PROJECT BRIEF
1. IDENTIFIERS:
PROJECT NUMBER:
P071579
COUNTRY
PROJECT NAME:
Benin
Community-Based Coastal and Marine
Biodiversity Management Project (CBCBM)
DURATION:
5 years
World Bank
Benin Environmental Agency (ABE)
Republic of Benin
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) Signed
06/13/1992 ratified 06/30/1994
Other relevant conventions signed/ratified:
- Ramsar Convention
- Abidjan Convention16.10.1997
- CITES
- Memorandum of understanding on
conservation of marine turtles of Africa’s
Atlantic coast (1999, Abidjan)
Biodiversity
OP2: Coastal, Marine, and Fresh Water
Ecosystems
MPLEMENTING AGENCY:
EXECUTING AGENCY:
REQUESTING COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES:
ELIGIBILITY:
GEF FOCAL AREA:
GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK:
2. SUMMARY:
The coastal wetlands of Benin support a number of species of global or regional conservation
concern and are internationally important as they have been identified as: (i) wetlands of
international importance under the Ramsar Convention (sites 1017 and 1018); (ii) lying within
three ‘Global 200’ priority eco-regions in the coast of Benin by WWF; and (iii) as areas for
priority conservation by the ‘Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (IUCNWB).
Globally important biological diversity is not the only wealth of the coastal zone. While covering
only 10% of the country’s land area, the Benin’s coastal zone harbors about 60% of the country’s
total population. The coastal zone plays a key role in the creation of total wealth, and is said to
contribute around 70% of the country’s GDP. From a microeconomic standpoint, the coastal zone
also plays a key role in sustaining the livelihood of the local population.
Population pressure and the drive to boost the gross production from the coastal zone without
proper environmental management has created a host of threats that are now jeopardizing the
integrity of the productive resource base, as well as the existence of the unique and globally
significant biodiversity resources.
The project activities are organized in four components:
 Component 1: Institution and capacity building for coastal zone management
 Component 2: Community-based biodiversity conservation
 Component 3: Monitoring and evaluation of coastal wetland and marine biodiversity, and
 Component 4: Project coordination and management.
1
The activities of the projects are fully mainstreamed into the budget program and the medium-term
expenditure framework of the Ministry of Environment, Housing, and Urban Development
(MEHU). Indeed, integrated coastal zone management is one of the components of the national
environmental management program (PNGE) adopted two years ago. Following the adoption of
the PRSP, IDA support to Benin will be channeled through a series of Poverty Reduction Support
Credits (PRSCs) that will continue to support the PNGE of which the proposed project is part.
The Government/IDA budget allocations to the MEHU will finance the baseline activities of the
proposed project. GEF resources will be earmarked and channeled to the Treasury account of the
implementing agency (the Benin Environmental Agency- ABE) to support the incremental costs
of the proposed project. The project will also assist the Government of Benin in meeting its
international commitments under the Convention on Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands, through the implementation of priority conservation activities at selected sites of global
significance in coastal zones consistent with the approved National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (NBSAP).
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION $US):
US$ m
GEF FINANCING:
PDF-B
Project
0.35
4.3
4.65
French Cooperation (Lagune)
Government/IDA (PNGE/PRSC/Coastal
Erosion)
UNFPA (Biodiversity and Populated Areas
0.70
7.3
GEF TOTAL SUPPORT:
CO-FINANCING:
TOTAL CO-FINANCING
TOTAL DIRECT PROJECT COST:
ASSOCIATED FINANCING:
Leverage ratio GEF/co-funding: 2:2
DFID Sustainable Fisheries Regional
National Project
AfDB/IFAD Traditional Fishery Project
Government/IDA (CDD project)
TOTAL ASSOCIATED FINANCING:
4. IA CONTACT
CHRISTOPHE CREPIN
SENIOR REGIONAL COORDINATOR
AFRICA REGION
WORLD BANK
1818 H STREET, NW, J6-177
WASHINGTON, DC 20043
(202) 473-9727
CCREPIN@WORLDBANK.ORG
2
1.8
9.8
14.1
1.5
15.5
10
27.0
Main acronyms
ABE
AIED
BR
CBCBM
CBD
CIED
CREP
CZMP
MEHU
MTEF
NBSAP
PERAC
PIAGE
PLAGE
PNGE
PRSC
PRSP
UNFPA
Benin Environment Agency
Association on Intercommunal Eco –
Développement
Biological Reserve
Community-Based Coastal and Marine Biodiversity
Management Project (GIZC)
Convention on Biodiversity
Inter-communal Management Councils
Caisse Rurale d’Epargne et de Prêt
Coastal Zone Master Plan (SDAL)
Ministere de l ‘Environnement, de l ‘Habitat et de
l’Urbanisme
Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
Public Expenditure Reform Credit
Plan Intercommunal d’ d'Aménagement et de
Gestion de l'Environnement
Plan Local d'Aménagement et de Gestion de
l'Environnement
Programme Nationale de Gestion de
l’Environnement
Poverty Reduction Strategy Credit
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
UN Population Fund
3
A. Project Development Objective (see Annex 1)
The proposed Benin Community-Based Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Project aims to
maintain the biological diversity and ecological functions of coastal wetlands and other ecosystems
in the coastal zone1, while supporting the livelihood and economic opportunities of the communities
living in these areas. The project will achieve this goal by (i) strengthening the capacity of national
and local institutions to develop, test, and evaluate methods and tools to effectively manage coastal
resources and integrate environmental protection into economic development planning and poverty
reduction efforts, and (ii) establishing “biological” reserves (reserves biologiques (BR)); highly
diverse biological areas all located within the two Ramsar sites of the country. More specifically, the
proposed project will (i) assist local communities and municipalities in the formulation and
implementation of sustainable resource management plans (improved practices and adequate
institutional arrangements); (ii) support alternative livelihoods that take pressure off the coastal
resources; and (iii) support priority conservation activities in the coastal corridor.
Global Objective (see Annex 1)
The project will assist the Government of Benin to establish viable coastal zone management systems
in priority sites of global biodiversity significance. Its objectives are consistent with the country’s
NBSAP, and will focus on the conservation of biodiversity-rich niches located in sites designated as
globally significant by several organizations: (i) designated Ramsar sites; (ii) ‘Global 200’ priority
eco-regions identified by WWF; and (iii) priority areas for conservation by the ‘Global Representative
System of Marine Protected Areas (IUCN). These objectives will be achieved through the
development of an innovative approach to coastal zone management that supports and empowers local
communities to establish community-based conservation areas (reserves). The project fills a major gap
in the national conservation programs, none of which provides for conservation of Benin’s coastal
zone and wetlands. These community conservation areas will include key biodiversity resources
specific to the southern and coastal ecosystems of Benin. Despite its global biological importance,
Benin’s coastal zone entirely lacks protected areas.2 (The only officially protected site is the Forest of
Lama, although its legal status is that of classified forest.) Along with the national parks of the
northern savannah zone, these conservation areas will provide the opportunity to conserve and protect
the biodiversity resources of the two main ecosystems of the country.
The main activities to be implemented by the project include the following:
a) Establishment of an institutional framework for integrated management of coastal resources in
line with the mandates and responsibilities of the organizations, agencies, and stakeholders
identified in the Coastal Zone Master Plan;
b) Implementation of management plans for the Ramsar sites and proposed reserves ;
c) Identification, restoration and protection of critical biodiversity resources through communitybased conservation plans supported by necessary actions at the national and regional levels;
d) Strengthening of capacity of relevant agencies to address urgent coastal erosion and other
resource degradation issues through the identification of cost-effective technical solutions;
e) Support for sustainable livelihood options for local populations; and
f) Development of an environmental monitoring system and an information network to support
coastal wetland and marine resource management.
Key Performance Indicators (see Annex 1)
1
The Ramsar Site boundaries match the area defined as coastal zone in the Coastal Zone Master Plan.
2
Despite this lack of legal protection, there remain numerous forest patches ranging in size from a few hectares to several hundred hectares
that have so far remained protected through traditional beliefs. Particularly worthy of note are the sacred forests of Gbèvozoun, Ganhouizoun,
Bembè and Avagbodji, last remaining fragments of Congolian Coastal forests in Benin of substantial size. Such traditional forms of
protection are however weakening with the decline in traditional beliefs and the extreme pressures on resources exercised by a dense
population and governed by the force of the market. Extensive studies on the feasibility of conserving priority sites have examined the
potential for conserving forests through reinforcement of traditional protection and using participatory approaches. Subsequent workshops
with district authorities, forest stakeholders, NGOs and conservation specialists led to general agreement on the need to conserve these
forests and identified a substantial number of additional sites for protection.
4
Based on the above-mentioned activities, the key performance indicators of the project include the
following:
Policy and Enabling Environment:
a) Effective coordination of sectoral policies and programs as pertaining to the use and
exploitation of coastal resources and coastal wetlands is in place;
b) Inter-sectoral and interagency committees are created and are functional at the municipal
and/or department level;
c) Increased and improved participation of stakeholders: the role and responsibilities of all
stakeholders in coastal zone management are clarified and resource exploitation rules are
prepared and agreed upon by the end of the project;
d) All the municipalities of the project zone have prepared and adopted a local environmental and
resource management plan (PLAGE, PIAGE) that mainstreams the requirements and
objectives of the Coastal Zone Master Plan into the communal development plan;
e) Annual training and awareness raising programs prepared, administered, and evaluated, and
improved consistently throughout the project life;
f) Environmental database (state of resources, biodiversity, sources of threats, standards and
indicators for resource monitoring, etc.) for coastal wetland and marine resources created and
maintained;
g) Cost-effective technical options for controlling coastal erosion, and effective tools for
sustainable environmental management identified, tested and used by the end of project.
Biodiversity:
h) At least four critical ecosystems/sites in the targeted areas are selected, demarcated and put
under protection/management through creation of reserves and elaboration of management
plans by the end of the project;
i) Encroachment, illegal exploitation, and over-exploitation of coastal resources in ecodevelopment zones and reserves reduced by at least two-thirds by the end of project;
Sustainable use:
(j) Targeted communities voluntarily employing alternative livelihoods and sustainable modes of
resource use identified in local development plans (PLAGE and PIAGE) supported by the
project.
B. Strategic Context
B.1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the Project (see
Annex 1)
Document number: 21957-BEN (interim CAS) 3
In order to increase the rate of economic growth and reduce poverty, the Government of Benin
initiated in 1999 a program dealing with far reaching public expenditure reforms intended to
strengthen the country’s capacity to manage its own resources and create the conditions necessary for
ensuring macro-financial stability. These reforms evolved around several main axes. The first change
is the shift in the role of the finance and planning ministries from centralized management of actual
spending to increased devolution of spending authority to line ministries and agencies within a sound
and more robust financial fiduciary framework. The second is a move toward performance-based
budgeting, based on well-defined program budgets formulated within a medium-term macroeconomic
and financial framework. The third change involves improvements in the budget reporting system in
order to generate the financial information needed for monitoring, evaluation, and audits. The fourth
change relates to improvements introduced in procurement procedures and practice. It should also be
noted that these reforms emphasize a shift in assistance toward sector level and cross-cutting public
sector management issues.
3
Final CAS expected to be completed by end of 2004.
5
The interim CAS mirrors these reforms by stressing the need to move away from adjustment
operations combined with discrete investment projects, to supporting a comprehensive poverty
reduction strategy through consolidated program support. Traditional project operations would
continue only in a limited number of cases where the benefits of separate implementation and
financing outweigh the advantages associated with consolidated financial arrangement. The change in
the Bank lending instruments materialized in 2000 with the preparation of the Public Expenditure
Reform Credit (PERAC) designed to support the Government 2001 budget preparation and execution
in five ministries which account for 57% of total budget.
The Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Planning (MEHU) is among these, previously 5
now 8, departments4 targeted by the PERAC. Thus, based on the existing department strategy, MEHU
prepared a budget program covering both the current and capital expenditures (whether domestically
or externally financed) of each of its directorates. This budget program is based on a logical
framework linking requested inputs to sector activities, outputs, and objectives. The objectives of the
environment directorate are pursued through the national environmental program (PNGE). This
program includes 12 sub-programs consisting of two main categories of activities. The first category
deals with capacity building and environmental management tools, whereas the second is related to
area-based investment operations.
The focus of the investment operations of the environment directorate of MEHU includes: (i) urban
environmental management (i.e., integrated solid and household waste management, transport air
pollution), (ii) natural resource management in the sudano-sahelian zone, and (iii) integrated coastal
zone management. These investment operations feature prominently in the medium-term strategic
plan (2002-2006) of MEHU and in the PRSP. The 2000-2002 medium term expenditure framework
(MTEF) allocated resources to urban air pollution and coastal erosion control, and similar provisions
are made in the 2003-2005 MTEF.
PRSC 1 and Environmental Management
To support the implementation of the newly adopted PRSP, the Bank is preparing the first Poverty
Reduction Support Credit (PRSC 1) for Benin. This Credit will channel IDA resources to support the
Government budget. PRSC 1 will maintain the focus on the public expenditure reforms supported by
the PERAC. In addition, it will support the budget programs of a number of Ministries, including the
MEHU. The MEHU’s budget program developed on the basis of the 2003-2005 MTEF, and its
“environment” component focuses on the implementation of the PNGE, namely the following
investments:
 Development and deepening of environmental management tools;
 Technical assistance to local governments for development and implementation of municipal
environmental action plans;
 Information, education, and communication;
 Urban water supply and sanitation;
 Environmental information system and environmental monitoring; and
 Integrated coastal zone management.
The coastal zone management activities started in 2000, and were expanded with the support provided
by PDF-B grant resources. After several monts preparation, Benin decided to integrate this project
concept into a PRSC rather than a standard stand alone project to channel the IDA funding. The
blending of this project with the PRSCs has taken significant time to put together, but demonstrates
further commitment from the country to ensure full integration and mainstreaming of coastal
environmental planning with its resulting global environmental benefits will occur parallel to activities
in country which work to reduce poverty.
4
Education, health, rural development, public works and transportation, environment and urban development followed later
by water and energy, justice and industry and trade.
6
From an operational standpoint, the activities of the proposed project are fully mainstreamed in the
MEHU’s budget program, covering the 2003-2005 period (in fact the MTEF for environment is the
budget program). All the activities included in the budget programs are funded from the Government
budget which will be supported by the PRSC 1.
Through the annual budgeting process, the project will secure budget allocations that will finance the
baseline activities, while the GEF resources support the incremental financing of the proposed
additional activities intended to meet the global environment objectives. Through the annual process,
the Ministry of Environment and project management through ABE will agree ex-ante on the yearly
budget allocations necessary to finance the baseline activities (i.e., those associated with national
benefits), and establish firm allocation commitments during budget preparation each year. Thus, each
annual budget of MEHU will include pre-determined allocations to finance the agreed baseline
activities. Additionally, the project will work to enable the government to abide by the statute that
created ABE, which provided administrative and financial autonomy, allowing ABE the flexibility and
oversight capacity necessary to execute the cross-sectoral mandate to enforce environmental
regulations. Once these steps are taken, the GEF funding will be able to make direct allocations to the
ABE’s account at the Treasury which fund the incremental cost of coastal zone management activities.
IDA resources transferred through the series of PRSCs will support the national budget that finances
MEHU’s budget programs (including the coastal zone baseline activities).
B.2. Consistency with GEF Operational Strategy/Operational Program Objective #2 on Marine,
Coastal and Freshwater Ecosystems
Benin ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on June 30, 1994. Additionally, Benin signed
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance on November 24, 2000. The
objective of the proposed project is fully consistent with the GEF Biodiversity Strategy and
Operational Program 2 Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems and has an emphasis on
Operational Program 3 for Forest Ecosystems. It is in line with the CBD Conference of Parties’ (COP)
guidance on the conservation in situ of critical coastal and marine ecosystems (Art. 8) and with the
Agenda 21. The project also follows the guidance of COP 3 and COP 4 by:
 Conserving biodiversity through the creation of reserves managed by local communities using
an integrated ecosystem approach;
 Involving local communities through training, knowledge sharing, networking, and the
development of compatible incentives for the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources;
 Supporting inter-sectoral resource planning, and collaboration across government levels
(central and local) through the creation of policy coordination and consultation mechanisms,
and through technical and institutional strengthening at national and local levels; and
 Innovative measures to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity such as economic incentives,
strengthened involvement of local communities and integration of social dimension related to
biodiversity.
The project is consistent with the strategic priorities for biodiversity under GEF-3. In particular, this
project ties in well to Pillars I and II of the strategic priorities. Project activities consist of four
interrelated components which aim to create technical, institutional, organizational, socio-economic
and governance conditions required to ensure an increase of economic benefits flowing from the
coastal resources, while protecting productivity and the biological diversity of the coastal ecosystems.
Support for this project will provide an opportunity for the GEF to play a catalytic role in improving
the sustainability of critical biodiversity areas within the littoral zone of Benin, introducing alternative
livelihoods for immediate benefit to the local communities as well as emphasizing the long-term
benefits of conservation of coastal assets. The project will create protected reserves (BR) within
Ramsar-designated wetlands in the South of Benin, areas of extreme global biodiversity significance,
thereby expanding the national protected area system.
7
The project will provide the means for (i) coordinating sectoral policies for a better management of the
coastal zone, (ii) mainstreaming coastal biodiversity conservation into sectoral policies and programs,
and into regional and local development plans, and (iii) establishing four community-based
biodiversity conservation and management areas. These activities will yield both domestic and global
benefits.
The project will assist the Government of Benin to systematically mainstream biodiversity concerns
into overall environmental and resource planning and integrating environmental concerns into the
country’s policies for production systems. The project will entail capacity building at both the
village/commune and government levels, fostering the development of sound policies at the national
level and use practices at the local level. The proposed project will enhance participation of local and
indigenous communities in the use, management and conservation of Benin’s coastal biodiversity,
which is crucial to facilitate long-term success in maintaining Benin’s biodiversity assets.
The proposed project seeks to mainstream biodiversity conservation into the formulation of
management plans at three levels: within the national Coastal Zone Management Master Plan; for the
country’s two Ramsar sites; and within the local development plans in the municipalities located in
target conservation areas within the Ramsar sites (See Component 2 and Annex 8 for more detail on
target sites).
GEF resources will be used to develop and implement community-based conservation plans that are
fully integrated into and supported by commune level development and environmental management
plans. These community-based conservation plans will address the root causes of the degradation of
globally significant biological resources in the coastal areas (see Annex 7) by encouraging local
populations to invest in the maintenance of environmental assets, and to adopt improved resource
exploitation practices that preserve the base of these valuable assets. The project will also focus upon
development and implementation of system strategic plans, targeted training to maximize institutional
efficiency and promoting co-management, stakeholder participation and sustainable use of threatened
biodiversity. In so doing, the project will assist the Government of Benin in taking significant steps
toward implementing the priority actions included in its NBSAP.5
B.3. Main Sector Issues and Government Strategy
Global and sectoral importance (see Annex 7)
The Benin coastal zone is comprised of two distinct complexes of wetland ecosystems centered
respectively on the Ouémé river basin in the east and the Ahemé river basin in the west. The western
zone is distinguished by three relatively narrow river basins (Mono, Sazué, Couffo) with associated
small lakes culminating in a well-developed coastal lagoon system. The eastern complex is
characterized by the extensive, highly fertile, floodplains of the Ouémé river and by the presence of
Lake Nokoué, the largest lake in Benin. Lake Nokoué is connected to the large coastal lagoon of
Porto-Novo that extends into Nigeria where it breaks through to the sea.
The coastal wetlands of Benin support a number of species of global or regional conservation concern
including red-bellied guenon Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster (IUCN Endangered), African
manatee Trichechus senegalensis (IUCN Vulnerable), hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius, red
river hog Potamochoerus porcus, aardvark Orycteropus afer (IUCN Vulnerable), Sitatunga antelope
Tragelaphus spekei gratus, African clawless otter Aonyx capensis and four species of sea turtles
(leatherback Dermochelys coriacea, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea, green turtle Chelonia mydas
and Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata).
5
NBSAP was validated by May 2002. The project contributes to the implementation of identified priority actions (capacity
building at all levels, involvement of local stakeholders, conservation of vulnerable priority ecosystems and key species,
integration of biodiversity concerns in PRSP process, diversification energy sources and use and promotion of ecotourism.
8
Benin’s coastal wetlands are internationally important as wildfowl habitat with 233 species reported to
date. The Eastern complex supports about 2.5% of the world’s populations of black tern Childonius
niger and over 1% of the following species: Childonius hybridus (Whisked tern), Egretta ardesiaca
(black heron), Egretta garzetta (Little egrets), Anastomus lamolligerus and Glareola pratincola
(Collared pratincole). The Western Complex supports over 1% of the world’s population of Sterna
maxima (African royal tern). It is the richness of the bird life in the eastern and western coastal
wetlands of Benin that has led to their designation as wetlands of international importance under the
Ramsar Convention (sites 1017 and 1018). More detailed information on the ecological characteristics
of the Ramsar sites and corresponding target areas for project activities can be found in Annex 8.
In 2000, a survey conducted by a group of experts (supported by the Netherlands Committee-IUCN,
and the Centre Beninois pour le Developpement Durable) established that humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) are seasonally (early August to early November) common in Benin waters.
Indeed, several sightings substantiated the presence of these species and other cetaceans (dolphins) in
Benin continental shelf waters. The study determined that the four countries of the Bight of Benin,
i.e., Benin, Ghana, Nigeria, and Togo are Range States for the humpback whale. The study also
concluded that the continental waters of these states are used as breeding ground by the southern
hemisphere humpback whale population likely related to Gabon and Angolan sub-stocks.
Benin’s coastal zone has been inhabited for at least eight centuries, and harbored very prosperous
kingdoms during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Yet, it was not until the last decades of the twentieth
century that human settlement has started to have noticeable deleterious impacts on the coastal
ecosystems and resource base. Population pressure has dramatically increased during this period due
to higher fertility rates and rapid urbanization (4%/year).
The impact of this pressure is noticeable on the coastal wetlands, their ecosystems and on the
biological resources of the whole coastal zone. The population of several animal species, such as
Aardvark, Red-bellied Guenon, Manatee, Hippopotamus, Bush pig, Sitatunga antelope, sea turtles and
others has declined through hunting and loss of habitat. At least one species, the chimpanzee, has
become extinct in the coastal region. Urban sprawl along the Atlantic coast, increasing urban and rural
poverty, lack of appropriate regulations (or weak enforcement thereof) pertaining to land use, open
access, and weak institutions have all contributed to the decline of the economic potential, the
ecological health, and the biological diversity of the coastal areas. The proposed project will address
the specific issues of coastal resource management as discussed below.
Key issues related to environmental degradation in the coastal zone (summary of threats and root
causes below, details in Annex 7):
Threat
 Cutting of natural forest cover
 Hunting of wildlife
 Over-harvesting of aquatic resources
 Conversion of marsh to agriculture
 Hydrological disturbance
 Urban encroachment
 Invasive species and pests
 Pollution
 Erosion and sedimentation of water bodies
Root cause
 High rate of population growth/demographic
pressure
 Dependence on wood for fuel
 Laws and decrees lacking or not enforced
 Open access resources
 Inefficient agricultural practices
 Lack of coordinated planning
 Lack of effective urban planning
 Lack of sanitation
 Lack of sustainable development alternatives
1) Resource Base
Erosion and sedimentation
9
Erosion and sedimentation of the coastal rivers and lakes are due to both natural and anthropogenic
factors. Sedimentation of lakes, rivers, and wetlands is due to deforestation and the removal of
vegetative cover (fuelwood consumption, agricultural lands, or raw materials for crafts) on river banks
and watersheds, and the resulting erosion. High demand for wood energy fueled by high population
density in the Ouémé valley, in and around Cotonou and Porto-Novo fuels has led to the degradation
of swamp forests and watersheds, especially in the East Complex. In the West Complex, particularly
around the coastal lagoon system, vast mangrove areas are degraded as women collect as much
fuelwood as they can to produce salt, extract coco oil, and smoke fish. Sediments trapping by built
structures in or on water bodies (fishing techniques and roads) also play a role.
The sandy nature of sediments and the variations in the speed of water flow are the main causes of the
natural erosion of rivers’ and lakes’ banks. These natural processes have increased manifold due to
two types of human interventions. The first type consists of fixed and relatively large infrastructure
built near or on the coast, including the Cotonou port, some roads, and check dams built on major
water bodies. The construction of these structures has disrupted the hydrological and geophysical
processes of rivers and lakes, and the slow tectonic processes of the Atlantic coast.
Strong evidence links the sharp increase in downstream erosion noticed at the Mono river mouth
(located in the west wetland complex) to the construction of the Nangbeto dam (in Togo). Since the
construction of the dam in 1987, many rural property and homes have been swept away by erosion of
the river banks, before adjustments in the management of the flood gates reduced and stabilized the
erosion rate. Even more troubling is the erosion rate in the Eastern wetlands and coastal zone
complex. This erosion is said to have increased since the construction of the port. In one portion of
the littoral east of Cotonou the sea is advancing at an estimated rate of twenty meters per year,
destroying invaluable urban land and property (including a hotel). The second type of erosion induced
by human interventions is due to sand exploitation for construction work both on river banks and
seashore. Uncontrolled sand mining has expanded rapidly over the last years, and is blamed for
increased erosion inland and along the littoral.
Pollution water, air, soil
Pollution is a major cause of the degradation of wetland and coastal ecosystems, especially in the
vicinity of Cotonou and Porto-Novo. Indeed, these two urban agglomerations lack still sanitary
landfills. As a result, liquid and solid wastes from both households and industries (textile, agroindustrial plants, soap manufacturing plants, etc.) are inappropriately disposed of in or near urban or
sub-urban wetlands or lakes. Industrial effluents are often dumped untreated in lakes, streams, and
wetlands. A 1996 survey found that the Cotonou lagoon receives every year as much as 3,700 m3 of
wastewater. Similar figures are 2,464 m3, and 260 m3 respectively for the Porto-Novo lagoon and lake
Ahémé. Runoff from agro-chemicals (pesticides and fertilizer) is also a concern. In addition to the
human health impact, this level of pollution would affect significantly the coastal ecosystems, their
key species6 (e.g. whales) and potential for ecotourism if unabated.
Degradation of fisheries
There is clear evidence that over-exploitation is degrading the resource base of fisheries. In recent
years, as the resource base was near depletion in the lake Nokoué and the Porto-Novo lagoon,
fishermen migrated to the Ouémé valley. The increase in the number of fishermen in this new area
meant smaller catches with much higher level of fishing effort. According to fishermen, several fish
species have become rare, and a few have become extinct. There decline in fisheries productivity may
be linked to three main causes: (i) rapid increase in the number of fishermen, (ii) inappropriate fishing
technology and unclear property rights, and (iii) point- and non-point pollution, as well as the
6
Key species are defined here mainly as species of recognized global conservation concern (IUCN Endangered, Vulnerable or Red Listed;
CITES listed; listed in regional conventions etc.) but also as species of high socio-economic importance (e.g. as sources of food and
traditional medicine) and species that are especially useful as ecosystem indicators.
10
proliferation of weed and water hyacinth leading to a degradation of natural habitats for flora and
fauna.
2) Socio-economic and cultural constraints
Rapid population increase in the coastal zone (8 % per year) coupled with stagnant, if not decreasing
per capita income, left local populations with no other livelihood, but reliance on direct exploitation of
natural resources for both subsistence and income generation. At the same time, the sheer size of the
population, and the large increase in the proportion of individuals of different cultural and social
background constrained the application of local rules for resource exploitations that were based on
shared ethnic and social backgrounds as well as common religious and other beliefs.
This situation led to the breakdown of the informal constraints that coastal communities imposed upon
themselves for many centuries in order to ensure the sustainable use of the natural resources that
maintain their livelihood. The replacement of these local resource management regimes by formal
constraints enacted by government regulations did not prove successful because the new regulations do
not always meet the livelihood, socio-economic and cultural needs of local populations. The
breakdown of the local management rules, the perceived unfitness of government regulations, and the
lack of government means to enforce its regulations led to de facto prevalence of open access and the
degradation of the resource base in most areas.
3) Weak enforcement of and inadequate regulations
An analysis of the regulatory framework pertaining to the use of coastal wetlands and marine resources
(land, forests, water, wildlife, fisheries, etc.), reveals that several factors inhibit compliance and
enforcement of the existing laws and regulations.
Benin has enacted a number of laws regulating the use of land, forest, fisheries and wildlife resources,
and the Government is in the process of adopting an overarching framework law regulating access and
use of coastal land resources. Yet, much remains to be done. In general, three main shortcomings
characterize the current legal framework related to natural resource use, in particular, the coastal
resources. The first shortcoming is the vagueness of the law content. Environmental statutes that
address broad resource use issues tend to concentrate only on the main purpose of the law, elaborating
very little on what needs to be done to achieve the intended goal. In general, more precise
implementation statutes are needed to define the measures and citizen’s behavior required to comply
with the general statute. In Benin, many implementation decrees still need to be taken before some of
the laws adopted many years ago can be complied with.
The second constraint in the legal framework is the inconsistency or incompatibility between
regulations. In general, this inconsistency results from the lack of an integrated planning framework
for institutions sharing the same resource base for formulation of their policy. As a result, many wellintentioned regulations initiated by different sectoral institutions to meet their specific needs are often
incompatible with each other. There are also instances where the inconsistency is time bound. That is,
laws that were adopted decades ago (some time under the colonial rule) outlived their usefulness, but
are still in the books. This makes voluntary compliance by resource users almost impossible.
The third limitation of the regulatory framework is the lack of information and sensitization about the
regulations themselves and their ultimate purpose. In a context where the majority of the resource
users in rural and sub-urban areas have little formal education, and where all the laws are in French, it
is important that the enactment of each law be supported by sufficient information campaigns in both
the official and local languages. Such information and awareness-raising efforts are necessary
components of an effective compliance and enforcement framework for ICZM.
4) Institutional weakness review
A large number of institutions linked to various sectors are engaged in many economic activities that
affect directly or indirectly coastal wetlands and marine ecosystems. These institutions have different
mandates that are based on laws and policies that differ in more than one way. The need to ensure
11
collaboration among these institutions in order to develop a truly integrated coastal zone management
policy faces several challenges, as described below:



Low technical capacity of the staff of many of these institutions in policy development
analysis pertaining to coastal resource management;
Lack of effective mechanism to coordinate activities and establish consultation among various
institutions whose activities have direct impacts on coastal ecosystems; and
Relatively high degree of centralization of policy development processes and top-down
approach that prevent the (i) establishment of community-based resource management regimes
more likely to address resource degradation problems successfully, and (ii) the devolution of
resource planning and regulatory authority to lower levels of governments. Following the first
communal elections in December 2002, substantive efforts are needed to enable local
government and stakeholders to fulfill their roles and tasks.
5) Government environmental strategy (see Annex 5)
The responsibility for environmental policy formulation and implementation lies with the Ministry of
Environment, Housing and Urban Affairs (MEHU) created in 1991. MEHU has four main directorates
including: environment, urban development and sanitation, housing and construction, and land use
planning.7 In addition, MEHU oversees several specialized agencies: (i) the National Geographic
Institute (IGN) for maps production and establishment of a geodetic network, (ii) the agency for
regional studies and urban development (SERHAU), (iii) the agency for labor intensive public works
(AGETUR) specialized in urban rehabilitation and infrastructure development, and the Benin
Environmental Agency (ABE), a parastatal.
National Environmental Action Plan
Since the early 1990s, the government strategy has relied on the preparation of a National
Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) and it’s implementation. The implementation of the NEAP
(adopted in 1993 and updated in 2001), has been one of the key tasks of the MEHU. Among the many
objectives pursued by the NEAP, the following have a direct bearing on coastal zone management:





Applied and adaptive research on sustainable agriculture technologies, communal land
management, agro-silvo-pastoral integration;
Conservation and management of biodiversity through a better knowledge and monitoring of
existing resource stock, sustainable management of protected areas through decentralization of
Government responsibilities and involvement of local communities;
Preparation and implementation of a water management master plan and strengthening of
capacity for water quality control;
Improvement of infrastructure and services in rural areas and formulation of land tenure
policy; and
Improvement of infrastructure and services in urban areas through better planning and
rehabilitation of urban centers, management of waste disposal, provision of sanitation
infrastructure and services, control of pollution and coastal erosion, decentralization and
development of the capacity of municipalities to raise revenue for local environmental
management and provision of social services.
The main externally funded interventions supporting the implementation of the NEAP included (i) the
natural resource management project (1992-1999, funded by IDA and GTZ), the environmental
management project (1996-2001), and the on-going (2000-2005) national parks conservation and
management program (financed by the World Bank/GEF, KfW/GTZ, EU, The Netherlands, and the
French Cooperation). Since the adoption of the NEAP, many Government initiatives as well as
donor-supported interventions aimed at meeting the objectives of the NEAP have been implemented:
7
A restructuring of MEHU is currently on-going. The new organigram is expected to show only 3 directorates (environment, urban and
sanitation, housing and construction) and an independent delegation for land use planning.
12
1/ National Environmental Management Program
The Government has prepared a national environmental management program (PNGE) with 12
components in which coastal zone management features prominently8. Further, activities to facilitate
elaboration of local environmental management plans (PLAGE), to reinforce capacity of
environmental NGOs, to develop and implement IEC activities and to set up a national pertinent M&E
system are some of the cross-cutting tasks within PNGE and at the same time the foundation for this
project. Integrated coastal zone management is one of the components of the environmental programs
included in the MEHU medium-term (2002-2006) strategic action plan, and the national budget has
supported many diagnostic and thematic studies of the coastal zone since 1999. The project
specifically tracks the objectives of PNGE coastal zone component (ICZM, conservation of wetland
biodiversity, reinforcement of institutions in coastal zone management, support to local development
and conservation of Ramsar sites 1017 and 1018) through a system of BR.
2/ Coastal Zone Management Master Plan
The Government has completed volume 1 (diagnostic - “livre blanc”, 2000), volume 2
(sectorial study results and regulations– “Fiches thematiques de reglementation et de
preconisations”, March 2003) and most of volume 3 (detailed maps – “Atlas cartographique”,
2003) of the Coastal Zone Management Master Plan (CZMP). The production of these
volumes entailed several participatory workshops.
Volume 1 reviews the main biophysical characteristics of the coastal zone, and analyzes the
key demographic, environmental, institutional, and technical constraints to sustainable
management of coastal resources. It deals with overall natural resource use planning, and
includes assessments of (i) biodiversity, agriculture and fisheries, forestry; (ii), corresponding
impacts of industries, such as sand mining, urban development, energy, transport, forest
exploitation, and fisheries; (iii) current and envisioned land constraints; and (iv) planning for
management and zoning of resources. The volume discusses the key challenges the country
faces in developing a sound coastal zone management policy, and provides the basis for
further development and natural resource use planning in the Coastal Zone.
The second volume, (i) proposes distinct development options that are compatible with
specific ecosystems of the coastal zone, and (ii) develops sectoral guidelines for the
mainstreaming of biodiversity into sector policies and the regulatory and legal framework of
Benin including appropriate zoning and ensuring environmental and social safeguards.
Volume 3 includes currently 36 general maps (ecological habitats) and will be completed with
maps for each commune.
In addition, the draft framework law for coastal zone management (see below) and sectorial
management plans (agriculture, mining, salt making, tourism, fisheries, etc.) as well as the
management plans for the two Ramsar Sites (under finalization) complement the three
volumes of the CZMP.
3/ Framework Law for Coastal Zone Management
The Government has prepared a draft framework law for coastal zone management. The
preparation of this law also followed a consultation process with stakeholders. It is currently
introduced at the Supreme Court. The law clarifies the condition of access and use of coastal
zone resources and describes the main legal, institutional, and technical instruments that will
guide the management of the coastal zone. The law is still general in its content. The
proposed project will help prepare more detailed decrees and technical guidelines to support
enforcement and compliance with the framework law, and the NBSAP.
8
The objective of this component in PNGE is to establish integrated environmental management system in biodiversity rich but fragile
coastal zone through elaboration of legal, institutional and decisive tools aiming to assist local development. Main indicators are: mangrove
restored area, increase in waterbirds, increase in reproduction rate of marine turtles and manatees.
13
4/ Forestry Code
In 1993, when the NEAP was still under preparation, the Government adopted a new forestry
code. This code includes the recognition and definition of local user rights, and the
participation of local populations as key partners in the implementation of forest management
plans. This code was followed a year later by the adoption of a forest sector policy.
5/ Environmental law and NBSAP
The Government adopted a framework law for environment in 1999. After a series of national
validation workshops, Benin published its NBSAP in 2002. The NBSAP emphasized the need
to protect and conserve biodiversity hotspots in the Atlantic coastal zone and stressed the
importance of mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into sectoral policies, in particular,
agricultural and forestry policies and into the PRSP process.
Administration and decentralization
Under Law 97-028, administration in Benin is assured by the “deconcentrated” authorities and
technical services of the state (e.g. ministries, special authorities) and by “decentralized territorial
collectives”. The territory of Benin is divided into 12 departments (not legal entities), each
administrated by a Prefect (a legal person). Just one type of decentralized collective is to be recognized
– the ‘commune’, led by an elected mayor and governed by a communal council. Each department will
cover anything from one commune (department ‘Littoral’) to nine communes (e.g. Ouémé). The
coastal zone, as defined for the purposes of this project, extends over six departments (Littoral,
Atlantique, Mono, Plateau, Ouémé, Zou and Couffo) of which three (Littoral, Atlantique & Mono) are
on the coast and lie entirely within the coastal zone. The coastal zone includes 33 communes (out of 77
in Benin) each consisting of several villages.
Under Law 97-029 the intended scope of responsibility of communes is considerable and will include
local development, land use & management, transport infrastructure, environment, hygiene &
sanitation, primary education, literacy & adult education, health & sociocultural action, markets &
investments and management of communal “heritage” or assets. Communes are legal entities and
autonomous structures. A commune is administered by an elected municipal council who votes for the
mayor and his adjoints. Approval of the prefect is required for certain matters (e.g. transactions
involving communal property, personnel, local taxation, budget & finance, place names, markets &
concessions). Where a ministry or other technical authority has recognized authority, the commune is
obliged to manage in consultation with that authority (e.g. fisheries, forestry, agriculture, environment,
tourism etc.). Where a management issue affects more than one commune, communes are obliged to
co-operate, forming a special management entity if necessary (CIED).
The proposed project is founded on the above administrative structure, with the autonomous
communes and inter-communal structures as the principal level of intervention at the local level
(managers of their respective lands and environment), and state executive and ministries at the national
level.
Linkages with the African Process
The project has significant potential to draw synergistic linkages to the African Process, a two phase
pioneering initiative developed by African countries through the GEF as an outcome of WSSD. The
African Process focuses on identifying the leading causes of degradation of Africa’s marine and
coastal resources and, determining the most effective environmental, institutional and financial
projects to address them. The proposed project ties in very well with these objectives.
As an outcome of the phase I of the African process which included assessment, characterization and
selection of the fundamental causes/sources of environmental problems and the scale of their impacts,
a concrete program of interventions serving as the basis for bilateral or multilateral financial, and
institutional support for specific projects has been developed for implementation as phase II of the
Process. The major coastal and marine environmental issues in the participating African countries
14
have been identified through national and regional analysis of priority sites and issues, an assessment
of their impacts upon the environment and the socio-economic context, and an analysis of the
technical, sectoral and root causes of degradation.
Bearing in mind that environmental and socio-economic impacts often generate impacts beyond
specific sites and political boundaries, transboundary factors affecting the countries were identified as
pollution, water flow, migratory species and fisheries, and international trade. Further, some of the
common issues identified within the countries included fisheries and tourism, coastal management,
data monitoring, coastal erosion, coastal flooding of low lying zones, similar practices of unsustainable
resource use and similar impacts of global climate change in countries. Many if not all of these issues
are common to Benin and, thus offer an excellent opportunity to replicate and apply the lessons
learned in the African process.
B.4. Sector Issues to be Addressed by the Project and Strategic Choices
The proposed project supports the efforts of the Government in pursing the objectives of sustainable
development in line with the NEAP, the adoption of several overarching environmental laws, the
recent completion of the national biodiversity conservation strategy and the decentralization process.
In particular, the work under the proposed project will increase the technical and institutional capacity
both at the central and local levels in the areas of coastal environmental protection and biodiversity
conservation.
In the baseline scenario, while the implementation of the PGE supported the objectives of
decentralized environmental management, the municipal environmental action plans (PMAE)
developed by the PGE concentrated on improving the populations’ access to basic environmental
services and goods (water sanitation, waste collection, etc.). In the absence of a clear legal framework
on the sharing of natural resource management powers across government levels, these PMAE did not
address issues of common property resources, such as the wetlands. While they recommended and
supported pollution control activities (e.g., household waste collection and disposal) that could help
curb the pollution of wetlands, they did not clarify the issues of community rights over wetland
resources. As a result, there was no real incentive for local populations to invest time and resources in
the protection of the fauna and flora of these wetland resources.
While not supported by GEF resources, the control of coastal erosion constitutes a priority activity for
the Government/MEHU. Technical feasibility and environmental impact assessment studies are
underway or completed in order to determine the best available techniques for arresting the erosion
and recession of the coastline. These activities will be implemented as part of 2003 - 2005 MTEF and
are part of the project baseline.
Strategic Choices
The proposed project will provide solutions for addressing the causes for policy failure in the area of
coastal wetland management and protection at three strategic levels. At the first level, the project will
build on the existing environmental legislation framework by (i) working with the central and local
governments to enforce pollution control and environmental impact assessment of development in the
project area; (ii) establishing consultation and policy coordination mechanisms at national and local
level in order to harmonize sectoral interventions in the coastal zone; and (iii) fill the regulatory gap by
preparing the implementation decrees of the littoral framework law to support the use and protection of
the fauna and flora of coastal wetlands.
At the second level, the task will consists of clarifying among the central and local governments,
property rights over natural resources in the coastal zone.
Actions at the third level seek to create the enabling conditions (technical capacity, financial,
organizational and institutional support, creation of inter-municipal committee for the management of
shared resources) for local governments and communities to manage the coastal resources under
their jurisdiction, and protect the critical ecosystems of the coastal wetlands. This third level of
15
activities within the project is critical as it empowers communities and local authorities and provide for
a shift from resource utilization to resource protection, conservation and sustainable management. The
coastal zone is an area of great economic importance, providing more than 70% of the country’s gross
domestic product (GDP). The ecological functions and the natural and biological processes taking
place at the interface between the rivers, lagoons, lakes, swamps, and marine areas make the Benin
coastal zone one of the most productive of the Gulf of Guinea, and they play a key role in sustaining
the livelihood of local populations, with natural resources used to derive incomes and general
sustenance. Therefore, the project will link biodiversity conservation with sustainable livelihoods to
control the driving forces behind the over-exploitation and degradation of biodiversity resources by
engaging local governments, and communities in sustainable use practices and on-the-ground
biodiversity conservation activities. The project will work to engage local communities and
municipalities through a bottom-up approach, creating community conservation units to ensure
participation and cross-sectoral coordination of conservation efforts, as well as providing incentives to
communities for engaging in alternative livelihood activities and sustainable use of natural resources9.
Through this approach, communities will play an integral part of successfully achieving the long-term
sustainability of Benin’s coastal and marine resources.
C. Project Description Summary (see Annex 1)
C. 1. Project Components
The project activities consist of four interrelated components aimed at creating the technical,
institutional, organizational, socio-economic and governance conditions needed to ensure an increase
of economic benefits flowing from coastal natural resources, while protecting the productivity and
biological diversity of the coastal ecosystems. These components include
(i)
Institution and Capacity Building for Coastal Zone Management,
(ii)
Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation,
(iii)
Monitoring & Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands and Marine Biodiversity, and
(iv)
Project Management and Coordination.
Component 1: Institution and Capacity Building in Coastal Zone Management
Sub-component 1.1 Creation of coordination mechanisms for ICZM
The current threats to the health and productivity of coastal ecosystems result from a variety of
activities and policies that are implemented or under the control of several ministries, government
agencies, and private agents. For example, water resource management falls under the Ministry of
Energy, Mining, and Hydrology; the management of fisheries, forest and biodiversity resources is
under the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, whereas MEHU
oversees environmental management and pollution. This fragmentation and lack of coordination
among agencies and actors often results in policy inconsistency and mismanagement of coastal
resources, especially in the wetlands and lagoons.
Decentralization also presents a real challenge in terms of putting in place an integrative and holistic
system that ensures the sustainable management of coastal resources. Following the elections in
December 2002, Benin has established a two-tier government system consisting of the central
government and the communes (to which one may add the département as an intermediary
administrative unit). Although the decentralization law was adopted several years ago, it is still not
clear what property rights over natural resources and regulatory power over coastal zone resources will
be devolved to local governments.
This sub-component seeks to overcome the fragmentation associated with the sectoral approach and
the two-tier government management of coastal zone resources. In particular, this component will:
9
During the PDF-B phase, alternative activities to reduce pressure on key species and fragile habitats of global importance were preidentified but need to be assessed in site-specific context with concerned stakeholders.
16
1. Establish mechanisms to ensure that the policies and decisions of all relevant line ministries
and agencies and all levels of government are harmonized and consistent with the Coastal
Zone Management Master Plan, the National Wetlands Strategy and the Integrated Water
Resources Management Plan (GIRE) ;
2. Assist municipalities in the development and implementation of a compliance and
enforcement plan in order to control the main sources of threats; and
3. Build local capacity for enforcement of existing and newly enacted regulations on effluent
emission standards, land use zoning, fishing and aquaculture technologies.
The primary outputs of this sub-component include:
 A comprehensive and holistic framework based on the Coastal Zone Master Plan and the
National Wetlands Strategy is developed and used by line ministries and government agencies
for aggregate policy evaluation and decision-making;
 A sustainable inter-agency body for policy coordination among line ministries and other
agencies is created to ensure consistency in the development of the coastal zone, the
conservation of coastal biodiversity, and the sustainable management of coastal resources, in
general; and
 Policy directives and regulatory measures supporting the respective roles, responsibilities of
central and local governments in the management, conservation, and use of coastal ecosystems
are developed.
Sub-component 1.2. Implementation of Coastal Zone Master Plan
The Government has almost completed the preparation of a three-volume Coastal Management Master
Plan that provides the overall framework for the proposed project. Also to be completed under this
sub-component are preparation and adoption of the decrees necessary to implement the framework law
for coastal zone management. The component will provide support for participatory processes, legal
and technical assistance.
In conformity with the Benin NBSAP, the preparation of the implementation decrees of the coastal
zone framework law will emphasize the need to protect coastal and marine biodiversity. The project
will facilitate the development of the sectoral guidelines for biodiversity mainstreaming, paying
particular attention to the sectors whose interventions tend to be more detrimental to biodiversity
conservation. These include: Ministry of Mining, Energy and Water Resources (for conservation and
restoration of freshwater and marine biodiversity), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and
Fisheries (conservation farming, sustainable fishing techniques, etc.), Ministry of Commerce, the
Ministry of Transport and Public Works, and the Ministry of Environment, Housing, and Urban
Development (members of the Project Steering Committee).
Biodiversity conservation will also be an important parameter in the land zoning, which was detailed
in Volume 1 of the Coastal Zone Management Master Plan, and for which the regulatory framework is
outlined in Volume 2. Finally, biodiversity conservation will be pursued through the enforcement of
the environmental assessment requirements, primarily for national infrastructure projects, but also for
municipal development projects. Funding by the GEF under this subcomponent will focus on creating
an enabling environment in Benin to allow for these sectoral policies and a legal framework which is
conducive to sustainable resource use and sound management of coastal biodiversity assets.
Specifically, GEF resources will allow for implementation of the following activities:



Finalization, strengthening and expansion of consultations via workshops among communes
and sectoral line ministries over the initial 12 months of the project period;
Technical assistance and capacity building for local communes and employees of the relevant
line ministries; and
A biodiversity overlay of the Coastal Zone Master Plan, ensuring biodiversity conservation
considerations are adequately included.
17
Main outputs of this subcomponent include:
 Adoption of the National Strategy for Wetlands
 Volume two of the Coastal Zone Management Master Plan, including a biodiversity overlay, is
adopted through broad participatory process at national, communal and local level;
 Implementation decrees of the framework law on coastal zone management are prepared, and
adopted;
 Sectoral guidelines for the mainstreaming of biodiversity in sectoral policies are prepared and
disseminated;
 Biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed into local development plans (for all municipalities
located in the coastal zone; and
 Completion of coastal erosion studies, identification of appropriate mitigation measures and
required infrastructure in place.
Component 2: Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation
The objective of this component is to preserve globally important biodiversity by insuring the
protection of key areas and improving the management of natural habitats. As the activities will take
part in the southern part of the country, ie in the two Ramsar sites of Benin, the majority of habitats
concerned will be important wetland types, with some rare forests included in the project areas as well.
The coastal zone of Benin is caracterized by a succession of sand dune, lagoons, wetlands, mangroves
and lakes which encounter an incredible human pressure and still have a globally threatened
biodiversity in need of protection and management. Several areas have been identified within the
Ramsar sites as having biodiversity assets of global significance, further justifying attention to these
areas by the proposed project interventions (see Annex 8 for further detail).
The activities will be built around two major outputs :
- Identification and conservation of Biological Reserves through a participative process ;
- Decrease of threats in and around the BR by developing incentives measures and economic
alternatives.
Sub-component 2.1. Biodiversity conservation in the Ramsar sites through creation of biological
reserves (see Annex 6)
The overlying focus of the biodiversity conservation activities will be based on the development of
Biological Reserves (BR) within the two Ramsar sites, aimed at ensuring the long-term ecological
sustainability and biological diversity in the coastal zone of Benin.
The activities will draw upon studies done on the sites at the time of the identification and dedication
as Ramsar sites and during the PDF-B stage as well as those done for the development of the
government’s Coastal Zone Master Plan. The creation of the BRs will include a focus on the high
biodiversity areas detailed in Annex 8 as target areas for field-based project interventions. The project
will facilitate the formulation of local development plans (PLAGE) which integrate the conservation
objectives of the management plans of the Ramsar sites, but have a broader objective of sustainable
development of the representative municipalities within the coastal zone. Implementation of the
Ramsar Site management plans will be undertaken via community-based activities with residents of
areas within the sites. The project executors will engage and consult further with these identified
communities to secure buy-in for implementation of the management plan to ensure sustainability of
the project goals.
The proposed alternative deals with management plans at three levels. The National-level Coastal
Zone Master Plan itself has been developed through three volumes, and Benin has completed
development of management plans for the two Ramsar sites, as described above. During
implementation, the project will work to implment these management plans as well as develop
management plans for the community reserve areas to be identified. These secondary and tertiary
18
level management plans would not be developed without this project intervention, yet they are critical
to maintaining the biodiversity of Benin's coastal zone.
The final adoption of the management plans at local level for the reserves, will be based on a formal
agreement (charter - “charte de gestion des reserves biologiques”) between the local communities and
the Government, represented by the implementing agency. The charter will describe the
responsibilities of each party with respect to the management and protection of designated resource
areas for community conservation.
It is important to note that the establishment of these community conservation areas (reserves) in
inhabited areas will not require the resettlement of the populations currently living in these areas, but
development options may be restricted and resource exploitation controlled in order to avoid overexploitation and depletion of the resource base. These restrictions in development options and
resource use will apply in demarcated areas (reserves) only. The demarcation of these sites will be
guided by the criteria for long-term ecological viability (size, contiguity, etc.,) and global significance
(overall value in term of ecological and biological diversity). The designation of these sites and
implementation of the management plans, will follow a series of steps which were articulated a the
time of the PDF, described below as a reminder:
1. Initial site characterization: generation of baseline knowledge to develop an effective
conservation plan, including information on terrain, fresh water-sea interaction, detailed
inventories of biodiversity, relationships between biological communities and structural
diversity at the habitat and ecosystem level, presence of rare and threatened species,
indicators species, etc. This step is completed – see Annex 8 for details on proposed 4
pilot areas of focus within the Ramsar sites.
2. Socio-economic analysis: demography, economic importance of existing resources (i.e.,
resource dependency), historic and current resource use patterns, economic valuation,
sustainability of current use patterns, social equity, land tenure, cultural diversity and
potential link with environmental conditions, perceived sources of threat to resource
integrity, potential resource use conflicts, etc. This step has begun and will be
completed during final stages of project preparation.
3. Institutional arrangements: roles and responsibilities of local communities, local NGOs10,
municipalities, départements, and the central government in local resource management;
existence of resource users’ associations, existence of any standing agreement among
community members, or between communities and private parties, etc. This process has
begun and is advanced but will be completed during project implementation.
4. Conservation management plans for community-based activities: the completion of steps
1-3 will allow the design of management plans (PLAGE or PIAGE for inter-communal
sites) that are strongly grounded on the sociological and socio-economic realities of the
communities living in or around these sites. This will assure a higher likelihood of
successful implementation. This step will be a critical component of project
implementation. These plans will support the following activities:
 Site demarcation: survey and demarcation of boundaries for Biological Reserves
(BRs) following a comprehensive participatory process (border planting, pillaring);
 Creation of Biological Reserves (BRs) (unité de gestion de la réserve biologique) at
the community level through charters;
 Collaborative management plans for each BR negociated with local and traditional
authorities, users and owners;
 Adoption of a written agreements and conservation charter (responsibilities for
management objectives, regulations, maintenance of boundaries, site restoration, etc.)
for each site;
10
The following NGOs are members of NGO environmental network ONG, intervene in project zone and will be involved in project
implementation : APFEM, EFEM, APROHAM, Nature Tropicale, Action Plus, Sos – Mangrove, Bien – Etre – Bénin, CIPCRE, ABILE,
CEDIC.
19





