GEF Secretariat COMMENTS AND UNDP RESPONSES
PIPELINE ENTRY
GEF Sec Comment
Please demonstrate in some detail that the adaptation
Activities funded by this project are aimed at generating global
environmental benefits, especially on Biodiversity (and, if possible,
international waters), in collaboration with your BD and IW colleagues.
UNDP Response
Changes are made in Paragraph 2, 21 48, 50, 51, 55, 83, 109, and
111. The changes are highlighted in blue.
Page 1 of 37
REQ
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FACILITY
REQUEST FOR PIPELINE ENTRY and PDF Block B
APPROVAL
AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: 3341
GEF SEC PROJECT ID:
COUNTRY: Regional Project: Senegal, Gambia,
Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Cape Verde
PROJECT TITLE: Adaptation to Climate Change Responding to Shoreline Change and its human
dimensions in West Africa through integrated coastal
area management.
GEF AGENCY: UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): IOC- of
UNESCO
DURATION: 18 months for PDF-B implementation
GEF FOCAL AREA: CLIMATE CHANGE
GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM:
GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Piloting an
Operational Approach to Adaptation (SPA)
ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: January 2005
ESTIMATED WP ENTRY DATE: JULY 2006
PIPELINE ENTRY DATE:
FINANCING PLAN
GEF ALLOCATION:
Project (estimated)
4,000,000
Project Co-financing
4,000,000
(estimated)
PDF A *
PDF-B **
700,000
PDF C
Sub Total GEF PDF
700,000
PDF CO-FINANCING (details provided in
Part II, Section E – Budget)
Multilateral Contribution
190,000
National Contribution
110,000
Others
Sub-Total PDF co300,000
Financing
Total PDF Project
1,000,000
Financing
* Indicate approval date of PDF A
** If supplemental, indicate amount and date
of originally approved PDF
RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:
(Enter Name,, Position, Ministry)
Date: (Month, day, year)
Mrs. Fatima DIA TOURE, Director, Department of Environment and Classified Facilities
Ministry of Environment, Senegal
10 September 2004
Mr. Lourenço Antonio VAZ, Director General of Environment, Secretary of State of Energy and Natural Resources,
Guinea-Bissau
30 August 2004
Mrs. Ivone ANDRADE LOPES, General Director of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and
Fisheries, Cape Verde
29 September 2004
Mr. Momodou SARR, Executive Director, National Environment Agency, The Gambia
14 September 2004
El Hadrami Ould BAHNEINE, Directeur de l´Environnement et de l´Amenagement Rural, Mauritania
28 September 2004
This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets
the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for approval.
Yannick Glemarec
Deputy Executive Coordinator
Date: 6 October 2004
Contact Person: Ms. Bo Lim
tel: 212-906-5730
email: bo.lim@undp.org
Page 2 of 37
PART 1 – PROJECT CONCEPT
A - SUMMARY
I. PROJECT RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND
1.
This request for pipeline entry approval for a PDF-B grant is to facilitate the
development of a Full Project entitled, ‘Adaptation to Climate Change - Responding to
Shoreline Change and its human dimensions in West Africa through integrated coastal area
management’. The sub-region comprises the states of Mauritania, Senegal, The Gambia,
Guinea Bissau, and Cape Verde. The issues of shoreline change and climate change
vulnerability are considered as a high priority to all five countries, whose coastal systems
exhibit considerable connectivity. All are within the Canary Current Large Marine
Ecosystem, and are therefore affected by similar climatic, hydrographical and oceanic
conditions. The rate of sand and suspended sediment discharge from rivers is a particular
concern that will benefit from a regional and integrated basin management approach. The
overall objective of the Full Project is to mainstream adapatation to climate change into
Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) planning in the participating countries through
the development and implementation of pilot adaptation activities in response to shoreline
change. This will involve the development of strategies, policies and measures, based on
technical/scientific information and appropriate policy instruments. A major preliminary
objective will therefore be to pilot adaptation activities in a local to sub-regional context.
There is a strong rationale for addressing the issue of adaptation and shoreline change not
only at the national level but also through the development of a regional approach.
2.
The coastal ecosystems of West Africa are highly significant in tems of globally
important biodiversity. For example, a 2002 Conservation International report listing the ten
most important areas of coral ecosystems in the world included two from West Africa (Gulf
of Guinea islands and Cape Verde). WWF’s Global 200 list includes the Guinea moist
forests, Upper Guinea streams and, most importantly, the Canary Current. There is a high
connectivity amongst these coastal ecosystems in this region of West Africa, which is mainly
due to the nature of the sediment transport ongoing along the coast from North to South, as
well as the influence of river discharges (Senegal, Saloum, on the sediment load reaching the
coastal areas. The construction of hard adaptation measures (groynes, sea walls, etc.) along
the coast of these countries may have an impact on the stability of the shoreline downstream.
3.
Hence the development of adaptation measures needs to be harmonized amongst the
countries to be able to cope with the coastal connectivity of these countries. In addition, the
experience of the sub-region in developing adaptation measures and particularly coastal
protection is weak. The implementation of the project though a regional approach will
maximize available resources and benefit the participating countries through the exchange of
valuable experiences and information. The project will therefore seek to strengthen regional
cooperation and institutions, and to provide cost-effective means for adaptation planning
within ICAM, data collection, and sharing of information, skills, and project benefits. The
detailed components of the Full Project will be determined on the basis of the results of a
proposed project development activity (PDF-B)
4.
The project proposal has been developed as a follow-up to the GEF-funded Medium
Size Project (MSP) Sub-Saharan Africa Project 1 “Development and Protection of the Coastal
and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa”, also known as the ‘African Process’. The
National Reports produced by the 11 sub-Saharan African countries that participated in the
Phase I of the African Process,2 identified widespread erosion of sub-Saharan coasts, as a
1
The evaluation of the GEF-MSP on the African Process is available upon request.
Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa,
Tanzania
Page 3 of 37
consequence of anthropogenic or natural causes, as one of the most devastating environmental
problems faced by African countries. Other key issues included the unsustainable exploitation
of natural resources, loss of key habitats and pollution. Climate change, and in particular sea
level rise, were further identified as issues that will add pressures on African coastal zones,
leading to deterioration of physical space, ecosystems, infrastructures and economic activities,
and which may also exacerbate current threats to critical habitats and species. In considering
responses to these issues, it was noted that while most countries in the region are developing,
or have developed, framework strategies for integrated coastal area management (ICAM), few
have managed to implement effective adaptation strategies in response to climate change.
5.
During Phase II of the African Process, the Working Group on Coastal Erosion
developed three project proposals to address the issues identified in the National Reports. The
objectives of the respective project proposals were: (a) to restore degraded hotspots and
sensitive areas through the design and testing of protective measures, while enhancing
national capacity for coastal zone protection and management; (b) to support and facilitate the
development and/or implementation of Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) in subSaharan Africa, both at the national level and in selected demonstration sites where erosion
has been identified as a main issue, so as to improve coastal protection and management in
the long term; and (c) address the impacts of climate change / sea-level rise through the
determination of historical trends, the mapping of vulnerable areas, the development of
vulnerability analyses including the impacts of other climate change parameters, and the
identification and evaluation of adaptation options.
6.
In 2002, the UNEP/GEF MSP on the Environment Component of the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was initiated with a view to facilitate the
development of the NEPAD Environment Action Plan. In order to define priority areas for the
NEPAD Action Plan, eight thematic working groups were established in the course of the
MSP, including one on Marine, Coastal and Freshwater Resources.. Following the
recommendations of the Coastal/Marine working group, which met in Abuja, Nigeria, 24-25
February 2003, the NEPAD GEF MSP identified the three projects3 (mentioned above) of the
African Process as core activities of the Environmental Action Plan (under Programme Area
4: Conservation and sustainable use of marine, coastal and freshwater resources.) The African
Union adopted the NEPAD Environment Action Plan at its Summit in July 2003, Maputo.
7.
Following informal regional consultations amongst the five countries, IOC of
UNESCO was requested by the Government of Senegal, acting as Coordinator for the
NEPAD Environment Initiative, to adapt the three NEPAD projects 3 into a single regional
project drawing on the complementarity, commonality and inter-linkages of the issues being
addressed, i.e. coastal erosion, climate change vulnerability, and Integrated Coastal Area
Management. As a result the draft Regional Project on Adaptation to Climate Change Responding to Shoreline Change and its human dimensions in West Africa through integrated
coastal area management was developed for Senegal, The Gambia, Cape Verde, Mauritania,
and Guinea Bissau. The participation of these five countries is particularly relevant as they all
belong to the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem, and are therefore affected by similar
climatic, hydrographical and oceanic conditions. Consequently the issues of shoreline change
and climate change vulnerability are common and of high priority to all five countries. An
initial draft project document was subsequently prepared by the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (IOC/UNESCO) and then forwarded by the Interim Secretariat for the NEPAD
Environment Initiative (SINEPAD) to the five participating countries (Ministries of
3
Project 1: Mitigation of coastal erosion and restoration of degraded areas in sub-Saharan Africa; Project 2:
Supporting the development and implementation of ICAM in sub-Saharan Africa; Project 3. Assessment of the
vulnerability of sub-Saharan coastal zones to the various impacts of climate change (including sea-level rise)
Page 4 of 37
Environment) for their review and endorsement. Each Ministry was invited to appoint a
national focal point to play an active part in the development and finalisation of the regional
project. The Project document was forwarded to the African Ministerial Conference on the
Environment (AMCEN) and presented at the Partnership Conference for the NEPAD
Environment Action Plan, held in Algiers, December 2003. As a result, the Project concept
was identified as a one of the priority projects of NEPAD Action Plan to be implemented5.
This project is among the priorities listed under the MSP entitled, “Capacity-Building
Programme for the Development of Sub-Regional Environment Action Plans for the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development”.
8.
A First Regional Planning Meeting6 on the NEPAD Project “Adaptation to Climate
Change - Responding to Shoreline Change and its human dimensions in West Africa through
integrated coastal area management” was held in Dakar, Senegal, on 3-5th March 2004,
attended by the Focal Points designated by the five participating countries. The main
objectives of the meeting were to present and review the project proposal, including the scope
of the proposed project components, and to confirm the interest and commitment of the
participating countries. In reviewing the project proposal, participating countries provided
additional inputs on the extent of coastal erosion and climate change impacts and existing
programmes/strategies to mitigate such processes in their respective countries, including
qualitative and quantitative descriptions of coastal erosion processes, identification of
hotspots requiring urgent interventions, existing national programmes/project on integrated
coastal area management, national institutional arrangements and policy/legislation in support
of coastal area management and existing sources of data and information on coastal erosion
and climate change. The participating countries were also invited to define national activities
under each of the proposed project components, as well as implementation and coordination
mechanisms.
9.
The participants representing the five participating countries reviewed the draft
project proposal and expressed broad support for the activities and general structure proposed
under the three project components, as well as recommending other issues that could be
incorporated in the final document. It was also agreed that that the best approach would be to
reformulate the project proposal and submit to the GEF Secretariat (GEFSEC) as a PDF-B
proposal, with the ultimate objective of preparing and submitting a full project document,
together with a detailed implementation plan. It was further agreed that in view of its
experience in developing Adapatation Policy Framework (APF) methodologies, UNDP would
be the most appropriate implementing agency for the project.
10.
In all project components, both during the PDF Phase and subsequently in
implementing the Full Project, the Adaptation Policy Framework (APF) developed by UNDP
will provide important resources for the project. The APF was developed in order to assist
countries to strengthen their capacity for preparing national plans and prioritizing adaptations
to climate change, and provides a flexible approach that can be modified to meet specific
country needs. The APF is built on several methods, including the 1994 IPCC Technical
Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. One important innovative
feature is that it enables countries to work from current climate variability and extremes, and
to assess recent climate experience, and is ideally suited to the development of near and
medium term policy options. The APF also includes the development of an adaptation
baseline and situating adaptation in the existing policy context. The APF is consistent with the
overall aims and objectives of the project, as it is designed to assist countries (parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) to mainstream the
development of national strategies for adaptation into the sustainable development and
poverty reduction strategy contexts. The Framework also provides for the active involvement
of stakeholders and public participation at the community level, and the integration of
5
6
Correspondence from the Chairperson of AMCEN to IOC Executive Secretary (29 December 2003)
The report of the Dakar meeting is available upon request.
Page 5 of 37
adaptation measures with natural hazard reduction and disaster prevention programmes. The
APF includes four major project approaches 7 to respond to the needs of countries seeking to
address climate change impacts. The adaptive-capacity approach, which ‘assesses a system
(both natural and policy oriented) with respect to its current adaptive capacity, and proposes
ways in which adaptive capacity can be increased so that the system is better able cope with
climate change including variability’, will be used in framing the full project proposal. As a
result, this project will also contribute to the development of a second phase of the APF, in
which coastal zones will be one of the chapters of the APF Volume 2.
11.
It is envisaged that the PDF-B phase of the project, will focus on an assessment of
shoreline change, with special reference to climate change vulnerability, and will include
compilation of an inventory of the current situation, the identification of hotspots and
sensitive areas, and an analysis of both the natural and anthropogenic causes of change, taking
account of wider marine and catchment influences as well as coastal factors. In addition to
analyzing historic sea level change, the effectiveness of existing sea-level rise and climate
monitoring system that contributes to regional and global assessment of the issue will be
addressed. Consideration will also be given to the forcing changes that may occur in the
future and that are within the time frame of integrated coastal area management planning and
sustainable development policies. This component will also consider the environmental and
socio-economic implications of shoreline change, and in particular the impacts of shoreline
change on specific economic sectors (for eg. fisheries, tourism, costal infrastructure,
agriculture).
12.
The information collected during the PDF-B phase will aim at providing all the data
necessary to implement the Full Project. The Full Project will firstly focus on the
development and implementation of concrete strategies for adaptation to shoreline change,
with an emphasis on the impacts of climate change, into wider integrated coastal area
management planning through the sharing of regional experience, stakeholder consultations,
etc. This component, which will be implemented as part of the Full Project will also consider
the issue of coastal zone management capacities in the participating countries, particularly
with respect to dealing effectively with the identified causes and effects of shoreline change,
including an assessment of whether coastal area management can deal with such causes or
whether the changes are inevitable and can thus only be addressed by measures such as setback, relocation, etc.
13.
The second component that will be implemented during the Full Project and will
focus on testing the chosen strategies and plans in identified demonstration sites. The purpose
of this will be to show how adaptation can be practically translated into actions that will
provide real benefits and that can be integrated into national policy and coastal management
planning. The implementation of these pilot/demonstration projects will be carefully
monitored, and lessons learned will be disseminated to the wider scientific and management
community within the region, although the timescale of some of the changes identified and
predicted in Component 1 may fall far outside the scope of any monitoring programme for
this project. However, the project will be integrated into a learning process in the context of
the GEF’s project on the Adaptation Learning Mechanism 8
7
i) The hazards-based approach assesses current climate vulnerability or risk in the priority system and uses climate
scenarios to estimate changes in vulnerability or risk over time and space; (ii) The vulnerability-based approach focuses
on the characterisation of a priority system’s vulnerability and assesses how likely critical thresholds of vulnerability are
to be exceeded under climate change. (iii) The adaptive-capacity approach assesses a system with respect to its current
