ocean's Agulhas Current respectively. Sharp horizontal gradients (fronts) exist at
these boundaries of the upwelling system, but these display substantial variability in time and in space - at
times pulsating in phase and at others not. Interaction between the BCLME and the adjacent ocean
systems occurs over thousands of kilometers. For example, much of the BCLME in particular off
Namibia and Angola is naturally hypoxic - even anoxic - at depth as a consequence of subsurface flow of
low oxygen water masses southward and eastward from the tropical Atlantic, compounded by depletion
of oxygen from more localised biological decay processes. There are also teleconnections between the
Benguela and processes in the North Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans (e.g. El Niño). Moreover, the
southern Benguela lies at a major choke point in the "Global Climate Conveyor Belt" whereby warm
surface waters move from the Pacific via the Indian Ocean into the North Atlantic on time scales of
decades to centuries. It is noteworthy that the South Atlantic is the only ocean in which there is a net
transport of heat towards the equator. As a consequence not only is the Benguela at a critical location in
terms of the global climate system, but it is also potentially extremely vulnerable to any future climate
change or increasing variability in climate.
Anthropogenic Influences
3. Centuries before the arrival in southern Africa of the first European explorers and settlers, indigenous
coastal peoples sustainably harvested intertidal and near-shore marine life. Commercial exploitation in
the BCLME commenced in the first part of the seventeenth century with the harvesting of fur seals and
was followed by extensive whaling operations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Commercial
trawling started around 1900 and commercial purse-seine fishing for sardine some 50 years later.
Fisheries expanded rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s during a period when there was heavy exploitation of
resources by foreign fleets - resulting in the severe depletion and collapse of several fish stocks including
hake, sardine and anchovy. Superimposed on this fishing pressure was the impact of the inherent natural
environmental ecosystem variability and change. Together with the other factors mentioned in the
4
following paragraphs, this has made the sustainable use and management of BCLME living resources
difficult.
Fragmented Management: A Legacy of the Colonial and Political Past
4. Following the establishment of European settlements at strategic coastal locations where victuals and
water could be procured to supply fleets trading with the East Indies, the potential wealth of the African
continent became apparent. This resulted in the great rush for territories and the colonisation of the
continent - mostly during the nineteenth century. Boundaries between colonies were hastily established,
often arbitrary and generally with little regard for indigenous inhabitants and natural habitats. Colonial
land boundaries in the Benguela region were established at rivers (Cunene, Orange). Not only were the
languages and cultures of the foreign occupiers different (Portuguese, German, English, Dutch) but so
were the management systems and laws which evolved in the three now independent and democratic
countries of the region - Angola, Namibia and South Africa. Moreover, not only were the governance
frameworks very different, but a further consequence of European influence was the relative absence of
inter-agency (or inter-ministerial) frameworks for management of the marine environment and its
resources and scant regard for sustainability. To this day mining concessions, oil/gas exploration, fishing
rights and coastal development have taken place with little or no proper integration or regard for other
users. For example, exploratory wells have been sunk in established fishing grounds and the well-heads
(which stand proud of the sea bed) subsequently abandoned. Likewise the impact of habitat alterations
due to mining activities and ecosystem alteration (including biodiversity impacts) due to fishing have not
been properly assessed.
Historical Influences
5. Prior to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the declaration and the
establishment of Exclusive Economic (or Fishing) Zones, there was an explosion of foreign fleets fishing
off Angola, Namibia and South Africa. The result was a severe depletion of the resources of the BCLME
during the 1960s and 1970s - an effective imperialism and colonisation of the BCLME by mainly First
World countries. This period also coincided with liberation struggles in all three countries, and associated
civil wars. In the case of Namibia, over whom the mandate by South Africa was not internationally
recognised, there was an added problem in that prior to independence in 1990, an EEZ could not be
proclaimed. In an attempt to control foreign exploitation of Namibia's fish resources, the International
Commission for the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF) was established, but this proved to be
relatively ineffectual at husbanding the fish stocks. Until fairly recently, environmental issues and
sustainable management were low priorities on the political agenda in South Africa. Moreover, the
legacy of the past has resulted in a marked gradient in capacity from south to north in the region.
Consequences of civil wars have been the population migration to the coast and localised pressure on
marine and coastal resources (e.g. destruction of coastal forests and mangroves) and severe pollution of
some embayments.
Threats to the System
6. In addition to the above-mentioned issues, the countries have identified a number of threats to, and
issues associated with the management of the BCLME. These include:
· Habitat loss and pollution of the fragile and relatively pristine nature of the coast of the Benguela
region due to uncontrolled tourism development and the ongoing expansion of rural areas;
· Serious degradation of coastal areas adjacent to urban centers in the southern part of the region as a
result of pollution, habitat loss and the unsustainable exploitation of marine and coastal natural
resources;
· Increasing exploitation of the marine biomass by both artisinal and industrial fishers in the absence of
an agreed long-term regional strategy for the sharing of a sustainable economic yield;
5
· Increasing problems of human and ecosystem health caused by introduced species, especially of algae
derived from ballast water, and other ship discharges of non-indigenous species;
· Ongoing mineral and petrogenic energy exploration and production both offshore and in coastal
areas, with their attendant pollution and consequent habitat degradation risks;
· An apparent increase in the frequency of marked environmental changes in the ecosystem manifesting
themselves through fluctuations in abundance and distribution of fish, birds, and mammals;
· Significant losses of biomass among higher order species of the ecosystem, most notably sea-birds
and turles; and
· An apparent opportunity for important climate change monitoring since the BCLME is both a source
and a sink of carbon dioxide and a known predictor of climatic variations in the region.
II.
Rationale And Objectives (Alternative Course Of Action)
7. The outputs and activities of this project have been driven by the results of the TDA, ( Project Brief,
optional, Annex H) and the SAP (full text of SAP, Project Brief, optional, Annex I; Summary of the
Functions and Responsibilities of the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) Project Brief,
optional, Annex J) that were developed by the countries as part of their work under the PDF-B. The
major transboundary issues confronting the countries as they attempt to sustainably manage the resources
of the BCLME are as follows:
Ø A decline in BCLME commercial fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living resources;
Ø Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields in a highly variable environment;
Ø Deterioration in water quality chronic and catastrophic;
Ø Habitat destruction and alteration, including inter alia modifications and seabed and coastal zone and
degradation of coastscapes;
Ø Loss of biotic integrity and threat to biodiversity;
Ø Inadequate capacity to assess ecosystem health; and
Ø Harmful algal blooms
8. The actions identified in the SAP are far-reaching and involve on-going, funded activities by the
countries, regional organizations, the GEF, other donors, and private industry. These activities are
included and briefly described in the project section dealing with co-finance, associated finance, and
baseline assessments. Successful implementation of the SAP will depend upon well coordinated actions
of the full-range of affected stakeholders, which include, inter alia, governments at all levels, regional
organizations, the private sector, non-government organizations (NGOs), Implementing Agencies (IAs),
donors, and commercial and artisinal fishers. Such a level of global and regional cooperation will entail
substantial transaction costs but the effort and the costs are indispensable to successful project
implementation. A central element of the SAP, the IBCC and the eventual Benguela Current Commission
are further described in the Sustainability Section of this proposal.
Long-term Project Objective
9. The long-term objective of the project is to undertake the array of priority measures as identified in the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the Strategic Action Program, in conjunction with the on-going
efforts of the participating countries, donors, regional organizations, industry, NGOs and other affected
interests, to bring about the integrated, sustainable management and protection of the Benguela Current
Large Marine Ecosystem.
6
III.
Rationale For GEF Financing
10. The projected outputs, activities, and relationship of those outputs and activities with those of the
countries, regional entities, and other donors are seen as compatible with the three elements of the GEF-
funded International Waters activities to meet the incremental costs of:
a) assisting groups of countries better understand the environmental concerns of their international
waters and work collaboratively to address them;
b) building capacity of existing institutions, or through new institutional arrangements, to utilize a more
comprehensive approach for addressing transboundary water-related environmental concerns; and
c) implementing sustainable measures that address priority transboundary environmental concerns.
11. The Council Member from France asked that a concerted effort be made to ensure that work
undertaken during the project be directly applicable in terms of improved management of fish stocks,
pollution prevention, and environmental protection. While it is true that the largest share of the project
cost is for studies and knowledge acquisition, it must be borne in mind that the GEF project is an integral
part of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme, of which the country-endorsed, GEF
sponsored Strategic Action Programme (SAP) is a part. Further, implementing real-time management
requires the collection of data in fluctuating systems, and this will improve the management of fish
stocks. The specific measures that will be developed and taken to manage fishstocks will be determined
by the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) and ultimately the Benguela Current Commission
(BCC). The creation of the IBCC and the BCC are salient features of this project. The countries intend
that the BCC shall operate over the long term and thus ensure project sustainability.
12. Further, the Strategic Action Programme lists specific country commitments that are to be the subject
of implementation as part of the overall Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme. The
SAP contains lists of specific issues that the countries will address in specific ways based on advice they
will be receiving from the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) the creation of which is a
specific activity of the GEF funded project. Such issues include, inter alia, the harmonizing of country
specific approaches to shared fish-stocks; fishery conservation methods; cumulative impact assessment;
development of an environmental early-warning system; actions to address harmful algal blooms (HABs);
the harmonization of environmental quality objectives; harmonization of oil spill contingency plans; and
addressing maritime litter. Seen in this light the GEF project makes possible the institutional base and
provides the expertise and knowledge base necessary for the countries to implement the general and
specific objectives that they have committed to in their jointly developed and approved SAP. These
implementation activities will continue under the institutional framework of the IBCC and, when fully
ratified, the Benguela Current Commission (BCC).
IV. Project Outputs/Components and Expected Results
GEF project objectives and activities:
Output 1:
Effective intra and inter-project coordination and support through the
establishment of a Program Coordination Unit (PCU) leading to the creation and functioning of the
Interim Benguela Current Commission, and the identification of, and provision of resources for,
Lead Agencies and Inter-ministerial Committees in each of the participating countries.
Rationale:
13. There is a continuing need for a core-coordination unit similar to that which facilitated the work
undertaken during the PDF-B. The three countries have expressed their satisfaction with a core
coordination concept and have clearly stated their desire to see this concept continued during the SAP
implementation phase. The PCU would be instrumental in securing the requisite amount of transnational
7
and cross-institutional collaboration (international and regional organizations and donors) necessary to the
success of the Project. The core-coordination unit is seen to be a transitional management entity that will
be replaced as part of an orderly transition by the Benguela Current Commission (BCC). Recognizing
that negotiations leading to a legal entity such as the BCC will take time, the countries have agreed to the
immediate creation of an Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC). The IBCC has clearly defined
roles and responsibilities that are described in the SAP. As the IBCC matures, it will increasingly take a
leadership within the project and, eventually, the core-coordinating unit of the project will become the
core-coordinating unit of the IBCC and, later, the BCC. The IBCC will be expected to play the key role
in updating as necessary the existing SAP as the project is implemented. This updating will be completed
after year four of the project. More precise transition arrangements from the IBCC to the BCC, and the
role of the project during this transition, are spelled out in the Implementation Arrangements section of
this Project Brief.
Output 1.1
Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), requisite technical, administrative and secretarial support,
and requisite public participation and communications expertise recruited and hired;
Output 1.2
The PCU created and organized;
Output 1.3
The Project Steering Committee created and provision made for the conduct of its
meetings;
Output 1.4
Assistance is provided to the participating countries for the creation of country specific
Interministerial Coordinating Committees to continue the identification of country-specific,
project related priority actions in support of SAP implementation and for updating of the
SAP after year four of the project.
Output 1.5
In consultation with the respective GEF country focal points, other government officials as
necessary, and the UNDP Country Offices, a Lead Agency is designated for each
participating country and a senior official is named to assume leadership of project
activities and represent the participating country in meetings of the Project Steering
Committee (PSC);
Output 1.6
Assistance provided to the participating countries for activities related to the creation and
functioning of the Interim Benguela Current Commission and, to secure the provision of
scientific advice, assistance to the Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction and
Training Program (BENEFIT); and
Output 1.7
Assistance provided to the participating countries for the coordination of communication
with other, related GEF projects in the Canary Current, Guinea Current, Ballast Water and
other GEF or comparable Large Marine Ecosystem projects at the global level.
Participation in IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast to facilitate inter-project sharing of best
practices and lessons learned in LME and related projects.
Output 2.
Creation of the necessary mechanisms for, and steps undertaken to develop real-time
management capability to better sustain and utilize the resources of the BCLME.
Rationale
14. Work undertaken during TDA development resulted in the conclusion that the sustainable
development and utilization of BCLME resources required the facilitation of the optimal harvesting of
living resources; an assessment of other anthropogenic impacts and natural environmental variability on
these resources and the ecosystem (see Outputs 3 and 4); an assessment of the impacts of mining and
drilling in the waters of the BCLME and policy harmonization among countries for those activities; the
responsible development of mariculture; the protection of vulnerable species and habitats; and an
assessment of non-harvested species and their role in the ecosystem.
15. The countries have committed themselves to the following more integrated approaches related to the
sustainable management and utilization of resources of the BCLME. They will undertake this
8
commitment through the activities envisioned in this project, through their participation in the projects
sponsored by other donors, their ongoing national programs, and their commitments undertaken in the
SAP.
Output 2.1
The development of plans, concrete actions and timetables to achieve optimal
sustainable living marine resource utilization.
16. The causes of the non-optimal use of living marine resources include fishing over-capacity,
inadequate tools to assess the extent of non-optimal, non-sustainable use, the lack of collaborative
assessment and monitoring, insufficient attention to the need to implement an ecosystem approach to
management, inadequate information, inadequate management, inadequate control (e.g fishing and
pollution), lack of collaborative management of shared resources, and international policy on seal
harvesting. The impacts of non-optimal use include, inter alia, high by-catch and undersize catch,
negative impacts on the productivity cycle (due to extraction of higher trophic level species), short and
long-term ecosystem change, resource depletion, human population movements at local and regional
levels, large variations in landings, variation in food supply for birds, seals, etc., conflicts among users
(e.g. artisinal vs. commercial fishers). The risks and uncertainties associated with non-optimal use
include irreversible ecosystem change, changes in biodiversity, habitat destruction, and the collapse of
commercially important stocks. Socio-economic changes include a variable and uncertain job market,
loss of national revenue, lack of food security, erosion of sustainable livelihoods, missed opportunities,
i.e. under-utilization and wastage, and loss of competitive edge in global markets.
17. The transboundary relevance of increasing knowledge about the abundance, distribution and
ecosystem role of presently non-harvested species comes of an understanding that country boundaries do
not correspond with ecosystem boundaries, that most of the region's important harvested resources are
shared between countries, and that they move across national boundaries at times. Over-harvesting of
species in one country can therefore lead to depletion of that species in another, and in changes to the
ecosystem as a whole. Moreover, many resource management difficulties are common to all of the
participating countries and thus the shared experience of participation in the project will yield shared
learning experience.
18. Activities and solutions foreseen include the collection, synthesis and proper use of information to
facilitate reports on biological resources, annual state-of-the-ecosystem reports, and the provision of
advice and recommendations for living marine resource harvesting levels and other matters related to
resource use, particularly fisheries. There will be the creation of the Interim Benguela Commission
whose functions and responsibilities will include, inter alia, the production of annual stock assessments,
annual ecosystem reports, the provision of advice on harvesting resource levels, and other matters related
to resource use, particularly fisheries. A more complete description of the functions and responsibilities
of the Interim Benguela Current Commission can be found in Project Brief, optional, Annex J.
Organizations such as SEAFO, while also working to address the issue of sustainability in the BCLME,
are comprised of member countries that are not situated directly on the BCLME, and are not legally
constituted to accomplish the tasks that the countries wish to have performed by the IBCC, and later, the
BCC. As a result, there is interest in establishing a separate entity comprised of the three nations that do
directly border the resource and that have specific, regionally based authorities regarding action in the
BCLME. The result of activities undertaken by the participating countries will be measurable reductions
in the exploitation of specifically identified natural resources and the provision of information on
transboundary components of the ecosystem which could enable the governments to take appropriate
management/conservation actions, either singly or jointly. Other results will include improved
forecasting, steps to assist in the prevention of irreversible ecosystem change, and the development of
training manuals on management, enforcement, and opportunity creation.
9
Output 2.2
An assessment of the resource use impacts of mining and drilling activities and
development of policy harmonization among participating countries with regard to
mining and drilling uses.
19. The TDA identified the principal causes of real or potential problems associated with mining and
drilling impacts and include the building of pipelines which traverse parts of the BCLME or onshore
pipelines in the proximity of the marine environment, drilling and dredging in the marine environment,
and seismic exploration. The potential impacts of these activities include habitat destruction seabed
modification, coastal soil, beach, intertidal and subtidal profile destruction, conflicts with other resource
users, smothering of benthic fauna and the mortality of pelagic larvae due to sediment plumes. Risks and
uncertainties associated with these activities include cumulative impacts, effects on benthos, biodiversity
change, and cost-benefit questions. The socio-economic consequences potentially include financial and
employment benefits to mining consortia, impacts on miners of exclusion zones and reserves, reduced
artisinal fisheries, effects on coastal tourism, post-mining effects on coastal communities, and effects on
onshore development.
20. The potential transboundary consequences involve the uncertainty of the cumulative effects of the
mining and drilling on benthos that is occurring in the participating countries. Although most impacts
appear localized, habitat alteration due to mining can cause migration of fauna and increase the potential
for system wide ecosystem change. In addition certain mining activities conducted close to national
boundaries could quite easily result in a transboundary effect and have negative consequences in a
neighboring EEZ. The transboundary nature of the issue is also engaged by the fact that the oil/gas and
diamond industries in the three countries are now working together to consolidate baseline information,
and this consolidation will be accelerated as a result of the project. Further, there is a need to standardize
regulation among the participating countries as a means of avoiding the adoption of lowest common-
denominator approaches in the name of competition.
21. Activities and solutions include policy harmonization among the countries, enhanced consultation
between and among sectoral interests, cumulative impact assessments of oil and mining activities in the
BCLME, and a country agreed regional, integrated environmental plan that would include steps to ensure
the effective management of mining impacts and the development of necessary post-mining activities.
Output 2.3
Country agreement on measures necessary to ensure the responsible development of
mariculture.
22. The causes of or dangers associated with the development of mariculture include a failure to develop
appropriate policy and legislation in advance of the development of the industry, differential policy
approaches within each country, lack of enforcement, lack of adequate space, and a lack of information
on safe and appropriate practices on the part of the mariculture industry. Potential negative impacts of
mariculture include a threat to biodiversity including genetic stocks, species introductions, disease,
conflict over limited space, competition for markets, and eutrophication. Risks and uncertainties include
environmental variability, market uncertainty, and questions related to economic feasibility. The socio-
economic considerations of mariculture include opportunities for job creation and sustainable livelihoods,
revenue generation, potential tourism loss in heavily utilised areas and the introduction into the region of
a potential growth industry.
23. The potential transboundary consequences include the possibility of biological invasions into adjacent
countries by alien species, and threats to regional biodiversity. Cooperative transboundary activities that
promote the responsible development of mariculture will minimize negative environmental consequences
and may help reduce the pressure on traditionally over-harvested resources. Further, differences in policy
among countries could lead to conflict (e.g. as a result of the spread of disease from one country to
another, an alien species invasion of the regional ecosystem from a country point source, or market
conflicts), and differential development of the industry.
10
24. Activities and solutions include a socio-economic assessment of mariculture's potential in the region,
feasibility assessments, the formulation of harmonized policy for the region, and the development of
sustainable mariculture training packages aimed at managers, communities, and potential entrepreneurs.
Output 2.4
Development of measures to achieve protection of vulnerable species and habitats.
25. The TDA identified the causes of species and habitat loss as including salt production, population
migration to coastal areas, coastal pollution (including that from offshore mining), over-harvesting of
commercial species, by-catch, the competition for space and prey (e.g. seals, birds, and humans), and
potentially destructive fishing practices such as benthic trawling. Impacts associated with these causes
include threats to the global biodiversity value of coastal bird populations, regional ecosystem change,
loss of wetlands, loss of fish spawning grounds, reduced populations of affected species, and increased
competition for over-exploited resources. The TDA did not identify any risks and uncertainties.
Potential socio-economic consequences deriving from the current lack of sufficient attention to vulnerable
species and habitats include losses in tourism numbers and overall revenue as marine mammals, seabirds,
turtles and their habitat contribute extensively to the ecosystem's appeal to tourists and downstream
effects of habitat loss on economics of fisheries operations.
26. Identified transboundary consequences include the observation that most vulnerable species (e.g
orange roughy), including several endemics (e.g. pelagic gobies), occur throughout the region or migrate
between countries, thus ensuring that national activities and policies are likely to have transboundary
consequences. Past over-exploitation of targeted species has altered the ecosystem as a whole, having an
impact at all levels including top predators and resulting in a reduction of the gene pool. Some species
(e.g. African penguin) are threatened or endangered. Exotic species have been introduced into the
BCLME (e.g. European/Mediterranean black mussel) displacing endemic species and altering the
ecosystem. Some vulnerable habitats occur regionally (e.g. wetlands and lagoons), while others in one
country (e.g. mangroves) are of importance to migratory species which move across national borders.
These considerations make it necessary to harmonize, to the extent possible, national policies to protect
vulnerable habitats and species throughout the ecosystem, such as existing Ramsar sites.
27. Activities and solutions would include an assessment of the status of vulnerable species and habitats
strengthening the national level work that has begun in some of the participating countries. The overall
outputs would be a report on the overall status of the ecosystem, the impacts of human activities on the
relationships among non-consumptive resources (including non-harvested species), together with
recommendations for appropriate national and regional level species and habitat protection approaches.
Output 2.5
Develop an understanding of the relationship between harvested and non-harvested
species and determine the role of non-harvested species in the ecosystem as a means to
improve stock management practices and to assist in the conservation of bio-
diversity;
28. The role of non-harvested species in the ecosystem is largely unknown except at a quite generic
level. The causes of this absence of necessary, specific information is simply that, with few exceptions
(e.g. some seabirds and marine mammals) assessment of non-harvested species has not been a priority
and thus not conducted. Some non-harvested species are likely to have high biomass (e.g. lantern fish)
with high potential for harvesting, and with it job creation and the lessening of pressure on currently over-
exploited resources. However, the impacts of harvesting "new species" on food webs and on currently
harvested species are uncertain and thus lead to increased risks and uncertainties. These relate to lack of
information on predator-prey relationships, large, currently unmeasured biomass (e.g. lantern fish and
gobies), market potential, economic viability, unknown impacts of harvesting, and the impact of
pollution. Socio-economic considerations associated with unharvested species include potential to
increase regional food security, job creation, and revenue generation.
11
29. The transboundary relevance of increasing knowledge about the abundance, distribution, and
ecosystem role of presently non-harvested species stems from the fact that many of these species are
known to straddle or thought to straddle geopolitical boundaries. It is quite conceivable that, should one
country commence harvesting of such species in the absence of adequate knowledge and without a proper
understanding of the general biology and distribution dynamics, the result could be a negative impact on
the ecosystem as a whole and on existing user rights of neighboring countries which presently target
higher trophic level species. Sharing of knowledge, and understanding between and among countries with
respect to non-harvested species is thus a responsible management approach within the BCLME and a
key to the responsible, integrated management and future utilization of "new" resources. National
decisions to proceed with the harvest of currently non-harvested species would be best undertaken
through discussions with those nations who share the regional ecosystem. Success in the work of this
output will likely be useful to, and replicable in, other regions of the world where there is a need to
address transnational issues related to the shared use of LMEs.
30. The activities and solutions associated with this output would include dedicated joint surveys and
assessments of non-harvested species to provide a baseline for integrated ecosystem management and
development of an ecosystem model for such management.
Output 3.
Improved understanding of BCLME environmental variability, ecosystem impacts
created by environmental variability, and thus improve predictability as a means of
strengthening the management of fish-stocks;
31. Work undertaken during the TDA demonstrates that the long-term sustainability of the BCLME
requires a major effort to reduce the significant amount of uncertainty re. environmental variability and its
ecosystem impacts, and thus improve the current level of system predictability. It also resulted in the
understanding that there was a need to strengthen national and regional capacity and training to that end.
The consequences of harmful algal blooms and the need to act on them was also a conclusion of the TDA.
As with Output 2, the countries, through the activities envisioned in this project, through their
participation in the projects sponsored by other donors, their ongoing national programs, and their
commitments undertaken in the SAP have committed themselves to the following more specific outputs
related to the sustainable management and utilization of resources of the BCLME:
Output 3.1 A reduction in uncertainty and improvement in the predictability of the BCLME as a
means to improve management of regional (LME) resources.
32. The BCLME is a complex and highly variable system for which there is evidence of system change
and fragmentary but important evidence of increasing instability/variability. Scales of variability include:
large scale sustained events, decadal and other long and mid-term climatic changes, and high frequency of
short-lived events and/or episodic events. It is the longer term changes that have the most significant
impact on the living marine resource. Human impacts on the BCLME (e.g. fishing, pollution, coastal
development) are superimposed on this inherent natural variability, and the combined effects of
anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. climate change) and natural variability have been implicated in ecosystem
change and the collapse of harvested resources. There is also considerable uncertainty regarding
ecosystem status and yields. Lack of information about and understanding of environmental variability
and system wide impact hampers sustainable management of the BCLME resources and results in the
non-optimal utilization of these resources.
33. Causes associated with uncertainty and poor predictability include the complexity of the processes
involved, a poor understanding of these complex processes and cause and effect relationships, a poor
understanding of the role of global driving forces, lack of data and information, inadequate mathematical
models, and a lack of capacity to address these issues. Impacts and ecosystem consequences of the
environmental variability are, inter alia, changes to coastal ecosystems from altered winds (strength and
12
direction), including changes in coastline, changes in coastline morphology, and damage to coastal
infrastructure, unpredictable variations in zooplankton and fish egg/larval survival, unpredictable changes
in fish growth, unpredictable changes in species abundance, composition, distribution and availability,
regime shifts, cross-boundary fish, seabird and seal movements, change in flux of CO2, methane and H2S
between atmosphere, ocean and sediments, difficulties in managing resources sustainably, operational
difficulties with resource utilization, and assessment of anthropogenic impacts. Unless this inherent
uncertainty is reduced and predictability increased it will be extremely difficult to more effectively
manage such impacts as changes to coastal ecosystems.
34. Risks and uncertainties. A risk to the sustainable use of the BCLME as a consequence of the
inadequate information and understanding of the environmental variability and its ecosystem impacts (i.e.
poor predictability) is that these natural processes, super-imposed on fishing and other forms of human
use of the ecosystem, including climate change, could result in major ecosystem changes, collapse of key
fish stocks, and threats to biodiversity. The risk associated with attempts to improve predictability of
variability and ecosystem consequences is that the system may be so complex as to make forecasting
problematic (for example separation of anthropogenically-driven long term net change from natural
cycles). Potential socio-economic consequences of poor predictability include uncertain employment (job
losses and gains), over and under-utilization of resources, lack of food security, human population
movements, high production costs, national/regional conflict, reduced capacity to support artisinal
fisheries, and unpredictable changes in government revenue, private income and exports.
35. The transboundary relevance includes, inter alia, consequences for global climate change (carbon
dioxide and methane flux), and the potential for shifts in regional distribution of biota, loss of
species/biodiversity, altered food webs, and disruption of faunal migrations. They also include
unsustainable management of shared and straddling fish-stocks, altered fish spawning patterns and
population shifts, unpredictable fluctuations and availability of fish-stocks, unpredictable and variable
distribution of fishery benefits, regional economic instability and unemployment, and regional conflicts
among users. More specifically, the Benguela environment is highly variable and the ecosystem is
naturally adapted to that variability. However, sustained large-scale environmental events such as
Benguela Niños, episodic hypoxia/anoxia, Agulhas intrusions and changes in winds all affect the
ecosystem as a whole, compounding negative effects from fishing. These events and changes generally
have their origin and cause outside of the BCLME, but are of such a scale that the impacts occur in
BCLME international areas of the three countries, i.e. the changes are transboundary in nature. The poor
ability to predict events and changes limit the capacity to manage effectively system wide. In addition,
the BCLME is believed to play a significant role in global ocean and climate processes and may be an
important site for the early detection of global climate change.
36. Activities and more specific outputs will include development of regional early warning systems for
major environmental events/change, participation in and taking advantage of the Global Ocean Observing
System (GOOS), the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), Climate Variability and Predictability
Project of the World Climate Research Programme (CLIVAR) and other mechanisms as appropriate, the
quantification of the utility/application of the Pilot Research Moored Array in the Tropical Atlantic
(PIRATA), in cooperation with the South African Development Community (SADC). Other activities
and more specific outputs include the production of the information needed to design
monitoring/predictive systems, quantification of carbon dioxide flux, assembling a record of decadal
ecosystem changes, developing a regional environmental analysis/reporting system/network, expanded
knowledge and expertise on global climate change links, the establishment of regional advisory groups,
establishment of a regional environmental network, and the establishment of links with other GEF LME
projects globally.
13
Output 3.2 Strengthened capacity and the provision of targeted training required to effect
improved management of the shared resources of the BCLME;
37. There is a lack of capacity, expertise and ability to monitor environmental variability, to assess the
linkages and ecosystem impacts of this variability, and to develop the predictive capability required for
sustainable integrated BCLME management. There is also an unequal distribution of capacity availability
(human and infrastructure) between and among participating countries. The participating countries, in the
endorsed SAP, recognize this issue as being "...a high priority if not the highest priority, in the region."
The causes of this lack of capacity and targeted training include limited amounts of inter-country
exchange of training opportunity, the degradation and downsizing of research institutions, inadequate
training programs, lack of recurrent financing, lack of skills to maintain equipment, lack of equipment and
supplies, lack of personnel, low salaries, lack of integration of ecosystem concerns in policy formulation,
and, associated with much of the above, a regional brain-drain.
38. The impacts of limited capacity and inadequate training include poor regional decision making
processes, regional imbalances in baseline information, predictive capability, data collection, etc.,
inadequate and (among participating countries) uneven information to determine indicators of future
change, unsatisfactory levels of interaction between and among national and regional level institutions,
and information that is not compatible across agencies and among countries. The risks and uncertainties
associated with the current situation include the question of whether the countries will commit to
supporting over the long term capacity development nationally and regionally, particularly in times of
political and economic uncertainty. Socio-economic consequences of not strengthening capacity include
the potential for sub-optimal use of renewable resources due to lack of information, knowledge and
understanding required for resource management, unequal resource access (among national and regional
interests), absence of full stakeholder participation, creation of conflict between and among users, poorly
informed and thus advised governments at all levels, and low institutional sustainability.
39. The transboundary consequences of lack of capacity include uncoordinated regional resource
management, research and monitoring programs, inability to effectively harmonize management
approaches as the south-north capacity gradient leads to uneven research and monitoring effort in the
system as a whole, and a continuation of a fragmented, ad-hoc approach to the ecosystem as a whole.
Activities of this output will include an assessment of capacity needs to address transboundary issues,
creation of incentives to retain trained staff, development of training partnerships with the private sector,
the creation of regional multidisciplinary working groups, the exchange of personnel between countries to
gain and transfer expertise and knowledge, and improved reliance on the Internet to maximize
networking. More specific outputs will include a written regional strategy for capacity development, a
written strategy for job creation, the development and application of training courses, and a public
information and environmental education program (one pilot demonstration project in each of the
participating countries). It is hoped that demonstrating to the national governments that the benefits to be
derived from the development of and suitably trained and remunerated workforce are greater than the
costs associated with that effort.
Output 3.3
A program to mitigate the negative effects of harmful algal blooms (HABS) and
initiate measures to reduce marine litter.
40. Harmful algal blooms are a conspicuous feature of upwelling systems. The frequency of occurrence,
spatial extent and duration of harmful algal blooms appear to be increasing in the BCLME. The harmful
effect of these blooms is manifested in two main ways: the production of toxins which cause mortalities
of shellfish, fish and humans; and anoxia in in-shore waters which also can lead to massive mortalities of
marine organisms. The causes of these harmful algal blooms include natural processes, the introduction
of cysts in surface waters, nutrient loading of coastal waters from anthropogenic activities, the changing
state of the BCLME, and the introduction of exotic species. The impacts of harmful algal blooms include,
as already mentioned, mortalities among human consumers of contaminated marine organisms, mass
14
mortality of marine organisms, disruption of mariculture activities, interference with the recreational use
of the marine environment, and anoxia which may in turn cause massive mortalities among marine
organisms. Risks and uncertainties include a potential increase or decrease in incidence and intensity of
HABs, the role of HABs as a whole, and the contribution of nutrient loading too the incidence of HABs.
Socio-economic consequences of not instituting proposed actions include those deriving from human loss
of life, loss of tourism revenue, increased cost of shellfish production, and the loss of
shellfish/fish/mariculture markets and jobs.