Implementation of BR Management Units;
Environmental education and awareness raising (local, provincial, and central
government institutions);
Technology development and transfer for sustainable use (adaptive research);
Participatory monitoring and evaluation of conservation efforts and resource status;
and
Habitat and species management operations.
Sub-component 2.2: Sustainable use and community development
Each biological reserve is surrounded by a so-called “eco-development zone”, often concerning
several communes. With support of the Ministry for Environment and Tourism, ABE and the French
Cooperation (Project Lagune), inter-communal development plans (PIAGE) will be developed and
inter-communal management councils (CIED) established. This is particularly important as most of the
biodiversity priority sites (BRs) are located within several communes.
The importance of sustaining the livelihoods of residents in the coastal zone is critical to achieve the
long-term sustainability of resource use in Benin and to reduce immediate pressure on vulnerable
ecosystems. This sub-component will work to secure the livelihoods of coastal communities, by
providing concrete incentives for local communities to engage in two types of effective conservation
activities.
The first type of these activities (baseline) will focus on infrastructure investments that benefit the
environment and promote the well-being of members, e.g., improvement in infrastructure for water
management, construction of sanitation facilities. These types of activities will be incorporated into
activities carried out by funding from the Government, French Cooperation (Project Lagune)11, and
IDA as part of the implementation of the Coastal zone master plan. Other programs will complement
the sustainable use and alternative development options such as AfDB “Traditional Fishery”, DFID
“Sustainable Fishery”, IDA “National CDD Project”12.
The second type of activity to be funded pertains to investments or incentives to communities for
implementation of the community conservation plans which will adapt current resource use practices
into activities designed to specifically manage coastal biodiversity resources in a sustainable manner
(GEF alternative). They will work to increase the income or production of individuals or groups of
individuals, while preserving the management objectives of the community conservation plans. This
will involve financing the working capital of activities that relieve the pressure on ecosystems either
through diversification away from direct resource exploitation or through the adoption of technologies
or practices which have been modified to be more environmentally-friendly. While the nature of the
investments, namely the (direct and indirect) link to conservation will be a key eligibility criterion,
other conditions may apply, and may vary from one community to another depending on
environmental and socio-economic conditions. As a result, final determination of the eligibility
criteria will follow a participatory process in which local populations play an important role. However,
the level of GEF and co-funding support will be specified according to (i) the general principle of
incrementality for global benefits, and (ii) the local ecosystem diagnostic providing information on
root causes and threats for biodiversity conservation.
Within this subcomponent, GEF resources will finance local investments which adhere to the
community plans and are socially, environmentally and financially sustainable. The types of activities
have been identified during project preparation and include: (i) non-timber forest products; (ii)
11
Project Lagune target sites: Grand-Popo, Come, Kpomasse, Ouidah and part of Abomey-Calavi (Togbin and Adounko) with a total
estimated population 240 159 living in 1130 km2. Project builds on PLAGE and supports the establishment of CIED (Conseil Intercommunal d’eco-developpement) , detailed diagnostic of target area and elaboration of PIAGE (Plan Inter-communal d’amenagement et de
gestion local de l’environnement) based on charter ratified by CIED, micro-projects and m&e.
12
The IDA project, in pipeline for 2004/5, aims to develop a national multi-focal CDD strategy, support implementation of demand-driven
micro-projects at the community level and build the capacity of newly elected local governments.
20
traditional indigenous handicrafts using native materials; (iii) processing of food products, (iv) ecotourism, (v) sustainable farming of native fish species; (vi)establishment of nurseries and maintenance
of medicinal and other useful plants.
Each activity will be required to follow steps laid out in an Operations Manual will be developed and
will provide the basis for disbursement. The project cycle for these activities will consist of:
a) A pre-investment stage, providing funds to communities/individuals to identify and prepare
proposals for funding under these sustainable use activities;
b) Investment – the provision of funds to the requester for activities which have been technically
identified as environmentally, socially and economically sustainable;
c) Lessons Learned - distillation of lessons from the implementation of activities which will be
disseminated to provide guidance on future decisions
The project does not aim to establish a separate community-based fund but intends to use the network
of rural micro-financing institutions for the channeling of financial resources. These micro-financing
institutions (e.g. CREP, see Annex 6) will receive training and capacity building as well as support for
risk sharing as some of the proposed incremental conservation activities will be new business lines in
their lending portfolio. Funding will be made to operational units (unité de gestion de la réserve
biologique), which will conduct activities at the commune, department, or village level (depending on
size of conservation site and number of villages involved). The members of this operational
conservation unit will represent the village representative, traditional leaders and local resource users
(fishermen, farmers, etc.) as well as sectoral staff (agriculture, fisheries, water resource development,
mining, etc.).
A committee comprised of members from the implementing agency of the project, the local
government and local communities will oversee the allocation and use of the resources. The
beneficiary communities are those where the project conservation sites are located.
It is important to note that this subcomponent will be only partially funded by the GEF, with the
remaining financing coming from IDA, the French Cooperation complemented by associated funding
mainly from AfDB. The primary focus of GEF funds for Component 2 will in fact be on the
community-based biodiversity conservation activities at selected sites, under subcomponent 2.1, with
those GEF funds under sub-component 2.2 focused specifically on promoting the adoption of
conservation-friendly technologies as described.
Component 3: Monitoring and evaluation (M & E) of coastal wetlands and marine biodiversity
The objective of this component is to develop an M & E system that will track the status of
biodiversity resources as well as the changes in threats and the effectiveness of the project activities in
mitigating these threats. The monitoring and evaluation of the project outcomes and impacts will be
done by measuring key indicators covering all the areas that are relevant to the achievement of
biodiversity conservation objectives. Performing monitoring and periodic evaluation will play a key
role in ensuring that this innovative community-based conservation and community development
project is delivering the expected results. Because of importance of this activity for the performance
and success of the project, both the design and the operation of the monitoring and evaluation system
will be as participatory as possible.
Most of the detailed monitoring data will remain at the local level (municipality and village) where
they will help adjust work programming, inputs, and improve the performance of local actors. The
data and performance indicators kept at the central level will be related to those related to the key
activities and indicators included in the project logical frame. Special emphasis will be on water
quality, productivity of fisheries, coastal erosion, biodiversity status, and change in socio-economic of
status of households in the project areas.
21
Two main categories of activities will be undertaken under this component: the design of the
framework and implementation of the M&E activities, and the monitoring of the coastal
environmental. Feedback from the component activities will be used for adaptive management
throughout the course of the project.
Sub-component 3.1.: Framework for m&e system and implementation
Successful long-term conservation of biodiversity of an area requires a sound knowledge base of its
biodiversity resources and indicators to measure the changes in these resources. This component will
establish the infrastructure for an integrated monitoring and evaluation system, and will be
accomplished through several activities:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Establishment of the M&E system
 Purchase of hardware and software
 Design of integrated database for M&E system
Collection of economic, social and environmental (primarily biodiversity) data within the
coastal zone region to establish project baseline and monitor trends over the project period
 Development of methodology for data collection
 Data analysis and compilation into integrated database using technologies such as GIS,
aerial photography, remote sensing and data from ground-truthing exercises.
 Identification and development of suitable indicators for monitoring changes in the
biodiversity stock and threats to the resource base, as well as project impact. Indicators
will cover a broad range of subjects including landscape/species dynamics, socioeconomic
factors, natural resource scarcity/quality, regulatory and institutional factors, etc
 Training of participants at community, local and national levels in data collection
techniques and operation of the integrated database system.
Establishment of Institutional Arrangements and/or Agreements for data sharing among
relevant agencies (“charte d’ information)
To ensure data collection at an appropriate scale and that inter-linkages among sites are observed,
project monitoring will go beyond the targeted project sites (reserves) and will include data gathering
for the entire Ramsar areas. The selected community-based conservation sites will benefit from a
more intensive monitoring in order to allow timely identification of changes that require adjustment in
project activities. From an operational standpoint, secondary (18 already identified) are prime
candidates for the replication of the community conservation plans to be tested in the targeted sites.
Sub-component 3.2.: Monitoring of Coastal Wetlands and Marine Biodiversity
The M & E system to be developed under the proposed project will feed into the national
environmental information system which is managed by ABE. Resources from GEF will be used to
finance the incremental costs of adding a coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring component
(Observatoire du Littoral) to the existing environmental information system. Additionally, to facilitate
integration of all biodiversity information in the country, a direct link will be established with the
database of the M & E component of the National Parks Conservation and Management Project.
Component 4: Project management and coordination
Project management and coordination will be assured by the implementing agency, i.e., the Benin
Environmental Agency (ABE). In addition to accounting, financial reporting and arrangements, ABE
will assure two main tasks: (i) effective coordination of project activities, and (ii) information
dissemination.
The project activities span over several sectoral ministries, and involve a large variety of actors.
Achieving the project development and global objectives will require effective coordination of
activities from all partners. In this regard, this component managed by the office of ABE managing
director will be responsible for putting in place and assuring the effective functioning of the
institutional arrangements required for assuring coherence in the project activities. In addition to the
22
national commission for the littoral (Cellule Nationale Protection et Gestion de Littoral), whose
creation is mandated by the framework law on coastal zone management two other coordination
mechanisms will be created. The first one is the temporary project steering committee (comité de
pilotage) consisting of twelve institutions directly or indirectly involved in the management or
exploitation of coastal zone resources. It is anticipated that during or after the course of the project the
steering committee (or its members) will be absorbed by the national commission for the littoral. The
second is the project independent inter-communal council (CIED) responsible for planning and
overseeing activities in areas that are under the jurisdiction of several communes.
The main outputs of the project coordination and management activities include:
 The steering committee and the inter-communal council are created and operational;
 Timely annual work programs are prepared;
 Performance and impact monitoring reports of each component and sub-component are
produced in a timely fashion and disseminated to all partners and relevant stakeholder groups;
 Accounting and financial reports are produced; and
 An independent assessment of the project impact (evaluation) is produced at project
completion (end of last year of project life).
PROJECT COSTS PER COMPONENT DURING 5 YEARS.
Components
GEF
financing
(US$
million)
0.60
Government
Financing
(including IDA) 1
UNFPA French
Cooperation
Total
(incl.
contingencies)2
1.Institution and
2.00
0.40
0.50
3.5
Capacity building
2. Community2.20
1.50
1.00
0.20
4.9
Based Biodiversity
Conservation
3. M&E of coastal
1.00
1.00
0.3
2.3
wetlands & marine
biodiversity
4. Project
0.50
0.70
0.1
1.3
Coordination &
Management
Total
4.30
7.30
1.8
0.70
14.1
Notes:
1. Financing figures include ICZM component of PNGE and national budget contribution for the
urgent coastal erosion control program (estimated at US$ 2.1 million), but not designated to any
project component. Provisional estimates for the total investments on the control of coastal
erosion amount to approximately U$ 38 million to be jointly financed by the national budget and
external sources (EU, bilaterals).
2. The previous Project Brief submitted opted for a very conservative estimate of baseline activities,
as opposed to what was originally presented at the time of the PDF-B submission. While still a
conservative estimate, the figures have been adjusted to include additional activities as directly
part of the baseline. These additional activities include government budget for local
environmental action plans and M&E activities as well as external funding from the French
Cooperation and the UNFPA. The originally intended activities will occur, the global benefits
described at PDF stage will be obtained, but this project matrix shows a more realistic picture of
what is contributing to those global benefits directly through this intervention. It should also be
noted that some substantial ‘associated’ funding is now fully reflected in the Incremental Cost
Analysis in Annex 2. These corresponding activities will feed into and complement the proposed
23
alternative, but they have been included as ‘associated’ funding since the financing will not be
channeled directly through the CBCBM project.
C. 2. Institutional arrangements for management and implementation
The Benin Environmental Agency (ABE) will be the lead implementing agency of the project. In
order to achieve the objectives of the project, ABE will maintain and even strengthen close
collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, Housing, and Urban Planning (MEHU), the Ministry
of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAEP), the Ministry of Water Resources, the Ministry of Territory
Administration and Decentralization, municipalities and relevant local communities. In some cases,
ABE will delegate implementation responsibility to other institutions while maintaining oversight
and/or providing technical assistance.
The institutional arrangements for the project implementation are based on the coordination
mechanisms put in place to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of the activities. These
arrangements include the following institutions:
a) The Steering Committee (Comite de Pilotage): Membership consists of twelve agencies
comprised of: (i) sectoral ministries (environment, agriculture/fishery/natural resources, water,
tourism), chamber of commerce and industry, local governments, and NGOs. The SC will
provide oversight of the project operations, and is chaired by the Ministry of Environment,
Housing and Urban Development, through the national environmental agency (ABE). The SC
will meet twice a year and is responsible for (i) providing policy guidance and clearing the
annual work plans and budgets prepared by the implementing agency, (ii) clearing annual
activity reports and for the bi-annual review. Although the SC is a temporary structure for the
lifetime of the project, it is planned that this structure will merge later with the National
Commission for Coastal Zone Protection and Management (Cellule Nationale Protection et
Gestion de Littoral (CNPGL), responsible for substantive development policy issues affecting
the coastal zone;
b) The Inter-communal Council for Eco-development (Conseil intercommunal d’EcoDeveloppement (CIED)): Membership includes all the stakeholders of the communes sharing
the coastal resources in the project area: (i) the mayors, (ii) two representatives of credible
environmental NGOs operating in the commune, (iii) representatives of central government
technical agencies operating at the commune level, (iv) two representatives of private sector.
A representative of the lead implementing agency (ABE) will assist at meetings and assure the
secretary. Responsibilities of the Council include (i) initiating local intercommunal action
plans (PIAGE), (ii) validating the charter for reserves, (iii) identifying inter-communal
resource management activities for project support, (iv) harmonizing all interventions in their
respective communes, and (v) assisting in managing resource use conflicts.
c) The Commune: These are the local governments responsible for local development planning.
These entities are in charge of implementing the project activities located within the confines
of the local communes. Main responsibilities include: (i) adopting inter-communal action
plans (PIAGE) through signing of the charte, elaborating local environmental management
plans , (ii) formulating local plans (PLAGE) including conservation plans for the management
of reserves, (iii) providing technical assistance to villages/communities for the preparation of
local resource management plans, (iv) providing technical and financial assistance to NGOs
involved in the implementation of local environmental management plans, (v) producing
timely monitoring and evaluation reports to ABE (implementing agency); (vi) up-dating the
communal environmental diagnostic, and (vi) providing training and capacity building of
village associations.
24
d) The biological reserve management unit (Unite de gestion de la reserve biologique): This
is the entity that is contractually responsible for managing the biological reserve at the
commune or inter-commune level. It can be a community organization, an NGO, or a private
actor (e.g. for tourism development) who signed a conservation charter with ABE for the
implementation of the plan designed to manage the biological reserve. Other responsibilities
include: (i) developing management plans for integration into PLAGE; (ii) providing
information for coastal and marine monitoring; (iii) executing micro-projects aiming to
enhance conservation; and (iv) participating in promotion of sustainable techniques.
Members of this unit will include: Traditional leaders, chief of arrondissement, village chief
and other pertinent actors to be determined for each site.
e) The Benin environmental agency (ABE): As implementing agency and secretariat of the SC,
ABE assures the coordination and management of the project, and provides technical
assistance to all partners when necessary. ABE will also maintain collaborative and
information exchange links with all baseline and associated projects. Effective consultation
arrangements (e.g. memorandum of understanding, periodic meetings) will be established in
particular with the “Project Lagune”, the “Traditional Fishery Project”, the “Government
Program on Coastal Erosion” and the UNFPA Project and are part of the project activities.
ABE is also responsible for the management of the coastal zone data base (linked to its
Environmental Information and Evaluation System).
f) Other stakeholders:
 Environmental NGOs working in target area for support related to execution of microprojects
 Private sector enterprises, in particular tourism-related for micro-projects
 Consultants for contractual assignments
 Professional associations for execution of micro-projects
 Media for IEC activities
 Traditional and religious authorities
 Universities and laboratories for research related activities13
C.3.
Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project
The project will support the following institutional and policy reforms:
Coastal Zone Master Plan, National Wetlands Strategy and Integrated Water Resource Management
Poliy: Strengthened policies, strategies and guidelines as well as establishment of the National
Commission for the Littoral for Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
Biological Reserves:
Development of legal framework for community-managed BRs and
development of effective management frameworks for BRs (PLAGE, PIAGE, CIED, communitybased conservation units).
C. 4. Benefits and target population
13
Department of Applied Ecology of the University of Benin has been active in conservation of the red-bellied guenon; Laboratory of
Agronomic Sciences is conducting studies on the manatee ; NGO ''NatureTropicale" is working on sea turtle conservation; extensive water
bird abundance and diversity studies have been conducted by Dr. Adjakpa of the NGO CEROE ; Laboratory of Botany at the University of
Benin provides expert support on links between key species and plants in their diet; and Wetlands International undertakes bird counts with
local experts, in order to provide international validation of environmental indicators (e.g. abundance of high profile bird species such as
black tern)..
25
Given the overwhelming importance of the coastal zone in the domestic output of the country, the
national economy will benefit from the project. In particular, four types of benefits would result from
the implementation of the project activities:
(a)
Global benefits: By establishing and protecting reserves, working to restore and protect
productive ecosystems as well as critical habitats along the Atlantic and in coastal wetlands,
rivers, and lakes (following a basin approach), the project will increase the value of biological
diversity while enhancing the primary productivity of these ecosystems. Additionally, through
the protection of these ecosystems, the project will prevent several globally important and
endangered animal species from becoming extinct.
(b)
Better environmental quality for the framework law on coastal management: The preparation
and the adoption of implementation decrees, the development of specific tools for the
monitoring environmental quality of the coastal zone, and the involvement of local
governments in the enforcement of environmental laws and quality standards will contribute to
the improvement of environmental quality. The benefits in terms of better health (mainly due
to better water quality) could be substantial given the high density of population in the coastal
areas;
(c)
Improved livelihoods for the poor: By developing, testing and putting to use technologies for
the sustainable exploitation of coastal resources, supporting community development
activities, and providing support to livelihood diversification, the project will contribute to the
meeting the basic needs of the populations, especially the most vulnerable communities in
rural areas and empower communities to co-manage their resources.
(d)
Increased institutional and technical capacity in local environmental management will be
achieved through the support provided to commune and village level institutions for
environmental management. Over the lifetime of the project, communes will be enabled to
develop local and taylor-made guidelines for future site selection, expansion and joint
management.
D. Project Rationale
D. 1. Rationale and Justification
Protecting the natural asset of the coastal zone for broad economic growth and sustainable
livelihoods for the poor: The coastal line of Benin extends from the Nigerian border to Togo. Like
the other Gulf of Guinea countries, Benin’s coastal zone includes a plateau of very low elevation that
extends 50-60 km inland. While covering less than 10% of the country’s land area, the coastal zone of
Benin harbors over 60% of the country’s total population. Due to the concentration of human and
physical capital, and high potential of natural endowments, the coastal zone plays a key role in the
creation of total wealth, and is said to contribute around 70% of the country’s GDP.
The ecological functions and the natural and biological processes taking place at the interface between
the rivers, lagoons, lakes and swamps on the one hand, and the marine areas, on the other make the
Benin coastal zone one of the most productive of the Gulf of Guinea. In particular, water bodies in the
coastal inland have a relatively high productivity in fisheries with yields averaging 1 ton/ha/year,
compared to 200-300 kg/ha/year for other West African lagoon systems. Overall, the coastal wetlands,
swamps, lagoons, lakes and rivers provide every year 33,000 tons of fish, shrimps, and crabs (as
opposed to 7,000 tons from the sea) annually. Thus, fisheries play an important role in protein intake
and food security, income generation and employment. The coastal zone is also the provider of key
agricultural products including export crops such as pineapples, palm oil, and banana. A large number
of local foodstuffs, and non-food products that are collected from wetlands and other permanent and
seasonal water bodies play important roles in home consumption and income generation for rural
households, especially, the poor.
26
The Ministry of Environment is among six departments that embarked on a program of far reaching
reforms in the budget and public expenditure system. These reforms aimed mainly at: increasing the
impact and efficiency of Government expenditures by (i) establishing direct links between budget
allocations to program objectives and sector strategies; (ii) strengthening the Government’s
administrative capacity to manage public expenditures efficiently, and (iii) establishing a fiduciary
framework that enhances the efficiency of external financial assistance. As part of these reforms, the
Ministry updated its sector strategy from which performance-based program budgets were derived.
The National Environmental Management Program which includes the proposed coastal operation was
prepared under this programmatic approach.
The above budgetary and public expenditure reforms ultimately aimed at preparing Benin for a move
to consolidated financial transfers to the national budget, as the main vehicle for its external assistance.
In fact, these reforms laid the ground for the PRSC that is based on consolidated budget support. The
Ministry of Environment has achieved impressive results in the reforms both in terms improved budget
preparation and execution (including monitoring and evaluation), and in terms of increased absorptive
capacity. As a result, the Ministry of Environment through the National Environmental Management
Program is part of the PRSC. The PRSC support will allow the channeling of sufficient budget
resources to support the coastal management activities included in the Ministry’s budget-program for
2004 on-ward. Since the GEF resources are not fungible, they will be deposited in a special account at
the Treasury from where they will be transferred to ABE to match the national budget resources
allocated to the baseline activities.
Protecting the coastal natural resources to conserve globally important and unique biodiversity
assets (see B.3. and Annex 7,8) : The variety of geological, topographic, and hydrological conditions
of the coastal zone combined to create a wide variety of ecosystems and habitats for endangered
animal species. Wetlands, lagoons, and rivers cover 40% Benin coastal zone, and these water bodies
encompass eight different ecosystems that provide irreplaceable ecological functions, and breeding,
feeding and nurturing grounds for a wide variety of fish and other aquatic organisms. On the marine
side, Benin possesses a narrow continental shelf that extends about 13 km offshore. Most of Benin’s
marine productivity is concentrated in the zone of nutrient enrichment in the shallow waters (less than
30 meter-deep) adjacent to wetlands.
Unfortunately, these economically and ecologically valuable natural resources of the coastal zone are
being degraded at an accelerated rate. This degradation results mainly from poor environmental and
natural resource planning, and high population pressure. Indeed, unplanned urban development
(including illegal settlement), rural exodus as well as out-migration of the urban poor back to the rural
coastal areas have put the coastal natural resources, especially, the wetlands and lagoons under high
pressure. Lately, a rush to recreation and tourism sites creation along the seashore by private operators
without proper arrangements and planning has resulted in uncontrolled and environmentally harmful
resource exploitation. Finally, insufficient drainage and sewerage infrastructure in Cotonou and PortoNovo, the existence of many unsanitary landfills in wetlands and on the lagoons’ shore, and
uncontrolled industrial pollution are serious sources of threat to the economic viability of coastal
natural resources, and the quality of life.
The urgent need for action: In light of the increased spontaneous and anarchical development and
exploitation of the coastal zone, significant economic losses and deteriorating living conditions,
especially for the rural populations may result, if nothing is done to control the factors that cause the
degradation of the coastal resources and ecosystems. This degradation may also lead to the loss of
many important biological resources, thus reducing the value and stock of national, regional and global
biodiversity.
27
The proposed project seeks to address the root causes of the degradation of the coastal zone and its
resources by supporting regulatory, organizational, institutional, technical and economic (incentives)
measures designed to protect the resource base and the biological diversity of the coastal resources and
ecosystems.
D. 2. Major related projects financed by the Bank, GEF and other donors
The project complements, but does not duplicate, national and regional projects in the areas of
traditional fisheries, decentralization support, community-based management of natural resources and
social programs in the coastal zone (see also Annex 4).
Sector
Project
Natural resource
degradation,
weak
agricultural
extension, low
rural
productivity
Rural poverty,
low access to
services, and
working capital
for productive
investments
Lack of
environmental
regulations,
weak capacity
Encroachment of
national parks,
poverty in buffer
zones
Natural Resource
Management
Project
Worsening rural
poverty,
degradation and
depletion of
fisheries
Degradation of
water resources,
fisheries, weak
capacity, rural
poverty
Sustainable
Fisheries
Livelihoods in
West Africa
Degradation of
wetlands,
pollution, loss of
biodiversity,
rural poverty
Donor(s)/Budget
(US$ million
IDA Credit
$14.1
Status
Borgou Region
Pilot Rural Support
Project
IDA Credit.
$5.0
Completed date
Environmental
Management
Project
IDA Credit.
8.0
Completed
National Park
Conservation and
Management
Program
GEF: 6.8; Rep of
Germany:4.8
EU: 4.47
AFD-FFEM:2.0
Dutch Coop:2.07
DFID: 32.0 (for
25 countries)
On-going; Proposed project will feed
into national information system and
monitoring framework, also drawing
upon information gathered in this
initiative.
On-going
Traditional
Fisheries Support
Program
African
Development
Bank/IFAD: 25
South-Benin
Wetlands
Development
Project (PAZH)
Dutch
Cooperation:
0.570
Just launched – The proposed project
will coordinate strongly with this
operation and lessons on m&e,
sustainable use activities and microfinancing as well as capacity building
and institutional strengthening will be
exchanged throughout the lifetime of
the project.
Completed
28
Completed date
Multi-sectoral;
multi-country
cooperation on
watershed
management;
capacity
building;
Combating Coastal
Area Degradation
and Living
Resources
Depletion in the
Guinea Current
LME through
Regional Actions
UNDP/Co-Fin
10.0; GEF 9.85
Proposed budget
for national
demonstration
project: 2.5
(GEF 1, GoB 0.7,
IUCN/GTZ 0.8)
Multi-sectoral,
sub-national
government
administration,
social services,
aiming to reduce
poverty.
National CDD
Project
IDA: 36.0
GoB: 4
National demonstration project under
preparation for 2004 (MEHU). Focus
on water quality assessment, marine
pollution abatement, waste
management, establishment of norms
and standards, and rehabilitation of
depleted fishery stocks. The proposed
project liaises with this initiative,
relevant agencies involved in
implementation (e.g. ABE) will also be
a party to the regional workshops taking
place during preparation.
In preparation for 2004/2005. Will
support CDD initiatives, build capacity
at community and local governmental
level and provide framework for
effective communication among
communities, local governments and
central authorities. The proposed
project will pilot aspects of the CDD
program in coastal zone (such as microactivities, development of community
plans) and support the implementation
of the CDD national strategy.
D. 3. Lessons Learned and Reflected in the Proposed Project Design:
By and large, WB experiences with similar project types across the regions (e.g. Indonesia
COREMAP)14 identified the following lessons for coastal zone projects which have been integrated
into the project design:





Avoid top-down enforcement for conservation of vulnerable ecosystems but enable
community-led co-management with bottom-up surveillance and control mechanisms
Provide for social services and tangible returns to coastal communities
Enhance supportive legal framework for ICZM at national, regional and local level
Ensure coherent implementation at local level based on integrated participatory planning
Provide sufficient incentives such as training, IEC and financial resources to launch pilot
initiatives
These lessons learned as well as experiences with other Bank projects in Benin underscore the (i)
importance of adopting from the outset a fully participatory approach in the preparation,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project; (ii) high pay-off of institutional
strengthening and capacity building within central agencies, decentralized local governments, and
members of the local communities directly involved in project implementation; (iii) effective role of
inter-sectoral steering committees in securing a shared vision and reducing the transaction costs of
multi-agency planning and decision making for activities that require the involvement of several
agencies or institutions, as is the case with coastal zone management. The lessons from the Natural
Resource Management Project and the National Park Conservation and Management Program
corroborate the long established fact that protection alone will fail to guarantee the viability and
integrity of biodiversity assets, unless the driving forces behind unsustainable use and encroachment
are addressed at the same time.
In addition, the project design responds to recommendations of a recent “Analysis of WB/GEF’s Portfolio related to CZM in Africa and its
possible relationship to the African Process Proposed Portfolio” (2003) as well as the “Marine and Coastal Environment of Sub-saharan
African – Strategic Directions for Sustainable Development 2002”.
14
29
The design of the proposed project has integrated these very valuable lessons in many ways. Local
populations and authorities have been part of the project preparation right from the beginning. The
participatory approach adopted is based on the specific role of each category of stakeholders in the
exploitation or control of wetlands and coastal resources before and during project implementation.
The content and process of the consultation reflected the needs of each category of stakeholders. A
two-step consultation process was adopted in order to ensure an effective participation of all categories
of actors. The first phase consisted of organizing separate discussions evolved around the needs of
each category of stakeholders (resource users, community leaders, public administrators, etc.), whereas
the second step consisted in organizing a workshop where information on the project objectives and
planned activities is shared with all the stakeholders.
The institutional arrangements for implementation emphasize the role of local actors who will be fully
responsible for the protection and management of the reserves. It is also important to mention the very
important role played by the traditional religious leaders in conserving biological diversity through the
protection of sacred sites, mostly forests located in floodplains and wetlands. Approximately seventy
percent of the biodiversity stock targeted by the project is located in or near sacred sites. The
traditional religious leaders who control access to and management of these sites made a crucial
contribution to the consultation process during the project preparation and will continue to be key
partners during the implementation of the project.
Strengthening the capacity of governments (central and local) agencies and non-government
stakeholders (user organizations, NGOs, associated consulting firms) is an important component of the
project. The proposed project will build on the capacity building efforts initiated by the EMP at the
local level, especially, local NGOs in local development and environmental planning. The technical
capacity building activities may be directed toward any undertaking that helps achieve the project
objective of relieving anthropogenic pressure on the biodiversity resources of coastal wetlands and
ecosystems. For example, training in the use of sustainable harvesting practices, and monitoring of
ecological status would be eligible for support, so would be training in small business management to
support alternative livelihood, and environmental impact assessment.
By linking biodiversity conservation with sustainable livelihoods, the proposed project seeks not only
to control the driving forces behind the over-exploitation and degradation of biodiversity resources,
but it also pursues poverty reduction. In pursuing this dual objective the project takes into account the
specificity of the socio-economic conditions in the project area, that is, the need to reconcile livelihood
requirements of poor rural communities in high population density areas, on the one hand, and
biodiversity conservation, on the other.
The design of the community development sub-component represents a real challenge. The success of
this sub-component, i.e., relieving the pressure on biodiversity resources by supporting resourcedependant households in the development alternative income generation activities will require (i) the
identification of the right amount compensation/assistance, and (ii) securing credible commitment on
the part of the beneficiaries not to engage in environmentally damaging activities. Pilot activities
conducted during the implementation of the EMP, the South-Benin Wetlands Development Project,
and during the PDF-B activities show that many of these activities are viable provided that
beneficiaries have sufficient training in financial management and access to produce markets.
However, there are areas where ways must be found to make the costs of non-compliance prohibitive
for beneficiaries of assistance who revert to their previous (resource intensive) activities. The SouthBenin Wetlands Development Project also identified and piloted community environmental restoration
activities, such tree planting for the recovery of degraded mangroves and swamp forests that will be
pursued by the proposed project in order to ensure integrated resource management at the spatial scale
required for successful conservation activities.
In implementing this sub-component, the project will coordinate its interventions with those of the
Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Regional Program (DFID/FAO) and the Traditional Fisheries
30
Support Program (AfDB and IFAD). Both programs include interventions in fisheries resource
management and alternative livelihoods activities in areas that overlap with the proposed project.
Coordination will be particularly important in the identification, development, and enforcement of
technologies for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries and other coastal and marine resources. In
order to avoid duplication and save resources, collaboration will also be necessary in the support to
alternative livelihoods use. The fact the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock is part of the
Inter-Sectoral Steering Committee of the project will be helpful in coordinating the interventions. If
necessary, the collaboration between the project and these programs will be based on direct
memoranda of understanding. Furthermore, the implementing agency (ABE) was responsible for the
environmental impact assessment of the Traditional Fishery Program and an agreement was reached
to collaborate strongly on the overall environmental impact monitoring.
D. 4. Indications of Borrower’s and Recipient’s Commitment and Ownership
Coastal erosion and the degradation of the coastal wetland resources have long been a concern to the
Government of Benin. Indeed, the control of coastal erosion and the need to establish guidelines and
zoning for the development of the coastal zone was identified as one of the key areas for policy
intervention in the national environmental action plan (NEAP) adopted in 1993. Since the adoption of
the NEAP, the Government has taken several steps that are good indicators of its commitment to the
sustainable development of the coastal zone and its natural resources.
First, the IDA-supported Environmental Management Project (1996-2001) included a set of activities
that initiated the preparation of the Coastal Zone Management Master Plan. In the absence of formal
regulations, the Government created a technical inter-sectoral committee to provide policy guidance
and supervise the preparation of this Master Plan. This committee also prepared a “white book” (livre
blanc), a stock taking report that identified and discussed the key environmental and development
opportunities and constraints of the coastal zone. Second, with financial and technical assistance from
the Netherlands, the Government implemented a 3-year operation (South-Benin Wetlands
Development Project) that formulated a national strategy for the management of wetlands. In addition
to identifying management tools, the strategy proposed a priority action plan aimed at tackling urgent
environmental and biodiversity conservation problems. It is the diagnostic established by this project
that allowed the designation of the two Ramsar sites located in the proposed project area.
Third, over several years, the Government supported investments in coastal erosion control through the
national budget, and the 2003 budget of the Ministry of Environment includes an allocation of
approximately US$ 2 million for studies, rehabilitation, and erosion control activities on the coastal
line.
Fourth, the framework law on coastal zone that awaits clearance of the Supreme Court (before
adoption by national assembly) is testimony to the commitment and political will of the Government
to ensure the sustainable development of the coastal zone and its natural resources.
Finally, governmental officials and civil society representatives have been taken actively part in
project preparation (see Annex 4 for list of PDF-B results).
D. 5. Value Added of Bank and GEF Support in this Project
The project has been designed to fit within the GEF Operational Program 2 (Coastal, Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems) of the biodiversity focal area. As a GEF implementing agency, the Bank is
able to assist Benin in financing the incremental costs of preserving its coastal wetlands and their
biodiversity. This biodiversity conservation objective is pursued through integrated coastal zone
management activities that emphasize the maintenance of the ecological functions of the globally
significant wetlands, while supporting the livelihood and economic opportunities of the communities
living in the target areas. The project’s objectives are consistent with the GEF operational strategy by
focusing on the conservation in situ of critical coastal and marine ecosystems.
31
The Bank has had extensive experience in policy and institutional reform related to environmental
management and biodiversity conservation, and recognizes the value of Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Plans for meeting the objectives of biodiversity conservation within the coastal zone.
The Bank will support activities that aim to mainstream biodiversity conservation into the formulation
of national and local development plans in coastal areas and reverse environmental degradation. By
virtue of its knowledge of the country context and its involvement in past, on-going, and future
environmental management operations, its active policy dialogue with the government, especially, the
Ministry of Environment on public expenditure reforms, the Bank is well placed to assist in the
development of a long-term sustainable national coastal zone management program. Additionally, the
project objectives will directly contribute to the PRSC, further ensuring the integration and
mainstreaming of environmental objectives into the national budget planning, policy practices and
performance monitoring process.
This project defines and develops concrete steps that would need to be undertaken in order to achieve
the global benefits of costal zone management in Benin’s wetland and costal zones. The project fits
well within the current Bank approach to programmatic lending in Benin (including a National CDD
Program under preparation and support for urban planning and decentralization). The considerable
credibility and convening power that the Benin Environmental Agency (project implementing agency)
has gained during the past years thanks to the IDA-funded Environmental Management Project (19962001) will be used to facilitate partnerships with the stakeholders upstream, and help achieve
consensus on the national and local priorities for coastal zone development, and the integration of
these priorities into the country's broader coastal zone management policy framework. A number of
bilateral donors and other organizations (KfW/GTZ, EU, The Netherlands and the French
Cooperation) are currently involved in supporting environmental management projects and national
park conservation and management programs. In supporting this project, both the Bank and GEF are
playing a catalytic role in the implementation of Benin’s long-term strategy of biodiversity
conservation.
E. Summary Project Analysis
E. 1. Technical Assessment
The proposed project is technically justified on the basis of the urgent need to protect the fragile
coastal wetlands and marine ecosystems and their internationally important biodiversity resources.
This assessment is based on the accelerated rate of resource degradation resulting from uncontrolled
development of the coastal zone, urban sprawl, pollution, high rates of coastal erosion, and the absence
of any viable national or local coastal zone management plans.
The project is technically sound as it draws on best practices in coastal zone management techniques
from developing countries. This soundness lies in the fact the design of the project is strongly
grounded on the realities of Benin’s coastal zone dynamics. Taking into account the concentration of
the country’s population in the coastal zone, the types of coastal and marine ecosystems present and
the politico-administrative context, the strategic objectives of the project and the policy, technical,
financial or institutional means to achieving these objectives are clarified. The components of the
project are designed to meet the need of protecting the livelihood of the largest share of the population
living in the coastal zone, and the globally important biodiversity resources therein. They are also
designed to generate the capacity that will help Benin meet its long-term needs of biodiversity
conservation. Sustainable use and alternative livelihood activities financed by the project would be
screened to ensure that the necessary technology is readily available, that the activity in question has a
developed market, and that it is ecologically sound.
E. 2. Institutional Assessment
There is no such a thing as the “best” institutional arrangement for effectively managing coastal zone
resources. However, it is essential that any integrated coastal zone management program be supported
by an institutional arrangement that not only fits the key dimensions of the proposed activities, but also
creates the incentives required to generate and maintain the commitment of the major actors involved
in the implementation of the program. There is no panacea for devising such an institutional
32
arrangement, but minimum ingredients would include: (i) identifying and assessing the capacity and
effectiveness of the existing (i.e. before the project) formal and informal institutions for coastal
resource management, in order to shed light on the required adjustments; (ii) establishing mechanisms
that geared toward the achievement of the program objectives while remaining compatible with the
interests of the key institutions involved, especially local and central governments; and (iii) assuring
effective management of the program.
Local institutions: The institutional arrangement proposed for the implementation of the proposed
project integrates these ingredients. During project preparation and the Benin Wetland Project several
diagnostic studies focused on the analysis of the formal and informal rules for coastal resource
management. These studies revealed the critical role of traditional belief systems and the associated
religious leaders in the conservation (in sacred sites) of most of the biodiversity resources targeted by
the project. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these belief systems and the authority of their leaders
are in decline due to a number of reasons (changes in socio-economic and ethnic background, new
land developments in the vicinity of high biodiversity sites, etc.). The creation of the units for the
management of the reserves (at the village level) supported by community and religious leaders, and
local government development agencies will help meet the conservation objectives of both the
traditional authorities and the project.
Coordination mechanisms: Given the relatively large number of institutions involved in the
management and use of coastal resources, coordinating mechanisms are probably the single most
important institutional element of a successful coastal zone management program. In order to ensure
coordination during implementation, the proposed project will establish a two-dimension mechanism.
The first dimension deals mainly with horizontal coordination and will ensure harmonization and
compatibility of activities across sectors and line agencies (fisheries, agriculture, coastal erosion
management, zoning, etc.). The Project Inter-sectoral Steering Committee will be responsible for this
function.
The second dimension is vertical coordination between the central Government and the communes
who have different responsibilities and legal authorities in the management, protection, and
exploitation of coastal and ocean resources. The project will use the provisions of the 1999
decentralization law to develop an effective working partnership between the national government and
local governments. This partnership will be based on the devolution of the necessary administrative
functions and legal authority for regulating the use of coastal zone resources.
Project Management: The Benin Environmental Agency (ABE) will be responsible for overall and
day-to-day coordination of the project activities, and assure coordination among all the partners. On
complex policy issues requiring broad consultation, ABE will rely of the Inter-sectoral Steering
Committee for guidance and help. ABE has solid experience in managing donor-funded development
projects, and during the implementation of the Environmental Management Project it has acquired
expertise in the planning, budgeting, and administration of funds for capacity building and local
environmental management at the municipal level.
E. 3. Environmental and Social Assessment
The focus of the proposed project is on capacity building, institutional strengthening, and technical
assistance to various partners, and the establishment of the community-based conservation reserves.
Overall, these activities will have a position impact on the environment and the natural resource base.
However, a number of planned activities could result in minor to moderate negative environmental
impact. Such activities include, the installation of demarcation fences for the reserves, and the
development of some income generation activities supported by the community development fund.
An environmental and social assessment study of the project is completed. This study proposes an
environmental and social mitigation plan that includes a framework for (i) screening the proposed
investments for their potential environmental impact, and developing appropriate mitigation measures,
and (ii) proposes measures to accompany the conversion of natural resource users to other activities, or
the transition to more sustainable resource exploitation practices recommended by the project. The
33
implementation agency of the Project is the institution that is in charge of enforcing environmental
impact assessment in the country, and has the capacity and resources to train the local organizations to
ensure compliance with the environmental assessment regulations of Benin and the Bank.
E. 4. Stakeholder Participation and Public Information
The implementation of the project will involve several categories of stakeholders, including central
and local government agencies, NGOs, academic/research institutions, natural resource user
associations, and community organizations. In order to ensure an informed and effective participation
of all the partners, the project organized several workshops to discuss the rationale of the intervention,
its objectives, and the role each actor would play in its implementation (see Annex 4). Two types of
workshops took place. The first category of workshops addressed the issues of coastal resource
degradation and the role the project could play in helping to ensure a sustainable use these resources
through the establishment of reserves to be managed and protected by local populations. Participants
to this first series of workshops included the local community and religious leaders, user associations
(fishermen, women associations), local NGOs, central government agencies located in the project area,
and the prefets.
The second category of workshops discussed issues associated with the management of intercommunal resources. These workshops also examined the implications of decentralization on the
sharing of responsibilities and authority between the central government and local governments for the
management land and water resources, and the enforcement of regulations. The main participants in
these workshops were local administrators, and representatives of the sectoral departments located in
the prefectures. The last set of these workshops took place during the first half of the year 2003, after
the new local elections held in December 2002. This participatory approach developed during the
preparation phase of the project will continue during the implementation phase. The village biological
reserve conservation units, the Inter-communal Council for Resource Management, and the
municipalities are the key actors through which the project resources will be channeled to get the
expected results on the ground.
Consequently, the municipalities (through the environmental cell of the municipal development
commission), the Village Biodiversity Conservation Units, and the local NGOs providing technical
assistance, as well as the rural micro-financing institutions, will play a key role in the decision-making
process, and the decision on the following activities: (i) preparation and adoption of the annual
workplan; and (iii) the monitoring and evaluation of project implementation. The implementation
manual will specify the role and responsibilities of each group of stakeholders in the M&E of the
overall project as well as in the administration of the financial resources transferred to micro-financing
institutions.
Information dissemination
The project will encourage a broad-based consultative process at international, central, regional and
local level throughout the lifetime of the project and beyond. It will make use of skills, experiences
and knowledge of NGOs, community and local groups, private and public sectors and academic
institutions for the implementation and evaluation of project activities. The steering committee, the
CIED and the coordination with associated projects will allow to build new and strengthen existing
partnerships between the main stakeholders, necessary to achieve a sustainable impact in Benin’s
coastal zone.
F. Sustainability, Replicability and Risks
F. 1. Sustainability
Institutional sustainability – that a comprehensive and operational system of ICZM is put in place,
including permanent institutions at the community and national levels and supporting laws and
policies. In particular:
34





Community institutions responsible for management activities must be stable and permanent
(CIED);
Stakeholder consensus on all levels must be achieved to decide on courses of action on project
activities;
Official recognition of community institutions must be permanent and binding (decree);
Laws and policies should be set at a sufficiently high level and achieve the necessary degree of
political acceptance to effectively bind future governments.
The project will support an enabling environment to allow for the creation and mainstreaming of
sectoral policies and a legal framework which is conducive to sustainable resource use and sound
management of coastal biodiversity assets.
Financial sustainability – that livelihoods of communities are improved and that the ICZM system in
place provides for sustainable financing mechanisms based on this improved livelihood and on other
sustainable financing sources. In particular:
 The ICZM system must include mechanisms for collection of contributions from coastal users that
are comprehensive, proportionate and sufficient to sustain the ICZM system permanently (e.g. use
of existing micro-financing institutions);
 Development alternatives must bring significant and permanent improvement to the incomes of
coastal communities and enable them to contribute to upkeep of the ICZM system at least at the
local level;
 Sufficient additional sources of sustainable financing such as taxation and or the proposed
National Environmental Fund as well as the “Fonds de solidarité inter communale” as foreseen by
the decentralisation law must be secured to make up any shortfall in the community contribution
and channeled directly into ICZM;
 The implementing agency of the project is an existing government agency, with the project
activities fully integrated in the Ministry of Environment budget program and medium-term
strategic action plan. This will help ensure project funding after the end of GEF support, since the
activities are integrated into the government’s workplan for the coming years.
 The project design works to reduce operating costs, as most of the costs are associated with the
initial investments needed to demarcate the reserves, and acquire equipment for the environmental
quality monitoring and information system. Further, the salary of the staff is not part of the
incremental costs funded by the project.
Environmental sustainability – that systems and technologies of management, conservation and
development can be found that are environmentally sustainable and do not in turn lead to further
environmental degradation. In particular:
 Technologies (such as ecological restoration) are available to ensure that the biodiversity of
priority areas is maintained even where those areas are small;
 Technologies for the conservation of species are available to ensure survival of the species even
where population sizes are small;
 Development alternatives that are pursued do not themselves degrade the environment and where
possible promote the enhancement of biodiversity.
 Project will be piloting activities at the community level, providing incentives to local people to
engage in sustainable resource use activities and alternative livelihoods which do not detract from
the environment. These activities will work towards creating the capacity for sustainable resource
use among local communities, while also creating an environment within the coastal zone to
implement sustainable resource use activities. Additionally, through the implementation of local
management plans, the project will work towards creating the awareness within the communities
of the benefits of biodiversity conservation activities, and thus it is anticipated that these activities
will inherently become sustainable over the long-term.
From a technical point of view the sustainability of the planned activities will be assured by:
35
(a) Developing the institutional and human resource capacity required for the successful
implementation of the project activities, especially the protection of biodiversity in community
conservation areas;
(b) Assuring ownership and commitment at the commune and village level to the (project) objectives
of natural assets and biodiversity conservation;
(c) Guaranteeing the greatest benefits to coastal communities through equitable sharing of resources,
and promotion of alternative livelihood opportunities for vulnerable communities;
(d) Building and maintaining consensus among central and local government agencies, local
communities, and users’ group to ensure long-term political and social acceptability of project
activities and objectives; and
(e) Establishing adequate community participation mechanisms to ensure effective integration of
stakeholders inputs into project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
(f) Establishing reserves and inter-communal eco-development zones (land purchase for BR and legal
framework) presents the main element for sustainable conservation in Benin’s highly populated
coastal zones
(g) Developing local CZMP and other environmental strategies and include in communal
development planning.
(h) Integrating environmental conditionality in proposed financing institutions for communal support,
in particular the “Fonds de Solidarité Communale » (based on decentralization law) and the
planned “Fonds National pour l'Environnement” (to be established by decree)..
F. 2. Replicability
A number of factors favor the prospects for developing Benin as a springboard for coastal wetlands
conservation in other West African countries:
 Benin is the only West African coastal state where both wetland conservation and ICZM are at an
advanced stage of preparation;
 Benin’s wetlands are highly representative of the Gulf of Guinea wetland countries;
 Threats to Benin’s coastal wetlands are similar to those of other West African countries
 There is a low risk of project failure due to political instability.
Valuable lessons are expected from the approach and methods used to integrate the conservation of
wetland and coastal biodiversity into local development plans, and from the partnership with
traditional religious leaders for the conservation of sacred sites with high biodiversity. These lessons
would help design protection plans for other wetlands. During preparation, 18 additional sites for
reserves have been already identified for a later scaling-up.
Experience and best practices gained in the conservation of wetland and lagoon system biodiversity
could also provide guidance in the development of proposed projects in other Gulf of Guinea countries
where the same systems of coastal wetland and estuarine lagoons exist (e.g., Togo and Cote d’Ivoire
where there is no coastal zone management initiative, yet). Furthermore, ABE, the implementing
agency, is member of the Administrative Council of the new Center for Wetlands in Accra, Ghana.
The Center offers training and a platform for exchange of experiences in the sub-region. It is expected
that lessons learned will be disseminated to neighboring countries through the Center.
F. 3. Critical Risks
36
Risk
Compliance with coastal zone regulations
and overall enforcement of environmental
regulations are weak
Risk Rating
S–H
Government and MEHU commitment
M
(political and budgetary resources) to CZM
and to project objectives is not sustained -changes affecting the macroeconomic and
fiscal framework, and/or changes in intrasectoral priorities could occur.
Inability to recruit and retain qualified staff M
during and after project
Risk Minimization Measure
The environmental monitoring will involve
local populations and empower them to
report/document any violations that defeat
project objectives. Government
enforcement will be monitored.
Bank supervision missions will include
participation in the discussions and
preparation of MEHU MTEF and annual
budget to ensure that adequate funding is
secured for baseline activities.
MEHU and ABE to train civil servant staff
in state of the art techniques for ICZM and
created capacity both in local and central
governments to provide reliable technical
support to project. ABE is preparing a new
career development plan to help retain
qualified staff
Increased land scarcity and rising
M-S
The establishment of the community
population pressure in project area
conservation areas will not preclude all
undermine the effectiveness of
resource uses; promotion of sustainable use
collaborative conservation efforts
technologies will help maintain carrying
capacity of the ecosystem
Slow pace of implementation of activities
M
Capacity building will start as soon as
due to weak technical and organizational
possible after project effectiveness, and use
capacity at the local level (municipalities,
of consultants will help bridge capacity gap
village conservation units)
at project start
Overall Risk Rating
M
Learning and adoption may counteract risk
Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N (Negligible or Low Risk).
37
ANNEX 1 : Project Design Summary
Hierarchy of Objectives
Sector-related CAS Goal:
a. CAS Goal: Poverty reduction through
consolidated program support.
b. Sector related CAS goal:
Macro-economic stability and sustainable growth
and development.
Key Performance Indicators
Data Collection Strategy
Critical Assumptions
Sector Indicators:
Sector/ country reports:
(from Goal to Bank Mission)
Per capita income.
Poverty indicators, particularly those related to
social sectors.
Environmental and social costs are internalized in
development decision-making.
Poverty assessment and
PRSP implementation
monitoring data.
GoB commits to effectively
implements broader poverty
reduction and social and
economic development
EA reviews and state of the programs that are compatible
environment (SOE) report. with the aims of sustainable
development and national
Revised NEAP (2007)
biodiversity conservation.
Political stability is
maintained.
Good governance measures
identified in PRSP
implemented.
(GEF Operational Program Goal)
The conservation and sustainable use of the
biological resources in coastal ecosystems.
 Compliance with International Conventions.
 Maintenance of Benin’s biodiversity
 Preservation of ecosystems
 Increase in revenues and livelihoods from
environmentally sustainable activities
materialized and sustained beyond the
project period.
38
National progress report on
implementation of
Convention on
Biodiversity.
SOE Reports and
independent evaluations by
local and international
experts/NGOs such as
IUCN, or Wetlands
International, etc).
Hierarchy of Objectives
Project Development Objective
To maintain the biological diversity and ecological
functions of coastal wetlands and other ecosystems in
the coastal zone, while supporting the livelihood and
economic opportunities of the communities living in
these areas
Key Performance Indicators
Targeted communities voluntarily employing
alternative livelihoods and sustainable modes of
resource use identified in local development plans
(PLAGE and PIAGE) supported by the project.
Encroachment, illegal exploitation, and overexploitation
of coastal resources in eco-development zones
and biological reserve areas reduced by at least
two-thirds by the end of the project.
Ecosystem and biodiversity
monitoring data and
evaluation reports of
project.
Data Collection Strategy
Critical Assumptions
Quarterly implementation
Effective management
progress reports, thematic
(including control of river,
evaluation studies, and
lakes, and marine pollution) of
monitoring data produced by Benin globally significant
the M&E unit of the project. biodiversity is complemented
by effective management by
Beneficiary assessment
neighboring countries (i.e.,
reports.
Togo and Nigeria).
Implementation progress
reports of the reserves.
Cost-effective technical options for controlling coastal
erosion, and effective tools for sustainable
environmental management identified, tested and used
by the end of project.
Existence of sufficient
national implementation
capacity.
Sustainable use yield sufficient
benefits to reduce poverty
Annual training and awareness raising programs
prepared, administered, and evaluated, and improved
consistently throughout the project life;
Global Objective:
Outcome / Impact Indicators:
39
Project reports:
(from Objective to Goal)
To establish viable coastal zone management systems All the municipalities of the project sites have
in priority sites of global biodiversity significance.
prepared and adopted a local environmental and
resource management plan (PLAGE, PIAGE) that
mainstreams the requirements and objectives of the
Coastal Zone Master Plan into the communal
development plan
National progress report on
implementation of
Convention on Biodiversity.
SOE Reports and independent
evaluations by local and
international experts/NGOs
Condition of coastal biodiversity resources and
such as IUCN, or Wetlands
ecosystems as a whole in their natural functions seen International, e.g. African
from a local, national and global environmental
waterbirds census)
perspective as demonstrated by the improvement in
trends in: Knowledge, preservation and recovery of Ecosystem and biodiversity
natural species; Extent and composition of vegetation monitoring data and
within coastal wetlands; Pollution loads in rivers,
evaluation reports of project.
lakes, wetlands and coastal waters; Abundance of key
species stable or increase (e.g. marine turtles, manatee,Project implementation
waterbirds)
reports.
At least four critical ecosystems/sites in the targeted
areas are selected, demarcated and put under
protection/management through creation of reserves
and elaboration of management plans by the end of
the project.
40
Output from each component
1. Sustainable inter-agency body for policy
coordination among line ministries created, ensuring
consistency in the development of the coastal zone,
conservation of coastal biodiversity and sustainable
management of coastal resources.
Output indicators


Framework based on Coastal Zone MasterPlan and
National wetlands Strategy developed and used by
ministries and agencies.
Completion and adoption of of Coastal Zone Master
Plan, National Strategy for Wetlands and
implementation decress of framework law on CZM
adopted.










