OFFICIAL USE ONLY GEF/R2005-0022/1 August 16, 2005 Streamlined Procedure For meeting of Board: Thursday, September 1, 2005 FROM: The Acting Corporate Secretary Namibia: Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project Project Appraisal Document Attached is the Project Appraisal Document regarding a proposed grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund to the Republic of Namibia for a Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project (GEF/R2005-0022). This project will be taken up at a meeting of the Executive Directors on Thursday, September 1, 2005 under the Streamlined Procedure. Distribution: Executive Directors and Alternates President Bank Group Senior Management Vice Presidents, Bank, IFC and MIGA Directors and Department Heads, Bank, IFC and MIGA This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank Group authorization. Documentof The World Bank FOROFFICIALUSEONLY ReportNo: 31307 NA - PROJECTAPPRAISAL DOCUMENT ONA PROPOSEDGRANT FROMTHE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTFACILITY TRUST FUND INTHEAMOUNT OFUS$4.9MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA FOR A NAMIBIANCOAST CONSERVATIONAND MANAGEMENTPROJECT August 3,2005 AFTSl Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosedwithout World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 17,2005) Currency Unit = NamibiaDollar lNAD = US$0.149 US$1 = NAD6.685 FISCAL YEAR April 1 - March31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AFR Africa Region ASPEN Africa SafeguardPolicies Enhancement BCC Benguela Current Commission BCLME Benguela Current Large MarineEcosystem BENEFIT Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction andTrainingProgramme BP BankProcedure BTOR Back to Office Report CAS Country Assistance Strategy CBD Convention on BiologicalDiversity CBNRM Community BasedNaturalResourceManagement CBO Community Based Organization CBT Community BasedTourism CCD Convention to Combat Desertification CEO Chief Executive Officer CEPF Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund CER Country Economic Report CFA Counterpart FundAccount COP Conferenceo fthe Parties CZ FP CoastalZone Focal Point CZM CoastalZone Management DANCED DanishAgency for CooperationandDevelopment DAP Decentralization Action Plan DDC Directorate o f Decentralization Coordination DEA Directorate o f Environmental Affairs DIP Decentralization ImplementationPlan DLIST Distance Learning Information Sharing Tool DPWM Directorate o fParks andWildlife Management DRFN Desert ResearchFoundation inNamibia EA ExecutingAgency EA Environmental Assessment EC EuropeanCommission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIF Environmental InvestmentFund ELAK Environmental Learning and Action inthe Kuiseb EMB Environmental Management Bill FOROFFICIAL USEONLY EMP Environmental Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System EOP Endo fProject ESW Economic and Sector Work EU EuropeanUnion FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change FMS Financial Management Specialist FP Focal Point FSP FullSize Project FY Fiscal Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF GlobalEnvironmentFacility GIS Geographic InformationSystems GFW Government o f the Republic o fNamibia GTRC Gobabeb Training andResearch Centre GTZ German Technical Cooperation HDI Human Development Index HWM HighWater Mark IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICB International Competitive Bidding ICEMA Integrated Community-based EcosystemManagement Project ICR Implementation Completion Report I C Z M Integrated CoastalZone Management ICZMC Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee IEC Information, Education, Communication IEM Integrated EcosystemManagement M C A M IntegratedMarine and Coastal Area Management IP Implementation Progress IT InformationTechnology IUCN International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature LA Local Authority L A C Legal Assistance Center LD Land Degradation LM Line Ministry M&E Monitoring andEvaluation M A W MinistryofAgriculture, Water and Forestry MCRRC Marine and Coastal Resources Research Centre MDG Millennium Development Goal MENA Middle East and NorthAfrica MIS Management InformationSystem MET MinistryofEnvironment andTourism MFMR MinistryofFisheries andMarineResources MG hatching Grant P MLR Ministry of Lands andResettlement MME MinistryofMines andEnergy M o U Memorandum o f Understanding This document has a restricted distribution and may be usedby recipients only in the Derformance of their official duties. Its contents may not be otherwise`disclosed I without World Bank authorization. MPA MarineProtectedArea MRLGHRD Ministryof Regional andLocalGovernment, Housing andRuralDevelopment MSP Medium-Size Project MTR Mid-TermReview MWTC Ministryof Works, Transport andComrriunication NACOBTA NamibianCommunity BasedTourism Association NACOMA Namibian Coast Conservation andManagementProject NACOWP Namibia CoastalManagement White Paper NAD NamibiaDollar NaLTER NamibianLongTermEcological Research NAMETT NamibianManagementEffectiveness Tracking Tool NAPCOD NationalProgram to Combat Desertification NatMRC NationalMarine InformationandResearch Centre NBRI NationalBotanical ResearchInstitute NBSAP NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NCSA National Capacity SelfAssessment NDP NationalDevelopment Plan NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NGO Non-Govemmental Organization NMN NationalMuseumo fNamibia NPC NationalPlanningCommission NRM NaturalResourceManagement OP Operational Program ORMIMC Orange River MouthInterimManagement Committee PA Protected Area PAD Project Appraisal Document PCD Project Concept Document PCO Project Coordination Office PCP Participation and Communication Plan PDF Project Development Fund PDO Project Development Objective PESILUP Promoting Environmental Sustainability Through Improved LandUse Planning Project PGO Project Global Objective PHRD JapanPolicy andHumanResourcesDevelopment Fund PIC Public InformationCenter PIP Project Implementation Plan PIM Project hnplementation Manual PPP Public-Private Partnership PPR Project ProcurementReview PTO Permissionto Occupy RC Regional Council RDCC Regional Development Coordination Committee RDP RegionalDevelopment Plan REO Regional Environmental Office RVP Regional Vice President SA Special Account SADC Southem Africa Development Community SBD Standard BiddingDocument sc Steering Committee SG Scientific I C Z M Group SKEP Succulent Karoo EcosystemPlan SoE Statement o f Expenditures SPAN Support Protected Area Network Project SSA Sub-Saharan Africa STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel SWAP0 South West Africa People's Organization TA Technical Assistance TFCA Transfrontier ConservationArea TOR Terms o fReference UNAM Universityo fNamibia UNDP UnitedNations DevelopmentProgramme USAID United StatesAgency for Intemational Development WA Withdrawal Application WB World Bank WBI World Bank Institute WEHAB Water and Sanitation, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity WHS World Heritage Site WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF World Wildlife Fund Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani Country Director: Ritva S. Reinikka Sector Manager: Richard G. Scobey Task Team Leader: Christophe Crepin NAMIBIA NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject CONTENTS Page A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 8 1. Country and sector issues.................................................................................................... 8 2. Rationale for Bank involvement....................................................................................... 13 3. Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes .................................................. 13 B . PROJECTDESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 16 1. Financial modality ............................................................................................................ 16 2. Project development (and global) objective ..................................................................... 16 3. Project components........................................................................................................... 17 4. Lessons learnedandreflected inthe Project design ......................................................... 23 5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ............................................................ 27 C. IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 27 1. Partnership arrangements.................................................................................................. 27 2. Institutional and implementationarrangements................................................................ 28 3. Monitoringand evaluation o f outcomeshesults................................................................ 31 4 . Sustainability andreplicability ......................................................................................... 32 5 . Critical risks and possible controversial aspects............................................................... 36 6 . Grant conditions andcovenants........................................................................................ 38 D APPRAISAL SUMMARY . ................................................................................................. 39 1. Economic and financial analyses...................................................................................... 39 2. Technical........................................................................................................................... 40 3. Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 40 4. Social ................................................................................................................................ ; 40 5. Environment...................................................................................................................... 41 6. Safeguard policies............................................................................................................. 42 7. Policy exceptions and readiness........................................................................................ 43 Annex 1: CountryandSector Background .............................................................................. 44 Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financedby the Bank and/or other Agencies .................53 Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 61 Annex 4: DetailedProject Description ...................................................................................... 73 Annex 5: Project Costs ............................................................................................................... 89 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements ................................................................................. 90 Annex 7: FinancialManagement and DisbursementArrangements ..................................... 98 Annex 8: ProcurementArrangements .................................................................................... 106 Annex 9: Economic Analysis of Natural Resources ofthe Namibian Coast ....................... 113 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 118 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision ................................................................... 121 Annex 12: Documents inthe Project File ............................................................................... 123 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits ............................................................................ 126 Annex 14: Country at a Glance ............................................................................................... 127 Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis ..................................................................................... 129 Annex 16: STAP Roster Review .............................................................................................. 144 Annex 17: Biodiversity Assets. Threats and Root Causes for Biodiversity Loss and Proposed Interventions ............................................................................................................. 157 Annex 18: DecentralizationinNamibia: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use on the Coast ................................................................................................... 178 Annex 19: Project Participation and Communication Plan ................................................. 184 Annex 20: M A P-1BRD 33701 ................................................................................................. 200 NAMIBIA NAMIBIANCOAST CONSERVATIONAND MANAGEMENTPROJECT PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT AFRICA REGION AFTS1 Date: August 03,2005 Team Leader: Christophe Crepin Country Director: Ritva S. Reinikka Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and Sector ManagedDirector: RichardG. Scobey forestry sector (100%) Project ID: PO70885 Themes: Environmental policies and Focal Area: Biodiversity institutions (P);Biodiversity (P);Other Lending Instrument: Specific InvestmentLoan environment and natural resources management (S) Environmental screening category: Partial Assessment Safeguardscreening category: Limitedimpact [ ] Loan [ ] Credit [XI Grant [ ] Guarantee [ 3 Other: For Loans/Credits/Others: Total Bank financing (US$m.): 0.00 Recipient: National Planning Commission Private Bag 13356, Windhoek, Namibia Tel: +264-61-2834223 Fax: +264-61-25075 1 ResponsibleAgency: Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) Private Bag 13306, Windhoek,Namibia Tel: +264-61-2842185 Fax: +264-61-28422 16 This FinancingPlanis included inthe IncrementalCost Analysis, whichrepresentsa fuller baseline+ incrementas definedinthe Annex. I mlindeque@met,gov.na, mlindequeamweb.com.na www.dea.met.gov.na Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing and Rural Development (MRLGHRD) P.O.Box 24756, Windhoek, Namibia Tel: +264-61-2975 180 Fax: 1-264-61-258131 enegonga@,mrlgh.gov.na I Annual I _ _ 0.30 0.95 1.15 1.25 0.95 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative1 0.30 11 1.25 II 2.40 II 3.65 II 4.60 II 4.90 I1 0.00II 0.00 1I 0.00 Project implementationperiod: Start October 15,2005 End: October 31, 2010 Expectedeffectiveness date: October 15,2005 Expected closing date: April 30, 2011 Does the project depart from the CAS incontent or other significant respects? Ref: PADA.3 [ ]Yes [XINO Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Ref: PAD D.7 [ ]Yes [XINO Havethese been approved by Bank management? [ ]Yes [XINO [s approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? [ ]Yes [XINO Does the project include any critical risks rated "substantial" or "high"? Ref: PAD C.5 [ ]Yes [XINO .I Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Ref: PAD D.7 [XIYes [ ] N o ~~~ Project development objective Ref: PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 Development/Global: Strengthenedconservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity incoastal and marineecosystems inNamibia Global Environment objective Ref: PAD B.2, TechnicalAnnex 3 See above. Project description[one-sentence summary of each component] Ref: PAD B.3.a, Technical Annex 4 Component 1: Policy, Legal, Institutionaland Planning Framework for IntegratedCoastal Zone Management(ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and SustainableUse Component 2: Capacity-Building for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Component 3: Targeted InvestmentsinCritical Ecosystemsfor Biodiversity Conservation, SustainableUse andMainstreaming Component4: Project Coordination and Reporting Which safeguardpolicies are triggered, if any? Re$ PAD D.6, TechnicalAnnex 10 Environmental Assessment [OP/BP/GP 4.011 Significant, nonstandardconditions: N/A Board presentation: September 1,2005 Loardcredit effectiveness: October 15, 2005 Covenantsapplicable to project implementation: N/A A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1. Country and sector issues Namibia's coastal zone 1. The hyper-arid Namibian coastal ecosystem is home to a significant and unique array o f biological and ecological diversity, including uniquely adapted plants and animals, rich estuarine fauna and a highdiversity o f migratory wading and seabirds. The Namib Desert runs along the entire 1,500 km o f the coast, extending beyond the Orange River into the northwestern comer o f South Africa - an area known as the Richtersveld - and beyond the Kunene River into the southwestem comer o f Angola. Although much o f the coast consists o f sandy beaches with isolated outcrops, there are also significant lagoons, estuaries and riverbeds. Because the region, which is isolated between an ocean and the escarpment, is a constant island o f aridity surrounded by a sea o f climatic change, it has remained a relatively stable center for the evolution of numerous desert species. The Succulent Karoo biome o f the southem Namib Desert has more diversitythan any other desert inthe world.' 2. The Namibian coastal ecosystems have been relatively inaccessible to date, and there have been few opportunities for use o f coastal land and resources. As a result, Namibia has had an exceptionally low, and geographically very concentrated, coastal population compared to other countries. However, increasing pressures on these fragile ecosystems over the past several years have highlighted the urgent need for sound coastal planning and management to ensure sustainable and optimal use o f coastal areas andtheir resources inthe future. 3. The main sources for economic development in Namibia, in particular within the four coastal regions (Hardap, Karas, Erongo and Kunene), are resource-based, including a rapidly growing nature-based tourism industrg, an overall expanding extractive industry (oil and gas exploration and off-shore miningo f minerals, although diamond mining andprocessingi s mostly downscaling) and a strong commercial fishing industry with growing aquaculture. Growing economic development and human activities along the coast are leading to unprecedented migration, bringingwith it uncontrolled urban development that results in overuse and pollution of freshwater resources, an increase in industrial coastal and marine pollution, degradation o f water regimes for coastal wetlands, and other land and water degradation3 (see Annex 17 for more information on coastal threats andtheir root causes). 4. Ifremain unchecked and unplanned, this development will result in long-term loss of biodiversity, ecological functioning and, contrary to the national poverty eradication objectives, a reduction o f the economic potential o f the coast itself. This possibility presents a great potential challenge to the expanding nature-based tourism industry, which depends upon a healthy environment for its sustainable success. Tourism has proven so popular along the Namibian coast ''NamibianWildlife Exceptionalfeatures o f the Namibian coast at the ecosystem level are discussed further inAnnex 17. Resorts based inthe coastal zone rank highamong 18 primarytourism destinations: Cape Cross 2nd,NamibNauklufi 31d, Hardap 6th, West Coast 12" and Skeleton 13". MAWF estimates that Namibia's internal water resources will be exhausted by 2020 (source: personal comment from MAWF representative in a meeting with WB inMarch2005). 8 that in high season the region's population nearly doubles as tourists from South Africa, Germany and other countries arrive to enjoy the unique and relatively pristine coastal habitats. Environmental degradation and habitat conversion can destroy the very features that draw tourists, resulting in both loss o f global biodiversity and longer term local economic opportunities. 5. These growing threats are exacerbated by the lack o f integrated conservation and development planning o f the Namibian coast, coupled with poor management o f resources inthe face o f increased pressures. For example, despite the serious threat to water supply and quality, a framework for integrated water management system has only recently been adopted. There i s also no available assessment o f the principal economic activities, in terms o f their socio- economic and environmental costs and benefits available. This lack o f sound economic and environmental baseline data makes it difficult for national, regional and local government to support decision making on how to define a sustainable path for coastal zone development, including the promotion o f diversified livelihood options for coastal populations (see Annex 9). National and regional development goals 6. The Government o f the Republic o f Namibia's (GRN) medium-term vision i s to transform Namibia from a developing lower-middle-income country into an industrially developed high-income country by the year 2030.4 The pursuit o f this vision is guided by the "Namibia Vision 2030 Policy Framework for Long Term National Development" - a broad, unifying "targets list" that guides five-year National Development Plans (NDPs). The current Plan, NDP 2 (for 2001/02-2005/06), targets poverty reduction, sustainable development o f rural areas, supply o f health services to the majority o f the population and the strengthening o f human capital. 7. NDP 2 is the first development plan to include a volume dealing specifically with regional development issues - the Regional Development Plans (RDPs). Since Independence, Namibiahas made slow but steady progress inmoving away from a much centralized approach, rooted in the past apartheid regime, toward decentralization (see Annex 18). Development planning in Namibia now takes place at three levels: national, sectoral and regional, and NDP 2 includes objectives such as strengthening capacity building at the regional level, ensuring effective decentralized regional planning based on participatory approaches and optimizing the realizationo f the regions' potential. 8. However, the current situation inNamibia demonstrates that there i s a gap between these guiding strategies and the economic, environmental and institutional reality in the country. Decentralization progress has been much slower than anticipated; poverty levels are still very high (about 56 percent of the 1.83 million Namibians have been designated as poor or very poor5); national economic growth i s heavily dependent on one resource-based activity, the Namibia ranks as a LMI (Lower Middle-Income) Country (based on GDP per capita), 68' out o f 173 countries, and as a MediumHuman Development (MHD) Country (based on Human Development Index), 122ndout o f 173 countries. Its Government Effectiveness Index shows the 31dhighest score o f all MHD countries. Its law and order score i s the bestpossible, and it has the lowest levelof corruption o f any MHDcountry. Source: Draft C N CER Namibia 2005. 9 miningindustry, with minimal opportunities for creationo f employment andbenefits for the rest o f the economy and potentially negative environmental impacts; and the divide between rural andurban, northernand southern regions andrich andpoorpersists, ifnot growing. Government strategy for sustainable development o f the coastal zone 9. The Namibian Coast Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project i s part o f the GRN's strategy to promote sustainable economic development on the coast and address its local, regional, national and global environmental priorities. Two key elements o f the Government's environmental strategy are its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and Namibia's Action Plan to Combat Desertification (NAPCOD), as submitted to the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). The NBSAP highlights the need for support for currently under-protected key ecosystems o f biodiversity importance, adequate input into the process o f zoning, development o f guidelines and environmental assessment o f proposed aquaculture developments, and inclusion o f relevant NBSAP components into the RDPs. Within NAPCOD, targeted investments, capacity buildingand enhancement o f decentralization are regarded as key elements for halting land degradation. 10. The Ministry o f Environment and Tourism (MET) i s consolidating its biodiversity and desertification work program, in order to foster synergies and focus on integrated approaches related to natural resource management. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is included among the identified priority themes. A few other complementary donor-funded projects and programs aim to conserve coastal and marine biodiversity inand outside ecosystems o f biodiversity importance and conservation areas, and to strengthen capacity to accelerate and improve the decentralizationprocess (see Annex 2). 11. The Government has identified three key areas that need strengthening in order to develop and implement Integrated Coastal Zone Management inNamibia, and for which it seeks support: development o f ICZM legislation, progress on decentralization of environmental mandatesfor the coast and creationo fan institutionalframeworkfor ICZM: (i) ICZMlegislation 12. A range o f sectoral policies and strategies deal with coast-relevant natural resource management, but there is very limitedmainstreaming o f environmental and biodiversity-related issues into these instruments and implementation activities at the national, regional or local levels, even though this is advocated under the NBSAP and other strategies. Namibia has recently developedmodern legislation on integratedwater management, but this has not yet been implemented. The Water Resources Management Act (Act 24 o f 2004) was promulgated (gazetted) on December 23, 2004, and implementation o f the Act will require the compilation and gazetting o f Regulations, e.g. on water quality. 13. A long-awaited piece o f legislation, the EnvironmentalManagement andAssessment Bill (EMB), will for the first time incorporate legally-binding provisions and procedures for Environmental Impact Assessment into Namibianlaw. However, the current draft EMB does not 10 provide for strategic environmental assessment o f relevant policies and plans in line with international best practices (e.g. under the CBD).6 Other legislative issues that would benefit from further support include: 1. Planning and decision-making for potentially damaging activities within protected areas (MET/MME/MWTC/MFMR/MLR); 2. Conservation o f biodiversity outside formally designated areas (e.g. at the regional landscape scale), and use o f ecological corridors andbuffer zones (METMAWF); 3. Possibility o fmixedterrestriallmarine protected areas (METMFMR); 4. Transboundary cooperation on area and species management (MET); and 5. Protection o fthreatened and endangered marine species (METMFMR). 14. Under NACOMA, the GRN will support a comprehensive review o f the current coast- related policy, legislative and institutional framework to identifyand prioritize areas for potential adjustment, modernization and harmonization, and will produce a White Paper on Coastal Management inNamibia with the aim to establish a coastal zone policy for the country. (ii) Decentralization of environmental mandatesfor the coast 15. The Government's ongoing decentralization process i s an important evolution, which may significantly contribute to the strengthening o f regional and local development and to the promotion o f sustainable management o f coastal resources. Currently, however, planning, implementation and assessment on the coast are fragmented and under the authority o f several central line ministries, including the MET, MFMR, MRLGHRD, MME, MLR, MAWF and MWTC. Furthermore, regional and local authorities7 operate without a clear framework and with overlapping mandates and limited funds. Regional Councils (RCs), local authorities (LAs) and line ministries' field staff lack the human, technical and/or financial capacity to undertake their duties as currently defined (see Annex IS). 16. Centralized control has consequently impacted resource protection efforts along the coast. Although a significant portion o f the coastline had been designated protected area (mainly before Independence), levels o f protection have been uneven and, in some areas, clearly insufficient. In turn, these designations have led to a high level o f top-down control and a low level o fregional and local involvement inthe management o fthe coastal zone. 17. Despite the slow progress to date, the government continues to officially reconfirm its commitment to advancing its decentralization agenda, with the ultimate goal o f devolution. Positive results over the past year have included: (i) clarification o f the development and planning mandates o f RCs and inclusion o f those critical functions inthe Regional Development Plans (RDPs); (ii) revision o f the Regional Council Organization Structure to accommodate functions to be decentralized; (iii) major recruitment o f RC's management andplanning officers; 'ItThere has been advised by MET DEA that the final Billwill include t h s provision. are four regional councils o n the coast: Kunene, Erongo, Hardap and Karas. The main local authorities on the coast are Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Henties Bay and Luderitz. There are also many smaller municipalities, "autonomous" villages and settlements such as Oranjemund, Arandis, Kuiseb Delta area, Move Bay, Terrace Bay, Torra Bay and Toshikanini. 11 and (iv) preparation o f two donor-funded decentralization support projects (see Annex 2). Still, to-date line ministries' Decentralization Action Plans have yet to be developed and implemented (e.g. MET). Thus, despite the need and expressed desire for an integrated conservation and development approach to regional planning, environmental concerns are currently poorly incorporatedinto RDPs. 18. The GRN's strategy to empower previously disadvantaged Namibians and facilitate the decentralization o f natural resource management and biodiversity conservation includes development o f a comprehensive coastal management policy process to provide for the transition from centralized to more regional and local planning and management, and concurrent institutional and capacity building of the regional and local government, its partners in civil society and other associated players (see Annex IS). (iii) Institutionalframework for ICZM 19. An Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC)' was established by the four coastal RCs from a small I C Z M project in the Erongo Region in 2002 (see Annex 2). The ICZMC, whose membership has to-date comprised only representatives from the National Council and coastal Regional Councils, was meant to develop a common approach to sustainable development o fthe coastal zone, share lessons learned and seek inter-regional synergies. 20. Inits current form, however, the ICZMC lacks technical, legal, institutional, operational and financial capacity as well as a clear political andfunctional mandate. It is clear that inorder to pave the way towards a sustainable and well-connected, broad-based coastal zone advisory body, the institutional framework for I C Z M needs to be substantially strengthened through a strong enabling environment, formal mandate, targeted capacity building and broader membership. 21. Recently, the GRN has been recognizing the need for a common vision, shared by all stakeholders, for the sustainable use and management o f coastal biodiversity and other coastal resources. Such a vision is, however, currently lacking, with a weak or non-existent coordination between regions and between local-regional and regional-national decision-makers hampering the development o f such a vision and strategy. This is a particular problem at the regional-local interface and i s a critical issue that needs to be addressed due to the rapid growth o f coastal towns, the autonomy o f the urban growth poles and their integration amongst ecosystems o f biodiversity importance. 22. A common vision, enabling the development o f a Coastal Zone Management Policy Framework and a strengthened institutional framework for ICZM, will provide a basis to ensure policy consistency throughout coastal ecosystems. This is also essential for activities with potential cumulative and long-distance impacts, e.g. on erosion and soil depositionregimes, fish nurseryand spawning areas, etc. * The ICZMC currently consists o f the four regional governors, four national councilors and the four Chief Executive Officers as well as line ministry officials from MET, MRLGHRD, MME and MFMR. The Chairman of the National Council chairs currently the ICZMC. 12' 2. Rationalefor Bankinvolvement 23. The Bank, as a GEF Implementing Agency, has beenrequestedbythe Government o fthe Republic o f Namibia, in particular the four coastal regions (represented by the ICZMC), MRLGHRD andMET, to support national and regional strategic efforts toward the development o f an Integrated Coastal Zone Management framework for the Namibian Coast. 24. With its large portfolio and knowledge of I C Z M issues and in line with the Africa Region's strategic directions for environment and coastal and marine environmental management (see paragraph 29), the Bank i s well placed to engage in a I C Z M project inNamibia, which will contribute not only to the sustainable development o f the NamibianCoast, including biodiversity conservation, but also to sustainable resource based growth inthe country. 25. The growing environmental dialogue betweenthe Bank and the GRNon the management o f Namibia's valuable natural resources, inparticular its environmental assets, has already led to the preparation o f two other operations.' Other environmental support to date includes GEF Focal Point support and technical assistance for targeted environmental studies. The Bank has also supported, through the World Bank Institute (WBI), a GEF International Waters pilot initiative, Distance Learning Information Sharing Tool (DLIST)", which aims to facilitate knowledge sharing, make available distance learning options in ICZM, identify linkages, and strengthen stakeholder communication and ground level institutions mainly related to the BCLME and associated coastal areas. Finally, specific capacity-building synergies are expected between the N A C O M A Project and the Bank's Sub-National Government Project, currently underpreparation(see Annex 2). 3. Higherlevel objectivesto whichthe Projectcontributes National obiectives 26. N A C O M A will contribute to the objectives o f NDP 211 and Vision 2030, including cross-cutting issues such as enabling capacity-building o f stakeholders and institutions and, most importantly, environmental sustainability. In particular, the Project will support efforts under NDP 2 to mainstream environment, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the emergingdecentralizationprocess by developing the relevant institutional capacities o f regional and local government as well as key national level players. 27. While there i s no CountryAssistance Strategy (CAS) for Namibia at present, the Bank is working with the Government o f Namibia to prepare a Country Economic Report (CER) These are the Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management (ICEMA) Project, launched in November 2004, and the Promoting Environmental Sustainability through Improved Land Use Planning (PESILUP) Project, currently underpreparation. lowww.dlist.org It is expected that throughout and even after NACOMA's implementation phase, integrated coastal zone management will become a component ofNDP 3 and associated RDPs. 13 that will support the Government's objectives by providing in-depth analysis and guidance to develop a pro-poor growth strategy to address concems related to inequality as well as growth. Such a framework would also strengthen the partnership between the Bank and Namibia and form the basis for addressing the key challenges o f achieving sustainable growth and reducing poverty and inequality, by capitalizing on the achievement o f the Government and the comparative advantages o f the Bank. The N A C O M A Project i s inline with the CER framework as it contributes to the dialogue between the Bank and the GRN, promotes the building o f capacity among national, regional and local governments and aims to sustain and broaden the income base within the coastal regions. World Bank and GEF obiectives 28. N A C O M A corresponds to the Africa Region's strategic directions for environment, including coastal and marine environmental management, as it acts to remove barriers to conservation o f fragile coastal and marine ecosystems through adaptive management, learning and information sharing, strengthening the institutional core and improving the quality o f life of local communities. 29. The activities o f the Project are also fully consistent with the priorities o f the GEF Operational Program 2 (OP2) for Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Specifically, the Project is compatible with OP2's opportunities to promote the conservation and sustainable use o f biological diversity o f coastal and marine resources under threat, and to promote the conservation o f biodiversity and sustainable use o f its components inenvironmentally vulnerable areas. The Project will do so by focusing on: i)Promotingtheuseofintegratedmarineandcoastalzonemanagementasthemostsuitable framework for addressing mainstreaming and conservation o f marine and coastal biodiversity and for promoting its conservation and sustainable use (in conjunction with UNDP/SPAN Project andUNDPBCLME Programme -see Annex 2); ii)Establishing and strengthening of systems of conservation areas, including MPAs (in conjunction with UNDP/SPAN Project andU N D P B C L M EProgramme)12; iii)Applyingatransboundaryecosystemapproachtomarineandcoastalzonemanagement; iv) Addressing identified driving forces determining status and trends o f coastal and marine biodiversity; v) Linkingto national, regional and local development and conservation priorities and objectives as defined in the Vision 2030, NDP 2, NBSAP, RDPs, local agenda 21 and environmental management plans; vi) Building capacity among stakeholders in coastal regions related to integrated coastal zone planning,management and monitoring; vii) Promoting targeted survey and management activities for identifying particular coastal and marine areas that should be conserved to represent major habitat types andtheir species; and viii) Raising environmental awareness among all stakeholders. l2NACOMA will focus on regional and local scale mainstreaming o f coastal and marine Conservation areas, whereas the SPAN Project under preparation deals holistically with the national system of terrestrial Protected Areas. 14 30. Further, the Project responds to GEF's crosscutting and biodiversity as well as capacity- building strategic priorities as outlined in its Strategic Business Plan FY04-FY06. In line with GEF's Biodiversity Strategic Priority 2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors), the Project will facilitate the mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation within production systems that may threaten biodiversity (mainly tourism, mining, fisheries) by fostering broad-based integration o f biodiversity Conservation within the country's development agenda. This integration would be achieved through the development o f systemic and institutional capacities o f line ministries, Regional Councils and Local Authorities, targeted investments in biodiversity conservation and creation o f an enabling environment based on a joint national vision for the coast, as well as through the Project implementation arrangements. In line with GEF's Biodiversity Strategic Priority 1 (Catalyzing Sustainability o f Protected Areas), the Project will facilitate biodiversity conservation through the expansion and rationalization o f the Protected Areas on the coast (see Map in Annex 20) by means o f establishment o f the first Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and their embedment innational and local legislation, as well as through capacity-building and targeted investments for improved management. Global obiectives 31. The Project follows guidance from the Conference o fthe Parties (COP) o f the CBD, as it addresses in situ conservation and sustainable use o f biodiversity and, more importantly, multiple-use, system-oriented modes o f coastal ecosystem management principles. The Convention in its decision IUlO, adopted by the COP at its second meeting in Jakarta in November 1995, encouraged the wide adoption and implementation o f Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM) as a means for effective conservation and sustainable use o f marine and coastal biological diversity.It describes I M C A M as the most suitable participatory framework for addressing human impacts (prevention, control or mitigation) on marine and coastal biological diversity and for promoting its conservation and sustainable use. It also encourages Parties to establish and/or strengthen, where appropriate, institutional, administrative and legislative arrangements for the development o f integrated management o f marine and coastal ecosystems, plans and strategies for marine and coastal areas, and their integrationwithin national development plans. According to that decision, crucial components o f I M C A M are relevant sectoral activities, such as construction and mining in coastal areas, mariculture, tourism, recreation, fishing practices and land-based activities, including watershed management, all o fwhich are relevant to NACOMA's intervention area. 32. NACOMA will also provide a framework to address some o f the key United Nations MillenniumDevelopmentGoals (MDGs), and objectives o fthe New Partnershipfor Africa's Development (NEPAD) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, Johannesburg 2002). MDG No. 7 promotes integration o f the principles o f sustainable development into country policies to reverse the loss o f environmental resources. Similarly, the NEPAD framework, which emphasized the pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place African countries, both collectively and individually, on a path o f sustainable growth and development, places great importance on the inclusion of environmental issues. The NEPAD Environment Initiative further targets priority interventions such as coastal management for protection and utilization o f resources to optimal effect, environmental governance for securing institutional, legal, planning, training and capacity-building requirements, and a structured and 15 fair financing system for sustainable socio-economic development. Other major elements o f NEPAD are good governance and decentralization, which are seen as the root o f sustainable development. The WSSD's goals o f Water and Sanitation, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity (WEHAB) identify institutional, technical, juridical and capacity-related obstacles for biodiversity and sustainable ecosystem management and promote the integration o f biodiversity concerns and values into overall sustainable development strategies and plans as well as the management o fbiodiversity ina socio-economic context. N A C O M A will address and respond to these important objectives by mainstreaming coastal zone conservation and management into Namibia's development policies, buildinginstitutional capacity, and promoting decentralized regional planning o f the Namibian coast. B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 33. The Project takes into account national and international lessons learned from biodiversity conservation under I C Z M approaches, which demonstrate the need to go beyond pure conservation measures. It uses two main avenues for enhancing coastal biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: (i)targeted investments on the ground and other direct activities leading to improved coastal and marine biodiversity conservation; and (ii) mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and sustainable use principles into development planning, sectoral policies, national, regional and local decision-making processes, and capacity- buildingmeasures linked to the production landscape. NACOMA's intervention areawill stretch over the entire Namibian coastal ecosystem (including defined marine ecosystems) and will thus enhance the integrity o f coastal andmarine ecosystems (see map inAnnex 20). 1. Financialmodality 34. N A C O M A will be funded through a GEF grant of $4.9 million over a period o f 5 years. 2. Projectdevelopment(and global)objective 35. The Project development (and global) objective is: Strengthened conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems in Namibia.13 Outcome indicator^'^ 36. i.Increase inkm2andnumber ofterrestrialandmarine15ecosystems ofbiodiversity importance under effective management by year 5 comparedto baseline situation, l3The global objective builds directly on Strategic Objective 6 o fthe NamibianNBSAP, which is to `Strengthen the implementation o f the Constitution o f Namibia (Article 95L) by adopting measures to improve the protection of coastal and marine ecosystems, biological diversity and essential ecological processes, and to improve knowledge, awareness, and the sustainability of resource use'." l4These Outcome Indicators are referred to as "Key Perfonnance Indicators'' inthe NACOMA Grant Agreement. 