41. Transboundary consequences include the incidence and effects of HABs across all three countries,
and across national boundaries, thus making regional cooperation highly desirable. The countries,
recognizing the need for transboundary action on HABs, have stated in their SAP that they will create "A
regional HAB reporting network....during 2001 with a view to its implementation in 2002", and that
"Regional contingency plans for assessing the transboundary effects of HABs will be developed and
implemented by December 2002." The SAP also recognizes that work on HABs will be an essential
requirement to develop a plan to bring about regional mariculture policy harmonization. Activities and
more specific outputs will include the development of an HAB reporting system for the BCLME, the
development of regional HAB contingency plans, community projects linked too ministries of health,
improvement in national capacities to monitor HAB toxins/species, a HAB regional network, a regional
contingency plan, development and distribution of public information materials, and development of pro-
active management strategies.
42. As populations increase, and as fishers, both commercial and artisinal seafarers, and consumers
generally continue to engage in practices that create marine litter, the BCLME will experience increasing
degradation and certain species will be placed at risk. The causes of marine litter include rapid
urbanization and unplanned settlement, with variable and limited or no control by local authorities, over-
taxed formal waste management infrastructure, lack of public awareness of impacts on ecosystems, "lost"
fishing gear and the non-returnable, disposable nature of containers and packaging used in the region.
The impacts of these causes include dangers posed to biodiversity particularly with regard to plastics that
are ingested by organisms causing death. There are also the problems of aesthetic diminution of the
BCLME with likely negative effects on tourism. The risks and uncertainties associated with marine litter
include a lack of information on the exact quantities of these hazardous materials finding their way into
the BCLME, a need to identify areas of waste accumulation through natural processes, the positive job
impacts (job creation in the informal sector) that may be balanced by an incentive not to litter, and the
potential degree of transboundary movement of marine litter.
43. Activities to address this issue in this phase of BCLME work are quite modest and intended to assist
the countries in focusing on this issue of growing importance. Outputs will include beginning the process
of regional standardization of national policies, initial efforts to increase the extent of current regulatory
enforcement of current, the development of additional standards and legislation, and a modest pilot
project in Angola for seafarer education.
Output 4
Undertake preliminary steps to maintain BCLME ecosystem health and effectively
manage pollution as a means to safeguard fishery and other resources.
44. Coastal development and rapid expansion of coastal cities, much of which was either unforeseen or
unplanned, is creating pollution "hotspots" along the coast of the BCLME such as at Luanda Bay, Walvis
Bay and Saldanha Bay. These hotspots are undermining the region's emerging trade strategies that are
based on "clean and green" marketing or marine products. Human populations will likely continue
migration to coastal areas that will exacerbate existing hotspots and create new problem areas. Under
these circumstances an anticipatory approach to minimize future, population related pressure on BCLME
resources is necessary and warranted. Further, aging waste-water treatment infrastructure and inadequate
policy, monitoring and enforcement is aggravating the problem. A substantial volume of oil is being
15
transported in coastal areas adjacent to, and across waters of the BCLME. This poses a significant and
increasing risk to contamination of large areas of fragile coastal environments damage to straddling fish
stocks. In addition, there is a growing problem of marine litter throughout the BCLME. At this point the
transboundary impacts of these growing and/or potential problems is unknown, but as these and other
pollution issues grow along with coastal populations, undertaking the following, limited, proactive
measures will assist in minimizing future damage to the BCLME from pollution effects.
Output 4.1 Develop measures to help prevent major oil spills as a means, inter alia, of protecting
vulnerable BCLME Ramsar sites.
45. The questionable sea worthiness of some oil transport vessels and poorly equipped vessels, present
and possible future military conflict, sabotage, human error, etc. are all potential causes of oil spills. The
impacts of a major spill would include coastline degradation, mortality of coastal flora and fauna, and
impacts on pelagic habitat. Risks and uncertainties would include the recovery period, the adequacy of
cost recovery mechanisms, if any. Socio-economic consequences include opportunity costs (e.g. for
tourism, fisheries and salt production), altered yields, reduced resource quality, and aesthetic impacts.
46. The transboundary consequences of oil spills come of the necessity to develop a regional oil spill
prevention strategy. Additionally, the countries believe that resource sharing among them for
containment, surveillance, and rehabilitation would make possible a level and quality of response that,
acting singly, they could never hope to achieve. Development of a regional approach is also sensible
given the fact that spills on the open ocean are quite capable of having transboundary impacts. Further,
oil spills also have potentially severe consequences for the three coastal Ramsar sites located in the
BCLME.
47. The specific output of this activity would be a regional oil-spill prevention strategy building on
existing plans in the three countries, with provision made for the sharing of oil spill related resources, the
sharing of rehabilitation plans. Cooperation with and learning from the experiences of other on-going
GEF projects and other ocean oil and exploration drilling experience at the global level will be
undertaken.
Output 4.2 Develop specific programs and measures to address deteriorating coastal water quality.
48. Unplanned coastal development, chronic oil pollution, industrial pollution, sewage, air pollution, the
polluting effects of mariculture, lack of ship related pollution policies to deal with waste and oil recycling,
and the growth of coastal communities are all contributing causes of the growing BCLME pollution
problem. The impacts are those related to public health threats, reduced yields, unsafe edible organisms,
changes in species dominance, ecosystem health and resilience, and job losses (e.g. mariculture, fish
processing) across the region. Risks and uncertainties associated with a no-action scenario include few or
no baseline data from which to work, poor or no performance standards and pollution thresholds to be met
by polluters, the question of the extent of the national level commitment to capacity building to engage
pollution issues, and questions concerning cause-effect relationships. Socio-economic consequences
include loss of tourism and its associated revenue, higher health costs, altered yields, reduced resource
quality, aesthetic impacts, lowered quality of life, and loss of employment.
49. The potential transboundary consequences of pollution include the transport of pollutants across
boundaries by way of prevailing currents (although the exact extent and effects are not known), migration
of marine organisms as they seek to avoid polluted areas (e.g. Seals and seabirds), and negative impacts
on straddling stocks. The countries recognize the strengths that come of taking a regional approach to the
issue of coastal pollution. Accordingly, the countries have, in their SAP, committed themselves to the
joint development of regional environmental quality indicators, regional proposals for marine pollution
control and surveillance, and regional monitoring/inspection of the coastal zone and regional enforcement
16
of standards. The countries will be placing the emphasis on prevention rather than more costly, after-the-
fact remediation.
50. Specific outputs will include development of shared solution for water quality management through
the use of regional workshops. Outputs will also include three demonstration projects on pollution
control and prevention, (development of a regional pollution monitoring framework, training in marine
pollution control and support for joint surveillance activities. In addition to these project-related outputs,
the SAP includes a participating country commitment to jointly develop water quality criteria for
receiving waters by June 2002.
Output 4.3
Specific measures and approaches to retard or reverse habitat destruction and
alteration.
51. Several important habitats in the BCLME (e.g. coastal, benthic, and estuarine habitats) have been
negatively altered or lost as a consequence of development and other human impacts. The causes of
habitat destruction and alteration include diamond mining, demersal trawling, variable river sediment
input and changing land use, oil and gas exploration, production, and spills, mariculture, natural sediment
transport, built coastal structures, human settlement and resource use, mangrove and other coastal forest
harvesting, and coastal vehicle tracks. Impacts can be categorized into three areas: coastal progradation
and redistribution, nearshore (i.e. less than 30 m), and shelf-slope (200m). The more specific impacts of
habitat alteration or destruction include increased turbidity (sediment plumes), benthic community
destruction, mobilization of heavy metals, faunal impacts (e.g. reproductive failure), increased frequency
of HABs, coastal erosion, and increased organic loadings and anoxic conditions. Risks and uncertainties
include an almost complete lack of data, absence of a framework for impact monitoring, cumulative local
vessel impacts, climate change effects, and the problem of distinguishing impacts from natural spatial and
temporal conditions. Socio-economic consequences include costly infrastructure rehabilitation and
maintenance, losses in mariculture production, negative impacts on human health via heavy metal
contamination, lost fishery productivity (e.g. rock lobster), and opportunity costs.
52. The transboundary consequences include sediment remobilization across national boundaries (e.g. as
a result of diamond mining), migrations of marine fauna due to habitat loss, and possible transboundary
movement of sediment. As with Output 4.3., a modest effort is envisioned to begin a regional process of
engaging this issue. Specific outputs will include a comprehensive status report to fully document the
current status of habitat loss, development of a regional early warning system and action plan, and an
assessment of transboundary causality. Outputs will also include the adaptation and application of
existing, standard environmental criteria, adaptation and application of existing regional structures to
address problems, and adaptation and application of existing expertise in coastal processes.
Output 5 Recruitment of additional donors and increase the level of co-finance during project
implementation.
53. During year one of this SAP implementation project it will be timely to sponsor a donor conference
using the GEF project as leverage for the creation of necessary additional donors and, as deemed
necessary and appropriate by the participating countries, the securing of loans. The UNDP will partner
with the World Bank in these efforts, and the World Bank has agreed to this level of participation. The
African Development Bank (AfDB) will also be encouraged to participate. Activities will include:
Output 5.1 Development and implementation of a plan for continuing donor contact;
Output 5.2 Planning and implementation of 2 donor conferences, one shortly after GEF project final
approval and one immediately prior to SAP implementation;
17
Output 5.3 Development of donor conference reports and preparation of a strategy for ongoing BCLME
finance.
V. Risks and Sustainability
Commitment
54. The long term success of regional scale marine ecosystem management programs, such as the one
proposed here depend, inter alia, on the political willingness of the participating countries to cooperate,
their willingness to continue project programs and approaches after the life of the GEF intervention, and
the extent to which activities successfully engage system users of the resources that are the subject of
intervention. For the long term sustainability of the BCLME Program it will be necessary for
governments to see clearly, by year five, that the on-going benefits which they will derive from the BCC,
and their own further investment in the Program, will be far greater than the costs which would accrue to
them if these mechanisms were not in place.
55. In relation to political willingness, the level of project risk is seen as low in Namibia and South
Africa and moderate in Angola. Namibia, where fisheries account for ten percent of GDP, has shown a
very high degree of technical and political level commitment to the project, and has indicated its strong
willingness to continue. South Africa has shown a strong level of interministerial involvement in the
PDF-B and, as with Namibia, the level of this strong interministerial commitment is likely to continue in
the future. It might well have been expected that civil strife in Angola would have resulted in an uneven
commitment of that country to this project. This has not been the case. Interministerial involvement on
the part of Angola has characterized its presence at every major meeting of the BCLME, and the fact that
two key Ministers, including the Minister of Petroleum, have signed the SAP is indication that the
Government of Angola, despite the ongoing civil strife, is committed to the full project. There is a
growing realization on the part of the countries that environmental sustainability is inextricably linked to
food production, tourism, sanitation, population movements, and thus regional stability. They recognize
that their ability to craft an integrated approach to the BCLME is crucial to that realization.
Sustainability
56. The risk of this GEF-initiated program and activities related to it, ending after the life of the project
are also seen as low. Country completion of the TDA, a jointly undertaken, interministerial exercise
characterized by strong cooperation and openness, led to the creation of the SAP. The SAP itself is a
document containing a level of country commitment, particularly through the self-sustaining mechanism
of the Benguela Current Commission (BCC), that is thorough in its programmatic approach, clear in its
objectives, and specific in relation to the country commitment to sustain important BCLME initiatives
after the life of the GEF intervention. The countries will, singly and jointly, continue aggressive attempts
to solicit additional donor support during the life of the GEF project and beyond through efforts
coordinated by the BCC.
57. It is recognized that negotiations necessary to create the permanent Benguela Current Commission
will take some time, perhaps as long as the project itself. Recognizing this, the countries have pledged
themselves to immediately create the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) which will have
specified functions and responsibilities. The countries will seek to adopt, through their appropriate
national mechanisms, country specific policy/institutional/legal reforms necessary to implement the
agreed upon recommendations of the IBCC. The IBCC will be comprised of three representatives from
each of the participating countries. Terms of office shall be for six years, thus actually extending beyond
the life of the GEF intervention. The IBCC will also have non-voting representation from SEAFO,
UNDP, SADC, and the PCU Secretariat. As previously mentioned, other entities such as SEAFO are
comprised of members that do not directly abut the BCLME, and thus the countries are interested in
establishing a separate entity comprised of the three nations that do directly border the resource. The
18
World Bank shall be represented on the IBCC for the duration of the project. Specialists and
representatives of other stakeholders and regional and international organizations will be invited to join
the IBCC from time to time as appropriate. The IBCC shall be supported by five Advisory Groups on
fisheries and other living marine resources, environmental variability and ecosystem health, marine
pollution, legal and maritime affairs, and information and data exchange. The more specific functions of
the Advisory Groups are described in the text of the SAP (see project brief, optional Annex I).
58. Sustainability will also be enhanced by a progressive transfer of project leadership, overall project
management and output production directly to the country formed IBCC and, later, the BCC. The IBCC
and eventually the BCC will assume the leadership role for the project as those institutions are formed
and mature. Specifically, toward the end of year three of the project the PSC will have the opportunity to
name a new CTA for the remaining two years of the project. The PSC could at that time, should it so
desire, assure progressive transfer of project responsibility to the regional level by acting to hire a
regionally-based CTA. Assuming adequate regional capacity has been developed, in year five overall
project management will be absorbed into the IBCC or, should negotiations for the formation of the BCC
be concluded, that institution, which would have legal standing, would assume project responsibility. The
existing PCU would at that time become the Commission core Secretariat, with additional staff resources
being provided by the countries themselves as deemed necessary by the Commission and the countries.
Last, sustainability will be enhanced through UNDP discussions with the participating countries on the
incorporation of project related capacity building assistance into UNDP regular programs.
Financial Sustainability
59. Financial sustainability is enhanced by the country commitment to sustain the Benguela Current
Commission beyond the life of the GEF intervention, a continuation and building upon the already
substantial level of co-finance for the project (approximately 165% of the GEF contribution), and the
strong country and international donor support for the work of BENEFIT, which will serve as the science
"arm" of the BCLME project, consistent with the scope of BENEFIT. The SAP, signed by seven
Ministers of the participating countries, is explicit in stating that "Member states agree to commit
themselves to continuing the BCLME Programme beyond the GEF intervention, and will endeavour to (a)
adopt appropriate legislation, (b) implement economic instruments and (c) establish a permanent
Benguela Current Commission with a supporting Secretariat. A financial plan that will make provision
for future sustainable funding will be prepared, including a study on the feasibility of establishing an
Environmental Fund." The current level of support available to BENEFIT, and the donor and private
sector level of support to the project is secure and projected to increase. This will be enhanced by the
inclusion of Output 5 in this proposal, an Output expressly targeted to plan and implement donor
conferencing to increase the current level of co-finance available to the project and to secure funding that
would transcend the life of the direct GEF involvement. In addition, the countries will undertake a
feasibility study to determine options to assure continued, self-finance of key program elements including
the possibility of instituting fish landing levys to fund such ongoing costs as those associated with the
Secretariat of the IBCC and the BCC.
VI.
Stakeholder Participation
60. The seed for the BCLME Program was sown at a workshop/seminar held in Swakopmund, Namibia
in mid-1995. This paved the way for the development of a PDF Block B Grant Proposal to GEF, and its
subsequent approval and implementation in 1998. In July 1998 the First Regional BCLME Workshop,
attended by approximately 100 stakeholders and regional and international experts, was held in Cape
Town, followed by a formal meeting of key stakeholders. The attendance and proceedings of this
workshop are attached to this document as Annex M.
19
61. Stakeholders have and will continue to include the ministries in Angola, Namibia and South Africa
responsible for the environment, marine resources, mines, energy, tourism, science and technology,
transport, ports and harbors, etc.; representatives of relevant industry sectors such as diamond mining,
fishing (including artisanal fishers), oil and gas (e.g. SONANGOL from Angola); education and training
establishments - universities and technikons; regional and local authorities and NGOs. The lead
stakeholders are: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Namibia; Ministries of Fisheries and
Environment, Angola; Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa.
62. The First Regional Workshop identified the issues and problems/constraints in the BCLME and
possible solutions. As a follow-up, six comprehensive syntheses and assessments of information on the
BCLME (thematic reports) were produced, viz: fisheries, oceanography and environmental variability,
diamond mining, coastal environments, off-shore oil and gas exploration/production, socio-economics.
These reports were reviewed at the Second Regional BCLME Workshop held in Namibia in April 1999,
and used as a basis together with input from the First Workshop and participants for drafting the TDA and
setting the SAP framework. Actions subsequently have led to the finalisation of the TDA, SAP, Project
Brief and of the BCLME Program.
63. Social assessments included in this project proposal will analyse the costs and benefits of actions, in
particular the policy actions, outlined in the SAP. This is a complex task in view of its nature and scope,
and can only be undertaken effectively after the BCLME Program has been funded and officially
launched. The IBCC and its subsidiary bodies will undertake the social assessments. Several of the key
regional policies, frameworks and agreements will be developed by 2003. The countries as part of their
commitment in the SAP have pledged to establish five Advisory Groups to help form and inform the
process of project implementation. The countries have stated that the "Involvement with relevant NGOs
is encouraged, particularly in the improvement of public participation and awareness in all of the focal
areas they cover." These activities will include Advisory Groups on Fisheries and Other Living Marine
Resources, Environmental Variability and Ecosystem Health, Marine Pollution, Legal and Maritime
Affairs, and Information and Data Exchange. The nature and functions of the Advisory Groups will be
reviewed on an on-going basis by the PSC. Public Involvement will be enhanced by the creation of a
Stakeholder Consultative Committee that will meet annually and act as a forum for all affected
Stakeholders. Further provision for public involvement will be made through each of the Outputs of the
project and through those respective budget allocations. Provision of financial resources for public
involvement will also, where appropriate, be built into the project at the Activity level. Public
Involvement resources available for Outputs 2, 3, and 4 will total US $325,000, exclusive of financial
resources that the countries themselves, through their co-finance, will also make available for public
involvement activities.
64. While benefits from the BCLME will obviously accrue to the three participating countries and
SADC, the principal beneficiary of the BCLME Program will be the regional - and ultimately global -
environment as a consequence of the application of sustainable integrated management of the BCLME
and the universal application of principles and concepts developed here. The achievement of the
sustainable use of the BCLME will benefit the populations in the three participating countries.
VII. Project Implementation, Institutional Framework and National and Regional Institutions
Project Implementation
65. The United Nations Office of Program Services (UNOPS) will be the Executing Agency for the
project and on behalf of the three participating countries. The Project will have a Project Steering
Committee comprised of the GEF Implementing Agencies, three members from each of the participating
countries, and a representative of the SADC and of BENEFIT. The Project Chief Technical Advisor will
serve for an initial three-year period, and will be appointed consistent with standard UNDP procedures in
20
consultation with the participating countries. There will also be a ministerial level, inter-agency and
institutional coordinating committee which would meet annually to ensure that maximum use is made of
the combined resources of the agencies and institutions with associated projects and to minimize
duplication of effort. Participating agencies would include as invitees, among others, the signatories to
the SAP.
66. The Implementing Agency (UNDP) role will be to contribute its on-the-ground strength and resulting
trust it builds with national governments, directly facilitate workshops and the convening of key
stakeholders consistent with its comparative advantage in capacity building, work to secure national
country-based financial resources to complement project activities, and provide important links to other
UN Agencies. UNDP will also provide administrative support and such as contracting and disbursement
and financial reporting. More specifically, as the PCU will be located in Windhoek, Namibia the Namibia
UNDP Country Office will serve as the lead Country Office and will be positioned to give appropriate
levels of assistance to project activities. Consistent with the designation of the Namibia Country Office
as the Lead Country Office, financial provision for this role has been made through the use of the UNDP
Implementing Agency fee. The World Bank will assist in the task of securing additional co-finance by
way of assuming a lead role in the organization of the proposed donor conferences, and the project has
made financial provision for such donor conferences.
Programmatic Linkages to Other Agency Programs
67. The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Program is closely linked to a number of other
national and regional programs involving Angola, Namibia and South Africa. These include a regional
fisheries science and capacity building initiative, BENEFIT, which is directed mainly towards fisheries
research and training and is being coordinated by the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in
Namibia. BENEFIT will assume a direct responsibility in the execution of a number of program activities
specified in scientific, technological, and training elements of the project and resources will be provided
to BENEFIT for this purpose. BENEFIT is already functioning as an independent scientific entity that
provides on-going transboundary scientific advice to the three countries with regard to the BCLME. The
project will strengthen the capacity of BENEFIT to continue and build upon this scientific advisory
function.
68. Another regional organization that will play a part in the project is the South East Atlantic Fisheries
Organisation (SEAFO), a regional organisation currently being formed that will sustainably manage and
conserve the living marine resources of the high-seas convention area in accordance with the principles of
long term sustainability, the application of the best science available, the precautionary approach, and the
protection of biodiversity. This initiative is also being coordinated by the Ministry of Fisheries and
Marine Resources in Namibia and involves Angola, Namibia and South Africa and the UK (St Helena) as
well as a number of other countries including the USA, EU, Russia and Japan. Other international,
regional and national initiatives that link to the BCLME are, inter alia, partnership pelagic fisheries-
environment research projects (ENVIFISH and VIBES) between Angola, Namibia and South Africa and
marine research institutions in the EU (Germany, Norway, France, United Kingdom, Spain and Portugal)
and the European Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy and FAO. The BCLME Program will also have
affiliation to international programs such as GLOBEC (Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics), SPACC
(Small Pelagic Fish and Climate Change) and GOOS. These organizations will promote contact with a
network of international scientists and provide access to scientific products such as models, training, and
new technologies. While all of the participating countries are not members of the Abidjan Convention,
the project will establish a working connection with a related GEF LME project in the Canary Current
and with the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem.
69. SADC (Southern African Development Community) is a regional intergovernmental body
comprising 14 southern African countries including Angola, Namibia and South Africa. Its
21
responsibilities include the promotion of growth and development, sustainable utilisation of resources and
protection of the environment within the community. The BCLME program has formally been ratified as
a SADC program at the recent Council of SADC Ministers meeting in Maputo (Mozambique) and falls
under the Marine Fisheries Co-ordination Unit of SADC which is located at the Ministry of Fisheries and
Marine Resources in Namibia. The SADC will be invited to assume a position on the PSC.
70. Direct and ongoing oversight of project activities will be the responsibility of the PCU, with a
planned transition to the IBCC and, upon ratification of a formal Convention or other legal mechanism,
the BCC. The PCU will be comprised of a Chief Technical Advisor, Public Participation and
Communications Expertise, and requisite administrative and secretarial support. Consultants will be
retained as necessary and priority will be given to the recruitment of consultants from the participating
countries, as available.
VIII. Incremental Costs and Project Financing
71. The overall cost of the project is US$ 39,017,750. GEF financing is in the amount US$ 15,458,0001.
Co-finance from National Governments, private industry, DANCED, BENEFIT, SADC, and Port
Authorities are in the amount US$ 23,559,750. Approximately 85% of the GEF contribution will be
disbursed within the participating countries. Regional consultants are preferred and will be used to the
maximum extent possible. The amount disbursed within each country will be dependent on a number of
factors including competitive bidding for contracts and the availability of qualified consultants required
for specific project activities. Parity among the participating countries in relation to distribution of project
funds will be in part assured by the fact that each country will have an Activity Center. Full details of the
cost of the project, including information related to the baseline, are to be found in Annex A. Following is
a tabular summary of the GEF contribution by Output and Activity:
1 Includes funding from the PDF-B.
22
Component
Sub-component
Baseline (B)
Alternative
Increment (A-B)
(A)
Gov2
GEF
Private BENEFIT3 DANCED
Port
TOTAL
Auth.
I. Project Co- Effective intra and inter- 350,000
2,882,323
232,323
2,426,118
2,532,323
ordination
project co-ordination and
support through the
establishment of a PCU
2.
2.1 Plans, actions and 175,600,000
184,920,158
1,941,000 3,800,000
3,579,158
9,320,158
Management
timetables for sustainable
& sustainable resource utilisation.
use of
BCLME
resources
2.2. An assessment of 12,170,000
14,028,000
558,000
600,000
700,000
1,858,000
mining and drilling impacts
and policy harmonisation
2.3 Development of 5,054,810
5,529,990
155,780
300,000
19,400
475,180
mariculture.
2.4. Protection of 1,320,000
2,355,000
525,000
500,000
10,000
1,035,000
vulnerable species and
habitats
2.5 Assessment of non- 14,517,423
15,879,400
162,800
900,000
299,177
1,361,977
harvested species and their
role in the ecosystem
3. Assess. of 3.1 Reducing uncertainty 87,541,265
102,387,780
9,768,000
3,350,000
1,728,515
14,846,515
environ.
and improving
Variability,
predictability
ecosystem
impacts &
improvement
of
predictability
3.2. Capacity building and 13,889,000
14,905280
345,600
400,000
370,680
1,116,280
training for improved
shared resource
management
3.3. Harmful algal bloom 3,016,968
3,919,718
380,000
200,000
150,000
10,250
162,500
902,750
mitigation and marine litter
control
2 Includes contribution of $232,323 from SADC for Project Coordination
3 Includes contributions by: NORAD, DFID, GTZ, ICEIDA, DANCED, IRD, AWB, World Bank
23
4.
4.1 Oil spill prevention and 8,503,000
8,920,737
295,158
87,373
72,579
455,110
Maintenance
protection of critical sites
of ecosystem from oil spills
health and
management
of pollution
4.2 Improvement of water 17,119,000
19,523,730
1,222,000
945,000
237,730
2,404,,730
quality
4.3. Prevention or reversal 3,284,700
3,962,800
128,100
450,000
100,000
678,100
of habitat alteration and
destruction.
5. Donor co- 5.1 5.3 Development of 2,887,500
3,593,500
256,000
300,000
150,000
706,000
ordination and plans for donor support,
fundraising
donor conferences and
reporting.
Total
345,253,666
382,808,416
15,969,761 14,,258,491 800,000
6,277,530
39,650
472,809
37,818,241
24
IX. Monitoring and Evaluation
72. Project objectives, outputs and emerging issues will be regularly reviewed and evaluated annually by
the PSC. A more detailed description of the monitoring and evaluation processes, including
responsibilities for same, is included later in this Project Document as Attachment 3. The project will be
subject to the various evaluation and review mechanisms of the UNDP, including the Project Performance
and Evaluation Review (PPER), the Tri-Partite Review (TPR), and an external Evaluation and Final
Report prior to termination of the Project. The project will also participate in the annual Project
Implementation Review (PIR) of the GEF. Particular emphasis will be given to emerging GEF policy
with regard to monitoring and evaluation in the context of GEF IW projects. This document generally,
and more specifically the logframe in this document, will be used to identify relevant Process Indicators,
Stress Reduction Indicators, and Environmental Status Indicators that will serve to inform the M&E
process and be adopted by the participating countries. These three indicators will be more explicitly
identified and incorporated into the project as project outputs after year one of the project, and completion
of the negotiations necessary to form the BCC would be a Process Indicator at the end of the project.
Another especially important Process Indicator will be the updated SAP that will be created by the end of
year four of the project. The project logframe has been specifically designed in a way that lends itself to
the straightforward identification of Process, Stress Reduction, and Environmental Status Indicators.
73. During year one of the project, the PCU will identify the relevant Process Indicators (PIs), Stress
Reduction Indicators (SRIs) and Environmental Status Indicators (ESIs) relevant to the project. These
indicators will be reviewed as part of the initial monitoring and evaluation exercise and upon their
adoption will become a basis for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation process. The Logframe Analysis
incorporated into the Project Brief and this Project Document shall be used in significant measure to assist
in the identification of the relevant indicators. It is expected that as with many other GEF IW projects,
many of the indicators to be employed during the life of the project will be PIs. These would include,
inter alia, such indicators as the establishment and successful functioning of the IBCC, active
negotiations leading to the eventual BCC, State of the Ecosystem Reports, the establishment and effective
functioning of IMCs, and work to assess the extent and condition of non-harvested species. SRIs might
include, inter alia, recommendations and agreements regarding the harvesting levels of specific stocks,
improved forcasting techniques with resulting positive environmental, economic and social benefits for
the participating countries, harmonized and implemented common approaches to mariculture activities,
explicit measures for the protection vulnerable species, improved predictability of the BCLME resulting
in decreased levels of uncertainty of management decisions taken both nationally and regionally, and
specific improvements in the capacity to monitor HAB toxins and species. While ESIs are likely to
become more apparent after the life of the GEF project, there are likely to be some ESIs that are likely to
be realized during implementation. These ESIs would include, inter alia, the establishment of protected
areas, reduced pressure on, and documented healthier stocks of vulnerable species and measurable
reduction of pollution loadings in those areas selected for pilot activities in identified hotspots.
74. In addition to the monitoring and evaluation described above, monitoring of the project will be
undertaken by a contracted supervision firm, and by a balanced group of experts selected by UNDP. The
extensive experience by UNDP in monitoring large programs will be drawn upon to ensure that the
project activities are carefully documented. There will be two evaluation periods, one at mid-term and
another at the end of the Program.
75. The mid-point review will focus on relevance, performance (effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness),
issues requiring decisions and actions and initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and
management. The final evaluation will focus on similar issues as the mid-term evaluation but will also
look at early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity
25
development and the achievement of global environmental goals. Recommendations on follow-up
activities will also be provided.
76. Approximately US$160,000 will be allocated for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and Tri-
partite Reviews (TPRs) which will be undertaken by independent experts and UNDP. This figure will be
the subject of ongoing review and budgetary adjustments will be made as necessary. The evaluation
process will be carried out according to standard procedures and formats in line with GEF requirements.
The process will include the collection and analysis of data on the Program and its various projects
including an overall assessment, the achievement of clearly defined objectives and performance with
verifiable indicators, annual reviews, and description and analysis of stakeholder participation in the
Program design and implementation. Explanations will be given on how the monitoring and evaluation
results will be used to adjust the implementation of the Program if required and to replicate the results
throughout the region. As far as possible, the M&E process will be measured according to a detailed
workplan and a Logical Framework Analysis approach developed and tabulated in the project document.
X.
Lessons Learned and Technical Reviews
77. The project will be involved from the start in the GEF International Waters Learning, Exchange and
Resource Network Program (IW: LEARN). IW:LEARN is a distance education program whose purpose
is to improve global management of transboundary water systems. It will provide structured interactive
conferencing capability across and within the GEF International Waters Portfolio and will allow
participants in GEF IW projects to share learning related to oceans, coastal zone management and river
basins in Africa and in other development regions. For environmental professionals working on GEF
related projects IW:LEARN will greatly expand opportunities for peer to peer, collaborative research with
physically distant colleagues, opportunities to exchange best practices and training modules among
projects, and the delivery of short courses.
List of Mandatory Annexes
Annex A
Incremental Cost Narrative
Annex A1
Co-Finance Narrative
Annex B
Full Incremental Cost Matrix
Annex C
Logical Framework Analysis
Annex D
STAP Review
Annex E
Response to STAP Review
Annex F1
Country Actions
Annex F2
Narrative for Baseline Table Annex G3
Annex F3
List of Relevant Baseline Programs/Projects (Ongoing/Planned) by Country/Region
List of Optional Annexes (see project brief)
Annex G
Full Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
Annex H
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and SAP Country Commitments
Annex I
Summary of the Functions and Responsibilities of the Interim Benguela Current Commission
Annex J
Thematic Reports Prepared during the PDF-B Project Phase
Annex K
BCLME Regional Workshop Reports and Scientific Papers
Annex L
Stakeholder Involvement Description and List of Stakeholder Participants
List of Attachments
Attachment 1
Detailed Project Budget
Attachment 2
Detailed Project Timeline
Attachment 3
Monitoring and Evaluation Details
Attachment 4
Monitoring and Evaluation Results/First M&E of the GEF BCLME Project
Attachment 5
Reporting Requirements and Legal Context
26
Attachment 6
Implementation and Execution Arrangements
Attachment 7
Project Terms of Reference
27
Annex A: Incremental Cost Narrative
Broad Development Goals
The Benguela Current system, bordering the Atlantic seaboard of Angola, Namibia, and South Africa is
one of the most productive marine systems on the planet. It is also highly since it is driven by coupling of
fluctuating atmospheric and oceanic circulation. These in turn are subject to regional and global driving
forces and to global change. Without a good understanding of these processes, exploitation of the
fisheries resources of the Benguela Current is an empirical process that carries high risk of over-
exploitation leading to poor sustainability and damage to biological diversity. This indeed occurred in the
1970's and some of the fish stocks have still not recovered thirty years later. Furthermore the Benguela
Current is facing an unprecedented array of other human-caused threats, highlighting the need for rational
regulation of its exploitation and additional measures to protect its fragile coastal ecosystems. The
Benguela system is truly transboundary in nature, including the EEZs of the three coastal countries as
well as a significant region of the high seas. All of the littoral countries are urgently seeking to address
shared environmental problems and to protect and sustain their coastal economies. The major perceived
problems of the BCLME can be summarised as follows:
1) Uncertainty as to ecosystem status and yields, together with high variability in resources and
environment;
2) Habitat loss and pollution of coastal regions, partly through expansion of tourism and of populated
rural areas;
3) Serious degradation of areas adjacent to urban centres and use of marine and coastal resources;
4) Increasing industrial and artisinal fisheries;
5) Introduction of exotic species;
6) Habitat degradation from oil and mineral exploitation in coastal zones and on the marine shelf;
7) An apparent increase in variability in the system, manifested in large fluctuations in natural
populations of marine animals and birds;
8) Significant losses in higher order species; and
9) Its connection to global change, especially climate change.