Project reports
Quarterly project
implementation reports.
Annual training and awareness raising
programs prepared, administered, and
Minutes of Cabinet Council
evaluated, and improved consistently
Meetings.
throughout the project life
Local governments and national government
agencies applying CZMP and legal framework
MTR report
for BR
GoB active in preventing investments which
impede sustainable management of coastal
Minutes of Steering
resources
Local governments making decisions resultingcommittee meetings
in larger investments in biodiversity
conservation
Effective coordination of sectoral policies and
programs as pertaining to the use and
exploitation of coastal resources and coastal
wetlands is in place
Inter-sectoral and interagency committees are
created and are functional at the municipal
and/or department level
EIA legislation & procedures applied to
investment projects in coastal zone and
applicable guidelines followed
Environmental audits of key activities
conducted as required
First meeting of CNPGL takes place 6 months
after adoption of coastal zone framework law
At least 3 CIED exist in year 2
Framework law on coastal zone management
in place by year 2.
Coastal law decrees including clear description
41
(from Outputs to Objective)
Sufficient institutional
stability at national
(ministries and directorates
responsible for CZM) and
local level exists
Sufficient political will to
fully devolve powers to local
governments as described in
decentralization law exists
Municipalities in project area
have sufficient resources to
undertake truly decentralized
development planning and
implementation
Sufficient incentives are in
place to use skills transferred
to trainees
There is no delay in National
Assembly for adoption of the
framework law on coastal
zone management






2. Identification and conservation of biological
Reserves through a participative process.
Decrease of threats in and around the BRs by
developing incentive measures and economic
alternatives.







of role and function of government and local
authorities exist by year 3.
Legal document on BR is adopted at latest in
year 2.
Fiscal law in year 2 introduces incentives for
application of CZMP
Sector strategies for tourism, fishery, salt
making and mining are finalized in year 1
Three eco-development charters ratified in
year 3
At least 10 communes dispose a local CZMPb
by year 4.
10 PLAGEs and 5 PIAGE are put in place by
year 4
Increased and improved participation of
stakeholders: the role and responsibilities of
all stakeholders in coastal zone management
are clarified and resource exploitation rules
are prepared and agreed upon
by the end of the project.
Identified BR protected and key species
maintained through end of project period
Communities participating in protection of
ecosystems and resource base, such as antipouching controls, investments, maintenance
of demarcation infrastructure
04 BR exist with management plan and legal
status in year 2
01 Reference report on key species, BR and
important ecosystem available by end of year
1
Management plans for at least 02 natural
42
Periodic project reports
MTR report
Steering Committee
meetings
Conservation area maps,
surveys, SOE report
Key species conservation
plans (red bellied guenon,
manatee, hippo, clawless
African otter, sitatunga, sea
turtles, black tern).
Scheme reports &
evaluations (e.g. mangrove
rehabilitation, anti-erosion
That areas of priority sites
and numbers of species are
sufficient enough to maintain
biological diversity in coastal
zone
Effectiveness of project is not
delayed and all project staff
is in place when activities
start
There are no controversial
issues such as property rights
over BR areas to be
demarcated that delay
identification and
demarcation process
Government (central and







degraded habitats available in year 3
planting of Lake Ahémé
banks)
At least 20 micro – projects per year are
funded, executed and assessed from year 1
Official socio-economic
03 activities of Management plans for
Ramsar sites are executed per site/year from data, communal council
reports, project reports,
year 2
01 study on eco tourism potential for each of household surveys
the 4 BR available by year 1.
04 initiatives to promote eco tourism are
supported in year 3
Development activities initiated in all
communities contributing to conservation of
priority sites and key species, habitat
restoration and co-operative management.
Livelihoods of participating communities
improved.
Communities are employing alternative
resource use modes and alternative livelihoods
identified by the project.
local) and local communities
comply with requirements
included in charters.
Financial management
mechanisms don’t hamper
availability of financial
resources.
Development partners active
in local development
activities introduce the
environmental conditionality
in their procedures.
Local governance is
effective.
Community conservation
units have the required
capacity, resources and right
incentives to successfully
implement plans
Income diversification and
rising income lead to
decreased pressure on
coastal resources
Alternative activities are
attractive enough to local
resources users
The transaction costs of
enforcing identified
43
technologies are not
prohibitive
Local resource users perceive
the benefits of improved
technology
3. Development of an M&E system to track the
status of biodiversity resources and changes in
threats and effectiveness of project activities.











Environmental database (state of resources,
biodiversity, sources of threats, standards and
indicators for resource monitoring, etc.) for
coastal wetland and marine resources created
and maintained
Aerial photographs / satellite images acquired
and coverage for entire coastal zone by year 2
Data collected & entered
Baseline and reference data for indicators
available in year 1
Periodic reports published
National SISE web site on CZM operational and
regularly updated (on-line data)
500 actors and stakeholders across different
categories at different levels are trained to
collect and use data from year 2
2 satellite coverage (SPOT, Corona) purchased
in year 1
Digital maps (50 000) exist from year 3 for
entire coastal zone
New environmental standards for collection of
data on coastal zone management in place and
monitored
Data and information sharing framework
between all levels established
44
Project implementation
reports
MEHU budget annual
business report
State of the Environment
Report
Qualified resource persons
and staff available timely
MEHU allocates increased
budgetary and human
resources to enforcement
Collaboration with private
sector, and local governments
is smooth and effective
Project implementation
reports
Broad-based user groups and
other decision-makers will be
interested in using database for
planning and management
Project implementation
reports

% and regional coverage of communities
successfully monitoring their own practices as a
basis for management and future planning for
local development

2 Semesterial information on air and water
quality provided by laboratories from year 1
Reports on status of resources in year 3 and 5
exist.
1 analysis of good practices for management in
BR exist by year 5
Connection and internet capacity of SISE is
increased by year 2.



4. Steering committee and inter-communal council
created and operational.

Successful achievement of project objectives
through efficient project management
Project quarterly reports
Availability of competent and
motivated staff
Supervison reports
Annual work programs prepared.

2 Meetings of Steering Committee per year
M&E reports
Performance and impact monitoring reports produced 
and disseminated.
Independent assessment of project impact.
1 Coordination meeting with associated projects
Steering Committee minutes
per year from year 1.