adaptive capacity, and proposes ways in which adaptive capacity can be increased so that the system is better able cope
with climate change including variability; (iv) The policy-based approach, a project tests a new policy being framed to
see whether it is robust under climate change, or tests an existing policy to see whether it manages anticipated risk under
climate change. (Adaptation Policy Framework Technical Paper 1: Scoping and Designing an Adaptation Project)
8
Currently in preparation
Page 6 of 37
II.
CURRENT SITUATION
14.
According to the World Resources Institute (UNDP/UNEP/WB/WRI, 2000), subSaharan Africa has a total coastal length of 63,124 km, consisting mainly of a narrow lowlying coastal belt, which includes the coastal shelf of 32 mainland countries and a number of
island states. The coastal zone9 supports diverse and important ecosystems including rocky
shores, sandy beaches, deltas, estuaries, coastal wetlands, coral reefs, sea grass meadows and
lagoons that not only possess a rich biodiversity but also constitute important resources upon
which the society and the economy are based. Coral reefs and mangroves are especially
important features because they protect the coastline by moderating storm and wave impacts
and because mangroves stabilize sand and soils, cycle nutrients, absorb and break down waste
products, provide wildlife habitat, and maintain biodiversity. Reefs and mangroves also
contribute significantly to the economies of coastal countries by providing opportunities for
the harvesting of resources and increasingly for tourism.
15.
African coastal waters are rich in fisheries resources, which in 1997 contributed
US$445 million to countries’ economies (FAOSTAT 2001), with landings in estuaries and
lagoons accounting for more than three-quarters of total fishery landings in Africa (IPCC
1998). In some countries, notably small island states such as Cape Verde and Seychelles,
fisheries is a significant employer accounting for more than one-third of agricultural workers
(FAO 1996), with artisanal fishing activities being both an important source of income and
source of protein for coastal communities. In addition to important economic activities such
as fisheries, tourism and agriculture, crucial infrastructures (roads, ports, harbours) and cities
are located in the coastal zones of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as oil, gas and other mineral
reserves.
16.
The rich and diverse resources of Africa’s coastal and marine environments have
encouraged rapid population growth, industrial expansion and infrastructure development. In
the 32 coastal countries in sub-Saharan African, more than 50% of the population lives within
100 km of the coast, varying between less than 2% of the population in Ethiopia to 100% of
the population in the island states of Seychelles, Mauritius, Comoros and Cap Verde. In the
five countries participating in this project, the percentage of the population living within
100km of the coast varies between 39.6% in Mauritania to 83.2% (Senegal), 90.8% (Gambia),
94.6% (Guinea Bissau) and 100% (Cape Verde).
17.
The demand for resources and infrastructure development in Africa’s coastal zone is
now putting immense pressure on its fragile ecosystems which are under severe threat from
development related activities. Among the main contemporary challenges are coastal erosion,
the potential impacts of climate change including shoreline change and flooding, pollution
and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
18.
While erosion and accretion are natural and dynamic processes that occur globally in
coastal zones, anthropogenic activities in both coastal zones and inland can alter natural
patterns, which in turn impact on the capacity of coastal ecosystems to adapt. The conversion
of natural coastal habitats such as wetlands and mangroves for urban or agricultural uses
reduces the ability of such ecosystems to provide a natural barrier or buffer against wave
action and storm surges, which results in further and increased erosion and other impacts such
as flooding. The mining of coral and sand contributes to erosion by disturbing the surface and
exposing the substrate to rain, rivers and wave action, while the removal and use of coral for
construction purposes limits the protection coral reefs provide to the shoreline is lost resulting
in land recession. The construction of dams on rivers further inland reduces sediment flows
9
The coastal zone includes at a minimum, ‘all the inter-tidal and supra-tidal areas of the water’s edge; specifically all
the coastal floodplains, mangroves, marshes and tide-flats as well as beaches and dunes and fringing coral reefs’.
(Clark, 1996)
Page 7 of 37
and increases the river’s scouring potential leading to higher rates of erosion in the coastal
zone.
19.
Climate change and in particular sea level rise will add pressures on the coastal zones
leading to a further deterioration of ecosystems, infrastructures and economic activities and
may also exacerbate the scale of the current pressures by causing inundation of low-lying
areas, erosion of infrastructure, displacement of populations, and contamination of freshwater
sources, thus threatening the livelihoods of coastal populations and development options of all
those countries where coastal areas make an important contribution to the economy. 10
20.
In addition to pollution and the unsustainable exploitation of coastal and marine
resources, coastal erosion and sea-level rise are among the most serious issues facing coastal
countries in West Africa11. This was also a major conclusion of the countries of the region
that participated in the “GEF MSP on the Development and Protection of the Coastal and
Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa”.
21.
The West African coast contains a wide range of ecosystems and diverse resources,
including extensive mangrove forests, sandy beaches, lagoons, coastal wetlands, and plentiful
fisheries12. The sub-region is also characterised by frequent storm surges along the coast, and
highly dynamic patterns of erosion and accretion, which makes the protection afforded by the
mangroves and other coastal wetlands vitally important in stabilizing the coastal zone and
enabling infrastructure and development.13. The GEF has invested in several projects to
conserve biodiversity in these coastal ecosystems, including Senegal: Integrated marine and
coastal resource management project (PMIS# 1189); Guinea Bissau: Coastal and Biodiversity
Management Project (#1221); and Gambia: Integrated coastal and marine biodiversity
management (#1067). However, these projects do not include components specifically
addressing adaptation to climate change, so global benefits in terms of conservation of
biodiversity will not be sustainable.
22.
Shoreline change, whether it is caused by natural or human induced factors, is a
critical issue along the whole of the Western African coast, with erosion rates of 23-30m per
year being recorded in some areas14, and with severe social and economic consequences for
the countries affected. Natural causes include changes in meteorological and oceanographic
conditions (winds, waves and currents, barometric pressure), modifications of the sediment
budget and sea level rise. Anthropogenic causes include mining of sand and gravel from
estuaries, beaches and directly from the continental shelf, dredging activities, construction of
building and other hard structures along the coasts and climate change (due to increased
greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere). The construction of dams has been
shown to lower sediment loads in rivers that reach the coast by up to 40%, thus reducing
sediment available to replace that eroded or extracted in the coastal zone15.
10
11
12
13
14
15
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average global sea level has risen by 1–2 mm
per year during the last century. The most likely cause of this is expansion of seawater and widespread loss of land ice
caused by higher mean global temperatures. The IPCC also predicts that, by 2100, the global sea level could rise by up to
one metre (IPCC 2001a). The consequent flooding and changes in salinity, wave conditions and ocean circulation will put
natural habitats and human settlements at risk of flooding and accelerated erosion. The extent and severity of the impacts
of storms will also increase as a result of further climatic changes, and because the buffering capacity of coral reefs and
mangrove systems will have been lost. Human settlements and economic activities in the Gulf of Guinea, Senegal,
Gambia, Egypt, and along the eastern African coast, including the Western Indian Ocean, are likely to be most severely
affected (IPCC 2001b). Some of these countries may be unable to cope with the financial and technical burden of
implementation of mitigation measures (Leatherman & Nicholls 1995) – quoted from Africa Environment Outlook (UNEP,
2000)
Africa Environment Outlook (UNEP, 2000);
It is estimated that over half a million people in Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau and Senegal depend directly on fisheries for
incomes and food supply.
Population pressures are among the factors that have and will continue to contribute to substantial resource degradation in
the coastal zones of Western Africa. For example, the coastal region of Dakar (Senegal) is home to about 4.5 million
people (66.6 per cent of Senegal’s population) and 90 per cent of the country’s industries (IPCC 1998). (Add for Gambia,
Guinea Bissau & Cape Verde ?)
(Smith, Huq, Lenhart, Mata, Nemesova & Toure 1996) - quoted in Africa Environmental Outlook (2000)
(Wellens-Mensah, 1994) – quoted in Africa Environmental Outlook (2000)
Page 8 of 37
23.
Climate change scenarios for the West African region as a whole anticipate increases
in frequency and intensity of tidal waves and storm surges, which will further exacerbate
erosion problems by moving greater amounts of coastal material16. Predictions also include a
rise in sea level of one metre which would result in land loss of 18 000 km2 along the Western
African coast, affecting many coastal cities, including Banjul (Gambia) and Dakar (Senegal),
and which would lead to a significant social problem of relocation and resettlement 17. The
participating countries have through the National Communications process and in the
formulation of their respective National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs), identified
critical gaps in their understanding of climate change impacts, and their capacity to adapt to
its consequences. This project will address these critical gaps and enable the participating
countries to develop and implement effective adaptation strategies to address the impacts of
climate change 18. The project will therefore establish close linkages with these and other
relevant related programmes (See Paragraph 87).
24.
The Abidjan Convention, the GOG-LME programme and the World Bank (1995)
recognise that erosion is one of the most critical coastal issues in West Africa. Retreat rates
are very high in the sub-region, varying between 1 to 3 meters, and can be even more extreme
in sensitive areas. For example, erosion rates of 4 to 5 metres are observed in The Gambia
(Bijilo and Kololi beaches) and rates as high as 20-30 meters have been recorded in Senegal
(Djiffere), affecting coastal infrastructure and development. Coastal erosion has thus been
recognised as a critical issue at the national level by The Gambia and Senegal in the National
Reports of the GEF MSP Sub-Saharan Africa Project .
25.
Coastal erosion is also a significant issue in the neighbouring countries of Cape
Verde, Guinea Bissau and Mauritania. In Cape Verde, coastal zones are being degraded due
to over-harvesting of coral, extraction of sand and gravel, while land degradation in the
watershed also leads to coastal erosion and sedimentation19. In Guinea Bissau, with its low
altitude above sea level, it is estimated that the country risks losing much of its territory
including mangrove coasts and islands due to the rising of sea level. Although the population
density of Mauritania’s 754 km of coastline is extremely low, urbanisation and
industrialisation is increasing in some coastal areas.
26.
While coastal erosion has been identified as a critical issue, the countries that
participated in the African Process noted that the lack of available socio-economic data has
prevented an accurate estimation of the socio-economic costs of erosion. However, the fact
that the coastal zone is highly populated and is the location where most economic activities
take place means that the potential impacts of coastal erosion are very high in the region. For
example, fish landing sites have been eroded in The Gambia, and the copra industry, which is
situated on beaches and employs thousands of people, is also threatened. Also in The Gambia,
cultural heritage sites such as forts and castles have been damaged or are highly threatened. In
Senegal erosion has led to the destruction of a fishing factory, and of the Saloum Delta
National Park guard’s house resulting in the closure of the unit in August 1989. A village was
abandoned and population displaced due to erosion in Niodior and Dionewar.
27.
One of the activities that is seriously affected by coastal erosion is tourism. This was
strongly emphasised in the National Reports of the African Process. Poor land use planning
and coastal development including insufficient set backs have led to the destruction of natural
16
17
18
19
Allersman and Tilsmans 1993 – quoted in Africa Environmental Outlook (2000)
Dennis, Niang-Diop & Nicholls 1995 - – quoted in Africa Environmental Outlook (2000)
For example, Senegal’s NAPA identifies the need to prepare adaptation strategies to address (inter alia) flooding of
flat zones, increased erosion of coastal plains, penetration of sea water in coastal rivers and aquifers, change in
sedimentary deposits, changes in “upwelling” and water productivity, changes in human activities and displacement
of population, change in agricultural activities and fishing patterns, destruction of towns, industries and infrastructure
located in coastal zones, and water supply shortages.
UNDP/GEF PDF-B Proposal ‘Conservation of biodiversity through integrated participatory community management
in Cape Verde’
Page 9 of 37
dunes and vegetation by the tourism industry itself, resulting in higher erosion rates and the
destruction of coastal infrastructure, causing a decline in tourism activities in areas where
beach fronts have eroded away (e.g. Senegal and The Gambia). In response, two of Gambia’s
most prestigious tourist establishments, the Kairaba Beach Hotel and Senegambia Hotel, have
already undertaken some expensive protection measures to protect the hotels against further
beach erosion. Kairaba Beach Hotel for example has spent US$ 400,000 on sand bagging
using geotextile sandbags whilst Senegambia Hotel spent about US$ 330,000 in 1998 to
protect its beach by a sandbagging method"20. In Senegal, a tourist camp had to be displaced
inside the islands due to erosion. However, new tourism opportunities were created in Djiffere
due to the accretion process and the creation of beaches along the riverside21.
28.
While erosion is a threat to coastal activities, it is also an impact of these activities.
Indeed, anthropogenic activities are a major cause of coastal erosion in the countries that
consider it as a critical issue. In the causal change analysis conducted during the first phase of
the African Process, anthropogenic activities were estimated to account for 70-90% of coastal
erosion in Gambia. Among the activities that have a significant impact on coastal zones is the
energy sector and urbanisation (including tourism). Damming for hydroelectric plants affects
stream flows and sediment budgets, and the construction of oil refineries and wells, gas and
oil pipelines, storage tanks with insufficient setbacks have been a main cause of erosion.
29.
Other major causes of erosion, indirectly linked to human activities, include global
climate change and sea level rise which have led to an increase in the strength and frequency
of natural phenomena such as tidal surges, storms and cyclones. It is considered that storms,
cyclones, tidal surges contribute substantially to shoreline changes. Anthropogenic activities
thus reinforce the effects of natural and sub-natural phenomena by reducing the natural
capacity of the ecosystems to cope with natural phenomena. This is the case when natural
erosion protection systems such as mangroves, coral reefs or marshes are overexploited and
degraded.
30.
Since the beginning of the first studies on the impacts of climate change in Africa, it
appeared clearly that climate change will have significant consequences on the coastal zones,
especially on small islands and low lying coastal zones (Ibe and Awosika, 1991; Saha, 1991;
Alusa and Ogallo, 1992; Hoozemans et al., 1993; Ibe and Ojo, 1994; Smith et al., 1996). This
is first due to their morphology – mainly low lying coasts with numerous estuaries, deltas and
small islands – the presence of important ecosystems (mangroves, coral reefs) that are highly
sensitive to climate parameters and to the high concentration of population and economic
activities along these littorals based on a high dependency of the national economies on the
natural resources (beaches, halieutic resources, oil, sand). Among all the expected climatic
modifications, sea level rise is the most certain change and most of the studies have been
restricted to an analysis of the consequences of sea level rise in the coastal zones.
31.
The main biophysical impacts of sea level rise, as defined by the second IPCC
assessment, are increased coastal erosion, more extensive coastal inundation, higher storm
surge flooding, salinisation of surface and ground waters, loss of wetlands (Bijlsma et al.,
1996). Ibe and Ojo (1994) also indicated that other components of climate change could
induce dramatic changes in water resources, energy resources – through inundation of oilproducing deltaic zones (Nigeria for example) and modifications in dams inducing changes in
hydropower production - and oceanic circulation, particularly upwellings, but also exacerbate
drought and desertification. The main coastal ecosystems at risk are mangroves and coral
reefs (McLean et al., 2001). Mangroves are strictly dependent on the sea level variations and
also on the rainfall and salinity so it is expected that they will migrate or die if lateral shifting
is not possible or if salinity is too high. However, other factors like the topography of the area
20
21
The Gambia National Report. GEF MSP Sub-Saharan Africa Project, 2001
Senegal National Report. GEF MSP Sub-Saharan Africa Project, 2001
Page 10 of 37
but also the rate of sedimentation will be of importance in the response of mangroves to sea
level rise (Bijlsma et al., 1996).
32.
Coral reefs are highly susceptible to oceanic temperatures and would not be able to
keep pace with the expected rise in sea surface temperatures. The observation of massive
extinction of coral reefs in the Indian coast due to the onset of El Niño is a good indication of
the risk linked to climate change. There are also indications that lagoons will be under stress
mainly due to the disappearing of the reef barriers protecting them from the ocean. These
biophysical impacts of climate change could necessitate a relocation of some coastal
populations while new and/or aggravated health problems will occur.
33.
Furthermore, Alusa and Ogallo (1992), for the Eastern African Region as well as Ibe
and Ojo (1994) for the Atlantic African coast, identified the following impacts of climate
change on the main economic activities present in the coastal zones:




Fisheries will be affected through the degradation/loss of ecosystems such as mangroves
and coral reefs which act as spawning, breeding and nursing grounds for a number of fish
species, and through changes in sea surface temperature and also the intensity and
location of upwellings that will modify species distribution;
Agriculture will be affected – sometimes positively - by changes in CO2 atmospheric
concentration, temperature and rainfall that will modify the geographical distribution of
agro-ecological zones in relation with the sensitivity of most of the crops to climatic
parameters. In the coastal zones, sea level rise will also induce a salinization of soils,
surface and ground waters that will necessarily affect agricultural lands. Permanent
flooding will mean a loss of agricultural lands in a number of coastal zones;
Coastal infrastructures (such as roads and harbours) will be endangered by sea level rise
inducing coastal erosion and inundation then inducing transportation difficulties in the
region. For the same reasons coastal towns and villages will be threatened and some
coastal populations will be displaced;
Tourism, which is mainly dependent on beaches (sun and sand), will be affected by an
acceleration of coastal erosion due to sea level rise that will reduce the number of
appropriate sites for beach-based tourism. Tourism infrastructure along the coast will also
be impacted, as will a number of heritage sites.
34.
These threats have been acknowledged by the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated that “Tropical and subtropical
coastlines, particularly in areas that are already under stress from human activities, are highly
susceptible to global warming impacts.” (McLean et al., 2001)
35.
Despite the important predicted environmental and socio-economic consequences that
climate change will have on the coastal zones of sub-Saharan Africa, relatively few countries
have carried out comprehensive assessments of their vulnerability to climate change (NiangDiop, 1998). While a number of African countries have conducted vulnerability-adaptation
assessments (V&A studies) in fulfilment of commitments under UNFCCC22, most of these
studies have focused only on the impacts of sea level rise on coastal erosion and flooding. In
1989, during the first workshop organized on the adaptive responses to sea level rise and
other impacts of climate change African coastal countries presented very preliminary
assessments of their vulnerability to climate change (Titus, 1990). During the second meeting
organized on the vulnerability of coastal zones to sea level rise, Senegal and Nigeria
presented the first quantitative results from a study funded by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (Awosika et al., 1994; Niang et al., 1994). These V&A studies assessed,
for different sea level rise scenarios (0.2, 0.5, 1 and 2 m by 2100), the land that will be lost
due to coastal erosion and flooding, the population and economic value at risk as well as the
22
Senegal, The Gambia, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Benin, Togo, Nigeria, Cameroon, South Africa, Tanzania, Seychelles,
Mauritius, Mozambique.
Page 11 of 37
costs of two different protection options (French et al., 1995; Dennis et al., 1995). The
Gambia conducted a V&A study using 3 sea-level rise scenarios (0.2, 0.5 and 1 m by 2100)
and calculated the areas of land to be lost, the population and economic value at risk but only
for the Banjul-Cape St Mary area while adaptation options were only identified qualitatively
(Jallow et al., 1996, 1999)23.
36.
It is notable that most of these studies rarely went further than general, qualitative
assessments with the exception of the estimation of land areas susceptible to be lost.
Moreover, most of the studies only considered the impacts of sea level rise and mainly coastal
erosion and flooding while, for example, salinization processes were rarely considered and if
so only on a qualitative way. Also, the other climate change parameters that will also
influence the status of coastal zones in case of climate change were not taken into account. In
these conditions, it must be considered that globally the impacts of climate change in the
coastal zones were underestimated. The APF however, provides a methodology to develop
adaptation measures in a policy context by building on the previous studies.
37.
A main objective of this project is therefore to contribute to a more in depth
assessment of the vulnerability of coastal zones of the participating countries to the different
impacts of climate change in a more integrated approach, thus laying the foundations for the
development and subsequent implementation of effective adaptation strategies. The
strengthening of existing networks for monitoring sea-level and climate, as well as the
improved access to data, will be addressed. The contributions of IOC programmes such as the
Regional Ocean Observing and Forecasting System for Africa (part of GOOS) and the Ocean
Data and Information Network in Africa (ODINAFRICA) Project will be maximised. The
project will not only address the impacts of sea level rise through the determination of
historical trends in sea level rise but also the mapping of vulnerable areas based on existing
V&A studies. This will be completed by vulnerability analyses including the impacts of other
parameters of climate change (temperature, rainfall) on the salinisation of waters, on coastal
ecosystems and socio-economic sectors as well as on identification and evaluation of
adaptation options and policies.
38.
The project will therefore provide participating countries with a comprehensive
understanding of their vulnerability to climate change that will allow them to further prioritize
their adaptation options. These could be merged in a strategy that could be integrated in the
national development plans. The results of this project could also be integrated in the coastal
zone management plans that will take into account future trends and impacts of climate
change. However, as in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, climate change will take place in a
context where the expertise, financial and technical resources are limited. This is why
developing adaptation capacity and technology transfer, as well as broad stakeholder
involvement, are important components for the participating countries to target key policy
barriers and to be able to implement successful adaptation strategies appropriate in the short,
medium, and long-term.
39.
The lack of coordination of planning mechanisms, contradictory legislation and
poor communication between government departments were identified as major constraints to
the sustainable development and use of the coastal environment by country experts in the first
phase of the African Process. In particular, it was noted that weak inter-sectoral coordination
and management has contributed to increased coastal erosion.
40.
This project aims at addressing these issues and contributing towards the
implementation of more effective and integrated approach to coastal area management. To
increase the integration of coastal area management in a sustainable way, coordination
mechanisms and legislative tools need to be improved, and legal, technical and institutional
23
Other vulnerability and adaptation assessments have not yet been published but are present either in the Initial
National Communications to the UNFCCC or in the form of reports.
Page 12 of 37
capacity needs to be strengthened. Broad stakeholder involvement and public awareness also
needs to be increased, and sustainable financing mechanisms need to be defined.
41.
Although coastal activities all impact and are impacted on by each other, decisions
are mostly taken in a sectoral way, disregarding downstream impacts (e.g. irrigation schemes
affecting stream flows and sediment budgets, causing accretion, erosion and beach depletion)
and interactions between activities. Poor decision making about infrastructure location,
inappropriate mitigation measures, and resource extraction have been identified by the World
Bank (1995)24 as causes for high rates of erosion. The lack of vertical and horizontal
integration of decision-making and coastal management has contributed to the unsustainable
use of coastal resources, increased erosion rates and has threatened the livelihoods of
thousands of coastal communities. In order to manage coastal zone resources and erosion
more effectively, a more comprehensive approach to the management and development of
coastal activities is needed.
42.
In response to the increasing pressures and threats on the coastal environment, the
importance of taking an integrated approach to coastal area management at the national, subregional, regional and global levels was underlined at United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, 1992 - Chapter 17 of Agenda 21.
Since then, Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) has been advocated at the regional
and sub-regional levels in SSA and steps towards developing ICAM strategies have been
taken.
43.
The Maputo and the Cape Town Declarations of 1998 also emphasised the need for
ICAM at the sub-regional levels. Furthermore, one of the principal actions of the Jakarta
Mandate of the Convention on Biodiversity is to institute ICAM, including community based
coastal resource management. Finally, both the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions are taking
actions to increase the coordination of monitoring and management activities in the coastal
zones. Erosion has also been identified as a priority at the regional and sub-regional levels. At
the second meeting of the COP of the Nairobi Convention in 1999 themes of activities to be
carried out included the monitoring of erosion as well as management related actions
addressing erosion, which was already identified as a priority in the Arusha Resolution (1993)
and Seychelles Statement (1996). Finally, at the third COP of the Nairobi Convention, in
Maputo (2001), monitoring of shoreline changes and erosion management were stated as
being priorities and management as well as mitigation of coastal erosion is part of the Nairobi
Convention biannual programme 2002-2003. Similar priorities were identified in the Abidjan
Convention biennale work plan adopted during its 5th COP.
44.
Several projects and programmes are or have been promoting ICAM implementation
in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank in its framework for integrated coastal zone
management (1995), promotes the development of a multiple use and system oriented mode
of management for the coastal zones in order to "optimise the net benefit flows from coastal
resources to individuals and society by reducing user conflicts, mitigating adverse
development impacts and enhancing the productivity of coastal ecosystems." The main
objective of the Regional Programme for the Environment of the Indian Ocean Commission
(PRE-COI) of the E.U, implemented in the Indian Ocean SIDS (1995-2000), was to support
national programmes and policies for ICAM. The PRE-COI also contributed to the
development of pilot projects. At the same time, the Secretariat for Eastern African Coastal
Area Management (SEACAM)25, assisted the region to implement and coordinate coastal
management activities through building capacity in the Eastern African region, including
24
25
World Bank, Africa: A Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Environmentally Sustainable
Development Division and Land, Water and Habitats Division, Africa Region, 1995.
SEACAM was created in 1997 and based in Maputo, Mozambique, but has recently ceased to operate.
Page 13 of 37
numerous training courses for coastal managers and NGOs, and also initiated reflections on
the sustainable financing of coastal management programmes.
45.
Compared to East and Southern Africa where there is a "high concentration of
integration of coastal management activities…Central and West Africa is the sub-region with
few initiatives. Experience is recent, and the number of relevant initiatives is quite limited in
spite of a large number of countries in the area.26" Although the Gulf of Guinea LME (GOGLME) programme has recognised, at the sub-regional level, ICAM planning as a focal area,
activities were identified to enable the development of ICAM but mainly oriented towards
pollution control. This tendency to focus on a limited number of issues was one of the points
raised by the 1998 Finland/UNEP/PAP report: “The majority of ICAM initiatives in the subregion are addressing the issue of institutional development and capacity building, normally
an early stage in instituting ICAM as a process. Many of the projects which were area specific
were addressing a limited number of issues (i.e. pollution, wetlands, lagoons etc.) lacking a
broader perspective of ICAM".
46.
Although there has been progress, efforts made, and a large number of initiatives in
Sub-Saharan Africa there is still a need to develop implementation activities. This is a finding
of the Finland/UNEP/PAP which states that: "Africa, at least at the institutional level, is far
beyond the stage of awareness of the need for ICAM" but "in spite of the large number of
initiatives there is still need to develop further activities… particularly in the area of
implementation, and especially beyond the very small local scale." Furthermore "it is evident
from the assessment that there is growing activity in ICAM in Africa but to lead to
sustainable development it is critical to maintain partnership and support from bilateral and
multilateral donors and international agencies".
47.
It has also been observed that although a number of initiatives in integrated coastal
area management have been successfully implemented in some African countries there has
been a notable weakness in the sharing of experiences, both at national and regional levels27.
III. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED PROJECT OUTCOMES
48.
The objectives of the PDF-B and Full Project are to contribute to a more in-depth
understanding of shoreline change induced by climate variability in the participating
countries, with an emphasis on the impact of climate change, and the formulation and
implementation of appropriate adaptation and remediation strategies within the wider context
of integrated coastal area management. The project will enhance the capacity of the
participating countries to restore and/or protect the coastal ecosystems from loss/modification
of the habitats that have been degraded through coastal erosion, and to cope with changing
conditions, thus ensuring sustainable conservation of biodiversity. In addition to technical
capacity development and institutional strengthening, an important objective of the project is
to mainstream climate change issues into national sustainable development strategies through
those social and economic sectors that experience direct impacts. To this end, the project aims
to engage stakeholders at the local level and in key sectors and to encourage the incorporation
of climate change impact and risk assessment into the development planning process. The
project will also seek to raise public awareness of the importance and relevance of climate
change issues to the general population and to generate political support at all levels for
adaptation planning efforts. The project will yield global environmental benefits in relation to
conservation of globally significant biodiversity in key coastal and marine ecosystems of the
West African coast. Mainstreaming adaptation into sustainable development strategies will
serve to reduce the impacts of land-based activities on coastal marine ecosystems. Healthier
mangrove ecosystems will reduce the impact of storm surges, while conserving globally
significant biodiversity, which will allows more efficient response to rising sea levels.
26
27
(Finland/UNEP/PAP, 1998).
Assessment of Integrated Coastal Management in Africa. (Finland/UNEP/PAP, 1998).
Page 14 of 37
49.
The specific objectives of the project are as follows:
PDF Component: Assessment of shoreline change (including coastal erosion), with a special
focus on the vulnerability of coastal areas to climate change, including:

To identify coastal resources and human use particularly vulnerable to climate and
shoreline change in each participating countries

To assess the socio-economic and environmental impacts and causes of shoreline
change in each participating country, and in particular
(i)
(ii)
map affected or vulnerable areas, populations and resources
to assess the forcing changes that are predicted or likely to occur in
the future at various time scales (short/medium/long term)

To identify and rank sites or areas of high vulnerability and selection of
pilot/demonstration sites where adaptation measures will be implemented in the Full
Project

To assess past, present and future coastal policies relating to shoreline change, along
with lessons learned and identify existing institutional, and technical constraints to
effective integrated coastal area management, including definition of baseline policies
for climate adaptation, as described in the APF

To develop a strategy for resource mobilisation and stakeholder involvement in view
of raising co-financing resources for the implementation of the Full Project

Building on the above objectives, to prepare the Full Project Proposal, including
performance indicators and incremental reasoning, implementation plan, stakeholders
involvement mechanism, communication and monitoring plans
50.
It is expected that the Full Project will undertake the following:
Full Project Component A: Development of national and regional adaptation strategies to
address shoreline change in the participating countries, within the wider context of integrated
coastal area management, including:




To select and design restoration and protection measures in identified degraded
(eroded or accreted) hotspots, having high levels of globally significant biodiversity,
and sensitive areas as pilot activities
To select and design adaptation options within a regional and integrated approach
To promote capacity development to upgrade the level of expertise and awareness for
partner countries
To develop a communications strategy to generate awareness of the issues and
impacts of coastal erosion in order to build support for the pilot projects at all levels
Full Project Component B: Implementation of Pilot Projects



To test the applicability of the chosen strategies and plans on the identified
demonstration sites
To demonstrate at selected sites the effectiveness of integrated coastal area
management in contributing to improved coastal protection
To monitor the implemented strategies and disseminate experiences and lessons
learned to the wider scientific and management community
Page 15 of 37


51.