The project seeks to assist the countries to develop and implement a regional approach to these issues and
to reduce the uncertainties currently associated with human exploitation of the system. It will create a
sustainable mechanism for co-operation that will be embodied in an international legal and policy
framework for co-operation in protection and sustainable use of the BCLME environment. An urgent
need for a co-operative framework is evident from the environmental perspective and the need has been
clearly pronounced by the littoral states. The project will enable the countries to improve their capacity to
work together within this new framework and to establish projects that will ensure a more sustainable
future for the EEZ and coastal zone.
Baseline
The need for protection and management of the BCLME environment and its resources has preoccupied
the BCLME States for some years. However, during the long period of apartheid in South Africa, there
was little co-operation with other African countries on environmental issues or resource exploitation.
Despite this situation, there had been a number of actions at a national level within the three countries and
each developed its own programme of fisheries management and research and of environmental
protection.
With the end of apartheid, a new era in co-operation has begun between the three countries. This has been
accompanied by the realisation that the rational exploitation of fisheries requires an integrated approach
throughout the BCLME. More recently, largely as a consequence of the formulation of the BCLME TDA,
there has been an increasing awareness that other economic activities; mining, maritime transport, urban
28
development and coastal tourism; each exerts an impact on the coastal and offshore environment that may
be transboundary in its consequences. The commitment to co-operate and seek common solutions has
been underlined in recent high-level political fora, such as the 1998 Cape Town Declaration and the
Council of SADC Ministers at their 1999 Maputo meeting. Without catalytic funding however, these
objectives are unlikely to be met.
The economic importance of marine natural resources to the three coastal countries has led to a significant
investment in sectoral structures for management, monitoring and research. These ongoing programs form
the most important part of the project baseline. The public sector agencies involved include:
Angola
(1)
Ministry of Fisheries and Environment
· Instituto Investigacao de Pesqueira (IIP)
(2)
Ministry of Petroleum
(3)
Ministry of Energy and Water
(4)
Ministry of Geology and Mines
Namibia
(1)
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
· Directorate of Resource Management
(2)
Ministry of Environment and Tourism
· Directorate of Environmental Affairs
· Directorate of Resource Management
(2)
Ministry of Mines and Energy
· Geological Survey
(3)
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Maritime Division
· Maritime Division
South Africa
(1)
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
· Marine and Coastal Management
· Directorate: Marine Pollution
· Directorate: Coastal Zone Management
(2)
Ministry of Minerals and Energy Affairs
In addition, there is work going on in the private sector to try to improve sustainability of harvests (in the
case of fisheries) and mitigate the local impacts of mining and dredging. Those contributing to this
baseline are:
1) South African Fishing Industry (Contribution to Marine Living resources Fund)
2) Namibian Fishing Industry (Contribution to the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Sea
Fisheries Fund)
3) Diamond mining industry (S. Africa and Namibia)
4) Oil and gas industry (Namibia and Angola)
It should be stressed that there is currently no alternative framework to bring each of these sectors
together across boundaries.
Besides these activities the countries are engaged in a number of bilateral donor financed activities which
are directly or indirectly related to the BCLME particularly in support of improved fisheries management.
29
Some of these activities represent `baselines' in the context of the current project (see Incremental Cost
matrix). Countries contributing relevant bilateral programmes include:
· Denmark
· Finland
· Iceland
· Ireland
· Norway
· USA (USAID)
· UK
The European Union also provides some support.
Of particular importance as a single example of cross-border co-operation is the BENEFIT programme
(the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme). The main emphasis of this programme is to
promote transboundary marine science, technology and training in support of rational fisheries
management. The programme thus mostly generates domestic benefits for the three participating
countries and little or no emphasis is placed on broader global environmental benefits. It is a solid
baseline for co-operative research in the region. Note that the Incremental Costs Table separates the
domestic and regional benefits of the BENEFIT programme.
Global Environmental Objective
The global environmental objective of the proposed project is: Environmentally sustainable development
and management of the BCLME environment, including living resources and water quality, so as to
obtain the utmost long-term benefits for the human populations of the region, while protecting human
health, ecological integrity and preserving options for use and enjoyment of the BCLME for future
generations.
· The GEF intervention in the BCLME will be mainly based on the following assumptions:
· That the regional and global benefits of co-operation developed in the project will act as an incentive
for sustaining the work in the future.
· Even if countries were to take unilateral action, they could not ensure the protection of biological
diversity in the marine and coastal areas of the BCLME.
· High transactions costs have impeded regional co-operation to address environmental externalities;
these include the costs of communications between countries, building the basis of trust, convening
multi-stakeholder fora, learning about current and emergent environmental problems, obtaining
regional consensus on the need to intervene, and formulating regional agreements regarding measures
to protect the transboundary environment.
· Current donors supporting bilateral and multilateral programmes .in the region will be willing and
able to co-operate with the GEF in implementing this project.
The potential global and regional benefits that will accrue if these problems are comprehensively
addressed will likely be substantial, including the protection of fragile coastal biomes and the
maintenance of a diverse marine ecosystem. It will also enable a better understanding of the coupling
between regional variability and global change and enable such change to be incorporated into models for
resource utilization.
GEF Alternative
This would be accomplished by GEF provision of catalytic support for incremental costs associated with
the creation of robust mechanisms for intersectoral cross border co-operation within a Benguela Current
30
Commission and for implementing the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the BCLME, developed
during the PDF Phase of the Project. The approach would be consistent with the guidance for GEF
Operational Programme Number 8, "Waterbody-based Operational Programme." The goal of this
Operational Programme is to assist countries in making changes in the ways that human activities are
conducted in different sectors so that the particular waterbody and its multi-country drainage basin can
sustainably support the human activities. Projects in this OP focus mainly on seriously threatened
waterbodies and the most imminent transboundary threats to their ecosystems as described in the
Operational Strategy. Consequently, priority is placed on changing sectoral policies and activities
responsible for the most serious root causes needed to solve the top priority transboundary environmental
concerns.
The GEF alternative would support a proposed project to:
1) assist groups of countries to better understand the environmental concerns of their international
waters and work collaboratively to address them;
2) build capacity of existing institutions, or through new institutional arrangements, to utilize a more
comprehensive approach for addressing transboundary water-related environmental concerns; and
3) implement sustainable measures that address priority transboundary environmental concerns.
This would be accomplished through GEF support to key measures that would be unachievable without
the active co-operation of the three countries in the region and of the wider international community. The
way in which these measures build upon the considerable national baseline is outlined in the incremental
cost table (Annex P). The GEF alternative would achieve its global and regional objectives through the
following short-term objectives:
1. Effective intra and inter-project coordination and support through the establishment of a
Program Coordination Unit (PCU) leading to the creation and functioning of the Interim
Benguela Current Commission, and the identification of, and provision of resources for, Lead
Agencies and Inter-ministerial Committees in each of the participating countries.
2. Creation of the necessary mechanisms for, and steps undertaken to develop real-time
management capability to better sustain and utilize the resources of the BCLME.
2.1 The development of plans, concrete actions and timetables to achieve optimal sustainable resource
utilization.
2.2 An assessment of mining and drilling impacts and development of policy
2.3 Country agreement on measures necessary to ensure the responsible development of mariculture.
2.4 Development of measures to achieve protection of vulnerable species and
2.5 Develop an understanding of the relationship between harvested and non-harvested species and
determine the role of non-harvested species as a means to improve stock management practices and
to assist in the conservation of biodiversity;
3. Create improved understanding of environmental variability, ecosystem impacts created by
environmental variability, and thus improve predictability as a means of strengthening the
management of fish-stocks.
3.1
A reduction in uncertainty and improvement in the predictability of the BCLME as a means to
improve management of regional (LME) resources.
3.2
Strengthened capacity and the provision of targeted training required to effect improved
management of the shared resources of the BCLME;
3.3
A program to mitigate the negative effects of harmful algal blooms (HABS) and initiate measures
to reduce marine litter.
31
4.
Undertake preliminary steps to maintain BCLME ecosystem health and effectively manage
pollution as a means to safeguard fishery resources.
4.1
Develop measures to help prevent major oil spills as a means, inter alia, of protecting vulnerable
BCLME Ramsar sites .
4.2
Develop specific programs and measures to address deteriorating coastal water quality.
4.3
Specific measures and approaches to retard or reverse habitat destruction and alteration.
5.
Support to recruit additional donors and increase the level of co-finance during project
implementation.
The BCLME project represents an interesting case in which the improvement of knowledge of
uncertainties will provide a better basis for the sustainable use of natural resources and the conservation
of biological diversity. It may prove to be an example of a regime that will be profoundly affected by
global change and it is of paramount importance to understand its current status in order to detect
contemporary or future changes. The cost of doing this is clearly incremental to the national efforts
focused on maximising resource yield through conventional precautionary management strategies.
System Boundary (Scope of the intervention)
The project will inevitably result in a large number of downstream impacts and benefits and care has been
taken to include these within the system boundary. This however, becomes somewhat unpredictable with
respect to the high seas element of the BCLME that is beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal countries and
for migratory species that spend part of their life cycle in other regions. In this respect, it is important to
point out that LMEs are open systems without `hard' geographical boundaries. It is reasonable to assume
that most of the exploitable resources of the Benguela Current Upwelling area are contained within the
Economic Exclusive Zones of the three coastal countries. There are however, a number of bilateral
agreements with other countries (notably within the European Community and Russia) for exploitation of
resources of the BCLME. These will be indirect beneficiaries of the intervention and are beyond the
system boundary. However, it should also be noted that EU countries are major contributors to the
baseline and are co-financing the project itself.
Incidental Domestic Benefits
Over the long-term, a variety of domestic benefits would accrue through implementation of the proposed
project. The most valuable domestic benefits to be gained from the project are associated with
substantially strengthened institutional and human capacity in integrated coastal zone management,
increased technical knowledge and public awareness of BCLME environmental issues, and improved
national capacities in environmental legislation and enforcement as well as in natural resources
management. Additional domestic benefits in terms of exploitable resources are unlikely to be realized
within the period of the project itself. Bilateral aid programmes focused on domestic improvements in
fisheries management have been included within the baseline in order to clearly distinguish between
actions most likely to result in domestic benefits (baseline bilateral projects) from those that will mainly
result in regional and global ones (the present project).
32
Summary Incremental Costs (US$) :
Baseline:
345,253,666
Alternative:
382,808,416
Incremental:
37,554,750
GEF Financing:
Project
$14,258,491
PDF-B
$344,000
Project Support Costs
$855,509
Co-Finance
$23,559,750
Total project Cost
$39,017,750
33
Annex A1 Co-Finance Narrative
The BCLME Programme co-finance is listed in Annex B Incremental Costs/Complete Matrix, where it is
identified for each sub-component against "increment" (separate from the GEF contribution). The US$
figures were derived from the summation of estimates provided by each of the three countries, and details
of the origins of the co-finance (viz national governments, donors, industry sectors, port authorities etc)
are provided in the Annex B Matrix. The numbers by definition are estimates. National budgets are not
fixed five years out, as are the numbers for the GEF project. Thus the figures in the co-finance table are
best estimates of country commitments based on existing budgets, current and future predictable
priorities, and current and future trends. Governmental budgets are usually only fixed on an annual or not
more than semi-annual basis. Nevertheless every effort has been made to make certain that these figures
are fairly reliable indicators of the country co-finance which is likely to be provided over the five year
GEF intervention to address transboundary issues.
In the comments below, country specific co-finance amounts to approximately 40% of the total from
South Africa and from Namibia (approximately US$ 3,036,000 from each country) and approximately
20% from Angola (approximately US$ 1,517,000). The South African contribution will be heaviest in
the areas of Outputs 2. and 3., as will Namibia's contribution. The bulk of the contributions will come
from ships' time for much of the scientific work that will be done in Activities 2.1 (Plans actions and
timetables for sustainable resource use) and Activity 3.1 (measures that need to be undertaken to reduce
uncertainty and improve predictability). Both Namibia and South Africa will be committing co-finance to
the establishment and operations of their respective Activity Centres. Angola's co-finance will be
centered on Activities related to oil spill contingency planning (Activity 2.2), improved water quality
(Activity 4.2), capacity building (Activity 3.2), and on support for the Activity Centre that is to be located
in Luanda.
Specific comments on each of the co-finance estimates, by sub-component, follow:
1. Project Co-ordination: Effective intra and inter-project coordination and support through the
establishment of a PCU. Comment: The PCU will evolve into the IBCC during year 1 or 2, and will
require specific intervention not only from national governments, but also from the SADC Sector
Coordinating Unit for Marine Fisheries. The contribution from the Unit will be a combination of cash and
in kind.
2. Management and Sustainable Use of BCLME Resources
2.1 Plans, actions and timetables for sustainable resource utilisation. Comment: The major part of the
$1,941,000 contribution from national governments will be in cash by way of provisions to utilise
national fisheries ships to extend surveys cooperatively over geopolitical country boundaries. Co-finance
relating to the BENEFIT Programme is to optimise and give effect to the crucial implementation role that
BENEFIT is anticipated to play in the BCLME Programme. Here the co-finance from national
governments (primarily although not exclusively Namibia and South Africa) will be to cover additional
ship survey costs in the boundary regions, sampling/survey gear and contracting experts to provide
assessments of shared living resource species. It is anticipated that much of the BENEFIT co-finance will
be as a consequence of the planned first international donor conference (year 1 or 2). All BENEFIT co-
finance will be in effect classed as cash.
2.2 An assessment of mining and drilling impacts and policy harmonization. Comment: Co-finance from
the national governments will be a mixture of in kind (management involvement and infrastructure) and
cash (development of appropriate legal frameworks and legislation). Co-finance from the diamond mining
and oil and gas industries will be for improving EIAs (scope and quality), legal costs for possible dispute
34
resolution, and for additional measures needed to assess mining and drilling impacts with the view to
minimising environmental damage.
2.3 Development of mariculture.
Comment: Co-finance will come primarily from national governments to enable improved management of
mariculture (sustainable development). In this respect, mariculture development is seen as a key vehicle
for job creation in impoverished coastal communities to reduce the fishing pressure on inshore resources
(and poaching). Co-finance will be to improve monitoring of impacts (eg spread of exotic HAB species)
and may also take the form of financial incentives.
2.4 Protection of vulnerable species and habitats.
Comment: Co-finance will take the form of a mixture of cash and in kind contribution by national
governments in partnership with donors to review and where necessary to develop and implement new
strategies to conserve species and habitats of regional and global significance (cf biodiversity
conservation programmes, declaration of marine reserves and protected areas etc).
2.5 Assessment of non-harvested species and their role in the ecosystem.
Comment: The co-finance from national governments will be in kind by way of provision of space and
infrastructure on routine fisheries survey cruises to facilitate the collection of material and information on
species which are not at present harvested commercially, and also by (in kind) application of eco-path and
other ecosystem modelling to new components of the ecosystem.
The BENEFIT Programme's contribution will take the form of developing new initiatives to assess
species which cannot be sampled during routine surveys i.e. which require dedicated ship surveys, hiring
of consultants, etc (to be financed by national governments and donors which will be considered as cash.)
3. Assessment of Environmental Variability, Ecosystem Impacts and Improvement of Predictability.
3.1 Reducing uncertainty and improving predictability.
Comment: While national governments have invested in the past in environmental monitoring and
assessment of "core" areas, little attention has been paid to the crucial internal and external system
boundaries, and how changes there impact on the system as a whole. The very significant $9.8
million co-finance from national governments will in effect be as cash to cover (a) the cost of dedicated
ship surveys of the boundary regions and sources (approx $5 million) and (b) the investment in hardware
and systems for long term environmental monitoring and assessment ($4.8million) which will be
indentified as necessary during the GEF intervention. (These will take the form of specialised
instrumentation, the costs of link up with PIRATA, GOOS and associated international networks, satellite
technology etc). The work will be fully integrated with BENEFIT, the co-finance from which is for
additional vessel hire costs, contracting of specialists etc.
3.2 Capacity building and training for improved shared resource management.
Comment: Training is a very high priority in all three countries and in BENEFIT. The co-finance
specified is additional to on-going expenditure on human capacity development, and will be in the form
of in kind (eg in-service training) and cash (specialised courses, payment of study costs, bursaries etc)
needed to develop capacity to address transboundary issues and their management. The planned first
international donor conference will be the vehicle to secure the funds for the BENEFIT training activities.
3.3 Harmful algal bloom mitigation and marine litter control.
Comment: HABs are becoming an increasing problem in the BCLME with serious transboundary
consequences, while litter dumped from ships, including fishing vessels, in particular plastics, requires
management intervention. The co-finance shown in Annex B reflects an anticipated increased investment
35
by national governments in monitoring and implementation (where possible) of control measures, while
the BENEFIT co-finance will be for provision of scientific advice in support of such measures.
4. Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Management of Pollution
4.1 Oil spill prevention and protection of critical sites from oil spills.
Comment: The co-finance from national governments will be to cover the increased costs of addressing
the transboundary consequences of oil spills, and minimising transboundary impacts through treatment
and containment.
4.2 Improvement of water quality.
Comment: While it has been argued that addressing point source pollution problems (e.g. major ports)
does not have transboundary consequences, this is not the case. An example is the spread of cholera
across national boundaries on the east-coast which shows just how vulnerable SADC countries can be to
transfer of pathogens. The same can be argued for persistent pollutants such as DDT which are again to
be used regionally to control malaria. The anticipated government co-finance will be for expanding
monitoring networks, development of legislature and compliance (enforcement). Port authority co-finance
is for reducing sources of pollution.
4.3 Prevention and reversal of habitat alteration and destruction.
Comment: The amount of co-finance from national governments ($128000) and the diamond mining
industry ($100 000) provided for this - see Annex B is disappointingly small and will require upward
revision after year 2 of the BCLME Programme. The available co-finance is intended for ship/diver
surveys of important areas, developing institutional capacity to address the problems and enabling
legislation to minimise further (transboundary) habitat destruction.
5. Donor Co-ordination and Fundraising.
Comment: The identified co-finance (govt=$256 000, BENEFIT=$150 000) is by way of investment in
actions to secure long-term donor support for the sustainable management of the BCLME.
36
Annex B Incremental Costs/Complete Matrix
Component
Sub-component
Cost
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
Category
Source
(US$)
I. Project
Effective intra and
Baseline
Namibia
250,000
Countries in the region have some form
All countries were actively involved in
Co-
inter-project co-
Angola
50,000
of institutional framework for the
the preparation of the Benguela
S. Africa
50,000
ordination
ordination and
protection of their own coastal and
Current TDA and Strategic Action
support through
TOTAL
350,000
marine environments but these have not
Programme. The establishment of
the establishment of
developed specific capacity to deal with
interim mechanisms for the PDF phase
a PCU
shared problems within the BCLME.
of the project included a significant
contribution from the beneficiary
countries.
Alternative
2,882,323
Effective coordination and implementation
Strong regional body and regional
of national activities, integration of these
cooperation, enhanced stakeholders
environmental activities into national
coordination and communication at the
policies and investment programmes.
regional level.
Strengthened institutional and human
capacity through training and active
involvement of national experts in the
TDA and SAP preparation.
Increment
SADC Sector co-
232,323
ordinating unit for
fisheries, 1999-2004
GEF
2,300,000
TOTAL
2,532,323
2. Manage-
2.1 Plans, actions
Baseline
National
126,405,000
Bilateral funding is focused on the
Improved national management may
Governments
ment and
and timetables for
development of a more rational
generate global benefits for biological
Fishing Industry
25,273,000
sustainable
sustainable
management of fisheries at a national
diversity but these are difficult to
(Levies)
use of
resource utilisation.
level. This generates benefits in terms of
quantify
BCLME
Bilateral Donor Aid
fisheries yield, though integrated
resources
NORAD (Nansen
11,868,500
management of the resource is not
Programme)
possible without transboundary co-
ICEIDA
2,912,903
operation.
IRD
350,000.
BENEFIT Pgm
National
4,922,400
Governments
NORAD (Nansen
3,637,900
Programme)
ICEIDA
212,258
FAO
18,900
TOTAL
175,600,000
38
Alternative
184,920,158
Well conceived plans for sustainable
Rational management of the resource
resource utilisation based upon co-
will conserve ecosystem integrity,
operative studies and forecasting will lead
avoiding sudden collapses in species
to more sustainable fish yields for all three
through overfishing (already observed
countries.
in the 1970s).
Increment
National
1,941,000
Governments
BENEFIT Pgm
National
1,641,000
Governments
NORAD (Nansen
1,212,633
Programme)
ICEIDA
707,525
FAO
18,900
GEF
3,800,000
TOTAL
9,320,158
2.2. An assessment
Baseline
National
1,590,000
Assessment of local impacts is mandated
Any mitigation of impacts will benefit
Governments
of mining and
by national legislation and should mitigate
benthic organisms.
Diamond Mining
8,630,000
drilling impacts
the effects of this activity as far as
Industry
and policy
possible.
Offshore Oil and Gas
1 950,000
harmonisation
Ind.
TOTAL
12,170,000
Alternative
14,028,000
Strong self regulatory code of practice
Incorporation of the duty to protect
encourages sustainable development at the
biological diversity within the industry
national level.
code of practice will help to protect
global biodiversity.
Increment
National
558,000
Governments
Diamond Mining
500,000
Industry
Offshore Oil and Gas
200,000
Ind.
GEF
600,000
TOTAL
1,858,000
2.3 Development of
Baseline
National
1,388,096
Mariculture is currently poorly developed
None
Governments
mariculture.
in the region. Existing mariculture
Mariculture Industry
3,500,000
regulations contain insufficient
Bilateral Donor Aid
safeguards for avoiding accidental
GTZ
138,585
introductions of species.
DANCED
27,500
TOTAL
5,054,810
39
Alternative
5,529,990
The development of mariculture provides
Properly conceived mariculture has the
alternative employment opportunities,
potential of replacing ecosystem
makes use of areas damaged by diamond
functions lost by damaging benthic
mining and improves food security (e.g.
communities in mining operations.
in Angola)
Proper regulations will avoid
accidental introductions of species to
the wild.
Increment
National
0 155,780
Governments
Bilateral Donor Aid
DANCED
19,400
GEF
300,000
TOTAL
475,180
2.4. Protection of
Baseline
National
910,000
National biodiversity conservation
Urgent need for the comprehensive
Governments
vulnerable species
programmes. Currently, these pay little
overview on the state of BCLME
Fishing Industry
150,000
and habitats
attention to marine and coastal habitats
Biodiversity. No regional strategy for
World Bank
250,000
and communities.
the protection of BCLME biodiversity
DANCED
10,000
exists.
TOTAL
1,320,000
Alternative
2,355,000
Existence of a co-ordinated strategy will
Conservation of habitats and species of
protect migratory species and shared
global significance. Regional network
habitats to the benefit of all three
of protected areas as a part of global
countries.
one.
Increment
National
0 525,000
Governments
DANCED
10,000
GEF
500,000
TOTAL
1,035,000
2.5 Assessment of
Baseline
Nat. Governments
10,533,800
Existing studies are sporadic and non-
Previous research has provided
Fishing Industry
2,106,100
non-harvested
systematic. The contribution of
valuable insights on the importance of
NORAD
847,750
species and their
occasional outside research studies is
improving understanding of ecosystem
ICEIDA
208,050
role in the
difficult to quantify.
functions from a global and regional
ecosystem
BENEFIT Pgm
perspective.
National
410,200
Governments
NORAD
259,850
ICEIDA
151,613
TOTAL
14,517,423
Alternative
15,879,400
A better knowledge of marine trophic
Current knowledge of marine food
webs will enable the more rational
webs is rather poor. Any efforts to
management of commercial species and
conserve marine biodiversity
improve long-term productivity and
(particularly transboundary systems)
sustainability of the fishing industry.
requires a careful assessment of
species other than those harvested
commercially.
40
Increment
Nat. Governments
162,800
BENEFIT Pgm
Nat. Governments
136,755
NORAD
86,616
ICEIDA
75,806
GEF
900,000
TOTAL
1,361,977
3. Assess-
3.1 Reducing
Baseline
Nat. Governments
63,202,800
Even the existing somewhat narrowly
Current research is focused on
ment of
uncertainty and
Fishing Ind. (Levies)
12,636,600
focused co-operative research is likely to
improving management of fisheries
environ-
improving
Bilateral Donor Aid
improve management in the fisheries
rather than pursuing global
mental
predictability
NORAD (Nansen
3,391.000
sector and enhance sustainability.
environmental benefits.
variability,
Programme)
ecosystem
GTZ
2,089,362
impacts and
ICEIDA
832,258
improve-
IRD
200,000
ment of pre-
BENEFIT Pgm
dictability
Nat. Governments
2,461,200
NORAD (Nansen
1,039,400
Programme)
GTZ
1,624,000
ICEIDA
60,645
TOTAL
87,541,265
Alternative
102,387,780
Improved knowledge of environmental
Upwelling systems such as the
variability will reduce the risk of collapse
BCLME play a key role in global
of fish stocks and enable better
climate regulation and in maintaining
deployment of the coastal labour force.
biological diversity. It is important to
understand the natural variability of
the system in order to elucidate global
change and to avoid excessive
exploitation to the detriment of
biodiversity. Acquiring this knowledge
requires an approach that is beyond the
current capacity of the three countries
but is in the interest of the global
community in its efforts to protect
biological diversity and mitigate
climate change.
Increment
Nat. Governments
9,768,000
BENEFIT Pgm
Nat. Governments
820,500
NORAD (Nansen
346,466
Programme)
GTZ
541,334
ICEIDA
20,215.
41
GEF
3,350,000
TOTAL
14,846,515
3.2. Capacity
Baseline
Nat. Governments
2,306,760
Present capacity is insufficient to
building and
Bilateral Donor Aid
ensure global and regional benefits.
training for
NORAD
4,212,000
improved shared
GTZ
261,170
resource
ICEIDA
1,664,400
management
BENEFIT Pgm
NORAD
1,640,800
DFID
550,000
GTZ
406,000
DANCED
110,000
IRD
50,000
AWB
450,000
World Bank
110,000
TOTAL
13,889,000
Alternative
14,905280
Strengthened national institutions
Sustainability of BCLME activities
(through provision of equipment, training
and global and regional benefits.
and networking). Easy and reliable access
to electronic means of communication,
data and information exchange.
Stakeholders trained and taking
advantage of BCLME products.
Increment
National
345,600
Governments
BENEFIT Pgm
NORAD
164,080
DFID
125,000
GTZ
40,600
DANCED
11,000
IRD
5,000
World Bank
25,000
GEF
300,000
TOTAL
1,016,280
3.3. Harmful algal
Baseline
National
1,539,615
Little protection of coastal populations or
none
Governments
bloom mitigation
of distant consumers from the
Fishing Industry
359,903
and marine litter
consequences of HABs. Poor protection
(levies)
control
of sensitive ecotones from litter.
Mariculture Industry
170,000
BENEFIT Pgm
272,450
DANCED
25,000
Port Authorities
650,000
TOTAL
3,016,968
42
Alternative
3,919,718
Better policies and standards, leading to
Improved understanding of the
lessened risk.
possible coupling of HABs with
phenomena such as global change and
increased nitrogen flux.
Increment
National
380,000
Governments
BENEFIT Pgm
150,000
DANCED
10,250
Port Authorities
162,500
GEF
200,000
TOTAL
902,750
4. Mainten-
4.1 Oil spill
Baseline
National
2,969,000
National contingency plans have been or
Sensitive habitats (including
Governments
ance of
prevention and
are being developed. A regional plan
RAMSAR sites) are currently
Port Authorities
2,773,000
ecosystem
protection of
would add substantial value to the
unprotected.
health and
critical sites from
NORAD
1,200,000
national plans.
management
oil spills
DANCED
250,000
of pollution
Oil Industry
1,311,000
TOTAL
8,503,000
Alternative
8,920,737
Contingency plans protect sites of
Protection of habitats for migratory
national interest and transboundary
species of regional/global interest.
management.
Increment
National
295,158
Governments
Port Authorities
72,579
GEF
50,000
TOTAL
417,737
4.2 Improvement of
Baseline
National
10,970,000
Little attention is currently paid to water
The integrity of communities and
Governments
water quality
quality issues though human settlements
habitats at sites suffering from water
Port Authorities
2,373,000
tend to coincide with especially sensitive
quality deterioration cannot currently be
NORAD
1,200,000
areas.
protected.
DANCED
550,000
DFID
250,000
Oil Industry
1,822,000
TOTAL
17,119,000
Alternative
19,523,730
Strengthened national capacities for
Regional system of effective marine
effective marine contaminant reduction
contaminant reduction and mitigation.
and mitigation. Protection of human and
Regional quality assurance system
non-human populations.
established. Protocol for pollution
prevention designed.
Increment
National
1,222,000
Governments
Port Authorities
237,730
GEF
945,000
2,404,,730
43
4.3. Prevention or
Baseline
National
640,500
Uncoordinated development of valuable
No Regional approaches developed.
Governments
reversal of habitat
coastal zones. Institutional capacity to
Diamond Mining
863,100
alteration and
address these issues is weak.
Industry
destruction.
DFID
500,000
GTZ
261,170
World Bank
250,000
TOTAL
3,284,700
Alternative
3,962,800
Strengthened institutional and human
Adoption of common regional
capacity in each country to protect coastal
approaches results in reduced
zones. Specific national plans for
environmental degradation and loss of
protection.
coastal habitats for migratory species
and global biodiversity.
Increment
National
128,100
Governments
Diamond Mining
100,000
Industry
GEF
450,000
TOTAL
678,100
5. Donor co-
5.1 5.3 Develop-
Baseline
National
1,280,000
Insufficient financial support for the
No regional investment strategy
Governments
ordination
ment of plans for
protection and rehabilitation of the
developed.
Fishing Industry
380,000
and
donor support,
BCLME Environment.
Diamond Mining
250,000
fundraising
donor conferences
Industry
and reporting.
Bilateral Aid Donors
DFID
550,000
NORAD
50,000
GTZ
50,000
DANCED
27,500
BENEFIT
250,000
World Bank
50,000
TOTAL
2,887,500
Alternative
3,593,500
Improved national capacities, priority
Priority Investment Portfolios prepared
investment projects developed for each
and donors identified.
country.
Increment
National
256,000
Governments
BENEFIT Pgm
150,000
GEF
300,000
Total
706,000
44
Annex C
Logical Framework (Logframe)
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Long-term Objective
· Implement the
· Through the activities of the
· PCU documents.
· Continued country commitment to a
Strategic Action
project, a cooperatively developed · PSC Meeting agendas and minutes
regional approach.
Program jointly
and approved framework and
· Project committee and workgroup
· Country commitment to implementation
developed by the
coordination mechanism for SAP
meeting agendas and minutes
of the SAP
countries in
implementation. More specifically: · Terms of Reference/Work plans
· Key regional institutions and national
conjunction with the · Improved national and regional
· Establishment of the IBCC
governments working co-operatively.
ongoing efforts of
capacities for the long-term
· Nomination and appointment of high- · Negative changes in economic political
participating
sustainable development of the
level Commissioners to the IBCC
and social conditions may detract from
countries, donors,
resources of the BCLME.
· Minutes and other written documents
country commitment to a regional
regional
· Increased country support for and
relating to the work of the IBCC
approach.
organizations, private
donor interest in and support for the
industry, NGOs and
immediate outputs of the project
others to bring about
and the long-term sustainabiltiy of
integrated,
the resources of the BCLME.
sustainable
· Documented, substantial
management of the
stakeholder participation in the
BCLME.
work of the project.
45
Project Purposes
· Assist groups of
· Regional approaches and
· Completed work plans.
· The participating countries and the yet to
countries to better
mechanisms to address root causes · National and additional donor
be developed IBCC will be consistent in
understand
and system uncertainties developed
commitments to work plan elements.
their strong support for and involvement
environmental
and implemented.
· PCU documents and working group
in the work of the project. The extent of
concerns of shared
· Country participation in and
reports.
country commitment demonstrated in the
international waters
commitment of resources to
· Disbursement records.
formulation of the TDA and SAP would
and collaboratively
required measures.
indicate this continiuing commitment.
address them
· Country participation on
· Continuing civil disturbance in Angola
· Build capacity of
committees and workgroups
makes it difficult for that country to
existing institutions,
associated with project activities..
continue its participation in project
or through newly
· Strong IBCC and country support
execution. Mitigating this concern is the
created institutions to
for the creation and work program
fact that Angola has participated fully and
utilize a more
of the project PCU.
enthusiastically in the project for the past
comprehensive
two years, years characterized by
approach for
substantial civil disturbance within the
addressing
country.
transboundary,
· Countries are willing to commit necessary
water-related
resources to the IBCC and make the
concerns.
commitment to secure agreement on the
· Implement
permanent BCC.
sustainable measures
· GEF funds may not be adequately
that address priority
complemented by country commitments
transboundary
and other donors.
environmental
concerns
46
Output 1
· Effective intra and
· CTA and other PCU staff
· The PCU will facilitate the work program
inter project
· PCU created
employed/contracts issued/terms of
of the project and assist the countries in
coordination and
· PSC created.
reference defined.
the formulation of and initial work
support.
· Country-specific Interministerial
· PSC meeting agendas and minutes.
program for the IBCC
Committees (IMCs) re-established. · IBCC meeting agendas and minutes. · The PSC will move quickly to hire the
· Country Lead Agencies and senior · Purchase orders/contractual
CTA. Delay in the hire of the CTA will
lead officials designated.
agreements/ and training records
have a cascading effect of delays for the
· IBCC Commissioners nominated
· Documented increased level of
hire of support staff and the formulation
and appointed.
project (regional) and governmental
of work plans.
· Project plan to effectively interact
participation in regional and
· The countries will be willing to quickly
with related, regional GEF IW
international fora.
designate Interministerial Committee
projects.
· Increased extent to which explicit
members, senior officials, who have
· Increased country commitment for
regional positions are formed for use
sufficient policy-level standing to
regional level participation in
in various global fora.
enhance prospects for timely
project related global fora.
· Formalized, published progress
implementation of project results, and
· Increased capacity to create
reports on extent of SAP
Commissioners to the IBCC.
national benefits through enhanced
implementation.
· IAs and cross-project country
transboundary management regime. · Formalized arrangements/agreements
representatives will see it in their best
· Specific progress in toward creation
between and among Implementing
interests to participate in inter-project
of the BCC from the initial IBCC.
Agencies/project regions re. Inter-
coordinative and cooperative activities.
· Specific progress in transferring the
project cooperation and collaboration. · Short-term national needs may outweigh
work of the PCU to the IBCC.
· Written records and reports of inter-
increased level of participation in regional
· Specific progress in transferring
project communications, workshops
fora.
elements of the PCU to the
and cross-project field trips.
workings of the IBCC and,
· A report on the documented progress
ultimately, the BCC.
of empowering the IBCC to begin
taking managerial responsibility for
the project.
47
Output 2
· Effect the sustainable · Issuance of annual state-of-the-
· Agendas and meeting minutes of
· Countries see the long-term benefit
management and
ecosystem reports.
pertinent PCU, PSC, IBCC and
deriving from a regional approach to
utilization of the
· Specific recommendations and
Stakeholder Meetings.
bringing about the sustainable use of
resources of the
agreements on harvesting levels of · Copies of annual state-of-the-
BCLME resources. The risk is that
BCLME.
specific species.
ecosystem reports.
individual countries will give priority to
· Improved forecasting techniques
· Documents detailing country
those uses that accrue to the greatest
with resulting positive
agreement on the sustainable harvest
domestic benefit without taking into
environmental, economic and social
of shared biological resources.
account broader LME interests. Creating
benefits for the participating
· Approved workplan for review of the
and helping build capacity for the IBCC
countries.
functions and authorities of the
and the BENEFIT program are crucial to
· Creation of regional approaches to
LCBC.
mitigating this danger.
mining issues and to activities
· Copies of regionally developed
· A risk is that countries will not be willing
related to oil exploration and
forecasting techniques for the
to make national legislative or regulatory
drilling, including the
BCLME.
changes that are narrowly targeted to one
harmonization of approaches.
· Reports detailing progress made to
portion of the country. This risk can be
· Cooperatively developed socio-
the harmonization of country
mitigated by developing regional
economic assessment of potential
approaches to oil exploration and
approaches that minimize the extent to
for, and feasibility of expanded
drilling.
which existing country-wide legislation
mariculture.
· Written, country-endorsed
needs to be altered.
· Formulation of harmonized
agreements or understandings with
approaches to mariculture.
respect to the future development of
· Formulation of regionally-based
mariculture in the region.
methodologies for the conduct of
· Written country endorsed regional
environmental impact studies.
approaches to post mining activities
· A regional approach to post-mining
in BCLME waters.
activities in the waters of the
· Written agreements on joint
BCLME.
approaches to be taken with regard to
· Measures to achieve protection of
vulnerable species.
vulnerable species.
· Final report describing the extent of
· A completed assessment of non-
non-harvested species and their role
harvested species and their role in
in the ecosystem.
the ecosystem
48
Output 3
· Assess
· Improved predictability of BCLME · Agendas and meeting minutes of
· The PCU, IBCC, BENEFIT and other
environmental
and decreased levels of uncertainty
pertinent PCU, PSC, IBCC and
regional organizations will have to
variability,
re. Management decisions.
Stakeholder Meetings.
cooperate closely to bring about the
ecosystem impacts,
· An overall regional early warning
· Country reports on existing, relevant
desired results of this output. To date
and improve
system to help predict extreme
data and information.
cooperation (during activities related to
predictability.
events.
· Data and information synthesis
the PDF-B) have been promising.
· Existence of an overall strategy for
report.
· Sufficient cooperative and efficient
capacity building and targeted
· Written assessment of the relevance
linkages are created between and among
training to enhance regional
of PIRATA to the needs of the
the PCU, the IBCC, agencies of the
capacity.
BCLME and description of how it is
participating countries, related GEF
· Strengthened capacity in targeted
to be applied.
projects, and with other related initiaitives
national and regional institutions.
· Records related to the establishment
globally will be necessary to realize this
· Targeted training programs are
and workings of necessary
Output.
developed.
workgroups.
· Development of a HAB reporting
· Written document describing the
system at the regional level.
overall strategy for capacity building.
· Specific improvements in the
· Written description of and
capacity to monitor HAB
methodologies and training manuals
toxins/species.
to be included in the training
· Cooperatively developed HAB
component of the project.
contingency plans.
· Copy of the HAB reporting system.
· Copies of HAB contingency plans.
· List of agreed upon, key
environmental indicators.
· Reports describing extent of country
compliance with management plans.
49
Output 4
· Take preliminary
· Improved understanding of the
· Agendas and meeting minutes of
· Existing, formal country endorsement of
steps to maintain
environmental variability and
pertinent PCU, PSC, IBCC and
the Strategic Action Program will
BCLME ecosystem
change in the BCLME, their
Stakeholder Meetings.
translate into country commitment for
health and effectively
causes/sources and global
· Draft documents related to the
joint action to implement its key
manage pollution.
teleconnections.
development of regional protocols
recommendations. As the outputs for this
· Regional contingency pollution
and/or agreements.
component are modest, and the ministries
plan.
· Internationally peer-reviewed
related to this component fully
· Initial development of regional
documents and publications on
supportive, the prospect for successful
protocols and pollution related
BCLME variability and change, their
completion of the activities contemplated
conventions or agreements.
causes/sources, linkages, and impacts
is high.
· Specific provisions for linking to
on resources and their sustainable
· Regional experts will actively participate
other GEF IW projects addressing
management.
in or otherwise establish close links with
similar issues.
· Documented written exchanges with
international obervational monitoring
· Specific number of regional
or field trips taken to other, related
programs such as GOOS, GCOS,
workshops to address pollution
GEF projects.
GLOBEC, CLIVAR, OOPC, and other
issues of regional concern.
· Written documentation concerning
organizations as appropriate.
· Three pilot demonstration projects
the design and execution of the three · The PCU, IBCC and participating
to address pollution hotspots.
pilot demonstration projects.
countries will be able to work together
· Water quality criteria jointly
· Copies of draft country agreed,
with communities and stakeholders in the
developed by the participating
regionally based water quality
pilot demonstration projects. This is seen
countries by 2002.
criteria.
as likely given the positive experience of
· Beginning of a process of regional · Preliminary, written reports of efforts
community involvement during the PDF-
standardization of national policies.
to harmonize existing national
B.
· Initial efforts to increase the level
policies.
· Perceived benefits of participation may be
of current enforcement.
· Documents describing the process
insufficient to attract full range of
· A pilot demonstration project in
and results of the Angola based pilot
stakeholders.
Angola for Seafarer education re.
demonstration project for Seafarers.
· Project aims may be seen as inconsistent
responsible pollution prevention.
· Written report descriptive of the
or competing with local interests.
· A comprehensive report re. current
current extent of habitat loss in the
status of habitat loss in the
BCLME.
BCLME.
· Early drafts of attempts to formulate
· Development of a regional early
regional pollution criteria.
warning system to flag habitat loss.
· Adaptation and application of
existing national environmental
criteria to begin formulation of
regional pollution criteria.
50
Output 5
· Increased donor
· Development of an overall plan to
· Relevant agendas and minutes of the · A key assumption is that suitable levels of
participation
increase donor and country
PCU and the PSC.
cooperation can be established and
throughout the life of
resource commitment to the project · Documented additional contributions
maintained between the UNDP and the
the project and
and the long-term sustainability of
to the regional BCLME effort.
WB and that the IBCC and the
increase co-finance.
the BCC.
participating countries will be actively
· Donor conferences planned and
involved in preparation for and
executed.
attendance at the donor conferences. This
· Systematic procedure established to
assumption seems well-grounded in that
use the GEF project to leverage
IA cooperation has already begun
other donors for direct and indirect
between this project and other projects in
support to project activities.
the region under the auspices of both the
· Increased donor support for direct
UNDP and the WB.
and indirect assistance to project
related activities and the longer
term activities of the BCC.
51
Annex D STAP Review
Review of the Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme Toward Achievement of the
Integrated Management of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem:
George T. Needler, Bedford Institute of Oceanography
1. Overall Impression
The overall objective of this project is the difficult and ambitious integrated and sustainable management
of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem. The approach is balanced and rational. The systems
and mechanisms proposed are consistent with those taken in other regions of the global oceans, including
those adjacent to more developed nations. However, it is important to remember the management failures
that have occurred in other regimes, for example the collapse of ground fish stocks in the northwestern
Atlantic even though these systems were at the time thought to be well-managed. The success of this
project depends on the collection of adequate and comparable environmental and ecosystem observations,
their systematic analysis and interpretation and the implementation of management mechanisms, all the
while keeping within the scientific, technical and administrative capabilities of the nations involved.
2. Relevance and Priority
The region of interest is of considerable importance. As noted, it is of importance in the overall mass,
heat, and water budgets of the global ocean and carries the warm waters of the tropical Indian Ocean into
the South Atlantic and northward. As such, a one-time survey, including moorings, was carried out as
part of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) in the early 90s. It is also a region of
considerable upwelling, which remains basically unquantified, as is the case in most such regions
globally. Lastly, it is a region under pressure from fishing, land and sea-based pollution stress and/or
mining activities. For the citizens of the adjacent countries, especially those dependent on the resources
and health of the ocean, effective management of the marine ecosystem is of paramount importance.
Given the apparent commitment of the 3 regional governments and their partners, the project can yield
substantial rewards as long as it remains focussed on realistic goals.
3. Scientific and Technical Soundness of the Project Outputs/Components
Output 1. Effective intra and inter-project coordination and support through the establishment of a
Program Coordination Unit ...
The proposed Program Coordination Unit, multinational bodies and connections to external GEF projects
seem to be both traditional and workable.
Output 2. Creation of the necessary mechanisms for, and steps undertaken to develop, real-time
management capability to better sustain and utilise the resources of the BCLME.
Once again the general approach seems reasonable. The subgoals address living marine resources,
mining and drilling impacts, mariculture, and the protection of vulnerable species and habitats. The
potential success depends on the commitment of the nations and partners to the project and the realisation
that the broader social and economic gaols can only be addressed incrementally. The issues to be
addressed are truly transboundary in nature and can only be faced jointly.
52
Regarding fisheries management, I am somewhat surprised to see reference to the optimal use of marine
resources. While not an expert in the field, I had thought that in general the concepts of optimal use,
maximum sustainable yield, etc are not now considered the most useful tools for fisheries management
and that recognition of the uncertainties in marine ecosystems had lead to concepts such as the
precautionary principle (whatever the definition might be). In a region such as the Benguela Current,
where natural variability will only be defined after decades of observations, recognition of inherent
uncertainty in the environment and ecosystem is surely necessary.
Output 3. Create improved understanding of BCLME environmental variability, ecosystem impacts
created by environmental variability, and thus improve predictability as a means of strengthening the
management of fish stocks.
First, I would point out that predictability in the marine climate on time scales beyond a few days is
essentially non-existent, with the notable exception of the ENSO system in the tropical Pacific. However,
real-time analyses are a valid management tool and the marine environment does exhibit considerable
persistence (as for the weather, tomorrow has a good chance of being the same as today, but for the
marine environment the persistence is of course longer in most aspects). Prediction of seasonal and
interannual enviromental change and shifts will remain difficult in the foreseeable future.
In terms of specific activities, mention is made of the PIRATA array in the tropical Atlantic. I would
think that extension of this (expensive) technology would be inappropriate. In the tropical oceans the
length scales of the variability are large, especially in the zonal direction. In a region with the relatively
small scale eddy-like variability of the Benguela Current regime any practical array of moorings of the
PIRATA type would be incoherent and most likely ineffective in describing the environmental state.
The question of observations of the marine environment raises something that seems to be missing in this
document, that is the international plans for the global observing systems, (GCOS), the Global Ocean
Observing System (GOOS) and the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS). Regarding the ocean
climate GCOS and GOOS have an identical component which is currently being refined by their common
expert panel, the Ocean Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC). A major initiative of the OOPC is the
Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) which is scheduled to take place in the 2003-
2005 period. The intention is to distribute roughly 3000 profiling floats globally during this period. If
fully implemented the profiling float array will provide a profile of temperature and salinity on a 250 km
scale every 10 days. Assimilation of the float data with that from precision satellite altimetry and surface
forcing into high resolution ocean models has the potential of describing the oceanic state to scales of a
few tens of kilometres. Whether funding for GODAE will allow full global coverage is, I believe,
unclear. If funding for a few profiling floats were to become available in the Benguela Current region,
and the adjacent South Atlantic Ocean it might influence the regions for which analyses will be readily
available. It should be noted that profiling floats in general drift with the deep current field and thus
move from one region of the ocean to another, including into the regions of the EEZs. The last IOC
Assembly passed a resolution aimed at ensuring that coastal nations will be informed when floats
approach the EEZs of coastal states and instructed on how to access the data.
GOOS also is addressing observing systems for Living Marine Resources, the Health Of The Ocean and
the Coastal Ocean. Although these are less developed than those for large-scale ocean climate, generic
plans will be forthcoming shortly and nations will be asked to make commitments to the global systems.
For the coastal oceans the observations required will be, for most purposes, the same as those required for
this project on the BCLME. The power of participation in GOOS and GCOS is that participation obtains
access to the larger data sets. In this case the off-shore conditions may easily be defined by GODAE,and
its follow-on programs if GODAE is successful. In addition, COP-4 (5?) strongly recommended the GEF
facilitate the participation of Third World Nations in GOOS/GCOS.
53
The basic point is that the global observing systems GOOS and GCOS have strong overlapping interests
with this project in the Benguela Current region. It should pay to keep connected.
Another aspect of existing large-scale ocean analyses (mostly surface fields) is that many are available on
the web. I am aware that in some parts of coastal Africa the relatively simple technology needed to take
advantage of freely available products has not been in place. It should be an element of this project.
Output 4. Develop measures to maintain BCLME ecosystem health and effectively manage pollution as a
means to safeguard fishery and other resources.
Subgoals address oil spills, coastal water quality, and habitat destruction and alteration. All have a
transboundary aspect and can be addressed given political will with adequate scientific, technical and
financial support.
Output 5. Recruitment of additional donors and increase in the level of co-finance during
implementation.
No Comment.
4.
Project Sustainability
The project brief discusses the political will of the nations involved and expresses the belief that the level
of commitment is high. As indicated elsewhere in this review, the stated objectives are extremely broad
and perhaps optimistic. The project has the promise of great rewards but sustainability depends on setting
achievable medium-term objectives and the acceptance of both unexpected success and failure. Most
western nations have seen both, even with the availability of the best expertise and significant resources.
However, experience is a great teacher.
Concluding generalities.
This project has the potential for considerable socio-economic advantage for the nations involved.
Beyond the need for realistic short-term objectives as stated above there are a large number of critical
details that are not addressed in the existing documents but on which the project depends. One is the
question of data compatibility and exchange. Whereas the accuracy required for observations in the
coastal environment can be met with reasonable ease given good practises, observations in the off-shore
are often more demanding. The advantages of the exchange of data within the broader mechanisms of the
IOC, GOOS and GCOS should not be ignored. Participation gains access and the capability to profit on
the larger scale.
The project clearly depends on the expertise of those participating and this expertise is bound to be varied.
Thus, capacity building must have a strong personal component.
Little detail is provided about the observations required by the project. However, it will not matter which
structures are in place or what is the expertise of those involved in the analyses, if adequate environmental
data is not available as a basis. While physical and biochemical observations are obtainable with the
proper practices, fisheries statistics are well know to be problematical in many regimes. Estimates of fish
stocks based on the reports of fishers have been known to be unreliable for reasons that are relatively
obvious. This is another case where the need for fully committed participation by stakeholders is
required.
54
Annex E:
Response to STAP Review
As the STAP review is generally supportive of the Project, only those comments requiring comment will
be addressed.With regard to Output 3 the Reviewer suggests that use of the PIRATA array in the tropical
Atlantic would be inappropriate. He further states that with the relatively small-scale eddy-like variability
of the Benguela Current regime any practical array of moorings of the PIRATA type would be incoherent
and most likely ineffective in describing the environmental state. While the countries see PIRATA as
being a useful tool, they recognize that its utility will require initial and thorough assessment. The scales
that the project intends to focus upon are in fact the large scales the reviewer implies will be necessary,
and any PIRATA buoy deployed in the BCLME is likely to be quite far north and offshore to assess the
coupling with the equatorial system. No small-scale eddy variability in the Benguela will be attempted,
and the Reviewer's observation that this would be inappropriate is correct. It should be noted however
that the last two Benguela Ninos could have been predicted with lead times of three months if there had
been access to the right information and had there been opportunity to coordinate effort and evaluate
available realtime data. There is also an excellent correlation type forecast between SST offshore of
Angola and summer rainfall in the possession of SADC, and this information will be available to the
project. Hence scientists participating in project preparation have seen some potential usefulness in
employing a PIRATA buoy.
The Reviewer also has stated that the Project should take into account the potential importance of the
work of the GOOS to the Outputs of the Project. We agree. The Project Brief had already mentioned the
importance of GOOS and, given the Reviewers comments, that language has now been strengthened. The
Project will also develop ongoing coordination with work being undertaken as part of the Global Ocean
Data Assimilation Experiment, or GODAE. We fully agree with the Reviewer that "....the global
observing systems GOOS and GCOS have strong overlapping interests with this project in the Benguela
Current region," and the Project will ensure that work undertaken by the Project will be connected to
efforts of these two important global initiatives and others such as IOC.
In the section of the Reviewers comments titled Concluding Generalities, it is stated that there are a large
number of critical details that are not addressed in the Project Brief. This is true. The Project Document,
as is intended under GEF projects, will serve to more fully define the actual tasks that are to be performed
under each activity, who will be responsible for performance, the costs involved, rough timetable
established, and review mechanisms that will judge implementation performance.
55
Annex F1 Country Actions
Angola Country Actions
In terms of the provisions of the BCLME SAP, Angola (together with Namibia and South Africa) has implemented
or will implement the following policy actions:
· Will act to establish the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) to implement the SAP and
strengthen regional co-operation (that is promotion of sustainable integrated management of the BCLME),
in anticipation of the establishment of a permanent BC Commission within five years.
· In 1998, during the second year of the PDF-B, Angola jointly founded the Benguela-Environment-
Fisheries-Interaction-Training (BENEFIT) Programme (BENEFIT aims to develop the enhanced science
capacity required for the optimal and sustainable utilization of living resources of the BCLME). Angola has
been, and continues to be, an active supporter of, and participant in, BENEFIT.
· Has pursued and will continue to pursue a policy of co-financing with industry and donor agencies to
strengthen existing regional mechanisms and ensure necessary capacity building consistent with project
objectives.
· Has begun encouraging the use of clean technologies.
· Has issued an updated Decree for the protection of the environment with particular attention to oil
production activity.
· Is actively promoting the use of economic and policy instruments that foster sustainable development.
· Will cooperate in the establishment of a regional structure to conduct trans-boundary fish stock and
ecosystem assessments, with joint surveys undertaken co-operatively over a five-year period starting in
2001, and will undertake co-operative assessments of shared non-exploited species.
· Will participate in the harmonization of the management of shared stocks (where applicable).
· Will participate in the development of a responsible mariculture policy in co-operation with SADC by
December 2002.
· Has committed itself to compliance with the FAO Conduct for Responsible Fishing.
· Is harmonizing policies on protected areas and other conservation measures with policies of other IBCC
States (Angola's marine fisheries are managed in terms of a broad-based Fisheries Act which was
developed with assistance from FAO and promulgated in 1992).
· Will participate in a regional assessment of the most vulnerable species and habitats, to be completed by
December 2001 as part of a developing policy to protect vulnerable species and biological diversity. Is
committed to participation in the development of a regional marine biological diversity management plan
will be developed by December 2003.
· Will participate in development (by IBCC) by December 2002 of a regional framework for enhanced
consultation to mitigate the negative impacts of ocean mining, collaborate to harmonize mining policies
relating to shared resources, and undertake impact assessment of cumulative effects of mining on the
BCLME.
56
· Will participate in development of a regional harmful algal bloom (HABs) reporting network during 2001
with a view to its implementation in 2002. Regional contingency plans for assessing the transboundary
effects of HABs will be developed and implemented by December 2002.
· Will participate in development by 2003 of a cost-effective regional early warning system for monitoring
major environmental events within the BCLME, the establishment of an environmental baseline, and other
actions with a view to improving system predictability necessary for long-term sustainable management.
· Through the IBCC, will undertake to develop, in co-operation with SADC, a responsible regional
mariculture policy by December 2002.
· Will development by June 2002 of wastewater quality criteria for receiving waters for point source
pollution.
· Has created a national Commission to develop national contingency plans for the prevention and
management of oil spills.
· Has, with international assistance, formulated a National Contingency Plan for the Prevention and
Management of Oil Spills. The IBCC will endeavour to harmonize this Plan and contingency plans in
Namibia and South Africa and develop the mechanisms for sharing technology, expertise and clean-up
equipment in the region. A regional policy will be developed by 2003 to minimize cross-border impacts of
oil pollution.
· All hydrocarbon activities in Angola are managed in terms of the Petroleum Law (Decree 13/78) by the
Ministry of Petroleum. EIAs are obligatory prerequisites for all drilling activities. Will participate through
its representation on the IBCC to facilitate co-ordinated actions for the assessment and mitigation of
negative impacts on the ecosystem of oil and gas exploration/production.
· Will, through its participation on the IBCC, develop a common strategy for implementing MARPOL 73/78
in the BCLME region will be devised by December 2000.
· Will participate in the development of a regional policy on ballast water for the BCLME, developed in
tandem with the existing GEF ballast water management project.
· Will be assisted by the creation of a Coastal Biodiversity Program and Insitute at the Universiyt of Angola.
· Will serve as Host Country for The BCLME Activity Centre for Biological Diversity, Ecosystem Health
and Pollution. The Centre will be functional by 2000/2001.
57
Namibian Country Actions
In terms of the provisions of the BCLME SAP, Namibia (together with Angola and South Africa) will implement
the following policy actions:
· The establishment Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) to implement the SAP and strengthen
regional co-operation (that is promotion of sustainable integrated management of the BCLME), in
anticipation of the establishment of a permanent BC Commission within five years.
· In 1998, in the second year of PDF-B implementation, Namibia jointly founded the Benguela-
Environment-Fisheries-Interaction-Training Programme (BENEFIT) with Angola and South Africa. This
Programme aims to develop the enhanced science capacity required for the optimal and sustainable
utilization of living resources of the BCLME. Namibia has played a key role in implementation of
BENEFIT and is the host country for the location of the Secretariat and for regional co-ordination.
· Has and will continue to actively pursue a policy of co-financing with industry and donor agencies to
strengthen existing regional mechanisms and ensure necessary capacity building.
· Has and will continue to encourage the use of clean technologies.
· Has and will continue to promote the use of economic and policy instruments that foster sustainable
development.
· Will participate in the establishment of a regional structure to conduct trans-boundary fish stock and
ecosystem assessments, with joint surveys undertaken co-operatively over a five-year period starting in
2001, and co-operative assessments of shared non-exploited species.
· Will harmonize efforts to manage shared stocks (where applicable).
· Will participate in the development of a responsible mariculture policy in co-operation with SADC by
December 2002.
· The Government of Namibia has committed itself to compliance with the FAO Conduct for Responsible
Fishing.
· Will act to harmonize policies on protected areas and other conservation measures with those of other
IBCC States.
· Will participate in a regional assessment of the most vulnerable species and habitats, to be completed by
December 2001, as part of a developing policy to protect vulnerable species and biological diversity. A
regional marine biological diversity management plan will be developed by December 2003.
· Development (by IBCC) by December 2002 of a regional framework for enhanced consultation to mitigate
the negative impacts of ocean mining, collaboration to harmonize mining policies relating to shared
resources, and impact assessment of cumulative effects of mining on the BCLME.
· Will participate in development of a regional harmful algal bloom (HABs) reporting during 2001 with a
view to its implementation in 2002. Regional contingency plans for assessing the transboundary effects of
HABs will be developed and implemented by December 2002.
58
· Will assist in the development, by 2003, of a cost-effective regional early warning system for monitoring
major environmental events within the BCLME, the establishment of an environmental baseline, and other
actions with a view to improving system predictability necessary for long-term sustainable management.
· Through the IBCC, will develop, in co-operation with SADC, a responsible regional mariculture policy by
December 2002.
· Will develop, by June 2002, waste water quality criteria for receiving waters for point source pollution.
· Namibia has, with international assistance, formulated a National Contingency Plan for the Prevention and
Management of Oil Spills. Namibia will, through its participation in the IBCC, act to harmonize this Plan
and contingency plans in Angola and South Africa and develop the mechanisms for sharing technology,
expertise and clean-up equipment in the region. A regional policy will be developed by 2003 to minimize
cross-border impacts of oil pollution.
· All hydrocarbon activities in Namibia are managed in terms of the Petroleum Act (1992). Namibia has
undertaken to make EIAs obligatory prerequisites for all drilling activities. Namibia will, through its
membership on the IBCC, act to facilitate coordinated actions for the assessment and mitigation of negative
impacts on the ecosystem of oil and gas exploration/production.
· Namibia will, through the IBCC, develop a common strategy for implementing MARPOL 73/78 in the
BCLME region will be devised by December 2000.
· A regional policy on ballast water for the BCLME will be developed in tandem with the existing GEF
ballast water management project.
· Namibia will serve as the host country for the BCLME Activity Centre for Fisheries and other Living
Marine Resources. Namibia will also be the Lead Country for the project and will host the project PCU.
In addition to the above, the following policy actions have been undertaken by Namibia that supports the BCLME
Programme and the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). Some of these actions are being developed
by virtue of participation in this regional initiative.
· Environmental Management Act (1998)
The Namibian Government will soon promulgate the Environmental Management Act
(Act X of 1998) which prescribes the need for environmental assessments for various
activities including marine mining and mineral extraction, harbour construction and
associated structures, reclamation of land below high water mark and other industrial
activities related to sewage and waster treatment. A Sustainable Development Commission,
representative of key government ministries, specialists and NGOs will be responsible for issuing
licenses which have Environmental Clearance with or without conditions.
· Sea Fisheries Act 29 of 1992
The Sea Fisheries Act 29 of 1992 regulates pollution at sea and controls the disposal of fish and domestic
waste from ships, disturbance of rock lobsters, marine invertebrates and aquatic plants, and restricts areas
of seabed damage.
· South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO)
The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources has been a key player in the development of the SEAFO (along
with Angola, South Africa and U.K.) which will be tasked with management of the high seas fisheries in the
59
southeast Atlantic. This agreement is expected to be ratified in the year 2000 and will have strong links with
BCLME and BENEFIT.
· Namibian National Biodiversity Programme (Convention on Biological Diversity)
The Government of Namibia has recently ratified the Convention of Biological Diversity that will result in
the protection of marine biodiversity within the national boundaries of the BCLME. A Strategic Plan for
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity has been produced that will result in a new legislation to protect national
coastal and marine biodiversity by July 2003. The Namibian National Biodiversity Programme has a
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Working Group. This Group has produced a draft strategic plan of
elements for coastal and marine biodiversity as part of an overall document titled Biodiversity and
Development: Namibia's ten year strategic plan of action for sustainable development through biodiversity
conservation 2001-2010.
· Marine Protected Areas
The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources has completed an assessment of the needs to establish a number of
marine protected areas along the coast of Namibia and plans to introduce legislation to effect this policy by
December 2001. This is part of its efforts to bring policy and legislation in line with the Convention of Biodiversity
of which the Namibian Government is a signatory. The above mentioned coastal and marine component of the
biodiversity plan for Namibia sets timetables and costs for implementing, among other things, the recommendations
of the MFMR's consultancy report on Marine Protected Areas.
· Mariculture Development
The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources has recently drafted legislation which establishes criteria
for issuing of mariculture licencing, addresses environmental impacts of mariculture developments and
mitigation and regulation regarding the introduction of alien species. Legislation is expected to be enacted
by June 2001.
· National Oil Spill Contingency Plan
The Maritime Affairs Division of the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications is currently
formulating a National Contingency Plan for oil spills which is expected to be completed by June 2001
· Contingency Plan of Harmful Algal Blooms
The Namibian Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources is formulating a National Contingency Plan to
address Harmful Algal Blooms in the BCLME off Namibia which is expected to be implemented by
December 2001.
· MARPOL 73/78. The Government of Namibia is considering joining the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. It is
expected that an agreement will be reached by December 2000 and that ratification will be completed by June
2001. This will be beneficial for Namibia in meeting her commitments to protection of the marine environment
within the BCLME.
· Namibian Port Authority Act2 or 1994. This Act gives the Port Authorities in Namibia the responsibility to
protect the marine environment in harbour areas from oil pollution, toxic waste and disposal of waste/litter.
· Maritime Notice No. 4 (1994). This Notice provides rules and procedures for the collection of garbage from
vessels so as to prevent disposal at sea.
60
South African Country Actions
In terms of the provisions of the BCLME SAP, South Africa (together with Namibia and Angola) will implement
the following policy actions:
· Has accepted responsibility to share in the creation of the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC) to
implement the SAP and strengthen regional co-operation (that is promotion of sustainable integrated
management of the BCLME), in anticipation of the establishment of a permanent BC Commission within
five years.
· In 1998, during the second year of PDF-B implementation, South Africa jointly founded the Benguela-
Environment-Fisheries-Interaction-Training Programme (BENEFIT) which aims to develop the enhanced
science capacity required for the optimal and sustainable utilization of living resources of the BCLME).
South Africa has been, and will continue to be, an active supporter of, and participant in, BENEFIT.
· Has actively pursued, and will continue to pursue, a policy of co-financing with industry and donor
agencies to strengthen existing regional mechanisms and ensure necessary capacity building.
· Has encouraged, and will continue to encourage, the use of clean technologies.
· Has promoted and will continue to promote the use of economic and policy instruments that foster
sustainable development.
· Will participate in the establishment of a regional structure to conduct trans-boundary fish stock and
ecosystem assessments, with joint surveys undertaken co-operatively over a five-year period starting in
2001, and will undertake co-operative assessments of shared non-exploited species.
· Will act to harmonize, with its project partners, the management of shared stocks (where applicable).
· Will act to cooperatively develop a responsible mariculture policy in co-operation with SADC by
December 2002.
· Has committed itself to compliance with the FAO Conduct for Responsible Fishing.
· Has agreed to play its part in the harmonization of policies on protected areas and other conservation
measures with policies of other IBCC States .
· Will participate in a collaborative regional assessment of the most vulnerable species and habitats, to be
completed by December 2001, as part of a developing policy to protect vulnerable species and biological
diversity. South Africa will fully participate in the deevlopment of a regional marine biological diversity
management plan to be completed by December 2003.
· Work within the IBCC to develop, by December 2002, a regional framework for enhanced consultation to
mitigate the negative impacts of ocean mining, collaboration to harmonize mining policies relating to
shared resources, and impact assessment of cumulative effects of mining on the BCLME.
· Is developing Quality Control Criteria for export of Mariculture produce.
· Work to incorporate South African into a regional harmful algal bloom (HABs) reporting to be developed
during 2001 with a view to its implementation in 2002. Will participate in the development of regional
contingency plans for assessing the transboundary effects of HABs, to be implemented by December 2002.
61
· Develop by 2003 a cost-effective regional early warning system for monitoring major environmental
events within the BCLME, the establishment of an environmental baseline, and other actions with a view to
improving system predictability necessary for long-term sustainable management.
· Through the IBCC, will participate in efforts to develop, in co-operation with SADC, a responsible regional
mariculture policy by December 2002.
· Is in the process of developing quality criteria for the export of mariculture produce.
· Develop by June 2002 wastewater quality criteria for receiving waters for point source pollution.
· South Africa has in place a National Contingency Plan for the Prevention and Management of Oil Spills.
South Africa will work through the IBCC to harmonize this Plan and contingency plans in Namibia and
Angola and develop the mechanisms for sharing technology, expertise and clean-up equipment in the
region. South Africa will be part of a regional policy, to be developed by 2003, to minimize cross-border
impacts of oil pollution.
· South Africa has acted to make EIAs an obligatory prerequisite for all drilling activities. South Africa
commits to work within the IBCC to facilitate coordinated actions for the assessment and mitigation of
negative impacts on the ecosystem of oil and gas exploration/production.
· Through IBCC, South Africa commits to its participation in a common strategy for implementing
MARPOL 73/78 in the BCLME region will be devised by December 2000.
· South Africa has committed to participation in the global GEF ballast water management project.
· South Africa has agreed to be the Host Country for The BCLME Activity Centre for Environmental
Variability and Improved Predictability. It is expected that the Centre will be operational by 2000/2001.
In addition to the above, the following policy actions have been undertaken by South Africa which in effect
supports the BCLME Programme and the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP).
· Marine Living Resources Act
This Act, the South African government's major statement on policy related to the
conservation and orderly utilization of marine living resources, was promulgated in
September 1998. The regulations associated with it and aspects of the Act itself are
undergoing review in light of experiences and findings that flow from implementation and
research activities and as a result of regional programmes such as the BCLME and BENEFIT.
· Coastal Policy
South Africa is undertaking a total review of its policy on coastal utilization and
development. The process, currently in the White Paper phase and targeted for finalization
during the year 2000, is subject to ongoing interaction with all stakeholders, which means
that outputs from the BCLME process will be able to feed into the process in a meaningful
manner prior to promulgation.
· South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation
SEAFO was evolved as a combined initiative of the three southern African countries bordering the SE Atlantic plus
the United Kingdom, for its St Helena dependency. Its aim is to improve management, understanding and control of
the straddling living marine resources beyond the 200 mile EEZs of the three countries. The convention is due for
ratification during the year 2000, so the BCLME programme will be able to make notable input during the
convention's implementation.
· National Environmental Management Act
South Africa's NEMA is being developed as a means of effectively coordinating all policy relating to the use of its
air, terrestrial and marine environments, specifically related to preserving the quality of life of its people. Scheduled
62
for promulgation in 2001, NEMA offers the BCLME initiative a real conduit for influencing national policy in an
effective manner.
· Convention of Biological Diversity
South Africa ratified the CBD in 1996 and a discussion document on the conservation and sustainable use of South
Africa's biological diversity was widely circulated and discussed prior to incorporation in a draft white paper.
Many of the principles of the CBD were incorporated into the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998 to control
marine biodiversity issues, such as marine protected areas, overfishing, ecosystem effects of fishing and
importation of alien species for aquaria or mariculture. BCLME inputs to the implementation phase of the CBD are
crucial.
63
Annex F2
Description of Baseline Situation in Each of the Countries Participating in the BCLME Programme, List of
Major Ongoing and Planned Projects in the Region, and Details as to Relevance to/Linkages between these
Projects and the BCLME
The section which follows describes the baseline situation in each of the countries in the Benguela Current region,
lists the major ongoing and planned projects and the linkages between these projects and the five components of the
BCLME. The accompanying Annex G3 Table also highlights which of the principal issues and problems identified
in the TDA, as well as the causality of these, the ongoing and planned baseline projects address. The following text
and Table G3 thus expand on Annex A (Incremental Cost Narrative), and also augment Annex B (Incremental
Cost/Complete Matrix). As will be evident from Annexes A and B and the accompanying Table G3 to this Annex,
the baseline activities are varied and cover the full spectrum, i.e. all identified components, of the BCLME
Programme.
The financial and human resources which support the identified baseline activities in the region are derived
primarily from national sources. While these national sources are predominantly governmental, private sector input
and involvement is substantial (e.g. Annex B) mainly from the fishing, mining and oil and gas industries. Non-
governmental and para-statal institutions play an essential role in the execution of baseline projects by way of
providing skilled human resources, high technology infrastructure and regional capacity development. Donor
involvement and support comprises a significant fraction of the regional baseline by way of directed funding,
advanced technology and infrastructure, training and networking particularly in Angola and Namibia.
As has been noted previously, the colonial and political past have left the countries of the Benguela Current region
with a legacy of fragmented management. Following the liberation struggles, the demise of institutionalised
apartheid, and the establishment of democratic societies, collaboration between the three countries to ensure
integrated management and sustainable development and protection of the Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem became not just desirable, but a regional imperative. The actions which led to the development of the
BCLME Programme were to a large extent facilitated by BENEFIT, a regional marine science, technology and
training initiative (see TDA for details) which commenced in 1997, and which has done much to engender multi-
sectoral collaboration between Angola, Namibia and South Africa and building of trust between the main players.
BENEFIT will continue through the life of GEF intervention phase (at least) of the BCLME Programme, and is de
facto a major regional (transboundary) baseline activity. Accordingly, pertinent information on BENEFIT baseline
projects are provided under a separate heading, rather than under the individual countries.
Because of the large number of projects relevant to the BCLME Programme undertaken within each of the
participating countries (for example, in South Africa's Marine and Coastal Development alone, there are in excess
of 150 registered projects), individual projects have been grouped into more generic projects/programmes, country
by country, in the accompanying Table G3. For each of these projects/programmes estimates have been provided of
the anticipated expenditure during the period 2000-2004, using the best information currently available. In the case
of Angola, the baseline cost estimates reflected in Table G3 were updated on 17 November 2000 and relate to the
period 2001-2005. It must be noted, however, that while 3 or 5 year targets may exist, governments budget one year
at a time, and can revise and change priorities depending on the prevailing political and economic climate. The
baseline numbers provided in Table G3 (and also elsewhere in this Expedited Project Document) are estimates , not
guaranteed commitments. It must also be pointed out that the governments of Angola, Namibia and South Africa do
not at present budget by projects in the sense shown in Table G3, but rather by categories such as human resources
(personnel expenses), consumables, equipment, transport, etc. In order to provide meaningful costs associated with
the projects/programmes listed in Table G3, baseline cost estimates have been made for each of these from
available primary input data in consultation with individual country members of the BCLME Management
Committee (who apportioned their country estimates into the generic project groupings). Thus, while there will be a
significant variance associated with the costs (US$) shown in Table G3 for individual projects/programmes, the
estimates can be taken as a good guide to the distribution of likely baseline expenditure over the 5 year period (i.e.
during the GEF intervention phase of the BCLME Programme).
64
The linkages shown in Table G3 were determined in consultation with representatives of the governments of the
three countries (who had either served on the Management Committee for the BCLME or otherwise had had
intimate knowledge of, and involvement in, the BCLME development process). Apart from the utility of Table G3
in demonstrating these linkages between the generic projects/programmes in each country (and in BENEFIT) and
the transboundary issues, problem causality, and relevance to the various components of the BCLME Programme,
it also highlights some essential differences between the participating governments as to how problems are
perceived even when projects have similar sounding titles. For example, one country may find that lack of
capacity/training in a particular field (project) to be a problem, whereas another country may see the project as
more relevant for them to a completely different issue such as environmental variability. What is also evident
from Table G3 is that most of the projects/programmes address multiple issues, causes and components of the
BCLME rather than a single entity again demonstrating the extent of the inter-linking within the BCLME matrix.
Key aspects of the baseline situation in each of the three countries plus BENEFIT follow:
Angola
Angola has a long history of living marine resource management based on the concept of sustainable utilization of
these resources thought the application of appropriate monitoring and assessment (science and technology). Table
G3 shows that the management functions span the full range of the transboundary issues identified in the BCLME
TDA, and the relevant suites of root causes of problems. It also shows that there is a good balance cost-wise
between the management and assessment/monitoring functions, with a wide spread of projects/programmes
covering a broad spectrum of activities needed to address the resources and ecosystem per se ranging from
biological studies on living marine resources, through stock assessment and modelling, training, etc. to monitoring
and assessment of harmful algal blooms. Again, all of the assessment and monitoring projects address one or more
(often several) of the transboundary issues and causes of problems. Of overriding importance is the complexity of
the ecosystem and the high degree of variability of the resources and the environment. As is evident in Table G3,
the Angolan Government proposes to spend a substantial amount on the monitoring and assessment of living
marine resources and ecosystems. An amount of $2 million is budgeted for protection of marine biodiversity and a
further $3 million for environmental management and its administration. There are substantial amounts for a
developing country and illustrates the commitment of the Government to addressing key environmental issues and
concerns, e.g. Issue ii (uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields), Issue iv (habitat destruction and
alteration), Issue v (loss of biotic integrity). As is the case in the majority of the Angolan projects/programmes, a
major constraint is the present inadequate capacity to assess ecosystem health hence the investment by Angola to
correct this. Mariculture is in an early development stage, addresses four of the main issues and their causes.
The estimated baseline expenditure by the Angolan government on compliance for the five-year period 2001-2005
is of the order of $146 million a realistic amount given the size of the EEZ, the coastline and the diversity of the
resources.
As may be anticipated for a country which is now a major producer of oil (now second in Africa only to Nigeria),
and with rapid expansion of the oil and gas industry in the coastal zone and within the EEZ planned for the next
five years and beyond, it would be expected that there should be substantial government, industry and private sector
involvement in addressing environmental issues associated with petroleum extraction activities. This is indeed
reflected in the suite of baseline programmes and the associated baseline funding projections over the period (refer
to programmes listed under Marine Pollution and Mineral and Energy Resources in Table G3). By way of example,
some $40 million baseline expenditure is estimated for prevention, contingency planning, management and clean-
up of oil pollution, with a further $15 million for environmental impact assessment for oil exploration/extraction
activities. Most of this funding will come from industry. Issues addressed include inter alia deterioration of water
quality (both chronic and catastrophic), habitat destruction and alteration and loss of biotic integrity, and the
underlying complexity of the ecosystem and high degree of variability and the ongoing problem of inadequate
capacity development and training.
The linkages between the projects/programmes shown in Table G3 and the baseline investments therein, illustrate
65
the sincerity of the Angolan authorities to addressing the identified transboundary environmental and resource
problems and their root causes in the BCLME. Commensurate with this is the wish of Angola to host the
Biodiversity/Ecosystem and Pollution Activity Centre for the BCLME Programme. Given the rapid development
and industrialisation taking place in the extreme northern part of the Benguela Current region, this is highly
appropriate and its implementation will facilitate the building of strong linkages between the country baseline
activities and those envisaged through the BCLME Programme.
Namibia
The marine baseline activities in Namibia are extensive, reflecting the relative importance to the country's economy
of sustainable utilization and protection of living marine resource, tourism, mining and, in the near future, oil and
gas extraction. Since independence in 1990, Namibia has received substantial assistance (both in kind and financial)
from international donor agencies towards promoting sustainable management of coastal and EEZ resources. This
aid has been instrumental inter alia in enabling the Namibian Government to devise far-sighted, environmentally
friendly, legislation and appropriate economic instruments and, in pursuance of this objective, to ensure effective
implementation and compliance to build capacity and to assess the status and yields of the living marine resources.
The primary funding agency has, however, been the Namibian Government per se. Post-independent fisheries
policy has been aimed at rebuilding stocks (which had been severely depleted prior to 1990) through conservative
harvesting. Innovative partnerships have been established between Government and industry with the objectives of
wise resource utilization, optimal development and utilization of human capacity and facilities, and cost-sharing.
The Namibian Government recognised at an early stage that co-operation with neighbouring states in science,
technology and management was a prerequisite for long term sustainable utilization of marine resources of the
BCLME region because of the nature of the resources and the associated transboundary problems. Namibia took the
lead in developing co-operative research in the Benguela Current region, and this led to the establishment of the
successful regional/transboundary Benguela-Environment-Fisheries-Interaction & Training (BENEFIT)
Programme in 1997. Also, in the development of the BCLME Programme, Namibia has been the lead country.
Total baseline investment in Namibia for the BCLME for the period 2000-2004 is estimated at $112 million, of
which the major part (87%) is for living marine resources (both in the EEZ and on the coast). In Table G3, six main
projects/programmes relate to management of these resources, including a major programme ($3.2 million) on
capacity development and training aimed at institutional strengthening. Collectively, the management
projects/programmes address all seven BCLME issues, several causes of problems, and span all components of the
BCLME. Included is a project aimed at promoting the proper management of high seas stocks, both regional and
international, which is jointly funded by the Government and NORAD.
Some 60% of Namibia's living marine resource budget is devoted to compliance activities (i.e. monitoring, control
and surveillance). These activities are particularly relevant to addressing Issues i (decline in BCLME commercial
fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living resources) and v (loss of biotic integrity), several of the root causes
of problems, and BCLME Component 1 (management and sustainable use of resources). The substantial investment
by Namibia in enforcement of fisheries legislation demonstrates the commitment of the country to effective and
wise management of renewable resources. This is also demonstrated by Namibia's lead role in marine fisheries
within the Southern African Development Community (SADC): The SADC Sector Co-ordinating Unit for Marine
Fisheries (which performs an important regional baseline function) is based in Windhoek and is funded by the
Namibian Government, together with international donors. This unit addresses all the BCLME transboundary
issues, and is central to BCLME Component 1.
Aquaculture (mariculture) comprises a small but developing baseline activity in Namibia with the principal centre
being located at Lüderitz. Several problems and their underlying causes identified in the BCLME Programme are
addressed by this baseline programme.
Monitoring and assessment of living marine resources (which includes appropriate applied research, both in science
and technology) comprises a suite of 12 programmes which address a broad spectrum of issues and problems (see
Table G/1). Ship-based surveys (baseline expenditure estimated at $10 million over the period 2000-2004) of the
living resources and the environment, which are jointly funded by Government, NORAD and ICEIDA, provide
66
essential data required to address Issues i vii, and are prerequisites for Components 2, 3 and 4 of the BCLME
Programme. Again, complexity of the ecosystem, high degree of variability of resources and the environment and
inadequate capacity development (A, B) are complicating factors. There is an approximately equal investment in
monitoring the state of demersal stocks, of pelagic stocks, and in assessing the influence of the environment on fish
distribution and abundance. The relevant linkages with transboundary issues, root causes and the main components
of the BCLME Programme are reflected in Table G3.
Namibia has a relatively straight coastline spanning 11° of latitude. Much of the coast is sandy, with few
embayments and is sparsely populated. Coastal zone management activities are modest ($1 million) yet
multifaceted, addressing all the BCLME issues, problem causes and components. Except at a few point sources and
areas impacted by diamond mining, the Namibia coastal zone is relatively unpolluted. As a consequence, the
substantial investment with respect to marine pollution is related to control and management ports (e.g. at Walvis
Bay), oil pollution contingency planning and management (both coastal and EEZ). The total estimated expenditure
on marine pollution by Namibia for the period 2000-2004 is of the order of $4 million, which is still a substantial
amount given the pristine nature of much of the marine and coastal environment. This illustrates the Government's
commitment to prevention of deterioration in water quality both chronic and catastrophic (Issue iii) cf. also
Component 4 of the BCLME Programme (maintenance of ecosystem, health and management of pollution).
Mining plays an important part in the Namibian economy. In the marine environment diamond mining, both in the
coastal zone and on the EEZ seabed, is a substantial industry. The baseline investment in impact assessment of
marine diamond mining and for oil and gas exploration will be of the order of $8.5 million over the next five years.
Mining and related activities which disturb the seabed are of concern in terms of habitat destruction/alteration
(Issue iv) and loss of biotic integrity (Issue v), particularly in view of the complexity of the ecosystem of high
degree of variability (root cause A), and their proper management is addressed directly by Component 4 of the
BCLME Programme. What is perhaps a unique feature is that in Namibia the seabed is co-managed by the
Ministries responsible for living marine resources and for mining. It is this baseline approach to integrated and
responsible management which is seen as a cornerstone for the development of integrated management for the
BCLME as a whole, transcending sectoral and geopolitical boundaries.
South Africa
The baseline activities for South Africa are very extensive, totalling approximately US$200 million for the period
2000-2004, of which the major part (93%) is allocated for sustainable utilisation and management of living marine
resources (both within the EEZ and on the coast). This apparent baseline bias towards living resources can be
ascribed to three main factors. First, South Africa's rich west and south coast fish resources have been harvested for
several centuries, both by way of subsistence and commercial fisheries. These fisheries have been actively
researched and managed within the country for more than a century. Second, until relatively recently the western
seaboard of South Africa has been sparsely populated and not subjected to major development pressure. Third,
except for fishing and diamond mining activities (both along the coast and on the seabed) industrial development
has been confined to the Cape Town and Saldanha Bay nodes. That situation is now changing and increasing
pressure is being placed on the coast and on the renewable and non-renewable resources.
As already mentioned, South Africa has a long tradition of marine living resource utilisation and management.
Prior to the demise of apartheid and the establishment of a democratically elected government in 1994, while the
need for these resources to be managed holistically across geopolitical boundaries within the greater Benguela
Current ecosystem was recognised, formal collaboration with independent Angola and Namibia (with the objective
of system-wide monitoring, assessment and management) was not possible. Notwithstanding this, the strong
infrastructure, technology, education and information base which has been established in South Africa over many
years is now seen as an important asset for the region as a whole, as transboundary problems are addressed and
collectively managed. Monitoring, assessment and management of South Africa's fish resources are financed
jointly by Central Government and the fishing industry via the Marine Living Resources Fund. In Table G3, six
main projects in South Africa have been identified under marine living resource management. Collectively these
address all the issues identified in the TDA process as major problem areas, as well as root causes of the problems.
Training and capacity development forms a cornerstone of institutional strengthening nationally, as well as
67
addressing needs of other BCLME countries. The bilateral donor support programme is playing a key role in inter
alia the development of equitable policies and in development of advanced monitoring and assessment capacity,
including at the ecosystem level. Although the aid is bilateral, the spin-off and networking extends across the
geopolitical country boundary.
Approximately 25% of South Africa's baseline budget for living marine resources is devoted to monitoring and
assessment activities, including research covering the full spectrum of activities necessary to provide management
with the requisite input information on the status of the resources and the environment. South Africa has invested
substantially, and will continue to do so, in the assessment of the influence of the environment (including variability
and change) on fisheries distribution and abundance. Some US$6.4M is earmarked for this activity during 2000-
2004, and this illustrates the recognition of government and the fishing industry of the importance of incorporating
into sustainable resource management those elements (signals) which transcend (internal) geopolitical and
(external) ecosystem boundaries. The focus of the environmental project addresses both the problem of ecosystem
complexity, the cause (high degree of variability), and inadequate capacity development and training (cf. TDA).
Like the environment, knowledge and understanding of the basic biology of the harvested and non-harvested
resources is an essential input into resource assessment and sustainable management. This information is applicable
throughout the BCLME. Likewise, studies on biodiversity, marine protected areas, as well as techniques to manage
at the ecosystem level transcend boundaries, address several issues identified in the TDA and their root causes. The
cornerstone of proper marine living resource management is the quantitative assessment of the stock sizes and
yields (allowable catches) of the various target species. The utility of this for stocks which straddle or migrate
across geopolitical boundaries is self evident cf. problem of decline in commercial stocks in the BCLME, non-
optimal harvesting and loss of biotic integrity (Issues i, v) and their causes ecosystem complexity/variability and
inadequate capacity development.
The broad-based service-type projects, such as ship-based surveys of living resources, technical and information
services, communication services etc., provide essential inputs into the resource assessment and management
activities and the dissemination of information. Again these are relevant to all the transboundary issues identified in
the TDA, and address the various root causes.
Harmful algal blooms are a problem throughout the BCLME region (issue vii), transcending geopolitical
boundaries. National monitoring and impact assessment activities contribute directly to system-wide information
base needed to establish appropriate response mechanisms. HABs are, likewise, important factors with respect to
responsible development of mariculture (which in turn will play an increasing role in creating employment in
coastal communities and reducing the pressure on presently exploited resources). Not only is proper mariculture
management important in terms of Component 2 (management and sustainable use of BCLME resources) but is
equally important in terms of maintenance of ecosystem health (cf. introduction of alien species) and pollution
(waste products from mariculture industry which cause localised eutrophication and hypoxia).
Compliance, i.e. surveillance and control/law-enforcement, comprises an essential component of sustainable
ecosystem use and management (cf. Components 1 and 2 of the BCLME). The decline in some fish stocks (Issue i)
can be attributed to inadequate surveillance and enforcement of legislation as well as poor legal frameworks etc.
(problem causality B-G) so can problems such as habitat destruction, loss of biotic integrity (Issues iv, v). The
baseline amount provided for compliance over the period 2000-2004 accounts for nearly 50% of the total budget,
indicating South Africa's commitment to eradicating illegal activities in its EEZ and its recognition of the need for
proper enforcement at the scale of the BCLME. A major part of the compliance budget is for the acquisition of
fisheries patrol vessels. This, together with actions taken by its northern neighbours, will be a key element for the
successful implementation of the BCLME Programme sensu lato.
Marine pollution control and management, oil pollution contingency planning/management (cf. Components 3 and
4) and coastal zone management (cf. Components 1-5 of the BCLME) together account for just over 5% of the
South African baseline budget. Activities associated with the GEF International Ballast Water Project which,
although not included in the baseline budget, are very important viz-a-viz issues v (loss of biotic integrity)
ecosystem health (issue vi) and the introduction and spread of HAB species (Issues v, vii). DFID is playing a
significant role in helping South Africa develop a proper coastal zone management policy, and close links between
68
this policy and policies which will emerge out of the BCLME initiative are foreseen.
With respect to management of non-renewable resources, in particular diamond mining on the seabed and along the
coast and oil/gas extraction, the relevant industries are investing in appropriate impact assessment and monitoring.
These activities are relevant to Components 1-4 of the BCLME Programme, address TDA identified Issues iii and
iv (deterioration in water quality, habitat destruction) and Problem Causality A and D, particularly the latter
(inadequate implementation of available regulatory instruments).
BENEFIT
BENEFIT is a truly transboundary science, technology and training initiative in the Benguela Current region.
Conceived and driven by the three countries (Angola, Namibia and South Africa) in partnership with SADC and
international donor agencies, BENEFIT has as its overall goal the development of the enhanced science capability
required for optimal and sustainable utilization of living resources of the Benguela ecosystem by (i) improving
knowledge and understanding of the dynamics of important commercial stocks, their environment and linkages
between environmental processes and stock dynamics and (ii) building appropriate human and material capacity for
marine science and technology in the countries bordering the Benguela ecosystem.
BENEFIT is funded jointly by the three governments, international donor agencies, industry, The World Bank and
the African Development Bank, with an estimated budget of approximately $18 million spread over five years. The
trust and co-operation in science, education and technology which BENEFIT has engendered during the
formulation and execution phases (it formally commenced in 1997) has paved the way for the development of
similar trust and co-operation between the three countries in respect of sustainable transboundary management of
marine resources and the ecosystems as a whole, viz the BCLME Programme.
Existing BENEFIT projects fall into groupings which address the four principal components of the Programme
(living resources, environment, linkages, training) see Table G3. A fifth component is planned for the future, viz
science support for sustainable aquaculture development. The main projects are listed in Table G3 and their
relevance and linkages to issues, problem causality and component of the BCLME Programme are shown in the
Table. All of the projects in the monitoring and assessment of living marine resources component address directly
BCLME Issue i (decline in commercial fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living resources) and the causes
A and B (ecosystem complexity and variability, and inadequate capacity development), and are relevant to
Components 1, 2 and 5 of the BCLME. The suite of four BENEFIT environmental projects address inter alia the
problem of variability-uncertainty and its underlying causes, which is central to Component 3 of the BCLME
Programme. Other environmental issues such as deterioration in water quality, harmful algal blooms and loss of
biotic integrity are also addressed. Cause and effect of variability in resources and the environment are addressed
through the linkage projects, which also examine the very real twin problems (of relevance to sustainable
management) of decadal variability and long-term ecosystem changes.
Within BENEFIT, training and capacity development is done through science and technology. While much of the
training is done by way of hands-on transfer of knowledge and skills, BENEFIT has developed and conducted a
large number of specialised training courses and workshops. The training and capacity development component of
BENEFIT addresses several of the issues identified in the BCLME TDA and the causes of the problems (see Table
G3). As such, it is highly relevant to Components 2, 3 and 4 of the BCLME Programme, and also to some extent to
Component 5 (donor co-ordination and fund raising).
Key to Table G3: Viz Component of BCLME, Issues and Problem Causality
Component 1
Project Co-ordination
Component 2
Management & sustainable use of BCLME resources
Component 3
Assessment of environmental variability, ecosystem impacts and improvement of
predictability
Component 4
Maintenance of ecosystem health and management of pollution
Component 5
Donor co-ordination and fundraising.
69
Issues i
Decline in BCLME commercial fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living
resources.
Issues ii
Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields in a highly variable environment.
Issues iii
Deterioration in water quality chronic and catastrophic.
Issues iv
Habitat destruction and alteration, including inter alia modification of seabed and coastal
zone and degradation of coastscapes.
Issues v
Loss of biotic integrity (changes in community composition, species diversity,
introduction of alien species etc.) and threat to biodiversity/endangered and vulnerable
species.
Issues vi
Inadequate capacity to assess ecosystem health (resources and environment, and
variability thereof).
Issues vii
Harmful algal blooms (HABs).
Problem Causality A
Complexity of ecosystem and high degree of variability (of resources and environment)
Problem Causality B
Inadequate capacity development (human and infrastructure) and training.
Problem Causality C
Poor legal framework at the regional, national and international levels.
Problem Causality D
Inadequate implementation of available regulatory instruments.
Problem Causality E
Inadequate planning at all levels.
Problem Causality F
Insufficient public involvement.
Problem Causality G
Inadequate financial mechanisms and support.
Note For each of the above problem causality categories A G, there exist a subset of causality elements (refer to
TDA for details).
70
Acronyms used in Annex F2
ADB
African Development Bank
BENEFIT
Benguela-Environment-Fisheries-Interaction-Training (Progamme)
CZ
Coastal zone
DANCED
Danish Co-operation on Environment and Development
DFID
Department for International Development
EEZ
Exclusive economic zone
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organisation (of the United Nations)
FSP
Fonds de Solidarité Prioritaire (France)
GTZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (Germany)
ICEIDA
Icelandic International Development Agency
ICLARM
International Centre for Living Aquatic Resource Management
IRD
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (France)
NAMPORT
Namibian port authority
NORAD
Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation
SIDA
Swedish International Development Agency
US AID
United States Aid for International Development
71
Annex F3
LIST OF RELEVANT BASELINE PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS (ONGOING AND PLANNED), BY COUNTRY/REGION4
COUNTRY
PROGRAMME/PROJECT
US$
YEARS
FUNDING AGENCY
LOCATION
BCLME
PROBLEM
COMPONENT
OR
(x1000)
ISSUES
CAUSALITY
OF
REGION
ADDRESSED
ADDRESSED
RELEVANCE
ANGOLA
MARINE LIVING RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
50
2001-2005
Govt.
Region
i vii
A G
1 5
§
Effective intra- and inter-project coordination and
200
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B, C, D, G
2, 4
support through the establishment of a PCU
4519
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B, C, G
2 5
§
Legislation: development and harmonisation
650
2001-2005
Govt., NORAD
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, v, vi
A, B, C, E, G
2
§
Management and administrative support services
§
Development and implementation of a master
7500
2001-2005
FIDA, Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, iv, vi
A, B, G
2
plan for the fisheries sector
§
Sustainable development of fisheries
129
2001-2005
FAO, Govt.
EEZ
i, ii, v, vi
A
2
communities
§
Support of fisheries data collection and recording
600
2001-2005
Govt., FAO
CZ
i, ii, v, vi
A, B, G
2
system
800
2001-2005
Govt., NORAD
EEZ & CZ
vi
B
2 4
§
Sustainable development of small scale fisheries
§
Training and capacity development
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
1425
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ
i, vi
A, B, G
2, 4
OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
5000
2001-2005
NORAD, Govt.
EEZ
i, ii, iv, v, vi
A
2
1425
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ
ii, vi
A, B
3
§
Biological studies of living marine resources
§
Ship-based surveys of living marine resources
2645
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B
2 4
§
Environmental influence on fisheries distribution
1000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ
ii
A
2
and abundance
475
2001-2005
Govt., NORAD
EEZ & CZ
i, vi
A, B
2
§
Research management and administration
200
2001-2005
Govt., NORAD
EEZ & CZ
vi
B
2 4
§
New marine resources (feasibility assessment)
§
Stock assessment and modelling
§
Training
400
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii vi
A, B
2 4
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
2000
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
v, vi
A, B, G
4
OF ECOSYSTEMS
500
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, F
2, 4
§
Environmental impact assessment
3145
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
ii vi
A, B
2 4
§
Biodiversity and marine protected areas
§
Environmental education, publications, media
200
2001-2005
Govt., BENEFIT
EEZ & CZ
vi, vii
A
2 4
§
Environmental management and administrative
support
ANGOLA
§
Monitoring and assessment of harmful algal
(CONT.)
blooms
475
2001-2005
Govt.
CZ
i, v, vi, vii
A, B, G
2
500
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
CZ
i, v, vi, vii
A, B, G
2
MARICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
§
Mariculture research
6500
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i, v, vi
A, B, C, D
2, 4
0 4 Refer to preceding text in Annex G2 for key to numbering of issues, problem causality and component of BCLME Programme
72
§
Responsible development of mariculture
1500
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i, v, vi
A, B, C
2, 4
4800
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i, v, vi
A
2
COMPLIANCE
§
Monitoring, control and surveillance
§
Administrative support for compliance
5814
2001-2005
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, G
2 4
§
Patrol vessel and aircraft
2500
2001-2005
Govt., donor (?)
EEZ
i, ii, vi
A
2
6400
2001-2005
Govt.
CZ
iv
A, B, G
2, 4
INFRASTRUCTURE
§
Administrative infrastructure
5000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
CZ
iii vii
A,C, D, G
3, 4
§
Research vessel
8000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii vii
A, B, C, D, G
3, 4
§
Coastal structures (harbours, bridges etc.)
40 000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii vii
A, E
2 4
MARINE POLLUTION
§
Coastal pollution prevention programme
§
Marine pollution prevention and management
2000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
CZ
i vii
A E
2, 4
§
Oil pollution prevention measures (prevention,
contingency planning, management, clean-up)
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
500
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv
A, B
2, 4
15 000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv
A, B
2, 4
§
Coastal zone management
500
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv
A, B
2, 4
MINERAL AND ENERGY
RESOURCES (INCLUDING OIL
AND GAS)
2000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B, G
1 5
§
Management of minerals and energy resources
12 000
2001-2005
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A
2 4
§
Impact assessment of oil and gas extraction
§
Impact assessment and monitoring of marine
mining
SUPPORT SERVICES
§
Communication and information services
(library, publications)
§
Technical support services
COUNTRY
PROGRAMME/PROJECT
US$
YEARS
FUNDING AGENCY
LOCATION
BCLME
PROBLEM
COMPONENT
OR
(x1000)
ISSUES
CAUSALITY
OF
REGION
ADDRESSED
ADDRESSED
RELEVANCE
NAMIBIA
MARINE LIVING RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
1800
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B
1 5
§
Integrated management and administrative
800
2000-2004
Govt., NORAD
EEZ, regional
i, ii
A, B, C, G
1 5
support services (living marine resources)
73
§
Cooperation on management of high seas stocks
3204
2000-2004
Govt., NORAD, GTZ,
National
i vii
B
2 4
(regional and international)
DFID
§
Training and capacity development
1207
2000-2004
Govt., ICIEDA, NORAD,
National
i vii
A, B, C
2 4
GTZ
§
Policy, planning and resource economics
600
2000-2004
Govt., GTZ
National
i vii
B, C
1 5
250
2000-2004
Govt.
Regional
i vii
A G
1, 5
§
Development of legislation
§
Effective intra- and inter-project coordination and
support through establishment of a PCU
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
4617
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B
1 5
OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
3627
2000-2004
Govt., Industry, NORAD
EEZ
i, iv, v
A, B
2, 3
2969
2000-2004
Govt., Industry, EU, IRD
EEZ
i, ii, v
A, B
2, 3
§
Research management and administration
824
2000-2004
Govt., Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, iii, iv, v, vi
A, B
2 4
§
Monitoring state of demersal fish stocks
499
2000-2004
Govt., NORAD, Industry
EEZ, regional
i, ii, iv, v, vi
A, B, C
2 5
§
Monitoring state of pelagic fish stocks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
§
Monitoring state of crustacean resources
658
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i
A, B
§
Straddling stock management and regional
2
1340
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
i, iv, v
A, B
cooperation
2 4
§
Quantitative resource assessment
329
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
v, vi
A, B
§
Studies on selected top predators (seals, sea
2 4
3793
2000-2004
Govt., GTZ, IRD
EEZ & CZ
ii
A, B
birds)
3, 4
§
Sustainable ecosystem management
10 000
2000-2004
Govt., NORAD, ICEIDA
EEZ
i, ii, iv, v, vi, vii
A, B
§
Environmental influence on fish distribution and
2 4
abundance
489
2000-2004
Govt.
National
i vii
B
§
Ship-based surveys of living resources and
1 5
1301
2000-2004
Govt., DFID, ICLARM,
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B
environment
2, 3
GTZ
§
Information services and support
§
Technical support services
785
2000-2004
Govt., Industry
CZ
i, iii, v, vi, vii
A G
2 4
AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
0
0
0
§
Responsible development of aquaculture
0
0
0
49778
2000-2004
Govt., NORAD, Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, v, vii
B E
2
MONITORING, CONTROL AND
8784
2000-2004
Govt.
CZ
i, v, vii
B F
2
0
0
NAMIBIA
SURVEILLANCE
0
0
0
0
(CONT.)
§
Sea-based monitoring, control and surveillance
200
2000-2004
Govt., France, ICEIDA
Regional
i vii
A G
1, 2, 5
§
Land-based monitoring, control and surveillance
SADC MARINE FISHERIES
301
2000-2004
Govt., NORAD
EEZ
i vii
A G
COORDINATION
4
2373
2000-2004
NAMPORT
CZ
iii
A, B
4
§
SADC Sector Coordinating Unit for Marine
1500
2000-2004
Govt., Industry, SIDA
EEZ & CZ
iii
A G
2 4
Fisheries
MARINE POLLUTION
§
Pollution control and management (EEZ)
1045
2000-2004
Govt., DANCED
CZ
i vii
A G
1 5
§
Pollution control and management (ports)
§
Oil pollution contingency planning and
management
516
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
iv, v
B, G
2, 4
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
7280
2000-2004
Industry
EEZ & CZ
iv, v
A
2, 4
§
Sustainable development and utilization of the
1250
2000-2004
Industry
EEZ & CZ
iv, v
A
coast (cf environment and tourism)
2, 4
74
MINERALS AND ENERGY
RESOURCES
§
Management of minerals and energy resources
§
Impact assessment and monitoring of marine
diamond mining
§
Impact assessment and monitoring of activities re
oil and gas
COUNTRY
PROGRAMME/PROJECT
US$
YEARS
FUNDING AGENCY
LOCATION
BCLME
PROBLEM
COMPONENT
OR
(x1000)
ISSUES
CAUSALITY
OF
REGION
ADDRESSED
ADDRESSED
RELEVANCE
SOUTH
MARINE LIVING RESOURCE
AFRICA
MANAGEMENT
14896
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, iv, v, vi, vii
A G
1 5
§
Integrated management and administrative
1984
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
CZ
i, ii, iv, v, vi, vii
B
2
support services (living marine resources)
4328
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ
i, iv
A, B, G, E
2, 3, 5
§
Training and capacity development
588
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, iv, v
B, C, D, E, G
2, 5
§
Economics and resource development
3312
2000-2004
NORAD, IRD, USAID
EEZ
i vii
B, G
5
§
Resource rights allocations
50
2001-2004
Govt.
Regional
i vii
A G
1
§
Bilateral donor support programme
§
Effective intra- and inter-project coordination and
support through establishment of a PCU
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
2807
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A, B
1 5
OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
6446
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, iii, vi, vii
A, B
2, 3
§
Research management and administration
8836
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, ii
A, B
2
§
Environmental influence on fisheries
distribution and abundance
SOUTH
§
Age, growth and reproduction of living marine
484
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, iv, v, vi
A, G
2, 4
AFRICA
resources
2613
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, ii, vi
A, B, C, D
2
(CONT.)
§
Biodiversity and marine protected areas
1935
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, v
A, B, C, E, G
2, 4
§
Development of sustainable ecosystem
1377
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, v
A, B
2
management
14516
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ
i vii
A, G
2 4
§
Sustainable development of subsistence fisheries
§
Resource assessment and modeling
9818
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A G
2 4
§
Ship-based surveys of living resources and
environment
1984
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i vii
A G
1 5
§
Technical and information services (electronics,
engineering, IT)
§
Communication services (library, reprographics,
290
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
CZ
vii
A, B, G
3, 4
publications, editorial, media, environmental
education)
§
Monitoring and assessment of harmful algal
blooms (HABs)
3128
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
CZ
i, iii, iv, v, vii
B, C, E, G
2, 4
MARICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
§
Responsible development of mariculture
34572
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, iii, iv, v, vii
B G
1, 2
62965
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ
i
B G
1, 2
1129
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
i, v
B, C, G
1, 2
75
COMPLIANCE
§
Monitoring, control and surveillance
§
Patrol vessel replacement programme
2061
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv, v
C
3, 4
§
Vessel monitoring system
6187
2000-2004
Govt. and Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv, v
A, C
3, 4
9000
2000-2004
Local govt. and Industry
CZ
iii, iv, v
C
3, 4
MARINE POLLUTION
§
Marine pollution control and management
2000
2000-2004
Govt. and DFID
CZ
i, ii, iii, iv, v
A, B, C, D, E
1 5
§
Oil pollution contingency planning and control
§
Improvement of water quality
267
2000-2004
Govt.
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv
C, E, F
1 4
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
1351
2000-2004
Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv
A, D
1 4
§
Coastal zone management
1250
2000-2004
Industry
EEZ & CZ
iii, iv
A, D
1 - 4
MINERALS AND ENERGY
RESOURCES
§
Management of minerals and energy resources
§
Impact assessment and monitoring of marine
diamond mining
§
Impact assessment and monitoring of oil and gas
extraction
COUNTRY
PROGRAMME/PROJECT
US$
YEARS
FUNDING AGENCY
LOCATION
BCLME
PROBLEM
COMPONENT
OR
(x1000)
ISSUES
CAUSALITY
OF
REGION
ADDRESSED
ADDRESSED
RELEVANCE
BENEFIT
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
9613
2000-2004
Govts., NORAD, ICEIDA,
OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES
FAO
Regional
i
A, B
1, 2, 5
§
Biological characteristics of the Benguela
resources
Regional
i
A, B, C, G
1, 2, 5
§
Stock definition: stock distribution and
segregation project
Regional
i
A, B
1, 2, 5
§
Assessment of stock abundance and recruitment
Regional
i
A, B, G
1, 2, 5
§
Improvement of stock assessment methodology
Regional
i, ii, iv, v
A, B
1, 2, 5
§
Factors affecting stock dynamics
Regional
i
A, B
1, 2, 5
§
Stock dynamics and modelling project
0
0
0
0
2593
2000-2004
Govts., GTZ, IRD/FSP
ASSESSMENT OF
0
0
ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABILITY
Regional
ii
A, B, G
1, 3, 5
§
BENEFIT remote sensing programme
Regional
ii, iii, vii
A, B, G
3 5
§
Shipborne monitoring of the Benguela Current
system
Regional
ii, iii, v, vii
A, B, G
3, 5
§
Monitoring of the Benguela coastal zone
Regional
ii, v
A, B, G
1-5
§
Process studies and trophic dynamics
0
0
0
0
2592
2000-2004
Govts., GTZ, IRD/FSP,
1
0
0
NORAD
Regional
i, ii, iii
A, B, G
1-5
76
RESOURCE-ENVIRONMENT
LINKAGES
Regional
i, ii, iv, v
A, B, G
1-5
§
Cause-effect linkages between resources and
environment
See text
? -2004
Govts., Industry, Donors
§
Decadal studies and long-term ecosystem
Regional
i, iii, iv, v, vii
B, E, F, G
1, 2, 4, 5
changes
AQUACULTURE
3317
2000-2004
Govts., NORAD, DFID,
§
Science support for sustainable
GTZ, ADB, IRD/FSP,
Regional
i-vii
A, B, E
2 5
aquaculture development
World Bank
Regional
i, ii, v, vi
B, D, E, F, G
2, 5
0
0
0
0
TRAINING AND CAPACITY
Regional
i, iii
B
2 5
Regional
vi
B, E
2 4
DEVELOPMENT
Regional
i-vii
B, F, G
2 4
§
Science and technology training programme
§
Training of inspectors and observers in basic data
collection
§
Post-harvest technology application
§
Technical English education
§
Demonstration projects and pilot studies (training
application)
77
Attachment 1
Detailed Project Budget
Input
BL
DESCRIPTION
BL TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
p/m
Activities
AOS
10
PROJECT PERSONNEL
11
International Experts
11-01
Chief Technical Advisor
710,200
670,000
40,200
60
11-02
International Consultant(LME Expert)
190,800
180,000
10,800
12
11-03
International Consultant(Resources)
424,000
400,000
24,000
40
11-04
International Consultant(Oceanography)
180,200
170,000
10,200
17
11-05
International Consultant(Ecosystem)
10,600
10,000
600
1
11-99
Sub-Total
1,515,800
1,430,000
85,800
13
Administrative Support
13-01
PCU Administrator
159,000
150,000
9,000
60
13-02
PCU Secretary
79,500
75,000
4,500
60
13-03
Activity Center Directors
508,800
480,000
28,800
180
13-04
National Secretaries
190,800
180,000
10,800
180
13-99
Sub-Total
938,100
885,000
53,100
15
Monitoring and Evaluation/TPRs
15-01
Duty Travel
196,100
185,000
11,100
15-99
Sub-Total
196,100
185,000
11,100
16
Mission Costs/Travel
16-01
Mission Costs /PCU
121,900
115,000
6,900
16-02
Mission Costs /Activity Costs
159,000
150,000
9,000
16-03
Mission Costs /Living Resources Asst.
360,400
340,000
20,400
16-04
Mission Costs /Mining/Drilling Impacts
84,800
80,000
4,800
16-05
Mission Costs /Mariculture
53,000
50,000
3,000
16-06
Mission Costs /Vulnerable Species Asst.
53,000
50,000
3,000
16-07
Mission Costs Non-harvested Species Asst.
53,000
50,000
3,000
16-08
Mission Costs /Environment(Variability/Predictability)
339,200
320,000
19,200
16-09
Mission Costs /Environment(Capacity Building)
63,600
60,000
3,600
16-10
Mission Costs /HABs
21,200
20,000
1,200
16-11
Mission Costs /Water Quality
169,600
160,000
9,600
16-12
Mission Costs /Major Oil Spill
10,600
10,000
600
16-13
Mission Costs /Habitat Destruction/Reserves
58,300
55,000
3,300
16-14
Mission Costs /Biodiversities
58,300
55,000
3,300
16-99
Sub-Total
1,605,900
1,515,000
90,900
78
BL
DESCRIPTION
BL TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
p/m
Activities
AOS
17
National Consultants
17-01
Consultant(Living Resources)
180,200
170,000
10,200
68
17-02
Consultant (Mining/Drilling Impacts)
54,060
51,000
3,060
20
17-03
Consultant (Mariculture)
31,800
30,000
1,800
12
17-04
Consultant (Vulnerable Habitats)
54,060
51,000
3,060
20
17-05
Consultant (Non-harvested Species)
43,460
41,000
2,460
16
17-06
Consultant (Environment/Predictability)
106,000
100,000
6,000
40
17-07
Consultant (HABs)
31,800
30,000
1,800
12
17-08
Consultant (Water Quality)
127,200
120,000
7,200
48
17-09
Consultant (Habitat Expert)
63,600
60,000
3,600
24
17-10
Consultant (Biodiversity)
43,990
41,500
2,490
16
17-99
Sub-Total
736,170
694,500
41,670
19
COMPONENT TOTAL
4,992,070
4,709,500
282,570
20
CONTRACTS
20-01
Living Resources
2,167,700
2,045,000
122,700
20-02
Mining/Drilling Impacts
275,600
260,000
15,600
20-03
Mariculture
190,800
180,000
10,800
20-04
Vulnerable Habitats
265,000
250,000
15,000
20-05
Non-harvested Species
498,200
470,000
28,200
20-06
Environment(Variability/Predictability)
1,436,300
1,355,000
81,300
20-07
Environment(Capacity Building)
42,400
40,000
2,400
20-08
HABs
127,200
120,000
7,200
20-09
Water Quality
408,100
385,000
23,100
20-10
Major Oil Spills
31,800
30,000
1,800
20-11
Habitat Destruction/Reversal
233,200
220,000
13,200
20-12
Biodiversity
153,700
145,000
8,700
20-99
Sub-Total
5,830,000
5,500,000
330,000
29
COMPONENT TOTAL
5,830,000
5,500,000
330,000
30
Training
32-01
Workshops
230,790
217,726
13,064
32-02
In-Services
215,959
203,735
12,224
32-03
Study Tours
169,600
160,000
9,600
32-04
Formal Study
169,600
160,000
9,600
32-99
Sub-Total
785,949
741,461
44,488
39
COMPONENT TOTAL
785,949
741,461
44,488
45
EQUIPMENT
45-01
Living resource Specialist Instruments
339,200
320,000
19,200
45-02
Mining/Drilling Assessment (Asst.) Equipment
106,000
100,000
6,000
45-03
Vulnerable Species Asst. Equipment
53,000
50,000
3,000
79
BL
DESCRIPTION
BL TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
p/m
Activities
AOS
45-04
Non-harvested Species Asst. Equipment
212,000
200,000
12,000
45-05
Environment Monitoring Equipment
1,081,200
1,020,000
61,200
45-06
Water Quality Equipment
106,000
100,000
6,000
45-07
Computers (PCU)
37,100
35,000
2,100
45-08
Computers (Activity Center)
90,630
85,500
5,130
45-09
Vehicle (CTA) x 1
46,640
44,000
2,640
45-10
Vehicles ( Activity Center) x 3
111,300
105,000
6,300
45-11
Operating Costs (PCU)
127,200
120,000
7,200
45-12
Office Furniture (PCU)
9,540
9,000
540
45-99
Sub-Total
2,319,810
2,188,500
131,310
49
COMPONENT TOTAL
2,319,810
2,188,500
131,310
50
MISCELLANEOUS
51
Sundries
51-01
PCU
65,720
62,000
3,720
52-02
Activity Center Directors
79,500
75,000
4,500
51-03
Administrative/Secretarial Contract Support
40,242
37,964
2,278
51-04
Support Services (Activity Center)
106,000
100,000
6,000
51-05
Living Resources Asst.
233,200
220,000
13,200
51-06
Mining/Drilling Impacts
42,400
40,000
2,400
51-07
Mariculture
10,600
10,000
600
51-08
Vulnerable Species Asst.
21,200
20,000
1,200
51-09
Non-harvested Species Asst.
53,000
50,000
3,000
51-10
Environment(Variability/Predictability)
312,700
295,000
17,700
51-11
HABs
31,800
30,000
1,800
51-12
Water Quality
53,000
50,000
3,000
51-13
Habitat Destruction/Reversal
47,700
45,000
2,700
51-14
Biodiversity
36,163
34,116
2,047
51-99
Sub-Total
1,133,225
1,069,080
64,145
52
Reports
52-01
Program Audits
26,500
25,000
1,500
52-02
Steering Committee Meetings
26,447
24,950
1,497
52-99
Sub-Total
52,947
49,950
2,997
0
59
COMPONENT TOTAL
1,186,172
1,119,030
67,142
0
99
GRAND TOTAL
15,114,000
14,258,491
855,509
886
BL
DESCRIPTION
2001
AOS
2002
AOS
2003
AOS
p/m
p/m
p/m
10
PROJECT PERSONNEL
80
BL
DESCRIPTION
2001
AOS
2002
AOS
2003
AOS
p/m
p/m
p/m
11
International Experts
11-01 Chief Technical Advisor
175000
12
10500
150000
12
9000
150000
12
9000
11-02 International Consultant(LME Expert)
60000
4
3600
60000
4
3600
60000
4
3600
11-03 International Consultant(Resources)
80000
8
4800
80000
8
4800
80000
8
4800
11-04 International Consultant(Oceanography)
50000
5
3000
40000
4
2400
40000
4
2400
11-05 International Consultant(Ecosystem)
5000
0.5
300
5000
0.5
300
0
11-99 Sub-Total
370,000
22200
335,000
20,100
330,000
19800
13
Administrative Support
13-01 PCU Administrator
30000
12
1800
30000
12
1800
30000
12
1800
13-02 PCU Secretary
15000
12
900
15000
12
900
15000
12
900
13-03 Activity Center Directors
96000
36
5760
96000
36
5760
96000
36
5760
13-04 National Secretaries
36000
36
2160
36000
36
2160
36000
36
2160
13-99 Sub-Total
177,000
10,620
177,000
10,620
177,000
10620
15
Monitoring and Evaluation/TPRs
15-01 Duty Travel
18,000
1080
18,000
1080
63,000
3780
15-99 Sub-Total
18,000
1,080
18,000
0
1,080
63,000
0
3,780
16
Mission Costs/Travel
16-01 Mission Costs /PCU
30000
1800
30000
1800
30000
1800
16-02 Mission Costs /Activity Costs
30000
1800
30000
1800
30000
1800
16-03 Mission Costs /Living Resources Asst.
60000
3600
100000
6000
60000
3600
16-04 Mission Costs /Mining/Drilling Impacts
20000
1200
30000
1800
10000
600
16-05 Mission Costs /Mariculture
15000
900
15000
900
10000
600
16-06 Mission Costs /Vulnerable Species Asst.
10000
600
10000
600
10000
600
16-07 Mission Costs Non-harvested Species
5000
300
5000
300
20000
1200
Asst.
16-08 Mission Costs
60000
3600
80000
4800
60000
3600
/Environment(Variability/Predictability)
16-09 Mission Costs /Environment(Capacity
12000
720
12000
720
12000
720
Building)
16-10 Mission Costs /HABs
6000
360
6000
360
4000
240
16-11 Mission Costs /Water Quality
32000
1920
32000
1920
32000
1920
16-12 Mission Costs /Major Oil Spill
4000
240
4000
240
2000
120
16-13 Mission Costs /Habitat
10000
600
10000
600
15000
900
Destruction/Reserves
16-14 Mission Costs /Biodiversities
10000
600
15000
900
10000
600
16-99 Sub-Total
304,000
0
18,240
379,000
0
22,740
305,000
0
18,300
17
National Consultants
17-01 Consultant(Living Resources)
50000
20
3000
30000
12
1800
30000
12
1800
17-02 Consultant (Mining/Drilling Impacts)
11000
4
660
10000
4
600
10000
4
600
17-03 Consultant (Mariculture)
10000
4
600
5000
2
300
5000
2
300
81
BL
DESCRIPTION
2001
AOS
2002
AOS
2003
AOS
p/m
p/m
p/m
17-04 Consultant (Vulnerable Habitats)
11000
4
660
10000
4
600
10000
4
600
17-05 Consultant (Non-harvested Species)
8500
3
510
10000
4
600
7500
3
450
17-06 Consultant (Environment/Predictability)
25000
10
1500
20000
8
1200
20000
8
1200
17-07 Consultant (HABs)
12500
5
750
12500
5
750
5000
2
300
17-08 Consultant (Water Quality)
25000
10
1500
30000
12
1800
25000
10
1500
17-09 Consultant (Habitat Expert)
12500
5
750
12500
5
750
12500
5
750
17-10 Consultant (Biodiversity)
9000
3
540
10000
4
600
7500
3
450
17-99 Sub-Total
174,500
10,470
150,000
9,000
132,500
7,950
19
COMPONENT TOTAL
1,043,500
62,610
1,059,000
63,540
1,007,500
60,450
20
CONTRACTS
20-01 Living Resources
400000
24000
445000
26700
400000
24000
20-02 Mining/Drilling Impacts
50000
3000
60000
3600
50000
3000
20-03 Mariculture
50000
3000
50000
3000
30000
1800
20-04 Vulnerable Habitats
50000
3000
50000
3000
50000
3000
20-05 Non-harvested Species
50000
3000
50000
3000
170000
10200
20-06 Environment(Variability/Predictability)
250000
15000
355000
21300
350000
21000
20-07 Environment(Capacity Building)
8000
480
8000
480
8000
480
20-08 HABs
50000
3000
50000
3000
20000
1200
20-09 Water Quality
50000
3000
50000
3000
185000
11100
20-10 Major Oil Spills
10000
600
10000
600
10000
600
20-11 Habitat Destruction/Reversal
60000
3600
60000
3600
60000
3600
20-12 Biodiversity
25000
1500
45000
2700
25000
1500
20-99 Sub-Total
1,053,000
0
63,180
1,233,000
0
73,980
1,358,000
0
81,480
29
COMPONENT TOTAL
1,053,000
63,180
1,233,000
73,980
1,358,000
81,480
30
Training
32-01 Workshops
43558
2613.48
43558
2613.48
43538
2612.28
32-02 In-Services
40747
2444.82
40747
2444.82
40747
2444.82
32-03 Study Tours
32000
1920
32000
1920
32000
1920
32-04 Formal Study
32000
1920
32000
1920
32000
1920
32-99 Sub-Total
148,305
8898.3
148,305
8,898
148,285
8,897
39
COMPONENT TOTAL
148,305
8,898
148,305
8,898
148,285
8,897
45
EQUIPMENT
45-01 Living resource Specialist Instruments
120000
7200
200000
12000
0
0
45-02 Mining/Drilling Assessment (Asst.)
50000
3000
50000
3000
0
0
Equipment
45-03 Vulnerable Species Asst. Equipment
5000
300
5000
300
20000
1200
45-04 Non-harvested Species Asst. Equipment
20000
1200
20000
1200
100000
6000
45-05 Environment Monitoring Equipment
300000
18000
300000
18000
400000
24000
45-06 Water Quality Equipment
20,000
1200
40,000
2400
20,000
1200
45-07 Computers (PCU)
15,000
900
5,000
300
5,000
300
82
BL
DESCRIPTION
2001
AOS
2002
AOS
2003
AOS
p/m
p/m
p/m
45-08 Computers (Activity Center)
22,500
1350
7,500
450
7,500
450
45-09 Vehicle (CTA) x 1
30,000
1800
3,000
180
3,000
180
45-10 Vehicles ( Activity Center) x 3
75,000
4500
6,000
360
6,000
360
45-11 Operating Costs (PCU)
30,000
1800
30,000
1800
30,000
1800
45-12 Office Furniture (PCU)
5,000
300
1,000
60
1,000
60
45-99 Sub-Total
692,500
41,550
667,500
40,050
592,500
35,550
49
COMPONENT TOTAL
692,500
41,550
667,500
40,050
592,500
35,550
50
MISCELLANEOUS
51
Sundries
51-01 PCU
15000
900
15000
900
15000
900
52-02 Activity Center Directors
15000
900
15000
900
15000
900
51-03 Administrative/Secretarial Contract
8,424
505.44
7,385
443.1
7,385
443.1
Support
51-04 Support Services (Activity Center)
20000
1200
20000
1200
20000
1200
51-05 Living Resources Asst.
60000
3600
40000
2400
40000
2400
51-06 Mining/Drilling Impacts
8000
480
8000
480
8000
480
51-07 Mariculture
2000
120
2000
120
2000
120
51-08 Vulnerable Species Asst.
4000
240
4000
240
4000
240
51-09 Non-harvested Species Asst.
10000
600
10000
600
10000
600
51-10 Environment(Variability/Predictability)
50000
3000
95000
5700
50000
3000
51-11 HABs
6000
360
6000
360
6000
360
51-12 Water Quality
10000
600
10000
600
10000
600
51-13 Habitat Destruction/Reversal
5000
300
5000
300
15000
900
51-14 Biodiversity
6000
360
6000
360
8000
480
51-99 Sub-Total
213,424
13,165
243,385
14,603
210,385
12,623
52
Reports
52-01 Program Audits
5,000
300
5,000
300
5,000
300
52-02 Steering Committee Meetings
5,000
300
5,000
300
5,000
300
52-99 Sub-Total
10,000
0
600
10,000
0
600
10,000
0
600
59
COMPONENT TOTAL
223,424
0
13,765
253,385
0
15,203
220,385
0
13,223
99
GRAND TOTAL
3,160,729
190,004
3,361,190
201,671
3,326,670
199,600
BL
DESCRIPTION
2004
AOS
2005
AOS
p/m
p/m
10
PROJECT PERSONNEL
11
International Experts
11-01
Chief Technical Advisor
110000
12
6600
85000
12
5100
11-02
International Consultant(LME Expert)
0
0
83
BL
DESCRIPTION
2004
AOS
2005
AOS
11-03
International Consultant(Resources)
80000
8
4800
80000
8
4800
11-04
International Consultant(Oceanography)
20000
2
1200
20000
2
1200
11-05
International Consultant(Ecosystem)
0
0
11-99
Sub-Total
210,000
12600
185,000
11,100
13
Administrative Support
13-01
PCU Administrator
30000
12
1800
30000
12
1800
13-02
PCU Secretary
15000
12
900
15000
12
900
13-03
Activity Center Directors
96000
36
5760
96000
36
5760
13-04
National Secretaries
36000
36
2160
36000
36
2160
13-99
Sub-Total
177,000
10,620
177,000
10,620
15
Monitoring and Evaluation/TPRs
15-01
Duty Travel
18,000
1080
68,000
4080
15-99
Sub-Total
18,000
0
1,080
68,000
0
4,080
16
Mission Costs/Travel
16-01
Mission Costs /PCU
15000
900
10000
600
16-02
Mission Costs /Activity Costs
30000
1800
30000
1800
16-03
Mission Costs /Living Resources Asst.
60000
3600
60000
3600
16-04
Mission Costs /Mining/Drilling Impacts
10000
600
10000
600
16-05
Mission Costs /Mariculture
5000
300
5000
300
16-06
Mission Costs /Vulnerable Species Asst.
10000
600
10000
600
16-07
Mission Costs Non-harvested Species Asst.
10000
600
10000
600
16-08
Mission Costs /Environment(Variability/Predictability)
60000
3600
60000
3600
16-09
Mission Costs /Environment(Capacity Building)
12000
720
12000
720
16-10
Mission Costs /HABs
2000
120
2000
120
16-11
Mission Costs /Water Quality
32000
1920
32000
1920
16-12
Mission Costs /Major Oil Spill
0
0
16-13
Mission Costs /Habitat Destruction/Reserves
10000
600
10000
600
16-14
Mission Costs /Biodiversities
10000
600
10000
600
16-99
Sub-Total
266,000
0
15,960
261,000
0
15,660
17
National Consultants
17-01
Consultant(Living Resources)
30000
12
1800
30000
12
1800
17-02
Consultant (Mining/Drilling Impacts)
10000
4
600
10000
4
600
17-03
Consultant (Mariculture)
5000
2
300
5000
2
300
17-04
Consultant (Vulnerable Habitats)
10000
4
600
10000
4
600
17-05
Consultant (Non-harvested Species)
7500
3
450
7500
3
450
17-06
Consultant (Environment/Predictability)
20000
8
1200
15000
6
900
17-07
Consultant (HABs)
0
0
84
BL
DESCRIPTION
2004
AOS
2005
AOS
17-08
Consultant (Water Quality)
20000
8
1200
20000
8
1200
17-09
Consultant (Habitat Expert)
12500
5
750
10000
4
600
17-10
Consultant (Biodiversity)
7500
3
450
7500
3
450
17-99
Sub-Total
122,500
7,350
115,000
6,900
19
COMPONENT TOTAL
793,500
47,610
806,000
48,360
20
CONTRACTS
20-01
Living Resources
400000
24000
400000
24000
20-02
Mining/Drilling Impacts
50000
3000
50000
3000
20-03
Mariculture
30000
1800
20000
1200
20-04
Vulnerable Habitats
50000
3000
50000
3000
20-05
Non-harvested Species
100000
6000
100000
6000
20-06
Environment(Variability/Predictability)
200000
12000
200000
12000
20-07
Environment(Capacity Building)
8000
480
8000
480
20-08
HABs
0
0
20-09
Water Quality
50000
3000
50000
3000
20-10
Major Oil Spills
0
0
20-11
Habitat Destruction/Reversal
20000
1200
20000
1200
20-12
Biodiversity
25000
1500
25000
1500
20-99
Sub-Total
933,000
0
55,980
923,000
0
55,380
29
COMPONENT TOTAL
933,000
55,980
923,000
55,380
30
Training
32-01
Workshops
43538
2612.28
43534
2612.04
32-02
In-Services
40747
2444.82
40747
2444.82
32-03
Study Tours
32000
1920
32000
1920
32-04
Formal Study
32000
1920
32000
1920
32-99
Sub-Total
148,285
8,897
148,281
8,897
39
COMPONENT TOTAL
148,285
8,897
148,281
8,897
45
EQUIPMENT
45-01
Living resource Specialist Instruments
0
0
45-02
Mining/Drilling Assessment (Asst.) Equipment
0
0
45-03
Vulnerable Species Asst. Equipment
10000
600
10000
600
45-04
Non-harvested Species Asst. Equipment
30000
1800
30000
1800
45-05
Environment Monitoring Equipment
20000
1200
0
45-06
Water Quality Equipment
10,000
600
10,000
600
45-07
Computers (PCU)
5,000
300
5,000
300
45-08
Computers (Activity Center)
24,000
1440
24,000
1440
45-09
Vehicle (CTA) x 1
5,000
300
3,000
180
85
BL
DESCRIPTION
2004
AOS
2005
AOS
45-10
Vehicles ( Activity Center) x 3
9,000
540
9,000
540
45-11
Operating Costs (PCU)
20,000
1200
10,000
600
45-12
Office Furniture (PCU)
1,000
60
1,000
60
45-99
Sub-Total
134,000
8,040
102,000
6,120
49
COMPONENT TOTAL
134,000
8,040
102,000
6,120
50
MISCELLANEOUS
51
Sundries
51-01
PCU
10000
600
7000
420
52-02
Activity Center Directors
15000
900
15000
900
51-03
Administrative/Secretarial Contract Support
7,385
443.1
7,385
443.1
51-04
Support Services (Activity Center)
20000
1200
20000
1200
51-05
Living Resources Asst.
40000
2400
40000
2400
51-06
Mining/Drilling Impacts
8000
480
8000
480
51-07
Mariculture
2000
120
2000
120
51-08
Vulnerable Species Asst.
4000
240
4000
240
51-09
Non-harvested Species Asst.
10000
600
10000
600
51-10
Environment(Variability/Predictability)
50000
3000
50000
3000
51-11
HABs
6000
360
6000
360
51-12
Water Quality
10000
600
10000
600
51-13
Habitat Destruction/Reversal
10000
600
10000
600
51-14
Biodiversity
8116
486.96
6000
360
51-99
Sub-Total
200,501
12,030
195,385
11,723
52
Reports
52-01
Program Audits
5,000
300
5,000
300
52-02
Steering Committee Meetings
5,000
300
4,950
297
52-99
Sub-Total
10,000
0
600
9,950
0
597
59
COMPONENT TOTAL
210,501
0
12,630
205,335
0
12,320
99
GRAND TOTAL
2,219,286
133,157
2,184,616
131,077
86
Attachment 2
Detailed Project Timeline/Narrative
REF. NO. DESCRIPTION / ACTIVITY
2001 / 2002
2002 / 2003
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M
10
PROJECT PERSONNEL
11
International Experts
11-01
Chief Technical Advisor
11-02
International Consultant (LME Expert)
11-03
International Consultant (Resources)
11-04
International Consultant (Oceanography)
11-05
International Consultant (Ecosystem)
13
Administrative Support
13-01
PCU Administrator
13-02
PCU Secretary
13-03
National Managers
13-04
National Secretaries
15
M&E/TPR's/PSC Meetings
15-01
Duty Travel
16
Mission Costs/Travel
16-01
Mission Costs/PCU
16-02
Mission Costs/Activity Centre Costs
16-03
Mission Costs/Living Resources Asst.
16-04
Mission Costs/Mining/Drilling Impacts
16-05
Mission Costs/Mariculture
16-06
Mission Costs/Vulnerable Species Asst.
16-07
Mission Costs/Non-harvested Species Asst.
16-08
Mission Costs/Environment (Variability/Predictability)
16-09
Mission Costs/Environment (Capacity Building)
16-10
Mission Costs/HABs
16-11
Mission Costs/Water Quality
16-12
Mission Costs/Major Oil Spill
16-13
Mission Costs/Habitat Destruction/Reserves
16-14
Mission Costs/Biodiversities
17
National Consultants
17-01
Consultant (Living Resources)
17-02
Consulant (Mining/Drilling Impacts)
87
REF. NO. DESCRIPTION / ACTIVITY
2001 / 2002
2002 / 2003
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M
17-03
Consultant (Mariculture)
17-04
Consultant (Vulnerable Habitats)
17-05
Consultant (Non-harvested Species)
17-06
Consultant (Environment/Predictability)
17-07
Consultant (HABs)
17-08
Consultant (Water Quality)
17-09
Consultant (Habitat Expert)
17-10
Consultant (Biodiversity)
20
CONTRACTS
21
Living Resources
22
Mining/Drilling Impacts
23
Mariculture
24
Vulnerable Habitats
25
Non-harvested Species
26
Environment (Variability/Predictability)
27
Environment (Capacity Building)
28
HABs
29
Water Quality
30
Major Oil Spills
31
Habitat Destruction/Reversal
32
Biodiversity
34
TRAINING
34-01
Workshops
34-02
In-Services
34-03
Study Tours
34-04
Formal Study
45
EQUIPMENT
45-01
Living Resource Specialist Instruments
45-02
Mining/Drilling Assessment (Asst.) Equipment
45-03
Vulnerable Species Asst. Equipment
45-04
Non-harvested Species Asst. Equipment
45-05
Environment Monitoring Equipment
45-06
Water Quality Equipment
88
REF. NO. DESCRIPTION / ACTIVITY
2001 / 2002
2002 / 2003
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M
45-07
Computers (PCU)
45-08
Computers (Activity Centre)
45-09
Vehicle (CTA) X1
45-10
Vehicles (Activity Centre)X3
45-11
Operating Costs (PCU)
45-12
Office Furniture (PCU)
50
MISCELLANEOUS
51
Sundries (PCU)
51-01
Sundries (Activity Centre)
51-02
Support Services (Activity Centre)
51-03
Living Resources Asst.