Semestrial reports and annual work program
available and transmitted to WB

M&e system in place including activity and
impact indicators at latest 6 months after project
launch
Project Components / Subcomponents:
45
MTR report
Financial management
mechanism provides for
steady flow of funds.
Associated projects are
motivated to exchange
information and experiences.
Component 1: Institutional and capacity building
in coastal wetland and biodiversity management
Sub-component 1.1. Creation of coordination
mechanism for ICZM
1.11. Establish and operationalise the “Cellule
Nationale de Protection et de Gestion du Littoral
(CNPGL) »
1.1.2. Support establishment and implementation of
inter-communities in coastal zone (CIED)
Inputs: US$ 3.5million
Institutional strengthening, civil works and
equipment, training, workshops, technical
assistance, biodiversity overlay, planning and
consultations
Sub-component 1.2. Implementation of Coastal Zone
Master Plan (CZMP)
1.2.1. Support the final validation and application of
the coastal zone framework law
1.2.2. Support development and enforcement of
necessary decrees applying framework law on coastal
zone management and clarifying respective roles of
state and local authorities
1.2.3. Support development of PLAGE in target
communes
1.2.4. Support implementation of local CZMP in by
all coastal communes
1.2.5. Adopt legal status of BR and nature of
management contract (charter)
1.2.6. Implement training plan for stakeholders
involved (municipalities, women, NGO, development
associations) on PLAGE, PIAGE, BR, project
management, data collection, IEC, etc.)
1.2.7. Develop and implement IED action plan on
community-based conservation approach in particular
for women, young and children.
46
Component 2: Community-based biodiversity
conservation in coastal zone area
Sub-component 2.1. Biodiversity conservation at
selected sites
2.1.1. Demarcate the zones for already identified BR
sites jointly with local communities (mapping and
recording in GIS database)
2.1.2. Freeze land tenure changes through land
acquisition for BR
2.1.3. Collective management of priority
conservation areas (BR) using ecosystem (watershed
basin) approach
2.1.4. Undertake habitat restoration (e.g. mangroves)
and conservation activities in particular for key
species
2.1.5. Support implementation of management plans
for RAMSAR 1017 et 1018 (conservation, reports,
IEC, etc.)
Inputs: US$ 4.9 million
Civil works and equipment, training and
technical assistance, studies, social mitigation
plans and programmatic activities
Sub-component 2.2 Sustainable use and community
development
2.2.1. Support alternative livelihood activities and
communal development (financing of micro projects)
identified in PLAGE, PIAGE
2.2.2. Support development of eco-tourism in and
around target sites (BR)
2.2.3. Facilitate development and sustainable use
business of rural micro-financing institutions in
target areas
47
Component 3: Monitoring and evaluation of
coastal wetlands and marine biodiversity
Sub-component 3.1.: Framework for m&e system and Inputs: US$ 2.3 million
implementation
3.1.1. Put in place a coastal zone and wetlands data
base with geo-references (digital maps, socioeconomic data, orthophotos, etc.)
3.1.2. Standardize formats and norms of data
collection and storage of environmental data;
3.1.3. Support users and sector agencies in the
collection, updating and normalizing of data;
3.1.4. Train and inform all major stakeholders
(decision-making bodies, private sector, civil society)
about use of information and data availability.
3.1.5 Elaborate and update environmental and
sustainable development indicators;
3.1.6. Produce and publish data, periodic reports and
other tools on the state of the coastal zone &
wetlands and good management practices
3.1.7. Periodically acquire aerial photographs for
coastal zone and wetlands monitoring;
3.1.8. Identify periodically information needs of
main users and stakeholders and adapt data base
content and reports
Sub-component 3.2.: Monitoring of coastal and
marine environment
3.2.1. Monitor resource indicators (Status, pressure,
impact, response) and welfare of local population in
coastal zone
3.2.2. Conduct research on appropriate key species
and their habitats and feed-back results in PLAGE,
PIAGE and BR activities
3.2.3. Monitor and evaluate impacts of activities in
48
collaboration with communities, local, national
governments and international institution (good
practices of communal management in BR) and feedback into m&e system
3.2.4. Identify appropriate ‘indicator’ species and
integrate into ecological monitoring systems.
Component 4 :
coordination
Project management and
4.1. Secretariat of Steering Committee
Inputs: US$ 1.3 million
4.2. Assuring coordination with associated initiatives
and feeding-back lessons learned into adaptive
project management
4.3. Oversight of project monitoring system (project
performance and impact data collection)
4.4. Produce, publish and disseminate periodic
project reports
4.5. Assess project’s real impact on target groups and
in relation to medium and long term objectives
Note on Inputs: Financing figures include ICZM component of PNGE and national budget contribution for the urgent coastal erosion control program (estimated at
US$ 2.1 million), but not designated to any project component. Provisional estimates for the total investments on the control of coastal erosion amount to
approximately U$ 38 million to be jointly financed by the national budget and external sources (EU, bilaterals).
49
ANNEX 2: Incremental Cost Analysis
1. Overview
In recent years, it has become clear that previous development strategies had paid inadequate attention
to environmental factors. This lack of integration of environmental aspects into development policies
has resulted in high economic and social costs. Benin has therefore begun to focus more closely on
ensuring that its development policies and trends are in line with principles of sustainable development
and global environmental protection.
The broad development goals of this community-based coastal zone management project in Benin are
(a) to improve the environment and introduce alternative livelihoods and economic opportunities for
communities through integrated coastal zone management; (b) to maintain biological diversity and
ecological functions of coastal wetlands and other ecosystems through improved practices and
sustainable resource management plans; and (c) to reduce poverty through better management of
coastal zones. The Forest Sector Policy (1994), the National Environment Action Plan (1993), the
Environmental Law (1999), the National Environmental Program (PNGE) and its component on CZM
are the foundation for this development activity as detailed in the description of project activities.
The immediate objective of the GEF alternative is to help Benin protect biodiversity along the coastal
zone, which lies within zones designated as areas of globally significant biodiversity and wetlands
(Ramsar Sites 1017 and 1018) as well as being vital to the sustained livelihoods of people living in the
target and surrounding areas. This objective will be achieved through a combination of capacity and
institution building activities which provide an environment conducive to sound resource management,
conservation activities, strengthened protection of natural resources and enhancing ecotourism. The
GEF alternative intends to achieve these outputs at a total project cost of US$14.1 million (US$ 4.3
million from GEF).
2. Baseline Scenario
Threats and Causes (see Annex 9)
A number of factors are combining to threaten the globally significant coastal biodiversity of Benin in
general, and the project areas within the two Ramsar sites in particular. The main environmental
problems include coastal erosion, sedimentation of the coastal rivers and lakes (due to removal of
vegetative cover), over-fishing, deregulated hunting practices and poaching, proliferation of water
hyacinth, deforestation, environmentally damaging fishing practices and urban industrial pollution of
rivers and coastal waters.
Key institutional and technical constraints leading to the above threats at each project site are
inadequate regulations, weak enforcement of existing regulations, inadequate information on status
and functioning of critical ecosystems, low level of environmental awareness, and lack of
conservation-related regulations for ecologically threatened areas such as those represented by the
project sites, lack of integrated management planning, and low technical capacity of national and local
institutions in developing sustainable environmental and natural resource management schemes,
including conservation mechanisms. Social constraints leading to further degradation of the target
sites is the limited degree of local community participation in decision making related to the use of
their resources, and limited opportunities for alternative sustainable livelihoods.
Baseline Scenario and Activities (US$9.8 million)
The degradation of coastal zone ecosystems is one of many environmental problems facing Benin.
The Government approach to controlling environmental degradation in the coastal zone is developed
in the National Environmental Management Program (PNGE), the draft Master Plan for Coastal Zone
Management15 and the draft National Wetlands Strategy16. As discussed earlier in this document,
15
The draft Master Plan for Coastal Zone Management (all 3 volumes) will be revised, finalized and adopted by year 1.
50
PNGE includes several sub-components (development of local environmental action plans, IEC,
environmental monitoring etc.) whose combined effects would contribute to the improvement of
environmental quality in the coastal zone, especially in urban areas where environmental degradation
is more acute.
The current medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) of the Ministry of Environment includes
several activities working to reduce the pressure on the coastal zone, mainly through better
enforcement of the existing environmental regulations (e.g. environmental impact assessment,
environmental audits) and by improving the drainage and sewage network of the two largest cities that
contribute the most to pollution of the coastal waters and wetlands. The resource envelop of the
expenditure framework also includes resource allocation to support the completion of technical studies
for the control of coastal erosion and to pave the way for urgently needed investments to reduce
erosion. Such activities will ultimately lead to better protection of the natural resource base through
the reduction of pollution loads in rivers, lakes, and coastal water.
In addition to national budget allocations, external funding supports activities that are closely related
to coastal resource management. (i) The French Cooperation will channel resources (about US$
700,000) to the implementing agency of the project (ABE) for the development of local and intercommunal environmental action plans (PLAGE and PIAGE) and capacity building in environmental
management of the municipalities of the project target area. Part of these resources also support
municipal biodiversity conservation through the activities of the community conservation units
(reserves). This project is directly co-funding CBCBM and providing incremental technical assistance
to ABE, MEHU and local governments and stakeholders for integrated land use planning and
decentralization support. (ii) The regional Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Program financed by
DFID also supports coastal communities for the development of sustainable fisheries management.
Total resources allocated to Benin (among 25 participating African countries) amount to
approximately US$ 1.5 million for 3 years. (iii) The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
has just launched a national Traditional Fisheries Support program. This US$ 25 million program (8
years) will support the traditional fisheries industry mainly through institution and capacity building,
access to micro-funding, restoration of vegetation and fish population in watersheds, promotion of
alternative livelihood strategies and the modernization of the industry. The project intervention area is
the whole country, but given the importance of the coastal wetlands, rivers, and lakes in fisheries
production, one could venture to say that at least two-third of the project budget (US$ 3-4
million/year) will be invested in the area covered by the proposed project. The CBCBM will
coordinate strongly with this complementary operation on lessons on M&E, sustainable use activities
and micro-financing as well as capacity building and institutional strengthening will be exchanged
throughout the lifetime of the project. The Environmental Impact Assessment was guided by ABE and
partnership arrangements for the monitoring process as well as for coordination of activities are
anticipated. (iv) UNFPA will complement the CBCBM project through its Project “Participatory and
Sustainable Management of Biodiversity in Densely Populated Areas in Benin”. The project aims to
strengthen the conservation, regeneration and management of biodiversity reserves in the Western
Complex of the Ramsar Sites while improving the socio-economic base for sustainable development in
these areas. Particular focus will be placed on family planning and health services (helping to reduce
and better control population pressure on the coast), sanitary investments at village level, alternative
livelihood activities and IEC (US$ 1.8 million).
While providing substantial support to the management of the coastal resources, the above
interventions do fall short of developing a fully integrated plan for the sustainable management of the
coastal zone resources. In particular, the baseline activities do not specifically provide a viable option
for conserving the fragile and critical ecosystems located in the coastal wetlands. In fact, with the
current level of budget allocation, the government will be able to provide limited technical assistance
to municipalities in the preparation of local environmental action plans and support basic operational
costs of local environmental management. There will not be any attempt to invest in the preservation
16
The draft National Wetlands Strategy will be revised and finalized by August 2003. It is expected that it will be adopted prior or during
the first semester of the project implementation.
51
of biodiversity-rich niches in the coastal wetlands and in the protection of the fragile habitats that
support these biodiversity resources.
Although a large number of NGOs are actively involved in local development planning in the project
areas, those who are dealing with environmental issues focus on brown issues as do the local
environmental management plans. Often, these NGOs lack the capacity to deal with the core issues
being addressed by the proposed integrated coastal zone management project. Finally, the lack of
adequate funding may prevent the establishment of coordination mechanisms needed to ensure
compatibility of the large number of institutions that are involved in activities that threaten directly or
indirectly the integrity of critical ecological services, the (use and non-use) values and the biodiversity
of coastal wetlands and marine ecosystems.
In sum, the current resource and capacity constraints and the existing externally funded activities
related to coastal zone management will not ensure the protection of globally significant biodiversity
resources at the project target sites. In any case, under the most optimistic predictions, it is unlikely
that the limited expenditures will have a noticeable and lasting impact in preventing encroachment into
the fragile ecosystems that support the bulk of the Benin coastal zone biodiversity resources. In fact,
the current trend toward accelerated degradation and loss of genetic resources and habitat diversity
may continue under the baseline scenario. Therefore it is unlikely that in the baseline situation, the
decline of biodiversity could be reversed and the livelihood of resource-dependent coastal
communities enhanced through better resource management.
3. Global Environmental Objectives of the GEF Alternative
The global environmental objective of the proposed GEF alternative is to establish viable coastal zone
management systems in priority sites of global biodiversity significance through through planning and
implementation of priority conservation activities, institution building and policy reform. The priority
activities of the proposed project are consistent with the country’s NBSAP, and focus on the
conservation of biodiversity-rich niches located in sites designated as globally significant by several
organizations: Ramsar, WWF, and IUCN. These objectives will be achieved through the development
of an innovative approach to coastal zone management that supports and empowers local communities
to establish community-based conservation areas (reserves) in at least four pilot areas, covering together
with their eco-development zones approximately 235,000 ha, within the Ramsar sites. These
community conservation areas include key biodiversity resources specific to the southern and coastal
ecosystems of Benin. Along with the national parks of the northern savannah zone, these conservation
areas will provide the opportunity to conserve and protect the biodiversity resources of the two main
ecosystems of the country.
Scope and cost of the proposed GEF Alternative (US$14.1 million: GEF US$4.3 million)
The GEF Alternative will provide the means (above and beyond the baseline scenario) for creating the
institutional, technical, and socio-economic conditions for enabling the sustainable conservation of
globally significant biodiversity resources of the coastal zone. Resources are required not only to
carry out direct protection and conservation of biodiversity but also to invest in the systemic changes
that are required to sustain conservation outcomes in the long term (in particular the activities of
community reinforcement, providing development alternatives and putting in place a system of ICZM
at national and local level). In addition to the baseline investments described above, the GEF
alternative will include a wide set of activities organized under four components with the following
corresponding costs and focus:
Component 1: Institutions and capacity building (US$3.50 million: GEF US$ 0.6 million)
This component of the proposed alternative will provide much needed assistance to enable the
Government of Benin to achieve integration of biodiversity into their policy and regulatory
work. GEF financing under this component will focus on creating an enabling environment in
52
Benin to allow for sectoral policies and a legal framework which is conducive to sustainable
resource use and sound management of coastal biodiversity assets. Further, the component
will support the initiation and initial management of reserves by local communities and their
authorities.
Component 2: Community-based biodiversity conservation (US$4.90 million: GEF US$ 2.2
million)
The overall scope of the proposed project activities focuses on improving the management and
protection of natural resources within the coastal zone of Benin. Within the scope of this
objective, this component will focus on the finalization of an overall management plan for the
Ramsar sites17, with implementation of the management plans being undertaken via
community-based conservation activities in selected sites of particular biodiversity
significance. This component will provide the initial incentive to local communities to engage
in alternative livelihood activities and sustainable use of natural resources, relieving the
pressure on ecosystems. The primary focus of GEF funds for Component 2 will be on
community-based biodiversity activities focusing creation and management of reserves under
subcomponent 2.1, with GEF funds under sub-component 2.2 on sustainable use focusing
specifically on promoting the adoption of conservation-friendly technologies and practices.
Component 3: Monitoring and evaluation of coastal wetlands and marine biodiversity (US$
2.3 million: GEF US$ 1.0 million)
The objective of this component is to develop an M & E system that will track the status of
biodiversity resources as well as the changes in threats and the effectiveness of the project
activities in mitigating these threats. Special emphasis will be on water quality, productivity
of fisheries, coastal erosion, biodiversity status, and change in socio-economic of status of
households in the project areas. GEF funding for this component will be used to finance the
incremental costs of adding a coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring component to the
existing information system. Additionally, GEF funds will facilitate integration of all
biodiversity information in the country, forging a direct link with the database of the M&E
component of the National Parks Conservation and Management Project as well as with the
other associated projects and programs in the coastal zone.
Component 4: Project coordination and management (US$ 1.3 million: GEF US$ 0.5
million)
This component will ensure effective coordination of project activities and information
dissemination among ministries, national commissions, stakeholders at all levels and donor
groups. GEF funding will focus on coordination among different implementation units of the
project.
These components are embedded in the Ministry of Environment medium term expenditure framework
as reflected in the 2003-2005 budget-programs. In fact, three of the four components of the GEF
Alternative are fully aligned with the on-going activities of the implementing agency with financing
from the national budget. Over the next five years (estimates are based on figures shown in the
medium-term expenditure framework of the next three years, to which the average annual allocation
for two years is added) total financing from the national budget amounts to about US$ 5.20 million,
which includes contribution from municipalities of approximately US$ 0.5 million (monetary and inkind).
In total, the baseline costs amount to approximately (actual national budget financing may vary from
year to year depending on the macro-fiscal framework) US$ 9.8 million. To the extent that the GEF
Alternative costs US$14.1 million, the incremental costs to be sought from GEF is US$ 4.3 million.
The cost allocations are summarized in the incremental cost table below.
17
Elaboration of draft management plans for Ramsar sites has started under PDF-B phase.
53
Benefits
The implementation of the GEF Alternative will provide the means for (i) coordinating sectoral
policies for a better management of the coastal zone, (ii) mainstreaming coastal biodiversity
conservation into sectoral policies and programs, and into regional and local development plans, and
(iii) establishing sustainable community-based biodiversity conservation and management areas
(reserves). These activities will yield both domestic and global benefits.
Several categories of benefits are worth considering at the national level. The first category consists of
increased direct use benefits in the future as the development and promotion of improved harvesting
practices preserves the resource base for durable use. Both rural and urban populations would benefit
from a steady stream of a variety of goods including fisheries, biomass fuel, medicinal plants, and
other products for home use or for sale. The second category of potential benefits could result from
reduced pollution in coastal waters, rivers and lakes. In addition to health-related benefits, reduced
pollution could enhance the development of scenic resources on the coast, thus increasing their
aesthetic value (potential for tourism industry development). Finally, the uniqueness of the
biodiversity stock and the fact that many of the biodiversity hot spots in the project area are also sacred
sites for local communities, create appropriate conditions for enhanced learning experience with high
scientific and educational value.
The global benefits of the GEF Alternative would include the restoration and preservation of habitats
that harbor endemic and threatened species of fauna and flora, and their recovery. The promotion of
local knowledge and regional cooperation in coastal biodiversity conservation also constitute
important benefits of global value. Finally, the protection of migratory waterbirds and their habitats
will yield substantial global benefits.
Incremental Cost Matrix
Project
Components
Component 1:
Institution and
capacity
building
-Creation of
coordination
mechanisms for
coastal zone
management
Cost Category
Baseline
Cost
US$mil
2.90
Domestic Benefits
Global Benefits
Increased capacity
of sectoral ministries
to coordinate their
interventions for
development of
coastal zone and
sustainable use of
resources
Limited improvement in
management of globally
significant biodiversity.
3.5
Establishment of
coordinating
mechanisms and
increased capacity to
guide the
development,
exploitation, and
protection of coastal
resources
Policies and regulations
for mainstreaming
coastal biodiversity into
sectoral polices are in
place.
- Completion of
the coastal zone
master plan
GEF
Alternative
A regulatory and
Substantial improvement
in the ability of central
and local governments
to support decentralized
integrated ecosystem
54
Component 2:
Communitybased
biodiversity
conservation
Incremental
0 .60
Baseline
2.7
Biodiversity
conservation on
selected sites
Community
development
institutional
framework for
coastal resources
management is
operational on
national and
local/regional level
management of the
coastal zone, leading to
significant global
environmental benefits.
Increased
environmental
awareness of local
people; increased
incentive of local
communities leading
to more successful
outcomes in natural
resource
management
Some reduction of
impacts on coastal and
marine ecosystems
containing globally
significant biodiversity.
The putting in place of
ICZM policies &
instruments and full
range of supporting laws
& tools will support &
sustain efforts to
conserve and sustainably
use biodiversity.
Moderate reduction
in poverty through
access to alternative
livelihood.
GEF Alternative
4.90
Increased potential
for local tourism
development.
Significant capacity
of communities
developed to
implement activities
leading to ecological
sustainability and
national socioeconomic equity and
growth.
Globally significant
biodiversity and
wetlands of international
importance are under
increased protection and
management for longterm sustainability
Habitat restoration of at
least 2 sites.
Improved basis for
sustainable management
of global biodiversity
resources and
opportunities for
increased income
earning opportunities
that would reduce
pressure on the protected
areas
55
Communities (e.g.
communes) have
capacity to manage
priority areas, conserve
iconic species &
undertake habitat
restoration as well as
manage & monitor
natural resources and
manage collectively
using an ecosystem
approach; they will
understand and take part
in national ICZM & use
ICZM information
system.
Communities will
elaborate development
strategies and adopt
alternative forms of
development that
improve livelihoods and
conserve or enhance
biodiversity.
Improved conservation
of globally significant
coastal and marine
biodiversity; removal of
threats, and improved
resource use practices by
the surrounding
communities.
Significant capacity of
communities developed
to implement
biodiversity-friendly
resource use activities,
leading to significant
conservation of global
environmental assets.
Component 3:
Monitoring and
evaluation of
coastal
wetlands and
marine
biodiversity:
Developing
Incremental
2.20
Baseline
1.3
Environmental
indicators are
available and used to
produce periodic
state of the
environment report
Information on the state
of the environment in
Benin is available for
use in regional
assessments.
Availability of high
quality M&E reports
56
M&E system
Monitoring of
coastal and
marine
environmental
used for activity and
project guidance
Availability of
information to
communes will
facilitate natural
resources &
development
planning and place
them on equal
footing with state
entities and promote
good governance.
GEF Alternative
2.3
Cross-sectoral M&E
system in place
assessing the
condition of
ecosystems as a
whole, to guide
integrated coastal
zone management
respecting national
socio-economic and
ecological interests.
Availability of long-term
biodiversity monitoring
mechanism
Research indicator
species & integrated into
monitoring.
Adequate information,
including indicators is
available to manage
globally significant
biodiversity resources
Substantial assessment
tool established to guide
integrated coastal zone
management leading to
significant global
environmental benefits.
Component 4:
Project
management
and
coordination
- Project
Coordination
Incremental
1.00
Baseline
0.80
GEF Alternative
1.3
Efficient
management and
M&E of the PNGE
Efficient and
effective donor
coordination is
assured.
State of the
Environment reports
are produced and
disseminated
Integration of
conservation issues
into sectoral policies
Efficient and
capable staff in
place to disseminate
knowledge and
Publication and
dissemination of best
practice in communitybased wetland and
marine biodiversity
conservation
Exchange of information
57
manage issues
related to integrated
coastal zone
management on
local, national and
regional/global
level.
Incremental
Totals*
Baseline
GEF Alternative
and experience with
neighboring countries
Integrated coastal zone
management on local,
national and
regional/global level
facilitated leading to
significant global
environmental benefits.
0.50
9.8
Sectoral policies,
and private sector
investments take
environmental and
conservation aspects
into account
14.1
An effective coastal
zone development
policy, legal, and
institutional
framework is
established.
Establishment and
enforcement of ICZM
Plan
Existing forest blocks
will be conserved and
enhanced.
Pressures on
renewable resources
are reduced
Iconic species will
become sufficiently
abundant to survive
indefinitely. One subspecies will be saved
from global extinction
and 5 species from local
extinction.
Capacities at both
local and
institutional levels
enhanced
Fisheries will be
managed sustainably.
Wetland ecologcial
function will be
enhanced and Ramsar
sites 1017 & 1018 will
retain their international
importance.
Urgent conservation
measures are undertaken
to conserve globally
significant biodiversity
Community and interest
groups and other
management units are
established, information
58
gathered, management
plans prepared etc.
Efforts to conserve
globally significant
biodiversity are
facilitated by effective
legal protection
Risks of major and
imminent loss of
biodiversity are
eliminated.
Ecosystem, genetic and
species diversity
conserved.
Incremental
4.30
* Financing figures include ICZM component of PNGE and national budget contribution for the urgent coastal
erosion control program (estimated at US$ 2.1 million), but not designated to any project component.
Provisional estimates for the total investments on the control of coastal erosion amount to approximately U$ 38
million to be jointly financed by the national budget and external sources (EU, bilaterals).
59
ANNEX 3: STAP REVIEW
STAP Review: Project P071579- Benin, Enhancing Community Participation and Best Practices
through Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Overview:
It is appreciated that the Project Brief is under development and the following comments based on the
standard format used to assess project proposals are intended to help the team preparing the Project
Proposal:
The Project Brief is well written and comprehensive. However, there are two basic points that need
clarification. The first concerns the conservation of the two RAMSAR Sites as the focus of the project
when the project is much broader in its concept and detailed activities. It appears that the use of the
two sites is a mechanism for demonstrating to the GEF that the project will address their programme
area 2. Is this really necessary? Fundamentally, the project is about sustainable development and
wetlands conservation forms an important focus that represent an integral part of the Integrated
Coastal Zone Management effort.
The second point concerns erosion of the coast. The causes of the erosion are reasonably well
articulated and demonstrate the wide area where complex sets of activities contribute to the erosion
along the coast. However, there is no critical review of the concept of specific proposals for "erosion
control". If, as in many other developing nations, expensive and non-sustainable "solutions" are usedsuch as major hard engineering interventions- without addressing the root causes, then the Bank could
be seen as supporting inappropriate investment.
Both points need to be clarified before the project is submitted.
Scientific and technical soundness of the project
There is strong evidence of careful assessment of the underlying problems associated with the
conservation of the biological diversity of the wetlands and other resource systems associated with the
Benin coast. The main threats to the two RAMSAR sites and other coastal ecosystems and have been
assessed. Other than the issues surrounding the management of coastal erosion identified above, there
is sufficient ecological and technical information available to give the project a reasonably sound
scientific base. Some important questions remain that will affect the design and possible success of
project activities intended to conserve biodiversity. One example is whether the two RAMSAR sites
can be conserved if major issues affecting hydrology and sediment budgets upstream from the coast
are not effectively dealt with under the project.
In this respect, the Project Design should ensure that issues such as deforestation in watersheds and
mitigation of the impacts of major coastal infrastructure developments are addressed in the Integrated
Coastal Management initiatives. This will require further indicators to be identified to support the
management plans and to help achieve the objectives. The monitoring schemes have been
incorporated into the design will also reed to reflect these broader issues.
The participative approach taken in the Project Brief should help ensure the achievement of the
objectives of conserving biodiversity, promoting more sustainable forms of resources use and the
successful identification and development of alternative livelihoods for local communities. The design
recognizes the importance of developing both awareness of conservation issues and active
participation of communities and other local stakeholders in the development of effective biodiversity
conservation initiatives. However there are specific issues that need to be clarified concerning the role
of the private sector in the development and implementation of the biodiversity management
strategies, plans and management measures set out. Brief mention is made of the "private sector",
60
however the active participation of important stakeholders, such as hotel operators and other tourism
related interests needs to be given a higher profile in the project design. Experience elsewhere has
demonstrated the importance of getting the active involvement and support of the private sector in
biodiversity conservation. Tourism development is identified in the project background as a driver of
coastal habitat change, it is therefore very important to ensure these interests and potential capacities to
support biodiversity conservation are incorporated. If this is not done, there is scope for resistance to
and even and blocking of proposals by private sector bodies that believe their interests are nor being
given the attention they deserve. The apparent weakness in the project design in respect to the underemphasis on the role of the private sector and other interests that are active outside government
agencies could lead to a risk of weak support for policies, plans and management interventions.
The success of the proposed approach also depends heavily upon the effective cooperation of line
agencies with the Benin Environment Agency as the Lead Agency. Lack of cooperation and
coordination among government agencies is a common problem in the management of coastal and
marine areas and resources throughout the world. The measures to promote stronger cooperation
among agencies could be further clarified and even reinforced in respect to how cooperation and
coordination will be developed and reinforced beyond the use of a Steering Committee. Consideration
could also be given to developing a sense of partnership between the government agencies and the
private sector and other stakeholders in supporting the development of the project. This would help
reduce the risk of poor coordination among agencies and would help to strengthen the sustainability of
the project outcomes.
There do not appear to be any controversial aspects about the project.
The project does not introduce incentives that may lead to over-harvesting of resources and contains
measures designed to improve conservation of habitats and the sustainable use of renewable resources.
The project design could be strengthened by making it more clear how any adverse effects on fishers
and other natural resources dependent stakeholders resulting from any conservation measures
proposed might be dealt with/compensated for. The same issue may affect tourism developers and
other private sector interests.
The project does addresses weaknesses in the enforcement of existing national laws and regulations,
and the measures proposed would help to ensure better use of these legal instruments. The legal
instrument aspects in respect to international conventions, treaties and protocols could be more clearly
spelt out in the Project Brief.
There is no specific model of sustainable use outlined in the project. The subject is mentioned, but not
sufficiently elaborated to assess at this point. It would be helpful to set out how sustainable use
outlined in the project will be tested and amended where appropriate. It would also be helpful to
elaborate the plans to use pilot management studies in the two RAMSAR sites as a means of learning
from and replicating the management model in other locations. The success of any pilots will depend
heavily on support from stakeholders and the measures designed to improve cooperation and
coordination among government agencies. These issues are addressed in the project design and the
comments above suggest areas in which the design could be strengthened.
There is evidence that the project encompasses well thought through technical and socio-economic
measures that should help the Benin Environment Agency and other agencies of the Government of
Benin to develop long-term and sustainable solutions to the issues adversely affecting biological
diversity.
Identification of global environmental benefits
The section on the Global Development Objective directly addresses the goals of the GEF Operational
Programme no. 2 and the international commitments under the RAMSAR Convention. The Project
61
design aims to strengthen measures being implemented by the Government of Benin to reduce the
impact of coastal development and over-exploitation of natural resources.
The global benefits for the conservation of biodiversity that will result from the planned interventions
are primarily related to the improved management of the two RAMSAR sites. It is inferred that there
will be corresponding benefits to other coastal ecosystems. The planned interventions in the two
RAMSAR Sites should have a beneficial impact in terms of the importance of these ecosystems and
species of global importance.
The project therefore fits well within the context of the global goals of GEF.
Regional Context
The project addresses issues of importance to biological diversity conservation within the surrounding
region by focusing on sites that are of representative of other parts of the West Africa and contribute to
the overall biodiversity of the region
It would be helpful to link the conservation of the two RAMSAR sites with benefits to other
ecosystems and natural resources of the coastal zone. It would be helpful if the project design
incorporated measures to examine the potential for establishing management links with other countries
where there may be a trans-boundary effect and the measures adopted in Benin could be extended to
the wider coastal region of this part of West Africa. Conversely, it would be beneficial to explore ways
in which improved management of watersheds in other countries could enhance/add value to the effect
of the biological diversity conservation and erosion control measures proposed for Benin.
Replicability of the project
There is good scope for the replication of the planned activities in other parts of Benin and potentially
in other African countries based on the experience gained and lessons learned during the life of the
project. In this context, it would be useful to give more emphasis to the exchange of information and
experience gained through the project with other countries in the region. Perhaps the UNEP supported
Action Plans for Africa may offer a vehicle for broader communication and sharing of results
Sustainability of the project
There appears to be good potential for continuation of the changes the project aims to introduce as the
project design incorporates measures for both local participation and for human resources development
and institutional strengthening which complement the Government's policies and management
priorities.
Secondary issues
Linkage to other focal areas
The project design appears to be consistent with the stated operational strategies of the other GEF,
Bank and other donor focal areas, and avoids negative impacts in focal areas outside the focus of the
project. The proposed project activities appear feasible and cost-effective, and should contribute to
global environmental benefits in other focal areas and in the cross-sectoral area of coastal land and
water management.
The one weakness in this respect is the lack of critical review of the coastal erosion control measures.
Although these measures are not a specific subject of investment within the project, inappropriate
interventions in erosion processes could have an adverse effect on the RAMSAR sites and the natural
resources they sustain. Similarly, if watershed management and other cross-sectoral activities are not
62
well handled, there could be adverse effects on the RAMSAR sites that would undermine the integrity
of the proposed project activities and investment.
Linkage to other programmes and action plans at the regional or sub-regional level
The project seeks to build upon past, ongoing and prospective GEF activities. The project design
could be strengthened by making more explicit mention of how the planned activities would be
coordinated with work of other GEF projects and their respective Implementing Agencies and other
bodies. This should include how links would be established with relevant ongoing regional or subregional programs and action plans.
Other beneficial environmental effects
The project seeks to improve the management of wetland ecosystems of importance to more than one
sector of the Benin economy. The planned measure should help reduce conflicts among agencies and
economic entities seeking to maximize their respective use of the coastal and marine resources base.
Improved management of the RAMSAR sites should yield other ecosystem services and social and
economic benefits to local communities and those in the wider region.
Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project
Stakeholder involvement is incorporated as part of the "participative" nature of the planned activities.
This addresses GEF emphasis on the development of activities to promote community-based
management of biodiversity. Giving greater emphasis to the role of the private sector, specifically
tourism, recreation and commercial fisheries could strengthen the project design as mentioned above.
The project could also elaborate on the use of concepts such as the co-management of resources, or
contracts or negotiations with governments that define each stakeholders responsibility in managing
the resource, and the eventual devolution of biodiversity management measure to local groups and
NGOs. Note is made in the DRAFT text that specific names of NGOs need to be set out.
Capacity building aspects
The project design does give a clear exposition of measures to strengthen awareness and basic
expertise to support biological diversity conservation. However, the project design would benefit from
further clarification of the measures to promote and maintain cooperation between the various groups
of stakeholders, and transparent mechanisms to ensure the active participation of relevant stakeholders
in the development, implementation and monitoring of project activities.
Peter Burbridge
January 14th, 2003
63
Response to STAP Technical Review
The STAP Review is supportive of the project design and approach to addressing the many
environmental threats and biodiversity conservation issues in the coastal zone of Benin. However, the
Review raised some issues that would need further clarification for the sake of strengthening the
overall implementation framework of the proposed project. The following elaboration aims at
providing answers to the issues raised in the Review.
Overview
1. Scope of project and proposed conservation activities.
The primary concern raised by the review was the focus on creation of reserves and conservation of
biodiversity within the two Ramsar sites. The project is much broader in concept, and the Project
Brief has been revised to demonstrate that the objective is, first and foremost, to maintain the
biological diversity and ecological functions of coastal wetlands and other ecosystems in the coastal
zone, while supporting the livelihood and economic opportunities of the communities living in these
areas. The project will take an integrated approach to achieving this aim, using capacity building for
policy reform, monitoring and evaluation of coastal wetlands and marine biodiversity, and communitybased conservation activities in specific sites as a starting point for implementation. These sites are
indicative of the globally significant biodiversity in the area and represent pilot sites for future scalingup and replication.
2. The two RAMSAR sites as the focus of the project when the project is much broader in its concept
and detailed activities.
The Reviewer is correct in his assessment that the project is much broader in its concept and scope
than simply on the ground activities within the Ramsar sites. It is important to note that the global
objective of the project is the implementation of priority conservation activities and policy reform
within the coastal zone. These priority activities are consistent with the country’s NBSAP, and will
focus on the conservation of biodiversity-rich niches located in sites designated as globally significant.
Accordingly, the two Ramsar sites within Benin comprise almost the entirety of Benin’s coastal zone
and present the logical choice for areas for intervention. The biodiversity present in these areas has
been identified as globally significant by several other organizations, in addition to Ramsar.
The project will not only implement on-the ground, community-based conservation activities within
the Ramsar sites, it will also work to facilitate the development and implementation of management
plans for the coastal zone and the Ramsar sites, creating an enabling environment for conservation
activities, and working toward mainstreaming environment and biodiversity conservation measures
into the national policy and legal frameworks.
3. Coastal erosion.
The Review mentioned that while the Brief provides a good description of the causes of coastal
erosion, it does not provide a critical review of coastal erosion control measures. The control of
coastal erosion is not part of the proposed alternative, but the impacts of coastal erosion are a source of
great concern to the Government, and have been for many years. In recent years, the Government has
commissioned studies to examine the causes, extent, consequences, impacts and possible solutions to
control coastal erosion and shoreline recession. Among these initiatives was a two-volume feasibility
study for coastal erosion control, completed in 1992. The first volume analyzed several technical
options among which nine were retained for further review and analysis. The second volume provided
an economic assessment of each of these options. Due to a lack of financing and corresponding lack
of capacity to develop these assessments into concrete plans, no immediate investments followed these
studies.
In 2002, the Government hired another international consulting firm to take a fresh look at the issues,
including proposing updated and effective solutions for halting the accelerating erosion of the eastern
coastline. The final results of this study will be available in late 2003, at which point the Government
is planning to implement cost-effective solutions recommended. Provisional cost estimates for erosion
64
control activities have been presented to the government and activities to mitigate erosion will be
integrated into the Ministry of Environment’s operations along the coast and will be financed through
the 2003-2005 MTEF (financed through the PRSC). The proposed alternative will include completion
of the revised study and recommendations for the most appropriate course of action. Additionally, the
proposed alternative will strengthen the capacity of relevant agencies to address coastal erosion and
degradation issues through the identification of these technical solutions. Actual activities to mitigate
coastal erosion will become part of the baseline of the project, financed by IDA through the PRSC.
The Project Brief has been revised to appropriately reflect this approach.
Issues related to the technical and scientific soundness of the project
4. Scope of conservation investments
One concern raised by the Review is whether the conservation efforts targeting the two RAMSAR
alone would be effective in ensuring biodiversity conservation in the coastal zone. It is true that some
of the environmental threats facing the coastal ecosystems and water bodies, in particular bank erosion
and sedimentation can only be effectively addressed by controlling the main causes these threats
located upstream. While aiming at in situ conservation, the community-based conservation plans will
include off-site collective investments for environmental restoration purposes.
Tree plantation on river and lake banks, restoration of degraded mangroves, and construction of antierosion dikes on degraded and erosion-prone areas are some of the investments that will take place. A
portion of the community development fund will support these environmental support investments.
The priority areas for interventions have already been identified and some of them are mentioned in
local environmental management plans developed before the proposed project. Scaling up these
investments to cover the entirety of the watershed would require resources that are beyond the capacity
of the current project.
5. Cooperation with the private sector
The private sector will be involved in the implementation of the project in two ways : (i) as subjects to
awareness raising activities, and (ii) as potential investors for recreation and tourism industry
development. Awareness raising activities toward private sector operators will be based on the new
coastal zone land use planning and zoning, as described in the Coastal Zone Master Plan. In fact,
private sector representatives participated in the thematic workshops that provided inputs into the
preparation of the Master Plan. Private sector operators will be made aware of the restrictions and
other regulations (e.g., environmental impact assessment) guiding development and commercial
interventions in the coastal zone. The project will develop guidelines to accommodate the needs local
private agents to use the environment in a sustainable manner, while ensuring that nature conservation
interests are given due consideration.
For example, the local environmental management plans of the major coastal cities will include
contingency procedures for tackling pollution (land-based and seashore) incidents, and the project will
assist local operators in preparing their own disaster preparedness plan. The second area in which the
private sector may play a role in the project implementation is in the development of local recreation
and tourism activities. The project will facilitate the development of partnership between local
communities and willing private operators in order to exploit opportunities for developing attractive
recreation and tourism sites when feasible.
6. Cooperation and coordination among Government agencies
Cooperation and coordination among Government agencies during project implementation will be
assured through the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is composed of 14 institutions
including all relevant sectoral ministries. Chaired by the Ministry of Environment, Housing, and
Urban Development, the Committee oversees the implementation of the project by providing guidance
on policy issues and clearing annual work program and programming. Most importantly, the
committee will maintain close collaboration with the National Commission for the Littoral that
determines and defines substantive policy issues affecting the coastal zone. The National Commission
that be put in place following the adoption of the Coastal Zone Framework law by the national
65
assembly is the key coordination mechanism after the end of the proposed project. It might be possible
to even merge the project Steering Committee with the National Commission during the course of the
project.
7. Model of sustainable use
The sustainable management of coastal resources within and outside the targeted community-based
conservation sites is key objective of the proposed project. Of the many environmental problems
facing the coastal zone, the degradation of fisheries, the depletion of mangrove forests, and the
disappearance of certain species of game constitute a high priority issue. The measures needed to
ensure the sustainable management of these resources will vary depending on the current level of
threat and the specific characteristics of each resource.
By supporting tree plantation and through collective action by local resource users, and putting in
place new rules for access to specific forest stands and for the use of forest products (i.e., change in the
structure of property and use rights), the project may succeed in restoring the vegetative and tree stock
of degraded mangroves in the project sites. Through local environmental NGOs, the project will help
establish the new organizational structure needed for ensuring effective collective action by the
communities involved in the management of the mangrove forests under consideration. A portion of
the community development fund will support the financial investment cost associated with the tree
nurseries and the equipment needed for replanting. The sustainable use of the forest resource will
require that the removal of the wood and other products from the forests be limited to the meal annual
increment of the tree growth, so that the renewable resource base can be protected for regeneration.
With the help of the forest service, the allowable volume of tree can be determined relatively easily.
Defining sustainable use for fisheries and game would present a greater challenge. From the point of
view of human needs, fisheries, game, and forests are just a resource stock (i.e., a form of capital) that
can either be consumed or conserved. However, unlike the mangrove forests whose boundaries and
tree stock is easily determined, accurate identification and analysis of optimal resource management
models for fisheries and game resource is difficult due to lack of information and knowledge about
these specific resources. Indeed, little is known about the biological resource stock of fish and game
other than in certain areas the population size has been driven to a point where the recovery is
comprised. Because the sustainable yield depends on the stock level, it may not be determined if the
latter is not known.
The project will team up with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, and the
AfDB/IFAD project on traditional fisheries to support action-oriented and adaptive research aiming at
generating the knowledge and information needed to formulate accurate science-based optimal
resource management policies for fisheries and game resource in the proposed project area. Pooled
resources will be granted to the national university of Benin (institute of tropical ecology) to conduct
the research. The key output of this research will be the determination of the maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) for specific fisheries and game resources. The MSY will be used as a constraint to guide
the formulation of sustainable use models. The final results of such research may not be available
until late in the project life, but they will help to design a sound and sustainable system of resource
exploitation afterwards.
8. Replicability
There is a good scope for replicability of the proposed activities, not only in other parts of Benin, but
also in other Gulf of Guinea countries where integrated coastal zone management activities are still to
take place (namely Togo and Cote d’Ivoire). Through the exchange of information and experience, the
project could also contribute to and benefit from the on-going regional initiatives, such as the African
Process, and the Environment Chapter of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).
Furthermore, ABE, the implementing agency, is member of the Administrative Council of the new
Center for Wetlands in Accra, Ghana. The Center offers training and a platform for exchange of
experiences in the sub-region. It is expected that lessons learned will be disseminated to neighboring
countries through the Center.
66
Secondary issues
9. Capacity building and cooperation among stakeholders
The Review suggested that in addition to “measures to strengthen awareness and basic expertise to
support biological diversity conservation, the project would benefit from further clarification of
measures to promote cooperation among, and participation of various groups of stakeholders in the
implementation of the project”. The approach used by the project to maintain the participation of all
the stakeholders, and to ensure cooperation among them is no different from that of any successful
project. That is, it is based on the shared understanding roles and responsibilities of each group of
stakeholders. The main stakeholders include the central Government represented by the implementing
agency (supported by the Steering Committee), the local Governments (i.e., municipalities), the
biological reserve management unit (of the participating villages and local communities), the NGOs,
and the private sector.
Each stakeholder group has their own interest and responsibility in the project, and their role and level
of willing participation will depend ultimately on the potential benefits (in economic jargon, expected
utility) of participation. In reality, the measures to ensure participation and cooperation among the
various groups of stakeholders consist in establishing compatible incentive schemes that meet the
specific needs of the stakeholders. It is the strength of these incentives, i.e., the expected benefits that
will induce and maintain genuine and durable participation of the interested parties. All stakeholders,
or at least their representatives participated in the broad-based consultations that took place during the
preparation of the project, and they will be part of the decision-making (i.e., the process as well as the
act of deciding) in the preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of the planned
activities. The institutional arrangements for implementation provide the framework for such a strong
collaboration.
67
ANNEX 4: RESULTS FROM PROJECT PREPARATION
Preparation activities for the CBCBM project allowed a detailed collection of data and information to
define and confirm the proposed project design and content of the project components with major
stakeholders.
1.
The primary activities and achievements were as follows:
The Coastal Zone Master Plan elaboration process: Supported by ABE on PGE funds, co-financed
by IDA and national budget as well as PDF-B funds, this process aimed at providing the legal
framework for rational management of the coastal zone with regard to constraints, benefits and socioeconomic and biodiversity importance of this area. By the end of the process, key documents for
orientation and decision making relative to coastal zone management for national and local
government and communities will be elaborated. The process is almost completed. The following
documents are finalized and in editing status:
 Vol. 1. ''Diagnostic”
 Vol. 2. ''Sectoral management regulations and guidelines”
 Vol. 3. ''Thematic and synthetic maps''
These three volumes will be adopted by the Government through the framework law on coastal
zone management and a decree and used as the legal framework for the elaboration of ''Local Land
Use and Management Plans'' that are recommended by the "Decentralization Law" as well as
guiding the creation and implementation of community-based conservation plans for the biological
reserves.
Benin Coastal Zone Profile report completed through the GEF funded regional project, “Large
Marine Ecosystem in the Gulf of Guinea.” Within Benin, this project is co-ordinated by MEHUand
aims to reduce water pollution and to ensure the conservation of the Gulf of Guinea biological
diversity shared by six coastal countries. The proposed project liaises with this initiative and relevant
agencies involved in implementation (e.g. ABE) will be a party to the regional workshops taking
place during preparation.
South Benin Wetlands Development Program: Entirely supported by the Netherlands in the
framework of quadripartite co-operation (Benin – Bhutan – Costa-Rica – the Netherlands) for
sustainable development, this Program provided financial support of US $2.1 million. The three-year
phase (1998-2000) developed the national wetland management strategy, identifying priority action for
South-Benin wetlands under threat. The program achievements and lessons serve as the foundation
for the proposed project and related initiatives dealing with coastal zone management issues in
Benin.
The main results18 were:
18









This program generated the following key outputs:
Extensive studies of the coastal zone leading to an understanding the links between human activities in the coastal zone and biodiversity
degradation, documented in a “White Book” on the coastal zone ;
Participatory studies to identify the capacity needs of coastal communities to conserve or manage wetland resources and mechanisms
for delivering capacity reinforcement ;
Participatory socioeconomic studies to identify opportunities for sustainable development initiatives in the coastal zone;
Complimentary studies to establish the specific capacity needs of communes (municipalities) to achieve biodiversity conservation and
sustainable development ;
Piloting and evaluating rural credit and savings schemes as an aid to development;
Developing a shared vision document for Benin’s coastal zone, including holding two national workshops, evaluating lessons learned
from around the world and identifying the key axes of intervention of the coastal zone component of the National Environmental
Management Plan (NEMP);
Progressively developing a draft National Coastal Zone Master Plan (NCZMP) in consultation with coastal stakeholders, culminating in
a national workshop that validated coastal zone diagnostic studies and a first draft of the NCZMP;
Determining the types of data needed for a national coastal zone information system including mechanisms for data collection, training
and data base configuration;
Capacity reinforcement in the study of ornithology and the conduct of wetland bird surveys .
68




Two sites classified as international wetland sites (1017 &1018) -RAMSAR sites since
January 2000.
Some reports on waterfowls and other fauna species
A second order draft of the "National Wetlands Management Strategy". The reviewing process
is going on and the document is expected to be adopted by the end of 2003 through a decree.
A good experience of Micro finance institution (CREP) support to sustainable environmental
management
Lessons learned have been incorporated in the present project design. Moreover,the previous
coordinator team of the South Benin Wetlands Development Program participated in several CBCBM
preparation workshops. Further, CBCBM supports the adoption of the National Wetlands Strategy and
its implementation. Strong linkages with the Dutch cooperation to harmonize future budget support is
ensured through the PRSC process.
South-Benin Rivers Development Program: This program led to the adoption and design of the
"Traditional Fishery Program" (2003 – 2009/10) funded by AfDB and IFAD for US$ 25 million.
2.
Additionally, several important workshops and studies were conducted resulting in the
following:
a) Stakeholder / actor analysis identifying the challenges to steps necessary for incorporating
barrier removal activities in project design and institutional arrangements (such as training,
monitoring, protection of vulnerable biodiversity rich ecosystems through establishing and
supporting community-based management reserves).
b) The finalisation of the framework law for coastal zone management, allowing for a rapid
advancement of the complementary legal framework witin the government. This is expected
by time of project launch as the adoption process is already advanced and the application
decrees were introduced through a national validation workshop.
c) A key workshop with all mayors was held in April 2003 and showed the need for further
capacity building for local authorities in order to include the underlying concept of the
reserves and eco-development zones as early as possible in their local development planning
process. A majority of the workshop participants expressed their interest to increase the
number of potential reserves and their full support for the project implementation.
d) Adoption of principle for elaborating a charter for the management of BR (to be ratified by
elected mayors) led to the proposal for number and areas of pilot BRs.
e) The local stakeholders (NGO, Development Associations, Traditional Leaders) signed a
memorandum of understanding on their role and participation in the development and
management of the BRs.
f) Technical and operational documents to support implementation of CZMP developed. This
process demonstrated a need to focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening at
local and national level (mayors, CNGL, supplementary legal textes)
g) Environmental and social mitigation plans were developed, resulting in a screening framework
for investments and mitigation measures.
h) Draft framework law for coastal zone management introduced in the Government.
Completion of this provided definition of activities planned under Component 1.
69
i)
The government’s software and data base system was installed, comprising 6 themes, 16 subthemes and 40 indicators (status, pressure and response), providing the analysis and
identification of activities for component 3.
j)
Studies and analysis were completed on the following topics, allowing for several baselines to
be established upon wich project activities and M&E activities will be based. Each study
developed an action plan and complements other instruments of protection.