To increase information dissemination and expertise exchanges within the region and
sharing of successes and failures through training and capacity development
To promote awareness/participation at the local level in specific sites and to engage
communities/stakeholders as active monitoring agents
The expected Full Project Outcomes are:
Improved technical and policy knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of
shoreline change in the participating countries, and in particular the predicted impacts of
climate change, including impacts on biodiversity
Greater awareness by all stakeholders at the national and local levels of the causes and
effects of shoreline change and the need for integrated coastal area management
Enhanced capacities in integrated coastal area management at the local, national and
regional levels
Effective and tested strategies to prevent, mitigate and adapt to the impacts of shoreline
change, including those impacts associated with climate change, resulting in improved
and better coordinated coastal protection and biodiversity conservation at the local,
national and regional levels
Implemented pilot projects to increase the adaptive capacity of the participating countries,
including: (i) improved planning and regulation, including relocation and/or development
using setback policies to reduce vulnerability to shoreline change; (ii) regulation of
practices that lead to coastal erosion, including sand mining, construction of
inappropriate sea defences (maladaptation), and indiscriminate dredging of sand in
inshore areas; and (iii) control of wave impact and/or the sediment budget in the coastal
environment, either by using ‘soft engineering’ techniques such as beach vegetation as a
natural stabilizer, ‘hard engineering’ measures, such as the construction of sea walls,
revetments, groynes or detached breakwaters or by beach re-nourishment
Cooperation at the regional level in addressing coastal area management issues, including
transboundary elements, and more effective sharing of experience and lessons learned,
including regional river basin management
Contribution to poverty alleviation as a result of improved and better coordinated
resource use strategies
B.
COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
1.
52.
COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY
2.
COUNTRY DRIVENESS
All the proposed participating countries are eligible under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF
Instrument. All the participating countries have ratified UNFCCC.28
53.
The project proposal has been developed in response to the outcomes of the African
Process, and at the request of, and in close consultation with, the participating countries. A
draft project proposal was reviewed by the participating countries at the First Regional
Planning Meeting on the NEPAD Project “Shoreline Protection through Integrated Coastal
Area Management (ICAM)”, held in Dakar, Senegal, on 3-5th March 2004. At this meeting
the designated Project Focal Points from the participating countries reviewed and generally
endorsed the draft project proposal as being consistent with their national and sectoral
development plans and priorities 29 and were invited to provide inputs defining national
requirements under each of the proposed project components. At the same time, the
28
29
Dates of ratification / entry into force of the UNFCCC - Cape Verde(March 1995/June 1995) / Guinea Bissau
(October 1995/January 1996) / Gambia (June 1994 / September 1994) / Mauritania (January 1994 / April 1994) /
Senegal (October 1994 / January 1995)
The project proposal is also consistent with the priorities identified in the respective National Communications and
National Programmes of Action (NPAs) developed under the UNFCCC.
Page 16 of 37
participating countries also endorsed a recommendation that the project proposal should be
further defined and developed, and that to this end the outline concept should be submitted to
GEF requesting PDF-B funding for this purpose.
54.
The project is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Abidjan Convention, and
has been endorsed by AMCEN and the Environment Coordinating Unit (SINEPAD) of
NEPAD.
C.
PROGRAMMED POLICY CONFORMITY
1.
PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY
The project is consistent with the GEF strategic priority “Piloting an Operational
Approach to Adaptation (SPA), as the overall objective of the Full Project is the
implementation of pilot/demonstration projects that address the impacts of climate change,
including the ‘implementation of restoration, protection and adaptation measures in
identified hotspots and sensitive areas’ that are consistent with and integrated into national
and regional policy and sustainable development planning. The project will generate
55.
global environmental benefits by increasing the capacity of the participating countries
to design and implement sustainable strategies for biodiversity conservation in the
face of changing climatic conditions. This will complement existing and planned
GEF interventions in the Biodiversity Conservation focal area.
2.
PROJECT DESIGN
56.
To varying degrees the five participating governments are already making efforts at
the national level to address the issue of shoreline change through the development of an
appropriate institutional frameworks for the management of the coastal area, as well as
through the implementation of short-term measures of coastal protection, including the
construction of physical barriers such as sea walls and groynes, improved water catchments
management and soil conservation programmes. While such policies and programmes have
the potential to yield good results, all of the participating countries experience serious
constraints to effective implementation, including gaps in knowledge and limited institutional
capacity. The project is therefore designed to contribute towards addressing such constraints,
but not to provide funding for the implementation of any ‘hard measures’ identified in the
course of the project.
57.
Despite these baseline activities, there is an identified need to supplement existing
national efforts to improve the effectiveness of measures and strategies to address shoreline
change, and in particular the anticipated future impacts of climate change/sea level rise. At
the same time, there is an urgent need to promote regional coordinated approaches to address
these issues. To this end, additional funds will be required by local and national authorities, in
order to support activities aimed at addressing knowledge and information gaps, capacity
development and the implementation of pilot/demonstration projects.
58.
Under the proposed GEF alternative, the emphasis is on addressing shoreline change
and adaptation to climate change, including the implementation of specific activities to
enhance cross-institutional coordination, stakeholder participation, and technical and
institutional expertise, which will contribute to the overall strengthening of ICAM
frameworks for adaptation to climate change. Improving the capacity to adapt to shoreline
change will help avoid potential regional conflicts and improve the condition and health of
critical coastal and marine ecosystems, thus conferring global environmental benefits.
Page 17 of 37
59.
The benefits of the proposed approach will be felt at different levels. At the local
level, communities living in areas that are most severely impacted or threatened by impacts
associated with climate change, such as in areas that are susceptible to flooding, will be
assisted in implementing adaptation strategies. At the national level, the project will provide
adaptation options to those economic sectors (i.e. agriculture, tourism, water resource
management) that are most affected by present and future climate change scenarios. The
project will also facilitate sectoral planning for anticipated future impacts, through the
mainstreaming of climate change into national development planning processes. At the same
time, as a result of the enhanced knowledge and understanding of climate change scenarios,
the project will enable national policy makers and planners to review and revise existing
policies and practices that may exacerbate vulnerability to climate change (‘maladaptation’),
such as inappropriate coastal-defence schemes, sand mining and coastal-habitat conversions,
which are commonly caused by lack of information on the potential effects of proposed
developments on other sectors, or a lack of consideration of these factors.
60.
Sub-regional and regional cooperative programmes and action plans (such as the
UNEP Regional Seas Programme / Abidjan Convention) provide the framework and
necessary capacity development for implementation of ICAM at the regional level.
61.
The regional or transboundary component of the project has been developed in
recognition that shoreline change is an issue that requires a high level of cooperation and
sharing of information and expertise among the participating countries. As many of the
proposed interventions call for activities at the sub-regional level, such as data collection,
exchange of information and expertise, and as these activities are to be developed
simultaneously in the participating countries, the project provides for the establishment of a
Sub-Regional Coordinating Unit (SCRU) during the Full Project implementation, which will
operate in partnership with national steering committees (see below).
62.
During the implementation of the PDF-B, the terms of reference and operational
guidelines of the SRCU will be agreed upon by the project partners.
3.
SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)
63.
Sustainability is an integrated part of the project design. The sustainability of the
project’s results will mainly depend on the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement, the
appropriateness of the implementation of ICAM guidelines to the national and local contexts,
adequate technical, legal and institutional capacity and expertise at the national level, and on
the long-term political and financial commitment of decision makers.
64.
The project has strong government support from the participating countries, as well as
from the Secretariat for the NEPAD Environment Initiative (SINEPAD) based in Dakar, and
the NEPAD Secretariat based in Johannesburg. All of the participating countries have
participated in a regional planning meeting to review the proposed project and have
subsequently submitted inputs towards the further development of the project proposal.
65.
The main assumptions for the implementation of the project are: (a) that there is a
long term commitment by the participating countries to enhancing integrated coastal area
management and in particular addressing the issue of shoreline change and the impacts of
climate change; (b) that consensus between local users and government agencies is attainable
and that there is a commitment to stakeholder consultation and empowerment at the national
and local levels; and (c) that the political context in the participating countries remains
relatively stable.
66.
The implementation of the Full Project will require external funding mainly with
respect to the provision of short-term technical assistance, and training/capacity development
Page 18 of 37
Government counterpart funding will be mostly ‘in-kind’ and will comprise mainly the
allocation of personnel and institutional capacity, including support to the Sub-Regional
Coordinating Unit.
67.
The setting up of information management process and the implementation of
pilot/demonstration projects will be partially funded by external sources, under the condition
that participating countries make ICAM a priority through policy and implementation efforts
and commit an adequate budget to ICAM at the national level.
68.
When the external support has ceased, recurrent funding will be complemented by
contributions from private sector stakeholders, who will derive direct benefits from improved
integrated coastal area management. Contributions may also be made in the form of expertise,
work, and time for some of the enforcement activities, for example from local nongovernmental and community based organisations.
69.
To ensure that ICAM implementation is sustained, the SCRU will provide a yearly
appraisal on progress of ICAM implementation/enforcement at the national levels and give
feedback to member countries, providing recommendations on how to improve the process.
70.
The long-term viability and sustainability of the project will also depend greatly on
the extent to which national institutional capacities can be built through the implementation of
the pilot project(s).
71.
Project risks are limited due to the fact that the project has strong government (and
regional) commitment. The main risks are that government commitment is not carried
because of the different perception of the changing administrations, or that the project does
not result in a long-term commitment and strategy to addressing coastal erosion in an
integrated and effective manner at both the national and regional levels. However, this risk
will be minimized by the focus that the project will place on generating stakeholder
involvement at all levels, including the establishment of regional (the SCRU) and national
stakeholder committees that will facilitate participation.
4.
REPLICABILITY
72.
The outputs and outcomes of all project components will have important
demonstrative value with significant potential for replication at national, sub-regional and
regional levels, and in particular in those countries where the improvement of coastal area
management is recognised as an urgent need but which face similar constraints.
73.
Replicability will be one of the criteria used in the selection of pilot project sites, and
it is intended that the selected projects will demonstrate that adaptation planning and
assessment can have practical outcomes that provide tangible benefits, that can be fully
integrated into wider national and regional policy and sustainable development planning.
5.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT / INTENDED BENEFICIARIES
74.
The project has been designed to ensure broad stakeholder participation in all
components. Prior to the implementation of pilot/demonstration projects, targeted activities
will be undertaken to raise stakeholder awareness of shoreline change and climate change
issues and the benefits that coastal communities can derive from strategies to address these
issues within the wider context of integrated coastal area management. Subsequently, the
successful implementation of the proposed pilot/demonstration projects depend on the active
involvement of all stakeholders (both governmental and non-governmental), and the effective
supervision of implementation and subsequent monitoring. Stakeholder participation will be
Page 19 of 37
assured by the consultative arrangements established under the project, whereby each party
stands to benefit from the implementation of agreed strategies.
75.
The major stakeholders in this project are:







76.
National government departments responsible for fisheries, marine and coastal
affairs, infrastructure, environment and tourism
National and Regional marine research institutions, universities
Regional organizations, projects or conventions: e.g. Abidjan Convention & RCU,
Canary Current LME, Programme Régional de Conservation de la Zone Côtière et
Marine en Afrique de l’Ouest, UNEP/UNIDO GEF Project on Tourism in East and
West Africa (including Senegal, Gambia); African Development Bank Projects, etc.
Donor agencies that are active in the region
Non-Governmental Organization involved in regional marine and coastal issues
Private sector organizations involved in regional coastal issues
Communities involved in harvesting and marketing coastal and marine resources
In order to ensure effective stakeholder involvement the project will:




Establish mechanisms to empower and facilitate consultation with and between all
national and local stakeholders
Undertake activities to raise stakeholders awareness of shoreline change issues and
the importance of implementing measures to address such issues within the wider
context of integrated coastal area management
Ensure that designed measures, strategies and guidelines are consistent with national
needs, and that there is constant interaction between the regional, national and local
levels to ensure that sub-regional coordination unit (SRCU) work in partnership with
national focal points and local stakeholders
Place a priority on the delivery of effective capacity development activities at the
regional, national and local levels, and facilitate the exchange of experiences and
lessons learned at all levels
D.
FINANCING
1.
FINANCING PLAN
77.
The Financing Plan for the Full Project will be determined during the PDF-B phase of
the project. A preliminary estimate of the level of funding required to implement the
anticipated range and scope of the proposed activities under the three project components
(PDF-B and Full Project) is in the region of US$ 8 million in total, of which approximately
US$ 4 million would be sought as a GEF grant plus an estimated US$ 4 million in cofinancing.
2.
CO-FINANCING
78.
National level support for the development of the PDF-B will be provided through inkind resources in terms of staff time and logistics to support the development and
implementation of the full proposal. Additional national level support, together with various
other bilateral supports for the Full Project, will be defined during the PDF-B Phase.
Page 20 of 37
E.
INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
1.
CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES
79.
The proposed project is fully consistent with recent decisions and guidelines under
the UNFCCC. For example, in 2002 the UNFCCC Consultative Groups of Experts (CGE)
carried out a review of Initial National Communications and concluded that vulnerability and
adaptation assessments varied widely in scope and often contain lists of un-prioritized
adaptation measures. To address these weaknesses the CGE highlighted the need to
incorporate adaptation into the national and sectoral planning processes through increased
participation by policy makers.
80.
At the 7th Conference of the Parties (COP7) in 2002, the Parties agreed new
guidelines for National Communications, which included an expanded scope for vulnerability
and adaptation assessments. The Parties also agreed on another set of guidelines for the
National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) for Least Developed Countries (LDCs),
which should specifically address the urgent and immediate needs of LDCs, and are aimed at
prioritizing adaptation measures. Guidance was also extended to a range of options including
demonstration projects. The activities envisaged under the proposed project components are
consistent with these guidelines, and also correspond with the GEF strategic priority on
adaptation to support activities which cover a range of incremental adaptation measures and
have the potential to generate global environmental benefits.
81.
At the Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP9), the parties accorded high priority to
supporting adaptation activities under the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), which,
similar to the LDC Fund, refers to : sustainable development and integration with bilateral
funding; the WSSD; the Millennium Development Goals; and general criteria such as
‘country drivenness’. The priority sectors identified by the SCCF include water resources and
land management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems,
integrated coastal zone management, and climate change related health and security issues.
82.
The activities envisaged under the proposed project, including the implementation of
pilot demonstration projects comply with the criteria of country driveness, since the proposed
adaptation pilots will be country-driven, and will therefore correspond to national
development objectives. It will also be integrated into national sustainable development
planning and poverty-reduction strategies. The experiences and lessons learned from these
pilots will be widely replicable within the sub-region and beyond, and will thus contribute
towards global benefits.
83.
The project recognizes that the need to adapt to the negative impacts of global climate
change is an incremental burden to the participating countries, which will incur additional
costs to adapt to climate change. The proposed activities will generate global environmental
benefits primarily in the Biodiversity Conservation focal area. These include increased
effectiveness, but most significantly, dramatically increased sustainability of global benefits
derived through conservation of critical coastal and marine ecosystems. There will also be
some global benefits in the International Waters focal area. These will include the avoidance
of conflict over water resources and the reduction in land-based sources of pollution. Such
adaptation measures and activities will also generate national and local benefits in the health
sector, through improved development planning, and through protection of fisheries and other
key resources. The full project will distinguish between these incremental costs and
additionality of adaptation measures.
84.
The project’s main objectives and project outcomes are fully consistent with the
Abidjan Convention, which has identified the institution and coordination of ICAM at the
Page 21 of 37
sub-regional levels, and the management and monitoring of shoreline change as priority. At
the regional level the knowledge generated and lessons learned by the project will
complement the GOG-LME programme (which does not include the participating countries).
85.
The project is also closely linked to another component of the NEPAD
Environmental Action Plan. Indeed, “Programme area 5: Combating climate change in
Africa” identifies African coastal zone vulnerability to climate change as a priority area for
the African Strategy on Climate Change. It calls for the identification of ecosystems, regions
and people most vulnerable to climate change; the development of Adaptation strategies for
the identified regions and sectors; and the implementation of demonstration and pilot projects
to show the way forward30.
86.
In the development and eventual implementation of the Full Project, close attention
will be given to ensuring coordination with other relevant GEF projects and programmes in
the region, including (inter alia) the Canary Current LME, Programme Regional de
Conservation de la Zone Cotiere et Marine de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (IUCN), UNDP GEF
projects (Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental Management Program), the
UNEP/UNIDO/WTO Tourism Project, and the Regional Ocean Observing and Forecasting
System for Africa (ROOFS-Africa) and the Ocean Data and Information Network in Africa
(ODINAFRICA) Project implemented by IOC.
87.
The UNDP-GEF unit on Capacity Development and Adaptation, which is responsible
for the Second National Communications and NAPA for Climate Change, will oversee the
implementation of the PDF B. The unit will ensure that there is no duplication between this
project and the enabling activities of the participating countries.
88.
In the development of the full project proposal, the PDF-B exercise will seek
to build on the experiences and lessons learned from relevant climate change
adaptation projects and programmes implemented elsewhere in the world, and
particularly the GEF Project on Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate
Change Project (CCPAC) implemented between 1997 and 2002. CCPAC is first GEF
adaptation project to be completed in any regions and therefore constitutes by itself a
valuable resource for future activities elsewhere.
89.
There are lessons learned from CCPAC that are useful for this project. These
include the following :

30
Political commitment is a major implementation and sustainability issue in
adaptation to climate change and can be enhanced through a highly visible
regional coordination institution, multi-stakeholder committee, public awareness
campaigns and involvement of a variety of relevant national ministries. Whilst the
CCPAC project only addressed Phase 1 adaptation, this Project addresses the 3
stages defined by UNFCCC for adaptation: Planning, Formulation and
Implementation. It is expected that political commitment will be obtained and
maintained from the planning to the implementation stages. It is expected that a
project that addresses the 3 adaptation stages in a continuous and phased manner
has more chances to maintain political momentum. The fact that this project is
deeply embedded into the NEPAD Environmental process means that it will
benefit from high political visibility at the regional level, being one of the first
project of the NEPAD Action Plan to be potentially financed, as well as a strong
Para. 106 of the NEPAD Environmental Action Plan.
Page 22 of 37
ownership, since it was orginally designed by African experts based on a thorough
assessment of environmental issues affecting coastal zones of Africa.

Institutionalising climate change issues into national planning process is crucial:
using specific mechanisms and methodologies for identifying vulnerable areas and
analyzing climate change options that is functional in the context of limited data,
will have to be rooted within the national goverment process. In particular, a
measure of succes for the Project will have to look at the development of
intergated coastal planning policies and/or regulations at the national level as well
as the level of participation of various government and private sector.

Long term sustainability is a major requirement for climate change adaptation
which can be enhanced through building regional and national commitment as
well as institutional and technical capacity. The Project will promote a regional
approach, in particular for the development of regional core capacity that would
bring together the limited national institutional assets for work on climate change
issues.

The limited exisiting capacity (both institutional and technical) has to be realised
from the start of the project, in particular when using methodologies or tools
applied and/or developed in other regions. Hence, the Project will assess the
existing capacity in order to provide regional support that is appropiate to the
national context. Existing data and information as well as technical expertise will
be sought from other projects and organisations sharing similar goals

The establishment of regional coordination unit as a part of a project (such as the
planned Sub-Regional Coordination Unit to be established during the Full
Project), will necessitate a careful assessment of its structure, functions and
administrative processes and a schedule that realistically accounts for potential
delays in its establishment.

The need to develop effective data & infornation collection networks is crucial
whilst those have to be strongly supported and maintained though time at the
national level. The experience of IOC/UNESCO in data collection, management
and exchange in Africa through the ODINAFRICA Project will provide support in
assisting the countries to establish their data handling mechanisms.
2.
CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION
BETWEEN
AND
AMONG
IMPLEMENTING
AGENCIES,
EXECUTING AGENCIES, AND THE GEF SECRETARIAT (IF
APPROPRIATE)
90.
In terms of collaboration with existing or planned GEF projects, the Project will
establish linkages with the two regional GEF projects being implemented by UNEP and
IRDB/UNDP. These are:
(i)
PDF-B Project on the Protection of the Canary Current Large Marine
Ecosystem (LME), implemented by UNEP. The Canary Current LME
Project, which covers the 5 participating countries, should be initiated in
2004. The issues of climate change impacts on fisheries and nursery and
reproductive habitats of the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem would
be jointly addressed
Page 23 of 37
(ii)
The Full Project on the Senegal River Basin Water and Environmental
Management Program implemented by UNDP/IBRD
91.
Links will also be established with on-going GEF national Initiatives. These should
include for example:
-
National Adaptation Plan of Action of Mauritania (implemented by UNEP)
Integrated Marine and Coastal Resource Management Project (Senegal, implemented
by IBRD)
Integrated Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Project (Gambia,
implemented by IBRD)
Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project (Guinea Bissau, implemented by
IBRD)
Conservation of biodiversity through integrated participatory community
management in Cape Verde (implemented by UNDP)
92.
The collaboration between IOC/UNESCO and UNDP/GEF was first established
during the planning meeting of the project, held in Dakar in March 2004. From April to
October 2004, extensive discussions on the project design and drafting process have taken
place between the 2 agencies.
93.
As mentioned earlier, this project will be co-ordinated among UN agencies, which are
implementing the GEF-funded enabling activities, especially the Second National
Communication (SNC), and the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA).
3.
IMPLEMENTATION / EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS
94.
The coordination during the PDF-B implementation phase will be critical to ensure
that synergies are maximised. A Steering Committee will be established to oversee the
execution of the PDF-B and will include national representatives, coastal managers and
scientists, and representatives of other stakeholders - including local communities, as well as
IOC/UNESCO Secretariat and UNDP/GEF. A ‘Technical Support Group’, including experts
in climate change and adaptation, will also be established under the technical assistance
component of the project to assist the Steering Committee in the implementation of the
project. The Steering Committee will have the responsibility for overseeing execution of the
PDF-B grant. The Steering Committee will: establish its final Terms of Reference (TOR) in
collaboration with the PDF-B coordinator; approve a management framework; approve the
detailed work program and budget developed by the PDF-B Coordinator for the execution of
the PDF-B and delivery of outputs; and approve the TOR for the National Co-ordinators,
Technical Co-ordinators, and Consultants developed by the PDF-B Co-ordinator. The
Steering committee members will generally work through electronic communications, but
will meet once at the start of the project, once to review mid-term progress and once toward
the end to review the draft GEF project brief and associated draft reports. The Steering
Committee will also assist the PDF-B Coordinator to secure co-financing for the Full Project.
95.
A PDF-B coordinator will be appointed to oversee and lead the coordination effort.
He or she will oversee resource allocation, assure quality control, and make sure different
project components stay on schedule. The TOR for the Project Co-ordinator will include,
among others, the following tasks: a) preparing for approval by the Steering Committee the
terms of reference for the regional focal point, national and technical co-ordinators and
consultants and the National Committees; b) preparing for approval by the Steering
Committee common terms of reference and workplans for each components; c) consulting
with other projects in the countries to ensure that project activities are fully complementary to
Page 24 of 37
ongoing and planned initiatives; d) convening the national and regional consultations; e)
facilitating communication and information exchange amongst national institutions; f) coordinating the work of the National Committees, national and technical co-ordinators,
consultants etc.
96.
The PDF-B Co-ordinator will develop TOR for the National Co-ordinators, Technical
Co-ordinators, and Consultants. The national and technical Co-ordinators will be charged
with: a) consolidating and interpreting the available scientific and socio-economic data; and
b) undertaking a series of consultations and meetings to ensure two-way dialogue between
local specialists, local coastal managers and users, and representatives of the local
implementing institutions, and appropriate local NGOs.
97.
The government designated National Committees will act as the focal points for the
implementation of project design activities at the national level. They have direct links to the
appropriate ministries responsible for coastal management, other line ministries, environment
agencies, and scientific and technical institutions.
Page 25 of 37
PART II – PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PREPARATION
98.
The draft project proposal presented to the First Regional Planning Meeting, held in
Dakar, Senegal, on 3-5th March 2004, envisaged that the project would consist of three
components. However, it is now proposed that much of the original Component 1 will be
undertaken during the PDF-B Phase of the Project.
99.
The development of the Full Project proposal during the PDF-B Phase will therefore
be further strengthened by the activities envisaged under the original Component 1, which
will involve an in-depth assessment of shoreline change in the participating countries, with a
special focus on the vulnerability of coastal areas to climate change. The development of the
Full Project proposal will thus be based on the latest information available within the
participating countries, which will in turn facilitate the identification and implementation of
appropriate and sustainable responses (adaptation) to shoreline change within the framework
of ICAM.
100.
A major objective of the PDF phase will be to advance the scientific understanding of
the driving processes and their impacts, including their human dimensions, within a local to
sub-regional context. In addition to the physical science relating directly to coastal processes,
a number of interlinked topic areas will be addressed during the PDF phase including, climate
change, sea-level change, demography, water and sanitation, poverty and employment, and
biodiversity. These topic areas concern both the contributing drivers of shoreline change
and/or the environmental and socio-economic impacts of shoreline change.
101.
The proposed activities during the PDF-B will include a consideration of the
historical, contemporary and future perspectives of changes within the different topic areas, in
order to provide a framework for effective national and regional policy-responses that will be
sustainable over the next 25–50 years. During the PDF Phase, this integrated view of the
drivers and impacts of shoreline change at the local and regional levels will facilitate the
development of a methodological framework for: (a) evaluating possible adapatation options
for current and anticipated future scenarios; and (b) prioritising responses at all levels (local,
national and regional) taking account of finaical viability and sustainability, and
environmental and socio-economic benefits.
102.
The PDF-B Activity will aim to provide a preliminary assessment at the sub-regional
scale of the importance of the various contributing drivers of shoreline change and their
impacts. It will compile existing data in a standardised format and make initial appraisals of
the various aspects of vulnerability of the coastal zone in general and the perceived ‘hotspots’
in particular. It will attempt to quantify changes in the state of the coastal system over time
within the various topic areas, taking account of the documented record and available
projections and forecasts of future change. An important part of this action will be the
consideration of appropriate indicators of change in each of the topic areas as well as an
appraisal of the application of modelling techniques. The Activity will attempt to identify
significant information gaps that may need to be addressed in the main project, and propose
remedial campaigns. It will review the relevant existing local to global monitoring
programmes and consider the rationale for any additional monitoring as part of the main
project.
103.
A synthesis of the provisional appraisals relating to shoreline change, as described
above, will be prepared. It will set out a methodology for the comparison and ranking of the
environmental and socio-economic impacts in terms of their expected trends and severity over
the next 25–50 years, using a range of different forecast scenarios. The outputs from the
project will provide managers within ICAM and policy makers with information on the
Page 26 of 37
interactions of the various aspects of the coastal system. It will also provide them with
information on how those aspects are likely to change with time, thus forming a basis on
which they might prioritise their actions for mitigation or adaptation. The project will explore
the feasibility of attaching ‘values’ to the various coastal resources (including human
resources) that may be under threat (or gain opportunities) from shoreline change so that
donors may judge where the benefits derived from the costs of intervention may be greatest.
104.
The PDF-B activity will conclude with the finalisation of the Full Project Proposal,
including detailed implementation plan, which will have the following main objectives:
a)
b)
Development of national and regional adaptation strategies to address shoreline
change in the participating countries within the wider context of integrated
coastal area management and climate change;
Implementation of pilot demonstration projects to illustrate how adaptation
planning and assessment can be effectively translated into practical projects that
will provide measurable benefits at local, national and regional levels.
A – DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PDF-B ACTIVITIES
105.
The proposed PDF B activities are designed to provide the necessary baseline studies
for the preparation of the Full Project Proposal which will be submitted for funding to the
GEF and other sources. In order to achieve the objectives of the PDF-B activity, funding is
being sought for an 18-month period, during which the following activities will be
implemented:
Activity 1.
Project coordination
106.
Activities under coordination will include: a) establishing a Steering Committee; b)
appointing a PDF-B coordinator; c) approval of the PDF-B work plan and budget; d)
developing and approving TORs for all consultants, coordinators, focal points, and National
Committees; e) designing common TOR for each project components; and f) development of
an initial framework strategy for resource mobilization; and g) organise meetings of the
Steering Committees
Activity 2.
Inventory of coastal resources vulnerable to climate and shoreline
change
107.
The objective of this component is to further develop each participating country's
inventory of coastal resources so as to provide the necessary baseline data for the execution of
other project activities. Coastal resource data needed for the proposed project include coastal
physical characteristics, natural environments, and information on the use of coastal areas and
resources, with particular reference to their vulnerability to climate and shoreline change. The
inventory takes into consideration the widely varying coastal zone resources, existing
inventories, and analysis capabilities in the region. In addition, a review of Second National
Communication proposals (where available), and review of preliminary NAPA outputs will
be undertaken. Activity 2 will therefore provide the information basis for the elaboration and
eventual implementation of adaptation strategies and management plans.
Activity 3.
Assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts, causes
and projected future trends of shoreline change
108.
Shoreline change is influenced by a range of climate forcing processes, including
short-term extreme events, such as tropical cyclones leading to tidal surges and severe wave
conditions that impact the shoreline, or events of a more long-term nature, such as changes in
relative sea level. The impacts of these natural forcing processes may be made worse by
human activities or interventions, either locally in the coastal zone, or in the hinterland, such
Page 27 of 37
as through the modification sediment discharge to the coast. The information gathered should
aim at predicting the likelihood of physical change occurring and recurring as well as
providing an understanding of the processes involved. The key elements for consideration are
the physical forcing agents (wind, waves and tides; the sediment budget and sediment sources
and sinks; and the human factors) that might be factors contributing to change, either by
influence on forcing agents or by affecting the sediment budget. The regional and local
elements will be considered so that the full range of possible causes can be understood. This
will be achieved through field observations, as well as through a review and compilation of
relevant accessible information on climate and waves, tidal predictions and sediment
discharges. Special attention will be given to observations made on impacts associated with
extreme climatic, wave and tidal events, as it is under these conditions that the greatest
changes in coastal morphology occur. At the same time, the impacts of various human
interventions as contributors to shoreline change will be considered in order to identify where
there is a need for changes in management or development practices, whether in coastal or
river basin engineering (including coastal defence), agriculture or non-living resource
development (including sand mining). In summary, this activity will involve the preparation
of an inventory of information for the development of adaptation strategies to cope with
shoreline change, by using existing scientific and socio-economic data and reports from the
West African region in general and the participating countries. In particular the activity will
take into consideration the following assessments:
 Assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts and costs of shoreline
change including mapping of affected and vulnerable areas and assessment of
existing protection measures
 Assessment of the current causes of shoreline change, including the forcing changes
that are predicted or likely to occur within the various timescales and scope of coastal
planning (short, medium and long-term)
 Assessment of the influence of Global Climate Change on shoreline change in the
participating countries, including:  Determination of historical sea level rise
 Delimitation of vulnerable coastal zones to the impacts of climate change, by
use of vulnerability index
 Analysis of the vulnerable coastal areas to determine environmental and
socio-economic consequences of shoreline change
 Identification of gaps in scientific and socio-economic knowledge of
shoreline change
Activity 4.
109.


Prioritisation of hotspots and/or sensitive areas, and the (preliminary)
identification of pilot/demonstration sites.
As a result of Activities 2 and 3, each participating country will:
Identify coastal areas that have been most negatively affected by shoreline change
(hotspots), as well as sites that are at high risk (sensitive areas) within the near
future, taking account of global biodiversity values, negative impacts on the
environment, infrastructure, economic activities and human settlements
Prioritise sites according the feasibility of either addressing the causes of shoreline
change and/or implementing viable mitigation/adaptation strategies
Activity 5.
Assessment of existing constraints to ICAM implementation, and review
of lessons learned.
110.
This activity will enable the participating countries to identify existing weaknesses in
implementing ICAM, as well as lessons learned elsewhere within the region, which will be
taken into account when designing strategies to be implementing during the Full Project, and
will include the following: -
Page 28 of 37








Preparation of a status report summarizing existing information on processes of
shoreline change and the steps already undertaken at the national level within the
context of ICAM, to include identification of examples maladaptation
Review and assessment of existing institutional/coordinating mechanisms and
identification of where these act as constraints to the development and/or
implementation of effective ICAM strategies at the national level
Review and assessment of current legislation related to ICAM and identification of
where new legislation is required to empower ICAM coordinating management
bodies (including stakeholders' representatives) to carry out effective ICAM
implementation
Assessment of existing scientific and institutional baseline capacity for implementing
adaptation policies and strategies within the broader context of coastal area
management, and identification of measures and means required to enhance national
capacities in each of the participating countries so as to enable shoreline change to be
adequately addressed within the context of an adaptation policy framework
Review the existing technical capacity in the participating countries to deal with both
the causes and effects of shoreline change, including the effectiveness of existing
networks for monitoring sea-level rise and climate
Review of lessons learned and evaluation studies of relevant ICAM and adaptation
initiatives in the region
Development of appropriate indicators for defining adaptive capacity in the
framework of the Full Project, and in particular for the Pilot/demonstration sites
(local scale)
Preparation of a Chapter on Coastal Zones and Climate Change Adaptation for the
APF Vol. II
Activity 6.
Resource Mobilisation
111.
The Steering Committee will be charged with assisting the PDF-B Coordinator in
designing and implementing a resource mobilisation strategy to raise co-financing for the full
project. This activity will be on-going for the whole duration of the PDF-B implementation.
Activity 7.
Preparation of the Full Project Proposal, including indicators and draft
Implementation Plan
Under this activity the following will be undertaken:







Preparation of full project proposal
Development of project indicators, including indicators relevant to biodiversity
conservation, and log frame, based on incremental reasoning and baseline
development
Development of monitoring and evaluation plan
Development of communication plan for the Full Project
Identification of stakeholder participation mechanism
Preparation of budget plan and incremental costs
Development and endorsement of the execution and national institutional
arrangements for the full project
112.
Based on incremental reasoning, additionality costing, and baseline development, the
proposed activities for the Full project will be consistent with the criteria laid out under the
GEF Strategic Priority for Adaptation, and those of the Special Climate Change Funds and
Least Developed Countries Funds, when available. National focal points for climate change
and NAPA will be closely involved and consulted during the project development to ensure
that the GEF projects will be complementary. In building indicators the project will utilise the
Page 29 of 37
framework provided under the UNDP-GEF’s Indicator Framework for Capacity
Development31 and Technical Paper 7 of the APF.
113.
While the precise components of the Full Project proposal will be finally determined
in the course of the PDF-B activity, it is envisaged that the Full Project will consist of two
components:
Full Project – Envisaged Components / Activities
Component A:
Development of national and regional adaptation strategies to
address shoreline change within the wider context of integrated
coastal area management
114.
This will be a step by step activity that will prepare the ground for the implementation
of pilot/demonstration activities. The PDF-B activities will have generated information on the
causes of shoreline change in the identified hotspots and sensitive areas, as well as a
vulnerability index on the past, present and anticipated future impacts of shoreline change. In
addition, the institutional and legislative constraints to effective integrated coastal zone
management would have been identified.
115.
Based on these outputs, this activity will focus on developing adaptation strategies in
the identified hotspots and sensitive areas, within the broader context of integrated coastal
area management. In developing such strategies, consideration will be given to the need to
address the most critical institutional, legislative and capacity constraints.
116.
The development of restoration and mitigation/adaptation strategies will be based
upon scientific study, environmental impact assessment, and testing of different options
through demonstration sites. The most appropriate solutions will then be finally agreed in
consultation with all stakeholders.
117.
It is anticipated that implementation of the entire project will generate experiences
and information that will be of benefit to the participating countries and the sub-Saharan
African region as a whole. In order to facilitate replication with the region,
guidelines/protocols for the planning, designing and implementation of mitigation/adaptation
options will be produced. In order to enhance capacity and build public awareness, data
acquisition and analysis equipment will be acquired, local professionals trained and
awareness among stakeholders on the best practices of coastal protection raised.

Reduction of identified constraints through the design of strategies to complement
or support ICAM plans
118.
This will include the following activities:
o
Review of existing integrated coastal management plans and strategies to take
account of the outputs of the PDF-B activity with regards to shoreline change, by
facilitating consultation between government departments, consultation with
stakeholders, and disseminating information
o
A series of workshops to identify ways forward to address shoreline change issues,
within the wider context of ICAM and the constraints identified in the PDF-B Phase.
31
Go to http://www.undp.org/gef/undp-gef_monitoring_evaluation/sub_undpgef_monitoring_evaluation_documents/CapDevIndicator%20Resource%20Kit_Nov03_Final.doc
Page 30 of 37
These ‘constraint type based workshops’ should be aimed at the broadest possible
range of stakeholders from national and local levels

o
Promotion of the lessons learned through preparation and presentation of case studies
from within the region and elsewhere to illustrate some potential solution to
constraints
o
Reach agreement on adaptation strategies and guidelines within the wider context of
ICAM implementation tailored to each participating country, based on the
conclusions reached during the workshops
Implementation of selected constraint reduction strategy and development of policy,
institutional and regulatory coordination to promote effective stakeholder
involvement, capacity development, public awareness, monitoring and financing
mechanisms
119.

This will include the following activities:
o
Specific capacity development training exercises for each country through institutions
that have expertise in ICAM training
o
Stakeholder analysis to identify which stakeholders should be represented, and in
consultation with identified stakeholders, assess the relationship between government
and stakeholders and compare these with existing successful mechanisms in other
countries, and where appropriate, adapt these to the local/national situation
o
Implementation of a communications strategy that will engage, involve and empower
local communities and authorities in order to generate awareness of the issues and
impacts of shoreline change and to build support for the pilot projects at all levels
o
Definition of cost effective strategies and activities (where necessary with the
assistance of regional experts) to enhance public awareness of ICAM and particularly
shoreline change issues
o
Design of a monitoring and follow-up strategy to regularly assess the effectiveness of
agreed implementation mechanisms
o
Assessment of existing financing mechanisms and if necessary define strategies to
increase the sustainability of ICAM financing (recurrent funding)
Identification and evaluation of adaptation measures to minimize the negative
impacts of shoreline and climate change while considering potential opportunities
120.
Based on the outcomes of the PDF BPDF-B phase in identifying the extent to which
shoreline change is inevitable, the participating countries will need to design adaptation
measures and strategies that are viable and appropriate to the circumstances in the respective
participating countries. This will include:
o Identification of common issues/problems at the national level where there is
potential for replicability, and where actions are required mainly at the national level
and/or where regional level coordination and cooperation are also necessary
o
Identification of potential adaptation options based on existing and anticipated
impacts of shoreline and climate change in the respective participating countries, and
taking account of options that have been tried and tested in similar situations either at
a national or sub-regional level
Page 31 of 37

o
Evaluation of adaptation options in terms of costs, feasibility (technical and human
resources available), constraints (cultural, legal, institutional, etc.) and impacts (what
consequences these options will have on the environment, society and economy). A
matrix of evaluation will be produced based on a multi-criteria analysis, and
appropriate recommendations made for the application of such options in the
identified demonstration sites
o
Definition of an adaptation strategy taking into account the matrix of evaluation, the
objectives of the country and how the proposed strategy could fit into national
development plans. The legal, institutional, technical and financial consequences of
this strategy will also be assessed
Selection and design of adaptation measures in identified degraded (eroded, flooded
or accreted) hotspots and sensitive areas
121.
The selection and design of adaptation measures in the identified hotspots and
sensitive areas where shoreline change has been identified as a main issue will take account of
the needs, priorities and capacities of the participating countries.

Development of the execution and national institutional arrangements for the full
project
122.
The national focal points for climate change and NAPA will be closely involved and
consulted during the project development to ensure that the GEF projects will be
complementary.
Component B Implementation of pilot/demonstration projects 32
123.
This Component of the full project, which will be prepared during the PDF-B Phase,
will focus on testing the applicability of the chosen strategies and plans in each of the
participating countries through the implementation of site specific pilot/demonstration
projects to illustrate the efficacy of the adaptation planning and assessment processes in
providing real and measurable benefits.
124.
Depending on the populations and resources at risk, in some cases of shoreline
change ‘doing nothing’ may be the most viable option. However, where communities are
physically vulnerable, or where economic resources (such as tourism infrastructure) are
threatened, proactive management and/or adaptation strategies can be implemented.
Management interventions that may be considered include those under the following
headings:
a) Planning and regulation – which involves the relocation of people and/or
development, using setback policies, thereby reducing vulnerability to shoreline
change
b) Regulation of practices that lead to coastal erosion - including sand mining from
beaches and adjoining river courses, the construction of inappropriate sea defences
(maladaptation), and the indiscriminate dredging of sand in inshore areas
c) Control of wave impact and/or the sediment budget in the coastal environment –
either by using vegetation (mangrove husbandry, sand dune flora) as a natural
32
Depending on the analysis of causes and the predictions of change, it may not be appropriate to do anything but monitor
change in demonstration sites. Until the completion of components 1 and 2 it may not be feasible to cost the work required
in this component in other than the most general term
Page 32 of 37
stabiliser (‘soft engineering’), the construction of sea walls, revetments, groynes or
detached breakwaters (‘hard engineering’) or by beach re-nourishment
Where the rate of sand deposited along the coast and suspended sediment discharge from
rivers is a significant concern, the project will promote a harmonised regional approach to the
development of adaptation measures in order to maximise benefits and experience amongst
the countries.
125.
The implementation of these pilot/demonstration projects will be carefully monitored
in order for experiences and lessons learned to be disseminated to the wider management and
scientific community 33.
126.
The implementation of this component will generally support and facilitate the
development and wider implementation of ICAM in the participating countries. This will be
achieved through capacity development and awareness raising exercises, and by the
dissemination and exchange of information and expertise between the participating countries.

Implementation of coastal protective measures/mitigation and adaptation
options at selected demonstration sites
127.
In addition to implementing pilot/demonstration projects to directly address issues
identified during the project, some supplementary studies may be conducted to address the
information gaps previously identified, as well as ‘pre-feasibility studies’ for more costly
coastal protection works. In this regard it should be noted that the building of hard (or costly)
solutions would necessitate loans (or other funding mechanisms) that would be beyond the
scope for implementation under this project.

128.
Capacity development and awareness raising
This activity may include all or some of the following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Dissemination of information and exchange of expertise and lessons learned
129.
This activity may include all or some of the following the following:
o
o
o
33
On-the-job training in software and data management
Sharing of modelling and data management experience
Conducting regional training workshops
Implementation of the agreed communications strategy
Production of public awareness materials such as brochures, booklets, flyers, etc.
Information dissemination through publications and public awareness campaign
through the media
Implementation of the agreed communications/dissemination strategy to ensure
the support of local communities and authorities
Dissemination of workshop proceedings
Feedback of results in an information network database such those developed under
the GOG-LME, the Strategic Network for Ocean and Coastal Management
(SIOCAM); or the Ocean Data and Information Network in Africa (ODINAFRICA)
Project.
Promote sharing of lessons learned and experiences through exchange study tours
between pilot sites and through the establishment of a dedicated intranet system for
these pilot / demonstration sites
Due to the nature of the issues being addressed some of the changes identified and predicted in Component 1 may fall
outside the scope of any monitoring programme for this project.
Page 33 of 37
o
o

Support intra-regional exchange of scientists, technicians and experts in the region
Establish a regional network and database for shoreline change and adaptation
information
Project management activities, with a focus on project monitoring, evaluation and
stakeholder involvement
130.
o
o
This activity will include:
Monitoring and evaluation of the project, including preparation of quarterly activity
reports
Promoting awareness/participation at the local level at specific sites and to engage
communities/stakeholders as active monitoring agents
131.
These activities will be designed and undertaken, in close coordination with the
Project’s Sub-Regional Coordination Unit (SRCU), which will be responsible for ensuring
effective coordination between the participating countries in implementing the project, and in
particular will seek to maximize benefits from the exchange of information, experience and
expertise. The participating countries will consult on the most appropriate institutional
arrangements for the establishment of the SRCU, and will also establish National Focal
Points/coastal zone management coordination bodies, which will include all major
stakeholders.
B – PDF BLOCK B (OR C) OUTPUTS
132.
The outputs envisaged under the PDF-B phase of the project will include the
following:

Institutional outputs:
o Established national and regional project coordinating mechanisms involving
all stakeholders at the national and regional levels
o Established regional expert network
 Baseline vulnerability assessments completed and reports produced
 Hot spots and sensitive areas identified and prioritised
 Pilot/demonstration project sites provisionally identified
 Institutional and capacity constraints to implementation of ICAM strategies identified
 Review on existing legislative tools for ICAM with recommendations for new
legislation to empower ICAM coordinating management bodies
 Strategy for resource mobilisation and stakeholder involvement finalised and initiated
 Chapter on Coastal Zones and Climate Change Adaptation for the APF Vol. II
 Full Project Proposal completed, including:
o Project indicators and log frame
o Monitoring and evaluation plan
o Communication plan
o Identification of stakeholder participation mechanism
o Budget plan (including incremental costs)
o Execution and national institutional arrangements for the full project agreed
and endorsed
Page 34 of 37
C – JUSTIFICATION
133.
A PDF-B grant is required in order facilitate the completion of the Full Project
Proposal.
134.
The participating countries are already committed to the Project, and have provided
inputs to the draft project proposal. A First Regional Planning Meeting was held in Dakar,
Senegal, on 3-5th March 2004 (see paragraph 5 above) to review this draft project proposal,
attended by the Focal Points of all the participating countries. After reviewing and providing
additional inputs on the draft proposal, it was agreed that a Full Project proposal should be
prepared on the basis of the scientific research and assessments envisaged under the existing
Component 1 of the draft project proposal.
135.
Considering some activities that have been undertaken to develop the draft project
proposal, including the works conducted during and after the African Process, and the strong
support from the participating countries and the NEPAD Environment Secretariat
(SINEPAD), a PDF-B grant would be the most appropriate source of project design support.
This level of support will enable the agreed activities under the existing Component 1 to be
implemented, which, in turn, will provide the information required to finalise the Full Project
proposal and implementation plan for the activities envisaged under the existing Components
2 and 3.
D – TIMETABLE
Q1
1. Project coordination
1.1 Establishment of Steering Committee and recruitment of
PDF B Coordinator
1.2 Regional Workshop, Finalisation of Workplan and Budget
1.3 Preparation of TORS & Appointment of national and
regional consultants
2. Inventory of coastal resources and use vulnerable to climate
and shoreline change
3. Assessment of the environmental and socio-economic
impacts, causes and projected future trends of shoreline change
4. Prioritisation of hotspots and/or sensitive areas, and the
(preliminary) identification of pilot/demonstration sites
5. Assessment of existing constraints to ICAM
implementation, and review of lessons learned
6. Resource mobilisation
7. Preparation of the First Draft of the Full Project Proposal,
including draft Implementation Plan
Page 35 of 37
Year 1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Year 2
Q2 Q3
Q4
E – BUDGET
136.
The requested PDF Block B Grant will be used to prepare the project components
outlined above which are eligible for GEF financing and which will provide vital support for
the resulting Project. The preparation activities outlined above will cost an estimated US$
1,000,000 of which the PDF-Block B contribution from GEF will be limited to US$700,000.
The balance of the cost will be covered by in-kind and cash co-financing (US$ 190,000) from
IOC/UNESCO, UNDP/GEF. The Governments will contribute in-kind and cash co-financing
(US$ 110,000).
GEF
US$
Government Other co- TOTAL
contributions funders
(in-kind)
(cash and
in-kind)
190,000
20,000
30,000 240,000
Activity 1:
Project Coordination34
Activity 2:
Inventory of coastal resources and use
meetings µto climate and shoreline change
vulnerable
105,000
20,000
30,000
155,000
Activity 3:
Assessment of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts, causes and projected future
trends of shoreline change (APF, TP6 –
Chapter 3,4,5)
103,000
20,000
30,000
153,000
Activity 4:
Prioritisation of hotspots and/or sensitive
areas, and the (preliminary) identification of
pilot/demonstration sites (APF TP 8)
90,000
20,000
34,000
144,000
Activity 5:
Assessment of existing constraints to ICAM
implementation, and review of lessons learned
(APF TP9)
110,000
20,000
42,000
172,000
Activity 6:
Resource mobilisation
Activity 7:
Preparation of Project Brief, support
documentation
Executing Agency Fees (8% of GEF
Contribution to project cost)
23,000
10,000
12,000
45,000
12,000
35,000
23,000
56,000
700,000
56,000
110,000
190,000 1,000,000
TOTAL COSTS
34
Activity 1 Note that this activity includes the establishment of the Steering Committee, the preparation of the terms of
reference for the national co-ordinators, technical co-ordinators and consultants. It includes the assistant coordinator's salary,
secretarial assistance, travel and meetings (three meetings of the Steering committee).
Page 36 of 37
Co-financing Sources
Name of cofinancier (source)
Cape Verde
Gambia
Guinea Bissau
Mauritania
Senegal
COSMAR/NEPAD
IOC/UNESCO
IOC/UNESCO
IOC/UNESCO
UNDP/GEF
Classification
Type
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
Government
Executing
Agency
In-kind support
In-kind support
In-kind support
In-kind support
In-kind support
In-kind support
Cash support
Amount
(US$)
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
22,000
Executing
Agency
Executing
Agency
Implementing
Agency
Cash support
65,000
Committed
Funds already
provided for
preparation of
PDF B proposal
Committed
In-kind support
93,000
Committed
In-kind support
10,000
Committed
Sub-total co-financing
300,000
Page 37 of 37
Status