51-04
Mining/Drilling Impacts
51-05
Mariculture
51-06
Vulnerable Species Asst.
51-07
Non-harvested Species Asst.
51-08
Environment (VariabilityPredictability)
51-09
HABs
51-10
Water Quality
51-11
Habitat Destruction/Reversal
51-12
Biodiversity
REF. NO. 2003 / 2004
2004 / 2005
2005 / 2006
A M J 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 J F M
10
11
11-01
11-02
11-03
89
REF. NO. 2003 / 2004
2004 / 2005
2005 / 2006
11-04
11-05
13
13-01
13-02
13-03
13-04
15
15-01
16
16-01
16-02
16-03
16-04
16-05
16-06
16-07
16-08
16-09
16-10
16-11
16-12
16-13
16-14
17
17-01
17-02
17-03
17-04
17-05
17-06
17-07
17-08
17-09
17-10
20
90
REF. NO. 2003 / 2004
2004 / 2005
2005 / 2006
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
34-01
34-02
34-03
34-04
45
45-01
45-02
45-03
45-04
45-05
45-06
45-07
45-08
45-09
45-10
45-11
45-12
50
51
51-01
51-02
91
REF. NO. 2003 / 2004
2004 / 2005
2005 / 2006
51-03
51-04
51-05
51-06
51-07
51-08
51-09
51-10
51-11
51-12
Narrative re. the BCLME Timeline
The accompanying timeline has been structured to reflect the timing and duration of actions and activities specified in the BCLME five-year budget. Rather than
adhere to calendar years, the timeline commences with the appointment of the CTA (most likely to be 1 April 2001) and then runs for a further 60 months, with
breaks shown at intervals of 12 months. (In essence, the intervals correspond to the government financial years in the participating countries). The precise
commencement and duration of some of the activities (e.g. consultants) will remain uncertain until such time as the CTA takes up his/her position, that the PSC is
appointed and the IBCC starts to function. Nevertheless, the timeline does show the probable distribution of effort and programme actions/activities. Some
activities are intermittent and span the full period of the GEF intervention phase, and these are shown as a lighter grey shading.
A suite of comprehensive timeline charts will be completed jointly by the CTA and the international and national consultants, together with the PSC, once the
BCLME Programme has commenced. These will provide comprehensive project planning matrices in the form required for proper management (and
accountability) of the individual activities. (For example, within the environment variability component alone there are likely to be somewhere between 50 and
100 separate actions which will need to be specified and time managed. It is expected that other components will require a similar approach).
92
Attachment 3
Monitoring and Evaluation Details
As a result of the emphasis placed on results-based management, it has become mandatory for all GEF projects to
develop a detailed Monitoring & Evaluation workplan at the inception of the activities. For purposes of this
project, the monitoring and evaluation overall plan will begin with the development of IW critical indicators as
described in paragraph 71. of this document. Unique among IW projects, this project has laready undergone an
exercise in M&E that was undertaken in December of the year 2000. This M&E exercise was unique as it was
conducted prior to implementation of the full project. The results of the evaluation appear in this document as
Attachment 4. The M&E workplan will allow for a critical assessment of project performance by showing the
schedule of the activities, their cost and the expected outputs and achievements according to the established
benchmarks and milestones. The workplan will be the main tool for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the
project.
While distinct, Monitoring and Evaluation are yet "interactive and mutually supportive" activities.
Monitoring is a continuous process of collecting and analyzing information to measure the progress of a project
toward expected results. Monitoring provides managers and participants with regular feedback that can help
determine whether a project is progressing as planned.
Evaluations are periodic assessments of project performance and impact. Evaluations also document what lessons
are being learned from experience.
Generally, individuals involved in managing a project are charged with monitoring. By contrast, individuals
independent of project operations conduct evaluations.
Reporting is the systematic and timely provision of essential information. It is an integral part of the monitoring
and evaluation function.
Monitoring, reporting and evaluation are management functions which could also be described as observing project
progress (monitoring), documenting the observed information (reporting) and assessing on the basis of the above
(evaluating).
Monitoring and systematic reporting must be undertaken for all regular and medium-size projects regardless of
duration and budget. A chart describing standard M&E practices, timing of activities, and responsibilities for those
activities follows.
93
Standard M&E Activities, Timeframes, and Responsibilities5
ACTIVITY
RESPONSIBILITIES
TIMEFRAMES
1. Drafting Project Planning
Project proponent, together with
Documents: Prodoc,
UNDP/GEF staff, project
During project design stage
Logframe (including
development specialists and other
indicators)
stakeholders
Project proponent, together with
UNDP/GEF staff, project
2. M&E Plan
During project design stage
development specialists and other
stakeholders
At the beginning of project
3. Inception Report
Project Implementation Team
implementation
4. Work Plan
Project Implementation Team
Annually
The Governments, UNDP Country
5. Annual Programme/
Office, Executing Agency, Project
Annually
Project Report (APR)
Team, UNDP/GEF Task Manager6,
and Target Groups
The Governments, UNDP Country
Office, Executing Agency, Project
6. Tripartite Review (TPR)
Annually
Team, UNDP/GEF Task Manager,
and Target Groups
Annually, immediately
7. Tripartite Review Report
UNDP Country Office
following TPR
UNDP Country Office, UNDP/GEF
8. Project Implementation
headquarters, Project Team, GEF's
Annually, between June and
Review (PIR)
M&E team, UNDP/GEF Task
September
Manager
At the mid-point and end of
Project team, UNDP/GEF
9. Mid-term, Final and Ex-
project implementation; Ex-
headquarters, UNDP/GEF Task
post evaluations
post, about two years after
Manager, UNDP Country Office
project completion
UNDP Country Office, UNDP/GEF
At least one month before
10. Terminal Report
Task Manager, Project Team
the end of the project
At least once in the life of
Executing Agency, UNDP Country
11. Audit
the project (see section on
Office, Project Team
audit)
5 The unit in bold has the lead responsibility.
0
1 6 UNDP/GEF Task Managers is a broad term that includes regional advisors, sub-regional coordinators, and GEF project specialists based
in the region or in HQ.
94
Attachment 4
Monitoring and Evaluation Results
BCLME GEF Project
December, 2000
Site Visit Report of GEF M & E Mission To Benguela Current International Waters Project
Christophe Crepin and Alfred M. Duda
Summary
Significance-The Benguela Current is one of the 50 large marine ecosystems (LMEs) identified around the globe
that hug the continental shelves and that account for about 94% of ocean fisheries that are harvested. It is a highly
fluctuating upwelling area (linked to the global climate) that is the second most productive ocean fishery according
to some accounts and has important biodiversity in terms of birds, seals, and penguins depending on the fishery as
well. The fishery was overexploited in recent colonial times and has not yet recovered sufficiently, and it suffers
from periodic conditions of oxygen depletion and toxic algal blooms that seem to be worsening with changing
climatic conditions. Hence the need to establish a joint management regime for the LME so that one or several of
the countries do not overexploit the fisheries and degrade the biodiversity during changing climatic regimes.
Oil/gas extraction and diamond mining also stress the living resources. The Benguela covers portions of the
Angola, South Africa, and the entire Namibia coastline out to the limit of their Exclusive Economic Zones.
Strategic Results Achieved Quickly-In accordance with the Programs Study, the BCLME project was chosen for
review under the cohort of IW projects in which one GEF IA assisted the countries with initial strategic work under
the Operational Strategy. While the Project Document had just been completed and the project was not yet under
implementation during the mission, the decision to undertake a visit was made based on the successful completion
during the Block B preparation of processes recommended in the Operational Strategy for producing a
Transboundary Analysis (sometimes called a transboundary diagnostic analysis-TDA) and a Strategic Action
Programme(SAP). No other projects in OP 8 have accomplished this effort during preparation or so quickly.
While several projects in OP 9 have produced SAPs during Block B preparation, they were for preventive actions
associated with OP 9 rather than the complex situations characteristic of OP 8.
Processes Undertaken-The preparation process resulted in completion of a SAP/TDA (signed by several Ministers
from each of the three nations) only 17 months after the initial workshop for stakeholders in August 1998. During
the course of preparation, four Management Committee Meetings were held with an average of 3 participants from
Angola, 5 from Namibia, and 4 from S. Africa, including an average of 6 others in attendance from IAs and other
institutions. Two well attended workshops (97 for the first and 43 for the more focused second) were held nine
months apart to conduct the consultation processes necessary to undertake the strategic work, and small groups
collaborated during the interim to polish the strategic products (TDA and SAP). The project brief that Council
approved contains the TDA (establishing several top priorities for activity among all the different environmental
and transboundary concerns), the SAP(signed by several sectoral ministers from each of the three countries
detailing joint commitments), and a list of country-specific policy/legal/ institutional reforms the Ministers pledge
to implement in each country during the project that address the few priorities and are responsive to the SAP.
GEF IW M & E Indicators-These country-specific commitments are quite important M & E process indicators for
GEF in the international waters focal area. The ministerial signatures on the TDA/SAP and the country-specific
actions represent sufficient evidence that a shared political commitment, some might say a shared vision, has been
achieved that minimizes risk for the full project that supports agreed incremental costs of SAP implementation. In
95
addition, the completion of a TDA that establishes just a few transboundary priorities from the many
environmental issues, the adoption of the SAP outlining regional actions all countries buy into and of country-
specific actions, and the inter-ministerial collaboration in each nation as evidenced by several ministries serving on
the Management Group and signing the SAP are all important regional GEF IW process indicators.
Next to the Danube, this is the most complete package of successfully accomplished strategic work as called for by
the GEF Operational Strategy. While the SAP package does not contain as many specific milestones and targets as
the Mediterranean's SAP for land-based pollution, they both have a number of commitments for the near-term, five
year timeframe. The Mediterranean has the advantage of having many more specific targets for the moderate (10
year) and long-term (25 year) timeframes which have resulted from two decades of joint institutional cooperation
under the Barcelona Convention. The Benguela initiative, after only 17 months, did pretty well in focusing on just
a few key priorities per the Operational Strategy consistent with OP 8. Completion of this strategic work under the
Operational Strategy can be considered the IW equivalent of "enabling activities" that GEF funds in the climate
change and biodiversity focal areas.
Key Elements-Several key elements seemed to have characterized the preparation process spearheaded by UNDP
as mentioned by the twenty some staff that the reviewers spoke with from the 3 nations. First, there was a shared
ecosystem with significant commercial value that all 3 countries recognized. A science program (BENEFIT) was
created prior to BCLME with donors that linked the science community together in the 3 countries, sponsored joint
sampling cruises and training activities so that the individuals could get to know each other and begin to develop
trust among each other. Several individuals originally associated with the science community proposed during the
establishment of BENEFIT that a management-related multicountry program was also needed to translate the
information provided by science into the sectoral actions of each country. GEF preparation funding was utilized to
develop this management approach and it was driven by support from the science community, support from UNDP
in Namibia, and a strong CTA accepted by all three countries who kept the processes going during Block B
preparation.
Additionally, a management committee with inter-ministerial participation from each country (fisheries,
environment, oil/gas/mining) ensured cross-sectoral dialogue and buy-in during preparation. A strong outside
facilitator utilized participative processes popularized by GTZ during both well-attended priority setting workshops
with a wide range of attendees to develop a true bottom-up consensus on elements of the TDA and then SAP that
could overcome the loudly expressed opinions of a few people; this resulted in widespread, inter-ministerial and
stakeholder buy-in. Finally, and probably most importantly, two consultants with UNDP who knew the IW focal
area processes and who had been involved with other IW projects that led to a TDA and then a SAP provided the
group meetings with correct information about what the TDA and SAP processes were about and enforced the view
toward needed policy/legal/institutional reforms as management measures rather than more collection of science
information as the focus of GEF-eligible interventions. As in most IW projects, continuity with well-informed
ambassadors familiar with GEF IW and strong leadership (the CTA) were crucial to successful completion of the
processes, which most interviewees found indispensable in establishing the priority setting and broad-based inter-
ministerial buy-in for the needed reforms in the SAP.
96
Bottom Line-While the project is not yet under implementation, preparation with the assistance of one GEF IA
(UNDP) went well with timely completion of strategic work recommended by the GEF Operational Strategy in the
IW focal area for OP 8 projects. In this case, policy/legal/institutional reforms and capacity building to implement
them seem to be the key interventions needed to address the transboundary issues. Since assisting with these are
part of UNDP's comparative advantage in the GEF, not having the other IAs involved was no shortcoming and
linkages are being formed with other IA projects being proposed for GEF support in the area. If investments
requiring governments to utilize lending mechanisms were an important part of the solution, then perhaps multiple
IA involvement would have been beneficial as for the Danube and Black Sea cases. The attention of STAP is
drawn to the role of the local science community in completion of the necessary strategic work. The project also
has several minor components that can help address the other stresses on the transboundary water environment in a
modest way. Of note is the biodiversity component that provides funding to link with future coastal zone
biodiversity projects. Such explicit linkage components are also needed in the biodiversity coastal projects to
ensure coordination and collaboration.
1. Specification of Project Visited (Title, Executing Agency name);
Regional (Angola, Namibia, South Africa): Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme Toward
Achievement of the Integrated Management of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem; UNDP-
UNOPS
2. Status of the Project Visited (PDF, FP, Date of Commencement, Date of Completion);
PDF B Completed; Project Brief Approved by GEF Council, Project Document Nearing Completion
3. Dates of Visit and Location(s);
November 27 to December 5, 2000; Swakopmund and Windhoek, Namibia and Capetown, South Africa;
4. Names of members of the Visiting Team;
Christophe Crepin, World Bank and Alfred M. Duda, GEF Secretariat
5. Names of individuals and organizations visited/consulted/interviewed;
Please see List of Persons Consulted in Attachment I
6. Brief summaries of individual meetings between visitors and project principals/organizations;
Meetings were held mostly on an individual basis. Exceptions were with UNDP staff in Windhoek, with several
fisheries staff in Swakopmund, with the Permanent Secretary and her staff in Windhoek, and with Marine and
Coastal Fisheries staff in Capetown. In addition, a substantive meeting was held in Budapest at the GEF Biennial
International Waters Conference in October with the 3 BCLME National Coordinators. Results of the interviews
are integrated into the different sections of this trip report.
7. Overview of conclusions drawn:
7.1 Does the GEF Project represent an appropriate response to regional and other intergovernmental priorities
relating to international waters? If there are limitations, what are they?
Although not originally intended, the project turned out to be a collective response to many different transboundary
stresses which involve international, intergovernmental processes that have established commitments on behalf of
countries or that may do so once they mature into more specific conventions. In fact, the agreed SAP highlights
MARPOL 73/78, the UN Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the FAO Conduct for
Responsible Fishing, the UNFCCC, the CBD, UNCLOS, the GPA for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities, the Abidjan Convention, and the developing S. Atlantic Fisheries Convention. In
terms of transboundary priority issues, the highly variable fisheries that fluctuate with climatic changes, the
biodiversity implications of these fisheries, and GPA implications related to mining activities are all key driving
forces. In essence, this IW project represents the establishment of a joint, transboundary institution and the
institutional linkages to national sectoral institutions (as an international body in terms of the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea) that are needed by the three nations to sustainably manage this highly variable, shared resource as a
collective response to inevitable climatic fluctuations, biodiversity priorities, habitat alteration and pollution
loading. One potential limitation may be coordination with SEAFC, but the convention is not yet signed and the
97
interim Benguela Current Commission is not yet established (Prodoc soon to be submitted for GEF CEO
endorsement).
7.2 Do the existing descriptions or specifications of OP 8, 9 and 10 permit the development and submission of
projects, including pilot stage activities that address regional and other intergovernmental priority issues? If
there are deficiencies or significant limitations, what are they?
Most of the proponents/stakeholders outside implementing agencies are, most of the time, not fully aware of GEF
OPs contents and therefore not able to comment much on them. Interviewees indicated that once they understood
the OP and what GEF's strategy was, it made sense. The OPs seem fine but there is a need for the countries'
stakeholders, at least during first phase of project preparation, to go through a learning curve with respect to what is
the true strategic objectives of the OPs, what is and what is not GEF eligible and how the GEF support should
connect with/ catalyze other activities. More specifically, it was felt that operational guidance/ lessons learned note
on TDA/SAP would greatly help proponents at the local level and save time and transactions costs.
7.3 Does the existing IW Project addressing priorities within a given geographical region have
appropriate communication and connection (including collaboration) with other projects in the area,
both other IW projects and those of other agencies interested in international waters issues? If there are
deficiencies, what are they?
Very much so here with the BCLME project, in particular with reference to BENEFIT. The BENEFIT program
(BENguela Environment, Fisheries, Information and Training programme) was initially conceived at the same 1995
meeting in Namibia at which the need for a joint ecosystem management program was identified by the 3 nations.
BENEFIT moved much more rapidly with German and Norwegian funding and was intended to focus on
science/training for the 3 Benguela system countries. However, it may not be clear how the day to day collaboration
will occur in the future after the BCLME project begins. Donors to the BENEFIT Program were initially worried by
the BCLME initiative, however, communication got better during preparation of the BCLME project.
Complementarity between the donor-funded research/science oriented activities (BENEFIT) and the management
oriented programme (BCLME) should be strengthened over the course of the implementation of BCLME.
7.4 Are there conflicts or duplications among the GEF Project and those being undertaken by other
agencies? If so, what are they and how can they be avoided?
Not only are there no conflicts but a developing GEF OP 2 biodiversity project under preparation by the
government of Namibia with World Bank assistance on integrated coastal zone management has utilized strong
communication with BENEFIT and the BCLME to ensure that it supports complementary actions. Development of
this project should be tracked to document possible best practice in how an IW project in OP 8 can link with a
coastal biodiversity project to accomplish coordinated and complementary results. An additional OP 2 coastal
project has been identified by South Africa for possible GEF support for the Cape Peninsula area. The World
Bank, as it responds to the request, has expressed its intention to involve BCLME and BENEFIT in the preparation
process so that complementary actions may result in more complete conservation of the coastal biodiversity.
Finally, a UNDP-IMO project that demonstrates alternative management measures to minimize transfer of alien
species in ballast water was planned with collaboration of BCLME in mind. In fact, the port selected by South
Africa is on the Benguela LME and is located in the largest lagoon(estuarine) system. South Africa had other
choices for ports but chose this one because of the sensitivity of the lagoon, the large amount of ballast water, and
linkages to BCLME. The project also has several minor components that can help address the other stresses on the
transboundary water environment in a modest way. Of note is the biodiversity component which provides funding
to link with future coastal zone biodiversity projects. Such explicit linkage components are also needed in the
biodiversity coastal projects to ensure coordination and collaboration.
98
7.5 Has there been adequate use of local scientific expertise in the design or review of the project? Are
there any deficiencies in this respect that should be corrected?
The utilization of science expertise in the three countries has been exemplary. In fact, the existence of the
BENEFIT network in the 3 countries, the trust that has developed among the collaborators, and the driving force
that was provided in each country by the science community is postulated as being a critical factor in the short
timeframe for formulation and adoption of the SAP at the ministerial level. One issue to monitor in project
implementation should be the role of BENEFIT in serving as a science advisory arm to the Interim Benguela
Current Commission. The project brief indicates that this is planned and this feature is of significance to GEF in
that similar science bodies have been useful in Europe and North America to the joint waterbody management
institutions. Three GEF projects now have such advisory panels, Lake Victoria, the Lake Chad Basin project and
the BCLME. Early in preparation, some members of the science community in the countries had envisioned
BCLME providing more research and scientific funding for them. During the workshops, this was clarified to
underscore the role of BCLME as a management mechanism to translate the scientific information from BENEFIT
into joint management institutions and ultimately the sectoral institutions of each nation. Ensuring that management
is the focus of BCLME rather than science will be important to establish as implementation begins.
7.6 Was the STAP Roster Review of the project appropriate and useful in refining the project proposal. If not, what
were its deficiencies?
The STAP roster review was provided to the Benguela Management Committee and was discussed at length
according to the answer we received from country officials when we asked this question. It was reportedly useful
for the physical oceanography types as it helped to improve the physical basis for understanding and monitoring the
Benguela system, but the reviewer did not have a great deal of experience in dealing with the high frequency
variability associated with upwelling systems. These fluctuations have to be separated from the longer term but
more powerful variability that actually changes the ecosystem dynamics according to project staff. Consequently,
the country officials found the STAP roster review to be limited.
7.7 Would greater STAP involvement in the monitoring of project implementation and performance be useful? If
so, what type of additional STAP involvement would be appropriate?
The GEF Secretariat has suggested repeatedly to STAP that a priority in the IW focal area for STAP should be how
to encourage, nurture, and mentor science advisory groups to the individual projects. STAP may wish to track the
activity of these different science panels in international waters projects and eventually review their acceptance and
utility.
7.8 Has local governmental and intergovernmental institution "buy in" been appropriate and successful?
Are there any indications of why it was successful, or only partially successful, in the region in question?
Yes, buy in has been appropriate and successful according to everyone interviewed. This was originally built on
relationships in the existing BENEFIT science program. Additionally, a management committee with inter-
ministerial participation from each country (fisheries, environment, oil/gas/mining) ensured cross-sectoral dialogue
and buy-in during Block B preparation. A strong outside facilitator utilized participative processes popularized by
GTZ during both well-attended priority setting workshops with a wide range of attendees to develop a true bottom-
up consensus on priorities in the TDA and then SAP that could overcome the loudly expressed opinions of a few
people and this resulted in widespread stakeholder buy-in. Finally, and probably most importantly, two consultants
with UNDP who knew the IW focal area processes and who had been involved with other IW projects that led to a
TDA and then a SAP provided the group meetings with correct information about what the TDA and SAP
processes were about and enforced the view toward needed policy/legal/institutional reforms as management
measures rather than more collection of science information as the focus of GEF-eligible interventions. As in most
IW projects, continuity with well-informed ambassadors familiar with GEF IW and strong leadership (the CTA)
were crucial to successful completion of the processes, which most interviewees found indispensable in establishing
the priority setting and broad-based inter-ministerial buy-in for the needed country reforms in the SAP.
99
7.9 What measures of success can be applied to the project under study in respect to:
Process indicators;
Stress reduction indicators; and
Environmental status indicators.
The project is not yet under implementation. Indicators are to be developed as part of project implementation
during the first year or so as the countries begin to undertake joint management. However, several important
regional process indicators have been achieved. First, a transboundary analysis was jointly produced by the three
countries that identified several high priority transboundary issues to be addressed. Second, inter-ministerial
participation did occur in each country as part of project preparation. Third, a SAP consisting of regional actions
and country actions that need to be taken to address the few priorities was produced participatively and the political
commitment of signatures at the ministerial level were successfully obtained for the SAP. Finally, the elements of
the SAP and the resulting project brief do contain the commitment to establish a joint management institution as
part of the project and through a legal committee of the three nations to produce the legal regime(convention
framework) for establishing a sustainable institution for joint management.
7.10 Are there any significant project implementation difficulties that could be resolved at the
Implementing Agency level? If so, what are they and how could they be resolved?
There are no implementation difficulties. Two issues may be worthy of note, one of them is resolved and the other
will be the subject of attention during implementation. The one that seems to be resolved is the time gap or delay
that existed between approval of the project brief in February 2000 and completion of the Project Document
(Prodoc) in early December. UNDP Namibia has been responsible for the project; personnel changes at the UNDP
office resulted in a decision not to renew the Regional Coordinator to complete the Prodoc following approval of
the brief. The responsibility was given to the Namibian Government and the subsequent long delay resulted.
Hopefully, resolution of the delay will be forthcoming with the lesson that continuity in leadership at the CTA level
should be assured through to project endorsement by GEF in order to minimize delays. New people and contracts
with preferred local staff often can not be expected to expedite complex international waters projects.
The second issue relates to the need to conduct dialogue with subnational levels of government and communities
about the project. GEF IW projects should engage 3 levels of institutions: multi-country level, inter-ministerial
national level in each country, and the subnational/community level. While stakeholders in the fishing, oil/gas,
diamond mining, and shipping industries were involved in preparation, the subnational/community levels were not
mobilized. This is not a fatal flaw; in fact, most of those interviewed understood the importance
of this next level of outreach and awareness building and this should be pursued in the first year of project
implementation.
7.11 To what extent has the project demonstrated, or has the potential to demonstrate, a "catalytic" influence on
other activities in the region or on the topic? Are there any pointers to what makes such catalysis
successful?
Several key elements of project preparation were important and are repeated here: First, there was a shared
ecosystem with significant commercial value that all 3 countries recognized. A science program (BENEFIT) was
created prior to BCLME with donors that linked the science community together in the 3 countries, sponsored joint
sampling cruises and training activities so that the individuals could get to know each other and begin to develop
trust among each other. Several individuals originally associated with the science community proposed during the
establishment of BENEFIT that a management-related multi-country program was also needed to translate the
information provided by science into the sectoral actions of each country. GEF preparation funding was utilized to
develop this management approach and it was driven by support from the science community, support from UNDP
in Namibia, and a strong CTA accepted by all three countries who kept the processes going during Block B
preparation.
Additionally, a management committee with inter-ministerial participation from each country (fisheries,
environment, oil/gas/mining) ensured cross-sectoral dialogue and buy-in during preparation. A strong outside
100
facilitator utilized German participatory processes (---,ZOPP) during both well-attended priority setting
workshops with a wide range of attendees to develop a true bottom-up consensus on elements of the TDA and then
SAP that could overcome the loudly expressed opinions of a few people and this resulted in widespread buy-in.
Finally, and probably most importantly, two consultants with UNDP who knew the IW focal area processes and
who had been involved with other IW projects that led to a TDA and then a SAP provided the group meetings with
correct information about what the TDA and SAP processes were about and enforced the view toward needed
policy/legal/institutional reforms as management measures rather than more collection of science information as the
focus of GEF-eligible interventions. As in most IW projects, continuity with well-informed ambassadors familiar
with GEF IW and strong leadership (the CTA) were crucial to successful completion of the processes, which most
interviewees found indispensable in establishing the priority setting and broad-based inter-ministerial buy-in for
the needed reforms in the SAP.
Bottom Line-While the project is not yet under implementation, preparation with the assistance of one GEF IA
(UNDP) went well with timely completion of strategic work as recommended by the GEF Operational Strategy in
the IW focal area for OP 8 projects. In this case, policy/legal/institutional reforms and capacity building to
implement them seem to be the key interventions needed to address the transboundary issues. Since assisting with
these are part of UNDP's comparative advantage in the GEF, not having the other IAs involved was no
shortcoming and linkages are being formed with other IA projects being proposed for GEF support in the area. If
investments requiring governments to utilize lending mechanisms were an important part of the solution, then
perhaps multiple IA involvement would have been beneficial as for the Danube and Black Sea cases. One unknown
is the extent to which fishing fleet overcapacity is a threat to sustaining the fisheries. The TDA does not address this
point. If the reforms are not sufficient to sustain the fisheries and fleet overcapacity is an issue, perhaps a lending
institution was necessary.
List of Personnel Interviewed:
Angola
Ms. Maria de Lourdes Sardinha, National Coordinator, BCLME, Ministry of Fisheries and Environment, Luanda,
Angola
Namibia
Mrs. Nangula Mbako, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Windhoek, Namibia
Dr. Hashali Hamukuaya, Deputy Director, MFMR, National Coordinator, BCLME, Windhoek
Dr. Burger Oelofsen, Director, MFMR, Windhoek
Dr. Gabi Schneider, Director, Geological Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Windhoek
Dr. Phoebe Barnard, National Coordinator, Biodiversity Programme, Ministry of Environment and Tourism,
Windhoek
Dr. Bronwen Currie, Head, Intertidal Section, National Marine Information Center, MFMR, Swakopmund,
Namibia
Dr. David Boyer, Chief, Offshore Resources, National Marine Information Center, MFMR, Swakopmund
Dr. Jacqui Badcock, UNDP Resident Representative, Windhoek
Ms. Esther Hoveka, Asst Res Rep, UNDP, Windhoek
Ms. Linda Vanherck, Programme Officer, UNDP, Windhoek
101
Dr. Charles Hocutt, Exec Officer, BENEFIT Programme, Swakopmund
South Africa
Dr. Monde Mayekiso, Chief Director, Sea Fisheries, Marine and Coastal Management, Dept of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism, Capetown, S. Africa
Dr. Niel Malan, Deputy Director, Marine and Coastal Management, Dept of Envir Affairs and Tourism, Capetown
Dr. Larry Hutchins, Chief Specialist Scientist, Sea Fisheries Institute, National Coordinator, BCLME, Min of Envir
Affairs and Tourism, Capetown
Dr. Lynn Jackson, Assistant Director, Marine Pollution, Dept of Envir Affairs and Tourism, Capetown
Dr. Denzil Miller, Sr Specialist Scientist, Marine and Coastal Management, Dept of Envir Affairs and Tourism,
Capetown
Dr. Grant Pitcher, Sea Fisheries Institute, Marine and Coastal Management, Dept of Envir Affairs and Tourism,
Capetown
Dr. Hans Verheye, Sr Specialist Scientist, Marine and Coastal Management, Dept of Envir Affairs and Tourism,
Capetown
Mr. Ian McLachlan, Concession Manager, South Africa Petroleum Agency, Capetown
Dr. Vere Shannon, Oceanography Dept., Univ of Capetown, Capetown
Mr. Chris Davis, Technical Advisor to MCM, DFID, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Group, Capetown
By Telephone or E-Mail
Dr. Mick J. O'Toole, formerly Regional Coordinator and Chief Technical Advisor for Block B Grant for BCLME
project, UNDP, Windhoek
Dr. Andrew Hudson, Principal Tech Advisor, International Waters, UNDP, New York
Dr. David LaRoche, Consultant, International Waters, UNDP, New York
102
Attachment 5
Reporting Requirements
and
Legal Context
Ongoing project reporting will be provided in accordance with established UNDP procedures and will be provided
by the UNDP Country Office with support from UNDP- GEF. Overall supervision of the Project will be the
responsibility of the Project Director.
Reporting
The Project support Unit will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports:
(a)
Inception Report (IR)
The inception report is to be prepared by the Project CTA with the assistance of the project experts as
relevant. The IR will be prepared no later than three months after project start-up and will include a
detailed Workplan and Budget for the duration of the project, progress to date on project establishment and
start-up activities and any proposed amendments to project activities or approaches. The report will be
circulated to all the parties who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with
comments or queries. The report will also be reviewed by UNDP - GEF to ensure consistency with the
objectives and activities indicated in the Project Document.
(b)
Annual Programme/Project Report (APR)
The Annual Project Report (APR) is designed to obtain the independent views of the main stakeholders of a
project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. The APR aims to: a) provide a rating
and textual assessment of the progress of a project in achieving its objectives; b) present stakeholders'
insights into issues affecting the implementation of a project and their proposals for addressing those
issues; and c) serve as a source of inputs to the Tripartite Review (TPR). The main project stakeholders
participate in the preparation of the APR.
The APRs will be prepared every six months during the first year of the project, and then annually. The
APRs will detail activities undertaken since the last APR, milestones reached, key results and
achievements, problems encountered and any other issues that need to be highlighted.
(c)
Periodic Status Reports
As and when called for by the Project Director (CTA), the government or UNDP, the Project CTA will
prepare Status Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity as stipulated by the querant. The
request for a Status Report will be in written form, and will clearly state the issue or activities which need
to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of specific oversight in key areas, or as
troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. The parties are
requested to minimise their requests for Status Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable
timeframes for the preparation of these Reports.
(d)
Technical Reports
Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specialisations
within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report the Project Director/CTA will prepare a draft
Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during
the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and
updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external
consultants as Final Reports for their technical inputs, and should be comprehensive, specialised analyses
of clearly-defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites.
103
(e)
Project Publications
Project Publications will form a key method of crystallising and disseminating the results and achievements
of the Project. These publications will be scientific or informational texts on the activities and
achievements of the Project, in the form of books, journal articles or multimedia publications. These
Publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of
these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research.
The Project Director/CTA will determine if specific Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will
also (in consultation with the government and other parties and with the help of external specialists and
staff where necessary) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognisable format and
identity. These Publications will form the most visible public output of the Project, and as such should be
prepared and presented to the highest scientific and technical standards.