Threats and root cause analysis, leading to knowledge of techniques which threaten and
degrade 15 key species and their habitats.
Identification of traditional mechanisms for improved protection and conservation.
Identification of priority sites and species for conservation.
Identification of major threats on key species.
Identification of categories for alternative activities for micro-funding.
Identification of alternative development activities to protect marine turtles.
Participatory planning manual for i) demarcation of BRs, ii) approach for local
stakeholders to assure management, and iii) selection of micro-projects to fund via microfinancing institutions.
Identification of sustainable use activities for micro-funding.
Identification of participatory approach for assuring local ownership for project support.
Baseline for sustainable local development and integrated planning
70
ANNEX 5: PROGRAMMATIC CONTEXT FOR CZM IN BENIN
PRSP
NEAP
CZMP
National Wetland Strategy
NBSAP
Strategic Objectives
and Mgmt. Plans for
Ramsar Sites
Strategic Plan MEHU 2001 - 2006
PNGE
MTEF MEHU
Project “Lagune”
(French Cooperation)
Project “Biodiversity and population
pressure”
(UNFPA)
MEHU ICZM Program
(component 9 PNGE)
CBCBM
(GEF/WB)
Traditional
Fishery Program
(AfDB/IFAD)
National Program Coastal
erosion (GoB)
LME Gulf of Guinea
National Project
(GEF/UNDP)
71
ANNEX 6: DESCRIPTION OF CBCBM FEATURES AT LOCAL LEVEL
The following section aims to provide background information on the proposed approach for
community-based biodiversity conservation through creation of protected reserves and intercommunal and communal integrated planning. Proposed key elements are (i) freezing land tenure
changes; (ii) PLAGE and PIAGE process; and (iii) micro-financing.
(1) Freezing the land for conservation: Key element for sustainable conservation of priority
ecosystems in selected areas of Benin’s densely populated coastal zone
The main causes and threats for environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity in Benin’s coastal
zone are associated with high demographic pressure and prevailing poverty of local populations. These
two factors increase the already existing land tenure conflicts and augment the pressure on fragile
ecosystems and natural resources. Over the past 5 years, land speculation has been rising and certain
sensible areas (e.g. Bouche du Roy and Togbin – both in Ramsar site 1017) are in the process of being
sold piece by piece by local communities to wealthy individuals at very cheap rates. Most of these
national and foreign private investors aim to use the purchased land for tourism facilities (hotels,
leisure centers with aquatic sport facilities), often without any environmental or social impact
assessment. In the current legal and regulatory vacuum (lack of coherent land use planning policy and
national coastal zone master plan), ecosystems of high biodiversity value will be ultimately destroyed
and future land tenure clashes are becoming inevitable. Insufficient and incompetent land use planning
led already to the urbanisation of natural habitats (e.g. case of Abomey-Calavi where the holly forest
has lost almost 80 % of its initial surface) with severe environmental, social, cultural and economic
consequences.
The creation of reserves aims to halt and reverse this process by providing a special status,
management plan and implementation support for these communal conservation areas. However, it
appears that most of these reserves will be only sustainable, if a future change in land ownership is
excluded. Therefore, the only sustainable way to maintain their status over time appears to be to
“freeze the land” by purchasing the land rights on behalf of the state with no option to sell the land in
the future. The populations will keep their resource use rights but give up their option to sell the land.
This approach appears to be most suitable for holly forest zones but might well be feasible for other
habitats as well.
The proposed project will assess the feasibility and availability of additional funding to pilot this
process. It is proposed that the land for these reserves, once purchased on behalf of the state for public
use, become declared ‘domaines privés de l'Etat’ (private state property). Preparatory and
accompanying activities consist of identifying a financial compensation scheme as well as
elaborationg the legal framework (decree) to define the (i) non-sellable zone and land classification
and the (ii) rights and status of local population (resource use as described in management plans).
(2) Local planning process: Plans Locaux d’Action de Gestion Environnementale (PLAGE)
(Local Action Plans for Environmental Management)
Under the IDA funded Environmental Management Project (PGE), ABE and MEHU had already
developed and implemented a methodology for establishing action plans for environmental
management at local level (previous PMAE). The epithet ‘environment’ was used in order to associate
the plans with other environmental action plan activities, although in reality they are envisioned as
plans for sustainable development. The experienced gained can be used to support the development of
PLAGE. (Article 84 of the decentralization law 97-027 provides that communes must prepare a
development plan and elaborate the following planning documents related to the development plan:
land use management plan, social & economic development plan, urban plan (for urban communes),
rules on the use and affectation of lands, detailed plans of urban management and lots.) It is envisaged
72
that PLAGE will become integrated into communal development plans. Several communes will
develop jointly “Plans Intercommunaux d’Action de Gestion de l’Environnement” (PIAGE)
(Intercommunal Action Plans for Environmental Management) for communal border overlapping
ecosystem and resource management activities.
3) Micro-Projects for conservation and sustainable use
The executing agency has gathered particular experience during the course of the Environmental
Management Project (PGE) and the South-Benin Wetlands Development Project (‘PAZH’) with (i)
Management of rural micro-projects; (ii) Sub-contracting development actions to community
structures and NGOs; (iii) Launching and monitoring small rural credit schemes;(iv) Trials with a
limited number of specific development activities; and (iv) Formulating and applying criteria of
eligibility.
The project builds on these experiences and proposes to follow a two-fold strategy to achieve
incremental environmental benefits related to conservation and specific sustainable use activities
(categories to be determined for each site):
1. directly support development initiatives, communes or CBOs, that meet the project eligibility
criteria, buying-in technical assistance as necessary;
2. provide a ‘start-up‘ injection of ‘green funds’ into new or existing rural credit schemes (e.g.
CREP) that apply similar criteria, buying-in technical assistance as necessary to reinforce
management of ‘green funds’.
Rural credit schemes (‘CREP’)
Rural credit schemes (e.g. ‘Caisse Rurale d’Epargne et de Prêt’ or ‘CREP’s) are a form of financial cooperative or ‘mutual society’ that belong to the family of decentralized financing mechanisms. The
73
CREP comprises members of a village or community that regularly pay in savings in order to provide
local lending capital. The CREP is a non-profit organization that belongs to and is managed by the
members of the scheme. CREPs aim to:
 Mobilize local savings (capital);
 Promote loans at reasonable rates of interest;
 Reduce dependence on loan-sharks and other intermediaries;
 Improve the livelihoods of scheme members.
In either case, initiatives will be monitored for compliance with sustainability criteria, and an
appropriate balance would be struck between the two forms of subvention and the cost of technical
assistance (provided through the ‘service providers’) in relation to the capital invested .
74
ANNEX 7: BIODIVERSITY STATUS, THREATS AND ROOT CAUSES MATRIX, SPECIES
Globally significant
biodiversity
Status & significance
Threats / barriers
Root causes
Entire Benin coastal zone designated as
wetlands of international importance. Site
particulars:
Ramsar site 1017 (Western Complex) –
Representative mangroves and fluvio-lacustral
habitat; 4 species of sea turtles of which 3
nesting, remaining habitat of red-bellied
guenon; nesting site for palaearctic migratory
birds; >1% of world population of Sterna
maxima; high fish diversity. Ramsar site 1018
(Eastern Complex) – Representative savanna,
prairie and forest of West African wetlands
important for migratory birds; 4 species of
nesting sea turtle & threatened forest types;
remaining habitat of red-bellied guenon, high
abundance of birds; >1% of world populations
of Anastomus lamelligerus & Glareola
pratincola; high fish diversity.
WWF Global 200 ecoregions – Congolian
Coastal Forests, Guinean-Congolian coastal
mangroves, Gulf of Guinea marine
ecosystems.
Part B – Species of global conservation concern










Cutting of natural forest cover
Hunting of wildlife
Over-harvesting aquatic
resources
Conversion of banks and
marshland to agriculture
Hydrological disturbance
Urban encroachment
Invasive species and pests
Pollution and eutrophication
Sedimentation
Red-bellied guenon
Cercopithecus erythrogaster
erythrogaster


Hunting
Habitat destruction




Part A – Benin coastal
wetland ecosystems
Newly confirmed sub-species restricted to
southern Benin (Dahomey Gap) – status
awaits definition. Species C. erythrogaster
listed as Endangered (IUCN); Class B
(African Convention); Appendix 2 (CITES).

Dependence on wood for fuel
Laws inadapted, lacking or not
enforced
 Open access
 Inefficient or inappropriate
agricultural practices
 Lack of co-coordinated
planning
 Lack of effective urban plan or
system of tenure adapted to
wetlands
 Lack of information/know-how
 Lack of sanitation
Underlying causes:
 Lack of development
alternatives
 High rates of population
growth
Lack of legal protection
Resource undervalued
Open access
Forestry laws lacking/not
enforced
75
Manatee Trichostechus
senegalensis
Sea turtles:
Leatherback Dermochelys
coriacea
Olive ridley Lepidochelys
olivacea
Green turtle Chelonia mydas
Hawksbill Eretmochelys
imbricata
Unprotected under Benin law.
IUCN status – Vulnerable; Class A (African
Convention); Appendix 1 (CITES). Fully
protected under Benin forestry code.
All species listed as Endangered (IUCN);
Annex 1 (CITES); Class A (African
Convention) – all nest on Benin’s beaches.
Leatherback – world’s largest sea turtle with
only a small number of nesting areas globally.
Green – threatened throughout range by
hunting for meat. Hawksbill – taken for shell.


Hunting
Degradation of habitat


Hunting at sea and on beaches
Nest raiding


Poaching
Loss of habitat








Hunting
Loss of habitat
Loss of habitat to agriculture
Hunting
Persecuted as a pest
Hunted for pelt
Hunting
Loss and fragmentation of
habitat






Laws not enforced
Lack of awareness
Resource undervalued
Laws not enforced
Lack of awareness
Resource undervalued






Laws not enforced
Resource undervalued
Open access
Laws not enforced
Open access
Lack of awareness

Lack of awareness



Laws lacking / not enforced
Open access
As for deforestation

Non-compliance
Part C – Species of regional conservation concern
Hippopotamus Hippopotamus
amphibius
Red river hog Potamochoerus
porcus
Aardvark Oryteropus afer
IUCN Vulnerable –
Tiny populations remaining in Benin (in
Ramsar site 1017)
Forest dependent species now rare outside
protected areas
Savanna dependent increasingly rare; burrows
are important habitat for other species
Widespread species becoming locally scarce
Clawless African otter Aonyx
capensis
Sitatunga antelope Tragelaphus Wetland populations may be distinct –
spekei
widespread but locally threatened - pockets
remain in both complexes.
Part D – Priority conservation sites
a. Eastern complex (Ramsar 1018)
Forest of Lama (or Forest of
Largest remaining block of ‘Congolian coastal 
Kô)
forest’ in Benin (WWF Global 200); supports 
largest surviving population of red-bellied

guenon. Classified forest; core zone an
Wood cutting
Hunting
Agricultural encroachment
76
integral reserve.
Patch of forest as yet little studied containing
significant populations of red-bellied guenon.
Forest of Djigbe
Teak plantation enclosing around 100 ha of
natural forest, as yet unstudied.
Forest of Bimyns
Relict semi-deciduous humid forest
supporting Sitatunga and other antelopes;
important for migratory birds.
Forest of Sèmè
Relict swamp forest supporting red-bellied
guenon, Sitatunga antelope and rich bird life.
Forest of Damè Wogon
Substantial forest in good condition with
abundant red-bellied guenon, sitatunga
antelope and other mammals – area important
for manatee.
Forest of Gnanhouizounmè
Characteristic forest supporting red-bellied
guenon.
Sacred forest of Bembê
Forest mosaic (flood, gallery & semideciduous) types supporting red-bellied
guenon.
Sacred forest of Avagbodji
Climax forest showing successional stages;
manatee in waters adjacent to forest.
b. Western complex (Ramsar 1017)
Mangrove of Togbin
Mangrove with crocodiles, rich fish fauna and
palaearctic migrants.
Lagoon of Vodountô
Protected lagoon with rich aquatic fauna and
Nile crocodile.
Mangrove island (Mitogbodji) Mangrove islet with rich surrounding fish
fauna and supporting 47 bird species.
Bouche du Roy
Mosaic of habitats including turtle nesting
beaches (leatherback, olive ridley), mangrove,
manatee, hippo & sitatunga reported in area.
Lake of Dokoun
Small lake (10 ha) in northern part of zone
supporting rare group of hippopotamus.
Forest of Lokoli

Unknown

Unknown







Agricultural encroachment
Wood cutting
Hunting
Wood cutting
Hunting
Agricultural encroachment
Hunting

Private management
unsupported

Open access


Inefficient agriculture
Weak traditional management

Poaching


Agricultural encroachment
Wood cutting



Weak traditional management
Declining respect for tradition
Declining respect for tradition


Hunting
Wood cutting

Declining respect for tradition

Wood cutting

Open access

None at present

Wood cutting

Declining respect for tradition


Mangrove cutting
Over fishing (use of nets)