16 ii.Increase inthe number ofpeople engaged in sustainable use activities andthe proportion o f their incomes derived from these activities by year 5 compared to baseline situation. iii.Coastal biodiversity related aspects better incorporated into planning, policy, institutions and investments at national, regional and local level by year 5 compared to baseline situation. 3. Project components 37. As a result o f the Project, targeted enabling conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in particular those related to mainstreaming into coastal management and development planning at the national, regional and local levels, will be improved. A strategic approach will be put inplace to address root causes o f biodiversity loss and coastal degradation (see section ByAnnex 3 and Annex 4). The environmental and economic potential o f the coast will consequently be sustained, enabling the Project to provide the conditions for sustained local, regional, national, international (inparticular benefits to the neighbouring coastal states, Angola and South Africa) and global benefits. 38. Below i s a summary o f the four interlinked components and sub-components o f the N A C O M A Project (see Annex 4 for a detailedProject description): Component 1:Policy, Legal, Institutional and Planning Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use (GEFUS$ m: 0.63816) Sector issue addressed andpurpose 39. This component will address the three key areas identified by the government from a policy, legal, institutional, financial and planning point o f stand, conducive to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. As a result, this component will contribute to the mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation and management into policy, legal, institutional, planning and financial structures affecting the sustainable development o f the coastal zone of Namibia. This will be enabled through the development o f a modern and consistent policy and legal framework for integrated coastal zone management, consistent with national development objectives, that takes account biodiversity conservation and management related considerations. The framework will contribute to- and benefit from the decentralization process and streamlined institutional arrangements to support ICZM'7, in particular through formal designation and l5 In the Project context, marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance are meant to be MPAs: MPAs are here defined based on IUCN's definition (Resolution 17.38 o f the IUCN General Assembly, 1988, reaffirmed in Resolution 19.46, 1994): "Any area o f intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all o fthe enclosed environment." l6All Project component costs (except inAnnex 5) inthe PAD includeprice andphysical contingencies. l7I C Z Mhere follows CBD definition o f I M C A M (Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management). 17 operationalization o f a national Coastal Management Mechanism. A formal Namibia Coastal Management White Paper (NACOWP) will be developed, which will set out a common vision for Namibia's coast, the rationale for- and content o f a national coastal policy and detailed objectives and strategies for its implementation, based on the principles o f biodiversity conservation and ICZM. It will provide an overarching and comprehensive framework to support integrated planning and decision-making related to coastal lands and waters. This component will further assist with the development and implementation of an I C Z M related strategy to ensure financial sustainabilitywhich will be available at mid-term. Primarvtarget group 40. National (e.g. MET, MFMR, MME, MAWF, MWTC, MRLGHRD, NPC), regional and local stakeholders involved inCZM. MET with close support from the SC will take the lead. Sub-components I.ReviewofExistingPoliciesandLawsandSupportforTargetedPolicyandLegalRevisions 1. and/or Development 41, Existing policies and legislation, from which respective ordinances derive mandates to set regulations for coast-relevant activities, result in an overlap in the jurisdictional remits o f key line ministries, such as MET, MME, MFMR and MAWF ,as well as other regional and local stakeholders (RCs, LAs, etc.). This sub-component will support a review of- and appropriate amendments to relevant legislation and policies to ensure their consistency with principles o f I C Z M and with the results from Sub-component 1.2 (clear definition o f jurisdictional areas and mandates for these line ministries). Importantly, this sub-component will provide MET with targeted support and technical assistance in establishing the scope and process o f measures related to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), critical instrumentsto enable and support ICZM andmainstreaming o fbiodiversity under the forthcoming Environmental Management Act. 1.2. Review o f ExistingInstitutionalMandates and Support for Targeted Revisions 42. This sub-component will provide technical analysis and input to review, clarify, revise and harmonize the current roles andmandates o f key stakeholders at various levels. It supports in particular a shift from centralized to regional and local management o f biodiversity and coastal resources through their mainstreaming into the ongoing decentralization process (in particular decentralization o f MET'S environmental management functions). The clarification and harmonization o f institutional mandates will be particularly relevant for the streamlining o f decision-making processes at regional and local level @.e.RDCCs and Sub-ICZMCsAocal fora), the consultative ICZMC and the anticipated fbture National Coastal Management Mechanism to facilitate mainstreaming o f coastal biodiversity considerations into sectoral policies and actions by the time o f closing o f the Project." Overlap o f mandates o f national line Ministries will also be reviewed. ''A key lesson leamed from the closed Erongo Region I C Z M Project i s that without institutionalized coordination, fragmentation occurs. Therefore, institutional arrangements that are sustainable and survive any Project arrangements (e.g. ICZMC as broad-based consultative forum andthe potential future National Coastal Management Mechanism) needto be supported. 18 1.3. Development o f the Namibia Coastal Management White Paper (NACOWP) 43. Together with Sub-components I. 1 and 1.2, this sub-component supports the development o f a highly participatory national coastal vision and I C Z M policy framework, the NACOWP, to guide national, regional and local planning and management processes. This sub-component includes the organization o f a series o f broad-based stakeholder consultations and facilitated workshops (see Annex 19). Based on an option paper, developed by thematic expert groups and the consultative process, it will set out principles, objectives and substantive content relating to coastal resource conservation, development planning, socio-economic issues and enforcement. It will emphasize the need to expand access to economic benefits from coastal resources for local communities (e.g. inthe tourism and aquaculture sectors) while enforcing the protection o f areas o f national and global interest, including wetlands and fragile watersheds. NACOWP will facilitate the GRN's commitment to I C Z M by providing basic principles and components to integrate into future NDPs (i.e. NDP 3) and associated RDPs, consistent with the goals o f Vision 2030. An outline o f the proposed NACOWP approach (principles, methodologies, scope and content) has beendeveloped andi s included inAnnex 4. 1.4. Support to National Coastal Management Mechanism andFinancial Sustainability 44. Based on the results o f the previous sub-components, this sub-component supports the formally defined executive National Coastal Management Mechanism and the broad-based consultative ICZMC with the development o f a long-term strategy, an annual work plan and other operational modalities. It will further provide by mid-term for the development o f fully- fledged financial sustainability strategy and action plan based on a detailed resource and needs assessment. Intermediateoutcomes: 45. (i)Policy andlegal framework conduciveto ICZM, includingthe mainstreamingof biodiversity conservation, is reviewed under an inclusive process, and revisions/additions made. (ii) andmandatesofinstitutionalstakeholdersclarifiedandharmonized,including Roles with regardto conservation andsustainable use o f coastal biodiversity. (iii)collaborativevisionfortheconservationandsustainableuseoftheNamibiancoast A i s developed, and presented in a national Namibia Coastal Management White Paper (NACOWP). (iv) White Paper priorities are guiding, and are reflected into, an ICZM policy, legal, institutional, financial andplanningframework. Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to BiodiversityConservationand SustainableUse (GEFUS$ m: 1.417) Sector issue addressed and purpose 46. Lack o f capacity has been identified as one o f the main bottlenecks for sustainable development inNamibia (see Vision 2030, NDP 2 mid-termreview and National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) reports). It i s widely recognized that the lack o f capacity at the national, regional and local levels for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including for its 19 mainstreaming, stems from (i) shortage o f qualified staff and restricted budget for additional a positions; (ii)limited resources and time for training activities; (iii) uncoordinated sectoral efforts; (iv) the slow decentralization process; (v) limited understanding o f coastal biodiversity and linkages to development planning and management; and (vi) weak and fragmented communication channels between the various stakeholders. 47. This component will link to the ongoing decentralizationprocess as well as contribute to improved effectiveness o f institutions engaged in I C Z M by filling the capacity gap at local, regional and national levels regarding ICZM, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. It would, thus, facilitate the mainstreaming o f coastal biodiversity and resources into development planning,decision-making andkey economic activities. Primary target group 48. National (e.g. MME, MET, MFMR, MRLGHRD, MWTC, and MAW), regional and local govemment and other ICZMC members involved inCZM. Sub-components 11.1.Awareness andTraining for ICZM 49. Based on the results from Sub-components 1.1and 1.2 and the training needs assessment for regional, local and national govemment and subsequently developed targeted training modules, this sub-component will - inpartnership with other initiatives - provide cost-effective training to the identified stakeholder groups. It will further provide targeted support to MET'S efforts to mainstream and enhance biodiversity management by specifically strengthening local andregional delivery mechanisms. Identifiedcapacity-building measures cutting across Components 1,2 and 3 relate to: k Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM - planning, mainstreaming and management, including development o f site-specific management plans); k Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and land use zoning adapted to the specificity o f coastal lands andwaters; k Monitoring and Evaluation procedures, tools (GIs and mapping) and effective data use andinterpretation; k Participatory approaches (communities, private sector, govemment), communication and mediation skills; and k Sustainable resource-based economic development. 50. These measures will be provided through (i) technical assistance from the PCO Senior Technical Advisor and other national and intemational thematic experts, (ii) thematic training workshops, (iii) on-the-job training, and (iv) study tours. 11.2. Biodiversity Mainstreaminn. Monitoringand Evaluation Mechanism 51. This sub-component will involve the review o f existing biodiversity M&E systems and assessment o f coastal and marine biodiversity data, information gaps and needs. It will focus on the development or upgrading o f a cost-effective, accessible and sustainable method for a long- 20 term coastal and marine biodiversity M&E system linked to other national environmental monitoring efforts andto the regional coastal profiles. 11.3. Communication and Knowledge Management 52. The objectives o f this sub-component are two fold: one i s to develop a knowledge management mechanism (network) to allow stakeholders to share information (e.g. on management plans, interventions, mainstreaming opportunities, meetings, training), including feedback loops for inter-sectoral, vertical and intemational sharing o f lessons and best practices related to I C Z M and mainstreaming coastal biodiversity management into development planning. The other i s to create an action-oriented communication strategy that will increase environmental awareness among all key target groups and facilitate ownership and full public participation inthe Coastal Vision andthe NACOWP development process. The development o f participatory regional coastal profiles will further bridge the knowledge gap about socio- economic, environmental and biodiversity conservation and development issues and their inter- linkages. These profiles will, in tum, be used as a basis for local and regional decision-making processes relevant to the coast in particular, and will feed back into the State o f Environment Report and National Resource Accounting efforts. The profiles will be published, reviewed, endorsed andup-dated as needed by the Regional Councils. Intermediate outcomes: 53. (i) Strengthened capacity o f RCs, LAs, MET, MME, MAWF, MFMR andM W T C for coast-related planning, management andmonitoringbased on I C Z Mprinciples; (ii) Established coastal and marine biodiversity M&E mechanism (defined, agreed to by MET andMFMRandfunctional); and (iii) Existing communication and knowledge management system, to raise awareness among a broad range o f stakeholders, support I C Z M and mainstreaming o f coastal and marine biodiversity into development planning and management (utilized by the three main target groups). Component3: Targeted Investments in CriticalEcosystemsfor BiodiversityConservation, SustainableUse andMainstreaming(GEFUS$ m: 1.459) Sector issue addressed andpurpose 54. This component will contribute to the overall framework for I C Z M along the Namibian Coast by using targeted investments and activities to address on-the-ground gaps in coastal biodiversity conservation throughout the Namibian coastal and marine ecosystems, rooted in under- and un-protected ecosystems o fbiodiversity importance. It will, thus, contribute to sustain and increase economic benefits from sustainable resource-based activities in line with regional development objectives. These activities will be complemented by MET'SSPAN Project, which addressesmanagement and sustainability issues intargeted national terrestrial parks.l9 l9NACOMA will look at the coastal-related inter-sectoral links and integration o f planning efforts at national, regional and local scales, while the UNDP/GEF supported SPAN Project will focus on PA-specific management and operational plans. 21 55. The Project, through this component, will focus on a combination of coastal and marine biodiversity priority sites (see Annexes 17 and 20), including: i.Terrestrialcoastline ecosystemsofbiodiversityimportancethat arecurrentlyunder- protected or un-protected, including Ramsar sites and other wetlands o f biodiversity value that lack tools for management; and ii.MarineProtectedAreas(nonecurrentlyexist)andotherunprotectedislandsandnear- shore sites. Primary target group 56. Local, regional and national government (mainly MET, MAW, MFMR, MME, MWTC), local communities and the private sector on the coast. Sub-components 111.1.Management Planning o fCoastal Ecosystems ofBiodiversity Importance 57. This sub-component includes a participatory review, update and development o f management plans for key biodiversity priority conservation sites and their buffer zones (e.g. Skeleton and Sperrgebiet coastlines, lichens fields, targeted future M P A sites (islands), and Ramsar sites), in line with recommendations for the appropriate financial and institutional mechanisms and capacity development needs emerging from Components 1 and 2. In addition, this sub-component aims to support the creation o f new protected areas (e.g. Marine Protected Areas and the Walvis Bay Nature Reserve). In order to increase functioning biodiversity conservation management inpriority coastal areas, demarcation and gazetting of these sites will be supported. 111.2. Implementation o f Priority Actions under the Management Plans at Site and Landscape Levels 58. This sub-component will support implementation o f reviewed and updated or new management plans through targeted investments, related both to biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation, as well as sustainable use activities linking biodiversity Conservation with economic development and benefits. It will prioritize sustainable use activities with high potential for piloting, testing and learning (replicability). Types o f targeted and site-specific investments that are eligible for funding under the N A C O M A Project (providing global environmental benefits in addition to local ones) have been identified during preparation. Potential biodiversity conservation activities include: species-specific conservation measures (e.g. for Damara tern, flamingos and lichen fields), control and regulation measures (e.g. sports fishing, quad biking), soil erosion control and vegetation cover rehabilitation. Potential investmentsrelated to sustainable use include income-generating activities that are connected to ecosystem services, such as ecotourism guiding facilities (e.g. desert paths, viewing sites, sign posts and campsites), seaweed production, etc. Naturally, this sub-component would also provide support for limitedinfrastructure and equipment for site management purposes. Intermediateoutcomes: 59. (i) Increasednetworkofcoastalandmarineconservationareasundereffective management as defined byNAMETT; and 22 (ii) Priority conservation and sustainable use actions aligned with management plans for terrestrial and marine ecosystems o f biodiversity importance successhlly implemented. Component4: ProjectCoordinationandReporting(GEF US$ m: 1.385) Sector issue addressed andpurpose 60. This component will support the establishment and operationalization (through staffing, office infrastructure and Project management-related capacity building) o f a Project Coordination Office (PCO) housed in the Erongo Regional Council that will facilitate satisfactory achievement o f Project expected objectives and results. It will have .a priority o f ensuring mainstreamed implementation o f Project activities by the main stakeholders, and will build and expand on the Erongo Regional Council's experiences as host of the ICZMC Secretariat and the N A C O M A PDF B Coordinator. Primarv target noup 61. PCO staff, line ministriesand Erongo R C staff. Sub-components N.1.ProiectCoordination 62. This sub-component will support the recruitment o f 5 positions for the PCO: a N A C O M A Project Coordinator, a Senior Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator), an Administrative Assistant, an Accounting and Procurement Officer and a part-time M&E Specialist. It will further provide for office equipment and PCO staff training to allow for efficient Project coordination and management. IV.2. Proiect Performance andResults Reporting 63. This sub-component will include Project performance and impact monitoring as well as evaluationo f Project progress and reporting. Intermediateoutcomes 64. (i) EfficientcoordinationandsupportprovidedtoachievesuccessfulProject implementation according to the Grant Agreement, Project Implementation Manual and annual work plans, and in compliance with fiduciary requirements; and (ii) Progress towards results documented through monitoring o f KpIs, and other monitoring indicators. 4. Lessons learnedandreflectedinthe Projectdesign 65. The Project has been designed based on experience and lessons learned related to coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation. The Project has carehlly taken into account 23 experiences within the region and elsewhere, and has adapted strategic directions provided inthe "Integrated Coastal Management inSSA: Lessons Leamed and Strategic Directionsyy2': 66. (i)Lack of enablinp legal and regulatory frameworks, together with significant constraints in human resource skills and institutional capacity, have resulted in limited sustainability o f operations targeting conservation and sustainable use of coastal biodiversity in SSA. Long-term effects have further been curtailed by ad-hoc approaches with narrow sectoral focus. Overlapping issues, jurisdictions and impacts o f integrated coastal management require adequate institutions to guarantee the necessary interagency coordination and interaction. 67. NACOMA will address these critical needs by i)supporting development o f policy, legal and regulatory frameworks under Component 1;ii)promoting capacity building, inparticular for integrated coastal zone planning, management and monitoring for the Regional Councils, line ministries and Local Authorities under Component 2; (iii)supporting the establishment and operationalization o f a sustainable National Coastal Management Mechanism under Component 2; and (iv) providing b d s for urgently neededtargeted investments to maintainkeybiodiversity values inpriority sites under Component 3. 68. (ii) Conservationoperations targeting coastal resources inSSA have often been limitedin scope, funding and commitment. Particularly in light o f scarce financing options, partnership buildingand networking hasprovento be significant inpromoting conservationoperations. 69. The N A C O M A Project addresses this issue by developing partnerships with the BCLME and BENEFIT Programme to complement sub-regional objectives with coastal priorities and activities, as well as with the Finnishand French support projects to advance the decentralization process, andthe UNDP support for national protectedareas. 70. (iii)Transparency in decision-making and public participation in program design have been critical for project's success inSSA. 71. Throughout the Project preparation process, N A C O M A has sought to facilitate a sense o f ownership and initiative by national, regional and local stakeholders through dialogue with the ICZMC, public consultations and information dissemination. N A C O M A has also been cooperating with the follow-up initiative o f the pilot DLIST, which has been used actively by Project stakeholders during the preparation process as an information platform for sharing ideas, experiences and documents. Future approaches to foster communication, coordination and learning by using DLIST services and others are now under discussion. A detailed Project Participation and Communication Plan (PCP) has been developed as part o f the Project preparation phase and will deliver the communication activities under Component 2 (see Annex 19). 72. (iv) Availability o f scientific data and information, on which to base policy frameworks and management plans, has been a major challenge for most I C Z Mprojects inSSA. 2o Indumathie Hewawasam, Integrated Coastal Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons Leamed and Strategic Directions, 2001. 24 73. The Project will support the establishment o f a national coastal zone scientific group (SG), in which the main existing national and regional research institutions are expected to participate. As the BCLME and BENEFIT programmes currently represent the main hosts o f scientific coastal and marine data, a cooperation agreement between N A C O M A and BENEFIT will be signed. This means that the national SG will be linked to the sub-regional BENEFIT and results o f its ongoing scientific assessments, and those related to the status o f the coastal and marine ecosystems and biodiversity and impacts o f offshore and on-shore mining and fisheries will be made available to NACOMA and the SG. The Project will also support the development o f a joint database and coastal monitoring mechanisms. The knowledge management system to be supported by N A C O M A will make other coastal zone information accessible to all stakeholders, such as the regional profile for the Erongo Region", various land use and site management plans andthe COFAD report22on potential MPAs on the Namibian coastline. 74. Insummary, the followingkey ICZMsupportiveelements andsuccess criteriahave beenidentified and integratedinto the N A C O M A Project design: Involvement, commitment and ownership of national, regional and local authorities; Integration o f economic, social and environmental issues through adequate understanding o f local socio-economic, ecological and cultural factors and efforts to bridge the knowledge gaps on these issues (i.e. not isolating the environmental agenda); Integrationo f targeted investments into local and regional development agenda, including monitoring and evaluation; Financial and institutional sustainability; Inter-sectoral coordination through a high-level support mechanism to bring together stakeholders on a continuing basis, and ensure ongoing public participation; and Targeted human and institutional training and capacity building based on innovative approaches to instill ecosystem andmulti-sector processes. Lessons from similar projects inNamibia(see also Annex 2) 75. (i) objectiveoftheDANCED-financedpilot, IntegratedCoastalZoneManagement The Project in the Erongo Region (1997-2000), was to achieve and maintain long-term sustainable economic and ecological development o f the coastal zone through establishment o f baseline data for resource management and fostering o f the decentralization process within the Erongo Region. Its main driving force was to address environmental protection o f the coast as an ecosystem, rather than focusing only on animal protection and fishing o f protected species, similar to previous conservation efforts in Namibia. The Project succeeded in bringing together stakeholders to pool ideas, knowledge and experiences to develop a draft vision for regional coastal management. One outcome was the creation o f the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC). The Project was also instrumental in raising awareness about the need to share information among the coastal regions. However, by the end o f the Project, inadequate integration o f planning and resource management still prevailed, a situation that was seen as being partly caused by the lack o f high-level support for the ICZMC as well as the fact that the 21From a previous pilot study funded by the Danish Agency for Cooperation and Development (DANCED). 22 Advisory Assistance to the Ministry o f Fisheries and Marine Resources Baseline Study o f the Establishment o f Marine Reserves inNamibia- Short Term Consultancy Report, 1998. 25 decentralization process did not reach a stage where delegation o f powers was actually transferred. Therefore, the final evaluation report recommended that any potential follow-up support would require clear operational structures o f RCs and formalized institutional coordination between involved stakeholders. 76. N A C O M A design: NACOMA builds on the positive but also critical lessons learned from the DANCED-supported I C Z MProject, which identified the slow decentralization progress and the resultingshortage o f qualified staff for environmental planning in the Regional Council as one barrier for achieving Project objectives. N A C O M A timeliness i s demonstrated by the fact that (i)all planning positions inRegional Councils are being filled and organizational structures are being clarified, (ii)decentralization is progressing with some line ministries (e.g. MAW) ready to launch an actual process over the coming months, (iii) R C i s in the process o f each designating a responsible person as regional Coastal Zone Focal Point (CZFP), and (iv) other complementary initiatives provide capacity-building to RCs and MRLGHRD. In addition, lessons learned have been usedto (i) designProject implementation arrangements, which include a strong inter-sectoral Steering Committee with representatives from the regions with strong support from the central as well as the regional levels, and (ii)respond to the need for capacity- buildingand institution-building through a Senior Technical Advisor for the four coastal regions, as well as other targeted support. 77. (ii)The regionalUNDP/GEFBenmela Current LargeMarine Ecosystem (BCLME) Prom-amme, which has been under implementation in Angola, Namibia and South Africa for about 2 years, aims to implement a Strategic Action Programme to ensure sustainable use o f transboundary marine resources inthe BCLME. The Programme will enhance the capacity o f the region to understand and predict system dynamics, and manage ecosystem impacts. A limited number o f pollution and coastal zone activities are also included. Lessons learned o f relevance for N A C O M A are: (i)the task o f setting up multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder technical and advisory groups proved more time consuming than expected; and (ii) a sustained communication and media campaign i s essential to raise public awareness and garner highlevel political support for project activities and to provide the grounds for sustaining management interventions. Involvement o f the entire spectrum o f stakeholders is important, including decentralized levels o f government and coastal communities. As an information sharing platform accessible to all, DLIST has contributed significantly to that aim. 78. N A C O M A design: N A C O M A builds and expands on the BCLME Programme's experiences in Namibia in several ways, including: (i) Component 1 has been designed to provide a budget for stakeholder consultations to establish the institutional andpolicy framework for ICZM, and develop the NACOWP; (ii) Component 2 includes the development o f a strong communication strategy and action plan as well as capacity-building measures for local, regional and national stakeholders to use and adapt available information; (iii) N A C O M A will buildon its initial experiences (duringpreparation) and the BCLME Programme's positive experiences with DLIST, and use it as a major platform for information exchange and facilitation; and (iv) NACOMA will make effective use o f relevant scientific outputs produced under the BCLME Programme. This will assist the GRN with national implementation o f the BCLME recommendations, contribute to cost-effective use o f national, regional and local budget, and hrther enhance coastal regulations, compliance and enforcement mechanisms through stronger awareness campaigns and increased knowledge and understanding o f coastal issues amongst 26 policy makers, local and regional govemment and communities. Lastly, an M O U between the two operations will be established. 5. Alternatives considered andreasonsfor rejection 79. The main alternatives considered were: i.Nocoastalzonemanagementproiectwiththe expectationthatthedecentralization process would transfer environmental responsibility to the regions. This option was rejected as the analysis during the first Project preparation phase (PDF-A) showed that the present capacity gap (human, financial and knowledge), mainly within MET and the coastal RCs and LAs, represented substantial barriers toward this delegation o f authority. Without any additional support, there would be slow, limited and insufficient progress with environmental decentralization, while human-induced pressure on the coast would increase, and, thus, globally significant biodiversity and other natural resources would be continuously threatened andor reduced. ii.A conventional `hotspots' conservation proiect managed by MET without an ICZM framework and participation from regional and local govemment, and with less focus on mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation in the regions. This alternative was rejected as the Bank's (and other donor's) experiences with CZM projects and initiatives around the world clearly indicate the fundamental need to establish a participatory I C Z M framework with involvement from all key stakeholders inorder to ensure impact and sustainability. iii.ContinuedsupporttotheErongoRegionasinitiatedbytheDANCEDProiectandbasedon the lessons learned, in order to address the inadequate integration o f planning and resource management. This option was, however, rejected as a result o f the understanding by the regions and the Bank that I C Z M cannot be restricted to one region if the conservation o f biodiversity along the entire Namibian coast i s to be promoted inan effective and sustainable manner. It was further recognized that information and experience from the DANCED Project should be shared with the other three coastal regions rather than exclusively kept within the Erongo region. Finally, consultation with key stakeholders from the four coastal regions and line ministries has emphasized the need to facilitate, rather than prevaricate, the decentralization o f conservation- relatedresponsibilities to the coastal regions. C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Partnershiparrangements N/A. 27 2. Institutionalandimplementationarrangements 80. The NACOMA Project will be implemented over 5 years. The implementation arrangements (see Annex 6), are guidedbythe following considerations: Sustainability: The Project maximizes use o f existing structures, and adopts a mainstreamed approach; for example the ICZMC as advisory body, the Erongo Regional Council as host o fthe PCO and the BENEFITprogram as host o fthe SG; Fostering the decentralizationprocess: NACOMA will contribute to MET'Sefforts to mainstream and decentralize environmental management, thus enlarging MET'S currently proposeddecentralizationfunctions; Absorptive capacity: N A C O M A will provide technical assistance to the RCs, LAs, and line ministries over the Project period, with decreasing support based on a stakeholder needs assessment; and Lessons learned: Experiences with the Erongo I C Z M Project and institutional review during Project preparation have shown the importance of phasing support and focusing on actions andreachable targets. 81. For these reasons, NACOMA's design is based on a flexible and adaptable approach to institutional arrangements. Based on progress and options that are expected from the White . Paper process and from a policy framework for ICZM, including in relation with decentralization, adjustments will be identified at mid-term to further streamline and mainstream such arrangements. This design i s also a risk mitigation measure. The key institutions that will guide implementationo fN A C O M A include: (i) SteeringCommittee(SC):Ahigh-levelexecutivecommitteewillbeestablishedandmeet quarterly to oversee Project implementation andprovide strategic leadership for the development of a national integrated coastal zone management policy. Strong coordination between key institutions and programs will facilitate delivery o f Project objectives and sustain results and positive impacts in the longer term. Consistent with Namibia's ongoing decentralization program, its membership will bring together Regional Council and national ministerial representatives. The SC will comprise high-level representatives, nominated by the respective Permanent SecretariesRegional Governors as applicable before Project effectiveness, from the following institutions: 0 MET (1) (chair), MRLGHRD (2: Planningfunction and the Directorate of Decentralization Coordination) (deputyko-chair), MFMR (l), MME (l),A W (l),WTC (1) and NPC M M (1); 0 Regional Councils: Erongo (l), (l), (1) and Hardap (l),ensure parity and Kunene Karas to strong regionalparticipation; and 0 A representative o f the NACOMA Project Coordinator's Office, which will function as the secretariat o fthe SC. 28 (ii) ProjectCoordinationOffice (PCO):ThePCO,whichwillreporttotheSC,willbehosted bythe Erongo Regional Council. It will consist o f a full-time Project Coordinator responsible for overall coordination, a full-time Administrative Assistant, a full-time Senior Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator) with expertise incoastal zone planningand management, apart-time M&E Specialist and a full-time Accounting and Procurement Officer. The PCO's mandate would be to coordinate and ensure the implementation of the SC's decisions, including delivery o f fbnds to selected activities. Its main functions andtasks are relatedto: 0 OperationalProject coordination, cooperation andmanagement; 0 Project monitoring, auditing and reporting, including budget matters; 0 Compilation of annual work plans; and 0 Secretariat o f the SC. (iii) Integrated CoastalZoneManagementCommittee(ICZMC): TheICZMCwillfunction as an advisory body to liaise with the Project Steering Committee on all aspects o f Project implementation. It will meet quarterly, with a broad flexible structure to ensure responsiveness to local priorities, different stakeholder groups and emerging issues. The ICZMC will be regionally-driven and support enhanced vertical and horizontal coordination and balanced representation o f non-institutional stakeholders. The following expanded membership i s planned: Coastal Regional Councils (4): The ICZMC chairmanship will be held by Erongo Regional Council for the first two years of operation to ensure continuity with the earlier work of the ICZMC, thereafter it will rotate between the three other RCs on a revolving basis to ensure regional balance; Coastal focal points nominated by key line ministries (6): MET, MFMR, MME, MAW, M W T C ,MRLGHRD; Local authority representatives (4): Henties Bay, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Luderitz; Non-institutional stakeholders (3-4): Representatives of NGOs/community-based organizations (2) and the private sector (2, e.g. NAMDEB); and Co-opted entities (3-4): to ensure synergy with relevant donor-funded programs (e.g. BCLME, BENEFIT, SPAN, SKEP). The ICZMC Secretariat services will be provided, at least to Project mid-term, by the Erongo Regional Council. At regional level, the ICZMC is currently represented through designated Coastal Zone Focal Points (CZ FPs), held by the Director o f Planning o f the RCs. These regional CZ FPs will facilitate consultations on the coastal vision, the development o f the White Paper and other related activities under NACOMA. Additional CZ FPs will be nominated at local level and within the regional LM offices (i.e. MET and MFMR). The creation of Sub-ICZMCs as part of the broader Regional Development Coordination Committees (RDCCs) is anticipated after 30 months o f the N A C O M A Project launch. These small Sub-ICZMCs (estimated 5-8 members, 29 mainly from RDCCs) are expected to be chaired by the regional CZ FPs and focus on coastal development issues only. The other CZ FPs are expected to contribute strongly to the Sub- ICZMC. It is intended that the Sub-ICZMCs will report to the RDCCs regularly. The PCO's Senior Technical Advisor will provide continuous advice and support to the CZ FPs and, subsequently, the Sub-ICZMCs. (iv) Scientific Group on ICZM (SG): Namibia has currently no formalized scientific group o f coastal zone experts and institutions to provide information and guidance. A Scientific Group will, therefore, be established to provide high-quality scientific and other data to create a common platform for decision-making, and minimize differences o f opinion amongst stakeholders with regard to management issues. The preferred approach is to channel scientific input through existing structures as far as possible, avoiding excess cost, duplication or bureaucracy. The SG will be housed within BENEFIT, the trilateral marine science mechanism that supports the BCLME Programme as it has an appropriate marinehoastal focus and established links to complementary research, resources and data in neighboring countries. BENEFIT i s based in Swakopmund, together with the BCLME Living Marine Resources Activity Centre, which takes an ecosystem-wide approach to fisheries research. Inorder to ensure proper coverage of terrestrial coastal ecosystems and efficient use of existing Namibian expertise, the following institutions should also be members of the SG: NaLTER, NMN,NBRI, DRFN, GTRC, UNAM andNatMIRC. The SGmay also benefit from scientific expertise from the Government, in particular from the Ministry o f Environment and Tourism, Ministry o fMines andEnergyand Ministryo f Fisheries andMarine Resources. The SG will guide and contribute to all levels o f Project implementationas follows: (i)collect, manage and disseminate coastal data in ways relevant and accessible to decision-makers and other stakeholders at all levels; (ii)promote the creation of a common information platform to provide a basis for recommendations anddecisions on planning, management and use o f coastal resources; (iii)leadeffortstoimproveunderstandingofcoastalzonefunction, monitorchangesinits ecological health and status, assess environmental variability and improve predictability; and (iv) coordinate scientific input into Project activities for conservation o f coastal ecosystems andbiodiversity. 30 3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomeslresults Project M&E framework 82. Objective: The aim o f the NACOMA M&E system i s to provide a transparent tool and information to assess Project progress against agreed targets as well as to identify hindrances and take note o f changes o f factors that might affect the progress or relevance o f the Project. It i s a tool for informed and timely decision-making and management. It further acts as a source of information sharing and best practice among stakeholders on Project and cross-sectoral issues relevant to the Namibian Coast. The M&E system has been developed and agreed to by the stakeholders through consultations and two stakeholder workshops. 83. Design: The N A C O M A M&E system has been designed following an assessment o f the Government o f Namibia, World Bank and GEF experiences. It consists o f a management information system (MIS),performancemonitoring tools and Proiect impact evaluation tools and i s linkedto the PCP, the EMP and national efforts for coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring supported under component 2. The system's principal elements are (i) organizationalandinstitutionalframeworkforimplementation; An (ii) M&EplanwhichaddressesbothProjectperformanceandimpactthroughdefined An methodologies andreporting forms; (iii)Key outcome indicators, including mid-term and end-term targets and results indicators per component; (iv) Responsibilities for data collection andthe maindata users; (iv) An M&Eactionplanandbudget; and (v) M&E activities and timeline for the Project's lifetime andmainstreaming o fM&Efor coastal zone management beyond the end o fthe Project. 84. Budget: Resources have been allocated in the Project budget under Component 4 to implement the monitoring and evaluation related activities, including: (i) externalreviewoftheM&Esystematmid4e1-m~~; An (ii) self-assessmentsoftheentiresystemandplanningprocesses; Annual (iii) end-ofProjectreview24; An (iv) Soft- andhardware costs for a MIS (compatible with other main data hosts systems); and (v) Adequate staffing costs relatedto the M&ESpecialist. 85. Responsibilities: The PCO, in particular the M&E Specialist, will be responsible for Project related coordination o f data collection, analysis, management and reporting. He/she will establish working arrangements with identified M&E data hosts and users. The PCO '` 23 The external review by mid-term will identify strengths and weaknesses o f the system to ensure it can best capture the perfomnce and impact o f the Project in order to provide accurate and timely information for decision-making, roblem-solving and best practices and lessons learned for replication. The Project will support W h e r the stakeholder ICR review process, wherein all the major relevant stakeholders will participate to provide input into the Project's findings andrecommendations for potential follow-up support. 31 Coordinator, supported by the M&E Specialist, would prepare periodic implementationprogress reports to the SC as well as the ICZMC, SG and WB supervision team. Scientific advice and guidance on data analysis will be provided on a need-basis by members o fthe SG. 86. Training: Capacity building efforts will include on-the-job training for the relevant staff of the PCO, RCs, LAs andrelevant line ministries as well as civil groups through Component 2's trainingmodule onM&E. 87. Data: The data for outcomes and results indicators will come from different sources as identifiedduring preparation and described in the M&E Manual.25Baseline data related to the three outcome indicators will be available prior Project effectiveness. Particular attention has been paid to involve actively MET and MFMR's regional offices, the coastal Local Authorities, Regional Councils and civil society representatives inlocal and regional data collection, analysis and dissemination as described inthe Project performance and evaluationworkplans o fthe M&E Manual and the Project Participation and Communication Plan. Effective management o f Project target sites would be assessed using the Namibian adapted WWF/WB PA tracking tool - the Namibian Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT), which is a score card for PAS (to be used potentially for future MPAs). In addition, the GEF tracking tool for mainstreaming biodiversity was used as basis to design the relevant impact evaluation arrangements for the Outcome Indicator 3. 88. Use ofresults: The identified data streams build also on the positive feedback on the quality and use o f the established sub-regional BCLME Programme's M&E system and, thus, will provide for linkages o f its coastal zone specific Project data to the BCLME Programme's meta database, linkages to the DLIST website and other data hosts, but, most importantly, for linkages to the national coastal and marine biodiversity efforts (supported under Component 2) and local and regional development planning tools. Project related data may be further used to feed into the updating o f the regional coastal profiles. The M&E system allows for linkages to the Project supported Communication Action Plan to inform on a regular basis all key coastal stakeholders (Government o f Namibia, Project's executing agencies, SC members, ICZMC members, SG members, external evaluators, World Bank supervision team, etc.) about Project results, progress and identified issues through identified reporting and dissemination tools (e.g. NACOMA newsletter, web page, media announcements, etc.). 4. Sustainabilityandreplicability 89. The Project is highly country-driven. It is based on a previous ICZM Project in the Erongo Region and was developed by the four coastal Regional Councils with full support from MRLGHRD and MET. The Project preparation process included a PDF-A and a PDF-B grant, 25The M&E data stream and quality o f data in the M&E system will rely on partnerships with other related Namibian projects and activities such as SPAN, SKEP, BENEFIT, BCLME, line ministries, NGOs, CBOs and communities to gather data, monitor and evaluate impact o f activities and provide expert advice on data analysis. Data will include, for example, information from (i)ongoing BCLME assessments cover status o f biodiversity in coastal areas and the impact o f diamond on-shore and off-shore mining and fisheries; (ii) new monitoring MET'S and evaluation systemfor protected areas usingNAMETT (under finalization); and (iii) MFMR surveys on quality, quantity and economic value o f marine resources. 32 and provided for extensive inter-sectoral stakeholder consultations across the four regions, including national and local govemment. Factors for sustainability andProiect design 90. N A C O M A has been designed to integrate the main elements o f sustainability (institutional, financial, environmental and knowledge) at the national, regional and local levels. In addition, because the most effective way to achieve sustainability is to provide defined incentives to involved stakeholders, the Project design aims to balance incentives and interests o f the different stakeholders through its four components and implementation arrangements. The sustainability elements o f the Project include: (i) InstitutionalSustainability: N A C O M A i s an integral part o f GR"s strategy, and it addresses key government sustainable development policy objectives, including the enhancement o f environmental planning and coordination procedures within govemment, protection o f essential ecosystems, creating conservation areas with highlevels o fbiodiversity, linking with the decentralization process and, to a lesser degree, improvement o f rural livelihoods and poverty reduction. Importantly, the Project provides an opportunity to make the Namibian coast and its resources more accessible for people inthe coastal regions and elsewhere inthe country. Collaborative responsibility and coordinated actions toward sustainable use o f biodiversity inthe coastal zone will depend on the success o f Component 1,the development o f new or harmonized regulations, the definition o f mandates to clarify and harmonize roles and functions o f key stakeholders at various levels, and the formulation o f a guiding policy framework (the NACOWP). Although incentives for supporting this process vary, key institutions have subscribed to this process and endorsed the Project (see Annex 6 andAnnex 19). The Project will be executed through existing national, regional and local government structures and cooperation structures (e.g. activities o f NACOMA's Component 2 for targeted capacity buildingare well embedded inMET'Splannedbiodiversity training framework). Institutional sustainability will be achieved by a focus on strengthening currently rather weak (in terms o f environmental capacity) RCs and the ICZMC, as well as targeted line ministries and LAs ifneeded. The PCO, due to its location, will increase the institutional capacity o fthe Erongo Region R C as it will transfer Project planning, coordination andmonitoring skills to regional and local staff. The proposedadvisory function o f the current ICZMC as supported byNACOMA is expected to pave the way for a formalized, broad-based consultative coastal andmarine forum. Through implementation o f NACOMA's Components 1and 2 (capacity-building, agreement on mandates and roles, vision process and White Paper development), it i s anticipated that the initially intended functions o f the current ICZMC would be absorbed by an officially designated national I C Z M mechanism responsible for I C Z M coordination and implementation. This 33 mechanism would be eventually closely linked to any institutional structure created under the BCLME. Partnerships: One institution cannot address all issues o f integrated coastal zone management alone. I C Z M inNamibia needs support from international, national, regional, and local partners. The Project will inparticular support the building and fostering o f two operationalpartnerships: MET and MFMR and MET (e.g. allocation o f responsibilities for island components of Sperrgebiet) and MRLGHRD. Other linkages with donors, national, regional and local governments, civil society groups, communities, the private sector and national and international research institutions will be developed and enhanced, including through the implementation o f the Project Participationand Communication Plan. (ii) Financialsustainability:Component 1willreviewtheinstitutionalmandatesofthekey stakeholders under the decentralization process, including options to strengthen the financial base to support ICZM, inparticular RCs. MET and RCs will provide budget allocations related to R C planning capacities and coastal zone management, and it is expected that this budget allocation will increase during and after the Project period. Through close coordination with municipalities, further increased local funding for environmental management o f coastal urban centers i s expected. Component 1 will also investigate additional fundraising options, such as tapping into the Environmental Investment Fund (EIF), the Trust Fund for Equity and other mechanisms, including leveraging funds from the private sector (e.g. NAMDEB) during and after the Project's lifetime. Finally, two detailed environmental economic analyses undertaken during preparation (one by SPANMET for all National Protected Areas, and another by NACOMA/MET for the coast), indicate that the natural resource base is the first engine for growth and livelihoods on the coast, generating a significant amount o f resources. This work i s the first step in a more detailed economic review and evaluation o f the activities which take place on the coast (see Outcome Indicator 2 on local economic benefits). Sustainable management and conservation on the coast could be financially sustained to a greater degree ifthe rent coming out o f the use o f the natural resources and the ecosystem services on the coast are better captured. Ifappropriate regulations, agreements and partnerships are put inplace, the need for state and/or donor funding o f coastal management should gradually be decreased as environmental costs are internalizedbythe private sector and other stakeholders. (iii) Environmentalsustainability: Achieving environmentalsustainabilityoffragilecoastal ecosystems is at the heart o fNACOMA, and cuts across the entire Project design. Environmental sustainability for Namibia's coastal zone depends on the interrelationo f an enabling institutional, policy, legal and financial framework, as well as on targeted investments, focusing on rehabilitation and restoration o f biodiversity sites and mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into local, regional and national development planning. The participatory process to develop and revise management plans for ecosystems of biodiversity importance is expected to facilitate the bridgingo fthe gap between options for economic growth andbiodiversity conservation. The Project Participation and Communication Plan will complement other efforts inthe coastal regions on environmental impact and values. Its implementation i s expected to contribute to 34 attitudinal and behavioral changes among coastal stakeholders, as they will be able to better understand the direct and indirect value o f the coastal biodiversity assets, the need for their protection and opportunities for their sustainable use. (iv) Knowledge sustainability:Past experience has shown that the substantial amounts o f data and information generated by projects are often not properly shared or used by stakeholders and, more importantly, may become inaccessible after a project ends. Thus, duringthe preparation o f NACOMA, stakeholders have already started to use DLIST as a platform for information sharing, preparation and publishing o f reports, and sharing experiences and perspectives of stakeholders; this will continue duringProject implementation. It i s extremely important that the entire spectrum o f stakeholders is involved in NACOMA, including decentralized levels o f government and coastal communities and DLIST services to provide an accessible information sharing platform to all will contribute significantly to that aim. Project related information outputs, such as the regional coastal profiles, are expected to feed into the State o f the Environment Reports and form the basis for the RC's environmental development decisions as reflected inthe RDP and NDPs. The communication strategy will avoid costly and unsustainable Project related information products and focus on low-cost adapted solutions (e.g. to ensure that coastal zone profiles and web pages do not dry out after the Project lifetime). In addition, the institutional arrangements and partnerships with other initiatives are expected to contribute positively to a more sustainable information base and knowledge transfer. 91, Nonetheless, despite all these important sustainability elements, no Project can fully guarantee the sustainability o f a coastal zone management process, as this i s a long-term undertaking, which requires substantial resources and commitment over time. N A C O M A i s no exception to this rule. However, an institutional, financial, environmental and knowledge sustainability strategy and action plan will be developed and reviewed by key stakeholders by mid-termandwill bere-evaluated as part o fthe completionreport andadjusted accordingly. Replication strategy 92. As the NACOMA Project is thoroughly tied in with public sector reform processes, decentralization policies and legislation, it has a high potential for replication o f biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming into regional development planning and management. If the four coastal regions do not progress at the same pace, the Project can use lessons learned inone coastal region for support o f another coastal region. Therefore, a replication plan would be prepared after 30 months and reviewed by all key stakeholders. This plan would identify the main lessons learned and requirements to ensure that the outputs and outcomes o f the Project would be used inother regions for the longer term. Inparticular, successful lessons from Walvis Bay are expected to assist the municipality o f Liideritz with similar local environmental management plans and multi-stakeholder fora. The use o f the expanded DLIST platform following the pilot phase will be one o f the main tools for regional information sharing and replication. 35 30 `0component results :omponent 1 :ompeting expectations: difficulty vel political support for Mto S 1 finding common grounds reventing an agreement between takeholders on final scope and ontent o f White Paper, and related esponsibilities for aration and a nplementation ighly participatory and transparent ) leading to joint vision for based on identified entives and benefits istry at technical level to serve a stakeholder forum and to ilitate consultation process llow progress o f decentralization &on plan and building capac M ,f coast-relevant responsibilit mong the coastal RCs and LAs ships/coordination with decentralization support es, such as the French and - ?omponent2 __.---- ;low progress in enhancingFurther capacity gap assessment rbsorptive capacity at regional monitoring during Project eve1 for additional responsibilities as reflected in PIP in particular related to Regional Ievelopment Planners, RDCCs md LAs) Advisor will onitor the pace o f capacity uilding andwill make adjustments accordingly 37 Component 3 kimited technical capacity toMandates will be clarified and repare and implement on-the- armonized under Component 1 activities and insufficient capacity will be assessed and Iclarification of responsibilities accordingly under I amongst lead agencies rioritization will be made based on planning and decision-making executing agencies andProject under Component 1, disagreement between keycomplemented by flexible stakeholders stretching the capacity implementationarrangements o fthe PCO Recruitment o f highly qualified and experienced Coordinator and PCO staff with strong knowledge o f the Overall risk rating _I- ... HighRisk (Hbgreater than 75 percentprobability that the outcomeiresultwill notbe achieved. Substantial Risk (Sbprobability of 50-75 percentthat the outcomehesultwill notbe achieved. Modest Risk (M)-probability of25-50 percentthat the outcome/resultwill notbe achieved. Low or Negligible Risk @)-probability of less than 25 percent that the outcomehesultwill notbe achieved. 6. Grant conditionsandcovenants 94. Consistent with AFR regional criteria for readiness, operational practices and the conclusion o f the decision meeting, there are no additional conditions to be met following negotiation. The Financialcovenants are the standard ones as stated inArticle IV o f the Project Grant Agreement. 38 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY 1. Economic and financial analyses 95. The Project's incremental funding as related to the Project components is summarized below. The Project's baseline funding (national contribution and donor-supported parallel funds) is included inthe IncrementalCost Analysis (Annex 15). Project Component GEF (USD million) 1:Policy, Legal, Institutional andPlanning 0.638 for IntegratedCoastal Zone Management Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Integrated 1.417 Coastal Zone Management conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Component 3: Targeted Investments inCritical Ecosystems 1.459 for Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming Component 4: Project Management andPerformance ~ 1.385 Monitorinn Total Project Financing 4.9 96. Incremental Costs. Technical Annex 15 provides the incremental cost assessment and benefits o fNACOMA. 97. Cost-Effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness has been an important dimension o f the design o f the Project. As such, priority has been given to mainstreaming environmental management into sectoral and regional institutional mandates, budget and work programs to achieve longer term coastal and marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use o fcoastal and marine resources. Moreover, the integrated approach to be promoted under the White Paper will strengthen synergies, limit overlaps and duplications, catalyze leveraging, and promote actions based on the comparative advantage o f the different Namibian actors. The cost-effectiveness o f the capacity- building efforts under Component 2 is ensured through up-front prioritization of stakeholder's perceived needs to achieve the desired training results. The cost-effectiveness o f targeted investments under Component 3 will be facilitated by provision o f costed design options and close follow-up through the Senior 'Technical Advisor and the Scientific Group. As a result, the Project, with modest inputs, will be able to impact a broad range o f sectors, stakeholders and issues. Lastly, the decision to avoid creating a new coastal management structure, but rather wait for detailed reviews and consultations, including a cost-and-benefits analysis, i s also geared to promote the most cost-effective solution. 39 98. Following an initial environmental economic analysis during Project preparation, economic values associated with different renewable natural resources o f the Namibian coast were estimated. The findings o f this analysis, together with the findings o f an environmental economics study undertaken by UNDP26,which focused on tourism and national PAS, are summarized in Annex 9. The assignment's results have been used to refine the NACOMA Project design. 2. Technical 99. The Project includes development o f an I C Z M policy framework, development and updating o f coastal profiles, capacity building activities and on-the-ground investments, which will be designed and undertaken byqualified professionals (both national and international), thus ensuringa highlevel oftechnical soundness and quality assurance. 100. Furthermore, the external STAP review, which focuses on the scientific and technical soundness o f a project, did not identify any technical issues for the N A C O M A Project (see Annex 16). The following have been assessedand clarified duringthe Appraisal mission: (i) methodologyfor development oftheNamibiaCoastalManagement WhitePaper(Le. The goal and principles setting, consultative process, scope and content, including action plan) has beenreviewed and refined; and (ii)Principles related to the scope andnature o f the sustainable use investments inaddition to the information contained in the EMP regarding investment screening and mitigation, have been clarified and included inthe PIM. 3. Fiduciary 101. World Bank procedures and requirements will be implemented for all financial management, procurement and auditing activities o f the Project. Details on financial, disbursement andprocurement arrangements are summarized inAnnexes 7 and 8. 4. Social 102. The Namibian coast remains one o f the least populated coastal regions inthe world, as a result o f both its physical features, which make it largely unsuitable for agriculture and human settlement, and forced relocation o f people in selected areas (e.g. to protect mining areas) and planning policies. In early 1999, the coastal population was estimated around 100,000 people (approximately 6.5 percent o f the national population). Human settlement along the Namibian coast is today confined to five principal nodes: Henties Bay, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Luderitz 26Turpie et al. 2004. Strengthening Namibia's System of National Protected Areas: Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study for Financing Namibia's Protected Areas. Unpublished report to the Ministryof Environment and Tourism. 40 and Oranjemund (see Annex 20), but urbanization and growth o f informal settlements have recently beenincreasing. 103. As the coast is gradually being opened up to the public and developers, it i s important that local stakeholders take an active part in coastal development while being appreciative o f the importance o f preserving coastal biodiversity. The Project aims to contribute to this goal by capacitating stakeholders to contribute to the inter-sectoral policy and decision-making processes andraising their awarenessto the importance o fbiodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. 104. The NACOMA Project has beendeveloped through a comprehensive and open dialogue between all keyplayers, the Bank and other donors inthe region, through a series o f workshops, roundtables and discussion meetings. Stakeholders have contributed significantly to the definition o f the Project's components and their design, envisaged outputs and activities to achieve the outputs, implementation and institutional arrangements and future I C Z M design and implementation. Wide and inclusive participation o f stakeholders will also be sought and monitored during Project implementation, as described in the Project's Participation and Communication Plan (see Annex 19). Finally, the Project's M&E system includes outcome indicators to measure public perception and knowledge o f I C Z M issues, as well as social impacts o f the Project in the coastal area, around ecosystems of biodiversity importance and the productionlandscape. 105. With regard to World Bank Safeguard policies - see paragraph 113. 5. Environment 106. The NACOMA Project is designed to have an overall positive and significant impact on the environment by establishing a policy, regulatory and institutional framework for environmentally sustainable growth and resource management and through on-the-ground conservation activities that will largely focus on biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation, sustainable use o f prioritized ecosystems and targeted information, education, communication (IEC) activities. 107. The classes o f eligible on-the-ground activities under the Project, which were identified along with a list o f ineligible activities by stakeholders during Project preparation, indicate project-funded activities that are likely to have no adverse impacts on the environment, or minimal impacts that are site-specific, easy to mitigate, and technically and institutionally manageable. 108. For the latter activities an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was prepared to ensure that the Project's on-the-ground activities are carried out in line with World Bank Safeguard policy on Environmental Assessment (EA) and similar Namibian EA requirements, and to ensure that all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigated prior to the implementationo f any on-the-ground activities (see also Annex 10). 41 109. Based on the above, an EMP was prepared by the GRN, consisting o f sets o f criteria and guidelines that describe process, indicators, roles and responsibilities for managing and implementing physical investments in terms of their environmental integrity. The EMP also indicates the capacity needed for the above-mentioned activities and budgetary implications, which have been integrated into the Project's design and financial plan. It will become part o fthe M&EProject system as described inthe Project Implementation Manual (PIM) and annual work plans. The EMP has been reviewed and approved by ASPEN and was disclosed at the World Bank InfoShop and incountry on February23,2005 andMarch 8,2005, respectively. 6. Safeguard policies Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes N o Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [XI [ I Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [I [XI PestManagement (OP 4.09) [ I [XI Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, beingrevised as OP 4.11) [I [XI Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ I [XI IndigenousPeoples (OD 4.20, beingrevised as OP 4.10) [ I [XI Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [I [XI Safety o f Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [I [XI Projects inDisputedAreas (OP/BP/GP 7.60) [I [XI Projects on InternationalWaterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ I [XI 110. Since N A C O M A is classified as an environmental safeguard category "B" project, the GRNhas prepared an EMP to ensure the Project's on-the-ground activities are implemented in compliance with World Bank EA Policy OP 4.01 and similar Namibian EA requirements, andto ensure that mitigation measures are spelled out for all possible negative impacts prior to implementationo f any on-the-ground activities (see also sectionD.5 andAnnex 10). 111. It has been agreed that in the unlikely event that the Project includes activities that necessitate a resettlement process framework under OP 4.12, the PCP would cover additional elements o f such a framework, specific to the particular area inwhich access i s to be restricted. These would consist o f (a) the process whereby compensatory measures are formulated and agreed on for persons whose livelihoods are adversely affected; (b) grievance procedures; (c) legal and administrative procedures; and (d) monitoring arrangements. Such a grievance or appeals process would be managed by the PCO as entity overseeing PCP implementation. Ifthe complainant is not satisfied, she would then have recourse to a disinterested agency (the independent Legal Assistance Center (LAC) has been proposed as a suitable body with responsibility for protecting the rights o f citizens inthis area). 112. The GRN, specifically DEA the executing agency for NACOMA onbehalfo fMET, has - an EA Unit that manages the national EA process, and is thus well placed to facilitate appropriate environmental management o f NACOMA's operations. The MET has gained experience with applying safeguard policies for project development based on another recently approved project (the Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management - ICEMA project), 42 for which an Environmental and Social Assessment and Management Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework and an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan were prepared and disclosed. Adequate technical and legal capacity and expertise for developing mitigation and management plans, as well as relevant environmental monitoring, exist in Namibia, although mostly outside government (e.g. non-governmental Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) andprivate sector). 7. Policy exceptions and readiness 113. The Project does not requireany exceptions from Bank policies. 43 Annex 1: Country andSector Background NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject I.CountryBackground 1. Namibia i s the most arid country south o f the Sahel, occupying 823,680 km2 with a population o f almost 2 million people distributed in 13 political regions. The country gained Independence from the then apartheid SouthAfrican rule in 1990. 2. Due to the low productivity o f the country, caused by low and erratic rainfall, scarce ground and surface water resources and relatively low primary productivity (see below), less than 5 percent o f Namibia is considered appropriate for arable agriculture, including through irrigation. Still, Namibia's formal and informal economy is highly dependent on the natural resource base, mainly mining, agriculture, fishing, and wildlife-based tourism, and, to some extent, livestock farming. Minerals, fisheries and agricultural land (livestock and cropping) account together for roughly 30 percent o f GDP, 85 percent o f exports and about 10 percent o f govemment revenues (see Table 1below). 3. It is striking that Namibia has one o f the highest Gini coefficients in the World, 0.7 percent, marking a severe gap between a wealthy minority and a poor majority o f people. The divide o f poor and wealthy i s often underlined by differential opportunities for education, health and security, to name a few. Social divide had been exacerbated during apartheid rule and since Independence Namibia has focused on capacity building and human resources development as key strategies for alleviating the imbalances o fthe past. Table 1: Trends inSocio-economicDevelopmentinNamibia between1994 and Today Indicator I AbsoluteValues I AbsoluteValues IInformationSource' I GDPper capita N$(Mio.) 7,894 8,154 (2000) 4 % Share of agriculture inGDP 7.6 5.6 (2000) 1 %Share of communal area ? 2.8 (2000) 4 agriculture %Share of commercial area ? 2.8 (2000) 4 agriculture % Share ofthe informal sector in 44 usiness services 111 I % Share of social andpersonal I 0.9 I 0.8 I ' These estimates explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can results in lower life expectancy,higher infant mortality and death rates, lower populationgrowth rates, changes in the distribution of populationby age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July 2004 est.). The HIVIAIDS adult prevalence rate was estimated at 21.3 ercentin2003; CIA -The World Fact Book, Namibiahttd/m.cia.gov/cia/Dublications/factbook. `Urban definedas settlements of>5000 people inwhich Environmental Impact Assessment/Strategic Environmental Assessment and land use zoning adapted to specifity of coastal lands andwaters for target groups; k Monitoring and Evaluation, including procedures, tools (GIS/mapping) and effective coast-related data interpretationand data use; 79 k Communication, participatory approaches and mediation skills for institutional stakeholders; and k Sustainable resource-basedeconomic development. 25. The form o f training will be identified in the training program together with each RC/LA/LM, will be based on newly developed thematic manuals (allowing a `training o f trainer' approach), and will include further on-the-job training, TA, formally accredited courses or workshops and study tours to countries with best practice examples. Available training resources in line ministries (e.g. MET'SDASS training officer), regional offices and specified local training centers (e.g. UNAM's Marine and Coastal Resources Research Centre in Henties Bay) and professional trainers will be used as needed. The Senior Technical Advisor will play a significant role inoverseeing andcomplementing the implementationo fthe training program. Sub-comport ent 2: Biodiversity Mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism (GEF: US$0.123 million) Purpose 26. This sub-component will provide for a cost-effective and accessible method for a long- term coastal and marine biodiversity M&E system linked to national, regional and local environmental monitoring efforts (including regional coastal profiles). It will allow decision- makers at various levels as well as scientific groups interested in issues affecting coastal and marine biodiversity conservation and uses to monitor and evaluate environmental and economic values and services o f coastal and marine ecosystems, and to improve integrated planning and management. Description of activities 27. The following steps will be undertaken by N A C O M A andor in partnership with other initiatives (SPAN, BCLME Programme): Review o f existing M&E systems in place and multi-stakeholder decision on most sustainable and cost-effective mechanism to be supported (including institutional host); Reviewo f data and information gaps andneeds; Identification and development o f suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity changes andother relatedissues at site andlandscape levels; Development or up-grading o fmethodology for data collection; Data analysis and compilation into integrated database using technologies such as GIs, aerial photography andremote sensing; e Implementation of M&E system: coastal biodiversity M&E related data would be systematically collected, stored in the system, up-dated and made accessible to the stakeholder; and e Compilation, publicationand dissemination o f annual coastal biodiversity reports, 28. In order to develop a new- or expand an existing long-term coastal and marine biodiversity M&E system at national or regional level, this activity will support the purchase of hardware and software and the design o f integrated system for M&E (Le. database) ifneeded. 80 Sub-component 3: Communication and KnowledgeManagement (GEF: US$0.458 million) Purpose 29. This sub-component is concerned with addressing the knowledge gap related to coastal and marine biodiversity and environmental management among all institutional and non- institutional stakeholders. It will follow the findings and issues identified in the Project Participation and Communication Plan, and support the development and implementation o f a high-profile coastal biodiversity communication strategy and action plan for various audiences and time periods throughout the Project's life-time. Lastly, it i s concerned with providing the four coastal regions with priority information o f their coastlines using the successful Erongo Region Coastal Profile as a startingpoint. Description of activities 30. (i)A communication strategy, whichwillinclude apublic education and awareness campaign, will be developed to provide the public and institutional stakeholders with information on the coastal vision and NACOWP development process, and to increase overall environmental awareness, in particular related to coastal resources and management among all stakeholder groups. This campaign i s expected to be carried out through a range o f tools, e.g. radio clips, video-clips, a road-show, national television spots, a newsletter for distribution inthe regions and intourist offices (e.g. inthe peak tourism season publishingarticles inthe bi-weekly Namibian Coast newspaper), pamphlets, development and maintenance o f a NACOMNcoastal website, including specific information pertaining to each region linked to the coastal profiles and up-dates o f websites o f METDEA, MFMR and other involved stakeholders. Special attention will be paid to awareness and education o f young citizens: annual field trips will be organized in conjunction with local NGOs, exhibitions will be established, educational teacher kitswillbe developed, produced and included inon-going curricula, etc. (ii) partofthe communicationstrategy, aknowledgemanagement mechanism(network) As linking all four regions and other key implementing agents at national, regional and local level will be developed to enhance their capacities to share information, including status o f site- specific management plans, environmental interventions, best practices (replication elements) and monitoring and evaluation assessments. The ICZMC i s expected to play a major role in defining the scope and content o f the knowledge management mechanism and to lead the networking. The installation o f effective and appropriate communication, networking and coordination (including reporting) mechanisms between Regional Councils and MET i s expected to establish and consolidate communication between them and other stakeholders. Access to existinglearning and knowledge sharing tools, inparticular for regional and local governments but also line ministries, will be provided. To this end, the Project will build on- and use the Distance Learning and Information Sharing Tool (DLIST) as an established and successful information platform. Also, links with related programs, such as the BCLME, SPAN, BENEFIT and others, will be established to share information and lessons learned. A sustainability/replication plan (under Component 4) to share lessons learned inside Namibia and 81 with other countries inthe sub-region would beprepared bymid-term andimplemented untilthe Project i s completed. (iii) sub-component will fillhrthertheknowledge gap about linkagesbetweensocio- The economic, environmental and biodiversity conservation issues through the participatory development o f regional coastal profiles. These will be used as a basis for local, regional and national decision-making processes, and will feed-back into the State o f Environment Report and National Resource Accounting efforts. As a first step, regional-level technical committees/task forces for each coastal region will be established. These technical committees will be in charge of gathering socio-economic, environmental and biodiversity data on the Namibian coast for each region in order to draft the coastal profiles. The content o f the coastal profiles will be built on the principle features of the existing coastal profile for the Erongo Region, but adapted to each region. While the Erongo profile needs to be up-dated, the profiles for the three other coastal regions, Kunene, Hardap and Karas, will be developed on the basis o f coastal spatial planningand zoning, covering land and water areas as to determine preferred locations for strict biodiversity conservation, limited access and controlled use o f biodiversity and the natural resource base, for sustainable low to medium-impact use, such as recreational purposes, and for sustainable economic development. The profiles will be linked to the Regional Development Plans and regionalAoca1 planning and decision-making processes. The process o f drafting and developing these profiles will be enhanced by the capacity built inthe Regional Councils under Sub-component 2.1. The draft coastal profiles will be reviewed and endorsed through public meetings for comments and feedback, and through focused workshop for input from a broad range o f local, regional andnational level stakeholders. Component3: TargetedInvestmentsin CriticalEcosystems for BiodiversityConservation, SustainableUse andMainstreaming(GEF: US$1.459 million) Introduction 31, This component will fill on-the-ground gaps for coastal biodiversity conservation and sustainable use specifically inand around those sites indicated inAnnex 17, Table 3. 32. The primary target groups are local, regional and national governments (MET, MAW, MFMR, MME and MWTC), RCs and LAs involved in CZM, local communities and private sectors. 33. The Intermediate outcomes o f this component include: 1. Increased network o f coastal and marine conservation areas under effective management (as defined byNAMETT), including availability o fcompliance andenforcement arrangements; and 2. Priority conservation and sustainable use actions aligned with management plans for terrestrial and marine ecosystems o f biodiversity importance and Regional and Local Development Plans successhlly implemented. 82 34. This component includes the 2 following sub-components: Sub-component 1: Management Planning o f Coastal Ecosystems o fBiodiversity Importance Sub-component 2: Implementation o f Priority Actions under the Management Plans at Site and Landscape Level Sub-component 1: Management Planning of Coastal Ecosystemsof Biodiversity Importance (GEF: US$0.250million) Purpose 35. This sub-component aims to develop new- and harmonize existing management tools in close coordination with associated initiatives (e.g. SPAN) to enhance biodiversity conservation andsustainable use o fresources on coastal landsandwaters. Description of activities 36. This sub-component includes a highly participatory review, up-date and development o f management plans for identifiedcoastal and marine biodiversity priority conservation sites, their buffer zones and surrounding production landscapes (see Annex 17, table 3) in line with recommendations on the appropriate financial and institutional mechanisms and capacity developed under Sub-components 1 and 2. This will allow the identification o f strengths and weaknesses o f each management plan in terms o f management effectiveness, biodiversity conservation, boundaries, legislation and enforcement, but, more importantly, assure mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into regional and local development planning.42Inorder to make sure that management plans are well implemented, an annual review will be undertakenby trained staff from the PASby using an adapted version o f the WWF/WB site-level management effectiveness tracking tool, the Namibian Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT). (1) Creation of New ProtectedAreas Conservation gaps through the existing network o f protected areas on the coast will be filled by N A C O M A in complementarity with SPAN and other initiatives. Identified Project intervention sites of global biodiversity importance will demonstrate a potential for benefit sharing with communities as well as for sustainable use activities with local, regional and national benefits (linked to regional and local development planning and NACOWP principles). In order to increase hnctioningbiodiversity conservationmanagement inpriority coastal areas, demarcation and gazetting o f sites would be supported. 42 The draft Parks and Wildlife Management Bill will become the legal framework for all management plans (content, format, legal status andperiodic review). 83 (i) Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs)43 Following the "COFAD report" 44,wheretheestablishment offifteenpossibleMarineProtected Areas on the Namibian coastline was identified, the Project will support the creation o f MPAs (with islands a priority) along the Namibian coast. MPAs are important for the conservation of marine biodiversity and the protection and maintenance o f sensitive species, habitats and ecosystems (e.g. bird islands and breeding and recruitment grounds o f commercially exploited fish stocks such as rock lobster and kob). At present, a review o f current legislation, supported by WWF Marine, is planned to clarify and determine the actual legal status o f the islands (state land) and NACOMA's support for the assessment o f stakeholder mandates under Component 1 will contribute to this process. Therefore, during the first year, an agreement between MET and MFMR on the basic approach and exact numbers o f MPAs will be facilitated. Once this agreement i s reached, the MPAs' provisional boundaries, key issues and management objectives will be identified, followed by the draft o f management plans for the identified MPAs sites, and the necessary "classification" process will start. Inorder to make sure that the newly developed management plans are well implemented, an annual review will be undertaken by staff from MPAs by using a simple tool titled "Score Card to assess progress in achieving management effectiveness goals for Marine ProtectedAreas"45 or an adapted version o fthe NAMETT.46 (ii) Other ProtectedAreas N A C O M A will support the creation o f other conservation areas such as the proposed Walvis Bay Nature Reserve, which aims to put the currently unprotected major Walvis Bay ecosystem o f biodiversity importance (wetlands) under effective management.47 Other wetlands, near-shore sites and unprotected islands mightbe included inthis activity at a later stage. Sub-component 2: Implementation of Priority Actions under the Management Plans at Site and Landscape Level (GEF: US$1.209million) Purpose 37. This sub-component supports the implementation o f site-specific management plans through targeted investments related to biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation. It prioritizes small-scale use o f coastal resources to support sustainable livelihoods with high potential for 43The MPA definition follows the ICUNone: "Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associatedflora, fauna and culturalfeatures, which has been reserved by law or other efective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment". 44Advisory Assistance to the Ministry o f Fisheries and Marine ResourcesBaseline Study o f the Establishment o f Marine Reserves inNamibia - Short Term Consultancy Report, 1998. 45Hatziolos M.,Staub F., Score Card to assessprogress inachieving management effectiveness goals for Marine Protected Areas, The World Bank, 2004. 46 On an April 2005 meeting between representatives o f MFMR and donor projects, it has been c o n f i i e d that MFMR is determined to start the process of establishing MPAs odaround all islands, to be carried out in close collaboration with other on going activities, e.g. NACOMA and the BCLME Programme (as a research output provider to NACOMA). It was further stated that a proposal for proclamation o f the islands themselves should be spearheaded by MFMR (in line with the Marine Resources Act 2000) with consultation and co-ordination with MET. 47 The Walvis Bay Dunes (Between Walvis Bay and Swakopmund) are excluded from the Nature reserve. A plan is inplace for these dunes and the Municipal intentions are to recruit an private company to manage the area on its behalfas per the Plan. 84 piloting, testing and learning. The analysis of coastal use values duringpreparation has indicated that these uses are relatively under-developed in Namibia. Recently efforts are underway by stakeholders such as the University o f Namibia to research these kinds o f potential uses and some targeted and site-specific activities have been identified during Project preparation. This sub-component will follow the incremental and sustainable principle and, thus, will be closely linked to national, regional and local site-specific planning and management efforts. Generic criteria would be cost effectiveness, value added, sustainability, empowerment o f previously disadvantaged, partnerships andco-financing and community involvement. During the process o f activities identification and approval, the Project's EMP will be utilized to ensure that on-the- ground activities are carried out inline with World Bank Safeguard Policies, andthat all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigation measures are spelled out prior to the implementation o f any activity. Description of activities (i) Biodiversity Conservation and Rehabilitation Activities This category will focus on support to specific activities o f local, regional and national importance for biodiversity conservation such as: Conservationplanning - Identification o f additional coastal ecosystems ofbiodiversity importance through - support, for example for aerial surveys and spatial planning;48 Identification o fpriority conservation andprotectionmeasures throughout the coastal - region; and Support to priority targeted researchprojects (e.g. study o f lesser knowntaxa, surveys o f key habitats, indigenous knowledge, hngal pathogens on Welwitschia, rehabilitation o f disturbed lichen soil crusts/ecological roles o f lichen-dominated soil . crusts inthe Namib Desert) inorder to guide management planningandmonitoring. Conservationmanagement andmonitoring - Monitoring o f ecosystems o f biodiversity importance based on initial baseline assessment and follow-up monitoring and enforcement (patrols, control measures); and . - Provision o f adequate equipment for local staff (office andmonitoring) Habitat restoration --- Vegetation cover restoration, e.g. using indigenous plants; Soil erosion control inbiodiversity priority areas; and Pilot demonstration o f biodiversity-friendly restoration o f land after mining and . exploration. Protection o fwater resources -- Identificationo f key coastal waters, their resources, uses andconservation needs; and Development o f coastal waters plan(feeding into land-use planningprocess). 48Inline with IUCN-definedcategories for zoning activities and spatial planning. 85 (ii) Sustainable Use of Prioritized EcosystemsActivities The focus o fthese investments would be on-the-ground support for sustainable use o fprioritized ecosystems as described inmanagement plans and draft management plans. The following main activities were identified during a broad-based stakeholder preparatory workshop and are in line with priorities o f the Universityo fNamibia's Marine and Coastal Resources Research Centre in Henties Bay as well as with regional and local authorities: Support to pilot environmentally friendly aquaculture and mariculture practices and technology such as (i)mariculture development, focusing on comparing different seaweed diets for on-shore culture, confirming the feasibility o f spawning broodstock under local conditions and examining the feasibility and environmental impact o f ranching; (ii) mushroom development, including evaluating the suitability o f locally available substrates for culture o f oyster mushrooms, identification o f indigenous mushroom species for cultivation at the coast and evaluation o f different designs o f low- cost mushroom houses; and (iii) seaweed development for sustainable harvesting; Support to pilot coastal agriculture and plant biodiversity: (i) Bio-saline agriculture (particularly the cultivation o fbrackish water fodder crops); and (ii) propagation o fuseful endemic plants, such as the Hoodia cactus, and trials o f the cultivation o f plant species for habitat restoration, medicinal plants, agricultural use, desert greening and sand dune stabilization; Support to other environmentally friendly natural product processing (e.g.,nara plant, fish, guano andshell); Eco-tourism: (i)small-scale infrastructure (camp sites and associated small scale facilities, e.g. desert paths, view sites, sign posts); (ii) services (e.g. training for tourism guides, training for impact assessment, information sheets, brochures and development o f new biodiversity friendly ecotourismproducts inpartnership with the communities and the private sector); and Water resources: Awareness raising for watershed management or underground water management if relevant, including support to initiate management plans for freshwater resources. The Project support will come in form o f small matching grants for investments in specific Project intervention sites as identified and described inthe annual work plans (See Box 1below, Annex 8 and the PIM for more information). Box 1: Summary of Proceduresfor Targeted InvestmentsImplementation The following steps would take place before implementation of any targeted investment: 1. The PCO would liaise with potential EAs, under the PCP, to identify proposals and EAs for a list o f targeted investments, including timeframe, eligibility information and a proposedbudget; 2. Preparation o f a targeted investment proposal by the EA and submission to the PCO; 3. A desk and (if needed) field review and evaluation o f the techcal, scientific, financial, economic and safeguard soundness o f the investment proposals ledby the Senior Technical Advisor and with consultation with the SG, ICZMC and SC where needed; 4. Submission ofproposal to the SC for no-objection; 5. Sending a notificationletter to the qualifying EA with a brief description o f the steps ahead (preparation o f the MGAgreement and signing); 86 6. Preparationofa MGAgreementby the PCO, representingthe contractbetweenthe FundingAgency (MET, representedbythe NACOMA PCO) andthe EA; 7. Signing of the MG Agreement by the EA representatives and a representative of the PCO on behalf o f MET; and 8. Implementatiodsuperision of the targetedinvestmentby the EA, includingall procurement, disbursement and financial management of the MG. The EA will also be responsible for implementation progress reportingto the PCOat identifiedpoints intime. Component4: ProjectCoordinationandReporting(GEF: US$1.385 million) Introduction 38. The aim o f this component is supporting the Government o f Namibia, in particular the MET, MRLGHRD and the four coastal Regional Councils with achieving stated objectives and results by (i) creating an operational Project coordination structure, a Project Coordination Office (PCO); (ii) delivering satisfactory Project implementation through proper management and timely delivery o f its outputs as defined inthe Grant Agreement, PIM and annual workplans; and (iii) documenting adequately Project performance and impact as defined inthe Grant Agreement, PIM, PIP and annual workplans. 39. The primary target group i s the Project Coordination Office (PCO) staff in support o f MET and MRLGHRD and other institutional stakeholder's efforts to implement the NACOMA Project. 40. The intermediate outcomes o fthis component include: 1. Efficient coordination and support provided to achieve successful Project implementation according to the Grant Agreement, Project Implementation Manual and annual workplans, in compliance with fiduciary requirements; and 2. Progress towards results documented through monitoring o f Outcome Indicators and other monitoring indicators. Satisfactorily Project implementation according to annual Project workplans as documented inProject reports. 41. This component includes 2 sub-components: a Sub-component 1:Project Coordination a Sub-component 2: Project Performance andResults Reporting Sub-component 1:Project Coordination (GEF: US$1.295million) Purpose and activities 42. This sub-component supports the establishment and operationalization (through staffing, office infrastructure and Project management related capacity building) o f a Project Coordination Office housed in the Erongo Regional Council (see Annex 6). The PCO will be in charge o f Project coordination and oversight. This sub-component will also, support the recruitment o f 87 hnctions related to administration, accounting and procurement, and monitoring and evaluation. A Senior Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator) specialized in ICZM will be recruited to provide operational TA throughout the Project lifetime for the ICZMC members, line ministries, RCs andLAs on I C Z Mplanning, management and monitoring issues (see training program). Sub-component 2: Project Performance and Results Reporting (GEF: US$ 0.090 million) Purpose and activities 43. This sub-component supports the PCO inconducting performance monitoring, evaluation o f Project progress and M&E reporting, which will enable the delivery o f Project reports according to the PIM, and support the development and implementation o f a Project Management Information system to ensure Project monitoring and reporting and timely dissemination o f specific information among national, regional and local governments, communities and other donor-supported Projects and programs. 88 Annex 5: Project Costs NAMIBIA: Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project (GEFonly) Local Foreign Total ~ Project Cost By Component US$ US$ US$ million million million I. Legal,InstitutionalandPlanning Policy, 0.265 0.288 0.553 Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use 11.TargetedCapacity-Building for Integrated 0.691 0.565 1.256 Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use 111.Targeted InvestmentsinCritical 0.783 0.501 1.284 Ecosystemsfor BiodiversityConservation, SustainableUse andMainstreaming IV.Project Coordination andReporting 1.048 0.171 1.219 Total Baseline Cost 2.787 1.525 4.312 Physical Contingencies (10% includedper 0.279 0.152 0.43 1 CP) Price Contingencies (15% includedper cp) 0.098 0.059 0.157 Total Project Costs' 3.164 1.736 4.900 Interest during construction - Front-end Fee -- -- The Project'stotal cost (incudingGEF financing, GRNcontribution and donors, as indicatedinthe Project'sIncrementalCostAnalysis) is USD49.22 million. FY I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 0 0 0 Annual 0.30 0.95 1.15 1.25 0.95 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cumulative 0.30 1.25 2.40 3.65 4.60 4.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 89 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Introduction 1. The most useful I C Z M precedents are likely to be found in countries with federalist or decentralized structures (e.g. South Africa and Australia) which have also hadto grapple with the relationship between different tiers o f government and avoid overly-nationalized and prescriptive approaches. Characteristics o f such processes generally include a balancing act between national enabling frameworks and regionally specific mechanisms, an emphasis on flexibility, avoidance o f duplication and overlap and compatibility with public participation. 2. Namibia's specificity i s that much -not just coastal management arrangements - i s undergoing substantial change as part o f the decentralization process. Over NACOMA's five- year lifetime, the country i s expected to move from centrally managed environment, tourism and other land-use functions to a decentralized- and potentially sectoral devolved situation. The current total separation o f environment and planning functions should be transformed into a higher degree of integration. 3. Based on progress and options that are expected from the White Paper process and from a policy framework for ICZM, including in relation with decentralization, necessary adjustments will be identified at mid-term to further streamline and mainstream such arrangements. This design i s also a risk mitigation measure. Implementationof the NACOMA Proiect 4. NACOMA implementation will be based on structures at national as well as regionalhocallevel, and carried out by the several executing agencies (LMs, RCs, LAs and non-institutional stakeholders) (see Figure 1below). 5. The rationale for these arrangements, combining regional and national structures, is that high-level buy-in, greater coastal awareness and stronger coordination and communication are preconditions for successful development o f coastal policy. Strong engagement from the LMs can help ensure that implementation actions start promptly, whatever the position regarding decentralization. As matters now stand, it seems to be premature >to place lead and sole responsibilities on Regional Councils as they are still lacking clear mandates, specialist environmental staff and general capacity. The regional focal points will be the Directors o f the Regional Council Planning Directorate inconjunction with the ChiefRegional Officers. (i) Steering Committee (SC) 6. A high-level executive Steering Committee (SC) will be established for the purpose o f Project to oversee Project implementation and provide strategic leadership for the development o f a national integrated coastal management policy. Strong coordination between key institutions and programs will facilitate delivery o f Project objectives as set out inthe Project Document and workplans, and sustain results andpositive impacts inthe longer term. 90 7. The proposed SC structure i s compact in order to facilitate effective coordination and rapid implementationprogress. Consistent with Namibia's ongoing decentralization program, its membership brings together Regional Council and national ministerial representatives. The approach only includes members with existing legal powers and duties, i.e. it is a tool for more effective coordination andtargeting at the coastal zone, not a new bureaucracy. 8. The SC will comprise high-level representatives, nominated by the respective Permanent SecretariedRegional Governors as applicable before Project effectiveness, from the following institutions. As the SC i s an executive- rather than advisory body, its membership will not include NGOs and other co-opted bodies. 0 MET(PS as Chair) 0 MRLGHRD(Deputy Chair) (2 - one fromtheplanning function andone from the Directorate o fDecentralizationCoordination) 0 Coastal Regional Councils (4 once representative from each coastal RC). - 0 MFMR(1) 0 MME(1) 0 MAWF(1) 0 M W T C (1) 0 National PlanningCommission (1). 9. Secretariat services will be provided by the NACOMA Project Coordination Office. It i s suggested that the SC meet on a quarterlybasis. 10. Specific SC responsibilities will include: 0 review annual work plans for the Project, ensuring efficient allocation o f roles to line ministries andRegional Councils within the activities identifiedinsuch plans; 0 ensure the PCO establishes and maintains a filing system to record all documentationrelated to Project implementation; 0 obtain advice by liaising with coastal stakeholders through the technical-level advisory IntegratedCoastal Zone Management Committee4'; 0 advise on the need for obtaining specific advice from the Scientific Group; 49This currentlyoperates as an informalbodybutmaybe formalizedas apermanentmechanismduringthe Project. 91 make recommendations to the PCO related to issues that may require outside advisory support; nominate individuals to participate inbid evaluation and short-list approvals, including those associated with the ICZMC; contribute to M&E efforts as may be called for by the Project's M&E system; deal with public relations concerns that maybe referred to it bythe PCO; be available for World Bank supervisionmissions, to bejointly scheduled. (ii) Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC) 11. The four coastal Regional Councils have constituted an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC) to address issues o f coastal conservation, management and planning. The ICZMC consists in theory o f the four Governors, the four Regional Executive Officers, a councilor from each region, representatives from line ministries as well as several members o f national parliament that represent the four coastal regions. The ICZMC was endorsed by the four Governors and Regional Executive Officers and i s the executing organ for matters related to coastal biodiversity conservation. It is expected to report directly to the Regional Councils and i s theoretically accountable to the Permanent Secretaries o f MRLGHRD and o f MET. The ICZMC is a structure created with a long-term perspective, whereas N A C O M A has a limited time horizon.50 The current role definition o f the ICZMC includes many o f NACOMA's objectives (participatory and integrated policy-making, coastal information gathering and dissemination, facilitating decentralization, engagement o f coastal users, etc.). It describes the ICZMC as the "focal point o f an ongoing process in which many partners will be pursuing common goals". 12. However, as currently constituted, ICZMC's capacity to carry out concrete actions for thispurpose is limitedas itis: a An informalmechanism, not created bystatute or ministerial decision; a Inter-regional only (composed o f the Governors, REOs andNational Council Members o f the four coastal Councils): it does not yet have formal mechanisms for coordination upstream to line ministries or downstream to Local Authorities; and a Not yet cross-sectoral, although it i s theoretically nourished by input from regional representatives o f line ministries, municipalities, NGOs, etc. 13. The enlarged and reinforced ICZMC will function as a regionally focused advisory body to liaise with the Project Steering Committee on all aspects o f Project implementation. It will have a broad flexible structure to ensure responsiveness to local priorities, different stakeholder groups and emerging issues. 50The ICZMC was endorsed by the four Regional Councils and received approval from the Ministry o f Regional and Local Government and Housing and Rural Development on May 3,200 1 and the Ministryfor Environment and Tourism on September21,200 1. 92 14. The ICZMC shouldpromote the following general objectives: i.representthefullrangeofcoastalstakeholdersinNamibia; ii.raiseawarenessofcoastalmanagementissuesandtheneedtomaintaincoastalecosystemsto sustain resource-based economic development; iii.provide balanced and informed advice and technical input on all aspects of Project implementation; iv. actively contribute to the participatory development o f a national integrated coastal zone management policy, with particular regard to equitable sharing o f benefits linked to coastal management and resource use; v. improve communication on coastal issues betweendifferent sectors andlevels o fgovernment andother stakeholders, including civil society andthe private sector; and vi. provide a forum to discuss andreview planning, investments and decision makingprocesses affecting the coast during the lifetime o f the Project, as a complement to existing mechanisms. 15. The ICZMC, inconsultation with the PCO, will: i.advise the Steering Committee on all aspects ofNACOMA implementation, including emerging issues that may require adjustment o f Project activities, the decentralization o f environment-related functions and matters related to planning, investments and decision making affecting the coast duringthe lifetime o f the Project; ii.advise thePCO, particularlyoncapacitybuildingneedsandtasks for the Project Senior Technical Advisor, and provide technical input for the implementation o f annual workplans o f the Project; iii.requestandrespondtospecificadvicefromtheScientificGroupasnecessary;and iv. provide for regular consultationand communication at regional and local levels byrequesting each coastal region, at the beginningo fProject implementation, to: 0 formally designate a Coastal Zone Focal Point to liaise with- and give feedback to the PCO, and facilitate dissemination o f relevant information within the region concerned; and 0 assist each coastal town within its territory to establish or designate a local coastal forum (and the regional Sub-ICZMCs), through which participation and communication activities under the Project shall be channeled (building awareness, sharing and updating information, consulting local stakeholders to provide input for the development o f a shared coastal vision and the preparation o f a national I C Z Mpolicy). 93 v. establish technical working groups or other informal structures as necessary to address specific coastal issues and facilitate problem-solving, ensuringthat individuals invitedto join such a group or structure have appropriate familiarity, expertise and/or level o f authority relatedto the issue concerned; and vi. build close partnerships with complementary programs related to decentralization and conservation andmanagement o f coastal and marine ecosystems. 16. The ICZMC will be regionally-driven and support enhanced vertical and horizontal coordination and balanced representation o f non-institutional stakeholders. The following membership i s proposed: Coastal Regional Councils (4). It is suggested that the chairmanship continue to be held by the Erongo Regional Council for at least the first two years o f operations, to ensure continuity with the earlier work o fthe ICZMCl Coastal focal points nominated by key line ministries (6 - MET, MFMR, MME, MAW, M W T C andMRLGHRD); Local Authority representatives (4); Non-institutional stakeholders (3-4 - to include representatives o f NGOs, community-based organizations and the private sector, e.g. NAMDEB); and Co-opted entities (3-4 - to ensure synergy with relevant donor-funded programs, e.g. SPAN, BCLME and SKEP). 17. The ICZMC Secretariat services will be provided, at least until Project mid-term, by the Erongo Regional Council. 18. At regional level, the ICZMC is currently represented by informally designated Coastal Zone Focal Points (CZ FPs), who are the Directors o f Planning o f the RCs. These regional CZ FPs will facilitate consultations on the coastal vision, the development o f the White Paper and other related activities under NACOMA. Additional C Z FPs will be designated at local level (municipality) and within regional LM offices (mainly MET and MFMR). The creation o f Sub- ICZMCs as part of the broader Regional Development Coordination committees (RDCCs) is anticipated 30 months after the N A C O M A Project launch. These small Sub-ICZMCs (estimated 5-8 members, mainly from RDCCs) are expected to be chaired by the regional CZ FPs and focus on coastal development issues only. The other local and regional LM's CZ FPs are expected to play an active part inthe future Sub-ICZMC. It i s intended that the Sub-ICZMCs will report to the RDCCs regularly. The PCO's Senior Technical Advisor will provide continuous advice and support to the CZ FPs, and, subsequently, the Sub-ICZMCs. (iii) Project Coordination OfJice 19. A Project Coordination Office (PCO) will be established bytime o fProject effectiveness to support the Government o f Namibia, in particularly the MET and MRLGHRD and the four 94 coastal Regional Councils, inachieving satisfactorily the expected Project objectives and results. Itwill be hostedbythe Erongo RegionalCouncil offices. This willbuildon the Erongo Regional Council's experience as current host o f both the ICZMC Secretariat and the N A C O M A PDF B Coordinator. The PCO will consist o f staff with adequate qualifications and experience for day- to-day Project management and coordination as well as Project monitoring, auditing and reporting. The PCO will consist o f (i) a full-time Project Coordinator; (ii) full-time Senior a Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator); (iii) a full-time Administrative Assistant; (iv) a part- time M&E Specialist; and (v) a full-time Accounting andProcurement Officer. 20. The PCO mandate would be to implement SC decisions, including delivery o f funds to implement selected activities through defined Executing Agencies at all levels (see lower graph inFigure 1).Itsmainfunctions andtasks arerelatedto: 0 Operational Project coordination, cooperation and management (including EMP and PCP implementation); 0 Project monitoring, auditing and reporting, including budget and finance matters; 0 Development o f annual workplans; and 0 Secretariat o f the SC. (iv) Scientijk Group on ICZM (SG) 21. Namibiahas currentlyno formalized scientific coastal group o f experts and institutionsto provide information and guidance on coastal matters. Therefore, a Scientific Group will be established to provide high-quality scientific and other data to create a common platform for decision-making and minimize differences o f opinion amongst stakeholders with regard to management issues. The preferred approach i s to channel scientific input through existing structures as far as possible, avoiding excess cost or bureaucracy. 22. The SG will be housed within BENEFIT, the trilateral marine science mechanism that supports the B C L M E and that has been proposed as the regional research organ for the BCLME Programme's future permanent structure for regional co-operation. It has an appropriate marine/coastal focus, it has established links to complementary research, resources and data in neighboring countries and i s already based in Swakopmund, together with the B C L M E Living Marine Resources Activity Centre, which takes an ecosystem-wide approach to fisheries research. 23. Inorder to ensure proper coverage of terrestrial coastal ecosystems and efficient use of existing Namibian expertise, the Project proposes that the following institutions should also be members o f the SG: NaLTER, NMN, NBFU, DWN, GTRC, UNAM and NatMIRC. The SG may also benefit from scientific expertise from the Government, inparticular from the Ministry o f Environment and Tourism, Ministry o f Mines and Energy and Ministry o f Fisheries and Marine Resources. 24. The SG will guide and contribute to all levels o f Project implementation as follows: 0 provide scientific input as requestedby the SC, ICZMC or PCO; 95 0 coordinate and facilitate the collection and sharing o f scientific and other research, data, analysis and information, including access to existing knowledge resources; 0 cooperate with appropriate research programmes and activities in neighboring countries and at the sub-regional level to maximize synergies and efficient use o f available knowledge resources; 0 contribute to targeted capacity-building efforts under Component 2 in collaboration with development planners and technical assistants; 0 assist the development o f M&E indicators for a coastal zone management M&E system; 0 assist the PCO in screening candidate investments for funding under N A C O M A Component 3 (e.g. assessment o f environmental impact andbenefits); 0 provide scientific input to guide decision-making and management planning for the establishment and strengthening of a system o f marine and coastal protected areas and, where necessary, for the rehabilitation o f environmentally degraded areas; and 0 contribute to the establishment o f common standards to protect the coastal zone from the impacts o fpotentially harmful processes and activities. 25. Figure 1 on the following page demonstrates the Project's implementation arrangements. These arrangements will be reviewed carefully by mid-term and will be adjusted (to simplify) as needed. 96 Figure1:ProjectImplementationArrangements I WorldBank 1 SteeringCommittee(SC) I PS MET (Chair), MRLGHRD (Dep. Chair) / i auditing,financial Progressreporting, MME, MFMR, MAWF, MWTC, NPC, 4 RCs, / managementreporting, ' procurementreviews, Secretariat:PCO non-objections Providesfeed-back, input T uponrequest Supervisedmonitors Reportsto (progress,budget) ,/ \ Providesfeed-back, ir It Decision-making Day-to-dayproject management i' uponrequest I 1 ScientificICZM ProjectCoordinationOffice (PCO) ICZMC Group (SG) host: Erongo RC (Advisory Forum) host: BENEFIT 1NACOMA Coordinator 4 RCs (Chair), 4 LAs, FP of UNAM,DRFN, 1NACOMA Senior TechnicalAdvisor MET, MFMR, MME, GTRC, NaLTER, 1NACOMA Procurement/AccountingOfficer MAWF, MWTC, NBRI,NMN, 1NACOMA AdministrativeAssistant MRLGHRD, 4 coopted NatMRC, LMs 1NACOMA M&E Specialist (part-time) entities, 4 non-institutional stakeholders Secretariat: ErongoRC I Project support Contribute to WP development, executeand report backon project activities uponrequest ExecutingAgencies Non-institutional stakeholders MET, MFMR, Erongo, Kunene, Walvis Bay MAWF, MME, Hardap, Karas Swakopmund CBOs MWTC, MRLGHRD) HentiesBay NGOs & Luderitz Privatesector Regionaloffices CZ FP* I II'I I * It is anticipated that Sub-ICZMCs as sub-component of the broader RDCCs will be created and made operational by mid-term. The regional CZ FP will chair the Sub-ICZMC. Additional CZ FPs will be nominated at local level and within regionalLM offices (MET, MFMR). Details on the institutional fknctions are provided as part o f the TORSinPAD Annex 6 and PIM. 97 Annex 7: FinancialManagementandDisbursementArrangements NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject 1. Summary ofthe FinancialManagementAssessment CountryRisk 1. Namibia i s not a `borrower' from the Bank so far, hence no Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) has beencarried out on the country to date. Indications are that, like the vast majority o f African countries, Namibia also suffers from a low capacity in terms o f financial professionals. The country, however, boasts a large number o f professional accounting firms, the majority o f which have very strong links with South Africa. There i s a well established `Office o f the Auditor General', although the tendency i s to outsource some o f the work, particularly that relating to the audit o f local authorities and parastatals. The country is implementing one GEF grant already (implemented by the same Ministry - MET) and has an African Development Bank (AfDB) loan and some development grants from bilateral organizations, which it has beenaccounting for successfully. ProjectRisks 2. The Project i s to be implemented using a PCO under the direction o f the MET and MRLGHRD.The assessment o f the volume o f payment and procurement transactions likely to be generated by the Project has been agreed as low, resulting in the decision to have only one person handlingboth Finance and Procurement for the Project. This creates risks inherent with a reduced segregation o f key duties. The Officer will have responsibility for originating purchase orders, executing the purchases, sometimes receiving the goods/services, and approving the supporting documentation. The risk o f abuse is high, andwill be mitigatedby ensuring a separate person originates the cheques for payment, as well as having only the Coordinator and Senior Technical Advisor as the bank signatories. An additional signatory will also be sought from the ChiefRegional Officer's office. StrengthsandWeaknesses 3. This is the second GEF / Bank project that the MET will be implementing; hence there will be a small experience base to draw from. Another strength would be realized ifthe existing PDF Coordinator is appointed the Coordinator o f the full grant, given his accumulated knowledge o f the Project during the PDF period. Likely weaknesses for the FM area relate primarily to the lack of accountants in the market experienced in working on Bank supported projects. Accounting software suitable for use on Bank type projects is still to be identified in Namibia, so this will be another area o f uncertainty pending the commissioning o f the GRN IFMIS,currently under development. 98 FinancialManagementSystemandReporting Organizational Structure 4. A Project Coordination Office (PCO) will be in day-to-day charge o f the Project operations. In addition to the Coordinator, the PCO will include a Senior Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator), a Procurement and Accounting Officer, an Administrative Assistant and a M&ESpecialist. 5. The Project's Procurement and Accounting Officer will be responsible for all accounting record keeping, disbursements, reporting and general financial management, in addition to their procurement role. The Officer will report to the Coordinator, who inturnreports to the PS o f the MET.The PS, therefore, retains overall responsibility for the performance o f the Project and for Project funds. The PS is, thus, the "Accounting Officer" for the project. Financial and Administrative Manual 6. A Project Financial and Administrative Manual will be developed to guide users of the accounting system. The manual will be an annex o fthe PIM. The manual will give guidance on: the financial policies andprocedures to be applied; 0 the accounting and internal control system to be followed; 0 the nature andtimingo f financial reporting; the flow o f funds channels; and 0 auditing arrangements. 7. The manual also contains details of: Account Codes - the coding system must give sufficient flexibility to provide financial information by: o project activity o project component o expenditure category. 0 InternalControlSystem 0 FixedAssets -creation of a register andthe nature o fthe details therein. 0 Budgeting Salient features o fthe budgetpreparationprocess, as well as the monitoringo f - actual performance against budget. Accounting System 8. The proposed accounting system for the project will be based on a computerized, double entry system and will follow the Govemment's `cash accounting' system. Its objectives include the achievement of: 0 Proper recording of assets, liabilities, revenues (where applicable) and expenditures o f the Project; 0 Providing accurate and timely management information; 99 0 Providing timely and accurate information for'use by other stakeholders in the formats that theyrequire; and 0 Supporting the preparation o f statutory and other audits. 9. The accounting system must support the general principles o f equity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. With regards to the Bank's requirements, the system must also be able to support the production o f quarterly Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR s) which integrate project accounting, procurement, contract management, disbursement and physical progress o f activities on the ground. Reporting 10. Formats o f the various periodic financial monitoring reports to be generated from the financial management system will be developed. There will be clear linkages between the information in these reports and the Chart o f Accounts. The financial reports will be designed to provide quality and timely information to Project management and various stakeholders on Project performance. 11. The followingminimumquarterly FMRswill be produced (see PIM for templates): 0 Financial Reports: o Sources andUses o fFundsbyActivity o Sources andUses o fFundsby Component o Special Account Reconciliation 0 Physical Progress Report; and 0 Procurement MonitoringReport 12. The FMRs will be produced for reporting purposes only. Disbursements will follow the traditional route (SA advance, SOEs and Withdrawal Applications). Only with consistent satisfactory performance interms o f the production o f FMR s will report based disbursements be considered. Project Financial Statements 13. The Grant Agreement requires the submissiono f audited financial statements to the Bank within six months after the financial year-end. Inaddition to the quarterly FMRs andthe regular replenishment reports, which include bank reconciliations, the Project will be required to produce annual Project Financial Statements, which will be subject to audit. 14. The Financial Statements will consist of: 0 A Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds, which recognizes all cash receipts, cash payments and cash balances controlled by the Project; 0 The Accounting Policies Adopted and Explanatory Notes. The explanatory notes should be presented in a systematic manner with items on the Statement of Sources and Uses being cross referenced to any related information in the notes. Examples o f this information include: o a summary o f fixed assets bycategory o f assets; 100 o a summary o f SOE Withdrawal Schedule, listing individual withdrawal applications; and 0 A Management Assertion that Bank funds have been expended in accordance with the intendedpurposes as specified inthe relevant World Bank legal agreement. Staff QualiJications & Skills 15. The Project's Procurement and Accounting Officer will be hired based on TORS to be agreed with the Bank (see PIM). This will stipulate a certain minimumlevel o f qualification and experience. Supervision 16. Financial management supervision will be carried out regularly by the Financial Management Specialist (FMS) at least twice a year. The initial supervision will be on implementation progress o f agreed actions and the effective operation o f the accounting system to be developed for the PCO. Inaddition, the Project may be submitted to regular SOE reviews as requiredby the World Bank. 17. The FMSwill: 0Conduct an FMsupervision before effectivenesshnitial disbursement (per above); 0Review the financial component o f the quarterly FMRs as soon as they are submitted to the World Bank; and 0Review the annual Audit Reports and Management Letters from the auditors and follow-up on material accountability issues by engaging with the TTL, Client and/or Auditors. SpecialAccount (SA) andFlow of FundsArrangements(see Figure 1) 18. The Bank o f Namibia does not allow any o f its projects to retain in a foreign currency funds received from foreign sources. Grant proceeds will, therefore, be channeled through the parent Ministry's foreign currency account at the Bank o f Namibia, which immediately translates the funds into local currency and forwards the resultant amount to the Project's nominated commercial bank account. This will, therefore, be the Project's Special Account, which will be held in NAD.The NAD i s linked to the South African Rand, which the Bank has accepted as stable and convertible. 19. A Counterpart Fund Account (CFA) will also be opened to receive the GR"s contributions to the Project. The Project will also open the Project's Operational Account, into which transfers from the Special Account and the Counter Part Fund account will be made periodically as required. Payments by the Project will be made from this Account. 20. The Bank will disburse the initial advance from the proceeds o f the grant into the Special Account. Actual expenditure there-from will be replenished through submission o f Withdrawal Applications (WAS)and against Statement o f Expenditures (SoEs), which will be approved in accordance with internal control procedures to be established by the Project Coordination Office. 101 Counter Part Fund Account (NAD) Commercial Bank I 1 SpecialAccount (NAD) Commercial (NAD) Commercial Bank Bank Use of SOEs than six months, the grant recipient may be requested to refundto the Bank amounts advanced to the SA. 24. The Bank will have the right, as reflected in the Grant Agreement, to suspend disbursement o fthe funds ifreportingrequirements are not complied with. FinancialManagementActionPlan Action Due date Conditionality Hire FMstaff anddemonstrate ability Effectiveness Effectiveness to Droduce FMRs Acquire and install a computerized Six months None accounting system after effectiveness Inconjunctionwiththe Auditor Appointment General, prepare a shortlist o f firms three months qualified to become auditors o f the after Project to be invited to submit effectiveness proposals for conducting the external audit on terms acceptable to the World Bank. Prepare Financial and Admin Manual Finaldraft to (annexed to the PIM) bereadyby effectiveness, and final to be ready three months into Project I implementation Open the Special Account, Before Effectiveness Counterpart FundAccount andProject effectiveness Account The following conditions for Negotiation have beenmet: 0 FMRformats havebeen designed andagreedwiththe World Bank. A copy o fthe formats has beenattached to the minutes o fnegotiations; 0 Inconjunction with the Auditor General, draft TORSfor anauditorhhavebeenprepared andincludedinthe Project ImplementationManual; and 0 A draft FinancialandAdminManualhasbeenpreparedand annexed to the PIM. 103 FinancialCovenantsandEffectivenessConditions 25. These are standard per ArticleIV o fthe Grant Agreement. 26. Effectivenessconditionsareto be drawn from the FinancialManagementActionPlan above (see Annex 7). Conclusion 27. The overall conclusions o fthe current financial management assessment are that: > The financial management system, people and procedures to be used by the Project are not yet inplace;and P The financial management arrangements that are proposed for the Project would satisfy the Bank's minimum requirements under OP/BP 10.02. This will, however, be subject to confirmation once the proposed staff has actually been hired, the proposed system is inplace and the proposed manuals (annexed to the PIM) have been completed. The various tasks need to be implemented by the due dates indicated inthe table above to facilitate smooth andhassle-free Project start-up. 2. Audit Arrangements Internal Audit 28. The MET has an Internal Audit Department, which the Project could benefit from. Currently, however, the unit i s under-staffed, and it i s unlikely that the unit would be able to discharge its duties inthe MET satisfactorily, and then take on additional responsibilities for the Project. Should the need for internal audit increase during implementation, consideration may be made to outsourcing this service, or helping the MET increase its staff compliment o f the Internal Audit Department inorder to optimize the use o f those resources. External Audit 29. The external audit will be carried out annually by the Controller and Auditor General (CAG) or such other qualified auditor approvedby the C A G and by the Bank. The external audit will cover all World Bank finds and Counterpart funds at all levels o f Project execution. The auditor will be required to express an opinion on the audited Project financial statements only, in compliance with International Standards on Auditing (IFAC/INTOSAI pronouncements) and submit the audit report within six months o f the end o f the financial year. Inaddition, detailed management letters containing the auditor's assessment o f the internal controls, accounting system and compliance with financial covenants in the Grant Agreement, and suggestions for improvement will be prepared and submitted to management for follow-up. The auditor will be hired on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Bank. 104 3. DisbursementArrangements 30. Disbursements from the Grant will be made on the basis o f incurred eligible expenditures (transaction based disbursements). The Bank will advance an initial amount from the proceeds o f the Grant into the Special Account. The advance to a SA would be used by the GRN to finance the Bank's share o f Project expenditures under the proposed grant. Where necessary, the direct payment method, involving direct payments from the Grant Account to third parties for works, goods and services, may beutilized upon the recipient's request. 31. Payments may also be made to a commercial bank for expenditures against IBRD special commitments covering a commercial bank's Letter o f Credit. The Bank's Disbursement Letter will stipulate the minimum application value for direct payment and special commitment procedures. Upon effectiveness, the Project will be required to submit a withdrawal application for an initial deposit to the SA. The deposit will be drawn from the Grant Account, in an amount to be agreed andspecified inthe Grant Agreement. Table C: Allocation of Grant Proceeds Expenditure Category Amount inUS$ million FinancingPercentage ConsultingServices 1.260 75.00 Workshops and Training 0.660 '100.00 Goods & Non-Consulting 0.530 100.00 foreign expenditures, Services _ . ~ ~.._ 85.00 local expenditures MatchingGrants 0.700 100.00 of amounts disbursed OperatingCosts 1.270 85.00 I Unallocated - .... I 0.480 I I TotalProjectCostswith 4.900 80.70 GEF/BankFinancing 105 Annex 8: ProcurementArrangements NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject General 1. Procurement for the Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre- qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements and time frame are agreed between the Recipient and the Bank inthe Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual Project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. 2. Procurement of Works: No works are planned to be directly procured under this Project. However, there could be some small works (shelters, latrines, etc.), which could be carried out in the framework o f the implementation o f the priority actions under management plans (Sub-component 3.2). These works, if any, as well as other kinds o f expenditures (such as goods and services), would be financed through small matching grants (see paragraph 7 for details on procedures), under ad hoc agreements to be signed between the Project and the Executing Agency. The PIM will indicate in the Procurement Management section, the applicable procedures. Anyway, for contracts estimated to cost more than US$50,000 equivalent, procurement will be done using National SBD agreed with- or satisfactory to the Bank. Civil works costing less that US$50,000 equivalent per contract will be procured on the basis o f simplified bidding documents by soliciting quotations fkom not less than three (3) qualified domestic contractors, preferably more in order to obtain at least three comparable offers. The invitation shall include a detailed description o f the works, including basic specifications, the required completion date, a basic form o f agreement acceptable to the Bank and relevant drawings, where applicable. Inall cases the award shall be made to the contractor who offers the lowest price quotation for the required work, and who has the experience and resources to complete the contract successfully. 3. Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this Project would include: vehicles, office equipment and materials (computers, printers, software, photocopier, furniture, consumables, stationery, etc.), training/workshops equipment and materials (projectors, screens, software, etc.). No I C B package is envisaged in the Procurement Plan. However, if a package estimated to cost more than US$lOO,OOO equivalent would be needed in the course o f Project implementation, then the ICB procurement method will be followed using the Bank's SBD. Otherwise, for contracts estimated to cost more than US$50,000 equivalent, procurement will be done usingNational SBD agreed with- or satisfactory to the Bank. However, if a foreign firm i s interested inparticipating, inthe N C B bidding for these contracts, it should not be prevented by any means to do so. Contracts estimated to cost US$50,000 equivalent or less may be procured through Shopping. Contracts estimated to cost US$lOO,OOO equivalent or less may be procured, 106 with prior approval o f the Bank, directly from the UNDP Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office (IAPSO). Requests for quotations will be inwriting, and will include time and place for delivery o f the quotations, a clear descriptiodspecification and quantity o f the goods as well as requirements for delivery time, place for delivery o f goods and installation requirements as appropriate. The request for quotations should be sent to at least three reputable suppliers; however, it may be better to approach up to six suppliers because not all three suppliers may respond, so that at least three competitive quotations are received. Quotations will be opened and evaluated at the same time. 4. Procurement of Non-ConsultingServices: Expenditures falling under this sub category (as part o f the "goods" category) would include: publishing and dissemination o f policy documents and information materials, printing services, website service provision, provision o f utilities, hiring o f venues for the training/workshops and related expenses, etc. The same procurement methods as for goods would apply in terms o f thresholds and bidding documents, adapted as required. However, when competition is not possible, as in the case o f provision o f utilities, for example, direct contracting may be used with prior approval o f the expenditure by the Bank. 5, Selection of Consultants/Training:Consultants services would be needed for carrying out assignments related to reviewing and definition o f institutional settings, functions and roles, drafting regulations and guidelines for involved Ministries, Regional Authorities and existing organizations, carrying out consultation process and development o f White Paper policy document, development o f Regional coastal zones profiles, training needs assessments, development and implementation o f knowledge management system, establishment o f Project webpage and newsletter, definition, development and implementation o f an M&E system, reviewhpdate management plans o f critical coastal/marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance, provision o f technical support in general towards creation o f reserves and identification o f investment opportunities. 6. Short lists o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than $100,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines. Given the importance and demonstrated capacity o f some local NGOs,implementation o f awareness activities, local communities' capacity building, conservation field activities may be implemented by them. Similarly, the Henties Bay Marine and CoastalResourcesResearchCenter (UNAM) is likely to be involved as a resource center to support some thematic and filed studies. Specialized advisory services would be provided by individual consultants selected on the basis o f their qualifications for the assignment andhired in accordance with the provisions o fparagraphs 5.1 through 5.3 o f the Consultant Guidelines. 7. TrainingWorkshops: This category would cover all costs related to the carrying out o f training and workshops, Le. hiring o f the venues and related expenses, stationary, resource required to deliver or facilitate the workshops and per diem and travel cost o f participants. Training Programs, including workshops are geared toward buildingcapacity and consensus, information sessions and improving management skills. Training programs would be part o f the Project's Annual workplans and will be included in procurement plans. Prior review o f all 107 activities will be required, only on an annual basis, including proposed budget, agenda, participants, location o ftraining and other relevant details. 8. OperatingCosts: These cover the incremental operating costs arising under the Project on account o f contractual support staff salaries, social benefits, travel expenditures and other travel-related allowances; equipment rental andmaintenance; vehicle operation, maintenance and repair; office rental and maintenance; materials and supplies; utilities and communications expenses; banking charges and insurance; but excluding the salaries o f staff of the Recipient's civil service. 9. Matching Grants. Sub-component 3.2 (Implementation o f Priority Actions under the Management Plans at Site and Landscape Level) provides for support to priority actions identified by Communities, Municipalities, Local Authorities, Regional Councils or decentralized Ministerial departments inthe management plans. This support will be inthe form o f small Matching Grants for which a total amount of US$700,000 has been earmarked for the whole duration o f the Project. The activities and the grants will be much targeted and normally o f small size and costs. The allocation will be divided in two amounts. An amount o f US$400,000 will be used for Grants not exceeding US$60,000 each. The remaining, i.e. US$300,000, will be for grants not exceeding US$30,000 each. The SC will approve the action plans and activities, as well as the size o f the grant. An agreement will then be signed between the Project Coordination and the Executing Agency who will carry out the activity inaccordance with agreed procedures as laid down inthe PIM. The procedures are essentially the same as for the thrust o fthe Project. 10. The procurement procedures and SBDs to be used for each procurement method, as well as model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the Project Implementation Manual which has been approved prior to Negotiation. Assessment of the Agency's Capacitvto ImplementProcurement 11. Procurement activities will be carried out by the Project Coordination Office (PCO), which will be located in the Erongo Regional Council - to be consistent with the emphasis put by the Project on decentralization and to be closer to the coastal area. In addition to the Coordinator, the PCO will comprise an Administrative Assistant, a Senior Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator), a M&E Specialist, and a Procurement and Accounting Officer. This solution was chosen due to the low amount o f the transactions for the duration o f the Project life, and to minimize the management costs on the Project. The recruitment of accounting and procurement specialists on a part-time basis was considered and eventually discarded due to the difficulty to have these kinds o f specialists available almost on demand, because o f the scarcity o f this kind o f skills in Namibia. The job description will indicate this dual responsibility, and require that candidate should have, in addition to accounting skills, experience in contract management/procurement. Moreover, to avoid conflict o f duties, the Officer should ensure (and this is will also be clearly stated in the PIM) that in no circumstances would he/she effect a payment for an expenditure that he had previously certified the eligibility without obtaining the clearance o fthe Coordinator -who will act as controller inthat circumstance. 108 12. The Procurement and Accounting Officer's (PCO) main tasks will include (i) consolidating the annual plans o f all participating entities; (ii)day to day monitoring o f procurement actions and maintenance o f the procurement plan; (iii)preparing bidding documents/RFPs; (iv) advertising contracts when appropriate; (v) assisting and participating in the evaluationo fbids andproposals; (vi) preparingevaluation reports and no objection letters for onward transmittal to the World Bank, when appropriate; (vii) advising Project Coordinator and Steering Committee on matters pertaining to procurement implementation on the Project; and (viii) providing quarterly reports to the World Bank, which will include procurement progress to date, procurement methods, nature and amounts o f contracts procured through each method, number and amounts o f contracts subjected to prior review, etc. The Officer will also be responsible for all communication with the Bank on procurement related matters and o f the maintenance o f all necessary procurement documentation for the Project. 13. No assessment o f the capacity o f the Implementing Agency to implement procurement actions for the Project was carried out, because it has yet to be fully set and staff to be recruited. So far only the Coordinator o f the PDF has been the counterpart o f the team regarding procurement matters. The Coordinator has carried the activities under the PDF in a rather satisfactory manner and has attended training delivered by the Bank. Meaning that if he is selected for the Project Coordinator position, he will also be an added resource towards better procurement management. Considering the scarcity in skilled candidates for this position, demonstrated by the limited number o f candidates with relevant qualifications during the initial selection process, and for the sake o f continuity, it is recommended that the present PDF B Coordinator be recruited on Single Source Selection basis under the same conditions as inhis present contract. For financial andprocurement matters, the PCO to be established will be under the authority o f the MET Permanent Secretary. The PCO will be in charge o f the day to day procurement and financial management. The Coordinator reports to the PS,who retains overall responsibility for the performance o f the Project and for Project funds. The PS is, thus, the "Accounting Officer" for the Project and will in that capacity be the signing authority o f the contracts. However, to avoid impeding the Project implementation, it is recommended that the PS delegates the authority to sign, on hisbehalf, for contracts with a value up to US$50,000. 14. The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation o f the Project have been identified. The table below describes them and indicates corrective measures which have been agreed to mitigate them. Item Key Issue/ Risk CorrectiveMeasuresto ProposedCompletion # Mitigate Date 1. Staff i s not available to PDF-Bresourceswill beusedto Start immediately/ carry out procurement advertise the position to ensure selection due prior to activities by Effectiveness that the candidate i s available by effectiveness closely effectiveness followed byBankteam 2. Gaps instaff skills and Project Coordinator and ByProject launch and knowledge o f Bank Procurement andAccounting assessment to be done procurementprocedures Officer will have a good basis duringimplementation andwill be fixther trained supervision on a regular basis 109 15. The overall Project risk for procurement is HIGH, for the time being. After one year o f implementation a PPR will be carried and the risk reassessed. ProposedAction Plan: ~Item Action Proposed ProposedCompletionDate # 1. Advertise all positions for Project After negotiations andbefore Board Coordination Office staff 2. Recruit qualified Procurement Officer Byeffectiveness 3. Train procurement staff inprocurement ByProject launchandProject implementation 4. Prior review o fN C B andconsultant Firstcontract o feach qualification contracts The following conditions for Negotiation have been met: 0 Procurement Procedures Section o fthe PIMhas beenprepared and approvedby the Bank. 0 Draft PIMhas been finalized as well as standard biddingdocuments acceptable to the Bank. 0 Commitment fi-om Erongo Council to provide CPO facilities (5 offices). ProcurementPlan 16. The Recipient, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for Project implementation, which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been agreed between the Recipient and the Project Team on May 18, 2005 and is available at the Erongo Regional Council, Swakopmund. It will also be available in the Project's database and in the Bank's external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual Project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. Frequencyof ProcurementSupervision 17. In addition to the prior review, it is recommended that at least every 6 months a supervision missionwill be carried out by thr Bank team for post review o fprocurement actions. Detailsof the ProcurementArranrJementsInvolvinPInternationalCompetition 1. Goods,Works, andNonConsultingServices (a) List o f contract packages to beprocured following I C B anddirect contracting: None 110 (b) All direct contracting will besubject to priorreview bythe Bank. 2. ConsultingServices (a) List of consulting assignmentswith short-list of international firms. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 7 Ref. Descriptionof Estimated Selection Review Expected Comments No. Assignment cost Method byBank Proposals (Prior / Post) Submission Date Development of $105,400 QCBS Prior TBD communication training program (content, tools) for key stakeholders Implement $135,100 QCBS Prior communication strategyand action planitems Compile 3 compact $141,600 QCBS Prior TBD andpolicy relevant regional coastal profiles (Kunene, Hardap andKaras) 111.2.1 Provide technical $139,300 QCBS Prior support for development of specific conservation and sustainableuse TRD investment proposals Ensuretechnical and $279,700 QCBS Prior fiduciary review of investment proposals Support enforcement $121,600 QCBS Prior TBD of existing andnew coastal zone policies, plansand laws I (b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$lOO,OOO per contract and single source selection of consultants (firms), assignments of Individual Consultants estimated to cost above US$50,000 andsingle source selection will be subject to prior reviewby the Bank. 111 (c) Short lists composed entirely o f national consultants: Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$lOO,OOO equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines. 112 Annex 9: EconomicAnalysis of NaturalResourcesof the NamibianCoasts' NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Background 1. Namibia's current and future coastal development scenario (increase in population, industrial development) requires a sound basis for planning, management and investment decisions, including an assessment o f the resource base and its monetary and non-monetary valuation. However, no economic analysis o f the Namibian Coast and its natural resources has beenperformed yet, which provides this valuation. 2. Recognizing this knowledge and planning gap, the M E T has tasked a consultant to undertake an initial environmental economic analysis during the NACOMA Project preparation, which estimates the economic values associated with the different natural resources o f the Namibian coast. The findings o f this analysis, together with the findings o f an environmental economics study undertaken by UNDPs2, which focused on tourism and National PAS, are summarized here. The assignment's results confirm the NACOMA Project design, and indicate the need for fbrther research and analysis, which have been added to the on-going preparation phase. The findings will feed back into Project implementation through linkages to the vision process and development o f the White Paper (Component l), targeted capacity building (Component 2) and sustainable use investments (Component 3). The consultant report will be published andmade accessible to all stakeholders as part o f a knowledge management system. Methodology 3. The MET study's basic valuation approach was to first identify value streams inline with divisions among value types commonly used in the environmental economics literature. This identification process involved gaining an understanding o f the coast economy in general and then the role o f coastal resources in this economy through a literature search and discussions with Namibianeconomists, government officials and others. Net Value Added was used as the primary measure o f the value o f resources in line with previous environmental economics research conducted by MET. This was complimented by analysis o f other economic indicators, notably employment. Resource rent information was also usedto shed light on the distribution o f values. Where information on net value added or resource rent was not available, direct sale value was used as a second best indicator value. Quantification inthe protected areas inKunene and Hardap focused on tourism value as the primary value generator inthese areas. 51 For more information, see Van Zyl, 2004. Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation andManagement (NACOMA) Project: Economic Analysis of NaturalResources inTwo of Namibia's Four Coastal Regions: Karas and Erongo. 52 Turpie et al., 2004. Strengthening Namibia's System of National Protected Areas: Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study for Financing Namibia's Protected Areas. Unpublishedreport to the Ministryo f Environment and Tourism. 113 Key Findinm:the Value of MainEcosystemServices on the NamibianCoast53 4. Coastal natural resources inNamibia have varied uses from direct consumption (e.g. fish, mariculture products, guano, shells, diamonds, natural gas and oil, salt and nara) to the appreciation of scenic beauty. Examples o f identified values are summarized in Table 1, followed by further explanation. Table 1: Examplesof CoastalValues,their SpatialDistributionandthe EmploymentAssociatedwith RenewableCoastalResourceUse (vanZyl, 2004) Commercial fishing Walvis Bay I resource rent including N$500 million in ' I ' Artisanal fishmg Erongo N $ l 71,000 insale value 40 Mariculture Karas & Erongo --- Seaweed - Oysters --- N$l.25 N $ l 2 million insale value Abalone N$525,000 insale value million insale value - 25 full-time & 50part-time Seal harvesting Karas & Erongo Includedunder commercial II45 to 60 fishing. Prices unknown as people from industry are secretive. July to Oct. (included in number for commercial fishing) Guano production Karas & Erongo N$6.5 million insale value 38 people for 8 weeks Shell harvesting Erongo Unknown-probably enough to 10 to 20 allow subsistence wages for 10 to 20 people Diamond mining Karas N$l.8 billion invalue added 6,000 including N $ l billion inresource rents Natural gas & oil Karas Sensitive informationat this stage. Initial production Likely to be significant ifproject potential for goes ahead. Holds strategic 100 to 200 advantage for power generation Salt production Erongo N$10.5 million insale value 223 to 233 !Nara harvesting Erongo N$42,500to N$105,000 insale 40 full time value and 175 on ad hoc basis Tourism (non- Entirecoast. Stilllimited in N$300 millioninvalue added 5,525 angling and Sperrgebiet. Angling mostly (incl. N$26 million for angling angling) inErongo. tourism) Option and Entirecoast IILargely unknown. Donor 1 existence value I contributions for marine projects I NIA 53 Indicated figures are best viewed as broad aggregate indicators o f value. Additionally, many o f the values identified are conflicting values or trade-offs. These trade-offs are described at length inthe study paper. 114 totaling N$100-N$130 over 7 years gives a tentative indication. Ecosystem Entire coast Unknown.Partially capturedby all N/A services other values as they rely on ecosvstem services. 5. The fishing grounds off the Namibian coast are among the richest in the world, making Namibia an important player in the international fishing industry. The proclamation o f a 200 nautical mile EEZ in 1990provided a turningpoint for commercial fishing inNamibia after local fish stocks suffered years o f illegal over-exploitation by foreign vessels. The general perception amongst MFMR officials is that current catch levels are likely to remain fairly stable as they have over the last five years. 6. Mariculture in the Namibian coast includes the culture o f oysters, abalone and seaweed with operations inLiideritz, Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. Aside from the expansion o f existing forms o f mariculture, pilot rafts o f scallop and clams have shown promising results as well as rock lobster. The culture o f hake, dusky cob and rainbow trout in coastal raceways or in the ponds created by diamond miningi s also thought to holdpromise. 7. Guano, which i s prized as an agricultural fertilizer rich innitrates, i s harvested from four guano platforms along the coast between Cape Cross and Walvis Bay and from islands off the coast (mainly Ichaboe Islandnear Liideritz - see map inAnnex 20). 8. Limited shell harvesting takes place on the Erongo coast, mainly between Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. Shell harvesters do not earn more than a subsistence income, and the future potential o f shell harvesting seems limited in its current informal form. However, there may be some potential for the expansion o f craft making usingshells. 9. Namibia has the richest marine diamond deposits inthe world, with an estimated reserve o f over 1.5 billion carats. The majority o f the benefits o f diamond mining go to large companies and the central government. Localbenefitsmainlytake the form o f employment andtraining and the installation o f infrastructure particularly in Oranjemund. There is an uncertainty regarding the lifespan o f onshore mining, but current predictions indicate that this form o f mining will probably cease by 2030. Offshore mining has the potential to carry on beyond this, although levels o funcertainty inthis regard are higher. 10. The Kudu gas field o f f the Namibiancoast contains proven reserves o f 1.4 trillion cubic feet o frelatively clean methane gas. As with diamonds, the majority o f the benefits o fnatural gas go to large companies, many o f which with foreign shareholders and the central government. Local benefits mainly take the form o f employment and training and the installation o f infrastructure, particularly inOranjemund. 11. The Namibian coast has the potential to yield oil. Various licenses are currently involved in oil exploration off the coast that may result in finds. It is not clear what the potential is for success, but the presence o f gas andthe coast's relatively unexplored status are positive signs. 115 12. Salt production inthe Erongo Region takes place at 3 points along the coast. Coarse salt i s exported to chemical industries in South Africa while some salt i s milledto produce table salt. 13. !Nara, a leafless spinybushbearing a melon-like hit, has been harvested for centuries by the Topnaar community o f approximately 300 people for food and oil (for edible, cosmetic or medicinal purposes). Approximately 6 percent o f the !nara harvested i s consumed by Topnaar community members and the remainder is sold mainly to buyers inSouth Africa. Inrecent years, due to an interest increase inthe plant's health value, there has been an increase inthe amount o f pips that are sold inNamibia. However, reduced flooding inthe Kuiseb River delta, and changes in harvesting rights, methods and patterns have resulted in a decline in the total volume of harvests o f !nara. Community leaders would like to see the formation o f a cooperative inorder to ensure better coordination and sustainability o f harvesting. This could then be used as a platform for setting up beneficiation projects so that a greater share o f the benefits o f the !nara are kept in the local community. 14. The tourism sector i s one o f the fastest growing sectors in the Namibian economy, and the Namibian coast, in specific, offers opportunities for sightseeing, angling, swimming, bird watching and adventure tours, among other activities. With regard to non-angling tourism, research has shown that tourists travel to the Namibian coast for the natural or wilderness experience it offers, and if degradation was allowed to occur, tourists are likely to lose interest. Non-angling tourism has been increasing steadily in Namibia and i s most likely to continue along with the global trend towards nature-based tourism. However, continued growth will be dependent on how well the environment is maintained. The benefits o f angling tourism tend to be more localized when compared to uses such as mining, since local people have the opportunity to offer accommodation, tours, curios, food and other consumables. The line fishing resource for angling tourism i s perceived to be declining as the numbers o f recreational anglers has increased and competition from commercial line fishing has become more significant. Findinw andConclusion 15. The primarysources o f option values that would be associated with a well-managed and maintained coastal zone are opportunities to sustainably harvest products that are consumed directly and future tourism potential. The coastal zone contains special environments and species, which are likely to have a definite existence value. Examples o f these would be the islands off the coast, bird species such as the Damara Tem and the internationally important coastal wetlands (see Annexes 17 and 18). These areas' tourism potential has yet to be fully realized. 16. Coastal resource uses are not always complimentary and trade-offs need to be made between them. Ultimately, all uses o f coastal resources have the potential to impose net costs. In other words, it i s not possible to prove that one form o f coastal resource use is, inall cases, better than another. This tends to argue infavor o f investment inenhancing the general management o f the coast as well as selected small-scale resource use opportunities that will promote sustainable livelihoods. Specific management measures worth considering from an economic perspective include (1) enhancing planning procedures and (2) ensuring the internalization o f environment costs. 116 17. Adequate financial resources for the maintenance and management o f coastal areas are essential if their values are to be optimized. Currently, the primary agencies with responsibility for management in the coast are MET (protected areas), MFMR (marine ecosystems), the four Regional Councils and the municipalities o f coastal towns. Current annual expenditure levels for the MET in the coast only allow for reactive management, i.e. dealing with problems as they arise. MFMR expenditure on the management o f marine coastal resources overshadows that o f the MET on land based coastal resources. Currently, little donor finding i s specifically linked to MET environmentalmanagement along the coast while substantial finding supports the mandate o f the MFMR (including initiatives as the BCLME Programme and BENEFIT). 18. Namibia's coastal natural resources are a substantial source o f value, regardless o f which measure o f value is used. They form a critical part o f the economy whether they are used to support large-scale industrial activity such as diamond miningand commercial fishing or smaller scale operations such as subsistence harvesting and tourism operations. They are distributed across the entire coast and provide benefits at the national, local and regional levels inthe form o f employment, taxes, training and direct revenue. As Integrated Coastal Zone Management balances a wide range o f ecological, social, legal, governance and economic considerations, vis a vis co-management and community participation, NACOMA is providing the opportunity for the sustainability o f these natural resources and their benefits. Further, by disseminating the economic potential behind conservation o f the coast's natural resources, it is envisaged that awareness, followed by a sense o f ownership, will be promoted, leading to financial sustainability o f coastal zone management inNamibia. 117 Annex 10: SafeguardPolicyIssues NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Safemardissues andimpactsassociatedwith the Proiect 1. Social. Following comments made duringProject preparation regarding the possibility o f involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12) following the establishment o f new protected areas, it has been concluded that the GRNshouldprepare no process framework at this stage. This conclusion was based on the following: i.ThepurposeofOP4.12islargelyservedbythePCP(seeAnnex19),whichprovidesforfull andinformedparticipation by all stakeholders, including minority groups, inthe development o f management arrangements for the coastal resources, such as designation o f new protected areas, ifany, andchanges intheusesandrestrictions ofthose that already exist; and ii.ItisnotcertainwhethertheProjectwillevenincludeanyactivitiesthatwouldnecessitatea process framework. 2. It was further agreed that inthe unlikely event where the Project includes such activities, the PCP could be supplemented with additional elements o f a process framework, specific to the particular area, inwhich access i s to be restricted. These would consist oC (a) a process whereby compensatory measures will be formulated and agreed on for persons whose livelihoods are adversely affected; (b) grievance procedures; (c) legal/administrative procedures; and (d) monitoring arrangements. 3. To ensure that the intent o f OP 4.12 i s indeed carried out through the PCP, an additional itemwill be built into the PCP and implementation arrangements (see Annexes 6 and 19). This would be a grievance- or appeals process, with an agency identified to receive appeals (the PCO), in case there i s a group o f stakeholders that feels its interests are being curtailed by a restriction on access, and that the additional elements o f a process framework should be formulated and agreed on. If the complainant will not be satisfied, he or she would then have recourse to a disinterested agency (the Legal Assistance Center - LAC) that has responsibility for protecting the rights o f citizens in the area. Bank supervision would include a special effort to determine whether any such situations have emerged and, if so, whether they have been properly handledaccordingto OP 4.12. 4. Environmental.The Project aims to have an overall positive and significant impact on the environment by establishing a policy, regulatory and institutional framework for environmentally sustainable growth and resource management and through on-the-ground conservation activities that will largely focus on biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation and sustainable use o f prioritized ecosystems. These classes o f eligible on-the-ground activities, together with a list o f ineligible activities, identified by stakeholders during Project preparation, indicate Project-funded activities that are likely to have no adverse impacts on the environment, or minimal impacts that are site-specific, easy to mitigate and technically and institutionally manageable. However, as small-scale physical works may be funded by the Project, N A C O M A i s classified as an environmental safeguard category "B'l project. As a consequence, an EMP was 118 requested by ASPEN and prepared by the GRN to ensure that the Project's on-the-ground activities are carried out inline with World Bank EA Policy, OP 4.01, and similar Namibian EA requirements, and to ensure that all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigation measures are spelled out prior to the implementationo f any on-the-ground activities. Namibiaenvironmentalassessment process 5. Environmental assessments in Namibia are at present guided by the Environmental Assessment Policy o f the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, approved by Cabinet inAugust 1994. In the past, the majority o f EAs were undertaken for major infrastructure projects and mining.Project level EA inNamibia follows a similar system to that found inmostjurisdictions, i.e. submission o f proposals, questioning, screening and, if found needed, environmental assessment followed by conditions o f approval (Environmental Management Plan or Environmental Contract), monitoring o f implementation and auditing. 6. This Environmental Assessment Policy is planned to be enacted in the Environmental Management and Assessment Bill, and work on its drafting began in 1996. Besides giving a statutory effect to Namibia's Environmental Assessment Policy, the Bill will establish general principles for the management o f the environment and natural resources, promote the coordinated and integrated management o f the environment, and establish appropriate institutions to administer it. The Billwas submitted to Parliament inApril 2005.54 Measurestaken bv the GRNto addressthe Proiect's safenardconcerns 7. The GRN, specifically the MET, has gained experience with applying safeguard policies for project development based on another recently approved project (the Integrated Community- based Ecosystem Management - ICEMA Project), for which an Environmental and Social Assessment andManagement Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework and an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan were prepared and disclosed by the MET. Adequate technical and legal capacity and expertise, although scattered (governmental DEAiMET, non-governmental SAIEA, NEPRUand private sector), exist inNamibia for developing mitigation and management plans, as well as relevant environmental monitoring (at Governmental and non-governmental levels). 8. The NACOMA EMP was developed by a local consulting firm for the GRNon the basis o f a preparatory workshop held in Swakopmund in August 2004, where eligible on-the-ground activities were identified, a review o f documents relating to the N A C O M A Project and World Bank policies took place, and consultations with key stakeholders from municipalities and regional government on the coast were conducted. It consists o f sets o f criteria and guidelines that describe process, indicators, roles and responsibilities for management, implementation and supervision o f physical activities in terms o f their enviromental integrity. The EMP also indicates the capacity needed for these activities and budgetary implications, all o f which have been integrated into the Project's design and financial plan. 9. To ensure that activities will not have any negative environmental impacts, a transparent process that includes a decision-support tree has been developed in consultation with Namibia's 54Peter T a n and Jacquie Tan, Drafts Situation Assessment: Namibia. 119 authority that is responsible for environmental assessments (Directorate o f Environmental Affairs - DEA) at the MET, through which proposed new activities should be screened for their environmental safety if they do not trigger the Namibia EA Policy. The proposed process is considered a workable solution. For activities which will have triggered the Namibia EA Policy, the National EA process will be used. The NACOMA Project will further provide targeted capacity-building after adoption of the Environmental Management and Assessment (EMA) Billto accommodate the increase inMET'S responsibilities and workload. Support under Components 1 and 2 will include definition o f clearly articulated procedures, guidelines, tracking systems and the development of an EIA training module developed by EA practitioners. This will benefit environmental management in Namibia beyond the immediate focus on the coastal zone. 10. The EMP will be managed by the NACOMA PCO in consultation with the Steering Committee (see detailed Project implementation arrangements in Annex 6). EAs will be undertaken by qualified contracted consultants. Environmental guidelines for specific Project activities o f Component 3 will be implementedby the proponents o fthese activities. 11. The EMP will be included in the P I M and annual workplans, and has beenbudgeted for underComponent 3. Consultation and disclosure of safesward policies 12. The EMP has been reviewed and approved by ASPEN, and was disclosed at the World BankInfoShop andincountry onFebruary23,2005 andMarch8,2005, respectively. 120 Annex 11: ProjectPreparationand Supervision NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Planned Actual PCNreview June 29,2004 June 29,2004 InitialPID to PIC July 4,2004 June 18,2004 InitialISDS to PIC July 4,2004 December 16,2004 Appraisal February, 2005 March 7-18,2005 Negotiations May 30-31,2005 June 7-8,2003 BoardmVP approval July 23,2005 September 1,2005 Planned date o f effectiveness September 15,2005 October 17,2005 Planned date o fmid-termreview April 1,2008 TBA Planned closing date October 1,2010 TBA Keyinstitutions responsible for preparation ofthe Project: 0 MinistryofEnvironment andTourism, Government oftheRepublic ofNamibia 0 MinistryofRegional, LocalandGovernment andHousing andRuralDevelopment, Government of the Republic ofNamibia GRNconsultantswho worked on thepreparation ofthe Project are: Name Title Unit Mr.Timo Mufeti PDFB Coordinator - Dr.Francois J. Odendaal Managing Director -~ EcoAfricaEnvironmental Consultants Mr.Jacob Oranje Consultant EcoAfricaEnvironmental Consultants Mr.MarkThomton Consultant EcoAfricaEnvironmental Consultants Ms.RaquelGarcia Consultant EcoAfrica Environmental Consultants Mr.MichaelThurland Consultant COW1Consulting Engineers andPlanners Dr.Antje Burke EIA Specialist Enviro Science Mr.Hugo van Zyl Economist IndependentEconomic Researchers Mr.HermanCesar Financial Specialist Cesar Environmental Economic Consulting Mr.Mohammad Ilyas Financial Specialist Freelance Consultant Ms. Nepeti Nicanor M&E Specialist FreelanceConsultant tas Financial Services Audits andFinancial 121 Bank staff andconsultants who worked onthe preparationofthe Project are: Name Title Unit WorldBank Staff Christophe Crepin Task Team Leader AFTS4 Slaheddine Ben-Halima Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Aberra Zerabruk Counsel LEGAF Salman M.A.Salman Lead Counsel LEGEN Steve Gaginis Finance Officer LOAG2 Jonathan Nyamukapa Financial Management AFTFM Specialist John Boyle Senior Environmental AFTS1 Specialist VivianNwachukwu-Irondi Program Assistant LEGAF Ronnie Hammad Senior Operations Officer AFTKL Evarist Baimu Counsel LEGAF NinaDoetinchem Biodiversity Specialist AFTS4 Gabriele Rechbauer Environmental Economist AFTS1 Ayala Peled Biodiversity Specialist AFTS4 Beula Selvadurai ProgramAssistant AFTS4 Peer reviewers See Annex 12 Consultants Ms. Clare Shine Coastal Zone Institutional Freelance Consultant, I U C N Specialist Mr.Francis Staub Coastal and Marine AJH Environmental Services Biodiversity Specialist Mr.KaiSchmidt-Soltau Social Specialist Freelance Consultant Bank funds expended to date on Project preparation: 1. Bankresources: BB:USD 1,590 BB GEF:USD 194,000 2. Trust funds: TF030371: USD 36,990 3. Total: USD 232,580 Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1. Remaining costs to approval: USD 15,000 2. Estimatedannual supervision cost: USD 70,000 122 Annex 12: Documents inthe ProjectFile NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject A. ProjectImplementationPlan 1. The Project ImplementationPlan(PIP) and Project ImplementationManual (PIM) have beenprepared by Mr.Timoteus Mufetiwith support from the Bank Team. 2. The PIMincludes a 5-year PIP, a Year 1work plan, an 18 months Procurement Plan, an Environmental Management Plan, a ParticipationandCommunication Plan, an M&EManual and aFinancialand Administrative Manual (as annexes). B. BankstaffAssessment Written comments received prior to Concept Review, June 29, 2004, including Proiect team responses: 0 Peer reviewers: Indumathie Hewawasam (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTES) and Anders Alm (Senior Environmental Specialist, MENA) 0 Marea Hatziolos (Senior Environmental Specialist, ENVGC) 0 Christopher Warner (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTES) 0 John Boyle (Senior Environmental Specialist, ASPEN) 0 Kristine Ivarsdotter, (Senior Social Development Specialist, ASPEN) Writtencomments receivedprior Quality Enhancement Review, December 13,2004: 0 Anders Alm (Senior Environmental Specialist, MENA) 0 Marea Hatziolos (Senior Environmental Specialist, ENVGC) 0 John Boyle (Senior Environmental Specialist, ASPEN) 0 RobertoNino (Senior Counsel, LEGAF) Written comments received prior Decision Meeting, February 17, 2005, including Project team responses: 0 Evarist Baimu (Counsel, LEGAF) C. Other Missionreports: 0 Preparation mission Aide Memoire and BTOR, April-May 2001 0 Programpreparation mission Aide Memoire, November 2001 123 e Preparation support missionAide Memoire, April-May 2002 e Preparation support mission Aide Memoire, November-December 2002 e Preparation support mission Aide Memoire, November-December 2003 e MultipurposemissionAideMemoire, July 2004 e Appraisal mission BTOR and Aide Memoire, March2005 Bank internal milestones inProject developmentprocess: PDF-A Grant Agreement, March5,2002 PDF-B Grant Agreement, December 31,2002 MinutesofConceptReview Meeting, June 29,2004 MinutesofQualityEnhancementReview, December 13,2004 Amendment to PDF-B Grant Agreement (Supplement), January 5,2004 MinutesoftheDecisionMeeting, February23,2005 AgreedMinutes ofNegotiations, June 15,2005 Board presentation, September 1,2005 Documentation o f fiduciary requirements: e Financial Management Assessment, JonathanNyamukapa, March2005 GEFmilestones inthe Proiect developmentcycle: Proposal for PDF A submitted to GEF Secretariat, May 25,2000 GEF approval ofPDFA resources, June 1,2000 Proposal for PDF B submitted to GEF Secretariat, October 11,2001 GEF approval ofPDFB resources,January 24,2002 GEF approval ofPipeline Entry, January24,2002 Proposal for supplemental PDF B submittedto GEF Secretariat, October 26,2004 GEF approval o fsupplementalPDFBresources,December 1,2004 GEF approval ofWork program Entry, April 6, 2005 GEFCEO Endorsement, July 28,2005 PDF B fundedreports: e EcoAfrica Environmental Consultants. November 2004. Review o f Policy and Legislation Pertaining to CoastalZone Management. e EcoAfrka Environmental Consultants. October 2004. Analysis of the Institutional Capacity in the Namib Coast Regional Councils in relation to the Namibian Decentralization Process- Recommendations for Institutional Strengthening andCapacity Building. e Namibian Coast Regional Councils inRelationto the NamibianDecentralization Process - Recommendationsfor InstitutionalStrengthening and Capacity Building. e EcoAfrka Environmental Consultants. October 2004. Rapid Assessment of the Development Plans, Biodiversity Conservation Projects and Socio-economic Situation of the NamibianCoastalRegions. 124 a Van Zyl. March 2004. Namibian Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project: Economic Analysis of Natural Resources in Two of Namibia's Four Coastal Regions: Karas andErongo. a NACOMA Project Preparation Workshop, Swakopmund Namibia, 11-13 August 2004 (workshop proceedings). a Van Zyl, May 2005, Development of Key Performance Indicator for Monitoring and Evaluation o f Economic Benefits inthe CoastalZone for the NACOMA Project. 125 Annex 13: Statementof Loans andCredits NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Difference between expected and actual Original Amount inUS$Millions disbursements Proiect ID FY Puruose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev'd Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NAMIBIA STATEMENT OF IFC's HeldandDisbursedPortfolio InMillionsofUSDollars Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 1997101 Namibia Life 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 1996/98/02 Novanam 11.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totalportfilio: 11.03 0.81 0.00 0.00 7.23 0.81 0.00 0.00 Approvals PendingCommitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 2000 AEF GatewayHot1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total pendingcommittment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126 Annex 14: Country at a Glance NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Sub- Lower- POVERTY and SOCIAL Saharan mlddle- Namlbla Afrlca Income Development diamond' 2002 Population,mid-year(millions) 18 688 2,411 Lifeexpectancy GNi percapita (Atlas method, US$) $840 450 1390 GNI(Atlas method, US$ billions) 3.3 306 3,352 T Average annual growth, 1996.02 Population(%) 2.0 2.4 10 Laborforce (%) 2.0 2.5 12 GNI Gross per primary M o s t recent estimate (latest year available, 1996.02) capita nroliment Poverty (%of populationbelownationalpovertyline) Urbanpopulation (%of totalpopulation) 32 33 49 Lifeexpectancyat birth (years) 42 46 69 Infant mortality (per ~OOOlivebirths) 58 D5 30 Childmalnutrition (%of childrenunder5) n Access to improved water source Access to an improvedwater source (%ofpopulation) 77 58 81 Iiliteracy(%ofpopulationage #+J l 7 37 0 Gross primaryenrollment 12 06 in -Namibia Male 1P 92 in Lowr-middle-income group Female 10 80 ID KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1982 1992 2001 2002 Economic ratios' GDP (US$ billions) 19 2.9 3.2 2.9 Gross domestic investmentlGDP 216 23.7 23.7 Exports ofgoodsand serviceslGDP 517 44.3 44.3 Trade Gross domestic savingslGDP 7.0 0.8 0.8 Gross nationalsavlngs/GDP ....... 23.4 30.4 28.4 Current account balance/GDP 1.0 17 2.1 2.1 Domestic InterestpaymentslGDP 18 0.o savings investment Total debt/GDP ., 5.6 8.3 3.5 Total debt service/exports Present value of debffGDP II Present value ofdebtkxports Indebtedness 1982-92 1992-02 2001 2002 2002-06 (average annualgroMh) GDP 2 8 3 5 2.4 2.7 4 2 -Namibia GDP Dercapita -0.2 1.3 0.6 0.9 2A Lowr-middle-income group STRUCTURE o f the ECONOMY 1982 1992 2001 2002 Growth o f investment and GDP (%) (%of GDP) Agriculture 9.7 D.5 $3.0 D.O 6o T Industry 42.3 311 30.9 30.9 40 Manufacturing 115 15.1 D.8 D.8 20 Services 48.0 58.4 59.1 59.1 0 Private consumption .. 57.9 58.5 58.5 -20 Generalgovernment consumption 35.1 27.0 27.8 Imports of goods and services .... 66.3 54.3 54.3 -GDI U G D P 1982-92 1992-02 2001 2002 Growth o f exports and imports (%) (averageannualgroMh) Agriculture 4.7 2.8 4 . 5 -3.7 20 T Industry 0.8 2.8 6.1 5.5 Manufacturing 0.5 3.3 5.9 6.3 M Services 2.8 3.8 3.1 3.O 0 Private consumption 4.4 -12 B.8 Generalgovernment consumption 4.9 11 2.7 .M Gross domestic investment ...... 6.8 25.5 -0.0 Imports of goods and services .. 5.2 3.9 15A 127 1802 2002 nr 113 3 1 ttl 208 33B 316 -66 12 l a -CG -9 5 -4 3 T R A D E 2882 188'2 2002 a83 1311 1205 221 4 s $XI dStj 275 95 05 3% 271 1,033 1,389 $388 287 193 a2 81 48i 454 BALANCE 0 1 PAYMENTS 1582 IS82 2002 1,DYB 1,303 1,363 Imports of goods.andbe"% $337 1,718 @t?. Rcsourcs b&ldnca -282 .4 8 -260 Met iilcurne .BT ff 32 Plateurrrtnt k " e r s 452 28U 50 62 .5? -16 7 4 5 4a a1 29 136 1592 2002 162 P3 t3 0 Q 0 0 w 0 0 w 0 n a 0 0 0 0 Annex 15: IncrementalCost Analysis NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagementProject Context i. Ecological importance of theNamibian Coast 1. The Namibian coast, isolated between the ocean and the escarpment, i s considered a constant island o f aridity surrounded by a sea o f climatic change, and, thus, has remained a relatively stable center for the evolution o f desert species. Exceptional features o f the Namibian coast at the ecosystem level include (i) a fog belt due to the cold marine upwelling along the coast on more than 180 days o f the year (considered as the life-blood of the Namib Desert, providing enough moisture for a number o f highly-adapted animal species to survive, and being an important factor for the remarkably highbiodiversity); (ii) climatic transition belt dividing a the coastal area into a northern area which receives summer rainfall and a southern area which receives winter rain (the narrow strip o f land within this transition belt i s the most arid area in Southern Afi-ica with a mean annual rainfall o f 2 to 20 mm); and (iii) Benguela Current Large the Marine Ecosystem which has the highest primary production rates inthe world, and one of the most important renewable natural resources o f the country (shared with Angola and South Africa, the BCLME supports vast population o f fish species and the inshore marine environment, and provides migration and nursery habitats for marine organisms). In summary, Namibia's coastal ecosystems harbour unique features and biodiversity in the form o f endemic plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds - found in the globally recognized ecosystems o f biodiversity importance, i.e. the southern Namib center o f endemism in the Sperrgebiet (covering almost the entire Succulent Karoo Biome), the coastal wetlands around urban settlements and the nearshore islands around Luderitz (see Annex 20 for a map o f the coast and Annex 17 for a description o f the coastal ecosystems o fbiodiversity importance). ii. Socio-economic importance of the Namibian coast (see Annex 9 for a more detailed assessment) 2. The Namibian coast provides essential direct ecosystem services (i.e. consumptive use values such as harvesting and non-consumptives such as eco-tourism) as well as indirect ecosystem services (such as carbon sequestration). The direct ecosystem services and resources form the basis of the three main economic coastal sectors: fishing, including aqua- and mariculture, mining o f diamonds and tourism. The fastest growing sector on the coast i s the tourism industry, which is also expected to have multiplier effects in terms o f employment creation, great contribution to total economic activities, rural development andpoverty reduction. Farming or other agricultural activities are almost precluded as a livelihood option due to the hyper-arid ecosystem o f the coastal desert. These sectors form the basis o f the coast's significant economic growth and prominent industrial development. In addition, a high density o f urban agglomerations with increasing populations demonstrates the importance o f strategic development o fNamibia's coastal area. iii. Human pressure 3. Over the past years, as the Namibian coast has been put under rising human-made pressure for resource-based economic and urban development (see tables 4 and 5 in Annex 17 for threatshoot causes analysis), there has been evidence that destruction o f habitat and 129 unsustainable harvesting o f natural resources have increased, predominantly posing threats to biodiversity and, eventually, to economic development incoastal areas. iv. Project linkages 4. The Project design will address the identified threats and root causes by strongly supporting a participatory- multi-stakeholder approach for defining a common vision for coastal development, based on mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into production landscapes and by providing targeted capacity building and on-the-ground investments. NACOMA's design is fully in line with coastal and marine priorities identified in Namibia's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and supporting local efforts to implement Agenda 21. It i s consistent with guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity, the GEF's Operational Program 2 on Marine, Coastal, and Freshwater Ecosystems, GEF's Strategic Priority 2 `Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors' as well as GEF's Strategic Priority 1`Catalyzing Sustainability o f Protected Areas' (see section A.3). Proiect Rationale 5. The main focus o f the Project is providing long-term conservation o f unique and globally significant biodiversity o f the Namibian coastal zone by assisting the local, regional and national governments and other stakeholders, such as the private sector and NGOs/CBOs, to mainstream biodiversity Conservation into their on-going development planning and management processes, in particular within the framework of underway decentralization process. Resource-based economic development along the coast can only be maintained and potentially increased if put within a sustainable framework that provides for adequate and consistent policies, legislation, institutions and capacity at planning andmanagement level. Baseline Scenario55 Context and Scope 6. Since independence, the Namibian coast, although acknowledged by national stakeholders for its unique ecosystems and globally significant biodiversity, has not received adequate protection (including control and use restrictions) by the national government (mainly MET). Rather, limited national conservation efforts, led by the Ministry o f Environment and Tourism, have focused more on in-landbiodiversity assets than on coastal biodiversity. 7. The insufficiency in coastal conservation efforts stems from the unsuitable geographic location o f coastal biodiversity, which has prevented it from becoming independent habitats for conservation and weak human, technical and financial capacity o f national line ministries and other stakeholders to protect and enforce biodiversity c~nservation~~. This has led to the current situation o f fragmented protection, a lack o f a strategic enabling policy and legal approach to mainstream biodiversity into coastal development, and limited andisolated coastal knowledge. "Thescopeofthebaselinehasbeensetasfollows: temporallybythelifeoftheProject (5 years); spatially by the boundaries o f the Namibian coast line and by definition provided in Annex 1; and thematically by the Project components and outcomes. 56MET'Sregional offices inErongo andKaras are currently under-staffed andunder-equipped. 130 8. The following current main economic and development activities on the coast, which have ledto increased threats and pressures on coastal resources, are: 0 Fishing: evidence o f over-harvesting andmarine pollution (oil spills); 0 Aquaculture: trend o f major mariculture expansion and other types o f marine cultivation while lack o fknowledge o f impact on resources; 0 Tourism: major growth area with an urgent need for regulation, based on defined coastal carrying capacity (volume and location o f tourist facilities, adjustments for ecological sensitivity, infrastructure provision and water management) for major tourism destinations; 0 Mining (including off-shore) o f diamonds and other minerals: major growth area in certain parts o f the coast with currently weak legal and policy framework to effectively address principles o f environmental management. This framework needs urgent review, in particular in light of the up-coming high number of mine closures and subsequent rehabilitation measures as well as fundingrequirements; 0 Gas and oil: explorations havejust started and are in early development stages; therefore, limitedknowledge about future development andimpact is available; 0 Transport: expansion o f shippingroutes and new harbor developments, e.g. expansion o f Walvis Bay and Liideritz port, will require a solid planning framework, including clear EIAprocedures; and 0 Urban infrastructure: increased urban pressure leads to a need for m h e r urban development (housing, waste facilities, water and energy supply, roads, etc.) together with an increased need for capacity-building, institutional strengthening and additional funding. 9. Continued unsustainable practices related to tourism, fishing and mining (in some cases with no control and minimal environmental restrictions even in protected areas) and the unsuitability o f land use options in existing development planning form part o f the baseline o f the NACOMA Project. It is predicted that without any GEF support, the coastal zone, its associated biodiversity and fragile arid ecosystems, will increasingly deteriorate and be left to threats andpressures (Annex 17). 10. In the absence o f GEF assistance, it is expected that the Government o f Namibia, with limited support from other donors, would undertake limited interventions to meet selected domestic development objectives incoastal and marine areas. Such limitedconservation support under the baseline scenario will be restricted to few biodiversity sites around one or two main coastal towns without any opportunity for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and without being built on principles for sustainability as to link economic, social and environmental issues. Itwould also be insufficient to provide scientific data on the economic value o fthe use o f coastal biodiversity inorder to ensure effective involvement o f all stakeholders at national, regional and local levels instrategic planningandmanagement o f coastal issues and to move forward with the establishment o f coastal regulation and enforcement in sites o f highbiodiversity importance as well as to enable a multi-channel communication network on coastal biodiversity and management issues. 131 11. Without the GEF intervention, decentralization support to line ministries, regional and local governments would not be used to pilot the coastal environmental management-related issues within MET. It would not be supported by a coherent enabling framework, targeted capacity-building efforts, humanand financial resources to mainstreambiodiversity conservation into national, regional and local development planning and management (see Annex 18). Without NACOMA's additional support for the implementation o f MET and MRLGHRD's DAPs it is unlikely that the proposed environmental planning function at the coastal RC level will be formalized and filled in the short-term. Thus, cost-effective replication benefits for this function inother regions throughout the country would not occur. 12. As a conclusion, without NACOMA, the baseline would be continued weak and insufficientcoastalbiodiversityconservation, increasedeconomic growth and development along with population increase, separation of local, regional and national economic development planning from biodiversity protection and conservation management, all leadingto persistent degradation of high-value, uniquebiodiversity and naturalresources, and, lastly, loss of opportunitiesfor sustainablecoastalzone management. 13. Over the five year Project period, the total expenditures associated with the Baseline Scenario are estimated US$ 44.32 million. These are noted'in Table 1 and can be described as follows: Component 1: Policy, Legal, Institutional and Planning Frameworkfor Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use (US$ 2.31 million) The baseline activities focus on supporting the finalization, endorsement and, to a limitedextent, enforcement o f coast related environmental legislation and policies (e.g. MET's tourism policy, MET's Environmental Management Bill, MET's Parks and Wildlife Bill and MET's policy on concessions), including dissemination o f these policy and legal documents. Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use (US$19.11 million) The baseline activities relate to two pillars: (i) training and research related to conservation and sustainable use o f coastal and marine resources; and (ii)decentralization support. (i) Baseline activities which support a MFMR research institution with equipment and staff, allowing scientific research andknowledge on coastal andmarine resources. Baseline monitoring activities emphasize limited species monitoring for scientific purposes through MFMR andMET staff while compliance monitoring is pursued to a lesser extent. The baseline also includes MFMR training related to marine-based pollution, land-based control measures and fishery/ aquaculture. 132 (ii) baselineactivitiesincludeprovisionofad-hocsectoralcapacity-buildingmeasuresat Further, line ministrylevel (MME,MET, MRLGHRDand MFMR) as well as institutional support for the decentralization process (e.g. MET and MRLGHRD's drawing-up o f DAPs). At regional level they include the provision o f basic hardware and software for Regional Councils to improve accessibility and communication capacities, and the provision o f related basic training on R C functions according to the decentralization framework. Inaddition, the baseline includes regional and local operational costs associated with implementing the RDPs and local development plans. Component 3: Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming (US$22.50 million) Baseline activities are concentrated around two pillars: one related to site-specific conservation planningand management, including monitoring, and the other related to public-, private sector- and community-based services and investments in and around ecosystems o f biodiversity importance andproduction landscape. (i)up-holdsNamibia'scommitmenttomaintainandpossiblyimprovemanagementofsomeof It its existing protected areas on the coast with a view to improve cost-effectiveness. The baseline focuses, therefore, mainly on MET staff costs for management o f the current coastal protected areas and operating costs o f the two regional environmental offices in the Erongo and Karas in order to assure minimumneeded compliance. (ii) baseline includesMRLGHRDsmallprojectsinthe coastalregions aimingtobuild The partnerships with the private sector and local communities while realizing domestic benefits. The projects are targeting improved provision o f public services to maintain, restore and improve the resource base. Component 4: Project Coordination and Reporting (US$0.4 million) The activity focuses on provision o f implementation coordination to the Erongo Regionportfolio o f efforts inthe baseline and its function as secretariat o f the ICZMC. Benefits 14. The domestic and global benefits under the baseline scenario focus on the basic maintenance o f coastal ecosystems through limited-, unmainstreamed- and uncoordinated environmental planning and management, principally at local, and only to a limited extent - regional, national, or even sub-regional levels. The baseline would confer decreasing global benefits 'through limited- and insufficient protection to a number o f sites with a biodiversity conservation value. 133 GEFAlternative Context and scope The scope o fthe GEF Alternative i s the same as that for the Baseline. 15. Conservation o f biodiversity through mainstreaming coastal and marine biodiversity conservation into local, regional and national development planning and implementation has been identified by key stakeholders in the country as the only sustainable option for coastal development and biodiversity conservation inNamibia (see B.4 on lessons learned and Annexes 17 and2). 16. It is the overarching rationale behind the GEF alternative together with targeted investments on the ground, and it clearly stands at the center o f NACOMA's design through its four inter-related Project components and through the NACOMA implementation arrangements (see Annex 6). 17. Global experience with similar coastal zone management projects, which aim to support sustainable development in coastal areas), has shown that biodiversity conservation and sustainable use o f natural resources i s best managed inthe long term if addressed as early inthe local and regional development processes as possible. The N A C O M A Project builds on this experience by complementing in a timely manner the operational move in the current decentralizationprocess (see Annex 18), andby piloting the transfer of responsibilities related to planning, management and monitoring o f coastal biodiversity conservation and their mainstreaming opportunities in relevant production landscapes from national to regional and local level from the outset. 18. The GEF alternative would lead towards the development and implementation o f broad- based development plans for the coastal zone, where biodiversity issues are truly integrated and reflected. Vertical andhorizontal coordination would lead to a better connection o f development andbiodiversity conservation (i.e. supportive o f a `big picture'- even transfrontier map o fcoastal conservation areas), with sustainable biodiversity benefits to all role players. The Project would enhance the knowledge base for sound coastal ecosystem management and decision-making, including monitoring and evaluation for sustainable long-term tourism, mining and fishing practices. To further achieve this goal o f mainstreaming, national, regional and local players would be provided with technical, financial and institutional support to develop such an enabling policy framework, adequate skills and targeted capacity. This will be achieved through the full involvement o f national, regional and local governments, the private sector and other civil society stakeholders, and the implementation o f a detailed Project Participation and Communication Plan (see Annex 19). 19. The result of the alternative scenario would be conservation of biodiversity, its mainstreaming into enhanced national, regional and local development planning and management for the Namibian coast in a way that is sustainable and in line with national and global biodiversity objectives and strategies. This process is truly innovative in Namibia and the sub-region, and, essentially, incremental to what i s general practice in coastal zones 134 elsewhere. Importantly, the lessons generated under this Project would help a broader mainstreaming o f biodiversity considerations in other sectors and regions inNamibia and other countries. - cost 20. Over the five year Project period, the total expenditures associated with the Baseline Scenario are estimated US$ 44.32 million. The total expenditures associated with the GEF Alternative are estimated US$49.22 million; these are summarized inTable 1. 21. The Project would involve expanded andnew activities as follows: Component1: Policy, Legal, Institutional and Planning Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and SustainableUse (Total: US$2.948 million - GEF: US$ 0.638 million) 22. Main output: A collaborative vision and an improved policy, legal, institutional and planning framework for sustainable development o f the Namibian coast, shared by all stakeholders as a driving force for coastal biodiversity conservation o f highglobal importance as described ina Namibia Coastal Management White Paper (NACOWP). 23. Up to now, the approach to regulation, control andmanagement o f coastal resources has been hampered by lack o f consensus on a future vision for the coast among many stakeholders, unclear and overlapping institutional mandates for natural resource management, inconsistent and outdated legislation and insufficient data and information on the coastal zone. This component will bringthe stakeholders together, and seek to reach consensus on a common vision for the management o f the Namibian coast. The vision will be based on the idea that the coast i s part o f a transfrontier ecosystem (the "big picture" vision) that permits industrial development, recreation, mining and other activities without compromising the environment and biodiversity inspecific. Buildingon the needs andbenefits for mainstreamingbiodiversity conservation into production landscapes and local and regional development, this component will promote the development o f a comprehensive coastal zone policy through a participatory process and stakeholder consultation. This component would involve removal o f root causes to unsustainable and non-mainstreamed biodiversity management at the Namibian coast through clarification and harmonization o f institutional mandates, review o f financing needs and suitable mechanisms for coastal biodiversity and, thus, improved coordination and inter-agency collaboration between Regional Councils, national level line ministries, Local Authorities, private sector and others. The GEF alternative would fund a series o f stakeholder consultations and workshops to facilitate the process o f developing a joint coastal vision, which will guide the mainstreaming o f biodiversity efforts at regional and local levels. The coastal zone vision would lead to a Namibia Coastal Management White Paper - the basis for the first Namibian coastal policy. The GEF alternative would further provide targeted support to the MET inEIA to accelerate the adoption, implementationand compliance with the EMB. 135 Component2: TargetedCapacity-Buildingfor IntegratedCoastalZone Management (ICZM) conduciveto BiodiversityConservationandSustainableUse (Total: US$ million 20.527 - GEF: US$ 1.417 million) 24. Main output: Regional Councils, Local Authorities, MET, MME, MFMR, MAWF, MWTC, MRLGHRD and other role players enabled to implement I C Z M with a priority given to mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into coastal development planning, decision-making and key economic activities. 25. This expanded component would involve removal o f institutional and capacity barriers to biodiversity mainstreaming through support for MET'S decentralization efforts by piloting coastal biodiversity management in at least two coastal regions. It would involve targeted training and capacity building for identified key players on planning, regulations, management andmonitoring o f coastal ecosystems. Capacity building at regional and local levels would also buildabasis for active involvement oflocalpopulation andvisitors around identified ecosystems o f biodiversity importance. Resources would also be provided to set up a monitoring system, in conjunction with similar efforts by MFMR and MET to provide for monitoring o f the biodiversity status o f identified ecosystem o f biodiversity importance habitats and species across ,the coastal ecosystem, and an early identification o f potential threats. The GEF alternative would, in particular, focus on the development and implementation o f a high-impact communication strategy and public awareness campaigdaction plan, which will increase knowledge o f issues relating to coastal biodiversity conservation and reinforce sustainable use o f natural resources, in support o f the mainstreaming o f biodiversity into local and regional development issues. In that regard, this component would also facilitate the preparation o f regional coastal profiles, which will provide regional and local stakeholders with socio-economic and environmental information necessary for the integration o f conservation along the coastal areas into their regional and local development planning andmanagement decisions. Component3: Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation,Sustainableuse andMainstreaming (Total: US$23.96 million - GEF: US$ 1.459 million) 26. Main output: On the ground coastal biodiversity conservation in existing and emerging priority coastal and marine protected areas is substantially strengthened together with increased economic benefits from sustainable resource-based activities in line with regional development objectives. 27. This activity provides expanded on-the-ground investments in biodiversity conservation efforts in areas with high biodiversity conservation potential to improve their biodiversity status (see Annexes 17 and 20). 28. This component would comprise core activities to address site-specific planning, protection and management in identified coastal and marine biodiversity ecosystems o f biodiversity importance. It would focus on the nomination o f Namibia's first Marine Protected Areas (islands around Liideritz). A phased approach would be taken over NACOMA's lifetime to support MET and MFMR to agree on the basic approach and numbers of MPAs, delimiting 136 provisional boundaries and identifying issues and management objectives before developing management plans and launching the necessary legislative process. In order to introduce functioning biodiversity conservation management in priority coastal areas, demarcation and gazetting o f sites would be supported based on support for use o f GIS for zoning and land-use planning and monitoring purposes. A consultative site-specific management plan for the areas and their buffer zones/surrounding production landscapes (in particular o f relevance for area around Walvis Bay and Luderitz - see map in Annex 20) would be developed based on recommendations for the appropriate institutional and financial mechanism emerging from the participatory process under Component 1, and based on built capacity under Component 2. This component would also provide support for site-specific limited infrastructure and equipment for management purposes. Component4: ProjectCoordinationandReporting (Total: US$ 1.786 million - GEF: US$ 1.385 million) 29. Main output: Highly satisfactory Project implementation with well-documented achievements o fresults. 30. This component will provide complementary resources to MET and MRLGHRD for an effective and timely Project management, coordination and the set-up o f a Project performance monitoring system, all o fwhich are conditions for successful Project implementation. 31. This expanded support will include Project management coordination, reporting, monitoring and evaluation for all Project activities. 32. The GEF increment will enable further beneficial outcomes beyond those already specified in the baseline scenario. In addition to the Baseline benefits, incremental global environmental benefits include: 0 Effective conservation o f globally important coastal habitats and species as part o f priority biodiversity ecosystems o fbiodiversity importance/conservation areas (including support o ftransboundary conservation); 0 Investments at ecosystem o f biodiversity importance-level removing the root causes o f threats, thus improving the efficacy and cost-effectiveness o fmanagement endeavours; 0 Agreement on consolidated coastal biodiversity monitoring and information system accessible to key stakeholders (harmonized data collection and effective data dissemination will be a valuable capacity for national, regional and local decision- makers); 0 Strengthened institutions at national, regional and local levels through targeted capacity- building for planning, management and monitoring o f coastal biodiversity conservation (e.g. SEA, land-use planningand zoning); 0 Designation o f a national mechanism responsible for I C Z M and a broad-based I C Z M forum; 0 Harmonization o f fragmented coastal policies and legislation; 137 0 Increased partnerships at all levels, providing opportunities to better collaborate and communicate the exchange o f goodpractices; 0 Replicable experience from piloting MET's environmental management function efforts inone or two coastal regionsto other regions; and 0 Increased local ownership through enhancement o f public participation in planning and management o f coastal resources. IncrementalCost (see Table 1) 33. The total expenditure under the Baseline Scenario is estimated US$44.32 million while the total expenditure under the GEF Alternative i s estimated US$ 49.22 million. The incremental expenditures (costs) under the GEF Alternative are, therefore, approximately US$ 4.9 million. Category ITable1:IncrementalCost Analysis Expenditure DomesticBenefit I GlobalBenefit I GEF 2.948 Improvement o f coordination Coastal biodiversity Alternative I and inter-agency collaboration embedded ina coherent among all keyplayers through policy, legal and institutional clarified and harmonized framework as outlined inthe institutional mandates coastal white paper (providing also for more cost- (NACOWP) . effective use o fnational, regional and localbudget). Decentralization of MET's I coastal environmental Coastal vision development management functions 57All costs include contingencies. Variances ofUS$O.Ol may occw due to rounding. 138 rocess leading to efforts iiloted incoastal regions.. iarmonizing competing land- ises and development interests :dentificationo f ,ndpotential increasing Ipportunities to mainstream jenefits from coastal zone :oastal and marine levelopments. iiodiversity considerations .ntonational, regional and .oca1development planning mdmanagement. Development and implementationo f financial sustainability strategy for ZZM. Greater cost- Zffectiveness inachieving ;lobal impact. improvement of inter- Qlternative ninisterial and inter-agency andsustainable use o f coastal :ooperation at all levels. resourcesinto national, regional, local development Strengthened institutional and planning and management technical capacity within processes e.g. through coastal RCs and LAs and sharing o f coastal awareness for effective biodiversity data and linking environmental andbiodiversit! to socio-economic and other planning and management data by all stakeholders. including land-use planning and SEA to benefit the Enhanced monitoring and national, regional and local informationexchange institutional and human through development and capacity through training, implementation o f coastal study tours and exchange of biodiversity M&E system lessons, and involvement o f permitting adaptive international, national, management. regional and local experts in 139 the Project. :mprovedscientific and echnical knowledge base for Strengthened national, regional lecision-making and and local knowledge and :cosystem o fbiodiversity capacity inassessing mportance site selection. biodiversity values and assets as well as identifying and [ncorporation o f global prioritizingbiodiversity 3iodiversity elements and conservation areas. xomotion o f integrated Aanning and management Coastal profiles providing xesented intargeted economic, social and :ommunication campaigns to environmentalbaseline data ulcreasepublic awareness for regional development mdenhance appreciationof planning and management. :oastal biodiversity :onservation among policy makers. I1Increment I 1.417 I 123.96 Improved coordination Effective conservationo f ZE-native between national, regional and identifiedcoastal and marine local level including ecosystems ofbiodiversity participatory planning process, importance (habitats and strengthened capacity to species) includingthe manage coastal biodiversity at creation o f Namibia's first all levels. MPAs and expansion o f P A network Sustainable uses contribute to improvedlivelihood and Cost-effective and more economic benefits to coastal sustainable management o f communities. such ecosystems through co- management arrangements. Additional human and financial resources being Reducedpressure on globally committed at national, regional significant biodiversity and local level to more resources and near-shore rigorously identifyand address fishery. coastal biodiversity issues. Improved capacity for Improvedresource rent capture management o fbiodiversity through implementation o f and support for local targeted investments. authorities and urban 140 :ommunities' involvement in :onservation activities at mffer zones. leplicable experiences from Iotential sustainable use Iroposals attracting private nvestors for ecologically ;oundtourism and other brms ofsustainable use of w. Sustainablemanagement o f iodiversity assets for global ises (eg. Inpharmaceutical, I iutritional industries). I I I I I Increment .459 Component4: Baseline 3perational functioning o f ProjectCoordination Erongo's Regional Council as andRe ortin Secretariat o f the ICZMC. 1.786 Strengthened capacity o f Efficient administration o f Erongo's Regional Council GEFProject funds, staff, SC, ICZMC, SG soordination o f members, LAs and RCs and implementing institutions, other stakeholders for andevaluation ofprogress managing core environmental towards improved protection awareness from increased andmanagement of globally communication efforts and significant ecosystems and coordination. species. Use ofproject indicators and data withmnational coastal biodiversity M&E mechanism permitting adaptive management. Improvedscientific knowledge for decision-making on targeted investments. I I IncrementI1.385 141 Y . s c I l -z 8 I- P Annex 16: STAP Roster Review NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast Conservation and Management Project REVIEW FOR THE GEF PROJECT - NAMIBIAN COAST BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT STAP REVIEWER: David HVousden, Environment and Development Advisor and Project Evaluator DATE: 1.7.2005 Terms of reference / Biodiversity This independentreview has been commissionedby the World Bank (contact person: Christophe Crepin). The standard terms o f reference for Biodiversity Focal Area Independent Technical Review o f GEF have been followed. GENERALPROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed `Namibian Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project' (NACOMA) clearly demonstrates the need for management of the coastal resources in Namibia. From the project document it is apparent that while much of the Namibian coast is currently within a protected area or park, levels o f protection vary, and habitats o f global significance as well as ecosystems o f biodiversity importance, remain without legislative protection or enforcement, and there are currently no MPAs on the mainland coast or nearshore islands. The Project aims to secure these global significant habitats and ecosystems o f biodiversity importance through a process o f improved management and capacity building linked in with improved policies and legislationfor conservationo f coastal natural resources. Identified impending threats to coastal biodiversity and resources include: urbanization and unregulated tourism; fishing and mariculture; other extractive industriessuch as mining; increasing unemployment in coastal towns and; increasing public access. Some coastal regions were previously offered a form o f `protection' from excessive human intervention by the access restrictions imposed by mining companies. While the restrictive access limited the benefits that could be gained by the local communities, these areas will be particularly vulnerable to exploitation as the miningindustrydeclines, and the areas become publicly accessible. Inthis respect theproject is most timely, very necessaryand clearly serves to improve the securityof significant global environmentally-sensitive areas. At present there is currently little or no environmental legislation that specifically tackles coastal and marine related issues. The draft Environmental Management and Assessment Bill (EMB), which legislates for Environmental Impact Assessments, has yet to be finalized. Furthermore, while management responsibility for much o f the coast i s nationalized, sectoral roles and responsibility remain poorly defined and fragmented under the different line ministries. There i s a lack o f environmental and socio-economic data on the coastal regions and little regional input into planning and controlling activities on coastal land. 144 The globally important coastal resources o fNamibia are therefore at significant risk o f degradationand unsustainable exploitation and there i s a needfor an integrated coastal zone management approach to ensure their conservation and sustainable use. The NACOMA project development (and global) objective i s `Strengthened conservation,sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystemsin Namibia. The proposed NACOMA project design intends to provide a coherent and timely intervention that builds on the findings o f the NBSAP and other strategies and projects. The proposedproject appears to beparticularly timely interms o f 1. the changing nature of the economic activities inthe coastal zone which pose an increased threat to coastal resources and ecosystems o f biodiversity importance, namely the rapidly increasing tourism industry, uncontrolled urbanization, as well as the large fishing industry and decline in mining activities and; 2. the pending process o f governmental decentralization, which offers the opportunity for clarifying national, regional, local and sectoral roles responsibilities and for implementing new legislation and integrated / co- ordinatedways o f working. The process o f decentralization has begun, but it has been slow and i s yet to be fully implemented. The NACOMA project i s therefore attempting to implement a coherent I C Z M approach alongside the decentralization o f government control over coastal resources. This i s an immense task to undertake. Evidence from other coastal management studies does suggest, however, that management objectives are more likely to be met when they are implemented early in the planning process. The NACOMAproject therefore stands to benefit from implementation duringthis period o f transition in the governance structure. This is assuming that there is sufficiently strong Government commitment and support to the I C Z M concept and to the overall concept o f decentralization and adoption o f a more integrated and intersectoral approach to resource management. Background information within the text and annexes seems to support this commitment. At this present junction in time, inthe absence of a decentralized government, there are two routes by which Namibia could attempt to ensure the future conservation and sustainable use o f their coastal and marine resources through ICZM. The first option would be to attempt a solely top-down approach, to develop and maintain a purely national strategy to manage coastal resources. The second option would be to attempt only a bottom up, small-scale approach, to develop more locally specific coastal management policies, as explored duringthe Erongo region I C Z Mproject. Both these options may however fail to ever achieve the coherent management o f coastal and marine resources. The first option may fail to capture the subtle differences in management and governance needs along this extremely long and biologically diverse stretch o f coast. The second option may result in small fragmented projects that fail to provide a consistent, overall approach to coastal and marine resource management andbiodiversity conservation. 145 The proposedNACOMA project does appear to be suggesting an appropriate balance o f both top-down and bottom-up approaches that can occur alongside the decentralization process, and could result in a good balance o f both national and regionally specific management policies and laws. The NACOMA project aims to incorporate the entire coast o f Namibia, which is necessary to maintain the integrityo f coastal and marine ecosystems, and will use the 4 existing coastal regions as the basic management units. The project i s also aimingto promote and sustain linkages with the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) programme, which provides the broader biogeographical context for the project, and may assist in attempts to address transboundary issues. This i s an important consideration and it would be valuable to enhance the descriptionwithin the Project Document o f how these linkages would be maintained and through what form o f coordination mechanism. The NACOMA Component activities propose to address the required linkages and capacity needs at the national, regional and local levels, and at the interface between these levels, and between the different sectors, to ensure the successful implementation o f ICZM on a sound regional basis. This again i s an immense task to undertake, but should be achievable if there i s a strong Steering Group and project implementation i s phased as i s suggested. Indeed, Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) i s usually viewed as an iterative process that consists o f 7 key stages that are repeated as part o f an ongoing learning process. The NACOMA project addresses the majority of these key stages in Component 1(Data collection and research; Analysis; Strategy Formulation, and Plan Formulation) and Component 3 (Plan implementation). Component 2 and Component 4 address the specific technical issues to support the process (e.g. capacity building and project management). Each component seems to address the root cause o f biodiversity loss, as outlined inTable 5. Component 1 (Policy, Legal, Institutional and Planning Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use) assesses the national policy, legislation and framework requirements, andimplements the use ofregional CoastalProfiles. One o f the outputs o f Component 1 i s a coastal management white paper. From Annex 3 it i s proposed that a draft o f this document will be completed in Year 3 and final documents will be approved and published by end of Project. The development o f such a coastal management white paper should be iterative, and runfor the duration of the project cycle and beyond (or have review mechanisms inherent in its development and implementation strategy) so as to enable any lessons learnt from regional and local activities to be captured and transferred into recommendations for legislation where necessary. Component 2 (Targeted Capacity Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity Conservation) appropriately addresses issues o f awareness raising, training, including a needs assessment, based on the new institutional roles defined from the outputs o f Component 1. This component should contain a sub-component andprovide training on Environmental and Socio-economic ImpactAssessment. 146 Component 3 (Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming) addresses on the ground activities, the development ofMPAs,management plans, and co-management. Component 4 deals with the project management and evaluation. While the CO will be based inthe Erongo region, it i s critically important that efforts are made to ensure that activities do take place in each o f the 4 coastal regions during the project. Hopefully strong links between the ICZM Committee (with its Regional membership) and the Steering Committee will help to ensure full representation o f regional issues and to capture activities and deliverables at the regional level. Component 3 will be crucial to delivering real reforms and improvements at the regional and local level. The collation o f broad scale, geographically explicit biophysical, socio-economic and governance data within each o f the regions should be initiated as part o f the regional Coastal Profiling exercise, proposed in Component 1. The identification o f data gaps and information requirements will help focus the specific areas o f further work needed ineach o f the regions. The data for eachregion could be used ina GIs, to provide a usefulmanagement tool for identifying gaps inprotection, as well as potential areas o f conflict with resource users and local communities. More detailed maps and management plans, and GIS for specific management areas could then be developed once the target areas had be identified duringComponent 3. KEYISSUES Scientific and technical soundness of the project As a result o f this Project, enabling conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including those related to mainstreaming into coastal management and development planning at the national, regional and local levels, should be improved, and a strategic approach should be put in place to address root causes o f biodiversity loss and coastal degradation. 1. I s there sufficient ecological and technical information available to give the proiect a sound scientific base? The project i s well presented in this respect. It provides good scientific justification and background and addresses key economic and environmental issues that are relevant to the baseline and the proposed alternative. It supports its justification by a logical progression o f explanations and discussions. These include a review o f the root causes and threats to biodiversity followed by a discussion o f the government's strategy toward sustainable development o f the coastline (including listing the specific policy and institutional sector issues relatedto mainstreamingo f coastal biodiversity). The Project Document then explains the rationale for the Implementing Agency's involvement before entering into the actual Project Description. 147 2. Have all the threats to the ecosystem been considered? This has been addressed very effectively under the section entitled `NACOMA's Contribution to Address Threats & Root Causes o f Biodiversity Loss' and the associated Table 5 which present the Root Causes to Biodiversity Loss and Contribution o f NACOMA Project (per component). This i s a very helpful discussion and the table provides an excellent summary o f how the project would undertake specific activities to addressthreats androot causes. 3, Does the twe of ecosystem management proposedreauire further research? No. There i s plenty of documentation, best practices and lessons available on both I C Z Mand M P A development and management as i s envisaged within the NACOMA project. The t i c k i s in applying it to the specific needs o f Namibia, and particularly integrating it into Namibia's current decentralization process. This will be a challenge butinthis respect the project is most timely and extremely necessary. 4. I s there a needto develop indicators to achieve the obiectives? 1.1 Annex 3 provides a Results Framework and Monitoring table, which includes a realistic set o f indicators for monitoring the objectives and deliverables from the project itself. This should prove valuable to the Mid-Term and Terminal Project Evaluators. Component 2 addresses Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity Conservation and has a sub- component on development o f a Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism. This sub-component will involve the review of existing M&E systems, assessment o f data and information gaps and needs and the development o f a cost-effective, accessible and feasible method for a coastal biodiversity M&E system linkedto national environmental monitoring efforts inconjunctionwiththe coastalprofiles. Itwouldbe advisable for the projectto develop M&Eindicators as early as possible inits implementation. 5. Will appropriate monitoringbe put inplace? Yes, this i s covered above under the response to 4. 6. Will the approach taken in the proiect proposal achieve the obiectives o f conservingbiodiversity? Yes, if the project can achieve its objectives to incorporate integrated coastal zone management and to develop a sustainable and well-managed M P A network this would be seen as a significant contribution to conserving biodiversity at the national, regional and global level. 7. What are the risks and constraints associated with the proiect? One risk (as with many GEF projects) must lie with the needfor national commitment and ownership, and particularly government support. However the project addresses these risks within the text. 148 8. I s there any area o f weakness or any gaus inthe uroiect? One area o f weakness initially related to whether there would be sufficient linkage and coordination with the GEF `Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem' project. However, the final project document recognizes the need for close coordination with the present BCLMEprogramme as well as a possible second phase. The linkages will extend to the level o f Steering Committee representation. The Document also clearly indicates the direct coordination between the two projects in the development o f the NACOMA Project Document. The NACOMA project i s highly complementary at the national level to the regional objectives o f the BCLME programme. 9. Are there any controversial asuects about the proiect? Two areas o f concern, which could be controversial, relate to fishing and mining, activities which are such important components o f the national economy, but both of which could impact on the objectives o f the project by way o f threatening effective coastal management and the maintenance and enforcement o f MPAs. It appears to be inherent within Component 1 o f the Project that these concerns would be addressed. The objective o f this component is to fill the current gap for mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and management into policy, legal and institutional structures affecting the development o f the coastal zone. The concern here i s that these two activities would hold a much higher priority within government policy than coastal zone management, and could go relatively unchecked with potentially damaging consequences. Annual reviews o f the project and the Mid-term and Terminal Evaluations will need to assess this very specifically inview o f the potential riskthat these two economic activities will take higherprioritythanICZM. 10.Does the uroiect introduce incentives that may lead to over-harvesting (inthe case o f a sustainable use Droiect)? No. This i s not applicable to this project as such. In any case, the project would almost certainly aim to provide measures that.control and sustainably manage any related harvesting processes. 11.How will the drops in revenue as a result o f conservation measures be comuensated? Actual reductions in revenue as a result o f the conservation measures are not expected. There may be some effects on long-term development that may impact specific revenue intake over the short-term, but the longer term objectives and deliverables o f the project should provide a more sustainable landscape for natural resources, which should therefore act to protect long-term revenues rather than damage them. 12. Are there legal instruments asuects that should be dealt with? These have all been addressed within the project design and outputs, specifically under Component 1 on Policy, Legal, Institutional and Planning Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem Management 149 13. How will the model o f sustainable use outlined inthe uroiect be developed? Through the development o f a more integrated approach to coastal zone management and coastal zone resources, and through the development o f a more effective and sustainable system o f MPAs. 14. How effective will the uroposedmodel be inthe local situation? Hopefully it should prove to be very effective. The important consideration with the NACOMA project i s that it i s addressing a vital need through this proposed model inasmuch as the country i s going through a decentralization process for governance. This project i s therefore very timely and should create a model example o f ICZM under such circumstances. Much will depend on political will and national supportlownership as well as the development o f sustainable strategies for ICZM. 15. I s there evidence that the uroiect offers the best long-term solutions? Yes, inasmuch as the solutions required need to be very pertinent to the current changes in governance and the project sets out a clear roadmap for tackling this problem in what i s a fairly unusual and unique situation. There will almost certainly be some best practices and lessons available from this project which may be transferable to other pertinent situations. Identification of global environmentalbenefits One weakness in the Project Document is that there i s no specific section which presents the reader with the global benefits that can be expected from this project. There i s some incidental mention or passing reference to these benefits scattered throughout the text. A GEF project should have a specific discussion o f the expected global benefits. The Incremental Cost Assessment does have a section on the incremental benefits to the global community. However, this tends to highlight the incidental benefits at a national level more prominently. It i s recommended that the Project Document should include a brief section on expected Global Benefits so as to meet GEF eligibility criteria. Does the project fit within the context of the goals of GEF The project clearly states how itmeets GEF criteria and objectives under OP2, how it acts as a vehicle to meet WSSD and Millennium Development Goal requirements, and how it follows guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity. Further, the Project responds to GEF's crosscutting and biodiversity as well as capacity- building strategic priorities as outlined in its Strategic Business Plan FY04-FY06. In line with GEF's Biodiversity Strategic Priority 2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors), the Project will facilitate the mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation within production systems that may threaten biodiversity (mainly tourism, mining, fisheries) by fostering broad-based integration of biodiversity conservation within the country's development agenda. In line with GEF's BiodiversityStrategic Priority 1(Catalyzing Sustainability ofProtectedAreas), the Project will facilitate biodiversity conservation through the expansion and rationalization o f the National Protected Areas on the coast by means of the 150 establishment o f new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and their embedment in national and local legislation, as well as through capacity-building and targeted investments for improved PA management. RegionalContext The project corresponds to the Africa Region's strategic directions for coastal and marine environmental management, as it acts to remove barriers to conservation of fragile coastal and marine ecosystems through adaptive management, learning and information sharing, strengthening the institutional core and improving the quality o f life o f local communities. The project also corresponds to elements o f the NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development) Environment Initiative which targets priority interventions such as coastal management for protection and utilization of resources to optimal effect, environmental governance for securing institutional, legal, planning, training and capacity-building requirements, and a structured and fair financing system for sustainable socio-economic development. Other major elements o f NEPAD are good governance and decentralization, which are seen as standing at the root o f sustainable development. Replicability of the project The project intends to use lessons learnedinone coastal region for support inanother coastal region. To this effect, a replication plan would be prepared after 30 months and reviewed by all key stakeholders. This plan would identify the main lessons learned and requirements to ensure that the outputs and outcomes o f the Project could be used in other regions. The lessons and best practices from the NACOMA project can also be shared with neighbouring countries and transferredto other GEF and non- GEFprojectswhere appropriate. Sustainability of the project Institutional, financial, environmental and knowledge sustainability are all addressed indetail within a specific sectionofthe document andprovide realistic andpragmatic discussions on this topic. This section also addresses sustainability through partnerships. SECONDARY ISSUES Linkage to other focal areas The project has no significant linkage to other GEF focal areas except through its compatibility to the BCLME International Waters programme BCLME programme has very limited fhding available for biodiversity conservation activities at the national level. The NACOMA Project fits very well as a compliment at the national level to the BCLME programme that has a geographic focus mostly from the high water mark (HWM) seawards. The NACOMA Project will build and expand on BCLMEprogramme's experiences gained inNamibia. 151 Linkage to other programmes and action plans at the regional or sub-regional level The project document provides information on major related projects financed by the Bank andor other agencies within Annex 2. It also gives specific information about selected interventions, explains their linkages to NACOMA, and defines how the NACOMA Project will build on previous experience gained through such interventions, andhow it will feed information back where relevant. Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects There are no obvious damaging environmental effects or consequences from this project. The additional beneficial effects for the environment would include a general improvement in governance and management o f environmental issues (including non- marine) which would inevitably arise through re-structuring, reform, decentralization and integration within responsible agencies, as well as a more effective participatory process. Degree of involvement of stakeholders inthe project The project ensures that Biodiversity aspects are incorporated into each sector (tourism, fisheries, mining and urban development) policies and plans at national, regional and local levels. Furthermore, Annex 19 outlines the goals, scope and methods for NACOMA project participation. It clearly identifies how the overall concept o f stakeholder and public participation runs through every component o f the project. 1,Are there provisions for the establishment o fappropriate lines ofcommunication? Component 2 addresses Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity Conservation and has a sub-component for Coastal Biodiversity Knowledge Management. This sub-component will enable stakeholders to develop and make best use o f appropriate communication tools and channels based on a sound communication strategy and action plan, including feedback loops for intersectoral, vertical and intemational sharing o f lessons andbest practices. 2. Is there a plan for facilitating; the flow and exchange o f technical information between communities and stakeholders? Throughout the Project preparation process, NACOMA has sought to facilitate ownership and initiative by national, regional and local stakeholders through the ICZMC, public consultations and information dissemination. Further, NACOMA has been cooperating with the follow-up initiative of the pilot DLIST (Distance Learning Information Sharing Tools), which has been used actively by Project stakeholders duringthe preparationprocess as an informationplatform for documents. 3. Are the participatory schemes adequate? Yes. A detailed Project Participation and Communication Plan will be included inthe Project Implementation Manual and integrated in all operational activities (including 152 costing and monitoring). The project aims to support the participation o f a broad range o f stakeholders in development of the country's coastal zone policy, and one o f its stated global objectives i s the building o f capacity and awareness among stakeholders in coastal regions related to integrated coastal zone planning, management andmonitoring. 4. Have conflict issues beendealt with? The main potential conflict issues would probably be with fisheries and mining stakeholders. Component 1 deals with the policy, legal, institutional and planning framework for sustainable ecosystem management. This component will be based on a highly participatory approach, involving stakeholder groups in multiple consultations and meetings as identified in the Project's Participation and Communication Plan (outlined inAnnex 19). The project specifically aims to involve stakeholders from the private sector and trade inthe project implementation process. Capacitybuilding aspects 1.Has adequateattentionbeenpaidto capacitvbuildingaspects? Current coastal zone management approaches inNamibia lack technical and financial capacity and a clear political and functional mandate. NACOMA will strengthen this entity substantially through a strong enabling environment, targeted capacity building and targeted membership. Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity Conservation This component aims to fill the capacity gap at local, regional and national level in support of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use including mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity and resources into development planning and management. Taking into account the results from Sub-component 1.2 (clarification o f institutional mandates), and based on a detailed training needs assessment, this component will define the scope o f institutional strengthening and thematic capacity building needed at various institutional levels, while using partnerships with other initiatives for cost-effective and mainstreamedtraining actions 2. I s there sufficient human capacitv to tackle the issues addressedinthe proiect? Component 2 will provide a substantial training effort in an attempt to address the inevitable shortage in human capacity. This i s noted above under 1 and i s clearly definedinthe detailedproject descriptioninAnnex 4. Innovativeness of the projects Inwhichrespect are the approaches oftheproiectinnovative? The project i s particularly innovative inthat it proposes to link its implementation to an on-going process o f decentralization and use the latter to assist the project in undertaking any necessary reforms in governance, policy and institutional arrangements as may be necessary to achieve effective and sustainable I C Z M and an effective network o f operational MPAs. 153 RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM STAP REVIEW The following represents a list o f areas o f concern identified by the STAP Review (with responses and explanations of how these have been addressed by the project development process): Issue 1.The Project Document needs abrief section which explains clearly the Global Benefits which are expected to arise from a successful project Response. A section describing clearly the global benefits o f a successful project has been added to the Brief under section B ` Project Description'. Further, the project's annex on biodiversity assets, threats and root causes for biodiversity loss, the ICA, the global objective and its KPIs and the explanation o f the rationale for GEF involvement also contribute to the understandingo f the Project's global benefits. Issue 2. It would be advisable for the project to develop M&E indicators as early as possible inits implementation. Response. M&E indicators are currently being developed as part o f the Project's M&EManualto beincludedinthe Project ImplementationManual. Issue 3. The long-term success o f the proposed Project will, in part, depend on the successful decentralization of the mainline ministry, the Ministry o f Environment and Tourism (MET). This inevitably constitutes a project risk. The project document does however outline various other projects that are supporting the decentralization process. There will need to be clearly developed and defined linkages within the project management and implementation strategy (even at the Steering Committee level) to these other initiatives. Response. The Annex 18 on Decentralizationdescribes associated projects to support the decentralization process. Strong coordination during preparation phase has been taken place (participation in NACOMA workshops from decentralization support projects, efforts to ensure consistency in proposed support to MET and at regional level, etc.). At the SC level, representatives from projects are not foreseen but MRGLHRD's leading role is expected to avoid any informationgap and to promote full complementarity. Issue 4. Assessment o f the current effectiveness o f the existing protected areas should be carried out at both the start and the end o f the project inorder to provide a measure o fproject success. Response. The initial assessment (at start o f the project) o f effectiveness o f existing Protected Areas i s part of UNDP's P A project preparation activities using the Namibian Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT). The results will be shared with the NACOMA Project. In order to make sure that management plans are well implemented, an annual review will be undertaken by trained staff from the P A by using an adapted version o f the NAMETT. Further, MET is aiming to build a comprehensive biodiversity M&E system where all information would be consolidated andmanaged. 154 Issue 5. As ICZM i s an iterative process, the proposed Project will need to be fairly plastic, and be able to monitor and evaluate progress, and accommodate and incorporate changes as necessary. Thus one of the functions of the Steering Committee would be to review and amend as appropriate any activities and associated financial arrangements to address this requirement for dynamic flexibility. Response. We agree with this statement (see above). Issue 6. The development o f the coastal zone management White Paper should be seen as a more iterative process, possibly by including mechanisms for review and amendment so as to capture any lessons and best practices developed through and by project activities. Response. The Project will address this concern by having a participatory and staged development o f the White Paper, by first developing a draft White Paper (`Green Paper' or equivalent) by end o f year 3, followed by expert-led development o f draft White Paper, approval by the Government and publication by the end o f the Project. Throughout this process and the Project's lifetime, the Green Paper and then the White Paper will be reviewed by experts, stakeholders and the general public and amended as to capture lessons and best practices developed through and by Project activities. The detailedprocess andmethodology will be finalized at appraisal. Issue 7. GIS would provide a useful management support tool and help in the presentation o f policy advisory documents. GIS would help to identify gaps, priority ecosystems o f biodiversity importance, areas o f conflict, etc. Furthermore, once certain target areas for investment had been identifiedthrough Component 3, a more detailed GIS approach could be taken to provide enhanced mapping in support of more detailed management plans. Response. We fully agree. Component 2 will provide for training in GIS and Component 3 will support a GIS approach for data collection and management including mapping. Issue 8. It i s not clear whether there i s a `role-over' function for the Steering Committee after the project finishes. This i s often useful as a means o f objective sustainability but may not be appropriate in this case in view o f the intended strengthening o f the I C Z M Committee at the regional level. However, consideration might be given to a long-term role for the Steering Committee (or part o f it) at the senior policy level to provide continuity. Itmay be possible that it could form the core of a future integrated resource management committee and thereby `cement' the memory o f project steering and policy/executive decisions. However, the danger o f creating unnecessary bureaucracy i s recognized and should be taken into consideration. Response. It i s anticipated that the NACOMA Project would enable (most likely by end o f the Project) the SC to become the Namibian lead entity for coastal and marine management with executive powers. We will consider a continued national `champion' post-project. 155 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAP REVIEW This i s overall a generally well-prepared and credible document in support o f a very timely and eligible project initiative. The document contains an enormous amount of supportive detail. Inthis respect perhaps the overall size o f the documentation might be a minor criticism but this is balanced by the wealth of information available to the reader, The project itself i s very justifiable and certainly fits GEF criteria for eligibility. The aims and objectives are well-targeted and the components and activities are correctly focused. Much depends on national commitment and government support, which probably represents the greatest potential risk for the project. This has been addressedwithin the Project Document text. The Reviewer applauds the project developers for the enormous effort that has clearly gone into producing a quality document and has no hesitation in recommending adoption o f this project document proposal by GEF on the basis o f its scientific and technical merit. 156 Annex 17: BiodiversityAssets, Threats andRoot Causesfor Biodiversity Loss and ProposedInterventions NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast ConservationandManagement Project This annex is structuredas follows: 1.1.Biodiversity Assets o ftheNamibian coast 1.2.Coastal Biodiversityfrom a RegionalPerspective 1.3. Threats to CoastalBiodiversity 1.4.NACOMA's Contributionto Address Threats and Root Causes o f Biodiversity Loss 1.1.BiodiversityAssets ofthe NamibianCoast 1. The Namibiancoast i s an arid area home to two globally important biomes: (i) NamibDesertrunsalongtheentirelengthofthecoast,extendingbeyondtheOrange The River into the northwest corner o f South Africa, known as the Richtersveld, and beyond the Kunene River into the southwest comer o f Angola. It borders to the East on the Namib Escarpment, which forms a natural barrier running along almost the entire coast. With a high level o f biological specialization and endemism, the Namib Desert i s one o f the oldest inthe world with more than 80 millionyears o f age, boasting a large number o f species with highly adapted survival strategies. The coastal Namib Desert biome i s characterized by an unusual climate: despite an extreme aridity (a mean annual rainfall o f 2 to 20 mm), there i s presence of a thick fog due to the cold marine upwellingalong the coast more than 180 days per year. This coastal fog is the life-blood inthe Namib and is an important factor which contributes to the remarkably highdiversity of animal life, and provides a crucial source o f water for many plants and animals. Due to its high level of biological specialization and endemism, the Namib Desert i s listed by the International Union for the Conservation o f Nature (IUCN) as a habitat type that may have potential for World Heritage nomination.60 (ii) SucculentKaroobiomeisthemostimportantbotanicalareainNamibiaintermsof The biodiversity, and i s unparalleled by any other arid region on earth. The Succulent Karoo i s home to about 5,000 higher plant species, nearly 40 percent o f which are endemic, and, thus, the number o f specially protected species is extremely high.It has the richest succulent flora in the world, harbouring about one-third of the world's approximately 10,000 succulent species. It i s also a center o f diversity and endemism for reptiles and many invertebrate taxa. With the richest succulent flora on Earth, high diversity of bulbs, a center o f diversity for reptiles and various invertebrate groups and supporting a variety o f mammals and birds, the Succulent Karoo i s an ecosystem o fbiodiversity importance61and the Suerraebiet insouthern Namibia i s the only wilderness area o f the biome. Some 1,038 flowering plants have been recorded in the Sperrgebiet alone.62The Sperrgebiet flora comprises nearly a quarter o f the entire f l ~ ~ ton barelyy2.5 percent of the country's land surface - a remarkable r 6o IUCN, 2004. The World Heritage List: Future Priorities for a Credible and Complete List of Natural and Mixed Sites.April 2004, pp 1-19. Myers, N.,R.A.Mittermeier,C.G. Mittermeier,G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent.2000.Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature403, pp 853-858. 62 Burke, A. andMannheimer,C., 2004.Plant Speciesofthe Sperrgebiet(DiamondArea 1). Dinteria 29,pp 79- 109. 157 concentration o fplant diversityand, consideringthe arid conditions, unrivalled inother desert areas in the The Sperrgebiet i s not only characterized by high levels o f plant diversity, but also remarkable endemism on species and higher taxonomic (genus) levels. The Sperrgebiet can boast a minimumo f 45 species o f terrestrial mammals, 110bird species, well over 90 residents and migrant sea- and wetland bird species as well as almost 100 species o f reptiles and amphibian^.^^ Such i s the natural and cultural importance o f the area that includes the Sperrgebiet that the nomination of a World Heritage Site has beenproposed. 2. The coast supports further several internationally important coastal wetlands that provide important feeding grounds to a large number o f migratory wading and seabirds, such as the Kunene River Mouth, Cape Cross Lagoons, Mile 4 Salt Works, Walvis Bay Wetlands, Sandwich Harbour and Luderitz Lagoon. The wetlands at Walvis Bay, which include the Kuiseb estuary, extend over some 35 to 40 km2and support migratory birds as well as more than halfo f southern Africa's flamingos.65It is thought to be the most important coastal wetland insouthern Africa interms o fbird diversity and also possibly one o f the three most important coastal wetlands in Africa.66 Sandwich Harbour i s a 5 km2wetland fed at least partially by sub-surface freshwater and supports some 70,000 birds. It i s southern Africa's single most important coastal wetland for migratory and resident birds.67Further breedingsites for migratory birds and seals are found on 14 nearshore islands68,all currently unprotected. 3, Most Namibian endemic plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds are found ina zone runningalong- and to the west of the Namib e~carpment~~, the with Succulent Karoo biome representing an important region o f endemism for succulent plants, reptiles and invertebrates. Centers o f endemism for plants and vertebrates fall mainlv outside state protected areas and the similarity of endemism patterns in different taxa7' is-a strong argument for initiating and supporting conservation efforts outside the current network o f protectedareas.Namibianecological diversity i s not evenly represented inthe protected areas network, yet the Namib Desert biome makes up to 69 percent o f the network while the Karoo biome is badly represented relative to the 10percent target.71 63EcoAfricaEnvironmentalConsultants, 2004. The Greater !Gariep ProposedWorld Heritage Site: aFeasibility Study. Draft for Review. Prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA&T) of SouthAfrica. October, 2004.pp 1-66. 64Pallet, J., et al, 1995. TheSperrgebiet -Namibia's Least Known Wilderness.DRFN andNamdeb, Windhoek. 65Byers, 1997. Maartens, 2004. 67Ibid. Ichaboe, Mercury, North Reef / Possession, Halifax, North Long, Albatross, Sinclair's, Hollamsbird, Neglectus, Seal, PlumPudding, Pomona Islands, Penguin(inboldthe islandswith high priority for biodiversity conservationwhich are also larger islands). Mercury and Possession islandspossess a MFMR research station. Note that all islands except Hollamsbird and Mercury are part of the Sperrgebiet National Park (boundaries extend3 kmto sea). 69Simmons, R.E., Griffin, M., Griffin, R.E., Marais, E & Kolberg, H., 1998. Endemism in Namibia: Pattems, Processes and Predictions. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: in press. In Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological diversity in Namibia: a country study. Windhoek NamibianNationalBiodiversityTask Force, pp 1-332. 70Ibid. " Bamard, P., Brown, C.J., Jarvis, A.M., Robertson,A. & van Rooyen, L., 1998.Extendingthe Namibian ProtectedArea Networkto SafeguardHotspotsof Endemismand Diversity.Biodiversity and Conservation7: in press. In Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological diversity in Namibia: a country study. Windhoek: Namibian NationalBiodiversityTask Force, pp 1-332. 158 4. The knowledge o f the biogeography and ecology o f Namibia remains, however, patchy and the number o f endemics in Namibia is certainly an underestimate, since many undescribed taxa, especially invertebrates, are likely to occur in small, isolated, endemic population^.^^ The Biodiversity Task Force o f the Ministry o f Environment and Tourism has identified sites and species of ecological, economic or archaeologicalimportancethat needto be updatedregularly. The coastal zone, the Namib sand sea and adjacent gravel plains and the winter-rainfall desert zone are among the six major categories o f Namibian sites o f special ecological importance, the others being caves and sinkholes, inland wetlands (perennial and ephemeral) and mountains and inselbergs (see Table 1). 72Ibid. 159 Table 1: Terrestrial and FreshwaterSites ofEcologicalImportanceinthe CoastalAreas ofNamibia73 threatenedby EpupaDam I Biotic richness; large desert-dwellingmammals,refuges inthe desert, highvalue for humansubsistenceand tourism Transitionzone; sea turtles; migrant shorebirds (proposed Ramsarsite) Bioticrichness;36 fish species; migrantshorebirds (importantRamsarsite); reddata birds Biotic richness; migrantshorebirds (most important Ramsarsite) Migrant shorebirds; seabirdbreedingsite Cape Fur Seal andseabirdbreedingsite Biotic richness (endemic arachnids, birds, lizards, guanoplatforms insects); habitatthreatenedby off-roaddriving Bioticrichnessand endemism(succulent plants, arachnids, insects); scenic grandeur Highendemism(arachnids, insects, lizards) 5. The coastal areas o f Namibia include a series o f protected and recreational areas, namely the Skeleton Coast National Park, the National West Coast Recreation Area, the Namib-Nauklufi NationalPark and the recently proposed Sperrgebiet National Park, formerly a mining concession completely off-limits to the public and accessible to only a few scientists. Areas that have no protection status are the areas o f Walvis Bay and Swakopmund municipalities inthe Erongo Region, between Mile 14 north o f Swakopmund and the Kuiseb Riversouth ofWalvis Bay. 6. The most significant paps inhabitat protection are Namibia's two priority areas for endemism: the northern Namib (Kaoko) escarpment and the Sperrgebiet winter rainfall region in the Desert and Succulent Steppe vegetation type.74 In addition, most wetlands and all nearshore islands are under-protected and inneed o f urgent action towards the protection of their biodiversity and the ecological fimctions they perfom. Optimal protection o f the Kaoko and Southern Namib centers o f endemism requires transboundarv conservation. The coastline o f Namibia is, in fact, part o f an emerging Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), a continuum o f conservation areas that stretches from Southern Angola into Namaqualand in South Africa. Yet these TFCA areas are biodiversity conservation areas on paper with little effective management inplace. The process to proclaim the Sperrgebietas a protected area and its integration in the emerging TFCA i s ongoing and its integration in a 73Based on Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological diversity in Namibia: A Country Study. Windhoek: Namibian NationalBiodiversityTask Force, pp75-76. 74Simmons, R.E., Griffin, M.,Griffin, R.E., Marais, E & Kolberg, H., 1998. Endemism in Namibia: Patterns, Processes and Predictions. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: in press. In Bamard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological Diversity in Namibia: A Country study. Windhoek: NamibianNationalBiodiversityTask Force,pp 1-332. 160 transfrontier mixed7' World Heritage Site (WHS) that covers the Sperrgebiet, the IAi-lAis / Richtersveld Transfrontier Park, the Richtersveld Community Conservancy, and the //Gamaseb Conservancy has recently been proposed. The northern TFCA has only seen the very first steps taken with the signing o f a Memorandum o f Understanding between the Angolan and Namibian Governments for the creation o f the Iona/Skeleton Coast Transfrontier Park. 7. Incontrast to the coastal arid terrestrial environment, the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) off the Namibian coast has one o f the highest primary production rates inthe world and i s one o f the most important renewablenatural resources o f the country. Shared with Angola and South Africa, the BCLME supports vast populations of commercially exploitable fish species and the inshore marine environment provides migration and nursery habitats for numerous marine organisms. Benguela upwellings -mostly off Cape Frio and Palgrave Point in the Skeleton Coast Park, and the area between Conception Bay in the Namib Naukluft Park and Luderitz - are of great significance for marine biodiversity in Namibia. Under the influence o f physical and biological processes associated with upwelling76marine habitats o f variety andvariability result in Namibia. 8. The littoral zone marks the boundary between land and sea, and extends from the splash zone down to the low tide mark. The majority o f Namibia's littoral habitat consists o f sandy shores in the southern Namaqua or northern Namib zoogeographic provinces. In general, intertidal and subtidal regions o f Namibian sandy beaches support low species diversity, and moderate to high biomass o f organisms in comparison to other west coast sandy beaches. The intertidal rocky shores o f Namibia are among the least studied o f the southern African region and existingstudies regard the diversity o f rocky intertidal species as low, inkeeping with other sites inthe Benguela system. The shelf zone comprises those areas overlying the submerged continental margins with benthic and pelagic habitats, and beyond the continental shelf extends the abyssal zone or area o f open sea. Most habitats in the Namibian marine environment support no endemic species. InNamibia there i s a total o f 46 threatened species - critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable categories only - according to the IUCN RedList.77 These include 11birds, 3 reptiles, 1 amphibian, 11fishes, 1mollusk and 5 plants. 1.2. Coastal Biodiversity from a Regional Perspective 9. Although NACOMA takes a landscape approach and thus cutting across administrative boundaries there i s a need to operationalize biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming o f biodiversity into national, regional and local development planning, management and monitoring (delivery mechanism). Tailor-made approaches for capacity- and institution-building o f these main stakeholders would be integrated in on-going decentralizationefforts to deliver coastal biodiversity. ''Amixed site i s a World Heritage Site that has both cultural and natural qualities o f outstanding value. Mixed sites often emphasize the relationship between the people andthe environment. 76 Upwelling i s one of the few ways in which nutrients trapped in the deeper oceanic layers are brought to the surface and can be taken upby phytoplanktonand incorporated into organic compounds, "IUCN2003. 2003 IUCNRedListofThreatenedSpecies.. Downloadedon30October 2004. 161 10. The coastal biodiversity ecosystems of biodiversity importance per administrative region are: i.IntheKuneneRegiontheentirecoastalareaoverlapswiththeSkeletonCoastPark,under administration o f the MET. The conservancies to the east o f the Park are also considered o f highimportanceinterms ofbiodiversity and their conservationwould increase the protection o f the Mopane savannah vegetation that i s currently very low. The Kunene River Mouth i s considered an ecosystem o f biodiversity importance, and although the Namibian side i s part o f the Skeleton Coast Park it is, nevertheless, unprotected in the absence o f an adequate wetlands protection framework inNamibia, and an unprotected side inAngola (the Iona Park i s scarcely finctional at the moment). ii.TheErongoRegioncoverspartoftheNationalWest CoastRecreationArea andthe Namib Naukluft Park, as well as the Cape Cross Seal Reserve, a large area under the administration o f the MET with the former having multiple uses and a number o f threats to biodiversity that are hard to manage. The area surrounding Walvis Bay and Swakopmund have no protection status, the Walvis Bay Wetland, the most important Ramsar Site, falling in this area. Further south, the SandwichHarbour is another wetland o finternationalimportance that falls in the Namib Naukluft Park. The DANCED-funded Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Project in Erongo resulted in a detailed list of ecosystems of biodiversity importance in the Erongo Region (see Table 2) and the priority for action towards their protection shouldbe determined duringNACOMA implementation. iii.The Hardap Region'scoastal areas arecoveredbytheNamibNaukluftParkunder administration o f the MET. Other sites o f biodiversity importance are the Meob Conception &, aformer diamondareafor whichaLandUsePlanhasbeenprepared, andtheHollam's BirdIslandoffthe coast. iv. Finally, in the Karas Region there is the Sperrgebiet, also a former diamond area that MET has proclaimed recently as a National Park. Another important biodiversity site inthe region i s the Luderitz Lagoon. Table 2: Conservationand TourismValue of Sites of BiodiversityImportance inthe Erongo Region78 Wlotzbasken Largest single lichenfield inthe worlds Unusual landscape that attracts Lichen Field with endemic lichenspecies international tourists Lagunenberg Particularly diverse lichen field with Scenic feature in flat desert landscape endemic species Dolerite Dykes Restrictedhabitat with rare Lithops and Scenic feature in flat desert landscape other succulents Coastal Hummock Stabilized beachsand with habitat for Lenddiversity to the landscape Dunes specific flora and fauna Walvis Bay Most important wetland bird habitat in A scenic alternative to the desert landscape, Wetland NamibianCoast and a Ramsar site it hosts attractive birdspecies and is close to tourism centers Birdrock Platform Only breedingsite for great white Only platform inworld built inopen sea, pelicaninNamibia and one ofthe most accessible to tourists to see and close to importantbreedingsites for cormorants tourism centers 78 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project implemented inthe Erongo Region with DANCED fhding. 162 DamaraTern Hosts90% ofthe world populationof Attracts birdwatchers BreedingSites Damara Terns, a specie that is endemic to Southern Africa Patrysberg Breedingsite for white-frontedplovers and Popularplacefor fishing, bait & crayfish DamaraTerns, hostingexceptionally large collecting,walking andwith potentialto numbers ofwaders attractbirdwatchers SwakopmundSalt Artificial habitatthat supports upto 20,000 Popularwith birdwatchers andwith Works wetland birds potentialfor ecotourism Cape Cross Lagoon Supportsup to 11,000 wetlandbirds and Privatepropertynot open for tourismbut potentialRamsarsite with potentialfor ecotourism Most accessible seal colonythat attracts Colony the world over 20,000 tourists per year Walvis Bay/ Hostsspecially adapteddesert organisms, Popular for off-roaddriving, sandskiing Swakopmund but not importantfor conservationas large andwalking on dunes areas are conservedinthe NamibNauklufl Hostsspringbokand zebra, lichens and ~ MessumCrater Secluded andgreat experience visiting and Welwitschiaon outer ring camping incrater, buthighnumber of peoplewill destroy attraction Rivers Support desert andnon-desertorganisms Green areas indry landscapeproviding visualdiversity BirdParadise Artificial habitatthat is source of fresh Goodbirdwatchingsite water for flamingos, ducks and geese 163 164 12. In terms of scale, impacts and economic importance, diamond mining is the most prominent industrial activity in Namibia.g0However it should be noted that the failure to develop alternative livelihoods during the (past) mining era leads to poverty now that the industry i s downscaling, which in turn will lead to people leaning more strongly on natural resources but not necessarily in sustainable ways. Mininghas left major marks on the environment and continues to threaten key biodiversity values in protected areas in the absence o f adequate zoning and strict regulations. While the form o f diamond mining practiced in Namibia does not require the use o f toxic chemicals (which would otherwise accumulate inthe tailings) vast amounts of sand are moved in order to extract the diamonds. Because the mines are generally located in isolated areas, they require substantial infrastructural development such as housing, recreational facilities, roads, airfields, maintenance facilities, waste disposal, water and power supply and administrative buildings. The largest operation is Mining Area No.1 north of Oranjemund where Namdeb have mined a strip of coastline roughly 110 kilometers long. The former intertidal area, approximately 300 meters wide, together with all its biodiversity, has beenremoved and sterile bedrock i s all that remains.*l Some new mining activities have recently been allowed along the Skeleton Coast after the original mines inthe area closer about 10 years ago. Environmental enforcementhas improved since that time, however, and the diamond miningpotential o f the area is thought to be limited at best. Environmental management i s also hampered by gaps in what i s known about diamond miningimpactsag2The following issues that still needto be investigated and better understoodhave been identified recentlyg3: 0 Cumulative effects o f increased sedimentation through seawall erosion and deep water tailings disposal 0 Cumulative effects o f habitat destruction by deepwater mining operations and mobile fishinggear 0 The potential effects o f kelp cutting on puerulus (colorless, planktonic, juvenile lobster) settlement and rock-lobster recruitment 0 The extent o f natural environmental effects on seasonal abundance and distribution of rock- lobster and fish stocks, larval settlement, recruitment patterns, and migrationhabits 0 Quantification o f fishing mortalities, and 0 The impacts o fminingon supra-tidal habitats. 13. Coastaltourism is a priority economic area for local, regional and national development. While tourism activities can provide employment and an avenue for involving local communities in the region's economy through mainstream as well as Community Based Tourism (CBT), they are also likely to cause migration and increased movement o f people through the regions to levels that can pose obstacles to effective management o f natural and cultural resources. Mining areas that have previously been closed to public, such as the Sperrgebiet, are now perceived as potential tourism attractions that will be increasingly exploited under the new management plan. At the same time, ecosystems of biodiversity importance such as the coastal wetlands and offshore islands that have currently no conservation status may suffer from uncontrolled developments inthe absence o f adequate and enforced zoning and environmental restrictions. Because so much land has been ~~ ~~~~ 80Tarr, 2004. Ibid. Underthe on-going BCLME Programme, detailed studies on assessingimpactof on-shoreand off-shoreminingare carriedout andresultswill be shared with NACOMA Project. 83Pulfrich & Penny (1999) in Tarr, 2004. 165 closed to access, development and settlement pressure i s exceptionally concentrated in and around the coastal townships. Rapid tourist, industrial and other expansion inthe arid coastal environment have cumulative implications for water supply, quality and waste disposal. The societal costs associated with tourism occur mainly through environmental damages including habitat destruction, littering and visual pollution (particularly due to vehicle tracks). Given that most tourism activities along the coast take place on state or local authority land, it should be relatively easy to set and regulate limits o f acceptable change. However, this has not been done for any o f the coastal areas and there are signs that these limits are being reached from an ecological and social point o f view. Further, tourism i s also responsible for increased coastal development, which can have negative environmental consequences. Towns such as Swakopmund are expanding rapidly due to the demand for residential houses. This expansion i s primarily along the coastline and it has been suggested that houses will have been built all along the coast between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay by the end o f this century. This poses potential conflicts with the environment, since this area supports more resident and migrant birds than any other stretch o f beach in the country including the near-endemic Damara Tern. Inorder to promote sustainable tourism along the coast, the follow ten priority areas for action have beenidentified: 1. Supportingintegratedland-use planning andmanagement; 2. Involvement o fcommunities; 3. Promoting nature awareness and especially encouraging tourists to reduce their impacts on the environment; 4. Involving staff, customers, communities inenvironmental issues; 5. Reducing impacts o f logistical and leisure transport (i.e. off-road driving, low level flying, water sport); 6. Support (and possibly lead) efforts to reduce crime; 7. Efficient use o f fresh water resources; 8. Waste minimization, reuse and recycling; 9. Improvingenergy efficiency, conservationand management; and 10. Re-invest a proportion o f turnover inconservationproiects. 14. The benefits of fishing and maricultureare fairly well spread from the local to the national scale. At a local and regional level, the sector provides substantial employment as well as a share in profits from quota allocations. Lastly, the industry provides substantial government revenue at a national level and contributes to foreign exchange reserves. The costs associated with fishing and mariculture occur mainly through environmental damages taking the form o f stock depletion through over-fishing o f certain species, the disruption o f natural processes (removal or disturbance o f marine habitat and associated biodiversity inmariculture), destruction o f species included inby- catch, indiscriminate rubbishdisposal and litteringandpollution generated inprocessing. 15. Table 3 on the next pages identifies some o f the major threats that the broader sites o f biodiversity importance along the coast face. Possible approaches to address these threats are also analyzed inthe table andprovide indications for potential interventions supported byNACOMA. 166 h a a l a a I 8 I. . 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I I I I. . *m8 b fi rd < *OD cl 6 Y m S z ro -2 m Y a e, 0 1.4. NACOMA's Contributionto Address Threats & Root Causesof BiodiversitvLoss 16. While the coastal areas o f Namibia are still relatively pristine, the downscaling o f mining and development o f alternative livelihoods, rapid urbanization and industrial development may in the future influence the environmental and socio-economic features o f the coast. The pursuit o f unsuitable economic activities in coastal zone - either due to weak enforcement, inappropriate planning and zoning or simply poor understanding o f the value o f the Namibian Coast's biodiversity - may result inimpacts on the ecosystems o f biodiversity importance described above. At the same time, the proclamation or upgrading of protected areas and the strengthening of the TFCAs can provide an enabling framework to protect the natural and cultural resources o f the coastal zone, provided coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation are tied to local economic development. The present threats (see Table 3) are rooted in an uncoordinated picture between biodiversity conservation and national, regional and local development. Six specific root causes o f biodiversity loss have been identified (see below). It becomes evident that NACOMA's goal to conserve biodiversity conservation and to support mainstreaming o f coastal biodiversity into development planning and management is the linkingglue betweenthese identified root causes. i. Poor awareness and lack of knowledge of coastal and marine values The most pressingthreat to biodiversity conservation i s the lack o f understanding o f the values o f the coast and their potential for development. The people have been separated from their coast, especially in the Kunene, Hardap and Karas Regions, but if they are given a chance to know their coast, understand its biodiversity importance and benefit from its conservation and wise use, they can become - together with the Regional Councils, local authorities and alongside MET and other line ministries such as MME,MFMR, M A W and MLR-key guardians o f the Namibian Coast. ii. Unclear and nationalized responsibilities While the importance o f the Namibian Coast's biodiversity i s recognized in the sting o f protected areas along the coast, the fact that a significant part o f the coast has been designated for conservation purposes (a mainly pre-independence legacy) has meant an unusually high level o f nationalized control and an unusually low level o f regional and local authority involvement in coastal land management. Roles and mandates at the national, regional and local levels interms o f coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation are not clearly defined inthe context o f the ongoing decentralizationprocess. iii. Uncoordinated land useplanning Poor and uncoordinated planning between the different sectors and between the national, regional and local levels make it impossible to reconcile biodiversity conservation and development, and environment (and biodiversity) loses out first. There i s a lack o f vertical and horizontal integration inNamibian sectoral and development planning. Clearly defined zones need to be established for different economic development activities to ensure that current and future developments are inline with the potential and sensitivity o f each different area. The RDPs, land-use plans and conservation site management plans are key instruments that can provide the framework for regional and local planning and which all other land use and sectoral plans could refer to. 173 iv. Absence of a modern and internally consistent legalframework Existingconservation, dedicated coastal zone and sectoral policy and legislationare fragmented and inconsistent and thus provide a poor framework for coastal biodiversity conservation and development. In addition, sectoral policies should provide a framework in which sustainable development i s ensuredbut moreover reconciledwith biodiversity conservation. v. Insuflcient natural resource management andprotection of some key ecosystems of biodiversity importance Inadequate legal protection o f key ecosystems o f biodiversity importance results in negative impacts encroaching with development. Some key ecosystems o f biodiversity importance are not protectedinthe law and their use i s thus unregulatedinterms o f access and activities, tools for their management not known or available. This i s the case o f the coastal wetlands o f Walvis Bay, Orange River Mouth, and Kunene River Mouth, as well as offshore islands, undermining the protection of marine and coastal biodiversity. Enforcement o f regulations in protected areas needs to be strengthened and an assessment needs to be conducted to evaluate the impact and rehabilitation needs from uncontrolled activities inprotected areas, such as mining inthe Skeleton Coast and the Sperrgebiet. vi. Insuflcient public input on how resources are used and inequitable benefit sharing Poor level o f public participation inbiodiversity conservation and highly skewed pattems interms o f the use o f natural resources and benefits to people resulted in detachment o f the people from conservation objectives along the coast. There are few linkages between biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihood creation for historically disadvantaged groups inthe coastal areas, so the incentive to conserve i s not strong. Infact, in certain quarters there i s a perception that biodiversity conservation and development i s irreconcilable. Thus there i s substantial scope to investigate and strengthen mechanisms and incentives for natural resource use and conservation outside or bordering protected areas. 17. The current efforts towards coastal biodiversity conservation and management, including other GEF-funded projects such as the SPAN project and the ICEMAproject, each address some of the specific issues though in some degree o f isolation. In the current context o f decentralization, these isolated efforts need to be "glued together" into a coherent interventions framework that will create an enabling environment for effective and decentralized coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation inNamibia. NACOMA was in fact conceived from the lack of an overall coastal zone management framework in Namibia and the gaps that exist in biodiversity conservation. Striving for effective and equitable protection and use o f coastal resources, the NACOMA Project can play a key role inaddressing the root causes o f biodiversity loss through its four componentsgsas described in Table 4. The table lists the root causes identified and analyses how NACOMA can address them by complementing the current framework for biodiversity conservation and streamlining current or planned efforts. The contribution that each NACOMA Project component canmake is highlightedinthe table. *'Fourthcomponenti s not listed inthe table as it deals with Project Managementand PerformanceMonitoring. 174 Table 4: Root Causes to BiodiversityLoss and Contribution of NACOMA Project(per Component) Poor awareness and lack IInvolvement o f key 1 Training o f LAs, IInformation on if knowledge of coastal stakeholders and the Regional Councils biodiversity and and marine values wider population in and line ministries explaining the value o f The most pressing threat to developing coastal on biodiversity well managed coastal iodiversity conservation i s zone policy conservation and areas .he lack o funderstanding o fI Regional Coastal natural resource IEconomic assessment of .he values of the coast and Profiles developed management coastal resources and their their potential for as well as an potential as economic ievelopment. overarching one for generators, which will all the Namibian provide a basis for coastal areas and selection o f targeted popular versions for investments awareness raising I Further research in biodiversity areas where there are information gaps Unclear and nationalized I Identification of I Institutional capacity I Bringing tiers of responsibilities gaps inplanning and buildingo f Regional government as well as Roles and mandates at the conservation Councils, LA and other partners togethe1 national, regional and local legislation line , ministries, through information levels in terms o f coastal Involvement o f key specifically in terms sharing and zone management and coastal players in o f environmental implementation oj biodiversity conservation policy development planning and targeted investmeni not clearly defined in the process and in management and Projects context o f the ongoing clarification o f building o f decentralization process responsibilities partnerships for 'these purposes 1 Enhanced integration between the different ministries and between them and regional and local government Uncoordinated land use 1Revision o f the role 1 Revision o f RDP 1 Guidelines on how natura planning of Regional development process resources can be used ir Poor and uncoordinated Development to integrate key an environmentally sounc planning between the Planners, the stakeholders such as manner, how benefits cax different sectors and process followed in MET, MME, be shared and "lesson: between the national and producing them and MFMR, MLR and learned" from pilot regional levels make it their level of LA targeted investments impossible to reconcile statutory power 1 Improvedand skilled Projects conservation and 1Coordination structure at the development, and between sectoral national, regional 175 environment loses out first. policies with a view There is lack o f vertical and to reconcile land use planning horizontal integration in development and and biodiversity Namibian sectoral and conservation conservation development planning 1 A policy that adequately addresses coastal issues and processes, including the access to resources, their use and Conservation o f biodiversity Absence of a modern and mDesign, manage and . Capacity building o f I Enhanced biodiversity internally consistent legal implement a Regional Councils, information to support, as framework comprehensive LA and line well as informed Existing conservation, policy program for ministries to play a stakeholders to participate, dedicated coastal zone and Namibia key role in terms of in the coastal policy sectoral policy and coastal policy program for Namibia legislation are fragmented processes and inconsistent and thus provide a poor framework for coastal conservation and development Insufficient natural support to 1Development of 1 Support to targeted resource management proclamation o f key monitoring and investments in critical and protection of some ecosystems of evaluation capacity ecosystems that promote key ecosystems of biodiversity in the Regional biodiversity conservation biodiversityimportance importance currently Councils, LA and Inadequate legal protection lacking legal line ministries o f key ecosystems of protection Capacity building biodiversity importance and involvement in result in negative impacts selection and encroaching with monitoring process development. o f targeted investments Insufficient public input 1Ensure that the 1Enhanced 1 Targeted investments thai on how resourcesare used concession integration between support natural resources. and inequitable benefit framework for biodiversity based development oper sharing protected areas and conservation to the wider populatior Poor level o f public sectoral policies objectives and including communitier participation in biodiversity promote equitable regional andNGOs conservation and highly opportunities to the development vision mIncreased capacity 0: skewed patterns in terms o f wider population 1 Promoting Regional Councils, LA: the use o f natural resources mInvestigate and participation of and line ministries to steel and benefits to people strengthen Regional Councils, conservation-related 176 Proiects outside. and I beiond NACOMA duration alongthe coast .development process Increased support to CBNRMactivities in rural and communal 177 Annex 18: DecentralizationinNamibia:Implicationsfor BiodiversityConservationand SustainableUse on the Coast NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast Conservationand Management Project Backgroundon DecentralizationinNamibia 1. Decentralization in Namibia aims to ensure economic, cultural and socio-economic development, and provides people at the grassroots levelwith the opportunity to participate in their own decision-making and extend democracy to them as a right based on national ideals and values. The Decentralization Policy was first conceptualized and introduced in Namibia in1989, underthe South-WestAfrica People's Organization (SWAPO) Political Manifesto on Local Government and Housing. The concept was later embedded in the Namibian Constitution, providing for the structures o f Regional and Local Government. In 1992, sub- national structures were created by enacting the Regional Councils Act and the Local Authorities Act, which instituted the formal introduction and implementation o f decentralization in Namibia. The ministry responsible for Regional Councils and Local Authorities i s MRLGHRD, which i s also responsible for coordinating the actual implementation o f decentralization. 2. Regional Government:Namibia comprises thirteen Regional Councils (RCS)'~,which are hrther divided into a number o f constituencies, each with an elected Councilor. The political head o f a region is the governor. RCs play a planning role that i s aimed at promoting development in their respective regions with a broad mandate to ensure that governmental services are rendered in their respective regional areas, either through line ministries or through parastatals that provide services such as water and electricity. In addition, RCs establish, manage and control settlement areas and assist any local authority inthe exercise or performance o f its powers, duties and functions. Therefore, RCs have a more direct linkage to national government than to local government. 3. Local Government:Namibia also has a separate form o f local governance, namely Local Authorities (LAs)'~,made up o f municipal, town and village councils, that are governed by the Local Authorities Act o f 1992. LAs are typically centered on urban or semi-urban settlements and, thus, are limited in number and geographical size. Environmental management functions, not specified in the Local Authorities Act but mentioned in the Regional Council Act can be conferred upon to the LAs through the interface provided by these two acts. There may be cases where coastal management issues will be deemed appropriate to be managed at a local authority level. Local councils are responsible for water and sanitation, refuse management, environmentalprotection, electricity, economic promotion and tourism. ~~ ~~ 86There are four Regional Councils located on the Namib coast, namely (from north to south): Kunene, Erongo, Hardap and Karas (also see map inAnnex 20). "TherearecurrentlyfourLocalAuthorities locatedontheNamibcoast,namely(fromnorthtosouth): Henties Bay, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and Liideritz (with Oranjemund not yet classified as LA - seemap inAnnex 20). The Erongo Region has: 2 part 1municipalities, 3 part 2 municipalities, 2 town councils, 1village council. The Hardap Region has 1 part 1 municipality, 1town council and 6 village councils. The Karas Region has 2 part 2 municipalities, 1 town council and 6 village councils. The Kunene Region has 1 part 2 municipality, 2 town councils and 1village council. 178 4. In the structure of regional and local authorities, it is the Regional Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC) that coordinates the overall development in each region. The RDCC are legal committees. The RDCC i s an active advisory committee to the RC and it includes representatives o f stakeholders in the regions, including ministries, local and traditional authorities, NGOs and CBOs, chaired by the regional officers. The representatives o f the ministries, thus, also present the agendas o f their ministries, and give guidance to the RDCC onkeeping within the national targets as set out inthe NationalDevelopment Plan. Decentralization Policy and Legislation 5. Decentralization in Namibia i s defined in the Decentralization Policy, which was officially launched in 1997. The Policy entails the transfer o f political, administrative, legislative, financial and planning authority from national government to sub-national governments. The Regional Councils Act and the Local Authorities Act, originally giving exclusive responsibilities for the delivery o f basic services to RCs and LAs respectively, were amended in 2000 so as to allow for the involvement o f the private sector in service delivery and to increase the powers vested in the RCs and LAs. In 2000, two additional Acts were promulgated: the Decentralization Enabling Act, which provides the legal framework for the implementation and regulation o f the decentralization o f functions to both the RCs and LAs, and the Trust Fund for Regional Development and Equity Provisions Act, with the key objectives o fproviding financial assistanceto RCs and LAs. 6. From a regional development perspective, the Government extended overall development planning to the regional level during the second NDP period. The government also introduced Vision 2030, which aims to guide these relatively short-term development plans (starting with NDP2 up to NDP7) until 2030. The Regional Planning and Development Policy, which was approved by Cabinet in 1997, seeks to establish a coherent regional planning framework for the decentralization process to facilitate improved co-ordination between regional development institutions and to avail the required resources for the attainment o f regional goals. Therefore, the policy provides the platform for the decentralization transition process aimed at establishing enhanced planning, management and operational capacities at regional and local authorities. Leading Strategy and Milestones in the Decentralization Process 7. The DecentralizationPolicyproposes that decentralization would go through two main stages, starting with delegation o f functions from line ministries to RCs or LAs and ending with devolution, which provides RCs and LAs with full administrative decision-making, budgetingandplanning powers. 8. The Directorate o f Decentralization Coordination (DDC) under the MRLGHRD provides overall direction and coordination o f the decentralization process. It operates in accordance to the Decentralization Implementation Plan (DIP), which provides guidance for all involved stakeholders through the various phases o f the implementation process. Under the DIP, line ministries88are tasked to submit line ministry action plans to the MRLGHRD, which define the functions o f the respective Ministryto be decentralized to RCs, timeframes, 88Eight line ministries are affected by the current phase of delegation: Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture; Ministry of Health and Social Services; Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry; Ministry of Environmentand Tourism; Ministry of WomenAffairs and Child Welfare; Ministry o f Lands and Resettlement ; Ministry ofInformationand Broadcasting;and Ministry o fWorks, Transport and Communication. 179 staffing requirements, budgetary implications and the overall facilitation o f practical issues relating to decentralization. 9. In2004, the MRLGHRDinstitutedand approved the Regional Council management structure Blueprint*', which i s designed to expand the organization structure o f RCs to effectively accommodate the functions to be decentralized, and clarify the institutional arrangements and new personnel structures needed (see Figure 1). To date, within the four coastal regions, management positions which have been fully or partially filled are the Chief Regional Officer, the Directorates for Education, General Services and Planning and Development Services, as well as the Deputy Director for Finance and for HR. Positions which to date have remained vacant within the four coastal regions are the Directorates for Community Health and the Deputy Directors for Planning and Development Services, Administration, Education and Community Health. Funding Situation 10. The Regional Councils Act designates RCs to spearhead socio-economic planning in the regions. However, limited human, capital and financial resources available inthe Councils currently curtail this function. RCs have minimal income available to finance regional development as they possess only two key revenue sources - MRLGHRD budget appropriations and locally generated revenues (i-e., five percent taxes from municipalities) as well as additional funding from donor-led initiatives, with very little possibilities for further increasing their revenues. Local and regional `green taxes', aiming at reducing the use o f natural resources and encouraging recycling o f waste, are not available as an income resource and would require amendment o f legislation to become effective. The Trust Fund for Regional Development and Equity Provision, defined in the Law on the Trust Fund o f 2000, can play a pivotal role in providing additional and supplementary finances to the central govemment budget or to act as a lever to access other funding sources by either providing seed money or technical assistance to the RCs. However, the Trust Fund has just been launched and it i s premature to judge upon its functionality and effectiveness. Nonetheless, although its objectives are to support a more balanced regional development scenario, most o f the coastal RCs are unlikelyto be the first to benefit from it. 11. Large Local Authorities are principally self-funding whilst smaller authorities are reliant on grant funding from MRLGHRD.This has an implication on the fundingsituation o f RCs, which i s determinedpartiallyby delivery o f local taxes. Status of Decentralization Related to CZM Key Line Ministries Involved in CZM 12. The MET is still at a relatively early stage o f preparedness for the delegation process o f its functions, although it i s determined to advance its restructuring process in order to increase effectiveness o f the institution for biodiversity conservation including CBNRh4 and park management. Other line ministries affected, such as MWTC, MAWF and MLR are at various stages o f preparedness for decentralization. MWTC has identified functions to be decentralizedand has The Regional Council structure is considereda blueprint,as it canbe adapted for individual regionsto suit the region-specificneedsand activities. 180 begun to prepare for the restructuring of its regional units to align with the RCs; however, the Ministry's detailed planning has beenput on hold due to internal eventsg0and its actionplan needs to be hrther developed. Within MAWF, the Directorate o f Rural Water Supply has prepared its action plan and i s likely to start the gradual delegation o f water supply to the RCs from April 2005. Inthat regard, MAWF can be seen as a best practice, from which lessons learned could be applied to other ministries. MLR has not yet prepared its action plan. MME, which i s not among the ministries identified for delegation, presently remains silent with regard to decentralization, while MFMR, also not identified, has indicated interest in decentralizing aquafarming to RCs. Regional Councils 13. At the regional level, RCs - together with local and traditional authorities - are the agencies primarily tasked with the planning, implementation and coordination o f regional development activities and processes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. However, within the current RCs structure no adequate attention i s given to environmental planning, which i s a significance and relevant function in development planning. The proposed Blueprint makes provision for the establishment o f the Directorate of Planning and Development (highlighted in Figure l), under which Sub-Division Environmental Planning should fall. However, the process i s hindered by, inter alia, shortage o f needed staff, skills or funding for this function. As a result, RCs are currently incapable of ensuringenvironmental protection within the framework of regional development. This impediment may explain the recent upsurge in unsustainable economic activities within the ecological sensitive coastal areas. Local Government 14. Although only few, Local Authorities within the Namib coast play a significant role in environmental planning due to their area of jurisdiction, namely urban areas at the eastern side of the coast, and their proximity to the coast. It i s well known that the constructive engagement o f local communities as the primary custodians o f their natural resources i s critical for conservation to be widely understood and practiced on ground level. Yet, while partnerships between government, private sector and local communities have been constantly advocated and encouraged, the reality i s that limited benefit sharing has resulted thus far and 'local communities have remained on the periphery o f development. Challenpes and Svnerpies inthe Decentralization ProcessRelated to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use 15. The decentralization initiative has great potential to further the aims and objectives o f the NACOMA project in that it will enhance the mainstreaming o f biodiversity conservation by enabling RCs and LAs to play a more proactive role in developing and implementing biodiversity conservation and sustainable use-related activities in the coastal plans o f their respective areas, as well as address and incorporate biodiversity conservation issues and related planning in their RDPs. The process, however, faces several challenges which the Project will need to address as well as synergies which have the potential to positively affect the integration o f these complementary vehicles. Includingthe unexpected and indefinite absence of a focal person on decentralization and master minder o fthe restructuring plan ofthe Directorate o fMaintenance. 181 f nitatlun Structure (8 G~v%rnar Chief RegianafOfficer , 2 - Lack o f overall awareness X X v A coastal profiles to available natural -- Develop Facilitate relevant information resources within the coast, dissemination (communication as well as fundamental P W issues and practices based on NRMand biodiversity conservation, amongst relevant line ministries, RCs and LAs Inadequate enabling X X - Solicit support for BD and environment for C Z M mainstreaming decentralization o f BD - Provide clear transitional conservation tasks, i.e. guidelines for delegation of restricted transparency, biodiversity conservation openness and willingness responsibilities from national to to share authority and regional level resources by some line - Develop pilot projects with ministries, and shortage o f broad-based participationo f coherent guidelines and a different stakeholders national model available for such a process Financial dependency and X X - Review and adjust o f 1 restrictions for ICZM legislation to increase funding at issues at regional/local regional and local level level Various degrees o f X - Collaborate with and 1 + 2 decentralization progress complement donor programs amongst relevant line focused on the decentralization ministries process inthe country 17, In facilitating ICZM and biodiversity conservation decentralization, NACOMA benefits from the momentum the decentralization process i s gaining as a result o f recent donor-led programs focusing on complementary issues related to decentralization enhancement, mainly the Finnishand the French support. The Government o f Finland assists MRLGHRD with tasks related to the planning, decision-making and implementation of the powers and functions that are to be decentralized to regional and local levels with the DDC as the main immediate beneficiary. The Government o f France provides technical support to RCs' for regional planning, design and implementation o f territorial projects, and support to the implementation o f an information and communication network between RCs, line ministries and the DDC (see Annex 2). 18. Whereas the Finnish and French support to the decentralization process i s cross cutting, NACOMA's contribution will be sectoral, focusing on environmental management and planning for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use on the coast. NACOMA will work in close collaboration with these two programs (joint action plan under preparation), buildingup on each other's success and lessons learned, leadingto limitedrisks andproviding for synergies inthe process. 183 Annex 19: ProjectParticipationand CommunicationPlan NAMIBIA: NamibianCoast Conservationand ManagementProject This Annex describes the goals, scope and methods for NACOMA Project participation. The PCP will be included inthe Project Implementation Manual and integrated in all operational activities (including costing andmonitoring). 1. Obiectives 1. The PCP is designedto engage all coastal stakeholders (including communities along the KuisebRiver delta next to Walvis Bay) inshaping a common vision for Namibia's coast and developing an integrated policy and targeted actions for its conservation and sustainable management. 2. Many factors currently limit opportunities for stakeholders, particularly at local level, to participate in decision-making on coastal planning and resources. These include lack o f awareness, poor flow o f information and weak coordination and consultation frameworks. 3. The PCP will build awareness o f coastal values and functions and show how protecting coastal biodiversity can increase options for sustainable resource-based economic activities and thus improve livelihoods. This will help `reconnect' residents and economic actors o f coastal regions to their coast, particularly in Hardap and Kunene Regions where opportunities for access are very limited. Communities, the private sector and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to express their views on current and future use o f coastal areas and resources, strengthening a sense o f ownership and commitment and leading to a better understanding of the management roles o f regional councils and local authorities. 4. The PCP will also facilitate communication between currently fragmented sectoral and institutional stakeholders. NACOMA provides for concrete actions to clarify and harmonize institutional roles and mandates during the complex process o f decentralization and to overcome specific blockages, thus helpingto accelerate the transfer o f relevant powers to the regions. 5. By building familiarity with participatory techniques, the PCP will have replicable benefits for future development planning processes incoastal regions. 2. Tarpet audience 6. The PCP i s addressed to communities, individuals, businesses and associations on the coast, local, regional and national government, key sectoral and research organizations and other stakeholders involved in or affected by coastal management issues. Better communication and linkages between these varied groups will lay the foundation for a sound long-term approach to Namibia's coast, in line with Vision 2030 and other national development goals. 7. The PCP will ensure targeted outreach where necessary to involve indigenous peoples, isolated populations and potentially marginalized groups, including communities along the Kuiseb River delta and women. Consistent with NACOMA's participatory approach, indigenous peoples' interests were represented at the Project Preparation Workshop in 2004. 184 The distribution and livelihood profiles o f minority groups have been investigated during NACOMA's preparatory phasesg3 8. Detailed information on these categories o f stakeholders i s giveninTable A. 3. Scope 9. The PCP covers the whole of Namibia's coast. It will adapt communication and participation tools to the characteristics and needs o f different coastal areas, from urban developmenthubs to remote and sparsely-populated areas. 10. PCP-related activities will reach further inland in Kunene and Hardap Regions to facilitate consultation with stakeholders who are located further from the coast but whose social and economic status and options are affected by coastal activities and development. 4. Tools and methods for communicationand particbation 11. The PCP provides a structured framework for information dissemination, locally- based consultation and coordinated input from key sectoral/institutional stakeholders. The techniques used to engage and involve target audiences will vary according to the Project component, the nature and needs o f different stakeholder groups and the geographic area concerned. Table B specifies communication and participation arrangements for the Project's preparationphase and each o f its components/activities. 4.1 Awareness-raisingand sharingof information 12. The starting point i s to raise awareness of the coast, its resources and the purpose o f the Project amongst all stakeholders. This process began duringProject preparationphase (see Table B). Once NACOMA i s launched in October 2005, the PCP will ensure transparency in the preparation, conduct, reporting and evaluation of its activities by sharing and updating information on a regular basis duringthe Project's five year lifetime. 13. A mix of outreach techniques will be used to inform target groups about the Project and how they canparticipate inits activities. 14. Materials will be produced in a format accessible to communities and local businesses (flyers, posters) and made available for display at public information points in coastal towns and villages and at other appropriate locations in each region. These will complement mass communication tools (use o f local radio and TV broadcasting inlocal languages, contact with local and national newspapers, press releases, website etc.). During the Project, a bi-annual NACOMA newsletter will be produced to ensure continued involved and awareness, including simplified versions inindigenous languages (e.g. Topnaar language). 15. More innovative approaches to boost community and business involvement will also be considered. Examples might include school and/or corporate participation in "adopt-a- beach" clean-up programmes with a prize and media coverage and organized (sponsored) site visits andboat trips to help coastal residents discover their coastline (eg around Luderitz). 93 Rapid assessment of the development plans, biodiversity conservation projects and socio-economic situation of the Namib coastal regions and Economic Analysis of Natural Resources in two of Namibia's four coastal regions: Karas and Erongo. 185 16. Awareness-raising and regular information flow i s critical for institutional stakeholders, particularly those who have not been closely involved with other institutions operating on the coast. Tools to keep them `in the loop' and facilitate exchange o f views will include one or more electronic list-servers that can be used to disseminate a regular progress update and invite constructive feedback and ideas. 4.2 Local consultation and participation 17. From the start of the Project, a local forum will be putinplace ineach coastal town (or inland) through which consultations on the coastal vision, the national ICZM policy and practical activities can be channeled. 18. Each coastal towdregion will select the most suitable forum for its purposes, with the help o f the Regional Councils. Some towns may prefer to work through existing structures, such as local environmental committees; others may choose to create something specific for the NACOMA project, perhaps with a less `institutional' feel. 19. Where to hold meetings i s an important consideration. Some towns may not have a communal meeting place: Henties Bay, for example, sometimes hires a church for larger meetings. Luderitz stakeholders have identified their municipal youth centre as a potential meeting place and display area for environmental educationalmaterials. 20. Coastal villages and settlements isolated from coastal towns may need special arrangements, depending on their circumstances and traditions. Where necessary, village meetings will be organized to take place at the villages within the village settings. 21. The PCP will combine "open house'' informationsessions with more targeted in-depth consultations. These would include informal interactive workshops to generate concrete ideas and other information-gathering tools (interviews, surveys). Advance meetings could be held with community leaders from churches, schools and localbusinessesto ensure that the highest possible number of people i s aware o f what i s going on and feel comfortable about attending such meetings. Minority groups could be accompaniedby resource persons as `advocates' if necessary. 22. Meetings will be announced in advance through local media, posters and/or other appropriate means and held at convenient times to maximizeattendance. 23. The overall aim will be to identify and explore coastal issues and alternatives with stakeholders, discuss possible outcomes and foster a sense o f collective engagement. As the Project evolves, reasoned feedback will be given to explain which options have been retained and why. 4.3 Representation of key stakeholder groups throughout Project implementation 24. NACOMA will promote coordinated dialogue and participation o f key stakeholder groups through the following implementation arrangements: 186 Steering Committee (high-levelexecutive body with representatives o f six line ministries (MME, MRLGHRD, MFMR, MET, M A W and MWTC), the National Planning Commission(NPC) and the coastal Regional Councils; Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (broad-based advisory body whose members will include representatives o f the coastal Regional Councils, key line ministries, local authorities, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and other civil society representations). Additional members may be co-opted as necessary, including representatives o f complementary programmes such as BCLME, UNDP Protected Areas Programme and the Finnish/French decentralization supportprogrammes. 25. The ICZMC will request each coastal region, at the start of Project implementation, to designate formally a Coastal Zone Focal Point to facilitate dissemination o f relevant information andregular liaison within the regionconcerned. 26. The ICZMC may establish technical working groups or other informal structures to address specific coastal issues and facilitate problem-solving, It will ensure that individuals invited to join such a group or structure have appropriate familiarity, expertise andor level o f authority regarding the issue concerned, includingproper representationo f private sector interests. Scientific Group on ICZM (independent body, based on existing structures, to provide high-quality scientific and other data to create a common platform for decision-making and minimize differences o f opinion amongst stakeholders with regard to management issues). Project Coordination Office (PCO) (operational responsibility for NACOMA implementation, based inErongo). Reauired technical assistance 27. PCP implementation will require technical assistance for the following activities: consultancy support for scoping o f local consultative for a; desigdcontent o f information materials; selection o f participatory techniques taking account o f different characteristics and priority issues for each part o f the coast; and possible mediation with local institutional and other stakeholders on more controversial issues; training o f facilitators (local, regional andpossibly national levels); production and dissemination o f materials; organization and conduct of stakeholder meetings and interactive workshops, both inlocal consultative fora andhigher-level problem-solving workshops. 28. The PCP will ensure consistency with the NACOMA Environment Management Plan and the work o f the NACOMA-supported environmental advisor, CZ Focal person, etc.. 187 6. Monitorinpand evaluation,includingindicators,freauencv of M&E,etc. 29. The PCP will set out indicators on dissemination, consultation and participation, linked to the different components, timeline and responsibilities. These will be integrated into the project arrangements for resultsmonitoring. 30. The PCP will be reviewed at mid-term(36) to determine its effectiveness and identify scope for adjustment or improvement. 7. Responsibilitvfor oversight of PCP 31, This will be the task o f the PCO and assessed on a regular basis during the Bank's supervision missions. The oversight will include documentation o f lessons learnedand ensure their integration into the replication strategy as well as adequate consultation processes. 8. Grievancelappealsprocedure 32. Should any complaints or grievances arise during NACOMA implementation, the following two-stage procedure will be applied to ensure fair and efficient handling of such complaints: a. The stakeholder(s) concerned should notify the PCO in writing with details o f the complaint or grievance, where s h e feels that his or her interests may have been curtailed (e.g. by a restriction on access to an area or resource). The PCO has operational responsibility for proper application o f the PCP and i s familiar with the socio-economic and environmental situation on the ground inNamibia. The PCO will respond to the complaint in writing within three weeks o f receipt, setting out reasons for his response. It will send copies o f this response to the SC and ICZMC. b. If the complainant stakeholder(s) is not satisfied by this response, she would have the right of recourse to the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC), Namibia's leading public interest law centre that i s committed to creating a human rights culture and promoting access to justice inNamibia. The LAC works in three broad areas: litigation and advice, education and training and research and advocacy. The PCO must provide the complainant with contact details for the L A C andor transmit such complaint to the LAC. The director o f the LAC shall consult with the PCO, other Project bodies and all concerned parties inorder to find an amicable solution through negotiation or mediation. 188 e . . 0 a 2 w e, y! g % 0 0 0 D a - a m c0u a a a I . . . D O 8 !i w 3 E i? 8 Y m Uf 8 'E 8 2. 88b aB 0 a s3 B9 8e, m !5 3c Y 1cz m 13 8 2 W v) 2 3 d F .I 16x 9 c) & e! P x ic r $4 m ai r c +c 0 Y i e 0 . 0 . . .r. 6 8 3 wM 41 0 cw 0