(f)
Project Terminal Report
During the last three months of the project the Project Director/CTA will prepare the Project Terminal
Report. This comprehensive report will summarise all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project,
lessons learnt, objectives met and missed, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the
definitive statement of the Project's activities over the five-year duration. It will also lay out
recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability
of the Project's activities.
(g)
Other Publications and Publicity Activities
In order to ensure international dissemination of project results, a high-quality publication of results will
be prepared, based upon the Project Terminal Report and previous Project Publications. Finally, it will be
useful to hold at least one international workshop at which policy makers in neighbouring countries can be
made aware of the country's progress in achieving the project's goals.
Tripartite Review (TPR)
The tripartite review (TPR) is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the
implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every twelve
months by representatives of the Government, the executing agency and UNDP, and the first such meeting to be
held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The Project Support Unit shall prepare an
Annual Project Report (APR) and to submit to UNDP. The APR must be ready two weeks prior to the TPR.
The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The National Project
Director/CTA presents the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the
TPR participants. The NPD/CTA also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during
the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Six-monthly APR's will be provided during the first two
years of the project to ensure that design and inception activities are closely monitored, and subsequently the APR
will be done on an annual basis. Separate reviews of each state component may also be conducted if necessary.
Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators will be built into the project in consultation with UNDP.
Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)
The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The Project support Unit is responsible
in preparing the Terminal Report, and to submit to UNDP. It shall be prepared in draft sufficiently in advance to
allow review and technical clearance by the executing agency at least two months prior to the terminal tripartite
review. The Terminal Report will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review
considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has
achieved its immediate objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective, and decides whether any
actions are still necessary.
104
Project Implementation Review (PIR)
A major tool for monitoring the GEF portfolio and extracting lessons is the annual GEF Project
Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR has become an essential management and monitoring tool
for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects.
The PIR is mandatory for all GEF projects that have been under implementation for at least one year at the time that
the exercise is conducted. A project becomes legal and implementation activities can begin when all parties have
signed the project document. The PIR questionnaire is sent to the UNDP country office, usually around the
beginning of June. It is the responsibility of the Project Director/CTA to complete the PIR questionnaire, with the
oversight of the UNDP Country Office.
Mid-term Evaluation
An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year. The Mid-Term Evaluation
will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring
decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and
management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during
the final half of the project's term. The organisation, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will
be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document.
Final Evaluation
An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and
will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at early signs of
potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the
achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for
follow-up activities. The organisation, terms of reference and timing of the final evaluation will be decided after
consultation between the parties to the project document.
Regular Monitoring and Evaluation
The project will also be closely monitored by the UNDP Country Office through quarterly meetings or more
frequently as deemed necessary with the National project Director (CTA). This will allow to take stock and to
trouble shoot of any problems pertaining to the project quickly to ensure smooth implementation of project
activities.
Section I: Legal Context
This project document shall be the instrument envisaged in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document.
The host-country implementing agency shall for the purpose of the Supplemental Provisions to the Project
Document, refer to the co-operating agency described in the Supplemental Provisions.
All activities stipulated in the Project Document shall be implemented accordingly. However, should there be a
need to make changes/modifications to any of the agreed activities, all signatories of the Project Document must
concur, before such changes are made.
The following amendments may be made to the original Project Document, even if they are signed only by the
UNDP Resident Representative, provided the latter assumes that all other signatories of the Project Document have
no objections to the amendments:
105
· Revisions in, or additions to, any of the Annexes of the Project Document with the exception of the Standard
Legal Text for non-SBAA countries which may not be altered and the agreement to which is a pre-condition for
UNDP assistance.
· Revisions which do not result in a major changes in the project's immediate objectives or outputs, and which
are attributable to a reordering of the activities or inputs in order to improve the realisation of the objectives or
the outputs.
· Necessary yearly revisions which are made to reorganise the provision of already scheduled inputs, to reflect an
increase in the cost of expert services or other services due to inflation.
The executing agent designated on the cover page to this project document has been duly delegated by UNDP and
the government coordinating authority to carry out this project and accordingly will follow UNDP and UNOPS
accounting, financial reporting and auditing procedures set forth in the following documents as may be amended by
UNDP from time to time.
· The Accounting and financial reporting procedures set out in UNDP Programming Manual and UNOPS
Handbook
· The UNDP Audit Requirements set out in the UNDP Programming Manual.
The above documents are an integral part of this project document although incorporated herein only by reference.
They have already been provided to the government and said executing agent.
Auditors to the project will be officially designated. Such auditors, and/or other officially appointed auditors shall
undertake periodic management and financial audits of the project in accordance with UNDP auditing procedures.
In addition, all accounts maintained by UNOPS for UNDP resources may be audited by the UNDP internal
Auditors and/or the United Nations Board of Auditors or by public accountants designated by the United Nations
Board of Auditors.
106
Attachment 6
Institutional Arrangements
Preface
It should be noted that the GEF project described in this project document is intended to serve, in part, as a
substantial capacity-building tool for the permanent establishment of the Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem Programme, a Programme that will be the joint responsibility of the three participating countries,
Angola, Namibia and South Africa. While the activities of the GEF project will dominate much of the work of the
BCLME over the next five years, it is intended that the countries will in parallel be working to create a permanent
Benguela Current Commission and, during the life of the project, be establishing an Interim Benguela Current
Commission which will gradually assume responsibility for the long term sustainability of the BCLME. For this
reason, the organogram, which is part of this Attachment, places over-riding importance of the role of the countries
themselves through their commitment for a long-term BCLME program.
Implementing Agency
The UNDP will be the GEF Implementing Agency for this project. The UNDP is one of the formally designated
GEF Implementing Agencies and is accountable to the GEF for all aspects of project implementation.
Executing Agency
The Executing Agency for the project will be the United Nations Office for Project Services or UNOPS. UNOPS
has the comparative advantage of experience in the successful management of UNDP-GEF International Waters
projects. Additionally, UNOPS personnel are well-positioned to offer to the project program Coordination Unit the
expert services that it will require to ensure adherence to standard UNDP practice with regard to, among other
things, the hiring of personnel, the transport of personnel to duty stations, recruitment processes, contracting,
equipment purchase and disposition rules and regulations, and the coordination of monitoring and evaluation
functions.
Project Steering Committee
The Project Steering Committee will be comprised of a representative of the GEF Implementing Agency, three
members from each of the participating countries, and a representative of the SADC and of BENEFIT. In addition
to the above, the three country members of the PSC shall serve as part of a selection committee for the CTA. A
representative from UNOPS will participat in the SCM, only upon invitation from the PSC. The more precise
functions of the PSC are to be found in the Terms of Reference which follow this Annex.
Program Coordination Unit
The Program Coordination Unit, or PCU, will provide a coordination and management structure for the
development and implementation of the UNDP-GEF BCLME Program in accordance with the rules and procedures
of GEF/UNDP and based on the general guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PCU is
comprised of the CTA, Office Manager, Secretary, and contract personnel as necessary including contractors to
assure the overall accounting needs of the PCU.
The CTA shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all aspects of the Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem
(BCLME) GEF Project in general and in particular. He/she shall liaise directly with designated officials of the
Participating Countries, the Implementing Agency, the Executing Agency, UNDP Country Offices, existing and
potential additional project donors, National Focal Points, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the
PSC or by the CTA him/her self. The budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day
implementation of the approved Project Document and on the integration of the various donor funded parallel
initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on
behalf of the Project. He/she will provide overall supervision for all GEF staff in the Program Coordination Unit.
Activity Centers
A network of specialist institutions coordinated through the PCU will implement a major part of the BCLME
Program activities through the creation and use of Activity Centers. There will be three Activity Centers created as
107
part of project implementation, one in each Participating Country. The centers will be based in national
institutions selected by the Commissioners at the first meeting of the IBCC, or by the Program Steering Committee.
The Activity Centers shall be created through in-kind contributions by Participating Country governments, as well
as with significant funding from donors, especially during the first three years. There will be an Activity Center for
issues related to Living Marine Resources. This Activity Center will be located in Namibia. A second Activity
Center will be instituted to focus on issues related to Environmental Variability. This second Activity Center will
be located in South Africa. A third Activity Center will focus on issues related to Biodiversity, Ecosystems and
Pollution. This third Activity Center will be located in Angola. Each Activity Center will have a Director.
Working with and through the CTA, the three Activity Center Directors will be responsible for developing and
coordinating the work of the Activity Centers and assisting the various Advisory Groups assigned to their
respective Activity Centers.
Advisory Groups
Each of the above Activity Centers will be assisted by the creation of Advisory Groups. The membership of the
Advisory Groups will be approved by the PSC, and nominations will be made by the CTA after consultation with
each of the Participating Countries. The purpose of the Advisory Groups is to provide the Secretariat or the PCU
with the best possible advice and information on topics key to implementation of the BCLME Strategic Action
Program. There will be six Advisory Groups. They will include Advisory Groups on Living Marine Resources,
Ecosystem Variability and Ecosystem Health Impacts, Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Pollution, Legal and maritime
Affairs, and Information and Data Exchange. The exact locations for and responsibilities of the Advisory Groups is
described in the following Terms of Reference.
Following is an organogram depicting the relationships between and among the various project institutions:
108
BCLME PROGRAMME ORGANOGRAM
(I) BCC
PSC
UNOPS
PCU
UNDP
COs
AC
(LMR)
AG 5
AG 1
(Legal)
(LMR)
AC
AG 6
(EV)
(Info/Data)
AG 2
(EV)
CFP
(Angola)
AC
(B-D, EH, P)
CFP
(Namibia)
AG 3
AG 4
(P)
(B-D, EH)
CFP
(SA)
109
Attachment 7
Terms of Reference
BCLME Program
Program Coordination Unit (PCU)
Duration: 5 Years
Location: Windhoek, Namibia
Background: The PCU will provide a coordination and management structure for the development and
implementation of the UNDP-GEF BCLME Program in accordance with the rules and procedures of GEF/UNDP
and based on the general guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PCU is comprised of
the CTA, Administrator, Secretary, Driver and contract personnel as necessary including contractors to assure the
day-to-day accounting needs of the PCU.
Tasks:
· Facilitate networking between and among project entities, national officials (Angola, Namibia and South
Africa), Implementing Agency personnel, cooperating partners such as BENEFIT, UNDP Country Offices,
National Focal Points, existing and potential co-financers, other related GEF projects, and others as appropriate
and necessary;
· Organize technical cooperation activities between and among the Activity Centers in the three participating
countries for capacity-building, project related policy, management and donor activities;
· Organize project related consultative meetings for introducing and implementing program activities (including
arrangements for such necessities as simultaneous translation and the production of documents in English and
Portuguese);
· Collect and dissemination of information on policy, economic, scientific and technical issues related to the
BCLME program;
· Prepare progress reports (administrative and financial) concerning program activities;
· Prepare and arrange the logistics necessary to annual TPR Review Meetings;
· Establishment of and assistance in networking between specialized institutions in participating countries and
technical specialists from elsewhere;
· Assure effective and efficient Program management (financial, logistical and strategic).
110
Terms of Reference
Project Steering Committee (PSC)
Duration: Five Years
Background:
The Project will have a Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives of the GEF Implementing Agencies, three
members from each of the participating countries, and a representative of the SADC and of BENEFIT. UNOPS will send
representative to participate in the SCM only upon invitation from the members of the PSC. More specifically the PSC
shall:
· Assume oversight responsibility for the project
· Meet at least on an annual basis or at the call of the Chair, who shall be selected by the country representatives of the
PSC.
· Provide general guidance and direction to the Project;
· Assist in identifying and allocating Project support for activities consistent with Project objectives;
· Annually review and assess the progress of the Project and its components;
· Annually review and approve the work plan and updated budgets of the Project and its activities;
· Provide strategic direction on the work plan;
· Provide guidance to the PCU in coordinating and managing the Project and its activities;
· Create mechanisms for interaction with the Private Sector, NGOs and other stakeholder
communities; and
· Continue to seek additional funding to support the outputs and activities of the project.
In addition to the above, the three country members of the PSC (one from each country) shall serve as part of a selection
committee for the CTA.
111
Terms of Reference
Chief Technical Advisor (CTA)
Duration:
3 Year Fixed Term
Date required:
August 2001 (Estimated)
Duty station:
Windhoek, Namibia, with travel in the project region as deemed
necessary (Angola, South Africa), and travel to other International locations consistent with
these Terms of Reference.
Project Purpose:
The long-term objective of the project is to undertake the array of priority measures
identified in the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and the Strategic Action program (SAP), in
conjunction with the ongoing activities of the participating countries, donors, regional organizations, private
industry, NGOs, and other affected interests. Major outputs will include provision of effective inter and intra
project coordination and support through establishment of a Program Coordination Unit (PCU) and the
identification and provision of resources for a Lead Agency in each of the participating countries. The project
makes provision for the transfer of increasing amounts of responsibility and ownership of project activities as
implementation proceeds. Other outputs include creating mechanisms for, and steps to be undertaken, to effect the
sustainable management and use of the resources of the BCLME; assessment of environmental variability,
ecosystem impacts, and improvement of predictability, preliminary steps to maintain BCLME ecosystem health and
effectively control of pollution; and support to recruit new, additional donors and increase the level of co-finance
during the life of the project and increased funding for the post-project programs and activities of the newly created
Benguela Current Commission (BCC). The creation of the BCC, which must be negotiated among the participating
countries, and immediate creation of the Interim Benguela Current Commission (IBCC), are highlights of the
country-prepared and endorsed SAP. Seven Ministers have formally signed the SAP. At the substantive level,
special emphasis in this project is being given to effecting the sustainable management and use of the resources of
the BCLME and on assessment of environmental variability, ecosystem impacts, and improvement of predictability
of system dynamics. Outputs and activities related to pollution and the coastal zone, issues whose transboundary
impacts are limited at this point but likely to grow in future, are modest in nature but deemed critical to include as
they sustain the broad level of interministerial participation that has characterized country efforts to date. Including
a limited number of pollution and coastal zone activities is also necessary to the project objective of taking an
integrated approach to the BCLME.
General Responsibilities:
The CTA shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all aspects of the Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem
(BCLME) GEF Project in general and in particular. He/she shall liaise directly with designated officials of the
Participating Countries, the Implementing Agency, the Executing Agency, UNDP Country Offices, existing and
potential additional project donors, National Focal Points, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the
PSC or by the CTA him/her self. The budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day
implementation of the approved Project Document and on the integration of the various donor funded parallel
initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on
behalf of the Project. He/she will provide overall supervision for all GEF staff in the Program Coordination Unit.
Specific Duties
The CTA will have the following specific duties:
· Manage the GEF Components of the PCU, its staff, budget and imprest fund;
· Prepare an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document, under the general
supervision of the Project Steering Committee and in close consultation and coordination with National
Focal Points, GEF Partners and relevant donors;
· Coordinate, monitor and be responsible to the PSC for implementation of the work plan;
112
· Ensure consistency between the various program elements and related activities provided or funded
by other donor organizations;
· Prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors;
· Coordinate and oversee preparation of the substantive and operational reports from the Program;
· Foster and establish links with other related GEF programs and, where appropriate, with other relevant
regional International Waters programs;
· Be an ex-officio member of the PSC and be responsible for the preparation, organization, and follow-
up necessary to the effective conduct of PSC business; and
· Submit quarterly reports of relevant project progress and problems to the PSC.
Qualifications:
· post-graduate degree (preferably a Ph.D.) in the Marine Sciences, Environmental Management, or a
directly related field (e.g. fisheries management, natural resources economics, etc.);
· Extensive experience in fields related to the assignment. At least ten years experience as a senior
project manager. Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills;
· familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations preferred, in particular those of
the GEF and its partners (UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and current
and future potential additional donors);
· excellent English speaking and writing skills; and
· existing speaking and reading capability in, or the strong commitment to learn to speak and read,
Portuguese;
· previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries preferred, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the project very favorably considered;
· ability and willingness to travel extensively; and
· demonstrable skills in information technology.
113
Terms of Reference
Administrator
Duration: Three Year Fixed-Term Appointment
Location: Windhoek, Namibia
General Description:
Under the supervision of the CTA, the Administrator will:
· Manage the day-to-day operations of the PCU, particularly with respect to technical services, staff support;
· With additional contractual support as necessary, assure that necessary financial, procurement (including
importation, permits, etc.) and personnel matters are addressed; Prepare internal and external correspondence
for the PCU, maintain files and assist in the preparation of documentation for meetings;
· Use the Internet and conduct research on availability of scientific, legal and technical information on topics
related to the project implementation at all sites;
· Co-ordinate and assist in travel arrangements of project personnel;
· Prepare press releases, statements and speeches on the project activities;
· Undertake such other duties as may be assigned by the CTA.
Skills and Experience Required:
· Tertiary education preferred (equivalent as experience considered).
· Several years' experience of work in international organizations/agencies, governmental offices, research or
training organizations.
· Proficiency in English; good knowledge of Portuguese a significant advantage.
· Demonstrable skills in Information Technology e.g. word processing, spreasheet preparation, etc.
· Reliability, initiative, and a methodical approach and attention to detail.
· Ability to work under general guidance or independently.
· Willingness to work substantial periods of overtime at short notice.
114
Terms of Reference
BCLME Activity Centers
Duration: 5 Years
Location: One Activity Center in each of the Participating Countries
Background:
A network of specialist institutions coordinated through the PCU will implement a major part of the BCLME
Program activities through the creation and use of Activity Centers. There will be three Activity Centers created as
part of project implementation, one in each Participating Country. The centers will be based in national institutions
selected by the Commissioners at the first meeting of the IBCC, or by the Program Steering Committee. The
Activity Centers shall be created through in-kind contributions by Participating Country governments, as well as
with significant funding from donors, especially during the first three years. There will be an Activity Center for
issues related to Living Marine Resources. This Activity Center will be located in Namibia. A second Activity
Center will be instituted to focus on issues related to Environmental Variability. This second Activity Center will
be located in South Africa. A third Activity Center will focus on issues related to Biodiversity, Ecosystem Health
and Pollution. This third Activity Center will be located in Angola.
The Activity Centers will:
· each have an Activity Center Director and secretary which shall be nationals of the host country;
· perform its functions under the direct supervision of the CTA;
· receive the services of necessary national experts and international consultants;
· serve as the headquarters for the activities of designated project Advisory Groups;
· work closely with the PCU in order to establish links with the national institutional focal points i.e.
specialized institutions selected by Governments to participate in each of the networks;
· with the support of the PCU, organize Working Groups, conduct training, and present
recommendations to the Program Steering Committee through the PCU;
· provide capacity strengthening and networking for their respective activities.
115
Terms of Reference
Advisory Groups
Duration: Five Years
Background/Purpose:
Each of the above Activity Centers will be assisted by the creation of Advisory Groups. The membership of the
Advisory Groups will be approved by the PSC, and nominations will be made by the CTA after consultation with
each of the Participating Countries. The purpose of the Advisory Groups is to provide the Secretariat or the PCU
with the best possible advice and information on topics key to implementation of the BCLME Strategic Action
Program. The Advisory groups are required to translate a part of the overall budget into specific projects and
activities that will address the issues and problems. While these issues have been broadly described at the 2nd
workshop, they need to be made very specific before activities start. This requires the technical expertise of the
advisory groups. Advisory Groups will be formed to, inter alia:
1. Look at the problems and issues identified in the TDA/SAP.
2. Look at existing projects and activities undertaken by the national Governments, BENEFIT, bilateral aid
programs and private enterprises.
3. Identify further gaps or elements missing from existing programs in order that the cross boundary elements are
properly addressed.
4. Prioritise these incremental activities.
5. Delegate a task or working group to produce a project proposal or activity or set up terms of reference too
contract the activity out. (There may be problems with intellectual copyright here and this issue will need to be
addressed by the appropriate project personnel; scientists, at least, are often reluctant to devise projects for
others to do; managers cannot adequately specify what needs to be done).
6. These TOR will require members from all three countries to meet, prioritise all the issues surrounding the main
theme, and disburse funds between the three countries.
In all cases Advisory Groups shall, as part of their duties:
· at the first meeting of each Advisory Group, nominate and appoint an Advisory Group Chairman and
Co-Chairman;
· respond to requests for advice from the PCU and prepare proposals for the PCUs consideration at their
own initiative;
· include experts from specialized focal points of the member states;
· work closely with other experts, bodies, institutions and industry as they, or the PCU, deem necessary;
· involve relevant NGOs and other stakeholders as deemed necessary as a means of improving public
participation and awareness in all of the focal areas they cover; and
· give particular attention to the inclusion of experts in environmental law, environmental economics and
public awareness, where appropriate.
Each Advisory Group shall seek to make best use of expertise and institutional capacity within the region.
Advisory Group work plans will be approved on an annual basis by, initially, the PSC and, when it is created and
functioning, the IBCC. Each Advisory Group may request assistance from, or assign specific tasks to, any
institution or expert that it considers appropriate.
The BCLME-Activity Centers will, in consultation with the PCU, provide general co-ordination for the Advisory
Groups, assigning the management of specific tasks to appropriate officers according to their technical
specialization. The Advisory Groups shall be further supported by the three Activity Centers (one in each member
state) by way of the co-ordination of program activities and the provision of practical technical support for their
work.
116
Advisory Groups shall liaise with each other where appropriate and joint groups may be set up from time-to-time,
particularly on such issues as resource assessment, fisheries development, ecosystem health, environmental
variability and environmental impact assessment.
Specific Advisory Groups shall include:
1. The Advisory Group on Living Marine Resources
The Group will co-ordinate activities and provide technical support for the sustainable management, utilisation and
protection of fisheries and other living marine resources of the BCLME. The Advisory Group will gather the basic
source of information related to transboundary commercial fish stocks and management strategies including means
of capture, installed capacity and protection measures and will be co-ordinate calibration/inter-calibrations for
transboundary assessments; socio-economic assessments and serve as a regional forum for stock assessment advice.
Information would also be collected on other potentially important living marine resources that are currently not
harvested, as well as mariculture projects. These data will be gathered from all national authorities and should
document past changes in the production and stock of the region and their relationship to changes in the Benguela
Current ecosystem. They will provide the basic source of information for future management strategies, and for the
implementation of any future fisheries convention.
The Group will develop proposals and, where appropriate, co-ordinate (1) harmonisation at the regional level of a
legal and institutional framework aimed at sustainable use of living marine resources; (2) improvement of the
fisheries resource assessment of the BCLME based on a regional approach; (3) development of projects for
conservation, protection and rehabilitation of living marine resources; (4) in consultation as appropriate with other
groups, development of specific techniques for mariculture that do not harm the environment or the biological
diversity. The Group will collaborate with regional and international institutions, governmental and non-
governmental bodies and the private sector.
This Advisory Group will be coordinated by, and shall report to the Director of, the Living Marine Resources
Activity Center located in Namibia.
2. The Advisory Group on Environmental Variability
This Group will co-ordinate activities and provides technical support for the development and implementation of an
early warning system for variability and change in the physical, chemical and biological environment of the
BCLME. Development of models to predict transboundary environmental change and assess the overall health of
the ecosystem will form a primary role of this Group. The implementation of new techniques for rapid assessment
of the Benguela Current ocean and coastal environments will also be pursued. Cost-effectiveness will be a guiding
principal for group activities.
The Group will develop proposals for and co-ordinate (1) effective state of the environmental assessment of the
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem; (2) modelling of the Benguela Current ecosystem and the interaction
between the physical, chemical and biological parameters with a view to improving predictability of extreme events
and system wide change; (3) the metocean data buoy (PIRATA) demonstration project; (4) the assessment of
environmental variability and change and the impacts thereof on living marine resources and the ecosystem as a
whole; (5) rapid environmental assessment techniques using towed undulating oceanographic instruments and
satellite remote sensing; (6) regional training programs in scientific and technical aspects of environmental
monitoring, data processing and modeling of the BCLME; (7) development of a regional network, contingency plan
and reporting system for HABs; (8) mitigation impacts of HABs and community involvement in monitoring.
The work of this Advisory Group shall be coordinated through the Activity Center for Environmental Variability to
be located in South Africa.
3.
The Advisory Group on Pollution
117
The Group will co-ordinate, and provide technical support for, project activities aimed at the prevention,
reduction, control and monitoring of all sources of transboundary pollution in the BCLME area. Such activities will
include (1) assessment of water quality in the BCLME area, including identification and comparative evaluation of
sources of pollution; (2) development of regional protocols and agreements with a view to harmonizing policies and
standards on water and sediment quality, and on the control of marine litter; (3) development of a regional
framework for the monitoring of marine pollution and enforcement of regulations; (4) assessment for the needs for
training in marine pollution control, and identification of relevant opportunities and/or development of courses as
necessary; (5) development of a regional oil spill contingency plan; (6) development of public awareness of marine
pollution issues through the production of relevant educational material and; (7) implementation of demonstration
projects.
The work of this Advisory Group shall be coordinated through the Activity Center for Environmental Variability,
Ecosystem Health and Pollution, to be located in Angola.
4.
The Advisory Group on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health
The Group will co-ordinate, and provide technical support for, project activities aimed (1) production of indices of
ecosystem health integrating fisheries, environmental variability, biodiversity and pollution; (2) an assessment of
biodiversity status in conjunction with the Living Marine Resources Activity Center; (3) identification of currently
threatened communities/species/habitats and (4) a proposed system of coastal protected areas. In addition, the
Advisory Group shall also liaise and collaborate with relevant regional and international institutions.
The work of this Advisory Group shall also be coordinated through the Activity Center for Environmental
Variability, Ecosystem Health and Pollution, to be located in Angola.
5.
The Advisory Group on Legal and Maritime Affairs
The Group will monitor and advise the PCU (Secretariat) on the emerging legal regimes of the BCLME, measures
adopted pursuant to and activities carried out within them. These activities will be carried out with a view to
ensuring (1) the appropriate development of the regime and its efficacy; (2) the consistency of the regime with
global international law regimes (such as UNCLOS, UNEP, pollution conventions, the Biodiversity Convention,
etc. (3) the consistency of the regime with regional and other related international law regimes (such as SADC and
the projected SEAFO); (4) that harmonisation of national policies within the system are similarly consistent. The
Group will, where requested to do so by the PCU, (Secretariat or a Member State) examine the compatibility of any
national measure taken by any Member State with a view to assessing its consistency with the system and advising
thereon.
The work of this Advisory Group shall be coordinated in a manner to be determined by the Participating Countries.
6. The Advisory Group on Information and Data Exchange
This group will focus its work on the improvement of information flow and data exchange. In particular, it will
oversee (1) Updating the existing Benguela Current information on fisheries, oceanography, environmental
variability and ecosystem health, diamond mining and other minerals and deposits, offshore oil and gas exploration
and production, coastal developments, and socio-economics; (2) develop an integrated regional data base and
Geographic Information System (GIS) for the BCLME; (3) compile and update a bibliography of the region and a
BCLME website; (4) strengthen the e-mail network and improve Internet connections to the web services for
principal data centers and Ministries of Environment, Fisheries and Marine Resources, Energy, Mining and
Petroleum for the exchange of information and data including meta-data; (5) develop a regional Internet facility
comprising environmental data, sets of data obtained from various national, regional and international programs,
copies of historical data and datasets from global data centers such as the World Data Center (WDC), the Global
Ocean Observation System-Living Marine Resources (GOOS-LMR) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC); (6) co-operate with an NGO network in data exchange; Furthermore it will organise training on
118
data exchange, promote and support UN agency sponsored distance-learning programs such as the International
Waters IW:LEARN and TRAIN-SEA-COAST Programs and also assist other networks in the region.
The work of this Advisory Group shall be coordinated by the PCU.
119
Terms of Reference
Activity Centre Directors
Duration: Three Year Fixed Term Appointment
Location: One Activity Center Director in Each Participating Country
Background:
A network of specialist institutions coordinated through the PCU will implement a major part of the BCLME
Program activities through the creation and use of Activity Centers. There will be three Activity Centers created as
part of project implementation, one in each Participating Country. The centers will be based in national institutions
selected by the Commissioners at the first meeting of the IBCC, or by the Program Steering Committee. The
Activity Centers shall be created through in-kind contributions by Participating Country governments, as well as
with significant funding from donors, especially during the first three years. There will be an Activity Center for
issues related to Living Marine Resources. This Activity Center will be located in Namibia. A second Activity
Center will be instituted to focus on issues related to Environmental Variability. This second Activity Center will
be located in South Africa. A third Activity Center will focus on issues related to Biodiversity, Ecosystem Health
and Pollution. This third Activity Center will be located in Angola.
The countries have also decided that an Activity Center Director will be named to head each of the Activity
Centers.
General Responsibilities:
Working with and through the CTA, the three Activity Center Directors will be responsible for developing and
coordinating the work of the Activity Centers and assisting the various Advisory Groups assigned to their
respective Activity Centers. More specifically the Activity Center Directors shall:
· serve as the direct link between the work of the Activity Center, the Advisory Groups working
through the respective Activity Centers, and the PCU;
· serve as a Senior Advisor to each of the Advisory Groups attached to his/her Activity Center;
· assist each of the Advisory Groups in the development of work plans for his/her Advisory Groups and
the production of work products associated with those work plans;
· be responsible for the timely and efficient development, production and distribution of the work
products of the Advisory Groups attached to his/her Activity Center;
· serve as a principal on-site, project Liaison to Participating Country representatives;
· ensure that the PCU and the PSC receive periodic updates of progress and problems of work
associated with the work of Advisory Groups attached to his/her Activity Center.
Qualifications:
Each Activity Center Director shall:
· be a national of the country in which the Activity Center is located;
· have an advanced degree in a field related to the work of the Advisory Groups attached to his/her
Activity Center (years of experience in a field related to the work of the Advisory Groups may be
substituted for lack of an advanced degree at the discretion of the hiring individual or committee);
· have significant experience in a field related to the work of the Advisory Groups attached to his/her
Activity Center;
· have the ability to converse and write in English, with the ability to converse and write in Portuguese
seen as a distinct advantage (for the Angola based Activity Center, fluency and writing competence in
Portuguese and English);
120
Terms of Reference
Administrative Assistant to
Activity Center Director
Term: Initial Three-Year Contract
Location: One Secretary for Each of 3 Activity Centers
General Job Description
The Secretary, working under the close supervision of the Activity Center Director, and in close lisaison with the
PSC Office Manager, will have responsibility for a variety of tasks essential to maintaining the efficient operation
of the Activity Center. These include communications tasks, assisting with travel arrangements and general
secretarial duties. The post requires language abilities, experience with PCs, good communication skills, and a
capacity for clearly discerning priorities under irregular work pressure. The incumbent will be required to keep
regular working hours in order to ensure the proper manning of the Activity Center.
Duties
1. Communication tasks
The incumbent will be responsible for the external communication of the Activity Center. This includes: (a)
managing telephone, fax and electronic mail communication and the Activity Center address book; (b) updating the
mailing; and (c) organizing outgoing official mail, particularly the mailing of all circulars, invitations to meetings
and meeting reports.
2. Staff travel
The Secretary will organize staff travel in close cooperation with the appropriate personnel in the PCU. He/she will
assist the staff and consultants with the advance planning of travel, investigating routes, connections and hotel
arrangements. He/she will also assist project staff with the travel plans for external meetings. He/she shall
organize hotel arrangements and program of activities for participants in meetings organized by the Activity Center.
3. General Secretarial Duties
The incumbent will be requested to assist with the maintenance of project files and the photocopying of specific
documents and be responsible for the transcription and distribution of meeting minutes. He/she will also prepare
and type texts for the project staff where there is an urgent need and where the work plan permits.
4. Other duties as may be assigned by the Activity Center Director.
Skills and Experience Required
· proven computer skills;
· for the Namibia and South Africa based Activity Centers, fluency in English with spoken and written
ability in Portuguese a strong asset; in the Angola Activity Center, fluency in Portuguese and English;
· familiarity with subject matter relevant to the project will be considered favorably.
121
Abbreviated Terms of Reference
Short-Term International Consultants
Short-term international consultants will give technical inputs to the Outputs and specific Activities of the project,
act as resource persons, and give methodological guidance in organizing meetings and workshops. International
expertise will be required in the following general categories (detailed Terms of References will be prepared by the
CTA during project implementation):
· LME expertise
· Marine resources
· Oceanography
· Ecosystem Health and Impacts
· Other Areas as may be deemed necessary by the CTA
122
Abbreviated Terms of Reference
Short and Long Term National Professionals
National Professionals and Consultants, for both short and long term assignments, will be recruited from qualified
candidates from the participating countries to work at the national and regional levels. National Consultants will
play an important role in the SAP planning process so that SAP is country-driven and can reinforce the
responsibility of the participating countries to produce a coherent strategic plan for sustainable environmental
management in the Region. The following National Professionals and Consultants will be recruited. The detailed
Terms of References will be prepared by the CTA during project implementation.
National Professionals and Consultants will be recruited, as available, to assist the work of the project in the
following technical areas:
· Living Resources
· Mining and Drilling Impacts
· Mariculture
· Vulnerable Habitats
· Non-harvested Species
· Environmental Predicability
· Capacity Building
· HABs
· Water Quality
· Habitat Problems/Opportunities
· Biodiversity
· Other areas as may be deemed necessary by the CTA.
123