Poaching of hippo with
dynamite





Mangrove undervalued
Fisheries laws not enforced
See above for sea turtles
Lack of awareness
Species undervalued
77
Key species
1) Red-bellied guenon Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster (IUCN Endangered)
Restricted to the Lama forest and patches of forest on the Ouémé floodplain (Oates 1996, Grubb et al
1999, Sinsin et al 2000). The total population of the red-bellied guenon is estimated at around 800
animals, of which about 75% are located within the Forest of Lama and the remainder in small forest
patches of the eastern complex. There is significant eco-tourism potential and international
conservation research potential.
Feasibility assessment: recovery of small populations
The following data form a subset of data being collected in a study to assess the feasibility of
conservation of the red-bellied guenon through the protection of small sanctuaries in the Ouémé river
basin. The data indicate that population numbers will increase even in small sites if hunting pressure is
reduced (although do not provide an indication of carrying capacity for such sanctuaries or of long
term genetic health of the populations).
Site / village
Gnahouizoumè
Houanvè
TogbotaOudjia
Togbota-agvé
Station /
habitat
Area
(ha)
Gnanhouizoumè > 10
Houanvè
2
Ouidgia
3.5
Agbodo
3
Potential
extended
area
> 10
2.5
5
Population
1999
(Nov.)
24
5
10
2002
(Mar.)
30
8
12
4
TOTAL
10
49
Increase
22
72
47 %
Suggested
action
Restoring
degraded areas
of habitat
2) African manatee Trichechus senegalensis (IUCN Vulnerable)
Occurs in both the Ouémé and Couffo river basins, with the largest concentration being in the
wetlands of the Ouémé river. Although widely distributed in West African coastal wetlands, the
African manatee is threatened by hunting throughout most of its range. Furthermore, manatees
commonly approach acadjas when fishers pull in drag nets, possibly because the disturbance of mud
releases an attractive odor. It may be possible to exploit this behaviour for tourism. Alternatively,
certain of their rest areas are known and may be carefully used for non-consumptive eco-tourism.
3) Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius (IUCN Vulnerable)
Small populations survive around lakes in the northern part the Western Complex and are becoming a
local eco-tourism attraction; they are nonetheless threatened by poaching.
4) Red river hog Potamochoerus porcus
Forest dependent on forest and rare outside the rainforest belt, being mainly restricted to protected
areas. Widely prized for meat, it is threatened with local extinction.
5) Aardvark Orycteropus afer
Sole member of an obscure mammal group the Tubulidentates whose natural habitat is savanna or
grassland which is widespread but everywhere threatened by hunting and agricultural encroachment.
Their burrows provide important habitat for many small mammals and reptiles.
78
6) African clawless otter Anonyx capensis
Widely hunted for their fur and in retaliation for raiding fish farms. Although widespread, the species
is becoming extinct or scarce in many localities.
7)Sitatunga antelope Tragelaphus spekei
Widespread species intensively hunted throughout its now fragmented range. Wetland populations
tend to be distinct and locally adapted to those ecosystems. The species may be used as a sustainable
source of bush meat provided its swamp habitat remains intact.
8) Sea turtles of the Benin coast
Four species of sea turtle are reported to nest along the Benin coast – Leatherback Dermochelys
coriacea, Olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea, Green turtle Chelonia mydas and Hawksbill
Eretmochelys imbricata. A total of 15 nesting beaches have been identified along the 125 kim of coast
by the NGO Nature Tropicale. The peak nesting season is October to March. Sea turtles are
universally reported to be in decline at all sites. In the 2000-2001season 175 turtles were saved from
killing and 75% of these nested successfully. All 175 were tagged and released.
Table – Sea turtles saved or killed October 2000 - March 2001 season (Source: Dossou-Bodjrenou
2001).
Zone
Status
Leatherback Olive ridley
Green
Hawksbill
Total
Sèmè
Saved
9
16
3
28
Killed
4
12
0
16
Cotonou
Saved
6
21
5
32
Killed
13
8
0
21
Ouidah
Saved
5
22
7
34
Killed
26
22
8
48
Grand-Popo
Saved
17
64
0
81
Killed
10
119
7
136
90
30
Potential annual nesting
284
404
population
The above table indicates that Benin’s coastline is of significance for sea turtle nesting with 404
potential nestings on 125 km of coast in the 2000-2001 season or about 3.25 nests / km per season.
Olive ridley and leatherback are the most abundant species. Both of these species are characterized by
a relatively small number of nesting sites around the world. Thus, Benin’s coast is of particular
significance for these species. Numbers of green are low, indicating a low abundance in general in the
region. Hawksbill is virtually absent, although has been reported from the Western area. Many other
sites are much more important for these last two species. Western beaches are the most important for
sea turtles, but also the most threatened. Hunting pressure appears especially high in the Grand-Popo
zone, the furthest site from Cotonou.
Proposed elements for a future sea turtle conservation action plan are:
 Awareness and education
 Monitoring of nesting sites, research and tagging program and capture by fishermen and trawlers
 Training of local agents and rangers
 Development of turtle based ecotourism in key sites.
9) King Python is a cultural species and has a value in international trade (CITES Appendix 2). (The
crocodiles are now less intensively protected since they acquired integrally protected status.)
79
Terrestrial mammal & reptile fauna status & distribution
Common
name
Scientific
name
Conservation West
Central zone
Eastern complex
status
C.
IUCN / other Lac
Pahou Avlekete Dogla Bonou* Afame Adjohoun Assikigbongodo Zinkpota Baha Bembé
/ remarks
Dokoun
&
(Bamè)
Togbin
Chimpanzee
Endangered
D
D
Pan
or Vulnerable
troglodytes
(IUCN) /
(sub.sp. verus Locally
or troglodytes) extinct.
Cercopithecus Endangered
Red-bellied
++
++
++
erythrogaster (IUCN)
guenon
erythrogaster Class B
(Africa. Con)
Appendix 2
(CITES) /
Locally
threatened by
hunting
Mona monkey Cercopithecus Not
+
+
mona
endangered
(IUCN).
Common in
forests.
Olive colobus Procolobus
Endangered
+
verus
(IUCN)
Class A
(Africa Con.)
Appendix 2 –
CITES
Doubtful
observation
Vervet monkey Cercopithecus Not
+++
++
+
+++
+++
+
++
++
++
+
80
pygerythrus
endangered
(IUCN).
W. African tree Dendrohyrax
Not listed
hyrax
dorsalis
(IUCN)
Abundant in
forest
Trichechus
Vulnerable
Manatee
senegalensis
(IUCN)
Integrally
protected
Small
populations
threatened by
hunting
Hippopotamus Hippopotamus Vulnerable
amphibius
(IUCN)
Rare (W
complex
only)
Threatened
by hunting
African
Aonyx capensis Widespread,
clawless otter
locally
threatened by
hunting
Spot-necked
Lutra
Locally
otter
maculicollis
abundant, in
retreat in
many areas
African civet
Civetticis
Not listed
civetta
(IUCN)
Widespread
Blotched genet Genetta tigrina Not listed
(IUCN)
Widespread
African buffalo Syncerus caffer Widespread
++
++
-
-
++
+++
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
++
++
++
-
++
++
-
-
++
+
+
+++
+++
+
++
++
++
+
++
-
-
+++
+++
-
++
++
++
+
-
-
-
D
-
-
-
-
1970
D
++
-
81
Sitatunga
antelope
Bushbuck
Tragelaphus
spekei
species,
locally
threatened
Widespread
species,
locally
threatened
Common
Tragelaphus
scriptus
Bush duiker
Sylvicapra
Widespread
grimmia
Red river hog Potamochoerus Rare.
porcus
Threatened
by hunting &
forest loss.
Cusimanse
Crossarchus
Not listed
obscurus
(IUCN)
Common
Lepus saxatilis Not
Scrub hare
endangered
Common
Giant
Hystrix cristata Widespread
porcupine
species near
local
extinction
Marsh cane-rat Tryonomis
Abundant
(Fr. aulacode) swinderianus
Suitable for
ranching
Aardvark
Orycteropus
Widespread
afer
species near
local
extinction
King python
Python regius Totem
species
Seba python
Python sebae
Widespread
Nile varan
Varanus
Widespread
+
-
+
++
+
-
D
+
+
+?
+
-
-
+++
-
-
-
-
+
-
+++
-
-
+++
++
-
+
+
++
+?
-
-
-
D
+
-
D
D
+?
-
++
-
-
++
+
+?
-
-
+
+?
+++
-
+++
+++
+++
+
+
+
+++
+++
-
-
-
++
+
-
D
D
+?
D
+++
+
+++
+++
+++
+
+++
+++
+++
++
-
-
-
D
-
-
D
D
-
-
+
+++
-
+
++
+
++
-
+
+
+
++
+
+?
-
82
++
+
++
Nile crocodile
niloticus
Crocodylus
niloticus
CITES (App.
2)
Integrally
protected
CITES (App.
2)
SlenderCrocodylus
snouted
cataphractus
crocodile
African false
Rare in zone
Tomistoma
gavial
schlegii
Home’s
Kinixys
Common
hingeback
homeana
tortoise
Bell’s
Kinixys
Common
hingeback
belliana
tortoise
* Bonou = (Gbèvovozoun & Gnanhouizoun)
++
+
-
+
++
-
+
+
+++
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
Notes: Baha – on border of Sô in the commune of Akpanrun village of Avagbé. Family forest of Houéwa dominated by Cesalpinaceae. Good
condition because family regulate extraction. Pahou – in central zone 600 ha of which 500 planted, 100 natural.
83
Biodiversity Mega Faune Conservation Opportunities
Common
name
Chimpanzee
Red-bellied
guenon
Scientific name
Pan troglodytes
Cercopithecus
erythrogaster
erythrogaster
Cercopithecus mona
Common
Mona
Olive colobus Procolobus verus
Vervet money Cercopithecus
aethiops
Tree hyrax
Dendrohyrax
arboreus
Manatee
Trichechus
senegalensis
Hippopotamus Hippopotamus
amphibius
Spot-tail otter Lutra macullicolis
Common
Civetticis civetta
civet
Tiger genet
Genetta tigrina
Buffalo
Syncerus c. nanus
Sitatunga
Tragelaphus spekei
antelope
Bushbuck
Tragelaphus scriptus
Grimm’s
cephalope
Wild Bush Pig Potamochoerus
porcus
Terrestrial Fauna Conservation Opportunities table
Western
Central zone
Eastern complex
complex
Lac
Dogla Pahou Avlekete Bonou* Afame Adjohoun Assikigbongodo Zinkpota Baha
Tohou
&
Togbin
D
++
++
Bembé
(Bamè)
D
++
+
+
+++
++
+
+++
+++
+
++
++
++
+
+
++
-
-
+++
-
-
-
-
-
-
++
+
++
+
++
+++
++
+++
+
++
++
++
++
++
+
+
++
+
-
+++
D
++
+++
+
-
++
D
++
+
++
+
1970 D
+
+?
-
+
+++
-
+++
+++
++
-
+
+
+
++
+?
-
-
-
D
+
-
D
D
+?
-
++
-
84
Common
Crossarchus obscurus
++
++
+
+?
+
+?
cusimanse
Lièvre
+++ +++ +++
+++
+
+
+
+++ +++
Giant
Hystrix cristata
++
+
D
D
+?
D
porcupine
Marsh caneTryonomis
+++ +++ +
+++
+++
+
+++
+++
+++ ++
rat
swinderianus
Aardvark
Orycteropus after
D
D
D
King python Python regius
+
+
Sabae python Python de sabae
+
+?
+
+
+
+
Nile varan
Varanus nolitocus
++
++
++
+++
++
++
+
Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus
++
+
+
++
+
+
+++ SlenderCrocodylus
+
+
snouted
cataphractus
crocodile
African false Tomistoma schlegii
+
+
gavial
Home’s
Kinixys homeana
hingeback
tortoise
Bell’s
Kinixys belliana
hingeback
tortoise
* Bonou = (Gbèvovozoun & Gnanhouizoun)
Notes: Baha – on border of Sô in the commune of Akpanrun village of Avagbé. Family forest of Houéwa dominated by Cesalpinaceae. Good
condition because family regulate extraction. Pahou – in central zone 600 ha of which 500 planted, 100 natural.
85
ANNEX 8: RAMSAR SITES 1017 AND 1018
Criteria for selection of pilot sites for creation of biological reserves within Ramsar sites
Based on the results of the studies during PDF-B phase (e.g. feasibility study on site identification,
creation and management of reserves, studies on threatened species and workshops with local
stakeholders as well as analysis of land tenure constraints), the following criteria determined the selection
of the pilot sites:
 Existence of endemic or threatened species (red-belly monkey, manatee, water antelope, otter)
 Existence of preserved habitat for above species with reduced demographic pressure and
sufficient size
 Type of habitat (holy, private, classified, )
 Potential for ecotourism
 Principal agreement of concerned local stakeholders (as expressed during preparatory workshops)
leading to signed memorandum of understanding between ABE
Eastern Sites - RAMSAR SITE 1017: Basse Vallée de l'Ouémé, Lagune de Porto-Novo, Lac Nokoué –
501,620 ha
The site consists of three separate units along and near the coast of south Benin, between Cotonou and the
capital Porto Novo. The site includes a mangrove area, which is an under-represented wetland type in
Ramsar Sites . Marine turtles visit the site, and it is used for nesting by many bird species. Migratory
bird species also use the area. A variety of 78 species of fish has been recorded.
The flooded forests consist of Mitragyna inermis and Raphia hookeri. The seasonally flooded forests are
dominated by Berlinia grandiflora and Dialium guineense. The seasonally flooded grasslands consist
mainly of Paspalum vaginatum and Typha australis, and the floating vegetation is dominated by
Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes. The most prominent fish family is Cichlidae with seven
species of tilapia within the site. The most important species are Sarotherodon melanotheron and Tilapia
guineensis. Two species of python, land tortoises and several other reptile species are numerous too.
There is also a large variety of mammal species. Birds are represented by a great many species of herons,
waders, birds of prey, ducks of the genus Dendrocygna and terns. Some 233 birds species were recorded
in 1998 and 2001.
There is a mixture of state ownership (which includes protected areas), community ownership and
individual ownership. The traditional land tenure system is based on collective ownership of land and
water (owned by the communities). In addition, the state-owned land is managed according to the modern
legislative framework. Social and cultural values of the site include a very strong link between people
and wetlands.
Biological reserves wil be created in the following areas:
Site 1. Ouémé valley sites – complex (4 sub-sites identified and described below)
“Sacred forest of Damè Wogon (Gbèvozoun)”
Location: 06°55’18.4’’ N 02°29’01.6’’ E and 06°56’22.4’’ N 02°27’01.6’’ E,
Description: The forest of Gbèvozoun is located to the north east of Bonou town on the eastern bank of
the River Ouémé and comprises a flood forest and plantations of Samba (Triplochiton scleroxylon) and
teak.
86
Administration: Commune: Bonou (departement of Ouémé)
Surrounding villages: Sotinkanmè, Ouédji, Bonou
Administration: Commune of Aguégués
Surrounding villages: Bembê, Hozin, Avagbodji
Site description: The swamp forest of Bembè, known as Bamèzoun, is located near the village of Bembè
not far from Hozin. Considered sacred because of the presence of a tomb of the ancestor of all Wémènou
people constitutes is a site for ritual enthronement of Wémènou chieftains (Guèdègbé, 1996). Bamèzoun
is a sanctuary of the divinity Bamè. The forest is under the authority of the Chief Fetish Houéto.
Hydrology: The forest is located on a terrace of the river Ouémé and is annually flooded.
Vegetation and soil: The forest of Bembê is a mosaic of semi-deciduous dense humid forest and flood
forest degraded in parts to a bushy scrub. Three vegetation blocks are distinguished: a swamp-forest block
dominated by Berlinia grandiflora, Anthocleista vogelii and Symphonia globulifera; a block of gallery
forest dominated by Cynometra spp., Cola laurifolia, Millettia griffoniana, Pterocarpus santalinoides;
and a block of semi-deciduous dense humid forest dominated by Cola gigantea, Cola millenii and Celtis
spp. Local people have planted exotic species around the perimeter in order protect the forest.
Fauna: During flood the forest edges are important as breeding zones for cat-fish; the ichthyofauna is
otherwise typical of the Ouémé river. The forest supports both the red-bellied guenon Cercopithecus
erythrogaster erythrogaster and the mona monkey Cercopithecus mone, as well as hares, marsh-cane rat
Tryonomis swinderianus, civets and various reptiles (nile crocodile, pythons (P. regius & P. sebae) and
varans (V. niloticus).
Conservation status: While the forest center is well conserved, the fringes are degraded, mainly by
plantation with Acacia auriculiformis. Bamèzoun is a forest island providing the only source of wood for
fuel and construction (boats, poles) for the surrounding population. Antiaris toxicaria, Milicia excelsa and
Ceiba pentandra have been selectively cut for woodworking of which Antiaris toxicaria and Milicia
excelsa are represented in young growth beyond 5 meters in height. One species formerly present
Rothmannia longiflora (‘afitin’ in the Goun language) is considered extinct from this forest (de Souza,
1988 sited by Akoegninou, 2001). Other species are threatened because of their usefulness: Saba
thompsonii (a liane providing a strong rope used for traps), Pleiocarpa pycnantha (pith used for treating
gastric upsets) and Cola millenii (used as an aphrodisiac). Bamèzoun is surrounded by land cultivated by
the descendants of Zoungla Ahouanzin, the founder of Bembê, lending it clannish and sacred status.
“Sacred forest of Avagbodji (Kodjizoun)”
Location: 0631’ N 0232’ E
Administration: Sub-prefecture of Aguégués
Surrounding villages: Avagbodji, Hozin, Bembê
Site description: Degraded forest situated on the left bank of the Ouémé at the northern limit of
Avagbodji village.
Hydrology: Located on the west bank of the Ouémé river and seasonally flooded.
Vegetation and soil: Climax swamp and flood forest characteristic of the region showing successional
stages according to topography. Thus, the frequency of Berlinia grandiflora, an indicator of waterlogging,
diminishes towards the ridge-top. The understorey is dominated by species typical of semi-deciduous
dense humid forest such as Trichilia prieuriana, Saba thompsonii and Diospyros monbuttensis.
The forest between the lower scrubby fringe and the ridge top comprises three strata – 1) an 80% canopy
of 20-30 m dominated by Berlinia grandiflora and occasional Maranthes robusta; 2) a sparse (10%
87
cover) layer of 8-12 m made up of de Anthocleista vogelii, Symphonia globulifera and Cola gigantea and
3) a dense lower stratum ( 95% cover) dominated by Tetracera alnifolia, Maranthes robusta, Pancovia
turbinata, Angylocalyx oligophyllus and Culcasia spp.
Hydrology: Periodically flooded by waters of the Ouémé river, the forest is crossed by a tributary of the
river that drains flood waters towards Dasso to the north but which is empty in the dry season.
Vegetation and soil: The forest is dominated by Berlinia gradiflora, Dialium guineense, Cola laurifolia,
Sterculia tragacantha, Alchornea cordifolia, Cynometra megalophylla etc. These formations exist on
alternately flooded sandy soils. In places soils are hydromorphic on clayey alluvia and paléocene clays.
Soils are suitable for agriculture.
Fauna: The ichthyofauna is typical of the Ouémé river. The zone is important for surviving populations
of manatee Trichechus senegalensis that inhabit the waters of the Ouémé between Bonou and Dangbo.
Terrestrial mammals are also common, with abundant red-bellied guenon, bushbuck, marsh cane-rat, bush
duiker, civet, Sitatunga antelope, otters and crested porcupine Hystrix cristata while the chimpanzee Pan
troglodytes, buffalo and aardvark Orycteropus afer have disappeared from this forest. In the case of
chimpanzees, this was at least two human generations ago i.e. during the lifetime of the grandparents of
middle-aged people now living (Guèdègbé, 1996).
Conservation status: Following the national ‘rennaissance’ conference in 1990, the sacred forest of
Gbèvozoun recovered its former status as a protected forest ending human occupation during the
revolution (1972-1989) and returning management to the local chief fetisher. The forest is now
considered to be in a well-conserved condition under the stewardship of local populations who forbid any
forestry or agriculture. Apart from Sèmè it is the largest remaining area of forest south of Lama.
Nonetheless, the forest is threatened by agricultural encroachment and poaching by villagers.
“Sacred clan forest of Gnanhouizounmè (le Gnanhouizoun)”
Location: 06°52’ to 06°55’ E and 02°20’ to 2°30’ N
Site description: The clan forest of Gnanhouizounmè comprises a series of forested islets of total area of
30 ha (Tchibozo, 1999).
Administration: Commune of Bonou, (Departement of Ouémé)
Surrounding villages: Agoudji, Dolankanimè, Bossatéjo, Gnanhouizouomè, Niaoui, Bonou.
Hydrology: The forest is located in an ancient terrace of the Ouémé river and is flooded when the river is
in spate.
Vegetation and soil: The vegetation is dominated by species characterisitc of the region including
Diospyros mespiliformis, Dialium guineense, Ceiba pentandra, Bambusa vulgaris, Holarrena sp.,
Spondias monbin, Mitragyna inermis, Lonchocarpus cericeus, etc. The presence of termite mounds
favours agriculture.
Fauna: The forest contains an intact fauna of conservation interest including red-bellied guenon
Cercopithecus erythrogaster erythrogaster and sitatunga antelope Tragelaphus spekei.
Conservation status: The protected status of the sacred clan forest of Gnanhouizounmè has provided a
sanctuary for a number of species otherwise threatened in the region. Nonetheless, these species are
threatened by poaching by hunters from Holly that do not recognise the local fetisher. The forest is
managed by the Djèglonnou clan headed by the chief fetisher Azondé Gnahouinon. The family has cooperated with the Laboratory of Applied Ecology of the University of Benin as regards conservation of
88
the red-bellied guenon whose population grew from 24 in 1999 to 30 in 2002. In compensation the village
has proposed making small catches of sitatunga antelope.
“Sacred forest of Bembê (Bamèzoun)”
Location: 0632’ N 0232’E
The ridge top is represented by four strata: 1) a layer of emergent trees of over 30 m (10 % cover)
composed of Ceiba pentendra, Gongronema latifolia, Cola lateritia and a few Berlinia grandiflora; 2) a
moderatey dense (40% cover) of 12 to 30 m dominated by Berlinia grandiflora, Maranthes robusta with
occasional Pachystella brevipes and Milicia excelsa; 3) a dense (90 % cover) shrubby layer of 0.5 to 3 m
dominated by Musaenda elegans, Leptonychia pubescens, Pancovia turbinata, Diospyros monbuttensis et
Keetia multiflora; 4) a sparse (20 % cover) herbaceous layer dominated by Culcasia spp. and Angylocalyx
oliphyllus.
The degraded forest fringes exhibit three types of scrub: 1) Alchornea cordifolia and Anthocleista vogelii
on soils of prolonged flodding: 2) secondary growth of Cuviera macroura, Morelia senegalensis and
Cynometra vogelii on intermittently flodded soils and 3) scrub dominated by Millettia chrysophylla on
elevated soils.
Fauna: During flood, the forest fringes are important as breeding grounds for cat-fish, with an
ichthyofauna otherwise typical of the Ouémé river. Mega-fauna are scarce due to high human presence.
An important concentration of manatee is found at adjacent Azouglogomè village.
Conservation status: While important as an example of the climax forest types of the region, the forest is
coming under intense human pressure including hunting, necessitating a higher degree of management.
The forest has potential to support local mega-fauna provided that they can be reintroduced or reappear
spontaneously.
Site 2. Swamp forest of Bimyns
Location: 06°24’51’’ - 06°27’19’’ N; 02°37’18’’ - 02°42’24’’ E
Administration: Commune of Sèmè (Dept. Ouémé)
Surrounding villages: Djrègbé, Ouinta, Wèkè, Ayokpo, Sogo, Ahlomè, Tohouè, Dja, Owodé et
Kpoguidi
Site description: The swamp forest of Bimyns is located in the tourism priority zone of Bimyns. It is part
of an ecosystem assemblage that extends 9km along the southern edge of the lagoon of Porto-Novo. The
managed part of the zone includes a small zoological park, fish ponds, a hotel and a radio station,
although the park and ponds are inadequately managed at present.
Hydrology: Mainly swampy with water level that varies with the Ouémé (river which mainly discharges
into the Porto-Novo Lagoon). Physico-chemical properties similar to the Lagoon of Porto Novo.
Vegetation and soil: Diverse vegetation types including savanna, relict semi-deciduous humid forest
dominated by Ceiba pentandra, Sterculia tragacantha, swamp forest of Ficus congensis, Anthocleista
vogelii with an understorey dominated by Achrostichum aureum and Typha australis , an oil palm
plantation and marshland prairies of Paspalum vaginatum depending on the distance from the lagoon
(Akoegninou, 2000). Hydromorphic, humus-rich soils of pseudo-clay, constantly flooded.
Fauna: The fish fauna comprises mainly Clariidae, Protopteridae and Channidae with other introduced
species in fish ponds (Oreochromis niloticus and Sarotherodon melanotheron). The assemblage of
89
ecosystems supports a remarkable mammal and reptile fauna of Sitatunga antelope (Tragelaphus spekei),
African clawless otter (Aonyx capensis), spot-tailed otter (Lutra maculicollis), bushbuck (Tragelaphus
scriptus), Seba python and Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). 55 species of birds have been recorded
(Adjakpa 2001). In the zoological park are kept lion (Panthera leo), baboons (Babouin doguera) and
hyena (Crocuta crocuta).
Conservation status: Private site threatened by degradation by the activities of the surrounding
population. Owners seek a partnership including scientific support for monitoring and management.
Important habitat for sitatunga antelope, reptiles, fish and migratory birds.
Western Sites : RAMSAR SITE 1018 – Basse Vallée du Couffo, Lagune Côtiere, Chenal Aho, Lac
Ahémé - 43,213 ha
The site consists of coastal lagoons and mangroves, an under-represented wetland type in Ramsar Sites .
There are a large variety of reptiles and mammals. Many bird species nest in the area, and it is also used
by many Afrotropical and Palearctic migrating species. Within the area, 100 species of fish have been
recorded.
The mangroves consist of Avicennia spp. and Rhizophora racemosa. The swamps are dominated by
Andropogon gayanus. The flooded grasslands contain Paspalum vaginatum with scattered Phoenix
reclinata. The most common fish species are from the Cichlidae family, with 7 species of tilapia, of
which Sarotherodon melanotheron and Tilapia guineensis are the most numerous. The reptiles Varanus
niloticus and Python regius occur here, as do the mammals Thryonomys swinderianus (great cane rat,
grasscutter), Chlorocebus aethiops (grivet, savanna monkey) and Hippopotamus amphibius. Many birds
nest in habitats along the coastal lagoon Chenel Aho and in the lower valley of the Mono. There are large
populations of herons, terns, waders, birds of prey and ducks (mainly of the genus Dendrocygna).
Parts of the site are permanently flooded, others are seasonally inundated. The inland parts contain
freshwater, on the coastal side the water is brackish. Groundwater recharge and flood control are also
hydrological values of the site. In addition, the flooding system provides suitable sediments and nutrients
for recession agriculture.
There is a mixture of state ownership (which includes protected areas), community ownership and
individual ownership. The traditional land tenure system is based on collective ownership of land and
water (owned by the communities). In addition, the state-owned land is managed according to the modern
legislative framework.
Biological reserves will be created in the following areas:
Site 1. Mangrove Sites complex (Abomey – Calavi, Ouidah)
“Mangrove of Togbin”
Location: 06°21’24.9’’ N 002°18’47.22’’ E to 06°20’51.8’’ N 002°17’11.7’’ E
Administration: Commune of Godomey, Sub-prefecture Abomey-Calavi (Department of Atlantique)
Surrounding villages: Togbin Daho, Adounko-village, Togbin-Dénou
Site description: The mangrove forest of Togbin extends in a 200 m band along the lagoon near to the
village of Togbin-Daho (06°21’07’’ N 02°18’25’’ E). The mangrove is limited to the north by the village
of Togbin Daho, in the south by dunes, in the east by Togbin-Dénou and Adounko beach and in the west
by Adounko village.
90
Hydrology: Coastal lagoon, influenced by tides and occasional fresh water surges in the rainy season.
Vegetation and soils: Dominated by Rhizophora racemosa with Avicennia germinans at the fringes.
Adjacent vegetation comprises a prairie of Paspalum vaginatum, Thypha australis and Echinochloa
pyramidalys. In the marshes along the lagoon edge are mud banks. Soils are halomorphic, anoxic, black
and rich in organic matter becoming sandy towards the dunes.
Fauna: Reptile fauna includes nile crocodile, varans and pythons. Mammals are virtually absent. Laleye
(1997) reports 58 fish species in 31 families in the lagoon including Cichlidae, Claridae, Carangidae and
Mugilidae. Avifauna is composed of terns, turtle doves, white-faced tree duck, other ducks and green
pigeon (Adjakpa, 2001).
Conservation status: Dense, high (16 m) mangrove being one of the best developed along the Benin
coast although with signs of cutting in the interior, necessitating protective management.
“Sacred portion of the coastal lagoon (le Vodountô)”
Location: 6°21’07’’ N 02°18’25’’ E
Administration: Commune of Abomey–Calavi (department of Atlantique).
Surrounding villages: Ahloboé, Hio, Avlékété
Site description: The Vodountô is a stretch of coastal lagoon about 500 m long by 150 m). The zone is
entirely protected by traditional rules as manifested by vegetational barriers at each end. The protected
zone in effect operates as a fish nursery with sub-adults migrating out of the area when mature. Fish
trapped in the barriers are retained as a source of food for the Chief Fetish Avlékété.
Hydrology: Coastal lagoon.
Vegetation and soils: Adjacent mangrove vegetation (see above)
Fauna: The site supports a diverse aquatic fauna due to its conserved state. Ichthyofauna is typical of the
coastal lagoon and comprises mainly Cichlidae, Claridae, Carangidae and Mugilidae. Invertebrate marine
fauna comprises crustaceans including swimming crabs (Callinectes amnicola and Portunus vallidus) and
prawns (Penaeus notialis duorarum, Penaeus kerathurus). Surrounding mammal fauna comprises marsh
cane-rat Tryonomis swinderianus, vervet monkey Cercopithecus pygerythrus, red river hog and sitatunga
antelope. Reported reptile fauna includes nile crocodile, Nile varan Varanus niloticus, Seba python (P.
sebae), royal python (Python regius) and cobra (Naja nigricolis), all highly threatened in the area.
Avifauna is typical of the coastal lagoon.
Conservation status: Protected as a sacred site where a clan fleeing capture for the slave trade is said to
have chosen drowning rather than slavery, the site is in a preserved state for aquatic fauna and serves as
an illustration of how no-take zones could be applied on a larger scale in Benin’s lagoons for the
maintenance of fisheries.
« Bouche du Roy »
Location: 06°17’49’’ N 01°54’42’’ E
Administration: Sub-prefectures of Grand Popo and Ouidah
Surrounding villages: Avloh, Djondji, Hakouè, Hêvê, Grand-Popo
Site description: The zone of Bouche du Roy is located between Djondji and Avloh and is a zone of
interface with the Atlantic Ocean and the coastal lagoon. The zone is characterised by several key habitats
supporting a diverse fauna incuding:
91





beach and dunes providing sleeping and feeding areas for waterbirds and sea turtle nesting
(leatherback, olive ridley);
lagoon mangrove important for palaearctic migrants, nursery for aquatic species and sanctuaries for
numerous reptiles and mammals;
sacred forest of Hounkloun comprising a well conserved forest flora and fauna;
wetland ecosystems of the complex Lake Ahémé;
coastal lagoon influenced by the Atlantic ocean and rivers (Mono & Couffo).
Hydrology: The waters of the Mono mix with those of the sea and the river Couffo in Lake Ahémé with
waters mainly salty to the east of Djondji i.e. towards Ouidah and Togbin. The coastal lagoon is split into
several branches separated by chains of islets along the Grand-Popo lagoon between Avloh and Djondji
and between Mèko and Avlékété on the lagoon of Ouidah. The main channel widens to 1 km between
Dégouè and Djègbadji and between Djondji et Hokouè. During flood season the lagoon is extended,
creating a vast array of meadows, marshes and ponds. The coastal lagoon comprises a wide expanse of
shallow water (1 m), rising several meters in the rainy season.
Vegetation and soils: The mangroves are relatively diverse with four tree species (Rhizophora racemosa,
Avicennia germinans, Laguncularia racemosa, Conocarpus erectus) with dense forest between Djondji
and Bouche du Roy, despite high human pressures. On the south of the lagoon is developed a bush of
Dalbergia ecastaphyllum mixed with Drepanocarpus lunatus. On to the north side are meadows of
Paspalum vaginatum just behind the band of mangrove. Soils consist of fine salty silts, very organic,
anoxic and black. Soild of the cordon are coarse and sandy.
Fauna: The aquatic fauna is essentially similar to that of Mitogbodji (above). Reptiles include crocodile,
Nile varans (Varanus niloticus), pythons (P. sebae, Python regius) and cobra (Naja nigricolis). The
mammals represented include the marsh cane-rat Tryonomis swinderianus, vervet monkey Cercopithecus
pygerythrus, red river hog and rarely Sitatunga antelope. Manatee and hippopotamus are also reported
from the area. Avifauna is rich with 57 species including white heron, weavers etc.
Conservation status: Exploitation of the mangrove is alarming with mangrove in some areas replaced by
coconut plantation. Laguncularia racemosa and Conocarpus erectus are disappearing. Fishing is
practised increasingly with nets and acadja, despite them being banned. Fisheries yields have declined,
especially following the construction of the dam at Nagbéto which has altered water quality (reduced
salinity) and decline of fish populations
92
93
94
95
ANNEX 9: PROJECT ANNUAL WORK PLAN – YEAR 119
Component 1: Institution and capacity building for coastal zone management
Activities
Support dissemination and enforcement of the legal framework for CZM
Organise information workshop for deputies
Organise information workshop for Steering Committee
Participate in parliamentary sessions of the law commission
Edit the framework law as needed
Support elaboration of PLAGE
Identify the local authorities (beneficiaries)
Sensitise all stakeholders about approach, process, results, benefits
Organize the planning process to elaborate PLAGE
Edit the PLAGE documents
Support implementation of CZMP in municipalities
Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
Assess needs of municipalities hosting the potential sites for reserves
Finance elaboration of local CZMP and land use plans
Adopt legal status of reserves and identify appropriate management contract
Define status of reserves
Organise national validity workshop
Support legal enforcement by decree
Support implementation of inter-municipalities (CIED)
Elaborate plans of action at level of inter-community structure ( PIAGE)
Assist with installation of AIED and CIED
19
The logical framework (basis for operational work plan above) will be used as adaptive management and m&e tool.
96
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Component 2 : Community-Based biodiversity conservation
Activities
Demarcate priority conservation areas for reserves identified with local population
Organise workshop with local stakeholders involved (municipalities, trad. Leaders,
communities)
Define borders and map areas
Jan
Prepare land title of areas for reserves
Identify current land tenure situation and negotiate with owners
Declare area of public use and provide funds for compensation
Establish land title for these state-owned areas
Map zones
Biodiversity Management in community-based reserves
Establish technical support teams (ecologic, social)
Adopt reserve management contracts
Establish reserve management units and provide training
Support reserve management units and eco-guards with implementation of conservation plnas
Support alternative livelihood activities and local development
Facilitate development of community-based rural banks (e.g. CREP) in coastal zone
Facilitate design and selection of eligible micro - projects (PLAGE, PIAGE)
Provide funds for implementation of micro-projects
Study and m&e of important species and habitats within reserves
Develop ToRs for studies
Issue contracts
Assess and validate study results
Support development for ecotourism
Study potential for ecotourism within reserves
Adopt support activities with stakeholders involved
Support pilot initiatives
97
Feb
March
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Component 3 : Monitoring and evaluation of coastal wetland biodiversity
Activities
Install database with geo-references
Realise coastal aerial surveys
Purchase satellite pictures SPOT
Purchase photos diachroniques CORONA
Collect data and statistics (socio-economic, ecological) 2002
Establish GIS unit within SISE/ABE
Produce reports on state of environment (ecosystem, habitat, species)
Define key indicators
Monitor and validate research study results
Feed-back study results in m&e system
Provide reference reports on status of environment
Jan
Feb
Conduct targeted research on threatened species and vulnerable habitats
Implement study on red-belly monkey (Cercopithecus erythrogaster)
Undertake study on loutre à cou tacheté (Aonyx capensis)
Implement study on manatee (Trichechus senegalensis)
Share data, information and assure efficient management
Improve on-line capacity of SISE/ABE
Equip stakeholders involved in data collection
Train partner institutions
Adopt data storing and dissemination standards (clearing house)
98
March
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Component 4 : Project coordination and management
Jan
Feb
March
Activities
Support m&e institutions
Establish steering committee and m&e team
Equip m&e team
Train m&e team
Organise periodic work sessions of the steering committee
Organise consultations and meetings with decision-making bodies of associated
projects
Collect m&e data
Define format and data collection tools
Establish data collection protocols
Purchase data
Disseminate periodic implementation reports
Adopt report formats
Provide/publish reports
Dissemination of reports to stakeholders involved
Assess project impacts on target groups
Develop impact indicators
99
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec